<p>If player performance was really the only metric people cared about, how can the Lions pay anyone above the NFL's minimum wage? :p</p>
<p>
[quote]
FWIW, what % of engineers have life-threatening, or even career-threatening jobs?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay, then <em>I</em> should be paid more.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If player performance was really the only metric people cared about, how can the Lions pay anyone above the NFL's minimum wage?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Game over!</p>
<p>e-fight! WOO WOO WOO</p>
<p>Is there ANY career that is both intellectually stimulating AND financially rewarding? (PS: I'm roflmao right now...this thread is priceless)</p>
<p>It's time to pull out "occam's razor" on some of these posts. Better yet, I think it's more fitting to use John McCain's economic strategy and trade in "occam's razor" for a hatchet. In actuality, some of these posts require a chainsaw if there is to be any hope to cut through them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Dude, I'm pretty sure that his point was that the whole basis of consulting is that you get an outside perspective. So while I suppose you could do "in-house consulting," you'd lose some major credibility in terms of objectivity, particularly if it came to litigation or something.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I understand the purpose of some outside consulting for precisely what you stated: to deflect litigation or to get board buy-in.</p>
<p>But what I am saying is that present day management consulting firms perform numerous roles that are far more wide-ranging. I am simply asking - why? Why not just set up your own in-house consulting arm? Outside management consulting firms are horrifically expensive. </p>
<p>Lest you think this is a radical notion, allow me to point out that numerous firms have set up internal consulting divisions. Heck, there's an entire professional organization - the Association of Internal Management Consultants * - that is devoted specifically to boosting the professional standards of those who work for such internal consulting arms. </p>
<p>[url=<a href="http://www.aimc.org/%5DAIMC%5B/url">http://www.aimc.org/]AIMC[/url</a>] </p>
<p>So, I ask the question, why doesn't Yahoo do that? Note, it doesn't have to set up a permanent internal consulting division. It can just create a temporary consulting task force from some of its existing employees. Why not? After all, many of Yahoo's managers were themselves former consultants from the top firms such as McKinsey and Bain. Have some of them head the task force. Then fill the rest of the task force by offering positions to the very best Yahoo employees, where task force role will pay significantly more than their current job (i.e. just as much as an actual outside consultant), and successful completion of the task force assignments will be looked upon very favorably for future promotion or general career development. Note - nobody is going to be forced into taking this job. But those who want it can apply and an internal hiring process will decide who is selected. Doing this will be far far cheaper than hiring outside consultants, who charge ridiculous prices. The best Yahoo engineers (and other employees) will have a chance to boost their careers, just like consultants do. </p>
<p>The point here is simply that companies have a lot of room to offer far better opportunities to their own employees, rather than spending millions in hiring outside consultants. Yes, I agree, there may be a problem with objectivity. However, I would argue that that would be counterbalanced with greater credibility. Countless consulting recommendations (for which millions upon millions of dollars paid) are never implemented because internal resistance to those changes is simply too great. This represents a massive waste of funds. On the other hand, if those recommendations are coming from your own people, they are probably easier to accept. </p>
<p>Nobody is advocating that all outside consulting will disappear. What I am saying is that a lot of it can be eliminated by simply training up your own people. For example, instead of bringing in expensive consultants to teach you how to implement, say, lean manufacturing, send your own employees to training so they can learn how to do it themselves. I would suspect you would probably save money and also become known as a top employer-of-choice because of the opportunities for employees to learn new things. </p>
<p>I simply find it sad to see employees who want to learn some new skill, but whose employer won't provide them with opportunities to do so, only for that employer to then turn around and pay millions to bring in outside consultants to do the exact same task (and often times do it poorly) that those employees wanted to learn how to do but were not allowed. That's sad. That's why a lot of people would rather work at consulting firms. Sad but true.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Though I do have to ask one thing. Sakky, why are you contrasting a Harvard degree to UCSD in your post against me?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Somebody used it as an example, and I am going to invoke that example. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Why not do an actual comparison between two schools that are peers? Whenever you make comparisons you seem to love putting superstar against something that's a lot more average.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because I don't think that's an interesting comparison to make. Obviously if you are seriously considering engineering, then it is probably better for you to go to Stanford or MIT than to go to Harvard. I don't think there is much else to say about the matter.</p>
<p>The interesting case is when you compare a superstar vs. a non-superstar. Like, yes, Harvard vs. UCSD. Given that choice, I would have to think about it... for about a microsecond. </p>
<p>The real question to me comes down to: how sure are you really about engineering? After all, most people who enter engineering programs don't actually finish. Either they find out they don't like it, or they can't cut it, or whatever. Even of those that do finish, a lot of them don't take engineering jobs. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You talk about people going into IB because engineering jobs are boring, and then say the engineering jobs you're talking about are supporting almost ten year old software. How about doing a comparison of a non-Wall Street finance job versus cutting edge research facilities?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, it's like this. It has been asserted numerous times that people choose to work as engineers because they think it's interesting, or that they enjoy building the technology, or whatever. It has also been asserted that people choose finance or consulting jobs just because they pay well, but that the jobs are not interesting.</p>
<p>I am simply questioning that black-or-white view of the world. Not all engineering jobs are interesting. Some engineering jobs are interesting. But clearly building bug fixes for Office 2000 is not very interesting. Similarly, not all finance jobs are boring. Some are boring. But I would argue that working as a venture capitalist, deciding which exciting new technology is worth millions of dollars of investment, is very interesting. </p>
<p>The point is, not all engineers enjoy their jobs. Not all financiers hate their jobs. I question the notion that an engineering job is inherently any more satisfactory than a finance job. It may be true of some jobs, but certainly not of all.</p>
<p>It is for that reason that I think we need to take the 'enjoyment' factor off the table. Engineering does not hold a 'monopoly' on enjoyment. </p>
<p>
[quote]
What argument could you give to me that I shouldn't pursue a career in engineering (and, seeing as I'm a Caltech PhD, let's assume I have access to those lucrative finance jobs)?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree, not everybody is made out to be in high finance. There are people that the engineering field fits them better than the finance field. Somehow, Sakky's posts have always push people toward high finance
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have never said that everybody should always go to finance. If you enjoy engineering more, than of course you should just do that.</p>
<p>It all gets back to what I've been saying throughout this thread. Most young people don't really know what they want to do. That is why it is important to go to a school that is flexible. After all, what happens if you go to a highly specialized quant school (like Caltech) and then find out later that you don't really want to do that anymore? Now you're stuck. On the other hand, if you had chosen a broad school, you can move around. </p>
<p>This is particularly true when it comes to engineering. Let's be honest. How many 17-year-olds actually know what engineering is all about? I don't know about anybody else here, but my high school didn't offer any engineering classes. Hence, I didn't really know what engineering was when I signed up for it. I certainly didn't know what chemical engineering really was. Very few of the other students with me knew either. Most of them didn't stick with it, but rather ended up doing other things.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The interesting case is when you compare a superstar vs. a non-superstar. Like, yes, Harvard vs. UCSD. Given that choice, I would have to think about it... for about a microsecond.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you prefer to compare apples to oranges? No wonder it's so hard to have sensible discussions with you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Look, it's like this. It has been asserted numerous times that people choose to work as engineers because they think it's interesting, or that they enjoy building the technology, or whatever. It has also been asserted that people choose finance or consulting jobs just because they pay well, but that the jobs are not interesting.</p>
<p>I am simply questioning that black-or-white view of the world. Not all engineering jobs are interesting. Some engineering jobs are interesting. But clearly building bug fixes for Office 2000 is not very interesting. Similarly, not all finance jobs are boring. Some are boring. But I would argue that working as a venture capitalist, deciding which exciting new technology is worth millions of dollars of investment, is very interesting. </p>
<p>The point is, not all engineers enjoy their jobs. Not all financiers hate their jobs. I question the notion that an engineering job is inherently any more satisfactory than a finance job. It may be true of some jobs, but certainly not of all.</p>
<p>It is for that reason that I think we need to take the 'enjoyment' factor off the table. Engineering does not hold a 'monopoly' on enjoyment.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're also making a big assumption that a job is either simply uninteresting or interesting. If you are at a boring job that does nto interest you 100% of the time then that job isn't worth it unless you are getting paid vast amounts of money. Even then I personally don't think it's worth it. That's pretty much what business is to me and why I switched to engineering. </p>
<p>But no job is enjoyable 100% of the time. For example I love to cook but when I was working as one full time there were many things about my job I disliked. Engineering is now the same way. No engineering enjoys his or her job 100% of the time but what they do enjoy outweighs what they don't. Those who go into engineering obviously find the material more interesting than other areas. </p>
<p>Sure many engineers switch careers down the line, but so do a lot of people in the world no matter where they started. Many people decide down the road they want to experience something new. That's also the beauty of an engineering degree, you can enter other areas not related to engineering very easily. </p>
<p>Long story short, no job is enjoyable all the time and no job should be unenjoyable all the time. Switching careers in life is also common not just in engineering.</p>
<p>BTW, with the current impending recession the global economy seems to be heading towards, there will be plenty of layoffs in the financial district, especially in investment banking. It might be enjoyable to watch a portfolio you assembled making a lot of money for a rich person during a boom economy. However, with a bit of irony, how enjoyable will it be to recommend selling (with considerable losses unless it came before the market crash) and to know deep down that your recommendation is helping to cause the recession and is leading towards the increased possibility of you being laid off?</p>
<p>Like you mentioned, not everything is white and black. The level of enjoyment of a certain career over another all depends on the person and with a little less significane, the environment. Technically speaking, "most" jobs are boring. However, most jobs are boring not only due to the nature of the work but because "most" people just hate life. For every X number of restuarant busboys that HATE their job, there will be (X - n) number of busboys that "enjoy" life and the choices they make. Although hard labor is difficult and taxing to the body, there are plenty of fathers who wake up every morning and enjoy putting on the work boots because they know their wife and children will have a roof over their heads and food on the table at the end of the day.</p>
<p>Basically, almost everything is relative. Some things such as enjoyment can not be easily measured. Some could argue that those same fathers that do hard labor do not enjoy their work, rather they enjoy the fact they can provide for their family. What's the big difference? The work is the means of enjoyment. No work, no enjoyment. The work itself may not be enjoyable, but life is about making choices and those who can accept those choices as being their best effort will "enjoy" life. If a Harvard drop out ends up working hard labor rather than being the owner of Microsoft, he/she generally won't be enjoying life unless he/she accepts the choice he/she made as being the best choice.</p>
<p>I guess for a bachelor, the level of enjoyment is measured by the type of job he has, the type of car the job he has can buy for him, the type of clothes the job he has can buy for him, the type of house in a certain zip code that the job he has can buy for him, and ultimately the types of girls he can meet due to all of the above. But really, for the last one at least, money can not buy you love. Girls? Possibly yes. A happy relationship or marriage? Not so much. Having money, to an extent, will alleviate troubles over finance that lower wage income couples or families go through, but it won't buy happiness. Those types of things are controlled by the individual's personality and character. Which by the way can not be bought.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So you prefer to compare apples to oranges? No wonder it's so hard to have sensible discussions with you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't prefer it. Others bring it up. I wasn't the one who brought up the Harvard vs. UCSD example. If you don't like that example, then take it up with the person who actually brought it up.</p>
<p>
[quote]
</p>
<p>Quote:
Look, it's like this. It has been asserted numerous times that people choose to work as engineers because they think it's interesting, or that they enjoy building the technology, or whatever. It has also been asserted that people choose finance or consulting jobs just because they pay well, but that the jobs are not interesting.</p>
<p>I am simply questioning that black-or-white view of the world. Not all engineering jobs are interesting. Some engineering jobs are interesting. But clearly building bug fixes for Office 2000 is not very interesting. Similarly, not all finance jobs are boring. Some are boring. But I would argue that working as a venture capitalist, deciding which exciting new technology is worth millions of dollars of investment, is very interesting.</p>
<p>The point is, not all engineers enjoy their jobs. Not all financiers hate their jobs. I question the notion that an engineering job is inherently any more satisfactory than a finance job. It may be true of some jobs, but certainly not of all.</p>
<p>It is for that reason that I think we need to take the 'enjoyment' factor off the table. Engineering does not hold a 'monopoly' on enjoyment.
You're also making a big assumption that a job is either simply uninteresting or interesting. If you are at a boring job that does nto interest you 100% of the time then that job isn't worth it unless you are getting paid vast amounts of money. Even then I personally don't think it's worth it. That's pretty much what business is to me and why I switched to engineering.</p>
<p>But no job is enjoyable 100% of the time. For example I love to cook but when I was working as one full time there were many things about my job I disliked. Engineering is now the same way. No engineering enjoys his or her job 100% of the time but what they do enjoy outweighs what they don't. Those who go into engineering obviously find the material more interesting than other areas.</p>
<p>Sure many engineers switch careers down the line, but so do a lot of people in the world no matter where they started. Many people decide down the road they want to experience something new. That's also the beauty of an engineering degree, you can enter other areas not related to engineering very easily.</p>
<p>Long story short, no job is enjoyable all the time and no job should be unenjoyable all the time. Switching careers in life is also common not just in engineering.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Joejoe05, I think you're now agreeing with my main point, which is that flexibility is important. That's what I have been saying throughout this thread - that it is important to go to a school that is flexible because you don't know what you're going to want to do later in life. </p>
<p>Hence, I agree (and I always have) that an engineering degree is highly flexible. In fact, that's why I have always said that an engineering degree probably really is the best choice for most Americans. Again, if you were just an average kid out of high school who ended up going to an average college, then an engineering degree really probably is the most flexible degree you can get.</p>
<p>On the other hand, a degree from a name-brand school like Harvard is also highly flexible, and in fact, more flexible than an engineering degree from almost any other school. Let's face it. Whether we agree with it or not, the Harvard brand name can open a lot of doors. </p>
<p>So, again, to use the Harvard vs. UCSD engineering example (which is not my example, but rather somebody else's), frankly, I would go with Harvard. Why? As I said many times, most people who enter engineering programs don't actually complete engineering degrees, and even of those that do, many will not actually take jobs as engineers. I remember back in my undergrad program, probably less than 25% of the students who started off in the engineering program ended up eventually finishing their engineering degrees and taking engineering jobs. The rest ended up doing other things. So, what if you turn down Harvard for UCSD engineering, only to find out that you don't really want to be an engineer anymore? </p>
<p>So Joejoe05, I think you're now on my side. I (and now you) have stated that you're probably going to switch careers. You probably don't know what you really want to do when you're still in high school. That's why a flexible education is so important. What you really want is to get a degree that allows you to pursue many different paths.</p>
<p>Both ideas have a common thread among them-- flexibility-- but you can't just claim that someone's different viewpoint is therefore the same as your own and declare that they're "on your side"!</p>
<p>I am simply saying that JoeJoe05 can use the same logic that he invoked in his argument to understand my argument.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't prefer it. Others bring it up. I wasn't the one who brought up the Harvard vs. UCSD example. If you don't like that example, then take it up with the person who actually brought it up.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So, when you're asked specifically to compare apples to apples you prefer to balk and bring up an instance that hasn't been mentioned since almost the first page?</p>
<p>And, actually, the OP was even asking about the engineering programs within those schools. Personally, I'd take the Materials Science department of Penn State over Brown's any day.</p>
<p><a href="begin%20lengthy,%20eight-page%20discussion...%20*now*!">quote=aibarr on first page</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not even close. ;)</p>
<p>I'm not going to name names here, but ANY time that SOMEONE posts in a thread, he/she immediately hi-jacks it, moving it toward what we are talking about now.</p>
<p>TO THAT PERSON(really a few people): IF YOU REALLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT, make your OWN THREAD. Please! people lose track of the original questions, which consequently never actually get answered. i am sure we can find a new thread for "are ivies for everyone?", "why do people major in engineering and not become engineers?" and "why doesnt society respect engineers enough to pay them more?".</p>
<p>Hahah! Yes I agree. The whole discussion was getting repetitive, over-wordy and turning into a name-calling fight. It's like the chicken and egg thing, so let's just get over it! To each his own. </p>
<p>Btw, I have no idea where to post this question and I read about it here, so let me ask you guys: Which schools have impacting (from what I gather it basically means that it's hard to change majors or schools within the college/uni)? Thanks loads!</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, when you're asked specifically to compare apples to apples you prefer to balk and bring up an instance that hasn't been mentioned since almost the first page?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't balk. I stated my answer.</p>
<p>Here's what I said in post #46: "Actually, I'm not saying that Ivies rule all. I happen to think that Stanford just may be as close to perfect as you can get"</p>
<p>What happened is that people (like you), wanted to continue talking about other things. And so I replied. If people didn't want to talk about those other things, they could have simply not responded. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Originally Posted by aibarr on first page
(begin lengthy, eight-page discussion... <em>now</em>!)
Not even close.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you blaming me for that? I am not replying to my own posts. I am replying to other people's posts. That indicates that those other people are interested in those other topics, for otherwise, why would they reply? If they want to keep talking, then I don't see why it's a problem to do so. </p>
<p>RacinReaver, I have no problem talking with you about whatever topic you want. But then don't blame me that the conversation became extended.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not going to name names here, but ANY time that SOMEONE posts in a thread, he/she immediately hi-jacks it, moving it toward what we are talking about now.</p>
<p>TO THAT PERSON(really a few people): IF YOU REALLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT, make your OWN THREAD. Please! people lose track of the original questions, which consequently never actually get answered. i am sure we can find a new thread for "are ivies for everyone?", "why do people major in engineering and not become engineers?" and "why doesnt society respect engineers enough to pay them more?".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am not going to name names here, but there are clearly a people here who want to tell others what they can and cannot talk about. That person is completely free to simply not read my posts. </p>
<p>To that person, my advice is simple regarding my posts: DON'T READ THEM. Nobody has a gun to your head. You don't like the conversation? Fine, don't participate. But let the people who want to participate be allowed to do so. You don't run this discussion board. If other people want to talk about something, what right do you have to tell them how to do it? This isn't even your thread anyway, so why do you care so much what happens within it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Btw, I have no idea where to post this question and I read about it here, so let me ask you guys: Which schools have impacting (from what I gather it basically means that it's hard to change majors or schools within the college/uni)? Thanks loads!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Berkeley for one.</p>