In the December 2023 issue of STRUCTURE (Stop Trying to Out Recruit the Competition), Anthony LoCicero discussed the current high demand for engineers, and the challenges firms nationwide, large and small, are having with recruitment and retention. In addition, he offered a unique perspective on hiring, namely, looking for candidates that do not fit the typical profile. In this article, I address the hiring issue from a more traditional perspective: hiring recent graduates educated in U.S. university engineering programs. I present my recent experiences and what I believe needs to be done.
For the longest time, I have not been convinced that an engineer shortage existed, although many claimed one did. Demographic group data (students entering or not entering engineering programs, experienced engineers leaving the profession, etc.) was often used to identify trends leading to a long-term shortage. The counter to that prediction is that engineer productivity has increased tremendously over the past few decades because of new technologies. However, this has to be offset by increasing code complexity, which creates more work and the tendency to calculate almost everything. When was the last time you saw the phrase “okay by inspection” in a set of calculations?
Instead of focusing on demographics, I made my judgment using observed marketplace supply and demand. During my career, I observed that on most significant projects I have pursued, multiple firms have always been competing for the work, and the fees being offered were just about right or slightly aggressive on the low side, but certainly not high. To me, this signals that the competing firms have enough staff (supply) for the work in the marketplace (demand). I would suspect that over time, if there were really a shortage of structural engineers, the economic laws of supply and demand would dictate the higher fees required to hire the ever-scarcer engineers. However, I haven’t seen any evidence of this, so I am still doubtful of the numerical shortage argument.
In early 2022, our firm concluded that we had enough forecasted work to recruit and hire additional staff. Many firms lost some staff during the COVID slow times, and we were no exception. A small group of us is charged with sifting through resumes, evaluating candidates, conducting interviews, and making offers. I suppose it should not have been a big surprise, but we quickly discovered that lots of firms were recruiting in the same areas we do, at the same time. In the past, this meant that the number of candidates would be less than we would have liked and that perhaps the most desirable candidates would have many attractive offers. But we did not expect it to be almost impossible to hire engineers with the backgrounds and experience to work in a typical structural engineering office like ours.
To set our search parameters, we typically look for recent graduates or engineers with a few years of experience, generally with Master’s degrees, having:
- Functional knowledge of basic statics, i.e., an ability to draw a free-body diagram with the forces adding up,
- An idea of how the various parts of a building work together to resist gravity and lateral loads, i.e., intuition as to how mechanisms work,
- An engaging personality and communication and writing skills that permit them to interact effectively with our clients and contractors, and
- An ability to interact with the interviewer and reason a problem out if they don’t have a solution.
We reason that we can teach young engineers everything else via on-the-job training, including how to follow codes and standards and how to use common engineering software.
During the resume review process in the spring of 2022, we deemed roughly 20% of the original applicants worthy of further review and an introductory telephone call. Following the call, we invited roughly half (10% of original applicants) in for an interview. We made offers to roughly half of those (5% of applicants). Some accepted our offer, and some did not. Doing the math, this is the shortage I observe, with roughly 95% not making it through the entire process. Many applicants had too much education and no practical experience or graduated from college programs that do not appear to be designed to produce employable structural engineers.
More specifically, this is what we found lacking in applicants:
- Statics is a class everyone takes but does not appear to be stressed nearly enough. In our interviews, candidates who graduated from U.S. undergraduate programs fared worse than candidates educated outside the U.S. This is a significant issue because statics and free-body diagrams are the foundations upon which all other more advanced structural engineering is based. Somewhat like reading and writing, it is very difficult to learn well later if these skills are not learned well early. Most candidates have extensive experience with basic structural analysis software, but often this masks a lack of basic problem-solving skills using rough estimates and pencil and paper.
- One would expect that after two, three, or more years of college-level work, candidates would have been taught how common structural systems function and resist gravity and lateral loads. But if you assumed that, you would often be wrong. For example, almost everyone we interview has been in a warehouse store like Costco or Walmart. However, a candidate rarely understands how the basic box-store structural system works, even though it is exposed and easy for them to see. We expect candidates who want to be structural engineers to be curious about the structures they see all around them.
- Carrying on a conversation and presenting oneself well does not appear to be part of the engineering curriculum, but it easily could be. For example, making a speech in class, explaining a homework assignment to a group, or describing the results of an investigation in a larger setting would offer considerable benefits to students at no cost and with little effort.
- Defending what you know, showing a willingness to admit what you don’t know, and the ability to think on one’s feet is critical. An experienced interviewer can penetrate the often thin veneer of a candidate’s knowledge within a few minutes. Since the candidates are new to engineering, this is to be expected. But it appears that undergraduate education may focus too much on attending class and earning grades, with insufficient time dedicated to debate, discussion, and critical thinking. I was taught basic structural analysis in college by a professor who served as a U.S. infantryman and fought in the WWII Battle of the Bulge. It was tough sledding and painful at times, but I quickly learned to show up at class ready to engage or to be exposed as unprepared since there were no trees to hide behind.
As you can see, I am often less than impressed with the typical college graduate’s skillset, although I am occasionally blown away by the best of them. I sense that if there is a numerical shortage, it is more a shortage of engineers possessing sufficient employable skills, as noted above, than an overall numerical shortage. Some of this educational deficit can be placed at the feet of the student. Still, it seems that colleges and universities have significant responsibilities, too, since there appears to be a misalignment between the needs and goals of educational institutions and engineering employers, exacerbated by some government policies to be discussed later.
The story goes something like this:
- Tuition must pay for student attendance. That tuition has risen steadily for several decades due to increased administrative overhead costs resulting from government mandates, higher professor salaries and less teaching, and fancier buildings and campus amenities designed to attract students, parents, professors… and perhaps most importantly, donors. Higher-paying first jobs are obviously attractive to pay for the ever-higher expense of college. It is well known that contractors pay new graduates more than structural engineering firms and that many professions (finance, business, computer science, and technology) pay better than the A/E/C industry. The result is a migration out of engineering.
- Reduced government funding of public educational institutions has resulted in schools needing to generate more and more income on their own. In addition, since in-state tuition is typically capped or at least controlled via state government oversight, schools need to increase the percentage of international students in student populations since these students pay full tuition compared to the in-state students.
- The result is a large percentage of international students, educated at least partially at public expense, who, because of government policies, either return to their home countries upon graduation or stay in the U.S. and work via their “student VISA” (actually an F-1 student VISA with OPT (one year) and STEM OPT (two years) extensions for a total of three years), hoping to someday gain H1B or Green Card status with the help of their employer. Applying for and acquiring an H1B VISA once the F-1 student VISA and OPT extensions expire is time-consuming and expensive for the individual and the sponsoring engineering firm. As a result, many working on their student VISAs reluctantly return home. In addition, the number of H1B VISAs granted is limited by country of origin to protect the employment of U.S. citizen engineers. Still, it discourages the employment of the many high-quality foreignborn engineers trained by U.S. universities. To make matters worse, if your engineer gets an H1B VISA or your firm hires an existing H1B VISA holder from another firm (there is a cost involved in changing sponsorship from one firm to another, too), there is a government-mandated minimum wage for the H1B VISA holder (but not for the equivalent U.S. citizen employee). This is the government’s attempt to prevent the exploitation of VISA holders. However, the law actually has the effect of dampening employment opportunities for foreign-born engineers because of the high total cost. The result is the outward migration of engineers.
See the Problem?
So maybe there is a shortage of employable engineers after all! But if there is one, it is not because of the nature of engineering or the reward associated with providing a valuable service to one’s clients and the public. Like many things, it is a problem with several components we, as a society, bring upon ourselves. To address the problem:
- With all due respect, students need to be smarter about making themselves employable, and the university curriculum needs to focus more on creating well-rounded graduates with solid fundamental skills. Perhaps more career planning is needed. The engineering profession can fill in any gaps. The overall cost of university education has to be reduced so students can become what they want to be rather than what pays the best.
- Public financing of public universities needs to be restored to past levels so that universities can once again be educational institutions that need to pay their bills rather than businesses chasing dollars and teaching engineering on the side.
- Change our government’s VISA policies. International students are an overall positive because they increase the educational horsepower of U.S. universities, create a more diverse and interesting student body, and benefit our country in the long term. However, it is unfair and immoral to take advantage of international students for their money when their chance of staying in the U.S. after graduation and working as structural engineers is less likely.■