From the editor's desk

Those who attended the recently concluded SAE World Congress in Detroit could shop for a new job on their way onto the show floor: SAE held a job fair in the lobby of Cobo Hall. In light of our recent post about too few automotive engineers, we decided to ask some of the companies there about the kinds of engineers they were looking for.

There were plenty of companies looking for engineers. We interviewed about a half dozen before we ran out of time, and there were a few dozen more exhibiting in the lobby that we just couldn’t get to. The overall theme we heard was that experienced system integration engineers were the ones that are in short supply. But almost every company we talked to was also looking for test engineers.

You can get a feel for what we found by viewing the short video we produced at SAE with EngineeringTV.com:

Our sister publication Wards Auto recently ran a news item about the dearth of automotive engineers. Despite a 9% unemployment rate, automotive suppliers in the Detroit area are having trouble finding qualified engineers, but one of the big reasons why becomes clear from comments made by people working at automotive suppliers: The big down turn of recent years forced many engineers to leave the auto industry and companies now don’t want to train newbee engineers.

All I can say is, good luck with that policy.

There’s also an undercurrent behind many of the comments that would lead you to believe that automotive suppliers are trying to find engineers without paying competitive wages.

One passage in particular is revealing on this point:

“A source who asks not to be identified says there is another major reason suppliers in particular are having a tougher time hiring engineers compared with their auto maker customers: salaries.

Most suppliers chopped engineering wages and consolidated pay grades in 2009. Facing profit pressures and a fragile recovery, they have been reluctant to raise them. ‘OEMs have adjusted back up and are paying more. That’s why you don’t hear auto makers complaining too much,’ the source says.

And that’s why the ‘engineering shortage’ is more accurately described as a training and experience gap, saysKristin Dziczek, director-Labor and Industry Group at the Center for Automotive Research.

‘I don’t doubt there are niche areas where it is extremely difficult to find candidates, but (the shortage of engineers) is not as widespread as it sounds,’ she says.”

But don’t expect to hear about this nuance to the situation during the next round of hand-wringing about the U.S. “educating too few engineers.”

Here is the Wards story: http://wardsauto.com/supply-chain/auto-suppliers-can-t-find-enough-engineers-industry-recovery-takes-hold?

The results are in from the latest Rube Goldberg competition held at Purdue University. A team from St. Olaf college took first place with a machine that inflated and popped a balloon accompanied with music. The Purdue team came in second with a setup comprised of 300 steps, a new record. The videos appear at the link below, along with one depicting a visit to a U of M chemistry class by Zorro. I don’t remember stuff like this happening when I took chemistry:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/tweed/video-wednesday-69/29510?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

As we put the finishing touches on our upcoming engineering salary survey (April 19 issue), there is news about engineering compensation in the oil and gas area, courtesy of The Oil & Gas Global Salary Guide 2012.

After surveying over 14,000 oil and gas professionals, the Guide found that senior drilling engineers now average $98,000 per annum. Managers in that discipline average $142,500. The Guide says subsea engineers came out on top of all disciplines surveyed and can expect average salaries of US$105,200 and US$146,900 respectively for the same levels of skill and responsibility.

For senior-level reservoir and petroleum engineers, the average pay packet is US$97,800 with manager-level professionals at US$123,400.

Matt Underhill, Managing Director of Hays Oil & Gas, who produced the Guide with a jobsite called Oil and Gas Job Search, commented: “These are figures for average salaries across the world and there will be many highly skilled engineering professionals earning considerably more, particularly those in high paying countries such as Australia, the US and Norway. It is also worth noting that around 40% of engineers are contractors, which shows an industry that is bringing a wealth of new projects online.”

Duncan Freer, Managing Director of Oil and Gas Job Search commented: “There has also been a significant and welcome demand for graduate-level engineers which was not the case in recent years. Skills shortages have been a major concern for the continuing health of the industry and this change is a step in the right direction.”

Three quarters of all employers expect staffing levels to increase in the next 12 months.

The full report is available for free here: www.oilandgasjobsearch.com/salary

With college campuses continually making headlines for violence and NCAA violations, it is refreshing to read a news story that reveals engineering pranksterism is still alive and well in universities. I was heartened to read about a hot tub surreptitiously installed on a balcony of the Computer Science and Engineering Building on the campus of my alma mater, the University of Michigan.

According to a report in the Chronicle of Higher Education, David C. Munson Jr., U of M dean of engineering, said he got an e-mail from a group calling itself “S4: Students for Sustaining Suds and Soaking,” assuring him that engineers had calculated the weight of the tub filled with water and bodies before placing it on the balcony.

But the tub was yanked anyway

The original story is here: http://chronicle.com/blogs/tweed/bye-bye-bubbler-holy-toledo/29373?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

One of the topics that came up at the recent annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science was the high drop-out rate of kids from engineering programs. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, one group there outlined a broad revamping of engineering curriculum to help address the problem.

In a nutshell, they claim one of the problems is the long list of prerequisites needed to get into advanced engineering courses. It’s often tough to line up all the prerequisites because some of them aren’t offered regularly, and there are no alternative courses that are acceptable. That’s one reason 64% of engineers now take six years to complete a BS degree.

That’s also one reason you don’t find many people transferring into engineering from other disciplines, they say: No matter what their interest level, doing so would entail sitting through an additional year or two of course work. That’s not an appetizing idea for the typical cash-strapped student.

To get a flavor of what’s going on, consider this description from the C of HE site:

“At nine schools, they (the work group) identified mechanical engineering courses that covered 2,149 topics. But after closely looking at the coursework, they found a number of similar topics with different names, and narrowed the list of unique topics to 833. Ultimately they grouped the courses on those topics into 12 clusters, each of which contained chains of classes focused around closely related topics, and required few courses from another cluster. The clusters covered all 833 topics, and instructional times ranged from 52 to 115 hours, with an average length of 91 hours. That corresponds, roughly, to four hours of course time each week for one semester on the low end or one year on the high end.

That means, Ms. (Patricia) Campbell (who was formerly a professor at Georgia State University) said, that a mechanical-engineering student could cover all the required topics, but do so in four years, by taking three clusters each year.

It would also, she claimed, meet the standards of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, because it includes everything that accredited engineering programs do. Mr. (Matthew) Ohland (an associate professor of engineering education at Purdue University), who works as an evaluator for the board, said the accreditor is open to new approaches like these, although he acknowledged there were many of what he called ‘horror stories’ about the accreditor being very traditional and resistant to change.”

Even more interesting are the comments on the Chronicle site about this item. At this writing, there are 49 of them, and many of the comment writers don’t seem to have actually read the item: Many of them somehow got the idea the whole effort is aimed at dumbing down the engineering curriculum which, at least from the passage I’ve quoted above, doesn’t seem to be the intent at all here.

You’d have to assume that the main audience for an item on the Chronicle of Higher Education site consists of educators. Many of the people commenting on this item seem to have misunderstood it. What does that say about the reading comprehension level of educators??

The original item is here: http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/re-engineering-engineering-education-to-retain-students/28745?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

One of our presidential candidates recently got a lot of flack for suggesting we return to the moon within eight years to establish a lunar colony. (In that this is not a column about partisan politics, I won’t name the candidate.)  Critics used words like “wacky” to characterize the idea. Saturday Night Live got into the act with a skit about a “moon president.”

The main argument against returning to the moon has been the cost. Disparaging comments about a price tag in the hundreds of billions of dollars have been thrown around, an impossible figure in an era of fears that U.S. debt could exceed GDP without severe government cost cutting.

But not so fast, says Charles Miller, a former NASA senior advisor for commercial space and now president of NexGen Space LLC. Miller and a group of NASA engineers analyzed what it would take to get to the moon and came up with a price tag that could be financed out of NASA’s existing annual human-spaceflight budget (around $4 billion, he says) spent over ten years. He also endorsed the scheme for devising the necessary technology that is garnering derision among skeptical pundits: Allocating 10% of NASA’s annual budget to prizes patterned after the Ansari X Prize competition that resulted in the development of SpaceShipOne.

Miller seems to have devoted a lot of thought to the idea of prizes. He says the first round of competition should be for a reusable spaceplane, an invention that would reduce the current launch-into-orbit cost of $5,000 to $10,000/lb to about $500/lb. The basic technology already exists in the form of the Boeing X-37, an unmanned vertical-takeoff, horizontal-landing spaceplane that first flew in 1999.

It isn’t a lack of knowledge that has prevented NASA from pursuing reusable technology of this sort, Miller claims. The real reason is that market studies showed too little demand for flights. The number of projected flights wouldn’t justify the investment, a problem which a relatively inexpensive (compared with enlisting all of NASA’s resources) reusable spaceplane prize would solve.

And don’t think the whole undertaking has no commercial value. Miller points out that the nation that builds the first true reusable spaceplane will be in a position to dominate the global commercial space industry in such areas as delivering satellites into orbit. It will also be able to capture new markets and head off attacks aimed at the commercial satellites which now handle GPS, internet services, and much more.

There is another aspect to the idea which has thus far received little media attention: China and India both have space programs aimed at ultimately reaching the moon. The Chinese already have plans to reach the moon by 2020. This year, they will launch the Shenzhou 10, a manned spaceflight focused on practicing docking maneuvers, eventually leading to the building of a space station. India plans to send astronauts into orbit by 2014. It launched its first lunar probe in 2008 and plans to launch its first manned mission in 2016.

One wag has suggested that when the U.S. next gets to the moon, we may have to ask the Chinese for permission to land. That idea is silly, of course, but when we hear suggestions for getting U.S. astronauts back to the moon, we should bear in mind that no one is calling similar plans by China and India “wacky.”

– Leland Teschler, Editor

Among those of us who troop regularly through press events at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, 2012 will go down as the year automakers once again felt comfortable admitting that people do, indeed, occasionally take cars out on race tracks and have fun with them.

This is in stark contrast to recent years when numerous high-profile politicians made appearances at the Detroit show. They were there ostensibly to show support for a beleaguered U.S. industry. The not-so-hidden agenda was to check up on how Detroit automakers were spending taxpayer bailout money. In those glum days, it was inconvenient to concede that car buyers considered anything other than mpg ratings in their purchase decisions.

Now that Detroit is on better financial footing, it seems as though automakers don’t feel the need to apologize for the fact that people still like to look at fast cars. Scion, for example, had no qualms highlighting a 600-hp drift car during its press conference at the show. Shelby American proudly unveiled a 50th anniversary remanufactured Mustang with 800 hp. Race cars also figured prominently at the Kia and Honda displays.

Those who enjoy bashing Detroit automakers should note that the “horsepower” theme wasn’t just a U.S. phenomenon. Mini, for example, unveiled a new roadster with a 208-hp option, which strikes even me as a lot of power for a car with a small footprint. Porsche’s revamped 911 has 385 hp and a seven-speed transmission. Hyundai’s new Azera sedan also features an unapologetic 293 hp.

You might wonder what happened to all the green powertrains that have marqueed other shows. They were certainly in evidence at Detroit - the new Ford Fusion hybrid got a lot of attention even from competing automakers, and plug-in hybrid pickups, vans, and SUVs from Via Motors looked interesting. But for the most part, they weren’t the main focus of attention, and I believe it is easy to see why: Cars with green powertrains are simply out of reach for the average Joe or Jane regardless of how they feel about mpg or peak oil. The hybrid Fusion, for example, starts at $28,700. The Via Motors pickup, based around the GMC Sierra, will start at $79,000 and is practical only for fleets that can run it 24/7 and justify its price based on overall savings in maintenance and fuel.

The least expensive hybrid money will buy is the new Prius c, a car not designed for NBA players. The diminutive c is 157.3 inches long, 19.1 inches shorter than an ordinary Prius and has a base price of about $19,000. A Toyota spokesperson told me, with a straight face, that the Prius c is designed as an affordable first car for millennials.

Perhaps he’s right, but a Prius c — after adding dealer-this-and-that, taxes, and a few nonluxury options — could sell for a figure in the mid $20,000 range. It is hard to visualize such a car being bought by 25-year-olds forced to live with their parents due to lack of funds.

That, in a nutshell, symbolizes the problem for all vehicles featuring green powertrains. They are not realistic options for a large segment of the shrinking middle class. But if Chrysler was somehow able to put a hybrid powertrain in its new Dodge Dart and keep the same $15,995 sticker the Dart now carries, I’d bet buyers would be on long waiting lists trying to get one.

– Leland, Teschler, Editor

Addendum, 1-19-12 :

It looks as though the Chinese have the same issues with ‘green’ cars as we do. From an AFP article: “A salesman at the main Shanghai showroom of Chinese car maker BYD said the dealer sold only one electric car and two hybrid cars — which combine a conventional internal combustion engine and an electric motor — last year……’People hesitate to choose cars with a high price,’ said BYD sales manager Zhang Jiankun.”

You can read the full article here: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iLHpJbMBm0aOISHHfiz0FwwViPIg?docId=CNG.f43307fb63249424e9901eaaf078b7bc.211

Our recent editorial about Occupy Wallstreeters got a lot of feedback (http://machinedesign.com/article/advice-for-occupy-wall-streeters-1117). Since it appeared, I came upon another item about an Occupy Wallstreeter that appeared on the Chronicles of Higher Education Web site. It mentions one poor unemployed kid hanging out with the protestors who had accumulated $90,000 in educational loans pursuing a degree in film.

The situation highlights the importance of getting a marketable degree. If you want to know which degrees are most marketable, check out the study done by the Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University. Researchers there parsed through data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey to figure out median salaries for various kinds of degree holders. Some highlights from their findings:

Counseling Psychology majors make median earnings of $29,000 per year; the median is $120,000 for Petroleum Engineering majors.

The highest median earnings are found in the Engineering major group ($75,000), while the lowest are the Education and Psychology and Social Work groups ($42,000).

Biology and Life Science majors make $35,000 more at the median with a graduate degree, while the difference in median earnings for people who stopped at a Bachelor’s degree versus those who went on for a graduate degree with an undergraduate major in Arts is only $11,000.

You can find a summary of the report here: http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-select.pdf

The full report is here: http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf

The Chronicle of Higher Education recently highlighted the results of something called the National Survey of Student Engagement which found, among other things, that engineering students spent more time studying than students of any other major. According to the report, engineering students spend about 20 hours a week preparing for class. Students in the physical sciences were the next most studious, spending about 18 hours a week studying. Bringing up the rear were education majors and social science majors spending a little less than 15 hours a week.

The results, of course, come as no surprise to those of us who have been through engineering school.

Ironically, engineering students were also the ones who were most likely to go to class unprepared, despite all the studying. This, too, should come as no surprise to engineers. The great part of the Chronicle coverage is the comments you see afterward, and this item is no exception. One poster commented on the apparent dichotomy between studying and being prepared:

“The reason engineering students spend the most time studying and are most unprepared, is because the demand required to get “good grades” is actually closer to about 30 hours per week. For example: My Steel & Concrete professor for Civil Engineering ‘expects’ 3 hours of homework per credit, which equates to 12 hours of homework per week (4 credit class). In reality, it takes closer to 20 hours per week just for that class. Well if I’m taking 4 engineering classes per semester, spending more time on homework than the teacher actually expects, then I also have 3 labs and a writing intensive component which requires additional lab time (several hours per week), 2+ lab reports per week, then midterms show up right in the middle while everything else is still due, then we’re also required to attend seminars on a bi-weekly basis, then something has got to give. I also work 10-20 hours per week, commute 45 min each way, and try to make time for friends once per week……”

You can read the Chronicle item here: http://chronicle.com/article/Who-Hits-the-Books-More-Study/129806/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en