Why the United States Does Not Have a lot of Good Engineers
Hint: $$$
I get frustrated when I hear about all of the reasons why the United States does not have enough engineers. See here, here, or God forbid even here, for example. People talk about better schooling, more innovative schooling, more science programs, engaging kids at younger ages, etc. It actually makes me mad. The answer has NOTHING to do with science. It has everything to do with simple economics.
First I will give a little background on myself: almost a straight A student, attended a very good undergraduate engineering program, earned a Master’s degree in engineering, awarded 6 patents, promoted to manager, and accomplished all this (and more) by the age of 32. Engineering is a difficult and noble profession. It can provide many challenges, genuine exciting moments of discovery and invention, as well as above average job security. Now I will tell you why I do not recommend anyone to go into engineering.
The problem is money. Period. Anyone that argues that more schooling, more exposure to science, more interesting ways to teach science, or anything other than money will get people to go into engineering are wrong. Top professionals in fields such as finance, consulting, or law are paid much better than top engineers (at least 2 to 3X of an engineer, potentially much more) - and the secret is out. These professions require the same abilities in math, logic, and creative thinking that engineering also needs. Many of the best and brightest I knew in school have gone onto non-engineering professions and now earn more than I do.
It should also be pointed out that the problem is not necessarily a lack of engineers in the United States, but the lack of our best and brightest going into engineering. These are the motivated overachievers that combine both brains and the drive to solve any problem they come across. These are the kind of people that would be successful wherever they go. Instead of them designing or working on engineering problems, they can apply similar skills in creating new financial models, crafting novel legal arguments, or consulting on management techniques.
Why am I so cynical on money? It is not because of what money buys you. People can be happy with less. It is about what having money confers on you. If you have money, people infer you are successful, attractive, confident, and have interesting opinions on things. You can go places and get accepted in places that people without money cannot. You can live in a big house in a good neighborhood and have your wife or husband stay home with your kids. You can travel around the world. In short, having money confers status and flexibility.
So why does the problem exist? There are a multitude of reasons involving HR policies, company structures, difficulty in identifying talent, high switching costs when moving between companies, and the ability for companies to complain to Congress and obtain talent from overseas for lower salaries. All of these factors combine to create low wages with low raises. You can look at the exception to the rule - software engineers in Silicon Valley - to understand what drives salaries low (or high in Silicon Valley).
Now I am not saying engineers are poor - they can lead successful and happy lives. What I am saying is that if a talented college student is making an informed decision on what to do with their lives will not chose engineering if they care about money or status.
What I want people to understand by this article are two things:
- The engineering shortage in the United States has nothing to do with school, education, or more exposure to science. It has to do with salary. If you do not believe me then imagine starting salaries for engineering were on average $125,000 with annual raises of 10%. You would have people fighting over jobs.
- When a company complains that they cannot hire enough engineers for their openings, they mean they cannot hire enough engineers at their desired salary. Again, a company could have their pick of anyone if they were willing to pay for it. I have been a part of rejecting many qualified applicants because their salary requirements were too high.
An engineering shortage is a critical problem as well. Engineers solve problems. Engineers are needed to develop the next iPhone, discover the next transistor, or to found the next Google. The United States needs a healthy pipeline of engineering talent to keep our companies on top.
The final solution to the problem is not easy - it would involve changes to many different interlocking areas. In my opinion one of the quickest areas to improve would be to create a method to objectively evaluate engineering talent, and possibly create barriers to entry to the profession (such as different levels of testing like those that exist with law and actuaries). That would make sure we limit the supply and identify the best and brightest engineers to force companies to compete for them. However, I am not convinced this would be enough.
I think one of the best summaries I have read of the blind hypocrisy that exists in corporate America about pay discrepancies between professions like finance and engineering was given by Rory Sutherland, who is actually in advertising but gave one of my favorite TED talks. He was interviewed on the TED blog here, and this is a quote from the article.
Now an interesting question: It’s all very well for Eric Schmidt of Google to say, “Oh, but look, the UK doesn’t have a proper engineering culture,” blah, blah, blah, “you should venerate engineers more.” Well, what I want to know is, when he presides over Google’s purchase of Motorola, how much of that money, in terms of seven-figure, eight-figure payoffs, will go to people who are basically the Motorola finance directors, and how much will go to the engineers who created those patents in the first place?
Engineering is a noble profession and a critical skill the United States (and the world) needs to maintain. We just have to figure out how to get companies to pay for it.
