Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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 <XXXRAT1ON 1 65,825 ".3% _ ~ ~ N ~ ~ O ~ _ SOURCE: Labor and Policy Studies Program, Science/Engineenng Education Division, Engineering Mobility and Salary Informanon, Okk Ridge, Tenn.: ORAU, 1989, based on 1986 postcensal survey, strata 1-10. Figure 1. Individuals holding B.S., or M.S., engineering degrees in 1980, by employment specialty, 1982~1984~1986. 44 ORGAN 74,969 30.0~ ~ ~ W~ §~§ 0 ~ 4e ~ ~. ~
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