Posted on 12/20/2005 2:01:37 PM PST by Sonny M
If China graduates more than eight times the number of engineers that the United States does, is it thrashing America in the technology race?
That's what many scientists and politicians are suggesting in the wake of an October report by the highly regarded National Academies. Its numbers are startling: China adds 600,000 new engineers a year; the US, only 70,000. Even India, with 350,000 new engineers a year, is outdoing the US, the study suggests.
But that gloomy assessment depends on how one defines engineers: Those with at least four years of college training? Or do their ranks include two-year graduates of technical schools and even, in China's case, auto mechanics?
By making more specific comparisons, US competitiveness, as measured by newly minted engineers, is not eroding as fast as many say - if it's eroding at all, according to a Duke University study released last week. "Inconsistent reporting of problematic engineering graduation data has been used to fuel fears that America is losing its technological edge," the study states. "A comparison of like-to-like data suggests that the US produces a highly significant number of engineers, computer scientists, and information technology specialists, and remains competitive in global markets."
In some ways, experts say, today's debate over engineers reflects the cold-war controversy over the so-called missile gap in which the Soviets' advantage in missile numbers was counterbalanced to some extent by the quality and accuracy of America's nuclear arsenal.
"During the 'missile gap' and post-missile gap until the fall of the Berlin Wall the same sorts of issues were being raised about Russia as are being raised now about China and India," says Frank Huband, of the American Society for Engineering Education in Washington.
Is there an "engineer gap" today? Many groups say yes. In a report last summer, the Business Roundtable and 14 other corporate groups called for doubling the number of graduating US engineers, citing China's lead.
"As others have copied our blueprint, we have departed from it," said House minority leader Nancy Pelosi in a speech last month. "They are investing heavily in improving their educational systems, and creating world-class universities, particularly in science and technology. We have fewer students studying math and science."
But some researchers say such fears are overblown and argue that US corporations are trying to cloud the issue as they go in search of cheaper engineering talent overseas.
"Business groups have been very smart about trying to change the subject from outsourcing and offshoring to the supposed shortfall in US engineers," says Ron Hira, an outsourcing expert at Rochester Institute of Technology. "There's really no serious shortage of engineers in this country."
India provides the clearest example of how the numbers can be interpreted differently. The 350,000 engineers that it supposedly graduated last year is almost certainly false. After publishing that number in October, the National Academies revised it downward to 200,000 in a note issued last month. The Duke study pegs the number at 215,000, but it also points out that nearly half of those are three-year diplomas - not the four-year degrees counted in the US.
More four-year diplomas than India
Last year, the US awarded bachelor's degrees to 72,893 engineering students, according to the American Society for Engineering Education. But using India's more inclusive definition, the Duke study finds the US handed out 137,437 bachelor's degrees last year, more than India's 112,000. The US number is far more impressive in rela-tive terms, since India has more than three times as many people.
China's numbers are more problematic because its government does not break them down. In its revised figures, the National Academies reduced the Chinese total from 600,000 to 500,000. The Duke study pegs the total at 644,106, as reported by the Chinese Ministry of Education. But the study also points out that, as with India, the Chinese total includes engineering graduates with so-called "short cycle degrees" that represent three years or less of college training.
"China includes in its count a lot of graduates - including auto mechanics - who would not be included as engineers in the US or many other nations," says Gary Gereffi, a coauthor of the study and a professor of sociology who directs Duke's Center on Globalization, Governance, and Competitiveness.
A press spokesman of the Chinese embassy in Washington declined comment, and its education office there did not respond.
China still graduated 351,537 engineers with four-year degrees. That's 2-1/2 times the US total (although China has four times the US population).
For its part, the National Academies stands by its report, even after its revisions. "I don't think we believe at all that these new numbers change the ultimate recommendations we have," says Deborah Stine, of the National Academies. "The US is well behind other countries."
Back toward 1986 graduation peak
The number of US engineering graduates peaked in 1986, fell back, then has slowly built back up since the late 1990s, says Daniel Bateson, of the Engineering Workforce Commission.
While US numbers don't approach China's, some experts say the quality of US graduates remains superior. A McKinsey Global Institute study last summer found that only 10 percent of Chinese engineers and 25 percent of Indian engineers were capable of competing for outsourced work.
Other experts say what's needed is a greater focus on improving engineering education. "The basis for US technological success so far hasn't been because of the raw numbers of people we have, but the particular type of thinking and capability they bring to the table," says Richard Miller, president of Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering in Needham, Mass.
bookmark
Yes. And the only way we can regain our lead is to begin teaching ID in the schools. /sarc.
Good point. Around here things like the number of people getting CS degrees have plummeted.
Alright, PEs, in my field the journal articles are written almost exclusively by asians, no doubt supporting research for their faculty advisor. Very very little of the information is of any use whatsoever in actual practice. Some of the information is innately inconsequential, because of the other variables in construction. How important is it to model an answer to +/- 3.5% accuracy if the assumed loads are +/-15%. It is not how many answers you get, or how accurate the answer if you dont ask the right questions. I have a friend and mentor, East European, who taught engineering at night for a major state university. 20 years ago, 3 or 4 sets of answers to his assignments. Farsi, Chinese, Urdu, all the same solutions. OK, so they work together, or one carries all. But he said it was because they could study engineering without speaking English.
True
I'm an engineer (PE) and I'm okay, I work all night and I work all day. ;)
A PE engineer? Boy, that would be cool! You could figure out the physics of doing jumping jacks or how to build the right pyramid or estimate how many somersaults Moose can do across the gym. Cool!
What is CS? Computer Science?
No wonder I haven't seen so many trains lately.
Yes. I realize that is not necessarily an "engineering" degree, but it is within the realm.
There is also a lot of sandbagging going on at the average Chinese enterprise. People pretend to work, kicking decision upstairs. A friend of mine has been a Systems Administrator for IBM working in China for the last several years. When he returns to the US all meaningful work seems to stop.
Oh, quite. But the breadth of the realm is part of the problem. Engineering spans industry, both directions ( or three and four ), so what is being out-sourced in software support, or in programming, is not in geotechnical. Some of the construction disciplines are just now getting leads from Indian drafting subconsultants, for example.
Check out MIT's Course I (Engineering) offerings.
Lumping all of engineering together for any statistic is no noisy it is meaningless.
Frankly, we do not have a lot of built environment engineers, but we are getting along alright. I do share the feeling that we are not recognized well enough for the responsibility. And we have a no-failure expectation in society today, something which is impossible.
As a teacher, I relate well to that last statement of yours.
You make some pretty good points. All I can say is THANK GOD FOR ENGINEERS.
"My interpretation of the article was that they were saying the comparisions are NOT equal, and in fact kind of false."
Having manufactured a submersible pump in China, I have to agree.
They slavishly duplicated an existing design, but were unable to adopt it to a new application (a thicker petrol) --- their changes made no sense.
And you have to hire everyone to get work done there --- you think the UAW is bad. EVERYBODY has their hand out.
A teacher. Then we are also both sworn to serve. Yes, Thank God for all serving. What do you teach?
A teacher. Then we are also both sworn to serve. Yes, Thank God for all serving. What do you teach?
I am an endangered species, being a male first grade teacher. But I love it and have some really neat kids this year. Sometimes they make me want to tear my hair out, but with the progress they make and their enthusiasm, it's pretty rewarding. They've REALLY gone up in reading this month--they've gone from knowing 6 letters to 13 hehe. Actually, a bunch of them are reading at or above a second grade level and their writing and math have really picked up too.
I'm an engineer (PE) and I'm okay, I work all night and I work all day. ;)
Ain't that the truth. What's a 40 hour work week?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.