To Make More Engineers, We’ll Need More Than Robots

February 19, 2026

As a retired engineer, I sometimes find myself on the receiving end of a suggestion.

“You should help out with the high school robotics team,” I’m told.

I’m sure these friends mean well.

First, I’m not particularly fond of robotics. Second, the suggestion carries with it the assumption that all engineers are the same.

But I was never that kind of engineer. Not all of us are.

Robotic clubs are wonderful. But they appeal to a relatively narrow subset of students — the ones who enjoy competitions, programming and the physical components of robots.

Students need to understand that robots aren’t the only gateway to electrical engineering. And we need more gateways.

Consider the Smartphone

Few of us ever stop to consider the incredibly wide range of electrical engineering expertise that went into the creation of the smartphone.

That includes people who devised the mathematical foundations of signals, designed antennas, designed chip sets, integrated chip sets, developed solid-state technology, packaged the phone, designed the look of the phone, built image-processing algorithms and designed sensors that determine rotation and orientation.

There’s no engineer that checks all these boxes. An engineer who can design signals may have no clue how to design a chip or a solid-state component of a chip; but their expertise is essential to making the phone work.

All these pockets of expertise require different skills and different mindsets — people who are good at math or good at physics or who like to solve puzzles. They don’t need to do all of it. The field is broad enough that we need different skills, viewpoints and backgrounds.

More Pathways, Fewer Barriers

Engineering is too important to rely on a single model of belonging or a narrow set of entry points.

Just as we need more pathways into the field, we also need fewer barriers.

Engineers can be cliquish. Just consider the ongoing battles between marketing and engineering departments if you think we’re not.

Engineering schools sometimes use courses as “weed-out” mechanisms. I took a course in solid-state physics in grad school and did terribly. I’m glad I took it, and I’m also glad I worked in a different area. I am not advocating for lessening the rigor in engineering courses, but I am advocating for letting students know that it’s OK to have an “oops” in a course. That course may show them that that part of electrical engineering is not for them; but there may be an area that they like. I recently spoke to an undergrad engineering student who disliked his Circuits I class, but he persisted and loved Circuits II. For him, the material finally made sense as the topic progressed.

It is difficult to be different in a group. I once had a student who was one of the best students in two of my very math-heavy classes. She told me it took two years for the young men in her class to accept her.

If we want to encourage the study of engineering by those who can contribute to the field, we need to expand how we recruit. They may already be budding engineers in their daily lives. We also need to accept various voices and skills.

A Way of Looking at the World

When we talk about pathways into engineering, we often focus on formal programs — clubs, competitions, courses. But pathways can also begin much earlier and much closer to home. Long before someone takes a circuits class or joins a robotics team, they may already be thinking like an engineer without realizing it.

When I first started working with electrical engineers, I asked one how engineering changed her perspective. She replied it changed how she looked at everything, even how she baked cookies.

When I went to engineering school, it did change how I looked at problems.

It also showed me that many people already approach tasks with an engineering mindset. Engineers are constantly looking to make things, and then to make them better and more efficient. Tasks like sewing, baking and finding different driving routes are all parts of engineering.

It would be good to let students know that they may have a bent for engineering even if they do not want to join a robotics club.

IEEE Life Fellow Sarah Katie Wilson is a member of the IEEE Public Visibility Committee.