The Wright Brothers & The Invention of the Aviation Age. http://www.nasm.st.edu
Floyd, R. (1993). The Four “Ins” of Management — Avoid Them! Industrial Management, May/June 1993.
Floyd, R. (2008). Rules of Thumb. IEEE Potentials, November/December 2008.
Floyd, R. (2011). On Planning Your Career. IEEE Potentials, May/June 2011.
Floyd, R. (2011). Chef, Cook, or Bottle Washer? IEEE Potentials, May/June 2011.
Spencer, R. (1983). Planning, Implementing, and Control in Product Test and Assurance. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Over many years, we have known people who had enrolled in an engineering curriculum, only to decide it was not what they really wanted to do. Also some switched their engineering major when they decided there were different conditions they preferred to work in. For instance, one student decided he would prefer to work outside in the field, not in a laboratory or office, so switched from chemical to petroleum engineering. Such changes, while not uncommon, may be costly for students, both in time and money. Depending on when the change is made, completing the degree may be pushed beyond the traditional four years by two or more years, with college costs increasing proportionally.
We find it interesting to talk to young people, high school seniors, and college freshmen, and discuss with them the course of study they plan to follow in college and for their career. Frequently, an individual will simply say, “I’m going into Engineering.” That is somewhat akin to saying trees are green — there is such a variation in what an engineer is, what courses need to be studied, what the interests of the student are, what jobs are available to the graduate, and the list goes on and on. If the individual can narrow the choice, even slightly, to say, “I’m going to be an electrical engineer.” there still remains a large number of choices to be made as one embarks on the studies needed for the new career.
During our years of work as engineers, we have seen many engineering graduates who have specialized so narrowly that they were unable to adapt for success in some very challenging opportunities. One case in point was a young engineer trained in electronics, but unable to handle testing of printers. Why? The testing involved primarily mechanical components, although much of the printer itself contained electronics for paper advance, hammer firing, data transfer, and so forth, but he couldn’t adapt to the system aspects of the job. After a time he left and found a new position in aircraft cockpit simulators, although we suspect he didn’t last there either, as there are many, if not more, mechanical aspects to learn.
A second case was a bright young engineer carrying a 4.0 G.P.A., and appeared to have a brilliant future as a design engineer— until he was asked to perform a simple modification of a printed circuit card. In all of his training, he had never soldered on a circuit board — and had no interest in learning. He moved on, looking for opportunities in research and development where he hoped to apply the theory he had learned. In his case, we wished him luck, but doubted his future success simply because of his attitude toward the mundane aspects of the work. He hadn’t come to the realization that every project is not going to be involved in startling new discoveries; there will be those times when the work is very ordinary. Other young engineers, who relatively had only “adequate” training, understood this and thus were often successful in design and testing of a wide variety of business machines and systems. Some then expanded their career opportunities by also becoming adept at programming for testing and manufacturing process control.
On the other hand, there are those who want to do research in highly specialized or specific areas. In that case, specialization may be appropriate, as long as the individual recognizes the possible limitations placed on their career path by such narrow focus. The authors, however, write from years of broad-based experience in the testing of a wide variety of business machines, robots, automated manufacturing systems, human factors assessments, and various systems, ranging from office systems to others for airports, parking lots, trucking centers, and highway applications. In such cases, the engineer must be able to understand the system aspects of the application, installation, and, if required, provide operating instructions that non-technical operators can understand and follow quickly and correctly. Yes, the engineer must also develop good communication and writing skills along the way, and certainly the ability to work with others in a cooperative and courteous manner.
One author, Richard Spencer, who had several years as a combat cameraman and worked in a hand-cast aluminum cookingware factory, decided to acquire an Electrical Engineering degree. He was offered positions at a television company, the U.S. Geodetic Survey Service, missile research, and IBM. He settled on IBM and had a very satisfying 38-year career there, spending the most time within the Product Test function. In that role, he was charged with the testing of new products prior to public announcement or shipment, and tested everything from input/output equipment to mainframes — both mechanical and electrical. While at college, he gave special attention to mechanical areas of study and to technical writing for communicating effectively with non-engineers. Later at IBM, he had many technical reports to write, coached other engineers and programmers in writing for understandability by non-engineer product users, had two books on product testing published, and was assigned to rewrite a management manual.
Raymond Floyd also had an Electrical Engineering degree and worked in radar, field engineering, and programming prior to joining IBM. Given his broad-based experience, he was tasked with obtaining approval from NASA for funding and then designing, integrating, and testing procedures for diagnostic programs for support computers at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. During his IBM career, he worked in missile support, Product Test, automated manufacturing systems design, and radio frequency identification (RFID) systems. The authors spent 26 years working together at IBM, often on the same projects involving work not only in the laboratory, but also in the field, both in the United States and abroad, even involving the testing of an anti-collision system aboard ships for the shipping industry.
In other words, it is well for many young engineers to approach their training with an open mind about what they will learn and decide if specialization is meant for them. If it’s not, they need to be able to adapt to a wide variety of opportunities over a range of engineering capabilities. Such an approach may lead them to find that there are many more opportunities to take advantage of as they progress in their careers. In addition, with a broad outlook, the young engineers may find more opportunities to move into and become successful managing a broad range of engineering projects and engineering personnel. Excessive specialization can restrict the young engineer’s opportunities, and perhaps they should try for a broader approach as the means to the greatest opportunity.
Although it would take a larger book to discuss all of the variations of engineering studies, within this text, we will provide insight into the types of studies required for general engineering, and some specifics for a few more clearly defined engineering occupations. It is also important to note that engineering studies in the United States may be significantly different when considering the curriculum in other nations.
To begin, the student who wants to be an engineer should have a high interest in science and mathematics. High school courses should have included basic math, algebra, trigonometry, and geometry. In addition, classes in chemistry and physics are essential. In general, a college curriculum in engineering will require the student to include such courses as college algebra, trigonometry, calculus (integral and differential),
