mkg@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Mike Grasley) (07/26/90)
It's good to see that engineers are serious about a new newsgroup on engineering education. The shortage of engineers in Canada is more sevre the in the states. My universtiy (U of Waterloo) is trying to help solve the problem. The University of Waterloo takes a novel (at least here in Canada) approach to engineering education, called the cooperative education program. Based on the belief that engineering is a practical profession (i.e. you can learn the theories in school, but school can't teach you to be an engineer), engineering is a five year program comprised of 8 acedemic semesters and 6 work semesters. On a work semester students are hired by companies to work with professional engineers on a variety of projects. Most of the jobs give a good exposure to what engineering is really like. It seems to me this is on way to alleviate the problem referred to by Russell Lawrence, namely "We sometimes come out of school knowing how to use the book,..., but we don't understand the physics behind the problem...In my work area, a new hire is limited as to what s/he can accomplish on the job until s/he has some sense of the way the thing that is in question works." By alternating acedemic and industry semesters, we are constantly learning to apply what we have been taught in the classroom. Addmittedly the work we can do as junior students is at a fairly low level, but nonetheless it helps teach us to be engineers. I have just completed a study of the last fifteen years of graduates from my program (Systems Design Engineering) and the co-op program was one of the things mentioned as most helpful (and beneficial) to their careers as engineers. Because many graduates wind up working for companies they worked for as students, they are immediately able to deal with a wide variety of tasks instead of needing to take a lot of time to become familiar with the jobs at hand. I think this advantage will become more pronounced in the future as technology becomes more advanced and specialized, which will make longer familiarization periods necessary for newly graduated/hired engineers. I would be interested to hear the opinions of engineers who came from traditional programs as well as those with co-op backgrounds. Do co-op programs provide a better education? Are they worth the extra year? What are the alternatives that will help engineering students prepare for reality? Post replies if they are of general interest, any specific questions or comments can be e-mailed to me. All this is fine and dandy, but the co-op program can't benefit anyone if enrollment in engineering programs continues to drop. And this is exactly what is happening. In spite of the fact that total enrollment in Canadian universities has reached a new peak every year for the last four years, enrollment in engineering (and science) has declined every year since 1986. My feeling is that one of the prime reasons for this is an image problem. Engineering simply doesn't have the appeal to young people that other professions do. Some of this may be due to parental influence--when was the last time you heard a parent brag "My Johnny/Sally wants to become an engineer when he/she grows up."? This influence is particularily harmful for females. I think most educators agree that one of the prime reasons so few females chose a career in a scientific/technological field is that girls are encouraged to play with dolls while boys are encouraged build with LEGO. This is a gross over-simplification, but you get the idea. The following is taken from an article in the Iron Warrior (the Waterloo engineering newspaper) written by Katherine Koszarny, VP of the student engineering society. "Traditionally, engineering issues do not make the news. Every day, we hear about politicians, important officials and backbenchers alike. Business sections [of newspapers] magazines and best-selling books highlight various entrepreneurs and executives, along with their achievements and ideas. Parents encourage their children to be lawyers, doctors, dentists and accountants. Engineering isn't regarded in the same manner." What people fail to realise is how dependent society is on engineers. Without engineers there would be no cars, no radios, no airplanes, no bridges, no electricity, no ... You get the point. Modern society is propped up by and very dependent on a highly technological infrastructure. This may or may not be good, but it is a fact. Engineers are needed to maintain, improve, and expand this infrastructure. Various environmental groups point out the amount of damage we have done to the earth in the name of technological progress. I will admit that some of their points are valid, and I am willing to accept my share of the blame. But let's be realistic--the average person is not willing to give up very many of their creature comforts in order to make the earth a better place. If we are going to stop destroying the earth, environmentally friendly technologies (i.e. better exhaust systems, alternatives to hydro-electric mega-projects) must be developed. Who is best able to provide these developments? Engineers. Obviously we need engineers. But current projections in Canada (and the U.S. as I understand it) predict a shortage of engineers throughout the nineties. There are two places we can get the engineers we need: increased enrollment in engineering programs and immigration. Increasing the number of engineers through immigration is a solution with a number of problems. One of them is the communication problem referred to by Ronald Graham (NASA). He states "The Government continually states in its jobs descriptions that it is looking for personnel with 'good oral and written communications skills.'" The findings of my study seem to provide further evidence of this necessity--much of an engineer's time is spent communicating with other people. What good is a new idea if you can't explain it clearly? New immigrants may be great engineers, but they understandably need years to develop good (English) communications skills. A second problem is attracting immigrant engineers. As other developed countries (Japan, Sweden, U.K., U.S.) begin to act on their own shortages of engineers, it is becoming harder to entice foreign engineers into working here. One last problem with immigration as a solution is national pride. I firmly believe that we must be willing to solve out own problems. I am a Canadian engineer, and dammit, I'm proud of that fact. I'm sure the same is true of American engineers. So the other alternative is increased enrollment in engineering programs at universities. This is a two step process. First we must create a positive public image. We must be proud of what we are; we must let the public know what we do; we must let them know how important we are to society. Secondly, we must encourage young people to get a solid education in science and technology. They must be encouraged from a young age. High school is too late--I have friends who dropped math after grade nine. But we must be careful not to paint engineering as nothing but number crunching. Engineering is more than just a science. It is the art of taking science and applying it to reality. Engineers must have a solid background in the maths and sciences, but they must also be creative. As the advertisment for an exhibition on Leonardo da Vinci said, "They called him a genius, a botanist, a demon, a philosopher, a practical joker, an eccentric, and a visionary. No wonder he was such a great engineer." Engineering is a challenging and rewarding career; we just need to convince the general public of this. The Faculty of Engineering at the University of Waterloo is planning to do just that. A proposal is being put together that would see engineering students on their work semesters speak to local elementary/high school students about engineering--the fascinating work, the varied career possibilities, the rewards, etc. The idea is that young people relate best to young people, so the message is best heard from engineering students. And with students working all over the country, we will have a national audience. The program is still in the planning stages. Any comments as to who our target audience should be, what we should be telling them, etc. would be appreciated. The benefits of this initiative are years away. But we must look at the future as well as our short term needs. If you are proud of being an engineer, go back to your high school. Encourage students to follow a career in engineering. There are more than 2.5 million working engineers in North America. With that many voices surely we can improve our image and encourage young people to become engineers. Mike Grasley (mkg@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca) These opinions are mine. They are not the opinions of my employer. In fact, my employer doesn't have any opinions cause the Canadian government doesn't want to offend anyone.
tjhorton@ai.toronto.edu ("Timothy J. Horton") (07/30/90)
[speculating on problems/fixes for engineering education] mkg@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Mike Grasley) writes: > In spite of the fact that total enrollment in Canadian universities has > reached a new peak every year for the last four years, enrollment in > engineering (and science) has declined every year since 1986. My feeling > is that one of the prime reasons for this is an image problem. > Engineering simply doesn't have the appeal to young people that other > professions do. Some of this may be due to parental influence... > ...particularily harmful for females. [In summary, I think the image is not accurate, but is more right than wrong. What kid wants to go through university to be a technical lackey? People want more sway, security, and human success than engineering promises.] Might there be substance beneath the image? It seems people are not being drawning into engineering because of its image, but I ask, why is the image as it is? Is there no substance beneath the image? What is the *real* `image problem'? If we draw the chain of causality: reasons -> image -> low attraction 1 2 it is typically the case that connection 1 is ignored or treated in superficial terms connection 2 is dwelt upon the assumption being that the problem is fundamentally superficial. Connection #1 is usually attributed to the images of engineers in movies, the glamor associated with other professions, the accessibility of the concepts of other fields to the common person's experience. Analysts feel that this is *wrong* or inaccurate, and so they neglect to look for what is right about the image. Well, the image has a number of things perfectly right. Compare doctors and lawyers with engineers. - The typical engineer works for a big organization, an IBM or a department of defence or utility or other large organization. The field is not characterized by individual entrepreneurialism and success, nor does the training usually even touch on business skills. - Technical success, rather than human success, forms the entire engineering training, and the destiny of most engineers in industry. - The goals of an engineering career are not things people are naturally interested in. (During the industrialization period, it used to be that that engineering was the means to the goal of a better world. What is it now? The path to faster workstations. Who cares?) - The north american engineer is trained taken through a rigid core, at a fixed pace. Europeans, coming to north america, often conclude that university here is a lot like highschool. Self-learning and self-motivation is not the nature of our engineering schooling. - etc... One of the consequences of the north american method of education is that employers look hard at your precise experience with very specific technology, and look to MBA's and non-techies for management positions. In contrast, in Europe, an engineering degree is looked upon as the appropriate training for management in a technical company. (Doctors and lawyers, at least, usually require another university degree with a certain amount of breadth, and so are much prepared for diversity and self-determination and success.) Anyways, who wants to be a deadwood technical lackey for a big company, or suffer through 4 years to design according to somebody else's decree with little chance of rising to the level of decision-making and relevance? My latest personal pocket theory, gleened from only a few instances, is that the truly entrepreneurial individuals with a technical leaning are really put off by the education process. Every person that I know of who has started his own company has either not completed a technical degree, or hated nearly every minute of it and refers back to the experience with considerable contempt. I think this is a pretty important observation, even if it is just 60% true in general. >The following is from an article in the Iron Warrior (the Waterloo engineering >newspaper) by Katherine Koszarny, VP of the student engineering society. [A favorite publication of mine] > "Traditionally, engineering issues do not make the news. Media news is designed for one thing: to deliver people whatever they feel is important to them. It was recently said that people read the news to be assured that their world is as it should be. Ergo the focus on local issues (which I hate). Who cares about the next generation of SPARC stations? What does it mean to my mom? > Every day, we hear about politicians, important officials > and backbenchers alike. Business sections [of newspapers] > magazines and best-selling books highlight various entrepreneurs > and executives, along with their achievements and ideas. Politicians make decisions about our health, our schools, our money, our laws, our defence, our environment, our futures. Business news represents our investments, our opportunities, our jobs, our futures... How many times does my mom want to see articles about new lab equiment, yet another parallel processor, cooling technology, or telephone switches? Even if anybody manages to care, it's entirely up to the business and political communities (***NOTIBLY DEVOID*** of engineers) to decide when and what any of it matters. >Parents encourage their children to be lawyers, doctors, dentists and >accountants. Engineering isn't regarded in the same manner." Engineers aren't paid in the same manner, nor have the same opportunities. Most of us work like sheep for somebody else. >What people fail to realise is how dependent society is on engineers. The nature of the dependance is much more strongly tilted in the other direction, because engineers are not trained to control. Rather most are lackeys for others. Without control, we are not important, not valuable. It is usually the case that the more you cost and less you give for it, the more people love and respect and value you. I've learned this from work, my own and others (i.e. the more somebody pays you, the more they love you and listen to you and respect what you say). My sister is a negotiator for our the Ontario government, and it is sad to hear the obvious contrasts between the ways the engineers negotiate and the way the lawyers and doctors do it. The engineers just don't have the wherewithall. >Without engineers there would be no cars, no radios, no airplanes, no >bridges, no electricity, no ... You get the point. Modern society is >propped up by and very dependent on a highly technological infrastructure. >This may or may not be good, but it is a fact. It remains that we do not and cannot stand up and be counted. We are not trained to do so, nor are the people who tolerate the years of narrow, rigid, technical education typically inclined to do so. >Engineers are needed to maintain, improve, and expand this infrastructure. As it stands, an engineer is just a unit cost of $45K/person/year, and needs to be managed. We are `needed' the same way we farmers are needed. To serve. >Various environmental groups point out the amount of damage we have done to >the earth in the name of technological progress. If we are going to stop >destroying the earth, environmentally friendly technologies (i.e. better >exhaust systems, alternatives to hydro-electric mega-projects) must be >developed. Who is best able to provide these developments? Engineers. If such an effort is ever tailored and led by engineers (at least in North America) I'll eat my shorts! ... >So the other alternative is increased enrollment in engineering programs >at universities. This is a two step process. First we must create a >positive public image. Unless you expect to have other than a superficial effect, you are going to have to reshape the underlying causes for the image. People may be open to superficial manipulation, but is there ever going to be enough money for the ad campaigns to fool us all for very long? >Secondly, we must encourage young people to get a solid education in science >and technology. They must be encouraged from a young age. `Eat your brocolli, it's good for you.' >Engineering is more than just a science. It is the art of taking science and >applying it to reality. Engineers must have a solid background in the maths >and sciences, but they must also be creative. This is success with things? Well, without success with people, so many things are just so many things. Without management/planning/business/marketing skills, what value is there in this? >Engineering is a challenging and rewarding career; >we just need to convince the general public of this. >The Faculty of Engineering at the University of Waterloo is planning to do >just that. A proposal is being put together that would see engineering >students on their work semesters speak to local elementary/high school >students about engineering--the fascinating work, the varied career >possibilities, the rewards, etc. The idea is that young people relate best >to young people, so the message is best heard from engineering students. >And with students working all over the country, we will have a national >audience. Good luck! (But as an engineering alumni of Waterloo, I hope you don't come asking me for money to do it). I expect you might have some short-term effect, specifically to the benefit of the profile of UofWaterloo Engineering. But I do not think that an hour on some bleak morning, back in my highschool days, would have persuaded me to become an engineering lackey. If I had wanted social position, relevance, sway, and security, I would have become a lawyer or a doctor, and 10000 co-op students from Waterloo, screaming for an entire year of bleak mornings, wouldn't have changed that. There is a new desire for social security and position, a new conservatism in our youth. These are kids brought up in an uncertainty of recessions lost confidence. These are not the kids of the 60's, who came out of 30 years of continuous improvement and ever-rising expectations and security and employment and all doing better than their parents, etc. These new kids want to assure their place in the social order, not follow pathes of excitement and intellectual exploration. >The program is still in the planning stages. Any comments as to who our >target audience should be, what we should be telling them, etc. would be >appreciated. (Try to project an image of ubiquitous professional self-control and opportunity. Lie through your teeth. :-) >The benefits of this initiative are years away. But we must look at the >future as well as our short term needs. If you are proud of being an >engineer, go back to your high school. I am happy to be an engineer, but the typical engineering education is not something to sing about, and it just doesn't have to offer what other fields (and other countries) have to offer. It's not much, by itself. With the right other things, I think it has a *lot* going for it. >Encourage students to follow a career in engineering. Why? In the personal, selfish terms by which we all approach university?
nick@stca77.stc.oz (Nick Lochrin) (08/02/90)
In article <90Jul29.232640edt.8337@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu> tjhorton@ai.toronto.edu ("Timothy J. Horton") writes: >[speculating on problems/fixes for engineering education] > mkg@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Mike Grasley) writes: [ stuff deleted ] >Well, the image has a number of things perfectly right. Compare doctors and >lawyers with engineers. >>Parents encourage their children to be lawyers, doctors, dentists and >>accountants. Engineering isn't regarded in the same manner." > [ stuff deleted ] >It is usually the case that the more you cost and less you give for it, the >more people love and respect and value you. I've learned this from work, >my own and others (i.e. the more somebody pays you, the more they love you >and listen to you and respect what you say). My sister is a negotiator for >our the Ontario government, and it is sad to hear the obvious contrasts >between the ways the engineers negotiate and the way the lawyers and doctors >do it. The engineers just don't have the wherewithall. > [ stuff deleted ] >>So the other alternative is increased enrollment in engineering programs >>at universities. This is a two step process. First we must create a >>positive public image. > >Unless you expect to have other than a superficial effect, you are going >to have to reshape the underlying causes for the image. People may be >open to superficial manipulation, but is there ever going to be enough >money for the ad campaigns to fool us all for very long? > [ stuff deleted ] >doing better than their parents, etc. These new kids want to assure their >place in the social order, not follow pathes of excitement and intellectual >exploration. [ stuff deleted ] Following the discussions on the engineering profession, I couldn't help but notice the comparisions between engineers and "lawyers and doctors" (which have been grouped together in the discussions). To shed a little light on what the Australian perception of these professions is, a recent survey (I can't remember the details but I'll try and find out if anyone is interested) found that the public perception was that lawyers were ranked just before car salesman in (descending) order of the amount of trust and respect with which they were generally regarded. This made the lawyers embark on a publicity campaign to try and rectify this perception; their money probably *won't* run out !! :-) It is also a sad fact that there is a shortage of qualified engineers, but I think the profession is not perceived in the same light as that of the lawyers in this country. Does anyone know of other surveys ? I believe that the survey interviewed people who were already in the workforce, as a large percentage of students leaving high school that get high marks seem to study law and medicine. I wonder how many think that "I'll do medicine/law because I got the marks" ? As an example of the "place in the social order" attitude, I happen to have heard someone recently who after studying medicine for 6 years and started working in a hospital, has now decided that it is not for them. She thought that she might go back to uni and study law..... spare the engineering profession from this ! -- Nick Lochrin nick@stca77.stc.oz Alcatel STC Australia ...!uunet!stca77.stc.oz!nick 252-280 Botany Road, nick%stca77.stc.oz@uunet.UU.NET ALEXANDRIA NSW 2015 "Are you the police ?.. No ma'am, we're musicians."
tjhorton@ai.toronto.edu ("Timothy J. Horton") (08/09/90)
nick@stca77.stc.oz (Nick Lochrin) writes: >[...] I couldn't help but notice the comparisions between engineers and >"lawyers and doctors" [...] > >To shed a little light on what the Australian perception of these professions >is, a recent survey [...] found that the public perception was that lawyers >were ranked just before car salesman in (descending) order of the amount of >trust and respect with which they were generally regarded. This made the >lawyers embark on a publicity campaign to try and rectify this perception; >their money probably *won't* run out !! :-) I have not come across this survey, but I know a similar survey recently found that doctors were disliked by most people. The doctors are bothered by this. However, such issues of rating are NOT binary in a good/bad sense ; dislike does NOT mean disrespect or distrust. These things are not necessarily even correlated. Consider political leaders, for instance. Suppose you and a lot of your friends really liked your highschool janitor, but dislike Mikhail Gorbachev for some reason. No, suppose that you held a social event, and by some fluke of history both these individuals showed up. Compare how you think you would respond and what would weight most heavily in your behavior and memory. It seems that liking somebody is quite separable from respecting them. This, I think, is strongly at work in our medical profession, and possibly the legal profession. People may not trust lawyers, in all endeavors, and respect what lawyers do, but I think they damn well respect the social position that lawyers assume. The elements of the perceived status of a group can be hard to disentangle.