Whats is the normal age to graduate with a MEng in the United States

I can't imagine that a year or two will make any difference!

 

They can't even ask your age, right? I thought that was illegal. They can only see what year you graduated.

 

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.

After you get a job, you can always pursue a masters part time, and on your employer's dime. It took me six years to finish, but that's the way I did it. Your mileage may vary.

By the way, only someone in their twenties thinks there's any difference between being 24 and being 26.

 

Who are 'they'? Why would that be illegal?

 

Who do you think? Your employers! And why would they ask your age?

In the U.S., most job applications only ask you if you are over 18 or not.

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.)

 

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'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.

 

The discussion might be silly, but the point was that they cannot discriminate against age period; doesn't matter whose favor it is in.

"Pretty sure" eh?

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html" [Broken]

 

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.

 

Are you just playing with words here? My point is that an employer cannot say "Nope too old."

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe you should clarify what you are saying here.

 

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.

 

Well then, I stand corrected/educated. That is quite unfortunate that one needs to fall under a suspect class in order to be protected by the law.

Almost seems pointless to even have the law. What does it take in order for a class to become protected?

 

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.

Also, you have to consider it from the point of view of the employer, too, who also deserves fairness. Not all claims have merit.

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.

This seems illogical to me because you can't do anything at all to change how old you are.

 

Thanks for the info!

And Link, sorry if this derailed your thread for a bit, but I think you question might kind of, sort have been answered :uhh:

 

Hi all,

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.

 

Age discrimination is a big deal in the U.S. Employers are not allowed to ask age unless age is explicitly a prerequisite for the job. I've seen many cases like this, employers don't usually have the upper hand in that situation.

 

There must be a specific reason. For example, if one were shooting a commercial and needed an "older" individual to play a particular "older" role, then you may inquire about age citing the reason. The same applies for physically challenging work
duties but you cannot directly ask age, in that case you would simply have a checkbox on an
application to check if the physical demands can be met by applicants.