Women Are Leaving The Tech Industry In Droves

mope54 said:
I just provided the actual data versus opinion for you to read.
Click to expand...
What? I wanted you to prove that EE majors 'were a dime a dozen', and you provided data on career DEMAND not SUPPLY

Here is what Forbes has to say about the demand for EE careers:
Click to expand...
Then you quoted this
Civil engineers account for the most jobs of any engineering field (274,000 in 2014), followed closely by mechanical engineers (264,000) and industrial engineers (229,000). Those three engineering jobs, plus electrical engineers and electronics engineers, make up two-thirds of the American engineering workforce.
Click to expand...
Which still talks only of the demand side, jobs, and not the supply side, how many EE degrees are obtained. But even if the stats are the same for degrees and EE degrees are the fourth most popular ENGINEERING degree it says nothing about how many EE degrees there are OVER ALL.

Your stats in no way prove 'EE majors are a dime a dozen'
 
dr/owned said:
Do women think men just have smooth sailing the whole way up the corporate ladder?
Click to expand...
Yup. Same way men think that a woman can get laid whenever she wants (problem is, not with anyone that she'd WANT to have it with).
 
Snowdog said:
I just think it is the case were a slightly higher proportion of men are type-A personality driven types. They are the ones that will have give up a life to get the promotions.

In the end the promotions went to those who worked the hardest and deliver the most. Shouldn't that be the way it works?
Click to expand...

Which has been engraved in men's heads for a long time, Men are supposed to be the bread winners, the supporters of family, the money, the one who works till they die to provide for the family and if not they are weak, a failure and should curl up in a hole a die so we tend to put in %110 24/7 365 in turn usually causing family problems, all while thinking we are doing our best for everyone..
 
nightfly said:
Yup. Same way men think that a woman can get laid whenever she wants (problem is, not with anyone that she'd WANT to have it with).
Click to expand...

But they can... An average chick will have it 10x easier than an average guy. I know this because facts.
 
Disposed said:
But they can... An average chick will have it 10x easier than an average guy. I know this because facts.
Click to expand...

Probably 100x easier. But they don't see it that way. Just as they don't usually perceive the business world the way we do. Years ago, you'd commonly hear something like, 'when does a women get to be president of GM?'. Women see lots of things as 'taking turns' because 'it's just fair'. They don't understand that a guy will sacrifice his entire social life to get ahead in the business world, because so very, very few women are willing to do that. For a woman, it's social and family relationships first, then work. For men, it's the reverse, so we work harder towards the goal of getting promoted (whether the guy who gets promoted is any smarter than you is another thing entirely). There's nothing new going on here. Women's groups will loudly complain that things are unfair in the tech workplaces; unfair, as they see it, they're not getting to take 'their turn' at getting promoted. And they don't like working in uncomfortable environments, either. They don't understand that it's a job, and one of the reasons you get paid for doing a job IS THAT BECAUSE OFTEN, IT SUCKS. They want everything warm and friendly, and seem never to understand that work is usually hard, not fun; this is one reason women consider men's tools as 'toys'; because they think we're out there having fun on the job. But just try to tell her that her new mixer is her new toy because she gets to play while making cookies all day, or that her vacuum is her new toy because she gets to play while cleaning. You'll be holding your balls in your hands.

Consider the joke about the husband dept store, and the moral that women are NEVER satisfied. Ever. Just get used to it, cause it's not gonna change.
 
I feel like the root cause of today's problems is personal insecurity.
 
S3th13 said:
Not that it matters much, but I drew the same conclusions from your post as Mope did. It wasn't totally clear what you were explicitly saying (i.e. 2/3 of your career? Was this before or after the degrees?)

Regardless, he's totally right. Calm the fuck down.
Click to expand...
His first post could have been taken both ways, but he did clear it up early-on in the discussion:

VladDracule said:
your right, because my sister who is the FNP NEVER worked as a regular nurse in NICU...your right, i couldnt have a clue. Even her starting salary was higher than mine when i entered the field
Click to expand...
 
Megalith said:
I feel like the root cause of today's problems is personal insecurity.
Click to expand...
+1, also laziness... it takes work to look in the mirror and make a change *cue high kick/scream followed by Micheal Jackson song*
 
nightfly said:
Probably 100x easier. But they don't see it that way. Just as they don't usually perceive the business world the way we do.
Click to expand...

And that said, we need a balance of both ways of thinking, just don't expect that balance to be the same in every field. Often it just doesn't help and sometimes it makes it far worse.
 
Disposed said:
But they can... An average chick will have it 10x easier than an average guy. I know this because facts.
Click to expand...

Only thanks to guys letting themselves get manipulated by their own hormones. They really have themselves to blame when it comes to stuff like that and you can't fault the better half of the gender divide taking advantage of that defect in male minds. It seems really funny for guys to get upset about that when they're the ones usually making things easier in their screwed up patriarchy of convoluted laws, neckties, and ugly tattoos.
 
rinaldo00 said:
What? I wanted you to prove that EE majors 'were a dime a dozen', and you provided data on career DEMAND not SUPPLY

Which still talks only of the demand side, jobs, and not the supply side, how many EE degrees are obtained. But even if the stats are the same for degrees and EE degrees are the fourth most popular ENGINEERING degree it says nothing about how many EE degrees there are OVER ALL.

Your stats in no way prove 'EE majors are a dime a dozen'
Click to expand...
How are you misusing these buzzwards? Either you didn't actually read the article or you don't understand basic math because it provided the total number of degree holders and that EE holders are 75% of the total amount (which is gives). Do you even understand what supply side means? Citing degree holders is not a "demand" variable... :confused:

"Demand side" would be an article talking about how many job openings are available, not how many applicants applying for jobs (which is what I provided).

chockomonkey said:
His first post could have been taken both ways, but he did clear it up early-on in the discussion:
Click to expand...
The first sentence can't be taken "both ways." But even if you want to give him that, changing the discussion to "oh I said FNP salary but I really meant her BSN" is not "clearing it up" it's changing the criteria. He offered that "clarification" a day after he had already been shouting on the forum that I had no reading comprehension.

After I called him out on that (and also pointed out that even if that's what he was talking about her starting salary as a BSN compared to his starting salary as a BS in engineering) he *again* changed in to somehow comparing her salary, while adjusting for inflation, to his salary later on in his career.

Fact is, he's all over the freaking map and can't form a coherent sentence and now has come up with a fairly bizarre way of explaining whatever he thinks he's trying to explain.

I even said to drop it and just tell us what exactly he meant by his comment...because it doesn't even make sense what he's trying to argue forgetting all the other nonsense about what he did or did not make clear. Whenever I write that he just goes back to the personal insults indicating he really has no argument at all but just wants to scream and stamp his feet.


Or do you want to explain to us why arguing that his sister made more as a nurse than him as an engineer, at any point in either of their careers (I mean, why not, go ahead and just assume that she made more than him fresh out of college compared to him with ten years in the field, it really doesn't matter) has any relevance to the point he was responding to: the average nurse is overworked and underpaid :rolleyes:
 
mope54 said:
How are you misusing these buzzwards? Either you didn't actually read the article or you don't understand basic math because it provided the total number of degree holders and that EE holders are 75% of the total amount (which is gives). Do you even understand what supply side means? Citing degree holders is not a "demand" variable... :confused:

"Demand side" would be an article talking about how many job openings are available, not how many applicants applying for jobs (which is what I provided).


The first sentence can't be taken "both ways." But even if you want to give him that, changing the discussion to "oh I said FNP salary but I really meant her BSN" is not "clearing it up" it's changing the criteria. He offered that "clarification" a day after he had already been shouting on the forum that I had no reading comprehension.

After I called him out on that (and also pointed out that even if that's what he was talking about her starting salary as a BSN compared to his starting salary as a BS in engineering) he *again* changed in to somehow comparing her salary, while adjusting for inflation, to his salary later on in his career.

Fact is, he's all over the freaking map and can't form a coherent sentence and now has come up with a fairly bizarre way of explaining whatever he thinks he's trying to explain.

I even said to drop it and just tell us what exactly he meant by his comment...because it doesn't even make sense what he's trying to argue forgetting all the other nonsense about what he did or did not make clear. Whenever I write that he just goes back to the personal insults indicating he really has no argument at all but just wants to scream and stamp his feet.


Or do you want to explain to us why arguing that his sister made more as a nurse than him as an engineer, at any point in either of their careers (I mean, why not, go ahead and just assume that she made more than him fresh out of college compared to him with ten years in the field, it really doesn't matter) has any relevance to the point he was responding to: the average nurse is overworked and underpaid :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Forum troll here guys. Don't even bother. Oh and FYI. Based on your sources EEs are in fact the highest demand but MEs the highest in terms of degree holders. Dat reading comprehension again. Its a good thing your not an English professor
 
mope54 said:
How are you misusing these buzzwards? Either you didn't actually read the article or you don't understand basic math because it provided the total number of degree holders and that EE holders are 75% of the total amount (which is gives). Do you even understand what supply side means? Citing degree holders is not a "demand" variable... :confused:

"Demand side" would be an article talking about how many job openings are available, not how many applicants applying for jobs (which is what I provided).


The first sentence can't be taken "both ways." But even if you want to give him that, changing the discussion to "oh I said FNP salary but I really meant her BSN" is not "clearing it up" it's changing the criteria. He offered that "clarification" a day after he had already been shouting on the forum that I had no reading comprehension.

After I called him out on that (and also pointed out that even if that's what he was talking about her starting salary as a BSN compared to his starting salary as a BS in engineering) he *again* changed in to somehow comparing her salary, while adjusting for inflation, to his salary later on in his career.

Fact is, he's all over the freaking map and can't form a coherent sentence and now has come up with a fairly bizarre way of explaining whatever he thinks he's trying to explain.

I even said to drop it and just tell us what exactly he meant by his comment...because it doesn't even make sense what he's trying to argue forgetting all the other nonsense about what he did or did not make clear. Whenever I write that he just goes back to the personal insults indicating he really has no argument at all but just wants to scream and stamp his feet.


Or do you want to explain to us why arguing that his sister made more as a nurse than him as an engineer, at any point in either of their careers (I mean, why not, go ahead and just assume that she made more than him fresh out of college compared to him with ten years in the field, it really doesn't matter) has any relevance to the point he was responding to: the average nurse is overworked and underpaid :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

For the record, I NEVER said i compared her FNP salary to mine, that is simply how you interpreted it. And literally the next post i stated that before going back for her masters she was a NICU nurse with her BSN, it is literally on the same page. Like i said, you cant read
 
VladDracule said:
Forum troll here guys. Don't even bother. Oh and FYI. Based on your sources EEs are in fact the highest demand but MEs the highest in terms of degree holders. Dat reading comprehension again. Its a good thing your not an English professor
Click to expand...
Please explain how my reading comprehension is at issue when the source I provided states:
"Considering all of this data, civil engineers and few smaller specialty fields (petroleum engineers, biomedical engineers, and nuclear engineers) are no doubt in-demand nationally. Hiring and job growth is strong for civil engineering, and petroleum engineering combines the highest wages, fastest growth, oldest workforce, and smallest supply of graduates."

How do you possibly misread that to support your position that EE degree holders are in fact in highest demand. :confused:
 
mope54 said:
How are you misusing these buzzwards? Either you didn't actually read the article or you don't understand basic math because it provided the total number of degree holders and that EE holders are 75% of the total amount (which is gives). Do you even understand what supply side means? Citing degree holders is not a "demand" variable... :confused:

"Demand side" would be an article talking about how many job openings are available, not how many applicants applying for jobs (which is what I provided).


The first sentence can't be taken "both ways." But even if you want to give him that, changing the discussion to "oh I said FNP salary but I really meant her BSN" is not "clearing it up" it's changing the criteria. He offered that "clarification" a day after he had already been shouting on the forum that I had no reading comprehension.

After I called him out on that (and also pointed out that even if that's what he was talking about her starting salary as a BSN compared to his starting salary as a BS in engineering) he *again* changed in to somehow comparing her salary, while adjusting for inflation, to his salary later on in his career.

Fact is, he's all over the freaking map and can't form a coherent sentence and now has come up with a fairly bizarre way of explaining whatever he thinks he's trying to explain.

I even said to drop it and just tell us what exactly he meant by his comment...because it doesn't even make sense what he's trying to argue forgetting all the other nonsense about what he did or did not make clear. Whenever I write that he just goes back to the personal insults indicating he really has no argument at all but just wants to scream and stamp his feet.


Or do you want to explain to us why arguing that his sister made more as a nurse than him as an engineer, at any point in either of their careers (I mean, why not, go ahead and just assume that she made more than him fresh out of college compared to him with ten years in the field, it really doesn't matter) has any relevance to the point he was responding to: the average nurse is overworked and underpaid :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Also where the hell are you getting this 75% number from?

The U.S. has approximately 1.6 million engineering jobs that pay $42 per hour in median wages. Civil engineers account for the most jobs of any engineering field (274,000 in 2014), followed closely by mechanical engineers (264,000) and industrial engineers (229,000). Those three engineering jobs, plus electrical engineers and electronics engineers, make up two-thirds of the American engineering workforce.

that DIRECTLY states that Civil Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, and industrial engineers make up 47% of all engineering jobs.
 
VladDracule said:
your right, because my sister who is the FNP NEVER worked as a regular nurse in NICU...your right, i couldnt have a clue. Even her starting salary was higher than mine when i entered the field
Click to expand...

Right there, same. Exact. PAGE. L2read
 
VladDracule said:
Also where the hell are you getting this 75% number from?

The U.S. has approximately 1.6 million engineering jobs that pay $42 per hour in median wages. Civil engineers account for the most jobs of any engineering field (274,000 in 2014), followed closely by mechanical engineers (264,000) and industrial engineers (229,000). Those three engineering jobs, plus electrical engineers and electronics engineers, make up two-thirds of the American engineering workforce.

that DIRECTLY states that Civil Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, and industrial engineers make up 47% of all engineering jobs.
Click to expand...
I know that math and logic aren't necessarily your strong suit, but the first part of the response is that you're quoting a sentence about jobs and I was talking about degree holders and second part is, in terms of jobs, now excuse me but I'm not a math major, but 47% of CE, ME, and IE majors + EE majors = 67% of the total engineering jobs according to that statement. Which by my, arguably shaky grasp of math and poor reading comprehension, leads me to believe that EE jobs comprise roughly 20% of the market.
 
mope54 said:
I know that math and logic aren't necessarily your strong suit, but the first part of the response is that you're quoting a sentence about jobs and I was talking about degree holders and second part is, in terms of jobs, now excuse me but I'm not a math major, but 47% of CE, ME, and IE majors + EE majors = 67% of the total engineering jobs according to that statement. Which by my, arguably shaky grasp of math and poor reading comprehension, leads me to believe that EE jobs comprise roughly 20% of the market.
Click to expand...

your 75% number is completely bogus ESPECIALLY if your talking in terms of degree holders. As i said, your analysis and reading comprehensions is SEVERELY lacking, you cant even understand your own sources
 
mope54 said:
How are you misusing these buzzwards? Either you didn't actually read the article or you don't understand basic math because it provided the total number of degree holders and that EE holders are 75% of the total amount (which is gives). Do you even understand what supply side means? Citing degree holders is not a "demand" variable... :confused:

"Demand side" would be an article talking about how many job openings are available, not how many applicants applying for jobs (which is what I provided).
Click to expand...

No, I did not read the article, I read the quotes you posted, quotes I assumed best made your point. Your quotes talked only about the workforce, the workforce is the demand side, college graduates are the supply side.

I now read the article and I saw nothing about degree holders, the article was about jobs, heck that is even its title 'The Most In-Demand (And Aging) Engineering Jobs' I even searched all 3 pages with a text search and the number 75 or 75% is no where in it.

Show me where the stats on degree holders is, if we are talking about the same article I didn't see it. If you are saying 75% of all degree holders in the US have EE degrees I would be shocked.

The phrase 'dime a dozen' means 'common'. You said EE majors were 'a dime a dozen', I asked for proof. Here is what I would consider proof, if you showed me a list of ALL college majors or ALL college degrees completed listed in order of popularity and EE was near the top.
 
Listen, you need to apply some critical thinking skills.

If EE holders are one of the largest slices of the market workforce (not jobs waiting to be filled, but already out in the workforce), and the article lists a number of sub-fields are lacking and specifically points out that they the highest in demand, then you can infer that EE holders are *not* the least sought after degree (that was his initial claim) nor are they highest in demand (his second claim).

If you want to assess the data they relied on for the article, then you need to follow the citations and read the primary source material. This is basic research, which those of you claiming to have college degrees should have experience doing and I should not have to explaining this to you, if in fact your claims are true.


Furthermore, VladDracula, rather than personally insulting me as you've been doing for three days now without any other explanation (or even why you are so hostile in this thread), simply explain why you think your sister's salary at any point in her career compared to your salary at any point in your career is relevant to my point that nurses, on average, are overworked and underpaid.
 
mope54 said:
Listen, you need to apply some critical thinking skills.

If EE holders are one of the largest slices of the market workforce (not jobs waiting to be filled, but already out in the workforce), and the article lists a number of sub-fields are lacking and specifically points out that they the highest in demand, then you can infer that EE holders are *not* the least sought after degree (that was his initial claim) nor are they highest in demand (his second claim).

If you want to assess the data they relied on for the article, then you need to follow the citations and read the primary source material. This is basic research, which those of you claiming to have college degrees should have experience doing and I should not have to explaining this to you, if in fact your claims are true.


Furthermore, VladDracula, rather than personally insulting me as you've been doing for three days now without any other explanation (or even why you are so hostile in this thread), simply explain why you think your sister's salary at any point in her career compared to your salary at any point in your career is relevant to my point that nurses, on average, are overworked and underpaid.
Click to expand...

Ohhhh so Critical thinking led you to 75% huh? heres some critical thinking. If you look at the top 10 EE schools graduation numbers over the past 5 years, there are on average, 60% more ME degrees granted, and 40% more CE Degress granted. And this is on school that are enrollment number limited, not applicant limited. Again, proving your ignorance
 
The article explained that EE holders are within a larger group of low demand work pool that comprises 75% of total engineers. Then it went on to explain the high demand degrees (the 25%).

But again, rather than continue this tirade of personal attack on me, please explain why you are so focused on your sister's salary vis-a-vis your salary as an engineer in regard to my point that nurses are overworked and overpaid, on average.
 
mope54 said:
The article explained that EE holders are within a larger group of low demand work pool that comprises 75% of total engineers. Then it went on to explain the high demand degrees (the 25%).

But again, rather than continue this tirade of personal attack on me, please explain why you are so focused on your sister's salary vis-a-vis your salary as an engineer in regard to my point that nurses are overworked and overpaid, on average.
Click to expand...

IM FOCUSING ON IT? when YOUR the one who keeps bringing it up? 100% troll with pure ignorance, again, get over yourself, you cant even comprehend your own sources and come up with completely bogus statistical numbers without ANY real reasoning
 
mope54 said:
Listen, you need to apply some critical thinking skills.

If EE holders are one of the largest slices of the market workforce (not jobs waiting to be filled, but already out in the workforce), and the article lists a number of sub-fields are lacking and specifically points out that they the highest in demand, then you can infer that EE holders are *not* the least sought after degree (that was his initial claim) nor are they highest in demand (his second claim).

If you want to assess the data they relied on for the article, then you need to follow the citations and read the primary source material. This is basic research, which those of you claiming to have college degrees should have experience doing and I should not have to explaining this to you, if in fact your claims are true.
Click to expand...

Oh no my friend, you made the claim, you show the proof. My request was you prove EE majors are a 'dime a dozen' You claimed you proved it then quoted stuff not related to MAJORS. I even read the 3 page article you linked and now you want me read its sources to prove YOUR point? Uhm, no thanks.

You show me where you got the 75% figure from.
 
rinaldo00 said:
Oh no my friend, you made the claim, you show the proof. My request was you prove EE majors are a 'dime a dozen' You claimed you proved it then quoted stuff not related to MAJORS. I even read the 3 page article you linked and now you want me read its sources to prove YOUR point? Uhm, no thanks.

You show me where you got the 75% figure from.
Click to expand...
Add the number of low demand ChemE, ME, IE, plus electrical engineers (67%) + the number cited for electrical engineer technicians and you arrive with the figure of EE holders being part of a low demand workforce in engineering that comprises approximately 75% of the market.

You could check the math by going the other way: the article then discusses the high demand, low number of applicants from civil engineering and petroleum engineering subfields.

That discussion should indicate to you that EE degrees are not the lowest pursued careers, as he claimed, nor are they the highest in demand careers, as he also claimed, in the field of engineering.

Finally, you truncated my sentence where the "dime a dozen" was directly referencing MBA holders.
 
mope54 said:
Add the number of low demand ChemE, ME, IE, plus electrical engineers (67%) + the number cited for electrical engineer technicians and you arrive with the figure of EE holders being part of a low demand workforce in engineering that comprises approximately 75% of the market.

You could check the math by going the other way: the article then discusses the high demand, low number of applicants from civil engineering and petroleum engineering subfields.

That discussion should indicate to you that EE degrees are not the lowest pursued careers, as he claimed, nor are they the highest in demand careers, as he also claimed, in the field of engineering.

Finally, you truncated my sentence where the "dime a dozen" was directly referencing MBA holders.
Click to expand...


Sorry but MBA holders who got their MBA Dartmouth College, while having my undergrad EE from Caltech Berkeley and my MS in EE from Princeton are far from a dime a dozen.

An MBA for EE degree holders is extremely valuable in the current job market
 
rinaldo00 said:
You claimed you proved it then quoted stuff not related to MAJORS.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but you are simply objectively wrong.

Considering all of this data, civil engineers and few smaller specialty fields (petroleum engineers, biomedical engineers, and nuclear engineers) are no doubt in-demand nationally. Hiring and job growth is strong for civil engineering, and petroleum engineering combines the highest wages, fastest growth, oldest workforce, and smallest supply of graduates.
Click to expand...
is directly related to "MAJORS"
 
VladDracule said:
Sorry but MBA holders who got their MBA Dartmouth College, while having my undergrad EE from Caltech Berkeley and my MS in EE from Princeton are far from a dime a dozen.

An MBA for EE degree holders is extremely valuable in the current job market
Click to expand...
OK, now put that excellent education to good use and explain to me why you think that comparing your sister's salary as a nurse, at any point in her career, to your salary as an engineer, at any point in your career, is an adequate rebuttal to my claim that nurses, on average, are overworked and underpaid? And then explain why that comparison is relevant to a discussion about gender gaps in pay within fields? (or why, exactly, you've been brutally dragging this thread off topic for three days)
 
excuse my ignorance, but I've never actually heard Caltech referred to as "Caltech Berkeley" because I only know of the Caltech in Pasadena (near my location in OC). Can you please provide me a link to your program so I can actually look at the data you were talking about in regards to graduates and attrition rate?
 
mope54 said:
excuse my ignorance, but I've never actually heard Caltech referred to as "Caltech Berkeley" because I only know of the Caltech in Pasadena (near my location in OC). Can you please provide me a link to your program so I can actually look at the data you were talking about in regards to graduates and attrition rate?
Click to expand...

thats not your ignorance thats me rushing to type while im alt tabbed while dead in a dota match :D my undergrad was from Berkeley, and im not specifically talking about my alma mater's graduation rates, im talking schools like MIT/Princeton that have an excess of applications so their limitation is strictly capacity.

And really that might be a bad example because then their graduation rates are dependent on capacity as opposed to enrollment numbers.
 
I also can't seem to find Princeton's MS in EE program. All I can find is their one year M.Eng program listed here:
The Department offers two degree programs. The doctoral (Ph.D.) program prepares students for a variety of careers in research, teaching, and advanced development. This is the largest doctoral program at Princeton University, yet it remains intimate enough that students receive personal attention and extensive faculty contact. The Master of Engineering (M.Eng.) program is a one-year program designed for students interested in careers in engineering practices or technical management.
Click to expand...
http://www.ee.princeton.edu/graduate
 
mope54 said:
Add the number of low demand ChemE, ME, IE, plus electrical engineers (67%) + the number cited for electrical engineer technicians and you arrive with the figure of EE holders being part of a low demand workforce in engineering that comprises approximately 75% of the market.

You could check the math by going the other way: the article then discusses the high demand, low number of applicants from civil engineering and petroleum engineering subfields.

That discussion should indicate to you that EE degrees are not the lowest pursued careers, as he claimed, nor are they the highest in demand careers, as he also claimed, in the field of engineering.
Click to expand...

I do not care what 'he' claimed, you are debating me now. I will show you how this went down.
You said EE majors were a dime a dozen (I'll show your full quote below)
I then said in post 138
EE majors are a dime a dozen? Care to prove that? If EE majors are a dime a dozen what are history, psych, or poly-sci majors, penny per gross?
Click to expand...
To which you said in post 148
I just provided the actual data versus opinion for you to read.
Click to expand...
Where is that data?

I want you to show that of all college degree holders the EE degree is common. That is what dime a dozen means.


Finally, you truncated my sentence where the "dime a dozen" was directly referencing MBA holders
Click to expand...
Really? You are going there? You directly referenced BOTH degrees. Here is your full quote.
mope54 said:
Nothing that I wrote contradicts that narrative that you've given us. I've been accurate in my assessment of it. The only difference here is that I think you are off your rocker to be upset that your sister makes far above the average nurse, as she should with a freaking graduate degree in nursing, whereas you made lower wages than her for the first 2/3rds of the your career, which also as it should be since EE majors and MBA holders are a dime a dozen.
Click to expand...
Are you really going to claim that you meant only MBA holders were dime a dozen and not also EE holders?
 
rinaldo00 said:
I want you to show that of all college degree holders the EE degree is common. That is what dime a dozen means.
Click to expand...
I've provided a source explaining that EE degree holders are part of a high supply, low demand, with no shortage of majors compared to the field of engineering not "all degree holders," which would be a silly and pointless claim in response to me rebutting his claim that EE graduates are the least sought and most in demand majors.
 
mope54 said:
I'm sorry, but you are simply objectively wrong.

is directly related to "MAJORS"
Click to expand...

OK that proves some majors are more rare than EE, so what? How does is prove EE is a dime a dozen?

Just admit that a degree in EE is not a common thing and we can move on.
 
mope54 said:
I've provided a source explaining that EE degree holders are part of a high supply, low demand, with no shortage of majors compared to the field of engineering not "all degree holders," which would be a silly and pointless claim in response to me rebutting his claim that EE graduates are the least sought and most in demand majors.
Click to expand...
You are trying to win at all costs huh? You keep dragging 'his' claims into it when before you responded directly to me claiming that you showed EE majors were a dime a dozen. You never said of all engineering jobs EE majors are a dime a dozen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top