Engineering Shortage or not?

[sakky]

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

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The woman with the receptionist job was not manual labor, unless you count answering phones and typing up documents as manual labor. </p>

<p>And honestly, do you really think that the people stocking shelves at Walmart really have it better than the engineers do? If so then why do you never see an engineer quitting his job in order to be a Walmart grunt? </p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And you're making the massively unrealistic assumption that people have perfect knowledge - that those who have this option know that they have this option before they have to choose their undergrad major. </p>

<p>We both know that at every university on the planet, the number of incoming freshman who intend to be premeds is much higher than the number of graduating seniors who actually get into med-school. Like I said, about half of all people who apply to US med-schools get rejected by every school they apply to. And that's just talking about those that apply. Plenty of other people would like to go to med-school but don't even apply because they know they can't get in. Plenty of people attempt the premed sequence but do not complete it because they find it too hard or they don't like it. </p>

<p>So think about what that means. If people really had perfect knowledge, then why would so many people get rejected everywhere? After all, if you really had perfect knowledge, then you would know that you wouldn't get in anywhere, so you wouldn't waste your time applying. So why do these people apply only to get rejected? Do you think they enjoy wasting their time? If people really had perfect knowledge, then we would always have a 100% placement rate because only people who knew they would get admitted would actually apply. (Why apply if you have perfect knowledge and you know you won't get in?). Not only that, but also only those people who knew that they would finish the premed sequence would even start the sequence, so you would never have anybody aborting the sequence prematurely. Heck, if people really had perfect knowledge, then every med-school would have a 100% admit rate, because people would only apply to the 1 med-school that they know they can get into and want to go to. Heck, by extension, med-schools wouldn't even need admissions committees, because there would never be anybody to reject because people would only apply to schools that they knew they would get into. </p>

<p>The point is - ** you don't know **. You don't know what's going to happen. Maybe you'll get in. Maybe you won't. But you don't know. So as an incoming freshman, you know you have to operate with imperfect knowledge. So if you're a freshman thinking of becoming a doctor, the responsible thing to do is also to think about what you're going to do if you don't get into med-school. Choosing an engineering major is, if nothing else, an insurance policy. With an engineering degree, at least you'll have SOME sort of career. Maybe not the best kind, but hey, it's better than nothing. A lot of people really do graduate from college and get nothing. </p>

<p>So you said it yourself - people who are thinking of becoming engineers should rethink their options. And what would the other options be? Art History? Peace and Conflict Studies? Leisure Studies? Parks & Rec? Pray tell, what are these other great options that you never satisfactorily identify? Why do you guys keep dodging my central question? Exactly what are these other undergrad majors that are so awesome? Answer the question.</p>

[eng_dude]

<p>Poor Sakky. Don't you get tired of repeating yourself? I don't know how you do it! ;)</p>

[jma]

<p>Sakky, what concerns me about what you have said is that it seems that engineering is the type of job that someone who is not "talented" enough to succeed in other fields and who wants safety should take. There is nothing wrong with this. But my problem is that engineering is one of the toughest possible majors and for the most part, only hard-working and highly talented people will be able to successfully complete the degree. Why should these talented individuals who are probably as competent as most doctors or lawyers be forced to work under such conditions. Why should the best engineers from MIT and Stanford have to put up with this kind of garbage while a lawyer from an unknown college in Texas can, through hard work, be successful enough to be nominated to the supreme court. (I know Miers was not confirmed, but you get the point) </p>

<p>If you are claiming that engineering is thus a good field for the non "superstars," then I can agree with what you are saying. But I am also getting the impression that engineering is not a great path for the talented. (Such as those oh_dad referred to who are to technically competent to be moved to management) I know this is a different discussion but this situation is very upsetting. </p>

<p>Also, you know better than just about anyone here that if someone wants to be able to go into medicine or law, they should stay away from engineering due to GPA hits.</p>

[redbeard]

<p>I have to disagree with OH_DAD. For me, engineering has been a terrific career.</p>

<p>This is for those struggling engineering students out there, perhaps winding down on their Thanksgiving break. I realize that OhDad's post may have left you a bit demoralized. Don't be!</p>

<p>I'm 53, I spent a similar career to OH_DAD--I went through the Navy's nuclear power program and drove submarines around. I'm even a dad--three times over. </p>

<p>If you look at my employment experience, it probably closely parallels OhDad's. I work near Washington, so my salaries were higher--but it costs more for everything here, so it washes out. And, as OhDad pointed out, I have a "special circumstance" in that I have a security clearance. Such jobs are not outsourced.</p>

<p>But, I insist that I am not rare or unique. There are lots of engineers with "special circumstances" of one sort or another. Sometimes it's another degree such as law or business. Sometimes it's specialized expertise. Sometimes it's just working for the government--the most stable employer of all. For tens of thousands in my area it's that security clearance. If you have one, you will ALWAYS have a job, and it IS a ticket to a six-figure engineering income. </p>

<p>Look, I'm not saying that you will not have to work hard once you graduate. You'll have to stay constantly ahead of the technology curve. There are no guarantees, and everybody can be laid off for one of many, many reasons. If you choose engineering, every day, every week, every year you will have to question your status and re-evaluate your future. You should be constantly looking for the next opportunity, the next job that will TEACH you something new. Big deal. You can FIND that special circumstance for you--it's not that hard to do.</p>

<p>There is just no justification for this bleak portrayal of the engineering profession. Engineers do NOT work in an atmosphere of failure and despair, in my experience. In our companies, we are the most respected and best rewarded--often seen as the engine that drives the train. </p>

<p>And, of course, there are things to worry about in health-care jobs as well. Dentists have among the highest suicide rates of all. (My only point is that these professions are not carefree--they are, of course, good choices for those so inclined. The grass will always look greener in the other guy's office.)</p>

<p>We live in a market economy. That means there are no guarantees for anybody. Of course you won't be able to do the same engineering design job for thirty years. Of course you won't see salary growth if you stagnate. You will face challenges, and some of you will have bad breaks. (This will happen to the psychology and poly sci majors as well.) </p>

<p>I reject the notion that there is no way for an engineer to move into management. An experienced engineer--well versed in the company's culture and strategy--is an excellent candidate to lead new initiaves or capitalize on new opportunities. If your company does not see your potential, then they are making a mistake and it's time to look around. </p>

<p>Now, some times it will take a radical change to break out of a rut. It might require you to completely re-invent yourself--a phrase that rolls off the tongue with ease, but which is very difficult and anxiety-laden. You might have to start your own company. You might have to move to a different city or take a salary cut. This is not so bad if you're taking the new job for what it teaches you. </p>

<p>My bottom line: for thousands of us, the engineering profession is dynamic, exciting, personally rewarding, and prestigious. There is a niche for you, and you should not be discouraged into abandoning hope by some pessimistic posts on a chat board!</p>

<p>Oh, and have a happy Thanksgiving!</p>

[aehmo]

<p>"Now, some times it will take a radical change to break out of a rut. It might require you to completely re-invent yourself--a phrase that rolls off the tongue with ease, but which is very difficult and anxiety-laden. "</p>

<p>Even for someone who's had a great career in engineer, you're admitting that you have to completely re-invent yourself -- i.e. start from scratch, a newbie, with your previous experience totally discounted. I.e....if you know java today, you better know PHP tomorrow, or PMML after that, or C++, or JAVA again...ok, that sounds like a great "career".</p>

<p>I love computing...in fact, I've won some local programming competitions at my high school...I'd love to program till my last day in the career. But, I shadowed two engineers from different companies, and was totally depressed after seeing their careers. The were NOT engineering in the least. Plus, my relatives who are engineers have all confirmed whatever I saw, and said it was very normal.</p>

<p>...there's no way somebody can force me into engineering. I want a CAREER, not a temporary project that my manager handed me because he got a stray headcount in his department and had to justify to his boss that the project was neccessary when it's totally useless.</p>

[lkf725]

<p>May I ask what your intended career path is, aehmo? Are you currently a student or are you employed?</p>

[Sam_Lee]

<p>Thanks drusba,</p>

<p>I didn't know chemE was in school of arts and sciences. Now that I think of it, I wasn't thinking chemE specificly, just engineering in general. I think there was a statement on the application form saying internationals couldn't apply directly but they could petition to transfer from, say, college of arts and sciences. That was 10 years ago. </p>

<p>Thanks anyway; I was just curious. I ended up at Northwestern and I enjoyed it there.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
Poor Sakky. Don't you get tired of repeating yourself? I don't know how you do it

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What can I say? People keep asking the same questions or bringing up the same issues, so I have to give the same responses. How reliable would I be if I gave different answers to the same questions.</p>

<p>However, I do agree that repetition is tiring. I think i should just write up a blog somewhere and whenever somebody asks a question, I'll just point them to the relevant section of my blog. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But my problem is that engineering is one of the toughest possible majors and for the most part, only hard-working and highly talented people will be able to successfully complete the degree.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sort of, but don't take it too far. As I have pointed out, there are many hundreds of no-name engineering programs at no-name schools out there. And obviously most of them are far easier than the engineering program at MIT. And let's face it. If you're not particularly talented or hard-working such that you only get into a low-tier school, then engineering may be the very best you can do. Hey, it sure beats a lot of the alternatives like mopping floors and cleaning toilets for a living. And the sad truth is, a lot of people who graduate from these low-tier colleges really do end up having to mop floors and clean toilets for a living. Just because you have a college degree does not mean that you are going to get a decent job. There are plenty of people with degrees from no-name schools and in majors that don't exactly get you many jobs. The Fresno State engineer may not have it great, but what about the Fresno State Art history guy? </p>

<p>However, I digress. My point is that the average engineer isn't all that talented and hard-working. Like I said, there are hundreds of no-name engineering programs out there. It doesn't exactly take a genius to graduate from one of those programs. True, it's harder than graduating with an Art History degree from a no-name school, but it's still not THAT hard. So, no, I cannot agree with your assertion that the average engineer is as talented as the average doctor or even the average lawyer. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Why should the best engineers from MIT and Stanford have to put up with this kind of garbage while a lawyer from an unknown college in Texas can, through hard work, be successful enough to be nominated to the supreme court. (I know Miers was not confirmed, but you get the point)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ok, now you're getting to the REAL heart of the matter. You're talking specifically about the very elite engineering students and why aren't they being paid their market value. That is exactly what I am talking about too.</p>

<p>However, to be fair, I should point out that I don't think that these guys are the ones who are getting the most screwed. No. I think the group of people who REALLY have something to complain about are the elite students in the natural sciences and in mathematics. Think about it. I would argue that completing a degree in a natural science or in math at a top school is almost as difficult as completing an elite engineering degree, and in some cases (i.e. physics at Caltech) may actually be EVEN HARDER than engineering is. I'll tell you this. I'd rather take a load of upper division engineering courses than take a bunch of upper division physics or math courses any day of the week. </p>

<p>Yet these natural science students, on average, get paid substantially less than an engineering student. On average, chemical engineering majors get paid more than chemistry majors, EE and ME majors get paid more than physics majors, and computer science majors get paid more than math majors. Obviously there are statistical fluctuations, but the trend is clear. </p>

<p>Hence, if anybody REALLY ought to be complaining, it's all those natural science students. At least an engineering degree can deliver a decent-paying career path. Not great, but decent. It's better than the natural science degree. Aehmo and Oh_Dad can talk about how bad it is to be a 30 year old engineer that gets laid off. Well, what about the 30 year old guy with a physics degree? </p>

<p>Furthermore, I would also point out that I believe that all elite degrees are not being paid their due. Not just elite engineering degrees, but ALL elite degrees. </p>

<p>For example, the average salary of all Princeton graduates in 2005 was about $50k. That's for all Princeton grads - engineers, art history guys, etc. </p>

<p><a href="http://web.princeton.edu/sites/career/data/surveys/CareerSurveyReport2005.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.princeton.edu/sites/career/data/surveys/CareerSurveyReport2005.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>To put that in perspective, I believe that the average starting salary of all college graduates is something in the mid 30's. I can't find the link for that right now, so if somebody can, that would be excellent. However, I do see that liberal arts grads (from all schools, including the no-name ones) posted an average starting salary of about 30k. Since liberal arts grads obviously tend to be the lowest paid of all college grads, an aggregate average of 35k for all majors sounds reasonable to me. Maybe it's even higher, but let's go with 35k for now.</p>

<p><a href="http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/15/pf/college/starting_salaries/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/15/pf/college/starting_salaries/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Furthermore, keep in mind that Princeton grads tend to work in the East Coast, particular NYC, where the living costs are high (and the salaries are also high to compensate). Furthermore, lots of Princeton grads also go to Ibanking or consulting where the pay is high, whereas few people from no-name schools get into Ibanking or consulting. So really, take away the geographic factor and take away the salary skewing of banking/consulting, and you can see that Princeton grads really are not making that much more than the national average. </p>

<p>Let's ignore those factors. Princeton = 50k. Average college = 35k. Hence, Princeton has a 50/35 = 1.4 ratio edge over the average college grad. Now seriously. Do you think that the average Princeton grad is only 1.4 times more productive than the average college grad? I don't know what the productivity ratio is, but I'm fairly certain it's much larger than 1.4. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of no-name lower-tier schools out there. Yet graduates of these schools get starting salaries that are really not that much lower than what the Princeton grads make. They are lower, but I wouldn't say the difference is huge. Contrast that with what happens in India where a guy who graduates from the most elite school can literally make 5 or 10 times more than a guy who graduates from a low-end school. </p>

<p>Nor is Princeton unique. I have also seen the data for Yale and Harvard, and it's basically the same as Princeton's. Average Yale and Harvard grads make something like 50k. That's really not substantially more than the average college grad. </p>

<p>Hence, the point is that I believe that elite undergrad education IN GENERAL is under-respected in the US labor market. Not just elite engineering, but any major at an elite school. I think even aehmo and Oh_data would agree that the average Harvard graduate is substantially better than the average SW Missouri State graduate, so it stands to reason that the former should be paid substantially more than the latter. Getting paid 1.4 times more is not exactly my idea of 'substantial'. </p>

<p>Hence, I would say that the US in general is a muted meritocracy. Even if you work far harder and are far more talented than everybody else, you're probably not going to live that much better than everybody else. Yeah, you'll live better, but not hugely better. </p>

<p>I'll put it this way. According to CNN, graduating chemical engineers (from all schools) got 54k starting salaries in 2005. Average Princeton salaries (of all majors) was 50k. When you consider all the no-name, lower-tier chemical engineering programs out there, I would say that the average Princeton grad is better than the average nationwide chemical engineering grad. So why is the average Princeton grad getting paid less? </p>

<p><a href="http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/15/pf/college/starting_salaries/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/15/pf/college/starting_salaries/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
Even for someone who's had a great career in engineer, you're admitting that you have to completely re-invent yourself -- i.e. start from scratch, a newbie, with your previous experience totally discounted. I.e....if you know java today, you better know PHP tomorrow, or PMML after that, or C++, or JAVA again...ok, that sounds like a great "career".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But like I've been saying, you're still better off than the Art History guy or the Film Studies guy or the vast majority of other undergrad majors out there. You keep complaing about the career that an engineer has, but what about the career of the Film Studies guy? </p>

<p>
[quote]
there's no way somebody can force me into engineering. I want a CAREER, not a temporary project that my manager handed me because he got a stray headcount in his department and had to justify to his boss that the project was neccessary when it's totally useless.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, everybody wants a career but not everybody gets one. Again, what are you going to say to that 50-year old woman with a master's in polic-sci who ended up temping as a receptionist? Believe me, there are PLENTY of people with college degrees who have no real career. Sure, the engineering career path may not be great, but hey, it's better than no career path at all.</p>

[system]

<p>The problem with engineering at good (hard) schools is the grade deflation. Even if you graduate with a 3.0 as an engineer from Cornell/Mich/MIT, can you compete with all those people who have 4.0's applying to law, medical, grad. schools who were previosly non-engineering / business / pure science / liberal arts majors?</p>

[sakky]

<p>Ah, eternity_hope2005, now we're getting somewhere. True, the 'career insurance' of engineering carries a price.</p>

<p>However, again, I would caution you not to take it too far. Believe me, the pure science majors are pretty darn grade deflated too. It is EXCEEDINGLY difficult to get top grades as a physics major at Caltech or MIT, arguably even more difficult than majoring in engineering at Caltech or MIT. </p>

<p>And furthermore, not all top engineering schools are alike in terms of grading. Engineering at Caltech and MIT are obviously extremely grade deflated. However, engineering at Stanford, while still difficult, is not as extreme. Princeton is also probably not as extreme. Harvard not so much. {For those who would object to the including of Harvard engineering as an 'elite' school, I would argue that a ranking of #28 in undergrad engineering and #20 in grad engineering is pretty good. Harvard is no MIT, but it's still better than the vast majority of other engineering programs out there.} </p>

<p>Hence, a way to 'game' the system is to get your engineering degree from one of these schools. </p>

<p>I would also point out that from what I've seen, while engineers do get shafted when it comes to law/medicine, I think they actually hold a distinct advantage when it comes to B-school. Look at the incoming student bodies of the top B-schools like HBS, Stanford, MITSloan, Wharton, Kellogg, etc., and you will notice that generally about 20-35% of incoming students are engineers (and often times greater than 40% at MITSloan) That's an astounding feat when you realize that only 5% of all US bachelor's degrees conferred every year are engineering degrees. Engineers are hence greatly overrepresented in B-school. B-schools don't really care very much about your grades. </p>

<p>Hence, I would posit that one very strong career path that I have seen many elite engineers take is to get an elite engineering from someplace like MIT and then try to get into consulting or banking. If that doesn't pan out, then take an engineering job and work for a few years. Then go to an elite B-school and get a good management job (or just try for banking or consulting again). You would not believe the number of graduate students at Harvard Business School and the Sloan School of Management who are former MIT engineering undergrads. Not too many of them majored in Leisure Studies or Parks & Rec.</p>

[aehmo]

<p>"You would not believe the number of graduate students at Harvard Business School and the Sloan School of Management who are former MIT engineering undergrads"</p>

<p>Brilliant....you're recommending that students go from one dead-end field (engineering) to another dead-end field (management) if the first one doesn't pan out.</p>

<p>Why don't you recommend something better, as in breaking out of the rut and going for a true career (Doctors, lawers etc.)?...why dance around and waste time?</p>

[rtkysg]

<p>
[quote]
Why don't you recommend something better, as in breaking out of the rut and going for a true career (Doctors, lawers etc.)?...why dance around and waste time?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You misunderstood him completely. It is worthless to say which one is the true career if it doesn't give better compensation. It is MUCH EASIER to get yourself into business school and then management when you are an engineer than when you're a doctor or lawyer. At this moment, career path: engineering -> MBA -> management is arguably the best career path for financial compensation. The fact that many top companies' executives have engineering/MBA degree and prosper much more than many doctors and lawyers shows how formidable this career path potentially is.</p>

[ashernm]

<p>"We live in a market economy. That means there are no guarantees for anybody."
Not all professions. Some professionals have, through successful government lobbying, created "scarcity power" - they are more scarce, due to such barriers to entry as licensing. Physicians are at the top of the list for such behavior. Teachers and nurses aren't far behind. I'm very biased, but I'm convinced that behind every occupation paying wages out of kilter with comparable jobs, is scarcity power at work, whether its because of government licensing or certification, or unions. In sum, the most vaunted occupations have obtained "above-market" wages by circumventing the market. </p>

<p>And if the government wanted to raise the amount of engineers, it could substantially cut or eliminate financial aid either for all majors, so that students gravitate to higher paying jobs to compensate for tuition, or do so only for non engineering and science majors.</p>

<p>About Hong Kong - It's commonly considered the most 'economically free' country on Earth, meaning low taxes, regulation, tariffs etc. Just might be a reason why they are one of the most successful, and still growing at a good clip. It's impossible to say that China will become Hong Kong in the future, near or far. Is Estonia the next Hong Kong, or Ireland (if it isn't already), Singapore any of the tax havens or Luxembourg? Just look at the Index of economic freedom.</p>

<p>Sakky, the biggest money (and risk) is in entrepeneurship. Always was, always has been, from German Jewish immigrants peddling to becoming investment bankers in the 19th century (Lehman Brothers, Salomon brothers, others), to Sergei Brin and Larry Paige. Entrepeneurship is probably the job whose pay correlates best with "productivity."</p>

<p>Someone said that as countries get richer, they stop gravitating towards engineering. That hasn't proven true with Japan, who earns more degrees than we do with less than half the population.</p>

[jma]

<p>Sakky, I agree with what you have said. However I think a better comparison is looking at each individual school so that the quality of the students is roughly the same. Would you agree? So do you have the numbers of average engineers from MIT/Stanford and their salary versus average non engineers at those schools. (And can you get the data with and without all of those ibanking/consulting engineers)</p>

<p>Also, while it is true that the average engineer may have a higher salary than the average Princeton graduate initially, that will probably last only a short time so if you look at the long hall, I am sure the Princeton grad will be appropriately compensated. </p>

<p>Finally, my problem with your argument is that you continue to state that the engineers could otherwise be washing floors/dishes etc. But again, (while engineering at certain schools is not extremely difficult) I think that you are grouping those engineers with the wrong people. I think that the alternative for most engineering majors would be something more like medicine. (I know they would not necessarily major in pre-med but in terms of abiity, engineers are closer to pre-med students than they are to students who are going to end up in what you stated. On averaage)</p>

[ashernm]

<p>Another WSJ article on engineers, this time about Silicon Valley recruiting: "In the office parks of Silicon Valley, Google has helped sparked a hiring frenzy reminiscent of the dot-com boom. Other tech companies are now fighting back as the Internet search firm snaps up talented engineers."</p>

<p>One of the commenters in the article says that elite engineers are hundreds of times more valuable than the average, citing Google itself as an example of the potential power of two individuals. So it would seem, that engineering can be far more elite than investment banking or any other job, both in selectivity and pay - there are frequent mentions of 6,7,8 digit salary and compensation packages in the article. The article does not say what education these "techonologists" have (though it did mention an instance of Google tracking every single female with a Master's or Phd in CS, math or physics from a top 50 university).</p>

[aehmo]

<p>"So it would seem, that engineering can be far more elite than investment banking or any other job, both in selectivity and pay"</p>

<p>ashernm - you're dead wrong with your reasoning. Even though google engineers are worth "100x" the average engineer, their base pay is only $90k, with a bonus potential of 20% (so $108k altogether)....you can pretty much disregard the stocks for the recent hires, so the compensation package is actually quite, quite low when compared to the average lawyer or doctor, who can gross 150k-200k in the bay area.</p>

<p>And furthermore, Google is just about theee most recognized company at this time....can you imagine what the work is like at 99.9% of the other companies (long hours, lower stock price, lower profits etc.)?</p>

<p>Another thing....outsourcing is picking up a lot of steam, and within a few years, there may not be many jobs to pick from, even at google. Why take that chance? At least if you're a lawyer or a doctor you're protected by the BAR and AMA and state laws that prevent others from stealing your job without a proper degree....in a computer-based job, every physicist, mathematician, bio-chemist etc. can get in just by taking some crash courses at school...there's NO DEGREE REQUIRED by many companies.
.....which is YET another reason why computer jobs are so easily outsourced. You don't even need a degree to do the work at many (maybe most) companies...just a few crash courses.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
Brilliant....you're recommending that students go from one dead-end field (engineering) to another dead-end field (management) if the first one doesn't pan out.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And exactly how is this dead-end? Tell that to the bankers and consultants who are raking it in that they're in a dead-end field. Just compare the salaries of investment bankers, particularly the top ones, vs. the salaries of your beloved doctors. The best investment banker can easily make more money in 1 year than a doctor can in his entire life. </p>

<p>And you keep talking about law as this paradise. Are you a lawyer or a law student? I know that ariesathena is a law student and Greybeard is a lawyer. How about this. Why don't you join me in starting a new thread that talks about how law supposedly guarantees you a great lifestyle and a great salary, and we'll invite them and any of the other lawyers and law students into the thread. </p>

<p>If you're right, then all of them will inevitably confirm everything that you've said, right? So what are you afraid of?</p>

<p>We can do the same thing with medicine. There are a number of practicing physicians like PSedrish_MD here on CC. Let's start a new thread together and invite all of them to talk about it, and if you're really correct, then they will confirm that a medical career is every bit as good as you say it is, right? So, again, what are you afraid of? </p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm very biased, but I'm convinced that behind every occupation paying wages out of kilter with comparable jobs, is scarcity power at work, whether its because of government licensing or certification, or unions. In sum, the most vaunted occupations have obtained "above-market" wages by circumventing the market

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So why do you have investment bankers running around making 7 or 8 figures a year? I am not aware of any investment banking 'licensing' or any investment banking union, are you? The same thing can be said of consulting. Is there some union of management consultants somewhere that I am not aware of? </p>

<p>
[quote]
And if the government wanted to raise the amount of engineers, it could substantially cut or eliminate financial aid either for all majors, so that students gravitate to higher paying jobs to compensate for tuition, or do so only for non engineering and science majors.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Or the other way is just to subsidize engineering degrees more. Like how about this. The government can pay a one-time bonus of, say, 10k, to anybody who graduates with a US engineering bachelor's degree. Or the government will agree to lower your student loans. Or something like that. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Someone said that as countries get richer, they stop gravitating towards engineering. That hasn't proven true with Japan, who earns more degrees than we do with less than half the population.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think it actually has been true. I believe that the percentage of engineering degrees granted in Japan has been decreasing over time. After all, it makes sense. In the late 50's and 60's, Japan was trying to rebuild from the devestation of WW2 and build a technology economy, so it needed a high percentage of engineers. However, as the Japanese economy became richer and more sophistiated, more Japanese students started to gravitate towards things like banking and management. Japan basically didn't have a banking industry in the 50's, but now has one of the biggest in the world. Where did the Japanese banking industry find the employees to grow, if not from the Japanese university system? What that means is that some Japanese students who might have studied technology in the 50's instead shifted over to studying finance. </p>

<p>
[quote]
However I think a better comparison is looking at each individual school so that the quality of the students is roughly the same. Would you agree? So do you have the numbers of average engineers from MIT/Stanford and their salary versus average non engineers at those schools. (And can you get the data with and without all of those ibanking/consulting engineers)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, I don't think so. Much of this thread has been about the 'unfairness' of engineering salaries. It is my position that engineering salaries are indeed unfairly low to the superstar engineers. On the other hand, they may actually be too high for the mediocre engineers. And there are a lot of mediocre engineers out there. Not every engineer goes to MIT or Stanford or Caltech or another elite school. In fact, most don't. The vast majority of engineers come from no-name schools. To emerge from a no-name school with a chemical engineering degree and make 54k a year to start - which is more money than the average HYP grad - is a fantastic deal for many people. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, while it is true that the average engineer may have a higher salary than the average Princeton graduate initially, that will probably last only a short time so if you look at the long hall, I am sure the Princeton grad will be appropriately compensated.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So then why not just appropriately compensate that Princeton grad right from the get-go? You must admit, this is a violation of free-market principles. </p>

<p>And that gets to my other point. Some people have asserted that we should just let labor markets operate under free market principles. The problem with that is that labor markets are not free markets, and never will be. If labor markets really were truly free markets, then everybody would be paid their marginal revenue, which is basically another way of saying productivity. I believe the average HYP graduate is severely underpaid in terms of starting salary, because I believe that they are far more than 1.4 times more productive than the average college graduate. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Finally, my problem with your argument is that you continue to state that the engineers could otherwise be washing floors/dishes etc. But again, (while engineering at certain schools is not extremely difficult) I think that you are grouping those engineers with the wrong people. I think that the alternative for most engineering majors would be something more like medicine. (I know they would not necessarily major in pre-med but in terms of abiity, engineers are closer to pre-med students than they are to students who are going to end up in what you stated. On averaage)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No it is not, and I honestly I think you are saying this because your perspective is badly skewed. It seems to me that you only have experience with top students at top schools. Yet the fact is, there are many many mediocre students and many many mediocre schools out there. Let me put it to you this way. 1.3 million new bachelor's degree graduates are produced in the US every year, well over 90% of whom came from non-elite schools. Yet according to AMCAS, only about 35,000 people even apply to US med-schools every year, and of them, 17,000 people will actually matriculate at US med-schools every year.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2004/mcatgpabymaj1.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2004/mcatgpabymaj1.htm&lt;/a>
<a href="http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2003/section5/tables/t33_3.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2003/section5/tables/t33_3.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>So do the math. It means that only about 3% of all US bachelor's degree receipients even apply to med-school, and only 1.5% of them will actually get in. </p>

<p>What that basically means is that premeds are actually very rare beasts compared to the grand total of all college students out there. It is only at the top schools where you will see premeds in conspicuously large packs. At most no-name schools, premeds are few and far between. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out that in certain years, many schools don't even send a single graduate of theirs to med-school. Heck, in certain years, you might not even get a single student to even apply to med-school. </p>

<p>Hence, the point is, I do not believe that the average engineering student (including all those at the no-name programs) is comparable to people who get into med-school. Sure, the engineer from MIT, Stanford, and the like are akin to premeds But the engineer from some 4th tier school? I don't think so.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
At least if you're a lawyer or a doctor you're protected by the BAR and AMA and state laws that prevent others from stealing your job without a proper degree.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How's that? Like I said in the other thread, look what's going on with medical tourism. Unless you're talking about a life-saving procedure that has to be performed immediately, who says that you have to have a procedure done in the US? If I want plastic surgery like liposuction or a facelift, why does that have to necessarily be performed by an American plastic surgeon? Why can't I fly elsewhere to have it done? If I tear my ACL, I don't need surgery immediately. I can still hobble around, so I can wait to get the procedure done in some other country cheaply. ( I know a graduate student from Canada who injured his ACL playing soccer, and decided to just hobble around until the next school break so that he could go back to Canada and get the procedure done in the cheap Canadian system vs. having to pay for expensive American surgery.) If I need my Xrays read, who says that that can't be done by zapping the data to some cheap radiologists in some other country? </p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.blogsource.org/2004/12/offshore_radiol.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.blogsource.org/2004/12/offshore_radiol.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The same thing can be said for law. Companies are already outsourcing routine legal work. The truth is, much legal work, like basic case research and the raw preparation of briefs and legal documents, do not required a licensed lawyer. Yes, you need a licensed lawyer to actually provide final advice and represent you in court, but there is plenty of work that is being done by American lawyers that don't have to be done by them. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.blogsource.org/2004/10/outsourcing_law.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.blogsource.org/2004/10/outsourcing_law.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002185138_lawyers20.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002185138_lawyers20.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The point is, let's disabuse ourselves of the notion that doctors and lawyers are somehow immune from outsourcing. They are not.</p>

[ashernm]

<p>Sakky, I was referring mostly to the law and medicine professions, but also to many others like machinists, CPAs, realtors et cetera. Sorry for not clarifying. In theory, any job that pays above market wages will attract people from other jobs until it hits on an equilibrium of sorts (I know I'm being terribly vague here). For instance, coffee bean farming pays very little because the barrier to entry and tarriffs on it are quite low. So if coffee farming presents a better opportunity to one man, he will become a coffee farmer if he can surpass the barrier to entry. </p>

<p>About government incentives- How does the government know the "correct" amount of engineers? It stinks of a planned economy. I'm a bit skeptical of government efforts at influencing/distorting behavior through the tax code (tax breaks for certain expenses, et cetera) and other tools.</p>

<p>It's a bit simplistic to just look at the salaries of mediocre schools and Princeton and conclude that the labor market utterly fails. I don't at all know the relevant data to making such a judgement, but I doubt you can decide based on a single observation. I am interested in this quandary, however.</p>

<p>Aehmo- you obviously did not read the article. Top notch engineers can earn 6,7,8 digit salaries. The question of course, is how elite must one be to attain as much? I do not presume to know.</p>