<p>what's your GPA...I got in UCLA EE as a transfer student and maybe I can tell you if you will get in or not....usually the average GPA for HSSEAS admits is around 3.7+ but one of my friends got in UCLA EE transfer with a 3.5</p>
<p>As for name recognition, I guess it really doesn't matter much, but I would go to UCLA instead of CSULA.....</p>
<p>
[quote]
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?
[/quote]
Umm, because perhaps that person likes engineering? Perhaps, also, they don't want to work 100+ hr weeks as the norm. This is not a hard thing to figure out.</p>
<p>Mr Payne oh noe you din't! Get ready for an entire page of sentence by sentence retort :p</p>
<p>^^ ha!</p>
<p>Anyway, I think what you're saying, sakky, boils down to is that most people want money and/or glory, whether that comes from being Michael Douglas in Greed or being Bill Gates. </p>
<p>Bringing this entire discussion back to the OP, it's generally agreed that going to a school with cache gives you the background and connections to achieve these ends. Going to CSULA won't preclude from it, but it'll just make the journey harder.</p>
<p>Mr Payne, I have to agree with that. I'm currently majoring in engineering and about 10-20% of graduates of my major end up in investment banking after graduation. I have two older brothers in investment banking and one hated it (quit the job twice and now is trying to figure out what else he can do with a math degree), and the other loves it. The figures about his salary are about right, but when he asked me about if I ever wanted to go into banking and I said I was unsure he responded by telling me to never go into investment banking. The money's great, but you will work 100+ hours a week for at least 3 years.</p>
<p>He basically said if I liked engineering it made far more sense to avoid investment banking at all costs since it makes about half of the people who work in the field miserable.</p>
<p>Yeah, that's what I don't understand. Everyone totally harps on how much ibanking rocks. I just don't see it, 100+ hour weeks is not fun, at all.</p>
<p>The money has to be that high because the job sucks.</p>
<p>Citan, my GPA is currently 3.77 without the updated grades for this past fall semester. Not sure when I will have those grades but I am sure my GPA will drop quite a bit because I took a pretty tough courseload this time. I think I have a very good chance for admittance to UCLA and I am not worried about it at all. I am just looking ahead into my future and trying to guess which path will be most beneficial for me. Heh, to elaborate on the whole thing about applying for wrong major: I applied as ME, alt: AE...was thinking EE and/or CS along with main major..but recently I decided that I would rather study EE and CS. I am not sure but will call in during the day to ask if I would be able to change the major I am applying for. Since it "doesn't really matter", my point seems to remain unchallenged in that I might as well save a whole lot of money and get my BS earlier than I would at UCLA so I can get going and get some experience/work.</p>
<p>As for the IB stuff...100+ hrs/wk does not sound like fun..and probably something I wouldn't want to do..willingly.</p>
<p>Your point has been answered. What you contend is true, but what everyone is saying is don't be suprised when the UCLA applying for the same job you are appears to be getting more deference just because he/she is a UCLA grad.</p>
<p>Have you considered the CalPoly's?</p>
<p>is University of Florida a recognized name in the engineering sector?</p>
<p>UF is a major university. Of course it's recognized.</p>
<p>Ok, I have somewhat of an update of information to add in to this discussion. I called in about the whole applying to wrong major thing for UCLA and they said that as long as I was admitted to the college of engr., it would not be a problem at all to change my major. So I'm kind of glad about that fact. Yesterday, I visited CSULA to speak with an advisor..who was actually an EE prof over there. Anyways, I found out that there are plenty of people who go on to do grad over at all of the UCs and there was one student from Caltech but I don't even know why he mentioned that student because he only came to take a few classes for more practice so that he wouldn't fall face first over at Tech. It turned out that the idea I had of the purpose of the career/job fairs that they have was basically above what they intend for them to be. Basically, I thought that they hook students up with jobs while they are studying whereas it turns out that the fairs are for seniors and recent BS/BA grads looking for work. I was interested in at least part-time work while I attended. I asked the prof about a general conversion from semester units to quarter units because I was interested in estimating the amount of time it would take for me to complete my coursework over there and we came up with something like 1 1/3 - 1.5 times semester units = quarter units. The reason for this question was because I took pretty high unit amounts over at my college and I wanted to continue the trend at the uni so that I could finish all my coursework quickly and get into some work. It turned out also that I would have to take quit a bit more of GE classes which is not very likable for me. I have taken a few courses for GE but it looks like I would have to take about 5 or 6 more such courses..which would slow me down by a quarter or so =/. Around the time that the conversation was coming to a close, the prof added in that from his impression of the kinds of questions I was asking..he thought he should mention that most of the students at CSULA are not really the traditional full-time students that you would find as the majority at any UC..and that their uni was basically for the purpose of serving the community. I really am not paying much heed to that because it's all based on the individual and what they want to do..everything else is a resource/tool. Though, I actually did notice that practically all the students I saw on campus and in the engr building were around my age so meh..</p>
<p>As for the question of considering Cal Poly and stuff: I'm actually looking for a school that is very close to me because I have to commute through public transportation since my family can't really afford another car. Thus, all the schools we were considering for transfer were UCLA, CSULA, USC, and Caltech. But I was already signed up for classes at CalPolyPom when I decided to just go to Pasadena City College out of high school.</p>
<p>Last night, I took the time to set up a prospective schedule for UCLA. It turns out that I would basically have about 100 units to go for EE at either school. I was thinking that if we could possibly convert a 23/24 unit semester courseload to a quarter courseload of I dunno..perhaps about 30 at CSULA and probably the same amount (23/24) at UCLA (based on difficulty). The 30 I have also comes from the idea that I know a guy who took I think about 32 units per quarter and finished his BS in phys in two years at CSULA and I think I am just as capable as he is. Perhaps the amount should be a little lower than 30 for CSULA, but basically the number of quarters turns out to be the same..about 4 it looks like. I also have very strong conviction to study CS as a double major..so it would seem like I would need two years at either or probably more at UCLA..not sure about this plan at either though, because I haven't mapped out a possible schedule for the double major.</p>
<p>So all this information brings me back to the crossroads between the two..if I end up choosing UCLA..then I might as well continue to apply to USC and Tech..whereas if I choose CSULA..I would be able to complete my coursework at a faster rate I think. But if CSULA will restrict my ability to find high paying jobs or any such thing (as I am getting from my impression of what people are saying on this thread) then I should probably re-think my strategy. Though, I do need to keep in mind that my parents are inclined to leave the country at some point and I thought it would be best for me to get my BS at least somewhat quickly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Umm, because perhaps that person likes engineering? Perhaps, also, they don't want to work 100+ hr weeks as the norm. This is not a hard thing to figure out.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or perhaps that person doesn't like engineering, and is just using it as a 'backup major'? Believe me, there are * plenty [/i ] of people like that. Like I said, it's become something of a running joke at MIT that many of the best engineering students will never work as engineers, but will instead go off to consulting or banking. These are the best engineering students in the world, and yet even plenty of them apparently don't really want to be engineers. So if even plenty of MIT engineering students don't really want to be engineers, what do you think that says about those who go to lesser-ranked engineering programs?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Mr Payne, I have to agree with that. I'm currently majoring in engineering and about 10-20% of graduates of my major end up in investment banking after graduation. I have two older brothers in investment banking and one hated it (quit the job twice and now is trying to figure out what else he can do with a math degree), and the other loves it. The figures about his salary are about right, but when he asked me about if I ever wanted to go into banking and I said I was unsure he responded by telling me to never go into investment banking. The money's great, but you will work 100+ hours a week for at least 3 years.</p>
<p>He basically said if I liked engineering it made far more sense to avoid investment banking at all costs since it makes about half of the people who work in the field miserable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, that's what I don't understand. Everyone totally harps on how much ibanking rocks. I just don't see it, 100+ hour weeks is not fun, at all.</p>
<p>The money has to be that high because the job sucks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, I don't know. Like I've always been saying, it's all relative. Nobody is denying that Ibanking sometimes sucks, especially the hours. But let's face it. A lot of engineering jobs aren't exactly a picnic either. </p>
<p>For example, in Silicon Valley, there really are a lot of companies who expect their engineers to work ridiculous hours. Electronic Arts is rather infamous for it (to the point where they have actually been sued), and companies like Oracle, Apple, and Google don't exactly cater to the person who wants to work only 40 hours a week. I personally know very few high-tech Sillicon Valley engineers who actually work only 40 hours a weekl. </p>
<p>Hence, a lot of engineers figure (probably correctly) that if they are going to be working like a dog anyway, they might as well make the money. Seriously, what's better, working like a dog for 150k, or working like a dog for 75k?</p>
<p>With a few exceptions, Ibanking is in a whole other plane as far as time requirements.</p>
<p>Ibanking is 80-100hours week in and week out. Multiple months without a day off. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't happen in engineering unless you have a massive deadline (ie: the creation of the B2 bomber).</p>
<p>Hell, a job I worked I was doing 75 hours/week, and simply put it......it sucked. Good thing it was hourly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ibanking is 80-100hours week in and week out. Multiple months without a day off. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't happen in engineering unless you have a massive deadline (ie: the creation of the B2 bomber).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh yeah? Tell that to the guys at Google. Or the guys working at Silicon Valley startups, who often times work so hard that they sleep in the office. At least the startup guys have the (small) chance to get rich quick through stock options. But new Google guys have no chance to get rich quickly because Google already had its IPO.</p>
<p>You're arguing a meaningless point. It's known that ibanking has backbreaking hours. The time requirement in engineering for vast majority of positions is much less than ibanking.</p>
<p>I doubt that I am arguing a meaningless point. There are PLENTY of finance-type jobs, of which Ibanking is just one. What of private equity, which is even more rarefied than Ibanking? Private equity analysts actually make MORE money than Ibankers do while working LESS hours. </p>
<p>Plenty of other finance-type jobs exist. Like I said, I know people who graduated from Berkeley as engineers, and then decided to become real-estate brokers to take advantage of the housing boom, and, by their estimation, probably made 3 or 4 times what they would have made if they had just worked as engineers. Granted, the housing boom is over, but they're laughing all the way to the bank. Furthermore, none of them really worked more than 50 hours a week. </p>
<p>But anyway, all of that is neither here nor there. The point is that just because somebody gets an engineering degree does not automatically mean that he really wants to be an engineer, or that he can't get another job. Let's face it. A lot of engineering students are in it just for the money. That's the truth, whether we like it or not. If the money wasn't good, they wouldn't be doing it. They're not really that interested in engineering, they don't really care that much. To them, it's just something that will pay the bills. And furthermore, these same students are precisely the ones who are likely to be tempted by something else that might come along that will pay them better.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I doubt that I am arguing a meaningless point. There are PLENTY of finance-type jobs, of which Ibanking is just one. What of private equity, which is even more rarefied than Ibanking? Private equity analysts actually make MORE money than Ibankers do while working LESS hours.
[/quote]
We weren't talking about this. We were talking about ibanking. If you want to talk about PE lets do it. Very few people get hired into PE without experience in finance related stuff...primarily Ibanking.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Plenty of other finance-type jobs exist. Like I said, I know people who graduated from Berkeley as engineers, and then decided to become real-estate brokers to take advantage of the housing boom, and, by their estimation, probably made 3 or 4 times what they would have made if they had just worked as engineers. Granted, the housing boom is over, but they're laughing all the way to the bank. Furthermore, none of them really worked more than 50 hours a week.
[/quote]
Real estate is really not a finance job and should not be considered as such. It's a sales job, similar to car sales. Now, if you want to consider car sales a finance job, I'll continue this conversation, but right now it's dead.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But anyway, all of that is neither here nor there. The point is that just because somebody gets an engineering degree does not automatically mean that he really wants to be an engineer, or that he can't get another job. Let's face it. A lot of engineering students are in it just for the money. That's the truth, whether we like it or not. If the money wasn't good, they wouldn't be doing it. They're not really that interested in engineering, they don't really care that much. To them, it's just something that will pay the bills. And furthermore, these same students are precisely the ones who are likely to be tempted by something else that might come along that will pay them better.
[/quote]
And again, irrelevant. </p>
<p>My point was that ibanking is not comparable to engineering work in reference to time commitment. I'll stand by that point til the end of time. They are simply not in the same league - at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We weren't talking about this. We were talking about ibanking. If you want to talk about PE lets do it. Very few people get hired into PE without experience in finance related stuff...primarily Ibanking.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I believe I know * exactly * what is being talked about, because I was the one who created this thread offshoot in the first place. Ibanking was just one particular example. The phrase I actually used was 'glamorous non-engineering jobs', which encompasses a wide variety of possibilities. </p>
<p>Now, if YOU want to specifically restrict yourself to talking about Ibanking, be my guest. But I am not going to play ball. I never agreed to those ground rules. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Real estate is really not a finance job and should not be considered as such. It's a sales job, similar to car sales. Now, if you want to consider car sales a finance job, I'll continue this conversation, but right now it's dead.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's no more of a sales job than working at the sales/trading desk at an investment bank, yet that's often times considered to be a subset of "I-banking". Honestly, what's the difference between slinging real-estate and slinging securities at Goldman Sachs? At the end of the day, it's all still sales. Furthermore, sales/trading is a far less time-consuming part of banking.</p>
<p>If you want to consider this conversation to be dead, then by all means, feel free to stop participating. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And again, irrelevant. </p>
<p>My point was that ibanking is not comparable to engineering work in reference to time commitment. I'll stand by that point til the end of time. They are simply not in the same league - at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps irrelevant to you, but not irrelevant to me, and more importantly, not irrelevant to some of the readers out there. Why don't you let the readers determine for themselves what is relevant or not? </p>
<p>But the point stands - getting an engineering degree doesn't mean that you have to be an engineer. Plenty of people get engineering degrees and never work a day as engineers. You can talk about how some jobs are more time-consuming than others, but the fact remains that some engineering jobs are extremely time-consuming, especially the ones at highly desirabe engineering firms such as Google or Microsoft, and so people logically conclude that there is little difference in quality of life between working like a dog as an engineer for Microsoft and working like a dog for an Ibank. But the pay is certainly different.</p>