ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Engineers getting a makeover

Posted: Monday, May 07, 2007 7:25 PM by Alan Boyle

The nation's best and brightest engineers are gathering in Washington this week to figure out how to add some youthful zing to a profession that makes many kids think of slide rules and pocket protectors. As a result of their efforts, engineering's image will be getting a marketing makeover in the months ahead.

How much is that makeover needed? You'd expect engineers to come up with the data to back up their case, and these folks did not disappoint. In one survey of career preferences among 440 college-bound students aged 14 to 18, engineering was ranked last on a list that also included teaching, medicine, law and business. And in a 2006 Harris Poll on occupational prestige, the profession came in No. 10 out of 22 - well behind doctors and scientists (but well ahead of lawyers and, ick, journalists).

One big problem is that engineers are perceived as being - how shall I put this? - too geeky. Kids just don't see engineering as a thrilling profession where you interact with people, help others and do important things. "Many of the kids feel that we are 'desk jockeys,'" said Patrick Natale, executive director of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

To be sure, lots of engineers do slave all day over a hot desktop. But F. Suzanne Jenniches, vice president and general manager of Northrup Grumman's government systems division, argued that the work of an engineer is as important as a doctor's.

"The operating rooms where people's lives are saved are the result of engineering," she said. In fact, engineers played a part in developing every material we touch in daily life, she added.

So what is to be done? At this week's convocation of professional engineering societies, taking place at the National Academy of Engineering, several data-driven projects came to light.

One market research project, funded by the National Science Foundation and carried out by an NAE committee, tested a variety of slogans with focus groups. Among the favorites: "Engineers make a world of difference" ... "Turning ideas into reality" ... "Because dreams need doing."

Keep your eyes out for the bumper stickers. The NAE estimates that a focused marketing campaign should cost about $12 million to $25 million annually for the next two to three years. That may sound like a lot, but the engineering profession is thought to spend about $400 million a year on outreach right now, with little to show for it.

"It's like Brownian motion," said the academy's president, Wm. A. Wulf. "Everybody is going in different directions, and it seems that the net vector is zero." A more focused marketing campaign - encompassing all the sectors of the profession - should make all that outreach more efficient.

Another effort, called the Extraordinary Women Engineers Project, targets girls in middle school and high school. In recent years, female representation in the field has been something of a disappointment: Women enrollment in college engineering programs peaked at about 20 percent in 1999 and has dipped since then.

The academy has set up an "Engineer Girl" Web site to address that interest gap on the middle-school level, and in September a new "Design Your Life" site for high-school girls will be unveiled, Jenniches said. For updates on that front, keep your eye on the Engineers Week Web site. The "Try Engineering" Web site is another resource for kids, parents and teachers.

The Business Roundtable has been looking into yet another engineering-awareness campaign, modeled after the "Intel Inside" campaign for computers. Susan Traiman, director of public policy at the Business Roundtable, said the idea is to add something like a "Powered by Brainwave" tag to products ranging from sneakers to computers, to show that engineers are providing the brain power behind those products.

Quoting a market-tested tagline from the campaign, Traiman said, "Math and science powers virtually everything meaningful in your life."

Purdue University's Leah Jamieson, president of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, said the outreach should extend beyond just building another Web site. "How many of us are putting stuff on YouTube?" she asked her colleagues. "Are we doing podcasts?"

Then there's the academic part of the equation: Engineers themselves tend to add to the perception that their work is too hard for mere mortals - and that's a turnoff for the kids. "We can unprogram [the claim that] 'it's hard, but if you work really hard, you might become an engineer' into something more appealing," Jenniches said.

Of course, sometimes the classes really are hard - maybe too hard. The professional engineers said professors may have to dial it down a notch, particularly in the freshman year, in order to promote retention of engineering students.

"It's that freshman calculus course that's weeding the kids out," Traiman said.

"The electromagnetic physics course is a tough weeder-outer," Natale added.

In addition to cool slogans and kinder, gentler courses, the profession could benefit by having more role models for the kids. "There is no 'public face' of engineering," Natale said.

Greg Pearson, senior program officer for the NAE, said there should be a diverse set of role models - to show that women and minorities as well as white guys can excel in engineering. "It's going to be public faces," he said, emphasizing the plural.

Personally, the most public faces that come to my mind are those of Dilbert and his co-workers - and although they're great for a laugh, I'm not sure they're in the same league as the TV stars you see on "Law and Order" and "E.R." Who would you nominate as the celebrity spokespeople for engineering? Bill Gates? Steve Jobs? Hedy LamarrMacGyver? Add your picks - as well as your general observations on the state of engineering and the profession's public image - in the comments section below.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Dean Kamen, the inventor of the Segway and several other innovations, is a role model for thousands of middle and high school children worldwide. He is the founder of FIRST (For Inspiration & Recognition of Science & Technology). Each year, tens of thousands of kids participate in the FIRST Robotics and FIRST Lego League robotics tournaments. I have worked with a FIRST Robotics team*, and am amazed at how much the students learn from the engineer mentors, and how much the engineer mentors learn from the students!

*Team 34, The Rockets
um, sorry pal. These kids don't know what a sliderule is, much less the pocket protector. Those were gone when I came on the scene in the 80's. What does hold them back beside freshman diffEQ at 8am on Monday mornings is pretty simple. They may well have watched a parent have up/down problems in their worklives, and so, are not interested in that. This is the same issue with Programming and Sciences, and Mathmatics.

Having Gates as a spokeman isn't the best, because he is older, and isn't known for being tres chic outside of tech circles. They will need someone far more charismatic to add to the interest... I'd vote for Steve Squyres of Mars Rover fame... since Buckaroo Bonzai, and Chris Knight are probably both a little too esoteric...
Hi, Alan - Aren't the Astronauts mostly Engineers?  And the test pilots?  And the designers who make their shoes?  Skyscrapers may be formed in the minds of architects, but they are built by engineers, along with the Native Americans who sling the steel and the immigrants who lay the bricks.  Maybe the work of the Engineers is mainly hidden, but it is their efforts which fuel civilization's progress.

When I was younger, like more than fifty years ago, I always wanted to become an Engineer.  In my mental romance with the profession, the building of bridges to cross over rivers stirred my soul like nothing else.  But it was not to be.  I still admire the trade, though, and often think "An Engineer would know what to do."  
These people need a wakeup call, not a mere makeover.  "Functionality" is the gemstone of society’s know-how and yet this all-important concept seems to be the last consideration in modernday engineering or architectural project!  Everyone is out to make a name for themselves with one fancy, wasteful project after the next.  If we choose to forgo functional designs because we aren’t willing to foot the bill or we want something that looks fancy in order to portray our social standing in a class-based system, we only end up hurting ourselves and our environment in the process!

 We face an era where extremely intelligent people from the group that Stephen Hawking belongs to, have suggested humanity only has a 50% chance of survival this century and yet NO ONE wants to step out and face these grim realities or be labeled as some kind of doomsayer.  Our homes and communities last far too long not to plan for what is likely to happen in the decades to come, good or bad.  

Ultimately (by definition), the best designs are those that are the most suitable for their expected operating conditions, the most appropriate for their intended purpose, and those that are both effective and efficient at what they do.  

The complex and all-encompassing analytical design process is intended to identify the best possible design solutions for a given problem by looking at every possible consideration.   By understanding how this process is supposed to work by seeing how it is used in other areas (like the military, mountaineering or in racing) where so much performance is demanded and waste is utterly frowned on, we can apply these very same principals to better design the everyday things we use in the rest of our humdrum society.  If we can design our homes, cars, clothing, and all of our belongings to perfectly suit our needs, there will be nothing we cannot do and nothing that could ever stop us!
The reason Engineering is ranked last is attributed to very rare opportunity to make big amount in the enginnering career versus others like doctors. For example, if you become doctor, it is a promise to get good money. For Engineer, it is not the same, you have to be one in few thousands to make good money. Compared to Teaching, it has lot more efforts to put in and fewer vacation in the career. Until we see more successful stories for engineers, I think this will be the case with career prefences.
Dean Kamen's FIRST competition was what got me into engineering in high school.  Now I'm in my 20's and ... not an engineer.  I have the degree, but I don't work as an engineer.  

I think a lot of these professional organizations are eating their own seeds.  They force legal requirements of extensive certifications that take many years in a prescribed path to attain.  If you want to be a Civil Engineer but aren't a good classroom learner, good luck:  you'll be working as a drafter or designer or survey assistant for a couple decades before you get the chance, doing the same thing that licensed engineers do but for far less money.  Professional organizations are good for industries.  Guilds are not.
I’m a BSEE ’79 University of Florida and I have to say that most of the stereotypes regarding engineers are valid. In my estimation, the problem is the “curriculum” which is a rat’s nest of intellectual hurdles designed by academics for the sole purpose of ensuring that only eggheads survive the program. As such, most graduates are not really engineers at all….they are academics with engineering degrees. Really, it’s sad.

Engineering, at its most elegant, occurs when science is creatively applied in order to manifest structures, products and/or processes that enrich lives. Accordingly, engineers must not only be scientifically skilled, they must be artists, musicians, architects, pilots, builders, athletes, psychologists, farmers, etc. because without a measure of these talents, the science is little more than Rubik’s Cube: a useless novelty.

By far, most of my career has been in private practice. Over my 27 years, I have been witness to the decline of engineering as a profession. Where engineering schools fail to turn out academics, they turn out technicians instead. Occasionally, perhaps due to some genetic mutation, a student will survive the program and, in spite of that, become a real engineer. In some cases, that engineer will land at the feet of a mentor that also happens to be an engineer…and a vestige of the profession bumps along through another generation. God bless ‘em.

I do not agree with the general notion that the program should be “kinder and gentler”…it should not. Part of the magic of engineering is overcoming thin odds. Those that are easily defeated have no place in the world of engineering and should be washed out. That said, I’d change the detergent: synthesis would be valued on the same plane with analysis i.e. creativity, teamwork, creative problem solving, project management and brainstorming would have to be sufficiently demonstrated as a requirement for matriculation

If you want to attract youth to engineering, introduce them to pilots (Gene Cernan - astronaut), athletes (Charlie Johnson – St. Louis Cardinal quarterback), entrepreneurs (Jeff Bezos – Amazon.com founder), artists (Robert Fulton), comedians (Rowan “Mr. Bean” Atkinson) and others that somehow managed to stake a claim in the real world while holding an engineering degree.
Well I am an Industrial Engineer, and I find it quite reassuring that many CEO's, COO's and various manufacturing executives, have their undergraduate degree in Industrial Engineering, or engineering of some sort.  Instead of always emphasizing about what you can do with your EGR degree after college, how about emphasizing what you can do with it, once you have been using it for 5 years or so.

I am not saying that we don't need engineers to be engineers, because I am very glad that many stay in the profession.  But my main reasons for getting an EGR degree was knowing the doors it would open, and the training that EGR school would give me for my career.  EGR school teaches you how to "think" in the most efficient manner.  It is ingrained into your psyche beginning in freshman year.  That is a valuable asset in a global economy, where success is usually measured in innovation, creativity, efficiency, and the willingness to do the hard work.  All of these things are the backbone of a good engineering curriculum.  

I was an IE for 4 years after college, and already I am in management at my company making way more than most engineers who have been here for 10 years or less.  Thank you, engineering school.
I nominate Trevor Pounder of Intel Corp as the face of Engineering. He works at the former Digital plant in Hudson, MA.
It will be very difficult for engineering to ever match up to the persona that goes with the law and medical professions. They are popular/prestigious because of the famously large salaries that accompany these positions. Unfortunately for engineers, it's highly unlikely that an average engineer's salary will compete with a lawyer's or doctor's. That makes sense too considering the number of years of schooling required to start in those fields.

The only chance engineering has of attracting youth is to focus on the things that interest them. When I was a kid I was fascinated with spy stuff, blowing things up, flying, rockets, etc. It might be inspiring to some to see what some engineers get to work with, such as top-secret programs, cutting-edge planes, helicopters and spaceships (I think Burt Rutan is doing a great job inspiring a nation in the area of privatizing space). There are also engineers who get to blow stuff up for living (under the guise of testing). I've met some who've blown up navy ships and I've blown up more common machinery. Another fun part, is taking the machine apart afterwards to find what broke (crime-solving?). Also, kids are interested in video games, so showcasing the high-tech software packages (like STK from www.agi.com) could be inspirational.

No matter how much money is spent, it'll be difficult to inspire kids to get interested in designing roads, HVAC systems and water treatment plants. It takes a certain individual to get interested in that stuff, but there are some things that are interesting to lots of kids (boys at least).

Inspiring girls is a completely different subject.

Those are my thoughts from a young engineer's perspective.
The most public face of an engineer on television these days is Grant Imahara on Mythbusters.  Shows like Mythbusters and Extreme Engineering, also on Discovery, provide a window into engineering.

One of my favorite characterizations of engineers in cinema is in Apollo 13.  OK, they look like prototypical engineers (right down to pocket protectors and slide rules), but they solved the problem at hand (keeping the astronauts alive to make it home) with the material at hand.

Fundamentally, engineering is about problem solving.  Science is discovering new facts, engineering is putting those facts to work solving problems.

As for convincing students to study engineering, there's a real conflict.  Companies claim that there aren't enough engineers to hire, yet they are laying off (particularly engineers in the computer field) to hire in India and China.  Engineering is a profession, like teaching, medicine, and the law.  Studying for four or five years (or longer for an advanced degree), and then being outsourced doesn't look like a sensible career path.  In the early 70's (when I was entering High School), the aerospace industry laid off thousands.  I saw that and abandoned my dream of designing aircraft and rockets, and fell in love with computers.  I have my PhD in computer engineering and have worked in the field for 25 years.  But most of my coworkers are steering their children away from electrical and computer engineering toward careers that are "hands on" (i.e. presumably non exportable).  One popular choice is veterinary medicine, because it's presumed people won't send their cats and dogs to India for treatment.
Why would the profession need a makeover, anyway?  I got my engineering degree and I can't find anyone that wants to employ me.  Jobs for newcomers are scarce.  Everyone wants the guy that already has their professional license and 5-10 years of specialized experience under their belt.

If new engineers are getting scarce, then I haven't noticed.
why do not physicist have a "makeover party"? are not these the elite of the elite, who actually work under the most complicated subjects and suffer under the most complicated "weeding out"?
For spokespersons, how about Burt Rutan, Bill Nye (Science guy), Jimmy Carter, Neil Armstrong, Homer Hickam (Rocket Boys/October Sky) or Jean Luc Picard/Patrick Stewart? Famous engineers from history: Leonardo Da Vinci, Wernher von Braun, Wright Brothers, Robert Goddard, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Howard Hughes. Engineers can use a more visible, inspiring public image, but as far as making engineering courses easier - I hope doctors dont try that just to get more kids through Med school.
I'm a little disturbed by the idea of dumbing down the courses. I want to know that the person who qualified the bridge I'm driving over passed the most difficult freshman calculus and the person who designed the heart defibrillator I may one day need understands electromagnetic physics extremely well.

Almost no engineers are going to be on the cutting edge of anything. By nature engineering is a profession that primarily deals with infrastructure which is not the most "sexy" aspect of modern life. We don't need people who want to be engineering stars, but people who want to meet the challenge of designing and developing the products all people (including the stars) depend upon.

As far as prominent engineers today, Burt Rutan comes to mind as a good role model. He's brilliant, rises to challenges and views publicity and secondary to solving problems.
In the fall I will begin my freshman year of college and join that small group of female engineering majors.

I completely agree that engineering does not get the attention it deserves; I would have a hard time finding many classmates in my high school that have seriously given a career path in engineering a decent thought; it took me quite a while before I did.  I think my age group just haven't been exposed to possibilities in this multi-faceted profession.

It troubles me that people want to make college courses easier in order to retain students in engineering programs.  "Dumbing down" courses will not help the situation.  I believe that we need to make math and science courses a bigger academic focus well before college.  I find it disgusting that I was required to take 4 years of English to graduate high school, but only 2 years of science and 2 years of math.  How could math and science possibly be less important that analyzing Shakespeare?  Don't get me wrong, I love Shakespeare and I believe reading and writing skills are highly essential, but I could care less if the cashier counting out my change at the grocery store is familiar with Hamlet.  Why not 4 years of all core academic subjects: english, math, science, and social studies?  Many high school students probably do think it would be difficult to be an engineering major, but who wouldn't when they stopped learning math after their Basic Principles of Algebra course sophomore year?  We can't expect the number of engineering majors to increase until we have enough students with the math and science background to handle engineering courses.
I am one of those that washed out early on - 4 times.  Calculus, in combination with severe lack of study skills, just did me under time and again.  Then I went out and WORKED for a few years as technician.  After learning what real work was like, I got back into night school and was blessed with a calculus instructor who also taught Physics at CalSt-LB.  He was "old-old school", and was always giving examples of why a function would be useful later in our careers or studies.  I still remember the "religious experience" when he showed us how a matrix transform function was the basis of a phased-array antenna.  

The coursework needs to be tough.  As stated above, lives depend on good engineering.  I've worked with a few "engineers" who couldn't design there way out of paper bag.  (They turned out to be fairly good managers. Hmmm?!?)

I agree - Burt Rutan.  However, my kids have no idea who he is or what he does.  (Does that make me old school?)  They do, however, watch the crew on MythBusters.  So, my vote goes to Mythbusters.

I'm now working as a Hardware Test Engineer at Xbox.  All of the sudden, I am the parent with the cool job.  I hope I can influence one or two kids to give engineering a shot.

What would really help make engineering more interesting is some additional coursework for engineers, like Social Skills 101 through 401.  It would include topics like "how normal people talk", "how normal people dress (no black socks with your white sneakers regardless of the heat transfer characteristics)", "the vast majority of girls don't care about Hawking's latest theory (and if you do find one - how to ask her to marry you)", "once you're out of school, you no longer have to prove you're the smartest person in the room", "speaking to children (they aren't little adults)", "why chemistry sets are not good gift ideas for newborns", and "we only play that game at work."
Years ago I realized that my son had an inherent ability to problem solve. When he was younger we made sure he had enough Duplos, KNex, computer programs, games, etc., to keep him engaged in creating whatever his heart desired. When he was 11 I would record the tv show "Extreme Engineering" for him to watch and was thrilled when he would quickly grasp the possible solutions to each projects' major hurdles...before the show gave the solution. For example, using magnetic rails and a vacuum environment to reduce friction for a transatlantic transportation system that could make a trip to London from New York in less than 3 hours.

He learned to be proud of his abilities because WE were proud of his abilities. After he graduates high school next year he's looking forward to building a career as an engineer. I've spent his lifetime trying to show him the amazing things the human mind can achieve with the right desire, knowledge, skills and tools.

Can you then imagine his reaction when, after achieving top percentiles in math and science on a standardized placement test in school, the suggested career path listed for him was a plumber or electrician? Vital jobs in society, yes, inspiration for someone who could build the next Golden Gate bridge or Hoover Dam or transatlantic transport, hardly. We have to stop showing kids their possible limits and focus instead on the fact that they are ALREADY the next amazing generation. We can only predict the future past our lifetimes, THEY will be building it and living it.  
There are good financial reasons for an intelligent person not to become an engineer as opposed to a doctor or lawyer. Engineering jobs more than those in law or medicine are subject to the forces of globalization. If you like the constant feeling of thinking your job may be eliminated, then by all means become an engineer.
As far as examples go, doesn't anyone remember Doc Edgerton? He could be the role model for so many disciplines it's almost ridiculous. Do they award PhD in 'Jack of all Trades'...with an independent thought process? Edgerton could figger out anything, and show it in the physical world...quite a trick, eh? learn more about curvilineareality... http://smythspace.blogspot.com
Kids don't want to be engineers because they have seen what an unappreciated job it is. My son watched as his dad lost his job as a Senior Project Engineer for the automotive industry and couldn't find a job with anyone else. All those jobs are now in Mexico and China. There are no engineering jobs available in Milwaukee anymore. Why would any child want to repeat his father's mistakes?
I have 3 engineering degrees with employment that could be considered somewhat interesting.  (sonar, radar, electronic warfare).  My experience in engineering is less than satisfying, however, I don't believe the source of the problem is with students lack of awareness, or ill-suited marketing/advertising campaigns on young minds.  

The anecdotes in these posts share many parallels with the outcomes of Toyota and American automakers. Focus on the essence of engineering rather than trivial gimmicks to attract unwary buyers.  This includes the dissatisfaction with engineering and the reason people leave rather than enhancing the inflow.  The relationship among engineering training, academe, professional organizations, and the business community needs a makeover.

Part of the attractiveness of the other professions (medicine, law) is the associated prestige associated with higher education.  When one attains higher education in medicine/law their career options expand considerably.  The effect of higher education in engineering varies; in some cases options expand, but in others they diminish.  One reason is the close association of engineering training with academe, and the narrow but ultimately less usefull flexibility associated with higher engineering education.

Looking at medicine and law as a model, several undercurrents are obvious:
1) Formation of higher-education professional schools.
2) Strong professional societies equivalent to the american bar/medical associations.
3) Make passage of some type of board exam mandatory (bar, usmle equivalent).  this would reduce the influx and outsourcing of jobs to non-citizens.

Oh, and despite reasonable success as an engineer, I am considering more satisfying career options.  There is quite a bit of substance to the alleged illusory stereotypes of engineering.
To the people who say you cannot make good money in engineering here in Ohio $70K with 2 weeks vacation is not uncommon for a mechanical engineer with little to no experience.
Young engineers are those people we hear about when discussing layoffs and offshoring.  Why get a degree in a field where you're then supposedly competing with somebody who can live like a king on one third your salary in some communist country?

Executive management excluded of course.  Their jobs are much too valuable to offshore.
I agree with the previous comments: the problem is a perceived lack of opportunities and financial renumeration.  

Many of our best engineering opportunities were in manufacturing sector, but domestic industrials have been in severe decline for decades.  Many engineers have been hit by off-shoring and outsourcing, and it's hard to imagine a new generation of kids finding professional inspiration in their parents' pink slips.

Dumbing down the curriculum will only dilute the profession. Plenty of kids would crawl through ten miles of broken glass to become lawyers or doctors, so it hardly seems like an issue of desire or capability.  

I am an industrial engineer and very much enjoy my profession, but the world has become more challenging since I received my degree in the 1980's.  If we want others to pursue our profession, we must somehow create suitable opportunities that justify the hard work that it demands.
Makeover for engineers what an idea!  Look around you. Every drop of water, every road you drive on to work, every building you live in, work in, and eat in has been touched by an ENGINEER. I am a transportation engineer, and proud of it!  Engineers are problem solvers, solution investagators, and designers of our world.  We need to speak up, go to school and talk to students, get out of our shells.

Men and oh yes women make good engineers.  Yes, engineering school is not easy, but it is not something that can not be overcome.  We have numerous role models each is different in their own field of understanding.  I do not think this should be called a makeover, but a coming out of our shell party so that we educate the world on what we do, why we do it, and why it is good for our world.  We need to educate, communicate, and talk.
Burt Rutan could be a great current day engineering role model. I am afraid, however, that the average high school senior has never heard of him. I doubt Grant Imahara is going to turn to many kids' heads either. Or do you think they know that Grant has an engineering degree...AND that they want to be like him?
Gene Roddenberry pegged the profession forty years ago when he compiled the original Star Trek bridge crew. Chief Engineer Scotty was always expected to do the job in half the time with half the budget. Meanwhile, Captain Kirk was off exploring the Pleasure Planet...
I am an engineer but I see this as a real non-issue. Engineers are not in short supply (not even close) so there is no good reason to encourage students to pursue the field rather than, say, any other field.
The reason that there are few engineers as role models (if which I am one) is that in the hierarchy of a company, we are stuck in the bottom or middle tier. We come up with new ideas or someone brings an idea to us.  Then we use our engineering skills in mechanics, electronics, materials, chemistry, physics, mathematics to take that idea from vision to reality.  But in the grand scheme of things, we are never seen nor heard because we serve as the "black box" for the company, a mere operation that objects go through to transform them from hope to reality.  If we are lucky, we MIGHT get our name tacked onto the end of a long list of people for a patent which is ultimately held by the company anyways and we get a tiny fraction of "bonus" money for our efforts.

The real "face" of a company are its CEOs and presidents who get to hawk their new products while standing on the backs of the engineers that handed it to them.

Even today, one of the best examples of a engineering role model, Mr. Steve Wozniak, the co-founder of what is now Apple, Inc., still ended up being second fiddle to the Face-man and other co-founder Steven Jobs, who as we know today takes great pleasure in promoting the wares that Apple's great engineers make for him.

For kids to get interested in engineering, they need to be shown what it takes to make the things they like.  Making the molds for Barbie doll body parts or the detail in getting the weight just right in their next baseball bat...something to pique their curiosity into that other world where all their "cool" stuff comes from.

Truth be known, no one engineer can be everything.  It is all of us...using our knowledge...working together...creating something special that the masses can use to better their lives.  To point the finger at just one of us as "the reason" for a product being a success gives the perception that the others were not as important.  Even if I were the brainchild of a terrific idea, and was instrumental in making it a reality, I could not in good conscience take all the credit knowing that there were many others that helped my idea become real.  But I certainly would enjoy being able to bring my own idea to the masses.
I agree with the previous comments: the problem is a perceived lack of opportunities and financial renumeration.  

Many of our best engineering opportunities were in manufacturing sector, but domestic industrials have been in severe decline for decades.  Many engineers have been hit by off-shoring and outsourcing, and it's hard to imagine a new generation of kids finding professional inspiration in their parents' pink slips.

Dumbing down the curriculum will only dilute the profession. Plenty of kids would crawl through ten miles of broken glass to become lawyers or doctors, so it hardly seems like an issue of desire or capability.  

I am an industrial engineer and very much enjoy my profession, but the world has become more challenging since I received my degree in the 1980's.  If we want others to pursue our profession, we must somehow create suitable opportunities that justify the hard work that it demands.
The 2006 Harris Poll shows that we always ranked 10th, we just didn’t know it. Somewhat like middle management, we’re jammed between the theoretical from above and the unworkable from below. Mythbusters, Extreme Engineering and science shows about ancient engineering are great PR for us. Sadly, the dumbing down of math and science courses began in public schools years ago. If engineers ever find a way to sell themselves in a job interview, they can then sell themselves to the public.
One huge difference between now and a generation ago has been the explosion of computer-related jobs which directly compete for a geek's career path. I got my engineering degree in 1977. Probably 90% of my fraternity brothers were engineering majors. Now, the majority are computer majors. Further, about half of the guys I went to school with, including me, now do computer work instead of engineering. It's a very different marketplace now.
Wow, this article is a description of the reality I live in right now.  I am finding the engineers arround me jumping ship from all facilities around the world.  Engineering IS glamourous... if you are working on new technology.  The problem is this, the field needs thousands... nay millions of engineers to fill thankless very challenging possitions in every imaginable company and municipality.  I read the comments from Florida Jeff.  Jeff if you need a job call me, engineers can fill any of a thousand job descriptions with little or no additional experience.  Of couse the best engineering jobs require a ton of experience.  I find, in my role right now as an engineer, every project I work on succeeds or fails based entirely on my ability to allocate engineering resources to the project. What the country needs, is a lot more selfless soldiers who know that they are important because they work hard to solve problems every day. An engineer's measure of success must come from within, from a knowledge that society is better because of your efforts.

Oh, by the way I would never do anything else.  Engineers are awsome because we know what brownian motion is!
There are two fundamental issues making engineering less appealing to younger people today: Media portrayal (or lack thereof) and the lack of a strong math and science education at the elementary/ middle/ high school levels.

With law and medicine it is easy to write a TV show-- they have inherent emotional connection with their issues. Without emotion you don't have an engaging viewing experience. You pretty much have to contrive an emotional engineering experience (McGyver?). Notice, however, the plethora of medical and law/crime shows on TV.

In school, students are practically being told that math and science are not important. Calculators are handed out in 2nd and 3rd grades. Schools have very low requirements of math and science for graduation compared to most of the rest of the world.

My wife is a middle school science teacher and it's appalling how little ability to think logically and to do basic problem solving they have. Forget math.

It may sound like sour grapes, but it really appears that the soft subjects are directing the curriculum and purposely shortchanging science and math at a time when we need it most to compete in the world.
I recently retired as an Electrical Engineer.  My joy of mathematical proofs is what carried me into engineering.  I do not have the words to express the joy I felt at coming up with elegant mathematical proofs; neither do I have to words to express my repugnance at having to sit at the same table with sales and marketing people.  I miss the engineering and the math but I do not miss those scumbags and neither do I agree that we engineers need to remake our image to satisfy some vague notion of needing to be like others.  We aren't like the others.  We are the creators and they are the parasites.   It is they who need to change their image.  

Sincerely,

John Casapiedra   formerly IEEE 40270636
I question the whole premise that a makeover is needed.  OK, so people outside the profession see us as geeky.  Who cares.  Most engineers I know are relatively happy -- i.e., they hate the lawyering field, and don't have to deal with sicknesses and the insurance issues that doctors have.  

If movies have given us a poor image as sedentary nerds, you can blame Hollywood. Many of the guys (and women) engineers I know ski, hike, fly, climb, workout, and play various team sports.

Promoting Engineering as 'cool' will flood the schools (and perhaps the profession) with young people who ought to be doing something else for a living.  (Like plumbing or nursing.)
There are many myths about engineers, some perpetuated by professors and academics, some by managers and human resources.  The truth is, a degree, nor a license, do not an engineer make.  As noted by others, an engineer is someone immersed in problem solving, by definition an applied scientist.

I took an unlikely route to engineering, not unlike Homer Hickham.  I grew up in a small manufacturing town, worked in a small machine shop and on an assembly line, switched to engineering after getting my Bachelor's in Chemistry.  My chosen field was Biomed engineering. My HS math teacher told me point blank that I did not have the skills to be an engineer.  35 years (and 35 patents) later it turns out he was mistaken.

My greatest concern about today's graduates is that many come from an ivory tower.  They've not gotten their hands dirty.  There is much that is beneath them.  That's not the game face an engineer brings to play.  Engineering is about getting it done, whatever 'it' is, whether you are creating the first reusable rocket from private funds or figuring out how to keep a plastic bag of stem cells from shattering in liquid nitrogen.

I'll note too that not all engineers are problem solvers, just like not all MD's are surgeons.  It is a large family of professions, with room for many skillsets.  It is disappointing that the brightest kids aren't finding engineering more attractive.  There's more to engineering than DiffEQ and Thermodynamics.
If you want an engineering field that has some hipness, look no further than mechanical engineering. My husband is a mechanical engineer, whose day job is designing advanced measuring equipment for the manufacturing of just about anything you can think of, including big screen TVs, assembly line processes, etc. In his spare time, he applies his engineering skills to the motorsports field, where he uses his knowledge to not only compete in ATV racing, but to assist others with technology to help them optimize their race experience. While the stereotype is that engineers are geeky, I think that they are misunderstood as a whole. Sure, my husband is very intelligent in science and mathamatics, but in watching him work on his projects, he is also extremely creative and has to be very social in both his profession and his spare time activities. We strike a good balance, with him being more technically inclined, and me being artistic, and feel our kids are getting the best of both worlds. My kids look up to their dad for his intelligence and integrity, and he has a great way of getting them genuinely excited about what he does for a living, even though many think it's just crunching numbers and dodging deadlines. Having firsthand experience, I'd say engineering is one of the more exciting results-oriented jobs there is!
The solution is at hand. Notice that we're no longer talking about how to attract women or minorities to the engineering profession. The problem has become so acute that we're willing to take the social engineering out of the college admissions and scholarship process and start simply looking for anybody who may have the talent and disposition to become an engineer. The last time I went to my son’s awards assembly, 80% of the awards when to females. My son got the Math Student of the Year award only because he was the only one left in the calculus class at the community college.
There are two things I can think of that would help get more people into the field.  First off, our public schools need to get behind the 8-ball in math.  Because our country's few math geniuses go into engineering themselves, the level of math teaching in schools in underwhelming to say the least.  Which means more pay for the teachers.

Second, I completed a two-year degree in electronics and would love to complete a 4 year degree, but the options are limited.  The few schools that do offer engineering night classes are not publicly funded and usually not given the same weight as state schools by employers.  No one wants to pay 20-30k for a degree that no one will take seriously.
No one says they don't want to be operated on by a doctor who is too experienced but an engineer who has too much experience can't get hired. If you look around most companies you would be struck by the lack of working engineers over age 50. But I believe engineering is a calling and you should only go into the profession if you love tinkering and creating. I have seen too many people go into engineering for the wrong reason and they end up being poor engineers and not very happy. As far as it being tough -- true but it should be marketed like the Marines, it is tough so you can prove yourself as one of the few. Maybe we need a special beret or even a uniform. I find that Dockers pants seem to be the de facto uniform in many places. Add to that a blue shirt with a logo of gears, lightning bolts, 10101010, etc.
We provide sales, repair and project consultation in the laser/electro optics area.  I can't tell you how many times I've run into engineers (not high level theorists mind you) who are functionally useless.  Not enough hands on if you will..too much theory and sterile lab projects.  I see this one all of the time:  When confronted with a water leak on a water-cooled piece of equipment, I see layers and layers of teflon tape wrapped around a cooling hose.  Just use the 8-cent hose gasket next time...

I see engineers who tend to ride their computers more than they do their test bench.  After all, if engineering is about bringing ideas to reality, as some have already stated, these individuals took a wrong turn somewhere.

Lastly, I have always believed starting an apprentice-like program for both future and young engineers would be of some benefit.  I see this as the best way for an experienced engineer to pass on his (or hers) knowledge.  We place too much priority in the US on merely obtaining the piece of paper.
Why would someone want to become an engineer?  Years of brutally tough coursework followed by 60-70 hour workweeks and the constant threat of a layoff?

All for the same or less money you could make as a business major, where you drink your way through college and complain about the engineers that work for you.

In the US, the motivation to become an engineer is because you like a challenge, and consider yourself smart enough to get through it.  Lazy and stupid people need not apply.  A couple of silly bumper stickers is not going to suddenly draw people to a very difficult career field.
How about paying engineers more?  How about valuing their accumulated know-how or providing a modicum of job security?

In the economic madness of viewing labor as a commodity, engineering labor has become just that, a commodity that can be disposed of at will.  I submit that engineering today has about the same value to our society as auto mechanics did 50 years ago, and that that value has been diluted in the same manner, or worse.

Parallel to this, the fundamental output of engineering, manufacturing is being eroded in this country as never before.  The only reason that cost-cutting decisions based on the labor-is-a-commodity fallacy are economically justifiable, is by ignoring the know-how component that is lost when highly trained, experienced employees are downsized/outsourced/offshored.  Our youngsters understand very well that there is no future in learning a profession, when you can be spit out of the system at will, and where your know-how and experience are simply ignored.

Furthermore, our culture simply does not value intellect, relative to wealth, fame, or stardom.  For example, what kind of value system explains that a major NCAA basketball coach earns 10-20x the salary of an engineering or science professor?

These are the underlying issues we need to come to terms with, if we want to improve the lot of engineers in our society.  We ignore them at our own peril.
Dumbing down courses? NEVER if anything they should be more applicable. I am an engineer in trainning, getting my license next year. I had no problem getting a job, there are lots here in Canada. Spokesperson, well let me be one. I frequent classrooms, thru my girlfriend and I try to show kids what engineers do. Which very many people know little about. I became an engineer because my father was and engineer, like his father and his fathers' father. The general public has no idea what an engineer does, if they only knew that we do everything around them. We are the men and women behind the curtain, keeping the public safe from disaster and maintaining the infrastructure of human society and we never ask for recognition. That is what I love about being an engineer, I know that my job is very important I design good roads, strong bridges, tall buildings and perfectly graded parking lots....oh and all the hidden structures below grade. But does anyone ever notice, or even care? Probably not, but that doesn't bother me, I like it better that way. Engineering has never been about showing off, that is why we have architects. We take great pride in our work. I don't want anyone joining my profession because they think it is "sexy", or because they can make allot of money, or even because it is prestigious. I want young engineers to join my profession because they love and understand what we do and have pride in the fact that we sustain and expand society. We have and always will, without the need of a ticker parade. ERTW
The fact is you need to be pretty smart and hard working to get through engineering school.  Analytic thinking is forced on you and you do it.  By Junior year, you look at the Business majors who will be your bosses, who only need to solve algebra to get straight A's, who get the girls, and get to party.  

You're smart and can solve problems.  This one is a snap.  You jump into the softer subjects and fly to higher levels.  Or, alternately, you go to another difficult profession (law or medicine) where the prestige and money remain commensurate with the effort.

So long as employers and firms consider engineers as glorified, disposable, technicians instead of valuable intellectual assets, the profession will not be able to attract and retain the best and brightest.

The profession is to blame.  We've let every rinky-dink Community college and wanna-be University graduate "engineers" who are ill prepared and NOT weeded out when they cannot cut it.  As a result, an excellent engineer looks the same to most employers as the cheesy "engineering Technician" from Podunck CC.  We've become commodities.  

While the Lawyers and Doctors have protected their professions, and limited the number of graduates, we strive to become commonplace.  That should be our new motto, "Join the overworked and overlooked".
We don't need to dumb down the coursework.   Students who can't pass freshman calculus will only have more and more difficulty in later courses.

If anything, the problem is that students aren't coming into college prepared for the courses.  Too much grade inflation and dumbing down of math classes in high school.

Perhaps engineering should just officially be a 5 year program, it already takes 4-1/2 to 5 years for more people anyway.   Why not just space it out a bit and lessen the courseload those first two years, so that students actually learn what they're supposed to.
Big corporations would love to have more young engineers so that they would be able to hire for less. I am an engineer, son of a medical doctor. I observe that dad had a title and it was difficult to get into medical school and to get out. If an engineer does brilliant work, his company gets the fame and he goes unnoticed.
As a EE for a large defense contractor, I don't like the idea of dumbing down the classes. The classes are supposed to be hard. Anything worth doing is hard. Its true that doctors and lawyers make more than engineers, but we don't do so bad. I do spend a lot of time at my desk but I also get to travel to were our system is deployed and do some work.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=184576

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google