Entry-level competency
Entry-level competency
(OP)
Are we just having a run of bad luck at our company or is the level of competency of entry-level (say five yrs. experience and less) engineers going down in the US? I'm talking specifically in the structural engineering arena. Our last four hires have not been very familiar with any structural analysis programs like STAAD or SAP. They've displayed very little initiative when it comes to solving a problem that doesn't have a "cook book" answer. As a matter of fact, they don't even seem to know where to look in the "cook book" half the time. There fundamental knowledge of structures seems dubious at best.
For instance, when I discuss k-factors of columns in buildings none of them can offer any insight into what the current state of the art is. I would have thought having been in school much more recently than me, they would have something to say on the subject. I'm not even sure they realize the importance of understanding if the joint at the end of the column can sway or not.
Don't get too hung up on my example. This is just one of many examples. I'm wondering what other's are seeing in the workplace. I'm hoping four folks is not statisically significant and this is really not the state of what our universities are turning out.
I have some more I could say, but this is getting a little long and I would like to hear from you folks.
For instance, when I discuss k-factors of columns in buildings none of them can offer any insight into what the current state of the art is. I would have thought having been in school much more recently than me, they would have something to say on the subject. I'm not even sure they realize the importance of understanding if the joint at the end of the column can sway or not.
Don't get too hung up on my example. This is just one of many examples. I'm wondering what other's are seeing in the workplace. I'm hoping four folks is not statisically significant and this is really not the state of what our universities are turning out.
I have some more I could say, but this is getting a little long and I would like to hear from you folks.





RE: Entry-level competency
Frankly I doubt their courses say anything new about k-factors. I must admit I don't care if they can use software or not, universities have much more important things to do than to teach the basics of software packages.
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Entry-level competency
My 2 cents....
I wouldn't expect that an undergrad (BS) would know the state of the art in k factors but would expect an grad (MS) student to know.
If your last four hires didn't know about the fundamentals of structural analysis I must agree with Greg that your hiring practices need to be reviewed.
I'd much rather hire someone who knows how to "do it by hand", at least basic moment distribution (simple frame), size a beam/column/connection/rebar/or any basic element, be able to determine contributary areas, etc than a STAAD wizard who could refine a mesh like no one else but didn't know that 12 feet of lateral movement due to wind/seismic load in a two storey building is a problem.
I see too many people telling me "It is what XYZ software told me."
Most of my work is in large pressure vessels and if Compress or PV Elite can't handle it people are lost. There are exceptions but it frustrating to hire a firm to do the work then have to re-do it so we have confidence in the work. I've experienced this with engineers on 4 different continents so it is not "dumb Americans" by any stretch. It is also at varying degrees of experience.
The biggest issue I see is that people are lazy in their work and don't want to look at the results and inputs to see if they make physical sense. These are not, for lack of a better word, stupid people. If the solution isn't one they have dealt with several times they don't want to review what applies.
I know I'm a little of your topic but I believe it all ties together.
RE: Entry-level competency
1. Their school and the quality of the teaching (not the research)
2. The individual's focus on engineering (for some its a job, for others its a passion)
3. The individual's previous work experience. I think this is really key. I know that there are a lot of big design firms out there where new, young engineering grads are given simple tasks, or drafting for the first few years of their careers. One guy I know was given the task of simply designing concrete retaining walls all day for two years...not a good quality experience even though it was in a very large, prestigous firm.
I would also agree with the above that knowledge of STAAD or any other software just isn't a high priority - We can teach - or they can learn - the specific software of my company fairly easily.
RE: Entry-level competency
It may be that you got four duds out of four but I would take a serious look at your organizational culture, your proceedures and the way you do work.
RE: Entry-level competency
Keep in mind that most civil engineering programs are general civil, and that there's only so much structural specialization undergrads can get. That's a big part of why I got my master's.
Hg
RE: Entry-level competency
For instance, we had a duct that was being supported off of some roof framing. I had to explain the whole nine yards. The wind pressure on the duct, the shear that this produced at the base, the vertical reactions this caused because of overturning, the tributary area on a particular beam, how to lay it out to determine where the supports were landing on the beam and then finally how to input these loads in the model.
In my opinion, for somebody with 2 or 3 years of experience as this person had, the only thing I should have had to explain was how to use the program, which is what I think most of you are saying.
I am heartened, though, that none of you seem to think the general quality of engineers is dwindling (or am I putting words in your mouth?) I do think our hiring practices leave a lot to be desired, but before I took off down that road I wanted to see if we were just fighting a losing battle.
I have kind of moved away from the day to day operations so I don't have any input into the hires. My theory (and that's all it is) of hiring is different from the guys who have been responsible. I think you should ask candidates some technical questions. No, I don't expect them to be Einsteins but I do like to find out what they know and see how they reason through a problem.
The other extreme is you just try to judge if people will be a good fit personality wise and you just assume that anybody can be brought up to speed on the technical stuff. Personally, I reject this theory. Your responses have given me the confidence to assert to our management that we are doing a p**s poor job of hiring.
RE: Entry-level competency
I don't have a real good feel for the quality of engineering graduating today vs. then. I do know that today, with the tools we have in the computer, there are vastly different focuses on what we spend our time on. I use to hear stories from my older mentors (started engineering in 1927 to 1946) and they told of the hours and hours of time spent doing tedious math calculations to support the structural analysis.
Today, the computer does the math quickly and I find that many of my staff can more quickly visualize the effects of changing different parameters in a model.
RE: Entry-level competency
Maui
RE: Entry-level competency
The other is lack of initiative. Now that is a problem. I rarely blame anyone for a lack of knowledge, I do have a problem with those unwilling to put in the effort to learn.
RE: Entry-level competency
I've been in the business for 30+ years (yikes), and what I see generally is the lack of confidence. If they seem to generally know the stuff, but aren't sure of their answer, I think it's a confidence thing, and I'd cut them some slack.
But you're right, Dozer. They should at least know where to go get answers (methods, design examples, etc.) out of a book. That would be my red flag on someone's competency.
RE: Entry-level competency
My professor from grad school came up to me a couple of years ago at a conference and half-jokingly half-seriously asked me if I'd consider coming back for a PhD. He said that he has loads of candidates coming to him for the PhD program but that most of them don't want to get in the lab and do some real research.
He said something like, "They just want to sit in an office all day and hammer out little programs and graphs on the computer. They don't want to do any real work or any real thinking." (all paraphrased of course).
So that got me to thinking that there's lots of students overly enamoured with computers and not engineering.
RE: Entry-level competency
I can see the value, to some extent, in using spreadsheets for the results, and I certainly think it is better to write reports on a PC than by longhand, but that's more or less it. Using MathCAD for your maths, and FEA for your structural analysis, and so on and so forth is not, to my mind, a good way to understand the principles for most people.
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Entry-level competency
In my field - power generation - I'm certain that the standard is dropping. There are several distinct areas in which there is a drop year on year:
Basic engineering maths: in the UK school-leaver's grades rise every year, but the universities have to put on additional maths classes to make up the shortfall. Graduates at the end of their university education struggle to apply basic principles like Calculus to the real world. Mental arithmetic appears to have gone the way of the abacus too. I'll just get my calculator...
Practical ability: expensive to run for the educational establishments, I agree, but these kids graduate with an electrical engineering degree without having done electrical machines lab work, for example? The number of graduates who can't use basic test equipment correctly worries me. If they can't measure something accurately, more-or-less everything they do based on that measurement is suspect.
----------------------------------
If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!
RE: Entry-level competency
Ciao.
RE: Entry-level competency
RE: Entry-level competency
RE: Entry-level competency
RE: Entry-level competency
It's tough to teach someone commonsense, and it's impossible to calibrate commonsense without providing the opportunity for young engineers to receive feedback on their designs- not just red marks on a drawing from some senior engineer without explanation, but actual physical observations of the consequences of design decisions they've made.
I think it should be mandatory for an engineer to work in a manufacturing or design/build operation for a time prior to going on to consulting for hire. Some consultancies are excellent, but many do not afford their staff, particularly the younger staff, any hands-on experience or even exposure to review the installation of their designs. They don't get the chance to see what problems their oversights caused, or what something looks like when it's done right. This is economic reality-driven for the consultants, but it sucks for both the engineers working there and for their customers.
Engineers who design without adequately calibrated commonsense or an appreciation for the work done by the people who install their designs and turn them into reality, give us all a bad name as a profession. Yes, some of that is 20/20 hindsight, but a lot of it is actually well-deserved.
Is this an educational problem? Perhaps so- but it's tough to teach this stuff at a university. You learn this by doing under the watchful eye of a mentor. That situation is sorely lacking in many firms out there- it's not just the recent grads' faults.
RE: Entry-level competency
Even though this is a contributing factor to the problem at hand, I can verify that there has been a fundamental change in the attitude that I have seen in my engineering classes. I have taught as an adjunct assistant professor in engineering at a major US University for the past eight years. The ability of the students to comprehend and utilize basic engineering concepts has declined for the last two years in my opinion. Students are coming into these classes ill prepared, and in general they seem to be lazier than their predecessors. By grading them on a curve (which I refuse to do) the message that they get is that they don't really have to understand the material completely. They just have to have a better grasp of it than some of the other students. Do this for four years, and you end up with some engineers who have an incomplete understanding of the basic principles. Get them out into industry, and you will see the results that Dozer has observed.
RE: Entry-level competency
RE: Entry-level competency
I think alot of it has to do with the maturity of the young college graduates. Some of them are probably going to have to "grow up" a little before they become good engineers.
RE: Entry-level competency
Mentoring: I've been asked to mentor the new engineers. And, oh yes, we need those drawings by the end of the day. Could you run an FEA on this bracket. The shop has some questions on the new parts they are fabricating. Have you got those anchor bolts designed yet? What I'm trying to illustrate is employer's pay lip service to the notion of training but the lure of making money right now (instead of investing in the future) always wins out. At least, that's been my experience.
Schools: Someone asked what schools these guys are from. Sorry, since as I've mentioned, I don't think we've done a very good job of hiring, I think it would be unfair to single schools out. I will say that two of the schools these folks have come from are very well respected.
Testing applicants: Aggman suggested testing applicants. I agree. Unfortunately, our management has told us that we can't give applicants test because we might get our butt in some sort of legal sling. I don't know what that's all about. I know there are some cons to testing but it seems to me that if a company wants to give competency/ability test then that's their right. I mean for goodness sake, to get a job now a days you have to piss in a bottle, but you can't ask someone to prove they have some basic knowledge of the job you are hiring them for. I haven't personally researched this issue, but it could be that our management is full of sh ... whoops, I mean baloney. This could be a seperate thread in itself, so if anyone wants to see more, please, by all means.
RE: Entry-level competency
RE: Entry-level competency
My first analytical job was with the same group - working out the performance figures and fuel economy for a car from the engine map and the characteristics of the car. By hand. This drove me to distraction, so I taught myself Fortran and wrote a program to work it out. That program was still being used 5 years later. Not bad for someone a year out of high school.
More than 50% of my career has consisted of being dropped into the unknown, and having to make it up as I go along. Hey, it's fun. When I've got a job down pat I get bored.
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Entry-level competency
RE: Entry-level competency
I also think that market dynamics are such that - the reluctance of the employer to train the employee is related to how long they expect to keep that employee.
It is difficult to find an employer who has the intent of training and keeping you & in a company that actually has a future.
New grads find themselves in a position of having "specialized" in a particular field for a certain employer for a few years, then they are layed off or the company folds and often they have to start over in another more or less related field.
RE: Entry-level competency
I also agree that the variety of topics taught in school are so numerous that you only get a cursory understanding of each.
I think undergrads nowadays need to be trained initially by employers. I was looking for a program like that when I graduated and found it. Now people with 4-5 years of experience under their belt should have an idea of what's going on. That's a combination of poor schooling and poor training by the previous employer (and perhaps poor personal motivation). I have only 2.5 years of experience and feel much more competent.