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.
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW Significant Events Significant events affecting the eng~neenng labor market in the postwar penod were reviewed, and the lessons learned from them were summanzed in a paper by Eli Ginzberg (see Appendix A). The events recounted had varying ~rnpacts--not surprisingly, those that were both massive in magnitude and rapid in onset had the greatest influence--but the market retained its resiliency amid these changes. Immediately after World War IT, there was simultaneously a sharp decline in defense expenditures and a huge release of personnel from service. Extraordinary educational demands were placed upon universities and colleges by returning veterans at a time of great shortages of teaching personnel. This period was accompanied by a buildup in the civilian economy from its Tow level of activity during the war. The veterans' enrolTrnent fell off just as large numbers of new young instructors became available to education, and the faculty job market was soft for several years. A sudden reversal in defense expenditures occurred to support the Korean war. In fact, the Korean War buildup was so rapid and massive that the market could not adjust quickly. In the face of a rapid increase in defense outlays, the civilian economy's continued growth could not be sustained; resources had to be redirected to defense work. After the Vietnam War, the drop in military expenditures and a sudden decrease in graduate student support from the federal government, accompanied by a peak in the number of doctorates awarded, created a temporary oversupply in the labor market for doctorates. Not even later growth in enrollments and in faculty employment could absorb the increase. It took several years of continued economic growth before new initiatives in energy research and development, mobility out of science arid engineering professions, and (later) increases in defense expenditures absorbed He surplus. Even ~en, the adjustment to the sudden and Somatic decreases in demand were not without personal costs. Undoubtedly, individuals who were led to believe that there was a fruitful career waiting for them at the end of the long road to an engineering education suffered. Cutbacks in engineering demand may have caused many to abandon years of education and training in order to find any kind of employment, or to delay or abandon further education Hat would benefit them and the nation. By the early 1980s, the smaller number of Ph.D.s in engineering, the very large increases in the number of undergraduate engineering students, and the attractiveness of industnal employment for engineers over advanced education through Me doctorate resulted in a shortage of engineering faculty. Engineering enrollments had more than doubled during the previous decade. Policy Initiatives Two major policy initiatives enabled the market to cope with these changes. 3
Perhaps most significant was the federal government's decision to provide educational assistance for individuals. This aid was targeted to the many families who could not afford higher education for their children. In a 1953 study cited by Ginzberg, it was found that among the small section of the population that showed high promise of scholarly ability, only half entered college, and only one-th~rd graduated. A variety of measures helped to educate and to preserve the other two-thirds of our highly talented brain power. The GT Bill's education benefits after World War ~ and its successor legisTation--though justified in part as an expression of gratitude to those who had done military service--made education possible for millions who would otherwise have been unable to afford it. Other federal educational initiatives at different times in the postwar period included the National Defense Education Act, student loans, fellowships, postdoctoral positions, and research grants that gave employment and research experience to graduate students. Scholarships, fellowships, and other student aid provided by the states, private contributions, and financial awards granted by the institutions themselves contributed to the extension of educational opportunities. A second effective policy initiative after World War ~ was federal direct support for research grants and contracts--in such areas as military, nuclear, space, energy, environmental technology and medical research, as well as in basic scientific research. This initiative was given a further boost after the first satellite was launched into space by the Soviets in 1957. The federal govemment's support not only enabled the United States to achieve international leadership in science and technology (with substantial economic consequences), but helped to build up strong educational and research institutions. The strength of the higher education system heightened the labor market's ability to adjust to the shocks, both because a flow of graduates in a particular field could be expanded to meet changing needs and because condnu~ng education opportunities helped to give greater occupational mobility to persons already In the labor market. Another federal initiative that has been effective in facilitating market adjustments was the revision in 1965 of the law governing immigration, which abandoned restrictions based on preferential national quotas and opened the door to more scientists, engineers, and other professional and skiDed workers. Despite these measures, some of the major shocks created temporary market problems. Conclusions A major conclusion is that the market has generally shown a great degree of flexibility, adjusting to the shocks that both tightened and loosened the market. Although past swings in birth rates affected the population of college-age persons, experience showed that the population was not the major factor in influencing the supply of engineers; changes in the proportion of the population going to college and in student choices of courses were also significant. In fact, with hindsight it has become clear that the flexible supply of students willing and able to seek higher education, the introduction of some federal policy initiatives, and the existence of a highly flexible labor market made it possible for the U.S. to expand its research and development activity dramatically in both defense and nondefense sectors. There were some costs involved; one only needs to look at the labor market conditions for scientists and engineers dunng the late 1960s and early 1970s. But we can undoubtedly benefit from lessons learned over the past 40 years in formulating policies to ameliorate the dislocations that may occur any time the system is required to adjust to sudden change. 4
