So There's No Shortage of Engineers in the US

For quite some time now, the unquestioned view has been that the United States does not produce sufficient engineers to match the needs of its private sector. As a result, the reasoning goes, private sector in the US is losing the ability to compete favorably with firms based outside that country. at the same time, the freeze on working visas for professionals from south Asia and other parts of the world due to security concerns has been mentioned as an aggravating factor.

Much as it is with most other policy questions, a study with funding from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation suggests that this contention is popular but largely untrue. As it is summarized in this here, the US does not suffer from an acute shortage in engineers. Instead, there are insufficient incentives within that country for its most qualified minds to go into science, technology and Mathematics (STEM) industry. Most of the best mathematicians are going to work in business consultancy and in the financial services industry.

My perusal of the report shows that STEM qualified graduates are being recruited into jobs that are not categorized as STEM. stated differently, the STEM industry is losing the competition to keep this pool of talent. So just because people are not working in the STEM does not mean that there are no qualified people, it is just that they have far more options and they are taking them. In a manner of speaking, STEM occupations cannot compete for the existing talent. That may still suggest that there is insufficient talent to serve all the purposes for which STEM graduates are in demand.

Finally, I have to read Paul Romer's paper once more to understand what this new information means. Paul Romer's contention then was that the government's technology policy appeared to be subsidizing demand for scientists by the private sector without questioning to what extent that was the most optimal approach. What Sloan study puts to rest is the assertion that US students are not sufficiently motivated to study science and mathematics. So this is one study that Thomas Friedman should review carefully before the 3.0 version of his best-selling book.