<p>
[quote]
If you go to MIT and decide that you don't really want to be highly technical, you still have good options
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is so true. A sizeable fraction of the people I know at MIT switched out of engineering into business or soft sciences.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is a less specialized engineering degree, such as those offered by the smaller programs, as marketable as the highly specialized degrees available from the mega engineering powerhouses
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is this mutually exclusive?</p>
<p>Let me give you a premier example. It is widely known that Caltech is a highly respected and famous engineering school. However, what is less well known is that Caltech, strictly speaking, only offers 3 specific engineering tracks as formal and separate majors - ChemE, EE, and ME - and ME was only formally offered since 2004. That's right, only three.</p>
<p>All of the rest of Caltech's "engineering" majors are not truly separate and distinct majors at all. Rather, they are actually part of the "Engineering and Applied Science" umbrella major. That is to say, nobody can actually earn a bachelor's degree from Caltech that actually and specifically denotes Civil Engineering, Aerospace Engineering, Bioengineering, Materials Science, etc. Instead, what students actually earn is a degree in "Engineering and Applied Science", with perhaps their 'concentration' in parentheses. </p>
<p>Lest anybody think I'm wrong, take a look at the Caltech commencement data and notice how nobody actually earns a bachelor's degree in those fields mentioned. Instead, they receive a EAS degree.</p>
<p><a href="http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement/08/bs.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement/08/bs.pdf</a>
<a href="http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement/07/bs.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement/07/bs.pdf</a>
<a href="http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement/06/bs.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement/06/bs.pdf</a></p>
<p>So basically, the Caltech EAS degree is a "general" engineering degree. I am not aware of, say, Caltech aerospace students having difficulty in obtaining jobs in their field just because they don't actually have a specific aerospace engineering degree, but rather a EAS "general" degree. Heck, Caltech has the #2 ranked aerospace engineering program in the country (just behind MIT), despite the fact that they don't grant undergrads actual aerospace engineering degrees.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky, do you believe anyone ever takes a job for less pay but increased job satisfaction?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course they do. </p>
<p>But that's not the point. Many people are willing to put up with temporary pain when they're young in order to boost their career chances later. Like our parents told us, sometimes you have to do things you don't really like in order to later get to do things you do like. </p>
<p>Heck, we're all former (or current) engineering students and so we should know exactly what that means. Exactly. Let's be perfectly honest. For most of us, studying engineering was a quite painful and traumatic experience. Heck, RacinReaver, I've heard you complain about how painful it's been for you as a grad student at Caltech. I remember aibarr kvetching about her experience at UIUC. To study engineering means to have to study and complete problem sets and projects, often times when you don't really want to, and is specially painful when you see people majoring in other subjects who have plenty of free time and who are enjoying life. Let's face it. We gave up some years of our youth in order to study engineering, and those are years that we will never get back. Now, to be sure, some of us probably did enjoy some of our engineering education. But at the same time, I think it is true that all of us hit the wall at some point. I know I did - right around during the final exams of the weeder courses when I had to prepare with 4 final exams (one of which corresponded to a course in which I had no idea what was going on, and still don't to this very day), 2 end-of-semester final projects, and myriad other lab assignments and problem sets. And I was dreadfully sick too. That was one of the worst period of my life. </p>
<p>So why did we put up with it? Why didn't we all study something easy? I think it's because we were trying to make ourselves better off later. We're willing to put up with the initial pain because we believed we would have a better life later. </p>
<p>The same mentality holds with jobs like Ibanking or consulting. People taking those jobs aren't stupid. They know full well that most Ibankers/consultants don't stay in that field for more than a few years, and those few years are going to be a grind. They take it because they believe - with strong justification - that having that experience will open doors to a better career later on. Heck, I know numerous people who went to McKinsey, BCG, Bain, and other consulting firms who already predicted before they even started that they weren't going to be there for more than a few years, and they're just viewing it as an opportunity to see numerous different industries and as a way to polish their resume before they 'parachute' away to some cushy corporate management job. </p>
<p>So, in that sense, taking an Ibanking or consulting job is really like majoring in engineering and in that in both cases, the tradeoff is to put up with temporary pain in order to prepare yourself for a career later, the big difference is, of course, that instead of having to pay tuition, they actually *get paid<a href="and%20paid%20extremely%20well">/i</a>.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvard does not even offer an engineering degree, unless they changed in the past few years with the new emphasis on that division.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Harvard certainly had engineering 30 years ago, and it does now. I am not aware of it dropping the program and restarting it. Where did this come from?</p>
<p>The Harvard engineering sciences degree was ABET certified in 1962. According to Harvard, "The Lawrence Scientific School (the institutional and intellectual progenitor of DEAS) was established in 1847 at Harvard in order to train scientists and engineers".</p>
<p>
[quote]
The guy who just came to wash the bathrooms in my office - do you think he really gains "fulfillment" doing that? It's just a job that pays the bills.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think anyone is arguing that everyone is going to love their job; that's why whenever you see someone here on CC making a thread asking if they should stick with engineering, the first responses are always, "Well, are you truly interest in what you're doing and do you believe you'll love the work?" That's why engineers are willing to work for less money, because they love the work they're doing. If engineers were truly underpaid, shouldn't we be seeing more people reject the engineer career path for something else which would pay them more? To me, I'd much rather make $80k a year starting off with my PhD than the >$250,000 my lawyer brother makes because I'd HATE to do that kind of work. If I did IB I don't think I'd be able to sleep at night. Even though I'm sure most engineers out there have the mental capacity to do all of those high paying jobs, many of them don't feel any sort of calling to it, so they're willing to work for less money for the satisfaction it brings them.</p>
<p>Also, the pain is part of what makes engineering enjoyable. I enjoy working on problem sets forever until I finally figure out the concept and understand what's going on.</p>
<p>(PS: The reason I complain about Caltech is because I'm doing an applied physics degree, not engineering.)</p>
<p>I agree with Racin, anyone who graduates with a degree in engineering has the mental capacity to do any major of their chosing. If I truly felt interested in law (who actually does?) I could go to law school and I'm sure I would be just fine. And I'm definitely not interested medicine. The reason those jobs pay so high is because so few people want to do the work yet it's also an important job. Engineering is not a common major for people and it's an important job so we see pretty high salaries compared to some jobs. It's not nearly as high as medicine or law but we also only need four years of school to start working. Granted those four years probably encompass what should take about six years to learn we only pay for four years of education to get started. </p>
<p>The thing I've noticed about people is that not many people have a real passion in their life and if they do it's hard to make a living doing it. That's why you see so many people doing jobs they dislike just to make money.</p>
<p><a href="PS:%20The%20reason%20I%20complain%20about%20Caltech%20is%20because%20I'm%20doing%20an%20applied%20physics%20degree,%20not%20engineering.">quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>(I complain about UIUC because they stopped paying me, put my desk in a basement hallway for four months, and killed my cat, among other things... Not really because of the work, which was really hard, sure, but it was pretty cool stuff.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
If engineers were truly underpaid, shouldn't we be seeing more people reject the engineer career path for something else which would pay them more?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ahem, well we are seeing that, are we not? Like I've mentioned before on other threads, many engineering students from the top schools such as MIT and Stanford do not take engineering jobs, instead opting for jobs in more lucrative tracks such as consulting and banking. </p>
<p>Here's what Time Magazine had to say about it:</p>
<p>*Even at M.I.T., the U.S.'s premier engineering school, the traditional career path has lost its appeal for some students. Says junior Nicholas Pearce, a chemical-engineering major from Chicago: "It's marketed as--I don't want to say dead end but sort of 'O.K., here's your role, here's your lab, here's what you're going to be working on.' Even if it's a really cool product, you're locked into it." Like Gao, Pearce is leaning toward consulting. "If you're an M.I.T. grad and you're going to get paid $50,000 to work in a cubicle all day--as opposed to $60,000 in a team setting, plus a bonus, plus this, plus that--it seems like a no-brainer." *</p>
<p>Are</a> We Losing Our Edge? -- Printout -- TIME</p>
<p>And that's just talking about those students who actually complete an engineering major. A lot of students may come to MIT thinking that they want to major in engineering, but then when they find out about their other career options as well as just how hard engineering is, they decide that they'd rather not major in engineering anymore but instead want to do something easier. That's why the management major in the Sloan School has become so large in the last few years, it's now the 3rd most popular major at MIT, and in one recent year was actually #2. It never used to be this popular. I'm sure the same is true of Stanford; lots of students may come in thinking they want to major in engineering and then after discovering their career options decide that they'd rather major in something else. The reasoning is entirely rational: why work harder than you really have to?</p>
<p>Another way you can look at things is to note the systemic asymmetry. As stated above, students who enter MIT intending to study engineering will often times end up taking jobs in consulting and banking, probably because of the higher salaries and perceived superior career opportunities that those careers provide. However, you hardly ever see the reverse. In other words, you rarely if ever hear of students entering, say, Stanford, who intended to enter careers in consulting or banking and then instead deciding to become engineers because of the higher salaries and perceived superior career opportunities in engineering. {They may choose to switch to engineering for other reasons, but clearly not for higher salaries or faster career progression.} But why not? After all, economics would dictate that people ought to be paid according to their productivity level, and somebody does not become less productive just because he decides to become an engineer (or do they?).</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's why engineers are willing to work for less money, because they love the work they're doing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Even though I'm sure most engineers out there have the mental capacity to do all of those high paying jobs, many of them don't feel any sort of calling to it, so they're willing to work for less money for the satisfaction it brings them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ha! Well, I would question whether all engineers really love what they do. The sad truth is that a lot of engineering jobs are not very interesting. </p>
<p>To be sure, some engineering jobs, i.e. snazzy R&D or skunkworks type jobs are indeed quite cool. So are jobs in which you can work on cool technologies. </p>
<p>But not all of them are like that. For example, I know a bunch of people at Microsoft, and they all say the same thing: the worst engineering jobs to have are the ones that have to do with supporting obsolete software versions. Imagine you're an engineer whose job is to support, say, Office 2000, a version of Office that is three revisions old, and hence is clearly obsolete, but for which Microsoft still officially supports, at least until next year. That must mean that some Microsoft engineers are indeed stuck providing support for Office 2000 in providing continuing bug fixes and security patches. But, honestly, how many software developers are truly interested in building patches for 8-year-old software whose support is scheduled to be ended next year anyway? I certainly don't want to do that. Nor can I think of any developers who would find that job to be fulfilling. In the software industry, people want to work on the new stuff, not be stuck on the old stuff. If for no other reason, the software industry moves lightning fast and so if you're not constantly learning new technologies, and if all you know is the old stuff, you will quickly find that you can't really get another good job because you don't have marketable skills. </p>
<p>Nor is this problem confined to the software industry. Take Cisco. Cisco has engineers providing support for several generations of routers and switches that it doesn't even sell anymore, and in fact, hasn't sold for years, but still officially supports. But who really wants to work on supporting obsolete routers and switches? I don't know too many engineers who want that kind of job. In fact, I know none.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky,</p>
<p>Do your homework. Answer your question. For once, please use data instead of BS or rhetoric! You may be surprised.</p>
<p>While you do the research, you might also want to look at trends over time. What Harvard did 30 or more years ago is hardly relevant to modern times.</p>
<p>Again: Do your homework...for once.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Newmassdad, do your homework for once. If you are interested in answering my question, then by all means, please do so. That's why I asked the question. And yes, please use data and research, not your typical BS or rhetoric. How many times have I defeated you in these debates because you refused to provide data and I did? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Again: Do your homework...for once.</p>
<p>Edit: While you are at it, zakky, you should really weight your results by the percentage of colleges of the Rhodes winners that offer engineering. For example, your esteemed Harvard does not even offer an engineering degree, unless they changed in the past few years with the new emphasis on that division.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh really? As aibarr pointed out, Harvard has offered an ABET accredited engineering degree since the 1960's. So what's this again about doing one's homework? Have you done yours? </p>
<p>Or how about this - how about we both research this question. You post your answer, and I'll post mine. Of course, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to actually do so. </p>
<p>Secondly, what Harvard did 30 years ago is entirely relevant to what is happening right now, whether we like it or not. After all, many of those Harvard grads from 30 years ago are occupying powerful positions in the country right now. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, cut the BS. You love to argue from anecdote, but a grad student like you should know the weakness of such argument. For every engineer who hates his job, there are dozens who love them. Guess you never worked with engineer
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh? In fact I have worked with quite a few. Have you? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Ibanking more enjoyable as you move up? You been smoking something again?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nope, but perhaps you are. Note, I never said that Ibanking ever really becomes the most fun thing in the world. I just said it becomes more enjoyable as you move up, chiefly because the entry-level jobs are pretty rough and, frankly, it's hard not for the job to not be more enjoyable. Simply put - as you move up, you have greater control over your time. You still don't have the greatest schedule, but it's clearly better than what you had before when you started. </p>
<p>Please do your homework next time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In the period from 1996 to 1999, 18 Harvard folks won a Rhodes. In the same time frame, 8 engineering majors did. Before you declare victory, note that half the Scholars went to colleges that did not even offer engineering. When you then factor in the fact that only a small percentage of kids that attend a college offering engineering actually complete a degree in engineering, you can see that the odds of engineers winning are actually quite good. Note that a direct comparison of Harvard odds to engineering odds is impossible because they are such different pools to draw from.</p>
<p>Anyway, please do a bit of homework before you shoot from the hip next time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, please do your homework next time, as I'm tired of your sloppy arguments newmassdad. Your analysis is completely off-base. I am not talking about the odds of winning the Rhodes for engineering students being good relative to every other school out there. I am comparing engineering students specifically to *Harvard<a href="which%20actually%20%5Bi%5Ddoes%5B/i%5D%20offer%20engineering.">/i</a> Please be more careful by actually addressing the issue that is on the table, not coming up with your own issue. </p>
<p>Secondly, please note that, according to the US Department of Education, about 60,000, or 5% of all bachelor's degrees conferred in the country every year, are engineering degrees. Yet clearly Harvard does not grant anywhere near 60,000 bachelor's degrees per year. In fact, Harvard only has about 6700 total undergrads (and obviously only 1/4 of them will graduate every year). Yet I am quite certain that Harvard has a greater absolute total of Rhodes winners. </p>
<p>Anyway, I advise you to please do your homework next time before you reply. If you had done so, you would have at least understood that Harvard has indeed offered engineering for quite a long time now.</p>
<p>sakky: If engineering sucks this much, why would anybody do it all? As you said, almost anyone capable of becoming an engineer could also feasibly go into business and have a much higher salary. And, while engineers work really hard for what they earn (disproportionately so), businessmen are barely thinking, relatively speaking. It's funny because I've heard the same things said about medicine (i.e. high stress, low pay, low appreciation) versus business (i.e. lucrative, relatively easy, great lifestyle). And, chances are I'd hear the business people complaining as well. So, what do you personally recommend? BSE followed by industry and/or MSE followed by MBA and/or PhD? Some odd combination of the aforementioned? Seems like almost all professionals are getting screwed over in American society these days (except lawyers)...</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky: If engineering sucks this much, why would anybody do it all?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have not, and never would, characterize engineering as 'sucking this much'. In fact, I have always maintained that engineering, while far from a perfect career, is still better than the vast majority of other jobs in the country. Let's face it: the vast majority of jobs really aren't that good. </p>
<p>Therefore, I believe that engineering is indeed a good career for probably most Americans. For example, if you barely graduated from high school, then getting an engineering degree - presuming that you can survive the program - and getting that $50k starting salary is a very sweet deal. That's far better than almost anything else you could have reasonably done. That guy surely has little chance of getting into careers like management consulting or venture capital, so, all things considered, engineering is a pretty good place for him to wind up. </p>
<p>The problem is with the very best guys, the most talented people in the industry. These guys really can get offers in those other industries, and they may indeed be better off doing that than in just being engineers. Put another way, while engineering offers a quite decent average salary and career path, it doesn't really offer much of a star track. </p>
<p>
[quote]
As you said, almost anyone capable of becoming an engineer could also feasibly go into business and have a much higher salary.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, I never said that. The average engineer is probably better off in staying in engineering. For example, if you graduate in engineering in the middle of your class from, say, East Carolina University, you're probably not going to get great business job offers.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if you graduate at the top of your class in Stanford engineering, you can probably get a lot of very good business offers, i.e. to join an elite venture capital or private equity firm. Those firms will pay you a heck of a lot more than any engineering firm would. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And, chances are I'd hear the business people complaining as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There's always a reason to complain. But like I said, the asymmetry of the flow is clear. Engineering students like Nicholas Pearce of MIT complained that engineering would not pay him as well as consulting, and would offer him less interesting career opportunities. You never hear of people complaining of the opposite: that consulting will not pay as well and will offer worse career opportunities compared to engineering. Which leads to a fundamental question: why won't engineering firms compete for guys like Pearce by improving their job offers? What that leads to is having some of the best engineering students choosing to not work as engineers. </p>
<p>
[quote]
So, what do you personally recommend? BSE followed by industry and/or MSE followed by MBA and/or PhD? Some odd combination of the aforementioned?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, certainly not PhD, unless you really want to do research (or become an academic). You do a PhD because you have a love of the field so strong that you want to discover new things, not because you really think you are going to benefit financially from the PhD. </p>
<p>BS(E) followed by MBA is probably the most tried-and-true way to go. But even a BS alone can be perfectly fine. The key is that you have to proactively manage your career. You want to be constantly learning new skills and building your network. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Seems like almost all professionals are getting screwed over in American society these days (except lawyers)...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, if it makes you feel better, even lawyers are feeling the pinch these days, especially all of those law firms who dealt with securities underwriting. Granted, bankruptcy lawyers will probably do well.</p>
<p>
If engineering sucks this much, why would anybody do it all?
</p>
<p>Some of us didn't have any choice... My parents were gonna kill me when I said I wanted to major in music... ^^</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>If you don't understand the difference between the "engineering" degrees Harvard offers through its School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (which until recently, was a division of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences) and schools that offer true "engineering" such as MIT, then that might explain why you continue to engage in the immature rhetoric you do.</p>
<p>For your information, Harvard offers undergraduate degrees in Applied Mathemtics, Computer Science and Engineering Sciences. I certainly don't see the classical ME, EE, ChemE and so forth here. So IMHO, to call this "engineering" is a good stretch of the term. </p>
<p>Keep in mind that you are the one that made the curious claim that Harvard has more Rhodes Scholars than all engineering majors do. How this comparison means anything is tough for me to understand. It is like saying NYC has more smart people than the number of smart people who are plumbers. Tortured logic to say the least.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, even ignoring the logic, the numbers just don't support your assertion well.</p>
<p>Sakky, I don't have the time or the interest to engage in flights of rhetorical fantasy with you, so I will bow out of the discussion. I just say again: Do your homework, Sakky. Use real data, not anecdotal observations. Not rhetoric.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you don't understand the difference between the "engineering" degrees Harvard offers through its School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (which until recently, was a division of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences) and schools that offer true "engineering" such as MIT, then that might explain why you continue to engage in the immature rhetoric you do.</p>
<p>For your information, Harvard offers undergraduate degrees in Applied Mathemtics, Computer Science and Engineering Sciences. I certainly don't see the classical ME, EE, ChemE and so forth here. So IMHO, to call this "engineering" is a good stretch of the term
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, this is clearly no different than the 'General Engineering' degrees that a school like Harvey Mudd offers, yet nobody is seriously disputing that Harvey Mudd is a bonafide engineering school. Nor is Mudd the only one - as stated in this thread, numerous other schools offer only 'General Engineering' or just 'Engineering' umbrella majors. Are you saying that none of them are real engineering schools? </p>
<p>To be clear, nobody is asserting that Harvard engineering is as good as MIT engineering. But that's not what we are talking about. We are simply talking about whether Harvard offers engineering, and the facts clearly state that they do. Please do your homework next time. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Keep in mind that you are the one that made the curious claim that Harvard has more Rhodes Scholars than all engineering majors do. How this comparison means anything is tough for me to understand. It is like saying NYC has more smart people than the number of smart people who are plumbers. Tortured logic to say the least.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is hardly tortured logic, unless you are willing to concede either that engineers are not really that smart (a point that I and others would vigorously dispute), or that engineering degree programs don't exactly prepare you well for the Rhodes (which I think is far closer to the mark). </p>
<p>
[quote]
Nonetheless, even ignoring the logic, the numbers just don't support your assertion well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, they did. In fact, I think you yourself presented numbers between 1996-1999 clearly proving my point. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, I don't have the time or the interest to engage in flights of rhetorical fantasy with you, so I will bow out of the discussion. I just say again: Do your homework, Sakky. Use real data, not anecdotal observations. Not rhetoric.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Newmassdad, you keep saying you don't have time, yet you keep coming back! If you really didn't have time, you wouldn't bother posting at all, right? </p>
<p>I just say again: Do your homework, Sakky. Use real data, not anecdotal observations. Not rhetoric. You yourself proved that I had won. If you want to try again, I am happy to listen, but so far I have proven you wrong every time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You yourself proved that I had won.... so far I have proven you wrong every time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh Oh. My bad. I did not realize this was a debating society, where the goal was to win and "prove you wrong". </p>
<p>Now I understand your use of rhetoric over substance, Sakky. I understand why you are so comfortable with tortured logical arguments and arguing from anecdote. You must have been a debater in HS. (apology in advance: no dis intended for debaters in general).</p>
<p>I'll bow out doubly from this discussion and debate.</p>
<p>But thanks for clarifying your "rules". Have a nice day!</p>
<p>I didn't read any of sakky's posts, but I know this thread would be concluded by now at the 4th page if it weren't for them ;)</p>
<p>Lahde</a>, who bet versus subprimes, quits hedge funds | Funds | News | Reuters</p>
<p>and the stress will kill you, taking from one of the succesful hedge fund manager,
[quote]
Andrew Lahde, the hedge fund founder who shot to fame with his small fund that soared 870 percent last year on bets against U.S. subprime home loans, has called it quits, thanking "stupid" traders for making him rich.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
"I now have time to repair my health, which was destroyed by the stress I layered onto myself over the past two years, as well as my entire life -- where I had to compete for spaces in universities and graduate schools, jobs and assets under management -- with those who had all the advantages (rich parents) that I did not," Lahde said. (To see more of Lahde's farewell letter, please see here) (Reporting by Jennifer Ablan; Editing by Leslie Adler)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>newmassdad, you are not correct about Harvard not offering "true engineering". I'm a PhD engineering student at Harvard (completed my undergrad at MIT), and I have found that Harvard engineering is on par with MIT in terms of research and coursework. Just because Harvard does not offer formal "majors" in ME, EE, ChemE and so forth, does not mean you can not concentrate in those areas. Your previous posts also show your limited understanding of engineering at Harvard.</p>
<p>Harvard09, </p>
<p>If you're smart enough to get into Harvard for engineering grad school, then you are smart enough to know the difference between what Harvard offers for grad students like yourself versus undergrads. </p>
<p>Show me how an undergrad can get an EE degree from Harvard? Maybe, since you are in grad school and have never reviewed resumes for potential hiring, you don't appreciate that an employer will look for an EE if that is what the employer wants. The Harvard kid is at a disadvantage then, in competing with these other EEs, such as the ones from MIT.</p>
<p>Perhaps, since you enrolled at Harvard, you may also know that SEAS at Harvard was only recently elevated from Divisional to School status (i.e. finally gaining its own dean) but still within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Most schools with true engineering don't subordinate engineering to the humanities or social science profs. For example, Harvard has separate faculty for Law, Medicine, Theology and quite a few other disciplines. </p>
<p>So, yea, my understanding of Harvard engineering is "limited" I guess because I don't take DEAS (sorry, SEAS, you guys got promoted) classes like you do, harvard09.</p>