**The Official Engineers/Engineering Thread V2**

[Rayaarito]

So have any of you actually worked with engineering technologists? I've been looking it's course load looks very similar to normal engineering but the tech just has more labs so it's more hands on. And some states, you can apply for a PE license with just tech degree. And from what I've been reading online, some companies hire the engineering techs as full blown engineers.

edit:

i'm not thinking of being a tech. I just never heard about it and i want to know about it. I've also been reading that on average, techs get paid 10% less than engineers but they get paid hourly with overtime while full blown engineers are on a salary base with no overtime

[StrawHat94]

guys I need some help, Can someone explain latent heat to me

[PrimeraRS]

So have any of you actually worked with engineering technologists? I've been looking it's course load looks very similar to normal engineering but the tech just has more labs so it's more hands on. And some states, you can apply for a PE license with just tech degree. And from what I've been reading online, some companies hire the engineering techs as full blown engineers.

edit:

i'm not thinking of being a tech. I just never heard about it and i want to know about it. I've also been reading that on average, techs get paid 10% less than engineers but they get paid hourly with overtime while full blown engineers are on a salary base with no overtime

This sounds very interesting. Our local CC is trying to start a program like this I think because not many people are making past calc 4 and phys 2XX classes.

[Rayaarito]

This sounds very interesting. Our local CC is trying to start a program like this I think because not many people are making past calc 4 and phys 2XX classes.

I agree that it does sound interesting. But i want to hear about it from people who are actually in the field. I can read information about it all day on the internet, but who knows if it's actually true. It could be biased from the natural fault that people who are successful will want to talk about it while those who aren't will hush up making it look better than it actually is.

But from what I'm seeing, engineers don't really use much of the theory they learn in school. So, with techs pretty much bypassing the theory and going straight to application, the techs look a little more "useful" straight out of school. On paper that is.

So, what's the real difference then? From a school perspective, the difference is that techs learn more application and have more experience with what they're learning while the engineers learn more theory.
But from a "in the field perspective", whats the difference? Nobody seems to be giving a straight answer on that.

[PrimeraRS]

I agree that it does sound interesting. But i want to hear about it from people who are actually in the field. I can read information about it all day on the internet, but who knows if it's actually true. It could be biased from the natural fault that people who are successful will want to talk about it while those who aren't will hush up making it look better than it actually is.

But from what I'm seeing, engineers don't really use much of the theory they learn in school. So, with techs pretty much bypassing the theory and going straight to application, the techs look a little more "useful" straight out of school. On paper that is.

So, what's the real difference then? From a school perspective, the difference is that techs learn more application and have more experience with what they're learning while the engineers learn more theory.
But from a "in the field perspective", whats the difference? Nobody seems to be giving a straight answer on that.

It probably boils down to engineers can sign off on projects and techs cannot. Like civil guys do with housing plans. When I was building homes, I would take plans to our engineer and he would stamp our plans and sign it before I submitted it for a permit.


What school is this?

[Rayaarito]

It probably boils down to engineers can sign off on projects and techs cannot. Like civil guys do with housing plans. When I was building homes, I would take plans to our engineer and he would stamp our plans and sign it before I submitted it for a permit.


What school is this?

This kid at my school that's talking about it is talking about this college:
https://www.farmingdale.edu/academic...c_eng_tech.pdf

This is my schools curriculum:
https://www.ccny.cuny.edu/sites/defa...2-20120502.pdf

And both are pretty much identical.

Maybe one way to look at it is: Engineers with more theory can create more innovative things? At the end of the day, we can always teach ourselves the other thing (theory vs application) but which is better to learn in school. The theory or the application. Which one is better to have in the field. I'd say the application. But some states don't think so since only some states allow techs to take the PE test

[KingofLifts]

I recently graduated a couple months ago with my ChemE degree, live in northern cali

Been applying to jobs online with no luck so far. My gpa is only 2.8 (i don't put it on my resume) but I think I have above average experience:

- 2 full time paid research internships 2 summers in a row
- Worked part-time as a research assistant for a grad student
- Lots of volunteer hours, was vice president of a club

Thing is I didn't do a good job at networking in school / didn't go to career fairs

Am I doomed?

Apply outside of the state as well if you don't mind leaving.

[dasnotitmaine]

Apply outside of the state as well if you don't mind leaving.

Damn, that's like my last resort lol

[Ownster8932]

But from what I'm seeing, engineers don't really use much of the theory they learn in school. So, with techs pretty much bypassing the theory and going straight to application, the techs look a little more "useful" straight out of school. On paper that is.

So, what's the real difference then? From a school perspective, the difference is that techs learn more application and have more experience with what they're learning while the engineers learn more theory.
But from a "in the field perspective", whats the difference? Nobody seems to be giving a straight answer on that.

I would say how much theory you use is more of a function of your job title (R&D/Design vs sustaining vs apps vs sales vs project vs etc). The more technical and close to R&D/Design you are, the more theory you will use in your job. I rarely, if ever, have to use calculus, but I definitely have to understand it for models and simulations (for instance, performing a FFT on a circuit using Spice, transient analysis, frequency analysis). When I am looking at a circuit that somebody else has designed, I definitely need to have an understanding of how all of the components in the circuit work, recognize common circuit configurations, etc. I have to research circuit designs/techniques when trying to design my own- that's certainly based in theory. However, theory does not always translate directly to real life since real components are not ideal and there are trade offs you have to consider in making your design decisions and other compensation techniques due to how real components function (also where data sheets are helpful). This is where practical experience plays a key role and I imagine many new grads can struggle (though you could argue that they also struggle because they never really learned the theory to begin with anyways) initially, but over time you learn, just like with anything else. Some dude as a sales engineer, really does not need to have a whole lot of theory/technical depth. Though they still have to know and understand the applications that the parts they are selling are made/used for/in. It's just obviously a much shallower level of know-how.

I had to recently design a circuit to add in to an existing circuit in order to allow additional functionality. That was pretty much all theory in terms of initial circuit design, simulation and testing. But then, due to circuit limits (max input voltage of an op amp), I had to add some additional circuit components to protect the op amp while not changing the function of the circuit (info I gathered from looking at the data sheet). It wasn't all theory and it wasn't all practical, but a combination of the two. I'm not really sure how you could get away from theory entirely, though as time goes on you rely more and more on practical experience.

I worked with one EE tech degree at my previous job. He was a pretty sharp guy, was highly valued, and he was able to do his job well and at a high level (and this was for R&D/Design work, I might add). Only one I have worked with directly, though from one of my ME friends at my previous company, there were a lot of ME techs and even guys who were not degreed (older guys from the 70s/80s). He would bitch about them quite a bit and it bothered him that they were considered engineers/paid the same (what he said at least).

To sum it up succinctly: an intelligent person who works hard, with a passion for the field, will be successful regardless of whether they were an EE or EE tech, but I feel that going pure EE is viewed more favorably for the most part. I have seen job applications specifically say EE or EE tech degree, so they are certainly eligible for many jobs explicitly (though they may not be the most glamorous, but I honestly don't remember).

EE techs are still technical. It's not like the guys who were kinda grandfathered into an engineering role/title by working their way up in the 70s/80s that I mentioned up there ^. I have seen several of those guys and the lack of theory knowledge is glaringly obvious. They don't really have solid reasoning for why they do/don't think something will work. It's all based off what they have seen or they have to go in the lab because they don't have the abilities to analyze the problem from a more theoretical standpoint. Again, these people are not degreed people, but those who did the cliche "work your way up" thing from how things used to be in the past when you could do such a thing. They can, and do, still bring value, but it's more limited (simply practical considerations) compared to one who can do both (which from what I have seen, EEs and EE techs can both do successfully).

Hope that helps some.

[Rayaarito]

To sum it up succinctly: an intelligent person who works hard, with a passion for the field, will be successful regardless of whether they were an EE or EE tech, but I feel that going pure EE is viewed more favorably for the most part. I have seen job applications specifically say EE or EE tech degree, so they are certainly eligible for many jobs explicitly (though they may not be the most glamorous, but I honestly don't remember).

Thanks for all that! Will rep you on recharge. So basically, they are two different roads to get to the same end goal. Assuming the company you want to work for acknowledges both similarly.

I also feel that pure EE is viewed more favorably. I don't know why i feel like that though. I think it's because i feel like its the traditional route to becoming an engineer and the engineering tech is a relatively new thing so I feel like most people won't view them as knowledge as classical engineers. That's just how i feel people running the hiring process will feel. But at the end of the day, it's what you know and who you know that get's **** done.

[Ownster8932]

Thanks for all that! Will rep you on recharge. So basically, they are two different roads to get to the same end goal. Assuming the company you want to work for acknowledges both similarly.

I also feel that pure EE is viewed more favorably. I don't know why i feel like that though. I think it's because i feel like its the traditional route to becoming an engineer and the engineering tech is a relatively new thing so I feel like most people won't view them as knowledge as classical engineers. That's just how i feel people running the hiring process will feel. But at the end of the day, it's what you know and who you know that get's **** done.

Might have to do with the fact that since it is more traditional, then employers also have a better idea as to what they can expect from a new EE grad vs EE tech grad. They might not be as willing to explore the tech grad with even an interview opportunity since they have plenty of EE applicants.

And of course, once you have gained some experience, people will care about that a lot more. It's just that first job out of college that could be a bit more of a challenge for the tech vs pure grad.

[SouthDakotaBrah]

Anyone ever worked for a big firm like Burns & McDonnell or Black & Veach or something?

Power systems EE and applying to places. I interned at a pretty small utility with around 8 engineers, what's it like being at a company with thousands of employees and like 20 different locations across the country? Are the career advancement opportunities better or worse?

you can hit me up if you want to hire me btw

[cajone5]

But from a "in the field perspective", whats the difference? Nobody seems to be giving a straight answer on that.

Differences are great and depend on what you want to do. If you're hoping for field work or happy with a relatively low "upward mobility potential" ceiling for your career, tech school is a great option. If you're trying to get more into development, design, and other higher level areas of your field, the degree and the "theory" are what will make you successful. I admit, I'm far from the norm, I design structures for extreme loading (hurricane, earthquake, impact, blast, etc.). If I skipped theory I'd never be able to do what I do. Everyone I work with has an MS at a minimum, many a PhD. It's all in where you want to land. There's nothing wrong with doing "less" on the education end of things if it's not necessary for your career path. You can be an inspector and make some good money without a degree, for example.

Cliffs:
Figure out what you want to do
Talk to people that do it (successfully)
Do what they did.

[Rayaarito]

If you're hoping for field work or happy with a relatively low "upward mobility potential" ceiling for your career, tech school is a great option.


If you're trying to get more into development, design, and other higher level areas of your field, the degree and the "theory" are what will make you successful.

Gotcha, who creates these ceilings though? The employers or the employees lack of skills. And if it's the skills, couldn't the tech just learn the theory on his own? Kind of the same as the engineer learning hands on stuff out of school.

If it's the employers, then maybe in the next couple generations, the techs will work right besides the classicals. Cause there has to be somebody out there saying "you techs can't do this"

Maybe I'm just retarded right now. I spent the last couple nights staying up studying

I'm not doing tech. I'm sticking to classical engineer, I'm just curious. They're both four years of schooling but have different approaches of teaching you the same thing. Just that my classmate is very adamant on transferring to tech and had said that his buddy is very successful doing tech and making more money than engineers. That's why I started looking up the differences

[Ownster8932]

What's it like being at a company with thousands of employees and like 20 different locations across the country? Are the career advancement opportunities better or worse

As somebody who has worked at opposite ends of the spectrum (first job out of college was with a $25B company with 65k employees and my current job is with a $25M company with < 100 employees), I can give my perspective.

Larger Company: more paperwork, more bull****, less vision, less feeling of responsibility, more opportunities (both vertically and horizontally), more of a cog-in-a-giant-machine feel. I was also in O&G, which typically pays higher compared to other industries, so more pay. They were also one of the top rated companies as far as benefits go (they had an amazing employee-stock purchase plan- only thing I miss, tbh). Contribute in a much more narrow band. Things tend to be on a longer timeline (though they were still pretty impatient and resistant towards projects that would take 2+ years to develop. Big companies are funny in that something may end up taking 2+ years anyways, but that's not what they want you to tell them upfront, lol). Never ONCE saw the CEO or really anybody above the director level aside from the one VP who was at my facility (highest-ranking dude there). Training, training, and more training. This goes along with the more paperwork/bull****. Honestly, it is mind boggling the amount of stupid-ass training I had to go through. Anytime somebody makes a mistake (say cut themselves with a knife), then they will create some new safety training and force everybody in the company to take it. And then when you think about how 65k people are all having to do this, it just blows your mind at how much time and money is wasted. We literally had to take a 8+ hour training module on safe driving (I **** you not). It's on the computer and just stupid videos, so you can play the videos while doing whatever else you want on your other screen and charge 8 hours of your day for training, lmao. They're so stupid and easy that you don't need to pay attention to pass. If you want to, you can just scroll to the end of each module, take the test, and be done with it, lol. Luckily I was not personally subjected to a bunch of meetings, but I know others who were and others who work at Globocorps complain about all the pointless meetings. But if you are very career oriented, there are just so many more opportunities for "easy" promotions and upward/sideways movement if you are willing to do what it takes to make it happen (in some cases move to another country, for example).

Smaller Company: less pay (though still good and better than quite a bit of offers and not THAT much lower than at Globocorp really), more vision as to how the company runs and what they are trying to accomplish, more laid back (can wear whatever I want to work- shorts, gym shorts, flip flops, whatever. We curse like sailors and nobody thinks twice about it.), greater range of responsibilities in terms of the fact that you are simply going to be involved in a greater percentage of projects that the company does, less bull****, greater feeling of accountability because you aren't 1 out of 65k- if you don't do ****, then the company doesn't make money and it can really impact you. Some things are on a much shorter/tighter timeline. We have a beer fridge, ping pong tables, play music over the speakers, etc. Definitely none of that at Globocorp. Routinely eat lunch with the CEO and talk mad **** to him. No stupid, time-wasting training or pointless meetings (though management where I am have meetings like every day, lol). I would also say that engineers are not taken for granted as much compared to big companies where people see engineering as money sinks (who knew, developing new technology that they make millions/billions on takes ****ing time and money) instead of the reason why everybody there even has a job.

Similarities: What's a bit interesting with big companies is that it is almost like a bunch of smaller companies working in the same place. For instance, I was not at the corporate office, despite the majority of my group being at the corporate office. We were at a different office (5 of us in a building of around a few hundred). So on the day-to-day I was really only interacting with 4 other people as far as my job goes. I really didn't have to interact with any of the other 300ish people at my location and I didn't really answer to anybody there. This also meant that since my manager was at the corporate office, along with all of his bosses, I was sort of shielded from all of their bull**** as he did a good job of protecting us from it. I had to be a jack-of-all trades at both jobs because my immediate groups are small. I was an R&D engineer at both, so my job function and experience is very similar in a lot of ways. It's more the company culture that is different. On the day-to-day though, not all that different.

Differences are great and depend on what you want to do. If you're hoping for field work or happy with a relatively low "upward mobility potential" ceiling for your career, tech school is a great option. If you're trying to get more into development, design, and other higher level areas of your field, the degree and the "theory" are what will make you successful. I admit, I'm far from the norm, I design structures for extreme loading (hurricane, earthquake, impact, blast, etc.). If I skipped theory I'd never be able to do what I do. Everyone I work with has an MS at a minimum, many a PhD. It's all in where you want to land. There's nothing wrong with doing "less" on the education end of things if it's not necessary for your career path. You can be an inspector and make some good money without a degree, for example.

Cliffs:
Figure out what you want to do
Talk to people that do it (successfully)
Do what they did.

Not sure if you knew what he was referring to or not, but he is talking about doing an engineering technology degree, not being a technician. So what you said is still relevant, but just making sure you knew as I had not actually heard of engineering technology engineers in school or at my internship. I didn't hear about them until my first FT job and it's the only place I have worked with one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_technologist

[cncman]

so I'm starting grad school and taking evening classes in Jan for Computer Engineering but I'm considering telling them I wanna switch to EE and take CS electives. Some of our systems are pretty high voltage. I'm also torn: our company has an MBA program through A&M where classes are taught right here at the institute. My work is project based so project management isn't out of the question as far as usefulness. I'm also a research engineer, however. The company will pay for both, its just a time constraint, and I need to pay for them initially. The old MS Eng vs. MBA conundrum, neat. Also gotta get a passport, never thought I'd ever get to really travel. Scary with a newborn (oct 29) but exciting.

[KingofLifts]

so I'm starting grad school and taking evening classes in Jan for Computer Engineering but I'm considering telling them I wanna switch to EE and take CS electives. Some of our systems are pretty high voltage. I'm also torn: our company has an MBA program through A&M where classes are taught right here at the institute. My work is project based so project management isn't out of the question as far as usefulness. I'm also a research engineer, however. The company will pay for both, its just a time constraint, and I need to pay for them initially. The old MS Eng vs. MBA conundrum, neat. Also gotta get a passport, never thought I'd ever get to really travel. Scary with a newborn (oct 29) but exciting.

How are those online MBA programs compared to face-to-face?

[Mirrors]

Aced statics exam and thermo dynamics quiz ( I think). Taking an exam in fluid mechanics today on internal pipe flow and non dimensionalization. Wish me luck brahs

[morrison816]

Can anyone tell me about chemical engineers at boeing?

What do they do usually? Does boeing employ very many chEs?

Also a table of engineers salary at boeing was floating around on the misc a while back, anyone have it?

[PastorGaines]

Posting ITT just to have some form of contact with other engineers. Always a pleasure seeing how you guys can explain/communicate your points so clearly and effectively. I'm the only one in my department and my brain's turning to mush having to explain every goddamn little shortcut I take to finish my work faster.

(no arrogance dead srs)

[morrison816]

Also do yall think tamu could set me up for a successful career well? Or should I try to apply to a better school

[morrison816]

Also do top companies like Exxon, shell, boeing care about what school you go to or just gpa?

[KingofLifts]

Also do yall think tamu could set me up for a successful career well? Or should I try to apply to a better school

Also do top companies like Exxon, shell, boeing care about what school you go to or just gpa?

They could, just as any another Tier 1 school could. I spoke to Chevron recruiters, and they equally like getting people from UH, TAMU, UT.

[morrison816]

They could, just as any another Tier 1 school could. I spoke to Chevron recruiters, and they equally like getting people from UH, TAMU, UT.

Good to hear, I know ut is competitive af, but is it easier to get a 3.6+ at uh or tamu?

[jack3d_brah9]

Good to hear, I know ut is competitive af, but is it easier to get a 3.6+ at uh or tamu?

UH, you'll also be 2nd place compared to TAMU ChEs when it comes to recruiting though (biased)

[morrison816]

UH, you'll also be 2nd place compared to TAMU ChEs when it comes to recruiting though (biased)

So it wouldnt be better to get a 3.7 at uh compared to a 3.5 at tamu? I heard the big companies who gpa screen trash anything under 3.7

[jack3d_brah9]

So it wouldnt be better to get a 3.7 at uh compared to a 3.5 at tamu? I heard the big companies who gpa screen trash anything under 3.7

At that point its going to come down to what your internship and leadership experience looks like. Its tough to play the GPA vs alma mater game and sliding the scale back and forth when each recruiter is going to have their own internal biases whether they recognize them or not. It's much easier to bank on getting into the best program you can and doing the best you can. Fuk being a big fish in a small pond, go compete amongst the highest caliber peers you can.

[Rayaarito]

Bros, what do you do if you want to learn more than one specialty? I'm EE but I also want to learn ME. What do

[KingofLifts]

UH, you'll also be 2nd place compared to TAMU ChEs when it comes to recruiting though (biased)

I guess it depends on the employers. I've talked to several recruiters, and many of them actually prefer UH alum. Might also be the fact that UH's ChE is notoriously difficult.

[KingofLifts]

Bros, what do you do if you want to learn more than one specialty? I'm EE but I also want to learn ME. What do

Double major brah.