You found the blog. You read a post or two, or maybe just the title. Now you have questions. Some of them are genuine. Most of them are the same ten objections repackaged by every commenter who would rather argue with the messenger than sit with the numbers. Here they are, answered once, so nobody has to repeat themselves.
49 questions. 134 cross-references. 41 Reasons cited. 17 federal sources behind them.
Jump To
About the Author and the Blog (5)Messenger Attacks (10)
Structural Deflections (9)
Coping Mechanisms (11)
Comparisons (4)
Good-Faith Questions (10)
About the Author and the Blog
"Who are you? What are your qualifications?"
The author holds a BSME, a master's degree, a PhD, a PE license, and a PMP certification, with close to thirty years of industry experience spanning design, project engineering, management, hiring, and business ownership. The blog is written anonymously because the argument should stand on its sources, not on a LinkedIn profile. Every post cites public data from BLS, ASEE, NACE, NSCG, USCIS, and the NY Fed. The oversupply ratio (Reason #34), the pay gap (Reason #18), and the underemployment rate (Reason #63) do not become more true or less true depending on who presents them. If you disagree with a claim, name the claim and cite a better source. That is the conversation this blog exists to have.
"Why are you anonymous?"
Because the author works in the field and hires in the field. Attaching a name would shift the conversation from "is the data correct" to "who is this person and why should we listen to them," which is already the reflexive response to the blog despite the anonymity (Reason #59). The blog cites every source. There are no ads, no courses, no affiliate links, no newsletter, no paywall. It sells nothing. The anonymity protects the author's professional relationships. It does not protect the argument, because the argument does not need protection. It needs a counterargument, and so far nobody has provided one with sources attached.
"What does the blog sell?"
Nothing. There are no ads, no courses, no affiliate links, no newsletter, no paywall, no merch, no Patreon, no consulting offer. The blog is free. The author makes money from engineering work and an industrial equipment and services business, not from convincing you that mechanical engineering is a bad deal. There is no financial incentive to be wrong. In fact, the author recruits mechanical engineers professionally. The oversupply documented in Reason #1 is good for hiring managers. The author is speaking against a financial interest, not in favor of one.
"Why are you doing this? You must have a mental illness / be obsessed / need professional help."
This is the most common response when every other deflection has failed. When "you're just bitter" does not stick because the author cites sources, when "all engineering is like this" does not stick because the comparative data says otherwise, when "post your resume" does not stick because the argument was never about the author's career, the final move is always the same: armchair psychology. "Get help." "This is an obsession." "No healthy person writes this much about one topic."
The pattern is worth examining. The author posts BLS projections, ASEE enrollment data, NY Fed underemployment rates, and USCIS H-1B approval numbers. The response is not "the BLS is wrong" or "here is a better source." The response is "this person is unwell." That tells every student reading the thread exactly how strong the "mechanical engineering is fine" argument is when it meets federal data. If the data were easy to dismiss, nobody would need to diagnose the person presenting it.
The blog has over 70 entries, 17 federal and professional sources, APA citations throughout, and nearly 16,000 lifetime reads. It sells nothing. It earns nothing. It exists because the author recruits mechanical engineers for a living and watches the same broken pipeline produce the same outcomes year after year (Reason #25). Writing about a structural problem in a field you have worked in for three decades is not a mental illness. It is documentation. The people who call it an obsession have not disputed a single number. Not one. That is their record. It is public. And it answers their own question better than the author ever could (Reason #59).
The pattern is worth examining. The author posts BLS projections, ASEE enrollment data, NY Fed underemployment rates, and USCIS H-1B approval numbers. The response is not "the BLS is wrong" or "here is a better source." The response is "this person is unwell." That tells every student reading the thread exactly how strong the "mechanical engineering is fine" argument is when it meets federal data. If the data were easy to dismiss, nobody would need to diagnose the person presenting it.
The blog has over 70 entries, 17 federal and professional sources, APA citations throughout, and nearly 16,000 lifetime reads. It sells nothing. It earns nothing. It exists because the author recruits mechanical engineers for a living and watches the same broken pipeline produce the same outcomes year after year (Reason #25). Writing about a structural problem in a field you have worked in for three decades is not a mental illness. It is documentation. The people who call it an obsession have not disputed a single number. Not one. That is their record. It is public. And it answers their own question better than the author ever could (Reason #59).
"The blog is AI-generated."
The blog is written in a deliberate, structured style by someone who has been writing this way for decades. The consistent voice is not a defect. It is the point. Every post is researched, drafted, and edited by the author. If you suspect a piece is machine-generated, check the sources. They are real, the URLs work, and the data is verifiable. Pick any claim, the 2.5:1 ratio in Reason #34, the pay comparisons in Reason #18, the underemployment data in Reason #63, and trace it to the source yourself. That is more than most Reddit comments can say.
Messenger Attacks
"You're just bitter because you couldn't get hired."
The author runs projects, hires engineers, and operates in the industrial equipment and services sector. The blog exists because the pattern kept repeating across companies, industries, and decades, not because of a bad outcome. But even if the author were unemployed and writing from a public library, the BLS would still project roughly 18,100 mechanical engineering openings per year while U.S. schools award approximately 36,000 BSME degrees annually (Reason #34). The party line says everything is fine (Reason #39). The numbers say otherwise, and they do not care about the author's resume. They do not care about yours either.
"Post your resume if you're so confident."
The author's resume does not change the BLS median. The author's career path does not change the ASEE graduation numbers. The author's school does not change the 2.5 applicant-to-opening ratio (Reason #34). Those are government datasets. Demanding credentials before engaging with data is a deflection, not a rebuttal. The argument stands or falls on the evidence, not on the person presenting it (Reason #39). If you have a better source, post it. The blog will wait.
"I don't think you are who you say you are. You're a fraud."
The author claims a BSME, a master's, a PhD, a PE, a PMP, and close to thirty years in the field. You do not believe that. Fine. It does not matter. The blog does not ask you to trust the author. It asks you to check the sources. Every BLS projection, every ASEE graduation count, every NY Fed underemployment rate, every USCIS H-1B number cited in this blog is a government dataset with a public URL. Click any of them. The data does not care who typed the sentences around it.
The fraud accusation is the last resort of someone who cannot find a factual error. If the author were a first-year student with no credentials at all, the BLS would still project 18,100 openings against 36,000 graduates (Reason #34). The NY Fed would still show 20.1% underemployment (Reason #63). The pay gap would still exist (Reason #18). Discrediting the author does not discredit the data. It just tells everyone watching that you tried to find something wrong with the numbers and could not, so you went after the person instead.
The fraud accusation is the last resort of someone who cannot find a factual error. If the author were a first-year student with no credentials at all, the BLS would still project 18,100 openings against 36,000 graduates (Reason #34). The NY Fed would still show 20.1% underemployment (Reason #63). The pay gap would still exist (Reason #18). Discrediting the author does not discredit the data. It just tells everyone watching that you tried to find something wrong with the numbers and could not, so you went after the person instead.
"You should have gone to a better school / done more internships."
This is hindsight gatekeeping. It reframes a structural problem as a preparation failure. The oversupply exists at every tier. Students from top-ten programs and students from regional state schools are both competing for the same 18,100 openings against 36,000 new graduates plus experienced engineers plus H-1B applicants (Reason #34). Internships help. A better school helps. Neither changes the ratio. And the internship pipeline is broken in its own right (Reason #5). The person telling you after the fact that you should have done more is not offering advice. They are explaining why your failure was your fault so they do not have to consider whether the system produced it.
"You got banned from Reddit. That says something about you."
It says the community polices itself (Reason #70). The author was banned from r/MechanicalEngineering and r/EngineeringStudents for posting sourced, data-backed content about the field's structural problems. No rules were violated. No insults were posted. The content was removed because it was uncomfortable, not because it was wrong. That is the same reflex described in Reason #39 and Reason #59. If the data were easy to dismiss, nobody would need to ban the person presenting it.
"You're not passionate enough. That's the real problem."
Passion does not change the ratio. It does not change the pay ceiling (Reason #27). It does not change the satisfaction data where mechanical engineers rate lower than EE, civil, chemical, software, and aerospace engineers on the same scale (Reason #38). "Be more passionate" is the mechanical engineering equivalent of "just be yourself" on a dating profile. It is technically not wrong. It is practically useless when 200 people applied for the same req and half of them are also passionate. The field does not have a passion shortage. It has a structural oversupply, a pay ceiling, and a documentation drift problem. Passion does not fix any of those. It just makes you a more enthusiastic person to underpay.
"Multiple people keep saying 'avoid mechanical engineering.' It's the same guy on different accounts."
It is not the same person. You should ask yourself why it keeps happening instead of assuming it is all one account. When multiple strangers independently arrive at the same conclusion about a field, the field is the common variable, not a conspiracy (Reason #39). The blog has readers across Reddit, LinkedIn, and direct search traffic. Some of them share what they found. Some of them came to the same conclusions on their own before they ever heard of the blog. The fact that the message keeps surfacing despite bans, removals, and ridicule (Reason #70) is not evidence of coordination. It is evidence that the underlying data is hard to argue with, so people keep encountering it and keep saying the same thing.
"You just hate mechanical engineers / mechanical engineering."
The author is a mechanical engineer. Has been for close to thirty years. Holds the degree, the license, the certifications, and runs a business in the industry. The blog does not hate mechanical engineers. It describes what happens to them. There is a difference between hating a person and documenting the structural conditions that person works under. A cardiologist who tells you your arteries are narrowing does not hate you. The person who told you bacon was a health food is the one who did the damage.
If the blog hated mechanical engineers it would not cite sources. It would not cross-reference its own claims. It would not invite counterarguments. It would just rant. The blog does the opposite. It builds its case one federal dataset at a time (Reason #34, Reason #63, Reason #67) and waits for someone to find a number that is wrong. Nobody has. The accusation of hatred is what you reach for when the data is correct and you do not like how it makes you feel.
If the blog hated mechanical engineers it would not cite sources. It would not cross-reference its own claims. It would not invite counterarguments. It would just rant. The blog does the opposite. It builds its case one federal dataset at a time (Reason #34, Reason #63, Reason #67) and waits for someone to find a number that is wrong. Nobody has. The accusation of hatred is what you reach for when the data is correct and you do not like how it makes you feel.
"You had a bad experience so you're shitting on all of us."
The blog is not about a company. It is not about a boss. It is not about one bad job. The author has changed companies, changed industries within mechanical engineering, and built a business. If this were a personal grudge it would have burned out after one post. It did not. There are over 70 entries because the pattern kept repeating across employers, sectors, and decades. The BLS does not publish personal grudges. The NY Fed does not track one person's bad week. The ASEE does not count graduates because the author is upset.
Reducing a sourced, cited, multi-year documentation effort to "he had a bad experience" is the fastest way to avoid engaging with the numbers. It is also the most common. The author has watched this deflection play out in every Reddit thread, every DM, and every comment section where the blog gets mentioned. The person who says "bad experience" has never identified which specific claim is wrong. Not once. That tells you what the accusation is actually doing. It is not a rebuttal. It is a reflex (Reason #39). The building code is the problem, not the building (Reason #72). You can change employers. You cannot change the structure of the field.
Reducing a sourced, cited, multi-year documentation effort to "he had a bad experience" is the fastest way to avoid engaging with the numbers. It is also the most common. The author has watched this deflection play out in every Reddit thread, every DM, and every comment section where the blog gets mentioned. The person who says "bad experience" has never identified which specific claim is wrong. Not once. That tells you what the accusation is actually doing. It is not a rebuttal. It is a reflex (Reason #39). The building code is the problem, not the building (Reason #72). You can change employers. You cannot change the structure of the field.
"If you hate mechanical engineering so much, just quit. Leave the field."
That is the trap the blog documents. Three decades of sunk expertise, professional relationships, and industry-specific knowledge do not transfer cleanly (Reason #46). Your specialization picks your zip code (Reason #20). Your resume says one thing to recruiters and they do not read past it (Reason #11). "Just quit" is advice that ignores mortgages, families, and the fact that mid-career pivots in mechanical engineering cost years of repositioning. It also ignores the point. The author does not hate the work. The author hates that the field is structurally broken and nobody else is documenting it. Telling someone to leave instead of speak is the same reflex that gets posts removed and accounts banned (Reason #70). The message is always the same: if you do not like it, shut up or go. Never: if you do not like it, show me where the data is wrong.
Structural Deflections
"Every engineering field has these problems. This isn't specific to mechanical engineering."
It is specific to mechanical engineering. That is the entire point of the blog. Every claim below uses the same federal datasets, and mechanical engineering comes out worse on nearly every one. Run the comparison yourself.
Oversupply. Mechanical engineering produces roughly 36,000 bachelor's degrees per year, the highest of any engineering discipline. BLS projects approximately 18,100 annual openings. That is a 2:1 ratio before you add experienced engineers, H-1B entrants, and engineering technology graduates. The actual competition is closer to 2.5:1 (Reason #34). No other core engineering discipline has a pipeline this oversized relative to demand (Reason #1).
Underemployment. The NY Fed's 2024 ACS data shows one in five mechanical engineering graduates working a job that did not require their degree. Mechanical engineering underemployment is 20.1%. Aerospace is 14.7%. Civil is 15.6%. Computer engineering is 15.8%. Chemical is 17.9%. Mechanical engineering is at or near the bottom of every core discipline (Reason #63). Worse, the trend is diverging. Aerospace underemployment dropped from 23.6% to 14.7% between 2020 and 2024. Mechanical engineering barely moved. It went from 19.4% to 20.1%. One field recovered. The other got worse.
Pay. Mechanical engineering early-career median is $80,000. Computer engineering is $90,000. Aerospace and chemical are $85,000. Industrial is $83,000. Electrical is $82,000. At mid-career the gap widens. Mechanical engineering hits $120,000. Chemical hits $135,000. Computer engineering hits $131,000. Aerospace hits $130,000. Electrical hits $123,000. Mechanical engineering is at or near the bottom of the major engineering disciplines at every career stage (Reason #18). The return on investment, accounting for the difficulty of the coursework and the time to degree, is the worst in engineering (Reason #67).
Growth. BLS projects essentially flat employment growth for mechanical engineering through 2034. Industrial engineering is projected to grow significantly. Software continues to expand. Mechanical engineering is not shrinking overnight. It is stalling while everything around it moves (Reason #50).
Licensure. Civil engineers have the PE baked into career progression. The stamp is required for structural, municipal, and infrastructure work. Electrical engineers seal power and protection designs. In mechanical engineering, the PE is optional and mostly decorative. The few niches that require a stamp are thin and dominated by civil engineers (Reason #17). Mechanical engineering has no guild, no title protection, and no enforceable scope of practice (Reason #13).
Remote flexibility. Software engineers work from anywhere. EE and computer engineers increasingly do too. Mechanical engineering work is tied to hardware, test labs, production floors, and supplier audits. Remote mechanical engineering roles barely exist (Reason #30). Your specialization picks your zip code (Reason #20).
Global competition. USCIS approved over 8,000 H-1B petitions in mechanical engineering occupations in FY 2024 alone. Your applicant pool is not local. It is global (Reason #24).
Satisfaction. PayScale data shows mechanical engineers report lower job satisfaction than EE, civil, chemical, software, and aerospace engineers on the same scale (Reason #38). Research on intergenerational career inheritance found that children of mechanical engineers are far less likely to follow the same path than children in medicine, law, or architecture (Reason #53). The people who know the field best steer their own children away from it.
That is not "every field has these problems." That is one field, measured against its peers, losing on oversupply, underemployment, pay, growth, licensure protection, remote flexibility, global competition, and satisfaction. The data is not ambiguous. The problems are not universal. They are mechanical engineering's.
Oversupply. Mechanical engineering produces roughly 36,000 bachelor's degrees per year, the highest of any engineering discipline. BLS projects approximately 18,100 annual openings. That is a 2:1 ratio before you add experienced engineers, H-1B entrants, and engineering technology graduates. The actual competition is closer to 2.5:1 (Reason #34). No other core engineering discipline has a pipeline this oversized relative to demand (Reason #1).
Underemployment. The NY Fed's 2024 ACS data shows one in five mechanical engineering graduates working a job that did not require their degree. Mechanical engineering underemployment is 20.1%. Aerospace is 14.7%. Civil is 15.6%. Computer engineering is 15.8%. Chemical is 17.9%. Mechanical engineering is at or near the bottom of every core discipline (Reason #63). Worse, the trend is diverging. Aerospace underemployment dropped from 23.6% to 14.7% between 2020 and 2024. Mechanical engineering barely moved. It went from 19.4% to 20.1%. One field recovered. The other got worse.
Pay. Mechanical engineering early-career median is $80,000. Computer engineering is $90,000. Aerospace and chemical are $85,000. Industrial is $83,000. Electrical is $82,000. At mid-career the gap widens. Mechanical engineering hits $120,000. Chemical hits $135,000. Computer engineering hits $131,000. Aerospace hits $130,000. Electrical hits $123,000. Mechanical engineering is at or near the bottom of the major engineering disciplines at every career stage (Reason #18). The return on investment, accounting for the difficulty of the coursework and the time to degree, is the worst in engineering (Reason #67).
Growth. BLS projects essentially flat employment growth for mechanical engineering through 2034. Industrial engineering is projected to grow significantly. Software continues to expand. Mechanical engineering is not shrinking overnight. It is stalling while everything around it moves (Reason #50).
Licensure. Civil engineers have the PE baked into career progression. The stamp is required for structural, municipal, and infrastructure work. Electrical engineers seal power and protection designs. In mechanical engineering, the PE is optional and mostly decorative. The few niches that require a stamp are thin and dominated by civil engineers (Reason #17). Mechanical engineering has no guild, no title protection, and no enforceable scope of practice (Reason #13).
Remote flexibility. Software engineers work from anywhere. EE and computer engineers increasingly do too. Mechanical engineering work is tied to hardware, test labs, production floors, and supplier audits. Remote mechanical engineering roles barely exist (Reason #30). Your specialization picks your zip code (Reason #20).
Global competition. USCIS approved over 8,000 H-1B petitions in mechanical engineering occupations in FY 2024 alone. Your applicant pool is not local. It is global (Reason #24).
Satisfaction. PayScale data shows mechanical engineers report lower job satisfaction than EE, civil, chemical, software, and aerospace engineers on the same scale (Reason #38). Research on intergenerational career inheritance found that children of mechanical engineers are far less likely to follow the same path than children in medicine, law, or architecture (Reason #53). The people who know the field best steer their own children away from it.
That is not "every field has these problems." That is one field, measured against its peers, losing on oversupply, underemployment, pay, growth, licensure protection, remote flexibility, global competition, and satisfaction. The data is not ambiguous. The problems are not universal. They are mechanical engineering's.
"It's not the market. It's you."
This reframes a structural oversupply problem as a personal failure. The BLS data does not fluctuate based on interview skills. USCIS approved over 8,000 H-1B petitions in mechanical engineering occupations in FY 2024 alone (Reason #24). U.S. schools graduate roughly 36,000 mechanical engineers per year into approximately 18,100 openings (Reason #34). The pipeline mismatch is built in (Reason #25). You can be personable, well-networked, and technically excellent and still spend six months applying. The arithmetic does not bend to effort.
"I got a job just fine. The market works if you're good enough."
That is survivorship bias. The people who could not find work, who pivoted to sales or project management, who left engineering entirely, are not in your Reddit thread. They are not in your LinkedIn feed. They moved on and stopped talking about it (Reason #39). Your outcome is real. It is also not the median. When two and a half qualified candidates compete for every opening (Reason #34), most of them are "good enough." Being good enough in an oversupplied field does not guarantee anything. It makes you a more pleasant person to reject.
"I've been in mechanical engineering for 20 years and I'm happy with my decision."
Nobody is arguing that you do not exist. The blog does not claim every mechanical engineering is miserable. It claims the field is structurally disadvantaged relative to other engineering disciplines, and the data supports that claim. PayScale satisfaction data shows mechanical engineers rate lower than EE, civil, chemical, software, and aerospace engineers (Reason #38). One in five mechanical engineering graduates works a job that did not require the degree (Reason #63). Your happiness is real. It is also not the median outcome, and presenting it as proof that the field is fine is survivorship bias doing what it always does. The people who left mechanical engineering, who pivoted to sales or project management or quit engineering entirely, are not in your office and they are not in your Reddit thread. They moved on and stopped talking about it. You stayed. That makes you visible. It does not make you representative.
Pay attention to how people defend the field when pressed. They say they are happy, then in the next sentence they mention being pulled into management against their will, dreaming about leaving for carpentry or farming, wishing they had done computer science ten years ago, and insisting every job sucks so it does not matter. That is not contentment. That is accommodation dressed up as a career endorsement. The blog exists for the people who have not yet adjusted their expectations downward far enough to call it satisfaction.
Pay attention to how people defend the field when pressed. They say they are happy, then in the next sentence they mention being pulled into management against their will, dreaming about leaving for carpentry or farming, wishing they had done computer science ten years ago, and insisting every job sucks so it does not matter. That is not contentment. That is accommodation dressed up as a career endorsement. The blog exists for the people who have not yet adjusted their expectations downward far enough to call it satisfaction.
"You're cherry-picking data."
The blog cites BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook data, ASEE enrollment and graduation reports, NACE salary surveys, USCIS H-1B approval data by SOC code (Reason #24), NSCG workforce composition data, NY Fed College Labor Market Outcomes (Reason #63), and CPS self-employment cross-tabs. These are the same sources that universities, policy researchers, and government agencies use. If citing every major public labor market dataset available is cherry-picking, then the orchard has one tree and this blog already climbed it.
"Isn't this just one person's opinion?"
Every BLS statistic, every ASEE enrollment count, every NY Fed underemployment rate, and every USCIS H-1B approval number cited in this blog is a government dataset, not an opinion. The interpretation is the author's. The data is the public's. If the interpretation is wrong, show where. Specifically. With a source. The oversupply math in Reason #34, the pay comparisons in Reason #67, and the satisfaction gap in Reason #38 all come from sources anyone can verify. That is the standard this blog holds itself to, and it is the standard it asks of its critics. So far, the critics have preferred "you're bitter" to "here's a better number." That pattern is its own answer.
"The blog is too negative / one-sided / you only show the bad."
The blog does not claim to be balanced. The BLS data is not balanced. The NY Fed data is not balanced. The ASEE graduation numbers are not balanced. Every federal dataset points the same direction, and the blog follows the data. There is no shortage of sources telling you mechanical engineering is a great field. University brochures do it. ASME does it. DiscoverE does it during Engineers Week. Career services does it at every campus visit. The entire pipeline is designed to recruit you into the field (Reason #4). Nobody is paid to show you the other side. This blog is the other side. If it feels one-sided, that is because everything you heard before you got here was also one-sided (Reason #39). You just did not notice because it was telling you what you wanted to hear.
"Engineering is still better than most careers. Try being a history major."
This is a race to the bottom. Comparing mechanical engineering to the weakest liberal arts outcomes does not make mechanical engineering strong. It makes it the tallest person in a short room. The blog compares mechanical engineering to other engineering disciplines, because that is the relevant decision a STEM student is making. Nobody choosing between mechanical engineering and electrical engineering needs to hear that both are better than art history. The question is which engineering discipline gives you the best return on the same four to six years of calculus, physics, and tuition (Reason #2). On that question, mechanical engineering loses to chemical, electrical, computer, and aerospace on pay, and loses to most of them on underemployment (Reason #67). "At least you're not a barista" is not a career plan. It is a consolation prize.
"The data is old / outdated / BLS projections are unreliable."
The blog cites the most recent available release from each source. The NY Fed data is based on the 2024 American Community Survey, released February 2026. The BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook is updated on a regular cycle. ASEE publishes annual enrollment and graduation reports. USCIS publishes H-1B data annually. If a newer release contradicts a claim in the blog, send it. The blog will update. So far nobody has sent a newer source. They have just said "the data is old" without checking the date on it. That is not a rebuttal. That is a guess dressed up as skepticism.
As for BLS projections being unreliable: the same projections are used by every university career services office, every workforce development board, and every policy researcher in the country. If BLS projections are unreliable, then every piece of career advice you have ever received from an institutional source is also unreliable. The blog does not ask you to trust BLS blindly. It asks you to read the numbers yourself and decide if a 2.5:1 ratio (Reason #34) is a field you want to compete in, if flat growth (Reason #50) is a trajectory you want to ride, and if the worst return on investment in engineering (Reason #67) is a bet you want to make. If you have a better source, cite it.
As for BLS projections being unreliable: the same projections are used by every university career services office, every workforce development board, and every policy researcher in the country. If BLS projections are unreliable, then every piece of career advice you have ever received from an institutional source is also unreliable. The blog does not ask you to trust BLS blindly. It asks you to read the numbers yourself and decide if a 2.5:1 ratio (Reason #34) is a field you want to compete in, if flat growth (Reason #50) is a trajectory you want to ride, and if the worst return on investment in engineering (Reason #67) is a bet you want to make. If you have a better source, cite it.
Coping Mechanisms
"Mechanical engineering is a Swiss Army knife. You can do anything with it."
Read the list of things people say you "can do" with a mechanical engineering degree: project management, field service, sales, finance, consulting, operations, supply chain, quality, technical writing. Read it again. None of those are mechanical engineering. Every single one is a different profession with its own title, its own pay scale, and its own career track. The "versatility" argument is not a defense of mechanical engineering. It is an admission that advancement means leaving mechanical engineering (Reason #28). Nobody calls a degree versatile when it leads to the career it promised. They call it versatile when it does not.
The list proves the problem. When someone tells you a mechanical engineering degree lets you become a PM, a sales engineer, a field service rep, or a consultant, ask yourself why every "option" requires leaving the discipline you spent five years studying. The patent attorney is paid as a patent attorney. The PM is paid as a PM. The mechanical engineering who stays technical and stays in the mechanical engineering title hits the ceiling. Those lateral moves exist because the mechanical engineering track runs out of room (Reason #27). That is not versatility. That is scattering.
Broad means unfocused in a crowded market. When 36,000 people earn the same degree every year into 18,100 openings (Reason #34), breadth does not give you range. It gives you competition from every direction. The generalist loses to the specialist in hiring because the hiring manager has fifteen applicants who already did the exact thing and one who "can do anything." They pick the one who already did it. Broadness without direction is a liability, not an asset (Reason #8).
The "Swiss Army knife" costs more and does less. A CS graduate's "versatility" pays $90,000 early career and $131,000 mid-career. A mechanical engineering graduate's "versatility" pays $80,000 and $120,000, and requires relocation to a plant town (Reason #20). Chemical engineering's "narrower" degree pays $85,000 early and $135,000 mid. The knife that "does everything" earns less than the scalpel that does one thing well (Reason #18).
Watch how the argument plays out in real life. On every Reddit thread where someone asks if mechanical engineering is worth it, the top replies are "you can go into PM, field service, sales, consulting." The second-most-upvoted commenter started in electrical construction, moved to diesel sales, and is now "finally doing traditional engineering." That is not a mechanical engineering success story. That is a career built on leaving mechanical engineering. When every success story involves an exit from the field, the field is the problem (Reason #22).
Most people do not steer. They drift. Nobody walks into freshman orientation dreaming about sustaining engineering or supplier quality. They picture design, R&D, innovation. Then the market sorts them into whatever opened first and they call it a specialization three years later (Reason #49). The "you can do anything" pitch assumes disciplined, strategic navigation of a career from age 22. In practice, the field produces volume, not direction, and most people drift into the first chair that was not taken (Reason #4).
One in five ends up nowhere near engineering at all. The NY Fed shows 20.1% of mechanical engineering graduates working in jobs that did not require the degree (Reason #63). That is not versatility finding unexpected paths. That is oversupply pushing people out of the field entirely. When one in five graduates cannot use the degree at all, "you can do anything" is not a selling point. It is a consolation speech.
The knife is dull, the market has better tools, and the people selling it know that. They call it a Swiss Army knife because calling it what it is, a degree that leads mostly to adjacent careers it was never designed for, does not fit on a brochure.
The list proves the problem. When someone tells you a mechanical engineering degree lets you become a PM, a sales engineer, a field service rep, or a consultant, ask yourself why every "option" requires leaving the discipline you spent five years studying. The patent attorney is paid as a patent attorney. The PM is paid as a PM. The mechanical engineering who stays technical and stays in the mechanical engineering title hits the ceiling. Those lateral moves exist because the mechanical engineering track runs out of room (Reason #27). That is not versatility. That is scattering.
Broad means unfocused in a crowded market. When 36,000 people earn the same degree every year into 18,100 openings (Reason #34), breadth does not give you range. It gives you competition from every direction. The generalist loses to the specialist in hiring because the hiring manager has fifteen applicants who already did the exact thing and one who "can do anything." They pick the one who already did it. Broadness without direction is a liability, not an asset (Reason #8).
The "Swiss Army knife" costs more and does less. A CS graduate's "versatility" pays $90,000 early career and $131,000 mid-career. A mechanical engineering graduate's "versatility" pays $80,000 and $120,000, and requires relocation to a plant town (Reason #20). Chemical engineering's "narrower" degree pays $85,000 early and $135,000 mid. The knife that "does everything" earns less than the scalpel that does one thing well (Reason #18).
Watch how the argument plays out in real life. On every Reddit thread where someone asks if mechanical engineering is worth it, the top replies are "you can go into PM, field service, sales, consulting." The second-most-upvoted commenter started in electrical construction, moved to diesel sales, and is now "finally doing traditional engineering." That is not a mechanical engineering success story. That is a career built on leaving mechanical engineering. When every success story involves an exit from the field, the field is the problem (Reason #22).
Most people do not steer. They drift. Nobody walks into freshman orientation dreaming about sustaining engineering or supplier quality. They picture design, R&D, innovation. Then the market sorts them into whatever opened first and they call it a specialization three years later (Reason #49). The "you can do anything" pitch assumes disciplined, strategic navigation of a career from age 22. In practice, the field produces volume, not direction, and most people drift into the first chair that was not taken (Reason #4).
One in five ends up nowhere near engineering at all. The NY Fed shows 20.1% of mechanical engineering graduates working in jobs that did not require the degree (Reason #63). That is not versatility finding unexpected paths. That is oversupply pushing people out of the field entirely. When one in five graduates cannot use the degree at all, "you can do anything" is not a selling point. It is a consolation speech.
The knife is dull, the market has better tools, and the people selling it know that. They call it a Swiss Army knife because calling it what it is, a degree that leads mostly to adjacent careers it was never designed for, does not fit on a brochure.
"Just network. That's how you get jobs."
Networking is not a bonus. In mechanical engineering, it is often the actual mechanism, because the formal pipeline does not work (Reason #12). That is not a defense of the field. That is an indictment of it. When the posted req was already spoken for before you applied, and the interview exists because HR policy requires one, "just network" means the system you trained for does not function as described. Software engineers apply online and get hired. mechanical engineers are told to "know somebody." That is not a market. That is a favor economy (Reason #6).
"Just get a PE / master's / PhD."
The credential treadmill is one of the most reliable coping mechanisms in mechanical engineering. The logic is always the same: if the degree did not open the door, another credential will. It does not. The PE in mechanical engineering is a wall decoration for most holders. The few niches that require a stamp, HVAC sealing, pressure vessels, some municipal compliance, are thin and dominated by civil engineers who actually need the license (Reason #17). A master's degree adds two years of lost salary and arrives into the same oversaturated pool (Reason #19). A PhD narrows your options further while the market rewards breadth it simultaneously punishes. Every credential you chase follows the same pattern: the path does not match the payoff, and your salary plateaus regardless (Reason #27). The letters after your name grow. The job stays the same.
"Get some certifications. Six Sigma, PMP, CSWE, FEA certs."
Most certifications in mechanical engineering serve vendors and HR, not you (Reason #48). The SolidWorks CSWE helps Dassault sell licenses. The Six Sigma belt helps your plant pass an audit. The PMP helps you transition out of engineering into project management, which is the point (Reason #28). The certification that actually moves your career is always the one that moves you away from mechanical engineering, not deeper into it. At review time the bullet reads well. Your salary still sits near the same plateau (Reason #27).
"Just specialize in defense / HVAC / medical devices."
Those sectors are real, and some of them are stronger than the mechanical engineering average. Defense has clearance requirements that thin the applicant pool. Medical devices have FDA regulatory overhead that creates barriers. HVAC has the PE stamp requirement. But recommending niche sectors as a rebuttal to structural oversupply is like telling someone the Titanic had a few dry cabins. The advice assumes perfect foresight at age 18: pick the right niche, in the right geography (Reason #20), at the right time in the economic cycle, and hope that niche does not contract before your mortgage is paid. Most students do not pick a niche. They take the first offer they get and call it a specialization three years later (Reason #49). The people recommending defense or medical devices are usually already in those sectors. Survivorship bias applies to niches too.
"Just move to where the jobs are."
That is the point, not the solution. In software, you can reroute your career from your couch. In mechanical engineering, you reroute by quitting, relocating, and convincing a new employer that your last three years on a competitor's platform still count (Reason #11). Your specialization picks your zip code (Reason #20). "Just move" assumes you have no mortgage, no spouse with a career, no kids in school, and no ties to a community. It also assumes there is a job waiting at the destination, which in a 2.5:1 market is not guaranteed. The people who say "just move" already live where the jobs are. They are giving directions from the finish line.
"The market is cyclical. It'll come back."
The BLS projects essentially flat growth for mechanical engineering through 2034. Not a dip. Not a cycle. Flat. Meanwhile industrial engineering is projected to grow significantly, and computer-related fields continue to expand (Reason #50). The graduation pipeline has not slowed. ASEE numbers show mechanical engineering programs continue to produce roughly 36,000 bachelor's degrees per year (Reason #25). Calling this "cyclical" implies a recovery is coming. There is no evidence of one in any federal projection. The people who say "it'll come back" are confusing hope with data.
"Start your own business / hang your own shingle / do consulting."
mechanical engineering is one of the hardest engineering disciplines to freelance in. The work requires physical access to hardware, test labs, supplier networks, and manufacturing infrastructure. You cannot consult on a casting tolerance from a laptop at a coffee shop (Reason #30). The regulatory burden, UL, CE, PPAP, is designed for organizations with legal teams and purchasing departments, not solo operators (Reason #58). The barrier to physical products is real, but it protects incumbents, not newcomers. Civil engineers hang shingles because municipalities require a PE stamp and a person can provide one. Software engineers freelance because the tools are free and the deliverable is digital. A mechanical engineering "consultant" needs a client, a shop, a supply chain, and liability insurance before the first billable hour starts.
"AI will create new mechanical engineering jobs" / "Physical products are safe from AI."
AI is not going to replace mechanical engineers. It is going to replace what mechanical engineers became (Reason #68). Most mechanical engineering work is not physics and design. It is documentation routing, BOM management, ECO processing, test report formatting, and supplier communication. That is administrative work with an engineering title, and administrative work is exactly what AI compresses first (Reason #40). The claim that "physical products are safe" confuses the product with the person. The product is physical. The engineer's day is not. It is emails, spreadsheets, and portal uploads. Those are not safe from anything.
"My professor / advisor says mechanical engineering is a great field."
Your professor works in a department funded by tuition. Their job depends on enrollment. They are not lying to you on purpose, but they are not a neutral source either. The pitch is always the same: broad, stable, always in demand. The people recommending mechanical engineering either left the field or never worked in it (Reason #4). Ask your professor how many of their former students are working in design roles. Ask them what the BLS projects for annual openings versus annual graduates. Ask them what the NY Fed says about mechanical engineering underemployment (Reason #63). If they do not know the numbers, they are giving you advice based on a reputation that the data no longer supports. If they do know the numbers and recommend the field anyway, ask them why. Research on intergenerational career inheritance found that children of mechanical engineers are far less likely to follow the same path than children in medicine, law, or architecture (Reason #53). The people who know the field best steer their own children away from it.
"ASME / NSPE / professional societies exist to help you."
Professional societies exist to perpetuate the profession. That is not the same thing as helping you. ASME runs conferences, publishes journals, and promotes engineering to the public. NSPE advocates for licensure. Neither organization publishes data showing that their field is oversupplied, that pay compresses early, or that most members will leave technical work to advance. They are not hiding it on purpose. They are doing what trade associations do: represent the interests of the field as an institution, not the interests of the individual inside it. When ASME runs Engineers Week, the goal is pipeline recruitment, not informed consent. When NSPE promotes the PE, the goal is licensure expansion, not an honest accounting of what the PE does for a mechanical engineer versus a civil engineer (Reason #17). Professional societies are marketing departments for the profession. They are not career counselors. Treat them accordingly (Reason #39).
Comparisons
"You should compare mechanical engineering to trades, not to other engineering disciplines."
People raise this comparison defensively, but it cuts the wrong way. A licensed electrician in a construction boom has actual pricing power. Licensing restricts who can practice. ABET accredits the mechanical engineering degree but does not limit seats, restrict the title, or control who performs the work in industry (Reason #13). A plumber has a guild card. You have a universal stamp. The plumber has more market leverage than you do, and nobody mentioned that at orientation (Reason #64).
"What would you recommend instead of mechanical engineering?"
Almost any other engineering discipline. Electrical, computer, chemical, and aerospace engineering all show higher median pay, lower underemployment, or both (Reason #67). Civil engineering pays less but has licensure protection and lower unemployment. Computer science is not engineering but outperforms mechanical engineering on every labor market metric the NY Fed tracks. If you must do mechanical engineering, go in with a plan, a specialization, and an exit strategy. Do not drift. Most people drift (Reason #4).
"What about women in mechanical engineering?"
The numbers are not subtle. Women earn about 17.9% of mechanical engineering bachelor's degrees, roughly 5:1 men to women in school. In the workforce it drops to 11.4%, which is about 8:1 (Reason #43). Among major engineering branches, only aerospace is worse. The pipeline is losing women at every stage. The field's structural problems, location dependence (Reason #20), plant culture, limited remote flexibility (Reason #30), documentation-heavy work with low creative ownership, fall disproportionately on anyone who does not fit the default demographic profile of the workforce. If the field is a difficult proposition for the majority, it is an even harder one for the minority.
"The blog only applies to the US."
The core data sources are American: BLS, ASEE, NSCG, USCIS, NY Fed. The specific ratios and dollar figures apply to the U.S. labor market. But the structural dynamics, oversupply relative to openings (Reason #1), pay compression (Reason #27), documentation drift (Reason #9), limited remote flexibility (Reason #30), credential inflation, are not unique to the United States. Mechanical engineering programs in Canada, the UK, Germany, India, and Australia produce graduates into markets with similar or worse absorption rates. The author has received messages from engineers on multiple continents describing the same patterns. The numbers in the blog are American. The problems are not.
Good-Faith Questions
"Aren't you discouraging people from a perfectly good career?"
No. The blog is a filter, not a wall. If you read the numbers, understand the odds, and still choose mechanical engineering with a plan, that is exactly the outcome this project wants. The blog exists because the default advice, "mechanical engineering is broad, stable, always in demand," is wrong (Reason #8), and nobody else is organizing the evidence in one place. Broad does not mean employable. Stable does not mean well-paid (Reason #27). In demand does not mean in demand for you, specifically, when 36,000 other people got the same stamp this year (Reason #1).
"You're scaring students who would be great engineers."
Good students deserve good information. The blog does not say "do not become an engineer." It says "do not become a mechanical engineer without understanding what the data says about the field." A student who reads the BLS projections, the ASEE graduation numbers, the NY Fed underemployment rate (Reason #63), and the comparative pay data across disciplines (Reason #67), and then chooses mechanical engineering anyway, made an informed decision. A student who chooses mechanical engineering because a guidance counselor said it was stable and a parent said it was practical made a brochure decision (Reason #4). The blog converts brochure decisions into informed ones. If that costs mechanical engineering a few enrollments, the field will survive. It has 36,000 new graduates every year. It is not short on people. It is short on honesty.
"If mechanical engineering is so bad, why are you still in it?"
Because leaving is expensive and narrow (Reason #46). Because the author has three decades of sunk expertise, professional relationships, and industry-specific knowledge that do not transfer cleanly. Because "just leave" is advice that ignores mortgages, families, and the fact that mid-career pivots in mechanical engineering cost years of repositioning (Reason #11). The blog exists precisely because the people best positioned to warn you are the ones most trapped by the field. The ones who left are not writing about it. They moved on. The ones who stayed are the only ones who can tell you what staying looks like. The system was not designed for your benefit (Reason #72). Documenting that from inside it is not contradiction. It is the only vantage point that has all the data.
"I'm already in mechanical engineering. What do I do now?"
The blog is a diagnostic tool, not a death sentence. If you are early career, you have the most options: pivot to a stronger discipline, specialize deliberately into a surviving niche (defense, medical devices, power generation), or build transferable skills that let you exit on your terms instead of the market's. If you are mid-career, the honest answer is harder. Your resume says mechanical engineer for a decade. Recruiters filter for that keyword and nothing else (Reason #46). The moves that work, project management, operations, technical sales, business development, all involve leaving the mechanical engineering title behind. That is not failure. That is the field working exactly as designed. The ceiling in mechanical engineering technical roles compresses early, and the only way to break through it is to stop doing mechanical engineering (Reason #28). Wherever you are, do not drift. Have a plan. Know what you are building toward. Most people in mechanical engineering never make a deliberate career decision after the first one. They just keep going because they started.
"Why am I hearing this for the first time?"
Because everyone with a platform has an incentive to tell you the opposite. Universities need enrollment. Departments need headcount to justify faculty lines. Career services offices report placement rates, not satisfaction rates. ASME and DiscoverE run outreach campaigns to fill the pipeline (Reason #39). Employers need a deep applicant pool to keep wages flat (Reason #23). Guidance counselors repeat what they heard in 2004 from an uncle who retired from Boeing (Reason #4). Nobody in that chain is paid to tell you that the field produces two and a half graduates for every opening (Reason #34), that pay compresses early (Reason #27), that most of the work is documentation (Reason #9), or that one in five graduates ends up in a job that did not require the degree (Reason #63). You are hearing it for the first time because you are the first person in the chain who does not benefit from your ignorance. The blog exists so that "nobody told me" stops being true.
"You shouldn't show this to prospects and students. You'll discourage them."
That is the point. Some of them should be discouraged. Not all of them. Not even most of them. But the ones who are choosing mechanical engineering because a brochure said "broad" and a parent said "stable" deserve to see the federal data before they sign (Reason #4). A student who reads this blog and still chooses mechanical engineering made an informed decision. A student who never sees the data made a marketing decision. The blog does not remove anyone's options. It adds information that was missing. If the field cannot survive an informed applicant pool, the field has a honesty problem, not a recruitment problem. Nobody argues that medical school applicants should be shielded from residency match rates. Nobody argues that law students should not see the bimodal salary distribution. Mechanical engineering students deserve the same transparency. Withholding it to protect enrollment is not kindness. It is the system working exactly as designed (Reason #72).
"I wish I had found this before I enrolled."
You are not alone. That message arrives in the author's inbox more often than any rebuttal. It comes from working engineers, recent graduates, and mid-career professionals who spent years wondering whether the problem was them before they found a blog that said it was the field (Reason #56). The blog was written for you. Not to make you feel worse, but to give you words for what you already experienced. If the blog helped you see the pattern sooner, or just made you feel less alone in recognizing it, consider passing it on (see Pass It On). Not to say "I told you so," but so the next person cannot say nobody ever told them at all.
"This blog has resonated with me and I am considering a major life decision because of it."
Stop. Read this part carefully.
The author of this blog is a stranger on the internet. You do not know him. He does not know you. He does not know your finances, your family situation, your geographic constraints, your risk tolerance, your mental health, your debt load, your support network, or the hundred other variables that make your life yours and not a data point. The blog presents structural data about a field. It does not present a plan for your life.
If this blog made you see something clearly for the first time, good. That is what it is for. But clarity is not a decision. It is the beginning of one. Before you quit a program, drop out of school, leave a job, turn down an offer, or change your major, do a serious accounting of where you actually stand. Talk to people who know your situation, not strangers on Reddit and not an anonymous blog. A financial advisor. A mentor you trust. A family member who will be honest with you. A therapist if the weight of the decision is affecting your sleep.
The data in this blog is real. The interpretation is honest. But data describes populations, not individuals. You might be the person who navigates the field successfully with a plan, a niche, and a clear exit strategy. You might also be the person for whom the numbers are a warning that arrives just in time. The blog cannot tell you which one you are. Only you can, and only after you have done the work of thinking it through with people who know more about your life than a Blogger page does.
Do not make a life-altering decision because a stranger on the internet told you to. Make it because you looked at the data yourself, weighed it against your own circumstances, and decided with your eyes open. That is the only outcome this blog was ever designed to produce.
The author of this blog is a stranger on the internet. You do not know him. He does not know you. He does not know your finances, your family situation, your geographic constraints, your risk tolerance, your mental health, your debt load, your support network, or the hundred other variables that make your life yours and not a data point. The blog presents structural data about a field. It does not present a plan for your life.
If this blog made you see something clearly for the first time, good. That is what it is for. But clarity is not a decision. It is the beginning of one. Before you quit a program, drop out of school, leave a job, turn down an offer, or change your major, do a serious accounting of where you actually stand. Talk to people who know your situation, not strangers on Reddit and not an anonymous blog. A financial advisor. A mentor you trust. A family member who will be honest with you. A therapist if the weight of the decision is affecting your sleep.
The data in this blog is real. The interpretation is honest. But data describes populations, not individuals. You might be the person who navigates the field successfully with a plan, a niche, and a clear exit strategy. You might also be the person for whom the numbers are a warning that arrives just in time. The blog cannot tell you which one you are. Only you can, and only after you have done the work of thinking it through with people who know more about your life than a Blogger page does.
Do not make a life-altering decision because a stranger on the internet told you to. Make it because you looked at the data yourself, weighed it against your own circumstances, and decided with your eyes open. That is the only outcome this blog was ever designed to produce.
"I want to help get the word out. What can I do?"
Start with the Pass It On page. It has specific actions, a downloadable flyer, and the reasoning behind why sharing matters.
Beyond that, the basics work. Follow the blog. Leave a comment on a Reason that matches your experience. Share a post with a friend, a classmate, or a colleague who is weighing the decision right now. When someone in a Reddit thread or a group chat asks "is mechanical engineering worth it?" or "should I switch majors?", mention the blog by name. You do not need to post a link. Just the name. People will find it.
The blog has no marketing budget. It has no social media team. It has no SEO consultant. It spreads because people who read it recognize their own experience in the data and pass it to the next person in line. Universities spend millions recruiting students into this pipeline. The only thing pushing back is word of mouth from the people who already went through it. That is you. If this blog helped you see the pattern sooner, or just made you feel less alone in recognizing it, make it easier for the next person to find. Not to say "I told you so." So they cannot say nobody ever told them at all.
Beyond that, the basics work. Follow the blog. Leave a comment on a Reason that matches your experience. Share a post with a friend, a classmate, or a colleague who is weighing the decision right now. When someone in a Reddit thread or a group chat asks "is mechanical engineering worth it?" or "should I switch majors?", mention the blog by name. You do not need to post a link. Just the name. People will find it.
The blog has no marketing budget. It has no social media team. It has no SEO consultant. It spreads because people who read it recognize their own experience in the data and pass it to the next person in line. Universities spend millions recruiting students into this pipeline. The only thing pushing back is word of mouth from the people who already went through it. That is you. If this blog helped you see the pattern sooner, or just made you feel less alone in recognizing it, make it easier for the next person to find. Not to say "I told you so." So they cannot say nobody ever told them at all.
"How can I contribute my story?"
The comments on every post are open. If you have a specific experience that illustrates or challenges a Reason, leave it on the relevant post. The most useful contributions are concrete and specific: what you were told versus what you found (Reason #32), what the gap looked like in your career, how the structure shaped your options (Reason #72). If you have data, even better. If you want to share something privately, the blog's contact information is on the About page. Anonymous contributions are welcome. The blog does not need your name. It needs your pattern.
This page will be updated as new questions arise. If you have a genuine question or a sourced rebuttal, the comments are open.
No comments:
Post a Comment