Being called a "professional engineer" is not about how difficult your job is, it's about the level of accountability you have to assume to practice your job.
By law, professional engineers, like medical doctors and lawyers, can be sued if their product isn't up to snuff. If it's bad enough, they can have their license to practice revoked.
Not many people with engineering degrees sit for PE examns and qualify themselves as Professional Engineer. Those who do, seem to be mainly expert witnesses for defense for the ambulance chasers. Nonsense. It just depends on your discipline and industry.
In the USA, PE licensing is all but mandatory in the Civil Engineering field. It's very helpful in electrical engineering if you want to be a power distribution guy. Mechanical engineers can stand to have a PE license if they're going to be doing HVAC work. In other words, if you're going to be an engineer in construction, a PE license is very important to have.
If you're contracting out a big dollar engineering project, it's common to require a PE sign off on all designs. Where you typically don't find PE's is in unregulated industries in companies with internal engineering going on.
I took (and passed) the FE exam a couple years back.
First part is the "generic" part of the exam. About half of it is math, about a quarter of it is physics, and a quarter of it is basic subject matter from the many engineering disciplines (electrical, computer, mechanical, chemical and industrial) -- by which I mean freshman/sophomore level classes.
Second part varies, and you can elect which version you take. There is a more advanced "generic" version, or an engineering discipline specific version. The electrical engineering version I took included material from junior and senior level topics. My understanding is that the other versions are of similar difficulty.
Each part is a half day long, with an hour break between parts.
It is "open book" in the sense that they provide you a book with all of the fundamental formulae from the various disciplines, physics and math. You may use a simple scientific calculator that you may select from a published list -- which does not include the monsters like the TI-83/TI-86/TI-89.
Based on the subject matter I've seen for the MCAT, it's similar to the MCAT, but it goes a little deeper into the covered subject matter. Mostly this is due to my perception that the MCAT material is usually learned in a freshman/sophomore level course, and the FE material is about half freshman/sophomore, quarter sophomore/junior, and a quarter junior/senior. (That said, I do readily admit that my perception on the MCAT could be wrong.)
So, in other words, according to your logic system:
# Never start a war you can't win Implies: It's always okay to start a war, if you can win it. # Never start a war unless you've got the UN on your side Implies: It's always okay to start a war if the UN is on your side. # Never start a war unless it's necessary for you to be re-elected Implies: It's always okay to start a war if it's necessary for you to be elected. # Never start something you can't finish Implies: It's always okay to start something if you can finish it.
It's not a complicated statement. It means exactly what it says: Never start a war if you're having diplomatic success.
There's no need to read any more into it. The statement is silent on when you should start a war. And it's likewise silent on many other situations where you shouldn't.
If you want to understand the rationale: 1. The purpose of diplomacy is to get something you want. 2. The purpose of war is to get something you want. 3. If you're already getting what you want through diplomacy (ie, having success), then going to war isn't going to get you any marginal benefit. 4.... and war has considerably more risks and costs associated with it. 5. Hence: "Never start a war when you're having diplomatic success."
I don't see why this is so terribly difficult to understand.
So you should only start wars when you are into deepshit diplomatic trouble? Does that mean it's time for US to start yet another war?
No, what he said is, "never start a war when you're having diplomatic success." I'm sure that you can see that your statement ("into deepshit diplomatic trouble") is not even close.
Warfare is just an armed, high stakes form of diplomacy, really. If you're already getting what you want using less risky, less expensive means, why bother with warfare? If you were already getting what you wanted, it's a mistake to take on the additional risk and expense associated with war. That's the guy's point.
Of course, he's assuming that this administration really was already getting what it wanted through diplomacy, and I'd say that is not something we can safely assume.
After all, a submersible carrier would be major tactical point in battle to the point that you would almost want it to be secret if you managed to accomplish it.
Just FWIW, "managing to accomplish it" would be no big deal. The Japanese had just such a beast back in WWII.
1. Just because it's not enumerated doesn't mean it's not a right (9th Amendment) 2. The right of juries to nullify existed in the English common law. 3. Where do you think the rights protected in the 9th Amendment come from? Probably the English common law in part, yes? 4. "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy" -- John Jay, First Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, State Of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1,4 (1794).
1. Just because it's not enumerated doesn't mean it's not a right (9th Amendment) 2. The right of juries to nullify existed in the English common law. 3. Where do you think the rights protected in the 9th Amendment come from? Probably the English common law in part, yes? 4. "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy" -- John Jay, First Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, State Of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1,4 (1794).
A right is something granted to you by some entity. Nowhere are you given explicit permission to nullify the law. And that, my friend, is the beauty of the Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. In the USA, at least, the lack of enumeration of a right does not imply that the right is non-existant.
If you go back and read some history, you'll find that a goodly chunk of the first Americans thought jury nullification is a right. I could quote a bunch of famous people, or give you the long history of Bushel's case, Zenger's case. I encourage you to educate yourself and look at both cases, in which jury nullification was upheld as a juror's right in the English common law (which, by the way, where do you think the rights protected by the 9th Amendment are most likely to spring from?).
No, I will quote only one authority:
"It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy" -- John Jay, First Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, State Of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1,4 (1794).
1. "familiarity breeds liking". You could call it that. Or I could call it, "I know what I'm getting with this guy who's been working for me for two years, so I know how to value him. New guy, not so much. Once I know what I'm getting, if he's worth it, I'll make sure he'll get a raise."
2. And as far as jobs in engineering NEEDING MS degrees goes, there isn't a job in engineering that truly needs an MS degree when you're comparing to BS + 2yrs exp. Why? An MS is just a BS with 2yrs extra educational experience. You can learn what I need you to know at school, or you can have learned it on the job. As long as you deliver what I need you to deliver it, in the time frame I need it delivered, I don't give a rats ass either way.
3. Unless you work for a union or the government, you usually can't take COLA adjustments for granted. You either get a raise or you don't, and whether you get a raise usually has more to do with performance and politics than your degree.
4. And you are not including health insurance, which itself may be as valuable as the stipend. Nor are you including vacation or other fringe benefits. If you want to include those, go ahead, but they're usually just going to increase the opportunity cost. If you want to include internships, go ahead, but you don't gain as much ground as you might think, as the $15k figure is for a 12 month appointment.
Really, you're barking up the wrong tree here. I've put some thought into these, and yes, the payback on the MS degree for me is about 6-7 years. If you believe otherwise, you're wrong. But YMMV.
After that, it starts to slowly pull away. Where it really starts to shine is if I ever want to move into an upper level corporation at a major corporation where there is often a glass ceiling that is a total bitch to break through without a graduate degree of some kind.
1. Your numbers are different than mine. That's not unexpected, which is why I specifically qualified it as "I ran the numbers for me."
2. If I'm the hiring manager (and I've been one), I'll pay my top tier bachelors + 2 years exp guys more than a new guy with a master's degree + 0 years exp, all other things being equal. Sorry, that's just the way it is. I'm going to reward known performance more than future potential.
3. Your point about the $13k difference and inflation is silly. Both of them will be fighting inflation, it's just that one will have a $13k/yr head start, and the other will have two years experience with the company head start. Which one wins has more to do with individual ability to get the raises than where they started.
4. Depends on the company and situation. An electrical contractor that works with the government is going to downsize the guy with the MS before the guy with the BS who spent those two years getting his PE, for example. The MS degree gives you some extra consideration when downsizing, but it's not the only one. (... and sometimes, it can even work against you...)
5. Try again. You yourself identified the BS Eng starting salary at about $55k. At an opportunity cost of $20k or so per year, you're saying that the grad student with a assistantship is earning $35k. Bunk. IIRC, typical research assistantships run on the order of $15k/yr stipend. Yearly opportunity cost is probably double what you put it at.
And all that aside, IMO, the MS degree actually makes sense, if you're willing to delay payoff by 6-7 years. In fact, I'm currently working on my second master's degree (MS ECE already, MBA soon). But a PhD at 15-20, not so much.
This question keeps coming up on Slashdot, in one form or another, and my answer is always the same: Economics.
For most students who intend to enter the commercial sector, getting the "one up" degree just doesn't pay that well. Speaking about engineering specifically:
1. Graduate with a BS/BA. Get a job, work for two years, and you'll be on just about even ground (salary-wise) with the guy who got his MS/MA. And you won't have picked up the debt/costs associated with getting the MS/MA. I ran the numbers for me, and the payback on this is about 6-7 years.
2. Graduate with an MS/MA. Get a job, work for three years, and you'll be on even ground -- or often better -- with the guy who got his PhD. And you won't have picked up the debt/costs associated with the MS/MA. I ran the numbers for me, and the payback on this is about 15-20 years.
And the kicker: Anyone smart enough to get a graduate degree can run those numbers. This doesn't even include the opportunity cost of delaying starting a family while you pursue the degree.
However, foreign students have an added sweetener in the pot: it's easier to stay in America to make the big bucks if you have a graduate degree. And this tips the equation significantly.
I just want to puke whenever I hear US firms bitching and moaning about how there aren't enough American graduate scientists/engineers. It's simple economics, you bunch of whining douche bags. You understand them, because when demand for your products goes up, you're quite happy to raise the price. But when the shoe is on the other foot? You whine, bitch and moan about how employment costs are out of hand.
Again, it's simple economics, supply and demand. Supply short? Pay more. If it doesn't, don't be surprised when supply stays low.
Heh, it certainly doesn't seem to be the case here in the USA.
I'm in an MBA program at the University of Oklahoma, and while I wouldn't say that the coursework is difficult (although it's harder for most people than it is for me -- I'm pretty good at reading, writing and math where most people are good at one or two of those at most), there sheer volume of work getting thrown at us makes it impossible to "skate through."
My background: I am a student at the University of Oklahoma. I have recently graduated with a bachelors in Computer Engineering, am about to graduate with a master's in Electrical and Computer Engineering, and am set to attend the MBA program in the fall.
At the University of Oklahoma (and at most universities in the USA), universities break up into Colleges by discipline grouping, and each College generally has an associated "quality" level. At the University of Oklahoma, and at most US institutions, this perceived quality level breaks down as follows:
Tier I:
Engineering
Medical
Law Tier II:
Business
Science Tier III:
Liberal Arts Tier IV:
Education
Depending on the University in question, individual programs within the various tiers may move up or down a level. The University of Texas, for example, has an outstanding Computer Science curriculum that is organized under the "Science" banner, but it is without a doubt a Tier I program, UC Berkley's Chemistry program is Tier I, etc. And I'm sure there are universities with absolutely terrible engineering programs that might be better off as falling under Tier II. But that said, in general, the discipline groupings break down as above.
At the University of Oklahoma, the Computer Science department falls under the umbrella of the College of Engineering. They have to take all the calculus the engineers do, one of the two engineering physics undergrad classes, and an additional hard science chemistry class. (ie, they swap out Eng Phys II for Chem II). The Computer Science curriculum is considered by most folks in the College of Engineering to be a tier II engineering curriculum, which is to say that it's considered to be an average program in the College of Engineering (... but because engineering falls into Tier I, it's still a Tier I program...)
Now to the point:
At the University of Oklahoma, our "IT" degree is known as Management Information Systems (MIS). It falls under the business college. It's like this at most universities in the USA. At most universities in the USA, it also happens to fall on the lowest rung of the business college; it's the very lowest tier. At the top are accounting, finance and economics, then everyone else, then at the very bottom is MIS. It's bad when even the marketing majors have more to be proud of.
MIS is where all the kids who tried and failed at CS end up. MIS is where a lot of the kids who tried and failed at accounting, finance and economics end up. MIS is where the dregs go. It is at the bottom of the barrel. Most of the time, the MIS programs are so bad that they fall out of Tier II (as above) directly into Tier III or IV.
Now, this is not to say that everyone who is in MIS is a low quality churl. But because it's where the low quality churls end up, you will often find that it's what's expected of MIS majors. Many people, myself included, have zero respect for MIS degrees.
I guess IT could be different in Britain, but I doubt it.
I would recommend going for either an engineering degree or a computer science degree, and if you really want business exposure, take some business classes as electives or pursue an MBA style graduate degree.
And as another piece of advice: If you haven't already, become skilled at public speaking; take some classes if you need to. There are many, many sins that can be made up for when you have the ability to give a good presentation.
OTOH, I bet they'd be less happy if Sony fails to do anything to try to increase the install base; without a bigger install base, game support will melt away, and they'll end up with an expensive brick that can play a few crappy titles.
It is widely known that there aren't enough comp sci/engineer grads in America, the number of new grads drop every year, so where does Microsoft conjure up these experts?
Why burn those 4 extra years, getting paid $40k/yr less than someone with a BS who went to work just so you can make an extra $10k/yr when you finally graduate with the PhD? Payback on that is at least 16 years; more if you do rack up some debt. Remember, these are guys who are supposed to be able to do math.
It's not that we don't have enough smart people, it's that the smart people know enough math to know that there's no financial justification going for a doctor level degree unless it's a JD or MD.
The fact that IA-64 wasn't RISC is irrelevant to the point. Bonus points for being a pedant who misses the forest for the tress, though!
The fact is, Intel attempted to (as the grandparent wrote) "toss out that x86 layer and deal just with the high-performance, straightforward [CISC/RISC/VLIW/EPIC/GOATSE] core." They got fuckstomped by the market, because it wasn't what the market wanted.
Slashdot Mirror
Being called a "professional engineer" is not about how difficult your job is, it's about the level of accountability you have to assume to practice your job.
By law, professional engineers, like medical doctors and lawyers, can be sued if their product isn't up to snuff. If it's bad enough, they can have their license to practice revoked.
Software "engineers" have none of that burden.
In the USA, PE licensing is all but mandatory in the Civil Engineering field. It's very helpful in electrical engineering if you want to be a power distribution guy. Mechanical engineers can stand to have a PE license if they're going to be doing HVAC work. In other words, if you're going to be an engineer in construction, a PE license is very important to have.
If you're contracting out a big dollar engineering project, it's common to require a PE sign off on all designs. Where you typically don't find PE's is in unregulated industries in companies with internal engineering going on.
I took (and passed) the FE exam a couple years back.
First part is the "generic" part of the exam. About half of it is math, about a quarter of it is physics, and a quarter of it is basic subject matter from the many engineering disciplines (electrical, computer, mechanical, chemical and industrial) -- by which I mean freshman/sophomore level classes.
Second part varies, and you can elect which version you take. There is a more advanced "generic" version, or an engineering discipline specific version. The electrical engineering version I took included material from junior and senior level topics. My understanding is that the other versions are of similar difficulty.
Each part is a half day long, with an hour break between parts.
It is "open book" in the sense that they provide you a book with all of the fundamental formulae from the various disciplines, physics and math. You may use a simple scientific calculator that you may select from a published list -- which does not include the monsters like the TI-83/TI-86/TI-89.
Based on the subject matter I've seen for the MCAT, it's similar to the MCAT, but it goes a little deeper into the covered subject matter. Mostly this is due to my perception that the MCAT material is usually learned in a freshman/sophomore level course, and the FE material is about half freshman/sophomore, quarter sophomore/junior, and a quarter junior/senior. (That said, I do readily admit that my perception on the MCAT could be wrong.)
Even if he did, it doesn't sound like he's adjusted for the increase in multi-income households.
So, in other words, according to your logic system:
# Never start a war you can't win
Implies: It's always okay to start a war, if you can win it.
# Never start a war unless you've got the UN on your side
Implies: It's always okay to start a war if the UN is on your side.
# Never start a war unless it's necessary for you to be re-elected
Implies: It's always okay to start a war if it's necessary for you to be elected.
# Never start something you can't finish
Implies: It's always okay to start something if you can finish it.
It's not a complicated statement. It means exactly what it says: Never start a war if you're having diplomatic success.
... and war has considerably more risks and costs associated with it.
There's no need to read any more into it. The statement is silent on when you should start a war. And it's likewise silent on many other situations where you shouldn't.
If you want to understand the rationale:
1. The purpose of diplomacy is to get something you want.
2. The purpose of war is to get something you want.
3. If you're already getting what you want through diplomacy (ie, having success), then going to war isn't going to get you any marginal benefit.
4.
5. Hence: "Never start a war when you're having diplomatic success."
I don't see why this is so terribly difficult to understand.
No, what he said is, "never start a war when you're having diplomatic success." I'm sure that you can see that your statement ("into deepshit diplomatic trouble") is not even close.
Warfare is just an armed, high stakes form of diplomacy, really. If you're already getting what you want using less risky, less expensive means, why bother with warfare? If you were already getting what you wanted, it's a mistake to take on the additional risk and expense associated with war. That's the guy's point.
Of course, he's assuming that this administration really was already getting what it wanted through diplomacy, and I'd say that is not something we can safely assume.
Just FWIW, "managing to accomplish it" would be no big deal. The Japanese had just such a beast back in WWII.
They all say that they're out of mouthwash and ask why it isn't somebody else's turn already.
If the common law right is protected by the 9th amendment, then it is in fact, a Constitutional right (unenumerated as it may be.)
:)
I don't know about the equal protection clause affecting this.
And as far as John Jay being wrong goes... well, I'll take his word for it over yours. He was there, and knows what was up
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=323093&cid=20924649
In summary:
1. Just because it's not enumerated doesn't mean it's not a right (9th Amendment)
2. The right of juries to nullify existed in the English common law.
3. Where do you think the rights protected in the 9th Amendment come from? Probably the English common law in part, yes?
4. "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy" -- John Jay, First Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, State Of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1,4 (1794).
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=323093&cid=20924649
In summary:
1. Just because it's not enumerated doesn't mean it's not a right (9th Amendment)
2. The right of juries to nullify existed in the English common law.
3. Where do you think the rights protected in the 9th Amendment come from? Probably the English common law in part, yes?
4. "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy" -- John Jay, First Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, State Of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1,4 (1794).
If you go back and read some history, you'll find that a goodly chunk of the first Americans thought jury nullification is a right. I could quote a bunch of famous people, or give you the long history of Bushel's case, Zenger's case. I encourage you to educate yourself and look at both cases, in which jury nullification was upheld as a juror's right in the English common law (which, by the way, where do you think the rights protected by the 9th Amendment are most likely to spring from?).
No, I will quote only one authority: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy" -- John Jay, First Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, State Of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1,4 (1794).
Bah, damn editing. s/upper level corporation/upper level management position/
1. "familiarity breeds liking". You could call it that. Or I could call it, "I know what I'm getting with this guy who's been working for me for two years, so I know how to value him. New guy, not so much. Once I know what I'm getting, if he's worth it, I'll make sure he'll get a raise."
2. And as far as jobs in engineering NEEDING MS degrees goes, there isn't a job in engineering that truly needs an MS degree when you're comparing to BS + 2yrs exp. Why? An MS is just a BS with 2yrs extra educational experience. You can learn what I need you to know at school, or you can have learned it on the job. As long as you deliver what I need you to deliver it, in the time frame I need it delivered, I don't give a rats ass either way.
3. Unless you work for a union or the government, you usually can't take COLA adjustments for granted. You either get a raise or you don't, and whether you get a raise usually has more to do with performance and politics than your degree.
4. And you are not including health insurance, which itself may be as valuable as the stipend. Nor are you including vacation or other fringe benefits. If you want to include those, go ahead, but they're usually just going to increase the opportunity cost. If you want to include internships, go ahead, but you don't gain as much ground as you might think, as the $15k figure is for a 12 month appointment.
Really, you're barking up the wrong tree here. I've put some thought into these, and yes, the payback on the MS degree for me is about 6-7 years. If you believe otherwise, you're wrong. But YMMV.
After that, it starts to slowly pull away. Where it really starts to shine is if I ever want to move into an upper level corporation at a major corporation where there is often a glass ceiling that is a total bitch to break through without a graduate degree of some kind.
A few things:
1. Your numbers are different than mine. That's not unexpected, which is why I specifically qualified it as "I ran the numbers for me."
2. If I'm the hiring manager (and I've been one), I'll pay my top tier bachelors + 2 years exp guys more than a new guy with a master's degree + 0 years exp, all other things being equal. Sorry, that's just the way it is. I'm going to reward known performance more than future potential.
3. Your point about the $13k difference and inflation is silly. Both of them will be fighting inflation, it's just that one will have a $13k/yr head start, and the other will have two years experience with the company head start. Which one wins has more to do with individual ability to get the raises than where they started.
4. Depends on the company and situation. An electrical contractor that works with the government is going to downsize the guy with the MS before the guy with the BS who spent those two years getting his PE, for example. The MS degree gives you some extra consideration when downsizing, but it's not the only one. (... and sometimes, it can even work against you...)
5. Try again. You yourself identified the BS Eng starting salary at about $55k. At an opportunity cost of $20k or so per year, you're saying that the grad student with a assistantship is earning $35k. Bunk. IIRC, typical research assistantships run on the order of $15k/yr stipend. Yearly opportunity cost is probably double what you put it at.
And all that aside, IMO, the MS degree actually makes sense, if you're willing to delay payoff by 6-7 years. In fact, I'm currently working on my second master's degree (MS ECE already, MBA soon). But a PhD at 15-20, not so much.
This question keeps coming up on Slashdot, in one form or another, and my answer is always the same: Economics.
For most students who intend to enter the commercial sector, getting the "one up" degree just doesn't pay that well. Speaking about engineering specifically:
1. Graduate with a BS/BA. Get a job, work for two years, and you'll be on just about even ground (salary-wise) with the guy who got his MS/MA. And you won't have picked up the debt/costs associated with getting the MS/MA. I ran the numbers for me, and the payback on this is about 6-7 years.
2. Graduate with an MS/MA. Get a job, work for three years, and you'll be on even ground -- or often better -- with the guy who got his PhD. And you won't have picked up the debt/costs associated with the MS/MA. I ran the numbers for me, and the payback on this is about 15-20 years.
And the kicker: Anyone smart enough to get a graduate degree can run those numbers. This doesn't even include the opportunity cost of delaying starting a family while you pursue the degree.
However, foreign students have an added sweetener in the pot: it's easier to stay in America to make the big bucks if you have a graduate degree. And this tips the equation significantly.
I just want to puke whenever I hear US firms bitching and moaning about how there aren't enough American graduate scientists/engineers. It's simple economics, you bunch of whining douche bags. You understand them, because when demand for your products goes up, you're quite happy to raise the price. But when the shoe is on the other foot? You whine, bitch and moan about how employment costs are out of hand.
Again, it's simple economics, supply and demand. Supply short? Pay more. If it doesn't, don't be surprised when supply stays low.
Heh, it certainly doesn't seem to be the case here in the USA.
I'm in an MBA program at the University of Oklahoma, and while I wouldn't say that the coursework is difficult (although it's harder for most people than it is for me -- I'm pretty good at reading, writing and math where most people are good at one or two of those at most), there sheer volume of work getting thrown at us makes it impossible to "skate through."
Heh, where is he going that six credit hours is full time? It's 9 everywhere I've heard of.
My background: I am a student at the University of Oklahoma. I have recently graduated with a bachelors in Computer Engineering, am about to graduate with a master's in Electrical and Computer Engineering, and am set to attend the MBA program in the fall.
At the University of Oklahoma (and at most universities in the USA), universities break up into Colleges by discipline grouping, and each College generally has an associated "quality" level. At the University of Oklahoma, and at most US institutions, this perceived quality level breaks down as follows:
Tier I:
Engineering
Medical
Law
Tier II:
Business
Science
Tier III:
Liberal Arts
Tier IV:
Education
Depending on the University in question, individual programs within the various tiers may move up or down a level. The University of Texas, for example, has an outstanding Computer Science curriculum that is organized under the "Science" banner, but it is without a doubt a Tier I program, UC Berkley's Chemistry program is Tier I, etc. And I'm sure there are universities with absolutely terrible engineering programs that might be better off as falling under Tier II. But that said, in general, the discipline groupings break down as above.
At the University of Oklahoma, the Computer Science department falls under the umbrella of the College of Engineering. They have to take all the calculus the engineers do, one of the two engineering physics undergrad classes, and an additional hard science chemistry class. (ie, they swap out Eng Phys II for Chem II). The Computer Science curriculum is considered by most folks in the College of Engineering to be a tier II engineering curriculum, which is to say that it's considered to be an average program in the College of Engineering (... but because engineering falls into Tier I, it's still a Tier I program...)
Now to the point:
At the University of Oklahoma, our "IT" degree is known as Management Information Systems (MIS). It falls under the business college. It's like this at most universities in the USA. At most universities in the USA, it also happens to fall on the lowest rung of the business college; it's the very lowest tier. At the top are accounting, finance and economics, then everyone else, then at the very bottom is MIS. It's bad when even the marketing majors have more to be proud of.
MIS is where all the kids who tried and failed at CS end up. MIS is where a lot of the kids who tried and failed at accounting, finance and economics end up. MIS is where the dregs go. It is at the bottom of the barrel. Most of the time, the MIS programs are so bad that they fall out of Tier II (as above) directly into Tier III or IV.
Now, this is not to say that everyone who is in MIS is a low quality churl. But because it's where the low quality churls end up, you will often find that it's what's expected of MIS majors. Many people, myself included, have zero respect for MIS degrees.
I guess IT could be different in Britain, but I doubt it.
I would recommend going for either an engineering degree or a computer science degree, and if you really want business exposure, take some business classes as electives or pursue an MBA style graduate degree.
And as another piece of advice: If you haven't already, become skilled at public speaking; take some classes if you need to. There are many, many sins that can be made up for when you have the ability to give a good presentation.
OTOH, I bet they'd be less happy if Sony fails to do anything to try to increase the install base; without a bigger install base, game support will melt away, and they'll end up with an expensive brick that can play a few crappy titles.
I find the following really drives home the point about logic being math: Any boolean logic statement can be expressed as an algebraic statement.
Boolean: (NOT x1 AND x2) OR (x1 AND x2 AND NOT x3) OR x3
Algebraic: x2 + x3 - x2*x3
Boolean: x1 OR x2 OR x3
Algebraic: x1 + x2 + x3 - x1*x2 - x2*x3 - x1*x3 - x1*x2*x3
Why burn those 4 extra years, getting paid $40k/yr less than someone with a BS who went to work just so you can make an extra $10k/yr when you finally graduate with the PhD? Payback on that is at least 16 years; more if you do rack up some debt. Remember, these are guys who are supposed to be able to do math.
It's not that we don't have enough smart people, it's that the smart people know enough math to know that there's no financial justification going for a doctor level degree unless it's a JD or MD.
That would work too, but I was envisioning lifting it up and dropping it on us, hence hoist ;)
The fact that IA-64 wasn't RISC is irrelevant to the point. Bonus points for being a pedant who misses the forest for the tress, though!
The fact is, Intel attempted to (as the grandparent wrote) "toss out that x86 layer and deal just with the high-performance, straightforward [CISC/RISC/VLIW/EPIC/GOATSE] core." They got fuckstomped by the market, because it wasn't what the market wanted.