It is about money. Twenty and thirty years ago, engineering salaries were decidedly above the average for college graduates. Now they are not. That small pool of potential engineers and scientists that Greg Blonder wrote about is also part of the pool for MBAs, lawyers, etc. Guess where many potential engineers and scientists end up; Where the money is.

Reply to this comment

“Schools that care about students.”

Boy, if THAT isn’t the “money” phrase.

I’m not implying that there’s nobody in the system that cares for the students, that’s absurd. Almost every teacher, most administrators and even District-level bureaucrats express a genuine concern for the achievement and well-being of the student body. So, where does this system fall on it’s face?

I believe the answer lies in our one-size-fits-all educational methods. Our public school system is to the students what Henry Ford’s assembly line was to the Model T Ford. The inherent (and hopefully glaring) flaw in assembly line education lies in the fact that, very unlike Model T Fords, students have a huge range of dissimilarities and corresponding needs. In a classroom where students have training from home that lends them to be well-behaved and respectful, one teacher can successfully overcome the range of dissimilarity among the students by tailoring how each student gets treated within the classrom context. More outgoing students get more questions from the teacher, more shy students get an occasional query to help draw them out so they feel like a part of the group. Able students get extra credit, and struggling students get a few minutes of extra attention after class and perhaps a parent/teacher conference to coordinate help for the child.

These measures worked, but they did not erase the underlying flaw in the system: one size does NOT fit all. That flaw remains, but the increasing reports of unruliness and lack of discipline and training at home lead to a decreas in the amount and quality of actual education that can occur during a given day in the classroom.

Additionally, as with so many things, public policy with respect to education has become extrememly politicized and emotionally charged. Any public official who dares suggest that throwing more money at the school system might not be such a brilliant idea can wholly expect that they will be soundly pilloried by their political opponents within 24 hours, and that their comments will play a central part of the opposition’s campaign come election time. Still, it is a glaring fact that states with the most mammoth education expenditures are not producing commensurately more able graduates, if they’re even keeping up with the average.

[As a sidebar: Even what is considered "average" is a downward-moving target with standardized tests, like the SAT, having undergone occasional revisions to relax stringency and match scoring with generally demonstrated ability. So, an SAT Math score of 600 in 2006 is not the same thing as a Math 600 in 1985.]

With the politicization of education, legislators have come to view the field as one more area upon which they can hope to leave an indelible mark, thus upping their odds of reelection; perpetuating their political careers. Thus we have seen an onslaught of what might be called “special interest” legislation pertaining to schools issuing forth from various state legislatures. These legislations almost always increase the burden on teachers by adding more material to the scope and sequence of what must be taught. But this material is of extrememly dubious value when one considers that other material must give place. It’s not like the school day wasn’t packed full beforehand. What does a teacher NOT teach in order to include the new material mandated by some legislator’s pet project? What gives ground? Fractions? Sentence diagrams?

How about “science”?

In all of this, I think it becomes clear that in order to have “schools that care about students”, we must first have legislators that care MORE about students than about their own political careers. And, in order to have THAT, we must begin with voters who care more about students than they do about the special interests that a given candidate is pushing. Voting for candidates who simply vow to hurl more money down the educatonal chasm does NOTHING. Voting for candidates who are angling to incorporate their pet interests into the state curriculae does WORSE than nothing. If “We, The People” do NOT put our collective foot down and say not just “No!”, but “HELL NO!” to such candidates, we are FOOLS of an extraordinarily low nature to expect any positive change in the product of our public educational system.

At the day’s end, the sciences and engineering professions are simply the canary in the coal mine warning of a far more grave and broad-based problem. The problem did not crop up overnight, nor will it be solved overnight, but will require sustained, national effort. This, I fear, may be a kind of effort that is beyond the even horizon of our modern get-it-now, microwave culture, but I hope that I am wrong. Time will, indeed, tell all.

Reply to this comment

CornStove’s comments hit the mark. We need to bring technical professionals into science and math classrooms. I’ve participated in Jr. Achievement where professionals from the work place are brought into classrooms from grade school through high school to teach the “free market” system. It’s an excellent program supported by businesses, the schools and teachers like the program, the professionals enjoy it, and the students love it.

Why don’t the engineering societies, technology and engineering related businesses, universities, and/or other interested parties develop a “Jr. Technology” program to offer schools? Its curriculum would aim at helping students understand science and engineering careers and help develop their math and science talents. Maybe the Jr. Achievement folks would even be willing to help develop the curriculum. I know they’ve been looking to develop something similar for math and science. I’m sure many schools (who usually find it difficult to get qualified science and math teachers) would embrace such a program.

An even more aggressive program could have technology and engineering businesses partnering with schools to bring technical professionals in to “assist” science or math teachers. They could “team teach” occasionally with the professional helping students see the practical applications for the science and engineering they’re learning. I believe many technical professionals would enjoy the experience.

In any case let’s get some “real life professionals” into the schools to help young students understand the value of science and math for their education and the fun and satisfaction a career in science or engineering can bring.

Reply to this comment

The observations above that we need more engineers and scientists in the classrooms are on target.

The problem is that the teachers unions have a vested interest in keeping them out of the classroom and have proven very successful in doing so. These teachers unions control our public schools and place their perceived power and income goals ahead of providing a quality education to students. For some, this is hard to believe, but I have seen many instances of it while putting 3 children through the Montgomery County school system in Maryland. This is widely recognized aa a very good school system, yet it is riddled with problems.

The goal of education should be to encourage students to think for themselves as rationally as possible. We need to develop the ability of minds to understand an external reality so we can control it and provide more security and opportunity to flourish in our lives. To do that, we need to understand that there really is an external reality and believe that the heroic act of man is to understand it and control it. We are taught instead that reality is whatever the group we fall into believes it is. If one is an African American, there is one reality. If one is Hispanic there is another. If one is female there is still another. If one is a certain ex-President, there is a personal definition of what the meaning of ‘is’ is.

This degradation of reality in our society means that those who as scientists and engineers pursue knowledge of it are also degraded. The labors of these men and women should be seen as heroic, but they no longer are. Now, what is valued is the rather arbitrary feelings of the group-think advocates. Indeed, to become a scientist or engineer in such a societial environment puts one into an awkward position in that society. Consequently, I hear scientists and engineers who function in their work as though they believe in an external reality, deny it when they discuss politics, history, philosophy and literature. Why go into a field that puts one into such internal conflict? So, a good part of the problem of getting people to enter the science and engineering fields is philosophical.

As noted, the salaries are also not so good. It is much easier to make money in many other fields. It is easier in terms of the educational preparation and it is also easier in terms of the hours worked. The necessary inducement that is missing in light of this fact is to return a sense that solving scientific and technical problems is heroic work. It is valuable work for society and those who do it deserve the esteem of others. Unfortunately, we are instead often seen as the destroyers of the environment and as contributors to war and depredation. I believe these to be terribly wrongheaded assessments, but again they have deep roots in wrongheaded philosophical precepts that are now widely accepted.

There is much that can be done to teach students to become problem-solvers and to give them the opportunity to investigate reality as scientists and engineers do, but teachers rarely do. We can do much to fascinate them with experiments, design and building projects, and assessments of costs and benefits. But we must also fight to improve education in the humanities and insist that reality is recognized in those fields as well. We generally need to try to revive the sense that understanding and controlling our environment and our world is good and heroic work. Without that understanding, science and engineering will remain underappreciated.

Reply to this comment

Relative to Frank Baldwin’s post, manufacturing is producing more goods than ever before in the US. The rest of the world is also producing more and we are producing more with fewer people. These facts may make it seem as though manufacturing has fallen upon hard times, but it is a misconception. We might similarly say that agriculture is sick because less than 2% of Americans are now engaged in it, while most people 150 years ago were. But no, agriculture has simply become extremely efficient. So has manufacturing become very efficient.

Reply to this comment

I agree with Malcolm. W. B. Yeats said this a century ago: “Education is not filling a bucket, it is lighting a fire.”

Educate the children — not trying to do fundraisers each week to encrease funds.

Reply to this comment

This is in response to Mr. Anderson’s post RE: teaching young children problem-solving skills coupled with hands-on, how-to build, fix, restore, operate systems (machines) with fully functioning parts (his ex. lawnmowers) by applying various inter-related skills to the task.

While the future of our current educational system’s teaching practices seems woefully unprepared to teach a future generation of scientists & engineers, there are new approaches being applied in public eduacation that offer some encouragement.

My 6-year old daughter is enroled in a charter school in Northern N.J. whose teaching philosophy is based on non-traditional methods “Bankstreet” which is montessori-based. It emphasizes hands-on experience with nature and science, analyzing a child’s environment, and integrating verbal/reading skills with math to apply to almost all situations. There is less traditional “classroom” structure, less reliance on homework and the lecture-style dictator-teacher structure. Children are empowered to take risks, apply knowledge in creative ways, form teams for specific projects, and apply reasoning with sound math skills interlaced with strong reading.

While not the norm, these methods are receiving more support and are growing as options. Unfortunately this bankstreet philosophy is not embraced at the high school and college level, where it needs to be in order to effectively influence the prospective engineering students’ formative pre-employment learning years.

Perhaps we need to offer more technical/trade school options in lieu of the 4-year college experience as is done in Europe?

Reply to this comment

I really think it goes back to how one is raised. The age where people had to be creative to get things done is past, and nowdays they just go and buy what they want. This breeds an inability to reason out what is needed to make something you need or want.

I grew up on a farm and there we had to make do with what we had in most cases, especially since going to town was quite the ordeal. This is not to say we didn’t get things from town, but we made a lot of what we needed on the spot with what was available. In doing so, I learned how things work and what makes them function.

Another thing I learned is what tends to break and how to notice the precursors to these failures. It was important not to let things break if possible since fixing them became more difficult, often a simple maintenance job kept things going. The old adage “Necessity is the mother of invention” had real meaning then. Nowadays, most young people wouldn’t know the difference between a car running out of gas and an alternator failing from how the vehicle reacts when it dies. And how can you blame them? They have never been placed in a position where that made a difference.

No, to change things back will never happen, but we could do more to teach kids how things work and why it’s important. To involve them in something that involves using their hands to do more than push buttons. Build things with them, fix things with them, show them the Hows and Whys of everyday items around them. In this way, we can start to get back to an interest in creating the future, inventing, discovering and learning. Stop just giving them a new one when this one breaks, fix it instead with them. It’s the parents that need to do this, not the teachers.

Yes, the teachers should spend more time on the three R’s and less time being political, correct or otherwise. But this is not the real answer.

Reply to this comment

There’s a program whose stated mission is “For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology” (FIRST).

FIRST targets students K-12 for involvement with engineering and science professionals via robotics competitions. The FIRST program is international in extent and immerses students into an intense, hands-on learning experience. The younger students (pre-high school) use LEGO Mindstorms kits to compete in the FIRST LEGO League. High school students build larger (120 lb) robots for the FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC) in regional events (37 this year) and eventually, the Championship in Atlanta. There are about 1200 FRC teams and last year over 350 teams competed in the Georgia Dome in Atlanta for the Championship.

The program was founded by Dean Kamen (Segway inventor) and is supported by NASA, major corporations like GM, Xerox, Motorola, etc. The program is very well-organized and heavily supported by volunteer professionals in engineering and science. Each year, a new game is announced and teams are given 6 weeks to design, build and ship their robot to their first competition. I’ve been a volunteer engineering mentor for 5 years, and there’s no doubt that FIRST makes a big impact on the students that participate. For more information, please visit the FIRST website: http://www.usfirst.org

Find a team, start a team and enjoy!!

Reply to this comment

The “shortage of engineers” is a false premise that is foisted upon society by some rapacious CEOs who reap huge rewards from their companies, and persons who are ignorant of the engineering discipline. There is no shortage of American engineers, only a shortage of American engineers that will work for a third-world income.

The reason that fewer students are entering engineering programs IMO, is that there is no reward for their efforts, especially based on the average cost of attending a public four-year college tuition, and $12,127 as reported by CNN in 2005.

Why should any student want to become an engineer, when within a few years they are considered to make too much money, and have their jobs outsourced to India or China, or they are replaced by cheaper labor from a foreign country on an L-1 or H1b visa? The answer is that a much better return on investment can be made in a four business degree, or in the medical field or perhaps law enforcement, e.g. Homeland Security.

Reply to this comment

There is no shortage of engineers in the United States. Period.

I earned my BSEE in 2002.

Now, I have spent more than four years seeking work.
It has been a thankless and demeaning experience.

I do not know how America, or myself, is better off for my efforts to acquire the skill.

Reply to this comment