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.
The Master's degree is meaningless if it is not a requirement for the job and, therefore, shouldn't be factored into the salary. What were the job requirements?
Masters degree in a technical field is in the job requirement.
So you need to get the value of the specific job and the local market rates. Your own qualifications play a part in what your should earn. If you are fully qualified for the job, your target should be the market 50th; if you are a learner, your target should be at the market minimum. If you are a learner but present more credentials than the minimum requirements of the job, you should be looking at a starting pay somewhere between minimum and 50th. Companies should pay for the value of the work. You have to determine if you want to do that work and where you fall in the market range.
masters in Engineering and only in the $40k range in California? What Engineering dicipline? My wifes cousin is a Mechanical Engineer. She earned her BS from UCSB worked a couple years and went on to get her Masters one of the state school I think. Anyway she brings in $200K with the masters.
With a Civil Engineering Degree you should be able to pull in $80 to $100 easy with a Masters. Just me but I would rank Engineering degrees with the CE as the bottom range, ME as the mid range and the EE as the top. One of our Doctors has an EE and after working for 5 or 6 years went to Med school and became a Doctor. I always thought that was cool.
Just paranoid who might be snooping here (yeah I know it's irrational but nothing you tell me will convince me otherwise.) Anyways, here's some additional info I'll provide:
Masters Degree is in Engineering
Job is a quantitative analyst for a financial firm.
These assume you're being truthful about your title and background:
Either you suck at your job but they figure the hassle of firing you isn't worth it at your salary level, or you're getting absolutely a--r--ed.
You should have been hired at twice that and, after two years, if you're any good, you should be making four times your current salary.
That said, California isn't exactly the hotbed of quant analysts. To make the best money in that field, you must be in either New York or Chicago.
Honestly, that seems LOW. Back in 2006 I graduated with a bachelors degree only, and my entry level tax accounting job was starting me at $52K. This was in NYC.
[quote=ragnarkar;20176149]Just need a reality check here.. this is a job I've been at for a little over a year.. took it out of desperation at the time but currently looking for something better paying (hopefully.)
Some key facts:
- This is in California where the cost of living is well above average.
- This is a technical job, involving computers, higher level math/statistics.
- Work hours is about 50/week.
- This is an entry-level job.[/quot
I think you are vastly underpaid. I only have a Bachelors in Computer Science and I make $70K. It is in Chicago which probably a similar COL as where you are. People even tell me I'm being underpaid for the type of job I have.
IDK, Glass, I think he gave us enough information when he told us it was an entry level tech/computer job involving higher level math/statistics. I didn't state it explicitly, but my entry level job was much the same.
Entry level? We've been interviewing people with a masters for more advanced programming and what not for around 60 to start. This is in CA.
We had 450 applications for a phone monkey position in IT that was in the 40s. The IT field is way overloaded with job seekers.
Entry level? We've been interviewing people with a masters for more advanced programming and what not for around 60 to start. This is in CA.
We had 450 applications for a phone monkey position in IT that was in the 40s. The IT field is way overloaded with job seekers.
Sure it is.
The question is whether it's overloaded with QUALIFIED job seekers.
I'd say about 10% of the people we phone screen are really capable of the job. And the phone screen is of the people who have resumes that ostensibly make them qualified.
We had a guy call once, 5 minutes after he was supposed to be here, asking for directions from a spot literally across the street from our office. And this is downtown Chicago, with a very simple grid design, and he'd grown up in Chicago. We gave him the directions, but 10 minutes into the interview, we told him he wasn't a good fit and sent him home.
My point is that the number of applications really means almost nothing, since the vast majority of applications for technical positions seem to be completely clueless either technically or socially (I have other stories, too, that are pretty much proof that phone screens are the only safe way to conduct a first interview).
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.
