<p>OH_DAD, Is there a link missing in you post #80?</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=115531[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=115531</a></p>
<p>Strange - I (thought I) pulled the other one straight from the browser address bar while looking at the page! Thanks!</p>
<p>oh dad i agree w/u that sakky mainly posts voluminous diatribes about the positives of engineering over liberal arts</p>
<p>While rarely posting any insightful ideas that haven’t been countered by myself and others.</p>
<p>sakky has forced me to improve my writing everytime i write up a post, i am forced to be more concise as i have to refute every point he makes, or at least explain why it’s completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.</p>
<p>so thank you sakky, as you have unintentionally improved my logical writing process and i have become a clearer, quicker, and more logical writer because of you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you are refering to the fact that most people who prefer math/physics in high school don’t major in Math or Physics in college but rather pick something else I really have to laugh. For starters I would like to point out that studying engineering is virtually continuation of your typical high school physics class. And it is also of note that in college you can major in probably a hundred or so different subjects, where in high school you are really only exposed to a handful (typically 5-8 subjects). In college you are offered the opportunity to explore your academic interests, in high school you really are limited. You can’t take engineering classes in high school like you can in college, I would bet that if you could a lot more students would take them because they prefer that to math/physics. If this is what you are claiming, you are basing your argument off of an assumption that you cannot support. Of course students who prefer math/physics in high school are going to major in other subjects, there are hundreds more to pick, all of which you can study at a much greater depth than you can in high school and are offered the opportunity to take obscure classes in nearly every subject. You don’t get that in high school, so I really don’t see how you can compare the two </p>
<p>Finally, I don’t think high school students understand that math/physics is not as marketable as engineering. For one, I am not totally sold that it is and I am thinking about it, high school students don’t think like that. High school students are still believing that they should study what they love. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it has to do with the fact that engineering is much more tangible to the common student. For the most part engineering is not proofed based, but rather hands on learning where you get work with jet engines, circuits, or whatever your field’s devices are. To most students engineering makes a lot more sense than pure physics/math, that is why I think they like it. Again, I really do not think that your typical student thinks about the marketability of a major, particularly when you are differentiating between physics/math and engineering.</p>
<p>Pure math and physics is heavily proof based and very theoretical with virtually no applications. Most people hate this, that is why I believe they don’t study it, not because of its marketability.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If this is the general premise to your argument I really don’t know what else to say. I strongly disagree with your sentiment that people should go into college knowing that they are going to study something they hate and not do well in it just because they are studying a marketable degree, while in the meantime doing so poorly at obtaining this degree that they have made themselves unmarketable. I know several engineering students with gpa’s hovering around the 2.5-2.7 range as an undergraduate who aren’t working in engineering because they couldn’t get jobs. A few of them are bartending, one works at a hotel, while most are picking up your odds and ends job in construction or some other form of manual labor. Engineers with 2.0 are not in high demand, and if you are lucky enough to get a job as an engineer you are going to be at the bottom of the barrel with virtually no room to move, that doesn’t sound like an enjoyable career to me. A 2.0 puts you in that boat, there are going to be virtually no engineering jobs for you. Especially if the market is inundated with liberal arts majors flocking to engineering because the degree is “marketable”. Engineering companies are already starting to outsource most of their work, don’t give them anymore reason to do so by putting terrible labor into the workforce.</p>
<p>I really cannot fathom how you could possibly encourage someone who hates a subject to go study it and fail (I realize a 2.0 isn’t failing per se, but you aren’t going to be able to do much with a 2.0 even in engineering). I really do not get how you can think that way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just as you pointed out, people should exercise daily, and shouldn’t smoke. There are a lot of things people should know that they don’t, and I think this is one of them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow. Thats all I can say. Place students into engineering (or any major) by default, good idea, lets do it for the good of the econonmy! :rolleyes:</p>
<p>This discussion is really going no where. I strongly disagree with many of your arguments about how students should choose a collegiate major just as you do with mine. You will never be able to convince me of many of things that you have said, and I’m sure the same can be said for you as well. We can sit here for 15 more pages harping at one another and trying to counter each others argument while essentially repeating ourselves over and over again, I for one have had enough. We have fundamental different beliefs and neither of us are apparently willing to budge. I think the wisest thing anyone (airbarr) has said in this entire discussion, follow your heart. </p>
<p>I’m sure you want the last word, so I’ll let you have it</p>
<p>sakky what’s your last word?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand this attitude at all. Like I said countless times, if you don’t like my posts, then don’t read them. Nobody has a gun to your head. But let the people who want to read them be allowed to read them. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you are missing my point. I am saying that people tend to choose engineering over studying math/physics. After all, I would surmise that there are more people majoring in engineering than in math/physics. Why is that? I have to believe that it’s because they realize that engineering is more marketable.</p>
<p>It gets down to what I have said before. Let’s face it. For most people, college is really about marketability . They are just going to college just to get a job. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s not about doing something that they really love, and never has been. The truth is, most people don’t love school. They would actually prefer to not go to school at all. It’s really about doing something that will get them a job. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh come on. Seriously, do you really believe that? Surely you are aware that a lot of people go to medical school or law school because, again, they see it as a way to get a career. Let’s face it. If doctors or lawyers didn’t get paid well, a lot fewer people would go to med/law school. The same could be said for all of the other professional degrees. After all, who really likes accounting, honestly? A few people actually like it, but most people find it boring. But they study it anyway because it will get them a job.</p>
<p>Again, I would point to the example of the liberal arts students that I know who are now getting certified in computer skills. They freely admit that they don’t really like computers. But it will get them a job that is better than what they can get now, and that’s why they do it.</p>
<p>If you can’t see that the more a particular job pays, the most people will become interested in that job, then I don’t know what to tell you. To give you an extreme example, that’s why some women become strippers. I am fairly certain that very few women enjoy taking off their clothes in front of strange men. {Maybe some freaks do, but certainly not normal women]. They are doing this job because it pays extremely well. On a less extreme example, that’s why garbagemen and janitors do what they do. Nobody actually enjoys cleaning bathrooms and dealing with people’s trash. They are doing it because it pays the bills. Is this such a hard point to see? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I personally don’t fathom how you can endorse people studying unmarketable majors when you know that plenty of them will end up working at the mall. I know plenty of liberal arts students who strongly regret studying the liberal arts, because they have nothing better than working at the mall to do. Getting a 2.0 in engineering is a whole lot better than ending up working at the mall. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is why we should encourage positive behavior. I am not FORCING anybody to get a marketable degree, just like I don’t propose to completely ban smoking. However, by default, you want to encourage better behavior. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, look at what the situation is today. Do you think it is good? Do you think it is healthy for the economy to have so many people get liberal arts degrees and then end up in low-end jobs? </p>
<p>I think what I am proposing is better, not because I think engineering is perfect (in fact, I wrote many posts stating that it is not), but rather because I think the current situation is WORSE. There are literally hundreds of thousands of new liberal arts graduates being produced every year, many of which will not find decent jobs. Is that good for society? </p>
<p>The worst part about it is that most people will get liberal arts degrees at public schools, which are strongly subsidized by the taxpayers. So essentially, you, I, and everybody else is paying for these people to get degrees, and then end up working at the mall. I would say that if somebody wants to take their own money to get an unmarketable degree, then that’s their life, but they shouldn’t be allowed to milk a taxpayer subsidy to do it. Most public universities started life as purely technical institutes - i.e. teaching mining, agriculture, engineering, technology, and so forth, because the government deemed that these disciplines would help the country grow economically. Only in the last few decades did many of these universities begin to teach the liberal arts. I think society needs to think about where taxpayer dollars should really be going to. Is society better off in subsidizing another engineering (or another nurse, or another doctor, etc.), or another History major, or another American Studies major? I think this is a valid concern.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, nobody ever said that engineering was the greatest thing. What I am saying is that it is BETTER than the liberal arts. You talk about engineers having problems. Sure. But liberal arts majors REALLY have problems. After all, who is probably better off, the engineering graduate, or the History graduate? Be honest.</p>
<p>bump bump ----------------------</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree with your notion that anyone can become an engineer without much effort. As spe07, epoch_dreams, and unggio83 said previous, it requires a certain mind set, hard work, a sharp mind, and DEDICATION to succeed in becoming an engineer. I dare say that engineering is one of the most difficult, if not the most difficult majors at my undergrad school. My undergrad (ECE) was at a lesser known school, I am now a grad student at a top 10 engineering school. Back in my undergrad days, I seem to recall that only engineering students are routinely in a lab toiling away on saturday nights when everyone else is out partying. I rountinely spent 20-40 hrs a week studying outside of class (while holding a 25 hr/wk part time job to pay for rent). Only a small number of people, the ones that’s truly dedicated, will put up with that kind of stress and sleep deprivation.</p>
<p>All somewhat respectable (read: marketable) engineering schools are ABET accredited, and follow a minimum standard in order to keep their accreditation. I don’t consider non-accredited graduates to be very marketable, personally. Last I checked, attrition rate is very high amongst accredited engineering programs. At my undergrad school, attrition rate was 71% a couple of yrs back. You must realize that the kids that go into engineering freshman yr are all “good at math” and “good at physics”. These are some of the brighest in their highschools. Yet, a large % fail to graduate with an engineering degree. This is not simply at my school, but everywhere. Case in point:</p>
<p>
</a>
</a>
</a>
</a>
</p>
<p>Again, I reiterate my point that engineering is not as easy and painless as you dileanated.</p>
<p>sakky, im waiting</p>
<p>Unggio, sakky’s being rather wise in not getting roped into a flame war… Probably best to let it go. It’s turned into an unproductive conversation at this point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think I ever said that ALL liberal arts students could become engineers. But the fact remains that many can. Again, I think the guy who gets a 3.0 in the liberal arts at a no-name school could probably have completed an engineering degree at a no-name school, even if it is with only a 2.0.</p>
<p>Nobody is disputing that engineering is more difficult than a liberal arts major, especially a cheesepuff one. But that’s how life is. Think of it like daily exercise. It’s hard to choose to wake up at 6AM every day to go to the gym and work out. It’s far easier and pleasant to sleep in every day. But if you want to get in shape, you have to do things you don’t really like to do. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, this is a nonsequitur, because the fact is, the majority of ALL college students will not finish their degree. I seem to recall reading a recent study that showed that something around 2/3 of all matriculating college students, regardless of major, will not graduate. Hence, 71% of engineering students not completing an engineering degree is not significantly different. </p>
<p>Look, nobody is denying that engineering is difficult and that it’s obviously easier to get a creampuff degree. But a lot of things in life aren’t easy. I see it as like a smoker who chooses to quit smoking. Sure, it’s hard. And a lot of people who try to quit are unable. But it’s better for you if you do quit. </p>
<p>Besides, once again, nobody is saying that engineering is the greatest career in the world. I would be the first to say that it is not. But that’s not the point. The point is that it’s a lot better than most of the alternatives. What happens to a lot of those creampuff liberal arts graduates from the no-naem schools? A lot of them end up working at the mall. In fact, I can think of quite a lot of them that I know who are doing just that. And, like I said, many of them are now contemplating getting computer or Information Technology certifications and skills so that they have a better life than just working at the mall. In fact, a number of them have even decried why they even studied the liberal arts at all, and are saying that they should have been studying computers or something else practical. </p>
<p>Case in point. I don’t know too many engineering or computer science graduates who wish they had instead studied a liberal art. But I know a LOT of liberal arts graduates who had wished they had studied engineering or CS instead. Just like I know a lot of smokers who wish they had never taken up smoking.</p>
<p>Sigh. Never mind.</p>
<p>im chuckling pretty good here aibarr</p>
<p>u already know why i’m laughing</p>
<p>I made my points, that’s all I ever asked for.</p>
<p>Whether people agree with my points or not is up to them.</p>
<p>I couldn’t disagree more with the opening response in this thread.</p>
<p>The idea that Mechanical/Electrical engineering are two of the three “worst” to get into is absolutely ludicrous. You couldn’t possibly be more wrong.</p>
<p>Many of the people who hold jobs with the title “Aerospace Engineer” or “Nuclear Engineer” have at least an undergraduate degree in Engineering. A good Mechanical Engineer coming out of undergrad can effectively hoard in on a large chunk of the jobs available to Aerospace Engineers, Nuclear Engineers, and Industrial Engineers, if they so choose. The reverse is not true, however. A degree in Aerospace Engineering, while cool, can/will limit the number of jobs you can be a legitimate candidate for.</p>
<p>The same is true for Electrical Engineering. EE’s are capable of stepping into the job arena and competing for a goodly sized chunk of jobs available to Computer Engineers, but the reverse is not true. Computer Engineering may (or may not) successfully increase your appeal in certain job markets, but there will be an awful lot of available jobs that you can’t be considered for, because they’re looking for a EE instead.</p>
<p>I cannot/will not substantiate these claims with any links. These opinions come from my own personal experiences with my own degree and the degrees of my best friends from high school and college (especially my best friend’s). Take it for whatever it’s worth.</p>
<p>sakky i want to hear a reponse</p>
<p>Dude. Quit kicking beehives.</p>
<p>aibarr, you need to relax
i want to hear some good constructive debate</p>
<p>bring it on sakky</p>
<p>else i start posting again</p>
<p>I just wanted to repeat psuKinger’s post as he has it correct! This is exactly what I would say!</p>
<p>I couldn’t disagree more with the opening response in this thread.</p>
<p>The idea that Mechanical/Electrical engineering are two of the three “worst” to get into is absolutely ludicrous. You couldn’t possibly be more wrong.</p>
<p>Many of the people who hold jobs with the title “Aerospace Engineer” or “Nuclear Engineer” have at least an undergraduate degree in Engineering. A good Mechanical Engineer coming out of undergrad can effectively hoard in on a large chunk of the jobs available to Aerospace Engineers, Nuclear Engineers, and Industrial Engineers, if they so choose. The reverse is not true, however. A degree in Aerospace Engineering, while cool, can/will limit the number of jobs you can be a legitimate candidate for.</p>
<p>The same is true for Electrical Engineering. EE’s are capable of stepping into the job arena and competing for a goodly sized chunk of jobs available to Computer Engineers, but the reverse is not true. Computer Engineering may (or may not) successfully increase your appeal in certain job markets, but there will be an awful lot of available jobs that you can’t be considered for, because they’re looking for a EE instead.</p>
<p>I cannot/will not substantiate these claims with any links. These opinions come from my own personal experiences with my own degree and the degrees of my best friends from high school and college (especially my best friend’s). Take it for whatever it’s wort</p>
<p>unggio, let it go man.</p>