<p>^^^
LOL !!!Now I can stand why GM is about to file for bankruptcy protection and Toyota is gaining ground globally.</p>
<p>The starting salaries for the New Mexico grads were probably higher because new engineers are scarce in NM. There just aren't any better schools within hundreds of miles, and the area is high-growth.</p>
<p>I think I would have had a harder time getting a job after college in the east coast with a New Mexico Tech degree as opposed to a Berkeley engineering degree. Likewise with Penn, because very few people actually know that Penn has an engineering dept and hence there might be doubts about the aptitude of its grads amongst employers.</p>
<p>Whether in the US or abroad, a Cal engineering degree gives you much better mobility. That's not a huge factor in terms of observed statistics because most Cal grads stay in state and get local jobs.</p>
<p>the classes at Wharton advantage is moot, you can take Haas electives at the engineerng dept, I did. As well, there is a whole major dedicated to management science, ORMS, which IMHO is superior to an undergraduate business degree, because it provides you with a solid technical foundation and teaches you to think. You will be in a better position to learn the tools of business with an MBA down the road, on a much higher level.</p>
<p>The other thing about engineering at Cal is that Cal is in one of the most dynamic tech regions in the world. This means that the opportunities to start with a high-growth company are there, as is the fact that the local technology is cutting edge. That is reflected in the curriculum.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The starting salaries for the New Mexico grads were probably higher because new engineers are scarce in NM. There just aren't any better schools within hundreds of miles, and the area is high-growth.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure that the above is true, but even if it is, I think that's exactly the point. From a pure employability standpoint, you want to have as little competition as possible. That's how supply and demand works. There is little point in getting a degree in X if there is an oversupply of people with degrees in X. </p>
<p>In fact, this all gets down to career management. Basic economics dictates that you want to have a skill for which there is more demand than there is supply. So if the above is true, this only reinforces the notion that the New Mexico Tech engineers are getting a very sweet deal. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Likewise with Penn, because very few people actually know that Penn has an engineering dept and hence there might be doubts about the aptitude of its grads amongst employers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh really? Have you taken a glance at the statistics?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/careerservices/seas/survey2005.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/careerservices/seas/survey2005.pdf</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2004Majors.stm#salary%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2004Majors.stm#salary</a></p>
<p>It seems to me that the engineering salaries for both Penn and Berkeley in 2004 are basically the same, particularly when you factor in the different costs of living in the 2 regions (the SF Bay Area is more expensive than the Philadelphia/southern NJ region). For example, the average Penn engineer got a starting salary of about 54.7k in 2004. That's not significantly different from what the average Berkeley engineer started at in 2004.</p>
<p>The point is, it sure doesn't seem to me that employers have expressed much 'doubts' about the aptitude of the Penn engineering grads, relative to the aptitudes of the Berkeley engineering grads. If that were really true, then there should be a significant salary gap between Berkeley engineers and Penn engineers. There is not. If the Penn engineers are really that bad, then why don't those employers just pay them less? Are these employers just stupidly throwing money away by overpaying them? </p>
<p>
[quote]
the classes at Wharton advantage is moot, you can take Haas electives at the engineerng dept, I did
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think the Wharton advantage is far from moot. Haas students get dedicated career services available to them. More importantly, they get priority for all Haas classes. Haas classes tend to be heavily oversubscribed. As a non-Haas student, you are basically relegated to the back of the line. You might get the class, you might not. Heck, you might not get a particular Haas class even if you are a Haas student, but your chances are clearly higher. </p>
<p>
[quote]
ORMS, which IMHO is superior to an undergraduate business degree, because it provides you with a solid technical foundation and teaches you to think.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Except for the strong caveat that ORMS is also impacted. Hence, you may not get into that major. </p>
<p>"The ORMS major is full. No new admissions accepted at this time."</p>
<p>
[quote]
The other thing about engineering at Cal is that Cal is in one of the most dynamic tech regions in the world. This means that the opportunities to start with a high-growth company are there, as is the fact that the local technology is cutting edge. That is reflected in the curriculum.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Silicon Valley is indeed an extremely dynamic tech region, arguably the best in the world. But that has always led me to wonder why is it that Silicon Valley companies don't pay Berkeley engineers better? Seriously, Berkeley is supposed to be one of the best engineering schools in the world. Yet the fact is that, with the exception of CS, Berkeley engineers really don't make that much more money than an engineer from a lesser school makes. For example, Berkeley ME's really aren't doing that well. </p>
<p>Don't believe me? Then consider the engineering salaries from San Jose State. Now, it should be said that these are 2005 SJSU salaries, so they aren't completely comparable to 2004 Berkeley salaries. But the point is, the SJSU engineers are not that far behind the Berkeley engineers in terms of salary. In many cases, the SJSU engineers are only trailing the Berkeley engineers by a few thousand dollars a year, which is really not that much money. You would think that having a Berkeley engineering degree would grant you a significantly higher salary than getting an engineering degree from a lesser school. But that does not seem to be the case. The difference is small. </p>
<p>Now, again, I don't mean to pick on Berkeley specifically. I have seen this phenomenom time and time again - that the top engineering employers are simply not willing to pay much of a premium to get the top engineering grads. In other words, they don't really care about getting top talent. They may SAY that they want top talent, but when push comes to shove, they're not willing to put their money where their mouth is. And that gets back to what I've always been saying - that engineering is a really sweet deal for the mediocre students, but is not a very good deal for the top students. Those top students can probably do better doing something else, like consulting, banking, med school, law school, etc. </p>
<p>I distinctly remember one guy I know, an MIT engineer, weighing his offers. He had a bunch of engineering offers that would pay him 60-65k to start. Yet he also had an investment banking offer that would pay him 120k (including the year-end bonus). Which offer do you think he ended up taking? </p>
<p>If HYPYM started charging tuition fee in the amout of $8,000.00 per year. Berkely would have been top of the world in ranking real soon.</p>
<p>I always learn a lot from Sakky's posts.</p>