Career Choices 3

[tcomh]

Wow!
I stumbled upon this forum thru a google search and I have been pleasantly surprised by the variablity and scope of advice available.

I have found a few posts addressing the nature of my question, but none addressing it particularly.

I started working in the construction field right after high school and always found myself too busy and making too much money to take time off for school - until some life changing events occured.

I am currently one semester away from graduating with a Civil BSE and have been working as an intern for about 8 months. I originally intended on going straight into grad school to acquire a Master's in Engineering. Now I find myself very tired of school - and with a lot of conflicting advice. All my profs extoll the virtues of grad school, while my immediate supervisors (and virtually every one else in the field) indicate that job experience will serve my career path much better. I am not sure what to do.

I am an older student and have no intention of returning to school after this interlude is over. We are currently financially secure and reasonable tuition is not an issue. Sometime in the future I plan on opening my own consulting firm. The options I am considering are: an MBA, a Masters in Construction Management, a Masters in Enginerring, - all available at our local university - or work full time.

Will further education expedite career goals? Set me apart from the competition? Be a waste of time? Should I expect the grad program to any more difficult or more time demanding than the undergrad curriculum?

I have a tendency to think that I will regret not going if I decide not to, but the grad school commitment appears to be much more than I had originally anticipated. Or maybe the possibility of regret has more to do with an inherent need to appear consistent.

I would very much appreciate any advice.
Thanks in advance!

 

[HgTX]

Don't go to grad school unless you want to be there. Should you expect the grad program to any more difficult or more time demanding than the undergrad curriculum? Hell, yes. If it isn't, then it's a crappy graduate program. And the motivation to do that kind of work just won't be there if you don't really want to do it. School requires a lot more self-management than work does.

Of course your profs extol the virtues of grad school. That's what they do. Professorship is a way of staying in school for life. They don't see any downside.

If you feel you have enough background now with the BS to get the kind of job you want, stop there. If you feel you need more, stay--but only because you want the education, not to have the letters to put on the resume. A master's degree isn't that vital just as a credential, at least not in civil engineering.

And never say never--if it turns out you really do need the degree, you'll do it.

For what it's worth, I have an MS in civil engineering (which I got as an older student), and I have no regrets. But most of the people hired around the same time I was have just a BS, and they don't seem to have any regrets either. About half of the managers have gone back and gotten master's degrees, at the employer's expense. You might encounter similar opportunities.

Hg

 

[GregLocock]

After two years of uni I was keen to get out. I finished my degree, and haven't yet (after 22 years) found any great reason to return.

Maybe I'm lucky, I've always had techie jobs where being able to learn is a valuable attribute, thereby satisfying my desire to educate myself.

So, if school's a drag, get the degree and get back on the treadmill, I reckon.





Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[PSE]

Unless you have found something intellectually intriguing to you during your schooling, I would not continue to persue a Masters in Engineering. Get your PE instead. In the future you state that you would like to open your own consulting firm. You won't really need an MBA for that either. What you will need are the extensive contacts and record of performance in the "real world" that will attract and retain the clients you will need.

Further education is far from a waste of time. However, I would propose that developing a professional reputation will be, at the moment, of greater import. In the future, look at seminars and perhaps formal education tailored to your goals.

Regards,

 

[Maui]

You may have already seen this thread, but if not then you would benefit from reading it:

thread731-105240


Maui

 

[JAE]

I'd second most of the comments above, but would add that the particular BRANCH of civil engineering is the key factor in determining the worth of graduate school. For structural engineering (which I am in) the MS is pretty helpful if not totally necessary. This due to the fact that SE's work is a bit more "bookish" in nature with lots of algorithyms, techniques, physics, etc. involved in how we do our job.

For other disciplines, however, the key talents aren't always learned in a book - expecially for construction engineering or general civil engineering. These require a great deal of knowledge of on-the-job processes and techniques, government-body requirements and laws, and policies set by other pseudo government bodies.

Now if you do want to get into grad school, but feel burned out, what I did seemed to be a good solution: After getting my BS degree in Civil E., I worked exactly two years with a firm, got some good experience, saved a few bucks, and then returned to school - by that time I was hungry again to study and it worked out great. In fact, some of my profs commented on my zeal to study compared to many other fellow students who were indeed burned out. ...but this may not be for everyone as sometimes after getting out of school and getting a job, the paycheck and security is too much to give up.

 

[tcomh]

Thanks for all the good advice! It appears that there is a general consensus.

I would like to get into the land development/drainage side of civil engineering and maybe pick up some surveying also. It sounds like a Masters in engineering would offer too much specialty and not offer the perceived benefits.

I think I will pursue the MBA though. I am getting burned out, especially after this last semester, but I think it will offer a change of pace from engineering (which I really do enjoy and mean to become proficient) and will be worth two more years of effort.

From anyone's personal experience, is anything as hard as the undergrad engineering curriculum (civil in particular)? Should I really expect the same demanding schedule? In my mind, civil's pursue one of the most difficult curriculums due to the broad spectrum of required topics. I can't imagine an MBA being even close to the same thing. But I readily admit my ignorance. Any comments?

Thanks again.

 

[MTPipeliner]

I only know one person who went after an MBA after a civil BS, and she didn't finish. One thing that I think would be hard about an MBA is that and engineering background doesn't really provide the lower level business classes. Maybe it isn't too bad sisnce lots of people do it.

I always thought it was funny that you could get a Masters of business without first getting a bachelors....try that with engineering.

I got a masters of engineering and have been graduated for about a year and a half now. My job now (pipeline construction) is not what I went to school for (Structural), but I don't regret getting the masters.

I don't know if it helped me get my current job or will help in the future, but people around here are quite impressed by the masters.

Good luck

 

[ivymike]

Maybe it isn't too bad sisnce lots of people do it.

trust me - you could do it without showing up for class, if they didn't take attendance. I'm 1/2 of the way thru my MBA, with nothing worse than an A- so far. Might give it up though, since I'm starting to wonder whether there is any actual value to the degree (I know what classes I'd take for my own eduction, regardless).

 

[ghghghgh]

A couple thoughts on the MBA.
It has become a punching bag for many people, the stereotype being MBAs are overeducated, arrogant, snobs above most other people. In finance and investment banking, this is probably a reasonable assessment.
I went back for an MBA after a BSCE and six + years of design experience. I wanted to open some career opportunities, and perhaps leave engineering altogether. However, economic conditions at graduation forced me back into engineering, but at a much higher level with a consulting firm. My PE obviously helped, but I believe the MBA was instrumental in landing this job.
Many business schools prefer engineering undergrads because much of the critical thinking and analytical ability required for an MBA is necessary in an engineering curriculum. The 5 engineers in my class all excelled, even without business or finance undergrad degrees. I took accounting and quant the summer before I went back, and that was all I needed to do well.

ivymike, I disagree. I don't know what school you're attending, but I don't see how you could be dong well without showing up for class. We worked like dogs our first year, second wasn't as bad. I went to mid-tier school, reputable but no Harvard or Wharton. You can get by with a slack effort, no question. Schools rarely fail people entirely because you can't replace students midway in a full-time program and the school loses the tuition. However, poor students do poorly. I think it might be a reflection of your particular institution, rather than MBA programs in general.

In life’s never-ending irony, I'm now going at night for a Masters of Structural and working toward the SE. I still don't regret the MBA, even though I don't use it very much and I'll owe Sallie Mae for the rest of my life!

 

[BelspringKen]

I am interested in getting a master's , however I am close to being able to sit for the PE, so I am going to do that first.

The other guys are right on the money - if you are not really excited about going back to school, hold off. Plus later you may get your employer to help pay for it.

 

[ivymike]

However, poor students do poorly. I think it might be a reflection of your particular institution, rather than MBA programs in general.

Well, I certainly didn't have the time or money to take a couple of years off of work for the sake of an MBA. I'm going to school at night, and doing my homework on weekends. It'll probably be a 4-year program at this pace. I'm limited by the meager annual cap on tuition reimbursement at my present employer - but I don't see the degree being worth spending my own money at this point. I can only imagine how much easier it would be if I did it full time, instead of in the slivers of spare time that I can dig up occasionally.

They certainly seem to flunk plenty of people (one guy was taking statistics for the 4th time when I met him), and I didn't say I don't show up for class. I am pretty sure I'd skip quite a few if they weren't taking attendance (but they are). I just don't see how they can make simple arithmetic into a difficult subject. There are a few new terms to learn, and you have to memorize a list of things for double-entry accounting, etc., but when it comes down to it there doesn't seem to be any brain stretching that a good set of flash cards can't overcome. The new eight-week terms are making the pace of memorization a little more challenging, but it's certainly nothing compared to my first exposure to vector calculus, electricity & magnetism, or relativity. The most difficult thing so far has been finding time in my schedule to write marketing plans, analyze the corporate culture, and so forth.

 

[HgTX]

Hard as it is for us to fathom, some people are just not number-minded. The statistics course I took happened to be, in essence, "Statistics for the Math-Phobic" (the real name was probably something like "Applied Statistics"), and the whole first day of class was basically about getting these people comfortable with the idea of numbers. Count the M&Ms. Write it down. Do not fear the number. The number is your friend.

This was a graduate-level course. Obviously, not for mathematics graduate students.

You'd think you wouldn't find the math-phobic in an MBA class, but maybe their interest in business started with some kind of marketing talent.

 

[ghghghgh]

ivymike,
My point is that making a generalization about all MBA programs to discourage someone from considering an MBA based on your specific experience is misleading. “trust me - you could do it without showing up for class”, is plain and simply wrong. Apparently you haven't learned anything in Quant since you're making a conclusion based on one data point! I jest.
tcomh,
I do agree with ivymike on one point. Econ or Quant has nothing on Differential Equations or Advanced Steel design. For an engineering undergrad, the difficulty in the MBA was the volume of work, not understanding the concepts (although some of the Advanced Finance material can get involved). But remember, they're preparing you for an entirely different world. In business, you have to make decisions with overwhelming, but incomplete information. Uncertainty is the rule. Whereas in engineering, precise calculations and precise information is much more the norm. Uncertainty is deadly. I frequently fell prey to the "paralysis of analysis" syndrome because I wanted to find the exact answer, but in finding the value of an acquisition for example, the answer can be plus or minus millions. Unfathomable for an engineer used to calculating elevations to the millimeter or stresses to the hundredth.
My advice tcomh, if you choose the MBA route, make sure you are committed to spend a great deal of your time on it. Also, you’ll have to adjust your mindset somewhat from the engineer’s mentality.
Good luck in whatever you choose!

 

[ivymike]

to discourage someone from considering an MBA Who was trying to discourage him? I was telling him not to worry about the material being too difficult!

Your field of engineering must be quite different from mine - almost every decision I make is based on incomplete information, and the stakes are very often "job-losing" high. I do quite a few different types of analyses (included classical and fe-based stress calcs), but they're only a small part of the job. It's my opinion that all analysis answers are wrong, but some are useful. I'd be fooling myself if I expected any sort of precision from the results (a close approximation is all I hope for). It is quite often the case that time constraints prevent even the most rudimentary computer-based analysis, and I have to stare crosseyed at some vaguely related analysis and hold my thumb over the picture in the right place to decide whether or not to go forward with a design - then perhaps follow up with analysis after the decision has been made (with results that will be too late to choose a path but might at least prevent continuing down the wrong path).

I think that you're the first engineer who ever tried to tell me that precise information was the norm. (No cover factors for you then, eh?) Your statement that engineers want to carry every calculation to the n-th degree is not new to me though- the other time I heard it was from the admissions advisor when I was applying to business school. I felt that I should make an effort to be polite, so I didn't laugh out loud, but I did try to explain to her that engineering was more like "the art of making the right decisions based on incomplete information" than an exact science. I guess in some cases I'd have been wrong about that.

 

[ivymike]

hmm - apparently your work experience is closer to the norm than mine, since you've already received a star for your comments... and all this time I thought that the challenges I faced in making decisions were par for the course.

 

[HgTX]

I was the starrer. What resonated with me about that post is his characterization of the different quality of the schoolwork. Perhaps more about the difference between MBA *classes* and engineering *classes* rather than business work and engineering work. In engineering school it is all about calculations, and in the restricted environment of a problems set, we imagine there's a right answer. MBA programs, I would expect, have a much bigger readin'/ritin' component. I don't think I'd like it at all.

Actually, even in real life a lot of engineers still imagine they're working toward a right answer, or the rightest answer that will fit in the parameters. Never mind that the coefficients in the code equations came about because one person wanted a factor of 1 and one person wanted a factor of 2 and they compromised on 1.5--the calculation itself is carried out to three significant figures. I'm particularly fond of camber calculations for prestressed concrete beams. SOP that I've seen is to do them to the nearest 1/100"; in reality you're lucky if they come to within an inch of what you thought.

But ivymike's right too--now that we have computers to do the calculations, the "real" engineering comes in the judgement calls when the numbers don't just fall into place.

Hg

 

[IRstuff]

Not sure the rationale about the star, but incomplete information is often and sometimes always the norm.

In fact, we have one engineer who is very good at analysis, but is often bypassed because he always wants more information than available and has difficulty in extrapolating from a few scattered factoids.

In many cases, not only must we guess what the requirements really are, but we need to guess what the operational scenario is.

TTFN

 

[ghghghgh]

I starred you too ivymike.

My point was toward the school side, not the actual work side as HgTX noted. I should have clarified that, but I was giving my thoughts to tcomh on the choice of pursuing an MBA and my opinion of the difference in mindset between business school thinking and engineering thinking.

We as engineers are forced into proceeding with design work lacking good information, that is the reality, however:
"It's my opinion that all analysis answers are wrong, but some are useful. I'd be fooling myself if I expected any sort of precision from the results (a close approximation is all I hope for)"
Do you seal work based on this? Would you make this statement in front of a review Board?

I think we've officially moved beyond tcomh's original post.
Shall we start a different thread?

 

[ivymike]

Do you seal work based on this? Would you make this statement in front of a review Board?
I work in automotive engineering, so I've never had to deal with either. I definitely remind people on a regular basis that analysis results aren't to be taken as exact quantities, especially during design review meetings (when someone always says "but the cover factor is greater than 1.00, so we really should expect it to survive, regardless of whether it meets our bogey of CF>1.8." Better that they be nervous than overconfident, as far as I'm concerned.

Just point me to the new thread, if you decide to start one. I'm fine with dropping the subject, though.