“When people say I changed the culture of Boeing, that was the intent, so that it’s run like a business rather than a great engineering firm.”
Both Boeing and Intel did this.
They reduced the number of people in C-suite who had STEM background until they didn't know how to make big technical decisions, or allocate money for R&D and production.
Scientists and engineers learn how to do business all the time, but you rarely see a lawyer or sales person getting STEM degree.
They reduced the number of people in C-suite who had STEM background until they didn't know how to make big technical decisions, or allocate money for R&D and production.
This is not on its face a bad thing, however if you're in the C-suite of an engineering company and you're not an engineer, you should probably have engineers close by that you trust, and listen to them. It's as bad for the business to have engineers put into the finance office with no finance expertise as it is to have accountants run an engineering firm with no engineering expertise available.
Perhaps it's time to have regulations like the medical industry has where the care providing organization must be run by someone with a medical license?
I agree, but I don't know that I'd use Einstein as an example for 99.999999% of humans. Now I'm also curious about Einstein's work product as a patent examiner.
A law degree is a graduate degree - you should probably focus on what they did before becoming a lawyer. Lawyers with STEM undergrad aren’t likely to be advertising on billboards along the side of the highway or chasing ambulances, but are well-represented in the ranks at major law firms and in corporate law jobs. Probably over represented compared to the population as a whole.
Lawyers with STEM undergrad aren’t likely to be advertising on billboards along the side of the highway or chasing ambulances
We STEM people are very impressed with ourselves, but really nobody is getting a job at a major law firm without major law credentials, just like nobody is getting a job as a FAANG developer without major developer credentials - could you imagine trying to sell your law degree to them as a substitute?
I don't think they were saying that STEM undergrads are getting law firm jobs without law credentials, they're saying that STEM undergrads are not likely to go into personal injury (for example) after law school - that they're going to be working on issues at least somewhat related to their undergrad field of study.
I get that. I meant (and should have said) that there's no reason to think STEM undergrads are going to have better law school credentials than anyone else. They may want to do IP at a a major law firm, but may end up in personal injury.
Also, undergrad degrees in anything do not signal much expertise in the field, only that you could manage to get a degree. Nobody will base their decisions on someone saying 'I have a BS in X and I think ...'; they will want to hire an experienced, successful professional for advice. There are IP lawyers with masters degrees, and/or who worked for years as professional engineers.
In fact, all else equal, I'd expect STEM undergrads to do worse in law school, which is a humanities endeavor. For example, an essential skill is writing at a high level.
I didn't read Kon-Peki's point as being about the quality of their law degrees & jobs at all—merely the subfields they go into. "Major law firms" may hire dozens of lawyers with credentials that aren't as hyperoptimized for law to work as clerks, paralegals, and lower-level lawyers (even if they're less likely to make partner), and corporate law jobs will span the spectrum in multiple axes.
Comments
Both Boeing and Intel did this.
They reduced the number of people in C-suite who had STEM background until they didn't know how to make big technical decisions, or allocate money for R&D and production.
Scientists and engineers learn how to do business all the time, but you rarely see a lawyer or sales person getting STEM degree.
This is not on its face a bad thing, however if you're in the C-suite of an engineering company and you're not an engineer, you should probably have engineers close by that you trust, and listen to them. It's as bad for the business to have engineers put into the finance office with no finance expertise as it is to have accountants run an engineering firm with no engineering expertise available.
Relevant degree and expertise is needed just to listen to experts. Sitting trough dumped down power point representations is not enough.
Those who are competent to make decisions should be given leadership positions. Everything else is just bad corporate governance.
Except patent lawyers.
Perhaps it's time to have regulations like the medical industry has where the care providing organization must be run by someone with a medical license?
Patent examiners working in patent office are engineers and scientists.
Albert Einstein was patent examiner in Swiss Patent Office in Bern for 7 years.
I agree, but I don't know that I'd use Einstein as an example for 99.999999% of humans. Now I'm also curious about Einstein's work product as a patent examiner.
That's a brilliant idea. 60% of the board + the CEO needs to have engineering degrees to run an aircraft company.
A law degree is a graduate degree - you should probably focus on what they did before becoming a lawyer. Lawyers with STEM undergrad aren’t likely to be advertising on billboards along the side of the highway or chasing ambulances, but are well-represented in the ranks at major law firms and in corporate law jobs. Probably over represented compared to the population as a whole.
We STEM people are very impressed with ourselves, but really nobody is getting a job at a major law firm without major law credentials, just like nobody is getting a job as a FAANG developer without major developer credentials - could you imagine trying to sell your law degree to them as a substitute?
I don't think they were saying that STEM undergrads are getting law firm jobs without law credentials, they're saying that STEM undergrads are not likely to go into personal injury (for example) after law school - that they're going to be working on issues at least somewhat related to their undergrad field of study.
I get that. I meant (and should have said) that there's no reason to think STEM undergrads are going to have better law school credentials than anyone else. They may want to do IP at a a major law firm, but may end up in personal injury.
Also, undergrad degrees in anything do not signal much expertise in the field, only that you could manage to get a degree. Nobody will base their decisions on someone saying 'I have a BS in X and I think ...'; they will want to hire an experienced, successful professional for advice. There are IP lawyers with masters degrees, and/or who worked for years as professional engineers.
In fact, all else equal, I'd expect STEM undergrads to do worse in law school, which is a humanities endeavor. For example, an essential skill is writing at a high level.
I didn't read Kon-Peki's point as being about the quality of their law degrees & jobs at all—merely the subfields they go into. "Major law firms" may hire dozens of lawyers with credentials that aren't as hyperoptimized for law to work as clerks, paralegals, and lower-level lawyers (even if they're less likely to make partner), and corporate law jobs will span the spectrum in multiple axes.