Girls in STEM is failing both girls and STEM? 99

[moltenmetal]

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/com...m-culture-is-failing-both-girls-and-stem.html

Read the article, THEN discuss...

Growing up, I increasingly saw my good grades as a trap locking me into a single career: STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). It felt like a dystopian YA novel, and my high school report card was The Choosing. A’s in math and science? Here are your jeans and sweatshirt.

Well-meaning people lied to me. They said computer science was a great work-from-home career if I wanted children (when in fact a majority of women quit STEM because the culture of poor work-life balance makes it too difficult to raise a family), that STEM careers are secure (actually the industry has frequent layoffs and is very competitive), and more....

 

[SLTA]

Ok. A bunch of men discussing how a woman should think, or feel, or behave, is getting a bit old.

Moving on now.

Please remember: we're not all guys!

 

[lacajun]

When you are a child, you don't know jack about anything. If an adult comes to your school and gives you a song and dance about the benefits of a valid profession, you'll more than likely believe them. Some people are born sales people and can make anything look great.

I know a man that was in medical school then determined he didn't want to be a doctor. He then went into engineering and remained there. Last time I talked with him, he believed he would have been happier being a painter. He was not a noob, is not dumb, flakey, etc. Yet he had trouble deciphering life and what he wanted from it.

I've had women ask me to speak before female students in their areas of influence. When they learned what I would tell them, I was quickly dropped as a speaker for STEM. That is not OK with me because the young girls need to understand what they are going to face in STEM.

Young boys need to understand it, too. The hours are long and the treatment of being a commodity is unpleasant. Engineers feel isolated from people, according to some I know, and would have felt more fulfilled had they pursued another profession that involved being around people more. But, they were sold on engineering because it's a good way to make money, if you are at least competent with math and science.

One of my friends wants me to discuss STEM with his students but, again, I cannot make it negative. I can discuss the problems I have experienced but those have to be positive because the goal is to convince them to pursue STEM. My presentation had to be approved, which is understandable. I am forthright about not lying to youngsters about the demands and politics in STEM careers because that will do nothing but a disservice to them. I will not encourage youngsters to pursue STEM simply because they are good at math and science. They need to decide how to apply their abilities and skills to something they are interested in not a career someone is selling them.

I plan to challenge them to think about what they want from life first. Then challenge them with what legacy, if any, they want to leave. Then challenge them to achieve it and not quit because, if you quit, you remove yourself from the solution. I want them to think about what they want to be doing in 10 years, 20 years, etc. and who they want to do it with? What kind of people do you want to work with, for, and serve? At 10AM Monday morning fifteen years from now, what do you want to be doing? Do you see multiple avenues of growth and progression over your life? Do you see doing the same job for 40 years? There are no wrong answers or embarrassing or shameful answers either. There are no sad answers. There are simply answers, very personal answers.

Life is full of choices. It is work to make those choices. I know people, intelligent people, that have lived a long time without that cognizance until I mentioned it to them. Their parents never taught them they had choices let alone how to make good choices. We're just supposed to figure it out, it seems. I think most people are raised thinking they are to move through life like a robot and let life happen to them and that aspects of life become fixed. I fell into that trap and I didn't realize what happened until I read Mindset by Carol Dweck, Ph.D. I also recommend to young people to learn about human dynamics to understand what is happening in their interpersonal relationships as well as their intrapersonal relationship.

As I listen to engineers, I hear complaints from quite a few about long hours, too few resources, hard to squeeze in vacation, too much work because of layoffs and people were never replaced, etc. I learned that I could run a marathon but I could not run one every day or even every week. Eventually, it catches up with you. Some vendors I've talked with are hearing more complaints than me and they recognize a lot of engineers are very unhappy in their jobs. If you are under great stress and you cannot get adequate down time, your body will ensure you get it.

I think our culture needs to change and the writer adequately captured that point.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[IRstuff]

I think the complaint about being treated as "commodities" to be misplaced; EVERYONE is treated as a commodity, even POTUS' and CEOs. Certainly, anyone who bills by the hour or by the patient or by the piece part, is essentially a commodity. If anyone thinks that doctors aren't treated like commodities, they're sadly mistaken; PAs and NPs are treating patients under the supposed supervision of an MD, but the bottom line is the the fact that this improves the bottom line, but means that someone with about half the education and training gets to treat patients and make about 70% of the salary. The specialists traditionally have made lots of money, but they're being squeezed as well.

CEOs and management are commodities as well, they get hired and fired pretty much on a whim or a turn of the stock price. There's not much respect there, either.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[moltenmetal]

lacajun, thanks so much for a breath of fresh air on this topic. Your honesty is absolutely refreshing.

The key in STEM promotion to young people isn't STEM promotion at all: it's merely making sure that kids don't close off their options to pursue anything related to math and science too soon by dropping the necessary academic level courses in high school. The kids need to make up their own minds, rather than having a particular profession sold to them like soap or new cars.

Engineering IS a great profession- for some. It ideally suits my interests and aptitudes and though I'm sure I'd have had a fulfilling life had I chosen something else in science, I think for me engineering was a better fit by far. But that it worked for me is no guarantee that it is the right choice for others. If I hadn't been a combination of lucky and smart, I'd have been very disappointed with the income potential of my professional choice, though. The only reason I managed to make what I consider to be a living commensurate with the value of the services I provide was by the good fortune of finding a company which treats its employees as more than wage slaves- and which allows them the opportunity to take a true ownership position in their company. That has made all the difference. Many engineers are nowhere nearly as lucky as I've been.

We as a profession need to stop confusing the benefit which engineering brings to society, which is inarguably very great indeed, with the benefit of engineering as a career option. That still is a great option- but only for some. Locally here in Canada, engineering has become far less attractive as a career option than in previous generations due to sheer numbers on the supply side. Engineering is not an option with limitless marketplace potential, nor is it in any kind of labour market shortage, nor is there any benefit to society from having vastly more people study engineering than we need to work as engineers.

 

[ScottyUK]

MM,

I agree with almost everything in your post, except the last part of the last sentence. An engineering education teaches students skills which are very transferrable to many other fields, so although some graduates may not ultimately be able to find employment in engineering, or even wish to work in engineering, I don't agree that their education was wasted and that these people don't benefit society. Some of them may even go on to make a better living than they would have if they'd stayed in engineering.

Pamela

Excellent post. Your efforts to provide an unbiased presentation which shows the good, the bad and the ugly of engineering is exactly what is needed. I'm really pleased you recognise that this needs to be presented equally regardless of gender too. The folks who portray engineering as some utopian career choice are being less than honest with those they are presenting to, and your effort to present this honestly and accutrately should be applauded, not silenced.

 

[moltenmetal]

ScottyUK- a small surplus is traditional and useful- 70% of eng grads working as engineers or eng managers is quite normal and not an indication of a serious oversupply. A surplus to the extent where more than twice as many engineering grads work outside the profession than in it, and where more eng grads work in occupations where a university degree of any kind is not required, is what I'm talking about. That's the reality in Canada now and for the forseeable future. And if that situation is OK, or desirable, why isn't it happening for any of the other professions to the same extent?

 

[rotw]

moltenmetal,

"If I hadn't been a combination of lucky and smart, I'd have been very disappointed with the income potential of my professional choice, though."
If I assign the x-axis to Lucky and put Smart on the y-axis, then I think I more of a 3rd quadrant-type of engineer.
Probably it is the explanation of my disappointment.

Food for thought.

 

[ScottyUK]

If it wasn't for bad luck I wouldn't have any luck at all. ;-)

 

[lacajun]

I think this MD hits a few notes on the commodity problem arising in medicine. Z Dogg MD aka Dr. Damania TEDMED He's quite entertaining in making his points.

This furthered my understanding about the current state of engineering, from a lawyer's perspective. The Enigma of Engineering's Industrial Exemption to Licensure: The Exception that Swallowed A Profession Paul M. Spinden Liberty University, pspinden@liberty.edu It's long but worth the time or, at least, it was for me.

I agree that we have developed into a throw away society not only with material possessions but people. I've been thinking about it but am not certain about any concrete thoughts as yet.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[GregLocock]

That is quite a funny document, or at least the first few pages kept me awake


Exemptions


(1) engineers working under the supervision of a licensed engineer
who takes responsibility for the unlicensed engineer’s work; (2) engineers
employed by public utilities; (3) engineers employed by the federal government;
(4) engineers employed by a state government; and (5) “in-house” engineers
employed by a manufacturing or other business firm (known as the “industrial
exemption”)

He seems to think that (5) is the odd one out. Quite why 2 3 and 4 are a legally superior situation is never explained.

"How does a state justify requiring
a florist to have a license, no matter where he or she works,15 but does not require an engineer, whose negligence can kill,16 to obtain a license simply because he or
she works for an industrial firm? "

Well go on buster, explain why a florist needs a license. The only reason I can think of is to establish a state licensed monopoly via restriction of trade. Q E D

I fell asleep at that point.




Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[CWB1]

JME but I have heard every complaint mentioned in this thread in every position I have ever held from a decade in the trades to a decade now in engineering. Relative or absolute measurement; its all about frame of reference. Should those considering engineering be made aware of "long" hours and all the other gripes mentioned? Personally I would call it a stretch.

A surplus to the extent where more than twice as many engineering grads work outside the profession than in it, and where more eng grads work in occupations where a university degree of any kind is not required, is what I'm talking about.....why isn't it happening for any of the other professions to the same extent?

Do our northern neighbors truly not have a glut of business and other "arts" graduates resulting in pathetically low incomes? If no then I have a few relatives within easy commuting distance. Here its been a sad joke for decades that many would be better served simply working than attending college in hopes of getting a white-collar job, I had a professor for both business 101 and personal finance who was rather unpopular with the administration for pointing out the poor ROI for various degrees. At the time a bachelor's in business administration was worth on average ~$15/hr starting.

Edited only to save space btw, not meant to distort.

 

[GregLocock]

I'd also point out that Spinden holds AMA up as some sort of earlier paradigm, yet demonstrably the life expectancy of people has increased since the AMA lost some of its dominance. Therefore, overall, the industry works. Same with crash stats for vehicles. By and large the fatality rate of vehicles is down to engineering, and although roads may be whacked together by PEs the cars that are smashing into each other are engineered by industry exempt engineers.

Here's the history of motor fatalities in the USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...media/File:Motor_vehicle_deaths_in_the_US.svg

That is since 1970 the death rate has fallen by more than a third, despite increasing speeds and vehicle-miles.

It may be that NHTSA and FMVSS and NCAP and IE engineers are not the most efficient ways of enforcing automotive safety compared with PEs, but he doesn't make a convincing case as to why it is worse.




Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[lacajun]

Here is a piece from The Atlantic, from the SWE archives. Historic Rejection Letters to Women Engineers

Another perspective on women in STEM written recently. If You Can't Retain Women, Don't Recruit Them


Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[canwesteng]

Should 2,3,4 be legal either? I would say no. Probably a big part of the issue moltenmetal refers to with grads being underemployed is Canada is due to the industrial exemption in Ontario; this doesn't exist elsewhere in the country.

 

[IRstuff]

"grads being underemployed is Canada is due to the industrial exemption"

I don't get the connection.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[moltenmetal]

It's actually pretty interesting. The labour market data indicate that about 30% of "engineering" jobs are being done by people without engineering degrees. These people vary from tradespeople and drafters to technicians, technologists, scientists etc. Many of those people would be out of a job and an engineering grad in their place if it weren't for the industrial exemption and, even more importantly, the certificate of authorization which permits corporations to do professional engineering as long as one P.Eng. is willing to be the signatory for the engineering work done by that corp. There are corps out there who don't have a single P.Eng. on staff- they retain a consultant to be their signatory for whatever professional engineering they do, a practice referred to in the industry as a "rent a stamp"...

Sadly, since only 30% of eng grads work as engineers, even eliminating the C of A and the industrial exemption in Ontario wouldn't make a dent in the under-utilization of engineering grads in Canada. The elimination of the C of A isn't even being talked about, and Ontario's government just recently totally refused to eliminate the industrial exemption after agreeing previously that they would. Industry lobbying shot that down pronto.

 

[CWB1]

Reading a few random articles about Ontario's "industrial exemption" it appears that Canada doesn't legally consider manufacturing or product development to be engineering in the manner the US does. Their "industrial exemption" seems to simply allow industry to use unlicensed engineers in civil matters on self-owned property, whereas ours allows our "engineers" to do their jobs in product design manufacturing. This may be the blackhole of non-engineering that MM's survey is losing grads into, my understanding is that our exempted engineers are ~80% of the engineers we have stateside.

 

[IRstuff]

We have possibly stronger property rights laws in the US, so while stuff that's on your own property need to be code-compliant, they don't need a licensed engineer to do the work, unless the public is potentially at risk.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[IRstuff]

As for "jobs are being done by people without engineering degrees," that's a bit misleading, since that means that the math and physics that are currently employed as our systems engineers don't count. Even if there were license requirements, they could still get licensed, although there is no official designation for such, nor is there an exam for such.

While I don't want to get back into that debate, licensing our systems engineers would indeed be pointless governmental meddling, as they have no purview on the subject of public safety, which is what licensing is ostensibly for. It certainly is not, and should not, be for the purposes of limiting employment or employability.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[moltenmetal]

Our industrial exemption is very narrow as written, but it is enforced (unenforced) very broadly. It exempts only people doing engineering of a non-structural nature on their own employer's means of production, i.e. a millwright doing some work on their employer's assembly line. It does not set aside the requirement for a P.Eng.'s involvement whenever a separate set of demand-side legislation calls for one, i.e. under the TSSA Act for boilers, pressure vessels, fuel burning equipment/fuels storage etc., or under the building code, or when pre-start health and safety reviews/inspections are required etc. etc. It essentially reasons that an employee being injured on the job as a result of poor engineering is less of a concern for the provincial government than a member of the public being injured as a result of poor engineering. An attempt to justify the elimination of the exemption on the basis of changes in attitudes toward workplace safety fell on deaf ears- the industry lobby likes things the way they are and doesn't want anyone telling them that they have to hire engineers.

In the US, there is a very much broader industrial exemption, under the assumption that many engineered hazards are covered by product liability. That of course confuses prevention of harm with compensation of the victims after the fact. The broad US exemption and the fact that Ontario trades as much or more with the US than with the rest of Canada is the excuse for the exemption here, whereas none of the other Canadian provinces have such an exemption.

But the C of A is the much bigger issue. Lawyers don't permit corps to practice law in their own name, and in my view, neither should engineers.