2

I notice that many top American engineering PhD programs ask for undergrad or master degrees in engineering or physics, but this discussion excludes math majors. How come? Are math majors not qualified because the training is vastly different from engineering?

I'm a math nerd interested in applications-oriented maths, but many of these research questions are worked on in engineering depts.

Miranda
  • 21
  • 2
  • Roger, mechanical eng and electric – Miranda Nov 24 '19 at 09:14
  • Why wouldn't engineering PhD programs ask for physics and engineering degrees? Take electrical engineering for example - do math majors learn about resistance and inductance? – Allure Nov 24 '19 at 09:43
  • If you can make a sufficiently strong case for your potential in engineering, then I suspect nearly all U.S. engineering Ph.D. programs would consider you. A former "roommate" of mine was able to do this, getting his Ph.D. from MIT in mechanical engineering. (I put "roommate" in quotes because we actually shared a house with a nearly invalid 87 year old, taking responsibility for him when his morning-to-afternoon nurse was not there.) – Dave L Renfro Nov 24 '19 at 09:53
  • I have to guess that in the US, "require" means "strongly desire". Elsewhere students might be expected to be further along. – Buffy Nov 24 '19 at 15:55
  • Both engineering and physics (should) have a good amount of lab hours, and the equipment used by physicist may not be very different from the lab equipment in engineering. Math majors rarely have any practice beyond theoretical work, and people in the engineering department may prefer to not have to train many people in using equipment that should be familiar to PhD students. – Cure Nov 25 '19 at 16:06

3 Answers3

2

I'd expect many math majors to have the skills needed to succeed in an engineering program, but they are likely to lack the vocabulary needed. This is especially true if the engineering is theoretical or computational.

I would not be surprised if math majors are accepted from time to time.

Anonymous Physicist
  • 98,828
  • 24
  • 203
  • 351
2

Yes generally the training in a math degree is quite different from that of an engineering degree, in particular when it comes to practical stuff.

In many circumstances the language describing the background required of a candidate is a little less limiting than “engineering or physics” and will encourage applicants from cognate fields. 



Of course mathematics is rather diverse in itself, and one can argue that training in more applied mathematics - theoretical signal analysis, control theory etc - should be considered as training in a cognate field. However, one can also appreciate that a student with a focus in number theory or algebraic topology might have to work harder to make a case. (For that matter, not every graduate in physics would be suitable for a graduate degree in engineering either...)

It seems to me the question is: do you really want to apply to a department that prima facie is implicitly suggesting you do not have the requirements of the program? Maybe the thing to do is to contact faculty members with research interests overlapping yours to ask if they would entertain supervising someone with your background?

ZeroTheHero
  • 27,311
  • 2
  • 48
  • 111
0

Because physics and engineering are closely related, both deal with how things work, why they work and how to make something.

It is often said thus: « a physicist designs it, but you need an engineer to make it work »

Not absolutely true, some physicists are happy in roles of engineers and vice versa...

So as their training is similar, they both have a suitable background for those phd’s...

However, if you put your application in and the advisor considers you then you may be picked - depends who applies often.

Solar Mike
  • 28,097
  • 7
  • 60
  • 100
  • That quote sounds inaccurate since the primary job of an engineer is to design things whether it's a pump, a chemical process, or a robotic system. – Cell Nov 24 '19 at 13:42
  • @Cell so claim the engineers. Of course physicists will claim engineers only make things work... – ZeroTheHero Nov 24 '19 at 14:33
  • @ZeroTheHero That makes no sense. Engineers literally take design courses in undergrad and licencing bodies like Professional Engineers Ontario in Canada will allow only those trained in engineering to legally provide design services to the public. – Cell Nov 24 '19 at 15:04
  • @Cell :D yeah sure: it makes no sense for engineers to claim they design things... I agree with this :D Of course the physicists will still claim engineers just rubber stamp designs done by non-engineers. But I'm pulling your leg... maybe... ;) – ZeroTheHero Nov 24 '19 at 15:13
  • @Cell there are competent engineers who can design things, and incompetent ones who should not. There are competent physicists who can certainly design things, and incompetent ones who should not. Competence is not in the name of the profession, and it's regrettable that certain tasks should be based on a degree name rather than proven competence (especially given that maintaining status in an organization requires a fee). – ZeroTheHero Nov 24 '19 at 15:19
  • I think this answer is missing a number of things. Somebody with background in experimental physics is quite possibly already on their way to becoming a good engineer. Somebody with background mainly in theoretical physics (depending on the applicant's experience) may find it much harder to get accepted in an engineering program. – Peter Shor Nov 24 '19 at 18:14