What majors make more money than engineering?

College Majors Engineering Majors
101

<p>You recruit from the school you have the best chance of finding the best candidates for the positions you are offering. That doesn’t mean companies will hire unqualified candidates from top schools though.</p>

<p>There are specific schools that each company (in many fields) target for recent grads. It’s one of the quickest ways to filter potential hires.</p>

<p>Companies take into account their hiring history from schools. They will recruit more from colleges that have a history of producing great employees.</p>

<p>Is this fair for everyone? No, but it works out from the company’s point of view.</p>

102

<p>

</p>

<p>Unless you’re doing research and development (a very small % of engineering jobs) engineering has nothing to do with math or science. A typical mechanical engineer job might be as a maintenance engineer, who inspects equipment and/or figures out why something isn’t working and suggests a way to fix it. Guys in structural engineering don’t do any real design, but rather plug values into standardized equations in order to size I-beams (architects make the designs). Process engineers (very common Chem E job) are often little more than operators, who operate equipment in plants. Other jobs like HVAC design have very little to do with science or math; more to do with sizing pipe and selecting appropriately sized components (pump, heater, etc.). One of the most common engineering roles (project engineer) has to do with quality control of onsite construction and ensuring construction projects are done on time and under budget.</p>

<p>So yeah, engineering seems fairly blue collar to me and the vast majority of what you learn in school will probably become useless. This is why I recommend that people find the job/career that they want instead of the field that they want to study.</p>

103

<p>

I’m sorry, the link you provided doesn’t substantiate this claim. Could you please provide a link to the actual data?</p>

104

<p>

</p>

<p>Wow, this is incorrect on so many levels:</p>

<p>a) Guess what, there are also gals who are structural engineers.</p>

<p>b) We do “real design” all the time. We work closely with architects from the start of the project to come up with the best structural framing concept for the building. Come see the old Portland (Maine) Public Market for an excellent example of that collaboration. It’s a beautiful building that won AIA awards, and my husband was responsible for a lot of its “look,” because most of the structure is exposed.</p>

<p>c) We don’t just plug in values into standardized equations. If that was all there was to it, architects would just use computer programs. I was going to list all the things we do, but it would take too long.</p>

<p>d) We don’t call them “I-beams” anymore.</p>

<p>Please don’t post in areas that you are clueless about.</p>

105

<p>Don’t be politically correct. I’m pretty sure he (OMG, maybe I better put he/she instead!) knows there are “gals” in structural engineering.</p>

106

<p>

Structural engineering has never been about designing the overall building, but they do work with architects to support their overall vision. They ARE doing design, just not the part that dictates what shape or size the building is. Then again, most architects don’t do that either. Very few people have any input into the overall look and feel to a building. Simpler structure will of course be more mundane to design and more complex structures will be of course be more challenging.</p>

<p>

I’m not sure there are that many jobs out there in any field where you apply a lot of what you learn professionally. Engineering schools, in my opinion, are only supposed to teach you the fundamentals behind what you would do in industry. I used to work for a transportation engineering firm and had a discussion one day with the VP about college. He said he only really used about 5% of what he learned in school in that field (not that this is representative at all of other engineering fields). The rest was learned on the job.</p>

<p>This is why I highly recommend people to get internships early on (instead of taking summer courses, trying to graduate early, etc). It gives people a perspective on what actually happens in the real world.</p>

<p>With all that being said, it doesn’t mean nobody enjoys their jobs. I am one of those people who is responsible to get construction projects completed on time, under budget, safely and per design and I enjoy it, even though it is very “blue-collar” in the sense that I get to get my hands dirty. It’s got its own challenges, but in different ways. Oh, and this is in no way an engineering role. Engineering majors may choose to go into this field, but there’s definitely no “real” engineering involved. It’s more management than anything else.</p>

107

<p>^Shackleford, I’m not the politically correct type, but his ignorant post really galled me. If you’re going to be that arrogant, you should get everything “right.” (ha, I was waiting to see how long it would take for someone to use the words “politically correct.” It didn’t take long!)</p>

108

<p>Another aspect of structural engineering that most people don’t appreciate is this: We have to do lots of mathematical calculations and complicated analyses to make sure the building is safe, then we have to draw, literally, the “nuts and bolts” details to make sure everything fits together. If it’s not constructible, the design is useless. I wish more people understood that.</p>

109

<p>

</p>

<p>I realize that this thread is completely off topic but I have to totally disagree with this statement. Uragin, I’m not sure where you are coming from on this but it is simply not true. Sure there are engineers in certain areas like sales that do very little technical work but actually engineering has everything to do with math and science. Most engineers use math and science every day. There are many, many engineers that are not in R&D that do very technical design work. I am a ME and every ME that I work with definitely uses math and science. As MaineLonhorn said, it would be best to not post things that you have no experience with.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What you are describing is in most cases what a technician would do, not a mechanical engineer. Even the situation you are describing would require the use of math and science to solve equipment problems. Again, not an accurate statement.</p>

110

<p>My brother’s double majoring in Economics and Industrial Engineering (has to attend for 5 years), and plans to get an MBA in graduate school. Engineering has a safe and decent pay, but to make a lot of money with it you need to put it along with something such as Business or Law.</p>

111

<p>Well, engineering is technical no doubt, but maybe, being both a former math and science major, I have a different opinion on what both of those are. I don’t consider most of what I’ve seen of engineering in industry very mathematical or scientific.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m just relaying what was told to me by a structural engineering professor at my university (almost word for word). Don’t persecute the messenger. And how am I being arrogant? I’m an engineering grad just trying to say it like it is.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Maintenance engineer is a very common route for mec e’s. I interviewed for several of those positions (including an on site interview in a major plant) and was shown first hand what I’d be doing. Other roles for mec e’s in such plants would be piping and pressure vessel design, not mathematical or scientific either. Just doing things by the books. But like I said, I probably have a different idea of what math and science are. And doing high school level math doesn’t qualify.</p>

112

<p>

That’s a bit of a shift in your position. We’ve gone from “engineering has nothing to do with math or science” to “[not] very mathematical or scientific”.</p>

<p>And unless you have a good reason to think your personal perspective is in line with your audience, it would be wise to clarify your background and the lens you use to view this issue.

If you want to post comments that do not reflect your own views, it would be wise to say so.</p>

113

<p>It would be wise? lol. I’ll post what I want. Cry about it.</p>

114

<p>

</p>

<p>You are further supporting the point that you do not know what you are talking about. You are making very broad claims based on your limited experience during job interviews. Piping and pressure vessel design not mathematical or scientific? What? I actually do have experience in this area and design of pressure vessels is extremely mathematical and scientific. This area involves finite element analysis, heat transfer, fracture mechanics, structural analysis…The very foundation of all of these subjects is mathematics and physics based. I’m not trying to pick on you but your statement is not accurate. There is a lot more to design than just doing things by the books. Standards are needed but design of critical components like pressure vessels involves much more advanced analysis.</p>

115

<p>

I would say much the same to you:
“Don’t persecute the messenger. And how am I being arrogant? I’m an engineering grad just trying to say it like it is.”</p>

<p>Defensive much?

And if your idea of “what math and science are” is so unusual, I have to wonder why you expect anyone else to understand your position without further elaboration.</p>

116

<p>Maine,</p>

<p>I understand your frustration. His assertions were silly.</p>

117

<p>That was an ugly beat down.</p>

118

<p>

</p>

<p>The actual data is not in that link, or any link for that matter, but something that I just happen to know. (No link actually provides the background for every single Harvard accounting doctoral student). I suppose you will just have to trust me. </p>

<p>But one can also check the undergrad backgrounds of the accounting faculty at the top business schools such as Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Wharton, Kellogg, Chicago Booth, and the like and count how many of them actually have AACSB certified undergraduate degrees, and you will note that many do not. That information is public. They were obviously accounting doctoral students in the past. </p>

<p>Hence, the bottom line is that many (probably most) accounting doctoral students at the top schools do not have AACSB undergrad degrees.</p>

119

<p>Sakky, a few problems with your claims. </p>

<p>1) Engineers at [Insert Big Company Here] are working long hours, no weekends, no overtime, etc.</p>

<p>Based on a bit of logic, one may safely conclude companies such as Boeing, Google, GE, Microsoft, etc. have a long list of applicants willing to work for them. Current employees of those companies may be replaced more or less easily (depends on specific circumstances like skills, work requirements/duties, etc).</p>

<p>2) People such as M. Zuckerberg, B. Gates, S. Jobs, etc. demonstrate one does not need to complete [Insert Difficult STEM Major Here] to succeed.</p>

<p>For every Gates, Zuck, or Jobs out there, how many people need college degrees in order to work for them? The guys you listed are the exception, not the norm. Let’s not forget those exceptionally successful people were surrounded by other people who helped them get to where they are now. </p>

<p>I’d like you to go and get a job working for an HVAC company without solid knowledge of thermodynamics.</p>

<p>3) What “nonobvious” steps can engineers take to obtain excellent positions?</p>

<p>One of the reasons those steps are not obvious is that they might be specific to the industry, circumstances, and/or people. Landing an excellent position boils down to being able to convince a prospective employer that your skills will make them more money than what they will pay you, that your skills are very rare to find, and that if they don’t hire you then you’ll likely be hired by the employer’s competitors.</p>

<p>Sakky, it seems you’ve been a member of this site since August 2004; that means you’ve been a member for about 6.7 years. During this time, you’ve posted 13,051 comments so far; that’s 5.33 comments per day and many of your comments are very lengthy. From what I’ve gathered, it seems you are a Ph.D. economist but I may be wrong. A good deal of your posts may be summarized as “I heard so and so” say; this is not objective evidence.</p>

<p>Perhaps you should advise engineers to aim for careers where their skills are both in high demand and low supply. It should not be difficult to identify those fields (ask people where they want to work, avoid the popular answer).</p>

120

<p>

</p>

<p>Now you’re catching on. The fact is, whether we like it or not, investment banking is, and probably always will be, a highly ‘elitist’ industry where name-brand credentials are valued. That is why such a conspicuously large percentage of Harvard graduates head to Wall Street. </p>

<p>But the same can be said about certain engineering firms as well. For example, consider the hiring policies of Google before its IPO:</p>

<p>…" For the most part, it takes a degree from an Ivy League school, or MIT, Stanford, CalTech, or Carnegie Mellon–America’s top engineering schools–even to get invited to interview. Brin and Page still keep a hand in all the hiring, from executives to administrative assistants. And to them, work experience counts far less than where you went to school, how you did on your SATs, and your grade-point average. “If you’ve been at Cisco for 20 years, they don’t want you,” says an employee. "</p>

<p>[Can</a> Google Grow Up? Google is one of the best things to happen to the Net. So will its IPO, expected this spring, be a must-buy? A look inside reveals a talented company facing trouble. - December 8, 2003](<a href=“http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/12/08/355116/index.htm]Can”>Can Google Grow Up? Google is one of the best things to happen to the Net. So will its IPO, expected this spring, be a must-buy? A look inside reveals a talented company facing trouble. - December 8, 2003)</p>

<p>Now, to be clear, Google’s hiring policies are not as ‘elitist’ as they were in the past. But Google is also now well past its IPO, and hence the possibilities of quick riches by joining Google are long over. Getting into Google before the IPO was precisely the time you would want to join. Facebook currently implements a hiring policy that is reminiscent of Google’s pre-IPO days.</p>