<p>I've heard from several sources that most computer engineers are between 20-30 years old, and there are very few engineers beyond that...they typically end up going into management (or technical management), which is a different track.</p>
<p>Does it still look appropriate to be programming after 30? If so, how come there are very few older programmers? Where do these people go...obviously since a company is a pyramid, and the pyramid has much fewer people on top than the bottom, do the engineers end up leaving the field?</p>
<p>I have some good explanations, but I'm throwing this question out as food for thought to see what if the rest of everyone has thought about this.</p>
<p>Also, since many companies don't require a computer degree to do work in the computer field (physics degree, mathematics, anything will do in fact), what exactly is the value in getting a computer degree?</p>
<p>I have been asking myself that same exact question for the past six months as I continue to fail in my job search. How come so many poinent threads for myself are on this forum tonight? Its actually pretty funny.</p>
<p>Programmers, as well as s/w and h/w engineers, have to keep up with the times and have to continuously reinvent their skillsets. The skillsets of Burroughs and Control Data Corporation mainframe computer engineers of the late 70's became obsolete as did the Hewlett Packard mini-computer engineers of the 80's. </p>
<p>Whoever hears about COBOL, Fortran or DOS programmers anymore?</p>
<p>The skills you learn in college in 2005-2006 will also be obsolete in 10 years or less!</p>
<p>"Programmers, as well as s/w and h/w engineers, have to keep up with the times and have to continuously reinvent their skillsets. "</p>
<p>....does that sound like a real career to you? always hopping from one fad to another? Why would companies hire a 30 yr old when a 20yr old fresh grad already knows the same stuff, and will work for cheap?</p>
<p>
[quote]
does that sound like a real career to you? always hopping from one fad to another?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, sure beats the heck out of waiting tables and answering phones. And believe me, there are plenty of college grads who end up doing that. I know one woman who is about 50 with a master's degree in poli-sci who is now temping as a receptionist.</p>
<p>As gsp has pointed out, rapid technical obsolescence has been something of an occupation hazard for computer programmers to date.
However, those who have stayed more current with technological trends have faired quite well to date.</p>
<p>On top of this, however, there is a new trend toward globalization which puts workers in India, China, and Russia, for example, in direct competition with those in the USA. Technical skills alone provide little help in this new case, because staying up-to-date merely keeps them even with the competition. The only way to succeed in this environment is to differentiate oneself. For example, the skilled programmer that is also a savvy business analyst is relatively immune from the offshoring onslaught. Their are other strategies as well, but all involve differentiation of some sort. </p>
<p>Also, to those of you in other professions, be you an accountant, radiologist, or graphic designer: if you haven't yet felt the influence of globalization on your professions, rest assured that you soon will.
So in the long term, there is no relative disadvantage to Information Technology. I'd advise anyone to choose a career that they love; this will leave them best prepared to compete in the global marketplace.</p>
<p>I back up nightfly, I would also point out that any high-flying job will demand that you are keeping up with the latest trends. Forget about outsourcing, and just talk about technical and legal changes in the industry. For example, if you're a doctor and you're not constantly keeping up with the latest medications, treatments, and medical technologies available, as well as new emerging diseases you're just being derelict in your duty, not to mention opening yourself up to a malpractice lawsuit. If you're a lawyer and you're not constantly training yourself on new laws that are passed and new court precedents that have been set, you're going to find yourself obsolete. For example, if you're a tax lawyer and you're not familiar with this year's tax laws and rulings, then really, what good are you? If you're an corporate accountant, and you haven't bothered to train yourself on Sarbanes-Oxley and its various legal interpretations, then what good are you?</p>
<p>This is true in most fields - there is a pyramid and a lot of people job switch or hop around. You need to keep sharp on your skills, take courses, etc., but hopefully over time you will move "up" . My cousin started as a computer engineer and now manages a department at his software company where he is the "idea" guy in his department. He's very happy doing it and he's 40.</p>
<p>First of all, not all computer engineers are 20-30 years old. There are plenty of engineers who continue to be individual contributors and not go the management route. There are others who try the management route, and return to being an individual contributor. Many companies have an architect position, which is typically your senior idea person.</p>
<p>As for the comment that in 10 years your skills will be obsolete, I really disagree. The tools you are using may change, there may be new approaches to the work, but that is not to say skills learned today will be useless tomorrow. One's work ethic and previous experience will always infuse what you do tomorrow.</p>
<p>I do find this question interesting, for as a software professional since 1977, I've had to deal with it personally. I started out as a programmer coding operating systems in assembly language, morphed into a c-programmer, and finally took the plunge into management about six years ago. </p>
<p>Regarding not needing a computer degree, I think it may depend on what type of work you are seeking and what company. More and more, I see that a masters in computer science is the typical profile of college hires where I work.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As gsp has pointed out, rapid technical obsolescence has been something of an occupation hazard for computer programmers to date.
However, those who have stayed more current with technological trends have faired quite well to date.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And when you think about it, rapid obsolescence is something that you probably actually WANT.</p>
<p>Think about it. In a field with rapid obsolesence, whether due to technology or changes in the law, or whatever, you might say that you constantly face competition from the new batch of graduates. True. On the other hand, think about what happens when you are in a field with very little obsolesence. That means that you face competition from BOTH new graduates AND existing old-timers in the industry. </p>
<p>To give you an example, take a guy who majored in Classics (i.e. ancient Greek and Roman art and culture) and who wants to work as a classical historian. Here is one field that we can all agree barely changes at all, because obviously nobody is actually creating more classical art. The only change that might occur is if somebody actually makes a discovery of lost works, which is extremely rare. So honestly, if you're a newly minted Classics graduate, what can you really do to distinguish yourself against not only all the other new grads, but also against all the old-timer Classics guys? Is there really any way for you to beat them? After all, if skills never go obsolete, then that means that there is little incentive for firms to ever hire new people. Why should they? Why not just keep their old-timers around? Hence what that means is that the industry becomes one in which new entrants people are waiting for existing workers to retire or die so that they can get a job.</p>
<p>so assuming most 18 year olds will evolve/change their field of study to some degree, what would you recommend - an LAC a la bucknell, brown, lehigh or a university like northwestern, CMU??</p>
<p>So I think we have established that in most fields, those who do not embrace change are doomed.</p>
<p>Furthermore, in order to move beyond survival and to move ahead of the pack (say top 20%), one really needs to be able to anticipate directions of change before they happen. While a LAC certainly does not preclude this sort of wisdom, it by no means guarantees it. Pragmatically speaking, most people would be better off going to In-State U., then with the cost savings, investing liberally in trade publications and professional development courses upon employment.</p>
<p>However, since trade publications and professional development courses are themselves trailing innovation ( just less so than average), there are limitations to this strategy. To be a superstar will additionally require creativity and insight -- think Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Here is where the LAC may be superior. But I argue here that a LAC education without passion and drive is essentially useless. The LACs (including the Ivy's) simply do not have the answers ready-to-dispense. Furthermore, passion and creativity alone are of little use without prior technical mastery. Success is a product of the invididual, not the learning institution(s) they attend.</p>
<p>"So I think we have established that in most fields, those who do not embrace change are doomed."</p>
<p>nightfly, you're not getting the full point here...nobody wants to be in a stagnant field, but the KIND of change is also important. Engineering is not a true career after 30 since you look like an oddball if you're not getting into management....so changing from coding to people-management is a very POOR QUALITY of change if you ask me....doctors are doctors at 30, 40 50 and 60 years of age...the only things that change are medicine names.</p>
<p>Aehmo, once again, you are presuming that everybody can become a doctor. What about all those people who can't? Half of all people who apply to US med-schools get rejected by every single one they apply to. And that's just those that apply. Plenty of other people don't even bother to apply because they know they can't get in anywhere. If you have less than a 2.5, you're not going to waste your time applying because you know you can't get in. Should these people then just commit suicide? These people still have to do something to put food on the table. I would say that engineering is an excellent deal for them. After all, what else are they going to do?</p>
<p>"Aehmo, once again, you are presuming that everybody can become a doctor. What about all those people who can't? Half of all people who apply to US med-schools get rejected by every single one they apply to."</p>
<p>I'm sure the smart students can become anything they like, including doctors, dentists, lawyers, pharmacists, BART drivers (who make 102k in a union job for life) etc...you just have to get good grades to become a doctor.</p>
<p>For those who can't get a job that pays good money, they can go into engineering or anything else in the world their heart desires :) Nobody's stopping them from have a LESS successful career...it's only difficult to have MORE succesful careers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm sure the smart students can become anything they like, including doctors, dentists, lawyers, pharmacists, BART drivers (who make 102k in a union job for life) etc...you just have to get good grades to become a doctor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"Just" have to have good grades to be a doctor? So MCAT scores, EC's, all that stuff has nothing to do with it? So some dude with top grades but a 15 (total) MCAT score is still going to get in somewhere? Let's face it - there are some people who really do get a 15 or less on their MCAT. </p>
<p>Also, is it really just a matter of just being smart in order to get good grades? Tell that to all the people who go to difficult schools like Caltech or Chicago. So I guess if you go to one of these schools and get mediocre grades, you must not be smart, is that right? </p>
<p>Finally, let's be clear about what your reference for BART drivers. They make about 100 k in total compensation, NOT in salary. I agree that BART bennies (like bennies at almost all government jobs) are good. However, their salaries, by themselves, aren't that huge. To make the comparison fair, you have to look at the total compensation of everybody, including engineers. That would mean that starting Bay Area engineers make something like 80k total (55 salary, 25 of benefits), and veteran engineers would make something like 120k (90 of salary, 30 of bennies). That would be a fair comparison.</p>
<p>"Just" have to have good grades to be a doctor? So MCAT scores, EC's, all that stuff has nothing to do with it? So some dude with top grades but a 15 (total) MCAT score is still going to get in somewhere? Let's face it - there are some people who really do get a 15 or less on their MCAT. "</p>
<p>Well, if you get good grades, you're obviously smart! And smart people can pass the MCAT the same way they get good grades....by studying for the exam.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, if you get good grades, you're obviously smart! And smart people can pass the MCAT the same way they get good grades....by studying for the exam
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know about that. Getting good grades might mean you're smart. Or it might just mean that you took lots and lots of really easy classes at a really easy school. </p>
<p>When it comes to the MCAT, studying is no differentiator, because everybody studies for the MCAT. And MCAT scores are all relative.</p>