34,000 to 35,000 in 1966. By 1970 we could be graduating engineers at a rate close to 47,000 a year. If these projections hold true-and they are a compromise between optimism and pessimism-our average annual production of engineering graduates1 over the decade would be 37,000 per year.

Advanced degrees.-The rise in the number of advanced degrees in engineering will be much sharper than the rise in baccalaureate degrees. Projections for both degree levels are contained in table 2.

It should be noted that the quality of the group going on for advanced degrees has a direct relationship to the size of the baccalaureate pool from which such aspirants are drawn. One cannot skim more cream from the same quantity of milk without also weakening the cream.

1 The measure of growth of engineering manpower must be confined to the number of baccalaureate degrees granted as opposed to the addition of master and doctor degrees to the baccalaureate group. Since individuals receiving advanced degrees were already included in the count of baccalaureate degrees some years earlier, the total of all degree levels would result in counting some individuals two and possibly three times.

Demand: The most recent published study on current and projected demand for engineering manpower was conducted by the Engineering Manpower Commission in 1962 and was based on 1961 data. The results showed that the United States would require somewhat in excess of an average annual 48,000 graduating engineers between the years 1960 and 1971 in order to satisfy projected demand. The report, based on information gathered from over 500 participating companies and agencies, projected an engineering employment increase of 45 percent between 1961 and 1971. Certain industrial categories indicate a much larger rise in employment. These includes: aircraft and parts (67 percent), chemicals (66 percent), and electrical machinery and electronics (65 percent).

The EMC demand survey also showed that the recruiting goal for Ph. D. engineers rose 66 percent between 1961 and 1962. The goal for engineers with master's degrees rose 55 percent. Obviously such goals will be difficult if not impossible to meet, however, it indicates the tremendous emphasis being given to advanced or specialized training.

NOTE.-Preliminary demand reactions drawn from a new survey which the Engineering Manpower Commission is now conducting may be available by November 13. If so, I shall be prepared to make a brief verbal addition to this report on up-to-the-minute indicators of demand. The new report is scheduled for publication in the spring of 1964.

The availability of graduate fellowships in engineering is a factor affecting advanced engineering degrees during the next decade. In March of 1963, the Engineering Manpower Commission conducted a survey in which deans of engineering colleges were asked for the number of additional fellowships which would be used if available. Based on responses from over 90 percent of engineering colleges offering graduate courses, the results showed that the number of available fellowships would need to be tripled in order to match present requirements.

Obsolescence—The engineer's No. 1 enemy

Within engineering circles, there is a good deal of current discussion about the hazards of obsolescence. The problem is by no means unique to the engineering profession, however, its effect is felt more intensely because of the accelerated pace with which technology has advanced during the last decade.

Obsolescence covers many sins. The most obvious form of obsolescence is associated with the inability of individual engineers to keep up with new developments in their field. Engineering colleges have recognized this problem and many are reacting to it by developing programs of continuing education. Such programs, perhaps best illustrated by the one now being developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, will enable engineers to return to the college campus for periods of time varying from a week to a year to update themselves through formalized classwork. The engineering societies are also attacking this problem through a vast network of meetings and symposia on new applications of technology. This enables the engineer to keep himself abreast of developments in his field via a shorter and more informal route.

Obsolescence can also be the result of a deemphasis in certain fields of technology which severly reduces manpower requirements and makes it necessary for engineers to radically reorient their specialty. This may be one of the inherent hazards of deep specialization.

Obsolescence can also relate to the process by which new knowledge is made available. This refers to the obsolescence of channels through which information is stored and the ease with which it can be retrieved in the proper time and at the proper place. To overcome this form of obsolescence, the engineering professional community is undertaking the study of a vast new system of information storage and retrieval.

Finally, obsolescence can refer to an inability to use engineering manpower effectively under given conditions. It is quite possible that our patterns of manpower utilization have not kept up with the growth of technology. For example, the Commission has long pointed toward the need for a closer examination of Government contracting policies as they affect the utilization of scientific and engineering manpower. In 1959. the Commission issued a report on this subject which was referred to the Department of Defense for consideration. Most of the basic problems, however, still remain unresolved.

Engineering manpower and the military

The Engineering and Scientific Manpower Commissions have long called attention to the need for a reexamination of the manner in which engineers, 98-961-64-pt. 8- 6

scientists, and other highly trained persons may best serve their country in time of national emergency. The Commissions have suggested that the Universal Military Training and Service Act be amended to authorize Selective Service local boards to select men having critical skills for assignment to essential civilian activities in lieu of induction into the Armed Forces. In this way, the optimum utilization of men having critical skills will be recognized as sufficiently important in the achievement of national goals to require the assignment of such registrants to essential civilian activities. A man so selected for assignment would be free to move and to engage in the employment of his choice, so long as he was in an essential civilian activity.

It is suggested that registrants be required to serve under assignment for a total period of 72 months (approximately the same period of Active Reserve service now required of the inductee), following which he would be relieved of his military obligation. If the military situation worsened, the registrant's file would be reviewed by the local board and the individual selected for further assignment to essential activity or for induction into the Armed Forces, as the national interest might require.

These are actions that the Nation would have to take of necessity in the event of substantial or full mobilization. It would be far better to establish the principles now and perfect the operation while there is still time, than to wait until the Nation is in the throes of new mobilization during which there would be great initial confusion and uncertainty in the Federal Government and selective service as to just where the best interests of the Nation might lie in manpower matters.

What is suggested here is not that national service be avoided, but that the Nation receive maximum benefit from it professionally trained men and women. These are actions that the Nation would undoubtedly be forced to take in the event of mobilization, because the characteristics of modern warfare have changed so radically. Perhaps equally important is the need to establish the concept of peacetime service somewhat parallel to that of wartime service. Conclusion

I believe we are facing unique times, in which our engineering and scientific brainpower will play a major role. Our ability to effectively utilize such highly trained men and women will be one of the foundation stones of our future national development.

Senator CLARK. You make some interesting statements about the short-range demand and supply of engineers and point out a drastic fluctuation.

Could you give us any explanation as to why?

STATEMENT OF CARL FREY, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ENGINEERING MANPOWER COMMISSION, NEW YORK, N.Y.

Mr. FREY. I think this is one of the keys to the question that has been raised here frequently by my distinguished predecessors. When one views the long-range problem one cannot avoid the conclusion that engineering and scientific manpower need to be increased.

Senator CLARK. I am going to give you an argument on that right

away.

That is based on the continuation, as you note in your point A, of the defense and space programs as a primary national goal, is it not?

Mr. FREY. Yes, in part. It also depends on how long a period of time you are considering it.

Senator CLARK. Now, you heard Dr. Ginzberg and his indication that even now, with the leveling off of the defense effort and the possible stretching out of the space program, we are going to have a surplus in the almost immediate future of engineering personnel which has been let out of these companies because there is nothing more for them to do. I would like you to comment on that.

Mr. FREY. I think that is quite possible. We would certainly have a manpower surplus if there were a sudden decrease in the defense effort, but as I have tried to point out in my paper, such fluctuations in demand are not unusual when one views the short-range history of manpower. If we gear our policy to these short-range fluctuations exclusively, we are going to be in trouble. In my opinion, we need also to look at long-range requirements and their relationship to national goals-this needs to be considered in addition to immediate effects.

Senator CLARK. I agree with you but I would like you to speculate for a moment on what would happen to your conclusions, if instead of making the basic exception under your point A that defense and space programs would continue at approximately their present level, we came to the conclusion that because of priority needs in our domestic economy the space program would be substantially curtailed and because of a sudden breakthrough in disarmament the defense budget would also drastically decrease. Would you think that we would be able to absorb the present and potential manpower in the engineering spectrum from our economy, or would you think then that you would have to revise your conclusions and tell us that we didn't really need as many as you thought?

Mr. FREY. Under present conditions I think we would be in trouble. Dr. Hollomon pointed out that we need to develop new ways of using our people. If, indeed, we are not going to do this; if we are not going to give consideration to the increased use of engineers and scientists in nonmilitary fields, then, of course, we are in trouble. Much will depend upon our ability to reabsorb these people.

If we are not going to absorb our engineers and scientists into the civilian economy while, at the same time, we sharply reduce defense and space expenditures, I would quite agree that we would be facing a manpower surplus in the immediate future.

Senator CLARK. But you would contend, nonetheless, that if we are wise enough to reconvert the human potential, that we still have engineers in shorter supply for desirable civilian efforts?

Mr. FREY. Yes. Of course, it also depends on the extent of the reconversion. It might be difficult if one had a sudden and radical reduction in defense and space expenditures without a comparable sudden and radical increase in the civilian section.

Senator CLARK. And whether you could have the latter or not would depend to some extent on how astute your planning was.

Mr. FREY. Yes, sir.

Senator CLARK. Looking at your table, how do you account for the fluctuation between 1950 when you had 52,732 first degrees, and 1954 when you had only 22,236?

I was going to suggest it was the Korean war, but it could not be; could it?

Mr. FREY. No, sir; it was not. When we graduated this rather large group of engineers in 1950 there was a good deal of publicity concerning a large surplus of engineers. There were recommendations that they go into other fields. This I think had an effect on our young people. It also had an effect on parents. The result was clearly reflected in what happened to freshmen enrollments that year.

There was an immediate drop in freshman engineering enrollments which created the shortage of graduates we later faced during the Korean conflict and during the post-Korean boom. This was part of the up-and-down cycle we have been going through since World War

II.

Senator CLARK. What is the timelag between the impact of the influences which you just recited and the turning out of a first-degree engineer?

Mr. FREY. Let me give you another example.

In 1957, the temporary recession was also accompanied by dislocation of engineers and some publicity in the papers.

A year later, freshman engineering enrollments dropped. As a matter of fact, we are still in this downward phase.

Four years later we began to feel the effect because of the 4-year college curriculum. Depending on how you slice this thing, there is an immediate effect at the freshman engineering level and there is a 4- to 5-year lag before first professional degrees are affected.

Senator CLARK. Speaking very generally, how effective do you think the counseling system is in regulating the flow of bright people into the engineering profession? They have to be bright; do they not? If they are not bright they do not get in.

Mr. FREY. I do not think our present high school counseling is as effective as it should be. This is one of the problems we have been considering in the Engineering Manpower Commission for a good many years. Unfortunately, high school counselors are not sufficiently aware of the requirements within engineering, nor are they aware of the character of engineering.

This partially stems from the fact that there are no engineering teachers at the high school level, whereas you do have teachers of chemistry, physics, and so on.

Senator CLARK. You state a smaller percentage of college freshmen than hitherto are going into the engineering curriculum but because the total number of college freshmen has been increasing since World War II, the numbers actually going into engineering are holding relatively stable. In fact, they are substantially up since 1952. What is your interpretation of those figures?

Mr. FREY. The most important interpretation is that we are getting fewer and fewer of our young people percentagewise, who are interested in an engineering career.

Senator CLARK. That is percentagewise but not in gross numbers. Mr. FREY. But not in gross numbers.

The vast increase in the number of young people ameliorates that situation a little bit. The absolute numbers of engineering freshmen for the last several years has not changed very much.

This means that 4 years from now, as we get larger numbers of college degrees granted, we will not get larger numbers of engineering degrees.

Senator CLARK. And this gives you concern?

Mr. FREY. Yes, sir; it does.

Senator CLARK. I think this paragraph comparing engineering manpower in the United States and the Soviet Union and in Europe is extremely interesting. You point out that the growth of engineering manpower is slower in the United States than it is either in Europe or in the Soviet Union, and also that a high proportion of