agreed, DSTA engineers and STE engineers are totally different league. one is on the tip of the pyramid and one is one the bottom

You sure boh? Thought these 2 work closely together one. DSTA mostly manage the projects and do the design. STE takes the design and build or implement in their production facilities.

No doubt DSTA engineers are probably better, but not to the extent of heaven and earth. STE never learn the skills and tricks of DSTA engineers meh, after working with them day in day out over so many years.

dsta is only Mid tier. DSO is higher.

Logically speaking ST should pick up some skills from Dsta. But dsta only got project management skills. Np hard technical experience.

It's an intellectual thing. Both also no real skills, but dsta ppl are smarter.


Or you can also say ST people are stupid.

4.7k after 7 years is a dream. 4k more likely.

It's not just about opportunity and exposure, it is also about intelligence. STE people are generally just not there on the IQ, even if you give them exposure they also cannot learn much.

It is not that joining STE makes someone dumb, its the culture there just causes smart people to leave after a few months and the lousy whiners no choice stay there with badass demotivation. Vicious cycle. No youngster who has a shred of dignity, professionalism and marketability for better pay will stay there long.

My personal observation in terms of engineering is DSO tends to get good (but not top) like 75 percentile talents, DSTA average to good 50-75 percentile, SME tend to get 25-50 percentile. STE/NCS good buddies always picking up the bottom below 25 percentile calibre people.

Simplified:

DSO: 1st class honours / 2nd upper local uni
DSTA: 2nd upper / 2nd lower local uni
STE: 3rd class / pass local uni or unisim

Sounds about right. :D

Is all that is mentioned about STE applicable to ST Kinetics and ST Aerospace? I was looking at their careers page but all house under the main ST Engineering. I was hoping that situation at Kinetics and Aerospace more positive.

I think so cauz I'm not too familiar with recruitment and academics. But in general I think the difference is more than just type of degree - the attitude, competency and people mgt skill is also not there.

It's the same as far as I can tell. The culture is the main problem in all STE subsidiaries. The typical hierarchy across all subsidiaries look like this:

Analyst/Jr Mgt - High turnover, good ones leave lousy ones stay
Mid Mgt - Mostly 40-50 yo uncles, low performance, behind times and got there by length of service or retirement charity job for WOSE or jr officers
Snr Mgt - Parachute from SAF senior officers, other GLC / stat board scholars

This sort of culture is a turn off for good performers no matter which dept you join.

I see some STE job ads looking for experienced candidates: 3 year experience about 3k to 4k max.

5 years experience can reach 4.5k?

You will be lucky to get even 4k. Some people take 10 years to hit 4k+