Is harvard engineering (Biomedical especially) famous?

College Majors Engineering Majors
161

<p>
[quote]
Recently, in a widely publicized news release, "a panel of experts" convened by the National Academies wailed again that the US is falling behind China and India in its production of engineers -- and their policy recommendations of more college financial aid targetted to engineers, subsidized broadband access, and more foreign student visas are just more of the same old tired dubious formulas (China and India did none of those things).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I believe that all of those proposed ideas could be helpful on the margins, and probably should be enacted. I also have to disagree that China and India never did anything to stoke their supply of engineers. Both China and India made extensive investments in their education systems to produce more and higher-quality engineers, India most famously with the IIT's, and China with similar large investments in their system of technical colleges and educational centers. </p>

<p>Nevertheless, I do agree with you that ultimately it can't just be a supply-push, but rather a demand-pull that will solve the problem once and for all. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I believe that the US government could do more to improve access to technical education. However, ultimately, it's the companies themselves that have to entice the students to complete engineering degrees and stay in engineering upon graduation, and they will do that only by offering engineers better jobs. Otherwise, you will always have a braindrain away from engineering and to other fields.</p>

162

<p>Sakky,</p>

<p>You must understand that many students with engineering majors don't directly run off to wall-street (even from elite schools). They work in industry for several years before getting their MBA and finally transition into a specific sector consulting / banking that deals with a familiar area that they worked in. I didn't realize this till I attended a networking meeting at Cooper Union for alumni currently working in wall-street. For such a small school, we had a surprisingly large amount of bankers/consultants. Most of them were associates/analysts but we had a few managing directors and even a CEO working for some of the most powerful i-banks.</p>

<p>Anyways, what I noticed was that almost every one of these individuals (especially the execs) had solid experience in the industry for at least decade before going back to college and getting an MBA followed by a transition into wall-street. </p>

<p>While it's true that wall-street pays more money, I feel that the switch to banking/consulting from engineering isn't based on just getting more money ASAP but rather transitioning into the area after a certain level of expertise and confidence is reached. That and the fact that the individual feels like getting more involved with the market and the economy.</p>

<p>I too was obsessed [and still sort of am:) ] with working for an i-bank after graduation and starting off near 100K salary but now that I think about it, it makes sense to just wait and get some real experience in the industry before running off into wallstreet. I've talked to many engineers / math majors / non-science majors and they also agree with my way of thinking. Banking/consulting involves many different fields and your prior work experience can help immensely if you choose to be banker/consultant in a similar field.</p>

163

<p>"... ultimately it can't just be a supply-push, but rather a demand-pull that will solve the problem once and for all. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."</p>

<p>So that begs the question: why won't the market swell up a demand-pull that will solve this "not enough engineers" crisis the education and media establishments keep wailing about?</p>

<p>WingardiumLeviosa got it right, I think, when he wrote that the problem worth solving is how the US will retain its technological edge, not how many engineers the US produces. The two problems can very well be distinct. Note that the education establishment has a strong vested interest in producing lots of engineers -- paying these engineers well afterwards and making that education worth their time and toil are really "not my department" for the education establishment.</p>

<p>It is worth looking at how the US retained its agricultural lead while shedding its large population of farmers. Yes, politicians and their friends in the media and arts/entertainment did wail with great eloquence and poignancy about the disappearance of farming communities -- perhaps those were the politicians whose power bases depended on the farming communities. Looking back, agricultural edge evidently depends a great deal more than just having lots of farmers. My guess is that essential contributions to our agricultural edge are made by our strong chemical and heavy equipment industries (which are innovative not just in product development but also in buyer financing techniques), our shipping and transportation infrastructures, our reliable power-suppy and transmission grids in the rural areas, even our relativly liquid and transparent commodities futures markets.</p>

<p>Perhaps the argument can be made that retaining our technological edge depends less on having lots of US-domiciled engineers than on, say, having a vibrant venture-capital industry that rewards commercially viable technological innovations, having flexible labor market laws that allow both employers and employees to adjust their human capital investments quickly, etc.</p>

<p>Sorry Sakky and Rtkysg to take this thread in another direction. The question came up naturally in your discussions, and I think it is an interesting topic.</p>

164

<p>
[quote]
So I ask again - if you really think you're better off than the Harvard guy, then why laugh at them?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As I mentioned before, they would laugh at those who choose Harvard over Purdue for graduate study in engineering because they look down on such attitude, not because of their better-off position. You may have your opinion on why those engineering students chose Harvard while others may have theirs. Look, you are entitled to argue why choosing Harvard over Purdue/Michigan is not a bad choice, but it is the fact that some people who laugh at this decision (based on their own reasonings) do exist, whereas nobody laughs at those who choose Princeton over Cornell for CS. Why?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Again, this is not MIT vs. Harvard. That's a pretty decisive rout. This is Michigan vs. Harvard. This is a case where the situations are fairly close. Yes, I give the edge to Michigan,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Comparing Michigan vs. Harvard for graduate engineering is like comparing Cornell vs. Yale for CS. No, it is not fairly close. It is far and away.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Well, let me explain. Wayne Rosing was the longtime VP of Engineering at Google (just recently retired) and is something of a legend in Silicon Valley. Wayne Rosing never graduated from college. Is anybody prepared to say that Google was stupid in hiring him? I'm sure there were lots of people who had elite engineering degrees who wanted to be VP of Engineering, but Google turned them all down for Rosing. This isn't the difference between Michigan vs. Harvard, this is the difference between Michigan and no degree at all.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you kidding me with this example? What is the previous position that Rosing held before Google recruited him? a bum? Do you think Google would have recruited him if he was just a fresh high school grad? And what he's hired for? Core search engine design? Hey, your position and company matter much much more than your alma mater once you start working. But these fresh PhD grads may not have anything to prove beside their PhD theses. Furthermore, in engineering PhD thesis matter more than anything else for employability, a criterion which put many Harvard engineering PhD at disadvantage. On the average, I would argue that Michigan grads in engineering are more marketable than Harvard grads (for graduate level). I don't have hard data on this, but it's just a personal judgement based on my exposure in engineering field.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yeah, but I would turn that around and ask do you really want to work for a jerk anyway?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What matter is whether you get the job or not. You never know if he's a jerk or not.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Sure. On the other hand, principal consultants make over 500k, and principal investment bankers make in the 7-8 figures.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You have any link on that? I thought that only those with high management positions at CityGroup may make over 500k. I'm not familiar with the management hirearchy in investment banking, but 3-5 years is typically enough to become principal engineers in engineering and this position is generally not yet regarded as a management position. Make sure you compare orange with orange.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Similarly, if engineering companies want more engineers, then they have to improve the engineering career track. Otherwise, some people will always drift away to other career paths, and that should surprise nobody. The fact is, other career paths (notably management consulting in the last 20 years) have improved their offerings, and engineering has not kept pace. Hence, it should not be surprising that more people are being drawn away from engineering. That's competition.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This logic is very wrong. Management consulting jobs on the average require higher qualifications and work hours. This is why they're 'better' than typical average engineering jobs. Lawyers and doctors on the average make much more money than engineers does this mean that it's a better path than engineering too? The fact is that average lawyers, doctors, and i-bankers have better qualifications than average engineers. It's not about the profession, it's about the quality of the person. How about taking Larry Page, Gordon Moore, or Kai-Fu Lee as an example, wouldn't you then say engineering paths that they chose are more rewarding.</p>

165

<p>
[quote]
As I mentioned before, they would laugh at those who choose Harvard over Purdue for graduate study in engineering because they look down on such attitude, not because of their better-off position. You may have your opinion on why those engineering students chose Harvard while others may have theirs. Look, you are entitled to argue why choosing Harvard over Purdue/Michigan is not a bad choice, but it is the fact that some people who laugh at this decision (based on their own reasonings) do exist, whereas nobody laughs at those who choose Princeton over Cornell for CS. Why?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah because the people doing the laughing are jerks. I already explained this. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Comparing Michigan vs. Harvard for graduate engineering is like comparing Cornell vs. Yale for CS. No, it is not fairly close. It is far and away.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If that's really true, then there's no reason to laugh. So why laugh? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Are you kidding me with this example? What is the previous position that Rosing held before Google recruited him? a bum? Do you think Google would have recruited him if he was just a fresh high school grad? And what he's hired for? Core search engine design? Hey, your position and company matter much much more than your alma mater once you start working. But these fresh PhD grads may not have anything to prove beside their PhD theses. Furthermore, in engineering PhD thesis matter more than anything else for employability, a criterion which put many Harvard engineering PhD at disadvantage. On the average, I would argue that Michigan grads in engineering are more marketable than Harvard grads (for graduate level). I don't have hard data on this, but it's just a personal judgement based on my exposure in engineering field.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, I already said that I believe that Michigan grad engineers are better than Harvard grad engineers. When did I say otherwise? So what are we arguing about? </p>

<p>What I am asking is why should people feel the need to laugh? Again, if the Michigan grad engineer is really better off than the Harvard grad engineer, then he should feel no reason to laugh. Like I said, to me, laughter is really a sign of lack of confidence. If you're sure that you're in a better position than somebody else, then you should not have to laugh at them. Do rich people go to the ghetto to laugh at poor people? I don't think so. Rich people already know that they have a better life than poor people do, so what's the point of laughing? </p>

<p>And take Wayne Rosing. Sure he got experience before. A lot of it, specifically at Sun and then at Apple. But how? He didn't have a degree back then just like he doesn't have a degree now. So how was he able to get hired at Apple in the very beginning? Why didn't Apple just look at his lack of degree and laugh at him and throw his application away? Here you are saying that people with Harvard grad eng degrees won't be hired over people with Michigan grad engineering degrees, yet in the past, Rosing got hired with no degree at all. Explain that. Was Apple being stupid? </p>

<p>
[quote]
What matter is whether you get the job or not. You never know if he's a jerk or not.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And how long do you really think a guy who is a jerk is going to last in a management position anyway? I would argue not very long. And he's certainly going to lose out on key talent.</p>

<p>For example, if that same jerk was working at Apple, he probably would have refused to hire Wayne Rosing. Rosing would have then worked for somebody else. Believe me, there are PLENTY of brilliant high-tech employees with degrees from only mediocre schools, or no degree at all. Larry Ellison got his start at Ampex despite having no degree. Bill Gates and Paul Allen used to work at Honeywell part-time despite having no degrees at the time (and still not having any). After dropping out of Reed College, Steve Jobs got hired at Atari, and after dropping out of Berkeley, Steve Wozniak got hired at Honeywell. Were Atari and Honeywell stupid to have hired these guys with no degrees? </p>

<p>
[quote]
You have any link on that? I thought that only those with high management positions at CityGroup may make over 500k. I'm not familiar with the management hirearchy in investment banking, but 3-5 years is typically enough to become principal engineers in engineering and this position is generally not yet regarded as a management position. Make sure you compare orange with orange

[/quote]
</p>

<p>3-5 years to become a principal engineer? I don't know about that. That would make you 25-28. Most engineers of that age are nowhere even close to being a principal engineer making 150k. Heck, I know plenty of engineers who are twice that age (and thus have ~30 years of experience) who are still not making 150k. </p>

<p>Since you wanted links, you got 'em.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.careers-in-finance.com/ibsal.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.careers-in-finance.com/ibsal.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>As you say, you want an apples-to-apples comparison. So think about an engineer with an MBA, doing tech management. How many of them have a shot at making the kind of money that a similar bulge-bracket banker can? </p>

<p>
[quote]
This logic is very wrong. Management consulting jobs on the average require higher qualifications and work hours. This is why they're 'better' than typical average engineering jobs. Lawyers and doctors on the average make much more money than engineers does this mean that it's a better path than engineering too? The fact is that average lawyers, doctors, and i-bankers have better qualifications than average engineers. It's not about the profession, it's about the quality of the person. How about taking Larry Page, Gordon Moore, or Kai-Fu Lee as an example, wouldn't you then say engineering paths that they chose are more rewarding.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Moore and Page, yes. But Lee? No. Is he a billionaire? I don't think so. </p>

<p>Moore and Page had great careers not because they were engineers, but because they were ENTREPRENEURS. Moore didn't just rise out of the realms of engineering. His great move was that he was one of the so-called Traitorous Eight that left Shockley Semiconductor to found Fairchild and then left Fairchild to found Intel. If he had stayed at Shockley, do you really think he'd be a billionaire?</p>

<p>I have always agreed that being an entrepreneur is a great way to go. But that's a far cry from saying that you want to be an engineer. The question is, if you don't have what it takes to be an entrepreneur, and you have the choice to work as a banker or an engineer, what would you do?</p>

<p>Think of it this way. Like I said, plenty of MIT and STanford engineers get offers to be bankers and consultants (and get into law/med school or whatever). Many of them take those offers instead of becoming engineers. Not all, but many. You're saying that it doesn't really matter because these people are 'better' than the average engineer, so they would enjoy success either way they go. Are you really sure about that? </p>

<p>Look, the truth is that it is strongly perceived that those other career paths give you greater room to shine. A star investment banker/consultant tends to have more opportunities than a star engineer. Even if that's not true in reality, the perception of it is out there. That's why lots of elite engineers tend to drop engineering in favor of banking/consulting.</p>

166

<p>Since all we do is just talk past each other, I will lay out all our points of contention right here. Don't answer any other questions besides these.</p>

<p>1) If people going to Michigan grad eng truly feel that they are better off than people going to Harvard grad eng, then why does anybody feel the need to laugh? That is, unless they are just jerks?</p>

<p>2) Why are so many top engineers attracted to banking and consulting jobs rather than engineering jobs? </p>

<p>3) Should engineering companies try to make engineering a better career path to compete against banking and consulting and other alternative paths? If they should, then why don't they? If not, why not? </p>

<p>4) Don't you find it positively daft on the part of engineering companies like Intel to complain that the US doesn't produce enough engineers, yet not do their part to try to improve the attractiveness of an engineering career?</p>

167

<p>
[quote]
You must understand that many students with engineering majors don't directly run off to wall-street (even from elite schools). They work in industry for several years before getting their MBA and finally transition into a specific sector consulting / banking that deals with a familiar area that they worked in. I didn't realize this till I attended a networking meeting at Cooper Union for alumni currently working in wall-street. For such a small school, we had a surprisingly large amount of bankers/consultants. Most of them were associates/analysts but we had a few managing directors and even a CEO working for some of the most powerful i-banks.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I understand this very well, but it still begs the question of 'why'? Why are all these clearly highly technically skilled people with top engineering degrees transitioning their way out of engineering, whether it's right out of undergrad, or whether it's after B-school? Why? Why can't engineering keep this high-quality talent? Why does this talent drift away and why doesn't engineering do something to prevent it? That's the real question at hand. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Note that the education establishment has a strong vested interest in producing lots of engineers -- paying these engineers well afterwards and making that education worth their time and toil are really "not my department" for the education establishment.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't entirely agree with your first phrase. The US educational establishment certainly doesn't produce a lot of engineers at all. Consider this. Less than 5% of all bachelor's degrees granted in the US were engineering degrees, compared to 46% (yeah, that's right 46%!) of all bachelor's degrees in China.</p>

<p>Also consider this quote: "In the US, more students are getting degrees in “parks and recreation” than in electrical engineering"</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/press/company/2003/c03033.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/press/company/2003/c03033.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The point is that the US educational establishment really does not produce many engineering degrees at all, relative to the huge number of other degrees that are produced. 65k new engineering bachelor's is truly a drop in the bucket compared to about 1.3 million new bachelor's degrees of all types produced in the US every year.</p>

<p>However, my point is that even of the relatively small number of US engineering degrees produced every year, some of them, especially the top ones, will run off to other careers. They could get engineering jobs. Instead they choose something else. Hence, US engineering companies can't even attract all the 65k of engineers that are produced every year.</p>

<p>However, my real beef is not that these companies should try to hire all these engineers. If they don't want to, then fine. Like you said, the US may not need to have lots of engineers in order to maintain its technological prominence. However, what annoys the heck out of me is when US companies SAY that they want more engineers, but then don't actually do anything to make engineering jobs more attractive.</p>

168

<p>Perhaps these engineering companies that complain are merely posturing? They need political cover in case they are criticized for outsourcing?</p>

169

<p>
[quote]
1) If people going to Michigan grad eng truly feel that they are better off than people going to Harvard grad eng, then why does anybody feel the need to laugh? That is, unless they are just jerks?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Those 'jerks' may think that those Harvard grad engrg students made a wrong decision (instead of lack of capability) due to trivial reasons. It is not so hard either to find people who laugh at those desperates running to casinos for financial answers. It is not a proper analogy, but it should give some idea why people laugh despite their better form.</p>

<p>
[quote]
2) Why are so many top engineers attracted to banking and consulting jobs rather than engineering jobs?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Let me give some prior notes:
1. Being top engineers doesn't imply that their best interest is engineering when they're in college.
2. There is no evidence that cream engineering positions are less attractive than consulting/banking jobs. In fact I would argue that most Caltech/MIT engineers go into engineering positions.</p>

<p>Now with those in mind, it's not hard to see that banking/consulting are better in terms of financial rewards than average engineering jobs, and for most practical people this gives better appeal; But it doesn't show that good engineering positions at Genentech, Microsoft or Yahoo would be less attractive than consulting.</p>

<p>
[quote]
3) Should engineering companies try to make engineering a better career path to compete against banking and consulting and other alternative paths? If they should, then why don't they? If not, why not? </p>

<p>4) Don't you find it positively daft on the part of engineering companies like Intel to complain that the US doesn't produce enough engineers, yet not do their part to try to improve the attractiveness of an engineering career?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Despite of Bill Gates campaign for more engineers, getting into Microsoft is extremely difficult compared to the other tech companies. Nevertheless, you'll see that many of its employees are internationals, which I suspect motivates his tour. Let me assert once again, there're plenty Asians who could flood those tech companies if only they want to hire them. Given the number of international engineering students from top 10 engineering US schools who have to return home since they couldn't find jobs in the US, engineering already seems to be a very good path on its own.</p>

<p>
[quote]
3-5 years to become a principal engineer? I don't know about that. That would make you 25-28.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>From my knowledge, 25-28 would have made you sit in management hierarchy, i.e. director or product manager (depends on your management skill) and obtain 300-800K.</p>

170

<p>
[quote]
Those 'jerks' may think that those Harvard grad engrg students made a wrong decision (instead of lack of capability) due to trivial reasons. It is not so hard either to find people who laugh at those desperates running to casinos for financial answers. It is not a proper analogy, but it should give some idea why people laugh despite their better form.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Exactly. So you admit that they are jerks. If somebody wants to go to Harvard to get a grad eng degree, that's his life. It doesn't affect you, so what do you care, unless you're a jerk? </p>

<p>And I stand by what I said before. You should not live your life in fear of jerks. Just imagine the kind of world we would live in if nobody ever dared to do something because they're afraid that some jerks might laugh at them. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Let me give some prior notes:
1. Being top engineers doesn't imply that their best interest is engineering when they're in college.
2. There is no evidence that cream engineering positions are less attractive than consulting/banking jobs. In fact I would argue that most Caltech/MIT engineers go into engineering positions.</p>

<p>Now with those in mind, it's not hard to see that banking/consulting are better in terms of financial rewards than average engineering jobs, and for most practical people this gives better appeal; But it doesn't show that good engineering positions at Genentech, Microsoft or Yahoo would be less attractive than consulting.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Which only leads to the next set of questions. #1 - why can't engineering be made more interesting such that more people want to study it, and #2 - Why can't there be more cream engineering jobs? Or in other words, why do there have to be so many crappy engineering jobs, and why can't they be made into cream ones? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Despite of Bill Gates campaign for more engineers, getting into Microsoft is extremely difficult compared to the other tech companies. Nevertheless, you'll see that many of its employees are internationals, which I suspect motivates his tour. Let me assert once again, there're plenty Asians who could flood those tech companies if only they want to hire them. Given the number of international engineering students from top 10 engineering US schools who have to return home since they couldn't find jobs in the US, engineering already seems to be a very good path on its own.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So you agree with me that engineering isn't 'really' that good? After all, if it was, then all these top Asians (or top engineers from any ethnicity) would be hired, right? </p>

<p>Furthermore, if Bill Gates is already turning down many engineers, whether from Asia or anywhere else, then why is he complaining that he can't find enough people? You have to agree that he's obviously not being completely honest. </p>

<p>
[quote]
From my knowledge, 25-28 would have made you sit in management hierarchy, i.e. director or product manager (depends on your management skill) and obtain 300-800K.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you're talking about Microsoft, I know plenty of people who are 25-28 and on the management track and make nothing even close to 300-800k. </p>

<p>However, none of that is the point. The point is, why is Microsoft lecturing Americans to become more interested in engineering if Microsoft turns down most of the engineers that want jobs? If Microsoft was really hurting for engineers, then Microsoft should be trying to hire every engineer it can find. That's not happening. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Perhaps these engineering companies that complain are merely posturing? They need political cover in case they are criticized for outsourcing?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of COURSE they're posturing. And that's the point of my involvement in this thread. I am trying to tell people that there is no real shortage of engineers, that the US doesn't really "need" more engineers, no matter what the companies say. If a real shortage of engineers existed, then the rules of economics would dictate the salaries would rise accordingly until the shortage was solved. Like I said, if all engineers were to get paid 6 figures, even at the mediocre engineering companies, people would be coming out of the woodwork to become engineers.</p>

171

<p>
[quote]
And I stand by what I said before. You should not live your life in fear of jerks. Just imagine the kind of world we would live in if nobody ever dared to do something because they're afraid that some jerks might laugh at them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ahh.. so after a long debate, we finally arrive at the core of this problem. Well, eventhough I admit there are 'jerks' within our society, I would take those 'jerks'' view into parts of my consideration when I formulate my suggestion. This is because none other than the fact that we live in the society where jerks constitute a significant percentage in this world. We can then close this topic. </p>

<p>
[quote]

1 - why can't engineering be made more interesting such that more people want to study it, and #2 - Why can't there be more cream engineering jobs? Or in other words, why do there have to be so many crappy engineering jobs, and why can't they be made into cream ones?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's a matter of demand and supply, the supply for engineering jobs is huge as the production that depends on engineering jobs is huge as well. Since the supply is huge, we couldn't afford to have the best engineers for all those engineering jobs for three reasons:
1. The number of good engineers are limited and hence the 'not so good' engineers are also vital components in engineering industry.
2. The competition for engineering sector is highly competitive that it couldn't afford all the best engineers as employees.
3. Many functions in engineering jobs don't require high qualifications/skill to operate, hence those 'mediocre' engineers who work in this operation would be paid much less.</p>

<p>Furthermore, those reasons are related closely to each other such that the head->tail effect is indeed hard to analyze. Fortunately, the demand/supply of engineering jobs and the demand/supply of engineers' skill are following the bell curve that satisfies the equilibrium. Consulting/banking on the other hand has the characteristic of steep bell curve by the nature of its demand/supply. Nevertheless I would argue that the absolute number of positions in engineering industry that could reward you as much as those in consulting/banking is not less than consulting/banking's.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, if Bill Gates is already turning down many engineers, whether from Asia or anywhere else, then why is he complaining that he can't find enough people? You have to agree that he's obviously not being completely honest.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>When has Bill Gates been honest?? But when he said US need more [American] engineers, I agree with him, as I said before, most top engineers in those top engineering companies are Indians and Chinese, while top US students are going to consulting/banking which is regarded locally as more prestigious jobs.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you're talking about Microsoft, I know plenty of people who are 25-28 and on the management track and make nothing even close to 300-800k. </p>

<p>However, none of that is the point. The point is, why is Microsoft lecturing Americans to become more interested in engineering if Microsoft turns down most of the engineers that want jobs?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, and I know some people who work in Citigroup couldn't make 250+ after working for more than 25 years. Let's not talk about this thing.</p>

<p>Microsoft turns down engineers, yes, but it has more than enough employess and that's the reason why it can be very selective and still turning down qualified engineers. The campaign Bill Gates proposed is not for the sake of Microsoft, but he is perhaps worried about the trend where the Asians take over Americans in engineering and computer science.</p>

172

<p>
[quote]
Yeah, and I know some people who work in Citigroup couldn't make 250+ after working for more than 25 years. Let's not talk about this thing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I-bankers for citigroup can't make over 250K after over decades? I thought banking was one of those things where you work for 5 years, become an associate (or go to top b-school, get MBA and come back as an associate); then work another 7-10 years and transition to a managing director. </p>

<p>Your post above seems inconsistent with this. Maybe i-banking is a bit slower in citi-group than in places like goldman sachs...lehman brothers.....deutsch bank?</p>

173

<p>Or maybe banking/consulting glory isn't all that glorious as people make it out to be?</p>

174

<p>
[quote]
Or maybe banking/consulting glory isn't all that glorious as people make it out to be?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, from what I've heard from some of those who have worked in banking/consulting, the peception of super high rewards seem to be buoyed by the rumor where actually only a few have become a really successful investment portfolio manager and become really rich. As Sakky said, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JP Morgan have rigorous hiring session even at tech schools like MIT and Caltech, but frankly speaking, I never heard 300-500K as a realistic average rewards as part of the appeal of their showcase.</p>

<p>But the point that I did want to make is that 25 years accomplishment would likely to rely on the capability of the person rather than on his job. Someone may start becoming an engineer with a pay of 100K and end up as the CEO of GE with a $$$ pay at a later time like Jack Welch.</p>

175

<p>I am interested in engineering as well. But when I visited harvard, no one seemed to know where the engineering department was (even when we were in a building that we later found out contained engineering offices!). If you ask me, that does not give off good vibes about its reputation.</p>

176

<p>
[quote]
It's a matter of demand and supply, the supply for engineering jobs is huge as the production that depends on engineering jobs is huge as well. Since the supply is huge, we couldn't afford to have the best engineers for all those engineering jobs for three reasons:
1. The number of good engineers are limited and hence the 'not so good' engineers are also vital components in engineering industry.
2. The competition for engineering sector is highly competitive that it couldn't afford all the best engineers as employees.
3. Many functions in engineering jobs don't require high qualifications/skill to operate, hence those 'mediocre' engineers who work in this operation would be paid much less.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm afraid I have to dispute each of these 3 points in turn.</p>

<p>1) There's your first mistake right there. The number of good engineers is NOT limited, not in any absolute way. Rather, it is limited only to the extend that the laws of economics limits them. The more that engineering jobs pay, the more top people will want to study engineering, and hence, the more good engineers that will be produced. </p>

<p>Think of it this way. If the top engineering jobs paid better, than fewer of the top MIT and Stanford engineers would leave engineering for other fields. Furthermore, even more people at MIT and Stanford would choose to major in engineering (as opposed to a science or math or whatever). Hence, the number of good engineers produced is NOT a constant, but rather is a function of the quality of the job.</p>

<p>2)I don't see engineering as being any more competitive than any other function within a company. Sure, engineering is competitive. But so is finance. So is marketing. So is business development. So is general management. Every business function is competitive.</p>

<p>I'll put it to you this way. Take an very large engineering company that shall remain unnamed. It pays its engineers poorly. At the same time, it is also a well-known McKinsey client, and pays hundreds of millions of dollars to McKinsey to help it improve its internal business processes. Well, think about what that means. It means that the company has enough money to afford very expensive consulting services. So instead of paying McKinsey, why doesn't the company simply pay its own employees to do the same kind of consulting that it is paying to McKinsey? Specifically, why not set up an internal consulting division within the company that will provide the same services as McKinsey? This internal consulting division can hire the same sort of high-quality people (including star engineers from MIT and Stanford) and pay them something equivalent to McKinsey. </p>

<p>The point is, the company obviously has the money. Yet it would rather choose to spend the money on outside consulting services rather than on its own employees. Is it really that surprising that people will see that and decide that they are better off going to consulting? People see that and realize that if they just work for that company, they will end up in a powerless low-level job but if they go to McKinsey, they might actually be able to make things happen, and get paid better too. </p>

<p>So the question is, if all these companies have so much money to pay for consulting services (and banking services and everything else), how is it that they don't have money to make their own internal jobs better? </p>

<p>3) That still doesn't answer the question of why can't the very best engineers be provided with very good jobs to keep them in engineering. I harken back to my memories of some very good engineers coming out of MIT who ended up taking jobs in consulting and banking because they said that they felt they could make more money and advance more quickly by doing that than they could as engineers. So the question is, why can't more engineering companies offer a faster track to star engineers that is equivalent to what is available at consulting/banking?</p>

<p>And again, I would refer back to my point #2 above. Many of these engineering companies hire consulting companies for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars every year. So it's not like they don't have the money. They have the money. They just choose to spend it on outside consulting firms. Instead of that, why not just create your own in-house consulting division and pay those employees the kind of money that the consulting firms pay their employees? Or do something else to attract and retain top talent. You have the money, it's a question of how you want to use it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
When has Bill Gates been honest?? But when he said US need more [American] engineers, I agree with him, as I said before, most top engineers in those top engineering companies are Indians and Chinese, while top US students are going to consulting/banking which is regarded locally as more prestigious jobs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And if the US wants more engineers, then the US will have to pay them better. That's my point. You can't get one without the other. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The campaign Bill Gates proposed is not for the sake of Microsoft, but he is perhaps worried about the trend where the Asians take over Americans in engineering and computer science.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And again, if he was really so worried about this, he could simply pay American engineers more. So I guess he isn't THAT worried about it.</p>

177

<p>
[quote]
Think of it this way. If the top engineering jobs paid better, than fewer of the top MIT and Stanford engineers would leave engineering for other fields. Furthermore, even more people at MIT and Stanford would choose to major in engineering (as opposed to a science or math or whatever). Hence, the number of good engineers produced is NOT a constant, but rather is a function of the quality of the job.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You seem to be purposely forgetting many reasons that I've mentioned earlier. As engineering is known to be a safe and marketable degree; many non-engineering aspirant would be happy to finish their engineering degree and see what are the options they have upon graduation. Everyone knows that you can go into finance/banking from engineering but not vice versa. It's not surprising that some of the engineering grads go into i-banking after graduation. It doesn't mean however that they were really interested in engineering during their college time.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'll put it to you this way. Take an very large engineering company that shall remain unnamed. It pays its engineers poorly. At the same time, it is also a well-known McKinsey client, and pays hundreds of millions of dollars to McKinsey to help it improve its internal business processes. Well, think about what that means. It means that the company has enough money to afford very expensive consulting services. So instead of paying McKinsey, why doesn't the company simply pay its own employees to do the same kind of consulting that it is paying to McKinsey? Specifically, why not set up an internal consulting division within the company that will provide the same services as McKinsey? This internal consulting division can hire the same sort of high-quality people (including star engineers from MIT and Stanford) and pay them something equivalent to McKinsey.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Isn't it a funny question you're asking? Why wouldn't McKinsey build their own computer software rather than leasing from Microsoft and other software companies since they have those MIT and Caltech engineers and scientists?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Is it really that surprising that people will see that and decide that they are better off going to consulting? People see that and realize that if they just work for that company, they will end up in a powerless low-level job but if they go to McKinsey, they might actually be able to make things happen, and get paid better too.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not so, if an engineer has been promoted to manager or director position which is paid no less than those McKinsey's consultant, he would hardly go to McKinsey and work as an 'ordinary' consultant.</p>

<p>
[quote]
That still doesn't answer the question of why can't the very best engineers be provided with very good jobs to keep them in engineering. I harken back to my memories of some very good engineers coming out of MIT who ended up taking jobs in consulting and banking because they said that they felt they could make more money and advance more quickly by doing that than they could as engineers. So the question is, why can't more engineering companies offer a faster track to star engineers that is equivalent to what is available at consulting/banking?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, it turns out that what these 'very good' engineers from MIT said does not constitute any authoritative view in terms of opportunity and rewards in consulting and banking. In fact many of these not-so-knowledgeable MIT engineers are driven by the hype of consulting/ibanking jobs without reading sufficient Wall Street Journal. The career path in ibanking is not fast, you may even be fired faster than being promoted.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And again, if he was really so worried about this, he could simply pay American engineers more. So I guess he isn't THAT worried about it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, he is basically promoting engineering to Americans who mostly adhered to non-tech occupations rooted in the East Coast since more than 300 years ago. Not to mention the illusion of being rich by getting ibanking jobs. He doesn't convert his talk into money value because Microsoft does NOT need so many engineers after all. The fact that he just talked, not acted, would show that he is more concerned about the future American engineers prominence in the industry.</p>

178

<p>StephenP,</p>

<p>Yeah, that was the impression that I got, too. My best friend from high school got a great degree from Harvard, but was more or less unaware that Harvard even had engineering. When I was visiting her and prowling around the Coop in the square, I figured I'd kill some time and look for the engineering texts.</p>

<p>I had to go up three floors and to the very corner of the bookstore to find the one lone shelf upon which ALL the books for engineering were located. So... yeah, bad vibes. If your local bookstore doesn't stock the textbooks I need to study what I'm studying, I'm probably going to be less than inclined to study at your university.</p>

<p>I don't think that holding Harvard accountable for these sorts of things makes me somehow ignorant of their engineering proficiency, or that it makes me an engineering snob, or anything like that. I'd say that stocking my textbooks is a pretty basic request, and I'd like for people who have spent four years there to at least know about the program if I'm going to stake my future upon it. It's not because of the size of the program, either... I mean, Rice only had 12 civs my senior year, but everyone at least knew that we existed.</p>

<p>Eh. Details.
OK, back into the midterm stupor.</p>

179

<p>
[quote]
I had to go up three floors and to the very corner of the bookstore to find the one lone shelf upon which ALL the books for engineering were located. So... yeah, bad vibes. If your local bookstore doesn't stock the textbooks I need to study what I'm studying, I'm probably going to be less than inclined to study at your university.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They would go to MIT bookstore for sightseeing. :)</p>

180

<p>
[quote]
You seem to be purposely forgetting many reasons that I've mentioned earlier. As engineering is known to be a safe and marketable degree; many non-engineering aspirant would be happy to finish their engineering degree and see what are the options they have upon graduation. Everyone knows that you can go into finance/banking from engineering but not vice versa. It's not surprising that some of the engineering grads go into i-banking after graduation. It doesn't mean however that they were really interested in engineering during their college time.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And you are purposefully forgetting my basic premise which is to ask why can't engineering jobs be made better? You still deliberately choose not to answer the question. </p>

<p>If engineering jobs are made better, then fewer people would leave behind their marketable engineering degree to do something else. Furthermore, more people would then want to get a marketable engineering degree. The US only grants about 60,000 bachelor's degrees in engineering per year. You want more people to do engineering? You gotta make engineering a better profession. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Isn't it a funny question you're asking? Why wouldn't McKinsey build their own computer software rather than leasing from Microsoft and other software companies since they have those MIT and Caltech engineers and scientists?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, again, the real issue is, why are these engineering companies complaining that they can't find engineers and yet refusing to improve their engineering jobs? Answer the question. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Not so, if an engineer has been promoted to manager or director position which is paid no less than those McKinsey's consultant, he would hardly go to McKinsey and work as an 'ordinary' consultant.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>An unfair comparison? A more fair comparison is to compare a manager/director at an engineering company vs. a McKinsey director. Who do you think gets paid more here? </p>

<p>And even that is missing the point. Most people go to McKinsey not to become director but in order to vault them into a top management position at a regular company. Plenty of top tech companies like Cisco draw their managers not from in-house engineers who climb the ladder, but from people jumping from consulting. Hence, once again, you have people seeing that it may be faster to get to the top of an engineering company by going through consulting first. Which leads to the question, why can't these engineering companies make their inhouse engineering job tracks better and faster? When people see that you the best way to get to the top of Dell is not to actually start from Dell at the bottom and work your way up, but rather to go to Bain and then jump over later, then people are going to conclude that they're better off turning down a Dell offer to go to Bain. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Well, it turns out that what these 'very good' engineers from MIT said does not constitute any authoritative view in terms of opportunity and rewards in consulting and banking. In fact many of these not-so-knowledgeable MIT engineers are driven by the hype of consulting/ibanking jobs without reading sufficient Wall Street Journal. The career path in ibanking is not fast, you may even be fired faster than being promoted.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Even if that's true, then that's a matter of poor perception. It's up to the engineering companies to demonstrate that their jobs are better than consulting/banking. So why don't these engineering companies do that? Answer the question. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Yes, he is basically promoting engineering to Americans who mostly adhered to non-tech occupations rooted in the East Coast since more than 300 years ago. Not to mention the illusion of being rich by getting ibanking jobs. He doesn't convert his talk into money value because Microsoft does NOT need so many engineers after all. The fact that he just talked, not acted, would show that he is more concerned about the future American engineers prominence in the industry.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do you really believe this? Come on. You know and I know that Gates has plenty of money to change things around if he wanted. Forget about Microsoft. Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. So if Bill Gates was REALLY concerned about the future prominence of American engineering, he could simply take some of his own money and create some super-engineering research organization, something like Xerox Parc or Bell Labs, but where all engineers were paid super-salaries and got super-experience. By doing that, he would generate tremendous interest among people to become engineers. People would see the kinds of salaries those people are making and make the decision that they don't really want to become lawyers or doctors or bankers or whatever, they'll go work for this new engineering organization. </p>

<p>He doesn't do that. He could do it. He doesn't want to do it. That indicates that he doesn't really care about the future prominence of American engineering. If he really did, he could and would do something about it. He is one of the few people in the world who has the power to change this. The fact that he doesn't do it indicates that he doesn't want to do it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Ahh.. so after a long debate, we finally arrive at the core of this problem. Well, eventhough I admit there are 'jerks' within our society, I would take those 'jerks'' view into parts of my consideration when I formulate my suggestion. This is because none other than the fact that we live in the society where jerks constitute a significant percentage in this world. We can then close this topic.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Let me close this subject this way. Think about the important political and social leaders of world history who created great change. They didn't just have people laughing at them, they actually had people trying to kill them. People like Gandhi, Lincoln, Kennedy, Martin Luther King - all these people got killed for what they were trying to do. Or think about all the wartime soldiers in history. These people risk their lives, and many of them lose their lives. Being laughed at is not exactly their highest priority. Staying alive is. </p>

<p>These people are out their doing things that put their very lives at risk, and you won't do something because you're afraid some jerks might laugh at you? I was just talking to a soldiers who came back from Iraq seriously injured, and he might actually lose part of his leg. Do you think a guy like that is going to have much sympathy for somebody who is afraid of doing something just because some jerks might laugh at him? </p>

<p>Let me tell you. I don't want to be harsh, if you're so weak-willed that you won't do something just because you're afraid that some jerks might laugh at you, you're not going to accomplish very much in your life anyway. You better develop some self-confidence.</p>