I see. I am just concerned, eventually the software/tech jobs, like those manufacturing jobs post war will move overseas…it could become the next cheap labors. It is already happening
The problem for the US prestige privates is that the relatively low (for those colleges) ceilings for the SAT and ACT do not sufficiently distinguish the applicants at the top of the tests’ ranges. The main market for college admission testing is for moderately selective colleges where 400 versus 500 versus 600 versus 700 on an SAT section is a meaningful difference within their applicant pools, and the test companies probably do not want to deal with a special low-volume test for a small number of colleges where much of the applicant pool is compressed within the 750 to 800 range on an SAT section.
4 Likes
Engineering does not require attending an “elite” college or elite program. Most engineers in the united states do not attend such programs. The portion of students studying engineering is small compared to certain other countries. Some specific numbers are below, for undergrad:
Percent with Undergrad Degree in Engineering
1 China – 33% Engineering
2. South Korea – 23% Engineering
3. Germany – 22% Engineering
4. Poland – 20% Engineering
5. Taiwan – 19% Engineering
6. Spain – 16% Engineering
7. Japan – 15% Engineering
8. France – 15% Engineering
9. Italy – 14% Engineering
10. United Kingdom – 8% Engineering
11. United States – 7% Engineering
In contrast, the order is largely reversed for social sciences
Percent with Undergrad Degree in Social Sciences
1 . United States – 19% Social Sciences
2. United Kingdom – 13% Social Sciences
3. Italy – 13% Social Sciences
4. Poland – 12% Social Sciences
5. Japan – 10% Social Sciences
6. Spain – 9% Social Sciences
7. France – 9% Social Sciences
8. South Korea – 7% Social Sciences
9. Germany – 6% Social Sciences
10. China – 6% Social Sciences
11. Taiwan – 3% Social Sciences
Compared to certain other countries, kids in the US are much less likely to study engineering and much more likely to study social sciences. I expect this pattern has little to do with admission to certain selective colleges that aren’t required for engineering being more holistic than other countries or STEM majors not being admitted purely on merit. I expect it has far more to do with differences in culture, the educational system as a whole, and career prospects in non-engineering fields.
However, it sounds like emi722’s comment more relates to a large portion of engineers at certain US companies being originally from outside of the US than degree recipients in other countries. I work in engineering and have observed this pattern as well. An example chart is below. It indicates a reasonable portion of bachelor’s share foreign born in engineering, but a large 38% of master’s being foreign born and 57% of doctoral engineering positions being foreign born. A similar pattern occurs at US universities, with grad engineering programs often having large portion foreign born.
There are many contributing factors. An important one is it is generally much easier to obtain US citizenship for engineers than persons working in most other fields, particularly for foreign born persons with graduate degrees in engineering. Another is there is often a large potential difference in income between what foreign born engineers can earn in the United States and in their home country. Another is there are more engineering jobs in the US than there are domestic engineering degree recipients, particularly for jobs that require/expect graduate degrees.
Regarding engineering not being “where the money is”. A list of majors with the highest median first year earnings, as listed in CollegeScorecard database is below. Engineering majors as a whole do fine in earnings.
Highest Median 1st Year Earnings: All Colleges
1 . Computer Eng – $70k
2. Electrical Eng – $70k
3. Industrial Eng – $67k
4. Computer Science – $66k
5. Construction Management – $65k
6. Chemical Eng – $65k
7. Mechanical Eng – $65k
8. Aerospace Eng – $65k
9. Nursing – $64k
10. General Eng – $61k
I don’t think that certain selective colleges admitting more by “merit” for undergrad would do much to change this pattern. There are plenty of quality engineering programs that do admit mostly by stats, even if ivy+ type colleges have different admission systems.
6 Likes
It’s outsourced because anyone can do the less technical stuff, so they send it to the cheapest market that produces acceptable results. Capitalism is about getting what you need the cheapest way possible. The heavy lifting conceptual stuff is still done here because anyone who can do it won’t do it on the cheap. There’s a reason that high level SEs at Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. can make $1M a year.
5 Likes
Adding to my earlier post, I was curious about the how the engineering degree percentages varied at selective colleges, so I reviewed in IPEDS. Numbers are below for 57 of the most selective colleges in the United States based on a combination of admit rate and 75th percentile ACT score. The 57 colleges include Ivy+ colleges, not quite as selective colleges like NYU and Northeastern, a few publics, and some LACs.
First Bachelor’s Degree: CIP Grouping, Male Students
1 . Engineering (sum of all subfields) – 16%
2. Computer Science – 13%
3. Economics – 10%
4. Biological Sciences – 8%
5. Math + Stats – 5%
6. Physical Sciences – 4%
Sum of Above – 55% STEM
First Bachelor’s Degree: CIP Grouping, Female Students
1 . Biological Sciences – 12%
2. Engineering (sum of all subfields) – 8%
3. Computer Science – 5%
4. Economics – 5%
5. Math + Stats – 4%
6. Physical Sciences – 3%
Sum of Above – 35% STEM
As one would expect, there was a wide variation between different colleges. At some tech colleges, the majority of students majored in engineering. Some LACs had no students majoring in engineering. Some of the non-tech colleges with a high % engineering include:
Non-Tech Colleges with Most Engineering Degree Recipients
1 . CMU – 27% Men / 18% Women
2. JHU – 26% Men / 16% Women
3. Northeastern – 28% Men / 11% Women
4. WUSTL – 25% Men / 11% Women
5. Stanford – 17% Men / 17% Women (not a typo)
6. Rice – 21% Men / 12% Women
7. Northwestern – 20% Men / 13% Women
8. Duke – 20% Men / 11% Women
9. Vanderbilt – 20% Men / 11% Women
10. Michigan – 21% Men / 9% Women
For CS, the list is
Non-Tech Colleges with Most CS Degree Recipients
1 . Stanford – 24% Men / 12% Women
2. Michigan – 20% Men / 9% Women
3. CMU – 15% Men / 12% Women
4. Columbia – 16% Men / 11% Women
5. Cornell – 16% Men / 10% Women
6. Brown – 15% Men / 10% Women
7. Princeton-- 16% Men / 9% Women
8. Duke – 17% Men / 8% Women
9. Tufts-- 18% Men / 6% Women
10. Rice-- 17% Men / 7% Women
I don’t see a lot of pattern between which colleges are more/less holistic and portion pursuing tech. I do see that in general highly selective colleges tend to have a larger portion pursuing CS than less selective colleges. Highly selective colleges with more holistic type admission also tend to have a better gender balance than ones with not quite as holistic admission
2 Likes
Some
So merit is grades and test scores. In order to streamline the process and make it fair, it should be a standardized test scores and objective.
Recommendations – subjective recommendations should not count. I have seen many high school teachers give very faboeable recommendations because their kids are friends with other kids or they know some parents. Objective recommendations may to some degree be okay.
Extra curriculara-- The only reason a college should take extra curriculars into account is if they are recruiting the student for that extra curricular like some sport for example. Extra curricular activities like music sports research etc are required for a well balanced mind body relationship. Students with exposure to ECs can show it in their academic work. Empathy passion creativity leadership all are traits required for being successful in life but how do you measure them?
I have seen some genuine ECs and some check box ECs. I have seen many students who have 3 research publications in high school. How in the world is it possible for a high school student to get 3 publications in high school? I have seen doctoral candidates scramble to get just a few. The point is that even though ECs are necessary for a healthy mind most ECs are “rigged”.
I know many students get into Ivy League or other Tier 1 colleges and have like 7-10 ECs. As soon as they join the college the number of ECs reduce to 2!! Or even 1 or zero! You should indulge in ECs because you like music not because colleges like students who have taken music, if you know what I mean.
Some students with connections shadow physicians if they are interested in medicine. Smarter kids dont even get a chance some times.
Having an interest does not mean you are qualified. Qualification comes from academic expertise. Empathy , passion, wanting to make world peace all this is good and are required but this does not make you more qualified in a certain field.
So in short ECs should not be considered.
There is no substitute for academic expertise. If you want to get selexted in a basketball team it should not matter how tasty a lasagne you can make! All that should matter is how you play basketball!
4 Likes
Don’t know if it was mentioned upthread but another reason for many Engineers being born outside the US is, US Math education from K-12. US math education is sorely lacking until the college level. Unless/until you attend a school where there is a solid math program, it is highly unlikely that you will be able to get a STEM degree. In fact, many students start out in engineering and have to switch to something else due to their lack of pre-college education. There are rare birds, kids who can teach themselves high level math. But for the most part, a kid is reliant on what is taught K-12. Many parents ( esp those born outside the US) recognize that math education is poor and send their kids to extra programs or have their kids do things like Khan/AOps etc. They know that the curriculum isn’t enough. This is sad and puts the US at a STEM disadvantage.
It’s not that Americans are bad at math, at all. It’s that K-12 math education is primarily dependent on the local school district, $$ and parental involvement.
There is also a huge disparity in math education between the top income earners and lowest incomes. In high SES areas, many people work in jobs (tech, finance) which involve math. So the focus on and acknowledgement of math skills is key. In low income areas, there are often a lack of math specialists and access to higher level courses.
We are cutting off opportunities for kids who lean toward STEM at a very early age in some communities. This is tragic and has a ripple effect, IMO.
7 Likes
‘“I am not interested in going into the debate of “holistic review.”’
You can’t ask this question on a website primarily dedicated to US college admissions, and then tell us that we can’t refer to holistic admissions in relation to your question.
MIT uses holistic admissions. (Search for the famous MIT blog post, Applying Sideways.) Last I heard, they are pretty good at research and innovation. So I don’t see a problem. Clearly holistic admission achieves good results. People don’t like it when their kid does not benefit from holistic admissions though.
5 Likes
First, I disagree with your statement that kids can’t get a stem degree unless they went to a high school with what you refer to as a “solid math program”. I’m not sure how you are defining that, but kids go into stem from all high schools. Though admittedly this was back in the Stone Age, I went to a high school that didn’t even offer calculus, and I graduated with an engineering degree from a top 20 university.
Second, in my opinion, the practice of many immigrant parents sending their kids to extra programs is misguided. These parents are putting way too much emphasis on math, and then they come here complaining that their kid who was so advanced at math didn’t get into the colleges they wanted. These parents are expecting the US system to be like the system in their home countries, and just can’t seem to accept that it works differently and different skills are valued. It’s not all about math. There are no brownie points for being three years advanced beyond the standard high school track.
12 Likes
My dad has a BS/MS from MIT. Not only did he not have Calculus, he didn’t have pre-Calc or Trig. He went to a rural high school that alternated Geometry and Trigonometry.
Almost every engineering program in the US, including MIT, has a curriculum built around starting in Calc I. Many entering now days certainly have more, and it can be advantageous, but it certainly isn’t a requirement.
It is interesting that some institutions that aren’t largely tech related have high ROIs too. When I’ve compared engineering salaries, they are typically similar among many selective and non-selective schools. My suspicion is that students who get non-tech degrees from prestigious institutions earn more than their counterparts with the same degrees from non-selective schools and that’s what makes the difference. Is there any data to back that up?
2 Likes
@Park1212 wrote: " Extra curricular activities like music sports research etc are required for a well balanced mind body relationship. Students with exposure to ECs can show it in their academic work."
Perhaps. But contrast the student with diverse ECs who has the well balanced mind body relationship with the student who has no ECs and spends all their free time working on their academic work. The former may be healthier, happier, and better able to multi-task while the latter may have better academic credentials because that is the product of 100% of their effort. As an employer or AO, I’d prefer the former but removing ECs from the analysis removes considering that dimension. If we don’t interview or somehow capture the full picture of how the student achieved their academic credentials and what else they were doing that provided value to them and to the world, we, in my view, miss those intangibles that potentially make a student valuable and potentially indicate their future success.
2 Likes
It’s clear from this thread that people have different definitions of what academic merit should be for college admissions. To me, it isn’t just about grades and test scores, even though they are important parts of it. It’s about an applicant’s academic potential.
Judging someone’s potential is hard, and certainly can’t be accomplished with a brief and cursory review of materials that are prone to exaggeration and inauthenticity by an AO who may not be the best judge of that potential. The most important part of Oxbridge admissions, which I consider to be the best practice of meritocratic college admissions, isn’t the grades and test scores, but the faculty interviews, where knowledgeable professors in the field are in a much better position to judge an applicant’s potential.
6 Likes
Things have changed since you went to college. Likely a lot. I don’t know about your stone age experience but I do mine. The Ivy I attended would likely be impossible for me to get into in 2022. I got into multiple Ivies. Almost impossible these days.
One person attending a top school from a poor STEM program doesn’t negate the fact that the US is behind the world in STEM education K-12. And I did write that there are some kids who would self teach. Jump into MIT these days without a solid math education and see where you land. I wouldn’t want to be the kid learning Calc @ MIT when all my peers had already taken it.
Immigrant parents and math: Also disagree here. These parents are looking at the wider world and making sure their kids have a place in it ( and a job). Their approach may be different than yours but I don’t think their college acceptance is necessarily tied to their interest in math. Many just want their kids to be productive and have good jobs ( which is easier in STEM than many other fields).
4 Likes
Neither would I, but the point is that the system is built so that you can.
Agree with this, but I would also say it is easier to assess STEM academic potential than Humanities/Social Science potential. There are more objective standards to go by, whether it is testing, course rigor and resulting grades, research and academic competitions. I do think if an applicant indicates an academic interest in STEM, admissions officers will give a great deal of weight to how the applicant stacks up in these objective measures, factoring in opportunity.
3 Likes
I don’t think it’s as easy as it might appear. I knew a retired Caltech professor that ran a huge NASA program at JPL. He had PhDs in both Math and Physics. He said he had very pedestrian engineers working for him that trained at Caltech and very good ones that went to “Podunk U.” You’d assume that the Caltech grads would have aced any objective measurements. He said what made the difference though was very intangible…curiosity and drive. Those are difficult to assess in a short period of time.
1 Like
My H was at a tech conference yesterday and one of the presenters said that they care very little where a potential new hire went to school, or even their specific major. He said that they can teach the technical stuff to almost anyone, but much more difficult to teach “fit”. The presenter said it’s way more important to them to find people who will thrive in their company culture and fit in to their work teams.
3 Likes
Fair enough. But let me discuss 3 students I have interacted with. All did well in GPA: ranked in the top 10% but not top 5% of thei class, and good but not perfect SAT’s: say the 760 ballpark.
Student #1 made their own skis. He had developed a complex empirical model allowing performance to be predicted based on several design parameters. This allowed him to accurately model design tradeoffs. Hundreds of hours - maybe thousands - went into this,
Students $2 and #3 participated in their school’s Math Team. Both ended up finishing in single digits (if not #1) statewide.
All three had EC performance that demonstrated their abilities in ways not captured by GPA or SAT, All are things I would consider “merit”, even if more subjective.
All were admitted to top tier schools, all received advanced degrees. Today, one works for JPL, one for Google, and one is a professor at a state flagship. Nobody would credibly argue that they are not successful.
I believe ECs are informative. I also believe that looking only at GPA and standardized tests does not fully capture “merit”, and that the definition of “merit” has its own subjectivities.
4 Likes
It was a long time ago, but I actually was a kid learning calculus at MIT when the large majority of my peers had already taken it. Freshman year calculus at MIT was even way back then a relatively small class (and there was only one session). However it was very well taught at least when I took it. Allegedly MIT teaches 1 1/2 years of calculus + differential equations in one year, but it really is not difficult on an “MIT math class” level.
I never saw this as a disadvantage. Calculus was a corequisite for freshman year physics. They would teach us something in calculus and then use it a few days later in physics class. During my freshman year I was also taking the appropriate courses leading to a possible major in mechanical engineering, and again I was fine – but probably only because I was doing very well in the calculus course that I needed to take at the same time.
To me this implies that at a minimum a person going to MIT to major in almost anything, or arriving at almost any university intending to major in engineering, physics, or math, needs to be very ready to take calculus starting on the first day that they arrive on campus. I suspect that a lot of our high school graduates in the US are not ready to do this.
Exactly.
I do think that the US has relatively mediocre mathematics education through elementary, middle, and high schools. However the US also has only 5% of the world’s population. Asia by comparison has about 58% of the world’s population. It is not a big surprise that there are more kids who are good in math in Asia because there are more kids in Asia.
Working in high tech in a US based company, a lot more than 58% of my coworkers are from Asia or of Asian ancestry. More than 5% of my coworkers are US born, but not much more and we are in the US.
I have certainly seen this (at least the second part – Caltech is a very long way from where I live so their graduates do not typically make it this far into the world of snow and winter). Many excellent high school graduates are attending in-state public universities, or universities near where they live. Some of this might be based on where they can get accepted, and some on affordability (possibly due to merit scholarships, or because they can live at home, or both).
I am not sure that this is really a problem for anyone other than the top ranked universities. University reputations change very slowly – on an “over multiple generations” rate of speed. However, if the top students attend Podunk university, hiring managers will notice quickly (and already have) and university reputations will eventually follow.
But I think that the exceptional students are finding universities that they can get accepted to, that give them a very strong education, and that can lead to a good job and a good career.
I certainly work with some truly exceptional engineers that attended relatively “ordinary” universities.
4 Likes