89 comments on Turning an Oil Tanker
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
89 comments on Turning an Oil Tanker
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things.”
—Theodore Roosevelt
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
Also a factor is the dismal state of US K-12 education. Too many students are not graduating with the necessary skills to cut it in an engineering program. We're not talking Nobel Prize level here, but they do have to be able to do the math. There was no problem producing enough HS graduates in the 1950s that were prepared enough to make it through an engineering degree. Now, it is a problem.
Dude, where's the incentive? You can make more as a plumber nowadays than with a BS in most science or engineering disciplines. High school students may be smarter than you think. How many wealthy mathematicians do you know?
I just read that in 2007 according to the BLS, total engineering and architectural jobs created were 54,700. Doesn't really seem likely to create any shortages. Especially with a hundred thousand H1Bs available.
Starting salaries for some engineering disciplines are as follows:
Aerospace Engineering $50,642
Architectural Engineering $46,830
Business & Management $44,711
Chemical Engineering $55,418
Civil Engineering $45,173
Computer Engineering $52,850
Computer Science $51,308
Electrical Engineering $52,963
Geological Engineering $46,300
Information S & T $47,750
Mechanical Engineering $52,252
Metallurgical Engineering $51,626
Mining Engineering $52,755
Nuclear Engineering $57,800
Petroleum Engineering $75,750
Source MO S&T
Mmmmm petroleum! Where do I sign?
Where I live plumbers make $40/hr, so about $60,000/yr. When the median salary in the U.S. is about $45,000/yr, those starting salaries are fairly pathetic. If there was an actual engineering shortage, they'd be much higher.
Any field where a significant fraction of the BS graduates cannot find a job when they get out isn't experiencing any real shortage. It does however look as though your area, petro engineering, might have a shot at attracting more people.
Where I live plumbers make $40/hr, so about $60,000/yr.
Note, though, that those are starting salaries. They will approximately double for an engineer with 5-10 years of experience.
Hardly, unless you make it into management. This is more typical:
5-10 years
Those ranges were in the 80's to 100's, which is about double the starting salaries. In my own experience, everyone I work with had doubled their salaries by the 10 year mark at the latest. I did it in 4 years, but only because I accepted an international assignment which comes with several premiums.
$40 is not starting salary! In VT it takes 5 yrs to be a master plumber. And guess what, you'll likely start at $12! After 5 years, if you pass the test, you're still no where near $40, if you work for someone else.
My comment was that the engineering salaries are starting salaries. What is being compared is an established plumber's salary versus a starting engineering salary - an invalid comparison.
TJ
Where do you live? I just checked the dept of labor site. Median wage is $20.50 (national). Highest state was $29.
Granddaughter, a senior ME at UVA, has several good offers for June. One is a major oil refining Company on the East Coast offering over $60,000.
Incentive? What incentive?
Annual compensation for hourly jobs in the Big Three auto industry: $145,000 ; annual compensation for professors $93,000. On the whole, engineers in industry don't do any better than professors, as their jobs don't last long enough to vest the vast and lavish pension benefits which form a big part of compensation at the Big Three, government, and, often, academia. Oh, and they don't get overtime, and, in some industries, their travel is not so much to academic conferences at resorts in Bermuda and Hawai'i as it is to worksites in torrid deserts in summer, or frigid Arctic wastes in winter.
Oh, and I was forgetting, auto workers start earning four to ten years earlier than college grads, and they do so free of crippling college debt.
Things have not changed one iota since I knew a somewhat demoralized guy in grad school who saw his friends from his auto-industry town already ensconced in luxurious houses, owning big cars and boats, and so on, while we were still in, well, college-style housing. Nor since a relative living temporarily in northeast Wisconsin was agog at the way folks there showed no ambition beyond the local paper mill, as that paid much more than they expected to net by getting a higher education.
The comments at the link tell me there is zero likelihood of change in the foreseeable future. It's a sociopolitical issue independent of any diminishing of opportunities that might be caused by oil and energy issues. It follows that as someone here mentioned, the goods and technologies and alt-energies will continue to appear by magic, "poof", from elsewhere. How else should they appear?
That is, they will appear until they don't. Or until the dollar has tanked so far that it no longer matters to "us" whether they do or don't.
In addition to this, the professors that I know in Physics all complain about the hassles of raising funding for research. There are little dibs and dabs of money here and there, and if you write enough grant proposals, you eventually get enough to hold together a program. Of course you spend all of your time writing proposals and dealing with performance reviews...
Which brings me to a 2nd point. The supply & demand dynamic for PhDs doesn't work well. Each professor takes as many students as he can get funding for, but there is no guarantee of a job for those that graduate. Essentially the only thing that regulates the number of students is a difficulty in attracting the students in the first place (because kids eventually figure out that the field isn't as lucrative as one might have thought in the first place), and of course the availability (or lack of) research funding.
Colleges and universities are trying to reduce the number of tenured faculty positions - they want to hire people for a teaching stint of a couple of years, and then send them on their way to their next posting. They become in effect highly educated migrant workers, but people reach a stage in their lives where they want to settle down and so forth, and this sort of transient life eventually gets very old. For those that want an academic research career, you end up with multiple post-doc appointments, and then perhaps you get a proper permanent job of some sort.
For those who have an insatiable curiosity, the professor's job sounds a lot more interesting despite all of the drawbacks that you noted, but if you add too much administrative BS, people would be more inclined to just take the money.
Liebig minimum for plants might be water, sunlight, nitrogen, sulfur, potash, etc.
What's the Liebig minimum for technology? Research money, Engineering money, Inventor money...
Say, we took one billion dollars out of the hundred billion we spend on research each year and gave 1,000 inventors 1,000 to 1,000,000 dollars each, reserving half for administration, what results would we get? What inventions would get the prize money?
It's even worse. The teachers many of us had in the 50's and 60's were mostly very smart women with fewer options than today. So, we had the best and brightest teaching us from Kindergarten on up. These women are now out of the teaching corps.
I am involved with Teacher preparation now (undergrad and grad) and the students entering the teaching field, while still mostly women, are no longer as smart and curious as in the old days. In addition, with the de-professionalization of teaching (here's the curriculum, don't deviate) and the requirements of No Child Left Behind (endless testing of often meaningless trivia), many of the remaining inspired teachers are simply getting out of the field. Helicopter parents, incompetent administrators, and parents with lawyers second-guessing everything that happens in the classroom finishes off the rest of the good teachers.
What this really means is that the "generalists" in the gradeschool classrooms who need to know a little about a LOT of things, or at least how to show students HOW to learn, or simply model curiosity, - are simply not there. The students I run into in teacher prep are rarely curious about anything more than might be on the next exam. I don't think this is unique to teacher prep but since these students have potentially 30-40 years in front of THEIR students, this incurious installed learning infrastructure will potentially be with us for a very, very long time. Of course we know that half of all new teachers leave the field within 5 years. Guess which teachers stay, and which ones leave.
As the great Mogambo says, "We are all freakin' doomed!"
Rev Karl
My wife is a senior teacher in the UK. Your description sounds EXACTLY parallel to hers.
Scary
Rev Karl and pondlife, my wife has been teaching here in Lithuania since she graduated from the Pedagogical Institute (yeah, I know, that dates me, if anyone knows the local folkways). Add Lithuania to the list of countries with a teaching system under severe stress. Rev Karl's phrase "here's the curriculum, don't deviate" really sums it up. What a succinct way to describe de-professionalization. A flickering ray of hope, however: in discussions of what to do, more and more people refer to the need for professional respect, and that is not just a code phrase for higher pay. There is increasing awareness that the generations that transformed Lithuania from a rural backwater to an industrial backwater (sorry, couldn't resist...) are aging, and replacements are desperately needed. Without good teaching, those replacements won't be coming any time soon.
Economic efficiency dictates that one keep his nose to the grind stone.
Along with poor employment prospects and students unmotivated to do the hard work of math and science, we are starting to see the negative externalities caused by the obsession of American business with efficiency. Efficiency, say many capitalists, is the end-all and be-all of pleasing the stockholders. So we work the engineers harder, pay them less and dispose of them when the stock price drops. Who is motivated to enter that field? High efficiency means sacrificing reliability, thoughtfulness and planning. When we were turning out engineers, we were inspired by Kennedy and challenged to go to the moon. Many felt a purpose in becoming engineers. The lack of commitment which employers show toward their employees has consequences which we are beginning to feel.
You've got to remember that this lack of skill has been one of the prime objectives of our educational system. This lack of skill is a measure of our success. Earlier in the last century, we had not gotten our schools sufficiently well organized to guarantee failure. Now we have.