Throughout the readings in class, we have discussed the engineering pipeline and how it relates to the number of students who still pursue engineering in college. In Brown's The Engineering Student Pipeline, he states that the number of engineering graduates will decrease, at the time, in 1987. Although this was written a while ago, many of the statements still hold true. In general, the majority of engineering degrees are obtained by white males and we are seeing a downward trend of engineering degrees to minorities, including women. Why is it that these groups end up falling out of the engineering pipeline?
In my opinion, early development and recognition is plays a vital role in retaining students in this pipeline. As previously mentioned in class, focusing on certain courses during middle school opens the door for further science and math development. Having the proper resources for these students will allow them to gain the skill set required for them to continue in engineering. But, it is without mention that administrators must be working towards this goal. Brown states "the participation of both women and minorities will require intervention programs in the K-12 system and greater access to science and math instruction in that system". These interventions could include programs that support STEM careers, or as simple as counseling for the students who show interest in a STEM field. Although intervention is a start, it is not the only method in keeping the students in the pipeline.
In chapter 3 of Women in Science, titled The Pipeline, the author states, "while interventions are essential stopgaps, they alone cannot solve the fundamental problems distancing women from careers in engineering". The chapter presents different scenarios that might alleviate the overwhelming amount of women leaking out of the pipeline. In addition, intervention is more of an attempt to form a model for the women to follow and it is not sufficient in keeping the women in the pipeline. The chapter focuses on the cultural barriers women face even after they have completed the engineering pipeline. It is interesting to note that many women who have a career in engineering still have a high possibility of leaving their career. I would have thought that since these women "beat the odds", they would continue to work in industry despite the obstacles.
>
> Overall, it is a research project of it's own to really pinpoint why minorities are the first to leak from the engineering pipeline. As an engineering student, I truly believe that intervention/retention programs are extremely beneficial to minority engineers. Yet, it is not the only factor preventing us from continuing our engineering education.
>
>
I find the topic of your second paragraph very interesting, and agree with your statement that early exposure is needed in order to keep children in STEM education pipelines. As a member of the ICEX team I have seen the effects of early exposure first hand. Every Wednesday for the last six weeks, the ICEX team has been introducing robotics to second graders at Pacheco elementary school. We broke robotics down into its simplest sections and taught the students about each section. But our goal was not to teach the students, we went each week with a goal of getting the children excited about robots. We do this with the hope that this early exposure will help them develop an interest in engineering. Encouraging everyone equally should lead to a more proportionate representation of all groups in engineering fields. The problem is that there are very few programs that give students early exposure into STEM fields. At the same time there are many scholarships available to members of minority groups choosing to study STEM fields in college. Is this too late? I think that if we spent some of this money on providing students with an early exposure to STEM fields, we would be more successful in our goal to create proportionate representations in STEM fields.
ReplyDelete