You would think that a professional community facing a documented oversupply problem would want to talk about it. You would think that engineers, people trained to read data and draw conclusions, would at least engage with the numbers before dismissing the person who posted them. That is not what happens. Post a sourced, detailed comment about mechanical engineering's structural problems on a mechanical engineering forum and the most likely outcome is not a counterargument. It is a removal (See Reason #39).
The pattern is predictable enough that you can set a clock by it. You write a substantive reply explaining that the field graduates far more engineers than the labor market absorbs (See Reason #1), that the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects flat or declining demand (See Reason #50), that one in five ME graduates ends up in a job that does not require the degree at all (See Reason #63). You cite the source. You link the federal data. Someone replies "sounds like you just had a bad employer." Someone else says "maybe engineering isn't for everyone." Then a gatekeeper removes the comment. Not because it violated a rule. Because it made the room uncomfortable and one of the rules was close enough to justify the click. No link was posted. No product was sold. The content was removed because of what it said, and the person who said it was permanently banned from two forums by the same gatekeeper on the same day.
Some of you reading this right now are learning for the first time that ME has the highest underemployment rate among the major engineering disciplines. You are learning it here because you were never going to learn it there. The forums where you would naturally ask "is this degree worth it" are the same forums where the answer gets deleted. The spaces where a first-year student posts "should I switch to EE" are the same spaces where the person with thirty years of experience and a sourced reply gets banned for self-promotion he did not commit. The pipeline does not just fail to warn you. It actively prevents other people from warning you (See Reason #25).
This is not an institutional policy. It is a community reflex. People who chose mechanical engineering and built careers around it have a stake in the narrative. They sat through the same thermodynamics sequence you did. They fought through the same job search. Admitting that the market is structurally oversaturated means admitting that the difficulty of the degree did not buy what they were told it would buy (See Reason #60). That is a hard thing to sit with. It is easier to call the messenger bitter and move on.
The suppression happens at every level. Online, forum gatekeepers remove posts and ban users whose only infraction was being specific. In departments, professors steer conversations away from labor market data and toward innovation narratives. At professional society events, the panel on "the future of mechanical engineering" never includes a slide showing that the field produces roughly two and a half graduates for every projected opening (See Reason #34). The New York Fed publishes it. The BLS publishes it. Nobody on the podium mentions it. And if someone in the audience brings it up, the panel chair moves to the next question (See Reason #59).
What makes this specific to mechanical engineering, and not just a general observation about groupthink, is the size of the gap between the field's self-image and its market position. Electrical engineering forums do not need to police criticism because their graduates are not underwater. Computer science forums do not need to delete comments about pay compression because pay compression is not their problem. The intensity of the suppression is proportional to the size of the thing being suppressed. ME has the largest graduating class, the flattest pay curve relative to difficulty, and the worst underemployment numbers in the engineering column. That combination produces a community that cannot afford to let the conversation happen.
A profession that was confident in its value would engage its critics. A profession that was honest about its challenges would surface the data and let prospective students decide for themselves. What you get instead is a profession that treats factual criticism the way a company treats a quality escape: contain it, document the containment, and make sure it does not reach the customer. You are the customer. And if you are reading this blog, it is probably because nobody in the places you looked first would let you see it.
No comments:
Post a Comment