<p>
[quote]
sakky, I'd bet the Wharton guys got, on average, much bigger bonuses than those engineers. .
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, bigger bonuses, probably. But on the other hand, to get those bonuses, they have to work * far longer hours *. </p>
<p>In other words, there are plenty of engineering jobs out there that let you work 40-50 hours a week and still have a life. You won't get paid great, but at least you'll have a life. (And then of course there are lots of startup companies out there where you will work like a dog, but for a chance to become a millionaire). On the other hand, to make a lot of money in finance almost invariably means working deadly hours. It's not easy to find a finance job that pays you well that doesn't require long hours.</p>
<p>The point is, again, the MIT engineer has an extra option. If he wants to take a finance job, and work crazy hours for a lot of pay, he can do it (or can work crazy hours at a tech startup in return for a chance at a mountain of money). Of if he decides he just wants to have an easy-going life while still being relatively well paid, he can just take one of those easier engineering jobs. The Wharton guy doesn't really have that option. If he wants to have an easy life, he's going to make less than the engineer would. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe nitpicking, but I think the average Wharton grad probably will make more money in his/her lifetime than an engineer from the vast majority of schools. Correct me if I'm wrong
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree, but this is endogenous to me. Let's face it. A lot of people who choose Wharton do so because they have no problem in dedicating their life in working very long hours in return for lots of money. They've made that mental trade. Engineering programs obviously tend to attract plenty of people who just don't want to work that hard for their whole life - i.e. they'll work very very hard to get the engineering degree, but then they plan to coast in a relatively laid-back (compared to investment banking) job for the rest of their life. </p>
<p>So it's not really a fair comparison because it has to do with personal motivations. You can't fairly take an MIT engineer and just say that he would have been better off going to Wharton, because maybe that guy doesn't want to be working 90 hours a week after he graduates. Maybe he just wants a nice, laid-back career that still pays relatively well. Hence, this guy would probably be WORSE off if he were to go to Wharton, because Wharton wouldn't get him what he wants. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Correct me if I am wrong but, an engineering student with a 2.5GPA is going to have better salary than a non-engineering student with a 3.0.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>On average, this is absolutely true. </p>
<p>
[quote]
yeh but chances are u are no longer a pre med student anymore because its very hard to get the grades necessary for medical school with engineering. even if u were ud be missing out on college life. college is supposed to be fun as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Also true. That's the tradeoff you make. I agree that the tradeoff is not for everybody, and in my previous posts, I have deeply questioned why this tradeoff has to exist (i.e. why exactly do engineering courses have to be graded lower than other courses?). </p>
<p>But be that as it may, at the end of the day, engineering offers career insurance, but for a price. The price being that it does lower your chances of entering some of the other careers, i.e. medicine or law.</p>