Should there be an Engineering-School?????

College Majors Engineering Majors
1

<p>After reading a particular thread I began to think of what it be like if there was, like Law-School and Med-School, an Eng. School. Like, what if there I did Pre-Engineering and studied Physics or Mathematics and then applied to Eng-School to concentrate in Electrical Engineering. That would probably make some smarter engineers. Also would probably give engineers the desired pay that they should deservingly (if thats a word) get. I read about someone saying that an Engineering with a B.S. makes more that a M.D. fresh out of school and that they don't deserve it. But would engineers get more respect in those person's eyes if there was an Eng-School? It would probably make some smarter engineers. </p>

<p>What I hate, being an engineering major, is seeing some not so smart engineers graduate because they made it threw and getting manager postions in start ups and other positions and never go on to get anything besides a B.S. Because I know they couldn't get anything else because they do not have the grades for it. That would never happen (maybe but highly unlikely) in Med-School or Law School. So I am writing this thread to see what people think. How would you preceive an Engineering graduating from Eng-School? Would you respect him/her more? Would you think they should get 80k salaries coming out of school and not top off like they currently do so quickly? Should it be in the range that doctors and lawyers make after having years of experience? Just an idea. And please if you have to detour off topic, start another thread.</p>

2

<p>That's actually one of the things that the ASCE addressed in their Body of Knowledge report:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.asce.org/professional/educ/bodyofknowledge.cfm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.asce.org/professional/educ/bodyofknowledge.cfm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>What's required for engineers to be competent? What's necessary for licensure? What do engineers need to know in order to practice? How can we get respect for those in our field that's on the order of comparable professions, like law and medicine?</p>

<p>Interesting questions. I'm uncertain about the answers.</p>

3

<p>It will drive up engineering salaries indeed, though maybe not in the way intended. When the engineering populace is cut in half by the number of pre-engineers who throw themselves off cliffs after they find out they still have to go to 'real' eng. school the survivors will indeed be in high demand.</p>

<p>I personally feel lawyers, med students NEED an advanced professional school because they don't really do anything during undergrad. Seriously, you can be a psych major and take a few extra classes and call yourself 'prelaw' or 'premed'. Engineering is much more intense</p>

<p><em>nerd pride!</em></p>

4

<p>I'm an Engineering pre-law ;)
It isn't the easiest way to get the job done, but it's the most beneficial.</p>

5

<p>The supply of engineering labor would decrease (and if demand would stay the same), so therefore it would seem that wages would rise. </p>

<p>But in order for that to go through, people would have to be convinced that its beneficial for the economy to make the switch. I think the current state of the profession is too ingrained in having undergraduates move in that a switch like that would be very costly.</p>

6

<p>
[quote]
What I hate, being an engineering major, is seeing some not so smart engineers graduate because they made it threw and getting manager postions in start ups and other positions and never go on to get anything besides a B.S.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, but at least they finished their engineering degree. That says something. There are far worse real-life examples. Like people getting their BA degree in some creampuff major and then getting a manager position because they're good talkers or because Daddy is rich and powerful and can hook them up. Heck, some people don't even manage to graduate from college at all and manage to become high-level managers. Even more egregious is that some people don't even graduate, but then lie about it and say that they did, and then make it all the way to CEO, like what happened recently at Radio Shack. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11388447/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11388447/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Guess it didn't work out too badly. He still ended up with a severance package worth at least a million dollars. The (sad) moral of the story here is, lie about your degree, become a millionaire.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11465251/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11465251/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

7

<p>At one time, medicine and law were undergraduate degrees. If you wanted to become a doctor, you went to college for a Bachelor of Medicine degree. If you wanted to become a lawyer, you went to college for a Bachelor of Law (there are still older lawyers who have LL.B. degrees, instead of a J.D.). </p>

<p>Eventually the study of medicine and law shifted to postgraduate schools. But for engineering, the first professional degree remained the bachelor's. </p>

<p>It does seem odd that a liberal arts degree is no barrier in fields like medicine or law, but is a severe drawback in engineering. If an English major can go to professional school and become a Supreme Court justice or a brain surgeon -- and law and medical schools are perfectly willing to accept English majors, as long as they meet a few standard premed and prelaw requirements -- then why can't an English major go to graduate school and become an engineer ?</p>

<p>There is a "liberal arts track" for architects. First you get a 4-year BA degree from a liberal arts college; you can major in anything, as long as you include certain "pre-architect" requirements. Then you go to grad school for a 3-year professional "Master's of Architecture" degree. It's a longer, but feasible, alternative to the 5-year professional "Bachelor's of Architecture" degree.</p>

<p>You could do the same thing in engineering. A liberal arts "pre-engineer" could major in anything, as long as their coursework included 1-2 years of math, physics and chemistry (in practice, most pre-engineers would probably major in one of these fields, just as most pre-meds major in biology or chemistry). Then you would go to grad school for 2-3 years of intensive study of engineering topics, and earn a professional MS degree. It would be a longer, but feasible, alternative to the current professional BS degree.</p>

<p>Some liberal arts colleges have a 3/2 dual-degree BA/BS plan for students that want to study engineering. You study for three years at the LAC, then transfer to a cooperating university engineering dept. for two years.</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
You could do the same thing in engineering. A liberal arts "pre-engineer" could major in anything, as long as their coursework included 1-2 years of math, physics and chemistry (in practice, most pre-engineers would probably major in one of these fields, just as most pre-meds major in biology or chemistry). Then you would go to grad school for 2-3 years of intensive study of engineering topics, and earn a professional MS degree. It would be a longer, but feasible, alternative to the current professional BS degree.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Who said that this doesn't exist already? I know an (extreme) example of a guy who got did biology undergrad at Harvard and is now doing graduate work in Civil Engineering at MIT.</p>

<p>On a less extreme note, I know quite a few grad eng students at MIT who majored in a hard science or mathematics as an undergrad.</p>

9

<p>You know the guy Joe on Beauty and the Geek 2? He's a friend of a friend and he majored in Philosophy at Chicago and is now doing MS/PhD Mechanical Engineering at Northwestern.</p>

10

<p>Hey I know it does happen, but I was referring to it being formal. I would want pre-engineering courses that would prepare someone to pass teh FE exam (first section + some extra stuff) then go to Eng-School for a speacialization. But good .. I like this topic. But hey I give it to the guys that get Mech E degrees and then go one to get M.S./Phd in Computer Science. Those guys deserve high salaries. I hope to do that too. I'm getting a B.S. in EE and then gonna go on to get M.S. in Comp E or Comp. Sci. maybe Phd. </p>

<p>Hey sakky, I know what your talking about I've seen it happen and I hate it.</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
Who said that this doesn't exist already? I know an (extreme) example of a guy who got did biology undergrad at Harvard and is now doing graduate work in Civil Engineering at MIT.</p>

<p>On a less extreme note, I know quite a few grad eng students at MIT who majored in a hard science or mathematics as an undergrad.

[/quote]
You're quite correct; it is possible to do it this way. However, there are currently two significant problems with this approach.</p>

<p>First, engineering graduate schools commonly discriminate against non-engineering majors. At some graduate schools, an ABET-accredited engineering degree is explicitly required, so non-engineering majors can't even apply. Other grad schools are more flexible, but even those schools typically prefer candidates with ABET degrees. For medical and law school, there are standardized "aptitude tests" (MCAT, LSAT) that provide a common means of comparing students from different majors. There is no equivalent "engineering aptitude test" for engineering grad school (there was once an "Engineering GRE", but it's been discontinued). The FE exam might be a reasonable substitute, except that many states won't allow non-engineering majors to take it, which leads into the next point...</p>

<p>Second, the legal system commonly discriminates against non-engineering majors. Some states will not allow you to take the FE or PE exam without an ABET BS degree -- even if you subsequently get an engineering MS. This is a serious professional drawback in some engineering fields, particularly Civil. The Harvard biology BS who gets an MIT Civil MS is undoubtedly smart, but without an ABET BS, he cannot get a PE license or be in technical charge of a civil project in (for example) Florida. Other states are more flexible, although all of them give some degree of preference to ABET BS degrees.</p>

12

<p>There is another problem as well. Which is that some of these "instant engineers" do not really receive in-depth training comparable to people who have spent four years in an undergraduate engineering program. This lack of breadth of training can come back to haunt these people if they decide to practice the craft. I've seen this happen in the workplace. A one-year master's program does not completely duplicate the course work of a 4-year engineering school.</p>

<p>In fact I've read much talk about engineering schools going the other way-incorporating the fifth year,what is now a Master's of Engineering degree, into the requirements for an undergrad B.S. degree, so that the undergrad degree would take five years instead of four years. There are some other professions that operate on this model. The educators arguing for this say there is simply too much to learn to achieve optimal level of specialization and proficiency,even at entry level, and the design project in the fifth year would be a culminating/synthesizing experience.</p>

<p>The problem with lack of comprehensive training is more of an issue for those who would practice than for those doing research.</p>

<p>The current curriculum for practitioner engineering master's degrees (M.Eng.) is not along the same lines as, for example , practitioner business (MBA) programs. In the latter case, as I understand it, the basic core survey business courses that can be taken as an undergraduate business major are basically repeated in the MBA program. So a liberal arts major who undertakes an MBA program will not miss out on any of the business school basics.</p>

<p>In a graduate engineering program these overview courses that are expected to be taken during undergrad are generally not repeated, so if you don't have them already you may not get them.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
A one-year master's program does not completely duplicate the course work of a 4-year engineering school.

[/quote]
Agreed. A liberal arts graduate would need a 3-year master's in engineering, or possibly 2 years if enough advanced coursework was taken in college.</p>

<p>This would be comparable to the system for architects. The "fast track" to an architecture career is a 5-year NAAB-accredited BArch degree. But there is also a longer "liberal arts" track, with a 4-year BA, followed by a 3-year NAAB-accredited MArch degree. Some liberal arts grads get enough architecture coursework in college to qualify for "advanced standing" in grad school, which means that they can complete the MArch in only 2 years.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
First, engineering graduate schools commonly discriminate against non-engineering majors. At some graduate schools, an ABET-accredited engineering degree is explicitly required, so non-engineering majors can't even apply. Other grad schools are more flexible, but even those schools typically prefer candidates with ABET degrees. For medical and law school, there are standardized "aptitude tests" (MCAT, LSAT) that provide a common means of comparing students from different majors. There is no equivalent "engineering aptitude test" for engineering grad school (there was once an "Engineering GRE", but it's been discontinued). The FE exam might be a reasonable substitute, except that many states won't allow non-engineering majors to take it, which leads into the next point...</p>

<p>Second, the legal system commonly discriminates against non-engineering majors. Some states will not allow you to take the FE or PE exam without an ABET BS degree -- even if you subsequently get an engineering MS. This is a serious professional drawback in some engineering fields, particularly Civil. The Harvard biology BS who gets an MIT Civil MS is undoubtedly smart, but without an ABET BS, he cannot get a PE license or be in technical charge of a civil project in (for example) Florida. Other states are more flexible, although all of them give some degree of preference to ABET BS degrees.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>All of this might be a strong and valid point, except for the simple fact that ABET accreditation and, more importantly, PE status, except for perhaps CE's, and a minority of ME's and Cheme's, don't seem to matter very much. The market doesn't seem to place a whole lot of value on ABET certification or on PE status, such that plenty of engineers enjoy solid careers with neither, and certainly without PE status.</p>

<p>As a case in point, PE status means very little in the world of EE, and EE happens to be the most populous subdiscipline within engineering. I've known quite a few highly successful EE's working for the many of the largest tech companies in the world, like Intel, GE, HP, etc. and very few of them are PE's or are trying to be. The same thing can be said for BioE, which is arguably the fastest growing engineering disciplines. Many of the top BioE BS programs, such as the ones at Berkeley and MIT, aren't even ABET accredited. The students don't seem to care, and frankly, neither do the employers, as those graduates get scooped up by the job market with little difficulty.</p>

<p>I have knowledge of the MIT LFM program (the elite MBA + MS Engineering program), and I can tell you that practically none of the students there are PE's or EIT's or have even expressed any intererest in becoming them. Every year, out of the 50 or so students that are brought into LFM, there is maybe 1 that is a PE or an EIT, and in many years, there are zero. Almost all LFM students have engineering bacheor's degrees (the rest have closely related degrees in the physical sciences), and all of them have worked for at least 2 years (this is an LFM requirement), with the average work experience being 5-6 years. Work experience is also THE major factor that determines whether you are admitted to LFM (just like it is with all elite B-schools). Furthermore, the distribution of LFM's is heavily skewed towards ME's and CE's. EE is the most popular subdiscipline in the greater world, but not in LFM because of LFM's special focus. So you would think that there would be quite a few students who are PE's or at least EIT's. But not from what I've seen. Yet these people have managed to accumulate a work record that is stellar enough to get them into LFM. </p>

<p>The same can be said for many of the former engineers who then go to regular MITSloan, or HBS, Stanford, Wharton, and so forth. Few of them are PE's or EIT's, or care about it. </p>

<p>Granted, I agree that if you are looking at just those engineers who later head to MBA school, then you are looking at a skewed population. However, it seems to me that more engineers dream of getting their MBA's and entering management than want to stay as engineers. For example, while I can't prove this, I suspect that if we asked PE's whether they would trade their PE status for an elite MBA, many would. Not all, but many. On the other hand, if we ask one of these LFM students whether they would trade their LFM spot to be a PE, I think that very few would do that. </p>

<p>So the point I'm making is that, it seems as if PE status doesn't seem to matter very much in the sense that the market doesn't provide much of a pay premium for it. Until and unless the PE can pull in the kind of money and status that, say, a lawyer or a doctor do in the US, not a lot of people will really want to be PE's. </p>

<p>I'll say this, though. If PE's made 200k a year, you'd have people coming out of the woodwork to become PE's.</p>

15

<p>As for ABET accreditation, it's probably true that it is not significant in many emerging engineering disciplines (nor is it important in computer science, despite ABET's efforts). But ABET accreditation is really not the issue here; the key point is that engineering graduate programs (whether ABET or not) typically prefer or demand engineering majors (whether ABET or not) over science, math, or other non-engineering majors. This is not surprising, but it undoubtedly limits the options for non-engineering majors who want an engineering MS degree.</p>

<p>As for the FE/PE, it's probably true that these titles are not significant for most engineers (after all, some 80% or more of engineers are not licensed). But I brought the issue up anyway, because it seemed relevant to some of the points made earlier in this thread. </p>

<p>For example, it was suggested above that the FE exam could be used as a "pre-engineering" benchmark exam. This is absolutely true in theory, but in practice, many states won't allow non-engineering majors to take the FE exam, which obviously limits its effectiveness for this purpose. In addition, there was an example cited above of a biology major studying for a Civil MS. It is undeniable that the PE is important for professional practice for most civils, and that it is harder -- or in some states, impossible -- to obtain one as a non-engineering major. Civil may not be a typical case, but it is not trivial either; it is probably the second-largest engineering discipline after electrical. </p>

<p>Clearly the combination of engineering and non-engineering degrees (e.g. BS+MBA) is a popular and valuable option. The point here is simply that the system could do a better job of accomodating those people who want to get the non-engineering degree first (e.g. BA+MS).</p>

16

<p>Let me just interject that in the bizarre case of the biologist-turned-civil-engineer, IIRC, it was in a niche field that provided some natural progression from biology and happened to fit in best with the graduate studies done in the civil engineering department. I don't think that's a particularly useable example to cite non-engineer to engineer transferrence. There are exceptions to every rule, but if the biologist had decided that he/she wanted to design buildings and bridges and such for the rest of his/her life, he/she would be hard-pressed to gain admission to a graduate program that would train for that.</p>

<p>As to getting the non-engineering degree first, there's <em>so</em> much proprietary stuff that I learned as an undergraduate that I'm absolutely stymied by the notion of going into engineering <em>without</em> an undergraduate engineering education. The fact remains that in order to pursue engineering, you simply must cover all that four years' worth of educational material. The only way I can really see to make professional engineering education more like med school or business school or law school is to force undergraduates to major in a wimped-out "pre-eng" major, along the lines of pre-med or pre-law, and to then put them all through "Engineering School" later on, much like med school or law school.</p>

<p>Does it really behoove us to postpone our engineering educations for four years, though? Seems like a large waste of time to me.</p>

<p>..which brings me to an interesting thought: the undergrad years seem like a large waste of time for future med and law students, as well. Does this element of "delayed gratification" in their educations, the "I'm going to be in school for the rest of my life so pay me well, darn it" factor, contribute to their professions' public esteem and, therefore, higher salaries? If we were to take a page out of their book and waste time for a good four years getting "worldly experiences" through irrelevant bachelors' studies and then buckle down for an additional four or five years and get doctoral stripes in engineering, would we get the $100K salaries, too?</p>

<p>Interesting to ponder...</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
..which brings me to an interesting thought: the undergrad years seem like a large waste of time for future med and law students, as well. Does this element of "delayed gratification" in their educations, the "I'm going to be in school for the rest of my life so pay me well, darn it" factor, contribute to their professions' public esteem and, therefore, higher salaries? If we were to take a page out of their book and waste time for a good four years getting "worldly experiences" through irrelevant bachelors' studies and then buckle down for an additional four or five years and get doctoral stripes in engineering, would we get the $100K salaries, too?</p>

<p>Interesting to ponder...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, from what I've seen, it's really more of an unwillingness to pay from the engineering employers, as evidenced by the continuing fascination with consulting and banking exhibited by the engineering students at many of the top engineering schools. Simply put, the employers don't really seem to want to pay top dollar for top engineers, which is why many of those top engineers take jobs elsewhere.</p>

<p>As a case in point, I was just talking to an MIT EECS grad who got a number of job offers from a number of the top tech companes, but opted to work for McKinsey instead. When I asked her why McKinsey, she basically said that there were a number of reasons, but one key one was that McKinsey was willing to pay her significantly more. One tech company in particular, which shall remain unnnamed, she really liked, but the company was simply not willing to pay her anything close to what McKinsey was going to pay. Ironically (and sadly), as it turns out, one of her first consulting gigs at McKinsey was an engagement with that very tech company that wasn't willing to offer her a competitive salary. So here's this tech company being simply miserly when it comes to employee salaries, but is willing to pay big bucks to the consulting companies. From a market efficiency standpoint, that company would have been far far better off simply hiring her and paying her a boosted salary, rather than getting access to her knowledge indirectly through McKinsey, and having to pay a substantial premium to McKinsey. In fact, she told me a strangely sublime story about how while working on the McKinsey engagement she ended up running into some of those people at that company who had interviewed her. </p>

<p>To me, that's simply a sad testament of today's corporate culture. Companies aren't willing to pay good money for good engineers, but they are willling to pay small fortunes to bring in consultants, who often times are the same engineers who they weren't willing to pay the first time around. </p>

<p>On a similar note, it simply begs the question of why aren't the engineering companies willing to pay high salaries to engineers, but the consulting firms and banks are?</p>

18

<p>Well, that's an easy question to answer. ENGINEERING COMPANIES do not make that much money! Therefore, they don't have enough money to PAY those types of salaries. I-Banking companies are swimming in money, so sure, they're willing to pay.</p>

<p>Why are people willing to shell out so much money for a heart transplant or a legal defense, but so little money (relatively speaking) for the best and safest design of the tall buildings they live in? (These examples are merely colorful literary devices, and are not intended to provoke an argument about the relative costs of heart transplants, legal defenses, or building designs, thank you very much.)</p>

<p>I'm nearly positive that it's all linked to public perception of how difficult the task at hand is. Why doesn't the public perceive that engineering is difficult and precise work that requires fine minds? (The same could be asked regarding the teachers with whom the public entrust their children every day...)</p>

<p>So, what's up with that?</p>

19

<p>This keeps coming up in the context of investment banks and consulting firms stealing engineering candidates, to the detriment of the miserly engineering companies. I don't know why the emphasis in these discussions about investment banking keeps coming back to engineering particularly.</p>

<p>The investment banks and consulting firms knowingly overpay for unproven talent of every type, outbidding every other kind of firm in the process. For every one engineer who gets "bought" and doesn't go to an engineering firm, there are eight or more liberal arts majors who get "bought" the exact same way and therefore don't go to whatever employer of liberal arts students that would have otherwise secured their talents.</p>

<p>Investment banks and consulting firms are "equal opportunity " poachers. They don''t just poach from engineering companies, particularly. In fact, just the contrary. Since they primarily hire liberal arts majors, mostly they poach from those employers.</p>

<p>But the process is just the same, in any event. They overpay to get who they want, because they can. Employers of liberal arts majors are far more frequently victim to this than engineering companies are. </p>

<p>And I wouldn't be particularly crying for one such group over the other. On the one hand you have some engineering company that won't match an engineering grad's salary offer. On the other hand you may have some PR firm or advertising agency or who knows what else that won't match some liberal arts major's salary offer. The point is, none of them will match the offers of the investment banks and the consultants. These two industries are playing under different rules /economics than anyone else is playing under. Not just engineering companies, every company. Pretty much.</p>

<p>I just don't see engineers being particularly "special" in any way in this ongoing process.</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
ENGINEERING COMPANIES do not make that much money! Therefore, they don't have enough money to PAY those types of salaries.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Bullshi*. Are you kidding me? Engineering companies don't have any money? Companies like ExxonMobil, Intel, GE, Cisco, Dell, HP, Boeing , Motorola, Qualcomm, are engineering companies with RIDICULOUS amounts of money. RIDICULOUS. They could EASILY afford to pay increased engineering salaries if they wanted to. Heck, they pay their managers huge salaries. Yet all of these companies hire the major consulting and banking firms for millions and millions of dollars.</p>

<p>I would argue that US engineering companies are among the most profitable companies in the world. Much of the US economy is based on engineering knowhow. Without good engineering, Intel would have nothing to sell. Without good engineering, Boeing would have nothing to sell. Without good engineering, ExxonMobil would not be able to get any oil out of the ground, and would not be able to refine it into gasoline. </p>

<p>To give you a case in point, when HP merged with Compaq in 2001, many millions of dollars worth of fees were paid out to the investment banks who were hired to put the deal together, and those fees turned into very nice fat bonus checks for the individual bankers who advised on the deal. HP merged with Compaq because it was felt that HP needed to bulk up to succeed against IBM and Dell. However, if HP had simply been making better engineered products, maybe they wouldn't have ever needed to create this merger.</p>

<p>Come on, aibarr, are you seriously trying to argue that companies like above are crying poverty? That they really can't afford to pay their engineers more? Or, conversely, that they aren't really 'engineering companies', but if they are not, then what exactly are they? I think it's far more clear that it's not that they can't, it's just that they don't WANT to.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And I wouldn't be particularly crying for one such group over the other. On the one hand you have some engineering company that won't match an engineering grad's salary offer. On the other hand you may have some PR firm or advertising agency or who knows what else that won't match some liberal arts major's salary offer. The point is, none of them will match the offers of the investment banks and the consultants. These two industries are playing under different rules /economics than anyone else is playing under. Not just engineering companies, every company. Pretty much.</p>

<p>I just don't see engineers being particularly "special" in any way in this ongoing process.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree with this. But not so much on the emphasis on liberal arts as being anything 'special', when the fact is, engineers make up only 5% of all bachelor's degrees conferred in the US. So it's perfectly natural from a sheer numbers standpoint that there aren't going to be that many engineers in banking, just like there aren't that many engineers period. </p>

<p>However, your central point is valid, but it simply leads to the question of why is it that these consulting firms and banks willing to overpay their employees, but not the other companies. Let's not forget that these market forces are linked. The reason why the consulting/banking firms can pay big bucks is because they, in turn, get paid big bucks in fees by those same companies who are miserly about their regular employee's pay. It is absolutely mystifying that regular companies (again, like ExxonMobil, Intel, and the like) would refuse to increase salaries to their employees, but are willing to pay huge chunks of change to bring in consultants to tell them how to run their business. Or to bankers to help them advise financial deals. Instead of that, why not simply create your own in-house consulting/finance division, hire those people directly, pay them accordingly, and thereby cut out the middleman? </p>

<p>When you bring in a consulting/banking firm, what you are really bringing in is human capital (human talent). So if the real goal is to bring in human capital, then why not just do it directly and pay less (by cutting out the consulting/banking markup)?</p>