<p>40 Hours per week doesn't seem bad compared to finance jobs that require over 75 hours per week.</p>
<p>Very few engineers work 40 hours per week. My brother is on call 24/7. If he isn't sleeping, he is working. </p>
<p>So what else is he going to do? Sakky is probably right that there aren't a whole lot of jobs that are better with a bachelors degree. But many engineers have more than a bachelors degree today. And with advanced degrees, I think there are careers that pay better for the hours spent.</p>
<p>There are many fields in medicine. In addition to being a doctor, there are physical therapists, pharmacists, etc. What about getting a PhD and doing research? Or teaching at the university level. </p>
<p>If the career can be outsourced...take a good look at the pay and benefits of the future competition - not the past. If you would be happy with that then it may be a good career for you.</p>
<p>Three words--commercial real estate brokerage. Everyone I know who stuck with it has never been out of work and makes well into six figures for 40 hours a week(and often less). You don't need to be a rocket scientist either. Just a decent personality and some follow through.</p>
<p>whats a good undergrad major that will then lead me to a good mba program after a few years work experience? i wouldn't mind a lower paying job since i hope to radically change my career path once i get my mba. </p>
<p>i was thinking engineering, but i definitely want to experience college and take a plethora of different classes. im thinking real estate, stock market stuff..i dunno?</p>
<p>
[quote]
[Yeah, engineering is whoring out YOUR LIFE for money.
When are you going to enjoy that money? YOU WORK OVER 40 HOURS A WEEK!!! Then again, though, you'll probably remain single, or married to a fugly (since your career is uninteresting; being a lab rat typing keys on a computer in solitude... whoa what a life I really want to read your biography buddy.. oh wait its a carbon copy of all other engineers)</p>
<p>Money (and sometimes stay-inside-your-comfort-zone routine) is the ONLY incentive to go into engineering. Along with the fear of the unpredictable; some college students fear that they haven't mapped out their entire lives yet, so just arbitrarily picking 'engineering' essentially determining their future let's them rest a little easier.</p>
<p>Then again, I don't even know why I'm arguing on this thread. I didn't pick engineering, so why should I care who else does. I mean, it's like being the lunch lady at the cafeteria, SOMEONE has to do it. So, by all means, go ahead.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But your statement assumes that money's the only incentive--surely not every engineer hates his or her job? And somehow I doubt very seriously that every engineering job is exactly like you described. Your claim of being single/married to a 'fugly' also seems questionable at best--how can you generalize like that--it seems pretty unsubstantiated as a claim. Besides, can't engineering undergrad majors pursue professional degrees, besides in types of engineering? Is your post even being serious?</p>
<p>
[quote]
So what else is he going to do? Sakky is probably right that there aren't a whole lot of jobs that are better with a bachelors degree. But many engineers have more than a bachelors degree today. And with advanced degrees, I think there are careers that pay better for the hours spent.</p>
<p>There are many fields in medicine. In addition to being a doctor, there are physical therapists, pharmacists, etc. What about getting a PhD and doing research? Or teaching at the university level.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So what about the idea of getting an engineering bachelor's degree, and then getting a health-services graduate degree? Or some other kind of graduate degree.</p>
<p>Look, the truth is, when it comes to people who have just a bachelor's degree, engineers have it pretty darn good. Are they lives problem-free? Of course not. But they are still a heck of a lot better than most people who just have bachelor's degrees are. A lot of them wish they could trade careers with engineers.</p>
<p>Furthermore, you can get a bachelor's engineering degree and not work as an engineer, but instead use it as a stepping stone to something else. Why not? I know plenty of engineers who got their MBA's and are successful managers. Why not do that? </p>
<p>But you gotta get a bachelor's degree in SOMETHING. Engineering gives you, if nothing else, a relatively decent career, which most other bachelor's degrees do not. </p>
<p>You can think of engineering as a backup career. Not everybody who wants to be a doctor or a pharmacist gets into medical or pharmacy school. Not everybody who wants to be a university teacher gets an offer. With an engineering degree, if nothing works out, you can simply work as an engineer. If you get a bachelor's degree in, say, Leisure Studies, you don't even have a backup career.</p>
<p>My question, since I am currently an engineering student. </p>
<p>I think a lot of the points raised in the first post are valid, engineering is definitely not for everyone, and is really not that lucrative anymore. </p>
<p>My question is though, I am quite good at math and the sciences, better than 99.99% of other people I would say. I am also decent at the humanities and languages, but only at the 98.5% percentile I would say. </p>
<p>*** should I do? If I just go straight into a liberal arts major, my talents in the math and sciences would go awasted. </p>
<p>Also, right now, I am trying to transfer, and I am looking at some of the non-engineering science majors, like mathematics or chemistry. What about those? Are those more useful than engineering since they are more theoretical, and less whoring yourself out for money? </p>
<p>What about going into academia with an engineering background? Is that possible? If I want to do that, would I be better off majoring in math/chemistry, instead of something like MechE or ChemE? </p>
<p>What about political organizations that require a scientific background, like patent work or safety regulations? is it better to have an engineering background or a pure science background for those jobs?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am quite good at math and the sciences, better than 99.99% of other people I would say. I am also decent at the humanities and languages, but only at the 98.5% percentile I would say.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>At least you're humble.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think a lot of the points raised in the first post are valid, engineering is definitely not for everyone, and is really not that lucrative anymore
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would just point out that engineering never was "that lucrative" at any point in time. It's not like there was some golden age in the past when engineers were all millionaires. </p>
<p>But my central point still stands - that engineers still have it better off than the vast majority of college grads out there. You think engineering is bad, take a look at what a lot of people from other majors end up doing. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, right now, I am trying to transfer, and I am looking at some of the non-engineering science majors, like mathematics or chemistry. What about those? Are those more useful than engineering since they are more theoretical, and less whoring yourself out for money?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See, I believe that these majors are even worse. After all, they are also extremely difficult. In fact, I would say that math is arguably even more difficult than engineering, because majoring in math is basically to do lots of proofs, and proofs are largely a matter of clever insight. You can't really just "work hard" to complete a proof. If you don't get that clever insight, then you're never going to complete the proof. </p>
<p>Furthermore, at least with engineering, you have a relatively decent career path set before you. With a natural science or math, you don't even have that. The upshot is that while engineering students work hard, at least they get rewarded with a relatively high-paying job (relative to other bachelor's degrees). The natural science and math majors also have to work hard, and they don't even get that relatively high-paying job. </p>
<p>Look, if you just want to get a degree without having to work hard, then don't major in engineering and don't major in science or math either. Go major in something like "Leisure Studies" or "American Studies" or one of those majors in which you realy can graduate without exerting yourself very much. </p>
<p>
[quote]
What about going into academia with an engineering background? Is that possible? If I want to do that, would I be better off majoring in math/chemistry, instead of something like MechE or ChemE?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course you can go into academia with an engineering background. In fact, that's precisely why PhD engineering programs exist - to train future academics (i.e. future engineering profs). </p>
<p>
[quote]
What about going into academia with an engineering background? Is that possible? If I want to do that, would I be better off majoring in math/chemistry, instead of something like MechE or ChemE?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In my opinion, it's hard for me to see any job-related reason to choose math/science over engineering. The reason why you might do it is because you are actually more interested in math/science rather than engineering. But I think it's fairly clear that the job prospects in math/science are worse than they are in engineering. </p>
<p>
[quote]
What about political organizations that require a scientific background, like patent work or safety regulations? is it better to have an engineering background or a pure science background for those jobs?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I still say that engineering is better for these jobs than the science majors are.</p>
<p>Look, the bottom line is this. Nobody is saying that engineering is perfect. Indeed, engineering has many problems. But the point is, MOST majors have problems. Sure, engineering doesn't guarantee you a lucrative lifestyle. But neither do any of the other majors. Like I said, you got to major in SOMETHING. Anything that you choose is going to have some problems. While engineering may not have the absolute least problems of all of the other majors, I will certainly assert that engineering has fewer problems than the average major does.</p>
<p>I don't think you can say that the pure science majors are inferior to engineering majors in every way. </p>
<p>For one, the pure science majors tend to learn a lot more about the theoretical stuff than engineers who are mostly concerned about applications and carrying out engineering tasks. </p>
<p>I think pure science majors are arguably better suited for academia or if you plan to get into say law or something. And math majors would be better suited to enter finance than engineers, no? </p>
<p>The thing is, engineering is all about applications and sometimes it doesn't even teach you that much real science, it is very much pre-professional.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think you can say that the pure science majors are inferior to engineering majors in every way. </p>
<p>For one, the pure science majors tend to learn a lot more about the theoretical stuff than engineers who are mostly concerned about applications and carrying out engineering tasks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I wouldn't characterize it as saying that science majors are worse than engineers in EVERY way. Like I said, if you really like being a science major, then by all means, be one.</p>
<p>However, I would point out that there is PLENTY of theoretical engineering as well. Engineering can be extremely theoretical. After all, what do you think all of these engineering profs at the major engineering schools like MIT are doing in their research? </p>
<p>Now I agree that pure sciences can be MORE theoretical than engineering. But that is an esoteric difference that only specialists (i.e. PhD's) in either field will dabble in. If you're just talking about a bachelor's degree, then the difference in theory between engineering and science is small. Furthermore, you can get a bachelor's degree in engineering and then a PhD in science. I know several people who have done just that. For example, a friend of mine get her BS in chemical engineering and then a PhD in physics. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think pure science majors are arguably better suited for academia
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I disagree. I think you discount the rather large establishment of engineering academia that is out there. After all, who are all these engineering profs? They are mostly engineers themselves. </p>
<p>
[quote]
if you plan to get into say law or something.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't see that being a science major carries any advantage over engineering on this score. Both will make you eligible to become a licensed patent attorney, if that's what you want. It's not like somebody is going to look for a patent lawyer and then decide to hire you because you had majored in physics as an undergrad, but won't hire you if you had majored in EE as an undergrad. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And math majors would be better suited to enter finance than engineers, no?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I STRONGLY disagree. If anything, the reverse is true - engineers are more suited than math majors. Again, keep in mind that most math majors consist of doing lots of high-level theoretical proof-based courses. If you want to get a job in finance, you're not going to be asked to prove any theorems. You're just going to be asked to complete a whole bunch of calculations or numerical analysis. That tends to fall in the realm of engineering, not math. </p>
<p>If you want to get into finance, and you don't want to major in finance itself, then I actually think the best major for you to get is Computer Science. I consider CS to be a branch of engineering. (Some would say that CS is not 'really' engineering, but I consider it to be engineering). CS tends to fit finance jobs more so than any science or math major would because a lot of finance jobs are numbers-crunching backoffice algorithmic work, which is what CS prepares you to do. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The thing is, engineering is all about applications and sometimes it doesn't even teach you that much real science, it is very much pre-professional.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And again that gets back to the basic question of what do you want? Like I said, if you really want to learn the science, then go ahead and major in science.</p>
<p>What I am saying is that a lot of people aren't really interested in that. They just want to get a decent-paying job. If that's what you want, then you should major in engineering rather than a science. Sure, engineering jobs aren't going to make you rich. But neither will the science majors.</p>
<p>My dad's a PhD in engineering. Back when my mom was working for Citigroup (CONSUMER BANKING GROUP, not even investment banking) my mom made twice what my dad did as a TENURED professor. Guess what degree my mom graduated with? FRENCH WITH A MINOR IN ENGLISH. Go figure.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If anything, the reverse is true - engineers are more suited than math majors
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're both wrong. FINANCE majors are most suited for finance jobs. ENGINEERING majors are most suited for engineering jobs.</p>
<p>Yeah, there are engineering professors, but there aren't any influential engineering professors, because engineering discoveries are not exactly at the frontier of science. </p>
<p>Also, for finance jobs like 'quants', I don't see how engineers could handle it when they only take up to calculus. They do not know probability theory, number theory, real analysis, combinatorics. They can't do any of the more advanced analysis, only the basic stuff that any finance major could do. </p>
<p>It seems like engineering is kinda similar to majors like "nursing" or "architecture", it is very much pre-professional, and you lose out on a liberal arts education background that could better prepare you for the changing job market. I hate how engineering curriculums have courses like 'technical communication', that's so retarded. </p>
<p>Even if I were to do an engineering major, I would make sure I stay on the theoretical side of the sciences, and I enrich myself with the humanities and such through outside reading or EC's. </p>
<p>Also, the thing with the screwed up male/female ratio in engineering is very real. I didn't really think much of it before I started taking engineering courses, but now it is really getting to me. It sucks not having any girls, much less attractive girls in your classes. ANd let's face it, most engineering guys are not exactly fun to hang out with either. THis environment is very detrimental to a proper social development that is necessary for future careers.</p>
<p>I agree...engineering pretty much sucks as a career/major...at least finance majors have social skills...:D</p>
<p>speaking more on a personal basis, I think I will still try to get a science education at least at the undergraduate level, simply because I am really good at the sciences, and it would really be a shame if I were to ignore this area altogether. But I don't think it would be smart to rely entirely on the sciences, simply because with the trends of globalisation, engineers will be competing with the horde from countries like India and China that have plenty of smart people in the sciences. </p>
<p>I'll be applying to Cal, Stanford and MIT for transfer, but I will also apply to two schools in France, even though those two schools might not have as much prestige as the American schools, but I think the cultural enrichment and language ability I would gain from living in Europe would be more valuable. </p>
<p>But I am just debating what major to apply under. I am also looking into something like engineering sciences. I just want to have a sufficient background in the sciences, I do not want to learn the nitty gritties of a certain branch of engineering, that stuff is boring and meaningless unless you work in a factory or construction site or something.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My dad's a PhD in engineering. Back when my mom was working for Citigroup (CONSUMER BANKING GROUP, not even investment banking) my mom made twice what my dad did as a TENURED professor. Guess what degree my mom graduated with? FRENCH WITH A MINOR IN ENGLISH. Go figure.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but you're looking at it the wrong way. Your father has a major advantage in that he is TENURED. That means that he can NEVER be fired. Think about that. The security of having a job in which you can NEVER be fired is a huge boon. A lot of people would give up quite a bit of salary in order to get a job in which they knew that they could never be fired. I know I would. In the private sector, you can be the best employee in the whole company, and still get fired. </p>
<p>Heck, there are certain companies at which being the best employee actually INCREASES your chances of getting fired, because if you're really good, then your manager gets nervous that you're so good that you might end up replacing him, so he responds by finding a reason to fire you. </p>
<p>Secondly, consider the lifestyle of a tenured prof. You get the whole summer off. You get the whole winter break off. You get spring break off. Basically, you get huge blocks of time off. At Harvard, the profs are officially in session only about 28 weeks out of the year. Granted, most profs don't really take that time off to do nothing. Most of them use that time to do research. But the point is, if you have tenure, you don't HAVE to do that. You really can just sit around and do nothing at all and enjoy life with all that time off. </p>
<p>There are tenured profs at any school that haven't engaged in serious research in years. For example, I know one tenured prof at MIT who basically spends all of his free time as a principal of a venture capital firm, and thus making huge amounts of money on the side. He hasn't published any articles in years. MIT can't threaten his job because he's tenured, so as long as he completes the minimum requirements (i.e. teaching classes whenever MIT wants him to), he can do whatever he wants with the rest of his time, and MIT can never get rid of him. But in the working world, if you just try to get by with doing the bare minimum all the time, you are probably going to get fired. {Hence, if you don't work hard, you can get fired. If you work too hard, you may also get fired. Heck, you can get fired for any reason or no reason at all. In the private sector, people lose their jobs all the time for all kinds of random reasons.} </p>
<p>Couple that with the fact that the benefits of the prof lifestyle are sweet. You usually get gold-plated health benefits and pension. Free or discounted access to the campus gym. Free tuition and strong admissions preference for your children. All kinds of discounted academic/cultural events. You get a research budget. It's a very nice deal all-around.</p>
<p>I think when you add up the 'value' of knowing that you can't be fired, that you get huge blocks of time off every year, and all of the other goodies associated with being a tenured prof, I think it's fairly clear that your father is doing clearly better than your mother. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You're both wrong. FINANCE majors are most suited for finance jobs. ENGINEERING majors are most suited for engineering jobs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, we're not talking about that. We're talking about which one is more suitable for finance - engineering or science? </p>
<p>I would also actually say that what is FAR more important is not what you major in, but what college you go to. Let's face it. A Harvard art history major is more likely to get a finance job than a finance major from a 4th tier no-name school for the simple reason that Harvard is Harvard. Similarly, an MIT student, whether majoring in engineering or not, is more likely to get a finance job than a finance major from a 4th tier no-name school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, there are engineering professors, but there aren't any influential engineering professors, because engineering discoveries are not exactly at the frontier of science.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Obviously engineering discoveries aren't at the frontier of science, just like history discoveries aren't at the frontier of science. That's an oxymoron. Engineering discoveries are at the frontier of engineering. </p>
<p>Whether you personally think those discoveries are influential or not is, I suppose, in the eye of the beholder. I would argue that many engineering discoveries are extremely influential, to the point that they changed the world. The Internet, for example, was a product of engineering. It was built and developed by academic engineers. The Internet itself is not really at the 'forefront' of science in the sense that nothing that the Internet actually does in terms of its operations is actually rocket-science. Nobody had to discover some new scientific advance in order to create the Internet. But I think few people would dispute that the Internet has been one of the most important developments of mankind in the last 25 years. Without the Internet, you and I wouldn't even be talking to each other right now.</p>
<p>You can look at some of the specific services available on the Internet. Google, for example, started life as an academic engineering project at Stanford, as a method of building an algorithmic text-search service. I think few people would dispute that Google has been a momentous advance in the last few years. Personally, I would argue that Google, and algorithmic search in general, has been more important to mankind than many of these other scientific advances that have occured lately. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, for finance jobs like 'quants', I don't see how engineers could handle it when they only take up to calculus. They do not know probability theory, number theory, real analysis, combinatorics. They can't do any of the more advanced analysis, only the basic stuff that any finance major could do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh? How's that? Finance majors don't have to know that stuff either. So what the heck are you talking about? </p>
<p>As a case in point, consider the Finance option within the undergrad program of the MIT Sloan School of Management. I think we can all agree that the MIT Sloan School is one of the most highly technical undergrad management programs around, probably THE most technical. Yet the undergrads who concentrate in finance don't have to know real analysis or combinatorics or number theory either. They have to take the MIT core math requirements, just like any other MIT undergrad does. And obviously those core math requirements at MIT are no joke. But they are not required to take any of those other advanced math courses that you mentioned. So what the heck are you talking about?</p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. You CAN take those advanced math subjects as a Sloan Finance concentrator. But the point is, you're NOT REQUIRED to do it. In theory, the only math you have to do at MIT is calculus, and you will still be able to get a MIT Sloan bachelor's with a finance concentration. </p>
<p>Let's take another school. Let's look at the Wharton School. Again, to get a BS from Wharton with a concentration in finance just means that you have to complete 4 finance courses in addition to the standard Wharton core curriculum, and the standard core does not have any advanced math. </p>
<p><a href="http://undergrad.wharton.upenn.edu/concentrations/finance.cfm%5B/url%5D">http://undergrad.wharton.upenn.edu/concentrations/finance.cfm</a>
<a href="http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/undergrad/schools.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/undergrad/schools.html</a> </p>
<p>Now, of course, you might argue that these aren't truly strictly "BS degrees in Finance". Sure. But I have 2 responses to that. #1, who cares? After all, I think we can both agree that if you want to get a finance job, it's hard to go wrong with concentrating in finance at Sloan or Wharton, even if you are not strictly getting a BS in Finance. And #2, look around at most of the BS Finance programs and you will see that few of them also require advanced math. </p>
<p>These Sloan and Wharton finance concentrators seem to have little trouble in getting finance jobs. Yet the engineers don't seem to know any less math than they do. If anything, they know MORE math. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It seems like engineering is kinda similar to majors like "nursing" or "architecture", it is very much pre-professional, and you lose out on a liberal arts education background that could better prepare you for the changing job market. I hate how engineering curriculums have courses like 'technical communication', that's so retarded.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it's rather questionable statement that liberal arts education backgrounds prepare you for a changing job market more so than engineering does. Let's be perfectly honest. There are a LOT of worthless liberal arts majors out there that, frankly, don't prepare you for anything. Come on, seriously, Leisure Studies? Medieval Studies? Physical Education (which basically means majoring in gym)? Folklore Studies? I think we can all agree that if you want to single out some majors for criticism because they don't prepare you for the working world, there are certain liberal arts majors that are far stronger candidates. You want to talk about classes that are retarded, how about a class on spinning or pilates (as part of a physical education major)? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, the thing with the screwed up male/female ratio in engineering is very real. I didn't really think much of it before I started taking engineering courses, but now it is really getting to me. It sucks not having any girls, much less attractive girls in your classes. ANd let's face it, most engineering guys are not exactly fun to hang out with either. THis environment is very detrimental to a proper social development that is necessary for future careers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See, right there you just went right off the rails. You are complaining about the lack of women in engineering, but then you say that you want to go to science? What's up with that? You really think that science is any better? How many hot girls are there who are majoring in physics, or math? The only scientific field that does have a quasi-balanced ratio is biology, yet it seems like you don't want to major in that.</p>
<p>Saying that engineering doesn't have a balanced gender ratio and so you're going to move to science or math is like complaining that because the San Francisco 49ers are a bad team, you're going to start following the Oakland Raiders. Don't you see - they're BOTH BAD! All you're doing is jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.</p>
<p>Look, if all you care about is a favorable gender ratio, then don't major in engineering. And don't major in science either. Instead go major in Women's Studies. Or things like French Literature. Or Dance. Or Art History. While I don't want to stereotype, I think we all know that those kinds of majors tend to attract a high proportion of women. You should also be going to one of those LAC's, especially one of the formerly-women's-only LAC's like Vassar or Sarah Lawrence. You'll find PLENTY of women if you do that.</p>
<p>The Sloan courses do not necessarily go by the name of the math courses, but they do incorporate the relevent higher math material into their upper division finance classes, maybe they just call it financial computing or something. </p>
<p>I don't think engineering math and financial analysis math focus on the same topics. Financial math is much more geared toward statistics and risk analysis which are mostly topics within probability theory and higher algebra, whereas engineering math is mostly Newtonian calculus.</p>
<p>Liberal arts majors have room to take classes from multiple disciplines, pick up a new language during undergrad, study abroad, or just simply chill more with school mates. Most of engineers do not have the luxury to do those things, therefore they turn out to be more nerdy and anti-social, that will end up hurting engineers when they go into the real world to compete for jobs with liberal arts majors. </p>
<p>And what's with the sexist comments about female heavy majors? IMO, women are very intelligent, it is a shame that most of them don't want to do science and engineering. And trust me, the female/male ratio is much better in majors like math/chemistry than any branch of engineering.</p>
<p>I don't know about that...since my mom got occasional cash bonuses, free banking services, a FREE LAPTOP (in 96, that's a lot), a nice corner office, health, dental, vision benefits, free membership to the golf club next door, and every other benefit conceivable, and STILL made twice my dad. Don't say she didn't have job security because she was a vice president (read: the position right below branch manager) and SHE was the one hiring and firing people. I doubt she would ever fire herself. Besides, she had awards from Citigroup all over the place...she got like the gold service star at Citi which is like the highest recognition awarded to a citigroup employee. I don't think the higher-ups would have fired her. She's too valuable.</p>
<p>Besides, she quit but had she continued on she probably would have gotten a company car and a 6-figure salary, and considering that's in private banking, that's a lot.</p>
<p>Besides, my dad worked like 15 hours per day for like 40 weeks out of the year. My mom worked 13-16 depending on what the workload was. And my dad went to work on sundays (morning or afternoon), my mom ALWAYS had sundays off. </p>
<p>My problem with engineering is that my mom's paycheck blew my dad's paycheck out of the water when my mom had a BA in French and my dad had a PhD in engineering. It's pretty much a dead-end career.</p>
<p>This is why I'm going into investment banking. :D</p>