Engineer Missouri

Prepared by: Thomas G. Johnson and James D. Rossi

Community Policy Analysis Center (CPAC)

University of Missouri – Columbia

September 15, 2013

Executive Summary

Government projections suggest strong growth in employment in Science, Technology,

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) occupations over the coming years. Moreover, a

2009 survey of manufacturing firms revealed that 36 percent of firms reported a shortage

of scientists and engineers today. Despite the demand for these skills, the enrollment of

U.S. citizens and permanent residents in graduate programs has decreased since the early

1990s. The Missouri Economic Research and Information Center projects a total of

15,753 job openings by the year 2020 in engineering occupations in Missouri.

Missouri ranks below the national average in the proportion of its workforce employed in

18 of 23engineering occupations for which data are available. Moreover, Missouri ranks

26th among U.S. states in engineers as a proportion of the workforce.

Holders of STEM degrees earn 11 percent more per hour in non-STEM fields and 20

percent more per hour in STEM fields than their non-STEM degree holding counterparts.

STEM occupations pay better than non-STEM occupations: in Missouri, workers

inSTEM sectors earn 29.7 percent more with a high school education, 32.4 percent more

with an associate’s or other post-secondary degree, and 32.4 percent more with a

bachelor’s degree than non-STEM workers. All engineering occupations for which data

are available report average salaries in excess of the state average salary.

In 2011, there were over 9,200 undergraduate and 2,700 graduate students enrolled in

engineering programs at Missouri’s universities. During the 2010 – 2011 school year

Missouri’s universities awarded 1,635 bachelor’s degrees, 945 master’s degrees, and 136

doctoral degrees in engineering.

A 2006 analysis revealed that among technology BS and MS graduates, 67 percent of

domestic students and 75 percent of foreign-born students were likely to stay in the areas

where they earned their degrees. Among doctoral degree holders (all fields of study)

working outside of academia, 52 percent of domestic students and 41 percent of foreign

students were likely to stay.

Given the right economic conditions, the number of engineering jobs in a state can

increase on nearly a one-to-one basis with the number of graduates.

There are nearly 50,000 engineers employed in Missouri earning an average salary of

$81,058. The roughly $4 billion in wages paid to Missouri’s engineers contributes an

additional 27,000 jobs to the Missouri economy, an extra $1.1 billion in wages to

Missouri workers, and $3.4 billion to state GDP.

Missouri’s engineers contribute $218.6 million to Missouri’s state and local governments

annually.

For every one additional engineer employed in a state’s workforce, state real gross

domestic product (GDP) increases by over $3 million.

For every one additional engineer per 1,000 jobs, per capita state GDP increases by

$219.48 and real personal income per capita increases by $171.17.

Missouri’s number of patents per 1,000 workers is less than half the national average.

High patenting regions have been found to produce as much as $4,300 more per worker

than low-patenting regions. For every 28.6 engineers working in a given state, one

additional patent is produced, on average.

Missouri consistently ranks in the bottom third of U.S. states in high-technology

establishments as a percentage of all business establishments. This prevents Missouri’s

economy from growing through the first-mover advantage often enjoyed byhigh-

technology firms.

Missouri lags behind other states in the amount of federal Small Business Innovation

Research Funding and venture capital investment. Increasing Missouri’s performance in

these two indicators is important to future economic growth.

Engineer Missouri

Thomas G. Johnson and James D. Rossi

I. Introduction

In his State of the Union addresses, President Barack Obama has frequently repeated a

clarion call for the United States to educate and train a new generation of workers and educators

in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) skills to assure that the U.S.

remains competitive in the global economy (e.g. Robelen, 2011; Koebler, 2012; Brenchley,

2013). In December 2012, the Obama administration formally adopted this policy, declaring a

cross-agency-policy goal of increasing the number of STEM graduates by one million more

graduates in the next decade (Feder, 2012).

The U.S. Department of Commerce (2012) notes that not only was job growth in STEM

fields nearly three-times greater than in non-STEM fields over the period 2000 – 2010, but that

over the period 2008 – 2018 STEM fields are projected to have nearly twice as much job growth

as non-STEM fields. The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that science and engineering jobs

are projected to grow by 21.4 percent during the period 2006 and 2016. Of this growth,

approximately 64 percent of the projected increase is in computer and mathematical scientist

occupations. Engineering jobs are predicted to grow by 10.6 percent over the period (National

Science Foundation, 2010)

Further, in a 2009 survey of the manufacturing sector, 36 percent of firms surveyed

reported moderate to severe shortages of scientists and engineers today with many seeing future

shortages a serious concern. Within specific industries, 74 percent of energy and resources

firms, 63 percent of aerospace and defense firms, 43 percent of industrial products firms, and 38

percent of consumer products and life sciences firms reported moderate to severe shortages of

scientists and engineers (Deloitte, 2009). A shortage of workers, all else equal, leads to higher

wages and lower unemployment for workers with those particular skills in demand, but at the

same time will limit the rate of economic growth in the economy.

It is also important to point out that STEM skills are also in demand in non-STEM

industries with nearly two-thirds of workers with STEM undergraduate degrees working in non-

STEM industries. Further, workers with STEM degrees in non-STEM fields earn 11 percent

more per hour than their non-STEM degree holding counterparts. When only STEM industry

occupations are considered, this earnings-differential increases to 20 percent (U.S. Department of

Commerce, 2012). the National Science Foundationfound that in 2003holders of science and

engineering bachelor’s degrees earned more than those without science and engineering degrees

in every year except in the first four years following graduation, (National Science Foundation,

2010).

STEM occupations typically require a college education. In fact, nearly 75 percent of

those in science and engineering occupations in 2007 held at least a bachelor’s degree. 43.8

percent of all workers in science and engineering jobs held a bachelors degree, 21.3 percent held

a master’s degree, 1.2 percent held a professional degree, and 6.7 percent held a doctorate degree

(National Science Foundation, 2010). As such, in order to produce a qualified supply of STEM

workers, it is imperative that enough educational opportunities exist.

Further, there is evidence that the U.S. is not remaining competitive in the production of

STEM degree-holders relative to other industrialized nations. Of even greater concern, the

enrollments of U.S. citizens and permanent residents in graduate programs have decreased since

their 1990s peaks. Additionally, an increasing percentage of students in STEM fields are

foreign-born (for example, in 1982 one-fourth of graduate students in science and engineering

fields were foreign born whereas now more than one-third are foreign born). Foreign student

enrollments are not a concern if we can retain these students post-graduation, however many

countries such as China, have created programs aimed at sending students to the U.S. for an

education and then providing economic incentives, such as employment and salary guarantees,to

assure that they return to their home countries(Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy

of the 21st century, 2007). Of the 27 Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development

(OECD) countries for which data are availablein 2010, the U.S. ranked dead last in the

proportion of college graduates with degrees in engineering (OECD StatExtract, 2013).

It has been suggested that the declining share of science and engineering graduates is

hampering the U.S.’s comparative economic advantage. This reduced comparative advantage

will inevitably reduce America’s traditional dominance in high-tech industries, research and

development (R&D), and other scientific and engineering-related industries. Recovering this

comparative advantage will require a restructuring of the U.S. labor force and will require new

policies to adapt to the changing global environment (Freeman, 2005).

The structure of this paper is as follows: in the next section, Missouri’s need for

engineering graduates is discussed; in the third section, the state of engineering education in

Missouri is discussed; in the fourth section, factors influencing the migration patterns and

retention of engineering graduates are discussed; in the fifth section, the economic impact of

engineers on Missouri’s economy is presented; in the sixth section, the effect of engineers on

innovation and economic growth is discussed; in the seventh section, Missouri is compared with

other Midwestern states; and finally, in the seventh section, conclusions are offered.

II. Missouri and the Need for Engineers

The state’s current performance in training and retaining engineering graduates is best

exemplified by calculating location quotients1for various engineering occupations in Missouri.

A location quotient measures the share of employment in a given industry, in a given region,

relative to that industry’s share of employment in a reference region (in this case, the reference

region is the United States). For example, if a given occupation in Missouri comprised 4 percent

of total employment in Missouri compared with only 2 percent in the national economy, then that

occupation would have a location quotient of 2.00 in Missouri.

The interpretation of location quotients is as follows: 1) A location quotient of less than

1.00 indicates that there is less employment in that occupation than would be expected indicating

that there is either a shortage of jobs or potential employees in industries employing that

occupation; 2) a location quotient of 1.00 indicates that the employment in the occupation is

equal to the share found in the reference economy; and 3) a location quotient of greater than 1.00

indicates that employment in that occupationis relatively greater than in the reference economy

and that the economy has a comparative advantage in goods and services employing this

occupation. Location quotients greater than 1.00 often identify a region’s economic base and if

these are higher wage and productivity occupations then this is an indication that the region’s

1

economy performing well. When the larger location quotients are in lower wage and lower

productivity occupations, the region’s economy is generally underperforming.

Table 1 below provides a list of engineering occupations in Missouri2, their associated

location quotients, the number of persons employed in that occupation per 1000 jobs in the

Missouri economy, and Missouri’s rank relative to the other states. As can be seen in Table 1,

Missouri ranks below the national average for employment share in eighteen of the twenty-

threeoccupationsfor which employment shares were available and in the bottom half of states for

eighteen of those occupations. For all engineering occupations, Missouri ranks twenty-

sixthamong U.S. states with a location quotient of only 0.80.

Table 1: Location Quotient and Number of Engineers per 1000 Jobs for Missouri 2012

Occupation Title3 Location Quotient

Number Per 1000 Jobs

State4

RankArchitectural and Engineering Managers 0.65 0.938 35(48)Cost Estimators 1.26 1.881 9(50)Software Developers, Applications 1.20 5.412 9(50)Software Developers, Systems Software 0.36 1.072 36(48)Architects, Except Landscape and Naval 1.34 0.850 5(50)Surveyors 0.23 0.75 43(50)Aerospace Engineers 0.58 0.356 16(31)Agricultural Engineers 0.63 0.012 17(19)Biomedical Engineers 0.42 0.061 22(33)Chemical Engineers 0.66 0.163 29(45)Civil Engineers 0.80 1.592 33(49)

2 The occupations included as engineering occupations were based on the Missouri Economic Research and Information Center’s list of engineering occupations. The occupations were further refined to only include engineering jobs that required at least a bachelor’s degree. A further modification was made to exclude natural science managers and foresters based on the low percentage of engineers filling these occupations and the lack of employment of these occupations within engineering firms based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupation Profiles. As such, the list of engineering occupations can be considered a conservative listing of engineering occupations. 3 Data for some occupations were not disclosed because of insufficient numbers. These occupations have been removed from the table. A full list of engineering occupations is available in Table A1 in the Appendix.4 Due to disclosure requirements, the BLS does not report values for all states. The number of states with a reported value is given in parentheses.

Computer Hardware Engineers 0.08 0.051 42(42)Electrical Engineers 1.02 1.257 18(50)Electronics Engineers, Except Computer 0.73 0.755 25(47)Environmental Engineers 0.68 0.266 39(50)Health and Safety Engineers, Except Mining Safety Engineers and Inspectors

0.92 0.165 27(50)

Industrial Engineers 0.92 1.550 22(50)Materials Engineers 0.77 0.134 25(50)Mechanical Engineers 0.70 1.353 33(50)Mining and Geological Engineers, Including Mining Safety Engineers

1.52 0.089 16(32)

Engineers, All Other 0.59 0.553 32(48)Materials Scientists 0.80 0.049 20(29)Engineering Teachers, Postsecondary 0.46 0.121 38(40)All Engineering Occupations 0.80 19.226 27(50)Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics

At the national level, STEM workers out-earn their non-STEM counterparts at every

level of education (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012). In 2010, STEM workers with only a

high school diploma or less earned 59.6 percent more per hour than non-STEM workers with

similar education ($24.82 hour and $15.55, respectively). Workers with some college or an

associate degree earned 40 percent more in STEM occupations ($26.63 versus $19.02).

Bachelor’s degree holders earned 26.7 percent more in STEM fields ($35.81 versus $28.27).

And STEM workers with a graduate degree earned 12.3 percent more than their non-STEM

counterparts ($40.69 versus $36.22).

In Missouri the pattern of higher wages for STEM workers follows the national pattern.

The Missouri Economic Research and Information Center (MERIC) estimates that workers in

STEM occupations, with only a high school education, earn 29.7 percent more than their non-

STEM counterparts. When those with an associate’s or other post-secondary degree are

considered, the pay differential increases to 32.4 percent more for STEM workers. For those

with a bachelor’s degree, the pay gap shrinks somewhat, but still remains at 27.3 percent (2012).

Each of the twenty six engineering occupationsfor which salariesare reportedpay a mean

salary in excess of the state mean salary ($41,170) as can be seen in Table 2. While many of

these occupations (22 of 24) pay below the national average salary for that occupation, it is

important to note that Missouri’s cost of living is below the national average, with a cost of

living of 93 percent of the national average in 2012 (Missouri Economic Research and

Information Center, 2013). However, the majority (17 of 24) of the occupations pay salaries less

than 93 percent of the national average for that occupation.

The need to educate, train, and retain an increased number of engineers is also

highlighted by employment projections for these occupations for the year 2020 (Tables 3 and 4).

The Missouri Economic Research and Information Center (2012) projects a total of 15,753 job

openings by the year 2020 including 6,704 growth openings and 9,049 replacement openings.

The greatest areas of need are found in the fields of applications software developers (2,513),

cost estimators (2,345), and mechanical engineers (1,708).

Table 2: Mean Annual Salary of Engineering Occupations in Missouri and the U.S., 2012

Occupation Title Missouri Mean Salary

Missouri Median Salary

U.S. Mean Salary

State Rank

Architectural and Engineering Managers

$116,580 $114,100 $133,240 31(49)

Cost Estimators $60,570 $57,400 $63,080 23(50)Software Developers, Applications $84,600 $83,430 $93,280 25(50)Software Developers, Systems Software $93,180 $89,790 $102,550 25(50)Architects, Except Landscape and Naval

$72,170 $68,820 $78,690 31(50)

Surveyors $58,160 $50,910 $40,190 19(50)

Aerospace Engineers $98,950 $101,170 $104,810 19(38)Agricultural Engineers $82,030 $82,390 $77,370 3(19)Biomedical Engineers $61,860 $58,140 $91,200 33(34)Chemical Engineers $88,860 $87,530 $102,270 33(45)Civil Engineers $73,550 $69,350 $84,140 37(49)Computer Hardware Engineers $81,110 $82,310 $103,980 38(44)Electrical Engineers $87,440 $86,920 $91,810 21(49)Electronics Engineers, Except Computer

$84,030 $81,690 $95,250 34(48)

Environmental Engineers $73,030 $68,510 $85,140 47(50)Health and Safety Engineers, Except Mining Safety Engineers and Inspectors

$74,930 $74,200 $79,760 25(50)

Industrial Engineers $77,540 $75,300 $82,100 32(50)Marine Engineers and Naval Architects $86,230 $86,450 $96,140 9(18)Mechanical Engineers $78,360 $76,140 $84,770 32(50)Mining and Geological Engineers, Including Mining Safety Engineers

$81,320 $78,480 $91,250 17(32)

Engineers, All Other $86,300 $88,380 $93,330 27(48)Materials Scientists $73,260 $67,250 $89,740 26(31)Architecture Teachers, Postsecondary $58,100 $51,650 $78,770 24(24)Engineering Teachers, Postsecondary $85,290 $80,140 $100,100 32(39)All Engineering Occupations $81,058 N/A $93,492 33(50)Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics

Table 3: 2010 and 2012 Employment and 2020 Projected Employment in Engineering Occupations, Missouri

Occupation Title 2010 Employmen

t

2012 Employment

2020 Projected

EmploymentArchitectural and Engineering Managers 2,496 2,450 2,655Cost Estimators 4,501 4,900 5,983Software Developers, Applications 12,285 14,100 13,521Software Developers, Systems Software 4,595 2,790 5,697Architects, Except Landscape and Naval 2,570 2,220 2,942Surveyors 884 600 1,010Aerospace Engineers N/A 930 NP5

Agricultural Engineers N/A 30 NPBiomedical Engineers 198 160 330Chemical Engineers 368 430 413

5 NP indicates no projected value reported.

Civil Engineers 4,629 4,150 5,187Computer Hardware Engineers 219 130 246Electrical Engineers 3,544 3,280 3,866Electronics Engineers, Except Computer 2,068 1,970 2,134Environmental Engineers 786 690 886Health and Safety Engineers, Except Mining Safety Engineers and Inspectors

342 430 401

Industrial Engineers 3,338 4,040 3,644Materials Engineers 329 350 384Mechanical Engineers 3,841 3,530 4,313Mining and Geological Engineers, Including Mining Safety Engineers

144 230 165

Nuclear Engineers N/A N/A N/APetroleum Engineers N/A N/A N/AEngineers, All Other 1,341 1,440 1,390Materials Scientists 83 130 87Architecture Teachers, Postsecondary 104 0 108Engineering Teachers, Postsecondary 320 310 327All Engineering Occupations 48,895 49,290 55,689Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statisticsand Missouri Economic Research & Information Center

Table 4: Projected Engineering Job Openings by Occupation 2010-2020, Missouri

Occupation Title Growth Openings

Replacement Openings

Total Openings

Architectural and Engineering Managers 159 487 646Cost Estimators 1,482 863 2,345Software Developers, Applications 1,236 1,277 2,513Software Developers, Systems Software 1,102 478 1,580Architects, Except Landscape and Naval 372 522 894Surveyors 126 192 318Aerospace Engineers NP NP NPAgricultural Engineers NP NP NPBiomedical Engineers 132 44 176Chemical Engineers 45 118 163Civil Engineers 558 940 1,498Computer Hardware Engineers 27 52 79Electrical Engineers 322 854 1,176Electronics Engineers, Except Computer 66 499 565Environmental Engineers 100 173 273Health and Safety Engineers, Except Mining Safety Engineers and Inspectors

59 74 133

Industrial Engineers 306 727 1,033Materials Engineers 55 91 146Mechanical Engineers 472 1,236 1,708Mining and Geological Engineers, Including Mining Safety Engineers

21 32 53

Nuclear Engineers NP NP NPPetroleum Engineers NP NP NPEngineers, All Other 49 295 344Materials Scientists 4 27 31Architecture Teachers, Postsecondary 4 17 21Engineering Teachers, Postsecondary 7 51 58Total Projected Openings 6,704 9,049 15,753Source: Missouri Economic Research & Information Center

III. Engineering Education in Missouri6

In 2011, there were over 9,200 undergraduate engineering students enrolled in Missouri

universities (Table 5). Of these students, over 8,500 were enrolled as full-time students while

570 were enrolled as part-time students. The Missouri University of Science and Technology

had the most undergraduate students enrolled, accounting for over 4,200 students. The

University of Missouri – Columbia had the second highest number of enrolled undergraduates

with over 2,500 students. Of the full-time students, 25.6 percentwere freshmen, 20.6 percent

were sophomores, 21.9 percentwere juniors and the remaining 31.8 percentwere seniors7.

6 Data for University of Missouri – St. Louis were not available. 7A possible explanation for the larger senior class relative to the other classes is that some students take a 5th year to complete their degree and would be included in the senior totals.

Table 5: Undergraduate Engineering Enrollment, Fall 20118

University9 Freshman (FT10)

Sophomore (FT)

Junior (FT)

Senior (FT)

Total (FT)

Part-time

MU 667 470 497 786 2,420 114MU-KC 89 97 117 182 485 145S&T 950 760 845 1,331 3,886 320SLU 178 127 106 131 542 6SEMO 45 19 9 10 83 0WU-SL 283 305 313 319 1,220 0Total Undergraduate Enrollment

2,212 1,778 1,887 2,749 8,636 585

Source: American Society for Engineering Education, Profiles of Engineering & Engineering Technology Colleges and Truman (2013)

Missouri’s universities graduated a total of 1,635 students with bachelorof engineering

degrees during the 2010 – 2011 school year (Table 6). Not surprisingly, the Missouri University

of Science and Technology and the University of Missouri – Columbia graduated the largest

number of students, 785 and 422 respectively. The most common types of engineering degrees

were: 1) mechanical engineering (386 degrees awarded), 2) civil engineering (203), 3) and

computer science (196).

Table 6: Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded, 2010-2011, by School and Degree Field

Degree Field MU MU-KC S&T SLU SEMO WU-SL TotalAerospace 0 0 49 36 0 2 87Architectural 0 0 48 0 0 0 48Biomedical 40 0 0 17 0 75 132Chemical 32 0 53 0 0 31 116Civil 75 19 98 0 0 11 203Computer 11 0 45 3 0 8 67

8 St. Louis University and Washington University – St. Louis are both private schools.9 MU: University of Missouri, MU-KC: University of Missouri – Kansas City, S&T: Missouri University of Science and Technology, SLU: St. Louis University, SEMO: Southeast Missouri State University, and WU-SL: Washington University in St. Louis.10 FT: Full-time

Computer Science 76 25 52 0 0 43 196Electrical 48 0 79 6 0 12 145Electrical/ Computer Engineering

0 9 0 0 0 0 9

Engineering Management 0 0 49 0 0 0 49Engineering Science & Engineering Physics

0 0 0 0 3 0 3

Environmental 0 0 13 0 0 0 13Industrial/ Manufacturing 29 0 0 0 0 0 29Mechanical 111 25 173 19 0 58 386Metallurgical & Materials 0 0 36 0 0 0 36Mining 0 0 44 0 0 0 44Nuclear 0 0 20 0 0 0 20Other 0 0 6 0 0 26 32Petroleum 0 0 20 0 0 0 20Total Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded

422 78 785 81 3 266 1,635

Source: American Society for Engineering Education, Profiles of Engineering & Engineering Technology Colleges and Truman (2013)

In addition to the undergraduates, Missouri’s universities had 2,716 engineering graduate

students enrolled in the fall of 2011 (Table 7). Of these, 1,709 were enrolled in master’s

programs and 1,007 were enrolled in doctoral programs. The Missouri University of Science and

Technology had the greatest number of both masters and doctoral students with 694 and 352,

respectively. Washington University in St. Louis had the second largest number of both master’s

and doctoral students with 369 and 332 students, respectively. Southeast Missouri State

University does not award graduate degrees in any engineering disciplines.

Table 7: Graduate Engineering Enrollment, Fall 2011

University Master's Ph.D. TotalMU 318 267 585MU-KC 301 52 353S&T 694 352 1,046SLU 27 4 31SEMO 0 0 0WU-SL 369 332 701

Total Graduate Enrollment 1,709 1,007 2,716Source: American Society for Engineering Education, Profiles of Engineering & Engineering Technology Colleges and Truman (2013)

Missouri universities awarded over half as many master’s degrees (945) as they did

bachelor’s degrees during the 2010 – 2011 school year (Table 8). The Missouri University of

Science and Technology and Washington University in St. Louis awarded the most master’s

degrees with 427 and 202 degrees awarded, respectively. Electrical engineering was the most

common field of study for master’s graduates in 2010 – 2011, with 184 degrees awarded. Other

engineering degrees were the second most common with 150 degrees awarded.

Table 8: Master’s Degrees Awarded, 2010-2011, by School and Degree Field11

Degree Field MU MU-KC S&T SLU WU-SL TotalAerospace 0 0 13 0 6 19Biomedical 9 0 0 0 15 24Chemical 5 0 6 0 0 11Civil 14 9 40 0 6 69Computer 7 0 9 0 7 23Computer Science 12 77 27 0 28 144Electrical 40 97 35 0 12 184Engineering (General) 0 0 0 7 0 7Engineering Management 0 0 105 0 14 119Environmental 0 0 16 0 25 41Industrial/Manufacturing 11 0 0 0 0 11Mechanical 11 11 43 0 34 99Metallurgical & Materials 0 0 5 0 0 5Mining 0 0 14 0 0 14Nuclear 6 0 7 0 0 13Other 0 0 95 0 55 150Petroleum 0 0 12 0 0 12Total Master's Degrees Awarded

115 194 427 7 202 945

Source: American Society for Engineering Education, Profiles of Engineering & Engineering Technology Colleges and Truman (2013)

11 Southeast Missouri State University does not have a graduate degree program in engineering.

Missouri universities awarded 136 engineering doctoral degrees during the 2010 – 2011

school year (Table 9). The University of Missouri - Columbia had the highest number of Ph.D.

graduates with 52. The Missouri University of Science and Technology and Washington

University in St. Louis awarded 40 and 35 doctoral degrees respectively. The University of

Missouri – Kansas City awarded five engineering doctoral degrees during the 2010 – 2011

school year. St. Louis University did not award any doctoral degrees during this time.

Computer science and biomedical engineering were the most common doctoral degrees awarded

with 21 and 19 degrees awarded, respectively.

Table 9: Doctoral Degrees Awarded, 2010-2011, by School and Degree Field12

Degree Field MU MU-KC S&T WU-SL TotalAerospace 0 0 1 1 2Biomedical 9 0 0 10 19Chemical 3 0 4 0 7Civil 2 0 3 3 8Computer 0 0 2 2 4Computer Science 8 4 4 5 21Electrical 0 0 8 5 13Electrical/Computer 14 0 0 0 14Engineering Management 0 0 2 0 2Environmental 0 0 0 6 6Industrial/Manufacturing 1 0 0 0 1Mechanical 7 1 6 2 16Metallurgical & Materials 0 0 12 0 12Nuclear 8 0 0 0 8Other 0 0 2 1 3Total Doctoral Degrees Awarded 52 5 44 35 136

Source: American Society for Engineering Education, Profiles of Engineering & Engineering Technology Colleges and Truman (2013)

Missouri universities employed a total of 421 full-time tenured or tenure-track and 35

full-time non-tenured/ non-tenure track engineering teaching faculty members during the fall of

12 St. Louis University did not report any engineering doctoral degrees awarded during this period.

2011. The Missouri University of Science and Technology had the greatest number of full-time

tenured or tenure track faculty members with 157 faculty members. It also had the greatest

number of non-tenured/ non-tenure track full-time faculty members with 24. Missouri

universities also employed 136 part-time teaching faculty members (accounting for 35.91 full-

time equivalent positions). Washington University in St. Louis had the greatest number of part-

time teaching faculty members employing 68 faculty members (Table 10). Missouri universities

also employed another 73 full-time engineering research faculty members during the fall of 2011

(Table 11). In addition to full-time employees, Missouri universities also employed 26 part-time

research faculty members (accounting for 19.1 full-time equivalent positions).

Table 11: Teaching Faculty, Fall 2011

Full-Time Part-TimeTenured/Tenure-Track Non

T/T-TProfessor Associate Assistant Total Total FTE13

MU 52 43 19 114 9 9 8.2MU-KC 8 11 21 40 0 16 4.38S&T 77 51 29 157 24 38 11.41SLU 7 9 11 27 2 5 3.25SEMO 2 2 3 7 0 0 0WU-SL 36 23 17 76 0 68 8.67Total 182 139 100 421 35 136 35.91

Source: American Society for Engineering Education, Profiles of Engineering & Engineering Technology Colleges

Table 12: Research Faculty, Fall 2011

Full-Time Part-Time FTEMU 25 3 8.5MU-KC 0 0 0S&T 11 11 4.14SLU 1 0 0SEMO 0 0 0

13 FTE: Full-Time Equivalent

WU-SL 36 12 6.46Total 73 26 19.1

Source: American Society for Engineering Education, Profiles of Engineering & Engineering Technology Colleges

IV. Retaining Engineering Graduates

A challenge faced by many states, particularly those centrally located in the U.S. is the

phenomenon of “brain drain”. Brain drain is the out-migration of young and often-highly

educated persons, the so-called “creative class”, to other cities which are alleged to have greater

amenities such as recreational opportunities, youth culture, climate, etc. (Florida, 2002).

Using a dynamic stock-and-flow model, Bound et al. (2004) find a weak long-term

relationship between the production of bachelor’s degree graduates and the concentration of

college graduates within a state’s labor force. However, they note that the presence of a greater

number of college graduates can attract employers of college graduates, especially for goods and

services which are produced for sale outside of the state (i.e. as state exports). For goods and

services primarily consumed locally (such as in the health care) there is little-to-no relationship.

While this study does not look specifically at STEM graduates, many STEM sectors

(manufacturing, engineering consultancies, etc.) fall into the first category (exporting sectors).

Hansen, Ban, and Huggins (2002) in a survey of recent college graduates from

Pittsburgh-area universities find that the school-specific characteristics such as reputation and

financial considerations were important in the selection of a school, proximity to friends and

family and amenities were major determinants of the decision to stay or relocate following

graduation and not financial considerations. They find that having attended a local area high

school, strong ties to family, and those concerned with housing costs or access to continuing

education were the prime factors in the decision to stay in the Pittsburgh area. Further, the

authors find that which university a student attended was highly correlated with the decision to

stay or leave (Duquesne graduates were likely to stay whereas Carnegie Mellon graduates were

likely to leave). The authors note the difficulty of reconciling policy implications with many of

these findings (e.g. family considerations, climate, etc.), but that others such as offering

competitive salaries and benefits, reducing the costs of tuition, career counseling, increasing

opportunities for women and minorities, and developing and promoting local amenities can be

influenced by policy-makers.

Using a random parameters logit model, Gottlieb and Joseph (2006), find that recent

technology graduates are not as strongly motivated by amenity factors as they are by economic

factors. However, when considering the decisions of technology doctorate holders (working

outside of academia), Gottlieb and Joseph find that doctorate holders are more responsive to

amenity factors than economic conditions. They attribute this finding to doctorate holders

having more bargaining power in hiring negotiations, less susceptibility to general labor market

conditions, and because they are making more long-run decisions because they have finished

their schooling. Most importantly, Gottlieb and Joseph find “a large and significant tendency

among college graduates to stay rather than migrate” (p 653), however, they are quick to caution

that simply increasing enrollments will not guarantee students stay put, particularly if job

opportunities are lacking. They do note that there is a greater tendency to stay when a graduate

is from the university’s home state, however, this “may reflect a selection effect rather than a

treatment effect” (p 654). Finally, they find that immigrant students (who held BS/MS degrees)

were more likely to stay in the areas they earned their degrees (75 percent) than domestic born

students (67 percent); however, for holders of doctorates, the opposite holds true with foreign-

born students only 41 percent likely to stay relative to 52 percent of domestic-born students.

In a study of the migration patterns of U.S. born science and engineering doctorate

recipients, Sanderson and Dugoni (2002) find that doctorate recipients were more likely to

exhibit educational mobility both prior to finishing high school (35.5 percent) as well as when

first enrolling in university (37.8) than other undergraduates as a whole. Moreover, 71.1 percent

of doctorate holders received their degree from a university outside of the state in which they

enrolled as undergraduates. Upon graduation, 59.2 percent planned to work in a state other than

the one in which they earned their doctorate.

V. The Economic Impact of Engineers on Missouri’s Economy

There are a variety ways of estimating the economic impact of economic stimuli on a

regional or state economy. Each is based on different assumptions about the ways in which the

economy responds to the stimuli. The impacts of workers, such as engineers, are a source of

income, productivity, and innovation. One common approach is to view the income earned by

workers as a new source of demand for regional products thus generating additional income,

employment and government revenues through a multiplier effect. This so-called backward

linkage approach is used to estimate the impact of engineers on the economy of Kansas for

example (Center for Economic Development and Business Research, 2009).An alternative

assumption is that engineers increase the productivity of existing employers and coworkers, and

attract new employers to the state. These so-called forward linkages are less certain but when

they occur they lead to significantly larger impacts on the economy. In this study, we have used

both methods. The first offers a lower bound while the second is an upper bound on the impacts

that the state of Missouri can expect from additional engineers. This section estimates the lower

bound and the next estimates the upper bounds.

In 2012, there were nearly 50,000 engineers employed in Missouri earning an average salary

of $81,578 (Table 12). The salaries of entry level positions in engineering occupations ranged

from $34,980 for cost estimators to $80,340 for architectural and engineering managers.

Average salaries for engineering occupations ranged from $58,100 for postsecondary

architecture teachers to $116,580 for architectural and engineering managers. For experienced

workers, biomedical engineers were the lowest paid ($68,760) and again, architectural and

engineering managers were the highest paid ($134,700).

Table 12: Engineering Employment and Salaries in Missouri, 2012

Title Employment Entry Level

Mean Median Experienced

Architectural and Engineering Managers

2,450 $80,340 $116,580 $114,100 $134,700

Cost Estimators 4,900 $34,980 $60,570 $57,400 $73,360Software Developers, Applications

14,100 $59,190 $84,600 $83,430 $97,310

Software Developers, Systems Software

2,790 $62,390 $93,180 $89,790 $108,570

Architects, Except Landscape and Naval

2,220 $44,650 $72,170 $68,820 $85,920

Surveyors 600 $35,800 $58,160 $50,910 $69,340Aerospace Engineers 930 $71,890 $98,950 $101,170 $112,480Agricultural Engineers 30 $62,650 $82,030 $82,390 $91,720Biomedical Engineers 160 $48,080 $61,860 $58,140 $68,760Chemical Engineers 430 $61,170 $88,860 $87,530 $102,700Civil Engineers 4,150 $49,890 $73,550 $69,350 $85,380Computer Hardware Engineers

130 $53,050 $81,110 $82,310 $95,140

Electrical Engineers 3,280 $60,110 $87,440 $86,920 $101,100Electronics Engineers, Except Computer

1,970 $55,730 $84,030 $81,690 $98,180

Environmental Engineers

690 $48,530 $73,030 $68,510 $85,280

Health and Safety Engineers, Except Mining Safety Engineers and Inspectors

430 $47,770 $74,930 $74,200 $88,510

Industrial Engineers 4,040 $55,150 $77,540 $75,300 $88,730Marine Engineers and Naval Architects

N/A $65,760 $86,230 $86,450 $96,460

Materials Engineers 350 N/A N/A N/A N/AMechanical Engineers 3,530 $52,900 $78,360 $76,140 $91,090Mining and Geological Engineers, Including Mining Safety Engineers

230 $50,970 $81,320 $78,480 $96,490

Nuclear Engineers N/A N/A N/A N/A N/APetroleum Engineers N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AEngineers, All Other 1,440 $47,200 $86,300 $88,380 $105,850Materials Scientists 130 $49,680 $73,260 $67,250 $85,050Architecture Teachers, Postsecondary

N/A N/A $58,100 $51,650 N/A

Engineering Teachers, Postsecondary

310 N/A $85,290 $80,140 N/A

All Engineering Occupations

49,290 N/A $81,578 N/A N/A

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics and Missouri Economic Research & Information Center

The economic impact of Missouri’s engineers can be found in Table 13. The direct

impactswere calculatedusing the information in Table 12. Engineering employment in Missouri

has an employment multiplier of 1.55 indicating that for every one engineer employed in

Missouri, an additional 0.55 jobs were created. The $4 billion in salaries paid to Missouri’s

engineers created an additional $1.1 billion in Missouri salaries and $3.375 billion in state GDP;

that is, for every $1 paid in salary to an engineer in Missouri, an additional $0.27 in salaries were

earned by other Missouri workers and state GDP increased by $0.84. For every one engineer

employed in Missouri, $150,062 in state GDP is created. The nearly $7.4 billion in economic

impact of engineers on Missouri’s economy represents over 3 percent of the nearly $222 billion

in state GDP.

Table 13: Economic Impact of Engineers in Missouri, 2012

Employment Payroll Earnings

GDP

Direct Effect 49,290 $4,020,970,795 $4,020,970,795Total Effect14 76,427 $5,106,711,082 $7,396,539,954Multiplier15 1.55 1.27 1.84

Source:Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, Missouri Economic Research & Information Center, and IMPLAN

The impact of engineers on Missouri’s state and local government revenues totaled nearly

$219 million in 2012 (Table 14). Of this $219 million, approximately $21 million of revenues

were from corporate taxes, $89 million in sales tax, $66 million in property taxes (business and

personal), and $20 million in personal income taxes. For each engineer employed in Missouri,

$4,434 in tax receipts was collected by Missouri’s state and local governments.

Table 14: Fiscal Impact of Engineers on Missouri, 2012

Type of Tax Tax RevenuesCorporate Taxes $20,625,963Social Insurance Tax $3,216,029Sales Tax $88,702,472Business Property Tax $66,095,656Other Business Taxes $16,150,202Personal Income Tax $20,292,526Personal Property Tax $397,404Other Personal Taxes $3,077,546Total Tax Revenue $218,557,798

14 Total effect includes the direct effect of engineering employment and salaries and the effects of their purchases and spending on the Missouri economy. 15 Multiplier is the ratio of total effect to direct effect. Thus, an employment multiplier of 2.5 indicates that for each direct job created, 1.5 additional jobs are created in the regional economy.

Source:Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, Missouri Economic Research & Information Center, and IMPLAN

If we consider the economic impacts of the projected growth in engineering jobs by the

year 2020 in Tables 3 and4, we see that in 2020, Missouri’s projected 55,689 engineers will

accountfor an additional 30,464 jobs in the state (Table 15).16 The $4.5 billion in salaries paid to

Missouri’s engineers will create an additional $1.2 billion in salaries and $3.8 billion in state

GDP (2012 dollars).

Table 15: Projected Economic Impacts of Missouri’s 2020 Projected Engineering Employment (2012 Dollars)

Employment

Payroll Earnings

GDP

Direct Effect 55,689 $4,514,063,389 $4,514,063,389Total Effect 86,153 $5,732,948,064 $8,303,578,765Multiplier17 1.55 1.27 1.84

Source:Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, Missouri Economic Research & Information Center, and IMPLAN

Moreover, if Missouri’s engineering employment reaches its projected 2020 levels, $245

million (2012 dollars) in tax revenues will accrue to Missouri’s state and local governments

(Table 16). Once again, the majority of the tax revenues will be from sales taxes ($99.6 million)

and property taxes ($74.6 million). Each individual engineer is projected to have an impact of

$4,405.89 on therevenues of Missouri governments.

Table 16: Projected Fiscal Impact of Missouri’s 2020 Projected Engineering Employment (2012 Dollars)

Type of Tax Tax Revenues

16 This and other calculations here use the most recent IMPLAN multipliers to project employment impacts in 2020. In fact, multipliers evolve over time as technology and economic structure changes. By the year 2020, engineering jobs could have a higher or lower multiplier depending on changes in technology across the economy.17 These multipliers are roughly equivalent to those estimated for the state of Kansas (Center for Economic Development and Business Research, 2009).

Corporate Taxes $23,155,325Social Insurance Tax $3,610,410Sales Tax $99,580,056Business Property Tax $74,200,976Other Business Taxes $18,130,703Personal Income Tax $22,781,000Personal Property Tax $446,138Other Personal Taxes $3,454,946Total Tax Revenue $245,359,554

Source:Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, Missouri Economic Research & Information Center, and IMPLAN

VI. Engineers, Innovation, and Economic Growth

In this section we consider alternative assumptions about the role that engineers play in

the state economy. Increased numbers of engineering graduates are correlated with increased

engineering jobs in the state. We regressed the number of engineering graduates18 by state for

the 2010 – 2011 school year on the increase in the number of engineering jobs by state between

2011 and 2012 (Table A2). We found that for every one additional graduate from a state

institution nearly one additional engineering job was produced (0.90 jobs per engineering

graduate) on average. These results indicate that given the right economic conditions, the

number of engineering jobs in a given state can increase on nearly a one-to-one basis with the

number of graduates. This, of course, is an average, and some states will increase their

engineering jobs more than their number of graduates, essentially capturing the graduates of

other states. Increased graduates must be complemented with attractive climates for employers.

Increasing the number of engineers in an economy has many beneficial effects. An

increased numbers of engineers leads to increases in state gross domestic product (GDP). We

also examined the relationship between the number of engineers in the contiguous 48 states and

18 Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctoral graduates including computer science (outside engineering) graduates.

real GDP19 over the time period 1999 – 2012 (Table A3). Our analysis indicates that for every

one additional engineer in a given state, on average, that state’s real GDP increased by over $3

million per year. Increasing the relative percentage of engineers as a share of the state workforce

also yields economic benefits. Examining this relationship, the authors find that for every one

additional engineer per 1000 jobs in a given state’s economy, annual per capita real GDP

increases by $219.48(Table A4) and annual real personal income per capita increases by $171.17

(Table A5). Again, these results are based on average performance and a given state’s

performance will depend on other economic economic conditions. In summation, increasing the

number of engineers, all else equal, increases the size of a state’s economy, the productivity of

its workforce, and the incomes of its residents.

Comparing the results in this and the previous sections, we see that the earlier results,

presented in Table 13 indicate, that that state total GDP per engineer is only $148,000, while in

this section, we estimate that each additional engineer increases state total GDP by over $3

million. There are many reasons for this difference. First in table 13, we estimated only the

contribution to state GDP as engineers spend the earnings on goods and services. These impacts

ignore the effect of these engineers on the production side of the economy and their impact on

economy-wide productivity. By considering the experience of all states as they increase their

numbers of engineers we see that the impacts include not only the impacts of engineers’

increased earnings but also the impacts of the goods and services produced by the engineers and

their effect on the productivity of other workers in the economy.

In addition, the results reportedin table 13do not account for the structural change in the

state economy brought about by increasing the number of engineers; in the current sectionwe

19 Real GDP is GDP that has been adjusted to account for the effects of inflation.

account foradjustments in the state economy in response to the change in the number of

engineers.Increasing the number of engineers can lead to innovation which, in turn, can lead to

economic growth. Again, actually realizing the increase in state GDP from increasing the

number of engineers requires that other changes be made toeconomic development policy

changes, investments in infrastructure, etc.

Innovation has long been linked to economic growth. The economic argument here is

relatively straightforward: innovation increases the productivity of labor and other resources,

which, in turn, leads to economic growth20 (Barro, 2003; Barrow and Sala-i-Martin, 2005; Lucas,

1988; and Romer, 1990, 1994).Nobel laureate economist, Robert Solow (1957) found that over

half of the economic growth of the first half of the 20th century was the result of technological

advancements. Moreover, technological advances often lead to “spillovers”; that is, when the

benefits of a given advancement spill over to other industries, inventions, and individuals.

However, these spillovers can inhibit investment in education as the creators of the original

process are often unable to capture all of the benefits of their investment, but often bear the full

brunt of the costs of the research unless a government or other public body helps fund the

research (Griliches, 1992; Nelson and Romer, 1996).

A measure of the innovation related to engineering is the filing of patents21 (Griliches,

1998). Economic estimates of the value of a single patent are approximately half a million

dollars, not counting any benefits to society from the adoption of the technology (Hall, Jaffe, and

Trajtenberg, 2005). Moreover, Rothwellet al. (2013) find that patents do lead to regional

20 Of course, many other factors such as trade, legal systems, and governance impact economic growth. A full treatment is beyond the scope of this paper. 21 Many empirical studies utilize R&D expenditure as a proxy of innovation. However, as argued by Crosby (2000), R&D expenditures measures the “input to innovation outputs….The relationship between R&D and innovation outputs is likely to be time varying, possibly nonlinear, and is also likely to occur with uncertain lags ” (p 256) whereas patents measure the output of innovation.

economic growth in the MSA regions of the U.S over the period 1980 – 2012 with high-

patenting regions producing as much as $4,300 more per worker than low-patenting regions.

In a 2003 survey of scientists and engineers with prior work experience, the NSF found

that 2.6 percent of scientists and engineers had been named as an inventor on a U.S. patent

application from the fall of 1998 to the fall of 2003. Approximately 15.7 percent of doctoral

degree holders had been named as an inventor compared to only 0.7 percent of bachelor’s degree

holders (National Science Foundation, 2010).

However, as can be seen in Table 17, Missouri lags behind many other states in patent

production. Over the period 2003 – 2010, Missouri’s number of patents awarded per 1,000

workers employed in science and engineering occupations was nearly half of the national

average. Further, Missouri habitually ranked among the bottom states for patent production per

1,000 workers.

Table 17: Patents Awarded per 1,000 Individuals Employed in Science and Engineering Occupations, 2003 – 2010

Year United States Missouri State Rank22

2003 17.7 9.8 35(50)2004 16.6 8.8 36 (49)2005 14.3 6.8 41 (50)2006 16.6 7.5 39 (49)2007 14.2 6.9 39 (50)2008 13.4 5.8 38 (47)2009 14.2 6.8 35 (48)2010 19.4 9.5 35 (47)

Source: National Science Foundation Science and Engineering Indicators, 2012

22 Number of states with data reported in parentheses.

An examination of the relationship between engineers and utility patent filings for the

period 1999 – 2012 for the contiguous 48 states, the authors find a statistically significant

relationship between the number of engineers in a state and the number of patents filed. For

every additional engineer in a given state, on average, 0.035 additional patents would be filed in

a given year; that is, for each additional 28.6 engineers in a given state, 1 additional patent would

be filed every year (Table A6).

Another measure of the effect of engineers on an economy and their capacity to grow an

economy is the percentage of high-technology establishments of all business establishments in a

state. High technology firms are believed to grow an economy through “first-mover advantage”,

wherein by being the first to introduce a new good or service to the market, the firm gains a

competitive advantage which can lead to higher economic rents from their innovative activity

(Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2003). As can be seen in Table 18,

Missouri historically has been below the U.S. national average in every year for which data are

available. Moreover, Missouri has consistently ranked in the bottom third of all states for high-

technology establishments. The attraction of this type of businesses is paramount as they

represent a key potential employer of engineering graduates.

Table 18: High-Technology Establishments as a Percentage of All Business Establishments, 2003 – 200823

2003 2004 2006 2007 2008United States 8.17 8.19 8.35 8.46 8.52Missouri 6.39 6.35 6.57 6.64 6.69Rank Among States 35 39 36 37 37

Source: National Science Foundation Science and Engineering Indicators, 2012

23 2005 data not available

One obstacle faced by Missouri has been a dearth of federal Small Business Innovation

Research (SBIR) funding over the past two decades. As indicated in Table 19, Missouri has

been in the bottom quartile of all states in regards to average annual federal SBIR funding per $1

million of GDP. Over the period 1988 to 2010, Missouri has, in fact, received anywhere from

approximately 16 percent to 30 percent of the national average for SBIR funding per $1 million

of GDP. It is important that Missouri’s policymakers and business leaders work together to

increase this SBIR fundingperformance to help stimulate business formation in key industries.

Table 19: Average Annual Federal Small Business Innovation Research Funding per $1 million of GDP, 1988-90 – 2008-10.

United States Missouri State Rank1988-90 76 16 401992-94 91 15 381996-98 125 23 382000-02 121 27 472004-06 152 46 432008-10 88 24 42

Source: National Science Foundation Science and Engineering Indicators, 2012

Missouri’s business formation has also been hindered by the slowdown of venture capital

funding following the dotcom bust of 2001. Missouri captures venture capital investments

ranging from a high of approximately one-third of the national average in 2001 to only 6 percent

of the national average in 2009 (see Table 20).

Table 20: Venture Capital per $1,000 GDP, 2001 – 2010

Year United States Missouri State Rank2001 4.04 1.36 222002 2.12 0.4 292003 1.82 0.4 282004 1.78 0.3 302005 1.84 0.26 312006 1.96 0.28 26

2007 2.21 0.39 262008 1.98 0.36 312009 1.3 0.08 372010 1.5 0.25 32

Source: National Science Foundation Science and Engineering Indicators, 2012

VII. Benchmarking Missouri’s Engineering Labor Force and Education

Given the benefits of engineers to a state’s economy and labor force, it seems natural to

question how one’s state is performing relative to other states. To that end, data were gathered

from three other Midwestern states: Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio. For purposes of

benchmarking, these states were chosen for their geographic proximity, because they have major

urban centers, have major research-one universities, and because their performance in terms of

graduating and retaining engineers exceeds that of Missouri. Together these characteristics mean

that the performance of these states offer feasible goals for Missouri. Table 21, below, compares

these states and Missouri in terms of both engineers per 1,000 jobs and engineers per 1,000

residents as well as how these states rank among U.S. states. As can be seen, Michigan leads the

group in both engineers per 1,000 jobs and engineers per 1,000 residents followed by Ohio and

Illinois, respectively, in both categories.

Table 21: Engineers per 1,000 jobs and 1,000 residents, 2012

State Rank Engineers per 1,000 Jobs

Rank Engineers per 1,000 Residents

Illinois 21 20.45 21 8.96Michigan 5 32.18 6 12.76Missouri 26 18.91 25 8.19Ohio 19 21.36 16 9.35

Source: American Society for Engineering Education, Profiles of Engineering & Engineering Technology Colleges and Bureau of Economic Analysis

The next metric under examination is the number of engineering graduates produced

annually per 1 million residents24 (Table 22). Michigan, again, outperforms its cohorts in the

production of bachelor’s, master’s, and all graduates, but is outperformed by Illinois in the

production of doctoral graduates. Missouri outperforms Illinois in the production of bachelor’s

degree graduates, but lags behind both Michigan and Ohio. Missouri ranks third in the

production of master’s degree graduatesoutperforming only Ohio. However, Missouri ranks last

among the cohort in doctoral degree graduates awarded, producing only two-thirds of as many as

Ohio and nearly half of that produced by Illinois and Michigan.

Table 22: Engineering Graduates per 1 million residents, 2010 – 2011

State Bachelor's Master's Doctoral All DegreesIllinois 233.97 164.27 38.93 437.17Michigan 393.07 199.87 38.38 631.32Missouri 272.02 157.22 22.63 451.86Ohio 283.41 140.58 30.92 454.92

Source: American Society for Engineering Education, Profiles of Engineering & Engineering Technology Colleges, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and Truman (2013)

A major determinant of how many engineering graduates can be produced in a given state

is the number of faculty available to educate and train would-be graduates25. Table 24 below

shows the number of undergraduates students enrolled (both full- and part-time), full-time and

full-time equivalent faculty members (both teaching and faculty) and the ratio of enrolled

students to faculty members for the 2010 – 2011 school year. As can be seen in Table 23,

Missouri has the smallest number of engineering students enrolled. While some of this is owing

24 One million residents is used here instead of one thousand residents for purposes of scale. The relative performance of each state is not affected by this scaling.25 Of course, many other factors such as the quality of K-12 education in a given state impact the production of engineers, but such discussion is beyond the scope of this paper.

to differences in state population, part of it is also attributable to Missouri’s ranking in the ratio

of students to faculty members, a category in which Missouri ranked last.

Table 23: Undergraduate Education, 2010 – 2011

Illinois Michigan Missouri OhioFull-Time Students 14,769 18,876 8,636 20,923Part-Time Students 518 1,485 585 1,472Total Enrolled 15,287 20,361 9,221 22,395Full-Time and FTE Teaching Faculty Members

1,042.8 1,306.4 491.9 1,248.6

Full-Time and FTE Research Faculty Members

253.3 225.7 92.1 213.5

Total Full-Time and FTE Faculty Members

1,296.1 1,532.1 584.0 1,462.1

Total Enrolled per Full-Time Teaching Faculty Member

14.66 15.59 18.75 17.94

Total Enrolled per Total Full-Time Faculty Member

11.79 13.29 15.79 15.32

Source: American Society for Engineering Education, Profiles of Engineering & Engineering Technology Colleges and Truman (2013)

Tables 24 and 25, below contain the same information as Table 23, but for Master’s and

Doctoral students, respectively. For master’s students, Illinois has the highest student-to-faculty

member ratio. For doctoral students, Missouri actually ranks first, but this is because their

doctoral enrollment is only one-third of the other states. The relatively low number of students

enrolled at the graduate level is likely a result of the low number of students enrolled at the

undergraduate level, which in many cases, feeds into graduate programs. Missouri’s low number

of enrolled students at the graduate level will hinder their production of master’s and doctoral

graduates which will, in turn, reduce the number of said graduates available in their labor force.

As such, it is imperative that efforts be made to increase the number of enrolled students as well

as the number of faculty available to train and educate these students.

Table 24: Master’s Education, 2010 - 2011

Illinois Michigan Missouri OhioFull-Time Students 2,901 2,841 997 3,000Part-Time Students 1,162 1,770 712 1,083Total Enrolled 4,063 4,611 1,709 4,083Full-Time and FTE Teaching Faculty Members

1,042.8 1,306.4 491.9 1,248.6

Full-Time and FTE Research Faculty Members

253.3 225.7 92.1 213.5

Total Full-Time and FTE Faculty Members

1,296.1 1,532.1 584.0 1,462.1

Total Enrolled per Full-Time Teaching Faculty Member

3.90 3.53 3.47 3.27

Total Enrolled per Total Full-Time Faculty Member

3.13 3.01 2.93 2.79

Source: American Society for Engineering Education, Profiles of Engineering & Engineering Technology Colleges and Truman (2013)

Table 25: Doctoral Education, 2010 - 2011

Illinois Michigan Missouri OhioFull-Time Students 3,118 2,676 885 2,350Part-Time Students 169 278 122 245Total Enrolled 3,287 2,954 1,007 2,595Full-Time and FTE Teaching Faculty Members

1,042.8 1,306.4 491.9 1,248.6

Full-Time and FTE Research Faculty Members

253.3 225.7 92.1 213.5

Total Full-Time and FTE Faculty Members

1,296.1 1,532.1 584.0 1,462.1

Total Enrolled per Full-Time Teaching Faculty Member

3.15 2.26 2.05 2.08

Total Enrolled per Total Full-Time Faculty Member

2.54 1.93 1.72 1.77

Source: American Society for Engineering Education, Profiles of Engineering & Engineering Technology Colleges and Truman (2013)

VIII. Conclusions

Despite the numerous economic and societal benefits that accrue from innovation and

technological advancement and the dire warnings issued in 2005’s seminal A Gathering Storm,

the outlook for the nation has actually diminished. Following the recession which startedin late

2007, funding for research has fallen in many areas, test scores in science and mathematics have

not increased, and many of our competitors have continued to catch up (Members of the 2005

“Rising Above the Gathering Storm” Committee, 2010).

In order to maintain or enhance its position in the US economy, and to contribute to the

restoration of US competitiveness in the global economy, it is imperative that Missouri takes

actions to increase the engineers employed in the state. One very direct way of encouraging this

is to increase the supply of engineering graduates. As has been shown in this report, engineering

occupations include well-paying jobs in high demand. Moreover, significant growth in these

occupations is projected in the next decade. In addition to the benefits that accrue to the

engineering graduate, Missouri benefits in terms of higher state GDP and higher personal

incomes for all its residents, and a stronger tax base.

A number of complementary strategies will be necessary to increase the number of

engineers in the state. First, the capacity of state engineering schools must be enhanced. Missouri

lags behind the nation and its peer states in a number of dimensions including faculty and

facilities. Next, increased numbers of high quality students from Missouri, other states and from

abroad must be recruited to Missouri’s schools of engineering. Improved facilities and larger

faculties will help with recruiting but other strategies such as funding for scholarships,

fellowships and work study will be necessary. Next, policies and strategies must be found to

retain Missouri graduates. This will involve vigorous placement programs, strong partnerships

with in-state employers, job-fairs, internships programs, and other innovative programs. Finally,

and possibly most importantly, the state must have a broad array of effective policies and

programs to attract, retain and grow firms that will employ engineers. Only a balanced and

comprehensive array of programs can raise Missouri’s performance to equal and exceed that of

its peer states.

The challenge is described very well by the Committee on Prospering in the Global

Economy in the 21st Century, who argued,

Without a renewed effort to bolster the foundations of our competitiveness, it is possible that we could lose our privileged position over the coming decades. For the first time in generations, our children could face poorer prospects for jobs, healthcare, security, and overall standard of living than have their parents and grandparents(p. 223).

References

Barro, R. J. “Determinants of Economic Growth in a Panel of Countries.” Annals of Economics and Finance, 4 (2), November 2003, pp. 231 – 274.

Barro, R. J. and X. I. Sala-i-Martin. Economic Growth, 2nded. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2003.

Bound, J., J. Groen, G. Kézdi, and S. Turner. “Trade in university training: cross-state variation in the production and stock of college-educated labor.” Journal of Econometrics, 121 (1 – 2), July-August 2004, pp. 143 – 173.

Brenchley, C. “In State of the Union, Obama Outlines Bold Education Proposals to Grow the Middle Class.” Homeroom: The Official Blog of the U.S. Department of Education, February 13, 2013. <http://www.ed.gov/blog/2013/02/in-state-of-the-union-obama-outlines-bold-education-proposals-to-grow-the-middle-class/> retrieved May 14, 2013.

Center for Economic Development and Business Research.“Economic and Fiscal Impact of Engineering Professionals in Kansas and Analysis of Proposed Increase in University Funding for Engineers.” W. Frank Barton School of Business, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS, December 2009. <http://webfiles.wichita.edu/cedbr/EngFINAL.pdf> retrieved March 28, 2013.

Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda for American Science and Technology, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press, 2007. <http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11463> retrieved March 20, 2013.

Crosby, M. “Patents, Innovation, and Economic Growth.” Economic Record, 76 (234), September 2000, pp. 255 – 262.

Deloitte Consulting, LLP, The Manufacturing Institute, and Oracle Corporation. “People and Profitability: A Time for Change.” 2009. <http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_pip_peoplemanagementreport_100509.pdf> retrieved April 16, 2013.

Feder, M. “One Decade, One Million more STEM Graduates.” White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, December 18, 2012. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/12/18/one-decade-one-million-more-stem-graduates> retrieved April 29, 2013.

Florida, R. The Rise of the Creative Class. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2002.

Freeman, R. B. “Does Globalization of the Scientific/Engineering Workforce Threaten U.S. Economic Leadership?” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 11457, June 2005. <http://www.nber.org/papers/w11457> retrieved May 15, 2013.

Gottlieb, P. D. and G. Joseph. “College-to-Work Migration of Technology Graduates and Holders of Doctorates within the United States.” Journal of Regional Science, 46 (4), October 2006, pp. 627 – 659.

Griliches, Z. “Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey.” In R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, Z. Griliches ed., pp. 287 – 343. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1998. <http://papers.nber.org/books/gril98-1> retrieved May 2, 2013.

Griliches, Z. “The Search for R&D Spillovers.” In R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, Z. Griliches ed., pp. 251 - 268. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1998. <http://papers.nber.org/books/gril98-1> retrieved May 2, 2013.

Hall, B. H., A. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg. “Market Value and Patent Citations.” Rand Journal of Economics, 36 (1) Spring 2005, pp. 16 -38.

Hansen, S. B., C. Ban, and L. Huggins. “Explaining the ‘Brain Drain’ from Older Industrial Cities: The Pittsburgh Region.” Economic Development Quarterly, 17 (2), May 2003, pp. 132 – 147.

Koebler, J. “Obama pushes STEM in State of the Union.” U.S. News and World Report, January 25, 2013. <http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/stem-education/2012/01/25/obama-pushes-stem-in-state-of-the-union> retrieved May 14, 2013.

Lucas, R. E. “On the Mechanics of Economic Development.” Journal of Monetary Economics, 22 (1) July 1988, pp. 3 – 42.

Members of the 2005 “Rising Above the Gathering Storm” Committee. Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press, 2010. <http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12999> retrieved March 20, 2013.

Missouri Economic Research and Information Center. “Missouri Job Vacancy Survey: Mathematics, Engineering, Technology, and Science Occupations.” 2008. <http://www.missourieconomy.org/pdfs/jvs_statewide_METS.pdf> retrieved April 18, 2013.

Missouri Economic Research and Information Center. “Missouri’s Stem Occupations and Education.” December 2012. <http://www.missourieconomy.org/pdfs/stem_ed_booklet.pdf> retrieved April 5, 2013.

National Science Foundation. Key Science and Engineering Indicators: 2010 Digest. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, January 2010. <http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/digest10/> retrieved April 25, 2013.

National Science Foundation. Science and Engineering Indicators 2012. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2012. <http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/pdf/seind12.pdf> retrieved May 24, 2013.

Nelson, R. R. and P. M. Romer. “Science, Economic Growth, and Public Policy.” Challenge, 39 (2), March/April 1996, pp. 9 – 21.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. The Sources of Growth in OECD Countries. Paris, France: OECD Publication Services, 2003. <http://browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdfs/free/1103011e.pdf> retrieved May 17, 2013.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. OECD StatExtracts, 2013. <http://stats.oecd.org/#> retrieved May 28, 2013.

Robelen, E. “Obama Emphasizes STEM Education in State of the Union.” Education Week, January 26, 2011. <http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2011/01/obama_laments_quality_of_us_ma.html> retrieved May 14, 2013.

Romer, P. “Endogenous Technological Change.” Journal of Political Economy, 98 (5), October 1990, pp. S71 – S102.

Romer, P. “The Origins of Endogenous Growth.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8 (1), Winter 1994, pp. 3 – 22.

Rothwell, J., J. Lobo, D. Strumsky, and M. Muro. “Patenting Prosperity: Invention and Economic Performance in the United States and its Metropolitan Areas.” Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institute, February 2013. <http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2013/02/patenting%20prosperity%20rothwell/patenting%20prosperity%20rothwell.pdf> retrieved May 15, 2013.

Sanderson, A. and B. Dugoni. “Interstate Migration Patterns of Recent Science and Engineering Doctorate Recipients.” National Science Foundation Info Brief 02-311, February 2002. <http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf02311/nsf02311.pdf> retrieved May 4, 2013.

Solow, R. M. “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 39 (3), August 1957, pp. 312 – 320.

Truman, K. Z. “Correction to Engineer Missouri Report.”Message to the Engineer Missouri Group. August 30, 2013. E-mail.

U.S. Census Bureau. “Field of Bachelor’s Degrees in the United States: 2009.” American Community Survey Reports, February 2012. <http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acs-18.pdf> retrieved May 2, 2013.

U.S. Department of Commerce. The Competitiveness and Innovative Capacity of the United States. January 2012.

<http://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2012/january/competes_010511_0.pdf> retrieved April 30, 2013.

Yoder, Brian, ed. ASEE 2011 Profiles of Engineering and Engineering Technology Colleges. Washington D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education, 2012.

Appendix

Table A1: Engineering Occupations

Standard Occupational Classification Code

Occupation Title

11-9041 Architectural and Engineering Managers13-1051 Cost Estimators15-1132 Software Developers, Applications15-1133 Software Developers, Systems Software17-1011 Architects, Except Landscape and Naval17-1022 Surveyors17-2011 Aerospace Engineers17-2021 Agricultural Engineers17-2031 Biomedical Engineers17-2041 Chemical Engineers17-2051 Civil Engineers17-2061 Computer Hardware Engineers17-2071 Electrical Engineers17-2072 Electronics Engineers, Except Computer17-2081 Environmental Engineers17-2111 Health and Safety Engineers, Except Mining Safety Engineers

and Inspectors17-2112 Industrial Engineers17-2121 Marine Engineers and Naval Architects17-2131 Materials Engineers17-2141 Mechanical Engineers17-2151 Mining and Geological Engineers, Including Mining Safety

Engineers17-2161 Nuclear Engineers17-2171 Petroleum Engineers17-2199 Engineers, All Other19-2032 Materials Scientists25-1031 Architecture Teachers, Postsecondary25-1032 Engineering Teachers, Postsecondary

Table A2: Engineering Graduates 2010 – 2011 and Change in Engineering Jobs 2011 – 2012

Model OLSGraduates 0.8985**

(0.0847)Intercept -126.265

(243.370)F-Test 112.55R2 0.7710N 48

Source: American Society for Engineering Education, Profiles of Engineering & Engineering Technology Colleges and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics

Standard errors in parentheses; Statistical significance: * < 0.05, ** < 0.01

Table A3: Engineering Employment and Real GDP, 1999 – 2012

Model Fixed-EffectsEngineers 3.019**

(0.3360)Intercept 128636.3**

(14342.56)F-Test 80.73R2 0.5492

0.9306N 672

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Economic Accounts and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics

Robust standard errors in parentheses; Statistical significance: * < 0.05, ** < 0.01

Table A4: Engineering Employment per 1000 Jobs and Real GDP per capita, 1999 – 2012

Model Random-EffectsEngineers/1000 jobs 219.4828**

(45.6734)Intercept 36688.87**

(991.764)Wald 114.45R2 0.1168

6525.80762028.2984

N 672Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Economic Accounts and Bureau of Labor Statistics,

Occupational Employment StatisticsStandard errors in parentheses; Statistical significance: * < 0.05, ** < 0.01

Table A5: Engineering Employment per 1000 Jobs and Real Personal Income per capita, 1999 – 2012

Model Fixed-EffectsEngineers/1000 jobs 171.1743**

(35.6495)Intercept 31628.07**

(517.198)F-Test 23.06R2 0.1457

0.2086N 672

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Economic Accounts and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics

Robust standard errors in parentheses; Statistical significance: * < 0.05, ** < 0.01

Table A6: Engineering Employment and Utility Patent Filings, 1999 – 2012

Model Fixed-EffectsPatents 0.0350**

(0.0109)Intercept 371.3398

(464.602)F-Test 10.35R2 0.5860

0.8865N 672

Source: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics

Robust standard errors in parentheses; Statistical significance: * < 0.05, ** < 0.01