|
Advertisement
|
« 'Gentlemen, We Can Rebuild Him. We Have the Technology.' | Main | Recommended Reading »
November 22, 2005
Are We Lacking Engineers? Or Are Engineers Lacking? (Does It Matter?)
Many United States companies say they are facing an alarmingly growing trend; that is, a severe shortage of engineers. Contrary to this belief, however, many others say there is actually an engineer surplus. Seriously, what is going on?!?
Theory I: With a shrinking number of employed local talent in engineering fields, the United States is lacking engineers.
Theory II: Theory I is stupid. There are too many engineers, but hirers are overly nitpicky in their choosing.
And so, there is a great amount of finger-pointing taking place on dual (dueling) sides.
Those who see a valid lack of American engineers to an extent blame temporary work visa programs, wherein U.S. employers are permitted to hire foreign nationals with knowledge and skills deemed to be in short supply. Further, they blame a lack of engineering-related education programs for the gap of American engineers in general; whereas overseas countries offer incentives to their brightest students to learn in the U.S. and then offer job security for them to return, this group believes the engineering field is not emphasized enough in K-12 education.
According to News 8 Austin coverage on the topic this month, "engineering programs fill up with students from overseas, who then return home once they graduate. The shortage of U.S. students has a drastic effect on where companies go to find talent."
Another finger-pointing target is the retirement of baby boomers. For example, a Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal article (via MSNBC) earlier this month noted John Tracy, vice president of engineering for Boeing Co.'s Integrated Defense Systems, "who says he needs to hire 1,000 engineers a month, mainly to replace retiring engineers, many of whom were originally inspired by the space race in the 1960s. But he has been able to hire only 2,500 a year in each of the past two years."
National Instruments' Ray Almgren told News 8 Austin, "To be competitive as a country, as a community, as a university, as our own company, we have to invest in these areas and get the students moving into this. I think it's going to take a coordinated effort by all of these parties to really impact public policy."
On the other hand, we may have plenty of American engineers — and they're simply not employed. A Wall Street Journal article last week pointed out that unemployed engineers have recognized a great surplus of engineering professionals.
In fact, from 2000 to 2003 engineering employment fell 8.7 percent, reported, from an analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. The American Society of Engineering Education has reported that the number of bachelor degrees in engineering rose to 72,893 in 2004 from 61,553 in 1999. And unemployment among engineers in 2004 was in line with the rate of unemployment for all professionals.
Also, consider the Arizona Republic's recently gleaned numerical facts of its state alone:
• Computer and mathematical jobs rose for the fifth straight month on the Monster Local Employment Index, which measures job opportunities on more than 1,500 Web sites, including its own. In metro Phoenix, architectural and engineering jobs saw one of the largest rates of growth of all the job categories during September.
• Careerbuilder.com has seen postings for IT and engineering jobs in Arizona increase 20 to 25 percent from a year ago. The IT jobs are tracking slightly below the national average, while the engineering jobs are slightly above, spokeswoman Jennifer Sullivan said.
Despite all of the aforementioned statistics, employers say they struggle to find the right person for openings.
Perhaps, then, as WSJ hypothesized, the problem lies in that company recruiters and hiring managers want pinpoint-specific skills in engineering employees.
"Amid rapidly changing technology, the engineers [that] employers want aren't necessarily the engineers who are available," WSJ said. "And companies often create the very shortages they decry by insisting on applicants who meet every item on a detailed list of qualifications. With the Internet adding to the pile of résumés, company officials say a certain degree of mechanical weeding-out is unavoidable."
In addition, Boeing's Tracy, who has come up significantly short in replacing his retiring engineers, has further been "limited by rules that require his defense projects to hire only U.S. citizens." As such, Tracy "has had to go without."
Hiring managers often prefer to wait for the candidate who has the exact combination of attributes they seek, the WSJ article further said, rather than immediately hiring someone who comes close and then giving that person time to become familiar with a new machine or software program. As such, in finding "the right person," what used to take two and a half months now often takes five or six.
So, perhaps then a dramatic number of companies are going through an overly time-consuming, arduous process of hiring due to the significant number of engineer applicants, considering only the rare applicant who meets every specific requirement — an attempt to altogether eliminate any learning curve.
In effect, the unemployed engineers' and the company recruiters' argument is that there is by no means a shortage of engineers; rather, there is a shortage of engineers who meet companies' specific, un-negotiable criteria.
Of course, maybe every one of these arguments is void. Said Paul Kostek, a Seattle systems engineer who was recently employed by Boeing after working as a consultant for a decade: "Every few years there is a spurt of panic that we won't have enough engineers in five years. And I say to myself, gee, I'll still be here."
What are your thoughts, dear readers?
Are we lacking engineers in this country?
Or are engineers lacking in specific skills, i.e., Do companies now have un-meetable standards of potential American engineer employees?
Or...Is this debate even worth discussing?
References
Behind 'Shortage' of Engineers: Employers Grow More Choosy
by Sharon Begley
The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 16, 2005
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB113210508287498432-lMyQjAxMDE1MzEyNjExMDY1Wj.html
Companies look for engineers outside U.S.
by Bob Robuck
News 8 Austin, Nov. 14, 2005
http://www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/default.asp?ArID=149786
Engineering makeover seeks image upgrade
by Timothy Roberts
Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal (via MSNBC), Nov. 6, 2005
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9954208/
Tech-worker gap: Companies face shortages as demand for IT skills grows
by Jane Larson
The Arizona Republic, Nov. 13, 2005
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/1113ITjobboom.html
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://news.thomasnet.com/mt41/mt-tb.cgi/314
|
Advertisement
|
Comment
97 CommentsI have heard this debate going on for some time, and believe that it probably is true that there is a shortage of engineers, at least ones graduating from U.S. programs.
I think it is also true that companies that wish to fill an exact position with someone with exact requirements are less likely to find anyone meeting their needs.
If you look at many universities, you will find foreign students make up about 80% of graduate numbers or at least thats what I have heard. This seems somewhat dis-proportionate if we intend to maintain our leadership status in this country. Engineers are typically the driving force behind new technology. So this is somewhat alarming.
November 22, 2005 1:24 PMI would be surprised if a genuine shortage of engineers existed -- or a shortage of any skilled technical people.
What does exist is a shortage of educated, skilled, motivated people who are willing to work for small dollars, few or no benefits, in positions offering little advancement potential. Employers want to get by very cheaply, so instead of hiring an experienced individual who knows the technology, they'll haul a guy off the plant floor and make do with him, paying him very small dollars. I've seen this done repeatedly in corporations whose names you would recognize.
Eventually, the people who are trained give up and go into another field; many chemists turn to medicine, for example, since chemistry pays not much more than pizza delivery in a lot of places.
November 22, 2005 1:44 PMInteresting, The industry always cries that it lacks engineers, and is true if you are looking for one of the followings of engineers:
- Engineers that work for $30,000.00 to $40,000.00/yr
- Engineers that have great experience in design, or manufacturing, or process, but don't give a damn about PowerPoint, 6 sigma, or management's master plan. You know the kind of engineer, the one that gets the job done without making waves or a big fuss.
- Engineers that can accept and thrive on management's indifference to the profession and engineers in general.
- Engineers that are left after the effort to force them into retirement from any of the Big 3 are also scarce.
Should I continue? I think we all got the idea. Our society is selling our jobs for cheap in China and India, is ignoring the profession to the point of blaming it of management failures, is trading our manufacturing for "cheap" (read low quality also) products, is giving away our know how and technical innovations, processes and technology that we paid for over here and then wants to have more engineers?
For what? So that we become a dime a dozen? We're getting there in no time fast anyway, considering how scarce our jobs have become. Does anybody really think that, after seeing what happens to the manufacturing in North America, any engineer will tell his son or daughter to go and study to become an engineer? Ha,ha,ha,ha,.....HA
What a joke!
P.S.
Did anyone look at the HR adds, when they look for engineers? Most of the times you can tell that the guy knows nothing about the profession. All that he is interested is that he doesn't forget any of the buzz words. "You have to be familiar with APQP, PPAP, FMEA, PFMEA, DFMEA, 6 SIGMA, TQM, 17649, IS0 14000, 8D, LEAN, QS, KAIZAN" you tell me what I forgot. And it is so funny that most of the time they want somebody with 2-3 years experience. That means that all they need is a manager baby-sitter, flexible "yes man" (team player) that doesn't know much about anything.
Give me a break. The American Industry, or whatever is left of it, doesn't need Engineers.
Most companies use their human resources department to determine appropriate candidates for jobs. Unfortunately, the human resources staff have no clue what they're looking for, only the buzz words provided them by managers who many times only think they know what they are looking for, without realizing that most engineering backgrounds are transitional to others with little to no additional education/training. In the School of Engineering I came from, we were exposed to most types of engineering in our required curriculum.
Instead of looking in a general direction, most companies are looking for a needle-in-a-haystack that really doesn't exist.
November 22, 2005 1:48 PMPay them and they will come.....
November 22, 2005 1:54 PMI'll go with Theory II. Engineers go to all the trouble of taking demanding technical courses in college, in hopes of good employment opportunities, only to see their dim-witted peers make more money with their basket-weaving degrees.
Meanwhile, employers place ads seeking people with ridiculously specific qualifications, most likely so they can wring their hands about how there aren't any qualified people in the U.S. so we have to import more foreigners who will work for peanuts.
November 22, 2005 1:57 PMDitto the "show me the money." I keep a resume posted on various employment websites and get calls from recruiters on average twice a week. NONE of the interested parties will make an offer that will move me out of my present position. [I currently work for a Systems Integrator specializing in industrial controls.] I'll bet you the jobs offering $80-k plus have no problem finding qualified candidates.
Having worked as a Plant Engineer and Maintenance Supervisor, I can tell you that my experience has left me very disappointed with manufacturing. Most of the staff people; plant and area managers, have no technical background at all. Most are "money managers" who are clueless about what or whom actually makes their products.
In the past, our major industries were started and run by men like Ford, Carnegie, etc... who knew their products. Want to revitalize American Industry? Get rid of "Business Schools" and MBA's.
November 22, 2005 2:19 PMEngineering consultants keep driving down salaries by hiring foreign nationals then wonder why fewer students chose engineering as a major. It is supply-and-demand economics. Why work so hard as an undergraduate in engineering when you can make more money with a BBA? Why get an MSE when a MBA pays twice the money?
November 22, 2005 2:27 PMGovernment involvement in both education and industry kills engineering here in the USA. So, both graduates and jobs go overseas.
My brother and his wife both have degrees in Ocean and Aeronautical Engineering from Virginia Tech. Despite great effort and good grades and several years running his own company, my brother has never been hired as an Engineer. He now works as QA in construction. His wife was hired for a time as an engineer, but she feels that her vocation at this time is to raise children. I am sure that any engineering job that the wife could do, the husband could also do. But this is not "PC".
As a result, they are on welfare to make ends meet. Apparently welfare is "PC". Perverse.
I believe the real problems are twofold plus one.
Engineering, as such, is difficult to do well, is unappreciated and underpaid, and our schools are educating narrow specialists skilled in one field only who cannot communicate. That's the "first" problem, and it goes back to the '60s, when everybody looked for good all-rounders for dreaming up good space systems and few engineers measured up.
The second problem is also the same - employers seek a recent graduate (read low pay) with 10 years experience (read odds of fewer booboos).
And the "plus" part is the recent fantasy that you can replace creativity in all its magnificence with management tools designed to improve information about just how badly you are doing without it. We are losing our place in present world-class applied technology without the cutting edge to keep us ahead. The core problems are not even realized. I'm writing a book on it and hope it will help ....
November 22, 2005 2:29 PMI have a Master's degree in Mechanical Engineering and am a Registered Professional with over 50 years in aerospace, automotive and commercial fields. Those needing engineers have always said that there is a shortage. My experience is that engineers are underpaid, not treated as professionals and lack a national retirement programed for job-shop kind of work. Advancement involves switching to management and giving up our engineering skills. Aerspace work was far more rewarding than commercial.
November 22, 2005 2:44 PMThe number of engineering graduates goes in cycles over about a ten-year span in the area of the U.S. where I work. When I graduated in 1972, there was a surplus and the companies were being very selective. Also, it depends on the type of engineering degree you are concerned about. There is always an abundance of such as mechanical and chemical engineers but the more specialized fields are lacking in numbers.
November 22, 2005 2:48 PM50 years ago as my sister married a chemical engineer; there was a great deal of talk having to do about engineer shortage, to which he remarked that the shortage was of cheap engineers.
November 22, 2005 2:53 PMThis is an old story. As a senior, I was in a job interview at my university in 1981. I commented about the shortage of engineers which was being written about in the newspapers. The interviewer about fell out of his chair laughing and explained that there was no shortage of engineers.
My take on this today is that companies that hire many engineers every year need/want a large pool of engineers to choose from in order to keep the salaries down and to select the cream of the crop.
November 22, 2005 2:55 PMEngineering employment has many issues.
Current pay ranges for the knowledge set wanted by employers does not drive enrollment up to provide the supply needed. It is easier for both universities and employers to attract foreign students/engineers to the US for lower pay than would attract the brightest US students into the field or current engineers to return.
Employers want experienced individuals with specific skill sets that limit their pool of candidates, but offer squat salaries compared to other lesser skilled and lesser demanding business functions, HR, accounting, finance, procurement, marketing, management, etc.
The reward for working for your undergraduate engineering degree is to begin work usually on a trial basis or as a 'job shopper' if lucky enough to land a job in your field. Engineers can work long hours, for little pay, with no promotional track, but with heavy burden of consequences for failure or the smallest miscalculation or error.
Both my children are gifted and they are not interested in engineering. My son is interested in pharmacy, and my daughter in nursing.
November 22, 2005 3:10 PMIn my search for a new engineering position, I have talked to a number of recruiters who agree that there are plenty of engineers out there, but even they have a hard time finding them with low pay for high experience.
Each day, careerbuilder.com sends me 3 to 4 e-mails with companies looking to hire engineers in the area. Each e-mail, depending on the day, has 2 to 10 job descriptions with about 30% overlap. Looking at the number of openings, I would say there is a demand for engineers, yet I am unable to find one that I would be a good fit, most of the time I lack the experience requested. Most companies want someone with 3 years experience in a certain type of product or method; I barely have 3 years experience working as an engineer.
My opinion: if you are in need of a mechanical engineer who has a desire to learn new things while helping your organization achieve its goals, then contact me.
If you are leaning the way I am, there are too many engineers already, then send me advice on what I should do for a career change.
What is truly interesting about U.S. Engineering, which I personally believe is the "best" in the world, is what I would call the the double-edged sword phenomenia.
That is, in many countries the engineers are the best paid within that country; thereby drawing the most people, but for the "wrong" reasons:
"Pay them and they will come....."
The strength of U.S. Engineering is that we go into Engineering for much different reasons:
"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Our treasure is not money ... its what motivates us -- we like,no we love, finding solutions, fixing things, making it better, "Oh let me do it!," etc.
Yes, I want to make more money, and this is where the double-edged sword is ... But I'm not doing it for the money.
So, which of you Engineers would stop doing what your doing for the money?
There are two (2) reasons why we work at what we do: one is the finanical satisfaction and the other is the psychological satisfaction. There should be a fluctuation between the two at different times in your career but U.S. Engineering historically has always placed the heavier weight on the psychological -- Engineering will never starve.
November 22, 2005 4:20 PM At my employer, specific knowledge is mandatory. Even good engineers coming in take several years to become adept in positions that cover the full range of the manufacturing and design requirements for a new job.
None that have come in without trade specific training have made it as process engineers. There is a limited pool of these people and we cannot afford to have an engineer write the training course required and to present it in order to bring new hires up to speed on all the interactions of our technologies.
New hires can make a living but, while our product is world class, our salaries are not. People are still considered expenses, rather than assets. They are invisible until they screw up (as we all do at some time), and then they are "recognized" by all of management.
I believe the problem with companies that can't find the right person to hire are not setting their expectations at a realistic level.
I am an electrical engineer who has developed into a machinist, welder, automation designer and, best of all, entrepreneur. I learned the trades from my needs and desires; whenever I got hired into a new job they had hopes and doubts about my abilities to "do the job", I showed off doing the job but became a risk for my boss. I learned too much. I had to start my own business.
There are plenty of engineers, but companies will not hire anyone that doesn't have the experience in the particular process they want, even if you have experience in a similar or more refined process. The persons that are doing the picking are not the persons the engineer will work for, and they can't compare experiences. If you have experience manufacturing v8 engines and they want an engineer to work in the manufacturing of 4 cylinder engines, they will have doubts whether your experience applies. If you are over 50 years old, then you are not chosen for that reason, but they will tell you some lie.
We end up training most of the recent graduates for 6 months to a year to perform the tasks to do work in the consulting environment in the US. Why do professors tell the engineering graduates you can make " big money" when the training is missing? They are training the masses for specfic jobs, such as defense work in circut design which takes 1 in 10 job applicants, and lays them off after the govt. kills the project. Wonder why they do that? Ask the manufacturers. The lack of people is being trained in general engineering principles. Not exciting, but pays, and keeps people working.
November 22, 2005 5:22 PM1. People are not willing to pay for the experience and knowledge they specify.
2. Most engineers, either experienced or new, are functionally illiterate and cannot communicate effectively. English, the most critical engineering course, is no longer taught in most secondary schools.
3. Current engineering curricula do not teach the students how to actually do anything, and depend on industry to actually do the engineering training.
4. Most so-called engineers do not trust their engineering judgment and are thus unable (or unwilling) to solve original problems and the "who has done it before" syndrome of equally cowardly supervisors.
5. Few employers give raises, benefits or promotions for engineering excellence, or even recognize the phenomenon.
6. Engineers (as noted in item 2) do not know how to market themselves and do not identify themselves as "a product".
7. There is no shortage of engineers, but there is a shortage of competent engineers and a shortage of competent engineering recruiters.
November 22, 2005 5:48 PMWhen I applied for an aerospace engineering job that matched my qualifications perfectly, I was not even called in for an interview. They wanted 14 years experience in the field. I had 14 years experience in the field. I cut and pasted the posted job requirements, and addressed every single requirement, demonstrating how I met each and every one. All I ever got was a "Thanks for your resume - don't call us, we'll call you" postcard. Why not so much as a phone call?
Someone explain this?
I guarantee there are precious few people on the planet that could have met every one of those qualifications. And I have, months later, seen the same position still advertised. So what's up with that? They obviously had no intention of filling the position with a U.S. engineer.
So, I am no longer employed as an engineer.
What a waste of an MIT degree.
We aren't really lacking of engineers but the enterprises don't really want engineers. Compare worldwide, this country's engineers get the lowest pay in the rank. (I mean, in many countries, pay is better than average, but not this country.)
Besides, majority of Americans hate Math. But how in the world can you have engineers who hate math?
I am a tool&die/machine tool designer with fourteen years experience on the shop floor. I have designed everything, from toothpick holders and coffee makers to electromagnet production and assembly equipment. I am skilled in the use of more CAD and office software programs than you can shake a stick at, yet I cannot find a full-time position.
Why, you ask?
Because American manufacturers would prefer to offshore their products rather than pay a proper wage.
Over the last six months, I have applied for over one hundred and twenty eight design positions, every one of which my qualifications matched to within eighty percent. Twenty of those employers felt I matched their requirements well enough to warrent a phone interview, eighteen of those did in-person interviews. Out of eighteen positions, I was a perfect choice for sixteen, untill we talked about money. Each and every one of those positions I applied for were posted as paying fifty- to sixty thousand per year. But when it came time to sign employment contracts, the wages offered dropped to twenty-eight to thirty-five thousand per year or about half what they were posted at.
American manufacturers job postings are designed to weed out ninety percent of the available talent, and they know the remaining ten percent won't work for the wages offered. Manufacturers can then claim a shortage of qualified labor which justifies their policy of offshoring.
November 22, 2005 8:14 PMI am an electro-mechanical engineer with some schooling and a lot of experience. All the comments I have read about engineers are true. In my quest, I have started my own company and I am looking for creative talent to design products. With all the engineers, there are so many new products that can be developed and marketed. It takes a certain creative skill to dream up good marketable products and sell them. The money is out there once all the due diligence has been done. This takes time and some money, but I really believe that when engineers get together and form think (and work) tanks, there is a great success that can't be undermined by the business majors. It is true that someone has to have the marketing skills, but I have had the marketing courses and it still takes a good solid product to move forward. Creative talent is also a gift that must be nurtured.
November 22, 2005 8:35 PMNow the company i work for, an engineer can get out of school and be hired on, but he cannot do his job for years unitl he learns our ways.
One man has worked there for 10 years before he could do his job. He told me he should have come to work there after he got out of high school, for what he learned in school is thrown out. So this way, you have one man ideal only, for nobody knows anything but him. Now one man was free thinking; he went to Texas and went to work there, and three years later he is a CEO of a major corp., plus he has 7 or 8 pat. tools, so my co. is the loser.
So free-thinking people can go up real high in another corp. if they what to.
November 22, 2005 9:22 PMThe debate exists only in the minds of ignorant journalists. The need for engineers is real. The perceived lack of qualified engineers exists only in the reptilian brainstems of the lawyers, accountants and social-engineer human resources administrative clerks who do the hiring.
November 22, 2005 11:29 PMThere is a wide gap between talent available and need of the companies. Companies are looking for a person having performed a specific task only. The view should be shifted from " having past experience in similar field" to "having capabilities for doing the thing."
November 23, 2005 12:23 AMNice thread -- introduces the impact of Information Age job matching & the expectations of bosses that the exactly the right candidate (education, experience, narrow specialty, location, social graces, salary range, EEO coup,...) will drop out of the slot when the coins are inserted.
I get about 3 - 5 new "hits" each day from my "Career Builder" profile & specified 20 mi. radius of home; about a third of the automated resumes get a nibble (more if it's a new (not already hit) potential employer) from the HRO staff & sometimes some questions such as current salary, then the connection goes dead...
I think the government & its extensions are the only places where they don't expect you to drop in with a wrench in your hand that fits the exact nut they need to turn (no more or less) & do it for something in the lower half of the prevailing "scale"...
Ultimately the salary & unemployment statistics & consequent college enrollment will tell you that there's a surplus or a shortage averaged over the society or industrial sector, but it won't tell you whether a particular opening was hard to fill when/where it was open...
The USA is the most litigious society in the world, with a statistical ratio of ten (10) Lawyers to one (1) Engineer.
Obviously, for the past few decades most of the young generation of US students were oriented towards Law, not Engineering, by the academe, media, and government.
Where can you find most Lawyers? Where can you find most Engineers? Who are the value producers/creators? Who are the value usurpers/destroyers?
The USA is being destroyed from within, not from without!
November 23, 2005 7:56 AMIt's hard to know where to begin. I am a PE with a MSEE and over 30 years of experience ranging from Fortune 500 companies to my own consulting businesses (twice). I have a daughter who is a high school senior, good in math and science, and I have reservations about recommending engineering as a career.
Part of the problem is society has no idea what an engineer is, what they do, or what good they are. They believe things just show up magically each night at Wal-mart and Home Depot, as if they were manufactured and delivered by Santa and his elves. The professional engineering organizations need to do a "better" job of educating the public on the contributions of engineers to our way of life. Next to housewives, engineers have the most Rodney Dangerfield-like ("I get no respect") career.
Just ask someone to look around and imagine that every item, where engineers contributed to its design and manufacturing, was to disappear. We would be left living in a grass hut with a dirt floor and wearing a loin cloth.
Yet the general public has no problem identifying with a lawyer or doctor. The lawyer adds no value, only cost, to any of these items, and his contribution to society is the rearrangement of wealth. The doctor is able to prolong our lives, generally with the aid of some pretty fancy diagnostic equipment (designed by you know who) and miracle drugs (manufactured with the assistance of you know who).
November 23, 2005 8:47 AMTheory II is exactly correct. Employers throw out a wish list of incredibly specific requirements and hope someone will fit them exactly, with many years of experience and willing to work for low pay.
I have many years experience in one particular aspect of one particular field but was not even given the opportunity to interview for a job because of using a different software program. The alternative software could have been learned in a couple of days.
The exact same thing is happening in the Information Technology field.
Companies love to cry shortage and then give the jobs to foreign workers at low pay.
November 23, 2005 9:04 AMI would have to agree with Theory II. I am an engineer who has been working in the manufacturing industry for 15 years. Most engineers, like me, who work directly with supplier industry were hired for specific skills and not the overall package of knowledge.
With this in mind, I am recommending the new engineers, draftsman, and technologists to research and pursue curriculum specific to their job requirements. If they don't, they may be faced with taking jobs that pay considerably less than they are due.
This all relates to our management teams not being fully aware of what the engineer has to offer and the diversity that we truly hold.
November 23, 2005 9:57 AMEnjoyed reading all comments; agree with them.
I see a large picture of the environment which led us to this situation and where we're going.
There really is a shortage of competent engineers and competent people who hire them.
Most companies' policy of showing good figures for the next month is miopic, nonprofessional and very distructive to the development of techology and the economic leadership. This policy worked fine as long as the american market was not a saturated market (read 1960-1970).
Over the last 2 decades, the innovation was severely curtailed by drastic reductions in development investments by most companies and the appaling quality of mass education in this country.
The past policies of some companies show up now (see GM), while other companies do not exist by themselves anymore.
The exodus of know-how overseas leads to enormous competition growth from countries with huge populations and, like Japan, will take only some years before they will dominate technologicaly and economicaly; the accounting tricks practiced in this country will not help very much.
It is necessary that the leaders of this country in political, economic and social fields learn where we stand and take the right steps in supporting the engineering trade. This is the trade which contributed decisively to the greatness of this country.
These leaders must change a lot (if it is not to late) in order to keep this country strong by supporting its engineering talent.
As for now, there is a shortage of competent engineers and a flood of incompetent managers, HR personnel and accountants.
It occurs to me that recognition of the Practice of Engineering as a Leared Profession is at the center of this debate. Employers who seek "Engineers" with exacting skills are truly not looking for Learned Professionals, they are looking for Technologists or Technicians.
It occurs to me that the Engineering Profession needs an effective marketing strategy that targets Executive levels of these hiring companies and focuses on the values that differentiate Professionals from Technologists.
Of course, it also behooves us, as Engineers, to maintain our capabilities and the skills required to leverage the "tools of the day" in meeting our obligations.
What is an Engineer?
A starting point in developing an appropriate image might be found in the creed of the
"Order of the Engineer
Obligation of An Engineer
I am an Engineer. In my profession I take deep pride. To it I owe solemn obligations.
Since the Stone Age, human progress has been spurred by the engineering genius.
Engineers have made usable Nature's vast resources of material and energy for Humanity's benefit. Engineers have vitalized and turned to practical use the principles of science and the means of technology.
Were it not for this heritage of accumulated experience, my efforts would be feeble.
As an Engineer, I pledge to practice integrity and fair dealing, tolerance and respect; and to uphold devotion to the standards and dignity of my profession, conscious always that my skill carries with it the obligation to serve humanity by making the best use of the Earth's precious wealth.
As an Engineer, I shall participate in none but honest enterprises. When needed, my skill and knowledge shall be given without reservation for the public good. In the performance of duty and in fidelity to my profession, I shall give the utmost."
There is much more to say on this topic, and the bottom line is that until we, as Engineers, respect and market ourselves as one of the "Learned Professions" we will remain at the mercy of those who only seek very narrowly cast skill sets to fill broadbased expectations.
November 23, 2005 1:22 PMHave Theory II!
Interesting that I can now call myself a Technician, collect OT, have less responsibility, and make for money for the efforts I gave 20 years ago.
Cheap, Fresh, and, Subserviant engineers seem to be the Norm in the Energy/Petrochem area I specalize in as a QA/QC/NDE type of guy.
Never cease to be amazed at questions I get and answers given by the responsible Engineer/Customer Contact at sites. Oh yeah, I Contract/Consult now also. Only way to go and make more than 50K a year.
Don C
We have a tremendous shortage of people today who are unable to think creatively. No amount of education can make a good problem-solver out of an individual who cannot think "outside the box." Employers who hire masses of engineers according to the same set of educational qualifications should not be surprised when their engineering department stagnates.
It's going to get worse. Kids today spend their toddler years in a playpen, lest they explore the world and get hurt a little. Once they leave the playpen they endure the next twelve years in school learning how to "conform" to strict sets of rules. Children who venture outside the confines of the accepted norm are immediately admonished and/or punished. Those who do the best job of conforming -- as evidenced by straight "A's" or teacher recommendations -- are eligible for scholarships. These "lucky" people spend several more years learning what somebody else already knows. Eventually someone hires them and they join the engineering department of a large company.
I went to a school where the swing seats were made out of oak 2 x 8's, with U-bolts that stuck out a full inch, and we played on monkey bars that were almost as tall as the school building. Twelve years seemed like plenty of education to me, so I went to work for myself and I've lived comfortably for forty-six years without ever receiving a W2. I've built buildings, designed machinery, wrote legislation, and made the lieutennant governor so mad once he cussed me out in public. I got joint custody of my oldest boy, back when it "couldn't be done" and I once looked an infuriated trial judge right in the eye and said, "or you're gonna do what?" He didn't say another word. I have employed hundreds of men over the years, and each one of them taught me something.
I'm currently an eBay powerseller, selling everything from hardware to laboratory equipment to military vehicles, but my specialty is doing things that can't be done. Thought I might try my hand at engineering if somebody will get their money right.
I think it is a lot more complex than Theory "1" or "2". When I started 25 years ago we had a computer terminal for the department and mostly used IBM Punch Cards. Now I can program in 10-15 minutes in C the same regression analysis it took me 3 days to assemble, compile and run. Or spend 4 minutes with a software package and 3 of that is locating and importing the data.
Productivity now is far greater than 25 years ago. So...you need fewer engineers. Also, you will find that most so called Engineers really aren't. over 80% of the tasks that engineers are doing in general really have nothing to do with any form of basic engineering.
We have 50 engineers 38 with masters degrees split 60/40 Engineering/MBA and 4 PhD candidates. Not a one uses their degree to any extent.
So, what does the "profession" really need? That's the question we as Engineers need to answer.
November 26, 2005 3:54 PM The problem with looking for Engineers is Companies do not care about people doing work that Engineers do and don't have the Degrees and paperwork to back them up, ( no schooling ).
And why would an Engineer want to get $ 30,000
to $ 50,000 when they can earn more at other jobs.
I class myself as an Engineer. I can build top quality roads, that can handle heavy trucks even in the worst conditions. Drainage is the key.
I can re-build or build homes without blue prints. I can design it in my head and build it or make changes as the owner wishes.
Yes , I have my own business. I do Forestry, Logging, Road Building, Landscaping, Tree Pruning or Removal, Build or Re-build homes, Garages, Barns, and many more jobs.
It takes an Engineer to keep all this running smoothly. Now I have fun in my work, do you??
I can earn what I want by changing jobs. Each job pays a diferent amount. The skys the limit.
And there's plenty of work.
Take care, Anton F. Cooper, Owner/Operator.
AMA, The Bar, NEA, and AFL-CIO these are pro. If you want to improve than a little engeered structor is in order. As for the employer if could call the hall for your needs you could downsize those nonproduct human res. dept.
November 27, 2005 12:02 PMI have always wondered why we let an HR person interview a candidate. Is it because they are "ALL KNOWING"? I worked at it and tought it for over fourty years and I'll bet I would never be hired in this day and age due to the fact that I can't type fast enough or couldn't use a specific program (never mind that I wrote programs and designed systems to use them!!!). I would be considered a DINOSAUR.
TALK ABOUT WASTE!!!!!
Many of the comments have hit the mark. We all see the problems, why doesn't American manufacturing (or the transnational corporations that call themselves American Corporations)? These problems extend to qualified technicians and the skilled worker trades as well (as recently pointed out on CNN and commented on by NAM).
The problems:
1. Compensation levels for good technicians and engineers is too low. CNN recently quoted a statistic from someone in Illinois state government that the median annual income in the Greater Chicago Area is $44,000. This is the same as it was in 1989. As a parent, why would I push my child into science or technology for $30 to $50K knowing that he or she can earn $70 - $80K as a store manager for an auto parts retail establishment. My daughter is 27, has a 4 year degree from Penn State and earns over $100K as a district manager for a grocery store chain. There's alot of those type of jobs out there. And these jobs aren't going to be off-shored any time soon. In other words, there's security in her job - much more than in American manufacturing.
2. Recruiting and hiring managers don't know much of anything about the positions they are hiring for. It appears that they are provided a punch list of very specific qualifications for the open position/s. If someone comes to them and spits back those specific qualifications and if they are the right age, they might be hired. The hiring company is usually looking for the walk-on ready technician or engineer. What happened to looking for people with a basic skills set for the position and the right attitude for getting the job done and a sense of personal pride? Then, the company trains these new hires to be functional, effective and efficient in the work that needs to be done. But, many companies do not and do not want to invest very much in the training of their work force - skilled workers, technicians or professional engineers. Another statistic - the most successful corporations in the world invest 3% of their bottom line in skills upgrade training. If a company makes $1 billion, doesn't this amount to $30 million a year for training at all levels? That's a lot of training dollars. These companies consider this as important as R&D.
However, many of the "legacy" American corporations, especially the ones that are not doing well only do training to the extent that they get state grants that cover the cost. I personnally believe that if a company like GM wants to turn around their current condition, they must bite the bullet and invest (through borrowing if necessary) in R&D and worker training. That's their only way to success. Out sourcing/off-shoring will eventually lead to their undoing.
3. The bigger picture - protect American manufacturing. Strong American manufacturing insures that you have a market to sell your goods and services because it provides a strong middle class that has good, secure and well-paying jobs at all levels. America is in a race to the bottom regarding its middle class. There's always some country or foreign company that's willing to make it for less. This almost always comes at the expense of labor. Also, the US must take a strong stand on protection of intellectual capital.
4. Education - Public education does not believe that it is their duty to prepare our children for the work world. They are disconnected from what business and industry needs from their future employees. Reading, writing, math, science education are key along with a good dose of history. If one can read with proficiency, calculate, and know something about the physical laws of this planet and universe, one can learn the rest. Then, companies will find qualified entry level technicians and young engineers ready to learn about what the company needs to get done. We must get to the heart of what our children's education must be about for their future success. Forget about the latest, fastest computers and the turf grass football field. They are not important to the mission. This means that the teachers, schools administration and the elected school boards must get out of politics and parents must fully support and demand real education for their children.
Many community colleges are in the business of education. A close look at programs these schools run finds they are terribly lacking in scope and substance. Adult education is awash with money but often produces very poor results or results that don't mesh with current needs of the student or the company that comes to the CC for training of its employees.
You've opened a can of worms with this posting and asking for comments. There are many problems regarding well qualified job applicants and well training employees. The short term solution is to get qualified employees where ever you can find them - anywhere in the world. Isn't this why the US is over alloting H1B visas? Or, out source jobs to companies in foreign countries. On the short term, this takes care of salary levels and the lack of availability of American workers. If this trend continues, who knows, maybe our children will want to imigrate to China - the new land of opportunity!
The socio-economic problems of multinational capitalists are many. Their instinct is to exercise dominion and control as they appease Wall Street quant jocks for just one more fiscal quarter. Questions about the supply of and demand for professional engineers have sensible answers from us, but moneyed employers refuse to heed them so long as they can compromise with cheap alternatives and administrative obfuscations. They rely on weed-eating accountants with lawyer-envy and on mouth-breathing Human Resources ignoranti to successfully demean productive technical professionals by "commoditizing" us as fungible expenses, as one might lumber, paper clips, or depreciable equipment. Never mind Edward Deming. In this environment knowledge and know-how become less important than mindless compliance.
The simple solution becomes apparent: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." (Shakespeare; Henry VI, Act IV, Scene II)
November 29, 2005 3:20 PMAn update to my November 28 comment posting.
On CNN on November 29th, it was reported that in India, where the use of child labor is extensive, companies are employing young children (preteenagers) in the garment and rug businesses for 35 cents per week. And the children are required to buy their own needles!
How does the U.S. compete with this? We could not be competetive even if India's wage rates were 100 times more - $35.00 per week.
December 1, 2005 11:05 AMWhether we are lacking engineers or are engineers lacking is a good example of not defining the right problem to resolve.
a.) Engineers, as a function of US culture, are too selfish, self centered and conceited to properly work with each other or with US business structure on technical projects. This has been true for 100 years of boom and bust employment. Engineers are simply not professional. Engineering is not a hobby for your personal entertainment. You absolutely do not deserve this kind of job just because you went to college. US business management understands this all too well and treats engineering like any other resource to consume.
b.) For engineering 'as a concept' to survive, a trade union or trade guild organization needs to be developed. Great examples were the Mig and Sukiho design bureaus in the USSR during the cold war. Why? You would have found greater loyality, capability and imagination there then in US engineering at the time because the leadership, one man, supported their engineers.
c.) By losing control of simple artificial intelligence tools like ProE et al to anyone in the world the US engineer has little to show except to be a very expensive office worker. Engineers made corporate management responsible for paying for the development of these analysis tools and then expected top dollar to use them. (you might as well have asked them to pay for all of your education.) Analysis to engineering is like math to physics. A tool for the imagination that has been lost to the, necessarily, short sighted business culture.
d.) In my 30 years experience, the best and most business wise engineers were great magicians and illusionists for the entertainment of those with power. It took me a long and bitter time to realize this. For any idea to become real they who are footing the bill must see the engineering process as effortless. A proper trade guild, with Trump like competition, would develop these necessary skills over a lifetime
A good engineer is also a lifetime friend and supporter to all other engineers. This more than anything will preserve your employment and create new work.
December 1, 2005 5:58 PMMy daughter is a assistant professor in a university. One night she came back home and told me, "Daddy, do you know at our school, all technical department students are foreigner. No American at all!"
It didn't surprise me at all. This is American's trend.
Twenty years ago, I met a professor of engineering in UC Ervin. He taught graduate students with a tough engineering schedule. He told me he regretted he hadn't learnt Chinese. When students discussed in the classroom, he looked like a foreigner unless students needed his opinion. Now even worse, undergraduate students are also occupied by foreigners. What's this story tell us?
My personal feeling is that both sides are right. As a small business owner, it is very difficult to find the right person. In our present business environment, there is very little time to develop the right skill set to do a particular job. We have lost the partnership with our employees that we are all in the same boat.
November 22, 2006 6:50 AMUnfortunately, there is too much truth in all these postings.
Years ago, companies were concerned about keeping their employees and thus were not afraid to invest in them, so hiring people (not just engineers) who weren't a perfect fit for the job (the best available athlete, as Tom Landry used to say) and developing them was accepted practice.
Today, more companies seem to treat employees as disposable, so they don't want to invest in them. If that's the practice (no matter what they say about valuing people), then they want the perfect fit at the time the new employee reports.
Engineers are (should be) trained to solve problems, not to be technicians. Real engineering problems aren't solved with textbook education. The textbook education gives us the understanding of the components of the problems we will face. A good engineer always needs to consider the bigger picture.
We are in a service economy. One of the requirements of working in a service economy is that we engineers must be able to communicate with the world around us. One of the postings noted that most engineers aren't taught to communicate well. Many engineers are too focused on the micro-problem and fail to see how the world interacts with the designed solution. Those are problems to be solved.
I haven't yet read "The World is Flat," but I agree with the premise. We have to compete around the world. We have to think in those terms and understand our value in the big picture. What can we do that adds value but is difficult for someone offshore to do? Do we understand the culture in which the problem must be solved and the solution applied? Can we get "closer to the customer?" I don't believe in protectionism because I don't think it can work long term.
November 24, 2006 11:30 AMEngineering SUCKS - get out now. For those of you still in school, switch to business - you will earn 10 times what the average engineer earns.
Why do engineers drive 15 year old cars and worry whenever they spend a dime? Because they get paid so poorly that they have to !!!
Four engineers in my family, and I'm the only idiot that stayed in engineering. The others all went into Sales and earn twice as much as I do. I just turned 46 years old and finally broke $90K a year, while a good friend of mine went to a low end state school, majored in Business, and just accepted a job for $160K.
Next step is investment management career, as I just finished a 2nd tier MBA program. Screw engineering.
July 15, 2008 10:26 PM
