Workforce Blog: Engineering Education Falls Short on GD&T

Dimensioning and tolerancing (D&T) or more specifically, geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T), is critical to ensure complete and unambiguous definition when engineering a product. However, despite the significant role that D&T plays in the engineering product lifecycle, there is a persistent skills gap in the U.S. engineering workforce.

Although this skills gap has been anecdotally observed, actual quantitative data on the subject is sparse. As far back as 1981, “graphics, drafting, and sketching” along with “codes and standards” have consistently been identified as major shortcomings in mechanical engineering programs. This suggests systemic issues in how engineering education addresses technical communication and standardization.

It’s not just inadequate coverage in engineering curricula. Evidence also suggests widespread deficiency among practicing engineers, which means the problem extends beyond new graduates and includes experienced professionals who may have never received proper training. In 2007, a paper titled, “The GD&T Knowledge Gap in Industry” made this very argument.The problem appears to persist today.

To uncover where some of the shortcomings are, we launched a study in 2025 to assess the current state of D&T pedagogy in post-secondary engineering and engineering technology programs in the United States, the results of which were published in August 2025 in the ASME Open Journal of Engineering.
 

A prevalent issue

Despite not being rigorously documented, the D&T skills gap is considered common knowledge by industry and academia alike. Widespread prevalence of on-the-job training focused specifically on GD&T provides strong evidence of educational shortcomings. If graduates arrived adequately prepared, companies would not need to invest substantial resources in remedial training.

From across the pond, German companies surveyed about tolerance engineering—which is an equivalent term encompassing both GD&T and tolerance stack-up analysis—noted that tolerancing principles were neither universally adopted nor seamlessly integrated into industrial practice. This may well indicate the skills gap is a global problem.

Multiple reasons for the gap have been suggested, from GD&T’s complex system of symbols, definitions, and practices, to the spatial visualization skills required, to the lack of appropriate instructional materials to teach it. Since CAD has become central to engineering curricula, it too may have inadvertently contributed to the problem. There is an intense focus on CAD modeling and given the ability to generate 2D views that import model dimensions automatically, this may have reduced emphasis on technical drawing and tolerancing.
 

Key findings

After surveying 67 engineering instructors who taught courses requiring students to understand, apply, or analyze D&T topics within the past six semesters, we determined that about 75 percent of the engineering and engineering technology programs in the United States evaluated in the survey require D&T in coursework and that GD&T is included as a course learning outcome in less than half of these courses. When GD&T is covered, it only receives about 15 hours of coursework on average, which means some fundamental concepts are often left by the wayside. Additionally, most D&T courses are taught to freshmen and sophomores as required classes, primarily alongside CAD and engineering drawing.

These instructors represented programs across 30 U.S. states and Puerto Rico, with respondents being predominantly experienced educators from diverse engineering and engineering technology programs.

One of the many challenges appears to be a lack of instructor expertise. While these instructors reported feeling competent teaching CAD, engineering drawings, and basic plus/minus tolerancing, they were far less confident with GD&T. Only 26.57 percent rated themselves as extremely competent in GD&T compared to 59.70 percent for basic tolerancing methods. Only three respondents held ASME GD&T certification.

Two fundamental concepts, which are essential concepts that underpin proper understanding of GD&T, received minimal coverage as well. The envelope principle (Rule #1) was covered in only 31 percent of courses and datum reference frames in just 43 percent of courses that covered D&T. Instructors also emphasized basic dimensioning rules and legacy plus/minus tolerancing methods over modern GD&T practices.

Instructors identified multiple challenges, including minimal instructional time and low student engagement, as well as limited accessibility to teaching tools beyond CAD and PowerPoint. Only about half of instructors used the actual ASME or ISO standards as teaching resources as well.
Treating GD&T as a trivial topic for inexperienced students with unqualified instructors will only continue to perpetuate the skills gap. Instead, dedicated coursework should be taught later in engineering coursework, professional development provided to instructors, and innovative teaching practices utilized to better prepare graduates for industry expectations. Modern teaching tools including 3D-printed demonstrators and AR/VR applications will also help better prepare engineers.

Overall, there must be better alignment between academic preparation and industry expectations as well.
 

Next steps

While our past analysis revealed educational norms, we are now conducting a study to assess current industrial practices and workforce needs related to dimensioning and tolerancing (including GD&T) across all industries. To do that, we need your responses.

Potential respondents may have roles in:

• Drafting/design,
• Engineering (design, analysis, manufacturing, quality, systems),
• Metrology/inspection, or
• Skilled manufacturing trades (machinist, cam programmer, etc.).

The insights gained from your responses will directly influence a published report, shaping how industry practices and skill needs are understood by educators and professionals worldwide.

Follow the link below to take a quick 15-minute (or less) survey. Please share this survey with colleagues who qualify. (This survey is best viewed on a laptop or desktop computer. Mobile device view is not optimized.)
Jaime Berez is an assistant professor of mechanical engineering and engineering science at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Rustin Webster is an associate professor in the Purdue Polytechnic Institute (School of Engineering Technology) at Purdue University. Rudy Ottway is an associate professor of design and engineering technology at Murray State University.