choice master degree

[vincenzoarricale]

Good morning, I am a graduate in mechanical engineering that is faced with the choice of the master.
Unfortunately in my faculty the choice is divided into "mechanical engineering for production and design" and "mechanical engineering for energy". My goal is to work in the automotive industry, and I am in full indecision between the two. and therefore my question is: in a world in which you always go on the electric, it is still the case of specializing in energy, graduation in which you specialize on traditional combustion engines, and auxiliary organs such as turbines and compressors, or to enter the field of the automotive is more useful and required a designer, then an strutturista or a specialist in production?
thanks early.

 

[volaff]

go of "design and production" curriculuum "projection" : to the federic ii is done very well.
ps: I speak for personal experience; you will hardly find a "compatible" job with your master's. the engineer must adapt!
This is my point of view!

 

[vincenzoarricale]

go of "design and production" curriculuum "projection" : to the federic ii is done very well.
ps: I speak for personal experience; you will hardly find a "compatible" job with your master's. the engineer must adapt!
This is my point of view!

hi volaf thanks for the answer. How come you tell me design and not production? to be honest I was more focused on production. I don't know if the reason is because the sigma and tau are making me hate her right now because she blocked me building cars. but for example the examination of industrial plants and management in general I like.

to clarify my ideas I also went to talk to the energy manager of the federico ii, the senator, who listed me a couple of reasons to go to energy, but of course, as he himself said was a little part and the choice was to me.



Finally, with regard to the "difficultly you will find a work "compatible" with your master" is a nice point that makes you think. I have two acquaintances energy graduates and work in management and design, while others who have made design have not ended up in energy. What do I have to think that is a case or that energy prepares you to deal with everything?

 

[volaff]

I have made design to the feder ii for which I am of part too.
For example, I worked in a company (and I don't name) where one of the production managers was and is currently electronic engineer.
I don't add anything else.

 

[Anna Paola]

In my opinion you should take the cold branch, and possibly do as an examination to choose someone of energy, type internal combustion engines.

 

[paulpaul]

my perhaps will be a somewhat obvious opinion and a "store": do what you think you have more propensity and interest for!
Perhaps you will not immediately find a job in that branch (if you look for it, sooner or later you should find it), and the difference between the various addresses is not then such as to preclude you good results also in different fields, depending on these more from personal characteristics than what you actually studied

my impression is that for ten "cold" mechanics there is a "hot": if it is true that on average in Italy the use is for cold (automatic machines, gearboxes, pressure vessels...), if you are interested in the hot branch I can do nothing but suggest it (I too are of part we say!). However, unless you go to a large company, where you might specialize in a well-defined part (e.g. optimisation of shovel cooling in tg), this does not exude you from knowing also the cold part (species design and construction of machines, without which nothing is planned!). Obviously this limiting me only to "technical" jobs, not management. In these last cases, I think the address taken is even less influential.