Any comment on this?

Fact of the matter is that civilized society will always need engineers to make life bearable for everyone else.

Bankers and investment brokers on the other hand.....

I agree more on the bankers, accountants and investment brokers.

The amount being paid to them for running a fictitious company is too low.

_{The company might have started as actual, but as the networth becomes some where about -$1b will it remain actual any more ?}

Agreed. Maybe it's time for gremlins like yourself to make a career switch from FUBARing equipment to FUBARing the lives of financiers.

Sounds about right to me... What is your concern?

I have no concern other than the fact that so far it was said there are more degree qualified people than tradesmen and not enough work for them as engineers.

Since there's less nd less work available an ad like this further encouraging youngsters to keep on becoming engineers rather than do some more practical type of training course.

Couldn't this be a stunt act from tertiary institutions to encourage to train engineers even if there may not be as much need for them?

This type of course (engineer) gives institutions a healthier income since it is primarily just a theory course, unlike a tradesman training course which requires both workshop setup with hands on experienced staff (that's ever increasingly harder to find due to not enough of them around anymore) and some theory also.

I might be wrong here but, I do wonder where all these degree trained people gonna go to find a job? Yet there's not enough tradesman trained for certain professions.

I do believe however that tradesman courses should also teach more theory so their technicians would know more about things, I have noticed a lot of them barely more than a fruit cake.

Unfortunately the same can be said even about degree qualified engineers as well, they're not all are bright enough.

I think I'm missing something here. Any thoughts?

The question is then what does the supply demand curve for engineers look like? In my opinion the supply is not sufficient for the demand, and I personally feel that the supply will continue to shrink because there just are not that many people (especially in the US) that are comfortable enough with math to succeed in an engineering program.

I actually think that the supply of "tradesmen" in the US has increased as short term schools like Devry and ITT tech have multiplied. You don't have to spend four to five years doing high end maths to pass a program at ITT tech.

I also see that the shortage of engineers in the US is being made up by importing them from India and China. That is good for India and China, but is a dissappointing commentary on the status of education in the USA.

Again, my opinion.

Back when I was in high school, the school administrators tried to encourage more of us to take two or three year courses, the end result of being technicians rather than being engineers. The reason for this was four fold:

1. There were more jobs for technicians than engineers.
   
2. There was a surplus of engineers in the Philippines resulting in engineering graduates taking on technician's jobs.
3. It was a lot cheaper to take technician courses than engineering.
4. Salaries, the guys said, for technicians could eventually rival engineer's.

They described the situation using a pyramid.

Scientists were at the top. They discovered the truths that govern our world and were relatively few in number.

The second layer were the engineers, more in number than scientists but less than technicians. They took the truths that the scientists discover and apply them to the real world.

At the base were the technicians. They took the engineer's ideas and turned them into reality. And they were the most numerous of the lot.

While it made sense back then, most students took up engineering anyway. It was a ticket to a higher paying job plus the prestige that came along with it.

Attending an alumni homecoming once (after 20 years) I discovered that about a third of my classmates were working as engineers and a few had either become lawyers, accountants, computer programmers, etc. Most had either become or worked as technicians even though most of them had engineering degrees. I was one of the few who pursued a technician's course and actually ended up as a technician. Curiously, my salary was up to par with the engineers.

Having said all this, you'd think that I would propose that most kids should take a technical course rather than an engineering one.

Far from it.

Go ahead and get an engineering degree. Whatever work you get, do it and do it well. I'm a technical school graduate with engineering graduates working under me. Only difference between them and me is that I learned on the job what they learned in college. I just got here first. They're doing technician's jobs and they're good. Best technicians I've ever known.

regards,

Vulcan

I guess it is better to be over qualified than under qualified.

It's just that an engineer course does cost more than a technician course and there's not enough work out there for engineers who do not wish to stain their little fingers.

Mind you I wouldn't mind getting my hands dirty in the name of gaining hands on experience that I believe would also add to my engineering virtues.

I don't know what is the position elsewhere - but the basic difference between supply-demanp statistics and actuals are due to mental make up of the youngsters (and not so youngstars)

The people don't take the work as they come. They are more interested in chosing the works that do not grease their clothes. So we don't get the machine builders we get more designers, whereas we need the otherway round. And when we need the designers, some times the aptitudes mismatch.

I also see that the shortage of engineers in the US is being made up by importing them from India and China. That is good for India and China,

this is a general misconception. It is definitely not good for India. We train the engineers with heavy subsidy on education, and there is no remuneration. The best one's go out and develope USA. The results come back to India with the royalty tag attached.

Fortunately for a last couple years the trend was subdued (even much before the melt downs) and now hopefully they will stay back if not come back.

Some one had to invent the wheel before the others got involve and decide how much money they could make off it.

If you are debating your future education plans, I can assure you that in the US a plumber can become an independent businessman easier than an engineer.

So the plumber who works for a larger firm will make less than an engineer. The plumber who gets qualified, then starts looking for an opportunity to start his own business, then masters the skills of chasing business, bookkeeping, and hiring and firing can earn much more than an engineer.

By the same token the engineer who hold down a desk at a very large firm, while looking for the opportunity to break away has the possibility to earn a lot running his own firm. But then we start getting into types of engineers, what the exact opportunities might be, etc.

An avionics engineer, an embedded software engineer - these are folks who need the infrastructure of at least a meduim firm because their skills can be sold alone only in a limited fashion.

A civil engineer is based on selling his skills solo.

And notice, the plumber in my example is NOT plumbing. He is running a business.

So there is a lot more to the question than appears.

Follow your heart, do what you love, money will follow.

And if it doesn't, at least you spent your life doing what you love!

Hello, It is hard to pass up an opportunity to throw two cents into this discussion.

If a person can qualify to go to engineering college and can afford to go, he should avail of the higher education and higher starting salary. What I see around me and hear in this thread, is that time is the eventual equalizer in salary rates but not in career earnings.

It is an equalizer if the tradesman has used the time to grow and expanded his horizons becoming a 'hybridized' Plumber, Toolmaker,etc. This generally means he learns the ropes at a low rate of pay, then starts and runs his own business and does consulting and design work to supplement his income, (i.e. keeps busy).

So it is fair to say that years down the line the tradesman can reach and pass the pay scale of an engineer but has earned less until that time. He will not easily equalize and surpass an Engineer who uses his time, learns the ropes, become 'hybridized', owning a business and designs and consults to supplement his income.

A good education takes time whether it is in Engineering College or Trade School and life, that is just the beginnning. In general it is no longer viable to wear one hat. People who love what they do, are life long learners, who always want to know the latest and greatest in their fields and many other fields.

Engineering is a tough business but is rewarding. Most engineers I know, gravititate to the money. They become managers and in charge of a budget and department and at the ripe age of 45 or so, are no longer hands on 'Engineers'. They will always have an opinion but may skirt the details as they are other wise engaged.

So, maybe Finance is where all the brightest engineers should go from the beginnning of their $75k-$100k careers. Think of it, if they worked for AIG they would be in line for a $112,00 bonus. What engineer ever got that in appreciation for his wisdom and knowledge?

There is nothing wrong with selling Pizza either, it pays as well as Engineering.