<p>
[quote]
Let's take it this way: if I said to my girl, hey, don't go out at night alone, it's dangerous, so many criminals around, better be safe at home. What's wrong with that? Those criminals shouldn't be there either, but they're there. Look what we can do in this life is to adopt and take a better measure. I simply said that going to Harvard instead of Cornell or CMU for engineering may get laughed at. Again what's wrong with that?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ah, but it's not the same thing. You are actually implicitly VALIDATING that that the present situation is acceptable. </p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way. It wasn't that long ago (maybe 40-50 years ag0) when it might have been considered truly laughable to turn down Harvard for MIT or Stanford undergrad. Remember, this was back when MIT and Stanford were not considered to be the elite schools that they are now. Now, it's now laughable. But why not? Because over the years, some highly capable people in those old days really did choose to go to MIT or Stanford rather than Harvard, and as a consequence, MIT and Stanford improved. Think of it this way. Back in the old days, MIT and Stanford lived in the shadows of Harvard. Now, they don't. How was MIt and Stanford ever supposed to get from there to here unless they were able to convince strong students to choose them and not Harvard? </p>
<p>Look, I don't know if Harvard will ever reach the level of MIT or Stanford in engineering. But it might. Things change when it comes to education. Formerly weak schools (like Stanford) can become very strong, and vice versa. Furthermore, I would point out that Harvard engineering is almost certainly stronger than it was 10 or 20 years ago. So Harvard engineering is getting better. Hence, it's not completely impossible that Harvard engineering will be elite one day.</p>
<p>The message that you are giving out is highly pessimistic. You seem to be saying that nothing ever changes, and anybody who tries to effect change should get laughed at. I agree that people who do try to create change do sometimes get laughed at, but at the same time, that doesn't stop them. I seem to recall reading a story about how Sergey Brin and Larry Page got ridiculed for thinking they could create a company about free Internet searches, and people would ask them why they don't get real jobs. Yet who's doing the laughing now? Similarly, Harvard in the future might become a great engineering school. It's possible. But we will never know until brave people will choose Harvard over the established elite engineering schools. I'm sure that the people in 1950's who chose Stanford over Harvard got laughed at. So what?</p>
<p>Hence, that's where you analogy breaks down severely. To extend your analogy, you might warn your girlfriend that there are criminals out there. However, you should also say that the fact that they're out there doesn't mean that you shouldn't go out. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Frankly speaking, it is not necessarily true for all. You'll be surprised to know that many MIT PhD students take graduate study because they don't know what they want to do next. As I said, for them, getting an engineering job may not be easier than getting Ibanking jobs, why? Because when they work for Ibanking/consulting, there's no premium added for their PhD. However, in engineering you're likely to be paid significantly higher if you hold a PhD. Hence many engineering companies don't want to employ them
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You just made a severe logical mistake. You said that the banks and the consulting firms won't pay you a premium for your PhD. That is false. In fact, it is generally understood that if you have your PhD, you will be hired at at least the associate level (i.e. the same level that the MBA's are hired at), or, even better, at a specialist level (which is even better than the associate level). But the point is, you won't be hired at the analyst level, which is the level that the undergrads are hired at.</p>
<p>But don't take my word for it. Go take a gander at the recruiting websites of the consulting firms and the banks. You will see that they hire doctorates at a significantly higher level than they do their undergrads. Hence, your assertion that there's no premium added to the Phd is false. In fact, a significant premium is added. It's gotten to the point that the PhD is considered to be an "alternate MBA".</p>
<p>However, your other point is correct in that the engineering firms will often not pay a premium to the PhD's. Yes, right. But my point is, why is that? Why don't they? These are great engineers here. And here are all these US engineering companies complaining that they can't find engineering talent. And yet they refuse to give opportunities to these elite PhD engineers? What's wrong with this picture? </p>
<p>So if you are saying there is something wrong with this picture, then I completely agree with you. But that's a weakness with the US engineering companies THEMSELVES. It is their responsibility to provide strong opportunities to the best engineers in the country . If they don't, then they shouldn't be complaining when the top engineers run off to non-engineering career paths. </p>
<p>Hence, it's put up or shut up time for these engineering companies. Either give these top engineers some strong career opportunities. Or stop complaining that you can't find top engineers. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, sorry I must've thought about Washington, anyway, I believe the cost of living in the East Coast is significantly higher than that in California.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And again, I would argue, is it really? I agree that certain parts of the East Coast are obviously more expensive than certain parts of the West Coast. But I would strongly hesitate to generalize. Let's face it. California is one of the most expensive states in the entire US to live - far more expensive than many East Coast states. </p>
<p>The way I see it is, the "average" cost of living is the same between West Coast and East Coast. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You know why? Because fresh MBA grads normally are not employable in engineering companies (except if they do MBA under the endorsement of the companies). Of course they couldn't be possibly entering engineering companies and kick the incumbent managers out of the window. But working back as normal engineers doesn't really make sense, because there's no rise in pay and it's a waste of time, what they really want is to get to management hirearchy. Hence at this point, many of them working in Ibanking and consulting, the easiest fields to fill
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here I strongly disagree. Why do these engineering companies come to recruit to these MBA schools at all then? For example, I know at HBS and MITSloan, companies like Microsoft, Oracle, Google, Yahoo, Intel, Amazon, Dell, and many other engineering companies are recruiting MBA's. Why is that? You said that these MBA's are not employable at engineering companies. So then why are these engineering companies wasting time and money coming to recruit MBA's? Are they stupid? Maybe you should go talk to the Microsoft recruiter at HBS and MITSloan and tell him how stupid he is to be wasting his time at recruiting there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Look, their undergraduate background doesn't matter anymore; What Larry see from them is their performance in management in their previous jobs. There are tons of CEOs that come from engineering/science background, e.g. Google, GE, Apple & MSFT. I
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But don't you see - it sends a strong SIGNAL about what works and what doesn't. When people see that those who advance at Oracle are the bankers, the conclusion they will make is that if they want to advance at Oracle, they better get banking experience too. Either because the banking experience is itself useful, or because the banking experience allows you to develop your political and your social skills - it doesn't matter what it is. You know and I know that people tend be risk-averse and so they tend to copy what they see as successful. </p>
<p>And furthermore, we have to make a distinction between studying engineering/science in school and being a true engineer/scientist. The CEO of Microsoft is Steve Ballmer. Yes, Ballmer has a degree in math from Harvard. But has he ever actually worked as an engineer or a scientist? No. He worked as a product manager at P&G, then went to Stanford Business School, dropped out, then worked for Microsoft.</p>
<p>Or, since you bring it up, let's talk about GE. GE's CEO is Jeff Immelt. He has a bachelor's degree in applied math from Dartmouth (and later got an MBA from HBS). But did he ever work as a mathematician? I don't think so. </p>
<p>And of course I think we all know that Steve Jobs never graduated from college at all. Furthermore, in the early days of Apple, Jobs was not really so much of an engineer as he was a marketing genius. Steve Wozniak was the true engineering genius. </p>
<p>The only one I would agree with you is that Eric Schmidt of Google was a true engineer.</p>
<p>However, the point is that people see the backgrounds of their CEO's and then make their choices accordingly. When they see that lots of CEO's of engineering companies (i.e. Microsoft, GE, Intel, etc.) either don't have engineering degrees and/or never worked as engineers, then people inevitably come to the conclusion that working as an engineer is not important. THAT'S THE POINT. </p>
<p>Look, I want you to put yourself in the shoes of a guy who just graduated with an engineering degree from MIT. Should you work as an engineer or not? If you want to be a top executive of an engineering companies, and you see all these non-engineers in those positions, what conclusion would you draw?</p>