<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can understand that point of view completely. But in addition to money, I think most people would agree that recognition for your work is very important. In any case, I would bet that the numbers are favorable to this view as well - Germany likely isn’t having a shortage of engineering students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, they have nothing to do with one another whatsoever. I think this was covered exhaustively in another thread.</p>
<p>What I think you mean to say is that ChemE and PetE share the same industry. But that is hardly the same the thing as saying that the two disciplines have anything to do with one another. Put another way, put a typical PetE in a refinery and will not have the slightest idea what is going on. He never studied chemical kinetics or reactors. He never studied separations. He never studied unit ops. Similarly, a typical ChemE has no idea whatsoever what a drilling rig even is, much less be able to understand subsurface geology. They are two entirely different roles with little overlap. One can glean this difference from the faculty affiliations. Berkeley’s petroleum engineering department (or the rump remainder of it) is taught within the Civil Engineering department, which has practically nothing to do with the chemical engineering department. Similarly, Stanford’s PetE program (renamed to the Earth Resources engineering program) isn’t even housed in the School of Engineering at all, but rather within the School of Earth Sciences. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, McKinsey has Assistant positions. In fact they all do. They’re the administrative assistants: the people who, for example, actually set up recruiting interviews and perform other administrative tasks for the consultants. </p>
<p>What I’m saying is that being an Assistant at Bain certainly provides better career opportunities than being an administrative assistant at almost any other organization, and may arguably be better than being just a regular engineer at a regular engineering firm. Sure, you’re just an assistant, but at least you have the opportunity to network and see how a high-powered strategy firm operates from the inside. That may be better than the opportunities that some engineering firms will offer its engineers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, entirely relevant, for these are not just 500 random engineers who head for other fields, but 500 of the very best engineers. Engineering is probably akin to most other technical fields such as software development in which the very best people are exponentially more productive than the average. Again, a single engineer like Charles Kao or Jack Kilby is probably worth at least 1000 regular engineers. The problem is that today’s Kao’s or Kilby’s probably won’t major in engineering, and even if they did, probably won’t actually work as engineers. Rather, they’ll probably become consultants or bankers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is an entirely relevant argument because, again, they’re not just raiding 500 random engineering students, but 500 of the very best. Consider a sports analogy. Few people buy tickets to a sporting event to watch what the average bench players do. They go because they want to see the stars. It is those stars that draw fans.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you pay far too much credence on the rationality of decision-making processes. The fact is, popular culture has indeed exerted a considerable influence on people’s career choices. For example, a strong spike in law school applications in the 1980’s was widely credited to the popularity of the TV show LA Law. CSI has been credited with fostering tremendous interest in careers in forensics and criminal justice and in science as a whole. The movie ‘Top Gun’ has been described as little more than a 2 hour recruitment video for the military - and a highly successful one at that. In fact, that was precisely why the military worked so closely and provided extensive resources to the producers of Top Gun, because they understood the marketing impact that the movie might have. </p>
<p>Top Gun made the US military attractive for a whole generation. In the States themselves, the film oversaw a boom in military recruitment</p>
<p>[fm4v2.ORF.at</a> / The Top Gun Syndrome](<a href=“http://fm4v2.orf.at/chris/207235/main.html]fm4v2.ORF.at”>http://fm4v2.orf.at/chris/207235/main.html)</p>
<p>*When Tom Cruise leaped from the cockpit of a Navy jet fighter to the arms of Kelly McGillis in the movie “Top Gun,” he made more than a box-office hit. He made a lot of high school students dream of military life, and this year the country’s three big military academies are cashing in.</p>
<p>Applications are up more than 10 percent at the Naval Academy here, at West Point in New York and at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. *</p>
<p>[`Top</a> Gun’ aids boom of military academies - Chicago Sun-Times | Encyclopedia.com](<a href=“http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-3808232.html]`Top”>http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-3808232.html)</p>
<p>Forensic science has become the “it” career among many students in Wisconsin and across the nation, as popular TV shows such as “CSI” and “CSI: Miami” have gotten teenagers hooked on the mix of science and sleuthing.</p>
<p>[Bringing</a> ‘CSI’ to science class Teens’ TV-fueled interest in forensics leads high schools to teach the subject - Science News - redOrbit](<a href=“http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/43584/bringing_csi_to_science_class_teens_tvfueled_interest_in_forensics/index.html]Bringing”>http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/43584/bringing_csi_to_science_class_teens_tvfueled_interest_in_forensics/index.html)</p>
<p>In addition to raising awareness of the industry, and increasing its prestige, many schools of criminal justice have found that with all the interest, shows like CSI are drawing more potential students to criminal justice careers.</p>
<p>[The</a> CSI Effect: Drama Raises Interest in Criminal Justice Careers | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com](<a href=“The Virginian-Pilot - Virginia News, Sports, Weather, Business & Things to Do”>The Virginian-Pilot - Virginia News, Sports, Weather, Business & Things to Do)</p>
<p>Explanations for the increase in [law school] applications range… ‘‘L.A. Law,’’ the popular television program that glamorizes the lives and work of upscale lawyers.</p>
<p>[The</a> Law; Law School Applications Up Sharply - The New York Times](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/01/us/the-law-law-school-applications-up-sharply.html]The”>http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/01/us/the-law-law-school-applications-up-sharply.html)</p>
<p>But I think far more important than the effect of pop culture on specific career choices of college or high school students is its impact upon basic education via the motivation that it provides young kids to want to learn or not learn certain topics. For example, the ‘Harry Potter’ books have been widely credited with improving the literacy of an entire generation of children by inspiring them to want to read. Let’s face it: without Harry Potter, a lot of children would not be very interested in reading. </p>
<p>*Harry helps kids with their reading</p>
<p>Children say that Harry Potter has helped them improve their reading skills and that Harry Potter books have made them want to read more books - almost six out of ten children surveyed (59%) said that Harry Potter books had helped them improve their reading skills, and nearly half (48%) said that Harry Potter books made them want to read more books.</p>
<p>“With just one week to go before the launch of ‘Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince’, millions of children across the world are waiting in anticipation for the next Harry Potter. This survey demonstrates the true value of Harry Potter - the children’s own enthusiasm for reading books when they find books that inspire them so much that they want to read more,” says George Grey, Head of Children’s Books at Waterstone’s.
Teachers love Harry too</p>
<p>Teachers also recognise the impact that Harry Potter has had on children’s literacy - 84% of teachers say that Harry Potter has had a positive impact on children’s reading abilities and 73% of teachers say that they have been surprised by some of the children that have managed to read Harry Potter.</p>
<p>"I was teaching 10 and 11 year olds when the first wave of Potter mania hit. We had just had Yo-Yo mania and I had never imagined that the next craze would be a book!</p>
<p>It was extraordinary - suddenly all my class pupils were reading! Not only were the children interested but actually excited and inspired by books," comments Lindsay Carmichael, an English teacher in Gateshead.</p>
<p>Potter Turns Non-Readers Into Readers</p>
<p>Teachers believe that Harry Potter has reached children that are not motivated to read books - 67% say that Harry Potter has helped turn non-readers into readers.</p>
<p>For some children reading a Harry Potter book really stretches their ability - 41% said Harry Potter books were hard to read and 51% said Harry Potter books were the longest books they had ever read. 69% of children said that Harry Potter books were their favourite books of all time and 61% said that the books were so good that the length did not matter.</p>
<p>“When children find something that they love they are prepared to try something more complex than they have read before. The Harry Potter books have a wonderful ability to challenge the reader in a way that encourages children to rise to that challenge,” comments George Grey. *</p>
<p>[The</a> Parry Potter books’ benefit - Children take to books, literacy levels improve, best book for children according to kids and their teachers](<a href=“http://www.dancewithshadows.com/potter/harry-potter-survey.asp]The”>http://www.dancewithshadows.com/potter/harry-potter-survey.asp)</p>
<p>Taking matters back to engineering, as we all know, if an incoming college freshman doesn’t have a decent background in science and math, he’s not going to do well in an engineering program. In fact, he may not even finish the program at all. But to have that background meant that he had to have been motivated to want to learn science or math ever since he was a young kid, and it is those motivations that were determined by pop culture influences he was exposed to. Surely we can all remember our high school days where lots of kids were simply not motivated to learn anything at all, and certainly not science or math. {Ironically, those same kids often times could cite verbatim the entire rosters of their favorite sports teams or lyrics of the latest songs.}</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not at all concerned about startups: indeed, I think they are probably the most promising career available to many top engineers and ought to be fostered through regulatory reforms and a more interdisciplinary engineering education system that actually teaches entrepreneurial skills. Startups not a concern because they are still engineering and are integral - in fact probably the cradle - of technological innovation. How much technologically poorer would the world be without Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, eBay, Yahoo, Amazon - all companies that were founded no more than 15 years. These companies have all incidentally made millionaires out of boatloads of engineers. That’s exactly how it ought to be. Engineers should have ample opportunity to become rich for producing important innovations. </p>
<p>I agree that medical/dental school is somewhat concerning, although less so, for although not engineering, it is still a scientific/technical career. You are therefore still using technical ability to improve society, while earning a high salary in the process. </p>
<p>However, I completely agree with you that the large fraction of engineers heading for law school represents a large loss of technical human capital into what is often times a purely rent-seeking career. Lawyers, with few exceptions, do not foster social utility, at best they merely redistribute it (usually to themselves). </p>
<p>However, I would view even the proliferation of lawyers and law schools as a phenomenon affected, if indirectly, by the strength of the investment banking and finance industry. Let’s face it - the reason why major law firms, especially NYC based firms, can offer such high associate pay is because of lucrative work garnered from the banking and securities industry, whether from business attributed to regulatory compliance, to securities underwriting to bankruptcy/restructuring. Heck, many of the most successful investment bankers such as Robert Rubin are themselves former lawyers. If Wall Street were less (relatively) lucrative, then law careers, especially in NYC biglaw firms, would also become corresponding less lucrative.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, the obvious counterargument is that there aren’t exactly a lot of engineering jobs in NYC, relative to the size of the city population. The overwhelming number of educated professionals in NYC are not engineers, they’re financiers, lawyers, consultants, accountants, marketers, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m afraid we are now just arguing program semantics which we expect to vary from school to school. My counter argument is that in schools like Texas, Houston, TAMU and others, the petroleum engineering department evolved from the chemical engineering department. In fact in Texas, they are housed in the same building and share many of the same faculty, graduate students, research projects and so forth. I know that Texas petroleum engineers have to take transport phenomena, fluids, thermo and phase behavior. physical/chemistry of fluids and etc, all of which are taught by a mix of ChemE or PetroE professors. Furthermore, the petroleum engineering and chemical engineers are free to take the other department’s courses as electives at any time and don’t require the same approval as it would need for a Aerospace course. So while I’m sure Stanford and Berkley have their own curriculum and standards, other schools have a petroleum engineering degree that is heavily influenced and shared by the chemical engineering degree. Of course, this is probably a function of recruiting as we said–the petroleum engineering degree evolved as an off shoot of ChemE due to a high influx of Texas ChemEs into the industry. </p>
<p>Furthermore, it really doesn’t matter your background (at the majors at least) when you enter the industry–as long as you are MechE/ChemE/PetroE you will eventually see both sides of the business and prior knowledge isn’t really a concern due to on-site training. I have seen ChemEs in upstream roles and PetroE in downstream roles, though the latter is a bit rarer since upstream typically pays better than downstream. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, all businesses employ administrative assistants, which are pretty much secretaries, however after a summer role in a competitor’s firm I have to say that administrative assistants don’t have a distinct advantage over other candidates. From what I saw, most administrative assistants were not analysts who couldn’t make it but instead had relevant experience (previously working at Law firms and etc). They were only in charge of the logistics, booking flights, hotels and other arrangements but they never were involved in the client meetings and did not actively work on a project. As I said before, these firms (be it banking or consulting) are pretty segmented and that lateral moves, especially from an administrative assistant to an analyst role were quite rare. Just as a back-office or technology analyst role won’t really give you a leg up if you want to move to S&T or IBD, I haven’t met any admin assistants that were “analysts who didn’t make it” or were able to leverage their way into an analyst/consultant role. I have seen sales/marketing people at McKinsey make it into analyst but for the most part, the advantage of an admin assistant versus a prospective analyst is slim at best. In fact, I’d argue that while an admin assistant is a POSSIBLE track to consulting is probably the most inefficient and a candidate who was rejected for an analyst role is much better of working at a smaller firm (Accenture, Delloite and etc) and then reapplying. </p>
<p>Though, this should not be confused with “Trader assistant” or “Junior trader” which is pretty much the starting ground for anyone who wants to enter trading.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In this case, it is vital to get the semantics right. Petroleum engineering as a discipline began as an outgrowth not of chemical engineering but of geology and mining engineering. The very first PetE degree was offered at UPitt as part of the mining school, as was Berkeley’s program, both of which preceded the development of any PetE degree programs in the South. </p>
<p>[petroleum</a> engineering – Britannica Online Encyclopedia](<a href=“Petroleum engineering | Energy, Products, & Facts | Britannica”>Petroleum engineering | Energy, Products, & Facts | Britannica)</p>
<p>Similarly, the earliest PetE programs that were started in the South were similarly started as part of either geology or mining engineering programs.</p>
<p>[Craft</a> & Hawkins Brochure - Part 2 - History of Petroleum Engineering](<a href=“http://www.pete.lsu.edu/chbrochure/chb2.htm]Craft”>http://www.pete.lsu.edu/chbrochure/chb2.htm)</p>
<p>[Texas</a> Tech University :: Petroleum Engineering Department](<a href=“http://www.depts.ttu.edu/peWeb/department/general/overview.php]Texas”>http://www.depts.ttu.edu/peWeb/department/general/overview.php)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said that they were ‘analysts who didn’t make it’. What I said is that they were people who couldn’t even get analyst offers at all, and in their case, becoming an administrative assistant is better than nothing. Like I said, at least they will still be able to see the industry from the inside. They may still be able to garner decent rec’s from partners and associates to launch them into B-school. </p>
<p>Again, I see this as no different from the various Harvard Business School staffers and assistants who can leverage their experience and network into admission to a top MBA program either at Harvard or elsewhere; I know of some staffers who have done exactly that. Now, sure, if they could have gotten a top consulting or finance offer, they probably should have taken that. But they didn’t. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You speak as if that’s trivially easy to do. Yet we both know that even the 2nd-tier consulting firms recruit at only a small subset of schools, and even if you do attend such a school, their offers are still quite difficult to obtain. The upshot is that most people who want an offer from even a Deloitte or Accenture won’t get it. </p>
<p>On the other hand, many (probably) most of the administrative assistants at any of the consulting firms probably came from average schools, or if they did come from top schools, they don’t necessarily have top grades or skills. For example, many of the assistants at the Boston offices of the various strategy firms graduated from regular local schools such as UMass-Boston. {Similarly, many of the staffers at Harvard and MIT are just regular locals.} You don’t need to undergo an exacting and, frankly, elitist screening and interview process to be hired as just a staffer/assistant. But, like I said, such a job can provide excellent networking opportunities for an ambitious person who couldn’t get a bonafide consulting offer: certainly far more than many engineering jobs offer. Let’s face it - there are a lot of mediocre engineering jobs with mediocre engineering companies where you’re not really provided with opportunities to build a strong network filled with ambitious and powerful people.</p>
<p>
Once again, I don’t think you are highlighting the problem correctly. The problem is much more about per capita engineering production than the top 500 engineers. I feel you are placing far too much value on the productive capacity of those people. In other countries, top students (yes, engineering) go into high paying winner take all careers (such as in finance). The core issue is the amount of innovation that occurs in our economy. That is something which correlates to per capita engineers/scientists.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I did misspeak about petroleum engineering coming from chemical engineering and not mining engineering, however that doesn’t change the fact that some schools (notable in the South) have a Petroleum engineering degree that is much more closely associated with chemical engineering. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course not but in my experience it is MUCH easier to get an offer from those firms than McKinsey or Brain, I remember during my interview the lone fact that I was an “engineer” let me bypass the case interview directly, something that doesn’t happen at the other firms. Anyway, my main point Sakky is that when I worked at the firms I didn’t see any lateral administrative assistant moves into consulting. </p>
<p>I also feel that students in consulting and banking are naturally more ambitious than engineers. It might be due to inherent culture at the firm where you need to know “someone” to get in through the door and help rise the ranks. Heck, if you attend any investment banking or consulting information session you’ll see everyone exchanging pleasantries and “networking”. As I said before, it might be due to the culture or the competition but bankers and consultants seem naturally more social and network with other professionals. </p>
<p>That highlights a key point, it really is up the student to get their job and have career development. I know at my UG their was ample opportunity to network with other professionals, attend leadership/public speaking classes, learn how to fix your resume and so forth. Even classes in management or entrepreneurship were available and would count towards engineering electives. Similarly, I remember at one of the major integrated oil companies, their were many opportunities to network with SPE, YPE and other professional groups. </p>
<p>Yes, the average engineer will be stuck with the average job just as the average finance major won’t come close to a consulting or banking gig however I feel that in both cases the ambitious student will make their own career. </p>
<p>Finally I know I said this before but WHY the focus on just MIT and Stanford? There are plenty of other top schools that churn out the same caliber engineers that aren’t suffering from an exodus to consulting/banking. Heck, Kao and Kilby didn’t even attend MIT and you shouldn’t really argue that a loss of a single MIT engineer is the lost of another potential Nobel prize. If there was a defection of engineers to banking/consulting from other top programs I would be very concerned. </p>
<p>Now of course this is very idealist but I feel that the “true game changers” have a passion for their field that drives them into research or entrepreneurship instead of consulting/banking.</p>
<p>I think its hard to deny that someone like the kid from Berkeley could have been a game changer, or at the very least, a strong contributor to the field. </p>
<p>That said, there is no question that the opportunities for working on networking/public speaking, and all that other stuff is abundant at most universities. And I can say that as a straight biology major, not the easiest of majors, but not equivalent to engineering, it’s a heck of a lot easier for me to spend time on that stuff than for many of my engineering friends. When you have organic chemistry lab, plus fluid mechanics and two or three others classes that would rank as the hardest class for 90% of non engineer/math/physics students in a given semester, your ability to partake in such activities is severely restricted.</p>
<p>This entire thread just shattered my drive for Materials Engineering which I’ve held onto for the past 5 years…**** you guys</p>
<p>Sakky in light of these posts I have to ask which industry in particular (the ones described here) provides a more equitable and secure basis? In fact, does job security even play a role in this matter when discussing employment/salary prospects?</p>
<p>And Nik, don’t let this “thread” in any way counterbalance or offset your aspiration! If you have the drive then so be it-all else will come with it. This thread is just potentially illuminating yet larger questions on the corollary of job prospects with differing fields. It’s just to inform us not dissuade; and although many of the posts here can well-nigh be true, they are not by any means dispositive of the career availabilities with a degree from virtually any major (that’s why there are “Post-Bacs” as I am in fact potentially contemplating one myself, as my passion is in many veins). All are subject to open doors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, innovation would correlate even more strongly with the having the most talented human capital becoming engineers. Let’s face it: the average engineer doesn’t really produce that much innovation. Put another way - how much innovation does the average engineer produce, compared to Charles Kao? Has the average engineer actually ever invented anything, much less an invention that revolutionized the world? I think there is widespread consensus on this thread that many (probably most) engineers are consigned to working on projects of only minor importance. </p>
<p>In fact, that’s an integral part of the problem at hand. Most engineers will not get to work on highly innovative, potentially revolutionary projects. Instead, they’re stuck working on mind-numbingly tedious work. For example, I know a few software engineers who are stuck working on code maintenance and bug fixes for versions of enterprise software that are literally obsolete in that the vendor no longer even sells those versions anymore, but is still required to provide maintenance and updates for a few more years as per existing customer service contracts. But who really wants to build patches for obsolete software? As an engineer, you want to work on new, cutting-edge technology, not on obsolete products. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s easier, but still not easy. I know many students - engineers included who would have happily taken jobs at Deloitte and Accenture, but didn’t get an offer. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nor did I, and I never said that I did, at least not directly. What I said is that (ambitiously aggressive) assistants have the opportunity to move on to other careers. For example, I know some who parleyed their assistant experience and resulting strong recommendations into admission to highly ranked B-schools, similar to how Blake Gottesman was infamously admitted to Harvard Business School without even having a bachelor’s degree at all, just because he happened to be George W. Bush’s personal aide (and Jenna Bush’s ex-boyfriend). </p>
<p>[Blake</a> Gottesman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake_Gottesman]Blake”>Blake Gottesman - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Some assistants will follow the consultants they assist wherever they go. I know one guy who recently resigned as an engagement manager from Bain to start a private equity firm with a bunch of his old MBA buddies, and he took his Bain assistant with him. Granted, she’s still going to be his assistant, but if this new firm does well, surely she will too. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because that is where the exodus is clearly happening the most. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I’m not really sure if it’s really true that all those engineers from those other schools are of the same caliber. If that were true, then I suspect that nearly half of all engineers from those schools would be heading for consulting/banking also.</p>
<p>But again, I return back to the example of Ankur Luthra: Berkeley’s first Rhodes Scholar since the 1980’s and nearly set the record for most A+'s ever earned by any Berkeley undergrad in the history of the school. He is arguably the best engineer Berkeley has ever produced in his generation. Yet, lo and behold, he never worked as an engineer (note, I don’t consider his 6 months as a Microsoft project manager to be ‘engineering’). Instead, he became - wait for it - a venture capitalist. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Both Kao and Kilby attended highly ranked programs, either for undergrad and grad. </p>
<p>More importantly, Kao and Kilby were engineers back in the old days when consulting and finance were not the socially and financially prominent industries that they are today. For example, evidence has now come out that during the 1950’s and 60’s (when Kao and Kilby were developing their revolutionary technologies), the finance industry paid compensation that was *relatively the same as the average of the rest of the economy<a href=“!!”>/i</a> and the educational backgrounds were not significantly better than the average. Many people with only high school diplomas and even some high school dropouts worked as Wall Street financiers back in those days, and it was said that: *"In the old days, the story goes, it was the lower third of the class that went to Wall Street *. Things have obviously changed drastically since then.</p>
<p>[Calvin</a> Trillin’s Theory The Baseline Scenario](<a href=“Calvin Trillin’s Theory – The Baseline Scenario”>Calvin Trillin’s Theory – The Baseline Scenario)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But, again, there is. Look at Ankur Luthra. Look at all of the other top engineers from Berkeley, Michigan, and yes, even Texas who never actually worked as engineers and never wanted to be. </p>
<p>Since you want to talk about UT, consider Dr. Brad Staats, now professor of management at UNC, but formerly a star EE student at UT, but who never worked a single day in his life as an engineer. Instead, right after UT, he joined Goldman Sachs, then opted for an MBA at Harvard, then became a venture capitalist, then returned to Harvard for his doctorate. He intends to spend the rest of his life in business academia (but not engineering academia). </p>
<p>[UNC</a> Kenan-Flagler Business School : Search Directory](<a href=“http://www.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/faculty/search/detail.cfm?person_id=964]UNC”>http://www.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/faculty/search/detail.cfm?person_id=964) </p>
<p>On the other hand, like I said before, the best undergrads who study finance or business do not dream of becoming engineers. Lots of engineers dream of getting their MBA’s at Harvard or Stanford and becoming consultants or bankers, yet few if any consultants or bankers dream of getting their engineering master’s and becoming engineers. Hence, the problem is that those fields continue to decapitate the engineering field by stealing away their very best talent. Maybe Ankur Luthra or Brad Staats, both star engineering students, could have invented the next great technology if they had actually worked as engineers. We’ll never know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is an interesting point.</p>
<p>I too would argue that most original work comes from passionate tinkering in a field/subject that carries far more meaning to you than next year’s bonus. Certainly there may be counter examples – but nonetheless, a passion and curiosity to learn have driven much of the world’s greatest developments. Any massive wealth accumulated in the process seems more or less of a byproduct – not a direct intention. Yes, Bill Gates dreamed of putting a PC in every home, but for some reason I doubt this desire stemmed from his insatiable need to acquire untold billions – rather I suspect it was a passion for something greater than money.</p>
<p>“Game Changer”, “Leader”, “Entrepreneur”, “Inventor” etc…</p>
<p>All of these titles seem to carry some of the same qualities – not one of which seems to be a great desire for money. As I’ve often said, the primary motive of a person is an integral part of who they are, and in my opinion, a great predictor of what they will accomplish. Those whose primary motive is money may set out to make vast sums, but this often seems to be at the expense of the greater good for society as a whole. And without cornering those who have an interest in banking/consulting and the like – I also have to question their primary motives. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure. But what could have been was never realized on account of both the incentives put in place by society – which is the topic of interest – and I believe just as importantly, the primary motives of the individual. We will never know what could have been materialized by the kid from Berkeley because his primary interest seems to have been money. I think it is a valid question to ask whether or not he would have ever contributed anything original with these motives.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The great advantage of consulting and (especially) finance is that your compensation depends greatly on your performance: if you perform an excellent job, you will be paid extremely well. {Although, interestingly, in the finance industry, if you don’t perform well, you may still be paid extremely well, but that’s a different story.} It is that highly merit-based compensation scheme that is so highly attractive to many highly aggressive and ambitious professionals, including engineers. I know many engineers who worked at large engineering companies who busted their asses to complete a project, received nothing extra for their troubles, and then afterwards wondered why they bothered. Finance and consulting seem to be far more meritocratic both in terms of compensation and in terms of promotion schedules. </p>
<p>I also have high hopes for the startup culture, which tends to span a wide variety of industries: software/IT, semiconductors, biotechnology, materials science, and others. Startups are not only the prime source of technological innovation, but also offer the opportunity for engineers to become rich quickly. The reason why Silicon Valley housing is so expensive is not because just the venture capitalists and founders of the successful startups, as that would account for only a few thousand people at best (and there are hundreds of thousands of houses in Silicon Valley), but because all of the employees at those successful startups also became rich. The ‘expected compensation’ for working at a startup, which includes both salary and a probabilistic valuation of the likelihood that your startup will succeed, is almost certainly higher than that of working for an established company, the catch obviously being that the former exhibits high variance: most startups won’t succeed, but those that do will pay off dramatically. </p>
<p>The main thrust is that technological innovation should be fostered, and engineers should be compensated appropriately for producing that innovation, for technological innovation is the key to long-term economic growth. In contrast, consulting and finance, while perhaps having produced positive managerial innovations in the past, have now probably become rent-seeking industries of dubious social value, particularly in the case of finance, which now seems to have devolved to little more than a parlor trick designed to redistribute capital from bank shareholders and the public purse to line the pockets of bank employees.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, then, to follow that thread of logic, I would argue that many - probably most - engineers are similarly unmotivated by passion/curiosity and just want to be paid. Surely we’ve all known engineering students who never really seemed to care about engineering and, were it not for the above-average starting salary, would not be majoring in engineering. Similarly, surely we’ve all seen plenty of working engineers who are not highly motivated and are just interested in cashing a paycheck every month. Heck, the character Wally, the workaphobe from Dilbert who spends every comic strip scheming of ever more innovative ways to get away with doing nothing, was based on a real-life engineer that Scott Adams knew back in his days at PacBell who was deliberately trying to be targeted for layoffs in order to take advantage of the company’s generous severance package at the time by innovatively devising new methods to be as incompetent and unproductive as possible. </p>
<p>A recent real-life example would be the Cisco layoffs of 2002 that were accompanied by termination packages so princely as to spur many Cisco engineers to try to be laid off. For example, one Cisco engineer I know who had already been admitted to a top MBA program but hadn’t told the company realized that he couldn’t just quit as he would then forgo any chances of the package. So he then devoted himself to being as lazy as possible in order to nab the package. He couldn’t just do nothing, for that might actually result in being fired for cause, for which he probably wouldn’t get the package. So he had to perform the absolute bare minimum of work to avoid being fired, but not too much work, for if he was too productive, he wouldn’t be laid off and would then have to quit when his MBA program started (and receive no package). One interesting problem he faced was that there were other engineers in his division who were engaged in the same strategy because they too wanted to be laid off, and so he had to be lazier than them in order to ‘compete’ for a layoff, but not too lazy so as to be fired. Nevertheless, it worked, he was indeed laid off, and his package paid for his MBA tuition. A truly brilliant strategy of unmotivation and deceit. To this day, he still refers to his time as ‘winning the Gold Medal of laziness’.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely, you are certainly correct. However, this is beside the point. If we are talking about the brilliant engineering students from Berkeley who choose to work in finance instead of engineering, the Einsteins, and the Bill Gates of this world – then we cannot compare them to the average engineer cashing his/her paycheck. We have to compare them with their peers, and my point was, is, that arguably one of the major differences between the Einsteins and the Berkeley engineers turned financiers – is their primary motivators. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. Undoubtedly some very smart and lazy people have thought of brilliant ways to navigate the system and use it to their advantage – but again, this is beside the point. Many, albeit most of the people who have accomplished great things in this life don’t set out to tread the easiest road they can find. Normally these people overcome remarkable feats in the face of great odds, persist even in the grimmest of circumstances, and throw the status quo out the window. They see things the way they could be, not the way they are – and they are determined see their ideas realized. Now, I don’t know about you, but I personally don’t find these traits in many of the people who are motivated to only to drive the fanciest of cars through downtown Manhattan or feast on the exquisite entrees of Paris’s finest restaurants. </p>
<p>Now, again I do think there are some legitimate(using the term loosely here as money can be seen as “legitimate” as well) reasons to go into ibanking or consulting but I also am quick to question the motives of those who desire these professions. Likewise, I also am quick to question the motives of students in engineering as undoubtedly many students in engineering are there for the starting salaries – but again, my point was not about the average engineer. My point was only to question whether or not any of these elite students would have ever made any significant contributions in engineering if their motivation is primarily money.</p>
<p>Once again, we are talking about ~500 engineers a year. This is in light of the fact we need to be producing 80K more engineers each year to have a per capita rate comparable to other first world economies. Sakky, you can take those 500. I’ll take the other ~79,500. This is a very quantitatively weak argument.</p>