Understanding The Educational and Career Pathways of Engineers (2018)

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25284 SHARE

   
Understanding the Educational and Career Pathways of

Engineers (2018)
DETAILS
222 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-48560-9 | DOI 10.17226/25284
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Committee on Understanding the Engineering Education-Workforce Continuum;

National Academy of Engineering
FIND RELATED TITLES
SUGGESTED CITATION
National Academy of Engineering 2018. Understanding the Educational and Career

Pathways of Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/25284.

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Understanding the Educational and Career Pathways of Engineers
Committee on Understanding the Engineering Education-Workforce Continuum
A Consensus Study Report of the
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. (1344190). Any opinions, findings, and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the National Science Foundation.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-48560-9

International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-48560-6
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25284
Additional copies of this publication are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360,
Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2018 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Academy of Engineering. 2018. Understanding the Educational and Career Pathways of E
ngineers.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/25284.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed
by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on
issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for out-
standing contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the
National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation.
Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established
in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of S ciences to advise the nation on
medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contribu-
tions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and
conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding
contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science,
engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at
www.nationalacademies.org.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,

and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by
an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and
recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s
deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review
process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event
convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceed-
ings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning
committee, or the National Academies.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please
visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

COMMITTEE ON UNDERSTANDING THE ENGINEERING

EDUCATION-WORKFORCE CONTINUUM
Committee Members
JEAN-LOU CHAMEAU (NAE), chair, President Emeritus, California Institute of Technology
RODNEY C. ADKINS (NAE), vice chair, President, 3RAM Group, LLC
ERIC DUCHARME (NAE), General Manager, Advanced Technology Operation, GE Aviation
NADYA A. FOUAD, Distinguished Professor and Mary and Ted Kellner Endowed Chair of Educational
Psychology, Counseling Psychology, and School and Community Counseling, School of Education,
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
RICHARD B. FREEMAN, Herbert Ascherman Professor of Economics, Harvard University
JENNIFER HUNT, James Cullen Chair in Economics and Professor of Economics, Rutgers University
AMY JAVERNICK-WILL, Nicholas R. and Nancy D. Petry Professor in Construction Engineering and
Management, University of Colorado Boulder
JULIA LANE, Professor, Wagner School and Center for Urban Science and Progress, Provostial Fellow for
Innovation Analytics, and Senior Fellow in the GovLab, New York University
GARY S. MAY (NAE), Chancellor, University of California, Davis
RICHARD K. MILLER (NAE), President and Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Franklin W. Olin College
of Engineering
DAVID NAGEL, Executive Vice President (retired), BP America, Inc.
SHERI D. SHEPPARD, Bass University Fellow in Undergraduate Education, Richard Weiland Professor of
Mechanical Engineering, and Associate Chair for Undergraduate Curriculum, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Stanford University
NICOLE SMITH, Research Professor and Chief Economist, Center on Education and the Workforce,
Georgetown University
National Academy of Engineering Project Staff

PROCTOR P. REID, Study Director and Program Office Director (until June 2018)
FRAZIER BENYA, Program Officer (until October 2017)
ELIZABETH T. CADY, Program Officer
LANCE A. DAVIS, Executive Officer (retired) (until March 2016)
CATHERINE DIDION, Senior Program Officer (until January 2016)
CAMERON H. FLETCHER, Senior Editor
MICHAEL HOLZER, Senior Program Assistant (since May 2017)
JASON WILLIAMS, Senior Financial Associate (until May 2017)


Acknowledgments
This Consensus Study Report represents the work of many individuals, especially those who served on the com-
mittee and participated in the committee’s open sessions. The first thanks are to the committee members for their
deep knowledge and contributions to the study.
The committee employed several consultants who collected and analyzed data and contributed commissioned
papers that appear in the appendices. Thanks go to Donna K. Ginther (University of Kansas), Shulamit Kahn
(Boston University), Debbie Hughes, Jason Owen-Smith (University of Michigan), Treva Stack, David Stevens,
Isabel Cárdenas-Navia (Alta Vision Consulting), Sylvia Hurtado (University of California, Los Angeles), Bryce
E. Hughes (Montana State University), M. Kevin Eagan (University of California, Los Angeles), and Robert Paul
(University of Washington). Lynette Osborne evaluated the workshop and other elements of the project. Finally,
Alexandra Lockwood provided invaluable support during the data-gathering and writing phases.
The committee benefited from presentations by several individuals who participated in our fact-finding
workshop in November 2014. In addition to committee members and consultants, presenters were Samantha Brun-
haver (Arizona State University), Jeri L. Buchholz (NASA), Dianne Chong (The Boeing Company), Constance J.
Pritchard (The Pritchard Group), Darryll Pines (University of Maryland), Michael McKenzie (George Washington
University), Steven Brown (Loyola University Chicago), Andrew Gillen (American Institutes for Research), Larry
Bucciarelli (MIT), David Knight (Virginia Tech), and Hal Salzman (Rutgers University).
This report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical
expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the
institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional
standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manu-
script remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals
for their review of this report:
Monitor:
Paul Gray (NAE)

University of California, Berkeley
vii

viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Reviewers:
Diran Apelian
Alcoa-Howmet Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Founding Director of Metal Processing Institute
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Jeri L. Buchholz
Assistant Administrator, Office of Human Capital Management (retired)
NASA
Lisa Flores
Professor, Department of Educational, School and Counseling Psychology
University of Missouri–Columbia
Norman L. Fortenberry
Executive Director
American Society for Engineering Education
Joyce M. Gleason
Educational Consultant (retired)
Jill Hruby
Immediate Past Laboratory Director
Sandia National Laboratories
Edward Lazowska
Bill & Melinda Gates Chair in Computer Science and Engineering, Paul G. Allen School of Computer S
cience
and Engineering
University of Washington
Gary Lichtenstein
Founder and Principal
Quality Evaluation Designs
Susan Martinovich
National Technology Practice Director
CH2M/Jacobs
Jayathi Y. Murthy
Ronald and Valerie Sugar Dean, Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science
University of California, Los Angeles
Matthew Ohland
Professor, School of Engineering Education
Purdue University
J. Jerl Purcell, III

Executive Director, HD Growth Program
Cummins, Inc.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix
Hal Salzman
Professor, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy and
Senior Faculty Fellow, John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Fred B. Schneider
Samuel B. Eckert Professor of Computer Science and
Chairman, Department of Computer Science
Cornell University
John J. Tracy
Chief Technology Officer and Senior Vice President (retired)
The Boeing Company
Bruce A. Weinberg
Professor, Department of Economics
Ohio State University
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not
asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its
release. The review of this report was overseen by Paul R. Gray (NAE), professor, vice chancellor, and provost
emeritus, University of California, Berkeley. He was responsible for making certain that an independent examina-
tion of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were
carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee
and the institution.
Thanks are also due to the project staff: Proctor Reid, Frazier Benya, Elizabeth Cady, Catherine Didion, Lance
Davis, Cameron Fletcher, Michael Holzer, and Jason Williams. Special thanks go to the late Proctor Reid, who
died suddenly in June 2018. Proctor planned and oversaw the entire effort and was instrumental in helping build
consensus on the most salient topics of the study. In the final phase of the project he worked tirelessly on the
completion of the report, often on weekends, and ensured that diverse opinions were incorporated while preserving
the essence and major conclusions of the report. We will always remember him as a thoughtful and kind human
being and miss him as a valued colleague and friend.
Jean-Lou Chameau (Chair),

President Emeritus, California Institute of Technology
Rodney C. Adkins (Vice Chair),
President, 3RAM Group, LLC


Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 11
Reference, 14
1 CHARACTERISTICS OF ENGINEERS AND THE ENGINEERING WORKFORCE 15

Defining, Measuring, and Characterizing the Engineering Labor Force, 15
Work Activities of Employed Engineers, 39
Career Pathways of Engineering Graduates, 40
The Economic Returns to an Engineering Degree, 42
Dynamics of the Engineering Labor Market, 48
Major Forces Shaping Demand for Engineering Labor and Skills, 50
Summary Observations, 55
References, 57
2 CHALLENGES FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION 60

New Skills and Knowledge for Engineers, 60
Approaches to Develop New Skills for Engineers, 65
Understanding the Implications of Growing Enrollment of Foreign-Born Students on Temporary
Visas, 73
Summary Observations, 75
References, 76
3 FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE DECISION MAKING OF ENGINEERING STUDENTS

AND GRADUATES 81
Social Cognitive Career Theory, 82
Factors That Influence Initial Choice of an Engineering Major, 84
Factors That Influence College Engineering Studies, 93
Preparing to Transition to the Workforce, 99
xi

xii CONTENTS
Factors That Influence Postgraduate Decisions and Actions, 100

Factors That Influence Retention in Engineering Occupations, 103
Summary Observations, Implications, and Suggested Interventions, 106
Future Directions, 109
References, 109
4 MAJOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 117

Engineers Use Diverse Skills in a Variety of Occupations and Industries, 117
Engineering Has a Persistent Diversity Challenge, 118
The Engineering Community Needs to Better Communicate to Diverse Populations the
Opportunities Afforded by an Engineering Degree, 120
Engineering Education Must Continuously Adapt, 121
Research Is Needed to Understand the Effects of Foreign-Born Students with Temporary Visas on
US Engineering Education, 122
Data Gaps Hinder Understanding of Engineering Educational and Career Pathways, 123
Conclusion, 123
APPENDIXES
A The Engineering Education-Workforce Continuum 125
B Glossary of Engineering Fields 149
C Examining Postsecondary and Postcollege Pathways of Engineering Students Who Start at
Four-Year Colleges and Universities 151
D Cobweb Model of the Engineering Labor Market 180
E Advancing Our Understanding of Engineering Education Pathways, Employment Dynamics, and
Economic Impact Through the Innovative Use of Administrative Data 182
F Workshop Program 198
G Biographies of Committee Members 202

Boxes, Figures, and Tables
BOXES
I-1 The Greatest Engineering Achievements of the 20th Century, 12
I-2 National Academy of Engineering Study Committee on Understanding the Engineering Education to
Workforce Continuum Statement of Task, 13
1-1 Engineering Technicians and Engineering Technologists, 20

1-2 Growth in Engineering Degrees Awarded Annually, 22
1-3 Entrepreneurship as a Career Option, 32
1-4 The Promise of Administrative Data, 51
1-5 Impact of Immigration of Engineers on US Economic Growth, 54
2-1 Google’s Search Criteria for New Hires, 63
3-1 Pool of High School Students Who Might Enroll in Engineering Bachelor’s Degree Programs, 86
FIGURES
1-B1 Number of bachelor’s degrees awarded annually in engineering and related fields, 2000–2013, 22
1-1 Primary pathways in engineering education, 23
1-2 Percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded in engineering disciplines in 2000, 2006, and 2013, 24
1-3 Number of bachelor’s degrees awarded annually by engineering discipline, 2000–2013, 25
1-4 Percentage of engineering bachelor’s degree holders over the age of 25 who earned an additional
degree beyond the bachelor’s, by degree level and area of degree, 26
1-5 Percentage of women by highest degree in engineering, 2000–2013, 27
1-6 Percentage of engineering degrees awarded annually to underrepresented minorities (African
Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and Hispanics of any race), 2000–2013, 28
1-7 Percentage of engineering degrees awarded annually to foreign-born temporary resident students,
2000–2013, 29
1-8 Engineering degree holders in the workforce by discipline and by highest degree, 31
xiii

xiv BOXES, FIGURES, AND TABLES
1-9 Cumulative completion rates of bachelor’s engineering degree aspirants, by sex, 34

1-10 Cumulative completion rates of bachelor’s engineering degree aspirants, by race, 34
1-11 The engineering workforce in 2013: Degreed engineers in engineering and non-engineering
occupations, and workers without an engineering degree in engineering occupations, 36
1-12 Percentage of engineers whose highest degree is in engineering and who use their degree in their
occupation, 39
1-13 Pathways of the engineering bachelor’s graduates (1996–2002), showing those moving from and to
engineering occupations between 2003 and 2008, 44
1-14 Pathways of the engineering bachelor’s graduates (1986–1993), showing those moving from and to
engineering occupations between 2003 and 2008, 44
1-15 Median annual earnings over career, by major, 45
1-16 Lifetime earnings for those with bachelor’s degrees in electrical, mechanical, and civil engineering
compared to all majors, 45
1-17 Lifetime earnings for those with bachelor’s degrees in electrical and civil engineering, computer
science, and mathematics and statistics, 46
1-18 Median lifetime earnings for the top-paying 15 majors, 46
1-19 Cobweb model, 49
3-1 Diagram of social cognitive career theory, 83

3-2 Percent somewhat or very satisfied with their job by engineering degree and occupation, 103
A-1 Bachelor’s (BSE), master’s (MSE) and PhD degrees in engineering, 2000–2013, 127
A-2 Bachelor’s and master’s degrees in engineering by field, 2000–2013, 128
A-3 Growth in bachelor’s, master’s and PhD degrees in engineering, 2000–2012, 129
A-4 Bachelor’s degrees in engineering and related fields, 2000–2013, 129
A-5 Percentage of degrees awarded to females in engineering, 2000–2013, 130
A-6 Percentage of degrees awarded to underrepresented minorities in engineering, 2000–2013, 130
A-7 Percentage of degrees awarded to foreign-born students in engineering, 2000–2013, 131
A-8 Engineering as a percentage of total employment, 2013, 132
A-9A Total employment in engineering occupations, 2000–2013, 133
A-9B Stock of bachelor’s and master’s degrees in engineering, 1999–2013, 133
A-10 To what extent do those with highest degree a BS or MS in engineering utilize their degree, 135
A-11 How related work is to the field of highest degrees, by major degree field, 136
A-12 Likelihood of holding a management job (for those with highest degree a bachelor’s or master’s), by
field of highest degree, 137
A-13 Employment of individuals with highest degree BSE or MSE in engineering by years since highest
degree, 138
A14A Employment sector for individuals with highest degree bachelor’s and master’s in engineering &
employed in engineering occupations, 141
A-14B Employer size for individuals with highest degree bachelor’s and master’s in engineering & employed
in engineering occupations, 141
A-15A Annual average earnings for bachelor’s degrees by field and years of experience, 142
A-15B Annual average earnings for master’s degrees by field and years of experience, 142
A-16 Percent somewhat or very satisfied with their job by engineering degree and occupation
combinations, 143
A-17 Individuals with engineering degree and engineering occupations reporting dissatisfaction with job by
reason, 144
A-18 Individuals with highest degree bachelor’s or master’s in engineering who report working in job
unrelated to degree—most important reasons, 144
A1-1 Master’s and PhD degrees in engineering and related fields, 2000–2013, 148

BOXES, FIGURES, AND TABLES xv
C-1 Percentage of entering first-time, full-time freshman intending to major in engineering,

1971–2012, 156
C-2 Proportion of first-time, full-time freshmen planning an engineering career, fall 2012, disaggregated by
sex and race/ethnicity, 156
C-3 Comparisons by major in self-concept change over four years in college, 158
C-4 Relationship between fourth-year retention in engineering and internship participation, 160
C-5 Relationship between fourth-year retention in engineering and participation in a major-related club or
organization, 161
C-6 Faculty’s perceptions of how well graduate school prepared them to be a faculty member, and to
mentor new faculty members, 162
C-7 Importance of teaching goals among faculty, by discipline, 162
C-8 Importance of teaching goals among faculty, by discipline, 163
C-9 Faculty participation in teaching enhancement workshops and inclusion of undergraduates on research
projects, 164
C-10 Engineering completion rates of engineering degree aspirants, by race, 164
C-11 STEM completion rates of engineering degree aspirants, by race, 165
C-12 Engineering completion rates among engineering aspirants, by sex, 165
C-13 Six-year completion outcomes by STEM field aspiration, 166
C-14 Degree aspirations among engineering graduates, as of June 2011, 167
C-15 Degree aspirations among engineering graduates, as of June 2011, by sex, 168
C-16 Degree aspirations among engineering graduates, as of June 2011, by race, 168
C-17 Post-college pathways of engineering degree holders, 169
C-18 Immediate employment expectations of engineering degree holders who attended graduate school, 170
C-19 Ultimate career goals of engineering degree holders who attended graduate school, 170
C-20 Economic concerns among engineering degree holders, by race/ethnicity, 171
C-21 Economic concerns among engineering degree holders, by sex, 172
D-1 Cobweb model, 181
E-1 Sample connections for administrative data, 184

E-2 Pilot program connecting student enrollment and transcript data with employment on a federal research
grant, 187
E-3 Longitudinal data collected and developed by the Jacob France Institute for engineering student
wages, 188
E-4 Reported earnings profiles for electrical and mechanical engineering graduate wages based on
Maryland Unemployment Insurance Wage Records, 189
E-5 Potential insight to be gained by linking administrative data from multiple institutions, 191
TABLES
1-1 Number of college-educated people employed in NSF engineering occupations, 2015, 18
1-2 Disciplinary background of non-engineering bachelor’s degree holders employed in engineering
occupations in the United States (percent), 2015, 19
1-3 Demographics of those working in engineering occupations in the United States, 2015, 21
1-4 Share of women earning engineering bachelor’s degrees by field, 27
1-5 Engineering bachelor’s degrees awarded by field and race, 2013, 28
1-6 Employed engineering bachelor’s or master’s degree holders by occupation, 30
1-7 Demographic comparison of those who started in engineering and completed a degree in engineering,
completed a degree in a different area (STEM or non-STEM), or got no degree, 33

xvi BOXES, FIGURES, AND TABLES
1-8 Underrepresented minority (URM) employed bachelor’s degree holders by gender and field of
bachelor’s degree, 35
1-9 Share of those in engineering occupations with a bachelor’s in engineering by race and gender, 35
1-10 Connection of engineering degree to occupation for workers with a degree in engineering, 37
1-11 Activities most often performed by (1) bachelor’s-degreed engineers in any occupation, (2) bachelor’s-
degreed engineers in engineering occupations, and (3) workers in engineering occupations with or
without an engineering degree, 40
1-12 Where engineering bachelor’s graduates from 1996–2002 were working in 2003 (time 1) and 2008
(time 2), 42
1-13 Where engineering bachelor’s graduates from 1986–1993 were working in 2003 (time 1) and 2008
(time 2), 43
1-14 Mean wages for those whose highest degree is a bachelor’s or master’s in engineering, science
and engineering (S&E), or a non-S&E field; 10–15 years from degree, working in management
occupations, 47
2-1 Attributes of engineers set forth by the NAE Engineer of 2020 Committee mapped to ABET EC2000
criteria, 63
3-1 Comparison of high school (HS) preparation for engineering and other STEM majors: Whites/Asians,
underrepresented minorities (URM), males, and females, 89
3-2 Multiple-Institution Database for Investigating Engineering Longitudinal Development (MIDFIELD)
data showing persistence and enrollment in various majors to eighth semester, 1987–1999 cohorts, 94
3-3 Early-career graduates with engineering bachelor’s degrees: primary reason for working in occupation
unrelated to highest degree, 101
3-4 Early-career graduates (less than 3 years postdegree) with engineering bachelor’s degrees: Highest
degree earned. PhD degrees are not included in this because students are unlikely to finish a PhD
program within three years of earning their bachelor’s degree, 102
3-5 Early-career graduates with engineering bachelor’s degrees: Reasons for taking additional
coursework, 103
A-1 A comparison between what people were doing in 2003 and 2008, 139
C-1 Demographic composition, first-time, full-time freshmen, fall 2012, 157

C-2 Academic preparation, first-time, full-time freshmen, fall 2012, 158
C-3 Items included in academic and social self-concept constructs, 159
C-4 Demographic comparison between engineering completers and “leavers,” 167
E-1 Educational outcomes for students participating in undergraduate research experiences, 187

Executive Summary
Engineering skills and knowledge are foundational to technological innovation and development that drive long-
term economic growth and help solve societal challenges. Therefore, to ensure national competitiveness and quality
of life it is important to understand and to continuously adapt and improve the educational and career pathways of
engineers in the United States. To gather this understanding it is necessary to study the people with the engineering
skills and knowledge as well as the evolving system of institutions, policies, markets, people, and other resources
that together prepare, deploy, and replenish the nation’s engineering workforce.
This study found significant good news regarding the engineering profession. The data show that engineers
are rewarded for their work with relatively higher salaries than other college graduates and job satisfaction on
par with employees in all US sectors. For this to be sustained and strengthened, a robust and resilient engineering
education system, profession, and workforce must be nurtured. Factors such as increasing globalization and chang-
ing US demographics should be taken into consideration. This report addresses a few key questions: How well is
the US engineering education-workforce system preparing and using engineers? What adaptations are needed to
ensure that this system can respond effectively and expediently to current and future needs?
This executive summary presents the committee’s major findings and recommends specific actions by stake-
holders to strengthen and ensure the vitality of investments in US engineers from education at universities to
training for engineers in the workforce.
ENGINEERS USE DIVERSE SKILLS IN A VARIETY OF OCCUPATIONS AND INDUSTRIES

Engineering is a dynamic discipline and practice that integrates and applies knowledge from various fields and
draws on a broad and expanding portfolio of technical as well as professional skills, such as creativity and design,
oral and written communication, teamwork and leadership, interdisciplinary thinking, business acumen and entre-
preneurship, and multicultural understanding. Trained engineers use their knowledge and skills in a variety of
occupations and industries and across all sectors of society.
This report defines the nation’s engineering labor force as comprising three overlapping segments: (1) those
who work in engineering occupations narrowly defined1 (1.72 million in 2015) regardless of educational back-
1 Engineering occupations in the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) System used by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and
Bureau of Labor Statistics are defined by job duties applied to particular areas of technology. The NSF identifies 18 job categories as engineer-
ing occupations for use in its National Survey of College Graduates (NSCG), but there is considerable ambiguity regarding the categorization

2 UNDERSTANDING THE EDUCATIONAL AND CAREER PATHWAYS OF ENGINEERS
ground, (2) those with engineering degrees2 in the overall labor force (3.7 million in 2013), and (3) those with
engineering degrees who apply the skills and knowledge associated with their degree on the job (3.2 million in
2013).
The occupational definition of an engineer captures some engineering degree holders as well as workers with-
out an engineering degree who perform certain job duties that define an engineering occupation, while excluding
holders of engineering degrees working in “engineering-proximate” occupations, which the committee defines as
those that draw heavily on the specialized technical and professional knowledge and skills of engineering gradu-
ates (e.g., computing occupations, engineering management3), as well as “non-engineering” occupations, those
that draw on professional and more generic technical skills of engineering graduates.
Defining an engineer in terms of degree earned implies that an engineer remains an engineer throughout his or
her career, regardless of occupation or whether specific technical or professional knowledge and skills associated
with the degree are used on the job.
The third definition, a subset of the second, encompasses those who have a degree in engineering and apply
the technical and professional knowledge and skills acquired with that degree in their work, as evidenced either
by the tasks they perform or by whether they say they use science, engineering, or mathematical knowledge from
the degree on the job.
The committee believes that these three definitions yield complementary insights into the educational and
career pathways of engineers as well as the market (i.e., supply and demand) for engineering knowledge and skills.
Although engineering and computing are closely related, both the discipline of computer science and computing
occupations are defined as distinct from engineering by the statistical agencies that track graduation rates and
employment (e.g., degrees in computer engineering – hardware are categorized by NSF as engineering, whereas
degrees in computer engineering – software are categorized as computing) and the report follows this categoriza-
tion in the analyses. Although the committee examined some aspects of career flexibility and pathways for those
with computer science degrees and found pathways similar to those with engineering degrees, a full review of the
pathway to a computing degree and then onward into the workforce is beyond the scope of the project. About 19
percent of those who work in engineering occupations hold degrees in other STEM4 fields or in business. Nearly
two thirds of employed engineering BS5 degree holders work in for-profit companies (mostly large and very large
firms), 14 percent work in the government sector, roughly 12 percent are self-employed, and the rest are divided
between education and the nonprofit sector.
While almost 90 percent of degreed engineers use their engineering skills for their jobs, many do not work
directly in engineering over their careers. The percentage of engineering bachelor’s degree holders employed in
the United States in engineering occupations narrowly defined is about 36 percent,6 and another 46 percent are in
occupations closely associated with engineering that draw heavily on their technical and professional engineering
knowledge and skills (engineering-proximate occupations):
of some technically demanding occupations that employ significant numbers of degreed engineers. Similarly, those involved in the direct
supervision of engineers engaged in technical engineering work, i.e., “engineering managers,” are classified as working in S&E management
occupations. In addition, the line between engineering occupations and what NSF deems to be “engineering-related” occupations (e.g., engi-
neering technologists and technicians, listed in appendix A) is not clear. Because of these ambiguities, this report refers to engineering occupa-
tions (those defined by the SOC), “engineering-proximate” occupations (those that draw heavily on the specialized technical and professional
knowledge and skills of engineering graduates), and non-engineering occupations (those that draw on professional and more generic technical
skills of engineering graduates). The data analysis for this study focused primarily on engineering graduates and occupations as defined by NSF.
2 In part due to the classification system used by federal datasets, the committee decided to define “engineering degrees” to include only
degrees earned from traditional engineering programs and to exclude 4-year degrees in engineering technology, despite the similarities between
the programs. Engineering technology degree holders are discussed in chapter 1 in box 1.1.
3 “Engineering-proximate” jobs are different from the NSF category of “engineering-related” jobs, which are specifically defined as elec-
trical, electronic, industrial, mechanical, or other technicians or technologists; drafting; surveying and mapping technicians; surveyors, or
architects (see appendix A).
4 STEM stands for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
5 In some contexts the committee chose to examine master’s degree holders, in part because combined with BS degree holders they account
for 99 percent of degreed engineers and in part because NSCG data include “highest degree” on some questions, so separating BS and MS
holders for some data is not possible.
6 This category includes those educated in the United States and overseas.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
• management occupations associated with engineering (21 percent),

• computing (15 percent),
• science and engineering-related (e.g., engineering technicians, engineering technologists, architects)
(6 percent), or
• other science and engineering (S&E)7 (4 percent).
The remaining 18 percent of people with engineering bachelor’s degrees work in non-S&E, nonmanagement
occupations (15 percent) and management positions not related to S&E (3 percent).
Finding: The vast majority of those formally trained in engineering work in occupations that draw heavily
on their technical and professional engineering knowledge and skills. Their professional and problem-solving
skills are also used in occupations with little connection to the more technical aspects of engineering. Engineers
work in many different industries and across all sectors of society.
Engineers perform a variety of work tasks regardless of their occupation. BS engineering graduates also on
average have the highest annual compensation and lifelong earnings of all bachelor’s degree holders, the high-
est mean wages even when working in engineering-proximate or non-engineering occupations, and the lowest
unemployment rates of college degree holders. This is due, at least in part, to their versatility and occupational
mobility, particularly their promotion into management occupations.
Finding: Engineers typically perform a variety of tasks in their jobs—management of people or projects;
development and design; and computer programming, production, and quality management. Management is a
major component of engineering work, as are computing and the design of equipment, processes, structures,
and/or physical or computational models.
Finding: Engineering graduates working in engineering, engineering-proximate, and non-engineering-related

occupations typically have higher career earnings than their peers with bachelor’s degrees in other fields, the
lowest rate of unemployment (less than 3 percent) of all bachelor’s degree holders, and considerable career
flexibility.

occupations typically have high levels of career and work satisfaction.
ENGINEERING HAS A PERSISTENT DIVERSITY CHALLENGE

White and Asian males constitute the vast majority of employed degreed engineers and those who work in engi-
neering occupations. Although women represent over half of the nation’s college-educated workforce, in 2013
they accounted for only 15 percent of both those working in engineering occupations and those with BS engineer-
ing degrees in the workforce. African Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and Hispanics of any race8
together made up 15 percent of the college-educated workforce in 2013, but 11 percent of those employed in
engineering occupations and about 12 percent of employed engineering BS degree9 holders.
Some disciplines include higher percentages of women and minority engineers than others, although none of
the disciplines have achieved either gender or racial/ethnic parity. However, some occupations (e.g., biological/
biomedical and environmental) have increased gender diversity in recent years and will continue to do so as more
diverse cohorts of engineers graduate and enter the workforce.
7 “Other Science and Engineering” excludes engineers, computer scientists, engineering-related, and management occupations.
8 These groups are considered underrepresented minorities (URM) in STEM.
9 Engineering technology degree holders show greater racial diversity but less gender diversity than engineering degree holders. See box 1.1
for details.

The lack of diversity in engineering presents challenges to the nation in two important ways. First, there are
innovation and creativity costs associated with not using the skills and talents of major parts of the US population—
problems or opportunities not identified, products not built, designs not considered, constraints not understood,
and processes not invented when the diversity of life experiences engaged in engineering is limited.10
Second, given the important roles of engineers in identifying, defining, and solving problems that face society,
and the many material, professional, social, and psychological rewards to those who learn and apply the knowledge
and skills of engineering, it is a serious matter of social justice and equity that Americans from all backgrounds
be encouraged and supported in the study and practice of engineering.
Decisions to choose and persist in a career or to change careers, jobs, or organizations are made from adoles-
cence to middle age and are influenced by a number of factors. These factors may be internal to the individual, such
as interests or skills, or external, such as influences by families, the economy, or even certain policies. Programs or
activities that increase exposure to, understanding of, or experiences in engineering also play a role in these decisions.
Finding: Although some disciplines have greater diversity than others, overall the US engineering workforce
remains characterized by limited gender, ethnic, and racial diversity. White and Asian males dominate the
makeup of this workforce, while women, African Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and Hispanics
of any race remain significantly underrepresented.
Finding: Efforts to increase the representation of women and other underrepresented groups in engineering
have improved diversity in some disciplines but overall have proven to be less effective than desired.
Finding: There are at least two compelling reasons why the nation should be concerned about engineering’s
diversity challenge: the creativity and innovation costs of unused skills and talent, and equity/social justice.
Finding: Many interrelated internal and external (personal and societal or cultural) factors influence the deci-
sion making of students and graduates in ways that contribute to engineering’s diversity challenge.
Prior to matriculation in college, limited access to quality STEM education and mentoring at the K–12 level
undercuts the preparation and persistence of many underrepresented minority (URM) students who express inter-
est in engineering at the beginning of their undergraduate studies. In addition, the misperception of engineering
as an exclusively technical field of study and work, disconnected from service to the needs of people and society,
discourages a disproportionate share of college-bound young women from even considering many engineering
disciplines (environmental and biomedical are two exceptions) as a possible course of study.
Many interested and qualified women and URM students who matriculate in engineering are deterred from
completing an engineering degree, or choosing or remaining in an engineering occupation, by a number of factors.
Some are discouraged by an unwelcoming or nonsupportive climate in engineering classrooms and workplaces.
Women in the workforce report dissatisfaction with pay or promotion opportunities, lack of flexibility in work
hours and location that constrains choices of work-life balance, feelings of isolation, inability to find mentors
or support networks, and an unwelcoming male-dominated culture. The median annual earnings of women and
URM engineers are significantly lower than those of their male and White or Asian counterparts. Women’s rate of
leaving engineering occupations for pay and promotion reasons is higher (relative to men) than in all other fields.
Finding: The low numbers of women and underrepresented minorities in engineering education and the
engineering workforce dictate that the pathways and motivations of every group be considered fully and that
the entire engineering community—educators, employers, research funders, policymakers, and engineering
professionals—work collaboratively to improve diversity.
10 The committee is indebted to Wm. A. Wulf for this concise and effective articulation of these costs, presented in his remarks as NAE
president at the 1998 NAE annual meeting. Published in The Bridge 28(4):8–13.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
Finding: Because people with diverse gender and racial/ethnic identities may have different motivations and
pathways in engineering it is imperative to consider which educational and programmatic interventions are
most effective in welcoming, supporting, and advancing those from underrepresented backgrounds. It is essen-
tial to continue developing, implementing, and evaluating well-designed educational and training interventions
to both attract and retain women and underrepresented minorities and support all individuals in engineering. It
is equally important to change the perceived and real culture(s) of engineering so that it welcomes all individu-
als regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, or background. Recognition of bias, support for work-life balance, and
equal opportunity for training and advancement will help create a supportive environment for all employees.
Recommendation 1: Engineering deans, department chairs, and faculty, K–12 teachers and administrators,
and engineering professionals in industry and government who work with educators at any level should strive
to foster an inclusive, welcoming climate/culture for all students interested in engineering and STEM more
broadly, including concerted efforts to recognize and address implicit and explicit bias in their employees and
to build more welcoming and inclusive engineering cultures.
Recommendation 2: Organizations that employ engineers should examine their promotion practices and pay
to ensure that they are equitable across gender, race, ethnicity, and other demographics. In addition, to pro-
mote job satisfaction, company commitment, and retention, companies should recognize and address implicit
and explicit bias in their employees and work to build more welcoming and inclusive engineering cultures.
Recommendation 3: Researchers, educators, employers, public and private funders, and policymakers should
consider the interplay of multiple internal and external influences over time on an individual’s educational and
career decisions when developing interventions to increase the representation of all populations in engineering.
Informed by this systems perspective, these and other stakeholders in the nation’s engineering education and
workforce enterprise should work together to develop, test, and coordinate innovative, mutually reinforcing
initiatives that produce a significant, positive, collective impact on engineering’s diversity challenge rather
than pursuing individual, discrete, largely disconnected/isolated, and low-impact initiatives.
THE ENGINEERING COMMUNITY NEEDS TO BETTER COMMUNICATE TO DIVERSE

POPULATIONS THE OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED BY AN ENGINEERING DEGREE
Although engineering enrollments are increasing in US universities and engineers have very low rates of unemploy
ment, the lack of diversity in engineering suggests that many students do not have adequate information about
the requirements, rewards, goals, and social value of engineering before deciding whether to enter the field. This
is especially true for students affected by systemic disparities in K–12 education, as evidenced in the quality of
school facilities, resources, and access to precollege math or science classes required for the study of engineering.
Even students who attend well-resourced schools may not consider or be prepared for an engineering major if
they are unaware of the profession. It is essential that all precollege students and their families, especially those
from populations that are underrepresented or marginalized in engineering, understand the value of engineering
to society as well as its career-related benefits.
Finding: Lack of knowledge about the profession is a significant barrier for potential engineers from popu-
lations underrepresented in engineering. Messages that describe engineering as a field that involves under-
standing, defining, and solving important societal problems using a mix of technical and professional skills,
interdisciplinary work, social consciousness, creativity, and multicultural understanding impart knowledge
of the field to all students, and seem to be particularly important for female and URM students, who may not
otherwise see engineering as a viable option for themselves.
The committee recommends that the engineering community—industry, academia, engineering societies,
government, and other stakeholders—address potentially negative stereotypes of engineering and more effectively

communicate the nature of engineering work and the opportunities of an engineering degree to women, under-
represented minorities, and other marginalized groups that remain greatly underrepresented in engineering. Such
efforts can both increase diversity of perspective in engineering practice and with it the innovativeness and creativ-
ity of the nation’s technical workforce while also expanding opportunities for individuals from these populations.
Specifically, the committee recommends the following actions:
Recommendation 4: Engineering faculty, professional societies, employers, and other engineering outreach
organizations should provide K–12 students, their families, and K–12 educators and guidance counselors
with current, accurate information about engineering, both to counter inaccurate stereotypes of the nature of
engineering work and the people who do it and to prepare students to navigate their education and enter the
workforce.
Recommendation 5: Engineering professional societies, employers, and other engineering outreach organiza-
tions should work with families, K–12 educators, and guidance counselors to cultivate all students’ interest
in exploring an engineering major and career by communicating that engineering develops professional as
well as technical skills and equips graduates to do interesting work in a wide range of occupations, to help
define and solve important problems for people and society, and to make a positive difference in the world.
In addition, K–12 educators and guidance counselors should help families of K–12 students understand the
utility and rewards of an engineering degree, such as the versatility of the technical and professional skills
learned, access to many different careers, and high initial and lifelong salaries.
Recommendation 6: All who are involved in K–12 teacher training and professional development—such as
schools of education, engineering faculty, professional societies, and K–12 administrators—should encourage
and support K–12 STEM educators’ efforts to use inclusive teaching practices that create safe and inclusive
learning environments to support and actively engage students from different backgrounds.
ENGINEERING EDUCATION MUST CONTINUOUSLY ADAPT

The US engineering education enterprise has been largely successful in educating engineers capable of working
in many occupations and capacities that have advanced the country’s innovative and economic strength and ben-
efited all segments of society. In keeping with rapid advances in many fields of science and technology, the field
of engineering has evolved in recent decades to incorporate computing and, to a lesser extent, the life, social, and
behavioral sciences as well as the humanities into its core curriculum, augmenting the well-established founda-
tions of math, physics, and chemistry. At the same time, there is growing demand from industry for engineering
graduates to be equipped with nontechnical or professional attributes and abilities in addition to their technical
aptitude. Moreover, engineers have recently begun to incorporate considerations such as sustainability, societal
impact, and public policy in their work, and they need stronger communication skills to seek and incorporate the
input of diverse stakeholders.
Given the range of skills they acquire in their studies and training, engineering graduates are well equipped to
respond to changes in technology, economic conditions, or personal interests. But to ensure that US-based engineers
have the technical and professional skills required to compete globally and meet the needs of the nation in the future,
US engineering education must continuously adapt both to advances in science and technology fields—especially
computing and data science, which provide tools that engineers in all disciplines must learn to use—and to the
changing needs of industry, society, and workers themselves. In addition, the ability to learn throughout a career
must be taught in undergraduate education and supported by industry.
Finding: The disciplinary foundations of engineering are expanding with the growing influence and incor-
poration of computing, the life sciences, the social and behavioral sciences, business management concepts
and skills, and entrepreneurship. In particular, computing and data science knowledge and skills are increas-
ingly fundamental to a range of engineering applications. Computer occupations employ over 15 percent of

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
all engineering graduates and are projected to grow rapidly over the coming decade, and engineering schools
need to recognize and support the interaction between engineering and computer science in all disciplines,
whether with more required courses for all majors or the incorporation of computing skills in discipline-
specific courses.
Finding: Beyond strong technical skills, more and more employers expect engineering graduates to have
experience and competence in professional areas such as creativity and design, oral and written communica-
tion, teamwork and leadership, interdisciplinary thinking, business management and entrepreneurship, and
multicultural understanding.
Finding: Advances in understanding of how people learn engineering, corresponding evidence-based innova-
tions in pedagogy and technological tools for the education of engineers, and the digital fluency of incoming
generations of students are all creating new needs and opportunities for engineering education to adapt. These
curricular changes both improve graduates’ professional and lifelong learning skills and attract more women
and underrepresented minorities to the field.
Finding: Given trends in global markets for engineering talent and the pace of change in technology, business
practices, and other areas, engineers must be prepared to pursue lifelong learning, including through online
programs, to keep current their technical and professional skills and knowledge.
To stay up to date with advances and rapid changes in science and technology, the evolving needs and expecta-
tions of engineers’ diverse work environments, and innovations in engineering education, engineering educators
(i.e., administrators, deans, department heads, faculty) should take the following actions:
Recommendation 7: Engineering deans, department chairs, and faculty should acknowledge computing
and computer science (CS) as a foundational knowledge and skill domain of modern engineering education
and practice across all disciplines, and incorporate computing/CS more pervasively into engineering degree
programs.
Recommendation 8: Engineering deans, department chairs, and senior faculty should promote and reward the
adoption of evidence-based best practices in engineering pedagogy, including active and experiential learn-
ing and other student-centered practices that promote real-world applications of STEM concepts to complex
sociotechnical problems like those that engineers will face in their work.
Recommendation 9: Engineering deans, department chairs, and faculty should strengthen partnerships with
industry and other employers to make design courses and high-quality “real-world” engineering experiences—
including internships, co-ops, mentored research projects, and other curricular and cocurricular activities and
programs (e.g., Engineers Without Borders, Engineering Projects in Community Service [EPICS], the NAE
Grand Challenges Scholars Program)—available to students as an integral part of all undergraduate engi-
neering programs. These educational elements help develop students’ professional and technical skills while
providing a window on the active application of engineering knowledge and skills in the private, public, and
nonprofit sectors.
Recommendation 10: Engineering deans, department chairs, and faculty should adapt teaching and career
guidance to better reflect the broad spectrum of engineering, engineering-proximate, and non-engineering
occupations available to engineering graduates. To this end, they should engage (1) educators on curricular
and cocurricular options and adaptations and (2) alumni who work in engineering, engineering-proximate, and
non-engineering occupations and those who employ them to advise students on career options in the many
different industries, jobs, and sectors where engineering knowledge and skills are valued and can be applied.

Recommendation 11: Engineering deans, department chairs, and faculty should work closely with employers
and engineering professional societies to (1) identify and advance the desired professional and technical skills
of working engineering professionals, by offering or supporting continuing education to expand skills and
knowledge, and (2) enhance the currency and quality of faculty teaching through support for faculty sabbaticals
with engineering employers, the use of adjunct faculty drawn from the ranks of working engineers, faculty
mentoring and guidance of undergraduate design projects involving engineering employer sponsors, and/or
seminar series about cutting-edge technologies and advances in engineering pedagogy.
RESEARCH IS NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND THE EFFECTS OF FOREIGN-BORN

STUDENTS WITH TEMPORARY VISAS ON U.S. ENGINEERING EDUCATION
The nature and dynamics of skilled immigration (i.e., immigrants with advanced skills and training, especially in
technical fields), whether in the form of foreign students or nonstudent immigrants, and its impact on US engineer-
ing education, engineering labor markets, and the educational and career pathways of US natives in engineering
are important. But the subject is sufficiently expansive and complex that the committee intentionally did not focus
its fact finding and deliberation in this area. While the committee considers the broad topic of skilled immigration,
which has been the subject of extensive research, worthy of a full, separate consensus study, the recent growth in
undergraduate enrollment of foreign-born students on temporary visas in US engineering schools is a less studied
piece of the skilled immigration puzzle that warrants additional attention.
Foreign-born students on temporary visas have constituted a large share of US engineering school enrollments
at the master’s and PhD levels for decades, and the impacts of foreign graduate students have been the focus of
considerable research. Only recently, however, has the temporary resident student share of US undergraduate
engineering enrollments been increasing (an 80 percent increase from 5 percent in 2005 to 9 percent in 2014),
concurrent with rapid growth in total undergraduate enrollments in engineering. The tuition paid by these students
and the technical skills and multicultural perspectives they bring to engineering classrooms and research labora-
tories are valued by engineering faculty and administrators. Less information has been collected and analyzed at
the undergraduate level than at the graduate level on the drivers and composition of rising enrollment in engineer-
ing of foreign-born students with temporary visas and its impacts on host institutions and on the educational and
career pathways and choices as well as the engineering education experiences of both domestic and foreign-born
temporary resident students.
Finding: Foreign-born students on temporary visas have long constituted a large share of US engineering
school enrollments at the graduate level, whereas the rapid growth of foreign-born temporary resident stu-
dent enrollments in undergraduate engineering programs is more recent. Accordingly, the impacts of foreign
student enrollments have been studied more extensively at the graduate level than at the undergraduate level.
Additional data gathering and research are needed on the nature and impact of foreign-born temporary resident
student enrollments in US engineering programs, especially at the undergraduate level.
Recommendation 12: Universities, statistical agencies, and the higher education research community should
monitor and evaluate the effects of growing enrollment of foreign-born students on temporary visas in engi-
neering, particularly at the undergraduate level, on the educational and career choices as well as the engineer-
ing education experiences of both domestic and foreign students, and on host institutions of higher learning.
DATA GAPS HINDER UNDERSTANDING OF ENGINEERING

EDUCATIONAL AND CAREER PATHWAYS
As the occupational distribution, work activities, and career pathways of engineering graduates make clear, the
demand for engineering skills is much greater than that of engineering occupations alone. Yet national survey-based
datasets provide only periodic snapshots of where engineering graduates are employed, the tasks they perform, or

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9
the educational background and job tasks of those in engineering occupations. In addition, the analysis that can
be done for underrepresented minorities is limited by small sample sizes in surveys.
Finding: National survey-based datasets provide only limited insight into the dynamics of the market for
engineering skills and knowledge, its connections to the educational enterprise, and broader implications.
Survey data can be integrated with “administrative data”—data collected by academic institutions, government
agencies, and other organizations for purposes such as administrative recordkeeping, transactions, registration,
and reporting.11 The resulting information can yield a deeper, more fine-grained understanding of the educational
and career trajectories of engineering graduates and the relationship between engineering education, training, and
workforce outcomes. Specifically, administrative data combined with survey data could shed light on engineering
education patterns and student retention; engineering, engineering-proximate, and non-engineering employment
choices; engineering employment dynamics; and economic impacts of the engineering workforce.
Although the innovative use of administrative datasets offers a uniquely comprehensive approach to examining
educational and career pathways, there are several challenges to their use. The datasets were not initially devel-
oped to be used in analysis, nor have most of them been structured in a manner that allows them to be integrated
with other datasets, so combining datasets requires effort to ensure that all data are properly cleaned and matched.
Furthermore, federal regulations have been set up to protect the privacy of individuals at multiple levels; protection
of data against unauthorized access or disclosure is the most significant challenge in the use of administrative data.
Aggregating these datasets for research purposes is achievable, but requires a considered approach, resources to
identify and integrate data, efforts to ensure data security and confidentiality, and cooperation between researchers
and owners of the administrative data.
Finding: Despite some challenges to their use, administrative data can both supplement survey data and
offer a completely new source of data to provide a more complete picture of the education, career paths, and
training of engineers.
Recommendation 13: Researchers and policymakers should work with institutions of higher education, fed-
eral, state, and local government agencies, and other entities that hold administrative data to identify and build
on administrative data resources to establish a better empirical foundation for research on the educational and
career paths of engineers using a wide variety of definitions of what it means to be an engineer. Specifically,
they should:
• Identify resources to collect and integrate longitudinal administrative records from university transcript
data and data from statistical agencies.
• Use the data for characterizing student educational pathways (including student retention in higher educa-
tion), employment choices, earnings and employment dynamics, and the economic returns to the costs of
an engineering degree.
• Maintain the confidential data in secure environments for analysis by authorized researchers for the pur-
poses of building a robust evidence base to inform policy.
CONCLUSION
Engineering skills and knowledge are foundational to the innovation and technological development that drive
long-term economic growth and help solve major societal challenges. Therefore it is important to understand
the educational and career pathways of engineers. Using the data available, this report presents a comprehensive
portrait of US engineers, their education, and their careers and career pathways.
The US engineering education system produces versatile and valuable members of the country’s techni-
cal workforce. Engineering enrollments are increasing in US universities and engineers have very low rates of
11 Administrative data are explained in chapter 1, box 1-4, and appendix E.

unemployment, indicating a healthy supply and demand for engineers. Engineering graduates have remarkable
flexibility in a variety of careers, including management, and are employed and rewarded in other professional
domains. In addition, the substantial share of those working as engineers who do not have engineering degrees
contribute in important ways to the US economy, and benefit financially and in other ways. This portrait of engi-
neering suggests a field that has impact far beyond traditional measures.
At the same time and for a variety of reasons, women and individuals from certain minority populations
continue to be underrepresented in engineering degree pathways and careers. For this reason alone, it is fair to
say that US engineering is not meeting its full potential.

Introduction
“Engineering is essential to our health and happiness.”

NAE, Changing the Conversation
“Any sufficiently complex technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

Sir Arthur C. Clarke, 2001: A Space Odyssey
These two statements capture central but possibly paradoxical aspects of the public’s perception of engineering.
On the one hand, nearly everything in people’s daily lives is an engineered object or system, often referred to as
technology. The cup used for coffee or soup, cellphones, logistics systems that distribute food to supermarkets,
trucks that bring it there, buses and trains that convey people to work, houses, apartments, and office buildings,
and the environmental systems that make these places habitable—all are engineered. In sum, people all over the
world are dependent on engineering for myriad aspects of their quality of life (see box I-1).
Yet many people have no idea how technology is engineered and developed or how it works. Even simple
systems seem “magical”—or at least inscrutable—and the “sudden” appearance of a technology may seem inex-
plicable too. Only 15 to 20 years ago, cell phones were heavy and limited to audio calls. Then, almost overnight
it seemed, they could do practically anything, and today smartphones are ubiquitous. Refugees fleeing civil unrest
buy them to use the GPS map app.
Of course, it is not essential to know how the operating system of a cell phone works. It is useful, however,
for people to have at least a sense of some of the elements necessary to the development of technology, so they
can appreciate the array of opportunities for participating in this development and contributing meaningfully to
the world around them.
The system of innovation and technology development is diverse and complex, involving research and devel-
opment organizations in the public and private domains, government funding for basic research, universities, the
patent system, the availability of capital, marketing, channels of distribution—and perhaps the most critical ele-
ment, people. People generate the ideas for innovation and development, and frequently those people are engineers.
Engineers are essential to the creation of new technology, which has been a large contributor to US economic
growth over the past century. Thus it is of national importance that the population of engineers available to the
labor force is continually replenished and updated to thrive amid changes in technology and the global marketplace.
That supply of engineers depends on a system that can be called the engineering education-to-workforce pathway.
11

BOX I-1
The Greatest Engineering Achievements of the 20th Century
In 2003 the National Academy of Engineering published A Century of Innovation: Twenty Engineering
Achievements That Transformed Our Lives, which chronicled the development and impact of what the
Academy characterized as the top 20 engineering achievements of the 20th century.
The ranked achievements were:
1. Electrification 11. Highways

2. Automobile 12. Spacecraft
3. Airplane 13. Internet
4. Water supply and distribution 14. Imaging
5. Electronics 15. Household appliances
6. Radio and television 16. Health technologies
7. Agricultural mechanization 17. Petroleum and petrochemical technologies
8. Computers 18. Laser and fiber optics
9. Telephone 19. Nuclear technologies
10. Air conditioning and refrigeration 20. High-performance materials
To understand this system, the National Academy of Engineering convened a committee of experts to study
the characteristics and career choices of engineering graduates, particularly those with a BS or MS degree, who
constitute the vast majority of degreed engineers, as well as the characteristics of those with non-engineering
degrees who are employed as engineers in the United States (box I-2). The goal was to provide insight into their
educational and career pathways and related decision making, the forces that influence their decisions, and the
implications for major elements of engineering education-to-workforce pathways—the institutions, people, mar-
kets, policies, and other resources involved in the education, training, and employment of engineers.
These pathways are shaped largely by market forces, although some parts are regulated by standards that
define a quality engineering education, immigration quotas for engineers entering the workforce from abroad, and
professional licensure for engineers in some fields of practice. Arguably, the system has worked well, because the
United States has been the innovation engine of the world for the past 75 years, when US engineering expanded
and evolved rapidly, leading the world in both driving and responding both to advances in technology and science
and to emerging societal needs and wants.
The rewards to US-based engineers for their contributions to the nation’s technological and economic advances
are generally substantial. Because of their relative scarcity and unique capabilities, degreed engineers on aver-
age are more highly compensated, obtain higher lifetime earnings than other college graduates, and experience
below-average unemployment rates. They also have a great deal of career flexibility and occupational mobility,
applying their knowledge and skills across a range of engineering, engineering-proximate, and non-engineering
occupations during their careers.
In recent years, however, the popular and trade press have been rife with concern that the United States is
losing its technology edge and that engineering education-to-workforce pathways may not be functioning as
effectively as needed to sustain US technological and economic leadership. One concern is the persistent under-
representation of women and some racial/ethnic minorities in engineering,1 widely considered a lost opportunity
to enhance US innovation. At the same time, some stakeholders believe that the system is not producing enough
1 For this report, the term “underrepresented minority” refers to African Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and Hispanics of any
race, whose representation in engineering is below that of the general US population (by contrast, the proportion of Asian Americans in engi-
neering is higher than their proportion in the US population). This definition is also used in the federal datasets cited in the report (NSF 2013).

INTRODUCTION 13
BOX I-2
National Academy of Engineering Study Committee on Understanding the
Engineering Education to Workforce Continuum Statement of Task
A National Academy of Engineering ad hoc committee will explore a set of questions about the career
choices of engineering graduates and those employed as engineers with non-engineering degrees in the
United States in order to provide a comprehensive view of the career pathways and related decision making
of engineering graduates and working engineers in the United States.
The committee will
Objective 1: Collect and synthesize data from existing sources that shed light on the characteristics of
those working as engineers and those formally educated as engineers who are not working in engineering
in the United States. These characteristics will include age, gender, educational background, occupational
sector, job category (e.g., engineer, management), compensation, and job-related competencies.
Objective 2: Collect and synthesize existing data that shed light on factors that influence the career
decisions of those working as engineers and those formally educated as engineers who are not working
in engineering. These factors will include personal values and beliefs, motivation, self-efficacy, educational
experience, economic incentives, job satisfaction, and job mobility.
Objective 3: Based on the data reviewed and/or collected, consider the implications of current career
pathways of working engineers and engineering graduates more broadly for undergraduate engineering
education, post-secondary engineering programs, continuing engineering education initiatives, employers
of engineering talent (e.g., on-the-job training), and US national interests.
Based on its analysis of the available information and data, the committee will hold a workshop and
produce a consensus report.
new engineers to meet the rapidly growing demand for engineering skills throughout the economy. Others question
whether US engineering education is preparing graduates adequately to meet the demands of an increasingly global,
dynamic workplace and the changing nature of engineering work. Still others wonder whether opportunities for
new engineers are being stunted by an influx of engineers from abroad on temporary visas who may be willing to
work for lower wages. The evidence for many of these concerns is based on data that are scant, ambiguous, and
occasionally contradictory, but they raise questions as to whether improvements could and should be made to the
education-to-workforce pathways. This report explores many of these concerns and questions.
Families, teachers, and guidance counselors play a critical role in determining who pursues an engineering
education and career. The more these advisors know about engineering and engineering career pathways, the more
they can help students make informed decisions. And the advice needed and factors affecting those decisions may
differ based on gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic background, which also influence students’ persistence in
an engineering program.
The four to six years of an undergraduate engineering education program are the most well defined part of the
pathways. Once graduates enter the labor force, they can choose from a broad spectrum of career paths, involv-
ing jobs not always described as engineering jobs. While roughly 35 percent of engineering degree holders work
in engineering occupations narrowly defined, another 45 percent work in engineering management, computing,
and engineering-related occupations2 that draw heavily on their technical engineering skills and training (what
this report calls engineering-proximate occupations). The remaining fifth of engineering graduates apply their
2 TheNSF defines “engineering-related” jobs as electrical, electronic, industrial, mechanical, or other technicians or technologists; drafting,
surveying, and mapping technicians; surveyors or architects (see appendix A).

engineering skills and training in occupations entirely unrelated to science and engineering. In addition, signifi-
cant numbers of workers without an engineering degree work in engineering occupations. Thus trying to size and
describe the engineering workforce is not easy.
Chapter 1 of this report sets out definitions of working engineers—based on their degree, occupation, or use
of engineering skills—and documents their educational backgrounds, demographics, occupational and sectoral
distribution, specific work activities, and career pathways. The chapter also examines the economic returns to
an engineering degree, the dynamics of the engineering labor market, and major forces, including technological
changes and globalization, that shape the market and with it the educational and career pathways of engineers.
Chapter 2 reviews changing workplace demands for engineering graduates’ skills and knowledge and implications
for engineering education. Chapter 3 examines factors that influence the decision making of potential and degreed
engineers, starting with K–12 preparation and then considering experiences through college and into the workforce,
with a focus on women and racial/ethnic minorities who are significantly underrepresented in engineering education
and the engineering labor force. Chapter 4 presents the committee’s major findings and recommendations, which
are summarized in the report’s Executive Summary. Commissioned white papers with data and analysis used by
the committee are provided in the appendices in addition to other background materials.
REFERENCE
NSF [National Science Foundation]. 2013. Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering:
2013. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics Special Report NSF 13-304. Arlington, VA. Available at
www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/.

Characteristics of Engineers and

the Engineering Workforce
long-term economic growth and help solve major societal challenges. Therefore it is important to understand the
educational and career pathways of engineers who embody these skills and knowledge, and the evolving system of
institutions, policies, markets, people, and other resources that together prepare, deploy, and replenish the nation’s
stock of engineers.
This chapter begins with three definitions of the engineering labor force and describes the datasets used to
characterize and measure the nation’s engineering workforce.1 This is followed by an examination of the edu-
cational background, demographics, occupational and sectoral distributions, specific work activities, and career
pathways of engineers using the three definitions. The chapter then reviews the economic returns to an engineering
degree, the dynamics of the engineering labor market, and major forces, including technological developments and
globalization, that shape the market and with it the educational and career pathways of engineers.
DEFINING, MEASURING, AND CHARACTERIZING THE ENGINEERING LABOR FORCE

There are three overlapping ways to define and measure the nation’s engineering labor force:
1. those working in relatively narrowly defined engineering occupations,

2. those with engineering degrees,2 and
3. those who apply on the job the skills and knowledge acquired through an engineering degree.
The occupational definition of an engineer captures some engineering degree holders as well as workers without
an engineering degree who perform certain job duties that define an engineering occupation, while excluding
holders of engineering degrees working in “engineering-proximate” occupations, those that draw heavily on the
specialized technical and professional knowledge and skills of engineering graduates, as well as “non-engineering”
1 Workforce is defined in this report as a subset of the labor force that includes only those who are employed. The labor force includes those
in the workforce as well as working-age persons who are not employed but are looking for work.
2 In part due to the classification system used by federal datasets, the committee decided to define “engineering degrees” to include only
degrees earned from traditional engineering programs and to exclude 4-year degrees in engineering technology, despite the similarities between
the programs. Engineering technology degree holders are discussed in box 1.1.
15

occupations, those that draw on professional and more generic technical skills of engineering graduates. Defining
an engineer in terms of degree earned implies that an engineer remains an engineer throughout his or her career,
regardless of occupation or whether specific technical or professional knowledge and skills associated with the
degree are used on the job. The third definition, a subset of the second, encompasses those who have a degree in
engineering and apply the technical and professional knowledge and skills acquired with that degree in their work,
as evidenced either by the tasks they perform or by whether they say they use science, engineering, or mathematical
knowledge from the degree on the job. The committee believes that these three definitions yield complementary
insights into the educational and career pathways of engineers as well as the market (i.e., supply and demand) for
engineering knowledge and skills.
Although engineering and computing are closely related, the discipline of computer science and computing
occupations are defined as distinct from engineering by the statistical agencies that track graduation rates and
employment and the report follows this categorization in the analyses. The project examined some aspects of career
flexibility and pathways for those with computer science degrees and found similarities to the pathways of those
with engineering degrees, but a full review of the pathway to a computing degree and then into the workforce is
beyond the scope of the project.
Sources of Data to Identify Engineers

To examine these three definitions of the engineering labor force and their implications, the committee used data
from two primary sources, both of which include bachelor’s degrees and higher, but not associate’s degrees. The
first dataset consists of annual data on degrees awarded by discipline and citizenship (including foreign-born stu-
dents) from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) of the National Center for Education
Statistics (http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds). IPEDS is a primary source for a variety of annual data—including rates of
college enrollment and degree completion, and demographic characteristics of current students—for colleges and
universities in the United States.
For data on degreed engineers in the labor force and those working in engineering occupations, the committee
relied primarily on the NSF Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data System (SESTAT) and its National Survey
of College Graduates (NSCG3) and Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED4). SESTAT was created to provide data
for policy analysis and general research, particularly of the college-educated science and engineering (S&E5)
labor force. It provides information on individuals educated or employed in S&E occupations or those related to
S&E, as well as those educated or employed in non-S&E occupations.6 The NSCG is the core of SESTAT and is
representative of the entire population of those with a bachelor’s degree residing in the United States when the
sampling frame for the survey was established. The survey includes foreign-born workers and students with col-
lege degrees regardless of whether they were educated in the United States.7 It collects cross-section information
every two to three years, with a subsample of respondents followed from one survey to the next, thus providing
longitudinal data.
The committee used both IPEDS and NSCG to evaluate engineering degree holders because IPEDS data
provide information on the number of new engineering graduates each year (a measure of flow into engineering)
whereas the NSCG provides information on the total number of engineering degree holders in the labor force (a
measure of the stock of engineers). To complement these data and create a fuller portrait of engineers in the labor
3 https://nsf.gov/statistics/srvygrads.NSCG respondents choose the field of their degree from a list. It is then categorized as engineering or
not based on standardized codes. The NSCG is conducted biennially by the US Census Bureau. The year of the referenced survey is indicated
throughout this report.
4 https://nsf.gov/statistics/srvydoctorates
5 According to the 2014 NSF Science and Engineering Indicators Report, page 3-8, “general terms, including science, technology, engineer-
ing, and mathematics (STEM), science and technology (S&T), and science, engineering, and technology (SET), are often used to designate
the part of the labor force that works with S&E. These terms are broadly equivalent and have no standard definition.”
6 www.nsf.gov/statistics/sestat/#sci_eng_definitions
7 The NSCG includes people not educated in the United States because the sample frame is pulled from the decennial census or the American
Community Survey (ACS). It also includes people up to the age of 76, who may or may not still be in the labor force.

CHARACTERISTICS OF ENGINEERS AND THE ENGINEERING WORKFORCE 17
force, the committee also drew on peer-reviewed research (Kuehn and Salzman 2018) and data from the Ameri-
can Community Survey,8 US Census,9 Office of Personnel Management,10 and American Society for Engineering
Education’s Survey of Engineering and Engineering Technology Programs.11
Engineers as Those Working in Engineering Occupations

The first definition of an engineer is based solely on narrowly defined occupational classifications. In the Stan-
dard Occupational Classification (SOC) System12 used by the National Science Foundation and Bureau of Labor
Statistics, engineering occupations are defined by a set of job duties applied to particular areas of technology.
For example, according to the SOC definition, aerospace engineers “[p]erform engineering duties in designing,
constructing, and testing aircraft, missiles, and spacecraft. May conduct basic and applied research to evaluate
adaptability of materials and equipment to aircraft design and manufacture. May recommend improvements in
testing equipment and techniques.” And biomedical engineers “[a]pply knowledge of engineering, biology, and
biomechanical principles to the design, development, and evaluation of biological and health systems and products,
such as artificial organs, prostheses, instrumentation, medical information systems, and health management and
care delivery systems.”13
The NSF identifies 18 job categories as engineering occupations in its National Survey of College Graduates
(table 1-1). As of 2015, there were 1.72 million college-educated individuals employed in engineering occupa-
tions (listed in appendix A1) in the United States. Just over half are in electrical, mechanical, or civil engineer-
ing occupations. The next largest groups of engineering occupations are aeronautical, chemical, environmental,
computing, industrial, and sales engineers.
However, there is considerable ambiguity involved in NSF’s decisions about the categorization of some techni-
cally demanding occupations that employ significant numbers of degreed engineers. Perhaps most notably, NSF
categorizes “computer engineers – hardware,” which in 2015 employed roughly 70,000, including 13,000 degreed
computer scientists, as an engineering occupation, while categorizing “computer engineers – software,” which
employed approximately 592,000 in 2015, including 194,000 degreed engineers, as a computing occupation.14
Similarly, those involved in the direct supervision of engineers engaged in technical engineering work (i.e., “engi-
neering managers”)—roughly 362,000 in 2015 including 208,000 degreed engineers—are classified as working
in “S&E management occupations.”15 In addition, the line between engineering occupations and what NSF calls
“engineering-related” occupations (e.g., engineering technologists and technicians,16 listed in appendix A1) is
not clear. Because of these ambiguities, this report refers to engineering occupations (those defined by the SOC),
engineering-proximate occupations (those that draw heavily on the specialized technical and professional knowl-
edge and skills of engineering graduates), and non-engineering occupations (those that draw on professional and
more generic technical skills of engineering graduates).
8 https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/. Also see the Hamilton Project (http://hamiltonproject.org).

9 https://www.census.gov/2010census/data/
10 https://www.opm.gov/
11 https://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/publications/college-profiles
12 https://www.bls.gov/soc/
13 For detailed descriptions of all 18 engineering occupations see US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook
Handbook: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/home.htm.
14 It is worth noting that the occupation “computer engineers – software” was listed under engineering in the 2013 questionnaire but not in
the occupation data proper.

15 In the 2000s, SESTAT gave managers in engineering a separate occupational code. However, NSF only includes as “engineering manag-
ers” lower-level managers directly supervising engineering, but does not include higher-level managers even if they worked in engineering
companies supervising managers who in turn supervised engineers.
16 In most instances, individuals with 4-year engineering technology degrees are called technologists, while those with 2-year engineering
technology degrees are called technicians, although several limitations exist. “First, federal employment data collection efforts sometimes use
the term ‘technician’ and at other times ‘technician or technologist’ to describe work that might be done by those with either a 2- or 4-year
degree. Second,…many of those with 4-year [engineering technology] degrees do not identify themselves as technologists. If asked in surveys,
for instance, they may call themselves engineers or managers. Third, the term ‘technologist’ also does not seem to have much currency within
industry, where the focus tends to be on the function an employee fulfills rather than the degree earned” (NAE 2017, p. 19).

TABLE 1-1 Number of college-educated people employed in NSF engineering occupations, 2015.
NSF categories used for engineering occupations Number employed
Aeronautical/aerospace/astronautical engineers 96,000
Agricultural engineers 7,000
Bioengineers/biomedical engineers 26,000
Chemical engineers 80,000
Civil, including architectural/sanitary engineers 251,000
Computer engineers – hardwarea 70,000
Electrical and electronics engineers 290,000
Environmental engineers 66,000
Industrial engineers 82,000
Marine engineers and naval architects 12,000
Materials and metallurgical engineers 31,000
Mechanical engineers 337,000
Mining and geological engineers 5,000
Nuclear engineers 25,000
Petroleum engineers 19,000
Sales engineersb 90,000
Engineers – all othersc 178,000
Postsecondary teachers: Engineering 53,000
Total 1,718,000
Source: NSB, S&E Indicators, 2018.

a Consistent with the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) System used by the National Science Foundation and Bureau of Labor Statis-
tics, in the committee’s analysis the occupation “computer engineering – hardware” is included with engineering occupations and “computer en-
gineering – software” is included with computing occupations. The number of people employed in computer engineering – software is 505,439.
b Defined in the SOC as those who “sell business goods or services, the selling of which requires a technical background equivalent to a bac-
calaureate degree in engineering.”

c Examples of occupations in this category are salvage engineer, photonics engineer, ordnance engineer, optical engineer (www.bls.gov/
soc/2010/soc172199.htm). The category (code 17-2199 in the SOC System) is equivalent to “miscellaneous engineers” (code 1530) in the 2010
US Census Occupation Title classification system and “general engineering” (series 0801) as defined by the Office of Personnel Management.
Educational Background of Those in Engineering Occupations

The vast majority of those working in engineering occupations in the United States have bachelor’s or higher
degrees in engineering from US colleges and universities. Others employed in engineering occupations are those
who earned a US college degree in a field other than engineering, foreign-born workers who earned a degree outside
the United States, and even a significant fraction with no college degree or less than a four-year college degree.
Because workers without a college degree are excluded from the most useful national datasets on engineers and
engineering occupations, they are not included in the committee’s analysis.17
The NSCG data show that in 2015 roughly 1.72 million college-educated individuals were employed in engi-
neering occupations in the United States, accounting for 3.7 percent of all employed college-educated people in the
US labor force that year. The data also show that 75 percent of those in engineering occupations have an engineering
17 The number of engineering workers who have no college degree or less than a four-year college degree can be measured using ACS
data. Analysis of these data shows that there are workers in engineering occupations who either have an associate’s degree or have no college
degree. They account for 12 percent of those in engineering occupations (Kuehn and Salzman 2018).

TABLE 1-2 Disciplinary background of non-engineering bachelor’s degree holders employed in engineering
occupations in the United States (percent), 2015
Bachelor’s degree awarded in: Percent
Non–science and engineering (S&E) fielda 29%
S&E-related fieldb 26%
Computing and mathematical sciences 15%
Physical and related sciences 13%
Biological sciences 10%
Social and related sciences 8%
Source: NSF National Survey of College Graduates, 2015.

a These fields include business, the humanities, and education.
b This includes technology and technical fields, architecture, science or math teacher education, and health fields.
degree as their highest degree (BS, MS, or PhD), and just over 81 percent have at least one engineering degree, even
if it is not their highest degree, meaning about 19 percent have no engineering degree at any level.
Of those employed in engineering occupations without an engineering degree (table 1-2), nearly half have a
degree in science fields, most notably in the physical and related sciences (13 percent) and computing and math-
ematical sciences (15 percent), and about a quarter are degreed in S&E-related fields such as engineering technol-
ogy (see box 1-1). The remaining 29 percent are from non-S&E fields, most of them from business administration
with a small percentage from economics, humanities, and education. In fact, holders of business degrees represent
21 percent of those in engineering occupations without an engineering degree, a greater share than those with
degrees in computing and mathematics or in the physical and related sciences.
Demographics of Those in Engineering Occupations

White and Asian males constitute the vast majority of those who work in engineering occupations (roughly 85 per-
cent); women (of any race) account for about 15 percent (table 1-3). Three significant minority populations—
African Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and Hispanics of any race—together constitute roughly
23 percent of the nation’s population yet represent 11.5 percent of those employed in engineering occupations.
Among persons in engineering occupations, 22 percent are foreign born, that is, they were born outside the United
States and have become naturalized citizens, are permanent residents (they have a green card),18 or are temporary
residents (they have a temporary visa such as the H-1B) (NSCG 2013).
As shown in table 1-3, some disciplines include higher percentages of women and minority engineers than others,
although none of the disciplines have achieved either gender or racial/ethnic parity. However, some occupations (e.g.,
biological/biomedical and environmental) have increased gender diversity in recent years and will continue to do so
as more diverse cohorts19 of engineers graduate and enter the workforce. It is also noteworthy that women account
for 15.1 percent of postsecondary engineering educators and Asian Americans 30.2 percent, while African Americans
and Hispanics of any race account for only 1.9 and 5.7 percent respectively. While this reflects the demographics of
engineering PhD holders discussed below, it has implications for the ability of the nation’s engineering schools to
attract and retain students from underrepresented populations (see chapter 3 for further discussion).
18 Both NSF and IPEDS datasets group naturalized citizens and permanent residents with US-born workers, while those on temporary visas
are defined as foreign-born.
19 In 2014–2015, women earned 49.7% of bachelor’s degrees in environmental engineering and 40.9% of bachelor’s degrees in biological/
biomedical engineering (Yoder 2015).

BOX 1-1
Engineering Technicians and Engineering Technologists
The federal government does not separately count engineering technicians and technologists in the
workforce but lumps them together in its data collection. In 2013 the Current Population Survey, American
Community Survey, and Occupational Employment Statistics reported that there were between 360,000
and 435,000 of these workers in the United States. Taking into account degree attainment information in
these surveys, it is possible to estimate the number of people working as technicians (i.e., those with an
associate’s degree, one or more certificates, or a combination of the two) as distinct from those working
as technologists (i.e., those with a bachelor’s degree). Such an analysis reveals that about 80 percent of
this workforce is composed of technicians and about 20 percent of technologists (NAE 2017).
The work of engineering technicians involves building, maintaining, repairing, and operating technolo-
gies and technological systems. It is fairly easy to distinguish from work done by those with a bachelor’s
degree in engineering. The picture is less clear with respect to technologists. While four-year degree
programs in engineering technology (ET) tend to place less emphasis on higher-level mathematics and
on the design component of engineering work, in many organizations the work and position titles of engi-
neering technologists are indistinguishable from those of individuals with a four-year degree in engineering
(Land 2012). According to 2013 NSCG data, nearly 39 percent of those working as technologists had an
engineering degree, and 16 percent of those with an ET degree were classified as working as engineers,
accounting for roughly 4 percent of total employment in engineering occupations (NAE 2017).
In terms of degree production, in 2014, according to IPEDS, 34,638 two-year and 17,915 four-year
degrees in engineering technology were awarded. Racial and ethnic groups traditionally underrepresented
in STEM fields are better represented in engineering technology than in engineering. Most striking, ET
degree earners are nearly three times as likely to be African American as those who receive a 4-year
degree in engineering (almost 11 percent versus almost 4 percent). Engineering technology education
(for both 2- and 4-year degrees) also attracts a higher proportion of American Indian/Native American
students (approximately 1 percent versus approximately 0.3 percent in 4-year engineering programs).
However, other than African American women, who are twice as likely to earn a 4-year ET degree than a
4-year engineering degree, women are even more underrepresented in engineering technology (12 percent
of degree holders at both the 2-year and 4-year level) than in engineering (approximately 20 percent of
bachelor’s degree holders) (NAE 2017).
Engineers as Those with a Degree in Engineering

The second definition of an engineer used in this analysis is a member of the labor force with a degree in engineer-
ing. According to NSCG data, in 2013 there were 4.3 million college-educated individuals with a bachelor’s or
higher degree in engineering, of whom 3.7 million were in the labor force (i.e., employed or looking for work)—just
over 8 percent of the college-educated labor force in the United States.20 This section presents data both on hold-
ers of engineering degrees overall and on holders of engineering degrees in the labor force. There has been more
than a decade-long rise in the number of engineering degrees awarded annually at all levels (see box 1-2). Most
20 Formeasuring the size of the engineering labor force, these numbers include those who work part time and full time, and those who
earned two or more bachelor’s degrees and marked the engineering degree as either their highest or other degree (either an earlier degree or
a second major). A number of the survey questions concern the highest degree, so for later analysis those who listed engineering as a second
or other degree were removed from the group.

TABLE 1-3 Demographics of those working in engineering occupations in the United States, 2015
American Native
Indian/ Hawaiian
Alaska African or Pacific More than
Male Female Asian Native American Hispanic Islander White one race
All engineering 85.5% 14.5% 16.2% 0.2% 4.3% 7.0% 0.2% 70.6% 1.6%
occupations
Aerospace 87.5% 12.5% 12.5% S 2.1% 11.5% S 70.8% S
Bio/Biomedical 73.1% 26.9% 15.4% S 3.8% 7.7% S 73.1% S
Chemical 78.8% 22.5% 16.3% S S 5.0% 2.5% 73.8% 2.5%
Civil 80.5% 19.5% 14.7% S 4.4% 8.0% S 70.1% 2.0%
Computer – 92.9% 7.1% 34.3% S 1.4% 5.7% S 57.1% S
hardware
Electrical 89.9% 10.7% 21.4% S 5.5% 7.2% 0.3% 64.1% 1.4%
Environmental 66.7% 33.3% 9.1% S 6.1% 6.1% S 74.2% S
Industrial 81.7% 18.3% 15.9% S 8.5% 8.5% S 67.1% S
Materials 83.9% 16.1% 9.7% S S 6.5% S 74.2% S
Mechanical 91.7% 8.6% 13.6% S 3.6% 5.6% 0.3% 75.7% 1.5%
Petroleum 89.5% 10.5% 15.8% S S 5.3% S 73.7% S
Postsecondary 84.9% 15.1% 30.2% S 1.9% 5.7% S 60.4% S
education
S = numbers have been suppressed by NSF because the populations are too small to report.
Source: NSCG 2015, https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/data/appendix.
degreed engineers (93 percent) hold a bachelor’s degree in engineering (figure 1-1). When those with engineering
bachelor’s or master’s degrees are counted together they account for 99 percent of degreed engineers.
Of those with a bachelor’s degree in engineering, for the majority (62 percent) this was their highest degree.
Put another way, roughly 58 percent (2.5 million) of those educated as engineers (4.3 million) hold a bachelor’s
degree as their highest degree; another 21.5 percent hold a master’s degree in engineering as their highest degree,
and 4.5 percent hold a doctoral degree in engineering as their highest degree; the remaining 16 percent who gradu-
ated with either a BS or MS engineering degree earned their highest degree in a field other than engineering.
While most MS engineers also earned a bachelor’s degree in engineering, a sizable fraction (16 percent, 164,114
people) hold a bachelor’s degree in a non-engineering field. Among engineering PhD holders most earned either
a bachelor’s or master’s degree in engineering, although 19 percent hold at least one degree (bachelor’s, master’s,
PhD, or professional degree) in a non-engineering field. Figure 1-1 presents a schematic of the major educational
pathways for earning engineering degrees.
Engineering Degrees by Field

The fields of electrical and mechanical engineering award the largest shares of engineering degrees (figure 1-2),
and from 2000 to 2013 the number of degrees awarded in mechanical, civil, and “other” engineering (a collection
of less populous engineering disciplines, including industrial, biomedical, and materials science; appendix A)
accounted for most of the growth in degrees awarded (with increases of 69 percent, 64 percent, and 71 percent,
respectively) (figure 1-3; IPEDS). (The glossary in appendix B provides a brief description of various engineering
disciplines.) This disciplinary distribution of engineering degrees differs only slightly from the makeup of all BS
engineering degree holders in the workforce in 2013 (discussed below).

BOX 1-2
Growth in Engineering Degrees Awarded Annually
From 2000 to 2013 the number of BS engineering degrees awarded each year increased 46 percent—
more rapidly than the rate of all US bachelor’s degrees (41 percent). The number of engineering master’s
degrees awarded annually grew 69 percent over the same period, and that of doctoral degrees 58 percent.a
By comparison, the number of degrees awarded annually in the related fields of mathematics/statistics
and physics rose even more rapidly over the 13-year period, roughly 80 percent each, but from a much
smaller base, accounting for only 21,000 and 6,000 degrees awarded in 2013 respectively. In contrast, the
annual production of computing BS degrees grew only 15 percent over the period; rapid growth from 2000
to 2004 was followed by a 6-year decline before reversing the downward trend in 2011 to end in 2013 with
43,000 degrees awarded (figure 1-B1).
FIGURE 1-B1 Number of bachelor’s degrees awarded annually in engineering and related fields, 2000–2013.
Source: IPEDS Completion Survey 2000–2013.
a According to data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, IPEDS (http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds);
for more recent data see https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37.


Primary Pathways in Engineering Education
ENGINEERING
BACHELOR’S
3,994,422
ENGINEERING
MASTER’S
1,101,532
815,157
ENGINEERING
679,419 PhD
144,395 196,185*
NON-ENGINEERING
164,114
GRADUATE &
NON-ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL
BACHELOR’S DEGREES
122,261
NO +
BACHELOR’S
* This figure shows the advanced educational pathways of BS engineering graduates and the pathways to advanced
engineering education of students lacking a BS engineering degree as measured in 2013 by the National Survey of College
Graduates.
+ This number includes those who earned an engineering PhD via a less common degree pathway: straight from a BS in
engineering; combined with a non-engineering degree at the bachelor’s, master’s, or PhD level; or with no reported bachelor’s
degree.
This group may be explained as a measurement error due in part to the complexity of collecting an individual’s complete
degree history, but it may also include those who do not in fact hold a bachelor’s degree, such as people who have worked in
occupations in or related to engineering and then pursued a master’s in engineering from a program that does not require a
bachelor’s degree, or people working in the US who received an engineering education in Europe where a bachelor’s degree
equivalent does not exist and their degree is most similar to a master’s degree in the US.
FIGURE 1-1 Primary pathways in engineering education. This figure includes all engineering degree holders regardless of
work status.
Source: NSCG 2013.

FIGURE 1-2 Percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded in engineering disciplines in 2000, 2006, and 2013. “Other” includes
industrial, biomedical, and materials science.
Source: IPEDS 2013.
Many degreed engineers who pursue degrees beyond the bachelor’s level combine their engineering degree
with a non-engineering degree. NSCG data for BS engineering degree holders (older than 25 years21) show that
over 40 percent have completed additional degrees beyond a bachelor’s. While the most common additional degree
is an MS in engineering (40 percent), 30 percent went on to receive a master’s in a non-S&E field (often an MBA
degree) as their highest degree (figure 1-4).
Demographics of Engineering Graduates

White and Asian men earned the vast majority of BS, MS, and PhD degrees in engineering in 2013, and have done
so for decades, whereas women and most of the nation’s minority populations have long been severely under-
represented among engineering degree earners. At the same time, foreign-born students on temporary visas have
earned a significant fraction of engineering degrees awarded by US institutions, particularly at the master’s and
PhD levels, for several decades.
Although women earned 57 percent of all bachelor’s degrees and 60 percent of all master’s degrees awarded in
the United States in 2012, they earned only 19 percent of BS engineering degrees and 23 percent of MS engineer-
21 The age restriction was used to account for the time needed to earn an additional degree.

FIGURE 1-3 Number of bachelor’s degrees awarded annually by engineering discipline, 2000–2013. “Other engineering”
includes the less populous remaining disciplines, e.g., industrial, biomedical, and materials science.
Source: IPEDS 2013.
ing degrees awarded in 2013, and these percentages have been essentially flat since 2000 (figure 1-5; appendix A,
figure A-5).22 Indeed, engineering awards far fewer bachelor’s and master’s degrees to women than any other
field (appendix A). At the PhD level, the number of engineering degrees awarded to women has risen from 16
percent (2000) to 22 percent (2012) (Survey of Earned Doctorates), but is still much lower than the 41 percent of
all science and engineering doctorates women earned in 2010 (SED 2010).
As in the case of engineering occupations, the representation of women among engineering degree holders
varies by field (table 1-4). In 2013 women accounted for barely 12 percent of BS degrees earned in electrical and
mechanical engineering, the two largest fields (Kuehn and Salzman 2018). By comparison, two of the smaller
fields, biomedical and environmental engineering, have very high representation, about 39 percent and 45 percent
respectively, and chemical, industrial, and materials engineering all have substantially higher levels than the 19 per-
cent average for women in engineering generally. Although these differences could be related to the disciplines
themselves, it is also the case that progress toward gender parity occurs more slowly in larger fields because more
women need to enter the field each year to reach parity. In other words, while 4,500 women earning chemical engi-
neering bachelor’s degrees achieves gender parity for that year, over 11,000 women must earn mechanical engineer-
ing bachelor’s degrees to reach parity. Similarly, 5,000 women earning chemical engineering degrees in one year
22 Unless otherwise indicated, these and other statistics and data about degrees earned are from IPEDS (http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/).

FIGURE 1-4 Percentage of engineering bachelor’s degree holders over the age of 25 who earned an additional degree beyond
the bachelor’s, by degree level and area of degree. S&E = science and engineering.
Source: NSCG 2013.
represents about 2 percent of the total stock of chemical engineering BS degree holders (approximately 266,400
in 2013), but 5,000 women earning mechanical engineering degrees in one year represents less than 1 percent of
the total stock of BS degree holders in that field (approximately 777,000 in 2013).
African Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and Hispanics of any race also remain significantly
underrepresented in engineering degree programs and among engineering degree holders. After an increase from
1993 to 2000, from 9.8 percent to 13.6 percent, the share of BS engineering degrees awarded to underrepresented
minorities plateaued at about 13 percent, with a slight uptick to 14.4 percent in 2013 (table 1-5 and figure 1-6).23
On the other hand, the share of engineering master’s degrees earned by underrepresented minorities was 13.4
percent in 2013, up from 9.9 percent in 2000 and 6.5 percent in 1993. The share of engineering PhDs earned by
underrepresented minorities was 9.6 percent in 2012, down from 10.4 percent in 2010 (the high since 2000) and
up from 6.9 percent in 2000. Comparison of these numbers to the total US college degree population shows that
the URM share of engineering degrees is 6–7 percent below their share of bachelor’s and master’s degrees in all
subjects: In 2013 underrepresented minorities earned 21 percent of all bachelor’s degrees and 19.6 percent of all
master’s degrees awarded in the United States (IPEDS).
Finding: The representation of women and other underrepresented groups in engineering has improved in
some disciplines but remains well short of parity.
23 These percentages are of the total population of permanent US residents (temporary residents are not included nor is their race analyzed).

FIGURE 1-5 Percentage of women by highest degree in engineering, 2000–2013.

Sources: IPEDS Completion Survey 2000–2013, NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates 2000–2012.
TABLE 1-4 Share of women earning engineering bachelor’s degrees by field. Adapted from Kuehn and
Salzman (2018).
Engineering field Total number of degrees Female share of bachelor’s degrees
Mechanical 22,267 11.99%
Electrical 18,123 11.76%
Civil 15,809 21.44%
Other 12,497 24.11%
Biomedical 38.93%
Computer 9.91%
Environmental 45.05%
Chemical 8,917 32.27%
Industrial 4,747 29.77%
Aerospace 3,490 13.72%
Materials 1,436 29.76%
Total share of women among engineering BS degree earners 87,286 19.36%
Source: IPEDS 2013.

TABLE 1-5 Engineering bachelor’s degrees awarded by field and race, 2013. URM = underrepresented
minority (African Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and Hispanics of any race).
Engineering field Total number of degreesa URM share of bachelor’s degrees
Mechanical 21,010 13.0%
Electrical 16,109 18.1%
Civil 15,009 16.0%
Other 11,811 10.6%
Chemical 7,914 13.0%
Industrial 4,163 19.1%
Aerospace 3,217 12.1%
Materials 1,316 8.4%
Total engineering BS degree earners 80,549 14.4%
Source: IPEDS 2013.

a The total of degrees earned excludes those earned by temporary residents because their race and ethnicity are not collected by IPEDS.
FIGURE 1-6 Percentage of engineering degrees awarded annually to underrepresented minorities (African Americans, Ameri-
can Indians/Alaska Natives, and Hispanics of any race), 2000–2013.
Sources: Bachelor’s and master’s degrees—IPEDS Completion Survey; PhDs—Survey of Earned Doctorates (2000–2012).
Another important aspect of engineering education in the United States is the number of degrees awarded to
foreign-born students on temporary visas24 (“temporary residents”). In 1990–2013, an average of about 7 percent
of the engineering bachelor’s degrees awarded each year went to temporary residents (figure 1-7)—double the
3.5 percent of all bachelor’s degrees awarded to temporary residents in 2012. And the proportion of engineering
degrees awarded to temporary residents increases significantly with the level of the degree. Since 2001, approxi-
The IPEDS data categorize students according to three citizenship classifications: US citizen, foreign-born permanent resident, and
24
foreign-born temporary resident. The committee’s analysis of foreign-born students focuses on only the temporary residents.

FIGURE 1-7 Percentage of engineering degrees awarded annually to foreign-born temporary resident students, 2000–2013.
Sources: Bachelor’s and master’s degrees—IPEDS Completion Survey (2000–2013); PhD—Survey of Earned Doctorates
(2000–2012).
mately 40 percent of engineering master’s degrees and more than half of engineering PhD degrees awarded each
year have gone to temporary residents.
Occupational Distribution of Degreed Engineers

While degreed engineers account for over 80 percent of all workers employed in engineering occupations, nearly
two thirds of degreed engineers work in engineering-proximate or non-engineering occupations: 65 percent of those
employed with any engineering degree and 60 percent of those whose highest degree is in engineering. There are
a wide variety of fields in which degreed engineers pursue careers in engineering-proximate or non-engineering
occupations—not only other scientific disciplines but also management, health care, law, business, education, fine
arts, sales, and service.
Table 1-6 shows that, after engineering occupations narrowly defined, management occupations associated
with engineering are the next most common for those with a bachelor’s or master’s degree in engineering, followed
by non-S&E nonmanagement occupations and computing occupations.
The occupational distribution of engineering graduates varies based on how long ago they earned their degree.
The NSCG 2013 data show that a more recent graduate is more likely to be in an engineering occupation (45 percent
of those with a BS in engineering and 49 percent of those with an MS in engineering) than graduates more than
10 years from their degree (33 percent of BS engineering graduates and 38 percent of MS engineering graduates).
And conversely, 25 percent of those who earned a BS in engineering more than 10 years ago are in engineering

TABLE 1-6 Employed engineering bachelor’s or master’s degree holders by occupation. Management
associated with engineering, computing, and engineering-related occupations are considered “engineering-
proximate” occupations. S&E = science and engineering.
% of employed degreed engineers working in: Bachelor’s degree in engineering (%) Master’s degree in engineering (%)
Engineeringa 36 42
Management associated with engineeringb 21 18
Non-S&E that is also not management 15 11
Computing 15 17
Engineering-relatedc 6 5
Management not associated with engineering 3 2
Other S&Ed 4 5
Total 100 100
Source: NSCG 2013.

a Includes lower-level or first-line engineering managers that NSF includes in engineering occupations.
b Includes engineering-degreed workers in management occupations who report that the duties of their job require the technical expertise of a
bachelor’s degree or higher in engineering, computer science, math, or the natural sciences.
c Includes architecture and engineering technician occupations.
d Excludes engineers, computer scientists, engineering-related, and management occupations.
management occupations, as opposed to only 10 percent of those who earned the degree less than 5 years ago (the
numbers are comparable—22 percent and 11 percent, respectively—for those with a master’s degree in engineering).
Disciplinary Differences among Employed Degreed Engineers

For more than a decade the bachelor’s-degreed engineers produced each year have been primarily in electrical (21
percent in 2013) or mechanical engineering (26 percent in 2013) (IPEDS 2013), so it is not surprising that the NSCG
data show a similar distribution among all degreed engineers in the workforce (figure 1-8). After electrical and
mechanical engineering, the largest subdiscipline in the engineering bachelor’s-degreed workforce is civil (about
16 percent). Other disciplines, such as industrial, biomedical, and materials science, amount to about 33 percent
of the engineering BS-degreed workforce. Figure 1-8 also shows that the percentage of people in the workforce
in 2013 whose highest degree is in the “other” disciplines is higher at the master’s and PhD levels, likely because
some of the fields included in this group, like biomedical engineering, often start at the graduate level.
Of the major disciplines, persons with an electrical or chemical engineering BS degree are less likely to be
working in a narrowly defined engineering occupation (33 percent and 37 percent, respectively) than those with a
BS degree in mechanical (45 percent) or civil (42 percent) engineering. And of the degree holders in these disci-
plines who are in an engineering occupation, those with a degree in chemical engineering are most likely to work
in a subfield different from their degree, at 15 percent, followed by those with a BS in mechanical engineering (13
percent). In contrast, only 7 percent of the civil and electrical degree holders in engineering occupations work in
a discipline other than that of their degree. At the same time, civil engineering degree holders are most likely to
work in engineering management occupations (23 percent), whereas the shares of graduates of other subdisciplines
range between 11 percent and 17 percent (NSCG 2013).
Occupational Differences among Men and Women Engineering Graduates

Several large-scale studies have examined gender-based differences in career pathways for engineering graduates.
A study by the Society of Women Engineers (SWE; Frehill 2007) found some important differences. The society
surveyed 4,490 male and 1,803 female engineers shortly after graduating and found that 58 percent of the men

FIGURE 1-8 Engineering degree holders in the workforce by discipline and by highest degree. “Other” comprises all other
fields of engineering.
Source: NSCG 2013.
were employed in engineering occupations compared to 48 percent of the women, and 18–20 years after gradu-
ation half of the men, but only a third of the women, were still in an engineering occupation. Chapter 3 looks at
gender disparities in greater detail.
Employment of Degreed Engineers by Sector

The NSCG data show that 69 percent of persons with a BS in engineering work in for-profit companies and about
12 percent are self-employed (incorporated or unincorporated). Of the remaining 19 percent, about 14 percent work
in the government at the federal or state level, 3 percent in education, and 2 percent in the nonprofit sector. Of
those working in the for-profit sector, 32 percent worked for very large companies (more than 25,000 employees),
32 percent for large companies (1,000–25,000 employees), 18 percent for mid-sized firms (100–1,000 employees),
and the rest (18 percent) for firms with fewer than 100 employees. This differs from college-educated workers
generally, who are evenly split between for-profit and non-profit, but similarly spread among small, medium, and
large firms.25 Entrepreneurship is a growing area of interest among engineering students and engineering educators
(box 1-3), but these distinctions for economic sector are not able to reveal how many engineers are pursuing this path.
25 Data
from the 2013 NSCG show that 44 percent of all college-educated workers are in large companies, 23 percent in medium-sized
companies, and 33 percent in small companies. The data also show that 51 percent of college-educated workers are in for-profit companies.

BOX 1-3
Entrepreneurship as a Career Option
Entrepreneurship is increasingly a valuable and popular educational topic in engineering education (dis-
cussed in chapter 2). Engineering students are being exposed to and seeking entrepreneurship education
and activities as part of their academic programs in order to acquire the knowledge, skills, and abilities
valued in today’s economy (e.g., Stanford’s Epicenter; http://epicenter.stanford.edu) (Byers et al. 2013;
Besterfield-Sacre et al. 2011; Shartrand et al. 2010). It is difficult, however, to determine how many are
entrepreneurs or are using entrepreneurial skills in their jobs.
The NSCG asks a question that can help to approximate how many degreed engineers in occupations
labeled as engineering are engaged in entrepreneurial activities or businesses. The question identifies
those who report that they work for an employer that came into existence in the last five years and that the
duties of their job require the technical expertise of a bachelor’s degree or higher in engineering, computer
science, math, or the natural sciences. These answers reveal that about 6 percent of those with a BS in
engineering and of those who have combined an engineering BS or MS with an MBA degree work in new
technical organizations.
Looking at the sectoral distribution of degreed engineers working exclusively in engineering occupations, 2013
data from the American Community Survey (ACS) show that two industry sectors employ the vast majority of these
engineers: manufacturing (45 percent) and professional, science, and technical services (28 percent) (Kuehn and
Salzman 2018). In the manufacturing sector, most of those in engineering occupations have an engineering bach-
elor’s degree in aerospace, chemical, industrial, mechanical, or materials engineering (Kuehn and Salzman 2018).
Government—largely at the federal level but also at state and local levels—is a direct employer of degreed
engineers in engineering occupations (130,654 in 2013) as public employees, and an indirect employer of many
more engineers (326,311) who work on government contracts, either part or full time, including engineers from
other employment sectors (Kuehn and Salzman 2018). The combined populations of directly and indirectly (i.e.,
some work supported by government grants or contracts) employed government engineers amounted to 40 percent
of all degreed engineers in engineering occupations in 2013 (Kuehn and Salzman 2018). Government will likely
remain an influential component of the demand for specific types of engineers (e.g., aerospace, nuclear, and civil);
demand for biomedical engineers both in and outside the government will be more specifically influenced by federal
grant funding, particularly from the National Institutes of Health, and demand for civil and environmental engi-
neers will be more specifically influenced by government infrastructure investments (Kuehn and Salzman 2018).
Demographics of the Degreed Engineering Workforce

White and Asian males constitute the vast majority of employed degreed engineers. White males constitute 38
percent of the US college-educated workforce, yet they account for 57 percent of employed engineering BS degree
holders. Asian American males constitute only 4.5 percent of the US college-educated workforce but account for
17 percent of employed engineering BS degree holders (NSCG 2013).
Although women represented more than 19 percent of engineering graduates in 2012, and over half of the
nation’s college-educated workforce in 2013, they accounted for only 15 percent of employed engineering BS
degree holders in 2013. Three significant minority populations—African Americans, American Indians/Alaska
Natives, and Hispanics of any race—together made up 15 percent of the college-educated workforce in 2013, and
about 12 percent of employed engineering BS degree holders (NSCG 2013).
The demographics of engineering matriculation during the first year of undergraduate education make clear
that the origins of engineering’s diversity challenge are to be found much earlier, in the precollege experience
of students. Data gathered by the Higher Education Research Institution (HERI; https://heri.ucla.edu) on student

TABLE 1-7 Demographic comparison of those who started in engineering and completed a degree in
engineering, completed a degree in a different area (STEM or non-STEM), or got no degree. STEM = science,
technology, engineering, mathematics; URM = underrepresented minority (African Americans, American
Indians/Alaska Natives, and Hispanics of any race).
Gender Race
Male Female White/Asian URM
First-year students aspiring to an engineering degree 79.4% 20.6% 79.5% 20.5%
Outcome after six years
Engineering degree (n=16,298) 82.0% 18.0% 90.0% 10.0%
Other STEM degree (n=1,630) 76.2% 23.8% 85.5% 14.5%
Non-STEM degree (n=3,260) 80.5% 19.5% 86.8% 13.2%
No degree (n=6,193) 88.8% 11.2% 68.3% 31.7%
Sources: 2004 Freshman Survey, Cooperative Institutional Research Program, Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA; National Student
Clearinghouse, 2010.
Note: Total population N=27,381.
matriculation and degree completion in engineering show that White and Asian males represent nearly 80 percent
of first-year students aspiring to earn an engineering degree (see appendix C).
The proportionately low matriculation rate of underrepresented minorities—who account for about 25 per-
cent of the undergraduate student population (see appendix C)—may be partly a function of these groups’ lack
of access to the higher-level secondary school math and science needed to enroll in undergraduate engineering.
In addition, the inability of educators, families, and the broader engineering stakeholder community to attract or
recruit precollege students to engineering has contributed to the underrepresentation of certain minorities and has
been a leading cause of the underrepresentation of young women in first-year engineering (women represent over
50 percent of all undergraduate students).26 The precollege dimensions of the diversity challenge are discussed in
chapter 3, but clearly engineering educators and schools of engineering at the nation’s colleges and universities
have a critical role in raising awareness of and interest in engineering among female and URM precollege students,
their families, and others who advise them.
HERI data on first-year students who wish to earn an engineering degree show nearly identical percentages of
women (20.6 percent) and underrepresented minorities (20.5 percent). Table 1-7 shows demographic comparisons
of those who aspired to an engineering degree and completed it, left engineering for a degree in another field, or
got no degree after six years. Almost one third of those who did not get a degree are underrepresented minorities.
Women, in contrast, account for only 11 percent of those without a degree after six years.
Thus although female and underrepresented minority students (partially overlapping populations) account for
roughly 20 percent of students matriculating in engineering during their first year of college, their degree comple-
tion rates diverge significantly. In the HERI sample, overall engineering degree completion rates within six years
of entering college hover around 40 percent (appendix C, figure C-13), which is similar to students in other majors
(Ohland et al. 2008). Engineering degree completion rates for women were slightly higher than for men in years
four, five, and six after matriculation (figure 1-9). However, given the initial disparity in the size of the male and
female engineering student populations at the time of matriculation, women’s share of total engineering graduates
had fallen to 18 percent in year six, 2.6 percentage points below their share at matriculation (table 1-7). By com-
parison, URM students (men and women) experienced engineering degree completion rates ranging from roughly
a third to little more than half the rates of the White and Asian students over years four through six (figure 1-10)
although they still earned only 10 percent of engineering degrees (table 1-7).
26 National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98.

FIGURE 1-9 Cumulative completion rates of bachelor’s engineering degree aspirants, by sex.
Sources: 2004 Freshman Survey, Cooperative Institutional Research Program, Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA;
National Student Clearinghouse, 2010.
FIGURE 1-10 Cumulative completion rates of bachelor’s engineering degree aspirants, by race. URM = underrepresented
minority (African Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and Hispanics of any race).
Although women and minorities are underrepresented when considered as independent groups, when race
and gender are examined together it becomes evident that female underrepresented minorities are grossly under
represented both in the population of employed engineering bachelor’s degree holders in any occupation and among
those working in engineering occupations with an engineering bachelor’s degree (tables 1-8 and 1-9). Furthermore,
underrepresented minorities and women are better represented in the overall population of employed engineering
bachelor’s degree holders than among those in narrowly defined engineering occupations, suggesting that under-
represented minorities and women are more likely to be working in non-engineering or engineering-proximate
occupations than their male White and Asian counterparts.
These statistics show that much work needs to be done to improve the retention of underrepresented minorities
in engineering and their graduation rate regardless of major. Chapter 3 explores many of the factors that contribute
to low recruitment and retention of women and underrepresented minorities in engineering education and describes
interventions to increase the diversity of engineering students as well as strategies to support students from all
backgrounds throughout their education.

TABLE 1-8 Underrepresented minority (URM) employed bachelor’s degree holders by gender and field of
bachelor’s degree. URM = African Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and Hispanics of any race.
Major Male URM share Female URM share URM share Female share
Engineering 10.05% 2.15% 12.20% 15.05%
Electrical and computera 10.78% 1.47% 12.25% 12.26%
Mechanical 8.98% 1.26% 10.23% 8.78%
Civil 8.98% 2.7% 11.69% 16.56%
College-degreed worker 6.63% 8.57% 15.20% 50.30%
Source: NSCG 2013.

a The percentage may be slightly higher because the numbers for American Indians/Alaska Natives in electrical and computer engineering are
not included (they were suppressed by NSF).
TABLE 1-9 Share of those in engineering occupations with a bachelor’s in engineering by race and gender.
URM = underrepresented minority (African Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and Hispanics of any
race).
Size of occupation
Male Female Total Total with BS in
Occupation URM share URM share URM share Female share engineering
Engineering 8.93% 1.86% 10.79% 14.37% 1,169,334
Electrical and computera 9.24% 1.72% 10.96% 9.47% 258,370
Mechanical 8.92% 0.80% 9.72% 8.84% 258,848
Civil 8.07% 1.85% 9.92% 16.88% 199,079
College-degreed worker 6.63% 8.57% 15.20% 50.30%
Source: NSCG 2013.

a The percentage may be slightly higher because the numbers for American Indians/Alaska Natives in electrical and computer engineering are
not included (they were suppressed by NSF).
Foreign-born workers with college degrees are overrepresented in the US engineering workforce compared
to the general workforce.27 In 2013 the share of foreign-born engineering degree holders in the US workforce
was 27 percent of those with a BS degree and 43 percent of those with an MS degree, and the share of foreign-
born workers in engineering occupations was 22 percent, all of which are substantially higher than the 15 percent
foreign-born share in the overall workforce that have a college degree (NSCG 2013).
Engineers as Both Degreed and Working in Engineering

Figure 1-11 uses NSCG data to show the size of the employed US engineering labor force (i.e., the engineering
workforce) in 2013 based on the educational and occupational definitions of the workforce as well as the overlap
between them. There are 3.6 million employed people with an engineering degree (bachelor’s, master’s, or PhD),
1.55 million people working in engineering occupations regardless of degree, and 1.27 million people who have an
27 The majority of foreign-born workers are naturalized US citizens rather than permanent or temporary residents: for BS engineering degree
holders 15.9 percent are naturalized, 6.6 percent are permanent, and 4.5 percent are temporary, while for workers in engineering occupations
13 percent are naturalized, 4 percent permanent, and 4.5 percent temporary.

FIGURE 1-11 The engineering workforce in 2013: Degreed engineers in engineering and non-engineering occupations, and
workers without an engineering degree in engineering occupations.
Source: NSCG 2013.
engineering degree and work in an engineering occupation (NSCG 2013). The total number of degreed engineers
is more than double the number of people employed in engineering occupations (NSCG 2013).
One might conclude from these data that a large fraction of degreed engineers are not using their degrees
since they are not working in engineering occupations narrowly defined. However, a closer look at the skills and
knowledge engineering graduates acquire in their formal education and the tasks they perform on the job points
to a very different conclusion.
Degreed Engineers Using Engineering Knowledge and Skills on the Job

In 2000 ABET (formerly known as the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology), which accredits
engineering education programs at most US schools of engineering as well as a multitude of engineering programs
overseas, defined the following technical and professional skills and knowledge as essential for all BS engineer-
ing graduates28:
28 At
the time this report was written, ABET was considering revisions to these criteria, but the changes had not been finalized. This report
does not address the draft criteria.

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data
c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such
as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability
d. An ability to function on multidisciplinary teams
e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems
f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
g. An ability to communicate effectively
h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic,
environmental, and societal context
i. A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in, lifelong learning
j. Knowledge of contemporary issues
k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.
In addition, each accredited department/disciplinary field of engineering requires its graduates to master
technical knowledge and skills that are unique to the discipline, although there are no program-specific criteria
for accredited “general engineering” programs.
Given the breadth and depth of technical knowledge and skills and the associated portfolio of professional
skills expected of engineering graduates when they enter the workforce, it seems unlikely that a graduate’s “engi-
neering skills” would not be put to productive use in non-engineering occupations. Using NSCG data, there are
several ways to assess the extent to which degreed engineers use their engineering skills and knowledge on the
job; since many BS-degreed engineers get an MS degree and a few go on to get a PhD, all three degree groups
are included for a fuller picture.
One way to assess degreed engineers’ use of their engineering skills in their work is to examine NSCG
respondents’ answers to questions about how closely related their highest degree is to their occupation. For those
whose highest degree is in engineering, a considerably higher share report that their work is closely related to their
degree than report working in engineering occupations (table 1-10).
A second way is to exploit the NSCG questions on whether the duties of respondents’ jobs “require the tech-
nical expertise of a bachelor’s degree or higher in engineering, computer science, math, or the natural sciences.”
Of those with an engineering degree as their highest degree, an overwhelming majority say that such technical
expertise is needed for their job (table 1-10). As expected, the data also show that the connection between degree
and occupation increases as the level of degree increases and the education becomes more specialized.
TABLE 1-10 Connection of engineering degree to occupation for workers with a degree in engineering.
n/a = not applicable.
Highest Highest
Highest degree is degree is Holds a
degree is a BS Holds a BS in an MS in Holds an MS a PhD in PhD in
in engineering engineering engineering in engineering engineering engineering
Percentage who are in an 38% 36% 43% 42% 51% 51%
engineering occupation
Percentage who report that 54% n/a 63% n/a 72% n/a
their work is closely related
to their highest degree
Percentage who report that 84% 84% 92% 90% 94% 94%
a bachelor’s in science or
engineering is needed for
their job
Source: NSCG 2013.

Answers to NSCG questions concerning respondents’ “primary work activities” and other work activities that
occupy at least 10 percent of their time provide a third way of teasing out what those in engineering occupations
really do, as well as whether those in non-engineering occupations actually do engineering-related work.
Fourteen work activities are presented to survey participants:
1. Accounting, finance, contracts

2. Basic research – study directed toward gaining scientific knowledge primarily for its own sake
3. Applied research – study directed toward gaining scientific knowledge to meet a recognized need
4. Development – use of knowledge gained from research for the production of materials, devices
5. Design of equipment, processes, structures, models
6. Computer programming, systems or applications development
7. Human resources – including recruiting, personnel development, training
8. Managing or supervising people or projects
9. Production, operations, maintenance (e.g., chip production, operation of lab equipment)
10. Professional services (e.g., health care, counseling, financial services, legal services)
11. Sales, purchasing, marketing, customer service, public relations
12. Quality or productivity management
13. Teaching
14. Other – Specify (respondents can write in a response)
Activities 3–6 and 12 (italicized) are commonly understood as engineering or engineering-related work and
identified as such in the engineering degree accreditation criteria set forth by ABET. In addition, activity 2 (basic
research) is often performed by PhD-level engineers, distinguishing them from BS- and MS-degreed engineers.
Building on analysis of these and other NSCG survey data, consultants to the study committee, Donna Gin-
ther and Shu Kahn, calculated the aggregate share of those employed whose highest degree is in engineering and
who are using their engineering knowledge and skills.29 Starting with those who work in an engineering occupa-
tion (narrowly defined), including first-line engineering managers (46.4 percent of the degreed engineers), they
aggregate by adding those that:
1. have an electrical engineering degree and work in computing occupations (bringing the total to 60.8 percent
of degreed engineers);
2. work in an engineering-related occupation (e.g., engineering technologists and technicians) (bringing the
total to 65.4 percent);
3. report that their job is closely related to their highest degree (bringing the total to 74.9 percent);
4. work in a management occupation and report that their job requires a bachelor’s degree or higher in
engineering, computer science, math, or the natural sciences30 (bringing the total to 80.6 percent);
5. report that their primary or secondary job activity is one of the six engineering or engineering-related
work activities on the NSCG list of 14 cited above (basic research, applied research, development, design,
computing tasks, quality or productivity management) (bringing the total to 82.9 percent); and
29 Highest degree in engineering is used for the analysis because the NSCG asks about the connection between respondents’ highest degree
and their occupation. As mentioned earlier, the Ginther and Kahn analysis excludes those who list engineering as their second major at the
bachelor’s level. Because the data rely on classifications by highest degree, all three degree levels are included so as not to leave out BS- or
MS-degreed engineers who have additional education.
30 Ginther and Kahn call this group “engineering managers,” which is different from the first-line managers that NSF also calls “engineering
managers” and counts as an engineering occupation.

6. report that their job is somewhat related to their highest degree (bringing the total to 89.3 percent).
On the basis of this analysis, Ginther and Kahn conclude that the overwhelming majority (89 percent) of
those employed whose highest degree is in engineering use their engineering knowledge and skills in their jobs
(figure 1-12; also see appendix A and figure A-6).
WORK ACTIVITIES OF EMPLOYED ENGINEERS

Engineers by degree and occupation typically perform a significant variety of tasks requiring diverse skills in
their jobs, ranging from management of people or projects to applied research, development, and design; and
computer programming, production, and quality management (NSCG 2013). The NSCG questionnaire presents a
list of work activities and asks respondents to indicate which ones occupied 10 percent or more of their work time,
then to indicate which activity occupied the most time (“principal activity”) and which the second most time. The
data show that time allocation for engineers differs only slightly depending on whether they are engineering BS
degree holders, engineering BS degree holders in engineering occupations, or workers in engineering occupations
regardless of degree.
Table 1-11 shows that management (defined as “managing or supervising people or projects”) and design (“of
equipment, processes, structures, or models”) are the most common specific tasks for BS engineering degree h olders
and workers in engineering occupations. Engineering MS degree holders report performing very similar tasks to BS
degree holders. In contrast, engineering PhD degree holders report that their most common principal activity is applied
FIGURE 1-12 Percentage of engineers whose highest degree is in engineering and who use their degree in their occupation.
Source: NSCG 2013.

TABLE 1-11 Activities most often performed by (1) bachelor’s-degreed engineers in any occupation, (2)
bachelor’s-degreed engineers in engineering occupations, and (3) workers in engineering occupations with or
without an engineering degree. Percentages are of the population in each column.
Workers in engineering
BS-degreed engineers in BS-degreed engineers in occupations, with or without
any occupation engineering occupations an engineering degree
Report that their principal activity is:
Most common Othera (28%) Design (27%) Design (25%)
Second most common Management (26%) Management (21%) Other (22%)
Third most common Design (13%) Other (19%) Management (20%)
Fourth most common Computing (13%) Development (12%) Development (12%)
Fifth most common Development (7%) Applied research (8%) Applied research (9%)
Sixth most common Applied research (5%) Computing (6%) Computing (5%)
Report that it takes up to a tenth of their time:
Most common Management (66%) Design (69%) Design (66%)
Second most common Design (49%) Management (65%) Management (64%)
Third most common Development (41%) Development (53%) Development (52%)
Fourth most common Applied research (37%) Applied research (47%) Applied research (48%)
Fifth most common Quality or productivity Quality or productivity Quality or productivity
management (36%) management (36%) management (35%)
Sixth most common Computing (33%) Computing (29%) Computing (29%)
Source: NSCG 2013

a This category is defined by the individual respondent.
research; however, almost two thirds of these PhDs indicate that management and design occupy at least 10 percent
of their time. Across all categories of engineers, management and design appear to be signature work activities.
Aside from management and design, engineers perform many other activities for at least a tenth of their time.
Among BS degree holders, 41 percent reported spending 10 percent or more of their time performing “develop-
ment” tasks (“using knowledge gained from research for the production of materials, devices”), and more than
30 percent reported spending at least that much of their time on tasks in the following areas: “applied research”;
“computer programming, systems or application development”; and “quality or productivity management.” For
those in engineering occupations (with or without an engineering degree), the activities most likely to occupy
at least a tenth of their time were design, management, development, and applied research, each listed by about
half of the respondents. This diversity of tasks places a premium on both the professional and technical skills of
engineers and their ability to continue learning over their lifetime.
CAREER PATHWAYS OF ENGINEERING GRADUATES

Engineering graduates demonstrate considerable ease of movement into and out of engineering occupations.
A number of factors affect whether a person with an engineering degree enters and/or remains employed in an
engineering occupation, and these factors can vary for different populations such as women and underrepresented

minorities (as discussed in chapter 3). This section examines longitudinal NSCG panel data to characterize the
career pathways of BS and MS engineers. The data follow two cohorts of engineering bachelor’s or master’s degree
holders over a 5-year period, one near the start of their career (1–7 years after earning their bachelor’s degree) and
the other a further 11 years into their career (12–17 years after earning their bachelor’s degree).
Changes in Career Pathways for Individuals in Early and Mid-Career Cohorts

The longitudinal aspect of the NSCG data makes it possible to examine the occupational distribution of each cohort
in both 2003 and 2008 (after 2008, data may exhibit atypical effects from the Great Recession). The first cohort
includes those who received their BS degree in 1996–2002 (table 1-12); the second cohort is further along in their
career, having received their BS degree in 1986–1993 (table 1-13). Both cohorts have an engineering bachelor’s
or master’s degree, and the latter had to have been earned before 2003. These cohorts and data enable analysis
of actions at different career stages.
The data reveal that there is considerable mobility across engineering, engineering-proximate, and non-
engineering occupations, particularly among the younger cohort.
1. Working in engineering: For both cohorts, three quarters of the degree holders that were working in
engineering occupations in 2003 were still working in engineering occupations five years later.
2. Moving from a non-engineering or engineering-proximate to an engineering occupation: Among both
cohorts, but more so for the younger group, there was considerable movement into engineering occupations
from engineering-proximate occupations. For instance, in the younger cohort (table 1-12) 23.2 percent of
those who were working in engineering management in 2003 moved into an engineering occupation by
2008 (20.9 percent for the older cohort; table 1-13) and 32.5 percent of those who started in an engineering-
related occupation moved to an engineering occupation (24.7 percent for the older cohort). There was also
some movement from non-engineering to engineering occupations: 15.0 percent of those who started in
non-S&E jobs moved to an engineering occupation (11.1 percent for the older cohort). However, it was
uncommon for those in other S&E occupations to move into engineering occupations—for both cohorts only
about 6 percent did so, although the younger cohort had some movement from other S&E to engineering-
proximate occupations like computing (12.6 percent) or engineering management (14.6 percent).
3. Moving from an engineering to an engineering-proximate or non-engineering occupation: Among those
who moved from engineering to occupations not labeled as engineering, most went into engineering
management. More mature workers were more likely than younger workers to transition to management
positions associated with engineering or computing (12.5 percent for older vs. 7.1 percent for younger) and
younger workers were equally likely to move from engineering to non-S&E occupations (7.1 percent).
4. Starting in engineering management: Mature workers who started in engineering management were most
likely to remain there (49.7 percent) or take an engineering job (20.9 percent), whereas younger workers
who were working in engineering management in 2003 were largely split between staying (34.8 percent),
moving to a non-S&E job (36.7 percent), and switching to an engineering job (23.2 percent).
5. Starting in an engineering-related occupation: A member of the younger cohort who started in an
engineering-related occupation was as likely to be in an engineering occupation 5 years later as to remain
in an engineering-related occupation (about a third in each case). This was not so for the older workers, who
were more likely to stay in an engineering-related occupation (46.2 percent) than to move to an engineering
occupation (24.7 percent). It appears that, for many younger workers, work in an “engineering-related”
occupation is an entry-level stepping stone to an engineering occupation.
6. Starting in a non-S&E occupation: There is “field persistence” for those who began in other (non-
engineering management) non-S&E occupations: 59.3 percent of the younger workers were still in that
category 5 years later, whereas a smaller but notable number (15 percent) had moved into engineering
occupations. This persistence was even stronger in the older cohort, with 61.6 percent staying in non-S&E
occupations; if they left that job category, slightly more went into engineering management (13 percent)
than into engineering jobs (11.1 percent).

TABLE 1-12 Where engineering bachelor’s graduates from 1996–2002 were working in 2003 (time 1) and
2008 (time 2). Each row sums to 100 percent.
Occupation in 2008 (time 2):
Engineering-proximate Non-engineering
Engineering-related
Management with
Other non-S&E
Non-employeda
engineering or
Engineering
Other S&E
Computing
computers
Occupation they started working
in, 2003:
Engineering 74.5% 2.8% 1.1% 7.1% 2.0% 7.1% 5.5%
Computing 7.8% 70.2% 0.4% 8.7% 1.2% 6.4% 5.2%
Engineering-related (e.g.,
32.5% 0.0% 32.6% 16.3% 0.8% 11.4% 6.6%
engineering technician, architect)
Management associated with
23.2% 3.5% 0.0% 34.8% 1.8% 36.7% 0.0%
engineering or computers
Other S&E 6.4% 12.6% 0.0% 14.6% 37.8% 12.4% 16.2%
Other non-S&E 15.0% 2.8% 0.9% 10.1% 7.2% 59.3% 4.6%
Non-employed 26.4% 21.1% 3.4% 8.1% 9.0% 10.8% 21.3%
TOTAL from the whole cohort
that ended up in each column in 47.8% 15.2% 2.2% 9.7% 4.1% 14.6% 6.4%
time 2
Source: NSCG 2013.

a “Non-employed” refers to persons who are unemployed (not working but looking for work) and those who are out of the labor force (not
working and not looking for work).
The data in tables 1-12 and 1-13 show that as people get farther from graduation and deeper into their careers,
the migration out of engineering occupations is greater than into them, and most of this migration is into manage-
ment and other non-S&E work (figure 1-13). For the younger cohort, in 2003, 54 percent were in engineering
occupations and 5.1 percent in engineering management occupations, and five years later 47.8 percent were in an
engineering occupation and 9.7 percent in engineering management. The same trend is seen in the older cohort: in
2003, 39.9 percent were in engineering occupations and 10.8 percent were in engineering management, and five
years later 36.8 percent were in engineering occupations and 15.5 percent in engineering management (figure 1-14).
These results show that skills are more transferable across occupations than occupational titles indicate and
that movement across engineering, engineering-proximate, and non-engineering occupations is not unidirectional.
THE ECONOMIC RETURNS TO AN ENGINEERING DEGREE
Salary and Lifetime Earnings

Workers with engineering degrees generally receive comparatively high lifetime earnings (Hershbein and Kearney
2014). Data from the 2009–2013 American Community Surveys show that, in the first year of their career (the
sample includes those who go on to obtain a graduate degree), the median annual earnings of holders of bach-
elor’s degrees in electrical, mechanical, or civil engineering are $60,000, $57,000, and $54,000 respectively,31
31 Career earnings by college major can be graphed at the Hamilton Project website (http://hamiltonproject.org/earnings_by_major). The sal-
ary data are for all degreed engineers, working in engineering, engineering-proximate, and non-engineering occupations. Salary data presented
here are for full-time workers only and are calculated in 2014 dollars.

TABLE 1-13 Where engineering bachelor’s graduates from 1986–1993 were working in 2003 (time 1) and
2008 (time 2). Each row sums to 100 percent.
Occupation in 2008 (time 2):
Engineering-proximate Non-engineering
Engineering-related
Management with
Other non-S&E
Non-employeda
engineering or
Engineering
Other S&E
Computing
computers
Occupation they started
working in 2003
Engineering 75.0% 1.4% 2.4% 12.5% 1.1% 5.3% 2.3%
Computing 5.2% 77.5% 0.4% 9.4% 1.1% 3.5% 2.9%
Engineering-related (e.g.,
24.7% 8.9% 46.2% 2.0% 1.0% 6.0% 11.4%
engineering technician, architect)
Management associated with
20.9% 4.2% 2.5% 49.7% 4.4% 16.6% 1.8%
engineering or computers
Other S&E 6.5% 1.2% 0.5% 8.5% 63.0% 16.3% 3.9%
Other non-S&E 11.1% 2.3% 0.8% 13.0% 4.9% 61.6% 6.4%
Non-employed 13.7% 13.4% 6.9% 2.4% 5.2% 20.1% 38.3%
TOTAL from the whole cohort
that ended up in each column in 36.8% 16.6% 3.0% 15.5% 4.7% 17.5% 5.9%
time 2
Source: NSCG 2013.

a “Non-employed” refers to persons who are unemployed (not working but looking for work) and those who are out of the labor force (not
working and not looking for work).
compared to $35,000 for new graduates of all majors combined (figure 1-15). After 20 years, the median earnings
are $101,000, $100,000, and $91,000 for the engineering majors, respectively, compared to a median of $71,000
for all other graduates with other majors.
The median lifetime earnings for those working full time, as calculated on the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton
Project (with later years’ earnings discounted to take into account the shorter duration of their investment) are $2.18
million, $2.09 million, and $1.91 million respectively for the three engineering degrees, versus $1.34 million for
all other majors, and the lifetime earnings of the engineers exceed those of all other graduates combined at every
percentile of the distribution (figure 1-16). The median lifetime earnings of computer science and mathematics
majors are slightly lower than those of electrical, mechanical, and civil engineers but still higher than the median
of all other majors for those working full time (figure 1-17).
The top nine high-earning majors are all engineering; computer science is tenth and finance eleventh
(figure 1-18; Hershbein and Kearney 2014). However, it is possible that engineering majors would have earned
more than other graduates even had they studied something else, because “individuals with high math ability
[as measured by math SAT scores] receive uniformly higher earnings regardless of their educational choices”
(Arcidiacono 2004, p. 345; Arcidiacono et al. 2012). Since math ability is a key part of engineering education and
work, many engineering students are likely to obtain financial rewards in their career regardless of whether they
stay in engineering and to have higher earnings than students without strong math abilities.
It is important to note, however, that, although all engineering majors are high-earning compared to those in
other fields, significant disparities exist in median annual and lifetime earnings by gender, race, and ethnicity. In
2009 the median annual earnings of female BS engineering graduates were 78 percent of male earnings, which
has serious implications for lifetime earnings (AAUW 2015; Carnevale et al. 2011). NSF (2018) data based on

Career Pathways from Engineering Career Pathways to Engineering

Occupations: Younger Cohort Occupations: Younger Cohort
2003 2008 2003 2008
54% 47.8% 54% 47.8%
ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING
OCCUPATION OCCUPATION OCCUPATION OCCUPATION
74.5%
25.5% 15%
COMPUTING 15.2% COMPUTING 15.2%
16.3% COMPUTING 16.3% COMPUTING

ENGINEERING RELATED 2.2% ENGINEERING RELATED 2.2%
ENGINEERING MGMT 9.7% ENGINEERING MGMT 9.7%

3.6% ENGINEERING RELATED 3.6% ENGINEERING RELATED
5.1% ENGINEERING MGMT OTHER S&E 4.1% 5.1% ENGINEERING MGMT OTHER S&E 4.1%
3.7% OTHER S&E 3.7% OTHER S&E
OTHER NON-S&E 14.6% OTHER NON-S&E 14.6%
11.2% OTHER NON-S&E 11.2% OTHER NON-S&E
6.1% NON-EMPLOYED NON-EMPLOYED 6.4% 6.1% NON-EMPLOYED NON-EMPLOYED 6.4%
FIGURE
1 1-13 Pathways of engineering graduates with a bachelor’s or master’s degree (earned in 1996–2002), showing those
moving from and to engineering occupations between 2003 and 2008. Mgmt = management; S&E = science and engineering.
Source: NSCG 2013.
Career Pathways from Engineering Career Pathways to Engineering

Occupations: Older Cohort Occupations: Older Cohort
2003 2008 2003 2008
39.9% 36.8% 39.9% 36.8%
ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING
OCCUPATION OCCUPATION OCCUPATION OCCUPATION
75%
25% 19%
COMPUTING 16.6% COMPUTING 16.6%
17.7% COMPUTING 17.7% COMPUTING
ENGINEERING RELATED 3% ENGINEERING RELATED 3%
2.4% ENGINEERING RELATED 2.4% ENGINEERING RELATED
10.8% ENGINEERING MGMT ENGINEERING MGMT 15.5% 10.8% ENGINEERING MGMT ENGINEERING MGMT 15.5%
3.7% OTHER S&E 3.7% OTHER S&E

OTHER S&E 4.7% OTHER S&E 4.7%
18.4% OTHER NON-S&E 18.4% OTHER NON-S&E

OTHER NON-S&E 17.5% OTHER NON-S&E 17.5%
7.1% NON-EMPLOYED NON-EMPLOYED 5.9% 7.1% NON-EMPLOYED NON-EMPLOYED 5.9%
FIGURE
1 1-14 Pathways of engineering graduates with a bachelor’s or master’s degree (earned in 1986–1993), showing those
moving from and to engineering occupations between 2003 and 2008. Mgmt = management; S&E = science and engineering.
Source: NSCG 2013.

FIGURE 1-15 Median annual earnings over career, by major, from the Hamilton Project website, based on data from the
American Community Survey.
Source: http://hamiltonproject.org/earnings_by_major, accessed August 17, 2018.
FIGURE 1-16 Lifetime earnings for those with bachelor’s degrees in electrical, mechanical, and civil engineering compared
to all majors, in millions of 2014 dollars by percentile of earnings distribution. From the Hamilton Project website, based on
data from the American Community Survey.

FIGURE 1-17 Lifetime earnings for those with bachelor’s degrees in electrical and civil engineering, computer science, and
mathematics and statistics, in millions of 2014 dollars by percentile of earnings distribution. From the Hamilton Project website,
based on data from the American Community Survey.
FIGURE 1-18 Median lifetime earnings for the top-paying 15 majors, in millions of dollars, 2014.
Source: Hershbein and Kearney 2014, complete chart is available at www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/legacy/files/downloads_
and_links/MajorDecisions-Figure_2a.pdf.

TABLE 1-14 Mean wages for those whose highest degree is a bachelor’s or master’s in engineering, other
science and engineering (S&E) field, or a non-S&E field; 10–15 years from degree, working in management
occupations.
Working in management with highest degree in: Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree
Engineering $104,401 $117,821
Other S&E $99,981 $103,357
Non-S&E $87,546 $111,585
Source: NSCG 2013.
occupation also show a disparity: in 2015 median earnings for women in engineering occupations were $88,000,
roughly 93 percent the earnings of their male counterparts ($95,000). Similarly, the median annual earnings of
BS engineering graduates from several major US ethnic and racial minority populations are significantly below
those of Whites. In 2009, while Asian American BS engineers earned $72,000 or 90 percent of the earnings of
Whites ($80,000), the median earnings of African Americans were 75 percent ($60,000), Hispanics 70 percent
($56,000), and other races32 71 percent ($57,000) (Carnevale et al. 2011). Contributing to this disparity is the fact
that underrepresented minority students tend to pursue lower-paying engineering majors, such as those included
in the “other engineer” occupation classification,33 rather than better-paying fields such as chemical or mechanical
engineering (Carnevale et al. 2016). The implications of this disparity for these groups’ lifetime earnings potential
should also be of serious concern.
NSCG data show that those with a bachelor’s or master’s degree in engineering as their highest degree34 are
paid more on average—even when they work in a field other than engineering—than those with other educational
backgrounds. For bachelor’s-degreed engineers in non-S&E occupations 10–15 years from their degree, the median
wage in 2013 was $62,183, whereas the median wage for other S&E BS holders in such occupations was $45,647
and for non-S&E bachelor’s holders (which includes business majors and others specializing in non-S&E occupa-
tions) it was $54,441.
The same data reveal that average salaries in engineering occupations are higher than those in other S&E
occupations and in non-S&E occupations (which are 13 percent and 37 percent lower respectively than in engi-
neering occupations); but salaries in management occupations are the highest (5 percent higher than in engineering
occupations). Even among those in management occupations, BS- and MS-degreed engineers are paid more than
those with bachelor’s and master’s degrees in non-S&E or other S&E fields (table 1-14).
Unemployment Rate of Engineers

The unemployment rate of engineering degree holders is lower than that of other college-educated workers. The
2013 NSCG data show that only 2.9 percent of those with a bachelor’s degree in engineering reported being
unemployed—about two-thirds the unemployment rate (4.3 percent) that year for all those in the labor force with
a bachelor’s or higher degree. The unemployment rate for those with a master’s in engineering is slightly higher
(3.2 percent) but still below the 3.5 percent unemployment rate for other college-educated workers with a master’s
degree.
32 Defined by Carnevale et al. (2011) as “including Pacific Islanders and American Indians.”
33 Examples of occupations in this category are salvage engineer, photonics engineer, ordnance engineer, and optical engineer. Carnevale
et al. (2016) use the term “general engineering” rather than “other engineering.” As noted earlier, “other engineering,” coded as 17-2199 in
the Standard Occupational Classification System, is equivalent to “miscellaneous engineers” (code 1530) in the 2010 US Census Occupation
Index and “general engineering” (series 801) as defined by the Office of Personnel Management.
34 This analysis was done using a population with engineering as their highest degree and 10–15 years from degree completion. The data thus
reflect only the engineering degree, not another professional degree (such as an MBA, MD, or JD) that might influence earning power. The
slightly older cohort was used to even the comparison with other fields that often necessitate graduate education before entering the labor force.

The unemployment rate is the same for men and women with bachelor’s degrees in engineering, but at the
master’s level the rate for women is 5.4 percent compared to just 2.7 percent for men, and this pattern is roughly
the same at the PhD level. Factors that may play a role in this difference are explored in chapter 3.

flexibility.
DYNAMICS OF THE ENGINEERING LABOR MARKET
Supply and Demand for Engineers in Engineering Occupations: Adjustments to Shocks

Recent history indicates that the engineering labor market adjusts to demand and supply shocks by changing sala-
ries/wages and employment. There has been a certain number of abrupt changes in demand, which due to time lags
in the response of supply (the production of engineering graduates) have led to cycles in salaries, raising periodic
concerns over perceived “shortages” and “gluts.” The pattern of the engineering labor market’s adjustment to
supply and demand shocks has been characterized by economists as the “cobweb effect” or following the “cobweb
model” (Freeman 1976; see appendix D for details on the cobweb model). Following is a brief explanation of these
“cobweb-like” market adjustments, and figure 1-19 shows a simplified cobweb model.
Student enrollments in engineering programs in any given year depend in part on the level of engineering
salaries in the marketplace at the time of enrollment (i.e., salaries based on market conditions four years before
the students’ graduation and entrance into the labor market). When demand for engineers suddenly rises, the
market initially responds with a jump in engineering salaries to a wage above what will be the equilibrium wage
when supply responds. This causes engineering enrollments to increase beyond what will eventually be warranted.
Four years later the excessively expanded population of engineering graduates enters the labor market, causing
engineering salaries to fall below what will eventually be the equilibrium wage. The lower salaries lead to lower
enrollment rates, resulting in a decreased supply of engineering graduates four years later and a wage increase to
a higher level than the eventual equilibrium wage. These cycles of adjustment to salaries and enrollments continue
until a new long-term equilibrium is achieved or until a new shift in the market occurs. Plotted on a graph, these
cycles of adjustments to supply and demand and corresponding adjustments in price/engineering salaries display
a cobweb pattern as the market seeks a new equilibrium.
The cobweb effect in the engineering labor market was initially demonstrated by studies of the market’s
response to the creation of NASA, which rapidly increased the demand for engineers and led to higher wages and
higher employment for engineers, fed by increased enrollment in engineering degree programs (Freeman 1976; see
also Ryoo and Rosen 2004). Cobweb cycles have also been demonstrated for electrical engineers and computer
scientists over the period 1975–2006, with evidence that immigration accelerated more recent cycles (Bound et
al. 2013). In the tech booms of the late 1970s and late 1990s, wages and enrollments jumped, with a four-year
lag in the number of degrees awarded: those in computer science and electrical engineering35 combined rose
446 percent from 1975 to 1986, and 186 percent from 1995 to 2004 (Bound et al. 2013). Along with the smaller
enrollment jump in the 1990s, however, the wage response was also more muted in the 1990s, changes that were
ascribed to immigration.
Starting in the mid-2000s the oil and mining boom led first to a large increase in wages for petroleum engineers
and then to a significant increase in enrollments in this discipline (Lynn et al. 2011; Teitelbaum 2014).36 Similarly,
enrollment in science and engineering graduate programs is responsive to booms and busts in other areas of the
economy (Bedard and Herman 2008). The expansion of the financial services industry, for example, increased
35 In the study by Bound et al. (2013), a computer science major is defined as a bachelor’s degree in computer and information sciences and
an electrical engineering major is defined as a bachelor’s degree in electrical, electronic, and communication engineering.
36 Since 2014, however, a decline in commodity prices is resulting in a decrease in demand for engineers in these extractive industries.

FIGURE 1-19 Cobweb model.

Source: Adapted with permission from https://policonomics.com/cobweb-model/.
the demand for graduates with mathematical skills, increasing the wages and employment of engineering degree
holders who entered finance occupations in increasing numbers (Shu 2013). Changes in military spending also
shift demand for engineers.
These examples are of responses to sudden changes in the demand for engineers, but a rise in the supply of
engineers can also occur, such as when access to tertiary education is expanded (e.g., through the establishment
of new programs or schools, or the hiring of new faculty to accommodate more students), financial aid for engi-
neering students grows, or immigration rules are liberalized. An expansion of supply increases the employment of
engineers (not exclusively in engineering occupations), but would usually be expected to reduce wages (although
any resulting innovation associated with the larger number of engineers employed might offset the wage decline).
The cobweb model is useful for explaining why, until the recent rise in skilled immigration, political economic
discourse cycled between concerns about “shortages” and “gluts” as the market adjusted to shocks (Atkinson
and Stewart 2013; Benderly 2013; Cappelli 2014; Salzman and Lynn 2010; Salzman 2013; Teitelbaum 2014).
Employers say that they cannot hire or are having difficulty hiring enough qualified domestic engineers (Lee 2015;
Rosen 2013; Rothwell 201437), but this may be driven by a desire to increase supply to influence wages, or it
may depend on whether the definition of “enough” STEM workers is discussed in the context of quantity, quality,
diversity, or some combination thereof (NSB 2015).
Tracking the Educational and Career Pathways of Engineers: Administrative and Survey Data
demand for engineering skills is much greater than that of engineering occupations alone. Yet national survey–based
datasets provide only limited insight into the dynamics of the larger market for engineering skills and knowledge,
its connections to the educational enterprise, and broader implications. Survey data provide only periodic snap-
shots of where the stock of engineering degree holders are employed, the tasks they perform, or the educational
background and job tasks of those in various engineering occupations.
There is, however, an emerging opportunity to harness and integrate “administrative data.” Such data are
collected by academic institutions, government agencies, and other organizations for purposes such as adminis-
trative recordkeeping, transactions, registration, and reporting. In combination with survey data, they can yield a
37 Also see the Manpower Group’s list of the Top 10 Hardest Jobs to Fill in 2015 (www.manpowergroup.us/campaigns/talent-shortage-2015/
index.html) and the Indiana Chamber of Commerce 2014 Employer Survey Results (http://share.indianachamber.com/media/2014_Em-
ployer_Survey_Results.pdf).

deeper, more fine-grained understanding of the educational and career trajectories of engineering graduates and the
relationship between engineering education, training, and workforce outcomes. In particular, they can shed light
on engineering education migration patterns and student retention, engineering employment choices, engineering
employment dynamics, and economic impacts of the engineering workforce.
Although the innovative use of administrative datasets offers a uniquely comprehensive approach to examin-
ing educational and career pathways, there are several challenges associated with their use. The datasets were not
initially developed to be used in analysis, nor have most of them been structured in a manner that allows them to
be integrated with other datasets, so combining datasets requires effort to ensure that all data are properly cleaned
and matched. Furthermore, federal regulations have been set up to protect the privacy of individuals at multiple
levels; protection of the data against unauthorized access or disclosure is the most significant challenge in the use
of administrative data.
Aggregating datasets for research purposes is achievable, but requires a considered approach, resources to
identify and integrate data, measures to provide data security and confidentiality, and cooperation between research-
ers and owners of the administrative data. The emergence and promise of administrative data are described in
box 1-4 and appendix E.
Finding: Despite some challenges to implementation, administrative data can both supplement current survey
data and offer a completely new source of data to provide a more complete picture of the career paths, educa-
tion, and training of engineers.
MAJOR FORCES SHAPING DEMAND FOR ENGINEERING LABOR AND SKILLS

The following sections describe six major forces that influence the supply and demand for engineers and particu-
lar engineering skills: technological developments, changing societal priorities, expanding global trade, skilled
immigration, growing engineering capacity in developing economies, and the globalization of engineering work.
Technological Development and Changing Societal Priorities

One factor that affects demand in all labor markets is technological development, which influences and is influenced
by society’s priorities. The peculiarity of the engineering labor market is that it is the source of much technologi-
cal development.
Technological developments lead to new products and services, change how some existing products and ser-
vices are made or delivered, and destroy other products and services. Blockbuster new technologies can appear
quickly, sharply increasing demand for specially trained engineers and at the same time potentially rendering
obsolete existing technologies and knowledge. An environment of rapid technological change both alters the field
of engineering and is likely to favor engineers, whose training better equips them to understand, shape, and apply
new technologies than other workers. For example, a student who embarked on a career of refining vacuum tube
technology likely had to master semiconductor technology at some point in his or her career to remain in the
engineering workforce.
Likewise, evolving societal priorities regularly spur changes in the focus of engineering education and practice.
Consider, for example, the rapid expansion of engineering employment and enrollment in response to Sputnik and
the ensuing space/arms race with the Soviet Union, the birth and growth of environmental engineering in response
to the nation’s environmental concerns of the late 1960s and early 1970s, and the more recent efforts by engineer-
ing schools and professional societies to advance specializations and training to address sustainability challenges
(Bilec et al. 2007; Lucena 2005; Petroski 2010; Wisnioski 2012).
Technological developments are believed to have increased demand generally for highly skilled workers since
1979 (Lemieux 2008) and will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future.38 The types of engineering skills in
38 In
manufacturing, although increased automation has resulted in large productivity increases, absolute numbers of those employed in
manufacturing have remained stable (Kuehn and Salzman 2018).

BOX 1-4
The Promise of Administrative Data
The UMETRICS (Universities: Measuring the Impacts of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness, and
Science) initiative, developed as a pilot effort in 2012, demonstrated that when universities share their
administrative data (under appropriate privacy and confidentiality protections), the resulting reports and
research can offer uniquely valuable insights into the process, products, and social and economic value of
public investments in academic research. The Institute for Research on Innovation and Science (IRIS) is a
data repository that provides a platform to make UMETRICS a permanent, national resource for universities
and researchers seeking to explain and improve the impact of research.
Among research universities, 32 have committed to sharing data and making financial contributions
to sustain the necessary infrastructure, and another 30 are in active negotiations. The goal is to work with
the approximately 150 research institutions that account for about 93 percent of federal R&D expenditures
to create a micro-level dataset capturing the activities that support the vast majority of grant-funded re-
search in the United States. IRIS collects, protects, and improves record-level data on university research
expenditures, including information on wage payments and purchases of goods and services that support
the university research mission.
A partnership with the US Census Bureau enables university administrative data to be integrated
with restricted Census data products, including the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)
dataset and the Integrated Longitudinal Business Database (ILBD). Together the two datasets represent
the population of establishments that pay taxable wages in the United States (ILBD) and the wage pay-
ments from those establishments to individuals (LEHD). When research employee data and information
on vendor purchases and subcontractors from federal grants are integrated with these Census datasets,
the combined resource creates new and exciting possibilities for examining workforce and career issues.
IRIS data have been made available for research use through a virtual data enclave being constructed
at the University of Michigan. Integrated IRIS/Census data are also accessible through the Federal Statisti-
cal Research Data Center system.a
The UMETRICS/IRIS dataset does not include educational information and is not focused specifi-
cally on the engineering workforce, but a recent paper in Science demonstrates the potential value of this
resource for examining career outcomes and trajectories (Zolas et al. 2015). It reports findings based on
UMETRICS/Census data for eight universities, and the basic approach used in the paper could readily be
extended to studies of the engineering workforce given appropriate data.
Zolas and colleagues (2015) focus their analysis on the first research jobs of doctoral recipients after
leaving their university, using data that could inform studies of career trajectories across multiple jobs. The
authors use information derived from ProQuest Dissertation Abstracts and administrative data to identify
3,197 doctoral students in all fields who were employed in research at eight US universities in 2009–2011
and earned their doctoral degree during that period. Linkages at the individual level to Census data through
a protected identification key enable the authors to identify the first job of each new PhD. Information on
employers derived from the ILBD offers insight into the sectors that new doctorates enter, and LEHD data
provide information about the distribution of earnings for the people entering jobs in each sector.
The more detailed information about firms that employ new doctorates provides rich details about the
industries people enter, the geography of their mobility after graduate research employment, and the size
and age of employer firms. The latter two variables offer possible insights into the entrepreneurial activities
of recent doctorates. Finally, the authors use simple regression analyses to explore associations between
fields of research and career outcomes.
While the paper by Zolas and colleagues reports a pilot study that is not directly oriented toward the
engineering workforce, the first-of-their-type analyses of these linked administrative data clearly demon-
strate the potential value of such resources in studies of engineering training and workforce outcomes.
The paper by Hughes and colleagues in appendix E identifies four areas on which administrative data
can shed light. The first is engineering education migration patterns and student retention. “Administra-
continued

BOX 1-4 Continued
tive data will allow colleges/universities to gain a new, real-time understanding of student migration and
retention in engineering. As demonstrated in the examples, in an institution student transcript data can
easily be linked with other college/university records and educational records to understand the pathways
engineering students are navigating in higher education. Students who transfer into or out of engineering
can be tracked through graduation; transcripts can be examined to understand the impact of courses,
such as ‘gateway’ courses (those known to weed out students) on student retention; and the weight of
demographics on student migration patterns can be studied.”
In the second area, engineering employment choices, “administrative data will allow colleges/universi-
ties to track their engineering graduates, transfer students, and nongraduates into the workforce. Student
transcript data can then be combined with state and federal government datasets to track students out of
college/university and into the workforce.”
The third area is engineering employment dynamics. “The flow of engineering graduates in the work-
force and their career pathways can be examined using administrative data. Again using student transcript
data combined with state and federal government datasets, employment and wages can be longitudinally
traced for engineering graduates and for individuals employed in engineering positions. These data will
enable researchers to track the wages, employer, employer size, employer industry sector, and length of
employment (among other data) for an individual.”
The fourth area is the economic impacts of the engineering workforce. In this case, “the same…
administrative data sources that enable researchers to study engineering employment dynamics also
enable them to examine the economic impact of engineering graduates. In addition…, data on income
taxes, property taxes, home sales, and patent applications can be linked to examine the economic impact
of engineering graduates.”
a See Institute for Research on Innovation and Science, Research Using IRIS Data, http://iris.isr.umich.edu/
research-data/; and US Census, Center for Economic Studies (CES) Research Using the Innovation Measurement
Initiative’s (IMI) UMETRICS Data, https://www.census.gov/ces/dataproducts/UMetricsData.html.
demand will change with technology, and engineers capable of innovating and learning new skills to meet changing
societal priorities will be in particularly high demand. Advances in the life sciences and the rise of biotechnology, for
example, have created the field of bioengineering, and the rise of information technology has increased the demand
for computer engineers (hardware and software) and for engineers adept at computing, data mining, and analytics.
Finally, there are opportunity costs associated with not using the skills and talents of major parts of the US
population—problems or opportunities not identified, products not built, designs not considered, constraints not
understood, and processes not invented when the diversity of life experiences engaged in engineering is limited.
Solving engineering problems requires consideration of the positive and negative aspects of as wide a variety of
solutions as possible, and better outcomes are likely when individuals with diverse backgrounds and experiences
contribute to both problem identification and the design and implementation of solutions.
Globalization and Other International Factors
Global Trade Growth

The rise of developing economies and the expansion of global trade are important factors in the supply and demand
of engineers. US trade with developing countries has increased rapidly since 2000.39 International trade changes
Data are available at the World Trade Organization page on Trade and Development: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/coher_e/
39
mdg_e/development_e.htm.

the industrial composition of a country’s economy, allowing the country to focus on what it does best and hence
maximize its income. In the case of the United States, this may have slowed manufacturing production and, if so,
acted as a brake on the demand for engineers (Sachs et al. 1994).
Declines in transportation costs, communication costs, and trade barriers that have increased trade in goods
and services have also expanded the offshoring of certain engineering tasks and permitted the creation of global
supply chains. A salient example of offshoring has been the migration of the personal computing industry, espe-
cially laptop production, to Asia, starting with labor-intensive manufacturing and then moving to include testing
activities and finally design and engineering (Pisano and Shih 2009). US-based firms, both big and small, also
offshore engineering work in aerospace, automotive, civil, computer, industrial, mechanical, and software engi-
neering (Kenney and Dossani 2005).
Yet many of the changes that facilitate the offshoring of work from the United States also promote US pro-
duction of goods and services for global markets. For example, the United States is a net exporter of architectural,
engineering, and construction services.40 The net effect of offshoring and onshoring on US demand for engineers
is unclear.
Skilled Immigration
Another international factor that influences supply in the US engineering labor market is the growth in skilled
immigration (i.e., immigrants with advanced skills and training, especially in technical fields) facilitated by changes
in immigration policy, increased access to improved education in countries such as Korea, India, and China,
and a relaxation of emigration from China. The changes abroad have also contributed to a rise in the number of
foreign-born students at US universities, including in engineering (Ruiz 2013, IPEDS Completion Data). These
developments benefit US universities and employers of engineers, who can choose from a larger pool of candi-
dates; they also enable employers to avoid temporary spikes in engineering wages when demand rises suddenly
(as described above), to dampen wages over the long term, or to hire foreign-born workers on temporary visas to
address market demand increases.
Whether the wages of engineers are negatively affected over the longer term and whether the career choices
of natives are affected by larger inflows of skilled immigrants has not been established conclusively (Bound et al.
2015; Orrenius and Zavodny 2015). On balance, the empirical literature discussed in box 1-5 suggests that skilled
immigrants collectively increase innovation, which increases technological developments and growth in GDP per
capita in the United States.41
Advances Abroad
Two final international factors that have gained widespread US attention are increases abroad in the number of
engineering graduates and rising investment by developing countries in research and development (OECD 2008).
The impacts of these developments on the US engineering labor market are not immediately apparent. One possible
effect would be reduced skilled immigration to the United States, but there is as yet little evidence of this. In terms
of the US economy as a whole, the net effect of foreign innovation is positive, as the United States benefits from
foreign innovation as well as domestic: the global economy is not a fixed pie to be divided among countries. A
narrowing of the US technological lead harms the United States only if the US capacity for innovation is harmed,
for instance by reduced skilled immigration or even emigration.
40 Export.com, Service Exports – High Growth, US Department of Commerce; available at https://www.export.gov/article?id=Service-Exports-with-
High-Growth-Potential (accessed March 6, 2017). Data for trade in architectural, engineering, and construction services, which are components of other
business services, are available from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, International Services Table 2.1, US Trade in Services, by Type of Services (https://
www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=62&step=6&isuri=1&6221=0&6220=0&6210=4&6200=245&6224=&6223=&6222=&6230=1).
41 One caveat to this is that in recent years such growth has gone to firms and skilled workers rather than unskilled workers (https://www.
epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/).

BOX 1-5
Impact of Immigration of Engineers on US Economic Growth
Technological development is a key driver of productivity growth and ultimately economic growth (Aghion
and Howitt 1992; Grossman and Helpman 1991; Helpman and Grossman 1991; Jones 1995; Romer 1990).
If immigrants innovate and advance technology, they increase the growth rate of income per capita for
both immigrant and native-born workers. Workers whose highest degree is in engineering and those with
physical science degrees are most likely to patent (Hunt et al. 2013), which suggests that the immigration
of engineers is likely to boost growth in both innovation and the economy. On the other hand, any immigrant
contribution to innovation is unlikely to be simply additive; potential native innovators could be deterred by
the additional competition or attracted by the possibility of collaboration.
As measured by patents, immigrants innovate considerably more than natives. Among individuals
with a bachelor’s degree or higher, immigrants are more likely to have a degree in STEM and are twice as
likely to patent as natives (Hunt 2011), and from 1975 to 2004 the number of US patents authored by US
residents with Indian and Chinese names rose from 2 percent to 9 percent of all patents for Chinese names,
and from 2 percent to 6 percent for Indian names (Kerr 2007). Kerr cannot distinguish first- and second-
generation immigrants, but the observed growth is fundamentally fueled by immigration.a Further, the higher
inventiveness of immigrants translates into higher patenting per capita. On this basis, during the 1990s
US GDP per capita rose by 1.4–2.4 percent due to skilled immigration (Hunt and Gauthier-Loiselle 2010).b
Considering innovation not reflected in patents, the OECD (2008) notes that migration is important for
transmitting knowledge that cannot be codified and conveyed through academic papers, lectures, or other
communication channels. Instead, such knowledge is more effectively transferred among individuals with
a common social context and physical proximity. One study reports that “local areas obtain some benefits
from being the site of the innovation.… Whatever the mechanism, paradoxically perhaps it would seem that
for the globalization of knowledge to proceed as successfully as it has, it has to be accompanied by some
stickiness in knowledge and in the benefits that follow from it” (Freeman 2010, p. 404). An examination of
the impact of immigration on productivity finds a positive direct effect (Ortega and Peri 2013).
The literature as a whole thus indicates that immigrants are more innovative than natives and increase
innovation, thus boosting economic growth per capita (Kerr 2013).
a Although some issues exist with this method, many studies suggest “good correspondence of the ethnic name
classification approach to the decennial Census and similar quality assurance exercises” (Kerr 2013, p. 5).
b Certain papers, however, do not find that skilled immigration increases patenting; for example, Doran and col-
leagues (2014) implicitly focus on IT workers, but this is a group that patents little. However, patents are an imperfect
measure of innovation, and the fact that some group is found not to patent does not mean they are not innovating.
Globalization of Engineering Work

These international factors all arise from the trend toward a more globalized economy. This globalization influ-
ences the nature of engineering work through the development of global supply chains, the global exchange of
ideas, and the global diffusion of technologies and applications—all of which affect both engineering work and
the international job market and thus the career pathways and choices of engineers in the United States.
The fact that engineering pathways and the composition of the engineering workforce evolve in response to
changes in the labor market and the underlying forces that shape it—be they technological, economic, societal, or
institutional—is not new. Throughout history the knowledge, skills, and work of those trained as engineers have
evolved continuously in response to changes in societal needs and advances in science and technology. Computer
and software engineering and bioengineering are just the latest chapters being written. Engineering pathways are
certain to continue to evolve. Even as some of these changes create challenges in the existing pathways, exciting
new opportunities will emerge.

SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS
This chapter provides information about the size, demographics, and other characteristics of the nation’s engineer-
ing labor force, where degreed and nondegreed engineers work, what work they do, the variety of engineering
careers/pathways they pursue, and the dynamics of the engineering labor market.
Defining and Counting Engineers

• There are three overlapping ways to define and measure the nation’s engineering workforce: (1) those who
work in engineering occupations (1.55 million in 2013), (2) those with engineering degrees in the overall
labor force (3.7 million in 2013), and (3) those who apply the skills and knowledge associated with their
engineering degree on the job (3.2 million in 2013).
• More than 80 percent of those employed in engineering occupations have a degree in engineering. Of
those in engineering occupations without such a degree, just over half are degreed in other science and
engineering fields—computing and mathematics (14 percent), physical sciences (15 percent), biological
sciences (10 percent), or social sciences (8 percent); a quarter have a degree in an S&E-related field such as
engineering technology; and the remaining quarter have degrees in non-S&E fields, most in business.
• The vast majority (99 percent) of the nation’s 4.3 million degreed engineers hold either a bachelor’s or master’s
degree in engineering. Roughly 58 percent of those educated as engineers hold only a bachelor’s degree;
another 26 percent hold either a master’s or doctoral degree in engineering as their highest degree; and the
remaining 16 percent who graduated with either a BS or MS engineering degree went on to earn their highest
degree in a field other than engineering.
• Most advanced degree holders in engineering earn a BS or MS engineering degree on the path to their highest
degree. But in 2013 at least 16 percent of those with an MS in engineering as their highest degree had a
bachelor’s degree in a non-engineering field and 19 percent of engineering PhD holders earned at least one
degree in a non-engineering field.
• There has been more than a decade-long significant rise in the number of engineering degrees awarded annually
in the United States. From 2000 to 2013 the number of BS engineering degrees awarded each year increased
46 percent—more rapidly than that of all US bachelor’s degrees (41 percent), while that of engineering master’s
degrees awarded annually grew 69 percent and doctoral degrees 58 percent over the same period.
• Almost twice as many degreed engineers work in non-engineering occupations (65 percent) as in engineering
occupations narrowly defined (35 percent), and even among those whose highest degree is in engineering
only 40 percent work in engineering occupations. Yet more than half of those whose highest degree is in
engineering indicate that their job is closely related to their engineering degree, 84 percent say a bachelor’s
degree in science or engineering is needed for their job, and an estimated 89 percent use their engineering
skills and knowledge in their job.
• By any measure, engineers are a small but critically important fraction of the total college-educated labor
force (engineering degree holders are 8 percent, and those in engineering occupations are 3.5 percent). It is
therefore important to understand the composition, dynamics, and quality of the engineering labor force, how
it is replenished, and how it can maintain its vibrancy and strength in the face of demographic challenges,
advances in science and technology, globalization, and other forces.
Engineering’s Diversity Challenge

• White and Asian males constitute the vast majority of employed degreed engineers and those who work
in engineering occupations. Women and most of the nation’s minority populations remain severely
underrepresented among engineering degree earners and in the engineering workforce. Although women
represent over half of the nation’s college-educated workforce, in 2013 they accounted for only 15 percent
of both those working in engineering occupations and those with BS engineering degrees in the workforce.
African Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and Hispanics of any race together made up 15 percent

of the college-educated workforce in 2013, but 11 percent of those employed in engineering occupations and
about 12 percent of employed engineering BS degree holders.
• Significant disparities exist in median annual and lifetime earnings of BS engineering graduates by gender,
race, and ethnicity. In 2009 the median annual earnings of female BS engineering graduates were 78 percent
of male earnings, a discrepancy that has serious implications for lifetime earnings. Similarly, the median
annual earnings of BS engineering graduates from several major US ethnic and racial minority populations are
significantly below those of Whites. As of 2009, the median earnings of Asian American BS engineers were
90 percent of those of Whites ($80,000), while those of African Americans were only 75 percent, Hispanics
70 percent, and other races 71 percent.
• While women and minorities are underrepresented when considered as independent groups, when race and
gender are examined together it becomes evident that women of underrepresented minorities are even more
severely underrepresented in engineering.
• Although overall engineering students graduate with BS degrees at similar rates as students in other majors,
disparities exist between gender and racial/ethnic groups, and underrepresented minority students are far less
likely than White or Asian students to graduate with an engineering degree.
• Women and men have similar retention rates in undergraduate engineering degree programs, but women are
also somewhat more likely than men to switch to another STEM field.
• Foreign students have long constituted a large share of US engineering school enrollments at the graduate
level whereas the rapid growth of foreign student enrollments in undergraduate engineering programs is a
more recent development. Less information has been collected and analyzed at the undergraduate level than
at the graduate level on the drivers and composition of rising foreign student enrollment in engineering and
its impacts on host institutions and on the educational and career choices as well as the engineering education
experiences of domestic and foreign students.
Characteristics of Working Engineers

• As their distribution among engineering and non-engineering occupations suggests, engineering degree holders
have considerable occupational mobility over their careers. Not only is there significant movement from
engineering occupations into non-engineering occupations (particularly to engineering management and other
non-S&E occupations), there is also movement from engineering-related and non-engineering occupations
into engineering occupations. Overall, for both younger and older degree holders, more leave engineering
occupations than move into them, resulting in fewer people working in engineering.
• Engineers by degree and occupation typically perform a variety of tasks in their jobs, ranging from management
of people or projects to development and design, and computer programming, production, and quality
management. This diversity of tasks places a premium on both their professional and technical skills and their
ability to continue learning over their lifetime.
• Managing projects or supervising people is a major component of their work for all engineers whether defined
by degree or occupation. Over 25 percent of BS engineering degree holders report that management is their
principal task, and about two thirds of engineers defined by degree or occupation report spending at least
10 percent of their time on management.
• The design of equipment, processes, structures, and/or models is the principal task of 27 percent of BS-degreed
engineers who work in engineering occupations and of 13 percent of employed BS engineering degree holders
regardless of their occupation.
• Computing (“computer programming, systems or applications development”) figures prominently in the
work life of engineering graduates and those in engineering occupations. It is the principal task of 13 percent
of employed BS engineering degree holders, and takes up at least 10 percent of work time for roughly
a third of engineering BS degree holders and 30 percent of those in engineering occupations. Moreover,
15 percent of engineering bachelor’s degree holders and 17 percent of engineering master’s degree holders
(mostly electrical/electronics engineers) work in computing occupations.

• Nearly two thirds of employed engineering BS degree holders work in for-profit companies (concentrated in
large and very large firms), 14 percent work in the government sector, roughly 12 percent are self-employed,
and the rest are divided between education and the nonprofit sector.
Engineering Labor Market

• Labor markets for engineering occupations adjust to shocks. Demand is met primarily by degreed US
engineers, but an additional supply is provided by individuals degreed in non-engineering fields and by foreign
nationals (both permanent residents and those with temporary visas such as the H-1B) who have skills and
knowledge needed in engineering occupations.
• BS engineering graduates on average have the highest annual compensation and lifelong earnings of all
bachelor’s degree holders; the highest mean wages whether working in engineering, engineering-proximate,
or non-engineering occupations; and the lowest unemployment rates of college degree holders. This is due,
at least in part, to their versatility and occupational mobility, particularly their promotion into management
occupations.
• Because nearly two thirds of degreed engineers (2.34 million) work in occupations not classified as engineering,
analysis of periodic survey data based on the number of engineering occupations compared to the number
of engineering graduates provides only a narrow perspective on the engineering labor market. There is
an emerging opportunity to harness and integrate “administrative data,” which are collected by academic
institutions, government agencies, and other organizations for purposes such as administrative recordkeeping,
transactions, registration, and reporting. Complementing survey data, administrative data can yield a deeper,
more fine-grained understanding of the educational and career trajectories of engineering graduates and the
relationship between engineering education, training, and workforce outcomes.
• Multiple factors may be expected to influence the demand for and supply of engineers and particular
engineering skills over the long term. These include technological developments, changing societal priorities,
the expansion of global trade, the increase in skilled immigration, and increases in both engineering graduates
abroad and investment by developing countries in research and development.
REFERENCES
AAUW [American Association of University Women]. 2015. Even in high-paying STEM fields, women are shortchanged.
Career and Workplace blog, April 14. Washington. Available at www.aauw.org/2015/04/14/women-shortchanged-in-stem/.
Aghion P, Howitt P. 1992. A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 60:323–351.
Arcidiacono P. 2004. Ability sorting and the returns to college major. Journal of Econometrics 121(1-2):343–375.
Arcidiacono P, Hotz VJ, Kang S. 2012. Modeling college major choices using elicited measures of expectations and counter-
factuals. Journal of Econometrics 166(1):3–16.
Atkinson RD, Stewart LA. 2013. The Real Story on Guestworkers in the High-skill US Labor Market. Washington: Information
Technology and Innovation Foundation.
Bedard K, Herman DA. 2008. Who goes to graduate/professional school? The importance of economic fluctuations, under-
graduate field, and ability. Economics of Education Review 27(2):197–210.
Benderly BL. 2013. Boom or bubble? Prism 23(3):31–33.
Besterfield-Sacre M, Ozaltin NO, Shartrand A, Shuman LJ, Weilerstein P. 2011. Understanding the technical entrepreneurship
landscape in engineering education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference
and Exposition, June 26–29, Vancouver, BC.
Bilec M, Ries R, Matthews HS. 2007. Sustainable development and green design: Who is leading the green initiative? Journal
of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 133(4):265–269.
Bound J, Braga B, Golden JM, Turner S. 2013. Pathways to adjustment: The case of information technology workers. American
Economic Review 103(3):203–207.
Bound J, Braga B, Golden JM, Khanna G. 2015. Recruitment of foreigners in the market for computer scientists in the United
States. Journal of Labor Economics 33(S1):S187–S223.
Byers T, Seelig T, Sheppard S, Weilerstein P. 2013. Entrepreneurship: Its role in engineering education. The Bridge 43(2):35–40.

Cappelli P. 2014. Skill Gaps, Skill Shortages and Skill Mismatches: Evidence for the US. NBER Working Paper No. 20382.
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Carnevale A, Strohl J, Melton M. 2011. What’s It Worth? The Economic Value of College Majors. Washington: Georgetown
University Center on Education and the Workforce.
Carnevale A, Fasules M, Porter A, Landis-Santos J. 2016. African Americans: College Majors and Earnings. Washington:
Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
Doran K, Gelber A, Isen A. 2014. The Effects of High-Skilled Immigration Policy on Firms: Evidence from H-1B Visa L otteries.
NBER Working Paper No. 20668. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at www.nber.org/
papers/w20668.
Freeman RB. 1976. A cobweb model of the supply and starting salary of new engineers. Industrial and Labor Relations Review
29(2):236–248.
Freeman RB. 2010. Globalization of scientific and engineering talent: International mobility of students, workers, and ideas
and the world economy. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 19(5):393–406.
Frehill LM. 2007. Are women more or less likely than men to be retained in engineering after college? SWE Magazine: Society
of Women Engineers (fall):2–4.
Grossman GM, Helpman E. 1991. Quality ladders in the theory of growth. Review of Economic Studies 58(1):43–61.
Helpman E, Grossman GM. 1991. Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hershbein B, Kearney M. 2014. Major Decisions: What Graduates Earn Over Their Lifetimes. The Hamilton Project.
Hunt J. 2011. Which immigrants are most innovative and entrepreneurial? Distinctions by entry visa. Journal of Labor Eco-
nomics 29(3):417–457.
Hunt J, Gauthier-Loiselle M. 2010. How much does immigration boost innovation? American Economic Journal: Macro
economics 2(2):31–56.
Hunt J, Garant J-P, Herman H, Munroe DJ. 2013. Why are women underrepresented amongst patentees? Research Policy
42(4):831–843.
Jones CI. 1995. Time series tests of endogenous growth models. Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(2):495–525.
Kenney M, Dossani R. 2005. Offshoring and the future of US engineering: An overview. The Bridge 35(3):5–12.
Kerr WR. 2007. US Ethnic Scientists and Entrepreneurs. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
Kerr WR. 2013. US High-Skilled Immigration, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship: Empirical Approaches and Evidence. NBER
Working Paper No. 19377. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Kuehn D, Salzman H. 2018. The Labor Market for New Engineers: An Overview of Recent Trends. In: Engineering in a Global
Economy, eds. Freeman RB, Salzman H. NBER and University of Chicago Press.
Land RE. 2012. Engineering technologists are engineers. Journal of Engineering Technology (Spring):32–39.
Lee T. 2015. The 10 toughest jobs to fill in 2016. Society for Human Resource Management, September 22. Available at https://
www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/staffingmanagement/articles/pages/10-toughest-jobs-to-fill-2016.aspx.
Lemieux T. 2008. The changing nature of wage inequality. Journal of Population Economics 21(1):21–48.
Lucena JC. 2005. Defending the Nation: US Policymaking to Create Scientists and Engineers from Sputnik to the “War Against
Terrorism.” Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Lynn L, Salzman H, Kuehn D. 2011. Dynamics of Engineering Labor Markets: Petroleum Engineering and Responsive Supply.
NAE [National Academy of Engineering]. 2017. Engineering Technology Education in the United States. Washington: National
Academies Press.
NSB [National Science Board]. 2015. Revisiting the STEM Workforce: A Companion to Science and Engineering Indicators
2014. Washington: National Science Foundation.
NSF [National Science Foundation]. 2014. Science and Engineering Indicators. Washington. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/
statistics/seind14/.
NSF. 2018. Science and Engineering Indicators. Washington. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report/
sections/science-and-engineering-labor-force/women-and-minorities-in-the-s-e-workforce#salary-differences-for-women-
and-racial-and-ethnic-minorities.
OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development]. 2008. The Global Competition for Talent: Mobility of
the Highly Skilled. Paris.
Ohland MW, Sheppard SD, Lichtenstein G, Eris O, Chachra D, Layton RA. 2008. Persistence, engagement, and migration in
engineering programs. Journal of Engineering Education 97:259–278.
Orrenius PM, Zavodny M. 2015. Does immigration affect whether US natives major in science and engineering? Journal of
Labor Economics 33(S1):S79–S108.

Ortega F, Peri G. 2013. The effect of income and immigration policies on international migration. Migration Studies 1(1):47–74.
Petroski H. 2010. The Essential Engineer: Why Science Alone Will Not Solve Our Global Problems. New York: Vintage Books.
Pisano GP, Shih WC. 2009. Restoring American competitiveness. Harvard Business Review, July-August.
Romer PM. 1990. Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy 98(3210):s71–s102.
Rosen L. 2013. The truth hurts: The STEM crisis is not a myth. Huffington Post, September 11. Available at www.huffingtonpost.
com/linda-rosen/the-truth-hurts-the-stem-_b_3900575.html.
Rothwell J. 2014. Short on STEM talent. US News & World Report, September 15. Available at www.usnews.com/opinion/
articles/2014/09/15/the-stem-worker-shortage-is-real.
Ruiz NG. 2013. Immigration Facts on Foreign Students. Brookings Interactive, April 9. Available at www.brookings.edu/
research/interactives/2013/facts-on-foreign-students.
Ryoo J, Rosen S. 2004. The engineering labor market. Journal of Political Economy 112 (February):S110–S140.
Sachs JD, Shatz HJ, Deardorff A, Hall RE. 1994. Trade and jobs in US manufacturing. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity
1:1–84.
Salzman H. 2013. What shortages? The real evidence about the STEM workforce. Issues in Science and Technology, Summer.
Salzman H, Lynn L. 2010. Engineering and engineering skills: What’s really needed for global competitiveness. Association
for Public Policy Analysis and Management Annual Meeting, Boston.
Shartrand A, Weilerstein P, Besterfield-Sacre M, Golding K. 2010. Technology entrepreneurship programs in US engineering
schools: Course and program characteristics at the undergraduate level. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineer-
ing Education Annual Conference and Exposition, June 20–23, Louisville, KY.
Shu P. 2013. Career Choice and Skill Development of MIT Graduates: Are the “Best and Brightest” Going into Finance?
Working Paper 16-067. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Teitelbaum M. 2014. Falling Behind? Boom, Bust, and the Global Race for Scientific Talent. Princeton University Press.
Wisnioski M. 2012. Engineers for Change: Competing Visions of Technology in 1960s America. Boston: MIT Press.
Yoder BL. 2015. Engineering by the numbers. Available at: https://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/publications/college-
profiles/15EngineeringbytheNumbersPart1.pdf.
Zolas N, Goldschlag N, Jarmin R, Stephan P, Owen-Smith J, Rosen RF, Allen BM, Weinberg BA, Lane JI. 2015. Wrapping
it up in a person: Examining employment and earnings outcomes for PhD recipients. Science 350(6266):1367–1371.

Challenges for Engineering Education
For much of the history of the profession, the evolution of engineering education has mirrored changes in tech
nology and society. Disciplines have been added and curricula modified to yield a workforce capable of meeting
the needs of society. As NAE president C. D. Mote, Jr. put it, “Every engineering field was essentially formed to
get the knowledge and know-how to execute tasks that were necessary for the community to make progress.”1
Considering the wide range of occupations and work activities that currently engage the nation’s engineering
workforce, the occupational flexibility of degreed engineers, the demographics of the workforce, the pace of
technological change, and powerful trends in the global distribution and organization of engineering work, how
well is the US engineering education enterprise adapting to meet current and future demands for engineering skills
and knowledge throughout the nation’s economy and society?
This chapter explores the implications for engineering educators of advances in particular fields of science and
technology, and the growing demand for engineering graduates with a mix of strong technical and professional skills.
It then reviews several promising developments in engineering education that address evolving workplace demands
on engineering graduates by drawing on a growing knowledge of how people are attracted to, learn, and teach the
discipline. It also examines the challenges associated with the assessment and diffusion of innovations in engineer-
ing education, engineering faculty development, and lifelong learning for engineering graduates and practitioners.
NEW SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE FOR ENGINEERS

In keeping with rapid advances in many fields of science and technology, the field of engineering has evolved in
recent decades to incorporate computing and, to a lesser extent, the life,2 social, and behavioral sciences as well as
1 Remarks at the NAE Workshop on Pathways for Engineering Talent, November 19, 2014; available at https://www.nae.edu/Projects/
Continuum/nov19webcast/123918.aspx. Dr. Mote reviewed the history of engineering, explaining how different fields arose based on societal
needs and technology at the time (e.g., mechanical engineering began with the Industrial Revolution and the need to engineer steam engines).
However, he went on to say that many world problems that require engineering solutions do not fit neatly into traditional disciplines, and
much engineering work is performed by individuals without engineering degrees. This situation creates challenges for engineering education
and its traditional curricula.
2 From 2003 to 2017, there was more than a fourfold increase in the number of accredited BS bioengineering and biomedical engineering
programs in the United States, from 24 to 107 (ABET 2017); and the number of biomedical engineering jobs is projected to grow 23 percent
between 2014 and 2024 (US Department of Labor 2017). MIT made the study of biology a General Institute Requirement (i.e., a core curriculum
requirement) of students in the 1990s (MIT website, http://catalog.mit.edu/mit/undergraduate-education/general-institute-requirements/).
60

CHALLENGES FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION 61
the humanities into its core curriculum, augmenting the well-established foundations of math, physics, and chemistry.
The committee focused on computing because the use of skills and knowledge in this area has become increasingly
fundamental for a number of engineering fields and applications beyond electrical and computer engineering.
At the same time, there is growing demand from industry for engineering graduates to be equipped with
nontechnical or professional attributes and abilities in addition to their technical aptitude (Brunhaver et al. 2017;
Sheppard et al. 2009; Shuman et al. 2005). Moreover, engineers have recently begun to incorporate considerations
such as sustainability, societal impact, and public policy in their work, and they need stronger communication
skills to seek and incorporate the input of diverse stakeholders (NSPE 2013).
Computing and Engineering

The educational and career pathways of computer scientists and engineers are increasingly intersecting, as is
seen in the overlap in occupations, skills, and degrees of the two fields. The abilities and knowledge involved
in computing—including programming, computing architecture and organization, data mining, software design,
and the relatively new field of data science—should be included in the list of attributes for future engineers.
Computers and software are ubiquitous tools in design, simulation, testing, and manufacturing, and computing
(NASEM 2018a) and data science (NASEM 2018b) skills are desired in almost all occupations. Therefore, just
as fundamental mathematics and science knowledge have historically been basic requirements for an engineering
degree, computing aptitude is now essential to an engineer’s toolbox. College students seem to be aware of this,
as enrollment by noncomputing majors in computer science (CS) classes, at both introductory and higher levels,
is increasing dramatically (CRA 2017; Lazowska et al. 2014; NASEM 2018a) and many institutions report an
increase in CS minors, although the data do not specify the majors of those students (CRA 2017). Computing can
be taught in CS courses or included as part of discipline-specific courses; given the rapid increase in CS enroll-
ments all institutions will need to design solutions to teaching computing to engineers (and other students) based
on their own context, size, and number of faculty (NASEM 2018a).
At the university level there are five core computing disciplines, as defined by the Association for Com-
puting Machinery, Association for Information Systems, and IEEE Computer Society (Joint Task Force for
Computing Curricula 2006, pp. 13–15):
• Computer engineering: design and construction of computers and computer-based systems

• Computer science3: design and implementation of software, new computer uses, and effective solutions to
computing problems
• Information systems: integration of information technology solutions and business processes to meet the
information needs of organizations
• Information technology: repair, maintenance, and replacement of computer technology and systems to
support the needs of companies and organizations
• Software engineering: development and maintenance of software systems that are reliable and efficient.
Of the five computing disciplines, computer engineering and software engineering are taught in departments by
those names (or variations thereof) in a majority of US schools of engineering and are recognized as engineering
disciplines by ABET (formerly known as the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology),4 although they
3 Although engineering and computing are closely related, the discipline of computer science and computing occupations are defined as dis-
tinct from engineering by the statistical agencies that track graduation rates and employment (e.g., degrees in computer engineering – hardware
are categorized by NSF as engineering, whereas degrees in computer engineering – software are categorized as computing) and the report
follows this categorization in the analyses. Although the committee examined some aspects of career flexibility and pathways for those with
computer science degrees and found pathways similar to those for engineering degrees, a full review of the pathway to a computing degree
and then on into the workforce is beyond the scope of the project. Chapter 1 explains how these data are collected.
4 ABET has accreditation standards for engineering programs that include “electrical,” “electronic(s),” “computer,” “communication(s),”
“telecommunication(s),” or similar modifiers in their title. However, accreditation of software education programs is not uniformly conducted
across engineering departments (there are 27 accredited software engineering programs).

are taught in engineering schools at some universities and in the computer science department of schools of arts
and sciences at others.5 Information technology degrees are newer and are taught at two- and four-year technical
schools, online, and in university computer science departments. The field of information systems has the least
connection to engineering, as evidenced by the fact that most of its degrees are awarded by business schools (Joint
Task Force for Computing Curricula 2006). In short, the current academic home of most computing disciplines is
more a function of the historical development of specific institutions of higher education than any deeper insights
into the relationship between computing and engineering.
Approximately 16 percent of BS engineers work in computer-related occupations, but many more use computing
skills in their occupations. Many of the skills and concepts associated with the computing disciplines of computer
science, information technology, and software engineering are closely related to those of engineering disciplines. The
design component in both programming and engineering relates to the problem-solving nature of both disciplines,
and computer programming is an important task for those in engineering occupations—33 percent of engineering
bachelor’s degree holders report spending at least 10 percent of their time on this task in their jobs (NSCG 20136).
Finding: The disciplinary foundations of engineering are expanding with the growing influence and incorpo-
ration of computing, the life sciences, the social and behavioral sciences, business management concepts and
skills, and entrepreneurship. In particular, computing and data science knowledge and skills are increasingly
fundamental to a range of engineering applications, computer occupations employ over 15 percent of all engi-
neering graduates and are projected to grow rapidly over the coming decade, and engineering schools need to
recognize and support the interaction between engineering and computer science in all disciplines, whether with
more required courses for all majors or instruction in computing skills as part of discipline-specific courses.
Growing Demand for Professional Skills

Changing business imperatives and associated growth in the occupational responsibilities and tasks of today’s engi-
neers have raised the demand for engineering graduates with strong professional and technical skills (Brunhaver
et al. 2017; Lynn and Salzman 2010). More than a quarter of a century ago, technology-intensive industries began
calling for well-rounded or “T-shaped” workers, that is, those who combine deep knowledge and skills in a par-
ticular subject with broad, interdisciplinary, collaborative skills (Miller 2015).
In the mid-1990s ABET responded to growing employer dissatisfaction with the “professional” preparedness
of degreed engineers with Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC2000), a major overhaul of engineering education require-
ments (Lattuca et al. 2006). EC2000 underscored the importance of professional skills as a necessary complement
to technical skills by requiring that engineering graduates be equipped to function on multidisciplinary teams,
communicate effectively, engage in lifelong learning, and possess a knowledge of contemporary issues, understand-
ing of their professional and ethical responsibility, and understanding of “the impact of engineering solutions in
a global, economic, environmental, and societal context” (see table 2-1).
In 2004 the NAE built on the EC2000 characteristics to indicate aspirational goals with its report The Engineer
of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century (NAE 2004), identifying nine required attributes of future
engineering graduates (table 2-1). Underscoring once again the importance of combining strong technical and
professional skills, the Engineer of 2020 attributes reinforced the 11 EC2000 criteria (a–k) while enlarging the
scope of required professional skills to include creativity and innovation, business acumen, high ethical standards,
and adaptive leadership.7
Since publication of The Engineer of 2020 many different stakeholders have repeated and refined the calls
for engineers to have a combination of strong technical and professional skills (ASCE 2008; ASME 2011; NAE
2005; NSPE 2013; Shuman et al. 2005), including creativity (Cropley 2015), adaptive leadership (Knight and
5 Of the 227 US institutions that offer PhD programs in computer science, 97 of the programs are housed in engineering colleges.
6 National Survey of College Graduates, https://nsf.gov/statistics/srvygrads.
7 At the time this report was written, ABET was in the process of revising these criteria; this report does not address the proposed revised
criteria.

TABLE 2-1 Attributes of engineers set forth by the NAE Engineer of 2020 Committee mapped to ABET
EC2000 criteria.
ABET criteria
mapped to NAE
Engineer of 2020 attributes “2020” attributes ABET EC2000 criteria
Strong analytical skills a, b, k (a) An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering
(b) An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze
Practical ingenuity, creativity, c, e, k
and interpret data
and innovation
(c) An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired
Good communication skills g needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social,
Business acumen and d political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability
management skills (d) An ability to function on multidisciplinary teams
(e) An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems
High ethical standards and f (f) An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
professionalism (g) An ability to communicate effectively
Agility, resiliency, and flexibility d, i, b (h) The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering
solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context
An appreciation for lifelong i
(i) A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in, lifelong learning
learning
(j) Knowledge of contemporary issues
Ability to put problems in their h, j, c (k) An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools
sociotechnical and operational necessary for engineering practice.
context
Adaptive leadership d
Sources: The Engineer of 2020 attributes are set forth in NAE (2004), chapter 4. The ABET criteria are described in chapter 1 and available
online at www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria.
Novoselich 2017), entrepreneurship (Taks et al. 2014), interdisciplinary learning (ASEE 2009; Lattuca et al. 2017;
NAE 2005), and lifelong learning (Dutta et al. 2012; NSPE 2013; STEMconnector 2014). For the perspective
of one major employer of engineering and computer science graduates, Google, on “core skills” sought in new
hires, see box 2-1.
BOX 2-1
Google’s Search Criteria for New Hires
In a 2014 New York Times interview, Laszlo Bock, senior vice president of people operations, emphasized
five core skills or capabilities—“leadership, humility, collaboration, adaptability, and loving to learn and
relearn”—as central to his company’s search criteria for new hires.
“For every job,…the No. 1 thing we look for is general cognitive ability, and it’s not IQ. It’s learning
ability. It’s the ability to process on the fly. It’s the ability to pull together disparate bits of information.…”
The second, he added, “is leadership—in particular emergent leadership as opposed to traditional leader-
ship.… What we care about is, when faced with a problem and you’re a member of a team, do you, at
the appropriate time, step in and lead. And just as critically, do you step back and stop leading, do you let
someone else [lead]?”… What else? Humility and ownership. “It’s feeling the sense of responsibility, the
sense of ownership, to step in,” he said, to try to solve any problem—and the humility to step back and
embrace the better ideas of others…. He cautions, “Beware. Your degree is not a proxy for your ability
to do any job. The world only cares about—and pays off on—what you can do with what you know (and
it doesn’t care how you learned it). And in an age when innovation is increasingly a group endeavor, it
also cares about a lot of soft skills—leadership, humility, collaboration, adaptability and loving to learn and
relearn. This will be true no matter where you go to work” (Friedman 2014).

Progress in Professional Skill Development

Many US schools of engineering have responded creatively to EC2000, The Engineer of 2020, and related calls
for strengthening the combined technical and professional skills of engineering graduates. Corresponding changes
to engineering curricula, pedagogy, and faculty preparation have yielded modest but measurable progress in stu-
dent outcomes at many institutions. In particular, ethics education can promote engineering students’ expectation
that they will experience ethical dilemmas in their professional work and their belief in the importance of acting
ethically (Clancy et al. 2017) and helps graduate students become more aware of ethical and social responsibility
issues related to their professional roles in society (Canary et al. 2014).
A 2006 study to measure the evolution of engineering graduates’ skills after implementation of the ABET 2000
criteria surveyed almost 10,000 students, 1,200 faculty, and 1,600 employers, comparing graduates of the classes of
1994 and 2004 (Lattuca et al. 2006). Based on changes made in response to the ABET EC2000 criteria, more than
half of the faculty reported greater curricular emphasis on oral and written communication and teamwork skills and
an increase in active learning approaches in the classroom, such as group work and design projects. Additionally,
more than two thirds of the faculty were involved in teaching or professional development activities, although
many faculty cited a lack of incentives to implement more diverse coursework that focused on professional skills.
Some improvements were apparent in the student outcomes: “The 2004 graduates reported more active engage-
ment in their learning, more interaction with instructors, more faculty feedback on their work,…more involvement
in engineering design competitions, and more openness in their programs to new ideas and people” (Lattuca et
al. 2006, p. 9). And employers reported improvements in teamwork, oral and written communication skills, and
adaptability to changing technologies in the engineering graduates after implementation of the modified and more
diverse engineering curricular focus.
Nevertheless, given industry needs for communication, the ability to work in a multidisciplinary team, and an
understanding of the different cultures in which engineers work, among other competencies, employer concerns
about the adequacy of engineering students’ nontechnical, professional skills persist (ASEE 2009; Brunhaver et
al. 2017; Jaschik 2015). At the November 2015 workshop organized by the study committee, senior executives
Illustrative story: Engineer using professional skills: Teamworka
I am a mechanical design engineer for L-3 Communications, ESSCO, one of the foremost radome
designers and manufacturers in the world. My main responsibilities include CAD modeling and design
of radome components, collaborating with composites and electromagnetic engineers to optimize struc-
tural strength and electromagnetic performance. I have additionally recently assumed a role of program
manager as customer liaison to our production staff, coordinating schedule and budget to meet customer
specifications and on-time delivery.… I would say that teamwork is a large part of succeeding in my
job. From my very first semester at Olin College, I participated in teams throughout many aspects of
my education. Some courses were specifically designed as project courses, whereas others were more
traditionally focused; however, we were always encouraged to collaborate on homework assignments (as
long as we gave each other credit). Another aspect of both program management and design is seeing
the “big picture.” Olin’s culture of spiral learning always encouraged me to see how this equation or that
principle fit into the bigger scope of study.
– Carmella Tomeny
(bachelor’s in mechanical engineering),
mechanical design engineer, L-3 Communications, ESSCO
a Illustrative stories were gathered via an online questionnaire in 2015. Respondents were recruited via email by
the committee and NAE staff. All respondents provided permission to include their responses in the report.

from NASA, Boeing, and BP all expressed concerns about the preparation of degreed engineers in terms of these
professional skills.8
Part of this lack of progress may relate to evolving employer expectations of the “delivery mechanism”
for employee skill development and training. Employers have long been the primary source of occupational/
professional skill training in the United States. In 2014 Vice President Joe Biden reported that more than 25 percent
of all employees receive some type of formal training from their employers. Roughly 70 percent of companies
offer some form of training to their workers, with the vast majority of workforce development dollars dedicated
to the professional development and training of more highly skilled employees (Biden 2014).
A 2004 survey of how recent MIT engineering graduates used their technical and nontechnical skills and knowl-
edge in the workplace and where they acquired these skills reveals an interesting division of labor. The survey looked
at technical knowledge and reasoning, personal and professional skills and attributes, interpersonal skills (teamwork
and communication), and engineering skills, and ranked them in terms of expected proficiency, frequency of use,
and source of knowledge (Wolfe 2004). Respondents indicated that they were expected to have more proficiency in
their professional and interpersonal skills than in their technical skills and that they used the professional skills more
frequently in their jobs. They also reported on-the-job training as the primary source for developing (1) personal
skills and attributes, (2) professional skills and attributes, and (3) interpersonal skills such as communication and
teamwork; they attributed their specific technical knowledge to their academic studies (Wolfe 2004).
There is some concern, however, that traditional employer human resource practices are changing, with a grow-
ing share of employers convinced that primary responsibility for producing workers with needed skills (technical
or professional) should rest with the formal education sector (in particular, the not-for-profit education sector)
and with job seekers themselves (Cappelli 2014). Indeed, the demand from employers for engineering educators
to develop and help ensure the currency of the professional as well as technical skills of engineering students and
graduates, while longstanding, appears to be intensifying. One new model of addressing the acquisition of a skilled
workforce is to treat the process as a supply chain management issue, with employers building new collaborations
with what are called “workforce providers” (Sheets and Tyszko 2015; USCCF 2014).
APPROACHES TO DEVELOP NEW SKILLS FOR ENGINEERS

Combined with evolving core technical skill requirements, the need to provide graduates with enhanced profes-
sional skills may appear to some a daunting proposition for engineering educators. The engineering curriculum is
already tightly defined by required courses, and faculty, in general, have few resources and little time for learn-
ing and incorporating new material. In addition, as noted in chapter 1 (figure 1-B1), engineering enrollments are
increasing, putting more demands on faculty and institutional resources.
Yet engineering classrooms are ideal laboratories for developing new approaches to learning. For example,
in one approach, the Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate (CDIO) Initiative, collaborators across several institu-
tions have developed and shared resources that prompt change in engineering education. Specifically, educators
stress both fundamental engineering science concepts and personal/interpersonal skills, focus on retaining students,
engage with industry, collaborate, and use evidence-based teaching practices. CDIO aims to “educate students who
are able to: 1. Master a deeper working knowledge of technical fundamentals, 2. Lead in the creation and operation
of new products, processes, and systems, and 3. Understand the importance and strategic impact of research and
technological development on society” (Crawley et al. 2007, p. 20).
The expanding foundations of theoretical knowledge are as essential as ever, but technological and pedagogi-
cal breakthroughs are introducing new tools (e.g., dynamic simulations) and mechanisms (e.g., student-centered
8 The workshop presentations and discussions can be viewed online at www.nae.edu/Projects/Continuum/nov19webcast.aspx.

teaching techniques) for the delivery of academic content, and incoming generations of students are “digital
natives.” Faculty can take advantage of their students’ technological capability while embracing student-centered
approaches designed to impart the skills and attributes needed in the workplaces of today and tomorrow (NAE
2005; NSPE 2013; Sheppard et al. 2009). With this convergence of trends, now is the time for teaching to change.
The following section addresses several promising directions in engineering education at the postsecondary
level that are responsive to the demand for graduates with both technical and professional skills such as creativity,
leadership, entrepreneurship, and the ability to work in an interdisciplinary environment. The interventions build
on a growing knowledge of how people learn and teach engineering. Engineering education research on topics
such as student learning, engagement, and motivation has informed both classroom and extracurricular interven-
tions (NRC 2012). In addition, research in educational, learning, and social and behavioral sciences has helped
engineering faculty develop and use more engaging activities, implement inquiry activities that combine instruction
and assessment, and include student learning outcomes and educational objectives in curricula (Froyd et al. 2012).
Participation in engaging and challenging activities supports all students as they determine the implications of
course material (Atman et al. 2010). In addition, the educational approaches described below have been shown to
improve diversity by better engaging women, underrepresented minority, and other marginalized students. Chap-
ter 3 examines these and other interventions at the precollege, postsecondary, and workplace levels in the context
of strengthening the engineering workforce by increasing the participation of diverse individuals.
Active Learning
Active learning encompasses any teaching strategy that both involves students in classroom activities and encour-
ages reflection about those tasks, as opposed to merely listening to and writing down information presented via
lecture. Active learning includes techniques such as collaboration (students interacting to achieve a goal), coopera
tion (collaborative learning with students receiving their own grades rather than a group grade), and problem-
based learning (learning information in the context of finding solutions to a problem) (Prince 2004). Other active
techniques include service learning, which connects in-class education and academic objectives with projects
that benefit the community (Swan et al. 2014), and real-world or experiential education, which presents students
with ill-defined problems that include competing constraints and requires them to solve the problems as best they
can. Maker spaces, which include equipment for rapid prototyping and support hands-on design experiences for
students, promote the development of technical and professional skills (Barrett et al. 2015).
Active learning experiences more closely approximate engineering work in industry than traditional textbook-
based problem sets. With these approaches the professor is more “mentor” than “master.” Strategies such as
case-based lessons, think-aloud paired problem solving, just-in-time teaching, think-pair-share, inquiry activities,
concept inventories, and peer instruction have been shown to improve student learning and engagement (Borrego
et al. 2013). On the other hand, while creativity can be acquired in an active learning environment, research sug-
gests that it is best learned when it is explicitly taught and assessed as part of the curriculum (Daly et al. 2014).
The concept of active learning is not new. Its core concept is simple: there is greater value in learning by
doing. It is not enough for students to merely know the “how” (i.e., how to solve a partial differential equation);
the “why” is more important—why is this equation needed, and when is it applicable? This is where techniques
such as problem-driven learning come into play.
Solutions to the problems engineers face—and those not yet imagined—require critical thinking, and the
adoption of active learning approaches that support the development of such thinking is accelerating among insti-
tutions that focus on STEM education. Research demonstrates the effectiveness of active learning techniques for
student engagement and comprehension (Prince 2004), particularly for the current generation of college students

who desire societal relevance and interaction in their classroom experiences (Chubin et al. 2008). A meta-analysis
of 225 studies examining student outcomes for traditional lectures compared with active learning courses in
STEM reported better student performance and less likelihood of failing for students in the active learning classes
(Freeman et al. 2014). Other research has found that use of such techniques diminishes both the gender gap in
physics (Lorenzo et al. 2006) and the gap between socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged students
in biology (Haak et al. 2011).
Active learning is associated with improvements in student retention, learning outcomes, and satisfaction
among both students and teachers (Strobel and van Barneveld 2009), and with higher retention and graduation rates
among engineering students in particular (Felder et al. 1998). It reduces achievement and retention gaps between
underrepresented and majority groups, and one particular type of active learning, service learning, has been shown
to attract and retain females and underrepresented minorities at higher rates than the typical engineering setting
(Litchfield and Javernick-Will 2015; Swan et al. 2014). (The experiences of women and underrepresented minori-
ties in engineering education and the workplace are discussed in greater depth in chapter 3.)
Following is a small sample of the many institutions that incorporate active learning and real-world experi-
ences in their curricula:
• The University of California, Berkeley offers immersion in experiential design at its new Jacobs Institute
for Design Innovation (http://jacobsinstitute.berkeley.edu), where students pick up tools and techniques to
design and make working models in an integrative experience.
• Harvey Mudd College’s Engineering Clinic (https://www.hmc.edu/clinic/) provides a capstone design
experience modeled on how medical students learn clinical skills: Students work in interdisciplinary teams
on real projects sponsored by a company; the sponsors and faculty members provide some supervision but
the students are fully accountable for all aspects of the project and thus gain skills critical to their transition
to the engineering workforce.
• Michigan Technological University runs the Enterprise Program (www.mtu.edu/enterprise/), which increases
the time spent in a typical capstone design program from 1 to 2 or even 3 years as students work on large
teams that operate as engineering companies; they experience all aspects of engineering and management
work, taking on increasing responsibility throughout the project.
• Georgia Tech has developed a Vertically Integrated Projects (VIP) program (www.vip.gatech.edu/vip-
vertically-integrated-projects-program) in which multidisciplinary teams of students—from sophomores
to PhD students—function like design teams in industry and work on projects that can last several years.
These teams include faculty research projects that benefit both the students—who gain research skills and
leadership experience and also learn from both mentoring others and having their own mentors—and the
research programs, which have increased the teams’ design and discovery.
Such innovative approaches can be difficult to implement in a traditional classroom. To address this chal-
lenge, Georgia Tech’s Invention Studio (http://inventionstudio.gatech.edu/), an on-campus “skunk works,” is run
by students and replicates the maker movement. Similarly, Purdue’s i2i Learning Laboratory (https://engineering.
purdue.edu/ENE/Academics/i2ilab) is an experiential, collaborative, reconfigurable learning environment for first-
year engineers that takes them through each stage of the design cycle. The physical space includes floor-to-ceiling
“wall talkers,” essentially whiteboard wallpaper on three walls, allowing students easy proximity and ample room
for writing and sketching as they create solutions to problems. Such hands-on learning approaches encourage
students to think outside the proverbial box (Prince and Felder 2007).
Another experiential learning program that has been shown to improve student retention in engineering is
cooperative education (co-op) (Raelin et al. 2014). Students in co-op programs rotate between full-time work in
engineering and full-time student academic work. As an example, Northeastern University (www.northeastern.
edu/coop/) requires all engineering students to complete at least one co-op experience, and they can choose to
complete up to three in a 5-year program. In addition to academic courses, the program includes a preparatory
course in work skills such as resume writing and professional etiquette (Raelin et al. 2014).

Entrepreneurial Experience
Entrepreneurial experience in undergraduate education helps students develop a range of business and other
professional skills in addition to their engineering competencies. Graduates of entrepreneurship programs report
developing oral and written communication skills and the ability to think broadly about engineering systems and
to work in teams with individuals from many disciplines (Duval-Couetil and Wheadon 2013).
Several well-organized independent initiatives are available to meet the growing demand for teaching entre-
preneurship in engineering:
• The Kern Entrepreneurial Engineering Network (KEEN; http://engineeringunleashed.com/keen/) involves

engineering faculty at 40 US institutions who collaborate and share resources to promote curiosity,
connections, and the creation of value, all of which KEEN defines as an entrepreneurial mindset.
• The Engineering Pathways to Innovation Center (Epicenter; http://epicenter.stanford.edu/) at Stanford
University launched entrepreneurship and innovation programs such as the Epicenter University Innovation
Fellows program and the Pathways to Innovation Program (https://venturewell.org/pathways-in-innovation/,
now run by VentureWell). The center partners with leaders in academia and government to build a national
entrepreneurship agenda in engineering, conducts research on higher education models, hosts online classes
and resources, and forms communities around entrepreneurship in engineering education.
• Although not engineering-specific, several programs offered by the Kauffman Foundation (www.kauffman.
org/what-we-do/entrepreneurship) are designed to help individuals develop entrepreneurial skills; the
programs include online learning, in-person short courses, and opportunities to present ideas to mentors
and entrepreneurs for feedback.
Research interviews with engineering graduates suggest that they place high value on their entrepreneurship
education and recognize its benefits to their careers (Duval-Couetil and Wheadon 2013; Taks et al. 2014), help-
ing them develop the abilities to communicate, see the big picture, work with people from other disciplines, find
employment, and have an entrepreneurial mindset. Graduates of these programs develop leadership and responsi-
bility (Taks et al. 2014) and are motivated to start their own companies (Duval-Couetil and Wheadon 2013). Even
if they do not start their own companies, their entrepreneurial skills and knowledge are valuable to the companies
where they work (Duval-Couetil and Wheadon 2013).
Service Learning and Other Ways to Develop Professional Skills

A study of engineering education by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching calls for greater
emphasis on professional and nontechnical skills and abilities in engineering undergraduate education (Sheppard
et al. 2009). And in fact many US engineering programs are working to provide undergraduate students with
opportunities to gain international experience, language proficiency, and intercultural aptitude as part of their
degree requirements, making them better candidates for competitive positions in today’s global economy (Alves
2015; Besterfield-Sacre et al. 2015; Eljamal et al. 2015; Jesiek et al. 2012; Mariasingam et al. 2008). For example,
nearly half of the engineering students at Georgia Tech now graduate with some type of international experience,
acquired through study, work, research, or service abroad.
Participation in a service learning program such as Engineers Without Borders (EWB; www.ewb-usa.org/)
has been shown to boost students’ confidence in their professional skills, compared to students who did not par-
ticipate in such a program (Litchfield et al. 2016). And engineering service, which combines learning engineering
topics with the opportunity to apply engineering skills to community challenges, promotes both the ability to
take a multidisciplinary systems approach and an understanding of the broader context and impact of engineering
(Litchfield et al. 2016).
In Purdue University’s Engineering Projects in Community Service (EPICS; https://engineering.purdue.edu/
EPICS), students earn course credits by participating in long-term, multidisciplinary teams that design solutions
for nonprofit organizations in the same community as the education institution (Coyle et al. 2005). One survey of

Purdue program alumni working in industry found that their EPICS participation prepared them for professional
engineering work by improving their teamwork skills, leadership, oral and written communication, and inter
disciplinary thinking (Huff et al. 2016).
Experiential, or hands-on, learning can develop skills such as oral and written communication, collabora-
tion, leadership, advocacy, and perseverance, empowering students and giving them a sense of purpose (Gallup
2014). National programs that offer such experience for K–12 students are the FIRST Robotics Competition and
code.org, among others (Miller 2015). At the college level, opportunities for this type of learning are available in
internships, competitions, and co-op experiences, which also give students a feel for industry needs and processes.
One initiative that seeks to integrate several innovative directions in engineering education is the National
Academy of Engineering Grand Challenges Scholars Program (GCSP).9 Inspired by the 2008 NAE Grand Chal-
lenges for Engineering report, which identified 14 significant areas for engineering contributions in the 21st
century, the GCSP is essentially a “certificate program” combining interdisciplinary curricular and extracurricular
components that prepare students to contribute to solutions to some of the biggest issues of the time, engaging the
very essence of engineering—creating solutions to problems of people and society.
Started in 2009 by academic leaders from the University of Southern California, Duke University, and
Olin College of Engineering, the NAE GCSP recognizes and rewards engineering students who graduate with
preparation in five competencies: (1) talent: mentored research/creative experience on a Grand Challenge-like
topic; (2) multidisciplinarity: understanding of the multidisciplinarity of engineering system solutions developed
through personal engagement; (3) viable business/entrepreneurship: understanding, preferably developed though
experience, of the necessity of a viable business model for solution implementation; (4) multicultural awareness:
understanding of different cultures, preferably through multicultural experiences, to ensure cultural acceptance
of proposed engineering solutions; and (5) social consciousness: understanding that engineering solutions should
primarily serve people and society. There are active GCSPs at more than 60 US schools of engineering, with an
additional 100 schools of engineering in the United States and overseas committed to establishing GCSPs in the
next few years.
Some institutions have implemented “learning communities” that promote collaborative learning experiences
among students (Tinto 2003) and increase the sense of community among student and faculty participants through
integrated course modules, pedagogical practices that promote active and cooperative learning, and peer groups.
A community program at the Colorado School of Mines found that participating students (as compared with peers
who did not participate in the program) became actively involved in learning both in and out of class and, most
noteworthy, persisted and graduated at rates that were approximately 25 percent higher than their peers (Olds and
Miller 2004).
Living-learning (L/L) programs are a type of learning community in which undergraduate students live together
in a residence hall and participate in academic and/or extra- or cocurricular programming specifically designed
for their group (Inkelas et al. 2007). One study reported significant benefits for L/L participants compared to
other students, in areas such as positive interactions with peers and faculty, an easy academic and social transi-
tion to college, and higher scores for critical thinking, ability to apply knowledge, and confidence of success in
their math, English, and writing courses as well as test-taking skills (NSLLP 2007). Other research on different
types of programs has similarly found that L/L communities enhance students’ connections and interactions with
other students, develop motivation, and improve educational outcomes such as oral and written communication
or analytical skills (Beachboard et al. 2011).
Faculty Preparation
Although engineering faculty rate student preparation for postcollege employment, preparation for graduate study,
mastery of knowledge in a particular discipline, and development of creative capacities as important or essential stu-
dent outcome goals for their undergraduate courses, they are not necessarily prepared to realize their commitment
to these outcomes in the classroom. Specifically, analysis of survey responses (see appendix C) from engineering,
9 Information about the GCSP is available at www.engineeringchallenges.org/GrandChallengeScholarsProgram.aspx.

other STEM, and non-STEM faculty shows that engineering and other STEM faculty are significantly less likely
than non-STEM faculty to report using student-centered teaching strategies and that engineering faculty are the
least likely of the three groups to participate in workshops or other organized activities to enhance teaching. One
reason engineering faculty participate at such low levels may be that those who implement innovative classroom
practices may not be rewarded by institutional promotion and tenure practices (ASEE 2012) or experience the
benefits of that change, unlike their students, who gain better skills, and employers, who have access to better-
qualified graduates (McKenna et al. 2011). Faculty must be motivated to implement change and may need support
in order to overcome barriers and change their teaching (Matusovich et al. 2014).
Pedagogical knowledge and inclusive teaching techniques can be learned both in graduate education (ASEE
2012; Linse et al. 2004) and in teaching workshops for current faculty, which have been shown to increase fac-
ulty use of active learning and other research-based techniques. Workshops conducted by engineering faculty
may promote more uptake than those without engineering-specific examples (Brawner et al. 2002). In addition
to campus-based workshops, several national initiatives offer professional development activities for engineering
faculty members; for example:
• Frontiers of Engineering Education (FOEE; https://www.naefoee.org/), a program of the National Academy

of Engineering, brings together engineering faculty who are implementing innovative teaching techniques
in their classroom to share their ideas and learn new approaches for teaching or assessing student outcomes
from peers and experts.
• The National Effective Teaching Institute (NETI; https://www.asee.org/conferences-and-events/conferences/
neti), a program of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), hosts workshops that provide
new faculty members with practical tools for effective teaching and experienced faculty with information
they can use to develop their own campus-based development and mentoring programs.
• Workshops at the annual ASEE conferences (https://www.asee.org/) and Frontiers in Education (http://
fie2017.org/) also support the teaching activities of engineering faculty and doctoral students.
Changes in undergraduate and graduate engineering education require institutions to support faculty mem-
bers as they learn about both instructional behaviors and current industry practices, applications, and problems.
One method of learning new engineering information is through university-industry collaborations, which afford
faculty members valuable experience working in industry while on a sabbatical. In addition to benefits for the
industry (e.g., access to basic or applied research results, which could improve their product or processes) and
the local economy (e.g., increased hiring at the company as its bottom line improves), participating faculty can
use the experience to develop class projects, case studies, course content, or innovative programs that present
students with experiential learning that improves the skills desired by industry (McKinnis et al. 2001). Industry
partnerships can also offer faculty some experience with mentoring and leading undergraduate design projects
involving corporate sponsors.
Although engineering professors can learn about cutting-edge industry techniques from seminars or other inter-
actions with industry workers, spending a longer amount of time during a sabbatical or summer internship allows
deeper knowledge gain about how engineers in industry approach their work, and this knowledge can be translated to
the classroom (Gorman et al. 2001). Many institutions also hire adjunct faculty who continue to work in industry and
thus can incorporate current and relevant problems for students to solve (Gosink and Streveler 2000), and research
suggests that faculty with industry experience are more committed to their teaching and spend more time in teaching-
related activities (as opposed to research) than those without such experience (Fairweather and Paulson 1996).
Lifelong Learning
Given the rapid pace of scientific and technological advances, the diminishing shelf life of technical information,
the evolution of professional skills, and the occupational mobility of engineering graduates during their careers,
learning for engineers can no longer be easily divided into a place and time to acquire knowledge (university) and
a place and time to apply it (the workplace). Learning is now a lifelong proposition. Indeed, former NAE president

Charles Vest called for “a corporate and national strategy…to ramp up the quality and opportunity for lifelong
learning for our engineering workforce” (Dutta et al. 2012, p. ix).
Lifelong learning is not simply a matter of credentials and certifications. It is a matter of how engineers
approach the acquisition of knowledge. Today’s economy is in transition, and this new environment requires an
adaptive mindset (NAE 2015). To foster adaptability, individuals, companies, and educational institutions must
embrace the ongoing process of continuing education and lifelong learning, not treat it as an occasional activity.
Licensed professional engineers, particularly those in the field of civil engineering, have long engaged in
activities to improve their technical and professional knowledge. But the need for lifelong learning for all engineers
is increasing, for a number of reasons. As both technical knowledge and technology continually evolve, so do the
depth of knowledge and breadth of capabilities needed to practice effectively in any subdiscipline of engineering.
Engineers must now incorporate considerations such as sustainability, societal impact, and public policy more
than in the past, and they need stronger oral and written communication skills to seek and incorporate the input
of more, and more diverse, stakeholders (NSPE 2013).
Illustrative story: Career development
I have recognized the need to do more writing and the need for higher mathematics. I went back to uni-
versity at age 50 to get my master’s degree.
– Steven Reid
(bachelor’s in engineering, master’s in engineering and professional practice),
owner of a manufacturer of power plant equipment
Engineers can upgrade their skills and technical knowledge through both formal and informal mechanisms
and in online or in-person environments. A common formal method is through alternative credentials such as
professional certifications, licenses, and educational certificates. The US Census Bureau showed that, in 2012,
71 percent of those working in technical occupations held such credentials, including 33 percent of bachelor’s
degree holders and 47.5 percent of master’s degree holders working in technical fields, demonstrating that these
credentials are not just for those without a college degree (Ewert and Kominski 2014).
Licenses are generally obtained through regulatory bodies. The National Society of Professional Engineers
(NSPE) maintains a list of state regulatory agencies that issue Professional Engineer (PE) licenses (NSPE 2017).
Certifications can come from a number of sources, such as professional societies, companies, certification orga-
nizations, and universities and community colleges (Mooney 2015).
Professional societies have long offered professional development for their members. These programs,
spanning a variety of topics from technical subjects to management training, may lead to certification, although
many do not result in a formal credential. An example of a formal certification program is the Society of Manufac-
turing Engineers (SME) Certified Manufacturing Engineer (CMfgE) Certification (www.sme.org/cmfge), granted
to whose who successfully pass a four-hour 180 multiple-choice-question exam; review classes are offered by
SME to help applicants prepare for the exam (classroom participation is not mandatory). SME’s “Tooling U”
(www.toolingu.com) is another example of training activities that can lead to certification or on-the-job training.
Engineers also continue their lifelong learning through employer programs. For example, the GE Edison Engi-
neering Development Program (EEDP) is designed to advance technical problem-solving skills and professional
leadership and communication skills through a 2- to 3-year program of three or more rotational assignments. Other
companies partner with local community colleges and with certification-offering institutions to design specific
courses (Mangan 2013). The Manufacturing Institute (2015) offers a toolkit to companies seeking to implement
a workforce certification program.
It is unclear how many of these programs are geared toward degreed engineers rather than others in the skilled

technical workforce. There is no comprehensive database of continuing education programs for engineers nor are
there data on the number of engineers engaged in these programs.
Universities and colleges offer their own professional development courses leading to certifications for engi-
neers. Certificate programs are almost ubiquitous at engineering colleges. The rise of massive open online courses
(MOOCs) and other online courses that can lead to certifications has led universities to offer “microdegrees”
(Young 2015). Faculty at universities and colleges contribute to lifelong learning by providing experiences for
undergraduate and graduate students that impart skills needed to remain curious, motivated, and responsible
for continuing to learn after graduation. Students gain such skills by engaging in active learning such as project-
based international educational experiences (Jiusto and DiBiasio 2006) and problem-based or cooperative learning
(Felder and Brent 2003).
Faculty can promote lifelong learning skills in undergraduate students by presenting strategies for study and
learning (Felder and Brent 2003) and, more importantly, providing multiple occasions to practice those skills in
a context that closely approximates real engineering work (Litzinger and Marra 2000). It is helpful for faculty to
support these abilities by encouraging reflection (Shuman et al. 2005)—having students think specifically about
what they learned in a class, how it relates to information previously learned, ethical and societal implications of
the new knowledge, and what other information would be needed to solve particular problems. Requiring thorough
literature searches and reference citations also promotes lifelong learning (Felder and Brent 2003). As students
achieve proficiency in the other ABET professional skills–related learning outcomes, they will also develop skills
for lifelong learning (Shuman et al. 2005).
Illustrative story: Lifelong learning
I work for my own company, Infinut. As a founder, I wear many hats. I do software development, marketing,
management, etc.… Yes [I consider myself an engineer]. Even though my title is CEO, I spend most of my
time solving non-trivial coding problems. I build kids’ educational mobile apps.… The oil services job [that
I took initially after college] proved to be too dangerous for a long-term career. So I switched to computer
programming during the late ’90s tech boom. I had a tough time switching from a hands-on engineering
job to a desk job. The company I joined trained me in the new language at the time—Java—and I was
able to establish myself as an engineer who got projects done. As I was not a computer science graduate,
I applied for a professional master’s in computer science at University of Washington (evening classes).
I completed it in 2003. That gave me the credentials and broader perspective I needed to grow.… I had
done a couple of computer science courses during my bachelor’s as part of electrical engineering. That’s
most of what I use today. I was also able to get admission to [the] master’s in computer science directly
since electrical/electronics engineering is considered related to computer science. Same reason why I got
my first job. But the undergraduate studies haven’t really helped since. It’s a foundation, but the learning
did not stop there.
– Ana Redmond
(bachelor’s in electrical engineering, master’s in computer science),
founder and CEO, Infinut
practices, and other areas, engineers must be prepared to pursue lifelong learning activities, including online

Outcomes: The Challenge of Assessment

There are numerous challenges to the ability to effectively assess the medium- and long-term impacts of changes
in engineering education on the educational and career outcomes of students. For example, efforts to implement
change tend to focus on individual faculty members, small groups (e.g., one department), or one institution. There
is uncertainty in the research literature about the definition and outcome measurements of various educational inno-
vations (Prince 2004). Assessment tools can be resource intensive to develop and validate. Surveys are frequently
unable to compare outcomes for individuals from underrepresented groups because there are not enough data points
to conduct statistical analyses (most federal datasets do not release information that could identify individuals,
making it impossible to examine differences for women and underrepresented minorities in some engineering
disciplines). And it is difficult to connect specific innovations to student outcomes over long periods of time, both
because support for long-term studies is lacking and because rarely is a single intervention pursued at one time.
As noted in chapter 1, there is, however, an emerging opportunity to harness and integrate “administrative
data,” collected by academic institutions, government agencies, and other organizations for administrative record-
keeping, transactions, registration, and reporting. Combined with survey data, such information can yield a deeper,
more fine-grained understanding of the relationship between interventions in engineering education and training
and student and graduate/workforce outcomes. For example, student records of grades, courses taken, and extra-
curricular activities could be linked to college administrative, Census, or employment records. This information
provides a map of choices, impediments, incentives, and overall migration in education and employment.
As described in box 1-4 and appendix E, preliminary efforts successfully connected data from two institutional
sources, student transcripts and grant money expenditures, to determine whether paid undergraduate research
employment affects academic performance or graduation rates. This type of analysis demonstrates the possibility
of examining the impact of classroom or extracurricular activities or educational innovations on student outcomes.
In addition, because administrative data track individuals within a very large sample, even traditionally under-
represented groups have enough data points to allow analysis.
UNDERSTANDING THE IMPLICATIONS OF GROWING ENROLLMENT

OF FOREIGN-BORN STUDENTS ON TEMPORARY VISAS
Consistent with the data reported in chapter 1, the annual survey conducted by the American Society for Engineer-
ing Education (ASEE)10 shows growth in the number of foreign-born students on temporary visas11 earning engi-
neering degrees, and it provides additional information about the enrollment of this population in US engineering
programs. The data show a large increase (183 percent from 2005 to 2014) in temporary residents enrolling in US
engineering bachelor’s degree programs—in 2014 they accounted for 9 percent of engineering students enrolled
at the bachelor’s level, up from 5 percent in 2005. This proportion is higher than the overall temporary resident
enrollment at the undergraduate level, which was 3.2 percent in 2014 according to IPEDS data. While the share
of engineering master’s and PhD degrees earned by foreign-born students on temporary visas has been significant
for a long time, the increase at the bachelor’s level is a recent change.
Traditionally, major public universities have regulated the number of foreign (and out-of-state) students to
ensure access for in-state students, but financial pressures are making foreign-born students on temporary visas
more appealing because their tuition is higher than that of state residents and they often pay full tuition (Caldwell
2012; Choudaha 2011; Drash 2015; Fischer 2011; Lewin 2012; McKenna 2015). Recent research using student
10 Some survey results are published in Engineering by the Numbers, available at https://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/publications/
college-profiles.
11 Both NSF and IPEDS datasets group naturalized citizens and permanent residents with US-born workers, while those on temporary visas
are defined as foreign-born.

visa data for both undergraduate and graduate students shows that, while large US cities have the greatest number
of incoming foreign students, the smaller US metro areas have the highest share of foreign students and thus are
likely to see the most significant impacts from the increase in foreign student enrollment (Ruiz 2013). Many of
the institutions in smaller metro areas are state universities (Drash 2015). Unfortunately, there is little research
on how this is affecting engineering education at the undergraduate level (the impacts of foreign-born graduate
students on temporary visas have been better studied).
The impacts of foreign temporary resident enrollment on the enrollment and education quality and experiences
of domestic students and on university finances—the mechanism likely to link the two types of enrollments—are
of particular interest. Foreign students pay the higher out-of-state tuition, which partially subsidizes domestic stu-
dents and can thus increase domestic enrollment and education quality. However, the marginal cost of an additional
foreign student is likely to be higher than for a domestic student; nonnative English speakers in particular require
significant attention and resources to enable them to succeed in their new environment. These resources include
academic support, guidance in their student living experience, postgraduate planning, and in some cases financial
support, housing, and personal or psychological counseling. If the tuition paid by foreign students is set too low,
the resources required to support them may divert scarce academic support, counseling, and other resources away
from US-born students on some campuses. On the other hand, domestic students may benefit from their interac-
tions with foreign classmates, and foreign students and postdoctoral fellows may collaborate with professors to
increase innovation and hence US economic growth.
Evidence on the effect of foreign students on tuition revenue for public higher education institutions is
mixed: one study finds that only the larger research and doctoral universities have realized net gains in tuition
revenue from the enrollment of new international students (Cantwell 2015), another finds net tuition gains
across a broad spectrum of public universities generated by both undergraduate and graduate foreign students
(Bound et al. 2016).
A recent direct examination of the effect of foreign graduate enrollment on domestic graduate enrollment
across all fields finds that the effect is positive, driven by the high tuition paid by foreign master’s students (Shih
2017; see also Borjas 2004), while the effect on undergraduate enrollment is less certain, though possibly negative
(Bound et al. 2016). Foreign undergraduate students raise the average standardized mathematics scores of incoming
first-year students but lower the English scores (Bound et al. 2016). Foreign graduate students perform better than
the average domestic student in terms of scientific output and are more likely to patent than natives if they stay
in the United States, but while in graduate school they contribute less to the patenting output of their professors
than do domestic graduate students (although foreign postdoctoral students contribute the most) (Chellaraj et al.
2008; Gaule and Piacentini 2013; Gurmu et al. 2010; Stephan 2010; Stuen et al. 2012).
Research further indicates that US students benefit in a number of ways from interactions with foreign students
during their education. These benefits include the acquisition of new cultural perspectives, increased empathy,
enhanced awareness of language usage, improved critical thinking, and greater self-confidence, leadership, and
quantitative skills (Luo and Jamieson-Drake 2013). There is evidence, however, that at least some public univer-
sities are struggling to provide the additional services that foreign students require (Drash 2015; Fischer 2011).
For instance, language and cultural barriers between foreign students and their US-born classmates at both the
undergraduate and graduate level appear to be growing at some institutions, with foreign students experiencing
increased isolation.
Other aspects of the foreign student dimension of skilled immigration and its impact on US engineering edu-
cation have been studied but were not addressed by the committee and are not included in this discussion. These
encompass topics such as how the presence of foreign students influences domestic students’ choice of field of
study; how foreign students who enter the US STEM labor market after graduation impact the educational and
career choices of US natives as well as their eventual employment and earnings; and how nonstudent skilled
immigration affects the US STEM labor market and hence the educational and career choices of native students
and workers. These and other elements of student and nonstudent skilled immigration and their impacts on US
engineering education, engineering labor markets, and the educational and career pathways of US natives in
engineering are important, expansive, and complex topics, many of which have been the subject of considerable
research and are collectively worthy of a separate study.

The recent growth of foreign undergraduate enrollment in US engineering schools is a less-studied piece of
the skilled immigration puzzle that warrants particular attention. Foreign students have constituted a large share of
US engineering school enrollments at the master’s and PhD levels for decades, and the impacts of foreign gradu-
ate students have been the focus of much study. Only recently has the foreign student share of US undergraduate
engineering enrollments been increasing, concurrent with rapid growth in total undergraduate enrollments in
engineering. Accordingly, less research has been conducted at the undergraduate level than at the graduate level
on the drivers and composition of rising foreign student enrollment in engineering and its impacts on both host
institutions and the educational and career choices as well as engineering education experiences of domestic and
foreign students.
school enrollments at the graduate level whereas the rapid growth of foreign-born temporary resident student
enrollments in undergraduate engineering programs is a more recent development. Accordingly, the impacts of
foreign student enrollments have been studied more extensively at the graduate level than at the undergraduate
level. Additional data gathering and research are needed on the nature and impact of foreign-born temporary
resident student enrollments in US engineering programs, especially at the undergraduate level.
SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS
• US engineering education is evolving in response to rapid technological change, increasing globalization, more
diverse student populations, research on teaching and learning engineering, and the need to incorporate new
skills and knowledge from computing, the life sciences, the social and behavioral sciences, and other fields.
Computing and Engineering

• The disciplines of engineering and computing increasingly intersect in both the educational and career
pathways of engineers.
• The use of computing skills is increasingly fundamental to a range of engineering fields and applications;
33 percent of degreed engineers report spending at least 10 percent of their time on computing and related
tasks.
• Computing literacy and the ability to use computing tools for design and engineering work have become a
necessity for degreed engineers and those in engineering occupations.
Calls for Professional/Nontechnical Skills

• The demand from employers for engineering graduates with strong professional skills as a necessary
complement to strong technical skills appears to be intensifying, along with the expectation that engineering
educators will play a central role in the development and continuous updating of these skills. In addition to
more traditional professional skills like oral and written communication and teamwork, employers are looking
for engineers with creativity, leadership, entrepreneurial skills, lifelong learning skills, and the ability to work
in interdisciplinary teams and to incorporate interdisciplinary knowledge in their work.
• ABET, schools of engineering, engineering societies, and educators are responding to these workplace demands
and some progress has been made. But concerns persist, in part because the processes for developing the
professional skills of the US engineering labor force remain largely ad hoc.
Approaches to Developing New Skills

• The adoption of active learning (learning by doing) approaches is accelerating, and many institutions that
focus on STEM education are moving in this direction; research demonstrates the effectiveness of such
techniques for improving student engagement and learning as well as decreasing achievement gaps for students

from diverse backgrounds. In addition, experiential learning both in and out of the classroom (e.g., through
internships, co-ops, service learning, or study abroad) can help students develop nontechnical professional
skills. However, some critical engineering skills, such as creativity, are best gained when they are explicitly
taught in the classroom rather than implicitly taught through such experiences.
• Students greatly value entrepreneurship programs for the resulting knowledge and skills, which translate well
into a variety of careers.
• Although the foundations of theoretical knowledge are as essential as ever, millennial students, who are
“digital natives,” hunger for relevance and interaction. Engineering pedagogy is increasingly embracing
student-centered approaches designed to impart the skills and attributes called for by the NAE Engineer of
2020 report.
• Some institutions are implementing active and real-world experiences in their engineering curricula, providing
international experiences that enhance language proficiency and intercultural aptitude, or encouraging learning
communities among engineering students. These curricular changes both improve graduates’ professional and
lifelong learning skills and attract more women and underrepresented minorities to the field.
• Scientific and technological advances and the growing breadth of technical and professional capabilities
required of engineers necessitate continuous learning throughout an engineer’s career. Engineering education
must therefore cultivate skills related to lifelong learning.
• As engineering education evolves to meet changes in technology, markets, and societal needs, engineering
faculty must be trained on new teaching and learning techniques as well as new technology and essential
professional skills that their students will encounter in the workplace. Providing faculty with experience as
working engineers will help them teach their students these skills.
Strengthening Assessment
• Efforts to implement and assess educational change can be strengthened with better tools, including both
traditional surveys and administrative data that can more accurately examine long-term effects on individuals,
outcomes for individuals from underrepresented groups, and effects and outcomes for individual and collective
faculty, departments, colleges, and institutions.
REFERENCES
Alves MC. 2015. University-industry partnership for global education: Implementing and integrating an engineering inter-
national internship into the engineering curriculum. Paper presented at the ASEE International Forum, June 14, Seattle.
ABET 2017. ABET Accredited Program Search: Bioengineering and Biomedical Engineering. Available at http://main.abet.
org/aps/accreditedprogramsearch.aspx.
ASCE [American Society of Civil Engineers]. 2008. Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century: Preparing
the Civil Engineer for the Future. Reston, VA.
ASEE [American Society for Engineering Education]. 2009. Creating a Culture for Scholarly and Systematic Innovation in
Engineering Education (Phase I Report). Washington.
ASEE. 2012. Innovation with Impact: Creating a Culture for Scholarly and Systematic Innovation in Engineering Education.
Washington.
ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers]. 2011. Vision 2030 Creating the Future of Mechanical Engineering Edu-
cation: Phase 1 Final Report. New York.
Atman CJ, Sheppard SD, Turns J, Adams RS, Fleming LN, Stevens R, Streveler RA, Smith KA, Miller RL, Leifer LJ, Yasuhara
K, Lund D. 2010. Enabling Engineering Student Success: The Final Report for the Center for the Advancement of Engi-
neering Education. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.
Barrett TW, Pizzico MC, Levy B, Nagel RL. 2015. A review of university maker spaces. Proceedings of the American Society
for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, June 14–17, Seattle.
Beachboard M, Beachboard J, Li W, Adkison S. 2011. Cohorts and relatedness: Self-determination theory as an explanation of
how learning communities affect educational outcomes. Research in Higher Education 52(8):853–874.

Besterfield-Sacre ME, Shuman LJ, Ragusa G, Matherly C, Benson L. 2015. Assessing the spectrum of international under-
graduate engineering educational experiences. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference and Exposition, June 14–17, Seattle.
Biden J. 2014. Ready to Work: Job-Driven Training and American Opportunity. Washington: The White House.
Borjas GJ. 2004. Do Foreign Students Crowd out Native Students from Graduate Programs? NBER Working Paper 10349.
Borrego M, Cutler S, Prince M, Henderson C, Froyd JE. 2013. Fidelity of implementation of research-based instructional
strategies (RBIS) in engineering science courses. Journal of Engineering Education 102(3):394–425.
Bound J, Braga B, Khanna G, Turner S. 2016. Passage to America: University funding and international students. University
of Michigan Population Center Report 16-859.
Brawner CE, Felder RM, Allen R, Brent R. 2002. A survey of faculty teaching practices and involvement in faculty develop-
ment activities. Journal of Engineering Education 91(4):393–396.
Brunhaver SR, Korte RF, Barley SR, Sheppard SD. 2017. Bridging the gaps between engineering education and practice. In:
US Engineering in the Global Economy, eds Freeman R, Salzman H. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economics
Research.
Caldwell T. 2012. Lawmaker proposes limiting out-of-state enrollment at University of California schools. New York Times,
May 24.
Canary HE, Taylor JL, Herkert JR, Ellison K, Wetmore JM, Tarin CA. 2014. Engaging students in integrated ethics educa-
tion: A communication in the disciplines study of pedagogy and students’ roles in society. Communication Education
63(2):83–104.
Cantwell B. 2015. Are international students cash cows? Examining the relationship between new international undergradu-
ate enrollments and institutional revenue at public colleges and universities in the US. Journal of International Students
5(4):512–525.
Cappelli P. 2014. Skill Gaps, Skill Shortages and Skill Mismatches: Evidence for the US. NBER Working Paper 20382.
Chellaraj G, Maskus K, Mattoo A. 2008. The contribution of skilled immigrations and international graduate students to US
innovation. Review of International Economics 16(3):444–462.
Choudaha R. 2011. GLOBAL: The future of international student mobility. University World News, October 2.
Chubin D, Donaldson K, Olds B, Fleming L. 2008. Educating generation net—Can US engineering woo and win the competi-
tion for talent? Journal of Engineering Education 97(3):245–257.
Clancy RF III, Sessford JR, An L, Ge Y. 2017. Which factors are correlated with engineering students’ expectations of ethical
issues? Paper #18716, ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 24–28, Columbus, OH.
Coyle EJ, Jamieson LH, Oakes WC. 2005. EPICS: Engineering projects in community service. International Journal of Engi-
neering Education 21(1):139–150.
CRA [Computing Research Association]. 2017. Generation CS: Computer science undergraduate enrollments surge since 2006.
Washington. Available at http://cra.org/data/Generation-CS/.
Crawley E, Malmqvist J, Ostlund S, Brodeur D. 2007. Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach. New York:
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
Cropley DH. 2015. Promoting creativity and innovation in engineering education. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and
the Arts 9(2):161–171.
Daly SR, Mosyjowski EA, Seifert CM. 2014. Teaching creativity in engineering courses. Journal of Engineering Education
103(3):417–449.
Drash W. 2015. Culture clash in Iowa: The town where bubble tea shops outnumber Starbucks. CNN, available at www.cnn.
com/interactive/2015/07/us/culture-clash-american-story/.
Dutta D, Patil L, Porter JB Jr. 2012. Lifelong Learning Imperative in Engineering: Sustaining American Competitiveness in
the 21st Century. Washington: National Academies Press.
Duval-Couetil N, Wheadon J. 2013. The value of entrepreneurship to recent engineering graduates: A qualitative perspective.
Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 23–26, Oklahoma City.
Eljamal MB, Pang SW, Edington SJ. 2015. Gaining international competence: A multi-faceted approach to international engi-
neering education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition,
June 12–15, Portland, OR.
Ewert S, Kominski R. 2014. Measuring Alternative Educational Credentials: 2012. Washington: US Census Bureau.
Fairweather J, Paulson K. 1996. Industrial experience: Its role in faculty commitment to teaching. Journal of Engineering
Education 85(3):209–215.

Felder RM, Brent R. 2003. Designing and teaching courses to satisfy the ABET engineering criteria. Journal of Engineering
Education 92(1):7–25.
Felder RM, Felder GN, Dietz EJ. 1998. A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. V. Comparisons
with traditionally-taught students. Journal of Engineering Education 87(4):469–480.
Fischer K. 2011. Colleges adapt to new kinds of students from abroad. Chronicle of Higher Education, May 29.
Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, Wenderoth MP. 2014. Active learning increases
student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
111(23):8410–8415.
Friedman TL. 2014. How to get a job at Google. New York Times, February 22.
Froyd JE, Wankat PC, Smith KA. 2012. Five major shifts in 100 years of engineering education. Proceedings of the IEEE 100
(May 13):1344–1360.
Gallup. 2014. Great jobs, great lives. Gallup-Purdue Index Report. Washington.
Gaule P, Piacentini M. 2013. Chinese graduate students and US scientific productivity. Review of Economics and Statistics
95(2):698–701.
Gorman ME, Johnson VS, Ben-Arieh D, Bhattacharyya S, Eberhart S, Glower J, Hoffmann K, Kanda A, Kuh A, Lim TW, and
5 others. 2001. Transforming the engineering curriculum: Lessons learned from a summer at Boeing. Journal of Engineer-
ing Education 90(1):143–149.
Gosink JP, Streveler RA. 2000. Bringing adjunct engineering faculty into the learning community. Journal of Engineering
Education 89(1):47–51.
Gurmu S, Black G, Stephan P. 2010. The knowledge production function for university patenting. Economic Inquiry 48(1):192–213.
Haak DC, HilleRisLambers J, Pitre E, Freeman S. 2011. Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap
in introductory biology. Science 332:1213–1216.
Huff JL, Zoltowski CB, Oakes WC. 2016. Preparing engineers for the workplace through service learning: Perceptions of
EPICS alumni. Journal of Engineering Education 105(1):43–69.
Inkelas KK, Daver, ZE, Vogt KE, Leonard JB. 2007. Living-learning programs and first-generation college students’ academic
and social transition to college. Research in Higher Education 48(4):403–434.
Jaschik S. 2015. Well-prepared in their own eyes. Inside Higher Ed, January 20.
Jesiek BK, Shen Y, Haller Y. 2012. Cross-cultural competence: A comparative assessment of engineering students. International
Journal of Engineering Education 28(1):144–155.
Jiusto S, DiBiasio D. 2006. Experiential learning environments: Do they prepare our students to be self-directed, life-long
learners? Journal of Engineering Education 95(3):195–204.
Joint Task Force for Computing Curricula. 2006. Computing Curricula 2005: The Overview Report. Association for Computing
Machinery, Association for Information Systems, and IEEE Computer Society.
Knight DB, Novoselich BJ. 2017. Curricular and co-curricular influences on undergraduate engineering student leadership.
Lattuca LR, Terenzini PT, Fredericks J, Peterson GD. 2006. The changing face of engineering education. The Bridge 36(2):5–13.
Lattuca LR, Knight DB, Ro HK, Novoselich BJ. 2017. Supporting the development of engineers’ interdisciplinary competence.
Lazowska E, Roberts E, Kurose J. 2014. Tsunami or sea change? Responding to the explosion of student interest in computer
science. Proceedings of the Computer Research Association Conference, July 20–22, Snowbird Resort, UT. Available at
http://lazowska.cs.washington.edu/NCWIT.pdf.
Lewin T. 2012. International students pay top dollar at US colleges. New York Times, February 4.
Linse A, Turns J, Yellin JMH, VanDeGrift T. 2004. Preparing future engineering faculty: Initial outcomes of an innovative teach-
ing portfolio program. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, June 20–23,
Salt Lake City.
Litchfield K, Javernick-Will A. 2015. “I am an engineer AND”: A mixed methods study of socially engaged engineers. Journal
of Engineering Education 104(4):393–416.
Litchfield K, Javernick-Will A, Maul A. 2016. Technical and professional skills of engineers involved and not involved in
engineering service. Journal of Engineering Education 105(1):70–92.
Litzinger TA, Marra RM. 2000. Lifelong learning: Implications for curricular change and assessment. Proceedings of the
American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, June 18–21, St. Louis, MO.
Lorenzo M, Crouch CH, Mazur E. 2006. Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. American Journal of Physics
74(2):116–122.

Luo J, Jamieson-Drake D. 2013. Examining the educational benefits of interacting with international students. Journal of
International Students 3(2):85–101.
Lynn L, Salzman H. 2010. The globalization of technology development: Implications for US skills policy. In: Transforming the
US Workforce Development System: Lessons for Research and Practice, eds Finegold D, Gatta M, Salzman H, Schurman
SJ. LERA Edited Research Volume. Ithaca: ILR Press.
Mangan K. 2013. Community colleges are heeding the call to close the skills gap. Chronicle of Higher Education, February 13.
Manufacturing Institute. 2015. Growing Your Skilled Workforce: A Toolkit for Manufacturers on Implementing the NAM-Endorsed
Skills Certification System. Washington. Available at www.themanufacturinginstitute.org/~/media/442E9B067F8641B69C
39CCF32F5883CA.ashx.
Mariasingam M, Smith T, Courter S. 2008. Internationalization of engineering education. Proceedings of the American Society
for Engineering Education Annual Conference, June 22–25, Pittsburgh.
Matusovich HM, Paretti MC, McNair LD, Hixson C. 2014. Faculty motivation: A gateway to transforming engineering educa-
tion. Journal of Engineering Education 103(2):302–330.
McKenna L. 2015. How the rise in out-of-state students could be hurting public colleges. The Atlantic, October.
McKenna AF, Froyd J, King CJ, Litzinger T, Seymour E. 2011. The complexities of transforming engineering higher educa-
tion. Report on the NAE Forum on Characterizing the Impact and Diffusion of Transformative Engineering Education
Innovations, February 7–8, New Orleans. Washington: National Academy of Engineering. Available at https://www.nae.
edu/Projects/CASEE/CASEEProjects/26183/26293.aspx.
McKinnis DR, McNamara KT, Kuczek T, Salvendy G. 2001. The instructional benefits from faculty participation in industrial
outreach. Journal of Engineering Education 90(3):429–435.
Miller RK. 2015. Why the Hard Science of Engineering Is No Longer Enough to Meet the 21st Century Challenges. Needham,
MA: Olin College of Engineering.
Mooney C. 2015. Next: The credentials craze. Chronicle of Higher Education: Special Report, September 14.
NAE [National Academy of Engineering]. 2004. The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century. Washington:
The National Academies Press.
NAE. 2005. Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century. Washington: The National
Academies Press.
NAE. 2008. NAE Grand Challenges for Engineering. Washington: The National Academies Press.
NAE. 2015. Making Value for America: Embracing the Future of Manufacturing, Technology, and Work. Washington: The
National Academies Press.
NASEM [National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine]. 2018a. Assessing and Responding to the Growth of
Computer Science Undergraduate Enrollments. Washington: The National Academies Press.
NASEM. 2018b. Data Science for Undergraduates: Opportunities and Options. Washington: The National Academies Press.
NRC [National Research Council]. 2012. Discipline-Based Educational Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in
Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Washington: The National Academies Press.
NSLLP [National Study of Living-Learning Programs]. 2007. Report of Findings. Available at http://drum.lib.umd.edu/
handle/1903/8392.
NSPE [National Society of Professional Engineers]. 2013. Engineering Body of Knowledge (First Ed.). Available at www.
nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/nspe-body-of-knowledge.pdf.
NSPE. 2017. Licensing Boards. Available at https://www.nspe.org/resources/licensure/licensing-boards.
Olds BM, Miller RL. 2004. The effect of a first-year integrated engineering curriculum on graduation rates and student satis-
faction: A longitudinal study. Journal of Engineering Education 93(1):23–35.
Prince M. 2004. Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education 963(3):223–231.
Prince M, Felder R. 2007. The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of College Science Teaching 36(5):14–20.
Raelin JA, Bailey MB, Hamann J, Pendleton LK, Reisberg R, Whitman DL. 2014. The gendered effect of cooperative educa-
tion, contextual support, and self-efficacy on undergraduate retention. Journal of Engineering Education 103(4):599–624.
Ruiz NG. 2013. Immigration facts on foreign students. Brookings Immigration Facts Series, April 9.
Sheets R, Tyszko J. 2015. Competing on innovation: Implications for building the middle-skill talent pipeline. Prepared for
the symposium on the Supply Chain for Middle-Skill Jobs, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,
June 25. Available at http://nas.edu/SkilledTechnicalWorkforce.
Sheppard SD, Macatangay K, Colby A, Sullivan WM. 2009. Educating Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shih K. 2017. Do international students crowd-out or cross-subsidize Americans in higher education? Journal of Public Eco-
nomics 156:170–184.

Shuman LJ, Besterfield-Sacre M, McGourty J. 2005. The ABET “professional skills”—Can they be taught? Can they be
assessed? Journal of Engineering Education 94(1):41–55.
STEMconnector. 2014. STEM 2.0: An Imperative for Our Future Workforce. Innovation Task Force. Washington.
Stephan P. 2010. The I’s have it: Immigration and innovation, the perspective from academe. In: Innovation Policy and the
Economy, eds Lerner J, Stern S. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Strobel J, van Barneveld A. 2009. When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to con-
ventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning 3(1):44–58.
Stuen E, Mobarak A, Maskus K. 2012. Skilled immigration and innovation: Evidence from enrollment fluctuations in US
doctoral programs. Economic Journal 122(565):1143–1176.
Swan C, Paterson K, Bielefeldt A. 2014. Community engagement in engineering education as a way to increase inclusiveness.
In: Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research, 357–372. eds Johri A, Olds BM. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Taks M, Tynjälä P, Toding M, Kukemelk H, Venesaar U. 2014. Engineering students’ experiences in studying entrepreneurship.
Tinto V. 2003. Learning better together: The impact of learning communities on student success. Higher Education Monograph
Series, 2003-1. Higher Education Program, School of Education, Syracuse University.
USCCF [United States Chamber of Commerce Foundation]. 2014. Managing the Talent Pipeline: A New Approach to Closing
the Skills Gap. Washington.
US Department of Labor. 2017. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Outlook Handbook: Biomedical Engineers. Washington.
Available at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/biomedical-engineers.htm.
Wolfe KE. 2004. Understanding the Careers of the Alumni of the MIT Mechanical Engineering Department. Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Young J. 2015. College à la carte. Chronicle of Higher Education, March 9.

Factors That Influence the Decision Making

of Engineering Students and Graduates
Decisions to choose and persist in a career or to change careers, jobs, or organizations are made from adolescence
to middle age and are influenced by a number of factors. These factors may be internal to the individual, such
as interests or skills, or external, such as influences by families, the economy, or even certain policies. Programs
or activities that increase exposure to, understanding of, or experiences in engineering also play a role in these
decisions.
This chapter examines the factors that influence the decision making of engineering students and gradu-
ates, starting with K–12 preparation and then considering experiences through college and into the workforce.
A theoretical model, called social cognitive career theory (SCCT), is used to identify the factors that affect an
individual’s educational and career decisions as well as potential points for interventions to increase the likelihood
that individuals will complete an engineering degree and use the skills and knowledge gained in their education
throughout their career. The focus here is primarily on studies of women1 in engineering because of a dearth of
studies, sample sizes, and literature on other marginalized groups, which include other races, nationalities,2 and
ethnicities; persons with disabilities; and LGBT3 persons; data for these groups are presented when they are avail-
able. The committee addresses this lack of research in its recommendations.
The chapter presents descriptions of interventions that target educational and work environments or attempt
to reduce bias in teaching or managing, with the goal of increasing the number of women and underrepresented
minority (URM) engineers. It concludes with some general summary observations about the career and work
choices of young engineers, remaining questions about these choices, and the needs for more data—especially for
underrepresented populations—to elucidate future directions for research and practice.
As documented in chapter 1, women and certain minority populations are severely underrepresented among
engineering degree holders at all levels and even more so in the engineering workforce. There are at least two
1 In general, these studies compare women and men in engineering and do not take race or ethnicity into account. Federal datasets count
underrepresented minority women in both gender and race/ethnicity categories.

2 Although Asians overall are overrepresented in engineering compared to their representation in the US population, differences in attainment
of bachelor’s degrees exist across groups with different national origins. For example, Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders have lower rates
of college completion than Chinese, Japanese, Indian, or Korean students, so interventions designed for some subgroups may not work for
others, and because the demographics of the US population change constantly it is important to not view minority groups as homogeneous and
to examine differences within those populations (NAE 2014) as well as compared to majority populations. However, little research examines
these nationality differences in engineering education or the workforce (Ing and Victorino 2016).
3 LGBT stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.
81

highly compelling reasons why the nation should be concerned about engineering’s diversity challenge, and they
are summed up by the words “innovation” and “equity.”
First, research has shown that a diverse workforce—whether a function of gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic,
or other factors—is more creative and innovative than a homogeneous one (Chubin et al. 2005; Corbett and Hill
2015; Emerson 2014; NAE 2002; Phillips 2014) and that groups with equal gender representation exhibit better
collaboration and teamwork (Bear and Woolley 2011). As former NAE president Bill Wulf observed two decades
ago, the creativity and innovativeness so critical to engineering stem from the life experiences of the people who
do it, so without diversity “we limit the set of life experiences that are applied, and as a result, we pay an oppor-
tunity cost—a cost in products not built, in designs not considered, in constraints not understood, in processes not
invented” (Wulf 1998, p. 9). Moreover, assuming that the distribution of students with the intelligence, creativity,
curiosity, and other abilities to become productive, innovative engineers is blind to gender, race, ethnicity, or other
externally visible differentiators, the inability of engineering to attract and retain more women and underrepresented
minorities denies employers and the nation access to a large and, given demographic trends, growing share of the
engineering-capable talent pool.
Second, as shown in chapter 1, the knowledge, skills, and abilities gained during an engineering education
are versatile and highly relevant to a variety of occupations and fields. Since only a small fraction of the nation’s
workforce has this combination of skills and knowledge, graduates from engineering programs are in high demand
and have higher starting salaries and lifetime earnings and lower unemployment rates than graduates in other
disciplines. Moreover, engineering graduates report high levels of career and work satisfaction. As shown in this
chapter, research and practice have identified strategies that are consistently effective in overcoming issues of
recruitment and retention, where efforts have been made to implement them; these practices are known to break
down barriers that deny significant numbers of the workforce access to the income and quality of life afforded by
the engineering profession. For all of these reasons, it is a matter of social justice and equity that individuals from
all backgrounds be encouraged and supported to study engineering and obtain an engineering degree.
SOCIAL COGNITIVE CAREER THEORY

Many factors lead to students’ initial choice of an engineering major, and several theories can help predict or
explain individuals’ career choices based on these factors. Two theories in particular have influenced research
on engineering as a career choice: the general expectancy value model (Eccles-Parsons et al. 1983; Eccles 2007)
and the social cognitive career theory (SCCT) model (Lent et al. 1994). Their terminology is somewhat different,
but there is significant overlap in the two models’ psychological and environmental constructs that predict choice
behavior. The expectancy value model considers experience and socialization as factors in an individual’s expec-
tation of success in an endeavor (Eccles 2007). The SCCT model includes two aspects of social cognitive theory
(Bandura 1997): self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations.
Because social cognitive career theory is the most recent and most comprehensive model that explicitly incor-
porates contextual supports and barriers that shape career choices, and most of the research across age groups has
been based on SCCT whereas the expectancy value model focuses primarily on choices made in early adolescence,
the committee uses SCCT as the principal framework for the analysis in this chapter.
The SCCT model (Lent et al. 1994) relates to academic and career development by explaining how interests
develop and affect career choices and by helping predict an individual’s initial career choices as well as persistence
and performance in a career. It is used throughout this chapter to explain (1) the factors that act on individuals
as they make choices about their education and career in engineering and (2) differences in the impacts of those
factors based on an individual’s background and characteristics. Figure 3-1 presents a simplified diagram of the
SCCT model.
The model takes account of individual differences (person inputs; e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, health, per-
sonality traits) and background contextual affordances (or distal factors; e.g., home and school environment and

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE DECISION MAKING OF ENGINEERING STUDENTS AND GRADUATES 83
FIGURE 3-1 Diagram of social cognitive career theory.

Source: Adapted from Lent et al. (1994). Copyright 1993 by R.W. Lent, S.D. Brown, and G. Hackett. Reprinted with permission.
experiences, family socioeconomic status) that affect opportunities to learn a task or set of tasks associated with a
field (e.g., math and problem solving associated with engineering), including one’s learning experiences. People
learn by performing a task themselves (personal accomplishment or mastery experiences) or by observing a friend
or role model accomplish the task (vicarious learning), but learning experiences also include encouragement from
others (social persuasion) or feelings of excitement about performing the task (or conversely, anxiety about not
performing it) (physiological states). Learning experiences in turn shape self-efficacy expectations and outcome
expectations, which then shape interests, goals, and actions. An individual’s actions might be matriculation in
engineering as an undergraduate student, graduation with a degree in engineering, and entry and persistence in the
engineering profession. Internal and external factors (person inputs and contextual influences) affect the elements
of the SCCT model as well as how they interact with one another. They may serve as supports or barriers to an
individual’s decisions throughout the pathway.
Self-efficacy is the confidence that one can successfully engage in a particular activity or task.4 It predicts
both how much effort an individual will put into a task and whether s/he will try to cope with obstacles to persist
in the task or give up when faced with an obstacle such as a low quiz grade in math class. It is specific to the
domain of the task and does not extend to other domains, so self-efficacy in math does not necessarily translate
to self-efficacy in science. It is also highly subjective; how a person evaluates her own confidence and abilities
affects her behavior far more than an objective assessment of her abilities. Self-efficacy is affected by personal and
background characteristics, so it follows that individuals with different characteristics will be affected differently
by and react differently to the same obstacle.
Outcome expectations refer to what one expects from engaging in a task. They include self-evaluation (e.g.,
increased happiness, expectation of high salary), feedback from others (e.g., praise), or physiological effects
(e.g., reduced anxiety). Outcome expectations are distinct from self-efficacy. One may, for example, have confi-
dence in performing an activity but not expect to engage in it (and thus not expect outcomes from it). Conversely,
4 The difference between self-efficacy and confidence is explained as follows: “Confidence…refers to strength of belief but does not neces-
sarily specify what the certainty is about…. [S]elf-efficacy refers to belief in one’s agentive capabilities, that one can produce given levels of
attainment. A self-efficacy assessment, therefore, includes both an affirmation of a capability level and the strength of that belief….” (Bandura
1997, p. 382). In addition, self-efficacy is domain-specific for the individual.

one can expect outcomes (positive or negative) from participating in an activity even if confidence in one’s perfor-
mance is low. If both self-efficacy and outcome expectations are high, it is likely that the individual will develop
interest in the area, form goals to pursue the interest, and take actions necessary to achieve those goals. Actions
may include choosing to major in engineering, finishing a college degree in engineering, entering an engineering
job, and persisting in an engineering career.
Contextual influences can be characterized as barriers or supports—both near to the individual (such as family)
or in the larger economic climate (such as a recession)—that hamper or support engineering-related interests, career
choice, and associated actions, either directly or indirectly by influencing self-efficacy and outcome expectations.
If individuals have positive self-efficacy in their engineering-related tasks and expect positive outcomes from
their career, it is likely that their interest in engineering work will remain high and that they will persevere in
their career. But career-related self-efficacy, and thus career choice behavior, can be undermined or enhanced by
contextual influences (e.g., financial barriers or teacher support). This chapter reviews barriers to, and supports
for, choosing and staying in an engineering career, with a focus on populations historically underrepresented in
engineering, specifically women and underrepresented minorities, because opportunities, access, and experiences
in engineering differ significantly for these populations.
One factor that tends to differ for men and women and underrepresented minorities is the extent to which
individuals feel they belong in engineering. Even if a student is interested in the subject and has an aptitude for
it, a view of engineering as a solitary effort that does not help society may discourage her from pursuing a degree
in the field (this perception of engineering is more discouraging to female students than to males; Eccles 2007).
Alternatively, stereotypes held by families or teachers may, whether openly or inadvertently, send a message to
some students that they should not pursue engineering. Stereotypes and bias can function implicitly (e.g., operat-
ing below the level of consciousness but still affecting behavior), but research has shown that directing attention
to implicitly held beliefs can reduce their influence (Greenwald and Banaji 1995).
Regardless of intent, messages based on implicit or explicit bias may discourage students of any age from
entering, or feeling that they belong in, engineering. Furthermore, individuals who are aware of a stereotype about
themselves relative to engineering (e.g., a girl who has heard a teacher say that girls are not good at math) may
fear that they will confirm the stereotype when taking an assessment (e.g., a math test) and perform poorly on
it regardless of their actual knowledge of the subject, a phenomenon known as stereotype threat (Steele 1997).
Interventions are activities or programs designed to provide positive learning experiences that lead to improved
self-efficacy, optimistic outcome expectations, or both, with the overarching goal of encouraging interest, actions,
and goals in engineering (Bakken et al. 2010; Luzzo et al. 1996; Sullivan and Mahalik 2000) or developing coping
skills to overcome negative experiences or stereotypes (Yeager and Dweck 2012). They can act at any point of the
SCCT model (e.g., interventions can be designed for learning experiences, classroom environments, or outcome
expectations). Most research on self-efficacy has emphasized interventions at the individual level, focusing on the
promotion of interest as a way to facilitate the choice of a career major or path (Singh et al. 2013).
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE INITIAL CHOICE OF AN ENGINEERING MAJOR

Students’ developing interests in particular career paths are supported by individual (personal), experiential, and
institutional factors such as learning experiences, self-efficacy and outcome expectations, interests, barriers and sup-
ports, and even policies.
Learning Experiences: K–12 Preparation

Initial STEM career choice in high school has been shown to predict later career choice, although boys were overall
more interested in engineering and girls more interested in medical and health-related STEM careers (Sadler et al.
2012). Initial career choices start with opportunities for learning experiences both in and out of the classroom (e.g.,

Illustrative story: Deciding to major in engineering
In high school when I was deciding which major to pursue, I sat down with my AP physics teacher who
was a personal mentor to me. He asked what my life goals were and I told him I wanted to be a CEO
some day and run a major corporation that could change the world. He told me that the #1 degree among
Fortune 500 CEOs and political leaders is engineering. In short, he said, “The people who run the world
have engineering degrees—you should get one.”
– Kate Garrett
medical company CEO/cofounder
tinkering or building things at home, an interactive museum exhibit) that help shape an individual’s confidence to
do the work associated with that career. Engineering experiences in K–12 education can provide real-world context
to enhance learning of math and science, improve technological literacy, develop critical thinking skills, increase
awareness of engineers and their work, and prepare students for further engineering education (NAE/NRC 2009).
These learning experiences aim to provide individuals with accomplishments related to the career, role models,
encouragement, and ways to reduce anxiety and increase excitement. But about four times as many boys as girls
opt to pursue a college engineering education. For students—mostly girls and underrepresented minorities—whose
learning experiences do not provide positive effects, interventions can support their interest and performance and
thus increase the likelihood that they will consider further studies and a possible career in engineering.
High School Preparation

Research indicates that URM individuals are more interested in high school science and math subjects, and have
equal or greater intentions to major in science or engineering, than their White counterparts (Hanson 2009; NSF
2014), yet many more White men major in engineering than White women or URM men and women. HERI data
on first-year students who wish to earn an engineering degree show nearly identical percentages of women and
underrepresented minorities (20.6 percent and 20.5 percent, respectively), significantly lower percentages for
both than in the general college population, where women are over 50 percent and African Americans, American
Indians/Alaska Natives, and Hispanics of any race constitute almost a third of enrolled college students. Clearly,
ability and interest are not the only contributing factors in pursuing a degree in science, technology, engineering,
or mathematics (Seymour and Hewitt 1997).
Concerns about inequality of opportunity and the selection of engineers from a restricted pool that cannot
guarantee the highest possible quality are vividly illustrated by the disparate access to mathematics and science
courses in high school: 71 percent of White students and 81 percent of Asian students have access to a full set of
such courses (Algebra 1 and 2, geometry, calculus, biology, chemistry, and physics), whereas only 57 percent of
African American students and fewer than half of Native American students do (Morones 2014). Box 3-1 provides
insights into the high school students who might enroll in engineering bachelor’s degree programs.
Math Preparation and Performance

Math preparation is a key variable for those entering engineering and must be considered all along students’ edu-
cational pathway. In elementary school boys and girls have equivalent math and science achievement; differences
begin to be seen in middle school, when boys outperform girls in science, but not in math (Hill et al. 2010). Boys
are also more likely than girls to indicate that they like math or science and believe that they are good at the subject

BOX 3-1
Pool of High School Students Who Might Enroll in
Engineering Bachelor’s Degree Programs
Although not the focus of this study, K–12 classrooms are the starting point for decisions and education
related to engineering. It is therefore useful to consider the pool of precollege students who have the
potential to become engineers.
To remain in the pool through the end of high school and make the transition to higher education, a
student must be interested in engineering-related matters, have taken the necessary science and math-
ematics courses, and have standardized test (e.g., ACT, SAT) scores that meet or exceed the admissions
criteria for their chosen institution. Whether this is the case depends on a student’s skills, abilities, values,
interests (Altonji et al. 2012; Carnevale et al. 2011), experiences, perceptions, family background, and
access to quality schooling and advising.
Math and science courses boost educational attainment and increase the probability of choosing a
technical college major (Altonji et al. 2012). The Business–Higher Education Forum (BHEF 2011) indicates
that 44 percent of high school seniors are math proficient (as defined by ACT scores) but only 17 percent
are interested in a STEM degree, and more of the latter are boys than girls. Another 14 percent are inter-
ested in STEM but not math proficient.
These numbers mask differences across racial and ethnic groups. Black, Hispanic, and Native American
12th graders who are interested in STEM are less likely than their White or Asian counterparts to have the
standardized math test scores needed for college admission. However, some research has shown that stu-
dents with a high grade point average (GPA) in high school but low standardized test scores, as is true of
many female and URM students, are more likely to graduate with an engineering degree within 6 years
of matriculation than students of any race with high test scores and a low GPA, suggesting that high school
GPA better predicts completion of an engineering degree for many underrepresented groups than standard-
ized tests (Myers 2016). There is much debate about how to bridge the interest-achievement gap in K–12
education, specifically with minorities and women, who are underrepresented among engineering degree
holders (see, e.g., Atkinson 2012; Atkinson and Mayo 2010; Business Roundtable 2013).
(Pajares 2005; Turner et al. 2008). These disparities become most evident among high school seniors, when scores
on tests of math and science achievement show the most gender divergence (Hill et al. 2010). In addition, girls and
boys differ not in the amount of mathematics they take in high school but in the number and type of science courses
and Advanced Placement (AP) tests taken (e.g., boys are more likely to take the physics and Calculus BC tests).
Crucially, the K–12 educational experience varies for students of different backgrounds. URM students are
more likely than White students to live in high-poverty neighborhoods with low-resourced schools (Annie E.
Casey Foundation 2012), which tend to have fewer science facilities and other resources (Smith et al. 2013), less
effective teaching (Max and Glazerman 2014), and teachers with less experience and preparation than schools
with fewer disadvantaged and URM students (Smith et al. 2013).
At the high school level there may be discrepancies in access to courses, specifically AP programs, which
provide advanced coursework and possible college credits for high school students who both complete the course
and earn a high score on the AP exam. AP programs are available to a majority (85 percent) of US high school
students, but are not equally accessible to all groups. African American students are less likely to attend a school
with an AP program than White, Asian, or Hispanic students. Economically disadvantaged students (those eligible
for a free or reduced lunch) are also less likely to have access to AP programs. And even when their high school
offers one or more AP courses, URM and low-income students are less likely than their peers to take the course
and the exam (Handwerk et al. 2008).

Illustrative story: Overcoming challenges
I grew up in a very small, rural town in the South. I went to a public high school, the only one in the county
where I lived. I never had the chance to take AP classes. My first quarter of calculus was hard at Georgia
Tech—my high school situation put me at a disadvantage. But I was bound and determined to not let it
beat me. So I studied harder than I ever had in my life until I got it.
– Deborah Kilpatrick
(bachelor’s in engineering science and mechanics),
graduate student and venture capital–backed CEO of Evidation Health
Interventions for Girls and Underrepresented Minority Students

One way to alleviate discrepancies in math preparation has been the systematic development of extracurricular
programming, much of it funded by federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) or the US
Department of Education. Research shows that math self-efficacy can be enhanced by intervention (Betz and
Schifano 2000; Hackett 1995). And most of the programming has been aimed at developing (and assessing) learn-
ing interventions designed to increase math self-efficacy and ultimately the choices of middle and high school
girls and underrepresented minorities about entering STEM fields (OSTP 2013).
Extracurricular interventions include summer camps, Odyssey of the Mind,5 and other out-of-school activities.
For example, a racially diverse group of high school students in a 2-week summer STEM program continued to
explore STEM careers up to 18 months afterward and began to consider resources that could assist their progress
toward that career as well as impediments they might face (Blustein et al. 2013). And participation in the after-
school robotics program For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (FIRST) positively affects
STEM-related interests and abilities in both girls and boys, both White and non-White, and from both high- and
low-income families (Melchior et al. 2015). Other after-school programs have been shown to increase interest in
engineering for low-income Hispanic students (e.g., Blanchard et al. 2015).
Girls’ self-efficacy and participation in engineering increase with interventions that promote math/science
interests (O’Brien 1996), highlight the social value of engineering (Eccles 2007), increase families’ explicit support
for math classes (Burgard 2000), promote positive environments (Dooley 2001), emphasize the potential positive
outcomes of taking math and science classes (Edwardson 1998; Nauta and Epperson 2003), and explicitly work
to increase math/science and engineering self-efficacy (Mau 2003).
A review of interventions to promote female and URM students’ pursuit of STEM careers showed that the
interventions vary in content, intensity, and level of selectivity (Valla and Williams 2012). The authors called for
more effective evaluations of such programs and offered recommendations for extracurricular programming: men-
toring or guidance (particularly for high school students), help for students with challenging coursework, longer
and more intensive programming, cultural sensitivity in program content, social components and peer-to-peer
interactions, and financial assistance for field trips to colleges and industries.
Interventions can also promote resilience and coping skills so that students who experience academic chal-
lenges will persist. For example, some interventions teach that intelligence is flexible and can change over time,
known as a “growth mindset” (Dweck 2007), rather than being fixed at birth. When students believe that intel-
ligence is not fixed and that effort can help them overcome academic challenges, they are more likely to work
harder and try different strategies to meet a challenge, and they also believe that they will learn and grow from
the experience. Students who believe that intelligence cannot be changed tend to give up when challenged (Yeager
and Dweck 2012). Teachers can promote the growth mindset by encouraging students to learn from failure and
5 Odyssey of the Mind is an international online problem-solving program targeted to teams of K–12 students.

try new solutions, and they can also help by praising students’ effort and learning process rather than their intel-
ligence in solving a problem. Interventions that teach students to think of their brain as malleable and capable of
growth have been shown to improve grades for all students and to lessen achievement gaps between students from
different backgrounds (Yeager et al. 2013).
Research is needed to (1) determine whether K–12 interventions need to be better designed to attract capable
students from all backgrounds; (2) expand the use of interventions shown to be effective; and (3) enhance under-
standing of the impact of deterrents such as the “masculine culture”—defined as the “features of a field (e.g.,
beliefs, norms, values, structures, interactions) that can cause women to feel a lower sense of belonging or be
less successful than their male counterparts” (Cheryan et al. 2017, p. 6)—associated with engineering (Seron et
al. 2016) as well as the history of engineering being dominated and defined by White men (Riley et al. 2014).
Role of Teachers
Discussion of student preparation must include the critical importance of the training and professional development
of K–12 teachers, particularly those who teach math, science, or engineering at the high school level. The National
Research Council’s Committee on Highly Successful Schools or Programs for K–12 STEM Education (NRC 2011)
identified effective instruction as a key ingredient for strengthening STEM participation. The committee highlighted
teacher-student engagement throughout the report, and specifically noted that “effective instruction capitalizes on
students’ early interest and experiences, identifies and builds on what they know, and provides them with experi-
ences to engage them in the practices of science and sustain their interest” (NRC 2011, p. 19). The report made
the following recommendations for effective teachers: they should have (1) deep knowledge of their discipline,
(2) a supportive system of accountability to support their professional development, (3) adequate instructional time,
and (4) equal access to high-quality learning opportunities (this applies to both teachers and students).
It is also critical that primary and secondary teachers acknowledge and address any conscious or implicit
biases or stereotypes they hold about groups, especially concerning academic performance, as well as stereotypes
of engineers and engineering as a field. Teachers’ biases can affect their interactions with students (Dee and
Gershenson 2017; Greenwald and Banaji 1995) and may cause some students to lose confidence in their ability
to become engineers. Programs exist to help teachers and others acknowledge and overcome their biases, and
can help participants not only learn to be aware of and minimize bias but also gain skills and the motivation to
act to improve diversity (Moss-Racusin et al. 2014). Some programs include training in cultural competency,
perspective taking, or empathy; others encourage interactions with individuals in social groups other than one’s
own (Dee and Gershenson 2017). Further examples of promising practices include decorating classroom spaces
to avoid stereotypical portrayals of STEM professionals (Cheryan et al. 2009) and promoting high standards of
performance for all students and displaying confidence that each student can meet those standards (Eschenbach
et al. 2014).
From a systematic review of the literature on STEM education for girls and women, researchers identified
seven practices to help teachers create gender-inclusive STEM education (Scutt et al. 2013). Four of the practices
focus on areas for teachers to emphasize in instruction: a foundation in calculus; spatial skills; communication
skills in math, science, and engineering; and resilience in math and science. The other three practices are teacher
efforts in what the authors call “building scaffolding to implement” this skill development: encouraging students
to take an active expert role (e.g., teaching to their classmates), clear and fair grading policies, and reconsidera-
tion of group work, especially if girls are quiet in such groups. A subsequent study confirms the importance of
such activities; it assessed teachers’ perception of their influence on students’ decisions to pursue STEM majors
and students’ perception of their teachers’ influence, and found that teachers systematically underestimated their
influence as well as the effect of engaged instruction (Lichtenstein et al. 2014b).
Self-Efficacy in Math and Science

Strong self-efficacy in math and science is likely to provide students with the wherewithal to overcome setbacks
and persist in the face of obstacles, leading to interest in and consideration of an initial career choice in engineering.

Most studies of self-efficacy at the middle and high school levels have examined self-efficacy not for engineer-
ing per se but for math and/or science, or more broadly for STEM careers (e.g., a biologist or a mathematician). A
retrospective study of over 2,000 first-year college students, for example, found that strong predictors of a STEM
major were a parent in a STEM career, math self-confidence, high combined SAT scores and GPA, more time spent
studying in high school, and high academic self-confidence (Moakler and Kim 2014). Similarly, a study of over
18,000 first-year students intending to major in engineering found that they were more likely to have a mother
with at least a college degree and/or a parent employed in engineering (appendix C).
More learning experiences and more opportunities for performance accomplishments in math and science
should lead to high self-efficacy in these areas, which may, in turn, lead to greater consideration of an engineer-
ing major. Indeed, more first-year students intending to major in engineering had completed four or more years
of math courses and had at least two years of physics (appendix C). They also had higher high school GPAs and
higher average SAT scores than those intending to pursue other STEM majors, and the students who completed
an engineering degree had more engineering-related preparation in their primary and secondary education.
Examination of these variables by gender and race/ethnicity reveals differences among those planning to major
in engineering (table 3-1). White students planning to major in engineering were more likely than URM students
to have completed four or more years of high school math and two or more years of physics, and they had higher
GPAs and higher SAT scores. Female students were slightly more likely to have completed two or more years of
biology and had higher GPAs and SAT scores than males.
Math and science self-efficacy is a powerful predictor of math grades and achievement for both boys and girls
(Hackett and Betz 1989; Lent et al. 1991; Schunk and Pajares 2001), and there is evidence that it is highly predic-
tive of persistence in STEM fields (Hackett 1995; Schunk and Pajares 2001). For example, among 8th grade girls
who had aspired to STEM careers, general academic proficiency predicted persistence six years later, but math
self-efficacy was a greater predictor of entry into a college program in engineering (Mau 2003). A study of 2004
high school graduates surveyed in 2002 and again in 2006 found that their choice of a STEM major was influ-
enced by exposure to math and science in high school, math ability, and math self-efficacy, but these experiences
increased the motivation of White students more than that of URM students toward STEM majors (Wang 2013).
TABLE 3-1 Comparison of high school (HS) preparation for engineering and other STEM majors: Whites/
Asians, underrepresented minorities (URM), males, and females.
Percent completing courses or earning A– or better GPA; average SAT scores
Among other STEM and
engineering majors Among engineering majors
Significance
Significance
Other
STEM Engineering White/
major major Asian URM Male Female
n=58,186 n=18,128 n=13,340 n=2,398 n=14,011 n=4,117
4 or more years HS matha 89.6 94.3 95.0 91.5 *** 94.2 94.9 *
2 or more years HS physicsa 61.9 71.6 73.7 64.4 *** 71.8 71.1 *
2 or more years HS biologya 60.8 42.2 42.0 42.6 ** 40.4 48.8 ***
HS GPA: A− or bettera 56.0 62.1 66.8 43.5 *** 58.8 74.6 ***
Average SAT scoreb 1148 1231 1260 1104 *** 1228 1243 ***
Source: 2012 CIRP Freshman Survey, Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
a Compared using crosstab/chi square.
b Scores represent means rather than percentages; scores compared using a t-test.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

K–12 Student Engineering Outcome Expectations

Many interventions that focus on learning experiences also seek to help students develop realistic and positive
outcome expectations about pursuing an engineering degree. Interventions can address expectations of self, others,
and/or physiological experience; for example, students will be more likely to enter an engineering major if they
believe their family and friends will approve, if they feel excited about the major, and if they anticipate accruing
positive benefits, such as a high salary (Wiswall and Zafar 2015b).
Financial outcome expectations (e.g., believing that engineers are well paid and that an engineering degree will
guarantee a job) positively predict engineering-focused studies and plans. Occupations that appear to offer high
lifetime earnings generally appeal more to students than those with low likely lifetime earnings, and this expectation
can affect choice of college major. In fact, in some cases students who were misinformed about earnings associ-
ated with a particular major changed their intended major when correctly informed (Wiswall and Zafar 2015b).
But the earnings-major effect is weak relative to other factors, such as perceived enjoyability of the work,
expectation of success, or feeling of belonging in the field (Arcidiacono et al. 2012; Beffy et al. 2012; Long et al.
2014; Montmarquette et al. 2001; Wiswall and Zafar 2015a). For women more than men, personal beliefs about
how enjoyable engineering coursework would be for them affect decisions to major in engineering (Zafar 2013).
Interventions to correct negative expectations about potential success or feeling of belonging in engineering
include interacting with engineers (Sweeder and Strong 2012), presenting accurate media information about an
engineering career (Shoffner and Dockery 2015), and countering gender and racial stereotypes about engineers
(Deemer et al. 2014).
Families play an essential role in helping to set outcome expectations about engineering. An intervention to
increase parents’ perception of the utility of STEM courses increased course taking for high-achieving girls and
low-achieving boys. The authors hypothesized that parents of boys—whether low or high achieving—expect
them to be capable of success in STEM courses, whereas parents of low-achieving girls assume they will not be
successful in such courses (Rozek et al. 2015).
Although most US adults think they know what engineers do, and more men than women think they know
about the field, they do not consider themselves knowledgeable about engineering. Overall, most US adults do
not think that engineers care about societal concerns or improving quality of life and that engineering as a field is
not inclusive for women or underrepresented minorities. Almost half believe that engineers invent products that
harm people and society. Despite these negative perceptions, over 75 percent of parents would be equally pleased
if their child chose to be an engineer, doctor, or scientist. However, their reasons differed somewhat for boys and
girls,6 suggesting that parents might communicate different outcome expectations to their children.
Gender-Related Differences in Interests

Six vocational personality types have been identified, determined by scores on an inventory of interests: Realistic
(working with things), Investigative (scientific work), Artistic (creative self-expression), Social (working with
people), Enterprising (leading/influencing), and Conventional (detail oriented) (Holland 1997). Individuals may
be one or a combination of types, and work environments can also be categorized by these types. The assumption
underlying the assessment of interest types to help people choose occupations is that if an individual is similar
in interests to the people in that occupation, s/he is predicted to be more satisfied in the occupation, a prediction
that has been supported in several studies since the mid-1950s (Hansen 2013). This is helpful for individuals in
confirming that a career choice is a good fit for them, or helping undecided individuals to explore career options.
Engineering occupations are usually categorized as Realistic or Investigative (Donnay et al. 2005); indi
viduals who have a Realistic and/or Investigative personality would be expected to be interested in an engineering
occupation. Men tend to score higher than women on the Realistic and Investigative interests, and women higher
on the Social and Artistic interests (Hansen 1978; Su et al. 2009), which may account in part for the lower entry
of women into engineering (Su et al. 2009). Although disparities exist between men and women on the Things-
6 Information from an April 2014 Harris Interactive Poll on American attitudes on engineering, conducted on behalf of the NAE.

People dimension of interests—men generally prefer to work with things and women with people—the gender
gap in these interests is smaller than the STEM employment gap, suggesting that other factors affect career choice
(Su et al. 2009). Mean disparities in interests have also been observed across racial and ethnic groups, although
these are relatively small and have little practical effect (Fouad and Kantamneni 2008; Tracey and Sodano 2013).
A study of over 200,000 first-year college students planning to major in STEM areas found that both ability
(as measured by ACT scores and high school GPA) and interest predict both the choice of and persistence in a
STEM major for men, and predict STEM major choice more strongly for women than for men (Le et al. 2014).
Echoing other researchers, the authors note that obstacles such as social and cultural norms affect females’ choices
of a STEM or non-STEM field independent of the students’ interest or academic abilities.
Taken together, these results suggest that even women and URM students who are interested in STEM fields
do not enter them because of other factors, which are discussed in the next section.
Contextual Influences at the K–12 Level: Barriers and Supports

Contextual influences are “variables that enhance or constrain” progress toward a career (Lent et al. 2000, p. 36;
2003). Background (distal) influences, such as family socioeconomic status, may enhance or limit learning oppor-
tunities over the long term. Proximal factors that hinder or facilitate the individual’s implementation of a choice
are likely to be more temporally specific and may be particular to the individual (such as family) or the larger
economic climate (such as a recession) at the time of the decision. Chapter 1 reviews distal factors; this section
discusses barriers and supports closer to the individual.
Positive variables could be supportive family members, mentors, or financial assistance, while barriers might
be financial constraints, family obligations, or discrimination. These factors do not affect an individual’s decisions
equally (e.g., discrimination may be more strongly felt as a negative factor than having financial assistance is felt
as a positive one) and may be related to each other (e.g., mentors could provide learning opportunities as well as
advice for seeking financial assistance) (Lent et al. 2003). They affect individuals differently, and it is important
to understand this in order to develop appropriate interventions.
The choice to major in engineering is influenced by barriers and supports that correlate significantly with
outcome expectations, self-efficacy, coping efficacy (resilience), and interests (Lent et al. 2003). They indirectly
influence choice goals and actions in engineering by affecting self-efficacy, which shapes interests, goals, and
persistence in an engineering major. They are distinct constructs (not opposite ends of a continuum), so strongly
felt barriers do not necessarily accompany weak supports and vice versa (Fouad et al. 2010).
A study of high school students created a scale for students to assess anticipated educational and career-related
barriers and found that, in general, female and Mexican American high school students expected to face more
potential barriers to their educational (e.g., financial situation) and career (e.g., discrimination on the job) pursuits
than did male and European American high school students (McWhirter 1997). Examination of sources of internal
and external barriers and supports—families, teachers, stereotypes about who is good at math or science, social
circles, or the students themselves (e.g., individual interest in math or science, test anxiety)—shows that they differ
across grade levels, gender, and subject area (Fouad et al. 2010).
Female students in math in middle school, high school, and college reported that teachers were both a barrier
(e.g., “did not give advice on careers”) and a support (e.g., “my teachers expect me to do well”). Boys, on the
other hand, reported the following barriers in math: lack of role models in middle school, uninspiring teachers in
high school, and lack of opportunities in college. They considered math teachers a support in middle school and
college, but in high school having clear goals was the greatest support.
In science, teachers were a strong support for middle and high school girls, while college women were
strongly supported by their own interest. Lack of inspiration and lack of advice from teachers were barriers for
middle school and college females, while high school girls reported test anxiety as the highest barrier. For middle
and high school boys, teachers were the strongest source of support, whereas for college men it was an interest
in science. For middle school boys, the highest barrier was that their friends were not interested in science; for
high school boys, it was ineffective teachers, and for college males lack of support from parents was the strongest
barrier (Fouad et al. 2010).

From K–12 through college, a variety of interactions and experiences can cause girls and women to feel less
sense of belonging in engineering than their male contemporaries. Influential factors in this cultural makeup include
stereotypes about the sorts of people who work in engineering, negative perceptions about the engineering abilities
of girls and women, lack of women engineers who can serve as role models, and “negative interpersonal relations,
subtle and overt denigration of skills,…[and] favoritism toward male and majority students” (Lichtenstein et al.
2014a, p. 321). These factors all constitute what several authors have called “a chilly climate.”
To offset the “masculine culture” and chilly climate, teachers “must signal to girls and boys equally that
they belong in the field. If learning opportunities reinforce rather than counteract the current masculine culture of
these fields and do not give girls the knowledge that they can achieve success in these fields, then providing girls
with more experience may widen rather than lessen gender gaps” (Cheryan et al. 2017, p. 15, italics in original).
Fortunately, faculty strategies exist to increase women’s and URM college students’ consideration of engineering
as a career: they involve encouragement of respectful classroom interactions among peers, positive faculty-student
interactions both in and out of the classroom, and innovative instructional strategies to engage students, such as
cooperative learning (Lichtenstein et al. 2014a).
Policies Affecting Undergraduate Engineering Enrollment

Policies can affect undergraduate enrollment in engineering programs by explicitly aiming to increase STEM
enrollments or through indirect measures. They may also aim to equalize math and science education facilities and
resources across schools, especially those that serve a high proportion of low-SES students and families.
Policies can be effected through vehicles such as federal funding. For example, an aim of the NSF initiative
on Improving and Understanding STEM Education: Education and Human Resources is “increasing the number
and diversity of STEM [undergraduate] students.”7 And the US Department of Education’s Upward Bound Math-
Science (UBMS) program provides enhanced instruction in math and science topics to students from low-income
families or whose parents do not have bachelor’s degrees; a majority of participants are URM students. UBMS has
been found to improve participants’ high school grades, bolster enrollment in high school chemistry and physics
courses, and increase the probability of participants’ enrolling in and completing a bachelor’s in science, engineer-
ing, or mathematics (US Department of Education 2007).
Policies can also be implemented through colleges and universities that adopt federally funded comprehen-
sive interventions, such as the NSF’s Model Institutes for Excellence (Rodriguez et al. 2005), which included the
following key elements: plans for recruitment and supporting transitions from other institutions, undergraduate
research, faculty and curriculum development, infrastructure improvement (classrooms and labs), advising for
graduate school or employment, and academic, financial, and social support for students (Fouad and Singh 2011).
Because the project was available only to minority-serving institutions, it provided targeted funding and program-
ming to increase STEM enrollment and graduation of URM students as well as a model that could work at other
institutions to increase degree attainment (Rodriguez et al. 2005).
Institutional policies also play a role in undergraduate engineering enrollments. For example, many engineer-
ing schools rely more heavily on math ACT scores as an admissions criterion than on high school GPA, a practice
that favors White and Asian male applicants, who are more likely both to take these tests and to score well on
them. But as mentioned above, for some underrepresented groups, high school GPA may better predict success
in an engineering program: Individuals with a high GPA in high school but low standardized test scores were
more likely to graduate with an engineering degree in six years than those with high ACT math scores but a low
high school GPA (Myers 2016). More URM and female students are in the high GPA/low test score category, and
admissions policies that place more weight on math ACT scores than other factors may keep these students out
of engineering programs. In addition, some research suggests that considering candidates’ affective and cogni-
tive traits rather than test scores in application decisions increases the number of women who enter engineering
programs (Holloway et al. 2014).
7 www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=505082, accessed May 16, 2016.

Other institutional policies take a systems view of admissions and retention efforts to increase diversity in
engineering, combining flexible admissions policies with support and community for students once they arrive
on campus. For example, the GoldShirt program began in 2009 at University of Colorado (CU) Boulder and is
now replicated in five other US engineering institutions. Before launching the program, GoldShirt staff analyzed
admissions ratings of URM engineering graduates in 2003–2008 to determine the profile of a successful student.
They then worked with the university’s admissions office to identify URM applicants who fit that profile whether
or not their test scores met the institution’s current admissions requirements, which had increased over the same
period. Students admitted directly to the engineering school (rather than accepted elsewhere in the institution and
expected to transfer) complete, as needed, a performance-building GoldShirt year of math, physics, and other
courses that prepare them for the engineering curriculum. They live on campus with other engineering students and
participate in tutoring and other academic support programs. After completion of the GoldShirt year, they move
into their discipline-specific courses (Ennis et al. 2010). The majority of GoldShirt students are underrepresented
minorities, first-generation students, and/or low-SES students—who all succeed in engineering.
The literature provides some cautionary tales on unintended consequences of well-meaning policies. For
example, the increase in state-provided merit-based scholarships has had an unexpected negative effect on the
numbers of US students obtaining a STEM degree (Sjoquist and Winters 2015). Although the mechanism is not
known, one possibility is that the need to obtain a high GPA in high school and to maintain it in college (to ensure
continued scholarship funding) leads students who receive low grades in introductory courses (as more often hap-
pens in objectively graded STEM courses than in subjectively graded non-STEM introductory courses) to avoid
upper-level courses in those disciplines (Achen and Courant 2009; Sabot and Wakeman-Linn 1991).
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE COLLEGE ENGINEERING STUDIES

In considering the factors that influence students’ study of engineering in college, the committee looked beyond the
SCCT model to explore other influences and the associations between them. One outcome of interest to educators
and employers is persistence: remaining in an engineering program and earning a degree. Also known as retention,
persistence is affected by self-efficacy and relates to actions in the SCCT model.
Persistence
Studies have begun to identify characteristics of students who leave an engineering major and those who persist to
complete an engineering degree. A number of students earn their degree after attending two or more 2- or 4-year
institutions or not attending school for some portion of time.8 In fact, the traditional model of full-time students
entering and graduating from the same 4-year institution is not true for a majority of STEM students (NASEM
2016), although most research has focused on them.
Analysis of data from the Multiple-Institution Database for Investigating Engineering Longitudinal Develop-
ment (MIDFIELD; https://engineering.purdue.edu/MIDFIELD) showed that engineering had the highest rate of
persistence of matriculated students among the majors studied (listed in table 3-2)—57 percent of students who
matriculated in engineering persisted in the field through their eighth semester (Ohland et al. 2008).9 Demographi-
cally, the students in this database are similar to other college students except for the low proportion of women.
Among nontransfer students, the proportion of URM students in engineering is similar to other majors (Ohland et
al. 2008). Among transfer students (from 2- and 4-year schools), those who enter engineering programs are less
likely to be ambivalent about their commitment to graduate in engineering (Litzler and Young 2012).
Engineering students’ engagement—their involvement and attention in class, time spent studying or in other
educational interests, and other academic activities (Chen et al. 2008)—is similar to that of students in other majors
8 Thesestudents are difficult to track through their educational career because data systems at the institutional, state, and national levels do
not connect well with each other.
9 Migration from another major into engineering is low—only 7 percent of students begin in another major and switch into engineering,
which contrasts with other majors that have large populations of students who transferred into them (Ohland et al. 2008).

TABLE 3-2 Multiple-Institution Database for Investigating Engineering Longitudinal Development

(MIDFIELD) data showing persistence and enrollment in various majors to eighth semester, 1987–1999
cohorts.
A&H = arts and humanities; bus = business; NA = not applicable; PG8 = persistence to 8th semester; STM = science, technology, math. Reprinted
with permission from Ohland et al. (2008).
and declines over time (Ohland et al. 2008). The highest risk of students leaving engineering is in their third
semester (compared to the rest of their school years), although women are at higher risk of leaving engineering in
semesters 3 to 5 than men (Min et al. 2011). Women who make it through that risk period are more likely to earn a
degree in engineering relative to their male peers (i.e., men are more likely than women to drop out of engineering
after their fifth semester), and White and Asian American students of both sexes complete engineering and STEM
degrees at higher rates than their URM peers (see appendix C).
Students with lower SAT math scores are more likely to leave engineering than those with higher scores. In
contrast, students with comparatively low verbal scores (between 200 and 500 out of 800) are slightly more likely
to persevere than students with scores between 500 and 600 (Min et al. 2011).
Interestingly, students who leave engineering are more likely to persist to graduation in their new field than
are students who begin in but leave other majors (Ohland et al. 2008). Former engineering students find success
in many different majors, but commonly choose business (Ohland et al. 2008), economics, finance, psychology,
integrative physiology, biochemistry, or math (Forbes et al. 2015).
Students’ decision to leave engineering or stay to complete their degree may be due to a variety of factors,
internal (perceived cost and utility, self-efficacy, academic and social self-concept, and engineering identity or sense
of belonging) and external (participation in a cocurricular experience, contextual supports or barriers, classroom
culture, and institutional and programmatic climate). These factors are reviewed below.
Internal Factors
Students’ decisions about engineering are swayed by internal factors that may be characterized as nonacademic
(Marra et al. 2012), individual (compared to institutional factors; Meyer and Marx 2014), or characteristics and
perceptions (compared to experiences; Litzler and Young 2012). Whatever the category, research results agree
that decisions about engineering in college involve deeply personal choices. For example, engineering students
in their senior year most often list intrinsic (i.e., not salary-based) motivations as their primary reason for choos-
ing the field (Sheppard et al. 2010). In fact, internal factors—particularly outcome expectations, self-efficacy,

academic and social self-concept, and identity or sense of belonging—may have greater influence than external
factors (Marra et al. 2012).
Outcome Expectations (Social Cost and Utility of a Degree)

Compared to other majors, engineering majors face a greater workload demand (as measured by self-reported
time spent preparing for class) that often requires them to choose between pursuing an engineering degree and
having additional and alternative educational and social experiences such as taking classes outside their major or
participating in activities that are not engineering-related (Lichtenstein et al. 2010). Engineering students weigh
the perceived costs in time, effort, and psychological impacts alongside the perceived utility of their future degree
(Matusovich et al. 2010) in their decision making.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy not only influences college completion (Brown et al. 2008) and career decisions (Betz and Hackett
1981) but is a key predictor of persistence in STEM fields (Rittmayer and Beier 2009) and in engineering specifi-
cally (Brainard and Carlin 1998). Students’ confidence in their professional expertise is also directly related to the
likelihood of their persistence in engineering majors (Cech et al. 2011).
Four types of experiences affect self-efficacy: personal accomplishments (or mastery experiences), vicarious
learning, social persuasion, and physiological states, of which personal accomplishments have the strongest impact
for engineering students. These four types of experiences have been shown to influence engineering students’
self-efficacy more than academic success, institution, year in school (i.e., first year or senior), and race/ethnicity
(Marra et al. 2009).
Females exhibit consistently lower self-efficacy than males (Cech et al. 2011; Marra et al. 2009; Schreuders et
al. 2009). Even when males and females had equivalent high school preparation, females display lower confidence
in engineering tasks (Schreuders et al. 2009). Similarly, females exhibit a disparity in their actual and perceived
competence, doing well in their classes despite their beliefs to the contrary (Seymour and Hewitt 1997). Males in
the same study did not reveal this disparity: although both men and women performed similarly in their classes,
men were more confident in their abilities than women. However, there is evidence that gendered differences in
engineering confidence decline as experience increases (Cech et al. 2011).
Although research shows a positive relationship between students’ self-efficacy and engineering persistence,
confidence in various engineering skills relates to persistence differently. For example, confidence in math or
technical skills is related to higher enjoyment and persistence in engineering studies (Brainard and Carlin 1998;
Eris et al. 2010); among engineering students in their senior year high confidence in professional skills is related
to intentions to pursue non-engineering work, although it is unknown whether there is a causal relationship
between the two or if they are related through a third factor such as family income or network size (Sheppard et
al. 2010). Because beliefs about important skills and abilities for engineering careers change over the course of
one’s education and employment as experience is acquired (Winters et al. 2013), further domain-specific self-
efficacy research may reveal more specific links between confidence in engineering skills and decisions about
engineering education and careers.
Academic and Social Self-Concept

Hurtado and colleagues (appendix C) examined how students’ self-reported self-concepts changed from their
first year in college (2004) to their fourth (2008). The authors examined academic self-concept (academic ability,
drive to achieve, mathematical ability) and social self-concept (leadership, public speaking ability, social self-
confidence), and compared scores among non-STEM, STEM, and engineering students. Engineering students
reported the highest sense of academic self-concept and were significantly stronger in this domain than the other
two groups at both college entry and senior year. Studying with classmates was correlated with gains in academic
self-concept and also with persisting in engineering.

The engineering students also appeared to gain the most in their social self-concept relative to their non-STEM
or other STEM peers. These gains strongly correlated with studying with other engineering students and faculty
support and mentoring (appendix C).
Engineering Identity and Sense of Belonging

The extent to which engineering students identify as engineers or feel as though they belong in an engineering
community (e.g., a classroom or department) plays a critical role in decisions about remaining in an engineer-
ing major (Danielak et al. 2014; Marra et al. 2012; Matusovich et al. 2010; Meyers et al. 2010, 2012; Pierrakos et
al. 2009). Stevens and colleagues (2008, p. 365) credit identification as an engineer as “the compass that guides
one to make a pathway through engineering” (italics in original). Creating an engineering identity involves not
only gaining knowledge of the engineering practice (Pierrakos et al. 2009; Stevens et al. 2008; Tonso 2007) but
also aligning one’s sense of self with engineering (Eccles 1994; Matusovich et al. 2010; Pierrakos et al. 2009).
One of the factors behind gender and other disparities in engineering and other STEM fields may be a perceived
similarity to the people in an occupation—that is, whether one would fit in with others in that occupation. This
is a stronger predictor than interest for an individual’s consideration of an occupation (Cheryan and Plaut 2010).
Research on engineering identity reveals that the feeling of belonging in engineering is deeply tied to gender.
Female students are less likely than males both to feel included in engineering environments (Cheryan et al. 2017;
Marra et al. 2012) and to be identified by males as engineers (Tonso 2007), and they are more likely to report that
they feel a need to deemphasize some parts of their identity in order to be accepted in engineering (Tonso 2007,
2014). Women’s experiences in engineering education also disrupt their ability to match their sense of self with
the profession (Seron et al. 2016).
In fact, because engineering requires both technical and social competencies, “engineering identities” chal-
lenge both male and female stereotypes: males downplay their social skills and females feel they have to prove
their technical skills (Faulkner 2007). But because technical skills have typically been valued over social skills in
engineering, the barriers to engineering identities and belonging are felt more keenly by women (Faulkner 2007).
Moreover, because women tend to express interest in helping and people-oriented professions, which are not
common perceptions of engineering careers, fewer females than males perceive engineering as a career that fits
their sense of self (Eccles 2007). Greater recognition of engineering as a profession that serves society and requires
social skills can encourage participation in engineering by women (Eccles 2007; Faulkner 2007; Hewlett et al.
2008), and efforts to highlight the importance of engineering for society call for actively promoting the idea that
“engineering and engineers can make a difference in the world” (NAE 2008, p. 11). In addition to the message
that engineering includes understanding, defining, and solving important societal problems using a mix of techni-
cal and professional skills, effective messaging about the field incorporates discussion of interdisciplinary work,
social consciousness, creativity, and multicultural understanding. This recognition has the potential to improve
gender diversity in engineering.
interdisciplinary work, social consciousness, creativity, and multicultural understanding impart knowledge of
the field to all students, and seem to be particularly important for female and URM students, who otherwise
may not see engineering as a viable option for themselves.
Instructional strategies that use holistic, real-world applications of STEM tend to be more effective for
attracting and retaining women and underrepresented groups (Margolis and Fischer 2002; Sadler et al. 2000).
And outside the classroom, engineering service organizations, such as Engineers Without Borders (EWB-USA),
have witnessed tremendous growth with roughly balanced gender populations (EWB-USA 2012). Inspired by the
gender diversity of such organizations, a recent study sought to understand the personality traits and motivations of
engineers involved in EWB-USA in order to help broaden participation in engineering (Litchfield and Javernick-

Will 2015). While both EWB-USA members and nonmembers exhibited well-developed engineering personality
traits and intrinsic engineering interests, the members had significantly stronger personality traits for openness
to experience and agreeableness, deeper motivations for social good, and broader interests than nonmembers
(Litchfield and Javernick-Will 2015).
Finally, engineering identity is affected by external factors (discussed in the next section) that can in turn
influence decisions about engineering. If identification with engineering—“the compass” that guides an individual
student through engineering studies—is missing, the student may struggle to navigate through contextual chal-
lenges such as a chilly classroom climate (e.g., negative interpersonal relationships, intentional or unintentional
disparagement of the abilities of women and minority students) (Stevens et al. 2008).
External Factors: Contextual Supports and Barriers

Career choices and even options can be importantly shaped by contextual experiences during students’ under
graduate years. Studies have found that, even more than grades or ability, students’ decision to persist in engineer-
ing is influenced not only by individual demographic characteristics (as discussed above) but also by contextual
factors such as educational institution, attitudes of peers, faculty, or family, program structure, advising quality,
curriculum, and instruction (Eris et al. 2005, 2007; Seymour and Hewett 1997). Even a single experience—an
internship, faculty interaction, or mentor’s advice—can become the basis for overgeneralizations about career
options (Danziger 2006; Roska 2005; Shauman 2006) and sway a career decision (Lichtenstein et al. 2009).
Positive experiences can mediate the effects of individual characteristics and are therefore critical for students
dealing with a negative interaction or climate at their institution (Litzler and Young 2012). In addition, students
whose parents did not attend college (“first-generation students”)—a group that includes a higher proportion of
women and underrepresented minorities (Nunez and Cuccaro-Alamin 1998)—have garnered recent research atten-
tion. They are of interest both because of their underrepresentation and because they may need more academic
and social support than other students because they are unfamiliar with university life and procedures and do not
know how to navigate them (Pascarella et al. 2004). Almost 20 percent of individuals majoring in engineering are
first-generation students (Sheppard et al. 2010).
Illustrative story: A first-generation student’s experience
I never experienced academic challenges but I did fall into a situation where I ended up not satisfied with
my initial university. Our high school counselors were really bad and did not inform me of how to apply to
colleges and receive scholarships. I was not the first child to go to college but my parents went to university
in Mexico so they did not know the US system. Long story short, I had to determine on my own how to
transfer to a university and program that I felt challenged me. I spent a lot of effort tracking down all the
appropriate information and contacts…. At the end, I fell in love with USC and did my best to get accepted.
It required weekly calls with the transfer student liaison and visits to the university. I succeeded in getting
accepted and enjoyed my time there.
– Guillermo Garcia
graduate student in mechanical engineering
Extra- and Cocurricular Experiences

Engineering undergraduates participate in activities outside the classroom as much as their non-engineering peers,
although they tend to focus on activities related to engineering (Chubin et al. 2008). About 85 percent of them have
had an internship or cooperative experience by their senior year (Lichtenstein et al. 2010). These experiences, if

high quality, can improve students’ work self-efficacy (Raelin et al. 2014) and are positively related to retention in
an engineering major: students who participate in internships and extracurricular activities like clubs or organiza-
tions related to their major are retained at a higher rate than students who do not have such experiences (appendix C)
and they are more likely to pursue an engineering job after college (Brunhaver et al. 2012; Sheppard et al. 2010).
Engineering-related extracurricular experiences are related to higher confidence in professional skills as well
(Sheppard et al. 201010). A comparison of engineers involved and uninvolved with Engineers Without Borders
found that EWB-USA members perceived higher confidence in their professional skills (but similar confidence
in their technical skills) than their peers not involved in engineering service organizations (Litchfield et al. 2016).
It is worth noting that students who are more confident in their professional and interpersonal skills tend to have
plans focused on non-engineering work or graduate school (Sheppard et al. 2010), while those with postgraduation
plans in engineering tend to be less confident of their professional and interpersonal skills (Atman et al. 2010;
Sheppard et al. 2010).
People: Families, Peers, Professors, Mentors

Most students who persevere in engineering were motivated to pursue the subject by a high school mentor; con-
versely, those who do not persist were pressured by their families to study the subject (Eris et al. 2010). Positive
interactions with faculty also play a significant role in undergraduate students’ persistence in engineering, satisfac-
tion, and career decision making (Lattuca et al. 2006; Pascarella and Terenzini 2005) by enhancing confidence in
problem solving, engineering design, and interpersonal skills (Chen et al. 2008). Such interactions are a source of
self-efficacy, and they are particularly important for female students in setting and pursuing career goals in engi-
neering (Amelink and Creamer 2010). Women’s persistence in engineering is positively associated with attending
office hours, meeting with teaching assistants, and receiving mentoring (Tate and Linn 2005); poor teaching and
advising are associated with both women and men transferring out of engineering (Marra et al. 2012).
Participation in a mentoring program has led to higher retention of students, especially women, compared to
those that did not participate (Marszalek et al. 2009; Sheppard et al. 2010). Mentors who provide images of futures
(outcome expectations) and ways to obtain those futures are important for student decision making (Stevens et al.
2008). Mentors can also help students develop coping strategies: STEM switchers and nonswitchers faced similar
structural and cultural barriers in their majors, but those who persisted used better coping strategies (Seymour
and Hewitt 1997).
Peer study groups are positively correlated with retention. Women who participate in tutoring and peer study
groups are significantly more likely to persevere in engineering (Tate and Linn 2005; appendix C). Students who felt
a sense of community and collaboration with their peers had the lowest risk of attrition (Litzler and Young 2012).
Peers can also improve retention and student experience outside of study groups. The Posse STEM Program
(www.possefoundation.org/specialized-initiatives) identifies and recruits students from diverse backgrounds who
may not meet traditional college admissions criteria and forms 10-person multicultural teams who begin train-
ing together in high school and then attend the same undergraduate institution and continue working together.
The program provides full-tuition scholarships to several partner institutions, supports the students during their
studies, and works with the partner institutions to make the climate and community more accepting of students
from all backgrounds. Posse scholars have a 90 percent graduation rate and receive continuing support from the
community as they begin their careers.
Classroom Experiences and Climate

Satisfaction with instructors has been positively associated with both overall satisfaction with college experience
(Chen et al. 2008) and plans to pursue an engineering career (Amelink and Creamer 2010; Chubin et al. 2008;
Margolis and Kotys-Schwartz 2009). Conversely, research has consistently shown that reduced participation in
10 Thisstudy is based on data from the Academic Pathways of People Learning Engineering Survey (APPLES) administered to engineering
students at 21 US engineering colleges and schools in spring 2008.

engineering is associated with a “chilly climate,” “an inhospitable environment” for women and underrepresented
minorities (Lichtenstein et al. 2014a). As noted in chapter 2, some pedagogies have shown promise in decreasing
performance gaps between majority and underrepresented groups and in retaining women and URM students in
engineering education.
The inhospitable environment can include overtly discriminatory practices, subtle microaggressions, or
implicit bias that suggests that individuals from underrepresented groups lack the ability to become engineers.
Students who repeatedly experience these behaviors from peers or faculty begin to feel isolated and their academic
performance suffers (NASEM 2016). For example, students who heard faculty convey stereotypes about racial or
ethnic groups in class were less likely to remain in engineering (appendix C). An earlier study similarly reported
that attrition from STEM majors was not based entirely on ability but that classroom climate and activities were
major factors in choices to persist (Seymour and Hewitt 1997).
In addition, women and men have distinct experiences, and different interpretations of them, as they progress
through their courses, internships, and other engineering activities. These professional socialization experiences
serve to encourage men to enter engineering careers while deterring women (Seron et al. 2016), although a female
role model (e.g., a faculty member in the same discipline) can help women students overcome negative attitudes
toward the field as well as stereotype threats to their performance (Drury et al. 2011). Implicit biases held by fac-
ulty members may cause less effective mentoring of students from different backgrounds; for example, to avoid
appearing biased toward a particular group, a majority-group faculty member might withhold all criticism from
the student. This behavior both denies students quality feedback on their work and sends a message that they lack
ability in the field (NASEM 2016). URM faculty are critical to the retention of underrepresented students both
because they serve as role models and mentors (Chubin et al. 2005; May and Chubin 2003) and because minority
students are more likely to have positive interactions with them (May and Chubin 2003).
Students who know how to navigate an academic pathway, thanks to coaching from a mentor or social sup-
port, may avoid these negative classroom experiences by taking courses with other faculty or at other institutions.
The navigation of seemingly small programmatic decisions can make big a difference in decisions to stay in or
leave engineering (Stevens et al. 2008).
Institutional and Programmatic Factors

An analysis of MIDFIELD data showed that institutional factors are a stronger predictor of persistence than indi-
vidual racial differences (Ohland et al. 2011). A school’s mission affects its culture and opportunities, which, in
turn, can undermine or support retention in engineering. For example, students who attend public technical schools
with a mission to produce engineers and science technology majors often have fewer alternatives for nontechnical
coursework and are more likely to complete their degree in and pursue a career in engineering (Lichtenstein et al.
2009). Conversely, students who attend schools that offer other majors and who have the latitude to take courses
outside their major have more opportunities to explore and shift majors, correlating to a greater likelihood of
migration out of engineering fields (Lichtenstein et al. 2009).
PREPARING TO TRANSITION TO THE WORKFORCE

Students’ college experiences affect their postgraduation plans (Amelink and Creamer 2010; Margolis and Kotys-
Schwartz 2009; Ro 2011), and the plans described by college seniors predict their career decisions (Astin 1993;
Brunhaver 2015; Pascarella and Terenzini 2005).
What do the career plans of engineering students look like? A recent analysis of APPLES data shows that over
80 percent of engineering juniors and seniors reported that they were likely to work in an engineering occupation

(Gilmartin et al. 2017; see also Sheppard et al. 2014), although a quarter also expressed interest in non-engineering
occupations. Commitment to these plans differs by gender: more women than men expressed interest in a non-
engineering occupation and more men than women were interested in an engineering occupation.
However, the picture of these students’ plans is more complex: less than a third (28 percent) of engineering
students are committed exclusively to an engineering path, and 65 percent have flexible and/or undefined post-
graduation plans. This suggests that a majority of engineering students either see their career as including both
engineering and non-engineering work (i.e., a combination of plans) or are uncertain about how their career might
include engineering and/or non-engineering work (Gilmartin et al. 2017; Sheppard et al. 2014).
Intrinsic psychological motivation (e.g., feeling good when doing engineering-type activities, thinking that
engineering is fun and/or interesting) is a strong positive predictor of engineering-focused plans. Other positive
predictors include learning experiences and environmental factors (e.g., co-ops and internships, active involvement
in engineering classes), contextual factors (e.g., likely salary based on the labor market), and institutional factors
(e.g., public vs. private educational institution) (Gilmartin et al. 2017; Sheppard et al. 2014).
Positive predictors for non-engineering-focused plans include high self-efficacy in professional/interpersonal
skills, involvement in non-engineering activities, and institutional factors (e.g., private institution). Compared with
their peers, civil engineering majors are more likely to have engineering-focused plans, while chemical and b iological/
biomedical engineering majors are more likely to have non-engineering-focused plans (Gilmartin et al. 2017; Sheppard
et al. 2014). Commitment to engineering-focused plans seems to vary along with the culture of disciplines (Brawner
et al. 2012, 2015). It is worth noting that family income (taken as representative of socioeconomic status) and self-
reported undergraduate GPA had no direct predictive power in differentiating e ngineering- vs. non-engineering-
focused plans (Gilmartin et al. 2017; Sheppard et al. 2014).
Those with engineering-focused plans (as compared with “all other plans”) have greater intrinsic psychological
motivation and involvement in engineering classes and less professional/interpersonal self-efficacy (similar to what
was found by comparing students who have engineering-focused plans with those who have non-engineering-focused
plans). Students with a higher self-reported GPA were more likely to have engineering-focused plans than “all other
plans,” and URM women were more likely to have other plans (again, as compared with engineering-focused plans)
than were their peers (the average among URM men, non-URM women, and non-URM men; Gilmartin et al. 2017).
A survey of engineering students in their senior year to identify factors influencing those who intended to leave
the field (9 percent) and those who had reservations about entering it (34 percent) did not find any gender differ-
ences in either group (Margolis and Kotys-Schwartz 2009). Students in both groups felt less prepared, had poorer
perceptions of their internship or capstone experience, were less satisfied with the instruction they received, and
rated salary as less important and coworkers more important than those who intended to pursue a career in the field.
Engineering-related extracurricular experiences are generally positively associated with retention in engineer-
ing, whereas students who pursue non-engineering experiences, such as internships in non-engineering fields, may
choose to leave engineering to pursue careers in the field of their internship; for instance, an engineering student
who completed an internship in finance went on to pursue a job in that field (Lichtenstein et al. 2009). Studies
have similarly found that participation in a non-engineering student organization has a negative and significant
association with intentions to pursue an engineering career (Brunhaver et al. 2012; Sheppard et al. 2010). And
engineering graduates who participated in a study abroad program were more likely to work in a non-engineering
job than those who did not, which might be related to improved self-efficacy in non-engineering activities or
more positive outcome expectations for non-engineering careers than for engineering careers. Alternatively, some
companies may prefer employees with experience in an engineering internship, so those who interned outside the
field would be less desirable candidates and might therefore be more likely to work in a non-engineering occupa-
tion (Brunhaver et al. 2012).
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE POSTGRADUATE DECISIONS AND ACTIONS

An engineering degree leads to a variety of career pathways and options, so there are no simple answers to ques-
tions about the postgraduation pathways of engineering majors. As illustrated in chapter 1, over 40 percent of
engineering graduates seek additional education (e.g., an MS, MBA, PhD, or even an MD or LLD degree). With

their technical education, engineering majors head in a variety of professional directions, influenced by factors such
as personal history and characteristics (e.g., race, socioeconomic status), experiences in undergraduate engineering
(e.g., internship, study abroad), occupational values (e.g., earning potential, making a difference), and other related
events (e.g., getting licensure, receiving a promotion; Brunhaver et al. 2012). They are evenly split between aiming
for work that is closely vs. distally aligned with their degree (appendix C; Lichtenstein et al. 2009).
Recent graduates may choose to take on work that is not related to their engineering studies for a variety
of other reasons. Table 3-3 sheds light on the reasons why roughly 11 percent of employed recent engineering
graduates reported working in a field different from their degree (based on 2010 data). The state of the job market
was an important factor, as almost half of these graduates reported not being able to find a job in the field of their
highest degree, although men cited it more than women. Other differences between men and women existed; more
women than men cited job location, while more men than women chose pay and promotion opportunities as a
reason, which is consistent with prior research (Frehill 2008; Sheppard et al. 2014).
Over 57 percent of recent engineering graduates work in engineering two years after graduation. This number
is higher for those who majored in civil and mechanical engineering, and lower for those in electrical and other
engineering fields. In addition, some occupational differences exist between genders at the early career stage (2–3
years from degree), when men are slightly more likely than women to be employed in engineering occupations
and women slightly more likely to be employed in non-S&E occupations.
An average of 19 percent of recent engineering graduates are in S&E-related occupations (the percentage
varies by major), and some 8 percent pursue additional education. “Change in career or professional interests” was
cited by 13 percent of engineering majors as the primary reason for working in a field different from their major.
It is instructive to look at the actual steps of recent graduates in light of what engineering students say about
their career plans. About 80 percent of engineering juniors and seniors expressed interest in pursuing engineer-
ing occupations, and approximately 60 percent of them went into engineering work (Sheppard et al. 2010). Plans
change, often due to unforeseen factors (table 3-3), and career paths evolve.
Predictors of Early Career Choices

Many early-career engineering graduates express a desire for stability in their general career plans, in that they
would like to remain in the same industry for several years; those who expect to work right away in industry gen-
erally say the same when asked about their career goals (appendix C). Yet longitudinal data show that four years
after graduation most engineering majors had held an average of 1.7 jobs (Cataldi et al. 2014). In-depth interviews
TABLE 3-3 Early-career graduates with engineering bachelor’s degrees: primary reason for working in
occupation unrelated to highest degree (women n=2,643; men n=11,282).
Primary reason Female Male Total
Job in highest degree field not available 39.87% 45.65% 44.55% *
Other reason for not working in occupation related to highest degreea 24.76% 18.75% 19.89% *
Change in career or professional interests 13.45% 12.94% 13.04% NS
Pay, promotion opportunities 3.55% 12.48% 10.78% *
Job location 12.44% 2.31% 4.23% *
Working conditions (hours, equipment, working environment) 2.72% 4.30% 4.00% *
Family-related reasons 3.21% 3.58% 3.51% NS
Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Source: NSRCG 2010.

a This is a write-in category on the NSRCG survey.
Note: Gender differences analyzed using independent samples t-test.

*p < .05, NS = not statistically significant

with a small sample of engineering graduates showed that slightly less than half were doing what they expected
four years after graduation, and this divide was greater for women than men (Carrico et al. 2012).
Recent graduates may experience “culture shocks,” as they confront the complexity and ambiguity of real-
world engineering (Korte et al. 2008), and barriers, such as lack of support from coworkers and managers or a
frustrating work environment (Brunhaver et al. 2010). These shocks and barriers may prompt some recent gradu-
ates to seek employment elsewhere, whether in the same field at a different company or in a different field. Two
studies of women engineers show that their relationships with managers and coworkers and the presence or lack
of opportunities for advancement, training, or development significantly affect their career commitment to engi-
neering (Buse et al. 2013; Fouad et al. 2016).
The longitudinal data presented in chapter 1 illustrate engineering degree holders’ job changes and migration
into and out of the field, showing how graduates “live out” their engineering and non-engineering career interests
(recall that some 65 percent of engineering juniors and seniors had interests in both). Most graduates commit to a
specific career path as students and stay on that pathway for at least the first few years after graduation (Brunhaver
2015). Factors that seem to most affect recent engineering graduates’ choice of career pathway are:
• their type of undergraduate institution, level of technical interest, and major;

• whether they participated in an engineering internship/co-op; and
• their initial steps/plans (i.e., senior year plans, choice of first position).
Demographic characteristics, precollege experiences, engineering self-efficacy, and contextual factors did not
directly influence their current employment (Brunhaver 2015).
Additional Learning Experiences

Over 60 percent of juniors and seniors in engineering have plans for additional education; nearly 43 percent report
that they will definitely or probably attend engineering graduate school, and about 28 percent indicate plans to
attend non-engineering graduate school (the overlap between these groups is 8 percent). There is no statistical
difference in the percentages of women and men considering engineering graduate school, but women are more
likely to express interest in attending non-engineering graduate school (Sheppard et al. 2014).
Students’ postgraduate degree goals vary by the type of institution (public or private, more or less selective)
from which they received their bachelor’s degree. Students from less selective institutions tend to aspire to earn a
master’s degree, compared to those from more selective schools who say they plan to seek a PhD, MBA, or even
an MD or LLD degree. Degree goals also vary by gender: higher proportions of men aspire to earn a master’s and
a slightly higher proportion of women indicate plans to pursue a doctoral or graduate business degree (appendix C).
These aspirations for further education are greater than actual graduate degree completion in the first years
after graduation: although 60 percent of engineering juniors and seniors anticipate pursuing additional education,
only about 40 percent of them do. As shown in table 3-4, by 2010 about 12 percent of engineering majors who
graduated between 2006 and 2009 had completed a master’s degree in engineering. This rate is three times higher
TABLE 3-4 Early-career graduates (less than 3 years postdegree) with engineering bachelor’s degrees: Highest
degree earned. PhD degrees are not included in this table because students are unlikely to finish a PhD program
within three years of earning their bachelor’s degree. (n=143,655).
Highest degree Engineering S&E-related Non-S&E Total
Bachelor’s 85.5% 1.2% 0.0% 86.7%
Master’s 11.6% 0.9% 0.8% 13.3%
Professional 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total 97.1% 2.1% 0.8% 100.00%
Source: NSRCG 2010.

than the 2003–2005 cohort surveyed in 2006 (Sheppard et al. 2014), perhaps reflecting the economic downturn of
2008, which may have encouraged continued schooling instead of entry in a poor job market.
Engineering graduates pursue advanced degrees in engineering and non-engineering for different reasons
(table 3-5). Not surprisingly, most graduates enroll in engineering programs to acquire new skills and advancement
opportunities; those who enroll in non-engineering programs do so for the same reasons as well as to change fields,
obtain special certification, and broaden their knowledge base before embarking on a career.
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE RETENTION IN ENGINEERING OCCUPATIONS
Career Stability and Satisfaction

As illustrated in chapter 1, an engineering education provides graduates with a relatively high initial salary and
significantly higher lifetime earnings than other disciplines (figure 1-16), low unemployment (about two-thirds
the rate of unemployment for all college-educated workers), career versatility/flexibility, and a high degree of job
satisfaction (similar to the 89 percent of US employees who state that they are very or somewhat satisfied with their
jobs; SHRM 2017) whether they work in engineering or non-engineering occupations (figure 3-2 and appendix A).
As explained in chapter 1, although nearly 90 percent of BS engineering graduates use the skills and knowledge
of their degree, only 45 percent of recent BS engineering graduates and 35 percent of all degreed engineers work
in engineering occupations narrowly defined.
TABLE 3-5 Early-career graduates with engineering bachelor’s degrees: Reasons for taking additional
coursework (n=50,080).
All graduates Enrolled in Enrolled in
Reason for coursework taking classes engineering non-engineering
Gain further skills in field 82.1% 90.8% 62.4% *
Further education before career 77.6% 80.1% 72.1% *
Increase advancement opportunities 72.6% 78.6% 59.3% *
Leisure/personal interest 50.3% 53.8% 42.4% *
Prepare for graduate school/further education 37.4% 42.1% 26.7% *
Change academic/occupational field 22.7% 13.2% 44.2% *
Licensure/certification 17.9% 13.9% 26.9% *
Other 6.0% 5.8% 6.5% NS
Source: NSRCG 2010.

Note: Differences between engineering and non-engineering analyzed using independent samples t-test.
*p < .05, NS = not statistically significant.
FIGURE 3-2 Percent somewhat or very satisfied with their job by engineering degree and occupation. (N=15,189)
Source: SESTAT 2010.


As discussed in chapter 1, engineering graduates tend to shift fields throughout their careers (tables 1-12
and 1-13, figures 1-13 and 1-14). They move between engineering, engineering-proximate, and non-engineering
occupations, although for people farther from graduation, the migration is greater out of than into engineering
positions, and the most common career shift is into engineering management (see table 1-6 and figure 1-14).
Importantly, the participation rates of men, women, and underrepresented minorities in engineering occupa-
tions diverge. Although women represented more than 19 percent of BS engineering graduates in 2013, they
accounted for only 15 percent of individuals working in engineering occupations. Similarly, African Americans,
American Indians/Alaska Natives, and Hispanics of any race, who together constituted 14 percent of BS engi-
neering graduates in 2013, represent only about 11 percent of those employed in engineering occupations (NSCG
2013). A number of studies have documented that women and underrepresented minorities leave engineering
occupations at a higher rate than their White and Asian American male counterparts, and research has explored
factors contributing to this divergence.
For example, several large-scale studies, most comparing women to men, have examined reasons for leaving
engineering and science jobs. Women in engineering and science occupations are more likely than men in those
occupations to change careers or to stop working (Hunt 2016; Preston 2006). Although some factors, such as loss
of interest in the field (Frehill 2008), affect the decisions to leave of both women and men, frustration with pay
and promotion opportunities explains much of the gender gap for leaving engineering (Fouad et al. 2016; Hunt
2016; Singh et al. 2013). Other factors—lack of flexibility in work hours and location that constrain choices of
work-life balance, feeling isolated, inability to find mentors or support networks, and male-dominated culture—
also contribute to women leaving science and engineering at a higher rate than men (Fouad and Singh 2011; Hall
2007; Hewlett et al. 2008; Preston 2006; Stephan and Levin 2005).
A study of the career advancement of nearly 1,800 men and women in mid-level technical jobs at seven large
Silicon Valley companies found that, although all were highly educated and women were a third of the sample
(a larger proportion than in the overall workforce), men were 2.7 times more likely than women to work in a high-
level position (Simard et al. 2008). And although women and men viewed some aspects of their work environments
similarly (e.g., both believed that mentoring and teamwork were not valued by the company), certain barriers to
advancement influenced them differently. More women than men saw expectations of working long hours and
stereotypes of women as less technically competent than their male counterparts as barriers to their advancement.
Although both men and women felt that having a family was a barrier to advancement, more women than men
reported either postponing or never having children or getting married in order to achieve career goals, and more
women than men reported poor health due to work demands.
Men were significantly more likely than women to have a partner who stayed home full time to take care of
children and household work, offering them the ability to choose to work long hours without experiencing nega-
tive consequences of avoiding obligations at home. Women, on the other hand, were more likely than men to have
a partner who was also employed full time and thus took both their partner’s schedule and all shared family and
household obligations into consideration when deciding to work long hours. Consequently, a lack of work-life
balance and expectations of long hours at work affect a larger percentage of women in technical fields than men
in those fields (Simard et al. 2008). Women report leaving their occupations for balance-related reasons more
often than men (Frehill 2008) and do so throughout their careers (Fouad et al. 2016; Singh et al. 2013). Even cur-
rent female engineers report heavy workloads and expectations to put work before family as reasons they have
considered leaving (Fouad et al. 2016).
Overall, the masculine culture of engineering education in classes or other engineering experiences such as
internships or team projects (Cheryan et al. 2017; Seron et al. 2016) discourages women from entering an engi-
neering occupation (Fouad and Singh 2011), and behaviors such as incivility and undermining from supervisors
and coworkers remain a factor throughout women’s careers (Fouad et al. 2016).
It is important to note that women who leave engineering do not differ from those who persist on measures
of self-efficacy, vocational interests, perceptions of barriers related to the organizational environment, or expected

outcomes in the three domains: doing engineering tasks, managing multiple roles, and navigating organizational
climates. However, women who remain in engineering perceive better support in the work environment (particu-
larly managerial support for work and family balance and management-provided training opportunities), have a
stronger commitment to the organization, and experience greater satisfaction with their jobs than those who leave
(Fouad et al. 2016).
Illustrative story: Changing careers
The oil services job proved to be too dangerous for a long-term career. So I switched to computer program-
ming during the late ’90s tech boom. I had a tough time switching from a hands-on engineering job to a desk
job. The company I joined trained me in the new language at the time—Java—and I was able to establish
myself as an engineer who got projects done. As I was not a computer science graduate, I applied for a
professional (evening classes) master’s in computer science at University of Washington. I completed it in
2003. That gave me the credentials and broader perspective I needed to grow.
Once I became a senior developer, I experienced a lot more of the glass ceiling. Working with dev-
teams composed entirely of men, new interesting projects and promotions became impossible. I eventually
left the corporate tech world, not knowing what to do next.
With time on my hands, I started building apps for my kids, to help them with their learning. That
project is still evolving into a business (Infinut). There are other challenges with building a business, but
less discrimination or discouragement, since I can define and work on my own projects.
I also started teaching at University of Washington as an adjunct. I really enjoy that, and do so when
I have time. I like to encourage more women to study engineering and computer science, in the hope they
will have better options.
– Ana Redmond
(bachelor’s in electrical engineering),
founder and CEO of Infinut
Interventions to Foster Retention in the Workplace

Research on attrition, retention, or advancement in engineering has focused on the differences between men and
women, with limited research on interventions directed toward underrepresented minorities or other marginalized
groups (e.g., persons with disabilities, LGBT individuals). However, research has suggested interventions that
could reduce the disparities between men and women leaving engineering.
Because bias against women in engineering often leads to lower salaries, assignments of more menial or
undervalued work (e.g., planning an office party, taking notes in a meeting), and other discouraging outcomes,
one model of change includes an examination of where and how the bias has led to discrepancies, an inter-
rupting force that mitigates the effects, and metrics to assess the effects of the intervention (Williams et al.
2014, 2016). And because workplace bias affects other marginalized groups in engineering, this intervention
could also improve working conditions and retention in engineering for them. It is important to note, however,
that individuals who fit more than one category of marginalization (e.g., a woman of color) may not benefit
as much from interventions as those in only one group (e.g., White women, men of color). It is also important
to not view groups of individuals as homogeneous (NAE 2014). However, research has not fully explored the
experiences of these individuals, and few interventions to address bias against them have been developed or
tested (Ong et al. 2011).
Interventions that foster engagement and retention in the workplace often focus on changing the organizational
culture—the corporate values and customs, unwritten rules of the workplace, and social environment. Many busi-
nesses believe it is difficult to achieve a positive culture and engagement, although they realize that it can signifi-
cantly affect their employees and bottom line (Bersin et al. 2015). Improvement in employee retention requires

commitment from the top leadership, simplification of the work environment (e.g., a reduction in burdensome
procedures), investment in employees, and measures to assess where change is needed and how it is working to
improve the company culture (Bersin et al. 2015).
Organizational cultures that benefit women and underrepresented minorities do not negatively affect male
majority employees. Features of inclusive and supportive organizational cultures include leadership support and
transparent policies for training and development, encouragement of collaboration rather than competition between
employees, consistency in pay and rewards for all employees, and equal access to job flexibility and promotion
paths (DeNisi and Smith 2014). On the other hand, perceptions that only certain groups have access to training
and development opportunities, that bullying or incivility toward marginalized groups is acceptable in the work-
place, that collaboration is not rewarded, or that opportunities for advancement and promotion are available only
to majority males lead to a negative culture that decreases employee engagement and retention. This is true of all
employees, but especially women and underrepresented minorities.
Finding: Because people with diverse gender and racial/ethnic identities may have different motivations
and pathways in engineering it is imperative to consider which educational and programmatic interventions
are most effective in welcoming, supporting, and advancing those from underrepresented backgrounds. It
is essential to continue developing, implementing, and evaluating well-designed educational and training
interventions to both attract and retain women and underrepresented minorities and support all individuals
in engineering. It is equally important to change the perceived and real culture(s) of engineering to welcome
all individuals regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, or background. Recognition and correction of bias, sup-
port for work-life balance, and equal opportunity for training and advancement will help create a supportive
environment for all employees.
SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTED INTERVENTIONS

As noted in chapters 1 and 2, engineering education provides graduates with skills, knowledge, and abilities that
allow them to apply their education and experience to a variety of rewarding tasks and occupations and lead to
higher salaries and lifetime earnings. It is also evident, though, that engineering faces a diversity challenge. Certain
groups are less likely to decide to enter or persist in engineering, and the factors affecting those decisions differ
based on both individual characteristics (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity, disability, personality traits) and external
factors (e.g., family socioeconomic status, local community, school experiences, parental education, perceptions
of engineering culture). This chapter has explored the impacts of these internal and external factors on educational
and career decision making of students and graduates, with a focus on populations underrepresented in engineering
education and the workforce, women and URMs. Data show that efforts to increase the participation of these popu-
lations have been only marginally successful. However, research has identified and validated certain interventions
at various education levels that are effective in increasing participation of these underrepresented populations, and
they should be widely disseminated, further evaluated, and improved upon.
The following sections summarize the research findings reviewed in this chapter as they relate to interventions
in K–12 education, higher education, and the workplace.
K–12 Education
Interventions at the K–12 level, informed by an understanding of the internal and external factors that affect
student decision making, can help develop interest and prepare students to succeed in engineering study at the
postsecondary level. Early intervention, preferably in or before middle school, is critical to encourage young stu-
dents to become interested in engineering and to take the math and science courses that are predictive of success
in engineering in college.
Lack of knowledge about the profession and its practice is a significant barrier for potential engineers.
Messages that describe engineering as a field that involves understanding, defining, and solving important societal
problems using a mix of technical and professional skills, interdisciplinary work, social consciousness, c reativity,

and multicultural understanding are attractive, impart knowledge of the field to all students, and seem to be
particularly important for female and URM students, who otherwise may not see engineering as a viable option
for themselves. Thus, they can help to offset negative perceptions of engineering’s culture by signaling that they
belong in the field, which will increase gender and racial representation in engineering.
In addition, families are critical in the development of children’s interest in engineering, particularly during
middle school, and should be enlisted to communicate positive messages to their children, emphasizing intrinsic
rewards such as the opportunity to develop and use a mix of social and technical skills and the prospect of per-
forming interesting work while solving big problems for people and society.
The following interventions have been shown to be effective, particularly for female and URM students,
and should be widely disseminated, especially in low-income and other underserved communities. Although the
interventions benefit many students, research is needed to determine the effects for other marginalized groups and
those who fit more than one category of marginalization.
• Ensure that teachers have deep knowledge of their discipline, support for professional development,
adequate instructional time, and access to high-quality learning opportunities.
• Ensure that all schools have adequate resources and facilities, especially schools that serve predominantly
low-income children and communities.
• To address the abilities and interests of all students, use inclusive instructional practices that support students
from different backgrounds and with different learning needs. Other effective teaching practices such as
hands-on and active learning projects, especially in math and science classes, help prepare students to enter
an engineering major by ensuring that they participate and are engaged in the activities.
• Promote participation in relevant out-of-school activities such as FIRST or STEM summer camps.
• Provide training to help K–12 educators recognize the possibility of their implicit bias and its ability to
negatively affect their interactions with students and families. Training can help teachers both avoid sending
subtle messages implying that certain populations are not capable of becoming engineers and gain skills
to recognize and confront biased actions in others.
• Communicate clearly to K–12 educators, who can then convey to students and their families, the extrinsic
(e.g., high salary) and intrinsic (e.g., rewarding work) benefits of engineering as a course of study and career.
Students respond positively to messages about careers that include interesting work that makes a difference
in the world, while their parents rate availability of jobs and interesting work as similarly important for
career considerations (NAE 2008) and would also be pleased if their child chose an engineering career in
part because of the high salary.11
• Provide students with accurate information about engineering, both to counter stereotypes of the nature of
engineering work and the people who do it, and to prepare them to navigate their education and enter the
workforce.
• Cultivate students’ positive outcome expectations of an engineering major and career by emphasizing
the message that engineering encompasses social and professional as well as technical skills and equips
graduates to do interesting work in a wide range of occupations, help define and solve important problems
for people and society, and make a difference in the world.
• Help families understand the utility and rewards of an engineering degree and career, such as the high
versatility of the technical and professional skills learned, accessibility to many different careers, and
high initial and lifelong salaries.
Higher Education
As discussed in chapter 2, institutions of higher education have begun to adopt more active learning and student-
centered approaches, which improve student learning and persistence to an engineering degree. However, although
women persist to graduate at similar rates to men, URM students have a much lower retention rate than majority
11 April 2014 Harris Interactive Poll, American attitudes on engineering, conducted on behalf of the NAE.

students. Concerns also remain about the experiences of women in engineering education as well as the number
of high-performing students, especially women, who switch to a non-engineering major. The following actions
have been shown to improve retention for all students in undergraduate engineering education:
• Communicate clearly to students throughout their college experience that engineering is about understanding,
defining, and solving important problems for people and society, and that it requires a mix of technical
and professional skills, an ability to communicate and work effectively across disciplinary boundaries
and with many different stakeholders, strong social consciousness, creativity, multicultural understanding,
and business/entrepreneurial understanding. Make students aware of the potential near-term and lifelong
rewards of an engineering degree, the high versatility of the technical and professional skills learned, the
fact that an engineering degree is a pathway to many different careers, and the fact that individuals with
engineering degrees earn high initial and lifelong salaries.
• Promote multiple high-quality engineering-related experiences for students, such as internships and
cocurricular activities (e.g., Engineering Projects in Community Service, Engineers Without Borders, the
Grand Challenges Scholars Program).
• Promote high-quality, frequent student-faculty interactions (e.g., through advising and mentoring) for
discussions of outcomes and career pathways.
• Provide mastery experiences (e.g., design challenges, problem-based learning activities) to increase
engineering self-efficacy, especially for women and underrepresented minorities.
• Encourage students to study with other students to promote their own sense of community and persistence
in engineering.
• Use instructional techniques (e.g., active learning) that promote real-world applications of STEM concepts
and engage marginalized students as well as majority students.
• Educate faculty about implicit biases and provide training for them to learn to avoid sending implicit (or
explicit) messages that create a hostile climate for certain populations. Training should also provide faculty
with the tools to address biased behavior they observe in others.
• Counteract a climate that is often chilly for women and URM students by encouraging respectful classroom
interactions among peers, positive faculty-student interactions both in and out of the classroom, and
innovative instructional strategies to engage students, such as cooperative learning.
• Offset the “masculine culture” of engineering education by ensuring that educators, curricula, and the
broader “climate” of classrooms signal to girls and boys equally that they belong in the field.
Work Environment
Companies and institutions can promote job satisfaction, company commitment, and thus the retention of all
employees by attending to their organizational culture. Recognition of bias, support for work-life balance, and
equal opportunities for training and advancement will help create a supportive environment for all employees.
• Encourage organizationwide understanding of implicit bias and how it manifests in the workplace treatment
of women and underrepresented minorities, establish a mechanism for managers to learn to identify actions
that may perpetuate bias, and offer training to provide managers and employees with the knowledge and
tools to recognize and address bias in themselves or others.
• Develop an institutional culture that focuses on practices that enhance employees’ skills, motivation,
and opportunities for advancement. Ensure that all employees have equal access to opportunities for
advancement, training, and development and advertise those opportunities throughout the workplace.
• Afford employees as much flexibility as possible with respect to where and when they conduct their work
with a clear understanding of what constitutes effective work performance, thereby providing employees
with greater latitude to manage their work-life balance.
• Put policies and practices in place to ensure that employees who take parental leave are onboarded effectively
afterward and offered the same opportunities for advancement, training, and development as their peers.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Myriad factors influence an individual’s decisions to study and pursue a career in engineering. The impacts of
these factors vary by demographic group; much research has been conducted on gender differences, but there is
inadequate research on a number of underrepresented groups, especially at the intersection of underrepresentation
(e.g., first-generation Hispanic students, women of color) or subpopulations of minority groups (e.g., individuals
of Southeast Asian descent). Interventions have been implemented and researched to encourage women and under-
represented groups to participate in engineering, but in many cases the programs help only one group (e.g., White
women or men of color) but not other marginalized populations such as women of color.
For many underrepresented populations, data are suppressed in national datasets to avoid identifying spe-
cific individuals (who may be the only person in a particular discipline who represents a specific population),
so interventions cannot be accurately assessed using current research methods. New approaches, such as the use
of administrative data (discussed in previous chapters and appendix E), are needed to expand research on the
experiences of underrepresented groups and determine how and why targeted interventions encourage (or even
discourage) them in their plans to enter and stay in engineering. Researchers using administrative data can follow
individuals through their educational pathways by linking precollege activities, demographic information, and col-
lege transcripts to, for example, assess long-term impacts of a precollege summer engineering camp for low-income
students by examining how many participants applied to, entered, and graduated from engineering programs.
In addition, while it is useful to conduct experiments that isolate the effects on one variable at a time in order
to reliably develop an understanding of the underlying processes, it may be time to focus more on the relationships
between external supports, barriers, and experiences and internal person inputs to develop a more holistic approach
to designing interventions for underrepresented populations. Building on such research, efforts to improve diversity
in engineering should take a systems approach that considers the interplay of internal and external influences on an
individual when developing interventions aimed at increasing the representation of all populations in engineering.
Although single researchers may be able to design effective investigations that take a systems approach, it
may be more effective for all stakeholders in the engineering education and workforce enterprise to develop “col-
lective impact” initiatives. In such initiatives all partners, supported by an independent organization with staff
dedicated solely to the effort, work together to structure processes and consolidate resources in order to develop an
agenda, systemwide metrics, consistent and frequent communication, and “mutually reinforcing activities among
all participants” (Kania and Kramer 2011, p. 38).
REFERENCES
Achen AC, Courant PN. 2009. What are grades made of? Journal of Economic Perspectives 23(3):77–92.
Altonji JG, Blom E, Meghir C. 2012. Heterogeneity in human capital investments: High school curriculum, college major, and
careers. Annual Review of Economics 4(1):185–223.
Amelink CT, Creamer EG. 2010. Gender differences in elements of the undergraduate experience that influence satisfaction
with the engineering major and the intent to pursue engineering as a career. Journal of Engineering Education 99(1):81–92.
Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2012. Children living in America’s high-poverty communities: Data snapshot on high-poverty
communities. Baltimore. Available at www.aecf.org/resources/data-snapshot-on-high-poverty-communities/.
Arcidiacono PV, Hotza J, Kanga S. 2012. Modeling college major choices using elicited measures of expectations and coun-
terfactuals. Journal of Econometrics 166:3–16.
Astin AW. 1993. What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Atkinson RD. 2012. Why the current education reform strategy won’t work. Issues in Science and Technology 28(3). Available
at http://issues.org/28-3/atkinson-7/.
Atkinson RD, Mayo M. 2010. Refueling the US Innovation Economy: Fresh Approaches to Science, Technology, Engineering
and Mathematics (STEM) Education. Washington: Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
Atman CJ, Sheppard SD, Turns J, Adams RS, Fleming LN, Stevens R, Streveler RA, Smith KA, Miller RL, Leifer LJ, Yasuhara
K, Lund D. 2010. Enabling Engineering Student Success: The Final Report for the Center for the Advancement of Engi-
neering Education. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.
Bakken L, Byars-Winston A, Gundermann D, Ward E, Slattery A, King A, Taylor R. 2010. Effects of an educational interven-
tion on female clinician-researchers’ research self-efficacy. Advances in Health Science Education 15:167–183.

Bandura A. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W H Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.
Bear JB, Woolley AW. 2011. The role of gender in team collaboration and performance. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews
36(2):146–153.
Beffy M, Fougere D, Maurel A. 2012. Choosing the field of study in post-secondary education: Do expected earnings matter?
Review of Economics and Statistics 94(1):334–347.
Bersin J, Agarwal D, Pelster B, Schwartz J. 2015. Global Human Capital Trends 2015: Leading in the New World of Work.
Westlake, TX: Deloitte University Press.
Betz NE, Hackett G. 1981. The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations to perceived career options in college
women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology 28:399–410.
Betz N, Schifano R. 2000. Evaluation of an intervention to increase realistic self-efficacy and interests in college students.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 56:35–52.
BHEF [Business-Higher Education Forum]. 2011. Creating the Workforce of the Future: The STEM Interest and Proficiency
Challenge. Washington.
Blanchard S, Judy J, Muller C, Crawford RH, Petrosino AJ. 2015. Beyond blackboards: Engaging underserved middle school
students in engineering. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 5(1): Article 2.
Blustein DL, Barnett M, Mark S, Depot M, Lovering M, Lee Y, Hu Q, Kim J, Backus F, Dillon-Lieberman K, DeBay D.
2013. Examining urban students’ constructions of a STEM/career development intervention over time. Journal of Career
Development 40:40–67.
Brainard SG, Carlin L. 1998. A six-year longitudinal study of undergraduate women in engineering and science. Journal of
Engineering Education 87:369–375.
Brawner CE, Camacho MM, Lord SM, Long RA, Ohland MW. 2012. Women in industrial engineering: Stereotypes, persistence,
and perspectives. Journal of Engineering Education 101(2):288–318.
Brawner CE, Lord SM, Layton RA, Ohland MW, Long RA. 2015. Factors affecting women’s persistence in chemical engineer-
ing. International Journal of Engineering Education 31(6A):1431–1447.
Brown SD, Tramayne S, Hoxha D, Tylander K, Fan X, Lent RW. 2008. Social cognitive predictors of college students’ academic
performance and persistence: A meta-analytic path analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior 72:298–308.
Brunhaver S. 2015. Early career outcomes of engineering alumni: Exploring their connection to the undergraduate experience
(dissertation). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Brunhaver S, Korte R, Lande M, Sheppard S. 2010. Supports and barriers that recent engineering graduates experience in the
workplace. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, June 20–23,
Louisville, KY.
Brunhaver S, Gilmartin S, Chen HL, Sheppard S. 2012. Factors associated with the current occupations of early career engineer-
ing graduates. Proceedings of the Association for the Study of Higher Education Conference, November 14–17, Las Vegas.
Burgard BN. 2000. An examination of psychological characteristics and environmental influences of female college students
who choose traditional versus nontraditional academic majors. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities
& Social Sciences 61:396.
Buse K, Bilimoria D, Perelli S. 2013. Why they stay: Women persisting in US engineering careers. Career Development
International 18(2):139–154.
Business Roundtable. 2013. Taking Action on Education and Workforce Preparedness. Washington.
Carnevale AP, Smith N, Melton M. 2011. STEM. Washington: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
Carrico CA, Winters KE, Brunhaver S, Matusovich HM. 2012. The pathways taken by early career professionals and the factors
that contribute to pathway choices. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference
and Exposition, June 10–13, San Antonio.
Cataldi EF, Siegel P, Shepherd B, Cooney J, Socha T. 2014. Baccalaureate and Beyond: A First Look at the Employment
Experiences and Lives of College Graduates, 4 Years On. Washington: US Department of Education/National Center for
Education Statistics.
Cech E, Rubineau B, Silbey S, Seron C. 2011. Professional role confidence and gendered persistence in engineering. American
Sociological Review 76(5):641–666.
Chen HL, Lattuca LR, Hamilton ER. 2008. Conceptualizing engagement: Contributions of faculty to student engagement in
engineering. Journal of Engineering Education 97(3):339–353.
Cheryan S, Plaut VC. 2010. Explaining underrepresentation: A theory of precluded interest. Sex Roles 63:475–488.
Cheryan S, Plaut VC, Davies PG, Steele CM. 2009. Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation
in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97(6):1045–1060.

Cheryan S, Ziegler SA, Montoya A, Jiang L. 2017. Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psycho-
logical Bulletin 143(1):1–35.
Chubin DE, May GS, Babco EL. 2005. Diversifying the engineering workforce. Journal of Engineering Education 94(1):73–86.
Chubin D, Donaldson K, Olds B, Fleming L. 2008. Educating generation net—Can US engineering woo and win the competi-
tion for talent? Journal of Engineering Education 97:245–257.
Corbett C, Hill C. 2015. Solving the Equation: The Variables for Women’s Success in Engineering and Computing. Washington:
AAUW.
Danielak BA, Gupta A, Elby A. 2014. Marginalized identities of sense-makers: Reframing engineering student retention. Journal
Danziger N. 2006. Student career aspirations and perceptions: The case of Israeli accounting students. Accounting Education
15(2):113–134.
Dee T, Gershenson S. 2017. Unconscious bias in the classroom: Evidence and opportunities. Mountain View, CA: Google Inc.
Available at https://goo.gl/O6Btqi.
Deemer ED, Thoman DB, Chase JP, Smith JL. 2014. Feeling the threat: Stereotype threat as a contextual barrier to women’s
science career choice intentions. Journal of Career Development 41:141–158.
DeNisi AS, Smith CE. 2014. Performance appraisal, performance management, and firm-level performance: A review, a pro-
posed model, and new directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals 8:127–179.
Donnay DAC, Morris ML, Schaubhut NA, Thompson RC. 2005. Strong Interest Inventory Manual (rev. ed.). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Dooley JA. 2001. The contributions of advising experiences with faculty and classroom social environment to undergraduate
students’ persistence in physical science, mathematical, and engineering majors. Dissertation Abstracts International:
Section B: The Sciences & Engineering 62:2989.
Drury BJ, Siy JO, Cheryan S. 2011. When do female role models benefit women? The importance of differentiating recruitment
from retention in STEM. Psychological Inquiry 22:265–269.
Dweck CS. 2007. The perils and promises of praise. Educational Leadership 65(2):34–39.
Eccles JS. 1994. Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly 18:585–609.
Eccles JS. 2007. Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in physical science and engineering. In: Why
Aren’t More Women in Science? Top Researchers Debate the Evidence, eds Ceci SJ, Williams WM. Washington: American
Psychological Association.
Eccles-Parsons J, Adler TF, Futterman R, Goff SB, Kaczala CM, Meece JL. 1983. Expectancies, values, and academic behav-
iors. In: Achievement and Achievement Motivations, ed Spence JT. San Francisco: Freeman.
Edwardson TL. 1998. The contribution of multiple role self-efficacy and outcome expectations to the multiple role goals and
multiple role accomplishments of women in engineering and education. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A:
Humanities & Social Sciences 59:0735.
Emerson CJ. 2014. Increasing Women in SETT: The Business Case. Newfoundland: WinSETT Centre.
Ennis T, Milford J, Myers B, Sullivan J, Knight D, Sieber D, Scarritt A. 2010. GoldShirt transitional program: Creating engi-
neering capacity and expanding diversity through a performance-enhancing year. Proceedings of the American Society
for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, June 20–23, Louisville, KY.
Eris O, Chen H, Bailey T, Engerman K, Loshbaugh HG, Griffin A, Lichtenstein G, Cole A. 2005. Development of the Persis-
tence in Engineering (PIE) survey instrument. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference and Exposition, June 12–15, Portland, OR.
Eris O, Chachra D, Chen H, Rosca C, Ludlow L, Sheppard S, Donaldson K. 2007. A preliminary analysis of correlates of
engineering persistence: Results from a longitudinal study. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Educa-
tion Annual Conference and Exposition, June 24–27, Honolulu.
Eris O, Chachra D, Chen HL, Sheppard S, Ludlow L, Rosca C, Bailey T, Toye G. 2010. Outcomes of a longitudinal administra-
tion of the Persistence in Engineering survey. Journal of Engineering Education 99:371–395.
Eschenbach EA, Virnoche M, Cashman EM, Lord SM, Camacho MM. 2014. Proven practices that can reduce stereotype threat
in engineering education: A literature review. Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education (FIE) Conference, October 22–25,
Madrid.
EWB-USA [Engineers Without Borders]. 2012. Engineers Without Borders USA’s 2012 annual report. Denver. Available at
www.ewb-usa.org/files/2015/01/EWB-USA_2012_Annual_Report_High_Res.pdf.
Faulkner W. 2007. “Nuts and bolts and people”: Gender-troubled engineering identities. Social Studies of Science 37(3):331–356.
Forbes MH, Bielefeldt AR, Sullivan JF. 2015. The choice opportunity disparity: Exploring curricular choice opportunities for
engineering vs. non-engineering majors. Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 14–17, Seattle.

Fouad NA, Kantamneni N. 2008. Contextual factors in vocational psychology: Intersections of individual, group, and societal
dimensions. In: Handbook of Counseling Psychology, 4th ed, eds Brown SD, Lent RW. New York: Wiley.
Fouad NA, Singh R. 2011. Stemming the tide: Why women leave engineering. Center for the Study of the Workplace, Uni-
versity of Wisconsin–Milwaukee.
Fouad NA, Hackett G, Smith PL, Kantamneni N, Fitzpatrick ME, Haag S, Spencer D. 2010. Barriers and supports for continu-
ing in mathematics and science: Gender and educational level differences. Journal of Vocational Behavior 77:361–373.
Fouad NA, Singh R, Cappaert K, Chang W-H, Wan M. 2016. Comparison of women engineers who persist in or depart from
engineering. Journal of Vocational Behavior 92:79–93.
Frehill L. 2008. The Society of Women Engineers national survey about engineering: Why do women leave the engineering
work force? SWE Magazine 54(1):24–26.
Gilmartin SK, Antonio AL, Brunhaver SR, Chen HL, Sheppard SD. 2017. Career plans of undergraduate engineering students:
Characteristics and contexts. In: US Engineering in the Global Economy, eds Freeman R, Salzman H. Cambridge, MA:
National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at www.nber.org/chapters/c12686.pdf.
Greenwald AG, Banaji MR. 1995. Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review
102(1):4–27.
Hackett G. 1995. Self-efficacy and career choice and development. In: Self-Efficacy in Adaptation of Youth to Changing
Societies, ed Bandura A. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hackett G, Betz NE. 1989. The self-efficacy/performance correspondence: Implications for predictive models of mathematics-
related educational and career choices. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 20:261–273.
Hall LE. 2007. Who’s Afraid of Marie Curie? The Challenges Facing Women in Science and Technology. Emeryville, CA:
Seal Press.
Handwerk P, Tognatta N, Coley RJ, Gitomer DH. 2008. Access to Success: Patterns of Advanced Placement Participation in
US High Schools. Princeton: Educational Testing Service Policy Evaluation and Research Center.
Hansen JC. 1978. Age differences and empirical scale construction. Measurement & Evaluation in Guidance 11(2):78–87.
Hansen JC. 2013. Nature, importance, and assessment of interests. In: Career Development and Counseling: Putting Theory
and Research to Work (2nd ed), eds Brown SD, Lent RW. New York: Wiley.
Hanson SL. 2009. Swimming Against the Tide: African American Girls and Science Education. Philadelphia: Temple Uni-
versity Press.
Hewlett SA, Buck Luce C, Servon LJ, Sherbin L, Shiller P, Sosnovich E, Sumberg K. 2008. The Athena factor: Reversing the
brain drain in science, engineering, and technology. Harvard Business Review Research Report 10094.
Hill C, Corbett C, St. Rose A. 2010. Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington:
AAUW.
Holland JL. 1997. Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments, 3rd ed. Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Holloway BM, Reed T, Imbrie PK, Reid K. 2014. Research-informed policy change: A retrospective on engineering admissions.
Hunt J. 2016. Why do women leave science and engineering? Industrial and Labor Relations Review 69:199–226.
Ing M, Victorino C. 2016. Differences in classroom engagement of Asian American engineering students. Journal of Engineer-
ing Education 105(3):431–451.
Jennings S, McIntyre JG, Butler SE. 2014. What young adolescents think about engineering: Immediate and longer lasting
impressions of a video intervention. Journal of Career Development 42(1):3–18.
Kania J, Kramer M. 2011. Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter.
Korte R, Sheppard S, Jordan W. 2008. A qualitative study of the early work experiences of recent graduates in engineering. Pro-
ceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, June 22–25, Pittsburgh.
Lattuca LR, Terenzini PT, Fredericks J, Peterson GD. 2006. The changing face of engineering education. The Bridge 36(2):5–13.
Le H, Robbins SB, Westrick P. 2014. Predicting student enrollment and persistence in college STEM fields using an expanded
P-E fit framework: A large-scale multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology 99:915–947.
Lent RW, Lopez FG, Bieschke KJ. 1991. Mathematics self-efficacy: Sources and relation to science-based career choice. Journal
of Counselling Psychology 38:424–430.
Lent RW, Brown SD, Hackett G. 1994. Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and
performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior 45:79–122.
Lent RW, Brown SD, Hackett G. 2000. Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal
of Counseling Psychology 47(1):36–49.

Lent RW, Brown SD, Schmidt J, Brenner B, Lyons H, Treistman D. 2003. Relation of contextual supports and barriers to
choice behavior in engineering majors: Test of alternative social cognitive models. Journal of Counseling Psychology
50(4):458–465.
Lichtenstein G, Loshbaugh HG, Claar B, Chen HL, Jackson K, Sheppard SD. 2009. An engineering major does not (neces-
sarily) an engineer make: Career decision making among undergraduate engineering majors. Journal of Engineering
Education 98(3):227–234.
Lichtenstein G, McCormick AC, Sheppard SD, Puma J. 2010. Comparing the undergraduate experience of engineers to all
other majors: Significant differences are programmatic. Journal of Engineering Education 99(4):305–317.
Lichtenstein G, Chen HL, Smith KA, Maldonado TA. 2014a. Retention and persistence of women and minorities along the
engineering pathway in the United States. In: Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research, eds Johri A, Olds
BM. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lichtenstein G, Tombari ML, Sheppard SD, Storm K. 2014b. Does teaching matter? Factors that influence high school students’
decisions whether to pursue college STEM majors. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference and Exposition, June 15–18, Indianapolis.
Litchfield K, Javernick-Will A. 2015. “I am an engineer AND”: A mixed methods study of socially engaged engineers. Journal
Litchfield K, Javernick-Will A, Maul A. 2016. Technical and professional skills of engineers involved and not involved in
engineering service. Journal of Engineering Education 105(1):70–92.
Litzler E, Young J. 2012. Understanding the risk of attrition in undergraduate engineering: Results from the Project to Assess
Climate in Engineering. Journal of Engineering Education 101(2):319–345.
Long MC, Goldhaber D, Huntington-Klein N. 2014. Do completed college majors respond to changes in wages? University
of Washington working paper.
Luzzo DA, Funk DP, Strang J. 1996. Attributional retraining increases career decision-making self-efficacy. Career Develop-
ment Quarterly 44(4):378–386.
Margolis J, Fischer A. 2002. Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Margolis J, Kotys-Schwartz D. 2009. The post-graduation attrition of engineering students: An exploratory study on influential
career choice factors. Proceedings of the ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, November
13–19, Lake Buena Vista, FL.
Marra RM, Rodgers KA, Shen D, Bogue B. 2009. Women engineering students and self-efficacy: A multi-year, multi-institution
study of women engineering student self-efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education 98(1):27–38.
Marra RM, Rodgers KA, Shen D, Bogue B. 2012. Leaving engineering: A multi-year single institution study. Journal of Engi-
neering Education 101(1):6–27.
Marszalek J, Linnemeyer SA, Haque T. 2009. A Cox regression analysis of a women’s mentoring program in engineering.
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 15(2):143–165.
Matusovich HM, Streveler RA, Miller RL. 2010. Why do students choose engineering? A qualitative, longitudinal investigation
of students’ motivational values. Journal of Engineering Education 99(4):289–303.
Mau W-C. 2003. Factors that influence persistence in science and engineering career aspirations. The Career Development
Quarterly 51(3):234–243.
Max J, Glazerman S. 2014. Do disadvantaged students get less effective teaching? Key findings from recent Institute of Educa-
tion Sciences studies. NCEE 2014-4010. Jessup, MD: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
May GS, Chubin DE. 2003. A retrospective on undergraduate engineering success for underrepresented minority students.
McWhirter EH. 1997. Perceived barriers to education and career: Ethnic and gender differences. Journal of Vocational Behavior
50:124–140.
Melchior A, Burack C, Gutbezahl C, Hoover M, Marcus J. 2015. FIRST longitudinal study: Summary of preliminary find-
ings – Year 2. Center for Youth and Communities, Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University.
Meyer M, Marx S. 2014. Engineering dropouts: A qualitative examination of why undergraduates leave engineering. Journal
Meyers KL, Ohland MW, Pawley AL, Christopherson CD. 2010. The importance of formative experiences for engineering
student identity. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education 26(6):1550–1560.
Meyers KL, Ohland M, Silliman SE. 2012. How self-identification and views of engineering change with time: A study of
students and professionals. International Journal of Engineering Education 28(1):103–112.

Min Y, Zhang G, Long RA, Anderson TJ, Ohland MW. 2011. Nonparametric survival analysis of the loss rate of undergraduate
engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education 100(2):349–373.
Moakler MW, Kim MM. 2014. College major choice in STEM: Revisiting confidence and demographic factors. The Career
Development Quarterly 62:128–142.
Montmarquette C, Cannings K, Mahseredjian S. 2001. How do young people choose college majors? Economics of Education
Review 21(6):543–556
Morones A. 2014. Disparities persist in access to math and science courses, federal data show. Education Week, March 24.
Moss-Racusin CA, van der Toorn J, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. 2014. Scientific diversity interven-
tions. Science 343:615–616.
Myers BA. 2016. Evaluating admission practices as potential barriers to creating equitable access to undergraduate engineering
education (dissertation). University of Colorado Boulder. Available at http://0-search.proquest.com.libraries.colorado.edu/
docview/1793670754?accountid=14503.
NAE [National Academy of Engineering]. 2002. Diversity in Engineering: Managing the Workforce of the Future. Washington:
National Academy Press.
NAE. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington: The
NAE. 2014. Surmounting the Barriers: Ethnic Diversity in Engineering Education: Summary of a Workshop. Washington: The
NAE/NRC [National Research Council]. 2009. Engineering in K–12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the
Prospects. Washington: The National Academies Press.
NASEM [National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine]. 2016. Barriers and Opportunities for 2-Year and
4-Year STEM Degrees: Systemic Change to Support Diverse Student Pathways, eds Malcom S, Feder M. Washington:
The National Academies Press.
NRC [National Research Council]. 2011. Successful K–12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington: The National Academies Press.
NSF [National Science Foundation]. 2014. Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. National Center for Science and Engi-
neering Statistics (NSB 14-01). Arlington, VA.
Nauta MM, Epperson DL. 2003. A longitudinal examination of the social-cognitive model applied to high school girls’ choices
of nontraditional college majors and aspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology 50:448–457.
Nunez A, Cuccaro-Alamin S. 1998. First-generation students: Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary
education. NCES 98-082. Washington: National Center for Education Statistics.
O’Brien V. 1996. Relationships of mathematics self-efficacy, gender, and ethnic identity to adolescents’ math/science career
interests. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences 57(1964).
Ohland MW, Sheppard SD, Lichtenstein G, Eris O, Chachra D, Layton RA. 2008. Persistence, engagement, and migration in
engineering programs. Journal of Engineering Education 97:259–278.
Ohland MW, Brawner CE, Camacho MM, Layton RA, Long RA, Lord SM, Washburn MH. 2011. Race, gender, and measures
of success in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education 100(2):225–252.
Ong M, Wright C, Espinosa LL, Orfield G. 2011. Inside the double bind: A synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate
and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review 81(2):
172–208.
OSTP [White House Office of Science and Technology Policy]. 2013. Women and Girls in Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Math (STEM). Washington.
Pajares F. 2005. Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence: Implications for Teachers and Parents. In: Self-Efficacy Beliefs
of Adolescents, eds Pajares F, Urdan T. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Pascarella ET, Pierson CT, Wolniak GC, Terenzini PT. 2004. First-generation college students: Additional evidence on college
experiences and outcomes. Journal of Higher Education 75(3):249–284.
Pascarella ET, Terenzini PT. 2005. How College Affects Students (Vol. 2): A Third Decade of Research. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Phillips KW. 2014. How diversity makes us smarter. Scientific American, September 16.
Pierrakos O, Beam TK, Constantz J, Johri A, Anderson R. 2009. On the development of a professional identity: Engineering
persisters vs. engineering switchers. Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, October 18–21, San Antonio.
Preston AE. 2006. Women leaving science. Haverford College working paper.
Raelin JA, Bailey MB, Hamann J, Pendleton LK, Reisberg R, Whitman DL. 2014. The gendered effect of cooperative educa-
tion, contextual support, and self-efficacy on undergraduate retention. Journal of Engineering Education 103(4):599–624.

Riley D, Slaton AE, Pawley AL. 2014. Social justice and inclusion: Women and minorities in engineering. In: Cambridge
Handbook of Engineering Education Research, eds Johri A, Olds BM. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rittmayer AD, Beier ME. 2009. Overview: Self-efficacy in STEM. In: Olio Digest: Research on Women in Science & Engi-
neering, eds Bogue B, Cady E. Commissioned by the Assessing Women and Men in Engineering Project, the Society
of Women Engineers, and the Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education of the National
Academy of Engineering.
Ro HK. 2011. An investigation of engineering students’ post-graduation plans inside or outside of engineering (dissertation).
Pennsylvania State University. Available at http://gradworks.umi.com/34/83/3483734.html.
Rodriguez C, Kirshstein R, Hale M. 2005. Creating and Maintaining Excellence: The Model Institutions for Excellence Pro-
gram. Washington: American Institutes for Research.
Roska J. 2005. Double disadvantage or blessing in disguise? Understanding the relationship between college major and employ-
ment sector. Sociology of Education 78(3):207–232.
Rozek CS, Hyde JS, Svoboda RC, Hulleman CS, Harackiewicz JM. 2015. Gender differences in the effects of a utility-
value intervention to help parents motivate adolescents in mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology
107(1):195–206.
Sabot R, Wakeman-Linn J. 1991. Grade inflation and course choice. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(1):159–170.
Sadler PM, Coyle HP, Schwartz M. 2000. Engineering competitions in the middle school classroom: Key elements in develop-
ing effective design challenges. Journal of the Learning Sciences 9(3):299–327.
Sadler PM, Sonnert G, Hazari Z, Tai R. 2012. Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: A gender study.
Science Education 96(3):411–427.
Schreuders PD, Mannon SE, Rutherford B. 2009. Pipeline or personal preference: Women in engineering. European Journal
of Engineering Education 34:97–112.
Schunk DH, Pajares F. 2001. The development of academic self-efficacy. In: Development of Achievement Motivation, eds
Wigfield A, Eccles J. San Diego: Academic Press.
Scutt HI, Gilmartin SK, Sheppard S, Brunhaver S. 2013. Research-informed practices for inclusive science, technology, engi-
neering, and math (STEM ) classrooms: Strategies for educators to close the gender gap. Proceedings of the American
Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, June 23–26, Atlanta.
Seron C, Silbey S, Cech EA, Rubineau B. 2016. Persistence is cultural: Professional socialization and the reproduction of sex
segregation. Work and Occupations 23(2):178–214.
Seymour E, Hewitt NM. 1997. Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Boulder: Westview Press.
Shauman KA. 2006. Occupational sex segregation and the earnings of occupations: What causes the link among college-
educated workers? Social Science Research 35(3):577–619.
Sheppard S, Gilmartin S, Chen HL, Donaldson K, Lichtenstein G, Eris Ö, Lande M, Toye G. 2010. Exploring the engineering
student experience: Findings from the Academic Pathways of People Learning Engineering Survey (APPLES). Center
for the Advancement of Engineering Education Techical Report TR-10-01. Seattle. Available at www.engr.washington.
edu/caee/CAEE-TR-10-01%20APPLES%20v2.pdf.
Sheppard SD, Antonio AL, Brunhaver SR, Gilmartin SK. 2014. Studying the career pathways of engineers: An illustration
with two data sets. In: Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research, eds Johri A, Olds BM. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Shoffner MF, Dockery DJ. 2015. Promoting interest in and entry into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers.
In: APA Handbook of Career Intervention, Vol. 2. Applications, eds Hartung PJ, Savickas ML, Walsh WB. Washington:
American Psychological Association.
SHRM [Society for Human Resource Management]. 2017. Employee Job Satisfaction and Engagement: The Doors of Oppor-
tunity Are Open. Executive Summary. Alexandria, VA.
Simard C, Davies Henderson A, Gilmartin SK, Schiebinger L, Whitney T. 2008. Climbing the technical ladder: Obstacles and
solutions for mid-level women in technology. Palo Alto: Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research, Stanford
University and Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology.
Singh R, Fouad NA, Fitzpatrick ME, Liu JP, Cappaert KJ, Figuereido C. 2013. Stemming the tide: Predicting women engineers’
intentions to leave. Journal of Vocational Behavior 83(3):281–294.
Sjoquist DL, Winters JV. 2015. State merit aid programs and college major: A focus on STEM. Journal of Labor Economics
22(4):973–1006.
Smith P S, Nelson MM, Trygstad PJ, Banilower ER. 2013. Unequal distribution of resources for K–12 science instruction: Data
from the 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

Steele CM. 1997. A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist
52(6):613–629.
Stephan PE, Levin SG. 2005. Leaving careers in IT: Gender differences in retention. Journal of Technology Transfer 30:383–396.
Stevens R, O’Connor K, Garrison L, Jocuns A, Amos DM. 2008. Becoming an engineer: Toward a three dimensional view of
engineering learning. Journal of Engineering Education 97(3):355–368.
Su R, Rounds J, Armstrong PI. 2009. Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests.
Psychological Bulletin 135(6):859–884.
Sullivan KR, Mahalik JR. 2000. Increasing career self-efficacy for women: Evaluating a group intervention. Journal of Coun-
seling & Development 78(1):54–62.
Sweeder RD, Strong PE. 2012. Preparing students for STEM careers at the Lyman Briggs College. Proceedings of ASQ Advanc-
ing the STEM Agenda in Education, the Workplace and Society, July 16–17, University of Wisconsin–Stout.
Tate ED, Linn MC. 2005. How does identity shape the experiences of women of color engineering students? Journal of Science
Education and Technology 14(5/6):483–493.
Tonso KL. 2007. On the Outskirts of Engineering: Learning Identity, Gender, and Power via Engineering Practice. Rotterdam:
Sense.
Tonso KL. 2014. Engineering identity. In: Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research, eds Johri A, Olds BM.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tracey TJG, Sodano SM. 2013. Structure of interests and competence perceptions. In: Handbook of Vocational Psychology,
4th ed., eds Walsh WB, Savickas ML, Hartung PJ. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Turner SL, Conkel J, Starkey M, Landgraf R, Siewert J, Reich A, Trotter M, Neumaier E, Huang J, Lapan R. 2008. Gender
differences in Holland vocational personality types: Implications for school counselors. Professional School Counseling
11:317–326.
US Department of Education. 2007. Upward Bound Math-Science: Program Description and Interim Impact Estimates. Office
of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. Washington.
Valla JM, Williams WM. 2012. Increasing achievement and higher-education representation of under-represented groups in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields: A review of current K–12 intervention programs. Journal of
Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 18(1):21–53.
Wang X. 2013. Why students choose STEM majors: Motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support.
American Educational Research Journal 50(5):1081–1121.
Williams JC, Phillips KW, Hall EV. 2014. Double jeopardy? Gender bias against women of color in science. Published online
at worklifelaw.org.
Williams JC, Li S, Rincon R, Finn P. 2016. Climate control: Gender and racial bias in engineering? Published online at
worklifelaw.org.
Winters KE, Matusovich HM, Brunhaver S, Chen HL, Yasuhara K, Sheppard S. 2013. From freshman engineering students
to practicing professionals: Changes in beliefs about important skills over time. Proceedings of the American Society for
Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, June 23–26, Atlanta.
Wiswall M, Zafar B. 2015a. Determinants of college major choice: Identification using an information experiment. Review of
Economic Studies 82(2):791–824.
Wiswall M, Zafar B. 2015b. How do college students respond to public information about earnings? Journal of Human Capital
9(2):117–169.
Wulf WA. 1998. Diversity in engineering. The Bridge 28(4):8–13.
Yeager DS, Dweck CS. 2012. Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be
developed. Educational Pscyhologist 47(4):302–314.
Yeager DS, Paunesku D, Walton GM, Dweck CS. 2013. How Can We Instill Productive Mindsets at Scale? A Review of the
Evidence and an Initial R&D Agenda. White paper prepared for the White House meeting on Excellence in Education:
The Importance of Academic Mindsets, May 10.
Zafar B. 2013. College major choice and the gender gap. Journal of Human Resources 48(3):545–595.

Major Findings and Recommendations
Engineering skills and knowledge are foundational to technological innovation and development that drive long-
term economic growth and help solve societal challenges. Therefore, to ensure national competitiveness and quality
of life it is important to understand and to continuously adapt and improve the educational and career pathways of
engineers in the United States. To acquire this understanding it is necessary to study the people with engineering
skills and knowledge as well as the evolving system of institutions, policies, markets, people, and other resources
that together prepare, deploy, and replenish the nation’s engineering workforce.
This study found significant good news regarding the engineering profession. The data show that engineers
are rewarded for their work with relatively higher salaries than other college graduates and job satisfaction on
par with employees in all US sectors. For this to be sustained and strengthened, a robust and resilient engineering
education system, profession, and workforce must be nurtured. Factors such as increasing globalization and chang-
ing US demographics should be taken into consideration. This report addresses a few key questions: How well is
the US engineering education-workforce system preparing and using engineers? What adaptations are needed to
ensure that this system can respond effectively and expediently to current and future needs?
This chapter presents the committee’s major findings and recommends specific actions by stakeholders to
strengthen and ensure the vitality of the nation’s engineering education-workforce pathways.
ENGINEERS USE DIVERSE SKILLS IN A VARIETY OF OCCUPATIONS AND INDUSTRIES

Engineering is a dynamic discipline and practice that integrates and applies knowledge from various fields and
draws on a broad and expanding portfolio of technical as well as professional skills, such as creativity and design,
oral and written communication, teamwork and leadership, interdisciplinary thinking, experience with business and
entrepreneurship, and multicultural understanding. Trained engineers use their knowledge and skills in a variety
of occupations and industries and across all sectors of society.
This report defines the nation’s engineering labor force as comprising three overlapping groups: (1) those
who work in engineering occupations narrowly defined regardless of educational background, (2) those with
engineering degrees in the overall labor force, and (3) those with engineering degrees who apply the skills and
knowledge associated with their degree on the job regardless of occupation. About 19 percent of those who work
in engineering occupations hold degrees in other STEM fields or in business. Nearly two thirds of employed engi-
neering BS degree holders work in for-profit companies (mostly large and very large firms), 14 percent work in
117

the government sector, roughly 12 percent are self-employed, and the rest are divided between education and the
nonprofit sector. The percentage of engineering bachelor’s degree holders employed in the United States work-
ing in engineering occupations narrowly defined is about 35 percent, and another 45 percent are in occupations
closely associated with engineering that draw heavily on their technical and professional engineering knowledge
and skills (engineering-proximate occupations):
• management occupations associated with engineering (21 percent),

• computing (15 percent),
• science and engineering (S&E)-related (e.g., engineering technicians, engineering technologists, architects)
(6 percent), or
• other S&E (3 percent).
The remaining 20 percent of people with engineering bachelor’s degrees work in non-S&E, nonmanagement
occupations (15 percent) and management positions not related to S&E (3 percent). Engineers perform a variety
of work tasks, have the highest annual compensation and lifelong earnings of all bachelor’s degree holders, and
have the lowest unemployment rates of college degree holders regardless of their occupation.

flexibility.

ENGINEERING HAS A PERSISTENT DIVERSITY CHALLENGE

White and Asian males constitute the vast majority of employed degreed engineers and those who work in engineer-
ing occupations. The lack of diversity in engineering presents challenges to the nation in two primary ways. First,
there are innovation and creativity costs associated with not using the skills and talents of major parts of the US
population—problems or opportunities not identified, products not built, designs not considered, constraints not
understood, and processes not invented when the diversity of life experiences engaged in engineering is limited.1
Second, given the important roles of engineers in identifying, defining, and solving problems that face society, and
the many material, professional, social, and psychological rewards to those who learn and apply the knowledge
and skills of engineering, it is a serious matter of social justice and equity that Americans from all backgrounds
be encouraged and supported in the study and practice of engineering.
1 Former NAE president Wm. A. Wulf thus characterized the opportunity costs to engineering from the lack of diversity. The Bridge
28(4):8–13.

MAJOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 119
Finding: Efforts to increase the representation of women and other underrepresented groups in engineering
have improved diversity in some disciplines but overall have proven to be less effective than desired.
Finding: Because people with diverse gender and racial/ethnic identities may have different motivations and
pathways in engineering, it is imperative to consider which educational and programmatic interventions are
most effective in welcoming, supporting, and advancing those from underrepresented backgrounds. It is essen-
tial to continue developing, implementing, and evaluating well-designed educational and training interventions
to both attract and retain women and underrepresented minorities and to support all individuals in engineering.
It is equally important to change the perceived and real culture(s) of engineering to welcome all individuals
regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, or background. Recognition of bias, support for work-life balance, and
equal opportunity for training and advancement will help create a supportive environment for all employees.
Recommendation 1: Engineering deans, department chairs, and faculty, K–12 teachers and administrators,
and engineering professionals in industry and government who work with educators at any level should make
concerted efforts to foster an inclusive, welcoming climate/culture for all students interested in engineering and
STEM more broadly, including efforts to recognize and address implicit and explicit bias in their employees
and to create a more welcoming and inclusive engineering culture.
Recommendation 2: Organizations that employ engineers should examine their promotion practices and pay
to ensure that they are equitable across gender, race, ethnicity, and other demographics. In addition, to promote
the job satisfaction, company commitment, and retention of their engineering workforce, companies should
recognize and address implicit and explicit bias in their employees and work to create a more welcoming and
inclusive engineering culture.
Recommendation 3: Researchers, educators, employers, public and private funders, and policymakers should
consider the interplay of multiple internal and external influences over time on an individual’s educational and
career decisions when developing interventions to increase the representation of all populations in engineering.
Informed by this systems perspective, these and other stakeholders in the nation’s engineering education and
workforce enterprise should work together to develop, test, and coordinate innovative, mutually reinforcing
initiatives that produce a significant, positive, collective impact on engineering’s diversity challenge rather
than pursuing many individual, discrete, largely disconnected/isolated, and low-impact initiatives.

THE ENGINEERING COMMUNITY NEEDS TO BETTER COMMUNICATE TO DIVERSE

POPULATIONS THE OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED BY AN ENGINEERING DEGREE
Although engineering enrollments are increasing in US universities and engineers have very low rates of unemploy-
ment, the lack of diversity in engineering suggests that many students do not have adequate information about the
requirements, rewards, goals, and social value of engineering before deciding whether to enter the field. This is
especially true for students affected by systemic disparities in quality K–12 education, including adequate facilities
and resources in schools and access to precollege math or science classes required for the study of engineering. Even
students who attend well-resourced schools may not consider or be prepared for an engineering major if they are
unaware of the profession. It is therefore essential that all precollege students and their families, especially those
from populations that are underrepresented or marginalized in engineering, understand the value of engineering
to society as well as its career-related benefits.
interdisciplinary work, social consciousness, creativity, and multicultural understanding impart knowledge of
the field to all students, and seem to be particularly important for female and underrepresented minority (URM;
African Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and Hispanics of any race) students, who otherwise
may not see engineering as a viable option for themselves.
The committee recommends that the engineering community—industry, academia, engineering societies,
government, and other stakeholders—address potentially negative stereotypes of engineering and more effec-
tively communicate the nature of engineering work and opportunities associated with an engineering degree to
women, underrepresented minorities, and other marginalized groups that remain significantly underrepresented in
engineering, both to increase diversity of perspective and with it the innovativeness and creativity of the nation’s
technical workforce and to provide opportunities to individuals from these populations. Specifically, the commit-
tee recommends the following actions:
Recommendation 4: Engineering faculty, professional societies, employers, and other engineering outreach
organizations should provide K–12 students, their families, and K–12 educators and guidance counselors
with current, accurate information about engineering, both to counter inaccurate stereotypes of the nature of
engineering work and the people who do it and to prepare students to navigate their education and enter the
workforce.
Recommendation 5: Engineering professional societies, employers, and other engineering outreach organiza-
tions should work with families, K–12 educators, and guidance counselors to cultivate all students’ interest in
exploring an engineering major and career by communicating that engineering develops professional as well
as technical skills and equips graduates to do interesting work in a wide range of occupations, help define
and solve important problems for people and society, and make a positive difference in the world. In addition,
K–12 educators and guidance counselors should help families of K–12 students in particular understand the
utility and rewards of an engineering degree, such as the versatility of the technical and professional skills
learned, access to many different careers, and high initial and lifelong salaries.
Recommendation 6: All who are involved in K–12 teacher training and professional development—such as
schools of education, engineering faculty, professional societies, and K–12 administrators—should encourage
and support K–12 STEM educators’ efforts to use inclusive teaching practices that create safe and inclusive
learning environments to support and actively engage students from different backgrounds.

ENGINEERING EDUCATION MUST CONTINUOUSLY ADAPT

The US engineering education enterprise has been largely successful in educating engineers capable of working in
many occupations and capacities that have advanced the country’s innovative and economic strength and benefited
all segments of society. Given the range of skills they acquire in their studies and training, engineering graduates
are well equipped to respond to changes in technology, economic conditions, or personal interests. But to ensure
that US-based engineers have the technical and professional skills required to compete globally and meet the
needs of the nation in the future, US engineering education must continuously adapt to advances in science and
technology fields—especially computing and data science, which provide tools that engineers in all disciplines
must learn to use—and the changing needs of industry, society, and workers themselves. In addition, the ability to
learn over the course of an individual’s career must be taught in undergraduate education and supported by industry.
Finding: The disciplinary foundations of engineering are expanding with the influence and incorporation of
computing, the life sciences, the social and behavioral sciences, business management concepts and skills, and
entrepreneurship. In particular, computing and data science knowledge and skills are increasingly fundamen-
tal to a range of engineering applications; computing occupations employ over 15 percent of all engineering
graduates and are projected to grow rapidly over the coming decade. Engineering schools need to recognize
and support this interaction between engineering and computer science in all disciplines, whether with more
required courses for all majors or the teaching of computing skills as part of discipline-specific courses.
practices, and other areas, engineers must be prepared to pursue lifelong learning activities, including online
To stay up to date with advances and rapid changes in science and technology, the evolving needs and expecta-
tions of engineers’ diverse work environments, and innovations in engineering education, engineering educators
(i.e., administrators, deans, department heads, faculty) should take the following actions:
Recommendation 7: Engineering deans, department chairs, and faculty should acknowledge computing and
computer science (CS) as a foundational knowledge and skill domain of modern engineering education
and practice across all disciplines, and continue to incorporate computing/CS more pervasively into engineer-
ing degree programs.
Recommendation 8: Engineering deans, department chairs, and senior faculty should promote and reward the
adoption of evidence-based best practices in engineering pedagogy, including active and experiential learn-
ing and other student-centered practices that promote real-world applications of STEM concepts to complex
sociotechnical problems like those that engineers will face in their work.

Recommendation 9: Engineering deans, department chairs, and faculty should strengthen partnerships with
industry and other employers to make design courses and high-quality “real-world” engineering experiences—
including internships, co-ops, mentored research projects, and other curricular and cocurricular activities and
programs (e.g., Engineers Without Borders, Engineering Projects in Community Service [EPICS], the NAE
Grand Challenges Scholars Program)—available to students as an integral part of all undergraduate engi-
neering programs. These educational elements help develop students’ professional and technical skills while
providing a window on the active application of engineering knowledge and skills in the private, public, and
nonprofit sectors.
Recommendation 10: Engineering deans, department chairs, and faculty should adapt teaching and career
guidance to better reflect the broad spectrum of engineering, engineering-proximate, and non-engineering
occupations available to engineering graduates. To this end, they should engage (1) educators on curricular
and cocurricular options and adaptations and (2) alumni who work in engineering, engineering-proximate, and
non-engineering occupations and those who employ them to advise students on career options in the many
different industries, jobs, and sectors where engineering knowledge and skills are valued and can be applied.
Recommendation 11: Engineering deans, department chairs, and faculty should work closely with employers
and engineering professional societies to (1) identify and advance the desired professional and technical skills
of working engineering professionals, by offering or supporting continuing education to expand skills and
knowledge, and (2) enhance the currency and quality of faculty teaching by supporting faculty sabbaticals
with engineering employers, the use of adjunct faculty drawn from the ranks of working engineers, faculty
mentoring of undergraduate design projects involving engineering employer sponsors, or seminar series about
cutting-edge technologies and advances in engineering pedagogy.
RESEARCH IS NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND THE EFFECTS OF FOREIGN-BORN

STUDENTS WITH TEMPORARY VISAS ON US ENGINEERING EDUCATION
The nature and dynamics of skilled immigration (i.e., immigrants with advanced skills and training, especially in
technical fields), whether in the form of foreign students or nonstudent immigrants, and its impact on US engineer-
ing education, engineering labor markets, and the educational and career pathways of US natives in engineering
are important. But the subject is sufficiently expansive and complex that the committee intentionally did not focus
its fact finding and deliberation in this area. While the committee considers the broad topic of skilled immigration,
which has been the subject of extensive research, worthy of a full, separate consensus study, the recent growth in
undergraduate enrollment of foreign-born students on temporary visas in US engineering schools is a less studied
piece of the skilled immigration puzzle that warrants additional attention.
school enrollments at the graduate level, whereas the rapid growth of foreign-born temporary resident stu-
dent enrollments in undergraduate engineering programs is more recent. Accordingly, the impacts of foreign
student enrollments have been studied more extensively at the graduate level than at the undergraduate level.
Additional data gathering and research are needed on the nature and impact of foreign-born temporary resident
student enrollments in US engineering programs, especially at the undergraduate level.
Recommendation 12: Universities, statistical agencies, and the higher education research community should
monitor and evaluate the effects of growing enrollment of foreign-born students on temporary visas in engi-
neering, particularly at the undergraduate level, on the educational and career choices as well as the engineer-
ing education experiences of both domestic and foreign students, and on host institutions of higher learning.

DATA GAPS HINDER UNDERSTANDING OF

ENGINEERING EDUCATIONAL AND CAREER PATHWAYS
demand for engineering skills is much greater than that of engineering occupations alone. Yet national survey-based
datasets provide only periodic snapshots of where engineering graduates are employed, the tasks they perform, or
the educational background and job tasks of those in engineering occupations. In addition, the analysis that can
be done for underrepresented minorities is limited by small sample sizes in surveys.
Survey data can be integrated with “administrative data”—data collected by academic institutions, government
agencies, and other organizations for purposes such as administrative recordkeeping, transactions, registration,
and reporting. The resulting information can yield a deeper, more fine-grained understanding of the educational
and career trajectories of engineering graduates and the relationship between engineering education, training, and
workforce outcomes. Aggregating these datasets for research purposes is achievable, but requires a considered
approach, resources to identify and integrate data, efforts to provide security and confidentiality of the data, and
cooperation between researchers and owners of the administrative data.
Finding: Despite some challenges to their use, administrative data can both supplement survey data and offer
a completely new source of data to provide a more complete picture of the education, career paths, and training
of engineers.
Recommendation 13: Researchers and policymakers should work with institutions of higher education, fed-
eral, state, and local government agencies, and other entities that hold administrative data to identify and build
on administrative data resources to establish a better empirical foundation for research on the educational and
career paths of engineers using a wide variety of definitions of what it means to be an engineer. Specifically,
they should:
• Identify resources to collect and integrate longitudinal administrative records from university transcript
data and data from statistical agencies.
• Use the data for characterizing student educational pathways (including student retention in higher educa-
tion), employment choices, earnings and employment dynamics, and the economic returns to the costs of
an engineering degree.
• Maintain the confidential data in secure environments for analysis by authorized researchers for the pur-
poses of building a robust evidence base to inform policy.
CONCLUSION
long-term economic growth and help solve major societal challenges. Therefore it is important to understand
the educational and career pathways of engineers. Using the data available, this report presents a comprehensive
portrait of US engineers, their education, and their careers and career pathways.
The US engineering education system produces versatile and valuable members of the country’s technical
workforce. Engineering enrollments are increasing in US universities and engineers have very low rates of unem-
ployment, indicating a healthy supply and demand for engineers. Engineering graduates have remarkable flexibility
in a variety of careers, including management, and are employed and rewarded in other professional domains.
In addition, the substantial share of those working as engineers who do not have engineering degrees contribute
in important ways to the US economy, and benefit financially and in other ways. This portrait of engineering sug-
gests a field that has impact far beyond traditional measures.

At the same time and for a variety of reasons, women and individuals from certain minority populations
continue to be underrepresented in engineering degree pathways and careers. For this reason alone, it is fair to
say that US engineering is not meeting its full potential.

Appendix A
The Engineering Education-Workforce Continuum1
Donna K. Ginther
Professor, Department of Economics
Director, Center for Science, Technology & Economic Policy
University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS 66045
Email: [email protected]
and
Shulamit Kahn
Associate Professor, Department of Markets, Public Policy, and Law
Questrom School of Business
Boston University
Email: [email protected]
December 7, 2015
Abstract: Using a variety of data sources including longitudinal NSF data, this report finds that the engineering
workforce is growing, is earning a high rate of return on their degrees, and is generally satisfied with their work.
Although less than half of engineers are classified as working in engineering occupations, the data indicate that over
80% are using their engineering training in their work. However, compared to other STEM disciplines, engineers
are more likely to become managers, perhaps because there are few promotion opportunities for engineers outside
of management. The engineering workforce is less diverse than the STEM workforce, having significantly fewer
women and underrepresented minorities and relatively more foreign-born workers.
Acknowledgements: We thank the National Science Foundation for granting a site license to use the SESTAT
data. Carlos Zambrana provided research assistance. Ginther and Kahn acknowledge financial support from NIH
grant 1R01AG036820. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research, research methods,
or conclusions contained in this report. Any errors are our own responsibility.
1 This paper was not subject to NAE editing.
125

“Scientists discover the world that exists; engineers create the world that never was.”
—Theodore Von Karman, aerospace engineer
The link between engineering, innovation, and economic activity is clear. Engineers innovate to solve problems,
and innovation—new ideas, products, and processes—is the key ingredient in economic growth. Many believe that
much of economic growth in the United States for the past 60 years has resulted from innovation and technological
change, and engineers have been pivotal in that innovation (Olson 2014). The health of the engineering enterprise
is tied to the size and well-being of the engineering workforce. The preface of The Importance of Engineering
Talent to Prosperity and Security of the Nation declares: “The quality of engineering in the United States will only
be as good as the quality of the engineers doing it.” (Olson, 2014, p. v).
In this study, we paint a statistical portrait of the engineering education-workforce continuum. In the first sec-
tion, we report statistics on engineering degrees awarded as well as the demographic makeup of degree recipients.
In the second section, we examine employment trends for engineers. To do this, we consider and report on various
definitions of working in engineering as well as career transitions. We also consider employment sectors, earnings,
job satisfaction and working in careers unrelated to engineering. The final section concludes that the engineering
workforce is growing, highly compensated, and using their engineering training in their employment, although
there are concerns related to diversity of the workforce.
1. Engineering Degrees Awarded
Recent Patterns
We begin the analysis by examining engineering degrees awarded between 2000-2013. These data come from two
sources: the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) for bachelor’s and master’s degrees and
the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) for PhD degrees. Throughout this analysis we focus more on bachelor’s
of science in engineering (BSE) and master’s of science in engineering (MSE) because individuals holding these
degrees are more prevalent and more likely to be employed in the private sector. For completeness, we include
PhDs in engineering in this section as well. In Figure A-1 we show the number of BSE, MSE and PhD degrees
in engineering awarded. BSEs in Engineering have grown rapidly, from 60,000 to almost 90,000 by 2013. MSEs
have grown as well, from about 26,000 to 44,000 in 2013. PhDs have grown from 5,300 to 8,400 degrees by 2012.
Figure A-2 shows the breakdown in degrees by field of engineering for BSEs and MSEs from 2000-2013.
The largest engineering fields for BSEs are Mechanical and Electrical engineering, followed by Other engineering
fields combined, Civil and Chemical. The size of fields for MSEs differ with Other and Electrical engineering
being the largest followed by Mechanical, Civil and Chemical. Figure A-3 shows different patterns of growth in
Bachelor’s, Master’s and PhD degrees by field, and interesting patterns emerge. “Other engineering” fields grew
at the fastest rate for all three degree levels. This resulted from large growth in Aerospace BSE and MSE degrees
and Biomedical BSE, MSE and PhD degrees. To some extent growth in Industrial MSEs also contributed to this
pattern. Chemical engineering shows steady growth of around 45% for all degree levels, and Mechanical shows
higher growth for BSEs and MSEs (70-80%) compared with PhDs of 55%. Growth in Civil engineering degrees
is concentrated in the BSE and MSE levels. In contrast BSEs in Electrical engineering hardly grew between 2000-
2013, but this comparisons masks a boom in Electrical engineering degrees through 2005 followed by a bust at
the end of the decade—likely the result of fluctuations in demand from the Information Technology sector (Figure
A-2). In contrast, Electrical engineering MSEs and PhDs grow between 48-57% between 2000-2013.
Overall, the data on degrees indicate healthy growth in the number of engineering degrees awarded. To
underscore this point, Figure A-4 compares Bachelor’s degrees in engineering, computer science, mathematics
and statistics, and physics (Appendix Figure A1-1 shows Master’s and PhD degrees). We chose these comparison
fields because all emphasize quantitative skills. At the Bachelor’s and Master’s levels, engineering is the larg-
est field, followed by computer science, mathematics and statistics, and physics. Engineering has shown steady
growth whereas computer science has fluctuated significantly at the Bachelor’s level—likely the result of changes
in the demand for information technology workers over the past decade. We observe similar trends at the Master’s

APPENDIX A 127
Figure A-1 Bachelor’s (BSE), Master’s (MSE) and PhD Degrees in Engineering: 2000-2013.
Source: BSE & MSE: IPEDS Completion Data; PhD: Survey of Earned Doctorates.
degree level (Appendix Figure A1-1), although engineering MSE degrees grew through 2005, fell through 2007
and then resumed growth through 2013.
Demographics
Although engineering is a large and growing field, one would be hard-put to describe the field as diverse. In 2012,
57% of all Bachelor’s degrees, 60% of all Master’s degrees and 46% of all PhD degrees were awarded to women.
Figure A-5 shows the percentage of engineering degrees awarded to women from 2000-2013. Engineering awards
far fewer Bachelor’s, Master’s and PhD degrees to women than do other fields. In 2013 only 19% of BSEs and
22% of MSEs (and of PhDs in 2012) were awarded to women. These percentages have been essentially flat with
exception of PhDs which grew by 6 percentage points since 2000. In 2012, 13.8% of all Bachelor’s degrees, 12.9%
of all Master’s degrees and 9.6% of all PhD degrees for U.S. citizens or permanent residents were awarded to
underrepresented minorities. Figure A-6 shows that these percentages have been essentially flat for bachelor’s,
master’s and PhD degrees.
Degrees awarded to foreign-born students show interesting patterns relative to the slow- or no-growth in
degrees awarded to women and underrepresented minorities. Figure A-7 shows that only 7-8% of BSEs in engineer-
ing were awarded to foreign-born students from 2000-2013, although the numbers of foreign born BSEs awarded
grew as the total number of BSEs awarded grew. Approximately 40% of MSEs in engineering were awarded to
the foreign-born—with this percentage peaking at 46% in 2004 and decreasing to 41% in 2013. PhDs awarded

Figure A-2 Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees in Engineering by Field 2000-2013.

Source: IPEDS Completion Survey.

APPENDIX A 129
Figure A-3 Growth in Bachelor’s, Master’s and PhD Degrees in Engineering 2000-2012.
Source: Bachelor’s & Master’s—IPEDS Completion Survey; PhD—Survey of Earned Doctorates.
Figure A-4 Bachelor’s Degrees in Engineering and Related Fields 2000-2013.

Source: IPEDS Completion Survey.

Figure A-5 Percentage of Degrees Awarded to Females in Engineering 2000-2013

Figure A-6 Percentage of Degrees Awarded to Underrepresented Minorities in Engineering 2000-2013.


APPENDIX A 131
Figure A-7 Percentage of Degrees Awarded to Foreign Born Students in Engineering 2000-2013.
to foreign-born students increased from 49% in 2000 to a high of 60% in 2007 before dropping to 55% in 2012
(Figure A-7). For all fields in 2012, 3% of all Bachelor’s, 12% of all Master’s degrees and 35% of all PhD degrees
were awarded to foreign-born students. Thus, engineering awards a disproportionately larger share of degrees to
foreign students than other disciplines.
This analysis of degrees awarded shows that engineering is a large and growing field. In related work, Gin-
ther (2015) shows that at the PhD level, engineering is growing more quickly than life science, physical science
or social science fields. Despite this strong growth, diversity in engineering remains a challenge. Women now
receive the majority of bachelor’s degrees in the US but less than 20% of engineering degrees. Underrepresented
minorities receive fewer PhD degrees in engineering when compared to their representation in the population. If
these trends persist, the engineering workforce will not reflect the diversity of the US population.
2. Employment Outcomes for Engineers
Recent Trends in Total Engineering Employment

We use the 2013 Occupation and Employment Statistics (OES) and the 2013 National Survey of College Gradu-
ates (NSCG) to examine employment trends for engineers. The OES is an annual survey of employers conducted
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that provides information on employment and earnings in metropolitan areas,
states and the nation as a whole by occupation. Our analysis of OES data is limited to individuals employed in
engineering occupations because it has no information on education. As a result, we do not observe individuals
with engineering degrees working in non-engineering occupations. We use the NSCG, collected by the National

Science Foundation (NSF), to examine the relationship between engineering degrees and engineering employment.
The NSCG surveys individuals with bachelor’s degrees or higher, and contains detailed information on all degrees,
occupations, employment sector, salaries, the relationship of the highest degree to the job, technical expertise,
reasons for working outside of the field of one’s degree, job satisfaction, and work activities. We consider each of
these data sets and outcomes in turn.
We use the OES data show to examine employment in engineering occupations in the nation as a whole. Figure
A-8 shows the distribution of engineers as a percentage of total employment by state in 2013. Engineers make up
a larger share of total employment in Washington and California on the west coast, Colorado, New Mexico, Ala-
bama, Michigan, South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Connecticut and Massachusetts. New Mexico and Alabama
stand out as places where large federal investment in National Laboratories (New Mexico) and NASA (Alabama)
led to a significant concentration of engineers.
Although the OES is not considered a time-series, the repeated cross sections show interesting patterns across
recent business cycles. Figure A-9A shows that employment in engineering occupations fell after the 2000 reces-
sion and jobless recovery, and then resumed growth from 2004-2008. After the 2008 recession and subsequent
jobless recovery, engineering employment dipped slightly through 2010 resuming growth in 2011 with a sizeable
jump in 2013. The OES data only examines individuals employed in engineering occupations and does not provide
information on those trained as engineers but employed in other occupations. Figure A-9B shows the stock of
engineers holding either a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in engineering from the NSF’s 1999-2010 Science and
Engineering Data System (SESTAT) and the 2013 NSCG. The stock of individuals trained as engineers exceeds the
number of people employed in engineering occupations. In 2003 there were nearly 2.5 million people with BSE or
MSE degrees but less than 1.5 million were employed in engineering occupations; in 2013 there were 2.7 million
BSE and MSE degree holders but less than 2 million working in engineering occupations. These large differences
in the stock of trained engineers and those employed in engineering occupations raise important questions about
the relevance of the engineering degree and whether engineers are using their degrees in their employment. We
examine this issue in greater detail.
Figure A-8 Engineering as a Percentage of Total Employment 2013.

Source: Occupational Employment Statistics.

APPENDIX A 133
Figure A-9A Total Employment in Engineering Occupations 2000-2013.

Source: Occupational Employment Statistics.
Figure A-9B Stock of Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees in Engineering 1999-2013.

Source: 1999-2010 SESTAT; 2013 National Survey of College Graduates.

Do Engineers use their Degrees in their Work?

Although these trends in employment and earnings are informative, the detailed information provided by the NSCG
allows us to examine the engineering education-workforce continuum. In 2013, there were approximately 2 million
people whose highest degree was a bachelor’s in engineering (BSE), and another 700,000 whose highest degree
was a master’s in engineering (MSE). In the analysis that follows we combine all bachelor’s and master’s highest
degrees in engineering together and used these data to examine the employment of engineers. What were these
people doing, and how had their careers developed from when they got their degree? Most importantly, were they
still working in engineering jobs or, more generally, utilizing their engineering education in their work?
The answer depends on how one defines engineering jobs or utilizing their engineering education. Before
turning to that thorny issue, it is important to note that some of these people with engineering degrees – specifically
16.5% of them – were not working at all (or were working part-time and had no occupation assigned to them).
The majority of these were out of the labor force (which includes those enrolled in an educational program), and
about 3% were looking for a job.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) must make choices about what to categorize as an engineering job in
the face of considerable ambiguity. Some of NSF’s “engineering occupations” (listed in appendix A) – especially
“computer engineers - hardware” – could have been categorized under computer occupations while one could argue
that the NSF computer-occupation “computer engineers – software” could instead have been categorized under
engineering occupations (and indeed, is listed under engineering in the 2013 questionnaire but not in the occupation
data itself). Similarly, the line between engineering occupations and what NSF deems to be “engineering-related”
occupations (e.g. Electrical, electronic, industrial, and mechanical technicians, also listed in Appendix A) is not
a clear-cut choice. In the 2000s, SESTAT gave managers in engineering a separate occupational code. However,
NSF only includes as “engineering managers” lower level managers directly supervising engineering, but does
not include higher-level managers even if they worked in engineering companies supervising managers who in
turn, supervised engineers.
In 2013, we calculate that of those with bachelor’s or master’s highest degrees in engineering, 47.3% work
in what NSF considers an engineering job: 46.1% among BSE-highest degree holders and 50.5% among MSE-
highest degree holders. This includes low-level engineering managers. Without these managers, the percent in
engineering occupations is only 39.3%: 37.9% among those with BSE-highest degree and 43.4 % of those with
MSE-highest degree.
However, this narrow definition of engineering occupations is a limited measure of those that use their engi-
neering degrees in their work. In Figure A-10 and the discussion below, we add in others, starting with those to
be most clearly using their degrees and then adding additional people who in our judgment, by their occupation,
activity, or self-admission, are using their degrees in their employment.
The largest subfield of new BSE/MSE degrees awarded throughout the period 2000-2013 were in Electrical
and Computer engineering. Many of graduates in this subfield were classified as working in a computer occupation
instead of an engineering occupation. But we argue they are surely using their education in electrical and computer
engineering. If we add these in with those in NSF engineering jobs, the proportion utilizing their engineering
degrees jumps to an average of 62.3% of the total stock of those with engineering BSEs or MSEs working in 2013.
Also, the line between engineering and engineering-related seems indistinct. If we add the jobs that are
engineering-related, the total percentage utilizing their educational degrees become 67.1% (again, somewhat higher
amongst those with MSE highest degrees than those with MS highest degrees.)
Another way of ascertaining whether those who had highest degrees in engineering were working in jobs
utilizing their engineering education is to look at the answer to the SESTAT question, “To what extent was your
work on your principal job related to your highest degree?” with the possible answers “closely related,” “somewhat
related” and “not related.” 56.7% of those with highest degrees in engineering respond that their job is closely
related to their highest degree. Adding in those individuals with closely related jobs brings us to 76.7% of BSE
and MSE degree holders using their engineering degrees in their employment.
An additional complication is caused by “manageers,” a term we coined for engineers who move into manage-
ment positions. The numbers of those working in NSF-defined engineering jobs included “engineering managers”

APPENDIX A 135
Figure A-10 To what Extent do Those with Highest Degrees a BS or MS in Engineering Utilize their Degrees?
Source: 2013 National Survey of College Graduates. (2013).
– lower level managers directly supervising engineering. However, it does not include higher-level managers even
if they worked in engineering companies supervising managers who in turn, supervised engineers. We have created
an additional category of managers doing work related to engineering that includes people who: 1) have a highest
degree is in engineering, 2) list their primary occupation is a manager, and 3) answer “yes” to a survey question
that their job “requires technical expertise at the bachelor’s level or higher in engineering, computer science or the
natural sciences.” Note that by applying these conditions only to those with engineering as their highest degree,
we believe that we have captured those whose management work requires technical expertise in engineering. This
brings the percentage of those with highest degrees in engineering utilizing their degree up to 82.7.
A final way of determining whether those who had highest degrees in engineering were working in jobs uti-
lizing their engineering degree is to look at the answer to the SESTAT questions: “Which of the following work
activities occupied at least 10 percent of your time during a typical work week on this job?” and “On which two
activities in question did you work the most hours during a typical week on this job?” (with the latter answer
ranked). Of the activities listed, the ones we deem most directly related to engineering are “doing basic research,”
“doing applied research,” “development – using knowledge gained from research for the production of materials,
devices,” “design of equipment, processes, structure, models,” and “quality of productivity management.” Those

who do one of these as their primary activities include only 31.2% of all those with highest degrees in engineer-
ing, which we note is even less than the percentage whose jobs are classified as NSF engineering occupations but
not NSF engineering managers (and the correlation between those with highest degrees in engineering and doing
one of these primary activities is only r=.38). Adding the few people who do one of these as their primary activity
not already included in the group utilizing their engineering education increases the total percent by less than 1½
percentage points, to 84.0% (See Figure A-10).
Figure A-10 then adds in those whose job is only “somewhat” related to their highest the degree (engineer-
ing). This has a large impact, increasing the percentage to 90.8%: 93.5% of those with MSE degrees and 89.8%
of those with BSE degrees. We conclude that this is a very large percentage of people educated in engineering
who are using their engineering degrees in their employment.
To round out our analysis, we add in a few other groups with highest degrees in engineering who are using
their engineering education to a more limited extent: first, those whose secondary work activity is the engineering
activities listed above, then those who engage in these activities for at least 10% of the time, then those who work
in a computer job (but did not major in computer/electrical engineering), then finally those whose job “requires
technical expertise at the bachelor’s level or higher in engineering, computer science or the natural sciences.”
Adding these leaves us with 94.6 percent of those with highest degrees in engineering using their engineering
degree in some way.
Figure A-10 includes all people with highest degrees in engineering who work. Of these, 3.3% work part time.
Somewhat fewer people with engineering degrees who work part-time work in engineering jobs, perhaps because
part-time engineering jobs are less available than part-time jobs in other occupations. (This point is made in Kahn
and Ginther 2015). Including only those who work full time brings us to 95.7% of those with highest degrees in
engineering using their degrees in some way.
It is enlightening to compare this with other fields. The best way is to use the question, “To what extent was
your work on your principal job related to your highest degree?” Figure A-11 shows the percent in each major field
answering that their job is either closely or somewhat related for those with highest degrees either a bachelor’s
Figure A-11 How related work is to the field of Highest Degrees – by major degree field.
Source: 2013 National Survey of College Graduates. (2013).

APPENDIX A 137
or a master’s. The percent working in related jobs hovers between 87.5 and 88.2 percent for those with highest
degrees in engineering, computers/math and S&E-related fields all, considerably higher than the other major fields.
Finally, we note that a major reason that people move from the most narrowly defined engineering occupa-
tions and activities is often to become managers. In fact, people who have highest degrees in engineering are more
likely to become managers than those who have highest degrees in other major fields, with the differences most
striking between engineering and computer/math, biological and physical sciences (Figure A-12).
Moreover, when engineering BSE/MSE holders who do the kinds of activities associated with engineering –
such as applied research or design of products – they get paid less than managers. For instance, we have run a
regression of logged salary on a set of dummy variables for primary work activities as well as on age and age
squared. Holding age constant, the highest salary was paid to managers, the lowest was paid to those doing basic
science (about 58% less salary on average than to managers); applied research was also poorly paid (23% less than
management) and development and design were paid about 10% less than managers on average.
Career Transitions
Figure A-13 (based on the 2013 cross-section) and Table A-1 (based on longitudinal data) provide insight into
the early career dynamics of these occupations. In 2013, half of all engineering BSEs and MSEs are working in
engineering occupations within 0-5 years of their highest degree. This percentage drops with years of work experi-
ence to 36.0% for those with 10-plus years since highest degree. In contrast, the number moving into Management
& Engineering increases with years of experience starting at a low of 6.0% at 0-5 years since highest degree and
increasing to 23.4% by 10-plus years since degree. Thus, engineers seem to transition from engineering occupa-
tions into “manageers,” our coined term for Management & Engineering occupations.
Figure A-12 Likelihood of holding a management job (for those with highest degree a bachelor’s or master’s), by field of
highest degree.
Source: 2013 National Survey of College Graduates.

Figure A-13 Employment of Individuals with Highest Degree BSE or MSE in Engineering by Years Since Highest Degree.
Source: 2013 National Survey of College Graduates. N = 2,722,978.
Table A-1 corroborates the point that indeed, people move from engineering jobs to being managers as they get
older and move up the career later. This table uses the longitudinal aspect of SESTAT to follow individuals through
from one point to another. The first panel of Table A-1 picks up people who received highest degrees (BSE/MSE) in
engineering between 1996 and 2002 and categorizes them by their job in 2003. It then picks up these same individu-
als and asks what they were doing five years later in 2008. We see that of these junior people, 75% of those who
were working in engineering jobs (excluding management) in 2003 are still working in engineering jobs 5 years
later and only 7.1% are working in management jobs associated with engineering. However, Table A-1’s second
panel picks up older people who in 2003 were between 10 to 17 years past their graduation and follows them over
the next five years. Of those who were observed working in engineering jobs in 2003, the same proportion (75%)
were still working in engineering jobs 5 years later. However, 12.5% are working in management jobs associated
with engineering. Of those in this older cohort who started in engineering-related management jobs in 2003, 50%
remained in these kinds of jobs 5 years later. On the other hand, if one was in a management job early in the career,
they were less likely to remain in that kind of job 5 years later (with 35% remaining there).
If the individual with an engineering BSE/MSE starts in a different occupational category in year 5, there is
no systematic exodus from that occupation to management in the way there is from engineering jobs. In the cross
section of Figure A-13, approximately the same proportion of BSE/MSE degree holders are employed in Computer
Science, Engineering-related jobs, Other S&E, and Management Non-Engineering in year 1-5, 5-10 and >10 post-
degree, whereas Non-S&E shows some growth between 0-5 years and 5-10 years and computer science peaks at
nearly 20% 5-10 years since degree and then drops at 10-plus years to 15%.

139
Table A-1 A Comparison between what people were doing in 2003 and 2008.

Another point brought home by the longitudinal data (Table A-1) is that the line between some of these other
jobs and engineering are not are all that clear. For instance, if a young person is observed in an engineering-
related job in 2003, they are just as likely to be observed in an engineering job 5 years later than to be still in an
engineering-related job (each 32.5%). It appears that the “engineering-related” job is just an entry-level job before
entering an engineering occupation.
In contrast, junior people who in 2003 were in a non-engineering STEM occupations in 2003 are not likely
to move back into engineering--only 15% do so.
Employment Sectors
Figure A-14 shows the employment sector and employer size of individuals with bachelor’s or master’s in engi-
neering as their highest degree in 2013 using the NSCG. Figure A-14A indicates that 69% of engineers work in
for-profit companies and another 12% are self-employed (either incorporated or unincorporated) and presumably
for-profit. 14% of engineers work for the government sector and another 5% are divided between education and
the non-profit sectors. Figure A-14B shows that about half of engineers (48%) work for very large companies
with 5,000 or more employees. 38% of engineers work for companies with less than 1,000 employees, and the
rest (14%) work for mid-sized firms with 1,000-5000 employees. Thus, engineers are concentrated in large firms
in the for-profit sector.
Although the majority of engineers are working in large firms, the NSCG data allow us to examine engineering
entrepreneurship for individuals with a bachelor’s or master’s degrees in engineering. This paragraph identifies
likely entrepreneurship among engineers employed in the for-profit or self-employed sectors with either a BSE or
MSE highest degree who report engineering occupations. Of these, 5.4% are working in a business started within
the past 5 years. Self-employment is often used as a proxy for entrepreneurship. If we define engineering entrepre-
neurship as being self-employed (either incorporated or unincorporated) in a job that requires technical expertise
at bachelor’s level or higher in engineering, computer science, math or natural science, then 15% of the combined
for-profit/self-employed population are engineering entrepreneurs. If we further want to identify entrepreneurs
(self-employed) in new businesses, of the 15% who are self-employed, 16% have new businesses started in the
last five years. To put these numbers in perspective, engineers make up 6% of the 55.4 million college-educated
individuals in the US in 2013. Of the total number of technical entrepreneurs – measured as the self-employed
working in a job requiring technical expertise – 20% have some degree in engineering (Bachelors or higher). Thus,
engineers are relatively more entrepreneurial than other fields of study.
Earnings
Figure A-15 shows the annual average earnings in 2013 of those with bachelor’s and master’s highest degrees by
years of experience for engineering compared to other fields. Figure A-15A compares earnings at the bachelor’s
degree level and Figure A-15B compares earnings at the master’s degree level. Engineers consistently earn more
than individuals from other fields. At the bachelor’s level, annual earnings for engineers within 5 years of receiving
their degree average about $60,000 per year, whereas social science and biological science majors earn less than
$40,000 on average. Engineers continue to earn a premium relative to other fields with peak earnings of $109,000
occurring at 21-30 years after the degree. The engineering earnings premium is higher at the master’s degree level
than at the bachelor’s where engineers with 5 years or less of experience earn over $70,000 with a master’s degree
and over $126,000 at 21-30 years after the degree. Only individuals with a master’s degree in mathematics and
computer science and physical and related sciences earn more than $100,000 per year at the earnings peak, but
earn significantly less on average than MSEs.
Job Satisfaction and Leaving Engineering

Figure A-16 shows the percentage reporting being somewhat or very satisfied with their job by engineering degree
and occupation combinations. The first bar shows that 91% of individuals with a bachelor’s or master’s degree in

APPENDIX A 141
Figure A-14A A. Employment Sector for Individuals with Highest Degree Bachelor’s and Master’s in Engineering & Em-
ployed in Engineering Occupations.
Figure A-14B Employer Size for Individuals with Highest Degree Bachelor’s and Master’s in Engineering & Employed in
Engineering Occupations.

Figure A-15A Annual Average Earnings for Bachelor’s Degrees by Field and Years of Experience.
Source: 2013 National Survey of College Graduates. N = 27,802,228 Bachelor’s.
Figure A-15B Annual Average Earnings for Master’s Degrees by Field and Years of Experience.
Source: 2013 National Survey of College Graduates. N = 11,700,923 Master’s.

APPENDIX A 143
Figure A-16 Percent Somewhat or Very Satisfied with their Job by Engineering Degree and Occupation Combinations.
engineering working in an engineering occupation report being satisfied with their job. Similarly 91% of engineers
working outside of engineering occupations report being satisfied with their job. A slightly smaller percentage
(88%) of individuals working in engineering occupations without an engineering degree also report being satisfied.
Of those with a highest degree and occupation in engineering who are dissatisfied, 31% indicate that oppor-
tunities for advancement is the leading source of dissatisfaction (Figure A-17). Other factors such as job security,
benefits, job salary, job location, intellectual challenge, contribution to society and level of independence are
chosen by between 10-15% as reasons for dissatisfaction (note that individuals can choose more than one reason).
Perhaps the most relevant measure of dissatisfaction with engineering is working in a job that is not related
to the highest degree in engineering. Figure A-18 reports the most important reasons that people leave engineer-
ing. 23% work in an unrelated job because a job in their highest degree field (engineering) is not available. This
is followed by 21% who cite pay and promotion reasons, and 20% who report a change in professional interests.
Family considerations (12%), working conditions (7%), job location (8%) and other reasons (10%) are also cited
as reasons for working in a field unrelated to their engineering degree. Taken together, these results indicate that
engineers are very satisfied in engineering occupations. Those who are dissatisfied dislike their opportunities for
promotion; and of those who work in an unrelated field, availability of engineering jobs, pay and promotion, and
changes in career interests figure prominently.

Figure A-17 Individuals with Engineering Degree and Engineering Occupations Reporting Dissatisfaction with Job by Reason.

Figure A-18 Individuals with Highest Degree Bachelor’s or Master’s in Engineering who Report Working in Job Unrelated
to Degree—Most Important Reasons.
Source: 2013 National Survey of College Graduates. N = 338,795.

APPENDIX A 145
3. Conclusion
We have examined the engineering education-workforce continuum with the most recent data available from the
IPEDS Completion Survey, the SED, OES, and National Survey of College Graduates. We have presented infor-
mation on degrees awarded, demographics, employment trends, use of the engineering degree in employment,
career transitions, employment sectors, earnings, job satisfaction and working in an occupation unrelated to the
engineering degree. The picture that emerges from this analysis is one of a robust and growing field.
Engineering has several strengths that will propel the profession into the future. Individuals with engineering
degrees work in a variety of occupations besides engineering, many in computers, engineering-related or man-
agement occupations. At first blush it appears that less than half (47%) of engineers are working in engineering
occupations. However, we argue that this occupation-based definition misses important information, The large
percentage of Electrical engineers working in computer science occupations adds another 15%; those in engineer-
ing-related occupations another 5%. To this, if we add those not already included above but reporting their job is
highly related to their degree (10%) and those in none of these groups but in management occupations reporting
their degree requires technical skills related to engineering (6%) we see that a total of 83% of individuals with
BSE or MSE degrees are using those degrees in their employment. If work activities related to engineering are
also included, then over 90% of trained engineers are using their degrees in their work. As a result, we conclude
that occupation-based definitions of engineering are an imperfect way of examining the education-workforce
continuum. Our approach suggests that narrowly defined engineering occupations do not fully capture whether
engineers are engaged in engineering in their work.
In addition, engineers are highly paid and very satisfied with their work. Engineers with a BSE or MSE earn
more on average than individuals with a bachelor’s or master’s degree in other STEM disciplines throughout their
careers. 91% of BSEs and MSEs in engineering report being satisfied with their jobs.
Despite this positive outlook, there are also reasons to be concerned about the future of the engineering profes-
sion. First, engineering is less diverse than other STEM disciplines. While over half of bachelor’s degrees are now
being awarded to women in STEM fields, engineering lags far behind with only 19%. Likewise, fewer bachelor’s
degrees in engineering are being awarded to underrepresented minorities compared with other STEM fields.
Second, engineering awards a disproportionately large share of degrees to foreign-born students. 8% of BSE,
40% of MSE, and 55% of PhD degrees in engineering are awarded to foreign-born students. Although many of
these students would like to remain in the US, immigration policy and the availability of H1-B visas may limit
their opportunity to do so. The return of these students to their country of origin may constitute a brain-drain of
engineering talent.
Third, we found that engineers are more likely to move into management occupations than other STEM dis-
ciplines. Furthermore, those who are working in a job not related to their engineering degree often do so because
jobs in their field are not currently available and/or because of pay and promotion. Also, engineers working in
engineering occupations who are dissatisfied cite their main problem as opportunities for advancement. Finally,
those engineers that report management as a primary work activity earn significantly more than those who are
engaged in engineering-specific activities such as research and product development. Taken together, these
results suggest that engineers are drawn into management by a combination of higher salaries and advancement
opportunities. Thus, firms employing significant numbers of engineers who want to keep them actively engaged
in engineering tasks may want to consider two employment tracks for advancement in engineering—the current
engineering management track and a second professional engineering track (such as principal engineer) that pays
higher salaries to engineers who continue to work in non-management activities. The professional engineering
track would have a career ladder and pay levels similar to those on the management track. However, instead of
managing personnel and multiple projects, the principal engineers would specialize in solving complex engineer-
ing problems and the professional development of their junior engineering colleagues.
Even with these challenges, the picture we have painted of the engineering profession is a healthy one, espe-
cially in contrast to other STEM disciplines such as biological science, physical science, and social science where
25% - 35% of degree holders report working in a field that is unrelated to their highest degree and the salaries
are significantly lower.

REFERENCES
Ginther, Donna K. (2015). “Storm Clouds on the Career Horizon for Ph.D.s.” Issues in Science & Technology (Summer 2015).
74-77.
Kahn, Shulamit and Donna K. Ginther (2015). “Are recent cohorts of women with engineering bachelor’s less likely to stay
in engineering?” Frontiers in Psychology. 6:1144. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01144
National Institutes of Health. (2012). Report of the Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group of the Advisory Commit-
tee to the NIH Director, Shirley Tilghman (Princeton) and Sally Rockey (NIH) co-Chairs http://acd.od.nih.gov/bwf.htm.
Olson, Steve, ed. (2014). The Importance of Engineering Talent to the Prosperity and Security of the Nation. Washington, DC:

APPENDIX A 147
APPENDIX A1: NSF OCCUPATIONAL CODES USED

Engineering Jobs
510820: Aeronautical/aerospace/astronautical engineers
520850: Chemical engineers
530860: Civil, including architectural/sanitary engineers
540870: Computer engineer - hardware
540890: Electrical and electronics engineers
550910: Industrial engineers
560940: Mechanical engineers
570830: Agricultural engineers
570840: Bioengineers or biomedical engineers
570900: Environmental engineers
570920: Marine engineers and naval architects
570930: Materials and metallurgical engineers
570950: Mining and geological engineers
570960: Nuclear engineers
570970: Petroleum engineers
570980: Sales engineers
570990: OTHER engineers 96
Also:
582800: Postsecondary Teachers: Engineering
Engineering Technologists/Technicians/Surveyors (Engineering-Related)

641000: Electrical, electronic, industrial, and mechanical technicians
641010: Drafting occupations, including computer drafting
641020: Surveying and mapping technicians
641030: OTHER engineering technologists and technicians
641040: Surveyors, cartographers, photogrammetrists
650810: Architects
Computer Occupations
110510: Computer & information scientists, research
110520: Computer network architect
110540: Computer support specialists
110550: Computer system analysts
110560: Database administrators
110570: Information security analysts
110580: Network and computer systems administrators
110590: Software developers - applications and systems software
110600: Web developers
110610: OTHER computer information science occupations
110880: Computer engineers - software
Also
182760: Postsecondary Teachers: Computer Science
Managers:
621430: Engineering managers
621420: Computer and information systems managers
711141: Top level managers, executives, administrators
711470: Other mid-level managers

Figure A1-1 Master’s and PhD Degrees in Engineering and Related Fields 2000-2013.
Source: Master’s—IPEDS Completion Survey. PhD—Survey of Earned Doctorates.

Appendix B
Glossary of Engineering Fields1
Aerospace engineering encompasses the field of aerodynamics in the earth’s atmosphere and in space. Aerospace
engineers concentrate on a number of areas related to vehicle design, such as the development of power units,
vehicle structure, aerodynamics, guidance control, and the launching of missiles and satellites.
Agricultural engineering is concerned with the design of machines and systems used in producing food and fiber.
Agricultural engineers are also called upon to develop new ideas and methods and to apply general engineering
techniques to soil, water, and air resources, power and energy sources, plant and animal environment, and food
handling, processing and storing.
Architectural engineering is closely related to architecture. Whereas architecture emphasizes the esthetics, design
and function of the built environment viewed as a whole, architectural engineering is concerned with the soundness
of the structure itself and its components, such as the mechanical and environmental systems.
Bioengineering and biomedical engineering merge the disciplines of engineering, biology, and medicine to create
techniques and devices that are based on an understanding of living systems and serve the objective of improving
the quality of human and animal life.
Chemical engineering combines the science of chemistry with the discipline of engineering. Chemical engineers
design nearly all of the equipment and processes needed for various types of manufacturing plants. Chemical
engineers are also involved in developing pollution control processes and equipment, and construction and opera-
tions of manufacturing facilities.
Civil engineering deals primarily with planning the design and construction of all the nation’s constructed facilities
(buildings, bridges, canals, dams, airports, railroads, etc.). The civil engineer is also involved in the operation of
transportation facilities and environmental protection facilities relating to water, air, and solid wastes.
These terms and definitions are copied from Vanderbilt School of Engineering, http://engineering.vanderbilt.edu/ge/es140/Otherlinks/
1
Summary.php.
149

Computer engineering, computer information systems, computer science and information science all deal
with digital equipment (computers). The spectrum covers the theory, design, and applications of computers (hard-
ware) and information processing techniques (software). Design of hardware and systems is a predominant area
of programs in computer engineering. Computer science programs emphasize theory of computation, probability,
matrices, and similar subject matter. Computer information systems or information science programs, on the other
hand, emphasize arrangement of input and output, rather than the mechanics of computing.
Electrical engineering and electronics engineering cover everything related to electricity. Electric power engi-
neers concentrate on making electrical energy available and properly utilized. Electrical and electronics engineers
are concerned with systems, circuits, and devices used in communication, computer and entertainment systems,
health care instruments, and automated control systems. A great number of electrical and electronics engineers go
directly into the design and production of computers.
Environmental engineering is a field that has emerged in response to the public’s demand for clean air and
water and a concern over the damage being done to the earth and ecological systems by pollution. Environmental
engineers design or operate facilities for environmental protection.
Industrial engineering has to do with the organization of materials, people, and equipment in the production
process. Industrial engineers design systems and facilities with a view toward ensuring both quality and efficiency.
A subdiscipline called operations research is concerned with decision making based on the management of orga-
nizational systems (Management of Technology).
Materials engineering, metallurgical engineering, ceramic engineering, materials science, and metallurgy
have many things in common. They are concerned with the extraction, processing, refinement, combination,
manufacture, and use of different natural substances. Engineers in metallurgy and metals deal with metals; those
in materials may work with a broad scope of substances; and those in ceramics work with non-metallic minerals.
Mechanical engineering is concerned with the design, manufacture, and operation of a wide range of mechani-
cal components, devices, and systems. Many mechanical engineers are involved in the design and production of
machines to lighten the burden of human work while others practice in the areas of heating and air-conditioning,
automotive, manufacturing, and refrigeration engineering.
Nuclear engineering is concerned with the development, design, maintenance, repair, and control of nuclear power
plants and fuel processing facilities.
Petroleum engineering is concerned with exploration, drilling, and production of oil and gas. Petroleum engineers
also are involved in developing and using increasingly sophisticated recovery methods to obtain economical sup-
plies of oil and natural gas.
Plastics engineering and polymer science is concerned with the production of non-metallic synthetic polymers,
with the goal of optimizing the process and achieving desired properties of the manufactured material. In gen-
eral, the field of polymer science limits itself to determining properties of polymers and does not deal with their
application.
Systems engineering is concerned with designing a number of components that work together in a given situation.
A growing number of systems engineers are involved with the integration of various pieces of computer hardware
to accomplish specified tasks.

Appendix C
Examining Postsecondary and Post-College Pathways

of Engineering Students Who Start at
Four-Year Colleges and Universities1
Sylvia Hurtado, University of California, Los Angeles

Bryce E. Hughes, Montana State University
M. Kevin Eagan, University of California, Los Angeles
Robert Paul, University of Washington
Paper Commissioned by the National Academy of Engineering
INTRODUCTION
Increasing the number of individuals formally trained in STEM and expanding the pool of talent in the STEM
workforce is a national priority (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012). Engineers are
especially in great demand as they play a critical role in technological innovation and contributing to the competive-
ness of the US economy (National Academy of Sciences, 2011). It is of national concern then that students initially
intending to complete degrees in engineering are not persisting to degree completion in engineering. Indeed only
about 50% of the students intending to major in engineering at college entry complete an engineering degree (Wulf
& Fisher, 2002). Completion of an engineering degree guarantees neither entry into the engineering workforce nor
advanced study in engineering after graduation (Landivar, 2013). For example, Lichtenstein et al. (2009) found
only 42% of senior engineering majors “definitely” intended to pursue a career in engineering; another 44% were
unsure and 14% were definitely not pursuing an engineering career. Engineering students’ graduate school inten-
tions also diminish in college; Sheppard et al. (2010) found a greater proportion of seniors (31.1%) intended on
not going to graduate school compared to freshmen (19.2%).
Meeting the U.S. need for engineering professionals will require both improving the capacity for institutions to
produce engineering degrees and strengthening the pipeline from degree completion to entry into the engineering
workforce. Further, more attention must be paid to diversifying the engineering workforce with respect to gender
and race/ethnicity, as diversity in the engineering workforce increases the ability of the profession to creatively
Contact first author: Sylvia Hurtado, Professor, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, 3302c Moore Hall, Los
Angeles, CA 90095-1521. Email: [email protected]
151

and swiftly solve 21st century problems. Meeting these objectives necessitates a better understanding of the fac-
tors that contribute to or hinder engineering degree completion and entry into graduate school or the engineering
workforce. Understanding the educational trajectories and career paths of underrepresented racial minority students
is of particular interest, as these groups continue to grow and become a larger share of the national population,
yet are still highly underrepresented in engineering professional occupations. The purpose of this paper is to use
a variety of national data sources to help understand engineering students’ pathways from initial aspirations upon
college entry through degree completion and commencement of an engineering career. We begin by reviewing the
literature, understanding that previous literature has had some limitations with regard to constructing a portrait of
engineers relative to other career fields.
FACTORS AFFECTING ENGINEERING RETENTION AND GRADUATION

Previous research has identified several factors that affect retention and degree completion among engineer-
ing majors. Knowing someone who works in engineering is an important factor in students’ decision to choose
engineering as a career, though URM students are less likely than White or Asian students to know an engineer
(Trenor, Yu, Waight, Zerda, & Sha, 2008). Students from different racial backgrounds also cite different reasons
for choosing engineering; for example, Trenor et al. (2008) found in a study of female engineering students White
and Asian participants more often cited individual accomplishment whereas Black participants cited more altruistic
reasons and Latinas cited a desire for social mobility. Pre-college academic preparation is one strong predictor
of academic success in college; a single-institution study found pre-college academic achievement, in addition to
college GPA and academic motivation, positively predicted engineering students’ persistence to the sixth semester
(French, Immekus, & Oakes, 2005).
The type of institution a student attends can also affect engineering students’ academic and career trajectories,
as differing institutional missions can shape the culture and environment, which then can support or undermine
students’ educational goals. For instance, students attending a public technical school will be more likely to pursue
careers in engineering than students enrolled at other types of institutions given that public technical schools
often have a high proportion of students in STEM while also offering fewer alternative options outside STEM
(Lichtenstein et al., 2009). Minority-serving institutions offer very unique, supportive environments that play
a crucial role in diversifying the STEM workforce; for instance, Black engineering students attending HBCUs
graduate at much higher rates than Black engineering students attending predominantly White institutions (Brown,
Morning, & Watkins, 2005).
In college, engineering-related activities are strongly related to intentions to pursue an engineering career after
college; involvement in internships or cooperative educational programs positively predicted students’ plans for
engineering work (Sheppard et al., 2010). Sheppard et al. (2010) also found students with higher college GPAs
were more likely to consider an engineering graduate program. Working collaboratively is associated with higher
GPAs; collaboration leads to higher self-efficacy, which boosts students’ confidence in learning course material
(Stump, Hilpert, Husman, Chung, & Kim, 2011). Stump et al. (2011) also found student impressions of faculty
support also increased their academic confidence.
On the other hand, other factors can “pull” students away from their initial engineering aspirations, suggest-
ing that either students’ interests changed or their aspirations may not have been as strong at the beginning of
college as their peers who remained in engineering. For instance, students who had higher levels of interpersonal
confidence or who preferred more critical ways of thinking were more likely to consider non-engineering work,
as were students who had higher levels of participation in non-engineering activities (Bernold, Spurlin, & Anson,
2007; Sheppard et al., 2010).
GENDER IN ENGINEERING
Engineering is one of the fields with the lowest representation of women, a disparity that shows no signs of
shifting. Much of that disparity originates from the low proportion of women who enter college with aspirations
to study engineering (Lord et al., 2009). Felder, Felder, Mauney, Hamrin, and Dietz (1995) found, on average,

APPENDIX C 153
women entered chemical engineering with academic credentials equal to or better than those of men, but women
experienced more of a decrease than men in their academic performance and confidence as they continued through
the curriculum. Accordingly, Hughes, Garibay, Hurtado, and Eagan (2013) found although women were more
likely than men to complete engineering degrees relative to not completing in six years, men were more likely
than women to complete engineering degrees relative to switching into another field. In a separate study, G
oodman
et al. (2002) found roughly 45% of women who left engineering had a grade-point average above 3.0 in their
engineering courses, suggesting women were leaving for reasons other than academic performance. Women in
Goodman et al.’s study were most vulnerable to leaving the major during their first and second years; half cited
dissatisfaction with grades, teaching style, academic workload, or pace of instruction. One-third of participants
pointed to negative aspects of the engineering program’s climate, like competition, lack of support and discour-
agement from faculty and peers. On the other hand, involvement in social enrichment activities, especially study
groups, led to more positive perceptions of the department and classroom environments which in turn were related
to persistence in the major (Goodman et al., 2002). Tate and Linn (2005) also found women who participated in
tutoring and study groups were more likely to persist in engineering. Other studies have found attending office
hours, meeting with teaching assistants, and receiving mentoring positively affect women’s persistence in engi-
neering (Tate & Linn, 2005), and that women engineering students use collaboration strategies more frequently
than men (Stump et al., 2011).
Of those women who do persist in engineering, Goodman et al. (2002) found 80% of fourth- and fifth-year
students expected to be working in the engineering field in seven years. As for graduate school aspirations, Felder
et al. (1995) found in a longitudinal study of a cohort of chemical engineering students that 54% of men intended
to go to graduate school but only 18% of women intended to do so; however, this discrepancy is likely isolated
to this particular cohort. On the other hand, Sax (2001) found among students earning bachelors’ degrees in engi-
neering, a majority of students chose engineering for their graduate field of study (54.2% of women, 57.2% of
men). Other graduate fields selected by engineering undergraduates included business, medicine, math/computer
science, and law.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Much of the extant literature is limited due to small sample sizes, especially from single classrooms or single
institutions, the inclusion of only one cohort of students (primarily in cross-sectional studies), and assessing inten-
tions or attitudes as opposed to behaviors (i.e., intentions to pursue graduate study versus enrolling in graduate
school). We aim to address some of these limitations in order to provide a comprehensive overview of engineering
pathways using longitudinal and trend data as well as data on those who entered careers in industry and academia.
We address these key questions:
1. Who is entering four-year institutions with aspirations to pursue an engineering career? How do these
trends compare across gender and ethnicity?
2. Which college experiences affect engineering retention? Which experiences contribute to students’ sense
of academic or social self-concept?
3. How do engineering degree completion rates differ by gender or ethnicity? How does degree completion
among engineering aspirants compare to aspirants in other STEM fields?
4. What educational and career pathways are pursued by engineering degree completers? How does the type
of institution attended affect these pathways?
Data from the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) helps to correct for some of the aforementioned limita-
tions in that we collected data at multiple time points from hundreds of institutions and took care to sample diverse
students (including giving special attention to underrepresented groups) attending a variety of institutions in pursuit
of STEM degrees. This sampling strategy allowed us to understand diverse students’ pathways and comparisons
with students entering (and exiting) engineering and other fields.

DATA
Trend data. Analyses for this study relied upon several national data sources. All of the trend analyses and
analyses focused on the characteristics of students who intend to pursue engineering, other STEM, and non-STEM
majors at college entry examined nationally weighted data collected from the Cooperative Institutional Research
Program’s (CIRP) annual Freshman Survey (TFS). Each year CIRP’s TFS surveys hundreds of thousands of first-
time, full-time entering freshmen at four-year colleges and universities nationwide. NSF relies on data provided
by CIRP’s Freshman Survey in its annual Science and Engineering Indicators report. Freshman Survey data are
weighted within institution and within institutional type by gender, and the weighted data represent c haracteristics
of the national population of first-time, full-time freshmen in nonprofit four-year colleges and universities in
the U.S.
Longitudinal college survey data. Data for analysis of college experiences was collected from a longitudi-
nal dataset matching students who completed the 2004 TFS at college entry and later completed the 2008 CIRP
College Senior Survey (CSS) four years after college entry. As fewer students complete the CSS than the TFS,
student responses were weighted to account for nonresponse bias to ensure parameter estimates reflected the larger
sample of students who completed the TFS. The final longitudinal dataset included 6224 students, of which 979
were students who initially intended to major in engineering.
Degree completion data. To examine degree completion rates, this study analyzed data from 241,801 stu-
dents who answered the 2004 CIRP TFS and had matched enrollment/completion data from the National Student
Clearinghouse (NSC). NSC provided term-to-term enrollment data as well as information about the type of degree
(i.e., A.A., B.A., B.S.) students completed as well as the academic discipline or field of that degree. The timeframe
for the NSC data ranged from August 2004 through June 2010, which allowed for analyses regarding four-, five-,
and six-year degree completion for students who entered a four-year college or university as a first-time, full-time
freshman. The TFS-NSC dataset also has been weighted by gender within institution and within institutional type
to make this sample of first-time, full-time freshman representative of the national population of first-time, full-
time students who entered college in the fall of 2004.
Longitudinal early career survey data. Post-college pathways were analyzed using data from the 2011
Post-Baccalaureate Survey (PBS), administered to students who completed the 2004 TFS. Responses from the
PBS were then matched to initial responses on the TFS to produce a longitudinal dataset, and the final longitudinal
sample included 13,671 respondents. Similar to the CSS, responses were weighted to account for nonresponse
bias and to ensure parameter estimates reflected the initial sample of students who completed the TFS. The survey
helped capture post-college outcomes seven years after college entry, and the sample included 1,956 engineering
degree holders.
Faculty survey data. Finally, data on engineering faculty were taken from two administrations of the HERI
Faculty Survey. CIRP administers a survey of faculty every three years to capture the experiences, attitudes, and
teaching activities of faculty in colleges across the nation. For this study, we combined faculty responses from the
2010 and 2014 administrations of the Faculty Survey to ensure adequate representation of engineering faculty in
the sample, and none of the participants were included more than once in the sample. Together, 56,122 engineer-
ing, other STEM, and non-STEM faculty were included, of which 1,581 were engineering faculty.
VARIABLES
The CIRP Freshman Survey includes more than 250 variables representing student characteristics, pre-college
experiences, and educational and career goals. To identify characteristics of students intending to pursue STEM
majors upon college entry, we primarily relied upon student demographic characteristics, intended major, and
pre-college academic preparation. These same student variables and institutional characteristics were merged with
STEM completion data to understand differences in STEM completion rates across types of students and institu-
tions. Additionally, both the CSS and the PBS include items pertaining to student experiences in college, and the
PBS also asked students about graduate school and labor force experiences.

APPENDIX C 155
ANALYSES
We primarily relied upon descriptive analyses. Drawing from trend data as well as single-year administrations
of the CIRP Freshman Survey, we ran a series of frequencies and crosstabs to understand how the characteristics
of students interested in pursuing engineering, other STEM, and non-STEM majors have shifted over time. All of
the descriptive analyses of TFS data were weighted such that the findings represent the population of first-time,
full-time entering college freshmen in the U.S. We also ran descriptive analysis on CSS, Faculty Survey, NSC,
and PBS data to highlight some of the important descriptive differences in four-year, completion, and post-college
outcomes among students. In addition to descriptive analysis, we developed regression models to predict changes
in self-efficacy over four years, retention in engineering after four years, and post-college pathways after seven
years. Continuous outcomes like self-efficacy were analyzed using multiple regression techniques, dichotomous
outcomes like retention were analyzed using logistic regression techniques, and categorical outcomes like post-
college pathway were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression techniques.
LIMITATIONS
While the longitudinal assessment of engineering outcomes is extremely useful, several limitations are in
order. First, CIRP Freshman Survey data includes students’ major intentions, and these intentions or aspirations
may differ from the major students subsequently declare. This limitation is particularly important with respect
to engineering, as many institutions require students to seek additional admission to engineering majors beyond
admission to the university. Thus, students responding to the CIRP Freshman Survey may have been less sure about
their major and based their major intentions on positive experiences they had in certain classes in high school.
As we relied on survey data, a second limitation of our analyses pertains to a typical limitation of survey data.
Students completing surveys, especially four and seven years after college entry, may interpret prompts somewhat
differently than we intended, and may recall their experiences during college with dissimilar levels of accuracy.
In general, survey data is reliable, but how students respond may differ somewhat from their actual experiences
and behaviors in college. A third limitation is that the 2010-11 NCS data did not capture students’ term-to-term
academic major. NCS is beginning to collect such information now, which will allow for improved accuracy of
understanding the mobility and sustained commitment to STEM among students in higher education.
Finally, we are limited by the data included on the surveys. Although the academic major codes are broad
(90 different categories), not all majors classified as engineering may be represented. For example, engineering
technology is not something addressed as its own option on the instrument, so these students may select “other
engineering” or simply chose “other” when reporting their intended major. Additionally, although we have a number
of pre-college preparation measures, our list is nowhere near exhaustive.
RESULTS
Characteristics of Students Intending to Major in Engineering

Figure C-1 presents more than 40 years’ worth of data on students’ intentions to major in any engineering field.
In 1971, 6.5% of incoming first-time, full-time students intended to major in engineering. The percentage first
peaked in 1982 when 11.9% of students indicated they intended to major in engineering, but recently intentions
have increased again with 11.2% of students in 2011 indicating an intention to major in engineering. Women’s
intentions to major in engineering are at their highest since 1971; whereas in 1971 only a fraction of a percentage
of women intended to major in engineering, in 2012 4% of women planned to major in engineering. Although
women’s intentions to major in engineering have increased, their aspirations for engineering have consistently
remained low. URM intentions to major in engineering have tracked closer to overall intentions, peaking at 12.3%
in 1993 but recently increasing from 6.7% in 2007 to 9.8% in 2012.
Figure C-2 selects incoming first-time, full-time students who started college in the fall of 2012 and examines
engineering career aspirations across a number of characteristics. Nearly 8% of first-time, full-time freshmen in

FIGURE C-1 Percentage of entering first-time, full-time freshman intending to major in engineering, 1971-2012.
Source: Cooperative Institutional Research Program, Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
FIGURE C-2 Proportion of first-time, full-time freshmen planning an engineering career, Fall 2012, disaggregated by sex
and race/ethnicity (n=192,912).

APPENDIX C 157
2012 planned a career in engineering, but the biggest disparity in these intentions is by sex. More than 15% of
incoming first-year college men planned to enter an engineering career whereas only 3.2% of first-year college
women indicated the same plans. The differences between students of different racial backgrounds are less dis-
crepant; Asian American students indicated the highest rate of intention to pursue an engineering career (11.6%)
and Black students the lowest (6%). All other racial/ethnic groups had engineering career aspirations ranging from
7.7% (multiracial) to 8.7% (White). Although men and women differ immensely in terms of their aspirations to
become engineers, differences by race are much smaller.
Demographic Composition of Students Intending to Major in Engineering

Table C-1 provides the demographic breakdown of first-time, full-time students in fall 2012, both in total
and disaggregated into engineering major, other STEM major, and non-STEM major aspirations. Not surprisingly,
women are more highly represented in non-STEM (56.3%) and other STEM (62.4%) fields than in engineering
(20.6%), though women are better represented in other STEM than non-STEM fields. The “other STEM” category
contains biological sciences and nursing, which are fields with large numbers of students and are overrepresented
by women. Asian American students are most highly represented among engineering students (13%), but White
students most highly represented among non-STEM majors (63.2%) followed by engineering majors (60.8%).
Latino/a students are slightly more represented among engineering majors (9.1%) than other STEM majors (8.9%),
but Black and American Indian students are least represented among engineering majors. These demographics
contribute to these underrepresented groups together being least represented among engineering majors (20.5%)
than their non-STEM (25.1%) and other STEM peers (24.2%).
Engineering students also appear to come from higher socioeconomic status backgrounds. More engineer-
ing aspirants than students who aspire to other majors report their mother earned a bachelor’s degree or higher
(61.6%). Similarly, engineering aspirants are twice as likely as students who intend to major in other fields to
report that either of their parents works as an engineer (16.5% versus 9.5% for “other STEM” majors and 6.8%
for non-STEM majors).
TABLE C-1 Demographic Composition, First-time, Full-Time Freshmen, Fall 2012

All students Non-STEM Other STEM Engineering
(%) (%) (%) (%)
Sex Male 45.68 43.64 37.60 79.36
Female 54.32 56.36 62.40 20.64
Race/Ethnicity American Indian 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.21
Asian 8.85 6.57 11.80 13.01
Black 8.69 8.65 8.80 6.05
Hispanic 9.28 9.49 8.90 9.09
White 61.31 63.19 58.60 60.83
Other 1.44 1.30 1.60 1.37
Two or more race/ethnicity 10.18 10.55 9.90 9.43
White/Asian 75.49 74.95 75.80 79.48
URM 24.51 25.05 24.20 20.52
Socioeconomic Mother’s level of education: College or more 56.18 55.85 55.30 61.61
status Either parent employed as engineer 8.69 6.81 9.50 16.51
Note. All: n=192,912; other STEM: n=60,067; engineering: n=18,128

Source: 2012 CIRP Freshman Survey, Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA

Academic Preparation Prior to College

Table C-2 compares the level of academic preparation of first-time, full-time students in fall 2012 by
intended major groups. Engineering students’ average SAT scores were significantly higher than the other groups
(F=2153.303; p<0.001), and they were more likely to report higher high school grade point averages than the other
groups (χ2=4446.208; p<0.001). Engineering majors also completed more years of high school math and physics
than the other groups, though the other groups completed more years of high school biology.
Changes over Four Years of College

Self-concept. Next, we examined how students’ self-reported sense of academic and social self-concept
changed from their first year in college (2004) to their fourth year in college (2008). Figure C-3 compares aver-
TABLE C-2 Academic preparation, first-time, full-time freshmen, Fall 2012

All students (%) Non-STEM (%) Other STEM (%) Engineering (%)
4 or more years HS math 87.58 85.32 89.60 94.32
2 or more years HS physics 61.39 59.26 61.90 71.62
2 or more years HS biology 50.64 46.51 60.80 42.15
HS GPA: A- or better 49.55 44.55 56.00 62.05
Average SAT score 1143 1125 1148 1231
Note. All: n=192,912; other STEM: n=60,067; engineering: n=18,128. Numbers for average SAT scores represent means rather than percentages.
FIGURE C-3 Comparisons by Major in Self-Concept Change over Four Years in College
Note: Academic Self-Concept contains self-rated measures on: academic ability, drive to achieve, mathematical ability, and
academic self-confident. Social Self-Concept includes self-rated measures on: leadership ability, public speaking ability,
and social self-confidence. Source: 2004 Freshman Survey, 2008 College Senior Survey, Cooperative Institutional Research
Program, Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

APPENDIX C 159
age scores on the two self-concept constructs measured on HERI surveys among all, non-STEM, other STEM,
and engineering students both at college entry and at the fourth year. Table C-3 provides a list of the survey items
included within each construct. At college entry and at the fourth year, engineering students report the highest
sense of academic self-concept and are significantly stronger on this domain than the other two groups at both
college entry and students’ senior year (p<0.001 for each comparison).
In terms of social self-concept, only non-STEM students scored higher than engineering students at college
entry (p<0.05); the difference at college entry between engineering and other STEM students was not significant.
After four years of college, the difference in social self-concept between engineering and non-STEM students
remains nonsignificant whereas the difference between engineering and other STEM students becomes significant
(p<0.01). This finding suggests engineering students gain the most in social self-concept among the three groups
and that academic self-concept does not appear to shift too dramatically.
We also tested for significant differences in the change in academic and social self-concept from college
entry to the fourth year among the three groups. Engineering students’ change in academic self-concept was not
significantly different from either non-STEM or other STEM students, but their change in social self-concept was
higher and significantly different in comparison to non-STEM (p<0.001) and other STEM (p<0.05) students. It
appears engineering students gain the most in terms of social self-concept relative to their peers during college.
In addition to these comparisons, we also tested regression models predicting academic and social self-concept
change in students who had been retained in engineering to their fourth year. These models are presented in
Appendix A. In order to isolate the relationship between various college experiences and change in self-concept,
we included the self-concept scores at college entry as a pretest and also included several pre-college and institu-
tional factors that might contribute to differences in self-concept. The final models demonstrate that several college
experiences relate to change in self-concept. The frequency with which students met with a counselor or advisor
about one’s career plans correlated with gains in academic self-concept, which may also suggest those students
with higher academic self-concept were also more serious about planning for their engineering careers. This rela-
tionship was also observed in the social self-concept model, which again could suggest those students with higher
social self-concept were more likely to seek out opportunities to discuss their career plans. This interpretation is
supported by the finding that higher scores on the CIRP faculty support and mentoring construct also correlated
with gains in social self-concept.
Retention in Engineering
In addition to observing changes in self-concept from college entry to the fourth year, we also developed a
regression model predicting retention in engineering at the fourth year for all students who intended to major in
TABLE C-3 Items included in academic and social self-concept constructs

Academic Self-Concept
Academic ability
Drive to achieve
Mathematical ability
Academic self-confidence
Social Self-Concept
Leadership ability
Public speaking ability
Social self-confidence
Note: Item stem is “Compared to the average person your age, how would you rate your: (ability items). Response scale: 1=Lowest 10% to
5=Highest 10%.

engineering at college entry. This model is presented in Appendix B. Since the overall sample is of all students
who intended to major in engineering at college entry, retention is defined as also indicating engineering as their
major at the fourth year. In this sample, 66.7% of initial aspirants were retained in engineering after four years.
The model tests a set of predictors that include background characteristics, pre-college academic preparation,
institutional characteristics, and college experiences to identify which significantly predict retention in engineer-
ing after four years.
Only one pre-college factor significantly predicted retention in the final model. Students’ average high school
GPA positively correlated with staying in the engineering major at their initial college. The proportion of under-
graduates who are enrolled in STEM majors significantly and positively correlated with student persistence in
engineering majors. This relationship may signal that a higher proportion of STEM majors contributes to a peer
normative culture that supports students’ ability to persist in STEM majors. Additionally, this institution-level vari-
able may be serving as a proxy for technical colleges and universities that have very high proportions of students
in STEM due to very few non-STEM alternatives.
Two engineering-related activities positively predicted retention in engineering. Participation in an internship
program and in a major-related club or organization both positively correlated with retention in engineering. Unfor-
tunately, as we are unable to determine the timing of either experience, we cannot definitively state whether either
or both contributed to a students’ increased likelihood to persist as an engineering major. It may be the case that
students who stayed in engineering long enough were the ones able to seek out these experiences. Undergraduate
research did not significantly predict retention in engineering, but in another model we found research experience
predicted choosing an engineering career pathway after college, so we do not want to discount the effect of under-
graduate research with this finding. Figures C-4 and C-5 graphically represent the relationship between retention
and both internships and club participation.
Two academic support factors also significantly predicted retention in engineering. In fact, the strongest
predictor in the model was the frequency that students reported studying together. Students who more frequently
studied with their peers were significantly more likely to persist in engineering through their senior year. On the
other hand, mentorship from faculty negatively correlated with students’ persistence in engineering, which may
suggest that students who left engineering majors were able to receive better mentorship in their new discipline.
FIGURE C-4 Relationship between Fourth-Year Retention in Engineering and Internship Participation (n=979; p<0.001).
Sources: 2004 Freshman Survey, 2008 College Senior Survey, Cooperative Institutional Research Program, Higher Education
Research Institute, UCLA.

APPENDIX C 161
FIGURE C-5 Relationship between Fourth-Year Retention in Engineering and Participation in a Major-Related Club or
Organization (n=979; p<0.001).
Sources: 2004 Freshman Survey, 2008 College Senior Survey, Cooperative Institutional Research Program, Higher Education
Research Institute, UCLA.
Three other college experiences related negatively to retention in engineering. Taking a women’s studies
course, spending more time commuting, and hearing faculty express racial stereotypes in class all negatively pre-
dicted retention in engineering. In terms of taking a women’s studies course, it also is fairly likely that students
who are not retained in engineering are more likely to take a women’s studies course, though their interest in
critical topics could be a contributing factor to their decision to change majors. Students who spend more time
commuting, however, often commute because they live at home to save money to attend college, and commuting
can cut into necessary time for studying and homework. Most alarming, though, is the relationship between hearing
stereotypes in class and retention. Nearly twice as many retained students strongly disagree that they have heard
faculty express stereotypes than students who were not retained, and more students who were not retained either
agree or strongly agree than those who were retained, which suggests negative classroom climates may discourage
students from persisting in their engineering majors.
Engineering Faculty Development

As engineering faculty are most directly tasked with the professional preparation of engineering graduates, an
important issue in understanding the educational trajectories of engineering students is the preparation and profes-
sional development of engineering faculty members in their teaching and learning activities. Figure C-6 displays
faculty self-ratings regarding how well they felt graduate school prepared them for the responsibilities of being
a faculty member. Engineering faculty rated their graduate preparation the lowest compared to other STEM and
non-STEM faculty in terms of preparation to be a faculty member and second lowest in terms of preparation to
mentor new faculty colleagues. By contrast, the proportions for all three groups are relatively high.
Figure C-7 displays the differences between faculty in engineering, other STEM, and non-STEM fields in
terms of the importance of several teaching goals for undergraduates. Engineering faculty were more likely to rate
preparation for post-college employment, preparation for graduate study, mastery of knowledge in a particular

FIGURE C-6 Faculty’s Perceptions of How Well Graduate School Prepared Them to Be a Faculty Member, and to Mentor
New Faculty Members.
Note: non-STEM faculty n=38,848; other STEM faculty n=15,693; engineering faculty n=1581; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001.
Source: 2010 and 2014 Faculty Surveys, Cooperative Institutional Research Program, Higher Education Research Institute,
UCLA.
FIGURE C-7 Importance of Teaching Goals among Faculty, by Discipline.

Note: non-STEM faculty ( n=38,848); Other STEM faculty (n=15,693); Engineering faculty (n=1,581); ** p<0.01; ***
p<0.001. Source: 2010 and 2014 Faculty Surveys, Cooperative Institutional Research Program, Higher Education Research
Institute, UCLA.
discipline, and the development of creative capacities as important or essential teaching goals for their undergradu-
ate courses relative to their colleagues in other disciplines.
Other evidence suggests engineering faculty may not be as prepared to realize their commitment to these
student learning outcomes through their practice in the classroom. Both engineering and other STEM faculty were
significantly less likely to report employing student-centered teaching strategies, and these findings are shown in

APPENDIX C 163
Figure C-8. The activities included within the overall student-centered pedagogy construct are listed in the figure.
In addition, engineering faculty were the least likely to participate in faculty development activities, as shown in
Figure C-9. Encouragingly, though, engineering faculty were the most likely to involve undergraduates in research,
an important factor contributing to students’ choice of engineering as a career after completing college.
Degree Completion
Overall, nearly 16% of engineering aspirants complete an engineering degree in four years, 35% in five years,
and 40% in six years. Previous research has also demonstrated that not only do engineering students tend to finish
in five years but engineering programs also are shifting toward five-year programs that either allow students to
simultaneously complete their bachelor’s degrees with a master’s degree, or require a greater amount of courses
than other undergraduate majors. It is no surprise then that the biggest increase in degree completion rates happens
between four-year and five-year completion. In addition, 20% of engineering aspirants completed a degree in any
STEM field in four years, 44% in five years, and slightly more than half in six years.
Figure C-10 displays both overall engineering degree completion and completion disaggregated by status as
an underrepresented racial/ethnic minority. Figure C-11 displays this similar disaggregation for STEM completion,
and Figure C-12 disaggregates engineering completion by sex. In general, White and Asian American students
complete engineering and STEM degrees at much higher rates than their URM peers, but women enjoy higher
completion rates than their male peers. These patterns mirror broader patterns in degree completion in higher
education in the United States and point to the persistent disparities in URM students’ pursuit of engineering
degrees. In other words, as we established earlier that there are very small differences between URM and White/
Asian American students in terms of their aspirations to engineering degrees and careers, those aspirations do not
translate into equitable outcomes after even six years of college. On the other hand, although women are severely
underrepresented in engineering, women who start in engineering are more likely to earn a degree in engineering
relative to their male peers.
FIGURE C-8 Importance of Teaching Goals among Faculty, by Discipline.

Note: Non-STEM faculty, n=38,848; other STEM faculty, n=15,693; engineering faculty, n=1581. *** Difference from engi-
neering faculty significant at p<0.001. Source: 2010 and 2014 Faculty Surveys, Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

FIGURE C-9 Faculty Participation in Teaching Enhancement Workshops and Inclusion of Undergraduates on Research
Projects
Note: Non-STEM faculty, n=38,848; other STEM faculty, n=15,693; engineering faculty, n=1,581. *** Difference from engi-
neering faculty significant at p<0.001. Source: 2010 and 2014 Faculty Surveys, Cooperative Institutional Research Program,
Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
FIGURE C-10 Engineering Completion Rates of Engineering Degree Aspirants, by Race.


APPENDIX C 165
FIGURE C-11 STEM Completion Rates of Engineering Degree Aspirants, by Race.

FIGURE C-12 Engineering Completion Rates among Engineering Aspirants, by Sex


In comparison to two other STEM fields, physical sciences and biomedical sciences, students who start in
engineering are much more likely to earn a bachelor’s degree in their originally intended field. Figure C-13 dis-
plays the various completion outcomes of students who aspired to engineering, physical sciences, and biomedical
sciences majors. The proportion of engineering students who completed a non-STEM degree is lowest among the
three groups. Engineering aspirants are slightly more likely to drop out (30%) than complete in a non-STEM field
(20%), which may be an indication of attending colleges specialized in engineering with fewer options available,
as this is distinctly different from students in other STEM fields.
Table C-4 provides more insight into these four academic outcomes of engineering students. Women were
most represented among engineering aspirants who completed in other STEM fields and least represented among
students who did not complete a degree. URM students, however, were most represented among students who
did not complete a degree, and least represented among students who completed an engineering degree. Students
whose mothers had higher levels of education, students with higher GPAs, higher SAT scores, and who had taken
more years of math and physics in high school were most represented among those who completed engineering
degrees. Of those who chose engineering, the students who completed engineering degrees tended to be those
students with the highest pre-college academic preparation. In other words, considering that many programs require
separate admission into engineering programs, introductory coursework can also serve to exclude students whose
pre-college academic preparation was not comparable to peers with college-educated parents and focus advantages
associated with high school resources.
Post-College Outcomes
Figure C-14 displays the highest planned degrees of engineering degree holders one to three years after com-
pleting their engineering degrees (seven years after entering college). A plurality of engineering degree holders
aspire to a master’s degree as the highest degree they intend to pursue; more than 40% of engineering degree
holders aspire to a master’s degree while slightly more than 30% plan to seek no further education beyond their
FIGURE C-13 Six-Year Completion Outcomes by STEM Field Aspiration

Note: engineering, n=16,298; physical sciences, n=4358; biomedical sciences, n=23,406; sources: 2004 Freshman Survey, Co-
operative Institutional Research Program, Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA; National Student Clearinghouse, 2010.

APPENDIX C 167
TABLE C-4 Demographic Comparison between Engineering Completers and “Leavers”

Six-year outcome (%)
Demographics Engineering Other STEM Non-STEM No degree
Female 18.02 23.82 19.51 11.22
URM 10.01 14.48 13.16 31.74
Non-Native English Speaker 10.17 10.5 8.25 11.13
Mother has at least a college degree 64.46 60.7 57.95 45.37
Academic Preparation
High school GPA at least A- 77.58 66.56 58.93 37.36
At least 4 years of math in HS 96.10 94.50 93.59 87.00
At least 2 years of physics in HS 73.59 70.11 66.16 61.60
Average SAT score*** 1268 1224 1186 1118
Note. n=16,298; *** difference from engineering is significant at p<0.001; sources: 2004 Freshman Survey, Cooperative Institutional Research
Program, Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA; National Student Clearinghouse, 2010.
FIGURE C-14 Degree Aspirations among Engineering Graduates, as of June 2011 (N=1956).
Source: 2011 Post-baccalaureate Survey, Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
bachelor’s degrees. Slightly less than 12% aspire each to a doctoral degree and a business graduate degree, and
very small percentages aspire to medical, law, or other terminal degrees. Disaggregated by gender, somewhat
higher proportions of women aspire to doctoral and graduate business degrees, but higher proportions of men
aspire to master’s degrees, displayed in Figure C-15. When examined by underrepresented status, nearly equivalent
proportions of URM and White/Asian American engineering degree holders aspire to master’s degrees. However,
higher proportions of White/Asian American degree holders aspire to doctoral and graduate business degrees, and
the proportion of URM degree holders who do not plan to pursue education beyond a bachelor’s degree is nearly
equivalent to the proportion who aspire to a master’s degree. These differences are displayed in Figure C-16.

FIGURE C-15 Degree Aspirations among Engineering Graduates, as of June 2011, by Sex (N=1956)
FIGURE C-16 Degree Aspirations among Engineering Graduates, as of June 2011, by Race
Note: n=1,956. Source: 2011 Post-baccalaureate Survey, Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

APPENDIX C 169
To conceptualize the various post-college pathways taken by people who graduate with degrees in engineer-
ing, a flowchart is presented in Figure C-17 to illustrate the various decisions made by degree holders seven years
after entering college. A small percentage leaves the workforce all together; only 3.4% indicated they were not
working and did not plan to work. Nearly 30% had attended, or were attending, graduate or professional school
of some sort – the vast majority of whom had chosen an engineering graduate program. Less than 9% pursued
other STEM graduate study, and approximately 15% chose a non-STEM field, often business. Of those who had
attended graduate school, slightly more than 40% were currently enrolled at the time the survey was administered.
Slightly more than two-thirds of engineering degree holders entered the workforce without pursuing graduate study,
and more than 9 in 10 of those in the workforce were currently employed at the time of the survey. Of those who
were currently employed, the vast majority in this group were employed as engineers; approximately 5% worked
in other STEM-related careers and nearly one-quarter were employed in non-STEM occupations.
The multivariate analyses also identified the type of institutions engineering aspirants attend that predict dif-
ferent pathways taken after completing their degrees. The regression model is displayed in Appendix C. These
pathways include engineering pathways (choosing an engineering job or enrolling in an engineering graduate
program), other STEM pathways (i.e., choosing a non-engineering STEM-related job or graduate program after
college), or non-STEM pathways. Attending a four-year college, as opposed to a university, predicts a higher like-
lihood of choosing an engineering pathway over either a non-STEM or other STEM pathway. Attending a public
university, compared to a private university, predicts a higher likelihood of choosing an engineering pathway over
another STEM pathway. Finally, attending a more selective institution predicts a higher likelihood of choosing
a non-STEM post-college pathway over an engineering pathway. Given the level of talent and persistence to the
degree, this is somewhat disappointing that such students are less likely to continue in engineering after gradua-
tion. Further analysis of reasons for working in unrelated careers, post-college plans, and expectations follow in
the next sections.
Employment Outcomes
To get a sense of the type of careers graduate students planned to pursue after completing their programs,
Figure C-18 illustrates the immediate expectations graduate students had for employment upon completion of
their programs, and Figure C-19 displays these students’ ultimate career goals. Nearly half of graduate students
expected to be employed in industry while another 30% expected to work in a position for which their program
prepared them upon graduation. These figures changed very little between immediate expectations and ultimate
goals, with the percentage of graduate students choosing “other position in industry” as their ultimate goal drop-
ping by about 6%. The biggest change from immediate expectation to ultimate goal was in the percentage who
FIGURE C-17 Post-College Pathways of Engineering Degree Holders (N=1,956)


FIGURE C-18 Immediate employment expectations of engineering degree holders who attended graduate school; n=749.
Note: An additional 1.77% selected tenure-track faculty, non-tenure-track faculty, and non-postsecondary teacher as their
expectation. Source: 2011 Post-Baccalaureate Survey, Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
FIGURE C-19 Ultimate career goals of engineering degree holders who attended graduate school; n=749.
Source: 2011 Post-Baccalaureate Survey, Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
Note: An additional 3.16% selected non-tenure-track faculty, postdoctoral researcher, non-postsecondary teacher, and r esearcher,
academic setting, as their goal. Source: 2011 Post-Baccalaureate Survey, Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

APPENDIX C 171
planned to become tenure track faculty members. Fewer than 2% selected either tenure-track, non-tenure-track, or
non-postsecondary faculty member as their immediate expectation, but more than 8% chose tenure-track faculty
member as their ultimate career goal. Although most engineering degree holders who pursue graduate study plan
to work as engineers, nearly one in five is considering some type of academic or research position after complet-
ing their graduate work.
Economic Satisfaction
As this particular cohort of engineering graduates completed their bachelor’s degrees right as the recent
Great Recession set in, they were asked a series of questions about their satisfaction with their standard of living
and whether the economy affected them in any adverse manner. Overall, more than three-quarters of engineer-
ing degree holders indicated agreement that they were satisfied with their current standard of living. More than
one-third, however, agreed that the economy had hurt their standard of living, nearly 40% had trouble finding a
job, and almost half felt the economy affected decisions about their careers (see Figure C-20). Overall, 63% of
engineering degree holders agreed with at least one of the three economic concerns, although a slightly smaller
proportion (58%) of those satisfied with their standard of living agreed with at least one of the three concerns.
These data were also disaggregated by sex and status as an underrepresented racial or ethnic minority. Only two
items differed significantly on the basis of sex. Women were more satisfied with their standard of living, and men
were more likely to agree that they have had trouble finding a job. Three items differed significantly between URM
participants and their White and Asian American colleagues. White and Asian American degree holders were more
likely to indicate satisfaction with their current standard of living, while URM degree holders were more likely to
hold at least one of the three economic concerns included on the survey. Additionally, URM degree holders were
FIGURE C-20 Economic Concerns among Engineering Degree Holders, by Race/Ethnicity (N=1,956)
Source: 2011 Post-Baccalaureate Survey, Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

FIGURE C-21 Economic Concerns among Engineering Degree Holders, by Sex (N=1,956)
the only group where the proportion of those who expressed satisfaction with their standard of living who agreed
with at least one financial concern was higher than the proportion of overall URM engineering degree holders.
Reasons for Working in Unrelated Career

Approximately 12% (n=49) of the sample of engineering degree holders indicated working in a career that
was unrelated to the discipline of their highest degree. Respondents who were working in an unrelated field were
then asked a series of questions to determine some of the major reasons they chose to work outside their field. The
reason most participants indicated affecting their decision to work outside their field at least to some extent was
job location. More than 70% found location to be an important factor. More than half of participants also indicated
pay and promotion opportunities (64%) and working conditions (55%) as affecting their decision as well. Equal
proportions (43%) indicated family-related reasons or job availability as an important factor, and only one-third
cited a change in professional interests as the reason for working outside their field. For this cohort, the decision to
work outside their field of study appeared to result more from the economy and other structural factors than from
a change in their interests. These data could not be disaggregated by sex or race due to the very small number of
survey respondents who indicated working outside their field.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Although the proportion of entering first-time, full-time college students interested in studying engineering has
increased over the past decade, national reports still voice a concern that this increase has been insufficient to meet
projected engineering workforce needs. Engineering aspirants are also some of the highest academically perform-
ing students in the nation, which may be attributable both to the selective admissions processes into engineering
majors at many universities as well as students’ preconceptions that engineering is an academically demanding

APPENDIX C 173
field. Although engineering students complete degrees within their field at higher rates (41%) than physical (32%)
or biomedical science students (37%), engineering students were also more likely to have not completed within six
years (30% compared to 24% and 29%, respectively). In addition, many of these engineering bachelor’s degree
holders chose post-college career and educational pathways outside of engineering. The purpose of this paper was
to explore these outcomes and how college experiences predicted both retention in engineering degree programs
and the pathways graduates took after completing their undergraduate programs.
Our analysis demonstrated various experiences that likely contributed to students’ retention in engineering
programs and their selection of an engineering post-college pathway. Experiences that predicted retention in
engineering included participation in internship programs and major-related clubs or organizations as well as
studying with other students more frequently. Undergraduate research participation was also descriptively related
to retention, and although it did not predict retention above other factors in our final regression model, under-
graduate research did predict a higher likelihood of students choosing an engineering graduate program or an
engineering job after graduation. Given engineering faculty were most likely to report involving undergraduates
in their research, this finding is encouraging as it appears to enhance students’ aspirations to pursue a career in
engineering. In addition, engineering students reported the highest levels of academic self-concept but reported the
most growth in social self-concept. Faculty support and mentoring and studying with peers both related to gains
in academic and social self-concept.
In terms of broader goals around diversifying the engineering field, women in particular continue to be under-
represented in engineering from college entry through entrance into the workforce. As women’s completion rates
were higher than men’s, most of their underrepresentation seemed to stem from low representation at college
entry. In addition, underrepresented racial/ethnic minority students entered college with similar aspirations as
their White and Asian American peers to pursue engineering, but graduated in engineering, and STEM overall, at
much lower rates. For URM students, experiences in college are likely diverting their engineering aspirations; one
factor negatively predicting retention in engineering was the frequency students reported hearing faculty express
racial stereotypes.
After completing college, approximately 40% of engineering degree holders intended to pursue some type of
a master’s program, while 30% planned no further education than their bachelor’s degree and the remainder had
higher degree aspirations. Women were somewhat more likely than men, and White and Asian American students
more likely than their URM peers, to aspire to doctoral degrees. By seven years after college entry, nearly 30% of
engineering degree holders had enrolled and possibly completed some type of graduate program, with more than
three-quarters pursuing an engineering graduate degree. Of those who entered the labor force after graduation,
approximately 70% were working in an engineering career seven years after first entering college. Small propor-
tions indicated either being unemployed or having left the workforce altogether. For engineering graduates who
were working in an unrelated field, the most frequently cited reason for working outside their field was related to
location (~70%); other reasons included pay or promotion opportunities (64%), working conditions (55%), family
reasons (43%), and job availability (43%). In general, most people who complete an engineering degree remain
in the field after graduation; for those who do not the most cited reason is a geographic employment restriction. It
appears that the better higher education can support engineering aspirants’ plans to pursue engineering as a career,
and increase engineering degree productivity rates, those graduates will likely enter the engineering workforce
and replenish projected needs.
These findings lead to several recommendations in order to boost engineering degrees and movement of
diverse students through academic programs and into the workforce or academia. We offer recommendations in
three major areas that are appropriate for practice and policy within and across institutions.
Improving diversity in engineering:

• Students can benefit from targeted activities to improve knowledge about engineering careers and increase
engineering degree aspirations prior to and during the first year of college. However, the data indicate that
women and African Americans may particularly benefit since their initial interests have been lower than
their representation in the four-year college population. We recommend pre-college programs that target
these students and provide hands-on opportunities for design activities and enhance use of mathematics and

physics curricula. Women, in particular, have good retention rates once identifying an interest in engineering
and can immediately benefit from activities to increase awareness, knowledge about careers, and interest at
earlier stages of the education pipeline. This can occur by augmenting high school curricula and offering
summer programs targeted for women and African Americans with promising mathematics and physics
knowledge and abilities.
• Collaborations with industries can serve as important partners to sponsor activities in local schools that
may be financially-strapped to help orient students toward careers in engineering. Retired engineers may
consider teaching and/or offering services to help mentor or educate more youth in a variety of schools to
understand engineering careers.
• Hispanic students enter college with aspirations in engineering similar to their representation in four-year
institutions. This indicates that we can build on student interest and motivation but also that specific groups
require more assistance in sustaining their interests during college through 1) increasing mastery of material
to overcome uneven preparation in schools, which contributes to academic self-concept, 2) and developing
supportive transition programs for aspiring engineers that ensure their success in the first year of college
and beyond.
Building and sustaining support for college students:

• Within institutions of higher education, many introductory courses in physics have been redesigned
as working studios of active learning, which not only helps mastery of the material but also attracts
students who may otherwise opt toward other fields of study. Engineering schools and departments should
collaborate with faculty teaching introductory courses (mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology) to
provide more problem-based and active learning environments.
• Peers and peer clubs and organizations focused on academics and careers (e.g. Society of Black Engineers,
Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers) are important activities that are related retention in engineering.
Institutions should support such student-run organizations academically and financially.
• Institutions should ensure a range of internship opportunities are made available to all students, with specific
attention to underrepresented groups who may not otherwise have access to the same opportunities or
networks. Internships work to increase retention and help students to see themselves becoming an engineer.
• Engineering schools and departments should promote faculty development to work with diverse learners,
understand the effects of implicit bias and negative stereotyping, and build inclusive classroom environments
so that students learn to work in teams with diverse classmates. Underrepresented groups are often the target
of stereotyping, offensive comments, or exclusion when they are “solo status” or one of the few women
or minorities in education or work environments.
Sustaining support for graduate study and work in engineering:

• Faculty networks and support are critical to students finding appropriate graduate programs, gaining
admission, and identifying a range of careers in research and academia. Faculty recognition is critical to
becoming a scientist and many students may not initially see themselves as pursuing graduate work without
the advice or encouragement from faculty.
• Selective institutions often divert talented students to other non-STEM fields during college, but these
data show that they also do so after college. If they prepare more students for graduate study, they should
consider specific initiatives to help train graduate students to become effective teachers in engineering and
other science fields. They may also consider building partnerships with industry into education programs
to encourage engineering graduates to advance the next scientific innovations.
• Economic issues play an important role in determining students’ choices after obtaining a degree in
engineering. Finding ways to make the most of highly skilled engineers in a variety of work environments
should be a joint effort of academia and industry particularly during periods of retrenchment. Future work
may help to identify multiple pathways in the long term careers of engineers so that more young people
can take a longer view of the choices they make now that may move them from scientific development, to
assessing government needs, and/or policy work.

APPENDIX C 175
National reports project colleges and universities in the United States are not graduating enough students in
science and engineering programs to meet anticipated workforce needs (President’s Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology, 2012). This study examined students’ trajectories through engineering programs from college
entry through their post-college academic and employment outcomes. Higher education plays an important role
in training tomorrow’s engineers; by identifying factors that contribute to retention, degree completion, and post-
college pathways, this study helps inform policy and practice to improve the capacity of colleges and universities
for replenishing the nation’s engineering workforce.
REFERENCES
Bernold, L. E., Spurlin, J. E., & Anson, C. M. (2007). Understanding our students: A longitudinal-study of success and failure
in engineering with implications for increased retention. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(3), 263-274.
Brown, A. R., Morning, C., & Watkins, C. (2005). Influence of African American Engineering Student Perceptions of Campus
Climate on Graduation Rates. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(2), 263-272.
Felder, R. M., Felder, G. N., Mauney, M., Hamrin, C. E., Jr., & Dietz, F. J. (1995). A longitudinal study of engineering student
performance and retention: Gender differences in student performances and attitudes. Journal of Engineering Education,
84(2), 151-163.
French, B. F., Immekus, J. C., & Oakes, W. C. (2005). An examination of indicators of engineering students’ success and
persistence. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(4), 419-425.
Goodman, I. F., Cunningham, C. M., Lachapelle, C., Thompson, M., Bittinger, K., Brennan, R. T., & Delci, M. (2002). Final
Report of the Women’s Experiences in College Engineering (WECE) Project (ED507395). Retrieved from
Hughes, B. E., Garibay, J. C., Hurtado, S., & Eagan, K. (2013). Examining the Tracks That Cause Derailment: Institutional
Contexts and Engineering Degree Attainments. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, CA.
Landivar, L. C. (2013). The Relationship Between Science and Engineering Education and Employment in STEM Occupations.
Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from www.census.gov
Lichtenstein, G., Loshbaugh, H. G., Claar, B., Chen, H. L., Jackson, K., & Sheppard, S. D. (2009). An Engineering Major
Does Not (Necessarily) an Engineer Make: Career Decision Making Among Undergraduate Engineering Majors. Journal
of Engineering Education, 98(3), 227-234.
Lord, S. M., Camacho, M. M., Layton, R. A., Long, R. A., Ohland, M. W., & Wasburn, M. H. (2009). Who’s persisting in
engineering? A comparative analysis of female and male Asian, black, Hispanic, Native American, and white students.
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 15(2).
National Academy of Sciences. (2011). Expanding underrepresented minority participation. Washington, D.C.: National Acad-
emies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12984.html
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college
graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, D.C.: Executive Office of the
President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Retrieved from http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo21068
Sax, L. J. (2001). Undergraduate science majors: Gender differences in who goes to graduate school. The Review of Higher
Education, 24(2), 153-172.
Sheppard, S., Gilmartin, S., Chen, H., Donaldson, K., Lichtenstein, G., Eris, Ö., . . . Toye, G. (2010). Exploring the engineering
student experience: Findings from the academic pathways of people learning engineering survey (APPLES). Center for
the Advancement of Engineering Education Technical Report:(APPLES) (TR-10-01). from http://www.engr.washington.
edu/caee/
Stump, G. S., Hilpert, J. C., Husman, J., Chung, W. T., & Kim, W. (2011). Collaborative Learning in Engineering Students:
Gender and Achievement. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(3), 475-497.
Tate, E. D., & Linn, M. C. (2005). How does identity shape the experiences of women of color engineering students? Journal
of Science Education and Technology, 14(5/6), 483-493.
Trenor, J. M., Yu, S. L., Waight, C. L., Zerda, K. S., & Sha, T. L. (2008). The relations of ethnicity to female engineering
students’ educational experiences and college and career plans in an ethnically diverse learning environment. Journal of
Engineering Education, 97(4), 449-465.
Wulf, A. W., & Fisher, G. M. (2002). A Makeover for Engineering Education. Issues in Science and Technology, 18(3), 35-39.

APPENDIX C-1
Regression Models Predicting Self-Concept for Fourth-Year Engineering Students (n=650)
Academic self-concept Social self-concept
B S.E. Beta t Sig. B S.E. Beta t Sig.
(Constant) 12.389 5.511 2.248 * 14.936 5.429 2.751 **
Pretest 0.414 0.038 0.391 10.779 *** 0.533 0.031 0.521 17.399 ***
Underrepresented Minority Student –0.074 0.549 –0.004 –0.135 0.122 0.547 0.007 0.223
Sex: female –1.752 0.642 –0.088 –2.731 ** –1.917 0.636 –0.091 –3.015 **
Parent employed as engineer 0.035 0.708 0.002 0.049 1.611 0.703 0.066 2.292 *
Avg HS GPA 0.260 0.236 0.041 1.104 –0.029 0.219 –0.004 –0.133
SAT (100) 0.618 0.212 0.122 2.918 ** –0.255 0.202 –0.048 –1.264
Yrs of HS study: Math 0.629 0.569 0.034 1.106 –0.388 0.565 –0.020 –0.688
Yrs of HS study: Physics 0.273 0.209 0.040 1.307 0.413 0.208 0.057 1.991 *
Masters degree asp (ref: bach or less) –0.113 0.723 –0.007 –0.156 0.597 0.725 0.034 0.823
Doctoral degree asp 1.131 0.815 0.060 1.387 1.087 0.814 0.055 1.335
Medical degree asp 0.831 1.311 0.022 0.634 1.340 1.310 0.033 1.023
Other degree asp –0.631 2.390 –0.008 –0.264 –1.835 2.376 –0.022 –0.772
Control: private 1.381 0.628 0.076 2.199 * 0.499 0.623 0.026 0.801
Type: four-year college –0.477 0.579 –0.028 –0.824 –0.852 0.576 –0.047 –1.480
Selectivity (avg SAT scaled by 100) –0.517 0.318 –0.074 –1.624 0.040 0.316 0.005 0.125
Percent of students in STEM (10) –0.035 0.140 –0.008 –0.251 0.136 0.139 0.031 0.977
Participated in an internship program 0.636 0.533 0.038 1.193 –0.847 0.532 –0.048 –1.592
Participated in an undergraduate 0.087 0.695 0.004 0.125 –0.135 0.690 –0.006 –0.195
research program (e.g. MARC, MBRS,
REU)
Joined a club or organization related 0.850 0.565 0.049 1.505 1.035 0.561 0.056 1.846
to your major
Studied with other students 1.035 0.451 0.074 2.296 * 1.622 0.449 0.109 3.615 ***
Met with an advisor/counselor about 0.579 0.439 0.044 1.321 0.706 0.437 0.050 1.615
your career plans
Had instruction that supplemented 0.591 0.434 0.045 1.363 0.230 0.431 0.017 0.534
course work
Faculty support and mentoring 0.957 0.316 0.108 3.028 ** 1.092 0.314 0.116 3.474 ***
Worked full-time while attending –0.692 0.687 –0.033 –1.008 0.784 0.686 0.035 1.143
school
Taken an ethnic studies course 0.114 0.530 0.007 0.216 1.626 0.527 0.090 3.085 **
Taken a women’s studies course 0.222 0.806 0.009 0.275 0.640 0.798 0.024 0.802
Hrs per wk: Commuting 0.315 0.202 0.051 1.559 –0.127 0.201 –0.020 –0.635

APPENDIX C 177
Academic self-concept Social self-concept

B S.E. Beta t Sig. B S.E. Beta t Sig.
Felt family support to succeed 0.693 0.393 0.055 1.766 0.597 0.389 0.045 1.534
Felt overwhelmed by all I had to do –0.713 0.451 –0.049 –1.580 –1.068 0.450 –0.069 –2.377 *
I have been singled out because of –0.123 0.353 –0.013 –0.350 –0.004 0.351 0.000 –0.011
my race/ethnicity, gender, or sexual
orientation
I have heard faculty express –0.410 0.359 –0.040 –1.141 0.598 0.358 0.055 1.672
stereotypes about racial/ethnic groups
in class
Final model r2 0.353 0.433
Note. * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001. Sources: 2004 Freshman Survey, 2008 College Senior Survey, Cooperative Institutional Research

APPENDIX C-2
Regression Model Predicting Four-year Retention in Engineering (n=979)
r sig B sig S.E. Exp(B)
Constant –0.352 2.586 0.703
Background characteristics
URM student –0.068 0.406 0.250 1.501
Sex: female –0.034 –0.239 0.266 0.788
Either parent employed in engineering 0.132 *** 0.141 0.306 1.151
Pre-college academic preparation
Average HS GPA 0.221 *** 0.279 * 0.116 1.322
SAT or ACT equivalent (scaled by 100) 0.262 *** 0.162 0.098 1.176
Years of study in HS: Math 0.025 –0.164 0.286 0.849
Years of study in HS: Physics 0.059 –0.035 0.095 0.965
Masters degree aspiration (ref: bachelors or less) –0.010 0.039 0.332 1.040
Doctoral degree aspiration 0.018 –0.033 0.372 0.968
Medical degree aspiration 0.006 0.517 0.635 1.677
Other degree aspiration –0.001 –0.483 1.008 0.617
Institutional characteristics
Control: private 0.133 *** 0.220 0.334 1.246
Four-year college (ref: university) –0.062 0.003 0.267 1.003
Selectivity (average SAT, scaled by 100) 0.152 *** –0.350 * 0.140 0.705
Percent students in STEM (10% increments) 0.184 *** 0.358 *** 0.084 1.430
Engineering/STEM activities
Participated in an internship program 0.288 *** 0.938 *** 0.240 2.554
Participated in an undergraduate research program 0.085 * 0.498 0.315 1.645
Participated in a club or organization related to your major 0.263 *** 0.982 *** 0.259 2.671
Academic support
Studied with other students 0.236 *** 1.164 *** 0.211 3.203
Met with advisor/counselor about career plans –0.030 –0.049 0.196 0.952
Had instruction that supplemented coursework 0.047 –0.276 0.191 0.759
Faculty interaction construct (scaled by 10) –0.074 * –0.375 ** 0.141 0.687
Pull factors
Worked full-time while attending school –0.176 *** –0.263 0.295 0.769
Taken an ethnic studies course –0.130 *** 0.105 0.247 1.111
Taken a women’s studies course –0.197 *** –0.735 * 0.331 0.479
Hours per week: commuting –0.213 *** –0.418 *** 0.090 0.658
Self-concept and support
Felt family support to succeed –0.037 –0.137 0.189 0.872
Academic self-concept (scaled by 10) 0.131 *** 0.213 0.177 1.237
Social self concept (scaled by 10) 0.023 –0.188 0.155 0.828
Felt overwhelmed with all I had to do 0.082 * 0.194 0.213 1.214
I have been singled out on the basis of sex, race/ethnicity, or sexual orientation –0.069 –0.111 0.159 0.895
I have heard faculty express racial/ethnic stereotypes in class –0.175 *** –0.545 *** 0.163 0.580
Note. * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001. Sources: 2004 Freshman Survey, 2008 College Senior Survey, Cooperative Institutional Research

APPENDIX C 179
APPENDIX C-3
Regression model predicting post-college pathways for engineering graduates (n=1956)
Engineering vs non-STEM pathway Engineering vs other STEM pathway
Std. Std.
B exp(B) Error Sig. B exp(b) Error Sig.
Intercept –2.171 1.450 2.827 2.158
Sex: Female –0.312 0.732 0.095 *** 0.634 1.886 0.152 ***
Asian/Pacific Islander (ref: White) 0.380 1.462 0.147 ** –0.424 0.654 0.176 *
Latino (ref: White) –0.675 0.509 0.144 *** 0.279 0.263
Black (ref: White) –0.588 0.555 0.206 ** 0.383 0.450
American Indian (ref: White) –0.370 0.292 0.971 0.760
Other Race (ref: White) –0.083 0.279 0.301 0.428
Native English Speaker –0.314 0.191 0.647 1.909 0.220 **
Low Income (ref: Middle) 0.936 2.549 0.272 *** 1.990 7.318 0.572 ***
Low-Middle Income (ref: Middle) 0.217 0.156 0.289 0.216
High-Middle Income (ref: Middle) –0.168 0.098 –0.137 0.145
High Income (ref: Middle) –0.282 0.146 –0.558 0.572 0.187 **
Mother’s Level of Education 0.043 0.027 0.032 0.039
High School GPA 0.281 1.324 0.045 *** –0.024 0.072

Years of Study in HS: Math –0.006 0.094 0.234 0.130
Years of Study in HS: Physics –0.036 0.036 0.232 1.261 0.052 ***
Goal: Raising a Family –0.030 0.048 0.059 0.070

Goal: Being Very Well-off Financially –0.091 0.054 0.000 0.076
Estimated Undergraduate Debt ($10,000 units) 0.050 1.050 0.000 ** 0.0200 0.030
Worked with Faculty on Research 0.376 1.457 0.104 *** –0.781 0.458 0.137 ***
Received Mentoring from Faculty 0.007 0.090 –0.344 0.709 0.140 *
Participated in a Structured Research Program 0.304 1.355 0.131 * 0.210 0.153
Participated in an Academic or Professional Club 0.169 0.093 0.133 0.134
Initial Engineering Aspirant (ref: Late-comer) 0.633 1.883 0.134 *** 0.413 1.512 0.203 *
Selectivity (average SAT score, scaled by 100) –0.231 0.794 0.051 *** –0.007 0.074
Size (ln) 0.205 1.227 0.092 * 0.123 0.129
Control: Private 0.152 0.141 –0.647 0.523 0.194 ***
Type: Four-year College (ref: university) 0.606 1.834 0.132 *** 0.770 2.161 0.189 ***
Note. * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001; engineering pathway is defined as choosing an engineering graduate program or employment as an
engineer, and other STEM pathway is defined as choosing a STEM graduate program or career other than engineering. Source: 2011 Post-
Baccalaureate Survey, Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

Appendix D
Cobweb Model of the Engineering Labor Market
In any occupation, the higher the wage, the more people are willing to work in it, so the supply curve is upward
sloping. On the other hand, the higher the wage, the fewer workers employers are willing to hire, so the demand
curve is downward sloping.
The supply of workers comprises US citizens, permanent residents, and those with temporary visas (such
as the H-1B) who have engineering skills and knowledge that can be used in engineering and other occupations.
Wage and employment levels are determined by the intersection of the demand and supply curves. When
there are shifts in demand or supply, known as shocks, the market adjusts. The seminal work of Freeman (1976)
used data on degreed engineers to establish a “cobweb” model for the adjustments of the labor market (also see
Ryoo and Rosen 2004).
To understand the “cobweb” model, consider the labor market for engineers as sketched in figure D-1, initially
in equilibrium (point a) at the intersection of long-run Supply and Demand, with L1 engineers employed at Wage 1.
An increase in demand for engineers, such as the establishment of NASA in 1958 (Freeman 1976), shifts demand
out to Increased Demand, and the long-run equilibrium lies at the intersection of Increased Demand and Supply.
However, if demand increases suddenly, there is no time for new engineers to be trained (although some might
delay retirement or return early from parental leave), and the market equalizes supply and demand through a jump
up in wages to W2. In other words, while the long-run supply curve is as drawn in blue, the very short-run supply
curve is vertical at L1 (red dotted line).
For about four years (if supply is dependent on new US graduates entering the market, not a surge in engineers
from offshore), the market is likely to stay at point b, with employers complaining of “shortages” (i.e., high wages).
Meanwhile, the higher wage induces more students to study engineering: the number of people willing to work as
engineers when the wage is Wage2 is given by the long-run supply curve (point c): after four years, there will be
L2 engineers. Once the additional engineers enter the market, however, the wage drops: with a greater number of
engineers from which to choose, employers are now willing to hire L2 engineers only at wage Wage3 (point d).
With the drop in wages, there is likely to be talk of a “glut” of engineers four years after complaints of “short-
ages.” Enrollment in engineering declines (and some adjustment occurs through withdrawals from the labor force),
and four years later engineering employment is at L3. As the long-run equilibrium has not yet been achieved, there
is likely to be another set of cycles, as in points e and f, which illustrate why the process is called a cobweb cycle.
The more forward-looking students are, and the more there can be adjustment without lengthy training, the
faster the equilibrium will be achieved. Since the expansion in 1990 of the number of skilled immigrant temporary
180

APPENDIX D 181
FIGURE D-1 Cobweb model

Source: Adapted with permission from https://policonomics.com/cobweb-model.
visas permitted, immigration has allowed just such a short cut to the equilibrium. The number of engineers can be
changed with no more than a year’s lag (the time to apply for the annual visa distribution), so the long-run supply
curve is flatter: the cycles are both faster and associated with smaller wage changes.
REFERENCES
Freeman RB. 1976. A cobweb model of the supply and starting salary of new engineers. Industrial and Labor Relations Review
29(2):236–248.
Ryoo J, Rosen S. 2004 The engineering labor market. Journal of Political Economy 112 (February):S110–S140.

Appendix E
Advancing Our Understanding of

Engineering Education Pathways,
Employment Dynamics, and Economic Impact
Through the Innovative Use of Administrative Data1
Debbie Hughes, Jason Owen-Smith, Treva Stack, David Stevens, Isabel Cárdenas-Navia
ABSTRACT
The innovative use of administrative data sets offer a unique approach to examining educational and work-
force pathways, particularly in the field of engineering. Unlocking the tremendous potential of administrative data
requires combining data by linking together individual records from multiple sources, as well as having the tools
and capabilities to perform and visualize the analytics applied to the dataset. Developing a comprehensive nuanced
understanding surrounding the factors influencing engineering students’ education and workforce engagement and
success cannot be accomplished without the use of administrative data. With a growing body of evidence showing
the power of administrative data, future data collection on engineering pathways should make such data sets easier
to access, link, and report on, while facilitating the programmatic responses needed to support this new increased
and personalized understanding of an individual’s education to workforce pathway.
ADMINISTRATIVE DATA ARE UBIQUITOUS

Records are constantly being created which capture both the significant and insignificant proceedings in an
individual’s educational pathway. Enrollment in an elementary school, trying out for the middle school basketball
team, registering to take an SAT test, and applying to a college or graduate school requires an agency or other
organization to gather an individual’s name, address, date of birth, and other pieces of information as a part of
their regular role. Entry into the workforce, accepting an employment offer, registering for direct deposit of a
paycheck, and/or paying local, state, and federal taxes also requires an agency or other organization to gather an
individual’s name, address, date of birth, and other more activity-specific pieces of information as a part of their
regular process. Each completed record created by an organization will include some similar elements – name,
date of birth, address – and some unique elements – SAT scores, school transcripts, employer name and earnings.
Much like in the medical field, all of this information has historically been captured through paper forms. Today,
the majority of information is collected online or is translated into digital form.
182

APPENDIX E 183
Enormous amounts of information are already being collected by educational institutions, government agen-
cies, non-profits, and organizations of all kinds for administrative reasons. Collectively, this information is called
administrative data. Administrative data is collected as a part of daily life by a variety of sources for disparate
reasons. For the organizations which collect this data, the cost of collecting and storing the data is already built
into their operating expenses, and, for those organizations which regularly update this information as part of their
system, so is that process.
These administrative data sets offer a rich set of information covering a very large sample of the population.
For example, elementary school educational enrollment records provide data on the vast majority of children in
the United States, regardless of geographic region, ethnicity, or socio-economic status. This large sample size
allows for the identification of interests to specific subgroups, such as women, underrepresented minorities, or
different geographic regions.
Like many administrative data sets, the sample size and timespan of these elementary enrollment records is not
one which would be financially or logistically achievable by traditional survey methods. Furthermore, it includes
data on individuals who would not typically respond to surveys, offering a truly comprehensive data set. Addition-
ally, these enrollment records are collected on an annual basis for individual students, even as they move from
one school to another; gathering similar data on an annual basis using an alternative method is not truly feasible.
CHALLENGES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DATA

The innovative use of administrative data sets offers a uniquely comprehensive approach to examining edu-
cational and workforce pathways, however, they also offer challenges in their use. The data sets were not initially
developed to be used in analysis, nor have most of them been structured in a manner which allows them to be inte-
grated with other datasets. Furthermore, federal regulations have been set up to protect the privacy of individuals at
multiple levels. Aggregating these datasets for research purposes is achievable, but requires a considered approach.
Protecting the data against unauthorized access or disclosure is the most significant challenge in the use of
administrative data to examine educational and workforce pathways. While this concern is not limited to admin-
istrative data sets, it is still one which must be addressed at multiple levels when working with administrative
data sets. Before administrative datasets are made available to researchers, guidelines must be in place to address,
among other items: inclusion of identifiable information; elimination of identifiable information when no longer
needed; access to the data by only those individuals who have a need for the data in the performance of their
duties; transparency in the use and purpose of administrative data; maintaining confidentiality in final products of
analysis. These privacy concerns regarding administrative data sets are being very carefully considered by both
governmental and non-governmental organizations: while many datasets are publicly available to researchers as
de-identified data, many more are not publicly available. Even publicly available de-identified datasets are usu-
ally stored on secure servers, and are limited to researchers from reputable institutions. These protections play an
important role in ensuring that administrative data is used in an appropriate and responsible manner.
Administrative data are also largely limited to data which is required for individual institution’s administra-
tive purposes, significantly constraining the ability to influence what data is collected, the tools used to collect
the data, the format of the data, and the quality of that data. This means that individual datasets are not always
well-suited to answer a desired specific question on education or workforce pathways, and require additional
information. Often this means that multiple data sets must be combined to address specific questions. When
combining data sets, even from within or across one institution, significant effort must go into ensuring that data
is properly matched and cleaned.
The use of administrative data in educational and workforce pathways also requires a careful evaluation of
the quality of the dataset(s) being used. Data analysts must have a strong understanding of the purpose, collection
methods, timeliness, periodicity, completeness, and other aspects of data quality of the administrative data and
match this information with the type of analysis being conducted. This requires an investment by the analyst about
why and how data quality challenges emerge, as well as information about how changes in quality may occur
over time. Additionally, when multiple sources are being drawn upon, the lowest quality source will determine
the overall precision of resulting findings.

Finally, in order to realize the high potential value that resides in administrative data sources, an analyst has
to invest in an up-front understanding of how to access the data and how its use is authorized. This investment
can be quite significant, and is dependent on the eagerness of the “owner” of each data source to allow research-
ers to access their data. The owner must have an understanding of the benefits of authorizing their data to support
the outcome of the research project, such as customized reports back to the owner. Additionally, the owner must
support the researchers in accessing their data, which may require an investment of resources (staff time, financial
resources, etc.) from the “owner” to assist the researcher in accessing the data.
Analysts must be prepared to anticipate and allay the potential concerns of the owners of data sources in
order to gain access, protect the privacy of all involved, and ensure quality of the accessed administrative datasets.
LINKAGE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DATA IS IMPERATIVE TO REALIZING ITS VALUE

Unlocking the tremendous potential of administrative data to understand educational and workforce pathways
requires combining data by linking together individual records from multiple sources, as well as having the tools
and capabilities to perform and visualize the analytics applied to the dataset. Using this approach, researchers
could trace the pathways of each individual student throughout their elementary, middle school, and high school
years, bringing together demographic elements with transcript data such as grades, activities, and test scores.
Researchers could then follow students into higher education and into the workforce, or into the workforce and
then higher education, or any number of combinations. Linkage of administrative data could connect a student
record to college administrative records, Census records, and employment records (Figure E-1). Combined, these
pathways allow researchers to concretely map the choices that students are taking, offer insight into the individual
impediments and incentives students are facing, as well as the overall student migration patterns in education,
employment choices and employment dynamics. Through this information educators, policy-makers, and con-
FIGURE E-1 Sample connections for administrative data.

APPENDIX E 185
stituents could use the aggregate reports to customize education supports and focus on identified leverage points
where students are most vulnerable.
The linkage of survey data to administrative data further enhances the value of both datasets in understanding
educational and workforce pathways. These two types of data are highly complementary, with administrative data
providing significant demographic context to survey data, and survey data providing more detailed background
information and self-reports to administrative data. Surveys can provide the much needed societal context, as
well as the ‘voice’ behind the data. This linkage is not explicitly explored in this paper, but would add significant
understanding if surveys were designed and developed for the possibility of linking with administrative data. For
instance, developing common codes for de-identifying a student’s personal identifiable information which could
be attached to their future records but could not be traced back to the individual would enable this type of linkage.
While the individual pathways are traced with the use of personal identity codes across datasets, the final
results of linked administrative data analysis are used in aggregate. Therefore the confidentially of each individual
is protected, while still allowing the researchers to view the variety of educational and workforce pathways being
taken by students.
Many research organizations in the United States are successfully linking administrative data sets to gain
insight into their field or area of interest. One of the most successful has been Science and Technology for
America’s Reinvestment Measuring the EffecTs of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness and Science (STAR
METRICS). STAR METRICS is a collaboration between federal and research institutions to develop tools to assess
the impacts of federal R&D investments. Since it began in 2009, over 100 research institutions have participated
in STAR METRICS.
STAR METRICS brings together administrative data from federal agency awards to research institutions,
research institutions’ financial and human resources systems, academic researchers’ citations and patents, and the
Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics program at the Census Bureau; this information is used to provide
data on the number of jobs and positions supported by federal R&D funding, as well as data on the estimated jobs
generated by sub-awardee funds, vendor purchases, and overhead expenditures. The final analysis for an individual
research institution includes both recent and historical information, and offers geographical information on the
broad impact of the federal award money, information that had never been gathered previously.
Prior to STAR METRICS, reports from institutions provided only principal investigator (PI) and co-PI contact
information, and could not connect individual grant awards to employment or any other broader impact metrics.
Further, STAR METRICS was developed during the America Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) to answer a
question that no other entity had the ability to address: the impact of federal grant dollars on job creation, although
its results have informed many other policies in higher education and federal agencies.
Building on the success of STAR METRICS, the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) developed
a pilot project, Universities: Measuring the EffecTs of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness and Science
(UMETRICS), demonstrating that when universities share their administrative data under appropriate privacy and
confidentiality protections the resulting reports and research can offer uniquely valuable insights into the process,
products, social and economic value of public investments in academic research. In 2015, support from the Ewing
Marion Kauffman and Alfred P. Sloan Foundations enabled the founding of the Institute for Research on Innovation
and Science (IRIS). Headquartered in the Institute for Social Research (ISR) at the University of Michigan, IRIS
is an IRB-approved data repository that provides a platform to make the CIC UMETRICS program a permanent,
national research center for universities and researchers seeking to explain and improve the impact of research.
IRIS is structured to bring together universities, federal agencies, and other stakeholders to develop a national
resource of data and analytical tools for both scientists and policy-makers. Since its launch in January 2015, 24
research universities have committed to participating by sharing data and making financial contributions to sus-
tain the necessary infrastructure. The U.S. Census Bureau is also a key partner in IRIS, which enables university
administrative data to be integrated with restricted Census data products such as the Longitudinal Employer
Household Dynamics (LEHD) dataset and the Integrated Longitudinal Business Database (ILBD). These datasets
contain data essentially representing the population of establishments that pay taxable wages in the U.S. (ILBD)
and of wage payments from those establishments to individuals (LEHD). IRIS is also working with the United
States Patent and Trademark Office, in a partnership that will allow the integration of patent and trademark data as

a marker for innovation and product development. The combined resource creates new and exciting possibilities
for examining the workforce and career issues.
IRIS data will be made available for research use through a virtual data enclave being constructed at the Univer-
sity of Michigan. Integrated IRIS/Census data will be accessible through the Census Research Data Center system.
A paper in Science (Goldshlag et al 2015) demonstrates the value of administrative data in examining career
outcomes and trajectories. Entitled “Wrapping it up in a person: Tracing flows from funded research into the
economy using linked administrative data,” the authors report findings based on UMETRICS/Census data for 8
universities, focusing their analysis on the first jobs of 56,000 research employees, who are also doctoral recipients,
hold after leaving their university. By combining information from ProQuest Dissertation Abstracts to identify
doctoral recipients with Census Bureau data, Goldshlag et al 2015 are able to offer insight into the sector, size,
age, and geographic location of employers, as well as the distribution of earnings of new graduates in each sector.
The authors use simple regression analyses to explore associations between: field of research and employment in
industry, academia or government; field of research and earnings; and field of research and features of the employ-
ing organization, such as size, age, and rate of growth. This analysis of the UMETRICS/IRIS data demonstrates
the value of cleaned administrative datasets that connect across multiple sources of information to understand
career outcomes and trajectories.
EXAMPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DATA LINKAGES IN

ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE
UMETRICS/IRIS is a remarkable example of the unexpected insights that administrative data can offer when
a motivated group of actors works together to link multiple sources of data. There are many such efforts using
linked longitudinal administrative data, but little of this research concentrates on engineering. Two examples high-
lighting the power of administrative data in better understanding engineering education and workforce pathways
are presented below.
Understanding the Impact Undergraduate Research Engagement on Educational Outcomes

A pilot project at a large public university has successfully linked record level student transcript data with
research expenditures on federal grants to examine the role, if any, undergraduate research plays on student
graduation rates and academic performance. This pilot combined student enrollment and transcript data with paid
employment on a federal research grant (Figure E-2).
From these datasets, a student was considered to have engaged in undergraduate research if s/he had either
enrolled in an undergraduate research course for credit or was paid on a federal research grant. Other approaches
through which students might have gained access to an undergraduate research experience (e.g., volunteer work,
independent study) were not included in this analysis.
Although the gender balance of students engaged in federally paid undergraduate research largely reflected the
undergraduate gender balance of the university (53.9% vs. 50.1% female, respectively), Pell grant recipients were
disproportionately represented in the student population engaged federally funded research (27.0% vs. 19.3%).
Additional demographic information is available on ethnicity, parental education, features of high school gradu-
ation, and other factors, which could be included in future analyses.
Of the 2,416 students who participated in both types of undergraduate research experiences, the overwhelming
majority, 87.2% participated in the class first, and then found paid research opportunities. Overall, of the 12,006
undergraduates who enrolled in the research course, nearly 20% independently sought out paid research oppor-
tunities supported by federal grants. This progression suggests that undergraduate research courses maybe be an
important catalyst in developing future researchers, and this topic should be studied more closely.
The majority of job titles of the students paid on the federal grants strongly suggested they were involved in
research activities, with 71.2% of these titles listed as Assistant in Research, Laboratory Assistant, or Research
Assistant I Social Sciences. 21.1% of this group was enrolled in the engineering degree program; this translates
to 18.1% of all engineering graduates having been a paid employee on a research grants at some point in their

APPENDIX E 187
FIGURE E-2 Pilot program connecting student enrollment and transcript data with employment on a federal research grant.
undergraduate experience. This sizeable percentage highlights the unexpected ways in which federal research
dollars enrich the educational experience of the higher education community.
The largest number of students paid on federal grants were employed on National Institutes of Health grants
(38.2%), followed by National Science Foundation grants (19.7%), Department of Defense grants (4.4%), and
Department of Energy grants (3.5%).
Finally, the impact of undergraduate research experiences on graduation rates and grade point average was
examined. As shown in Table E-1, students who participated in undergraduate research had both a higher grade
point average and higher 5 year graduation rate when compared to the general student population, although the
differences were not stark.
This analysis is evidence that student outcome data can be correlated with a student record or transcript data.
Similar analyses could be conducted examining the impact of particular courses, capstone projects, or other activi-
ties on education outcomes. To date, participation in extracurricular or co-curricular activities, such as undergradu-
ate research, co-ops, or work-study programs have not been linked to transcript data, offering only student surveys
or program implementation evaluations as impact metrics.
TABLE E-1 Educational outcomes for students participating in undergraduate research experiences.
Paid on Federal Completed Research Paid on Federal Research Grant
All Students Research Grant Course and Completed Research Course
(n=) (n=) (n=12000) (n=)
5 Year Graduation Rate 86.7% 94.3% 92.7% 95.9%
Grade Point Average 3.26 3.36 3.34 3.35

Chronicling the Engineering Education-Workforce Continuum at the University System of Maryland

The University of Baltimore’s Jacob France Institute has successfully used administrative data sources to
examine the longitudinal impact of engineering sub-specialty on wages. Through a collaboration with the Uni-
versity System of Maryland (USM), which included data from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and
the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation the Jacob France Institute was able to develop a
longitudinal dataset on University System of Maryland institution electrical and mechanical engineering student
earnings for the graduating class of 2005 (Figure E-3; for more detailed methodology of analysis see end of paper).
Figure E-4 shows the reported earnings profiles based on Maryland Unemployment Insurance Wage Records
for the 2005 electrical engineering graduates (upper panel) and the 2005 mechanical engineering graduates (lower
panel). Within one year (2006), the median annual earnings level reported for electrical and mechanical engineering
graduates was $61,884 and $54,445, respectively. With few exceptions, annual earnings increased year after year.
Mechanical engineers saw an initial steep increase in annual earnings for the first four years, after which the rate
of increase was more gradual. In contrast, electrical engineers maintained a steady rate of increase throughout the
timespan examined. This is most easily seen by comparing the median annual earnings for electrical vs. mechani-
cal engineers in 2013 (eight years after graduation): $94,710 vs. $81,599.
This example clearly demonstrates how different administrative data sources can be integrated to address
a specific question. Although not shown here, additional data fields that are also integrated in the pilot analysis
undertaken. These fields allow stratification of the data by institution and degree-level, allowing researchers to
study the impact of a M.S. compared to a B.S., or one campus within the University System of Maryland to another.
Furthermore, although not included in this analysis, using the same methodology, researchers could examine the
impact of course enrollment on degree completion and earnings.
FIGURE E-3 Longitudinal data collected and developed by the Jacob France Institute for engineering student wages.

APPENDIX E 189
FIGURE E-4 Reported earnings profiles for electrical and mechanical engineering graduate wages based on Maryland Un-
employment Insurance Wage Records.
The additional linkage of Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data offers significant insight into
engineering employment dynamics of these graduates. Examples include understanding of entry into and move-
ment among different employment size-class businesses; understanding of entry into and movement among indus-
tries; understanding of industry-related differences in earnings progression patterns; degree- and major-specific
understanding of entry into and movement among industries; and improved understanding of career trajectories
for different subpopulations.
INNOVATIVE USE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DATA WILL DIRECTLY INFORM

ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE PRACTICES
The examples shown above demonstrate the power of administrative data to address some outstanding ques-
tions in the engineering education-workforce continuum. While these particular studies include relatively small
sample sizes, they concretely establish the ability of researchers to link student data from a college/university
system to other databases while respecting individuals’ privacy and federal regulations.
Given the vast amount of administrative data available along the engineering education-workforce continuum
(Figure E-1), the potential exists to address a number of topics which are of significant interest and concern for
the engineering, higher education, business and policy-maker communities.
Engineering Education Migration Patterns and Student Retention

Administrative data will allow colleges/universities to gain a new, real-time understanding of student migra-
tion and retention in engineering. As demonstrated in the examples, within an institution student transcript data
can easily be linked with other college/university records and educational records to understand the pathways
engineering students are navigating in higher education. Students which transfer into or out of engineering can be
tracked through graduation, transcripts can be examined to understand the impact of courses, such as ‘gateway’

courses (those courses known to weed out students) on student retention, and the weight of demographics on
student migration patterns can be studied.
Thoroughly tracing student migration patterns offers significant insight into persistent questions in engineer-
ing education. Students can be traced from their high school experience, using their application records, into
their declared major, and changes within that major. Engineering students can be traced as they transfer in, out
and between engineering sub-specialties and other scientific, technical, or liberal arts majors. Historical data on
student migration patterns offers academic institutions the ability to understand the impact of past efforts to alter
student migration patterns into engineering, as well as visualize trends in student migration. For example, reten-
tion strategies such as undergraduate research can be examined to understand their impacts on migration patterns
beyond simple metrics such as grade point average and graduate rates.
Student transcript analysis combined with migration analysis also offers higher education institutions a wealth
of information on their own engineering education practices. Gateway courses can be more easily identified; tran-
script information combined with departmental teaching assignments can then aid in identifying gateway profes-
sors, who could be offered additional teaching support, professional development or other mechanisms to aid in
directly addressing the identified trends. In the alternative, professors with particular success in guiding students
through gateway courses can mentor other faculty and share teaching tips.
Standardized test scores and high school transcript data combined with undergraduate transcript data can offer
insight into student success or failure in particular core engineering, math, or science courses, allowing institutions
to alter their curriculum and/or provide more directed support measures such as evidence-based high-impact prac-
tices to promote success in these subjects. High impact practices could include summer bridge programs creating
learning communities, undergraduate research or internships, all specifically designed to address the needs of the
students identified through the data. Similarly, course sequences within a major can be examined for correlation
with student retention and persistence.
Administrative data also offers the opportunity to broadly identify whether demographic factors, such as
gender, ethnicity, financial-aid status, and age, correlate with engineering enrollment and persistence. Clearly
understanding which demographic factors most strongly correlate with which institutional success factors will
allow institutions to begin to conduct targeted inquiries to fully understand their strengths and shortcomings with
different demographics. The impact of demographics on student migration patterns could also be examined to
understand if/when different subpopulation make different educational choices. Again, this initial analysis would
allow for academic institutions to alter their policies or curriculum to encourage all subpopulations to continue
in their engineering studies.
Institutions can individually apply administrative data analysis to gain insight into engineering education
pathways and practices within their own borders; however, there is additional insight to be gained by linking
together the administrative data of multiple institutions (Figure E-5).
Linking together multiple institutions through common data elements pulled through administrative records
would allow individual institutions to gage their success in retention and graduation relative to sister institutions.
In areas of comparative strength, a college/university could capture the core elements of their success, sharing it
with other institutions for replication. In areas of comparative weakness, institutions could pilot new initiatives to
improve themselves. While the data would be aggregated for analysis, the individual results would remain confi-
dential to an institution, allowing them to make adjustments and share results at their own discretion.
More broadly, the aggregated results would allow faculty and administrators to understand how institutional
environment might impact student success in engineering. Data identified only by institutional demographics, such
as small suburban liberal arts college, large urban public university, or medium-size rural private university, could
be studied for trends in student retention, particularly among underrepresented groups such as women and under-
represented minorities. Institutional demographics could also be examined to gain insight into potential elements
of success in sub-populations such as veterans, first generation college students, or working adults.
For institutions serving small numbers of underrepresented populations, aggregated data of student migra-
tion patterns by student demographics could offer an understanding of the general impacts of demographics on
student retention and success; for example, a strong positive correlation between early internships and retention
in engineering for Latinos could be the impetus to develop a similar experience at their institution.

APPENDIX E 191
FIGURE E-5 Potential insight to be gained linking administrative data from multiple institutions.
For employers and policy-makers, the aggregated results offer an easy-to-understand tool to advocate for
increased investment in engineering education. Employer partnerships with colleges/universities have tradition-
ally been transactional, whereby employers provide funding to the school and receive a service (often research
studies) in exchange. Strategic, long-term, and well-aligned relationships between business and higher education
are possible, but require data to inform their structure and outcomes.
With aggregated data, offered in a report or visualized through dashboard, employers can begin to make much
more targeted and strategic investments, based on their individualized workforce needs and priorities. Without such
reports, employers often use proxy metrics such as overall student retention or graduation rates. These metrics
are too broad to allow employers to match them with their strategic hiring goals. For example, companies which
prioritize hiring female engineers could partner with feeder colleges/universities to invest in new programs. These
programs would be crafted based on the specific migration patterns of women at an individual university, allowing
companies to target their investment to impact their workforce needs.
Engineering Employment Choices

Administrative data will also allow colleges/universities to track their engineering graduates, transfer students,
and non-graduates, into the workforce. Student transcript data can then be combined with state and federal govern-
ment datasets to track students out of colleges/university and into the workforce.
There are multiple reasons academic institutions will benefit from having this information. First, they will
have clear data on the number of graduates who are employed, as engineers or otherwise, within six months of

graduation and be able to track their wages over time. Successful institutions could use this information to boost
their support within their community and alumni, while less successful institutions could use this data as a starting
point to improve career services for their students. Additionally, institutions could use the results of this analysis
to deepen their engagement with companies which hire a large number of their graduates, or develop more robust
relationships with employers in their region to whom they feel would benefit from hiring graduates from their
institution.
Similarly, an analysis of the transcripts or migration patterns of employed engineering graduates vs. non-
employed engineering graduates could probe if undergraduate coursework or experiences correlates with post-
graduate employment. Beyond the undergraduate degree, institutions could explore whether credentials, such as
certificates, minors, or concentrations, impact either employment or wages after graduation. If these credentials
are shown to be valued by employers, this could offer higher education institutions a significant boost when
recruiting students.
Engineering Employment Dynamics

The flow of engineering graduates within the workforce and the career pathways can also be examined using
administrative data sources. Again using student transcript data combined with state and federal government data-
sets, employment and wages can be longitudinally traced for engineering graduates and for individuals employed
in engineering positions. This administrative data will allow researchers to track the wages, employer, employer
size, employer industry sector, and length of employment (among other data) for an individual.
These employment migration patterns will offer tremendous insight into the short- and long-term impacts of
undergraduate engineering education on employment and wages, the role of continuing education in career trajec-
tories in engineering, and the short- and long-term weight of demographics on engineering employment and wages.
Of particular interest to higher education institutions will be the number of engineering graduates working
in traditional engineering sectors such as aerospace, automotive, energy, and oil and gas compared with non-
traditional sectors such as finance, health care, or retail. An interesting analysis could examine the correlation
between undergraduate coursework to inter-sector mobility and wages to elucidate the role of an individual’s
academic background, such as coursework or internships.
At the aggregated level, demographic factors of engineering graduates could be examined for their correlation
with employment and wages, both immediately after graduate and long-term. This could offer insight into whether
any subpopulations are disproportionately employed at lower wages, struggle with short- or long-term unemploy-
ment, or opt-out of participating in the workforce altogether. It could also highlight differences by sector on the
impact of demographics on employment and wages.
Historical data from multiple graduating classes would allow institutions to track trends in employment
dynamics of their engineering graduates; gathering this data from multiple institutions would allow an individual
institution to compare its graduates’ short- and long-term employment and wages to peer institutions. While direct
comparisons of employment and wages between institutions are not reflective of the quality of the institutions or
their programs, it offers previously unknown information for colleges/universities to understand the opportunities
that their graduates are encountering in the workforce. Additionally, the aggregate data from multiple institutions
could offer insight into the impact of individual (gender, ethnicity, age) and institutional demographics (public vs.
private, urban vs. rural) on the employment and wages of engineering graduates.
The geographical footprint of graduates is also of strong interest to academic institutions, particularly public
institutions. Having a significant number of its graduates remain employed within the state, particularly over a
long-term time frame, emphasizes the major role that a higher education institution plays in shaping its region.
Similarly, using administrative data to understand the interplay between continuing education and wages and/
or continuing education as professional development in engineers would further underscore the critical role that
colleges/universities play in the career trajectories of employed engineers.
Engineering workforce dynamics is also of strong interest to employers across all sectors. Understanding
employee pathways into and out of their companies and industry would allow them to more effectively recruit
and retain employees. Additionally, a more direct linkage between the role of engineering education in the career

APPENDIX E 193
pathways of engineers empowers employers to make a clear connection between a private investment in a higher
education institution and a direct benefit to their organization.
Economic Impacts of Engineering Workforce

The same group of administrative data sources which enables researchers to study engineering employment
dynamics also enables researchers to examine the economic impact of engineering graduates. In addition to the
administrative data sources mentioned in the previous section, data on income taxes, property taxes, home sales,
and patent applications can be linked to examine the economic impact of engineering graduates.
Using this data, a concrete comparison of the economic footprint of engineering graduates could be made with
non-engineering graduates. This could be examined at both the regional and national scale, adding a geographic
element to the results. This analysis would include an examination of the number of patents granted to engineering
graduates and the number employers in new and small businesses.
Similarly, the economic impact of continued education and professional development of employed engineers
could be examined. If the economic impact is significant relative to the financial investment of those experiences,
employers and policy-makers could re-examine the private and public benefits in investing in continued profes-
sional development for engineers.
More broadly, regional economic data such as per capita income, unemployment rate, number of new busi-
nesses, and other business patterns captured by administrative data can be examined in geographic areas with high
numbers of engineering graduates and compared with geographic areas with low numbers of engineering gradu-
ates. This type of analysis would expose the unique role, if any, engineers play in regional economies. If these
engineering graduates are linked to regional institutions of higher education, it would also expose the unique role
that these institutions play in regional economies, a role which would be much greater than the direct footprint
of its own economic expenditures. Furthermore, this type of result would offer policy-makers the information
necessary to advocate for increased investments in engineering education, on both a regional and national scale.
FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
Administrative data has proven potential and tremendous promise to offer insight along the entire engineering
education and workforce continuum. To move toward fulfilling this promise we recommend two actions by the
stakeholder community: 1) provide the necessary resources and funding to implement widespread use of admin-
istrative data; and 2) provide incentives for academic institutions and other key partners to use and responsibly
share their administrative data.
Providing the Resources

Delivering on the promise of administrative data for engineering education and workforce will require not
only excellent research by independent researcher teams, such as the projects highlighted in this paper, but will
also require an investment at the university and/or university system level, at the state or regional level, and at the
national level. At each of these levels, a commitment will be needed from the leadership and faculty/staff level
of stakeholder organizations to come together to invest the resources to develop and sustain a collaboration to
implement the widespread use of administrative data.
At the institutional level, there is a cost to colleges and universities accessing their own data. This cost can vary
significantly from institution to institution, largely depending on the platforms used to store data. The cost can also
be impacted by the timespan for which the data is desired: costs may escalate if historical datasets are included.
Once the institution has accessed their data, the cost of updating or expanding it declines substantially. For
instance, universities that participated in STAR METRICS have leveraged that investment for faster and less
costly participation in UMETRICS/IRIS. This strongly suggests that administrative data education and workforce
clearinghouses should coordinate their activities in order to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs to
participating institutions.

At a collaborative level, there are costs associated with initially developing and implementing a clearinghouse,
such as IRIS, to host and protect administrative data, as well as longer-term maintenance or sustainability costs.
Included in these costs are those associated with developing policies and standards for the clearinghouse, IT
development, and faculty/staff time. The development of a set of protocols for data generation that will facilitate
the linkage of education and workforce datasets is a critical element of the clearinghouse, as it will reduce the
long-term costs of clearinghouse participation for all stakeholders.
While the costs associated with implementing and supporting the widespread use of administrative data are
not minor, they are also not insurmountable. As an example of the cost associated with initially developing and
implementing a clearinghouse, three federal agencies provided nearly $10 million to research and develop the
techniques, processes, and policies necessary to initiate IRIS. An additional $2.5 million was provided by the
Ewing Marion Kauffman and Alfred P. Sloan foundations for IRIS. This seed funding supports the development
of a sustainable infrastructure capable of integrating data from multiple universities into national datasets.
This level of funding is consistent with some of the larger grants given out by federal agencies such as NIH,
NSF, and DoD, as well as grants given out by private foundations. In addition to foundations which support sci-
ence and technology research, this type of project is also a compelling one for private foundations associated with
employers, particularly ones with a significant engineering workforce.
At the national level, the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) Grant Program has given out hundreds
of millions of dollars in grants since 2005 to support the design, development, implementation, and expansion
of longitudinal data systems, including student records, from early childhood through workforce (P-20W). This
program aims to enhance the ability of education stakeholders to improve decision making at all levels through
the use of accurate and timely P-20W data.
This investment in the SLDS program offers an example of the resources needed if administrative data were to
be implemented at nearly every college and university in the United States, and were to be inclusive of all fields. The
level of investment would require a significant and sustained investment by the federal government over several years.
Providing the Incentives

The inclusion of as many, and as wide a variety of, academic institutions and other relevant organizations to
join an administrative data clearinghouse will benefit all stakeholders in engineering education and workforce.
To work toward this goal, the organization and governance of any sustainable clearinghouse should provide clear
benefits to key stakeholders with particular focus on the colleges and universities that submit data, the partners
who “own” key datasets for integration, the larger research community, and industry.
The most obvious benefit is that the clearinghouse will provide data on their students engineering education
and employment pathways, which is increasingly demanded by regional and national policy-makers. Joining a
clearinghouse offers a transparent and externally-validated process to capture this data, and may provide access
and linkages to public datasets not otherwise easily available.
Colleges and universities will be able to utilize the data reports to seek additional funding and partnerships
from foundations, state and federal agencies, and employers. In addition, they will receive a nuanced understand-
ing of the strengths of their individual engineering programs, which can facilitate both the implementation and
assessment of direct changes to measures to impact student outcomes.
Additionally, as mentioned above, the clearinghouse will develop and support an interface and educational
tools for academic institutions, as well as other stakeholders, to access, interpret, and understand the data. This
interface should be structured to allow participating academic institutions confidential, individualized reports on
their data, which will not be shared with other stakeholders. The interpretation of these results and usage of the
tools will also be supported by the expertise of the faculty/staff directly supporting the clearinghouse, as well as
the expertise of the broader community of stakeholders participating in the clearinghouse. These elements will
help academic institutions ensure that the data collected and analyses done on the administrative data sets are used
responsibly and interpreted accurately.
The analytical tools themselves can offer tremendous value for colleges and universities. Outlined in more
detail within the paper, administrative data offers higher education institutions unbiased insight into the strengths of

APPENDIX E 195
the engineering education they offer relative to other institutions, the strengths of different engineering departments
within their institution, and a measure of the economic impact of their engineering graduates on their community.
By joining the clearinghouse early, colleges and universities can ensure that the development of tools which are
more important to them are prioritized in the early stages of its launch.
These analytical tools can also offer employers a method to understand the critical experiential components
in the undergraduate experience that strengthen their workforce. For example, Gallup recently published a paper,
“Many College Graduates Not Equipped for Workplace Success,” in which they showed that college graduates
were more likely to be engaged employees if they had experienced one or more out of six college experiences.
At least one of these experiences, working on a project which took a semester or more to complete, could be
determined using administrative data, suggesting that administrative data can be used to understand and improve
recruitment of engineering graduates.
The multiple benefits to engineering education and workforce stakeholders to use and share their administra-
tive data should be widely communicated throughout the engineering community by researchers and other current
users. Engineering faculty, college and university administrators, policy-makers, foundations, government agen-
cies, and employers need to understand the benefits of administrative data to bring together the field or sector on
a national level.
METHODOLOGY FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION EXAMPLES
Understanding the Impact Undergraduate Research Engagement on Educational Outcomes

The initial findings we report here are derived from a pilot project that links record level transcript data col-
lected under a campus-wide learning analytics initiative with record level data on direct cost research expenditures
from federal grants on the same campus. Linking these two sources of data improve both in significant ways, while
also providing valuable new insights into the process and outcomes of STEM education on a research intensive
campus.
The case study of administrative data integration at a large public university was undertaken with three goals
in mind. The research team sought to:
1. demonstrate the value and identify the challenges of combining learning and research analytic data;
2. describe the important phenomena of undergraduate research engagement;
3. determine the implications of different types of research experience for educational outcomes, including
persistence to graduation in STEM and non-STEM fields.
We conclude that there is real value to these and other data integration efforts. Where reliable linking assets
exist (in this case a public and harmonized employee/student ID that prevented the need to make use of P ersonally
Identifiable Information) the technical challenges are limited. Concerns with privacy and confidentiality can largely
be addressed by using common statistical techniques for disclosure proofing.
Combining learning and research analytics data from administrative sources improved both data sets by
expanding transcript data with rich information on co-curricular research experiences that have the potential to be
a high-impact feature of education in a research-intensive environment. By the same token research analytic data
was improved by the addition of nuanced and valuable information about the types of employees that occupy dif-
ferent job categories on campus. This information has high potential value for efforts to characterize the academic
research workforce using job codes and other occupational data.
Finally, the combined data offers potentially important new insights into the character and educational implica-
tions of undergraduate research experiences. More detailed, inferential analyses are in progress, but for the moment
combining learning and research analytic data yields novel descriptive information about who the students that
have research experiences are; what topics the work on, jobs the occupy and degrees they pursue; and whether
experience as a paid employee on a federally funded research grant is associated with differences in an important
educational outcome, graduation within five years of matriculation.

Engineering Education-Workforce Continuum at the University System of Maryland

The University System of Maryland provided student record data fields for 2005 electrical and mechanical
engineering graduates. The Jacob France Institute linked these records with Maryland Unemployment Insurance
Wage Records covering the time span 2004-2013. The Institute also linked the graduate records with 2012-2013
federal civilian employment records.
The education data source is the Degree Information System designed and maintained by the Maryland Higher
Education Commission. Each higher education institution that is required to submit reports to the Commission uses
this Degree Information System. The University System of Maryland, in turn, receives this Degree Information
System data from each of its member institutions. Figure E-5 does not include institution-specific or degree-level
information, but these data fields are included in the Degree Information System. There is an Enrollment Informa-
tion System complement to the Degree Information System. So, much more in-depth research about enrollment
and persistence in ‘engineering’ courses, completion of one or more engineering degrees, and completion of related
and/or unrelated courses/majors/degrees is possible and practical.
The University System of Maryland student record extracts were delivered to the Institute under a Memoran-
dum of Understanding that complies with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to per-
missible access to and transfer of public higher education administrative record information. The actual password
protected transfer of encrypted records was through a secure electronic portal.
Maryland Unemployment Insurance Wage Records are maintained by the Jacob France Institute under an
Interagency Agreement that has been renewed annually since 1991. The Agreement defines the permissible uses
of the transferred administrative data. Authorized Institute staff members are identified. Each quarter the most
recent records are transferred by password protected electronic transfer of encrypted records.
The federal employee extract information is received by Institute researchers through the Federal Employee
Data Exchange System (FEDES) that is funded by the U.S. Department of Labor. Again, Interagency Agreements
define authorized access rules, data security requirements, and permissible uses.
Once longitudinal education and employment/earnings records have been linked many research opportunities
appear. Of particular importance is the longitudinal feature of both education and employment/earnings data. The
Committee’s interest in the engineering education-workforce continuum is not a one-way progression from educa-
tion into workforce. There are many combinations of prior, concurrent and subsequent engagements in engineering
education and workforce participation and achievements. The so-called ‘leakage’ from engineering phenomena
(multi-faceted) can, and does, occur at various life-cycle points.
The most important administrative record limitation, given the Committee’s charge, is that no occupation
information is included in the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Wage Record database. The Quarterly Census
of Employment and Wages data source, which was not used in the production of Figure E-1, contains an industry
data field—North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) coding—that can be used to describe industry
destinations and inter-industry mobility patterns of engineering graduates.
A second important administrative record limitation is that self-employed individuals and independent con-
tractors are not included in the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Wage Record reporting system (although
voluntary participation is permitted).
A third limitation, which applies to this one-time research initiative, is that only Maryland employment is
included. Out-of-state employment covered by unemployment insurance laws in other states is available through
the national Wage Record Interchange System (WRIS.2).
Our intention was to complement Figure E-5 annual earning profiles, which are based on Maryland Unem-
ployment Insurance Wage Records only, with evidence of whether and how the median, 75th percentile and 25th
percentile amounts change when federal employee records are added to the mix. This visual step was not taken
for two reasons: (1) only five of the 2005 electrical engineering graduates, and fourteen of the 2005 mechanical
engineering graduates, were found in the 2013 linkage with federal employment data; and (2) the federal employee
earnings amounts are the annual full-time equivalent amount based on their grade level and assignment, not the
actual amount received during the calendar year by the individual employee.

APPENDIX E 197
Jacob France Institute access to Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages information is a privilege, not
a right. The data are received from the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation under the Inter-
agency Agreement stipulations described above pertaining to Maryland Unemployment Insurance Wage Records.
Different permissible use and disclosure requirements are applicable to the two data sources, because Bureau of
Labor Statistics fund contribute to support of each state’s Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages program.

Appendix F
Workshop Program
WORKSHOP ON PATHWAYS FOR ENGINEERING TALENT

Understanding the Engineering Education-Workforce Continuum Committee
November 19-20, 2014
National Academies, Lecture Room
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
AGENDA
Wednesday, November 19, 2014

All workshop activities will take place in the Lecture Room unless otherwise noted.
1:00 Welcome and Overview of Workshop Objectives:

Jean-Lou Chameau, President, King Abdullah University of Science & Technology (KAUST)
1:10 Opening Remarks

C. D. Mote, Jr., President, National Academy of Engineering
1:30 Session 1: The Educational and Career Pathways of Engineering Talent

Moderator: Rod Adkins, Senior Vice President, IBM
Presenters:
• Donna Ginther, Professor, Department of Economics, University of Kansas
• Shulamit Kahn, Professor, Department of Finance and Economics, School of Management, Boston
University
Respondent: Julia Lane, Senior Managing Economist, American Institutes for Research
Presenter: Samantha Brunhaver, Assistant Professor, Arizona State University
Respondent: Nicole Smith, Research Fellow and Senior Economist, Georgetown University
3:15 BREAK
198

APPENDIX F 199
3:45 Session 2: Recruiting and Employing Engineering Talent

Moderator: Sheri Sheppard, Associate Vice Provost for Graduate Education, Stanford University
Panelists:
• Jeri L. Buchholz, Assistant Administrator for Human Capital Management, NASA
• Dianne Chong, Vice President, Engineering, Operations & Technology, The Boeing Company
• David Nagel, Executive Vice President Emeritus, BP
Framing Questions:
• Where and how do employers in different industries or sectors recruit engineering talent? Are
employer recruiting and career development practices changing for engineering talent? If so, how?
• How is engineering talent used within different industries or sectors?
• How well do skills and knowledge of new engineering talent match the skill/knowledge needs of
employers?
• How are missing or new workplace skills/knowledge acquired by new hires and by employed engi-
neering talent over time?
• Are career advancement pathways for engineering talent within different industries and sectors
changing?
4:45 Session 3: Educating and Providing Career Services to Engineering Talent

Moderator: Gary S. May, Dean, College of Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology
Panelists:
• Constance J. Pritchard, President, The Pritchard Group/National Career Development Association
• Darryll Pines, Farvardin Professor and Dean, Clark School of Engineering, University of Maryland
• Michael McKenzie, Managing Director, Career Learning and Experience, Center for Career Services,
George Washington University
Framing Questions:
• Where are engineering graduates finding jobs? What industries/companies and other employers recruit
from your institution?
• How, if at all, have the occupational opportunities and choices of engineering graduates changed over
the past decade? How well aligned are these opportunities aligned with the expectations of students
and parents?
• What career identification/placement and related services are institutions of higher education and
others provide engineering students and how have these services evolved in recent years?
• What impact, if any, have changing occupational opportunities and choices for engineering graduates
had on the undergraduate engineering education experience—curricular and extra-curricular?
6:00-8:00 pm Working Reception in the Great Hall
Thursday, November 20, 2014
8:00 Breakfast available in East Court, Outside the Lecture Room
8:30 Recap of Day 1 Major Themes/Issues

Rod Adkins, Senior Vice President, IBM

Session 4: Factors Influencing the Educational and Career Decisions of Degreed and Practicing
8:45
Engineers
Moderator: Nadya A. Fouad, Professor and Department Chair, Department of Educational Psychology,
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Presenters:
• Sylvia Hurtado, Director, Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA
• Kevin Eagan, Researcher, Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA
Panelists:
• Steven Brown, Professor, Counseling Psychology Program, Loyola University Chicago
• Andrew Gillen, Senior Researcher, Education Program, American Institutes for Research
• Amy Javernick-Will, Assistant Professor, Construction Engineering & Management Program, Uni-
versity of Colorado
Framing Questions:
• What factor or factors most explain BS engineering graduates’ choice of occupation (engineering,
engineering-related, and non-engineering-related), and how do these factors and their influence
change over time?
• Are these factors the same as or different than those influencing the entrance of non-engineering-
degreed workers into the engineering workforce?
• Are those with engineering degrees choosing willingly or being diverted unwillingly to engineering-
related and non-engineering-related work?
• How if at all does the specific engineering discipline influence or align with occupational choice and
career development?
10:15 BREAK
Session 5: Implications of Current Educational and Career Pathways of Engineering Talent for
10:45
Engineering Educators, Employers, and Other Stakeholders
Moderator: Jennifer Hunt, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Microeconomic Analysis, US Department of
Treasury
Panelists:
• Larry Bucciarelli, Emeritus Professor of Engineering and Technology Studies, MIT
• David Knight, Assistant Professor of Engineering Education, Virginia Tech
• Hal Salzman, Professor and Senior Faculty Fellow, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and
Public Policy, Rutgers University
11:55 Session 6: Innovative approaches to data-gathering and analysis to support decision-making by

students/parents, educators, employers, and state and federal governments concerning engineering
talent and careers
Moderator: Richard K. Miller, President, Franklin W. Olin College
Presenters:
• Isabel Cardenas-Navia, Founder, Alta Vision Consulting
• Jason Owen-Smith, Barger Leadership Institute Professor of Organizational Studies and Professor
of Sociology, University of Michigan
12:55 Introduction to Working Group Sessions

Eric Ducharme, Vice President, Global Technology, General Electric Company (invited)
1:00 Working Group Sessions & Lunch

Lunch will be picked up in East Court, Outside the Lecture Room

APPENDIX F 201
3:00 BREAK
3:15 Session 7: Reconvene and Reports of Working Groups and General Discussion
Moderator: Eric Ducharme, Vice President, Global Technology, General Electric Company
4:30 Closing Remarks: Key Workshop Take-Aways

Rod Adkins, Senior Vice President, IBM
5:00 Adjournment of Workshop

Appendix G
Biographies of Committee Members
Jean-Lou Chameau (Chair; NAE) is president emeritus (2006–2013) of the California Institute of Technology
(Caltech). He then served as president of the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) in
Saudi Arabia, guiding this private “startup university,” modeled after Caltech, on a path to excellence and lead-
ing the development of the campus and its surrounding community of members from over 80 nations. Before the
presidency of Caltech, he had a distinguished career as a professor and administrator at Purdue University and the
Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech). After serving as director of the School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at Georgia Tech, he left academia for the private sector, serving as president of Golder Associates, an
international geotechnical consulting company. He then returned to Georgia Tech as a Georgia Research Alliance
Eminent Scholar and vice provost for research. He went on to become dean of the college of engineering and then
provost and vice president for academic affairs. Dr. Chameau is committed to fostering excellence in science and
technology and promoting a multidisciplinary approach to research and education (“The Leader with the Midas
Touch,” Times Higher Education, 2017). He has also promoted industry-university partnerships and the involve-
ment of universities in economic development, including startups and new businesses, with an emphasis on advanc-
ing entrepreneurial and international opportunities for faculty and students. Early in his career, Dr. Chameau’s
research focused on soil dynamics and earthquake engineering, extending to environmental geotechnology and
sustainable technology in the late 1980s. He was a pioneer in sustainable technology and development begin-
ning in 1991, incorporating the concept of sustainability in education and research to promote a more prosperous
and sustainable society. He has received numerous awards for his research and contributions as an educator and
academic leader. In his native France he was elected Chevalier de la Légion d’Honneur, and he is a member of
both the French Académie des Technologies and the US National Academy of Engineering. He has been active
on industry and public boards, including those of InterWest, Internet2, John Wiley & Sons, KIMC, MTS Systems,
Ma’aden, Safran, l’École Polytechnique, the US Council on Competitiveness, and the Academic Research Council
of Singapore. Dr. Chameau received his undergraduate education from the École Nationale Supérieure d’Arts et
Métiers and his PhD in civil engineering from Stanford University.
Rodney Adkins (Vice Chair; NAE) is president of 3RAM Group LLC, a privately held company specializing in
capital investments, business consulting services, and property management. During his more than 33-year career
at IBM, he held several senior vice president roles: Strategic Partnerships and Corporate Strategy (2013–2014),
responsible for leading companywide transformation and developing strategies for a new era of computing, new
202

APPENDIX G 203
markets, and new clients; Systems and Technology Group (STG; 2009–2013), responsible for all aspects of IBM’s
semiconductor, server, storage, and system software businesses as well as its integrated supply chain and global
business partners organizations; and STG Development and Manufacturing (2007–2009). He also held a number
of development and management roles at IBM, including general manager positions for the PC Company, UNIX
Systems, and Pervasive Computing. Mr. Adkins is a member of the Executive Leadership Council and National
Society of Black Engineers, which in 2001 awarded him the Golden Torch Award for Lifetime Achievement in
Industry. In 2011 Black Enterprise magazine chose him as its Corporate Executive of the Year, and in 2002 Fortune
magazine named him one of the 50 Most Powerful Black Executives in America. He serves on the national board
of the Smithsonian Institution and on the boards of directors for United Parcel Service (UPS) and the National
Action Council for Minorities in Engineering. He also serves on the Georgia Tech Foundation, Rollins College
Board of Trustees, University of Maryland Baltimore County Board of Visitors, and University of Miami College
of Engineering Visiting Committee. Mr. Adkins holds a BA in physics from Rollins College, BS and MS degrees
in electrical engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology, and honorary doctorates from the University of
Maryland Baltimore County and Georgia Institute of Technology.
Eric Ducharme (NAE) is chief engineer at GE Aviation, responsible for airworthiness and certification, design
process and quality, flight safety, and technical talent development for a global team of 6,500 engineers. He joined
GE Aircraft Engines in 1987, leading the aeromechanical design of swept composite fan blades, resulting in their
first successful engine applications. He also led the GE90-115B engineering program through FAA certification,
and commercial engine new product development at GE Aviation, delivering on over $2B of development and
certification programs for next-gen engines, including the LEAP-1A/-1B/-1C series and the Passport 20. Most
recently he led Advanced Technology, responsible for a global team of 800 engineers delivering differentiated
technologies and product architectures for next generation commercial and military flight propulsion. Dr. Ducharme
was vice president, Global Technology at GE Transportation (2009–2014), a $6B business providing propulsion,
power, and control solutions for rail, mining, and marine customers. There he led the development of the Evolution
Series of locomotives. He is a member of the NASA Aeronautics Advisory Committee and past chair of the ASME
Industry Advisory Board and GE’s University Executive aligned with MIT. Dr. Ducharme holds a BSc in mechani-
cal engineering from McGill University, and a master’s and doctorate in aeronautics and astronautics from MIT.
Nadya Fouad is Distinguished Professor and Mary and Ted Kellner Endowed Chair of Educational Psychology,
School of Education, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (UWM). She also serves as special advisor to the pro-
vost for conflict resolution. Previously at UWM she was associate dean of the School of Education (1995–1998),
chair of the Task Force on the Climate for Women, and chair of the Graduate Faculty Council. She is working
on studies to examine the persistence of men and women in engineering careers and how gender and race affect
innovation in engineering teams, and has published articles and chapters on cross-cultural vocational assessment,
career development of women and racial/ethnic minorities, interest measurement, cross-cultural counseling,
and race and ethnicity. Among her honors are the John Holland Award for Outstanding Achievement in Career
and Personality Research (2003), Janet Helms Award for Mentoring and Scholarship (2009), APA Distinguished
Contributions to Education and Training Award (2009), Paul Nelson Award by the Council of Chairs of Training
Councils (2010), and Lifetime Achievement Award from the Council of Counseling Psychology Training Pro-
grams (CCPTP; 2013). She was president of APA Division 17 (Society of Counseling Psychology; 2000–2001),
chair of the APA Ethics Committee (2011), CCPTP chair (2003–2007), and a member and chair of the APA Board
of Educational Affairs (2004–2006). She is editor in chief of the Journal of Vocational Behavior and is on the
editorial boards of the Journal of Career Assessment, Journal of Career Development, and Training and Education
in Professional Psychology. Dr. Fouad earned her BS in psychology from Iowa State University and her PhD in
counseling psychology from the University of Minnesota.
Richard B. Freeman holds the Herbert Ascherman Chair in Economics at Harvard University and is faculty
codirector of the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School as well as senior research fellow in labor
markets at the London School of Economics’ Centre for Economic Performance. He also directs the Science Engi-

neering Workforce Project at the National Bureau of Economic Research and is codirector of the Harvard Center
for Green Buildings and Cities. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and serves on its
initiative for science and technology. He has served on 12 panels and boards of the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). He has received the Mincer Lifetime Achievement Prize (2006) from the
Society of Labor Economics and the IZA (Institute of Labor Economics) Prize in Labor Economics (2007), and
in 2011 he was appointed Frances Perkins Fellow of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. In
2016 he received the Global Equity Organization Judges Award, honoring exceptional contributions to the pro-
motion of global employee share ownership, and in the same year he was named a Distinguished Fellow of the
American Economic Association. Professor Freeman’s research interests include the job market for scientists and
engineers; the transformation of scientific ideas into innovations, Chinese and Korean labor markets; the effects
of AI and robots on the job market; and forms of labor market representation and employee ownership. His recent
publications include The Citizen’s Share: Putting Ownership Back into Democracy (2013) and US Engineering in
a Global Economy (2018). Dr. Freeman has a PhD in economics from Harvard.
Jennifer Hunt is the James Cullen Chair in Economics and professor of economics at Rutgers University. In
2013–2015, while on leave from Rutgers, she served as the first chief economist of the US Department of Labor,
then as deputy assistant secretary for microeconomic analysis at the US Department of the Treasury. Before joining
Rutgers in 2011, she held positions at McGill University, the University of Montreal, and Yale University. Dr. Hunt
is a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, a research fellow at the Centre for Economic
Policy Research in London, and serves on the Scientific Advisory Council of the Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und
Berufsforschung (Research Institute of the German Federal Employment Agency) in Nuremburg. Her current
research focuses on immigration and wage inequality; past research has also encompassed unemployment, the
science and engineering workforce, the transition from communism, crime and corruption. She received her bach-
elor’s degree in electrical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and her PhD in economics
from Harvard.
Amy Javernick-Will is an associate professor and Nicholas R. and Nancy D. Petry Professor in Construction
Engineering and Management in the University of Colorado Boulder’s Department of Civil, Environmental and
Architectural Engineering. Her research group seeks to improve lives through socially sustainable infrastructure
in resource-limited communities. Dr. Javernick-Will conducts global research on disaster recovery and resiliency
planning; global organizational and knowledge management; sustainable WASH (water, sanitation, and hygiene)
systems; and engineering education, where she focuses on participation in service organizations and projects. She
is also associate director for graduate education and research at the Mortenson Center for Engineering in Devel-
oping Communities. Before entering academia, she worked for over six years in the construction and real estate
development industry as a design-build project manager. She is an associate editor of Construction Management
and Economics. Her honors include the American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE) Daniel W. Halpin Award
for Scholarship in Construction (2018), the Distinguished Professor Award (2016) from the Construction Industry
Institute, and the Engineering News-Record Mountain States “Top 20 under 40” Award. Dr. Javernick-Will is a
member of ASCE, Engineers without Borders (EWB-USA), the Construction Research Council, and the Con-
struction Industry Institute. She earned her BS and MS from the University of Colorado Boulder and PhD from
Stanford University, all in civil engineering, with a focus on construction engineering and management for her
advanced degrees.
Julia Lane is a professor at the Wagner School and Center for Urban Science and Progress (CUSP) and Provostial
Fellow for Innovation Analytics and Senior Fellow in the GovLab at New York University. She was previously
a senior managing economist and institute fellow at American Institutes for Research; director of the National
Science Foundation’s Science of Science and Innovation Policy Program; a senior vice president of NORC at the
University of Chicago; and a senior research fellow at the US Census Bureau. She has also held positions at the
Urban Institute, World Bank, and American University. Dr. Lane is the founder or cofounder of the Longitudi-
nal Employer-Household Dynamic (LEHD) partnership with the Census Bureau, the Institute for Research on

APPENDIX G 205
I nnovation and Science at the University of Michigan, and the NORC/University of Chicago Data Enclave. She
was involved in the initiation of Patentsview for the US Patent and Trademark Office and the Integrated Data
Initiative for Statistics New Zealand, and has been working with a number of national governments to document
the results of their science investments. She has authored over 80 refereed articles, including publication in Science
and Nature, and edited or authored ten books. She is a coeditor, with the late Jack Marburger, of the Handbook of
Science Policy. Dr. Lane received her master’s in statistics and PhD in economics from the University of Missouri.
Gary S. May (NAE) is chancellor of the University of California, Davis, leading the most comprehensive campus
in the UC system, with four colleges and six professional schools that offer 104 undergraduate majors and 96
graduate and professional degrees. He was previously dean of the College of Engineering at the Georgia Institute
of Technology, the Steve W. Chaddick Chair of the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering (2005–2011),
and executive assistant to Georgia Tech president G. Wayne Clough (2002–2005). He founded Georgia Tech’s
Summer Undergraduate Research in Engineering/Science (SURE) program for talented minority students, and is
also the founder and director of Facilitating Academic Careers in Engineering and Science program (FACES) to
encourage minority engagement in engineering and science careers. His research is in computer-aided manufactur-
ing of integrated circuits, a field in which he has authored over 250 articles and technical presentations. Dr. May
is a member of the National Advisory Board of the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE). He was editor
in chief of IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing (1997–2001) and an NSF National Young Inves-
tigator (1993–1998). He received his bachelor’s in electrical engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology
and MS and PhD in electrical engineering and computer science from UC Berkeley.
Richard K. Miller (NAE) was appointed president (and first employee) of Olin College of Engineering in 1999.
The college, committed to rethinking what it means to be educated and what it means to be an engineer in the 21st
century, operates as a privately funded “national lab” for engineering education redesign. Dr. Miller was previ-
ously on the engineering faculty and dean of engineering at the University of Iowa, associate dean of engineering
at the University of Southern California, and on the faculty at the University of California, Santa Barbara. With a
background in applied mechanics and current interests in innovation in higher education, he has authored more than
100 reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and other publications. In 2017 he received the Brock International
Prize in Education for his many contributions to the reinvention of engineering education in the 21st century; in
2013, together with two Olin colleagues, he received the NAE’s Bernard M. Gordon Prize for Innovation in Engi-
neering and Technology Education; and in 2011 he received the Marlowe Award for creative and distinguished
administrative leadership from the American Society for Engineering Education. In addition to the NAE, he is a
member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and National Academy of Inventors. Dr. Miller chairs
the NASEM Board on Higher Education and Workforce (BHEW) and has chaired the NSF Engineering Advisory
Committee and served on advisory boards and committees for Harvard University, Stanford University, the NAE,
NAS, and US Military Academy at West Point, among others. He has also served as a consultant to the World
Bank in the establishment of new universities in developing countries. He received the 2002 Distinguished Engi-
neering Alumnus Award from UC Davis, where he earned his BS in aerospace engineering. He earned his MS
in mechanical engineering from MIT and PhD in applied mechanics from the California Institute of Technology,
from which he received the 2014 Caltech Distinguished Alumni Award.
David C. Nagel has over 35 years’ experience in the global energy industry, with executive positions in inter-
national business, corporate finance, and government relations. His career began with Amoco International and
he joined BP after the merger with Amoco in 1999, retiring from BP in 2013. Some of his BP responsibilities
included CEO roles for the company’s businesses in Egypt and Algeria, global head of mergers and acquisitions,
group controller for exploration and production, and head of BP’s Washington office. Mr. Nagel’s activities
now include advising nonprofit organizations at the board and executive level, and engaging in public discus-
sions of energy issues. In 2012 he and three faculty from Duke Corporate Education coauthored The New CFOs
(Kogan Page). He has served on advisory boards for the Division of International Studies at the University of
Wisconsin–Madison, the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering, the Woolly Mammoth Theatre

Company in Washington, the National Capital Area Council of the Boy Scouts, and the nonpartisan organization
OurEnergyPolicy.org. Mr. Nagel has a BS in chemistry and an MBA in international finance, both from the Uni-
versity of Wisconsin–Madison.
Sheri D. Sheppard is the Bass University Fellow in Undergraduate Education, the Richard Weiland Professor
of Mechanical Engineering, associate chair for undergraduate curriculum in the Department of Mechanical Engi-
neering, and codirector of the Center for Design Research in the School of Engineering at Stanford University.
In 2006–2007 she chaired the faculty senate, and in 2009–2014 she was associate vice provost of graduate edu-
cation. For nearly 20 years she has served as faculty advisor to the Mechanical Engineering Women’s Group at
Stanford, which holds an annual seminar series and a welcome program for all female engineers. Her research
focuses on fracture mechanics and applied finite element analysis, and on how people become engineers. She led a
three-year study, Educating Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field (Jossey-Bass, 2009), and is an inter-
nationally recognized expert on engineering education. In 2010 she received the Walter J. Gores Award, Stanford’s
highest award for excellence in teaching, and in 2014 she was named the CASE/CFAT US Professor of the Year
(Doctoral and Research Universities). Dr. Sheppard received her BS in engineering mechanics from the University
of Wisconsin–Madison and her MS and PhD, both in mechanical engineering, from the University of Michigan.
Nicole Smith is a research professor and the chief economist in the Center on Education and the Workforce at
Georgetown University; she leads the Center’s econometric and methodological work and has developed a frame-
work for restructuring long-term occupational and educational projections. This framework forms the underlying
methodology for Help Wanted, a report that projects education demand for occupations in the US economy through
2020. She is part of a team of economists working on a project to map, forecast, and monitor human capital devel-
opment and career pathways. Before joining the Center, she was a faculty member in economics at Gettysburg
College and the University of the West Indies (UWI), St. Augustine campus. She taught classical and modern
econometrics, introductory and advanced courses in microeconomics, macroeconomics, statistics, mathematics for
economists, and Latin American economic development. Her current research investigates the role of education
and socioeconomic factors in intergenerational mobility. Her previous macroeconomic research focused on the
political economy of exchange rates and exchange rate volatility in the Commonwealth Caribbean, the motivation
for her MS thesis and a joint publication at the Inter-American Development Bank. Dr. Smith is a coauthor of “The
Inheritance of Educational Inequality: International Comparisons and Fifty-Year Trends,” published in 2007 by the
B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy. She was a corecipient of the 2007 Arrow Prize for Junior Economists
for educational mobility research. She was born in Trinidad and Tobago and graduated with honors in economics
and mathematics from UWI (St. Augustine campus), from which she received the Sir Arthur Lewis Memorial
Prize for outstanding research at the master’s level. She earned her PhD in economics from American University.

Understanding The Educational and Career Pathways of Engineers (2018)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding The Educational and Career Pathways of Engineers (2018)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding The Educational and Career Pathways of Engineers (2018)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25284 SHARE

Understanding the Educational and Career Pathways of

222 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

GET THIS BOOK Committee on Understanding the Engineering Education-Workforce Continuum;

FIND RELATED TITLES

National Academy of Engineering 2018. Understanding the Educational and Career

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Committee on Understanding the Engineering Education-Workforce Continuum

A Consensus Study Report of the

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-48560-9

Copyright 2018 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,

Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COMMITTEE ON UNDERSTANDING THE ENGINEERING

National Academy of Engineering Project Staff

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Paul Gray (NAE)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

J. Jerl Purcell, III

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Jean-Lou Chameau (Chair),

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1 CHARACTERISTICS OF ENGINEERS AND THE ENGINEERING WORKFORCE 15

2 CHALLENGES FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION 60

3 FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE DECISION MAKING OF ENGINEERING STUDENTS

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Factors That Influence Postgraduate Decisions and Actions, 100

4 MAJOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 117

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Boxes, Figures, and Tables

1-1 Engineering Technicians and Engineering Technologists, 20

2-1 Google’s Search Criteria for New Hires, 63

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

xiv BOXES, FIGURES, AND TABLES

1-9 Cumulative completion rates of bachelor’s engineering degree aspirants, by sex, 34

3-1 Diagram of social cognitive career theory, 83

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

BOXES, FIGURES, AND TABLES xv

C-1 Percentage of entering first-time, full-time freshman intending to major in engineering,

D-1 Cobweb model, 181

E-1 Sample connections for administrative data, 184

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

xvi BOXES, FIGURES, AND TABLES

C-1 Demographic composition, first-time, full-time freshmen, fall 2012, 157

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

ENGINEERS USE DIVERSE SKILLS IN A VARIETY OF OCCUPATIONS AND INDUSTRIES

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2 UNDERSTANDING THE EDUCATIONAL AND CAREER PATHWAYS OF ENGINEERS

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

• management occupations associated with engineering (21 percent),

3 FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE DECISION MAKING OF ENGINEERING STUDENTS