BioEs Need Not Apply

College Majors Engineering Majors
41

<p>
[quote]
An ABET accredited program is the industry standard for new engineering hires and much more important than the name of your school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I STRONGLY dispute this. The bioengineering programs at Berkeley and MIT are unaccredited, but the program at the University of Toledo is. I highly doubt that anybody seriously believes that Toledo is a better engineering school than MIT or Berkeley. Stanford's and Berkeley's materials science programs are unaccredited, but the program at Alfred University is. Yet who here seriously believes that Alfred is better than Stanford or Berkeley? </p>

<p>Look, the truth is, the name of the school and the quality of the program matters far far more than accreditation. There are plenty of accredited no-name schools and there are extremely strong programs that are not accredited. Accreditation is no proxy for quality.</p>

42

<p>
[quote]
thanks for all the information calkidd. nowadays it seems like any engineering major is having problems aquiring a job. i was debating on either EE or BioE, but lately leaning towards BioE because i expected the job market to be booming. after reading this i am having second thoughts , i do not want to work hard in school and end up struggling afterwards. well EE jobs are becoming outsourced so theres no security there either..... man oh man

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, let me put it to you this way. If you think that engineers have poor job prospects, what do you think the prospects are for the liberal arts majors? I think it's fairly clear that engineers, for all their problems, have far fewer job problems than almost all other people with just bachelor's degees. Engineers, for all their problems, still enjoy the highest starting salaries of all the bachelor's degrees. </p>

<p><a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/13/pf/college/starting_salaries/index.htm?cnn=yes%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/13/pf/college/starting_salaries/index.htm?cnn=yes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>If you think EE is that bad, then ask yourself, why is EE one of the highest paying bachelor's degrees you can have? Why is it that employers have increased the starting salaries offered to EE's? Are these employers just stupidly throwing money away?</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
This is crap. A grad degree in Biology is much more difficult than one in Engineering. Engineering is one of the easier graduate degrees to get. For UG its hard, but for Graduate it is one of the easiest. Bio classes are not for idiots. You have no idea what you are talking about. Most people I know think highly of people with Ph.D in one of the biological sciences, but not with someone with a Ph.D in Engineering.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Woah, where did this come from? I don't know that anybody can make any sweeping generalizations when it comes to PhD programs. I have the feeling that any highly respected PhD program in any field is going to be difficult and will therefore command respect. For example, I doubt that anybody with a PhD in engineering from MIT or Stanford is not going to some serious respect.</p>

44

<p>
[quote]
I posted in this thread before I got to college (this is a very old thread) and now I am actually a BME student @ JHU. As far as engineering "lite" goes -- it's not, and I'm not blowing my own horn, ask any JHU student what they believe the hardest major on their campus to be and it will be 8/10 times BME. This is not likely to be true at other schools (from what people tell me), but it is true at JHU. There are plenty of opportunities for BMEs out of JHU so I wouldn't worry about jobs. If you want to do BME you already have better job prospects then 90% of the college students graduating with liberal arts degrees anyway, do you really want to push yourself out of something you want to do because your starting salary will be 5k larger, trust me it won't matter soon anyway. And if you get into JHU/Dukes/Other top's BME program, I assume (I don't know for sure), that your salary will be good.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think anybody is suggesting that you 'push yourself out' of the field. The question is, what is the best way for you to enter the field while optimizing your salary and job prospects. As has been suggested on this thread, for those people who can't get into a top BME/BE program, perhaps a better way to enter the field is to get a standard EE, ME, or ChemE degree, and take bio electives or, more importantly, amass biomed internship or coop experience. The sad fact is, as calkidd pointed out, the BME/BE degree from most schools is simply not widely recognized by employers. Whether that's fair or not fair, that's how it is.</p>

<p>I'll give you another example. Consider the Sloan School of Management at MIT. For nearly 75 years, the Sloan School did not grant standard MBA degrees. Instead, the school granted Master's of Science (SM) degrees in Management Science. To get this degree, not only would you have to complete an MBA-style curricula, but you also had to write a master's degree thesis. So in that sense, the SM in Management Science degree is actually more rigorous than a regular MBA degree.</p>

<p>The problem is that the industry had trouble recognizing the SM degree. Lots of companies just wanted to see an MBA. Sloan graduates had to spend time explaining that their degree was completely equivalent to the MBA degree, and the perception among students was that they were losing job opportunities because some employers wouldn't even give them the chance to explain. So starting in the 1980's, Sloan gave students the option to get either an MBA or an SM. The thesis also became optional if you wanted the MBA (but still required if you chose the SM). Nowadays, the vast majority of Sloan students, even those who still do the thesis, will choose the MBA and not the SM, despite the fact that, really, the SM is a more rigorous degree. </p>

<p>So the point is, while it may not be fair that the Sloan SM degree is as recognized as the Sloan MBA, despite being a more technically advanced degree, some things in life aren't fair. Sometimes you gotta do things that you don't really agree with because that's what the employers want to see. A lot of Sloan students would probably prefer to take the SM, but get the MBA instead because that's what employers want to see.</p>

<p>I think the same sort of thinking applies when it comes to BME/BE degrees from programs other than the very best ones At those schools, you are probably better off just getting a regular EE/ME/ChemE degree, and accumulating BME/BE knowledge through internship or electives.</p>

45

<p>So does it mean that if i have a spot for BME in JHU I should have no worries in job prospects like starting salary and no. of job openings issue? I just don't know how the employers out there will think of JHU's BME. Highly? Very Highly? or high but not as high as ChemE or other traditional Engin? Will they treat the top school's BME differently from other programs? or is it just that the whole BME industry has not reached its optimum market yet?</p>

46

<p>I'm going to major in IEOR and take some bioE courses as electives instead.</p>

47

<p>college_student honestly, I wouldn't worry about it, graduating from a top BME program you shouldn't be so worried about what employers will think but how to become an employer. Ooops. There I go tooting my own horn :)</p>

48

<p>I mentioned in my original post that the strongest undergraduate bioE programs (JHU definately being the first) actually focus on engineering courses - incidently, JHU makes their BME students practically double major in another engineering discipline. Thus, not only is their degree firmly grounded, it's going to be relatively easy to double (besides, at JHU, you will probably find the "regular" engineering courses to be EASIER than the ones in BME).</p>

<p>Look, I'm not advocating the belief that bioengineering isn't "real" engineering or that BME/BEs don't deserve to make just as much as other engineers. In fact, I think that 1) for this field to truly have the impact it needs in order to move biotech/pharma forward (after all, biotech is supposed to be the next big thing that drives the US economy) we will HAVE TO have solid undergraduate and professional MS programs and 2) research in "bioengineering" that doesn't have a good biological/physiological foundation tends not to do very much in terms of moving the field forward. Hence, there is a need for this kind of training.</p>

<p>The problem is that only a handful of schools really take the undergraduate BME/BE program seriously enough that faculty put the time into formulating a coherent degree program. This is compounded by the general reluctance of industry to change. So, if you are interested in this field, I'm saying you really ought to consider majoring in something else or at least double majoring/minoring.</p>

49

<p>Ok let me rephrase that. Any biomedical engineering program will graduate a relatively well rounded engineer and person in general so it's not any worse than graduating with some liberal arts degree. Even if you don't start out with a salary of a computer science major or some more traditional degree you might still be making more money than them down the road doing something you enjoy (and in my opinion far more exciting) applying their knowledge to solving real human/bio/medical problems... so if you want to switch into EE/ChemE/MechE because your starting salary will be 10k higher, go ahead. I'm going to do what I want to do. Whereas you stand the chance of ending up plugging numbers into excel 20 years from now in a dead end job, I stand to be unemployed completely. I'm taking a big risk. But you got to take risks.</p>

<p>Let me summarize with an apt quotation or cliche from a random source (you will find this to be an effective technique in your presentations*)</p>

<p>"Don't be afraid to go out on a limb. That's where the fruit is."</p>

<p>*Sarcasm.</p>

50

<p>By the way I'm not arguing with anybody. It's just that people are talking about industry being reluctant to change and bad salaries and blah blah blah. I say do what makes you happy.</p>

51

<p>Scorp, I don't think anybody here is saying that people shouldn't go about pursuing biomed eng as a career. The issue seems to be whether to pursue BME/BE as a major. As has been said on this thread, you don't need a BE/BME degree to work as a biomed engineer. Plenty of EE's, ME's, and ChemE's get hired to be biomed engineers. You also have to keep in mind that many biomed device companies and biotech companies themselves prefer to hire people with traditional engineering degrees rather than BME's/BE's, except for those BME/BE's that come from the indisputably elite programs such as Johns Hopkins or Duke. </p>

<p>The upshot is that unless you go to one of these schools, you may be better off getting a traditional engineering degree even if you want to become a biomed engineer. Nobody says that you "have" to work in the specific field that you get your degree in. I've known people with mechanical engineering degrees who now work as software developers. The truth is, real-world engineering is highly cross-disciplinary such that it doesn't actually matter that much which specific engineering degree you have. Intel hires EE's, ME's, ChemE's, IE's, chemists, and physicists to work in the fabs. The biomedical device and biotechs hire ChemE's, EE's, ME's, IE's, MatSciE's, etc. So it's not as if by getting one of these more traditional degrees, you are forgoing your chances of working in biomed. Far from it. </p>

<p>Additionally, with that traditional engineering degree, you have the power to negotiate a higher salary from those biomed companies. For example, if you're a chemE who has gotten an offer from a biomed company and you think the salary is too low, you can credibly threaten to walk by saying that the traditional ChemE companies are willing to pay you more, so you want the offer to be improved. That's how salary negotiations work. If a company doesn't think that you have other options, they aren't going to give you a good offer. Contrast that with the scenario where you have a BME/BE degree from a no-name program. Now the company knows full well that you probably don't have other good options, so the company can put the screws on you. </p>

<p>That's why I agree with Calkidd that unless you're going to one of the elite BME programs like JHU or Duke, you're probably better off just getting a traditional engineering degree. That is, until such a time when the bioE programs get their act together to get respect from the biomed industry.</p>

52

<p>
[quote]
I think that 1) for this field to truly have the impact it needs in order to move biotech/pharma forward (after all, biotech is supposed to be the next big thing that drives the US economy)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Personally, I think a far bigger travesty are the pitifully low salaries accorded to the biology majors. I mean, come on, the bio degree can't even bring in the kind of salary that a history or an English degree can bring in? What's up with that? </p>

<p><a href="http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/07/pf/college/bestcollegedegrees/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/07/pf/college/bestcollegedegrees/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>In fact, I think this goes a long way towards explaining why so many bio majors would rather become doctors, dentists, pharmacists, physician's assistants, or any of these other 'applied biology' fields. Surely many of them wonder why they should take a relatively low-paying biology job if they can go to med school or dental school or pharmacy school instead. If the biomed/biotech industry isn't willing to step up and offer better salaries, then people are not going to want to work as biologists.</p>

53

<p>Well why would a biology major with an undergrad be worth anything to a company? Can he build something with his knowledge? How can he bring in $? His 4 year knowledge of biology is not really necessary if he can't apply it. (Bioengineers on the other hand have that knowledge and can apply it.)</p>

54

<p>Well, I can ask the question why exactly would a History major be worth anything to a company? Yet they're evidently getting paid more than the Bio majors are. </p>

<p>Let's not also forget that most engineers, even BioE's, aren't exactly ready to do anything useful with their knowledge, at least not without experience, although I agree that they are more ready than are the History majors. Engineering students learn a huge amount of theory and go through large numbers of equations and mathematical derivations. But guess what? That's not what you do on the job. The only engineering classes you take that have any direct job relevance are (maybe) the senior engineering labs and the design class, and even they are not highly relevant. That's why all engineers have to go through a period of on-the-job training before they become truly useful. I take a freshly graduated BME, even from Johns Hopkins, and I put him in the middle of Guidant without any training or any guidance, and I guarantee you that he will have only the slightest inkling of what he is supposed to do. </p>

<p>The fact is, without job experience as obtained through coops or internships, few freshly minted college grads are truly worth anything to a company. It's all relative. The bio major may not be worth much to a company, but I gotta believe he's worth more than a History major is. After all, like Calkidd said, we're supposed to be in the middle of a biotech revolution, not a history revolution. I don't see any news stories touting history as the next great engine of economic growth, or of venture capital firms pumping millions of dollars into the next great history startup.</p>

55

<p>i was wondering which article on CNN we should look at...for one, the 2003 article is old ( <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/07/pf/college/bestcollegedegrees/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/07/pf/college/bestcollegedegrees/&lt;/a> ), but it has pharmaceutical at the top, perhaps because it has changed into a doctorate degree....but the 2006 article does not include pharmaceutical, yet is slightly less comprehensive ( <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/24/pf/college/class_of_2006/index.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/24/pf/college/class_of_2006/index.htm&lt;/a> )
the reason why i ask this is because, although we have been talking about bioengineering...and i'm assuming biomedical engineering as well...why not take into account PharmD degrees when talking about the pharmaceutical companies and not just the bio or BME degrees</p>

56

<p>It is not 'perhaps' that the pharmacy degree has changed to a doctoral degree. That is in fact the key to understanding the pharmacy degree. To be a pharmacist, you need a PharmD degree, which is a 4 year graduate degree. Since you ask why not take into account these PharmD degrees when we're talking about bio or BME degrees, you have to keep in mind the following points</p>

<p>1) Not everybody who wants to go to a PharmD program can get in. It's not like anybody can just decide one fine day that they want to enter a PharmD program. It's a highly competitive admissions process to get in. </p>

<p>2) Like I said, it's a graduate degree. To even be eligible to apply, you have to complete at least 2 years of college coursework. Most applicants these days have full bachelor's degrees. </p>

<p>3) Third, you don't need to have majored in bio or BME to get into a pharmD. The pharmD prereqs allow you to major in almost anything. You could major in ChemE or ME and still be eligible to apply to a PharmD program.</p>

<p><a href="http://pharmacy.ucsf.edu/pharmd/admissions/steps/1/academic/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://pharmacy.ucsf.edu/pharmd/admissions/steps/1/academic/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The point is, the question on the table is what is the best undergraduate degree for you to get. Sure, we can talk about PharmD programs, but then that just begs the question of what if you don't get in anywhere? We can talk about getting jobs at biomed companies, but that begs the question of what if you don't get a good job offer, or what if you don't get an offer at all? I would say that, at least with a traditional ChemE or EE or ME degree, if you can't get into pharmacy school and you can't get a job with a bio company, you can still get a pretty decent regular engineering job. It's a matter of career safety.</p>

57

<p>would a degree in BioE from case western be considered tops?</p>

58

<p>I'm going into the UCSD bioengineering: pre-med program in the fall. UCSD's bioE department is currently ranked second by USNews. The only problem that I see is that the bioengineering: pre-med major is not accredited like the bioE major is. If I was sure about going into med school, I wouldn't consider that a problem. But I'm definitely not sure. So I've been planning to take all the classes required to get a biotech degree along with my pre-med classes. However, since it's impossible to get into biotech or bioE unless you applied initially, even when I complete those courses, I'm not going to have the paper that says that I completed the biotech degree. I'm definitely planning on pursuing a lot of internship opportunities. </p>

<p>But I was wondering how much is having the paper for bioE: pre-med but also having completed biotech (without the paper) going to hurt me when it comes to getting a job in industry? I'm definitely planning on writing on my resume that I completed the classes, and I know that internships should help. But after reading this thread, I'm worried because with the route I'm taking, I won't be able to get a minor or take extra classes in any of the traditional engineering fields, and I won't even have the paper for biotech.</p>

<p>I thought about switching to one of the other engineering fields, but the classes and the programs just don't appeal to me as much. I guess I'm just glad that UCSD is ranked so high for bioE.</p>

59

<p>UCB is going to be ABET accreditted within the next two years, and a bioE - pre med track might be added as well. All is well.</p>

60

<p>unlimitedx, I'm going to UCSD, though. Not UCB.</p>