<p>^ Hehe...I'm a Berkeley boy working at an oil refinery.<br>
I'm in an air conditioned office nearly 100% of the time...since I'm a business analyst.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As we both state these are beginning salaries. I don't understand your disagreement.
[/quote]
You said the best BSME would make 65k/year. That's false. An average ME getting hired by a major IOC likely makes 65k/year (at least on the upstream side, but I've seen competitive offers downstream as well).</p>
<p>Anyways, if you are going out of the country you are raking in serious cash, none of this weak 65k/year nonsense. And people from "elite" schools are very concerned with making elite amounts of money, regardless of the risks, why else would they work in Ibanking!</p>
<p>Perhaps that is where the disconnect is. There is no interest in IB and work will be in sunny Southern California.</p>
<p>Surprise! Not all people at elite schools are motivated by money. Some are motivated by helping mankind, research, doing what interests them, working 40 instead of 100/hrs/wk. Many boys who work in ME have lots of other interests, great social skills and friends, extreme athletic pursuits, musical abilities, travel, etc. There is more to life than money. </p>
<p>Best of luck to you!</p>
<p>...often, only because they know they'll be making good money eventually anyway.</p>
<p>CMU's high ME this past year got $72k and on average and in the high $50ks. I don't think they're ranked as high in ME as any of the schools being talked about in this thread. </p>
<p>In comparison, their CS department's BS grads earned $70,000 on average and the best got $86,000 (all considerably higher than the business school!).</p>
<p>Yeah, no big surprise.</p>
<p>The ME guys I know making the big($75k) bucks are working in Aerospace. Defense contractors pay a decent amount.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps Mr. Payne. But most men from the elite schools don't want to be blown apart by oil derricks, sweat in the heat of Texas, Canada, ME and South America. GET REAL</p>
<p>THERE WILL BE BLOOD, BUT NOT ON STANFORD,
MIT, BERKLEY, AND GA TECH BOYS! OR VERY FEW!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, actually I think you are the one who needs to get real. It may surprise you that Stanford actually has the #1 ranked Petroleum Engineering (they call it Energy Resources Engineering for undergrads) program in the nation. Many of those grads will indeed end up working in the field, as after all, that is what petroleum engineering is. </p>
<p>Secondly, I happen to think that upstream petroleum engineering jobs are fantastic jobs when you're young and have the energy.</p>
<p>You bring up the safety aspect. I am not aware of any information that would lead me to believe that upstream jobs are any more dangerous than other industrial settings where other engineers typically work (i.e. let's face it: semiconductor chip fabs and automobile assembly plants aren't exactly the safest places in the world either). </p>
<p>You also bring up the fact that you have to work outdoors a lot. Yeah, but a lot of people like that, as opposed to being cooped up in a staid cubicle for the whole day. This seems to me to be a matter of personal taste. </p>
<p>Consider my brother. He's didn't major in petroleum engineering, but he majored in geophysics, which is quite similar. He went to Caltech and Stanford, both being elite schools. One reason that he specifically cited for choosing geophysics is that he would get to spend a lot of time outdoors, conducting research at various geological sites, which is something that he likes to do. He's younger than I am yet he has already traveled around the world more extensively than I have (and I haven't exactly been a homebody). Heck, his entire research group at Stanford are all rugged outdoorsmen/women. </p>
<p>Similarly, at MIT, I know there are plenty of students in the Earth and Planetary Sciences department (which is MIT's fancy name for geology/Earth sciences), who spend a great deal of time outdoors. For example, I know of one PhD student who hasn't been in her MIT office in almost a year; rather she's been out on a boat somewhere collecting data about the oceans. </p>
<p>I think it's a matter of personal taste. Some people like doing outdoors work. Others don't. But I don't see any evidence that students at elite schools tend to like outdoors work any less than do other students. </p>
<p>
[quote]
work will be in sunny Southern California.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's interesting that you bring this up, because there is also a LOT of petroleum engineering work also done in Southern California. In fact, 5 of the 12 largest oilfields in the US are in sunny California. In fact, Los Angeles was basically founded as an oil boom town: oil was discovered in LA in 1892, and by the 1920's, LA was the source of 25% of the entire world's oil production. {In other words, LA was basically the "Saudi Arabia" of its time}. LA still produces substantial oil even today. Bakersfield and the greater San Joaquin Valley is also similarly one of the largest oil producing regions in the world.</p>
<p>SAKKY, I so do appreciate you educating me. Thank you.</p>
<p>However, that wasn't our topic with which I attempted to provide some insight. It was introduced later by Mr. Payne and you. There were several other ideas explored.</p>
<p>However, it is great knowledge, and I thank you for contributing. The men with whom I am familiar don't wan't to be in oil fields, any where. I'm glad some do!</p>
<p>I also recommend all readers verify their information obtained from any Internet sight.</p>
<p>i am not sure how the topic got into geophysics and mechanical engineering, but i am still greatfull for the responses</p>
<p>There are just a few burning questions i have. </p>
<p>First off, i am thinking of switchign my major to physics beucase that is what intersests me more. Now i know physics majors have hard time finding jobs, but i just wanted to know that woudl it be any diffrent if i went to CalTech or MIT? Would companies want physicsts from these places?</p>
<p>Also i told my dad about wanting to be a physicst and he told me that my math ability is not good enough. On the SAT i have a 800 and on the ACT 36 on the math portions I dont know much more that i can do to tell him that I personally think that it is good enough, because MIT does also, because they sent me a letter.</p>
<p>I am thinking of going into Theoretical Physics and hope to stay at MIT to get my degrees. I am aiming for a PhD. I know that it gets very mathmatically rigourous, but could someone make a modern anaology. Is it as bad as an armless man trying to climb mount everest?</p>
<p>Well, it's very possible that it's a different kind of math than you've been doing so far if you haven't been doing proof-based math. I'm not the best to talk about that kind of stuff, since I completely hate it, but I'm sure there's someone here more informed.</p>
<p>As for going into theoretical physics for a career. Well, I think the only real option is academia. And if you're going to do that, then you really want to be sure you're absolutely top notch since there's a lot of people out there all doing similar things fighting for the same positions. Perhaps look into more applied versions of physics? Materials science is pretty sweet. :cool:</p>
<p>rixtehstix:</p>
<p>There are a number of companies that hire theoretical physicists. Some prefer them because they have a more general education that can be applied in many different areas. The firm I work for hires optical, mechanical, electrical and software engineers in roughly equal numbers. The physicists seem to be more comfortable in all these areas and are valued as systems engineers.</p>
<p>Hi!</p>
<p>It is funny how this threat basically addresses all the turmoil that I have been through. I am actually a GT student, and I was and am still very passionate about physics. We all know there are less job opportunities with physics, and due to practicality (i.e. the need for you to be a genius in order to go somewhere with physics,) I decided to major in EE. In fact, just like you, I was thinking that I would eventually go to Med school- it seemed as though unlike anybody else, I wanted to major in everything and do much more work than I had to.</p>
<p>I would too talk about the general theory of relativity- haha</p>
<p>bottom line, I decided to go for something in between all my passions: something completely interdisciplinary and to major in Biomedical Engineering, though I still have my doubts. I may even go to Med school, and do MD. PhD, but</p>
<p>I may after all double major in physics but I don't really know how do'able that is. </p>
<p>I'd have to say, I am still undecided</p>
<p>how is georgia techs physics department. </p>
<p>will i be able to learn alot about theoretical physics even if i do an electrical engineering major?</p>
<p>You might be better off doing materials science and concentrating on semiconductors or other high tech devices that work on really small scales, and thus require a strong knowledge of quantum mechanics and solid state physics.</p>
<p>I know they have applied and pure physics. but their department shows no where on the rankings so I am taking it's not competitive. afterall, most people who come to tech are looking for a technical education, not much theory.</p>
<p>and in EE, possibly if you do MEMs but I'm not sure- i am barely a sophomore.</p>
<p>does anybody know about transfer student? If I go to another school for the first 2 yrs and transfer to GA tech for another 2 yrs and end up with a bachelor at GA tech, Is my degree gonna be the same with people who went to GA tech for 4 years?</p>
<p>Sorry to barge in the conversation but I am really surprised with all your comments about Stanford and GT. My son (who unfortunately did not get in any of the two) comes from a very good HS in Florida where most kids ( top students of course) use GT as a safety school in favor of Berkeley, MIT, CalTech and Stanford. Regarding Stanford: they only pick the best and the brightest ( maybe one every other year , while 20% end up in others Ives + MIT). Here an acceptance from Stanford it is seen as a greater accomplishment than an acceptance of any of the other Ives or MIT.</p>
<p>ddahwan,</p>
<p>For Engineering, GT really can’t be described, in general, as a safety school. It’s not as selective as the Ives or Stanford (7% admit rate), but it is viewed, as being one of top 10 schools for engineers.</p>