Depending on who you listen to, America is either on the precipice of a major domestic engineering skills shortage, or such pronouncements are baseless and perhaps evidence of larger government conspiracies with big business and academia. This issue is a large and complicated one, and each side can passionately defend its position, making the subject highly controversial and emotionally charged. The truth behind this issue has wide ranging implications for product developers, that is, if the truth can be known.

Here's a breakdown of the issues from each side:

POSITION ONE
"The engineering shortage is real and of crisis proportions."

Proponents of the engineering shortage claim that America is in danger of losing it's position of technical leadership and it's ability to maintain its current competitive stature in the global economy. A failure to reverse this trend will leave America without the wealth-creation ability of strong engineering capacity in an increasingly high-tech-driven world. As proof of this problem, many point to education statistics such as the following facts posted on the website for the Institute of Engineering Education at Southern Methodist University:

• Less than 15% of high school graduates have enough math and science skills to pursue scientific/technical degrees in college
• Less than 2% of high school graduates will earn an engineering degree
• Five years after graduation, 80% of engineering graduates are working in non-engineering fields
• Europe produces roughly three times as many engineering graduates as the US each year. Asia produces almost five times as many.

The Wall Street Journal addressed this issue as recently as their June 7, 2002 edition, in the Science Journal column by reporter Sharon Begley entitled "As We Lose Engineers, Who Will Take Us Into the Future?" Begley reported on the lament of CEOs who regret losing prospective engineering undergrads, particularly women, because of the unattractiveness and inflexibility of engineering school curriculums. In fact, the majority of solutions proposed to solve the engineering shortage involve methods for increasing the fundamental interest in the subject by those "disenfranchised" by scientific disciplines, which includes women, minority groups, and the economically underprivileged (see article two below, "Who's on First?").

Proponents say that those who refuse to recognize this crisis are living in denial and that the dangers are very real and foolish to overlook.

And now for the flip side:

Opponents of the engineering shortage claim that the crisis is a complete work of fiction that has been talked about for more than 50 years and never comes to fruition. The "crisis" is little more than a scare tactic to sway public opinion and push forward government grants to engineering schools and support for congressional bills relaxing the limits set for US companies to hire less expensive foreign labor. The following arguments are often made when debating against the engineering shortage:

• There has never been a 'current' shortage of engineers, the shortages are always predictions for within five or ten years from the time of projection
• No major project has failed or been canceled because of a lack of technical expertise
• Any perceived shortage can be attributed to the natural supply and demand cycles faced in all industries, which is self-correcting, yet constantly out of phase
• Actual temporary shortages in specific engineering skill areas have been blown out of proportion to insinuate a broad-based shortage
• There is also evidence to suggest any shortage is the result of employment abuses such as mandated overtime, coerced retirement, layoffs and the treatment of engineers as a commodity skill
• Ageism - there are plenty of older, experienced engineers available that are not considered for jobs because of their age and need for additional training in contemporary tools and methods
• There is a perception that foreign workers have more modest requirements, work harder for less pay, and can be coerced into loyalty by their immigration status

These opponents do not oppose stimulating enrollments in engineering education, but argue that the crisis needs to be debunked and more done to protect our domestic workforce.

EXPRESS TRAIN TO STRAIGHT TALK

What's the truth about all this? Beats the h-e-double-hockey-sticks out of me. In today’s post-Enron-Worldcom-Martha-Stewart-Ivan-Boesky world, it’s a little easier to believe claims of unethical and collusive behavior from big business. It’s also a little hard to swallow talk of shortages amidst the massive layoffs of the last year or two or the various other waves of unemployment felt in the 80s and 90s.

What is easy to believe, on the other hand, is the declining interest in engineering and science, not so much as a drain on our talent supply, but on the overall technical competency level of the populace. It is not a myth that the image of the engineer gains nowhere near the respect of pop stars or pro athletes. Now, let’s all admit that engineering activity is not as readily exciting as music or sports, but the things that are really cool about it often go unnoticed. Far more people do stuff like build Harleys, design iMacs, and write games for the Xbox than those who get paid to bare their midriff on MTV.

Are children a leading indicator of this? Recently my 6-year old godson finished his first school year in kindergarten. As a present for the teachers, all the kids made a page in a book with a drawing of what they wanted to be when they grow up. The pictures drawn by the boys were very diverse, with images of a fireman, a composer and even an archeologist (my godson wants to be a robot). The pictures drawn by the girls were shocking to me. Every single girl but one wanted to be an artist, the only exception wanted to be a teacher. Except for the robot, none of these could be considered engineering. Now, these kids were only 6 years old, but society’s influence was clear.

What is the real value of the engineer? In the recent feature film, Charlie’s Angels, the character played by Lucy Liu poses as an efficiency expert at a large software company, addresses a group of programmers and shouts, "Who builds the products of this company? You do! Engineers do!" Segway inventor Dean Kamen agrees that engineers are directly responsible for the incredible wealth enjoyed by Americans and is trying to cultivate young engineers with his FIRST robotics competitions.

There may indeed be a shortage of engineers, it’s just that maybe it’s a shortage of GOOD ones. Let’s face it, engineering needs more diversity in order to strengthen the population as a whole, and the best way to do that is to make it more accessible. It is equally credible to say that society gives science a bad rap as it is to say engineering does not easily present a friendly face. In short, I do not think dangerous shortages exist in our engineering population, but I do think it is of great importance to work on it anyway. Will it happen? I want to believe.

article-two:
On the Web: Who's on First?

Link: http://www.usfirst.org

And what is Kamen's speaking fee? Well, for this engagement it appeared to be a donation of over $2 million dollars of Microsoft software for FIRST participants, plus one short informercial by Dean to a live audience. The open house was free of course, so I'm doing my part and throwing in this additional plug, no extra charge.

Know a website we should review? Send the url to gregg@roundtable.com

Return to MRT Homepage