Engineering Shortage or not?

College Majors Engineering Majors
61

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

<p>Yes, they are very sheltered from outsourcing. Your examples are flawed even from a common sense perspective, let alone from an expert's perspective....medical outsourcing ...hmm, let's fly to india to get a vasectomy, and fly back to the US just to save some money. Never mind the risk of followup complications, time off from work, cost of airfare, non-liable foreign surgeons that can't be sued from the US easily if they do something wrong...what percentage of US medical expenditure is currently being spent overseas in your highly exaggerated medical-outsourcing scenario? What is the forecasted percentage? Your examples are not very credible since the public knows that it's not practical to go overseas for a risky elective procedure. </p>

<p>...Also, I hope you know that the AMA has explictly disallowed radiology readings by anyone other than a board-certified doctor. Did you know that?.... or are you just imagining that hospitals would break the law and send x-rays overseas?</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>

<p>Let's not talk about "top-anything", because that's not what you should look at in the profession. Look at the AVERAGE, or the 80th percentile....when you or sakky mention "elite-bankers", "elite-engineers", "elite-doctors" your statements are meaningless.</p>

<p>"The question of course, is how elite must one be to attain as much?"
You've got to be kidding me...lolz...!! The standard deviation for salaries in ALL professions is not very much...you WILL be making the average, or a little higher. You shouldn't dream of making more than 1.5x the average because chances are that you simply won't make it in a job scenario -- if you own a chain of hotels, that's a different matter, but if you're working in a corporate scenario, forget it.</p>

<p>(BTW sakky, your sources are as cheap as your arguments...one is a wikipedia page that is publicly editible by anyone with a browser, and the other is blogsource. It doesn't get any less credible. You don't have any credible sources because what you're saying is flat out exaggerated. With engineering oursourcing, I can point you to TONs of articles by San Jose Mercury, NY Times, CNN.com and other equally <em>reputable</em> sources.)</p>

62

<p>Sakky - r u a doctor or something? You seem to be trying awfully hard to keep competition out of the medical field?</p>

63

<p>Sakky, you have essentially just stated my one problem with engineering. The fact that the truly talented engineers do not seem to be compensated accordingly. I do not know how this problem started or what causes the problem but the bottom line is that many talented people (the MIT/Stanford engineers you frequently alude to who go into ibanking) either stay away from engineering or leave the field after getting their degree.</p>

64

<p>
[quote]
I do not know how this problem started or what causes the problem but the bottom line is that many talented people (the MIT/Stanford engineers you frequently alude to who go into ibanking) either stay away from engineering or leave the field after getting their degree.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In two words : Money / stability</p>

<p>Engineers make decent salaries to begin with but over the long run; their salary levels out and as they grow older; they're more prone to getting laid off. Bankers/consultants make much more money than engineers to start off with and their salary over the years skyrockets. The nature of advancement in banking is far more appealing than engineering.</p>

65

<p>
[quote]
Yes, they are very sheltered from outsourcing. Your examples are flawed even from a common sense perspective, let alone from an expert's perspective....medical outsourcing ...hmm, let's fly to india to get a vasectomy, and fly back to the US just to save some money. Never mind the risk of followup complications, time off from work, cost of airfare, non-liable foreign surgeons that can't be sued from the US easily if they do something wrong...what percentage of US medical expenditure is currently being spent overseas in your highly exaggerated medical-outsourcing scenario? What is the forecasted percentage? Your examples are not very credible since the public knows that it's not practical to go overseas for a risky elective procedure.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>These examples are "my" examples? How's that? I didn't write the wikipedia article, other people did. And all you have to do is type in 'medical outsourcing' or 'medical tourism' into Google and you will come up with hundreds of links. Did I create all those links? Furthermore, I believe medical tourism had been featured on 60 Minutes. Did I make 60 Minutes run that story? </p>

<p>And let's talk about all of those points that you've raised. You talk about the legal aspects. Obviously any offshore medical company that is going to want to attract American patients is going to offer some sort of credible financial guarantee in the case of medical malpractice - i.e. putting up a financial bond or licensing themselves under a world-respected insurance company like Lloyd's of London or the like. It's no different from Indian offshore software companies agreeing to buy business insurance in case they write software that doesn't work. Secondly, what, do you think that American doctors never commit malpractice? Let's face it - there are some pretty darn shady American doctors. </p>

<p>Furthermore, let's talk about one of the major weaknesses in the American medical system - namely that not everybody is insured. Think of this. So let's say that you need a heart transplant, or you will die, and you have no insurance. Or let's say that you have insurance, but only up to a certain amount, and you can't cover your part of the cost. That's happened to many Americans. And here's some Indian medical company that will offer it to you for a price you can actually afford. So you might think that having the procedure done in India is risky. But hey, it's better than not having it done at all, which means sure death. At least the Indian company is giving you the chance to live. So let's see - the possibility of death vs. sure death. Which one would you prefer?</p>

<p>And why do you want to use the trivial example of a vasectomy? We both know that I am talking about things that are far more major, like breast implants. Breat implants generally take about 3-4 weeks to recover from. So what's another 1-2 days of travel time? How about a tummy tuck, something that generally takes 2-3 weeks of recovery. Plenty of other elective procedures take weeks to recover from. Hence, any 'extra' time for travel is trivial compared to the time of the recovery itself. </p>

<p>But again, hey, don't take my word for it. Why don't you go write to all of the authors of all of those sites and maybe also to 60 Minutes and to wikipedia and you can argue with them about how supposedly inpractical medical tourism is, and how all those Americans who have actually undergone medical tourism (and 60 Minutes found quite a few such people) are obviously lying about their experience. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, I hope you know that the AMA has explictly disallowed radiology readings by anyone other than a board-certified doctor. Did you know that?.... or are you just imagining that hospitals would break the law and send x-rays overseas?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And what did I say before about this very subject in the other thread? The doctor who signs off on the final diagnosis IS a board-certified doctor. It's just that often times, he himself is an Indian doctor who had went to a US medical school, is US board certified, and has now moved back to India. So tell me about how this is breaking the law? </p>

<p>Here's MSNBC talking about how it's done. If you don't like it, you can contact the authors and tell them they're wrong.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6621014/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6621014/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
BTW sakky, your sources are as cheap as your arguments...one is a wikipedia page that is publicly editible by anyone with a browser, and the other is blogsource. It doesn't get any less credible. You don't have any credible sources because what you're saying is flat out exaggerated. With engineering oursourcing, I can point you to TONs of articles by San Jose Mercury, NY Times, CNN.com and other equally <em>reputable</em> sources.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ok, you wanna play, let's play.</p>

<p>Here's CNN talking about medical outsourcing.</p>

<p><a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/02/24/singapore.medical/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/02/24/singapore.medical/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Here's 60 Minutes talking about it</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/21/60minutes/main689998.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/21/60minutes/main689998.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Here's the Financial Times talking about it (reprinted in the Yale Global)</p>

<p><a href="http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=2016%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=2016&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I can come up with many many more, but I think that should suffice. That is, unless you are going to try to claim that CNN, 60 Minutes, and the Financial Times, and MSNBC are not credible. Heck, just go to any news aggregation site and type in terms like "medical tourism", "medical outsourcing", etc. and you will see for yourself.</p>

66

<p>
[quote]
Sakky - r u a doctor or something? You seem to be trying awfully hard to keep competition out of the medical field?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you an engineer or something? You seem to be trying awfully hard to keep competition out of the engineering field.</p>

67

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, you have essentially just stated my one problem with engineering. The fact that the truly talented engineers do not seem to be compensated accordingly. I do not know how this problem started or what causes the problem but the bottom line is that many talented people (the MIT/Stanford engineers you frequently alude to who go into ibanking) either stay away from engineering or leave the field after getting their degree.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, like I said, I don't think it is as awful as this thread seems to be implying. The fact is that MOST career fields do not appropriately reward the truly talented. Let's face it. The best receptionist (who nowadays usually has a college degree) is never going to make that much more than the average receptionist. The best nurse will never make that much more than the average nurse. The best teacher will never make that much more than the average teacher. The best cop (many of whom have college degrees) will never make that much more than the average cop. The best blue-collar worker in a factory will never make much more than the average worker in that factory. The best scientist will never make much more than the average scientist. </p>

<p>And I would reiterate that if I think any undergrad major is really getting the short end of the stick, it's the natural science/math majors. Engineering degrees are relatively difficult to obtain (relative to the average major at the same school), but at least once you get it, you have a professional career path open to you. Maybe not a great one, but hey, at least it's a career path that will land you a fairly decent starting salary. The natural science/math majors are also difficult, and they don't even get a professional career path. You can get an engineering job with just a bachelor's degree. But you can't really get a job as a physicist or a mathematician with just a bachelor's degree. You almost always need at least a master's, and usually a PhD in order to work as a true physicist or mathematician. </p>

<p>But in any case, I obviously agree that the star engineers are not being properly compensated, and that I think something should be done about that. I still reiterate that engineering is obviously a great "safety major", as I would ask again to aehmo (who keeps dodging the question), what else are you going to major in as an undergrad?</p>

68

<p>Sakky- the two tiered system you describe does in fact exist. There is a huge ( >50%) spread in the salary ranges for engineers at the same level by title in the organizations that I have worked for (>5). Unless restricted by contract, as in the case with unions, the free market apparently works just fine in rewarding effectiveness.</p>

69

<p>I wouldn't say that 50% is a huge spread. It has to be at least a 3x spread for me to call it huge, and I know that's a pretty rare bird in the engineering world.</p>

70

<p>What about Silicon Valley? Google and other firms pay far above average wages precisely because they demand and hire only elite engineers. The better engineers may not be compensated accordingly because their company simply does not need the "best" if it means higher salaries, as the company may not derive much enough value from a better engineer to justify his higher salary. If say, certain business run so that growth stems from creativity (or any other factor deemed essential to profits), it may be that their only option (to obtain profits) is to hire engineers endowed with this asset. I suspect that this is the case with Google and its rivals. I cited Wednesday's Wall Street Journal article, but no one read it.</p>

<p>Sakky, some of those jobs you listed have little to no pay scale differentiation because they are unionized. Unions vehemently dislike any attempts at differential salaries (case in point: their opposition to merit based pay.) The best receptionist (if you are correct) does not earn that much because they soon advance into other positions. The best receptionist may advance into management or some other occupation within or without the company. Also, I think that you really do not see much pay differentiation between say, the 50th and 80th percentiles often times, but you will between the 50th and 99th, because of the comparatively huge difference in productivity. Look at SAT scores, for those points. They correspond to a 1010, 1200, and 1470. As you approach extrema, the disparities increase. This is a factor in any situation. The whole argument could be answered by a graph of engineering salaries. </p>

<p>And I don't doubt that the best scientists if they so chose, could make much more money, through speaking engagements, working in the private sector, or even writing books. Scientists in general may be so for the knowledge accorded, or the prestige accrued, but rarely for the money. After all, if you wanted money and prestige you could become an engineer (albeit to really meet these goals, you must be quite elite).</p>

<p>For Princeton grads, it may be that their higher productivity do not justify their deserved, higher salary (whatever you think it to be). Therefore, if a Princeton grad wants to take a job, he may have to cut his salary demands; otherwise the employer may take a less promising but less costly grad. If, in investment banking, the banks can, due to circumstances, take only the equivalents of Princeton grads (or better), they will pay whatever is necessary to both attract said Princetonians while remaining profitable. </p>

<p>These are all conjectures of course, but plausible nonetheless.</p>

71

<p>
[quote]
The best receptionist (if you are correct) does not earn that much because they soon advance into other positions. The best receptionist may advance into management or some other occupation within or without the company.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Huh? Almost no receptionist ever advances into other positions. For the most part, receptionists are receptionists forever. They can become 'senior receptionists', but come on. Receptionists are generally not part of the professional ranks of any company. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, some of those jobs you listed have little to no pay scale differentiation because they are unionized.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree that unionization does play a role, but only a small one. The fact is, most jobs out there have little wage stratification. Take a gander at all the 'regular' blue-collar jobs out there (which still constitute the majority of all jobs). The best janitor does not make much more than the average janitor. The best cashier does not make much more than the average cashier. The average bank teller does not make much more than the average bank teller. The best bus driver does not make much more than the average bus driver. </p>

<p>And I would further reiterate that just because you have a college degree does not mean that you will get a cushy job. I've known college grads who have ended up having to work in all of these blue-collar jobs above, as well as many other similar jobs. The US produces 1.3 million new bachelor's degree graduates every year, of which about a million enter the workforce (the rest go to grad school or pursue other interests). But the US does not produce a million new entry-level 'good' college-type jobs every year. Far from it, in fact. That's why you really do see a lot of college grads, especially from lower-tier schools and who majored in unmarketable subjects, ending up taking regular jobs for which a college degree is not necessary. If you graduate with a degree in Leisure Studies from a no-name school, corporate recruiters probably aren't champing at the bit to offer you a cushy job. </p>

<p>
[quote]
For Princeton grads, it may be that their higher productivity do not justify their deserved, higher salary (whatever you think it to be). Therefore, if a Princeton grad wants to take a job, he may have

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's not even about taking a less costly guy. As I said in the other thread, the EE's at Montana Tech actually get paid MORE than the average Princeton grad. Yeah, that's right, MORE. I never heard of Montana Tech until yesterday. But consider this quote from the Montana Tech Career website. </p>

<p>"Electrical Engineering:100% [placement] with an average starting salary of $50,750. Reported salaries range from $45,000 to $55,000.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.mtech.edu/cf_prototypes/admission/programs.php?Program_ID=BSGE%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.mtech.edu/cf_prototypes/admission/programs.php?Program_ID=BSGE&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And obviously I think we can agree that most Montana Tech people are probably going to get jobs around Montana, which is a pretty cheap place to live. A 50k salary in Montana will go pretty darn far, certainly a lot farther than it will in the East where Princeton grads tend to be. </p>

<p>Even ignoring the geographic factor, I would argue that the average Princeton graduate is significantly more productive than the average Montana Tech EE grad. Yet the Montana Tech EE guy will actually get paid MORE. Interesting, isn't it? So what's up with that? Are these engineering firms in Montana being stupid in paying these Montana Tech gradautes too much? Or are these East Coast companies being stupid in paying Princeton grads too little (or maybe it's the Princeton grads themselves who are stupid for not demanding more money)? What's up with that? </p>

<p>I think what is up is that it shows that engineering can be a very good deal for certain people, especially those people who aren't good enough to make it into an elite school. If the best school you can get into is a no-name school, but you get an engineering degree from such a school, you can put yourself right back in the game. Certainly a lot more so than getting some other degree from that no-name school.</p>

72

<p>To reinforce what I've been saying, I just found the data for Michigan Tech. No, not Montana Tech, this is Michigan Tech. Anybody ever heard of Michigan Tech?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.career.mtu.edu/general/s...usalarydata.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.career.mtu.edu/general/s...usalarydata.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Or how about the engineering salaries at Kansas State University?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.k-state.edu/ces/employer/salary.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.k-state.edu/ces/employer/salary.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>How about Oakland University? I never heard of Oakland University before. Apparently, it's not actually in Oakland, CA, but rather is in Rochester, Michigan, and is part of the Michigan State system. Check out the engineering salaries.</p>

<p><a href="http://www2.oakland.edu/careerservi...mmary/stats.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www2.oakland.edu/careerservi...mmary/stats.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>How about the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (New Mexico Tech)? </p>

<p><a href="http://www.nmt.edu/about/facts/grad_salaries.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nmt.edu/about/facts/grad_salaries.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>How about the engineering salaries at Utah State University? </p>

<p><a href="http://www.usu.edu/career/PDF/Salary%20Report0203.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usu.edu/career/PDF/Salary%20Report0203.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p>Here's the University of Memphis.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.people.memphis.edu/%7Euniv...rveyresults.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.people.memphis.edu/~univ...rveyresults.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Ok, I think I can stop now, because my point is proven. People who get engineering degrees from less-than-elite programs nevertheless seem to be doing quite well for themselves. </p>

<p>To make a relative comparison, take a gander at the engineering salaries garnered by Berkeley grads. Berkeley IS an elite engineering school. </p>

<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2004Majors.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2004Majors.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>In particular, while it might seem impressive to see that Berkeley EECS grads are earning about 60k to start (with most of those jobs being in Northern California, which is a very expensive place to live), compare that to the kinds of salaries that other EE's are making. Montana Tech EE's are making 50k, Michigan Tech EE's are making 51.7k, Kansas State EE's are making 51.1k, and Utah State EE's (in the year 2003) were making 48k. </p>

<p>I would argue that the salary difference between Berkeley and those other schools can all be accounted for by simply the differences in cost-of-living. It's cheaper to live in Utah, Montana, Kansas or Michigan than it is to live in NorCal, and most graduates tend to take jobs locally. </p>

<p>In other words, I see little if any true salary premium to be had by going to an elite engineering school like Berkeley over going to a no-name engineering school. And that gets to a point I was making earlier - there seems to be a strong salary compression in the engineering field. Engineering seems to be a very sweet deal for those not-so-strong students at no-name schools. But those who go to star engineering programs do not seem to get much of a star boost. And in fact, from a salary perspective, those who get an engineering degree from a no-name school are often times getting HIGHER salaries than those who go to elite schools but get non-engineering degrees. New Mexico Tech engineers make significantly higher salaries than Princeton art/archaeology grads.</p>

73

<p>Example</p>

<p>My brother is an elite school ChemE grad: Entry-level salary = 50k.
I will graduate in May with a MechE degree from a no-name school. I used to attend the same elite school but transferred down the food chain. My salary will be 52k and I will live in a place with similar cost-of-living expenses.</p>

74

<p>Sakky, I agree that there are numerous fields where the star boost does not exist or where the top talent is not rewarded for their productivity. But is it really fair to compare engineering jobs to receptionist jobs. How much can a receptionist help a company. Will a receptionist that is twenty times better make a company even 2 times better. I doubt it. On the other hand, I do think that in certain industries, having top engineers can in fact improve a company tremendously. So is the case simply that at these types of companies, efforts are made to go after and reward the top talent whereas at engineering companies where better engineers do not significantly improve proftits, there is less salary premium for the stars.</p>

75

<p>"Still, some remain sceptical about medical tourism's potential. Sumanjit Chaudhry, an executive at India's Max Healthcare group, says: "I imagine if someone is sick and ill they won't want to have a holiday. You'll hardly see a guy who comes here for heart surgery leaping off and going to the beach." </p>

<p>Sakky, the above is from your OWN source showing skepticism about medical tourism on a significant scale! I don't think you have much of a ground to stand on.....
...the fact is, even if someone assumes your argument about "engineering oursourcing" = "medical tourism" to be true, the <strong>SCALE</strong> of engineering outsourcing is much, much larger than med-tourism! Your point is totally minimized.....if someone is taking about trilliions of dollars, and you argue about chump change, you're going to sound ignorant...I'm sorry, that's the truth. Show me the percentages like you SHOULD be doing, instead of bringing up one-off articles that end up taking my side, as the one above did.</p>

76

<p>"Are you an engineer or something? You seem to be trying awfully hard to keep competition out of the engineering field."</p>

<p>....yeah, right! There's already an ocean of competition...what's a few more buckets? I'm headed for the safe green pastures of a MD degree, or a DDS degree.</p>

<p>Smart doesn't mean squat in engineering after you're 30 -- you're going to get paid the same as everyone else....between 90k-110k long term in the bay area. Someone brought up that their husband makes 130k...that may be the case for a short while until he's laid off, after which he's going to start from scratch.</p>

77

<p>I am afraid that no one is immune from the market forces described above. HMOs have been deflating physicians incomes for over a decade. Malpractice insurance and aggressive Health Plans are eroding the viablity of the rest. Even the New York Stock Exchange is finding itself vulnerable to the effects of competition. </p>

<p>The medical and legal professions still might be the safest havens around today, but isn't a better long term strategy to become an expert at storm navigation?</p>

78

<p>
[quote]
that may be the case for a short while until he's laid off, after which he's going to start from scratch.

[/quote]

This phenomenon is not unique to engineering. In all non-unionized jobs (ie, exclude teachers who will eventually earn nearly 100k for 9 months of work, no matter how good or bad they are), the higher you climb on the ladder, the higher your risk. As you take on more responsibility and get paid more, you naturally are a target in times of financial difficulty or of management changes. If something doesn't go right, you are responsible. As upper management comes and goes, new managers bring their own people with them. It's a trade-off: higher salary for job security. I've personally seen this happen in both the financial and medical industries, as well as in engineering.</p>

<p>On second thought, maybe we should all go into teaching!</p>

<p>PS - Before anyone thinks I am teacher-bashing, I want to say that I am not. My kids have had some wonderful teachers over the years. Done well, it is a difficult job.</p>

79

<p>Teachers don't make $100,000 a year.</p>

80

<p>If y'all want to talk about outsourcing, please take it to another thread.</p>