Chemical Engineer Job Stability and Availibility

[aibarr]

<p>I'm really curious here. Could everyone post a bit about their background/ age/ educational experience? It'd be useful to see where everyone's coming from. I'll go first.</p>

<p>Female engineer, 23, undergrad trained in civil/structural engineering at Rice University, worked as intern at Wiss Janney Elstner, employed as associate engineer at Traffic Engineers, Inc. half-time for two years doing structural design and feasibility studies, currently employed as research assistant at Mid-America Earthquake Center, have done work for City of Houston, TXDOT, IDOT, and IEMA. Currently masters student in structural engineering at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Have a couple of job offers on the table for when I graduate in December with my MSCE-Structural. EIT Certified in Texas.</p>

<p>In my time working at all those companies, I've seen <em>one</em> person get laid off. I think people are seriously underestimating the employability of an experienced principal PE. I've discussed this with my computer engineering and electrical engineering friends, as well, and they've seen the same thing. Having been in the market for a job lately, there are a TON of open positions, many more than for experienced engineers than there are for graduate engineers.</p>

[karthikkito]

<p>Male, 17, entering UCSD for Mech or Aero next year. Intern at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (MD) for a year now.</p>

<p>So for me, lots of contact with practicing engineers, very little experience with the coursework. :)</p>

[RunningWater]

<p>Female aspiring to become a chemical engineer, 16, senior in high school. (Yeah, it was probably unneccesary for me to give my info =P)</p>

<p>Is it really hard for engineers to keep their jobs when they're older?</p>

[aibarr]

<p>Well, if when you get older, you suddenly lose your mind and decide to strip nude and dance a hula on your boss's desk, then yeah, it'd be difficult to keep your job when you're older!</p>

<p>There's fluke, sure, and there are occasional layoffs in some industries, but for the most part, if you're good at your job, then no. It's not like you're factory workers in a small town with only a factory, which is what several people on these threads have been making it sound like. It's not that difficult to keep jobs when you're older.</p>

<p>In the grand scheme of things, outsourcing and layoffs, in engineering, should <em>not</em> be the deciding factor of whether or not to pursue the field. Just keep your head up and be aware of what's going on in your company and in your field.</p>

[RunningWater]

<p>Let's say for some reason a well-respected, experienced engineer in his 50's gets laid off. Would it be hard for him to find another job?</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
Sakky says that engineers ... better options than liberal art majors, biology majors, and liberal arts. For that statement to be true, engineers must have a job. I totally agree that an employed engineer is going to have much better options than someone employed as a biologist or a fine arts job (whatever that is). Question is, will you be employed as an engineer in America?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, you've twisted the question around. Again, it's all relative. You ask whether you will be employed as an engineer in America? That's not the question you should be asking. The REAL question you should be asking is whether you will be more likely to be employed as an engineer, ** relative ** to whether you will be employed as a biologist or an arts major.</p>

<p>Look, the simple fact is, engineers get laid off. But so do biologists. So do people who have arts degrees. So does everybody else. You guys really think that engineers are the ONLY people to deal with layoffs? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Supply and demand is at work, the demand for qualified American engineers justifies their (temporary) high starting salary.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's not just a matter of starting salary. For example, I too am not entirely sure what an arts major is going to get into, but I'm fairly certain that the average engineering salary is higher than that of an average arts major. Not just starting, but overall. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The question I’m posing is whether Engineering will be a stable and high paying profession in America for the next 30 years? Google how many engineering jobs have moved to China and India. Google how many engineering jobs are expected to be moved to China and India in the near future.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course there are going to be engineering jobs that move to China and India. But that's not the point. The point is, it's all relative. MANY kinds of jobs, not just engineering jobs, will move to other countries, or disappear complete due to technology. I remember my friend's aunt once had a good job as a travel agent - until the rise of online travel websites like Expedia. Now she hasn't worked in several years. I don't know why you guys harp on outsourcing as a problem for engineers, but you don't see that the same outsourcing can also hurt biologists and mathematicians and any of these other fields. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Also the outsourcing phenomenon has just begun. Take a look at the stock value charts for WIT & INFY both companies have split in June of 2004, that’s only one year ago. Sure outsourcing has always been around even since the mid 90’s. the explosion has just begun in the past 2-3 years. Don’t forget the dot com bust was only 5 yrs ago. It takes time for free market to adjust. Also when he states that the engineers have the highest starting salaries, you will pretty much only keep that job if you are irreplaceable. After all the company has to justify paying you quadruple the salary of Indian and Chinese engineers somehow. So as I’ve stated before if you’re brilliant and extraordinarily talented you can never be replaced. However if you’re just a mediocre engineer who likes math and science and wants to raise a family, engineering might not be such a good choice in terms of security over the next 30 years.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And again, why wouldn't the same thing hurt a wide range of other fields as well? By the same logic, why major in biology or physics or math? After all, can't these things also be outsourced? Doesn't India have a burgeoning biotech industry? I think they do. Aren't China and India producing hundreds of thousands of pure science majors? I think they are. Why do you continue to think that it is only engineering that will be affected by outsourcing? Again, it's all relative. </p>

<p>
[quote]
So, all these statistics of current engineers having the highest starting salary is moot. Tell me if engineers will have the highest starting salaries in America 15 years from now &(AND) if most of the graduates are employed. No point bragging about having the highest starting salary if only 1 in 10 is employed. (I’m exaggerating about 1 in 10 to make a point.) Again, I am telling everyone to focus on the long term 10- 30 year outlook for engineering in America not just immediately after graduation.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I'll put it to you this way. Engineering has always been the average highest starting salary bachelor's degree for at least 2 generations. And that's after years of outsourcing. Keep in mind that outsourcing is not new. It just gets lots of press now. However, companies have been outsourcing for decades now. Just look at your computer. I would venture to say that at least 80% of the physical components of your computer were manufactured somewhere in Asia. Often times, the only part manufactured in the US is the microprocessor. Everything else - the display, the supporting chips, the keyboard, the mouse, the case, the motherboard, the cards, the cables, the powersupply, etc. - most of that was probably made overseas. And it's been that way for more than 2 decades. Yet during all that time, the salaries of computer hardware engineers in the US have remained strong. </p>

<p>Look guys, I don't want to get into a discussion of free trade and Schumpeter's economic model of creative destruction. But the fact is, free trade is GOOD for the economy. The more free trade we have, the better off the American economy is. Yes, some people lose, chiefly the people who don't want to adapt, but more people gain. I agree that if you are an engineer who doesn't want to adapt, then you will lose. However, American engineers have been successfully adapting to international competition ever since there has been international competition, which is basically ever since the country was founded. There has never been a time when Americans never had to compete against foreigners. And Americans have always done so successfully. </p>

<p>But in any case, so you see that engineering is not going to be strong in 10-30 years. Fine. So name me an undergrad major that you think will be strong. Note, PA is not an undergraduate major. As I'm sure you know, plenty of PA's have undergraduate degrees in something else before they go to PA school. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Keep in mind that the requirements to be a police officer is 40 semester units of college credit. 20 ½ years of age and no felonies. (not even 2 yrs of college!!) So I doubt that “highly competitive” is accurate in describing the police recruiting process. Everything I post on this thread is meant for people with engineering ability, I guarantee that I would outscore most of the police recruits in any kind of mental testing. As for physical requirements, I guess that depends on the person we’re talking about. I assumed most people on this thread are in their late teens, early twenties, and in the best shape of their lives. I exercise regularly and would have no problem running an 8 min. mile or climbing a 6 foot wall. Plus if you have a bachelor’s degree you will get priority in the hiring process. (speaking Spanish helps too)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, I think you greatly underestimate the process. The fact is, there really aren't all that many openings for new cops. It's not just a matter of meeting the minimum requirements. It's also a matter of having departmental openings. For example, the SFPD hasn't had an opening in awhile. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.sfgov.org/site/police_index.asp?id=27860%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sfgov.org/site/police_index.asp?id=27860&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
I’m not too familiar with the fringe benefits for firemen, but I would imagine it’s similar to a cop, since they have a very large union as well. (average starting salary is 75K not including overtime.I talked to a fireman w/ 20 yrs of experience he is making 100K salary plus 20K in overtime. Guess what else? these guys get a nice pension when they retire.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, look. I'll put it to you this way. I just talked to 2 engineers who are both less than 30 years old. One's been working at Google ever since the early days. The other's been working at Ebay ever since the early days. I think it's safe to say that because of their stock options, they have more money than I could ever dream of. One of them even told me that he could retire right now, but he wants to keep working until all of his options fully vest, at which time he will quit and never have to work again. He spends much of his time scoping out various retirement locations in the Caribbean. </p>

<p>The point is, we can't just deal with anecdotes. We have to deal with averages. Do some firemen who get into generous unions make a lot of money? Of course. But what does the average fireman get? </p>

<p>"Median hourly earnings of firefighters were $17.42 in 2002."</p>

<p><a href="http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos158.htm#earnings%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos158.htm#earnings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Again as I said I’m not advising against majoring in engineering. However if they plan on a career in engineering, I am telling them to research for themselves the OUTLOOK for the NEXT 30 YEARS OF ENGINEERING. ...global competition from India & China. China and India I predict will become the next super powers by the end of this century. Have a backup plan in case engineering does not work out.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, I agree, you gotta be prepared for world competition. EVERYBODY has to be ready for world competition, not just the engineers. You think that bio majors will never have to deal with world competition? Or physics or math majors? People talk about outsourcing as if only engineering jobs can be outsourced. In reality, a wide range of jobs can and already have been outsourced. For example, accounting jobs, are readily outsourced. </p>

<p>
[quote]
While engineering majors currently have the highest starting salaries, how many of them are actually employed after graduation? Is the demand for engineers in America going to be strong after 10 years?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, you can ask the exact same thing about any science major. Or, really, about virtually any undergraduate major.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
i tend to trust the U.S. Department of Labor a bit more than payscale.com

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And you saw it yourself on the BLs quote - the average salary for PA's is around 65k . </p>

<p>"Median annual earnings of physician assistants were $64,670 in 2002. "</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos081.htm#earnings%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos081.htm#earnings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
in case you didn't know your salary depends on your cost of living.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And the same thing holds true for engineers. Most of the engineers that I know that have decent experience who work in the Bay area make close to or over 100k. Heck, I still know plenty of Silicon Valley computer geeks who never graduated from college who make around 150k.</p>

<p>
[quote]
... remember these salaries are for a 40hr work week, not including any overtime

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I see that you keep harping on this point. Yet you should realize that not all PA's (or RN's) receive overtime. Some do. Some do not. In particular, with the changes in the law in 2004, I would expect that many future PA's would no longer receive overtime. I refer you to the following document, and in particular to page 33, where PA's and nurses are classified as having customarily acquired prolonged courses of specialized intellectual instruction, and therefore may be classified as exempt from OT.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cesse.org/MEET/2004/FLSAExemptionRegs.ppt#257,2,Introduction%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cesse.org/MEET/2004/FLSAExemptionRegs.ppt#257,2,Introduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And if you search around for PA jobs, you will notice that some will pay OT, but some will not. Hence, you cannot simply assume that you will get OT if you become a PA. You might, you might not. And with the new changes in the law, I would expect that it is likely in the future that you will not. </p>

<p>
[quote]
so compare the local salaries between PA's and RN's to local salaries for engineers

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think that even a PA or an RN in the Bay Area would have to agree that Bay Area engineers make more, on average. So what's your point?</p>

<p>
[quote]
unggio83 ..... you're really driving the point home. Who cares how high an engineering salary is if you're not employed!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Golubb_u, and what about all those fine arts majors and art history majors who are also unemployed? What about all the unemployed biologists? You keep talking as if engineers are the only people to become unemployed. I would argue that other undergrad majors are far more likely to find themselves unemployed than will engineers. </p>

<p>
[quote]
so anyways i agree w/ sakky to some extent that engineering is alright for a major, but the people who think engineering as a career is all roses are fu.cking morons.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Allright, now I think we're getting to brass tacks. I have always asked the question that if engineering is such a bad undergrad major, what's better? Keep in mind that PA is not an undergrad major. Nursing is, but to become an RN, it's not simply about getting a degree. You also have to get licensed and do a bunch of other stuff. </p>

<p>So I ask the question again, and to specifically to Golubb and RunningWater and Jeffl - if engineering is such a bad undergrad major, what's better? Art history? Film Studies? Biology? Other sciences? Math? Would you really recommend a major in any of these? </p>

<p>Look, guys, we live in a day and age where you almost have to get a bachelor's degree in something. You know how it is - lots of companies won't even look at you unless you have some sort of bachelor's degree, no matter what it is in. I'm not saying that getting an engineering undergrad degree solves all your problems. But it at least gives you a backup career. If you then decide after graduation that you now want to become a PA or an investment banker or a lawyer afterwards, fine. But at least you got a backup career in case things don't work out. I think we can all agree that that's far better than what the art history guy has. Or the bio major has. </p>

<p>I see a lot of carping about how people shouldn't major in engineering. Yet nobody seems to want to apply the same analysis to the alternater majors. Outsourcing might hurt engineers, sure. On the other hand, outsourcing might also hurt many of the other majors. Do engineers have a completely stable career? No, but do biologists? Do Film Studies majors? Can engineers find themselves laid off? Sure. But so can people majoring in anything else. </p>

<p>Look, you go to undergrad and you gotta pick an undergrad major that will help you the most. Whatever else might be said about engineering, I think we can all agree that it can get you a career. Maybe not a perfect career, but a career nonetheless. Contrast it with what you would have if you majored in something else.</p>

[epoch_dreams]

<p>Sakky, </p>

<p>Why do you always have to write a bloody dissertation! Just keep it short. Make it three paragraphs longs, not three essays long. I like your posts but do we have novels on cc?</p>

[sakky]

<p>Well, you only have to read the parts you want to read. </p>

<p>Besides, it's hard to keep things short when the issues are complex.</p>

[NumericalMethods]

<p>Sakky,</p>

<p>What do you mean exactly by stating that engineers have to "adapt" to new conditions from globalization? How can they ensure a better career in engineer, minors, double-majors? </p>

<p>If globalization is all that good for the American economy, who benefits? How can engineers specifically take advantage of it?</p>

[unggio83]

<p>
[quote]
If globalization is all that good for the American economy, who benefits? How can engineers specifically take advantage of it?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>During the mid 90's to the dotcom bust, the net worth of the Americans rose very dramatically. Corporations were investing all over
America, the GDP was very high. however the gap between the middle class and upper class grew ever larger. So technically yes, the American economy will probably benefit from globalization, however will the majority of the population benefit as well? sure the profit margins of huge corporations like walmart, and microsoft will skyrocket (they now have cheap labor in india and china). How does that help the average american joe? </p>

<p>quality of life for engineers in asia will go up, while the quality of life for american engineers will go down. it's a zero-sum situation. In time the quality of life for engineers will be equal in asia & america.</p>

<p>sakky, i will post responses to ur latest posts tomorrow.</p>

[sakky]

<p>Allright, well, I guess I do have to make that defense of free trade that I didn't want to do. </p>

<p>I will try to keep things as simple as possible, but the basic premise is that free trade helps both participating sides. Take a class on economics if you want to see what I mean. Yes, there are some losers in free trade, but there are more winners, because the fact is, free trade improves total economic efficiency. Basically, any industry that is exposed to competition becomes more efficient. The least efficient operations tend to be the ones that are not exposed to direct competition, like monopolies - think of government services like the DMV, or the post office. </p>

<p>I will point to history and say that outsourcing is nothing new. Ever since there has been trade, there has been outsourcing, and workers have had to adjust accordingly. Outsourcing was not just 'invented' in the last few years. Many industries have been outsourcing for years. Just look at your electronics like your TV or your stereo. I will bet you that they were probably made in Asia. Again, look at your computer - almost all of it was manufactured in Asia. And this hasn't been true just for the last few years. It's been like that for decades. Basically, starting in the 1960's-1970's, the Japanese came and basically crushed the American consumer electronics and computer hardware manufacturing industry, then followed by the Koreans and the Taiwanese, and now the mainland Chinese. </p>

<p>I'll give you the example of Intel. Intel was actually founded as a memory-chip company. Intel invented DRAM. Then the Japanese, the Koreans, and the Taiwanese came in and started making better DRAM for cheaper. This all happened in the early 1980's, not just a few years ago.</p>

<p>Yet during all this time, the employment for electrical engineers in the US grew tremendously. You might ask -how is that if the Asians were taking their jobs? The answer is obvious - the Asian were not taking all the jobs. In fact, they were generally taking only the low-end jobs. The better jobs, particularly the R&D oriented and high-end EE jobs, stayed in the US. Case in point - when Intel, the father of DRAM, hasn't made DRAM in 2 decades. Instead, Intel moved upstream - to microprocessors. Intel lost the original business that it started on, but in the process became the biggest semiconductor manufacturing firm in the world. There's a funny story about that because Intel always had a historical psychological attachment to DRAM, to the point that Intel management never wanted to move away from DRAM. They were forced to move away because of the competition from Asia. In the process, Intel found a business model that was even better than their old business model. Even top Intel managers like Andy Grove once said that if the Asians had never never happened, Intel would probably still be a DRAM company now and the microprocessor crown would have been claimed by somebody else. </p>

<p>Anyway, the point is that the American economy has been successfully adapting to foreign competition for decades. It's just downright pessimistic to think that the US can't adopt to this new competition from China and India. The competition from Japan, Taiwan, and Korea did not impoverish the country or take away all the electrical engineering jobs in the country. Far from it. The US continued to experience strong economic growth and boom after boom in the technology field. For example, the standard of living of Americans is far higher than it was a generation ago. </p>

<p>Now to the specific points that were made:</p>

<p>
[quote]
What do you mean exactly by stating that engineers have to "adapt" to new conditions from globalization?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It means that engineers, just like everybody else, have to adapt their skills and their knowledge base to fit new conditions. But this is nothing new. People have ALWAYS had to adapt to changing conditions to keep themselves from becoming obsolete. For example, any engineer who only knows 10-year-old technology is obsolete. It's not just engineers. Lawyers have to keep up with changes in the law. For example, if you're a corporate lawyer, and you don't know something about the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, then you're functionally obsolete. If you're a doctor and you're not keeping up with the latest medical advances, then you're going to become obsolete.</p>

<p>As far as specific examples of ways that engineers can adapt to keep themselves viable, one simple way is to incorporate a greater knowledge of business. I can definitely and absolutely see a need for people who have strong engineering skills, but also know how to talk to business managers, finance guys, salesmen, and can basically serve as a nexus point between business and engineering. They will be able to figure out what customers want, what the businessmen want, and what is possible technically. They can then formula technical specifications and designs, and have those designs actually manufactured in Asia. In essence, the engineer then becomes a 'technical project manager' - he has an engineering background so he understands what sort of engineering needs to be done. But he's also in close contact with American business managers, so he can deduce business needs. </p>

<p>As a higher-end corollary to that, it also makes technical entrepreneurship far far easier. For example, let's say that I have a great technical idea that might form the basis for the next great software or the next great Internet company like Google. I can now get the project off the ground by hiring a bunch of cheap software engineers from India. My engineering education allows me to see what is possible from a technical standpoint. However, it is my technical creativity and my entrepreneurship that allows me to go out and form a viable company. I devise a technical idea, and then I send it off to coders in India to bring it to fruition. I don't have to do the gruntwork of coding it myself. If the company becomes the next Google, then I become rich because I own the company. </p>

<p>Another very strong route to take is illustrated in the latest copy of Businessweek. Basically, you can go the creative route, in what is known as the 'Creative Economy'. Basically, you use your technical knowledge to design something that is uniquely appealing to American audiences. The fact is, engineers in China and India don't know American audiences. Americans know American audiences. Americans have specific styles and tastes that the Chinese and Indians don't. So asking a Chinese or Indian person to design something that will touch the sensibilities of Americans is not going to be easy for them at all. There is such a thing as an 'American style' of design, just like there is such a thing as a British style of design, a Japanese style, an Italian style, etc. </p>

<p>Again, I agree with the general notion that people who refuse to change are obviously going to be left behind. But that's true of any field. Every field has to adapt to new conditions. If you don't adapt, you will lose your job, and you deserve to lose your job. The economy of 25 years ago is far different from the economy of today, and that will be different from the economy of the future. The Intel engineers who remained wedded to the DRAM lost their jobs. Those that moved onto microprocessors kept their jobs and became very wealthy from Intel stock options. </p>

<p>
[quote]
How can they ensure a better career in engineer, minors, double-majors?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nah, it has to do more with what kind of job you take, and even more importantly, what you do on your job. Even more importantly, I think it has to do with personal attitudes and personal motivation. Those engineers who just want to narrowly focus on engineering will probably lose out. However, those engineers who make it a point to understand how engineering connects to the greater world will do well. You have to consciously try to read business literature and to expand your intellectual horizons. Engineering no longer sits in a silo, if it ever did. The point is not really to get double-majors or minors. Those are just tactics. The real point is to foster an attitude of greater intellectual flexibility. You have to constantly connect your engineering knowledge to the greater world. If you develop a mental attitude that, yes, you're an engineer, but you're more than that. You don't just see how to do engineering, but you see why you do it, and how it connects to the world, then you will do well.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
If globalization is all that good for the American economy, who benefits?...So technically yes, the American economy will probably benefit from globalization, however will the majority of the population benefit as well? sure the profit margins of huge corporations like walmart, and microsoft will skyrocket (they now have cheap labor in india and china). How does that help the average american joe?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Absolutely, absolutely, and I'm very very surprised you guys don't see it. #1 - biggest of all, the average American benefits from globalization through lower prices. Yes, that's right, lower prices. You guys remarked on it yourself - it's cheaper to make stuff overseas. Well, that means that it's cheaper for me to buy those things. That is why inflation for the last decade has stayed so low, relative to historical inflation. The fact is, many items, on a real basis (that is, adjusted for inflation) are probably cheaper than they've ever been in history. For example, commodity clothes like underwear and T-shirts are dirt cheap. Basic furniture is extremely cheap, on a real basis. For example, I once remember buying a basic folding table, used, 10 years ago for $75 at a garage sale. I just saw the other day that the same table is available today for $39.99 at my local Walmart. Think about that! I can get a new table for a LOWER price than what I paid for a used table just 10 years ago. </p>

<p>And of course, I don't think I need to talk about the inexorable drops in price of electronics and computers. For example, again, I just saw in Walmart a DVD player made in China that is being sold for less than $25. I bought my first DVD player 8 years ago for more than $500. When it broke, I sent it to a repair shop to get it fixed for more than $100. The new DVD at Walmart has far far more features than my old DVD, and is available at less than 5% of the cost. It it breaks, am I going to repair it? Of course not. I'm just going to throw it away and buy another. It's so cheap. It would cost me more to repair than to simply replace. </p>

<p>The point is, average Americans benefit immensely from free trade and globalization chiefly through lower prices. I would argue that it has probably never been cheaper, on an inflation-adjusted standpoint, to buy the basic things an American family needs today than it has ever been in history. Think about this. It wasn't that long ago when DVD players and computers were considered luxury items available only to the rich. Now, they are so cheap that every American can have them. Do you guys really think this would have happened without globalization? </p>

<p>The other way that regular Americans benefit is through better quality. This probably shown best of all by cars, particularly Japanese cars. You guys may be too young to remember this, but there was a time not long ago when American-made cars were unreliable pieces of garbage. Always breaking down, always needing repair. The American auto industry became the butt of jokes. </p>

<p>The Japanese came along and offered cheap, yet high quality cars. American consumers, fed up with unreliable American-made cars, snapped up the Japanese models. American carmakers were forced to vastly improve their quality, and they're a lot better than they used to be, but still not as good as the Japanese. But the point is, if not for globalization, I think we can all agree that we'd all still be driving around in unreliable American cars. Globalization forced the American carmakers to get better, and in the process, American consumer benefitted immensely by getting more reliable cars. Who here enjoys taking their car to the shop? Who enjoys being stranded on the side of the highway? </p>

<p>The point is that globalization greatly expand the choices available to the American consumer. The consumer still has the choice to buy American. On the other hand, the consumer can choose to buy cheap stuff and save money. Or the consumer can buy higher quality stuff which is often times comes from overseas (like Japanese cars). The bottom line is that Americans benefit greatly through more customer choice. </p>

<p>
[quote]
quality of life for engineers in asia will go up, while the quality of life for american engineers will go down. it's a zero-sum situation. In time the quality of life for engineers will be equal in asia & america.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I fundamentally disagree. Again, I would take a look at history. Back in the old days, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan used to be very poor countries. All of them were devastated by war, and had low standards of living, relative to Americans. They developed themselves through, among other things, the development of their electronics industries. Did that mean that the quality of life of American electrical engineers went down because Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese electrical engineers went up? No. They ALL went up. Like I said, when Intel gave up the DRAM business to Asia, Intel engineers moved on to the microprocessor. This is not a zero-sum game, not at all. Free trade and globalization enlarges the entire pie. Yes, some people will lose. In particular, those engineers who don't want to adapt will lose, just like those Intel engineers who refused to move away from the DRAM ended up fired. But those engineers who do adapt will gain.</p>

<p>Ok, look guys, I obviously don't know exactly which engineering field will turn out to be strong, or exactly what it is that engineers need to do to remain viable. I don't have a crystal ball. Nobody does. However, I would appeal to history. Americans have adapted to international competition before, and I don't see why they couldn't do it again. Remember back in the DRAM days, the microprocessor was a brand new thing that most engineers had never even heard of before. The point is not that I can tell you exactly which field you should enter, or what exactly you should study, but rather to tell you that the key is to remain flexible and adaptable. Again, those Intel engineers who flexibly adapted themselves to the new trend, which turned out to be microprocessors, did very well. Those who refused to adapt lost their jobs. Intel had no idea that microprocessors were going to be so big. Nobody did. But the point is that through flexibility, you will be able to adjust yourself to new demands. </p>

<p>Now, again, I will point out, I am not telling everybody to go out and become engineers. That is not what I'm saying. If you want to be a PA, or a fireman, or a doctor, or anything else, good for you. The question that I am dealing with is, what should you study for undergrad? Is engineering perfect? Of course not. But what else should you be majoring in. If you want to get a bachelor's degree, you gotta major in SOMETHING. So the question I posit is, if engineering is not a good thing to major in for undergrad, then what is? </p>

<p>That is, unless you are taking the position that you don't want to get a bachelor's degree at all. If that's your position, fine. But if your position is that people should get a bachelor's degree, then you have to name what that degree should be in.</p>

[CC_Admin]

<p>sakk, i think picking a major is subjective, thus i don't think there is a "should". This is something i've been attemping to tell everyone. Many smart kids just go into engineering, without even giving other majors a chance, based on potential starting salary and how safe engineering majors are after graduation. I think people should realize that doing something u like and trying hard to be the best will lead to a high salary regardless of your degree. </p>

<p>also, in most cities, i know in NY, there is a constant need of police officers, particularly those of ethnic backgrounds. In certain parts of the country, police officers make close to 6-figures. obviously, it is a dangerous profession, but now u look at engineering and it really isn't all that great.</p>

[sakky]

<p>Look, jeffl, I have never disagreed that people should be open to new ideas and new career paths.</p>

<p>However, what I think we can all agree on is that, on average, an engineering undergraduate degree is more lucrative than most if not all other kinds of undergraduate degrees. Again, I would emphasize the point that if you want to get bachelor's degree, you have to major in SOMETHING. I am not saying that everybody should major in engineering or that an engineering career is the greatest thing in the world. However, majoring in other fields carries risks too, and in particular, I would again point out that there are a LOT of Americans who wouldn't mind trading places with the engineer. Engineering may have instability, but so do a lot of other careers. You think that biologists and mathematicians never suffer from career instability? </p>

<p>Hence, it's all about looking at alternatives and balancing tradeoffs. However, I would again emphasize that if you want to get a college degree, you have to major in SOMETHING.</p>

<p>That is, if you want to get a college degree From what I've been seeing here on this thread, looks like a bunch of you are advocating that people should forgo the college degree completely and instead take blue-collar jobs. The first thing I would say is that from a nationalistic point of view, I find that kind of attitude to be tremendously depressing. So China and India are now competing with the US for scientific and technical mastery, and the response of America's youth is not to study harder in order to meet the challenge, but instead to give up and drop out of school completely? Is this really the attitude that made America great? Furthermore, let's put aside any nationalistic arguments and just follow this logic to its conclusion. If everybody should just drop out of college to become cops or firemen, then why not go even further? Maybe all Americans should just drop out of high school and go to work as laborers. Heck, why even prepare high school students for college at all? Since apparently an academic education does not guarantee you job stability, maybe we should shut down all the academic classes, and high schools should just teach metal shop and woodworking and all the vocational stuff only. </p>

<p>Clearly I think we can all agree that that goes too far. But that leads to another point. An academic education (as opposed to a purely vocational education) has NEVER been primiarly about getting a stable career, per se. It's about teaching you how to think and expanding your mind. It's just that an undergrad engineering education, while also providing you with the general mental benefits of an education, will also provide you with a career path, in a way that other undergrad degree paths won't. The guy who gets an English degree doesn't really have a prepared career path waiting for him. The guy with a Film Studies degree doesn't either. The guy with an engineering degree does. It's not the greatest career path, but it's better than not having anything at all. As a newly minted engineer, you can elect to take that path, or not take it. It's up to you. But at least it's there if you need it. So if all else fails, you can fall back on it. What does the guy with the Film Studies degree have to fall back on?</p>

[CC_Admin]

<p>the guy with the film studies degree can apply for a job with the NYPD, if he can't find a job that interests him. which will probably pay more than any job a regular film studies major will find with a film studies degree.</p>

[aibarr]

<p>jeffl....</p>

<p>Think, man!! Think! Can you imagine a film studies major training to be a police officer? Have you <em>met</em> any film studies majors? LOL.</p>

[ExRunner]

<p>The engineering major can also be a police officer. However, if he decides he doesn't want to risk his life as a police officer, he also has a decent engineering job.</p>

[golubb_u]

<p>" I find that kind of attitude to be tremendously depressing. So China and India are now competing with the US for scientific and technical mastery, and the response of America's youth is not to study harder in order to meet the challenge, but instead to give up and drop out of school completely? "</p>

<p>India/China are not competing for technical mastery (they're not inventing anything)....they're competing directly for US jobs, and the US corporations are handing them the jobs like food stamps. Between China and India there is such a HUGE supply that, according to supply-demand laws, the price of an engineer will drop to pennies on the dollar in the coming future.</p>

<p>I think Jeffl, unggio and I are all saying that people should look for stable, non-oursourceable jobs.....at least be able to put food on the table before dreaming of becoming the next google.</p>

<p>YES, outsourcing existed before, but never to this level. The internet has made oursourcing sooo cheap and sooo easy that many computer companies don't even start-up here....they're starting up abroad! The US VCs are pumping money directly into Shanghai and Banglore, bypassing Silicon Valley entirely.....that's the difference between outsourcing decades ago and outsourcing now.</p>

[epoch_dreams]

<p>Though I'm aware of the IT Industry taking a blow because of jobs going overboard to other countries, I do not believe this is the fate with engineers so much. Golubb, show me proof that engineers themselves are at risk because of job going to other countries.</p>

<p>Can anybody verify this? Or is Golubb just being a troll once again.</p>