Structural Engineering Career Decisions

[TheLoneStarEngineer]

I thought it would be interesting to get some opinions on this, especially from the more experienced folks on this board.

Would you go for,

1.) Significantly more money in an engineering job (structural) which does not really utilize all the knowledge, experience and expertise you have developed so far in your career through being a structural engineer for a full service structural engineering consulting firm. Working with only the in house engineering and management team. For example: Prefabricated systems manufacturer's engineer, steel fabricator's engineer, oil and gas engineer etc.  

[OR]

2.) Average pay as a structural engineer with a full service structural engineering consulting firm which utilizes your experience and continues to provide a variety in projects that pushes you to learn more. Working with architects.

To put things into perspective, let's say the pay increase factor is 1.50

 

[E720]

I used to work for a full service firm. Now I work for an undisclosed BRB manufacturer which would fall into your more specialized category. I feel like I do more structural engineering work than one would anticipate (IE review engineers RAM/ETABS/RISA models, provide feedback about the BRBF system, connection design, the design of the BRBs themselves, etc.). I highly recommend it. I have yet to find a structural engineering firm that can beat my pay. By entering a specialty market I am able to work on a wide array of buildings throughout the world rather than be delegated to designing only buildings in my local market. Also I am able to rub shoulders with some of the top names in structural engineering and also do cool things like perform full scale testing at universities. Also I get to form relationships with the engineers and fabricators with whom we work, so I have contacts all across the country. There is the downside that you are not performing the full spectrum of structural engineering but I think all of positive things outweigh this. I am sure that every place is different though. I have known engineers who get stuck doing the same thing 365 days a year and hate it.

 

[Reverse Polish]

This is just me, but I would rather have consistent work that is engaging and challenging than higher pay.  If it were strictly about money, I would have gone for one of them Wall Street gigs or gone onto law school.   This profession is not easy--most of us are here because we're too stubborn to know any better--I mean, we have a passion for this stuff.  Structural engineering is not a profession you pursue for fame, fortune, or sexiness.  

Now, whatever "engaging" work may be, that's a whole different crapshoot.

 

[DoctorWho-PE]

This is just me, but I would rather have consistent work that is engaging and challenging than higher pay.  If it were strictly about money, I would have gone for one of them Wall Street gigs or gone onto law school.   This profession is not easy--most of us are here because we're too stubborn to know any better--I mean, we have a passion for this stuff.  Structural engineering is not a profession you pursue for fame, fortune, or sexiness.  

Now, whatever "engaging" work may be, that's a whole different crapshoot.

I had that opportunity presented to me this fall. I opted to stay with my consulting firm, vs the specialist. I also had (have?) an opportunity with a government agency that would be similar to going to a specialist position, which would be a 25% increase.  I just don't know if I would be happy.

 

[kevo_55]

I'd go full service. 

If you stick it out in any SE field for 20 years you should be making a good salary. If you pigeon hole yourself, you'll have a harder time adjusting to market demands as they change in this field.

 

[TheLoneStarEngineer]

Though I enjoy what I do as a consultant working on a variety of projects with a full service firm, I have quite often felt that as structural engineers, our profession is heavily undervalued for the amount of risk, liability, and responsibility taken. On the contrary, realtors make more by reselling houses with almost no liability. And when such an opportunity presents itself which accelerates your pay scale by about 10 years or more (who knows?), it becomes hard to make a decision as on one side you are thinking about the significant benefits it would provide for your family VS keep doing what you are doing without taking risks and not know what its like. 

It is quite typical to put in extra long hours in consulting as there is also a sense of responsibility, but it would be nice to get compensated for it. One alternative would be to stick it out a few more years and have your own practice but this may not be for everyone. 

It would be great to hear more career stories and opinions from fellow engineers on both sides of the fence. Have you found a nice balance or just continuing to play safe understanding the nature of the industry?

BTW this a good video to watch if you haven't already.

 

[E720]

Great video. Irony of ironies though is that my former graduate advisor is sitting in the front row of that presentation and he has a tech startup (re: Isogeometric Analysis) that is projected to be the next tech unicorn (startup with a valuation over a billion dollars) https://www.ksl.com/article/50059793/the-next-unicorn-deep-tech-startup-in-utah-could-revolutionize-safety-tests-with-simulation-software

EDIT: He is not in structural design. I just thought it was ironic.

 

[organix]

I think the answer might depend heavily on where you are at in your career.  For example, a younger engineer would benefit a lot from learning more early on.  And with that said, I think we all would like the idea of knowing more and keeping things fresh and exciting.  I think it's part of an engineer's nature to like solving unique problems.

However, I'm not taking significantly less pay for any job position.  Maybe the first 5 years, you can sacrifice some pay for something like this, but 50% is ridiculous.  At the very least, the person handing out the salary in scenario 2 needs to know about scenario 1 and close the gap somewhat.  They won't make up 50%, but they have to do better.

 

[TheLoneStarEngineer]

I think the answer might depend heavily on where you are at in your career.  For example, a young engineer would benefit a lot from learning more early on.  And with that said, I think we all would like the idea of knowing more and keeping things fresh.  I think it's part of an engineer's nature to like solving unique problems.  However, I'm not taking significantly less pay for any job position.  50% is ridiculous.  At the very least, the person handing out the salary in scenario 2 needs to know about scenario 1 and close the gap somewhat.  They won't make up 50%, but they gotta do better.

The difference is due to the nature of industry. Usually a consultant for an architect makes much less compared to someone who is being paid directly by the owner or contractor. Another example would be that bridge projects have significantly higher engineering fees because they get paid either by the owner directly or through the prime. The pay in scenario 2 is average for a consultant structural engineer in the area. The pay in scenario 1 is somewhat towards the higher end.

It's always good to have a young engineer (EIT) mindset in the sense that it keeps you on track to learn more, but what exactly constitutes the experience profile of a young engineer? If its just the number of years of experience, then I tend to somewhat disagree. I think the quality, the self-drive to learn, time spent on actual work but more importantly the time spent outside work to really understand and broaden your skills is what actually matters. For example, someone who's worked efficient 12 hour days (or less) along with spending additional time focusing on self-improvement for 5 years could have the equivalent/more experience than someone who has 10 years of regular days and only on the job learning. I have first hand seen engineering managers/other senior engineers with 15-20 years of experience sorely lacking the engineering knowledge to provide plausible explanations to engineering questions.

 

[thedaywa1ker]

The difference is due to the nature of industry. Usually a consultant for an architect makes much less compared to someone who is being paid directly by the owner or contractor. Another example would be that bridge projects have significantly higher engineering fees because they get paid either by the owner directly or through the prime. The pay in scenario 2 is average for a consultant structural engineer in the area. The pay in scenario 1 is somewhat towards the higher end.

It's always good to have a young engineer (EIT) mindset in the sense that it keeps you on track to learn more, but what exactly constitutes the experience profile of a young engineer? If its just the number of years of experience, then I tend to somewhat disagree. I think the quality, the self-drive to learn, time spent on actual work but more importantly the time spent outside work to really understand and broaden your skills is what actually matters. For example, someone who's worked efficient 12 hour days (or less) along with spending additional time focusing on self-improvement for 5 years could have the equivalent/more experience than someone who has 10 years of regular days and only on the job learning. I have first hand seen engineering managers/other senior engineers with 15-20 years of experience sorely lacking the engineering knowledge to provide plausible explanations to engineering questions.

Show me someone who has worked efficient 12 hour days for 5 years, and I'll show you someone who needs to adjust their definition of 'efficient'

I have always assumed that bridge projects have better engineering fees than buildings due to who the owner actually is, instead of just the fact that they're paid by the owner...they are often taxpayer funded and administered by government employees who don't have any personal financial interest involved in your fees, instead of the hard-nosed developers/builders experienced in beating engineers and everyone else up over their rates.

But, that could be 'the grass is always greener' syndrome.

 

[TheLoneStarEngineer]

Show me someone who has worked efficient 12 hour days for 5 years, and I'll show you someone who needs to adjust their definition of 'efficient'

Point noted! I knew that would be coming from someone .  However, the "efficient 12 hours (or less)" is just supposed to be an example that the "number of years of experience" cannot be the sole factor for transitioning from the "Young engineer" category.

I have always assumed that bridge projects have better engineering fees than buildings because they are often taxpayer funded and administered by government employees who don't have an ounce of their own financial interest involved in your fees, instead of the hard-nosed developers/builders experienced in beating engineers and everyone else up over their rates.

I have personally worked on several tax payer funded educational projects: K-12 (Elementary, Junior High, High schools), Higher Ed, institutional, government, civic etc, and have always seen low design fees being handed down by the architect. A friend of mine works in bridge design, and the difference in fees as a percentage of construction cost has always been a surprising part of the conversation. For example, a bridge engineer makes around 7-9% while building engineer makes 0.5-0.75% of the construction cost (for Government projects). Commercial/Developer projects are a whole different story as they may be a lumpsum value depending on size/type.

 

[thedaywa1ker]

I have personally worked on several tax payer funded educational projects: K-12 (Elementary, Junior High, High schools), Higher Ed, institutional, government, civic etc, and have always seen low design fees being handed down by the architect.

Good point.  I have not worked on any K-12 projects but I have heard the fees are tough.  I have worked on some higher ed - I'd imagine most of those are funded by a mix of public money and tuition/endowments.

So, why the huge disparity?  Is it really just the fact that we're subconsultants instead of the prime?

I know that the engineering process for bridges is a little different than buildings...I've been told about DOT's having requirements for engineers providing tables of rebar quantities with bend dimensions etc, which would get pretty ugly for a bridge of any substantial size.  That is a ton of time that isn't required for any building design I've been a part of.

Is it DOT budgets vs educational/civic budgets? Is it the fact that since buildings have a larger # of consultants, they just squeeze everybody on the fees? Or is it that the time required for the engineering of a little 10 foot concrete bridge would be a lot more than a simple little building...?

 

[organix]

The difference is due to the nature of industry. Usually a consultant for an architect makes much less compared to someone who is being paid directly by the owner or contractor. Another example would be that bridge projects have significantly higher engineering fees because they get paid either by the owner directly or through the prime. The pay in scenario 2 is average for a consultant structural engineer in the area. The pay in scenario 1 is somewhat towards the higher end.

It's always good to have a young engineer (EIT) mindset in the sense that it keeps you on track to learn more, but what exactly constitutes the experience profile of a young engineer? If its just the number of years of experience, then I tend to somewhat disagree. I think the quality, the self-drive to learn, time spent on actual work but more importantly the time spent outside work to really understand and broaden your skills is what actually matters. For example, someone who's worked efficient 12 hour days (or less) along with spending additional time focusing on self-improvement for 5 years could have the equivalent/more experience than someone who has 10 years of regular days and only on the job learning. I have first hand seen engineering managers/other senior engineers with 15-20 years of experience sorely lacking the engineering knowledge to provide plausible explanations to engineering questions.

It's just a generality.  We're talking from the standpoint of the engineer, right?  Not the person hiring... That's why I said it depends heavily on where the individual is at in their career.  The decision of where one is at in their own learning and career is ultimately up to them and there is no one size fits all.  The example you mention of a manager is the kind of person who probably never worked very hard on the technical side to begin with.  Regardless of work type, they probably weren't going to be strong technical contributors.

And I understand different companies pay much differently.  It's that thinking that lets big firms pay lower end salaries to young people and work them into the ground.  I get it.  People will endure less pay and tougher working conditions for the love of the work and the experience.  That doesn't make it ok.  To be paid 50% more is a ridiculous number.  The exponential growth of taking that 50% now would be pretty crazy to pass on in my opinion.  Personally, after about 5 years of working "12 hour days" for "average" pay, I'd be kind of ready to try something new.

 

[David Connor SE]

It's hard to know without actually going to work for the firm for at least a year or so to see how things go. But for a 50% pay difference I would be asking why the large disparity. Is the low number just way too low? 

My first inclination would be to go where the money is better, try it out and see where you are at after a year or so. If you are miserable, then hopefully you could find another position. Most positions that pay well, do expect you to earn that money.  So it's a work-life balance question at that point. But again, you can't really know without trying it out. 

I work on the consulting side of the equation and I like my current position from a work and pay perspective. But I've had other consulting positions where that was not the case. 

 

[rmzmsmith]

I thought it would be interesting to get some opinions on this, especially from the more experienced folks on this board.

Would you go for,

1.) Significantly more money in an engineering job (structural) which does not really utilize all the knowledge, experience and expertise you have developed so far in your career through being a structural engineer for a full service structural engineering consulting firm. Working with only the in house engineering and management team. For example: Prefabricated systems manufacturer's engineer, steel fabricator's engineer, oil and gas engineer etc.  

[OR]

2.) Average pay as a structural engineer with a full service structural engineering consulting firm which utilizes your experience and continues to provide a variety in projects that pushes you to learn more. Working with architects.

To put things into perspective, let's say the pay increase factor is 1.50

Ive been in this industry for 20 years.  My advice is to do the work you enjoy.  If you enjoy new things, do that.  If you like to specialize in one area, do that.  Take money out of the equation.

 

[TheLoneStarEngineer]

So, why the huge disparity?  Is it really just the fact that we're subconsultants instead of the prime?

I know that the engineering process for bridges is a little different than buildings...I've been told about DOT's having requirements for engineers providing tables of rebar quantities with bend dimensions etc, which would get pretty ugly for a bridge of any substantial size.  That is a ton of time that isn't required for any building design I've been a part of.

Is it DOT budgets vs educational/civic budgets? Is it the fact that since buildings have a larger # of consultants, they just squeeze everybody on the fees? Or is it that the time required for the engineering of a little 10 foot concrete bridge would be a lot more than a simple little building...?

As a general rule, I’ve always believed- The closer you are in the pipeline to the source of revenue, the more you stand to benefit.

Yes, DOT’s are notorious for having very specific standards that they want to be followed- Notes, drafting standards, rebar schedules, engineering criteria etc., but in my opinion, unless it’s one of those bridges like cable stayed or through arch bridges (Or other fancy types), I don’t see the level of engineering effort to be more than that of buildings (Bridge engineers can correct me if I’m wrong), speaking relatively of course. For example, the layout of a bridge project is not changing much throughout the design phase as it is meant to serve a specific purpose/route. On the contrary, a highly creative (*Stubborn*) architect can drive the level of design effort six ways from Sunday for a simple 2/3 story office building.

The “Overall Design Fees” is in the same ball-park for bridge and building projects ~ 7-10%. But as you pointed out, in case of buildings the architect controls this and squeezes everyone in. In certain, once in a blue moon situation, where the structural engineer is the prime (I’ve been part of a couple of such projects), you stand to make quite a bit more. For bridge projects, typically the same company does civil, structural and transportation engineering, so it doesn’t get distributed much.

 

[TheLoneStarEngineer]

It's hard to know without actually going to work for the firm for at least a year or so to see how things go. But for a 50% pay difference I would be asking why the large disparity. Is the low number just way too low? 

The low number is quite average for the area, maybe slightly lower but we can call it average for a building structural consultant.

 

[leggo PE]

Omg it's Ashraf. I never met him, but lordy, I've heard stories.

I'm guessing someone above works for CoreBrace... But that's just a guess.

Personally, I'd take option 2. I've never done option one, but I did work for 4.5 years at a very small structural engineering firm that did a lot of shoring design work, which is a very niche market. Ultimately, I got quite sick of it (and, for the record, I was NOT making 1.5x the salary compared to a typical structural engineering job for a full-service structural engineering firm) and felt I wasn't learning anything new, when my goal simply was (and still is) to become a more knowledgeable and well-rounded engineer. 

 

[Booo]

Omg it's Ashraf. I never met him, but lordy, I've heard stories

I have met Ashraf like 15 years ago. I think it was some SAP2000 related training. He started singing after lunch to wake us up.