<p>I’ll put it to you this way. Even somebody who graduates with an engineering degree from a low-tier school with a GPA of less than 2.5 is still going to probably garner an engineering job with a decent starting salary (i.e. probably above $50k). That’s a fantastic deal for somebody who performed relatively poorly in school. </p>
<p>I leave it up to you to determine exactly what percentile such a person would fall under. But clearly, this person was not particularly intelligent and/or motivated. Yet he will garner a decent paycheck regardless.</p>
<p>And the last few years, we have seen in vivid detail exactly what can happen when people in finance screw up. Yes, that even includes death and catastrophe. Just in the last couple weeks alone, 3 people have died and dozens have been injured in the riots in Greece, which were precipitated by the financial collapse. {Heck, just the other day, my Portuguese friend was cursing me out for the damage wreaked on her nation’s economy by the financial crash that was instigated by US banks.} Many states and municipalities are contemplating heavy cutbacks to public safety, health, and education budgets because the economic crash has caused their finances to collapse. California, reeling from its poor financial health, may soon be forced to release thousands of prisoners onto the streets because they cannot pay to incarcerate them anymore. </p>
<p>Or consider the Asian economic crisis of 1998. Not only were living standards for millions of people around the globe reduced and millions re-consigned to poverty, but the resulting unrest triggered riots that left over 1500 people in Indonesia dead and 160 women raped in race riots that targeted the ethnic Chinese minority who were blamed for the economic problems of the country. The IMF forced budget cutbacks as a condition for bailouts that resulted in reductions in government-subsidized health care and public health initiatives, which surely must have resulted in deaths, and reductions in school spending which surely resulted in many children not being as well educated as they otherwise would have been. All of this was a result of financiers misallocating resources by investing too heavily in leverage-laden projects. </p>
<p>The point is that bad financiers can wreak enormous global damage that can and does result in catastrophes that include deaths. But financiers nonetheless continue to make their million dollar paydays regardless. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yet you said it yourself - a 28 year old consultant or banker can sometimes convince a board room to hand over significant responsibilities to him. The question then is - why? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As explained above, bad finances can and have wreaked enormous havoc around the world, even including injuries and deaths. </p>
<p>But even if you were correct - and engineers are indeed directly involved in life-and-death decisions - that should be an argument for engineers to be paid more than consultants and bankers, right? After all - you said it yourself - bad engineering decisions can result in death and catastrophe. So shouldn’t that mean that all (competent) engineers should be making millions? After all, bad engineering work means that people will die, which means that good engineering work means that people will not die, so that means that engineers are tremendously valuable, and should be paid accordingly. So why aren’t they? </p>
<p>I find it ironic to the extreme that engineers are involved in mission-critical, life-sustaining work, yet they’re not paid particularly well. On the other hand, those who supposedly aren’t involved in mission-critical, life-sustaining work, such as financiers and consultants, are paid far better. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?</p>
You are comparing maybe ~2K IB positions that are open for new undergradutes every year to maybe 60K+ engineering positions.</p>
<p>Engineering is still an incredibly good profession for the top tier, there simply isn’t enough spaces in highly paid financial services to say otherwise.</p>
<p>Actually, that’s wrong - that’s not how economics works, for the labor market is far from a perfectly competitive market. If it were, then the unemployment rate would always tend to drop to 0%, as wages would always tend to clear to the market-clearing rate, and any actual unemployment would be only a temporary phenomenon as unemployed workers search for jobs. In reality, economists generally agree that, even in a hypothetical best case scenario where unemployed workers could instantly find willing employers, some non-zero unemployment rate - generally around 4-7% - would nevertheless persist. </p>
<p>The problem is that labor markets are far from perfectly competitive, but rather are riven with information asymmetries, which is precisely the reason that economists have developed the concept of ‘efficiency wages’ that explains why some permanent unemployment rate is not only expected, but actually natural. The fact of the matter is that worker productivity is not only not homogeneous (in that some workers are more productive than others), but that workers also have tremendous control over how productive they want to be. Workers can choose to work hard, or be lazy, and that choice is affected by how well you are paid, relative to others. If you work for a company that pays extremely well, you will tend to work harder, if, for no other reason, you know that if you lose your job, you know you probably won’t find another job that pays you nearly as well. In contrast, if you’re simply being paid the market wage (or worse), you probably don’t really care if you lose your job, because you know you can probably get another job that pays you just as well. Hence, you don’t have a strong incentive to work hard. Similarly, higher pay anoints a company as an ‘employer of choice’, which therefore tends to attract the most talented people. If a company pays an average salary, then there really is no reason for the best people to prefer to work for that company. </p>
<p>One famous historical example was Henry Ford’s decision to pay all auto workers $5 a day - double what the prevailing wage was at the time. You could argue that it was folly for him to pay so much more than others were paying at the time, and indeed, much of the business press argued exactly that. Yet that move proved to vastly improve the productivity of the company by attracting the most talented auto workers from around the country to work for Ford, and by drastically reducing employee turnover. Ford quickly became the most profitable auto company in the world, and one of the most profitable in the world. </p>
<p>Similarly, Google pays its engineers extremely well - higher than even many of its MBA-touting managers (!) - and is widely regarded as one of the most successful engineering companies in the world. Is that also folly on the part of Google? If anything, I would argue that it is folly for those other engineering companies to not match Google’s pay, for frankly speaking, that’s probably why you’re getting your clocks cleaned. Google is able to attract many of the very best engineers to work for them through its high pay, and nobody can argue with Google’s success. Why don’t other engineering companies do the same?</p>
<p>Oh really? Seems to me that there are thousands more positions open in consulting. I think it’s hard to argue that MIT isn’t within the top tier, yet the fact remains that half of all MIT graduates who enter the workforce during non-recessionary years choose finance or consulting rather than technical jobs. Why is that?</p>
<p>Frankly, Mr Payne, I’m shocked at the stance you’re taking. Are you seriously arguing that you think that engineers aren’t worth more money than actually receive? That they don’t deserve higher pay? If so, then I would say that you’re the only engineer I’ve ever known who doesn’t think he and other engineers don’t deserve more money. I’m shocked.</p>
<p>Being an actuary is the way to go nowadays.</p>
<p>Screw engineering. Screw business (other than IB of course). Actuary >>> both.</p>
<p>Actuaries start out with 60k+ salaries…and break 6-figures before 30 (usually)</p>
<p>Even if you pass 6 or 7 exams in the end, you’ll still be making 150k+ after you’re 40</p>
<p>Pass them all and you’ll be making 200k-250k+ down the line</p>
<p>And that’s working just 40 hour weeks in a stress-free job.</p>
<p>Basically actuaries have much higher salary ceilings than engineers…the salary ceiling is practically DOUBLE that of engineers since engineers top out at around 100k</p>
<p>Thank God I chose actuarial science. If more people knew about it, they would have as well.</p>
I simply think that engineering is properly priced (as engineering in this country is comparable to engineering pay in virtually any 1st world country). I think finance is overpaid in this country. There is a difference - I believe a reduction in financial services pay should be redistributed to company owners, not engineers. Engineering pay is highly liquid with very little cartel like behavior (on either side).</p>
<p>Well, the deadly Indonesian riots occurred in 1998.</p>
<p>But fine, I agree that the crash started in 1997. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK, fine. Nevertheless, you agree with me that financiers (Soros, in this case) can instigate widespread mayhem, even resulting in deaths.</p>
<p>Yet Soros - and those like him - can earn billions. Engineers, who can similarly instigate widespread mayhem, including deaths - won’t earn billions.</p>
That’s seriously laughable. If you’re smart and you want to make money then software is where you want to go. If you’re good you’ll make 100K+ before the age of 30 easily (probably more like ~25-26 from what I’ve seen).</p>
<p>And all of us would like to be overpaid. If finance is overpaid, then it is entirely fair for engineers to ask why they can’t be overpaid too. </p>
<p>I would offer two examples. Firstly, consider the consulting industry, which often times performs work that arguably belongs to the engineering profession, but is paid far more. I know one engineering student who took a consulting job whose assigned task was to aid a client in improving the yields of their manufacturing processes. Frankly speaking, that’s probably an engineering job. But the consulting firm was charging its typically lucrative consulting rates. Why couldn’t the client simply assign that task to its engineers instead, at far lower cost? For whatever reason, they would rather pay for high-priced (arguably overpaid) consulting work than for better engineers. Put another way, why should the best engineering students choose to work as engineers, if they can be overpaid doing something else? </p>
<p>I would also point to the IT profession - a profession noted for simply implementing and administering the technologies such as Oracle databases and Cisco routers that actual engineers have designed. I have always found it ironic that a high-school drop out, given sufficient experience, can make more money doing IT work than the actual engineers who design the product that they’re implementing. For example, I know some high school dropouts who make more money configuring and administering Cisco routers than does the average Cisco engineer who actually designs those routers in the first place. {Heck, there are probably IT workers within Cisco itself who are paid more than most Cisco engineers.} I still find it fundamentally bizarre that those who simply administer and configure a particular technology would actually be paid more than those who invented it in the first place. </p>
<p>But as it stands, if it is true that certain industries such as finance, consulting (and IT) continue to overpay their employees, then the best engineering students will continue to prefer those other industries. Again, about half of all MIT graduates who enter the workforce during nonrecessionary years take jobs in consulting or finance. After all, everybody wants to be overpaid. Why be underpaid (or fairly paid) if you can be overpaid? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree, but that then means that perhaps engineering pay should be cartelized on the part of the suppliers (that is, the engineers). After all, many other laborers are able to cartelize themselves, whether through educational requirements or otherwise. {For example, to enter venture capital or private equity, you basically need a Harvard, Stanford, or Wharton MBA). Perhaps engineers should do the same.</p>
<p>Sakky, don’t forget being a engineering prof…I was arguing with you once and you called a position as a tenured professor “a gravy train that doesn’t stop” or something like that. I got a kick out of the comment… </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The fraught with uncertainty thing doesn’t make sense from my experience working as an engineer because in most start-ups the Engineers aren’t putting up thier own equity. They get the options and work at a reduced salary for a year or two. The start-up is funded usually thru venture capital or thru a university. If you can work in a top position for start-ups(first 10ish employees) the payoffs are usually quite good. The start-ups usually get bought and the first 10 employees can get anywhere from $100,000 to $300,000 from thier options…and this is for companies that were not particularly successful but made past thier first year or so. The trick is getting hired into these top positions. Usually these start-ups are looking for very experienced engineers who have PhDs.</p>
<p>I personally know Oracle DBA’s with associates degrees making $100K. Of course, some of that money is due to having high-level security clearances, but still…</p>
<p>2 years of college + Oracle exam + 8 years exp + TS/SCI+poly clearance = 100K is not bad for just taking Calc I, II, III (if that).</p>
<p>Sakky, actually…sorta agree with you on this…you have an interesting perspective. There always seems to be some random element in which engineers get rewarded and which don’t. Medicine or law seems more clear cut. You go to Med school or law school, you get a class rank, and based on this your opportunities follow.</p>
<p>Succeeding in engineering sometimes seems to be about timing, kissing the right azzes, manipulating a situation, …seeing the future, or just plain dumb luck. Success in engineering and sometimes the profession as a whole can baffle people or seem deeply unfair. </p>
<p>ie…an engineer at IBM gets fired, can only find work at some unheard of start-up in Silicon Valley, and three years later the guy is a millionaire. The entire IBM unit that fired him is eventually downsized. </p>
<p>ie…it’s 2000 and a mediocre engineering student can only find a job with company X. All the other students take jobs with much more glamorous companies. Come 2001, all the glamorous companies reneged on their offers, but the mediocre student still has a job waiting for him upon graduation.</p>
<p>If you don’t think that other career paths depend on these very same things, you’ve got some surprises coming. The business world and medical world as at least as much about schmoozing as engineering, if not more.</p>
<p>In I.T., the 3 biggest areas are databases, operating systems and networks. Only one of those courses (operating systems) is actually required in the CS program. Just think, the other two areas are basically elective courses in most CS programs.</p>
<p>Personally, that why I feel that after 20 years (most related somewhat to databases), I never had to find a new niche.</p>
<p>GLOBAL, I want to know about the jobs that are related to ITIL/ITSM. Since you are in the industry, it’s best if you answer this. What is this field and will it benefit me in terms of experience when I am applying for other technical positions. I have to do many other things but it seems that my major role is IT related. I received a generous offer from a fortune 100 company ( internship) and cant decide if I should take it when compared to an EE related position with little pay. Both are technical in nature but branch out in different directions.</p>
<p>Keep in mind, most of the I.T. areas on that site are not really too technical. Something like Change Management or Release Management (fancy terms for Configuration Management) is not all that technical outside of learning a software tool or two.</p>
<p>A “pure” EE major can still get into ITIL/ITSM but again, that person MAY get bored since many ITIL/ITSM are not that technical (although they do pay well).</p>
<p>Now, if the EE major is more of a CompE major, then there are more technical I.T. areas to go into. Since a CompE major is one with knowledge of both hardware and software, the following areas of I.T. can be niche areas: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>Networks (either design of routers and other network hardware or more software-based like crypto and information assurance). </p></li>
<li><p>Parallel Processing is another area which can have some hardware elements as well as software.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The MAIN thing to notice is that the EE/CompE preparation allow that employee to learn that skill in a short amount of time. The KEY to working in I.T. is constant learning and mastery of the current or leading-edge technology…whatever it is.</p>
<p>One more area I should point out that can use an EE or CompE (or just about any engineering grad) is systems engineering. Remember, a “system” is a set of interacting or interdependent entities forming an integrated whole. A system may have parts that only a EE major can answer, some parts that only a CompE can answer, some parts that only a MechE can asnwer, etc. With systems engineering, you are overseeing and establishing requirements, goals and product development for an entire system. Check out the big defense companies like Boeing, Northrop, Lockheed and others. They are BIG on systems engineering.</p>
</p>