“Say, shouldn’t there be some numbers on this blueprint?”

Pity the engineers. Kids regard engineering as nerdy and boring, dependent on inscrutable math. On top of that engineers suffer from low self-esteem. And all this despite great efforts and massive expenditures to decorate the image of engineering and draw youngsters to the profession. What to do?

Do what’s been done by other institutions and organizations concerned about public regard. Bring in the image meisters of public relations and marketing. Let these experts plumb the minds of the public, including young children, via focus groups and surveys. And “rebrand,” as others have done. The dairy industry boosted sales with “Got milk?” Pork has prospered as “The Other White Meat,” and commonplace cotton is “The fabric of our lives.” Don’t forget that orange juice “isn’t just for breakfast anymore.”

Traditionalists might consider it demeaning for a noble profession to embrace the tactics of commercialism in muddle-minded pursuit of higher public regard. Cool down. The rebranding of engineering is a project of America’s high temple of engineering, the prestigious, self-selecting National Academy of Engineering (NAE), which comprises, it says, America’s finest engineers, drawn from academe, industry, business, and government. From the nation’s hundreds of thousands of engineers of one sort or another, only 1,965 are currently active members of the NAE. It’s easier to get into Harvard.

Adding to the luster of this venture, the rebranding mission was financed by a bastion of strict peer review, the National Science Foundation. Though NSF is hard-pressed to finance sensible proposals, it is usually a soft touch for schemes to draw youth into science and technology. NSF came through with $379,615 to finance an 18-month study of image polishing by NAE’s Committee on Public Understanding of Engineering Messages.

Modestly acknowledging its own insufficiency in this age of specialization, the 10-member NAE committee turned to the pros, issuing a request for proposals that culminated in the engagement of a “communications group,” Bemporad Baranowsky Marketing Group; a “market research company, “Global Strategy Group,” and a “market-research firm,” Harris Interactive, “to test the message.” Their findings, treated with grave respect, are embodied in the Committee’s report, “Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering.”

A descent into intellectual malfeasance comes early in the report, triggered by the unfortunate, unyielding presence of mathematics and science at the core of engineering education and practice. No problem for the image meisters, who sold an artful solution to the NAE committee.

“One of the most significant findings of this project,” the NAE reported, “is the strong association in the mind of the public between competency in mathematics and science and the ability to become an engineer.” Adults and teenagers “appear to consider this a negative, a barrier to engineering studies,” the committee noted, adding that the “weakest” of various test messages portrayed scientists as “connecting science to the real world.” Treasuring salesmanship over reality, the committee endorsed a solution:

We conclude, therefore, that continuing to emphasize math and science in marketing or rebranding engineering is unnecessary and may damage rather than increase the appeal of engineering. … When promoting engineering, our appeal should tap into the hopes and dreams of prospective students and the public. This approach would also have the virtue of placing math and science, correctly, as just two of a number of skills and dispositions, such as collaboration, communication, and teamwork, necessary to a successful engineer.

Elsewhere, the report warns that “if we continue to overly advertise math and science in marketing or rebranding engineering, we are likely to alienate or scare off youngsters, rather than attract them to engineering.” Then comes a concession to reality: “Of course, mathematics and science will continue to be necessary skills for engineers.”

From the rebranding process, four taut messages emerged, with No. One in popularity proclaiming “Engineers make a world of difference.” Next came “Engineers are creative problem solvers,” followed by “Engineers help shape the future,” and “Engineering is essential to our health, happiness, and safety.” For $379.615, what do you expect?

Expressing admiration for its consultants and their crafts (“Market research is as much an art as a science”), the NAE committee noted that the hired firms have proposed a “conservative” rebranding campaign of $12-million to $25-million per year for two or three years. Cheap, considering that “Got Milk?” cost $20-million a year, and by some accounts, the various sectors of engineering — industry, academe, government, and others — spend $400 million a year on imagery, or so it’s claimed.

For the benefit of engineering and recruitment of students, better put that money into science and math instruction and scholarships for engineering students. The NAE Committee on Public Understanding of Engineering Messages should be dissolved immediately.

Temptations to shred the report and banish it from the Internet should be resisted. To fight folly, we must be acquainted with it.

(Image from Photobucket.com)