How old is "too old" to go to grad school?

[Barrister]

LaCroix is wise

[Savonarola]

I was hearing the other day that (some of) the professional associations are pushing for a master's requirement for engineering. I'll see if I can find the article.

Here's an article from 2012:

LINK

Six years after the nation's umbrella engineering licensing body embraced a so-called Model Rule that would extend by 30 the number of extra credit-hours BS-degreed engineers must have to gain a professional license, no state licensing board has made it a reality.

But as a targeted 2020 deadline draws closer, proponents are revving up their campaign for a required graduate degree. They do so against a rising tide of opposition across the industry, professional societies and academia.

Caught in between are students facing the dilemma of boosting the engineering's status, competence and pay against the added cost, time and necessity of gaining an expanded first professional degree.

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has long advocated a broader "body of knowledge" for engineers due to falling credit-hours for most engineering BS degrees and more complex demands on their project leadership skills. ASCE has raised the effort's profile with a new promotional brand, Raise the Bar (RTB), which includes a dedicated website and a full-time staff manager.

"If we want to meet challenges and be prepared to protect the public, engineers need more depth of knowledge," says Blaine Leonard, a Utah transportation official, former ASCE president and key RTB spokesman. "You can't get it in programs under pressure." Proponents would like to see engineering attain the same professional status as medicine and accounting. The National Academy of Engineering and the National Society of Professional Engineers support the idea.

Licensing That Works

Opposition to all or parts of the initiative is being led by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), which has the second-largest group of licensees—estimated at 10% to nearly a third, compared to about 60% of civils. The group issued a new position paper this year and has a dedicated website, LicensingThatWorks.org.

ASME contends the changed requirements would scare off engineering prospects, be a cost burden to students and hard-pressed schools and employers, and should be addressed in the accrediting process or with continuing education.

"At a time when the world needs more engineers, it seems inappropriate to make an engineering education significantly less attractive to new entrants," says Marc Goldsmith, a Massachusetts consultant and ASME president. He says eight industry groups support its arguments, including ASHRAE and chemical engineers. Other engineering societies are largely ignoring the controversy since grads in their disciplines have licensing exemptions.

American Society of Engineering Educators is split. Some school deans endorsed the ASME position, others issued a separate opposition statement, and faculty are on both sides. "It may be worth considering whether a one-size-fits-all approach is the best system," says Joseph Helble, engineering dean at Dartmouth College.He also wonders how the added requirement will aid students' problem-solving skills and allow them to "make better connections" to other disciplines.

But says James K. Nelson Jr., dean of engineering and computer science at the University of Texas, Tyler, and a RTB supporter, "a lot of it comes down to confusion about what is really being talked about. ASCE is not saying that someone with just a BS can't practice; you can still be an engineer under the supervision of someone else with a license. This doesn't say the BS has no value."

Nelson notes that "the way the Model Law is written, it doesn't have to be a Master's degree. There are two or three different ways to satisfy the requirement."

The RTB initiative also has support from about 90% of civil-engineering department heads and faculty, says ASCE. Raimondo Betti, Columbia University department head, says many employers already limit hires to those with graduate degrees. "That's the entry level," he says. "Companies that want cheap labor do a disservice to the profession." European engineering degrees are generally obtained in five years and there is more "respect" for the profession, he says.

ASCE's Leonard and two other leading RTB advocates—Jeffrey Russell, a vice provost at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and Stephen J. Ressler, civil-engineering department chair at the U.S. Military Academy—took their argument to a convention of 300 engineering educators last June in what was billed as the "first-ever open discussion."

Despite the educator group's stance, they say a post-presentation poll indicated support from two-thirds of respondents. "We find, in general, if we're allowed to explain the rationale, more people have a tendency to support this," says Leonard. RTB proponents take issue with the opposition's lack of data to back its arguments (see first related link). Blaine terms a "red herring" opponents' claim that the initiative could squeeze the pipeline of future engineers.

Competitive Asset

Supporters see RTB as critical to maintaining the U.S. industry's edge. "Engineering leadership of complex projects and large programs is one of the truly competitive assets" of American design firms and contractors, says Richard D. Fox, chairman and CEO of CDM Smith. "This requires the very commitment to advanced learning as a basis for licensure and, thus, leadership" that RTB advocates.

Well that's a bummer, I had no idea I had a lower status than Dorsey until today.   



Thanks, Meri, that's an interesting article.

The coursework for a bachelors degree in engineering is broad.  It usually covers topics in general engineering, the scope of the student's specialty and a little bit of depth into an area in that specialty.  This is a good thing since who knows where you'll actually end up working; my area of focus as an undergraduate wasn't radio or telecommunication.

A master's is considerably more focused.  I've found what I learned in graduate school helps me when I need to research new technologies or work my way through standards.  The latter is important (in my field) for professional engineers, so I can see some benefit to requiring an advanced degree; but I don't like encouraging to get a masters degree immediately upon completing a bachelors.  I think that would lock an engineer down in a field where there might not be jobs.

[Eddie Teach]

See Ide?  Just need to move to North Dakota.

They might actually have a shortage of ambulance chasers.

[Iormlund]

The coursework for a bachelors degree in engineering is broad.  It usually covers topics in general engineering, the scope of the student's specialty and a little bit of depth into an area in that specialty.  This is a good thing since who knows where you'll actually end up working; my area of focus as an undergraduate wasn't radio or telecommunication.

A master's is considerably more focused.  I've found what I learned in graduate school helps me when I need to research new technologies or work my way through standards.  The latter is important (in my field) for professional engineers, so I can see some benefit to requiring an advanced degree; but I don't like encouraging to get a masters degree immediately upon completing a bachelors.  I think that would lock an engineer down in a field where there might not be jobs.

In Spain there used to be two different routes, Technical Engineering (3 years) and "Superior" Engineering (5). Both were licensed, which pissed off "Superiors" to no end. They lobbied for years for Tech Engineers not to be assimilated into the current 4-year degree when the conversion to Bolonia took place.

In my experience those 2 extra years are only interesting if you want to further your formal knowledge in a very specific field and, like an MBA, should only be undertaken once you've had a job for a while.

I'd say that very few benefit from further specialization in engineering. Of all my uni buddies not a single one does actual engineering. They work in marketing, sales, procurement, health & safety, management ... the only tools they use are Excel, Powerpoint and Outlook.
Ironically enough only the guy without a degree does actual engineering stuff (that'll be me) and I don't even work in the same field I specialized in (power generation & distribution). Also, I can't see how I would benefit from a Masters (assuming I had completed the Bachelors) more than two extra years of work experience. Maybe (and that's a big 'maybe') if it was at a first rate institution ... It's just so much better to gain practical experience on the job.

[Savonarola]

In Spain there used to be two different routes, Technical Engineering (3 years) and "Superior" Engineering (5). Both were licensed, which pissed off "Superiors" to no end. They lobbied for years for Tech Engineers not to be assimilated into the current 4-year degree when the conversion to Bolonia took place.

In my experience those 2 extra years are only interesting if you want to further your formal knowledge in a very specific field and, like an MBA, should only be undertaken once you've had a job for a while.

I agree.  It was obvious which of my classmates (and professors ) in graduate school had never worked in industry.  There are many things that become obvious once you spend time in the field that aren't in the classroom or the lab.

(Heh, "Superior Engineer" I think I'll put that in my sig for the e-mails I send to Spain.)

I'd say that very few benefit from further specialization in engineering. Of all my uni buddies not a single one does actual engineering. They work in marketing, sales, procurement, health & safety, management ... the only tools they use are Excel, Powerpoint and Outlook.
Ironically enough only the guy without a degree does actual engineering stuff (that'll be me) and I don't even work in the same field I specialized in (power generation & distribution). Also, I can't see how I would benefit from a Masters (assuming I had completed the Bachelors) more than two extra years of work experience. Maybe (and that's a big 'maybe') if it was at a first rate institution ... It's just so much better to gain practical experience on the job.

I did my graduate degree while working.  The financial benefit to an advanced engineering degree isn't that great; which is one of the reasons the vast majority of my classmates were from Asia.  For them an MSEE was a chance to stay in the United States.  For the Americans a degree in engineering management or an MBA was more valuable.

[Iormlund]

Yeah, here some of the more popular Masters are in 'Organización Industrial' (process management basically). Also one of the few I think have merit.

As for undertaking courses while you work, most unis here are very worker unfriendly and engineering schools more so, because you have classes both in the morning and evenings. The academic world is far too removed from the real world (most teachers don't have real engineering jobs either, the few who do really stand out).
Companies don't make it any easier either, as most engineers have extremely elastic work schedules and many travel a lot or for extended periods.

[Sheilbh]

Here engineering and a few sciences are some of the few degrees where you apply to do a Masters rather than just undergrad (though you don't have to stick to it). It's the norm, from my friends' experience anyway, to do a year in industry during that and from what I can see they all seem to feel that was the most valuable bit, not least because lots of them now work for the firms they did their placement in.

[Ed Anger]

Meri, you are too old. Now get back into the kitchen.

[Ideologue]

I edited because I thought the intent of my post wasn't clear.   $40k is absurdly low for LS debt.

my situation is unique, but the fact remains that my school is 1/5th the cost of georgetown. and, there are students here who attend because they had no desire to move out of state, so there's enough competition to keep it interesting. while the doors to biglaw are essentially closed to me, it kind of doesn't matter.

the burnout rate for biglaw is something like 66% within 5 years. a lot of people use their time in biglaw to pay off their gargantuan amount of debt obtained from attending top schools which allowed them to get into biglaw in the first place. for them, they almost literally have to do well. because if they don't land biglaw, they're stuck with 200k in debt. even for the top 30%~ that do get biglaw, their starting salary is (avg) 160k with an annual increase of 20k, but the majority get out after a few years

biglaw is designed to churn and spit out most associate attorneys. until recently, i thought it was just the hours. but, i think it's also the type of the work - there's no fulfillment or reward, since large firms tend to have major clients and the partners aren't going to dare let someone with only 1-4 years of experience handle anything substantive. so, there are some attorneys who earn more (per year) than they might ever make within a few years of graduating law school, only to spend the rest of their career making less (though with a more job satisfaction). there are obviously many this doesn't apply to, but i think it happens more often than not

Biglaw is way overrated, I agree.  One thing you didn't mention is that those $120-160k annual salaries tend to be eaten up, bones and all, by the COL in NYC and other Biglaw hubs.  It's the equivalent of like $70k in the real world.  And for 60-80 hours a week?  Factor in student loans, which they're paying on a legitimate repayment plan--along the lines of $1500-$2000 a month...

And what 26 year old has the maturity to live like a pauper when he or she doesn't have to?

I also think you're somewhat optimistic about what happens to HYS lawyers after Biglaw.  Sometimes they land in remunerative careers with lower salaries, free and clear of debt and ready to be adults; but I have heard of many, many horror stories where they wind up severely underemployed, doing the NYC doc review circuit, or even not much of anything.

[LaCroix]

Biglaw is way overrated, I agree.  One thing you didn't mention is that those $120-160k annual salaries tend to be eaten up, bones and all, by the COL in NYC and other Biglaw hubs.  It's the equivalent of like $70k in the real world.  And for 60-80 hours a week?  Factor in student loans, which they're paying on a legitimate repayment plan--along the lines of $1500-$2000 a month...

And what 26 year old has the maturity to live like a pauper when he or she doesn't have to?

I also think you're somewhat optimistic about what happens to HYS lawyers after Biglaw.  Sometimes they land in remunerative careers with lower salaries, free and clear of debt and ready to be adults; but I have heard of many, many horror stories where they wind up severely underemployed, doing the NYC doc review circuit, or even not much of anything.

according to this: http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/, $160k and living in manhattan is like 90k in fargo. that's enough to live comfortably while pay down gross amounts of debt, if you're responsible

as to the last point: http://www.law.harvard.edu/about/employmentsummary2013.pdf

54.5% of its 2013 graduates landed biglaw positions. another 17% got federal clerkships. only 2% were still looking for a job nine months out

[Ideologue]

I know Harvard's nine month totals are great--Harvard is, jokes about Yale aside, still a great law school, alongside about ten-twenty other institutions.  (There's a whole mess of kind of objectively terrible law schools in the first tier, though, namely American and especially Georgetown.)

Without longitudinal studies, though, I don't know what to make of the anecdotal evidence I've seen that indicates that by the ten year mark, a lot of Harvardites (and Yalies, Stanfordites, and Columbians--especially Columbians for some reason) have hit major career impediments due to being let go from Biglaw and failing to find a place for themselves.

Now, I think all things being equal, HYS(CCetc) folks are probably doing way better a decade after law school--there are hundreds of metric tons of people, literally, who transitioned/quit/failed and got out of law by whatever means necessary--but I'm not entirely convinced that even HYS(CCetc) law degrees are the passports to Awesometown that people believe them to be.  They may just be lottery tickets, like every other J.D., only with somewhat better rates of return.

[Eddie Teach]

HYS? Do you mean Harvard, Yale and Stanford? I'm sure they're all better than any Canadian school. 

[Ideologue]

CC is Columbia and Chicago.

[CountDeMoney]

But you want to blame the universities and the loan system.

Sure. Why did tuition jump nearly 80% in 10 years? Suddenly that much more costly to educate a student?

Because the system is broken?

I assume someone else who cares more than me and is more sober than me will expand but the government throws money out to students who "need" the education/degree and the Universities act like any market that gets too much money injected into it.  Inflation, baby!

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/a-truly-devastating-graph-on-state-higher-education-spending/274199/

1) States cut subsidy funding for higher education
2) Higher education raises costs to offset funding cuts
3) Students share increased cost burdens
4) Ide blames higher education, lets politicians off the hook

[viper37]

This topic has come up for me recently.

The arguments I've heard for "It's never too late!" include:

• If it's something you really want, then go for it, age bedamned!
• There should be no limit to learning.
• You don't know how long you have left to work, so you may as well beef up your resume just in case

The arguments I've heard for not going past a certain age include:

• Poor return on investment when you only have a set number of years left to work
• You would be taking the space of a younger person who would be able to better put it to use
• Waste of time and money that you could be spending traveling or with your family
• If you take time off from work for grad school, it will be harder for you to get a job if you're of a "certain age"

What does the Languish Collective think?

It depends on the program and the return on investment you'll get.  And it has to be in a field you already like.  If you hate management and decide to do a MBA for the money it will get you, you really won't find a decent job with a decent paychek.

Also, there are different masters program.  Some are designed for students who keep studying right after school instead of immediatly working.  Some are for people having worked a couple of years.  Some are for people already working full time and offering classes on the week-end.  There's even 3rd age university now, where they adapt the programs to older people less technologically efficient than the young ones born with a tablet and a iPhone.

If you're trying to go full time schools with 22 year old kids, be prepared for a shock.  There are only two kinds of students at this level: those who are out of their league and will leave after half a semester and those who constantly study, day&night, with no life.

I don't know how old you are, but these programs may be tough if you're not dedicating 100% of your time to it, and trying to study part time will be... hard.  Trying full time if you can't commit full time because of other obligations wil be suicide.

As for the age, it's your learning capacity that is at stake here, and your capacity to stay focused.  If you're top shape at 40, it doesn't matter.  If everything that moves and every sound you hear a distraction at 30, don't even think about it.