how important is the school you attend for engineering?

College Majors Engineering Majors
81

<p>He works for one of these:AMD, NI, Nvidia, HP, CISCO, TI. Probably AMD or Nvidia</p>

<p>
[quote]
Not sure how the list of schools are actually generated, but I took a look at the recruiting schedule and noticed that the a dozen or so schools on there are almost all in the top 15. Even at one of these schools, it's still super competitive. In my own experience maybe about 1% of the applicants from one of those schools get hired, if that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>so it's basically better to go to penn state(ranked 14) than to go to penn or columbia.</p>

82

<p>Penn state or the state pen? HAhaah.</p>

83

<p>
[quote]
do you work at google by any chance?

[/quote]

No.</p>

<p>
[quote]
so it's basically better to go to penn state(ranked 14) than to go to penn or columbia.

[/quote]

It really depends on where the companies you want to work at recruit at. For grad school rankings, Penn State and Columbia are actually ranked similar, #19 and #21. Penn's #29.</p>

84

<p>What about Texas A&M for jobs in Texas?
Texas seems to have tons of job opportunities.</p>

85

<p>by the way,how do you compare Harvy Mudd,cooper union with MIT,Gatech?
and cal poly SLO or something else.</p>

86

<p>
[quote]
It really depends on where the companies you want to work at recruit at. For grad school rankings, Penn State and Columbia are actually ranked similar, #19 and #21. Penn's #29.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>for undergrad penn state is ranked no.14- 11 spots above columbia and 16 spots above upenn. What about someone looking for a job straight out of undergrad? .Does your company use grad rankings?</p>

87

<p>
[quote]
What percentage of engineers in school plan that? Don't give me the MIT example (this would be called the exception, not the rule). The US has about ~70K engineering graduates per year. What percentage did not want to work engineering?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Frankly, it's pretty close to 100% of them. </p>

<p>But let me put in the proper context. The truth of the matter is, * nearly all* college graduates do not really want to be doing the job that they end up getting. After all, by definition, the job you can get right out of college is an entry-level job. Be honest, does anybody REALLY want an entry-level job? I think not - I think everybody would like to have a job that pays better than entry-level and has more power. As an entry-level employee in ANY job, you are inevitably going to be doing a lot of grunt boring work that nobody in the firm wants to do, you're going to be making less than you want to be making. Nobody's ultimate career goal is to become an entry-level employee. It's a stepping stone to (hopefully) something better, nothing more, nothing less.</p>

<p>Most people who become engineers right after college are doing so for the same reason that people take virtually any job right after college - they do so because it's the best they can get. Strictly speaking, they don't really want to do it, but they can't get anything better. For example, if I got a job at Google right out of college, I'd strongly prefer to be project manager, or technology designer, or, heck, even VP or CTO, as opposed to just an entry-level engineer. But obviously Google is not going to give me that kind of job straight away. I have to take what I can get, even though it's not really what I want. </p>

<p>But the question on the table is not whether Google is going to give me what I want. The question is, if they did, would I take it? For example, what if we were to go to all of the engineering seniors in the country and offer them 2 jobs - engineer at Google, or VP at Google. Be honest, how many of them would actually choose the former? I think we can all agree that almost all of them would take the latter. Why not? Far better pay, more power, more ability to control your career, better resume builder, better everything. </p>

<p>What that shows is that engineering is just a means to an ends. It is not the ends itself. Engineering students, just like everybody else, would like to skip right to the top if they could. After all, if you ask a humanities major whether he'd rather take an entry-level job, or become VP immediately, I think it's highly unlikely that he'd choose the former. </p>

<p>The reason why careers like consulting or banking are popular with all college seniors (not just engineers, but everybody), is because they are seen as faster ways to achieve your end goals. It is of course clearly true that nobody really wants to be a grunt entry-level consultant or banker either. All of them would like to skip to the top also. But they are still seen as faster means for people to achieve their ends than working through the path of engineering. </p>

<p>Let's not romanticize what actual engineers do on their actual job. Let's be honest. Most engineering jobs are quite boring and uninspiring, and don't offer strong career development paths. There is a reason why the comic strip Dilbert is so popular; the comic strip has touched a nerve within the engineering community. A lot (probably most) engineers understand full well the frustration of working for a company that does not value their ideas, does not give them cool projects to work on, is highly political, does not help them develop their careers, and does not pay them that well (relative to what management gets paid). They stay in those jobs not because they like it but because it's the best they can get. But that doesn't mean that they aren't looking for something better. If they had better options, they would take it. But of course, most people don't get better options. </p>

<p>Look, often times, you have to do things you don't really like in order to later get to do the things that you do like. That's life. That's why we've all taken the grunt jobs that involved tasks that we don't really like. But at the same time, we all would have loved to skip over those grunt jobs if we had the choice. Everybody is always looking for something better. </p>

<p>Consider this quote from Time Magazine:</p>

<p>*Even at M.I.T., the U.S.'s premier engineering school, the traditional career path has lost its appeal for some students. Says junior Nicholas Pearce, a chemical-engineering major from Chicago: "It's marketed as--I don't want to say dead end but sort of 'O.K., here's your role, here's your lab, here's what you're going to be working on.' Even if it's a really cool product, you're locked into it." Like Gao, Pearce is leaning toward consulting. "If you're an M.I.T. grad and you're going to get paid $50,000 to work in a cubicle all day--as opposed to $60,000 in a team setting, plus a bonus, plus this, plus that--it seems like a no-brainer." *</p>

<p><a href="http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1156575,00.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1156575,00.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

88

<p>
[quote]
Frankly, it's pretty close to 100% of them.</p>

<p>But let me put in the proper context. The truth of the matter is, nearly all college graduates do not really want to be doing the job that they end up getting. After all, by definition, the job you can get right out of college is an entry-level job. Be honest, does anybody REALLY want an entry-level job? I think not - I think everybody would like to have a job that pays better than entry-level and has more power. As an entry-level employee in ANY job, you are inevitably going to be doing a lot of grunt boring work that nobody in the firm wants to do, you're going to be making less than you want to be making. Nobody's ultimate career goal is to become an entry-level employee. It's a stepping stone to (hopefully) something better, nothing more, nothing less.</p>

<p>Most people who become engineers right after college are doing so for the same reason that people take virtually any job right after college - they do so because it's the best they can get. Strictly speaking, they don't really want to do it, but they can't get anything better. For example, if I got a job at Google right out of college, I'd strongly prefer to be project manager, or technology designer, or, heck, even VP or CTO, as opposed to just an entry-level engineer. But obviously Google is not going to give me that kind of job straight away. I have to take what I can get, even though it's not really what I want.</p>

<p>But the question on the table is not whether Google is going to give me what I want. The question is, if they did, would I take it? For example, what if we were to go to all of the engineering seniors in the country and offer them 2 jobs - engineer at Google, or VP at Google. Be honest, how many of them would actually choose the former? I think we can all agree that almost all of them would take the latter. Why not? Far better pay, more power, more ability to control your career, better resume builder, better everything.</p>

<p>What that shows is that engineering is just a means to an ends. It is not the ends itself. Engineering students, just like everybody else, would like to skip right to the top if they could. After all, if you ask a humanities major whether he'd rather take an entry-level job, or become VP immediately, I think it's highly unlikely that he'd choose the former.</p>

<p>The reason why careers like consulting or banking are popular with all college seniors (not just engineers, but everybody), is because they are seen as faster ways to achieve your end goals. It is of course clearly true that nobody really wants to be a grunt entry-level consultant or banker either. All of them would like to skip to the top also. But they are still seen as faster means for people to achieve their ends than working through the path of engineering.</p>

<p>Let's not romanticize what actual engineers do on their actual job. Let's be honest. Most engineering jobs are quite boring and uninspiring, and don't offer strong career development paths. There is a reason why the comic strip Dilbert is so popular; the comic strip has touched a nerve within the engineering community. A lot (probably most) engineers understand full well the frustration of working for a company that does not value their ideas, does not give them cool projects to work on, is highly political, does not help them develop their careers, and does not pay them that well (relative to what management gets paid). They stay in those jobs not because they like it but because it's the best they can get. But that doesn't mean that they aren't looking for something better. If they had better options, they would take it. But of course, most people don't get better options.</p>

<p>Look, often times, you have to do things you don't really like in order to later get to do the things that you do like. That's life. That's why we've all taken the grunt jobs that involved tasks that we don't really like. But at the same time, we all would have loved to skip over those grunt jobs if we had the choice. Everybody is always looking for something better.</p>

<p>Consider this quote from Time Magazine:</p>

<p>Even at M.I.T., the U.S.'s premier engineering school, the traditional career path has lost its appeal for some students. Says junior Nicholas Pearce, a chemical-engineering major from Chicago: "It's marketed as--I don't want to say dead end but sort of 'O.K., here's your role, here's your lab, here's what you're going to be working on.' Even if it's a really cool product, you're locked into it." Like Gao, Pearce is leaning toward consulting. "If you're an M.I.T. grad and you're going to get paid $50,000 to work in a cubicle all day--as opposed to $60,000 in a team setting, plus a bonus, plus this, plus that--it seems like a no-brainer."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So how about a position such the lead engineer? Is that usually also considered a stepping stone? </p>

<p>It just seems to me that if someone enjoys being an actual engineer, they might get bored in management or I-Banking.</p>

89

<p>
[quote]
So how about a position such the lead engineer? Is that usually also considered a stepping stone?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Frankly, yes. Many (probably most) lead engineers are looking at the next rung on the career ladder, i.e. project manager or director. That's why former engineers often times comprise the largest chunk of the entering class at the top MBA programs. These people are looking to advance their career beyond engineering. </p>

<p>
[quote]
It just seems to me that if someone enjoys being an actual engineer, they might get bored in management or I-Banking.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>We don't even have to restrict ourselves to those fields. Those people who are really fascinated with engineering as a subject will often times earn PhD's in the subject. While they might end up as lead engineers after finishing their Phd, they don't really want that job. The vast majority of them would rather be Principal Investigators or similar such positions in which they can deeply investigate the topics that they want to study. PI's are not engineers. Far from it in fact. </p>

<p>Look, it is certainly true that plenty of people love technology. That's not what this discussion is about. What nearly every technophile wants is * control of their projects*. In other words, they want creative control. Even as a lead engineer, while you obviously will have more creative control than you would have as an entry-level engineer (who has very little creative control), you are still going to be a given tight checklist of parameters and specifications (especially financial parameters) you have to meet. You are still going to be highly restricted in what projects you will and will not be allowed to run. In short, you are still going to have strong constaining limits on what you can and cannot do.</p>

<p>But the truth is, nobody likes these constraints. Everybody would like to have more power to effect their vision. People don't get that power because, #1, companies won't give it them, and #2, even if they did somehow get that power, they're afraid they might screw up because of inexperience. But both of these points simply reinforces the conclusion that few people really want to have an engineering job, but are instead using it as a waypoint to something better. There's nothing wrong with that. That's just how you build a career. </p>

<p>But of course it also means that if you can find a career alternative that gives you both a faster track to the top and better training (to make you more confident in your ability to hold a top job), you'll probably take that alternative.</p>

90

<p>I think you're underestimating people's desire to be in engineering. While of course people would rather work at a higher level, many also don't want to be working in a field that they have absolutely no interest in. For me, interest outweighs advancement by a lot.</p>

91

<p>

Being a Texan, I can say that A&M has an excellent engineering school. I feel that UT has an edge, but maybe I'm just biased because I love Austin :p Harvey Mudd is an excellent school, definitely keep it in mind for undergrad. Note that for grad school, research is key. That's when it's important to look at more research focused schools. IIRC, in 2005 MIT and GT had the highest annual engineering research expenditures in the country, #1 and #2, respectively. As for CPSLO, I don't know much about it other than that it's near Silicon Valley, so many tech companies in the area hires from there. You should ask Mr Payne, he goes there I believe.</p>

<p>

lol every once in a while I come back to check things out, and every time I see the same ole thing with sakky. Makes one wonder what exactly he does for a living that he has so much time to type up novella length posts on a regular basis. Just because one person is jaded with engineering does not mean the whole world is. I personally love what I do, so do many of my co-workers who have been at it a lot longer than I have. My personal goal is not to accumulate as much wealth as possible. It's to be happy and lead a enjoyable life. Quite frankly, I think it's quite pretentious of sakky to even assume everyone is like him.</p>

92

<p>Sakky is very knowledgeable for the most part. I enjoy reading his posts.</p>

93

<p>
[quote]
lol every once in a while I come back to check things out, and every time I see the same ole thing with sakky. Makes one wonder what exactly he does for a living that he has so much time to type up novella length posts on a regular basis. Just because one person is jaded with engineering does not mean the whole world is. I personally love what I do, so do many of my co-workers who have been at it a lot longer than I have. My personal goal is not to accumulate as much wealth as possible. It's to be happy and lead a enjoyable life. Quite frankly, I think it's quite pretentious of sakky to even assume everyone is like him.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>creepy how i was about to say everything you just said. </p>

<p>Isn't it creepy how sakky's last- what- 200 posts(?) have been about how the geniuses at MIT choose banking instead of some 'boring, dull, horrible' engineering job? Dude is obsessed with ibanking. He's like a robot. God forbid he's fired from his ibanking/consulting job? Is he going to crawl up in a corner and point a gun to his head when he realizes he has to 'settle' for some 'horrible' entry level engineering job?</p>

<p>On a more serious note..Don't listen to EVERYTHING this guy says. Obviously he is/wants to become a consultant/banker.Not everyone wants to do it and it's not for everyone- just because 'he finds it very interesting'(clearly money and power is what actuated him to get into the profession..He has basicaly admitted that in this thread) does not mean you would. in fact, MOST engineering students don't even know what ibanking/consulting is. What is ridiculous is how he makes it seem like 'ALMOST EVERY' engineering student feels the same way(i.e. about how 'boring' engineering jobs are). Sakky, your fervent desire to become rich and powerful and rule the world is distorting your perception of reality- MANY engineering students actually want to become engineers- maybe at M.I.T that's not the case but it's wierd how you generalize your views: 'Lets face it, every engineering student finds entry-level engineering jobs boring and wants to become a VP right off the bat.'</p>

<p>That said if you do research and find that ibanking is something you would like to do, by all means pursue it--keep in mind these people work a ridiculous amount of hours a week and many people can make the argument that these are extremely boring jobs(just as sakky thinks engineering jobs are like totally f**king boring). Sakky clearly does not like engineering(which is cool) but don't be deceived by his posts. </p>

<p>I can already predict his response: "if you don't like my posts don't read them..noone has a gun to your head.'' LMAO...</p>

94

<p>laugh out loud.</p>

95

<p>
[quote]
I can already predict his response: "if you don't like my posts don't read them..noone has a gun to your head.'' LMAO...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>this is GOLD :D</p>

96

<p>
[quote]
Isn't it creepy how sakky's last- what- 200 posts(?) have been about how the geniuses at MIT choose banking instead of some 'boring, dull, horrible' engineering job? Dude is obsessed with ibanking. He's like a robot. God forbid he's fired from his ibanking/consulting job? Is he going to crawl up in a corner and point a gun to his head when he realizes he has to 'settle' for some 'horrible' entry level engineering job?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, I'm just the messenger here. I'm not forcing any engineer to go to consulting or banking or any other career; people make that choice all by themselves. You don't like it? Then ask THEM why they choose to go elsewhere. For example, you can ask ariesathena (if she's still around) why she chose to abandon a career as a chemical engineer in order to become a lawyer. </p>

<p>
[quote]
On a more serious note..Don't listen to EVERYTHING this guy says. Obviously he is/wants to become a consultant/banker.Not everyone wants to do it and it's not for everyone- just because 'he finds it very interesting'(clearly money and power is what actuated him to get into the profession..He has basicaly admitted that in this thread) does not mean you would. in fact, MOST engineering students don't even know what ibanking/consulting is. What is ridiculous is how he makes it seem like 'ALMOST EVERY' engineering student feels the same way(i.e. about how 'boring' engineering jobs are). Sakky, your fervent desire to become rich and powerful and rule the world is distorting your perception of reality- MANY engineering students actually want to become engineers- maybe at M.I.T that's not the case but it's wierd how you generalize your views: 'Lets face it, every engineering student finds entry-level engineering jobs boring and wants to become a VP right off the bat.'

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What can I say - sometimes the truth hurts. Be honest, does anybody really want an entry-level job (in any field, not just engineering)? Why would anybody want to start at the bottom if they don't have to? </p>

<p>But besides, what's up with these ad-hominem attacks? I am neither a consultant nor a banker. In fact, without getting too deeply into my biography, I have probably chosen one of the least lucrative professions of all. </p>

<p>But at the same time, I recognize the fact that engineering companies need to make their jobs better. And the US as a society needs to improve the desirability of engineering as a profession. Only 5% of all US bachelor's degrees are conferred enginering degrees, compared to something like 20-30% in many countries in Europe and Asia. In other countries (i.e. Germany, Taiwan, S Korea, to some extent France and Japan), engineers are accorded the same social respect as doctors and lawyers. Here, not so. That is why so many Americans don't want to get engineering degrees. And even of those that do, many of them will still choose to enter another career.</p>

<p>Look raccna, I don't like the situation. I think engineering should be more highly prized. But as long as that doesn't happen, Americans are going to continue to stay away from engineering. The truth is, entry-level engineering in the US IS boring. It IS underpaid, relative to what other professionals earn in this country (i.e. managers, lawyers, financiers, etc.), particularly as you progress in your career, as engineering salaries don't tend to increase strongly. For example, ariesathena once posted that she will make more in her first year after graduating from law school than she would have made if she had worked for decades in her old job as an engineer. Engineers in the country DON'T have a fast ladder to progression the way that some other people do. I wish all that wasn't true. But it is true.</p>

<p>Look, don't get me wrong. I still think that engineering, for all its probems, is still a very good choice for the vast majority of Americans out there. For all of the problems of engineering, frankly, most other degree choices are * worse*. For example, engineering grads are clearly better off than most humanities grads. Like I've always said, it's better to get a boring job that pays decently than to get a boring job that pays poorly. Engineering isn't the greatest of jobs, but it's still better than most other jobs out there.</p>

<p>The problem with engineering is concentrated among the very top - among the MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, etc. eng graduates. These guys are the elite, yet eng companies won't pay them properly for their abilities. That's why so many of them choose to do something else. </p>

<p>
[quote]
lol every once in a while I come back to check things out, and every time I see the same ole thing with sakky. Makes one wonder what exactly he does for a living that he has so much time to type up novella length posts on a regular basis. Just because one person is jaded with engineering does not mean the whole world is. I personally love what I do, so do many of my co-workers who have been at it a lot longer than I have. My personal goal is not to accumulate as much wealth as possible. It's to be happy and lead a enjoyable life. Quite frankly, I think it's quite pretentious of sakky to even assume everyone is like him.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again with the ad-hominem attacks. Why don't you ask yourself why do so many engineering students, especially from the top schools, abandon engineering? Is it because I told them to do so? I'm just reporting the news, I didn't create the news. If you don't like it, then you should work to change the reality. Even if I were to post nothing at all, many of the top engineers in the country would still leave engineering.</p>

97

<p>
[quote]
I think you're underestimating people's desire to be in engineering. While of course people would rather work at a higher level, many also don't want to be working in a field that they have absolutely no interest in. For me, interest outweighs advancement by a lot.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nobody has ever said that people should work in a field they find uninteresting.</p>

<p>The question is where can you find a job that allows you to do what you actually like to do, and gives you the power to do it. Sadly, like I said, engineering in this country often times does not afford that possibility. Most engineers do indeed like technology and control over their projects, yet the fact is, most engineering jobs don't really give you that. You have to build a project according to what some manager or some financier tells you. You have to run a production line according to some higher-level stricture. As an engineer, even as a lead engineer, you have relatively little control over your projects. I don't think that's the way it should be, but that's unfortunately the way it is. </p>

<p>That's why many of the best technologists don't choose to work for an engineering company at all. Instead, they start their own. Then they have the freedom to create whatever project they want. But then of course by running your own startup company, you're not really an engineer at all. You've really become an entrepreneur. </p>

<p>Look, I've always advocated that engineering companies need to improve their engineering career paths. They need to provide greater perks to challenge and captivate their engineers. They need to make their jobs "cool". But before you can make any change, you first have to acknowledge that there is a problem. Just like before a man can rise up, he first has to acknowledge that he has fallen down. We have to acknowledge that engineering as a career path does have problems before anybody can try to fix them. Sadly, I see here that there are people who themselves don't want to know that a problem exists, but apparently don't want anybody else to know either.</p>

98

<p>This is all a waste of time. If you are good at what you do, you will make good money. Entire careers are not subject to entry-level salaries. Project managers/Lead engineers of certain projects and those who leak out to start their own engineering firms and work on smaller projects such as smaller residential properties (civil) can do very well for themselves and climb the ladder extremely quickly.
Not every engineering major is doomed to make $50,000 a year for the rest of their lives. Many Business students even with MBA's don' always end up at the top of their field making 7 digits annually. I-Bankers tend to work very very hard for their money. Whereas, an entry level engineer would put it nowhere near the amount of effort an entry-level investment banker is required to put in to make the larger salary. If they did, Im sure they'd earn just as much.</p>

99

<p>
[quote]
Entire careers are not subject to entry-level salaries.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Not every engineering major is doomed to make $50,000 a year for the rest of their lives.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you are good at what you do, you will make good money

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Please don't misrepresent what I said. I never said that engineers are always doomed to make entry-level salaries forever, or that you can't make good money as an engineer.</p>

<p>What I am saying is that if somebody were to come along and offer better money and better career possibilities, people will tend to take it. That's capitalism. If somebody offers you a better deal, you take it.</p>

<p>The REAL problem, as I have said, is that most engineering firms simply don't want to improve their offers. They don't want to provide what other industries will provide. A few will - notably Google, to some extent Microsoft, Cisco, Boeing, and some others. But most won't. That's why a lot of engineering students choose to leave engineering. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I-Bankers tend to work very very hard for their money. Whereas, an entry level engineer would put it nowhere near the amount of effort an entry-level investment banker is required to put in to make the larger salary. If they did, Im sure they'd earn just as much.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No doubt Ibankers work very hard for their money. But the fact is, most engineers can never make the kind of money that Ibankers do (with the same experience level). It's not like you can just have a regular engineering job, and just decide to work Ibanker hours, and then demand that your employer pay you Ibanking wages. They might pay you a bonus or they might promote you faster if you work that hard, but you're still not going to be making what the bankers make. </p>

<p>And besides, there are engineering companies out there that will make their engineers work Ibanking-style hours...but won't pay them Ibanking wages. Silicon Valley software companies are perhaps the most prevalent, with Electronic Arts being one of the most notorious. People figure rationally that if they're going to be working Ibanking hours (as EA apparently made their employees work), then they ought to get paid Ibanking wages. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/11/11/news_6112998.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/11/11/news_6112998.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=9051%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=9051&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>But the point is this. I am not telling anybody that they should run off to consulting or banking. That's a decision that everybody has to make for themselves. I am simply saying that there are a lot of people who do that, and that there is a lot of frustration with engineering as a profession. I think it's fair to ask why. I think it's fair to ask why firms won't improve the work conditions of their engineers, but will continue to pay millions in fees to consulting and banking firms, the very firms that employ many of those engineering students who refused to work for those engineering firms in the first place.</p>

100

<p>Sakky, Would you agree that due to the difficulty behind doing well at engineer programs, that engineering students can usually land well paying gigs in other fields (not only IBanking and Management)?
Examples would be retail management, Sales, and other jobs in the business/economics field. </p>

<p>I mean, most students get into engineering for the love of engineering. It is a big plus, that you can land the higher paying careers in other fields just due to the fact that having "Masters of Science in Mechanical Engineering" would be impressive on a resume for someone looking to go into any sort of banking whatsoever.</p>

<p>Besides for the obvious - Engineering students are usually pretty good at math - The engineering student body is not to be blamed. Rather, employers recruiting engineering students with better incentives than the engineering companies are willing to pay.</p>

<p>Look at this way, typical engineering student applying for a 65k managers position at some retail chain would certainly have the leverage as far as first glance of the resume by the employer, they are easily impressed with the amount of effort needed to obtain an advanced degree in engineering. Whereas, with entry-level engineering jobs, you are pretty much in the same boat as everyone else. </p>

<p>This doesn't only go for engineering. Many law students and students pursuing degrees in vast applies sciences may tend to pursue positions in other fields as well. Better chances at getting a higher paying job.</p>

<p>I agree with Sakky for the most part, Most students (especially those at top ranked schools) end school with a load of debt. If the opportunity presents itself for a career in a different field with 75k starting plus bonuses and other incentives, I'd be willing to take a second look at it as well, as opposed to merely looking into the technical jobs available and making half what I could be elsewhere. This is especially true in NYC where the cost-of-living is so enormous and competitiveness for entry-level positions is so high. </p>

<p>A lot of students in engineering will need to "settle" with a position that is lower paying than what they are truly deserving simply because students who are more impressive on paper are willing to "settle" as well. </p>

<p>The urban jungle - 1000's of applicants as opposed to the 15 applicants you would have for the same position somewhere in the midwest.</p>