Why Are Engineers Viewed as Less Intelligent Than Physics & Math Majors?

[Lavabug]

There's plenty of disdain and scoffing both ways between pure sciences and engineering. However in most cases, I find its mostly people with insecurities that scoff at engineers and viceversa.

I still think pure sciences get an undeserved amount of discouragement though. Its not like people starve with pure science degrees, its not an entirely unmarketable degree like art history.

 

[jetwaterluffy]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=536426&page=2
"I think you guys misunderstood; I am agreeing with you. No one would hire a physicist to derive the chassis of a car (or whatever silly analogy one of you just made). I agree with this, and I'm saying this is a bad thing if you're a physicist trying to be an engineer. It's great that physicists are great problem solvers and if you have a Ph.D it's pretty obvious that an employer can throw some books at you and tell you to solve some problem, and you'll be able to do it. Most of the time, jobs don't consist of this. There is just too much that needs to be done in a very specific way (especially in engineering) because of standards in regards to efficiency or safety or whatever.

Anyway, learning methods makes you more drone-like. I'm not backing down on this terminology, because that is the very simple truth. Getting into semantics about word usage is best left to left-wing liberal nuts and I don't really care about it. My point was that engineering work is less fundamental than theoretical physics, and to be able to have the skills of an engineer you can't possibly do both in the same amount of time... so as an engineer, you end up learning a lot of methods that have been conceived already. There's nothing wrong with this, because most of the time this kind of happens in theoretical physics research as well. Still, recognizing the degree with which this happens in engineering will be helpful to any physicist who wonders why engineering firms don't want to hire him over a newly-minted B.S. engineer."

He doesn't seem to be anti- engineer to me, he just uses very controversial language.

 

[adaptation]

I'm surprised to see so many people claiming that there is not really a bias against engineers. I think it's cool that you guys are in an environment that is more enlightened. Sadly, most of us aren't.

That's not to say that these forums are anti-engineer. The more senior, more experienced members certainly don't seem to be. Every time I recall seeing some engineer bashing, it was from some arrogant undergrad, or it was just a joke.

The simple fact is that until most people reach a certain point (intellectual, spriritual, experiential, whatever), they think that the path that they've chosen is superior to everyone else's. I mean, why else would they choose it? Obviously, they choose the best path. I think it's just human nature. My tribe is better than your tribe, and all that.

I also think that most people grow out of that type of elitist attitude.

 

[Functor97]

I have to agree, engineers are looked down upon by the purer sciences, and with good reason. If scientists respected the process of engineers, then our science would be unrigorous and messy.

Science and Pure mathematics is a quest for knowledge, Engineers on the other hand want to make cool things that are of "use" to society. The other option and this is a very prominent one, is that engineers are in it for the money. I had many friends in high school who became engineers, and everytime i told them i was intending to study purer sciences they would lord their future income over that of a postdoc. I once even had a girl ask/tell me "Who is going to want to pay you?"
I am a purist through and through and to me knowledge is eternal. There is no denying that i live off the hard work of engineers, and i respect them greatly for this. However I know that the skills they require are much easier to gain than those of a research mathematician. Engineers for the most part have no interest in "why" something works, they just accept it and move along. There will be some engineers who look deeper into the reason for things, but their jobs mostly impede this process. To me research engineers are physicists, but the great majority are attending college so as to get a career.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have to agree, engineers are looked down upon by the purer sciences, and with good reason. If scientists respected the process of engineers, then our science would be unrigorous and messy.

Seriously? Engineers are unrigorous and messy?

 

[turbo]

Seriously? Engineers are unrigorous and messy?

Yes. Engineers are sloppy and they pick their noses. It's all true! Except one pretty engineer from McGill that I worked with. She never picked her nose in my presence, though she could have sneaked in a pick when my back was turned.

She'd bust a gut if she could read this.

 

[adaptation]

...Science and Pure mathematics is a quest for knowledge, Engineers on the other hand want to make cool things that are of "use" to society. The other option and this is a very prominent one, is that engineers are in it for the money...

Why do people say it this way? Is having money really so bad? Speaking as someone who has seen true poverty (I'm talking about sell your children for food poverty. Fighting over food waste poverty. *Real* poverty.), I don't think taking a job that allows one to take care of him/herself and her/his family is anything to be looked down upon.

Pure science may be noble to some, but ensuring that my family has a safe place to live and ample food to eat is noble to me.

It's hard to do science when you you've got no food and your baby's crying for lack of same.

 

[Functor97]

Seriously? Engineers are unrigorous and messy?

Yes, compared to mathematicians. That being said i do not think they are required to be rigorous, "if it works it works!" is a good motto for an engineer but not for a mathematician.

Of course, compared to other careers engineers are the height of sophistication.

 

[Functor97]

Why do people say it this way? Is having money really so bad? Speaking as someone who has seen true poverty (I'm talking about sell your children for food poverty. Fighting over food waste poverty. *Real* poverty.), I don't think taking a job that allows one to take care of him/herself and her/his family is anything to be looked down upon.

Pure science may be noble to some, but ensuring that my family has a safe place to live and ample food to eat is noble to me.

It's hard to do science when you you've got no food and your baby's crying for lack of same.

Firstly, i like how you took my sentence completely out of context. I did not say all engineers were in it for the money, but a significant number that i have met have been. Maybe my sample size is too small...

Secondly, what makes you think that a physicist/mathematician working at a university is going to be living in absolute poverty, unable to raise a family? By poverty i think you mean "can't afford two houses, and a private boat", because otherwise your claims are completely unsubstantiated. The wage most universty professors earn would be beyond the dreams of these people in absolute poverty... Whats more no one said you need to have a wife, let alone kids.

You only live once, what's the point in spending that lifetime earning a wage at a mind numbing job, when you would rather be out exploring our wonderful universe and getting paid?

 

[adaptation]

Firstly, i like how you took my sentence completely out of context. I did not say all engineers were in it for the money, but a significant number that i have met have been. Maybe my sample size is too small...

Tried to add more context where I quoted you. I didn't mean to imply you were talking about all engineers. I meant to highlight the idea that "being in it for the money" is somehow wrong.

Secondly, what makes you think that a physicist/mathematician working at a university is going to be living in absolute poverty, unable to raise a family? By poverty i think you mean "can't afford two houses, and a private boat", because otherwise your claims are completely unsubstantiated. The wage most universty professors earn would be beyond the dreams of these people in absolute poverty... Whats more no one said you need to have a wife, let alone kids.

Again, this is not what I meant to imply. My point is that working for money is not bad. I have frequently encountered the "they're in it for the money" sentiment. I just don't get it.

You only live once, what's the point in spending that lifetime earning a wage at a mind numbing job, when you would rather be out exploring our wonderful universe and getting paid?

I think the point is that you would rather be out exploring the universe. Your goals are not necissarily the same as others'.

 

[jetwaterluffy]

I have to agree, engineers are looked down upon by the purer sciences, and with good reason. If scientists respected the process of engineers, then our science would be unrigorous and messy.

If Physicists used the methods of any other subject, their science would be unrigorous and messy. This is because physics techniques are designed for physicists, while mathematical/ engineering/ biological/ geography techniques are designed for mathematicians/ engineers/ biologists/ geographers. It's a bit of a meaningless statement, and doesn't prove any of them are "better".

 

[DaveC426913]

If Physicists used the methods of any other subject, their science would be unrigorous and messy. This is because physics techniques are designed for physicists, while mathematical/ engineering/ biological/ geography techniques are designed for mathematicians/ engineers/ biologists/ geographers. It's a bit of a meaningless statement, and doesn't prove any of them are "better".

word

 

[AlephZero]

That being said i do not think they are required to be rigorous, "if it works it works!" is a good motto for an engineer but not for a mathematician.

Oh, sure. When engineers are designing skyscrapers, or cars, or planes, they just make up any any old **** they like if they think it might work.[/irony].

 

[D H]

Seriously? Engineers are unrigorous and messy?

Yes. Engineers are sloppy and they pick their noses. It's all true!

Yep. Every single bit of the stereotype is true. Engineers have zero fashion sense, have politics closer to those of plumbers than the intellectually advantaged, are still virgins at 40, etc.

The recent rumor at PF that musicians and engineers have something in common is patently untrue. Musicians are cool. Engineers: Not.Now I need some help removing my tongue from my cheek. It is rather firmly planted there with this post.

 

[ode_to_joy]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=540702
"(No offense to engineers but, statiscally or generally, pure math requires rigorus understanding of concept hence they need to be smarter)"

Why don't you conduct an experiment? Pick arbitrary mathematicians and assign an engineering project and pick arbitrary engineers to make them understand Riemann's Hypothesis? Now, statiscally speaking, engineers usually end up with a Bachelor's Degree where phD is a minimum requirement for a mathematician.

I am not saying that mathematicians are inherently smarter. If engineers go through extensive graduate school course work, they will reach or even higher level of intelligence. But if you arbitrarly pick an engineer and a mathematician, chances are, the mathematican is smarter than the engineer.

Also, it is not right to condscend a certain group of people because they are intellectually inferior. How is it different from racism, sexism, or classism? I still do believe that statiscally mathematicians are smarter, but I never express it.

 

[micromass]

Why don't you conduct an experiment? Pick arbitrary mathematicians and assign an engineering project and pick arbitrary engineers to make them understand Riemann's Hypothesis? Now, statiscally speaking, engineers usually end up with a Bachelor's Degree where phD is a minimum requirement for a mathematician.

I am not saying that mathematicians are inherently smarter. If engineers go through extensive graduate school course work, they will reach or even higher level of intelligence. But if you arbitrarly pick an engineer and a mathematician, chances are, the mathematican is smarter than the engineer.

Also, it is not right to condscend a certain group of people because they are intellectually inferior. How is it different from racism, sexism, or classism? I still do believe that statiscally mathematicians are smarter, but I never express it.

Oh please, this is the most biased opinion I read today. Firstly, I would be interested in that experiment. I don't think many engineers would have difficulty with abstract mathematics, and certainly not with the Riemann hypothesis.

Engineers and mathematicians are people who are very alike. Engineers just like applied problems and mathematicians don't. You're not seriously claiming that liking applied problems makes you dumber?

Engineers have a really difficult study. They must understand the theory and the applications. Mathematicians just have a theory they study. So the engineers have the harder studies (in my opinion).

So instead of starting to insult all engineers and call them dumb, why not provide proof for your statements?? Because proof is what a scientist must base himself on.

 

[Null_]

I'm an engineer(ing) student and agree with micromass ^. I find pure math easier in the sense that it is what it is: simple and beautiful. In real-world applications, there are a lot of things that you have to consider outside the realm of perfect mathematics which make it more challenging for me.

 

[RandomGuy88]

Why don't you conduct an experiment? Pick arbitrary mathematicians and assign an engineering project and pick arbitrary engineers to make them understand Riemann's Hypothesis?

HAHA! Seriously? My money would be on the engineers to understand Riemann's Hypothesis long before the mathematician could successfully complete the engineering project. Most mathematicians I know barely know which end of the hammer to use let alone how to design and conduct experiments.

 

[ode_to_joy]

Oh please, this is the most biased opinion I read today. Firstly, I would be interested in that experiment. I don't think many engineers would have difficulty with abstract mathematics, and certainly not with the Riemann hypothesis.

Engineers and mathematicians are people who are very alike. Engineers just like applied problems and mathematicians don't. You're not seriously claiming that liking applied problems makes you dumber?

Engineers have a really difficult study. They must understand the theory and the applications. Mathematicians just have a theory they study. So the engineers have the harder studies (in my opinion).

So instead of starting to insult all engineers and call them dumb, why not provide proof for your statements?? Because proof is what a scientist must base himself on.

Yeah you are right. Sorry about that

 

[Functor97]

Oh please, this is the most biased opinion I read today. Firstly, I would be interested in that experiment. I don't think many engineers would have difficulty with abstract mathematics, and certainly not with the Riemann hypothesis.

Engineers and mathematicians are people who are very alike. Engineers just like applied problems and mathematicians don't. You're not seriously claiming that liking applied problems makes you dumber?

Engineers have a really difficult study. They must understand the theory and the applications. Mathematicians just have a theory they study. So the engineers have the harder studies (in my opinion).

So instead of starting to insult all engineers and call them dumb, why not provide proof for your statements?? Because proof is what a scientist must base himself on.

Micromass i tend to disagree. An engineer will learn enough theory to get by, they will not have to take a class in real analysis let alone complex analysis (unless they take it for an elective). So i think it is a mistake to state that they learn the theory and the applications, they learn some theory and some applications.

 

[micromass]

Micromass i tend to disagree. An engineer will learn enough theory to get by, they will not have to take a class in real analysis let alone complex analysis (unless they take it for an elective). So i think it is a mistake to state that they learn the theory and the applications, they learn some theory and some applications.

Yes, you are right. They learn some of the theory and some of the applications. But in my opinion, combining theory and applications is much harder than learning only theory.

My response was to somebody claiming engineers to be dumber.I think most engineers are able to handle theoretical stuff like real analysis, so they aren't dumb at all.

 

[ahsanxr]

Yes, you are right. They learn some of the theory and some of the applications. But in my opinion, combining theory and applications is much harder than learning only theory.

My response was to somebody claiming engineers to be dumber.I think most engineers are able to handle theoretical stuff like real analysis, so they aren't dumb at all.

It balances out I guess. Engineers need to know some theory (although most know a very minimal amount in my experience) and a fair amount of applications but don't need to have a flawless understanding of either to get by. While mathematicians and physicists need to know the theory alone VERY well (and maybe some applications too depending on their particular sub-fields) if they are to do anything with their fields. So at the end, I guess it's quite similar in terms of workload.

 

[Functor97]

Yes, you are right. They learn some of the theory and some of the applications. But in my opinion, combining theory and applications is much harder than learning only theory.

My response was to somebody claiming engineers to be dumber.I think most engineers are able to handle theoretical stuff like real analysis, so they aren't dumb at all.

hmmm that would make physicists the most reputable, seeing as they must deal with a lot of theory but also must apply their work to the real word.

Learning mathematics is far different from creating it (as i am sure you are aware), so i imagine almost any scientist or academic is capable of taking real analysis and getting something from it, but actually formulating or discovering new mathematics is another ball park away. I do not want to claim applications are not important, they are, but to me application means understanding our own world, applying to "real" problems. I see engineers as designing, or building rather than seeking to model as a physicist, economist or computer scientist would.

 

[ahsanxr]

hmmm that would make physicists the most reputable, seeing as they must deal with a lot of theory but also must apply their work to the real word.

Learning mathematics is far different from creating it (as i am sure you are aware), so i imagine almost any scientist or academic is capable of taking real analysis and getting something from it, but actually formulating or discovering new mathematics is another ball park away. I do not want to claim applications are not important, they are, but to me application means understanding our own world, applying to "real" problems. I see engineers as designing, or building rather than seeking to model as a physicist, economist or computer scientist would.

One thing complements the others. Mathematicians, without physical or outside motivation come up with new mathematics and discover and expand upon relationships within. Physicists, without thinking about what a physical theory could be used for, try to come up with these physical theories and model the universe using the math that the mathematicians developed. Then the engineer builds (no pun) on both of these and uses them to design and build things directly applicable to our lives and society. So in terms of "purity" the engineers are at the end, but that doesn't make them inferior. In fact what would our society be like if we only had mathematics and the theory but no one to use them to improve it?

However, the importance of engineers established, the average physicist or mathematician is usually smarter than the average engineer (even most engineers would admit that). That's not to say engineers are dumb. It's just that physics and mathematics has a lot of bright people (how many child prodigies chose engineering?) As an example, just look at the amount of schooling each has to go through in order to get their respective titles.

 

[micromass]

However, the importance of engineers established, the average physicist or mathematician is usually smarter than the average engineer (even most engineers would admit that).

I don't these kind of sentences without any form of proof. Please post proof that they are smarter. If you can't, then it's only your own opinion and not fact.

 

[sandy.bridge]

One thing complements the others. Mathematicians, without physical or outside motivation come up with new mathematics and discover and expand upon relationships within. Physicists, without thinking about what a physical theory could be used for, try to come up with these physical theories and model the universe using the math that the mathematicians developed. Then the engineer builds (no pun) on both of these and uses them to design and build things directly applicable to our lives and society. So in terms of "purity" the engineers are at the end, but that doesn't make them inferior. In fact what would our society be like if we only had mathematics and the theory but no one to use them to improve it?

However, the importance of engineers established, the average physicist or mathematician is usually smarter than the average engineer (even most engineers would admit that). That's not to say engineers are dumb. It's just that physics and mathematics has a lot of bright people (how many child prodigies chose engineering?) As an example, just look at the amount of schooling each has to go through in order to get their respective titles.

There are bright people regardless of where you go. Don't be so ignorant. I know plenty of people in either field that are exceptionally smart...

 

[ahsanxr]

I should have added "I feel like..." to the start of that statement. I think it is true, but I don't have any proof of it. It's just the impression that I get, having interacted with students in both departments, along with other reasons. I repeat, you need to be very bright and hard-working in order to get through things like 4 engineering courses per semester, so in general engineers are much smarter than the average person. (I feel) It's just that the exceptionally gifted people tend to go choose math or physics, and even an average person working in one of these fields would be considered a genius by normal standards.

 

[thegreenlaser]

I think one issue is that a lot of the "application" questions that show up in theoretical classes tend to be very contrived and obvious. When you spend half an hour proving a nasty theorem and doing a difficult derivation of a formula and then the prof says "Okay we're going to do an application question now," which consists of simply plugging numbers into the formula, of course the 'pure' people are going to think that the 'applied' people aren't very smart. A lot of the "applied people are stupid" attitude at my school seems to stem from the fact that the 'pure' kids rarely see anything more difficult than blatantly obvious plug-and-chug questions.

Of course I'm not saying that all people in theoretical subjects think that people in applied fields are stupid, but I think that what I said above is at least a contributing factor for most of the ones that do.

 

[RandomGuy88]

I wonder if part of the problem with this entire discussion is what level are engineer/physicist/mathematician we are comparing.

My undergrad was in mechanical engineering and I am currently getting my PhD in aerospace engineering. During my 4 years of undergrad I came to realize there were A LOT of idiots in my classes. I can't speak for physics or mathematics because I didn't know many people in those departments but the average student in my class was not very intelligent. However at grad school things are completely different. I am surrounded by a lot of very bright people in both experimental and theoretical lines of work. I have professors who would be considered geniuses no matter who they are being compared to.

So it wouldn't shock me to find out that on AVERAGE the undergrads in physics/math are smarter than engineering undergrads (keep in mind I have no experience with physics/math undergrads) but once you get to people with their PhD who are doing some serious research I don't think you can say any particular group is smarter on average.

 

[Mindscrape]

Some folks just like feeling superior; like me, I feel superior to both physicists and engineers as an insider in both physicist and engineer world (just kidding).

In optics, for example, physicists and electrical engineers work on the same stuff a lot of the time. You can just as easily find an EE doing quantum optics as a physicist, the only difference is that the EE calls it quantum optics and the physicist calls it atomic optics. Not just physicists work on physics.

People that are smug about their field of research need to get out from the cave they're living in. People interested in pure physics would fail in applied physics, people interested in only engineering would fail in physics, and physicists only interested in physics would fail in engineering. We all fail at some point.

 

[ahsanxr]

I wonder if part of the problem with this entire discussion is what level are engineer/physicist/mathematician we are comparing.

My undergrad was in mechanical engineering and I am currently getting my PhD in aerospace engineering. During my 4 years of undergrad I came to realize there were A LOT of idiots in my classes. I can't speak for physics or mathematics because I didn't know many people in those departments but the average student in my class was not very intelligent. However at grad school things are completely different. I am surrounded by a lot of very bright people in both experimental and theoretical lines of work. I have professors who would be considered geniuses no matter who they are being compared to.

So it wouldn't shock me to find out that on AVERAGE the undergrads in physics/math are smarter than engineering undergrads (keep in mind I have no experience with physics/math undergrads) but once you get to people with their PhD who are doing some serious research I don't think you can say any particular group is smarter on average.

I sincerely thank you for saying what I was thinking/trying to say haha. A lot of those "idiots" you were talking about did end up working as some sort of engineers, no? But the "idiots" in the physics/math department if any, usually don't make it til the PhD level and hence there's an extra level of sophistication required to become a physicist/mathematician. However I completely agree that at the post-grad level people in either department are equally bright.

 

[ashnek]

First of all i think comparing average people by their fields is not really getting anywhere basically because they are different, engineering has many ways to be done and I am not talking about the branches its about what job you get to have or you want to have. Some people they just want to manage or take over their fathers construction company, some don't want to design something new they just want to build stuff that's already built just adapting it to the surroundings and stuff (which isn't always easy). I am not sure how is it in math/phys i havnt been there but yes when i did my undergrad there were a lot of people not interested in the heavy stuff and they just wanted to get by (as there's in any undergrad). With this I am not saying that it is possible or easy to get by in engineering i mean this people take years to graduate I've seen and heard of guys taking 9 to 10 years for an undergrad in my country (mostly EE and ME), I am not saying all of them take that long but it isn't easy.

You have to compare the idealized concept or work for each area and i at least think they are the same. As engineer first of all making some new machine using a concept made by math/phys or researching it yourself is as hard as I am sure it is for a math guy to come up with a new structure or a theorem and for a physicist to consolidate a theory that explains some phenomena. Even if you know all the science based things that your machine will do you still have to figure a way to make it real. Making the machine secure, thinking of all the ways it could go wrong, then the ways people could use it wrong, then the ways that the place it installed in could go wrong then making it more efficient it is hard work and it requires science and experience, I am pretty sure Math and Physics people do the same they need to make their theories and models failproof give conditions for good use of a theorem etc. Same as mathematicians need to create new structures and physicist need to adapt theories or concepts engineers have to create new ways to do the same thing or a different way to do something different that can just solve your problem and as in your fields it is not something you will find in a book its something you have to use your science knowledge and your experience and creativity to do just the same.

I agree with what a guy side above, and yes in undergrad we see applications as plug and calculate but it really isn't like that when you are trying to design a new machine with a new concept or a new way to attack a problem, you just see it while you are in uni because well you need it and to see how to use something once you know you can use it which is the tricky part.

One of my points is towards what another person said that "your average engineer is not smarter than average math/phys guy", this statement is based first of all in a wrong concept of intelligence and a very faulty one because as i said above not all the engineers that come out are going to do the design new concept/machine stuff not all are interested in the science part of engineering so they might not solve your oh so great mathematical problems but it requires intelligence to run a company efficiently it takes intelligence to manage work force etc... and its not a lesser version of intelligence its just not the way of intelligence most of the science guys think of, like when they see a professor that just knows and can solve everything and he's very creative on solutions and stuff it is the same but is just not so "science"

In short words engineers, physicists and mathematicians do the same work you need to know your theory so well and be aware of the tools and knowledge you have or others recently developed to actually do outstanding work.

I agree that there's been some "looking down" to engineers but to those who think we are less i just have to remind you society wouldn't have come this far technologically and in science knowledge if it wasnt for a combination of all the "pure" sciences and engineering and trust me every profession was just as important as any of the other.

i assume you ll realize english is not my main language ><