<p>Which one will more likely be profitable in the next 20 years and why? I enjoy both equally, and want to do them after 4 years of college.</p>
<p>engineering as a profession is a ticket to an upper-middle class lifestyle not a top 1% one.</p>
<p>Go with EE, Luke. Avoid the Dark Side.</p>
<p>II not so hot right now ;)</p>
<p>Investment banking will not be nearly as lucrative as it used to be. Electrical Engineering is far more technical. Study Electrical Engineering and then go for which ever career provides you with the best prospects.</p>
<p>If your idea of a valuable societal contribution is inventing unregulated credit default swaps or levergaed naked shorting, then iBanking may be for you. If not, stick with engineering.</p>
<p>You'll be a happier person with a more enjoyable lifestyle if you go into engineering. It will also be MUCH easier to get a job in that field. I went into IBanking from a target school and after being laid off and unemployed for months I'm kicking myself everyday for not going into engineering like my family wanted. I might even go back to get a second bachelors degree at this point.</p>
<p>The two jobs could not be more different. If you can get a job in ibanking, even if the pay goes down from peak, you will make multiples of what an EE makes unless you create your own company or get very lucky with a pre public company.</p>
<p>The issue is getting the job. While most EE's will have no problems getting a job in a good economy, to get an ibanking job requires being a top student at a top school and then having a personality banks look for.</p>
<p>Maybe the one that will be most profitable for you, personally- in terms of total utility, not merely money- might be the field you fit better in, and are better at. When I worked in investment banking, even while many were making huge amounts of money, others were being laid off and dismissed. This was the same when I worked in engineering, although nobody there was making huge amounts of money.</p>
<p>"If your idea of a valuable societal contribution is inventing unregulated credit default swaps or levergaed naked shorting, then iBanking may be for you. "</p>
<p>One might just as appropriately define engineering contribution by those who develop bombs and guns for the planet to blow itself up with.</p>
<p>Investment banks help companies get money. Without this money the companies cannot build projects. And if there are no projects there is nothing for engineers to do. So if engineers make a valuable contribution to society they only get to do that after investment bankers have first made their contribution.</p>
<p>I personally participated in a financing that was made financially feasible by investment banking creativity. It resulted in a large industrial plant being built that would not have otherwise been built; at that time anyway. The project employed many engineers in its construction, and a number on an ongoing basis to this day. It serves a worthwhile purpose, valuable to society.</p>
<p>One time at the water cooler, two of us ex-engineers (from the same school, actually) were talking about our respective career choices. The other fellow said he preferred working on huge issues that have major impact, and involve a wider range of one's personality beyond analytical skills. He said that as an engineer he was responsible for designing, and implementing others' designs for, certain sub-systems within a particular project. As a banker he was involved with the financial health of the companies that developed these projects in the first place, and the viability of these very projects as a whole. He preferred to work on bigger picture stuff.</p>
<p>While I didn't disagree with him, my case was far simpler. I went to business school, because, after interest rates went to 20% and all my firm's new projects were cancelled or indefinitely postponed, there was no meaningful work to do. Probably elsewhere engineers were being laid off. Though their jobs may be more stable than I-banking jobs, I don't think engineers are immune from these phenomena. But I went to Bschool when I came to feel that engineering was the tail being wagged by the dog of the economy and the financial markets. Which led me to become interested in that field.</p>
<p>But if you're better at, and have more of a passion for, designing the systems for projects, etc, then you should probably do that. It will be easier to find work there, anyway. Money does not always fully compensate for being unhappy at a job, if that would turn out to be the case. So I believe most people should follow the path where their true interests and capabilities take them.</p>
<p>The difference, moneydad, is that the American public has asked...and pay... the engineers to produce those weapons for their own protection and for the protection of those that defend us. The American public did not vote for the massive destruction of wealth that the unscrupulous in the financial community have brought upon us. Until ethics and regulations improve in the financial universe...and that day is certainly coming...the image of iBankers in the publics eye is a few notches below insurance salesmen at this point. Right or wrong.</p>
<p>M-O-N-Y dad
not $$$</p>
<p>Most of those financial products also had appropriately useful purposes. For example I imagine credit default swap desks were created to help trading desks appropriately price credit risk, which facilitated trading. The public benefited from this via lower cost of financing, more corporate profits, which helped them build more projects to employ more engineers, etc. While it worked, anyway.</p>
<p>When those bombs and weapons get into the wrong hands they do not look so noble either.</p>
<p>As for image, one of my college friends was a nuclear engineer; at the time, he was complaining that telling the young ladies he was involved with nuclear power was like telling them he had leprosy. At social events he was constantly having to defend his choice of vocation, which was not pleasant for him. But he chose that path anyway, because he knew better than this common chatter, had the thick skin to tough it out, and he felt it was the direction his abilties and interests led him. I imagine that many of those entering the defense industry at that time also had to deal with these image issues. At that time. Yet they toughed it out, went that way, because they felt there was another side to that coin as far as public good was concerned , and that's where they saw themselves fitting in.</p>
<p>A recent wall street journal article depicted the total loss of cache that investment banking has taken recently. Bankers interviewed said that they were afraid to even tell people what they did. This will become even more pronounced if things get worse and the public starts dishing out "rough justice" to investment bankers. So I would go with the electrical engineering</p>
<p>There are no more stand alone ibanks. Employees now just work for banks and are therefore bankers. This is what many ibankers have called themselves for decades. While it's much more pronounced now, and everyone in the US knows about and hates ibankers, many in the know have felt that way forever. So ibankers just say 'I work for a bank' and hope folks think they're tellers.</p>
<p>If you are at an "elite" school and can develop "connections", investment banking may still be viable for you.</p>
<p>No major has a guaranteed job in todays job market, except for a few medical occupations.</p>
<p>Why not get an EE undergrad degree with a few accounting courses and go on to get an MBA?"</p>
<p>Mergers and acquisitions are slow right now. But eventually activity will pick up. You might get an EE degree, go for the PE, and then help investment bankers value assets for deals involving industrial or heavy commercial electrical equipment.</p>
<p>I recently observed a single industrial plant acquisition where the buyer was totally ripped off by the seller. The buyer should have bought some expert help to survey the plant's condition and not have trusted the seller's word alone. This does make work for lawyers. The ligitation will go on for years.</p>
<p>20 years is an awfully long timespan. My crystal ball is very cloudy, and the magic 8 ball is being noncommital.</p>
<p>You'll notice that we've heard from at least one engineer who went into banking. No ibankers who went into engineering. It's very common for engineers to go to B-school after a few years in the workforce. Their math, stat and analytic skills are often far greater than those of their classmates. They can also make Excel do anything they want. In some cases, they work for employers who will help pay for B-school. I know of one engineer who went to Anderson (at UCLA) full-time on his technical employer's dime. </p>
<p>Since you enjoy both, I'd suggest keeping your options as open as possible and trying the engineering route first.</p>
<p>So it looks like EE may be the wiser choice since and EE major can do finance but a finance major can't do EE, is that correct?</p>
<p>Yes, I can trace my distaste of IB and most of what it represents back several decades. Recent events only sharpened that. Perhaps 10% of what they do is useful and necessary. The rest leads to what we have today. Easy access to vast amounts of capital is like giving a 16 year old a Corvette and the key to the liquor cabinet. Very likely bad things will happen.</p>
<p>with more people leaving investment banking or not going into it due to the economic crisis... in 5-10 years there will be a shortage... and even if there's not things will (hopefully) be back to normal. could be wrong, but it almost seems like the "bankers" that tough it out and "survive" will find themselves swimming in compensation and bonus cash</p>
<p>I like to bash the I-bankers as much as anyone, but I think that they’re getting too much of a bum rap here. Yes, there has been an awful lot of irresponsible behaviour in the industry. This is nothing new-go back and read 80s books like Liars Poker and Bonfire of the Vanity. But the scale of the problems that they created this time will keep them reputationally and compensation-wise in the doghouse for quite some time to come. Still, having said that, Wall Street is highly cyclical and the need to raise capital is not going to disappear from the American and world marketplace. Wall Street will come back and, when it does, I-bankers will again make a lot of money. </p>
<p>EE may be steadier employment and compensation and maybe that will win the race, but if your ending point is 20 years, I’d probably put my money on Wall Street. </p>
<p>But the best advice has already been offered by monydad and others. Go where you will enjoy your work and it will provide the highest utility and satisfaction to you and your family. Having a ton of money won’t do you any good if you’re miserable and you hate your work.</p>
<p>There have been many who, like Barrons, have had distaste for ibankers for decades. In the past, most on Main Street had no clue what an ibanker was. That's the only difference, the media has taught everyone the term ibanker now. Though most still don't have a clue what they do.</p>
<p>If you're concerned about image, I'm not sure which is worse. America thinks all ibankers are crooks and all engineers are boring weenies. Both are unfair characterizations.</p>
<p>But anyone who wants to lead you to believe there is no more money in banking or that a typical engineer will come close in earnings is just plain wrong. Ask all the kids at MIT graduating this year who are bemoaning they might actually have to use their engineering degrees to be engineers rather than taking them to Wall Street as the top third of every class has been doing.</p>
<p>Wall Street has more resumes this year than ever. The media has let the whole world know about the money to be made and resumes are coming from every corner. Oh the irony! A shortage ever? Lol.......</p>