<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, please read my posts again. I specifically identified the possibility that finance undergrads could return back to school to obtain master’s degrees in engineering, whereafter they would presumably would be eligible for numerous engineering jobs. Is that not feasible? I can think of plenty of science and math majors who later earned graduate engineering degrees; a finance undergrad major is similar to an applied math major. Heck, like I said, I even know one girl who majored in English and then earned a master’s in engineering…at MIT. </p>
<p>I therefore don’t see how a finance undergrad earning a grad engineering degree would be any more remarkable from an capabilities standpoint than would be a math undergrad earning a grad engineering degree. But capabilities is not the issue, for the problem is not that the finance undergrad couldn’t earn a grad engineering degree, but that he wouldn’t want to, because he makes more money in the finance industry. That’s the crux of the issue. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, plenty of engineers enter the finance industry through graduate school - either an MBA program or a MFin. However, few if any finance undergrads enter the engineering industry through graduate school, even though they certainly could. The question then is - why? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, did you read my post because it addresses your point emphatically. Again, all I have to do is point to the misallocation of educational resources devoted to (purportedly) prestigious engineering programs where many of the students will not actually work as engineers. Ask yourself - why should MIT and Stanford continue to run high-powered and high-prestige engineering programs for students who won’t actually be engineers? What societal purpose does that serve? Society would be clearly better off if educational resources were allocated to those students who are actually going to utilize those resources. If Idaho State engineering students are actually going to work as engineers and MIT students are not, then the Idaho State engineering students should actually receive the bulk of the world’s engineering educational resources. </p>
<p>Here’s the core irony. You yourself have admitted on other threads that certain engineering programs have greater resources and prestige than others and that, ceteris paribus, prospective engineering students should prefer those schools. But if students at those schools do not actually choose to work as engineers, then that panoply of resources and prestige is wasted on them, which means that there is no reason to prefer those schools at all. That is a clear matching misallocation and hence a clear loss of societal value. We should then start to see rankings where Idaho State is ranked #1 in engineering, such that prospective engineering students will prefer to head there. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, see above. We as society provided (supposedly) the best engineering educational resources for these students, and then at the end of the day, they decided not to actually become engineers. Those resources would then be better utilized upon students who actually become engineers. </p>
<p>Let me give you a clear example. A venture capitalist is reviewing 2 business plans, one written by an MIT alumni and the other written by an Idaho State alumni. The overwhelming odds are that he will choose to fund the former, due to the prestige of the engineering degree (granted, he may choose to fund neither, but if he funds one, it is far more likely to be the former). Like it or not, venture capital is a highly elitist and brand-centric industry. The ISU grad may well have had the better plan, but he’s left unfunded. If he had the name brand of MIT to support him, he might have been funded. That represents a clear misallocation of societal resources, as investors will think that the MIT-backed plan is superior to the ISU-backed plan. </p>
<p>Or take employer recruiting. The most prestigious engineering employers such as Google, Apple, Facebook, and the like recruit heavily at MIT, but as far as I know, less heavily (and perhaps not at all) at Idaho State. But if MIT continues to produce graduates who do not actually want to work as engineers, then those recruiters would be better off recruiting at Idaho State. Maybe some guy at Idaho State would be the best possible fit for the next job opening at Facebook, but we’ll never know because Facebook won’t recruit him. Again, that’s a clear example of a societal mismatch. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it only serves to prove my point further. However incompetent they may be in reality, clients think they are competent. After all, clients keep hiring them. Hence, if you believe in price signals, then those top engineering students who become consultants/bankers are apparently providing exactly what clients want them to do. </p>
<p>Put another way, if engineers (who work as engineers) actually provide what clients wanted, then you would think that they would be paid more - certainly more than the ‘incompetent’ consultants and financiers. But the clients are sending a clear price signal that they want the consultants and financiers to continue doing what they are doing. If anything, the differential in price signals indicates that they want more consultants/financiers (however incompetent we may think they are) and less engineers (however competent we may think they are). </p>
<p>The bottom line is that we have a crucial mismatching of resources. Recruiters think that MIT and Stanford are the best engineering schools in the world. Faculty thinks the same. Prospective students think the same. Venture capitalists think the same. Hence, the lion’s share of the best engineering resources are going to continue to flow to those schools, which are clearly wasted on them if their graduates do not choose to work as engineers.</p>