The vitality of the innovation economy in the United States depends on the availability of a highly educated technical workforce. A key component of this workforce consists of engineers, engineering technicians, and engineering technologists. Much has been written about the role of engineers, their academic preparation, and their value to the nation. The purpose of this project, overseen by a committee under the auspices of the National Academy of Engineering, was to shed light on the relatively underappreciated roles and contributions of engineering technicians and technologists. Data collected in the project and the committee’s findings and recommendations are contained in the report, Engineering Technology Education in the United States, available for free download from the National Academies Press (www.nap.edu).

The committee found that from the perspectives of workforce and education policy in the United States, there is little awareness of engineering technology (ET) as a field of study or a category of employment. For example, 30 percent of almost 250 respondents to the project’s survey of employers had never heard of the field of ET education; this lack of awareness rose to almost 50 percent for smaller employers. Even among respondents who indicated an awareness of ET, one-third said they did not know the difference between work performed by engineers and work performed by engineering technologists. These findings can be explained by a combination of factors, including ET’s challenges with branding and marketing; curricula and worker skills that overlap with those of engineering; and gaps in research and data collection that make it difficult to determine how differences between the two fields affect employment opportunities and benefit employers.

To address these challenges, the committee recommended that leaders of 2-year and 4-year ET programs engage with leaders in postsecondary engineering education about the similarities and differences between the two variants of engineering and how they might complement one another while serving the interests of a diverse student population. It also recommended that the ET education community should consider ways to make the field’s value proposition more evident to K-12 teachers, students, and students’ parents, as well as to employers.

Compared with engineering, ET education programs, particularly at the 2-year level, are more attractive to older students and students currently underrepresented in STEM fields. In contrast to the situation for most college graduates, who are in their early 20s, more than one-quarter of graduates with 4-year ET degrees are older than 35. The proportion of adults enrolling in 2-year programs may be even higher. The share of students earning 4-year degrees in ET that is black is almost three times the share of students earning 4-year degrees in engineering (10.7 percent versus 3.8 percent). Blacks comprise more than 11 percent of those earning 2-year degrees and more than 17 percent of those earning certificates in ET; in engineering, the proportion earning 2-year degrees is slightly less than 6 percent. Women earn almost 20 percent of 4-year degrees in engineering but just 12 percent of 2- and 4-year ET degrees.

To better understand these data, the committee urged research on why certain segments of the population graduate at higher frequencies from ET programs than they do from engineering programs and why women are even less engaged in ET than they are in engineering. Determining the reasons for these preferences and trends, the committee suggested, may allow programs in both domains of engineering to better attract and retain more diverse student populations.

The committee also found that the connection between an engineering technology education and the ET workforce is fairly weak. Those with ET degrees work in a broad range of occupations, and those employed as engineering technologists have a diverse degree background. For instance, just 12 percent of technologists have a 4-year degree in ET, according to the National Survey of College Graduates (NSCG). The largest share of technologists, 39 percent according to NSCG, has degrees in engineering; smaller, but still significant, shares have degrees in business/management or the life sciences. Research is needed to better understand the reasons for the apparent loose coupling of degree attainment and employment in engineering technology, the committee said. Such research might consider how factors like the salary differential between ET and engineering jobs and lack of ET wage growth may be influencing students’ academic and career choices.

The committee concluded that engineering technologists and technicians comprise an important, if overlooked, segment of the nation’s STEM workforce. The field of ET has strong historical connections to traditional engineering and shares the same general sensibility toward technical problem solving. At the same time, its pedigree is rooted in application-focused and hands-on learning, perhaps to a greater extent than in engineering. The committee’s report is intended to spur greater understanding and further exploration of ET education and of the contributions of workers with ET-related skills.

Last Modified: 07/21/2017
Modified by: Greg Pearson