<p>"And like I said, even the non-star IB's make a very comfortable living. You have to admit that making over 100k when you're only 22, as many IB's fresh out of school do, is pretty darn good. That's not the salary for the stars - that's the TYPICAL pay for a Wall Street banker fresh out of college. "</p>
<p>YEAH, and IBers get bonus, too</p>
<p>"Oh? And what about the medical profession. I keep pointing out, but you refuse to acknowledge, that not everybody who wants to get into medical school actually gets in. In fact, only a fraction of them do. So think about those people who did premed, worked really hard, and still didn't get into medical school. Clearly for those people, school didn't teach them what they needed to know to get a career in medicine. Their career is over before it ever started. "</p>
<p>Sakky has hit on something here. If you're that premed student who doesn't get into med school, you then have to go out and earn a living on your B.S. Now, the Engineer with a B.S. still might want to do grad work and such to accelerate his career, but if he can't make that happen, he's in a better financial situation than the bio/premed major faced with the same dilemma. This is, in my opinion, yet another positive for the engineer.</p>
<p>"Oh? And what about the medical profession. I keep pointing out, but you refuse to acknowledge, that not everybody who wants to get into medical school actually gets in. In fact, only a fraction of them do."</p>
<p>That is not a good point, since many schools send 80%+ of their premeds into med schools (Ivies and near-ivies). That's a LARGE fraction. In fact, the national average is about 50%.....</p>
<p>If you have a good GPA and MCATS, you'll get in somewhere. Also, remember that you can apply once a year for as many years as you need. So, if you don't get in the first time around, you can apply a second or third time. </p>
<p>In fact, getting into a medical school is only slightly tougher than getting into engineering grad schools (according to the admit rates), so chances are that if you're choosing between a grad school and a med school, you're already smart enuf to get into a med school.</p>
<p>A third alternative is to study abroad, which is often cheaper and almost as good of an education. Studying in the Caribbean schools or British schools for 4 years would be cheaper than in US, and then all you have to do is pass the USMLE (easy, since only 10% fail that test) to get a residency.</p>
<p>Sooo, it's not as tough as it seems ;) If there's a will, there's a way.</p>
<p>golubb_u, I wouldn't want you to be my doctor......</p>
<p>j/k</p>
<p>gloubb_u: Many medical doctors do not take Caribbean schools seriously. It is chosen out of desperation and has a lasting stigma.</p>
<p>Getting a residency is much more difficult when you are a graduate of a Caribbean schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That is not a good point, since many schools send 80%+ of their premeds into med schools (Ivies and near-ivies). That's a LARGE fraction. In fact, the national average is about 50%.....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First of all, since when are we talking about only Ivies and near-Ivies? If we want to restrict ourselves to only those kinds of schools, then I should point out that these same schools are also extremely successful at getting their graduates into IB. </p>
<p>Second of all, like I said before, those schools don't get 80% of all their premeds into med-school. Rather, of those premeds WHO APPLY to med-school, 80% will get in. There's a big difference between all the premeds at a school and all the premeds who apply. Generally, only those premeds who actually do well will then go and apply to med-school. If you're a premed, and you get straight C's, you're probably not going to apply to med-school, because you know you're not going to get in. If you're a premed and get a 15 (total) on your MCAT, you're probably not going to apply to med-school, again, because you know you're not going to get in. Go to any school and you will find people who 'were' premeds, but aren't any longer, because they realized along the way that they weren't going to be able to get the grades or scores necessary to get in. The simple act of applying to med-school is extremely time-consuming and expensive, and you will do it only if you think you have a reasonable chance of getting in. Hence, that is a highly self-selective group of students. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, looking at only those premeds who apply, a significant fraction of them get rejected at every single med-school they apply to. Yep, every single one. For example, I think we can all agree that MIT is an elite school. Yet of those MIT premeds who apply to med-school, 77% get in somewhere, which means that 23% of them get rejected by every single med-school they apply to. Similarly, at Berkeley, in the last 5 years, about 60% of premeds who apply get in somewhere, which means that 40% of them got rejected by every single med-school they applied to. </p>
<p>And again, that's only talking about those premeds who actually apply. Plenty don't apply. Plenty leave the premed track somewhere along the way because they see they don't have a chance. Of that group of MIT or Berkeley premeds who didn't get in anywhere, I would imagine that all of them would have rather not wasted their time and money applying in the first place. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If you have a good GPA and MCATS, you'll get in somewhere.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that's a very big 'if'. It's not like everybody can just get a high GPA and a high MCAT just by wanting it. Go tell the guys at MIT that it's easy for everybody can get a high GPA, see what they say to you. Go tell the guys at Caltech that it's easy for everybody to get a high GPA. </p>
<p>Furthermore, even if you have a high GPA and high MCAT, that STILL doesn't guarantee that you're going to get admitted. It increases the odds, but it's never guaranteed. As you can see from the Berkeley data, just looking at those premeds who applied who had a GPA of 3.9+ and a MCAT score of 35+ (which are amazing stats), still, 8% of them got rejected by every med-school they applied to. Yep, every single one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, remember that you can apply once a year for as many years as you need. So, if you don't get in the first time around, you can apply a second or third time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And what do you think the odds are of getting in the next time around? If you didn't get in the first time around, it probably means that there is something deficient with your application - i.e. your GPA is too low or your MCAT is too low, etc. So when you apply again, whatever happened to be the deficiency the first time around will still be a deficiency. Take the case of your grades. If you got bad grades, you can't just go back in time and change them. Your grades are your grades. So if it's bad grades that prevented you from getting in the first time around, then they will probably prevent you from getting in every time. </p>
<p>
[quote]
In fact, getting into a medical school is only slightly tougher than getting into engineering grad schools (according to the admit rates), so chances are that if you're choosing between a grad school and a med school, you're already smart enuf to get into a med school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What does engineering graduate school have to do with anything? You don't need a graduate degree to become an engineer. People with bachelor's degrees in engineering are fully qualified to work as engineers, and in fact, most do exactly that. However, to become a doctor, you MUST go to medical school. </p>
<p>
[quote]
A third alternative is to study abroad, which is often cheaper and almost as good of an education. Studying in the Caribbean schools or British schools for 4 years would be cheaper than in US, and then all you have to do is pass the USMLE (easy, since only 10% fail that test) to get a residency.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh really? IIt's that easy, is it? Then explain to me what the following quotes are talking about.</p>
<p>"the bottom line is that less than half of U.S. citizens who attend a foreign medical school eventually practice medicine in the U.S."</p>
<p>"Macknin said that it is much more difficult to get into American residency programs coming from medical schools abroad. He chose to attend Penn because of its faculty, reputation, curriculum and student body.</p>
<p>Fitzpatrick agreed that there are more obstacles for abroad students to overcome when trying to gain acceptance to residency programs in the United States."</p>
<p>"First, and most important, you won't have the same assurance of finding a job in the U.S. once you've finished your studies as is almost always the case if you are accepted into a U.S. medical school. You must pass the USMLE before you can obtain clinical training for the last two years of your medical training. Secondly, you must do well in order to obtain a residency in the U.S. after you obtain your MD degree. So even if you go to medical school in another country, there is no guarantee that you will be able to find a residency back home afterward. The quality of your program and your performance will determine whether you will be able to find a residency program in the U.S and ultimately practice medicine in the U.S."</p>
<p>Bottom line - you should not see foreign medical schools as an 'easy way out'. Do they work for some people? Sure. But the reality is that they are a last resort. You may not be able to get any residency at all, and if you do, you're unlikely to get your top residency choice.</p>
<p>"Second of all, like I said before, those schools don't get 80% of all their premeds into med-school. Rather, of those premeds WHO APPLY to med-school, 80% will get in."</p>
<p>....well, duhh??! If you want to become a doctor, shouldn't you at least APPLY to med school? For those who want to become doctors, the Ivies can a hugge fraction to med schools.</p>
<p>"Bottom line - you should not see foreign medical schools as an 'easy way out'. "</p>
<p>Whatever comments you cited are exactly true also for american grad schools. The only barrier to getting a residency is getting a passing grade on the USMLE....if you get more than 50%ile (score of 85 or better), you're virtually guaranteed a spot somewhere. Even if you get the lowest passing score of 75 (10-%ile), you have a decent chance at the community hospitals, if not the university hospitals. ONce you have the degree, you'll be a <em>doctor</em> :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
....well, duhh??! If you want to become a doctor, shouldn't you at least APPLY to med school? For those who want to become doctors, the Ivies can a hugge fraction to med schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, like I said, the process is expensive and time-consuming, such that only those people who think they have a chance will actually apply. Let's face it. If you have straight C's in your premed coursework, you're not going to apply even if you want to go. Why? Because you know you're not going to get in anywhere. If you score a 10 (total) on your MCAT, you're not going to apply, even if you want to get in. Why? Again, because you know you're not going to get in.</p>
<p>And why are you talking about Ivies? Are you saying that only Ivy people get into med-school, or want to get into med-school? Tell that to those 40% of Berkeley premeds who applied to med-school and didn't get in anywhere. Also you may want to tell that to all those former Berkeley premeds who found out that premed courses were just too hard so they went to study something else. </p>
<p>Bottom line - every school is full of students who tried out premed but then stopped when they found out how hard those courses are. They want to be doctors, but they can't or don't want to do the premed coursework. Then there are plenty of others who do manage to complete the premed coursework... but with bad grades. They know they're not going to get in anywhere, so they don't bother to apply. </p>
<p>I'll put it to you this way. I've always wanted to play for the Red Sox. But does that mean that I should go and try out? No of course not, because I realize that I'm not good enough at baseball to play professionally. If I showed up for a tryout, I would just embarrass myself. So I'm not going to waste my time in trying out. If the Sox were to just hand me a roster spot, of course I would take it. But I am not going to waste a whole day going to a tryout only to be laughed off the field, which I know is what is going to happen. Similarly a guy with straight C's and a bad MCAT score might want to go to med-school, but he is not going to pay the app fee and submit his application only to have it laughed at and tossed away. </p>
<p>
[quote]
"Bottom line - you should not see foreign medical schools as an 'easy way out'. "</p>
<p>Whatever comments you cited are exactly true also for american grad schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And once again, you've missed the point that doctors need to go to graduate school (medical school), but professions like engineering don't need to go to graduate school. Plenty of engineers enjoy successful careers with just a bachelor's degree. How many practicing doctors out there have never gone to medical school? </p>
<p>
[quote]
The only barrier to getting a residency is getting a passing grade on the USMLE...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet that's obviously a problem for some people, for as referenced above, some people, particularly those from foreign medical schools, don't get residencies. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Even if you get the lowest passing score of 75 (10-%ile), you have a decent chance at the community hospitals, if not the university hospitals. ONce you have the degree, you'll be a <em>doctor</em>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, you'll be a doctor. But if you don't score highly enough, you'll probably get stuck in a residency you don't really want to be in. Since you keep bringing up Lasik, let's talk about it. Lasik is performed almost always by opthalmologists. It's not like everybody who wants to become an opthalmologist gets to be one. If you don't do well enough, you will not be matched with an opthalmology residency. Like I mentioned before, the matching process is two-way. You rank what you want. And in turn, the training hospitals rank who they want, according to the students' qualifications. If your qualifications are low, then they will rank you low, such that you will probably not match with the more desired spots. And you could potentially end up matching nowhere and getting nothing.</p>
<p>On a side note, I've always wanted to play professional baseball also, sakky hehehe :)</p>
<p>There golubb, if you want to find a profession that puts engineering to shame, you've got one right there.</p>
<p>Professional Baseball Player.</p>
<p>Grown men being paid millions of dollars... to play a boy's game...</p>
<p><em>sigh</em></p>
<p>This trend isn't surprising. In fact, what I find surprising is that it took so long for such a trend to materialize. In Asia and Europe, Engineers are very respected. More so than Businessmen and Lawyers and on par with Doctors. In the US, Engineering has always been considered a Blue Collar profession. And this is reflected by which universities are tops in Engineering. Almost half of the top 20 Engineering programs are schools that were traditionally agricultural colleges, like Illinois, Texas A&M, Penn State, Purdue, Georgia Tech, Maryland, Virginia Tech etc... Can you imagine so many ag schools making it into the top 20 MBA programs or top 20 Law Schools?</p>
<p>While I agree with what Alexandre says, I think there are also a couple more phenomena that are happening that explain the current trends.</p>
<p>*Asia - back on its feet.</p>
<p>The fact is, for much of human history, China and India have been two of the most powerful and scientifically prolific nations in the world. For most of human history, the West has been a regional weak backwater of little consequence. Even during the age of the powerful Roman Empire, China and India were probably still superior both economically and scientifically to the West. The only time in history when the West has been truly superior to the 2 Asian powers has been during the last few hundred years. We just happen to be living during an unusual time in history when the West has outinnovated and outperformed Asia. It hasn't always been this way, and in the future, it probably won't be this way. A combination of factors has converged to produce the world of today - luck, the West chose wise policies designed to encourage innovation and growth, and the Asian powers often times behaved stupidly and arrogantly to retard growth. Witness the foolish actions of the Chinese Ming Dynasty in closing off China to the world, for the Emperor thought that China has nothing to learn from anybody else, and China began a dark period of centuries of stagnation and underdevelopment. Or witness the obscurantism and inwardness of the Indian Mughal Empire. </p>
<p>But now China and India have picked themselves off the mat and are in the process of reclaiming their place in the world that they had for millenia. The article partly talks about how the US is losing its lead in engineering and science to Asia, and my response to that is that a big reason why the US got that lead over Asia in the first place because Asia became backwards and inward. Now that Asia is reforming itself and progressing, it is only natural that the US loses some of its lead. After all, the US doesn't have a birthright to a lead in science and engineering. It isn't written anywhere that the US will always have better science and engineering than Asia does. Think of it this way - China has more than 4 times the population than the US, and India has more than 3 times. So just from a sheer numbers perspective, China and India are probably going to end up with a larger total number of scientists and engineers than the US does. </p>
<ul>
<li>Europe - reclaiming its science mantle.</li>
</ul>
<p>Again, we need to look at history to understand the Euro-challenge. The fact is, in modern history until WW2, Europe was unchallenged in its dominance of science and engineering. Look at all the Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, and medicine before WW2 and you will notice that almost all of them are European. Americans won few Nobel Prizes until the war period and afterwards, and even right after the war, many of the "American" Nobel Prizes were really won by people born and trained in Europe and immigrated to the US, fleeing fascism. The US scooped up boatloads of the world's top scientists and engineers by being a haven from Euro-tyranny. Nobel laureates like Fermi, Otto Stern, Wolfgang Pauli, Victor Hess, Felix Bloch, Peter Debye all became naturalized American citizens after fleeing fascist regimes. Basically, Europe's political and military troubles resulted in the reaping by the US of many of the top minds of Europe. After the destruction of Europe by war, the US became the "go-to" place to perform top science and engineering work. </p>
<p>However, similarly to Asia, Europe has gotten back on its feet and is ready to reclaim its mantle as a top producer of science and engineering. There is no reason to think that the US would be able to surpass Europe scientifically forever. </p>
<p>*Who is studying science and engineering in the US? </p>
<p>So I've just pointed out that Asia and Europe have all historically excelled at science and engineering. In the last 50-60 years, the US hes been in the pole position. But who exactly are these people in American universities who are studying science and engineering? I think we all know that in most cases, those people are themselves either recent immigrants from Asia or Europe, or their recent descendents. Go to any engineering class at any top-flight engineering school and you will notice that a great proportion of the students will be Asian - a remarkable figure when you realize that Asians constitute only 3% of the US population. The Caucasians you will find will often times be Germans, Russians, Jews, and to some extent people from other Central and Northern European nations (Austrians, Hungarians, Swiss, Czechs, Swedes, etc.). The fact is, these peoples strongly emphasize science and technology in their educational cultures, and so it is no surprise that so many Chinese-Americans, for example, become engineers. Hence, the US's lead in science and technology has itself been 'borrowed' from other countries in the form of immigration. Immigrants came to the US because the US offered better opportunities than what existed back home.</p>
<p>But now that Asia is reforming itself and becoming a better place to live, Asians have fewer incentives to immigrate to the US to pursue their livelihoods. Not only that, but many Asians and Asian-Americans feel a desire to return back to their home countries to take advantage of the opportunities there. For example, as China continues to progress, the US will no longer be able to rely on having lots of Chinese immigrants and Chinese-Americans to bolster the nation's scientific strength. Part of the US's lead in science over China is due the fact that the US basically drained China's best minds and best talent away by offering a better life than what was available in China. As this becomes less true, China will be able to retain more of its talented people.</p>
<p>*And finally - a word about the relatively low percentage of American degrees in the sciences and engineering, relative to that in Europe or Asia.</p>
<p>To me, this is not surprising. The fact is, engineering and science are hard, and there are many other easier things to study. There are plenty of American companies out there that implement a simplistic rule that they are only going to hire people with bachelor's degrees, but don't care from what school or what subject it is in. Hence, a lot of American students see that and simply conclude that the optimal thing to do is simply to major in something easy where they can get a degree without having to study very much. I am not going to name those majors at this time, but I think we all know what they are. Many American students figure "Why work hard when you don't have to?". And as long as American companies continue to reward this kind of behavior, I'm sure it will continue. Sad but true. By majoring in an easy subject, they didn't really learn much, but a lot of companies don't really seem to care that they didn't learn much. </p>
<p>Coupled with this is the notion of grade inflation in the non-technical courses. I have often wondered why is it that science and engineering courses are graded harder than other courses. There seems to be no reason to me why an intro humanities course can't be graded just as hard as an intro chemical engineering course. If you're going to go around weeding out half of your chemical engineering students, then fairness dictates that you should go around weeding out half of your humanities students too. However, as it stands, it's easier to get higher grades in the humanities than in engineering, and students respond to that too. Why take one class and work hard to get a 'C' when you can take another class and do very little and get an 'A'? As long as the grading schemes are slanted in this fashion, it is natural for American students to want to take the easy way out.</p>
<p>As my teacher said it, China in centuries past invented many things, but failed to see the value in following up on them. The items I remember are the rocket launcher (no joke) and the great warships of some captain who quite unChinese like, traveled the world with his fleet.</p>
<p>Sakky, I think you overestimate the opportunity in China. I read about Microsoft starting a research center, where they needed to recruit 20 kids. It went on to give tests around china, involving either tens or hundreds of thousands of students, with less and less students going on to the next round etc., for only 20 to be employed. At the end of the year I think like 8 were let go and were replaced.
There is much much more opportunity in USA. </p>
<p>Alexandre, I read in a book about class, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671792253/qid=1120971022/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_ur_2/002-4431140-4368844?v=glance&s=books&n=507846%5B/url%5D">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671792253/qid=1120971022/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_ur_2/002-4431140-4368844?v=glance&s=books&n=507846</a> , in which it said that engineers are at best middle class, or high prole(tariat), in American society.
I figured publics were better represented in engineering because of the capital needed for engineering labs, and the economies' need for them, which would motivate politicians to attempt to produce more, via the public universities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, I think you overestimate the opportunity in China. I read about Microsoft starting a research center, where they needed to recruit 20 kids. It went on to give tests around china, involving either tens or hundreds of thousands of students, with less and less students going on to the next round etc., for only 20 to be employed. At the end of the year I think like 8 were let go and were replaced.
There is much much more opportunity in USA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is obviously much more opportunity in the USA right now. But that's the key - RIGHT NOW. What about in the future? Will the USA always offer greater opportunity than other countries will, until the end of time? After all, there is far more overall opportunity in China today then there was at any time during the last couple hundred years. That is why every major multinational company is implementing or is seriously contemplating building operations in China. That is why if you want to understand world manufacturing, you have to understand China, because right now and for the foreseeable future, that is where the bulk of the new world manufacturing capacity is being constructed. </p>
<p>Does the USA still offer greater opportunity than China does? Of course! That is why you still see desperately poor Chinese trying to sneak into the US to work, but you don't see desperately poor Americans trying to sneak into China to work. But the point is, the gap is narrowing considerably every year, which means there is less incentive for the best minds of China to leave to go to the US. There still is incentive, but not as much as there used to be. </p>
<p>Couple that with the fact that China is still largely virgin business territory. While it is clearly easier to have a comfortable lifestyle in the US than it is in China, it is probably also true that if you have the right skills and talent, you can probably get filthy rich quicker in China than in the US. For example, I know many Chinese-Americans who have opted to go back to China to set up and start their own company, becaue if they are successful, they can become rich very quickly - more quickly than if they just stayed in the US. </p>
<p>Obviously for right now, the US is still a better place to be than China, but it may not stay that way for very long if things continue as they are. There used to be a time when Americans were clearly the most entrepreneurial, the most flexible, the hardest-working, and the most civic-minded people in the world, and that's what made America strong. Now, I'm not so sure about that. While the US still has great competitive strengths, it also has competitive weaknesses. One obvious weakness is the utter dominance of pop-culture on America's youths. A lot of American kids would rather try to become the next Lebron James or the next Britney Spears rather than study hard. It's "cooler" to dunk a basketball than to read a book. </p>
<p>
[quote]
publics were better represented in engineering because of the capital needed for engineering labs, and the economies' need for them, which would motivate politicians to attempt to produce more, via the public universities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A lot of it has to do with the Morrill Land Grant Act that secured funding for public universities that taught engineering because, as you said, engineering was viewed as more beneficial to the development of the economy of the nation than the liberal arts. It is certainly true that a guy with an electrical engineering degree is probably going to be better off, on average, than a guy with a degree in Folklore from Harvard. Engineering was viewed (and still can be viewed) as a way of lifting a poor rural farmer into a solidly middle-class lifestyle.</p>
<p>Statistics and rumors confirm that engineers make the best starting salary. However, I have had conversations with people who suggest engineering jobs in firms (for instance) tend to be dead end jobs where they pay doesn't rise much. As opposed to financial analysts who see I-Banking as the light at the end of the tunnel. I don't know much about this so i am probably wrong... but i want to knowif anyone has heard of anything similar?</p>
<p>I-banking at the END of the tunnel? nah for many, I-banking comes much sooner, and they get out once they're sick of it.</p>
<p>you guys know so much. lol.</p>
<p>how many old I-bankers do you know?</p>
<p>i-bankers are normally young and energetic. they work ridicious hours, enjoy New York for a couple years, and then 'burn out' and settle into a managerial level job at organizations in suburban areas. A lot of them work for consulting companies etc afterwards and are sought after by many regional companies.</p>
<p>i really wanna work for a corporation in upper managerial-level work. like coca-cola. that would be awesome.</p>