Salary Discrepancies/ Liberal Arts vs Engineering

[GSTamral]

It has started to come to our attention that as of late, many people are unhappy with their starting salaries and base salaries, because they feel they are being discriminated in one respect or another based on their choice in education. Not to delve too far into details and specifics, this has basically boiled down to an argument of engineers and technical majors vs liberal arts/english majors. Rather than rant on my own personal beliefs (other than to state that I am in agreement with paying engineers a significantly higher salary to start), I'd like to hear some opinions on the matter. Not that it will change anything, because I myself don't have that power anyway, but I just want to hear some of these conventional frustrations.

Basic Scenario
Two people are accepted for a job. An engineer and an english major. The engineer receives a starting salary of 50,000, and the english major is given a starting salary of 35,000. While both technically start in the same level of position (trainee), the engineer is in a 1 year cycle, at which point they become a supervisor, while the English major is in a 3 year cycle (it is assumed it takes them longer to bring them up to speed, because certain things that are taught in school to engineers are not taught to english majors from a project standpoint (budgeting, charting, life cycles, etc..). After 3 years, both are in an equal position, doing the same exact work, with the same general quality. At this point, the engineer is earning 65,000, and the english major is earning 45,000. From this point forward, those are the base numbers, which never change, meaning 10 years later and 10 yearly raises later, that discrepancy will always exist. It is important to note, however, that at this point, their choice in college majors has nothing to do with career advancement. The only thing that matters are what is on an employee evaluation, which is the same for everyone.

Employer's perspective
1. An engineer tends to work far harder than a liberal arts major during schooling, so they deserve more to start
2. It takes a greater degree of intelligence and comprehension to earn a degree in engineering, even though, it says nothing about the actual individual other than knowing that the lowest intelligence possible is higher for an engineer.
3. An engineer is a more capable problem solver when they start, thus allowing them to delve into whatever they will be doing quicker.
4. Liberal Arts grads are potluck. More than a quarter of them end up being unable to handle the workload.
5. Often the training period for liberal arts majors is longer than that of engineers.
6. An Engineer is more likely than a liberal arts major to be capable of larger scale multitasking.
7. Engineers are better technical writers.
8. As a whole unit, Engineers tend to be brighter than Liberal Arts grads, although this has nothing to do with particular individuals.
9. Engineers tends to have handled a much more rigorous courseload than a liberal arts grad.
10. The higher lifetime pay is partially attributed to the fact that the Engineer costs the company less time and money to train to actually become an effective employee.
11. Another partial factor is the fact that engineers are far more likely to continue through the training period to become an employee. Over a quarter of the liberal arts grads either "fail out" (grade poorly during employee evaluations), or they end up seeking employment elsewhere.

To me, it is a basic case of work harder and do something more difficult, and get the just reward. Am I missing anything here?

[Apotheosis]

well, it depends on the job position. Engineers are notorious at having shitty personalities, therefore making them the last person you want a client to meet, and being responsible for most of the "toxic" behaviors in the workforce.

anyway, I should better explain my point of view:

IE I think that looking solely at a persons education background to tell how they will be able to handle the professional position is a bad idea.

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by Yswithe]

[DeV]

Those two fields aren't even remotely related. Why would anyone be comparing the salaries of the two, and why would an English major be doing a job similiar to that of an Engineer?

Some biased points on the employer perspective for sure, but I agree with your basic sentiment. You should be paid for the *type* of work you do and as it relates to the degree you ascertained to specialize in whatever field, but not necessilarly the level of difficulty involved.

Edited for spelling.

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by DeV]

[Atlanteax]

I think that he just wanted to make the point that English majors are screwed? :?:

[Latrinsorm]

I think he meant English and Engineering majors in their chosen line of work, because he thinks "budgeting, charting, life cycles" applies to any profession. Not that I'm saying they don't, just I don't know either way.

[GSTamral]

<<
Those two fields aren't even remotely related. Why would anyone be comparing the salaries of the two, and why would an English major be doing a job similiar to that of an Engineer?
>>

While it is easier to get a job in management being an engineer, and we prefer them in general, there is no set major that sets you up to be a manager. Business Analysts, for example, do a lot of documentation, whereas production support is essentially all operations support, despite the two being absolutely equivalent supervisor positions..

As for the personality thing, I disagree. Engineers are much stronger team players, because most of their work in school requires teamwork to complete, or is in the form of group projects.

<<<
and being responsible for most of the "toxic" behaviors in the workforce.
>>>

Actually, it's been documented that this honor belongs squarely in the arms of liberals arts majors, particularly those with only an associate's degree. Engineers tend to be trained in professional presentation during schooling, something that is rare in liberal arts.

Ever see an english student try and put together an extremely verbose powerpoint presentation? Engineers are the only ones that understand the concept of bullet points in school. The rest usually figure it out in the first couple months in the workforce.

The toxic tendencies I have noticed from Engineers tends to be more on cosmetic side. They tend not to dress to impress nearly as much as others.

[xtc]

Tamral is 200% correct. Engineering is a more difficult degree to be accepted to and to complete than a degree in English. The discipline, brains, and hardwork required to complete a degree in Engineering serves employers well. Yes many engineers are assholes in dire need of a personality transplant however machines don't talk back and few engineers ever meet their customers.

[Apotheosis]

Enigneers, also tend to have a "holier then thou" attitude.. but you know, I suppose anyone in any profession from any background can have that one.. so yeah, whatever.

[GSTamral]

Well, let me clarify. This argument pertains strictly to the field of management and project management. How this works in other professions, I dont have any idea. It is just one of the professions in which both can be hired in the same general job functions.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Atlanteax
I think that he just wanted to make the point that English majors are screwed? :?: Then I guess it all boils down to, no shit, in a sense? You should know what you're getting into before you get a degree in a particular field. That goes for job and salary expectations after graduation as well.

I highly doubt an English major is expecting to be paid anywhere near that of an Engineer, but I could be wrong. I'd expect them to be paid more just because of the amount of time, effort, and dedication the field demands as a whole.

[GSTamral]

No, to clarify, the point was not that English majors are screwed. Once they have both attained the same level or position, despite the work experience, they are still paid less, partially in compensation to the original training period costs to the company. It is a given and a known that they are screwed. My point is, why are they unhappy with what they receiving based on their choices in education? What is THEIR argument, because I've yet to hear anything valid in their defense. A degree is more than just a piece of paper. It is also the writing on the paper.

To me, I feel that it is correct to pay a nuclear physics major more than a basket weaving one. There are some people, however, who feel differently, and I would like to know why that is the case.

[Ravenstorm]

They should be paid based on how well they do their job. If the basket weaving major does it better than the engineer, pay him more. If they are equal in talent and skill, pay them equally.

Raven

[DeV]

Gotcha. From my viewpoint, this is a non argument. They are unhappy because they chose the wrong major.

[xtc]

In defense of English majors, they make great waiters.

[GSTamral]

<<<
They should be paid based on how well they do their job. If the basket weaving major does it better than the engineer, pay him more. If they are equal in talent and skill, pay them equally.

Raven
>>>

Again, they are, in that respect. It takes 3 years to get the basket weaver up to speed in terms of what he will be doing. It took the nuclear physics guy 1. That's two extra years they had to pay the basket weaver to do the same job. Even if they are functionaly equal afterwards, There will be a discrepancy afterwards, because of the additional time and investment the company needed to make to bring the basket weaver up to speed.

You lose money for 1 year on the engineer. Year 2 and onward they begin to become a more productive employee. You lose money for a longer period of time with the english guy, some of whom leave before becoming productive. It becomes a cost justification at that point, in which the successful ones get less because of the choices they made earlier in life

[Warriorbird]

Depends on what you're after as an English major. I think with realistic perspectives they can do very well.

[Soulpieced]

A real world listing of commonly heard questions from people with degrees.

A person with a computer science degree will ask, "how many lines of code?"
A person with an engineering degree will ask, "how will it work?"
A person with an accounting will ask, "how much?"
A person with an arts degree will ask, "would you like fries with that?"

[Warriorbird]

Eh. People with English degress just shouldn't expect to get ahead in standard business. That's pretty obvious. Teaching, editing, tech-writing, you've got a leg up to do decently in things like that. You could even go to law school.

[Parkbandit]

I think you are using generalizations and stereotypes and that your theory simply does not hold up in real life circumstances. Like Ravenstorm eluded to, people might start out at different levels, but they are generally paid on how well they perform their job.

I was hired for a job the same day someone else was. We were paid the same exact amount per hour. 6 months later, I was making twice what he was making due to my job performance. He had his degree already and I didn't.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I think you are using generalizations and stereotypes and that your theory simply does not hold up in real life circumstances. Like Ravenstorm eluded to, people might start out at different levels, but they are generally paid on how well they perform their job.

I was hired for a job the same day someone else was. We were paid the same exact amount per hour. 6 months later, I was making twice what he was making due to my job performance. He had his degree already and I didn't.

In many jobs i.e. Accounting, Engineering, law, you won't even get an interview without a degree as a mininum and in many cases a designation i.e. C.P.A.

In other positions it doesn't matter.

[GSTamral]

<<
I think you are using generalizations and stereotypes and that your theory simply does not hold up in real life circumstances. Like Ravenstorm eluded to, people might start out at different levels, but they are generally paid on how well they perform their job.

I was hired for a job the same day someone else was. We were paid the same exact amount per hour. 6 months later, I was making twice what he was making due to my job performance. He had his degree already and I didn't
>>

These aren't my stereotypes and generalizations. They were in place well before I got there. I just happen to agree with the current standards and procedures. A person with an english major, once they have been confirmed into a supervisory position, has the same chances to advance as anyone else, and once that job experience and training is there, advancement has little to do with what degree they had. The base salary they start with will be less. A english major has the same opportunity to move up, its just that at an equivalent position, there will always be some form of discrepancy, as the starting point is different.

[Back]

Then it must be specific to your company, because I would see an english major having a step up on an engineer in something like a publishing company.

[Back]

Also, don’t most places require either a degree OR x years experience?

[AnticorRifling]

I can sum this up in two words:

Hippies.

[Tsa`ah]

Again, it depends on the field and ... if the employer is worth a damn ... on performance.

I don't have an engineering degree. I entered a field (production) that likes engineering degrees. Within 6 months of working side by side with 7 others hired at the same time I was (with engineering degrees), I was making the same as them. 1 year later they were answering to me, a year after that 10X as many people were answering to me.

My current job, with 5 years experience and stellar references under the belt, a person with an engineering degree and 5 years experience is likely to make less than me.

Again, I do not have an engineering degree and I work in a field that favors those with said degree.

It is the person, not the degree. Any employer who still favors such a person over those that perform better will soon find themselves without competent employees.

[GSTamral]

I'd agree on that one Backlash. For fields that require experience or education in one background or another, the person with the right background will have an edge. In those professions, however, in which multiple backgrounds are acceptable, those people who have undertaken more rigorous and difficult education paths start at a much higher salary. There is generally no cap on advancement for anyone, but the starting base point is higher for people who did more work in school. To me, it seems to be common sense that this is the case. To others, it is discrimination. I don't seem to understand how it can be considered that.

[Back]

Originally posted by AnticorRifling
I can sum this up in two words:

Hippies.

liberal discrimination

[GSTamral]

<<<
My current job, with 5 years experience and stellar references under the belt, a person with an engineering degree and 5 years experience is likely to make less than me.
>>>

Holy shit, I agree, but that isn't the point. In your current job, with 5 years experience and no engineering degree, in the same exact role as someone with 5 years experience and an engineering degree, you'd be making less.

In 5 years with a basket weaving degree, if you got ahead in the company and did well, you may make more than someone with 5 years and an engineering degree. That is obviously the case.

But the point is, in a nuetral field that accepts various backgrounds, two people in the exact same position, with the exact same roles and responsibilities, and the exact same performance, the one who came in with the engineering degree tends to earn significantly more. To me, that is also common sense.

I have an MS and an MBA. If I were a brand new hire somewhere, I would equally expect more to start in the same position as someone with the same experience and an english degree. I would also expect less than someone with a double PhD. And that base salary, over time, would always create this discrepancy if I worked at the same level. To me, thats an accepted part of life, and rightfully so.

Throw in more experience, good references, and whatnot, you can not have any education and do better than a triple PhD. After enough work experience, the work experience trumps all education anyway. We are only addressing the base starting salary here, and its progression with time.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Again, it depends on the field and ... if the employer is worth a damn ... on performance.

I don't have an engineering degree. I entered a field (production) that likes engineering degrees. Within 6 months of working side by side with 7 others hired at the same time I was (with engineering degrees), I was making the same as them. 1 year later they were answering to me, a year after that 10X as many people were answering to me.

My current job, with 5 years experience and stellar references under the belt, a person with an engineering degree and 5 years experience is likely to make less than me.

Again, I do not have an engineering degree and I work in a field that favors those with said degree.

It is the person, not the degree. Any employer who still favors such a person over those that perform better will soon find themselves without competent employees.

I think you are the exception not the rule. Production is an area where someone without a degree can get still get ahead; this doesn't go for many other departments in a manufacturing company. In Canada there is a trend in manufacturing firms to hire individuals with a degree for Design, Quality Control, Logistics, Production, Engineering etc.

This doesn't mean they are looking for education at the price of competence/ability but rather education coupled with competence/ability.

[Valthissa]

Originally posted by GSTamral
In those professions, however, in which multiple backgrounds are acceptable, those people who have undertaken more rigorous and difficult education paths start at a much higher salary.

I see a lot of resumes.

My aerospace firm hires quite a few engineers.

We consider bachelor degrees (from most schools) attendance awards.

We do pay a considerable premium for the right Phd., you have to do that when you're trying to design and test a scramjet.

We place far more emphasis on work history and references.

The key to building a sucessful workforce has to do with quickly terminating non-productive workers and promoting productive ones.

As a point of discussion, when the leadership team sits down, there is one out of five of us with an engineering degree.

C/Valth

The question that springs to my mind is "Who are these people who have brought it to your attention and why did you bring it here"

[Warriorbird]

Yeah. At the same time as feeling there's a strong value to liberal arts degrees, I consider the notion that there's "discrimination" against them ridiculous.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I think you are using generalizations and stereotypes and that your theory simply does not hold up in real life circumstances. Like Ravenstorm eluded to, people might start out at different levels, but they are generally paid on how well they perform their job.

I was hired for a job the same day someone else was. We were paid the same exact amount per hour. 6 months later, I was making twice what he was making due to my job performance. He had his degree already and I didn't.

I'm another example of this. I started out 9 years ago as a floor rep in a call center. I left AOL with an international team of degree'd analysts and now I run the entire workforce planning and analysis department for another Fortune 500 company.

It isn't your education that gets you far, its your drive. Education may get you in the door, but if you are POS that thinks because you "did your time" up front in school... wake up and smell the coffee. I'm about to fire one of the most educated men I've ever met, and you know who's gonna replace him? They guy without the degree who's blowing away his productivity.

I think people rise or fall to the level of their effort. Not always true, because face it, the world ain't fair, but it's true most the time.

[HarmNone]

I'd certainly agree, Warriorbird. Those with Liberal Arts degrees bring many skills to the table. Communication, both written and oral, investigation and research, critical and analytical thinking, and a broad base of knowledge being among them.

While Engineering degrees should not be debunked, neither should Liberal Arts degrees. Both are valuable if attained by a person who knows how to put the skills learned to good use. While a Liberal Arts major might not make the best engineer, one could surmise that one would not want to be an engineer; otherwise, that person would have studied Engineering.

[Hulkein]

My question is, what was Tamral's major?

[GSTamral]

should be fairly obvious I guess, seeing as to what side of the fence I'm on in this. Although some people have corrupted into a who can get ahead argument.

[Keller]

Originally posted by xtc
In defense of English majors, they make great waiters.

It was history.

And fuck you.

:P

[Keller]

My two cents:

I did the chemistry thing, the history thing, the english thing, the math thing, the physics thing, the philosophy thing, the religion thing, the sociology thing.

Majors: African-American Studies, Religion, and History
Minors: Math, Chemistry, and Philosophy.

I am the classic liberal arts student. All of my friends (which happened to be a diverse group from many programs) were liberal arts majors. My best friend just graduated from Purdue with a Materials Engineering degree. I met a lot of his friends. I promise you without a doubt that 90% of my friends would make far superior supervisors than would those engineers from Purdue -- for all the reasons HarmNone listed. I'm not really sure where Tamral got the idea that it would be any different.

To be sure, Tamral has a point that the engineers worked their tails off. No arguments that even my friends who got engineering degrees from my liberal arts school worked much harder than I did, not to mention the kids at Purdue who never ceased working. With that said your value, in life and in the workforce, is based on your own personal productivity. To grant a higher starting salary to one degree over another because they worked harder in college is downright silly. Perhaps you want to hire an engineer before an english major for a sure bet -- I can see the reasoning behind that -- but to say that an engineer will be more productive because they worked harder in school and therefore deserves a higher salary is irresponsible.

[ElanthianSiren]

I know where Tamral is in all this since he helped me with my 2nd year chemistry :p There is no question about it, it COSTS science majors a TON more to go to school than English majors. English majors don't have to pay for lab courses, so on that premise, (and Tamral's argument that they basically come to the table completely prepared to do their job, while the arts major requires more training), I can understand starting engineering majors at a higher salary. If you don't need to train an individual, that puts you in a very productive position.

Where I have an issue is 20 years down the road when both people are trained, both may be overseeing similar departments, and yet, the English major, (who is obviously not a trouble maker and a good employee since they've been there 20 years), is still making 15k less than the Engineering major. This is where I am in agreement with Valthissa/Backlash/PB etc.


-Melissa

[Warriorbird]

My classes were more expensive than many science majors for less benefit.

Woo hoo, history professors who assign too many books!

(38 for one class)

:chuckles:

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
My classes were more expensive than many science majors for less benefit.

Woo hoo, history professors who assign too many books!

(38 for one class)

:chuckles:

THIRTY EIGHT BOOKS?!! How much was each roughly? Did your college library also have them? Good lord.

-Melissa, who would be spending A LOT of time in the library.

[Jazuela]

English isn't the only major for a liberal arts degree. It looks like some folks are making that incorrect assumption and basing their opinion on that error.

I'm a lousy example of what can happen with a BS of Arts/Science degree graduate, but I was never all that motivated and never really cared where I'd end up as long as it was legal and provided a roof over my head.

But I went to school with plenty of folks who could put most Engineers to shame with their starting salaries and current salaries.

It all depends on the field you go into, combined with productivity and motivation to succeed. Several folks I went to school with won Oscars and are living in multi-million-dollar homes in Hollywood. With a FINE ARTS degree. That's like...so frou frou even English majors usually scoffed. I'd like to see an Engineering major even -attempt- to get a job as a film editor for a Hollywood studio, and expect he can outshine someone who studied film almost exclusively for four years.

You wanna talk about expenses and hard work in college, ask a film editor what he had to go through during his 4-year stint in school. School doesn't pay for the cameras, or the thousands of dollars of film each semester, the digital equipment that costs them extra lab fees to use...

And after only 8 years beyond graduation, two of my classmates own their own film editing studio and are living the high life, while the brother of one of them got that Oscar I mentioned, and three of their friends (who also attended the same school) have either won Oscars or been nominees...

All in "engineering-type" fields - technical fields - with liberal arts degrees. And there is the rare engineer who came from one of those "other" schools, who makes it in the industry, but they're few and far between and generally don't make the kind of salaries that the liberal arts majors in the same industry start out with, or earn throughout their careers.

[Alfster]

Originally posted by Jazuela
I'd like to see an Engineering major even -attempt- to get a job as a film editor for a Hollywood studio, and expect he can outshine someone who studied film almost exclusively for four years.


I'll say this...The vast majority of Engineering majors that I know have absolutely zero interest in getting a job as a film editor and certainly would not outshine someone that would.

That is why they went to school to be some sort of Engineer, and not for film

The point is, this is a horrible comparison and I don't feel like writing anymore because of this stupid concussion I got at work last night.

[Warriorbird]

20+ students so the library didn't have enough. Roughly 15-25 bucks per book.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by GSTamral
Well, let me clarify. This argument pertains strictly to the field of management and project management. How this works in other professions, I dont have any idea. It is just one of the professions in which both can be hired in the same general job functions.

Well then it's a stupid argument.

If it is acceptable for someone with an English major to do the job, and they are deemed as being competant enough to do the job, they should be given the same starting salary as the next person who would be given the job, regardless of what their degree is.

If you break that down and look at the fact that women may be more likely to be English Majors than Engineering majors, and vice versa for men, you could be laying yourself open for sex discrimination lawsuits.

(just to emphasise I an not advicating legal action, just saying the opportunity is there)

[GSTamral]

<<<
But I went to school with plenty of folks who could put most Engineers to shame with their starting salaries and current salaries.

>>>

Plenty of folks, sure. Again, people continue to misconstrue the argument. This isn't about getting ahead, or being a film editor. This is about skilled positions in which there are no specific degree qualifications. Project management happens to be one of those fields. From a strictly guideline perspective, here are some numbers (older ones, from 2000, because that's all I have)

Average starting salary:

B.S. Electrical Engineering 62,471
B.S. Chemical Engineering 64,984
B.S. Industrial Engineering 53,296
B.S. Computer Science 59,888
B.S. Biomedical Engineering 50,344
B.A. English 36,189
B.A. Anthropology 29,165.
B.A. History 34,489
B.A Economics 41,533

Those are national averages only. These are also not comparable on many accounts, because they are pay scales for entirely different jobs with different requirements. School by school they could be quite different. For example, at my school, the average starting salary for BME was well over 75,000, but that was because it happened to be the best or second best school in the world in BME, depending on which rankings you used. The anthropology number is skewed because many of those graduates chose to work in different countries with entirely different salary structures. Computer Science majors also had the highest actual starting salaries, but those numbers were skewed because more than 20% of them found employment in fields other than those related to programming, and they had a higher than average rate of graduates who could not find gainful employment. There are always exceptions to the rule. There are plenty of them. Secondly, these are starting salaries ONLY. It says nothing of where people will be in 5 or 10 years (I never have seen that factual data, to be honest).

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Nieninque
If it is acceptable for someone with an English major to do the job, and they are deemed as being competant enough to do the job, they should be given the same starting salary as the next person who would be given the job, regardless of what their degree is.Just because two people are the most qualified for a job doesn't mean that one isn't better than the other. I can guarantee you Barry Bonds and Bill Mueller could make it on any rec league softball team in the country. That doesn't mean Bill Muller is as good as Barry Bonds. The analogy doesn't exactly hold up because Tamral is referencing a different type of education that the engineering folks apparently receive which gives them a head start, but it works pretty good.
If you break that down and look at the fact that women may be more likely to be English Majors than Engineering majors, and vice versa for men, you could be laying yourself open for sex discrimination lawsuits.Correlation is not causation.