Engineering Is There a True Shortage of Engineers or a Skills Gap?

[justinlj]

this article addresses the question on the lack of engineer in our society. is there a real shortage or are the engineers themselves lacking the required skills?

what's your opinion on this issue?

http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2005/11/are_we_lacking.html

 

[Astronuc]

There seems to be a looming shortage of engineers, at least that's what I've heard from the companies with which I interface. But more importantly, the quality of engineering students is not what it used to be - and I hear that almost universally.

 

[justinlj]

There seems to be a looming shortage of engineers, at least that's what I've heard from the companies with which I interface. But more importantly, the quality of engineering students is not what it used to be - and I hear that almost universally.

i am concerned that companies are getting too overdemanding in what they are expecting from the engineers today.

 

[TMFKAN64]

the quality of engineering students is not what it used to be - and I hear that almost universally.

While I tend to agree, I think that's more because of my age than an actual decline in the quality of engineering students.

I'm always reminded of a letter I have promoting piano lessons for young children. It pointed out that young people today are totally lacking in culture and discipline and that the barbarians are at the gates and civilization as we know it is doomed if we don't start raising our children properly. Starting with piano lessons at a young age.

The letter was from my grandfather's piano teacher in the 1920's.

 

[DrRocket]

While I tend to agree, I think that's more because of my age than an actual decline in the quality of engineering students.

I don't think so. While the newer engineers are bright and very capable in handling sophisticated computer models, they lack understanding of the fundamentals which results in the models being " black boxes", and a concomitant lack of critical thinking with regard to the output of the models. This seems to also extend to some engineering faculty, and perhaps that is the root cause. I have heard similar thoughts from am now emeritus, engineering professor from MIT.

 

[DR13]

Im tired of hearing the older generation complain about how inept the younger generation is. Going back to what TMFKAN64 said it is obvious that every generation thinks that they are somehow superior to the following one. Now I could go on a long rant (with good points) about how this topic in general is, to put it bluntly, BS. But this is not the place. To answer the original question specifically I think that the current "shortage on talent" is a combination of too high of demands on people just out of school and the general feeling of superiority by the older generation.

(I don't mean to sound rude, and I am sorry if I came across that way. This topic just gets under my skin. I feel kind of insulted by it.)

 

[Mathnomalous]

I think the lack of fundamentals situation starts in high school. Many of my remedial math classmates were between the ages of 18 to 23. Most of them performed horribly even though they had been out of high school very recently and the remedial math classes were easy, perhaps a bit too easy. It seemed to me schools, at least in NYC, were only concerned with attaching a high school diploma to people. It also felt as if those remedial math classes were simply federal money collectors. From what I've read, similar situations occur in other parts of the US.

Probably worse is the young physics associate professor at one of the CUNY senior colleges that "shunned" me away because I asked him what skills he would like to see in students wishing to major in science or engineering. His reaction was probably due to me being a remedial math student but I certainly hope he treats his students better.

 

[DrRocket]

Im tired of hearing the older generation complain about how inept the younger generation is. Going back to what TMFKAN64 said it is obvious that every generation thinks that they are somehow superior to the following one. Now I could go on a long rant (with good points) about how this topic in general is, to put it bluntly, BS. But this is not the place. To answer the original question specifically I think that the current "shortage on talent" is a combination of too high of demands on people just out of school and the general feeling of superiority by the older generation.

(I don't mean to sound rude, and I am sorry if I came across that way. This topic just gets under my skin. I feel kind of insulted by it.)

Your indignatin is belied by your own reference to "too high of demands", as though failing to fullfill requirments of a job is somehow the fault of those who defined the requirements.

The plain fact is that while there is no failure in innate intelligence there has been a marked decline in the level of education and understanding achieved. Grade inflation is rampant. Whether that is the fault of the demands made by the education system itself or a lack of demand by those being educated,the result is indeed a reduction in the quality of the product produced.

There is nothing imagined about this. Current engineering students commonly lack understanding of elementary linear system theory that would have been taken as granted in the past. Fluid mechanics professors have dumbed down their classes because the students cannot handle material that was common twenty or thirty years ago. At some graduate schools new mathematics graduate students enter unprepared to study measure theory.

 

[DrRocket]

I think the lack of fundamentals situation starts in high school. Many of my remedial math classmates were between the ages of 18 to 23. Most of them performed horribly even though they had been out of high school very recently and the remedial math classes were easy, perhaps a bit too easy. It seemed to me schools, at least in NYC, were only concerned with attaching a high school diploma to people. It also felt as if those remedial math classes were simply federal money collectors. From what I've read, similar situations occur in other parts of the US.

Probably worse is the young physics associate professor at one of the CUNY senior colleges that "shunned" me away because I asked him what skills he would like to see in students wishing to major in science or engineering. His reaction was probably due to me being a remedial math student but I certainly hope he treats his students better.

It probably starts in grade school.

It is certainly not a situation unique to NYC.

There are far too many high schools that fail to prepare their students to be able to take calculus on entering college, and any science or engineering student not prepared to do that is already far behind.

You might be interested to know that neither I nor most of the people that I know in academia are proponents of high school calculus. There are a few good high school teachers who can handle that material well, but only a few. In general I think it far better for a student to enter a university sufficiently well-prepared in algebra and trigonometry to study calculus than to "clep out" with only a superficial understanding. But there is a huge problem, for science and engineering students, when the student is not ready for calculus upon matriculation. I have encountered only a handful of students who, if they required remedial mathematics at the university level, were able to progress beyond that. Again, there were a few, but only a few, while the vast majority simply failed even the remedial classes -- so I can understand, not approve but understand, the reaction of the physics professor.

 

[Mathnomalous]

It probably starts in grade school.

It is certainly not a situation unique to NYC.

There are far too many high schools that fail to prepare their students to be able to take calculus on entering college, and any science or engineering student not prepared to do that is already far behind.

You might be interested to know that neither I nor most of the people that I know in academia are proponents of high school calculus. There are a few good high school teachers who can handle that material well, but only a few. In general I think it far better for a student to enter a university sufficiently well-prepared in algebra and trigonometry to study calculus than to "clep out" with only a superficial understanding. But there is a huge problem, for science and engineering students, when the student is not ready for calculus upon matriculation. I have encountered only a handful of students who, if they required remedial mathematics at the university level, were able to progress beyond that. Again, there were a few, but only a few, while the vast majority simply failed even the remedial classes -- so I can understand, not approve but understand, the reaction of the physics professor.

There were two main reasons why I went to that professor for some advise. The first one was that I passed the remedial sequence with A but still felt the courses were watered down. I wanted to ask the professor what algebra and trig topics I should strengthen or obtain before hitting calculus. I even brought along a plan of attack, my exams, etc. but he did not bother looking at them. He did mention many of those that took remedial classes failed to go beyond them and I got the impression that included people that got high marks. I was not asking him for reassurance, I wanted sound advise on how I could correct this problem. I wanted to point out his institution offered remedial classes but I was not going to take more of his time.

The other problem is that there is a disconnect between programs at the different CUNY schools, even between those that have articulation agreements. Some schools cover extra material that the science/engineering schools do not cover, so students like me are left to guess how to properly correct our deficiencies. My solution to that problem is to simple learn up to intermediate algebra and trigonometry (the way people in prior to the 1970s were learning it), master it and hopefully it will be enough for calculus. But it would be nice if CUNY provided a clear list of what skills to obtain before I invest my time with them; make it easier for both myself and my professors.

It feels as if CUNY is also interested in attaching college degrees to people and not in actual teaching.

 

[stevenb]

I've been watching this tread with interest and have been having trouble coming up with anything useful to say about the subject. It's hard to be sure of the issues without hard data.

At the risk of saying something that is hard to justify, there is a simple point I'd like to make, based on my own intuition and experience. I think that good engineers are born, not made, and I don't mean to minimize the importance of training when I say that. I don't think it matters what generation we are talking about, nor how good the high school math training is. A certain percentage of the population is suitable to be good engineers and they will be good as long as an opportunity is available. There are very good university programs that provide the fundamental training suitable for anyone with talent to become good. So, perhaps in our time, more than any other time in history, people that should be engineers actually become engineers, and are just as good as at any other time. I think it is also true that, more than any other time in history, people who shouldn't be engineers are becoming engineers. However, this is OK because there are many engineering related jobs that do not require the "true born engineer".

I don't really know what hard data would say about whether there is a shortage of "born engineers", or not. That is, it is not clear that the positions that require the talent and passion, can't be filled. However, if there is a shortage, then it is (I think) largely do to the fact that demand exceeds the natural talent supply in the population, and not due to any failings in our present society. When you exhaust the talent pool, you will end up with a shortage of the good, and with a high percentage of mediocre engineers as the general population tries to fill the void. I'm not saying this is happening at an increased rate lately, and I have a feeling that it isn't happening, simply because the pay scale for "born engineers" is low for the value they provide, in my opinion. When a real shortage spike occurs, salaries will reflect that fact (again in my opinion). We could very well see a larger split in pay scale as companies seek out the thoroughbreds . This is what basic economic theory would say, and I don't see a good reason why this would not apply in this case.

 

[DrRocket]

I've been watching this tread with interest and have been having trouble coming up with anything useful to say about the subject. It's hard to be sure of the issues without hard data.

At the risk of saying something that is hard to justify, there is a simple point I'd like to make, based on my own intuition and experience. I think that good engineers are born, not made, and I don't mean to minimize the importance of training when I say that. I don't think it matters what generation we are talking about, nor how good the high school math training is. A certain percentage of the population is suitable to be good engineers and they will be good as long as an opportunity is available. There are very good university programs that provide the fundamental training suitable for anyone with talent to become good. So, perhaps in our time, more than any other time in history, people that should be engineers actually become engineers, and are just as good as at any other time. I think it is also true that, more than any other time in history, people who shouldn't be engineers are becoming engineers. However, this is OK because there are many engineering related jobs that do not require the "true born engineer".

I don't really know what hard data would say about whether there is a shortage of "born engineers", or not. That is, it is not clear that the positions that require the talent and passion, can't be filled. However, if there is a shortage, then it is (I think) largely do to the fact that demand exceeds the natural talent supply in the population, and not due to any failings in our present society. When you exhaust the talent pool, you will end up with a shortage of the good, and with a high percentage of mediocre engineers as the general population tries to fill the void. I'm not saying this is happening at an increased rate lately, and I have a feeling that it isn't happening, simply because the pay scale for "born engineers" is low for the value they provide, in my opinion. When a real shortage spike occurs, salaries will reflect that fact (again in my opinion). We could very well see a larger split in pay scale as companies seek out the thoroughbreds . This is what basic economic theory would say, and I don't see a good reason why this would not apply in this case.

I think that this is fundamentally correct. It also applies to the sciences and mathematics.

 

[DrRocket]

There were two main reasons why I went to that professor for some advise. The first one was that I passed the remedial sequence with A but still felt the courses were watered down. I wanted to ask the professor what algebra and trig topics I should strengthen or obtain before hitting calculus. I even brought along a plan of attack, my exams, etc. but he did not bother looking at them. He did mention many of those that took remedial classes failed to go beyond them and I got the impression that included people that got high marks. I was not asking him for reassurance, I wanted sound advise on how I could correct this problem. I wanted to point out his institution offered remedial classes but I was not going to take more of his time.

The other problem is that there is a disconnect between programs at the different CUNY schools, even between those that have articulation agreements. Some schools cover extra material that the science/engineering schools do not cover, so students like me are left to guess how to properly correct our deficiencies. My solution to that problem is to simple learn up to intermediate algebra and trigonometry (the way people in prior to the 1970s were learning it), master it and hopefully it will be enough for calculus. But it would be nice if CUNY provided a clear list of what skills to obtain before I invest my time with them; make it easier for both myself and my professors.

It feels as if CUNY is also interested in attaching college degrees to people and not in actual teaching.

I have no direct experience with CUNY but I did know a couple of PhD mathematicians and one very senior faculty member (what they called a "Professor of the University"), and my impression is that their standards were appropriately high.

If you understand algebra and trigonometry the way people "prior to the 1970's" did then you are adequately prepared to learn calculus.

The learning of science and mathematics is not particularly dependent on specific skills, but more so on an intangible quantity called "maturity". Pre-requisites, particularly in mathematics, are fairly meaningless, until about the second year of graduate school. My suggestion is to just take the classes and see how you do. You might make it and you might not -- there is no way for me to judge that in this kind of venue.

On the other hand, if you are not facile with elementary algebra, and the majority of remedial mathematics students are just plain dismal (independent of whatever grade they may have received) then calculus is going to be well nigh impossible simply because you will be unable to focus on the meat of the material because you will have trouble following the simple manipulations.

Calculus, if done correctly, is not a subject about manipulations and "finding the answer" (I know that those who concentrate on evaluating derivatives and integrals will be taken aback by this) but rather the heart of the subject is the concepts and learning how to make estimates that can ultimately lead to exact solutions to a given problem. It is more important to understand what a derivative and an integral are than to be able to manipulate symbols and simply calculate them. This requires a different mind set from algebra, and hence the need for "maturity" of thought as opposed to specific skills.

 

[morgantw]

Your indignatin is belied by your own reference to "too high of demands", as though failing to fullfill requirments of a job is somehow the fault of those who defined the requirements.

The plain fact is that while there is no failure in innate intelligence there has been a marked decline in the level of education and understanding achieved. Grade inflation is rampant. Whether that is the fault of the demands made by the education system itself or a lack of demand by those being educated,the result is indeed a reduction in the quality of the product produced.

There is nothing imagined about this. Current engineering commonly lack understanding of elementary linear system theory that would have been taken as granted in the past. Fluid mechanics professors have dumbed down their classes because the students cannot handle material that was common twenty or thirty years ago. At some graduate schools new mathematics graduate students enter unprepared to study measure theory.

I can agree with this, and I am young...hahahaha. I was actually having a conversation yesterday with a ME professor (from my university) at a local coffee shop where we frequently visit to do work. He too said that he had to dumb down his classes because of a lack of fundamental knowledge of what was common years ago. Hes about 65yrs year old. I took no offense to what he said. How can I disagree with someone who has been in the field for so long and watched every step of the way to this point? Meh, I am more responsible for learning/understanding and providing my own education than the institute giving it to me.

 

[DrRocket]

Meh, I am more responsible for learning/understanding and providing my own education than the institute giving it to me.

If you understand this, then you will have no problems. Recognition of this fact is the key to deep understanding.

 

[TheDoorsOfMe]

I feel like there is a lack of opportunities for the young scientist and engineers to gain these specific type of skills during high school and college. There is a lack of apprentice type positions and companies willing to really work with students.

 

[DrRocket]

I feel like there is a lack of opportunities for the young scientist and engineers to gain these specific type of skills during high school and college. There is a lack of apprentice type positions and companies willing to really work with students.

If you are in high school or the first two years of college you are not a young scientist or engineer, just someone with interest and maybe potential.

There are usually plenty of summer jobs in industry for the top engineering students. Your opportunities are what you make them to be.

Companies do not generally work with students. Students work for them. Companies are not charitable organizations. They hire people who can make a contribution to the company. That goes for summer employees as well, though there is usually some handling with kid gloves and an evaluation of the student for eventual full-time employment. But the bottom line is that if you to impress a potential future employer it is up to you show what you offer the employer, not the other way around.

 

[TheDoorsOfMe]

If you are in high school or the first two years of college you are not a young scientist or engineer, just someone with interest and maybe potential.

There are usually plenty of summer jobs in industry for the top engineering students. Your opportunities are what you make them to be.

Companies do not generally work with students. Students work for them. Companies are not charitable organizations. They hire people who can make a contribution to the company. That goes for summer employees as well, though there is usually some handling with kid gloves and an evaluation of the student for eventual full-time employment. But the bottom line is that if you to impress a potential future employer it is up to you show what you offer the employer, not the other way around.

Not completely true. The sword cuts both ways for companies creating interest for the future. Its not all about the companies as you as you can see since they are the ones complaining here. It's on them too.

 

[DrRocket]

Not completely true. The sword cuts both ways for companies creating interest for the future. Its not all about the companies as you as you can see since they are the ones complaining here. It's on them too.

Companies know what they need to do. If you take the attitude that a company has some obligation to you then your chances of landing a position are reduced. When you work for someone else you are selling the product of your labor. It is really that simple.

 

[stevenb]

Companies know what they need to do. If you take the attitude that a company has some obligation to you then your chances of landing a position are reduced. When you work for someone else you are selling the product of your labor. It is really that simple.

I remember reading somewhere that an employer's rule of thumb, for an employed engineer, is to expect fruits from their labor with a value greater than 3 times their salary. If they don't do this on average, they are not worth having around, or they are being payed too much.

An engineer needs to think about this rule at the end of every day by taking 3 times his daily pay, comparing this to the value of work done and then asking himself if he was worth his salt. There will be many days where the answer is no, but there had better be many more days where the answer is a resounding "YES!". It's not always easy to assign value to an engineer's work, but a wise engineer will figure out a way, and convince his boss of the validity of his formula at every performance review.

I once had a boss who would make us periodically write down and submit a list of our recent accomplishments. I wouldn't be surprised if he never read a single list. I'm convinced he made us do this for our benefit, not his.

 

[DrRocket]

I once had a boss who would make us periodically write down and submit a list of our recent accomplishments. I wouldn't be surprised if he never read a single list. I'm convinced he made us do this for our benefit, not his.

I did that on a weekly basis, at all sorts of levels, from an individual level up to the accomplishments of major divisions. This went as far as the CEO and to major customers.

I know that those weekly reports were read -- and questions were asked. Sometimes I was was the one reading them and asking the questions.
Plants made monthly operations reports and significant engineering accomplishments were part of the reports. Those reports were reported in detail at the highest levels of management and probing questions were asked.

You are working in fish bowl, pretty much all the time.

 

[TheDoorsOfMe]

Companies know what they need to do. If you take the attitude that a company has some obligation to you then your chances of landing a position are reduced. When you work for someone else you are selling the product of your labor. It is really that simple.

Very true that if you think that the company has an obligation to hire you then you are going to be SOL. But, it's also true I don't have to work for that company. Also very true that you are selling your work as a product. But, companies also have to sell to the employees through enrichment programs and other types of benefits. They sell a life style to us. This is where companies have scaled back in recent years due to the recession. Now they are complaining not as many students have the specific skills. Well that's because they weren't hiring as many interns as in the past. Therefore they don't have those skills. It's all supply and demand. Right now we are just coming out of the recession so companies want specific jobs without having to pay to train as much as they have in the past. But, soon they will have too, once there is enough of a demand for them to justify it. Then companies will sell themselves more to employees. The problem is you look at it strictly from a companies point of view (since you obviously work for one). This is simple. But its simple labor economics. Companies and workers are both buyers and sellers in this market. Right now, if your a well qualified engineer, it would seem you are a seller and the company is the buyer.

 

[morgantw]

Very true that if you think that the company has an obligation to hire you then you are going to be SOL. But, it's also true I don't have to work for that company. Also very true that you are selling your work as a product. But, companies also have to sell to the employees through enrichment programs and other types of benefits.

ok, but its also very true that even if you may not want to work there, someone else will. Companies certainly do sell to employees as long as the employee has something to offer. It really is one way if your skills are limited and you have nothing to offer. Someone else with just as much skill/potential (or more) will probably be there to take the job if your not willing.

 

[TheDoorsOfMe]

ok, but its also very true that even if you may not want to work there, someone else will. Companies certainly do sell to employees as long as the employee has something to offer. It really is one way if your skills are limited and you have nothing to offer. Someone else with just as much skill/potential (or more) will probably be there to take the job if your not willing.

But the point of the discussion was that there aren't enough people with the right qualifications to fill all these positions that need them. Which was my argument as to why there seems to be less qualified applicants than there was in the past. There isn't someone just waiting to take the job. Well there is, but they need training. There's no infinite supply of talented professionals.

 

[phys_student1]

I've been watching this tread with interest and have been having trouble coming up with anything useful to say about the subject. It's hard to be sure of the issues without hard data.

At the risk of saying something that is hard to justify, there is a simple point I'd like to make, based on my own intuition and experience. I think that good engineers are born, not made, and I don't mean to minimize the importance of training when I say that. I don't think it matters what generation we are talking about, nor how good the high school math training is. A certain percentage of the population is suitable to be good engineers and they will be good as long as an opportunity is available. There are very good university programs that provide the fundamental training suitable for anyone with talent to become good. So, perhaps in our time, more than any other time in history, people that should be engineers actually become engineers, and are just as good as at any other time. I think it is also true that, more than any other time in history, people who shouldn't be engineers are becoming engineers. However, this is OK because there are many engineering related jobs that do not require the "true born engineer".

I don't really know what hard data would say about whether there is a shortage of "born engineers", or not. That is, it is not clear that the positions that require the talent and passion, can't be filled. However, if there is a shortage, then it is (I think) largely do to the fact that demand exceeds the natural talent supply in the population, and not due to any failings in our present society. When you exhaust the talent pool, you will end up with a shortage of the good, and with a high percentage of mediocre engineers as the general population tries to fill the void. I'm not saying this is happening at an increased rate lately, and I have a feeling that it isn't happening, simply because the pay scale for "born engineers" is low for the value they provide, in my opinion. When a real shortage spike occurs, salaries will reflect that fact (again in my opinion). We could very well see a larger split in pay scale as companies seek out the thoroughbreds . This is what basic economic theory would say, and I don't see a good reason why this would not apply in this case.

I cannot agree more.

 

[xcvxcvvc]

I've been watching this tread with interest and have been having trouble coming up with anything useful to say about the subject. It's hard to be sure of the issues without hard data.

At the risk of saying something that is hard to justify, there is a simple point I'd like to make, based on my own intuition and experience. I think that good engineers are born, not made, and I don't mean to minimize the importance of training when I say that. I don't think it matters what generation we are talking about, nor how good the high school math training is. A certain percentage of the population is suitable to be good engineers and they will be good as long as an opportunity is available. There are very good university programs that provide the fundamental training suitable for anyone with talent to become good. So, perhaps in our time, more than any other time in history, people that should be engineers actually become engineers, and are just as good as at any other time. I think it is also true that, more than any other time in history, people who shouldn't be engineers are becoming engineers. However, this is OK because there are many engineering related jobs that do not require the "true born engineer".

I don't really know what hard data would say about whether there is a shortage of "born engineers", or not. That is, it is not clear that the positions that require the talent and passion, can't be filled. However, if there is a shortage, then it is (I think) largely do to the fact that demand exceeds the natural talent supply in the population, and not due to any failings in our present society. When you exhaust the talent pool, you will end up with a shortage of the good, and with a high percentage of mediocre engineers as the general population tries to fill the void. I'm not saying this is happening at an increased rate lately, and I have a feeling that it isn't happening, simply because the pay scale for "born engineers" is low for the value they provide, in my opinion. When a real shortage spike occurs, salaries will reflect that fact (again in my opinion). We could very well see a larger split in pay scale as companies seek out the thoroughbreds . This is what basic economic theory would say, and I don't see a good reason why this would not apply in this case.

I love how you use "born engineers" to signify "intelligent people" and you use "people not born engineers" as a euphemism for "stupid/average people"

 

[TMFKAN64]

I love how you use "born engineers" to signify "intelligent people" and you use "people not born engineers" as a euphemism for "stupid/average people"

Don't all engineers do that?

But I don't really buy into the idea of "born engineers" at all. There is nothing particularly magical about engineering... I believe that anyone without an obvious learning disability and with a bit of focus can be trained to be a reasonably good engineer.

 

[ehilge]

I believe that anyone without an obvious learning disability and with a bit of focus can be trained to be a reasonably good engineer.

A reasonably good engineer, probably. However, the argument the way I have understood it is that companies are looking for exceptional engineers with a perfect skill set. Consequently, universities can spit out as many reasonably good engineers as they want and companies still won't be happy. Companies need engineers that have drive and determination, much more than just "a bit of focus" to get them through school.

 

[TMFKAN64]

However, the argument the way I have understood it is that companies are looking for exceptional engineers with a perfect skill set. Consequently, universities can spit out as many reasonably good engineers as they want and companies still won't be happy.

Well, I'll certainly agree that universities don't graduate Senior Engineers with more than ten years of experience.

If by "born engineer", you mean "anyone possessing drive and determination", I'm willing to reconsider my earlier post. But other than that, I still stand by my assertion that engineers are made and not born. (Well, they're born first, but...)

 

[koab1mjr]

Companies always want a rainmaker who will bring millions for them and their stockholders. The issues is not in the genetic quality of the world populus but the erosiion of values and standards that has plagued the world. Education is no longer important, and gratification must be immediate. Our value systems have changed and unfortunatly and education has been the primary victim because of it.

To the people who are alluding that the genetic make up of people has declined need to get over themselves. Moreover you probably are not classified as a true engineer either.

I think the degradation of education in the US in paticular is attributed to

1. Society values why do math/science and make 50K where I can be like A Rod or Lebron...
2. The destruction of the middle class and families, the work week is more like 60-80 rather than 40 and both parents have work if threre are 2 parents so where does the child rearing fit in...
3. Poor teacher salaries, you are not getting the best and brighest paying such a low wage its the bottom of ladder in terms of white collar jobs.

4. Corporate practices - they deliberatly segment and disect so that you are replacable and the earnings pressure stifiles innovation etc...

5. Pop culture - American Idol, Desporate Housewives Sex in the city, all these things paint unrealistic views in soceity as a whole... Where is the emphasis on STEM stuff in pop culture. Out of sight out of mind.

There is a lot wrong with the world today, humantiy really is coming unglued the education issues is a symptom not the problem.

(no time to proofread on lunch break apoligize in advance for errors )

 

[xcvxcvvc]

Companies always want a rainmaker who will bring millions for them and their stockholders. The issues is not in the genetic quality of the world populus but the erosiion of values and standards that has plagued the world. Education is no longer important, and gratification must be immediate. Our value systems have changed and unfortunatly and education has been the primary victim because of it.

To the people who are alluding that the genetic make up of people has declined need to get over themselves. Moreover you probably are not classified as a true engineer either.

I think the degradation of education in the US in paticular is attributed to

1. Society values why do math/science and make 50K where I can be like A Rod or Lebron...
2. The destruction of the middle class and families, the work week is more like 60-80 rather than 40 and both parents have work if threre are 2 parents so where does the child rearing fit in...
3. Poor teacher salaries, you are not getting the best and brighest paying such a low wage its the bottom of ladder in terms of white collar jobs.

4. Corporate practices - they deliberatly segment and disect so that you are replacable and the earnings pressure stifiles innovation etc...

5. Pop culture - American Idol, Desporate Housewives Sex in the city, all these things paint unrealistic views in soceity as a whole... Where is the emphasis on STEM stuff in pop culture. Out of sight out of mind.

There is a lot wrong with the world today, humantiy really is coming unglued the education issues is a symptom not the problem.

(no time to proofread on lunch break apoligize in advance for errors )

The people mentioning intelligence didn't say it has declined. I think they mostly said the demand for great engineers has surpassed the number of genetically born great engineers in recent times. Also, by saying "get over yourselves," you are using an ad hominem attack. The posters never mentioned that they were great engineers, and even if they did, their arrogance is not in discussion right now.

 

[turbo]

I feel like there is a lack of opportunities for the young scientist and engineers to gain these specific type of skills during high school and college. There is a lack of apprentice type positions and companies willing to really work with students.

This is not universally true. My youngest nephew studied Chemical Engineering and landed an internship at a local paper mill for all three "off" summers and had a job waiting for him when he graduated. He got a much better offer from another company and moved to another part of the state to take that job.

Lack of applicable skills in engineering graduates is not a new problem. Back in the mid-70's I was a chemist in a brand-new pulp mill, and when the Tech department hired freshly-minted engineers, in 2 instances I was teamed up with them for long-term projects, and had to spend a lot of my time getting them up to speed. To be fair, one of the new engineers had some impressive Fortran skills that made a massive heat-and-mass balance project a lot less daunting than it would have been otherwise.

 

[stevenb]

I love how you use "born engineers" to signify "intelligent people" and you use "people not born engineers" as a euphemism for "stupid/average people"

Those are your words, not mine, and I couldn't disagree with you more.

I don't think great intelligence is the important ingredient to make a good engineer. I know many brilliant people that would not make good engineers. I also know many people that would be considered average intelligence in general, but who are great engineers. However, I do think intelligence is one important ingredient to be good in any field, and it certainly can't hurt. I think good engineers need to be bright and clever, but they do not need to be super intelligent or even quick thinking, in my opinion. More than intelligence, an engineer needs to be able to focus the mind on a problem for days or even weeks and must make finding a solution a part of his/her soul. Even more, a good engineer enjoys this and is driven to do this with great internal passion.

I think being a good engineer is similar to being a good artist or a good musician. There is some type of "inborn" drive in some people that is an integral part of who they are. There is not only the talent aspect, but the drive aspect. Sure, many people can do engineering, but those who are born to do it know who they are, and will always outperform those who are not. A born engineer always gets to the best solutions. Those not born to it can flounder, and even a 180 IQ will not show them the path any more than a 180 IQ will allow someone to sculpt a lifelike human form, or compose a moving symphony, or write a poem that would move someone to tears. There is a difference between talent and intelligence.

 

[DR13]

http://xkcd.com/603/