do i really want to study engineering?

Hey guys! I have applied for uni to study chemical engineering but now I feel that maybe it's not for me. During my interview with Manchester the professor who was interviewing me sincerely asked me if engineering was what i really wanted to study and not just because it seemed like a good career. He used the example of one of his relatives who realised they actually wanted to study straight physics after applying to do engineering. At this point, it hit me. He was right. Last year I had no idea what I wanted to do. I picked engineering because it would lead to a decent job that was well paying. Not because i was passionate about it. It was almost a way to shut up the people who kept asking me what i wanted to study. I would be far more interested in studying a pure science. Should I reapply? but what would i do in my gap year

I should have done physics.

With an engineering degree it's a bit easier.

Hmm it is subjective and is also based on your personal interests in the subject...for example I don't find engineering that difficult because I'm actually interested in what I'm learning....whereas if I did say Chemistry i would hate it and find it difficult as a result because I have absolutely zero interest in that.

there's far too much b.s. to deal with in physics...the labs are so much more annoying as well (basically lots and lots and lots of error analysis and drawing graphs and that kinda thing).....you also have to deal with the astrophysics and optical physics stuff which personally for me was the worst thing I've learnt in my life lol

with engineering its a very nice balance between the physics i actually like and the maths.

You do optics in engineering. Space Systems and PIV equipment which is commonly used in Aerodynamics. Astrophysics is also briefly covered in some space units.

I personally think the balance isn't right in engineering. It may not be the subject, probably the curriculum, but nothing felt anything but a chore learning Engineering except perhaps a handful of units. Everything else was a chore and just commit to memory, no real need to understand.

Prime example would be Eng Maths. We spent half a lecture on Taylor Series. I distinctly remember that we spent so little time on something that always appeared everywhere. Problem with that, as an example, would be having to use the maths later on and during lectures, our class frequently struggled with trying to do a taylor series on a function without having memorized the formula. I could list more too such as Laplace Transforms (which comes up in Vibrations and Control).

Engineering, the way its taught now is "here, learn everything and just memorize memorize". I don't think the subject is wrong in any way, but the way its taught needs a rethink. Anyone remember electronics unit in first year?

You do optics in engineering. Space Systems and PIV equipment which is commonly used in Aerodynamics. Astrophysics is also briefly covered in some space units.

I personally think the balance isn't right in engineering. It may not be the subject, probably the curriculum, but nothing felt anything but a chore learning Engineering except perhaps a handful of units. Everything else was a chore and just commit to memory, no real need to understand.

Prime example would be Eng Maths. We spent half a lecture on Taylor Series. I distinctly remember that we spent so little time on something that always appeared everywhere. Problem with that, as an example, would be having to use the maths later on and during lectures, our class frequently struggled with trying to do a taylor series on a function without having memorized the formula. I could list more too such as Laplace Transforms (which comes up in Vibrations and Control).

Engineering, the way its taught now is "here, learn everything and just memorize memorize". I don't think the subject is wrong in any way, but the way its taught needs a rethink. Anyone remember electronics unit in first year?

You are missing the point entirely.

I agree completely with a10.

You seem to be stuck in a school environment type mentality where a degree is 'taught' rather than lectures used as a springboard to further private study and research.

There are plenty of college courses that teach engineering to a good standard of Higher National Certificate and are far more hands on vocational than a traditional engineering degree. Perhaps one of those may have suited you better.

Engineering is about bridging the gap between the laws of physics, manipulating materials within the boundaries of physics and developing technologies to solve problems in the real-world.

Physicists concentrate on the abstract knowledge and need to push the boundaries of the science into the unknown.

Engineers convert the abstract into workable solutions for a given problem. Engineering spans a very wide range of disciplines from the cutting edge of science, where Engineers must have the ability to both converse with physicists in the language of mathematics (including Laplace Transforms and Taylor Series) to the applications end where testing and proving a final product ready for market is their specialisation.

It seems like your course is laying the foundations to appreciate the range of engineering disciplines that you will encounter in your professional career.

This should be viewed as a precursor to further private study which will eventually lead to a specialisation.

Scientists need engineers as the arbiters of what is and is not possible given the state-of -the-art in materials and technologies. Engineers need scientists to define the mathematical laws and concepts within which they must work.

The two are inseparable on anything larger than the small lab projects.

Even though you say you did optics I doubt you would have covered the actual optical science in as much detail as physics students do. They delve deep to the realms of science whereas engineering keeps the science specific; we are only concerned with the science that actually helps us engineer great solutions.

I've said this many times and ill say it again engineering at university is not teaching you to be an engineer so I don't really understand why people find it odd that most of it is just memorising stuff for an exam....the whole point of the degree is that it is teaching you how to think like an engineer. You will only start to become a fully fledged engineer when you learn on the job and put those skills to practise.

Scientists find out WHY things are the way they are and introduce new problems....Engineers on the other hand tell them HOW to go about solving that problem and making a useful product out of it to benefit society.

If the degree is to teach you how to "think like an engineer", then why shouldn't engineering degrees be stopped and people just go straight into apprenticeships? Why pay so much money in tuition when you can learn AND be an engineer at the same time straight away (albeit an apprentice..).

Simple...you need to understand the technical knowledge and the mathematics in order to design complex systems. If you learned on the job sure you would be good at it but you can only go so far until you start needing the technical knowledge to understand complex systems.

I disagree on the basis that I don't believe people get "stuck" at some point. As you progress through the job, I believe people would naturally understand and gain the technical knowledge to develop such systems further. Plenty of people gain a deep level of understanding without needing to know much complex mathematics, its more "intuition". A prime example is how Aerodynamics is sometimes called "a black art".

lol have you been in a real engineering environment and see the amount of engineering that companies actually do behind the scenes? I highly doubt an apprentice would learn that all through practical work only. There's a lot of technical stuff you need to understand in order to design very complex systems which is why a degree in an aproppiate engineering discipline is a must on graduate jobs.