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:
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