Engineering Shortage or not?

College Majors Engineering Majors
181

<p>From what you described, the MBA types are staying within the confines of business issues -- marketing strategy, competitive analysis, support logistics, etc. That by itself is not "attacking," it is teamwork. They are taking care of their end of the business, as professionals. It is even fair for them to ask questions about the design and technology aspects of the product, since such information helps them position the product in the marketplace.</p>

<p>Attacking would be verbal abuses or such, which may happen, I suppose, but is not what you described.</p>

182

<p>"From what you described, the MBA types are staying within the confines of business issues -- marketing strategy, competitive analysis, support logistics, etc. That by itself is not "attacking," it is teamwork."</p>

<p>Well, then maybe the MBA types should go look up these types of answers themselves instead of delegating to the engineers....when MBA types attack engineers with these types of questions, they know full well that it's an attack....or a shafting at a minimum. It's not teamwork when half the team (MBA half) isn't doing a dime in this process except to direct the questions at engineers and expect answers. If an answer is not available, the engineers are asked to look it up.</p>

183

<p>
[quote]
Well, then maybe the MBA types should go look up these types of answers themselves instead of delegating to the engineers....when MBA types attack engineers with these types of questions, they know full well that it's an attack....or a shafting at a minimum. It's not teamwork when half the team (MBA half) isn't doing a dime in this process except to direct the questions at engineers and expect answers. If an answer is not available, the engineers are asked to look it up.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, look aehmo. Even if you want to call that 'attacking', that's no different from any other corporate job. For example, you work in marketing, and you end up called to the carpet by the MBA's to explain why you chose to use such-and-such a advertising promotion campaign. Or you work in sales and you get asked why you weren't able to make your quota. You work in the accounting department and you get asked why you chose to record entries using one particular accounting standard and not another. </p>

<p>From all your posts, what you really seem to be saying is that you don't like corporate life ** in general **. Ok, fine, we get it, aehmo. You don't like corporate life. But I don't understand why you pin that on engineering specifically. </p>

<p>I'll be fair and I'll turn the question around. If corporate engineering life is really so bad, then exactly what other corporate job can a person with just a bachelor's degree get that is better ? Yeah, I agree, engineers sometimes take crap from management. But in the corporate world, who doesn't?</p>

184

<p>"Ok, fine, we get it, aehmo. You don't like corporate life. But I don't understand why you pin that on engineering specifically. "</p>

<p>Because, specifically, engineering IS corporate. 99.9% of the engineers have to work in a corporation, period.</p>

<p>There are other jobs that pay much better than engineering and are NON-corporate...many such jobs exist in healthcare that are much higher paying and lower corporate stress....if it wasn't for the corporate factor, engineering would be the best job of all time...but it's so heavily incorporated that it's become one of the worst.</p>

185

<p>Hey, 99.9% of ALL people have to work in corporations if they want to have a half-decent living. I don't exactly see a huge demand for English majors or History majors outside corporations. {Heck, I don't exactly see a huge demand for them inside corporations either, but that's another story}</p>

<p>As far as health-care jobs, I would point out that plenty of people in the health-care industry have to put up with a lot of crap. Nurses and PA's have to put up with crap from doctors, from hospital admins (the MBA guys), from patients. People who want to be doctors have to put up with ridiculous amounts of crap when they're medical students and when they're residents. If they choose to work in hospitals, they still have to put up with all the hospital politics. If they choose to go private practice, they have to put up with all the headaches associated with dealing with insurance companies and HMO's as well as all the issues of running your own company, like taxation, non-malpractice personal legal liability (i.e. if somebody slips on a patch of ice outside your office and decides to sue you for it, etc.), and a wide range of other annoyances.</p>

<p>Look, like I said before, there are some good and bad things about being an engineer. There are some good and bad things about being a doctor. I don't think anybody can categorically say that one is automatically better than the other for all people.</p>

186

<p>sakky -- according to your sentiments, there's no difference between being a doctor and an engineer, and engineer and a construction worker, a construction and an office peon, an office peon and a janitor.....if there's no difference between a doctor and a janitor, then why should anybody bother with anything?..your arguments are basically, "do whatever your heart feels like doing"!!!, which sounds too idealistic to me.</p>

<p>Instead of painting all professions with a broad brush, why not highlight which ones are actually worth going into?</p>

187

<p>When have I ever said that all those jobs were the same? In fact, much of my thesis is that engineers have it BETTER than the vast majority of other people out there in terms of degree marketability. I said it before, I'll say it again, if you think that engineers have it so bad, how do you think the English majors are doing?</p>

188

<p>Sakky,</p>

<p>I know your intentions may be genuine, but as a practicing engineer, I can tell you that "data" can be presented in any arrangement leading to any conclusion that the presenter would like you to reach...using your statement:</p>

<p>"At the bachelor’s degree level, undergraduate enrollment declined by more than 20 percent from 441,000 students in 1983 (the peak year) to 361,000 students in 1999. (See figure 2-7 and appendix table 2-9.) At the associate degree level, enrollment in engineering technology dropped precipitously from 1998 to 1999. The number of first- and second-year students enrolling in such programs declined by 25 and 36 percent, respectively. "</p>

<p>What this DOESN'T ADDRESS is a relatively new trend at many schools (we've been to visit 4 so far) wherein they actually discourage enrolling in a specific program (not only NOT selecting electrical engineering vs. mechanical engineering, but in fact NOT selecting engineering vs physics vs. chemistry, etc.) as an incoming freshman. Therefore, whereas when I went to school in '78 and immediately enrolled in electrical engineering, many kids today start out as freshman on a "technical discipline" track, taking calculus, physics, etc. but NOT DECLARING THEMSELVES to be "engineering students". They often do not enter a specific engineering discipline until the start of the Junior year. Your claim might be correct, but very well might not be correct.</p>

<p>Therefore, once again, I ask for someone to give concrete examples of schools which have shrunk. I seem to remember a few posts elsewhere about specific schools killing specific programs (ocean engineering??), but I ask again, did the net total engineering enrollment at ANY of these schools shrink? The defense that schools don't like to post or advertise unfavorable data is most certainly valid, but isn't there enough readership on this board for someone to pop up and state unequivocable knowledge of a shrinking school? I wan't to hear about a building closed or reassigned, and not REPLACED with some new $20M bigger better building. I want to hear about an engineering department staff that has shrunk from 100 people to 50 people, etc.</p>

<p>Come on! Anybody!</p>

189

<p>"I'll say it again, if you think that engineers have it so bad, how do you think the English majors are doing?"</p>

<p>I don't recommend majoring in english...I'm just recommending not to become an engineer! The strikes against engineers are huge, but maybe not as bas as janitors, that's true.</p>

<p>However, the smart students should look into more stable jobs where you have a better chance of employment, better pay and a better life.</p>

190

<p>Regarding Aehmo's POST #180....allow me yet another possibly humorous but nevertheless VERY REALISTIC and TRUE personal take on the "position" and frustration of the engineer. Follow me here:</p>

<ol>
<li> A group of students enter college intending to be engineers.</li>
<li> By the end of their freshman year, the weaker students "flunk out" of engineering, but rather than leaving school, they drop back to be Economics Majors.
2a. The stronger students proceed through engineering and graduate as engineers.</li>
<li> Weaker Economics Majors graduate and get jobs in the "SALES" side of corporations.</li>
<li> Since the big corporation pays for school, the Econ Major takes MBA classes (still FAR easier than engineering curriculum), gets an MBA, then gets propelled into management.
4a. The engineer of course actually thrives on being technical and gets an MS Engineering, which causes absolutely NO real advancement at the company.</li>
<li>MBA gets put in charge of a department, including engineers, and now holds the purse strings and decision authority over the engineers.</li>
</ol>

<p>The fact is that one of the most very frustrating aspects of being an engineer (Again, you should have learned from my prior posts that if you're an engineer, you WILL BE working for a relatively big company, with several levels of management between you and the head honcho.) is that you will OFTEN be answering to someone whom you don't respect from an intellectual standpoint. The only exception that I'm aware of are defense contractors and government labs who tend to advance technical personnel up through most levels of management.</p>

<p>I don't see how there can be any debate about the relative professionalism and autonomy when comparing engineers and other professions.</p>

<p>If you find my career progression illustration funny, but don't believe it's real, then you're also someone who laughs at Dilbert cartoons without realizing they're all based on fact. Aehmo and a few others understand; several others don't. We're all entitled to our opinions and perspectives, and I've begun to realize that nobody's minds are ever changed on these boards. I sure hope my postings are useful to those on the "fence" on the engineering decision.</p>

<p>Incidentally, I agree with EVERYONE that I really love engineering in its purest form. It's enjoyable to design things and I absolutely enjoyed the 10% of my typical workday which was actually spent designing things. I continue to consult on a part-time basis which is fantastic, in fact as a result of my consulting, I have had the opportunity to visit almost every one of the National Labs (Livermore, INEL, Pantex, etc.) and the trips are always illuminating. But luckily, my perspective on the consulting is that of a hobby, not a job. My concern, as already stated by others, is that a student will enter engineering believing that their job will be anything like their studies, which it is not. I think there may be exceptions in environments which are well removed from the realities of costing and marketing. An example would be civil engineering such as bridge or road design. I think in some of those disciplines, you are pretty well immersed in just the technical aspect, however, that is a just a guess. Maybe others can elaborate.</p>

191

<p>Oh Dad, what more information from Sakky do you want. Are you truly willing to deny that the number of students enrolled in engineering majors has droppped. Sakky has provided linkable sources yet you continue to express your opinion without evidence. Look I do not doubt that engineering buildings are being built. But that does not mean that they are being constructed at the same rate as other nonengineering buildings.</p>

<p>Secondly, I do not think that Sakky has denied the existence of this phenomenon. In fact, I am pretty sure he has written about it. But his point has remained consistent. Sakky, and most engineering defendants do not claim that this field is perfect. But, what other major is there that is clearly better. These econ majors which you claim manage engineers do not always have such rosy experiences. Plenty of economists from schools such as Chicago and Princeton would be thrilled with the starting salaries of the Montana Tech engineers mentioned before. And if the engineer truly feels fed up with his/her position and wants to move up in management, then he/she is free to do so. In fact, engineers constitute a significant percentage of students enrolled in MBA programs. </p>

<p>And if you are "concerned" "that a student will enter engineering believing that their job will be" "like their studies," what do you say to every other major out there. What other major provides a definite career where the students will get jobs like their studies. </p>

<p>Again, Oh Dad, I do not necessarily disagree with what you have stated. I also realize that you are in a better position to discuss what you have seen. But I have to again quote Sakky in asking what other mmajor would you reccommend.</p>

192

<p>Oh dad, in fact you're completely "biased" in your analysis, should I say. The elite of the engineers have many opportunities to go into business, and that is what many of them chose. You may be dissatisfied with engineering, but that doesn't mean you should bash engineering as a major, especially if you have never studied at engineering schools that are well-connected with the business world. Likewise, many accomplished engineers become managers.</p>

193

<p>
[quote]
What this DOESN'T ADDRESS is a relatively new trend at many schools (we've been to visit 4 so far) wherein they actually discourage enrolling in a specific program (not only NOT selecting electrical engineering vs. mechanical engineering, but in fact NOT selecting engineering vs physics vs. chemistry, etc.) as an incoming freshman. Therefore, whereas when I went to school in '78 and immediately enrolled in electrical engineering, many kids today start out as freshman on a "technical discipline" track, taking calculus, physics, etc. but NOT DECLARING THEMSELVES to be "engineering students". They often do not enter a specific engineering discipline until the start of the Junior year. Your claim might be correct, but very well might not be correct.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know what more else I can say. At the end of the day, both total engineering enrollments AND yearly engineering bachelor's degrees conferred have significantly dropped since the 1980's. Your hypothesis on why the total engineering enrollments have dropped do not account for why the number of bachelor's degrees conferred has also dropped. Why would you think that is the case? Come on, OH_DAD, just look through the links I posted. I really don't see how there can be two ways to interpret this, as the data seems unequivocal to me. Engineering degrees represent a significantly lower percentage of conferred bachelor's degrees than they were in the past.</p>

<p>Again:
"Engineering degrees, which represented 8 percent of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in 1986, slowly dropped to 5 percent of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in 1998"</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c2/c2s5.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c2/c2s5.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
The stronger students proceed through engineering and graduate as engineers.
3. Weaker Economics Majors graduate and get jobs in the "SALES" side of corporations.
4. Since the big corporation pays for school, the Econ Major takes MBA classes (still FAR easier than engineering curriculum), gets an MBA, then gets propelled into management.
4a. The engineer of course actually thrives on being technical and gets an MS Engineering, which causes absolutely NO real advancement at the company.
5. MBA gets put in charge of a department, including engineers, and now holds the purse strings and decision authority over the engineers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think jma said it quite nicely, but it bears repeating. Engineers can also move up to management if they wish. In fact, people with engineering degrees generally represent about 25-40% of the incoming classes of the top MBA programs.</p>

<p>That's why your example is not a fair one. In your example, the econ guy took active control of career to wisely get his MBA. The engineer didn't. Just because you get an engineering degree doesn't mean that you can expect to be better off than everybody who didn't get such a degree until the end of time. If you're not constantly trying to stoke your career, you will inevitably end up in a rut. So I would ask, in your example, why didn't the engineer also get his MBA? Or an MBA/MS, like from the MIT LFM program (the program that spawned the new Apprentice, Randal Pinkett), or from the Northwestern Kellogg MMM program? </p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't see how there can be any debate about the relative professionalism and autonomy when comparing engineers and other professions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But that's exactly where I think your complaints go awry. You're comparing engineers vs. other PROFESSIONS. Yet the fact remains that engineering is one of the very few professions you can actually enter with just a bachelor's degrees. The vast majority of bachelor's degree recipients don't even have a profession. Hence, I think the fair comparison would be an engineering bachelor's degree vs. a liberal arts bachelor's degree, like English or History or Math or what have you. If you think the relative professionalism and autonomy of engineering is bad, what do you have to say about the professionalism and autonomy of the liberal arts degree holders? To THAT, I would really have to say that there is no comparison. </p>

<p>
[quote]
My concern, as already stated by others, is that a student will enter engineering believing that their job will be anything like their studies, which it is not. I think there may be exceptions in environments which are well removed from the realities of costing and marketing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And again, the question is one of relativity. Sure, a real engineering job is not that closely aligned with engineering studies. But come on, at least there is a tangential relationship. How closely aligned do you think the jobs are that History majors get? How many PoliSci graduates get jobs that have anything to do with political science? How many Math graduates actually become mathematicians? Hence, I would argue that compared to other bachelor's degree holders, engineers have it pretty good on this metric. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't recommend majoring in english...I'm just recommending not to become an engineer!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And that's exactly the point - if you don't recommend engineering, then what are you recommending then? You keep talking about being a doctor, yet you continue to glide over the point that you gotta get a degree in SOMETHING before you go to medical school. What exactly do you recommend that SOMETHING be?</p>

<p>Hence, we can point out all these problems with the engineering major. However, we can also point out plenty of problems with any other undergraduate major you might name. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, an engineering major is the worst undergrad major you can choose, except for all the others.</p>

194

<p>These worse and better ideas really depend on student, don't you think? If someone hates engineering, is it the best major for them? What if someone loves art? Still the best? If you're going to say it's best, say in what ways, such as percentage of graduates employed, or salary, such factors that many people think matter at least somewhat in determing if a job is good. It's not fair to say "best," though, as if everyone is the same, and the engineer is the only one willing to put up with all the stuff an engineering major must do.</p>

195

<p>Let's grant that for an undergraduate degree, engineering trumps degrees in humanities, social sciences, and sciences. I think you made that case pretty well. (We also grant that as a profession, engineering has its imperfections, like most other professions, but we also understand that an undergraduate degree in engineering does not necessarily lead to an engineering profession.)</p>

<p>Someone in one of these threads mentioned pharmacy and nursing as undergraduate majors that offer greater job security and employment flexibility than engineering, with comparable compensation.</p>

<p>Obviously personal tastes matter, but that cannot be discussed in general, so aside from that, what are your thoughts on those undergraduate majors?</p>

196

<p>"I think jma said it quite nicely, but it bears repeating. Engineers can also move up to management if they wish. "</p>

<p>Sakky, you're right!! Let me stress what you said....engineers CAN move into management, and let me also add that engineers are PRESSURED to move into management at the age of 30!! or risk looking like Will Ferrell in "Old School"!!!!</p>

<p>Engineers that don't make it into management (about 90% of them don't) are very prone to getting laid off....not only thru outsourcing, but thru hiring the fresh meat from grad schools!</p>

<p>With engineering, it's either step up into mangement, step out of engineering, or be like the old guys at college for the next 30 years :)</p>

<p>You tell me which one you prefer. If you make it into management however, you're NOT doing engineering, which implies your engineering degree is equal to toilet paper, which means you should never have gotten an engineering degree to begin with...any degree would have been sufficient, since MBA programs are literally a dime-a-dozen...if you've got the cash, the schools have the degree :)</p>

<p>Since you like to throw numbers around, and since you're touting the yahoo's and googles, here's another FACT.</p>

<p>1> The average age of google employees is 29!! 2-freaking-9 ! The average age of the typical workforce is above 40! .....that's the lifespan of engineers at google, and it's much the same at other computer companies.</p>

197

<p>Mate, thats because when google began, many younger engineers - fresh grads - joined up, given that they could take the risk on a startup. 40 year old engineers married and with children couldn't. Of course now, Google is the hot place to be...look for the average age to tick slowly upwards in the next few years ;).</p>

198

<p>So are you telling the people of this board not to become engineers because you think we're not good enough to make it to management or have a good and satisfying engineering career?</p>

199

<p>
[quote]
These worse and better ideas really depend on student, don't you think? If someone hates engineering, is it the best major for them? What if someone loves art? Still the best? If you're going to say it's best, say in what ways, such as percentage of graduates employed, or salary, such factors that many people think matter at least somewhat in determing if a job is good. It's not fair to say "best," though, as if everyone is the same, and the engineer is the only one willing to put up with all the stuff an engineering major must do.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think you can glean by my context that when I say 'best', I mean 'most marketable for your career'. After all, that's the context that people like aehmo and OH_DAD are using. Hence, I feel justified in adhering to their context. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Someone in one of these threads mentioned pharmacy

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The comparison to Pharmacy I reject, for the simple reason that there is no such thing as an accredited bachelor's degree in pharmacy, at least, not anymore, as the accredited BPharm degree has been phased out starting this year. To work as an accredited pharmacist, you have to have (at least) a PharmD, which not only takes 4 years by itself, but you only become eligible for it after you have completed at least 2 years of college work, hence a total of at least 6 years. And in fact, many people (probably most) will complete their bachelor's degree in something and then go for their PharmD, hence a total of 8 years. Hence, it still leaves open the question that you have to major in SOMETHING for undergrad. </p>

<p>Hence, again, I do not consider the pharmacy to be comparable to engineering for the same reason that I do not consider medicine to be comparable to engineering, as pharmacy requires significantly more schooling, and it's not exactly a walk in the park to get admitted to a PharmD program. You can complete a undergrad degree is some other field, apply to PharmD programs, and not get in anywhere. Furthermore, somebody who gets an engineering degree can go and try to get a PharmD. </p>

<p>Nursing on the other hand, we can talk about. I agree that nursing might exhibit greater job stability than engineering does, and possibly greater geographic flexibility (in that you can work in more parts of the country as a nurse than as an engineer). </p>

<p>However, the problems that I see with nursing is that #1, it doesn't pay anything near to what engineers can make. Generally, you are talking about at least a 10-20k difference in salary. Now I agree that there are certain parts of the country where nurses can get paid very well. But then that must mean that there are other parts of the country where they are paid quite poorly. </p>

<p>For example, in 2005, it was reported that nurses with BSN degrees are making about 61.6k (see figure 6 of the following link). Note, that's not a starting salary, that's the salary of ALL nurses that have BSN degrees, which combines data from those who are starting out and those with many years of experience. compare that to the data that I showed for New Mexico Tech engineering grads. In 2005, to start, those engineering grads are making about 55k. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.studentdoc.com/nursing-degree.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.studentdoc.com/nursing-degree.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>I would also point you to the following quotes of that link:
"“I’ve worked at my hospital for over 25 years and I’m maxed out on vacation and salary. They’re bringing in new grads off the street with almost the same pay that I had to work 30 years to get.” (page 47)</p>

<p>"What about years of experience? As you’d expect,
nurses with the most experience make the most
money, with salaries topping out at $63,500/year for nurses with more than 15 years of experience (see
Figure 2). But salaries for less-experienced nurses
make the biggest jump compared with increases
earned by their more seasoned colleagues: Nurses
with 6 to 10 years’ experience earn about
$11,500/year more than those with only 5 years’
experience or less. But after the 10-year mark, pay
increases flatten—nurses with 11 to 15 years’ experience
make only $2,300 more on average than those
with 6 to 10 years’ experience."</p>

<p>This doesn't sound significantly different from the complaints that I've heard about engineering. It has been pointed out repeatedly that engineers start at a high salary but their salaries tend to top out quickly. Well, according to this data, looks like the same thing happens in nursing. </p>

<p>I would also point out that nursing suffers from a structural weakness compared to engineering in that they are plenty of programs out there that will retrain people to become RN's relatively quickly. Those who already have bachelor's degrees in something else can enter accelerated BSN programs that take about 1-1.5 years to complete. I am not aware of any 'accelerated BS engineering programs' designed to accredit people who already have bachelor's degrees in unrelated subjects. In fact, I know quite a lot of people who have completed these programs. Hence, what that means is that nursing has a lower barrier to entry than does engineering. If nursing ever really does become truly hot, then a lot of people will retrain to become nurses, which will have the effect of clamping down salaries. Heck, people with engineering degrees can retrain to become nurses. Clearly I think we can all agree that it's far easier for an engineer to retrain to become a nurse than it is for a nurse to retrain to become an engineer.</p>

<p>Then there is the aspect of 'putting up with garbage'. It has been asserted here in this thread that engineers have to put up with a lot of garbage from supervisors. And it's true, sometimes they do. On the other hand, nurses have to put up with a lot of garbage from supervisors too. Just like aehmo was talking about engineers getting 'attacked' by the MBA's, similarly nurses will get 'attacked' by doctors. Hence, from this standpoint, I don't see how nurses are significantly different from engineers.</p>

<p>Finally, I would note the paucity of BSN programs among the top schools. Only a tiny handful of high prestige schools offer such programs. For example, of the Ivies, only UPenn offers a BSN program (Yale's and Columbia's Nursing schools are only for graduate students). Stanford doesn't offer nursing. None of the UC's offer nursing to undergrads with no prior education. UCLA does offer a BSN program but only to people who are already RN's, which meant that they had previously completed an associate's nursing degree program or diploma program (although UCLA might start a regular BSN program next year). Duke only offers the accelerated BSN program to those who have an undergrad degree are are retraining. Northwestern, Chicago, MIT, Caltech, WU St. Louis, Rice - none of these schools offers BSN programs. </p>

<p>The point is, if you're pursuing a nursing degree, your chances of doing that while going to a high-prestige school are greatly attenuated. You can go to HYPSMC and major in engineering, but not in nursing. How many of us are really willing to turn down admission to one of those schools because they don't have BSN programs? Like I said, if you really want a BSN, you don't have to turn down HYPSMC, you can go to HYPSMC, complete the degree, and then enter one of those accelerated BSN programs afterwards. Of let's say you're a California state resident and you want to go to a California public school to save money. The standard BSN programs are only offered by the CalStates. How many of us are willing to turn down UC to go to a CalState just to get into a standard BSN program? I think it's safe to say that very few people are willing to do that. </p>

<p>In particular, I would point out that most people end up majoring in something different than what they thought they would. What if you really did turn down Berkeley for a CalState for the nursing program, only to later find out you don't want to major in nursing anymore? That decision to turn down Berkeley is looking pretty foolhardy.</p>

200

<p>
[quote]
"I think jma said it quite nicely, but it bears repeating. Engineers can also move up to management if they wish. "</p>

<p>Sakky, you're right!! Let me stress what you said....engineers CAN move into management, and let me also add that engineers are PRESSURED to move into management at the age of 30!! or risk looking like Will Ferrell in "Old School"!!!!</p>

<p>Engineers that don't make it into management (about 90% of them don't) are very prone to getting laid off....not only thru outsourcing, but thru hiring the fresh meat from grad schools!</p>

<p>With engineering, it's either step up into mangement, step out of engineering, or be like the old guys at college for the next 30 years </p>

<p>You tell me which one you prefer. If you make it into management however, you're NOT doing engineering, which implies your engineering degree is equal to toilet paper, which means you should never have gotten an engineering degree to begin with...any degree would have been sufficient, since MBA programs are literally a dime-a-dozen...if you've got the cash, the schools have the degree </p>

<p>Since you like to throw numbers around, and since you're touting the yahoo's and googles, here's another FACT.</p>

<p>1> The average age of google employees is 29!! 2-freaking-9 ! The average age of the typical workforce is above 40! .....that's the lifespan of engineers at google, and it's much the same at other computer companies.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But again, it all comes down to relativity. You say that engineers are pressured to move up into management otherwise they will end up being prone to layoffs. OK, but what about the guys with the English degrees? Or the PoliSci degrees? Or the History degrees? Or the Physics degrees? Aren't these guys also prone to layoffs? How is that any different? </p>

<p>At least the guy with the engineering degree is making good money for awhile before he gets pressured to move into management or gets laid off. The guy with the PoliSci degree doesn't even get to make good money before he gets pressured to move into management or gets laid off. </p>

<p>I also would dispute your contention that your engineering degree is toilet paper if you get your MBA. Hardly so. Your engineering degree HELPED you get into an MBA program. The fact is, MBA programs admit a lot of engineers. It's certainly easier to get into an MBA program with an engineering degree than with a PoliSci degree or a History degree. Furthermore, while general MBA degrees are quite common, MBA degrees from elite schools are quite uncommon. I would venture to say that there are significantly more MBA students at HBS, Sloan, Wharton, and Stanford who have engineering degrees than have degrees from any other single liberal arts discipline. </p>

<p>So aehmo, it really gets down to the same question which you have so far perpetually dodged - if majoring in engineering for undergrad is bad, what ELSE are you going to major in? You still have yet to name a major. What do you want to choose? History? PoliSci? English? Physics? Music? Film Studies? Peace and Conflict Studies? Parks & Rec? Folklore? Go ahead, name one.</p>