Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Uh, American universities consistently dominate several world rankings. Plenty of countries have a few excellent universities, but the US is chock-full of good, better, AND excellent colleges. It's not an issue of the quality of education. It's an issue of labor supply and demand.
Honestly, though, I will say this: I think those rankings are faked. Whenever we have European students, for instance, at our College, it's always the same. They are much better in Math, Physics etc. They have a much better background knowledge,too. Rankings don't mean anything.
25% graduating with a job ? I find that number to be high. I would have guessed Maybe 15% or so. I am surprised it is a quarter of all students.
Honestly, though, I will say this: I think those rankings are faked. Whenever we have European students, for instance, at our College, it's always the same. They are much better in Math, Physics etc. They have a much better background knowledge,too. Rankings don't mean anything.
25% graduating with a job ? I find that number to be high. I would have guessed Maybe 15% or so. I am surprised it is a quarter of all students.
Faked by who? There are international organizations that rank many US schools very high.
The reality is there is a huge dropoff in student quality and education when you get out of the tier 1 schools. Maybe top 100? The AAU schools? Not sure where to draw the line officially but any of those are probably good choices.
Faked by who? There are international organizations that rank many US schools very high.
The reality is there is a huge dropoff in student quality and education when you get out of the tier 1 schools. Maybe top 100? The AAU schools? Not sure where to draw the line officially but any of those are probably good choices.
They can rank them wherever they want. Apparently, though, that dosen't mean much.
U.S students do, at least generally, seems to have a much weaker background in math, physics etc. Not that this bothers me - I hate math, physics. etc. However, I do know that having a strong background in those fields is certainly a good thing and would be beneficial.
I'm majoring in Computer Science and wish I had a strong background in those fields, but it's just not my thing. I'll just take the classes I have to. That's it.
Daughter and son-in-law are engineers (BS) and their starting salaries were way above that average. And the son-in-law has gotten several raises in the 3 years he's been working.
What is "way above" the average? 10k more? 50k more? 100k more? The average starting salary is almost $50k, I call BS on anyone who claims a starting salary "way above" that. Even I-bankers with MBAs from Wharton or Harvard start at just about $100k.
I have a hard time believing that engineers-in-training (that's what you are right out of college) get paid more than $70k, short of petroleum engineering in Alaska or offshore. You know nothing out of college as an engineer. The typical starting salary for engineers is around $38k-$65k.
What is "way above" the average? 10k more? 50k more? 100k more? The average starting salary is almost $50k, I call BS on anyone who claims a starting salary "way above" that. Even I-bankers with MBAs from Wharton or Harvard start at just about $100k.
I have a hard time believing that engineers-in-training (that's what you are right out of college) get paid more than $70k, short of petroleum engineering in Alaska or offshore. You know nothing out of college as an engineer. The typical starting salary for engineers is around $38k-$65k.
Many engineers don't make 70k in their (short living, as a rule) career
BTW, roughly 35%-50% of the excess Ph.D.s in engineering and sciences unable to find a real job and settling for an endless postdoc (if lucky) start at (and finish) anywhere between 25k-40k, no benefits, no rights, unlimited work day/week, etc..
Think advanced education in science and engineering, it's always in demand In the current funding environment, HS/Community College educated technicians are too expensive (and they don't work 24/7). Actually, full time "technicians" are dying breeds in universities, even National Labs cut on technicians quite a bit. Ph.D.s are so abundant, so cheap (relatively), so eager & willing to put enormous hours into brain numbing routine work (requiring no education at all), why pay more to a technician? Luckily, most American Ph.D.s graduates in Sci&Eng. are foreigners from poor countries so they can feed you stories about pie in the sky and importance of math
Your top Stanford cs undergrad is entering the work force with years of accumulated work experience. When you factor this in with a high IQ, reasonable frugality, an entrepreneurial drive, and a willingness to work 70-80 hour weeks for years on end, it explains the paydays.
If you took this combo and applied it to any field, you would likely get similar results. Take any smart kid with the above combo and have him dig ditches. By his late thirties, he'll likely have a general contracting business. Give him a lemonade stand, and he'll end up with selling Four Loko-style booze to college kids.
Granted both cs and modern finance are relatively new and more scalable, so you can get extreme paydays that grab headlines. But the median incomes are similar to a lot of fields, once you consider outside factors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsw
Not all colleges/majors/grads are created equal, nor are all industries/specific employers similarly profitable/lucrative/competitive for scarce talent
Rumors are top 10% of Stanford CS undergrads have multiple ~$150K/yr starting job offers from various BigTechs and hot start-ups needing smart, hungry software engineers
But suspect ~40% of Stanford non-Engineering undergrads are effectively un/underemployed at graduation...
Top 10% of Wharton Finance undergrads will likely earn ~$100K/yr as a first-yr trader at Goldman, etc
SV has 1000s of <40yo software engineers who earn >>$1MM/yr, much like Manhattan has 1000s of <40yo traders who earn >>$1MM/yr...and both gps earn much of their pay in form of restricted stock, options, etc...and are rather different in career achievements/skills/talents from others who also claim to be engineers or traders yet have vastly lower pay, no matter how many yrs of alleged work expce
It's statements like this that make everyone realize how little credibility you have. The median salary for all electric engineers is $84k, for mechanical engineers is $78k, and for biomedical engineers is $81k. You're telling me a college grad with little to no working experience will make just $10k short of the median engineering salaries? Those engineers with 10-20 years of experience must be real suckers staying in the job then.
The only engineers who make a lot of money from the get go are the petroleum engineers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However, I do know that having a strong background in those fields is certainly a good thing and would be beneficial.
