Importance of the school's name

College Majors Engineering Majors
1

<p>Can any of you give me an idea of how important a school's name is when seeking a job in the field of engineering?</p>

<p>This is my situation: I have completed practically all the classes I can and that I need to at my community college. I have already applied to UCLA as a transfer but I am willing to forget about that whole deal. What bothers me is that I have almost nothing worth taking during this next spring semester and wanted to keep moving along with my studies. Thus, I come to the option of transferring to Cal State LA for the spring. I like this plan because I don't have to sit around a semester waiting for UCLA to give me a decision that may or may not turn in my favor. I also like this plan because I am a big fan of saving money whenever I can. Another reason I like this plan is because I have calculated that I would be able to finish my degree within at least 4 quarters after transferring there (whereas I would probably have to spend two years after transferring to UCLA), which is really great because I would really like to get my degree and start piling up my experience and advancing my career. </p>

<p>Therefore, I am presented with my concern. Though I will probably go to CSULA nonetheless, I would still like to know how that may affect me when I am applying for jobs and say another student from UCLA happens to apply for the same position. If I may, then I would like such a case where there is a comparison and a case when I am considered solely.</p>

2

<p>Hmm. UCLA & CSULA is a huge jump. Normally I say name does not matter, but that is between CPSU-SLO and UCLA or something of that nature. After your first job, it doesn't matter. However, the name, in this case, might be a factor for your first job.</p>

3

<p>If I were you and I knew I have a good chance get into UCLA, I would go for UCLA. I don't think the difference between UCLA & CSULA is just the school name. Firstly, I believe UCLA has a better engineering program; secondly, the higher level of students body in UCLA will push you to study harder thus to learn better which is crucial for your future job seeking as an engineer.
I'm not saying you can't learn well in CSULA, it's just for most people, they have a better chance in a better school. But, if you are a very self-motivated person, I don't think it matters much which school you attend since for engineering, the employers mainly look at how capable you are.</p>

4

<p>Thanks for the helpful replies.</p>

<p>Actually, there has been some news recently and some talk as well about how there was a $31 mil renovation of the engineering facilities at CSULA and in their brochures and stuff there is a lot of information about how engineering grads get a lot of jobs from really major companies, and etc. It seems like their engineering program is fine and many employers have connections with the school and tend to hire their grads. If it is true that after the first job the school's name does not make much of a difference (I'm assuming because of the experience in the field that the person has gained from their first job), then I don't see too much of an advantage of waiting through this next semester and then spending two years at UCLA to get my BS. If my assumptions are correct, then Mr. Payne seems to be concurring with my idea that experience is the most important factor when seeking work.</p>

<p>I agree that a higher caliber of students may push an individual to work harder but from my experience, I don't seem to be affected by that. For example, there are a small number of students who always get better grades than me in math and physics but that does not push me to study harder. Maybe it's because the number is so small and that the majority are not of a very high caliber..perhaps. I am a self-motivated person, but it seems like a quantitative judgment is required in this case because I am not sure if I am enough of such a person that any difference in the name would be nullified.</p>

<p>From my recent and current job hunting, I have constantly seen employers looking to see if you have the BS or not..and from some of the stories I have heard..it doesn't look like the school's name matters too much. For example, I know a physics major who graduated from CSULA with a BS and then an MS, and he's making quite a lot of money now by working at JPL. </p>

<p>I was speaking with a friend yesterday about how much a school's name would affect a person's salary. My arguments were that I have only seen data that shows salary amounts that differ by the level of education you have received and it seems like a school's name would have little effect upon the salary. His argument was that the more famous a school's name or reputation, the higher the income would be, but he only spoke of this in terms of beginning work. </p>

<p>Any thoughts?</p>

5

<p>If you just want to work as a regular engineer, then I agree that name doesn't matter very much. </p>

<p>The real issue is, do you want to give yourself a shot (albeit admittedly a small one) at one of the glamorous non-engineering jobs, i.e. at one of the major firms in management consulting or investment banking? If you want that shot, you basically have to go to UCLA, as you have little chance of getting it coming out of CSU-LA.</p>

6

<p>Not sure about the consulting and banking jobs..or even how much they pay is unknown to me. I am studying engineering because I like it and because it's an application of the things I learn in math and science as well as the fact that it is more practical. Heh..</p>

<p>Sounds like me going to CSULA wouldn't be a bad plan at all. Any more opinions/insights out there?</p>

7

<p>I would simply point out that consulting and banking are arguably THE most popular jobs for the top engineering students to take (as well as top students of ANY major to take). For example, it's become something of a running joke at MIT that many of the best MIT engineering students will never work a day in their lives as engineers, but will instead take careers in consulting or banking, to the point that many MIT engineering students view engineering jobs as simply 'backup jobs' in case they can't get a consulting/banking offer. Obviously not all of them think that way. But it's becoming a more common mentality.</p>

8

<p>I think people here underestimate the importance of the name. If you want to be a cubicle dilbert style engineer than maybe it doesn't matter, but for more interesting jobs with more interesting people and companies (google, boening, lockheed, nasa, boston scientific, etc) it probably matters more, even after your first job.</p>

<p>Now here is the disclaimer: I don't know this to be true, it's just a gut feeling. I may be wrong.</p>

9

<p>Name in and of itself isn't all that important. Who recruits on your school's campus is. If lockheed, boeing, or whoever recruit on your campus you've got a good a shot at getting a job as anyone else being interviewed. </p>

<p>I work for Lockheed as a stress analyst and I can honestly say the most important factors in getting hired are relevant skills/experience and the technical interview. We've had guys come in from prominent, name universities who didn't even make it to the second round because they either did poorly on the technical iterview/quiz (mostly new grads) or they simply didn't have the proper experience, (i.e. it doesn't matter that you went to MIT, we're not going to hire a fluids guy to do stress analysis). I'd actually say the most important aspect of getting hired is location, as the vast majority of the people who work for LM in FL come from FL schools, with the occasional GaTech, MIT, UMich peppered here and there. </p>

<p>As far as pay, everyone at the same education and experience level gets the same pay. We've got new grads from all over the place making the same pay. The only difference will be in the amount of relocation offered. Of course, if you've got exceptional negotiating skills, you may be able to eek out a few dollars more or get a nice signing bonus. There's usually an allotment for such things in the hiring process, but the company isn't just going to give you more money if they don't absolutely have to.</p>

10

<p>Cal State LA has a respected engineering program. Its undergraduate engineering program is consistently ranked nationally in USN&WR. </p>

<p>With that said, if I had a choice, I would still choose UCLA simply because of the weight the name carries. However, based on the reasons you've stated, attending Cal State LA is still a pretty good option.</p>

11

<p>Can someone explain to me why this finance stuff keeps coming up in engineering threads? Why would you study engineering if you want to go into management consulting? That's like studying accounting to become a physicist. </p>

<p>If you want to go into finance, study finance or some lib arts degree. Why torture yourself studying a difficult subject (and risking a lower GPA) when you can major in business. From my personal experience, it's a joke how much easier business classes are than engineering classes.</p>

12

<p>i think the names only start to matter when you drop to lesser schools with only one or two good departments...say schoolA is ranked #25 overall, and #35 in a department, yet school B is #70 overall and #16 in a department...those two, even though schoolB is much lower in rankings, really dont matter much in name, just because theyre both top 100 schools, and top 50 in that department...
however, if schoolA is ranked #25 overall, #35 in that dept, and schoolB is ranked #140 overall, #30 in that dept, then yes, i think the first holds better record...</p>

<p>feenotyoepe: good flippin question haha i always wonder the same thing..i actually dont even both to read those posts most of the time, just because it seems sometimes silly for a mechE or AE major to go work for some investment company...i guess engineers really are really smart =P
however, i do agree with engineers getting an MBA after undergrad work, because engineers are worthless when they have no direction or a plan, and i think MBAs help because it gives an engineer not only the technical skills to create, fix, ect, but it gives them more background on how to make it sell, function, ect in the real world</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
Can someone explain to me why this finance stuff keeps coming up in engineering threads? Why would you study engineering if you want to go into management consulting? That's like studying accounting to become a physicist

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It keeps coming up because people want to keep their options open. After all, I would argue that MOST people end up taking careers in things that are unrelated to their undergrad major. For example, most history majors will not become historians. Most poli-sci majors will not become political scientists. Most math majors will not become mathematicians. </p>

<p>Look. Most 17 year old high school seniors don't know what they want to do with the rest of their lives. That's why it is important to keep your options open. You may THINK you want to be an engineer. But then later on in your life you may found out that you actually want to do something else. What's wrong with that? Why shouldn't people be allowed to keep their options open? </p>

<p>
[quote]
If you want to go into finance, study finance or some lib arts degree. Why torture yourself studying a difficult subject (and risking a lower GPA) when you can major in business. From my personal experience, it's a joke how much easier business classes are than engineering classes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because engineering is a good backup major. Not everybody who wants to get into finance can get a good finance job. Engineering is a good fallback such that in case you can't get the job that you REALLY want, you can just take an engineering job. </p>

<p>I see nothing wrong with that. To give you an example, actor Harrison Ford learned carpentry when he was a struggling actor trying to make it in Hollywood. His carpentry skills were basically what kept him financially afloat during his lean years. It's obviously not what he really wanted to do, but it was a good marketable skill that he had that allowed him to put food on the table. An engineering degree can be viewed in the same manner - as a marketable degree that provides a decent backup career.</p>

<p>
[quote]
feenotyoepe: good flippin question haha i always wonder the same thing..i actually dont even both to read those posts most of the time, just because it seems sometimes silly for a mechE or AE major to go work for some investment company...i guess engineers really are really smart =P

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See, I don't understand why that's 'silly'. It's no more silly than a humanities major going to work for an investment company, and plenty of that happens right now. </p>

<p>Look. CNN has estimated that people will change careers (not just employers, but entire CAREERS) about 3 times in their life. What that means is that it is extremely likely for a given person to, at some point in their life, end up working at a job that has nothing to do with what they studied in college. That's life. To give you an example from Hollywood, now that the new Rocky is out, actor Dolph Lundgren (Ivan Drago in Rocky IV) has a master's degree in chemical engineering and studied at MIT on a Fulbright Scholarship. To give you an example from academia, Vernon Smith holds a BS in EE from Caltech, and then later got a PhD in economics at Harvard, and later won the Nobel Prize in Economics, specializing in behavioral economics. It's not clear to me what EE has to do with behavioral economics, but that just demonstrates that nobody really knows where life will take them. Life is unpredictable. You never really know what kind of career you will end up having. That's why it is important to maintain flexibility.</p>

14

<p>Feenotype,</p>

<pre><code> There seems to be a higher percentage of people interested in finance here then a typical group of engineering students. I've noticed this too. Don't worry about it if this is not your interest.
</code></pre>

15

<p>sakky, I agree that keeping options open is very important and that engineering is a very solid career to fall back on (though I do not think of engineering as a career that would be enjoyable unless one was actually interested in the field). However, engineering is a professional career and engineering school is a professional school almost similar to med school, law school, or dentistry school. Would it make sense to go to through all the trouble of going through medical school if all along your ambition was to become a financial analyst? Except in the case where you use your medical knowledge directly in your career (not sure how, I'm thinking of those medical correspondants in the media who are journalists but use their medical knowledge in their journalism), the time and energy (and money) that you spent going through medical school would be a waste. </p>

<p>Constrast this to studying a liberal arts major such as English. These are not majors that are directly training you for a specified career such law, medicine, or engineering. Rather they are training you to think, in the mold of the classical academies that existed up to the 18th Century. Practically speaking, studying English or Political Science is much less risky to your GPA than studying engineering if in the end you want to be doing finance. </p>

<p>Even better, many universities (top ones even) have business schools that offer a finance major. As a back-up career, I would think accounting would be a better choice as the market for accountants is favorable. Our modern Harrison Ford could become a nurse. Our country is facing a crisis-level nursing shortage; hospitals need more nurses. It'll provide you with a solid career while you wait for that consulting job to come up.</p>

<p>Someone who chooses to study engineering should have a mild interest in engineering from the get-go. If he or she sees they like something else, they are well within their rights to change majors. Practicing engineers are always moving up the career ladder or even changing careers entirely as you have pointed out in your many examples. But somebody who has no interest in engineering itself and only wants to be an engineer because it pays well, should probably look other options. It simply doesn't make sense, sorta like studying accounting to become a physicist.</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
However, engineering is a professional career and engineering school is a professional school almost similar to med school, law school, or dentistry school. Would it make sense to go to through all the trouble of going through medical school if all along your ambition was to become a financial analyst? Except in the case where you use your medical knowledge directly in your career (not sure how, I'm thinking of those medical correspondants in the media who are journalists but use their medical knowledge in their journalism), the time and energy (and money) that you spent going through medical school would be a waste.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, engineering is a 'professional' degree only because we choose to call it so. It doesn't really have to be so. Like I said, plenty of people with engineering degrees will, at some point in their lives, not be engineers. Whether that's because they work as engineers for awhile, but then get promoted to management, or because they later get their MBA's and become managers that way, or whether it's because they never work as engineers a day in their lives (i.e. immediately head off to consulting or banking), or whether it's because economic circumstances cause you to change careers, the point is, many engineering graduates will, at some point in their life, end up not working as engineers. </p>

<p>To give you a case in point, a guy some guys who have engineering degrees who have been working as real-estate salesmen for the past few years, making far far more money than they ever could have ever made as engineers because of the housing boom. One guy said that he probably quadrupled his pay by selling real estate than by working as an engineer. True, now that the housing boom is over, the easy money is gone and in fact, some of them are thinking about going back to working as engineers again. True, their skills are now somewhat obsolete, meaning that they probably will end up in lower-level engineering jobs than if they had stayed in it the whole time. But who cares? Considering their fat bank accounts, I don't think anybody should be crying for them. After all, would you rather have obsolete skills but have plenty of savings in the bank, or have current skills, but not have much savings in the bank? At the worst case scenario, they can now use some of their savings to train themselves on whatever happen to be the current hot skills - i.e. by getting a master's degree. </p>

<p>Besides, let's talk about some of those other 'professional' degrees that you mentioned. Robert Rubin graduated from Yale Law, even though by his own admission (in his autobiography), he knew that he never really wanted to be a lawyer. He just went to law school because the thought that a law degree would be useful for whatever it is that he would do later in his life. He worked for a few years for Cleary Gottlieb after graduation, and then jumped to become a banker at Goldman Sachs, eventually becoming Co-Chairman and Co-Senior Partner before working for the Clinton administration, eventually becoming Secretary of the Treasury. Similarly, the current CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, graduated from Harvard Law.</p>

<p>The point is, you don't know what is going to happen in the future. Specifically, you don't know where you career is going to take you. If you knew EXACTLY what the state of the world is going to be in the future, and you also knew EXACTLY what you wanted to do, then I would agree that you should simply study only what you need to know. But nobody knows that. Most career progressions are really just a series of unplanned accidents. </p>

<p>Besides, the professional graduate degrees that you cited are fundamentally different from engineering in one simple way. They are all graduate degrees. Whereas, engineering is something that you can get with just a bachelor's. Let's face it. Whether we like it or not, we live in a world where just having a bachelor's degree in ANYTHING is a major boon to your marketability, and in many situations, is basically de rigueur. There are plenty of employers who will not even bother to interview you if you don't have a bachelor's degree. {Note, that doesn't mean that if you have a degree, you will get the job - but it does mean that if you don't have one, you won't get the job. Hence, it's a necessary but not sufficient condition}. It doesn't even really matter what the bachelor's degree is in, it just matters that you have one. In fact, I think you would agree that most current college students are really just trying to get that sheepskin because they just want to get their tickets punched so they can get a decent job. Hence, if you have to get a bachelor's degree in SOMETHING, you might as well get it in something that is the most marketable. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Constrast this to studying a liberal arts major such as English. These are not majors that are directly training you for a specified career such law, medicine, or engineering. Rather they are training you to think, in the mold of the classical academies that existed up to the 18th Century. Practically speaking, studying English or Political Science is much less risky to your GPA than studying engineering if in the end you want to be doing finance.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ah, the risk quotient of engineering. I thought you might come back with that. But even that is not particularly clearcut, for the following reasons.</p>

<p>First off, engineering is clearly not the only major that is rough on your GPA. In fact, I would argue that certain science majors, especially physics, are just as rough, and perhaps rougher on your GPA. Majoring in mathematics is also no walk in the park. Yeah, engineering is a rough major and your GPA might be hurt, but at least it's marketable. Majoring in physics or math might also hurt your GPA, but the degrees are also not particularly marketable. You lose on both fronts. Hence, if anybody has a real reason to complain about anything, it's those physics and math majors. Yet I don't see you advising people against majoring in physics or math.</p>

<p>Secondly, you talk about those humanities and social science students getting higher GPA's. Well, I would argue that that can be looked at another way. They get higher GPA's because they HAVE to get higher GPA's. After all, there aren't exactly a whole lot of great jobs for people who get low grades while majoring in English. Even a guy with a mediocre GPA as an engineering student will probably still get a engineering job. Yeah, it might be a mediocre engineering job, but it will still be an engineering job, which means that the pay will be decent and the job will be decent. Not great, but decent. But somebody majoring in English who gets a mediocre GPA doesn't have a lot of great options. In other words, majoring in engineering is a safer choice. You've basically hedged your downside. </p>

<p>Thirdly, the truth is, those finance jobs aren't exactly as highly focused on GPA as you might think. Granted, GPA plays a role. But it's not a decisive role. Merely having a high GPA won't guarantee that you will get a finance job. If you don't survive the interview, you won't get an offer. Again, if an engineering grad fails in his finance interviews, he can still get an engineering job, and that's not so bad. But if an English grad fails in his finance interview, he doesn't exactly have a fallback plan. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Even better, many universities (top ones even) have business schools that offer a finance major. As a back-up career, I would think accounting would be a better choice as the market for accountants is favorable. Our modern Harrison Ford could become a nurse. Our country is facing a crisis-level nursing shortage; hospitals need more nurses. It'll provide you with a solid career while you wait for that consulting job to come up.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nobody is saying that accounting or nursing are bad backup options. Sure, you could do that too. But the point is, engineering is also a pretty good backup option. The vast majority of bachelor's degrees do not really lead you to a job. </p>

<p>Besides, compare the earnings of engineers, accountants, and nurses. Engineers still get paid more, on average. In 2004, accountants made a median of about 50k, nurses made about 52k, engineers made about 65-70k. Note, these aren't starting wages, these are overall wages. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos001.htm#earnings%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos001.htm#earnings&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#earnings%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#earnings&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos083.htm#earnings%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos083.htm#earnings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>As far as 2006 starting salaries are concerned, most engineers still got higher offer than accounting grads did.</p>

<p><a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/13/pf/college/starting_salaries/index.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/13/pf/college/starting_salaries/index.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Engineers also made more to start than nursing grads did, as you can infer from this quote:</p>

<p>" The starting salary for registered nurses was nearly $39,000 in an April 2005 survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers. "</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/Careers/02/08/cb.unpopular.jobs/index.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/Careers/02/08/cb.unpopular.jobs/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying that accounting or nursing are bad. Indeed, I have always agreed that they are marketable alternatives. I never said that engineering was the ONLY marketable bachelor's degree available. What I am saying is that engineering is still one of the most marketable choices you can make as far as a bachelor's degree is concerned. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Someone who chooses to study engineering should have a mild interest in engineering from the get-go. If he or she sees they like something else, they are well within their rights to change majors. Practicing engineers are always moving up the career ladder or even changing careers entirely as you have pointed out in your many examples. But somebody who has no interest in engineering itself and only wants to be an engineer because it pays well, should probably look other options. It simply doesn't make sense, sorta like studying accounting to become a physicist.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nobody is saying that somebody with truly NO interest in engineering should study engineering. Just like I'm sure you would agree that somebody with no interest in accounting or nursing should not major in those fields either. </p>

<p>What I am saying is that as long as you have some interest in engineering, it can be a reasonably marketable alternative. You obviously shouldn't major in something that you hate, but as long as you can tolerate it, it can be a reasonable path. After all, plenty of people study what they love and end up majoring in Art History or Film Studies, and then end up working at Target (don't laugh, I've seen it happen). You gotta have a balance between doing something that you love and doing something that is marketable. </p>

<p>I think this is especially true for those people who like science/math. If you like science/math, then you can usually find an associated engineering major that should fulfill your intellectual interest while also being marketable. For example, there really isn't THAT much difference in terms of content between majoring in physics and majoring in ME or EE. There isn't that much difference between majoring in math and majoring in CS (which I consider to be a form of engineering). Yes, there are differences, but we're not talking about a 180-degree turn of events here. After all, if you're going to major in a difficult technical subject anyway, then you might as well also make it marketable too.</p>

17

<p>

Well said. I havn't personally talked to very many engineering students that wanted to get into finance, both in my undergrad (Baylor) and grad (GaTech). Goldman Sachs and the like do have an active recruiting presence on campus, so it's not difficult to talk to a recruiter if one wishes to. Perhaps it's only a MIT thing, but the vast majority of engineering students I've talked to want to work in engineering.</p>

18

<p>There's nothing you said that I particularly disagree with, sakky, so I guess perhaps I never shall get it. It's probably because I don't go to a school as nearly glamourous as MIT, UIUC, or GaTech. Most every engineering student I know here wants to be an engineer, and will probably end up working for those mediocre engineering firms you refer to.</p>

19

<p>Well... i'll just input a little bit, but I know an engineer who graduated from a third-tier university (George Mason) who after only 2 years has a $120K/year job at Raytheon (idk if Raytheon is one of those prestigious companies but i do know that $120K/year is a lot...) he is working overseas if that matters at all...</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
Well said. I havn't personally talked to very many engineering students that wanted to get into finance, both in my undergrad (Baylor) and grad (GaTech). Goldman Sachs and the like do have an active recruiting presence on campus, so it's not difficult to talk to a recruiter if one wishes to. Perhaps it's only a MIT thing, but the vast majority of engineering students I've talked to want to work in engineering.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I highly doubt that it's just an MIT thing. I am fairly certain that the same thing happens at Stanford, Princeton, Cornell, Berkeley - basically at any of the premier schools where banks and consultancies recruit. </p>

<p>I would also say that 'wanting' to work in engineering (or any other field) is usually a matter of default. To give you an example, I think we can all agree that most men would prefer to be star professional athletes. I freely admit that I would drop what I am doing right now to play baseball for the Boston Red Sox. I know plenty of foreign athletes who freely admit that if they really had their choice, they would be star professional soccer players, making millions of dollars and getting all the glory. The problem is that very few people actually get the chance to become pro athletes. The vast majority of people aren't really doing what they truly really want to do, but are really just doing what they think they * can * do. There's a big difference between what you think you can do and what you really want to do. At some point, I had to realize that I suck at baseball and playing for the Red Sox was not in the cards. Similarly, other young kids have dreams of becoming movie stars or runway models or famous singers/entertainers, yet most of them give up those dreams at some time. </p>

<p>
[quote]
There's nothing you said that I particularly disagree with, sakky, so I guess perhaps I never shall get it. It's probably because I don't go to a school as nearly glamourous as MIT, UIUC, or GaTech. Most every engineering student I know here wants to be an engineer, and will probably end up working for those mediocre engineering firms you refer to.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See above. Like I said, the vast majority of people in the world aren't doing what they really want to do. Even most consultants and investment bankers don't really want to be doing what they are doing, and would prefer to be movie stars or pro athletes. </p>

<p>Life is not as simple as just pursuing what you want. It's about pursuing a combination of not only what you want, but also what you reasonably think you can get. If I could take a guy who loved engineering, and magically transform him into a physical specimen that could run extremely fast, jump extremely high, and be super-strong, he might decide that he doesn't really want to be an engineer, but would rather try to make it in the NFL. After all, you can make more money in 1 year in the NFL than you can make in your entire lifetime as an engineer. I could take a woman engineer and if I could magically transform her into being gorgeous, tall, and thin, she might decide to try to become a model. </p>

<p>The point is, when people say that X is what they really want to do, what they usually mean is that X is a combination of what they want to do and what they think they can reasonably get given their opportunities. If you give people more opportunities, they will tend to make different choices. People who are born with supreme athletic talent obviously have different opportunities than regular people like me. Similarly, if I gave a bunch of regular people the opportunity to become investment bankers, I suspect that many of them would take the opportunity. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Well... i'll just input a little bit, but I know an engineer who graduated from a third-tier university (George Mason) who after only 2 years has a $120K/year job at Raytheon (idk if Raytheon is one of those prestigious companies but i do know that $120K/year is a lot...) he is working overseas if that matters at all...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, well, 120-150k is the * starting * compensation for the Wall Street investment banks (salary + bonus). Why wait 2 years to make good money when you can make it immediately?</p>