Portland State U. transportation masters program?

[Nell Plotts]

Well Pete, I am basing my opinion on my knowledge of city/county planning offices in the Pacific NW, not just Portland. My husband was in a related field and I was an elected official in the Seattle SMSA. [We are retired.]

I don't know when BLS's opinion was formulated. Five years ago that statement would have been accurate because they could not predict the current economic conditions. Since that time both housing and commercial real estate has imploded, planning for new developments will be few in comparison. Experienced planners have been laid off because of lack of demand and cities/counties are in a heck of a hurt financially themselves. When the economy strengthens applicants with experience will be selected first. There is another issue that wasn't on the table in the recent past: Veteran's preference for employment in public agencies, particularly for disabled Veterans.

If Planning is your passion go for it. But if you were my kid I would suggest you look at transportation planning or construction management as alternative career paths.

[bluevelo]

Don't do it.

I got a Master's degree in Urban and Regional Planning over 20+ years ago. If you're going to work in the transportation field, go with a Civil Engineering degree. It is far - FAR more flexible and there are more jobs in Civil Engineering than in urban planning - you will have far more choices as to the places you can live and work.

As to the mass transit systems, forget that. The money is not going to be there to pay for transit systems that carry a fraction of the people - outside of the old rail cities in the NE and Midwest - and don't go where people are moving - i.e., the suburbs. Talk of global warming aside, people are overwhelmingly going to drive their cars for the foreseeable future. It would take a truly epic disaster to force people from their cars - such a permanent cutoff of imported oil - and we are much more likely to go to major war to seize that oil than put up with a permanent cutoff. That may not sound nice, but it is reality.

I've been doing this work for the better part of 20+ years since getting out and find it highly unfulfilling... but at this point it doesn't make sense to switch careers in a very uncertain economic environment when I have a secure job. That's what this career has been - a secure job, and little else. 20+ years ago, the planning profession was about coming up with the technically neutral "best" solutions to people's needs. Now its gone completely left wing and is trying to impose NYC density and transit on the rest of the country as the "best way" for people to live. Its sad - the profession has gone completely ideological.

But, if your passion is planning, the advice to go the transportation planning route is not bad; there is more job security, but you'll really, in the end, have about 3-4 career paths - you'll either end up hopping from consulting firm to consulting firm, hoping not to get laid off because there's not enough work... the owners of the firms will tell you that there's better money in consulting than gov't and that's true - for owners of the firms. Not for the lackeys at the bottom. Its very much like being in a big law firm and trying to work your way up to partner. You might make it, find out you're 45, have a huge gut, high blood pressure and you're tired of working 2,000+ hours a year on billable projects, but trapped.

You can go local gov't but again there's just not that many big cities that hire a substantial number of transportation planners. There are state DOTs, but in most of them, you'll find that civil engineers get paid, on average, 20-30K more a year for the same experience level than a planner, and that if you pick the right state, you can work 20-25 years for the DOT, retire, and immediately go into the consulting community with your contacts and double dip. You can work for a regional planning agency and metropolitan planning organization, but unless you work for a large MPO, salaries for experienced people are going to average 50-60K a year, unless you can get into management - which is difficult because transportation planners are considered so specialized they won't take a look at you as management material (they prefer people who have a land-use urban planning background). There is also federal employment but that is fairly limited, and you'll no longer be working hands-on on projects but either administering grants and/or enforcing regulations... if you like doing that kind of work it can be fun but no one likes to see the feds peering over their shoulders.

Finally, if you're smart enough to do civil, you're probably smart enough to do other branches of engineering which pay MUCH more than civil does (electrical, chemical, computer, etc.). College is expensive. Invest your money to get the highest return, and while you may not like what you do all that much, if you're going to be stuck in an office, you might as well be getting paid as much as possible, because in our society, your worth is really how much you make and nothing else.

Good luck. I am not trying to sound bitter - I'm really not - but if I were to go back and re-do my education I would have spent my time studying science and engineering in undergrad school and stayed away from anything involving public infrastructure. It hasn't been a priority in this country since the 1960s, and its not a priority now.

[bluevelo]

Originally Posted by Nell Plotts

Well Pete, I am basing my opinion on my knowledge of city/county planning offices in the Pacific NW, not just Portland. My husband was in a related field and I was an elected official in the Seattle SMSA. [We are retired.]

I don't know when BLS's opinion was formulated. Five years ago that statement would have been accurate because they could not predict the current economic conditions. Since that time both housing and commercial real estate has imploded, planning for new developments will be few in comparison. Experienced planners have been laid off because of lack of demand and cities/counties are in a heck of a hurt financially themselves. When the economy strengthens applicants with experience will be selected first. There is another issue that wasn't on the table in the recent past: Veteran's preference for employment in public agencies, particularly for disabled Veterans.

If Planning is your passion go for it. But if you were my kid I would suggest you look at transportation planning or construction management as alternative career paths.

Excellent points. If you were my kid I would suggest you get a degree in anything BUT transportation planning or civil engineering. You're better off to get a MBA, even in the current economic climate. As I noted above, there are many excellent engineering fields that pay better for the amount of skull sweat required to get an engineering degree.

One career that's just on the horizon now is data mining. To get into that, a degree in statistics is what is required. You might look into what graduate programs are available in that area. People with high math skills are always in demand.

[Nell Plotts]

Originally Posted by bluevelo

Excellent points. If you were my kid I would suggest you get a degree in anything BUT transportation planning or civil engineering. You're better off to get a MBA, even in the current economic climate. As I noted above, there are many excellent engineering fields that pay better for the amount of skull sweat required to get an engineering degree.

One career that's just on the horizon now is data mining. To get into that, a degree in statistics is what is required. You might look into what graduate programs are available in that area. People with high math skills are always in demand.

I would add architecture and related arts to the list of 'don't do that' professions. My daughter started out in engineering at a selective university and although she was earning top grades found it unfulfilling because it is an individual contributor profession (she did a lot of speech & some debate in high school), changed majors to another field that fits her analytical & people skills.

A profession is after all only a way to make a living. It should match your innate skills and interests. It is a rare student that can afford the time and money to major in a field that does not prepare for the work world.

You are right that mathematics/statistics/acturial studies is very versatile today but it requires a MA, at least. As a kid I teethed on a deca-deca slide rule, wrapped up a BA in math in 3 years when opportunities for women were nursing, teaching and secretarial. Born too soon.

[khyron]

I'ma let you finish...

...but first I'm just going to drop this off here and slowly back away.

Honest Grad School Ad - CollegeHumor video

[GettaJetta]

A friend of mine finished the MA in Urban Planning at Pratt. The only leads he's getting are small towns, looking for planners. That seems to be where the jobs are. He wants to live in a semi-large city, so he's working an admin gig with the city, hopefully waiting for an opening, or to at least pay the bills until things turn around.

[Nell Plotts]

Originally Posted by GettaJetta

A friend of mine finished the MA in Urban Planning at Pratt. The only leads he's getting are small towns, looking for planners. That seems to be where the jobs are. He wants to live in a semi-large city, so he's working an admin gig with the city, hopefully waiting for an opening, or to at least pay the bills until things turn around.

Pratt is a top school, too.

[palvar]

Originally Posted by Nell Plotts

I would add architecture and related arts to the list of 'don't do that' professions.

Architecture can be a bear. I have several friends who have been working unpaid internships at architecture firms for several years trying to get experience.

[Nell Plotts]

Ponder for a moment the fee derived vs liability, and being dependent on the demand for construction. Better to be a construction manager - same market but no liability and only a 4-year degree (vs 5 or 6).

Lots of people think the architectural fee goes to the architect... it doesn't. Large portions are paid to engineers working on the project. Locally, for example, there were acoustic, structural, mechanical, and lighting engineers as well as theatrical consultants - and they are the first ones who come to my mind (I am not an architect btw).ou

Architects are designing shoes (I kid you not).