close

原文:

George Leopold
10/20/2010 2:16 PM EDT
 
 We often hear from readers who are engineers that they try to dissuade sons and daughters from entering the profession. Their reasons vary, but most have reached the conclusion that globalization has made it impossible to build a career, much less make a living, as an engineer.

This is a sad state of affairs. One result is that too much talent has been diverted to unproductive pursuits like financial services. We all know how that turned out.

Too many technology companies have responded to this situation by focusing on their stock price, giving innovation short shrift. One of the industry’s dirty little secrets is that shipping engineering jobs overseas remains a great way to boost a company's stock price. We could make a strong case that short-term gain, quarterly financial results, have killed American innovation, and with it, the proud engineering profession.

We prefer another approach.

In a recent documentary on the men and woman who built the Apollo moon rocket, a North American Aviation engineer named George Phelps described the seemingly insurmountable problem of shaving still more weight from the Saturn V’s second stage. That booster, which would kick astronauts into Earth orbit, contained two enormous fuel tanks. To cut weight, North American engineers invented a remarkably thin but strong “common bulkhead” between the two tanks, effectively separating volatile liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen stored at vastly different temperatures.

Phelps admitted that much sleep was lost coming up with this weight-saving solution. He added, with a twinkle in his eye, “That was the most difficult problem that we had to solve. But we did it, because engineers can just about do anything.”

 With the Apollo example in mind, and as we compile the 2010 edition of our annual salary and opinion survey, we ask readers what areas of electronics engineering hold the most promise for the next generation of engineers? For example, does the real creativity in electronic design reside in software rather than hardware?

Your responses also will help guide students who will be attending this weekend’s USA Science and Technology Festival on the National Mall in Washington. These kids have great ideas. Let’s point them in the right direction.


中譯:
我們常聽EETimes的電子工程師讀者聊到,他們打算阻止自己的子女未來從事相同職業,所持的理由很多種,但大多數人的結論是,在全球化的趨勢下,當工程師幾乎不可能成就一番大事業,也越來越難餬口。
這真是很悲哀…其中一個可能導致的結果,是讓大量人才轉向投入金融服務等非生產性的職業,我想大家都知道那些行業是怎麼運作的。有太多太多只關心自家公司股價的科技業者,也必須為此負責,他們根本不在乎創新。

科技產業界還有一個骯髒的小秘密,那就是將工程師職缺外移,仍然是推升公司股價的一個非常好的方法;我們有充分的理由能指控,這些短期收益、每季財報,就是扼殺美國科技業創新、以及扼殺美國向來自豪之工程領域專業地位的元凶。

我們希望有另一種解決之道。

在最近發行的、一部訪問當初打造登月太空梭阿波羅號(Apollo)之工程師的紀錄片裡,一位名叫George Phelps的北美航空(North American Aviation)工程師,回顧了當初為運載火箭土星五號(Saturn V)第二級(second stage)削減過多重量的、看似不可能的任務。

該種火箭推進器會將太空人推向地球軌道,內含兩個龐大的燃料儲存槽;為了削減其重量,北美航空的工程師研發了一種非常薄卻很強韌的、兩個燃料槽之間的「共同艙壁(common bulkhead)」,有效地分隔了兩槽中分別以不同溫度所儲存的液態氫與液態氧。

根據Phelps的回憶,為開發以上解決方案,眾工程師犧牲了很多睡眠時間,但他眼神發亮地補充:「這是我們曾經解決過的最困難問題,但我們成功了,因為工程師就是無所不能!」

這個阿波羅太空梭的故事一直深植我心;在最近EETimes美國版最近進行2010年版的工程師薪資與意見調查時,我們還特別詢問受訪讀者,那些電子工程領域對下一代的工程師來說是最具發展潛力的?例如,電子設計的實際創造力,是在軟體而非硬體部分嗎?

相信以上的調查結果,將對有意投身工程師職業的莘莘學子們提供指導;也希望我們能為這些孩子們指引正確的方向。

 
心得:
撇開是否會讓孩子投身工程師行列,讓我感到心寒的是現代的工程師的培養教育,當然,我也是其中被人心寒之一。  
 


不論是工程生(念工程相關的學生)、工程人員(兼差或是派遣等人員)、工程師的實力確實一代不如一代(包括我),對於科學教育的教育,追求的是高薪、精緻、多樣化,確實,這是時代的潮流,但是工程人漸漸的忘卻追求解決問題的感覺,反而變成利益當道...(這個App可以在Android Market賺多少錢、這個案子可以領多少薪水...等)。

工程生漸漸注意的是我能否上台清交成?我能否在鴻海或是台積電工作?我能否領到每年的分紅?導致這樣的元兇就在於企業文化。大企業要的都是頂尖學校的學生、給的都是讓人瞠目結舌的薪水,創造出來的各個都是年薪百萬的工程人員...這也導致後浪(剛畢業的學生)都會往這個目標前進,完全忽略了身為工程人員的使命:「用讓人眼睛為之一亮的方法解決讓人眼睛為之一亮的問題。」

我也相信,這樣說很多人都會說是為了養家餬口、是為了吃飯...等。但...最根本的心態都是為了那大把大把的鈔票...甚麼是工程師?就是住別墅、豪宅,開著名車、跑車,吃著餐廳、飯店的「人」。最根本的...技術導向卻已經蕩然無存。

其實這段心得沒甚麼只是半夜睡不著再靠杯的文章而已,工程科學,是可以很有趣也可以很不有趣。



YuRu Wei 20101022 0428
arrow
arrow
    全站熱搜
    創作者介紹
    創作者 YuRu 的頭像
    YuRu

    YuRu's Life

    YuRu 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()