Re: Don't major in Engineering!!

<p>There was a thread called "Don't major in Engineering" that says why engineering is bad for life. The people who replied generally disagreed, but I don't see why they all think so.</p>

<p>I get a lot of impressions of engineering being a crap load of work for mediocre pay. And all I keep seeing is people posting about others who ended up very successful and happy after majoring in engineering. But even though it's true that engineering jobs have higher incomes in the beginning, those don't require a lot of brain but do require a lot of work (story is slightly different when it comes to design in engineering). The way I see it, in engineering, you learn how to work the equipments, assess the data, etc. and you start doing the same thing for the rest of your career. In 'non-engineering,' the area of study is so much broader and it's no wonder the pay increase progressively. So if you want to be rich, don't go into engineering, right?</p>

<p>I'm not trying to degrade engineering, but I'm looking for a college major and I want to know what's best for me. But lately, I've been getting mixed reviews about both the area of science and the area of engineering and now I'm ambivalent.</p>

<p>and it just occured to me that nearly everyone on this forum is pretty young. so based on this age group, I'm guessing that no one is acctually in their mid 40s and ready to share some real wisdom.</p>

<p>American engineers are far better than their counterparts in China.</p>

<p>Engineers</a> produced in India, China: It's the QUALITY, stupid! - Strategy Session - Blog on EDN - 970000297</p>

<p>According to this article, China produced 600,000 engineers in 2005 and India produced 500,000 technical engineers as well. However, nearly 25-30% of these engineers are qualified and regarded as "suitable" for the job.</p>

<p>I doubt foreign competition may play a role but 25% is still a lot of engineers that are willing to do the same work for a lot cheaper price. Now that is competition.</p>

<p>Actually, I thought engineers get paid A LOT of money?? Just depending on how many years your in the job, it can be wellover 100K a year in some instances.</p>

<p>I didn't disagree with the original thread. Well, that's because I don't have the experience to know if I feel the same way about engineering as the OP does. Like Phead128 said, most people on CC are young as I am. The only part of the claim you can rebut with numbers are the pay which I think is pretty high. I think many of the posters, especially the ones in HS, were too quick to disagree. I mean, do they actually know if the OP is wrong?</p>

<p>I've been a professional engineer for 25 years and I am completely happy in my career, as are the vast majority of my colleagues. You have the option of maintaining a technical focus, like I have, and continue in research and development with all the intellectual excitement and challenges that entails, or you can move to other career paths like management. Pay can vary greatly depending on a large number of variables, but can be extremely lucrative depending of patent-rights, bonuses, options, etc.</p>

<p>Still, if your main objective is money, I would suggest you would make a poor engineer, because you truly need to love engineering to suceed...just like the best doctors are not in medicine for the money. If money is your focus, choose something else.</p>

<p>The engineer figures for China and India are bloated, the definitions are very loose as to what qualifies as an engineer in Asia.(automechanic, electricians,etc. eg) The actual number of engineers with 4 year degrees are not nearly as much as those figures indicate, they are definitely higher than the US, but not by that much. </p>

<p>I think engineering is a great choice if you ended up in a lower tier school, but if you goto a top school, engineering is still better than a sociology degree for getting jobs, but the difference is not great. </p>

<p>People make a fuss about how you have to love engineering, like you have to love medicine, well by that train of logic, you'd have to love every profession in order to go into it in the first place. A lot of engineers in this country end up in boring professions, there's a ton of engineering jobs out there that aren't exciting. For example, for a lot of engineering jobs in the consumer manufacturing industry, your job role is pretty much just keeping the plant running and making sure nothing interferes with production. To me, that doesn't sound like a passion, it doesn't do anything for society, except generating profit for the company you work for. And in that case, the job pays bills, and engineers don't get huge salaries for those roles.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I get a lot of impressions of engineering being a crap load of work for mediocre pay. And all I keep seeing is people posting about others who ended up very successful and happy after majoring in engineering. But even though it's true that engineering jobs have higher incomes in the beginning, those don't require a lot of brain but do require a lot of work (story is slightly different when it comes to design in engineering). The way I see it, in engineering, you learn how to work the equipments, assess the data, etc. and you start doing the same thing for the rest of your career. In 'non-engineering,' the area of study is so much broader and it's no wonder the pay increase progressively. So if you want to be rich, don't go into engineering, right?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The major objection that I had with that other thread is not that I think engineering is perfect, because it clearly isn't, but because other career choices also have plenty of problems, and that means that the logic that you should necessarily pursue another major is flawed. </p>

<p>To wit, allow me to enumerate some of the points made in the other thread, as well as my counterpoints:</p>

<p>*Engineers always have to worry about being laid off. </p>

<p>Sure, but so do non-engineers. For example, right now as we speak, the economy is undergoing a housing and banking crisis and that's affecting engineers to only a minor degree (i.e. perhaps some civil/construction engineers have been laid, but there are so many other civil engineering jobs available in the public sector that I don't think they're hurting). Instead, the people being laid off are, unsurprisingly, the mortgage brokers (think Countrywide and IndyMac), real estate agents, loan officers, accountants, investment bankers (think Bear Stearns), employees at the home-building firms like Toll Brothers and Pulte, employees at home improvement retailers like Home Depot, and so forth. Similarly, the high price of oil is gravely damaging the airline and auto industries, but, again, that has only a moderate effect on engineering employment and is almost certainly compensated for by the boom in engineering employment in the oil industry. For example, practically no engineers actually work for the airline industry, but instead work for the aircraft manufacturers like Boeing who, if anything, are hiring like mad because the airlines now need to replace their old inefficient aircraft with new, efficient fuel-sipping models. The domestic auto industry is laying off some engineers - notably those involved in truck/SUV design/production - but I suspect that that is compensated for by the hiring of engineers to build new hybrid and electric models. Furthermore, the high price of oil has spurred a tremendous boost in interest in developing alternative energy systems, which is a massive engineering job. </p>

<p>The point is, I don't see that engineers are any more vulnerable to layoffs than almost any other career. The average engineer is clearly better off than the average American in that respect. Be honest - what exactly is a laid off IndyMac loan officer going to do now? </p>

<p>*Engineers have to worry about outsourcing.</p>

<p>Sure, but consonant with the point made above, so do plenty of other people. For example, companies nowadays can and do outsource thousands of accounting/book-keeping jobs. Medical tourism & outsourcing means that many doctors' jobs are now vulnerable. </p>

<p>Besides, I think most of the discourse on outsourcing ignores the key local agglomeration and clustering effects. For example, why exactly do so many high-tech firms run engineering operations in Silicon Valley, which is one of the most expensive locations on Earth? Why don't they just all move to, say, rural Mississippi where things are dirt cheap? We're not just talking about American high-tech firms in Silicon Valley: plenty of foreign high-tech firms also have engineering centers in the Valley. For example, Nokia, Hitachi, Fujitsu, Sony: they're all in the Valley. Heck, even Chinese firms such as Huawei and Indian firms like Infosys and Wipro have large operations in Silicon Valley. Why do that? Why not just move those jobs back to China and India? I think it's fairly clear that there are strong local economic network effects at play that increases the Valley's technological innovativeness. Whatever money they might say by moving away would be lost by the drop in innovativeness. A parallel example would be the investment banks insisting in being in New York City, despite it being one of the most expensive cities in the world, and not just relocating to, say, rural Mississippi. </p>

<p>*Engineering salary tracks don't grow much over time, and so other careers will overtake them.</p>

<p>The first part, I agree with. But the second part? Really? Let's be honest. Most jobs don't exactly make a lot of money, even after a lot of experience. The median American adult, of all experience levels, only makes something like $40k a year. That's less than an engineer makes to start. One only has to peruse sites like the BLS and other career data to convince oneself that there are a lot of low paying careers out there. </p>

<p>Hence, you can look at the situation this way. With an engineering bachelor's degree, you - at age 21/22 - are already making more money than many Americans will ever make. Plenty of Americans can only dream of making $50-60k a year. </p>

<p>*"So if you want to be rich, don't go into engineering [as a major], right?"</p>

<p>But then that simply begs the question of what else are you going to major in? If you are thinking about the more lucrative careers such as medicine or law, well, you first have to major in something. Are those other choices of major really any better? </p>

<p>As a case in point, let's say that you're thinking of med school. Well, over half of all applicants to med school get rejected to every med school they apply to. And that's just talking about those who actually apply: many don't even apply because they know they won't get in anywhere. Hence, if you majored in engineering, then at least if you don't get into med school, you can still get a decent job as an engineer. If you majored in biology and you don't get in, what are you going to do now? </p>

<p>The same can be said for other highly lucrative careers like investment banking, management consulting, and so forth: not everybody who wants those jobs will get it. Engineering is therefore a risk-averse choice. </p>

<p>
[quote]
engineering being a crap load of work for mediocre pay

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, hey, at least it's better than a crapload of work for terrible pay, which is, frankly, what many other careers entail. For example, I know a bunch of people who earned liberal arts degrees and ended up in the publishing industry where they're easily working 60 hours a week for probably no more than $35k a year.</p>

<p>Also, if you want some good advice from adults, you could try asking around on the Parent Forum.</p>

<p>sakky, I think the reason I believe engineers are more susceptible to being laid off is because of their highly specialized knowledge and also the reason they are paid well. Engineers deal with technology and technology is constantly evolving, there are many engineers who work with obsolete technology. One of my friends who work in IT, is working on a government contract using almost obsolete software (Microsoft is no longer providing technical support for it), and he's been working on this project for about a year. Imagine in the next job interview, trying to explain to the interviewers what he was doing for a year in 2007. </p>

<p>Business careers, for example, evolve as well, but the main aspect of the experience is still relevant, the selling, negotiations, working on mergers, client relationships , will all be important experiences 20 years down the line, no matter how things change. Your experience in these arts, will always be tied to the profitability of the company.</p>

<p>On the other side, it's very rare for an engineer to have significant impact on the bottom line of a company, unless you are a very senior engineer/scientist working creatively on an R&D project, which is not what the majority of engineering jobs entail.</p>

<p>The demise of engineering jobs due to outsourcing is greatly exaggerated. Outsourcing has been ongoing for years. Yet year after year engineering (all disciplines) continue to be the top paying careers for graduates. Now you may ask, if engineering jobs are becoming scarce due to outsourcing, why would corporations continue to pay top dollars for US engineering grads?</p>

<p>
[quote]
sakky, I think the reason I believe engineers are more susceptible to being laid off is because of their highly specialized knowledge and also the reason they are paid well.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would argue that it is probably a fallacy that engineers are more susceptible to being laid off than the average American, simply because there are always a lot of layoffs of non-engineers. Like right now, in the finance and housing industries, of which engineers are feeling relatively little impact. </p>

<p>In sum, I would like to see evidence that engineers are actually more susceptible to layoffs than is the average American. Let's be honest, the average American job ain't that secure. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Engineers deal with technology and technology is constantly evolving, there are many engineers who work with obsolete technology. One of my friends who work in IT, is working on a government contract using almost obsolete software (Microsoft is no longer providing technical support for it), and he's been working on this project for about a year. Imagine in the next job interview, trying to explain to the interviewers what he was doing for a year in 2007.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, everybody, including engineers, needs to take their career into their own hands, and that means keeping your skills up-to-date, even if that means changing projects or even jobs. What your friend should be doing is actively looking for another project where he will be able to develop more topical skills.</p>

<p>The same applies in regular business careers. For example, one of my friends used to work as a manager for the mortgage division of a major bank that shall remain unnamed. When the first rumblings of the housing crisis arose, he started to look for another job outside of mortgages, and he found one. Just a few months after he left, his old employer announced billions of dollars in losses and basically laid off most of his division. </p>

<p>That just goes to show that everybody - whether they're engineers or managers or whatever - needs to take active charge of their careers. If you can see that your future career viability is in trouble, then you need to make a change. You can't just wait for the layoffs to hit you. Now, obviously many layoffs come with no warning. But if you can see it coming, you don't just sit and wait for it. You need to make a move. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Business careers, for example, evolve as well, but the main aspect of the experience is still relevant, the selling, negotiations, working on mergers, client relationships , will all be important experiences 20 years down the line, no matter how things change. Your experience in these arts, will always be tied to the profitability of the company.</p>

<p>On the other side, it's very rare for an engineer to have significant impact on the bottom line of a company, unless you are a very senior engineer/scientist working creatively on an R&D project, which is not what the majority of engineering jobs entail.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, this is a deep mischaracterization of what most business careers are, relative to engineering careers. What you seem to be talking about are client-facing business careers, like sales. Yet the fact is, most business careers are not client-facing. They're not involved in selling. They're not involved in negotiation anything. They're not involved in creating relationships. They're certainly not involved in mergers. Most business functions have to do with merely internal functions of the firm, and when you get laid off, you often times don't have transferrable skills.</p>

<p>I'll give you an example. Back at my hometown, there are many warehousing and shipping companies. Lots of people used to be hired just to manage those warehouses, meaning keeping track of inventories and managing stock lots. In fact, these warehouses used to employ entire teams of people just to manage these operations. It was a nice, relatively easy, and decent-paying job for a lot of people.</p>

<p>What happened? Over a short period of time, all of those companies instituted computerized inventory and supply-chain software, and just like that, all of those guys got laid off. Entire teams of 25-50 guys were replaced by a couple of guys who knew how to run the software. So what did those laid-off guys do? They couldn't really go work for some other warehouse because it had also implemented the software. Nor did they really have a transferrable skill, because they never once ever had to negotiate with clients or sell anything. All of them had to get entirely new jobs. Some of them decided to learn that software. But most ended up leaving the industry entirely. </p>

<p>Look, my point simply is this:
*Many, probably most business jobs are also not highly 'portable'.<br>
*Plenty of business jobs also don't have much impact on the bottom line. This is why, right now, companies are slashing their white-collar workforces left and right. It is estimated that financial firms may lay off up to 175k total employees, almost none of which are engineers (because financial firms don't really employ engineers). Ask yourself: why would financial firms lay off all these people if they all impact the bottom line? Surely they're just not being stupid? </p>

<p>Hence, I don't see that engineering is worse than a regular business career.</p>

<p>i guess you are talking about a crappy business career vs. an engineering career, while I was talking about comparisons of career path of a top engineering grad pursuing engineering vs. a business career.</p>

<p>Finance jobs do have greater volatility, but most of the times, people just switch firms, they will have the same jobs. If you are in a major city, like NYC, or Chicago and you get laid off from a finance role, you will simply get another job of the same function at a different firm. Most engineering jobs are in small to medium sized towns, and usually you have to relocate to get another job. Although both get laid off, the finance guy simply gets a new address to report to.</p>

<p>"It is estimated that financial firms may lay off up to 175k total employees, almost none of which are engineers (because financial firms don't really employ engineers). "
- love this line. </p>

<p>look sakky, i know where you stand on this and how long your posts are, so I'm not trying to refute you. I've been on both side of this, engineering and business. All I am saying is this "Don't major in engineering" or "Don't work as an engineer" line applies to grads of top schools, where they have other options. Engineering is great if you happen to end up in a lower tier school. From your posts, I think we are in agreement about this.</p>

<p>"Hence, if you majored in engineering, then at least if you don't get into med school, you can still get a decent job as an engineer. If you majored in biology and you don't get in, what are you going to do now?"</p>

<p>If you major in engineering as a premed so that you have a career backup, chances are you're not going to get into med school unless you can maintain a really high gpa, since engineering programs tend to give out grades lower than those of liberal arts and other programs. It's kind of like a self-fulfilling prophecy; you majored in engineering to gain a good career backup option to med school, but chances are you will end up pursuing you career backup option because of low grades. Not every premed has to major in biology. Plenty major in other subjects such as Econ, Business, etc. and still have great backups while maintaining really high grades.</p>

<p>
[quote]
All I am saying is this "Don't major in engineering" or "Don't work as an engineer" line applies to grads of top schools, where they have other options. Engineering is great if you happen to end up in a lower tier school.

[/quote]

I don't get it. I'd think that it'd be the other way around.</p>

<p>Don't go into engineering for the money. The people that do that DO end up overworked, jaded and all of that. If you actually enjoy engineering, though, it provides you with a meaningful job that you like, comparatively good job prospects, and good pay.</p>

<p>"I don't get it. I'd think that it'd be the other way around."</p>

<p>I think their claim is valid. Doing engineering out of a lower tier school will still pay quite a decent amount of money, but other degrees from a lower tier school might not. Hence, if you are at a lower tier school engineering is a good choice.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think their claim is valid. Doing engineering out of a lower tier school will still pay quite a decent amount of money, but other degrees from a lower tier school might not. Hence, if you are at a lower tier school engineering is a good choice.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That stems from the fact that engineering firms tend to not pay a premium for students coming from excellent schools. It is not unusual for students from third tier schools and top tier schools to have similar starting salaries. The same is not true for other fields, such as law.</p>

<p>keefer isn't saying you should aim to go to a lower school, but if you just happened to be there, the benefit of choosing engineering over another major is greater than at a top tier school.</p>

<p>My experience has been that in most areas of the country, engineers are unappreciated and little respected even by engineering management. They are viewed as being expendable or replaceable by younger and cheaper talent. Managers who were once strictly involved in technical issues do not have the time or desire to understand all the nuances of complex technical issues and leave it to the "gearheads" which leads to lack of appreciation. As far as income is concerned, the closer an engineer is to the transfer of money to a customer, the higher will be the pay. Unless an engineer can demonstrate his worth by clearly explaining what he does so that anybody can understand, their salary and how well they are viewed will suffer. Of course, these blanket statements aren't always true but unfortunately true too often. Interestingly enough, through much of the rest of the world, engineering is much more valued and is a high status job. In Germany, a Ph.D. is always referred to as "doctor" and it is a sign of disrepect to call a German Ph.D. by their first name. In the US, we seem to value those who only transfer money (frequently losing much of it ) and skim their cut off the top more so than people who actually produce something - a very bad sign for our future.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The demise of engineering jobs due to outsourcing is greatly exaggerated. Outsourcing has been ongoing for years. Yet year after year engineering (all disciplines) continue to be the top paying careers for graduates. Now you may ask, if engineering jobs are becoming scarce due to outsourcing, why would corporations continue to pay top dollars for US engineering grads?

[/quote]
Maybe because engineering have a marketable skill from day one out of college, and the pay differential reflects that they can contribute right away rather than needing a few years to build skills?</p>

<p>The important thing isn't starting pay, but the career trajectory. A great starting salary but becoming obsolete in 15 years isn't a great career, if you ask me.</p>

<p>But there is no evidence that engineering jobs in the US are getting scarce due to outsourcing. Outsourcing has been ongoing for more than a decade. Yet we continue to see engineering (all disciplines) holding the top spots in pay scales for college graduates year after year. If demand goes down, shouldn't it drive down the price tag?</p>

<p>
[quote]
That stems from the fact that engineering firms tend to not pay a premium for students coming from excellent schools. It is not unusual for students from third tier schools and top tier schools to have similar starting salaries.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is simply not true. In hot areas such as electrical engineering, computer sience or mechanical engineering, starting salaries of engineering graduates from top schools are substantially higher than national averages. The difference is most acute at the very elite levels such as Stanford or MIT.</p>

<p>According to the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE), average starting salaries for EE and CS graduates was around $54,000 in the fall 2007. Average starting salaries of MIT grads in EECS was $73,000 (34% differential) and at Stanford around $72,000 (33% differential). This does not include the fact the typical MIT or Stanford grad will get a $10,000 starting bonus. </p>

<p>For students with a masters's degree, the national average salary of EECS grads is around $67,000,while the starting salary at MIT or Stanford is around $86,000, a 26% differential, not counting an average $15,000 signing bonus. </p>

<p>The main reason for the difference is not that same employers will pay substantially higher starting salaries for MIT or Stanford grads but mostly that the highest paying employers will preferentially recruit at the elite engineering schools. If you look at the list of most frequent employers of MIT and Stanford grads you will find companies such as IBM, Intel, Cisco, Google, Oracle, Microsoft.. Some of these will ONLY aggressively recruit at elite engineering schools. It is very common for the leading technology companies to compete for the graduates with significant signing bonuses and extra perks. </p>

<p>The differential in starting salaries will hold to a lesser extent in mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, or even civil engineering. In a few areas of high demand such as petroleum engineering, a degree which neither MIT nor Stanford offers, ANY graduate will get multiple offers with signing bonuses. </p>

<p>Employers are highly rational. In very fast changing markets, companies find it is worth paying more for grads of schools at the leading edge of technology. Only a handful of universities produce the overwhelming majority of breakthrough technologies which they in turn license to industry in the form of patents. Hiring students involved in advanced research in the numerous labs on the MIT or Stanford campuses is often a means for these companies to accelerate bringing new technologies to market and get a jump on the competition.</p>

<p>In many areas, there is therefore a very substantial financial advantage in getting a degree from an elite engineering school. Additionally, if they ever decide to change careers and go in consulting, finance or seek venture capital to form their own businesses, it is vastly easier to do for top tier graduates than typical engineering graduates.</p>