Hot and safe engineering majors

sakky · May 30, 2006, 1:29am

Because much of that same 80% also hates everything else. They hate English, they hate History, they hate everything.

So unless we are going to advocate that these people simply drop out completely, then these people have to do something. Since they’re going to end up doing something they hate anyway (because they hate to study anything at all), they might as well pick up some money while they’re doing it.

Again, see above. If they were really interested in the truly easiest way possible, then they would have never gone to college at all. The simple act of going to college, for many of these students, is to put up with something that they don’t like in order to improve their job prospects later. It’s like choosing to go to the gym. Lots of people don’t like to work out, but they do it anyway because they know that that’s how you get in shape. It’s all about delayed gratification.

So since these people have already signed up for delayed gratification anyway, why shouldn’t they want to study something that will improve their job prospects?

Engineering is by no means an easy major and your average student today would rather not be stressed out all of the time studying a subject that they probably don’t like and can’t get. This student will have a much easier time studying something else in college and enjoy life a lot more, and frankly, these students still have plenty of opportunities to have successful careers with salaries rivaling that of engineering students (that is not to say that starting salaries will be the same, but you have to look at this in the long run). I see no reason why a student should study engineering simply because they have the mental capacity to do so, even if they are indifferent about the subject matter, there are still plenty of options once you graduate with say an econ degree (something that can be obtained much easier than an engineering degree).

First off, I disagree that economics is inherently that much easier than engineering is. Again, you have to look at all of the no-name engineering programs out there. Most of them are pretty easy to complete. It doesn’t take a genius to complete one of those programs.

Furthermore, like I said, it’s all about delayed gratification. If these people were really doing what they wanted, a lot of them wouldn’t even be going to college at all. Since they have made the decision to suck it up and put up with something that they don’t like for awhile, then the answer is for them to increase their marketability.

And how many people really want to study math? Or, getting back to what I’ve been saying before, how many people really want to study anything at all? Again, a lot of these students don’t even really want to be in college at all. But since they’ve decided to do it anyway, they might as well get something marketable. Otherwise, they can simply drop out completely, which is what a lot of them would honestly prefer to do if they had their way.

Like I said, I can see how SOME people who are interested in physics/math would not like engineering. But I think you would agree that there are some people who are quite indifferent to any of them. For these people, they are probably better off getting the engineering degree.

Wrongo. The key aspect that you missed is that astronomers, chemists, and physicists invariably need to get advanced degrees to get jobs, usually needing their PhD. The BLS study demonstrates this. There are practically no jobs available for people who have just BS degrees in physics or astronomy. Like you said, the Money study pulls largely from the BLS.

“Because most jobs [in physics and astronomy] are in basic research and development, a doctoral degree is the usual educational requirement for physicists and astronomers.”

<a href=“http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos052.htm#training[/url]”>http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos052.htm#training</a>

Chemistry is more open to people who hold only bachelor’s degrees, but still, the fact is, many jobs require advanced degrees.

“A bachelors degree in chemistry or a related discipline usually is the minimum educational requirement for entry-level chemist jobs. However, many research jobs require a masters degree, or more often a Ph.D”

<a href=“http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos049.htm#training[/url]”>http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos049.htm#training</a>

The same is true of mathematicians:

"A Ph.D. degree in mathematics usually is the minimum educational requirement for prospective mathematicians, except in the Federal Government. In the Federal Government, entry-level job candidates usually must have a 4-year degree with a major in mathematics or a 4-year degree with the equivalent of a mathematics major24 semester hours of mathematics courses.

In private industry, candidates for mathematician jobs typically need a Ph.D., although there may be opportunities for those with a masters degree."

<a href=“http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos043.htm#training[/url]”>http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos043.htm#training</a>

This is not true in engineering, where those who hold only bachelor’s degrees have a wide range of employment possibilities available to them.

“Graduate training is essential for engineering faculty positions and many research and development programs, but is not required for the majority of entry-level engineering jobs”

<a href=“http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#training[/url]”>http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#training</a>

So, sure, if you’re willing to stick it out to at least the master’s degree level, or probably the PhD level, then sure, I agree that physics, chemistry, mathematics, and the like can offer a good career. But come on. How many people out there really have the wherewithal to stick it out that far? Like I said, most college students don’t even really want to be studying anything at all.

The bottom line is that you can do far more with just a bachelor’s degree in engineering than you can with just a bachelor’s degree in a natural science or math. And the vast majority of college grads will stop at the bachelor’s degree.

First off, it doesn’t really matter if careers reach the same plateau. Those who have studied finance will understand the principle of the time-value of money: basically, that money earned early on in your life is more valuable than money earned later, because money that you earn later in your life can be invested to earn you even more money later. So the engineer who starts making good money right from the start can invest that money, either in mutual funds, or in real-estate (i.e. buying a house), and thus become better off in the future than a guy who ‘eventually’ catches up. In other words, this guy is stockpiling money into his retirement savings right from the start. Contrast that with some Art History guy who makes very little money in the beginning. This guy may eventually catch up in salary, but all of those early years of not making much money means that he has less savings built up.

Secondly, there is clearly no guarantee that you ever will plateau at the same level as the engineer. Again, the classical example is that of the liberal arts major. I know liberal arts majors who have spent years basically ‘in the wilderness’ - hopping from temp job to temp job, with no stability and no real career path. Contrast that with the engineer who has built up a steady work history and now has opportunities to get into management, or get an MBA, or get into sales, or so forth. That’s a solid career.

For example, I know a liberal arts guy who has worked at the mall, then worked as a security guard at a supermarket, then worked construction, then worked night-shift at FedEx, and a bunch of other odd jobs that I can’t even remember. It’s been years like this, with no end in sight. That’s because his liberal arts degree is basically worthless. He doesn’t have a career history that is going to inspire anybody to give him a good job. He freely and loudly regrets not having majored in something more practical - even to the point where he once loudly said to all of his friends something to the effect of ‘Why didn’t you guys smack me in the head and force me to major in something more marketable?’

sakky · May 30, 2006, 1:30am

Look, don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that EVERYBODY should study engineering/CS. Like I said, if you loathe those subjects, you shouldn’t study it. However, I am certainly saying that there are a lot of college students out there right now who would be better off studying them. Not ALL, but SOME. Because many of them will end up not finding work as liberal arts grads and then regretting their choice.

Here’s an analogy you would appreciate. I believe that US health-care would improve if more people got out and jogged every day. Yes, jogging is an unpleasant activity for many people and many people won’t want to do it. And obviously there are some people, i.e. people with bad legs, people with heart conditions, who should not do this. But in general, the country would be better off medically if more people went out and jogged. It may not be pleasant, it may not be fun, but it would improve the general public health. I know a lot of old people who are suffering from health-care maladies who regret not having taken better care of themselves when they were younger. The same could be said about vices like smoking and drinking. The country would be better off if more people chose to stop smoking and stop drinking. Quitting smoking and quitting drinking are difficult choices to make, but it would make a lot of people better off in the long run.

Look, the point is this. I see a lot of people being quite short-sighted in the way that they choose their major. I see a lot of people choosing a major for very short-sighted reasons. I agree that if you really really like a major, then you should pursue it. But we all know that a lot of people are choosing majors not because they really like it. They choose it just because it seems like the easy thing to do, or because they never really bothered to see what they really want to do with the major, etc. For example, I know a guy who chose a particular major only because a girl that he liked happened to be in that major, and so he chose that major basically as an opportunity to hit on that girl (and then that girl ended up marrying some other guy anyway). It’s like people choosing to smoke just because they see their friends doing it or because they want to seem “cool”. Then decades later, many of them will be dying of lung cancer and questioning why they ever made the decision to start smoking. That parallels my examples of the guys I know who chose liberal arts majors and are now stuck working in the mall and asking themselves why they didn’t major in something more marketable. I’ve seen it happen.

Hence, what I am saying is that one of the more marketable majors - i.e. engineering, accounting, CS, nursing, etc. - should probably be a ‘default’ major. You should choose to study something else only if you have a truly compelling reason to do so. But if you don’t, then stay with one of the more marketable majors. You don’t want to be one of these guys who majors in something unmarketable then gets stuck working in the mall, regretting his choices.

MR_JR · May 30, 2006, 1:35pm

sakky, you yourself have admitted that, for example, a math major or physics major can do what an engineer does (and vice versa). yet you suggest that you should not do these majors unless you have a real passion for them as you are likely to enjoy engineering anyway which is apparently a safer bet. well hold on here, you’re saying that a math degree is not “marketable” without further study, but as you can do anything an engineer or CS major would with a bachelors (hey even you said that a number of courses are cross listed) why do you think that? And if you’re talking about not marketable without further study for research and academical careers, then enlighten me as to which schools have professors that do not hold Phd’s.

I’m just using math as an example, though I understand ur point about lib arts etc btw

epoch_dreams · May 30, 2006, 6:34pm

First of all, I’ve attended a lower, unranked engineering college and transferred to a top engineering school so I’ve experienced life in both settings. Anyways the point is I can back up what I’m talking about.

I don’t know if getting a 4.0 in engineering is necessarily easy even at the lower ranked schools like montana tech. I’ve taken engineering courses at at an unranked college when I was back in Edmond, Oklahoma and let me tell you kids there in engineering were quite smart and classes were quite difficult.

I’ve transferred and attended Cal-tech where obviously engineering courses are harder but classes weren’t cake back there. What’s interesting is the notion that somehow if you major in engineering at a lower unranked college, your classmates aren’t going to be that smart and that getting a 4.0 is going to be a breeze. I can tell you from experience this presumption is not only incorrect, it’s very misleading. Engineering courses are hard, regardless where you take them. The subject itself gets highly technical and nasty.

Almost everyone I met in engineering who didn’t intend on persuing engineering after graduation was grade deflated and their options were cut short. The highest GPA I’ve met in chemical engineering was a 3.5 and even then he said that he was having a hell of a time getting into medical school with that when competing against people with 4.0’s and tons of ec’s (you don’t have a lot of time to do ec’s if you’re a chemE).

I think engineering is a bad idea unless you actually, really want to be an engineer. Doing it for a back-up profession is okay is long as you know that you can get top grades in the subject so you can persue other careers down the line like medicine, law, business, etc… But let me say that VERY few people can pull top grades in engineering, even at lower ranked colleges. There’s a reason why employers recruit engineers at just about any college with a solid upper middle class salary - it’s because engineering is hard regardless of where you go. There’s only so many ways you can simplify thermodynamics or Electrical engineering circuits.

spe07 · May 30, 2006, 8:53pm

"Because much of that same 80% also hates everything else. They hate English, they hate History, they hate everything.

So unless we are going to advocate that these people simply drop out completely, then these people have to do something. Since they’re going to end up doing something they hate anyway (because they hate to study anything at all), they might as well pick up some money while they’re doing it."

First, I would argue that every student has a preference for courses that they would like to take and nearly all of them would prefer things like psych and econ to physics and math. Just because you claim they hate everything does not mean that they hate everything to the same extent and they would much rather prefer to major in something else.

Also, a person with that mentality will not survive in an engineering program even at your “low-level” school. To successfully complete an engineering degree requires some amount of dedication, these students do not have it and would probably fail out or have such low gpas that no one would want them.

“If they were really interested in the truly easiest way possible, then they would have never gone to college at all.”

I disagree with this statement. Our culture has emphasized the importance of a college education to the point that your common student thinks that it is necessary to be somewhat successful. Your typical high school student thinks that obtaining a college degree will open up substantially more doors than just a high school diploma. In my opinion, they truly think that they easiest possible way to achieve the best life is by going to college and studying anything.

I agree that people are driven by money but I argue that the typical student thinks that the easiest way to get this money is by going to college even if they are going to study something that we may think is useless. I think that they believe a college degree will leave them with a much more luxorious lifestyle than just a high school degree and for that reason it is the easiest option to suffer a few years financially while in college in order to better themselves. I realize that they still may end up being stuck in crappy jobs after getting their degree but your typical high school student dreams big and thinks a college degree will empower them to do anything.

“First off, I disagree that economics is inherently that much easier than engineering is. Again, you have to look at all of the no-name engineering programs out there. Most of them are pretty easy to complete. It doesn’t take a genius to complete one of those programs.”

I whole heartedly believe that economics is inherently easier than engineering. You keep refering to these no name engineering schools, but if a student is forced to go to a no-name engineering schoo, then they will definately be going to a no-name economics school, which in my opinion will be much easier than an engineering degree at a comparable school. After all, most engineering programs are ABET certified meaning that they have to meet specific standards (which does include difficulty/grading of homeworks and exams, the school has to submit graded hws and exams).

“And how many people really want to study math? Or, getting back to what I’ve been saying before, how many people really want to study anything at all? Again, a lot of these students don’t even really want to be in college at all. But since they’ve decided to do it anyway, they might as well get something marketable. Otherwise, they can simply drop out completely, which is what a lot of them would honestly prefer to do if they had their way”

First, I am only using math as an example, I think much of this could be applied to other majors as well.

Second, I think the mentality of your typical teenager is that they must tough it out threw college to make their life easier, I really think that in their minds dropping out would not be favorable to them because most of them realize that with no college degree they are not going to do so well.

“Like I said, I can see how SOME people who are interested in physics/math would not like engineering. But I think you would agree that there are some people who are quite indifferent to any of them. For these people, they are probably better off getting the engineering degree.”

I do not agree that the students studying physics and math are indifferent about engineering. I believe they sincerely like physics and math more than engineering, that is why they are doing. That is not to say that if they were forced to change majors to something else that their next choice would be engineering, but its their next choice, not exactly what they want to do.

“Wrongo. The key aspect that you missed is that astronomers, chemists, and physicists invariably need to get advanced degrees to get jobs, usually needing their PhD. The BLS study demonstrates this. There are practically no jobs available for people who have just BS degrees in physics or astronomy. Like you said, the Money study pulls largely from the BLS.”

Point taken, but that still doesn’t change the fact that with a degree in any of the physical sciences you can enter any industry you want (including engineering, business, law, med., etc.) so I still do not see the added marketability of engineering over these fields. And I realize that going into law, med, etc. requires advanced degrees, but if an engineer wanted to get into any of these fields they too would need to get an advanced degree. A degree in physical sciences leaves just as many doors open as engineering.

“The bottom line is that you can do far more with just a bachelor’s degree in engineering than you can with just a bachelor’s degree in a natural science or math.”

Like what?

"First off, it doesn’t really matter if careers reach the same plateau. Those who have studied finance will understand the principle of the time-value of money: basically, that money earned early on in your life is more valuable than money earned later, because money that you earn later in your life can be invested to earn you even more money later. So the engineer who starts making good money right from the start can invest that money, either in mutual funds, or in real-estate (i.e. buying a house), and thus become better off in the future than a guy who ‘eventually’ catches up. In other words, this guy is stockpiling money into his retirement savings right from the start. Contrast that with some Art History guy who makes very little money in the beginning. This guy may eventually catch up in salary, but all of those early years of not making much money means that he has less savings built up. "

I think the difference between starting at 50k to 40k is going to be quite small. A young employee in an engineering firm will probably waste a good portion of that 10k on useless necessities, after all your typical student just wants to live well, right? Most of these people don’t think about savings at this time and are more concerned about living luxoriously, 50k is a lot of money for someone who is used to be payed 6-10 dollars an hour.

“I know liberal arts majors who have spent years basically ‘in the wilderness’ - hopping from temp job to temp job, with no stability and no real career path. Contrast that with the engineer who has built up a steady work history and now has opportunities to get into management, or get an MBA, or get into sales, or so forth. That’s a solid career.”

I know engineers (several actually) who have been laid off 5-10 years out of school and can’t find another engineering job, and have difficulty finding other jobs because they have no experience and no education outside of engineering, because the fact is they only have a BS in engineering with a finite “shelf life” that is no longer valuable to a company. An engineer with 5-10 years of experience is goinig to expect higher pay than an entry level engineer, but provides very little added bonus to the company so they are forced to change careers.

On the other hand I know several liberal arts majors who have jumped from job to job for a few years until they land something they love and is a good fit for them. They, just like your engineering example, tend to jump into management positions, are offered the opportunitiy to get an MBA, get into sales, and so forth. That too is a solid career.

“He freely and loudly regrets not having majored in something more practical”

I know several practicing engineers who have said that if they could do it all over again they would not have majored in engineering as well. There are two sides to every story.

First you say:

“Because much of that same 80% also hates everything else”

Then you say

“if you loathe those subjects, you shouldn’t study it.”

These statements contradict themselves. So which is it?

“Hence, what I am saying is that one of the more marketable majors - i.e. engineering, accounting, CS, nursing, etc. - should probably be a ‘default’ major. You should choose to study something else only if you have a truly compelling reason to do so. But if you don’t, then stay with one of the more marketable majors.”

This whole time that I’ve been refering to 40k starting salary jobs I have been refering to majors such as accounting, finance, nursing, etc. I was never talking about liberal arts majors (as I mentioned a few posts ago). I have been claiming this whole time that there are a lot more degrees that are marketable other than engineering, and you have been basically arguing otherwise. I could be misinterpreting what you have been saying, but this statement appears to contradict much of what you have been arguign this whole time

unggio83 · May 31, 2006, 1:57pm

sakky enjoys using a strawman fallacy.

everytime we mention a good pt why engineering is bad or a great alternative, he will mention “but look at the fine arts majors” and then focus 99% of his online essays based on why fine arts sucks.

nobody disagrees with him on the fact that fine arts majors suck and engineering is better, therefore cuz everybody agrees with him on that one point, he thinks he won the argument.

however, he never answered or countered your original proposition cuz he reframed the topic into something that everyone will agree to even if it’s not really relevant to the original topic.

good job sakky
bravo!!

cherrybarry · May 31, 2006, 7:35pm

strawman fallacy…ooo…ooo…ooo…OOO i’m so impressed!!! 
bows down
:-/

unggio83 · May 31, 2006, 8:46pm

it’s okay, i wouldn’t expect you to be able to follow a logical debate considering your level of intelligence

don’t feel bad, it’s not your fault
some of us are just born with it and some aren’t

unggio83 · June 1, 2006, 2:44pm

sakky why aren’t you countering spe07’s post?

sakky · June 1, 2006, 5:43pm

Unggio83, I don’t come here every day, you know.

I don’t think so. There are plenty of students who would prefer physics or math to the other subjects. After all, physics and math have one major advantage going for them, which is that they are straightforward. You don’t have to argue your points. If you get a question right, then you got it right. There is no debate.

In something like psychology (since you brought it up), let’s face it, a lot of the grading has to do with writing papers in which you have to argue a point and the grading tends to be rather subjective. You never really know if you got something right or not, and you can argue a point until the cows come home. For example, most of Freud’s ideas sounded good at the time but only decades after he was dead, were shown to be wrong. At the same time, there were other psychologists in history who had far more accurate theories, but nobody listened to them when they were proposing them.

The same can be said for economics. Look how much political debate there is about what is the ‘right’ economics to follow - neoclassical vs. neoliberal, Keynesian vs. the Austrian School, etc. Hence, a lot of your grading in economics is based on subjective criteria. Your ideas may be 100% right, but if your prof just doesn’t like your ideas, you may get a bad grade. It depends on whether the prof can divorce his preferences from his grading. Some can, some cannot.

Which leads to another major difference. A lot of the grading and work in psych and econ, especially in the smaller schools (i.e. the LAC’s) often times hinges on things like class discussion. It has a lot to do with being able to communicate your ideas. And the fact is, a lot of college students don’t like to participate in class discussion, either because they’re not fluent in English, or because they’re shy, or because they don’t enjoy going to class, or whatever. In physics/math, you rarely have to worry about being graded on class discussion.

I’ll put it to you this way. I personally know quite a few people who have completed engineering degrees at MIT, despite the fact that they have freely admitted that they never liked it. MIT is the toughest engineering school in the country. So if people can complete engineering degrees there without ever really liking it, why is it so hard to believe that people can complete engineering degrees at no-name schools even if they don’t like it?

I disagree with this statement. Our culture has emphasized the importance of a college education to the point that your common student thinks that it is necessary to be somewhat successful. Your typical high school student thinks that obtaining a college degree will open up substantially more doors than just a high school diploma. In my opinion, they truly think that they easiest possible way to achieve the best life is by going to college and studying anything. 

I agree that people are driven by money but I argue that the typical student thinks that the easiest way to get this money is by going to college even if they are going to study something that we may think is useless. I think that they believe a college degree will leave them with a much more luxorious lifestyle than just a high school degree and for that reason it is the easiest option to suffer a few years financially while in college in order to better themselves. I realize that they still may end up being stuck in crappy jobs after getting their degree but your typical high school student dreams big and thinks a college degree will empower them to do anything.

But you just said it right there. People are coming to college because they are trying to better themselves. Then some of them (not all, but some) realize that if they really want to better themselves, then they have to study something that is marketable.

No, it does not. I think you have to concede that a guy with an engineering degree is clearly going to have an easier time getting an engineering job than a guy with a natural science degree. Can the latter guy get an engineering job? Yes. Just like the engineer can get a physicist job. But the point is, it is HARDER.

I’ll give you a case in point. At Career Services at Berkeley, companies specifically state the majors that they will interview during recruiting spots. I distinctly remember that many engineering companies specifically said that they would recruit only engineering majors, meaning that only engineering students could sign up for their recruiting slots. Hence, if you were majoring in physics or chemistry or mathematics, then you would not be eligible to sign up for those slots. Now, obviously going through campus recruiting was not the only way to get hired at those companies. There are other ways. But the point is, it’s a far more DIRECT way to get hired.

I know engineers (several actually) who have been laid off 5-10 years out of school and can’t find another engineering job, and have difficulty finding other jobs because they have no experience and no education outside of engineering, because the fact is they only have a BS in engineering with a finite “shelf life” that is no longer valuable to a company. An engineer with 5-10 years of experience is goinig to expect higher pay than an entry level engineer, but provides very little added bonus to the company so they are forced to change careers. 

On the other hand I know several liberal arts majors who have jumped from job to job for a few years until they land something they love and is a good fit for them. They, just like your engineering example, tend to jump into management positions, are offered the opportunitiy to get an MBA, get into sales, and so forth. That too is a solid career.

By the same token, I have heard of guys who have smoked 2 packs a day and have lived to be over 90 years old. But that doesn’t mean that I think that smoking is healthy. Even they would not say that.

Look, we have to look at the TRENDS. Engineers tend to have more stable career paths than do liberal arts students. Does that mean that engineers always have jobs? Of course not. Except for maybe tenured professors, nobody always has a job. But engineers tend to have more stable careers. Sure, engineers can be laid off. But so can liberal arts students. Anybody can be laid off. But at least the engineer can find a decent job to start. It’s better to have a decent starting job, and then get laid off, then to never have a decent starting job at all. For example, I know liberal arts majors who ended up working at the mall, and got laid off from those jobs. At least, the engineer is highly unlikely to start off working at the mall.

Yeah, but would they have majored in a liberal art instead? That seems unlikely.

Let me clarify. What I mean is that if you are indifferent to all majors, as many students are, then you should prefer something marketable. Since you have no love for anything anyway, you might as well choose something that is marketable.

Uh, no. I believe that you were talking about the marketability of things like physics or math.

But fair enough. Look, my point is, I believe a lot of these liberal arts majors should be choosing to major in something else more marketable, and engineering could be that something else. I never said I had anything against nursing or accounting or any of those other fields. However, my point is that engineering is more marketable than what a lot of people are currently doing (which is the liberal arts).

sakky · June 1, 2006, 5:44pm

Uh, I think it is YOU that is using the strawman argument. If you look at my posts, you will see that my discussion focuses on ALL of the liberal arts (with the possible exception of economics), with the fine arts being just one example. But hey, if you don’t like fine arts, then we can use psychology. Psych majors, according to CNN, make 25k to start. Psych is not one of the ‘fine arts’. Do you recommend that people major in psychology?

Look, the liberal arts (sans economics) encompass probably at least 75% of all current college students, and probably a lot higher than that. Hence, you have to agree that the vast majority of all college students out there are majoring in something that is not particularly marketable.

So let me make it clear for you. You have engineering on the one hand. Let’s call that ‘A’. You have things like psychology,sociology, history, political science, English, art, music, dance, theater, Latin, philosophy, film, anthropology, religion, linguistics, classics, ethnic studies, and all of the other liberal arts. Let’s call that ‘B’.

2 questions for you:

Which one has more students majoring in those fields, A or B?

Which one is more marketable, A or B?

I think it’s hard to escape the conclusion that the vast majority of people out there are getting bachelor’s degrees that are not highly marketable.

spe07 · June 1, 2006, 7:18pm

Ahah, finally took the time to figure out how to use quotes, and need to re-post what i just said

311Griff · June 1, 2006, 7:29pm

Sakky, you make good points sometimes, but you’re long winded (or shall I say typed)… so it’s hard to pay attention to your entire posts… they are so long, damn!

anyways, in regards to one point you made:

This would only hold true if both parties used their money in identical fashion… for instance, the high paid engineer could use his money to buy a bunch of toys (cars, boat, motorcycle, etc.) and not save up at all, and the art major could be investing little by little in his company’s 401K, or other good investments, and although he/she makes less money will still be better off in the long term. It’s not how much money you make, it’s how much money you keep, or in other words, it’s better to be balance sheet rich, than income statement rich.

BTW, Accounting is a good major and pays well from the start and as you get experience… although, it has nothing to do with engineering!

spe07 · June 1, 2006, 8:13pm

Math/physics is without a doubt the least popular class in any high school. That is why most students opt out of taking it for 4 years (or they drop levels to take things like discrete math) and most students don’t take physics.

Besides, the vast majority of students who actually prefer math/physics to other subjects go onto to study something that you would consider “marketable” so I really don’t think they hold to your argument.

In something like psychology (since you brought it up), let’s face it, a lot of the grading has to do with writing papers in which you have to argue a point and the grading tends to be rather subjective. You never really know if you got something right or not, and you can argue a point until the cows come home. For example, most of Freud’s ideas sounded good at the time but only decades after he was dead, were shown to be wrong. At the same time, there were other psychologists in history who had far more accurate theories, but nobody listened to them when they were proposing them. 

The same can be said for economics. Look how much political debate there is about what is the ‘right’ economics to follow - neoclassical vs. neoliberal, Keynesian vs. the Austrian School, etc. Hence, a lot of your grading in economics is based on subjective criteria. Your ideas may be 100% right, but if your prof just doesn’t like your ideas, you may get a bad grade. It depends on whether the prof can divorce his preferences from his grading. Some can, some cannot.

I think psych and econ are two of the worst examples you could use for that argument. First, at least at my school there are virtually no writing intensive classes for either of these majors whereas nearly every other humanities degree has more writing intensive classes than non writing intensive. The subjects you study in econ are for the most part proven and therefore have concrete answers. And psych is very similar to biology in that you are required to memorize a bunch of facts and spit them back on tests (most of which are even multiple choice), not papers.

It is interesting that you say in economics there is much POLITICAL debate. Because that is exactly what it is, political, the stuff political science majors will study. Econ, at least at the undergraduate level, is primarily theory and has verifiable answers just like math and physics (the whole first chapter of my micro book was defending econ as an actual science saying how it was just like physics in which you make your assumptions then solve a problem).

How many of these people never liked any subject in school, as you claim most students do, particularly math or physics in high school (not at the college level)? It is difficult (if not impossible) to compare your average student to that of someone at a top school like MIT. These students are extremely driven and motivated, otherwise they would never have gotten there (now I realize every school has their lazy bums but at schools of these calibers they are tiny minority). I would venture a guess that the students studying engineering at MIT liked math and physics in high school (or at least prefered it to most other subjects).

The same cannot be said for the vast majority of high school students, whom I already pointed out typically look for the easiest way to get out of taking math/physics classes.

And they believe any major is marketable!!! Thats the point. They think ANY college degree is a one way ticket to money, the average student doesn’t think like you and me. They aren’t concerned about the marketability of their psych or french or finance degree.

Stop refering to liberal arts majors please, as I have said several times now I am not refering to liberal arts majors, I don’t dispute the differences between nearly all liberal arts majors and engineering.

I do not know a single college bound student whom is indifferent to all majors/subjects.

A topic that you have not addressed yet is that there is a huge difference between majoring in what you would considering to be a marketable and actually succeeding in that major. Sure any student looking to major in something marketable could just pick engineering, but I really do not think your average student, that “hates every major” would ever do well in an engineering program. To the point that this highly marketable major produces an unmarketable degree. Then what are you to do.

If psych, econ, and various liberal art majors switched into my major I for one would be licking my chops at the prospective of ruining their lives on the curve. Maybe I should just keep letting you argue this so that actually happens, I would be in heaven :)

I believe I just said,

I have not just been talking about math/physics

Like I mentioned above, I would love for them to switch to engineering (and I’m sure most current engineering students would love it too) because they would bring the curve WAY down.

I don’t disagree that people shouldn’t major in something marketable, but engineering is not the end all be all of majors. These students would be much much much more successfully majoring in some other marketable major such as nursing or accounting, something that is much easier to succeed in.

Just because engineering is extremely marketable doesn’t mean its for everyone, one could argue that it is the hardest set of majors that exists, your average student just isn’t ready/can’t handle it. There are several other marketable degrees that they could obtain much easier than an engineering degree.

311Griff · June 1, 2006, 8:53pm

This statement is just further proof that engineering majors sometimes do it just to assure the rest of their community/peers/social group/friends that they are doing something “harder than You.” An attitude I can do without, honestly. Great, so you’re doing something harder than me, and you want to make sure I know that, eh martyr? Well, quite frankly… I DON"T GIVE A ****!

spe07 · June 1, 2006, 9:36pm

First, I dont know any engineers that major in it so that they can brag to their friends about how hard it is, I’m not saying they don’t (or couldn’t) exist but that mentality is not of an overwhelming majority.

Second, engineering and liberal arts degrees require very different skill sets. I sure hope that I would be better at math than your typical liberal arts student, just as that student is probably a much better writer than I am. I can’t speak another language for the life of me, but math makes sense. To some the exact opposite is true. I’m sure they would be just as glad seeing me trying to take their classes as I would be for them to take mine. To each their own really. Political sciences is not very enjoyable to me, I don’t like reading/writing essay upon essay, I like proofs and scientific facts, thats why political science majors would kill me in the subject and why I would kill them in engineering.

sakky · June 3, 2006, 10:41pm

This is true, but this really gets down to a matter of self-discipline and personality. Obviously somebody who wins the lottery and then blows it all on stupid things is no better off than somebody who never won anything at all. There are always irresponsible people who will waste their money on stupid things.

So, sure, I agree that an engineer can be irresponsible and blow his money. But so can a liberal arts student. For example, I know one sad case of a liberal arts major who developed a major drug habit and ended up poor and bankrupt. I don’t see how studying a liberal art will make you any MORE mature and responsible than studying engineering.

sakky · June 3, 2006, 11:06pm

Uh, actually, I think they are PRECISELY holding on to my argument. After all, you just said it yourself - these students who prefer math/physics usually go on to study something else. But why? Why do they prefer to study something else? Why not just study math or physics? I think it’s because they understand that math or physics is not as marketable as studying something like engineering.

Besides, look at it this way. I agree with you that few students major in math or physics. In fact, at most schools where engineering is offered, engineering is far more popular than math or physics. But why is that? Why are there more engineering students than math/physics students? I think, again, it’s because people understand that engineering is more marketable than is math or physics.

I think psych and econ are two of the worst examples you could use for that argument. First, at least at my school there are virtually no writing intensive classes for either of these majors whereas nearly every other humanities degree has more writing intensive classes than non writing intensive. The subjects you study in econ are for the most part proven and therefore have concrete answers. And psych is very similar to biology in that you are required to memorize a bunch of facts and spit them back on tests (most of which are even multiple choice), not papers. 

It is interesting that you say in economics there is much POLITICAL debate. Because that is exactly what it is, political, the stuff political science majors will study. Econ, at least at the undergraduate level, is primarily theory and has verifiable answers just like math and physics (the whole first chapter of my micro book was defending econ as an actual science saying how it was just like physics in which you make your assumptions then solve a problem).

If you don’t like my examples, then you are free to come up with your own. But I think my point is fairly clear - psychology and economics are far more “talkie” than are engineering, math, or physics. Is there memorization? Are there equations to know (especially in economics)? Of course. But not as much as there is in engineering/math/physics. A lot of psych and economics boils down to things like class discussion and subjective argument. I agree, not as much as, say, studying English or PoliSci. But still, far more than there is in engineering/physics/math.

Again, I would disagree. My point is that obviously there are people who are good enough to complete an engineering degree at the toughest engineering school (MIT) despite not liking it. So that must mean that there are other students who could easily complete an engineering degree at a far easier school despite not liking engineering.

Note, that doesn’t mean that I think ALL of them could complete engineering degrees. I agree with you that some of them would flunk out if they tried engineering. But I think you must agree with me that some of them would be able to complete that engineering degree. Sure, they might get lower grades in engineering. But they would still be able to graduate.

Think of it this way. I would assert that many people who got a 3.0 in a liberal art at a no-name school would be able to graduate in engineering at that same no-name school. Maybe they’d get only a 2.0. But that’s still good enough to graduate. And I strongly suspect that it’s better to get an engineering degree from a no-name school, even with only a 2.0, than it is to get a liberal arts degree from that same no-name school. Because, let’s face it, with a liberal arts degree from a no-name school and only a 3.0 GPA, you’re not going to be able to do much.

This is a nonsequitur. I believe you raised the issue of those people who liked math/physics, and I am responding to that. What I said is that if you happen to be one of those people who like math/physics, then unless you know you want to be getting your PhD in math/physics, or you want to be a high school math/physics teacher, you are probably better off studying engineering. After all, engineering is almost the same thing. That’s not to say that math/physics majors have it bad. Indeed, I agree that math/physics students are better off than English students. You said (and I agree) that some math and physics students can take engineering jobs. But why be satisfied with just ‘some’? After all, ALL engineering students can take engineering jobs.

How is that? Who ever said anything about ‘doing well’? I am just talking about graduating, meaning getting at least a 2.0.

Look, the fact is, almost any engineering graduate can get an engineering job. It may not be a very good engineering job. It may be with a no-name company. But it’s still an engineering job. And that’s better than just working at the mall - something that I’ve seen even some of the better liberal arts students ending up doing. For example, I know a number of Berkeley liberal arts students with GPA’s of better than 3.0 who ended up working at the mall or equivalent low-level work. Even working as a low-level engineer at a crappy company is better than that.

First of all, I don’t think they really believe that ANY major is marketable. I think that they all understand that certain majors are more marketable than others. If not, then they should.

But even if you’re right, that just reinforces the proposal I set before, which is that these students should be placed into engineering (or nursing or accounting) by default, and only if they actively choose to leave for another major should they be allowed to do so. Otherwise, they will end up, like now, choosing an unmarketable major and then finding out that they have difficulty in getting a job.

I never said that engineering is for everyone. I also agree that there are other marketable degrees that are out there. I have always agreed that nursing, accounting, and other majors may be better for some people.

But that’s not the question I am answering. The question that I am dealing with is would people be better off if more liberal arts students majored in engineering instead? I think the answer is clearly yes. Now, obviously, not EVERY one of them would be better off. And certainly, there may be other majors that might be even better off for certain people. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that if more liberal arts students intead chose to major in engineering, then more people would be better off.

The reason why I harp on liberal arts at the no-name schools is simple - the majority of college students are liberal arts students at the no-name schools. Hence, the majority of students out there are studying something that is, quite frankly, not marketable. They would be better off, and society would be better off, if more of them studied something more marketable. Engineering is one of those things that is more marketable.

sakky · June 3, 2006, 11:11pm

I do. Quite a few, in fact.

I agree that they employ different skill sets. But look, sometimes you have to do things you don’t really like. That’s life.

I’ll give you an example. I know a number of liberal arts students who graduated, couldn’t find a job, and are now retraining themselves to be computer techs (i.e. pursuing computer certifications such as the MCSE or the CCNA). They freely admit that they don’t really like computers that much. In fact, they would far prefer to be doing something related to their major. But they can’t find jobs like that. So they are getting certified in computer skills because, frankly, it lets them get a job that pays the bills. A lot of them are now working as computer systems administrators and network administrators. Do they like it? Not really, and certainly not as much as they like literature and politics. But it gives them a steady paycheck.

It gets back to something I said before. Most people in the world have to take jobs doing things that they don’t really like. That’s life. If everybody in the world did what they liked, there would be no janitors, no maids, and no garbagemen. Nobody “likes” those jobs. They do it to pay the bills. Most people in the world don’t really “like” their job. It’s just something they do to pay the bills. Very few people in the world truly get to do what they like to do, and get paid for it. To this day, I have never found anybody who will pay me to sit around and watch sports all day long while drinking beer.

OH_DAD · June 4, 2006, 11:22am

Kim Springfield - Your OP is pretty much RIGHT ON, IMHO. If you’d like to read some introspection from an engineer (me) on some of the hazards / benefits / travailles of actual engineering practice, check this thread:

<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com…ad.php?t=115531%5B/url%5D”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com…ad.php?t=115531</a>

Therein, I’ve tried to give some useful insight regarding why engineering is generally not a good choice, using real world facts which are pretty much not debatable (example: lack of enforcement of (or requirement for) professional registration by engineers). I really probably gave more personal insight that I should have, but I wanted to CLEARLY illustrate the realities faced by many (not all, of course) engineers today.

The only change I would suggest to your list is to maybe replace “Industrial Engineering” with “Environmental Engineering”. I question industrial because new production facilities are not generally being built in this country at all, with the clear exception of new energy facilities (N-plant upgrades as you mention), however, environmental looks to be bright since most remediation and prevention programs are highly coupled to site work, and cannot easily be performed in Hyderabad.

UNGGIO83 – Thanks for carrying the torch with Sakky, but I’ve cut back greatly on visiting CC and the Engineering section in particular because every single engineering thread which attempts to question the merits of anything about engineering is effectively hijacked by Sakky to the point of being ridiculous to even participate.

NOTE to Roger Dooley – I’m aware of the rules about attacking each other, and staying on topic, but really…the futility in trying to carry on useful dialogue in the virtual presence of Sikky is just overwhelming. If keyboards were treadmills, he could power a city. Can threads possibly be conducted where the OP could disallow certain posters from participating?

Sakky – Some of your posts are insightful, but I just can’t stomach the volume. You have incredible energy for sure; your motivation is something I can’t cipher. If you’re a student, I sure hope your grades aren’t suffering because of your apparent hunger for on-line asperity.

Hot and safe engineering majors

CONNECT WITH US