/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7083907
>Engineers don't need a PhD to work R&D
Sure, if you enjoy doing work that somebody with a BS or MS would be given (not that there is anything wrong with that at all). The type of research work that is assigned to an engineer with a PhD is a completely different beast all together due to training in an advanced and specialized area. That's not to say that someone with a BS couldn't do a BS level non-research job better than someone with a PhD, however the former still holds true provided we're talking about competent people.

>I was leading a 5 man research team at a major R&D lab before I even finished my undergrad [...]
You were an engineering intern directing a group of chemistry lab monkey interns, please get over yourself. Like most of /sci/ who completely overblows their accomplishments to no end, I also bet this publication was likely a dogshit undergrad conference paper lol. I did the exact same thing that you described as an undergrad (except I'm in ME, worked in a materials lab with chemistry interns), however I'm not naive enough to believe that playing ring-leader on a crappy internship paints the picture of what the entire career is like.

>R&D pays far less than engineering which is why you are considered a failure as an engineer if you have to go into research
This is complete bollocks, how conducting research on new technology is considered a failure is beyond me. Also R&D engineers are not exactly poorfags, my own father made $130k+ working as an engineer in research and I grew up quite comfortably in my family.

>it's also boring as fuck compared to real engineering
You sound bitter as all hell and probably had a boring project to work on, that's too bad.