Search This Blog

Friday, October 2, 2020

Are Engineering College Placements Correlated with Programs

This is a question that I have been thinking for a very long time. Why should average salaries for graduates of mechanical engineering, be higher than average salaries for graduates of, say, metallurgy. Is there something about mechanical engineering that market values more than metallurgical engineering. (I am just taking two random examples, nothing specific about them.) This would happen if the jobs that require the knowledge of mechanical engineers pay more than jobs that require the knowledge of metallurgy. Or if we consider non-core jobs which are common today, say, finance, somehow there is something that we teach in Mechanical that is indirectly useful for those non-core jobs.

Now, if you compare the salaries offered for core jobs (that is, jobs which require training of a specific engineering discipline), one notices that CS jobs often have higher salaries, may be some jobs in Electronics and Communication have higher salaries too, but after that the core jobs don't have too much variation across discipline. And we can't really think of skills that we impart to mechanical engineers that we don't impart in Metallurgical engineers but are useful for non-core jobs like finance. In fact, all these non-core companies don't seem to discriminate across disciplines. They typically have the same eligibility (in terms of CGPA) and the salary offers for selected candidates is same irrespective of discipline.

So, it would appear that there shouldn't be any significant difference in average salaries of different disciplines, except where the core jobs pay well and that happens in Computer Science and to some extent Electronics and Communication. But there is no denying that average salaries of various programs are different. For example, we at PEC recently announced the following average salaries (in lakhs) for those who graduated in 2020 with a BTech degree.

Computer Science: 14.6
Electronics & Comm: 11.7
Electrical: 9.1
Mechanical: 7.6
Production: 7.5
Aerospace: 6.9
Civil Engg.: 6.7
Metallurgy: 6.1
 
So we dug deeper into this, and this is what we found. The average CGPA of the graduating students also declined from Computer Science to Metallurgy. We then looked at the average salaries offered vis-a-vis their academic performance (as reflected through CGPA). And this is what we noticed:
 
9.0 - 9.5: 17.0
8.5 - 9.0: 11.3
8.0 - 8.5: 10.6
7.0 - 8.0: 8.9
6.0 - 7.0: 7.1
(Too few students in 9.5+ and <6.0 to be statistically significant)
 
One notices a much stronger linkage between CGPA and salary than between department and salary. if one sees the salary of folks with similar CGPA, the numbers are perhaps no longer statistically significant, but the spread is less (and again mostly due to CS/ECE) and students get similar salaries irrespective of their departments.
 
 This is, of course, on expected lines. As we started by saying that the difference between salaries should be either based on some core jobs paying higher, or non-core jobs valuing some part of training in some disciplines higher. With very few students outside CS/ECE taking up core jobs, there is no reason for salary differential.

So basically what is happening is that Mechanical students have higher average CGPA compared with Metallurgy and that is the primary reason for their better salaries, not their intrinsic mechanical training.

Why do they have higher average CGPA? A few things cause that to happen. One, the higher JEE rankers prefer Mechanical (in the mistaken belief that there is something about that training that gives better placement). That would put a small advantage in terms of CGPA (because the difference in the input quality is frankly not that diverse given that a few marks in JEE means a large difference in ranks). Second, the branch change based on their performance in first semester (or first year, as the case may be) ensures that those who perform really well in the less popular programs shift to more popular programs, and that really affects the average CGPA of a department. The third impact comes from motivation. People who join less popular programs are constantly nagged about it. They are told that they would have been better off if they had joined the more popular department in some other college. That demotivates them and causes reduction in their academic performance.

So the bottom line is that there is no statistically significant difference between the salaries offered to graduates of different engineering disciplines (except where core jobs are well paid and in plenty, which is currently true for CSE/ECE). The salary will depend on your performance in their test/interview, which will be impacted by how much you have learnt, your academic preparation. So, in this admission season, don't worry about discipline and join a good college.

No, it does not mean CGPA is the only thing in life. If you have done well in non-academic areas, you will still get a good job. But most people with poor CGPA also don't do well in other areas. So, please focus on learning and your interests (if any) and not worry about which degree will give you better salary.



10 comments:

Arihant said...

Excellent analysis Sir. However I have one question, you've always been an advocate on reporting median figures for pay instead of average as generally outliers tend to skew the figure. Any particular reason for using averages here ?

Professor R.Bhaskaran said...

I personally believe that it would be good if the Institutions downplay salaries received in campus joba and give greater emphasis on encouraging students to take up campus jobs which will lead them on to exciting careers where they may be able to maximize their full potential in terms of aptitude and innate interests and the transformation brought in during their studies at the Institute and excel.
I agree that one of the reasons why we find students of the so called unpopular branches getting lower grades and CGPA is lack of motivation. This is something to be addressed by the Career Development Centres at the Institutions. After all Sundar Pichai of Google fame was a student of Metallurgy. There are so many who have qualified in some of these so called unpopular branches who have managed remarkably successful careers. Institutions should give greater emphasis on Career Development of their students rather than just finding their students high paying jobs, is my view.

Anonymous said...

Sir sorry for asking this question here but could you please provide some insights of the course mathematics and specific computing at IITK? How does this compare with m&c in IITG? Would it be better to choose m&C in one of these or CSE at IIITH?

Dheeraj Sanghi said...

@Anonymous, If you are interested in Maths too, then M&C are great programs, but if you are only interested in CS and are considering M&C only to be in an IIT, then may be you can do the CS program at IIITH.

Dheeraj Sanghi said...

@Arihant, I don't know how I missed your comment. Yes, I do believe that median is a better figure to look at. My placement office gave me averages (like all placement offices, they are just so used to it despite my reminders). And I know that in PEC we did not have any one with like a crore rupees package which would skew the average too much on the right. So the median numbers would be uniformly lower and the comparison, therefore, is still valid.

Dheeraj Sanghi said...

Dear Bhaskaran, agree with you. But we need to work on both fronts. On one hand, tell them that high pay is not the only thing in life, and they need to consider other aspects in career planning (and I am glad to share that our placement office does a lot of talks on alternatives like higher education). On the other hand, we need to tell them that they should not feel demotivated that because they have joined an unpopular program, they won't get good jobs. That is necessary for ensuring that they continue to learn and enjoy their college life. Of course, the third thing we must do is to enable students of less popular programs to pick up skills that would help them in non-core careers. For that, we should have flexibility in the curriculum, lots of electives.

Anonymous said...

Dear sir, I'm considering taking IITK EE this year mainly because IIT Kanpur offers a double degree, with minor/major in CSE. How difficult is it to enroll in this? Also I've read that IIT Madras has removed the Branch change policy for this year's batch due to covid. Is IIT Kanpur also doing same? Also is the policy of double degree still available for this year's (2020) batch at IIT Kanpur? Thanks a lot sir in advance

Dheeraj Sanghi said...

@Anonymous, since I am on leave from IITK since last year, I would not know any changes done during Covid times. But prior to this, they have been quite restrictive in terms of allowing students to do a minor in CSE.

dushyant said...

If a lot of placements are non core it would be interesting to see how students of BS/MS Eco programmes shape up compared to BTech programmes. What has been your observation on this?

Dheeraj Sanghi said...

@dushyant, I used to get information on placement when I was Dean at IITK. And they used to do well (which caused people to apply for branch change to get into ECO). But I didn't do this kind of study looking at their CPI and offers, etc. In particular, did they do well because the finance companies preferred them (so that will come under my contention that disciplines where core jobs are paying better for now will have a higher average), or did they do well because after branch change more higher CPI students were there in the program, or was there a third reason, I can't say today. I hope different institutions can share at least some old data anonymized (say 2-3 years old) and do a much bigger and a more scientific study on this issue.