Huge misconceptions about engineering (in freshmen)-

College Majors Engineering Majors
61

<p>

</p>

<p>While I know where you are going with this argument, you are pretty far off in my opinion. I would say that out of the 10-15 interviews I’ve had in the last month, at least half of them have been for “management” or “leadership” or some other like-termed rotational program. They differ in their scope and magnitude of the experience variation, but certainly some of them put you everywhere from operations, to finance, to sales all within the first 2-3 years. Rotations usually occur at six-twelve month intervals. I will add the caveat that I’m in IE which tends to lend itself to slightly different career paths than some other engineering majors, but nonetheless I know for a fact that a few of these positions are open to any engineering major. </p>

<p>I’m not going to completely disagree that MC is a good job, if you can get one. But I’ve also known numerous people who went into consulting and no more than one year later had simply had their fill of hotel living. Some opted not to even have a permanent place of residence, and instead stayed with family on the two days/week they weren’t traveling. While this may sound fun to some people, I doubt that most would agree that it is after a few years. The lack of a social network becomes draining, the lack of stability becomes draining. Sure they pay you well for your time, but it certainly isn’t for everyone. </p>

<p>If the argument here is that it’s actually better entry level experience, I would refer you back to the first paragraph here. If the argument is that it pays better, I would say at what cost. Perhaps one main benefit is that you will receive some value added resume material just from the MC name.</p>

62

<p>

</p>

<p>No - I think I am well on the mark. While I am well aware of leadership management programs, I think you would agree with me that they represent a vanishingly small percentage of the jobs that engineers are offered, which is why I am quite confident that 0% is close to the truth. One needs to simply look at the actual job titles that are offered to the vast majority of engineering students - which is available at the career centers of many schools - and note that only a tiny percentage of graduates, often times 0%, were headed for management/leadership rotation programs. </p>

<p>But don’t take my word for it. Consider the job titles taken by Industrial Engineering graduates from Berkeley, which is one of the top IE schools in the country. I can perhaps identify a handful of students who took non-consulting/banking jobs that took jobs that perhaps are leadership rotational programs - the ones at Genentech, UPS, and maybe Target (and even those are somewhat doubtful in that they may offer you diverse operational training, but not necessarily training in the rest of the business). The rest took regular engineering jobs. </p>

<p><a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/IEOR.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/IEOR.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Even many of the supposed rotation programs are truly nothing of the kind. The companies may claim that participants will rotate amongst various functions, yet with caveats pertaining to space & budget availability (i.e. a particular department may need available budget in order to offer you a rotation spot) that are applied universally such that practically nobody ever actually is allowed to rotate, regardless of whatever promises the recruiters made. Without naming names, one particular auto company has become absolutely notorious for offering a ‘sham’ rotation program that drove numerous disillusioned former participants to other employers or to MBA programs in order to enjoy the opportunities that they thought they would be provided in that program. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But that’s part and parcel of that career path: practically nobody enters consulting thinking that they will be staying there for an entire career. It’s a waypoint and everybody knows that. It is a way for you to find the job and the employer that you really want. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I am rather mystified by this statement. If anything, consulting provides you with one of the best social networks, albeit one consisting of former consultants and client-side managers (so I suppose it isn’t a highly diverse network). Nevertheless, when you travel with others, you have little choice but to develop deep social ties as a natural outgrowth. Contrast that with a regular engineering job where you interact with your coworkers during the day, but at night, everybody goes home. </p>

<p>Building a high-powered and dynamic social network is one of the most appealing selling points of the consulting industry that firms actually actively sponsor tools to connect former employees with each other and with current employees. The business value of that network is obvious: to have former consultants to direct consulting business from their current employers to their old consultancy of which they are alumni. But what it also means is that experience within a consulting firm provides you with lifetime access to the entire alumni social network, similar to the muscular alumni social network provided by top schools such as Harvard or Yale, and that alone may be reason enough to join a consulting firm, even if for only a short time. {Heck, I know one girl who joined McKinsey and left after only a few months but was highly satisfied with the experience because she now has access to the McKinsey alumni database for life.} In contrast, what regular company even wants to acknowledge the existence of former employees, much less tries to actively engage them with an ‘alumni forum’? </p>

<p><a href=“Alumni Center | McKinsey & Company”>Alumni Center | McKinsey & Company;

<p><a href=“https://alumni.bcg.com/bcgnetworks/alumni/alumni_login.jsp[/url]”>https://alumni.bcg.com/bcgnetworks/alumni/alumni_login.jsp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>[BCG</a> - Careers - Beyond BCG](<a href=“http://www.bcg.com/careers/career_growth/beyond_bcg/default.aspx]BCG”>http://www.bcg.com/careers/career_growth/beyond_bcg/default.aspx)</p>

<p>[The</a> Monitor Exchange](<a href=“http://exchange.monitor.com/index.srv]The”>http://exchange.monitor.com/index.srv)</p>

<p>[Alumni</a> Connection | Booz Allen Hamilton](<a href=“http://www.boozallen.com/alumni]Alumni”>Booz Allen Alumni)</p>

<p><a href=“https://www.alumni.deloitte.com/jsp/Front/login.jsp[/url]”>https://www.alumni.deloitte.com/jsp/Front/login.jsp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>[Alumni</a> network of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)](<a href=“http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/about-pwc/alumni-network.jhtml]Alumni”>Alumni network: PwC)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Like I said, consulting is understood to be an inherently transitory job. Stability is not implied, nor intended. You join consulting to obtain what you want, and then leave.</p>

63

<p>Engineering consulting is a little different from management consulting, but I think on a whole I agree with sakky’s points. I’m in engineering consulting right now, getting my MBA next month, and I am looking to get out. Engineering consulting, like all consulting IMO, is good for 2 types of people. First, it’s good for those who would like to expand on the theory they learned and school and attempt to apply it in industry. Second, it’s good for those who have tested the theory in real industry and have now retired as experts into the consulting world. </p>

<p>The first group will expand on the theory, but once they have and have learned to apply they will leave the roost, mainly because they will be able to see their plan through, and that’s where the real reward is.</p>

<p>The second group, well they are the experts. They make more money by being that, but they won’t pay you well to teach it to you.</p>

<p>I got sucked into it only because I need work while I finished my degree. If you last more than 2 years in a consulting firm than you are either sickly obsessed with travel or haven’t really impressed anyone enough to get lured away, and should be concerned that you might be fired due to performance. Or, in rare occasions, are promoted to Partner or Managing Director, or some such title.</p>

64

<p>OP:
Young people look at a career as something for the rest of their lives. Hence your cohorts see engineering as a lot of future work and mathematics and concepts. They question what they see in the first engineering classes , and don’t see themselves working/living in this situation, whatever that is. </p>

<p>The first career is only the first.
The first job is also only the first.
Money, is not the endgame, only an idea that’s easiest to understand. </p>

<p>One of the most popular books for older citizens is What Color is Your Parachute, Any edition is OK.</p>

65

<p>

Professional Engineers at consulting firms seem to get paid more than professional engineers working for a corporation.</p>

66

<p>Yes, they get paid more but they are more easily dropped if the economy heads south and they can’t bring in business. You need to have some sales marketing skills if there isn’t a good rainmaker around.</p>

<p>One nice thing about working in engineering is the project approach where long-term projects are funded - you can generally count on working through the contract unless something really goes bad.</p>

<p>Back in the old days there were people that moved back and forth between the two. The idea was that you gained special knowledge about the project in engineering before the product is released and then go out to do consulting based on that inside knowledge. When your insider knowledge grows rusty, you go back into engineering for a few years and repeat. Companies caught on to this eventually and took steps to curtail it.</p>

67

<p>im a high school senior and i was recently accepted to Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach for Aerospace Engineering. Now, ERAU at Daytona Beach is the Number 1 school in the world for Aerospace Engineering (where masters is the highest degree offered) and im hoping to enroll in the accelerated degree program where i can get my bachelors and my masters in 5 years. so im wondering what kind of career and salary outlook i could expect…i noticed that Aerospace Engineering was never mentioned by sakky or me76. </p>

<p>i would love to land a job at Lockheed Martin and help work on the Joint Strike Fighter F-35 project (that is worth $200 billion) or at NASA working on the Orion project (which is set to replace the space shuttle and carry humans back to the moon). that would be ideal. lol</p>

68

<p>Where’s the popcorn?</p>

69

<p>

</p>

<p>Sure, they are a small percentage of the total jobs available – but probably represent a larger percentage than the banking/consulting jobs available. All of the references that are made about engineering students leaving in droves take place at maybe five schools nationwide. Meanwhile some of the largest engineer recruiting firms offer rotational programs; GE, Boeing, Halliburton, Dow, HP, Rolls Royce, Genentech, Ingersoll Rand, Dell, Lockheed Martin, P&G, etc… These firms don’t restrict recruiting to only the most elite schools and surely represent a much larger percentage of the jobs available to engineering graduates than the very few finance/consulting positions available to only the top students at the top schools. Again, my point isn’t that they are necessarily better than consulting positions, only that there are career paths available outside of consulting to those who would like to have more variation in their work.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That may very well be the case. However, I have personally met a number of graduates who went into the programs and gave positive feedback. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Mystified or not I still stand by the statement. Perhaps you have tried traveling five days a week for a number of years straight? If so, I would say that we have a differing opinion of a social network. I define mine with those relationships that are social, not professional in nature. Sure, you may network professionally but that was not the point of my statement. Having relationships outside of the workplace is important, to me at least. I have moved around quite a bit in my life and I can tell you that, for me at least, even when living in one place it takes a very long time to develop meaningful relationships.</p>

70

<p>“…and im hoping to enroll in the accelerated degree program where i can get my bachelors and my masters in 5 years. so im wondering what kind of career and salary outlook i could expect…i noticed that Aerospace Engineering was never mentioned by sakky or me76.” </p>

<p>I’ve never met anyone from Embry-Riddle. My personal assessment, by looking at their program, is that it is very narrow and provides all the flashy skillsets without the hardcore science/engineering basis. Trained monkeys… until I am convinced otherwise.</p>

<p>I think more and more schools create these narrow aerospace majors with very pointed knowledge about how to design rocket engines and jet engines. The problem is that if you spend too much time on those particulars, you don’t have time to understand the real mathematical and physical basis for why things are designed the way they are. You are just designing or analyzing by cookbook methods and therefore you’ll never likely come up with anything new and groundbreaking, just a regurgitation of the designs and methods you learned in schools.</p>

<p>“i would love to land a job at Lockheed Martin and help work on the Joint Strike Fighter F-35 project (that is worth $200 billion) or at NASA working on the Orion project (which is set to replace the space shuttle and carry humans back to the moon). that would be ideal. lol”</p>

<p>There are a few things <em>wrong</em> with this. First, F-35 Lightning II design was already completed several years ago. It is in production now. Secondly, the F-35 was derived from the superior and more expensive F-22 Raptor around 2000. The program is in mass production mode and working at a place like Lockheed on that project (at this stage) would get old really fast. The fact that it is a $200 billion project (I don’t know where you got that number) doesn’t mean it’ll be awesome, especially at this stage of the game. In fact, as a new grad, you would get terrible tasks… if they even let you work on it.</p>

<p>Now on to talk about NASA… NASA is in a world of hurt right now and there is a good chance that Orion (as we know it) will never happen. The Ares I-X that you saw a few weeks back was a dummy rocket… 4/5 segment SRM, no upper stage, etc. It was a useful test for collecting dynamics data but also served the purpose of showing the public that NASA is doing something. </p>

<p>My initial inkling is that you are turned on by the flashy, high-profile projects that are going on in the aerospace industry. This is to be expected. However, if you want to get into the industry, you need to start doing some digging to see what’s really going on and where the really cool stuff is being built. Then you need to work your ass of and distinguish yourself beyond measure (okay, well, about 5-sigma is about right) and then you’ll have a shot working on the cool projects that you aren’t even allowed to talk to your friends about. Then, all of a sudden, you realize that you are in a different world and unfortunately you cannot share it with other people.</p>

71

<p>

How one could look at a curriculum sheet and call the graduates of that school “trained monkeys” is pretty much one of the stupidest things you’ve ever written on this forum, and I actually respect your opinion.</p>

72

<p>rocketDA:
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University at Daytona Beach has been ranked #1 in Aerospace Enginneering (where masters is highest degree offered) for eight consecutive years by the US News & World Report College Rankings ([Undergraduate</a> Engineering Specialties: Aerospace / Aeronautical / Astronautical - Best Colleges - Education - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/spec-aero]Undergraduate”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/spec-aero)).
So about the whole “Trained Monkeys” thing, i got a few questions:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Why, if Embry-Riddle produces such sub-standered Enginneers or “Trained Monkeys”, has the school been ranked #1 so many times and even called “the Harvard of the skies” by Time magazine?</p></li>
<li><p>Why, if Embry-Riddle produces such sub-standered Enginneers or “Trained Monkeys”, is Embry-Riddle Such a household name in the Aerospace and Aviation industries and a major factor in getting desirable interships at such places as NASA and Lockheed Martin?</p></li>
<li><p>Why, if Embry-Riddle produces such sub-standered Enginneers or “Trained Monkeys”, do 91.4% of graduates have a job upon graduation and “are regularly offered jobs at Allied-Signal, Boeing, General Motors, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, Motorola, NASA, and Toyota”?</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Now on to the F-35:
Actually, there are several things that you are <em>wrong</em> on here. The JSF F-35 project is not complete until it reaches full production and enters military service which wont be for a few years. In fact, the first F-35A (the Airforce version, CTOL) test flight was on Feb 19, 2006, and there are still two other versions, the F-35B (the Marine version set to replace the Harrier with its short takeoffs and vertical landings, STOVL) and the F-35C (the Navy version built for carrier landings). The first production of the F-35B was on Dec 18, 2007, and it isnt set to see any action till 2012. The first production of the F-35C wasnt until July 29, 2009, and it isnt set to see any action till 2014. And as recently as Nov 14, 2009, the first optimized conventional takeoff and landing test flight was held using the F-35A at Lockheeds Fortworth, TX, plant, which was the inaugural flight to begin flight operations. But two more versions are still being developed. So obviously there is years of work ahead on the JSF project. As for the $200 billion dollar contract amount, i got that straight from the JSF website, along with all of the other information listed above.</p>

<p>Now on to NASA and the Orion project:
First off the Ares I-X rocket test went “flawlessly” according to NASA official Vince Bilardo. Bilardo said, “The launch was nearly flawless! Once we got past the weather issues, the countdown and flight went just as planned. The vehicle flew the exact trajectory that was planned. All the data was successfully telemetered to the ground during the flight, the cameras all worked great and provided spectacular images of the flight. We proved conclusively that we can successfully control a tall, slender rocket by small movements in a single rocket nozzle.”
And when asked about the Upper Stage Simulator (USS) Bilardo said, “The Glenn-built Upper Stage Simulator (USS) performed flawlessly, as best as we can determine so far. And that was not just during launch but in all phases of the ground assembly and launch processing prior to the flight. Contrary to speculation, the USS motion after First Stage separation was predicted in several of the “dispersion cases” or simulations that we ran prior to flight. And the entire stage held together after separation all the way down to the water, contrary to some analyses which predicted that it might break apart due to high loads during the tumble down to the sea. It all adds up to a strong endorsement of the robust design and manufacturing concept that our in-house team implemented.”</p>

<p>As for the Orion Spacecraft, it is actually still in full swing:
“NASA has taken a major step towards building the next crew exploration vehicle by completing the Orion Project’s preliminary design review, or PDR. The preliminary design review is one in a series of checkpoints that occurs in the design life cycle of a complex engineering project before hardware manufacturing can begin. As the review process progresses, the vehicle design details are assessed to ensure the overall system meets all NASA mission requirements and for safe and reliable flight.” ([NASA</a> - Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle](<a href=“http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/orion/index.html]NASA”>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/orion/index.html))</p>

<p>But as For NASA being in troubled times, i agree. NASA’s budget is short for what it hopes to accomplish by 2020, which is returning humans to the moon. But with the success of the LCROSS mission and the discovery of a ***** ton of water on the moon, the propsal that NASA sent to the President for more funding is likely to be passed. (im crossing my fingers)</p>

<p>And yes i would like to work on top secret projects and high profile assignments, but who wouldnt? you show me someone who wants to work on boring seemingly useless projects and ill show you bigfoot. but im not naive enough to think i wont have my fair share of “boring” projects and i know it would be very rare to get to work on a top secret, high profile project, but i can hope.</p>

73

<p>chadster, you’re arguing with the wrong person.</p>

<p>USNWR rankings mean little.</p>

<p>but, whatever, have it your way. it doesn’t effect me at all; i’m already in the aerospace research and development industry. the advice i gave to you, without charge, is yours for disposal.</p>

<p>(and just fyi: of the 130 engineers at my company, i don’t think anyone is from embry-riddle)</p>

74

<p>The achille’s heal of sakky’s argument is, quite simply, that it applies only to those students whose primary professional and career goal is to maximize monetary compensation. This is not the only possible goal. In fact, I would imagine it is indeed less common a goal among precisely those who are most gifted, than among the general population. I would write more but I think this about does it for me. Done.</p>

<p>And although I know that when sakky rains, sakky pours, and although any reasonable person knows it’s an exercise in futility to ask it not to rain because you don’t want to get wet… sakky, if you deign to respond at all, I challenge you to fewer words than in my post (the count is 133 as counted by OpenOffice). Thanks.</p>

75

<p>and one more thing:</p>

<p>the aerospace industry has not seen much progress since the invention of the aerospace-dedicated programs. von braun, tsiolkovsky, von karman, and all them did just fine with a healthy dose of physics, chemistry, math, and general engineering.</p>

76

<p>

</p>

<p><em>thumbs up</em></p>

<p>I would trust rocketDA’s opinion. From what I can tell, he knows a lot more about the industry than you do, chadster. (plus I know where he works and would love to work there someday)</p>

<p>As far as that NASA/Ares quote goes, why would they say it was an unsuccessful test?</p>

77

<p>“How one could look at a curriculum sheet and call the graduates of that school “trained monkeys” is pretty much one of the stupidest things you’ve ever written on this forum, and I actually respect your opinion.”</p>

<p>i actually did visit there around 2004 when i was looking at colleges. i guess that experience had quite an impact on me. </p>

<p>and yes, perhaps i was a bit harsh by saying “trained monkeys”. i actually didn’t mean it to that extent. my apologies. i just find that really focused undergraduate programs tend to leave a lot of gaps.</p>

78

<p>Embry Riddle’s a good school… I will agree that it doesn’t come across in the curriculum model, however. All the basics are there, though… it’s solid. I mean, it’s ABET accredited, right? I’m almost sure it is. Let’s see how many people I can **** off - ok - you ready? Any ABET accredited AeroE program is going to be same ballpark anyway. After that it’s icing on the cake. Done.</p>

79

<p>Personally, I feel like a lot of the other engineering majors at my school are trained monkeys, I guess, just engineering in general is monkey-training school. To an extent, it is. Moreso than pure sciences or liberal arts, though. I guess that, despite being a CS major, I do tend to feel like a lot of Liberal Arts majors do… that a university is for academic subjects, and engineering… not academic enough for my taste, really.
(yeah, ok, research, but you could work out a system that split the work between academics and trade schools and industry, this is all hypothetical, yadda yadda yadda)</p>

80

<p>“Personally, I feel like a lot of the other engineering majors at my school are trained monkeys, I guess, just engineering in general is monkey-training school. To an extent, it is. Moreso than pure sciences or liberal arts, though.”</p>

<p>And this is where I generally agree with you. Many programs are very directed on the occupational knowledge and leave a lot to be desired with regards to the science. There are only a few engineering programs that teach engineering in a ground-up method, starting with the science and using math to derive engineering formulas.</p>

<p>A good aerospace engineer should be able to design a basic rocket engine without a textbook or sheet of equations. He/she should be able to start at square 1 and do the compressible flow parameters, the heat transfer, the rough injector design (impinging or shear coax), and calculate the specific impulse of the engine given an adiabatic flame temp. A solid understanding of the science/math makes a good engineer, IMHO.</p>