>bunch of articles stating large openings for nuclear engineers

Bureau of Labor Statistics is more trustworthy than 'articles'

>>8465862
>Nuclear engineering
>Not dead as fuck

top kek

This one of those Trump vs Hillary probabilities.

I graduated in Nuc Eng in 2015. I got an engineering job that I'm happy with, but not in Nuc Eng.

In general, there will be a bunch of articles stating huge possibilities for any type of engineering. But it's all BS, you have to work hard and outperform if you want to be sure to get job.

>>8465862
>Science in America
Nope
Enjoy Mandarin kiddo

>>8465862
Notice that those statements are not contradictory.

(1) States that the people currently employed will soon retire, leaving those positions opens. This doesn't mean NEW positions are created, just that old ones will need re-stocking.

(2) States that there will a -4% employment rate in the field which could either mean that with the surplus of nukE guys, more will lack jobs or that maybe some nuclear plants will be closing from 2016 to 2014.

So jobs spots will be closed, but some will need to be re-filled with new people.

Not contradictory, more complementary.

>>8466048
>In general, there will be a bunch of articles stating huge possibilities for any type of engineering. But it's all BS, you have to work hard and outperform if you want to be sure to get job.
This.

Engineering has NEVER had engineering jobs for all graduates or even full employment. Not even during the cold war. Getting your bachelors does not guarantee you'll get a job.