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.
I don't care about computer engineering or science, but I would hope that a computer engineer has a supervisor with a engineering education and work experience. It does seem like some people can get into computer stuff easier without a degree b/c it's a hobby for a lot of people out there, but that would probably be limited to computer science, and computer engineering probably requires formal education.
Computer engineering in general is kind of a niche thing and it's not a traditional engineering discipline in my view like mechanical, civil, electrical, and chemical. You probably don't need a PE in that field. Getting your license as an engineer is similar in my mind as getting your license as a lawyer or physician or pharmacist. It probably should be required to practice engineering but a lot of engineers would oppose that. I think it would be good b/c then you wouldn't have people with no degrees worming their way into our profession because a few companies do things in a shady way.
Don't know much about writing software or system development I can see.
I've explained this. Others have explained this. You seem to be the only one who just doesn't get it. Managers don't need much more than a passing knowledge. They need competent subordinates that they can delegate to. That's what you were hired for.
It's not about making anyone 'dance for you'. It's a professional delegation of authority and areas of responsibility. I have worked for Flour. My father-in-law spent his entire career working for Bechtel with the last 20 years managing both engineers and craft. He did it without a degree. He retired last year.
It's off topic concerning the MIT vs Clemson issue. Personally I don't know an engineering firm around that would take a Clemson grad over a MIT grad (all things being equal) unless that person went to Clemson and has some super loyalty to the university. All things being equal, it's my opinion that they would take a GA Tech grad before a Clemson grad. Regardless, the perception simply is these other universities are considered better. The only way to change that is to donate money to Clemson and be the best engineer you can be. Win the big awards and that's how you increase the reputation. I don't believe your stances here exactly further your cause.
As far as the manager issue. You're just wrong. I believe you have a very limited view of business and your attitude comes across as very narcissistic. Economics, finance, and accounting are not easy topics regardless of your inexperience. Simply because some people do well in one degree and not another is not an indication of the science's difficulty. My wife can make you go to sleep so deep, and maintain you there, so a surgeon can take your heart out and replace it with another. Then bring you back. She's managing all the chemistry and monitoring all your other systems as this occurs. And, yes she has to be licensed. Yet, she has no interest what so ever in engineering or computers. Would fail those courses miserably. She just doesn't get it. Yet the numbers behind dosage and chemistry 'click' for her.
Don't know much about writing software or system development I can see.
I've explained this. Others have explained this. You seem to be the only one who just doesn't get it. Managers don't need much more than a passing knowledge. They need competent subordinates that they can delegate to. That's what you were hired for.
It's not about making anyone 'dance for you'. It's a professional delegation of authority and areas of responsibility. I have worked for Flour. My father-in-law spent his entire career working for Bechtel with the last 20 years managing both engineers and craft. He did it without a degree. He retired last year.
It's off topic concerning the MIT vs Clemson issue. Personally I don't know an engineering firm around that would take a Clemson grad over a MIT grad (all things being equal) unless that person went to Clemson and has some super loyalty to the university. All things being equal, it's my opinion that they would take a GA Tech grad before a Clemson grad. Regardless, the perception simply is these other universities are considered better. The only way to change that is to donate money to Clemson and be the best engineer you can be. Win the big awards and that's how you increase the reputation. I don't believe your stances here exactly further your cause.
As far as the manager issue. You're just wrong. I believe you have a very limited view of business and your attitude comes across as very narcissistic. Economics, finance, and accounting are not easy topics regardless of your inexperience. Simply because some people do well in one degree and not another is not an indication of the science's difficulty. My wife can make you go to sleep so deep, and maintain you there, so a surgeon can take your heart out and replace it with another. Then bring you back. She's managing all the chemistry and monitoring all your other systems as this occurs. And, yes she has to be licensed. Yet, she has no interest what so ever in engineering or computers. Would fail those courses miserably. She just doesn't get it. Yet the numbers behind dosage and chemistry 'click' for her.
I largely agree with you here. When I started my career and was lower down in the ranks, my supervisors and managers were always technical because the focus was much more in the weeds. However, as I rose in my career, so did my focus. Now, it was about managing on a very large scale, which meant knowing business, finance, technical specs, facility management, etc, etc. Really, at the highest levels, it's more about business and finance than anything else. It's about being able to make forecasts, understand manning and personnel needs at a macro level, create and understand financial reports, etc. One of the reasons that I finally went out on my own was because I had the knowledge necessary to run a business and not just the technical aspect.
At my level, my business degree has been more valuable than my technical degrees. In addition, I have worked with plenty of people at the CEO and CFO levels that run, successfully I might add, large engineering companies and/or projects who are not engineers themselves. It's simply a matter of levels. When you're lower level, you need and must have that technical manager but when you are at upper level management, you will fail unless you understand business and finance.
Location: South Carolina - staying with brother in Columbia
596 posts, read 938,610 times
Reputation: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel
I largely agree with you here. When I started my career and was lower down in the ranks, my supervisors and managers were always technical because the focus was much more in the weeds. However, as I rose in my career, so did my focus. Now, it was about managing on a very large scale, which meant knowing business, finance, technical specs, facility management, etc, etc. Really, at the highest levels, it's more about business and finance than anything else. It's about being able to make forecasts, understand manning and personnel needs at a macro level, create and understand financial reports, etc. One of the reasons that I finally went out on my own was because I had the knowledge necessary to run a business and not just the technical aspect.
At my level, my business degree has been more valuable than my technical degrees. In addition, I have worked with plenty of people at the CEO and CFO levels that run, successfully I might add, large engineering companies and/or projects who are not engineers themselves. It's simply a matter of levels. When you're lower level, you need and must have that technical manager but when you are at upper level management, you will fail unless you understand business and finance.
You won't be in upper level engineering management if you don't understand the engineering, "the technical weeds" as you describe it. Engineering management has to understand the engineering and not just from real vague big picture standpoint. They have to be able to resolve complex issues that arise. There is not one engineering firm in the world that is going to have you managing engineers. You don't understand what you are talking about if you think CEOs and CFOs are managing engineers, at any level. They are operating in the business space of the corporation, they do not oversea engineering work, in any way. A CEO job is purely a business related job, that is why non-engineers are sometimes in these roles. But I think if you look at engineering consulting firms like CH2M HILL and Fluor, the vast majority of the CEOs are going to be degreed engineers, most of the time.
This idea that you are qualified to be a engineer's boss, especially one with their professional engineering license, is hilarious to me. It would be like me saying I could be a CPA's boss despite no knowledge of accounting and no CPA license.
This is the thing that annoys me about business guys, they see themselves as these big picture kind of people as though engineers are not and cannot be big picture kind of people and thus we need business guys "managing" us. Engineering managers may not be down in the "technical weeds" doing the design work but they still have to understand those technical weeds. That is a college kid view of the corporate world. Having knowledge of business stuff is great but you can't manage engineers if you don't understand engineering. I think this is so self-evident and it pains me to have to repeat it yet again on here.
Last edited by SwampFox35; 03-06-2013 at 11:46 PM..
You won't be in upper level engineering management if you don't understand the engineering, "the technical weeds" as you describe it. Engineering management has to understand the engineering and not just from real vague big picture standpoint. They have to be able to resolve complex issues that arise. There is not one engineering firm in the world that is going to have you managing engineers. You don't understand what you are talking about if you think CEOs and CFOs are managing engineers, at any level. They are operating in the business space of the corporation, they do not oversea engineering work, in any way. A CEO job is purely a business related job, that is why non-engineers are sometimes in these roles. But I think if you look at engineering consulting firms like CH2M HILL and Fluor, the vast majority of the CEOs are going to be degreed engineers, most of the time.
This idea that you are qualified to be a engineer's boss, especially one with their professional engineering license, is hilarious to me. It would be like me saying I could be a CPA's boss despite no knowledge of accounting and no CPA license.
This is the thing that annoys me about business guys, they see themselves as these big picture kind of people as though engineers are not and cannot be big picture kind of people and thus we need business guys "managing" us. Engineering managers may not be down in the "technical weeds" doing the design work but they still have to understand those technical weeds. That is a college kid view of the corporate world. Having knowledge of business stuff is great but you can't manage engineers if you don't understand engineering. I think this is so self-evident and it pains me to have to repeat it yet again on here.
Perhaps I was unfair to you but I wanted to see your type of response. I am an engineer but I'm also one that went on to get multiple other degrees, including one in business. I've also been an upper level executive and can attest to how the real world works (now I have my own company). Here's the assumption that you are making. You are assuming that all engineers work at engineering only firms. This is not the case and in fact, is rarely the case. Even my father, who was also a mechanical engineer like yourself, did not work at an engineering firm but a company that employed, as part of their team, engineers.
Fact of the matter is that in the real world, once you reach upper level management, you get further and further away from the technical side and must work alongside financial, marketing, and business disciplines. I worked in one place that had matrix management for technical and business. This was not ideal, in my opinion even though we had that technical leadership. The best business model and the one that I gravitated towards was one where upper level management was proven leaders, able to understand complex concepts, and able to effectively manage the project/program for scope, cost, and requirements. Once I reached upper level management, I had peers that were non-engineers and felt they did a fine job because they knew how to run the program and/or project. They were able to assemble a team that consisted of all the necessary disciplines to get the best results. I followed this lead and did the same.
If you manage, in your entire career, to stay with nothing but engineering firms, perhaps you will not experience this type of environment. However, if not, you will soon see what I am talking about. Best of luck to you.
Location: South Carolina - staying with brother in Columbia
596 posts, read 938,610 times
Reputation: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel
Perhaps I was unfair to you but I wanted to see your type of response. I am an engineer but I'm also one that went on to get multiple other degrees, including one in business. I've also been an upper level executive and can attest to how the real world works (now I have my own company). Here's the assumption that you are making. You are assuming that all engineers work at engineering only firms. This is not the case and in fact, is rarely the case. Even my father, who was also a mechanical engineer like yourself, did not work at an engineering firm but a company that employed, as part of their team, engineers.
Fact of the matter is that in the real world, once you reach upper level management, you get further and further away from the technical side and must work alongside financial, marketing, and business disciplines. I worked in one place that had matrix management for technical and business. This was not ideal, in my opinion even though we had that technical leadership. The best business model and the one that I gravitated towards was one where upper level management was proven leaders, able to understand complex concepts, and able to effectively manage the project/program for scope, cost, and requirements. Once I reached upper level management, I had peers that were non-engineers and felt they did a fine job because they knew how to run the program and/or project. They were able to assemble a team that consisted of all the necessary disciplines to get the best results. I followed this lead and did the same.
If you manage, in your entire career, to stay with nothing but engineering firms, perhaps you will not experience this type of environment. However, if not, you will soon see what I am talking about. Best of luck to you.
I'm discussing engineering management on here. and people like you keep talking as though CEOs and CFOS are in engineering management. That is ignorant, CEOS and CFOs rarely see engineers at their company and if they do , it's more of an interface than direct supervision. Those are pure business jobs, yet I have seen people over and over say that engineers report to them. That's a school kid's version of how it works.
I'd be REAL suprised that you had an engineering degree based on some of the stuff you have been saying on here, especially this idea that a CFO! is "engineering management"? Do you even know what a CFO is?
I'm discussing engineering management on here. and people like you keep talking as though CEOs and CFOS are in engineering management. That is ignorant, CEOS and CFOs rarely see engineers at their company and if they do , it's more of an interface than direct supervision. Those are pure business jobs, yet I have seen people over and over say that engineers report to them. That's a school kid's version of how it works.
I'd be REAL suprised that you had an engineering degree based on some of the stuff you have been saying on here, especially this idea that a CFO! is "engineering management"? Do you even know what a CFO is?
Technically the thread was about Clemson vs MIT but seems to have veered off into this discussion of engineers and management. From what I have ascertained, you have claimed that engineers are never managed by anyone but other engineers. Now, if you choose to move the goal posts, so be it. Engineering management is a discipline in and of itself; albeit it's usually obtained as a graduate level degree to enhance career, etc. Discussing engineering management and having to manage engineers on your team is not quite the same thing. As I said before, it's a matter of which level of management you're discussing.
Yes, I am fully aware of a CEO, CIO, CFO, etc job descriptions. I should be, I've worked directly for enough (well for a CEO and CIO specifically). Here's the thing though, you're really talking about mid-level technical management. My claim, and I stand by it, is that once you reach upper level management, it changes. Yes, at mid-level, I worked solely for engineers and other technical disciplines. However, and back to my original point, once you get past this level, you will no longer work for solely engineers even if you, yourself, are an engineer.
As to your doubt of my experience, I believe you're being a bit myopic and thus doubting anyone that disagrees with your personal perspective. Yes, I am an engineer. I went to an ABET accredited program for computer engineering. The other most common type of engineer I work with are EEs. I rarely encounter mechanical engineers in my line of work but as I said before, my father is one so I am well aware of that discipline as well. I also have advanced degrees in mathematics and business. My work concentrates on systems engineering and program management now that I've moved up the ladder. I believe that more than qualifies me to speak with some authority on the issue of engineering and management.
Location: South Carolina - staying with brother in Columbia
596 posts, read 938,610 times
Reputation: 188
um, no, most engineering managers don't have a masters degree. it's a work experience thing.
i'm talking about engineering management, period. You are hellbent on describing it as "mid level" for some reason, as though CEO/CFO is somehow "top level" engineering managment. No! that is incorrect. there are engineers at the top of the food chain in engineering management and thus they are high level. they may report to the CEO and other corporate guys but those people are not their supervisors. they are the final word on the engineering stuff. CEO, CFO's are not in engineering management. they are in the business space of a corporation, that is corporate management, they are looking at financial stuff.
nobody disagrees that if an engineer moves to the business space of a corporation that they will not be working for an engineer supervisor. i've made that clear numerous times now.
there is not one single professional engineering company that is going to hire you to "manage" engineers if you don't know anything about engineering. this is undeniable. knowing stuff about finance and accounting does not an engineering manager make. engineering manager means you manage engineering projects, therefore. you must be an expert in engineering.
it does not matter if we get off Clemson vs MIT b/c the topic was meant to troll me in the first place b/c he is is a Nikki Haley hater and Gamecock fan and I "won" our little debate over the Clemson renting out some state plane "scandal".
Last edited by SwampFox35; 03-07-2013 at 02:22 AM..
You won't be in upper level engineering management if you don't understand the engineering, "the technical weeds" as you describe it. Engineering management has to understand the engineering and not just from real vague big picture standpoint. They have to be able to resolve complex issues that arise. There is not one engineering firm in the world that is going to have you managing engineers. You don't understand what you are talking about if you think CEOs and CFOs are managing engineers, at any level. They are operating in the business space of the corporation, they do not oversea engineering work, in any way. A CEO job is purely a business related job, that is why non-engineers are sometimes in these roles. But I think if you look at engineering consulting firms like CH2M HILL and Fluor, the vast majority of the CEOs are going to be degreed engineers, most of the time.
This idea that you are qualified to be a engineer's boss, especially one with their professional engineering license, is hilarious to me. It would be like me saying I could be a CPA's boss despite no knowledge of accounting and no CPA license.
This is the thing that annoys me about business guys, they see themselves as these big picture kind of people as though engineers are not and cannot be big picture kind of people and thus we need business guys "managing" us. Engineering managers may not be down in the "technical weeds" doing the design work but they still have to understand those technical weeds. That is a college kid view of the corporate world. Having knowledge of business stuff is great but you can't manage engineers if you don't understand engineering. I think this is so self-evident and it pains me to have to repeat it yet again on here.
I don't have a dog in this silly little fight, but isn't that a pretty bold proclamation to make? Are engineers so rare that a non-engineer couldn't possible know one? I'm not an engineer, but I can think of a dozen that I know without even trying.
Well, I do. My dog goes to MIT and he told me Clemson sucks.
Swampfox, I want you to know that you are embarassing Clemson right now, and I am enjoying it tremendously. By all means, continue.
Last edited by le roi; 03-07-2013 at 06:55 AM..
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.
