IDEEAS Lab

Engineering students drawn to nonprofits and to government want different things from a career

In a national survey of 4,605 final-year engineering students, interest in nonprofit work went with valuing volunteering and helping others, interest in government work went with wanting to tackle specific problems, and valuing job security pointed in opposite directions for the two.

What went with nonprofit interest and what went with government interest Two dot-and-interval plots of odds ratios on a shared log scale, where 1 means no association. Nonprofit or NGO sector: volunteering matters for career satisfaction 1.6 (95% interval 1.50 to 1.70); hopes to address poverty and wealth distribution 1.42 (95% interval 1.20 to 1.67); has traveled abroad with a service group 1.34 (95% interval 1.21 to 1.48); helping others matters for career satisfaction 1.21 (95% interval 1.12 to 1.31); hopes to address environmental degradation 1.21 (95% interval 1.06 to 1.39); interested in drinking-water technology 1.14 (95% interval 1.08 to 1.20); agrees eating less meat slows climate change 1.11 (95% interval 1.06 to 1.16); job security and opportunities matter for career satisfaction 0.78 (95% interval 0.71 to 0.85); making money matters for career satisfaction 0.71 (95% interval 0.65 to 0.77). Government or public policy sector: hopes to address terrorism and war 2.79 (95% interval 2.35 to 3.30); likely to pursue an me or ms 1.39 (95% interval 1.23 to 1.58); interested in climate legislation with local government 1.33 (95% interval 1.26 to 1.39); job security and opportunities matter for career satisfaction 1.24 (95% interval 1.13 to 1.35); has studied abroad 0.86 (95% interval 0.81 to 0.91); likely to pursue an mba 0.74 (95% interval 0.64 to 0.84). Valuing job security and opportunities is the only item in both models, and it points in opposite directions: away from nonprofits (0.78) and toward government (1.24). Nonprofit or NGO sector Odds ratio Government or public policy sector Volunteering matters for career satisfaction 1.6 Volunteering matters for career satisfaction: odds ratio 1.6, 95% interval 1.50 to 1.70 Hopes to address poverty and wealth distribution 1.42 Hopes to address poverty and wealth distribution: odds ratio 1.42, 95% interval 1.20 to 1.67 Has traveled abroad with a service group 1.34 Has traveled abroad with a service group: odds ratio 1.34, 95% interval 1.21 to 1.48 Helping others matters for career satisfaction 1.21 Helping others matters for career satisfaction: odds ratio 1.21, 95% interval 1.12 to 1.31 Hopes to address environmental degradation 1.21 Hopes to address environmental degradation: odds ratio 1.21, 95% interval 1.06 to 1.39 Interested in drinking-water technology 1.14 Interested in drinking-water technology: odds ratio 1.14, 95% interval 1.08 to 1.20 Agrees eating less meat slows climate change 1.11 Agrees eating less meat slows climate change: odds ratio 1.11, 95% interval 1.06 to 1.16 Job security and opportunities matter for career satisfaction 0.78 Job security and opportunities matter for career satisfaction: odds ratio 0.78, 95% interval 0.71 to 0.85 Making money matters for career satisfaction 0.71 Making money matters for career satisfaction: odds ratio 0.71, 95% interval 0.65 to 0.77 Hopes to address terrorism and war 2.79 Hopes to address terrorism and war: odds ratio 2.79, 95% interval 2.35 to 3.30 Likely to pursue an ME or MS 1.39 Likely to pursue an ME or MS: odds ratio 1.39, 95% interval 1.23 to 1.58 Interested in climate legislation with local government 1.33 Interested in climate legislation with local government: odds ratio 1.33, 95% interval 1.26 to 1.39 Job security and opportunities matter for career satisfaction 1.24 Job security and opportunities matter for career satisfaction: odds ratio 1.24, 95% interval 1.13 to 1.35 Has studied abroad 0.86 Has studied abroad: odds ratio 0.86, 95% interval 0.81 to 0.91 Likely to pursue an MBA 0.74 Likely to pursue an MBA: odds ratio 0.74, 95% interval 0.64 to 0.84 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 Less likely More likely Odds ratio (log scale) of rating the sector more likely, with its 95% interval.

What went with students rating each sector as a more likely career. Points right of the line at 1 raise the odds; points left lower them. Job security (in maroon) is the only item in both models, and it points opposite ways: away from nonprofits, toward government. Gender, political affiliation, and major are left out of the chart.

Redrawn from Kim & Katz (2025), Tables 3 and 5, using the odds ratios and intervals printed in the paper. CC BY 4.0.

Engineering students who expect to work in nonprofits and those who expect to work in government are not the same group with the same motives. In a national survey of 4,605 final-year engineering students, the strongest signal of nonprofit interest was how much students valued volunteering with charity groups in a career: each step up that importance scale went with 1.6 times higher odds of rating a nonprofit career as more likely. Valuing helping others also pointed toward nonprofits, while valuing money (odds ratio 0.71) and job security (0.78) pointed away.

Government interest followed a different pattern. The strongest signal was wanting to work on a particular problem: students who hoped to address terrorism and war in their careers had 2.79 times the odds of rating government work as more likely, and interest in working with local governments on climate legislation also mattered. Job security flipped sign, pointing toward government (1.24) rather than away. Major mattered too. Compared with mechanical engineering students, aerospace (4.24), environmental (2.01), and civil (1.8) students leaned toward government, while computer, materials, and biomedical engineering students leaned away.

Why it matters

About two thirds of engineers with bachelor’s degrees work for for-profit companies, and most research on engineering careers has followed that path. The authors argue that making nonprofit and government careers visible could help engineering programs keep students with strong altruistic motives, some of whom leave engineering to find more fulfilling work, and attract students with more varied goals. For a student already drawn to public service, the result suggests the two sectors appeal for different reasons.

How the lab did it

Dayoung Kim, an assistant professor in Virginia Tech’s Department of Engineering Education, led the study with Andrew Katz. They used an existing survey from 66 universities (of 83 contacted through a stratified random sample), covering 239 variables about career goals, coursework, beliefs, and background. Rather than testing a few chosen predictors, they let the data narrow the field. Missing answers were filled in by multiple imputation (40 imputed datasets). A random forest built for ordered outcomes ranked which variables best predicted each sector. A selection step trimmed the top 30 to the least redundant set (11 for nonprofits, 7 for government), and Bayesian ordinal regression estimated how strongly each was associated with the outcome.

The outcome is a student’s stated likelihood of entering a sector near graduation, not where anyone ended up working. The survey was not designed for this question, and nothing is known about how the 4,605 respondents differed from students who did not respond. The authors also flag some associations as possibly spurious, such as the link between nonprofit interest and believing that eating less meat slows climate change.

What the study opens is whether making these careers more visible changes students’ choices, and how their values and sector interests shift over time, which would take a longitudinal study.

The paper

Kim, D. & Katz, A. (2025). Engineering students' interests in nonprofit and public policy careers: Applying a data-driven approach to identifying contributing factors. Journal of Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20620

All findings