<p>MomfromKC’s response above is quite right, for the irony is that engineering firms do indeed pay percentages of their sales…to their sales reps. After all, sales reps are generally compensated on percentage-based commissions, and large sales translates into giant paydays. At any engineering firm, the highest paid non-management employees are almost always the sales reps - and the most successful sales rep for that particular year is often times paid more than even the CEO in that year. </p>
<p>So while it may be true that some engineering firms do sell hourly engineering contracts, the sales rep of that engineering firm who successfully sold that contract will be paid a percentage of that contract. Hence, any discussion of pay differentials has to examine intrafirm power dynamics - and specifically needs to investigate why it is perfectly justifiable to pay large commissions to sales reps, but not engineers.</p>
<p>The power of the purse is your friend, and my above example of Top Gun seems quite apropos (if I don’t say so myself, heh heh). The military provided extensive support to the producers of Top Gun, including the use of working fighters and careers and even allowed on-site shooting at the actual Top Gun (Miramar) airbase because they knew full well that the film would bolster the image of the military. Indeed, the military made sure of it by demanding edits of the screenplay to remove some of the less savory aspects of military life (for example, a landing crash on a carrier landing deck was deleted). The script of Goldeneye was modified so that a US Navy admiral who traitorously sold state secrets was switched to being French, upon which the film secured US military backing (although ironically, the French military also provided extensive support even after the switch). The script of BlackHawk Down was modified to change the name of a character who in real-life had been convicted of child molestation, upon which the military loaned four actual Black Hawk helicopters to the producers. And the most epic example in film history is surely Soviet film-maker Sergei Bondarchuk’s War and Peace - arguably the greatest war movie ever made - which utilized as extras entire units of the Soviet Red Army, including an entire ‘cinematographical cavalry corps’ which was formed by the Soviets specifically to appear in movies. </p>
<p>So, yes, while the government couldn’t specifically ‘demand’ that the filmmakers portray the military in a particular way, they could have simply denied use of their facilities. Other films that were far less flattering about the military such as Hurt Locker, Platoon and Apocalypse Now unsurprisingly did not secure military support.</p>
<p>Similarly, the US government could surely enact a strategy to improve the popular image of engineers by allowing/denying access to the extensive selection of engineering resources owned by the government. For example, in return for a movie or TV show that portrays aerospace engineering in a glamorous light, the government could provide access to NASA or the Air Force. In return for a show that glamorizes computer science, they could provide (limited!) access to the NSA or DARPA.</p>
<p>Generally speaking, it’s rather gauche for anybody to outright say that they’re pursuing a particular career just for the money. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, consider the lamentations of MIT chemical engineering student Nicholas Pearce (albeit, the example is about consulting rather than finance).</p>
<p>*Even at M.I.T., the U.S.'s premier engineering school, the traditional career path has lost its appeal for some students. Says junior Nicholas Pearce, a chemical-engineering major from Chicago: “It’s marketed as–I don’t want to say dead end but sort of ‘O.K., here’s your role, here’s your lab, here’s what you’re going to be working on.’ Even if it’s a really cool product, you’re locked into it.” Like Gao, Pearce is leaning toward consulting. “If you’re an M.I.T. grad and you’re going to get paid $50,000 to work in a cubicle all day–as opposed to $60,000 in a team setting, plus a bonus, plus this, plus that–it seems like a no-brainer.” *</p>
<p>That’s an interesting assertion, for supposedly one of the main benefits of attending MIT is specifically for its deep social networks and brand name recognition within the government, and especially within the defense industry for which those security clearances that you have touted in prior posts are so key. The truth is, ever since WW2 and especially the Cold War, MIT has been deeply intertwined with the US military-industrial complex. Many of the largest defense contractors such as Raytheon, McDonnell Douglas & Rockwell (both now comprising the military division of Boeing), Grumman Corporation (now Northrop Grumman), EG&G, and Teledyne were all founded by MIT alumni. </p>
<p>Heck, the founder of Raytheon, Vannevar Bush, himself later became not only Provost of MIT, but also spearheaded the deep collaborative efforts amongst the military, the defense industry, and academia (and naturally with MIT specifically) to the point that MIT’s Lincoln Laboratories and Draper Laboratories have become nearly indistinguishable from the military. MIT continues to run extensive programs in training US military officers. MIT also continues to enjoy access to top policy-makers within the military - to the point that the most respected subfield within MIT’s surprisingly strong political science department regards the political science of national security. </p>
<p>In his expose of MIT ‘The Idea Factory’, graduate Pepper White said that he met a number of other students from the military who were sent to study at MIT: “the intent is to give them some mental firepower to deal with the defense industry consultants, who have high powered degrees from places like MIT” (page 27). White himself freely admitted that the reason he went to MIT was to establish brand-name academic credibility for himself. </p>
<p>Hence, it would seem to me that regarding government contracting, particularly contracting regarding national security that would require clearances, a degree from MIT ought to be an immensely valuable asset, just from a sales & networking standpoint alone. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, it clearly hasn’t worked out that way, and a disturbingly large chunk of MIT graduates migrate to finance (or consulting).</p>
<p>Actually, I’m not convinced that such a desire really is so shallow. Indeed, I would argue that the alternative - to take a job just for its high pay - is far more shallow. After all, we all want to be remembered after we die. Frankly, that’s the only way to achieve immortality. For example, long after Mark Zuckerburg is dead, he will still be remembered as the subject of a critically acclaimed, Academy-Award winning film. </p>
<p>However - apparently unless you drop out of Harvard to start your own company - engineering offers neither high pay nor recognition in celluloid posterity. You may not obtain the latter in finance either, but at least you can obtain the former.</p>
<p>A great example of this is Apollo 13 and their use of the vomit comet. I still want to be one of the guys in the room with the mission to come up with a CO2 scrubber out of just the things in the box.</p>
<p>Perhaps the reason CalTech was recently moved into the #1 spot is because MIT isn’t what it used to be. Just because MIT was the be all and end all when we were students doesn’t mean it will continue to be so.</p>
<p>The best way I’ve found to achieve immortality is to have children. </p>
<p>Plenty of people pick a job for the money. I picked engineering over teaching for the money. It wasn’t the only reason, but in the final analysis when I looked at want I might want to spend my life doing and what my talents showed I might be good at I picked the one with the higher return on investment. I happen to think that is how most people do it, eliminate the things that would drive you insane, move the things you would really enjoy and do well to the top, then look at money and lifestyle.</p>
<p>Since when has Caltech moved into the #1 spot? According to USNews, MIT has been ranked #1 in engineering for more than 20 years straight, and in fact has never not been ranked #1. It’s been a clean sweep for MIT with no signs of stopping.</p>
<p>{ Note, I’m not saying that MIT necessarily deserves to continue to be #1. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. But I am saying that, like it or not, they continue to occupy that slot.}</p>
<p>Apollo 13 and The Right Stuff are exactly what we need. The problem is that they were all filmed over 15 years ago. How about something right now? After all, it would be hard to turn on your TV, flip through the channels, and not find any shows about cops, lawyers, or doctors (and even harder to not find any shows about athletes, singers or dancers). Why not have some shows about engineers?</p>
<p>Sadly, the best we have now is Big Band Theory, and I’d say that’s plenty more damaging to the image of science than helpful. :(</p>
<p>Are there any real good science shows on TV at the moment? I think Mythbusters was popular for a while (though I never liked it much), and before that there was stuff like Junkyard/Robot Wars for a while. None of it really seems to inspire the same way a good courtroom/police drama seems to, though. :(</p>
<p>If that’s really true, then why don’t the elite finance and consulting firms continue to recruit so heavily at the top schools? Why don’t they instead recruit at Texas Tech? </p>
<p>Or perhaps more saliently, why do the top engineering graduate schools continue to admit so many students from the ‘top’ undergrad programs? After all, within the MIT graduate programs, far and away the #1 most prevalent undergrad program of the graduate students is…MIT itself. Nor can the disproportionate numbers be attributed to pure geographic ‘home-field advantage’ alone, as one of the most prevalent undergrad programs of the graduate engineering students at the other side of the nation at Stanford and Caltech is…MIT. </p>
<p>So if the undergrads at MIT don’t really have much more to offer than the undergrads at Texas Tech, then I must ask the question: why don’t the top graduate programs admit fewer students from MIT and more students from Texas Tech? Are they just being stupid? </p>
<p>Granted, perhaps you might argue that academic prestige as evinced by top graduate school placement (along with finance and consulting) are not indicative of ‘real-world’ skills. Fair enough, but even if you believe that, it is still true that academic prestige impacts education. For example, I will take a bet that Texas Tech has more engineering professors who completed their PhD’s at MIT than MIT has engineering professors who completed their PhD’s at Texas Tech. {Heck, none other than Dean Albert Sacco of the Texas Tech College of Engineering came from MIT.} And if that’s true, then one must ask why does Texas Tech continue to hire so many engineering faculty who are produced at MIT, if they supposedly don’t have any real-world skill advantage? In particular, why would you then hire them to teach engineering classes to impart those real-world skills for the Texas Tech undergrads when they lack those skills themselves? So maybe Texas Tech is then being stupid?</p>
<p>Big Bang theory is ugly and distrubing, but Star Trek and Star Wars are still out there. And what do you think CSI and Bones are if not scienctis on a quest? And all the Gold Rush BS with the heavy equipment and the Sons of Guns? There is pletny of stuff out there. Did you watch Tower Heist? Great protrayal of the Burnie Madoff type Wall Street person. How about Catch Me If You Can? Wonderful profile of pilots don’t you think? Hollywood has nothing to do with it!</p>