"How in the hell attracting candidates of 'increased diversity' does anything to resolve the current oversupply of engineers"?
Raise the demand. That will push up the price, and the supply will take care of itself.
The stakeholders in the NAE site appear to have interests vested in keeping the price down by maintaining and increasing the supply by artificial means.
If we assume that NAE is some umbrella group for academics, universities and chairmen of large companies then their objective is crystal clear. In 5 clicks I was unable to get any real sense of their purpose or constituency.
Ah, money shot- "Election to National Academy of Engineering membership is one of the highest professional honors accorded an engineer. Members have distinguished themselves in business and academic management, in technical positions, as university faculty, and as leaders in government and private engineering organizations. Members are elected to NAE membership by their peers (current NAE members)."
Yup, its the establishment pushing for more imported and or cheaper engineers.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
Elsewhere in this very forum, people are complaining about how no one knows what engineers do and that's why no one appreciates us, blah blah blah, image problem, blah.
Wow, what a misguided approach. Every discipline is unique. Maybe this is geared more toward EE's or ME's.
Hg/TX, do you really think it's your image that's hurting the industry? I thought it was because the states dont enforce the codes which allows schlup SE's to underbid everyone dragging all our salaries down....
I dunno that there's either a severe image problem (I don't think there's image one way or another), nor that there is a cross-disciplinary engineer surplus. People complain about both. I have not run into either. I thought the people complaining about the former would find the link interesting.
Though one could argue that the states not enforcing the codes is because they don't take the engineers seriously who argue for code enforcement, which does go back to the image of the profession.
I think the lack of code enforcement is due to a lack of quantity and quality of people in the building departments, but that can obviously be a thread in itself.
Allowing mediocre design allows mediocre engineers to exist.
What, so we can encourage even more kids that happen to be 'good at math & physics' to study engineering at uni, even though they have no real interest in engineering itself, so that they can become disillusioned and join the ranks of whiners & moaners we see all too often?
Pretty much anywhere east of the rockies. Heck, in some places I'm seeing that architects are the ones submitting structural drawings on significant buildings...and doing a piss poor job. Yet nothing can be done because its common practice and the building depts allow it. Sure would be nice if ASCE would address this.
I know for sure Architects are doing grading plans when they can get away with it, but those are pretty irregular. But you are right, those grading plans are downright scary to even look at before making a proposal on making them actually work.
B+W Engineering and Design
Los Angeles Civil and Structural Engineering
All this talk of diversity, I would say that it is actually the complete opposite.
If the industry truly apreciated engineering expertise and experience by giving experienced technical engineers good salaries then we would not have engineers pushed into management positions that have no place being there!
Some people are excellent at the numbers, some people are better at explaining the numbers to laypeople or at the overall management. It takes different types and we should utilise peoples strengths rather than giving one limited career path that leads to management.
If I employ a plumber to fix my drain, I want him to be good at plumbing not to have a 'rounded experience'. same with engineers.
Thats what I'd call auxiliary knowledge that makes him a good plumber. Doesn't mean he's taken a bunch of accounting and finance seminars or courses to make him a better plumber. That will make him a better businessman, but not a better plumber. I see the force into management at my work all the time. Engineers have no where to go as an engineer, they are forced to either take management, live with their "midpoint" as a senior engineer, or move on. And I get the feeling that it's a problem in many companies.
There are companies that go beyond Sr Engineers. In defense companies you can go to Principal Engineers (same pay grade as manager II and up) and then to Fellow Engineer (same pay grade as director II and up) and still do a fair amount of engineering in cutting edge projects.
Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."
“Luck is where preparation meets opportunity”
Those are the standard grades over here in the uk for engineering consultancies but normally they are management or semi management positions. Normally those who wish to stay as a technical specialist are sidelined career wise though not as much here as it is in Australia or in my experience the US.
Each year Engineers Australia isssues a list of the so called top 100 engineers and they are almost all managing directors of companies (some of multinationals). Regardless of your education, if you are an MD or a director of a large multinational company then you are not doing much engineering. Do the society of capenters list all those carpenters that did a business degree as the countries top carpenters?
I have long had the view that it is our elders and peers that have let our industry down more than any external forces.
That was the position where I work (engineers could earn the same as managers) back in the early 90's (probably before). The company was run by engineers then and proudly so.
Well what function of management are we talking about? In my experience, pure mangers will dictate personnel changes, work flow in the group, how much raise to give…etc, but Principals Engineers will work with Senior Engineers and dictate to them the design philosophy, what analysis to carry out, what procedures have to be done, what test that has to be carried out…etc, which is still part of engineering. The Principal does not actually do the work, but has the knowledge and experience of everything s/he is dictating for the Sr Engineers to accomplish. Fellow Engineers work closely with the CEO or upper management to define new technologies (or combination of current technologies) to win proposals. The Fellow Engineers still does engineering, but just at a higher level of management.
Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."
“Luck is where preparation meets opportunity”
