Engineers are evidently tough to find

I was sent an article the other day from the Yahoo Finance website that was syndicated from Forbes.com. The article was titled, "The Hardest Jobs to Fill in America" and of course included a Top Ten List of the most desired positions. I think David Letterman has had a profound affect on the world of journalism because I can't read an article any more that doesn't give the top seven of this or ten reasons for that. Do people not read anything that doesn't hammer bullet points into their head?

Anyway, engineers topped the list of the hardest jobs to fill in America shortly followed by nurse and technician. It made me feel a bit unwanted since I'm an engineer and I'm more likely to get a callback from an audition for Dancing with the Stars than a company to whom I've sent my resume. However, after I thought about it a bit, my low self esteem was gloriously lifted.

I think its funny how magazines like Forbes can make these generalized statements about engineers and for god's sake technicians! I can think of a million different things a technician could do (an engineer as well for that matter). I had a friend who had a summer job during college and he declared himself an automotive hydraulic technician. He worked at a car wash.

Anyway, let's take a look at the term engineer and determine exactly what it could mean. Are they talking about Civil Engineers? Mechanical Engineers? Electrical? Industrial? Environmental? Chemical? The guy on the train? All of them? They reference the Obama stimulus construction package, the majority of which will be delivered in 2010. Do they mean engineers will be the most in demand now or in 2010? Because honestly, I'm pretty darn sure that it isn't right now. Civil Engineering resumes are flying around like tumbleweeds through the vacant offices of design and construction firms and there is no sign of it improving.

There are a couple of problems here. First of all, engineer is far too broad of a term to associate it with one profession. But to the majority of people who read Forbes magazine (business people I presume) an engineer is an engineer is an engineer. This problem exists in organizations as well, the folks hiring engineers are often not engineers themselves. I've been approached for mechanical engineering jobs and others that I am certain I would not be qualified because my background is in civil engineering and construction management. However, if I didn't say this, I could get hired for these positions just because the hiring manager is told from someone above that they need to hire an engineer.

Even within civil engineering the breath of experience can be overwhelming. For example a structural engineer has a completely different skill set than an environmental engineer but they are both labeled as a civil engineers and both would be very uncomfortable in the position of the other.

The article also stated they engineers can start at a six figure salary with only a four year degree which makes the profession nearly as lucrative as a doctor or lawyer without the heavy schooling requirements. This is simply not true. Any type of engineer will have difficulty starting at more than $60k and for civil engineers it's probably in the forties or fifty at the most. Its a career that pays decently but certainly not as much as a doctor or lawyer. And this is fine, but let's just make sure to provide the information accurately.

So I guess my point is that we not only need to be straight about how much engineers make but we also need to look further into the background of engineers when hiring. The people doing the hiring should be engineers themselves to have a more thorough knowledge of the profession. Perhaps I'm dreaming (aka blogging), but trust me, if we make non-engineers a bit more aware of the profession we'll all be better off.

Engineers are evidently tough to find