What an awkard pair, these chemists and chemical engineers. To strangers from a distance they might appear almost interchangeable. Someone from another field might assume that the differences could be as inconsequential as minor variations in accent or hair style are between neighbors. A simple matter of preference for the practical or the arcane. But that someone would be wrong.
Chemists and Chem E’s are really quite different by training and by disposition. We chemists think of our field as resting upon the three pillars- Theory, Synthesis, and Analysis. Chem E’s will agree, but they’ll point out that there is a 4th pillar- Economics.
Here is an act of convulsive reductionism: Atomic and Molecular Chemistry (as opposed to Nuclear Chemistry), the science we normally think of when we use the word “Chemistry”, really concerns itself with the behavior of electrons near positive point charges. When we cause a chemical change we are perturbing the disposition of electrons somewhere. In doing so, ensembles of nuclei and their electrons connect, disconnect, or otherwise alter the disposition of the electrons. Chemists make and break bonds, transfer electrons, or promote electrons to particular energy states. This work is limited to the outermost layers of the onion. We rarely ever have to consider the inner layers of electrons and we never monkey with the nucleus.
Chemistry is very much an electronic activity. It is the realm of electronic quantum mechanical formalism and machinations at the Angstrom scale. Virtually every chemical change we do involves the twiddling of electrons somewhere.
Chem E’s, on the other hand, practice applied classical physical chemistry. Unlike organikkers such as myself, they took a serious fancy to P-chem. Their quantum unit is the dollar. These folks can actually put thermo to use for fun and profit. They understand the sacred and profane applications of the gas laws. Chem E’s can specify what sort of pump you need to move whatever variety of hellbroth you care to convey and they can probably estimate the Reynolds number of the rainwater running off your nose. A Chem E can tell you what kind of materials of construction and seals you need to reflux thionyl chloride in your reactor and what kind of chiller capacity you need to condense it.
And as engineers, they can plan a construction schedule, work up a cost estimate, and supervise the construction of whatever kind of process equipment you care to specify from the dirt up. A chemist could probably do it as well, but it would look like a chemist did it. I have personal experience here.
You probably wouldn’t ask a Chem E to synthesize vitamin B-12. But they wouldn’t ask a chemist to design a continuous fractional distillation column either.
Lamentations on Chemistry 
Our Department started out as a Chemical Engineering Department, way back when. Today the only reminder that this was so, is that we still have to take a course and lab in chemical engineering to graduate. From that I can tell you, chemists and chemical engineers are really as different as you say.
Couldn’t agree more.
I still remember that when I took a process to the plant and the Chemical Engineer did not understand that if they switched from trimethylaluminum to triethylaluminum you needed to use more.
Really – I think that is one of the fundamental differences between CE and Chemists. Chemists understand and appreciate the mole concept.
That said, the knowledge chemical engineers have of thermodynmics is dizzying.
vive le difference!
The undergrad p-chem lab here stuck chemists and chem e’s together as lab partners. I was paired with a brilliant engineer who was completely fascinated by stir plates and parafilm.
I’ll have to admit to an odd fascination with Parafilm as well. \;-)
Observations on point, near as I can tell. Interesting to consider the ways in which said observations also apply to physicists (they can design and build anything…) and the ways Ch. E.’s diverge from physicists (who have similar healthy respect for all the same quantum ramifications of Coulomb’s Law as chemists). Still don’t think chemical synthesis is going to subsumed by either physics or engineering anytime soon; perhaps this is what makes chemistry singularly chemistry.
Cheers
I am new to industry and working with a lot of Chem E’s (I am an “organiker” like you) and your observations seem right on. Overall I think that Chem E’s tend to think of behaviour on the bulk scale without considering the molecular level too much, while the opposite may be true for chemists.
A chem E’s salary is usually higher than that of a chemist.
An old coworker used to call chem Es “staggeringly overpaid plumbers.”
Coming from outside of the Pharma universe, it appears to me that a good many CEO’s, presidents, and VP’s in chemical industry tend to be Chemical Engineers. I don’t think that is true in Pharma companies, but Chem E’s seem to have greater boyancy in large organizations in general. Like a big chunk in the septic tank, they float to the top. Engineers are, by nature, associated with capital projects and have the opportunity early on to prove their worth with both economics and technology. The combination of business/economic savvy and the chance to lead exciting projects with access to resources (big $$) puts them in high visibility positions. Certainly more so than most chemists, in my estimation. Perhaps others have a different take on it.
True story: chemist were scaling up a coating process – coating a water dispersed detergent on a nonwoven and drying it in a converyor over. At the far side of the oven, the detergent was not completely dried. The chemists said “Increase the oven temperature!” The nonwoven was now completly dried, but the detergent was starting to burn. After much “heated” arguements, they brought in an engineer. He quickly asked, “Can you turn up the oven fans?” Not only did that solve the problem, but the process ended up with a lower oven temperature than was used initially.
The difference between Chem and ChemE is not more thermo, it’s heat, mass and momentum transfer (momentum trasfer is more commonly known as fluid mechanics). 99.99% of ChemE’s think a shuffled deck of cards has a higher entropy than a new deck or even give you the units of entropy for that matter.