Graduate Programme or direct entry?

PGstudent

After working for a 5 years I went back to do a masters which im coming to the end of (Im an engineer and did a business masters in the hope of moving into management).

With the big crash there wasnt as many opportunites out there as I hoped and I decided to apply for a graduate programme with a fairly presitgious firm. The programme is insanely hard to get into and theres only a few places in the world.

Anyway I got in but as luck would have it I have also been offered an opportunity as an engineer in a smaller firm (same type of job I was doing before)

My dilemma is this- do I take the programme with the big firm, which will be a step back to an analyst and a big drop in wages but could potentially be a better long term career move

or

go with the smaller firm as a direct entry engineer, (no step forward or back), good money but maybe not as much career protential as the big firm?

leeroybrown

I think that it's a call that comes down to two things:

1) The career development path you personally want to pursue.
2) The career development opportunities the graduate position will open up.

It sounds like a pretty difficult call to make and we certainly don't have enough information to really help.

My gut instinct would be that if the graduate programme prospects are good enough and your personal direction lies away from a normal engineering role, then you should take a chance on the graduate programme. Your post gives the impression that you weren't 100% happy with your future prospects as an ordinary engineer so you need to decide if you want to pursue this change in path right now.

PGstudent

Yeh I had originally left the engineer job because it wasnt challenging anymore, you know. I wanted to see if I could move into a more leadership/management type role. I left just before the world economy fell apart so my expectations were alot different then.

Its a tough one alright

cronos

I'm a technology analyst with a large consultancy firm. I like it anyway, cant say which route is better though.

Mrs OBumble

In general I'd advise that direct entry positions are always better than graduate programme positions: the very cream of the grad programme may be groomed for the company's future, but for the rest, if there's any problem management won't fix it, they just wait for the graduate rotation to move on so that the problem goes away by itself.

In your case, however, the grad programme appears to open doors that the direct-entry role wouldn't, at least in terms of experience. That's what you did the extra study to get access to. And if it doesn't work out, your experience means you'd be more likely to get another role somewhere else.

So I'd say go with the programme. YMMV.

cronos

Does the grad program your on have a defined end. Is it a 2 year contract for example. Or does it have a defined end.

PGstudent

cronos wrote: »

Does the grad program your on have a defined end. Is it a 2 year contract for example. Or does it have a defined end.

Yeh its 1 year exactly- shorter than most grad programmes but they say its pretty intense

Plus there is a guaranteed job at the end- its not one where you might or might not get a job on completion

damnyanks

It depends on what you want from your work. HR will always say a grad program is prestigious and hard eto get into etc. so it really depends on what it is.

Will you be happy being at the bottom of the pile again? Do you think you could stomach that for another 5 years. I know people who were desperate to get into banking a few years ago so they went via grad jobs. It worked out well as they were promoted quickly.