Engineering Shortage or not?

College Majors Engineering Majors
21

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, your comments that all jobs are susceptible to outsourcing is ignorant. .

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you calling me ignorant? Don't tempt me to ban you. I'll be happy to compare my biography to yours and determine who really is the ignorant one. </p>

<p>
[quote]
For example, you can't outsource doctors jobs (en masse), Union jobs (UPS, truckers, BART drivers who make 102k on average)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And by the same token, you can't outsource all engineering jobs. Some engineering jobs you can definitely outsource. Others, not so much. Not all engineers work in a research lab typing code. For example, Intel runs something like 10 fabs in the US. How many fabs does Intel have in China and India? Answer - zero. Intel has assembly plants in China, but no actual fabs. These fabs cost over $2 billion to construct and are obviously expected to produce chips for decades. And as long as the fabs are in the US, you obviously need engineers to work in them. How exactly are you going to outsource fab-engineering work to China and India when the fab itself is in the US? </p>

<p>Furthermore, obviously you can't just pick up a $2 billion fab and ship the whole fab to China. But you might say that Intel can just build more fabs in China in the future, and shut down the ones in the US. I have 2 responses to that. #1 - yes, that could happen but that's going to take a very long time to happen, because you don't just shut down an operational fab just "like that". You have to recoup your investment in building that fab. And secondly, Intel has little incentive to shift fab production to China. The only reason to move to China is to take advantage of low labor costs, but the fact is, labor costs represent barely even 1% of the costs of running a fab. Most of the cost of running a fab comes from capital expenditures (basically, chip machinery in the fab), energy, and taxes. Intel is not going to shift fab production just to save on that tiny 1% of labor costs. </p>

<p>The same thing is true of the rest of US manufacturing. Take oil refineries. The US is actually going to be increasing refinery capacity in the next few decades, and obviously that means more jobs for engineers in the refinery. The same thing is true of power plants. The US will be building more power plants, and obviously Americans will have to run them. </p>

<p>And even more importantly, those engineers who do "high-touch" work that interacts with suppliers and customers will have plenty of work. Think about sales engineers - those engineers who go on sales calls and help the sales reps drum up business. That's not easily outsourced. How about supplier interfacing - basically negotiating with suppliers and telling them what raw materials your company needs. That's not easily outsourced. </p>

<p>The point is, I agree that some engineering jobs will be outsourced. Basically, any engineering job that can be performed ialone n an isolated room can be outsourced. But many other engineering jobs will remain. By the same token, plenty of other jobs will be outsourced. Again, take doctors. Any sort of elective surgery can be outsourced. Any sort of medicine where you are processing information (i.e. analyzing Xrays) can be outsourced. A lot of basic psychiatric therapy (where you are just talking to a therapist) can be outsourced. Only those doctors who have to perform critical life-saving procedures that have to happen immediately - these are not easily outsourced. But that's no different from the Intel engineer who has a job because his fab is in Santa Clara. </p>

<p>As far as union jobs, I agree with you. But that's just a passing phenomenom. Unions are a violation of the free market. But I don't know why you are using the example of truckers and UPS people. I know some people who are truckers. They aren't exactly living it up. I also know people who used to work at UPS. The wages there aren't exactly the greatest. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Computer jobs are easy to outsource because everybody can read a book on programming and start becoming an engineer. Engineering jobs that require computer use are very susceptible to outsourcing, and companies here are off-shoring like you won't belive -- google, yahoo, amazon, ibm ,microsoft even small-cap companies (less than $30M ) are outsourcing a huge chunk of their staff.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Pretty bad examples. Your argument actually got WEAKER by saying what you just said. Sure, these companies are outsourcing. But they are also continuing to hire lots of Americans too. As I asked you before, Microsoft employs about double the number of Americans just in the Redmond campus as it did 10 years ago. Why is that? Instead of constantly expanding the Redmond campus, why doesn't Microsoft simply outsource the ENTIRE Redmond campus to India? Is Bill Gates being stupid? Maybe you should write to him and tell him how stupid he is for continuing to hire more and more Americans. </p>

<p>Same thing with Google. Google is a huge recruiter at MIT this year. But why is that? Instead of hiring all these high-priced MIT engineers, most of whom are Americans, why doesn't Google just fire all its Americans and outsource the entire company to India? Is Google dumb? </p>

<p>
[quote]
There is NO shortage at decent living wages -- but yes, there is a shortage at 65k....you can't keep a family alive with 2 cars and a mortgage at 65k in the bay area

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well look. I know a lot of families in the Bay Area who don't make 65k, and they're still alive. Are they comfortable? No. But they're still there. There are a lot of people in the Bay Area who don't make a lot of money. </p>

<p>And besides, I would ask, why do you assume that you have to live in the Bay Area? Nobody has the "right" to live in the Bay Area, just like nobody has the "right" to live in downtown Manhattan or in Beverly Hills. If you don't feel that you can't succeed wherever you are, you should move. Lots of people move to cheaper places or to places where they feel they are more likely to succeed. I know people who like the Bay Area, but wanted to make it as movie actors, so they moved to Los Angeles. If you want to be an actor, you have to go to LA. That's part of the game. </p>

<p>Look, the US is a nation of immigrants. The Bay Area in particular is full of people who either themselves came or whose ancestors came from somewhere else to the Bay Area for the opportunity. So if you feel that the Bay Area is not giving you opportunities, you should think about moving.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
If you're foreign . . . personally I'm not a fan of the foreigners because all they do is hang out together and never experience the other side of things. I always try to talk to them but they just would rather go and talk with each other and segregate themselves. Now that the percentage of them is getting bigger as the american students dwindle I find myself with people I would want to work with less and less. They never join anything except asian groups and just stick to themselves. You're in a new country . . . experience it. That's how the ones in my classes act at least. Which is why I'm not a fan of a large percentage of the workforce being foreign (and by foreign I mean asian).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ooh, you better be careful here. You're playing with fire. You're starting to sound like those white sports fans and athletes who complained when professional sports became racially integrated and more and more African-Americans started playing in the NFL, the NBA and MLB, and how things were supposedly better when the league was "all-white". </p>

<p>Look, the truth is, as Asian countries develop their economies, you are going to have to get used to working with Asians. Anheuser-Busch, for example, now sells a lot of beer in Asia. You might end up with a job managing the distribution and supply-chain for the Asia operations, which inevitably means working with Asians. Are you going to adopt the attitude that the company should not be selling to Asia? </p>

<p>And besides, think of it this way. Those Asian students you cite - if they're not studying at UIUC, or they will be studying in a college in Asia. Which would you rather have? I think I would prefer them to go to UIUC. By going there, you increase the chances that they will stay in the US to work, and that helps build the US economy. Sure, they might go back to Asia, but at least there's a good chance that the guy will want to stay and work in the US. If he was always in Asia, then he would surely end up working in Asia, and building the economy there.</p>

<p>Bottom line is, every country should want as many of the world's top brains to be residing inside it. Every country should be trying to import top brians. Part of the reason why the US is so strong is that it has been able to import top people from around the world.</p>

23

<p>Ignore any posts made by aehmo/golubb.</p>

24

<p>It's not I don't want them or not like them. They just annoy me. I would like them if they interacted with us. And when I say them I just mean all of them I have met. I don't mean every Asian. I just typed "them" in place of "all of them I have met" so don't go calling me racist. As an adopted Hispanic from one of the most prejudiced against countries in the world I am far from racist and living in a small white farming community not far from where the KKK held there biggest rally in years a couple of years ago, I have experienced it numerous times.</p>

<p>So when I say that all of them. I mean all of them in my major that I have tried to talk to and they just either can't speak English or don't want to. I don't know because they never talk to me. They talk to everyone just like them. If anyone is against people or prejudiced it's them. Sorry I'm one of the most open, personable people I know. I'm friends with everyone in my class. I never said I didn't want them. I do. It provides healthy competition because if you want to be the best you have to compete against the best. Of not just the US. Of everywhere. I just don't want my classes to be overrun by a bunch of antisocial people who only talk amongst themselves and never interact with anyone except their cultural equals. It's not fair and it's not reasonable for studying somewhere not in your country.</p>

<p>If I could understand why they do so that would be great but until then I call it like I see it. I would love to meet them and find out about their culture if they would only talk to us (as in the rest of the non-Asian, non-foreign [not all Asians are foreign] classmates or even anyone at all). I have the same feelings about the socially inept non-foreigners as well and I have made my points clear about them. I choose to go to school with the best and brightest. I know I'm competing against the brightest. That I am grateful for. Are the best people that don't know how to interact with others? That I don't know how to answer. Is it fair to be stuck with people like that? The answer to that is an absolute no.</p>

<p>So when I meet some foreign Asians that are sociable my tune will change but if they continue the same behavior of social racist isolation then I have no choice but to dislike working with them. That doesn't mean I don't like competing against them or working alongside them, just working with that I have a problem with. Sorry saaky but you misinterpreted my post. And I completely agree with your last sentence (well your whole post but you really summed it up in that last one).</p>

25

<p>Well I'm an intl student (asian), and what you stated above is definitely not the case here at Duke.</p>

<p>I know exactly what you're talking about. Honestly, that is the case at most big state schools, because they find other intl students with similar backgrounds - they feel comfortable with the group and it helps them cope with the culture shock. I dunno but wouldn't you do the same thing, if you were studying in Asia? (just assume) wouldn't you stick with other americans? </p>

<p>Although I don't like what they do, I kinda understand why they do it. If they don't want to meet other students its their loss!! :p</p>

<p>back to the subject of the thread ...</p>

<p>I believe that jobs in the US for mediocre engineers are on the decline, but as sakky said engineering is still probably the safest Bachelor's degree. On the other hand the need for quality engineers in the US is on the rise. Technology has reached such a stage that constant innovation is required to sustain growth, and for that the industry needs creative hard working engineers. Engineering is not all about writing code, there's a lot more to it. </p>

<p>btw sakky, just wondering, are you an engineer?</p>

26

<p>The WSJ article also seems to imply that hiring managers share the blame in creating the preception of an engineering shortage. Several instances were given where hiring managers demanded unrealistically narrow ranges of qualifications, then blamed the fill delay on "engineering shortage." Any comments on this situation in terms of occurrence, cause, motivations, cure, etc.?</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
So when I say that all of them. I mean all of them in my major that I have tried to talk to and they just either can't speak English or don't want to.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I actually tried to apply to UIUC as a chemE but I was told I couldn't apply to their engineering school directly as international. They have a different policy now?</p>

<p>If they don't speak English well like you said, it's understandable they'd feel more comfortable hanging with their own group. From my experience, there seems to be a correlation between their proficiency in English and how well they social with others. At Northwestern, where a minimum of 600 (old scale) on TOEFL was required when I was there, most international undergrads had very good command of English (most of them scored 600+ on verbal and I met 3 girls from Hong Kong that spoke faster than native speakers) and they had no problem mingling with others. That's apparently the case at Duke also.</p>

28

<p>Sakky, with companies such as Google, and to a lesser extent Microsoft, Apple, and other pro-engineering companies, do you think that this will ever change. Is there a move towards separating the top engineers from the rest of the pack? </p>

<p>Are today's new start up companies which tend to be more engineering friendly, realizing that the engineers who are ten times more productive deserve to be compensated accordingly. Or is the old trend going to prevail with all engineers being treated as equal.</p>

29

<p>"Several instances were given where hiring managers demanded unrealistically narrow ranges of qualifications, then blamed the fill delay on "engineering shortage." Any comments on this situation in terms of occurrence, cause, motivations, cure, etc.?"</p>

<p>This happens all the time....managers want cheap labor that can hit the road running, and if they don't find the exact match they're looking for (i.e. engineer from top school, fluid speaker, willing to move into upper managment etc.), they scream engineer shortage!</p>

<p>"Are today's new start up companies which tend to be more engineering friendly, realizing that the engineers who are ten times more productive deserve to be compensated accordingly"</p>

<p>Nobody will get 10x the average pay, they may get 1.2x or 1.25x at most.</p>

30

<p>Yet investment banks and consulting firms are willing to take general engineering talent and take the time to train them in the needed specific skills to become productive. What is different between these hiring managers, and those profiled in the WSJ?</p>

31

<p>Obviously, I do not mean that pay will correlate perfectly with production, but the point I am making is that at this time, it seems as if too many companies seem have no correlation between quality of engineer and pay. (Oviously not all companies but a fair amount nonetheless)</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
I just don't want my classes to be overrun by a bunch of antisocial people who only talk amongst themselves and never interact with anyone except their cultural equals. It's not fair and it's not reasonable for studying somewhere not in your country

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, IllinoisJBraveEcho, I understand what you're saying. However, I still maintain my basic point which is that it's still better for people like that to be studying in the US than to be back home studying in Asia. One of these guys is going to come up with the next great technology idea, and it's better for the US if he do it here rather than back in Asia. </p>

<p>Furthermore, I would point out that parochialism is not restricted just to foreign Asians. For example, I recall how many African-American students choosing to segregate themselves from the rest of the student body. It's not like we didn't want to interact with them, it's more like they didn't really want to interact with the rest of us. They would sit at their own tables in the dining hall, travel together in packs, all sit together in the lecture halls and in the library, and basically interact only with themselves. I saw the same thing happen with many other groups of students.</p>

<p>The truth is, people like to be around those who are like themselves. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I believe that jobs in the US for mediocre engineers are on the decline, but as sakky said engineering is still probably the safest Bachelor's degree. On the other hand the need for quality engineers in the US is on the rise. Technology has reached such a stage that constant innovation is required to sustain growth, and for that the industry needs creative hard working engineers. Engineering is not all about writing code, there's a lot more to it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thomas Friedman once remarked that geographic determinism is fading away, and that's a good thing. What he meant was that in the old days, your success was far more determined by where you were born than in how hard-working or skilled you were. In other words, you were probably better off being a mediocre American than a workaholic genius in China or India. While that's still largely true, it's far less true than it used to be. Now, success is far more determined by how good you are and less on where you were born, and that's exactly the way it should be. The frank truth is, there are too many Americans who feel that just because they were born in the US, they are automatically entitled to live better than people in the rest of the world. I see this all the time in the outsourcing debate, where Americans claim that foreigners are taking their jobs, when the fact is, the jobs were never "theirs" to begin with. </p>

<p>
[quote]
btw sakky, just wondering, are you an engineer?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't answer publicly answer questions about my biography. If you want to know, my email and PM are open. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Obviously, I do not mean that pay will correlate perfectly with production, but the point I am making is that at this time, it seems as if too many companies seem have no correlation between quality of engineer and pay. (Oviously not all companies but a fair amount nonetheless)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I believe that more pay for performance is inevitable, particularly as a lot of hidebound engineering companies, like the American car companies and old-school manufacturing companies, decline and high-tech companies continue to rise.</p>

33

<p>From Sam Lee above: "I actually tried to apply to UIUC as a chemE but I was told I couldn't apply to their engineering school directly as international. They have a different policy now?"</p>

<p>I would like to take this opportunity to answer one of the easy questions generated in this thread. Sam Lee, I am not sure what happened in your situation but internationals have always been able to apply directly to UIUC including seeking admission to its college of engineering. For Chem E, however, you would be requesting admission the college of liberal arts & sciences, not the college of engineering, at UIUC as chem E is in the chemistry department within the LAS college.</p>

34

<p>OK, as everyone on this board will see, this is my FIRST post ever. I've followed this "College Confidential" board for several months as I try to maneuver through the filtration process of getting my senior son into the optimum college for his needs.</p>

<p>Although these engineering-related posts aren't strictly relevant to my interest in visiting this board, I finally feel compelled to post, given the repeated attacks against the fairly accurate rants posted by one (completely unknown to me) AEHMO. I think that the somewhat outspoken style of AEHMO has resulted in a general flame war which by and large has disparaged the general ACCURACY of that poster's perspective.</p>

<p>I'm a 45 YO, registered Electrical PE with MSEE degree, experienced with two companies - 10 years at Westinghouse, 6 years at Cyanamid, remainder with US Navy in Nuclear Power. I was never fired or laid off, having had essentially successful careers. I am one of two people I know of to have received THREE George Westinghouse "Signature Awards" for innovation, etc. blah blah, who really cares. I give the background to try to emphasize that I'm not full of bitterness or resentment, have no foibles about out-sourcing, off-shoring, or any other fad. I simply QUIT engineering on my own volition because it was clear that for a reasonably capable engineer, being too technically good for advancement into management, I was not going to be happy with the rate of career progression in engineering. When I quit with essentially 20 years experience, I was making $78K with benefits, and I've now doubled that income having started a PAPER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY. My specific basis for departing engineering was the realization that (please scale income numbers for your geograhic location) upon surpassing $75K, I became a cost-cutting "target" in that new engineers could be hired to do (in the eyes of management) the same work. Although it is correct that with experience comes increased value, it is extremely hard in most engineering venues to retain this value on successive projects. Whatever specialization you build around yourself as an engineer, that specialization only lives for as long as the particular skill set is in vogue. Some people argue that as an engineer you must "change and grow" to remain a valued asset, but the flaw in that perspective is that once you commit to change (e.g. learn Java to supercede your prior Fortran expertise), you are now re-inventing yourself from the same starting point as the new graduate. IN THE EYES OF MANAGEMENT AND/OR HUMAN RESOURCES (the people who sign off on your paycheck), it becomes increasingly difficult to justify $75K for 20 years experience vs $50K for a new grad. Some of the people proffering that engineers see $95K out of school and $150K at 20 years may be correct, but I'm in the midwest, and know hundreds of engineers, and salaries above $100K SIMPLY DO NOT EXIST, regardless of experience.</p>

<p>You will note above that I stated that I was "too technically good for advancement into management." PLEASE PLEASE if you are a college student considering engineering, read the Dilbert cartoons every day. I promise you, although they are humorous from afar, most, if not all, of the positions taken in that strip are drawn from real engineering scenarios. If you are VERY bright and VERY capable in your engineering position, you will generally not find a trajectory into management because the company truly cannot do without your work "in the trenches". Although this position of power should logically translate into job stability and stratospheric pay, it does not often (IMHO) work that way. You will be paid just enough to have trouble changing jobs. Remember the "HR" people are paid good money to always be aware of the absolute minimum pay necessary to keep you; not any extra.</p>

<p>Regarding an "engineering shortage" - this is patently untrue. There is a shortage of domestic engineers willing to work for substandard wages; there is no engineering shortage in general. Companies are constantly trying to push down costs (engineers are "overhead" regardless of what others argue), and as companies find more efficient ways to achieve the same goal of development, research, or whatever by cheaper means, they will do it. Anyone arguing the opposite is probably in some kind of special circumstance - DOD or DOE type of security cleared job, etc. - where they're not seeing this conundrum.</p>

<p>However, certain types of engineering are less prone to outsourcing because of the mere logistics in doing so - think Civil Engineering (work highly coupled to on-site effort), or POWER Electrical Engineering (transmission and generation), or Environmental Engineering (remediation), etc. Software Engineers, and low-power Electrical (circuit boards and anything smaller) are screwed forever. It's not coming back, and if it's still here, it classified military work.</p>

<p>Allow me to shift this discussion to a different perspective which I believe will be useful in explaining my particular negativism on engineering: There are several job categories you would normally consider "professionals"...let's review a list of 7: Doctors, Lawyers, Orthodontists, Pharmacists, Accountants, Dentists, and ENGINEERS. Interestingly, you may note that all of the above professionals EXCEPT ENGINEERS share one important trait: They can pick any town in the country, hang their shingle, get a business license, and proceed to practice their profession as a business entity, charging market rates and being paid directly by the folks who use their services (notwithstanding insurance companies as intermediaries for doctor and pharmacist payments). However, with the exception of a select few civil engineers, there is no street-corner market for engineers. Their entire livelihood is dependent on a bigger company. Of course there are exceptions (think Dean Kamen), but if you're an engineer and you can't "find a job" with a company requiring your field of expertise, you're screwed. When is the last time you heard of a Dentist not being able to "find a job."....they inherently "have a job" the minute they get their degree! The fatal flaw in selecting Engineering as a profession is that by-and-large, you as the individual professional do not control your own destiny. I live in a small town, and if I chose to open a storefront with signage, "Electrical Engineering Services", how many people would stroll into my waiting room? So, in a disturbing but accurate view, plumbers, heating/cooling specialists, and even auto mechanics have better marketability and job viability than the better-than-average engineer. Furthermore, we can debate all day long the pros and cons of a particular engineering discipline, but I can't foresee outsourcing the installation or repair of your furnace to India, China, or even Pakistan.</p>

<p>All the above are the reasons I chose to voluntarily exit engineering - I simply was not going to continue beyond 45 years of age and $75K waiting for the phone to ring one day and put me out on the street. Who knows, maybe it never would have happened, but now I don't have to find out.</p>

<p>PLEASE PLEASE if you're a college student considering engineering, consider all the above thoughts and then if it's your choice to proceed into engineering, I wish you success. I absolutely acknowledge that their are exceptional individuals who achieve exceptional career paths yielding great satisfaction, long-term job stability, numerous patents, and significant monetary reward. However, IMHO these individuals are exceptions, not the rule. The vast majority of engineers I know are trying to hang on and that's about it. As I write this, GM has announced the closing of 12 auto-related facilities thoughout America, and so in each of those sites there are probably anywhere from a dozen to a hundred engineers about to be right-sized. Let's assume they're all very talented and can handily get new jobs within a few months. How many of them do you think will avoid taking their kids out of a familiar school with familiar friends, and causing their wife and/or husband to quit a job, and moving the entire family 1000 miles to get this new employment? In those same towns, how many doctors, lawyers, dentists, etc. to you think will incur a "life upset" like this?</p>

<p>Alright - this is too long, but it needed said, and if it benefits just one student, I'm glad to have taken the time to write it.</p>

35

<p>Thank you for presenting your position with understanding, an open mind, and reasonable points. Please note that these are the differences between someone such as yourself and the AEHMO/Golubb_u character. I have serious doubts about his motives; he's presenting your argument for all the wrong reasons and pushing people to go down career paths for money rather than enjoyment of life.</p>

<p>You, on the other hand, give solid examples of why you made your own decision -- not vague references to second hand experiences. This information is valuable to young adults deciding what to do with their lives. Aehmo's obfuscated agenda is not.</p>

<p>I'm a strong proponent of students making their own decisions regarding their future and strongly caution against basing their decision on a small number of anonymous Internet users, but the above post is definitely one to consider. Thank you for your contribution.</p>

36

<p>OH<em>My, OH</em>DAD. Feel better?
good for you.</p>

37

<p>Now look, Oh_dad, the reason why I oppose aehmo is not that he doesn't have some valid point. Rather it's that he consistently refuses to deal with my central point, which is that while engineering may not be the greatest profession in the world, there are plenty of other careers that are FAR worse, and in particular, I continue to ask aehmo the question of if engineering is not a good undergrad major to choose, what other major is better? Neither aehmo nor anybody else has yet to really put forth a convincing answer to that question.</p>

<p>Look, there are a LOT of college graduates out there, even from elite schools, who end up with pretty crappy jobs. An engineering job may not be the greatest thing, but it's better than a lot of other jobs you could end up with. I've seen plenty of college graduates who end up having to wait tables, drive cabs, deliver pizzas, and take other such low-end jobs. This is a point I have to emphasize over and over again. Not everybody who graduates from college ends up with a good, or even a half-decent job. Plenty of college grads end up with crap jobs that they could have gotten right out of high school. Just because you have a college degree does not automatically mean that you will get a career. </p>

<p>You said it yourself, you got your master's degree in engineering and ended up with a 78k job when you were 45 years old with 16 years of experience. However, I would point out that there are plenty of other people with master's degrees in non-engineering subjects and are 45, and don't even make 78k and sometimes don't even have benefits. I used to work for a company where the receiptionist was over 50 years old and held a master's degree in poli-sci, and she made no more than $25 an hour with no benefits. And this was in Northern California, where living costs are high. Hey believe me, she would ABSOLUTELY LOVE to make 78k a year, with bennies. </p>

<p>So if you think that people with engineering degrees have it bad, well, how do you think the guys with Film Studies degrees are doing? Or the guys with Art History degrees? Or the guys with Leisure Studies degrees (yes, there really is such a major as Leisure Studies)? At least the guy with an engineering degree has a preset career path waiting for him. It may not be a great career path, but at least it's a career path. Plenty of other college graduates don't even get that. Believe me, there are a LOT of Americans with college degrees who can only dream of making the kind of money that an engineer can make. </p>

<p>Furthermore, you named 7 professional job categories and you outlined why you think engineering is the worst of the 7. The fallacy in your analysis is that, other than accounting, engineering is the only 1 of the 7 professional position that you named that you can actually get with just a bachelor's degrees. And I would submit that accounting is just as outsourceable as engineering is and in fact is already being outsourced. </p>

<p>So you say that physicians, dentists, orthodontists, pharmacists, and lawyers have a street-corner market. I'll leave it up to ariesathena to comment on the viability of that statement vis-a-vis law, and to people like Psedrish_Md to comment on that statement vis-a-vis medicine. However, the key point that comes to my mind is that a guy who gets an engineering bachelor's degree can ALSO continue in school to become a physician, a lawyer, a dentist, etc. etc. Or he can take an engineering job. The point is, he has the option. He can stand pat with what he's got, or he can try to trade up. If he can't get into medical school or dentistry school or whatever, at least he still has an engineering career waiting for him. The guy who majored in Art History doesn't even have that. For that guy, med/law/dentistry/whatever school is the only way for him to get a professional career path. And what if he doesn't get in? What is he going to do now? You know what they say about a bird in the hand vs. 2 in the bush. In this case, the guy who has an engineering degree already has a bird in the hand, with the OPTION of trying to get 2 in the bush. </p>

<p>Hence, once again, I will pose the same question that I have always posed. What else are you going to major in as an undergrad, if not engineering? What other major is really better? You have to major in SOMETHING. I'm not saying that an engineering degree is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but do you really think that the guys majoring in a natural science are really any better off? Or how about those majoring in humanities? Or the guys majoring in Leisure Studies? What exactly are they going to be doing after graduation? </p>

<p>Hence, it all comes full circle. I still believe that getting an engineering degree, for all its flaws, is still a pretty good choice. Once you get it, you can see if you can and want to take another turn in your career, like into consulting or banking or medicine or whatever. If you don't, fine, you can rest assured that your engineering job, while not the greatest thing in the world, is still better than what the majority of other college grads out there will have. Again, if you think the engineers are having it bad, how do you think the Film Studies and Art History guys are doing?</p>

38

<p>"Somebody needs to speak up for AEHMO "</p>

<p>Dad....you've made the best post of this entire engineering section. You've driven home the point I've been making all this time, and even force sakky to to say...
---"Now look, Oh_dad, the reason why I oppose aehmo is not that he doesn't have some valid point"</p>

<p>Sakky, your counter arguments about there being worse jobs than engineering are true...what I'm saying is simply not to get into any bad jobs to begin with, which includes engineering.....while it's fun and exciting when you're 20 years old, it gets deadly around 30 if you're making too much money. It's hard to call it a career, because a lot of people (like oh-dad) get sick of worrying about getting laid off due to age and simply quit before the axe falls. No doctor or lawer will ever have to worry about that.</p>

<p>And your point about doctors and lawers not being able to set up their own shop -- yes its true that it's harder than it used to be due to start-up cost and the fear of not getting enuf patients. With engineers, they can't set up shop (EVER) without being laughed out of town.</p>

<p><em>MODERATOR</em> -- I'd like to make a request that oh-dads post gets a permanent spot somewhere in this section....it hits at the heart of the problems that the engineering profession has, and I doubt anybody will be able to make a more eloquent point.</p>

39

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, your counter arguments about there being worse jobs than engineering are true...what I'm saying is simply not to get into any bad jobs to begin with, which includes engineering.....while it's fun and exciting when you're 20 years old, it gets deadly around 30 if you're making too much money.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And you say that like it's SO easy not to end up with a bad job. Like just anybody can just snap their fingers and not have a bad job. </p>

<p>Come on, Aehmo, just go around town and look at all the people with cruddy jobs. People pumping gas, mopping floors, flipping burgers, stocking shelves, manning cash registers, answering phones. A not-insignificant number of these people have college degrees. Or think of all the low-end dead-end corporate jobs out there that not only suck but whose pay can't even match engineer's pay. Again, I keep thinking of the 50-year old receptionist with a master's degree in poli-sci who was making $25 an hour and no benefits. I'm fairly certain she wouldn't mind being trading her job for an engineering job if she could. And I'm quite certain that the guys stocking shelves at Walmart wouldn't mind being engineers instead. I'm sure you must agree. </p>

<p>Hence, if you say that engineering is 'deadly' when you're around 30, then what does that say about all those other college grads out there that have jobs that are even worse than engineering? I guess those jobs are 'REALLY deadly'. </p>

<p>So I ask you - if it's really so easy for people to avoid cruddy jobs, then why is it that so many people have them? Take all those people stocking shelves at the mall. All those people mopping floors. All those people who graduate from college and end up in low-end jobs. Maybe you should just go up to all these people and tell them that they should all become doctors and lawyers. You keep implying that it's so easy. If it's really so easy, then why doesn't everybody do it? </p>

<p>And THAT's the point. It's not easy to become a doctor or a lawyer. In fact, it's exceedingly difficult. According to AMCAS numbers, about 50% of all applicants to US med-schools get rejected from every med-school they apply to. Yep, that's right, every single one. And that's just talking about those who apply. Let's face it. If you have crappy grades and crappy MCAT scores, you probably won't even apply because you know you won't get in anywhere. The same sort of thing is true of law school - plenty of people don't get in anywhere, and plenty others don't even apply because they know they won't get in anywhere.</p>

<p>What an engineering degree will give you is a career path. It's not a great career path, I never said that it was. But at least it's a career path. So at least it's something. Most undergrad majors won't even give you that. A guy with an engineering degree can try to go to med/law school. If he can't make it, at least he can take an engineering job. Like I said, what exactly is the Art History guy going to do after graduation if he can't make it into law/med school?</p>

<p>Furthermore, you keep talking about engineers being laughed out of town if they try to set up shop. Let me ask you - what do you have to say about a guy who majored in Film Studies trying to set up shop? How about a guy who graduated with a degree in American Studies? Or Comparative Literature? Or Mass Communications? Or Peace and Conflict Studies? How laughable would their shops be? </p>

<p>And so once again, I feel I must bring up the questions that neither you, nor Oh<em>Dad, nor anybody else has ever answered to my satisfaction. ** If engineering is so bad, then what else are you going to major in as an undergrad? ** I think we can all agree that almost all other undergrad majors are far far worse than engineering is in terms of getting jobs. How useful is a Leisure Studies major? Or a Film Studies major? Or a Parks & Rec major? Keep in mind that in the US, more degrees are granted in Parks & Rec than in Electrical Engineering . What do you and Oh</em>Dad have to say about all those people getting Parks & Rec degrees?</p>

40

<p>"I'm fairly certain she wouldn't mind being trading her job for an engineering job if she could. And I'm quite certain that the guys stocking shelves at Walmart wouldn't mind being engineers instead. I'm sure you must agree. "</p>

<p>Not really....many people would prefer manual labor to a political hotbed, which is what engineering has turned out to be.</p>

<p>"Maybe you should just go up to all these people and tell them that they should all become doctors and lawyers. You keep implying that it's so easy. If it's really so easy, then why doesn't everybody do it? "</p>

<p>I'm saying that SMART people deciding upon and engineering career should bail out! People that have options should look elsewhere. If the best you can land is an engineering job, then so be it....but at least the people that have a chance at a real career (i.e. good grades, determination etc.) should look elsewhere and not go down the engineering path -- without knowing the pitfalls.</p>

<p><em>The best way to decide if you want to become an engineer is
1> Attend 1 *review</em> meeting at a large corporation with at least 10 people in it.
2> Full stop.</p>

<p>If you liked it, you'll be a great "engineer"....if not, then rethink your options.</p>