This argument states that our educational institutions are failing to educate enough engineers, and that as a result, the United States will be unable to compete with other countries in the future. The argument that fewer engineers are graduating from our universities is flawed, however, because it assumes that universities are the only educational centers that produce engineers. The argument is flawed in that the author does not define the term ‘engineering,’ and assumes that if engineers are not coming from universities, then engineering is not being done in the United States. After much deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that this argument is flawed and that the author needs to revise his argument in order to convey a more accurate picture. First, the author states that historically, most engineers have been educated in the United States. While ‘most’ is certainly an accurate statement, what the statistics actually show is that engineers have been trained in universities in the United States more so than in other countries. There are many countries that produce engineers, among which are China, India, Iran, Singapore, South Korea, Malaysia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan. Most engineers, therefore, are not being trained in the United States; they are trained elsewhere

Second, the author states that fewer engineers are graduating from our universities. Again, the author makes the assumption that fewer engineers are being educated in the United States. He overlooks the vast number of engineers that are trained in other parts of the world. While it is true that the number of engineers graduating from U

S. universities has declined, the number of engineers graduating from other universities has increased. The author, then, is conflating different statistics, and that is a very flawed approach in making an argument. Indeed, the number of people who pursue engineering is steadily growing. According to the 2015 US Census, there are nearly 1.6 million people employed as engineers in the United States, and there are about 2.75 million people employed as engineers in other countries. The disparity in the number of engineers graduating from the United States and other countries is clearly evident

Third, the author assumes that the decline in the number of engineers graduating from our universities will continue over time. However, there are reasons for the decline in the number of engineers graduating from our universities. First, the disparity in the number of engineers graduating in the United States and abroad is widening. For example, the United States produces roughly 1.4 million engineers, while India produces about 2 million engineers. Second, the cost of a college education in the United States is much higher than in other countries. This means that American students are less likely to choose engineering as a career, and those who do choose it are more likely to pursue another career, because the cost of a college education is so high. Finally, the United States has an aging workforce. Older workers tend to work longer hours, and they tend to retire later. According to the U

S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average age of an engineer in the United States is 48, while the average age of an engineer in Germany is 43. If younger workers are going to enter the workforce, then fewer workers will be graduating with engineering degrees

Fourth, the author states that decreasing enrollments in high schools are clearly showing a decline in the number of engineers graduating from our universities. While declining enrollments in high schools might indicate a decline in the number of students studying engineering, this is not the case. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, about 120,000 students in high school choose to pursue engineering as a career, and about 100,000 students are completing a four-year engineering degree. The assertion that the number of students pursuing engineering is in decline is therefore unsupported by the facts. Fifth, the author states that if we are to remain economically competitive in the world marketplace, then we must increase funding for education—and quickly. This is an argument that is flawed in many ways. First, the author assumes that the United States is economically competitive in the world marketplace, and that a decline in the number of engineers will not negatively impact the economy of the United States. While the United States may not be economically competitive, other countries most certainly are. The economies of China and India, for example, are growing rapidly, and those countries already have more than 2 million engineers. This means that a decline in the number of engineers in the United States will not necessarily result in a strong economy for the United States. Second, the author assumes that declining enrollments in engineering courses in college will result in a decline in engineering jobs. While a decline in the number of engineers might result in a decline in the number of engineering jobs, that is not necessarily the case. For example, increased demand for renewable energy, electric cars, and hybrid cars might increase the demand for engineers. Third, the author assumes that if the United States is to remain competitive in the world marketplace, then it must increase the number of engineers. However, the United States already has a large engineering workforce, so increasing the number of engineers will not result in a strong economy. Finally, the author assumes that increased funding for education will result in an increase in the number of engineers. Increasing funding for education will not result in an increase in the number of engineers, because the number of engineers is dictated by the number of students who choose to pursue engineering as an undergraduate and graduate degree. Increasing funding for engineering education will not increase the number of engineers, and it will, therefore, not increase the number of engineers in the United States. The argument that the author makes is based on faulty information, and his argument is not well supported by facts.