<p>ok so i was thinking,
it can be agreed on that many companies that are in high demand for engineers ( boeing, microsoft, google, etc.etc. ) will attract "better graduates" than a no-name company. </p>
<p>i think we can agree on this </p>
<p>so, </p>
<p>if a company such as microsoft has really smart people in general, then this would give you more competetion to move up within microsoft. </p>
<p>on the other hand, if you are at a company with 2.0 gpa graduates who are not really too smart/ motivated, then you will move up faster / higher at this company.</p>
<p>We can all agree that pay at these top companies will be better, but not by much, and if most engineers want to move up... why not go to a small no name company</p>
<p>The people you're going to be working with are not as motivated to do well in their jobs. I interviewed at a no-name company that's in a very niche field. Their benefits weren't nearly as good and they couldn't afford to pay me the sort of salary I was offered elsewhere. The people there really didn't see any point of doing any actual innovation, so it was truly a case of "design the same thing today as you did yesterday," which is incredibly boring to me. The town it was in wasn't nearly as cool as some of the other places I had offers, and I had to drive five hours to get to the company's office for the interview. I wasn't offered reimbursement for my travels. Same story for the other smaller companies I interviewed at.</p>
<p>I know I could've risen incredibly quickly in the company, and that if I'd taken the job, I'd soon establish my place as the future big cheese. But then what? I'd be designing the same widget in twenty years that I had been designing when I was first hired, except I'd be managing <em>other</em> people who weren't as good at designing widgets, and who didn't particularly care about designing widgets any better. It held absolutely no appeal for me.</p>
<p>Google and Microsoft and Boeing have "better graduates" for a reason: they're really good places to work, with challenging and rewarding work, good benefits, excellent compensation, and an atmosphere of innovation. It's exciting to work at those places.</p>
<p>aibarr, maybe you took my opost as offensive, i didnt mean it in any way, i WANt to work for a big company after graduating, but i just had some questions. surely big companies that have 100000 employees cant give all their employees meaningful work. I always thought when you worked at a big company , the majority of its employees are doing very specialized, perhaps routine? dull? work. </p>
<p>Nope! Didn't find it offensive at all. Sorry if I gave you that indication in my reply. I'll use more smilies next time. ;)</p>
<p>It really varies from company to company. I've got a couple of friends who work for Microsoft and they really enjoy their work... When you've got that much money, you can afford to have your company tinker on new and cool stuff a bit more.</p>
<p>I know that in structural eng, the field I'm in, the big companies get the cool work. Nobody feels particularly passionate about designing structures for fast food chains, but it's a living, and you can't take the cooler jobs all the time... Unless you're renowned enough that you attract all the really awesome jobs, and you have to turn away all the mundane work so that you can devote your full attention to the skyscrapers and museums and concert halls.</p>
<p>And just because work might be very specialized doesn't mean it isn't interesting! =) While interviewing, I visited in an office and talked to a gal whose job that week was to design a specific beam in the roof structure of the new Indianapolis Colts stadium. One beam? For a whole week, that's all you work on? Sounds a bit dull... but there was definitely an art to it. It was frustrating at times, but it needed to be done. If that beam failed, it could cause a chain reaction of failures. There were lots of things that went into designing that one beam, and that one young engineer had to think of all of them. And y'know what? She was really enjoying it. Her enthusiasm was contagious. Despite the specificity and iterative nature of her job that week, the big picture was really cool, and really worth working on.</p>
<p>So when you interview, just take a look at the employees. Talk with them. When you interview at a larger company, they'll typically reserve a full day to talk with you. I've had interview days stretch as long as ten hours, and that was actually a really enjoyable interview. You'll get to see what people are working on and you'll get an overall impression of whether or not the workers seem to be pleased with what they do all day, and in my experience, some of the happiest people are the ones who are working at the bigger companies.</p>
<p>ok I'm a highschool sr. right now but i really have to ask, how long have you been working aibarr? i've had extensive discussions with my dad and other engineering friends of mine (Eriksson, Tyco(M/A Com), Areva/Framatome, and many other engineering companies are in my town) and i've only heard one thing over and over again: upward mobility for an engineer is next to nothing.</p>
<p>to answer the original question tho....get an MBA. from what i've heard from countless sources, there is only 1 position for an engineer...and that's an engineering position. however, engineers always have managers and to break into management you need an MBA (more often than not). Right now I dont know what i am gonna do after undergrad, either get an MBA and go into business or get a PhD and do research/teach, but anyways...</p>
<p>dont mean to turn into a flame war or anything but its just what you've said in your posts are exactly the opposite of everything i've ever heard.</p>
<p>No, that's cool... Admittedly, I <em>am</em> young. I'm 24. I'm a little irritated that CC took away the age label at the left of everyone's posts, because it used to be right there next to everything I said, so people could know approximately what sort of experience I've had in my career thus far, and I used to like having everything laid out on the table so everyone can have the complete picture of where my opinion's coming from.</p>
<p>I <em>am</em> just starting out, so there's definitely the whole "rose-colored glasses" thing going on, to a certain degree, but having just interviewed all over the nation, and having sat down and talked to a whole bunch of young engineers who are suddenly project managers of really awesome and complex projects, and seeing the corporate structures of all these firms in the structural engineering industry and being struck by the amount of youth in positions of rising power, I'm feeling pretty confident that, at least in this field, my perceptions are accurate.</p>
<p>I do, however, think that structural engineering companies may be different from other companies (though my friends at Microsoft still seem to be deliriously happy with their jobs... maybe they're just being snowballed, I dunno) so I apologize if my observations are restricted to just the one field. Still... though it may be naive, I'm still gonna hold firmly to the belief that if an engineer works their tail off at a good college and gets a masters from a top-notch program, they'll have plenty of satisfactory opportunities available to them.</p>
<p>Getting an MBA is a good idea, though, if you'd like to go into project management.</p>
<p>
[quote]
however, engineers always have managers and to break into management you need an MBA (more often than not).
[/quote]
This is definitely not true to be in engineering management, in which case you would be better off with a technical MS. In our company, having an MBA and not an MS in engineering would more than likely keep you out of engineering management. Likewise, a project manager in a technical company will more likely have an engineering BS or MS and not very likely have an MBA.</p>
<p>A lot of engineers go on to Product Management jobs for which an MBA would be desirable, but not necessarily essential. They also find their way into technical sales positions. </p>
<p>But, back to your original thesis. Just because a company is a "no-name" company doesn't necessarily mean anything in terms of the quality of its employees. Many very bright people go to work with other very bright people in small "no-name" companies and the company can become a very big name. (I remember when Microsoft was a no-name company led by a few geeky looking "kids". Same with Apple.) However, if you were to work for a no-name company that is no-name because it has less than bright employees, you might become the shining star, but if all of your co-workers are slackers, what are the prospects of the company being a success? You might find yourself being the captain of the Titanic.</p>
<p>What exactly do you mean by engineering management? Are you referring to managers of projects where it is more like R&D than anything else? If that's the case then common sense would make me agree with you about the technical MS. However, if you are referring to a more general kind of management of engineers then I dont know if I can so much agree...</p>
<p>COrrect me if I'm wrong but if I had to mix what you say and what I've previously heard I think with a company that almost strictly deals with a technical side of an industry (Microsoft is a good example) then the technical MS or PhD would be required for managment...However, if there is a great deal of public relations involved in all projects (I cant imagine microsoft coders do much other than stay in their building and interact with other MS employees) then it's a different story. For example, a friend of mine worked at M/A Com and was a division manager for a group that designed and installed state-wide radio networks (for EMS, police, etc) and he was picked because he had an MBA. A whole bunch of engineers worked under him tho....</p>
<p>So anyways....trust me, I'm going to major in Chem.E. and I would really really really LOVE to be able to jump right into industry and have a bunch of upward mobility but this is what I've heard...Actually, I remember one Comp.Eng ranting one time on college confidential on how exactly engineers lacked mobility and even tho I really wanted to disbelieve him, I do realize the potential validity of some of his points...</p>
<p>To counter the notion that engineers can't move into senior management without an MBA there is this quote:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Seventy percent of engineering graduates who are senior managers obtained their position with only engineering degrees (table 8).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is not to say that an MBA is worthless ... far from it. In fact, if you were to read the entire survey, you will see that an MBA/engineering combination is a very good thing to have. However, it would be a big mistake to assume that an engineering-only degree will mean that you are destined to spend the rest of your life in a cubicle.</p>