<p>Actually, ME, that assumes that each engineering school has the same capacity. If he is correct, that would imply a 66,67% reduction in capacity, not schools, and even then, that would merely imply shutting down their engineering departments.</p>
<p>That said, Homer’s head is so far up his bum that he is finding polyps. I added him to the ignore list. Remember: do not argue with a cockroach; squash it instead.</p>
<p>You are right Vanagandr. It would be assuming that engineering schools have roughly the same capacity. Reduction in capacity would be more accurate. You would need data for all schools and would have to choose the combinations of schools that would accomplish this. Generally speaking, closing 30% of engineering schools would not solve the made up problem that Homer describes, unless perhaps you chose all of the largest schools which he does not specifically say. Nevertheless, there are NOT 3 times too many engineering graduates.</p>
<p>"Nevertheless, there are NOT 3 times too many engineering graduates. "</p>
<p>According to the Rutgers study I linked to on page 4, there are.</p>
<p>“If there are 3 times too many engineering graduates every year, then you would need to close 2/3 of engineering schools or approx. 66.667% to solve the problem.”</p>
<p>No you don’t, because not all engineering graduates take jobs in engineering. There are plenty of engineers in finance and consulting. Also, not all engineering schools have the same enrollment. You are assuming that every single engineering program has the same number of students.</p>
<p>I pointed out that I was making that assumption in my last post. The last paragraph of your article:</p>
<p>“Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable criticizes the new study, saying that it gives an illusion of a robust supply because it bundles all STEM fields together. There may be an oversupply in the life sciences and social sciences, she argues, but there is no question that there are SHORTAGES IN ENGINEERING and the physical sciences. The findings “are not going to make us go back and re-examine everything we’ve been been calling for,” she says.”</p>
<p>You said 3 times too many engineering graduates. Your article never says that as it claims to be grouping all STEM majors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I don’t take that to be an idiotic suggestion at all. While maybe the 30% figure is off-the market, and I don’t know what the correct figure would need to be, I think the notion that some engineering schools should be shut or enrollments reduced is a serious suggestion that deserves serious discussion. The truth of the matter is that probably would help the engineering labor market. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not a simple matter of job placement, but rather the salaries that are paid. For example, I remember back in high school that, during a normal economy, practically every kid who wanted a part-time job could find one…but that would pay minimum wage. It was far more difficult to find a job (as a teenager) that actually paid well. The basic problem was that if you didn’t like the minimum wage job, the employer would find another kid. </p>
<p>But even if you don’t believe in that analysis, the basic question remains: are engineers really being paid what they are worth? Put another way, why are engineers paid so much less than, say, consultants, bankers, and other professions? We’ve now reached a point where many of the very best engineering graduates that the US produces don’t really want to work as engineers. For example, many of the engineering graduates from schools such as MIT and Stanford eschew engineering in favor of consulting and banking, or head to law or medical school - a startling annual drain of prime human capital from the US engineering industry. </p>
<p>Or consider Ankur Luthra, arguably the best engineering graduate from Berkeley in recent history, having won the University Medal (equivalent to the valedictorian), Soros Fellowship, and the Rhodes Scholarship. But did he actually work as an engineer? No. After briefly working as a program manager at Microsoft, he became a venture capitalist and now in private wealth management. Why? </p>
<p>[05.05.2003</a> - Innovative engineering and business graduate Ankur Luthra named University Medalist](<a href=“http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/05/05_ankar.shtml]05.05.2003”>05.05.2003 - Innovative engineering and business graduate Ankur Luthra named University Medalist)</p>
<p>[Ankur</a> Luthra - LinkedIn](<a href=“http://■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/in/ankurluthra]Ankur”>Ankur Luthra - Catapult Homes | LinkedIn)</p>
<p>True sakky, nobody is saying that engineers wouldn’t be more in demand if there were fewer graduates but you could argue this point for every single profession. The point is that Homer’s statements are not correct. There are not 3 times too many engineering graduates. Not even close. Even the article that Homer referenced to support his claim actually refuted it. The last paragraph of the article he references:</p>
<p>“Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable criticizes the new study, saying that it gives an illusion of a robust supply because it bundles all STEM fields together. There may be an oversupply in the life sciences and social sciences, she argues, but there is no question that there are SHORTAGES IN ENGINEERING and the physical sciences. The findings “are not going to make us go back and re-examine everything we’ve been been calling for,” she says.”</p>
<p>
The OP asked whether other majors tend to surpass engineers in salary over time. While your insights into the tragic underpayment of engineers are valuable, they would surely be more suitable in their own thread unless you intend to provide evidence indicating that some other majors tend not to fall into the same trap.</p>
<p>Of course, I will tell about the engineering profession from the view of defense contractors and INTEL agencies. Jobs supporting the government INTEL agencies are secure because let’s face it…and this may sound “morbid”, but if any knowledge of terrorists in some foreign nation PRODUCES some new contract centered on that group. As long as the USA has “beef” with other nations, the INTEL agencies will stay in business and will need the help of the defense contractors.</p>
<p>And back to the engineer pay…As I have said before, it’s not ONLY the pay that I like engineering but I also like the job security. Although I complain, I have to say that I like when a bunch of recruiters are trying to hire me.</p>
<p>ok, fine, I mis-interpreted the results of the STEM survey. Honest mistake. </p>
<p>But that still does not disprove the notion that there are more engineers than jobs. </p>
<p>I do not know exactly how many engineer schools should be closed or have their enrollments reduced. But the fewer engineers there are on the market, the higher the pay engineers will have. It’s simple Econ 101. In fact, I fully support reducing the enrollment or shutting down college for virtually ALL majors. Shut down law schools. Shut down business schools. Shut down liberal arts programs.</p>
<p>Homer,</p>
<p>Your links says “but there is no question that there are SHORTAGES IN ENGINEERING and the physical sciences”</p>
<p>So how do you get “But that still does not disprove the notion that there are more engineers than jobs”?</p>
<p>Homer have a look at this. ME 76 posted the 2009 page somewhere but this is the 2010 page:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.darwinsfinance.com/top-10-college-degrees-2010-best-majors/[/url]”>http://www.darwinsfinance.com/top-10-college-degrees-2010-best-majors/</a></p>
<p>The study that the article was about did not say that there is a shortage of engineers. The person who made that comment did not participate in the study and is a member of the Business Roundtable, a corporate lobbying organization. </p>
<p>From Wikipedia:</p>
<p>“The Business Roundtable is a group of chief executive officers of major U.S. corporations formed to promote pro-business public policy.”</p>
<p>Groups like the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable are primarily interested in increasing the supply of engineers to hold down wages.</p>
<p>“But we suspected that this information may not, in fact,
be totally accurate. In an analysis of salary and employment
data, we did not find any indication of a shortage of engineers
in the United States. Also, we obtained anecdotal evidence
from business executives doing business in India and
China that indicated that those were the countries with
shortages.”</p>
<p>“It is common in many industries to offer signing bonuses
to encourage potential employees to accept a job offer.We
found, however, that 88% of respondents to our survey
did not offer signing bonuses to potential engineering
employees or offered them to only a small percentage of their
new hires. Another measure of skill supply is the amount
of time it takes to fill a vacant position. Respondents to our
survey reported that they were able to fill 80% of engineering
jobs at their companies within four months. In
other words, we found no indication of a shortage of engineers
in the United States.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.soc.duke.edu/GlobalEngineering/pdfs/WhereEngineersAre.pdf[/url]”>http://www.soc.duke.edu/GlobalEngineering/pdfs/WhereEngineersAre.pdf</a></p>
<p>Also, how many engineers see the high salaries that the media constantly publishes? What about engineers who are forced to take low wage work? (see: [From</a> Engineering Major To Cater Waiter: Grads Enter The Job Market](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>From Engineering Major To Cater Waiter: Grads Enter The Job Market | HuffPost College) )… How about the engineering grads who don’t report their salaries to their schools because they don’t make that much? It is common knoledge that only the highest earners report their salaries.</p>
<p>Hell Homer,</p>
<p>I do not have my BSCS yet, and I was asked to take a job as a software engineer making $60K a year without a degree. That’s about the same starting pay for someone with a BSCS.</p>
<p>They asked me to work for them full-time because the company can not find the right people to do the job.</p>
<p>You can posted all the S**T you want, but it does not change the truth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not to be overly harsh, but the key difference, as I see it, as that those other majors, frankly, don’t create much value. Seriously, does the world really need another Art History major? Do they really add value to society? {To be sure, I have a great appreciation of artists, and I actually enjoy reading about art history, but it’s not clear to me that it really adds value to society. As interesting as it might be to compare the Impressionists to the Expressionists, honestly, what does it really accomplish for society at the end of the day? } Many of those majors, to put it bluntly, exist, largely for the purpose of providing students with an easy pathway to graduation. </p>
<p>But engineers actually create value, as they are key components in the technological innovation and economic growth that is inherent to the expansion of social welfare over time. Developments such as electric power, the car, the computer, and the Internet make us better off than past societies. </p>
<p>Hence, while I believe everybody should negotiate for as much money as they can, it’s hard for me to summon that much sympathy for the other majors that, at least to me, don’t really create social value. But engineering (and the natural sciences) do create value. The problem is that they don’t capture much of the value that they create - much of it instead being leeched away by bankers, lawyers, consultants, and the like.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I wouldn’t exactly take the word of a spokeswoman of the Business Roundtable - one of the leading business lobbying groups - as unbiased gospel. She says that there is a shortage of engineers and physical scientists…while leaving one key fact out. I agree, there is indeed a shortage…at the salaries that companies are paying right now. Let’s be perfectly honest - if engineers and physical scientists were being paid $200+k to start, there truly would be no shortage at all, for people would be coming out of the woodwork to become engineers and scientists. But companies aren’t willing to pay that. </p>
<p>While I’m no fan of neoclassical economics, I agree that if there truly was a shortage of engineers and scientists, then you would expect that you would eventually witness salaries being bid up, because market forces abhor a vacuum. But the fact is, salaries are not being bid up. You don’t see bidding wars for the best engineering and science graduates. That’s why many of them choose to abandon science and engineering completely, instead choosing other professions such as consulting and banking. </p>
<p>Consider the poignantly sad words of Nicholas Pearce:</p>
<p>*Even at M.I.T., the U.S.'s premier engineering school, the traditional career path has lost its appeal for some students. Says junior Nicholas Pearce, a chemical-engineering major from Chicago: “It’s marketed as–I don’t want to say dead end but sort of ‘O.K., here’s your role, here’s your lab, here’s what you’re going to be working on.’ Even if it’s a really cool product, you’re locked into it.” Like Gao, Pearce is leaning toward consulting. “If you’re an M.I.T. grad and you’re going to get paid $50,000 to work in a cubicle all day–as opposed to $60,000 in a team setting, plus a bonus, plus this, plus that–it seems like a no-brainer.” *</p>
<p>[Are</a> We Losing Our Edge? - TIME](<a href=“http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1156575-6,00.html]Are”>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1156575-6,00.html)</p>
<p>To continue on with sakky’s post, most top engineering students never go into engineering. They go into finance, consulting, or medical school. Take Vikram Pandit for instance. He got a BS and MS in engineering from Columbia and rather than go into engineering, worked on Wall Street. He is now the CEO of Citi Group.</p>
<p>And as any economist would tell you, there is no such thing as a shortage. If a profession is in tight supply, it is because there are not enough incentives (pay) to pursue that profession.</p>
<p>“Most top engineering students never go into engineering. They go into finance, consulting, or medical school.”</p>
<p>Do you have a statistic for that?</p>
<p>If you look at the data published by the career services offices of top univiersities, you can see for yourself:</p>
<p>At U Penn, only 17% of engineering students accepted engienering jobs:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/careerservices/seas/Survey2009.pdf[/url]”>http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/careerservices/seas/Survey2009.pdf</a> </p>
<p>At MIT, McKinsey was the #1 employer:</p>
<p><a href=“http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation09.pdf[/url]”>http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation09.pdf</a></p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Norris212 et. al. - this discussion would be much more productive if you saw this instead of Homer’s posts.</p>