<p>To the OP: I would first preface my remarks by saying that engineering is still a pretty good career, from a relative standpoint. Granted, it's probably not as good of a career as, say, consulting or finance (although with the current Wall Street turmoil, maybe this no longer holds), and engineering certainly has its problems, but it's probably still better than most other careers you could have. I take it that you're an American, and I would simply point out that most Americans don't exactly have great careers. Most Americans would probably trade their career for an engineering career. </p>
<p>Hence, I answer your questions below from a relative standpoint. </p>
<p>
[quote]
1) Does the widespread use of any technology really mean that engineers in that field will be needed for long, or is it just a fallacy?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The widespread use of technology may wipe out some engineering jobs, but also wipes out far more *non-*engineering jobs. How many travel agents have lost their jobs because of Expedia, Travelocity, and Orbitz? How many retail store clerks have lost their jobs because of Amazon and other e-commerce sites? Hence, I would argue that, while engineers are obviously not perfectly safe, they are more safe than most other jobs out there when it comes to the proliferation of technology. More technology will wipe out certain engineering jobs, but also create many others. See below. </p>
<p>
[quote]
2) Really how bad is it when technology goes obsolete? The automobile industry has slowed but MechEs are still pretty popular. Steel production has reached its peak, but materials engineers have found other things to do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, first off, you're factually incorrect: steel production has not reached its peak; on the contrary, every year, reaches *another record high *, and is projected to continue to do so for many years into the future, mostly due to the staggeringly high growth rate of demand for steel products in Asia, especially China and India. </p>
<p>"Global crude steel production hit a record high of 1.24 billion tons in 2006, an increase of 10 percent over 2005.1 (See Figure 1.) This was the third consecutive year in which crude steel output exceeded 1 billion tons....The past decade has been the most productive in the history of the steel industry, driven mainly by remarkable growth in China and the Asia region"</p>
<p>Steel</a> Production Soars | Worldwatch Institute</p>
<p>Secondly, the auto industry has not slowed, indeed, world auto sales are also hitting record highs, again because of strong growth in developing countries. </p>
<p>"we expect full-year 2008 volumes to climb to a seventh consecutive annual record, buoyed by ongoing strength in Brazil, Russia, China and India"</p>
<p>Emerging</a> economies to drive world auto sales to record highs | AFP | Find Articles at BNET</p>
<p>I think what you may mean to say is that U.S. sales may be slowing. Yet even so, we live in a globalized economy and one of the sources of growth in the US economy over the last few years (and which has prevented us from hitting recession) has been exports. US customers may be buying fewer US products, but worldwide customers are still buying a lot. </p>
<p>But to answer your direct question, obviously when a technology becomes obsolete, those who know only that technology will have problems. But this is true not only for engineers, but for everybody. For example, those secretaries who only knew how to type and nothing else were completely blindsided by the advent of computer word processing, when office managers realized that they could produce documents themselves without relying on their secretaries. Old-time bookkeepers and accountants who kept records in standard accounting books were rendered obsolete by computer spreadsheets and accounting software. </p>
<p>The key is to therefore be constantly learning and retraining to develop new skills throughout your career to replace your old skills. That also means that you have to manage your career strategically: you have to constantly angle to be put on new projects that will provide you with opportunities to learn new skills. You can't just sit back and passively assume that your employer will hand you opportunities to update your skills; maybe they will, maybe they won't. You have to take the initiative to read trade magazines, network with others, and do what it takes to know what is happening in your field. Sometimes that may also mean changing jobs, i.e. if you can see that your employer is falling behind technologically. </p>
<p>But again, I think engineering is still better off than most other careers in this respect. A properly trained engineering student will have the ability to quickly learn new technologies. </p>
<p>
[quote]
3) Is it plausible that an entire field would go obsolete, like electrical? Or just some sub-field, like CMOS?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Subfields have definitely become obsolete. For example, practically nobody cares about the telegraph anymore (although obviously the principles of telegraphy, and of general signal analysis, are still highly applicable). Nobody really cares about the floppy disk anymore. </p>
<p>Entire fields may, in the future, become obsolete. For example, surely one day, the field of petroleum engineering will be obsolete when the world has successfully transitioned to another fuel. I just don't think that will happen in my lifetime. </p>
<p>But, again, the goal is not to be a prisoner of your discipline, but to be willing to branch out and learn new technologies. Telegraphy engineers who didn't learn new technologies became obsolete. But those who did learn new technologies were the ones who participated in the strong growth of the radio and telephone industries. </p>
<p>
[quote]
4) What is the future of engineering in general? No one knows the answer to this, but I'd like to hear what you prospective and current engineers expect from your career, and where you are hoping it will take you. Please try to confine your answers to the technical realm.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I said above, while engineering clearly has its problems as a career path, I would still argue that it is still a relatively strong career choice. The greater proliferation of technology that will permeate our lives will mean greater opportunities for people who understand technology and hence can see possibilities to combine technical systems together. </p>
<p>For example, I know a guy who is working on an Iphone web mashup that will compare and contrast how long it will probably take, and what it will cost, to get from 2 points in a city, via either taxi, public transit (and a link to see when the next bus/subway is coming), or just walking. For example, if I'm in NYC, and I want to get from the Empire State Building to Carnegie Hall, I would input that into my Iphone, and it would tell me how much it would probably cost via taxi (and how long it would take, presuming that a taxi is available), vs. how long it would take via bus/subway and the fare, vs. how long it would take for me to just walk there. People who don't know technology will not be able to exploit these opportunities. Heck, they may even be able to see them. </p>
<p>
[quote]
5) What are the hottest new fields and why? EE, Chem, Mechanical, and Civil are the fundamentals... what are they expanding to become (materials, bio, nano, energy), and whats a good way of jumping into these new and rather uncertain industries, if you're not interested in actually majoring in them?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"Hot" has different meanings. Are you talking about 'hot' in terms of the sheer absolute number of opportunities available, or 'hot' in terms of pay, which is a function of not only the number of opportunities but also organizational factors and the supply of trained people? </p>
<p>If 'hotness' means the sheer number of opportunities, then I would go with biotechnology and molecular biology. The country is getting older and hence will require more health care advances, and health care spending will consume a larger and larger share of the nation's GDP. </p>
<p>The problem with biotechnology is that while there are many opportunities, there are also many people competing with you for those opportunities. It's one of those industries where the supply of trained people has probably outrun demand, especially when it comes to engineers. Hence, bio companies realize that they don't really have to offer very good salaries, and if you don't like it, oh well, they'll just offer the job to somebody else. The best opportunities in biotech/bioE seem to be with entrepreneurship, but that usually requires a PhD, or in some cases an MBA. There just isn't that much available for those with just engineering bachelor's degrees. </p>
<p>If by 'hotness' you mean high salaries, then the answer is simple: petroleum engineering. Heck, I'm even hearing of stories of people turning down offers from consulting and banking to take jobs as engineers in the oil industry. </p>
<p>"Top-ranking petroleum-engineering graduates this year can expect starting pay of $80,000 to $110,000, plus signing bonuses and other perks....Texas Tech reports its 2008 graduating seniors will receive an average salary of $110,000...advertising</p>
<p>"It was a good time to get into the oil industry," says Barnum, who will graduate in May and has already accepted a job with Chevron as a production engineer in Midland, Texas. He declined to give his specific salary but said normal offers are between $80,000 and $90,000...An online group for students heading into oil-related careers describes itself thus: "We make the world go 'round, while at the same time making some huge bank.""</p>
<p>Business</a> & Technology | Soaring oil prices good news ... for engineering grads | Seattle Times Newspaper</p>
<p>Just keep in mind that the oil industry is highly volatile. When the price of oil drops, oil companies will mercilessly lay people off. </p>
<p>If by 'hotness', you mean sheer flexibility of degree as far as the ability to find jobs throughout the country (and not just in certain parts of the country like Texas/Louisiana/Oklahoma/Alaska for petroleum engineering, or Boston/Silicon Valley/San Diego for biotech) I would go with CS. Yes, it is true that CS has issues with outsourcing. Hence, you should not just aim to be a simple programmer. Rather, you should view CS as a way to understand technical systems. The world becomes more computerized every day, and computer systems are colonizing ever more parts of technology. For example, computerized fuel injection has basically rendered the purely mechanical carburetor obsolete. Computerized transmissions and drive-by-wire systems will eventually replace the mechanical gearing, belts, and hydraulics of the car. </p>
<p>If you want to jump into these fields without majoring in them, then the best thing to do is to simply get a part-time job in that field, or even just start creating projects on your own. Obviously some fields are easier to jump in than others: for example, even an elementary school kid can get a few books and start building Web 2.0 applications. </p>
<p>But I am convinced that numerous opportunities exist for amateurs and hobbyists in almost any field. For example, high school kids have managed to build working nuclear fusion reactors. Granted, it's not a commercially useful fusion reactor, as it consumes more energy than it produces. But still, it demonstrates the possibilities that are out there.</p>
<p>Radioactive</a> Boy Scout | Weapons & Security | DISCOVER Magazine</p>
<p>I know a guy at MIT who wanted to get a part-time job at a solar energy startup firm. To get the job, he invited the company recruiters outside where he showed them the solar motorcycle that he built himself over one summer and he demonstrated to the company representatives how it worked and how energy-efficient it was. He got a full-time job offer right on the spot. He wasn't even close to graduating, yet the company already wanted to hire him full-time.</p>