Research or industry job ? 1

[LMGK]

Hi all,
I am basically mech engineer. At present am bit confusion for choosing my permanent job. Here are my exp's. I finished my bachelor in eng 99' after that i had worked as a cnc programmer for one yr. After that i had 1.5 yrs exp as a CAD programmer in well known firm. Then next 2.5 yrs studied Masters. At the same 2.5 yrs(part-time) i worked as a student worker in mech engg. so far 5 yrs over after my bachelor. After that i am working as a research assistant in mech engg since 1 yr. But i am very much interesting to work in industries rather research. I really confused myself whether to continue this research in another 3 yrs or start to search job in industry. Presently i am 29 yrs old.
I hope some of u can suggest me, the better ideas or alternate way to make better in my career.

thanks and regards,
lm

PS. I did several stress analysis in mechanical transmission elements and also had couple of yrs exp's in mech appl. programming.

 

[PSE]

If you want to work in industry, look now. Doing an additional 3 year stint in research will solidify someones initial impression of you as a research oriented individual. The Master's degree also serves as a pointer (from a first impression) that you are more of a research oriented individual. Hence the need to jump now if able.

Regards,

 

[epoisses]

"Hence the need to jump now if able".... what's the problem with research? If you really like to use your intellectual capabilities to the max throughout your career, stay in research.
If you like oil stains in your shirt, operators massacring your beautiful design, sales guys putting you under impossible time prssure, unreasonable customers and unreliable suppliers, move to the industry.

It's all a matter of taste and you have to decide for yourself what you like.

 

[LMGK]

Entering in real industry job at the age of 29 with masters or 32 with Phd which will be better ?. Bcs now a days industry looks staff <30 am i right ?.

 

[epoisses]

PhD in industry is often worthless at best, sometimes even a handicap

 

[toiap]

epoisses,

A little condescending attitude towards industry? I have worked in several different areas within engineering, including design, maintenance and long range planning. I find the time contraints/pressures and the "on your feet" decision making necessary in O&M very intellectually challenging. In my opinion, the best engineering designs come from those that understand the challenges with construction and maintenance. I have seen some pretty horrible designs come out of people that thought they were intellectually superior to us in the field.

 

[TheTick]

I have had the fortune of working with some Ph.D.'s who were darn useful people to have around. These were/are people with depp knowledge of their fields of study and the desire and ability to put that knowledge to good and profitable use.

There is definitely a place for Ph.D.'s in industry. The greatest difficulty to overcome might be your academic overqualification. When interviewing, you have to make it very clear that you desire a certain career path. Otherwise, expectations of what others think you should be doing could cloud the issue.

If there's a place you want to be, pick the path that gets you there.

I could be the world's greatest underachiever, if I could just learn to apply myself.

http://www.EsoxRepublic.com

-SolidWorks API VB programming help

 

[SmithsJohn2]

The research and industry are two different environment. In research world, you are free and flexible in time and do the job whenever you like. In industry, you need to work on-time and at least 8 hr per day. Even you earn your PhD at 32, it is still young enough. I always think after you have been working for many years, you don't want to go back school. Try learn and be stuff when you are young.

 

[svanels]

In research world, you are free and flexible in time and do the job whenever you like

I think I choosed the wrong path, no headache, no stress, no bosses, no pay-check to worry about, or am I missing something?...

 

[epoisses]

toiap,
Not at all, I work in the industry myself, but I thought it would be good to defend research a bit, for a change.

 

[MikeyP]

Thank you TheTick. That is one of the most sensible sentiments I have heard in a long time.

I would add that the specialist knowledge gained in doing a PhD is not what will make you more employable. Rather it is the fact that, by definition, you are an analyst and a problem solver who knows how to learn in self-directed manner. The PhD is a badge which says that "I am a professional resarcher" in much the same way that a PE/CEng says "I am a professional engineer". It does not just mean that "I am an expert in Sound and Vibration in Aircraft Structures Using Statistical Energy Analysis" (in my case).

As for the accusation that PhDs have their heads in the clouds and no knowledge of real-world engineering, well that may be true for some, but equally, as there are bad engineers with PhDs, there are also plenty of bad engineers without PhDs too.

PhDs are people too! Don't judge them by a title.

Remember also that there are engineering research jobs available outisde academia (I know, because I'm looking for one at the age of 32 and after 3 years as a student researcher and 7 years as a professional researcher). In fact there are more and more what you might call "Engineering research consultants" appearing, certainly in the UK. The decline of engineering in the UK in recent decades has coincided with the rise of the management consultant (I'll leave you to judge if the relationship is a causal one). Engineering company R&D departments were the first to fall under the management consultants' axes ("Tarquin, what is this division here? R&D? What's that? They seem to take awful lot of money and have generated next to no cash in the last year. Let's cut them loose first.")

This short-termist short-sightedness means that the those companies that have survived have suddenly realised that they needed an R&D department after all to compete in the global market but they don't have the capital available to create one. As a result they must instead pay a premium for the R&D consultants to do it on their behalf.

M

--
Dr Michael F Platten

 

[Maui]

When money is tight and the axe must fall, the Research Division is usuallly one of the first that they put on the chopping block. As far as the company is concerned, Research is simply overhead that can be eliminated when times are tough. I have seen this happen at my present company, and it was ugly.


Maui

Constants aren't; variables won't.