Engineering and Business

<p>I'm going to be a sophomore in the fall and am currently majoring in Chemical Engineering. I have a lot of solid laboratory experience (2 years at a pharmaceutical company, 1 year as a research assistant with 1 published paper), but have lately been finding that I really enjoy investing. I have a decent stock portfolio and have about a years worth or investing experience.</p>

<p>Does anybody have any suggestions on how I could combine these two interests? I am finding that I like investing and finance more and more, but I am having trouble deciding if I should change my major to finance or keep an engineering degree and minor in business. Either way, I hope to go to grad school and get an MBA. Would it be easier to get into a top MBA program with a finance degree because of the background or an engineering degree? Or does it even matter?</p>

<p>I guess it's confusing, but any input is appreciated.</p>

<p>One can get an MBA from either a finance or engineering background. The one thing that could be a detriment with an engineering degree is that it is tougher to maintain a good GPA than it is with finance. GPA isn't as important for business school as it is for law school, but avg GPA at top 5 schools is still 3.5 to 3.6 and avg GPA at other good schools is around 3.3 to 3.4.</p>

<p>That's just one thing to consider. However, from a short-term earnings perspective most candidates will have much greater opportunities with a chemical engineering degree than a finance degree. You can make pretty good money out of undergrad with a chemE major and then after a few years return for a full-time MBA program and then make even better money.</p>

<p>However, either way you will probably be ok as long as you keep good grades and prove to be a high performer in the work place.</p>

<p>Couple things:</p>

<p>Does it matter that my work experience after undergrad is in the engineering field and not the business field? I'm confident I can keep my GPA above 3.6, so I don't think that is much of a factor. Also, wouldn't the admissions board take into consideration that a lower GPA in engineering (3.2, 3.3) is probably due to the harder classes/curriculum? </p>

<p>Lastly, say I enroll in a full time MBA program. Will I be at a disadvantage because my degree is unrelated to business?</p>

<p>I just posted the same response on another thread. Hands down the best program for what you're looking for is Kellogg's MMM program (MBA + Masters of Engineering Management). Hope this helps.</p>

<p>They will take the program strength into account but keep in mind that many of the applicants come from rigorous undergrad programs (engineering or not). 3.3 is not a killer, but obviously you want to put your best foot forward. Also, GMAT can help mitigate a lower GPA.</p>

<p>As for your undergrad not being business, that will not be a disadvantage. Most business school students do not have an business degrees.</p>

<p>I know I can keep my GPA above 3.6, so I'm not too worried about that. The reason I didn't get into my top undergrad school was because of my SAT scores (1330 where average was 1420). Can GPA mitigate a low GMAT?</p>

<p>^ yes, it can (to a point). Just keep in mind that avg GMAT scores at schools like Harvard/Stanford/Wharton are around 710 and AVG GMAT scores at lower top 20 schools may be around 670/680. If you can keep your GPA above 3.6 in chemE then there is no reason that you shouldn't be able to score well on the GMAT.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I just posted the same response on another thread. Hands down the best program for what you're looking for is Kellogg's MMM program (MBA + Masters of Engineering Management). Hope this helps.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>KKK is a fine program, but I don't know if I would call it the best program for what the OP is looking for, hands-down. I would argue that the MIT LFM program is a worthy choice. </p>

<p>Leaders</a> for Manufacturing (LFM) PROGRAM AT MIT - OVERVIEW</p>

<p>
[quote]
Does anybody have any suggestions on how I could combine these two interests?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you enjoy engineering research, which it seems that you do given that you said that you have a published paper, you may also consider the MIT Chemical Engineering Practice program, where you can earn both a PhD in chemical engineering and (if you stay an additional year) an MBA from the Sloan School. </p>

<p>::</a> MIT ChE :: Graduate Programs - Doctor of Philosophy in Chemical Engineering Practice</p>

<p>I agree that MIT's LFM is a worthy choice. Both programs are fantastic.</p>

<p>The MIT programs are really appealing. Hopefully I can get in...I'm hoping to publish a few more things before I graduate (currently at a 5 year school). I'm also presenting at the American Chemical Society meeting in Philadelphia in a month.</p>

<p>Also in another thread, Sakky said</p>

<p>"Note, I personally don't think it matters very much, as, frankly, once you graduate from either LFM or KKK (or any other top MBA program for that matter), you're almost certainly never going to work as an engineer ever again, so it doesn't really matter what engineering degree you may have. Nevertheless, the OP did specifically ask about getting a electrical/computer master's." (Again, in another thread. I am not OP).</p>

<p>If the engineering part of the MBA/Masters type programs doesn't matter that much, then why even get an undergrad degree in engineering? Why go to school for four years to learn about engineering, work for a few years, then go to business school and never deal with engineering again? Does the engineering aspect help engineering students who maybe could not get into Sloan not only get into sloan but get a Masters from MIT in engineering?</p>

<p>I am trying to decide if I should change my major to Finance while I havn't taken many classes yet or if I should stick with ChemE and get an MBA.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If the engineering part of the MBA/Masters type programs doesn't matter that much, then why even get an undergrad degree in engineering? Why go to school for four years to learn about engineering, work for a few years, then go to business school and never deal with engineering again?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Heh heh, all very very good questions that me and my cohort of friends have asked ourselves numerous times. In fact, you have just hit upon one of the touchstone issues regarding engineering and career management.</p>

<p>Let me give you a partial defense as to the ideal reason why one would want to have an undergrad degree in engineering prior to obtaining an MBA. Basically, that engineering degree will (obviously) help you to get an engineering job right after undergrad, and that prior engineering experience will give you both a deeper knowledge of technical issues and greater credibility with other engineers. Hence, while you might never work ever again as an bonafide engineer after you get your MBA, you will be a more qualified engineering manager. You will also be more capable of qualifying for other types of jobs that lie at the intersection between engineering and business, i.e. technology strategy consulting, venture capital, high-tech entrepreneurship, etc. </p>

<p>Now, the reason why I say that it is only a partial defense because the truth is far more complex; the sad reality is that a lot of employers don't really seem to care very much about technical credibility or knowledge even in technology management jobs. I have seen a lot of people be hired as engineering managers or technology management role who don't themselves actually have an engineering background. </p>

<p>That's demoralizing on two levels. Take what happened to several people that i know. On the one hand, as a young engineer, you're trying to work hard to be promoted to an engineering management role, only to see somebody else with an MBA but no engineering degree, no engineering experience, no nothing, nevertheless end up being hired as the engineering manager instead. The new manager does not understand the technology, does not understand what the engineers do, but it doesn't matter, as he is given power over the engineers, and he is given the far higher salary. So then they think, hmm, ok, maybe they should then get the MBA themselves. So some of them go to, say, MIT's LFM program where they get both an MBA and a master's in engineering from the world's top engineering school. Nevertheless, when they actually try to interview for engineering management jobs, and ironically they still end up losing out to other MBA students who don't have any engineering background at all. You would think that the LFM graduates, given their unique education, would be able to absolutely corner all of the technology management jobs, but it's sadly and strangely just not so. Some of those guys ended up losing those tech management jobs to regular Sloan MBA's or Harvard MBA's who have no engineering background at all.</p>

<p>Now, don't get me wrong. Those LFM grads aren't exactly hurting. Heck, they ended up getting very nice jobs in investment banking or management consulting. But the point is, how those guys ended up losing those tech management jobs to other MBA students who don't have any engineering background at all is still mystifying to me. What it tells me is that a lot of tech companies sadly don't really seem to care about technical knowledge when it comes to their managers. They should care, but they don't care. </p>

<p>Furthermore, while a lot of LFM grads (and other elite MBA students with engineering backgrounds) may initially want to remain connected to engineering (i.e. get a technical management job), they soon learn that their MBA opens doors to other careers that, frankly, pay a whole lot better and have faster career tracks. Like the aforementioned investment banking or management consulting. Hence, the temptation is strong to leave technical management.</p>

<p>Heck, I distinctly remember one LFM student distinctly say that before she joined LFM, she never thought she would ever be a serious candidate in her life for a job for companies like McKinsey, BCG, Bain, Goldman Sachs, etc. and that she would always be consigned to work for lesser employers. After all, she went to a no-name undergrad eng program where those kinds of firms never come, and so she always had the belief that these kinds of firms occupied a rarefied air that she would never attain. But after she joined LFM, she realized that opportunities to meet those employers are ubiquitous at MIT (and especially at the Sloan School). Her description was that she had been eating ground beef her whole life without ever knowing any better, and now she's finally tasting filet mignon. Now, to be fair, she ultimately ended up taking a technical management job anyway, but at least she had the experience of talking to the world's top consulting and banking firms. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Does the engineering aspect help engineering students who maybe could not get into Sloan not only get into sloan but get a Masters from MIT in engineering?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your LFM application will be passed to both schools (Engineering and Sloan) for approval, either of which can choose to reject you. Hence, I highly doubt that engineering students can use LFM as a way to backdoor their way into Sloan.</p>

<p>What companies hire these non-technical MBAs to manage engineers? What industries? What level of positions are we talking about?</p>

<p>Certain industries it seem like promote from within and promote those with the knowledge.</p>

<p>
[quote]
What companies hire these non-technical MBAs to manage engineers? What industries? What level of positions are we talking about?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The answer to above is practically all. You name the engineering company, it probably happens.</p>

<p>As a case in point, one guy I know who got his MBA from the Sloan School, but doesn't have an engineering degree and has never worked as an engineer, was nevertheless hired to be an engineering project manager at Microsoft in the MS Exchange division. A bunch of other Sloan MBA's (and Harvard MBA's) were hired by startups as engineering managers, despite not being engineers themselves. I know another group of non-engineers were hired to become engineering project managers at Dell. </p>

<p>Now, don't get me wrong. I am certainly not saying that these companies hire only non-engineers to be engineering managers. Obviously many of their engineering managers are indeed former engineers. </p>

<p>What I am saying is that it doesn't really see to matter that much whether you were an engineer or not, and in particular, that even if you are an MBA with an engineering background, you can still lose out on an engineering management offer to somebody without an engineering background.</p>

<p>I don't think your anedotes work well with the energy industry. From what I've seen the energy industry promotes heavily from within (and this generally means promoting people with technical knowledge, whether they are engineers or not).</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't think your anedotes work well with the energy industry. From what I've seen the energy industry promotes heavily from within (and this generally means promoting people with technical knowledge, whether they are engineers or not).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, let me put it to you this way. The largest and most successful oil-field services firm in the world is clearly Schlumberger. The CEO of Schlumberger is Andrew Gould. He has no technical education: his degree is in history. </p>

<p>Schlumberger</a>, Andrew Gould</p>

<p>
[quote]
Well, let me put it to you this way. The largest and most successful oil-field services firm in the world is clearly Schlumberger. The CEO of Schlumberger is Andrew Gould. He has no technical education: his degree is in history.</p>

<p>Schlumberger, Andrew Gould

[/quote]
I wasn't referring to C-level executives. I am referring to mid-level managers.</p>

<p>One only needs to look at Gould's background to see that he's been at Schlumberger for 33 years and had held numerous low to mid-level management jobs.</p>

<p>Schlumberger</a>, Andrew Gould</p>

<p>
[quote]
From what I've seen the energy industry promotes heavily from within (and this generally means promoting people with technical knowledge, whether they are engineers or not).

[/quote]
Umm, yeah.</p>

<p>Look, obviously there are many people in the energy industry who have technical backgrounds (because they were engineers) and a lot of them will obviously be promoted due to sheer force of numbers. In other words, a technical background won't hurt you. </p>

<p>On the other hand, what I question is, how much does it really help you. That's unclear. In other words, there may not be that many people without technical backgrounds in the energy industry, but if you happen to be one of them, how hard would it be to be promoted? That's unclear.</p>

<p>So, umm, yeah.</p>