Should engineering PhDs be scientists?
I was interested in engineering since I was a kid. Hoping to build something cool in future, I started to make toys by my hands. Noticed that good education is required for involving in "cool projects," I entered graduate school. Now I'm working toward my PhD, and figuring out that the best PhD students in the engineering schools are mathematicians. They spent all their time on theories and they are planning to publish "cool theories" to save the world. I need to add "touch or publish" to the famous slogan "publish or perish," meaning that the more hardware you touch, the less publication you will have. Though the big guys do publish papers with experiments and project backgrounds, I bid the job were done mainly by the lowly first year graduates or undergraduates. When working on the "cheap" hands-on tasks, I figured out those theory guys are actually far away from making the things work. They, however, can make things "work" theoretically.
After pursuing the engineering dream for a long time, I'm really lost. Should engineering PhDs be scientists? Why there are PhD degrees in engineering schools? Is it better for PhD programs in engineering schools accept only students with science background, so that people like me do not puzzle on the aim of our lives. Is there a way to count projects into contributions in the same way as papers, so that the engineers can compete the scientists in engineering schools? Why the society judge engineers base on their publications? Will Einstein be a better engineer compared to Edison, if he want?
I really want to hear some comments. Thanks.