Engineers moving to other fields

She should have said "where a pure accountant or lawyer would be stuck for comprehension". :)

Not many, but I have met Technical people who have crossed into patent law, and know Technical-trained people working in Economics areas.

-jg

"Tom Lucas" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@demeter.uk.clara.net...

I know that the law school here (U.Ga.) much prefers applicants with detailed mastery of some other field, rather than the vague "pre-law" people with no specific interests.

I think the skills of an engineer and of a lawyer are related. Both involve long chains of reasoning and keeping track of information. The lawyer has to be much better at communicating in English and in foreseeing human reactions. The engineer of course needs much more mathematics.

from

to

the

lawyer

people

involve

I know a successful patent lawyer who used to be a mediocre engineer before. I also know couple of other persons who didn't make it as lawyers and changed to the engineering jobs. Not so simple. Otherwise all of us would be the lawyers.

Vladimir Vassilevsky

On Jul 18, 6:55 am, "Tom Lucas"

Many people make career changes out of engineering just as with any other profession.. Within my company alone, engineers have moved into project management and marketing. It's not usually so easy to make an intra-company move into the financial side of things.

As far as your last question, the answer is definitely no. A good lawyer needs excellent language skills, excellent analytical skills and a methodical approach to building an argument around indisputable facts. Very similar skillset to an engineer.

In fact, a requirement to become an IP attorney is that you have an engineering degree. If you were plotting a move to the dark[er] side, IP attorney is a pretty good choice, btw. Lots of job potential, very lucrative, and no more soul-destroying than accountancy.

Accounting courses a la your "engineering practices" example are included in ABET (and equivalent) curricula for a few reasons:

1. the "rounded education" requirement,
2. to provide a modicum of knowledge that would be required by a PE setting up private practice,
3. an attempt to bring some fiscal realism into the designs created by these engineers at their first real job (understanding NRE vs BOM costs, etc).

I guess in a big company these sort of things are easier. However, many of the pepple I have known to make a substantial leap have largely had to completely retrain and pretty much follow the same route as if they had started out with that route in mind.

Kudos for not mentioning the other traits lawyers are famed for ;-)

From time to time I consider doing this. After the first few years of finding your feet then I'm sure the pay outstrips all but the most very highly paid of engineers but does that compensate for the boredom and sense of selling-out? Depends on the individual I suppose.

I particularly enjoyed the module and would like to have had the option of a more advanced one but there wasn't one on offer. Might do a night class or something similar out of interest but there are many other things on my learning list. If only I had a bit of time...

Good God, no! An engineer with inadequate language skills is a liability. An engineering specification, thought map, design intent document, whitepaper etc. is a critical document with just as much importance in clear phrasing as any legal communication. And verbal communication is important in engineering too. Design reviews, communications with vendors, subordinates, superiors, customers and Marketing (knowing how much to say and how to avoid answering questions), the list is endless.

Add to that the sort of clarity required by the Safety Case for all major High Integrity Projects these days. These are almost like the "defense case" in detail before a design leaves the factory test area and well before the hint of any litigation for a breach of safety.