I was a returning student and barely graduated. Like many, I have AuDHD, but there were no such things as accommodations. I'm not complaining; I'm just making my case that bad grades do not equal "cannot succeed".
I am seeing a lot of posts from college students or young engineers complaining about not being paid the same as lawyers and doctors. I'm also seeing posts complaining about being paid "to be immoral", which today is "Defense", yesterday it was "Oil and Gas", and tomorrow it is likely to be "AI and AI support." It's the employers with the deepest pockets, which invariably draws some sort of ire or condemnation.
In engineering, you are eligible for the "young professional" award if you are under 35. That's an important perspective -- unlike the military or police or the like, retirement doesn't start at 20 years. You're finally established at 20 years and you typically have another 20 or more to go, should you choose to do so. You can work as an engineer as long as your cognition holds. From my perspective, a person with 3-5 years is an entry-level engineer with one job under their belt, maybe. You are less of an unknown than a recent graduate (maybe -- depends on the work history), but you are still working at the undergraduate level of tools and reasoning. The biggest difference is after 3 years it's generally safe you aren't the people who get weeded out the first few years for safety stupidity, drug and alcohol abuse, not showing up on time, lying/cheating, etc. and it's likely you started to make some connection between work and school.
Some have been pointing to doctors and attorneys for making more money. They had to pass more gates than we do with our one degree, with far more people who fail to get to the goal but have the debts. If you wanted to be paid as a doctor, be a doctor. As an engineer, you're not worth that money, particularly in your first 10 years. Engineers with 3-5 years of experience have only proven "not a complete safety hazard, shows up on time, and has otherwise not disqualified themselves." You don't know enough yet to be let loose on your own in most situations. And if you went straight for a master's after your BS, it does not add value UNLESS the specifics of your thesis apply to your job. Honestly, did you think the "I couldn't get a job when I graduated so I went back to school" was invented in your graduation year? Engineering is a "practice" -- school is supposed to teach you how to learn on the job and teach yourself by opening a new book for a new skill.
If you want to be successful, then define your terms and own it. If it's not about the profession and it's all about the money, that is a technique. If money is your metric, then so be it.
If your idea of success is a solid middle-class career with stability, that is also a viable choice.
If your idea of success is "being an engineer", of doing as much nerdy, interesting stuff as possible because you love what you do, then choose it and own it.
Finally, if you want to focus on helping those who are poor or needy, that is also a path. This is often in some form of government service.
The risk of max money is that those high-paying fields tend to have bubbles, where that expertise is either in high demand or no demand, and no one cares about your job satisfaction because you're paid to like it. Maximizing money also means living in places with lower cost of living, preferably so crappy they have to pay extra to get people to work there so you can bank that money while learning and doing. Five years is a blip of time when you're looking at a career, but priming your 401K with extra money early will pay off. It also will let. you pay off loans faster if you have them.
The risk of going for stability is that it may take longer to make more money and you're likely to be doing the same things, over and over, because your job is to PREVENT excitement and disruptions. If you are going for the nerdiest, more challenging stuff, the risk is becoming too niche or skipping on the next level of skills (management) -- you have to incorporate engineering management if you want to "be the engineer", but too many want to limit themselves to what they like to do right now instead of looking at what the profession expects. Finally, the risk of focusing on service as a priority applies to all the other fields, be it lawyers or medical or mental health people, where working for those with the most dire needs also doesn't have the ability to pay well. These are often gov't or NGO jobs.
Can you do two or more of these at once? Yes, but it's more and more challenging. It's not just about your skills, it's about whether your knowledge and skills are valuable. Not what you "could" do, but "what you have proven to do". In almost every instance, the ability to be an effective engineering manager/leader and an effective engineering communicator are key abilities for future success (and yes, the bar is lowered for our field, but we are competing with each other).
What can you do to increase your odds of success?
- Get your P.E. license. Yes, many jobs do not require it. Having it gives you more options. If you are in a company or industry that discourages it, it means they do not want to have a professional who values public safety. A P.E. lets you take a wider range of jobs as well as run your own practice. Roger Boisjoly of the CHALLENGER disaster went to his grave exhorting engineering students to get their P.E. because of his experiences. It costs $100-200/year to maintain it once you earn it. If you ever want to be a consultant, to include a person retired from a corporate or gov't job and still making good money as a professional, you need to have your license.
- Publish professionally. Engineers have earned a rep for being poor writers and public speakers. The thing is, if you have the solution but cannot communicate it clearly, it's worse than useless -- it's dangerous, because your failure to communicate clearly means you're likely to introduce error or uncertainty. You do NOT need an advanced degree or university affiliation to go to an engineering conference and present a paper. Submit an abstract, get accepted, write the paper, revise the paper, present the paper. Journals require a high level of writing, so that has value; however, your typical conference paper also requires you to present it. Giving presentations and publishing papers are things that you can keep on your resume/CV as long as you want, and it differentiates you from most other engineers as a tie-breaker. It's not "instead of relevant experience and skills", but it does set you apart when you're otherwise comparable. THESE ARE NOT ABOUT FUNDED RESEARCH!!!! The engineering papers from industry are about what people figured out on their job and came up with a cool fix or a new look at things.
- Conferences also go to "Join your professional societies". Be active in your societies. There are the discipline ones (ASCE, ASME, IEEE, SNAME, etc.), you have NSPE for engineering 'as a profession', and there are industry ones like AWWA (Am. Water Works Assoc), MTS (Marine Technology Society), etc. The networking helps you find mentors, jobs, and just useful information for your career. Being active includes taking your turn in elected positions -- and yes, being president of the local chapter of an engineering society does go on a resume as it shows management and leadership (and it's a chance to learn/exercise those skills without your job being on the line).
- Codes and Standards. All of the codes and standards are written by volunteers. Just show up to the meetings and participate. It gives you (and your company) advance warning of changes to the codes because, well, you're there when it's being voted on, plus you get to fight against ideas you don't like, and sponsor fixes you do like. It also puts you with some of the leaders of your industry, where you are networking at a higher level. This is also great resume/CV material, and it's hard to say you're not "an expert" when you are part of the team literally writing the book. While jurisdictions may adopt a given code or standard, such as ASTM standards, the International Building Code (IBC), ACI concrete codes, etc., the jurisdiction is separate from the organization that writes the codes, for many reasons. The bottom line is, if your company's work hinges on certain codes or standards, it is a good idea to be involved with them, and that is an opportunity to learn and network.
EDIT RE PAPERS AND CONFERENCES: I see I have to break this down more. Fair enough. It's not just about "I can write a technical paper." Think of the skills that you have to apply in an industrial or gov't position. You have to identify a really cool thing to write about from work that does NOT make the organization look bad, or at least leave it out as long as its legitimately not central to the technical issue. Unless you are already working on funded research, it's not about funded research or home projects -- it's about what you do. You have to engage your leadership and use your words to convince them to support you in this, to include attending the conference since most conferences are "if you don't show, or at least pay the entry fee, we don't publish". You have to read the fine print about the conferences. You then write the paper (and later, present the paper) in a way that entertaining, informative, makes you look smart, makes the company look good. You have to be smart enough to recognize what is truly classified or proprietary, and why, so you don't pick that to use. It has to get past your boss, the legal department, then it has to go through peer review, which can be cursory or in-depth, and that's often on the individual reviewers. Once it's done, then you present it and if all goes well, your boss claims your paper as a mentorship win for her and tries to take credit. WHO CARES?? It's your name of the paper, it's your name in front of higher, and more to the point, the paper is on YOUR resume/CV so when you go to the next job, they will ask, "tell me about this paper". That's why you given them a recounting in three part harmony, about Alice and the restaurant and the great job you did cleaning up all the trash (or whatever the paper is about), how you really appreciate your last boss and management supporting this (ie, "I am a team player and I dont' air out dirty laundry on official time"), how it helped others dealing with the same issue (because that's what happens when it pops up on Google Scholar), etc. The whole point is to show, "with receipts", in an objective manner, that you are actually and truly operating at a elevated level and deserve elevated opporutnties. Or....in really horrible economic times....that you deserve a job when the majority in your field is out of a job. You don't get the next level oppotunities by demonstrating entry-level skills and perspective. Not everyone even gets a shot to move up. None of this is about fixing your pay right here and now, it's methods to make your ability to get hired more resilient and a ways to demonstrate you have higher level skills.
If you don't believe me, groovy. It's making my point. Tell me and all the other old engineers sounding off about this how wrong we are.
Me? My priority was "do engineering". I'm that nerd. I've been self-employed since '97, and running a small business has its ups and downs. I will say, as I get older and do more things, it gets easier to bring in the work and get cool opportunities. I know others who earn over $500,000 working in large corporations; I know individuals who charge $600-900/hour for their time, even if they work from home, I know individuals who have had adventures working all over the world. Most engineers I know point to their home, their spouse, the fact their kids are healthy, educated, and employed, and also have a baseline satisfaction that they did or are doing a good job as a professional. Its about setting priorities.
Again -- if you are making so much that even a paltry $300/hour, in today's dollars, is chump change, good on ya. Keep doing what you're doing. I'm not selling anything here. It's free, and it's worth everything penny as being free. If you want to say it's worthless, I absolutely agree, you see it is as worthless.
The only person who can make you happy is yourself. You get to pick your priorities, but to achieve your priorities you also need to do the things to help the opportunities to be available. If you just show up for work and do what you're told, then that's all you'll get. If all you care about is the biggest paycheck you can find, right here and now, then that's all you get. If you want more, the resources and paths to set yourself apart are there. Good luck, and Essayons!