|
Items in cart [4] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 35
NATIONAL NEEDS AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE:
A BACKGROUND PAPER
Cheryl B. Leggon
Nanonal Research Council, OSEP
The purpose of this paper is to provide general information to individuals prior to
their participation in the Workshop on National Needs and Technological Change:
Fostering Flexibility in the Engineering Work Force, to be convened on September 29,
1989, by the Committee on Skill Transferability in Engineering Labor Markets. To
maximize the benefits from an intensive one-day workshop, the committee agreed that
workshop participants should be briefed beforehand on the Committee's deliberations so
that the workshop could build on them rather than repeat them. Workshop participants will
identify the major policy issues concerning adaptability of the engineering work force and
evaluate the state of the knowledge base that informs these issues, enabling the study
committee to outline a long-range action agenda that focuses on filling in the gaps in
knowledge informing the major policy issues associated wide adaptability.
Purpose and Structure of the Workshop
The workshop seeks answers to several questions: Is there a problem getting
people to fill engineering jobs? If so, what is the magnitude of that problem? How do
workshop participants manage the problem? What are the opportunities-as well as the
problems? Are there actions that should be taken? Are there any danger signals about
which we should be concerned? What research is needed to address these issues?
To maximize the opportunity for dialogue, workshop participants will spend most
of the day in one of three groups: Changing National Priorities; Technological Change;
Education and Training. These groups were devised as a way to cover each of the major
dimensions that the committee identified to assess adaptability. Although each group will
focus on one of the major dimensions, it will also discuss the others. For example, the
35
OCR for page 36
national priorines group's discussion will undoubtedly include technological change and
education and training. For each group, the committee identified specific items for
· e
c 1scusslon.
Changing National Priorities
This group will consider the impact of changes in national pnor~ties on Me need for
an adaptable engineering work force. For example, passage of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 established the early development of commercial nuclear power as a national
objective, which enhanced the continued development of commercial nuclear power. Other
issues the Coup will consider include:
how industry adapts to changing patterns of demand-specifically, the work force
practices that they believe enhance their ability to respond to environmental changes
and
impact of federal immigration policies on the adaptability of the U.S. engineering
work force.
Technological Charge
One major issue will concern emerging and declining technologies. Engineering
has always been among the faster changing disciplines because
a solved engineering problem turns into a standard maintenance technique in
an action-onented discipline that is no longer research engineering (Gore,
19891.
One example of this is the engineering application of x-rays and electr~magne~acs to
medicine, resulting in radiology. Gorn adds computer engineering as an emerging
profession characterized by rapid technological development-"five generations of
machines to one generation of people." One consequence of this is that computer engineers
must have continuing education-either academically or on the job-to remain current.
Similarly, chemical engineering can be viewed as either the youngest of the major
traditional engineering disciplines or as the oldest of the major new disciplines (Watson,
19891. Declining technologies are those experiencing a temporary decline in demand, not
36
OCR for page 37
technologies going out of existence. Nuclear eng~neenog can be considered both an
emerging and a declining technology: it can be considered an emerging technology because
it is only about 30 years old; it can be considered a declining technology insofar as negative
public perception of nuclear power led to a steady decline in enrollment in undergraduate
nuclear engineering programs although, contrary to popular belief, the demand for
nuclear engineers was strong during the past 20 years. Accordingly, Woodallts case study
of nuclear engineering may provide insight on how to deal with both emerging and
declining technologies. Woodall points out that the first nuclear engineers were trained as
physicists, chemists' and mechanical or chemical engineers; and even today-because
nuclear engineering is a relatively young field-many senior faculty members of nuclear
engineering departments have degrees Mom fields other than nuclear eng~neer~ng.l
'!_ ~ ___ _ 1 - _ _ _ .- ~ ~ .
reaeral pOllCy actions vary enormously deepening upon which areas are perceived
to be declining and which are perceived to be emerging. With declining technologies, the
issue is not only that of adapting the labor force in new directions, but also of identifying
the opportunities. For example, in the relatively new area of biotechnology, biotech
engineers are less likely to come from engineering than from biology and chemistry. What
kind of Gaining is required for them to make the transition? Who is going to pay for it?
Examining how both emerging and declining fields view their adaptability problems may
enable one to uncover combinations of declining and emerging interests which, if not
addressed in advance, create blockages or problems and exacerbate existing barriers to
adaptability; conversely, one might also discover avenues of opp~un~ties for We
engineering work force.
Thus, basic questions Tat this group will discuss include the following:
How in He future win we deal with the new technologies? How are we going to
provide the people to use and develop these technologies?
How do firms adapt to changing technologies?
Education and Training
For this workshop, He terms "education" and "training" will be used
interchangeably although for some people there are significant distinctions between the
See Many Blair, Education Fields of Early PhD. Nuclear Engineers, Appendix A of this paper.
37
OCR for page 38
two tempts. This group will look at the role of education and training-at the
undergraduate, graduate, and continuing or lifelong levels in meeting the changing needs
of our engineering work force. Education and training includes not only that provided by
formal courses of instruction, but also that provided by industry in-house. Among the
issues that Me group will consider are the following:
.
Broad versus narrower undergraduate engineering programs in
promoting adaptability: Watson (1989) contends that the key to increasing the
adaptability of chemical engineers for work in over fields is to include broader and
additional Braining in the chemical engineering curriculum, while Woodall (1989)
points out that the nuclear engineering curriculum could be used as a model for We
development of an inherently flexible engineering Braining program. Are there do-
able modifications/additions/changes that could be made to current undergraduate
engineering programs and Lacks that might improve a young engineer's ability to
adapt to the changing professional demands of the work place and increase hisser
worth in a fast-changing, technologically sophisticated marketplace?
Effectiveness of continuing education in promoting adaptability:
Because engineering is a profession whose success is measure by its solved
problems, all engineers must continue to be educated ~ughout their careers and
must acquire an understanding of the problems in He discipline to which their work
is being applied (Gom, 1989~. However, some academics see current gaining
programs nationwide as being more concen~ec} with Mung immediate problems Han
preventing future ones and lament these prog~ns' lack of stmctum, quality
control, and program planning; paradoxically, they refuse to be directly involved in
improving the situation. Atkinson (1989) contends that technical training and
updating of engineers is becoming an important priorly on the national engineering
agenda because
the company that employs the most up-to-date technical work force
is the company that is able to use technology to improve its market
advantage and its compei~uve position.
Changing demographics of the U.S. work force preclude companies from hiring
significant numbers of new engineers every year. Therefore, companies have two
alternatives: lure talented professionals from their competitors or retrain/upgrade
38
OCR for page 39
Heir own professionals. Atkinson believes that the latter strategy has the greatest
long-term potential for achieving national economic goals. Industry continues to
provide and pay for education for its employees because it recognizes the role that
continuing education has in the company's success. Nevertheless, education funds
are the first cut when times become difficult, and the last rein stated when they
Improve.
Role of professional societies in facilitating adaptability: The Institute
of Electrical & Electronics Engineers (EKE) is working with groups of experts to
create self-administered tests and questionnaires that will show what field-specific
knowledge elements would be required to move into certain new areas (e.g.,
moving fiom magnetos into fiber optics.
Adaptability Matrix
To help conceptualize these issues In a manageable way, the committee developed
an adaptability matrix in which the rows represent three major perspectives from which to
examine adaptability, and the columns are specific items to be included in each examination:
Problems Opportunities Data
Changes in National Priondes
Technological Change
| education and Training l
Terminology
To establish a common universe of discourse that will facilitate communication
among workshop participants, this section provides brief, basic definitions of the terms
2A copy of the fFFE self-assessment is in Appendix A of Atkinson's paper.
39
OCR for page 40
used to describe the workshop. For the purposes of this workshop, national priorities refer
to both defense and nondefense priorities. Examples of defense priorities include such
weapons as the Bigeye binary bomb and the so-called "Star Wars" defense initiative.
Examples of nondefense priorities include environmental concerns such as the "greenhouse
effect," the depletion of the ozone layer; energy issues; and competitiveness.
Technological change has been a central component of U.S. economic growth:
innovations in products and processes resulted in the creation of new industries and the
transformation of older ones (Cyert and Mowery, 1987). Technological advance plays a
central role both in changing the environment of competition and in providing Grins with a
capability to excel in their products and processes.3
Adaptability is defined as the ability to transfer engineering skins among
engineering subf~elds and to transform scientific and technological knowledge into product
and process applications; this includes applying products, processes, and skills in new
ways. However, examining the engineering work force, we understand neither the
adjustment process itself nor the factors that facilitate and impede it. The engineering work
force is broadly defined to include individuals who earned degrees in engineering, or are
employed as engineers, or are self-identif~ed as engineers, based on their education and
work experience. This definition includes engineers in management, finance, and public
policy.
Background
Contemporary American society is characterized by rapidly changing technology
and complex ~n~nanonal problems including national secunty and ~nterna~aonal
compeiinveness. The United States is now in a fundamentally new situation in which
compenoveness is qualitatively different from what it was in tile past Within tile last 30
years, the economy has become increasingly international in character. Furthermore, since
the m~d-1960s, the United States' economic perfo~Tnance has detenorated and changes In
the international economic environment have nan owed Be technological gap between the
United States and other industrial economies (Cyert and MoweIy, 1987). The more rapid
3Robert M. White, in the preface to The Technological Dimensions of International Competitiveness, a
report to the Council of the National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press, 1988.
40
OCR for page 41
rates of International technology transfer characters of the modern economic
environment mean that the knowledge forming the basis for commercial innovations need
not be domestic in ongin. Because new knowledge and technologies developed in the
United States are transferred to foreign competitors more rapidly than they were in the past,
any technology-based advantages held by U.S. firms and workers over foreign firms and
workers are likely to be more fleeting In the future (Cyert and Mowery, 1987).
To benefit from technological change within the economy, workers must be able to
move from sectors of declining labor demand to those in which employment opportunities
are expanding. It seems reasonable, therefore, to conclude that adaptability will become
increasingly important over time because it provides a way for the United States to respond
to changes In demand for specific kinds of engineering skills. As a prelude to the
workshop, it might be useful to examine what we know about the engineering work force
In general, and its adaptability In particular.
Selected Characteristics of Engineers4
One major source of information is the Current Population Survey (CPS), a survey
of approximately 55,000 households conducted monthly by the Bureau of the Census for
the Bureau of Labor Statistics and providing information on industry and occupation of
employment, age, sex, and education. The characteristics of engineers are very similar to
those of all professional workers with two notable exceptions: engineering has a smaller
proportion of part-time and female workers and tends to be more stable than other
occupations. According to occupational tenure data-which measure We length of time
individuals have done the kind of work they are now doing, while working for either their
content or any previous employer-Me median years of tenure in Weir current occupation
was 10.5 for engineers, 9.6 for all professional workers, but only 6.6 years for all
employed workers. Another indication of occupational stability is the proportion of
workers with 20 or more years tenure in the occupation: 28.2 percent of engineers have 20
or more years as engineers as compared to 20 percent for all professional workers and 14.6
percent for all workers.
Demand for engineers has increased by 83 percent during the past 25 years. The
only significant deviation occulted between 1968 and 1973 as a result of decreasing
41bis section summarizes the paper prepared for this workshop by Alan Eck, included in this volume.
41
OCR for page 42
involvement in Vietnam and the space program. Demand for additional engineers results
from growth and die need to replace workers who leave the occupation; growdh is the easier
component to identify.
Merged data-which provide a composite description of movements into, out of,
and between occupations over a 1-year period-show that relatively few engineers leave
from one year to the next. Separation rates are around 6 percent for the most technical
groups of engineers-aerospace, civil, electrical and electronic, and mechanical; this is
one-half He separation rate for industrial engineers. Merged data can also provide
information about entrants (i.e., individuals who entered the occupation to fill newly
created jobs as wed as to replace engineers who left); however, such data tend to understate
the number of entrants because the data cannot identify entrants who recently completed
school. Gross flow data indicate about 8 percent of engineers leave engineering from one
year to dhe next: some leave permanency (to become managers or retire), while adhere leave
temporarily to work In another occupation or stop working. The temporary movements are
Be most difficult to quantify because they are Me most affected by market conditions. The
data indicate that if more engineers are needed, labor market adjustments are made; but
what about the quality of these adjustments?
Quality of Labor Market Aa~justmentsS
One measure of adaptability is the willingness and ability of individuals trained in
one field of study to work in alte~nauve occupations. Using data from the Survey of
Income and Program Participat~on (SIPP), Dauffenbach found that among the 20,000
observations of employed engineers, about 55 percent had an exact match between their
detailed employment field and the detailed degree field of their highest degree earned. He
found that 80 percent of all working engineers had engineering degrees, though not
necessarily an exact match. However, slightly more than half of those with engineering
degrees were employed in jobs other than science and eng~neenng jobs.
Dauffenbach's analysis of SIPP data viewed the prevalence of non-exact-
correspondence between occupation and education as evidence of flexibility in the science
and engineering labor market. He hypothesized that one negative consequence of such
flexibility occurs in the romp of diminished productivity, which should show up
SThis discussion summarizes a review of recent studies on evidence of ~aptabili0, in the labor market for
engineers by Robert C. Dauffenbach and Michael G. Finn, included in this volume.
42
OCR for page 43
systematically in salaries. The results from Dauffenbach's study indicate clearly that
persons without engineering degrees earn less than those with engineering degrees when
the job is engineering. The one exception appears to be the math and computer science
degree recipients, who seem to show as much adaptability as engineering degree recipients
at least for jobs in the broad categories of engineering, mathematical sciences, computer
science, and physical science. Several studies looking at the earnings of engineers in
nonengineering jobs found that persons with engineering degrees are very adaptable in the
following sense: they do not earn less when moving from engineering to nonengineering
jobs.
Who stand-in engineering and whQswit~hes to none~eeringfields?
find out what the data tell us about which people with degrees in engineering stay in
engineering and which switch to nonengineering fields, special data tabulations and
analyses were done by Larry Blair of Oak Ridge Associated Universities. The data was on
persons with degrees in engineering and working as engineers in 1980, who were
resurveyed in 1982, 1984, and 1986; this does NOT include the many persons with
degrees in engineering who were already switchers to conscience or nonengineering
positions in 1980. The data are from three sample-based surveys of scientists and
engineers sponsored by the National Science Foundation.6 One caveat: this is a
preliminary exploration of the data and is not intended to be def~ninve.
We found it best to examine Be charactensucs of "stayers" and "switchers" by
degree level: separating those with B.S., and M.S., degrees in eng~neenng from those
with the Ph.D.
According to Blares tabulations, during 1982 and 1986, there was considerable
switching in general to nonenginee~ing employment and back to engineering employment-
with the "switchers" out of engineering approximately balanced by Be "retune switchers" to
engineering. There also appears to be two groups: "stayers" who remain in the same
engineering field and "switchers" who once they have switcheci continue to switch at
relatively high rates to either other engineering fields or other nonengineenng fields
Koala on persons with a doctorate degree in engineering are Tom the 1987 Survey of Doctoral Scientists
and Engineers, a biennial longitudinal survey conducted by the National Research Council's Office of
Scientific and Engineering Personnel. Data on experienced work force persons with bachelor's or master's
degrees in engineering are from the 1986 National Survey of Natural and Social Scientists and Engineers,
conducted by the United States Census Bureau. Data on 1984 and 1985 graduates With bachelor's or
master's level degrees in engineering are from the 1986 Survey of Science, Social Science, and Engineering
Grad - tes, conducted by the Institute for Survey Research at Temple University.
43
OCR for page 44
OCR for page 46
OCR for page 47
OCR for page 48
OCR for page 49
OCR for page 50
OCR for page 51
OCR for page 52
Representative terms from entire chapter:
nuclear engineering
(Figure 1). Age does not appear to be related to employment field-switching. In general,
"switchers" had their B.S., or M.S., degrees longer than "stayers." "Switchers" tended to
be more experienced than "stayers;" however, "switchers" within engineering employment
fields tended to be less experienced than "stayers." B.S., and M.S., "switchers" are more
likely to be employed in business and industry and less likely to be employed in
government than "stayers." B.S., and M.S., "switchers" to nonengineering employment
fields are more likely to be managers by occupation.
r469.308
1 65.2%
OC=P~nN ~ 982
she or - n
eats EON;
rem Dale
302,254 96,1 47
64.~# 20.s%
71~` ~ : 7
81§
m
~ 0
-
-
0 ~_
~ ~ '
~ ~O ~
0 rut
no
_ ~
Employed Id reporting h 1982 1964 and 1986.
Musing occupation responses are included in non engineering.
Sample size . ~ 2.962 or 1 PLAY.
TOTAL 250, 04 2
7 ~ 9,350 ~ s~
NON SHANNON
~4 ~
OCC - MEN 1 9 8 occur ON
70,906 9,248
15.1 ~3.~#
A\
N No ~ ~1 9 86 ~ ~.~
~· ~ ~ _
mNn~; 1
ocaJP~r~
-I
. _
Cam - N
en
Ph.D. "switchers" out of engineering are almost offset by the "return switchers"
back to engineering (Figure 2). SwitchLng does not appear to be related to years since the
Ph.D. in engineering was earned, nor to age. Among those with the Ph.D. in engineering,
"switchers" are somewhat more likely to be employed in business and industry and
government and much less likely to be employed In education institutions. Ph.D.
"switchers" compared to "stayers" by primary work activity have lower percentages In
teaching and R&D, about the same percentage in R&D management, and higher
percentages In other management and operations/other.
e~3 ~e~3
28, ~ e4 1 9 83 occ - arm
83.0%
_ . . _
Saw OUR
en ~
Cot ArtON OOOUPAnON
21,531 5.055
~ 76.4% ~ ~j.9~L
NON
en
oases
1,S98
S.; 2%
\ / ~
. .
Ut - ~ ~
. . . .
C' ~ ~· ~
No Dig of
En~b~d and repotting h 1983, 1985, and 1987.
Ding ce~don Depone are included h ron~r~g.
Same stile . 1,070 or 3.1%.
TOTAL
33,973
1 985
1 987
. ~
u
SA - NON
ens
occw~r~N
2,772
47.9%
° ~ ° o
Ut ~ ~
_ _ .
5,788
17.0%
INS
_~3
Boa
1 ,497
2S. l
. _ ,
~ g ~ ~ ~ "m
SOURCE: Labor and Policy Studies Program, Science/Engineenng Education Division, Engineering
Mobility and Salary Information, 0~ Ridge, Tem.: ORAU, 1989 based on the 1987 longitudinal
doctorate survey.
Figure 2. Individuals holding Ph.D.s in engineering in 1983, by employment specialty,
1983, 1985, 1987.
45
en
oar
1 ,S20
26.3
-
11
o
~ o
Are there two career tracks-technical and managerial? Blair's analysis
indicates that there appears to be two tracks at the B.S., and M.S., levels:
The average salaries for those
.
in noneng~neering employment are 13 percent higher
than the average salaries for those in engineering employment.
The highest paying primary work activities are R&D management and other
management where salaries for those in nonengineenng employment are
substantially higher Can for those in eng~neenng employment.
For those with B.S., or M.S., degrees, having a graduate business degree adds greatly lo
salary; working in science and engineering (S&E) occupations as compared to non-S&E
occupations decreases average salary levels. In sum, Blair's analysis indicates that for
holders of B.S., and M.S., degrees In engineering, the technical track is inferior in tempts
of earnings; in over words, there really are not two tracks.
Similarly, there does NOT appear to be a dual career track for those with the Ph.D.
in engineering. R&D management and other management categories show substantially
higher salaries for those with Ph.D.s in eng~neenng for both engineering and
nonengineenng employment specialties. In fact, average salaries in the management areas
are somewhat higher for those indicating an eng~neenng employment field. The only
exception is in operations/other primary work activity, where nonengineering employment
has a substantially higher average salary than eng~neenng employment.
Studies have shown Tat imbalances between supply and demand do not lead to
cnses; we do not have unfilled jobs, but jobs filled by people from other areas. Can
American society afford to wait on unassisted market mechanisms or do we want to do
something to try to dissipate changes and move things in a direction that policy wants them
to go?7 This is the starting point for the workshop discussions.
References
Atkinson, Pamela H. 1989. The Relevance of Career-Long Education to Creating and
Maintaining an Adaptable Work Force. Paper presented at the Workshop on
7In this context, policy not only refers to that created by the federal government, but also to policy devised
by other institutions such as economic and education institutions.
46
National Needs and Technological Change: Fostering Flexibility in the Engineering
Work Force, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., September 29.
Cyert, Richard M., and D. C. Mowery (ads.). 1987. Technology and Employment,
Innovation, and Growth in the U.S. Economy. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press.
Eck, Alan. 1989. Adaptability of the Engineering Work Force: Information Available from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Paper presented at the Workshop on National Needs
and Technological Change: Fostering Flexibility in the Engineering Work Force,
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., September 29.
Corn, Saul. 1989. Adapting to Computer Science. Paper presented at the Workshop on
National Needs and Technological Change: Fostering Flexibility in the Engineering
Work Force, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., September 29.
Watson, J. S. 1989. Adaptability in Chemical Engineering. Paper presented at the
Workshop on National Needs and Technological Change: Fostering Flexibility in
the Engineering Work Force, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.,
September 29.
Woodall, David M. 1989. Nuclear Engineering Case Study. Paper presented at the
Workshop on National Needs and Technological Change: Fostering Flexibility in
the Engineering Work Force, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.,
September 29.
47
APPENDIX A
EDUCATION FIELDS OF EARLY PH.D. NUCLEAR ENGINEERS
Latry Blair
Oak Ridge Associated Universities
Evidence from the 1975 Survey
of Ph.D. Scientists and Engineers
The majority of early Ph.D. nuclear engineers earned their degrees In physical
science disciplines (about 7 out of 10), with physics being by far the most common
area of study. This is apparent in the 1975 longitudinal Ph.D. survey data,where
almost 70 percent of the over 55-year-old age group report physical science as Heir
major field of study. Approximately 50 percent of the 45- to 55-year-old age group
indicate physical science fields of study, but less than 25 percent of the under-45
age group report physical science fields of study.
Eng~neenng other than nuclear was the field of study for 30-40 percent of the 45-
and-older age groups.
Dramatically, none of die over-55 age group and only 5 percent of the 45-55 age
groups had a nuclear engineering major as a field of study. However, among the
under-45 age group, over 50 percent had a nuclear en~neenng major in their Ph.D.
studies.
Evidence from the 1987 Survey
of Ph.D. Scientists and Engineers
The mend toward a nuclear eng~neenng major in Ph.D. studies and away from a
physical science field also is clearly seen in comparing Ph.D. nuclear engineers in
the 1987 sunrey to Hose in the 1985 survey. By 1987 die percent of He under
45-year-old age group with a nuclear engineering major had decreased from
approx~nately 50 percent to almost 70 percent. The percent of the 45-55 age
groups with a nuclear engineering major increased over four times, to
approximately 40 percent, and even a small percent of the over-55 age group has a
· · ~
nuc ear englneermg major.
Conversely, the percent of nuclear engineers with physical science majors
decreased by 1987, dramatically for all age groups 55 and younger. The under-45
age group with a physical science major decreased from more than 20 percent in
1975 to less Can 10 percent in 1987, the 45-55 age groups fimm approximately 50
percent to less than 20 percent, and even the over-55 age group from almost 70
percent to 60 percent.
The percent of Ph.D.s employed as nuclear engineers but holding degrees in other
engineering majors was about the same in 1987 as in 1975 for each of tile age
groups.
48
Table 1. Ph.D.s Employed as Nuclear Engineers in 1975 by Degree Field and Age, 1987
Longitudinal Doctorate Survey.
Age G=up (Percent Distribution)
Under 45 45-49 50-55 Over 55
Ph.D. Degree Field
Physical Sciences23.747.652.469.6
E· e
ng~neenng
Nuclear52.86.64.20.0
Chemical6.816.921.518.4
Over14.627.717.812.0
A110~=2.11.24.200
Total100.0100.0100.0100.0
Age Group (weigh ted Numbers)
Under 45
45-49 50-55 Over 55
Total1124166191158
Ma=tat20200
Physics197678887
Chemistry69121223
. · ~
nglneenng
Aero/Astro 23 0 0 0
Bioeng/Biomed 15 0 0 0
Cherubical 76 28 41 29
Elec/Elec~n 10 0 2 0
Nuclear 594 11 8 0
Eng Mech 20 11 11 0
Eng Physics 53 0 0 0
Mechanical 33 26 21 0
Metallurgical 10 0 0 19
Fuel Tech 0 9 0 0
AD Other Fields 4 0 8 0
Sample size = 178 or 10.9%
49
Table 2. Ph.D.s Employer] as Nuclear Engineers in 1987 by Degree Field and Age, 1987
Longitudinal Doctorate Survey.
Age Group (Percent Dis~bui~on)
Under 45 45-49 50-55 Over 55
Ph.D. Degree Field
Physical Sciences 7.2 13.9 17.8 60.9
Engineering
Nuclear 69.2 43.6 39.2 2.3
Chemical 0.1 6.3 21.4 13.5
Odler 23.5 35.1 17.2 23.4
AD Over 0.0 1.! 4.5 0.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Age Group (Weighted Numbers)
Under 45 45-49 50-55 Over 55
Total891447 337394
Ma~tat00 150
Physics5962 60152
Chemistry50 088
Engineering
Aero/As~o053 00
Bioeng/Biomed300 00
Chemical128 7253
Civil50o 00
Elec/Electron270 2866
Nuclear617195 1329
Eng Mech20 300
Eng Physics0104 00
Mechanical920 018
Gen/Other ~O O~
AD Other FieldsO5 00
Sample size = 88 or 4.3%
50
Percent
PI scam
Go
tic
do -
/
20
o
/
Unacr 45
-
~9 SO-SS
Age Groups
Figure 1. Ph.D.s employed as nuclear engineers in 1975, physical science versus
nuclear engineering, fields of study in Ph.D. by age group.
Percent
so -
do -
20 ~
1
an\
.:
\
-
~'
\\
· ~.
Under4S ~ 49 S0~55 Over SS
Age Groups
Figure 2. Ph.D.s employed as nuclear engineers in 1987, physical science versus
nuclear engineering, fields of study in Ph.D. by age group.
51
Percent
~ -
90
80 -
70 -
6r
r
3n -
20 -
JO -
.
1975
1~7
~rim
:
1
l
1
r'
v - Under ~ Over
45 45~49 50-55 55
L
/
Un r Over
45 45 49 50-55 55
Figure 3. Physical science and nuclear engineering majors, 1975 vs. 1987 for Ph.D.s
employed as nuclear engineers by age group.
52
