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.
ENGINEERING AND SOCIAL DYNAMICS 63 political implications. Engineering professional societies should be aware of the problem, and engineering education should be structured to inculcate in the student the knowledge that engineering is a social enterprise, having social ramifications, and that the innovation and management of complex technical systems often involve considerations of this sort. Here is, in fact, an instance of the value of the kind of "socialization" of engineering education that was urged earlier in the report. In the end, it may be possible for engineers to devise means to automate that accomplish the goal of increased productivity while being sensitive to human interactions and consequences. SOCIETY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO THE ENGINEERING PROFESSION Nearly all of the report thus far has emphasized the responsibility of the engineering profession to society in general and the degree of success it has had in meeting those responsibilities. This emphasis is an appropriate one; the profession exists to serve the needs of the larger community. However, it is also important to consider the responsibility that society has to maintain conditions necessary for the continued health of the engineering profession. "Society," in this instance, includes all those entities that benefit from the engineering function âwhether they be government, industries, corporations, or individual consumers. Two primary considerations emerge in this context. The first is the question of whether engineers in general are adequately compensated for their services. An argument can easily be made that compensation of engineers is not commensurate with the value of their contribution to society. The panel believes that the economic productivity of engineers, compared with that of other professionals such as lawyers and financial managers, for example, is high. Yet an informal comparison of incomes shows a great disparity between engineers and those groups. The problem is not at the entry level; beginning engineers earn salaries that are among the highest in any professional grouping (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1983). It occurs, instead, throughout the middle and later years in the career pathâyears in which other professionals can expect to reap the rewards (in financial terms) of their experience and seniority. Inadequate compensation for mid-career engineers in academia produces "salary compression," which in turn helps to drive some engineering faculty out of teaching. In industry, it produces a virtual flight of experienced engineers out of technical work and into engineering management, and even into nonengineering fields (Guterl, 1984). This problem is deeply rooted in the nature of our economy and
ENGINEERING AND SOCIAL DYNAMICS 64 its system of rewards. It is also one that would be extremely difficult (and expensive) to solve. However, a report on the subject of engineers vis-Ã -vis society would be remiss if it did not at least point out the problem. The second major issue regarding society's responsibility to engineers relates to the government demand patterns discussed earlier. Although the engineering profession has shown considerable flexibility in responding to past shifts in government demand, the ability of the profession to meet those needs is only one side of the picture. On the other side, considerable hardship is entailed for many engineers in the processâespecially for the most experienced engineers. Massive layoffs in defense industries such as aerospace, for example, inevitably put many individuals out of work for long periods of time. Viewing the matter strictly in investment terms, the panel believes that a considerable inefficiency in the use of the nation's technical resources is involved. Given the rapidity with which government demand can change, and the scale of change involved, it does not seem appropriate to rely completely on the engineering profession to make the great adjustments necessary to meet those demands. The federal government should consider the possibility of providing some form of support network for engineers in industries affected by shifts in program funding. Such a network could include as components retraining programs, compensation packages, and even professional relocation. If similar support is extended to manufacturing workers in changing industries such as the automobile industry, it makes sense to conserve the even more valuable resource embodied in engineering talent, which represents a substantial investment of public funds for engineering education and on-the-job training acquired in government-related development programs.
