<p>Engineering is an ok carreer for the young and under 40. This field tends to discriminate against older worker, no matter how good one is and what qualification( unlike other field like Medicine for example). Our family personally knows 4-5 people, 50+ or over, have not found jobs for several years now.
Also one gets attracted to engineering because one tends to like numbers but in actuality, those that succeeds in engineering has to learn to develop the ability to communicate with people(reading, writing, and interacting with people(people skill)).</p>
<p>Potential physicist/engineer here. In an increasily competitive job market for engineers, how helpful are the big engineering college names? ie Stanford, Cal, CalTech, MIT, Cornell (my school), etc. My hope is that the extra money I put into a Cornell education will resurface because of both the name and the skills learned at my school. Is this a fair assumption, or is a degree a degree? Also, I would really like to pursue either an engineering or physics PhD (my dad did and I like his job situation. His PhD is paying off.) Would this level of schooling make a difference?</p>
<p>This thread worries me a lot, though I like to here that physical science majors scare people off. (Then I can get into the schools/jobs more easily.) However, I don't want to slave away for years to end up occupationally challenged! This is a very uncertain time, as I don't know what college is going to be like. Another question: How good do you have to be to do well in physics/engineering? People shudder at the prospect of Cornell, people shudder at the prospect of physics, and engineers shudder at Engineering Physics. If I wanted to do Engineering Physics, would I have to live in the lab/library? Right now, school is pretty easy for me, even the AP's, but I don't tinker and build and know cicuit boards, etc. Is this enough to knock me out of the race? I just wish I knew more about the expectations at college. Besides, "It's really hard." What does, "really hard mean?" People say AP Calc is really hard, and I laugh at it. But then again, others (on CC) say they are fully versed in Linear Algebra, and Advanced Calc and even more. Should I switch majors to something less intense? (Ok, so I know this is up to me, but it is more of a rhetorical question.)</p>
<p>Sorry for my long, rambling posts, but I just figured out how much of a tool the Parent's Forum is. As I am a kid, I will try not to clutter it anymore.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>PS I am pretty good with people (for a scientist/engineer that is) and like govt, law, social sciences, etc. What is the job prospect for Intellectual Property? Any IP Lawyers out there to maybe get me some info? Thanks.</p>
<p>jerew, this may not be a sampling of everybody, but during the recession there were more than 200,000 engineers in Silicon Valley and I think it reduces to 13,000+, out of these people I personally know of people with degrees from MIT, Stanford, and Cornell, all very young(20-30ish)that were laid off. Out of these thousands of engineers, there's bound to have some engineers that have degrees from those schools you listed.
Check the link below:
<a href="http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/may2004/sili-m05.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/may2004/sili-m05.shtml</a>
<a href="http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/may2004/sili-m05.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/may2004/sili-m05.shtml</a>
You are smart, make a decision for yourself.
However, If you truly loves engineering physics, I suggest you go for it.
Just keep that in mind.</p>
<p>I have been an engineering academic for about 30 years so I need to weigh in here. First, many students are intimidated by the engineering curriculum. However I believe that it is very managable for most students proficient in math and the physical sciences. The first three semesters are a particular kind of hell while the students complete most of their math, physics and chemistry requirements. After that I feel the students will find things a bit less intense as they begin concentrating on their major which should be more applicable to their interests and proficiencies.</p>
<p>Another reason some students shy away from engineering is the belief that it is a low paying profession compared to business majors, lawyers and physicians. However many talented engineers end up in management and there are many opportunities to go into consulting where the financial rewards are comparable to most professionals. And for many businessed the BSEng/MBA is a coveted combination of skills which companies desire greatly.</p>
<p>The outsourcing issue is cloudy at best. Some areas of engineering, such as civil, mechanical and chemical engineering, have felt relatively modest impacts related to outsourcing. Others have been noticably impacted but some US companies are finding that the net savings are not as significant as first believed. And other professions will begin feeling some outsourcing impacts as well.</p>
<p>The things I stress to my students, who are primarily civil engineering majors, is that the profession is largely held in high regard by the general population. Many will work on one of a kind projects which they will be able to see being built and take great pride in. They will be able to use their knowlege in creative ways which directly benefit clients and communities. These are some of the intangibles which make engineering a very rewarding profession.</p>
<p>jerew. your questions are probably OT for this thead, but I will address some of them. My information is quite dated in some cases.</p>
<p>1) IMO: There are a (relatively small) % of engineering job opportunities that will only be offered to graduates of certain schools. You might be in better shape for one of those. And maybe have a better shot at jobs outside of your region. In my case, I found that my coworkers at my engineering job were disproportionately graduates of the local state universities near my employer, and whatever other regional engineering pograms existed around there. I think my experience was pretty typical in the engineering field.</p>
<p>2) Once employed, my college degree was completely irrelevant to future success at my company. All that mattered was what people did when they were there. Period. If there was credit given to any college degree, it was one from the local state university where most of the firm's management had attended.</p>
<p>3) To do well in Physics you have to be brilliant, IMO. To do well in engineering, well not as brilliant.</p>
<p>4) Engineering Physics at Cornell is esssentially equivalent to the Physics major in the Arts school, except it is in the engineering school. Some of the smartest humans I've ever seen were in each of these two programs.</p>
<p>5) Yes you will have to spend large amounts of time studying.</p>
<p>6) Prior knowledge of circuit boards is not a big problem. Most of the people who think they have prior knowledge don't know as much as they think they do.</p>
<p>7) "It's really hard" means. eg: there are four problems on a take-home exam, and you cannot solve any of them. No matter how long you had to do it. If you wind up taking intermediate E&M in the physics department you will learn what "it's really hard" means.</p>
<p>8) I think the college name helps more for grad school than for employment/ jobs. The people I recall from my school who went to grad school got into good programs.</p>
<p>9) I've perceived that there is already a problem with Physics employment. At a finance job I had until recently, I was joined there by several Physicists who couldn't find work in their careers, and another guy who was bailing out of a leading PhD program due to employment concerns.</p>
<p>10) As for whether you should switch majors: If you are one of the most scientifically/ quantitatively apt students you know, like in the top five, and you have a passion for physics, then by all means start out with the intent of checking it out & see how it goes. The first year or so of studies will be the same anyway. Otherwise, likewise see how it goes, but if I were you I'd start thinking about what other quantitative areas. eg various branches of engineering, interested you.</p>
<p>jerew: My son is currently in the engineering school at Cornell. There is no question that it is tough, but there should also be no question that anyone that they accept should be capable of doing the work. Those who have problems are those who (a) think that they can just put in the amount of work that they did in high school and get by or (b) think that if they put in the amount of work that those in other, less demanding, majors that everything will be fine.</p>
<p>Count on doing much more work than you did in high school and much more than most of your Cornell peers. Count on occasionally doing with little or no sleep. That being said, there still is time left to enjoy campus life and your college experience - so have a great time there. </p>
<p>As far as employability is concerned, I can tell you that those, like my son, who have signed up for the co-op program generally had multiple offers from all parts of the country.</p>
<p>DD probably should major in engineering in college. She has the aptitude and interest in the field, and she is strong in the sciences and math. She is a great linear thinker and a good communicator. BUT she will not probably major in engineering because the commitment to complete the required curriculum begins in the freshman year and she would also like the opportunity to explore other fields of study (in the arts and humanities...where she has interests as well). DH is an electrical engineer. He fully knows the rigors of the curriculum having experienced them first hand. He agrees that for senior level engineers, one must have excellent communication skills as well as engineering skills. He says this is one area he sees as problematic in engineering...there are some very fine engineers he has worked with who are simply not able to communicate well with other people (clients, other professionals, even other engineers). Those are the folks who will not advance in their careers beyond a certain level. BUT back to DD...at 17 she would be expected to declare engineering as her major when applying to many schools. She is simply NOT ready to do so despite her strong interest in the field (and the knowledge that good female engineers are welcome into the field). SO...why don't you see too many majoring in this field...well..too much commitment, too soon, with little opportunity for other areas of study. For some that makes the answer...no.</p>
<p>This is certainly a scary thread. To monydad's question in number 10, it is hard to find out if I am in that top tier. I was in AP Physics last year (only junior in a class of 20 seniors), and pretty much ran circles around everyone else, but then again, they weren't a highly motivated class. Same this year with math. I just wish I had more peers to compare to. Guess that's what college is for. So I'm not trying to build myself up (if that's even necessary on a forum) but I think I may have the potential (especially according to standardized tests.) I am worried though that I will get overwhelmed and fail, not because I couldn't actually do it, just because I am not ready for it. </p>
<p>Thanks for your comments, though. They are very helpful. I guess I will pursue what I want to do, (physics or closely related type of engineering) and then see what happens from there. Would I be wrong in saying that physics or EP is a great jump to many professions? (Business, Law, Engineering, Academia) Some other people have mentioned that even if the physicists can't get a job in their field, they are still able to get good jobs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some other people have mentioned that even if the physicists can't get a job in their field, they are still able to get good jobs.
[/quote]
The physics major goes on the pre-prepared rant...
Approximately one in twenty physics majors actually ends up becoming a "physicist" in the sense that they're professors in academia. The rest end up going on into fields relating sort of to what engineers do and there's quite a nice demand for them overall compared to other majors because a physics degree essentially means you're a problem solver. If money is a big factor, however, go into engineering instead. Physicists don't do physics for the money: as the joke goes they're like theology students because they feel a "calling" to do it.
Relating to the thread at hand, I think a large part of the no hard science trend deals with the fact that kids don't really learn physics until relatively late in the grand scheme of things. It's also a "hot spot" right now, as others have said, so if a kid has a science aptitude and people aren't sure what s/he should do they point to biology. This is why I believe, by the way, that there is nearly a majority of females in "biowhatever" but still such a large discrepancy in the hard sciences: people get pushed towards that but have to discover the hard sciences on their own. But I digress...</p>
<p>The problem with Physics is that it that in high school most of the physics kids are hypercompetitive, somewhat lacking with social skills, and extremely naturally gifted at math and science. Thus while the top kids run rings around the other students (thus spoiling the curve) the middle of the road to above average students get depressed and don't even bother. Unlike English or History, where most students can learn just by reading and listening, Physics and math require abstract thinking skills that are much more difficult to utilize and require more innate skill. A numebr of my math friends like to boast about not needing to memorize formulas because they can just figure them out on the tests, which I and most other students are unable to do. Also, math and physics teachers MUST be good at teaching and available for their students to come to after class. With other subjects the students can easily read the textbook or practice on their own, but in these classes careful explanation and demonstration are required for most students (except the geniuses).</p>
<p>So thus we have a difficult field with little glamour in it that seems to offer nothing other than extremely difficult, agonizing work with a group of students who tend to be rather nerdy (not that there's anything wrong with that- it just turns a lot of students off). Besides, if you want to make money, you can just simply go into medicine or law. It may not be entirely true, but that's the common assumption among many high schoolers.</p>
<p>"Would I be wrong in saying that physics or EP is a great jump to many professions? (Business, Law, Engineering, Academia) Some other people have mentioned that even if the physicists can't get a job in their field, they are still able to get good jobs."</p>
<p>I would say that one can get great jobs in engineering and in business, but in many cases coursework relevant to these areas should be taken to optimally qualify yourself. And to make sure that you really want to pursue these other areas. In some cases you may be funneled to those particular specialties that inordinately focus on quantitative skills, as opposed to generalist positions. </p>
<p>As for law, the one area where your major would be possibly directly applicable would be patent law. I am not familiar with this field, but I'd guess that engineering training would possibly be somewhat more useful for this. </p>
<p>If you purse physics in the Arts college then you will have many opportunities via the rest of your program of studies to hone your crititical reading, writing, logic (in verbal, not mathematical, form), and argumentation skills, which from what I've observed are more directly relevant than, eg, courses in mechanical engineering,etc. to the practice of law. </p>
<p>If you study physics in the engineering school then many of your electives will be consumed with engineering courses. In my opinion this will be less directly helpful to an eventual law career, with the exception of the patent law specialty.</p>
<p>That's not to say that an engineering physics major cannot be successful in law, or generalist areas of business, because obviously they can be. Largely because they are very smart people to begin with. It's just that their work in college may not have so directly benefited them, in retrospect, in pursuing these other paths as some other things they could have been studying alternatively.</p>
<p>Just for information, some patent lawyers have degrees in physics. this topic (especially applied physics) is useful in technological areas such as semiconductors, electronics, nuclear engineering, some areas of mechanical engineering, some parts of nanotechnology, and other aspects of materials science.</p>
<p>So my job is as a manager in a software services company. Otherwise known as outsourcing. And 250 of our people are in China and India, otherwise known as offshoring. We serve software product companies who's names you would recognize. And we still look in the US for comp sci people. Cornell in particular, UWisc, Stanford, Berkeley, etc. But we don't hire recent grads in the US. We hire experienced people - 7-25 years, because those people don't exist in China or India. Of those experienced people, several had physics undergraduate degrees and then moved to comp sci for graduate school.</p>
<p>However, we'd hire a US graduate in a flash if he or she spoke Mandarin and wanted to spend some time in Shanghai....BTW, the Chinese absolutely do buy US goods and not raw materials. Read the NYT article on Estee Lauder's launch. Things are changing very fast. </p>
<p>Bottom line? Since information technology and other high tech fields are by no means mature a degree in these areas will not be wasted if you are one of the talented ones. You just might want to be flexible about spending a few years in Asia at some point. </p>
<p>I start Chinese lessons tomorrow evening....</p>
<p>But by the time these kids get out of college and accumulate 7-10 years experience, experienced workers WILL be available in China and India. What then?</p>
<p>And would the US graduate that you would hire earn enough to live in the US, or would they be paid only enough to make ends meet if they stay in China forever? If they would be payed US wage rates, then why bother outsourcing in the first place? And if not, why should they aspire to a career that would basically require them to emigrate to a foreign country forever in order to make a living?</p>
<p>We should stop being capitalistic. It's obviously not working for many people.</p>
<p>monydad - I don't know the answer to all these questions. I don't think anyone can predict the flow of the world's capital and labor to the year precisely. Yes, there will be people with 7-10 experience in 7-10 years. But right now the education in the US is still better. So young people should make their decisions based on more certain data ranked first, i.e. what is true now, and with less certain data ranked lower. Just like Net Present Value. </p>
<p>If you carry your argument forward, say someone goes to work in China. They won't just earn hourly wages at some point, they will invest. If they invest in China, then if China is actually garnering so much of the world labor market, probably local investments i.e. real estate will be profitable. So their returns are from both salary and investment.</p>
<p>Look, who the heck knows if the scenario I just posited has any reality? We are all just guessing. I am just pointing out that every big choice is a balancing of probabilities. Talent should still go to school.</p>
<p>I am going to be the iconoclast here and say that one of the main reasons a lot of kids don't go into engineering or some of the sciences is because the curriculum is too structured and does not allow for enough electives. One consequence of that is that is that a lot of folks come out of that with rather narrow and in my opinion not very good educations. </p>
<p>As for the toughness of these fields I suspect they are over rated. I took a fair amount of biology, physics, and chemistry for a liberal arts major way back when and did not find them particularly daunting. All you needed to do was memorize a little and have some basic problem solving skills and everything fell into place. Maybe it got harder as you went along.</p>
<p>Anyway I think if they made BSEng a graduate level professional degree, a five or six year program like Architecture or MBA that it would attract more and in some ways better kids. It would also probably be better for the profession.</p>
<p>PS - please nothing here is meant to denigrate engineers or physicists. It is mostly just an observation that maybe kids would like to study a little history along with their calculus and that might not be a bad thing either for the student or the profession.</p>
<p>Interesting, back in 1981 or so ETS did a study of general world affairs and current events knowledge on the part of college students in various majors. Guess what kind of students tested out on top? </p>
<p>Engineers knew more about the outside world than their social sciences or humanities fellow students. </p>
<p>Guess who knew the least about the rest of the world? </p>
<p>Education majors had very low knowledge of current events of any kind, especially international events. </p>
<p>I think there was some academic politics involved in why that ETS test never became a commonplace test. International relations majors also scored very low in, oops, knowledge of international relations.</p>
<p>What do you mean by, "We should stop being Capitalistic", UCLAri? And how does your statement pertain to the current problem of outsourcing high tech, high paying U.S. jobs?</p>
<p>jerew, my husband used to work very closely with patent lawyers, they charge his company $400/hour, the company does not pay him anywhere near that, he had to write most of the ip patents for them, since he invented or co-invented them.176 world wide total)He said patent lawyer's technical knowledge is very shallow(BS in engineering) while he has 25+ years of engineering background and a Phd in EE. They tend to make very shallow claims because they fail to understand the technical aspects, that is why they work very closely with him or he works very closely to a patent agent to write bigger claims. It's the same thing as technical writers, sometimes they misunderstand and rewrite the content of your original spec without really knowing it.
alumother, I know of a VP of household name company that hires 30 Indian s per month to work in software while her husband has been unemployed for at least 5+years, who also has at least 20+years software/engineering. A lot of my Indian friends are complaining that they also loose out due to outsourcing, lots don't want to go back to India, they said the infrastructure is not there.</p>