There was an interesting article in Sunday's paper. The setting was my alma mater, Georgia Tech. The subject was the loss in competitiveness of the United States in the engineering field. The main solution offered in the article was to encourage more women to become engineers.
Of the 855 engineering majors at the school, 87 are women. (10.1%)
One of the causes (given in the article) is the negative stereotype of engineers-'the nerd drinking Cokes and eating Twinkies until 3 in the morning'. This deters females from entering engineering majors.
One point (made in the article) that I wholeheartedly endorse:
To counter the stereotype listed above, William Wulf, president of the National Academy of Engineering said: 'The really important attribute of an engineer is creativity. Somehow, that's not what high school girls are hearing about'.
It took me years to realize that one of the strongest attributes of engineers is creativity. I've said it before that the one, unique thing engineers bring to the table is a thought process. The way we think allows us to apply our skill and talents in any field-manufacturing, coaching, healthcare, etc.
Becoming an engineer does not commit you to a life of design and desk sitting in front of a computer. It opens the world to you and your thought process. Whether male or female, the path you take depends on your ambitions and dreams.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I did a research paper on this very same matter. I think another reason why women do not go into engineering is that there is a large gap in the wages a man makes compared to a woman. Women, I believe are great thinkers, and should be compensated just as adequately as a man. So talk about the fine line or stereotypes. Women want to be as equal as a man when comes to pay, talent, and opportunity.
I read the P&C article and reacted to what seems lilke a missing link. This was the lack of connection in the article between engineering graduates and market demand. I would agree that the US needs more engineers, especially with an emphasis on creativity. However, I have read in other places that the current supply of graduates is keeping up very well with demand (in the US). While a long view might be correct that we, as a nation, need to be directing more energy to engineering of all types, the current amont of energy directed to engineering is well supported by the engineers entering the market. My IEEE publications show no unusual lows in engineering unemployment in the past decade. There seems to be no unusual shortage of engineers.
From a quality perspective, we need to look at the whole system, and who the customer is at each step. If the customers for US engineering output are increasingly not being satisfied by US engineering enterprises, why is this demand not reaching the engineering employment sector? The paper says we lag in graduates, but I suspect that statement reflects a percieved demand that is a few process steps removed from the new college graduate.
I agree that women are great thinkers and that the compensation should be equal. For any man to think otherwise would be wrong especially if the man has a daughter (I do and she is interested in becoming an engineer)
But (as food for thought), should compensation be a deterrent in this case? In my opinion, an engineer's income potential is correlated with his/her goals and work ethic.
Stew,
Great post. This is a fascinating perspective on the subject. I agree with what you are saying. It made me read the article again.
My biggest takeaway from the article was the comment on creativity being an atrribute of engineers. I've felt that for years but know that is not a mainstream perception of engineers.
Post a Comment