The way I see it, $13/hr is a lot of money if you don't have a job. I started as a temp where I work now for $11.10/hr with a bachelor's degree required, limited to 37.5 hrs per week, no benefits, and employment only existed when the projects were available. I was grateful for the opportunity. Then I arrived on time, worked hard, did a good job, got noticed, and now life is better.
I don't know what to say when unemployed people derisively dismiss jobs that pay less than what they believe their time is worth. Their time is worth what someone will pay them for it.
When my current position no longer exists, I'll be back at square one. If I find something as good or better, then awesome. If I have to take a $10/hr job until I find or earn my way into something better, then I will.
Dude! I will subcontract for you for a mere $85K!
So do you believe that doesn't ever happen? Many of my classmates spent as much time in the machine shop and the automotive shop as they did in the classroom.
Judging all engineers by some in your experience who didn't know how to do their jobs right away would be kind of like judging all newly hired laborers for not knowing exactly how to do their job before they are hired.
Hint: engineering school is not training - it's education. It's about building a foundation so that you have the tools to learn what you need to learn about your job. Training for the actual job comes along with or after that.
Sometimes you can meet all the requirements and they're still not interested enough to even acknowledge the application, much less schedule and interview!
I think you're right, but the "hands-on experience" is very different depending on the job. If you're designing mechanical parts that someone else has to manufacture, then you're on the money. However, you know as well as I that mechanical design is only a small part of mechanical engineering, much less the broader scope of engineering in general. For some engineers, working on the computer is their hands on training. For others, the only hands-on experience that exists is in a lab. Of course, working in a lab often requires learning how use a lot different tools, practical knowledge of tolerance, mechanical design, etc.
I did very little design work, but I did a few things at a summer job in 1986 between my 3rd and 4th years. The pieces I designed got made by the machine shop and the machinist commended me on the accuracy of my drawings (no CAD!!) and the fact that I had realistic tolerances on the drawing for him. I also spent most of my time doing things like pushing a mop and filling 2L and 3L bottles with carbonated water at arms' length at that job. I made a little over $5 per hour, which was awesome!
I'm glad that you noted that what you're describing almost always is attributable more to reducing manufacturing costs or meeting mandatory design specs (like weight) in order to meet EPA fuel requirements and very rarely has anything to do with the designers lacking an understanding of the realities of repairs and maintenance. The people who call the shots make the latter secondary concerns because they have far less impact on their bottom line, at least in the short term.
If you want to be cynical, you could also note that dealerships make a huge part of their revenue from their maintenance/service departments. It's in their best interests if customers have to come to them and that it's going to take significant billable hours to complete a repair.
But I also ran into it when I was a geologist for INDOT. The geotechnical engineers would ask us to do core samplings at specific locations for an upcoming project. Lo and behold, when we'd get to the job site to put out our sample location stakes/paint/flags/ribbons/etc, there'd be plain-as-day physical evidence of why our sample location couldn't be done in that spot. Easy to spot overhead power lines (which precluded us from raising the mast of our machine), a series of manhole covers running down the side of the road indicating buried utilities of some kind), a house or other private property that we couldn't gain access to, and on and on and on. So I'd get back to the office and then tell the project engineer that I had to modify the sample locations, they'd sometimes look at me as if I were stupid for doing so. I'd ask them if they'd been out to see the site with their own eyes. "No...". Well, if you had, you'd know that you placed the sample locations in spots that just aren't possible due to the above issues. Used to drive me crazy.
Well, geologists are dumb.
Furthermore, what the hell is a "geotechnical engineer"? Is that the guy who lords over the ancient ARC/info GIS system because he's the only one who knows how to keep it running?In your example, though, sometimes it's not reasonable to expect people like that to actually go eyeball the site. However, it would be nice if they had someone eyeball the site prior to painting you into a corner with their decisions. Or at least accept your report graciously and adapt to the newly acquired information.
And you would not be wrong.
