How do you become "rich" as an EE major?

<p>I'm talking at least $150,000 per year (relevant to right now) at any x amount of time after bachelors/masters/PhD. From what I've heard, engineers kick off with a pretty high salary regardless of whichever degree, but cannot seem to raise that salary proportionally as the years pass and the work experience racks up. Can you guys offer some ways how an EE major can earn a high salary (equivalent to what upper class people like doctors/lawyers would earn)?</p>

<p>These are some possible ways I was thinking of (though I am not sure if they are entirely correct):</p>

<p>Bachelor--->MBA Master--->Consulting?
Bachelor--->MBA Master--->try to become CEO?
Bachelor--->Master--->PhD--->Full-time Professor at a prestigious school?</p>

<p>I raise this question because I don't want to major in law/medicine/business, but do have an interest in engineering. It's just that I also want to be upper class when I grow up (not super rich, but definitely well-off in terms of standard of living).</p>

<p>Bachelor --> found a startup --> startup is wildly successful --> drop out from Bachelor --> startup gets IPO or acquired --> become filthy rich. --> found another startup or invest your money and just retire before 30. :D</p>

<p>I'm not sure professors make that much money. You could try out for a gig in consulting, then get them to pay for your MBA, and move up the ranks. You can also do stuff like Investment Banking, which opens doors for a lot of money.</p>

<p>But seriously, money isn't that important. You should enjoy what you do. Engineers can definitely live comfortably on their salaries.</p>

<p>Well, one of the co-founders of TIVO was an EE major. Maybe you could follow that career path. ;)</p>

<p>...paging sakky...</p>

<p>Sakky would say, and is correct that, if you want to major in engineering and be rich, go into investment banking as soon as you leave school. His tips on how to get there are going to be far superior to mine.</p>

<p>That being said... You <em>might</em> get to $150K/year as an electrical engineer, but that's if you're best in your field and if you work your tail off until you retire. You might not have a ton of time to actually enjoy your pay. Might want to shoot for something you can enjoy that you'll end up making a comfortable living with. </p>

<p>My husband the doctoral-candidate-and-future-professor says that you can't get rich being a professor.</p>

<p>You could also major in electrical engineering and then become a moviestar. Just sayin'.</p>

<p>150K/year is easily possible in technical managerial positions.</p>

<p>Actually, yeah, Payne's spot-on. I was thinkin' <em>I</em> might get to $150K/year as a structural. ;) With electrical engineering, $150K's fairly doable, just don't go gettin' greedy and think you'll end up with half a mil. =)</p>

<p>And really, if one is a programmer. 150k/year might even be doable - not in a managerial position.</p>

<p>I think it really depends a lot on luck, what kind of job you get into, etc. For example, my brother in law got his masters from USC... did something with electrical engineering... and was making around 130,000 in california, now he came here to Chicago and is working in a finance company (even though he did electrical engineering) and is making over 250,000.</p>

<p>However, there are others who did the same major/degrees, barely making 60,000. So its all a matter of luck.</p>

<p>Just know that if you're going into engineering and you're good at what you do, you'll be fine. And consider that if you ENJOY what you're doing, you don't have to 'work' a single day of your life.</p>

<p>You can get rich as a professor, just not by... professing.</p>

<p>A good number of engineering and applied science profs spin-off their research into companies. </p>

<p>Your best bet to get rich as any sort of engineer is probably IB, like sakky would say. After that, would be either founding/joining a startup that becomes successful or inventing something lucrative and getting a patent on it.</p>

<p>this is my kinda thread ($$$$$$$$) i have been thinking bout this since high school.</p>

<p>My friend got a job 2 weeks ago. Hey starts at 65K and he said they "promised" him a sex figure salary with 3-4 years. Its a non tech job government job. He rejected offers from NAVAIR and ConEd, they were in the low 60s as well. SO yeah, EEs can make money.. but you cant drive the red ferrari you see on Fifth Gear...</p>

<p>merper- that's less being a professor than being an expert, prolly. ;)</p>

<p>greenvision- you should proofread before posting.</p>

<p>LOL, I messed up the "figures" lol.</p>

<p>What's a sex figure salary?</p>

<p>you tell me.</p>

<p>Sounds like a good deal, whatever it is.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Sakky would say, and is correct that, if you want to major in engineering and be rich, go into investment banking as soon as you leave school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I would say that if you want to take a shot at becoming truly rich, I would recommend you take a shot at entrepreneurship, akin to what pearlygate said. Heck, you may not even need to finish your degree. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison - all of these guys dropped out of college.</p>

<p>If your company fails (and most startups do fail), oh well, then you can just go back to school. Or start another company. For example, Microsoft is not Bill Gates's first startup, nor is Apple Steve Jobs's first startup. </p>

<p>You can also start a firm after you graduate. In the worst case scenario, you will go broke in a few years. But so what? Most 24-year-olds are broke. Given that you put a bonafide effort into your startup, you will have learned a heck of a lot about business and that's something that will pay dividends throughout your career. You will have learned what doesn't work and what businesses should not do, and you will therefore have become a far better decision maker. </p>

<p>Nor do you even need to have a killer idea when you start your company. This is a myth that is perpetrated by the media (and by corporate public relations departments). The truth is, most firms do not start out with the product that ultimately makes them successful. Instead, they iterate, via a process of learning, towards a product that ultimately makes them big. For example, Microsoft's first product was not an operating system. It was a programming language interpreter (an interpreter of BASIC for the now defunct MIPS Altair). Apple's first product (the Apple I) was indeed a PC, but a highly primitive one at that, and only about 200 of them were ultimately produced. Hence, it was hardly a blockbuster product. But it provided Apple with enough cash flow and engineering experience to develop the supremely successful Apple II which sold in the millions, and then later the even more successful Macintosh, the Ipod, etc. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Well, one of the co-founders of TIVO was an EE major. Maybe you could follow that career path.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Tivo actually illustrates my point. Their first product was not a DVR. It was network connected kitchen appliances (i.e. Internet-enabled refrigerators). </p>

<p>I talk about investment banking simply because I have noted the increasing popularity of Ibanking within the top engineering schools (i.e. MIT, Stanford, etc.) Ibanking can indeed earn you a very high pay packet to start, although clearly not as much as joining a successful startup. </p>

<p>
[quote]
My husband the doctoral-candidate-and-future-professor says that you can't get rich being a professor.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm with merper68 on this one: you can indeed becoming extremely rich as a professor, just not by professing. For example, Amar Bose, the long-time Professor of EECS at MIT (now emeritus) is worth about $2 billion from starting Bose Corporation (the audio equipment company). Basically, Bose Corporation is the vehicle by which Amar Bose commercialized his research that he did as a young MIT assistant prof. Similarly, Henry Samueli, (at the time) assistant professor of EE at UCLA, cofounded Broadcom with his grad student, Henry Nicholas. The "two Henry's" are now both billionaires. In fact, Samueli donated so much of his wealth back to UCLA that it renamed the engineering school the "Henry Samueli School of Engineering". He's still a professor there. Imagine how strange it must feel to be a professor at a school that is actually named after you. </p>

<p>Nor can you get rich as a professor only by founding a startup to commercialize your research. You can also get rich by starting your own engineering consulting firm. There are numerous profs at MIT (and presumably also at Stanford, Berkeley, etc.) who do extensive consulting on the side. I know of one MIT prof who charges in the thousands of dollars an hour for his consulting services (largely as an expert witness in court testimony regarding defective product engineering/personal injury cases). Granted, he'll never become a billionaire like Amar Bose, but he'll still make a very very nice packet. Similarly, I can think of several profs who are partners in venture capital or private equity firms. </p>

<p>
[quote]
merper- that's less being a professor than being an expert, prolly

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree, but they're also part and parcel to each other. Their status as professors provides them the expert imprimatur. Very few people are going to question the technical knowledge of an engineering professor. In the words, those professors are basically using their professor status as an 'advertisement' to market their other services.</p>

<p>As a case in point, I am sure that when Broadcom went hunting for venture capital funding, it used the fact that that one of its founders was a UCLA engineering professor as a major selling point to convince the VC's to invest in them and not some other startup. </p>

<p>Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think that professors view their academic status as useful only for advertising purposes. Most profs obviously truly enjoy their jobs. It is in fact a quite nice job. But the point is, it also has an important additional benefit, which is its marketability. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Bachelor--->Master--->PhD--->Full-time Professor at a prestigious school?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, if you become a full professor, especially at a top school, you don't really need to become rich anyway, for the truth is, once you get tenure, you're unfireable. You have a job for life (that is, presuming you don't do something foolish like steal from the university). And it's a job by which you have immense control over your own schedule, as the academic year is only about 32 weeks out of the year. {While most profs will use the extra time to conduct research, if you're tenured, you don't really have to do research if you don't want to.} Hence, while you can still become rich through the methods I mentioned above, the truth is, you don't have to. You can instead just choose to enjoy life, pursuing the research that most interests you. That is the real reason to become a prof.</p>

<p>Yup. It's a nice gig, but in many fields it's tough to get... Engineering's considerably easier to find a good tenure-track position in than, say, music composition, which my husband's in. His major chance of striking it big is to write an Oscar-winning score like John Corigliano of Julliard. (I've recommended that he do this. ;) )</p>

<p>Caveat: there can be a lot of politics and drama involved in academia. If you're cool with that, then you're okay, but drama drives me nuts.</p>

<p>Well, at least you'll be the breadwinner.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Caveat: there can be a lot of politics and drama involved in academia. If you're cool with that, then you're okay, but drama drives me nuts.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know that there really are more politics involved in academia so much as the politics are 'compressed', for, as I said above, once you get tenure, you have a job for life. Hence, if and when you reach that point, politics just doesn't matter very much. True, I suppose you could get stuck with the worst teaching assignments or the worst offices if your political skills are poor. But still, the stakes are pretty low. It doesn't really matter very much because they can never get rid of you. </p>

<p>Contrast that to what happens in the private sector where losing an internal political battle can often times mean losing your job, as somebody in your company maneuvers to make you (or your group) look bad. What makes it worse is that often times the politics isn't even in your control. For example, if your manager just happens to be a bad political infighter, then your group will get fewer resources, will get blamed for problems, and won't receive credit for successes, and so when layoffs hit, your group will be singled out. </p>

<p>Now, I agree that the academic politics involved in obtaining tenure are very intense, and that's what I meant when I said that the politics are 'compressed'. But once you get over that tenure hump, then politics just doesn't matter very much anymore. In fact, the whole point of tenure was to shield faculty members from political considerations and provide them with full freedom to investigate whatever research they wanted without political fears. {But of course all it did was just shift the politics forward to the pre-tenure stage.}</p>