Study: U.S. retains lead in science, tech

In sizing up the nation's status as a world leader in science and technology, here's a little good news-bad news from a study released Thursday by the nonprofit think tank Rand.

The U.S. remains the worldwide leader in science and technology, based on R&D spending, the number of Nobel Prize winners who call the U.S. home, and the number of top universities sitting on U.S. turf.

But the bad news is the U.S. educational system, kindergarten through high school, continues to underperform in developing bright minds in math and science. Europe and China are both graduating more university-educated engineers and scientists on a yearly basis than the U.S. As a result the U.S. may face an increasing reliance on foreign-born workers and foreign students in science and engineering to aid the nation in maintaining its lead, according to the report.

The study found that roughly 70 percent of foreign scientists and engineers who received Ph.D.s from U.S. universities remained in the country after receiving their degree, but that situation could change as salaries and research opportunities improve overseas, the report notes.

"Much of the concern about the U.S. losing its edge as the world's leader in science and technology appears to be unfounded," Titus Galama, a co-author of the Rand study, said in a statement. "But the United States cannot afford to be complacent. Effort is needed to make sure the nation maintains or even extends its standing."

According to the study, the U.S. accounts for 40 percent of all scientific R&D spending in the world, employs 70 percent of the world's Nobel Prize winners and houses 75 percent of the world's top 40 universities.

In order to maintain its lead, the Rand issued several recommendations:

• Establish a permanent commitment to fund a chartered body that would periodically monitor and analyze U.S. science and technology performance and the condition of the nation's science and engineering workforce.

• Make it easier for foreigners who have graduated from U.S. universities with science and engineering degrees to stay indefinitely in the U.S.

• Make it easier for highly skilled labor to immigrate to the U.S. to ensure the benefits of expanded innovation are captured in the U.S. and to help the U.S. remain competitive in research and innovation.

• Increase the United States' capacity to learn from science centers in Europe, Japan, China, India, and other countries.

The study further notes that issues related to skilled immigrant H-1B visas could lead to more domestic corporations outsourcing their research to foreign countries.

[Get_Bent]

He forgot one recommendation:

* Improve the crappy public education system in the U.S. to locally produce more science and engineering graduates.

[CougarAbogado]

To Get_Bent:

While you're correct that the article implies a need of having a larger number of science and engineering graduates, the article itself commits a common logical fallacy, namely that of percentage versus actual numbers.

The article states, "Europe and China are both graduating more university-educated engineers and scientists on a yearly basis than the U.S." Now, unless "more" in this case means a greater *percentage,* then this statement is virtually a truism. According to our pals at Wikipedia and about.com, the current US population is at 304,289,000 while those of Europe and China are respectively 712,000,000 and 1,321,851,888 (for China as of mid-2007).

Each of these has a population that is more than double that of the United States. Should it be shocking then, that they have a higher *count* of science/engineering graduates? As far as the actual percentages are concerned, I plead ignorance, but given the facts of the article, it's not really a reason to scream about any "crappy public education system in the U.S." Although perhaps your commentary is? (However, I wouldn't cast blame on the entire system for one man/woman's carping comment . . .)

[ted_t]

This study is typical smoke and mirrors to give the powers that be what they want. Please read the October 26, 2007 issue of Business Week to get at the truth: there are not enough science and technology jobs for all those studying these fields in school (See http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/oct2007/sb20071025_827398.htm). In fact, if you were told that 1/3 of all those who get degrees in such pursuits do not find work, would you study it? Most would say no.
This is how it all plays out: The corporations say there is a shortage. People go to school thinking, ?If I get a degree in this, I will find work.? Then they study biology, chemistry, physics, computers, engineering or the like, thinking, ?Even if I get bad grades, there will be jobs.? Then, with about a 3.0 GPA, they struggle just to get employment. The companies love it because now they have a huge pool of candidates to get the flooded market price. And to pour more salt on the wound, they ask congress for more H1B visas to make up for the shortage, making it even more impossible to get into the field.
Here is the reality for those that study science and technology: The top 1/3 will have a living wage with only a few of that 1/3 doing better. Some may be cosmetic surgeons to the Hollywood elite but most will just make enough to live in a nice house and drive a nice car. These people know not to buck the system, because the gravy train will end. The median will have jobs in science, but because of the flooded market, they will be making in the $20K's with little room for advancement. A lustrous career as a truck driver would pay better, but they will stick it out because they are doing what they studied in school. The bottom 1/3 will ask, ?Do you want fries with that??.
One must ask the important questions here, like: ?Who published this study, and what do they have to gain?? The RAND Corporation is a special interest group for corporations that make money providing science and technology services; mostly spin-offs of the military-industrial complex from the LA area. By keeping prices low, these companies save their customers money and bring in more profit. A great formula for repeat business, but not a good prescription for a college freshman who does not know what to do with his or her life. For a real career, study the exploit pseudo sciences like management science, marketing science, finance or the like. You are likely to do far better in the current and future climate.

[D20080613]

I suggest that you look at H1B visa increases granted during the Clinton Administation? Unfortunately, the Bus administration hasn't done any better. If you increase the supply of engineers artificially with a fixed demand then the price i.e. income has to decrease. When our defense industry is outsourced will we also outsource the U.S. congress? Perhaps we already have. My answer is fire all the members of congress. All 535 members and start over.

[D20080613]

Science and Engineering students are determined by the economic laws of supply and demand. Our government through increased H1-B allotments has artificially increased the supply of engineers and with a constant demand this lowers the potential income of that profession. Additionally, the universities can charge more for foreign engineering and science students with the result being fewer American students accepted into science and engineering programs. When you add affirmative action programs that place quotas on the few classes that are left open, most Americans are at a disadvantage in their own universities. The increased supply of engineers coupled with the smaller opportunities and the resultant lower potential income as a career results in fewer Americans choosing a science or technical career path. In some organizations now, foreign engineering managers discriminate against Americans and prevent them from advancing. Why would any rational American choose such a difficult and unrewarding career path? If I had to do it all over again, I would not nor would I recommend it to any future student until our government policies are changed. Does it bother anyone beside me that foreign engineers are employed in our defense programs and weapon systems?