<p>To be clear, the issue is not regarding investment banking as a whole, but rather regarding engineers who become investment bankers, and specifically, whether such a phenomenon is beneficial for society or represents a long-term brain-drain of the world’s innovation base. </p>
<p>Specifically while I agree that the absolute number of engineers hired into investment banking is miniscule, the issue is not the sheer number of engineers but rather which ones. If investment banking was poaching the 2.0 engineering students from the 4th tier schools, or even just a random draw from the entire engineering student base, it probably wouldn’t be concerning. The problem is that they disproportionately draw from the highest performing engineering students. Let’s face it - a PhD in engineering from Idaho State is not going to garner you an Ibanking position. But a PhD in engineering from MIT very well may. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I think the events of the last few years have emphatically squandered whatever customer trust they may have had. </p>
<p>But in any case, you seem to agree that the Ibanking industry is indeed raiding the best and brightest, for whatever that’s worth. What are the implications to society when the best and the brightest are being poached away from engineering and innovation to peddling securities?</p>
<p>Yet the problem with that logic - as epitomized by this very thread - is that many of the engineers at the schools you mentioned (especially Harvard) never end up working as engineers at all, but rather become bankers. It’s not clear what sort of difference in the world those guys are making.</p>
<p>You may not like the answer, but there is always some amount of luck mixed in with your ability and effort when it comes to determining how successful you are. Those graduating in an economic downturn, or an industry downturn for their major, are likely to have reduced economic prospects (and attitudes toward spending and the like) compared to those with similar ability and effort who graduate during better times.</p>
<p>In econ I remember reading that kids who graduate during recessions also earn much less real income for 15 years after graduating relative to even people who graduated a few years before or after they did. It sucks - if nobody’s hiring, you end up taking a job at a less prestigious company, and that company becomes the launchpad for your entire career.</p>
<p>Of course it depends on the engineering area and probably geographic area. ChemE’s, MechE’s and BioMedE’s are not as sought after as computer scientists. Don’t get me wrong, if there was a big crunch in software engineering to the point that one needed a top school and a high GPA, I probably would have gave more effort in college and probably high-school too.</p>
<p>IMO, Mark77’s situation could be the result of a combination of factors: graduating into a weak economy; competition from labor from outside the US; competition from younger, cheaper labor; employers passing him over because they feel he’s been out of the workforce too long. There’s not much he can do except what most people in this situation do: keep applying in hopes that a job will come through, or start his own business and hope there is a market for what he provides. Although most engineers don’t face these problems, it could happen to anyone.</p>
<p>@sakky Well, my point was that IF you are a serious engineer who wants to further science, THAT is why you wish to attend a top school. I agree that the majority are not going to end up like this, but I believe if you (and true, only a select few want to truly pursue engineering as their life calling) truly love engineering and science, that is why (if you have the goods) you should consider a top engineering school.</p>
<p>My suggestion to people who are concerned about engineering unemployment is to take steps to mitigate the effects of the unemployment. For example, don’t take out a huge loan to attend any school. Go somewhere you (or whoever claims you as a dependent for tax purposes) can currently afford out of pocket. Take advantage of scholarships, if available.</p>
<p>The other thing that better students can do as seniors is to apply to graduate school as well as jobs. If the job market for their field crashes, going to graduate school (if funded, which it often is for engineering) during the recession is likely to be better than spending the recession in the unemployment line (and possibly eventually being seen as unemployable).</p>
<p>You may not have much control over luck, but you may be able to reduce the impact that bad luck can have on you (i.e. going to graduate school even though it was not your first choice, rather than joining the ranks of the long term unemployed). Obviously, doing as well as you can in school helps with this mitigation of bad luck (doing better in school means you have a better chance of getting into funded graduate school).</p>
<p>Yet, AFAIK, Mark77 is indeed a CS graduate. Yet he seems to be faring notoriously poorly on the market and isn’t shy about saying so and assigning blame (IMO by scapegoating the H1B system). </p>
<p>So, as I requested before, perhaps you could provide a working plan of actionable, but non-obvious, steps that somebody like Mark77 - a CS graduate - could take to become a member of that cloistered 10,000 who seem to enjoy jobs galore. Then, if nothing else, at least we would have clearly helped at least one person on this forum. </p>
<p>But, as you acknowledged, even that wouldn’t help all of the non-CS engineers who suffer from career problems. That is, unless you’re willing to say that they should leave their engineering field entirely - or should never have majored in those fields in the first place. Is that in fact your ultimate recommendation: people should major in no other engineering field except for CS? </p>
<p>Yet sadly, a related career tactic is being pursued by plenty of our top engineering talent. Rather than not majoring in engineering at all, they will major in engineering…but then not actually work as engineers (at least, not for long), but will instead leverage their engineering degrees for careers in other fields such as finance or consulting (along with law, medicine, etc.). </p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong, globaltraveller. I’m intrigued by the notion that every engineering student - or at least the CS students - can indeed find cushy, high-paying jobs with undemanding supervisors where the number of jobs exceeds the number of applicants by 10X. And if such opportunities were truly available to them, then that would be an excellent reason for them to actually work as engineers (and for more people to major in engineering in the first place). But if those opportunities are not actually available, then it is entirely rational for engineering students to prefer not to work as engineers at all, but instead to prefer other careers such as consulting or finance. And that then speaks to (or rather undermines) the OP’s premise: for many people, the point of attending a top engineering school is to ironically not be an engineer.</p>
<p>For example, how difficult would it be for him to get one of those TS-SCI (or higher) clearances? I see job postings every so often that require that the applicant must already hold the clearance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s unclear to me, for example, how many unemployed civil and construction engineers the CS (or SE) field could absorb.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One topic that comes up from time to time with regards to defense/intelligence/government work is that these jobs are not perceived to be “alternative-lifestyle” friendly (even if they are). The word on the street is that if you’re the type of person who, for example, dyes their hair blue or covers their body in tatoos that you won’t be welcome. It’s even worse if you’re LGBT. So that is a disincentive for people who might otherwise pursue careers in those areas to do so. OTOH, Silicon Valley tech companies could care less what you look like, what you wear, what your sexual orientation is, etc., as long as you have the skills they want. So even if those companies are stressful, there is less (perceived) stress than in the government sector.</p>
<p>As long you go to a top 50 program and graduate top 10%, you will be fine. Its different if you want to work on Wall Street (which outside of consulting is dying) or work for the federal govt. </p>
<p>Even in Silicon Valley, the great Stanford holdout, the rules of the game are changing. If you want to start some fly-by-night tech company that gets acquired and promptly shelved by a cash flush BigTech company, then a Stanford degree will help. But youth (25 or younger) and a track record will help much more. After all, there are many, many 35+ year old software engineers with Stanford/MIT/Harvard degrees and right connections still cluelessly swinging for the fences. </p>
<p>And whats the shelf life for a SV software engineers? Maybe 25 years, tops? And how long before software engineering in general is automated, and/or dominated completely by 19-23 year old kids who skip traditional college all together. </p>
<p>Its very likely our economy is undergoing a major reordering. Future big players will likely be in software or cutting-edge manufacturing (or both, like Apple). Remind me where Tim Cook went? Or where Jonathan Ivee went? Or Steve Jobs went?</p>
<p>But again, if you want to work a hedge fund and skim fees off desperate pension funds, then yes, a Harvard degree will open doors.</p>