The ugly truth of the engineer/scientist enmity crashes in upon Ogre

[Ogre]

Working subtitle: "You wanna pay me how much?"

Folks, I don't bitch about a whole lot. Normally, I keep my temper on an even keel. But this is just too goddamn much. I think I not only have a right to a good, cleansing bitch here, but also to a full explanation (which I'll never get,) and possibly even the still-pulsing heart ripped fresh from the ribcage of a writhing engineer.

In case any of you don't know precisely what I mean by the "enmity between scientists and engineers," in my experience, it can be summed up thusly: contempt. Engineers generally consider scientists to be fuzzy-minded theoreticians, and scientists generally consider engineers to be narrow-minded automatons. OK, so there's the background.

In case you didn't pick up on it, I'm a scientist, and this is a job-related rant.

Normally, I wouldn't even bother with such narrow categories, and just take everyone on their own merits, regardless of philosophy yadda yadda yadda blah blah fucking blah. However, I'm forced to think of my co-workers in terms of scientist and engineer, because those are the classifications we fill by reason of our education, and our employer keeps our status firmly in view all the time.

I work for a state environmental enforcement agency, and in short, if you ain't an engineer, you ain't jack shit. I have a master's degree in something that sounds like a filler word on Star Trek, I'm a published author, and I have years of experience under my belt, yet the salary range for a beginning scientist (because of the peculiarities of state hiring policies, it doesn't matter if you're Albert-Monkeyfucking-Einstein, you start at the bottom of the pay scale. Period. There is no consideration for experience) is pathetic. I started out at $10,000 less than the brand new, wet-behind-the-ears engineer fresh from his bachelor's program.

Needless to say, I was pissed. I spent a godawful number of years in school, and most of the engineers in question don't even have their PE (Professional Engineer) status. In fact, several have repeatedly failed the goddamn test! I had to pass oral and written comprehensive exams! I had to submit and defend a thesis. What did they have to do? Learn to run a fucking graphing calculator.

Did I mention that I do the exact same thing as they do in my job? Did I also mention that most of the engineers with whom I work would have difficulty drumming up enough intellectual power to be a decent fireplug? Did I mention that there's literally not ONE GODDAMN THING any of these yahoos do that I can't do?

Did I mention that it doesn't seem to matter a tinker's damn?

There are other issues too. We scientists get the inner offices, while the engineers get the outer, window offices. The engineers get a Department-sponsored appreciation dinner every year. Do we? Nope. We don't get shit.

To add insult to injury, our Departmental director just approved an across-the-board raise for...scientists? Hell no! That's right, the White Hats win again, damn them (and the administration) straight to Hell.

Yes, I'm trivializing engineers' qualifications by generalizing. Please keep in mind that I'm doing it for effect. I'm sure there are plenty of wonderfully qualified, intelligent engineers out there. I just don't happen to work with any of them, and the Department's administration seems to think that every engineer must, by definition, be a pwecious widdle flower.

You know, when I took this job, I was desperate for money. Everyone I knew said, "Ooooo! Get a state job! You'll be set for life!"

If only they fucking knew.

[Zanshin]

Ogre --

I feel your pain, my brother. I'm on the consulting side of the environmental industry, and it's much the same on this side of the table. On the pay scale, engineers are the highest, followed by geologists and then scientists. I have no idea what the rationalization for the difference in pay scales is, but in most of the consulting firms I've worked for, the rates for geologists and scientists have been around 5-10% lower than for engineers performing a similar task. But it sounds like the problem is exacerbated by you being in the public sector rather than the private. To have one class (engineers) treated that much differently than another (scientists) is just plain stupid.

Sounds like it may be worth your while to put in some time there to build your resume, then go over to the private side - there's plenty of room in industry and consulting for talented, intelligent folks who've already published and have technical knowledge under their belt.

[Phobos]

It sounds like your job sucks. But I agree that, in general, scientists are under-respected and under-paid.

I'm an engineer for an environmental consulting firm (perhaps we've crossed paths?). My experience (with one company) is that engineers do get paid a bit more than scientists. My impression/assumption is that this is a result of market-ability. In general*, engineers design stuff to build (i.e., positive/direct economics) whereas scientists conduct research (i.e., uncertain/indirect economics). This does not seem to apply to a state job where there is no profit motive, but I assume that the state is trying to offer competitive salaries so all their engineers don't leave for private industry jobs.

* - But that's a whopping generalization. I agree that, in reality, there is a lot of cross-over in what scientists and engineers actually do.

FWIW, experience does count for a lot, at least where I work. Senior scientists are well paid and have corner offices, etc. But one annoying thing about being an engineer/scientist in a private environmental company though...in the upper ranks, a masters degree in business will bring in better pay than strong scientific/technical knowledge. It seems like the longer a scientist/engineer stays in the environmental biz, the less actual science/engineering he/she will do. The focus shifts to business development & marketing. ick. For every well-paid technical guru, there are 10 better-paid business-minded managers who used to be scientists/engineers.

[Una Persson]

Originally posted by Ogre
I had to pass oral and written comprehensive exams! I had to submit and defend a thesis. What did they have to do? Learn to run a fucking graphing calculator.

Yeah, that's all I had to learn as an engineer. :rolleyes: I can count on two fingers the number of people I've met who can do my job.

Look - I understand that you are ranting and upset, so I'm not going to pick a fight with you. And I'm not trying to denigrate your experience, or be snitty towards you at all. You deserve to be upset, based on what you relate here. The line quoted above just bothers me to no end, though. That's all.

We've had several people with advanced degrees come in and try to do my job. They were all hired at a much higher salary than I was, because "I have an MS/PhD, no way am I a loser!" Well, they all were losers - every last one of them. Their education and personality focused them so much they were unable to deal with interpersonal relations with clients, handle sudden and catastrophic changes to projects, negotiate contracts, and handle the phone call at home that says get on a plane now and get to this power plant. They could not for the life of them understand why everyone was in such a hurry, and why communicating with the clients - the people paying our bills - was so important. They almost seemed flustered at having to be flexible, to be able to do so many different things. So they all quit. And we don't hire them anymore.

Perhaps one of the reasons the engineers are paid more is that they could get their PE. Although I agree that failing the test multiple times should result in them being paid no more than you. So this should not be relevant.

Now I will use your thread for a counter-rant:

I also have a 4.0 GPA in my Masters program - but no thesis. I got this GPA on 11 courses by taking them at night after fucking work and on the weekends - not staying at school and running a lab for undergrads. That's right - I worked 60 hours a week and still got a 4.0 on my classes. I haven't seen anyone else that can claim that. But I am looked down - even scorned - by the "elite" scientists who have their MS - because 33 hours sans thesis in their eyes puts you somewhat below despicable. It's not my fault that my graduate advisor retired, and no one would do a thesis with me in my topic at the entire fucking University, but hey!

I see during preview that Phobos posted. There is a very good point in that post - get your MBA. You will skyrocket up the salary scale at a better company. This works.

[Ogre]

Infraggable Krunk - Thanks for the sympathy. This job is very much a resume-builder. I was in a bad spot when I took it, and I'm starting to get crazy-legs to get out of here.

Phobos - Thank you for the condolences. I suppose it's possible that we've crossed paths. Geographically speaking, where do you work? I've done work in the deep South and in the Washington, DC area.

In general*, engineers design stuff to build (i.e., positive/direct economics) whereas scientists conduct research (i.e., uncertain/indirect economics). This does not seem to apply to a state job where there is no profit motive, but I assume that the state is trying to offer competitive salaries so all their engineers don't leave for private industry jobs.

Agreed, wholeheartedly. One other thing abouty a state job (or this state job, at any rate) and engineers. The only thing remotely technical they have to do is review design schematics. They do not have to design, build, or brainstorm anything beyond the ken of any of the scientists working here. In fact, my technical expertise (he said modestly :)) is quite a bit superior to almost any of the engineers here.

Anthracite - Don't let it upset you. After all, I specified later in my post that I was generalizing for effect. In no manner was my rant intended to apply to engineers beyond the confines of the state agency for which I work. For the record, though, note my response to Phobos. In this line of work, there is literally no call for an engineer to do anything beyond review some occasional specs. This, again, applies only to my own narrow little workplace, and should not be taken as a rant against all engineers everywhere.

Tell you what. If you forgive me for overgeneralizing, I'll forgive you for using that damned infuriating rolleyes smiley on me. :) Put 'er there?

"I have an MS/PhD, no way am I a loser!" Well, they all were losers - every last one of them. Their education and personality focused them so much they were unable to deal with interpersonal relations with clients, handle sudden and catastrophic changes to projects, negotiate contracts, and handle the phone call at home that says get on a plane now and get to this power plant.

This, I believe, is more of a reflection on your personal perseverance than any basic deficiency in people with advanced degrees. Some people are simply more flexible and committed than others, and I admire you for being one of the good ones, but I'm not convinced it's (only) a result of their educational backgrounds. But hey, I'm not in your shoes.

I haven't seen anyone else that can claim that.

Yoohoo! Over here! :) This described me throughout my college career. Sometimes I worked two jobs and went to school at the same time (which is, admittedly, what you're describing.)

Re: MBA:

More school? Not right now, although it's always a consideration.

A friend of mine (a business consultant) and I are considering starting to do business-related environmental consulting. Between us, I believe we have plenty of expertise in both sides of the business.

[Balduran]

I am finishing grad school in physics, however I started my undergraduate career in engineering and I actually agree that engineers should have a higher starting salary if they are doing the same job.

I think this because engineers have a bit more of a standardized education. If an engineering graduate is any good then there are some things an employer is pretty much guaranteed that the engineer should be able to do. This is not necessarily so for other science grads and it might take them a while to catch up in some specific areas. Once the science grad has proved themself however the pay should be comparable. If your institution doesn't do this, they have a problem recognizing quality. Sorry about that Ogre.

I remember a couple of years ago there was a push by the Candian Association of Physicists to get a "Professional Physicist" designation similar to the PE because physicists were finding that engineering associations were pushing to reduce the amount of things physicists were legally allowed to do. I don't know the status of that now.

As far as comparison of intelligence between engineers and scientists, I've observed that it's about the same.

[UncleBeer]

Graphing calculator? Shit. I hadda learn to use a damned slide rule. Still do occasionally just to toy with my interns.

[Ukulele Ike]

Hee hee hee...I was waiting for UncleBeer to show up in this thread and wallop you a good one with his moneybags...

[thinksnow]

First, I'm an enginerd both by degree and job experience. I'm making more now doing a monkeys job as a consultant doing SQA for a tech company than I did as an Industrial Engineer finding ways to improve my old companies capacity by 33% in 6 months. But I digress.

So, second, two very good friends of mine have their Doctorate or Masters in Molecular Genetics and Biology. They make, literally, 3/5's what I do. It astounds me. They are off doing genome and stem-cell research and I'm recording test-scripts…I'm not saying I think I shoud be making less money, just that they should be making more.

It comes down to the market. Scientists don't make money. Presumably, you are a scientist because you enjoy what you do, much like teachers and cops, so paying you well for the benefits you provide is not as important. Engineers do hard work with numbers and drafting and stuff. There is a respect in the title of engineer, because people know that it is something specific and difficult to achieve. Scientists, OTOH, just kinda do something or another with chemicals or beakers or caged monkey, but who really knows?

The people that hire scientist, the companies that hire them, have different budgets and structures than the ones that hire engineers* and those budgets are usually more exploratory/research oriented than the ones engineers draw on, which are based in profitable results. Rather than working in a field that regularly produces product or substance that people pay for, scientists work in a field where people pay money in the hopes of solving problems or finding something new.

IMO, but I'm fading into a lunch coma, so forgive the absolute and wild generalities.

If you are doing the same work as engineers and they are making more than you, why wouldn't the company just hire more scientists to do the engineers work and save money all around?


*: wild speculation and theory, aka: WAG

[UncleBeer]

Crap. Am I getting that predictable in my grouchy old age, Uke? I guess I'll just down my can of warmed Ensure, take out my teeth, and shuffle off to the charpoy. Anybody got a warm brick for the foot of my bed?

Damned kids.

[CalMeacham]

I have BOTH Engineering and Science degrees. This enables me to Hate Myself.

I use a Slide Rule, too. I keep a lot of them around the house. MilliCal is going to learn how to use one, even if she ends up using a souped-up fully integrated biocomputer embedded in her skin.

[Zanshin]

After giving this a little more thought, the only justification I can see for giving an engineer more dough than a comparable geologist/scientist is for the potential for certification. Example: I do a lot of Illinois UST and VRP work, and for submittal to IEPA, many reports have to be accompanied by an IEPA form which has been certified and stamped by an Illinois-registered PE. I can understand requiring a PE certification for something like a design for a remediation system or other package requiring things like piping design, etc., but for site investigation and remediation? To me, a professional geologist certification would be just as valid in that situation, but at least in Illinois, they don't quite see it the same way.

But that justification's a little weak - IMHO, a job position should be compensated according to the job responsibilities, not necessarily the degree a person attained.

BTW, does anyone know of any certifications for environmental scientists that are comparable to the PE/PG/CPG type of certs?

[Spritle]

::raises hand and shouts "ooooh, oooh"::

I got a 4.0 in grad school. This was 33 credit hours, 8 hour comps, Journal acceptable professional paper with full literature review - 50+ pages (Degree didn't "offer" thesis option") that had to be defended. (ain't that just like a thesis?) All while I was working full time as a teacher. Those who think teaching is a 7 hour day and that's it may stop reading now; you'll never get it.

The weekend schedule was:
Saturday - grade labs for AP Chemistry, AP Physics and other honor chemist classes, prepare lesson plans.
Sunday - All grad school stuff, reading, writing papers, projects, the like.

Yeah, I worked my ass off for my 4.0. Mrs. Spritle and I put off having children until I was finished because there would be little chance of me being the father I wanted to be.

The result? I got my degree and a pay increase. As a teacher with 7 years experience and a Masters Degree (NOT a masters equivalent) I was due to make $35,500. IN THE DC/BALT AREA!

I laced up my walking shoes.

On to the disparity between Engineers and Scientists. Yes, there are attitudes. I got my BS in Chemistry, alongside many BS Chem.Eng. students. We felt that we were better because we studied the truth, the theories, the purest form of the science. They felt that they were better because they put our work "to use". Who's right? both, neither. As a scientist, I can say that without the research and groundbreaking work of scientist, the engineers whould have right little to apply.

With a BS in Chemistry, I would work as a bench chemist for a Ph.D Chemist or a Chemical Engineer.
With a BS in Chem. Eng, I would manage a team of BS chemists.

I love the line in "Wierd Science" or whatever the movie was with a young Val Kilmer as an extrememly bright young lad with a penchant for partying. The boys had just built a Bajillion Megawatt LASER and were celebrating when Lazlo Hollyfield (the smartest person in the world) asked them what it could be used for. One of the group responds, "Leave that up to the engineers." It really shows the different views that the groups have of each other.

Ogre, brother, listen to some Johnny Paycheck. ;) Then pound the pavement.

[ENugent]

You think the disparity between engineers and scientists is bad - you should try working in a law firm. I have a Ph.D. in engineering and have passed the patent bar. On our current salary schedule, it takes nine years to be paid as much as a 25-year-old kid fresh out of law school. On the other hand, the firm bills my services for roughly twice what his go for.

The good part is that they will also send me to law school, so I'll pass up the snot-nosed kid soon. But for those who don't decide to go to law school, it's a huge disparity. They must be making a mint off of us, considering our billing rates and our salaries.

[Balduran]

I hear ya ENugent I was looking at employment opportunities on the NASA website.
Compare (http://www.nasajobs.nasa.gov/jobs/civil_service_entry_level_pay.htm) scientists and engineers to lawyers!

[Profane]

Originally posted by Spritle
I love the line in "Wierd Science" or whatever the movie was with a young Val Kilmer as an extrememly bright young lad with a penchant for partying. The boys had just built a Bajillion Megawatt LASER and were celebrating when Lazlo Hollyfield (the smartest person in the world) asked them what it could be used for. One of the group responds, "Leave that up to the engineers." It really shows the different views that the groups have of each other.

The movie is called Real Genius (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0089886). :)

[Medea's Child]

First off, the movie is Real Genius.

Secondly, [i]they don't have their PE?[i] I'm an undergrad in engineering, and as much as the thing is talked up, not having one is a big fat statement of "I have no clue" so at that point one is essentially a scientist. (kidding, kidding, why are you staring at me like that?)

As much as I'd like to curl around moneybags and growl, equal pay for equal work is just one of those truthful statements. Sorry it sucks.

[Medea's Child]

sigh. Watch the engineer apply. They eventually drum stupidity out, don't they? Of course, my other major probably puts it back in, so I guess I'm stuck. Sorry folks.

[dropzone]

Originally posted by Ogre
We scientists get the inner offices, while the engineers get the outer, window offices.
If it makes you feel any better, I'll be losing my windows to some monkey-fucking (I like that one!) salesoid soon. But I have spent so many years in the bowels of various offices that I keep the shades shut. Just used to not knowing what time it is and what it's like outside.

[FairyChatMom]

Originally posted by Ogre
We scientists get the inner offices, while the engineers get the outer, window offices.

Offices?? I'm an engineer - fairly senior. I share a cubicle with 2 junior engineers and a technician. Our cube is beside a window, but the cubicle walls block the window up about 5 feet. Oh well, my plants get the occasional glimpse of daylight. Also, I'm a civil servant, hence the minimalistic environment. No biggie - it's a job... <sigh>

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Originally posted by Phobos


FWIW, experience does count for a lot, at least where I work. Senior scientists are well paid and have corner offices, etc. But one annoying thing about being an engineer/scientist in a private environmental company though...in the upper ranks, a masters degree in business will bring in better pay than strong scientific/technical knowledge. It seems like the longer a scientist/engineer stays in the environmental biz, the less actual science/engineering he/she will do. The focus shifts to business development & marketing. ick. For every well-paid technical guru, there are 10 better-paid business-minded managers who used to be scientists/engineers.
I'm surprised no one has expounded on the irony of this...it seems that if you are in any technical field (including, in this context, theoretical science) the only way to make a LOT of money is to get your MBA and become a corporate weenie. A lot of technical people really enjoy their work and consider it to be among the things that define who they are. They aren't interested in having their working life consist of travel and meetings. It's too bad that the marketplace doesn't better reward those who choose to stay in their fields and increase their technical expertise. But that's life.

(This might be a double post due to connection problems--sorry).

[City Gent]

I second javaman's comment wholeheartedly. If skill level and "practicality" were really what determines market value, Beverly Hills would be full of auto mechanics, and sitcom writers would live on Skid Row.

The demand for a particular profession is only related to the financial gain a company will get by hiring a member of the profession as perceived by those who do the hiring. Hence the high salaries, guaranteed bonuses, and golden parachutes for even the most hollow-headed executive types. I'm an engineer myself (although as a Ph.D. in engineering, I'm really more of a scientist by training), but there's no rational reason why a person with a science degree should get less than a person with an engineering degree for an entry-level position except in the few entry-level engineering jobs requiring very specialized skills. We have many fine people doing engineering jobs in my office who have science degrees. There's even an mathematician! :eek:

[pluto]

I don't have an axe to grind on either side of this subject other than to echo the general comment that there is way too little correlation between talent, ability and performance vs. salary.

I work for a large (250,000 employees) corporation. Most of my (working) life is dominated by bureaucracy. As it happens, I've been extremely fortunate. I'm paid very well and I enjoy what I do. Some of the reason for this is just luck. But, ironically, the part of it that has come about because of my particular efforts and talents has largely come about by exploiting the bureaucracy rather than complying with its demands. I'm good at what I do, but I'm paid well because I've worked the system. I could do the same job for the same company and get paid much less and "the system" would see no reason to reward me. In fact, I could do my job very poorly now, but since I'm already locked in it wouldn't affect me much.

FWIW, my employer doesn't have an engineer/scientist dichotomy. We're all "professionals". They do have the production/management split, but even there the pay differential is not that great unless you reach "upper" management.

But, as you can see from my situation, there is little incentive to excel. It pays about the same one way or the other. But it pays pretty well relative to most jobs so it attracts and retains people who can't perform, since their performance doesn't count against them. Are these people going to lobby for change? Not in a million years.

I think what you are seeing, many of you, is a case of the "ins" vs. the "outs". Those who have made it into the system try to retain what they have. They don't want to share their good fortune with newcomers -- that means they would have less! (As if it were a zero-sum game.) So the best employees get the best salaries and the best offices. How do we know they're the best employees? They have the best offices and the best salaries! The people with the lower salaries and the cubicles can see quite clearly that the "others" have no more talent and ability than they do, frequently less. But they are just small cogs and not big wheels. How do we know they are small cogs? Well, they don't get paid much, do they?

<soapbox>
The critical question is, "What can you do about it?" In my experience you only have a few options -- maybe others can suggest more:

1) Insinuate yourself into the "ins". (This has been my approach, I guess.) Get the MBA. Be the scientist instead of the engineer, or vice versa. The problem is that you have to be either a) lucky, b) prescient, or c) priveleged to pull this off. Like I say, I was lucky. I think this is what is so discouraging to "historically disadvantaged minorities" -- they're told that if they work hard they'll get ahead. They work hard. They don't get ahead. They can see a bunch of less capable people holding the jobs they wish they had. They get angry.

2) Get out of the system: Go out on your own. Change careers. Go to work for a start-up. This is a tough choice but, IMHO, almost anything is better than going to work every day and feeling bad.

3) Grin and bear it. Lose the envy. Focus on what you've got rather than what you don't have. Why are you there in the first place? Job security? Doing what you want to do? Living in that part of the country? Find your "happy place".

4) Go postal. (Especially after wallowing in 3) for too long.)

</soapbox>

[Phobos]

Originally posted by javaman
Originally posted by Phobos

It seems like the longer a scientist/engineer stays in the environmental biz, the less actual science/engineering he/she will do. The focus shifts to business development & marketing. ick. For every well-paid technical guru, there are 10 better-paid business-minded managers who used to be scientists/engineers.
I'm surprised no one has expounded on the irony of this...it seems that if you are in any technical field (including, in this context, theoretical science) the only way to make a LOT of money is to get your MBA and become a corporate weenie. A lot of technical people really enjoy their work and consider it to be among the things that define who they are. They aren't interested in having their working life consist of travel and meetings. It's too bad that the marketplace doesn't better reward those who choose to stay in their fields and increase their technical expertise. But that's life.


I've talked with several people in that situation. In almost every case, they would have preferred to stick with technical work, but the business manager route was the better career move.

I'm currently on the cusp of moving from the technical side to the management side. I'm never sure which route to follow. But I'm finding it easier to get into the management side. There are fewer positions available for technical gurus. Basically, they become too expensive to do the actual work themselves. Instead, they review/direct the work of the less expensive junior staff. One guru can cover many different projects. Therefore, there's more need for senior people to manage the overall project staff, budget, schedule, etc.

This is probably one reason why my hobby is astronomy. I get to submerge myself in things technical & scientific...which was my overall interest in the first place.

[Billy Rubin]

I'm sure you all know the joke.

I do engineering work, though it's mindlessly simple. My business card says "engineer" though I almost quit my gig trying to get them to NOT do that. I do not have a degree, though I could probably pass the P.E.. Technically, I'm a technician.

I'm seeing this from the opposite side of the story; I have worked for "engineers" not fit to lick the sweat off my balls. I have endlessly and repeatedly bailed them out of their own stupidity and get no recognition whatsoever for the work I do to protect them from being hoist by their own petards.

I'm not sure at what point the engineer became a god; every time I'm confronted by a new engineer who believes his shit doesn't stink, I ask him if he's ever heard of Tacoma Narrows, and if they have, it sometimes shuts them up. If not, I reccomend they find out about that engineering marvel and use it to pry their head from their buttocks.

So don't be discouraged, Ogre, those "below" the bastards hate them too. Take comfort in your own knowledge and keep looking for a new gig. One thing that gets me by every day is that while there are a million engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc. etc. in the world, there are only about 54 people in the USA that can do the job I do. My boss couldn't do my job. You could drop a nuke in downtown New York and not hit one person who could do my job. I suspect you are probably in the same boat. Enjoy it!

b.

[Ogre]

You know, that's what I like about this message board. People are willing to help, and there's a wide variety of experience levels.

Anyway, the consensus seems to be that I should get off the stick and go into the business side of things. I understand that this is probably the only way I'll see a decent paycheck, but it's a tough decision. I've always believed that my true calling is in the field of science, not business. The thought of abandoning it fills me with apprehension.

Now, there's always the possibility that I'm just desperately unhappy with the particular job I have, and that I could be happy with a (relatively) small paycheck and a different environment. This is likely, since this job has exactly nothing to do with my field of expertise and training.

Billy Rubin (tell me, do you have liver spots? :)), thanks for the vote of confidence about the nature of my job, but I must be honest. Any damned monkey could do this job (and, to be frank, that of the engineers.)

pluto - Thanks for the succinct and well-put analysis of the options. So far, it looks like the winner will be #2.

Essentially, I want a job that I don't feel awful about. I want to be able to get up in the morning and look forward to my work. That's certainly not happening here.

So, anyone looking to hire a jilted, but well-qualified, physical geographer/biologist/GIS dude? :)

Kidding. Thanks for the advice, y'all.

[BlinkingDuck]

Pluto. It looks like you hit the nail on the head. I totally agree with you. I wish to add an observation that supplements your observation.

When I was in grad school, there was competition between science/math and humanities. Science/math thought of humanities majors as illogical people majoring in an extremely easy field while humanities thought of math/science types as unable to think.

So what happens when a humanity major works in a company dominated by math/science types? No respect and low pay. What happens when a math/science types work for a company dominated by humanity types?? You guessed it!

This is why the engineer who worked for the law firm complained about the low salaries rings true. If your not a lawyer, your crap. Everyone likes to feel important and if you are part of the dominat group, this is why you are treated better and paid more. It breaks down even to science math -- remember comment from poster that they even have a mathematician, I bet his pay was lower than the science people ---- to engineer/science (OP) or the first company I worked for after leaving teaching (math/humanities).

A person NEEDS to find a company where his background matches the dominant party or he/she will suffer, most likely. This won't do it by itself, you still may need to get lucky but you have a better chance getting 'in' if you are an engineer and the ruling party is engineers than if not.

Blink

[tisiphone]

Originally posted by Ogre


So, anyone looking to hire a jilted, but well-qualified, physical geographer/biologist/GIS dude? :)

Kidding. Thanks for the advice, y'all.

Pity. I suspect that at least two different federal and three territorial gov't departments in my area (Northern Canada) would fall all over themselves should you deign to apply. To the point of soothing over those nasty border issues, should it be neccessary.

You sure you're kidding? ;)

[Ogre]

tisiphone - Errrm...I really was kidding, but I'll take all the help I can get. I shall drop you an email, and I appreciate the heads up.

:)

[tisiphone]

Heh. That's what Jack Batty said, then he found out where I live.

Of course, if you've cherished dreams of being a field biologist a la David Mech, the Yukon Territory is the place to be...

[Ogre]

Oooooooo! The Yukon?! I'm so all over that!

I'll definitely be emailing you. Thanks!