(1) There are today real shortages in a number of engineering fields, evidence for which is found in unfilled recruiting goals

in industry, rapidly escalating starting salaries for baccalaureates, and declining graduate enrollments. While engineering graduates are only 8% of college population, they receive 65% of the job offers. In an appendix to this statement, I have provided the most recent data from the Division of Science Resources Studies of the National Science Foundation on current labor market conditions for

scientists and engineers.

(2) Projections of industry needs generally exceed the supply by a significant factor, while new U.S. engineering graduates are expected to increase by only 10% in the next decade according to the National Center for Educational Statistics.

(3) Many of us in industry, looking at the people we are hiring, are concerned that the engineering population will not be adequate because of the decline in high school enrollments in science and math, and declining availability of such instruction. (4) Another threat is found in a significant drop in U.S. students obtaining doctorates in engineering which threatens to jeopardize the availability of sufficient numbers of faculty in engineering. There are today many unfilled faculty positions. Estimates range between 1,600 and 2,000 or about 8 to 10% of the total engineering teaching faculty in the United States. In computer science the numbers of vacancies are smaller, but the percentage is even more serious.

The fears are that this deficit

in faculty will result in an overall deterioration of the

quality of engineering education.

Engineering doctorates awarded reached a peak of 3,774

(773 foreign nationals) in 1972. The number has drifted downward to 2,751 (982 foreign nationals) in 1980, a decrease of 1,232 engineering doctorates awarded to U.S. citizens--a 41% drop. Thus, about 1,769 new engineering doctorates were available in 1980 for all industry, government, and academic institutions. Industry clearly has the greatest flexibility in setting starting salaries and in competing for the services of these students. The availability of up-to-date equipment is also a positive factor in favor of industry.

(5) Many are concerned about the quality of training many engineers receive, as a result of inadequate faculty, obsolete instructional equipment, and lack of contact with the technologies practiced in the most advanced companies.

Many people in industry feel that U.S. engineering education overemphasizes preparation for careers in research and development at the expense of training in design for manufacturability, design and production automation and manufacturing engineering--all areas vital to achievement of high quality, low cost products in

American industry.

The facilities required for instruction in advanced design automation, process control or complex fabrication technologies are not only expensive and become very rapidly obsolete, but engineering faculties generally lack experiences in these areas. Where shall we lay the causes of these trends? start with a decline in the motivation of our young people to take up intellectual pursuits in general and science and engineering

They surely

86-912 0-82-6

specifically.

This problem is not only a problem in our schools,

but is a part of the societal attitudes that gave us a "me" generation in the 1970s, which Daniel Yankelovitch tells us has become the "gimme" generation of the 1980s.

It is very difficult for young people to commit themselves to the expense of a doctorate level graduate training. The temptation of those B.S. graduates in shortage categories to take high paying jobs instead of getting additional training is understandable.

But

it is short changing both the universities and industry in a time of rapidly escalating technical complexity in modern design and manufacturing processes.

Young faculty are leaving for industrial careers in increasing numbers, in part because of substantial differentials in compensation. But I suspect that much bigger reasons are lack of facilities and resources in the university to do competitive technical work, uncertainty about the outcome of a 10-year quest for tenure and a growing overload of teaching duties and a diminished prospect for research support. In sum, technical careers in the university are simply no longer as attractive as once they were.

made.

Now there are observations about these facts that need to be First, the best of our engineers are superbly trained, and some of the best training is found in smaller, specialized technical universities, in addition to the great institutions most widely known to the public.

A highly talented, well motivated graduate, trained in the most modern areas of engineering with the latest equipment, is much more valuable, and is productive sooner, than his fellow

student from an overcrowded, understaffed, poorly equipped, out-of-date institution. You cannot equate their value by counting

numbers. Thus the supply and demand picture is deeply entwined with the matter of quality--how bright and how well equipped with skill and knowledge they are. In a time of serious financial stringency our schools, our research and fellowship-funding agencies and our employers cannot afford to stray from priority attention to giving opportunity to the most promising students

and faculty.

Next we should admit that we do not necessarily need to expand the capacity of our universities in view of the fact that in some fields of engineering attrition from entrance to the B.S. degree runs 40%. Furthermore, we can still expand the talent pool from

whom to draw by removing obstacles and disincentives from the path of bright young women, minorities and others who are today needlessly discouraged from pursuing technical careers.

We should also be sensitive to the danger of downgrading the training and job assignments of engineers by using them as

technicians, to compensate for the lack of adequate institutions for technician training in the U. s.

What can be done to address these problems?

First, let me express a personal view that the problems must first be addressed with the academic community. Government and industry can and must help, but the faculties must gain conviction on the kind of engineering that should be taught, the kinds of research that they should do and look to the guidance of their students into the most promising careers. Universities should