Major in what you're PASSIONATE in and other useless platitudes

  • Thread starter MissSilvy
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Major
In summary: I'm sorry, your response is not a summary of the conversation. In summary, the conversation discusses the struggle of deciding on a career and the lack of helpful advice in choosing a major. The poster expresses concerns about low salaries and lack of job satisfaction in certain fields. They also mention wanting their hard work and innovation to be rewarded, rather than just being treated as something they owe the company. The conversation also mentions the idea of specializing in a field to potentially set their own salary and the possibility of opening their own business.
  • #36


You really can't consult in your free time without prior approval from your employer. Many or even most employers want you to sign away anything you do while employed for them before you even start work. This applies to anything you do on your own time, as well.

You're either a consultant or an employee. It really is an either/or type of thing.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37


MissSilvy said:
What a sad society we live in when we have to work as slowly or badly as we can get away with in order to avoid more work. :/

Chiro- Thanks so much! That was actually a very helpful and informative post. Even though I don't think patent law or actuarial science are for me, they're interesting suggestions. I like the consulting idea but from what I've seen, companies frown on doing consulting in your free time. Who knows though, I may have to do more research or talk to more people. Thank you for the advice and the sentiments :)

MissSilvy I wouldn't recommend consulting while working because that could damage your reputation severely if people found out.

What I was trying to say was that you could get trained up in some field and then later take your knowledge with you by working for yourself.

Lots of people do this. You might for example work in R&D for a good solid company and you might have ideas about some great product, process or innovation that there is a good market for. Some people end up in this situation because they try and sell their ideas to the executives who don't buy it and then that person leaves, starts their business with a initial minimum patent portfolio and reap the rewards.

I will blunt about something else though: many businesses fail to hold up over a long period of time. If you find a company that values growth and hard work by their employees you might want to think about getting employed there and working your way up to a senior management level. Being a senior manager or executive in a well established company might be more rewarding (and generally less risky) than heading your own company, and allows you to make use of more extensive resources than it would in a startup.

If you want to start your own company or work for yourself I recommend you work in a business that either a) make extensive use of the kinds of business that you plan on starting or b) work in a business that has the same sort of role as the business you wish to start up yourself.

Its possible to start your own business without this but I strongly caution against it. Business can be a complex thing and it can be even more complex nowadays especially where a companys patent portfolio is a valuable commodity that allows them to do the business that they are actively engaged in.

If you're an engineer I strongly recommend you read about patents if you wish to do consulting. Remember that no matter how technically apt you are, if it can't make money, if it doesn't improve someone elses situation, or if it doesn't offer value to your customer, its basically rendered useless.

Also if you are a consultant and bring to the table a business perspective you will generally be more valuable to your clients than someone who doesn't have one. All companies are competing to stay alive tomorrow and if they don't or can't make money, then everything else is just fluff.

My parents owned two businesses so I learned a bit from being part of that business. Typically you can find good companies that will rotate you in different departments to let you get a good feel of the business and subsequently of the industry. If you find a company that does that then I would recommend taking that opportunity. The reason is that once you get a feel of how the different departments help meet the end goal: that is bringing value to the customer and all that is a consequence of that, then as a consultant you will be more valuable.

Also be aware of everything you sign as an employment agreement. If you intend to start your business there may be clauses that prohibit you from doing certain activities when you leave. Remember a companies IP is often their competitive advantage and as such they will retain as much as possible. Also as a consultant showing a firm understanding and respect for IP will bring more trust to who your working with and show a level of professionalism.
 
  • #38


TMFKAN64 said:
You really can't consult in your free time without prior approval from your employer. Many or even most employers want you to sign away anything you do while employed for them before you even start work. This applies to anything you do on your own time, as well.

You're either a consultant or an employee. It really is an either/or type of thing.

chiro said:
MissSilvy I wouldn't recommend consulting while working because that could damage your reputation severely if people found out.

<snip>

These statements are not always true.

I have a consulting company (they are surprisingly easy to start), but there are some clear boundaries- no using University resources (printers, email, etc) for my consulting gig, I must declare "conflicts of interest" annually, stuff like that.

What TMFKAN64 mentions is generally considered a conflict of interest; if my consulting activities overlapped with my job duties, that's a conflict. Corporate attorneys can provide more official guidelines for that.

What chiro brings up may refer to cases where a person did in fact have a conflict of interest and tried to conceal it.
 
  • #39


You're getting some pretty good advice, MissSilvy. If you want to get into a demanding field and get a few years under your belt AND get a good reputation in that field, you can strike out on your own. I worked for a couple of years as THE industry specialist for the 2nd-largest training company in the world, after 10 years in the relevant industry with NO degree. The company failed to bolster the division with more people with knowledge of that industry, and when a new vice-president started trying to change my terms of employment, I left, and they were screwed. At no time did I kick the traces and moonlight when I was working for them, but a couple of years in high-profile projects was all it took to keep me in consulting contracts for years. If I had wanted to spend more time traveling, and grinding, I could easily have made over $100K/year, and this was almost 20 years ago. As it was, I lived at home in Maine and pulled in $60K/year or more with about a week per month on-site.

You'd better get your ducks in a row if you want to try this path - I was required to carry $1M in liability coverage by one of the companies that I consulted for, because the systems in question were quite dangerous. You'd better have some pretty heavy industry references if you want to try to get that kind of coverage without a ruinous premium.
 
  • #40


Andy Resnick said:
What TMFKAN64 mentions is generally considered a conflict of interest; if my consulting activities overlapped with my job duties, that's a conflict. Corporate attorneys can provide more official guidelines for that.

No, I actually meant more than just a conflict of interest. Most of my employers have required me to sign a form stating that *any* IP created while I work for them is theirs. Any IP that is already mine needs to be identified in advance.

I have no idea how common these forms are... I have found them common in the computer industry, but it's always dangerous to generalize one's experience. But the wording pretty much rules out consulting without prior approval, since you'd be giving away your employer's IP!

I notice that you work for a university... indeed, that's very different. Now that I think about it, I know many people who are employed by a university but consult on the side. But given that you need to declare conflicts of interest, etc. I think I would interpret this as universities usually give permission to their employees who wish to consult.
 
  • #41


Yeah, it's not a major obstacle. I'm currently less an employee and more of a subcontractor- in effect, I rent space from the University to perform my research and teaching duties. That makes the barrier very low.

Where I was, at a contractor, I recall having statements similar to what you mention- the issue is, of course, the phrase "IP created while I work for them". Again, an attorney would have to advise on that point, but on the face of it, if your IP has no relation to your job, you do not use company IP to generate your IP, and you develop your IP not during regular office hours, the company would have a difficult claim to make.
 
  • #42


See, that's the advantage of having salaried employees vs. hourly employees... you can claim that the salaried employees are *always* working for you!

I don't recall the exact wording, but I do recall that it was a stunningly broad claim on creative output. And while I agree they would have a difficult legal claim (and probably wouldn't even bother to pursue it if it wasn't a definite conflict of interest), that's pretty much the point of having you sign... they won't claim it's fair or they deserve it, just that you agreed to it.

Anyway, this is getting far off topic... I think the point that we can both agree on is to check with an attorney of you have any questions in this field, because it is definitely an area where you need to be careful.
 
  • #43


chroot said:
Physicists, unfortunately, are poorly-rewarded for their incredible value to society -- all of the stuff that we engineers make is ultimately dependent upon the goofy new things they discover in their pure research. By some estimates, 30% of the US's GDP is due to products developed using quantum mechanics.

- Warren

Holy cats, that much? Could you provide a cite so I can read more about it?
 
  • #44


turbo-1 said:
If you expect to work 9-5, don't pursue engineering. You will likely be salaried (no overtime) and if you work in mills or on construction projects, you will be expected to work a lot of hours. If you are an engineer, and a pulp mill or paper machine is in a chaotic upset, don't even think of heading for the parking lot at the "end of the day."

It's attitudes like yours that lead to employers treating Engineers the way they do.

If you work more than is specified in your contract for no extra pay, you are basically giving your company money for free.
 
  • #45


cristo said:
What do you mean by this? I've probably misunderstood, but I can't think of anywhere in my life thus far that I've been awarded for just showing up somewhere.

It's just your typical old person ranting. He probably had to walk 15 miles in the snow, kids these days, etc etc.
 
  • #46


Anything in the medical field will get you a steady high pay. You should go that route if you're concerned with money.
 
  • #47


Wax said:
Anything in the medical field will get you a steady high pay. You should go that route if you're concerned with money.

Do your research first though. I thought Medical Physics would be good money here, but it really isn't considering the amount of training and teaching they make you do. YMMV.
 
  • #48


rabbitweed said:
Do your research first though. I thought Medical Physics would be good money here, but it really isn't considering the amount of training and teaching they make you do. YMMV.
Dunno. Would you consider operating an MRI for 8 hours a day onerous? Sounds like a good gig to me.
 
  • #49


turbo-1 said:
Dunno. Would you consider operating an MRI for 8 hours a day onerous? Sounds like a good gig to me.

Where I live, after getting a Masters, they have to be in a low paying placement for 2 or 3 years before becoming accredited, during which time they have to teach, unpaid, outside their normal work hours.

After all that they get a smidgen more than an Engineer fresh out of uni with a 4 year degree.

It probably varies a lot from place to place. What's it like where you live?
 
  • #50


rabbitweed said:
It's attitudes like yours that lead to employers treating Engineers the way they do.

If you work more than is specified in your contract for no extra pay, you are basically giving your company money for free.

rabbitweed said:
It's just your typical old person ranting. He probably had to walk 15 miles in the snow, kids these days, etc etc.

hahahaha I think you should print this thread out, and seal it in an envelope, with "do not open till 2020" on it. Put it someplace where you won't see it too often before then. On second thought, maybe you should wait till 2029 before reading it again.
 
  • #51


rabbitweed said:
Where I live, after getting a Masters, they have to be in a low paying placement for 2 or 3 years before becoming accredited, during which time they have to teach, unpaid, outside their normal work hours.

After all that they get a smidgen more than an Engineer fresh out of uni with a 4 year degree.

It probably varies a lot from place to place. What's it like where you live?
I'm not sure about pay scales, but doctors, nurses, and medical technicians are in great demand here. Like many areas that are quite rural, it can be tough to recruit qualified medical professionals. My wife's cousin is in radiology and judging from the new house she and her husband built recently, she's got to be making some serious bucks. Her husband was a game warden and later worked as a letter-carrier, so I know he was not pulling down big money.
 
  • #52


gmax137 said:
hahahaha I think you should print this thread out, and seal it in an envelope, with "do not open till 2020" on it. Put it someplace where you won't see it too often before then. On second thought, maybe you should wait till 2029 before reading it again.

Say what you will, I've worked a in trades, labouring, warehousing and the like, and even the lowliest forklift driver or box stacker does not take the crap from their boss I hear engineers talk about taking all the time. Go talk to a skilled or un-skilled labourer about working unpaid overtime, and he'll laugh in your face.
 
  • #53


There are definite advantages to being hourly and/or unionized. Most engineering jobs, however, are neither, and employees have few protections as a result.
 
  • #54


rabbitweed said:
Say what you will, I've worked a in trades, labouring, warehousing and the like, and even the lowliest forklift driver or box stacker does not take the crap from their boss I hear engineers talk about taking all the time. Go talk to a skilled or un-skilled labourer about working unpaid overtime, and he'll laugh in your face.

Of course, what happens when these people show up five minutes late in the morning? Or if they have to take an extra half hour over lunch to take their kids to the dentist? El docked payo. You also have to deal with unions forcing you into a strike over issues that you couldn't care less about, and limiting opportunities for performance-based career advancement.

I'm not saying that unions don't have their place. What I mean to say is that the grass is often greener on the other side of the fence.
 
  • #55


This is beginning to get off topic, but...

If you think you'd be happier punching a time clock and working in an adversarial (labor-management dichotomy) situation, you should probably not pursue a career as an engineer.
 
  • #56


Wax said:
Anything in the medical field will get you a steady high pay. You should go that route if you're concerned with money.

Deep sea welding.
 
  • #57


Choppy said:
Of course, what happens when these people show up five minutes late in the morning? Or if they have to take an extra half hour over lunch to take their kids to the dentist? El docked payo. You also have to deal with unions forcing you into a strike over issues that you couldn't care less about, and limiting opportunities for performance-based career advancement.

I'm not saying that unions don't have their place. What I mean to say is that the grass is often greener on the other side of the fence.

Valid point.

But my original contention was; contracts for a salaried position will surely have a maximum number of hours the employee is required to work, wouldn't they? Working beyond that is simply letting yourself be walked over, unless you have some kind of direct stake in the company profits.
 
  • #58


gmax137 said:
If you think you'd be happier punching a time clock and working in an adversarial (labor-management dichotomy) situation, you should probably not pursue a career as an engineer.

Isn't that precisely what happens in some industries for Engineers, eg Oilrigs and the like? AFAIK they have a very strict roster.
 
  • #59


gmax137 said:
If you think you'd be happier punching a time clock and working in an adversarial (labor-management dichotomy) situation, you should probably not pursue a career as an engineer.

Maybe if Engineers stood up for themselves more they wouldn't be getting scrrewed into doing free work.
 
  • #60


rabbitweed said:
contracts for a salaried position will surely have a maximum number of hours the employee is required to work, wouldn't they?

Not really. I could only find two of my past offer letters... one said nothing on the subject of hours. The other, being a part-time position, said "three days per week", but did not give a specified number of hours to be worked per day.

The expectation is generally that you will work more than 8 hours on the average. If you can get more done in less time, you probably won't have a problem working less... people are generally measuring results, not hours.

In my experience, most engineers do not think of this as a labor vs. management issue. For better or for worse, there is very little class consciousness among engineers.
 
  • #61


rabbitweed said:
Valid point.

But my original contention was; contracts for a salaried position will surely have a maximum number of hours the employee is required to work, wouldn't they? Working beyond that is simply letting yourself be walked over, unless you have some kind of direct stake in the company profits.

They don't specify- a full time employee is one that works *at least* 40 hours per week. There's been some recent developments here (and most likely, other academic institutions that receive federal grant dollars) regarding time allotments. The driving force for this problem is MDs that have NIH grants and see patients, but the problem is very generic.

Let's say I have a full-time 12 month academic appointment- primary faculty position. I have certain obligations regarding teaching and service. There may even be a hard commitment to teach a certain fraction of my time. On grant applications, I receive salary based on a certain fraction of my time I promise to spend on the project. So far, all is well.

The issue is that the administration sets a benchmark of 75% of my salary is to come from extramural research dollars. By rights, that means I should be spending 75% of my time on research- in the lab, getting data. Time spent writing papers, writing new applications, writing on this forum, are all not allowable expenses, according to federal guidelines. That leaves 25% of my time to be spend on teaching, service, writing, going to meetings, seminars, student recruiting and mentorship, grading papers, student committee meetings...

It's clear how this is going- how to reconcile my time? The easiest solution is to simply re-define the hours worked in a week.
 
  • #62


TMFKAN64 said:
Not really. I could only find two of my past offer letters... one said nothing on the subject of hours. The other, being a part-time position, said "three days per week", but did not give a specified number of hours to be worked per day.

The expectation is generally that you will work more than 8 hours on the average. If you can get more done in less time, you probably won't have a problem working less... people are generally measuring results, not hours.

In my experience, most engineers do not think of this as a labor vs. management issue. For better or for worse, there is very little class consciousness among engineers.

Interesting. Where do you live?

In many states in Australia (where I intend to work after I graduate) they have what's known as an Award which is a list of requirements for employers in the industry has to follow, and it covers things like normal working hours, overtime requirements etc. In theory it should provide good protection for employees being told to work ridiculous hours without compensation, provided they have the back bone to assert themselves and know their rights.

Part of my postings in this thread is due to the fact I have very little faith in managment to not try every trick in the book to try and save themselves money by sacrificing your time without comepnsation.
 
  • #63


rabbitweed said:
Part of my postings in this thread is due to the fact I have very little faith in managment to not try every trick in the book to try and save themselves money by sacrificing your time without comepnsation.
In the US, most salaried workers (in the industries that I have worked in, at least) are expected to put in tons of unpaid overtime. Also, many states have "at will" employment provisions, so that your boss can fire you for absolutely no reason at all, and it is almost impossible for a fired worker to get any relief in the court system. Even worse, being fired (for any reason) is a pejorative condition in the eyes in the states' unemployment insurance systems (as opposed to being "laid off" for lack of work) and it is a long, tough road to gain any unemployment benefits, since the state regards any such firing as a "for cause" firing, and the onus is on the employee to prove otherwise. Anybody who has been forced to try to prove a negative knows where this is going.
 
  • #64


turbo-1 said:
In the US, most salaried workers (in the industries that I have worked in, at least) are expected to put in tons of unpaid overtime. Also, many states have "at will" employment provisions, so that your boss can fire you for absolutely no reason at all, and it is almost impossible for a fired worker to get any relief in the court system. Even worse, being fired (for any reason) is a pejorative condition in the eyes in the states' unemployment insurance systems (as opposed to being "laid off" for lack of work) and it is a long, tough road to gain any unemployment benefits, since the state regards any such firing as a "for cause" firing, and the onus is on the employee to prove otherwise. Anybody who has been forced to try to prove a negative knows where this is going.

:O

My God.

I hope Americans reading this don't take it as an insult, but sounds downright 3rd world to me.

Certainly has put some of the things I read on the internet about Engineering working conditions in perspective though!
 
  • #65


rabbitweed said:
:O

My God.

I hope Americans reading this don't take it as an insult, but sounds downright 3rd world to me.

Certainly has put some of the things I read on the internet about Engineering working conditions in perspective though!
This is real-world, rabbitweed. The oligarchs who have dominated our government for the last century have carved their empires out of the backs of people who have been indoctrinated to see their contributions minimized and legally negated.
 
  • #66


turbo-1 said:
This is real-world, rabbitweed. The oligarchs who have dominated our government for the last century have carved their empires out of the backs of people who have been indoctrinated to see their contributions minimized and legally negated.

Yes, that is real world...in the US.

But you should understand that that sort of working culture, where you can fire people for no reason what so ever and the like is not universal in the western world.
 
  • #67


I'm in the US, Silicon Valley in particular.

Basically, there are two types of employees in the US: "exempt" and "non-exempt". "Non-exempt" employees are paid hourly and are often unionized. I know that CA has rules mandating overtime whenever more than 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week are worked if you are in this category. If you are working in a union shop, there are also prescribed procedures for firing employees that are laid out in the union contract.

"Exempt" employees include management and professionals (such as engineers) who are paid a salary. I don't think there is any legal reason why they couldn't be in a union, but they never are. They are typically hired "at will", and can be fired for almost any reason. (The few protections are for various types of discrimination and for whistleblowing.) There are no limits on hours or requirements to pay overtime. Refusing to work more is certainly grounds for dismissal.

The US is probably the most extreme capitalist society on the planet. This produces a lot of wealth, but there is a definite social cost.
 
  • #68


Wow, this thread is getting quite a bit of attention. So many answers in a few days, whereas certain homework questions have been unanswered since 2007 :-).

I am also looking through careers, I am currently an undergraduate in, guess what... engineering. Biomedical engineering, to be precise. So, I am actually approaching the issue from a different side. From what I'm hearing, biomedical engineering has rather decent starting salaries. Recently I've found that I'm very interested in physics, though. Having heard my father's story of working as a Ph.D. in nuclear physics for 30 years just to reach a salary of $60,000, I do think that is a somewhat ungreateful job. No offence, nuclear physicists, you're doing a great job and what I'm saying is an expression of sympathy.
However, being a BME I'm close to medicine and have found a very interesting physics specialty called Medical Physics. Medical means interesting (to me), applicable, well payed, and stable. Physics means interesting.
There are two tracks loosely described as "research" and "quality control". I'm still inquiring about details but it seems the research side does work with improving scanner types (CT, MRI, PET) - lower dose, faster acquisition, more image contrast, imaging of moving tissues etc. The quality control branch works with calculating doeses for treatments, setting up scanners, and other related aspects. Both sides can go to work in industry.
If medicine is at all interesting to you, perhaps, you should look at this field.
 
  • #69


Dzyubak:
There are two tracks loosely described as "research" and "quality control". I'm still inquiring about details but it seems the research side does work with improving scanner types (CT, MRI, PET) - lower dose, faster acquisition, more image contrast, imaging of moving tissues etc. The quality control branch works with calculating doeses for treatments, setting up scanners, and other related aspects. Both sides can go to work in industry.

Remember one more branch - Development.

Generally, the goal of Research is to learn and understand. The goal of Development is to create and modify, or more simply put, to design. Quality Control's goal is to monitor production and be sure that items are produced correctly, and to catch and retain and fix defects before distribution.
 
  • #70


In my opinion, every job has its own headaches. Frankly, I would rather chill but that would give you no money. In any job, the question is how much you can tolerate. That's life. Don't need to think so much. Just do what you want to do now and do it well. The future is uncertain.
 
<h2>1. What does it mean to major in something you're passionate about?</h2><p>Majoring in something you're passionate about means choosing a field of study that aligns with your interests and values. It involves pursuing a subject that you genuinely enjoy and find meaningful, rather than just choosing a major based on practicality or societal expectations.</p><h2>2. Why is it important to major in something you're passionate about?</h2><p>Majoring in something you're passionate about can lead to greater satisfaction and fulfillment in your academic and professional life. It allows you to engage deeply with your studies and develop a strong understanding and expertise in your chosen field.</p><h2>3. How do I determine what I'm passionate about?</h2><p>Finding your passion can involve self-reflection and exploration. Consider what topics or activities you naturally gravitate towards and what brings you joy and fulfillment. You can also talk to friends, family, and mentors for their insights and take career assessments to identify potential areas of interest.</p><h2>4. Won't majoring in something I'm passionate about limit my career options?</h2><p>Not necessarily. While some majors may have more direct career paths, many employers value a diverse skill set and the ability to think critically and creatively. Plus, pursuing a major you're passionate about can lead to increased motivation and drive, making you a more competitive job candidate in any field.</p><h2>5. Are there any downsides to majoring in something I'm passionate about?</h2><p>One potential downside is that your passion may change over time, and you may find yourself no longer interested in your chosen field. However, this is a risk with any major, and it's important to regularly reassess your interests and goals throughout your academic and professional journey.</p>

1. What does it mean to major in something you're passionate about?

Majoring in something you're passionate about means choosing a field of study that aligns with your interests and values. It involves pursuing a subject that you genuinely enjoy and find meaningful, rather than just choosing a major based on practicality or societal expectations.

2. Why is it important to major in something you're passionate about?

Majoring in something you're passionate about can lead to greater satisfaction and fulfillment in your academic and professional life. It allows you to engage deeply with your studies and develop a strong understanding and expertise in your chosen field.

3. How do I determine what I'm passionate about?

Finding your passion can involve self-reflection and exploration. Consider what topics or activities you naturally gravitate towards and what brings you joy and fulfillment. You can also talk to friends, family, and mentors for their insights and take career assessments to identify potential areas of interest.

4. Won't majoring in something I'm passionate about limit my career options?

Not necessarily. While some majors may have more direct career paths, many employers value a diverse skill set and the ability to think critically and creatively. Plus, pursuing a major you're passionate about can lead to increased motivation and drive, making you a more competitive job candidate in any field.

5. Are there any downsides to majoring in something I'm passionate about?

One potential downside is that your passion may change over time, and you may find yourself no longer interested in your chosen field. However, this is a risk with any major, and it's important to regularly reassess your interests and goals throughout your academic and professional journey.

Similar threads

  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
30
Views
5K
Replies
127
Views
16K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
6
Views
297
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
607
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top