<p>On average, how many hours do engineers work per week? I'd say 45-55 hours with 95% confidence.</p>
<p>On average, how many hours do ibankers (analysts or associates) work per week? I'd say 75-85 hours with 95% confidence.</p>
<p>If you disagree, go ahead. If you want to bring up outliers, whatever. Don't give put the wrong impression on the average is though.</p>
<p>When did I ever say or imply that the average engineer works as much as the average banker? Please point to the quote where I specifically said that. You can't do it because I never said it. </p>
<p>The OP asked why is it important to go to a school with a strong brand name if they are going to major in engineering. The answer is, if you are satisfied with just working as an engineer, then frankly, it's probably not that important, because school name plays little role in determining differences in engineering pay. But if you are possibly interested in doing things besides engineering, then that's where school brand name can become important. That's the point.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When did I ever say or imply that the average engineer works as much as the average banker? Please point to the quote where I specifically said that. You can't do it because I never said it.
[/quote]
I know you didn't say it. You certainly did your best bring up every outlier possible. And you certainly didn't go out of your way to say that engineering is much less work than ibanking. On a forum with mainly high schoolers and 1st & 2nd year college students the average is certainly more important than the outliers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know you didn't say it. You certainly did your best bring up every outlier possible. And you certainly didn't go out of your way to say that engineering is much less work than ibanking. On a forum with mainly high schoolers and 1st & 2nd year college students the average is certainly more important than the outliers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And what's wrong with bringing up outliers? * This whole thread * is about outliers. After all, the average person never has the chance to go to a school with a prestigious brand name in the first place. Hence, anybody who has that opportunity is, by definition, an outlier. Hence, if we are already talking about outliers anyway, then what's so unreasonable about talking about other outliers?</p>
<p>Look. It's not my job to bring up every single possible detail that is out there. My posts are going to be about topics that I am interested in, just like you are going to writing about things that you are interested in, and that, by definition, includes only a certain subset of topics. Already, people complain that my posts are too long and have too many details. Yet whenever I try to shorten them, people (like you) complain that I didn't cover every single possible contingency. So basically, no matter what I do, people will complain. Hence, if I can never satisfy everybody anyway, I'm not going to try. I am going to continue posting about things that I am interested in, nothing more, nothing less.</p>
<p>I work at a large engineering company that likes to hire college graduates from all over the country. It's just like how colleges want diversity, the company I work at want a diverse workforce. It really doesnt matter what school you go to, it's what you did during college. There are 3 factors in determining your salary: your major, your GPA (broken into 3 categories 3.0-3.3, 3.3-3.6, >=3.6), and your interview. The name of the school does not play a role, although it may help you get an interview. A college hire with a 3.6/4.0 GPA (highest bracket) from a state school will get paid more than a college hire with a 3.5/4.0 GPA from at top engineering school like MIT/Stanford, assuming they majored in the same subject and did equally well on the interview. Grade inflation and the difficulty of the school is NOT taken into consideration.</p>
<p>Well, the above post is exactly why many of the best engineers in the world do not choose to work as engineers - they're not paid what they're worth. </p>
<p>That thing about a person with a 3.5 at MIT or Stanford being paid less than a person with a 3.6 at a state school is ridiculous. That engineering company sure does know how to NOT recruit the nation's best engineers.</p>
<p>Nephilim is exactly right. Think about it. A guy with a 3.5/4 GPA coming out of MIT or Stanford has a good shot at getting into banking or consulting. So what exactly is the incentive for him to take a regular engineering position and end up getting paid LESS than the guy who got a 3.6 from a no-name school? </p>
<p>All of that simply reinforces the notion that a lot of engineering companies are simply not very interested in getting the best students. But the banks and consulting firms are. Given that, is it really any wonder that the top engineering students seem to prefer banking or consulting to engineering? Look. At the end of the day, if you want to get the best guys, you are going to have to pay for them. That's what the banks and consulting firms do. </p>
<p>What I find ironic to the extreme is that plenty of engineering companies that refuse to offer higher salary packages to its engineers are the same companies that then hire consulting firms and Ibanks, who then turn around and hire the same engineers who those original engineering companies refused to bid higher salaries for. So at the end of the day, those guys still got paid by the engineering companies anyway, just indirectly (with the bank or consultancy acting as an intermediary). For example, take Eastman Kodak. They don't make starting offers to engineers that are particularly high. But now, they are trying to reorganize themselves and sell off non-core businesses, especially their Health business (i.e. medical scanning equipment, radiology). And who have their engaged to help them do that? Goldman Sachs. So basically, Kodak isn't willing to increase engineering salaries, but they have no problem in paying millions in fees to Goldman Sachs. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, the above post is exactly why many of the best engineers in the world do not choose to work as engineers - they're not paid what they're worth.</p>
<p>That thing about a person with a 3.5 at MIT or Stanford being paid less than a person with a 3.6 at a state school is ridiculous. That engineering company sure does know how to NOT recruit the nation's best engineers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So, basically, you're mad that not all companies that are ratings-obsessed as you think they should be. Why does it matter? You superior engineering students aren't even going to be taking these inferior jobs, so leave them be to us inferior engineering students.</p>
<p>Well, I don't want to speak for nephilim, but I don't think he's 'mad', and neither am I. Rather, we are just stating the reality of the situation. Like it or not, a lot of engineering companies are just not interested in trying to attract the best engineers around. So that's why a lot of the top engineering students don't want to work as engineers.</p>
<p>It's like if you're dating a girl, but you're not treating her well, then you shouldn't be surprised to discover when she dumps you to be with somebody else who treats her better. And then she goes and tells all her friends about how badly you treated her, so now an entire cohort of women don't want to date you. </p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. I still think that engineering is a great deal for the vast majority of people out there. Trust me, I know a lot of humanities and social science graduates who wished they had studied engineering instead. The issue is with the very top engineering students who are being wooed by the consulting and banking firms.</p>
<p>Feenotype,</p>
<p>I really don't think it has anything with Sakky being mad Again, he's talking about how the best in engineering are not actually working as engineers. Instead, they are making their money through non-engineering pursuits such as investment banks. Again, we can reference the "joke" at MIT. He isn't mad, he's just trying to make his point, which I clearly think he's done. Well done Sakky.</p>
<p>btw, this is an example of how stupid admissions can be. It rings bells similarly to how med schools will take a 3.8/economics major at Joe-Schmo State over a 3.5/Electrical Engineer at Cornell becuase the first applicant had better numbers. This system of looking purely at the numbers is totally unfair and should be changed. </p>
<p>btw, your last comment is absolutely stupid IMHO. Thats like saying you superior doctors are going to go into a more lucrative speciality like cardiology, so why not leave us inferior doctor's as the general surgeons? Are you going to let the people under the general surgeon die because of a inferior doc as opposed to a superior doc with the same interest? Its a different background, but similar application. I'm sure Sakky can approve this, but while MANY of the top engineers at MIT/Stanford/etc go into more lucrative practices, there are still MANY who want to DO ENGINEERING. Besides, anyone who can get into MIT in the first place has to be at the top TO BEGIN WITH. Why should they be getting less compensated despite all their hardwork over someone who worked less?</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
but while MANY of the top engineers at MIT/Stanford/etc go into more lucrative practices, there are still MANY who want to DO ENGINEERING.
[/QUOTE]
I know quite a few (including me). Many of them btw actually work in IB the first few years (to make a decent 'nest egg') and then some of them switch back to engineering (many others don't) and hope to get a managerial position in an engineering company. I'm personally not too affected by this problem simply because I'm planning on living overseas where prestige means A LOT even in engineering (many companies would die to get a Stanford/MIT graduate).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, the above post is exactly why many of the best engineers in the world do not choose to work as engineers - they're not paid what they're worth.
[/quote]
How does one become a "good engineer" if they've never even worked as an engineer?</p>
<p>I should have said 'best engineering students'. </p>
<p>But the central point stands. Both the top engineering schools and the lesser-ranked ones produce graduates who have never actually worked as engineers. One could say that the top guy graduating from MIT might turn out to be a poor engineer. But one could also say that a guy coming out of a no-name engineering program might also turn out to be a poor engineer. So it's a wash. </p>
<p>Yet at the end of the day, many graduates from the top engineering schools will never work as engineers, instead opting for banking and consulting. And I lay the blame for that right on the engineering firms. They're not willing to try to attract these guys. That would be fine if they didn't need that level of talent. But what is ironic is that many of these same engineering firms will then turn around and pay millions of dollars in fees to those same top consultancies and banks that those top engineering students went to. So the firms end up paying these guys anyway. They just do so indirectly. </p>
<p>The way I see it is, if you're going to end up paying them one way or another anyway, you might as well just bring them on as direct hires.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Thats like saying you superior doctors are going to go into a more lucrative speciality like cardiology, so why not leave us inferior doctor's as the general surgeons?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, it's like saying that superior medical students are going into lucrative areas of medicine, like surgery in general, so they should leave the less lucrative areas such general practicioning to the "inferior" medical students (no offense to general practioners). </p>
<p>Further, I'm not the one to created the idea that all engineering students who don't go to MIT and its lot are inferior by default. That's just been created by the aura of this forum (whatever that means).</p>
<p>After all this discussion, I don't see what the problem is. Market economics "force" these students in the MIT joke to take the lucrative finance jobs by flooding the market with engineers from schools that dont have the luxury of cache, increasing the supply of labor and decreasing wages (but wages that are still great compared to what many people in the world go by). Consulting firms get their engineers, engineering firms get their engineering, elitists get their egos stroked, and everybody gets paid. All is good.</p>
<p>What percentage of engineers from MIT or Stanford go into consulting or banking? What about top tier publics like Cal, Michigan, or GaTech?</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Further, I'm not the one to created the idea that all engineering students who don't go to MIT and its lot are inferior by default. That's just been created by the aura of this forum (whatever that means).
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Ummm actually in general, you are wrong. Yes there are plenty of brilliant engineers that don't go to these expensive (overrated in my opinion) elite schools because they are smart enough to know its not needed. But just look at the ridiculous stats that are needed to have a CHANCE at MIT. You can't dismiss this by saying that people who don't go to these top schools are no brighter, because in fact, they are the very brightest in the nation and even world that go there. Only a few bright students go to state schools unless its an elite public (ie UCB, UCLA, Umich, UNC-CH, etc). </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
After all this discussion, I don't see what the problem is. Market economics "force" these students in the MIT joke to take the lucrative finance jobs by flooding the market with engineers from schools that dont have the luxury of cache, increasing the supply of labor and decreasing wages (but wages that are still great compared to what many people in the world go by). Consulting firms get their engineers, engineering firms get their engineering, elitists get their egos stroked, and everybody gets paid. All is good.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>now I'm getting the sense that you are upset that there are so many engineers because its dropping wages, while earlier, you were fighting for these "inferior" engineers. What do you want? Maybe insteead of leaving jobs for inferior engineers, all engineers should become super-selective like medicine or dentistry is so that there is almost always some shortage of engineers to increase wages. The truth is, any idiot who works hard enough and doesnt quit will be an engineer, but not everyone can be a doc or dentist. If you want high wages, convince everyone to make engineering ultra-competitive</p>
<p>I'm hardly upset with the market conditions of the field of engineering. I mean, did I just not say of engineering wages:</p>
<p><a href="they">quote</a> are still great compared to what many people in the world go by
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sorry if I'm making myself to be some crusader against top schools. I am definitely not, and as a former student at a relatively top school, I have great respect for those that have the tenacity and mental fortitude to graduate with a good GPA from these top schools (not-so-good GPAs is a matter for another thread). </p>
<p>But also using my experience in attending two very different schools, I also believe that the engineering (and other disciplines, too) is the same whether you go to MIT or whether your taking Dr. Reynolds classes at the University of Arkansas-Pine Bluff. Everybody have access to the same books. Everybody has professors that do the same research and read and write the same papers and attend the same conferences. </p>
<p>There are no doubt intangibles at places like UCB that don't have to do with curriculum but everything to do with how to deal with life, but as far a learning goes, I think everybody get a fair shake in that regard. You can vehemently disagree with me if you want, but that just my opinion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What percentage of engineers from MIT or Stanford go into consulting or banking?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For MIT, nobody has calculated the percentage. You are free to do so. The information is available on p.10-12. Eyeballing it, I would say that it's about 1/4 to 1/3. </p>
<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation06.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation06.pdf</a> </p>
<p>But of course that doesn't quite capture the full dynamic. There are other MIT engineers who want to go to IB or consulting, but don't get an offer. So they end up working as engineers, or in some cases, going to engineering grad school. {For example I know people who have gotten master's and PhD's in engineering, and then immediately went off to IB or consulting.} Then there are other people who take jobs as engineers, but then later get their MBA's, and then go to IB or consulting that way. </p>
<p>What we really want to capture is how many of these MIT engineers actually WANT to go to IB or consulting as their first choice (whether they get an offer or not). That's obviously impossible to measure, but anecdotally, I would guess that for every one person that heads off to IB or consulting, probably there is another person who wanted to do the same, but didn't get an offer. Hence, if 1/4 to 1/3 of MIT undergrad engineers head off to IB or consulting, then that probably means that around 1/2 to 2/3 wanted to. </p>
<p>For Stanford? I don't know. They don't publish their employer data. However, I wouldn't expect it to be much different from MIT. If anything, I would expect it to be even more prevalent at Stanford than at MIT precisely because Stanford, frankly, has a better business school than MIT does, and therefore lots of consulting firms and IB's have higher-profile presences at Stanford than at MIT. I would therefore surmise that they figure that if they are already there to recruit MBA's anyway, they might as well establish a presence to recruit undergrads. I know some investment banks that recruit at Stanford but not at MIT. </p>
<p>
[quote]
What about top tier publics like Cal, Michigan, or GaTech?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As far as Cal goes, go ahead and calculate it for yourself. Eyeballing it, I would say it's less than 10% </p>
<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/EECS.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/EECS.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/CivilEngr.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/CivilEngr.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Bioengr.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Bioengr.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/IEOR.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/IEOR.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/MechEngr.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/MechEngr.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/MatSci.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/MatSci.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/NucEngr.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/NucEngr.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/EngrSci.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/EngrSci.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/ChemEngr.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/ChemEngr.stm</a></p>
<p>I don't know about Michigan or Georgia Tech. Maybe you can ask Alexandre about Michigan.</p>
<p>But I don't see how this is relevant anyway. These are all quite good schools. What we should be doing is comparing MIT/Stanford/Berkeley vs. some no-name engineering school. That, I would think, would show a sharp contrast.</p>
<p>Not really a problem. Even 33% of a class is not enough to get in arms about. The other engineering powerhouses are more than willing to take up the slack.</p>
<p>The "problem" you are talking about compensation is so incredibly small. There is no reason for employers to hire undergraduate MIT engineers for 100K. There simply is no reason to do it. The amount of high level finance and consulting jobs is just so small there is no reason for engineering companies to try and compete for the best grads.</p>