<p>You're actually saying liberal arts degrees are advantageous on the job market? </p>
<p>Tsk tsk tsk.</p>
<p>Well, my mom's BA in French sure as hell brought in more money than my dad's PhD in engineering.</p>
<p>Your mom did, not the degree. You really think that, ceteris paribus, a French degree is more enticing to employers than an engineering degree?</p>
<p>Was your mom hot? French girls are hot. :p</p>
<p>Eww who would want to be an engineer? You have no effing idea how much work it takes to get somewhere, and yes it requires big talent and dedication. That is such a third world country job! They will have so many immigrants who will probably be better qualified than you because they most probably did much more work than you can ever imagine. They have stuff like liberal arts and social sciences and so forth so us lazy and dumb people could do something (and often earn the same money) ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, not really. The 2 requires classes for the concentration are 15.401 and 15.402. These 2 particular classes are open to MBA's with no significant math background, and they have no math pre-reqs. Not all MBA's, not even at Sloan, have strong math backgrounds, yet they are allowed to take these finance courses anyway. Heck, I have known Sloan MBA's who have never even taken any math beyond high school who still took these courses and got A's.</p>
<p>Here are the descriptions of 15.401 and 15.402. Notice how they have no math prereqs whatsoever. </p>
<p>Here is the OCW site of 15.402 of 3 years ago. Go ahead, check out the syllabus, the exams, and the assignments. Notice how the class never really requires any knowledge of advanced math. The class is all based on cases and spreadsheet analysis, but you can get away with knowing very little advanced math.</p>
<p>Now, it is true that some of the finance electives, 15.434 in particular, require some advanced math. But you don't have to take that one. You just have to take 2 electives to complete the concentration, and you can choose 2 un-mathematical ones, such as 15.535 (business analysis using financial statements), which is basically just learning how to create analyst reports and due diligence reports based on accounting data, and 15.431 (entrepreneurial finance), which is basically learning how to fund a startup. None of these courses requires knowledge of advanced math. </p>
<p>The point is, you don't really need to know much advanced math to complete a finance concentration at Sloan. You can CHOOSE to learn advanced math, but you don't really NEED it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet right there you have implicitly conceded the major drawback of the liberal arts vs. engineering. The major drawback is, like you said, the liberal arts don't really push you hard to do anything, and hence a lot of people in those majors BECOME LAZY. I think sheer laziness is a far far bigger drawback than any nerdiness or antisociality of the engineers. The engineers, if nothing else, have proved that they can work hard. The liberal arts students are unable to prove that. I myself know several employers who have stated that they prefer not to hire liberal arts grads because every time they have done it before, they found out the hard way that they people they hired didn't want to work hard and just wanted to sit in the office and goof off. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sexist comments? It's no more sexist than your complaints about the gender imbalance in engineering. If you want to engage in stereotypes, then so will I. You're the one who brought it up. </p>
<p>The gender balance is better in math? Not from what I've seen. I grant you that it is better in chemistry, but we weren't talking about chemistry, now were we? You wanted to talk specifically about physics and math. Trust me, the gender imbalance there is not significantly different from that in engineering.</p>
<p>I said it before, I'll say it again. If the gender imbalance is so concerning to you, don't be an engineer. And don't be a scientist of mathematician either. Major in something like interior design or literature.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What are you talking about? Star employees get fired all the time, mostly for political reasons. This is why internal corporate politics are such a big deal in every company, because people know they can be fired at any time for any reason, or no reason at all. This is especially true in any company for which people are constantly fighting for promotion for a top spot. For whoever wins such a promotion, one of the first things they often do is fire all of the people who were competing against him for that promotion, under the notion that if you competed for a promotion and lost, you are probably going to feel bitter about the person who won and about the company in general, so perhaps the best thing to happen is for you to leave the company. Couple that with the fact that the new guy generally wants to promote all of his trusted and favored people to high positions. This is why, incidentally, whenever a company replaces their CEO, that is usually followed by a large-scale replacement of the general management ranks. That's how business works, like it or not. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Besides, my dad worked like 15 hours per day for like 40 weeks out of the year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, because he chose to. Obviously most tenured profs work hard. But that's because they WANT to work hard. Once you get tenure, you don't HAVE to work hard, because you're unfireable. There's a big difference between working hard because you want to, and working hard because you have to. </p>
<p>After all, ask yourself, once your father got tenure, what would have happened to him if he simply decided not to work harder than the bare minimum required? The answer - nothing would have happened. That's what tenure is all about. So if he wanted to just screw around and do nothing for years at a time, nothing would have happened. He has that luxury because of his tenure. Try screwing around in a private sector job, and see what happens. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would posit something else that I didn't point out before. Any tenured engineering prof at a half-decent school can make a killing on outside consulting if they want to. For example, I know an engineering prof at MIT who charges about $1000+ an hour for outside consulting. That's right - $1000+ an hour. How? He serves as an technical expert witness regarding legal liability of construction projects. To testify in court, either for the prosecution or the defense, he charges over a thousand dollars an hour. Similarly, I know other engineering profs have started their own company or serve on the boards of venture capital firms, and make huge amounts of money. Amar Bose, for example, started the Bose company to make high-end audio equipment while he was stiill a prof at MIT. He is worth $1.5 billion according to Forbes Magazine.</p>
<p>But all of that is beside the point. Nobody goes to get their PhD and enter academia because they want to make money. If you just want to make money, get your MBA and join a hedge fund or a private equity firm. Or start your own company. What you should be doing is looking at ACTUAL WORKING INDUSTRY engineers. For example, I know plenty of engineers and programmers in Silicon Valley who make well over 6 figures. A few rare ones I know make over 200k a year. They don't have PhD's. </p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amar_Bose%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amar_Bose</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
This is why I'm going into investment banking
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, I have always agreed that if you just want to make a lot of money, just go into Ibanking. Here I agree with you. </p>
<p>But you can still get an engineering degree and become a banker. I know many people who have. In fact, I would argue that there is no difference in difficulty in getting into banking as an engineer than as a liberal arts major.</p>
<p>The bottom line is this. Most people who want to get into IB can't get in. What are you going to do if you can't get in? At least if you have an engineering degree, you have a backup career in your hands. If you have a liberal arts degree, you don't even have that. Again, take a look at the average starting salaries of the engineers vs. those of the liberal arts grads.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Eww who would want to be an engineer? You have no effing idea how much work it takes to get somewhere, and yes it requires big talent and dedication. That is such a third world country job! They will have so many immigrants who will probably be better qualified than you because they most probably did much more work than you can ever imagine. They have stuff like liberal arts and social sciences and so forth so us lazy and dumb people could do something (and often earn the same money)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not that "often". Take a gander at the average starting salaries of engineers vs. liberal arts majors. Engineers still make a significant premium on their salaries. </p>
<p>Sure, some liberal arts grads can get into high-paying fields like consulting or banking. But most cannot. Trust me, I know PLENTY of liberal arts grads who can only dream of making the kind of money that the engineers can. In fact, I know a bunch who have found nothing better than working at the mall.</p>
<p>What's wrong with working the the mall? At least you are around pretty people all day long, instead of engineers who are around nerds doing nerdy things all day long.</p>
<p>It is not about having a higher salary, ti is about having a higher quality of LIFE. The truth is, the quality of life for working engineers is pretty low, unless you actually enjoy doing technical stuff around nerds all day long. </p>
<p>And you should stop stereotyping people. First you stereotyped that all the women concentrated majors are easy BS majors, and now you are saying all liberal arts majors are lazy. That's just untrue. </p>
<p>The only thing I see going for engineers right now is that we are heading into a turbulent political era and there likely will be extended conflicts in many regions of the world. In this kinda of political-econ climate, it is better to know the sciences than to just know the liberal arts stuff like finance or literature or something. But even then, liberal arts majors like in political sciences, or linguistics will be in just as high demand as engineers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sure, some liberal arts grads can get into high-paying fields like consulting or banking. But most cannot. Trust me, I know PLENTY of liberal arts grads who can only dream of making the kind of money that the engineers can. In fact, I know a bunch who have found nothing better than working at the mall.
[/quote]
Well, if that mall has a Target Store they might not be doing too bad. According to an article in today's Daily Nexus (UCSB newspaper) Target is recruiting managers on campus. The starting pay? [b$48,000** <a href="http://www.dailynexus.com/news/2006/12102.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.dailynexus.com/news/2006/12102.html</a></p>
<p>Seems not too far away from the $51K the EE's are making, and within hailing distance of even the best paying jobs for newly-graduated engineers (Chem E's at $56K).</p>
<p>
[quote]
What's wrong with working the the mall? At least you are around pretty people all day long,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Pretty people? Uh, I don't know what mall you go to, but trust me, I don't see too many pretty people at my nearby mall. FAR FAR from it, in fact. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It is not about having a higher salary, ti is about having a higher quality of LIFE. The truth is, the quality of life for working engineers is pretty low, unless you actually enjoy doing technical stuff around nerds all day long.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, it's about quality of life. And what is the quality of life in working at the mall? If people love that job so much, then why do those workers quit all the time? Many retail stores report an annual turnover rate of greater than 100% - meaning that the average worker there lasts less than a year in the job before quitting. If the quality of life in working at the mall is so great, then why do so many people quit all the time? Why would you quit a job that supposedly has such a high quality of life. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And you should stop stereotyping people. First you stereotyped that all the women concentrated majors are easy BS majors, and now you are saying all liberal arts majors are lazy. That's just untrue.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're telling ME to stop stereotyping? YOU STARTED IT. You complained about engineers being all nerdy and not having enough women, etc. etc. Isn't that a stereotype right there? </p>
<p>
[quote]
But even then, liberal arts majors like in political sciences, or linguistics will be in just as high demand as engineers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh really? So are you predicting that the salaries of the poli-sci and linguistics majors will be equal to the engineers in the future? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Target is recruiting managers on campus. The starting pay? [b$48,000** <a href="http://www.dailynexus.com/news/2006/12102.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.dailynexus.com/news/2006/12102.html</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wasn't talking about managers. In my examples, my college grads were working as shelf-stockers. Or cashiers. Or other such mundane jobs. Trust me, I know a LOT of college grads who ended up in jobs that they could have gotten right out of high school. I know one girl who majored in the humanities and then ended up as a waitress - in fact, the same waitress job at the same restaurant that she worked at part-time while she was in high school. So basically, her degree hasn't (so far) helped her career at all. In fact, she often says so bitterly that if knew that she was just going to end up being a waitress, she would never have gone to college at all, and saved all that money. </p>
<p>But in any case, there's no need to argue about anecdotes. Just look at he differences in reported salaries. If it's so easy to get a management job at Target, then why don't all the liberal arts people get it? And then why wouldn't the salaries of those liberal arts grads be higher than it is? </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
May be your mom is smarter than your dad. Go ask your mom how many of her French classmates are making 6-figure salaries now.</p>
<p>I sure as hell can tell you that my dad's classmates AREN'T making 6 figures right now.</p>
<p>my dad is making 6 figures in engineering and loves his job. but he works like a demon and is home less than 1/2 the time.</p>
<p>How would you know as you are still in high school? Figures don't lie. The most lucrative college degrees according to CNN Money are:</p>
<p>Average starting salaries for the class of 2006:</p>
<p>Chemical Engineering ... $55,900
Electrical Engineering ... $52,899
Mech Engineering ........ $50,672
Computer Science ....... $50,046
Accounting ................ $45,723
Economics/Finance ...... $45,191
Civil Engineering .......... $44,999
Business Admin ........... $39,850
Marketing .................. $36,260
Liberal Arts majors ....... $30,828</p>
<p>Yeah average STARTING salaries....got figures for 10 years in?</p>
<p>That depends entirely on the individual. Most of my friends did quite well for themselves. Besides, if you are starting in the $55K range right after college, it shouldn't be that difficult to reach 6-figures, right?</p>
<p>Um....it's pretty hard in engineering....since instead of paying an American engineer $75k or even $100k to do a job, the same company can go to India and pay someone $15k (they would live like kings there with that money) to do the same job better and more productively....I see outsourcing becoming big in the next 10 years. Financial services is the new dot-com.</p>
<p>It's a dead-end job. Admit it.</p>
<p>The main problem with this thread is that it lumps all engineering in one basket. Engineering is a very diverse field. Your career path can be very different depending on the engineering discipline you pursue ... It can be different within the same industry or even within the same company. Take Exxon as an example, engineering jobs for the upstream sector is very different from those in downstream; likewise production is different from R&D which is different from retails, and so on and so forth. And then there are engineers working in consulting, in sales and marketing; engineers in management positions, managing people, projects or business. It's silly to make sweeping statements about the career future across all engineering disciplines and across all industries.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I see outsourcing becoming big in the next 10 years.
[/quote]
Software engineering is the only area I know that has significant outsourcing, and only at the programming level. This is nothing new as IBM and others have been doing that for the last decade or so. The majority of the engineering jobs are not threatened by outsourcing ... not now, not in the next 10 years. Don't underestimate the ingenuity of the American engineers. When I was in college many many years ago, it was widely predicted that the next generation semiconductor/computer would be Japanese. Well, American engineering won out at the end.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's a dead-end job. Admit it.
[/quote]
I had a pretty good career as I was able to take early retirement. I suppose I missed the "dead end" sign somewhere along the way.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Um....it's pretty hard in engineering....since instead of paying an American engineer $75k or even $100k to do a job, the same company can go to India and pay someone $15k (they would live like kings there with that money) to do the same job better and more productively....I see outsourcing becoming big in the next 10 years. Financial services is the new dot-com.</p>
<p>It's a dead-end job. Admit it
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's no more of a 'dead-end' job than most other jobs. A lot of finance roles, for example, especially back-office work, are candidates for being shipped overseas too. Basically, outsourcing as a phenomenom can hit anybody and everybody whose job is to process paperwork and information. And the truth is, that includes a wide range of white collar jobs, including finance jobs. </p>
<p>So you talk about companies not wanting to pay a US engineer 100k, instead paying some guy in India 15k. Fair enough. But then why do banks pay investment bankers 250k a year just to start, when they could pay some guy in India much less? After all, a lot of banking is simply spreadsheet crunching and investments analysis, and that can be done anywhere. In fact, it's already starting. </p>
<p>So if you want to talk about the impact of outsourcing, you should be talking about ALL of the impacts of outsourcing, not just the impact on engineers. You think it won't affect financial services? Think again. </p>
<p>And besides, nobody is saying that you have to WORK as an engineer if you get an engineering degree. Plenty of engineers go off to do other things, including banking. In fact, most people do not take jobs that have to do with their major. Your mother would be a case in point - her job has nothing to do with what she majored in. </p>
<p>But what an engineering degree gives you is a BACKUP career. What if you can't get a finance job? Not everybody who wants one can get one. If you can't get one, at least you can still get an engineering job. If you get a degree in French, you are basically rolling the dice. If you get a finance job, good. But what if you don't? What are you going to do now?</p>