Engineering majors: the few, the proud, the alleged golden ticket for the future of US innovation and prosperity ( No pressure, right? ).
But seriously, engineering is a tough field. Not many people can do what you do, and that’s something to be proud of. But many students who exert the same talent, intellect and interest in STEM careers end up switching majors . . .And that’s something to be alarmed about. According to the NY Times, 40 percent of students taking on engineering and science majors end up switching to other fields.
So why are talented students jumping ship?
1. There are Easier Ways to Make Good Money.
My father graduated from Georgia Tech and works as a Senior Electrical Engineer. He’s great at his job, but he has no problem saying he entered the field for the money (and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that!) With a high demand and starting salaries well over 60,000, engineering is a safe bet for a great income.
But these days, engineering’s got a lot of competition, especially with the glorification of Wall Street in the 80′s and 90′s. Many students who originally declare a degree in science are switching over to banking and finance, where the job titles are sexy and the promise of huge salaries is prevalent.
Wall Street, of course, isn’t the only place we’re loosing engineering talent. A recent story in the NY Times tells the story of Matthew Monitz, a top-tier student with a longstanding interest (and resume) geared toward engineering. Yet he dropped out of the major his sophomore year to pursue a career as a clinical psychologist. And his four good friends from the Engineering Department also jumped ship to respective degrees in finance, music and business.
Money is a great incentive, but there are too many other–often less demanding–ways to make good money. And students are well aware of this.
2. The Classroom Setting (Often) Sucks.
Now, you could argue that our friend Matthew Monitz was unfocused or did not have a true interest in a STEM career. But his big frustration was that his professors didn’t teach the application of engineering formulas: “It was just like, do these problems, and you’re on your own,” he laments. While engineering is known as a tough major, you’d think you’d get a little more from Notre Dame.
But this seems to be a longstanding trend with Engineering Departments. In 2005, the National Academy of Engineering stated, “Treating the freshman year as a ‘sink or swim’ experience and accepting attrition as inevitable is both unfair to students and wasteful of resources and faculty time.”
So maybe the old school “do or die” mentality isn’t effective anymore. Students wanting a more passionate, engaging or instructive classroom experience don’t respond well in this environment, and many resort to Reason #1 on this list, and, unfortunately, choose another path.
3. A Different Time, a Different SPACE.
As you know, the chips weren’t always down. The U.S. was once the undisputed worldwide leader in the education of engineers. In 1966, U.S.-born students received 77 percent of all U.S. science and engineering doctorate degrees, compared with 60 percent in 2000.
But back in the 60s, Americans were obsessed with the Space Race, making science and engineering part of the daily headlines. In this respect, the media glorified engineering and science much like it does Wall Street today. Arguably, the need for engineers is just as great now was then, but now we have a different view of engineering and science, and it’s effecting our national percentage of graduating engineers.
###
Admittedly, there are many other factors beyond these 3 Reasons, but contemplating them leads us to the bigger question: how can we fix the problem?
For years, policy makers have been banging their heads against the wall asking themselves the very same thing. President Obama and industry groups have called on colleges to graduate 10,000 more engineers a year and 100,000 new teachers with majors in STEM. Businesses are stepping up as well, like Dow Company Donating $125 Million to Chemical Engineering departments across the country, and such initiatives are bound to pay off.
As a nation we seem to be addressing the problem, and I honestly think we’re trending in the right direction. Hopefully engineers, the few and the proud, will keep gaining talented recruits.
Do you agree with these three points? Please comment and share your own opinions!
November 9, 2011 at 1:42 am
The curriculum, faculty and the image of engineers conspire to discourage the progression of engineering undergraduates.
The curriculum is painfully slow to get the student involved in engineering. Two years of math, physics and chemistry that provide principles, but little or no application, kill interest. Schools try to address this deficiency by providing an introductory course that showcases design, but a single course cannot not sustain the freshman through the four semesters of abstract science that are now needed to gain entry to engineering courses. A new approach is needed.
The faculty must be excited about engineering and show it through their enthusiasm. Teachers must be inspirational leaders to their students. They must use student-centered learning exercises that use little or no lecture format. A student-centered learning approach requires small class sizes (<22) to have success. Schools must provide multiple offerings of the required courses to enable class sizes to be manageable, so the teacher can interact with students individually and in small groups. Many schools refuse to require the faculty to teach multiple sections of the same course. Instead the school provides one section in a lecture hall. Additionally, the university insists that the faculty do sponsored research with results published in peer-reviewed journals. Faculty are retained and promoted on research results. Teaching will rarely excel where the faculty member must publish or perish, despite the claims of the Dean. Teaching must come first to succeed.
Engineers have an image issue. A Facebook forum said "engineers aren't boring people, we are just excited about boring things." Even that statement demeans the engineer. We're excited about design and problem solving. What's boring about that! We strive with nature to make it serve the needs of people in a sustainable fashion. Enthusiasm from teachers and students can counter a boring image
The solution seems clear. A capable and dedicated teaching faculty working with 21st century curricula at an university that will commit to small class size and student-centered teaching can attract and nurture students. These students will make a reputation for themselves, and in the process, make the engineering program a magnet for prospective engineers. Some university must champion this solution or we will continue to lose students and lose the future for our nation.
November 11, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Ron– I think you’ve nailed it. Huge lecture halls and teachers motivated solely by their published works isn’t inspirational for anyone, much less engineering students, who really need those hours of class time to apply the overwhelming amount of technical information they’re required to take in.
I remember choosing my major in college. I was interested in several different fields that would have all been solid career choices, but I chose English because I loved the experience. I looked up to my teachers–they were true mentors. I enjoyed class discussion. I had things in common with the students around me. I felt motivated and inspired to produce my best work.
That’s what most 20 years-old will base their decision on, and the future of US innovation. . .Probably not a huge part of the equation, although it needs to be. Like you’ve pointed out, some change must happen on the university level to engage students.
November 12, 2011 at 3:43 pm
There is hope. Think Small!
Many good quality programs can be found that emphasize teaching and student retention. The programs that offer the most academic support are small programs at schools with a total student population of less than 10,000. The new student will receive individual attention and high quality advising that are often missing at large research-oriented schools. Prospective students and their parents can find these schools in a comprehensive annual publication called Engineering College Profiles and Statistics Book published by ASEE. Go to ASEE.org on the web and look under publications.
Another approach is to find a small college that offers a 2 + 2, or 2 + 3 program. The student will attend the small school for 2 years to obtain the necessary math, chemistry and physics needed for an engineering major, then they will attend a larger school, affiliated with the smaller college, to complete their engineering degree. The small school often has this program within their physics department. The student will transfer to a larger school that offers an engineering degree. These programs are more common than you may think.
A third approach is to attend a community college to complete the basic 2 years of math and science. Most community colleges that are state institutions have integrated their course offerings with the large state research universities in the same state. The integration is substantial so that the course numbers of the math and science courses correspond exactly with the courses offered at the large institution. The state systems have ensured that the course contents are identical at both the large and small institution so the student will be assured that the credits obtained at the smaller state school will transfer to the larger school program provided that the student attained a grade of C or better.
Don’t rely on the high school guidance counselor to be well versed about these options.
November 17, 2011 at 7:19 pm
[...] by Amanda Moreno, Editor-In-ChiefView all posts by Amanda Moreno I’ve discussed in previous posts, many science-minded students end up choosing non-STEM related careers. Policy-makers are [...]
December 3, 2011 at 9:46 pm
affiliateblogempire review…
[...]3 Reasons Engineering Majors Drop Off | Knovel Blog[...]…
December 13, 2011 at 9:18 pm
I did not read this article over with a fine toothed comb but I saw no mention into the fact that there are quite a few less engineering jobs available today. Perhaps that is because we have modern day “Benedict Arnolds” that shipped much of our technology jobs over to China. The China rush left a void in our own backyard for many young engineering hopefuls. Look at all the Wall Street multi-million dollar bonuses and you will see another reason why it is more advantageous to go for that Masters in Business Degree. We caused these problems ourselves so I cannot be too hard on China. Somehow we did not instill the pride of being an American into many of our youth in the generations since mine. Sacrifice, hard work and pride about being a citizen of this great country was what made us great. However today we have slipped so far down the rungs of the ladder I am wondering if I will live long enough to see this country regain its former presence in the world. Of course this is just my own opinion but I am old enough to have seen better days. Those that aren’t would not know what I am talking about. I still work towards creating more engineers but without jobs out there for them to get, why do we do this? Maybe it would be better to teach them Chinese so they can go over there with GE for some jobs. I hope I am not sounding the wrong way here. I am retired but gave that up to help train young people for those few jobs we have left here before all of our young engineers leave for countries with high tech jobs. Sorry to vent here but I am very worried about our younger generation and America too.
December 23, 2011 at 9:59 pm
phlebotomy…
[...]3 Reasons Engineering Majors Drop Off | Knovel Blog[...]…
January 7, 2012 at 1:48 am
financial advisor…
[...]3 Reasons Engineering Majors Drop Off | Knovel Blog[...]…
March 30, 2012 at 12:00 pm
I agree Pedro, but hasn’t he been named at loosehead? Report Pay that: 0