LIFE LESSONS AND TEAMWORK

To the Editor: I think the alleged inability of new engineers to work in teams (“Time for Teamwork,” August) is a matter of trust.

Engineering students don’t trust their peers because of the fierce competition in school, where cooperation is often seen as cheating. Students are used to working alone, and do so even on group projects.

Engineering students don’t trust their professors because of a conflict in political agendas and a power mismatch. Most professors’ careers are in academia, while most students’ careers will not be. Students often don’t trust professors’ judgment on real world technical matters where students have their own experience, and that includes completing a project to a professor’s expectations. Trust has to be earned.

New engineers don’t trust their employers. They’ve all read Dilbert. After years of tough technical courses, finding that job success is based on learning the company’s part numbering system or MIS software seems crazy. The burden of legacy systems and policies kills new technical careers. People go into engineering in search of interesting, creative, useful work. When they don’t find it, when they find just the opposite, they leave to start their own companies or enter other fields, just like their smartest peers. Team assignments won’t help any of this.

My girlfriend has a more succinct idea. She says that engineers are smart people, and smart people quickly learn (by third grade?) that in a group project they end up doing all the work and getting only a fraction of the credit. What’s the point in that?

Employers are always complaining about the deficiencies of their new engineers, and that won’t change. The underlying problem is that it’s tough to find smart, docile people.

RONALD CORRADIN
ST. PAUL, MINN.

To the Editor: In Jean Thilmany’s article, “Time for Teamwork,” she notes two reasons why many engineers do not like to work in teams: self-reliance and procrastination.

This may be true for some engineers, but I think there are many engineers at work and in school that really enjoy collaboration and staying ahead of the game. It would have been nice for Jean to include more details of this study, as I haven’t encountered this type of behavior among the upper echelon of engineers during my schooling at Iowa State University nor at work at Archer Daniels Midland.

Despite what the media says about engineers, I find that my projects go better with some outside help. Putting more than one mind on a project offers various perspectives and opinions which can only strengthen the outcome. It would behoove young engineers to embrace teamwork as it’s a reality that one will not likely escape.

JOSH PEPPERS
COLUMBUS, NEB.

WHO GETS HIRED

To the Editor: The blurb on page 4 of September’s issue dismayed me, for it has not been my experience that “Math is at the crux of who gets paid,” as Ed Koc states.

I feel that I should know, because I graduated in May 2008 with degrees in mechanical engineering and mathematics in the top 4 percent of my graduating class, but have been unable to land any engineering-related job. I don’t think the country needs people like me.

It has been my experience that skills and aptitude do not matter in hiring nearly as much as “who you know.”

JOSEPH CAVALERI
DENVER

TO CREATE AND SERVE

To the Editor: Your editorial comments in the September issue are very appropriate. If a figure of merit in our existence is the good that we do for our fellow man or woman, then our profession ranks very high.

In the technology food chain, each individual takes something from prior work, adds some unique contribution, and then moves it to a broader level. This broader level is the opportunity to which Hart and Prahalad speak. Well done, and thanks.

DON BRAY
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS

Editor’s note: John Falcioni’s September 2009 editorial, “Base of the Pyramid,” which cites the work of Stuart Hart of Cornell University and C.K. Prahalad of the University of Michigan, is archived online at www.memagazine.org.

PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS

To the Editor: I very much prize the articles like “Wedge Factor” by Jeffrey Winters (October 2007) and “An Engineer Looks at the Energy Dilemma” by Robert W. Graham (February 1971) that point out ideas that mechanical engineers may suggest to open the way for a gradual change to reduce the ascendant consumption of energy.

FELIPE N. CASTRO, P.E.
MEXICO CITY

SYMBOLS AND HEXES

To the Editor: I found it amusing that time is being devoted to find a suitable icon to represent mechanical engineering.

When I became a Professional Engineer in the late 1980s the symbol used by the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario contained a shield with three gears, a book, and two images of the provincial flowers. Since then the logo is a stylized image that does not directly relate to engineering. The logo for the Canadian Society of Mechanical Engineers is a beaver, fitting for a Canadian organization.

I must point out that the article (Input Output, August 2009) referred to five icons and there were pictures of each. The bolt in the picture was a carriage bolt and a locknut. The article described a hexagonal nut and bolt. These two fasteners are different in look and function and are not interchangeable.

I would suggest the Canadarm used on all Space Shuttles, the gear, and a manufacturing robot, not the cute toy robot depicted.

R. BRADLEY MICHELL, P.ENG.
DUNDAS, ONTARIO

SOUND OF AN ELECTRIC CAR II

To the Editor: Electric cars too quiet? Hardly.

Noise is a source of toxic pollution as surely as DDT. How many of us are awakened at night by screaming cars? How many of us sleep less well generally because of street noise? The brain remains alert to sound even as we sleep, and the effect on our general well-being is not benign. During the day, excessive noise causes stress and fatigue.

The quiet of electric cars is a gift and a reminder that things do not have to be the way they are. As engineers we should be using our technological abilities to reduce environmental noise back to the natural levels for which human physiology is adapted.

Regarding pedestrian safety, tire noise dominates engine noise at normal speeds, and in any case, such an argument is merely a ruse to drive without sufficient regard for the safety of others. No driver should ever “accidentally” hit a pedestrian, unless first hit by a meteorite or suffering some other act of God.

JOSEPH M. PRUSA, P.E.,
BOCA RATON, FLA.

To the Editor: ME is not the first place I have seen discussions about “noising up” electric cars. But if Mr. Roxton (Letters, August) runs to the Patent Office he may be on to something.

Given the nature of the American enterprise spirit and the proclivity of the consumer to buy just about anything, I can easily imagine a new industry cropping up. Car sounds would eventually be marketed like ring tones. I can almost hear them already, NASCAR tracks, motorcycle packs, parades, marching bands, and even wild animal stampedes.

There is an understandable concern for public safety. But it is a sad commentary on our society and culture when a new technology is introduced and we begin to consider hobbling one of its inherent advantages. I was hoping that with the introduction of the electric vehicle we could begin to enjoy quieter traffic and improve the quality of life, especially in those neighborhoods adjacent to busy roads.

How do deaf people cope? And how do we currently protect pedestrians with earphones or cell phones? I hope that we don’t rush into this issue without thoroughly investigating all the alternatives.

Noise pollution is still pollution.

GERALD CABAK
SANTA CRUZ, CALIF.