I specifically like how he points out the fact that engineering is a "learned profession." He expounds on the history of engineering from a time when the general public did not have an advanced degree and therefore a four-year education was suitable. But today, when a much larger percentage of the public holds a four-year degree, are we really any more learned than the next guy? How can we expect to protect the title of Engineer, and have the public hold engineering to a high esteem, if we do not hold a quantitative measure of our "learnedness" above that of the general public?
But then, turn the page. No really, on the next page of the PE Magazine November issue.
One Reason Why Additional Education is Not Enough
The next page shows a chart of engineering salaries broken out by identity: Engineering Technician, Engineering Technologist, Engineer, Professional Engineer, and Other. I was not able to find the image, so I had to recreate the data.
|Source: National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies' (NICET) Annual Salary Survey|
Engineers graduating with a four-year degree leave school with a sizable debt. Yet, even after the four years of required experience (typical of most licensure requirements across the US), the typical salary is still between $40k and $59k per year. That is the same salary range as all other engineering types and even "non-learned" professions. Now why would any student smart enough to be an engineer look at those numbers and decide to invest in an advanced degree? They would be graduating later in life, making an income later in life, owing more debt in student loans, and not make a higher salary to compensate for the increased debt. The student would do all of that just to have two initials at the end of their name in a political climate that allows for industry exemption in most fields anyway? In other words, they don't need to be a P.E. to do the fun engineering work that drove them into the career in the first place. Looking closer at the chart, out of the 5,000 respondents to NICET's survey, a higher percentage of the non-professional engineers actually makes more than the professional engineers (for salary ranges above $59k).
Why Pay More for a Commodity?
Maybe the solution is to convince industry to pay more for licensure, since the esteem of having a professional engineer is higher and therefore the engineer would be worth more. 1) I doubt it. 2) Even without a difficult economic climate the engineering profession is on a long spiral of commoditization. Raise the cost of an engineer in the US and that function will be shipped overseas to people who are just as intelligent and capable, but get paid less. In short, the public welfare is still protected because foreign-born engineers get equivalent education and experience as US born engineers, sometimes even more. And I don't want to sound protectionist just for the US. There are plenty of other countries in the world having similar issues with regards to the engineering profession.
I'm sure plenty of students will step up the challenge and there will be no shortage of engineers. But, we currently need to continue increasing the awareness of engineering through STEM programs to young students -- grade school through high school. We also need to get involved politically and work to remove or limit industry exemptions. Then, and only then, will engineering be a learned profession held in high esteem.