Quality Of New Hires and Recent Grads 44

[Wolves1]

I was hoping I could get some feedback from some of my fellow civil engineers on this board. I am an engineer working for a small firm. I have grown as an engineer over the years and have been fortunate enough to be able to aid in the hiring process for our firm. What I have come to notice is that the quality of new hires/recent grads have been less than desirable. I'm not saying that they aren't bright or not motivated because they are. However, in my humble opinion colleges today are just not doing a good job preparing these graduates for the work force. And I don't think this is anything new. I didn't feel particularly prepared for the work force when I graduated either and I had a leg up on most of my classmates. I was a second generation engineer and worked through college at an engineering firm.

In most cases the new graduate lacks the following skills.

[ul]
[li]Limited if any CAD skills[/li]
[li]Lacks practical knowledge of most types of design[/li]
[li]Does not have a good grasp of the design process[/li]
[/ul]

Again, I don't want to seem like I"m coming down hard on these people as I was probably in a similar state when I first graduated. From talking with my family (many of whom are engineers) this just seems to be the norm and has been this way for many years. In our case it seems like we have to spend 1-3 years training the person up to be an effective engineer for us.

With that being said, I would like to get hear some of your opinions on hiring new graduates for your firms. I realize we are in a small market and that could affect the talent pool, but in general I would be interested to hear what some of your experiences have been and if you have any solutions that helped you train your employees.

Also, is there anything in particular you do to reduce training costs and get them up to speed quicker? Do you have a specific training program for new hires? etc.

Thanks in advance for your advice! It is greatly appreciated!

 

[GregLocock]

I didn't go to university to learn to draw on a table (no CAD back then), why should you expect expertise in /your/ CAD system from a graduate? You are asking them to waste several weeks learning the wrong CAD, surely it is better for you to figure out how to train them your way in your CAD?



Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[TheTick]

I'm a hard-core CAD wiz, and yet I would be among the first to say that CAD skills should be way down the list. Easy enough to acquire with modest training if the candidate has overall good geometry and visualization skills.

The right talent is hard to find at any level. For entry level, punching a list of ready-to-run skills is probably not an effective recruiting strategy. I would focus more on trainability and adaptability, with a good dose of self-motivation.

 

[ScottyUK]

Rather than learning how use a specific CAD system I'd prefer that they learned how to present an engineering drawing. I don't mean to turn them into draughtsmen, but rather to grasp the fundamentals so that they understand the difference between a good drawing and a bad drawing because at some point they will likely be reviewing or approving drawings for others to use. Once you can draw the CAD bit follows relatively easily.

 

[GregLocock]

Incidentally here was my 'trade school' drafting curriculum: velocity diagrams. Concept diagrams of new designs. First and third angle projections and sections through castings.

I was taught to draw to BS308 by my employer, there was no expectation at uni that my drawings would pass muster by a checker, although the optional castings segment was close, that is we were partly graded on formal use of shading etc.

So, given you want your graduates to have spent weeks learning and using what is almost certainly the wrong CAD package, what part of the curriculum do you suggest they drop?

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[Wolves1]

Thank you all for your comments. I understand and agree with what you are saying about learning the wrong CAD platform. I think in the line of work I'm in (civil engineering), there's really only 2 CAD platforms. Most of the places I know are either using AutoCAD Civil3d or Bentley Microstation with Geopak.

I don't necessarily expect the new hires to be extremely proficient in either one, but I would hope they would have the basics of drafting down. But many times, working here is the first time they have been exposed to either one. Since there's really only 2 CAD platforms, once you are somewhat proficient in one, the other is not too terribly difficult to learn. It's just a matter of learning the new tools and how to use them. The end goal and process is very similar.

As to what we should drop in our curriculum I would drop thermodynamics. In the world of civil engineering this is almost never used (maybe on a very outside case). I would rather see a course in microstation or autocad that would help them put a plan set together. I think that would be much more useful to them in the work force.

 

[zdas04]

I looked for the proper date on the OP and was surprised not to find 65 BC as the year. Engineers doing the Roman Roads and Aqueducts had the same complaints. When I graduated in 1980 new hires at large firms spent the first 2-3 years in training classes, doing small parts of big jobs, and observing work. Then they worked for a couple of years before some independent Oil & Gas company hired them away. There were 280 engineers that started with Amoco on the day I started. By year 10 there were 2 of us left (the industry downturn in 1986 had something to do with that, but not everything). All of the majors had the same issue, and it was a decades-old problem then.

If I had my way, colleges would not teach hands-on CAD at all. Learning drafting concepts on a drafting table has made me a better drafter than I ever would have been had I started with CAD. Universities have caved to demands from industry and teach CAD. In ME, that is almost always Solidworks on a Mac. Trying to get someone who believes at their core level that "CAD" means "3-D modeling" to draw a P&ID or Alignment Sheet is incredibly difficult. I'd far rather teach AutoCad to someone familiar with a T-Square and triangle. Expecting expertise in your CAD program (and your standards, and your filing system, and your approval protocols, etc) out of the box is just irresponsible on your part. An engineering degree is a promise that someone is capable of learning abstract concepts and can solve problems. Filling in the blanks between that and being an effective engineer on the job is the employers job, and too many are whining about having to do it.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[imcjoek]

I routinely get candidates for mechanical designer positions with degrees in mechanical engineering that cannot:
1) Explain how to bolt two bits of metal together given a bolt and nut.
2) Dimension a threaded hole.
3) Draw a square block with vanilla Autocad.
4) Calculate the area of a circle. Seriously.

Some of these guys are not fresh out of school, either. Baffling.

 

[JohnRBaker]

For what it's worth:

http://pacepartners.org/wpindex.php/pace-institutions

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Digital Factory
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[1gibson]

Find one with common sense, can answer order of magnitude questions without much hesitation (does that tree over there weight 200 lbs or 2000 lbs?) who thinks before they speak, and who doesn't touch their phone at all during the interview.

 

[BrianPetersen]

For mechanical engineers ...

Look for those who have somewhat related hobbies and pastimes.

The one who grew up working in dad's machine shop or auto repair shop, the one whose hobby involves racing go-karts or motorcycles or whatever, will have some clue about how real things are actually built as opposed to how things theoretically work in the ivory tower. Disclaimer: this description sounds like myself.

For civil engineers, it's not my area but the one whose high school job was helping out the local building contractor, the one who helped his folks build an addition on their house, is likely the one you want.

These people are rare. They are out there.

 

[drawoh]

Wolves1,

I am just following up on the points other people have made about CAD.

When I was in college, I was told that upon graduating, I would need about a year of on-the-job training before I became productive. In my case, I got no training other than trial and error, so it took considerably longer.

College is an appropriate place to teach math, physics, chemistry, statics, mechanics of materials and stuff like that. Companies are not well equipped to teach this. They are well equipped to teach practical stuff like their specific CAD, and design process, and to communicate knowledge specific to their industry. College graduates are, and should be generalists.

--
JHG

 

[TheTick]

You can't change the ocean. You can't change the fish. You can only change the way you fish.

 

[Guest262653]

A famous philosopher (or was it Yoda?) once said: "That who knows only about engineering, not even about engineering does he know..."

Keep the juicy and hard stuff in the curricula. Else, you'll end up with civil engineers who are great CAD and BIM drafters but who don't have a clue on how a fridge works.

 

[JedClampett]

As others have said, this complaint is passed on as the generations change. "They don't teach as well as they did in my day, sonny." "This generation doesn't know how to work." "They're soft."
It's a real shock going from university life to the "real" world. College training does not make you into an engineer, it just gives the basics. And don't get me started on CAD.
I only hope that college doesn't over emphasize the computer aspect of engineering and neglect the understanding of the concepts. I get resumes of recent grads and they have a list of 15 computer platforms that they're familiar with. They think that engineering is computer gaming.

 

[mabodia]

I believe in general you should be looking for a candidate that you see promise in, some one that will work hard and learn/grasp things quickly, rather than technical ability. I don't think it is a fair to expect a new grad to start working and be immediately productive and independent.

 

[brandonbw]

For engineering it seems like the easy part would be learning how to draft. And I don't think drafting is an easy thing either. I don't remember meeting any graduated engineers that could draft well and they all did fine. Same as the design process. What I learned in school gave me the ability to figure out what I needed to learn on the job. I would expect something similar from a new grad.

B+W Engineering and Design | Los Angeles Civil Engineer and Structural Engineer

http://civilengineer.la

 

[thaidavid40]

I look for someone who -
[ol 1]
[li]Seems generally trustworthy.[/li]
[li]Seems generally intelligent.[/li]
[li]Can think logically through most situations.[/li]
[li]Is self-motivated.[/li]
[li]Is a lifelong learner.[/li]
[/ol]
If they exhibit all of that, I think I can work with them, and show them how to become successful people, and successful engineers.
Dave

Thaidavid

 

[GregLocock]

If civil engineers are generally prepared to drop thermo in order to do a few tutorials on CAD then I am not surprised by the pay differential between them and other disciplines. As Barbie nearly said "Thermo is hard." but so are power electrical, reinforced concrete beam design, partial differential equations and dynamics, all of which my trade school thought a mechanical engineer should know.

Anyway we seem to be focusing on CAD, I think the OP's other two points ARE worth discussing, why do we get through uni without ever having had to design a good bolted joint? Admittedly, now that boltscience exists, there's not much excuse for screwing up. haha.

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[Ron]

If I see one more request for curricula to include CAD...of any sort....I'm gonna scream!!

That's ludicrous (not Ludicris...as in the rapper). Yes, you need to be able to convey concepts graphically. You can learn enough CAD or do hand sketches to do so. Don't take up important academic time with such trivia. Yes, it is trivia to a properly thinking engineer, whether design or not.

CAD is just a tool. If you were a professional photographer, would your interest lie in the workings of the camera or would it lie in the composition of the photograph? If you are concentrating on the workings of the camera, you're not a photographer. Similarly, if you are concentrating on the mechanics of drawing, you're not concentrating on the mechanics of engineering.

Get your priorities right. We are engineers....not artists.....not drafters. Architects can draw pretty sketches....can they make them stand up to wind and earthquake loads?

I am a part-time professor in a regional university. The political structure of academia sickens me. We need to have a balance of practical and academic exercises and THEY MUST MEET. I see courses taught by unqualified academics who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground....yet they teach from a prescribed course outline and they meet the predetermined curriculum requirements for acreditation. Meanwhile, the student don't know $hit from Shinola about how engineering really works. Geez...don't get me started!