<p>Most of the companies I can list I don’t want to because they’re regional and will give away my location. And it won’t help this cause anyway.</p>
<p>But yeah, I agree that if you’re looking for money and have other options you should look elsewhere. Engineering is for people who love it (if that’s possible) or can’t do better. I had a consulting job locked down (non MBB) but decided against it. Those guys are all working long hours and don’t make great money until several years down the road and I’m planning on going to law school anyway.</p>
Realize that at least two of the people you are talking to (Global and myself) work for defense contractors. Our seeming reticence to broadcast details about our employment is a characteristic of our jobs.</p>
<p>Out of curiosity, where do YOU work?</p>
<p>
There aren’t any. At least, not that could be applied on anything other than an individual basis - advice beyond “study hard” and such is going to be applicable only to small groups of people, not the engineering community at large.</p>
<p>
No it doesn’t. If I become an NFL linebacker am I obligated to give you the intimate details on how you (yes, YOU) can do the same? Here’s the pathway - apply to several companies, and when you get there ask to speak to some of your future peers and then ask THEM what their jobs are really like. If they say “oh, I get $40k and work 60 hours a week, and that is life at my company” - DON’T WORK THERE. My company actually sets up a panel where interviewees can ask recent hires questions in an environment where there are no HR or “hiring authority” people around, and I have participated on both sides.</p>
<p>
Nothing. If that is what they want to do, then that is their choice. But don’t sit there thinking that many people really have these options - most lawyers and MBA’s aren’t making that much more money than engineers do, despite their self-financed graduate educations, and often spend much more time than you described all while living with a much higher expectation of performance. Most engineers I know enjoy their lives. The law, finance, and management types live at work.</p>
<p>Again, you’ve utterly missed the point, perhaps purposefully. I am not the one who is positing the notion that engineering offers a highly desirable career (for graduates from top-brand schools). Those who do so should be the ones to present evidence to that effect. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, if you’re proposing that everybody can enjoy a strong career as an NFL linebacker, then it is incumbent upon you to identify a clear pathway as to how people can do that. Otherwise, you will have to concede that everybody cannot enjoy that type of career. </p>
<p>The bottom line is this: those who present strong claims should be willing to provide strong evidence of those claims. I certainly try to do so when I present strong claims in other threads. But I’m not making any claims in this thread. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s nice that your company would do so. But surely you would agree that - whether hiring authorities are present or not - nobody is going to truly speak freely at any of these networking events. Is somebody really going to trash their own employer to some applicant that they don’t even know? That applicant may, perhaps inadvertently, report you to your boss. Heck, you even alluded to the fact that you and GlobalTraveller were not exactly enthusiastic to broadcast intimate details about your jobs.</p>
<p>And that’s the problem: people are inevitably faced with pervasive informational problems when they’re attempting to choose a job. Surely all of us can relate to the experience of finding out that one’s job responsibilities and expectations are far different from what we were told they were going to be. {For example, one widespread commentary about corporate life is that while you may officially be provided a certain allotment of vacation time, many people don’t dare to take all of it for fear of the social stigma of being viewed as not being dedicated employees.} </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that’s sadly the conclusion that I have reached as well. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But I’m not talking about many people. Indeed, I have always stated that many people are indeed better off as engineers. Again, if you were a mediocre high school student who can win admission to only a low-tier college, then earning an engineering degree and the accompanying $50-60k salary is a sweet deal. What else were you going to do? You were never going to get an offer from McKinsey anyway. </p>
<p>However, it is quite clear that the population of CC readership skews high, such that a disproportionate percentage of readers are attending top colleges, such as MIT or Stanford. For them, why should they choose to work as engineers, when high-paying alternative careers are feasible options? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It certainly seems to me that plenty of engineers live at work as well. Why have so many Boeing engineers been working for months straight without a single day off? Why have Google, Microsoft, Oracle, GE, and Apple developed such fearsome reputations as engineering grindhouses?</p>
<p>I know one guy who used to work as an engineer, then earned an MBA from a top B-school to transition to strategy consulting at a major consulting house. He says that he now works less than he did as an engineer. That’s right - less. And he obviously makes far more money in doing so.</p>
No, but you are making the argument engineering DOESN’T offer a highly desirable career for graduates from top-brand schools. Is there any reason for YOU to keep this information secret? Do you even have any industry experience, or is this all passed along from friends?</p>
<p>
Sure you are.</p>
<p>
Sure. I did. I told people the truth as I saw it, the strengths and the weaknesses, because I don’t want them bringing in some guy who is going to quit and leave me hanging halfway through a program. I did several of those panels, and each one had someone who spent the majority of the time *****ing about something they hated at work. All of them still work there, to the best of my knowledge.</p>
<p>
In the defense industry, it does not matter if you are praising or condemning, you limit your exposure online. Applicants attending a panel already know who I work for. </p>
<p>
You expect everything to match up perfectly to your expectations? The only way to really know what ANY job is like is to work it. The needs of the company change – deal with it. I have had two jobs that changed on day one, both because contracts were cancelled. I did what I had to do, and they found me appropriate work as soon as it was available. Unless the workplace stays stagnant, sooner or later it will change away from your expectations.</p>
<p>My company strictly enforces vacation time. Around December the place is empty. One of my best friends at work (a great guy but also a stereotypical engineer with no life outside work) was called into our boss’s office and told that if he did not take his allotted vacation by the end of the year he would be escorted out by security. My father has worked for an engineering company for all my life, and has never forfeited vacation.</p>
<p>
That is an excruciatingly thin margin of people even here. I am in a top-5 program in my field, and I do not know ANY grad students planning on going into finance, law, or anything else. All I have heard from my peers is about research labs and professorships. You seem to be implying that only mediocre people seriously consider engineering, and I think that is insulting to the vast majority of us who do.</p>
<p>
Good for him. What actionable non-obvious steps can the average, no the exceptional engineer take to replicate his success? Bearing in mind that this is a highly competitive field, and that there are hundreds of aspirants for every opening.</p>
<p>Oh, and what business school are you going to? Obviously you think that engineering is a fool’s game for those not good enough for money jobs, so what are your plans?</p>
<p>well here in canada engineers average about 80k and lawyers about 110k. It’s a big difference but probably not that life changing. Either way, once you enter the rat race you’re spending about half of your time at work. My sister’s a doctor and says that if she should do it all over again she’d become an author. I realize that money is important but, once I graduated university, finding something I can actually see myself doing became the most important thing.</p>
For the top 10%, engineering does appear to pay less than finance or management analysis.</p>
<p>I will point out that income may be subject to a sort of diminishing marginal utility; that is, that each additional dollar of income has a lesser value in our daily life. I believe research into the correlation between happiness and income supports this idea.</p>
<p>Do not forget how competitive finance jobs are. Most of these high paying ones are competitive while a finance major from most schools (some from top ones, too) will not become a star financial analyst but an advisor or a minor financial guy. An engineering major that grabs an MBA or similar can do finance.</p>
<p>If someone wants to be a CFO or something, an undergrad business degree is a big help for direct employment into finance, but an engineering major is practically handed a job out of college and later can transition.</p>
<p>Do not forget how competitive finance jobs are. Most of these high paying ones are competitive while a finance major from most schools (some from top ones, too) will not become a star financial analyst but an advisor or a minor financial guy. An engineering major that grabs an MBA or similar can do finance.</p>
<p>If someone wants to be a CFO or something, an undergrad business degree is a big help for direct employment into finance, but an engineering major is practically handed a job out of college and later can transition.</p>
<p>I am actually quite comfortable with my industry experience. How’s yours? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not here, not in this thread. I am not the one advising people that engineering is a strong career. </p>
<p>Note, I may have made claims in other threads, and I presented the accompanying data in those threads. If you want to debate those points, I think we should take it to those other threads. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then you’re quite the brave soul. Frankly, I’m surprised you yourself weren’t sacked for trashing your own employer to a prospective hire. I can think of plenty of employers who would. </p>
<p>Regardless, surely we can agree that many employers are not as enlightened as yours, and effectively enforce a code of omerta upon their employees. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yet oddly you’ll trash your employer to an applicant who you don’t even know, may never choose to work for your employer, and may even report everything you say to your superior. Bizarre. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, and people deal with it by leaving. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And like I said, you clearly seem to be working for a highly enlightened employer. Where were you when the guys at Electronic Arts or other software gaming houses needed you? </p>
<p>Uh, there’s a key difference between a “top 5” engineering school and the high prestige brand-name schools that the CC readership tends to skew towards. For example, UIUC is a “top 5” engineering school for some engineering disciplines, but let’s face it, many (probably most) CC readers are not exactly champing at the bit to attend UIUC, as it is not exactly a well-branded school. </p>
<p>The schools that I am referring to are the MIT’s and Stanford’s of the world that do have universally recognized high-prestige brands. For example, in 2008 - the last year when PhD employment data was available - the number of MIT chemical engineering PhD graduates who pursued academic careers (either post-docs or directly into tenure-track academia) equaled the number who took jobs at top strategy consulting or investment banking firms such as McKinsey or Goldman. Why is that? Again, remember that we are talking about PhD graduates from probably the #1 ranked ChemE program in the world, and yet even many of them apparently do not want to work as engineers. Indeed, the MIT career office actually runs a seminar series for engineering (and science) PhD students who want to pursue careers in consulting and banking, and those seminars are routinely packed. Why? The same surely holds at Stanford: plenty of Stanford PhD engineering students do not actually pursue careers in engineering. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The exceptional engineer could build a portfolio of work requisite to entering a top-ranked MBA program with which to transition to consulting. </p>
<p>I’m afraid that I have nothing to help the average engineer: but that has always been my point. I don’t think anybody can really help the average engineer, as much as they might claim otherwise. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you turning this into a personal attack? Notice how I never once attacked your biography or career trajectory. Suffice it to say that I’ve done quite well for myself. However, I fret for others. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I never said that engineering was a ‘fool’s game’ for most participants, and indeed I have always said that engineering is a sweet deal for the average person, to the point that more such people should consider engineering. </p>
<p>The problem lies with the very best people. What should they do, given that alternative careers are feasible options for them? It seems to me that the (unfortunate) conclusion is that they shouldn’t be engineers, but rather should pursue those alternatives.</p>
<p>I would say that engineering (if you all want to include us software engineers as engineers…if not, SO WHAT…we have jobs) has been good to me. For someone like me who is basically a “B- student” and one who isn’t the most “entrepreneur” person in the world, this works fine for me. I basically like to do my 8 hours of work and use the rest of my time on other things and software engineering allows that for me. Plus, I do not have to really compete. There is already too many other things in life to compete for. It’s good to not have to compete just to eat.</p>
<p>and this might very well be what the difference is between an engineer from an average school that stays in engineering and is “just satisfied” - compared to a brilliant student from the top Engineering departments in highly ranked schools like MIT, Stanford, Princeton and Caltech that gets the MBA and decides to pursue Investment Banking or Consulting at the best firms.</p>
<p>Foolish post. Yes onecircuit, that is what is wrong with America; engineers that are comfortable making good money working reasonable hours doing something they enjoy, and otherwise enjoying their life. God that is just awful! Why aren’t they all doing something that could actually benefit society like giving up their real passion in order to make as much money as possible working 100hr weeks at an investment bank? If all the engineers did that America would be a much better place! </p>
<p>And nobody is discussing the difference between an engineer from an average school and an engineer from a top school. So that part of your post is just irrelevant. From some of your posts on here I can only hope you are in HS.</p>
<p>it is obvious from the post that I copied that this particular “engineer” doesn’t really enjoy his work and is completely and totally happy to get out of work by 4:30-5:00 pm in the afternoon. You are also wrong is saying that Investment Bankers work hard only for the money. Most senior investment bankers truly love their jobs and don’t mind putting in those extra hours to help their clients to achieve the most successful financing, IPO, merger, acquisition or sale of a division. In fact one of the reasons senior investment bankers put in such long hours is that the deals that they are typically working on are the single most important business for their clients at the time and the responsibility of the investment banker is tremendous in these cases.</p>
<p>You<em>of</em>eh, the real issue to me is that - apart from the notable exception of entrepreneurship and the startup environment - those US superstar engineers who are highly passionate about their work and are willing to work long hours because of a love of their job are not additionally compensated much more than those engineers who are not passionate and simply want to work regular hours. At most engineering firms, even the undisputed superstars engineers don’t make much more than 2-3 times that of even the worst engineer at the same firm. Contrast that with positions such as sales - even at an engineering firm - where the very best can indeed make 10x or more than that of the average salesman. (For example, I used to work for a firm where the average salesman might make $50k a year, but the very best were pulling in $500k+). </p>
<p>And whether we like it or not, money does matter. Money affects what people choose to do in life, sometimes irrespective of whatever their passions may be. For example, I was recently talking to an engineer who, despite enjoying his job, is seriously thinking of switching to a career in finance. Why? He just had one child, has another on the way, and he’s come to realize that despite loving engineering, it probably won’t provide the sort of opportunities and financial security that he wants to bequeath to his children. He wants his children to have the opportunities to receive the best education possible without having to worry about debt (as he had to when he was young), and an engineering career is simply not going to give him that. He knows the other engineers at his firm who have decades more experience, and they don’t really make that much more than he does. He knows that’s where he’s headed if he remains as an engineer. </p>
<p>You talk about making America a better place and benefiting society, and I think we all agree that engineers contribute towards those goals. That makes it all the more tragic when the best and most passionate engineers feel that they need to leave engineering for other careers because they feel that they can’t achieve the financial security they desire if they stay.</p>
<p>"the best and most passionate engineers feel that they need to leave engineering for other careers "</p>
<p>As an MIT grad surrounded by PhDs that do hard-core R&D, I am pretty insulted by a sweeping statement like that, especially during National Engineers Week. Change your words to say “some of the best and most passionate…” and I won’t take issue.</p>
<p>It just well be the difference and they can have that extra money. I do not believe that every little thing has to be competed for…especially the ability to earn enough to live. Do I make what a SUCCESSFUL I-Banker makes?..No…and I say successful because I also know some of the I-Banking salaries of those who do NOT make it to managers and they are on par with experienced engineers.</p>
<p>Like I said earlier, I do not make I-Banker money…but without putting all my business on the net, me and the wife are at a grouping of “Top 5%”…although we still have to budget. Add to that, I receive constant calls from recruiters for new jobs and this was going on during the worst part of the recession. To not have to really compete for 6-figure income jobs is fine with me. TO ME…that is better than competing against 10,000 other applicants every time.</p>
<p>Actually, I’m not sure about that - or perhaps those you were talking to were not true investment bankers. It is well understood that investment bankers make 6 figures or close to it right out of undergrad, with pay ramping up quickly after that. Nor do you have to rise to the managerial ranks to make that sort of pay. In fact, that is precisely why so many of the best engineering students from schools such as MIT or Stanford never actually work as engineers, but instead take jobs in banking. I find it extremely difficult to believe that most experienced engineers can match what even a beginning investment banker would make. Otherwise, you would be seeing numerous investment bankers (who have engineering degrees) switching to work as engineers. </p>
<p>But however high the pay may be in investment banking, what’s more important is that the stint in investment banking opens doors. It is well understood that most new investment bankers are only going to be in the industry for a few years, whereupon they have attractive and lucrative opportunities in private equity, hedge funds, venture capital, corporate finance, or academia (i.e. through an accounting/finance PhD and then a highly lucrative faculty position). {Newly minted accounting assistant professors at decent schools can make over $200k to start, when you include the summer research salary, and, more importantly, they have the opportunity to win tenure which provides them with a guaranteed job for life.} </p>
<p>In contrast, engineering experience provides you with no such comparable exit opportunities. A few years of engineering experience is not going to help you to land a lucrative position in venture capital. {Granted, success as an engineering entrepreneur may help you to break into VC, but experience in mere engineering alone will not.} </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Um, I never said that all of the best and most passionate engineers choose to leave engineering. Hence, I don’t see how my statement is sweeping.</p>
<p>More importantly, I agree that there are plenty of passionate engineers who remain in engineering - indeed, engineering academia is rife with them. However, given that there is no guarantee that one will obtain an engineering academic position that you want, many engineering graduate students at schools such as MIT leverage finance or consulting as ‘backup careers’.</p>