Does being an engineer suck so badly that it drives FIRE?

[Undecided]

As I do.  But you may have missed half of my point.  It's not just that I (and I think most other STEM-type people) can do the math & science while those other folks can't, it's that most of us can also do the humanities-type stuff as well as they can.

This has not been my experience.

I'm pretty sure that I can.  I have a master's degree in English and a master's degree in statistics.  Guess which one was easier to get?

For you? I guess statistics. I was close to two law school classmates who were (good) graduates of the most selective and prestigious STEM-centric schools in the U.S., but were poor and mediocre law students. For them, their undergraduate courses had been easier to succeed in, and they were absolutely shocked by their first semester law school grades. I'm not sure what anecdotes tell us, other than for some people, some things are easier than others. I bet we knew that.

[jrhampt]

As I do.  But you may have missed half of my point.  It's not just that I (and I think most other STEM-type people) can do the math & science while those other folks can't, it's that most of us can also do the humanities-type stuff as well as they can.

This has not been my experience.

I'm pretty sure that I can.  I have a master's degree in English and a master's degree in statistics.  Guess which one was easier to get?

For you? I guess statistics. I was close to two law school classmates who were (good) graduates of the most selective and prestigious STEM-centric schools in the U.S., but were poor and mediocre law students. For them, their undergraduate courses had been easier to succeed in, and they were absolutely shocked by their first semester law school grades. I'm not sure what anecdotes tells us, other than for some people, some things are easier than others. I bet we knew that.

Well, if we don't wish to go with anecdotes, we can consider the math and verbal scores on the SAT or GRE and note how much lower the average scores are on the math than the verbal.  That implies to me that most people are capable of performing decently in the humanities, but that math takes a little more effort and thus is compensated accordingly.

Edited to add: Huh.  Apparently I am flat wrong about this.  I could have sworn that my verbal SAT score was considerably higher than my math score, but the percentiles were about the same.  My excuse is that it was a while ago...

[MrsPete]

This thread has some arrogance about "engineers can do math, we are more disciplined, etc., etc., etc.".  Good for you.  I took every math class available at my high school plus AP science classes -- made top grades in all of them.  Did well in college.  Admittedly, computers weren't around when I was a student, so I can't say that I knew tech-y things back then.  I can do those things, but I hate them all.  I am very competent, but I just plain don't enjoy math.  I'm not lazy, I am tremendously organized and disciplined, and math classes always came easy to me, but I hate every minute that I spend on this type of work.  Furthermore, I am not a competitive person.  I do not feel satisfaction in solving a difficult technical problem.  That's a personality trait, not an ability.  I do not possess an engineer personality. 

My husband is an engineer.  He says that in school he always loved math, and it came easy to him, and he feels tremendous satisfaction in sitting back and completing a difficult project.  He is always very self-satisfied and pleased with himself when he finishes a big project at work and can say, "This is my work.  I did it well."  Doesn't make him a good person or a bad person -- but it makes him the right person for an engineering job.  In contrast, when I was in school and finished a difficult set of math problems, I didn't sit back and say, "Wow, I'm smart!"  Instead, I thought, "Thank goodness I've finished that deadly dull task.  Now I can go do something that interests me." 

[Undecided]

As I do.  But you may have missed half of my point.  It's not just that I (and I think most other STEM-type people) can do the math & science while those other folks can't, it's that most of us can also do the humanities-type stuff as well as they can.

This has not been my experience.

I'm pretty sure that I can.  I have a master's degree in English and a master's degree in statistics.  Guess which one was easier to get?

For you? I guess statistics. I was close to two law school classmates who were (good) graduates of the most selective and prestigious STEM-centric schools in the U.S., but were poor and mediocre law students. For them, their undergraduate courses had been easier to succeed in, and they were absolutely shocked by their first semester law school grades. I'm not sure what anecdotes tells us, other than for some people, some things are easier than others. I bet we knew that.

Well, if we don't wish to go with anecdotes, we can consider the math and verbal scores on the SAT or GRE and note how much lower the average scores are on the math than the verbal.  That implies to me that most people are capable of performing decently in the humanities, but that math takes a little more effort and thus is compensated accordingly.

Edited to add: Huh.  Apparently I am flat wrong about this.  I could have sworn that my verbal SAT score was considerably higher than my math score, but the percentiles were about the same.  My excuse is that it was a while ago...

I'm not sure what you would have intended that to show anyway, but it did prompt me to dig up this chart showing SAT scores by intended major: http://www.joshuakennon.com/sat-scores-ranked-by-intended-college-major-show-teachers-are-below-average/

[Dr.Vibrissae]

As I do.  But you may have missed half of my point.  It's not just that I (and I think most other STEM-type people) can do the math & science while those other folks can't, it's that most of us can also do the humanities-type stuff as well as they can.

This has not been my experience.

I'm pretty sure that I can.  I have a master's degree in English and a master's degree in statistics.  Guess which one was easier to get?

What I disagree with is the statement that people who don't go into STEM are mostly bad at math, but people who are in STEM are mostly good at humanities. 

If a person has a degree in both fields, you are counting them as a STEM major, who is also good at humanities; but that situation could also be used as evidence for a humanities person who is also good at STEM.  The distinction has more to do with how you self identify (as STEM rather than humanities) than with how many people have skills in both disciplines.

I work in science and find many students are woefully lacking in writing skills.  Often I think it is laziness, but maybe they just don't realize how terrible their sentence construction is.  The Mr. is an English major getting a Masters of Science, and he spends much of his time editing group projects, and rewriting papers that have been rejected for publication because the environmental engineers in his department have such poor writing skills.

[mm1970]

An engineer doesn't double or triple his wages from one year to the next. This can lead to frustration.   Artistic and creative types actually have a chance of inventing and/or selling something which appeals to a vast consumer base. This can lead to income streams which are exponential. Think of Steve Jobs or The Rolling Stones or The creators of Angry Birds.

This depends on how narrowly you define engineer.  If you include the whole range of STEM subjects, then I'd argue that Steve Jobs easily falls into this group.  FTM, I used to work down the hall from the guy who developed the fundamental technology of multi-gigabite hard disks.  Don't know just how much he made personally, but the company was pretty good about giving employees a share of profits from their inventions.  IIRC, there were several who'd made upwards of $1 million, in addition to salaries.

Exactly.  While I never doubled or tripled my income one year to the next (and am rather low-paid for an engineer at my level), I still make 2x what I did 13 yrs ago.  I have a tendency to go for start up companies, and my last one came with stock options worth more than a few years' salary.

This one looks like it might be  a dud on the options though.  Oh well.

[Jamesqf]

Another thought on STEM vs humanities.  I can think of quite a few people who started out in technical fields, but managed to do things like write successful books on the side.  I can think of exactly one person (Vladimir Nabokov) who began as a writer and later made significant contributions to science.

Or to put it another way, Steven Hawking can write best-selling books, but very few best-selling authors can do quantum mechanics :-)

[SnackDog]

I'm surprised at how many people call themselves Engineers but don't actually have a proper degree, particularly so-called Software Engineers who are really just programmers. This blurs boundaries from pretty hard core analytics to someone typing code.

[Use it up, wear it out...]

I'm surprised at how many people call themselves Engineers but don't actually have a proper degree, particularly so-called Software Engineers who are really just programmers. This blurs boundaries from pretty hard core analytics to someone typing code.

Many times, that's the job title the company gives - "Senior Software Engineer" for example - regardless of who fills the position.

I will also say, as someone working in IT, that I see plenty of people in IT with real engineering degrees in jobs where engineering knowledge is unnecessary and unused. Often, they work in the same job function with others who have humanities degrees, and in my experience the quality of work correlates much more strongly with personality than with education.

[Russ]

My take on engineers in the humanities: I think engineers' problem-solving tendencies lend themselves to doing well in traditional coursework no matter the subject as long as it's somewhat formulaic. An engineer can figure out how to write an A paper, for example, and repeat that formula through a history degree. Not that a history degree is that simple, but I think that's part of the answer.

In response to engineers being poor writers, I believe this is because the types of problems engineers are typically interested in don't require much nontechnical communication. Not that they couldn't apply themselves to the problem of poor writing if they wanted to.

Put an engineer in a "creative" type position and that's where they typically fail, as it's much more difficult to apply problem solving skills to these less well-defined problems.

Broad brush strokes and all of course. I don't think this applies to everybody by any means.

[Tyler]

The problem with generalizing about engineering is that it's such a broad term. The disciplines that make up engineering are all over the map and attract very different types of people. For example, a chemical engineer, a mechanical engineer, a software engineer, and a quality engineer have very little in common in terms of education, work experience, or often even personality. Even among the individual disciplines there are wide divergences based on industry. A mechanical engineer who designs cellphones for HTC is very different from one who makes construction equipment for CAT.

Engineering also attracts a variety of people, from the very detailed math geek who appreciates the logic of circuit board design, to the very creative designer who wants to build his own motorcycle from scratch. Not every engineer is great at math and not every engineering job requires calculus. Some engineers are brilliant and pile up patents, while some prefer detailed administrative tasks.

Engineering is a broad field that encompasses a large swath of the workplace and the human experience. However, one thing that engineers generally have in common is that they are particularly good at solving problems. And when introduced to FI as a problem to be solved, an engineer is just the type to embrace that challenge with abandon.

[Jamesqf]

I'm surprised at how many people call themselves Engineers but don't actually have a proper degree, particularly so-called Software Engineers who are really just programmers.

What do you mean, JUST programmers?

[Half-Borg]

I have a degree in electrical engineering, i'm buildung trains, i consider myself very much an engineer, i have not done much else than coding.

[steveo]

No . . . engineering work is often pretty cool.  It's the overhead, the pointless meetings, foolish corporate policies, and the dealing with inane requests of middle management that drive the need for early retirement.  Plus, the often pointless need to be physically in an office when you could do the job just as well from your couch at home.

This is my job. The work can be fun and rewarding. The crap around it is annoying.

[TwoWheels]

As someone with one foot in each field, this is a really interesting discussion to me. Two years ago I got my bachelor's degree in music with two majors: piano performance and computer science. I got a software development job with a large tech company immediately after graduating and was making great money. I was lucky enough to discover MMM, whose wisdom put me on track to retire by 30 (quite possibly a millionaire given good market conditions).

But by a year ago I was at the point where I pretty much hated getting out of bed in the morning. Life is just too short for that kind of crap, no matter how much you're getting paid, so last month I left it all behind and am now starting my master's degree in piano performance. Obviously this has derailed my fast progress toward FIRE…and I couldn't care less. My plan for the future extends no further than the next two years, devoting myself to getting better at what I love most in life. Hard to say what I'll do after that, but I will almost certainly achieve FI well before the traditional retirement age. The extent to which I include computer science-related work will determine how quickly I reach FI but will potentially make the journey less enjoyable. Eventually I'll find a balance.

Also, my two cents on STEM vs. humanities, based solely on my individual experience: comparing the two is very difficult. The steps to getting a computer science major and being ready for the job market are very clear-cut and formulaic; for this reason I found CS to be easier and less time-consuming than music. Getting a music major is a far less linear process and is more rewarding of creativity and individuality. The correlation between grades and what you get out of the major is not nearly as strong as in computer science; you can get decent grades while still having the option to spend as little or as much time as you want on your instrument, with the latter being much more important to what you get out of the experience.

My take on engineers in the humanities: I think engineers' problem-solving tendencies lend themselves to doing well in traditional coursework no matter the subject as long as it's somewhat formulaic. An engineer can figure out how to write an A paper, for example, and repeat that formula through a history degree. Not that a history degree is that simple, but I think that's part of the answer.

This is a great point. Grades are determined largely by performance on tests. In most subjects a test is just an exercise in memory recall. (This means that the optimal strategy for getting good grades is usually not the optimal strategy for intellectual growth, which is incidentally why I've come to view school as kind of a silly game.)

[ender]

Put an engineer in a "creative" type position and that's where they typically fail, as it's much more difficult to apply problem solving skills to these less well-defined problems.

Interestingly, I find myself, as an engineer, really enjoying the more creative work and finding myself bored, quickly, with the more tedious engineering work which is more common.

[Albert]

Let's not pretend that engineers or scientists are jacks of all trades and could succeed in any profession. That is nonsense! Most of us could have become lawyers or medical doctors if we wanted to, but to be really good at it you need to love it and have some innate talent for it. I, for example, could have easily obtained a university degree in marketing  but I would never be any good at it because I hate selling anything...

[Russ]

Put an engineer in a "creative" type position and that's where they typically fail, as it's much more difficult to apply problem solving skills to these less well-defined problems.

Interestingly, I find myself, as an engineer, really enjoying the more creative work and finding myself bored, quickly, with the more tedious engineering work which is more common.

Oops that wasn't clear at all... I meant like painting or creative writing.

[Jamesqf]

Most of us could have become lawyers or medical doctors if we wanted to, but to be really good at it you need to love it and have some innate talent for it.

Not necessarily.  I can think of a number of things in my past life that I did not really like doing, and for which I had no innate talent, but under the pressure of necessity I got to be quite good at them.

IMHO, the only thing at which an innate talent (or perhaps exposure at a young age) is necessary is music.  I tried to learn as an adult, with almost no childhood exposure (as best I recall, I never heard real music until I was in my early 20s), and got to the point where I could, by dint of a lot of repitition, learn to play any piece fairly competently.  But then I'd see a 10 year old hear something once, and then play it, without ever even looking at the score.

[chesebert]

Engineering also attracts a variety of people, from the very detailed math geek who appreciates the logic of circuit board design

I think the math geek would be doing theoratical physics and not circut design. I don't think any of my EE friends is a math geek; I think math in general is not hard and I used to be very good at it, but I don't really like it and I probably remember only 10% of what I used to know.

Now days I "engineer" acquisition transaction structures and financial instruments . . . can't wait to FIRE and go back to engineering (ironic isn't it).

[jrhampt]

Most of us could have become lawyers or medical doctors if we wanted to, but to be really good at it you need to love it and have some innate talent for it.

Not necessarily.  I can think of a number of things in my past life that I did not really like doing, and for which I had no innate talent, but under the pressure of necessity I got to be quite good at them.

Totally agreed. 

On the question above as to whether I would consider myself a humanities person who picked up STEM vs. a STEM person who picked up humanities, I would consider myself pretty ambidextrous, but I began in a STEM field (geology), migrated briefly to English, discovered (duh) that programming/databases paid better and migrated over that way, and picked up the math/stats degree after that. 

[Carrie]

Or you could do what I did and get a degree in architecture - a perfect blend of arts/engineering and end up making far less money than you could even imagine.  :)  But I love it and can't imagine doing anything else.

[dragoncar]

Engineering also attracts a variety of people, from the very detailed math geek who appreciates the logic of circuit board design

I think the math geek would be doing theoratical physics and not circut design. I don't think any of my EE friends is a math geek; I think math in general is not hard and I used to be very good at it, but I don't really like it and I probably remember only 10% of what I used to know.

Now days I "engineer" acquisition transaction structures and financial instruments . . . can't wait to FIRE and go back to engineering (ironic isn't it).

Engineers hate math.  It's a necessary evil, but we will approximate or idealize as much as we can.  Physicists, of course, hate math too. (http://xkcd.com/669/)

[Half-Borg]

Even the mathematicans I know hate math. I just so freaking complicated to discover something new.

[GuitarStv]

Put an engineer in a "creative" type position and that's where they typically fail, as it's much more difficult to apply problem solving skills to these less well-defined problems.

I think this is a wildly incorrect generalization - as bad as saying that all people with arts degrees are incapable of understanding math and science.

I have a degree in systems engineering with a specialization in software.  A tremendous amount of creativity is needed when designing a new system from scratch, when efficiently fixing problems in an existing system, and for most programming.

Thinking of creative writing or painting as the only way someone can be creative is a very limited viewpoint.

[chesebert]

Put an engineer in a "creative" type position and that's where they typically fail, as it's much more difficult to apply problem solving skills to these less well-defined problems.

I think this is a wildly incorrect generalization - as bad as saying that all people with arts degrees are incapable of understanding math and science.

I have a degree in systems engineering with a specialization in software.  A tremendous amount of creativity is needed when designing a new system from scratch, when efficiently fixing problems in an existing system, and for most programming.

Thinking of creative writing or painting as the only way someone can be creative is a very limited viewpoint.

What you think are "creative" tasks are just good old problem solving. I am "creative" only to the extent my solutions are within a closed universe bound by certain preset parameters (e.g., rules and equations).

To me truly creative work involves creating things or moments with no preset boundry or rules, and this thing/moment has the ability to evoke emotional response in human, such as painting, artistic photoraphy, creative writing and song writing.

[jrhampt]

Put an engineer in a "creative" type position and that's where they typically fail, as it's much more difficult to apply problem solving skills to these less well-defined problems.

I think this is a wildly incorrect generalization - as bad as saying that all people with arts degrees are incapable of understanding math and science.

I have a degree in systems engineering with a specialization in software.  A tremendous amount of creativity is needed when designing a new system from scratch, when efficiently fixing problems in an existing system, and for most programming.

Thinking of creative writing or painting as the only way someone can be creative is a very limited viewpoint.

What you think are "creative" tasks are just good old problem solving. I am "creative" only to the extent my solutions are within a closed universe bound by certain preset parameters (e.g., rules and equations).

To me truly creative work involves creating things or moments with no preset boundry or rules, and this thing/moment has the ability to evoke emotional response in human, such as painting, artistic photoraphy, creative writing and song writing.

But all those "creative" pursuits you list DO have boundaries/rules that you have to work within.  Sometimes the constraints are the medium.  I am a programmer and consider it a creative task.  It is possible to be creative while solving problems.

[Jamesqf]

I think this is a wildly incorrect generalization - as bad as saying that all people with arts degrees are incapable of understanding math and science.

Of course claiming that all arts types are incapable is going to be wrong (universals generally are, outside of math & formal logic).  But I think it's fair to say that most either are incapable (fundamentally), or don't care to invest the effort.  Just consider how often we see evidence of the wildest misunderstandings of science from them.

Thinking of creative writing or painting as the only way someone can be creative is a very limited viewpoint.

Also, think of how often "being creative" is used as an excuse for e.g. just flinging paint at a canvas because you're too darned lazy/incompetent to learn how to draw.

[dragoncar]

Put an engineer in a "creative" type position and that's where they typically fail, as it's much more difficult to apply problem solving skills to these less well-defined problems.

I think this is a wildly incorrect generalization - as bad as saying that all people with arts degrees are incapable of understanding math and science.

I have a degree in systems engineering with a specialization in software.  A tremendous amount of creativity is needed when designing a new system from scratch, when efficiently fixing problems in an existing system, and for most programming.

Thinking of creative writing or painting as the only way someone can be creative is a very limited viewpoint.

What you think are "creative" tasks are just good old problem solving. I am "creative" only to the extent my solutions are within a closed universe bound by certain preset parameters (e.g., rules and equations).

To me truly creative work involves creating things or moments with no preset boundry or rules, and this thing/moment has the ability to evoke emotional response in human, such as painting, artistic photoraphy, creative writing and song writing.

But all those "creative" pursuits you list DO have boundaries/rules that you have to work within.  Sometimes the constraints are the medium.  I am a programmer and consider it a creative task.  It is possible to be creative while solving problems.

And conversely, a creative problem solver will reconsider or redefine the boundaries of the problem.  Usually the solution presented has to work in the real world, but I guarantee most engineers are always coming up with creative solutions that aren't possible or economical.  Where do you think the best sci-fi comes from?

[Albert]

To me truly creative work involves creating things or moments with no preset boundry or rules, and this thing/moment has the ability to evoke emotional response in human, such as painting, artistic photoraphy, creative writing and song writing.

Really? So you think there is no creativity in science? We must be defining creativity very differently...

[No Name Guy]

To go on topic of the OP question:

No, it doesn't suck.  Engineering is great.  Its fun.  It's high tech.  Its boys playing with ever bigger toys.....and getting paid very well to do so.  That said, were I not getting paid, I wouldn't choose to be here either.  I'd rather spend my time doing other stuff.

Why FI / ER / IW?  Well, for me I can see the math.  I can see it works, plain and simple.  I can plan my ER / FI / IW work, then work to my plan, doing charts, graphs and spreadsheets to track progress toward the goal.  The goal?  Making work optional, so I can spend my time doing the previously mentioned other stuff (like volunteer work, to name one thing).

[grantmeaname]

I want to award this thread a medal for "most conceited collection of 80 posts ever written". Seriously, what's so hard to grasp about the idea that different people have different fluencies? I never met a physics major or a pre-med mol gen kid who could handle uncertainty and ambiguity or think about the limits of an analytical model the way that literally any B-student in anthropology could, and I seldom found an anthropology student who had an intuitive knack for numbers like any successful math major (and most engineers).

As far as the work: I can't remember the last full week I wasn't on campus for over 50 hours, and I've found switching into accounting that the number of students who load themselves up to the credit hour limit and study all seven days of the week is just the same. As a tenth of my undergrad program shows up to the doctoral colloquium every week, I'm pretty comfortable saying that we've got our share of blood, sweat, and tears. I get that some architecture and art students look lazy, and some of them certainly are, but there are art students who spend 60 hours on a project in a week and there are engineers who just play CoD and then show up to the final with a few formulas memorized on the way there. I think everyone should give other disciplines a generous helping of respect, because I've never seen an exception to the rule that everyone who succeeds in their career works hard.

As I do.  But you may have missed half of my point.  It's not just that I (and I think most other STEM-type people) can do the math & science while those other folks can't, it's that most of us can also do the humanities-type stuff as well as they can.

Your ability to get an A in sociology 101 has no ties to your higher-order faculties of critical thinking and ability to perceive nuance. Read Foucault and tell me how his impact on anthropology was different than his impact on English, or explain what about Sartre's use of symbolism in his plays makes them more powerful than an essay in support of his philosophy, and maybe I'll be a little more convinced.

[jrhampt]

I want to award this thread a medal for "most conceited collection of 80 posts ever written".

hahaha!!!  I'm not sure I agree entirely with the rest of your post, but I concede this particular point.  And the point about Call of Duty/WoW...but a lot of those people end up flunking.  I always assumed they had to settle for a poly sci or business degree or something like that...the bars always seemed to be full of them ;-)  And now we've come full circle.

[englyn]

... uncertainty and ambiguity think about the limits of an analytical model the way that literally any B-student in anthropology could.

Your ability to get an A in sociology 101 has no ties to your higher-order faculties of critical thinking and ability to perceive nuance. Read Foucault and tell me how his impact on anthropology was different than his impact on English, or explain what about Sartre's use of symbolism in his plays makes them more powerful than an essay in support of his philosophy, and maybe I'll be a little more convinced.

As an engineer, at this point I could do neither, because I trained my brain in engineering instead. That says nothing either way about my ability to do those things if I studied them - people who are very good at those things couldn't do them before they studied the subjects either.

Some people have innate strengths in both humanities and sciences. Many are weaker in one or the other. Most people have trained their whole thinking process in some subset of what they're actually capable of, and so now, they're much stronger at it.

Engineers have generally spent a lot of time training their thinking processes to understand optimisation, simulation/extrapolation, and flinging around numbers. And we make a lot of money, yet our industry values Getting Stuff Done more than social status. Aiming for FIRE is a natural fit.

[Jamesqf]

Seriously, what's so hard to grasp about the idea that different people have different fluencies?

Absolutely nothing.  What's so hard to grasp about the idea that some people might be fluent (or have the ability to develop fluency, if they have interest) in more areas than others?

I never met a physics major or a pre-med mol gen kid who could handle uncertainty and ambiguity or think about the limits of an analytical model the way that literally any B-student in anthropology could...

That perhaps says more about your circle of acquaintances than anything else :-)

Read Foucault and tell me how his impact on anthropology was different than his impact on English, or explain what about Sartre's use of symbolism in his plays makes them more powerful than an essay in support of his philosophy, and maybe I'll be a little more convinced.

Been there, done that.  Or I should say done similar things, as I never thought they were all that interesting.  You might also have to tolerate me not accepting your basic theses, as I have very little respect for existentialism in general, or Sartre in particular.  I might also waste a bit of time trying to figure out what the best-known Foucault (Leon, of the pendulum) had to do with anthropology.

[wepner]

^Google disagrees with you on who the most famous Foucault. I'n gonna trust them (there are 10 suggested pages about the philosopher/historian before we get to the physicist)

I could say (accurately) that I had the exact opposite experience in University than you. I skated through my math and science classes with minimal effort and saw tons of perspective history majors change to other things once they started to be faced with 30, 40, or 50 page papers based on primary sources and original research. I also graded history papers and tests for a few semesters and I assure you that math and science majors breezing through history classes was not the case.

[Russ]

What's so hard to grasp about the idea that some people might be fluent (or have the ability to develop fluency, if they have interest) in more areas than others?

That a disproportionate amount of these people go into engineering.

[Jamesqf]

What's so hard to grasp about the idea that some people might be fluent (or have the ability to develop fluency, if they have interest) in more areas than others?

That a disproportionate amount of these people go into engineering.

Except that is what is observed.  It is easy to find many examples of people who make primary careers in STEM, yet maintain a lively interest in liberal arts/humanities things, while a great many humanities types seem to be completely ignorant of science, or tech beyond the user level.

[Dr.Vibrissae]

Except that is what <I have> is observed.  It is easy <for me> to find many examples of people <I know/know of> who make primary careers in STEM, yet maintain a lively interest in liberal arts/humanities things, while a great many humanities types seem to be completely ignorant of science, or tech beyond the user level.

Clarified it for you. 

[ender]

To me truly creative work involves creating things or moments with no preset boundry or rules, and this thing/moment has the ability to evoke emotional response in human, such as painting, artistic photoraphy, creative writing and song writing.

Realistically, what percentage of people currently employed have jobs which you think match this definition of creativity?

1% maybe? Perhaps less?

[chesebert]

To me truly creative work involves creating things or moments with no preset boundry or rules, and this thing/moment has the ability to evoke emotional response in human, such as painting, artistic photoraphy, creative writing and song writing.

Realistically, what percentage of people currently employed have jobs which you think match this definition of creativity?

1% maybe? Perhaps less?

What percentage of the world's population is truly creative? And from that, what percentage of those people is currently employed in a role that allow them to be truly creative? Probably less than 1%.

[dragoncar]

To me truly creative work involves creating things or moments with no preset boundry or rules, and this thing/moment has the ability to evoke emotional response in human, such as painting, artistic photoraphy, creative writing and song writing.

Realistically, what percentage of people currently employed have jobs which you think match this definition of creativity?

1% maybe? Perhaps less?

What percentage of the world's population is truly creative? And from that, what percentage of those people is currently employed in a role that allow them to be truly creative? Probably less than 1%.

Only true scottsmen are truly creative

[Jamesqf]

Clarified it for you.

Wrong.  Imposed your opinion.  Now if you think my expressed opinion is wrong, how about supporting it with evidence?  As for instance I pointed out that there are any number of scientists who are evidently capable of writing well-written (and often well-selling) books.  Can you come up with examples of writers (other than the one I supplied) who've published scientific papers?

Or alternatively, can you find examples of the media - generally dominated by liberal arts types - generally demonstrating reasonable scientific knowledge?  No, scientific ignorance is everywhere, from "sci-fi" movies with banking spaceships and explosions going "boom!" in space, down to the news treatment of things like nuclear power, global warming, vaccination, evolution, and more.

What percentage of the world's population is truly creative? And from that, what percentage of those people is currently employed in a role that allow them to be truly creative? Probably less than 1%.

I wish someone could explain exactly what is so great about being creative, and in particularly, why it's better (apparently, in the minds of some) to do a "creative" thing incompently, than to display competence at uncreative tasks?

Then you could perhaps work on explaining why figuring out how to compute seismic travel times efficiently is less creative than throwing paint at a spinning canvas, and claiming the result as "art".

[EMP]

Clarified it for you.

Wrong.  Imposed your opinion.  Now if you think my expressed opinion is wrong, how about supporting it with evidence?  As for instance I pointed out that there are any number of scientists who are evidently capable of writing well-written (and often well-selling) books.  Can you come up with examples of writers (other than the one I supplied) who've published scientific papers?

For more info on best-selling not being the greatest indication of quality in writing, I'll direct your attention to the Twilight saga. 

Or this much funnier cartoon.  http://theoatmeal.com/story/twilight

[EMP]

Also, back to the original question, being an engineer, not so bad.  Being constantly surrounded by other engineers...that's an entirely different question.  ;P

[Dr.Vibrissae]

Clarified it for you.

Wrong.  Imposed your opinion. 

No, I pointed out that you were expressing an opinion, not a statement of fact as implied.  At this point you have both defended creativity in engineers and asked what's so great about being creative, so I'm really not sure what I'm arguing about?

I am only trying to defend the position that pursuing a degree in humanities is not de facto evidence of incompetence in STEM or laziness.

As for examples, off the top of my head I think of Hedy Lamarr and Danica McKellar. 

[Jamesqf]

For more info on best-selling not being the greatest indication of quality in writing, I'll direct your attention to the Twilight saga.

Never said that best-selling was an indication of quality.  Not familiar with Twilight, but there's Harry Potter and numerous others.  On the other hand, there are practicing scientists like Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, and many others who are capable of producing well-written books (about science, even!) which also sell well.

I am only trying to defend the position that pursuing a degree in humanities is not de facto evidence of incompetence in STEM or laziness.

Have I claimed that it was?  No, I have merely said that there appears to be a statistical relationship: that people whose primary education/career is in STEM are far more likely to be knowledgeable about/competent in matters that fall under liberal arts, than liberal arts types are to be competent in STEM.

Now you're welcome to disprove that observation if you can.  I would imagine that someone, somewhere, has done surveys to try to measure the relative ignorance of the two groups in each other's fields.  However, I have so far found that Google is definitely not my friend in this.  Wouldn't you suppose that if you included the word "survey" in a query, it would return surveys somewhere near the top of its list of hits?  But no...

As for examples, off the top of my head I think of Hedy Lamarr and Danica McKellar.

Odd, because I would say that they - McKellar for sure - are examples on the other side: people who trained in STEM, but made a career in liberal arts.  (Though I'm not entirely sure that you could claim acting as a liberal art...)  Then there's a good friend of mine, who worked her way through school (MS in Computer Science) as a dancer in a casino showroom.

[Gerard]

Gee, and I was just hoping to start a discussion of the apparent retirement-encouraging shortcomings of engineering *as a career*... but I shoulda known it would end up going in this direction once I picked that attention-getting thread title.

wrt why some scientists can write good books, the lively interest that non-scientists have in science encourages publishers to contribute a shit-ton of editorial support to such writers. I'm a (social) scientist who writes fairly well (thanks largely to my earlier English/journalism degree), but my editors at Wiley hugely improved my book. My less writing-skilled colleagues are helped even more. Writing a book for people outside your discipline is not the intellectual opposite/equivalent/youknowwhatImean of doing a high-level science thing.

[cats]

But... surely people get a degree in (say) geography for reasons other than an instant job in the geography store. I would think that a music or painting career pays badly, on average, because so many people are willing to live on $15K a year in order to be a musician or artist.

Watch it with the geography comments there!  Geography is a pretty diverse field and some ends of it actually have a lot of overlap with civil/environmental engineering, etc.  I have an MA in geography (I'm a hydrologist) but my research was actually very technical--the main reason I did geog was b/c that's the department that the prof I wanted to work with was in.

Also, Michael Jordan was a geography major, so clearly you can make some good money with that degree ;)

I'm interested by the STEM vs. humanities argument that seems to keep cropping up.  My take on it is simply that STEM classes tend to get harder earlier and that there are fewer loopholes to get around taking the harder classes.  With humanties/liberal arts majors, the intro classes often tend to be a bit easier, but as you get further up it can become very challenging, if you choose to challenge yourself.  And you aren't going to become *successful* in the liberal arts/humanities if you are lazy or unintelligent!  Looking at the folks I stay in touch with at university, I definitely know people who did liberal arts/humanities/social sciences who are way, way smarter than I am, and who are now doing very well in whatever career they have gone into.  I do also know people who did the "I'm just going to go for the easiest A" route and yeah, most of them are floundering financially or just generally in terms of what they are doing with their lives.  In my view, the "softer" fields maybe have room to accommodate people who wouldn't make it as engineers, but that's not the same as saying everyone (or even most people) in those fields couldn't match wits with an engineer.

Also, while not everyone who goes into engineering is motivated by the potential for a good (or simply steady) salary, I definitely know people for whom the salary potential IS a big motivator.  So if most people who care alot about salary choose engineering, and then most people who aren't sure what the hell they are doing choose humanities majors, the results is that suddenly it starts to look like engineers go for FI, and humanities majors are aimless, when really it's kind of the other way around.

[Jamesqf]

Gee, and I was just hoping to start a discussion of the apparent retirement-encouraging shortcomings of engineering *as a career*...

Didn't we work through that back in the early posts to the thread?  The answer was, for many of us, "What shortcomings?"