China is still basically an agrarian society with about half of its population still engaged in farming. According to the IMF its gross domestic product is only 24% of that of the US. At the graduate level the US educates a significant portion of Chinese students and China educates very few US students at the graduate level. China has always had a huge population and the US has still managed to be dominant in almost every major economic category. So while the US has its own set of unique challenges, one must ask why worry about China?

The answer to this question is very simple… trends.

1. In the last 10 years China made the conscious decision to participate more aggressively as a free market economy. Between 2012 and 2020 China will become the largest consumer market in the world and by 2030 China will have more middle-income consumers than the entire population of the US.

2. Chinese leaders are less likely to overlook the significant impact of engineering and technology in its growth and dominance. Of China’s top 9 leaders, eight are engineers and the other is a scientist. Contrast that with the US where less than 1% of the 435-member house of representatives classify themselves as an engineer.

3. Asia in general and China specifically already represent the largest market for a number of US multinational corporations and because of China’s growth it represents the largest growth market for a number of corporations.

4. In 2006, China engaged in a 15-year plan aimed at increasing its strength in engineering and science. The plan calls for investment in science and technology education such that it accounts for 60% of the country’s economic growth by the end of that period. China has built and upgraded numerous universities assist in that process. In China there is no national discussion on whether they should make the investment. They are just doing it.

What should our response to these changes in China be? Should we invest in technology in a similar fashion by offering significant salaries to engineers in industry to become teachers? Should we reeducate thousands of teachers to become more proficient in science and engineering? How should we change the innovation ecosystem here in the US to radically improve our productivity in engineering and science? Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Updated January 16, 2009

A January report issued by the National Science Foundation addresses concerns that other countries are surpassing the United States in science and engineering education. NSF researchers examined data for 23 countries in which the ratios of first university degrees in natural sciences and engineering to the college-age population have increased substantially since 1975 and found that the rise in those locations compared to the United States is primarily due to increased degree completion rather than an increased emphasis on natural sciences and engineering education.

Read an Inside Higher Ed story about the study here .

According to NSF, the atmosphere for industrial research is beginning to recover after declining every year since 2001. Between 2001 and 2004, industry-supported university R&D decreased by about $100 million, to $2.1 billion, only to rebound 7.7 percent in 2005, the NSF reports.

There are several reasons for this uncertainty. An alarming number of highly prominent and visible industrial leaders are citing that negotiations over sponsored project agreements and disagreements over the treatment of intellectual property (IP) are negatively affecting the entire industry-university research partnership in the United States. Some companies claim that these issues are forcing them to sponsor research projects at foreign institutions. In addition, the type of research that companies support has been changing. During the last 10 years, companies have been directing more university research dollars toward university research in biotechnology, nanotechnology, information technologies and, recently, alternative energy. Less support is being spent on research in the physical sciences (except biological sciences), manufacturing, design and infrastructure.

While the overall uncertainty may be problematic to some, the data does show that industrial support has become more concentrated in fewer institutions. Between 1993 and 2004, the total number of institutions receiving more than 10 percent of their funds from industry has declined from 179 to 101.
During this same period of uncertainty, Ohio State’s College of Engineering has held its own, increasing its industrial R&D funding by 3 percent from 2001 to 2004 and by more than 20 percent from 2001 to 2006. There are three main reasons for this increase:

1. The College of Engineering has developed a number of strong relationships with national and multinational corporations.
2. The college has aggressively established active industrial consortia.
3. The college has been able to capitalize on the rich industrial and manufacturing heritage of Ohio and the surrounding states. In fact, Ohio State is ranked third among all universities and colleges in industry-financed research expenditures for fiscal year 2005. A large portion of that research is conducted in the College of Engineering.

In order to maintain our national dominance in industrial research, the College of Engineering will work with the university and our industrial partners to develop innovative IP strategies, graduate student and faculty corporate internships, and long-term collaborative corporate research partnerships.