Thinking of doing civil eng

[Dominato3r]

I just finished second year, well technically first but a series of moves and such technically puts me into having finished first year. But that's besides the point.

I'm in the sciences right now, specifically taking bio chem type classes with the overall goal to finish second year and apply for the pharmacy program. I've figured out two things since I've been in university.

a) I'm not the biggest fan of chemistry. I don't like it, I don't hate it. I'm competent with chemistry and do fairly well in coursework, but it's not something that interests me

b) I'm really not a fan of biology. The subject is mundane, boring what have you. I'm also not good at it. Whatever that means, because it is a lot of memorization, but it frustrates the fuck out of me.

So I've been looking into a possible change. I looked at all the different types of engineering out there, and civil really sticks out. I've always been interested in infrastructure and concepts that involve logistics etc. Everything I've read online makes this seem like the type of thing I'd like to do.

In regards to getting into the program, most of my courses and credits would not transfer over. I would also need to switch my university, because my current school offers pretty much every type of engineering besides civil. I've emailed the two potential universities I might transfer to, and it looks like I'm going to have to redo most of first year, which I have no problem with.

So what think AT? I would have no problem going into pharmacy, but I think I would be really bored there. The pay and general job outlook seems to be positive there. I'd rather to this sooner than later than end up being locked into a certain path.

 

[Farmer]

Logistics is more computer science or operations research. As an undergrad, the most relevant major would be applied math.

Civil engineers learn everything mechanical engineers do, except with more focus on statics and ecology (i.e., mechanical properties of soil and of water). I feel like an undergrad in mechanical can easily enter a career in civil.

 

[96Firebird]

I'm not sure about Canada, but pharmacy here in the US is getting saturated quickly. If you find the subject manner boring, no point in continuing. Organic chemistry and the harder bio courses will kill you.

Civil engineering seemed like a very niche program when I was in college, I'm not really sure how hard the classes were compared to the mechanical classes I was taking.

 

[moonbogg]

Mechanical engineers make weapons. Civil engineers make targets.

 

[Imp]

Civil engineering grad with grad degree in it, and I'm a second grad degree dropout.

Mechanical is harder and probably more transferable. You should cover a big chunk of the physics that civil does, and have more than enough of a foundation concerning materials sciences to do civil. It depends which branch of civil you would want to do. For example, if you want to work on green buildings and HVAC, your mech degree would probably be better with more fluid mechanics courses taken. And to "prove" mechanical is harder, I applied to 3 or 4 universities for mech, and only got into 1, I think. The rest gave me civil or environmental - I didn't give two shits back then.

So, what in civil do you want to do? There's structural, geotechnical, water resources, water treatment, environmental (i.e. waste and soil remediation), transportation, construction management, etc.

I got stuck in transportation and partly structural and hate all of it - highest demand fields. I work for a big company, but have worked for a small start-up. I spend every day thinking about what else I can do, or how to get the hell out, rather than how I can move up within the field. Like at my company, all we do is "project engineering", which is better known as "project management with a PEng. license where we farm out all design/technical stuff to consultants". Every young engineer in the organization knows that they don't need a 4 year degree to do this job, but this is just my company to be fair.

At other companies, you can do design and consultation, work shit hours for a whole $60k-ish starting, then $70-$90k on average over time, unless you get into management or project management. Meanwhile, you may have to stamp and take on legal responsibility for multi-million dollar pieces of infrastructure... all for relatively crappy pay. I hear in Hong Kong, civil engineers specializing in certain sub-fields get $150k+ though (graduate degree required).

And by design, I mean a lot of recycling old designs or doing the same thing over and over again. A lot of structural design is just accounting and using computer programs. Recycling saves money and civil engineers are the bitches of architects or whoever set up the design parameters.

Lot of civil work is infrastructure too, so many companies depend on government projects/contracts. I'll let you figure out why this isn't a great thing.

Last thing I'd say is that with mechanical and electrical engineering, you can probably make something in your garage and sell it. With civil, whatever you make is probably big and exorbitantly expensive, requires permits, a license to practice, etc.

 

[bonkers325]

And by design, I mean a lot of recycling old designs or doing the same thing over and over again. A lot of structural design is just accounting and using computer programs. Recycling saves money and civil engineers are the bitches of architects or whoever set up the design parameters.

if all you know how to do is use computer analysis tools to crunch numbers for you, you're just an engineer technician. you will be forever a grunt doomed to the cubicle farms if you don't understand basic theory and principles. this applies to all fields of engineering.

fyi, most architects will listen to a good engineer when the engineer can make a strong and knowledgeable argument. if you can explain to them why some crazy idea of theirs is not feasible, they will listen to you. if all you can say is "well, my computer program says no..." then you are just relegated to crunching numbers for them.

 

[Dominato3r]

Thanks for the responses

I'm not sure about Canada, but pharmacy here in the US is getting saturated quickly. If you find the subject manner boring, no point in continuing. Organic chemistry and the harder bio courses will kill you.

Civil engineering seemed like a very niche program when I was in college, I'm not really sure how hard the classes were compared to the mechanical classes I was taking.

I've done Intro Organic chem and am doing the full course right now. I'm OK with it, I just find it un-interesting. Biology is really the only thing that I find difficult. It's weird because molecular biology is almost like organic chem 2.0, but something about it just doesn't fit right with me.

So, what in civil do you want to do? There's structural, geotechnical, water resources, water treatment, environmental (i.e. waste and soil remediation), transportation, construction management, etc.

I'm looking into water resources, transportation, and construction management. Geotechinals work with seismic stuff right? that's right up my alley too I guess.

I got stuck in transportation and partly structural and hate all of it - highest demand fields. I work for a big company, but have worked for a small start-up. I spend every day thinking about what else I can do, or how to get the hell out, rather than how I can move up within the field. Like at my company, all we do is "project engineering", which is better known as "project management with a PEng. license where we farm out all design/technical stuff to consultants". Every young engineer in the organization knows that they don't need a 4 year degree to do this job, but this is just my company to be fair.

That should incredibly boring. Any idea how things go on with the government side of thing? Municipal or provincial?

At other companies, you can do design and consultation, work shit hours for a whole $60k-ish starting, then $70-$90k on average over time, unless you get into management or project management. Meanwhile, you may have to stamp and take on legal responsibility for multi-million dollar pieces of infrastructure... all for relatively crappy pay. I hear in Hong Kong, civil engineers specializing in certain sub-fields get $150k+ though (graduate degree required).

That pay is fine imo. With Pharm you could probably bag more starting, but in the grand scheme of things, not much more. As with anything, it seems like Civil is heavily reliant on experience in regards to pay grades.

 

[Dedpuhl]

fyi, most architects will listen to a good engineer when the engineer can make a strong and knowledgeable argument. if you can explain to them why some crazy idea of theirs is not feasible, they will listen to you. if all you can say is "well, my computer program says no..." then you are just relegated to crunching numbers for them.

I'd probably quit my job if I had to deal with architects (landscape architects are OK) on a daily basis. LEED-certified architects are even more annoying. My work mostly consists of water/wastewater infrastructure design, so I don't have to deal with them as much as my peers.

The only group that annoys me more are contractors. Most will do ANYTHING to save a nickel if the engineer/inspector isn't watching.

 

[lxskllr]

I think civil engineering is one of the lowest paid engineering disciplines. You can make a nice living, but I wouldn't count on getting rich, and you may even struggle. You do something like that cause you like it, not to get a job doing "something".

 

[Dedpuhl]

I think civil engineering is one of the lowest paid engineering disciplines. You can make a nice living, but I wouldn't count on getting rich, and you may even struggle. You do something like that cause you like it, not to get a job doing "something".

It depends. If you are skilled at managing a client and/or large-scale projects, then you can make really good money. If you are an introvert that prefers to sit at a desk all day, then you'll probably make OK money.

I've been doing both and prefer working on smaller projects (< $5M), so I'll probably make decent money the rest of my life.

 

[Dominato3r]

It depends. If you are skilled at managing a client and/or large-scale projects, then you can make really good money. If you are an introvert that prefers to sit at a desk all day, then you'll probably make OK money.

I've been doing both and prefer working on smaller projects (< $5M), so I'll probably make decent money the rest of my life.

It seems like the biggest benefit of being a civil engineer is that you get to go outside

And I think you're right. Most people have been echoing the same words. If you don't take risks and try to push yourself forward, you'll be relegated to a relatively low hourly desk job. The high end of civil engineer is really friggin high. Depending on your specialty of course.

 

[lxskllr]

I've been doing both and prefer working on smaller projects (< $5M), so I'll probably make decent money the rest of my life.

What do you like about engineering? I was in a related field, surveying, with my specialty being highway/bridge construction, and to a lesser extent, commercial buildings. I got to fix engineering screwups in the field, and I enjoyed that. I like fixing problems. Doing everything from scratch seems like it would be boring to me. Crunching numbers, and ensuring specs, while worrying about something you forgot, or didn't account for.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Question: Do you have any idea what a civil engineer does on a day to day basis? If not, find one and shadow one for a day or so before making your decision. Best to go into these types of decisions with your eyes open as to what reality will be like after school. You might like the theory, but hate the actual job.

 

[Imp]

if all you know how to do is use computer analysis tools to crunch numbers for you, you're just an engineer technician. you will be forever a grunt doomed to the cubicle farms if you don't understand basic theory and principles. this applies to all fields of engineering.

fyi, most architects will listen to a good engineer when the engineer can make a strong and knowledgeable argument. if you can explain to them why some crazy idea of theirs is not feasible, they will listen to you. if all you can say is "well, my computer program says no..." then you are just relegated to crunching numbers for them.

I have a master's in engineering (enviro/build sci with 1 structural course) and focused my final undergrad year on structural - thanks, I can do structural and more. And you can't enter data if you don't have a clue how any of the loads are distributed or what the results mean.

You use computers in structural, at the very least, because they are fast and reliable. If you know the program, its limits, and it's certified, you can even off-load some liability. It takes 5-10 minutes of analysis and data entry into software to do a full beam load analysis with factored and unfactored loads, shear, and bending moment. It'd take at least double that to draw out the bending moment diagrams, redo every calculation once to get factored and unfactored, then run through at least 3 load cases.

At my main job in transportation, we also use software for everything from traffic signals and volume analysis/simulation. You shit on engineering technicians, but they know their shit and are the only ones in the office who can use AutoCAD, ArcGIS, and all other specialized software competently.

As for architects, have you worked with any before?

They will nickle and dime you. My boss has to BEG them to put a column in the floor and may still get denied because it ruins their "open concept aura". Instead, we have to put in monster beams. On smaller jobs, they run the show, and may be in bed with the contractor. Structural engineers and many civil engineer sub-fields are seen as barriers to a permit and not respected.

Thanks for playing?

Edit: What I originally meant was that engineers perform services for architects. The architect has the vision and concept, and their name will go on the building forever. The engineer helps make the architect's design possible structurally, or in other words, the engineer serves the architect. Yes, you can reason your way through to an architect, but when you do it, you fight an architect with an artistic vision trying to preserve a legacy. At the same time, you fight the owner who's hired the architect, and to whom the architect has sold his vision and services to.

And like many other jobs, engineers are paid by someone to do something to meet their needs. You serve them. They are your client. They pay your bills.

 

[Imp]

It seems like the biggest benefit of being a civil engineer is that you get to go outside

And I think you're right. Most people have been echoing the same words. If you don't take risks and try to push yourself forward, you'll be relegated to a relatively low hourly desk job. The high end of civil engineer is really friggin high. Depending on your specialty of course.

Outside was fun for the first while for me... But thanks to working in the transportation sector, the joy of standing on the side of a highway infront of the guiderail/barrier with trucks zipping by me doing 100 km/h killed the fun of being in the field for me. But if you're interested in working on regular construction sites, you get to stand in a nice cloud of diesel fumes and dust while contractors do their thing.

The high end is "high", but for all the work and responsibility, it seems like electrical engineers, bankers, and IT people get it better. There are only so many "high end" jobs and the rest are grunts that fall into the average salary range. But if you know your stuff, have the willpower and drive, then give it a shot.

I'd probably quit my job if I had to deal with architects (landscape architects are OK) on a daily basis. LEED-certified architects are even more annoying. My work mostly consists of water/wastewater infrastructure design, so I don't have to deal with them as much as my peers.

The only group that annoys me more are contractors. Most will do ANYTHING to save a nickel if the engineer/inspector isn't watching.

Contractors... They don't follow the drawings, half-ass things, don't do things by the book then bitch and complain about not being paid, you play the game and it either settles or you go to court, then rinse and repeat...

I'm looking into water resources, transportation, and construction management. Geotechinals work with seismic stuff right? that's right up my alley too I guess.

That should incredibly boring. Any idea how things go on with the government side of thing? Municipal or provincial?

Geotechnical is foundations, retaining walls, and anything to do with soil/support with a bit of groundwater. You'd do generally do boreholes, interpret the results, and help size foundations, excavation supports, and de-watering. Seismic is a very specialized sub-field that's a combination of structural and geotechnical. You need some knowledge of it to do anything structural since it counts as lateral (sideways) design. However, to be a seismic specialist, you'd probably need a PhD. There was maybe one graduate course on seismic at my school, so maybe with a MASc research thesis on the subject.

Government side is the boringest if your state/province has privatized everything. In my province at the provincial level, a good chunk of the technical stuff is usually farmed out to consultants thanks to the '90s and the Conservative party - fired all public workers, hired them back with profit premium for company. Most of the work is project management from my experience, where you set up the contracts, keep an eye on the contractor, and administrate the contracts. There are specialized/technical people in-house, but mostly project management. Municipal is very hard to get into and they usually stick to experienced and licensed people (I have not seen entry level positions advertised before). Not much experience with them, though their job ads seem somewhat technical.

Question: Do you have any idea what a civil engineer does on a day to day basis? If not, find one and shadow one for a day or so before making your decision. Best to go into these types of decisions with your eyes open as to what reality will be like after school. You might like the theory, but hate the actual job.

Welcome to my world. I only like one sub-field in civil and that's water treatment. Unfortunately, only so many treatment plants are required at a time, so the job prospects are lower than structural and transportation.

Civil is one of the easiest engineering degrees you can get, but it was still pretty damn hard. As a "general education", it's pretty good and I know some people who did their undergrad in it, then went on to get an MBA or started over. It'd probably be more useful than organic chemistry if you don't do what you studied. Do remember that engineering programs are about double the price of BA.s (BSc.s too?) though.

 

[Rockinacoustic]

If you can't wrap your head around biology and memorization now then pharmacy school is going to be a pain for you.

 

[alkemyst]

So what think AT? I would have no problem going into pharmacy, but I think I would be really bored there. The pay and general job outlook seems to be positive there. I'd rather to this sooner than later than end up being locked into a certain path.

I was interviewed by MIT for engineering. Declined.

I was accepted to UF/UM for pharmacy. Declined.

A bit of a fucked up period between.

Became Cisco Certified. Profit.

 

[iGas]

There are many facets to mechanical eng than civil. Mining, chemical/petroleum, nuclear, and electrical eng tend to have slightly higher wage than mechanical eng, while civil eng tend to take up the rear for wage compare to the rest of the engineering field.

And, currently Australia and Canada is screaming for any type of engineer.

Mining engineer graduates have a starting salary of $80,000

 

[OverVolt]

Bio is fun by the way. Once you understand how everything works its not as much memorization.

 

[sdifox]

I can't think of a more frustrating career. All your recommendations will be ignored because there is no F in money.

Maintenance will be ignored, leading to shortened service life.

 

[bonkers325]

And you can't enter data if you don't have a clue how any of the loads are distributed or what the results mean.

I've met licensed professional engineers who only know how to design flat slabs, beams, and columns because that's all they were assigned to do in their time at big design firms like Cantor Seinuk or Thornton-Tomasetti. I assure you, it is entirely possible for someone to model a structure without any clue as to what the loads and results mean.

You shit on engineering technicians, but they know their shit and are the only ones in the office who can use AutoCAD, ArcGIS, and all other specialized software competently.

I did not mean to shit on engineering techs, but if I did then I apologize. The point I am trying to make is that many engineers now-a-days rely heavily on analysis software and do not really understand what they're doing - they are just inputting data for a senior engineer to review. If you want to progress as an engineer you better know your shit otherwise you're just a grunt to upper management.

I have no techs in my office, everyone here does their own drafting and modeling.

As for architects, have you worked with any before?

They will nickle and dime you. My boss has to BEG them to put a column in the floor and may still get denied because it ruins their "open concept aura". Instead, we have to put in monster beams. On smaller jobs, they run the show, and may be in bed with the contractor. Structural engineers and many civil engineer sub-fields are seen as barriers to a permit and not respected.

I work with architects every day. If they want a column-less design, I can give them a transfer girder or truss. I would then proceed to tell them what the increase in cost would be (approx $10/lb installed) and tell them how deep I need the girder/truss to be and how much heavier the supports would need to be. Knowing that, they'll evaluate their options and get back to me. I've never had a problem with an architect's fancies - anything can be done as long as they have the money to do so.

I also work with contractors every day, and the bad ones are the ones that nickel and dime you. Luckily I have had the pleasure of working with great contractors like Kiewit and Skanska and they don't dick around.



But back on topic, civil engineering is a broad field and like Imp says, you can do many things as a civil engineer. In general, we are on the other end of the salary range and at the same time I feel we have more liabilities than most other engineering professions. If you work on the public side of things, be prepared for boredom and tons of red tape. I would NOT recommend working for public sector unless you have 5+ years under your belt. Anything you learn as a public employee will likely not be useful if you ever decide to venture into the private sector.

 

[jagec]

All of the other engineers will clown on you nonstop. And when you get out, you will be considered a grunt worker, just a more expensive grunt ruler who uses a slide rule instead of a shovel.

(OK, a computer, but that's not as alliterative)

<--BS in ChemE, currently working on a PhD in a biological field

 

[Imp]

I've met licensed professional engineers who only know how to design flat slabs, beams, and columns because that's all they were assigned to do in their time at big design firms like Cantor Seinuk or Thornton-Tomasetti. I assure you, it is entirely possible for someone to model a structure without any clue as to what the loads and results mean.

I did not mean to shit on engineering techs, but if I did then I apologize. The point I am trying to make is that many engineers now-a-days rely heavily on analysis software and do not really understand what they're doing - they are just inputting data for a senior engineer to review. If you want to progress as an engineer you better know your shit otherwise you're just a grunt to upper management.

I have no techs in my office, everyone here does their own drafting and modeling.

I work with architects every day. If they want a column-less design, I can give them a transfer girder or truss. I would then proceed to tell them what the increase in cost would be (approx $10/lb installed) and tell them how deep I need the girder/truss to be and how much heavier the supports would need to be. Knowing that, they'll evaluate their options and get back to me. I've never had a problem with an architect's fancies - anything can be done as long as they have the money to do so.

I also work with contractors every day, and the bad ones are the ones that nickel and dime you. Luckily I have had the pleasure of working with great contractors like Kiewit and Skanska and they don't dick around.

But back on topic, civil engineering is a broad field and like Imp says, you can do many things as a civil engineer. In general, we are on the other end of the salary range and at the same time I feel we have more liabilities than most other engineering professions. If you work on the public side of things, be prepared for boredom and tons of red tape. I would NOT recommend working for public sector unless you have 5+ years under your belt. Anything you learn as a public employee will likely not be useful if you ever decide to venture into the private sector.

Okay. I thought you were just trolling, which is not the case.

Yes, you can use software without knowing what goes in or out. I should have said that you can't use use the software reliably (rather than enter data) without knowing what you're doing. You can't enter the data if you don't know what data to enter or how the structure works so that you can produce that data to enter. If someone or even the user found some data entry fields and plugged in whatever felt right, or someone gave the user to do data entry, then yes, you can use software with no clue. I've done both: enter and did my own analysis, and enter to let a senior engineer check it over. In the latter case, I'd give some blame to senior staff for not training me properly as the clueless new guy.

Different experiences when it comes to drafting/software. The average age at my main job is north of 45 probably, so people go to me just to change some text or add a line in AutoCAD - we have no dedicated drafters since we mostly do project management. However, there are also some late-20s engineers in training who suffer from the same issues - "oh, I can't use AutoCAD, can you do it for me?". I don't even want to get started on ArcGIS... I never learned it in university, while many civil engineer techs who did college did. I ended up doing a company course and know the basics, and can do amazing things with it. Most other people in the company haven't even heard of it.

Again, different experiences with architects and contractors. At my side job, we do luxury home renos and new builds. Lots of egos to satisfy, and lots of pleaing. Designs can be over the top and a pain to run through. Some are more cooperative than others, but in the end, the architect usually hires the engineer and one the customer is always right... Contractors are hit and miss. Having said that, the bad ones are not that hard to find and may be hard to avoid.

The risk vs. reward imbalance is partly why I want out. In every profession there are top-tier, super high paying jobs, and then there are the rest. I know we can't all be investment bankers, but if I stick around, I'll likely make $80-$90k in 10 years... If you do IT or investment banking, you should be well over $100k in half that time. From what I've read of electrical engineers and programmers, they make $80k out of school occasionally - I'd never make it as either. So, you should go into civil to love what you do rather than for money.

 

[bonkers325]

Well I guess I wouldn't trust a newbie to handle software input unless they've demonstrated aptitude for the software. Last time I trusted a new hire to model a simple bridge span for me, we were 3x over budget based on hours spent trying to teach him how to read drawings and how to model it properly... he was a Ph.D. with 1 year of experience so YMMV lol.

Aside from my boss, I am the oldest person in the office at age 28. We all do our own calculations and drafting and supplement with software/spreadsheets. Everyone does their own detailing, and we detail to shop drawing quality. If you know AutoCAD, your worth as an engineer increases dramatically. I would recommend any civil engineer to be familiar with it.

The smaller the job, the worse the contractor gets as the margins are much tighter. But the customer is always right and it's important to realize that the customer is always the owner. Do what's right, and they'll come back with other projects. Not the same with contractors, can't tell you how many I've pissed off because I kept saying 'no'.

6 figures isn't a far stretch at 10 years, especially with management experience. But yes, chem/elec/mech will make generally make more than civil engineers. I do structural because I like being involved with my city's infrastructure and architectural landscape. Plus I get to throw my weight around once in a while and get my way

 

[Imp]

Good to hear that you like your job. Me? Not so much. I'm slightly younger than you and want out already.

Do you know of any civil engineers that left the field, and if so, what they went to do afterwards?