Electrical Engineering vs Electronics Engineering vs Computer Engineering

[rstofer]

I break it down like this:

Electrical:  Power from generation up to, but not necessarily including, utilization.  This includes the design of utility systems, industrial plants, commercial building/lighting and all the way down to residential branch circuits.  In other words, 'mains'.  electrical and mechanical engineers work together to design a dam and the electrical engineers get the power to your cell phone wall wart.  Sure, they will have to include other branches of engineering to keep the power poles from falling down.

Electronic: A type of utilization equipment.  Networking, wifi, applying microcontrollers, radios, TVs and all the gadgets we use daily including GPS and cell phones.  Circuit design and PCB layout fall into this category.

Computer Engineering:  Design of the internals of processors.  The stuff inside that microcontroller and how it all ties together.  Logic design, floating point hardware, all the peripherals inside the chip but not necessarily including how to apply the chip or even how to lay it out.  Back in the day, this included design of mainframes but there is less of that going on these days.

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/mobile/electrical-and-electronics-engineers.htm

Computer Science:  Design of algorithms for computer simulation/solution of classes of problems.  This will often include designing algorithms to take advantage of specific processors designed by computer engineers and implemented by electronic engineers using power provided by electrical engineers.

As to the degree programs themselves, I have no idea how it breaks down but there is very much a difference in focus.  Power engineers have little in common with circuit designers.

When selecting a major in the US, look through the BLS site above to find out what it pays where you want to live.  Look especially at the number of jobs in the field and the expected growth.  Then throw out electrical/electronic engineering (BLS lumps them) as low growth and focus on computer science.

[ejeffrey]

From this question we can tell that you haven't bothered to read the link I gave you...

--Electrical Engineering (Main Degree)
------ Electronics Engineering (Discipline of Main Degree)
------------- Computer Engineering (Sub-field of Discipline)

What I mean above ^ is that more you move down the list it get more specialised in your degree.
So, that are all related by the main degree of somewhat ?

No. (And the wackypedia article on "electrical engineering" is pretty much rubbish)

If you want an overly simple distinction between electrical and electronic engineering, then:

• electrical engineering deals with 0.1-400kV, and >10A, and with getting electric power to your home and desk
• electronic engineering deals with <50V, <10A, and with using electricity to do things

That isn't right in most of the US.  In the US, "electrical engineering" is the broader term and you can specialize in "electronics" or "power", which are roughly the two things you described.  But every university divides these things up differently and has different sets of required courses.  In the US there is no mandatory licensing of electrical engineers (although some jobs would require a Professional Engineer certification) so there is no enforced curriculum to match a licensing exam.  Other countries will do things differently.

Computer engineering deals with the theory of what can be done with computation,

That is almost completely wrong, at least in the US, and I suspect elsewhere, or at least your wording is quite ambiguous and sounds like the conventional description of computer science or even theoretical computer science.  Computer engineering generally deals with the hardware design of computers.  So things like cache hierarchy, interconnect interfaces, and  a whole host of other things.  But again, there is substantial overlap with EE and CS, and the division will depend on university and country.

Which reinforces the point many people have made: There is no universal definition of these terms, and there is no point in trying to describe exactly what they are in a context free environment.  It is also not important.  What is important is what you actually do or want to do.

[tggzzz]

Computer engineering deals with the theory of what can be done with computation,

That is almost completely wrong, at least in the US, and I suspect elsewhere, or at least your wording is quite ambiguous and sounds like the conventional description of computer science or even theoretical computer science.  Computer engineering generally deals with the hardware design of computers.  So things like cache hierarchy, interconnect interfaces, and  a whole host of other things.  But again, there is substantial overlap with EE and CS, and the division will depend on university and country.

Actually... you're right about "computer science". Brain fart.

I can't remember ever seeing a "computer engineering" course. Sounds far too specialised to be useful as a first degree - I would expect there to be as many people employed doing what you describe as there are writing compilers (to avoid ambiguity, that's not many!).

Which reinforces the point many people have made: There is no universal definition of these terms, and there is no point in trying to describe exactly what they are in a context free environment.  It is also not important.  What is important is what you actually do or want to do.

Yes, especially the last part!

[EEVblog]

In the US, there are multiple degree accreditation bodies.

Here we have Engineers Australia, and they don't distinguish between disciplines, you are either a graduate member or not.
I don't believe there is any engineering degree program in Australia that is not accredited with them.

[EEVblog]

When selecting a major in the US, look through the BLS site above to find out what it pays where you want to live.  Look especially at the number of jobs in the field and the expected growth.

I think that can be a mistake trying to "chase" or predict the market. First priority should be to do what interests you.

[EEVblog]

I can't remember ever seeing a "computer engineering" course. Sounds far too specialised to be useful as a first degree

Common here:
https://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/study-with-us/undergraduate-degrees/computer-engineering
https://www.rmit.edu.au/study-with-us/engineering/computer-engineering

https://www.idp.com/australia/search/computer-engineering/
  at those prices...
Would you like Arts with your engineering?
https://www.idp.com/australia/Categories/Computing-and-IT/Computer-Engineering/Bachelor-of-Engineering-HonoursBachelor-of-Arts-Computer-Engineering/p/PRG-AU-00291735
https://www.handbook.unsw.edu.au/undergraduate/programs/2019/3961

[Brumby]

First priority should be to do what interests you.

THIS ^ ^ ^

By pursuing a direction that interests you, you may well develop that interest into a passion, which will be motivation in itself to do well.  If you try predicting the market to choose a degree, then you risk (a) getting the prediction wrong and (b) hanging a millstone around your neck for the duration, making all those years intolerable.

Then there's the simple matter that there's no guarantee that you will find a job that meshes with the degree you get.  Sometimes it can be a matter of applying for a job where your degree shows capabilities in the general requirements of that job, but not ticking every single box.  Choose a degree that was a chore and the job you get might also turn out to be a chore.

However, choose a degree that is founded on what interests you and you will find that degree will have a much better chance of landing you into a job that interests you.  What's more, your interest will be noticed and you are more likely to be offered other opportunities.

[Gregg]

I think that can be a mistake trying to "chase" or predict the market. First priority should be to do what interests you.

Your second priority is to get a well-rounded background so that you can follow along the many twists and turns a career path may take. 
Often overlooked is how to succeed in corporate and individual politics; learn what matters and what does not; how to network with the right people and how to never burn your bridges along the way.

[Brumby]

Your second priority is to get a well-rounded background so that you can follow along the many twists and turns a career path may take.

That is very important.  A degree is only one part of that and it is not impossible that 5 or 10 years down the track, you could be working in an area for which your degree holds little relevance.

 
Often overlooked is how to succeed in corporate and individual politics; learn what matters and what does not; how to network with the right people and how to never burn your bridges along the way.

That is a life lesson.  One that will become extremely important (unfortunately) the higher you rise in an organisation.  The dangers you will encounter are things that you must be ready for and may come from directions you never suspect.  The politics you see surrounding Government on the nightly news is nothing to some of the politics I have seen.

[sward]

I haven't heard of an Electronics Engineering degree, only an "Electronics Engineer" (which is an Electrical Engineer that works with or specializes in electronics, as oppose to say, power systems).

At my school, we have Electrical Engineering and Computer Systems Engineering.

They are quite different, with the latter taking far more on the subject of computers, as you might expect.

You can often see the Roadmaps for different programs with all of the course requirements, and you can look up what each course is.

[bsfeechannel]

Going by the name, there seems to be 50% overlap...

Why do you ask?

Because I wanna know the difference between them.

These terms have a historical significance. The engineer specialized in anything electrical or magnetic was first called an electrical engineer. By the late fifties an electrical engineer more specialized in TV, radio and telephone systems was started to be called an electronics engineer. This same electronics engineer was summoned to design computers and this further specialization created the computer engineer in the late seventies/early eighties.

But as others pointed out previously, these distinctions tend to get blurred a little.

[IanB]

I can't remember ever seeing a "computer engineering" course.

It's offered at UCSD for example, and many students choose it. The course content overlaps somewhat with EE:

http://ece.ucsd.edu/undergraduate/computer-engineering-major

[soldar]

These terms have a historical significance. The engineer specialized in anything electrical or magnetic was first called an electrical engineer. By the late fifties an electrical engineer more specialized in TV, radio and telephone systems was started to be called an electronics engineer. This same electronics engineer was summoned to design computers and this further specialization created the computer engineer in the late seventies/early eighties.

Yes, very often there are historical reasons for why names and studies evolved a certain way. In Spain, over a century ago, electric motors, transformers, generators, etc were covered by "Industrial Engineers". Let's say "power". Telegraphy, telephone, radio, TV, etc. were "Telecommunications Engineers". Let's say "signals". Then when computers came along both schools would have a program on computers but may be with a slightly different focus. Then a Computer science school would open but they would focus more on software than on hardware. So, there are many different degrees that overlap each other to a great extent.

[tggzzz]

Going by the name, there seems to be 50% overlap...

Why do you ask?

Because I wanna know the difference between them.

These terms have a historical significance. The engineer specialized in anything electrical or magnetic was first called an electrical engineer. By the late fifties an electrical engineer more specialized in TV, radio and telephone systems was started to be called an electronics engineer. This same electronics engineer was summoned to design computers and this further specialization created the computer engineer in the late seventies/early eighties.

My alma mater had the first Electronic Engineering degree in the country, in 1947.

Personally I chose (and would still choose) to avoid a course that specialised too much too early. Examples: telecom engineering, computer engineering, but of course that would depend on my seeing the specifics of the syllabus.

I suspect I was unusual in knowing what I wanted to do before uni, and having sufficient knowledge to be able to usefully distinguish between the various courses' output. That was helped by an Asimov short story that remains just as valid and relevant: http://www.abelard.org/asimov.php (Profession by Isaac Asimov (1957))

But as others pointed out previously, these distinctions tend to get blurred a little.

Yes indeed, blurred for good reasons. But there are also significant distinctions.

[IDEngineer]

A degree is only one part of that and it is not impossible that 5 or 10 years down the track, you could be working in an area for which your degree holds little relevance.

Very true. Two of the most senior people in a software company we did business with years ago had degrees in Biology and Astronomy. I asked the Astronomy guy WTF, and he replied "I love astronomy but I found out there aren't that many paying jobs in the field." Hence the danger for folks who "follow their bliss" or whatever and get doctorates in topics for which there is near-zero demand. They end up with massive student debt and mostly saying phrases like "Would you like fries with that?"

You definitely need to do what you love doing, but with a healthy dose of market-based reality included.

EDIT: I'll risk offending a few people and add that I haven't been overly impressed with folks who have only Computer Science (CS) degrees. I fired one such person years ago when it became evident they didn't understand binary, hex, ASCII, and how to relate one to another. I mean SERIOUSLY.  Yet this person had a great sounding resume and had passed through interviews with multiple senior Engineers to get the job. I paid a lot more personal attention to hiring decisions after that.

[0culus]

In defense of CS (I have degrees in CS and mathematics), a LOT of undergrad CS programs just plain suck. Fortunately, my school has one of the better CS programs out there. Freshmen coming in are required to take a 101 level course where they start early with basics that everyone should know. like converting integer bases. They work through the excellent "From NAND to Tetris" as well. The very next classes are very rigorous but well designed courses in C, basic data structures and algorithms, computer system organization, and basic system programming. Students who survive that sequence are generally very well prepared not only for demanding upper division courses but also real world programming. The best part is, there's a very good support structure for those classes with lots of more experienced undergrad TAs who grade homework and provide office hours during the week and on weekends.

However, a lot of CS programs don't provide anything like that. And it shows in the abilities of the students they produce.  Many I've met can recite the best big-O algorithm and all the CS theory you want, but at the end of the day, they can't program their way out of a wet paper bag.

[EEVblog]

A degree is only one part of that and it is not impossible that 5 or 10 years down the track, you could be working in an area for which your degree holds little relevance.

Very true. Two of the most senior people in a software company we did business with years ago had degrees in Biology and Astronomy. I asked the Astronomy guy WTF, and he replied "I love astronomy but I found out there aren't that many paying jobs in the field." Hence the danger for folks who "follow their bliss" or whatever and get doctorates in topics for which there is near-zero demand. They end up with massive student debt and mostly saying phrases like "Would you like fries with that?"

Phil who you've seen on the blog a bit has a PhD is laser physics. Apparently that was a hot thing at the time but turns out there are no jobs in the field, not here anyway. At one point he ended up selling TV's at David Jones (that's a retail store here, seriously). Realised the only options were go back and teach or research at a uni, or spend several more years on top of his already very long PhD to become a Patent attorney. Albeit one that specialises in optics and other stuff for which his PhD has been useful. Now earns very good money in a fairly stable market segment, but the job is a chore (imagine charging and accounting for every 6 minutes of your time every day).

[EEVblog]

EDIT: I'll risk offending a few people and add that I haven't been overly impressed with folks who have only Computer Science (CS) degrees. I fired one such person years ago when it became evident they didn't understand binary, hex, ASCII, and how to relate one to another. I mean SERIOUSLY.  Yet this person had a great sounding resume and had passed through interviews with multiple senior Engineers to get the job. I paid a lot more personal attention to hiring decisions after that.

I interviewed someone who's resume said they were a microcontroller expert, top uni etc, but couldn't name two brands of microcontrollers 

[tggzzz]

EDIT: I'll risk offending a few people and add that I haven't been overly impressed with folks who have only Computer Science (CS) degrees. I fired one such person years ago when it became evident they didn't understand binary, hex, ASCII, and how to relate one to another. I mean SERIOUSLY.  Yet this person had a great sounding resume and had passed through interviews with multiple senior Engineers to get the job. I paid a lot more personal attention to hiring decisions after that.

I interviewed someone who's resume said they were a microcontroller expert, top uni etc, but couldn't name two brands of microcontrollers 

Well, yes. There are bovine excrement artistes everywhere. We've all interviewed people where we had to lead them to some answers to basic questions.

But that doesn't say anything useful about one type of course over another. It does indicate something about the specific candidate and, if you see sufficient people from the same course then it may indicate something about that course.

I remember having a vacation student working for me. He had left the same course I had done a few years earlier, and gone to another university and a course with more or less the same syllabus. He was dreadful, and his eventually getting a degree from the second university lead me to distrust that institution thereafter. Over the years afterwards it became clear that distrust was shared with many people.

Overall, for the kind of position's I've needed to fill, I had decent success by choosing candidates that:

• had a reasonable degree from a course/institution where they would have had to learn the theory
• been able to demonstrate personal projects where they had put that theory into practice and learned from their mistakes

Theory without practice is mental masturbation; practice without theory is blind fumbling. We need both.

[IDEngineer]

...become a Patent attorney. Now earns very good money in a fairly stable market segment

Interesting. I do a LOT of side work on patents and have developed a pretty good skill set at it. I also charge a lot less per hour than Patent Attorneys! 

My son, who is headed to university this fall for EE, is seriously considering getting his law degree afterwards specifically to go into Patent practice. You're absolutely correct, having a technical degree/background makes you very powerful in the Patent world.

[IDEngineer]

But that doesn't say anything useful about one type of course over another. It does indicate something about the specific candidate and, if you see sufficient people from the same course then it may indicate something about that course.

I didn't mean to cast derision upon ALL CS degrees. However, that particular degree does seem to have a higher than normal incidence of, shall I say, "incompletely educated" graduates. Not sure why, just reporting what I've experienced.

[tggzzz]

But that doesn't say anything useful about one type of course over another. It does indicate something about the specific candidate and, if you see sufficient people from the same course then it may indicate something about that course.

I didn't mean to cast derision upon ALL CS degrees. However, that particular degree does seem to have a higher than normal incidence of, shall I say, "incompletely educated" graduates. Not sure why, just reporting what I've experienced.

I know what you are referring to by "incompletely educated", and don't fundamentally disagree. But even then...

I've always been incompletely educated for every new job I've taken. For the more interesting jobs it was inevitable that I would be incompletely educated, since there was no pre-existing education in that topic! What was more important was the drive and ability to learn new things.

You can never get all attributes in one person, be that personality or technical knowledge. Doctors are "incompletely educated" in the art of inserting needles, and nurses are "incompletely educated" in the art of diagnosing cancer. What you need is a team where one person's deficiencies are "masked" by another person's strengths.

[IDEngineer]

I've always been incompletely educated for every new job I've taken. For the more interesting jobs it was inevitable that I would be incompletely educated, since there was no pre-existing education in that topic!

Yes, but I'm correcting for that. To extend Dave's comment above, a new hire may not have memorized the native Assembly language for a microcontroller on a given project - but I think it's fair to expect someone who presents themselves (on paper and in person) as "experienced" with microcontrollers to be able to name a few!

If someone is fresh out of school, there is still a baseline of knowledge (if not actual experience) that is fair to presume. If a EE or CS comes out of school not knowing binary, hex, etc. their education is INCOMPLETE, period, and they have a legitimate complaint against their "university".

If someone claims on their resume/CV and in person that they have some amount of experience, sure - that experience may not be spot-on the project in question. But if they lack even the fundamental skills that would equip them to ramp up on the project and become an asset - instead of a liability - then the incompleteness of their education isn't just a lack of familiarity with the specifics of the project. It's a lack of basic knowledge and experience.

It comes down to what you expected vs. what the person represented they could reasonably deliver. Obviously you scale your expectations, but someone who escaped university with a CS degree without knowing (in my example) binary and hex is less than a "fresh out of school" greenie... they simply do NOT possess a Computer Science education no matter what their diploma might claim. Likewise, someone who escaped university with an EE degree who doesn't know Ohm's Law simply does NOT possess an Electrical Engineering education no matter what their diploma might claim. These are basic, fundamental skills that are part of the education represented by the degree in question.

Could they BECOME qualified? Quite possibly - but did you hire them as an intern expecting to participate in their basic education, or did you hire them as an individual contributor who could be expected to spin up to speed in a reasonable time? There are places for both types of people, but the former makes a terrible substitute for the latter.

[tggzzz]

I don't disagree, but then...

In my first job I knew nothing about these newfangled optical fibres, nor radars. But I learned and designed and implemented systems in those areas.

In my second job I knew nothing about lung ventilators, semi-custom ICs, testing building materials, measuring road surfaces, AI languages. But I learned...

In another job I knew nothing about these newfangled computer networks, nor (nonexistent) WLANs, nor SS7 telco signalling systems and the vagueries of cellular propagation. But I learned...

Etc.

[windsmurf]

Not to confuse things, but my alma mater, UC Irvine, offer all of these interrelated degrees:
Computational Science   M.S.2, Ph.D.
Computer Engineering   B.S.
Computer Game Science   B.S.
Computer Science   B.S., M.C.S., M.S., Ph.D.
Computer Science and Engineering   B.S.
Data Science   B.S.
Electrical and Computer Engineering   M.S., Ph.D.
Electrical Engineering   B.S.
Engineering   B.S., M.S., Ph.D.
Human Computer Interaction and Design   M.H.C.I.D.
Informatics   B.S., M.S., Ph.D.
Information and Computer Science   B.S., M.S.
Mathematical, Computational, and Systems Biology   M.S., Ph.D.
Networked Systems   M.S., Ph.D.
Software Engineering   B.S., M.S., Ph.D.