engineering career as one ages

bb · Post by bb » Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:45 am

I was reading some stuff by Vivek Wadhwa who argued older
engineers need to transition to management, architecture role
as they age - essentially that engineering is a move up or
out profession, ie. you won't be coding in your 50's.

Do other engineers generally agree with this assessment?
What is a reasonable career strategy for engineers by the time
they get to their 50's? How worried are you about being
unemployed in your 50's?

Brian

MnD · Post by **MnD** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:55 am

I did, but moving to the management/financial was the primary cause of my decline in technical engineering skills versus aging. I took an interest in the financial matters and financial side of the company starting in my mid-30's so the switch was an obvious one to make for me.

If you really loved the technical work and had little interest in management, I'd say stick with the technical side but save like crazy so if you get whacked in your mid-50's and/or your skills don't age well, you aren't left stranded. Of course that advice applies to just about anyone these days.

livesoft · Post by **livesoft** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:06 am

It depends. On lots of things.

I get a whole lot more code written than I did when I was younger. It is also easier now. I simply drop by the desk of one of my colleagues and say, "Hey, wouldn't it be nice if my iPad could implement the RBD market-timing trading strategy by tomorrow?" And to his desk neighbor, "And at the same time I want to control this Graphiflexor 3000 ProSurgitacipitor wirelessly in another window." And it miraculously gets done. I could never do that on my own in one day. It always took at least a week.

Sheepdog · Post by **Sheepdog** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:10 am

I went into engineering as a step to management. That was my goal. I was out of engineering, as such, in 5 years to my first management position. Actually, my last engineering position was part of a team designing a new factory. I went there then to supervise construction and immediately became part of that factory management at startup. Even though not called an engineer, I was able to use my engineering training in some manner throughout my career to retirement.
Jim

JW-Retired · Post by **JW-Retired** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:13 am

bb wrote: .....engineers need to transition to management, architecture role as they age - essentially that engineering is a move up or out profession, ie. you won't be coding in your 50's.

Do other engineers generally agree with this assessment?

Way past 50's and still coding pretty often. It's never been more rewarding. So I have to disagree.
JW

hicabob · Post by **hicabob** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:20 am

JW Nearly Retired wrote:
bb wrote: .....engineers need to transition to management, architecture role as they age - essentially that engineering is a move up or out profession, ie. you won't be coding in your 50's.

Do other engineers generally agree with this assessment?
Way past 50's and still coding pretty often. It's never been more rewarding. So I have to disagree.
JW

+1! "born to crank code"

Call_Me_Op · Post by **Call_Me_Op** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:56 am

May be generally true. But if you are very strong technically, you can remain technical and be well compensated. I am in that situation.

sport · Post by **sport** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:00 am

There are many types of engineers and engineering. Some engineers never do any "coding". Some engineers don't wish to get into mangement. Some engineers are never given the opportunity to get into management. Some engineers are not good enough to get into management. Alternatively, sometimes the best engineers end up in management whether they want to or not. Some engineers split their time between managing and engineering. It is not a "one shoe fits all" type of question. Every situation is different, and no hard-and-fast rules apply.

Jeff

Kenkat · Post by **Kenkat** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:11 am

I guess we are talking about software engineering...which is good!

I started writing Cobol/CICS back in the 80's out of college. Then started doing a lot of DB2/relational database work in the 90's and then web development in the early 2000's - mainly Microsoft-based ASP.

At some point, I started spending more time on application architecture and solutioning. I was kind of the "design" guy. But I always ended up doing some coding on the projects as well.

As we started to move into Java and OO technologies, it became apparent (to me at least) that I either needed to become a full-time coder or go in a different path. The technology was evolving too quickly to be effective at a senior level with only part-time dedication to it.

So - I moved into IT architecture which fortunately my company recognizes as a separate discipline and technical career path.

I am amazed at some of the stuff the developers do to "make the magic happen". Really elegent solutions. That was always the fun in code development. But, I find I enjoy architecting the solutions even more. I still get to stay involved, but the developers do all of the heavy lifting during the build phase.

So, I think it depends. If you want to be a Senior-level technical person, you have to dedicate yourself full time to embracing new technologies. Not everyone is cut out for management and/or architecture roles. You do have to be very careful your skills don't become dated as there are lots of young, smart and creative developers out there using the latest stuff.

If you find you have skills in other areas, there is probably more room for growth in management or architecture. This can be a good choice for many people as well.

Ultimately, it comes down to making sure your career path follows your strengths because if you want to get paid as a senior contributor, you need to bring that level of skill to the table.

Good topic.

downshiftme · Post by **downshiftme** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:15 am

Some software engineers can remain active coders for their entire career. Those who still have coding skills can make good managers or architects. Those who fail to stay current can still sometimes make good managers, but they make terrible architects. Software engineers with strong but out of date coding skills can often find technical employment (and usually attractive contract rates) in maintenance of older systems.

Unemployed and unemployable older software engineers may have out of date technical skills, but they may also have limited other skills. If you have an ability to work with people and be flexible about work you do, it would only be an advantage to have a background of strong technical skill, whether you use it in future employment depends on the kind of work you do. Don't expect future employers to pay premium rates for obsolete skills. Unemployed 50 year old software engineers I know have all been unemployed because they only looked for jobs in their old specialty, which was no longer being used by industry. Those that learned new languages and methods all found technical employment if that's what they wanted.

dmcmahon · Post by **dmcmahon** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:34 am

hicabob wrote:
JW Nearly Retired wrote:
bb wrote: .....engineers need to transition to management, architecture role as they age - essentially that engineering is a move up or out profession, ie. you won't be coding in your 50's.

Do other engineers generally agree with this assessment?
Way past 50's and still coding pretty often. It's never been more rewarding. So I have to disagree.
JW
+1! "born to crank code"

+1 ditto

wilked · Post by **wilked** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:13 pm

I got into this thread thinking I was gonna contribute.

Then there was a lot of coding talk.

I will be over in the corner with my thermo books, pump curves, and psychrometric charts...

tibbitts · Post by **tibbitts** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:24 pm

Most people still don't considering coding as having much to do with engineering, so maybe the post should be retitled.

Paul

Tom_T · Post by **Tom_T** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:24 pm

You don't necessarily have to be up on the absolute latest technology. It's not as if companies are continually rewriting their applications every year. Nobody can afford to do that. They may adopt something new and try it out for a particular project.

You could be an expert on some of the older applications. If some new technology is introduced, and you get it on it, you can be even more valuable: someone who knows the old stuff that's still running, but is capable of contributing to the new stuff. Try not to be the dinosaur who knows only the old stuff.

Now, if your manager tells you that your job is to teach the old stuff to your replacement, that's a different story...

Manbaerpig · Post by **Manbaerpig** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:47 pm

tibbitts wrote:Most people still don't considering coding as having much to do with engineering, so maybe the post should be retitled.

Paul

I'm not sure about "most", so perhaps not.

Post by **LadyGeek** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:56 pm

I found Vivek Wadhwa's web site with a relevant article: Silicon Valley’s Dark Secret: It’s All About Age. Note that it's about a year old.

I disagree that engineering is an "up and out" profession as he describes. It totally ignores the technical leadership track, which is one from beginner to technical expert. A project lead could be considered a management position without the administrative overhead.

You don't get there by waiting for someone to give you the title, it's earned. How? By doing the things he says - make yourself valuable to the company and take positions that can't be filled by entry level worker.

He doesn't distinguish between "coding" and "software engineering." A senior level software engineer will most certainly be one who architects a design, then leaves the implementation to the coders. If you want to be a coder, then you'll stay at that level. If you don't take on responsibility, you won't qualify as management material.

What's missing from this article is how engineering compares to other processions. Let's say you are in finance and counting beans. Do you want to be a bean counter for the rest of your career, or move up the ladder into contract management? Same difference - coding or bean counting. I'd like to see a similar chart for the finance profession. I'm also wondering how a "management" position would fare over the same time frame.

JW-Retired · Post by **JW-Retired** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:11 pm

I got into this thread thinking I was gonna contribute.

Then there was a lot of coding talk.

I will be over in the corner with my thermo books, pump curves, and psychrometric charts...

Please stay and contribute. I'm seeing I'm not at all a software engineer like most of the others here think of one. My job sounds closer to yours. To fossil me coding is not software engineering to sell or distribute software. It's just using/modifying/writing software to do the engineering analyses that I need to do.
JW

bb · Post by bb » Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:17 pm

tibbitts wrote:Most people still don't considering coding as having much to do with engineering, so maybe the post should be retitled.

Paul

Well an asic/fpga hardware design engineer codes.

hicabob · Post by **hicabob** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:34 pm

Manbaerpig wrote:
tibbitts wrote:Most people still don't considering coding as having much to do with engineering, so maybe the post should be retitled.

Paul
I'm not sure about "most", so perhaps not.

Not much is designed nowadays in the western world without software being a large aspect of it.

Rodc · Post by **Rodc** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 4:00 pm

I work in a large research engineering lab.

Age is no barrier to being a real engineer.

However I will attest that doing management definitely erodes engineering skills. If someone works at highly technical tasks 40 hours a week you do so 20 hours a week and someone else does so 5 hours a week. The results 5 years later are not surprising.

tibbitts · Post by **tibbitts** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 4:21 pm

hicabob wrote:
Manbaerpig wrote:
tibbitts wrote:Most people still don't considering coding as having much to do with engineering, so maybe the post should be retitled.

Paul
I'm not sure about "most", so perhaps not.
Not much is designed nowadays in the western world without software being a large aspect of it.

True, but using software isn't the same as coding it. I suppose anybody who enters a formula to calculate values in a spreadsheet could be considered a coder, and by extension, an engineer. I've had jobs with "engineer" in the title, and I do occasionally write code, but I don't think of myself as an engineer. I guess I'd associate "engineer" with somebody with a PE license.

Paul

Post by **LadyGeek** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:16 pm

An engineer is someone who applies knowledge to solve a problem. If you are using spreadsheet formulas to create the next big thing, it's engineering. IOW, the results of your work change the design or function of something. You influence people, processes, or parts.

If you are using spreadsheet formulas to see if your checkbook balances, it's not.

The OP was worried if his/her skills would be out of date by the time he was 50. My answer is: it's up to you.

I would not base my career on Vivek Wadhwa, it's too generic. Look for something related to your field of study, such as the 2010 EE Times Global Salary and Opinion Survey. From this survey, I'd be worried more about international competition rather than age.

mhc · Post by **mhc** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:52 pm

In my company, there is a dual track for managers and individual contributors. It is fine to stay on the individual contributor track. Most people are there. If you want to be a director or VP or higher, you have to get on the manager track, usually. I was shocked when I was talking to a couple of my engineering friends at a party. One works for a huge IC company and the other works for a huge software company. They both said in their companies you have to move up or out. The other option was to transfer departments every 2-3 years. Another person at the party use to work as an IE but now is a college prof. He had the same thought as my two friends.

From my experience, make yourself valuable to the company. The most value is to make other people more valuable. There are a lot of good individual contributors, but few who can make others more valuable. Has worked for me for 20 years as an engineer. I still get to write code, but I am an IC design manager.

HomerJ · Post by **HomerJ** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:22 pm

I'm in IT, and I have zero desire to ever go into management... I'm in my early 40s though, so I don't see any age discrimination yet...

I'm not a programmer, but I script everything, and I have a huge library of functions that I've written over the years...

I'm like Scottie from Star Trek now... My boss drops by, asks me to do something... I remember I have a function I wrote 5 years ago that does ALMOST the same thing, I tell I'll have it done by the end of the week, and I have it working by the end of the day...

HomerJ · Post by **HomerJ** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:25 pm

LadyGeek wrote:A senior level software engineer will most certainly be one who architects a design, then leaves the implementation to the coders.

Heh, I've never met an IT architect who was any good at anything...

Those jobs always seem to go to the CIO's golf buddies...

But then again, my sample set is pretty small.

dave.d · Post by **dave.d** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:07 pm

There are "engineers" in some sense in many professions. I'm a lawyer, and it's said there are three kinds: plumbers, engineers, and physicists. I've always been an engineer.

I actually worked as a software engineer out of college, doing beta test administration in a software developement shop in the late 1980's. Basically, I spent my days answering technical questions over the phone. After three years of law school and then several years practicing employment law... basically, I spent my days answering technical questions over the phone!

NateH · Post by **NateH** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:08 pm

hicabob wrote:
Manbaerpig wrote:
tibbitts wrote:Most people still don't considering coding as having much to do with engineering, so maybe the post should be retitled.

Paul
I'm not sure about "most", so perhaps not.
Not much is designed nowadays in the western world without software being a large aspect of it.

that sounds like something that someone in software would say.
Yes, many more things today have software, but there are still plenty of products designed that don't include code.

TheEternalVortex · Post by **TheEternalVortex** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:08 pm

LadyGeek wrote: A senior level software engineer will most certainly be one who architects a design, then leaves the implementation to the coders.

That's not true at any of the SV tech companies I'm familiar with. Generally the person that architects something also works on it. I'm not really sure that you can even do a good job otherwise.

daytona084 · Post by **daytona084** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:32 pm

LadyGeek wrote:An engineer is someone who applies knowledge to solve a problem....

Say what? That could describe an architect, a social worker, a banker, an auto mechanic, a detective, a football coach, a mathematician, etc etc.... I have a degree in engineering and worked 35 years an an engineer. I do not call myself any of the above titles and would not expect any of them to consider themselves engineers.

Getting back to the OP's question, I would say that in most companies, you do limit your earning potential if you do not progress into management. But you can earn over 100K in engineering without being in management. I had a strong preference for "being an engineer" rather than "managing" ... I had a successful career and was able to retire in my late 50's.

HomerJ · Post by **HomerJ** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:55 pm

TheEternalVortex wrote:
LadyGeek wrote: A senior level software engineer will most certainly be one who architects a design, then leaves the implementation to the coders.
That's not true at any of the SV tech companies I'm familiar with. Generally the person that architects something also works on it. I'm not really sure that you can even do a good job otherwise.

I agree.

rob · Post by **rob** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:55 am

rrosenkoetter wrote:Heh, I've never met an IT architect who was any good at anything...

Having recently been shafted into that label after years of avoiding it.... I have to agree completely..... Never seen people with so many big words with no clue what they mean or how to actually implement something to you know... like advance the business in some way

Default User BR · Post by **Default User BR** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:45 am

bb wrote:Do other engineers generally agree with this assessment?
What is a reasonable career strategy for engineers by the time
they get to their 50's? How worried are you about being
unemployed in your 50's?

As a 54-year-old software engineer, I'll say, "not around here." My company over the past several years has made a genuine effort to have the "technical track" be a meaningful career option. That's included expanding their technical fellowship program.

Brian

Post by **LadyGeek** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:15 pm

wjwhitney wrote:
LadyGeek wrote:An engineer is someone who applies knowledge to solve a problem....
Say what? That could describe an architect, a social worker, a banker, an auto mechanic, a detective, a football coach, a mathematician, etc etc.... I have a degree in engineering and worked 35 years an an engineer. I do not call myself any of the above titles and would not expect any of them to consider themselves engineers.

You're correct. I tried to be generic, but I guess it really doesn't apply as stated.

rrosenkoetter wrote:
TheEternalVortex wrote:
LadyGeek wrote: A senior level software engineer will most certainly be one who architects a design, then leaves the implementation to the coders.
That's not true at any of the SV tech companies I'm familiar with. Generally the person that architects something also works on it. I'm not really sure that you can even do a good job otherwise.
I agree.

It depends on the company. My employer has a number of software engineers who do nothing but work on documentation. Coding is left to contractors. I most certainly agree that you need to do the work yourself to maintain proficiency and keep current on the state-of-the-art.

Over the past decade or so, the progression has been to integrate increased functionality from transistor level to macro cells to "chips" to modules. You don't work with drain bias current, you use the manufacturer's library in your design tool. Engineers who provide value to the company has migrated from circuit designer to system engineer. You need to integrate the products, as the low-level designs are done elsewhere.

In any case, you move "up" by going laterally into different departments and taking on additional responsibility. Eventually, someone will promote you with a better title. Do the work for the job you want, not what you do now.

monkey_business · Post by **monkey_business** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:04 pm

Based on my observation, some engineers get too comfortable with their knowledge and fail to keep up with new technologies as time goes by. I am not sure if it's just complacency or fear of the unknown, but I think in many cases their knowledge just stops progressing and they end up making themselves obsolete. I think software these days is evolving very quickly and if you're the type who does not like change, this field might be tough for you.

kellyfj · Post by **kellyfj** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:08 pm

In my experience those who are in the gravest danger in their 50s in tech are middle managers (e.g. Project Managers / Directors) - they usually demand higher salaries (than the equivalent 30-35 yo) and have lost or under-invested in their tech skills. Those people are hanging on by their fingernails. Especially true if you are not "connected" to those higher up. Thats why it's CRITICAL to network as you get older and keep friendly with those who's star rises.

If you are "just" a coder in your 50s you are less in danger - if you have marketable skills (e.g. Java, C++) but it's still not good - you really need to prove to others you can stay on top of the game, have good communication, good team skills and good problem solving.

I am 39 and because of my fear of the above (and the fact that large tech firms pretty much will lay anyone off regardless of skill) I am planning to move to a startup and then eventually have my own company. In the end I don't want to have my career at the whims of some large (and usually moronic) tech firm. I'd rather get ahead (or not) by myself.

Whether in management or on the coding side - don't get stuck - you constantly have to be learning and improving - don't get in a rut - try not to get too relaxed. In addition don't get too specialized - many finance IT middle managers took 18 months or more to get back to full time work.

zed · Post by **zed** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:47 pm

livesoft wrote:It depends. On lots of things.

I get a whole lot more code written than I did when I was younger. It is also easier now. I simply drop by the desk of one of my colleagues and say, "Hey, wouldn't it be nice if my iPad could implement the RBD market-timing trading strategy by tomorrow?" And to his desk neighbor, "And at the same time I want to control this Graphiflexor 3000 ProSurgitacipitor wirelessly in another window." And it miraculously gets done. I could never do that on my own in one day. It always took at least a week.

RBD market-timing trading strategy? As in Really-Bad-Day? If so, port it to Android and you've got the world's next killer app.

zed

schwarm · Post by **schwarm** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:53 pm

wilked wrote:I got into this thread thinking I was gonna contribute.

Then there was a lot of coding talk.

I will be over in the corner with my thermo books, pump curves, and psychrometric charts...

Same here... more or less. I do think that older, lower level engineers that are not in "high tech" fields and not demanding excessive salaries have a leg up on younger, less experienced co-workers. But a lot depends on the whims of management.

Khanmots · Post by **Khanmots** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:22 pm

wilked wrote:I got into this thread thinking I was gonna contribute.

Then there was a lot of coding talk.

I will be over in the corner with my thermo books, pump curves, and psychrometric charts...

Engineering is engineering. The tradeoffs between staying technical or moving into leadership or manager roles apply regardless of discipline.

As for coding not being engineering... that's like saying that putting out drawings isn't engineering. You're right int that neither a code-monkey nor a drafter is an engineer. However, what the drawing or the code represents is both the results of engineering. Someone told that code-monkey what to code. Someone told that drafter what to draw. That someone in both cases is an engineer.

Both the drawing and the code are the representation of a solution to a problem. Neither one is the solution itself. And much as you do requirements elicitation, analysis, and so forth, well designed software will do the same.

That said there is definitely software out there that was not engineered or was done so poorly. But then the same can be said of physical constructs as well... my current sprinkler system for instance had no engineering done on the design (or the engineers were drunk). Which is why I'm probably going to calculate my own flow rates, pressures, line sizes, etc, and come up with my own drawings for a replacement.

cheesepep · Post by **cheesepep** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:31 pm

There was a study of some sort done earlier regarding engineering salaries for some big companies including Microsoft, Intel, Apple, Google, and Facebook.

Basically, a mid-level engineer (not manager) in the first four companies would make $90,000-110,000 annually, while those at FB would make $120,000.

So decide if you want to make the above amounts if you are in a similar company.

wilked · Post by **wilked** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:20 am

I look at it like this:

At a certain point (let's call it mid-level) engineers on the technical track's salaries become quite linear over time. If one were to stay on the technical track I think that is fairly accurate... You get your 2-3% most years, and a modest bump when you are promoted every 5-7 years.

If you wish to change the slope of that salary curve you would need to move into a magerial role, where you more directly interface with the dollars. Some are a natural fit for that role, others are not but are willing to do so for the $$, and of course some either lack the skills or passion for it and remain technical.

I am nearing the stage where I have to decide (30 years old). I am probably the type where the skillset for management is not natural, but I may push myself there for the financial reward. I haven't yet decided.

gerntz · Post by **gerntz** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:54 am

Call_Me_Op wrote:May be generally true. But if you are very strong technically, you can remain technical and be well compensated. I am in that situation.

Me too - well, at least I think I'm well compensated. I'm valued for my insights into package designs and the issues to avoid upfront. Could stay as long as I want. But my "want" is running out quickly at 63.

wilson08 · Post by **wilson08** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:36 am

I am a structural engineer in charge of a design
section and I have the perogative of delegating
all the design work to junior engineers and exclusively
supervise and manage but there are occasions where I
reserve to myself a design of something that interests
me or something unusual that in almost 38 years of
experience I have seen before but the younger engineers
would need guidance and a "walk through".

There are more personnel and management responsibilities
that come along with my position including mentoring young
engineers but I still do not want to be totally detached from
fundamental structural design.

Wilson

BlueEars · Post by **BlueEars** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:55 am

Was an EE in Silicon Valley for 30 years. My take:
1) You have to assess how smart you really are. Do you have to work hard to get ranked at the 50% level? Or are you the "walk on water" type that is in the 90% level and paid at the top? If you are in the middle of the pack, age discrimination could be a problem.

2) How hard are you willing to work? Do you just love the work and think about it all the time even while off work? Or do you prefer other activities outside of work? You can make up for some of what nature didn't give you with hard work and longer hours.

3) Do you work in a smallish city that has few competitors to go to if you want to change positions? How mobile are you willing to be? Being in Silicon Valley in general gives you many more options then Boise Idaho (just from a career path point of view). This might help as you age. But who knows 20 years for now as economies and localities change.

Then there are the economic imponderables. Will the economy keep chugging along and help you to stay employed for many years? Will your firm be a winner? Will you be able to make the tech and product transitions over the decades?

I'm glad I'm retired

.

daytona084 · Post by **daytona084** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:42 am

LadyGeek wrote:
wjwhitney wrote:
LadyGeek wrote:An engineer is someone who applies knowledge to solve a problem....
Say what? That could describe an architect, a social worker, a banker, an auto mechanic, a detective, a football coach, a mathematician, etc etc.... I have a degree in engineering and worked 35 years an an engineer. I do not call myself any of the above titles and would not expect any of them to consider themselves engineers.
You're correct. I tried to be generic, but I guess it really doesn't apply as stated.

LadyGeek: Not to beat a dead horse, but upon re-reading your post above I now understand the sense in which it was written. I interpreted it as a dictionary definition, but I don't think that's what you meant. In that case, your statement is perfectly correct. As another example, one could say "a dog is an animal with four legs"... Perfectly true, but not an acceptable definition of "dog". So, I apologize for my last post; it was not really necessary.

Manbaerpig · Post by **Manbaerpig** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 11:44 am

zed wrote: RBD market-timing trading strategy? As in Really-Bad-Day? If so, port it to Android and you've got the world's next killer app.

zed

and then it stops working for everyone as this becomes the new computer based market-timing strategy

KyleAAA · Post by **KyleAAA** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 11:52 am

I generally agree with this assertion, with obvious exceptions.

jh · Post by jh » Mon Aug 01, 2011 1:11 pm

tractorguy · Post by **tractorguy** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:58 pm

I've got a Ph.D in Mechanical Engineering and thought I wanted to stay technical until I got into my mid 30's. At that point, I realized that I'd learned all I wanted to about my specialty and needed to branch out to keep from getting bored. Because I couldn't justify my salary in a new field, I switched career track to an engineering management role. I was lucky that my large company was very technical and I got enough of an engineering fix from guiding my staff to feel like I was still doing real engineering. I couldn't do the detail work they were but my experience was broad enough that I could generally provide value by catching oversights that they missed.

I had to answer your question from a lot of young engineers who worked for me. I told them that they needed to figure out what they liked to do. Their choices are:
a) remain an engineering generalist. If they did this, they were going to "top out" as a practicing engineer in their mid 30's or early 40's and get only cost of living raises. They'd have to work hard to keep their skills up to date and if they didn't, they would get sidelined. Unfortunately, many of these folks didn't keep there skills competitive and were laid off in the 2008 downturn.
b) Become a technical specialist in something the company considers important enough to pay big bucks for. This was very rewarding for the ones who made it work but is sometimes difficult to do. Not only do you have to pick your specialty right, you have to be very good, and beat out the other person who has similar expertise. Most companies only need one "technical steward" in any field with another one in training to replace him when he retires. You also run the risk that the specialty you pick becomes unneeded. For example, I had to downgrade a Fortran specialist who refused to learn any any object oriented languages.

c) Become an engineering manager. This can be very rewarding if you have the right skills and can learn how to delegate. Most good engineers are not naturally good delegators but it is a skill that can be learned.

frose2 · Post by **frose2** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:05 pm

If by engineering you mean software engineering in the non-defense economy, I wholly agree. You need a second career. Don't know about the situation if your coding is ASIC/FPGAs. Maybe those people last longer. Also don't know about the situation if you're in the defense industry. Maybe you can get to the end of your career as a coder there.

I should add that you won't necessarily work for a company that survives such as Microsoft, Intel, or Apple. You may get hired by a company that looks promising for a while but wind up being laid off. Consider for example Nortel, once a big high-flyer which swallowed many other tech companies. Heck, if you have the skills to pick the few companies that will survive rather than the many that fall by the wayside, not only will you be able to get a much more stable job, but you should also do very well by investing in such companies.

HomerJ · Post by **HomerJ** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:15 pm

tweedlw wrote:I've got a Ph.D in Mechanical Engineering and thought I wanted to stay technical until I got into my mid 30's. At that point, I realized that I'd learned all I wanted to about my specialty and needed to branch out to keep from getting bored.

That's the nice thing about working in IT... Things change so often that there's always an opportunity to learn something new.

Bogleheads.org

engineering career as one ages

engineering career as one ages

Re: engineering career as one ages