Is Computer Engineering a meme degree?
I'm currently a first year CE student and my colleagues from the EE course always joke
about how CE is EE's retarded cousin.
What do you mean? I'm not finding it that difficult. From what I see it's just a watered down version of EE with some CS classes.
I feel like Electrical Engineers would do a better job than me in making hardware even though it shouldn't be that way.
with the exception of the phd in marketing this looks pretty spot on
Let's address their personal delusions first: PhD is finance and econ should below all engineering and actuaral PhDs. Finance and econ PhDs mostly make sub 6 figs.
Physics B is in great tier based on the salary range.
Professional enigneers do not all earn 6 figs, it's discipline specific.
ChemE is the highest paying bachelor exit except for Nuke and Petro which shows they dind't do their basic research on salary data.
Nursing is only good tier.
MDs do not have 250k+ "starting" (just fucking google "MD starting salary" and don't be retarded).
Dentistry should be a tier up.
CS PhDs do make the highest starting, but no fucking way you'll get 150k starting.
I don't really care about the rest. Their entire chart is fucked up. They don't understand that finance and econ does not translate to a quant, math, physics and engineering PhDs have a far better chance of becoming quants.
Any degree that contains the word 'computer' in the title was made specifically for retards who could not handle real engineering and real science. And I mean this literally. This was literally the purpose of it.
>From what I see it's just a watered down version of EE
No, CpEs take the same exact Circuits, Electronics, Systems and Signals, DSP, Communication Systems, Control Theory, and Information Theory courses with EEs.
>some CS classes
No no no, CS classes are watered down versions of CpE classes.
A lot of good schools only have EECS or ECE degrees.
>Any degree that contains the word 'computer' in the title without the word 'engineering' or contains the words 'information', 'technology', or 'software' was made specifically for retards who could not handle real engineering and real science. And I mean this literally. This was literally the purpose of it.
>Knowledge of computer architecture and programming skills started to be highly in demand for industry
>People with computer architecture knowledge where electrical engineers who either were very smart or did the original masters or PhD option for computer specific engineering
>People with high knowledge of programming were exclusively mathematicians who were either really smart or did the original masters or PhD option for computer science
>Both sides here, as they were either really smart, or were Doctors and Masters in their field, demanded very high pay and as such only big companies dedicated to this could afford it
>Small companies and companies not dedicated to software were pissed about paying their 'computer guy' more than their executives earned
>This created the demand for monkey brains who could handle computers but were not formally educated as to be satisfied with minimum wage Mc Donalds salary
>Retards of the world thought 'Hurr I wun 2 be dat monki'
>This created the demand for universities to create undergraduate computer engineering and computer science to train the monkeys
>Monkeys flooding the doors of the university to learn monkey science and engineering
>Now median programmer salary is 50k
>Median computer engineer salary is 60k
Well. Fucking. Done.
That's how new degrees are created. Some decades ago MechEs with high knowledge of chemistry were doing what is now ChemE's job. Same goes for NukeE. If you go back further, even EE is derived from physics.
When a field demands highly specialized professionals it's just natural that new degrees be created so that one don't need to get a PhD to be able to work in that field.
At my university it is certainly watered down. They don't take any emag and only the first electronics and signals. In turn they learn cs classes but nothing that significant. Certainly seems like they are missing out.
I'm a CpE. In my lab we get lots of EE guys and they can't code for shit. There is no point in learning all that E&M and power systems shit if you are just giong to go into digital electronics.
are you serious? at EECS it's uncommon to make 120k or less after graduation (B.S.) with full comp usually ranging ~150-170k +
meant to post logo, for some reason i had that post showing berkeley's autism instead of it's logo
PhD in finance/econ will make as much or more than a PhD in engineering if you choose academia, esp. if you teach at a B-school.
In industry, your point about quants stands, but generally finance PhDs are capable quants (most good programs have switched from being glorified macro to being essentially deep applied stats programs).
I think this chart sucks. For one, biology is pretty useless as a bachelors, but if you can get a PhD there is a wide variety of options. As for psychology, it's decent, and I disagree that you will always work for someone. Plenty of PhD psychologists open their own practice and net 100k-200k a year which is not unrealistic.
Maybe I am biased but I love English. I think that calling it trash tier is rather arrogant, as there are plenty of opportunities for someone with an MA or PhD in academia and it's possible to probably get a job in publishing, or working for the press.
A PhD in bio is a surefire way to be a postdoc lab slave.
Over 40% of life science PhDs are unemployed/without a postdoc coming out of their program.
I think the money in psychology you are mentioning is largely for psychiatrists, who take a totally different educational path than academic psychologists.
An MA in English is a waste of money. A PhD in the humanities is near impossible to get funded. An enterprising English major might be able to tell themself to work in publishing or the press, but realistically the jobs are hardly there in publishing or journalism, not to mention that joe schmoe English major will lose out to a journalism major who at least has a portfolio of work hopefully.
Guys, my Uni offers a "special" program, "Telecommunications engineering" and you can't enter directly into that major (you have to pick EE or CompE first, and then be one of the highest scoring students after two semesters, then you can "request to be admitted in the program".
Would you suggest me to take TelecomE instead of EE? I don't know if I'm overspecializing...
How likely is it to switch programs from Bachelor's to Master's/PhD? I'm getting my BS in Math this semester and want to do something different. Should I go back to do a second Bachelor's or do a post-bac year?
>Is Computer Engineering a meme degree?
Couldn't possibly be more meme than CS.
Seriously, there's nothing of value taught in CS at an undergrad level.
Before some crybaby bitch comes trying to make themselves feel better by saying "hurr, the code written by scientists is horrible", that's the kind of shit you aren't even really taught in school. It comes with practice, and you'll learn it much more effectively just by working in the industry at a good software shop if you so desire to be a code monkey.
Ok I'm supposed to go to a uni in about a year/maybe less and I'm kind of... clueless as to what to choose as my bachelors. Any kind anon willing to explain how the uni system works?
4 years of Bachelors, then I'm supposed to take the Masters, and then if I want/am good enough, I can take PhD? Please all these English namings confuse the fuck out of me.
I don't know about CE or EE, but it won't be too hard to switch to CS. I knew people from math and stats background who went straight for an MS in CS. One in particular, was an overachiever so he went back and took a couple of undergraduate classes (the basic data structures and algorithms class and the object oriented design class), and was the TA for the graduate level algorithms class. But others didn't actually even do that and just went straight for the graduate level classes, but this took more dedication on their part.
Besides those two classes that the TA guy took, I'd maybe suggest you take an undergraduate software engineering class. If you do an internship at a decent place where they properly follow the software development process (because lots of places suck shit and skip steps of the process and/or don't document things properly), you might be able to jump right into the graduate level one, though.
Another tip I will offer you would be for you to try to specialize on AI, machine learning, or something math-related.
It depends on how the system works in your country. 4-5 years for a bachelors, then a Masters or a direct Ph D.
Rule of thumb: Masters are good if you plan to stay in the industry. Ph D's are only if you love the subject OR want to work in academia, OR if you want to work in finance as a math/finance/stats Ph D.
>so that one don't need to get a PhD to be able to work in that field.
Let me fix that for you
>so that companies don't have to pay you the salary of a PhD
>so that retards don't have to be smart enough for a PhD to get nice jobs
Academia, once the domain of geniuses, has been stained by total retards. Now PhDs get paid 40 - 50k and so do the people who get these new undergrad degrees because they were made so that they could pay you less.
>PhD in finance/econ will make as much or more than a PhD in engineering if you choose academia
Wrong, engineering PhDs in most disciplines earn more on average and most of them start in the six figure range anyway, not 50-70k like the chart sugges.
>, esp. if you teach at a B-school.
That's a worthless argument. An engineering PhD coming from MIT or Cambridge will obviously make more than both, but we're talking about averages here. On average most engineering disciplines will earn more than finance/econ, but the more important point is that 150k+ starting is delusional
Look, it would be stupid if just a few PhDs were able to do something highly demanded when it's perfectly possible for one to learn all the shit required for that in 4-5 years.
This is likely to happen to any field growing in industry, so deal with it.
>implying that you have to be smart to get a PhD
its that bad. the population ratio of biology to chem majors at my school is 1600:60
I combine biochemistry and chemistry together because they are so similar. the biochemistry major at our school didnt even exist until a few years ago when i started when it was "chem with a concentration in biochemistry". then the ratio properly split is 1600:50:10 bio/biochem/chem
holy shit i was not aware organic chem phds made that much money mid career. im actually inclined to believe thats a false statistic.
this is correct. it works the opposite direction as well. chemists knew how to perform a synthesis, but when asked how to scale it up they needed to go outside of their expertise. this is similar to what i mentioned about biochem before.
As a closing note, i dont know why biochemistry is so low on the chart. biochem as a field is booming right now, and has a higher job growth than pure chem and most engineering disciplines. When we move into personalized medicine within the next decade or two biochem knowledge will be incredibly valuable. a phd in this field is already a gold mine. though IMO really fucking boring. Its not unfair to call it genetic/protein engineering either. its all essentially the same thing.
>CS take watered down CpE courses
Yeah, this is maybe true for some of the hardware classes CS majors have to take. But, it's 100% false for the programming/software related classes. CS versions of software classes are way harder than the CpE versions.
I'm a chemist with an M.Sc. graduated from a top university in my country and still looking for a job after almost a year. There are just no jobs that require scientific knowledge, whatever I can do, a high school graduate can also do at a lab. They know that so they hire the low salary option. No actual research-development jobs here, should have continued in the academia ;_;
>whatever I can do, a high school graduate can also do at a lab.
That's literally what you're qualified for with only a pure science degree...
Either do a PhD or do a professional degree.
If you don't want to go back to school, get IT certs, they are cheap and fast to do and almost garuantees you a job.
CE Programming and Data Structures is in C++/C
CS Programming and Data Structures is in Java
CE Probability covers discrete, continuous, and multivariable probability and stochastic processes
CS Probability covers only discrete
CE Systems Programming covers system programming, sockets and networking, driver coding, code security and how to perform code exploitation by writing in assembly
CS Systems Programming covers C, pointers, and system programming.
At my school, CS majors learn way more theory than the CE majors. Not that it matters because 95% of the important information (in both practices) will be learned on the job and not in class.
It's very silly to argue about the viability of one degree over another when they provide access to the same job market.
I would say that the quality of the individual is the single most important factor in either field.
A CE could learn that "theory" in a month of self study.
not if you're properly reading concrete math, which is a combinatorics textbook. there's a lot of theory to deeply understand in that book, more than a month for a bachelor in math.
>95% of the important information (in both practices) will be learned on the job and not in class.
Yes, but the difference is CS majors can't get CE jobs in the first place, while CE grads can get both.
CE is objectively the superior major. [math]CS \subset CE [/math] for all practical purposes.
No. The money in psychology I mentioned is not for psychiatrists. Clinical psychologists who have a PhD often open their own practice and make a good salary. Psychiatrists on the other hand are physicians and can easily net 200k+
Believe me I know what I am talking about I was a psych major who wrote the MCAT and am going to become a psychiatrist I wouldn't say this without being 100% positive.
>Disregarding CLRS as "pathetically trivial"
You're completely missing the point, dumbass. It's not difficult material to learn, but there's so much of it... I doubt your average CE will have time to learn it all or enough to get to the level of starting graduate-level research. Of course this is not even necessary since most of it is useless if all you want is to go get a software dev job.
Doesn't even matter or make a difference whatsoever anyway. Most CS majors don't even understand theory themselves. Besides it's also completely unnecessary to get a software dev job. You only need the basics of OOP and 1st (or early 2nd) year data structures and algorithms knowledge to break into most industry jobs.
In fact, it's more important to have practical skills: be familiar with a technology stack and be able to prove it, then solve a couple of basic data structures and algorithms problems (and having a github with a decent amount of code is a definite plus). Nothing at all to do with theory. Theory is more for people actually interested in CS, not so much for people interested in being software devs.
I majored in CS and although I liked the theory a lot, I know I'll never do a PhD in CS and will remain in the industry, so if I were to do it all over again, I'd major in electronics engineering or compE (for example, embedded software jobs sound a hell of a lot more interesting than working on enterprise web apps, which is what I'm working on).
>Most CS majors don't even understand theory themselves
Thank you for being honest.
That is why everyone says CS majors are the most easily replaceable people.
That is why, even though you are flooding your own market and one would expect ALL software jobs to be taken by computer scientists, a lot of electrical engineers, computer engineers, physicists and mathematicians have these jobs too.
My parents are rich and are paying for education but a PhD in psychology especially clinical will land you good starting pay and loans can probably be paid off within 5 years. Don't be negative.
Also there is work for masters. My friend has a Masters in counseling psychology and makes about 55k a year after tax.
PhD in Finance is a fucking meme degree. Every serious client will go with someone who has a PhD in mathematics, statistics, econometrics, computer science or other STEM-related fields
>Is Computer Engineering a meme degree?
No. It's the age of IoT, VR, drones, and wireless everything. If you know how to build a rock solid embedded system, you'll have no problems finding a job.
And if worse comes to worst, you can always take a software job. People who actually know how the hardware works build better software than some schmuck who thinks that everything just works by magic. I speak from experience.
>Where does MIS fall in there?
Depends on whether you wind up as a programmer or an system administrator afterwards. The latter tend to get paid somewhat lower, although there's strong demand for people who are good.
Is power systems really that good to specialize in at the moment? I'm thinking renewables will have a big part to play in the future, and my EE department is supposedly one of the best in power systems. Should I do it?
>mfw Dad has a commerce degree and makes a six figure salary
what a retarded list
I got a useless degree (Economics) but it's irrelevant since the field I go into is all about sales (banking/investment firm). Granted I don't do anything fancy, but It's easy work, great benefits, and good pay with plenty of upward mobility
Experience is worth more than the degree.
Big degree + no experience means you don't get the 100k job because you've never worked and you don't get the starting job because you're overqualified.
Most of the successful people I know (people who make 200k+/yr) don't even work in the field their degree is in
Put STEM in the shit tier unless it's matched with work experience.
>overqualified for entry level maths jobs
>underqualified for phd level jobs
It's junk. Unless you've been working for 10+ years in the field.
Yeah, no, most people get hired straight after school. If you didn't get any references it's because your profs. thought you were a shitty student not worth anyone's recommendation.
>overqualified for entry level maths jobs
Of course as a PhD you are overqualified for entry level jobs you fucking moron.
>He has a bachelors in anything
>Lol he is overqualified for a job at Mc Donald's hurr durr
Are you seriously this stupid? PhDs don't need entry level bullshit. They did research, and they got paid to do this research. That is their experience. They will get the best jobs right away in the government and in industry (data science and such, which usually ask a masters or more).
>underqualified for PhD level jobs
That is why you do post docs for a couple of years.
lol High School
>profs thought you were a shitty student
More like, they can't give references to anyone because if they do their courses would look bad.
You can't have shit students with references otherwise their grading doesn't make sense. If you haven't learned about the bell curve yet, you should start. It sadly explains everything.
I'm an idiot, you know it all.
If you want to share e-mail addresses, we can talk in 5+ years if you want to go this route.
I'm not going for that route. I am comfortable with having my bachelors in pure mathematics and just living my life like that. I just don't allow people to come here and tell literal lies when various PhDs have salaries beyond 200k.
I'm obviously talking about grad"school" you moron.
>More like, they can't give references to anyone because if they do their courses would look bad.
No, they give references to high performing students and/.or those that did well in an RA etc.
If you didn't get references directly to your prof's industry/academic network you were used as a lab monkey and no one thought you ever had a shot at a STEM career.
>bachelors in pure mathematics
You might as well get a humanities degree at least you'd be able to get laid if you are brown or yellow enough.
>tell literal lies
>various phds have salaries beyond 200k
You are correct here. A lot of people who have PhDs have these salaries but what you might want to think about is that these people have a proven track record and their PhD corresponds to their field.
I'd wager that most of those 200k PhDs are either in Big Pharma or Finance. Their career path goes Internship with Bachelors, Masters while at the company still moving up the ranks, PhD completely sponsored with time off/part time to head of a department where you earn the big bucks.
These people aren't hired out of Uni to 200k. They have already proven their worth and their academic qualifications are just another thing on their CV.
If you are really interested, which is asking a lot of 'math majors' these days. You should look at the Quant Finance boom in the early 00s.
Every person thought they were going to earn 6 figures with no experience, only a handful ever did the rest ended up teaching at high schools. Make what you will out of that.
You sound quite comfy, anon.
I'm not even saying it in a bad way, I'm jealous, I wish I could have studied math, but my country has a shitty economy and studying math could've been a death sentence.
Mathematics sit solid in the average earnings of STEM grads.
Guaranteed jobs in software, finance and education. I'm at the moment posting from the company I'm an intern at. I'm working in banking software.
From here: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2151175&forum_id=2 they say that
>$400k a year is his publicly disclosed salary. that means he's making around $500k after you factor in the all the undisclosed perks.
They are talking about terence tao. Maybe this figure is in his personal blog or something.
You have here a pure mathematics researcher and professor earning half a million a year. All he has to do is teach retarded undergrads, and then prove some things about prime numbers. By the way, I'm not saying that is easy. I'm just saying that you would see it as crazy that someone who works in number theory is getting paid so much.
Also, I'm not interested in finance or anything really. Math satisfies me and it has gotten me comfy jobs, so comfy that I am able to browse 4chan and watch anime while in here.
Math is a valid option and it will stay that way. 'Math' knowledge is in really high demand, everywhere. Just having the degree will get you jobs.
>If you didn't get references directly to your prof's industry/academic network you were used as a lab monkey and no one thought you ever had a shot at a STEM career.
Sadly, you don't know what horse you are backing when you do research. Either you'll get the good professor who has done work for industry that has made them money so they are repeat customers or you get the loser who has lost more contacts than they have made.
Maybe your University is shit whilst you are a good student, etc.
There are too many variables, but the constant is that if you don't have a job or a career that someone wants to attach themselves to then they will forget you without anything and rarely does this come as a consequence of your actual research.
Maybe if you are exceptional, certainly not if you are just someone doing the degree getting average grades.
>i post from a company that i'm an intern in
You aren't. If you were, you wouldn't be defending your shit major, you'd just be posting smug anime faces and pretending that I don't exist as you don't need my approval anyway.
Let's forget that he has a Field's Medal and graduated University before most people got there. He is a once in a generation talent and the fact that he isn't a billionaire but is earning just a salary probably says everything you need to know about this career choice. It's junk.
>anime at work
You want a hugbox, not a maths job. Wait, maybe you could get an academic job. You can be completely hopeless there and still be employed forever if you can get grants. Make sure you make it gender, religion or race related, you can't lose there.
>in high demand
Coupled with a commercial skill set by itself it's not worth shit.
>having a degree gets you jobs
It'll get you interviews, not jobs.
I'm probably never going to work with hardware because that is simply not covered in my education but the highest paying programming jobs are in embedded systems.
I may be incorrect, but I have seen that in most cases they will want you to work with the hardware of whatever you are creating, as you make the OS and everything else.
Working with hardware means more pay, pretty much.
Sure, but it still involves working with hardware, regardless of who does it.
This anwers the question of 'what programmer would like to work with hardware'. The programmer who wants to earn more.
I don't give a fuck about the rest of your post other than this one point. How can you say his career choice is junk? He's making a fuckload of money doing the one thing he loves more than anything else. That is the pinnacle of living. The fact he's not a 'billionaire' says nothing about his career path. Being talented doesn't get you money (I would say it got him plenty though), the family you're born into gets you money.
I don´t know how it is in other countries, but here in germany, the problem is that biology is totally oversaturated.
And employees don´t really distinguish between biochem and regular biology.
So you end up with like only 30% of biochemists doing the job, for which they are qualified for.
That´s why i changed my major to CS, maybe i´ll go into bioinformatics...
Thi is literally false, why do I read constant inaccurate engie shitposting about their PE license?
Nobody doing nongovernmental work in EE which isnt power systems care about PE. I talked with recruiters from Intel, HP, Marvel. Nobody cares about PE for EE or CE.
If you want the title engineer, maybe but you can call yourself an embedded systems developer.
I dropped from CE because I realized...
I realized that all job prospects are team projects and i'm too autistic for that shit.
How did oil do in the market?
Was the WTI trading at or above $70/bbl for most of the time? Did it never drop below $60/bbl? If both of these are true the petro engineer can blow surgeons out of the water.
If they're not true? Heh...have fun working for three years, getting laid off for two, working four years, getting laid off for three, taking a job at 1/3 what you were making before, then another boom and you are making stupid money again..
going for CE here. Will I get in CP Pomona, SDSU, or CSU long Beach with only doing one course of Physics at SD City?
I have 75 credits with a GPA of 3.7. I'm taking Biology (GE, 8 weeks short term), Chemistry I (GE), Nutrition (GE, 8 weeks short term), History (GE, 89 weeks short term), and Physics I. This college has a three part series of Physics. My "home" community college only needs two parts of Physics, but getting a Physics course there is like trying to find God.
EE/CS Dual major here. By far the CS courses as equally challenging as my EE courses are. Sure maybe the hardware courses in CS are slightly watered down from the CpE courses but CS at any respectable school will have some senior level courses in algorithm design, complexity theory and category theory that by far trump any EE/CpE in terms of rigor and difficulty. Also CS/CpE majors often take the same compilers, os and database systems courses
Yeah I could have just done a computer engineering degree, but I'm highly interested in both control systems and artificial intelligence and wouldn't mind taking the extra semester..