A total of 300 design engineers completed the 10-minute long telephone survey. These engineers were selected from among the approximately 31,000 AIAA members. Membership applications were used to narrow the list down to those non-student members who had graduated in or since 1992, and those who indicated a job category or interest in design work.

The survey determined that 85% of the participants are currently doing design engineering while the rest have done some in the past, and 53% of them report doing "a lot" of design work. 72% concentrated their undergraduate education in aerospace or aeronautical engineering, while most of the rest were mechanical or structural. The percent of those completing the survey by recent graduates was lower than those longest since graduation - only 18% of the respondents graduated in '02, '01, or '00, while 30% graduated in the years '92 or '93, and the rest were evenly spread between. Also, when asked whether they had completed their master's degree in engineering, 51% answered yes.

To keep the survey questionnaire and the final report unbiased, a company was selected to write and administer the survey, and to report on the findings. Abacus Associates was selected for their extremely professional approach, and their impressive list of credentials. A phone survey was used because it is superior to self-administered surveys in assuring that the questions are well-understood, and that the responses are accurately recorded.

Respondents were guided through a list of 20 different academic training categories twice, the first time to rate them for their importance, and the second to rate the quality of training they received from their own undergraduate experience. Ranked highest in the importance of training was oral communications, the ability to visualize in 3D, the ability to produce conceptual designs, basic physics, written communications, and understanding the fabrication and assembly process. At the opposite end, the traditional engineering courses of Chemistry, Circuits, and Electromagnetism/Physics 2 were lowest rated. Course work in F.E.A., Material Science, and Differential Calculus were also rated low on the list.

When guided through the same list of 20 categories to rate their own undergraduate training experience, top rated were, Aerodynamics/Fluid Mechanics, basic calculus, basic physics, Thermodynamics, and differential calculus. Among the lowest rated were using FEA, understanding the fabrication and assembly process, circuits, chemistry, and the use of CAD.

In summary, only basic physics and the ability to produce conceptual designs shared the same top six with the list of those rated most important. While oral and written communications, and the ability to visualize in 3D, were ranked high in importance, they were medium in the ranks of training quality. Understanding the fabrication and assembly process was also ranked high in importance, but it ranked second from worst in training quality. And while Differential Calculus ranked near the bottom in importance, it ranked high in training quality.

The rankings of these responses can be examined even closer in reference to the graduating years of the respondents. While across all the graduating years, both oral communication and visualizing in 3D ranked at the top of importance, both also ranked higher in quality among more recent graduates than among older ones. Engineers agree that these skills are vital, and it appears that the schools are doing a better job in training these in more recent years. Meanwhile, writing ranked lower, both in importance and in quality, in more recent years. This may suggest that the teaching of writing skills has suffered recently, while logically, it's perceived importance in the work place increases in later years.

Many broader questions were also asked. As mentioned early in this article, when asked whether they would have preferred more practical experience or more advanced theoretical training, 83% responded on the side of more practical experience (59% actually responded "much more practical", 24% responded "somewhat more practical"), and this held regardless of graduation year. In this same vein, respondents were asked to name the one course they believed to be most important in learning the skills required to be a design engineering. Nearly all of the responses were engineering department courses, labs or projects - half included the word "design" in the course name. Then when asked how much hands-on practical experience they got in this course, 51% responded "a lot" (for the cohort of more recent graduates, this was 67%) and 36% responded "a little". This strongly suggests that courses important for gaining design engineering skills are also inherently practical in nature.

When respondents were asked if they would have preferred more computer-based coursework, like in CAD or FEA, or more practical experience like making estimates and solving hardware problems, practical was again favored, by a margin of 14%, and this margin was even higher, 25%, for those longest since graduating.

When respondents were asked if they had a hobby, as an undergraduate or before, that they believed help them to develop design engineering skills, 57% responded yes, and their hobby was recorded. Of those hobbies, nearly half were modeling, mostly airplanes. When these modelers were asked how important this hobby was to developing the skills necessary to be a good design engineer, 44% said it was very important and 45% ranked it somewhat important. This is an amazing insight; that a hobby, something totally self motivated and having nothing to do with college, is considered important in developing design engineering skills.

When asked if they participated in any extracurricular engineering club, society or organization that helped them to learn design engineering, 57% responded yes. When those that answered yes were asked how important this organization had been to developing the skills necessary to be a good design engineer, 41% said it was very important and 44% ranked it somewhat important.

Finally, respondents were asked about internships or other employment during their undergraduate training. When asked, 56% said that they had been strongly encouraged to do an internship, 22% to a lesser extent. For more recent graduates, 74% had been strongly encouraged, 14% to a lesser extent. Similarly, 62% did participate in an internship while with more recent graduates, it was 74%. Clearly, internships have become more prevalent through the years. Those that did do an internship were then asked how important it had been in developing the skills necessary to be a good design engineer, 76% said very important while 20% said somewhat important. Those respondents who did NOT do an internship were similarly asked if it WOULD have helped them to develop the skills necessary to be a good design engineer, 42% said it would have been very important and 48% said somewhat important. Clearly, doing an internship is strongly associated with learning the skills to be a good design engineer. Incidentally, 58% of these internships were done during summers, and 64% of these continued beyond just one summer. Others were completed concurrent with course work (26%) or during semesters off (16%)

Clearly, the learning of design engineering skills is strongly perceived to come mostly from practical (as opposed to theoretical) type course work. Hobbies, engineering organizations, and internships are all perceived to be extremely beneficial to learning the skills to be a good design engineer. Both aspiring engineering students and engineering universities can learn much from the collective advice offered by these 300 recently graduated design engineers.

The following are some of the survey results: