Pros and Cons

Colleges and Universities A-Z Stanford University
61

<p>

I did not know that some people actually did that, its good to know thanks.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that, I'm sure it does influence your future (mind you I know we're talking about science and engineering degrees).</p>

<p>On a side note I have to admit I know little about engineers and the ease (or difficulty) they face when they decide they want to work in something other than their major. I don't know many engineers (my chemistry teacher was a ChemE but he had been a teacher for over a decade so he doesn't really count) so I've never really gotten to know much about their jobs. My dad's a doctor and when you study to become a doctor you pretty much always end up being a doctor - engineering however seems different.</p>

62

<p>
[quote]
I am definitely not disagreeing with you on this point but I would like to say that especially when talking about certain 'good in everything' universities- like Stanford I don't think you'll bee too influenced by the university.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But it certainly does for more specialized schools. Like I said, plenty of MIT students decide to major in engineering just because they're at MIT. If they had gone someplace else, like Harvard, they might have decided to major in a natural science or math. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I wouldn't go so far as to say that, I'm sure it does influence your future (mind you I know we're talking about science and engineering degrees).</p>

<p>On a side note I have to admit I know little about engineers and the ease (or difficulty) they face when they decide they want to work in something other than their major. I don't know many engineers (my chemistry teacher was a ChemE but he had been a teacher for over a decade so he doesn't really count) so I've never really gotten to know much about their jobs. My dad's a doctor and when you study to become a doctor you pretty much always end up being a doctor - engineering however seems different.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Engineering is indeed different from being a doctor. </p>

<p>Look, let me put it to you this way. How many people majoring in history actually intend to work as professional historians? How many sociology majors actually intend to work as professional sociologists? How many math majors actually intend to work as professional mathematicians? Very very few, I think you would agree. In fact, the vast majority of all people will end up in careers that have little to do with what they majored in as undergrads. So why would we expect engineering be any different? Engineering is just a bachelor's degree subject just like any other bachelor's degree subject. There are plenty of people who major in engineering who will never actually work as engineers, just like there are plenty of people who major in any subject who will never actually work in that subject.</p>

<p>And like I said, when we're talking about schools of the caliber of Stanford, MIT and Harvard, a lot of the graduates will end up in investment banking or consulting. Or going to professional school (i.e. law school, med-school, business school). Lots of engineers from these schools pursue these paths simply because lots of people from ALL majors from these schools pursue these paths. Hence, again, that calls intp question just how important it really is to attend "the best" school in your major. After all, if a Stanford engineering student and a Harvard engineering student both end up working at McKinsey or Goldman Sachs, then honestly, what does it matter that the Stanford guy has a 'stronger' engineering degree? They both ended up in a non-engineering job anyway. </p>

<p>Like I said, going to a strong engineering program really only matters if you actually work as an engineer, yet the fact is, plenty of engineers from the top schools do not work as engineers, or if they do, they do so only briefly. For example, I know people who got engineering degrees from Stanford, worked for 2-3 years as engineers, then decided to get their MBA's from places like Stanford, HBS, Sloan, Wharton, etc. - and in their classes would be all these people who were not engineers. So, again, does it really matter whether you get a "top" engineering degree if you're only going to work as an engineer for a few years anyway? </p>

<p>Furthermore, even the number of engineers of take non-engineering jobs strongly masks real intents - in other words, what people really want. I know some MIT engineering students who took engineering jobs but not because they really wanted to. They told me that, frankly, working as an engineer was not really their first choice. They admitted that they'd rather be working for McKinsey, or BCG, or Bain, or some other major management consulting firm. But they didn't get an offer, so now they are going to take an engineering job. They don't really want to, but it's what's available. The same is true of investment banking - a lot of people who want to get into Ibanking don't get an offer. The same is true of professional school - a lot of people would rather be going to a top 10 law or business school but can't get in. {Note, it's not that hard to get into a no-name law or business school, but most people, and especially most Stanford/Harvard/MIT grads, don't want to do that.} So, again, this calls into question just how committed engineering students really are to engineering. </p>

<p>Take EECS at MIT, which is the largest and most prominent of all of the departments at MIT. 25% of all MIT EECS grads take jobs in banking or consulting. I would guesstimate that for every one that did so, there was probably another person who wanted to, but didn't get an offer. So that basically means 50% of all EECS grads don't actually want to be engineers, but would rather be bankers or consultants. And that doesn't even count the number who go on to professional school or other non-engineering related fields. So that means that even at a superstar program like MIT EECS, a lot of students are not strongly loyal to the discipline.</p>

<p><a href="http://mit.edu/firstyear/2009/choiceofmajor/courses/course6.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://mit.edu/firstyear/2009/choiceofmajor/courses/course6.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>Now, it should be repeated that it isn't "fair" to expect engineering students to be loyal to engineering. After all, nobody expects all history majors to be wedded to the field of history forever, as very few history students will actually become professional historians. Nobody expects sociology majors to be wedded to sociology. Nobody expects English majors to be wedded to English. So why should we expect engineering students to be wedded to engineering? I don't think we should. But, again, that seriously calls into question just how important it really is to choose a "top" program in your undergrad major. Again, if you're not actually going to work as an engineer, then, really, just how important is it for your school to have a strong engineering program?</p>

63

<p>Very interesting point sakky. Just a quick question would these people who decide they don't want to work as an engineer know that before they apply to universities or only afterwards?</p>

64

<p>I think it has a lot to do with the notion of the 'backup career'.</p>

<p>Let's take a step back and consider this fact. The vast vast majority of people in the world do not actually get their first choice of career. For example, I'll be the first person to admit that I am not doing what I really want to be doing. I would rather be a professional baseball player, and specifically, I would rather be the starting shortstop for the Boston Red Sox. I think it's fairly clear that most people in the world would gladly trade their current career to be a professional athlete. Or a movie star. Or a supermodel. Or an astronaut. There are very few people in the world who can honestly say that they have their dream job. </p>

<p>Now, you may say that these jobs are all impossible-to-get 'fantasy' jobs, and that's true, but that's the point. Let's be honest. All those middle managers of the world, all those 'account executives', all those marketing analysts, all those accountants, all those secretaries, and, yes, all those engineers - I think it's clear that they all wish they had a better job. Nobody really 'dreams' of the cubicle lifestyle. Nobody 'dreams' of being a cog in corporate America. No little boys or little girls says that when they grow up, they want to become middle-managers. In their moments of deepest fantasy, most people will dream of becoming star athletes or star runway models or movie actors. In their less fantastical moments, they dream of simply having a better, more powerful, cooler job. </p>

<p>So with that in mind, I can now answer your question. You ask about these people who don't want to work as engineers knowing this fact before or after they apply. The question is not really as simple as knowing or not knowing whether they want to be engineers. It's really more about what your available options are. I am convinced that most people who work as engineers do so because they didn't have any better options, just like most people in the world do what they do because they didn't have better options. If you have the talent to make it as a professional athlete, then you should do that instead. A lot of engineers wish they could be Kobe Bryant, but I'm quite sure that Kobe Bryant doesn't wish he could be an engineer. </p>

<p>Similarly, like I've stated on other posts, lots of engineers work in engineering jobs because they couldn't get offers in other fields, such as consulting or banking. Or they couldn't get into a top professional school. A lot of college grads, including engineering grads, would prefer to work at McKinsey, but don't get an offer. Hence, engineering serves as a backup career. There's no shame in that, because like I said, most people end up having to take "backup careers". I know I had to, because I can't play baseball worth a darn. </p>

<p>So, back to your point, I think it's more that people who are good enough to get into places like Harvard/Stanford/MIT know (or ought to know) that they can probably do better than just be engineers for the rest of their lives. Just like LeBron James knew that he could be better than just a regular college grad. </p>

<p>The truth is, sadly, engineering is seen as only a middle-level type job, and most highly ambitious people aim to do better than just shoot for the middle. Most ambitious people want to get into management, or into the higher professions (i.e. corporate law, medicine, banking, consulting, etc.) and once you get there, it doesn't really matter what your undergrad degree was in. Just like nobody cares that LeBron James never spent a day in college. </p>

<p>So, back to your question. I don't know if you can say that top students "know" whether they want to be engineers before they apply. I think it's more as if they can 'sense' that they can do better than that. Whether we like it or not, in this country, the best students do not really aspire to be engineers. Rather, they aspire to be doctors, lawyers, bankers, etc. </p>

<p>Don't get me wrong. I still think that engineering is a fantastic job for most regular people. All those people who got degrees in Leisure Studies at no-name schools and end up working at the mall would have almost certainly been better off becoming engineers instead. It's just that when you're talking about students who are of the caliber of Harvard/Stanford/MIT, these kinds of students can probably sense that they can do better than that. If you're good enough to get into schools like that, then you probably can have one of those high-end jobs, just like if you're constantly being everybody on the basketball court all the time, you might actually reasonably aspire to be the next LeBron James.</p>

65

<p>

Well I don't know about that. Many people may be really ambitious but they might simply not like to work as a lawyer/doctor/banker (if that's a profession). Also don't engineers who work in R&D get a lot of money?</p>

66

<p>
[quote]
Also don't engineers who work in R&D get a lot of money?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're kidding, right? R&D engineers WISH they could make a lot of money, and certainly wish they could make the kind of money that upper management makes. </p>

<p>I suppose it all depends on what you mean by a "lot of money". Certainly engineers aren't starving. They're living a solid, comfortable lifestyle. But they are far from rich. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Many people may be really ambitious but they might simply not like to work as a lawyer/doctor/banker (if that's a profession).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>One could equally argue that some people don't like to work as engineers either. </p>

<p>The point is, if you really want to make serious money starting off as an engineer, you generally have to move up to management. But once you're a manager, nobody is really going to care what your undergrad degree is in. All that will matter is your managerial skills and experience.</p>

67

<p>

Just roughly how much would that be?

[QUOTE]
The point is, if you really want to make serious money starting off as an engineer, you generally have to move up to management.

[/QUOTE]

Wouldn't management of an engineering firm be similar to that of others? I mean do managers use their engineering skills at all?</p>

68

<p>
[quote]
Also, Harvard doesn't have "many fields" in engineering. Their engineering curriculum is pretty limited. If you want to be a chemE, go luck in finding couple chemE core courses, let alone coming anywhere close to a full-blown chemE

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then, like I said, just cross-reg at MIT. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The argument that a Harvard student can get MIT education is kinda lame and in reality,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How is it lame? Cross-reg happens all the time. Lots of MIT students cross-reg at Harvard.</p>

<p>But more to the point, plenty of Harvard students cross-reg with Harvard. That's because Harvard isn't just one unified school, but rather a multitude of different organizations. You have Harvard Law School, Harvard Business School, Harvard FAS/GSAS, Harvard Medical School, Harvard Divinity School, the Kennedy School of Government, etc. Each school runs their own admissions, runs their own classes, has their own budget and facilities, has (in the case of HBS) their own dorms, etc. And, yes, when a student from one of Harvard's schools wants to take a class in another one of Harvard's schools, they have to cross-reg, which means filling out paperwork, getting approval, etc. That's no different from Harvard students trying to cross-reg at MIT.</p>

<p>Don't believe it? Here is the cross-reg website. I don't think the procedures for cross-regging into MIT are significantly more complex than cross-regging into any other of Harvard's schools. </p>

<p><a href="https://crossreg.harvard.edu/OASIS/CrossReg/policies.jsp%5B/url%5D"&gt;https://crossreg.harvard.edu/OASIS/CrossReg/policies.jsp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Let's also talk about the feasibility of distance. Keep in mind that the subway (the T) strongly links Harvard and MIT. It actually takes about the same time for somebody standing in the middle of Harvard Yard to get to MIT (via the subway) than it does for them to get to, say, Harvard Business School. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If I really feel so insecure about Harvard's offering, I probably just transfer to MIT, instead of taking the T so extensively to cross-register 10+ courses at MIT and sit with students that aren't really your schoomates.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, we all agree that it's easier to get a better engineering education if you were just a regular MIT student. Nobody is disputing that. </p>

<p>But first off, that presumes that you can actually get into MIT. Not everybody who gets into Harvard gets into MIT, you know. This is particularly true when you're talking about graduate school in engineering. I know quite a few Harvard grad engineering students who have admitted that they'd rather be going to MIT, but didn't get in. </p>

<p>Secondly, and more importantly, we are not comparing the engineering education you can get at Harvard (including MIT cross-reg) vs. what you can get at MIT. Clearly, it's just better to be at MIT for an engineering education . What we are saying is that the Harvard engineering education is not that bad, particularly when you factor in the cross-reg aspect. Besides Wellesley, no other school has a cross-reg relationship with MIT. Hence, I would argue that a Harvard student can get an engineering education that is better than what is available at, say, Penn or Columbia, or arguably even Princeton. Princeton engineeringis better than Harvard engineering (by itself), but I'm not completely convinced that Princeton engineering is better than Harvard engineering + MIT crossreg.</p>

69

<p>
[quote]
Just roughly how much would that be?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know - say 200k+ a year. Maybe even 150k+. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Wouldn't management of an engineering firm be similar to that of others? I mean do managers use their engineering skills at all?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Answer to your first question is 'yes'. Answer to your second is 'not really'.</p>

<p>What that means is that having a strong engineering education is, sadly, not that important. Look at the tech companies in the world, and you will notice that many, probably most of them, are run by people who don't have engineering degrees. IBM, for example, is run by Sam Palmisano. His degree is in history. Cisco Systems is run by John Chambers. His degrees are in business and law. Intel is run by Paul Otellini, who is educated in economics and business. Hewlett Packard is run by Mark Hurd, who studied business. Yahoo is run by Terry Semel, who studied accounting. Ebay is run by Meg Whitman, who studied economics and business. And then of course there are people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, and Michael Dell who never even graduated from college at all. </p>

<p>Now, don't get me wrong. There are some tech companies that are indeed run by engineers, notably Google, Motorola, and AMD. But the point is, you don't really need an engineering degree to manage an engineering firm. It's sad, but it's true. You can be a great engineer, and not get promoted.</p>

70

<p>
[quote]
I would advice people to open their horizon to get to know schools outside of the US; otherwise, please don't make unfounded assumption/implication on the quality of them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Fine, say you take away “if not the world.” Are my points now way off? Is Harvard’s program totally worthless? Can one not take many classes at Harvard and MIT “to design their own special programs under the rubric of engineering and applied sciences?” </p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, Harvard doesn't have "many fields" in engineering. Their engineering curriculum is pretty limited. If you want to be a chemE, go luck in finding couple chemE core courses, let alone coming anywhere close to a full-blown chemE curriculum out of that "general engineering" degree.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Harvard has five general areas of study, and really, does not seem too limited in its offerings (especially given its relationship with MIT). It has EECS, it has biomedical engineering, it has mechanical and materials engineering (mechE), engineering physics, and environmental engineering. Sure, it does not have some common fields, such as chemE and civil engineering, and it does not have the more uncommon aeronautical engineering, but could these not be designed and completed with the help of the resources at Harvard, and if necessary or wanted, MIT? All over this document, it says “(by prior approval only) advanced level MIT course in X.”</p>

<p><a href="http://www.deas.harvard.edu/undergradstudy/engineeringsciences/pdf/S.B.%20Booklet.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.deas.harvard.edu/undergradstudy/engineeringsciences/pdf/S.B.%20Booklet.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
The argument that a Harvard student can get MIT education is kinda lame and in reality, do many Harvard engineering students really take many MIT courses, not just one or couple?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you find it lame that a person at Harvard can get a quasi-MIT education, or a person at MIT can get a quasi-Harvard education, that is fine. Some people do it, and even if nobody did, it if were possible and easy, wouldn’t that be enough here?</p>

71

<p>

Call me unambitious but that's definitely good enough for me. Maybe I'm crazy but I nevered wished to be the richest man in the world, just to have a pretty good salary and a Nobel Prize. :)</p>

72

<p>LOLOLOLOLOLOL whoever said the silicon valley/palo alto = boring must be out of their minds.............silicon valley is a blast. theres so much fun stuff to do.</p>

73

<p>no no...i'm IN my mind. palo alto = boring. maybe not all of silicon valley, but certainly palo alto. sure there are things to do, but they're very limited and get old and you can do such things anywhere else. so there's really nothing special. but if you have any suggestions...i'd love to here them.</p>

74

<p>
[quote]
Call me unambitious but that's definitely good enough for me. Maybe I'm crazy but I nevered wished to be the richest man in the world, just to have a pretty good salary and a Nobel Prize.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, honestly, if that's the case, then you don't even really need Stanford. Might as well just go to a no-name school that will give you a full merit ride, and save yourself some money.</p>

<p>Besides, you may say that you don't need a lot of money now, but trust me, things will change drastically when you have children. Kids always change your outlook on money. </p>

<p>
[quote]
LOLOLOLOLOLOL whoever said the silicon valley/palo alto = boring must be out of their minds.............silicon valley is a blast. theres so much fun stuff to do.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, what we're saying is that it's all relative. Look, let's be honest. I think even most Stanford students would concede that Palo Alto/Silicon Valley is not as interesting as the city of Berkeley. Or the Boston/Cambridge area. And it is CERTAINLY not as interesting as San Francisco or New York.</p>

75

<p>well the point is that stanford is reasonably close to san francisco and berkeley and other attractions. i don't know..perhaps living for 14 exciting, fun years in the silicon valley has somehow made me biased... :)
and i personally love downtown palo alto. pizza a gogo, anyone?</p>

76

<p>
[QUOTE]
Well, honestly, if that's the case, then you don't even really need Stanford. Might as well just go to a no-name school that will give you a full merit ride, and save yourself some money.</p>

<p>Besides, you may say that you don't need a lot of money now, but trust me, things will change drastically when you have children. Kids always change your outlook on money.

[/QUOTE]

Well I didn't really express myself completely. What I meant to say was I don't want that much money right away. I want to work in something I truly love first and then maybe later on get a job that pays better. And also I'm not really going to Stanford for the money but to eventually work (after I get my Phd from a really prestigious school) in one of those amazingly important
jobs that earn you Nobel Prizes for your effort. (Maybe I'm a bit naive I don't know)</p>