Yes, engineering still has an image problem. People just
don't get us. If you've read this column before, you know that I touch on this
theme periodically. The fact is, we don't tell our story very well.
Professional societies, trade
associations, companies and universities spend hundreds of millions every year
to improve the public's understanding and impressions of engineering, but a
recent Harris poll shows that people still believe we care more about
technology than improving lives. That matters.
Public policy is based on public impressions and the future of
the engineering industry is dependent upon policies that protect intellectual
property rights, fair trade, jobs, STEM education, research tax credits and a
world-class home-grown workforce. We all
need government and corporate leaders, along with voters and families,
to recognize how central engineering is to our nation's future. For this to
happen, they need to know us better.
The National Academy of Engineering is launching headfirst into
this challenge. Granted, they are not known for having a lot of Madison Avenue
savvy, but the NAE feels compelled to use its influence to help advance the
public's perception of engineering. The group's recently published study,
"Changing the Conversation," sets out to develop coordinated messaging "about
the role, importance and career potential of engineering." From there, it will
be up to organizations that care about engineering to adopt these messages in
teaching tools, student recruiting brochures, federal reports and national
commercials. (I recently attended a stakeholders meeting at the NAE to explore
"No profession unleashes the spirit of innovation like
engineering," is the opening line of the report's position statement. Good
start, but like all inspirational marketing, there is always a gap that needs
filling between vision and reality. Here are just a couple of examples I have
been focusing on:
current, often staid, academic programs have high potential for turning
off the new generation of students who will respond to a more heroic view of
engineering. Solution: Push hard to ensure that universities provide exciting
real-world engineering projects through all four years of college.
struggling to retain talented, experienced engineers don't necessarily want to
lose them to management; others argue that the technical track would remain
more attractive if it contained a path to greater responsibility and rewards
while staying on the engineering side of the business. Solution: Push companies
and professional societies to better explore and define a wider variety of
career paths for engineers. This will help recruit an even wider range of
talented individuals to our field.
The NAE meeting was successful
in ways I never expected. In one respect, just putting together a room full of engineers
to discuss new messaging strategies is daunting. But while we came together to
develop messages to share with people outside our field, it's possible that we
realized our biggest success was in learning how to talk to each other about
where we'd like to aim the future of engineering.
I believe that people should be educated on the daily benifits from engineers and what they do for society. Their lives are better because of it. Look at the progress over the last 100 years. Engineers played a big part in where we are today.
Engineering is everywhere! From the glass you are drinking out of, the cell phone you're using, the car you drive, the bed you sleep on; I could go on and on...but I think you get the point.
Our problem, as Mr. Orsak states, is academic programs have high potential for turning off the new generation of students. This is huge!
I have a daughter that is enjoying a full ride through academic achievement at a Tennessee University. What is she good at? Math. She flew through Calculus. 2 areas of study interest her: Business Finance and Architectual Engineering. What is she leaning towards? Business Finance. Why? Because she sees the stereotypical engineer in a stuffy, cramped little office crunching numbers with little interface with others. Boring. I'm a Plastics Engineer and I love my job and its anything but boring...because I make it that way.
If you see a hitchhiker along the road in Canada this summer, it may not be human. That’s because a robot is thumbing its way across our neighbor to the north as part of a collaborative research project by several Canadian universities.
Stanford University researchers have found a way to realize what’s been called the “Holy Grail” of battery-design research -- designing a pure lithium anode for lithium-based batteries. The design has great potential to provide unprecedented efficiency and performance in lithium-based batteries that could substantially drive down the cost of electric vehicles and solve the charging problems associated with smartphones.
Robots in films during the 2000s hit the big time; no longer are they the sidekicks of nerdy character actors. Robots we see on the big screen in recent years include Nicole Kidman, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Eddie Murphy. Top star of the era, Will Smith, takes a spin as a robot investigator in I, Robot. Robots (or androids or cyborgs) are fully mainstream in the 2000s.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.