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).
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:
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:
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.
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.
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”.
Go postal. (Especially after wallowing in 3) for too long.)
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
