> home
> About
> Contact Us
> Editorial Info
> IEEE-USA

05.10

Save an Engineer, Save the World

By Mike Anderson, Chief Scientist, The PTR Group, Inc.

Revisiting the Topic

Back in February of 2008, I wrote an article entitled “Help Wanted: Embedded Engineers — Why the United States is losing its edge in embedded systems…” for IEEE-USA Today’s Engineer [1]. In that article, I outlined why I believed that the United States was losing its edge in embedded systems development and technology. I explained a bit about what embedded systems are, who develops them, why they are important to modern society, how embedded systems are different from desktop systems and why I believe that the United States is failing to produce talented embedded systems developers.

My premise was that most modern technology, especially “green” technology, contains embedded systems. If the United States, or any other country for that matter, is to be a technology and innovation leader, it must understand the nature of embedded systems and their associated economics for power consumption, size, heat production, etc., and educate developers to think in those terms. Failure to do so results in sub-standard products that invariably fail in the marketplace.

I received quite a few responses to my article (thousands in fact). Some of the more notable comments included messages from:

• Europe and Asia saying that they too had a shortage of embedded developers and that this is not just a U.S. problem, but a worldwide problem

• Students asking how they could find out about embedded systems

• Colleges and universities asking how they could start an embedded systems program

• Existing embedded developers saying that the one advantage to the shortage was that they could always get a job

To the greatest extent possible, I tried to help point students to where they could find information about embedded systems. In addition, I even offered to help review embedded systems curricula for several colleges/universities. The response was so great that I firmly believe that the interest is there if we could only channel it in some way.

In addition to the above helpful inquiries, I also got responses from people claiming that:

• The United States is merely a footnote in innovation history. All of the real innovation is happening in Asia, so U.S. developers are irrelevant

• There were no embedded systems jobs to be had because the sender of the e-mail couldn’t find a job

• I was trying to trick students into embedded development so that I could hire them at slave-labor wages

• There is a vast conspiracy by corporations to eliminate engineering in the United States by systematically hiring only H-1B visa holders in the name of profits

I simply refuse to believe that the United States has become irrelevant with respect to innovation. In fact, the most recent Innovation for Development Report [2] Innovation Capacity Index rankings shows the United States as number three behind Sweden and Finland. This report was developed by the European Business School [3], not by the U.S. Government.

To the issue of there being no jobs in embedded development, a quick search of Monster.com for the term “embedded system” shows almost 1,000 openings related to embedded systems. As pointed out in my earlier article [1], the problem with embedded systems is that few people know what they are or know how to ask for them directly. Thus, many jobs that use embedded systems simply aren’t recognized as such because they are asking for telematics, control systems, or device developers without actually referring to them as embedded systems.

And what about the accusation that I am trying to trick people into embedded systems development to be able to hire them at slave-labor wages? Given that the typical engineer at my company makes in excess of $100,000 per year, I don’t think so. My company knows how much talent is worth and we’re willing to pay for it when we find it.

Is there a grand conspiracy to eliminate engineering here in the United States in favor of H-1B visa holders? Well, it’s certainly true that H-1B visa holders are typically less expensive than their U.S. counterparts. And I’m relatively sure that some companies prefer to hire H-1Bs over U.S. developers to control their costs. The point that I made in my previous paper was that H-1B visa holders oftentimes have little or no more background in embedded systems than their U.S. counterparts. The H-1Bs are cheaper, but potentially less productive due to language barriers.

I further believe that by providing on-the-job training for the duration of their visa and not allowing them to renew their visa, the United States is enforcing a brain-drain of experience back to visa holders’ originating countries where they become our competition. If these people were identified as “critical technology workers” to begin with, then they would be even more critical after gaining two years of experience. I will not be able to solve this argument in this article; we need a much larger forum to address the issues of H-1Bs in a more systematic manner.

Good News and Bad News

Another thread in my previous article was the decline in post-secondary school enrollments for fields that were most closely associated to embedded systems development — namely electrical engineering, computer engineering and computer science. The enrollments had been steadily declining since the “dot com” bubble popped. In fact, there were many in the computing industry who felt that many of the “best and brightest” were actually being shunted away into investment banking and other financial industries [4].

Well, there is some positive news on the enrollment front. The enrollment figures for 2008/2009 show that both baccalaureate and post-graduate college enrollments are up across the board. This includes the science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields. The bad news is that college enrollment always increases during an economic downturn because people, concerned with not being able to find jobs, decide to go to or stay in college until the economic situation improves.

Other positive news shows that the United States is improving with respect to other countries according to the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). The TIMSS rankings show U.S. eighth graders are up almost 11 points against their scores four years prior. Unfortunately, this still leaves the U.S. students ranking 11^th in science and 9^th in math amongst rankings of over 40 industrialized nations [5].

Some will point to the score improvements and claim that this is proof that “No child left behind” is working. They would claim that the use of standardized tests and rigorous training for these tests is, in fact, helping to improve U.S. students’ competitiveness in the world marketplace. However, there is a dark side to this dependence on standardized testing.

As I pointed out in my original article, I feel that it’s not so much a question of the training of our students, but rather their understanding of what they’ve been taught. Under the current merit-pay systems found in many states here in the United States, teachers are incentivized based on their student’s scores on the state-sanctioned standards tests. I believe that this leads to “teaching to the test” in many cases.

In the rush to get through the material to prepare for the test, there is little time to impart any of the beauty of the STEM fields to students. In addition, many of these teachers are in competition with their peers for the same merit- pay dollars. As such, rather than cooperating to improve the overall level of students’ understanding by sharing techniques that work, some teachers view successful approaches as jealously guarded secrets. This is certainly not the situation throughout the United States. But, I feel that federally mandated testing with funding that is tied to making certain scores sets up a situation that cash-strapped school systems simply find too tempting to ignore.

To paraphrase MIT Professor Woodie Flowers, it’s a difference between training and education. For example, we can train a student to solve the y=mx+b equation. However, what the student really needs to be successful is to understand what the slope of this equation means in real life. The contrast between training and understanding can also be seen in the results of tests such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) study.

Every three years, the PISA test is given to 15-year-olds in more than 30 industrialized nations in an attempt to measure the student’s ability to apply math and science knowledge in real-life contexts. The results of the 2006 tests show that U.S. students scored 17^th of 30 in science and 24^th of 30 in math [6]. The results of the 2009 tests are not available yet, but it seems unlikely that the United States has made any quantum leaps in the past three years.

To be fair, the TIMSS and PISA tests are somewhat controversial in the minds of U.S. educators. There are issues with the language and translations of the test problems. It’s also easy to point out that comparisons between relatively homogeneous cultures such as those found in Hong Kong, Singapore or Finland and a diverse culture such as the United States are difficult. In addition, the U.S. education system focuses more on mainstreaming its students rather than trying to shift “brighter” students into specialized, often state-sponsored, schools.

At this point, I am certain that some of you are saying, “Wait! He’s using standardized tests as a way of condemning standardized testing!” The difference is that the TIMSS and PISA studies are simply comparative. There is no financial incentive for schools to do well in these studies as there are in many standardized tests here in the United States. We are talking about making the United States more competitive in the world here. These tests give us some perspective on who our students are competing with in other industrialized nations.

I am certainly not saying that we shouldn’t have some way of measuring the progress of our students. I am simply pointing out that there is a difference between training and understanding, and that we should be emphasizing the latter. My concern is that teachers who are pressured to achieve certain scoring levels on standardized tests don’t have the time to impart a love for STEM-related topics to students. We need to allow time in the classroom for teachers to educate, not just train, our children.

For example, in a recent math habits study of U.S. students aged 10-15, the number of students who claim to “hate” math doubles from 10 percent in sixth grade to 20 percent in eighth grade. And, while 78 percent reported getting As and Bs in math, less than 50 percent received a grade of A or B on the basic math quiz associated with the survey, while 31 percent received a grade of D or F. Questions in this survey included one like: “How many sides does an equilateral triangle have?” This was not some “foreign” study applied to U.S. students. It was designed and administered here in the United States to U.S. students [7].

So, what can we, as engineers and scientists, do to help turn these trends around? How can we help students find that passion that led many of us to get into science and engineering in the first place? What needs to be done to spur our young people to become innovators and solve the tough problems that lie in both the United States and the world’s future? In the words of former Xerox PARC researcher Alan Kay, “The best way to predict the future is to invent it.”

Getting the Excitement Back into STEM

As tempting as it would be to say that the current reduction in students and performance in STEM-related fields in the United States is the fault of government, or the economy, or educators, the reality is that we need only look as far as the nearest mirror to find the culprit. We have allowed ourselves to become complacent. We have assumed that it was the schools’ job to help students become interested in STEM subjects. That by exposing them to science and math, the students’ natural interests would somehow spontaneously take over and they would want to become engineers, doctors and scientists.

The reality is that it simply doesn’t work that way. Today, students have too many distractions that can burn hundreds of hours with little return for the investment of time. One need only look at trends in our children’s texting, Internet surfing, video game playing and television watching habits to see that children are becoming increasingly disconnected from the “real” world. Yes, some would say that the Internet has become a virtual world where people stay connected through social networking sites. However, it is possible that social networking via Twitter™, Facebook™, MySpace™, etc. is undermining the ability to relate face-to-face with one another, as well as the ability to cooperate in teams. Both of these are important life skills that are vital in research and the workplace.

What can we do to get students involved and teach life skills, while simultaneously improving our stance as future innovators in a global economy? The Obama administration is teaming with industry to promote STEM-related education [8]. This is a good start, but we can’t rely on the government to fix this problem. We, as individuals, need to take action to help where we can.

For my company, this effort takes the form of mentoring and funding three separate FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) robotics teams [9]. We have found over the past few years that nothing sparks a passion in students for STEM-related subjects like being able to create things that move and solve a challenging problem. With FIRST, the students and mentors alike learn critical problem-solving skills, the ability to cooperate and work as a team, as well as the ability to develop innovative solutions under time and budget constraints. These are all important skills in the time-to-market pressured embedded systems world, as well as many others.

Founded in 1989 by inventor and entrepreneur Dean Kamen, FIRST sponsors robotic challenges for students in K-12 [10]. Through partnerships with industry and government, as well as 100,000 individual adult mentors, supporters and volunteers, FIRST reaches almost 215,000 students through a number of programs:

• Jr. FIRST Lego® League for Grades K-3

• FIRST Lego® League for Grades 4-8

• FIRST Tech Challenge for Grades 9-12

• FIRST Robotics Challenge (FRC) for Grades 9-12

FIRST’s vision is: “To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology heroes.”

FIRST is becoming a spectator sport. Teams must work together to solve the problems posed by each year’s challenge. There are six weeks to devise and build a solution before a team’s robot is packed up and shipped to the regional competition. Once at the regional competition, teams may have to create alliances to win the coveted slots for the national competition in Atlanta [11].

It is truly amazing to see how these teams can be fierce competitors on the playing field and yet come to each other’s rescue in the pits when a robot breaks down. FIRST is a sport wherein it’s not a question of how fast or strong you are, but rather how quickly you can think a problem through and develop an approach to solve it. It’s certainly one of the few high-school sports where each and every student participant can actually become a professional if they so desire.

In a recent Brandeis University study, when compared to a group of students with similar backgrounds and academic experiences including math and science, FIRST students were [12]:

• More than 3x as likely to major specifically in engineering

• Roughly 10x as likely to have an internship, co-op job or apprenticeship during their freshman year in college

• Significantly more likely to pursue a post-graduate degree

• More than 2x as likely to expect to pursue a career in a STEM-related field

• Almost 4x as likely to expect to pursue a career specifically in engineering

• More than 2x as likely to volunteer in their communities

There is no question in my mind that participating as a sponsor, a non-technical volunteer or a technical mentor plays an important role in the process of getting students interested in STEM-related subjects. And you do not have to have a child in the school to participate. FIRST welcomes volunteers and contributors that have the time and inclination to work with young people. So, even if you are not a robotics, embedded systems, software development or other “expert,” your time can make a big difference in our collective futures.

Similar to FIRST, BEST (Boosting Engineering, Science and Technology) Robotics, Inc. is a non-profit, volunteer-based organization whose mission is to inspire students to pursue careers in STEM-related fields through science and engineering-based robotics competition. In cooperation with Auburn University, the Dallas-based BEST Robotics organization reaches more than 10,000 students in the south-central region of the country [13]. Remarkably, the BEST competition requires the students to fabricate most of their robot’s components from common items that may be found in any typical garage. This provides an excellent opportunity for the students to use their creativity to solve problems without requiring any high-budget metal working or plastic fabrication techniques.

Another project that you might consider looking into is the “Connect a Million Minds” project that is being sponsored by both industry (led by Time-Warner Cable) and the Obama Administration [14]. Using zip-code search, students, parents, after-school program administrations and community leaders can learn about STEM-related learning opportunities in their communities. The goal of this project is to connect to one million children by 2014 and show them the wonders of science and math. This goal can only be achieved if each of us involved in STEM-related fields can make the time to contribute.

Maintaining Momentum

In my earlier article [1], I outlined my concern that colleges and universities weren’t doing a good job of preparing students for careers in embedded development; requiring significant training before “fresh outs” could be productive. In fact, that was one of the more significant number of comments that I got from students — “They won’t hire me without two years of experience, but how can I get the experience if they won’t hire me?” It really boils down to looking to ensure that the new hire has the understanding of how to apply what they’ve learned.

The assumption is that this understanding takes about two years to acquire. However, if we can mentor students at an earlier age in how to apply critical thinking and teamwork techniques, industry will eventually realize that this waiting period is not required for all hires. The question is, how do we ensure that this momentum gained before college is maintained through to their graduation?

Certainly, projects like the DARPA Challenge [15] are one way, but these are big-ticket items in which only a handful of colleges or universities can afford to participate. The assumption in my original article was that surely colleges and universities are providing interesting and challenging projects to their students. And these efforts are targeting perceived needs for society as a whole. However, it appears that I may have been too naïve in those assumptions.

On a recent flight, I had the opportunity to sit next to a professor from a large, public university in the Midwest. I asked him why various universities and colleges didn’t seem interested in programs that were focused on embedded technologies. His response was somewhat surprising. Essentially, his thinking was that there were no research grants or papers to be written about embedded computing. Embedded systems development was, for all intents and purposes, a technical skill that was too practical to be taught at a university level. Even the applications to “green” technologies were simply the reduction to practice of topics that were long ago researched, and could no longer capture a university’s budgets for course development and presentation.

I pressed further and asked how the industry might be able to convince our institutes of higher learning to reconsider this view. His answer was simple — money. It was not an issue of identifying an educational need and trying to fill it. It was more an issue of how many grants, internships and other sponsoring events could be brought into the university. Essentially, if you cannot write a paper about a topic, you had better be able to generate some outside revenue, or the subject was doomed to become a backwater course without support from the department.

His contention was that having industry sponsor a project or provide funding to the department of interest is the most likely way to garner attention for a particular field of study. Of these, the senior project was probably the “cheapest” way of getting interest and a supporter within the department. Providing equipment and a couple thousand dollars to support a development project, even if you did not think the final product would be really useful, would pique the university’s interest and likely get a faculty advisor to try to address your concerns by producing students with a given skill set whether it’s embedded systems development or something else.

I’m not sure if his perspective is pervasive throughout our universities and colleges, but if this viewpoint is widely held, then it certainly explains why hiring embedded developers is so difficult. Fortunately, it also means that there may be hope for a solution.

Moving Forward

In order for the United States to continue to foster innovation in science and technology, we need to address a couple of issues. First, we need to show our youth that STEM-related subjects are interesting and important. You can help accomplish this goal by donating some of your time and/or money to organizations that help foster teamwork and innovation with students. Whether it’s FIRST, Connect a Million Minds, your local science center or just donating some time to your local school, your contribution is important to us all.

Second, now that we have those pre-college students interested in STEM-related subjects, we must show them that there is a future in it for them. Contact your local college/university and have your company sponsor a co-op position if it can. Perhaps this could be a student you previously identified through one of the programs in step one. At a minimum, sponsor a senior project in the field that is most closely related to your business area. This doesn’t have to be a huge investment. But, any investment shows the college/university that they need to pay attention.

Whether your field of interest is embedded systems, power management, biomechanics, consumer electronics, or something else, find out what your local schools are doing and give some of your time. Foster innovation by being a mentor. That scientist or engineer you encourage might just save the world.

References

1. http://www.todaysengineer.org/2008/Feb/help-wanted.asp

2. http://www.innovationfordevelopmentreport.org

3. http://www.ebs.edu

4. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB109096908950675667.html?mod=todays_us_opinion

5. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009001.pdf

6. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/17/39703267.pdf

7. www.raytheon.com/responsibility/rtnwcm/groups/public/
   documents/content/rtn_stem_math_study.pdf

8. www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/23/obama.science/index.html

9. http://baltimore.bizjournals.com/baltimore/prnewswire/press_releases/
   national/Virginia/2009/12/15/PH25581

10. http://www.usfirst.org

11. http://www.todaysengineer.org/2009/Jun/FIRST.asp

12. http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/content.aspx?id=46

13. http://www.todaysengineer.org/2009/Nov/BEST.asp

14. http://www.connectamillionminds.com

15. http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/index.asp

Mike Anderson is chief scientist at The PTR Group, Inc. where he is responsible for providing embedded systems consulting and courseware creation. Mike has more than 30 years experience in the areas of computing and embedded systems development and was a former chairperson of the VxWorks User’s Group. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Mathematics from the University of South Florida and a Master’s degree in Computer Science from George Mason University.

Opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the positions of IEEE-USA or IEEE.

Comments may be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org.