Obama: 'We Don't Have Enough Engineers' 651
dcblogs writes "President Obama wants to boost engineering graduation rates by 10,000 a year. In 2009, the US produced 126,194 engineering graduates for bachelor's and master's degrees and for Ph.D.s. The US had just over 1.9 million engineers in 2010. The unemployment rate in 2010 for all engineers was 4.5%. 'We've made incredible progress on education, helping students to finance their college educations, but we still don't have enough engineers,' said Obama. He's counting on the private sector to help expand the number of graduates."
Solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Law is cheaper and more rewarding (Score:3, Insightful)
Make it so Law and Finance is not the easiest place to make money and you will see more engineers.
Obama spent his entire life in academia... (Score:3, Insightful)
...and really doesn't have a clue what anybody actually needs.
Re:Of course you don't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or why not become a "financial engineer". You get to use your brain, you get paid massive bonuses for creating zero wealth, and you don't get treated as a second class citizen.
Amen to that. I'm handing back my masters degree in IT plus a lifetime of experience in order to start in B-school to become a quant. I'm tired of taking it up the ass.
You wont have enough engineers (Score:5, Insightful)
you either start paying percentages to engineers, or fat asses will have to descend from their high throne in directors' executives' rooms and start doing the engineering themselves.
Re:Of course you don't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, in the meantime we can just issue more H1Bs and outsource some more. That'll help motivate the kids.
Well a couple things to understand about that (Score:4, Insightful)
First is that unemployment is higher now for everyone than normal. Planning ahead one would expect it to come back down, which would mean far less unemployment than what we have now. Total unemployment (measured in terms of U3) in the US is about 8.7% currently. If you look back on things somewhere around 5% is more normal (4.5-6.5% ish range). That means that if it returns to normal, which it likely will you can expect unemployment of engineers to be down to 1-2%, maybe less, hence the need for more.
Also you have to understand that unemployment as normally measured, using the U3 number, will basically never be zero. Reason is it includes anyone who isn't actively working right now, but has made some active effort to look for a job in the last 4 weeks. So that means someone gets tired of their job and quits, but is out looking for one they like better, they are unemployed according to U3. That happens even in great times with lots of employment. Same deal with someone who was working on a contract and that is up, and is now looking for another one. Doesn't matter if the economy is great and they'll get work in a hurry, they are still unemployed by the U3 definition. The only unemployment measure you can ever see at or near zero is U1 (people with no job for longer than 15 weeks) and even that is rare. Some unemployment is just how things tend to work. Doesn't mean it is the same people, forever unemployable, just that there is turnover and movement.
Finally you have to understand that in some technical fields, like engineering, there will be people who are or become unemployable because they lack the skills needed, even if they have the desire. That someone went to school and managed to cram their way through an engineering degree doesn't mean they necessarily have the real world skills to be a good engineer. Likewise, the field evolves and someone who was once good, but refuses to adapt, could be unemployable as an engineer.
So you can't look at it in the simplistic sense of "Until no engineers are unemployed we don't need more engineers." Instead you need to consider current conditions, future demand, changes to future conditions and so on and decide if more will be needed. Goes double since an engineer is not made in a day. Even if you assume all that is needed is a undergraduate degree that is 4 years right there. Means if you think you'll need more engineers in 4 years, you'd better start on it now.
First (Score:4, Insightful)
why would he regulate those who make up his staff? We don't have President Main Street, we have President Wall Street. For all the wearing of sackcloth and anguish over GWB about his corporate ties people totally ignore the President Goldman Sachs. Oh sure he loves to lash out at "Big Business" but they make so many back door deals they do a good job of protecting those who support their campaign coffers.
You want engineers, fine, make it cool then. We spend less on NASA than we lose to the deficit in a week (okay, it might be a few days more). We have schools built around the best interest of teachers and administrators. Any attempt to hold them accountable comes back with claims of lack of money; not true; or teaching to the test. If test scores of students at a school do not give a clear indication of problems then what would? Take back education from the politicians and their supporters and then you might have more kids doing well enough in school and seeing a chance of success.
Wall Street does not stop us from having engineers. Having a society based on laziness and celebrating reality TV stars does. We have shows about knocked up teen agers, fake tan trolls, sleazy housewives, and hate spewing misogynistic rappers. The only serious shows are the countless CSI ripoffs where they solve the crime in the last ten minutes. I am not saying we need a reality TV show about engineers; after all we want new ones; but we don't even portray them in television so kids rarely have exposure to what those skills are. Even subtle things like having a TV dad being an engineer; we never have to see his job he just has to be cool; would go a long way.
So, you want more Engineers Mr. President
I suggest
1) Get your Congressmen hacks off the backs of for profit colleges, many are very good
2) Get the deficit under control, stop the spending, it will change the outlook of the country
3) Fund areas of science which will make people want to be engineers. We need something real, not rail. That means a Manhattan/Apollo scale project (just don't go damn the costs like they did) that will suck up these engineers and better the country. Can I suggest safe nuclear power combined with some renewable sources? We certainly have the tech for the former and need to develop the later else hand the country over to China
4) Make the focus of schools be the students, then the parents, then teachers, and finally anyone else. Hold teachers accountable, the good ones want it.
5) Did I mention the deficit? The doom and gloom hanging over people's heads when they see such staggering numbers and what happens in the world makes them lose focus. Be a President for once, stop being a politician.
Oh, no (Score:3, Insightful)
We have enough engineers. Programmers, too. Really good ones.
The problem is that US companies tend not to hire (or retain) them if they aren't entry level; they'll outsource or hire fresh-from-the-classroom types in order to keep costs down, because the US corporate outlook rarely goes further than the upcoming quarterly report. If they can outsource the majority of the process, they will. For instance, (just one example of many) Apple manufactures in China. That's a *lot* of engineering jobs, tech jobs, assembly jobs, procurement jobs, etc. Looking at it one way, they have to -- because otherwise they wouldn't be competitive. But if anything sold here had to be made here, then the playing field is level again.
Older engineers cost too much: Healthcare, experience, it all comes together for a higher cost, and no one wants that on the quarterly report. Younger types, speaking generally, can't cut the tough jobs, though, and that's why we have very little high end engineering and programming capacity in use within our borders. And a rush of newly minted engineers and/or programmers won't help -- we'll just get more half-baked ideas like Apple's recent "full screen feature", basically an idiotic and functionally bereft return to the modal operations of 25 years ago. (Apple user here, see things through Apple flavored eyes.)
I think we need a period where products sold in the USA have to be 100% made in the USA, from the first stroke of the pen to the last decal on the front panel. Otherwise, this illusory period of "production" of IP will collapse with the illusion of protection our IP laws are (just barely) shoring up; other countries don't give the south end of a northbound rat for our IP laws. By pulling the entire product process within our borders, we create a level playing field for our manufacturing economy to restart. Then we could see the large, competent pool of engineers and programmers we already *have* rehired.
And we have to make damn sure that unions don't get a toehold again; they were another large factor in destroying our manufacturing economy: If the worker is not being paid enough, then they need to up their skill set and change their worth, either at their current job or at a new job. Instead of trying to blackmail their employer. The economy and cost of living changes; consequently the worker needs to change too. Their job doesn't magically become worth more because bread costs more. If they don't change, that's not the employer's fault.
Re:Of course you don't. (Score:5, Insightful)
China or Germany don't have this problem. They raise their engineers onto pedestals bigger than those the Americans would reserve for bankers.
I am tired of seeing China being referenced as a "good" example of engineer-led country, again and again.
The politburo is consisted of a bunch of top level bureaucrats, who happen to have engineering degree. In fact, people were selected into bureaucracy not because of their engineering degrees, but
A) they joined the party early;
B) they graduated from top universities (E.g. Tsinghua);
C) they actively participated in party sanctioned politics either in their first civilian jobs, or as early as in the university, such as student unions (effective a pre-bureaucracy self-administering the students).
Re:Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Blunt question: even if it costs half as much to hire someone working in a third world country, isn't this made up for by the inefficiency of long-distance communication of and delays in understanding across cultures?
Shouting, "Oi, Bob!" across the office and having all relevant materials in front of both of you is so much better for collaboration than having to speak to someone half way across the world (assuming they're even awake).
Is there one example in the literature, anywhere, of service which has been maintained or improved following offshoring? What about in the double whammy of offshoring and outsourcing, rather than simply hiring employees abroad?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Missing the point (possibly willingly) (Score:5, Insightful)
'We've made incredible progress on education, helping students to finance their college educations, but we still don't have enough engineers,' said Obama.
What a load of crap.
What's the point of producing more engineers if we don't develop a well-trained blue-colllar workforce and a manufacturing industry for them to work on it? How's the economy going to absorb them if it cannot absorb its unemployed blue collar guys?
We are losing the engineering battle not for lack of engineers, but for lack of competitive manufacturing capabilities (and incentives to have a manufacturing industry) in American soil.
He's counting on the private sector to help expand the number of graduates.
The same companies that are willing to move jobs overseas (or are pushed to do so because their competitors do)? The US government must provide incentives to companies to retain engineering and manufacturing jobs here (and penalties for those that do not.) China, Japan and India have measures to protect their local economies. We do not. And in fact, the MBA mantra is to not do it at all.
Worry about producing more engineers without tackling the lack of manufacturing competitiveness is like worrying about putting deodorant to smell clean without wiping one's ass crack after taking a dump. Seriously, it is that bad.
EE here... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this has been mentioned here, but wanted to point out from first hand experience... I have a BS in EECE, an MS in Physics, and I took all those
damn courses to get a Ph.D. in EECE (yet to finish dissertation)... as I was going through the Ph.D. program, I witnessed a number of my classmates getting interns at Intel/AMD/etc. Not to be racial (cultural?) but I am a native born anglo-saxon american. All of my classmates are Indian/Asian. I note that I could not get an intern/etc with big companies. My grades were comparable (better), and I had some experience having worked a little between degrees.
A few points. I know a number of these classmates that went on to get jobs at Intel/AMD/Motorola/etc. These are Ph.D.s in EE/EECE/CS. They are paying these guys $37000-$47000 to start, but they give them an H1B visa (or extension), so they are totally happy to take that pay. I am sorry to say it, but a "normal" american who just spent a good deal of cash on this degree just can not get by on this. No offense to any Indian guys (in fact, this is where you have an advantage) but 20 of them can live in a single apartment due to their culture/lifestyle. They have no problems getting $40,000 to start as a Ph.D, where most americans (for better or worse) would balk at that. I was told by one classmate who went on to work at Intel that they practically don't even look at americans for work anymore at that level as they want more to start. /rant
Interestingly, since we americans are no longer going into Ph.D.s in EE/EECE, this creates a catch 22 for the CEOs to go to the govt with. "look, no one is going into the Ph.D. program, give us more H1Bs!"... go look at (for example) Intels job pages. They want Ph.D.s in EE/EECE in mostly other countries now. We will eventually no longer manufacture or design anything here, but for the time being if it helps big companies bottom lines, they will never care if they are destroying us. We will wake up and no one will know how to build or design things here, and then all will be lost.
rant/
td;dl, Companies don't pay as they know H1Bs are cheap, no one goes in due to low wages, a manager at McDonalds can make more. Obama/Congress can not fix that, as they are paid by the same companies saying we need more H1Bs. Hey, I could go be a professor when it is done, but I could make more money asking if you want fries with that at the drive through.
Re:Of course you don't. (Score:4, Insightful)
>> Why would you want to be an engineer?
Because I love it.
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
I would suggest shows like "Mythbusters" and "Junkyard Wars", etc. would be more likely to spur an interest in fields like engineering. All "CSI" does is make people think technology is magic.
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
Having a society based on laziness and celebrating reality TV stars does.
Even documentaries have gone this way in the past 20 years. Up to the 80s they would get some knowledgeable person to talk about the subject, maybe interview some key people and use some explanatory graphics. In the 90s they started making documentaries into dramas, pitching them as the story of how the people involved came up with rival theories and argued and then someone else came along with a "revolutionary" idea... All aided by fancy presentation, breathless voice overs and a lineup of crackpot theories to flesh it out.
Then there is the dumbing down. They no longer say "mass", it has been reduced to "stuff". One sentence could explain the word "mass" and then the viewer would be educated and not feel like a retard who has to be spoken to like a four year old, but that might alienate people who are that dumb. Sod those guys, if you are dumb there is nothing wrong with being made to feel that way by words every school child should know.
I wish the BBC would repeat some episodes of Horizon from the 70s and 80s, not only so people could enjoy them but so they could see just how far we have fallen from those high standards. Today they wouldn't be exciting enough for TV, but I guarantee they will instil a far greater sense of wonder and eagerness to learn. All the time you cater to the lowest common denominator you are fuelling the perception that it is okay to be in in that group.
Re:Of course you don't. (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama is really only a symptom, though, of a society that so little values the ability to actually do something that they think the only thing it takes to be an executive is a pretty face and the ability to make Santa Claus-like promises. The real problem isn't that President has no idea how the real world works, but that the people who elected him have no idea how the real world works. He is merely the logical conclusion of the mentality of people who think economics is a zero-sum game and that wealth cannot be created, only spread around. He is the Platonic ideal, as well as the intellectual and philosophical leader of those people who literally contribute nothing to society.
I engaged in an intellectual exercise recently: If a group of people were lost in the wilderness and they had, say, Teddy Roosevelt to lead them, he would not only be able to lead them, but could also teach them how to survive: hunt, build shelter, defend themselves, etc. If they had Ronald Reagan, he probably couldn't do most of those things himself, but he would have been able to organize people, utilize their different skills and motivate them to do what they needed for the group to survive. If they had Obama, I don't see how he could bring anything to the table but a bunch of whining and motivating people to feel entitled, because that's all he's done as President: complain a lot, act as a grievance-monger for his supporters and let everyone else do the actual thinking and work. He is the quintessential useless person, he has no practical skills, and is sadly ignorant of how things actually work... honestly the only redeeming value I can find in him as a person at all (leave alone the President of the U.S.) is that he seems to be a decent husband and father. He might be the President of the U.S., but I doubt he could run even the smallest of businesses.
Re:Also blames automation... (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, the guy is completely and utterly ignorant of how anything in the world works. Of course, he is only the culmination of the pervasive ignorance that elected him. Our political system has devolved to the point where they are driven solely by the lowest common denominator. How else could we have elected as a President a man who has never run anything in his life, has never created anything of value, has never spoken an original idea, someone who literally contributes nothing to society? And it's not like the alternative candidates were much better (although some of them at least had relevant executive experience).
This. (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. Engineers come from a limited pool of people. You need to be smart and hard working. I'd hazard a guess and say that below IQ 125 or so just isn't going to cut it. So basically only about 5% of the population could even be an engineer.
If you are smart enough to be an engineer, especially a good engineer, you are also smart enough to be able to choose business, accounting, law, pharmacy, dentistry, medicine, etc. You are also smart enough to google pay scales and such while still in high school, and pick a career that is going to maximize the reward for the risk and the effort. If you want to rob those other well remunerated fields to create more engineers (since the game is zero-sum), you need to show the prospective students the money.
The other alternative is of course to create some sort of selective breeding program to create a society of engineers, but it would be politically impossible to implement and certainly not see any results over one presidential term. So yeah, show us the money.
Re:This. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but admit it, if any politician promised to get lots of women to breed with engineers, just about everyone here on Slashdot would vote for him/her (probably including people who aren't even citizens of that country). Just saying.