To the Editor: In response to Henry Borger, grandfather of 13, who suggests that we as a society should cease "any effort to force equalization" because it "would be unfair to women and the profession" (Letters, May):

As I read the letter aloud at work, my colleagues, both male and female, could not believe I was not reading from a 1950s publication. I am a female engineer who has worked in the defense industry for over 10 years. I received my Bachelor's in Mechanical Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology.

My parents raised me to believe I can pursue any career I desired, and excel at it. Growing up, I played with animals, trucks, and dolls. My four-year-old daughter has as much fun playing with her fire trucks and train sets as she does with her stuffed animals and dolls.

I am a firm believer that exposure to a variety of careers is one solution to the issue of the lack of women in engineering and technology. I have participated in the FIRST Robotics Competition, where I saw as many girls get as excited about building robots as their male counterparts.

My suggestion to the grandfather is that perhaps he should expose his granddaughters to the same events as his grandsons. He would probably be surprised that the granddaughters would enjoy building things and competing every bit as much as his grandsons.

I am saddened to realize that if the older generation continues passing down the gender bias, the world will have a much harder time correcting this problem.

Tom DiCorcia
Portland, Ore.

To the Editor: Henry Borger observed that girls tend to color, dress up, read, etc., while most boys love trucks, building things, war, and rough competition. My own 11-year-old daughter loves ballet, fashion, and crafts, so I don't dispute that there seem to be differences in preferred activities.

However, I would not conclude that this, by itself, is the reason there are fewer female engineers. Ballet and even fashion take discipline and are competitive, while craftwork and design bear a closer resemblance to engineering than playing with trucks and roughhousing.

If engineering is about creating the world we desire, and if the desired world does differ by gender, consider that there are at least as many engineers creating textiles, medical devices, consumer products, appliances, and food delivery systems, as there are engineers creating trucks and weapons. I think we have to look elsewhere for the reason so many high-potential girls are choosing other professions over engineering.

To the Editor: I am amazed that the debate on encouraging women to choose engineering as a career is still alive. I had come to the conclusion that the time was long past when women had to fight for the right to become engineers.

I have had 42 good years in engineering myself, and would not change one little part of it, but frankly, today I would have a hard time recommending that anyone, male or female, take up engineering as a profession. The reason is not the technical content, which has certainly become more challenging as time goes by, but the standing, or lack thereof, enjoyed by the engineer today.

When you have witnessed a group of experienced turbine designers, some with international reputations, almost on their knees, pleading with a purchasing officer, who possibly has a GED as his sole academic qualification and who is sitting with his cowboy boots on the table and picking his teeth, for permission to spend a few thousand dollars on an analytical study, or when a $30,000 project is kept on hold for six months while another purchasing officer tries to negotiate a 2 percent (read $600) reduction in the proposal quote, or when a bevy of engineers with postgraduate degrees must sit silent while a patent attorney lectures them on the "legal" definition of a helical thread, then I think it can be said that engineers have lost control of their profession. These are not hypothetical situations. They are all events I have witnessed.

It is scary when John Ratzenberger of Cheers fame is forced to take the initiative in forming a foundation called Nuts and Bolts to teach the next generation how to make things. This is something we should be doing.

So, when the young ladies coming out of college look at what engineering has to offer them, and decide to go elsewhere, we need to look very critically at what needs to be done to attract them. Oh, and by the way, it would not hurt to think about attracting a few men as well. A large proportion of our undergraduates are foreign and, as the article ("Brain Drain") in the May issue notes, will mostly be returning to their home countries upon graduation.

To the Editor: I was a little surprised to find Henry Borger's letter in your magazine.

My wife is a lawyer and I am a computer scientist; we were both colonels in the U.S. Army and both retired recently. We have two daughters who are now in college, both on academic scholarships. The younger is majoring in psychology and biology, just finishing her freshman year with a 3.6 GPA. The elder is entering her senior year as a computer science major with a 3.8 GPA.

My older daughter has always liked math and numbers, and fits into the computer science and engineering community well. She had an interesting experience in the sixth grade in Charlottesville, Va. She kept answering questions in math class. Finally, the teacher—in front of the rest of the class—told her to stop raising her hand and answering questions. Girls weren't supposed to be interested in math and she was keeping the boys from being called on.

We were assigned to Hawaii shortly afterward. Because of the incident in Charlottesville, my wife and I decided to spend the money and put both of our daughters in an all-girls school in Honolulu (Sacred Hearts Academy) that was known for its science program. We have never regretted that decision.

Being in a school with a strong science and math program and no boys meant there was no "girls shouldn't do that" atmosphere. I wonder how many of the letter writer's three daughters and six granddaughters "like dressing up ... and playing with baby dolls" because they were not allowed, implicitly or explicitly, to do anything else.

To the Editor: I just finished reading the May issue of ME magazine, and I am a little concerned about something.

The article "Brain Drain" talks about how many Ph.D. students are being produced by the U.S. compared to India and China, and how a large number of foreign-born Ph.D. students in the U.S. are returning to their homelands upon completion of their degrees. The article states that, in order to keep up with China, the U.S. must "encourage foreign national graduate students to stay in America." The article also states, "If the nation truly needs workers with special skills, it should make them welcome by providing them with permanent resident status."

Why is there no mention of encouraging more American students to obtain their Ph.D.? I have been out of school for over 10 years. I would love to go back and get my Ph.D., but I cannot afford it at this time. I would be able to do so if there were some incentives and funding support (besides what is offered at the traditional university).

Why aren't there programs for people like me who would like to go back and get their Ph.D. and keep the research and technology that was learned in obtaining the Ph.D. in this country?

An article, "Hip New World," in the October 2006 issue contained an inaccurate reference to carbon-reinforced PEEK as a material for medical implants. It was another carbon-reinforced polymer that was found to degrade in the human body. PEEK polymer is successfully used for implants.

An article in the May issue, "Tying Two Forces," incorrectly described products made by Vernay Laboratory Inc. The company makes flow control valves. A rubber nozzle in the valve contracts to maintain a constant flow rate regardless of inlet pressure. The company used Fluent CFD software to solve for fluid flow.

ASME's 2007 Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code includes a completely revised and updated Section VIII, Division 2. The Section was misidentified last month in News & Notes.

home | features | breaking news | marketplace | departments | about ME back issues | ASME | site search

© 2007 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers