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.
Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going strong. This has to be one of the funniest threads, first, it's I am an engineer, I make more than you. When that did not work out, it's, I have a higher IQ and engineers only work for engineers. Now it's, let's ask MIT if they think Clemson is as good as MIT. Why stop there, Trash talk Michigan's automotive engineering. Or, when all else fails, you can always play a political card.
The best line is that engineers can get into the busness and management but it is a one way street. Engineers can lead companies but, as evidenced by the logic used so far by an engineer on this thread, not all engineers should apply for leadership positions. LOL, this is funny. Next time I am on a deal trying to properly value a company, I will stop and call a mechanical engineer from Clemson, they know it all. Hey swamp, can you tell me how exchange rates may react to changes in LIBOR so I can get a better handle on discounting the cash flow layers of an international company?
Location: South Carolina - staying with brother in Columbia
596 posts, read 938,610 times
Reputation: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by happyandy
Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going strong. This has to be one of the funniest threads, first, it's I am an engineer, I make more than you. When that did not work out, it's, I have a higher IQ and engineers only work for engineers. Now it's, let's ask MIT if they think Clemson is as good as MIT. Why stop there, Trash talk Michigan's automotive engineering. Or, when all else fails, you can always play a political card.
The best line is that engineers can get into the busness and management but it is a one way street. Engineers can lead companies but, as evidenced by the logic used so far by an engineer on this thread, not all engineers should apply for leadership positions. LOL, this is funny. Next time I am on a deal trying to properly value a company, I will stop and call a mechanical engineer from Clemson, they know it all. Hey swamp, can you tell me how exchange rates may react to changes in LIBOR so I can get a better handle on discounting the cash flow layers of an international company?
Alrighty then, that was an interesting read. even a little pop quiz for me. awesome. You ought to go to Fluor in Greenville and talk them to them about exchange rates and there is no doubt in my mind they will hire you in a skinny minute and put you in charge of their engineering staff.
I never said business guys can't go into management. I said it doesn't make sense for them to be in engineering management. Business guys need to stay in the financial accounting space of a corporation, and engineers need to be in the engineering space. At times they will interface. I don't think you are in any way qualified to be an engineer's supervisor if you are not an engineer. I don't see how that is controversial. Engineers need to manage engineering projects. There are good reasons for that that including basic ethics. Let me know when a non-engineer can stamp construction drawings. This is one of the things an engineer manager is going to have to do in the real world.
I never had any idea that my assertion that Clemson is just as good as MIT for undergrad engineering was going to offend so many non-engineers out there. I can't see engineers who went to MIT being upset about it. It would be like me getting upset if somebody said the history program at Francis Marion is a good as the history program at Harvard.
I don't know what is absurd about me actually wanting to talk to actual engineers who went to MIT about this topic. Makes more sense than talking to non-engineers who didn't go to either Clemson or MIT. I haven't been dumping on any school unless saying Clemson undergrad program in engineering is just as good as MIT is considered dumping on MIT. I think MIT is a fine school, so is Clemson.
Last edited by SwampFox35; 03-01-2013 at 06:35 PM..
I don't think you are in any way qualified to be an engineer's supervisor if you are not an engineer. I don't see how that is controversial. Engineers need to manage engineering projects. There are good reasons for that that including basic ethics. Let me know when a non-engineer can stamp construction drawings. This is one of the things an engineer manager is going to have to do in the real world.
It's controversial because that is not how the real world works. In your fantasy world, 'knowing' more than your boss makes you in charge. Okay, let me know how that works out for you 10 years down the road. Probably it's worked well so far because you haven't reached enough of a level to see the difference.
In REAL LIFE, you sometimes get someone with a weaker or different background, sometimes one that YOU think is inappropriate (in your case, not an engineer) that has exhibited something their superiors thought was good enough to promote them over you. You don't have to like it, but you do have to live with it unless you go off restricting yourself to only companies where engineers are always in charge of engineers, in all cases. Most companies I have worked with or for are not structured that way.
Having the attitude that technical knowledge puts you automatically in charge is a problem with many engineers and technical types, but except for the lower end, it is not remotely true.
I understand you think engineers need to manage engineering projects-that's your opinion and it may stem from different definitions of 'manage'. It is entirely possible to be a savvy enough boss to use your subordinate's input to manage a project without being a PE yourself, and particularly where multiple engineering disciplines are involved to pull the project together.
Non-engineer stamping construction projects: red herring. In the real world-again, the place all of us but you live-a boss gives a project to an engineer with guidelines, gets status updates-e.g., the engineer translates into terms the boss can understand, the boss MAKES DECISIONS based on that input, and at the end, asks the engineer, 'is this project TECHNICALLY right?' If the engineer says yes, the boss gives the permission to execute/finalize. If the engineer didn't do it technically right, or isn't comfortable with it, the PE gives them the right and duty to NOT stamp-but they didn't create or approve the project.
See the word technically? That's what you completely fail to understand. Every other thing about the project is not in the technical engineer's hands. He or she doesn't typically decide to execute or not execute the project. The boss, or the boss's boss is still not an engineer in many, many cases. Not sure how that's so incredibly difficult for you to grasp.
Last edited by GeorgiaTransplant; 03-03-2013 at 10:28 AM..
Location: South Carolina - staying with brother in Columbia
596 posts, read 938,610 times
Reputation: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgiaTransplant
It's controversial because that is not how the real world works. In your fantasy world, 'knowing' more than your boss makes you in charge. Okay, let me know how that works out for you 10 years down the road. Probably it's worked well so far because you haven't reached enough of a level to see the difference.
In REAL LIFE, you sometimes get someone with a weaker or different background, sometimes one that YOU think is inappropriate (in your case, not an engineer) that has exhibited something their superiors thought was good enough to promote them over you. You don't have to like it, but you do have to live with it unless you go off restricting yourself to only companies where engineers are always in charge of engineers, in all cases. Most companies I have worked with or for with are not structured that way.
Having the attitude that technical knowledge puts you automatically in charge is a problem with many engineers and technical types, but except for the lower end, it is not remotely true.
I understand you think engineers need to manage engineering projects-that's your opinion and it may stem from different definitions of 'manage'. It is entirely possible to be a savvy enough boss to use your subordinate's input to manage a project without being a PE yourself, and particularly where multiple engineering disciplines are involved to pull the project together.
Non-engineer stamping construction projects: red herring. In the real world-again, the place all of us but you live-a boss gives a project to an engineer with guidelines, gets status updates-e.g., the engineer translates into terms the boss can understand, the boss MAKES DECISIONS based on that input, and at the end, asks the engineer, 'is this project TECHNICALLY right?' If the engineer says yes, the boss gives the permission to execute/finalize. If the engineer didn't do it technically right, or isn't comfortable with it, the PE gives them the right and duty to NOT stamp-but they didn't create or approve the project.
See the word technically? That's what you completely fail to understand. Every other thing about the project is not in the technical engineer's hands. He or she doesn't typically decide to execute or not execute the project. The boss, or the boss's boss is still not an engineer in many, many cases. Not sure how that's so incredibly difficult for you to grasp.
You seem to think that you have some kind of authority to talk down to me. It's almost like you are living some kind of internet fantasy in which you are my boss in some way and I better not "give you lip". I thought it was interesting that you were talking down to engineers as though they were low skilled workers at some sweat shop. You may be able to get away with that kind of authoritarian pose with low skilled workers but not with engineers I would hope.
You don't know one thing about me or my resume, yet you accuse me the one of needing to get some humility as you presume to lecture me about my profession, which is by far the most arrogant thing that I've encountered on this forum.
Engineers need to have supervisors who are engineers, especially at consulting firms where the engineers are involved in design work. Senior engineers manage engineering projects.
I have 12 years of engineering work experience and I do know a thing or two about the profession. Even to be able to sit for your PE Exam, you are supposed to be working under a senior engineer with their PE license for several years, and you need to have several PEs give you a reference when you apply to take the exam.
I think business majors are real confused if they think they are qualified to manage professional engineers. It's also easy as heck for engineers to earn a MBA at a local university after work these days, even though a MBA is not required or relevant to being an engineer manager. I know engineers who have done this and they say they learned some stuff in the MBA program but they didn't need it for their job.
Last edited by SwampFox35; 03-03-2013 at 11:06 AM..
In reading your responses to me and others, it seems as though you think folks are trying to define you. So, answer a couple of questions to help us out,
1. Do you think Clemson is as good as MIT? If so, why? Would a Clemson grad make more on average?
2. Do you think that engineers are smarter than other majors ( you have said your IQ is very high).
3. Why do you think an engineer can easily get an MBA but, a business degree can't get through engineering? You said it is easy as heck, are you referring to he degree? I personally know engineers who struggled with finance, Econ, accounting etc.....especially when using the concepts that did not fit together in a straight forward fashion.
4. Why do you think it is so hard for an engineer to work for a non engineer somewhere in the org chart?
5. Do engineers make good CEO's?
6. Could an engineer easily transition to a business job like an equities trader? Why?
7. Do engineers understand the economy? Is it easy to understand?
8. Why do business majors earn more long term than engineers?
Feel free to expand on the questions to help clarify your points.
Location: South Carolina - staying with brother in Columbia
596 posts, read 938,610 times
Reputation: 188
In reading your responses to me and others, it seems as though you think folks are trying to define you. So, answer a couple of questions to help us out,
1. Do you think Clemson is as good as MIT? If so, why? Would a Clemson grad make more on average? I've answerd the first question already. Yes I think Clemson undgrad program is just as good as MIT's undergrad program. MIT may offer more specialized technical electives in stuff like robotics but the basic curriculum is the same at every mechanical enginering school. thermodynamics doesn't change based on the school, it is what it is. Your second question seems to conflate earnings with quality of the education at school, which is what I thought we were talking about. I can't see why a Clemson grad can't make more than a MIT grad, but so what if MIT grads do make more across the board. that could the function of their stellar reputation as the "best" program", which is why I've been debating it, I've also pointed that I think having a degree from CLemson is probably better for an engineer in SC and the southeast than a degree from MIT b/c Clemson grads tend to want to hire Clemson grads, and I can't see firms in the south preferring a MIT degree over a CLemson degree and MIT grads probably going to want to stay up north anyway. My Clemson degree has never hurt me in getting job interviews and offers and i don't see how it could be any better if I had a MIT degree. it is possible i could have got a job that paid more with MIT degree, sure, but I think unlikely b/c salary is more dictated by the industry you work in than what college you went to as an engineer. a MIT degree would probably only have an advantage in getting an engineer into a research type of role, which most engineers are no interested in, and reseach could probably pay a little higher salary than other fields, but even that will vary.
2. Do you think that engineers are smarter than other majors ( you have said your IQ is very high). I would say across the board, engineers are smarter than your average undergrad major in liberal arts and business. There were a lot of students who dropped out of engineering and most of them ended up in the business school at Cliemson. I don't think people dropping out of business school are flocking to the engineering schools, though. it's generally a one way street. This isn't to say they are stupid but engineering is a tougher program in my view, and the subject material is more abstract and can be really dry to most people. There are some engineers who struggle in writing classes and non-techanical stuff but that isn't the norm. Both law and medical schools came to encourage my senior class to think about applying to both, and it's because they think we have excellent critical thinking skills compared to your average student
3. Why do you think an engineer can easily get an MBA but, a business degree can't get through engineering? You said it is easy as heck, are you referring to he degree? I personally know engineers who struggled with finance, Econ, accounting etc.....especially when using the concepts that did not fit together in a straight forward fashion. it would be difficult to earn an engineering degree after work. MBA's are easy to get afterwork. I don't think most engineers will struggle with economics, finance, accouonting if they could do engineering. Economics is actually fun b/c you don't have to do as many calculations compared to engineering, it jsut requires you to think a little bit. The difficult part about engineering is it takes some time to figure out what a question on an exam is wanting you to do, and exams are usually 3 or 4 questions max, and then you have to do a lot of calculations and probably reference a table or graph to obtain other data to solve the problem. it is much more stresful than an economics exam generally will be. i just felt like i had all the time in the world on economics exams
4. Why do you think it is so hard for an engineer to work for a non engineer somewhere in the org chart? I've covered this, extensively.
5. Do engineers make good CEO's? I think most do, and I would think most CEOs at engineering consulting firms are degreed engineers. Companies like Fluor and CH2M HILL usually have CEOs with engineering degrees. If not that, they have construction science education and experirence which is basically a field of engineering
6. Could an engineer easily transition to a business job like an equities trader? Why? No, business jobs are not engineering jobs. that is my point, and why business guys shouldn't be iin engineering management. how do you manage people if you don't understand their profession?
7. Do engineers understand the economy? Is it easy to understand? I think microeconomics is very easy to understand. Engineers do typically take an economics based course in their undergrad program. Macroeconomics isn't relevant to what engineers do but I would say engineers understand that much better than our president does and it's not their job to guide it.
8. Why do business majors earn more long term than engineers? I don't think this is true at all. some business majors may do better overall, but has nothing to do with their education and everything to do with their own innate intelligence. stats will show engineers do better both starting and average salary than business majors across the board. My impression of a lot of business majors is they think they are slick and they think they know how to make bank without really putting in the time to master a profession. they just want to get in there and "manage people" as though they know how to "manage people" b/c they took business classes in college. my view of management is they are supposed to be teachers, and business guys can't teach engineers the profession. engineers do engineering b/c they like it, the primary goal isn't to get rich. i think business majors often make making money their main objective which is fine but that isn't how engineers operate
Last edited by SwampFox35; 03-03-2013 at 12:54 PM..
In reading your responses to me and others, it seems as though you think folks are trying to define you. So, answer a couple of questions to help us out,
1. Do you think Clemson is as good as MIT? If so, why? Would a Clemson grad make more on average? I've answerd the first question already. Yes I think Clemson undgrad program is just as good as MIT's undergrad program. MIT may offer more specialized technical electives in stuff like robotics but the basic curriculum is the same at every mechanical enginering school. thermodynamics doesn't change based on the school, it is what it is. Your second question seems to conflate earnings with quality of the education at school, which is what I thought we were talking about. I can't see why a Clemson grad can't make more than a MIT grad, but so what if MIT grads do make more across the board. that could the function of their stellar reputation as the "best" program", which is why I've been debating it, I've also pointed that I think having a degree from CLemson is probably better for an engineer in SC and the southeast than a degree from MIT b/c Clemson grads tend to want to hire Clemson grads, and I can't see firms in the south preferring a MIT degree over a CLemson degree and MIT grads probably going to want to stay up north anyway. My Clemson degree has never hurt me in getting job interviews and offers and i don't see how it could be any better if I had a MIT degree. it is possible i could have got a job that paid more with MIT degree, sure, but I think unlikely b/c salary is more dictated by the industry you work in than what college you went to as an engineer. a MIT degree would probably only have an advantage in getting an engineer into a research type of role, which most engineers are no interested in, and reseach could probably pay a little higher salary than other fields, but even that will vary.
2. Do you think that engineers are smarter than other majors ( you have said your IQ is very high). I would say across the board, engineers are smarter than your average undergrad major in liberal arts and business. There were a lot of students who dropped out of engineering and most of them ended up in the business school at Cliemson. I don't think people dropping out of business school are flocking to the engineering schools, though. it's generally a one way street. This isn't to say they are stupid but engineering is a tougher program in my view, and the subject material is more abstract and can be really dry to most people. There are some engineers who struggle in writing classes and non-techanical stuff but that isn't the norm. Both law and medical schools came to encourage my senior class to think about applying to both, and it's because they think we have excellent critical thinking skills compared to your average student
3. Why do you think an engineer can easily get an MBA but, a business degree can't get through engineering? You said it is easy as heck, are you referring to he degree? I personally know engineers who struggled with finance, Econ, accounting etc.....especially when using the concepts that did not fit together in a straight forward fashion. it would be difficult to earn an engineering degree after work. MBA's are easy to get afterwork. I don't think most engineers will struggle with economics, finance, accouonting if they could do engineering. Economics is actually fun b/c you don't have to do as many calculations compared to engineering, it jsut requires you to think a little bit. The difficult part about engineering is it takes some time to figure out what a question on an exam is wanting you to do, and exams are usually 3 or 4 questions max, and then you have to do a lot of calculations and probably reference a table or graph to obtain other data to solve the problem. it is much more stresful than an economics exam generally will be. i just felt like i had all the time in the world on economics exams
4. Why do you think it is so hard for an engineer to work for a non engineer somewhere in the org chart? I've covered this, extensively.
5. Do engineers make good CEO's? I think most do, and I would think most CEOs at engineering consulting firms are degreed engineers. Companies like Fluor and CH2M HILL usually have CEOs with engineering degrees. If not that, they have construction science education and experirence which is basically a field of engineering
6. Could an engineer easily transition to a business job like an equities trader? Why? No, business jobs are not engineering jobs. that is my point, and why business guys shouldn't be iin engineering management. how do you manage people if you don't understand their profession?
7. Do engineers understand the economy? Is it easy to understand? I think microeconomics is very easy to understand. Engineers do typically take an economics based course in their undergrad program. Macroeconomics isn't relevant to what engineers do but I would say engineers understand that much better than our president does and it's not their job to guide it.
8. Why do business majors earn more long term than engineers? I don't think this is true at all. some business majors may do better overall, but has nothing to do with their education and everything to do with their own innate intelligence. stats will show engineers do better both starting and average salary than business majors across the board. My impression of a lot of business majors is they think they are slick and they think they know how to make bank without really putting in the time to master a profession. they just want to get in there and "manage people" as though they know how to "manage people" b/c they took business classes in college. my view of management is they are supposed to be teachers, and business guys can't teach engineers the profession. engineers do engineering b/c they like it, the primary goal isn't to get rich. i think business majors often make making money their main objective which is fine but that isn't how engineers operate
Interesting responses......I would still like a little more color around question # 1 because for one, MIT has an endowment of round $10b, Clemson is not above $400m. MIT will earn more in interest annually than Clemson has in tuition income. As a result, they can pay multiples of what Clemson can pay for the best professors. Sure, the courses may be the same subject matter, however, MIT can outbid Clemson for any professor in the market.
But, to clarify a few points. I am not so sure engineers would transition as easily to Econ, finance and accounting as you make it seem. And here's why. I have had 5 question exams in economics that took hours to complete. Why, it is not a simple "this is how I feel" answer. You may have to calculate the statistical abstract based on pages and pages of data. Then, calculus and statistics may be required to further quantify the data into a meaningful answer, hat is a very simple example. And, econometrics is not fun. The same applies to finance, accounting and marketing. An engineering major could certainly do the work just as a business or liberal arts major could get through an engineering program, it all depends on the individual. But, I have seen many many engineers struggle in business disciplines because it is not an exact science. If you think Econ is easy, why are you not making billions in the market?
It is interesting that you think engineers are a cut above all others, I don't think they necessarily are or aren't. People are interested in certain professions and go that direction. If you like engineering, you will do well in that department. Who you are managed by in a company depends on the company, if you don't like it, go elsewhere. But, by the nature of business, engineers do and always can report to non engineers. Folks who understand will do well. In the same thought, a business person may work for an engineer. There is no prescripted way a business works, engineering firms included. As for who makes more, there is not a person I know that would go to engineering in order to make more money, they would all take a pay cut.
Location: South Carolina - staying with brother in Columbia
596 posts, read 938,610 times
Reputation: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vhammond
Interesting responses......I would still like a little more color around question # 1 because for one, MIT has an endowment of round $10b, Clemson is not above $400m. MIT will earn more in interest annually than Clemson has in tuition income. As a result, they can pay multiples of what Clemson can pay for the best professors. Sure, the courses may be the same subject matter, however, MIT can outbid Clemson for any professor in the market.
But, to clarify a few points. I am not so sure engineers would transition as easily to Econ, finance and accounting as you make it seem. And here's why. I have had 5 question exams in economics that took hours to complete. Why, it is not a simple "this is how I feel" answer. You may have to calculate the statistical abstract based on pages and pages of data. Then, calculus and statistics may be required to further quantify the data into a meaningful answer, hat is a very simple example. And, econometrics is not fun. The same applies to finance, accounting and marketing. An engineering major could certainly do the work just as a business or liberal arts major could get through an engineering program, it all depends on the individual. But, I have seen many many engineers struggle in business disciplines because it is not an exact science. If you think Econ is easy, why are you not making billions in the market?
It is interesting that you think engineers are a cut above all others, I don't think they necessarily are or aren't. People are interested in certain professions and go that direction. If you like engineering, you will do well in that department. Who you are managed by in a company depends on the company, if you don't like it, go elsewhere. But, by the nature of business, engineers do and always can report to non engineers. Folks who understand will do well. In the same thought, a business person may work for an engineer. There is no prescripted way a business works, engineering firms included. As for who makes more, there is not a person I know that would go to engineering in order to make more money, they would all take a pay cut.
"best professors" is a subjective thing, and the reason they are considered best has nothing to do with their ability to teach. It has to do with personal accomplishments that they have received in the research realm more than likely, and probably their ability to get more research money thrown at MIT. this is a problem with all engineering programs in that you ahve a lot of professors there that are not great teachers but good at engineering research. they have to do both but sadly colleges tend to weight the research thing more than the teaching component.
It's not like Clemson professors are underpaid. If they can't teach a class as well as a MIT professor simply b/c they aren't paid as well as the MIT professor, it begs the question why they are paid at all. Clemson attracts professors from all across the country...they can't all work at MIT, only so many slots there.
I should point out again that Clemson's tuition is much more affordable than MIT's. I don't think whatever advantage that you could gain from going to MIT is worth paying multiple of what you would pay to go to Clemson or NC State or Virginia Tech. I would say any engineering student who is paying that inflated cost or their parents have more money than sense, but to each his own. I think all colleges price gouge their students like crazy and their is little effort to try to keep tuition in a reasonable range. Any additional salary that you would earn due to being a MIT grad is going to be offset by the additional debt that you have to pay back.
We are talking past each other if you think engineers report to business guys. Sure it can happen, but that is extremely atypical. I'm not referring to engineering positions that interface with business guys, but reporting to somebody doesn't mean he's your supervisor in a real sense. You won't have anybody respect you if you find yourself in a role where engineers are reporting to you and you don't know jack about engineering. You wouldn't want a role like that.
I don't think business stuff is that abstract. I know at Clemson it seemed like half the people at graduation were graduating with a degree in business, so obviously there is something about engineering that limits the number of people who do it compared to business programs. I would suggest it has to do with engineering being a more challenging program for most people out there.
I don't think most Econ majors are making billions in the market. that's not what Econ is about anyway.
An engineering consulting firm that is set up correctly hires engineers to be engineering managers.
Last edited by SwampFox35; 03-03-2013 at 02:36 PM..
Location: South Carolina - staying with brother in Columbia
596 posts, read 938,610 times
Reputation: 188
Oh, i meant to make this observation:
The students at MIT are paying much more money to attend MIT than universities like Clemson to pay those jacked up salaries used to attract the professors who are said to be superior due to their personal accomplishments in research. I wouldn't want to be fleeced to essentially pay tribute to a professor's personal accomplishments and "prestige" outside of the classroom but that is what happens at schools like MIT.
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.
