Is Chemical Engineering the most well-rounded STEM field?

Is Chemical Engineering the most well-rounded STEM field?

>Chemistry
>Physics
>Engineering
>Math

Chemists don't cover the practical or industrial application.
Physicists don't cover them either.
Engineers often don't take more than Gen Chem 1 and maybe 2.
Mathematicians are basically philosophers who focus on numbers and ignore that Kant was a cunt.

So if you want to study in depth in the fields of math, physics, chemistry, and engineering, isn't ChemEng the best choice? Maybe Petroleum as well since it's basically OChemEng?

It's quite well-rounded, but you don't go into depth in anything.

Probably the most broadly applicable topic you study in ChemE is Gibbs' energy and statistical mechanics. It actually comes up a lot in neural nets/ machine learning.

Almost every single thing you learn in ChemE is related to probability because macro-scale chemical systems have on the order of like 10^100 components.

How much deeper does an actual chemist go than a chemical engineer?

I assume chemical engineers still need Gen Chem 1+2, OChem 1+2, and PChem 1+2, right?
Plus they need the usual 12 credits of Calc plus some DiffEq, Linear Algebra, etc.
Then they still have to take Physics 1, 2, and something modern.
Then they still have to take the basic Statics, Thermodynamics, Fluids, and some industrial/chemical stuff from engineering.

I know the only thing differentiating them from other engineers is they take Chem courses while Mechs take dynamics/solids/etc and Electricals take circuits/signals/etc.

I know mathematics majors take intermediate and maybe advanced calc and algebra courses, plus topology/discrete/etc.

Not sure what physics majors do beyond the first 3 courses...

So it seems like ChemEngs are still doing 80% of what the other majors all do.

No, and the huge number of female chemical engineering students I've met tells me its a meme degree. Physics and maths are all that matters, no other degree has any meaning or value at all. If you aren't smart enough for that, you should just keep your mouth shut and do your pleb job

main difference between chem and cheme are the lab classes (o/p/a/analytics in chem vs measure some tubes length and calculate how much water can flow through in cheme forexample )

>students
who cares about students
compare graduate numbers and then we can talk

>Physics and maths are all that matters

The device you typed this with was engineered.
The signal was engineered.
The servers were engineered.
You're likely wearing clothes that were engineered.
Made in a factory that was engineered.
Out of material harvested with agricultural equipment that was engineered.
Grown in a field designed by a biosystems/agricultural engineer.

Engineering predates math and physics, and math and physics largely come about explicitly to solve engineering problems.

Engineering is how human minds change reality.
Physics is the theory behind the changes.
Math is the set of tools.

∴ Engineering is the pinnacle of human thought.

>Engineering is the pinnacle of human thought.
no its not, if it was mathematicians and physicists wouldn't have far and away the highest iq's ever recorded in human beings. They wouldn't be bale to dabble in other subjects like Engineering, CS, Medicine, Cybenetics, Logic, Phil, Bio, Chem without trying. If that was the case physics majors wouldn't have the highest crystallized intelligence, and Mathematicians wouldn't have the highest fluid intelligence. But they do. Demonstrably so, and Engineers don't even require high iq's to be successful. You're just jealous. Everyone who isn't a maths or physics graduate is dejected and ressentiment filled and knows they are intellectually inferior. Its plain as day. You put a dumb image, a series of dumb propositions and then a dumb conclusion to your argument. You're an obvious example of an autistic midwit. You're smarter than most normalfags but significantly less intelligent than any number of brilliant mathematicians from any part of the world. You know this, you shied away from maths to study an easier field, because it scares you, because you're unintelligent relative to them. You shied away from physics for the same reaons. All of you who aren't involved in maths or physics know perfectly well why you aren't: either too low of g, or too low of c or both. There's nothing else to say. Engineers can be slightly more intelligent than Bio and CS majors, I don't even think they're as intelligent as biochemists and genomics people.

>thinks IQ is a valid measure of intelligence

>even if it was, doesn't realize that it's nearly irrelevent compared to the numerous real-world factors that are more important to performance

>ignores that all of the best physicists and mathematicians in history were engineers first and foremost, working to solve real problems

>goes off on a tirade of insults after the first sentence or two, like a petulant child, making sure their post doesn't get fully read because nobody has time to waste reading the salty, salty tears of a useless, ivory tower academic who can't change a tire yet still thinks they're superior because they can tell you the formula for the bounds of the lug nuts.

You left philosophers out of there. They routinely test in the top 3 for IQs by major. But they're inconvenient to your little theory so you choose to ignore them.

I ask that if you keep on with this crying, you do so WITHOUT using engineered tools to do so.

Go ahead. discard everything around you that was designed by an engineer. See how long you survive.

ChemE fag here. ChemE won't go into real depth in pure chemistry because that's not the point. You do basic chem courses before going off into transport (you do an absolute fuck load of transport), unit ops and process design. Also at my school ChemE had our own labs, with stuff like adsorption columns and things chem majors don't care about.

If you do ChemE it's good to focus on an area you want to work in when you graduate. Like I took a lot of bioprocess classes and I now work in bio based production. A friend of mine did a lot of polymers/materials and now works for Intel.

I guess I'd say that you can go almost anywhere with a ChemE degree, you just need to choose your direction.

I have to take both Gen Chem 1 and 2 and I'm a ME major.

Engineering majors are the only non-Physics, non-Math majors that could jump into a Math/Physics major program and succeed with the best shot out of all majors. Many EE and ME majors who cross into EE can go on to (and do) get a degree in physics. This board loves to shit on Engineers but even Math and Physics guys know Engineers are 3rd behind them in outright knowledge of Math and Physics.

>Engineers don't even require high iq's to be successful.
If it requires engineering work, yes they do. It's just that many become paper pushers who don't do any engineering period. Like another user said, Engineers along with Philosophers rank at the very top of the IQ scale along with Physicists and Mathematicians but you guys always ignore that. You also always use the broad term "engineer" to describe all engineers as one monolithic group when in fact the disparity between an EE and Civil Engineer are huge.

Not him but to be fair IQ is a pretty good indicator of intelligence, or at least it is a good predictor for things like mortality rate, income level, education and general life achievement, and of course IQ correlates with g score. It would be I think foolish to completely disregard IQ.

>Mathematicians are basically philosophers

only thing I agree with on your post

>6 lines of constant, unrelenting bitching
Holy shit this is some butthurt. The only place I have seen people with a bigger chip on their shoulder is in the liberal arts.

Well all those subjects are also included in Material Science which isn't a meme degree and is pretty decent

>This board loves to shit on Engineers but even Math and Physics guys know Engineers are 3rd behind them in outright knowledge of Math and Physics.
You mean second?
They know more physics than any mathematician and often as much math as a physicist.

I don't know about your country, on mine industrial engineers take statics, dynamics, materials, circuits, thermodynamics, fluids, Gen Chem 1+2, physics 1-3,4 calculus, 3 statistics, programming (c, python and... I believe java), among other shit. Even so, some people mock them because they also take some business related courses that other engineers deem as easy, but I believe they are the most rounded ones because well, they do learn a bit of everything and with a curious mind they have everything they need to learn more profound stuff

>They know more dicks than any mathematician and often as much penis as a physicist.
ftfy

>female engineers
this, it seems like half the chem e's are girls, and a lot of them are quite attractive. In general percentage female is inversely correlated with the amount of math and rigor. I'm an Junior EE, and of the 30 of us, there is 1 girl

That's geology OP

Same, in EE and there is maybe 1 or girls in it. The few there are seem smart on a surface level and do well on tests though

>IQ is a pretty good indicator of intelligence, or at least it is a good predictor for things like mortality rate, income level, education and general life achievement

Why do you think IQ is a predictor of those things rather than those things being a predictor of IQ?

cheme based major

>he thinks his ochem 1+2 is equivalent to computational chemistry, organic synthesis, ligand/catalyst design, bio-organic + med chem, polymer chem, spectroscopy, seperation
ChemE majors have a fucking CHILDLIKE understanding of chemistry, which is fine because that's not the point. Don't be so full of yourself - I fucking love making your type bawl when I grade your assignments and tests.

Fuck engineering kids.

>another insecure chem major shows up
>ignores the whole topic to act like anyone is saying that generalization = specialization

Read that again, brainlet.
The whole thread is about generalization and you replied as if you were talking to someone claiming that dabbling in Chemistry was the same as concentrating in Chemistry and studying it depth.

THE POST YOU'RE REPLYING TO DOES NOT EXIST.
THE PERSON YOU'RE REPLYING TO DOES NOT EXIST.
YOU'RE POSTING IRRELEVENT BULLSHIT AT A FAKE PERSON YOU IMAGINED IN YOUR MINISCULE CEREBRUM.

>Mathematicians are basically philosophers who focus on numbers and ignore that Kant was a cunt.

That's certainly revealing.

It all boils down to theorems and axioms and truth tables in the end. If you keep asking "how" or "why" long enough as you dive into mathematical theorems and rules you quickly end up in the field of Philosophy of Mathematics.

Granted, it's now as large or even larger than the rest of Philosophy, especially if you count its application fields, like Physics, Chem, Eng, etc.

We also usually don't teach Philosophy of Math until late undergrad classes. Many people go from kindergarten through calculus, diffeq, and linear algebra before really, truly diving into proofs and theorems. So they're learning the ideas in the philosophy but not the arguments behind it.

The analogy to a Kant would be if we taught people what his categorical imperatives are without explaining his arguments behind them or giving them much of an overview of Kant's life and work. Until 3000 level undergrad courses.

I was memeing you about the numbers because it implies you thought that mathematics is computation.


Saying mathematicians are philosophers except being STEM and actually doing applicable work would be a fair assessment in all honesty. In fact historically mathematicians were also often times philosophers (even 20th century ones).That is still true today to some degree. For example, I know plenty of math majors (grad students at this point) who are well read in philosophy and took philosophy (damn euros with their quality k-12 educations) throughout school.

Kant was not a cunt you fucking faggot the categorical imperative is genius you autist

chemical engineering is a good choice, not too saturated, it has strong ties to pharma and petrochem, literally everything is a chemical

You should realize that him being a cunt is irrelevent to the value or veracity or validity of his work. No matter how good his work was, the man himself was objectively a bastard.

And also an autist. There's a story in which a glass was broken at a dinner party and so he had his servant clean it up and set the shards before him, and then he took the whole party outside to give the glass a proper burial. Everywhere someone recommended he would reject, claiming someone might injure themselves on a shard some years down the road. Eventually he dug a very deep hole next to a wall in a corner and buried the glass there.

Then there's some speculation that he fired his long-time, faithful servant on the day the servant's wife died because the servant helped himself to a bottle of wine that day. Kant said, "rules are rules, gtfo."

I would submit Biomedical Engineering is also pretty well-rounded. Organic chemistry, various bio, Calc 4, statistics, classical physics, electric circuits.

I'm actually Biochem - I'd say they're well rounded but that program requires zero engineering - but I know a BME and the dude seems like he knows a bit of everything. Also works in a kickass lab when he's not TAing for ochem.

are you ugly? a virgin? lonely?

im a chem major, taking orgo 2, there are some cheme people in class, and some, a few, are rather brilliant, even if it pains me to say it because my thing is pchem and orgo just kills me

they dont have to do any of the labs though, nor do they have to take stuff like spectroscopy

make of it what you will

>girls are scurry
That first kiss is right around the corner, hang in there.

>You're an obvious example of an autistic midwit.
I think you might be projecting a bit

That's pretty standard is it not? ChemEs have to do orgo and pchem as well.

ChemE's aren't supposed to have a rigorous understanding of chemistry. Seriously, try reading the thread and see all the other material they have to learn. Lab slaves like yourself are supposed to collect data so ChemE's can scale up your synthesizes. Also, the notion that chemistry students have a better understanding of separations is laughable. Your idea of distillation is probably a round bottom flask connected to a condenser.

Tbqh I think a good biomedical engineering program is more well rounded than chemE. Same issues as chemE though, theres a lack of depth. Which is exactly why engineers have to work with scientists in the first place

>Your idea of distillation is probably a round bottom flask connected to a condenser.
Non Chem person here. I would be interested in knowing the other approach(es), sounds intriguing.

A round bottom flask is fine for the lab when you're working with small volumes and only two distinct phases. But imagine trying to scale that process up to distill thousands of liters at a time. The surface are of the distillation vessel to the fluid is drastically decreased. This makes it impossible to evenly heat the fluid leading to local zones of high temperature were both components would become volatile, and therefore your distillate would be contaminated. Furthermore, a larger round bottom flask would be far too energy intensive and extremely slow... not cost efficient in the slightest.

To get around this ChemEng's design distillation towers (see pic related). The basic principle is to have a liquid phase falling downward and a vapor phase travelling upward through the column. There is energy transfer between the phases, so we expect an increasing temperature gradient as we travel up the column. The flow of the fluids is held up by partitioning the column into sections. In each section there is a different vapor-liquid equilibrium because of the temperature gradient. By adjusting the number of equilibrium stages, feed flow rate and location, heat duties of the rebolier and condenser, and the size of the column we can target specific levels of separation for large volumes of fluid.

This can end up being a fairly complex design process, to the point where there are entire texts dedicated to it. Distillation design by Kister would be a great starting point if you want to learn more.

Chemical Engineers use them all, and are unique at the same time.
HAIL CHEMENG

...

Cool shit mayne

I admire your passion for chemical engineering

>Maybe Petroleum as well since it's basically OChemEng?
Your entire post stinks of shit, but especially this last part.

>autistic math/physics student strikes again

You won’t get in-depth math from chemistry. That’s for sure. You’ll get a lot of applied mathematics and some calculus stuff but that’s not half of math.

Wow, I thought people were memeing, but this place literally is filled with autists. Only a person on the spectrum could have typed that out and not realized how pathetic they sound.

>hurdur for a gains paragraphs worth of adhoms
And Veeky Forums died.
/thread
/board

oh sweet lord jesus have merceh