<p>My mom says her biggest concern with me majoring in a science is about the hypothetical scenario where I won’t earn a high enough GPA for grad school. Then I’d be left with a pretty bad degree in terms of getting jobs with just a bachelor’s. Is this really something I should worry about? </p>
<p>Also, where can I find some statistics or studies on how engineers are faring in the current economy? Is it really as rosy as it seems to be? Is the whole “STEM” glut real or a myth?</p>
<p>
Unfortunately this isn’t always how it works. Good workers tend to cost a premium, so they can be among the first to go. The company will save some money and just accept the lower productivity from the new one.</p>
<p>
Yes.</p>
<p>
One of my favorites is this one: <a href=“Where do college graduates work?”>http://www.census.gov/dataviz/visualizations/stem/stem-html/</a></p>
<p>You sort of have to read between the lines, but I think it shows economic potential, and it’s good data.</p>
<p>Go to the school’s website for career survey. Also google some job sites for internships and see what’s require. Just pretend you have a Engineering degree and see how easy to find a job you like. Read the job description.</p>
<p>@NeoDymium Yes that’s not always how it works. That’s why I said generally, not always. Good workers cost a premium, but often, good workers offer more in value than they cost in salary and benefits. Sometimes life isn’t fair, but more times than not, if you have become an indispensable employee as a result of your expertise, you are more safe than the average worker at said company.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alright. However I am also under the impression that engineering is a very difficult major and has more strict requirements than pure sciences. If I am unable to get at least a 3.0 GPA in engineering, will it be hard for me to find a job?</p>
<p>The hard part of engineering is pure science, particularly physics.</p>
<p>Right. But if I am unable to earn a 3.0 in Engg., how much less likely am I to find a job?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>In Cost Plus contracts, which are the most common kind, everything is audited. You charge the salary plus a negotiated and supported “wrap rate” of G&A, Fringe, and Fee. There is no profit pumping- it is all transparent since it is the people’s tax money.</p>
<p>Defense layoffs often are program based- the good and the bad attached to a program that is cut or finishing are left without a job. It can be political.</p>
<p>Often the professional societies have good information. For example, look at IEEE-USA. Also EE Times magazine has salary, unemployment data often.</p>
<p>With low GPA in any discipline, you may find you do not like the discipline and that it is difficult to get a job. What major were you hoping to find that would provide plentiful good jobs with GPA much below 3.0? As with any major, jobs are there, but all else being equal, the more proficient individuals will get the jobs.</p>
<p>Again, do what you love.</p>
<p>@jcjones42- it sounds like you may have spent some time in Dahlgren? Fun stuff! The utilities just put in a new power substation to support the stuff going on there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course. I don’t intend on getting a sub 3.0 GPA but my mom is assuming I will fail if I do science for some reason; and she wants me to do engineering. I think she is under the impression an engineering degree is a ticket to upper middle class heaven even if I do not earn that GPA. Engineering degrees are also notoriously difficult so if I were to fail in science, I’d imagine I wouldn’t do much better in engineering. I’m really good at writing and history and mathematics, but that’s not what I particularly love to do. I love science!</p>
<p>Well you need more than a 3.0 to get into graduate school, especially a good one like the kind you’d want for a science degree.</p>
<p>Engineering isn’t a ticket to the upper middle class, especially now that everyone thinks so and a lot of people are going down that path in search of money. But if you DO manage to finish it, engineering is a degree that is very useful regardless of where you end up. The school years will be difficult though. I personally found the engineering classes harder than the science ones, in contrast to what was said earlier. Science is more conceptually difficult, engineering is more tedious and detail-oriented.</p>
<p>@Ctesiphon An engineering degree is a pretty solid ticket to the middle class such as it exists these days, but not necessarily the upper middle class. Generally a higher GPA is not required o get a job, but a lot of those “upper middle class” jobs are going to have a more strict GPA requirement, so you definitely want to shoot for the mid-3.0 range (say, 3.4 to 3.6). It will also vary a bit regionally.</p>
<p>The bottom line, though, is if you are good at math and love science, do a science-based degree. Whether that’s a “pure” science or engineering is to be determined, but don’t sit there worrying about your future GPA too much. If you love it, make it happen.</p>
<p>
Yes but people play all kinds of game. One person told me the government cancelled the FCS program because the managers at one large defense company gave them bonuses about a quarter of a million per person.</p>
<p>How much different of job prospects does a, let’s say, Physics PhD graduate coming out of UCLA or CalTech have over a random state university?</p>
<p>@DrGoogle The FCS program got canceled because it was over its budget, behind schedule, and already obsolete.</p>
<p>boneh3ad, that too but they did take advantage of the system hence the over its budget.</p>
<p>Every defense project goes over budget simply due to the nature of the bidding process. It’s typical government inefficiency. Companies have an incentive to underbid in order to win the program competition even if there’s no way to reasonably deliver the product in that cost or time. It isn’t necessarily due to gaming the system so much as just operating within the already goofy parameters of an inefficient system.</p>
<p>No I understand but there was some shading dealing and the government noticed that.</p>
<p>@ItsJustSchool I was at Dahlgren! How did you know? I enjoyed it quite a bit. However, I think I may like Raytheon a little better. At Dahlgren it was all about “make it, shoot it, fix it” until they figured out a design that worked haha The Engineers at Raytheon, on the other hand, seem to be more of a perfectionist and demand the absolute best in their product development (I guess because they have to sell their product?). The testing they do here at Missile Systems is incredible (especially for an green college kid like myself). Both places do cool stuff though!</p>
<p>Which location of Raytheon for Missile Systems? Is that Sudbury?</p>
<p>@DrGoogle, bonuses are captured in G&A rates, and are billable. They are audited by the DCAA. No one with any Government Contracting experience would think they could do something like that and keep their job, since it would skew the company’s rates. The government will pay actual rates, but the contract has a ceiling. Therefore, less work (i.e. man-hours) would be delivered and the company would report a variance (and the reason for the variance) in their performance. If bonuses were larger than historical, there could be charges brought by the government. Certainly the government could sanction the company against future bidding opportunities, or approve the higher rates (which would be uncompetitive, and thus would price them out of the market) for future bids. That, of course, is corporate suicide for a government contractor.</p>
<p>What does happen, and is germane to this discussion, is using mediocre people to generate more cash flow while solving the problems at a more, <em>reasonable</em>, rate of progress than if top-flight experienced people were used. Then, the contract can be extended with a follow-on. The company has to appear to be making reasonable progress and has to be able to convince the government that the follow-on is needed. This drives large defense contractors to hire towards the middle, since mediocrity can rule. There are still brilliant engineers in defense companies, but in some departments, not so much.</p>
<p>It also depresses salaries, so that commercial companies can be more lucrative.</p>