Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Education IT

U.S. Engineers Undercounted 375

Posted by Zonk from the commonly-held-incorrect-fact dept.
mcho writes "Red Herring reports that 'The United States graduates far more engineers annually than typically reported in the press, a study said Monday, while the number of engineering graduates in India and China, long considered threats to the U.S.' status as a technological superpower, may be overstated ... the data implies that per every 1 million citizens, the United States is producing more technology specialists than China and India.' Are U.S. Engineers undercounted?" We've reported on the trend of U.S. students leaving the field previously.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Engineers Undercounted More

U.S. Engineers Undercounted

Comments Filter:

  • Under-waged (Score:4, Insightful)

    by biocute ( 936687 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:05PM (#14249539)
    The problem now is not U.S. Engineers being undercounted, it's about them being underwaged by rising countries like China and India.

    And let's not be fooled by this per-million figures.

    The friendly article stated:

    USA: 225,925
    India: 215,000
    China: 644,106

    How's that making USA produced more engineering graduates? And more importantly, what's the point of producing more of a product when nobody buys from you? This kind of self-comforting is poisonous!

    If anything, this huge amount of graduating engineers every year is what caused the problems in the first place.
    • Because it is a per million basis. The real number of importance since both India and China are over 1 billion people and the US has around 300 million. I mean we are the 3rd most populous country (according to wikipedia) and a distant 3rd at that. Divide up those numbers per million people and the US puts out 750 per million, India about 215 and China less then 644 per million.

      I mean of course there are more engineers graduated in countries with three times the population of the US.

    • Re:Under-waged (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Quiet_Desperation ( 858215 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:24PM (#14249780)
      Per capita:

      USA: 725 per million
      India: 199 per million
      China: 493 per million

      In other words: fun with statistics!

    • There's not much doubt that the US is being seriously out-performed by China in system engineering ( http://courses.washington.edu/goodall/MRFM/whats_ new.html#n0036 [washington.edu]). As the web page shows, most of the peer-reviewed articles in system engineering are now written in Mandarin, not English.

      This is a new phenomenon: it began about five years ago. And the number of such articles is increasing by about 30 percent per year.

      Graphic here: http://courses.washington.edu/goodall/MRFM/pg_0035 .png [washington.edu]

    • "How's that making USA produced more engineering graduates? And more importantly, what's the point of producing more of a product when nobody buys from you? This kind of self-comforting is poisonous!"

      Yes, that certainly is a problem. Out of my graduating class of ME's, I'd say easily half are doing IT work. I don't want to say the work is beneath us, but compared to the advanced math and science we learned for engineering, most IT work is like being a high-tech janitor. Right now, I couldn't solve a calculu
      • I think I could solve a Calc problem (Diff Eq etc) but my youngest sister-in-law's algebra based physics makes my head hurt ... and I have a B.S. in Physics with minors in Math and Chemistry. I cry everytime she calls me asking for help.

        Yes, I write software for a living. (and hobby!)
    • How's that making USA produced more engineering graduates?

      They're producing metric graduates.

  • I hope it's wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

    by plover ( 150551 ) * on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:05PM (#14249540) Homepage Journal
    TFA says there are 225,925 annual engineering graduates instead of the 70,000 figure typically quoted by the media.

    Well, I hope this ISN'T true. My son is entering an engineering school next fall, and a glut of engineers can only make him less marketable. This basically says his chances of repaying his student loans just got 3 times worse!

    TFA also says, The report's findings are meant to clear up misinformation about U.S. engineers and the U.S. education system, Mr. Wadhwa said. It's also intended to inspire more young Americans to take up engineering as a profession, he added.

    I don't see how telling someone that he or she's got three times the expected competition is supposed to be an incentive or an inspiration.

    • Re:I hope it's wrong (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TheSync ( 5291 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:15PM (#14249668) Journal
      I don't see how telling someone that he or she's got three times the expected competition is supposed to be an incentive or an inspiration.

      I've never understood this "number counting" either. Who cares how many people of X profession we have? As long as the government doesn't over-regulate the production of a profession (as is evident with doctors), there will be enough people to do the job.

      It is important for young people to know how much profession X pays, and what the unemployment rate is. For example, electrical engineering seems to have been going through a time of less employment recently (probably brought on by increasing ease of automated design of digital circuits, use of FPGAs and programmable DSP chips, killing the analog design field).

      I think every high school student should have to designate a desired career, and then do some role-playing based on their likely financial outcomes. "You want to be an actor. Roll a die. Only 1% of actors can live on acting, you rolled a 23, so now you are a waiter barely making the poverty line, growing older and sadder every day..."

      • Re:I hope it's wrong (Score:4, Funny)

        by Eli Gottlieb ( 917758 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .beilttogile.> on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:32PM (#14249865) Homepage Journal
        "You want to be a successful business owner or politician, but roll a 'not upper-class', so instead you're unemployed. Should've set your sights lower, ya poor to middle-class dipshit!"
      • Its very important from an economic standpoint.

        Micro/macro economics teach the following. The larger the supply the less demand per unit and vice versa.

        When MS went after netscape they bundled IE all over the place in order to bring the demand so low that a browser market could only exist below cost. IT was a trick that Bill Gates used.

        Same is true with labor.

        If your an engineering student or professional you have to compete with whoever is willing to work for the lowest price. Vice versa if the demand for
        • The absolute number of people in a profession is useless in itself because it only represents supply. There is no good way to represent demand and the balance between supply and demand without quoting either the market-clearing price or the level of professional unemployment.
          • You are correct, but with engineers it's even more futile to try to use these numbers; engineers are (at least in theory) able to create products that distort the market. For example, engineers created the calculator, and look at what that did to the market for slide rules. THe IBM PC was also created by engineers - look at what that did to every single marketplace!

            More engineers might just create more need for engineers.

      • Re:I hope it's wrong (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bcattwoo ( 737354 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @04:38PM (#14250657)
        I think every high school student should have to designate a desired career, and then do some role-playing based on their likely financial outcomes. "You want to be an actor. Roll a die. Only 1% of actors can live on acting, you rolled a 23, so now you are a waiter barely making the poverty line, growing older and sadder every day..."

        Indeed. It is sad to read about people who are struggling to make ends meet saddled with $40+K of student loans because they went to a $30K/yr school to become a $20K/yr social worker or such. Not that it's wrong to pursue a low-paying career if you find it personally fulfilling, but you need to plan accordingly for the financial realities.

    • Re:I hope it's wrong (Score:2, Informative)

      by Murdoc ( 210079 )

      TFA says there are 225,925 annual engineering graduates instead of the 70,000 figure typically quoted by the media. Well, I hope this ISN'T true. My son is entering an engineering school next fall, and a glut of engineers can only make him less marketable. This basically says his chances of repaying his student loans just got 3 times worse!

      You know I really don't want to sound like a troll, but I see a problem in this logic. For the reason "so (I/my son/daughter/whatever) can be more marketable (i.e. get

      • Logic? This is purely a capitalist desire, not a socialist one. Normally, I prefer to make choices that benefit society over the individual. But in this one specific case I want what's best for my son, not what's best for the economy, industry, society, you or me. When it comes to their own offspring, I think most parents choose capitalism over socialism.

        Besides, you're assuming that "more engineers causes a better society." All I can say to that is how much more gomi do we need? Some level of engin

    • Re:I hope it's wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dr_dank ( 472072 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:28PM (#14249823) Homepage Journal
      Another thing you have to wonder is what qualifies as an engineer in China or India. In Cuba, it was a point of pride amongst the communist government there that they had more doctors per capita than any other country. In reality, they had extremely loose criteria of who can be called a doctor, thus artificially inflating the numbers. Would communist China do anything less to keep up appearances at all costs?
    • I know about a dozen engineers, spanning tracks from computer, to electrical, to mechanical, and even some civil engineers. Noe of them had any problem finding a job out of college. If you/he is really worried about finding a job and getting job security, look for openings in small firms. As long as the company is financially stable, once you get a job, as long as you don't do something to jeprodize it, you'll be there until you quit or retire. It doesn't matter if the engineers in your specialty are a

  • go figure (Score:5, Funny)

    by BushCheney08 ( 917605 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:07PM (#14249564)
    This is what happens when you let MBAs do the counting...

  • If only they counted... (Score:5, Funny)

    by 808paulson ( 852724 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:07PM (#14249566)
    If only they counted by weight, U.S. Engineers will be properly represented.

  • Broadcast engineers? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TheSync ( 5291 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:08PM (#14249578) Journal
    A number of broadcast engineers I work with did not have an engineering college education, and just learned their way up from camera operator to master control operator to station chief engineer, etc. Yet these people are internationally known experts in fields like digital television (MPEG-2 transport streams, PSIP, 8VSB modulation, and such). Some didn't even graduate from college! While the top folks might be counted as IEEE or SMPTE members, I'm sure many fall through the cracks.
    • In Canada at least, you're not supposed to call yourself an engineer unless you graduate from recognized engineering school. There are a couple of exceptions (driving trains etc) but I'm pretty sure "broadcast engineers" isn't one of them. I'm not saying these people are not as valuable as "real" engineers or aren't as good at their jobs, but I doubt they are officially recognized as engineers or that the numbers in this article include them.

  • Technology Specialists, not engineers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sporkinum ( 655143 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:09PM (#14249590)
    Technology Specialists, not engineers. I am not an engineer, but have been in the tech field for 25 years. I think the US probably has more tech-adept per capita than the other countries.

  • Engineer Graduates first hand (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drakethegreat ( 832715 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:10PM (#14249597) Homepage
    Most everyone of my friends is a studying to be an engineer. I think the reality is that we are graduating its just taking longer then 4 years these days. I know its taking some people up to 6-7 years in a 4 year program to actually graduate. Most of this has to do with horrible advisors in my opinion. They don't give or offer much direction in 4 year state schools. Instead students are left to figure it out on their own and that means they don't always pick exactly what gets them out of there the fastest. Keep in mind people are switching majors a lot more these days too.

    However I have noticed that the graduate times for students at private universities in the US is less then state schools. My honest opinion is that the state governments have underfunded certain parts of our public universities but not everything. Its understandable cause they needed money for something else right now that we can't afford. Thats one of the reasons why I transfered to a private university, I feel the education I am getting right now is a more expensive but the quality is a lot higher.
    • It took me five years because of the general education classes heaped on us.

      Now, generally (bad pun intended) I didn't mind because I like lots of things outside my field, but the *selection* of classes that qualified for GE requirements was dismal. The were some gems, like "Comic Spirit" where we studied the theory and practice of comedy, and got to watch stand up acts in class, but most were such banal trash it made a grown man weep.

      I also took an introductory journalism class where I met many journal

    • You should have picked the right state's university. The University of Minnesota offers studends a four-year guarantee. [umn.edu] The idea is that if you follow their advisor's advice, they'll make the courses you need available to you when you need them, make substitute courses available, or pay the tuition. Whatever it takes to get you out in the four years. Of course, you still have to pass all your classes, fill out forms in a timely fashion, etc., but they are at least working on solving this particular prob
      • The University of Minnesota offers studends a four-year guarantee
        The very fact that they have such a guarantee only shows that it's been a very significant problem for them.
      • you still have to pass all your classes

        This would be a sticking point.

        While not true in every case, primary reasons for not completing a degree on time would include
        a) not passing a class (or more than one);
        b) not having enough money to complete on time (requiring working part time or similar);
        c) pressures external to the coursework. (As a prof once said "... and then they discover sex and their marks go to hell.")

        Some of these may be related. However, none of these apply to the "guarantee" of

    • Most everyone of my friends is a studying to be an engineer. I think the reality is that we are graduating its just taking longer then 4 years these days. I know its taking some people up to 6-7 years in a 4 year program to actually graduate. Most of this has to do with horrible advisors in my opinion.

      What a terrible attitude! As an adult you are expected (heavens!) to make some choices about you future, and project your life a few years out. You expect someone else too? Maybe a year in the real world w

    • Most of this has to do with horrible advisors in my opinion.

      No, it mostly has to do with the fact that you have a heavy courseload. Take aerospace engineering (my field... graduated a year back). Five classes on top of a fully accredited Mechanical degree. Yes, they had an "example four year course" outlined in the student handbook. I know one person who managed to pull it off. Not to mention the chains of prerequisites - not just one but two dimensional in many cases - often screwed a student over. I too

      • Re:Heavy courseload for four years (Score:5, Insightful)

        by richdun ( 672214 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:47PM (#14250033)
        On the other hand, as an aerospace engineering graduate who finished last year after only four years and had a blast doing newspaper, student government, and a wealth of other activities, it depends on where you go - go to a tech school, and it's four years easy (plus a minor in Materials Engineering for my Tech Elecs). Two semesters at 15 hours, two at 18, and the rest 16-17. If you want to be an engineer, go to a school with an engineering curriculum, not a general curriculum with engineering tacked on top. Most of my friends finished in four, or took 4+ or 5 to get two degrees. It's not impossible, you just have to choose the right school.
    • Hmm, I thought the reason Engineering degrees took so long was because there was just that much more to learn. Well, general eduction + the technical stuff. Isn't 5 years pretty much standard for EE's? Do the private schools cut corners on the general education or something?

      -matthew
    • However I have noticed that the graduate times for students at private universities in the US is less then state schools. My honest opinion is that the state governments have underfunded certain parts of our public universities but not everything. Its understandable cause they needed money for something else right now that we can't afford. Thats one of the reasons why I transfered to a private university, I feel the education I am getting right now is a more expensive but the quality is a lot higher.

      So hig

    • The only people I knew who took 6 or 7 years to get their engineering degree are those who failed many courses, sometimes more than once, and only go through by the skin of their teeth after being put on academic probation a couple times. Most people I know either did it in the 8 semesters or 9 semesters. It might have taken 5 calendar years because of Co-op programs and such, but they knew it was going to take that long. The course load is heavy, and it's a lot of work, but you can get your degree in 4

    • Well part of the reason you see engineers graduating faster from private schools has to do with the cost. I'm still paying off my loans ten years later.

      I don't know about other schools, but where I went I was floored by the attrition rate for engineering degrees. At the beginning of my freshman year the head of the enigneering departments (small school) got all the freshmen engineering majors together. There were about 300 people (very small school). For graduation all of us that made it sat in one row,

  • Graduates versus Engineers (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sunderland56 ( 621843 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:10PM (#14249600)
    There's a large difference between people who graduate in a field, and people who end up working in that field.


    If you don't believe me, ask at any McDonald's.

  • As a caucasian American in my major (EE), I have always been in a minority. I'd estimate that between 60-75% of the students in my classes are students from outside the country: India, China, Indonesia, etc. Does this study even consider taking that into account? Glancing it over briefly, it sure doesn't seem so.
    • You beat me to this point!

      All my relatives from Europe and India (I'm "bi"-racial) that came to this country to study took engineering classes, graduated with a decent engineering degree and fled back to their home country. A few pushed themselves too hard, graduated, and live on a couch in the U.S. in their parents' basement.

      I believe I am the only one in my family that didn't do more than 1 semester of college, and from what I can tell at family gatherings, I'm the least stressed about the future. The I
    • Was wondering the same thing myself. Based on my experience its about 50-50 US citizens to non-citizens.

      From what I'm seeing it also doesn't specify area of specialty. There can be a big difference between a Civil Engineer, Electrical Engineer, and Chemical Engineer (to name a few). How well is each area represented?

  • oh yeah, like "software engineer" even counts! (Score:5, Funny)

    by mekkab ( 133181 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:13PM (#14249641) Homepage Journal
    thats not even real engineering!@

    /B.S. in E.E.
    //M.S. in Comp Sci
    ///yep, I'm a S.W. Eng, baby!
    • thats not even real engineering!@

      You're moderated as funny, but I work in an office of licensed electrical engineers. Practically every other job I've ever had included the title "Engineer", but here I'm a "Computer Programmer"... never mind that the P.E.'s are entirely reliant on the computer programs they use to do any and all actual engineering.

      Calling myself an engineer around here would result in nothing but pointless arguments.

    • I graduated from an accredited program in software engineering. Granted I don't have my P. Eng. yet, but I still think that software engineering is still a real profession. My current job is a software developer. I wouldn't call it software engineering by a long shot. I don't think many companies care about having software that is engineered. They don't want to take the time or the money to do it right. The software they are getting with their current methods is good enough. Only the military and NASA

  • Finally! (Score:3, Funny)

    by GweeDo ( 127172 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:15PM (#14249669) Homepage
    I have been doing the work of four people for years...now I am finally counted correctly!

  • Private Sector Detours (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cr0w T. Trollbot ( 848674 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:15PM (#14249678)
    You get a lot of American engineers who found out (at least during the dotcom boom) that they could make more money as programmers, technologists, SysAdmins (etc.) than they could in an entry-level engineering job. A lot of them may end up going back to get their degree later, or else starting their own company. Makes it hard to compare to an economy when credentialism is mroe important.

    Crow T. Trollbot

  • I think Bill Gates and Co. can stop complaining to the government now about how they need help getting lower-paid foreign engineers and hire some of the homegrown boys and girls.

  • The US numbers are somewhat inflated because they count sanitation engineers who are merely garbage men and custodial engineers who are merely janitors.

    http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]

  • But how many work as engineers? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tktk ( 540564 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:18PM (#14249712)
    Are the number of graduates that important? What about the number of engineers looking for jobs?

    This is my little anecdotal story.

    Having 2 engineering roomates, I was friends with a qute few engineers in college. We all graduated around 1997, give or take a year or two.

    Out of 20 that I'm still in contact with, I'd say that 6 are still engineers today. Some have moved up to management or higher and, by their own admission, don't do any engineering work. The rest have moved on to other jobs completely.

  • Seriously, Does this matter? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by argoff ( 142580 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:20PM (#14249743)
    Really, does this matter? IMHO, society puts too much focus on education level and not enough on freedom and independent thinking.

    For example, is used to be that people could run successfull businesses without a high school degree, but then the government took away some economic freedoms, and when people had troubble making it - they said that's because you should have a highschool education.

    Then they took away some more economic freedoms and people had troubble making it, so they said both you and your spouse should work.

    Then they took away some more economic freedoms and people had troubble making it, so they said well you should go into debt to buy a home and a car.

    Then they took away some more economic freedoms and people had troubble making it, so they said well you should put your retirement money into tax free IRA's and sighn up for tax free employer sponsered health plans.

    Then they took away some more economic freedoms and people had troubble making it, so they said well you should get a college education and go into debt to pay for it.

    So, IMHO, while education is important, society is pushing it as an end in itself when all it really is - is a hoop that distracts us from what really matters. Freedom is an end in itself, rationality is an end in itself, education is a consequence of these not an ends.

    • Does that independent thinking you're talking about also involve independent spelling and grammar?
    • If I had mod points and hadn't commented in this article I'd do it myself.
    • I think you disprove your own argument by making so many grammatical and spelling errors. Not to flame, but one of the major educational values pushed during my time at college was solid communication skills. So yes, education level is very important. Without it, you would have a very difficult time expressing your "independent thinking".
    • Taxes and regulation are killing American industry. Look at your paycheck and add up all the taxes. Then add the 15% (approx.) in taxes that your employer pays for the privilege of hiring you. Now add property taxes, car taxes, fuel taxes, etc., etc. I'd wager more than 50% of most peoples pay goes right into taxes. In other words, your employer could afford to pay you 50% less and have the same standard of living you do today if they could ax the taxes!!! Where this really gets interesting is that ev

      • Re:Seriously, Does this matter? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:55PM (#14250134)
        No we couldn't. Without the taxes there would be;

        *No roads
        *No police protection
        *No fire departments
        *No primary or secondary education
            *As a result of which, 90% of our middle class would be being paid substinance level wages, working 12-16 hour days to be able to eat. You know, like we did before we enacted regulations to stop that shit.
        *No military, so we'd likely be part of China by now
        *No social security, so we'd have elderly people competing for jobs in order to live
            *A large homeless problem, as elderly people will frequently lose the competition
            *A much lower expected lifespan, due to the above and lack of medicaid
        *Garbage all over, since we wouldn't have garbage pickup and people would refuse to pay

        I could go on, for several chapters. While there is undoubtedly waste in government spending, the vast majority of it is for needed purposes. Without it, life would be a hellhole. Just study your history, particularly the middle ages and the industiral era before the populists and progressive movements.
        • You're right. Without taxes, we wouldn't have such wonderful things as:

          * Welfare, for people who don't feel like workin'
          * Social Security, for people who don't feel like savin' for retirement
          * Pork projects, for politicians who don't feel like campaignin'
          * A war in the middle east, for presidents who don't feel like diplomatin'
          * FEMA relief debit cards, for people who didn't feel like evacuatin'

          The list goes on. I'm not saying that taxes should be abolished, but if we had some sensible spending,
        • Of course! We didn't have ANY of those things before 1913, did we? That was incidentally when the Internal Revenue Act was put into law by Congress. Other than for a few brief periods before then, our country had ZERO income taxes.

          Seriously, read a book once in a while.
        • So except for the Roads, the Police Protection, the Fire Departments, Primary and Secondary Education, the good working conditions, the Military, Social Security, Homeless Shelters, a longer life span, and Garbage Collection... What have the Romans ever done for us?!

        • Re:Seriously, Does this matter? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by khallow ( 566160 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @05:03PM (#14250966)
          There's so many problems with your post that I'm surprised it's not modded down as flamebait. Let's try one of the more difficult rebuttals.

          You claim that these services wouldn't exist if it weren't for taxes. The US, for example, has a number of examples of private services filling each of these needs. Even now, there are a large number of private primary and secondary schools in the developed world despite the presence of cheap public education.

          Social Security (especially the US kind) does a terrible job of actually protecting the elderly from being poor especially when you compare it to private investment and savings. Why are we shuffling hundreds of billions of dollars a year to keep a few hundred thousand people out of poverty? Surely it would be easier to pay these people directly.

          Further there are serious problems with paying the elderly not to "compete". Namely, that we take away the most experienced portion of our population. This is foolhardy.

          Medicaid is a disaster. It needs to be destroyed not funded.

          Garbage cleanup? Come on. In a lot of places that is already private.

          I could go on, for several chapters. While there is undoubtedly waste in government spending, the vast majority of it is for needed purposes. Without it, life would be a hellhole. Just study your history, particularly the middle ages and the industiral era before the populists and progressive movements.

          I'm sure you could. But what would be the point? You already are out of touch. Just to use a couple of examples you cite, Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare, we have a huge portion of government spending in two entitlement programs. Now, perhaps entitlement programs aren't automatically waste, but these two programs do very little aside from shuffling wealth among people who don't need it (and being used as a sneaky way to increase government spending), and helping to boost the inflated medical costs in the US. Both are what I'd consider waste.

          Let me add, it surprises me how a certain class of person can talk about how important taxes are, and then ignore the full range of what these taxes get spent on. For example, US citizens have paid, so I hear, half a trillion dollars on the Iraqi invasion. Some people apparently don't appreciate this war, but appreciate US taxes. You get the whole package with government.

      • Re:Seriously, Does this matter? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ADRA ( 37398 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @04:00PM (#14250184)
        You pay the American government for your quality of life. If you don't like it, there aren't export controls on your citizenship. Leave and find a country that doesn't make you whine so much. Taks away the taxes and regulations, and you get companys running a muck like they do in Asia, you get delapidated government services and social programs. You think your government's social programs do nothing for you now? You wouldn't want to live outside of your walled neighbourhood with armed security drones, and if you can't afford one of your own, you can get fed to the lions! Actually I'm taking this much too far, but so are you. The gov tax you to continue economic development, and frankly, your country isn't doing too badly when comapared to most westernized nations. I'd look at this as a growingly painfull adjustment to the balancing of the world's quality of living that globalization will -eventually- result in.

      • Sorry to add to your troubbles, but if you think that's bad, just wait about 6 months. You will find out about how the government takes awy economic freedom by forcing people to use a banking system that effectively prints up and loans out money. It leads to unhealthy levels of debt and bankruptcy on one side, and high inflation on the other side. Housing is about to crash, and consumer savings are at zero - speaking of thinking - anybody who understands the implications of that better start buying preci
      • "In other words, your employer could afford to pay you 50% less and have the same standard of living you do today if they could ax the taxes!!"

        So, the same standard of living, without roads, hospitals, schools, research grants, bridges, mass transit, courts, police, etc... or do you think that stuff is free?

        "THAT is why the US is at a huge economic disadvantage when competing with Asia for jobs"

        erm, no. Not at all... or do you think exchange rates are fixed and don't take inflation into account?

        T
        • I don't blame taxes. I blame incompetent people that keep voting in Politicians with no clue about basic economics. As a FYI: taxing incomes didn't start until 1913 when Congress passed the Internal Revenue Act. If I remember correctly, we still had roads, police, etc before then.
    • Umm, ok.

      So, the big bad government has come and made your life a living hell... What can I say... I could make some witty comment about globalization, world economies, foreign policy, tarriffs, and maybe a few other points. I won't, because I'm not an economist and I doubt that you are either. Really, if you want to oversimplify it all down to the government screwing you over, then have at it.
    • I would argue that "Joy|Happiness" and "knowledge|Wisdom" are the only 2 ends unto themselves.

      and Freedom sometimes causes "Joy|Happiness".
      and that without joy freedom is a distraction.

      but hey what do I know...

    • Re:Seriously, Does this matter? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @04:04PM (#14250240) Journal
      Please, explain what you mean by "they took away some economic freedoms."

      What the hell is an 'economic freedom'?

      And what 'economic freedoms' did we have in 1900 that we don't have today?

      If by "they took away some economic freedoms" you mean, "People weren't satisfied with what they could afford," then I might agree with you.

      What is boils down to is that the typical American quality of life is much better than it used to be, and all those gains cost money. The employment market, not any mysterious 'they,' is what determined that a college education leads to better jobs. The empowerment of women in the late 40s and early 50s is what led to dual-income households, and the fiscal benefit that conveys.

      The government never mandated you need a high school education to get a bank loan -- banks did that, since people without an education tended to be poor credit risks.

      Do you think that in 1900 everyone could get by with a decent standard of living only working one job? Do you think that non-working spouses had it as easy as today? How about the people who worked 80 hour weeks just to have room and board for their family -- if they were lucky? How about the countless people who starved or froze to death in the great depression?

      Read some history books. Then go read some more. Then read some period fiction from the past century.

      And realize that what we consider to be a barely decent standard of living would have been considered very comfortable or even luxurious 50 years ago.
    • Your rant about economic freedom is really off topic. And as an added bonus your claims are filled with questionable assumptions and faulty logic.

      This isn't about kids with BAs in business. This is about engineering degrees. Hard stuff. People who design CPUs, cars, airplanes, bridges, buildings. This isn't a field for someone with only a high school degree. When I get on an airplane I want the engineers who designed it to know their field inside and out. An engineering degree provides a certain b

  • Huge Difference (Score:3, Insightful)

    by J05H ( 5625 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:25PM (#14249790)
    THere's a huge difference between a "technology specialist" and an engineer. Any monkey with an MSCE or Red Hat training is a tech specialist, it doesn't mean he can design rocket engines.

    Josh

  • Why should there be more engineers in the US? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by geneing ( 756949 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:26PM (#14249800)
    If we are talking about civil or mechanical or chemical engineers why do we need more? The infrastructure in the US is very much built out and there is not much new construction going on. India and China have a lot of new construction going on and that's where engineers are needed most.

    Isn't it just like saying that US has fewer farmers than India or China? True, but who cares if they can supply all the food we need.

    • built out? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by conJunk ( 779958 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:58PM (#14250167)
      If we are talking about civil or mechanical or chemical engineers why do we need more?

      built out? I know it's pulling at obvious strings, but does New Orleans mean anything to you? Built-out == old and crumbling in a great many cases. how about today's apartment building collapse in new jersey [reuters.com]? civil engineers are needed in droves to keep people alive (that's totally conjecture, but you know what i mean)

      my housemate, for example, is a CE who's field is earthquake engineering... here in CA that's a pretty important field! and as for chemical engineers? i don't know about you, but i'm not going to buy a car until it runs on something other than petrolium products. our future as a society is entirely in the hands of next year's civil, mechanical, and engineering graduates

  • The number of engineers is important to estimate accurately, but so is the population of this country. Why oh why can't we just extrapolate a little and do some fuzzy math so as not to grossly undercount the number of US citizens? What do other countries do?

  • Vocational mistake (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:28PM (#14249817)
    I graduated with a an engineering and computer science degree. Since then I've been a salesman, writer, mechanic, a music producer, a volunteer counseller for homeless vets, and now I am considering retraining as a plumber. There's a reason for this and it's simple psychology really, IT jobs are the most thankless and stressful in existence. Reading the ealier post on Top 10 Admin Truths made me sweat with bad memories. Almost all the time you are working for dumbasses who don't understand anything, don't know what they want, but want you to fix it right now. They think that because you are a techie you must be some kind of minion who sorts out all their problems while they make all the money and treat you like shit. So called 'managers' who fail to manage, PHBs with disgusting attitute problems, dotcom maniacs who think they can just throw up a server and it will print money for them, there seems no end to the fakes and blaggers occupying the top ranks of IT. My my own admission I have an 'attitude problem'. The problem is that I'm happy with my attitude not to be taken for granted by idiots. It's a shame because computing could be such a challenging, stress free and worthwhile occupation, but I've had to look elsewhere for job satisfaction. The problem is not a shortage of skilled engineers, it's a shortage of decent employers.

    • and now I am considering retraining as a plumber.

      Nothing wrong with that. Your knowledge of networking and graph theory is immediately applicable. Demand for your services is inelastic and resistant to outsourcing.

    • I had a plumber come in to one of my apartments once due to a blocked toilet. He had it unbolted and turned upside. WHAT A MESS. Literally shit everywhere. If you can handle that, you deserve the high-paid plumbing job! Me? I think I would rather be an electrician. Still get to drill holes in people's homes, make a mess, and then leave without cleaning it up!

  • link to the actual study (Score:5, Informative)

    by uujjj ( 752925 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:28PM (#14249828)
    The Red Herring article fails to link to its source. Ironically the actual study criticizes articles like these for failing to identify their sources. So here [duke.edu] is the study itself. Enjoy.

  • Being called an Engineer is not cool enough (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AB3A ( 192265 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @03:45PM (#14250010) Homepage Journal
    If you want a big salary, in today's market driven world, you need to think big. You're not an engineer, you're a technical plan implementor --or some other such balderdash. That's the problem with job titles where I work. If you want better pay, you have to stop calling yourself an Engineer, even if that's what you do. So they have engineering managers, control system specialists, Antenna site managers, and so forth. These are all jobs which require an engineering background.

    So, when someone goes to our company to count the number of Engineering positions, we don't have many. But we do have lots of people with engineering educations and engineering backgrounds. Now the managers want to know how many engineers they have. They have already recast most of us in to different titles. So the count the few who still work under the old titles, and GASP! they don't know where all the engineers have gone.

    This is why they write idiots guides to management, but not idiots guides to electrical engineering.

  • Road Blocks (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sgt scrub ( 869860 )
    I wish it was as simple as being undercounted or underpaid or even unwanted. I think the biggest reason is engineers are inventors. In china and India the only thing holding you back is enough money to put it on the market. If someone in the US invents something they have to worry about getting sued for patent infringement.

  • Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tsotha ( 720379 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @04:32PM (#14250575)
    These numbers depend on who you ask, and there's a reason. The big tech companies can only get the H1-B visa cap raised if they can convince Congress and the media there's going to be a shortage of engineers in a year or two. There's never been a shortage (outside of the boom, which was driven by extraordinary demand) even though "they" forcast one every couple of years.

    It turns out all you need to do to fool the media (and Congress, which gets its information from the media) is turn out a scientific-looking study showing a large gap between the number of graduates and the projected need. The vast majority of reporters and editors have no math skills whatsoever (remember, these guys are the journalism majors for college), so they don't have any way to evaluate the garbage churned out in advocacy research.

    So they raise the H1 cap. That way the high-tech companies in the US have a way to exert downward pressure on engineering wages. And all for the price of a couple of bogus "studies".

    So am I surprised US schools are turning out lots more engineers than we've been led to believe? Nah, not really.

  • What is the definition of an Engineer? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Secrity ( 742221 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @04:36PM (#14250633)
    When I was working in Saudi Arabia in the 1980's, I came across two types of workers that were called Engineers but they would not be considered to be engineers in the US. One group was called "Electrical Engineers" (nationality unknown, they were Muslims and looked Asian) which were doing (sloppy) electrician type work. The other group that I came across were called "Mechanical Engineers" which were Pakistani and I believe that in the US they would be considered to be very good diesel mechanics.

  • how many us grads are foreign nationals? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by swschrad ( 312009 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @04:44PM (#14250743) Homepage Journal
    somebody is dragging a red herring across the trail here. both times I was in college, there were a tubload of foreign nationals studying for bachelors and advanced degrees in the US.

    don't go counting total grads and equating that to all-US grads. red herring, indeed, masking the scent.

  • Amusing statistics (Score:5, Insightful)

    by brokeninside ( 34168 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @04:48PM (#14250792)
    First, the Duke study criticizes other studies for counting engineers in other countries with less than a four year degree:
    These massive numbers of Indian and Chinese engineering graduates include not only four-year degrees, but also three-year training programs and diploma holders.
    But then, they count US graduates with less than a four year degree:
    Total Bachelors and Subbaccalaureate*** Engineering, Computer Science and Information Technology Degrees
    US ---- India--- China
    222,335 215,000 644,106

    ** Subbaccalaureate degrees refer to Associates degrees in the United States, short-cycle degrees in China, and three-year diplomas in India

    First, over 80k of the new US number comes from precisely these subbaccalaureate degrees.

    Second, the IT degrees from many universities are offered by the business college rather than the engineering college.

    I suspect that if you only counted four year comp-sci and engineering degrees that the numbers would be far closer to the 70k number provided by the National Acadamies. IMO, the study ought to have done a better breakdown. I'm also curious as to why postgraduate work wasn't included.

  • degree != profession (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Khashishi ( 775369 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @06:00PM (#14251529) Journal
    An engineering degree does not an engineer you make.

  • undercounted and underemployed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Wansu ( 846 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @06:49PM (#14251947)


    Industry trade groups periodically whine about shortages of engineers, scientists and programmers. I graduated from engineering school 25 years ago and every few years they trot out the same old dog-earred dire projections. And yet, those of us who work as engineers, programmers and scientists never see these shortages materialize. Their magazine articles are plants used by their lobbyists to justify the need for increases in work visa quotas to the politicians they court.

    The majority of those who graduate from engineering schools do very little or no actual engineering work. That's because there ain't enough engineering work to go around. It's been like that since I got out of school and older engineers told me that was their experience as well. Engineering schools seem to still be fighting the cold war. The old timers told me engineering schools went into high gear after the Russians launched Sputnik and only now are enrollments beginning to decline. Only after a 5+ year tight engineering job market are some of the prospective engineering students reevaluating their choice.

    It's been a real challenge to stay employed in technically stimulating work. Somehow I've done it but my circumstances have been better than those of many engineers burdened with more intense family obligations. I've worked hard and I've been lucky. I'll stick with it because I'm pushing 50 and it's the best option I have. But through no fault of my own, I may be forced out of technical work before I reach 65. If and when that happens, I will no longer be counted as an unemployed engineer in the statistics should I accept a job doing something else. Instead, I will be counted as an employed hardware store stock clerk or whatever. One more engineer will have disappeared into the employment statistics to be counted no more and the industry trade groups will continue to whine about shortages.
     

  • simple math (Score:3, Interesting)

    by circletimessquare ( 444983 ) <circletimessquar ... il.com minus cat> on Tuesday December 13, 2005 @07:55PM (#14252371) Homepage Journal
    the chinese can graduate an order of magnitude less engineers per citizen than the usa and still bury the usa in engineers

    mental exercise: if we both have one engineer per one thousand citizens...

    (1.3 billion / 1000) > 4 * (300 million / 1000)

Slashdot Top Deals

Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled. -- R.P. Feynman

Close