<p>
The BLS has imperfect data for an imperfect world. It’s better than nothing.</p>
<p>^ No, I agree with TheWorm. We should reject published studies by government agencies and instead rely on statistically insignificant, unverifiable, anecdotal backwash. This is College Confidential, after all.</p>
<p>More to the point, I think that anybody who gets into engineering to become rich is probably misguided. Studying engineering and doing engineering are different, though. It’s always been my position that one should study what one enjoys in college, provided that they are responsible enough to ensure they are being rigorously challenged. Most of the jobs that pay better than engineering on the average… don’t require any specific degree and may require a degree of natural ability, or luck, which is beyond the reach of most people (viz. there aren’t many rich people and most people who make themselves rich have some talent or get lucky in ways that most people won’t). Or, of course, professions like medicine, law, etc., but one could argue that even these are comparable with engineering, particularly when one considers the lost wages while attending professional school…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is one massive, throbbing caveat you’ve got there. That right there is a level of responsibility above and beyond anything I can think of in the ordinary course of a person’s life. Rigorous challenge is why most people hate math to begin with. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What? Grade inflation in idiotic gen-eds and the majors that they lead to has created a gap that cannot conceivably be made up in real majors like engineering. Today’s summa cum laude high schooler with an IQ around 100 is tomorrow’s basket weaving major with a 3.7+ GPA which she is duly bestowed. She can get into a top 250 law school if she gets over a 155 on the LSAT. A decently-run high school is probably (and sadly) more legit than many of the colleges/majors out there. The difference between that and engineering is night and day. Most people don’t even bring up their GPA for discussion if it’s under a 3.5, I mean that’s still technically a B average so it’s not too terribly high anyway, and nobody’s going to scoff if they ask you your ****ing GPA and you don’t tell them, since it’s such a ridiculous thing to ask someone. Any time I’ve ever seen a spreadsheet put up on a course website with grades given by pin#, the average has never been higher than a B or B-. </p>
<p>–As an aside, interestingly enough, I find that the professor’s educational background has a lot to do with their grading philosophy. Liberal arts or ivy grad? A- is the mark of the entitled mediocrity. Engineer (in a non engineering class)? Definitely more work than the norm, but a curve is likely. Did he go to a flagship state university, then to an ivy for his PhD? You won’t be getting an A. Older (like 70+) professors are products of a different time. They themselves probably had under a 3.0 but still got into good graduate programs, they assume it will be the same for you. My sample size is of course well under 50 and is thus completely useless.–</p>
<p>Maybe for an engineering major at a highly selective school, the average would be above a 3, since it’d be foolish for the school to screw over students whom it knows have potential. For a not-so-selective university with capacity constraints, it makes no sense to dilute their reputation by providing individuals with IQs under 110 (duly assumed), that also cannot perform above average on exams, with exceptional grades. I mean in places like the U.K., Japan, and Germany, a lot of the types of people who do poorly in college in the States wouldn’t even be admitted to college to begin with. I think most -par- universities understand this, and this probably isn’t your background.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Grade inflation has reached engineering. It started in the “highly selective schools”, then the schools with large non-engineering student bodies that had inflated grades, and now in every school. Even Georgia Tech has inflated grades recently, raising the average GPA from 2.7 to 2.9 in engineering.</p>
<p>Ive never noticed that it is such a concern here with young engineers and making so much money when they first graduate and how to do it, i.e. “Why MBA after engineering”. Granted Im still in school and cannot give advice in that category but its common sense that you will have competition and there is always that 90 day probabtion that companies have for you. Depending on what your ultimate career goals are and the research that Ive been doing, you are going to reach that fork in the road to choose between upper management or technical specialist in engineering. I do have one question, wouldnt these two positons pretty much make the same amount of money? BTW…Im new to posting here and Im trying to figure out how to reply to someone else’s quote instead of just one post.</p>
<p>I come from a long line of engineers. I think engineering is probably one of the safer job markets there are. Lay offs exist, but from what I have seen, the management ALWAYS leaves first, making the transition and predictability to jump gate easier, especially when having a family.</p>
<p>I wanted to do business at first too. I thought it would be awesome making massive amounts of money and going all around the world. But I also have many business people in my family and frankly - they are all burned out and are unable to enjoy their money earned or life. I seldom see them and when I do, they are always on their phones (several actually its like a friggin utility belt).</p>
<p>In addition, while they have a higher salary, they must live a life accustomed to highs and lows with layoffs common in the most profitable jobs. It definitely gets tiring. </p>
<p>With engineering, I think the point has been made clear that MBA after some time in engineering is very common, so business is never out of the picture anyways should you choose to pursue it. You will just have the option of choosing where you want to go.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Georgia Tech is still pretty selective. The trend that started in higher-tier schools only trickles down so far, and at that, that Georgian’s 2.9 is nothing next to the 3.9 of a basket weaver at a top school. Going maybe past the top ~25 schools, I’m betting you wouldn’t see any significant inflationary trend at all in real majors.</p>
<p>“I mean in places like the U.K., Japan, and Germany, a lot of the types of people who do poorly in college in the States wouldn’t even be admitted to college to begin with”</p>
<p>I’m kinda killing this thread with this question but why is that? Do u think its because U.S. students simply arent as qualified as our counterparts or something else? Thats kinda worrisome. I have teachers who talk about this topic frequently. My calculus teacher is always making the joke that some kid from taiwan is better than us.</p>
<p>" think engineering is probably one of the safer job markets there are. Lay offs exist, but from what I have seen, the management ALWAYS leaves first, making the transition and predictability to jump gate easier, especially when having a family."</p>
<p>My dad is an engineering prof, so of course he has had a guaranteed job for the past 45 years, but the experience DH and I have had does not back up that statement at all. Maybe structures is different? We were at the same company for almost 4 years. Things looked a little shaky, but our managers assured us everything was fine. Then in one day, 20 of us (a big chunk of the design department) were let go. Managers, too! At my husband’s next job, he received a big bonus one Christmas, and then was let go out of the blue in early March (5 days before our second child was born). We have seen LOTS of surprise layoffs up here. Thank God we work for ourselves now!</p>
<p>Two thoughts</p>
<p>– lifetime learning is important–I recall a prof in MBA school saing as technology moved–you had to move with it because how shorten the food chain becomes…</p>
<p>–my dad started as an EE and was at the forefront of the computer age—he swithced to the sales side/mgt side because of finances…AND by the time he was in his 40s, he was obsolete and too expensive…hiring 2 20 somethings was cheaper than hiring him…</p>
<p>
I can see that happening in the consulting world. At the Fortune 500 I don’t think it’s as comparable though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But I think you’d agree that a difference still exists. Grade inflation has impacted all majors, engineering included, but law/med school admission are conducted on a relative basis. Meaning that if an engineer with an inflated 3.2 GPA is matched against a Basket-Weaving major with a 3.7 GPA, then, ceteris paribus, the latter will probably emerge victorious for the purposes of law/med school admissions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, no we’re not. At least, I wasn’t. I was simply talking about the earnings potential of the purchasing manager position. </p>
<p>Now, you can argue that that’s not a useful topic of discussion. But keep in mind, I wasn’t the one who brought it up. If you don’t like it, take it up with the person who actually invoked that topic.</p>
<p>
Uh, yes, we are. That’s the whole point of this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, the point of this subtopic is how much are purchasing managers paid. Again, the assertion by GP Burdell was that they made $50k. The BLS seems to disagree. Neither GPBurdell nor the BLS talked about anything other than how much they were paid. </p>
<p>Now, if you want to talk about how relatively difficult it may be to become a purchasing manager, that’s a fundamentally different point than the one I am talking about, which is simply: how much are they paid.</p>
<p>If you don’t like this new subtopic regarding how much purchasing managers are paid, then take it up with the person who brought it up. I wasn’t the one who brought up the issue.</p>
<p>How many of these jobs (percentage-wise) make up all of the engineering jobs available? There are only so many jobs period than can adhere to all of this “must have this GPA/School” requirements that fills so many threads of this board.</p>