The Daily Pennsylvanian :: Simeon McMillan

Last week, while you were indulging yourself for hours on JuicyCampus.com, the School of Engineering and Applied Science was wrapping up E-Week, its annual salute to problem sets, merciless grading curves and masochism in its purest form.

Around the country, some used the week as an opportunity to draw attention to a familiar question - does the U.S. produce enough engineers?

According to a new study by Greg Schuckman of the University of Central Florida, over the past 20 years the number of engineering bachelors degrees has declined by 3 percent, while the number of bachelor's degrees overall has increased by 50 percent.

Too often though, this debate centers around how to convince more people to study math and science, instead of improving the poor job prospects that dissuade students from the fields in the first place.

It doesn't take calculus to derive the causal relationship between science and U.S. competitiveness. Fewer Americans studying science means a smaller domestic pool of engineers. And that must then mean more skilled jobs sent overseas. It's as simple as thermal dynamics. right?

Several politicians, including Clinton and Obama, have even made allusions to the Cold War to describe the state of science in America. Even the title of Clinton's plan, "Ending the War on Science", sounds like a patriotic call to get more TI-83s in the hands of children.

Call me a pacifist, but I never knew that saying "no thanks" to organic chemistry was tantamount to an attack on America.

Obama has similarly said the solution lies in "ensuring that all public school children are equipped with the necessary science, technology and math skills to succeed in the 21st century economy." Who can disagree with that?

But those who've actually been to high school in the past decade frame the dilemma slightly differently.

"I think people are focusing on the wrong thing in saying there isn't enough science in schools," said Engineering senior Michael Kaplan. "There's a lot of science being taught. They need to focus more on not outsourcing all these [engineering] jobs."

As reported in The Chronicle of Higher Education, in a 2007 Congressional hearing, researchers argued the alleged shortage of scientists is merely an excuse used by corporate lobbyists to justify the outsourcing of engineering jobs by American firms.

In fact, a 2007 report by B. Lindsay Lowell of Georgetown University found that while the decrease in engineering graduates is irrefutable, the purported "shortages for scientists and engineers are anecdotal and also not supported by the available evidence."

Admittedly, arguing that the U.S. is not lacking in quantitatively minded college students doesn't earn you many new friends.

"We can never graduate enough engineers," said Joe Sun, SEAS director of academic affairs. "It's like asking, have we solved all of the problems of human society? Of course not."

But if the engineering shortage is as real as a Wharton student's soul, then current science education initiatives may be misguided.

After all, focusing the majority of our efforts on increasing academic interest in an area doesn't necessarily increase the number of full-time positions available in that industry.

It's akin to encouraging more young boys to play basketball and naively expecting NBA teams to expand their rosters.

By using government money to draw more students, we're merely widening the pipeline for an already diminishing number of domestic jobs. We can fill DRL with as many desks as we want, but until we can change the fact that it's cheaper to use a programmer overseas than to hire a Penn grad, little will change no matter how many engineers we graduate.

Maybe that's why approximately 35 percent of 2007 SEAS grads accepted offers in non-engineering fields such as financial services and consulting.

Until American companies are willing to shell out the dough for American engineers, it might be wise to take that extra Accounting course next fall.

Simeon McMillan is a Wharton senior from Long Island, N.Y. His e-mail is mcmillan@dailypennsylvanian.com. Common $ense appears Thursdays.

Comments (8)

Wow. I did not think it was possible to be this misinformed and ignorant. First of all, you should do your homework before inserting any more of your extremely banal and overused clichŽs. It's "thermodynamics," not "thermal dynamics." As for the shortage of engineers in the U.S., it is real, which you would realize if you had any idea of what the world situation actually is. While the U.S. is producing engineers at a steady rate, more and more of these engineers are international students, most of whom return to their home country after graduation. Those that stay in the U.S. are not citizens and cannot get top-secret level government clearances. Since most engineers end up working for government defense contractors, this type of clearance is crucial. The shortage is of engineers with U.S. citizenship. The jobs are there, but the people who can get the clearance to fill them are not. This is why the federal government has recently started huge scholarship programs for U.S. citizens in engineering. As for the 35 percent of SEAS graduates going into finance, this is because financial firms prefer to hire people with better analytical and problem-solving skills for accounting and finance positions. They would rather hire someone who spent their college years working hard and applying their knowledge creatively rather than those who resorted to cutthroat tactics to beat the curve and pad their GPA with easy classes. It's the same reason Engineering students are much more likely to get into med school.

he doesn't hate engineers. he used to be an M&T; (a program you can't get into) and a former intel talent search finalist.

I just read and enjoyed your column. It is great that you have the opportunity to periodically develop and publicly express your opinion on a variety of topics. As for the first comment posted on your article, those thinking negatively will often be the first to speak out, especially when they can do so anonymously.

[QUOTE id="2a2f19b6-4ec4-415d-8b43-5edbf47dcc15"]he doesn't hate engineers. he used to be an M&T; (a program you can't get into) and a former intel talent search finalist.[/QUOTE] Simeon, you shouldnt rebut these commenters on your blog and you shouldnt do so by arrogantly posting your own old accolades from five years ago (intel finalist, M&T; program acceptance). Especially when you obviously couldnt cut it in the M&T; program, since you are no longer in it. Maybe that explains your ignorance toward engineers and your focus on Wharton.

I think you're missing a big point of these science education initiatives. I'm not sure about the context of Clinton and Obama's statements, but I don't think the primary goal of "ensuring that all public school children are equipped with the necessary science, technology and math skills to succeed in the 21st century economy" should be churning out a generation of engineers as much as combating some of the dangerously ignorant ideas that a lot people have about science. Like, that creationism/intelligent design should be taught along with evolution in high school biology classes, or that "alternative therapies" are better for treating diseases than scientifically validated ones, or that it's reasonable to take a position on whether or not global warming is a real phenomenon based on a political affiliation. That would be a good start. Also, there are definitely job shortages for PhDs in science and engineering. Most of the money for academic research is public, not private, so I don't know that outsourcing has anything do to with this. And while I'm not totally sure about this, I get the impression that industry isn't outsourcing their PhD-level research as much as just cutting back. If we want to remain on the technological cutting edge, this needs to change (and maybe if more taxpayers weren't so in the dark about science, they would be pushing for this). Also...thermal dynamics? Come on.

Seriously, have you ever written a column or blog post that isn't a weak attempt at justifying your Wharton education? We know you hate engineers because they're smarter than you, but isn't there anything else to write about?

Get off your high horse. Engineering job prospects aren't poor at all. The reason so many engineers take jobs in consulting and finance is because they pay so well, or because people who thought they might like engineering turn out to hate it three semesters in, not because we can't get jobs in our major. And the reason why we can get jobs like that are because we haven't registered for "that extra accounting class next fall"...employers know we've taken courses that are actually challenging, such as "thermal dynamics." Not knocking Wharton at all...it's a tremendous school. Your perspective of engineering is simply off base though. Man, and until this one, I really liked your columns this semester.

The issues that Simeon McMillan brings up in this article are real, important, and seldom talked about. I have B.S. and M.S. degrees in physics with good grades (mostly A's with a few B's) and I can't get a job in the private sector. So I continue to be stuck in PhD grad school hell. And it's not like earning a PhD is likely to lead to stable employment either. It seems that a number of the comments posted in response to this article show complete ignorance about the true state of affairs for science and engineering employment. If such persons wish to educate themselves about these issues, I suggest the following articles: "Do We Need More Scientists?" by Michael S. Teitelbaum, "Into the Eye of the Storm" by Lowell and Salzman, and "Is There a Shortage of Scientists and Engineers? How Would We Know?" by Butz & others. See also: links to various articles on phds.org.

Comments are closed for this item.