/sci/ - Science & Math

Engineer requires a higher degree of autism, it's not really harder, you just have to be sub human in certain aspects to do it.

workload

Doesn't require genius, just perseverance bordering on masochism.

>>5209769
Protip: If you weren't jelly, they wouldn't have "autism."

>>5209729

Engineering is the ultimate grindfest, they're basically trying to turn you into a human calculator so you can do "input>ENGINEER>output" all day. Most other degrees require some kind of creativity to understand abstract concepts or to try to find new methods to solve problems, not so with engineers. Nothing wrong with it, but it's the way it is.

>white people
>muh dick

No, you are confusing things

>>5209782
My engineering course requires us to solve problems with creativity.
We had to make a quadrotor for one of our big projects, I did the programming aspect for it.

>Not knowing that if scientist didn't make their shit, there won't be engineering these days. And ind the next years, new scientific discoverments will make appear new types of engineering.

>>5209805
But that's pragmatic creativity, not abstract creativity.

>>5209805

bruteforce learning things. By the time you get an understanding of abstraction, but most of the time it's "better learn the formulas, kiddo", and never learning what's under the hood.

>>5209946
if a scientist's creativity is purely abstract it has no bearing on the real world, like his theories

>>5209946
You should really think about a degree in creative writing.

>>5209999
not sure if compliment

am sure if quadz

Engineers are tasked in the real world with getting this bridge built in this time period with these materials for this much money

it's legos on a huge scale; and you beat the numbers till you make the loads acceptable in all but outlier conditions

You don't try 50 things and see what works, you go to the books and they tell you what options you have

a scientist collects empirical data and hypothesis that some new thing that has never been done could be possible with this new data and material

it's like two writers

one writes copy for JcPenny ads under stringent guidlines

they other is Hunter S Thompson pushing ever rule and boundary with no one to limit him

whose work will influence the future more?

>>5209729

There's more stuff to remember because there's a lot of shit you have to know.

But, it is true scientists are better at intuition and sort of problem solving in general. Engineers are a lot of looking up formulas and using them, not a lot of thinking. Literally, there are flow charts engineers follow ... if y1 < y2, use this, if no, check if y1 < y3, if so use this, if not either check if lambda1 > lambda 2, if so use this, if not refer to chapter 5 and follow that

>>5209729

Work load, amount of variety in engineering curriculum that they're expected to learn and tedious as fuck labs. Also the exams are usually very long and hard (same as in physics)

engineering and other sciences require quite a bit of creativity

>>5210027
>>5210030
You are talking about pleb tier engineers, good engineers are inventors.

>>5210227
most engineers are pleb tier or less

>>5209729
OP's pic drawn by a racial jew (criminal parasite)

>>5210274
most engineers I would say have a good fundamental understanding in regards to the conceptualization of the problem/system at hand.
>Without Engineering, Scientists wouldn't be able to do their fancy shmangled experiments to come up with new theories. (LHC is not possible without engineers helping, nor the Manhattan Project). You don't need the smartest monkey, just a team of monkeys who at least know the ground rules and understand the feasibility of the task at hand.
Engineers and Scientists are both equally important in the continuing development of our world.

>>5209773
>>5209782
This.

Science Majors will occasionally say "I took an engineering course, it wasn't super hard". They don't understand engineers are taking six courses at once instead of four.

None of the scientists at the LHC would have lost their jobs if they didn't find the Higgs and they had as much time as they wanted to do it. This is the nature of science because nobody even knew if the Higgs was there to be found.

In engineering jobs you have a project that must be completed before your competition and work better than your competition. There is always a hard deadline to get an expected result. Engineering programs are designed to weed out people who can't work hard and efficiently under stress.

>>5210227

That's actually really true. Engineers generally don't have the physics or higher level science required to invent anything.

See everything in this image here? I guarantee if you go through and look them all up they were all made by scientists. Physicists. Electrical engineers learn how to use them, how to put them into a circuit without blowing it up, but it has to be the physicist, who actually knows how this stuff works on a fundamental level, who makes them

>>5210320

Woops, meant to say that's not true at all, not that's really true. Engineers don't invent. If they work in a lab, chances are they are helping the physicist build a machine so the physicist can test a theory he is working on

>>5210320
>>5210324

Just to prove my point a bit, I went ahead and did some looking to make sure I was right, sure enough I was

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emile_Berliner

Invented the microphone, grammaphone, studied physics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor

Transistors, invented by a group of 3 physicists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductor

The inductor, brought to you by Faraday, a physicist.

You'd be hard pressed to find an invention or innovation by an engineer, they are few and far between. It's not bad or anything, but that's just not what they do

Scientist sit and do their work even on their days off and are often socially reserved.
Engineers have circlejerks of bitchfests and publicly whine about how hard their life is, so the external conception is that they have the hardest major.

>>5210320
So you think a bicycle isn't an invention because its creators didn't discover the wheel, or a computer processor isn't an invention because its creators didn't discover the properties of semiconductors?

Scientists discover the fundamental laws of our universe. Engineers apply this information to develop technology to do things that have never been done before or do old things more efficiently. This takes a degree of problem solving, planning, and creativity many scientists lack.


Things I've invented so far in my Computer Engineering career:

Image analysis algorithms to detect cancerous cells in microscope slides.

Interference resistant telecommunication protocols for military drones.

Wireless light controller modules for concerts/nightclubs.

Bicycle computer capable of measuring the riders muscle power and other fine details without pressure/torque sensitive peddles and cranks.

>>5210373
>Interference resistant telecommunication protocols for military drones.
Details or it didn't happen

Engineering is tiring and time consuming. It's hard the way that medical school is hard.

Science is intellectually difficult.

engineering is what the average kids who think they're smart do.

>>5210383
I got to admit it sounds a lot cooler than it really was. I would have been doing almost the same thing if I was working for a cell phone manufacturer. The company was Spark Integration, the product was DIOS (Distributed Integrated Operating Schema). I could probably dig up some old papers, but I certainly can't dump any source code.

>>5210373

Damn dude, I hate to tell you this, but the guy who headed the creation of the first computer processor was made by a trained physicist, too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Faggin

There is this misconception that physicists only discover laws of the universe or something? If you look up here

>>5210343

you see many more examples of how physicists are the inventors of basically everything. Like I said, engineers take what physicists have made and put them to use, but the physicists are the actual inventors of these things.