U.S. engineer education not in dire straits: study

San Francisco — India's and China's educational systems — known for producing vast numbers of engineers — are commonly thought to be slowly and steadily overtaking the U.S. in technological leadership. But that may not be the case.

A controversial Duke University study contradicts that perception, pointing out that engineers are defined differently in different places. Those differences give the impression that foreign colleges are graduating more engineers, as measured by U.S. standards, than they really are. In addition to blurring the definition of the term, schools in India and China may not be graduating engineers of the same caliber as those in the United States. And their graduates may not be competitive in a global sense for a variety of reasons, including language issues and job locations.

While the study may augur well for the United States and do much to deflate the "sky is falling" hyperbole about the alarmingly low numbers of qualified engineers here (see Opinion, Dec. 12, page 4), it's not a black-and-white analysis. Some in the field predict a continued drop in the number of U.S. engineering graduates and increased salary pressure from other countries. They point out that current failings of the K-12 educational system in the United States create future risks to U.S. technological dominance.

The 2004 engineering school graduate figures often cited are 352,000 for India and 600,000 for China, according to the Dec. 12 study.

The United States, on the other hand, produced 70,000 engineering graduates last year, according to the National Academies, advisers to the federal government on science, engineering and medicine.

Although India and China have far greater populations — three and four times that of the United States, respectively — the disparity has been the basis for hand-wringing by academia, industry, government and politicians of all stripes.

But China and India include graduates from "nonbaccalaureate" technical programs in their totals. And China includes those who, while skilled, wouldn't be called engineers in the United States — auto mechanics, for example.

"It turns out that the numbers from India and perhaps China reflect all individuals studying for technical degrees, from two- to four-year programs, from technician through baccalaureate," said Duke engineering school dean Kristina Johnson.

When the same criteria are used in all three countries, the United States looks good, according to the study.

Including all computer science and information technology degrees from four-year schools, the United States has 137,437 engineering graduates compared with China's 351,537 and India's 112,000.

"We have one-third the population of India, and yet the study shows that we're graduating as many technically trained individuals as it is," Johnson said.

While acknowledging outsourcing isn't going to come to a halt, the report states that higher-level, or what it calls "dynamic" engineering work, will stay within U.S. borders.

Defining dynamos
It defines dynamic engineers as those who are innovative and capable of abstract thinking and high-level problem solving.

"These engineers thrive in teams, work well across international borders, have strong interpersonal skills and are capable of translating engineering jargon into common diction," the report states.

It points to McKinsey Global Institute research showing that just 10 percent of the four-year degreed Chinese engineers and 25 percent of the Indian engineers can compete at the highest levels of the global work force — that is, as dynamic engineers.

Location of jobs, lack of English proficiency and cultural factors contribute to the low percentages.

The McKinsey research indicates the following worst-case scenario for engineering outsourcing: 49 percent of packaged software work; 44 percent of IT services; 25 percent of banking services; 19 percent of insurance work; and 13 percent of pharmaceutical jobs.

This work can be done by lower-level, or "transactional" engineers who often don't have four-year degrees, the report states. They may have knowledge of engineering fundamentals, but aren't necessarily able to apply them to larger problems.

"These individuals are typically responsible for rote and repetitive tasks in the work force," the report says.

Katzenbach Partners, a New York-based consulting firm acting as unpaid advisors to the study, called its numbers sound and its conclusions significant.

It's good news for the American economy, said Roopa Unnikrishnan, who leads the firm's work in outsourcing.

And for India and China?

"The message would be to look at those numbers and see if their own economies need larger numbers of rigorous and innovative engineers," Unnikrishnan said.

But it's the larger, long-term prospects of U.S. tech competitiveness that are in question, according to Dr. John Rutledge, president of the Mundell International University of Entrepreneurship, a Beijing business school.

The Duke study goes straight to the heart of U.S. policy: "It's political gunpowder," he said. That's because jobs per se aren't the most important issue, according to Rutledge.

"We are not competing for jobs with China and India," he said. "We are competing for capital and technology. And they're winning."

Education — or the lack of it — is the underlying story, said Rutledge, who is based in Cos Cob, Conn., and also runs an investment firm, Rutledge Capital.

"The trade deficit number gets all the media attention, but the future of America depends on how well we educate our children," Rutledge said. "China and India are both trouncing us in that area."

High-level education in the United States is too expensive, he said.

Asia is miles ahead in using fiber-optic communications technology to make education cheaper and more accessible than it is in the United States, Rutledge said.

But when it comes to technology and IT in both education and industry, the federal government misses the boat, he said.

"Technology and IT make up the central nervous system of the economy," he said. "Washington treats them as special interest and things to regulate."

Duke academics aren't completely enthusiastic about the study results, either. "The report shows the U.S. is doing very well in the production of engineers," said Dr. Gary Gereffi, a sociology professor and director of Duke's Center on Globalization, Governance and Competition, which co-directed the study.

But, he added, China and India are catching up fast. "The world economy has changed so that key U.S. competitors in high-technology fields are no longer only the other advanced industrial economies," Gereffi said.

Global competitors now include newly industrializing economies such as South Korea, along with China and India, he said.

It's not by chance they're moving at high speed. "These countries have targeted engineering and science as the two fields that will allow them to move into high-tech industries," Gereffi said.

Correct statistics are an important first step in allowing the United States to know where it stands in engineering. The second is a discussion of how the United States can maintain its technology leadership, he said.

But other elements missing from the study must be included in any such discussion, said Dr. Richard Heckel, founder and technical director of Engineering Trends (Houghton, Mich.), an e-commerce consulting firm specializing in engineering education.

The study examines the United States in relation to only two countries, he points out. "Looking at engineering degrees per capita is going to make the U.S. look really good compared to India and China," Heckel said.

The United States doesn't shine as brightly when compared with multiple countries, he said. "In regard to other countries, the U.S. is 25th per capita in undergraduate engineering degrees awarded," said Heckel, a materials engineer and former engineering department head at Carnegie Mellon University.

The number of degrees granted in the United States has been increasing for the last six years, but that's expected to change, Heckel said. "Within two years, we will see a declining number of engineering degrees in this country."

Currently, six countries produce 60 percent of the world's engineering bachelor's degrees: China, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea and Taiwan, Heckel said. That percentage is expected to increase. "Our estimate is that if they continue this trend, in a decade they will produce 75 percent,"

Then there's the troubling question of salary differential. According to a 2005 National Academies study, 11 Indian engineers can be hired for the cost of hiring one American.

That means U.S. university engineering departments have to show their product is worth it, said Duke's Johnson.

The study was needed to combat the idea that the United States is becoming technologically inferior — a common theme in the media, Johnson said.

If that idea is repeated enough, she said, there's a danger it could become reality. "You're starting to see rhetoric in the world press that's implying the U.S. is losing its edge in innovation," Johnson said.

If the world starts to think the United States doesn't value innovation and isn't graduating enough engineers, that's bad for everyone, Johnson said. "When you see the leaders in any industry falter — technology, health sector, any area — that shakes up the whole industry."

It's important not to focus only on the U.S. engineering position vis--vis other countries, Johnson said. "I don't want to get into an 'us-and-them' situation," she said. "We need to work together. The world needs a highly trained technical work force to address the grand challenges as a global society."

Johnson pointed to precollege education as a large part of the complex picture. She cautioned that while things look good now, the education of future U.S. engineers is at risk.

"Right now we're doing well with regard to our technical work force, but looking into the future, that's something to be concerned about," Johnson said. "Our K-12 program is not up to snuff in math and science education, and that's the pipeline for our future engineers."