The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

It seems that a large goal of FIRST is to increase the supply of engineers; however, few people seem to realize the basic economic principle that an increase in the supply of labor without an increase in the demand for labor will lead to lower wages. While a few more engineers will be employed, they will be making less money. Young mentors are, in effect, training their future competition.

How then, do we increase demand? Firstly, I believe, that as in healthcare, a greater supply of engineers will increase the demand for engineers since the new technologies they create lead to more employment. This may slightly mitigate the wage decrease. Secondly, many participants of FIRST do not go on to STEM fields, but they will probably have a more positive view of these fields and will likely hire more engineers in their future jobs.

In any case, a greater supply or demand of engineers will benefit this country. Has anyone else thought about this? While most people do not pick their profession based on the money, this still seems like an important topic we should discuss, and is an unintended negative consequence of robotics programs.

Please note that my knowledge of economics only covers the first few months of my high school economics class, so please comment if you have an economics background.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

The subject of the high supply FIRST creates has crossed my mind once before. I am aware that a primary goal of FIRST is to introduce kids/teenagers into engineering, but I sure that at some point the supply will be too high for the demand. I am just a junior in high school, so I am not sure how high the demand is for engineers. With the increasing amount of engineers, significant studies will come quicker than expected, which will really benefit society; that is a plus to having a lot of engineers. Also, think about how big engineering is compared to other studies. Engineering is not a very popular among high-school, so it will be a LONG time before the supply reaches the rate of demand.

That is just my view on the subject.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

Well, the issues is more likely having innovative and self sufficient engineers. The problem seems to be not so much having a demand (so many jobs are outsourced to places like india anyways where people who are college educated and perfectly competent work for as little as 30 thousand a year) because, especially as interest in renewable energy and the like grows, there will always be a need for engineers. Good engineers.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

The principle issue that Dean Kamen points out is that we're training the future engineers that will be in competition with foreign competitors more than with domestic engineers. The U.S.'s society already is has a rift between science and "jobs that do not create wealth (such as sports, pop culture, and finance)**, which is causing us to lose jobs (both technical and nontechnical) on the international stage. He also suggests that there will almost never be a shortfall for demand for engineering because there will always be world problems to solve.

Another way to look at the problem is that right now, today, a future engineer's job is in danger of being outsourced due to increasing engineering availability in other countries. Whether we like it or not, we're already in competition. We're simply gaining more support to keep the jobs from being given to international competitors.

I for one am not worried about training my competitors through FIRST, not one bit.

**It's up for argument whether or not these jobs do or do not create wealth, and to what extent. No matter how much we argue against it, society NEEDS entertainment and a way to finance future endeavors. Such may be seen as creating wealth indirectly. That there is MORE interest in those types of INDIRECT endeavors instead of more interest in jobs that create wealth is the issue that Dean has. He believes (as do I, and many others) that our current direction will lead to deterioration of the U.S. economy since foreign nations are focusing on competing with us in those areas (science, engineering, tech, math, etc) and can simply go to less expensive countries for financing, create their own entertainment, and they can live without major national sports.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

At this point, the US is only turning out something like 10,000 engineers a year from college. That is a very small percent of what the demand is given that the baby boomers are all retiring within the next 5 years, if they haven't already done so.

A good comparison is the teaching situation in Los Angeles. It has been projected that the LAUSD will have a need for 20,000 teachers in the next 5 years due to retirements and people quitting.

indieFan

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

The rest of the world is supplying many of the engineers who do work for US companies, either through outsourcing (work done for American companies in other countries, both manufacturing and engineering), H1B visas (issued to foreign-educated engineers with "special skills" supposedly unavailable in the US, usually because the offered salary is far below US market salaries) and all the students who come to American graduate schools from other countries. American-born students often aren't interested in science or engineering, or aren't interested in working hard to succeed in the classes. So half of the places in the graduate school classes go to ambitious, intelligent, hardworking students who just happen to have been born and gone to college in another country.

The demand is there -- it is being filled by engineers from all over the world. America is still the land of opportunity -- our students need to answer the knock.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

I think that as the globabl economy gets more defined, you will see a back-shift of the outsourcing. Outsourcing is done as a cost cutting measure, that comes with the head-ache of being slightly disconnected (both time and physical space). Countries wher pay is low benefit from this and thus absorb higher paying positions. Over time their economies grow, and it is no longer as cheap to use them and thus outsourcing moves on to a different country. (This is a really neat mechanism where the outsourced employee you train finds a higher paying job, thus to keep them you must increase pay...) This cycle will continue until eventually it makes the most sense to have persons in-house.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

Just because you study engineering at university doesn't mean that you need to work as a P.Eng.

Engineering is a fabulous background for many careers.

Jason

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

My dentist also has a civil engineering degree, with a PE.

On a different note,

Outsourcing definitely has a cost associated with it. The company I work for has started moving a lot of our overseas manufacturing back to the United States. Typically you'd think we'd be spending more, but in reality we're actually saving money. Here's an article about it.

In short, there is a hidden cost in doing business overseas. While the cost on paper might be less, you have to think about the number of defective parts you're receiving from the manufacturer and how that effects your ability to move products out the door.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

Well, I have an engineering background; I'm not an economist but I understand the concepts.

On the surface, your argument is absolutely correct - supply and demand do interact in the workforce, just as in trade in goods and services. This is a basic economic principle.

However, the supply of engineers in the USA is far less than the demand, even if we limit engineers to engineering jobs. So there goes that argument. In fact, the IEEE is hosting a summit later this year in Munich to discuss this issue precisely (how do we educate more engineers?). Reports from New Zealand, USA, and the United Kingdom all show a significant demand above supply, while the US Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates the growth rate for engineering jobs is about average, but the prospects for employment are good.

So, while I agree with your premise, additional research shows that our best economic forecasters believe that demand will increase faster than supply.


OK, moving in a different direction: The general elements of an engineering education - advanced math, the scientific method, data analysis and error, project management, etc - turn out to be quite valuable in their own right. My opinion is that more than 50% of all engineers are not doing engineering in the strict sense, but are using their skills to benefit other segments of the business world. For example, I'm an electrical engineer, yet today I develop training courses as an instructional designer. My EE background helps me considerably in this task, since I need to understand the systems I'm trying to explain to mostly non-technical people. Oh, and I am extremely happy and satisfied with my work - it took me 20 years to discover what I love to do, and another 5 to get a job doing it.


So, if you're thinking of an engineering degree, get one and you'll likely never go hungry.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

(Emphasis Added)

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why FIRST exists. For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology, the goal is to inspire those students to be interested in STEM and to be willing to work hard.

I would also like to say, as a student of FIRST who will NOT be becoming an engineer (No, Computer Science is NOT an engineering degree according to my college) FIRST doesn't just inspire engineers, it inspires Teachers, Programmers, Physicists, Animators, Communication Majors...

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

The decline in the supply of STEM graduates from US universities is, in a word, shocking.

We aren't in a situation where we are increasing supply, instead we very urgently need to reverse the decline in supply.

Combine that with the 6-8 year delay between inspiring a high school student and being able to hire him (Then spend another 3-5 years in on-the-job-training) and a very scary dip in domestically created STEM talent looms right at the time the boomers are passing the torch.

Don't panic and don't try to slow down the rest of the world). Instead pick up the pace and keep your eyes on the prize. In this marathon we all need to pull our own weight and bring a friend along too.

Blake
PS: I like that you chose to emphasize increasing demand - Keep it up.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

*cough* Boeing 787 *cough*

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

First, have you researched your assertion that we need to increase demand for engineers in this country? I know that in my sector, electric utilities, there has been a shortage of mechanical, electrical, and civil engineers for every year one of the last 20 years. I have been following the trends in our industry specific journals. Last year the shortage was approximately 200,000 mechanical engineers, 200,000 electrical engineers, and 160,000 civil engineers, and those numbers have only been growing in the last two decades. At least once every year, there is an article pondering how we will ever fill the ever increasing needs of our industry.

I don't see this trend reversing any time soon. Don't worry, even if every student who participated in FIRST became an engineer, it would not fill the needs of this country, let alone the needs of the world. Unless, there is an unprecedented change in this country's culture towards engineering careers, I don't see programs like FIRST saturating the engineering market within the next 50 to 100 years.

Second, you are correct in asserting that one shouldn't choose a profession based solely on money, but for the last decade engineering fields have always been in the top 10 paying fields for college grads and the work force in general. So if making a decent living is one of your goals, then engineering is a pretty good choice for the foreseeable future. Engineering, like any other career, is not for everyone, you have to enjoy what you're doing. If you don't like what you're doing, you won't be motivated to succeed.

Yes, supply and demand can apply to wages, but talent, motivation, and skill have more to do with wages. Just as there are major league and minor league athletes, there are the same divides within engineering and any other field for that matter. People who have the talent and skills combined with motivation to succeed will always earn top wages regardless of how saturated their field is. The less motivated or less skilled will be the ones to feel any wage decreases. Another, less acknowledged, goal of FIRST is to prove that hard work is rewarding, and those that work hard are rewarded.

Also, to earn the best wages, you need to be flexible and never stop learning. As technology advances, some career paths, or industries, are always bound to become obsolete or secondary. By continuing to expand your knowledge base, you position yourself to always be in demand within the job market. That's one of the reasons why I mentor a FIRST team. I get to work with technologies that I wouldn't normally see within my normal field of employment. That may pay off well for me, I have spent most of my professional career in the power distribution field. Now an up and coming (buzz word) technology for utilities is "Smart Grid" technology. Many of the communication protocols and technologies being investigated for use in Smart Grid applications are very similar to things that I've had the chance to play with in FIRST. I now have a foot up on some of my colleagues. That equates to job security and possibly increased earning power.

This country did not become an economic superpower by taking the easy route or by being unmotivated. We will not continue to be a world leader if we don't stay motivated and innovative. That's the real lesson FIRST is trying to teach.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

This appears to be a slight mis-characterization. I asserted that if the supply of engineers increases an increase in demand for engineers will then be necessary to keep wages comparable to their present values. My statement that was based on the assumption that an increased demand for engineers would increase the amount of engineering in this country. This assumption may be incorrect if non-basic economics apply to the current state of engineering in the United States.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

This is true if extensive competition for wages is allowed. If there's a huge supply of engineers, they will not be paid a high amount of money if someone is able to work for less. It was my understanding that generally unions, etc. try and prevent wage competition.

Employees are a bit different than other commodities in that aspect.

Most of the reason for FIRST is that there is always a huge demand for engineers, and not even always in directly engineering-related disciplines. One career I've always considered, for example, is collectible and tabletop game design; these fields look for people with engineering backgrounds to design game mechanics and components. There are more places for engineers than you might initially suspect.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

I just want to provide a real life example of what Don says - especially the bold part.

I have a BS and MS in mechanical engineering. I did that for 10 years and decided it would be fun to turn my hobby into my job. I quit engineering in May of 2006 for a career as an airline pilot. I did that at one company for about 2.5 years, then switched to a different company for 1 year. Due to various factors, the company that I was working for decided to park 23 airplanes which results in about 230 pilots being furloughed. Since I was in the bottom 230 on the pilot seniority list, I was furloughed November 1st of 2009. Thanks to my engineering degrees, I began working again as an engineer December 1st of 2009. Not too bad to be out of work for only one month given the state of the economy and the unemployment rates.

Due to the union contracts in the pilot world, the company is required to recall pilots on furlough before they can hire anyone new off the street. So when times get better, I'll be given the choice to go back to flying. Will I do it? I don't know yet, but it sure is nice having a great paying engineering job while most of my fellow pilots of furlough are collecting unemployment while looking for jobs that pay barely better than minimum wage. My engineering degrees are paying off big time.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

A great topic to stir up thought, and some great responses... a lot of thought in all of them :)

A few things come to mind... while overall engineering is a great career and supply/demand is favorable, I have seen instances where there is oversupply. Granted its location-based... but ask any aeronautical or mechanical engineering student that graduated in the northeast in 2002 or this year... jobs are NOT just falling at their feet. They may have to locate away from their families, away from home, even across the country to get a job in the US as an engineer. While most Aero's I knew when I graduated (2002), ended up with jobs, I would say 99% of them were as mechanical engineers, not the profession they chose exactly. I also know that more often than other years, the year I graduated and last year/this year there were a lot more college students that didnt have job offers before they graduated. Its already a little of a tough field.

Now if you are willing to think outside the box and not necessarily "be who you intended to be" there are a lot more engineering jobs than you might imagine. Honestly, I never really knew "systems engineer" was a title until I was graduated and got offered a job as one. I still apply all my engineering skills, and a lot of systems engineers have an electrical background, but I didnt get a job as "an electrical engineer".

While I see a lot of the shortages of supply most years (it was a pain when I was recruiting and offer after offer for the "good college engineers" got turned down), we do have to be careful that it follows the economy, and to understand and set expectations appropriately. Good college and good grades are still huge factors in getting a job right out of college.

All this said, I dont think we will see supply exceed demand any time soon, with the retiring generations, and the still slow growth of STEM interest, I dont think having a program like FIRST encouraging kids is going to overfill our bucket for quite some time.

And as Jason points out, just because you have an engineering degree doesnt mean you HAVE to be an engineer :)

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

It sounds like there might be such high demand for engineers that the supply curve for engineers is nearly vertical. This means that higher wages do not attract more applicants than lower wages. If this is the case then a small increase in supply (right shift of the supply curve) will not decrease wages. Is this portrayal of the engineering industry accurate?

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

I think you are making some hasty generalizations here. I will not dispute that a business degree is the most popular at most schools and many aren't interested. However, I think you are overlooking a lot of other aspects that need to be considered.

1) Overall there are fewer students, as is the case with European countries where some are starting to experience a negative population growth.

2) There is a vast discrepancy being caused by the baby boom generation retiring throughout society (health care for example). We have gone a lot of years with these poor graduation rates but without much attention to it.

3) College is expensive. Many people I know do not pursue graduate degrees because they have accumulated a tremendous amount of debt in their undergrad, not for lack of interest or desire.

4) Do not discount leadership. NASA and the shuttle launches inspired a generation of young people. When you have a president bringing this message to the people like JFK it is hard to ignore the call to service.

5) Competition!!! Places like India and China have tremendous competition over jobs so a bachelor's degree is less powerful in finding a job there but they can come here and get a graduate degree instead. As my coworker from china just said in china you either go into a technical field or you work labor like a dog.

I think we need to stress the importance of STEM careers but I don't think blaming the American student is the correct method. There is more than enough blame to go around, try the education system, try the tax payer that has devalued education. We pay more to put a person in prison than we do to educate a person (yearly that is) which I think says something about the culture at large. I think we have something like 5% of the world's population but approximately 25% of the world's prison population.

Sorry that this took a politically preachy turn, but I take the 'change the culture' term beyond just STEM jobs and STEM curriculum.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

I think the overall issue is a little more complicated than basic economics.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

Any of you Engineers who want to become Industrial Designers, just let me know. I'll show you the real ways of designing.

But in seriousness, I never had the mind for the engineering part of FIRST, but FIRST did lead me to use my artistic mind to Industrail Design. I kinda wish that FIRST would put asthetics into a greater spotlight.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

Yes, this is more accurate assessment of the engineering profession in general.

Many people posted great information.

Kim is correct that at any time there can be regional or industry based oversupplies of engineers, but one of the keys with the engineering field is a broad knowledge base. Advanced degrees may narrow your field of expertise, but your BS degree has given you tools which can be used in a very diverse number of industries. Sometimes finding a good job just means broadening your search into other industries that you hadn't thought about before.

As the other posts here have shown, I would contend that possessing an engineering degree makes you more employable than any other degree including business. Nearly all of the best managers and leaders I've worked under were originally engineers, not business majors.

Now if we could just get to a majority of politicians being engineers instead of lawyers we might get this country moving again. :p

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

That would be great experience. He can build bridges, make a dam, drill and and do proper surveys. What more could be asked for.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

This post is meant to be all in fun. It does respond to the previous post, but it does not actually contribute to the discussion.

I've heard of "bridges" for mouths and "drilling" for cavities in teeth. I suppose by "surveys" you mean checking the x-rays and/or the mouth for any anomalies and all. But I've never heard of a "dam" in dentistry. Has anyone else?

indieFan

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

From Wikipedia:
Basically, it's a latex sheet fit over a mouth, with a precisely sized hole for the tooth being operated on.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

The term you want to search for is "Dental dam". Here's a definition I found

I will warn anyone attempting to find more information on this subject that when searching the vast majority of results will be for a non-dental use and may be inappropriate for some users of the forum.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

Exactly what I think! Statistics show that most people who graduate from College don't actually work in their field of study later on in life.

I had this discussion with my parents. They were concerned that engineering jobs would be soon shipped overseas. They're totally wrong - U.S. engineers will always be in demand, as long as they're the best in the world. Besides, if you have social and communication skills along with a background in engineering, you can really "go places". The phrase "geeks will run the world" is partially true - it really should be "personable geeks will run the world".

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

I think one needs to ask the question..."If the US has 200,000 engineering jobs that are unfilled, how are the current engineers keeping up with the demand?"
I think the answer is "They are not". There may be many companies with ideas or projects that simply cannot be be accomplished so they remain in limbo until the company can fill the jobs needed. Ironically, that would lead to additional jobs in the production and implementation of the ideas. To be more specific as Art has pointed out, the electrical supply industry is sadly lacking engineers. This translates to maybe less efficient methods of transmission, generation and monitoring. We have all heard of the aging power grid and engineers are needed to correct that problem. Other industries are also dealing with similar problems. Has anyone seen any truly innovative furnace designs recently? How about faucets, solar power devices, snow blowers?
In past years there has been a definite shift of engineering jobs to other countries but US firms are starting to see the error of that decision. To outsource means giving up control, the security of company ideas, the ability to meet deadlines, and the loyalty of it's workers. There is always the problem of overseeing the work, communicating with a team that is halfway around the world in a different time zone and responding to problems as they occur. The money saved evaporates in travel costs, workers become more demanding as to wages and benefits, shipping costs skyrocket. What do you do when your customer is waiting for your product and it's in a shipping container somewhere in Hong Kong waiting to get loaded on to a (slow) ship.
I remember all the news stories in the 90's about how the US was turning into a service related workforce. Engineering and manufacturing needed to be shifted to countries with cheap labor and no environmental controls while the majority of US workers would be providing data service, health care service, business support and computer service to the world. It sounded good to many people then, but there were others that saw it as short sighted. It forced manufacturers to change designs so that systems could be maintained from afar. Service people could call in their repairs or simply tell you what you needed to replace over the phone. Often the cost of repairs skyrocketed as manufacturers who lacked sufficient technicians to make repairs were forced to design and deliver systems that allowed replacement of entire subsystems instead of attacking a single failed component. Initially this lead to higher new sales as consumers were forced to replace instead of repair but now, consumers are finding it hard to convince their CFOs that they have to replace a system that hasn't even been depreciated.
As to unions and wages, unions are simply workers banning together to allow for collective bargaining with their employer. Generally that means setting minimum wage rates and benefits for employee groups with different skill levels, fixing job responsibilities (jurisdiction) and providing a method for dealing with the company on issues and contract violations. Although there are engineers who are union members, it is more the exception than the rule. I am a union member who is an engineer but my group is more at a technician level.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

Precisely. My aunt graduated college with a degree in mechanical engineering, and she currently teaches math and a community college. I may be taking this road as well.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

I haven't really had the time to read this thread extensively but it sounds like it's a very interesting discussion.

Just to comment on the original post, there's an extremely high demand for Engineers across the US and even the world. I have seen it in my own workplace where I was hired out of high school to work alongside Professional Engineers. They were in need of help so bad that they looked outside of traditional channels where they found me and saw if I would be up to the task.

It's really funny to work alongside engineers at such a young age because many of them are a lot older than I am - I've noticed that as a whole it seems like many of the Engineers I work with from outside companies are usually well into their 50's and 60's and they come from a different era of thinking and have skill sets that aren't taught today. Also, many of these engineers have the intent on retiring soon but they can't find suitable replacements. We're actually having this problem at my Job, where we're looking for a new supervisor for our engineering department and we're struggling to find someone who is qualified in terms of experience and education.

So the demand is still there, and I really don't foresee it going away anytime soon.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

Great topic. I have actually thought about this.

The demand for engineers, in my opinion, is only going to grow, at least for awhile. One of the things I have noticed is that many companies want someone with engineering experience for something that isn't an engineering position. They need someone that understands those fundamental concepts including problem solving. I believe that problem solvers are more efficient, simply because they do not become burdened by small problems. Rather, they analyze, think of solutions, and fix or it, or at least avoid creating the same issue again.

I too have noticed that many engineering positions are filled by people that are much older than I. Last semester, I had the opportunity to have an internship at Rolls-Royce. I felt so young in comparison to everyone there. Many of the workers are coming close to retirement age. If we have a demand that isn't being filled now, imagine ten years from now. This semester, I'm interning at Allison Transmission. Both Allison and Rolls-Royce make valuable use of interns. They are able to introduce young high school and college students to a professional, mostly STEM environment, while giving them the access to hundreds of engineers to gain knowledge from. One of the biggest things that seems to always need done is data entry. It sounds like such a dull, menial task, but in all actuality, if one doesn't understand the data, how can appropriate databases, charts, and reports be generated? They can not. This supports the claim that engineers aren't just hired for their degree, but for the concepts they understand.

In addition, the U.S. is falling behind in educational rigor. Many times, the students that have the motivation, the talent, and the desire to go into STEM fields are discouraged by the people around them, or by a lack of exposure. That is the disease FIRST is trying to cure. I think that if FIRST accomplishes nothing else, it has accomplished exposure and helping young adults grasp concepts of problem solving that will ultimately be carried with them the rest of their lives, whether they are aware of it or not.

Outsourcing has been used because "everyone started doing it." Really, to me, it seems like they use it as a band-aid for problems. Outsource the jobs. There. Problem solved. Ok, so it solves short-term problems, but as has been mentioned, not the long ones. For the most part, the short-term has passed, which is why many companies are bringing business back. I also feel that with the internet, with our growing abilities and speeds of communicating, we are becoming a global community more than ever before. Companies want to be global. It's safe for them and their future. A global company is a larger company. A larger company needs more workers, which makes another increase in demand. Also, I feel the U.S. has had a technological slow-down as of recent. If only, we could all become dedicated to thinking outside of the boxes that have been drawn once more. We can do that. We have chosen not to though, because not a whole lot of people want to crawl out from under the security blanket in which they have been hiding. No offense to the older generation, but this is largely in part because as humans age, we become more fixed in our opinions and ideas. With this, coupled with the low number of people my age interested in revolutionizing the world once more, we have a very large demand indeed.

This is only my perspective though. I honestly believe that the issue of supply and demand is all perspectives. Raw data only has so much value.

As far as wages are concerned, I don't know about most people, but I want to be an engineer, because those are the things I enjoy doing. I would rather live in a small apartment my whole life, barely getting by, being an engineer, solving problems, than working at some outrageously high paying job, and being miserable beyond belief. It's all about personal values. Money is important to live in today's society, but fixing society's problems is even more important, and that's what engineers are for.

I think being an engineer is a mindset more than anything. All I can close this with is that I think FIRST is doing a great job of letting students into engineers' minds to learn to think like engineers, even if it is entirely unnecessary for the career path they have chosen. I know, if it were not for FIRST, I would not even know what engineering is, that it existed, or that it happens to be what I enjoy most.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

This could only be a benefit to all of us.

If we take the assumption (which might not be valid) that politicians are a subset of the population and that if the population has more STEM-aware people, then we'd end up with more STEM-aware politicians.

But I fear that people who understand the logic used in STEM professions are far too smart to get involved in politics. :rolleyes:

(In all seriousnes though: Politician is one of the very best jobs you can get. You're guaranteed to get rich, live a life of utmost luxury, and have all of everything you could ever want, assuming you don't get caught.)

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

(My emphasis added)
I really can't let the scare quotes and accusation of the highlighted statement go without comment.

In my professional life I'm a Research Engineering Manager at a moderately large high tech company, and over the past several years I have been involved in hiring for ~40 mostly PhD-level positions. Almost all of these hires have been non-US born engineers and computer scientists. For recent graduates we usually have to use the H1B visa. We do require special skills and pay a premium for them, but there are simply very few qualified US candidates out there.

The data supports my anecdotal evidence. Over the past two decades, approximately two thirds of all engineering PhDs awarded by US graduate schools were earned by foreign-born students (Table 11, Survey of Earned Doctorates, 2007). A larger percentage of US PhDs stay in academia, add in PhDs earned in European graduate schools so my experience of >80% foreign-born candidates is as expected.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

Even simpler than that- they're hiring unqualified people.

Let's talk about a hypothetical situation where the CEO says "We have X number of contracts we expect to win and will need a total of 50 FTE to do the work".

That filters down to the department level, where they say "OH NO!" and start opening reqs for new hires.

The HR department, not always clueless, starts pulling in resumes. Since most engineers may not have the best people skills, they're added to the interviewing boards.

Problem is... if this happens everywhere, and there's a shortage, and your company is NOT willing to pay more than anyone else, you don't get first tier. You get 5th. Suddenly you've got folks being hired- that are still smart- but maybe don't have the qualifications you'd expect them to have, or have gaps... so your OJT increases exponentially.

Unfortunately you've also got YOUR job to do, so that OJT starts eating out of your project time... which means delegating... which means - MORE engineers needed.

Rinse and Repeat.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

This is especially true of high power RF engineers. It is rare to find a transmitter guy under 45. No one in school these days wants to work with a 35,000 volt, 3 amp power supply or a 50kW rf generator.

Re: The Downside of Having More Engineers
 

I suspect that the vast majority of U.S. born engineers who do not have a PhD (I fall into that category) have performed their (our) own cost/benefit analysis and concluded that pursuing and obtaining a PhD isn't in their (our) own economic self-interest. I believe that analysis often yields a different answer for foreign-born engineering students, for a variety of reasons. The outcome of the analysis will also vary naturally over time. I don't believe that statistics such as those above (which are consistent with my own observations as well) are symptomatic of a problem with the US STEM educational system, or indicative that US students aren't still interested in science or technology.

Why do I feel that way? The PhD is a prerequisite for very few career objectives for engineering practitioners, and in many cases it negatively impacts one's own marketability. It's a long-term investment and the anticipated rewards don't materialize for everyone. As long as US students continue to have the choice and ability to pursue such degrees, I'll not be losing any sleep over the ratio of "those who do" to "those who don't" or the ratio of "those from here" to "those from there".