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.
The numbers are totally crap.
First of all, it's not a missile gap type problem. You can't merely throw more "engineers" at a problem and get a better, cheaper solution. When you get a vertical engineering group down to 3 or 4 experienced guys to design a chip, design the TV it goes in, and design the test system for it, then you've got the lowest cost of production anywhere...if it works. 599,996 more engineers doesn't help you build them any faster, better or cheaper.
I wonder how many engineers worked on the 747 with slide rules, and how many engineers worked on the 787? And would have adding engineers to the 7E7 made the program cheaper? Or even faster? I don't think so.
And I am certain that the CCP Ministry of Education is not motivated to downplay their numbers. It's like calling "electricians" electrical engineers.
Finally, two conflicting currents in the news. (1) China's colleges are investing more and are superior to US Unis, and (2) Chinese students are busting down the doors at US universities trying to get away from the 'awesome' Chinese colleges. huh?
That would be the case normally, and is the case in most other countries we trade with, and may likely eventuate in India, although its socialist mindset has a plethora of laws which impede true economic freedom.
The Chinese situation is markedly worse from the standpoint that they have emphasized from the Constitution of China on down that the capitalist "new economic sector" is limited, and intended to serve the communist sector. Hence 80% of the populace is kept out of the new economic sector. This creates a situation where they can maintain a pool of communist-priced labor. Their command-control is more or less complete. This is how they can more or less arbitrarily set their labor rates at world-beating starting points...and keep them there.
I predict, as did the late Dr. Constantine Menges, this dreadful situation will remain the case as long as the communist overlords remain in power and remain bent on world hegemony under their rule. They have created stresses in their nation because of the manifest "uncommunist" unfairness of some being favored, especially themselves and their offspring, the princelings. These are clearly stresses that can be targetted by an enlightened foreign policy, as Reagan did with the Soviets. But they have all the guns. And so far, unlike with the Soviets, their troops show zero compunction about shooting on their own peacefully protesting people...
Not-So-Subtle lesson of history for Americans there...support the NRA!
That was an extremely good area for her to target. We still actually do chemical processing in the U.S. Unfortunately many other fields of engineering education have been decimated by the diaspora of their U.S. industrial 'target market' for graduates. From mechanical to EE, and particularly aerospace...the engineering fields have been visited with a black death...few or no jobs for the Americans.
As a math prof, believe me, we have too damned many engineers.
So you have no actual non-anecdotal numbers, and your experience says nothing about the Chinese-funded platoons of engineers and scientists.
What level Math do you teach?
That is why I'm an Engineering major and not an English major.
All undergrad. Grad in my specialty.
;What you may not realize is that while you may see plenty of engineering student in Numerical Methods and below, many do not become engineers. Most engineers that do not make it switch majors to Math, Bussiness, or Accounting in their junior year. About 25% of the guys I started class with switched majors after they had completed all the math courses. The math is the easy part, it is the application of the math that is tough.
The math is the easy part, it is the application of the math that is tough.
Quite the opposite, actually. The more engineers in the class, the less the class is mathematics rather than Algorithm Implementation.
Algorithm Implementation and mathmatics go hand in hand, it is the constructing of the Algorithm to account for all the variations of a problem that is hard.
Math is proof.
Only on paper. Building something that works like the math says it would is living proof.
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.