my thoughts on engineering... am i off base?

<p>"If you simply enjoy the course work and ultimately want to get a different sort of job -- it is still a great major"</p>

<p>I'd say that depends on what kind of job one hopes to get.</p>

<p>I've had some jobs where communications skills were of paramount importance. I've had jobs where the most critical skills involved ability to conceptualize, see "the big picture", and make decisions in a "shades of gray" environment. Decision-making under conditions of uncertainy. Where tendency to crave overquantification can cause paralysis of timely action.</p>

<p>There are jobs for which this training is far from optimal. Engineers do make great financial analysts though.</p>

<p>I agree with DianeR in that if you really have a passion for some other field, then you should pursue that field and not engineering.</p>

<p>However, I would say that a lot of students really aren't passionate about anything. Let's face it. A lot (probably most) college students go to college just because they want to get a job. They want a career. If you disagree, then think about a world where a college degree did not result in a boost in income - where college grads had no earnings premium over non-grads. I think we would all agree that in such a world, fewer people would go to college. </p>

<p>As another case in point, the most popular discipline to get a bachelor's degree in is business. I doubt that a lot of those people are truly 'passionate' about studying business. They are doing it because they see it as a way to boost their career, simple as that. Nothing more, nothing less. </p>

<p>So I see nothing wrong with choosing engineering not because you're passionate for it but just because you think it will help your career. That's no worse than how a lot of other people end up choosing their major. Maybe engineering won't make you happy. But at least it will deliver a fairly good starting salary. A lot of other majors don't make their students happy either, and they don't even deliver that starting salary. It's better to be unhappy and making good money than to be unhappy and not making good money. While that might sound gloomy, let's face it, I think that's a fairly accurate assessment of today's college students. Go to any regular college campus and you will notice that plenty of students aren't really fired up, don't really have a lot of intellectual passion, who aren't really interested in learning much of anything. All they want is to get that piece of paper so that they can get a job. The employers are partially to blame for this mentality as well, in that they often times require college degrees for jobs for which, quite frankly, no degree is really needed. </p>

<p>
[quote]
"If you simply enjoy the course work and ultimately want to get a different sort of job -- it is still a great major"</p>

<p>I'd say that depends on what kind of job one hopes to get.</p>

<p>I've had some jobs where communications skills were of paramount importance. I've had jobs where the most critical skills involved ability to conceptualize, see "the big picture", and make decisions in a "shades of gray" environment. Decision-making under conditions of uncertainy. Where tendency to crave overquantification can cause paralysis of timely action.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree with monydad in that engineering is fairly suboptimal training for certain positions. For example, I agree that engineering may not be the greatest field for those who want to get into careers that require lots of communication or the ability to conceptualize. </p>

<p>However, I would point out that lots of other majors don't really teach you those skills either. I can think of plenty of liberal arts students who don't exactly have great communications skills either, or the greatest ability to conceptualize or make decisions with imperfect information. One of the greatest weaknesses that I have seen in liberal arts majors, and especially with certain humanities majors, is that the threshold to simply passing your classes is fairly low. The truth is, you really don't have to work that hard or know very much in order to simply pass those classes. As long as you hand in the work, even if the work is of only middling quality, you will pass. Maybe not with top grades, but you'll pass. A lot of those students then find out that they really don't have to do much or learn much just to pass, so they simply decide to kick back and take it easy. In other words, the laziness quotient is a factor. Many of those majors enable laziness. </p>

<p>So I agree that many engineers don't have well-developed skills in communications or conceptualization or making decisions with imperfect information, because these skills aren't taught. However, many liberal arts students, especially the ones I just described, also don't have well-developed skills in those areas either, because of the low passing standards of their classes. While those classes may want you to learn those things, the fact is, they don't really force you to learn those things under pain of failure. So you really can skate by without picking up any of those skills, and plenty of students decide to do that. </p>

<p>The point is, while engineering certainly has its flaws in how it prepares its students for later life, the liberal arts have their flaws too.</p>

<p>Another thing:</p>

<p>Some positions feature clients or bosses who are disproportionally liberal arts types who frankly just prefer the company of their own.</p>

<p>Many engineers are interesting people in their own right. However my observation is that one’s arsenal of topics of general interest, to be drawn on when engaging in glib repartee in social situations, is not optimally enhanced, overall, by a lopsided diet of technical courses of an overwhelmingly mathematical nature. This can have vocational consequences, believe it or not.</p>

<p>And one more thing:
Foreign language skills can be very important.
Such study is required in many arts & sciences colleges, but not in engineering colleges I'm familiar with. Even where available to engineers, they have to fight for time with their limited open electives.</p>

<p>Heh heh, I actually also agree with monydad's last post. Which leads me to say that in some cases, if you want to get an engineering degree but you think you may be be dealing with social settings as monydad just described, it may be better to get your engineering education within a liberal arts setting, and not at a hardcore engineering school. Like, oh, I don't know, Harvard or Yale. Not that I want to fight that battle over here. However, I have noticed that the Harvard engineers that I know are quite socially engaging - a lot more so than many of the engineers at MIT.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Foreign language skills can be very important.
Such study is required in many arts & sciences colleges, but not in engineering colleges I'm familiar with. Even where available to engineers, they have to fight for time with their limited open electives.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree with this also. However, I would generalize it by saying that affinity with foreign cultures, and not just foreign languages, is useful. And while the engineering curriculum may not teach you much about foreign cultures, the students who you will meet in engineering are often times foreigners - especially from Asia. There are engineering classes at Berkeley where almost every student is Asian (Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Indian, Pakistani, Japanese, etc.) So I would say that as an engineering student at schools like that, you almost can't help but develop some knowledge about foreign cultures, especially Asian culture. Contrast that with some of the liberal arts which few foreigners choose to study. </p>

<p>Furthermore, the development of technology and R/D in Asian countries means that many American engineers will wind up taking jobs in which they will have to spend a significant amount of time in foreign lands, especially Asia. For example, I know an MIT engineer who is taking a job at Apple in the Ipod division where he will spend a significant amount of time travelling to various parts of China to oversee the procurement of Ipod components. In fact, the opportunity to travel extensively in China was a big reason in why he took the job. If he didn't have an engineering degree, he wouldn't have gotten this job, because Apple wanted somebody with strong engineering knowledge. And in case you're wondering, he is not a Chinese-American. In fact, he is white and doesn't speak any Chinese. So here's a case where engineering actually enables you to learn more about foreign lands.</p>

<p>Now, that doesn't mean that his experience is typical. But what I am saying is that engineering is not that bad in terms of being able to provide opportunities.</p>

<p>This may be tangential, but so be it. Does anyone have an explanation of why some students do have particular academic passions and others don't? Is it just something that happens or is it a function of parents and/or teachers encouraging kids to pursue areas that interest them during primary and secondary education, not just touching all the usual bases and moving on?</p>

<p>My kids both had very strong ideas of what they enjoyed and what they wanted to study well before college. But I did a lot of catering to their interests, arranging for acceleration and correspondence courses, and even homeschooling my daughter for the last five years. At my daughter's graduation ceremony, each student gave a short speech about themselves. Everyone seemed to have a clear idea of what they wanted to do. I don't remember a single one who was headed to college but didn't know what would be studied. Was this because their education had been so customizable?</p>

<p>Maybe this is why I find it difficult to deal with threads like this. Not have an academic passion? It seems foreign to me. I also was one of those types that knew early on and just stayed the course.</p>

<p>I want everyone to come to know that feeling. It bothers me when I hear, like I just did the other day when I mentioned to someone what my daughter was studying -- "Oh, it is so great that she can study what she wants! My family wanted me to study [major omitted] because they thought it was key to a good future. I hated it and really regret doing this."</p>

<p>Well, DianeR, I'm a bit surprised you would say that, because I thought it was well understood that, quite simply put, a lot of American college students just don't really want to be there. Surely you have seen a lot of the youth-culture movies that depict highly desultory and unmotivated American kids. Go to any American high school and you will see kids that clearly just don't want to be there. Go to any typical American college and, again, you will see plenty of kids who are basically "majoring in drinking". </p>

<p>You can even take a look at our nation's leaders. George Bush has freely admitted that he was a deeply unmotivated college student who cared more about being frat-house president and with drinking than he did with studying. John Kerry wasn't exactly the most responsible student either, actually getting slightly lower Yale grades than George Bush did, and freely admitting that he was more interested in learning how to fly than he was in his studies. Al Gore has also admitted that he didn't really care a whole lot about school either, especially during his first few years at Harvard. John McCain has conceded that he was a terrible student at the Naval Academy, graduating 5th from last in his entire class. Ted Kennedy was not only a mediocre student at Harvard, he was actually caught twice cheating, with Harvard actually requiring that he withdraw from school for two years as punishment. </p>

<p>The truth is, it is part of the American zeitgest to not have a whole lot of respect for educational achievement. That is why Americans are freely willing to elect people who were terrible and irresponsible students. Scholastic achievement simply doesn't mean a whole lot to a large section of the American populace.</p>

<p>Oh, I know that there are college students like that. I just wondered why some are that way, and others aren't. It isn't a question of intelligence -- I knew average kids in college who worked hard with goals in mind and very bright ones who just didn't care. It also doesn't seem to be something inherent, because there are those who never cared about academics that will get interested at some point. The basic culture is the same for everybody, too.</p>

<p>I think it's quite obvious why some of those kids are like that. For example, some of them are scions of rich families who know full well that their families are going to hook them up once they graduate. That was the case of Bush, Kerry, the Kennedy's, Al Gore, and so forth. They treated college not really as a place to learn anything, but just because it was something that you were expected to do as a youth of that social class. Basically, to them, colleges are finishing schools. They're just there to meet people, establish their social network, have a good time, and pick up that piece of paper that says that they graduated before they end up taking a job working for Daddy or one of Daddy's friends. While today's world is more meritocratic, there still are plenty of kids of rich and powerful families who go to college only because that's what expected of them. </p>

<p>That's why I'm afraid I have to strong disagree that the basic culture is the same for everybody. Everybody's culture is different. Some cultures strongly emphasize academic achievement and striving. For example, I don't want to stereotype, but Asian-American and Jewish-American families strongly emphasize not only academic achievement, but also achievement that is highly professionally oriented. That's why it's no coincidence that so many Asians and Jews want to become engineers or doctors or lawyers. For example, you may recall the provocative Bill Cosby speech where he asked "Do you know why they are called Asians? ...Because they always get A's". That's why the elite schools have disproportionately high percentages of Asian and Jewish students - so much so that MIT has been said to stand for "Made in Taiwan" and where the Ivy League and other schools enacted Jewish quotas a century ago because the Jews were just "too good" and too many of them were winning admission. </p>

<p>If this topic interests you, I would suggest reading some Thomas Sowell. He talks extensively about the power and influence of culture to explain why is it that certain groups of people tend to be so disproportionately successful in certain fields. What you are taught and what values you internalize as a child matter greatly in what you will choose to do with your life. Some people study extremely hard and value academic achievement because that's what they have been taught through their family and their culture. Others do not.</p>

<p>sakky, by "basic culture" I meant the same thing you did by "the American zeitgest." I thought I was agreeing with you, so I'm surprised to see you disagree with me :)</p>

<p>Obviously, one's subculture, peers, and family and educational experiences will come into play. Or, at least, this is what I have always suspected. My hypotheses aren't exactly proof of anything. I can always find exceptions to any general rule -- rich kids who work hard, kids who value education but are from a family that doesn't, etc.</p>

<p>I will check out Thomas Sowell.</p>

<p>Well, what I meant is that there is obviously a general American zeitgest. But how people choose to internalize that zeitgest is a matter of your personal values, which has a lot to do with what you are taught by your peer group and your family. Obviously culture doesn't explain everybody, but when looking at large groups, clearly from a statistical point of view, culture explains a lot. For example, as Sowell explains numerous times, it is no coincidence that the expatriate Chinese (the Chinese living outside of China) tend to perform unusually well in academics, especially in math. Chinese-American students have the highest SAT-math scores of any US ethnic group. Chinese college students attend top-ranked universities far out of proportion than their overall population would indicate, and strongly tend to choose math-based majors like science or engineering far more so than does the average college student. At the UC's, especially at Berkeley, many classes, especially engineering classes, have far more Chinese students than they do white students and in fact often times make up an absolute majority of many classes. </p>

<p>If this were merely the case of only Chinese-Americans, then, as Sowell might put it, one might think that perhaps the cause of all this could be traced to the peculiar nature of the particular Chinese who wanted to immigrate to the US, or of US immigration policies with regard to the Chinese, or both. However, the same pattern of behavior can be found amongst the Chinese in the UK, Canada, Australia, Latin America (largely as descendents of the coolies), and throughout SouthEast Asia. For example, in Malaysia during the 1960's, a total of 404 engineering degrees were awarded by Malaysian universities to Chinese students, compared to 4 engineering degrees awarded to Malay students, despite the fact that the Chinese comprise less than 1/4 of the population in Malaysia and the Malays (a.k.a. the bumiputra) comprise over 60%. In fact, Mohammad Mahathir, former Prime Minister of Malaysia and certainly no Chinese patriot, himself bemoaned the fact that his people simply did not work as hard and study as hard as the Chinese do, and exhorted them to work harder, learn more marketable skills, and develop better attitudes. </p>

<p>As Mahathir once said in an interview: "... the Chinese graduates choose the right subjects so they are employable. We find that the Malay graduates, especially those from the Malay stream, can’t speak English at all...There is also attitude. There are some who start off by demanding good pay. Obviously, if you ask how much even before he has decided to take you, he won’t think you have the right attitude for the job. So there are many reasons why the Malay graduates are not being employed....I remember we got companies to hire unemployed Malay graduates and pay them RM400 each. But when they got the job, they refused to do anything because it was not their line and they didn’t want to learn. They were just marking time, waiting for the kind of job they were interested in. Obviously, these people do not have the right attitude towards work."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.best-of-langkawi.com/SYST-print.php?selectbox=363%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.best-of-langkawi.com/SYST-print.php?selectbox=363&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The same could be said of the Jews, perhaps even more so. The Jews have been unusually successful in practically every single academic field. As noted by Sowell "In the first half of the 20th century, Jews won 14 percent of all Nobel Prizes in literature and the sciences combined, and in the second half of the century they won 29 percent. In both periods, Jews were less than one percent of the world's population. ". </p>

<p><a href="http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2003/11/04/170334.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2003/11/04/170334.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Jews have also been extraordinarily successful when it comes to highly professional skills. Surely we've all heard jokes of the Jewish doctors, but that only goes to show the prevalence of Jews in medicine for many centuries, at least back to the Dark Ages and perhaps before then. Jews have also been extraordinarily successful in law, in the fashion industry, and in entertainment (i.e. almost all of the early founders of Hollywood were Jewish and to this day, Jews are heavily represented there). Also note that Jews have not been unusually successful only in the US. Jews have also historically achieved great success in Europe, in the Near East (before many of them get expelled due to modern political problems, i.e. the Arab-Israeli conflict), in Canada, in Australia, in South Africa, and so forth. </p>

<p>Here is Ben Stein, himself a Jew, talking about the dominance of Jews in Hollywood.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.eonline.com/Features/Specials/Jews/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.eonline.com/Features/Specials/Jews/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>You get taught by your subculture what is important and what isn't. It is no coincidence, for example, that the Irish have enjoyed unusual success in fields that require strong communications skills - i.e. politics, writing, acting, entertainment. The Germans have always shown unusual skill in engineering and complex craftsmanship, which has allowed them to dominate in the world of optics, industrial machinery, luxury automobiles, precision machine tools, high-end chemicals (the chemical industry was practically founded in Germany), and of course, beer. Italians have shown unusual skill in creative design, which explains their strong presence in the fields of architecture, fashion, sportscars, opera, and the visual arts. </p>

<p>I could go on and on, but the point is that culture is extremely important in determining what you will do and not do. Of course there is a dark side to all this. The success of minorities often times invokes resentment, sometimes murderous resentment. People simply do not like to see those of other races or ethnicities outperforming them, and will often times attribute that success to conspiracies rather than to the ego-destroying reality which is that those people simply worked and studied harder. The most resentment seems to be arisen when one ethnic group who starts off poorer and less successful than another group, but then, through hard work and initiative, surpasses the other ethnic group. That is a tremendous blow to the ego that often spawns murderous rage. For example, a big reason why there have been so many murderous anti-Chinese riots in Southeast Asia is partially because the Chinese have been so economically successful, despite the fact that almost all of their ancestors arrived as penniless immigrants. A big reason that anti-Semitism exists is because people resent the success of the Jews, despite the fact that until about 150 years ago, most Jews were legally second-class citizens with few legal rights and heavy restrictions of where they could live or work. The Jews succeeded anyway despite all of these barriers because their culture emphasized academics and hard work. To this day, many people simply do not want to believe that other ethnic groups are more successful simply because they work and study harder than they do. </p>

<p>Here are some indicative pieces by Sowell. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.hooverdigest.org/053/sowell.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.hooverdigest.org/053/sowell.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.tsowell.com/spracecu.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.tsowell.com/spracecu.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.tsowell.com/speducat.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.tsowell.com/speducat.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2004/03/10/11017.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2004/03/10/11017.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/sowell.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/sowell.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Fascinating, Sakky. Thanks for sharing!!!</p>

<p>Thanks a lot!</p>