Scientist vs. Engineer

[Elite Engineer]

Just have some general questions regarding the two fields. My 24 year old friend is finally going to school after being out for 6 years. He's not sure what he should do, either go into research (scientist) or engineer.

 

Questions:

 

1.)- Is the occupation of "scientist" strictly limited to the life sciences (i.e. biology, chemistry)...or does it stretch into physics and computers. B/c whenever I read science article, it involves a biologist or chemist..very rarely a computer scientist or engineer.

2.) - Generally, engineering pays more...correct?

 

3.) - Does becoming a real scientist require a PhD?

 

4.) - Science careers are not as easy to obtain as engineering careers?

 

5.) This is a personal one. I work as a research "associate" for a diagnostics company. Can I say I'm a research "scientist" or is that stretching the truth a bit?

 

~EE

[Tampitump]

Everyone who uses the scientific method to uncover truth is a scientist by definition. Being an actual scientist as a profession is a different thing.

 

To the best of my understanding, your assumptions are pretty much generally correct. Engineering typically offers more promise in having employment and earning potential for more people who choose that field. Becoming a research scientist who is successful (which I believe pretty much entails obtaining tenured professorship at a research university) is not a very promising field for most I don't believe. This is because its not easy going out and researching new phenomena and/or building on knowledge that has already been established. I think that there are some people who make the transition from engineering or computer science programs to doing phds in natural sciences like physics or biology.

 

As far as having to have a phd in order to be a scientist as a profession, I'm not totally for sure on that one. I'm wanting to say that its not necessarily a requirement. If you can do that type of research on a bachelor's or master's level, then there's no problem with you doing so. Ideas are correct or incorrect on their own merits and the credentials of the person presenting them have zero to do with their validity or soundness. If Einstein had never stepped foot inside a classroom his entire life, his ideas would have been exactly as sound as they were with his level of education and not a touch less. But the honest truth is, most people require going through all of that education in order to be prepared to do research on that level. You may be the dispensation to that rule.

 

For me, I'm currently working on my bachelor's in computer science, but I'm also looking into possible pursuing a phd in some type of neuroscience-related field some day.

 

Don't take my words and the word of God. I'm still learning myself. There are many more people here more equipped to answer this question than me.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Tampitump

[studiot]

 

tampitump post#2

 

Everyone who uses the scientific method to uncover truth is a scientist by definition.

 

Good morning tampitump, your membership here has had a somewhat volatile ride so far so I am going to say +1 for encouragement following a well measured post.

 

In particular the quoted sentence.

 

On the OP question I would observe that the distinction is less than you might imagine, particularly in the american system.

 

Scientists do engineering (swansont is a scientist) and engineers discover things (Heaviside was an engineer.)

 

Science & engineering can also provide the basis for other careers. (Mrs Thatcher was a chemist, John Polkinghorne was a particle physicist.....)

Edited September 25, 2016 by studiot

[swansont]

1.)- Is the occupation of "scientist" strictly limited to the life sciences (i.e. biology, chemistry)...or does it stretch into physics and computers. B/c whenever I read science article, it involves a biologist or chemist..very rarely a computer scientist or engineer.

Pop-sci follows the money and the eyeballs. Biology gets a lot more funding than physics (the National Institute of Health got $31 billion last year), and writers generally don't like writing about physics (too much math, hard to work in the personal angle). So there's more writing about life sciences because there's more research going on and writers like to write about that.

[Klaynos]

1. No, I'm a physicist and my job title includes the word scientist.

 

2. Vast range for both. In my workplace the pay is about comparable.

 

3. No, many of my colleagues don't have PhDs. But in my experience having a PhD makes you a better scientist faster.

 

4. Engineering is a far broader term. Lots of people who are employed in jobs called engineers might not formally be doing engineering. It's a difficult thing to judge. I don't have many friends with physics backgrounds who have found it difficult to find work. Those who have are very very picky.

 

5. Depends on what you actually do. It's a difficult question to answer.

 

In my view to be a good scientist you need to be an ok engineer. To be a good engineer you need to be an ok scientist.

[StringJunky]

Engineer is a much misused term. I've known electrical and mechanical fitters call themselves that.

[ajb]

1.)- Is the occupation of "scientist" strictly limited to the life sciences (i.e. biology, chemistry)...or does it stretch into physics and computers. B/c whenever I read science article, it involves a biologist or chemist..very rarely a computer scientist or engineer.

Scientist covers a lot of things - generally science is about understanding our world, where engineering is about using this understanding. (This is a bit of a vulgar separation, but generally the case)

 

2.) - Generally, engineering pays more...correct?

Engineering covers a lot of things and a lot of professional levels. But generically I would say that there is more money in engineering than pure science.

 

3.) - Does becoming a real scientist require a PhD?

Depends who you ask. At a university a PhD would be expected, but in industry this is not necessarily the case.

 

4.) - Science careers are not as easy to obtain as engineering careers?

I would say that there are more opportunities in the engineering sector than pure science. Careers are very hard to forge in academia whatever the subject.

 

 

5.) This is a personal one. I work as a research "associate" for a diagnostics company. Can I say I'm a research "scientist" or is that stretching the truth a bit?

What was your actual title? In academia research associate has some specific meaning (which can be a little different country to country). To my mind calling yourself a research associate would be a stretch - but this may depend on who you are addressing.

[Endy0816]

Engineer is a much misused term. I've known electrical and mechanical fitters call themselves that.

I feel troubleshooting aspect of the job is where engineering knowledge can come into play. At other times you could admittedly be replaced by a well trained monkey.

[StringJunky]

I feel troubleshooting aspect of the job is where engineering knowledge can come into play. At other times you could admittedly be replaced by a well trained monkey.

A bit of engineering knowledge an engineer does not make.

[Endy0816]

A bit of engineering knowledge an engineer does not make.

 

I don't think we are using the same meaning exactly.

 

You engage in engineering, "the application of mathematics, empirical evidence and scientific, economic, social, and practical knowledge in order to invent, innovate, design, build, maintain, research, and improve structures, machines, tools, systems, components, materials, processes and organizations" and you can reasonably consider yourself an engineer. See using it as part of a title more as a description of capability, rather than an attempt to put on airs.

 

You want someone who produces quality work. May 'only' require following the manual or it may require factoring all the risks, costs, formulas; to accomplish something the manual doesn't cover.

 

Did operate a big ol' diesel engine that secretly wanted to be on a train, so consider myself covered in any event.

 

 

@OP: Probably best bet would be to determine his interests, available time and potential costs involved. Narrow the focus down some.

[StringJunky]

 

I don't think we are using the same meaning exactly.

 

You engage in engineering, "the application of mathematics, empirical evidence and scientific, economic, social, and practical knowledge in order to invent, innovate, design, build, maintain, research, and improve structures, machines, tools, systems, components, materials, processes and organizations" and you can reasonably consider yourself an engineer. See using it as part of a title more as a description of capability, rather than an attempt to put on airs.

 

You want someone who produces quality work. May 'only' require following the manual or it may require factoring all the risks, costs, formulas; to accomplish something the manual doesn't cover.

 

Did operate a big ol' diesel engine that secretly wanted to be on a train, so consider myself covered in any event.

 

 

@OP: Probably best bet would be to determine his interests, available time and potential costs involved. Narrow the focus down some.

My grandad always considered himself to be a fitter even though he engineered stuff. He always said you have to have a degree to be a proper one and they tend not to get their hands dirty; his son was an engineer in oil technology... he never got his hands dirty.

[CharonY]

Pop-sci follows the money and the eyeballs. Biology gets a lot more funding than physics (the National Institute of Health got $31 billion last year), and writers generally don't like writing about physics (too much math, hard to work in the personal angle). So there's more writing about life sciences because there's more research going on and writers like to write about that.

I will say that most is going toward medical science and applied biology, biochemistry or engineering. Fundamental biology tend to be highly dependent on NSF or smaller pots. In fact, biology as a discipline is quite split, which I feel is one of the reasons why certain areas prefer life-science as a term. Many of the life scientists you see are actually biochemists, for example.

 

To 4) most pure science graduates do not end up working as scientist. Whereas engineers almost by definition have an out-of research/academia career path. As ajb mentioned, having a science career is actually more competititve.

5) you would generally use your specific job title as the meaning can change a bit (and is quite different within and outside academia, not to mention in different systems/countries etc.).

As an example, in biotech or pharma positions in labs at Masters are often termed technician, analyst, or even, confusingly, engineer (e.g. see service engineer). There used to be specialists in various technical areas, but it seems to be more and more filled by PhDs.

Edited September 26, 2016 by CharonY

[StringJunky]

..... There used to be specialists in various technical areas, but it seems to be more and more filled by PhDs.

Do you think the degree has been dumbed down so that more people can have one; the consequence of this is that a higher level degree is required, than in times passed, in some professions to get the calibre of people they need? I don't know about the USA but it seems that way in the UK to me. The seems to have been a kind of inflation affecting the value of the degree.

 

The overall purpose of academic qualifications to grade each wave of potential students/employees according to their ability seems to have been lost in the name of allowing as many people as possible to have one.

Edited September 26, 2016 by StringJunky

[ajb]

StringJunky, there has for sure been a general increase in science graduates to the point that a degree is not enough anymore.

[StringJunky]

StringJunky, there has for sure been a general increase in science graduates to the point that a degree is not enough anymore.

Would you agree what I said about the original purpose of qualifications as filters?

 

Anecdotally: my niece who has a Bachelor's in a social services subject told me she now needs a Master's to do the job she wants to do, working with autistic children. This seems faintly absurd. In the 1970's and before, if you had a Master's you were, without doubt, exceptionally able; a swot.

Edited September 26, 2016 by StringJunky

[ajb]

Would you agree what I said about the original purpose of qualifications as filters?

 

I don't know if standard undergraduate study has been dumbed down, but for sure students have an expectation to pass based on he fact that they are paying for this. This, together with the numbers of graduates, means that a masters or similar is the best way to - as you put it - filter out students.

 

Anecdotally: my niece who has a Bachelor's in a social services subject told me she now needs a Master's to do the job she wants to do, working with autistic children.

I see this kind of thing all the time.

[StringJunky]

I don't know if standard undergraduate study has been dumbed down, but for sure students have an expectation to pass based on he fact that they are paying for this. This, together with the numbers of graduates, means that a masters or similar is the best way to - as you put it - filter out students.

 

 

I see this kind of thing all the time.

I think you are perhaps too young to have seen the striking transition that has occurred from the the grammar school system to the comprehensive - I just missed the 11+ but saw the change through the decades. I don't know if it's a good or bad thing but it's definitely different.

[swansont]

I will say that most is going toward medical science and applied biology, biochemistry or engineering. Fundamental biology tend to be highly dependent on NSF or smaller pots. In fact, biology as a discipline is quite split, which I feel is one of the reasons why certain areas prefer life-science as a term. Many of the life scientists you see are actually biochemists, for example.

 

 

Yes. I should have referred to the larger category of life sciences rather than just biology.

[CharonY]

Do you think the degree has been dumbed down so that more people can have one; the consequence of this is that a higher level degree is required, than in times passed, in some professions to get the calibre of people they need? I don't know about the USA but it seems that way in the UK to me. The seems to have been a kind of inflation affecting the value of the degree.

 

The overall purpose of academic qualifications to grade each wave of potential students/employees according to their ability seems to have been lost in the name of allowing as many people as possible to have one.

 

It is a mix of several issues. Foremost, the increasing number of graduates means that companies can hire people with higher education levels for lower positions. However, companies now also less willing to offer training and expect people to come in with relevant experience or to be more trained in uni. But you are also correct that there is less filtering as it is getting much more difficult to fail students. From personal experience (from a different system) in the olden days it was quite expected to have a drop rate of 50-60% (my class had about 70%, most due to chem, math or physics requirements). Nowadays a failure rate of 30% or higher would raise some concerns. It is part of the broad roles that unis are now expected to fulfill which it was never primarily designed to fulfill. . And as you can see even on this board, there is quite a confusion in the assumption that higher education is connected to well-defined career paths. Which intuitively makes sense if you consider the cost, but is clearly not how and why unis were established.

Edited September 26, 2016 by CharonY

[StringJunky]

 

It is a mix of several issues. Foremost, the increasing number of graduates means that companies can hire people with higher education levels for lower positions. However, companies now also less willing to offer training and expect people to come in with relevant experience or to be more trained in uni. But you are also correct that there is less filtering as it is getting much more difficult to fail students. From personal experience (from a different system) in the olden days it was quite expected to have a drop rate of 50-60% (my class had about 70%, most due to chem, math or physics requirements). Nowadays a failure rate of 30% or higher would raise some concerns. It is part of the broad roles that unis are now expected to fulfill which it was never primarily designed to fulfill. . And as you can see even on this board, there is quite a confusion in the assumption that higher education is connected to well-defined career paths. Which intuitively makes sense if you consider the cost, but is clearly not how and why unis were established.

It just occurred to me, that having paying students as the norm means that educational establishments will do everything in their power to make sure their clients pass, which further messes up the selection process. They are likely moving the goalposts nearer so students pass in order to maintain the necessary income level from students. Nobody will apply to an establishment with a high failure rate, will they? Apart from places like Oxford and Cambridge that have the prestige, most places can''t be strict on admissions and pass requirements for fear of committing financial suicide, I would think

[Delta1212]

I think there is a bit of a feedback loop going.

 

Let's assume someone with a college degree is more qualified than someone without a college degree.

 

If you have 10 job openings and 5 people apply who have a degree and 15 apply who don't, those 5 people with a degree are pretty much guaranteed a position and the 15 people without one have to compete for the remaining 5 slots amongst themselves.

 

If you have 10 job openings and 15 people with college degrees apply and 5 don't, a college degree no longer guarantees you one of the jobs because you are now competing with far more people who have the same qualification, and now the people without a degree have no shot at getting into a position at all.

 

Once you have gone from scenario 1 to scenario 2, a college degree stops being a sufficient qualification and starts being a necessary one. That means more people trying to get a degree because now it's no longer really a choice whether to get one or not, and failing someone out of college becomes a much bigger deal because the consequences for the student of not graduating are much more severe than they would have been in the first scenario. That leads to an ever increasing number of people with degrees, which means that degrees become ever more necessary and you have to do even more to give yourself that leg up that a degree used to be over all of the other job applicants who now also have a degree.

 

We've made college mandatory without also making sufficient moves to cover it as essential education the way that schooling through high school currently is.

[CharonY]

From the administrative perspective there is definitely a push toward higher enrollment and graduation rates. Note that the biggest chunk of money does not actually come from students, but from the government (State and Federal). However, the government money is usually tied to enrollment levels and may penalize drop-outs (though I am not sure whether it actually happens, would be interesting to look at).

However, admissions requirements are (typically) not exclusively governed by administration and involved faculty tend to balance things out to some degree. Usually once you get in it is harder to fail, though.

 

Edit: crossposted, meant to be a comment on post #20.

Edited September 26, 2016 by CharonY

[StringJunky]

From the administrative perspective there is definitely a push toward higher enrollment and graduation rates. Note that the biggest chunk of money does not actually come from students, but from the government (State and Federal). However, the government money is usually tied to enrollment levels and may penalize drop-outs (though I am not sure whether it actually happens, would be interesting to look at).

However, admissions requirements are (typically) not exclusively governed by administration and involved faculty tend to balance things out to some degree. Usually once you get in it is harder to fail, though.

 

Edit: crossposted, meant to be a comment on post #20.

Right.

[waitforufo]

Everyone who uses the scientific method to uncover truth is a scientist by definition.

 

I'm not sure I agree with this. I would say that a scientist is a person striving to expand human knowledge of nature, while an engineer is a person who strives to put that knowledge to work. The scientific method has been shown to be an essential tool or process, used by scientist, to expand human knowledge. Engineers also use the scientific method, but generally do so to insure a proper application of knowledge obtained by scientists. Education simply enhances one's ability to act as a scientist or engineer, but is not required. I would argue that most people with science degrees predominately perform a role best described as engineering, while few people with degrees in engineering act primarily as scientists.

 

StringJunky mentions that his father was a pipe fitter. My grandfather was a person that operated a train locomotive. Both of these gentleman were referred to as engineers. Both were also putting knowledge to work.

[studiot]

This article might interest some. Reference at bottom of page