Revisiting Structural Engineering as a Profession vs Trade (Reboot from 2019) 9

[MJB315]

thread507-459807

I'd like to reboot one of my favorite threads on this forum -- the one where Kootk explains how structural engineering is a trade and that the way that our business models work is by keeping early-stage engineers in the dark about the economics.

There's more to it, but that was one of my core takeaways. You can find the entire thread here and I'll bring in the core of the piece below for convenience.

I'd like to reboot this thread by:

[ol 1]
[li]Providing some background;[/li]
[li]Asking the $100k (USD) question, and;[/li]
[li]Asking for the contrary opinions and advice. [/li]

I'll also copy and paste a few of Kootk's points from 2019 for reference at the bottom.
[/ol]

Background

I'm a structural engineer in my late thirties practicing engineering in New York State. I have a bachelors and masters in Civil Engineering (Structures Focus), practiced at three dedicated structural firms (50 people, 3 people, 10 people) and a multidisciplinary engineering firm (150 people). I've worked on my fair share of projects and for the most part, generate successful outcomes in them. I'm a licensed PE and formerly an SE (I have the quals, but just let the license lapse).

I started questioning my own career path into engineering early on in the process. I started questioning how anyone actually chooses career paths. I mentored and shifted into education (teaching Civil Engineering and Construction Technology) to explore it more. I started a start-up devoted to understanding how professionals act and think in a local geography and use video, VR, and human networks to try to expose students to the career paths that surround them. I'm in this pot, stirring the stew.

$100,000 Question.

The best way to approach career discovery with the typical high schooler tends to start with money. Not starting salary money, but a number like $100,000/year (USD). If you ask a student if they'd like to learn more about local careers and pathways -- they don't say no, but they don't exactly sit up. If you ask them if they'd like to understand the ways they can make $100K within ten years of graduation, they do. The quality of the discussion tends to increase from there, but money (of course) is important.

There are lots of discussions about work life balance, curiosity, duty, earnings in middle and advanced ages, etc...that we could add in here. Pros understand burn out. Pros understand the common desire to shift paths and try something new, finances be darned.

Students do not however. And as an educator (and as one who has been "educated"), I'm mortified that the economics of engineering is not a cornerstone of our national curricula. I know why we "say" that we do not teach it (there is so much technical material that we have to teach) but the truth is, there is time and I don't think it's in firms (therefore our industry's) interest to do so.

I think we collectively feel (fear?) that if understand the economics, they'll shift. I say, if we don't tell them and they find out later - they'll shift anyway... at a great opportunity cost to nearly everyone involved.

Going back to, "Can a Structural Engineer earn a $100,000/year within ten years of high school?" I feel like the answer is no. Fifteen-twenty years, probably.

Construction Project Management? Yes. Many other skilled trades, possibly. But engineering, no.

Push Back

Is there anything about that understanding that is inaccurate? If you're in a class full of high schoolers or college students, what do you say? What should you say?

I'm literally asking. Because as I make more career discovery content - I feel like the heavy equipment operator pathway is getting more love than the PE/SE with Two Degrees Pathway. At least to an 18 year old.

As a thirty-eight year old, I like having the club in my bag. Because I know that clients aren't just paying for product - they're paying to have someone take uncertainty away and they like doing so by someone they know and like. I also know it becomes a different way to make a $100K, which may be more appealing as we age.

But again, I'm focused on the question of what should we say to students?


--
Here's a few excerpts from the 2019 thread which I think resonate. The thread overall is great of course, here's two of Kootk's points.

START KOOTK's DEFINITION OF A PROFESSION

As humans toil away, I propose that they get paid for two things:

1) The effort/labor that they put into producing their product, on a product by product basis.

2) The requisite knowledge that a practitioner must posses in order to successfully product their product.

A profession is work where compensation is dominated by knowledge rather than effort.

A trade is work where compensation is dominated by effort rather than knowledge.

Some applications of this definition.

3) Landscapers (my son last summer). 5% knowledge; 95% effort. Trade (or unskilled trade I suppose). Bodies functioning as machines.

4) The Plumber that fixes my dishwasher. 30% knowledge; 70% effort. Trade (skilled).

5) Surgeon that replaces my pacemaker. 95% knowledge; 5% effort. Profession.

6) Structural engineer?? I would say 30% knowledge; 70% effort. Trade (skilled).

But wait? Didn't I go to school for six years to get my masters? Didn't I take a dozen arcane licensing exams to prove my worth? Yeah, you did. But remember that we're not talking about what you had to do to be able to legally practice structural engineering. Instead, we're talking about what your actually getting paid for when your client contracts for your services. I submit that we're mostly getting paid for effort. In a way, structural engineering is a particularly cruel form of a trade. Imagine if plumbers had to endure six years of post secondary and endless post graduation exams and professional development?

END DEFINITION

And...

Yes, issues with schedules, fees, and quality are the day to day nuisances. But, then, why do these things bother me really? All that just falls under the umbrella of "work", right? For me, these things are bothersome because they put me at odds with my own integrity almost constantly. Since we're talking big threes:

1) If an alien landed on earth and read all of our codes and design guides, they would have one impression of what structural engineers should be doing in regard to detail and rigor in design. Then, if they observed what practicing structural engineers actually do, they'd be horribly disappointing and confused. We take shortcuts. And lots of them. In fact, this is one of the first difficult lessons that new structural engineers must learn in a hurry. For me, this discrepancy between what I feel that I should be doing and what I'm actually doing is a challenge to my integrity. I tell the world that I'm delivering one product in terms of rigor and safety and then I turn around and deliver something quite different. I'm lying to the world in this respect.

2) As pointed out above, we have to commit to very aggressive schedule in order to keep winning work. This inevitably leads to agreeing to unrealistic schedules that give little account to reasonable contingencies. Yet I agree to these schedules because I feel that I have to to survive. This is me knowingly committing to delivering something that I know that I often wont be able to deliver. This is me lying to my clients and fellow project participants.

3) It is the low paid efforts of junior engineers that make our business model go 'round. Since most structural engineers get into the game to satisfy their inner nerd, the only way to keep such engineers motivated is to perpetuate their misunderstanding that society places a high value on the activity that is structural design. As a senior structural engineer, I'm guilty of this on a near constant basis. You can't very well motivate a junior by telling them "the only way to make any money at this is to get out of design and into management or sales as fast as you can". Again, this is me lying... now to junior engineers.

As structural engineers, we like to facetiously toss around the concept that we lose sleep over our work. You know, stuff falling down and crushing baby carriages etc. The truth is that none of that costs me any sleep. What does cost me sleep is my being constantly at odds with my own integrity as I've described. I think that a practicing structural engineer would actually be well served by some degree of sociopath in this respect. And, indeed, I know of some mild sociopaths that are wildly successful in structural engineering and make it look easy.

 

[IRstuff]

Not to throw a monkey wrench into your rant, but $100k within 10 years is pretty easy if you are a halfway good software engineer. I've known software engineers that made $100k from day one, 9 years ago. Obviously, it's not for everyone; some people just aren't into that, but it's food for thought, so your students might just be thinking that if they claim their BS CS degrees, they can skip the "<$100k" part.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[Just Some Nerd]

The problem of software being more attractive an option isn't a problem unique to structural engineering imo...I think the main issue is we work in an industry that's a race to the bottom in terms of fees/build costs and that leads to a general disregard of our profession. Nobody likes an engineer that tells them to stick to the rules, because half the time on site they'll break rules anyway and the structure won't fall down.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why yes, I do in fact have no idea what I'm talking about

 

[RPGs]

Why you gotta come on here and dig up these painful truths about my chosen career. Talk about demotivating on a cold Thursday morning!

 

[phamENG]

I hear it. I love structural engineering. I hate the industry I work in. I'd love to teach, but I'd also feel disingenuous guiding young people into this field as I actively seek an escape hatch. I'll probably leave a toe in the water at least for a little while - I have a few fantastic clients who I enjoy working with, who value me, and pay me what I'm worth (one even tells me if I'm under-charging compared to my competition) and I'd hate to abandon them to the...others.

 

[SWComposites]

Well,
"Can a Civil Structural Engineer earn a $100,000/year within ten years of high school?" > maybe, maybe not, based on what I have read over the years on this forum
"Can an Aerospace Structural Engineer earn a $100,000/year within ten years of high school?" > certainly, based on my 40 years experience in that industry
Aerospace has hired many engineers with CE degrees as structural designers and analysts.

 

[sponton]

I think the issue with this industry is mostly due to engineers themselves. in the case of SE's , it's not learning how to say no to architects or contractors. I don't know if it's in part with the liability and the guilt of knowing that if you don't do something (or oversee it) you can put people's lives in jeopardy. Then there's the monetizing stuff that people expect from you for free because otherwise they won't pay and seek somebody else (like fixing the dumb shit contractors do during construction at their own time cause they can't halt construction, and you can't just go well that's not my problem..) I recently made the switch from working a small firm doing commercial/public work to an industrial firm doing niche work. They definitely seem better at monetizing their time and making sure the project has realistic schedules. Then again, there are no architects to deal with. Also, working in a niche industry means you dictate the fees and there's really no haggling. So far, it seems more relaxed. I don't want to continue working +60 hours a week and being stressed all the time because of other people's idiocy. I don't think i'll stay in engineering long though, i'm trying to slowly move into real estate, i love the profession but i don't like the lack of respect towards the profession..

 

[jerseyshore]

10 years out of high school is 6 years into a career and 100k is doable at a bigger firm with a PE for structural engineers. Not a super high paying sector though as least when compared to other engineering disciplines.

 

[milkshakelake]

i'm trying to slowly move into real estate, i love the profession but i don't like the lack of respect towards the profession..

I agree with this, and my long term goals are in real estate. I make more than $100k, but it's only because I engage in the business and marketing aspects of engineering rather than the nuts and bolts. If I had to do all this again, I'd probably pick programming, system administration, or law. I believe they pay more without having to start a business, and would pay a lot more if I ran a law office or something. I have the benefit and curse of hindsight, but still have the ability to switch my job at some point. It's also extremely hard for me to break into a niche category of engineering that would pay more, like industrial structures.

 

[WARose]

I think the issue with this industry is mostly due to engineers themselves. in the case of SE's , it's not learning how to say no to architects or contractors.

I've gotten good at that.

 

[phamENG]

or law

I wouldn't be too sure. In some areas, at least, the markets are over-saturating with lawyers. The latest 'state of the region' report here shows that I now make more than the average attorney.

 

[KootK]

Is there anything about that understanding that is inaccurate?

Oh no, every word was/is accurate. However, it was neither:

1) Complete nor;

2) Balanced.

I mostly stay away from these kinds of threads these days but, given that I was the source of so much darkness back in 2019, I now feel compelled to help out with the "push back".

Reading my 2019 comments, one could be forgiven for thinking that I feel that the profession of structural engineering ought to come with some kind of surgeon general's warning. I don't actually feel that way. This is how I feel:

3) I believe that structural engineering constitutes an excellent profession for many people.

4) In many respects, structural engineering has constituted an excellent, if non-optimal, profession for me.

5) I am -- at least partially -- to blame for my occasional dissatisfaction with the profession of structural engineering.

 

[KootK]

4) In many respects, structural engineering has constituted an excellent, if non-optimal, profession for me.

Why non-optimal?

In my heart of hearts, what I really want from a career is this:

1) I want to practice a technical art that has enormous consequences.

2) I want my technical prowess at my "thing" to be the sole measure by which I accrue glory.

3) I want my clients to be forced to come to me by virtue of #1 and #2 no matter how much of an asshole I may be.

This simply is not structural engineering. It's also not the vast majority of the other technical disciplines such as general law, general dentistry, MEP engineering, etc. What most of the knowledge sport professions are is this: customer service as the primary goal with technical skill simply being the means by which customer service is accomplished.

I struggle mightily to even think of careers that would satisfy my list of three above. I would have to be, say, one of five people in the world with the math chops to be able to design a new mutual fund in such a way that consumers would like the returns and the provider wouldn't loose their ass. That work is some crazy math-ing with some significant, immediate consequences. It also represents a level of technical skill I have not cultivated in myself. I only found out about this career path by recently watching the new Netflix show on Bernie Madoff.

SUMMARY:

My optimal career aspirations were/are uncommon. I've no doubt that the profession of structural engineering has been a better fit for most of its other practitioners who entered the field with more realistic expectations.

 

[KootK]

5) I am -- at least partially -- to blame for my occasional dissatisfaction with the profession of structural engineering.

As early as possible, I should have insisted that I had answers to these questions:

1) How does a structural engineering firm get work?

2) What is the profit model of a structural engineering firm?

3) How does a senior structural engineer spend her days? What juniors do is largely irrelevant since that is not the end goal.

It shames me utterly to admit this but I didn't have this stuff fully sorted until at least 10yrs into my career as a structural engineer. Yeah, it would have been spiffy to have this stuff spoon fed to me either in school or during my first year of practice. At the end of the day, however, my lack of savvy and proactivity is on me.

This is another instance where I've come to realize that this is a "me" problem. Many other structural engineers figure this stuff out almost immediately and, as a result, reap these career benefits:

1) Better alignment between career expectations and career realities and;

2) By focusing doggedly on customer service as the top priority, they rapidly become leaders within their firms who earn $175K/yr and mostly just schmooze, write proposals, do fun schematic design, and work a bit of QC around the margins. They predominantly leave the emotional agony of trying to do the technical stuff properly to their army of anxious minions. Successful entrepreneurship is a another version of this wherein one must have the self discipline to retain the production function without letting it overwhelm their inner dork.

[highlight #FCE94F]I feel that this is the way that one strategically finds joy in structural engineering: always treat the structural aspects of structural engineering as nothing more than a vehicle for customer service. Horse before cart. Stop trying to push that other boulder uphill. The bolder always wins. Get your tech jollies here on Eng-Tips with your self selected, painfully like minded brethren.[/highlight][highlight #FCE94F][highlight #FCE94F][/highlight][/highlight]

Do as KootK says, not as KootK did.

 

[milkshakelake]

always treat the structural aspects of structural engineering as nothing more than a vehicle for customer service

These are words to live by. Every time I get sidetracked and try to apply a new, fancy thing I learned or have a crazy breakthrough idea, I remind myself that this is all customer service. Things made a lot more sense when I started getting rid of my ego and the notion that I'm meant for insanely intricate designs that nobody else has thought of. In the end, simplicity and time-tested designs wins customers, with some bleeding edge stuff used strategically in pursuit of customer service, not ego.

Coming to those realizations will make lots of graduates have less painful careers, but I'm not sure if it can be taught. It's more like trial by fire.

For better or worse, this also makes a lot of fancy engineering knowledge a bit less valuable. I always wanted to spend like 100 hours and really learn and understand finite element matrices, but I gave that up to make more money. I would still do it if I saw the ROI.

@phamENG Maybe you're right. I just see their ridiculous $350+/hour billing rates that would get me laughed out of any project.

 

[KootK]

Things made a lot more sense when I started getting rid of my ego and the notion that I'm meant for insanely intricate designs that nobody else has thought of.

A secular amen to that. For as long as I still need to work, I consider myself a hunter first and foremost. I wax dramatic, I know (it's Friday). Sometimes you'll see me feasting on a tasty gazelle with my coat lustrous. More often, my ribs show, I survive on delegated engineering assignments, and I'd rather not be seen at all. Either way, I choose to celebrate survival above all else. Egos and shame are useless luxuries best left to those who get their calories from a zookeeper.

 

[bookowski]

According to the 2016 ncsea survey the average salary w/5 yrs experience was $79k, for 15 yrs 110k. That was 2016. At least in my area salaries have gone up quite a bit recently but there's no newer ncsea survey. For the vast majority of structural engineering work you do not need to be a genius. Those numbers are above average for college graduates in general and about in line with all engineering majors averaged. Some fields of engineering make more but se's are not getting screwed relative to their education and workload from what I see. I've worked at a huge firm and 80% of people are just punching the clock, headphones on running models, enjoying free bagels and healthcare. The 20% that are heroes do not get proportionally more pay, but that's true in all fields and those people are not likely doing it for the money anwyay. The few that are mostly driven by money usually make their way to the top and are doing 250+ or become sole proprietors and earn more. In the grand scheme of things if someone has slightly above average intelligence, say iq 101, it's a good living for relatively easy and sometimes interesting work with relatively modest education requirements.

 

[jayrod12]

I've been at this gig since 2007, but didn't actually get my degree till 2013, I had a college diploma prior. I am just about to surpass that 100k number, and feel I'm doing well for our local pay structure. To be fair, that could be likely 20% higher if I went into one of the local public sector type positions. Or even at a publicly traded company. But I appreciate the freedom given to me for working at a private company where employee happiness is important to the management.

 

[kipfoot]

For the vast majority of structural engineering work you do not need to be a genius.

An early mentor of mine (Fred Elsasser, then of Rob't Silman Assoc) used to say, "we make a living of off high school math."

Structural engineering has worked out for me because:
a) it suits the way I think. it's one of the fields where spacial perception is valuable; and
b) it suits the part of my disposition that asks, "what's the worst that can happen?"; and also
c) working for myself has allowed me time flexibility for travel and raising kids. I could never have been okay with working 8-6 with two weeks vacation.; but
d) I also know a lot of people who are dumber but making more money than structural engineers.

 

[MJB315]

Thank you all for and the push back is the welcomed part! I'll offer a quick "amen" to many of the points offered above.

Three quick add-ons or thoughts:

1. Civil Structural vs Aerospace Structural/Computer Science. I understand the salary structures for other engineering industries are different (often higher) - usually due to the business models they're working in. For example, the business model of a defense contractor is different than the business model of a civil engineering practice. The products are different, the client base is different, the economics are different - therefore the salaries are different. I understand that a 28-year old programmer or aerospace engineer can earn $100K working within one of those business models pretty easily. After all, $100,000 is an easy salary to offer an army of junior engineers or programmers in the Western Hemisphere - provided that it keeps jet engines turning and missiles flying in the Eastern, and everything can get billed to the Department of Defense. I also understand that CS programmers often found a warm home in the midst of quickly-growing, advertisement-based tech companies fueled by investment models where salary money was no object - and how well that 2010s model will continue moving forward is a separate discussion. But I agree that $100K for aerospace engineers and CS majors within ten years of high school isn't uncommon.

2. I too have come to appreciate the flexibility of structural engineering. That flexibility has contributed to my lifestyle in a way that, well, it's hard to explain to an 18-year old. I too have repeatedly "leave money on the table" with career choices, mainly to increase my schedule flexibility - especially when I'm in the midst of raising a young family. In other words, I chose to have an older car - provided that car is parked in my driveway as much as possible. That is a lifestyle perk. It's rarely advertised in freshman year, but it is one. I'd like to explore how that can be better communicated to students.

3. Is the ability for a licensed civil structural engineer to become a self-contained business model it's defining feature? After a certain level of experience and credentialing, it's possible (and common) for structural to break way into a one-person shop. Provided the person is good at providing customer service to a client base he/she enjoys (an idea explored above which I believe is exactly right), one person can maintain a $100K business model on their own shoulders. That one-person business model has challenges (i.e. feast or famine workloads, the limited ability to coordinate and run ideas by colleagues, increasing the competition in the marketplace that drives down fees, etc.) but it also has opportunities (many of which are explored up above). It also feels somewhat rare in other industries - at least when I do a quick mental glance around - but I also don't know what I don't know about other industries.

So let me nudge the conversation this way - is it equally as possible for CS and Aerospace engineers to create one-person business models? Is the quick $100k entirely dependent on being tethered to a large organization, or CS/Aeros can command the same salary+flexibility profile as Civil Structurals by striking out on their own?