<p>This is one link concerning obsetricians qutting due to liability insurance.</p>
<p>Suing a doctor may not lead to loss of liscense, aehmo, bankrupting them is just as effective</p>
<p>And I don't know any practicing physician who finds their work at all 'easy day to day'. If you find the specialization these doctors have missed, please tell me and I'll join you!:)</p>
<p>But, red_dragone, this link is is not generally true...it's talking specifically about one obsetrician in Enid, Oklahoma. Small towns are always short on doctors....it looks like the greedy doctor quit from Enid and probably went to where he could get a fat wad of cash.</p>
<p>Here is a quote
"Id probably be out there looking like the other physicians in town, said Dr. Weaver. Id be looking to get the heck out of here."</p>
<p>-- they just want to leave the small town, that's all. They're never going to leave the field though!!!</p>
<p>"Suing a doctor may not lead to loss of liscense, aehmo, bankrupting them is just as effective"</p>
<p>Well, in low risk practices such as derm or IM, the chances for a lawsuit are very low, and you always have insurance as a safety net....the med-mal insurance is only $15,000 in the case of IM......and doctors still make out like bandits after paying medmal.</p>
<p>Similar articles are available for a variety of different states. Simply do a google search and a pleathora of articles are available concerning physicians fleeing high liability insurance rates</p>
<p>Dermatology is a VERY difficult specialization to break into due to its popularity, but yes that is probably the least stressful one possible. But remember that a derm has to see LOTS more patients than, say a plastic surgeon, to make the same amount of money. That's a lot of running around with a lot of people, mostly children and their harrassed mothers. So even that has its price.</p>
<p>I don't know what IM stands for so I can't really comment on it:P</p>
<p>
[quote]
I better quit and let sakky lead them into corporate engineering instead...why am I stiring up competition for myself?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm leading people into engineering? Oh really? I don't think I'm leading anybody into anything.</p>
<p>My position has always been consistent. I never said engineering was perfect. However, I would argue that engineering is more marketable than the vast majority of other bachelor's degrees you can get, and engineers have it better than the vast majority of other people out there. All the problems that you cite with engineering are endemic to millions of other corporate jobs as well. And at least the engineer can get a corporate job. Plenty of other people with college degrees can't even do that. Like I said, what exactly is the guy with a Leisure Studies bachelor's degree from a no-name school going to do? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I guess I'm confident about getting into med school so I don't mind a little bit of competition.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You better be REALLY confident. I caution every premed to think about what they are going to do if they don't get in. Even Harvard has only a 90% premed placement rate.</p>
<p>If nothing else, you must admit that engineering is a good backup degree to have.</p>
<p>sakky, since you perpetually ask what other college degree is better to have than an engineering degree. well of course besides all the other medically related fields that are supremely less prone to outsourcing relative to engineering. i tell u once again, NURSING. (unionized jobs)</p>
<p>remember that 11 page debate a few months back, where after 10 pages u went full circle and tried to reiterate your points that i already nullified w/my own examples and links.</p>
<p>people please look at the above link, it covers the debate between myself and sakky. </p>
<p>these are off the top of my head the flaws that i see in sakky's recommendations for going into engineering ( i have many more that are in the above link)</p>
<ol>
<li><p>essentially he compares engineering with "art history and film studies " which is like comparing the benefits of eating pizza vs. a tub of lard. since when do ppl regard "art history and film studies " as a mainstream career option. he's doing a strawman fallacy here. something he does in every post.</p></li>
<li><p>when somebody mentions a professional degree such as medicine, dentistyr, or optometry, he will mention medical outsourcing, since when has medical outsourcing grown to even remotely near the level of engineering outsorucing (in case u don't know, it has not). </p></li>
<li><p>then he mentions the possibilities of going into invesetment banking, medical school, law & etc... from engineering. sure it's possible if you're a super star and coming from an elite university w/stellar grades(i.e. mit, caltech, berkeley) again since engineering is so incredibly tough the numbers going into those professions are much lower due to their admissions based on gpa. again when he mentions that google, microsoft and i banking consultants are hiring engineers, these are the elite of the elite, so it should not be mentioned.<br>
you can not use the possiblity of ibanking, med school, etc.. as a reason for choosing engineering if it only applies to like say 2% of the engineering graduates. that is just pure b.s. and deliberately misleading.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>again look at the above link for more of my concrete examples</p>
<p>if u got more questions i will reply when i have time.</p>
<p>my take is that ppl should choose engineering IF AND ONLY IF they have an extreme passion for engineering and would be extremely miserable w/out it. they must know full well the trends for outsourcing that is already in place. know full well that u may not have a job after ur mid thirties by which time u may have a mortage and a family to support.</p>
<p>again nursing offers almost all the opportunities as engineering if ur looking at it as a stepping stone into other careers.
with nursing u can go into medical school, law school, or an mba program.
i would also assume since nursing is not that terribly difficult relative to engineering, u can complete a double major in liberal arts w/out too much difficulty to brush up on ur reading & writing skills and overall enrichment.</p>
<p>also sakky mentions that engineering is a solid backup career w/only a 4 yr bachelors degree.<br>
ask ur self this how long do u think u can hold an engineering job w/just a 4 yr degree. i can guarantee that u will need at master's to stay competitive after a few more yrears on the work force. u want to progress a little bit more u better get an mba. </p>
<p>compare this with accounting, it seems relatively similar, get ur 4 yr acct. degree, work a bit, get ur cpa , or mba. relatively similar pay w/ engineering (possibly more) and have more free time in college. </p>
<p>sakky thinks it is not fair to compare engineering w/ pharmacy, medical professions and etc. because the others require more schooling,
i think IT IS FAIR, cause they are sort of similar in regards to the amount of schooling and training it requires to stay competitive and employed.
like i said before, there aren't going to be any new engineering graduates that will stay employed with only a 4 yr degree. they WILL have to get grad. degrees and more training to remain employed.
so from now on don't tell ppl that oh engineering will offer good solid employemetn directly after graduation w/ only a 4 yr degree if ur gonna get laid off after 7 yrs because u don't have a master's or you're unwilling to take a paycut cuz of the outsroucing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A recent report from Forrester Research projected that as many as 3.3 million American white collar tech jobs will go to overseas workers by 2015.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>(in case ur not too bright while reading my post, this is meant for people who do not have a passion for engineering but considering it because of the ALLEGED "job security and temporary highER starting salary compared to other 4 yr degrees".</p>
<p>
[quote]
in case ur not too bright while reading my post
[/quote]
</p>
<p>this disclosure was not meant for sakky, but for all the other inept and belligerent readers who are quick to harp on my facts and reasoning with their own anecdotal experiences w/out truly comprehending the crux of my post. </p>
<p>again all u engineers who spent most of ur careersduring the 60's to the late 90's don't come and tell us engineering is all roses cuz ur working conditions are day and night when compared to recent graduates.</p>
<p>unggio, your points make a lot of sense, and I can tell that you know your stuff from a REALITY standpoing....sakky likes to argue minutia and loses focus on the big items.</p>
<p>I honestly think sakky is a doctor himself -- he's just being greedy and doesn't want anybody else to become one.</p>
<p>I presonally never realized that the "great career" / "bad career" polarization about engineering could be as passionate as, for example, the abortion debate. However, it's clear that we're not seeing the middle ground of the debate which I'm sure actually exists in practice. Allow me to add a different slant to my prior lengthy post....</p>
<p>When I entered engineering, I actually thought that if I did some nifty developments and truly excelled, I would be rewarded in both compensation and rate-of-progression through the corporate structure. My immediate boss seemed to agree with this sentiment, as he nominated me for "Fellow Engineer" at Westinghouse at the 7 year point in my career (see prior post on quick summary of accomplishments). When the advancement committee reviewed the nomination, they asked how many years I had been a "Senior-A" engineer, and when they found out it had been 4 years (plus 3 years at "Senior-B"), they essentially threw out the nomination and said "Come back in about 10 years." As you would infer, the salary range for "Senior-A" at the time (mid-80's) was about $4K - 6K per month, whereas the range for "Fellow" was about 7K - 10K per month. These are written ranges which appear on the annual salary summary sheet given to the employee. It simply didn't matter what I had accomplished, they would not, nor will any other company operating under the hammer of an HR department, simply bump me up such a large distance. It was clear that this company was essentially structured the same as the military venue I had departed - namely advancement depends mostly on "time in rank", with a very small modifier for individual accomplishment.</p>
<p>It would appear that many of the posters on this thread are unaware that the salary increases for a given department (group) of engineers, on an annualized basis, is mostly set by an assigned budget from corporate. This overall "merit increase" budget is allotted across the group, such that any individual receiving a LARGE increase must specifically have that increase offset by a SHORTFALL to some other person. For this reason, it is largely impossible to break out very far from the assigned percentage for the year. It took about a decade for me to realize that my increases were not really getting ahead of inflation, especially since the "merit increase" pool is in fact determined by inflation. Again, please read the Dilbert cartoons at every opportunity - they're humorous, but factually accurate, and I have seen several dozen dealing with lack of salary and advancement differentiation.</p>
<p>For those of you that argue that job satisfaction is not necessarily tied to wages, I AGREE!!!!! You're right! No debate there. I would simply propose that if you're an achiever, you will feel a recurring "resentment" if I might call it that, by your inability to achieve differentiation from the rest of the pack, many of whom are very senior and keeping their heads down to avoid any right-sizing event which might appear.</p>
<p>Now, my final point of this post which simply cannot be argued at all, regardless of any rants by Sakky and similar ilk is this -- if you're an Engineer, you're a W-2 wage earner for some big company (some consultants may be 1099's). If you're any of the other PROFESSIONALS that I and others have mentionned, you're a 1020-S tax filer, or a Schedule C filer, or some other incorporated entity and you're not spending your day praying that the hammer doesn't drop. You're earning your pay via your pool of several hundred "customers" probably dozens of times per day. If you can't comprehend, or don't appreciate, that fundamental difference between the supposed "professional" field of engineering and all other PROFESSIONALS, none of the postings on this thread are going to change your mind.</p>
<p>In general, if you're a bit "chicken" to go out there and take your shot immersed in the economy as a true PROFESSIONAL, you will probably find engineering to be a somewhat stable, somewhat rewarding, somewhat satisfying, usually interesting career.</p>
<p>BTW, I'm a licensed PE in Ohio -- Did you know that engineering is the only profession I've ever heard of where there is a licensing infrastructure which is not enforced whatsoever? [Exception: Civil Engineer working for municipality.] You can practice engineering your whole career and never get a PE license. Try THAT with Pharmacy!!!!</p>
<p>Finally, to the couple posters noting that they, or their husband, or some other relative is on top of the world making $135K or whatever, please have the integrity, even if several years in the future, to post again when that gravy train derails. If you don't think it ever will.........hmmm....</p>
<p>Thanks for that informative and personal post, OH-DAD. I appreciate your experienced and moderate opinion. My son in currently a freshman in engineering, but has freely told his advisor that his ultimate interest is probably law school. Most of his fellow classmates think he is nuts (I hope not).</p>
<p>My retired dad was an engineer for Westinghouse, too. I think that engineers were treated better years ago. He got frequent promotions and raises, and was one of the last group to retire very handsomely. Even guys 10 years younger got alot less. Maybe engineering is just not what it used to be.</p>
<p>I have to interject a comment about pharmacists, as I have been one for many years. We do need to be licensed and have mandatory continuing education, but one thing is the same as engineers. There is really nowhere to go up the ladder, unless you have your own business, get an MBA for management or get a JD for health law. It is very hard to distinguish yourself in a typical retail or hospital job and everyone gets paid nearly the same no matter what kind of job they do. Minor salary increases depend mostly on your years of employment. There are some small merit increases, but it is budgeted ahead of time, and there is only so much to go around. That leads to alot of frustration in the ranks, just as you mentioned with engineers.</p>
<p>i've personally spoken with people at good state schools who were initially pre-med students and now cannot go to med. school or another grad. school. I spoke to a girl who had a 2.9 GPA as a biochem major and now she's essentially looking at really low pay jobs. I spoke to a guy who has a 2.8 as a chem. major and now is going to be working in construction. Let me tell you right now - majoring in an engineering major can give you a solid back up career and you do NOT want to face the other extremity /risk of getting a low gpa as a non-tech. major. Because if that happens, your life is over. With engineering, you can still build a solid career overtime (getting an mba in the future and then going back to work) - it gives you a bridge to effectively develop and build a career off of.</p>
<p>
[quote]
With engineering, you can still build a solid career overtime
[/quote]
</p>
<p>maybe, but if ur looking for a backup, why not choose nursing?</p>
<p>there is a defnite demand and expected continuing shortage of nurses in the immediate and near future. ( i gave links in earlier posts)</p>
<p>those premeds who got a 2.9 in biochem and won't get into med school are honestly just stupid or partied too much. i am not trying to be mean, but i have friends who are premeds at uc davis, they're doing pretty well around a 3.5 gpa (these are just average students who work hard, they're not geniuses)</p>
<p>i will reiterate once again, nursing is FOR SURE a great backup plan in case u can't reach ur higher ambitions of medical school,law, optometry, dentistry and etc.....</p>
<p>engineering is MUCH MUCH LESS secure as a backup plan compared with nursing.</p>
<p>also there is a significant flaw in ur reasoning about engineering mba's.</p>
<p>to be a manager u must have ppl to manage, correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe most managers mangae about at least 10-15 ppl per team. out of 10 employed engineers only one will make it into management, the rest will be replaced by younger indian & chinese counterparts.</p>
<p>so ARE YOU THAT 1 in 10?</p>
<p>just face it, engineering is not hte same as it used to be.</p>
<p>BUMP i am awaiting ur responses sakky</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky, since you perpetually ask what other college degree is better to have than an engineering degree. well of course besides all the other medically related fields that are supremely less prone to outsourcing relative to engineering. i tell u once again, NURSING. (unionized jobs)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We did go through this debate ad-nauseum and I think I made my points pretty clear. To wit:</p>
<p>You say that nursing is unionized. I would reiterate that only SOME nursing jobs are unionized. There are plenty of nurses that do not belong to a union. </p>
<p>Also, compare the pay of a typical nurse to that of a typical engineer.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos031.htm#earnings%5B/url%5D">http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos031.htm#earnings</a></p>
<p>Now I agree that some nurses make substantially more than what the BLS says. But on a nationwide basis, you can see that engineers make about 1/3 more than do nurses, unless you want to take the position that the BLS is lying. </p>
<p>
[quote]
1. essentially he compares engineering with "art history and film studies " which is like comparing the benefits of eating pizza vs. a tub of lard. since when do ppl regard "art history and film studies " as a mainstream career option. he's doing a strawman fallacy here. something he does in every post.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It applies to every single other non-professional degree as well. Let's talk about Leisure Studies. Let's talk about "Parks & Rec". Keep in mind that more Americans get degrees in Parks & Rec than they do in EE. Let's talk about the traditional liberal arts like English, History, Polisci, Psychology, and all that. All of these have great difficulty competing with a professional degree like engineering when it comes to salary. Hence, I think you have to concede that engineering is a more marketable degree than at least 95% of all the other bachelor's degrees out there. </p>
<p>
[quote]
2. when somebody mentions a professional degree such as medicine, dentistyr, or optometry, he will mention medical outsourcing, since when has medical outsourcing grown to even remotely near the level of engineering outsorucing (in case u don't know, it has not).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody ever said the medical outsourcing is as extensive as engineering outsourcing, at least not right now. But the point is, you can't say that it doesn't happen at all. Let's move beyond that false trope. </p>
<p>
[quote]
then he mentions the possibilities of going into invesetment banking, medical school, law & etc... from engineering. sure it's possible if you're a super star and coming from an elite university w/stellar grades(i.e. mit, caltech, berkeley) again since engineering is so incredibly tough the numbers going into those professions are much lower due to their admissions based on gpa. again when he mentions that google, microsoft and i banking consultants are hiring engineers, these are the elite of the elite, so it should not be mentioned.
you can not use the possiblity of ibanking, med school, etc.. as a reason for choosing engineering if it only applies to like say 2% of the engineering graduates. that is just pure b.s. and deliberately misleading.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, hello, don't you see the fallacy here? I agree that engineers have difficulty getting into med-school or law school (although not banking or consulting, because those companies seem to hire lots of engineers anyway despite low GPA). But the point is - plenty of normal people have trouble getting into med-school or law school. Hence, engineering serves as insurance to make sure you get something. You can go choose an easy (but not marketable) degree, and STILL end up not getting into med school or law school. If that happens, what are you going to do now? </p>
<p>
[quote]
you can not use the possiblity of ibanking, med school, etc.. as a reason for choosing engineering if it only applies to like say 2% of the engineering graduates. that is just pure b.s. and deliberately misleading.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then to follow that logic, you cannot say that everybody should just go and be a doctor, not when only a tiny fraction of people actually do. Like I said, there are 1.3 million new US college grads every year, but only about 16000 new matriculants into US medical schools every year, which is literally about a 1.5% of the total number of grads. You know and I know that most people who try for premed never get into med-school, either because they apply and can't get in anywhere, or they don't even make it to the application stage (because they get bad grades or bad test scores and hence know they can't get in). </p>
<p>
[quote]
my take is that ppl should choose engineering IF AND ONLY IF they have an extreme passion for engineering and would be extremely miserable w/out it. they must know full well the trends for outsourcing that is already in place. know full well that u may not have a job after ur mid thirties by which time u may have a mortage and a family to support.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And you keep banging on this point, but you never embrace what it logically means. You should not be picking on engineers. You should be picking on ALL PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT PREPARING THEMESELvES FOR PROFESSIONAL CAREERS. You ask me not to talk about Art or Film majors. Fine. Then let's talk about all those Physics majors, all those Mathematics majors, all those English majors, all those PoliSci majors. What about them? Not all of them go to law school or med-school. In fact, only a small percentage of them do. Aren't these people also going to have a family and a mortgage to worry about?</p>
<p>Hey, I never said that engineering is great. But at least it's a professional degree that can get you a more decent salary than can a PoliSci degree, or the vast majority of other degrees out there. </p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky thinks it is not fair to compare engineering w/ pharmacy, medical professions and etc. because the others require more schooling,
i think IT IS FAIR, cause they are sort of similar in regards to the amount of schooling and training it requires to stay competitive and employed.
like i said before, there aren't going to be any new engineering graduates that will stay employed with only a 4 yr degree. they WILL have to get grad. degrees and more training to remain employed.
so from now on don't tell ppl that oh engineering will offer good solid employemetn directly after graduation w/ only a 4 yr degree if ur gonna get laid off after 7 yrs because u don't have a master's or you're unwilling to take a paycut cuz of the outsroucing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See, it's the same thing. You keep banging on the engineers and you say that they will need more schooling or they will lose their job. Well, what about the guy who majored in PoliSci? What about the guy who majored in English? What about all those people? How employable are them? Those people comprise the vast majority of college grads out there. Why aren't you picking on them? </p>
<p>At least the engineer did something to prepare himself for a professional career. Maybe you can say that he didn't do enough. But he did more than the vast majority of other people out there. </p>
<p>
[quote]
compare this with accounting, it seems relatively similar, get ur 4 yr acct. degree, work a bit, get ur cpa , or mba. relatively similar pay w/ engineering (possibly more) and have more free time in college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And why wouldn't you be able to similarly get your MBA after you've gotten your engineering degree? This is basically the same road as getting your accounting degree and then getting your MBA.</p>
<p>Oh, and trust me, accounting is no walk in the park. </p>
<p>
[quote]
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain596221.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain596221.shtml</a></p>
<p>(in case ur not too bright while reading my post, this is meant for people who do not have a passion for engineering but considering it because of the ALLEGED "job security and temporary highER starting salary compared to other 4 yr degrees".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And you are only proving my point further. Most white-collar jobs are not held by engineers, but are in fact held by those English, Poli-Sci, History, Psychology, etc. people. Those guys are getting outsourced too. Which gets to my basic point - I don't understand why you constantly pick on engineers, but you say nothing about the vast majority of other grads out there, who I would argue are in far worse position than the engineers are. Why is that? </p>
<p>
[quote]
those premeds who got a 2.9 in biochem and won't get into med school are honestly just stupid or partied too much. i am not trying to be mean, but i have friends who are premeds at uc davis, they're doing pretty well around a 3.5 gpa (these are just average students who work hard, they're not geniuses)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would strongly hesitate to generalize in this fashion. I think it depends on the school. I know people at extremely difficult schools like Caltech with bad grades who are nonetheless workaholic geniuses. Honestly, unggio83, do you think you could go to Caltech and pull a 2.9? I don't think I could. I would argue that most people here on this discussion board could not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, my final point of this post which simply cannot be argued at all, regardless of any rants by Sakky and similar ilk is this -- if you're an Engineer, you're a W-2 wage earner for some big company (some consultants may be 1099's). If you're any of the other PROFESSIONALS that I and others have mentionned, you're a 1020-S tax filer, or a Schedule C filer, or some other incorporated entity and you're not spending your day praying that the hammer doesn't drop. You're earning your pay via your pool of several hundred "customers" probably dozens of times per day. If you can't comprehend, or don't appreciate, that fundamental difference between the supposed "professional" field of engineering and all other PROFESSIONALS, none of the postings on this thread are going to change your mind.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And this only gets back to what I've been saying to unggio83. You guys are constanty banging at engineering. Why? You talk about how you don't get paid what you're worth, that your careers are Dilbert-like, and all of these problems. Yet you all don't address the basic point which is that the VAST MAJORITY of jobs out there are like that. </p>
<p>At least as an engineer, you have a professional career path set in front of you, with a decent (not stellar, but decent) salary in front of you. The vast majority of college grads don't even have that. Keep in mind what most people major in. They major in the traditional liberal arts, like History or Engish or Polisci or Mathematics or Physics or these sorts of things. Or they major in 'new-age' stuff like Parks & Rec or 'American Studies' or 'Peace and Conflict Studies' or Leisure Studies. You might say that engineers don't have it great, but I would ask - great relative to what? What exactly do all these other college grads end up doing? Not all of them end up going to law school or med school or these other professional career tracks. In fact, only a small minority do. </p>
<p>The point is, I don't think you are placing things in the proper perspective. I have been the first to state that engineering as a career path has its issues. But I still maintain that the engineering degree is more marketable than the vast majority of all other bachelor's degrees you can get out there, especially all those liberal arts degrees, and I would argue that it is at least the equivalent of nursing or accounting. </p>
<p>And in fact, like I said, I think the majors with the most serious problems are the natural science and mathematics majors. You guys talk about how engineering is grade deflated which hurts your chances of getting into med or law school. True. On the other hand, the natural science and mathematics majors are ALSO grade deflated. And they don't even give you a professional career path. So, really, to be fair, if we should be picking on particular majors, it should be those.</p>
<p>
[quote]
engineering is MUCH MUCH LESS secure as a backup plan compared with nursing.</p>
<p>also there is a significant flaw in ur reasoning about engineering mba's.</p>
<p>to be a manager u must have ppl to manage, correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe most managers mangae about at least 10-15 ppl per team. out of 10 employed engineers only one will make it into management, the rest will be replaced by younger indian & chinese counterparts.</p>
<p>so ARE YOU THAT 1 in 10?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's funny you would say that, but yet you flippantly say that people can just get an accounting degree and then get their MBA. Wouldn't the same logic apply? After all, you get your MBA after you do accounting, and you need people to manage, so why aren't you asking those accountants whether they can be that 1 in 10?</p>
<p>And in fact, I would argue that your logic is incorrect. You do not need people to manage in order to have a meaningful management job. Plenty of MBA's enter consulting or banking, where they manage nobody (at least, starting out). I'm not even talking about big-league management consulting or banking. There are plenty of non-elite consulting and banking firms that scoop up plenty of MBA's. While you don't make as much money as you would in the big leagues, you also don't have to work as hard. </p>
<p>And then there are plenty of companies that hire MBA's for advisory positions, which are basically like internal consultants and bankers. These guys also tend to manage few people, sometimes none, and are being used for their management knowledge and experience, not so much because they are actually managing anybody.</p>
<p>Sakky, you have oh_dad, uggio, myself and 1-2 others that seem to be pwning all your arguments...</p>
<p>.....some would say that you are shameless for trying to keep people out of the highly coveted medical field. It's not hard for good students to get into the field, as long as they're not lied to by people like you.</p>
<p>Who says that I am telling people not to go into medicine? In fact, I have said myself that the top engineers can and do go into medicine.</p>
<p>And besides, I seem to have people supporting me. So you have your supporters, and I have mine. So what's your point? </p>
<p>You also say that I am lying. Shall I report you to the moderators?</p>
<p>"You also say that I am lying. Shall I report you to the moderators?"</p>
<p>You are definitely misrepresenting how rosy engineering is...feel free to report to your hearts content. The mods can follow my trail of postings and make up their own minds about who's been misrepresenting versus telling the truth.</p>
<p>I am misrepresenting how engineering is? Sure, look bacl through all of our trail of postings and people should make up their own minds. </p>
<p>My position has been consistent. Engineering is better than the vast majority of other jobs out there a guy with just a bachelor's degree can get. Let's keep in mind that the vast majority of those jobs out there are really bad. Furthermore, an engineering degree is more marketable than the vast majority of other undergrad degrees you can get. In short, if you think that engineers are having career difficulties, how do you think all the English, History, Mathematics, and Poli-Sci people are doing with their careers?</p>
<p>I think these are points that even you, unggio83, and Oh_Dad will concede.</p>
<p>Let's get the discussion back on track - "Is there an engineering shortage or not?". I think we've beaten the comparative merits or demerits of the field to death.</p>