Engineering Is electrical engineering becoming outdated?

[Dunedain979]

I'm wondering if a degree in electrical engineering is still worth pursuing today? Would it be a better choice to get a degree in mechanical engineering? Any advice on this matter would be appreciated.

 

[anorlunda]

I just googled the starting salaries, EE $61,420, ME $61,523. Sounds like a toss up to me.

 

[phinds]

I'll do you the courtesy of assuming that you are serious even though it is astounding to me that anyone could even ask such a question. Do you have any concept of how much of the world depends on various forms of electronics devices? Do you think updates to these things, and new such things, are going to design themselves?

 

[russ_watters]

I'll do you the courtesy of assuming that you are serious even though it is astounding to me that anyone could even ask such a question. Do you have any concept of how much of the world depends on various forms of electronics devices? Do you think updates to these things, and new such things, are going to design themselves?

Yeah, I can't fathom what could possibly make someone believe EE was "outdated". There must be some misunderstanding at work here.

 

[Student100]

Yeah, I can't fathom what could possibly make someone believe EE was "outdated". There must be some misunderstanding at work here.

Perhaps the outsourcing of circuit design/prototype fabrication? That's only a small part of EE though, so it's hard to guess what he meant.

 

[S.G. Janssens]

Do you think updates to these things, and new such things, are going to design themselves?

Maybe, but then the EEs would first have to make them smart enough to do so.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

If technology and the economy ever morph so much that Electrical Engineering is no longer a viable profession, then any advice we might have for you will be just as worthless.

 

[SteamKing]

Even Scotty on the USS Enterprise had to deal with blown fuses and fried power conduits all the time.

I don't think EEs are going anywhere anytime soon, unless you have some revolutionary energy concept which is going to totally replace electricity.

 

[anorlunda]

Somebody is pulling his leg.

 

[donpacino]

Even Scotty on the USS Enterprise had to deal with blown fuses and fried power conduits all the time.

I don't think EEs are going anywhere anytime soon, unless you have some revolutionary energy concept which is going to totally replace electricity.

energy concept != control concept

that energy concept would power things, but you would still need electronics for the "brains"

 

[SteamKing]

energy concept != control concept

that energy concept would power things, but you would still need electronics for the "brains"

Not unless humans are capable of controlling this revolutionary new power source solely with the power of the mind.

Then all those EEs could just go pound sand.

 

[symbolipoint]

I'm wondering if a degree in electrical engineering is still worth pursuing today? Would it be a better choice to get a degree in mechanical engineering? Any advice on this matter would be appreciated.

Yeah, I can't fathom what could possibly make someone believe EE was "outdated". There must be some misunderstanding at work here.

Maybe confusion to distinguish between levels of study or levels of knowledge practiced. Two decades ago, the community colleges had Electronics courses for vocational programs. Student could study AC and DC current and circuits and whatever else goes with those topics, and LABORATORY instruction and exercises. Such courses are no longer common, and in fact, very few community colleges offer these courses. Instead, you need to be an Engineering student at a university and have your "circuits" course as one of your first Electronics, and then there is the focus on digitial electronics and you can no longer study about resistors, capacitors, potentiometers, transformers as you were able to at a cc so many years ago.

 

[mpresic]

I know someone who got an EE from Cornell in 1968. He left the EE field. Although he is very successful today as a professor, look at all the developments in EE (the microprocessor, very large scale integration), that he left behind. EE is no more outdated today than it was in 1968. Mechanical Engineering is also a worthy pursuit though. Both fields should be in high demand for the foreseeable future.

 

[SteamKing]

I know someone who got an EE from Cornell in 1968. He left the EE field. Although he is very successful today as a professor, look at all the developments in EE (the microprocessor, very large scale integration), that he left behind. EE is no more outdated today than it was in 1968. Mechanical Engineering is also a worthy pursuit though. Both fields should be in high demand for the foreseeable future.

To be sure, EEs do a lot more than work with just microelectronics. For the really leading edge microelectronic research, having a physics PhD might be more advantageous than having strictly an EE background.

 

[donpacino]

Maybe confusion to distinguish between levels of study or levels of knowledge practiced. Two decades ago, the community colleges had Electronics courses for vocational programs. Student could study AC and DC current and circuits and whatever else goes with those topics, and LABORATORY instruction and exercises. Such courses are no longer common, and in fact, very few community colleges offer these courses. Instead, you need to be an Engineering student at a university and have your "circuits" course as one of your first Electronics, and then there is the focus on digitial electronics and you can no longer study about resistors, capacitors, potentiometers, transformers as you were able to at a cc so many years ago.

simply not true

 

[ModusPwnd]

I know someone who got an EE from Cornell in 1968. He left the EE field. Although he is very successful today as a professor, look at all the developments in EE (the microprocessor, very large scale integration), that he left behind. EE is no more outdated today than it was in 1968. Mechanical Engineering is also a worthy pursuit though. Both fields should be in high demand for the foreseeable future.

Do you have a source for this claim of "high demand"?

Electrical engineering has been shedding existing positions.
http://www.computerworld.com/articl...l-engineering-lost-35-000-jobs-last-year.html
Pay has not outpaced inflation.
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1149198
The Beuaru of Labor statistics predicts slower than average growth in the field.
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/electrical-and-electronics-engineers.htmCertainly there is a demand, but I see no evidence of high demand in the foreseeable future. We have electrical engineering graduates working along side community college graduates as maintenance technicians at my job.

 

[symbolipoint]

simply not true

A little more commentary would be helpful.

 

[symbolipoint]

simply not true

I said what I did based on what courses are available at various colleges in my geographical area. Change in what is available have happened in the last several years. Electronics courses at local community colleges? Not available at very many compared to 20 years ago. This is not related, as I see it, to how important is electrical engineering. Maybe the courses are just no longer popular at community colleges any more, or result of budget changes.

 

[cpscdave]

Fun Fact: There are actually only two types of engineers. Electrical Engineers and those who weren't smart enough to be Electrical Engineers :D
I may be biased though.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Do you have a source for this claim of "high demand"?

Electrical engineering has been shedding existing positions.
http://www.computerworld.com/articl...l-engineering-lost-35-000-jobs-last-year.html
Pay has not outpaced inflation.
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1149198
The Beuaru of Labor statistics predicts slower than average growth in the field.
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/electrical-and-electronics-engineers.htmCertainly there is a demand, but I see no evidence of high demand in the foreseeable future. We have electrical engineering graduates working along side community college graduates as maintenance technicians at my job.

Then do you concur with the OP's basic premise in his/her post that electrical engineering is "outdated"? And that he/she would be better off studying mechanical engineering instead (the same Bureau of Labor statistics predicts slower than average growth in mechanical engineering, same as electrical engineering)?

BTW, when I checked the Bureau of Labor statistics link, it predicts that architects and biomedical engineers will experience much faster than average growth in their fields. Perhaps this betrays my bias of being in Canada, because there are relatively few openings that I'm aware of for either fields here -- is the situation really that different in the US? Cartographers are also projected to have faster than average growth.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you have a source for this claim of "high demand"?

Electrical engineering has been shedding existing positions.
http://www.computerworld.com/articl...l-engineering-lost-35-000-jobs-last-year.html
Pay has not outpaced inflation.
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1149198
The Beuaru of Labor statistics predicts slower than average growth in the field.
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/electrical-and-electronics-engineers.htmCertainly there is a demand, but I see no evidence of high demand in the foreseeable future. We have electrical engineering graduates working along side community college graduates as maintenance technicians at my job.

With the exception of the first link (which you didn't connect to the point you were arguing), a 15 year old source and another that doesn't address the point you are arguing isn't much help, there is little provided there to address your point.

For the first link, a 10% drop in employed EE's screams "statistical anomaly" to me, but even setting that aside, it cites an unemployment rate that is below average (up from "way below average" the year before), which is pretty much by definition "high demand".

You could argue that the sudden 10% drop is the start of a crash, but I wouldn't be placing any bets on that unless you can identify a cause.

 

[ElijahRockers]

Fun Fact: There are actually only two types of engineers. Electrical Engineers and those who weren't smart enough to be Electrical Engineers :D

As an EE, Idk, the nuke Es at my school were no slouches

 

[ModusPwnd]

Then do you concur with the OP's basic premise in his/her post that electrical engineering is "outdated"? And that he/she would be better off studying mechanical engineering instead (the same Bureau of Labor statistics predicts slower than average growth in mechanical engineering, same as electrical engineering)?

No, I don't think its outdated. I was addressing the claim of high demand. Things in average (or low) demand can still be current and relevant.

 

[mpresic]

I agree Steam King. I should not have just cited the microelectronics specialty. EE is much wider. Some of my friends feel the field is wider than physics. Control theory / Robotics has also developed powerful applications since the 1970's. Hard to say whether a physics PhD might be stronger than a EE for future developments in microelectronics. Maybe/ Maybe not.
Now coming back to the thread: I think I misinterpreted the thread whether EE outdated. It may be that EE salaries are not as elevated relative to other professionals as they were in 20 to 40 years ago. I agree doctors /lawyers / business leaders have seen their salaries increase at a higher rate, but this does not outdate the EE or Physics field or discipline, unless money is the predominant concern. Money is important, but I am happy and comfortable having one foot in EE and the other in physics.

 

[mpresic]

I have to admit the demand for EE is not what it was when my colleagues and I left university in the mid 80's. EE's often got more than one offer from DEC; AMD; IBM, ATT, Harris, etc. Physicists were worse off but usually got an offer where I was. However, when I was looking for a position as little as 2-3 years ago, my career advisor told me offers in technical (and other) fields were way down. Probably the bad economy was responsible. I met physics grads working at computer repair shops. About the time I found a position, some others I know got offers, so I thought maybe we all turned the corner. This was too optimistic.

Sad to say, Modus Pwnd correctly observes events are not fortuitous as they should be. There are many good professionals who are underemployed.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

I have to admit the demand for EE is not what it was when my colleagues and I left university in the mid 80's. EE's often got more than one offer from DEC; AMD; IBM, ATT, Harris, etc. Physicists were worse off but usually got an offer where I was. However, when I was looking for a position as little as 2-3 years ago, my career advisor told me offers in technical (and other) fields were way down. Probably the bad economy was responsible.

Yeah, I remember those days. Back then there was an awful lot more manufacturing in the West than there is today. A significant amount of those jobs have been offshored to countries with fewer environmental regulations, and cheaper, less regulated labor. Now countries like China and India are choking on their own pollution in ways that make the Environmental concerns of the 1960s look tame by comparison.

The pendulum will swing back toward North America and the European Union, but it will require an entirely fresh start. They will have to leapfrog over the entire microelectronics industry and start aiming toward completely new technologies such as graphene and nano-scale organic semiconductor manufacturing.

One other bright spot: following a trend of decades where power plants got larger and larger, we're finally beginning to realize that we have reached peak resiliency with the large plants and now we're moving back toward smaller scale power generation systems. Someone will need to build that new energy distribution grid and those power generation facilities, and rethink electric utilities to handle the change in power distribution systems. I think that will be a very significant future source of employment for Electrical Engineers.

As always, these are just prognostications. This may be utterly nonsensical speculation. But it sure is fun...

 

[StatGuy2000]

I have to admit the demand for EE is not what it was when my colleagues and I left university in the mid 80's. EE's often got more than one offer from DEC; AMD; IBM, ATT, Harris, etc. Physicists were worse off but usually got an offer where I was. However, when I was looking for a position as little as 2-3 years ago, my career advisor told me offers in technical (and other) fields were way down. Probably the bad economy was responsible. I met physics grads working at computer repair shops. About the time I found a position, some others I know got offers, so I thought maybe we all turned the corner. This was too optimistic.

Sad to say, Modus Pwnd correctly observes events are not fortuitous as they should be. There are many good professionals who are underemployed.

mpresic, from your observation, which STEM field has the highest level of demand as of right now (i.e. Dec 2015) in the US, in particular for recent graduates (whether for BS, MS or PhD)? In other words, a field where a graduate is the least likely to end up unemployed or underemployed (here, underemployed includes situations like physics grads working in computer repair shops, retail, or bartending).

Same question for any field?

 

[StatGuy2000]

No, I don't think its outdated. I was addressing the claim of high demand. Things in average (or low) demand can still be current and relevant.

So ModusPwnd, let me ask you this. If as you claim, EE is in average (or slower) demand (a point that russ is questioning, but for argument's case we will accept here), which technical field in your opinion is in high demand? What field would you encourage someone to pursue?

 

[ModusPwnd]

I don't know. At my job the people in demand are people with experience on particular semiconductor manufacturing processes and people with high levels of experience and knowledge on manufacturing equipment. Experience is more important than a degree, but that isn't a surprise. We feel thwarted by HR when we can't hire experienced people because they have the wrong or no degree. There are people with DeVry degrees and vendor experience that can work in any fab they want for six figures.

I would troll through the Bureau of Labor predictions for a first order approximation. I think computer science at the PhD/research level has high potential, and I think the Bureau of Labor supports that opinion.
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and...puter-and-information-research-scientists.htm

Really though, I wouldn't encourage someone to pursue a technical field.

 

[StatGuy2000]

With the exception of the first link (which you didn't connect to the point you were arguing), a 15 year old source and another that doesn't address the point you are arguing isn't much help, there is little provided there to address your point.

For the first link, a 10% drop in employed EE's screams "statistical anomaly" to me, but even setting that aside, it cites an unemployment rate that is below average (up from "way below average" the year before), which is pretty much by definition "high demand".

You could argue that the sudden 10% drop is the start of a crash, but I wouldn't be placing any bets on that unless you can identify a cause.

Hi russ. As I am looking at the BLS website (based on 2012 data), I see that the job outlook for 2012-2022 is growth around 4%, which is slower than average for all occupations. So this primarily that ModusPwnd has in mind when he is referring to the lower demand for EEs.

A question that comes to mind is how this projection (and similar projections for other occupations) is derived by the BLS (more specifically, what assumptions are being made in the particular forecast model that the BLS is using).

I also wanted to follow up with you regarding the first link that ModusPwnd provided. When you cite the unemployment rate being below average for EEs, are you taking into account about whether the EEs being surveyed is actually employed within their field (as opposed to working in say, retail -- this type of detail of underemployment may not necessarily be captured)?

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

When I received my Engineering degree, the market for engineers was rather bleak. The cold war funding for many engineering projects had ended. And yet, over the years, engineering demand has inflated and shrunk a few times in a variety of fields.

Even if things don't look so good today, they will be different tomorrow. Chasing short term economic data like this is not what I would consider a healthy exercise.

 

[ModusPwnd]

The BLS predictions are for the next 10 years. Its some data at least, its not perfect but its more reliable than personal experience and opinion. Biomedical engineers have very high growth prediction. That makes sense I think, considering the amount of money spent on health care and the amount of hard problems that are now solvable with new technology and techniques.

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/biomedical-engineers.htm

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

...and how good are any economic forecasts? Seriously, these guys make weather forecasting look good.

 

[ModusPwnd]

Weather forecasting is good. Do you have any reason besides suspicions that the BLS predictions have no predictive value? If a team of data driven professionals can't make a prediction worth anything, then why should we accept your personal prediction?

 

[axmls]

Really though, I wouldn't encourage someone to pursue a technical field.

What do you mean by a "technical field"? This seems like a big leap to me.

That said, I may be mistaken, but growth rate doesn't give you the whole picture in terms of employment. The growth rate for electrical engineering might be much lower than biomedical engineering, but that growth rate for EE corresponds to a lot more EE jobs than biomedical jobs, because there are a lot more electrical engineers than biomedical engineers. Sure, there are also more people going into EE, but I feel like a single number doesn't give you the full picture. Even then, I'm sure if you were to look at individual sub fields, those growth projections would be wildly different between sub fields.

 

[ModusPwnd]

I agree its not the whole picture. But it is part of the picture. I understand that specifics and intricacies behind the numbers are meaningful. That's why I called it a first approximation. I see no reason to assume that higher order corrections will result in more positive employment predictions, maybe they will result in a more negative prediction. I think there is a bias on this forum to champion engineering and STEM in general no matter what. I don't think that way.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

Weather forecasting is good. Do you have any reason besides suspicions that the BLS predictions have no predictive value? If a team of data driven professionals can't make a prediction worth anything, then why should we accept your personal prediction?

Like any data-driven forecast, it starts with a chaotic system and it goes downhill from there. Please don't tell me how good you think weather forecasts are. I've tried to use them for piloting a small plane. If I had been able to rely on those forecasts better, I'd have been able to pay for a lot more flight time. I can't tell you how many times I've read forecasts for winds and temperatures aloft, worked out my wind vector and temperatures at altitude and discovered that I shouldn't have even bothered looking at the forecast.

Financial investments are only accurate over a very long term and only within an order of magnitude. The shorter the time span, the less accurate they tend to be. I've read and invested and I'll say this: If you know what a random walk is, then you'll know that most financial forecasts are barely worth the paper they're printed on. And we're supposed to believe what these people think the job market will look like in ten years? I wish they could be that accurate, but if you ask them, any with a shred of honesty will tell you that this is all an educated guess at best.

Believe what you want, but don't be surprised if things don't end up anything like what was predicted.

 

[ezed lino]

Do you have a source for this claim of "high demand"?

Electrical engineering has been shedding existing positions.
http://www.computerworld.com/articl...l-engineering-lost-35-000-jobs-last-year.html
Pay has not outpaced inflation.
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1149198
The Beuaru of Labor statistics predicts slower than average growth in the field.
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/electrical-and-electronics-engineers.htmCertainly there is a demand, but I see no evidence of high demand in the foreseeable future. We have electrical engineering graduates working along side community college graduates as maintenance technicians at my job.

MEs' job often has a tenuous link with ME. Many MEs merely supervise maintenance technicians in many companies.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I don't know. At my job the people in demand are people with experience on particular semiconductor manufacturing processes and people with high levels of experience and knowledge on manufacturing equipment. Experience is more important than a degree, but that isn't a surprise. We feel thwarted by HR when we can't hire experienced people because they have the wrong or no degree. There are people with DeVry degrees and vendor experience that can work in any fab they want for six figures.

I would troll through the Bureau of Labor predictions for a first order approximation. I think computer science at the PhD/research level has high potential, and I think the Bureau of Labor supports that opinion.
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and...puter-and-information-research-scientists.htm

Really though, I wouldn't encourage someone to pursue a technical field.

OK, ModusPwnd. If not a technical field, what field would you encourage to pursue instead, say to your child, or to someone who asks? And I'm talking about any field. You tell me what field you think is worth pursuing for someone considering a career.[/QUOTE]

 

[StatGuy2000]

Like any data-driven forecast, it starts with a chaotic system and it goes downhill from there. Please don't tell me how good you think weather forecasts are. I've tried to use them for piloting a small plane. If I had been able to rely on those forecasts better, I'd have been able to pay for a lot more flight time. I can't tell you how many times I've read forecasts for winds and temperatures aloft, worked out my wind vector and temperatures at altitude and discovered that I shouldn't have even bothered looking at the forecast.

Financial investments are only accurate over a very long term and only within an order of magnitude. The shorter the time span, the less accurate they tend to be. I've read and invested and I'll say this: If you know what a random walk is, then you'll know that most financial forecasts are barely worth the paper they're printed on. And we're supposed to believe what these people think the job market will look like in ten years? I wish they could be that accurate, but if you ask them, any with a shred of honesty will tell you that this is all an educated guess at best.

Believe what you want, but don't be surprised if things don't end up anything like what was predicted.

Jake, how good weather forecasts are depends on the time point and the specificity of the forecast. Weather systems are based on non-linear dynamical systems that are chaotic (i.e. sensitive to initial conditions), so any forecast will depend crucially on whether the initial conditions on which the forecast has made has changed. Forecasts within 1 to 3 days usually tend to be fairly accurate, but any forecast beyond that time frame will degrade in accuracy.

It's also worth keeping in mind what we mean by "accuracy", since any good forecast should be inherently probabilistic, and should include some measure of the probability or uncertainty of the forecast (e.g. confidence interval, standard error, etc.). For example, if the weather forecast is for a 60% chance of rain the next day, and it does not rain, then can you really state that the forecast is inaccurate? After all, there was a 40% chance that it will not rain, and that's a high percentage.

Of course, your response is that all forecasts are garbage, but I think that is a disservice. Forecasts can be very useful for decision-making, so long as the following are considered:

1. You're aware of the assumptions that goes into the model from which the forecast is made.

2. You're aware of the measure of uncertainty of the forecast.

3. You're modest and careful in how to interpret the forecast.

Of course, there are other considerations depending on the type of forecast, which I can't immediately think of for the moment.