Search News


Browse Archives

News

The Engineering Dropout Myth

August 5, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

For years, one theory about the supply of engineering students has been that that the field suffers from poor retention of students, especially women.

New research, from overlapping research teams, challenges that view. In fact, the study found that while engineering retention varies widely by institution and is indeed low at some institutions, it is not significantly lower than other fields. And women – though a minority in these programs – are as likely as men to remain in them.

The research suggests another reason for the numbers of engineering students being lower than many academics (not to mention politicians) would like: Engineering is much less likely than other disciplines to attract students who have started as majors in other subjects.

Of students graduating with an undergraduate degree in social sciences, the study found that only about half started in that field. For the rest of the sciences, about 60 percent started that way. But 93 percent of engineering degrees are awarded to those who started there, suggesting only minimal “migration” into the field, the researchers noted.

The findings are based on the Multiple-Institution Database for Investigating Engineering Development, which features data on 70,000 engineering students from nine institutions in the Southeast over a 17-year period ending in 2005. The database is managed by Matthew Ohland, an associate professor of engineering education at Purdue University.

While the data rebut the idea of retention gaps holding back engineering enrollments, they don’t show a successful overall pattern in retention. The data in the study find that the nine institutions have retention rates, over eight semesters, of 66 percent to 37 percent.

The researchers argue that institutions with higher rates should be studied to find ways to emulate their practices. But overall, the authors argue the study suggests that the way to increase enrollments is to do better recruitment, and not just of freshmen.

In a statement, Ohland said that “a huge message in these findings is that engineering students are amazingly like those in other disciplines, but we need to do more to attract students to engineering programs.”

Given this finding, Ohland suggests that colleges look at policies that discourage transfer into engineering. For example, many colleges have multiple calculus courses, one for engineering and others for other fields. As a result, a business or biology student who becomes interested in engineering may be discouraged by the prospect of retaking calculus.

Some of the findings from the database analysis appeared last year in the Journal of Engineering Education. The other findings have been accepted for publication in the Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The Engineering Dropout Myth

  • Engr Retention Rates
  • Posted by Pamela on August 5, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • A core component of the Engineering curriculum is the co-op experience. Students earn twice min wage or more as undergraduates while their A&S peers struggle to find a job. Colleges can facilitate the co-op experience by offering required classes more than once a year. A typical engineering student works three or more co-ops and can graduate in five years almost debt free.

  • I Predict
  • Posted by DFS on August 5, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • That, when it all shakes out, the biggest obstacle to engineering pursuits will not be sciences -- of whatever flavor -- but math.

    Ultimately, the winners of arguments among engineers are those who can verify mathematically what they espouse. Else, someone will unequivocably shout them down.

  • Curriculum
  • Posted by Jody , instructor, soc sci on August 5, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Although this has been addressed somewhat, I would like to share my thoughts. When I was teaching at a community college in the same city as a major state university with an engineering program for years we had to tell our students to just go to the university as our classes would not be accepted and that they did the program in blocks (you took the classes as they were set up or you took nothing). In the last couple years there was finally conversation and negotiations to move towards doing the 2 year CC program and transferring to the 4 year program. Exclusivity was what I always thought was the problem (but I only have one university as an example). Same university had other colleges (business, architecture) that worked the same way--they made it virtually impossible to transfer into the program after the first year without having to take the first year over in their program courses. They were designed to be an all or nothing program-you were either in or you were out.

  • A different interpretation of the data
  • Posted by Ray , ISM at Aiken Technical College on August 5, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • Students who choose Engineering are much more likely to already be committed to a goal and have a plan, before they enter College.

  • One-way migration
  • Posted by Brad , Professor at University of Minnesota on August 5, 2009 at 2:45pm EDT
  • This all seems fairly straightforward to me. Other studies have found that a majority of undergraduates change their major at least once before graduation. For engineering students, however, this tends to be a one-way street: a more or less "normal" fraction of those who start in engineering migrate out to other disciplines partway through their undergraduate careers, but far fewer students migrate into engineering because the curricular demands of most engineering programs require a full four years to complete. So the overall effect is going be a net out-migration from engineering into other fields. This is partially mitigated, perhaps, by cross-migration among various engineering disciplines, but the overall reduction in engineering students is easily explained by the normal patterns of student major-switching.

  • Engineering/retention
  • Posted by Alexander , professor at WMU on August 5, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • It was entertaining to read a "Cranky old prof" claiming engineering students are loud and drunken. I am also an old timer (thirty year of teaching engineering), albeit not cranky, professor. However, I find engineering students are anything but of those characterizations. They are dedicated, respectful professionals or else they drop out in a hurry.

    Since engineering subjects use "building blocks" as one NEEDS the information from previous classes (prerequisites), it is naturally difficult to transfer from non-science programs.

  • Reality
  • Posted by Carlos on August 5, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • 1. "Same university had other colleges (business, architecture) that worked the same way--they made it virtually impossible to transfer into the program after the first year .."

    I had to deal with some of those students. Many had real academic problems that they managed to mask at CC.

    Then again, when some took an *objective* exam -- MCAT, GRE, GMAT -- their obvious abilities showed they had the right stuff.

    2. Engineers as drunken boors?

    Maybe at a few Ivy-level frat-boy schools (Brown, Dartmouth, MIT). The vast majority -- you have to be kidding. There is too much work.

  • courseload is the problem
  • Posted by snag at big engineering school on August 6, 2009 at 5:30am EDT
  • As someone who works at a large engineering school, and who came up in the sciences in college after the public high school system in her hometown did a truly shameful, flailing job of attempting to educate and prepare students for college, I feel like I can help pinpoint the problem. It's not just, as a poster said above, that the course requirements are so specific and exacting. Of course the requirements for engineering are going to take a full four years to complete, so of course a student can't change her mind and switch majors into engineering mid-college-career. I blame this completely on the elementary and high school system, which aims low and misses anyway.

    I went to college with students who had already had taken calculus, college-level physics, and programming languages back in high school. I had to bribe grad students with vodka to teach me integrals, just to keep up in basic courses. If a student can learn integrals from drunk, sleep-deprived grad students, I'm willing to bet that student could have had college-level calc courses under her belt before graduating high school. If only my high school had bothered to teach it competently. We just don't teach kids well, and they're playing catch-up when they get to college.

    In the US, a large and growing segment of the population is politically and culturally opposed to science education. There's an anti-intellectual movement which is typical of fundamentalist religions, and there is a plebian grumbling that we're "wasting" money on education that could be spent on more urgent needs. There's a lack of will to train and pay el-hi teachers, and a lack of cultural momentum to prize academic achievement. High schools let discipline issues, petty dress code concerns, or sports interests shove the supposed educational mission into the back seat. I never heard the phrase "academic mission" until I got inot the higher education environment.

    My best advice for any students aspiring to college at all, especially in the sciences, is to joint-enroll and get the freshman core out of the way before high school graduation. Advisors always encourage idle exploration in freshman year ("take classes you never thought you'd take, find out what your interests are." we've all heard it), and they're not wrong, except that if a student does that, she won't be able to "find out" about an interest in the hard sciences, especially engineering, until it's actually too late to complete the major. Getting the basics out of the way beforehand, and getting as much academic exploration done before freshman year is the best way to beat the clock, unless you happened to go to a high school that actually taught science and math.

  • Posted by Sib on August 7, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • Perhaps the cranky prof was speaking of Cal Poly-SLO? Great engineering program, party atmosphere, "tough guy" expectations.

    When I worked at the Claremont Colleges, I also became aware of the rather insane parties thrown at Harvey Mudd - but not just by the engineers. Some of us nerds not only work hard, but love to blow off steam.

  • barriers to entry
  • Posted by Brian , Student, Nuclear Engineering at UM on August 10, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • As a current 3rd year engineering student the main barrier to entry for a student from a different discipline to enter the engineering school is the amount of pre-reqs for engineers. My curriculum that does not include engineering classes is as follows: 4 calculus classes (4 credits each), 2 physics and 1 chemistry course w/labs (5 credits each), programming, technical writing, 16 credits of humanities and social sciences incl. a sequence of courses (300-lvl or above). Oh ya, then you have to take about 60 credits in your department. That's already a total of 115 credits and 128 gets your diploma. That really only leaves with about 3-4 classes that you get to choose on your own.

    Typically most students (usually coming from hard sciences) who want to switch have already completed a significant portion of school. Predicting that they would graduate from the Letters college at their University they have chosen a schedule with classes that sound interesting. This leaves little room for error if they then find out they want to transfer to Engineering, unless they take another semester or a year.

    This probably happens since Engineering is one of those very rare undergraduate professional schools, so the school feels the need to immediately prepare their students, justifiably, to enter a higly-demanding and stressful work environment.