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 63
APPENDIX D
Formal Mail Survey of
Employers of Engineers
Following are the questionnaire and a summary of the results of the
informal mail survey of employers of engineers conducted by the Panel
on Engineering Employment Characteristics. Of the approximately
350 firms to which the panel sent the survey {scientific sampling proce-
dure was not employed), 107 firms responded.
63
OCR for page 64
64
1. Name
Position and Organization
3. Division or Company
Form Used in Mail Survey
Information Prepared by:
l
~ Optional
Number of Employees in Division or Company
Number of Engineering Employees Reported on
6. Major Products/Services of the Division or
Company
Field
Computer Hardware
Computer Software
Aeronautical Engineer
APPENDIX D
Total Number
Included
Average Number of New
Graduates Hired/Year
{last 3 years)
-~ .
Chemical Engineer
Civil Engineer
Electrical Engineer
Electronic Engineer
Industrial Engineer
Mechanical Engineer
Other Engineer
Mathematician
Physicist
Chemist
NOTE: This information is required so that data can be properly identified as to industry
{academic) sector for comparison with other sectors.
OCR for page 65
65
·=
o
Cal
Cal
._
U.
o
~ C et Ct
_ ~ ~ C, ~
.c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ==
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~
EN ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ us
4 -
_ ~ ~ 5 Z
~ C
~ O . _
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~
O ~ Cal O O ~
_ ~ ~O ~X
~O
Ed N ~
C ," ~N 4, O
_ , N ,3 ~U C
_ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~
3 n" ~ ~ ~
CO
. ~
I ~
:i~ s ' a C s e a s a a
C) ~ ~ ~ C) Lie Eli ~ ~ O
OCR for page 66
66
4=
._,
._.
4
o
v
._.
4=
v
CO
pa big
._
a
Cry ~
_ . -
·C~
. o
CC
o
Z
o
4=
v
en
~ o ~
,5 u A- C O C ~ ~ i
o ~ ~ u ~ .e ·~ ~
4J
u
:^
_
_ ~
{ - ._
~ A)
O ~
~ ~ _
O
Cal ~
5 0
- O
X ~ O
U
._
._
G)
._
U
CC *
:>'
~ ._
_ ~
~ ._
~ U
= ~
~ ~- C~
~ Z
C)
~ rL ~a;
C)
·-
. _ ~ ~. ~
O ~=
.
C)
C ~
5 _ _
O ~ ~ 5
"~ a.> .4= '~ e~
3 ~ ~ ~ ~ o
3~ ~ ~ ~ <¢ Z
0 ~ b4
0 ~ c~
hO
,c C oo _
5 tV ~ C~
5 ~ .= O
i_, U U
a C c E ~5,.= c
~ ~ ~¢U o · ~ .
CO
._
Ct
Ct
o
CO
._'
o
C=~
4=
4=
e~
Ct
_
P"
I_
*
OCR for page 67
APPENDIX D
67
Responses to Informal Survey
TABLE D-1 Survey Responses Regarding Difficulty
in Finding Quality Graduates
Percent Responding
"Very or Somewhat" Number of
Engineers Difficult Responden
Computer hard
ware 67.5 37
Computer soft
ware 52.8 53
Aeronautical 25.0 16
Chemical 33.4 39
Civil 14.0 57
Electrical 58.2 67
Electronic 65.7 35
Industrial 33.4 36
Mechanical 47.4 76
TABLE D-2 Survey Responses Regarding Utilization
of Engineers
Engineers
Computer hard-
ware
Computer soft-
ware
Aeronautical
Chemical
Civil
Electrical
Electronic
Industrial
Mechanical
Percent
Fully Utilized Respondents
Number of
75.0
73.7
43.8
37.2
70.5
60.0
45.9
45.0
55.4
40
57
16
43
61
75
37
40
83
OCR for page 68
68
APPENDIX D
TABLE D-3 Survey Responses Regarding Impact of New Tools on
Engineering Productivity
A. Computer-aided drafting:
· 31% had widely available systems; 27% had no system.
· Systems cost approximately $10,000 per engineer affected.
· 46% had formally evaluated their systems.
· Average increase in productivity of those affected was estimated to be 100%.
B. Computer-aided design:
· 33 % had widely available systems; 27 % had no system.
· Systems cost approximately $7,000 per engineer affected.
· 40% had formally evaluated their systems.
· Average increase in productivity of those affected was estimated to be 50%.
C.
Computer-aided manufacturing:
· Few systems are in place.
D. Engineering information systems:
· 49% had widely available systems; 18 % had no system.
· Systems cost approximately $3,000 per engineer affected.
· 24% had formally evaluated their systems.
· Average increase in productivity of those affected was estimated to be 35 % .
Representative terms from entire chapter:
responses regarding
