prezidentv8 wrote:ScaredWorkedBored wrote:This is on a tangential line, but just to stir the pot: To argue that a degree in anything including political science, history, philosophy, anthropology and the like was as hard as this is completely ignorant. The world of employment realizes this (average STARTING salary for a fresh graduate in EE: $55,000. average salary of an average american: ~$40,000). If anyone could do it, EVERYONE would do it because the job security of the degree is unmatched. Anyone who's taken a simple economics class knows that if a profession is profitable, it quickly becomes oversaturated, becomes less profitable, and finds an equilibrium. Unfortunatley, most people don't have what it takes to flood the engineering market. I started college on an "engineering floor" in the dorms. By the time I moved on to sophomore year, of the 15 people I spoke to on the floor, only myself and one other student hadn't dropped out.
I don't actually think this is tangential at all. It's proof that it is difficult to the point that would-be liberal arts majors don't try to switch to engineering and compete despite an enormous financial incentive and no real barrier to entry (not compared to professional school).
Most people just can't do it. And with the exception of the obvious brain mutants who get A's in math/physics/engineering with little or no effort, that's because it's difficult.
Well, this isn't to say that what you're saying has no merit, but I think your economics are off because you're ignoring other costs. Namely that you actually have to deal with really boring material in order to get a really boring job in the end (and a job with sketchy growth prospects at that). So your measure of "profitable" for the engineering degree is kinda squishy. Sure a lot of people simply can't do engineering (or whatever), but to argue that you're extra special for doing so is kinda clown shoes.
Now granting that something like engineering IS harder and generally more work, I personally would rather study law, business, economics, public policy, or whatever. It's more fun. And leads to a (subjectively) more awesome career. Others might go for psych, accounting, teaching....hell, even sociology. Maybe some stink at math and it's keeping them out of engineering, sure, but maybe some actually want to be social workers, teachers, accountants, counselors. Most people simply don't share an engineer's enthusiasm for bridge-building (or whatever).
So, basically, arguing over the relative difficulty of majors isn't really the point. I swear...it's like a big academic pissing contest in this thread...
I never argued that I'm extra special. I argued that 1) engineering is harder than your major, and 2) engineers deserve any supposed "boost" they get in law admissions. I clearly labeled the rest to be tangential, and agree it isn't the point. My main point hasn't yet been addressed though. I have no idea why a poli sci major who has a 3.55 and is top 30% of his class thinks he is entitled to better odds at admission at law school than an engineer who has a 3.23 and is top 30% of his class at each of their respective universities. Furthermore, it absolutely boggles my mind why a polic sci major who has a 3.23 GPA thinks he is entitled to the same prospects as an engineer with a 3.23 GPA, because given the relative curves, the engineer outranked more of his peers with the same GPA.
Also, engineering isn't boring, and I don't build bridges. It's a rigorous intellectual exercise, and is quite the engaging challenge. When I was interviewing, I was solicited by top10 consulting firms, top5 investment firms, etc. Engineers can still be teachers, or anything they want. They chose the practical degree, either for genuine subject interest or, in my case, for the freedom of choice. I have personally worked as a teacher and at a top investment banking firm in my past. So your post is built upon your own personal opinion that engineering is boring, which you're entitled to, but there are many factors that may contribute to you thinking it's boring, such as for example an inability to perform in high-level mathematics courses.
The subjectively more awesome careers you speak of are subject to immense debate. Accounting is awesome? Accounting is reduntant and offers little to no mental challenge, except maybe manipulating balance sheets to show misleading profits to investors. It would be very difficult to find an accountant who loves his job. I know accountants, and none of them fit this bill.
As to the rest of them, sure, some people love teaching and that's a professional avenue that I have immense respect for. I may retire to teaching one day myself. There's little value, though, in most other degrees. I have plenty of friends who took degrees in psychology, history, anthropology, philosophy, etc. with the intent of "working as a psychologist" or "working for the government" and they are now living in their parents basements and working as servers. Some of them stayed in school to get masters degrees, too. These people are also living in their parents basements and working as bartenders. The ones that got jobs are making $30k-$40k at jobs they don't like, such as human resources positions as just one example, in cities with high COL. Yes, some of them make it, but road is a lot harder and subjectively seems extremely shitty relative to working hard for 4 years at an engineering degree, to me at least.
edit: there is value in business degrees. Sorry, I glossed over this. I just want to make it clear that I have immense respect for anyone who pursued any type professional degree, including accountants, teachers, engineers, successful pre-med students, and yes, you, the life-long aspiring lawyer who studied something you found fun during UG knowing you were moving on to something practical.