Does prestige of undergraduate school matter in Engineering?

College Majors Engineering Majors
161

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am basing my arguments on numerous arguments. Numerous papers and articles have been written about why more Americans aren't interested in engineering careers. Less than 5% of all bachelor's degrees conferred in the US are engineering degrees - compare that with European countries like Germany where the share is around 25% or so. Furthermore, even many of the engineering students don't really want to work as engineers, as you have pointed out. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, not all engineers are people who 'develop the product'. As I said, there are engineers who are doing what I would call scut-work: that is, maintaining and supporting obsolete technologies. I don't want to be writing bug fixes for an 8-year-old, obsolete version of MSOffice. I don't want to be troubleshooting obsolete Cisco routers that Cisco doesn't even sell anymore. That has nothing to do with developing cool new products. But there are engineers who get stuck doing these tasks. </p>

<p>More generally, many (probably most) engineering jobs are not development jobs. Most of the engineering jobs in the manufacturing industry are not. I know a lot of engineers who used to work in auto manufacturing, and there, you're not developing any products at all. You're just overseeing a production process of a product that somebody else developed. That's not a particularly interesting job (at least to them), which is why they're not working there anymore. Now, if you were actually designing a new car, that would be pretty cool. But many (probably most) engineers in the auto industry don't do that. Instead, they're out on the shop floor, dealing with manufacturing issues. Maybe that's cool for some people, but I certainly wouldn't say that has much to do with developing the product. </p>

<p>But, to your direct point, I have never said that everybody is going to think that consulting is better than engineering. Nor should they. I am simply saying that if we want more people to work as engineers, then we need to make engineering a more attractive career. Why can't there be some engineering jobs that will attract people who do have the choice to enter other industries. </p>

<p>Some of you may remember ariesathena, a former poster who left chemical engineering to become a lawyer. I distinctly remember how her former engineering coworkers were 'congratulating' her for leaving the field, and saying that she would make more money right out of law school than engineers who had been working for decades. Now, why does it have to be that way? Why can't engineers make the kind of money the lawyers make? Why would engineers be "congratulating" her for leaving the field? </p>

<p>
[quote]
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?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, I have never said that engineering was not a good choice for a career. Indeed, I have always stated that engineering is clearly one of the better careers you can have: far better than most other jobs out there. </p>

<p>But, for whatever reason, engineering can't or doesn't want to compete against the most desirable careers out there.</p>

162

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like I said, I am very happy that you found an employer that seems to be exceptional and provides you with satisfying work. But I think you would agree that most engineering jobs aren't like that. You said it yourself - your former job had issues that detracted from your satisfaction with the job because of bad management (which then implies that many engineers end up stuck working under bad managers).</p>

<p>But in any case, clearly at least Nicholas Pearce felt that he was going to be locked in. Nor is he the only one. I too had this problem. So did many of the engineers that I know. We saw what happened to the older guys. You work on one technology, and years later, you're still stuck working on that same technology. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
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?)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think you're now agreeing with my point. You first say that there are people who don't know how to shop for jobs that are good for them, and that you see people who know what they want and then find a company who will give that to them.</p>

<p>But you then say that many 22-year-olds (or even 30-year-olds) who not only don't really know what they want, they don't even know how to identify what they want. That's been my very point throughout this whole thread. * Sure, if you *know for sure that you want to be an engineer, then you can forget about consulting/finance, you can forget about a school with a top general brand name like Harvard or Yale, and you can just go to a top engineering-specific school. </p>

<p>But what if you don't know for sure? That's when those other options become more salient. That's when it does become important to attend a school that has a strong general brand name. That's when consulting & finance do have something to offer. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See, I would argue that consulting and finance offer more flexibility than engineering does. That doesn't make engineering bad. Indeed, engineering is one of the most flexible careers out there. It's just that consulting and finance (especially consulting) are even more so. In fact, I would argue that consulting is the very definition of flexibility, as the whole job is designed around getting you to work on different things. </p>

<p>To reiterate, I certainly agree that engineering is a far better career than most other jobs out there. That's not in dispute. The question to me is, can engineering become still better? It's like sports: teams should not be satisfied with just getting into the playoffs, they should want to win the championship. </p>

<p>For example, Yahoo recently hired the consulting firm Bain to advise it on what it needs to do to successfully compete against Google (and Bain's advice was to fire 3000 people). My question is, why couldn't Yahoo create its own consulting team out of its own engineers? After all, Yahoo has some pretty sharp engineers. Surely some of them would like to work on a big strategy project. Not all of them, but some of them. {One might argue that your own employees won't dare to recommend layoffs, but I would argue that it's better for employees to take control of their own layoffs rather than sit around and have them imposed by outsiders.} </p>

<p>Bain</a> Thinks Yahoo Should Fire 3000 Yahoos, Too</p>

163

<p>
[quote]

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.

[/quote]

Totally agree... I'd personally take a low on the glamour, but high on the pay scale type of job.... ^^</p>

<p>
[quote]

Some of you may remember ariesathena, a former poster who left chemical engineering to become a lawyer. I distinctly remember how her former engineering coworkers were 'congratulating' her for leaving the field, and saying that she would make more money right out of law school than engineers who had been working for decades. Now, why does it have to be that way? Why can't engineers make the kind of money the lawyers make? Why would engineers be "congratulating" her for leaving the field?

[/quote]

Maybe society dictates that engineer is no longer as important as other professions... but instead of answering the "why", shouldn't the question be "what" can be done to change this?</p>

164

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would say that that's also true in engineering. I can think of quite a few engineers who aren't very happy with their jobs, but don't switch because they know they won't make the same salary doing other things. Note, they went to no-name schools where they got middling grades and so careers like consulting and finance were never available to them. They've been working as engineers for years, they have families to support and mortgages to pay, so, what else are they going to do? To start over would mean a drastic loss in income, whereas their engineering jobs give them a nice middle-class lifestyle that they're used to. To paraphrase one chemical engineer that I know: 'Frankly, I'm bored with the job, but hey, it pays the bills and at my age, I'm too old to really do anything else.'</p>

165

<p>I promised myself not to engage Sakky any more, but this one is just too funny: {quote]My question is, why couldn't Yahoo create its own consulting team out of its own engineers? After all, Yahoo has some pretty sharp engineers. Surely some of them would like to work on a big strategy project. Not all of them, but some of them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sakky, you are obviously clueless regarding what happens in the working world and why people hire strategy consultants. (and probably just as clueless about what strategy consultants do for a living?)</p>

<p>Thanks for giving me a good laugh.</p>

166

<p>Newmassdad, once again, you have given me quite the laugh, not only because you keep coming back (after repeatedly saying that you'll bow out). But you are also clearly clueless about the way that consulting actually works, as you are about so many other matters about which you have repeatedly embarrassed yourself. You have once again provided me with a good laugh. However, I also recommend that you learn about the consulting industry before you spout off about it. </p>

<p>My real question is, why exactly is it that consulting firms can hire engineering students right out of school to work as consultants, but engineering companies can't do the same? For example, I remember one engineering student who turned down a job at an engineering firm for a consulting job, and then ended up working on a consulting project for the very same engineering firm who he had turned down. Heck, he even ended up meeting the manager who had offered him the job, and that manager just had to laugh by saying if he had been offered a job in consulting, he probably would have taken it too. </p>

<p>The irony is that the company basically ended up paying this guy anyway - just a lot more because they were doing so through the consulting firm as the middleman. Why not just offer a greater salary and better job to hire the guy directly? </p>

<p>But of course, newmassdad, I wonder if you are clueless enough to respond again despite supposedly having bowed out. Your responses are just too funny.</p>

167

<p>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.</p>

<p>As to the rest of what you were talking about with me, it's gonna have to wait 'til I backcheck these beam marks, but I'll respond probably this evening.</p>

168

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What about Joe Biden? No name law school, US Senator, VP of the United States someday? and could potentially lead to President of the United States someday too, at least in theory.</p>

169

<p>
[quote]
What about Joe Biden? No name law school, US Senator, VP of the United States someday?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And as long as we're talking about VP candidates...</p>

170

<p>I'm just curious, is there anyone outside the regulars on this forum still reading the thread? I've got a few huge problem sets (in physics and chemistry , not engineering (sakky) ) that I should be working on and I'm wondering if it's even worth bothering to post a reply if nobody's opinion is going to be remotely influenced.</p>

<p>Though I do have to ask one thing. Sakky, why are you contrasting a Harvard degree to UCSD in your post against me? 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. 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?</p>

<p>My step brother went into finance because he wanted to retire by the time he's 45 (and he's right on track in his mid-30s), because he wants to do something with his life other than work. I LOVE my work and never want to retire. 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)?</p>

171

<p>^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.</p>

172

<p>I'm still reading this thread, but this debate is just repeating itself every month or two in a different thread. I'm not sure if there are even any new ideas being posted nowadays. It's always the same posters saying pretty much the same things.</p>

173

<p>^That basically CC. Different people asking the same question, the same people answering the question.</p>

174

<p>
[quote]

I'm just curious, is there anyone outside the regulars on this forum still reading the thread?

[/quote]

I am, although it's kindda deja vu...
I think we went over most of these when we discussed whether or not engineering field is saturated.</p>

175

<p>Yeah, on second thought, nobody's really listening to this thread that'll care. Sakky, I don't entirely agree with you, but I don't really feel like disagreeing anymore.</p>

176

<p>
[quote]
Do I think engineers are underpaid? Well, sure. And professional football players are overpaid, too.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'd make the argument that pro football players are not overpaid for a couple of reasons:</p>

<p>[ul]
[li]A pro football player literally takes his life in his hands when he goes out on the field. And even in situations that are not potentially life-threatening, there is a risk of career-ending injury that can lead to serious complications for the rest of the player's life. The money that the player makes (if carefully invested) can provide the medical care that would be necessary in the case of such an injury, or in the case of death, financial support for the athlete's family.</p>[/li]
<p>[li]As compared to engineers, the customers of pro football players (fans, sponsors, etc.) get to see the individual performance of each player as well as the collective performance of the team. Thus they are in a position to judge who is contributing and who is not. They are also in a position to withhold their (financial) support of the team if they are unhappy with players' performance. OTOH, it is generally not possible for the customers of engineers to assess the performance of each individual engineer. In fact most of the details of how engineering is done are not visible to customers. Customers see the end product and judge on price, reliability, etc., but not on individual contribution.[/li][/ul]</p>

177

<p>
[quote]
For example, Yahoo recently hired the consulting firm Bain to advise it on what it needs to do to successfully compete against Google (and Bain's advice was to fire 3000 people). My question is, why couldn't Yahoo create its own consulting team out of its own engineers? After all, Yahoo has some pretty sharp engineers. Surely some of them would like to work on a big strategy project. Not all of them, but some of them. {One might argue that your own employees won't dare to recommend layoffs, but I would argue that it's better for employees to take control of their own layoffs rather than sit around and have them imposed by outsiders.}

[/quote]
</p>

<p>IMO, Yahoo! is a bad example. There are other companies such as Google where the engineers have much more control over things like hiring, reduction in force, etc. (The downside to this, of course, is that one may not have the checks and balances such as in a company with more traditional HR procedures.)</p>

178

<p>
[quote]
A pro football player literally takes his life in his hands when he goes out on the field.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You haven't ever been on a swing stage, have you?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Customers see the end product and judge on price, reliability, etc., but not on individual contribution.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And the other part of that argument is just ridiculous. Within the context of your analogy, there's no difference between the two. The client hires the entire team and gets a closer view of some individual team members in both cases.</p>

179

<p>Heh, one of my friends is a geologist doing petroleum exploration on various ships and just dislocated his shoulder for the fourth time this year last week. He grew up working on a farm, so I can't imagine he's that clumsy. (He also had a crazy bird attack him a few months ago; I bet football players don't have to risk that!)</p>

180

<p>
[quote]
You haven't ever been on a swing stage, have you?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your point? I am arguing that football players are fairly paid, based upon the expectations of those who contribute to their salaries (fans, sponsors, etc).</p>

<p>FWIW, what % of engineers have life-threatening, or even career-threatening jobs?</p>

<p>Perhaps you could present an argument why you think football players are overpaid?</p>

<p>
[quote]
The client hires the entire team and gets a closer view of some individual team members in both cases.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In professional sports, the client gets an up-front view of all team members in the most critical aspects of what is being paid for (whether the team wins, or at least plays competitively).</p>