What is engineering?

You don't have to have done engineering to know what engineering is in the same way you don't need to be scientist to know what science is. It could be that I am coming from a science background that may be a lot less rigid than an engineering background. I was specially taught that there is no high authority that decides what is correct or not in science.

I never said the "clubs" were a bad thing. I want bridges to be safe. It can be a good way of knowing if someone is experienced and in the case of Civil Engineering they is a very good reason to regulate who can build them to make sure the buildings, roads and bridges we use are not going to break and kill people. I'm just saying that the clubs are not essential for someone to engineer something or to be classed as an engineer.

You just acknowledged there are different fields of physics. Pure physics isn't engineering sure. However Applied physics overlaps with engineering very much so. If your research is based on the physics of how graphene behaves at extreme temperatures and pressures then that is pure science. You are doing it for it's own sake (although it can be motivated by the potential practical uses that could come out of your research). But if you are a physicist involved in the research and development of little graphene electrodes that can be placed in the brain to treat motor neuron diseases then they are in the field of nano and bioengineering. You can get into that kind of field just by doing a science phd or even just from a graduate base line if you worked your way up though a biotech company to something. All that matter is you somehow prove you are knowledgeable and skilled in your area. You don;t need to be a charted engineer or anything like that.

Ultimately I don't care what you call it. You can keep your stupid engineering badge/snob factor. If someone engineers a solution that cures people of parkinson's disease I care more about the achievement than what we call the people who made it happen. Same with those who build bridges.

"Applied physics is physics which is intended for a particular technological or practical use.^[1] It is usually considered as a bridge or a connection between physics and engineering" ~ Wiki


"Basic research, also called pure research or fundamental research, is scientific research aimed to improve scientific theories for improved understanding or prediction of natural or other phenomena.^[1] Applied research, in turn, uses scientific theories to develop technology or techniques to intervene and alter natural or other phenomena. Though often driven by curiosity,^[2]basic research fuels applied science's innovations.^[3] The two aims are often coordinated in research and development."

It's not like I am in the minority here of what counts as engineering anyway. You are.

I'm a Bachelor of Science in Physics from a uni that does a lot of Applied Physics so I think I have more bits of paper than you when it comes to physics and the different schools within it and how they relate to engineering.

Almost certainly, either through a grad scheme or direct application.
Most companies aren't that bothered about your degree subject as long as it's a decent degree. I have a friend who did medical science working as an engineer.

No, its not. It's laiden with assumptions and estimations that someone without experience in engineering would not know what assumptions or estimations to make.

Your friend is almost certainly the exception to the rule. Graduate level engineering jobs that do not specify an MEng are becoming rarer and rarer.

I think you need to realise that engineering isn't as elitist as you're trying to make out.

Grad schemes are designed to bridge whatever course you've done and give you the knowledge you require to do the job.

It's one of the reasons companies are moving away from grad schemes to degree apprenticeships. Grads who think they know it all require breaking and retraining to think appropriately for the role. With an apprentice, you've had them longer, taught them to think the way that is required to do the job, and you're not having to pay them as much as a self enabled grad who thinks they know more than they actually do.

Can you still pursue a career in an engineering if you do a degree in physics instead?

I'm not suggesting engineering is elitist. (As a career and profession, I think it's the opposite of elitist, actually.) It's not elitist for an engineering company to want its engineering graduates to have an engineering degree, any more than it is elitist for the NHS to want its doctors to have medicine degrees.



For engineering jobs there is a base level of knowledge one would be expected to have before starting the position, and one would not have that knowledge without an engineering degree.

Otherwise, there would be no point in even recruiting a graduate if you are going to teach them everything they need to know on the job.



It's worth pointing out that a lot of engineering apprenticeships are training the apprentice towards a technician role or a CAD designer, if office based. Well, at least that's been the case at the companies I have worked at. There is nothing wrong with this, and companies have probably neglected recruitment of young people into these types of posts to a much greater extent than they have with regards to their engineering intakes. But I'm not sure if such apprentices are moving into engineering roles like what a graduate would be expected to do.

I'd still argue that an engineering degree isn't necessary, purely because there's so many processes to follow, it kind of makes it idiot proof, but I can see the merit in hiring someone with an engineering degree, you've at least got the theoretical knowledge to work in advanced engineering for example. (NB. I sometimes feel like they concentrate all the idiots around me, some of the things you hear are scary)

Technical roles are certainly what they're looking for in terms of apprentices, but at the same time, they're filling up a huge variety of roles with them. Grads seem to end up, from my experience, in fairly fixed process jobs. Test, analyse, report type jobs. There's merits for grads and apprentices, but it seems like my company at least wants to focus more on apprentices because by the time you are qualified, you've got the right mindset to move anywhere within the company.

It's all speculative obviously, but they seem to take on less grads each year and expand apprenticeships (I'm guessing because of an ageing work force, and you get more commitment from apprentices)

You are at a much higher advantage in pretty much every case if you did an engineering degree and are looking at an engineering career. Some disciplines require a specific degree, civil engineering requires a civil engineering degree, there are apprenticeships for it but you cannot get to a as high career as with a degree.

Depends on the type you are looking at.

I'd still argue that an engineering degree isn't necessary, purely because there's so many processes to follow, it kind of makes it idiot proof,

It's all speculative obviously, but they seem to take on less grads each year and expand apprenticeships (I'm guessing because of an ageing work force, and you get more commitment from apprentices)