Adrian Newey or Christian Horner

[Cam]

For what it's worth - Horner. Newey can only ever be a head designer. Horner can be the next Bernie and dictate what Newey can and can't do. Newey experienced that at McLaren, didn't like it. All Newey can do is move teams. Horner can move all the way up and factor change at every level below once he does - the ultimate design ability.

[Richard]

Horner can move all the way up and factor change at every level below once he does - the ultimate design ability.

Only if that suits your skills and values. If you go for the wrong job then you're toast no matter how intelligent you are, or how hard you work at it. The key has to be to go for the job that you are actually good at, in an organisation that shares your values.

Many people often make the mistake of going for a career path or organisation because it is glamorous or has the most influence, instead of doing what they are actually good at doing.

Many colleges give graduates access to their career development services for a couple of years after graduating. If so, then do a couple of psychometric tests to give you an idea of your actual skills and values. For example Belbin is a good one or "Career Leader".

[RB7ate9]

As a person who, in Uni anyways, acted as "team principal" and "technical director" for an competitive engineering team, I would definitely ask that you take a step back and focus on the key factors that make you really appreciate competitive engineering as a whole.

As a technical director like Newey, you focus mainly on solving the technical issues (obviously) which means that you apply all of your engineering knowledge and project management skills. If you like spotting design issues and then working towards solving them, then I would definitely say that you should go through that route first. It is extremely rewarding since you are able to get your hands (on occasion) down in the muck and work towards seeing the final product attacking the courses with your fellow engineers. Also, as a TD, you have a better connection with your drivers/pilots since the feedback is essential to improving pace.

As for a "team principal", there are immense joys in leading the wider team through the challenges towards winning. However, these challenges may not be the ones that you want to deal with all the time. These are logistics, politics (between organizations and even between team-members....uggh), and particularly funding and the attempts to get funding. These are challenges that have their own rewards, but are they the ones you want compared to laying down the carbon fiber at 2am since your team only has the autoclave for that one night?

Definitely examine which experience you enjoyed more while working with the FSAE team. My experience showed that while I would much rather dedicate my time towards design and manufacturing and NOT worry about things like marketing and all that jazz, I have a propensity towards gelling a team together and also absorbing those non-engineering tasks to allow the rest of the team to work better, as well as leading the team at our competitions. My greatest rewards were telling my design teams that our grants were approved, holding the team together through dark days, and seeing their faces light up with victory.

One last bit: Starting off technical while applying TP skills (communication, organization, discretion, etc.) makes for a better TP than a TP that has to catch up with the tech knowledge.

[Goingsmoto]

Thank you guys for all the replies, I do not know how many of you saw my second post since it was pending to be approved.

You have made it a bit more clear on what I need to do. After reading these post and after reading
"Adrian Newey, what makes him so good as a designer"
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... f=1&t=8550
(good job moder's, the related topics at the bottom is a great resource).

I am going to go down the engineering route, Aerospace to be exact. I believe with this knowledge, it will open more doors for a engineer on a racing team. Then after a few years at FSAE I can figure out what I enjoy and also what I progress at. I realize that what Jersey Tom said to have a goal so far away is a bit ridiculous without even having a four year degree. And to compare Newey to Horner is some what like comparing apples and oranges. I believe after my FSAE and college life I will have a better understanding of what it takes to do things and where I want to go in my career field.

So thank you again for a good discussion on different aspects and making me step back a bit and look at the bigger picture.

[mep]

Few things I would like to add to this discussion.
1.
I think you should feel deep inside you what is the best job for you. Don’t care what is more rewarding, better paid, has better reputation, gives more power or anything like that. Do what you love to do, especially when you have ambitions to become good at your work. I think that some persons are born for a specific job. For example, I was always interested in technical things and physics therefore my dream was to become an engineer. During studies I met a guy studying management a couple times to talk. He was talking about money and economics; I was talking about technical developments. It is obvious that we are both in the fields we belong to and could not be interchanged. I can’t imagine doing his job and even if I could do it I would never to it with pleasure. You can also meet those people at Uni where you get the feeling they just study something because for example the parents want that. Pressing somebody in a role only increases the risk of disappointment. From what I have heard of you so far I get the impression you are more in the engineering side. Otherwise you should have done some internship at a bank, or similar institute. Which you still can do, to help with your decision as you have to start from the base anyways.

2.
When I read some of the management stories here I always wonder why managers usually earn more than engineers. Even more when there are comments that it is difficult to find people with technical minds. You expect that market rules like demand and supply would have a bigger effect there. Somehow they don’t and you could get the feeling that engineering solutions are not valued very high.

[Jersey Tom]

I am going to go down the engineering route, Aerospace to be exact. I believe with this knowledge, it will open more doors for a engineer on a racing team.

One other thing to think over - which I've posted about before - is that in 4+ years time you may not want to pursue a racing career. Or at the very least, set yourself up so you have options. I suppose a 4 year degree in one way or another is good for that. Not sure your current age or living situation if you already have two, 2-year degrees.. but I feel like 18-22, 22-26, and then 26-30.. life outlook and priorities change quite a bit. Financial security becomes quite appealing, and engineers new into F1 get paid fairly poorly from what I gather. Maybe worth running the numbers on what kind of paycheck you can secure now and what it will amount to over 4 years, vs. being in school longer, the cost of it, and then the starting salary on a race team. The former option is probably more lucrative.

Suffice to say I've known a lot of guys who were into racing when they were younger, and were great drivers and/or engineers.. but then opted to just have it as hobby.

So, do your current degrees offer you some career options now? Do you need to spend the additional time and money on 4 more years of school? And if so - is it something that will give you career options both in and outside of racing?

Things to think about...

[Richard]

When I read some of the management stories here I always wonder why managers usually earn more than engineers. Even more when there are comments that it is difficult to find people with technical minds. You expect that market rules like demand and supply would have a bigger effect there. Somehow they don’t and you could get the feeling that engineering solutions are not valued very high.

Two things spring to mind:

- Engineers tend to care about their product alongside (or more than) cash. For example a sales person will jump to any sector that will pay the most for their particular skills, they judge success on cash, they'll demand pay (and mean it). In contrast an engineer is more likely to complain about the quality of the design than their pay. How often has an engineer changed sector for better pay? For example from cars to yachts? How many engineers have demanded a better package but rolled over like a cat having it's tummy tickled when the boss says they'll give them an exciting project?

- Generally in life, EQ trumps IQ when it comes to power. Engineers generally have a lot more IQ than EQ.

As a venture capitalist (personal wealth = £250m) said to me the other week, "How is that engineers come up with such great ideas but never make money from them? ..... Actually I should be glad that you don't because otherwise I'd have no money"

[RB7ate9]

I agree, Richard.

To wit:

Engineers see the products made from the forest.

Managers, Venture Capitalists, Entrepreneurs see the forest.

[Richard]

One more point - there's nothing to stop an engineer getting an MBA. Then you'll have the upper hand on both the technical and "how to make money" fronts. Whether that person has the underlying talent to exploit that is another matter.

Hence the underlying message of replies on here, find what you are good at and make sure you're the best at doing it. Then use your demonstration of being very good to open up alternative career paths. A very good aeronautics degree will open up various engineering opportunities, but don't underestimate the value that'll give you in other sectors who'll see that you've demonstrated intelligence and aptitude in a tough subject. Arts students do this all the time, but engineers seem to think their degree immutably fixes their entire career.

[Gatecrasher]

Whether that person has the underlying talent to exploit that is another matter.

Could not agree more. All the MBA's in the world will not make you a great manager, they may improve you but if you suck at decision making and communication skills people who are natural leaders will always do better. Remember people leave managers not companies for a reason.

Engineering degrees just give you a piece of paper that might get you an interview. They do not teach you how to make a leading F1 car get on pole. If it were that easy all teams would do is hire a couple of new RCG's every year to design their cars. When I interview PHD engineers, the only benefit over BSc's is that they tend to be more logical in their thought process, they would not have a PHD unless they were close to the top of the BSc class and are more mature because it has taken them 7 years to get the bit of paper.

Universities don't have the budget or single mindedness of race teams or corporations. Keep your options in education wide so that when you get into the real world and don't get that Indy/F1 position that you don't need to re-train yourself.