Saturday, April 29, 2006
The Engineering 'Shortage' Mystery -- Solved
The Engineering 'Shortage' Mystery -- Solved
May 11, 2005
In reaction to the May 4 editorial-page commentary "Our Ph.D. Deficit1" by Norman R. Augustine and Burton Richter: The authors are just restating the obvious Wall Street mantra of risk vs. reward. A similar lament was expressed in these pages by the tech executives from firms such as Intel who were upset that their children were not becoming engineers. Given the time and effort of becoming an engineer, who wants to be unemployed every few years? Too, because engineering salaries barely keep track with inflation, why choose your lifetime salary the day you graduate from college? One college classmate of mine with a master's degree was featured in a New York Times article as making just $45,000 after 20 years. (By the way, he was being laid off.)
When it comes time to reward creativity, most firms behave like the Recording Industry Association disbursing royalties: Engineers are expected to be creative and grateful just to keep a job. Ironically, only the "garage band" firms pay for creativity. Still, this group includes Hewlett-Packard, Texas Instruments, Apple and of course Microsoft. But outside these few firms, most corporations view engineering as just a job that can be eliminated when the bottom line gets tight.
The net result is that "engineering creativity" gets rechanneled into activities that do not yield a revenue stream, such as accounting. The U.S. seems to have forgotten that you make money making things. Yes, selling does generate a revenue stream, but you have to sell something. Companies seem to have forgotten that you should reward the people who make the somethings that get sold.
James Finkel
Engineering Manager
B.E. Wallace Products
Frazer, Pa.
I notice this essay wasn't about "Our Humanities Ph.D. Deficit." Interestingly, though there's not much money in the various fields in the humanities, U.S. universities seem to have no problem finding American graduate students to fill doctoral programs in, say, Critical Feminist Theory or whatever is being taught nowadays. Getting a doctorate in said fields most often will not translate into big bucks, and all but the most senior professors will not get paid very much. And yet . . . there is no crisis there.
So why is there a crisis in science and engineering?
It is true that research in science and engineering is generally more expensive, requiring money for space (labs) and equipment (machines that go ping) that the study of humanities does not require. But that's not part of the equation when a student is deciding to go for a Ph.D. in engineering vs. an M.B.A. That decision has usually been made long before graduate school.
We don't have enough American Ph.D. students in science and engineering because we don't have enough undergraduate students in science and engineering. And the lack of science and engineering majors can be traced back further to substandard math education in primary school. Students know that those with math and science knowledge and skills can get much-higher-paying jobs; a person with a degree in applied math will likely be able to snag a cushy job compared with a person with a degree in education, for example. Yet you'll find many more students in education -- not just because of interest, but also because they would not be able to hack it in a math program.
Mary Pat Campbell
Flushing, N.Y.
The gloomy essay from Messrs. Augustine and Richter ignores facts that suggest a considerably brighter picture of the nation's science enterprise. Far from a "flat-lined" research budget, the Bush administration has increased federal R&D spending 45% since 2001 to a record $132 billion. In that same time, funding for basic research increased 26% to $26.6 billion. The U.S. spends one and a half times more on R&D than all the nations in the European Union and three times more than Japan.
The authors point to patents and graduate education in engineering and science, among other things, as competitiveness indicators, but present only part of the story. It is true that patent applications from China, South Korea and other Asian countries have increased, but not at the expense of the U.S. According to recent NSF studies, U.S. patent applications in 2003 were at an all-time high of 188,941, or 55% of the total -- the same on average for the past 20 years.
According to the National Science Foundation, total S&E graduate enrollments in the U.S. reached a high in 1993 of 435,700, followed by a five-year decline. Since then enrollments have increased, reaching a new peak at 455,355 in 2002. Science and engineering graduate enrollments of U.S. citizens or permanent residents likewise declined steadily since a peak of 330,037 in 1993, reaching a low in 2000 of 290,711. In the two years since 2000, U.S. enrollments have increased 7% to 310,243, indicating a renewed trend toward greater interest in S&E fields.
John H. Marburger III
Washington
(The author is science adviser to President George W. Bush and director, Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President.)
URL for this article:
May 11, 2005
In reaction to the May 4 editorial-page commentary "Our Ph.D. Deficit1" by Norman R. Augustine and Burton Richter: The authors are just restating the obvious Wall Street mantra of risk vs. reward. A similar lament was expressed in these pages by the tech executives from firms such as Intel who were upset that their children were not becoming engineers. Given the time and effort of becoming an engineer, who wants to be unemployed every few years? Too, because engineering salaries barely keep track with inflation, why choose your lifetime salary the day you graduate from college? One college classmate of mine with a master's degree was featured in a New York Times article as making just $45,000 after 20 years. (By the way, he was being laid off.)
When it comes time to reward creativity, most firms behave like the Recording Industry Association disbursing royalties: Engineers are expected to be creative and grateful just to keep a job. Ironically, only the "garage band" firms pay for creativity. Still, this group includes Hewlett-Packard, Texas Instruments, Apple and of course Microsoft. But outside these few firms, most corporations view engineering as just a job that can be eliminated when the bottom line gets tight.
The net result is that "engineering creativity" gets rechanneled into activities that do not yield a revenue stream, such as accounting. The U.S. seems to have forgotten that you make money making things. Yes, selling does generate a revenue stream, but you have to sell something. Companies seem to have forgotten that you should reward the people who make the somethings that get sold.
James Finkel
Engineering Manager
B.E. Wallace Products
Frazer, Pa.
I notice this essay wasn't about "Our Humanities Ph.D. Deficit." Interestingly, though there's not much money in the various fields in the humanities, U.S. universities seem to have no problem finding American graduate students to fill doctoral programs in, say, Critical Feminist Theory or whatever is being taught nowadays. Getting a doctorate in said fields most often will not translate into big bucks, and all but the most senior professors will not get paid very much. And yet . . . there is no crisis there.
So why is there a crisis in science and engineering?
It is true that research in science and engineering is generally more expensive, requiring money for space (labs) and equipment (machines that go ping) that the study of humanities does not require. But that's not part of the equation when a student is deciding to go for a Ph.D. in engineering vs. an M.B.A. That decision has usually been made long before graduate school.
We don't have enough American Ph.D. students in science and engineering because we don't have enough undergraduate students in science and engineering. And the lack of science and engineering majors can be traced back further to substandard math education in primary school. Students know that those with math and science knowledge and skills can get much-higher-paying jobs; a person with a degree in applied math will likely be able to snag a cushy job compared with a person with a degree in education, for example. Yet you'll find many more students in education -- not just because of interest, but also because they would not be able to hack it in a math program.
Mary Pat Campbell
Flushing, N.Y.
The gloomy essay from Messrs. Augustine and Richter ignores facts that suggest a considerably brighter picture of the nation's science enterprise. Far from a "flat-lined" research budget, the Bush administration has increased federal R&D spending 45% since 2001 to a record $132 billion. In that same time, funding for basic research increased 26% to $26.6 billion. The U.S. spends one and a half times more on R&D than all the nations in the European Union and three times more than Japan.
The authors point to patents and graduate education in engineering and science, among other things, as competitiveness indicators, but present only part of the story. It is true that patent applications from China, South Korea and other Asian countries have increased, but not at the expense of the U.S. According to recent NSF studies, U.S. patent applications in 2003 were at an all-time high of 188,941, or 55% of the total -- the same on average for the past 20 years.
According to the National Science Foundation, total S&E graduate enrollments in the U.S. reached a high in 1993 of 435,700, followed by a five-year decline. Since then enrollments have increased, reaching a new peak at 455,355 in 2002. Science and engineering graduate enrollments of U.S. citizens or permanent residents likewise declined steadily since a peak of 330,037 in 1993, reaching a low in 2000 of 290,711. In the two years since 2000, U.S. enrollments have increased 7% to 310,243, indicating a renewed trend toward greater interest in S&E fields.
John H. Marburger III
Washington
(The author is science adviser to President George W. Bush and director, Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President.)
URL for this article:
Our Ph.D. Deficit
Our Ph.D. Deficit
By NORMAN R. AUGUSTINE and BURTON RICHTER
May 4, 2005
The unprecedented opportunities for American workers in the latter half of the 20th century came from creating new jobs, not from protecting old ones. A major component of job creation is investment in science research. Our rivals in Asia and Europe have clearly figured this out.
Research, particularly in the physical sciences and engineering, is the foundation of our innovative economy. It has spawned the transistor, fiber optics, integrated circuits, wireless communication, liquid crystal displays, lasers, the Web, the GPS, hybrid automobiles and medical technologies far too numerous to list. With these new technologies have come new, high-wage jobs. MIT alone -- faculty, alumni and staff -- has created 5,000 companies in the last 50 years.
When an innovation is found, the U.S. entrepreneurial spirit is quick to develop, produce and market it, creating new jobs and revenue. We must be prepared to develop the next innovation rapidly to ensure that the jobs it spawns reside in the U.S. Such a nimble economy requires venture capital, a level international playing field, technological infrastructure, a well-educated work force and a healthy budget for research.
To keep feeding America's great innovation machine, robust investments in research are a must. Unfortunately, federal funding for research in the physical sciences and engineering has been stagnant for two decades in inflation-adjusted dollars. As a percentage of GDP, federal investment in physical science research is half of what it was in 1970.
The technologies listed above came from decades-old research. A flatlined research budget won't produce the same economic growth for tomorrow. Nor will it keep us ahead of the competition much longer. Through investment in research and education, our competitors have increased their numbers of science and engineering Ph.D.s. It's no wonder that foreign applications for U.S. patents are growing remarkably and that the foreign high-tech labor force is drawing jobs away from America.
In China, R&D expenditures rose 350% between 1991 and 2001, and the number of science and engineering Ph.D.s soared 535%. In South Korea, R&D expenditures increased more modestly -- by 220% -- and Ph.D.s by 150%. In that same period, the number of applications for U.S. patents from each country grew by 400%. Publications in scientific journals provide another indicator of the global challenge to our scientific primacy. In 1986, the U.S. share of articles in such journals world-wide was 39%. By 2001 it had slipped to 31%, and it is still declining.
There is another disturbing trend. Fewer Americans are pursuing physical science and engineering careers. At the graduate level, enrollments are down more than 20% since 1993. And with abundant opportunities in their own countries, foreigners are not flocking to study in our universities in the same numbers they did a decade ago. To make science and engineering careers more attractive to our youth, we must make a stronger commitment to funding research. In the 21st century, that in part must be a federal responsibility. In today's world of global competition and Wall Street demands for quarterly growth, the time-frame for discovery is too long, and the risks of failure too great, for a company -- even a group of companies -- to shoulder alone.
Mr. Augustine is retired chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corp. Mr. Richter, former director of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1976.
By NORMAN R. AUGUSTINE and BURTON RICHTER
May 4, 2005
The unprecedented opportunities for American workers in the latter half of the 20th century came from creating new jobs, not from protecting old ones. A major component of job creation is investment in science research. Our rivals in Asia and Europe have clearly figured this out.
Research, particularly in the physical sciences and engineering, is the foundation of our innovative economy. It has spawned the transistor, fiber optics, integrated circuits, wireless communication, liquid crystal displays, lasers, the Web, the GPS, hybrid automobiles and medical technologies far too numerous to list. With these new technologies have come new, high-wage jobs. MIT alone -- faculty, alumni and staff -- has created 5,000 companies in the last 50 years.
When an innovation is found, the U.S. entrepreneurial spirit is quick to develop, produce and market it, creating new jobs and revenue. We must be prepared to develop the next innovation rapidly to ensure that the jobs it spawns reside in the U.S. Such a nimble economy requires venture capital, a level international playing field, technological infrastructure, a well-educated work force and a healthy budget for research.
To keep feeding America's great innovation machine, robust investments in research are a must. Unfortunately, federal funding for research in the physical sciences and engineering has been stagnant for two decades in inflation-adjusted dollars. As a percentage of GDP, federal investment in physical science research is half of what it was in 1970.
The technologies listed above came from decades-old research. A flatlined research budget won't produce the same economic growth for tomorrow. Nor will it keep us ahead of the competition much longer. Through investment in research and education, our competitors have increased their numbers of science and engineering Ph.D.s. It's no wonder that foreign applications for U.S. patents are growing remarkably and that the foreign high-tech labor force is drawing jobs away from America.
In China, R&D expenditures rose 350% between 1991 and 2001, and the number of science and engineering Ph.D.s soared 535%. In South Korea, R&D expenditures increased more modestly -- by 220% -- and Ph.D.s by 150%. In that same period, the number of applications for U.S. patents from each country grew by 400%. Publications in scientific journals provide another indicator of the global challenge to our scientific primacy. In 1986, the U.S. share of articles in such journals world-wide was 39%. By 2001 it had slipped to 31%, and it is still declining.
There is another disturbing trend. Fewer Americans are pursuing physical science and engineering careers. At the graduate level, enrollments are down more than 20% since 1993. And with abundant opportunities in their own countries, foreigners are not flocking to study in our universities in the same numbers they did a decade ago. To make science and engineering careers more attractive to our youth, we must make a stronger commitment to funding research. In the 21st century, that in part must be a federal responsibility. In today's world of global competition and Wall Street demands for quarterly growth, the time-frame for discovery is too long, and the risks of failure too great, for a company -- even a group of companies -- to shoulder alone.
Mr. Augustine is retired chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corp. Mr. Richter, former director of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1976.
Social Engineering
Social Engineering
By ROBERT J. STEVENS
April 19, 2006; Page A12
Americans are focused on China's rise and the implications for U.S. preeminence -- especially in technology. The revving of China's science and engineering engine is too loud to ignore: 50% of its undergraduates receive degrees in natural science or engineering, compared to 15% in the U.S. Between 1999 and 2003, China doubled production of engineering grads; U.S. numbers are stagnant. Meanwhile, China's global high-tech exports approached $220 billion in 2005 -- more than 100 times 1989 levels.
Some observers view these trends with alarm, fearing the erosion of scientific and technological leadership and the loss of high-skilled jobs to educated, motivated foreign competitors. Others claim the hype is overblown, arguing that the caliber of Chinese graduates is significantly less impressive than their numbers, and recalling how earlier fears of a Japanese juggernaut never materialized. As the CEO of a major advanced technology company, I welcome this debate. For Lockheed Martin, where almost half of our 135,000 employees are scientists and engineers, questions of technological competitiveness go to the heart of our ability to innovate and thrive. Given the security constraints surrounding our work, outsourcing and offshoring aren't feasible options for companies in our sector. For the aerospace and defense industry, the front lines of the brainpower battle aren't in China, they're here at home.
One in every three of Lockheed's employees is over 50. To sustain our talent base, we're hiring 14,000 people a year. In two years, we're going to need 29,000 new hires; in three years, 44,000. If this trend continues, over the next decade we will need 142,000. We're not alone; industry-wide, some 19% of employees are eligible for retirement. Yet Department of Education data suggests U.S. colleges and universities are only producing about 62,000 engineering BAs a year -- fewer than the visual and performing arts graduates -- and that figure hasn't grown in a decade.
The looming tech talent shortfall will have an impact far beyond any single firm or sector. Science and engineering aren't just crucial for national security; they're critical for economic growth. High-tech industries drive development, boosting productivity and generating good jobs. If the U.S. intends to remain the world's technological leader, we have to act today, inspiring more young people to thrive in advanced-tech careers. It's achievable, as long as government, the private sector, schools and communities work together.
The classroom is the place to begin. A major study ranked us 24 out of 29 countries in terms of 15-year-olds' ability to apply math skills. The Bush administration's pledge to improve math and science education, including 70,000 newly trained high-school teachers, is encouraging. But in order to attract the best teachers, we should pay them what they're worth. Between 1993-94 and 2003-04, 15 states saw declines in teacher salaries when adjusted for inflation.
Industry also has an important role to play. At Lockheed Martin, we fund and participate in programs like Mathcounts, Space Day and National Engineers Week, when our employees go into classrooms and community centers with hands-on activities to kindle an interest in engineering. Our goal is to mentor kids, helping them see beyond the stereotype of the nerd in the lab and start thinking of math and science as compelling, rewarding, even fun. And individual business leaders must do their part. Most Americans would probably be surprised to learn that more S&P 500 CEOs got degrees in engineering than any other field. The more executives, university administrators and academics shine the spotlight on the stakes of the tech challenge, the more we can galvanize action to meet it.
There are other avenues worthy of exploration: visa extensions for international students who earn advanced math and science degrees from U.S. institutions and want to work here; or student loan forgiveness for math and science graduates who commit to work in national security fields. But just as important as revitalizing policy is reshaping attitudes. Instead of wringing hands or building walls in response to competition from China, let's summon the can-do spirit that has made America the land of innovation. The Space Race fueled my generation's ambition and imagination. We must inspire today's young to believe that if they become our future engineers, they can engineer our future.
Mr. Stevens is chairman, president and CEO of Lockheed Martin.
By ROBERT J. STEVENS
April 19, 2006; Page A12
Americans are focused on China's rise and the implications for U.S. preeminence -- especially in technology. The revving of China's science and engineering engine is too loud to ignore: 50% of its undergraduates receive degrees in natural science or engineering, compared to 15% in the U.S. Between 1999 and 2003, China doubled production of engineering grads; U.S. numbers are stagnant. Meanwhile, China's global high-tech exports approached $220 billion in 2005 -- more than 100 times 1989 levels.
Some observers view these trends with alarm, fearing the erosion of scientific and technological leadership and the loss of high-skilled jobs to educated, motivated foreign competitors. Others claim the hype is overblown, arguing that the caliber of Chinese graduates is significantly less impressive than their numbers, and recalling how earlier fears of a Japanese juggernaut never materialized. As the CEO of a major advanced technology company, I welcome this debate. For Lockheed Martin, where almost half of our 135,000 employees are scientists and engineers, questions of technological competitiveness go to the heart of our ability to innovate and thrive. Given the security constraints surrounding our work, outsourcing and offshoring aren't feasible options for companies in our sector. For the aerospace and defense industry, the front lines of the brainpower battle aren't in China, they're here at home.
One in every three of Lockheed's employees is over 50. To sustain our talent base, we're hiring 14,000 people a year. In two years, we're going to need 29,000 new hires; in three years, 44,000. If this trend continues, over the next decade we will need 142,000. We're not alone; industry-wide, some 19% of employees are eligible for retirement. Yet Department of Education data suggests U.S. colleges and universities are only producing about 62,000 engineering BAs a year -- fewer than the visual and performing arts graduates -- and that figure hasn't grown in a decade.
The looming tech talent shortfall will have an impact far beyond any single firm or sector. Science and engineering aren't just crucial for national security; they're critical for economic growth. High-tech industries drive development, boosting productivity and generating good jobs. If the U.S. intends to remain the world's technological leader, we have to act today, inspiring more young people to thrive in advanced-tech careers. It's achievable, as long as government, the private sector, schools and communities work together.
The classroom is the place to begin. A major study ranked us 24 out of 29 countries in terms of 15-year-olds' ability to apply math skills. The Bush administration's pledge to improve math and science education, including 70,000 newly trained high-school teachers, is encouraging. But in order to attract the best teachers, we should pay them what they're worth. Between 1993-94 and 2003-04, 15 states saw declines in teacher salaries when adjusted for inflation.
Industry also has an important role to play. At Lockheed Martin, we fund and participate in programs like Mathcounts, Space Day and National Engineers Week, when our employees go into classrooms and community centers with hands-on activities to kindle an interest in engineering. Our goal is to mentor kids, helping them see beyond the stereotype of the nerd in the lab and start thinking of math and science as compelling, rewarding, even fun. And individual business leaders must do their part. Most Americans would probably be surprised to learn that more S&P 500 CEOs got degrees in engineering than any other field. The more executives, university administrators and academics shine the spotlight on the stakes of the tech challenge, the more we can galvanize action to meet it.
There are other avenues worthy of exploration: visa extensions for international students who earn advanced math and science degrees from U.S. institutions and want to work here; or student loan forgiveness for math and science graduates who commit to work in national security fields. But just as important as revitalizing policy is reshaping attitudes. Instead of wringing hands or building walls in response to competition from China, let's summon the can-do spirit that has made America the land of innovation. The Space Race fueled my generation's ambition and imagination. We must inspire today's young to believe that if they become our future engineers, they can engineer our future.
Mr. Stevens is chairman, president and CEO of Lockheed Martin.
