Do NOT major in engineering!

College Majors Engineering Majors
81

<p>

</p>

<p>Don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I think students should be guided into fields that are more inline with their interests but could increase their employability, earning prospects, and general livelihood by tenfold. I’d say at least a majority of students studying mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology would be a lot better served if they studied a related engineering discipline, especially if they go on to do graduate studies. At my school, a lot of the engineering professors are essentially physicists, applied mathematicians, chemists, and biologists. Because the chances of them finding a permanent position in their field is slim to none. The only ones I would say that are out of luck and are truly unfortunate are those who want to study areas with no practical application or experimental uses (pure math, particle theory, etc.). Like you say, for most students, that could be their hobbies they pursue on their own time. </p>

82

<p>Magma55, I would suggest you look at this table, compiled by the government off of tax returns:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.bls.gov/OES/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000[/url]”>http://www.bls.gov/OES/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I understand that there is ambiguity both in the job title (a mathematician is a person who describes themselves as such) and in the degree of educational achievement (I can call myself a mathematician with a BS, MS, PhD, or nothing at all), but it is the best and least biased way to compare people working in the field. Note that this is not an educational outcomes study - a PhD mathematician working as a fry cook is a fry cook, not a mathematician!</p>

<p>Still, here are some relevant medians:</p>

<p>Chemists: $77,740
Mathematicians: $103,310, although there is a related (and larger) category down at $81,660
Physicists: $117,040
Physical Scientists as a whole: $84,300</p>

<p>Aerospace Engineers: $105,450
Electrical Engineers: $93,380
Chemical Engineers: $104,340
Engineers as a whole: $92,170</p>

<p>While I agree that Chemists get a bit screwed by ChemE’s, overall I am not seeing a huge difference here. No one appears to be stuck with an average unlivable wage here, and the reason is that (although you may not realize it) industry DOES have use for these people and pay them pretty well! I have a friend who is an associate prof at a TOP university program, and his published salary (it’s a public) is less than mine, despite him having a higher degree AND despite my salary getting essentially frozen while I work on my PhD.</p>

<p>So it really isn’t that big a deal.</p>

83

<p>

A couple of years ago, there were a lot of news stories about a report listing a 0.0% unemployment rate for actuarial science majors. A 0.0% unemployment rate does not sound like specialized majors are saturating all the actuary positions. It’s my understanding that the main criteria for becoming an actuary is doing well on the actuarial exams, rather than having a particular, specialized major. Although obviously more specialized training increases chances of doing well on the tests. The BLS predicts a 26% increase in number of actuary positions between 2012 and 2024, much higher than engineering as a whole, suggesting positions are increasing at a higher rate that increases in number of specialized majors. </p>

<p>Actuaries are far from the only non-academic occupation mathematics majors can pursue. Some become mathematicians, statisticians, financial researchers, cryptographers, etc. in the private field. My mother majored in theoretical mathematics at a LAC where the vast majority pursue grad degrees and there is very little focus on employable skills. She did not go to grad school and instead was a homemaker when I was growing up, so she had a gap of ~20 years after college, with no paid jobs on her resume. While I was in college, she became an accountant. She took 1 accounting class at a community college, took the state exam, and scored well enough for a job. She became an accounting manager 1-2 years later. There are many possible careers a mathematics major can pursue.</p>

<p>

Your earlier post specifically questioned the starting salaries, so that seemed to be the issue earlier today. Note that the salaries in the Georgetown survey are not only the salaries of those who have jobs in their field. They are the salaries for all who had that major. Maybe a notable portion of the mathematics majors are working in an unrelated field, maybe not. Either way, they are earning a decent median salary.</p>

<p>

Are you just making up numbers? The AIP survey of physics PhDs found that the ~90% of physics PhD’s post-doc position was related to physics, and most of the PhD recipients had their first potentially permanent position in physics. The minority that switched to a different career field were most likely to enter engineering (14%) by far, a field that is not known for low salaries and lack of employment opportunities</p>

84

<p>

</p>

<p>But, that’s the whole point of my argument. If the average math PhD is unable to find permanent employment as a mathematician, then that starts to look really bad on the PhD if it was largely a useless exercise that did not advance one’s career. Saying it is not a big deal after citing the average salary for the mathematicians who do end up with permanent positions is not unlike citing the average salaries of NFL players and then telling a football player that he’ll be alright by “following his dreams”. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Which makes it useless data. Until they provide the industries people work in by major, all of this is speculation really. For all we know, a majority of the people who majored in math double majored in something employable (computer science, economics, etc.). In fact, I think this is likely. I just don’t buy the notion that only knowing advanced mathematics and being able to construct abstract proofs are employable qualities on their own that employers value, which is the only things that are picked up in a pure math degree. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I just posted many links on the previous that conclusively showed that less than 10% of all PhD’s will get permanent positions in academia, and the AIP data is widely known to be incredibly misleading as it pertains to graduates and their prospects. So, if 90% or so PhD’s eventually leave academia, you along with the AIP seem to be suggesting that 76% work in a position in physics outside of academia? That is an extraordinary claim and will require extraordinary evidence. There are not even anywhere near that many pure physics related jobs in industry, and most of the applied physics jobs are strictly reserved for engineering PhD’s. Any standard job search of physics PhD vs engineering PhD will demonstrate this. The fact of the matter is, the lion’s share of physics research is done in academia (universities, national labs, etc.). </p>

<p>Unless you can post this hidden repository of physics jobs/industries, then I suspect the AIP is being very liberal with it’s interpretation of “physics” job. Sorry, I just don’t think a quantitative finance job counts as a “physics” job.</p>

85

<p>

The issue is that you have a very narrow definition of mathematician - it isn’t limited to academics. It includes people who go to Wall Street as quants, and people who go to industry to do applied math, and people who work in research labs and think tanks or in patent law firms. If you want to know outcomes for a PhD program, look at the CVs of the advisors, because they will usually list the jobs of every PhD they can, and a solid majority of them (at any decent program) will be good outcomes.</p>

<p>That having been said, a PhD is ALWAYS a risk, in that outside of a handful of jobs it isn’t really necessary. My career will not hugely advance by my getting an EE PhD, and when you consider the opportunity costs it is almost certainly a detriment! And that is engineering too!</p>

<p>As an aside, everyone here does realize that “post-doc” is a very specific period and type of temporary employment, and does not represent the “final” outcome of the PhD, correct? You mentioned post-doc salaries, and that is like talking about undergrad internship salaries or the pay of MD’s working as residents - it is low because they are still considered to be in an instruction mode.</p>

<p>

I know dozens of physicists and mathematicians and at least a couple of honest-to-God chemists in industry, and they are making better money than their counterparts in academia - indeed, just about the only time that academia pays better than industry is when there is no industry. What do you think happens to all the engineering PhD’s? Few go into academia, most go into industry. It turns out that there are lots of problems in math, physics, and chemistry that engineers struggle with, and it helps to have mathematicians, physicists, and chemists in the company to help with them.</p>

<p>For that matter, a surprising number find really good employment that are not technically in their original fields. I work with a physics PhD who works as a top-level engineer. I worked with a mathematician who because a 6-figure program manager with no additional education. I don’t consider either of those people to be failures because they are not working as physicists or mathematicians.</p>

86

<p>

The study reported salaries for grad degrees in mathematics were not far from the salaries for grad degrees in CS and some types of engineering, and the unemployment rate for grad degrees in mathematics is as low as grad degrees in engineering fields. This tells us the degree is highly employable and was not a useless exercise. If instead the degree was worthless and graduates were forced to enter unrelated fields, then the salary and/or unemployment numbers would reflect the lack of experience in other fields and/or lack of ability to use the background for other sectors.</p>

<p>

This is getting silly. You think it is likely that a majority of people who majored in math double majored in something more employable. I expect you won’t be able to find a single commencement graduate list in the United States for any year at any college where this true. </p>

<p>

Your earlier post linked to pages suggesting most physics PhDs take temporary post-doc positions that do not pay well after receiving their degree, then later move to a different positions. Multiple links referenced a NSF survey from several years ago that found ~23% of physics PhDs held tenure or tenure track positions (presumably in physics) 4-6 years after their PhD was awarded. I’m not sure how you get less than 10% of physics PhDs are working in their field from that or 90% leave academia? Do you realize that there are physics positions outside of academia? Not working in academia is not synonymous with working in a field unrelated to physics. The AIP survey found that 57% of those that worked in a potentially permanent position worked in the private sector, 23% in academia, and 16% in government. Only 23% worked in academia, yet most of this group had a position in physics. If for simplicity we assume that all of the academia and government positions related to physics, you still can’t make the totals work without a good portion of the private sector jobs also being in physics. </p>

87

<p>If you have to pull all nighters to major in engineering, you’re doing it wrong. </p>

88

<p>@chaoswithinthed, that’s not necessarily true. If you are doing it regularly, that not good. But sometimes it just works out you are gonna be working through the night. I’ve done it a few times in school.</p>

<p>Well, I’ve read through this whole thread, and I think the OP disappeared a few pages ago, lol. I need to be funneling into the stadium in less than 4 hours for commencement… I should probably get some sleep. </p>

<p>It has been said before, but if you’re getting into engineering, or anything, for just the money then you are gonna have some issues later on. I have been more than happy with my “career” in engineering so far. 3 internships/co-ops that paid well. A bunch of options and offers for full time. Turned down a starting salary in the 70ks with 6+k signing bonus so I could work for my top choice of a company with a salary in the 60ks. I’m more than happy.</p>

<p>If you’re struggling in engineering, then you should switch majors. Drop to business orIOE (shout out to Vlad :slight_smile: ). Vlad is making bank out of school too, so the money is there if you choose the right job. It should still be something you enjoy though.</p>

<p>I’ll get to work at a hands on job. I won’t be at a desk all day. I’ll interact with a bunch of different people, etc. Eventually I hope to work my way into management, get an MBA, maybe my PE, maybe project management, etc. I’m happy and I fee like I’m in a great spot.</p>

<p>Oh, some of those salary figures seemed messed up, lol.</p>

<p>Also, discussing GPAs from degree to degree or school to school is dumb. A lot can change.</p>

<p>Vlad, you walking tomorrow? You going to both of the ceremonies? I’m pumped to hear our engineering commencement speakers… some lady from BP and the head of SWE. You ready for 2 hours of “power to women engineers! Girls in STEM! etc etc” </p>

<p>ugh</p>

89

<p>

</p>

<p>Today? I moved. In a different state. </p>

90

<p>“If you’re struggling in engineering, then you should switch majors. Drop to business orIOE (shout out to Vlad :)”</p>

<p>What a stupid piece of advice! We really need more Industrial Engineers who have no passion for what they are doing and choose it simply as a “backup” major. Even dumber is the idea that it is an easy major. </p>

<p>There was some kid here a few weeks ago thinking that if he changed his major to IE, he would get easy A’s. Take a class in Stochastic Models and come back later.</p>

91

<p>here is the rule: if you are in engineering and you don’t make 3.5 then DIVE out. no one on this earth has had a more pathetic and embarassing career as an engineer than me. career failure at an almost laughable level. given that, i cannot turn everyone off engineering. I can say maintain 3.5 or get out. The poster is right, a 2.8 or 3 which is deemed maybe ok in engineering will close the door on law/med/dent/good MBA (without 750 gmat). if you can do 2.9 or 3 in engineering you can do 3.7 in business easy so get out while you can and save your dignity, get amazing marks, have fun with the extra time and scope out a good law/med/dent/mba program then rake in that dough while your while your sub 3.5 friends will be cube dwelling in total envy. </p>

92

<p>

I’d agree about med school, but not law and business. There are quite a few law and business schools that routinely accept lower GPA applicants. For example,I grew up near Union and know a few people who went to their business school. Their business school has a >99% acceptance rate and a median GMAT of ~550. Obviously they are not requiring admits to have high stats. They claim to have 90% job placement within 3 months of graduation. I currently live near Thomas Jefferson Law School. According to <a href=“http://thomasjefferson.lawschoolnumbers.com/”>Recently Updated J.D. Profiles | Law School Numbers; , the entering class at TJ has a median GPA of 2.93. Their median GPA is in the range that you say has their door closed to law school. A significant portion of the class has GPAs as low as 2.6.</p>

<p>

If you can easily achieve a 3.7 in a business related major, but struggle to maintain a 3.0 in engineering, then you likely either lack talent or interest in the engineering field. Some are the other way around and would find it easier to achieve high grades in engineering than business. For example, at the college I attended, CS had a reputation for being an especially challenging field. However, I found CS classes quite easy, probably easier than any other field I have studied. All programming outcomes were purely deterministic and followed a set of basic rules, so it was straightforward to produce desired outcomes or debug. It just made sense to me. I’d find writing an excellent paper for a business class to be much more challenging since you cannot easily define how to write an ‘A’ paper or even easily specify why a particular paper is an ‘A’ paper and not a ‘B’ paper.</p>

93

<p>Most engineers are finding jobs, and the average final GPA for engineers is less than 3.5.</p>

<p>To graduate with Honors in Engineering (Cum Laude), you need a 3.2 at the University of Michigan, a 3.15 at Georgia Tech and a 3.3 at the University of Florida. If you graduate with honors, you’re doing fine. </p>

94

<p>But here’s the rub: that may well be well and good for engineering, but will not cut it for med school, dentistry or higher ranked law and mba programs. in these programs you need 3.4 minimum to be competetive. and data10, the issue with law and MBA is that the ranking is critical, basically 1st tier only for law and even then. </p>

95

<p>If you have 5 or 10 years of work experience, there are a lot of other factors that will factor into MBA admissions than just GPA, and if you don’t have that experience yet, you have no business getting an MBA anyway.</p>

96

<p>

First of all, fully 1 in 4 (roughly) engineering students will be competitive by the standards you cite - if you cannot make it in the top 25% of engineering students, do you really think you should looking further right away?</p>

<p>Second, all of the schools you just indicated are departures from the field of engineering. If these are your aspirations, why are you going into engineering anyway? And why should the engineering community spend time worrying about accommodating those planning on leaving it?</p>

97

<p>

A good portion of 1st tier law and business schools emphasize other areas besides GPA, such as test scores for law and working experience for business. As an example, UT Austin has a top 20 ranked law school. An acceptance scattergram for their law school is at <a href=“Recently Updated J.D. Profiles | Law School Numbers”>Recently Updated J.D. Profiles | Law School Numbers; . Note that the accept the vast majority of applicants with a 168 LSAT, including ones with GPAs as low as 2.6, far below your competitive threshold. And they reject or waitlist the vast majority of applicants with a LSAT of under a 167, including applicants with a GPA as high as 4.0. If you look up historically salary reports for grads of less than 1st tier schools, they generally do have respectable mid career salaries. The salaries are not as high as top ranked schools, nor is their rate of initial employment after graduating, but nothing to suggest top tier or nobody cares about the degree. </p>

<p>I agree with cosmicfish that most people who get into engineering want to work in engineering, rather than go law or dentistry school. If your goal is becoming a lawyer or dentist and you are not interested in engineering, then majoring in engineering seems like an odd choice.</p>

98

<p>I don’t know about medical school, but I don’t think an engineering degree is a huge problem for getting into law school or business school. Law school admissions do care about GPA, but LSAT is even more important. “Splitters” with high LSAT scores and sub-3.5 GPAs can still get into good law schools, although perhaps not the very most selective ones. Patent lawyers require a science or engineering degree, so everyone is in the same boat.</p>

<p>I’ve known a reasonable number of engineers who have gone on to business school. They have tended to do very well on the GMAT, helped by strong math skills. Work experience is also very important for B-school admissions. </p>

99

<p>You’re gonna make a lot more (per hour) as an engineer your first year than you will a banker your first year. Sure, if you’re the type who can handle business, go for it, you’ll make more. But I’m not, most engineers aren’t, so we do what we do. And there’s a ton of burnout on the business track, it’s not easy. Engineering is the easiest way to get and stay in the middle class. </p>

100

<p>

</p>

<p>Uh, @Magma55, you may want to check the BSN requirements. It is a very academic program these days. You may be thinking of CNAs or MAs, but the modern BS nursing programs are pretty heavy with science classes.</p>

<p>Almost forgot to add the real point here: the economy is not capable of absorbing all of the graduates of any field except maybe MDs. It really is a shame to put out the money and effort to get a degree (in any chosen field) and not end up employed.</p>