<p>aye… I am a first year engineering student . I am also still deciding which discipline I want to major in specifically (chem,petrol) …either way, the die has been cast!..I can’t control market forces…but I can control how well I do in school…at the same time I know a 4.0 GPA means nothing if you have no sense of social awareness and you are unable to market yourself effectively(seems to describe about half my class) . the most important thing I learned from my experience in management - it is absolutely imperative that you stay relevant. if you find that you are not - find a way ! … Bah I don’t have time for doubts anyway . I should be doing homework right now.</p>
<p>^ you should see the midterm averages in my solid state class. XD</p>
<p>post #72 by 84jalpa reminded me of another thread like this; did a search and dug it up. Here it is: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/584100-dont-go-engineering-college.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/584100-dont-go-engineering-college.html</a> I wonder whats going on out there; older engineers post and say they wish they had done something else, then they get slammed.</p>
<p>I agree…the only thing I am really worried about is competition…even considering that, I am pretty confident in myself …I also happen to come from a line of oil-men …I know plenty of people in the industry …honestly, the drilling is slowing down around here…but companies are sticking around and are still investing .technology is driving this boom …its definitely not for everybody, just like everything else …you will get called up at 3 in the morning . you will work 40 hours straight sometimes . oil doesn’t take holidays .</p>
<p>I’m not slamming the naysayers, but what else have you got? The only college educated profession with better prospects than engineering is the medical field, and even that isn’t all flowers and roses.</p>
<p>I think the real problem here is engineering in the long term. All of the points made here in support of engineering think in the short term. Sure, engineering has great starting salaries. But the problem is that it never gets much better. Eventually, many other majors do surpass engineering in pay, job security, and the like. But 40-year-old engineers can look forward to being laid off on a whim. It happens in just about every major industry.
See, new graduates are paid under market value. They move to new cities without much problem, they work long hours, they are cheap to insure, and they get paid a lower-end salary. Once they start to become more expensive(10-15 years in), they start to get laid off. It’s not about not doing the job well, it’s about them being more expensive than “dirt cheap.”
Eventually, the majors you think are worse than engineering catch up and get ahead. This includes most of the business majors and some of the liberal arts majors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would argue that CS has better prospects, based on how fast the demand is growing relative the supply (about 4 times more).</p>
<p>[Software</a> Developers : Occupational Outlook Handbook : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics](<a href=“Software Developers, Quality Assurance Analysts, and Testers : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics”>Software Developers, Quality Assurance Analysts, and Testers : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)</p>
<p>But not everybody is made for CS.</p>
<p>@mikemac</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That thread is simply a ■■■■■ thread. While it is harder now to find some jobs in engineering, it doesn’t mean that it’s impossible. For example, there are many things you can do when you get an engineering degree. Take CompE or CompSci. If you really enjoy problem solving, you could start-up your own company. Start-Ups are increasingly becoming more and more common from CompSci and CompE majors. </p>
<p>The bottom line is, if you enjoy something in particular, and you can see yourself doing it for the rest of your life, then pursue it!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We offshore because there simply isn’t enough domestic talent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Often these “top” graduates write pretty bad code. Jobs that get offshored are typically the ones that are easier, more menial, and less skilled. Certainly you can feel threatened by offshoring, but if you do what most good CS people do, which is to thoroughly learn a new technology or language every 2-3 months, you don’t have much to worry about.</p>
<p>The danger comes when you stagnate.</p>
<p>More info here: <a href=“http://cs.calvin.edu/p/ComputingCareersMarket[/url]”>Careers & Outcomes | Calvin University;
<p>This thread has turned into, “the negative effects of a slow economy”, and “the downfalls of capitalism.”</p>
<p>
A popular view, but it couldn’t be farther from the truth. If you know economics, you’ll know about the principles of supply and demand. If there’s a shortage, then prices will rise until there’s an equilibrium. Evidently, that isn’t happening.</p>
<p>
Partially, but the poor economy is just a manifestation of many underlying issues that we just chose not to address.</p>
<p><a href=“Indeed,%20I%20think%20that%20engineers%20should%20probably%20be%20paid%20at%20least%202-4X%20what%20they’re%20currently%20paid%20now,%20as%20the%20fruits%20of%20the%20engineering/tech%20industry%20do%20indeed%20seem%20to%20be%20disproportionately%20captured%20by%20the%20equity%20investors.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
This is a bit of a simplification of the issue, but I’d just like to say that you don’t really understand business. Why do you think that all these people get overpaid while the lowly engineer gets a pittance? Is it because engineers are just the one group that is just notoriously awful at getting their money’s worth?
The truth is, these people are worth more because they do things that are worth more money. Engineers have a bad habit of thinking that if they can do engineering, they can do anything (I myself used to do this). Not true. It takes a real talent to sell goods, to take care of legal matters, and even to do accounting. Investors make all that money because they put in the money that made everything possible. They risked it, so it’s only fair that they get a large sum for their risk.
Standard engineers are worth mid-high 5 figures. Great engineers are worth a fortune. But they are like the A-class celebrities of the group. Don’t think a standard engineer is worth any more than they are already paid. The salary is not the problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Either way, what I’m saying is, job outlook for CS grads is pretty good for now. And when you graduate, look for a fun, skilled, and more interesting job, which is the kind of job that stays domestic.</p>
<p>Notice that I didn’t ever mention investment banking specifically as a business that generates more value that engineering labor. Note that I also said that my interpretation is a bit of an oversimplification; investment banking is the reason for that.
The reason they received the bailout is that, quite simply, we had no choice. It was that or allow the economy to implode. And indeed, playing the system to make a profit is not worth the money that IBs make. The problem here is simply that they managed to put themselves in such a position of power by, as some politicians put it, “writing their own rules.” Sadly, that means that they were able to put themselves into a “too big to fail” position, so we had to bail them out. If that didn’t happen, the crash would have been much worse. FWIW, at least they do have to pay it back.
HOWEVER, one bad apple does not define the system, like you seem to assume it does. Consultants, for example, are valuable for a number of reasons, despite their high costs. For one, management consultants are most often employed in industries where they are of value (the public sector). Efficiency can be worth a premium. If it’s not the best way, then perhaps a better way will come along in the future and displace management consulting.
Consulting in general is valuable because it is quality work (or else they don’t get projects), it requires little commitment (just don’t hire them again, they’re not salaried workers), and it allows you to employ a wider base of talent for less investment in salaried workers. As for those such as lawyers, salesmen, managers, accountants, and the like, they get large salaries because they do jobs that are at least as important as making the actual product.
As for investors, you seem to think that investors and IBs are one and the same. That’s pretty far from the truth. </p>
<p>
Quite confident indeed. But I have yet to see you back up this claim with actual understanding.</p>
<p>MODERATOR’S NOTE</p>
<p>Please do not resurrect old threads. Start new ones.</p>