Getting the Numbers Right:

International Engineering Education in the

United States, China, and India
GARY GEREFFI companies, their employees, and policymakers. Just as globalization
Department of Sociology, and has redefined the economic logic in traditional industries, it is now
Center on Globalization, Governance & Competitiveness reshaping knowledge-intensive fields like electronics and informa-
Duke University tion technology (IT).
While the offshoring of manufacturing jobs has been docu-
VIVEK WADHWA mented for decades, there is fresh debate over the relocation of
Pratt School of Engineering service-related jobs in sectors like banking, IT, and engineering.
Duke University Today, multinational corporations (MNCs) are reorganizing their
global research and development (R&D) networks to lower costs
BEN RISSING and increase efficiency, while expanding their operations abroad—
Pratt School of Engineering especially in the developing world (Goldbrunner, Doz, Wilson,
Duke University and Veldhoen, 2006; Hart, 2006). These new business structures
have required the coordination of research in different areas,
RYAN ONG bringing science and technology (S&T) workers in Silicon Valley
Center on Globalization, Governance & Competitiveness in contact—and competition—with colleagues from Boston to
Duke University Bangalore. In the process, they are catalyzing the emergence of
global labor markets for knowledge workers, which is what the
State University of New York’s Levin Institute terms the “global
ABSTRACT talent pool” (Levin Institute, 2005).
The creation of a global talent pool and the relocation of U.S.
This article challenges the commonly cited statistics for engineer- research hubs abroad have raised serious questions about the con-
ing graduates in the United States, China, and India. Our tinued competitiveness of the U.S. economy relative to emerging
research shows that the gap between the number of engineers and economic powers like China and India (Gereffi, 2006; Kenney and
related technology specialists produced in the United States ver- Dossani, 2005). Our paper aims to address these questions of rela-
sus those in India and China is smaller than previously reported, tive competitiveness by examining one aspect of this global talent
and the United States remains a leading source of high-quality pool, namely, the competitiveness of engineers in the U.S., China,
global engineering talent. Furthermore, engineering graduates in and India.
China and India face the prospect of substantial unemployment,
despite high corporate demand for their services; this raises ques- A. Why China and India?
tions about the quality of recent graduates. The United States, A great deal of the debate over the globalization of knowledge
however, also confronts problems in its continued ability to economies has focused on China and India. One reason has been their
attract and retain top engineering talent from abroad because of rapid, sustained economic growth. The Chinese economy has aver-
visa uncertainties and growing economic opportunities in their aged a growth rate of 9–10 percent for nearly two decades, and now
countries of origin. We argue that the key issue in engineering ranks among the world’s largest economies. India, too, has grown
education should be the quality of graduates, not just the quanti- steadily. After years of plodding along at an average annual increase in
ty, since quality factors have the biggest impact on innovation and its gross domestic product (GDP) of 3.5 percent, India has expanded
entrepreneurship. by 6 percent per annum since 1980, and more than 7 percent since
1994 (Wilson and Purushothaman, 2003). Both countries are expect-
Keywords: dynamic and transactional engineers, engineering ed to maintain their dynamism, at least for the near future.
education, offshoring China and India also contain the world’s two largest popula-
tions, but their per capita income remains low. The perceived po-
tential of these two economies to surpass their Western counter-
I. THE GLOBAL TALENT POOL IN ENGINEERING parts is unmatched anywhere else in the world. While governments
view these trends with caution, businesses are salivating over the
The global economy is undergoing a dynamic evolution. “Glob- potential opportunities. Both countries, indeed, have played a large
alization” is the name of the game, and firm and industry leaders are role in recent offshoring trends, capturing large numbers of jobs
rushing to capitalize on the advantages globalization can bring, in- that have relocated from other areas. It is no accident that China is
cluding better access to suppliers and customers around the world. called the “factory of the world,” while India claims to be the “back
However, globalization also presents a series of major challenges to office of the world.”

January 2008 Journal of Engineering Education 13

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1081923
 In addition, China and India are not limiting their development numbers for China and India are inaccurate and misleading. Each
plans to traditional manufacturing and service sectors. Both coun- country collected its statistics using radically different methodolo-
tries have sought to break into high-tech industries like computing, gies and even distinct definitions for the term “engineer”. Further-
electronics, and nanotechnology, while maintaining their advan- more, we believe that one cannot assess the competitive positions
tages in low-end manufacturing such as textiles and apparel. In both of American, Chinese, and Indian engineers without a discussion
India and China, the dual magnets of low-cost, high-skill labor and of their relative quality. Our field research in China and India sug-
access to their big domestic markets have driven MNCs to establish gests that the increasing quantity of Chinese and Indian engineers
hundreds of new research parks and development centers in high- has come at some cost to their quality.
tech industries. Thus, even fields where American firms have typi-
cally held an advantage are now caught up in the great global scram-
ble for jobs. II. METHODOLOGY

B. A Sharp Debate This study provides a comprehensive and detailed empirical

The debate over engineering offshoring and the impact of glob- comparison of engineering graduates in the United States, China,
alization on science and engineering has raged fiercely in recent and India. We have assembled a cross-national dataset on the
years, involving journalists, engineers, entrepreneurs, educators, and number of engineering, computer science, and information tech-
government officials, among others. A detailed analysis in the Na- nology degrees granted from 1994 to 2006, including bachelor’s,
tional Academies of Engineering report, Rising Above the Gathering master’s and doctoral degrees in each country. This statistical
Storm, has been central in this discussion. The list of key recom- comparison is used to discuss the current production of engineers
mendations include a renewed U.S. commitment to education, re- and technology specialists and their potential utilization by
search and innovation, with increased funding for teaching as well MNCs.
as basic research, and commitments not only from governments at The Ministry of Education (MoE) in China and the National
the federal, state, and local levels, but also from individuals and fam- Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM) in
ilies (National Academy of Engineering, 2006). Articles in sources India are the main sources of engineering graduation data within
ranging from Fortune to the U.S. Department of Education have their respective countries. The statistics released by these organiza-
also played a key role in this controversy (Bialik, August 2005, Oc- tions include not only recipients of four-year degrees, but also hold-
tober 2005; Colvin, 2006; National Academy of Engineering, ers of three-year degrees and other diplomas as well as a wide range
2005; U.S. Department of Education, 2006). of technicians. These numbers typically have been matched against
Yet many aspects of the debate are murky, starting with the accredited four-year engineering degrees in the United States,
numbers themselves. A plethora of articles and speeches have recy- which generates fallacious comparisons.
cled the same statistics on undergraduate engineers in the United To address these disparities, we performed a careful analysis of
States, India, and China. According to these reports, the United each of the major national sources of engineering graduation data in
States produced roughly 70,000 undergraduate engineers in 2004, order to develop more valid conclusions. We also examined the ed-
while China graduated 600,000 and India 350,000 (Colvin, 2006; ucational policies of leading universities in China, India, and the
National Academy of Engineering, 2005; U.S. Department of Ed- United States to gain further insight into the quantity and quality of
ucation, 2006). While China and India have increased their engi- engineers being produced in each country.
neering graduates, the U.S. number has fallen (Wulf, 2005).
Many Americans are worried about engineering education in A. What is an Engineer?
the United States compared with other nations. Rising Above the This debate originates with conflicting definitions of an “engi-
Gathering Storm notes that the U.S. share of global degrees in sci- neer.” Varying conceptions of the engineering profession exist not
ence and engineering has dropped over the last several decades, only between countries, but even within them. In academic and
as interest in these fields in the United States has waned. In addi- professional settings, an engineer can be defined as a person capable
tion, a large percentage of graduate degrees, especially Ph.D.s, of using scientific knowledge, especially math and science, to solve
are awarded to foreign nationals each year. As opportunities for ca- real-world problems. This conception, however, makes it difficult
reer advancement grow abroad, these scientists may be more to count engineering populations. In the United States, various sur-
likely to return to their home countries, leaving fewer S&T work- veys and reports have used multiple definitions for an “engineer” in-
ers here in the United States (Freeman, 2005; National Academy cluding: an individual working in an engineering occupation, an in-
of Engineering, 2006). dividual whose most recent degree is in a traditional engineering
We believe these issues deserve a closer look. Despite the wide cir- discipline, and an individual working in a position that requires spe-
culation of these statistics for engineering graduates, multiple authors cific engineering knowledge (National Science Board, 2006; Pollak,
and articles have questioned their statistical validity (Bialik, October 1999). Traditionally, engineering in the United States has been di-
2005; Gereffi, Wadhwa, and Rissing, 2005; Wadhwa, Gereffi, vided into specialties like civil engineering, mechanical engineering,
Rissing, and Ong, 2007; Wadhwa, 2006). There are also practical electrical engineering, and so on.
questions of strategy and policy, as analysts try to figure out how In recent decades, fields such as computer science (CS) and IT
much of a challenge countries like China and India pose to the Unit- have surged in popularity around the world, but U.S. academic in-
ed States and the developed world, and in what ways these countries’ stitutions are divided as to whether or not these majors should be af-
engineers might be competing with their U.S. counterparts. filiated with engineering schools. IT degrees are rarely granted in
Our research on international engineering education at Duke schools of engineering, and CS degrees are only occasionally affili-
University over the past few years shows that the engineering ated. During the 2005–06 academic year, computer engineering

14 Journal of Engineering Education January 2008

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1081923
degrees were awarded by 165 U.S. schools, while 48 schools granted However, this organization offers little information on how these
electrical/computer engineering degrees and 148 schools offered data were collected, and a very limited explanation of which fields of
computer science degrees within the engineering discipline (Ameri- engineering are covered. The MoE informed us that their aggregate
can Society for Engineering Education, 2007). numbers were obtained by adding all engineering graduates report-
Although many prominent U.S. universities offer CS-related ed by each province. China’s provinces, though, do not share a stan-
degrees through their engineering schools, hundreds of others offer dard definition of engineering, and there are questions about what
CS degrees outside their engineering schools. At Duke University, qualifies as an engineering program in China. Conversations with
for example, the computer science degree is offered through Trinity MoE representatives indicated that any bachelor’s degree with “en-
College (Arts and Sciences), rather than through the Pratt School gineering” in its title is included in MoE statistics, regardless of the
of Engineering. These distinctions greatly increase the difficulty of field or associated academic rigor. In essence, this means that the
counting engineering graduates in a systematic fashion. reported number of engineers produced in China may include not
In contrast, China and India both include CS and IT profes- only traditional engineers, but also mechanics and industrial techni-
sionals in their tally of engineering graduates. In many locations, cians.
such as India, CS, and IT degrees dominate the output of engineer- Data released through the China Education and Research Net-
ing schools. In these countries, relevant computer training paired work (CERN) provide another source of information on Chinese
with an internet-enabled computer empower CS and IT graduates educational statistics in its Education Report (Jiaoyu Bao). The MoE
to compete in the global marketplace. In contrast, the equipment data released by CERN are particularly valuable because the report
and infrastructure costs tied to a mechanical or civil engineering de- gives information on specific engineering majors. However, one of
gree are quite high. India’s IT boom has made this comparison even the limitations of this source is that it includes only those specializa-
starker, and pushed record numbers of Indian students into the CS tions that enroll more than 10,000 students in China (56 specialties
and IT sectors. out of close to 500 in 2004), which leads to an undercount of total
Some developing countries face another difficulty in determin- engineering undergraduates.
ing who should be counted as an engineer. As we learned during In April 2005, Education Report contained an article that, unlike
our interviews in China, the Soviet development model led Chinese earlier issues, included bachelor’s degree graduation data broken
administrators to attach the term “engineering” to many institutions down by major, with data for the 2002–03 and 2003–04 academic
and programs that had science- and technology-related, but not years. Utilizing the CERN statistics, we were able to identify the
necessarily pure engineering content. The legacy of this system number of engineering graduates who received bachelor’s degrees in
means that some “engineering” programs may not utilize or even 2003 and 2004 within engineering, CS, and IT fields.
train actual engineers. 3) India: In India, the most prominent source for information
After carefully evaluating the educational landscapes in the on the government’s yearly allocation of engineering bachelor’s
United States, China, and India, we decided that the most objective seats is the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).
means of comparing engineering graduates in these countries was to This allocation refers to the maximum number of engineering
count engineering, computer science, and information technology students permitted to enroll in a given year. To estimate the num-
degrees together. All three offerings involve fundamental problem- ber of engineering and technology degrees awarded in a specific
solving and quantitative skill sets. Additionally, skilled individuals year, NASSCOM combines AICTE intake figures for the year
with these degrees are at the very core of the current debate over en- 2000 with statistics on historical graduation trends (and drop-out
gineering outsourcing. For the purposes of this paper, unless other- rates), as reported by the Indian government’s Institute of Applied
wise noted, the term engineer refers to this broader definition, and Manpower Research (IAMR). However, NASSCOM only per-
includes traditional engineers as well as holders of computer science forms this analysis for bachelor’s and select master’s degrees. Our
and information technology degrees. group collected raw AICTE trend data and did an analysis that
mirrors NASSCOM’s for master’s level engineering degrees, in
B. Sources of Engineering Graduation Statistics in the United order to give us complete information across all degree categories.
States, China, and India Doctoral data were obtained though the Indian Ministry of
In this study, we investigated multiple statistical sources from Education
the United States, China, and India to obtain graduation data on
engineering, CS, and IT degrees. We provide a brief background C. Interviews and Field Research
below on these sources and the viability of their statistics. In addition to our statistical calculations, we sought to confirm
1) United States: The U.S. Department of Education’s National and refine our data through interviews and field research in each
Center for Education Statistics (NCES) publishes comprehensive country. In the initial stages of our project during the fall of 2005, a
annual graduation figures for the United States in the fields of engi- team of student researchers from the Master of Engineering Man-
neering, CS, and IT. As a result, these are the most appropriate data agement Program at Duke University, including Chinese and Indi-
to use when comparing the United States to other nations with an nationals, contacted relevant organizations in our three key
broader definitions of “engineering”. The American Society for En- countries. We held detailed telephone conversations with represen-
gineering Education (ASEE) and the Engineering Workforce tatives of NASSCOM, MoE, the U.S. Department of Education,
Commission (EWC) also publish detailed engineering graduation and ASEE. Our team also contacted over 100 universities in India,
statistics, but they do not include full information for students grad- 200 universities in China, and selected engineering school deans in
uating from CS or IT programs. the United States to validate the graduation statistics. These phone
2) China: In China, the national government monitors engi- calls sought data on the number of engineering degrees awarded
neering graduation statistics through the Ministry of Education. from these schools and affiliated colleges.

January 2008 Journal of Engineering Education 15

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1081923
 While some university registrars in India were able to provide III. QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS
full data, many were unable to tell our researchers how many engi-
neering students they graduated or enrolled, or were uncertain how A. Cross-National Comparisons of Engineering, CS, and
many colleges were affiliated with their university system. In China, IT Degrees in the United States, China, and India
government policy often prevented universities from disclosing any In this section we present data on engineering, CS, and IT de-
graduation data. This initial round of phone calls, however, seemed grees in the United States, China, and India over the past decade.
to support the engineering graduation totals issued by the national Separate trend analyses will depict the changes in bachelor’s, mas-
reporting agencies in China and India. ter’s, and doctoral degree production within these countries. Al-
During our second round of research, we traveled to China and though we still do not have perfectly comparable statistics, these
India in August and October of 2006, respectively, to conduct fur- datasets represent to the best of our knowledge the most accurate
ther data searches and interviews. In China, we spoke with both set of quantitative data that can be assembled using publicly avail-
government and university officials, including individuals from able information from the aforementioned countries.
Tsinghua, Fudan, and Shanghai Jiao Tong Universities. During 1) Bachelor’s Degrees: As Figure 1 shows, all three countries expe-
our time in India, we visited Bangalore and New Delhi, and met rienced growth in their output of engineering degrees at the bache-
with individuals from the AICTE and from several key universi- lor’s level since the mid-1990s, with China’s being the most rapid.
ties, including the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in Delhi Since the late 1990s, the United States had a modest increase in
and the Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT) in bachelor’s degree output, from just over 103,000 in 1998–99 to more
Bangalore. In both countries, we conducted interviews in promi- than 137,000 in 2003–04 before declining slightly to about 129,000
nent MNCs that were hiring China’s and India’s top engineering in 2005–06, a growth of nearly 25 percent since 1998–99. India’s ex-
graduates, and we toured R&D centers. This research allowed us pansion at the bachelor’s level was more rapid, with four-year degree
to complete our datasets, especially on the post-baccalaureate side, holders in engineering, CS, and IT more than tripling in the last
and to learn more about the quantity and quality issues that shape seven years, from just over 68,000 in 1998–99 to nearly 220,000 in
global engineering. 2005–06. The fastest growth in bachelor’s degrees, however, appears

Figure 1. Production of engineering and technology Bachelor’s Degrees in the United States, China, and India.

16 Journal of Engineering Education January 2008

 Figure 2. Production of engineering and selected CS and IT Master’s Degrees in the United States, China, and India.

to be occurring in China. According to the Chinese MoE, the num- tional master’s degrees, and show them as a separate trend line.
ber of bachelor’s degrees awarded has more than doubled in the last Over the past decade, these two trend lines show very different tra-
four years, from 252,000 in 2001–02 to 575,000 in 2005–06. Data jectories. Technical engineering master’s degrees in India have en-
from CERN, which is more detailed but only available for a limited joyed a moderate growth in the last ten years, expanding by 90 per-
number of years, parallels this growth rate, indicating a sharp surge cent since 1996–97. In contrast, interest in MCA degrees has
in the number of Chinese engineering graduates. exploded, rising at an average of 44 percent per year. This is proba-
2) Master’s Degrees: The growth in engineering, CS, and IT mas- bly due to the growing opportunities and strong popularity that are
ter’s production in these three countries paints an interesting picture, tied to CS and IT positions in India.
as seen in Figure 2. In the last decade, the number of U.S. master’s 3) Ph.D. Degrees: The trends in doctoral engineering, CS, and
degrees awarded in these three fields grew from 39,525 to 50,585, an IT degree production in the United States, China, and India shown
increase of 28 percent. During this same period, Chinese master’s in Figure 3 offer a striking portrait of the educational environments
production increased by a factor of five, from 15,391 to 82,386. in these countries. In the United States, the number of Ph.D. de-
Whereas in 1994–95, China produced only one-third as many mas- grees awarded in technical engineering, CS, and IT fields has aver-
ter’s degrees as the United States, by 2005–06, China produced nearly aged around 7,000 degrees for the past decade, with a slight up-
40 percent more master’s degrees than the United States swing in the last four years to reach 8,887 in 2005–06. In contrast,
The Indian situation is more complex, due to the existence of Chinese Ph.D. production increased nearly sevenfold during the
two distinct master’s-level engineering degree offerings. The first is same time period, from 1,784 in 1994–95 to 12,130 in 2005–06,
a traditional technical master’s degree, meant for students who have tracking the growth rates at other degree levels. This steady and sig-
completed engineering education at the undergraduate level. The nificant increase can be attributed to the Chinese government’s ed-
second degree, a Master’s of Computer Applications (MCA) de- ucational reforms, which will be discussed later in this paper.
gree, is a one- to three-year certificate that offers a foundation in CS However, in India, the growth in undergraduate and master’s
to individuals who had previously received a bachelor’s degree in a degrees in engineering has not translated to the doctoral level. Over
different field. Thus, while most MCA entrants have little knowl- the last decade, Indian Ph.D. production has averaged in the high
edge of CS, their knowledge base at graduation is roughly equiva- 700’s each year, and shown very little movement. This lower degree
lent to that of an individual with a bachelor’s degree in CS. output is attributable to the lack of higher education institutions in
Individuals with an MCA hold a graduate degree by definition, India equipped to offer doctoral programs. While most public and
but do not possess a graduate-level education by customary stan- private schools in India can offer bachelor’s and MCA degrees, very
dards. As a result, we have separated out MCA degrees from tradi- few institutions have the funding, facilities, and faculty to offer

January 2008 Journal of Engineering Education 17

 Figure 3. Production of engineering and technology Ph.D. Degrees in the United States, China, and India.

Ph.D. programs to Indian students, and this number has not ex- individuals do not remain in the United States after they graduate.
panded much in recent years. As a result, many Indian engineers How many of these foreign degree-earners actually return to their
and technology specialists who are interested in pursuing a doctoral home countries? According to research by Michael Finn from the
education travel abroad. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, the number of
Chinese and Indian nationals who received science and engineering
B. The Role of Foreign Nationals in Engineering doctorates from U.S. universities who were still in the United States
in U.S. Universities five years after receiving these degrees was quite high—90 percent
In the United States, concern has been raised over the large pro- for Chinese and 86 percent for Indian graduates in 2003.
portion of graduate-level science and engineering degrees that are By field, most of those areas with the longest five-year stay
earned by foreign nationals. This preoccupation has been exacerbat- rates were all engineering-related: computer science (70 percent),
ed in recent years because of the perception of an increased likeli- computer/EE engineering (70 percent), and other engineering
hood that these engineers may return to their home countries in re- (67 percent) (Finn, 2005). These numbers, however, contain a
sponse to new incentives to develop high-technology fields there. significant time lag, since the 2003 statistics chart the stay rates of
This “export” of the fruits of their American-earned education individuals who received their doctoral degrees in 1998. Given the
abroad for the benefit of other economies marks a reversal of the changes in the U.S. visa system since 2001 and the rapid ascent of
traditional international “brain drain” from which the U.S. high- the Chinese and Indian economies, there are serious concerns that
technology community has long benefited (Pollak, 1999). the U.S. visa landscape is greatly limiting the country’s capacity to
While engineering, CS, and IT degree production in the United retain exceptional individuals once they graduate (Wadhwa, Jasso,
States has been stable or increasing at all degree levels over the past Rissing, Gereffi and Freeman, 2007).
ten years, a sizable percentage of these degrees are indeed being
awarded to foreign nationals. Statistics collected by the ASEE on IV. QUALITATIVE FINDINGS
bachelor’s, master’s and Ph.D. degrees in engineering indicate that
during the 2005–06 academic year, 7.2 percent, 39.8 percent and A. The Supply and Demand for University-Trained Engineers
61.7 percent of these degrees, respectively, were awarded to foreign in China and India
nationals (Figure 4). As these figures indicate, the percentage of The rapid increase in the number of engineers graduating from
foreign nationals is significantly higher at the graduate level, espe- institutions in China and India is caused by the interaction between
cially for Ph.D. degrees. two variables: the supply of engineers graduating from universities
The high percentage of U.S. engineering degrees earned by for- and a rapid increase in the demand for engineers in these economies.
eign nationals becomes an even greater concern, however, if these For China and India, the supply and the demand for engineers have

18 Journal of Engineering Education January 2008

 Figure 4. Percentage of U.S. engineering degrees earned by foreign nationals (American Society for Engineering Education, 2006,
p. 13, 21, 25).

both increased dramatically in recent years. Yet each of these factors the vast majority of universities are public, not private, most univer-
has different dynamics and requires a separate discussion. sities complied, despite serious concerns that extra students would
1) Supply of Engineers—Changes in Educational Policy and Edu- strain resources and lower quality. This enrollment surge was fo-
cation Systems: In China and India, an increase in the supply of en- cused mainly on the undergraduate levels, but also spilled over into
gineers with postgraduate degrees has been the result of market the graduate programs, due both to the response of university offi-
forces and explicit policy decisions. Both countries have large popu- cials to educational imperatives as well as to the employment woes
lations, 1.32 billion for China and 1.13 billion for India as of July of many baccalaureate degree holders. By 2005, overall enrollment
2007, and thus the sheer number of engineers in each country could in higher education institutions (HEIs) had reached 23 million stu-
be correspondingly large. Citizens in these countries have long dents, giving China the highest HEI student enrollment in absolute
viewed engineers as a critical input to their national development, terms of any country in the world (Fladrich, 2006).
and interest in engineering fields runs high among students, gov- Although the MoE announced in June 2006 that it would begin
ernment officials and technology leaders alike. China and India to curb enrollment growth, enrollment (and by extension graduates)
have each taken concrete steps to increase the engineering enroll- are expected to increase for several more years, as the expanded
ments of their universities. classes continue to work their way through the system (Xinhua,
2006). These growth rates are likely to slow, however, both because
China of conscious government policy and because the ballooning supply
In China, the surge in engineering degree production can be of graduates has led to increased rates of unemployment among
traced to a series of top-down policy changes that began in 1999. university-trained engineers (Fladrich, 2006). This is especially true
These policies were designed to promote China’s transition from for those graduating from universities that are not in the top tier.
“elite education” to “mass education” by increasing university en- China’s National Development and Reform Commission,
rollment. The Chinese leadership had several reasons for this shift, a major economic planning body, reported in early 2007 that job
including long-term development needs for more domestically openings for new graduates across all disciplines had fallen over the
trained engineers, medium-term goals to help China upgrade by previous year by 22 percent, to a level of only 1.6 million. At the
building a competitive position in knowledge-intensive industries, same time, university graduates had increased substantially, mean-
and short-term causes like the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s ing that 60 percent of China’s 2006 university graduates would be
and the ascension of Zhu Rongji to the position of Premier in 1998 unable to find work (Chan, 2006). In one interview with an engi-
(Bai, 2006; Kang, 2000; Li, 2004; Ni and Wang, 2005; Yang, neering professor from the mid-level Beijing Institute of Technolo-
2004). The reduction of engineering salaries has been a clear conse- gy, he indicated that up to 30 percent of students in his specializa-
quence of these policies, intended or not, as we learned during our tion would be unable to find full employment after graduation.
conversations with executives. According to several industry execu-
tives, they can now hire master’s level graduates for the same salaries India
as they used to pay engineers with bachelor’s degrees. India has shown much more modest growth in its graduate edu-
As part of their development plan, the central and provincial cation. In contrast to China, India’s growth has been more market-
governments put pressure on universities to increase the number of driven than policy-driven, and more bottom-up than top-down.
students enrolled in their engineering programs. In a country where These characteristics reflect the less centralized nature of India’s

January 2008 Journal of Engineering Education 19

economic and educational systems. Government policy has taken India attracted US$6.6 billion (United Nations Conference on
some steps to reform university engineering and increase enroll- Trade and Development, 2006). Much of this FDI has gone to
ment. For example, the Indian government announced an expan- building factories and facilities grouped on the low end of their re-
sion of higher education with the creation of 500,000 new universi- spective global value chains, but the high-tech component of FDI
ty seats in September 2006 (Verma, 2006). The AICTE, the in both China and India is growing sharply too, as more and more
Indian government body charged with regulating technical higher firms seek to take advantage of both countries’ low-cost, high-skill
education, also conducts periodic reviews of its graduate education talent pools. Although estimates vary, most agree that China now
systems, which have resulted in the adoption of a series of recom- boasts nearly 1,000 MNC R&D centers, mostly clustered in
mendations to improve and expand the engineering education sys- Beijing and Shanghai (Economic Daily, 2006). In India, an esti-
tem. The Rama Rao Committee, which convened from 1995 to mated 150 of U.S. Fortune 500 firms had established R&D cen-
1999, produced a list of suggestions about postgraduate engineering ters as of 2005 (Lane, 2005).
education, ranging from changing program length for master’s de- While these R&D centers are performing a range of activities,
gree programs to altering the financing and geographic distribution centers like Microsoft Research Asia (based in Beijing) and Oracle’s
of programs. While some of these recommendations have been car- India Development Centre (based in Bangalore) are showing that
ried out, others are still not fully implemented (Natarajan, 2005). R&D in the developing world does not have to be limited to prod-
In addition to the growth of state-run education, India has expe- uct adaptation, but can be global and innovative in scope. At
rienced an explosion in its private education. By 2004, India boasted Microsoft Research Asia, for instance, scientists are working on
974 private engineering colleges across the country, compared with cutting-edge graphics and multimedia research, from speech and
only 291 public and government institutions (Somaiya, 2005). facial recognition to new forms of video download technology
Many of these private institutions are unrecognized and unregulat- (Huang, 2004). These industry-oriented research labs are demand-
ed by AICTE, since the federal government has yet to pass a legal ing higher levels of human capital to operate, but also higher levels
framework governing private colleges. State governments, especial- of knowledge input to innovate. Nor is this landscape purely popu-
ly those in Maharashtra and South India, have been more proactive, lated by foreign MNCs; in both India and China, a cohort of do-
with many passing legislation that defines and regulates the role of mestic technology-driven companies has emerged, from Infosys
private universities in their territory (Altbach, 2005; Das, 2006; and Wipro in India to Lenovo and Huawei in China.
Gupta, 2005). In this environment, new colleges and training cen- Despite this growth in demand, China and India are still facing
ters have sprung up to address skill gaps between traditional college a significant level of unemployment among their engineers. Both
graduates and company hires. NIIT (formerly the National Insti- countries confront a vexing paradox: while statistics show high lev-
tute of Information Technology) is perhaps the largest of these, and els of unemployment among engineers, many large companies
it maintains more than 700 training centers all over India, but other complain of difficulty in finding qualified candidates. This paradox
institutions fill a similar role: providing training not only for corpo- can be explained in terms of quality differentials among engineers:
rations but also for potential job seekers trying to break into the IT there is an oversupply of all engineers, while an undersupply of
industry. globally competitive engineers. A 2005 McKinsey Global Institute
Like China, India is also facing unemployment for some of its survey of corporate human resource managers supports this idea,
engineers. While the expanded hiring practices of employers, com- concluding that 80.7 percent of U.S. engineers were globally em-
bined with the emergence of private sector training programs, have ployable, while only 10 percent of Chinese engineers and 25 percent
helped to combat these unemployment trends, India still faces a se- of Indian engineers were similarly employable (more detail on this
rious unemployment problem. According to articles published in survey is provided in section B.2 below) (Farrell, Laboissière,
the Chronicle of Higher Education, India has nearly one million un- Rosenfeld, Stürze, and Umezawa, 2005).
employed engineers (Mooney and Neelakantan, 2006). In sum, top-level graduates in India and China are in high de-
2) Demand for Engineers—The Motor of Economic Growth: In mand, resulting in a severe shortage and high turnover among
both China and India, the increase in the supply of engineering leading MNCs and domestic firms. Conversely, an engineering
graduates is partly a response to a corresponding increase in de- graduate from a lower-level institution faces grim employment
mand. China’s burgeoning science and technology workforce has prospects. While the domestic economy absorbs large numbers of
been fueled not only by its dominance in traditional industries like engineers from these less highly ranked institutions, unemploy-
textiles/apparel and footwear, but also by growth in medium and ment remains an issue for this supply of engineers, and the prob-
high-tech products, from air conditioners and washing machines to lem grew significantly during China and India’s enrollment surge
construction equipment and mobile telephones (Appelbaum, after 2000.
Gereffi, Parker, and Ong, 2006). India has been led by the econom-
ic explosion in its software and business process outsourcing (BPO) B. Quality Issues: Are All Engineers the Same?
sectors. Today, India exports US$20 billion worth of software and This debate is not simply about statistics, although these are
BPO services, and this figure is forecast to reach US$35 billion by central to the discussion. An understanding merely of the number
2008 (Mooney and Neelakantan, 2006). of engineers being produced by the United States, China, and India
Multinational firms, however, have also played a large, al- omits the more important question: how many high-quality, appro-
though by no means solitary, role in stoking demand. The growth priately trained engineers capable of meeting current domestic and
of R&D centers, of foreign direct investment (FDI), and of local global market demands are being produced in each country? In
firms in knowledge-intensive industries are providing the pull fac- other words, how many Chinese and Indian engineers are capable
tors for the S&T labor market, especially for its high-quality engi- of competing with each other and with their counterparts in the
neers. In 2005, China attracted US$72.4 billion in FDI, while United States?

20 Journal of Engineering Education January 2008

 1) Types of Engineers - Dynamic versus Transactional: Defining neering concepts, manage projects, and bridge functional disci-
and measuring these quality issues is quite difficult, both for con- plines. Such individuals, however, are less likely to generate out-of-
ceptual and empirical reasons. A debate within the engineering pro- the-box solutions or innovative results. The demand for engineers
fession is leading universities and businesses to redefine those skills that have a broad combination of skills, knowledge, and education
that characterize a high-quality engineering education and to dis- that go beyond traditional engineering and science training is also
cuss how to inculcate students with those skills. In our research, we highlighted in recent empirical studies of engineers that focus on
communicated with a number of industry analysts and academics to the offshoring of technology and product development in various
develop a working typology of engineers that could help us frame emerging economies, such as China, India, Brazil, and Mexico
this issue. We have identified two ideal types of engineering gradu- (Lynn and Salzman, July/August 2007, 2007).
ates that represent the poles of this skills spectrum: dynamic engi- On the supply side, faculty and administrators in U.S. engineer-
neers and transactional engineers. ing schools are also calling for new kinds of engineers as they seek
Dynamic engineers are individuals capable of abstract thinking to respond to the challenges of an increasingly globalized engineer-
and high-level problem solving using scientific knowledge, and are ing workforce. For example, the Masters in Engineering Manage-
most likely to lead innovation. These engineers thrive in teams, ment Program at Duke University attempts to integrate fields like
work well across international borders, have strong interpersonal business and law with the core principles of engineering in order to
skills, and are capable of translating technical engineering jargon help foster more advanced skills in innovation, entrepreneurship
into common language. In the United States, most dynamic engi- and high-technology management (see Pratt School of Engineer-
neers have a minimum of a four-year engineering degree from na- ing, 2007). At the Milwaukee School of Engineering, faculty in
tionally accredited institutions. These engineers tend to be globally the Electrical Engineering Department have been active in pro-
competitive, and are in high demand regardless of their location. moting these ideas, stating that “preparing the next generation of
In contrast, transactional engineers possess solid technical train- engineers to enter this world with a competitive advantage requires
ing, but not the experience or expertise to apply this knowledge to inventive, resourceful, and continuously evolving methods to instill
larger domains. These individuals are typically responsible for rou- parallel intercultural communication, global resource manage-
tine tasks in the workplace. In the United States, transactional engi- ment, and interpersonal professional training alongside the requi-
neers often receive associate, technician or diploma awards, al- site and non-negotiable technically related subjects of the disci-
though they may also have a bachelor’s degree. In other countries, pline” (Lee and Dion, 2006; Mossbrucker, Petersen, Scheibler,
these engineers are produced by lower-tier universities, with thinner Williams, and Wrate, 2006).
curricula and a weaker emphasis on research, group work, applied 2) Competitiveness of Engineers in India, China, and the United
engineering, and interdisciplinary thinking. States in Relation to the Global Economy: To further assess the quali-
Empirically, it is difficult to separate dynamic engineers from ty issue, we sought measures that would allow a balanced compari-
transactional engineers on an individual level because these distinc- son of engineers across regions and countries. However, this com-
tions are largely skills-based. While the graduates of top-level uni- parison is no easy task. As noted above, the definition of a “quality
versities are more likely to be dynamic, this is not a rigid distinction; engineer” is a matter of debate even within the United States; an in-
graduates from top schools may be dynamic or transactional, while ternational consensus on the characteristics of a high quality, glob-
graduates from lower-tier institutions may possess (or quickly learn) ally competitive engineer is even more difficult. Second, the role of
the skills necessary to compete on a global level. The same applies to engineers in the U.S. economy is vastly different than their role in
countries; no country has a monopoly on good engineering schools the Chinese and Indian economies, due to the varying levels of de-
or superb engineering graduates. In addition, corporations may hire velopment in each country. The qualities that would make an engi-
both transactional and dynamic engineers to fulfill different kinds of neer employable in India or China might not be enough to land a
jobs. Thus, while this typology does not afford a foolproof statistical job in the United States. All of these issues make transnational
breakdown of engineers by quality or employability, we feel it is use- comparisons difficult.
ful in understanding the innovation issues with which companies in Nonetheless, we can address this question with the results of a
all three countries are grappling. 2005 survey by the McKinsey Global Institute, which seeks to mea-
There is growing evidence that this dichotomy between dynam- sure the employability, and thus the competitiveness in global labor
ic and transactional engineers is shaping how businesses think and markets, of engineers from a variety of countries. McKinsey sur-
how universities seek to train their graduates. To explore this topic, veyed human resource (HR) professionals from 83 companies oper-
our team surveyed 78 division representatives at 58 U.S.-based ating all over the world, and asked them the following question: “Of
companies that are involved in engineering offshore. We asked ex- 100 [engineering] graduates with the correct degree, how many
ecutives to compare the productivity and quality of work performed could you employ if you had demand for all?” Because those sur-
domestically with that performed overseas, and to describe the veyed were using similar employment criteria (that is, consistent for
strengths and weaknesses of their international engineering work- each company to evaluate engineers from a variety of countries), we
forces. From their responses we derived insights into the character- felt that this allowed McKinsey to make a fair comparison across
istics of dynamic and transactional engineers. countries of the global competitiveness (and thus to some degree
Dynamic engineers tended to have good technical training but the “quality”) of American, Chinese, and Indian engineers.
also a background in non-technical fields. They were often more Respondents stated that 80.7 percent of U.S. engineers were
creative and had better business skills, but in turn, they demanded employable, while only 10 percent of Chinese engineers and 25 per-
higher wages for their abilities and they looked for challenges to cent of Indian engineers were similarly employable. Employment
prove they were capable of higher-level work. Transactional engi- barriers for these foreign engineers included education quality, cul-
neers, on the other hand, were able to master fundamental engi- tural issues, and often a lack of accessibility to major urban centers.

January 2008 Journal of Engineering Education 21

English-language ability was a concern for both countries, but while in 1998 administrators from top-tier institutions like Tsinghua and
it was only minor concern for Indian engineers, it remains a major Fudan Universities lobbied hard to be able to maintain their low en-
concern for Chinese engineers (Farrell, Laboissière, Rosenfeld, rollment profiles. In doing so, they argued that they needed to limit
Stürze, and Umezawa, 2005). enrollment increases in order to continue building world-class edu-
Multinational corporations like those surveyed by McKinsey cational programs. Through lobbying and university connections,
represent a small percentage of the overall employment opportuni- these schools were successful. The educational quality at these pre-
ties for engineers in India and China, nor are they the only players mier universities is likely a deciding factor for MNCs looking to
in the market for globally competitive engineers. Hundreds of hire Chinese engineering graduates.
thousands of Chinese and Indian engineers will find gainful em- We spoke with executives and recruiters from 10 different multi-
ployment working for domestic firms. Yet in looking at the chal- national engineering firms in China. During these meetings we were
lenges facing engineers in the U.S. economy, it is the globally com- told that the majority of MNCs in China target a listing of about 10
petitive engineers that China and India are producing that should to 15 Chinese universities, which varies only slightly from company
be of primary concern, since it is these engineers that will compete to company. Beyond this list, recruiters stated, the quality of engi-
directly with American engineers for jobs. In order to utilize this neering education drops off drastically. Demand for engineers from
talent, the crème de la crème of their respective countries’ engineers, China’s top-tier universities is high, but the supply is limited, mak-
MNCs are building R&D centers abroad and shifting operations. ing it difficult for global firms to recruit and retain talent.
Thus, while the McKinsey study represents only a portion of the Presently the higher education systems of China and India are
overall employment picture, we believe that our focus on this seg- experiencing great strain. The pressure on these organizations to
ment of engineers is valid in examining the quality issue. deliver a quality education is extreme. In years to come, the enroll-
3) Is There a Quantity-Quality Tradeoff ?: Quality and quantity are ment in these countries’ education systems may stabilize, allowing a
closely linked issues in all three of the countries under consideration. greater focus on quality of education—a focus that is badly needed
Indeed, improving the quality of education and increasing the quanti- in both countries. While the United States cannot compete with
ty of those educated are often divergent strategies. Improving quality China and India in terms of numbers of engineers, the United
means devoting more resources per student or enhancing the efficien- States can retain its edge by continuing to be a global hub for world-
cy of those resources, while increasing quantity means that one should class engineering education and research, and by focusing on the
increase the number of students (and, under fixed resources, decreas- quality of the education that it provides its citizens.
ing resources per student). Degree quality cannot easily be main-
tained in the face of expanding student populations, unless academic
staff and facilities grow accordingly. In many countries, both develop- V. CONCLUSION
ing and developed, private institutions are called upon to bridge this
gap. Unfortunately, variations in infrastructure, funding, and teach- There has been great interest in the comparison of engineering
ing quality result in an inconsistent private education system in many graduates in the United States, India, and China. This paper has
developing countries (Appelbaum, Gereffi, Parker, and Ong, 2006). demonstrated that the statistics commonly cited to compare the
China and India are no exceptions to this rule. number of engineering undergraduates in these three countries are
In India, much of the surge in engineering graduates has been inaccurate indicators of the size of the newly minted engineering
absorbed by the country’s growing private education system. In workforce and the skills that it possesses.
2005, 1,355 Indian universities and colleges offered engineering, Improving our engineering statistics is important for national
CS, and IT degrees, with more than 75 percent of these private (All debates on international competitiveness and innovation policy.
India Council for Technical Education, 2005). This is partly due to We have a long way to go, however, in order to have adequate
India’s open regulatory environment, in which private institutions comparative data on either the quantity or quality of engineers pro-
are loosely controlled, and partly due to the over-burdened status of duced in these countries. Engineers are still defined differently
India’s public education system. Only a small number of students across national borders; engineering specializations or subfields are
can attend India’s IITs and other public institutions, due to the lim- often obscured or unreported, and reliable longitudinal data on en-
ited number of seats. As a result, hundreds of thousands of students gineering graduates are extremely difficult to obtain. In our study,
seek private educations annually. recent field research in China and India at the level of national ed-
Unfortunately, the quality of private institutions of higher edu- ucation ministries, industry associations, and leading engineering
cation in India varies significantly. Funding, facilities, faculty, and universities failed to resolve many of these statistical inconsisten-
recruitment of quality students are all major concerns. For example, cies, and indeed revealed ongoing debates within each country
private institutions struggle to retain faculty in the face of the allure over how to count engineers, how to train them, and how many to
of alternate Indian engineering business prospects and the relatively produce.
low number of individuals holding graduate engineering degrees. In The United States, China, and India each believe that educating
our interviews with educational officials, we learned that some insti- the engineering and scientific workforce is an essential ingredient
tutions end an academic year with fewer instructors than they began for economic development and technological competitiveness. Re-
due to defections to the business world. Consequently, degree qual- gardless of the exact numbers, India and China are increasing their
ity suffers at many of India’s colleges and universities. engineering graduates at a more accelerated pace than the United
Despite China’s recent surge in engineering graduates, only a States. The debate among U.S. engineering educators is increasing-
fraction of the country’s top institutions have maintained their com- ly focused on how to improve the quality of its engineering gradu-
mitment to the quality of the education they deliver. As we learned ates, since innovation is based on leadership, communication skills,
in our interviews in China, during the enrollment surge that began and business acumen, as well as technical prowess. In this respect, a

22 Journal of Engineering Education January 2008

new generation of dynamic engineers is needed, but there is still no Appelbaum, R., G. Gereffi, R. Parker, and R. Ong. 2006. From cheap
consensus on how best to attain this goal. labor to high-tech leadership: Will China’s investment in nanotechnology
Future research on this topic should probe more deeply into the pay off? Paper presented at the Society for the Advancement of Socio-
quality of engineers produced in the United States and its leading Economics 2006 Conference, Constituting Globalization: Actors, Are-
international competitors. We need to look at what engineers learn nas, and Outcomes, Trier, Germany. June 30–July 2, 2006.
in the factories and research labs where they are employed, and not Bai, L. 2006. Graduate unemployment: Dilemmas and challenges in
just in the classroom. We also need to extend this research to high- China’s move to mass higher education. China Quarterly 185 (2006):
er levels of education, including graduate programs. A topic of par- 128–44.
ticular importance to the United States is whether the prominent Bialik, C. 2005. Outsourcing fears help inflate some numbers. The Wall
role played by foreign-born engineers, especially in U.S. master’s Street Journal Online. August 26, 2005.
and doctoral degree programs, will diminish, and whether the in- Bialik C. 2005. Sounding the alarm with a fuzzy stat. The Wall Street
centives provided to undergraduate engineering students are suffi- Journal Online. October 27, 2005.
cient to attract enough talented individuals from other more lucra- Chan, J. 2006. China’s middle-class dream shattered: Millions of graduates
tive professions. face unemployment. World Wide Socialist Website. June 2, 2006.
In engineering, as in all other arenas, the challenge of global com- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jun2006/chin-j02.shtml.
petition cannot be avoided. The United States is well-positioned to China Educational and Research Network. 2005. The ministry of edu-
reap the benefits from growing international competition, but other cation announced the last two years of ordinary professional enrollment
countries are catching up fast in the global talent race. This is evident data. April 2005. http://www.edu.cn/20050430/3136324.shtml.
in the rapidly growing number of R&D centers in China, India, and Colvin, G. 2006. Can Americans compete? Fortune (July 25, 2006).
other overseas locations. The United States must continue to be a Das, G. 2006. The India model. Foreign Affairs 85 (4): 2–6.
pacesetter not only in how it educates engineering and scientific tal- http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060701faessay85401/gurcharan-das/the-
ent, but also in designing ways to deploy this workforce effectively to india-model.html. Accessed October 19, 2007.
tap new innovative frontiers. Economic Daily (Jingji Ribao). 2006. Number of r&d organizations
founded by foreign firms china reaches 980 (Waishang Zai Hua Sheli
Yanfa Jigou Da 980 Jia). December 18, 2006. http://www.chinafiw.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS com/?action_viewnews_itemid_17808.html.
Farrell, D., M. Laboissière, J. Rosenfeld, S. Stürze, and F. Umezawa.
We would like to thank our contacts in China and India, includ- 2005. The emerging global labor market: Part II—the supply of offshore talent.
ing Dr. R. Natarajan, and our group’s graduate student research San Francisco, CA: McKinsey Global Institute.
team at Duke University: Nishanth Lingamneni, Xinguo Fan, Finn, M. 2005. Stay rates of foreign doctorate recipients from U.S. universi-
Arthur Todd Stevens, Patrick Chen, Qi Weng, Ramakrishnan ties, 2003. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education.
Balasubramanian, and Chun Wu. Fladrich, A. 2006. Graduate employment in China: The case of
Jiujiang Financial and Economic College in Jiangxi. China Information 20
(2): 201–35.
REFERENCES Freeman, R. 2005. Does globalization of the scientific-engineering work-
force threaten U.S. economic leadership? National Bureau of Economic
All India Council for Technical Education. Various years. Growth in Research, Working Paper 11457. http://www.nber.org/papers/w11457.
technical education—Bachelor’s Degree programmes. Annual report. New Gereffi, G., V. Wadhwa, and B. Rissing. 2005. Framing the engineering
Delhi: All India Council for Technical Education. outsourcing debate: Placing the United States on a level playing field with
All India Council for Technical Education. 2004-2005. Annual report China and India. Duke University, Masters of Engineering Management Pro-
& audited accounts 2004–2005, 16–18. New Delhi: All India Council for gram. http://memp.pratt.duke.edu/downloads/duke_outsourcing_2005.pdf
Technical Education. Gereffi, G. 2006. The new offshoring of jobs and global development.
Altbach, Philip. 2005. India: A world-class country without world-class Geneva, Switzerland: Institute of International Labor Studies, Internation-
higher education. International Educator (November/December): 14–17. al Labor Organization; 2006.
American Society of Engineering Education. 2007. Profiles of engineer- Goldbrunner, T., Y. Doz, K. Wilson, and S. Veldhoen. 2006. The well-
ing and engineering technology colleges 2006 edition, pp. 18. Washington, designed global r&d network. Strategy + Business Magazine May 15, 2006.
DC: American Society of Engineering Education Publications. http://www.strategy-business.com/media/file/resilience-05-15-06.pdf.
American Society of Engineering Education. 2007. Bachelors degrees Gupta, A. 2005. International trends in private higher education and the
by discipline 1999–2006. Profiles of engineering and engineering technology Indian scenario. University of California-Berkeley Center for Studies on Higher
colleges, pp. 13. Washington, DC: American Society of Engineering Education, Research & Occasional Paper Series. The California Society for
Education. Healthcare Engineering. http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
American Society of Engineering Education. 2007. Master’s degrees article=1061&context=cshe.
by discipline 1999–2006. Profiles of engineering and engineering technology Hart, D. 2006. Managing the global talent pool: Sovereignty, treaty,
colleges, pp. 21. Washington, DC: American Society of Engineering and intergovernmental networks. Technology in Society 28 (4): 421–34.
Education. Huang, G. 2004. The world’s hottest computer lab. Technology Review.
American Society of Engineering Education. 2007. Doctoral de- http://www.techreview.com/BizTech/13616.
grees by discipline 1999–2006. Profiles of engineering and engineering Kang, N. 2000. On education policy and the creation of a new system—
technology colleges, p. 25. Washington, DC: American Society of En- research using the post-1999 expansion of higher education as an example
gineering Education. (Lun jiaoyu juece yu zhidu chuangxin - yi 99 gaoxiao kuozhao zhengce wei

January 2008 Journal of Engineering Education 23

anlie de yanjiu). In An analysis of China’s educational policy (Zhongguo Jiaoyu Ni, M., and L. Wang. 2005. National report of P. R. China. Confer-
Zhengce Pinglun), ed. Zhenguo Yuan, 9–10. Beijing, China: Jiaoyu Kexue ence Paper presented at The Regional Follow-Up Committee for the
Chubanshe. http://jwc.nxu.edu.cn/list.asp?id=133. 1998 World Conference on Higher Education, July 5–6, Seoul, Korea,
Kenney, M., and R. Dossani. 2005. Offshoring and the future of U.S. 2005. http://www.guni-ap.org/upimages/F_050708_180344_328.
engineering: An overview. The Bridge 35 (3): 5–12. doc.
Lane, E. 2005. India’s push for technology lures foreign r&d centers. Pollak M. 1999. Counting the s&e workforce—it’s not that easy.
Press Release. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advance- Division of science Resources Studies Issue Brief, May 1999. Washington,
ment of Science, May 27, 2005. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/ DC: National Science Foundation, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and
2005/0527india.shtml. Economic Studies. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/issuebrf/sib99344.
Lee, J. K., and A. Dion. 2006. The difference between engineering edu- pdf.
cation at public and private institutions: University of Michigan, Dearborn Pratt School of Engineering, Duke Universtiy, homepage.
and Milwaukee School of Engineering. Paper for Markets & Management http://memp.pratt.duke.edu/ about/. Accessed October 13, 2007.
Studies Capstone Course (MMS 190), April 26, 2006. http://www.cggc. Somaiya, S. 2005. Markets, higher education, and the creation of
duke.edu/pdfs/papers/lee_dion_1.pdf. human capital in India. Kennedy School Review 6:17.
Levin Institute. 2005. The evolving global talent pool: Issues, challenges, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). 2006.
and strategic implications. Conference Report. New York: Levin Institute. World investment report 2006. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Conference
http://www.levin.suny.edu/pdf/globalTalentPool.pdf. on Trade and Development. http://www.unctad.org/en/ docs/wir2006_en.pdf.
Li, L. 2004. China’s higher education reform 1998-2003: A summary. United States Department of Education. 2006. In case you missed
Asia Pacific Education Review 5 (1): 14–22. it: Let’s get serious. Press release, February 7. Washington, D.C.
Lynn, L., and H. Salzman. 2007. The real global technology challenge. http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2006/02/02072006.html.
Change 39 (4): 8–13. United States Department of Education National Center for Educa-
Lynn, L., and H. Salzman. 2007. ‘Innovation Shift’ to the emerging tion Statistics. 2005a. Table 249. Bachelor’s degrees conferred by degree-
economies: Cases from IT and heavy industries. Sloan Industry Studies granting institutions, by discipline division: Selected years, 1970–71
Working Papers, WP-2007-22. through 2003-04. Digest of education statistics, tables and figures 2005.
Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India and Uni- Washington, DC: United States Department of Education. http://nces.
versity Grants Commission. 2003. Faculty-wise number of doctorate degrees ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/lt3.asp#c3.
awarded in India. New Delhi: University Grants Commission. United States Department of Education National Center for Education
Mooney, P., and S. Neelakantan. 2006. Foreign academics question the Statistics. 2005b. Table 250. Master’s degrees conferred by degree-granting
quality of their countries’ engineering programs. Chronicle of Higher Educa- institutions, by discipline division: selected years, 1970–71 through
tion September 8, 2006. 2003–04. Digest of education statistics, tables, and figures 2005. Washington,
Mossbrucker, J., O. Petersen, S. Scheibler, S. Williams, and G. Wrate. DC: United States Department of Education. http://nces.ed.gov/
2006. Creating a ‘global algorithm’ for engineering education. Conference programs/digest/d05/lt3.asp#c3.
Paper presented at the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education United States Department of Education National Center for Educa-
Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June 18-21, 2006. tion Statistics. 2005c. Doctor’s degrees conferred by degree-granting
Natarajan, R. 2005. The evolution of postgraduate engineering education institutions, by discipline division: Selected years, 1970–71 through
and research in India. Conference Paper presented at the Canadian Associa- 2003–04. Digest of education statistics, tables and figures 2005. Washington,
tion for Graduate Studies (CAGS) 2005 Conference, Toronto, Canada. DC: United States Department of Education. http://nces.ed.gov/
National Academy of Engineering, Committee on Prospering in the programs/digest/d05/lt3.asp#c3.
Global Economy of the 21st Century. 2005. Broad federal effort urgently Verma, R. 2006. India goes for growth. Times higher education sup-
needed to create new, high-quality jobs for all Americans in the 21st centu- plement, September 15. New Delhi: The Times.
ry. Washington, D.C. http://kavlifoundation.org/uploads/1188988234_ Wadhwa, V. 2006. The real problem with outsourcing. BusinessWeek,
NAS_Science_Report.pdf. November 7. http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/
National Academy of Engineering, Committee on Science, Engineer- nov2006/sb20061107_874214.htm?chan=search.
ing, and Public Policy. 2006. Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing Wadhwa, V., G. Gereffi, B. Rissing, and R. Ong. 2007. Where the
and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington DC: Na- engineers are. Issues in Science and Technology. 23 (3): 73-84
tional Academy Press. Wadhwa, V., G. Jasso, B. Rissing, G. Gereffi, R. Freeman. August
National Bureau of Statistics. Various years. Chinese statistical yearbook. 2007. Intellectual Property, the Immigration Backlog, and a Reverse
Beijing: China Statistical Press. Brain-Drain: America’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Part III.
National Bureau of Statistics. 2006. Table 21-9: Number of postgradu- The Kaufman Foundation.
ate students by field of study. In 2007 China statistical yearbook, 802 & 805. Wilson, D., and R. Purushothaman. 2003. Dreaming with BRICs:
Beijing: China Statistical Press. The path to 2050. Goldman Sachs, Global Economics Papers 99.
National Bureau of Statistics. 2006. Table 21-13: Number of students http://www2.goldmansachs.com/insight/research/reports/99.pdf.
in undergraduate and junior colleges by field of study. In 2007 China statis- Wulf, W. 2005. A disturbing mosaic. The Bridge 35 (3): 28–32.
tical yearbook, 802-805. Beijing: China Statistical Press. Xinhua News Service Web site. China’s focus: Higher education ends
National Science Board. 2006. Chapter 3: Science and engineering era of grand expansion. May 12, 2006. http://en.ce.cn/National/
labor force: U.S. s&e labor force profile. Science and engineering indicators. Education/200605/12/t20060512_6936611.shtml.
Arlington, VA: National Science Board. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ Yang, R. 2004. Toward massification: Higher education development in
seind06/c3/c3s1.htm#c3s1l6. the People’s Republic of China since 1949. In Higher Education: Handbook of

24 Journal of Engineering Education January 2008

Theory and Research ed. John C. Smart, 311–74. Amsterdam, The - Address: 3120 Fitzpatrick (CIEMAS), Box 90271, Duke
Netherlands: Kluwer. University, Durham, NC 27708; telephone: (1) 919.660.5424;
fax: (1) 919.660.5456; e-mail: [email protected].

AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES Ben Rissing is a Wertheim Fellow with Harvard Law School
and a research scholar with Duke University’s Pratt School of Engi-
Dr. Gary Gereffi is professor of Sociology and director of the neering. Mr. Rissing has a background in Mechanical Engineering
Center on Globalization, Governance & Competitiveness at Duke from the University of Virginia and a Master’s in Engineering
University. He holds a B.A. degree from the University of Notre Management from Duke University. He has been involved in a va-
Dame and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from Yale University. He has riety of projects ranging from engineering design and technology
published numerous books and articles on business-government rela- transfer to public policy in Washington, DC. In his free time,
tions in various parts of the world. His recent books include The Value Mr. Rissing enjoys competitive fencing and has competed in a
of Value Chains: Spreading the Gains from Globalization (special issue of number of national competitions.
the IDS Bulletin, Vol. 32, No. 3, July 2001), Free Trade and Uneven Address: 3120 Fitzpatrick (CIEMAS), Box 90271, Duke Uni-
Development: The North American Apparel Industry after NAFTA, versity, Durham, NC 27708; telephone: (1) 703.600.9239; fax:
(Temple University Press, 2002); and The New Offshoring of Jobs and (1) 919.660.5456; e-mail: [email protected].
Global Development (International Labor Organization, 2006).
Address: 264 Soc-Psych, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708; Ryan Ong is a former research associate at Duke University’s
telephone: (1) 919.660.5611; fax: (1) 919.660.5623; Center on Globalization, Governance and Competitiveness
e-mail: [email protected]. (CGGC). He holds a B.A. in International Studies from the Uni-
versity of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, as well as a M.A. in Interna-
Vivek Wadhwa is a technology entrepreneur and an Executive in tional Relations from Johns Hopkins University’s School of Ad-
Residence/Adjunct Professor for the Pratt School of Engineering at vanced International Studies (SAIS). He was involved in a variety of
Duke University. He is an active mentor and advisor to various start- projects at CGGC, including Global Engineering @ Duke and
up companies and is also a regular columnist for BusinessWeek. North Carolina in the Global Economy. He currently is a Business
Wadhwa was named a “Leader of Tomorrow” by Forbes.com, and Advisory Services Manager at the US-China Business Council in
his company Relativity Technologies was named as one of the 25 Washington DC, working with and advising US firms on a range of
“coolest” companies in the world by Fortune Magazine. Wadhwa economic and operational issues related to doing business in China.
now shares his experience with other entrepreneurs. Mr. Wadhwa Address: 11 South Eutaw Street, Apartment 1611, Baltimore,
holds a B.A. in Computing Studies from the Canberra University in MD 21202: telephone: (1) 410.800.2337; fax (1) 919.681.4183;
Australia and an MBA from New York University. e-mail: [email protected]

January 2008 Journal of Engineering Education 25