<p>Maybe you should quit taking those engineering career seminars, because those sound amazingly pessimistic in comparison to what I've seen in industry... Some of those seminars are done by disgruntled former engineers, and 68% of statistics are made-up.</p>
<p>Those are some absolutely hilarious numbers.</p>
<p>so basically that "engineering" seminar is telling you not to do engineering....</p>
<p>Always look at statistics carefully. It's not that I think they're always made-up, but you can mislead people with statistics depending on how you phrase the sentences or what information you omit.</p>
<p>The engineers who quit or get fired after four years... do they take another engineering position after four years? Or do they leave the field altogether. If they do leave, what kind of position do they take? I know in my field, some of the more senior personnel tend to go over to the real estate side of the construction business. They got these positions because of all their experience in construction.</p>
<p>Of the 35% that become managers, what percentage of them are satisfied with their work? The assumption on this thread so far has been they aren't, but I don't think we can make that conclusion. And also of that 35%, what percentage still do engineering? The project managers that I've known in engineering still get heavily involved with it.</p>
<p>Of the remaining 65%, why do we assume that they struggle? Is there any information at all that can substantiate that claim? How do we not know that they're doing better than the managers and the young kids?</p>
<p>Always be careful of statistics and scrutinize them carefully.</p>
<p>35% of the posters here think that Dr. Horse is an idiot.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The average length of employment for engineers is 4 years. So expect to either quit or be fired on average of 4 years.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If that's true, I actually think that's quite good, for the truth is, the average length of numerous job positions is less than 4 years. Many people (probably most, at least in the white-collar sector) will have moved onto a different position or a different company by the 4th year. Heck, in many firms, if you're still in the same position after 4 years, that's indicative of a serious problem because it means that you haven't done well enough to warrant a promotion.</p>
<p>Hey, you can call me what ya want. But if you think you are going to get hired as a engineer and work there for 10+ years, your fooling yourself.</p>
<p>and why would I be a idiot, because I detroy people in Political debates?</p>
<p>as a non-MBB consultant, my manager said when I was hired that they typically incorporate 20% turnover rate into their headcount forecasting every year. I think it's just the nature of our generation of workers, we work and when we feel inadequately compensated or not happy for some reason, we move on to somewhere else, where as, in past generations, people would have stayed and endured.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and why would I be a idiot, because I detroy people in Political debates?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...who's destroying?</p>
<p>Plus, seeing as how you're fresh out of school for comp sci, I don't think you really have a full view of what the engineering industry is like. Parroting unsubstantiated statistics isn't going to gain you a lot of credibility. I've actually worked with plenty of people who've worked for the same firm for 10+ years, in at least three different firms. I'm probably the low outlier that's pulling down the average, if that average is even accurate, and I left each previous position for either further education or better opportunities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hey, you can call me what ya want. But if you think you are going to get hired as a engineer and work there for 10+ years, your fooling yourself.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you think you're going to get hired for most jobs and work there for 10 years, you're fooling yourself. </p>
<p>
[quote]
and why would I be a idiot, because I detroy people in Political debates?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Um, who's getting destroyed again?</p>
<p>Aibarr, il take the word of my dean of engineering and sakkys word over yours. BTW I got this information from our Engineering career institute week. We had lead engineers and ceos of engineering firms come, and they all pretty much told us the same thing about job expectations and longevity. Some companies that came are as follows.</p>
<p>Ford
GM
Lockheed
Praxair
Taylor Devices
Intel
Sigma Group
Dewberry
Fisher Price
and about 20 more.</p>
<p>and whom is getting Destroyed, all of the Liberals in College Confidential Cafe.</p>
<p>Hmm. We're all writing about our local markets, personal experiences, and specialized skill sets. </p>
<p>My experience is the opposite of Dr. H: I'm over 50, I have to push away job offers, I work hard to recruit engineers at all ages and levels of experience and find a limited number to hire. There are newspaper job announcements for hundreds of engineers in every specialty in the local paper (Washington Post). I held one job for 22 years. I love my job and normally put in about a 55 hour week. </p>
<p>We are closer to NYC than 500 miles. </p>
<p>Engineers can get stuck in a rut -- even in this town -- by failing to renew their skill set, performing consistently poorly, or doing some dastardly deed that makes the papers. Otherwise it's a pretty secure profession.</p>
<p>redBeard, I live in NYC.</p>
<p>ok. so just don't do engineering. </p>
<p>simple. end of discussion.</p>
<p>yea, please don't do engineering. The less people decide to become engineers...the more our demand goes up and so does the pay.</p>
<p>Ok, so let's say you join an engineering firm and leave after 4 years? Is that necessarily a bad thing? It depends on the reason... maybe you left for a better job.</p>
<p>Let's say you've been an engineer for 10 years... so now you're considered "old." What's wrong with that?</p>
<p>Or if you're in that 35% that goes into management.... why is that bad?</p>
<p>I know a few older engineers who were brought out of retirement to work for an old company of mine, so there are definitely plenty of older engineers around in the industry. I don't doubt that some people stay with a company for 10+ years, but it's not that common. Those who do are probably VP's by this time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let's say you've been an engineer for 10 years... so now you're considered "old."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In my field, "old" means "knows lots and should be respected." Heck, I'll take that. We don't put our "old" engineers out to pasture, because they know how to do stuff that we don't.</p>
<p>Ken, you're right... those statistics have a terribly negative spin on them, but all those are really considered good things, at least in my neck of the woods... Good point.</p>
<p>See but to a business "old " doesn't necessarily mean better. You guys are forgetting how fast engineering changes. This is why abet requirements change from year to year. What one learned this year in his curriculum 2008, they would have skills that a engineer 9 years ago didnt learn. such as matlab and others. so now a company that has all the old engineers, is at a delima, hire new or train. They always hire new.</p>
<p>experience in engineering doesn't mean much anymore.</p>
<p>From the companies that I've worked with, it's always been a heavy training program. I see this in all my major competing firms as well. You have to train new employees too so it's not like you can just throw graduates into the fire and expect them to perform.</p>
<p>You can teach new skills, but you can't teach experience.</p>
<p>That's why companies have training programs, Dr. Horse. Our skills are constantly updated on our companies' dime. Additionally, it's each engineer's responsibility to make sure that they've kept their skills current.</p>
<p>They do not always hire new. That's a myth propagated by disgruntled engineers who were fired because they didn't accept the fact that the world changes and that you need to constantly keep your skills sharp.</p>
<p>I for one have never actually used MATLAB since grad school. I <em>have</em> learned how to use Revit, which my company thinks is very important and is fairly well bleeding-edge technology. We have courses in it. We constantly read journal articles to learn about changes in the code, and we have e-mails sent to us whenever anybody notices anything new. We all bring each other up to speed, and we collectively figure out new ways to do things within the constraints of the code. There's nothing negative about being older in engineering, provided you don't rely on your skills from the sixties... which is professional suicide in any fast-changing career track, be it medicine or law or engineering.</p>