westheimer1234
Structural
i know i would. i find engineering one of the most unstable jobs. i work for EPC companies and they always mass hire and mass lay off.
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
would you discourage your child to take up engineering in college? 20
- Thread starter westheimer1234
- Start date
- Status
I think we, as a group, have blinders on, thinking, "We don't get no respect!" Well, sorry to burst your bubbles, but NO ONE gets the respect they think they deserve.
Doctors have become little more than overworked pill pushers, "What do you mean I need to change my lifestyle, just give me a pill or something."
Teachers, who used to garner great respect are now regarded as impediments to our children's education, or as potential pedophiles. Ditto, priests.
Society, particularly since Watergate, have become quite cynical, and no longer views any of the traditional societal icons with much admiration, or respects.
TTFN
FAQ731-376
Doctors have become little more than overworked pill pushers, "What do you mean I need to change my lifestyle, just give me a pill or something."
Teachers, who used to garner great respect are now regarded as impediments to our children's education, or as potential pedophiles. Ditto, priests.
Society, particularly since Watergate, have become quite cynical, and no longer views any of the traditional societal icons with much admiration, or respects.
TTFN
FAQ731-376
IRstuff:
I can't argue that. There is too much truth in it.
However, I do believe that other professions do a better job of marketing their value and what they do. Even civil suit lawyers are advertising their wholesome goodness on TV with such ads as:
"I'm Jim S------. Call me at 1-800-CALL-JIM. When doctors make mistakes, I make them pay."
(Hey, fair ball...it's in the public domain.)
It's a tad (?) cheesy, but at least they are appealing to the public that lawyers are "on your side" and are "a good thing".
I belive engineers could - and should - do better than that. We need more things like "Frontiers Of Construction" on Discovery Channel, so that people can get a better understanding of what we do and what we face and what we accomplish.
Regards,
SNORGY.
I can't argue that. There is too much truth in it.
However, I do believe that other professions do a better job of marketing their value and what they do. Even civil suit lawyers are advertising their wholesome goodness on TV with such ads as:
"I'm Jim S------. Call me at 1-800-CALL-JIM. When doctors make mistakes, I make them pay."
(Hey, fair ball...it's in the public domain.)
It's a tad (?) cheesy, but at least they are appealing to the public that lawyers are "on your side" and are "a good thing".
I belive engineers could - and should - do better than that. We need more things like "Frontiers Of Construction" on Discovery Channel, so that people can get a better understanding of what we do and what we face and what we accomplish.
Regards,
SNORGY.
rbulsara -
Your quote " . . . you need to be good at what you do. Otherwise any field you go into would feel unstable!"
strikes me as very naive. Somewhat surprising given that your record indicates 20+ years of experience.
The fact that I am a good engineer and good at reading people and situations has enabled me to survive all too many years in this profession.
I watched a 33 man structural engineering department be reduced to 6 people in the early '80's recession; at 33 years old I was the youngest person left; I ran prints on Thursday and was given Friday's off for well over a year.
I was present when a US industrial design/build consultant was purchased by a foreign competitor and the duplicate North American offices were systematically shut down, including the one I worked in.
I was forced out of a US Fortune 500 manufacturer that was purchased by a foreign firm that did not keep an in-house engineering department back home and saw no point in doing so here. They proceeded to pay more for "outside" engineering several of the years immediately thereafter.
This is not a cry for sympathy. I was never laid off even though a couple of times it was inevitable if I did not make the moves that I did.
But it did mean that most times I was not able to be fully vested. I did get 4 partially vested plans that in conjunction with that at my present job will have to be enough. When compared to the pension plans that my Civil Engineering ancestors recieved my retirement will need to be delayed and will be far less secure.
So maybe I sound jaded, but I prefer to think that I am being pragmatic.
GJC
Your quote " . . . you need to be good at what you do. Otherwise any field you go into would feel unstable!"
strikes me as very naive. Somewhat surprising given that your record indicates 20+ years of experience.
The fact that I am a good engineer and good at reading people and situations has enabled me to survive all too many years in this profession.
I watched a 33 man structural engineering department be reduced to 6 people in the early '80's recession; at 33 years old I was the youngest person left; I ran prints on Thursday and was given Friday's off for well over a year.
I was present when a US industrial design/build consultant was purchased by a foreign competitor and the duplicate North American offices were systematically shut down, including the one I worked in.
I was forced out of a US Fortune 500 manufacturer that was purchased by a foreign firm that did not keep an in-house engineering department back home and saw no point in doing so here. They proceeded to pay more for "outside" engineering several of the years immediately thereafter.
This is not a cry for sympathy. I was never laid off even though a couple of times it was inevitable if I did not make the moves that I did.
But it did mean that most times I was not able to be fully vested. I did get 4 partially vested plans that in conjunction with that at my present job will have to be enough. When compared to the pension plans that my Civil Engineering ancestors recieved my retirement will need to be delayed and will be far less secure.
So maybe I sound jaded, but I prefer to think that I am being pragmatic.
GJC
I think rbulsara's point is that had you not been competent, you would have one of the 27 people that didn't get to stay, and you would really have had an unstable environment.
There should be no debate that the more competent and valuable a employee you become, the less likely it will be that you get canned.
TTFN
FAQ731-376
There should be no debate that the more competent and valuable a employee you become, the less likely it will be that you get canned.
TTFN
FAQ731-376
IRstuff...the problem is that some corporate structures don't realize the value of individuals. Case in point...many of the consolidated and larger engineering firms do not recognize the inate value of having experienced engineers. They cost more because they have experience. They mentor younger engineers and pass the knowledge base along, but an unknowing, financially driven corporation fails to recognize this. I know from experience. I was in a high technical position with a large engineering firm. I produced work for the younger engineers and was very billable myself. Had I not been a "producer" myself, I would have been canned, even though part of my function was to mentor the younger engineers and create work for them to do through my contacts and involvement. I know this for a fact since there were others in my same position who did not enjoy a similar client base and got canned...even though they were responsible for keeping several younger engineers busy and they did so.
An engineer making 60k a year and billing at $100 per hour with a utilization 75% is perceived to be much more valuable at the corporate level than an experienced engineer making $100k per year and billing at $160 per hour, but is only 50% utilized. Young engineers do not develop clients, unless exceptional. Older engineers develop and maintain clients because of the confidence they give and the experience they bring to the issues. That is less quantifiable than billable time.
An engineer making 60k a year and billing at $100 per hour with a utilization 75% is perceived to be much more valuable at the corporate level than an experienced engineer making $100k per year and billing at $160 per hour, but is only 50% utilized. Young engineers do not develop clients, unless exceptional. Older engineers develop and maintain clients because of the confidence they give and the experience they bring to the issues. That is less quantifiable than billable time.
Sure, but that's just saying, "Your mileage may vary." Yes, you may wind up in a company that has no concept of "valued" employee, in which case, it doesn't matter whether you're competent or not.
Or, you may wind up at a company that takes its engineering seriously, and will only slough off the least valuable employee, in which case, your competence will have a direct bearing on your longevity at the company.
Given that you do not know, apriori, which company, or companies, you'll work for over the course of your career, isn't it prudent, then, for you to be as valuable as possible, to minimize the probability of getting sacked? 50% probability of getting a layoff notice has got to be better than 100% probability of getting a layoff notice, no?
TTFN
FAQ731-376
Or, you may wind up at a company that takes its engineering seriously, and will only slough off the least valuable employee, in which case, your competence will have a direct bearing on your longevity at the company.
Given that you do not know, apriori, which company, or companies, you'll work for over the course of your career, isn't it prudent, then, for you to be as valuable as possible, to minimize the probability of getting sacked? 50% probability of getting a layoff notice has got to be better than 100% probability of getting a layoff notice, no?
TTFN
FAQ731-376
IRstuff -
But No's. 26, & 27 weren't incompetent - they were just unlucky. The final cuts came down to splitting hairs as to respective +'s / -'s. Having kept in touch over the years, one is a VP of a company in the Twin Cities and the other has had a successful career with a manufacturing company for 20+ years (his 2nd position after the layoffs).
[And actually, only a handful of the first layoffs
were incompetent.]
Not that if I had been cut loose I would be a VP (never wnated to be management), but after the initial shock (and we 3 all had young kids about the same ages) they got on with their careers about 3 years before the office was closed in the first take-over I mentioned above. I got out on with my career when the handwriting was on the wall.
GJC
But No's. 26, & 27 weren't incompetent - they were just unlucky. The final cuts came down to splitting hairs as to respective +'s / -'s. Having kept in touch over the years, one is a VP of a company in the Twin Cities and the other has had a successful career with a manufacturing company for 20+ years (his 2nd position after the layoffs).
[And actually, only a handful of the first layoffs
were incompetent.]
Not that if I had been cut loose I would be a VP (never wnated to be management), but after the initial shock (and we 3 all had young kids about the same ages) they got on with their careers about 3 years before the office was closed in the first take-over I mentioned above. I got out on with my career when the handwriting was on the wall.
GJC
Again, your mileage may vary.
We just laid off 4 people in our group, and the rationale was based on competence, and overall value to the company. So, for every example you may have of capricious layoffs, there is probably and example of an agonizingly thought out one.
But, I was merely affirming, "you need to be good at what you do." The bottom line is still, that if you are not good at what you do, you will most likely get the ax sooner, rather than later.
Obviously, I can just as easily come up with examples where it made a difference, and examples where it didn't. So, it boils down to whether anyone can rationally argue that you should go through your career NOT being good at what you do. Regardless of what examples there may be, or may not be, is there any advantage to being incompetent?
TTFN
FAQ731-376
We just laid off 4 people in our group, and the rationale was based on competence, and overall value to the company. So, for every example you may have of capricious layoffs, there is probably and example of an agonizingly thought out one.
But, I was merely affirming, "you need to be good at what you do." The bottom line is still, that if you are not good at what you do, you will most likely get the ax sooner, rather than later.
Obviously, I can just as easily come up with examples where it made a difference, and examples where it didn't. So, it boils down to whether anyone can rationally argue that you should go through your career NOT being good at what you do. Regardless of what examples there may be, or may not be, is there any advantage to being incompetent?
TTFN
FAQ731-376
-
1
- #49
moltenmetal
Chemical
Would I encourage a young person to study engineering? If they really know what it is and are passionate about it, yes I’d encourage them. If they have a number of options, no clear interest, are good in math and science and have heard engineering’s a good gig, I’d disabuse them of that notion and send them off toward something else.
Engineering will always be a good gig for a few talented, passionate people. It ideally suits my personal interests and aptitudes. But for most, engineering education is a slightly souped-up science education masquerading as training for a real profession.
With only ~30% of Canadian engineering graduates working in anything related to engineering per the 2006 census, it would appear that the Canadian labour marketplace agrees with me. There is no generalized shortage of engineers, nor any dire need to recruit people into our “profession”- in fact, quite the opposite is true. Engineering has become the new liberal arts education- pretty much useless in and of itself, but providing training in logical analysis, problem solving etc. that businesses desire in young grads. That makes me very sad.
Engineering would be a far better career choice if we STOPPED recruiting, and educated only a number reasonably matched to what our labour force actually needs. Based on my observation of engineers’ need for validation and a sense of self-importance, this is extremely unlikely to happen, ever. We’re like the mutated scientists in the Far Side cartoon, offering a hit from the flask to the only normal guy left in the lab.
The observations about the “grass is greener” issues in other professions are of course true too. Our parents’ admonition to “get an education so you can get a “real” job” appears to have been very popular! All I can say is that my high school colleagues who studied optometry took exactly the same amount of time in school to obtain their degrees as I did to get my co-op MASc, and to start they were making TWICE as much money- as associates, with no overhead to worry about. Anything even RELATED to medicine in Canada has a 99+% employment rate two years after graduation, while engineering grads have typically a lower employment rate after 2 years than the average Bachelors’ level graduate- the average of ALL grads, including such stellar job performers as fine arts, journalism etc.
Engineering will always be a good gig for a few talented, passionate people. It ideally suits my personal interests and aptitudes. But for most, engineering education is a slightly souped-up science education masquerading as training for a real profession.
With only ~30% of Canadian engineering graduates working in anything related to engineering per the 2006 census, it would appear that the Canadian labour marketplace agrees with me. There is no generalized shortage of engineers, nor any dire need to recruit people into our “profession”- in fact, quite the opposite is true. Engineering has become the new liberal arts education- pretty much useless in and of itself, but providing training in logical analysis, problem solving etc. that businesses desire in young grads. That makes me very sad.
Engineering would be a far better career choice if we STOPPED recruiting, and educated only a number reasonably matched to what our labour force actually needs. Based on my observation of engineers’ need for validation and a sense of self-importance, this is extremely unlikely to happen, ever. We’re like the mutated scientists in the Far Side cartoon, offering a hit from the flask to the only normal guy left in the lab.
The observations about the “grass is greener” issues in other professions are of course true too. Our parents’ admonition to “get an education so you can get a “real” job” appears to have been very popular! All I can say is that my high school colleagues who studied optometry took exactly the same amount of time in school to obtain their degrees as I did to get my co-op MASc, and to start they were making TWICE as much money- as associates, with no overhead to worry about. Anything even RELATED to medicine in Canada has a 99+% employment rate two years after graduation, while engineering grads have typically a lower employment rate after 2 years than the average Bachelors’ level graduate- the average of ALL grads, including such stellar job performers as fine arts, journalism etc.
On the debate of how Engineering isn't the career it once was etc. Is is me or are civil/structural and other building/infrastructure types the most vocal proponents of this view point? Maybe that field is less appealing than it used to be, maybe others are OK.
OR as IRstuff says maybe it’s more widespread, other 'professions' also at least claim that they aren't the career they used to be. I’ve heard stories about how many Doctors struggle to make a go of it due to high insurance premiums, insurance paperwork, some fields being paid less by insurance… I’ve heard stories about new law grads unable to find jobs because there is an over supply. I’ve also heard more recently of all the financial folks that are struggling and of course real estate agents with the house price bust.
To some extend this is slightly off topic, but does seem to be one of the most common reasons for people to discourage engineering.
With the current economy, and the cut backs in at least some areas of government spending, there are less and less careers that look fantastic in the short term. Long term, who knows, we can guess, try and spot trends and probably some of us will be right, but we can’t be sure.
At the end of the day, you pays your penny you takes your pick. If the world around you changes, you either change as best you can to suit it, or you fall by the wayside. Darwin would approve.
I love that quote mtu1972. My wife calls me an Oompa Loompa because of the other part of that quote.
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies: What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
OR as IRstuff says maybe it’s more widespread, other 'professions' also at least claim that they aren't the career they used to be. I’ve heard stories about how many Doctors struggle to make a go of it due to high insurance premiums, insurance paperwork, some fields being paid less by insurance… I’ve heard stories about new law grads unable to find jobs because there is an over supply. I’ve also heard more recently of all the financial folks that are struggling and of course real estate agents with the house price bust.
To some extend this is slightly off topic, but does seem to be one of the most common reasons for people to discourage engineering.
With the current economy, and the cut backs in at least some areas of government spending, there are less and less careers that look fantastic in the short term. Long term, who knows, we can guess, try and spot trends and probably some of us will be right, but we can’t be sure.
At the end of the day, you pays your penny you takes your pick. If the world around you changes, you either change as best you can to suit it, or you fall by the wayside. Darwin would approve.
I love that quote mtu1972. My wife calls me an Oompa Loompa because of the other part of that quote.
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies: What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
Moltenmetal and KENAT make some very good points.
I don't think the perception of low self-worth / low career-worth is more prevalent in Civil / Structural than in other disciplines. Mechanical sees it all the time, too. Typically, it starts with Clients saying, "There is so much fat in the design codes you don't need to look at the stress (here) or (there)."
Those kinds of comments come after a century of designing things that don't blow up or fall down; ergo, we must be doing things too conservatively and costing way too much money.
Personally, I like pressure vessels, buildings and bridges that don't move, and would like to think that most people would spend a little more to get them.
But, sadly, no...
As for my typical rebuttal to such Clients, it is often in the form of:
[BackSpace] [BackSpace] [BackSpace]
Regards,
SNORGY.
I don't think the perception of low self-worth / low career-worth is more prevalent in Civil / Structural than in other disciplines. Mechanical sees it all the time, too. Typically, it starts with Clients saying, "There is so much fat in the design codes you don't need to look at the stress (here) or (there)."
Those kinds of comments come after a century of designing things that don't blow up or fall down; ergo, we must be doing things too conservatively and costing way too much money.
Personally, I like pressure vessels, buildings and bridges that don't move, and would like to think that most people would spend a little more to get them.
But, sadly, no...
As for my typical rebuttal to such Clients, it is often in the form of:
[BackSpace] [BackSpace] [BackSpace]
Regards,
SNORGY.
mtu1972 :
I never doubted your ability. What I stated is based on my experience and still stand by it. Getting laid off in one company is not a negative reflection on the employee personally. It has more to do with the business conditions or the company's. That is where being above average helps. There is always a need for good professionals. The world has not come to a stop because of the current environment in the USA. They may be a bit difficult but not insurmountable.
You could have been laid off even you were a doctor or lawyer or even a sportsman if the "business" was not doing well.
Rafiq Bulsara
I never doubted your ability. What I stated is based on my experience and still stand by it. Getting laid off in one company is not a negative reflection on the employee personally. It has more to do with the business conditions or the company's. That is where being above average helps. There is always a need for good professionals. The world has not come to a stop because of the current environment in the USA. They may be a bit difficult but not insurmountable.
You could have been laid off even you were a doctor or lawyer or even a sportsman if the "business" was not doing well.
Rafiq Bulsara
By the way,my original response was in response to the OP.
Rafiq Bulsara
Rafiq Bulsara
Snorgy, I was trying to imply that my category of whiners ;-) included those of a mechanical nature that work in closely related fields.
Maybe I should have said non-exempt instead but I'm sure I'd have still offended someone.
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies: What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
Maybe I should have said non-exempt instead but I'm sure I'd have still offended someone.
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies: What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
Maybe we are a little off topic, but here is my two cents:
Cabraham has it right, “there is always room at the top”, if you excel at what you do, you will always have a place. This isn’t to say that if you are great at what you do you won’t be laid off, canned for political or some other trivial reason or underappreciated, but it does mean you will have the talent to move on to bigger and better things (where as if you are incompetent, it could be back to the labour pool.)
Is engineering a declining profession that doesn’t get any respect? Absolutely. But do we deserve respect just for being engineers? Absolutely not, respect is something that should be earned, not given with a title, unless the gaining of that title is and of itself a proving ground and more and more professions are abandoning the education as a proving ground. The Engineering program was tougher than the sciences or arts, but it wasn’t like we were going through Harvard Med. I breezed through, as did most of my classmates, some of whom could not think their way out of a phone booth if they had a map. I recently had a conversation with a masters grad in electrical engineering who spent 10 min. trying to explain to me what a FAN was (YUP, the ones that go round-and-round), either he is a moron, or thinks I am a moron, but either way not the most respect inspiring conversation. The Universities are falling to the lowest common denominator accepting, and pushing through, anyone with the tuition and a slight aptitude for math and the whole profession is suffering from it. If we want respect, just for being engineers, then we need to make the program a mandatory masters, (6 years should do) followed by a mandatory internship (much like doctors) and crank up the difficulty and expectations. I know the associations make an attempt at it, but they need to get tougher and start making cuts.
As far as where your kids should go, for 99% of the population work is work (if it was fun, you would volunteer; ), but you should still do what you love. In the absence of loving anything use the algorithm of life selector. Make a list of all the jobs you would be good at, rate them for how much you think you would enjoy them, disregard anything below a 7, and then pick the one that affords you the lifestyle you want (Engineers make more money, but teachers get 2 months off in the summer, plus Christmas and spring break... tough call for me). Then if you find you picked wrong, never be afraid to abandon ship and try again.
Cabraham has it right, “there is always room at the top”, if you excel at what you do, you will always have a place. This isn’t to say that if you are great at what you do you won’t be laid off, canned for political or some other trivial reason or underappreciated, but it does mean you will have the talent to move on to bigger and better things (where as if you are incompetent, it could be back to the labour pool.)
Is engineering a declining profession that doesn’t get any respect? Absolutely. But do we deserve respect just for being engineers? Absolutely not, respect is something that should be earned, not given with a title, unless the gaining of that title is and of itself a proving ground and more and more professions are abandoning the education as a proving ground. The Engineering program was tougher than the sciences or arts, but it wasn’t like we were going through Harvard Med. I breezed through, as did most of my classmates, some of whom could not think their way out of a phone booth if they had a map. I recently had a conversation with a masters grad in electrical engineering who spent 10 min. trying to explain to me what a FAN was (YUP, the ones that go round-and-round), either he is a moron, or thinks I am a moron, but either way not the most respect inspiring conversation. The Universities are falling to the lowest common denominator accepting, and pushing through, anyone with the tuition and a slight aptitude for math and the whole profession is suffering from it. If we want respect, just for being engineers, then we need to make the program a mandatory masters, (6 years should do) followed by a mandatory internship (much like doctors) and crank up the difficulty and expectations. I know the associations make an attempt at it, but they need to get tougher and start making cuts.
As far as where your kids should go, for 99% of the population work is work (if it was fun, you would volunteer; ), but you should still do what you love. In the absence of loving anything use the algorithm of life selector. Make a list of all the jobs you would be good at, rate them for how much you think you would enjoy them, disregard anything below a 7, and then pick the one that affords you the lifestyle you want (Engineers make more money, but teachers get 2 months off in the summer, plus Christmas and spring break... tough call for me). Then if you find you picked wrong, never be afraid to abandon ship and try again.
Keith1029:
Well said.
The bottom line is that you cannot always blame other or other things for your status. May be temporarily. How you handle the situation is what makes the difference. How you emerge from difficult situation is solely dependent on you and your skills. Luck always plays a part but you cannot count on it.
I do not believe engineering is so unstable that I will pull my kids away from it, because there is no profession that guarantees stability. If you alone happens to be out of work, the rest of world's stability does not matter. Likewise a few people's bad luck does not make the whole profession unworthy.
In fact the grass appears greener on other sides because we are not aware of the causalities in those fields. Only thing we see are the successful people!
Rafiq Bulsara
Well said.
The bottom line is that you cannot always blame other or other things for your status. May be temporarily. How you handle the situation is what makes the difference. How you emerge from difficult situation is solely dependent on you and your skills. Luck always plays a part but you cannot count on it.
I do not believe engineering is so unstable that I will pull my kids away from it, because there is no profession that guarantees stability. If you alone happens to be out of work, the rest of world's stability does not matter. Likewise a few people's bad luck does not make the whole profession unworthy.
In fact the grass appears greener on other sides because we are not aware of the causalities in those fields. Only thing we see are the successful people!
Rafiq Bulsara
A perfect example of that is the real estate market, a very cyclical industry. It's often exemplified by gigantic boom times, wherein massive numbers of people get real estate licenses, only to be burned by the inevitable bust. Only those that are really good at it and passionate about it are able to tough it out to the next uptrend.
When I got my degree, it was just after the massive defense recession of the early 70's; the next youngest engineer at most defense companies was in their early 30's. So massive numbers of engineers bailed out of the defense industry. Yet, it's proven to be remarkably stable in the last 30 yrs, despite party changes and whatnot. But, regardless, I wouldn't claim that it'll remain stable, either.
TTFN
FAQ731-376
When I got my degree, it was just after the massive defense recession of the early 70's; the next youngest engineer at most defense companies was in their early 30's. So massive numbers of engineers bailed out of the defense industry. Yet, it's proven to be remarkably stable in the last 30 yrs, despite party changes and whatnot. But, regardless, I wouldn't claim that it'll remain stable, either.
TTFN
FAQ731-376
It seems to me from reading this thread that engineering falls down when compared to some people's ideal of what engineering *should* be, or how they perceive engineering used to be.
Forget about that. Forget about what you think it should be or was. How is it compared to other fields as they are now (and not how they're hyped up to be)?
As others have said, it's not like other professions are ideal either. Some years ago, my family was giving me crap because the neighbor kid, a decade my junior, had gotten a six-figure finance job and here I was at my dinky government job. Where was that kid working? Lehmann Brothers.
Besides, even if the finance sector had not gone through its current woes, does the fact that the neighbor kid was pulling $$$K mean that I chose the wrong field? Hell no. I would be dead of boredom before I ever finished my finance degree, let alone obtained the cushy job that I would also find dreadful.
Medicine? Not for the squeamish. And the education process is long and brutal. Law? Thought about it. But it's not all Armani suits and three-martini lunches. The real high-dollar jobs require almost as full-time a commitment as the priesthood, and the "noble" side of law pays very little. So for all of you who are dismissing engineering as a whole, I repeat what others have asked--what are these mythical jobs that are so much better and are so much more a guarantee for success and respect?
Moltenmetal, you keep bringing up how only 1/3 of engineering graduates in Canada are working in engineering now. Did that study get into any of the reasons for that? You tend to use that statistic as if it meant that 2/3 of them wanted engineering jobs but couldn't find them. But for some people, engineering school, either by plan or by change of plan, turns into a stepping stone for something else. They go off, by choice, to med school or law school or they decide to teach high school or they get their MBA and get into project management or they decide to be stay-at-home parents or they go into their parents' retail business. How many philosophy majors are philosophizing after graduation? How many English majors are writing for a living?
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376
Forget about that. Forget about what you think it should be or was. How is it compared to other fields as they are now (and not how they're hyped up to be)?
As others have said, it's not like other professions are ideal either. Some years ago, my family was giving me crap because the neighbor kid, a decade my junior, had gotten a six-figure finance job and here I was at my dinky government job. Where was that kid working? Lehmann Brothers.
Besides, even if the finance sector had not gone through its current woes, does the fact that the neighbor kid was pulling $$$K mean that I chose the wrong field? Hell no. I would be dead of boredom before I ever finished my finance degree, let alone obtained the cushy job that I would also find dreadful.
Medicine? Not for the squeamish. And the education process is long and brutal. Law? Thought about it. But it's not all Armani suits and three-martini lunches. The real high-dollar jobs require almost as full-time a commitment as the priesthood, and the "noble" side of law pays very little. So for all of you who are dismissing engineering as a whole, I repeat what others have asked--what are these mythical jobs that are so much better and are so much more a guarantee for success and respect?
Moltenmetal, you keep bringing up how only 1/3 of engineering graduates in Canada are working in engineering now. Did that study get into any of the reasons for that? You tend to use that statistic as if it meant that 2/3 of them wanted engineering jobs but couldn't find them. But for some people, engineering school, either by plan or by change of plan, turns into a stepping stone for something else. They go off, by choice, to med school or law school or they decide to teach high school or they get their MBA and get into project management or they decide to be stay-at-home parents or they go into their parents' retail business. How many philosophy majors are philosophizing after graduation? How many English majors are writing for a living?
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
