Main Question or Discussion Point
With normal I mean the age when most engineers recieve their degree. I have a feeling that it is quite late compared to most other countries?
so suppose I graduate at 26, I will be considered older than average. Will that make it hard to find a job that pays well?Assuming that one is 18 when graduating from high school, one would be 22 at the end of a traditional 4-yr undergraduate engineering program. Then if one did a 2-yr MEng program, one would be 24. If one did a 4 year program over 5-yrs, perhaps because one worked an internship, then one would 25 yrs old at the end of a 2 year MEng program.
On the other hand, one could take a job for a year or so, and that would delay the completion of the MEng program, or one could do the MEng on a part-time basis, which would also extend the age at which one completes.
If money is the concern, don't get the master's. I think it's unlikely that any increase in starting salary from a masters would overcome missing out on the two years of income you won't be earning.so suppose I graduate at 26, I will be considered older than average. Will that make it hard to find a job that pays well?
Who do you think? Your employers! And why would they ask your age?Who are 'they'? Why would that be illegal?
Well, that might be true in U.S., but I live in Colombia, and here being over thirty is reason enough to have a hard time looking for a well-paid job. The thing is that here age matters, a lot.I don't see why age would make any difference in salary? Affirmative action laws protect against all types of discrimination, including age. (U.S.)
I'm pretty sure that's not true. Agedness is not a "protected class" under U.S. law. But of course, discrimination of all types continues to exist despite laws.I don't see why age would make any difference in salary? Affirmative action laws protect against all types of discrimination, including age. (U.S.)
"Pretty sure" eh?I'm pretty sure that's not true. Agedness is not a "protected class" under U.S. law. But of course, discrimination of all types continues to exist despite laws.
But the discussion is a little silly anyways. At 26, discrimination would be working in your favor.
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html" [Broken]Under Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA, it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including:
* hiring and firing;
* compensation, assignment, or classification of employees;
* transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall;
* job advertisements;
* use of company facilities;
* training and apprenticeship programs;
* fringe benefits;
* pay, retirement plans, and disability leave; or
* other terms and conditions of employment.
Discriminatory practices under these laws also include:
* harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age;
Are you just playing with words here? My point is that an employer cannot say "Nope too old."That's nice, but nothing you've posted says that agedness is a protected class. Without such a classification, age discrimination judgments are hard to come by because the law has no teeth.
Hi, Saladsamurai. Thanks for the interesting discussion!
It all comes down to who bears the burden of proof. Suppose a plaintiff brings a case of discrimination based on skin color. Say there's a company where all the managers are white but all those with lesser paying jobs are black. To win, the company must prove that discrimination has not taken place. In other words, all the hiring and promotion decisions that have been made are automatically suspect.
Contrast this with an age discrimination case. Because agedness is not a suspect class, the burden of proof runs the other way. To win, the plaintiff must prove that discrimination has taken place. This is a nearly insurmountable burden.
Consequently, laws against age discrimination are a bit like laws against betting on sports. The practice is illegal (in the U.S.), but you'd be hard pressed to find a company without a march madness office pool.
It's not quite that bad. It's just harder to win a case if it gets to that point. As in chess where the threat of a move is more powerful than the move itself, sometimes the threat of pursuing a case can have effects.That is quite unfortunate that one needs to fall under a suspect class in order to be protected by the law.
I agree that a lot of laws seem that way, but having some protection is better than having none. I believe Congress sets the classifications at the federal level. The theory is that it has to be a permanent property of yourself to be eligible. Since a person's age is not a constant, so the reasoning goes, it doesn't qualify.Almost seems pointless to even have the law. What does it take in order for a class to become protected?
That's nice, but nothing you've posted says that agedness is a protected class. Without such a classification, age discrimination judgments are hard to come by because the law has no teeth.
I'm late to post, but what are some of grounds an employer(engineering/scientific fields) may feel justified in discriminating against someone because of their age.