A common distinction in engineering problems is classifying them as well-structured or ill-structured. It is assumed that classroom problems are well-structured while workplace problems are ill-structured. However, we cannot find empirical data to confirm or deny the claim that the bulk of classroom problems are well-structured. This research characterised 3,387 end-of-chapter problems presented in two engineering statics textbooks. Our data revealed that 99% of all problems were algorithmic, requiring a solution that was either numeric or an expression 92% of the time. Additionally, our analysis of pictorial representations (useful for cognitive scaffolding) revealed mixed results: while modeling was frequently used and beneficial, affordances were inconsistently applied, and embodiments were rarely employed. Even in foundational statics courses, students could benefit from exposure to a greater variety of problem types and cognitive scaffolding, providing students with opportunities to become more familiar with and better prepared for the nature of workforce problems.