Is going into engineering worth it?

College Majors Engineering Majors
21

<p>
[quote]
Happiness - A study (Depression among Adults Employed Full-Time, by Occupational Category, SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies) shows that engineers have one of the lowest rates of depression.

[/quote]

I found this very interesting at first, but after considering it, I think it may be a misleading study. </p>

<p>"Among full-time workers aged 18 to 64, females were more likely than males to have a past year MDE (10.1 vs. 4.7 percent)"</p>

<p>I think that the occupation breakdown is, for a large part, just reflecting the fact that women have more major depressive episodes than men. All of the occupations at the bottom of the list for lowest percent of MDE's are largely male dominated occupations while those at the top of the list are more female dominated. The breakdown by gender at the bottom of the page is more telling I think. For both men and women, Life, Physical, and Social Sciences have the lowest rate of MDE's. Women in engineering actually have a fairly large rate of MDE's at 11.1%.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
Working Conditions - I haven't heard of an engineer working more than 60 hours on a regular basis

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You haven't? Really? Perhaps you'd like to take a gander at Silicon Valley.</p>

<p>In 2004, Electronic Arts was criticized for employees working extraordinarily long hours—up to 100 hours per week— and not just at "crunch" times leading up to the scheduled releases of products. The publication of the EA Spouse blog, with criticisms such as "The current mandatory hours are 9 a.m. to 10 p.m.—seven days a week—with the occasional Saturday evening off for good behaviour (at 6:30 p.m.)".</p>

<p>Electronic</a> Arts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>

<p>Some companies are trying to help employees adjust to irregular sleep. Fremont, Calif.-based portal GoYogi.com targets the global Indian population, which means employees have to stay conscious during daylight hours in India, as well as in the United States. India is 13 hours ahead of the U.S., so conversations usually start around 8 p.m. says Suneeta Krish, VP of business development. Krish says that so many employees were asleep under their desks one time that the cleaning staff thought street people broke into the building. To encourage employees to get enough rest, the company recently converted some of its offices into sleeping quarters.</p>

<p>CNN.com</a> - Technology - Are sleep-deprived engineers hurting the Web? - June 12, 2000</p>

<p>*Yet there is unhappiness among those who are living that dream. Based on what can be glimpsed through cracks in E.A.'s front facade, its high-tech work force is toiling like galley slaves chained to their benches.</p>

<p>The first crack opened last summer, when Jamie Kirschenbaum, a salaried E.A. employee, filed a class-action lawsuit against the company, accusing it of failure to pay overtime compensation. He remains at the company, so I spoke with him by phone last week to get an update. He told me that since joining E.A. in June 2003 in the image production department, he has been working -- at the company's insistence -- around 65 hours a week, spread over six or seven days. Putting in long hours is what the industry calls ''crunching.'' Once upon a time, the crunch came in the week or two before shipping a new release. Mr. Kirschenbaum's experience, however, has been a continuous string of crunches.</p>

<p>Crunches also once were followed by commensurate periods of time off. Mr. Kirschenbaum reports, however, that E.A. has scaled back informal comp time, never formally codified, to a token two weeks per project. He said his own promised comp time had disappeared altogether. At this point, he said he would be glad to enjoy a Labor Day without laboring, or eat a Fourth of July spread at some place other than his cubicle, pleasures he has not enjoyed for two years. The company said it had no comment on the lawsuit, but it is likely to argue that Mr. Kirschenbaum's image production position is exempt from the laws governing overtime compensation.</p>

<p>A few days ago, another crack opened -- one large enough to fit a picture window. An anonymous writer who signed herself as ''E.A. Spouse'' posted on the Web a detailed account of hellish employer-mandated hours reaching beyond 80 hours a week for months. No less remarkable were the thousands of comments that swiftly followed in online discussion forums for gamers and other techies, providing volumes of similar stories at E.A. and at other game developers.</p>

<p>I learned the identity of the E.A. employee described in the anonymous account and spoke at length with him in person late one night, adding a third shift to the day's double that he'd already worked. He seemed credible in all respects, in his command of technical detail, in his unshakable enthusiasm for the games he works on -- and in his pallor.</p>

<p>For around $60,000 a year in an area with a high cost of living, he had been set to work on a six-day-a-week schedule. On weekdays, his team worked from 9 to 10 (that is, 9 a.m. to 10 p.m.), and on Saturdays, a half-day (that means 9 to 6). Then Sundays were added -- noon to 8 or 10 p.m. The weekly total was 82 to 84 hours. *</p>

<p>DIGITAL</a> DOMAIN; When Long Hours at a Video Game Stop Being Fun - New York Times</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
aerospace cannot be outsourced or given to noncitizens because of security clearances.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes they can. For example, the F-35 JSF is being built as a partnership among Lockheed, Northrop, and the British defense firm BAE. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Since a company like Boeing, which makes commercial airliners, also designs military aircraft, I'd say those can't be outsourced either.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's also false. Many of Boeing's jobs not only can be easily outsourced, they are now being outsourced * as a matter of design*, via Boeing's international procurement (the so-called "global supply chain") system where many individual components of its aircraft are now being manufactured by international partners and Boeing acts as the assembler and choreographer of the entire supply chain. </p>

<p>For example, take the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner. The wings are actually manufactured by Mitsubishi. The horizontal stabilizers are made by the Italian aerospace firm Alenia Aeronautica. The doors are being made by the French firm Latecoere and the Swedish firm Saab AB (from which Saab Automobiles had been spin off). The French firm Messier-Dowty builds the landing gear, and the French firm Thales builds the flight display. Hence, all of these jobs can be said to be a matter of 'outsourcing'; if Mitsubishi is building the wings in Japan, that means fewer jobs for Americans. </p>

<p>Heck, even those jobs that Boeing has kept for itself are often times performed by foreign citizens in Boeing's international offices. For example, Russian employees of Boeing in the Boeing Moscow Design Center supplies engineering and design support. Boeing Canada and Boeing Australia also manufacture certain key pieces of the 787. Hence, if Boeing is sending work to its own offices in Russia, Canada, and Australia, then that probably means fewer jobs for Boeing engineers in the US. </p>

<p>The</a> Seattle Times: Business & Technology: Boeing 787: Parts from around world will be swiftly integrated</p>

24

<p>yes, but we are strongly allied with the british, so there is really no threat.
i mean that defense aerospace jobs cannot be sent over to india and china with the other engineering jobs.</p>

25

<p>
[quote]
You haven't? Really? Perhaps you'd like to take a gander at Silicon Valley.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But is that the norm in software programming? Or is it limited to just a few companies? Perhaps I shouldn't have used the definitive in my statement, but I still stand by the point I was trying to make. On average, you work less in engineering than in a big law firm, and I think 60 hours is a good dividing point on average.</p>

26

<p>
[quote]
As far as money goes, it's true that many job salaries catch up to or surpass engineering 15-20 years in after advancement has been made in the career. But advancement is not something that one can simply wake up one day and choose to accomplish. "This year i'm going to get a promotion." I know that in the real world, it does not always work that way, regardless of how hard of a worker or how ambitious you are. Decent salaries in engineering are basically a guarantee, though, even if little if no advancement is made.

[/quote]
And this is why engineering is good. If one is 50th percentile in virtually any other profession, you will not be making six figures - sometimes you won't even be in the job.</p>

<p>1) Engineers can make good money while being average.
2) Engineers work less hours, on average, than many other high paying jobs. In fact, some of those jobs could be said to be high paying <em>because of</em> the hours worked (Investment Banking Analyst or Associate). Of course, once the field gets paired down, presumably only the best analysts & associates remain.
3) In many professions the average of those who <em>start</em> in the profession are very short lived. Sales, wall street, consulting, law, entertainment. This assumes you can even "get in" to the profession.</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
yes, but we are strongly allied with the british, so there is really no threat.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The issue, I thought, was not about 'threats', but about whether defense jobs can be outsourced or not. If you lose your job because it gets outsourced to the UK then I don't think it really matters to you that the job was outsourced to an "ally". What matters to you at the end of the day is that you don't have a job, and you don't really care where the job was moved to. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But is that the norm in software programming?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nah, I think it's just the norm in Silicon Valley. Apple, for example, is a hardware company, yet Steve Jobs is notorious for pushing people to work long hours.</p>

<p>A lot of people worked very long hours at Apple, even nights and weekends. They were hardly ever home.</p>

<p>Salon.com</a> Technology | The once and future Steve Jobs</p>

<p>Intel, another hardware firm, is also notorious for its long hours.</p>

<p>You'll be assigned so many projects that working a 60 hour week is common, especially if you are an engineer (although you were hired and paid for a 40 hour week). A working week at Intel for engineers and technical employees is 60 hours or more</p>

<p>Students</a> Corner</p>

<p>
[quote]
I still stand by the point I was trying to make. On average, you work less in engineering than in a big law firm, and I think 60 hours is a good dividing point on average.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Now that I can agree with. Nevertheless, I am simply pointing out that many engineers work quite long hours. In fact, I would argue that these are the engineers who are truly getting screwed - they are working "lawyers' hours", but not being paid "lawyers' salaries".</p>

28

<p>sakky -- most of the jobs being outsourced are going to Asia. if someone mentions outsourcing, they most likely mean outsourcing to asia because of cheaper labor. so in that sense, defense jobs cannot be outsourced.</p>

29

<p>But as sakky said, it doesn't matter where it gets outsourced to. I couldn't care less if my job went to Germany instead of Mongolia. Bottom line is I'm out of a job. </p>

<p>Now, what i'd be interested in hearing about is why some jobs are going to Great Britain, Italy, Japan. Is it cheaper there as well? better quality?</p>

30

<p>
[quote]
sakky -- most of the jobs being outsourced are going to Asia. if someone mentions outsourcing, they most likely mean outsourcing to asia because of cheaper labor. so in that sense, defense jobs cannot be outsourced.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Really? Are you sure about that?</p>

<p>*"Boeing has decided to outsource two critical components of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter from India, and has said that it will consider entering into additional arrangements of a similar nature depending on how aerospace cooperation between India and the US shapes up in the future.</p>

<p>The remarks were made by Boeing's vice president for international strategy, Lt Gen Jeffrey B Kohler, to India Strategic defence magazine.</p>

<p>Boeing is offering the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in the $11 billion tender for 126 medium range multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) for the Indian Air Force (IAF). Gen Kohler stressed, however, that the decision to outsource components for fighter and civil aircraft from India was not dependent on Boeing winning the order.</p>

<p>Gen Kohler also said that Boeing could outsource components for the sophisticated Apache combat helicopter and the CH-47 Chinook heavy lift helicopter from India as well. He said Boeing was willing to transfer technology, depending upon how cooperative arrangements between the Indian and US governments evolved."*</p>

<p>domain-b.com</a> : Boeing mulls outsourcing of critical fighter and helicopter components from India</p>

<p>Boeing Co. and India's Tata Industries Ltd. unveiled plans Thursday for a joint venture to manufacture $500 million worth of defense and military-related components in the subcontinent. The plan is to leverage Tata's manufacturing capabilities and to find new supply sources in India. Conglomerate Tata is building capabilities in defense and aerospace, its chairman, Ratan Tata, said in a statement.</p>

<p>With</a> India JV, Boeing continues down path of distributed manufacturing (Corporate Dealmaker)</p>

<p>* US aviation major Lockheed Martin, in the race to sell 126 F-16 jets to the air force, is in talks with Indian firms like HAL and the Tata group for the outsourcing of aircraft components.</p>

<p>The firm's Advanced Development Programs divisions, which works on research in cutting edge areas like stealth and surveillance technologies, was also keen on forging ties with Indian information technology and research firms, said Joseph Stout, Lockheed's director of communication in an interview with a leading Indian news agency, PTI here on Monday.</p>

<p>He said that they had had preliminary talks with firms like Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Tata and Larsen and Toubro and their teams had surveyed their capabilities and were 'encouraged by their capabilities'.</p>

<p>As part of efforts to establish a presence in India, Lockheed was eyeing the prospect of outsourcing components for the F-16 fighter jets and other aircraft, including the hugely successful C-130 Hercules transport aircraft, to Indian firms.</p>

<p>If Lockheed bags the deal to supply 126 jets to the Indian Air Force, the request for proposals for which are likely to be issued soon, a 'majority' of the jets will be built by state-owned HAL following the transfer of technology, Stout said.</p>

<p>Stout informed that Frank Cappuccio, the executive vice president of Advanced Development Programs or Skunk Works, which network-centric warfare systems and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) use, would visit India later in the year to scout avenues for cooperation.</p>

<p>He added that though they had no agreements in place, 'it is important for Lockheed Martin to establish a presence in India'. *</p>

<p>US</a> aviation, Lockheed Martin keen to tie-up with Indian firms</p>

31

<p>then we are all doomed.
no one else should have american jets. how else do you maintain optimal air superiority.</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
no one else should have american jets.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If no one else should have American jets, then how do you square that with the fact that US defense contractors have been some of the largest exporters in the country, selling significant military material, including, yes, jets, to other countries, and have been for doing so for decades? For example, the F-4 Phantom was exported to 11 other countries (and is still in use in some of them), and the FA-18 Hornet was exported to 7 other countries. </p>

<p>Granted, most of those countries are allies. But not all of them. Furthermore, former allies can turn distinctly unfriendly. For example, the US sold numerous military aircraft, including F-4's, F-5
s and F-14's, to Iran during the days of the Shah. Oops. I guess that's not looking so smart nowadays. </p>

<p>
[quote]
how else do you maintain optimal air superiority

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, I don't know, better military doctrine perhaps? </p>

<p>Seems to me that air superiority is far more than just a simple matter of access to better technology. For example, in WW2, the US did not have the best aerospace technology. In fact, none of the Allies did. Nazi Germany had the best aerospace technology, being the first to develop both the jet airplane and the guided missile. But the Allies maintained clear air superiority from 1943 onwards. That's historical proof that you don't need to have the most advanced technology to maintain air superiority.</p>

33

<p>
[quote]
If no one else should have American jets, then how do you square that with the fact that US defense contractors have been some of the largest exporters in the country, selling significant military material, including, yes, jets, to other countries, and have been for doing so for decades?

[/quote]

err... i said that we should not be selling them, not that we don't.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Seems to me that air superiority is far more than just a simple matter of access to better technology. For example, in WW2, the US did not have the best aerospace technology. In fact, none of the Allies did. Nazi Germany had the best aerospace technology, being the first to develop both the jet airplane and the guided missile. But the Allies maintained clear air superiority from 1943 onwards. That's historical proof that you don't need to have the most advanced technology to maintain air superiority.

[/quote]

but having the best technology sure helps...</p>

34

<p>
[quote]
Seems to me that air superiority is far more than just a simple matter of access to better technology. For example, in WW2, the US did not have the best aerospace technology. In fact, none of the Allies did. Nazi Germany had the best aerospace technology, being the first to develop both the jet airplane and the guided missile. But the Allies maintained clear air superiority from 1943 onwards. That's historical proof that you don't need to have the most advanced technology to maintain air superiority.

[/quote]
Obviously quantity helps and can currently withstand fewer numbers of quality entities.</p>

35

<p>we have successfully hijacked a thread.</p>

36

<p>I worked 80 hours/week on a regular basis as a software engineer but it was mostly my choice and it was nicely rewarded. I would agree that if it's purely about money, then pick something else. It pays well but not in the stratosphere.</p>

<p>I also work on open source code in my free time and that's effectively doing engineering work for others for free.</p>

37

<p>Yes, 60 hours/week is the norm in software. Often times 80+ hours. Including holidays like Labor Day and New Years day and weekends. No, not limited to silcon valley. Places like Denver and Phoenix and Omaha and Memphis and Indianapolis and Los Angeles...
How does a salaried person, Kirschenbaum, think he should get overtime if he's salaried and not hourly?</p>

<p>Anyway, back to the thread...
Note that the salaries in the labor dept. table do not correspond directly to the projected need. If we need (2016) so many more civil engineers and not so many petroleum ones, why not pay more for what we need? People respond to incentives so paying most for petroleum engineers will lead to a surplus in that field and continued shortages in others.</p>

38

<p>I know engineering should not be all about the money... but as somebody has already said, I would like an opportunity for advancement in both status and salary. A bunch of my dad's friends are engineers (mechanical), and after about 30 years of experience they are making 100k w/masters degrees, at a low-level management position. I know that's not bad.... but I haven't met many engineers who've gone beyond this. Does engineering provide you an opportunity to advance beyond making this kind of money and being a low-level manager?</p>

39

<p>I think it does, provided that you are willing to actively make a change and possibly even go back to school for it. I was talking with a representative from Cisco not too long ago and he stressed that the company encourages its workers to grow into all sorts of different areas, including management. The guy himself was working as a project manager (if I remember correctly) though he held some type of EE or CS degree. However, this may not be the norm and I would think that smaller companies tend to use engineers in the same way as one would use a machine... as a replaceable asset. </p>

<p>Waiting 30 years to make the change would probably not be a good idea though. This is something one needs to decide much earlier, withing the first 10 years of their career at the most. I know that I myself would not be happy making 100k (and staying there) after 10-15 years into my career. For me, advancement is key... but who knows? Its too far ahead, I might just get lazy and 100k is not bad at all. </p>

<p>The one thing that I wish our education would somehow incorporate is a better understanding of real careers... not just that "engineers do math" and "lawyers write a lot" and that "businessmen work with money." The fact is that most of us can't really make a good decision of what we want to be. And I think many of us eventually find out what they DON'T want to be but its too late by then.</p>

40

<p>I think you guys have really high expectations...100K in my view is pretty damn good (with just a Masters), and we didn't really have to go to med school or whatever for 5-6 years.</p>