Does prestige of undergraduate school matter in Engineering?

College Majors Engineering Majors
141

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]

Please explain how you would concentrate in CivE or ChemE at Harvard as Harvard does not even offer courses in those areas. They have access to MIT courses as sakky pointed out, but based on how you phrased your post, you're drawing a distinction between the two universities. And of course, there must be some limit to cross-registration. Otherwise, I'd just take all my courses at MIT.</p>

142

<p>A Harvard undergrad can put on his/her resume, "Bachelor of Science in Engineering Sciences, concentration in Electrical Engineering". The student's course work and research will reflect that of a typical EE student. Many top EE companies recruit at Harvard so apparently they are not turned off by the term Engineering Sciences. It's really not that big of a deal. </p>

<p>You are incorrect again. Harvard does not subordinate engineering to the humanities or social science professors. Engineering students are not limited to courses and resources within SEAS. If an engineering student is very interested in the business or law aspects of engineering, then courses in those schools may be taken upon approval.</p>

143

<p>harvard09,</p>

<p>You obviously don't understand the politics of higher ed. Because engineering at Harvard is part of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), key decisions by SEAS are, indeed, subject to review by the humanities and social science faculty members, because they too are part of FAS. </p>

<p>And who ever said anything about limiting engineering students to courses in SEAS? HBS or HLS, though? That is a bit of a stretch. </p>

<p>But all this is a bit silly. I grant you that Harvard teaches engineering sciences to undergrads. Other colleges that don't offer full engineering programs do so, too. And it means little that top EE companies recruit at Harvard. I bet they also hire quite a few non-engineering science types, too.</p>

144

<p>Harvard SEAS is led by its own leadership team appointed by the President. Humanities and social science faculty do not review their key decisions and policies.</p>

<p>Harvard engineering students can take engineering related courses at HBS or HLS upon approval.</p>

145

<p>harvard09, </p>

<p>You clearly don't understand university governance. Having a leadership team appointed by the president is irrelevant. What does matter is that SEAS is part of FAS. FAS includes the humanities and social science faculty. To explain, the dean of SEAS reports to the dean of FAS. The dean of FAS, who leads "Harvard College, the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and the Division of Continuing Education." will consider the opinion of all faculty members in making things like tenure decisions. If FAS operates like academic divisions in most other top universities (and I do not know either way) then representatives of all faculty groups will participate in tenure decisions.</p>

<p>To give you an example of how this works in practice, a few years ago, Harvard had a patent committee that advised the university and its technology transfer activities on its interpretation of patent matters for Harvard. This committee had several active members from the humanities, whose views were often confounding to more traditional commercial views. </p>

<p>Harvard09, you may not like the reality, but that is the way it is.</p>

146

<p>The dean of SEAS reports to the president, the university's executive board, and board of trustees. The dean of SEAS does not report to the dean of FAS. Humanities and social science faculty do not review their key decisions and policies.</p>

147

<p>harvard09: from the Harvard website:
[quote]
What is the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS)?</p>

<p>The Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) is the deliberative body that oversees Harvard College, the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and the Division of Continuing Education.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The Dean of FAS is: Michael D. Smith, John H. Finley, Jr. Professor of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences </p>

<p>This is from a recent press release: "Materials scientist Frans Spaepen will serve as interim dean of Harvard University's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) effective Sept. 15, Michael D. Smith, dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, announced today (Aug. 15). " If the interim dean were reporting to someone else, the announcement would have come out of that office. </p>

<p>harvard09, you really should get a better handle on this, since you plan to be, one would presume from your PhD efforts, an academic. </p>

<p>Meanwhile, believe what you want. I'm done trying to explain this to you. The facts speak for themselves.</p>

148

<p>That does not mean the dean of SEAS reports to the dean of FAS. You are making a number of assumptions in your statements that are not true.</p>

149

<p>I have yet to find a engineer who is truly better because he went to a better school. Engineering is Engineering. Ive interviewed at places on wall street and throughout nyc and have honestly never even been asked where I went to school. Some places where I was hired like "Themarkets.com" didn't even ask any questions about my education. I was asked technical questions and the person who hired me never even saw my resume. I interviewed in a 4 on 1 setting and only one guy saw my resume, then I was hired on the spot.</p>

<p>I had a sub 3 gpa from a state school.</p>

<p>Engineering is simple, go to where you think is best for you but keep it cheap.</p>

<p>you guys make way to much of this stuff. You act as if there is hidden info that only top tier engineering schools can teach. I got news for ya, Abet curriculum's are dam near identical. Ive got even worse news for ya. The majority of the stuff you learn, you could have learned in in 1/4th the times reading online publications. </p>

<p>Its not that serious. A engineering employer is not going to not hire you because you went to a state school and they wont hire you because you went to school #1-25. Whoever is best for the job, will get it. Those who went to top 10 schools, I guarantee you will loose positions to state U kids and vice versa.</p>

<p>shouldn't you guys be studying instead?</p>

150

<p>harvardo9, </p>

<p>Go read the FAS faculty handbook, and tell me where you see these exceptions spelled out for SEAS faculty: <a href="http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic143168.files/FINAL%20APPOINTMENT%20HANDBOOK%209-12-08.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic143168.files/FINAL%20APPOINTMENT%20HANDBOOK%209-12-08.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>While you are there, you might look at the role the Committee on Promotions and Appointments plays in the tenure process. Then think about who might be on this committee, since it is a standing committee of FAS.</p>

151

<p>
[quote]

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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Couldn't you also get a possibly lucrative job joining a startup coming out of Stanford? Heck, you could even be like Bill Gates and join a startup before you even graduate. ;)</p>

<p>Also, sakky, why do you take a question about career satisfaction and, yet again, twist it into a story of people fleeing engineering for higher paying careers and how people from those higher paying careers don't go into engineering? We're talking about job satisfaction, here. Also, comparing the engineering allstars that go on to join investment banking jobs to MS employees supporting Office 2k is a bit misleading as well, since I doubt MS puts its best and brightest on projects it's going to close in a year. These people at MIT, Stanford, and other top schools would be going to work on the new and exciting projects at companies and not relegated to the standard work of the "average" engineer. And, hey, if they are given a mediocre job at their company, they have the freedom to go to a higher paying job in finance! People that get their undergrad degree in business don't have that option. If they wind up with a crappy job they're stuck there. They don't have as much of an option to switch career paths as the superstar engineer does.</p>

152

<p>
[quote]
Also, sakky, why do you take a question about career satisfaction and, yet again, twist it into a story of people fleeing engineering for higher paying careers and how people from those higher paying careers don't go into engineering?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Post count padding. ;)</p>

153

<p>
[quote]
Couldn't you also get a possibly lucrative job joining a startup coming out of Stanford? Heck, you could even be like Bill Gates and join a startup before you even graduate

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, in the case of Bill Gates, he didn't exactly "join" a startup. He was the startup. </p>

<p>But, to your point, obviously they could found a startup... and, coming out of Stanford, many do. But the question then is, are they really being just engineers at that point? To found a startup (at the time that it is truly a startup) is to perhaps be an engineer for only part of the time, with the rest of your time devoted to business affairs, i.e. presenting to venture capitalists and other investors, conducting marketing events, trying to close sales, making strategy deals, and so forth. </p>

<p>Now, if by 'startup', you mean a firm that is bigger than just a couple guys, then, again, sure, you could join as a pure engineer. But, again, how many would really want to, if you had the chance to do something bigger immediately? I remember during the dotcom days how engineering students out of Stanford were offered Vice President or Director positions at dotcoms. I don't think too many of them replied: "I would rather be just an engineer than be Vice President". </p>

<p>But the real point is that the very best engineering students have a lot of opportunities that the average engineer does not. I don't think this is a surprising point, as the very best people in any endeavor will have numerous opportunities. For example, the President of the Harvard Law Review can seriously entertain the possibility of becoming US Senator and then President of the United States someday. Somebody who graduated from some no-name law school, not so much. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, sakky, why do you take a question about career satisfaction and, yet again, twist it into a story of people fleeing engineering for higher paying careers and how people from those higher paying careers don't go into engineering? We're talking about job satisfaction, here.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, we're talking about job satisfaction. I am making the point that not all engineering jobs are not satisfying. In fact, most probably are not. Heck, I seem to recall aibarr talking about how frustrated she was with her former engineering job and how much better her current job is. I know many engineers who are quite unhappy with their jobs. </p>

<p>Bottom line is, we cannot assume that all engineers enjoy high job satisfaction. Come on, we all know that's not true. There are plenty of bad engineering jobs. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, comparing the engineering allstars that go on to join investment banking jobs to MS employees supporting Office 2k is a bit misleading as well, since I doubt MS puts its best and brightest on projects it's going to close in a year. These people at MIT, Stanford, and other top schools would be going to work on the new and exciting projects at companies and not relegated to the standard work of the "average" engineer. And, hey, if they are given a mediocre job at their company, they have the freedom to go to a higher paying job in finance! People that get their undergrad degree in business don't have that option. If they wind up with a crappy job they're stuck there. They don't have as much of an option to switch career paths as the superstar engineer does.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Which is precisely why I still support the general idea of obtaining an engineering degree. But just because you get an engineering job doesn't mean that you will take an engineering job. Some people will, some people won't. </p>

<p>In fact, you're highlighting my main point. The real goal is to obtain a flexible degree that will help you get whatever job you end up wanting to have. Getting back to, say, post #2 on this thread, I would argue that a Harvard engineering degree is a far more flexible degree than is a UCSD engineering degree. Heck, even a Harvard non-engineering degree is far more flexible, as, like it or not, the Harvard brand name is the strongest in the world and the Harvard alumni network is so powerful as to essentially be its own 'shadow economy'. In short, you can probably leverage the Harvard brand name to find a job in some industry that is satisfying to you. UCSD would be far less flexible. If you like engineering and/or you want to stay in Southern California, then the UCSD degree would be valuable. But what if you find out you don't want to do that? </p>

<p>My other point is simply to ask why can't there be better engineering jobs? Why do we have to have crappy jobs like aibarr's former job? Why can't those jobs be like her current job? Let's be perfectly honest. If more engineering jobs offered superstar pay, excellent promotion opportunities, and highly satisfying work, then those top engineering students coming out of Stanford and MIT probably would stay in engineering, rather than heading somewhere else. The problem is that a lot of engineering jobs aren't that great, and that's why people tend to leave.</p>

154

<p>
[quote]
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!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, you keep saying that you'll bow out, yet you keep coming back.</p>

<p>But I will say, now I understand your use of rhetoric over substance, newsmassdad. 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). Your arguments have fallen down every time they have been subject to scrutiny. It is not my fault that your logic is so flawed. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Show me how a Harvey Mudd kid can get a degree in EE. Show me how a Caltech kid can get a degree in Civil Engineering. Oh, can't do it? </p>

<p>
[quote]
The Harvard kid is at a disadvantage then, in competing with these other EEs, such as the ones from MIT.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, nobody, least of all me, has ever disputed that Harvard is not as good at MIT when it comes to engineering. But look who you're talking about: MIT is arguably the best engineering school in the world. It's like saying that I'm not as good of a basketball player as Kobe Bryant. </p>

<p>The question is whether Harvard can offer a decent engineering program. The evidence clearly shows that they can. Harvard is ranked somewhere in the 20's or so for engineering. That's very very good, when you consider that there are hundreds and hundreds of engineering programs out there. </p>

<p>
[quote]
or example, Harvard has separate faculty for Law, Medicine, Theology and quite a few other disciplines.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, I hardly find this to be a relevant point. Law, Medicine, Theology - these are all graduate programs at Harvard. It is entirely natural for them to have their own faculty separate from the undergrads when they don't even teach undergrad courses. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And who ever said anything about limiting engineering students to courses in SEAS? HBS or HLS, though? That is a bit of a stretch.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is indeed a bit of a stretch - by you. Harvard undergrads of any major are not allowed to take courses at HBS or HLS except under extremely limited circumstances (i.e. you have to pull teeth if you want to get into an MBA course as an undergrad). The Harvard engineering students are hardly any worse off in this respect. </p>

<p>Now, Harvard engineering graduate students are a different story, and have full rights as per any other graduate student. </p>

<p>Newmassdad, at the end of the day, you have to accept that Harvard actually has a quite decent engineering program. As good as MIT's? No, and I never said that it was. But it is still far above average. The facts do indeed speak for themselves.</p>

155

<p>1) Oh no, I've become a sakky anecdote!</p>

<p>2) You seem to talk to some mighty dissatisfied engineers. I'm not sure where you dredge them up, but I really don't see nearly as many people who find their engineering jobs to be soul-crushingly dull as you do. This would lead me to believe that there isn't quite the dearth of fabulous engineering jobs that you think there are. Even with my last job, it wasn't that the work wasn't fabulous. The work was fantastic; I loved doing diagnostics, but there were a lot of things wrong with the management of the branch office. That, coupled with the fact that Houston's a lot closer to Baton Rouge than Los Angeles is, meant that it was time for me to move. </p>

<p>Do I think engineers are underpaid? Well, sure. And professional football players are overpaid, too. I'm paid quite well, though, and I think it's a little silly to make "mad coin vs. madddd coin" the primary issue in my major life decisions, because I decided early in life that happiness is a much better goal than wealth, and that wealth does not beget happiness and happiness doesn't require a crazy amount of wealth. For others, this may be different, and then they need to decide whether they want to major in engineering, and then whether they want to <em>stay</em> in engineering, based upon their ultimate objectives.</p>

<p>But I think there are a lot of satisfied engineers out there, too. I'd even say that a good majority of the ones I've encountered are satisfied with their careers.</p>

156

<p>
[quote]
2) You seem to talk to some mighty dissatisfied engineers. I'm not sure where you dredge them up, but I really don't see nearly as many people who find their engineering jobs to be soul-crushingly dull as you do. This would lead me to believe that there isn't quite the dearth of fabulous engineering jobs that you think there are.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The question is not whether those engineering jobs are soul-crushingly dull on any absolute scale. I have always said that engineering, for all its problems, is still better than the vast majority of other jobs out there.</p>

<p>The real question is whether engineering can match up to careers such as consulting or banking. That's where engineering has a match-up problem. </p>

<p>Again to quote from Time Magazine:</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>The bottom line is not that engineering is a bad career. I've never said that. What I am saying is that engineering could be a better career, particularly for its very best people. For example, as Nicholas Pearce might have said, why can't engineering be as desirable as strategy consulting?</p>

<p>Now, to be sure, most engineers won't even have the choice to enter strategy consulting. For them, engineering probably is the top choice that is available to them. But what about those people who do have lots of choices? Why can't engineering be the top choice for those people too?</p>

157

<p>
[quote]
The real question is whether engineering can match up to careers such as consulting or banking. That's where engineering has a match-up problem.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See, but I'm not sure what you're talking about, with "match up". Are you talking about satisfaction? Money? I addressed the money issue already... And in my field, most engineers end up doing some form of management, be it design management, project management, or management of our overall group. It's more leadership than management, I suppose, but you can branch out into any one of the multiple disciplines of management that there are.</p>

<p>Are you talking about dead-end careers? Because I really don't see that, either. I see an increase in responsibility, pay, and leadership as engineers climb in the ranks, and I also see a lot of engineers get MBAs simply to gain knowledge of how to engineer businesses so that they can take over the reins of management of their larger, engineering-based corporations.</p>

<p>I'm just uncertain as to what engineering is lacking that you seem to think management has (aside, of course, from money, and possibly prestige, both of which I agree that engineering needs more of).</p>

<p>I'm one of those could-have-done-anything people-- certainly had the grades for it, and the recommendations, and blah blah blah... But I chose engineering. I simply don't see the engineering profession as being a fallback career. Maybe it's because I'm in a high-performance firm that does some really amazing stuff, and that I've primarily had contact with similar people, but I don't think anyone else here chose engineering because it was their only choice. They chose it because it was their top choice.</p>

158

<p>
[quote]
See, but I'm not sure what you're talking about, with "match up". Are you talking about satisfaction? Money? I addressed the money issue already... And in my field, most engineers end up doing some form of management, be it design management, project management, or management of our overall group. It's more leadership than management, I suppose, but you can branch out into any one of the multiple disciplines of management that there are.</p>

<p>Are you talking about dead-end careers? Because I really don't see that, either. I see an increase in responsibility, pay, and leadership as engineers climb in the ranks, and I also see a lot of engineers get MBAs simply to gain knowledge of how to engineer businesses so that they can take over the reins of management of their larger, engineering-based corporations.</p>

<p>I'm just uncertain as to what engineering is lacking that you seem to think management has (aside, of course, from money, and possibly prestige, both of which I agree that engineering needs more of).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, like I said, just examine the quote from former MIT engineering student Nicholas Pearce above. Clearly he seems to think that something is missing. His concern was not just a matter of money, but also a concern of being locked into a particular engineering project without ample opportunities to progress. One of the most appealing features of consulting is that you get to see and touch a lot of different industries and a lot of different functions. For example, you may work on a marketing project, and then a few months later be assigned to an HR project, and then work on a technical project. </p>

<p>In fact, that may actually be consulting's greatest advantage over engineering (or any other job), and may be why more engineering students should enter consulting immediately upon graduation if they have the chance rather than simply take engineering jobs. Why? Because they have the opportunity to see a bunch of different industries and functions. Only then will you actually know whether you prefer engineering to those other jobs. If, after a year or two as a consultant, you've seen how those other functions compare and you decide that you really prefer engineering, that's perfectly fine. Then you just leave to become an engineer. After all, by the 2-year mark, many consultants have left anyway because they found what they really like to do. {Nor is this considered unusual or unethical as the consulting industry itself promotes its careers as a way to "try on" numerous different functions, and it is widely understood that most people will join for only a few years}. </p>

<p>Hence, one can consider it as a prestigious, highly paid way of finding out what you really want to do with your life. That seems to be quite the improvement over an engineering job (or most other jobs) that lock you into a specific function from day one and doesn't really allow you to try different things. </p>

<p>The problem, of course, is that you actually have to get the consulting offer. I agree that most engineering students will never get a consulting offer, and so obviously, for them, working as an engineer is indeed their best choice. </p>

<p>As a sidenote, maybe the problem isn't so much with engineering in general, but rather with engineering in this country. The best people may indeed want to stay in engineering...but somewhere else. Here's another snippet from Time Magazine:</p>

<p>Aeppli, now 48, attended M.I.T., where he got a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, and went on to work at Bell Labs, the legendary research arm of AT&T. Then he moved on to the NEC research laboratory, outside Princeton, N.J., as a senior research scientist. But while industrial labs used to be well-funded havens for freewheeling scientific inquiry, says Aeppli, "my career was limited because opportunities to lead were very few." So he left for an academic job in Britain. He now holds a chair in physics at University College London and also directs the London Center for Nanotechnology. "I've been able to start with a clean sheet of paper and create something unique in a world-class city," he says. "We doubt that could be done anywhere else."</p>

<p>Are</a> We Losing Our Edge? -- Printout -- TIME </p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm one of those could-have-done-anything people-- certainly had the grades for it, and the recommendations, and blah blah blah... But I chose engineering. I simply don't see the engineering profession as being a fallback career. Maybe it's because I'm in a high-performance firm that does some really amazing stuff, and that I've primarily had contact with similar people, but I don't think anyone else here chose engineering because it was their only choice. They chose it because it was their top choice.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm glad that you found a job and career that you like.</p>

<p>But something has to explain shocking figures such as the ones below:</p>

<p>*Among our recent undergraduate alumni
and alumnae (of EECS at MIT)... of those heading to the work
force, 30% are in engineering, 30% are in
financial services, 15% are doing consulting
or are with start-up companies, and 10% are
in information technology. *</p>

<p><a href="http://www.eecs.mit.edu/images/EECS_fall07_web.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.eecs.mit.edu/images/EECS_fall07_web.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Now, I don't know how much of that 15% who went to consulting/startups is comprised of consulting, but even if that means that 0% went to consulting, that means that a whopping 30%, or nearly 1/3 of those MIT EECS undergrads who entered the workforce took jobs not in technology, but rather in finance. I think we can all agree that these guys could have obtained a job in engineering. Hence, they clearly demonstrated their revealed preferences: for whatever reason, they wanted finance more. </p>

<p>I use EECS as an example because it is MIT's biggest and historically has been (and probably still is) the most prestigious department at MIT. Hence, I think it is rather bracing to see such a significant percentage of its students choosing jobs in finance/consulting rather than engineering. Something is awry.</p>

159

<p>Sakky, you are basing your arguments off of two people's testimonies and using MIT's graduation statistics as a reason to claim that engineering is not a good career choice or is not as good as others.</p>

<p>It's very common for EE students to do work outside of engineering. Just because someone has a degree doesn't mean they are going to go into that field. That's no reason to say that engineering not a good choice for a career. Tons of EE's go into programming, does that mean programming is more prestigious than engineering? </p>

<p>Not everyone is going to agree with you that consulting is superior to engineering. Some of us would never want to touch marketting or management. That's because some of us are hands on people who want to develop the product. That's why we go into engineering.</p>

160

<p>
[quote]
Clearly he seems to think that something is missing. His concern was not just a matter of money, but also a concern of being locked into a particular engineering project without ample opportunities to progress.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But I don't see people being locked into projects! I mean, sure, in engineering, projects are often longer-term. My current project is one I've been working on nearly non-stop for an entire year, and I'm going to be working on it until well into next spring. It's hard to avoid that with something as complex as engineering projects, but it's not the end-all, be-all. I think you're perhaps citing examples of people who didn't know how to shop for jobs that were good for them, because I see all these people in the industry who know what they want and go out and find a company that'll give it to them.</p>

<p>Consulting sounds like an interesting idea, but in addition to there not being that many consulting jobs, I really think that a larger company will be able to give the variety that younger engineers hope for in order to help them find their niche.</p>

<p>
[quote]
for whatever reason, they wanted finance more.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I've got a guess, and it starts with "m" and ends with an "oney".</p>

<p>Y'know, if you're not dead-certain of what you want to do with your life (and really, who of us <em>is</em> at the age of 22? or even 26, or 30?) then you're going to be really dazzled by a high salary offer. Cost-of-living conversions are one of the only reasons why I'm not doing defense work right now, because I multiplied out that weekly salary offer using three different calculators and some scratch paper to convince myself that there I wasn't doing the math wrong, and that I was being offered a ridiculous salary (in Sunnyvale, but still). It's really, really hard to say no to a high offer, particularly if you're not absolutely sure that you want to do anything else.</p>

<p>So I really think it might just come down to the money, and that people don't know how to identify what work environment they'd like to be in, and then how to go out and find that job, but I don't think that's a problem limited to engineering. I think maybe it's that engineers have plenty of other options, and so in their uncertainty, they don't sit around and live for the weekends-- they migrate.</p>

<p>I'm also a bit curious as to whether or not finance is some bottomless pit that people find happiness in, or whether they get used to a certain standard of living and then decide not to leave because they wouldn't be able to make that much money anywhere else. I'm not sure, but I don't think that any other field is any better at helping fresh-out-of-college people find their niches than engineering is; I just think engineering's low on the glamour and pay scales so it's hard to retain people who have no idea what they want out of life.</p>