National Academies Press: OpenBook

Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues (1988)

Chapter: Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop

« Previous: Appendix C: Participants at the Workshop
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop." National Research Council. 1988. Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1525.
×
Page 184

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

APPENDIX D COMMISSIONED PAPERS Foreign Engineers in the U.S. Labor Foroe: Fichael G. Finn Foreign Engineers ~ U.S. Industry: An Exploratory Assessment: Pet I' Cannon The Job Market for Holders of Engineering Baccalaureate Degrees In Engineering: Charles E. Falk · Cn Foreign Engineers In Academe: Daniel C. Drucker Effect of Foreign Nationals on Federally Supported Laboratories: Glenn W. Xuswa · American Engineers In Japan: Charles T. Owens 91 05 25 127 147 163 · The Impact of Foreign Students an the Engineering Programs at the University of California: J. E. Luco 167 . 89

FOREIGN ENGINEERS IN THE U.S. LABOR FORCES Michael G. Firm oak Ridge Associated Universities LION During the first half of the 1980s, U.S. universities awarded more er~neering doctozut=^= ~ foreign national s than to U. S . c:itizens. Most of these foreign nationals enter ~ the U.S. work forge, boosting the number of work force entrants with doctorates to a level that was at least 50 percent higher than it would have been if the foreign na- tionals had all left the United States after graduation. Yet in spite of this very large foreign inflow to the United States labor market, the market for engineering doctorates was still very tight In 1985. They still earn the highest canaries, and the number of doctorates em- ployed as engineers is still about 4 percent higher than the number who earned doctorates ~ engineering. To me, this illustrates several points about the Me of foreign engineers in our labor market: · We have a strong market for engineering graduates in spite of large foreign Inflows. o We wed have a serials shortage if foreign nationals did not enter air work force. · Although "1 art-= whale be even higher without the for- eign inflow, engraving salaries are still }sigher than the salaries paid to college graduates choosing almost any other major. · It is difficult to discuss the increasing U.S. dependent on foreign engineers without asking why we do not have more U.S.-born students being educat ~ to meet these needs. * The work described in this paper was and is being supported in large part by the National Science Foundation. Its support is gratefully ac- knowledged. Oak Ridge Associated Universities operated under United States Department of Energy Contras No. DE-AC05-760R00033. All opan- ions expressed in this paper are the author's and do not necessarily re- flect policies and views of the United States Department of Energy or Oak Ridge Associated Universities. 91

0 Employers have cause most of states. few problems with foreign engineers be tho~e hire] were trained in the United There is widespread agreement on these pa Mets when applied to eng m "=ring Ph.D.s. ~ ~ me agreement lessens as we move Unaware one .. segment of the engineering market. I discuss these assertions in more detail below. I also deal with related issues such as cur ability to reta m foreign eng meers after they enter the U m ted States work force. A few definitions are in order first. I use "foreign" to mean all who are not U.S. citizens. There is a much larger g~o of "foreign- born" engineers because so many become naturalized citizens. ENROLLMENTS AND DEGREE AWARDS Figure D-1 shows the steady rise in foreign engineering enroll- ments. Foreign enrollments have been rising at all levels, but they have been most noticeable at the graduate level, particularity the doc The 1983 estimates of the Engineering Manpower Commission put foreign enro11ments at 7, 33, and 43 percent, respectively, for un~ toral level. 80000 cn 413 6COOO o ~ 4000c 3 a ~)00 ~- ~ ~ , . . . 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 SOURCE: M. Zikopoulos (ad.), Open Institute of International Education, 1986. Doors, 1985-86, New York: FIGURE D-1 Number of foreign engineering students at all levels, 1955- 1986. 92

dergraduat~s, enter car~idates, and doctoral carxlid2lt~s, and these would be slightly higher at each level if they included foreigners who are permanent residents of the UP States (Ellis, 1985). During the 1960s less ~ n 25 E'erceT~t of our d ~ oral engineering degrees were awarded to foreign nationals, but that changed very rapidly during the 1970s. m e percentage of doctoral degrees awarded to foreigners passed the 50 percent mark in 1981 and cant m Ted to climb to 57 percent in 1985 (NSF, 1983; Coyle, 1986). Given the strong labor market for engineers over the past decade, it has generally keen the case that foreign engineering Graduates of U.S. schools have had relatively little difficulty staying in the United States to work, especially if they wanted to stay for graduate work. What seems to shock people about the rising importance of foreign nationals in U.S. engineering are the statistics at the graduate level. What is going on here? Is there something wrong with U.S. students that we have had such a strong shift to foreign enrollments? I am not the first to ask this question, an] I do not claim to have the complete answer. But I WoNId like to offer a couple of observations for your consideration when thinking about this phenomenon. The percentage of foreign salients at the doctoral level has =- crP~ mosey because of the decline in U.S. three awards. We had a record level of dears awards to U.S. citizens fecal 1969-1975. Unfor- turmt-1 y, that has been the only period since 1950 when real relearn art devel~t (R&D) Growth has been slam in the United States. Also, there was a d~ nturn In ur~ergraduate enrollments *tiring that period. If we acknowledged any planning of these things, we would have to admit to a colossal failure in that we menage S to get a record level of sup- p~y daring the period of weakest demand. Since 1975 we have had real R&D growth averaging more than 5 per- cent annually, and this has probably shifted toward the kin] of work that employs more graphite eng Peers (e. g., defense, energy, electron- ics). Also, we have had a sharp rebound in undergraduate enrollments, though it is unclear how much of this has been translated into effec- tive demand for more teachers, as the faculty/sbudent ratio has been allowed to deal me sharply (Coyle' 1986~. Altogether, the demand for engineers with graduate degrees is strong. Salaries reported by new engineering doctorates have increased significantly in real terms since 1979 an] have increased faster than the average of salaries in science fields. The science fields that look most like engineering in this re- spect are '~ath/computer science" and physics, and they too have large and growing foreign enrollments. One explanation for the inability to attract more U.S. citizens to engineering graduate school is the strong market for bafr=naureate engi- needs. No doubt, this is part of the explanation, though I see little or no Crease in the salaries of B.S. eng Peers relative to those of Ph.D. engineers. I think we may not have paid enough attention to other possible ex- planations. One of those we might consider is federal policy on grad- uate student support. The number of y~-~duate students supported on federal fellowships and traineeships peaked dur mg the late 1960s and 93

TABLE D-1: E~llJI=ne Er~meerir~g Graduate Students in Doctorate- Granting Institutions, by Federal Support StatLus, 1979 arm 1985 Status' 1979 1985 Total, full-time students Total federally sugary studer~ts Federally funded fellowships Federally funded trameedhips Federally funded regears assistantships Our federally shorty students 39, 344 10, 757 659 500 8, 002 1, 596 55, 997 11, 226 777 237 8, 391 1, 821 Federally supports as Exan~ntage of total 27.3 20.0 SOURCE: Ur~bli~hed data from the National Science Faurx~ation, Survey of Gra~te Science and Eng~n~ring Students and Postdoctorates. declined sharply thereafter. There was a definite Shift ~ federal polity away freon fellowships to individual students, with the ~ ta- tion that increasing numbers would be supported as research assistants on projects supported by the federal government. I suggest that one unintended consequence of this shift away from fellowship support is increased federal support for foreign nationals. the federal fellowship programs are restricted to U.S. citizens. . . . . . ~. . . With few exceptions In contrast, research asslstantanlps are awarded By unlversltles, and there seems to be little or no discrimination on the basis of citizen- ship. Universities can defend the practice of awarding federally sup- porte] research assistantships to foreign nationals. It is not my arm here to argue that they should discriminate on the basis of national- ity. However, it is clear that the federal government would have more ~ fluence if it were supporting more graduate students through fellow- ships, which have more citizenship restrictions, rather than through R&D funding to universities, which generally does not have citizenship restrictions. This shift in federal policy may be part of the explanation of 1n- creasing foreign dominance of doctoral programs, but it is important to recognize that federal influence in this regard would be limited today even if federal fellowships wed to grow rapidly from the ~ present level. Federal fellowship support to eng veering in 1985 supported fewer than 2 percent of the full-time graduate students in doctor- ate-granting 1nstibutions. Tbt~1 federal support of all kinds supports only 20 percent of these students (Table - 1~. The proportion of engi- neermg graduate students with federal support has fallen since 1979 be- cause student enrollments grew faster than the number of students with federal support. . . . . . 94

TABLE D-2: Foreign Nationals as a Percentage of All Ph.D. New Entrants to the U.S. Labor For He, 1980-81 Field Percent Engineering and computer science Civil engineering Chemical eng peering Electrical engineering Mechanical engineering Aeronautical /industrial engineering Computer engineering/ccmpuber science All other engineering . . Llfe sciences Social sciences (including psychology) Physical scienoe/mathematics 36.1 38.7 45.9 36.6 44.5 32.5 23.5 34.4 7.5 5.5 14.9 NOTE: Include" only doctorate recipients from U.S. universities dur mg 1980-81. Sax ~ E: Michael G. Few, Foreign National Scientists and Eaglets an tI2e U.S. I-or Foroe, 1972-1985, (0PWJ-244), Oak Ridge, Ten.: Oak Oblige Associated Universities, June 1985. HAS IMMIGRATION keen CONCENTRATED IN "SHORTAGE" AREAS? The evidence seems clear for recent gravies with U.S. dock~r- ates. We ~t son ~ agree on an Operational definition of dhort- age. However, the fields in which Sprayers most fr~ent1 y report Shortages to National Science F ~ ation (NSF) surveys tend to cor- relate quite well with the fields with high inflows of foreign nation- als Oboe Table D-2~. In particular, the social sciences and most of the life sciences are fields where employers seldom report shortages, where salaries are relatively Can, and where ff,e foreign nationals make up a relatively small proportion of the near entrants into our work force each y-;.r, when ~r" with engineering. The exceptions to these generalizations are a ~ st all exceptions that procure the genera] point; for example, economics is unlike the cipher social sciences in that it has higher salaries and more foreign students. Within engineering, however, it is not so clear that immigration has been concentrated ~ areas of relative shortage. In nearly every field of engineering examined, foreign nationals make up between one- third to one-half of the people entering the U.S. work force with new 95

Ph.D.s.i Where a field lies within that range does not seem to be re- lated to relative degree shortage. If we look at the data for all scientists and engineers at all de- gree levels, there is only weak evidence of a correlation between short- ages reported by employers and percentage of foreign nationals in the work force (Finn, 1985, p. 3~. A labor certification requirement (that the U.S. Department of T~- bor certify that an employer has made a good-faith effort to hire a U.S. citizen) applies to many foreign students who wish to stay in the U.S. to work I:::, 1984~. However, during the early 1980s, the labor certification process showed only a weak correlation between reports of employer Shortage and number of labor certifications by field of sci- ence or engineering. When the number of employers reporting shortages fell sharply after 1981, the number of labor certifications fell too, but not as sharply. And the number fell entirely because of a fall-off in the number of applications -~he turndown rate for individuals stayed below 5 percent in 1982 and 1983. me number of labor certifications seems to contain an element that is nck very sensitive to changing la- bor market conditions. m is government mechanism to restrict immi- gration in "nonshortage" areas seems to have some effect. However, the effect seems to come about because the certification process imposes a significant price on any employer who wants to hire an alien requiring certification. The price is presently in the form of paperwork and de- lays and is something many employers avoid if they can by hiring some- one who is already a permanent resident or U.S. citizen. ESTIMATES OF IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION We have good estimates of the immigration of foreign eng beers ~n- to the United States. Statistics from the Immigration and Naturaliza- tion Service (INS) indicate immigration of about 7,200 eng beers an- nually from 1982 to 1985 (NSF, 1986~. My own research suggests that an estimate of nearly 10,000 foreign national engineers entered the U.S. work force in 1981, though some were working on temporary visas and therefore waNld not be counted as immigrants by the INS or the U.S. De- partment of Labor (Finn, 1985~. However, we have virtually no data on emigration of scientists and engineers from the U.S. work force. This is needed before we can really assess the role of foreign nationals in The U.S. work force. Anecdotal reports indicate that some foreign nationals who work in the United States for large U.S.-headquartered, multinational firms will be transferred to foreign sit-= within the same multinational firm. Firms ~ ght, for example, be starting a new laboratory outside The United States and wish to provide training and experience at a simi- lar U.S. facility beforehand. The recent strong growth of Korea in man- ufacturing has been acac=pa med by the return of Korean natives who had 1 This assertion is based on 1982 data (see Finn, 1985) and on an ex- amlnation of trends in degree awards since 1982. 96

worked as engineers in the United States prior to their return. We could compile many bits and pieces of this movement from such aneodakal reports, but this is only enough to suggest that the flow is not triv- ia1. We cannot get a good measuremcot this way. ~ am conducting some ra search in an attempt to estimate the emi- g~-ation of foreign-born scientists and engineers frown the U.S. work force curing the period 1981-1986. While efforts are not complete, I can present sane resets for Storage engineers from 1981 to 1985. IJs- ing the response rate to the 1981 Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SLR) as a point of departure, I chair Special taxations of 1981 re- pponse rates for those with er~neerir~ doctorates. I hen ermines the 1983 and 1985 response ~= for all of the 1981 respondents, cal- culating response rates separately for those born ~ the United States, those born abroad but who were U.S. citizens in 1981, foreign nationals on permanent visas in 1981, and foreign nationals with temporary visas in 1981. I hypothesize that emigration would be greater for the for- eign-born and, within this group, that emigration would be greatest for those here on temporary visas in 1981. Emigration does not always re- suit in nonresponse to the SDR, so I also recor de] responses f~-=u abroad and treated an increase in foreign responses the same as an in- crease in nonresponse. The estimate= in Table D-3 are based on two important assumpkions: (1) there is no net emigration by native-born, U.S.-citizen engineering doctorate== frame 1981 to 1985, and t2) all of the change in nonresponse for others relative to the native-born reference group is the result of emigration. While perhaps not perfectly accurate, I find these to be reasonable assumptions. I am not assuming no difference in response rate behavior for for~ign-born individuals living is the United States. That can show up in cur 1981 base-y~ar calculation. I am simply assum- ing that the 1981 to 1985 increase in the nonres~on~e for foreion born relative to U. S . natives indicate.= emigration of foreign-born. Given that the foreign-bon] typically have more ~ rtunities for em ]AELE D-3: Fcur-Year Emigration Rate Estimates from Nonresponse to the 1981 and 1985 Surveys of Doctorate Recipients Status Percentage - Naturalized U.S. citizen Non-U.S. citizens in 1981 Permanent visas T~rary Visas 1.3 13.8 45.0 SOURCE: calculated by author from special tabulations Fran the Na- tional Research Ccuncil's 1981 and 1985 Surveys of Doctorate Recipi- erlts. 97

HE ~4: Estimated Emigration Versus Estimated immigration of Doc- torate Er~neers, 1981-1985 Classification Ndrri~er Emigration losses t~mnigzation gainsl' No U.S. degree U. S . degree Teal immigration 700 800 3,900 4,700 NOTE: Denigration here ~nclucies armhole entering the U.S. work force, eared those who are workir~ ~n the Uruted States on te~r~orary vim s. Immigration gains are obta Wed by estimating a 1-ye~r rate and mLlti- plying this by four. This leads to some overestimation of net immigra- tion dur mg the 4-year period because, due to migration, the 4-year immigration rate can be expecters to be lower than four times the 1-y~=r rate. _ 4-Y-~r DerlOd because. due to "migration. the ployment abroad and also have mace family ties, this seems like a rea- sonable interpretation. In defense of the reasonableness of this in smr- _ Oral respects. One, shown in Table D-3, is that Our estimates show emigration rat=-= increasing with citizenship status in 1981 in the expected fashion--that is, higher emigration -=timat-= for non-U.S. citizens than for citizens and, among the nor~citizens, ash higher emigration rates for those to were on temporary visits ~ 1981. Also, I e3eLnined estimated nonr~ponse rates by region of birth and obtains hat 1 believe are not surprising rats: the highest rate of nonr~ponse in 1985 was for those engineer'; ho were born In .F at Asia. Doctorate er~gireer~; born in this region are relatively Yam and have ties to a rapidly ir~ustrializ~ng region, so it seer E; reasonable to interpret their nonr~ponse as signaling emigration. contrast, by country of origin, the highest r ~ nse rate in 1985 was for those born In Western Europe or Canada. mess eng Beer Meg doctor- ates tend to be relatively older compared with other immigrant engi- neers, have probably been in the United States for a longer ~ lad of time, and thus Bight be expected to have a lower emigration rate. Another way to examine the plausibility of the emigration rate estimates shown in Table D-3 is to use them to estimate total emigra- tion during the period. Such estimates are shown in Table D-4, which suggests that emigration of foreign-born doctoral=.= from the U.S. work terpretation, I note that the data behave ~ m~qht be expected in ~ ~, _ _ ~ _ _ · . . . . . ~ . 2 I excluded Ph.D.s over 58 years of age in 1981 altogether because emigration associated with retirement from the labor force is not our primary interest. 98

force is significant ~ relation to the Amber err - Firm the U.S. work force . Over a 4-year period, I est:im2~te ~t nit gration ~ osses amounted to aback 15 pant of ~ rammer ~ end the U.S. work fame. To me this is plausible, as ~ "imnigration" estimate-= mclude not only legal immigrants but also persons who eater the work force while still on Mary visas. This estimate can be oon~cras~ with estimates bat gal mnigration is about one-third of all immigration (Warren arm Scaly, 1985~. A ~ of issues are worth considerir~, ass~nir~, as I do, ~t these ~ are reasor~ably accurate. First, we new to verify these preliminary estimates; arm if confirmed, this means that the Detonate P~rds File, bash ~ the arsenal Survey of Earned Doctorates and ma=- tained by ~e National Prearm derail (NECK, needs to be Edified. At print, the NRC and the NSF are, I believe, admire that people I call "emigrants" are ~ r ~ rounds. me con ~ of this is that they overestimate the number of engineering doctorates in the U ~ ted States, especially the number of foreign-born engineering doctorates. Second, I believe that, if confirmed, an outflow of foreign-born engineers of this magnitude strengthens the argument for a public policy to encourage greater enrollments of U.S. citizens ~ Graduate schools of engineering. EaRNINGS OF FOREIGN ENGINEERS RADIATIVE TO TH06E OF U.S. CITIZENS I think the evidence ~ c1e~r that foreign engineers do not work for I-s.c than comparable engineers who are U.S. citizens. I have ex- amined this question with two completely different data sets. One was a large representative sample of experienced workers interviewed by the Bureau of the Census for the NSF. In that study I examined The earn- ir~; of over 13,000 engineers and controlled for years of work experi- ence, tape of Per, degree field, degree level, and several ether relevant factors. ~ fauna no support at all for the notion that for- eign nationals working In the Unity States withal any degrees freon U.S. universities might earn less; but this is a small group, and ever if we act this weak evil (n~ significant at the 0.05 level), it point ~ an earnings differential for this strop of only 3 per- cent. I An willing to assume that a small differential such as this might be due Deco such factors as Garage ability or school quality, for which we were not able to control (Finn, 1985~. I also analyzed recent science and ~neerir~ gates to earned B. S . or M. S . dart; fact U. S . universities during 1982 art 1983. The results are ur~ublished but support fully ~ conclusions Fran analyzing NSF ' s eerier sample. I knew that there are scare engineers; who are cor~v~nced that for- eign engineers; do work for less arm do depress earl ~ s for those native-born U.S. citizens. The main evidence I have seen offered to prove their point is employment advertisements that offer low wages. I reject these because ~ know that there is quite a bit of variance In earnings at every experience level. It is not surprising that we should see ads for jobs that pay 30 or 40 percent less than the median wage. 99

These jobs are at the low end of the pay scale, experience a lot of turnover, and consequently are advertised relatively frequently. ~ ve seen no better evidence offered to support the contention that foreign engineers work for less. ~ do, however, concur that foreign eng meers probably depress earn mgs below what they would be in their absence. Based on existing empirical research of the eng meeting labor market, I think the follow- ing is hard to disagree with: if foreign engineers had not been al- lowed to enter the U.S. labor market over the past deride, we WaN1d have seen an increase in engineering salaries above current levels. The increase in salaries would have been greatest for Ph.D.s and would have resulted in an increase in Ph.D. enrollments. However, the in- cr~ed enrollments Amid not have been enough to offset completely the loss of the foreign workers, with the result that salaries WaNId remain higher than they are now. While I can understand why some would prefer higher salaries for engineers, I think it is worth pointing Out that engineering salaries are higher than salaries ~ nearly all other occupations. Earthen, the Meal iT~nigration of England; is only a Oman fraction of topical legal ilmnigration arc, prom ably, an even smaller fraction of total imnigra- tion, legal and illegal. Engineers account for 1-2 percent of the U.S. work force with the precise parentage ~ that range Pepping on whether we use statistics freon NSF or the ~ au of Labor Statistics (RTS) on the number of engineers. Engineers account for 1-2 percent of legal immigration as well, and that might fall if we could get a good estimate of illegal immigration. If we restricted entry of engineers without restricting toted immigration, we would probably reduce the overall quality of our work force and depress wages in some of the occupations that already offer substantially less than engineering. Tn short, I do not think it is relevant to oonsid~' a scenario where the only thing different is that we have fewer engineering immigrants and higher engineering wages. Restricting immigration generally to lower levels is an issue beyond the scope of this paper. However, I waNld note that a strong argument has been made that such restrictions would not necessarily raise U.S. wages or wed raise wages by a very small amount (Borjas and Tierxia, 1987; Johnson arx] Our, 1981~. DO FOREIGN ENGINEER; DISPIACE U.S. NERVES GAG SCHOOIS? Remarkably little rearm has been clirect~l to this issue, but I think that the evidence suggests a dipplacenent effect. The more interesting questions are: How great is the displacement effect? and So what? I say this because the evidence from the labor market studies support the visor that (1) other things equal, salaries wed be higher with fewer Graduating erlgin~rs, and (2) engineering enrollments are responsive to the economic incentive of higher salaries (Amman and Elreneman, 1974; and Shamia, 1984~. We really do not have the res ~ h that we need to estimate the displacement effect. The model that comes closest to what we would 100

rem is in Sh~nia ' s 1984 Ah. D. disserbation, With builds on earlier work by Hansen, et al. (1980), F~nan and Bean (1974), and Scott (1979~. ~nia's heel has fair e~ations~cr~e each for the ember of enrollments, enter of graduates, ~1 any, are total ~lc~t. For the question at hare, two parameters frmn Shamia's Mel are especially relevant: the elasticity of engineering enrollments with respect to salaries arm ache elasticity of salaries with resect to enrollments 5 years earlier. Using his estimates of these parmneter~ roar the period 1959-1980, we can dam an estimate of the effect of ~ncreasir~ for- eign enrollments on salaries and thus on Mastic enrollments. Ass~n- ing that 60 pen3ent of the foreign er~g~n~rir~ ph. D. s stay in the United States to work, a 1. 0 pement increase in enrollment tar re- cruitir~g foreigners can be et to cause a 0.2 pent drop in sal- aries arkl this, In turn, would cause a decline In U.S. citizen enroll- ~r~ts of 0.16. This is the ~rt-run impact. With several years to adjust, Sh ~ ia's ~ del pa ~ ces estimates of enroll ~ nt elasticity of 1.28 (instead of 0.81 in the short run), and this can be used to pro- duce an estimate of a longer-run displacement effect of 0.26. Thus, increasing foreign enrollments by 100 increases total enrollments by only 84 (74 in the longer run). If one wants to increase total enroll- ments by 100 though, foreign enrollments could be increased by 119 (135 in the longer run). Let me be the first to criticize the estimate just provided. Shamia's estimates of enrollment elasticities were calculated for total enrollments, not U.S.-citizen enrollments. He did not design the model to address this question. It is plausible that the effect for U.S. citizens' respond e to canary changes is greater, since the token effect reflects some averag mg of the response to salary changes ~ the U.S. market by foreign and U.S.-citizen students. If this is so, we WaN]d expect the displacement effect to be somewhat larger than estimated here. Perhaps more important, I would argue that Shamia's results may net be robust. Would we get the same results with a different time period, with a slightly different eden specification, with Salary data other than the salary offer data reported by the College Placement Council? We do not know. We do know, however, that his parameter estimates are not out of line with other estimates of the market for Ph.D.s. If there is a more appropriate model of the engineering Ph.D. labor market, I am not aware of it. Suppose we accept that There is a displacement effect. Let us, for the purpose of discussion, even say it is around 0.25--that if foreign enrollments go up by 100, then U.S. enrollments will fall by 25. So what? What difference does it make? Would it affect cur view of the desirability of foreign engineers in the U.S. labor market? 3 Enrollment elasticities measure the percentage change in enroll- ments in response to a 1 percent change in salaries. Shamia (1984) estimated enrollment elasticities of 0.81 (short term) and 1.28 (longer term). This is somewhat lower than the 2.0 that Freeman and Breneman (1974) assert to have been the case In the physical sciences, but close to what Scott (1979) found for Ph.D. economists (0.89). 101

I think there is a need for more engineers in the United States. ~ think we should encourage more young people to go into science and engineering. If we are su~-=c~ful, employers will be hiring fewer for- eign engineers. We should do this because our young people want the kinds of jobs engineers get, but many who want those jobs are not pre- paring themselves properly and cannot get in or cannot stay in engi- neering school. We would have a difficult choice if estimates of displacement were so high that the admission of foreign engineering students could be expected to reduce the size of our total engineering work force in sub- sequent years. Consider the arithmetic for Ph.D. engineers. Suppose that admission of 100 foreign students does displace 25 U.S. students on the marg m. Suppose that 62 percent of the foreign nationals who get doctorates stay here to work, then (assuming U.S. natives all work here) our work force would have a net gain of 62 - 25 = 37. What about emigration? If some of the foreign nationals emigrate, waNld that re- duce the net gains to the United States from admitting foreign sbu- dents? Yes, but to the extent that they emigrate, the displacement effect is smaller (they are not here having a depressing effect on salaries). I have exam med different stay rates and emigration rates applied to those who do stay, and I cannot find any comb mation where the total Ph.D. eng Leering work force is smaller because of foreign students. Unless we come up with some estimates of displacement ef- fects that are very different Frau those produced using Shamia's dis- sertation, I can imagine only one scenario where foreign enrollments reduce total supply: we could get a temporary decrease in supply if the stay rate for foreigners deal Wed sharply. It ~ ght take several years DeLore the graduate S=OOlS could recruit and graduate more U.S. students, and in the meantime total Ph.D. supply waNld probably~be less than it would have been if a smaller number of foreign students had been admitted In the first place. NET BENEFITS OF FOREIGH ENGINEERS m e emigration of foreign-born eng Leers may be a problem for the U ~ ted States if these engineers transfer technology to our military or commercial adversaries. m e displacement of U.S.-native eng ~ earing students is a pro bled too. - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . _ · . · _ . . . . . But both of these can be exaggerated. The cost Or- technology transfer Is ~lft-lCUlt to measure, and the steps that are sometimes used to reduce the flow have, it has been argued, often been more costly to us than the problem that they are Intended to cure. It is not even clear what we might accomplish in this Pearl if the never of foreign graduate scents In engan~ring were limited to same arbitrary but positive percentage of the total spent boy. Would technology transfer be reduced if the number of foreign studer~ts were cut In half? I doubt it. On the other hand, there are some very real benefits to the U.S. economy frail the foreign engineers who do stay here. Scholars who have looked at the total immigration picture are nak in complete agreement but tend to conclude that immigration on balance benefits the U.S. economy (Johnson and Orr, 1981). These conclusions are generally based 102

on benefits other than productivity ~ became denigration tams to increase pr~cti~rity only if the average in~nigrant is more highly skilled than the average worker ~ ache U.S. labor force. aortas' St\] 9; es indicate that, at 1~t in rant year';, ~mniy~"tion on tile Isle appears not to be i = ing the average skill level of the labor force because so many immigrants are law~killed (Boreal and Tiered, 1987). Ibe Denigration of engineers arm scientists is an important element of immigration, terming to offset the rawer productivity of law~skilled i~mnigran~cs. To see the benefit of foreign veneers, con- sid~rwhat weld happen if the entry of foreign engineers were res;tric- ted. Me tot immigration qua would almost certainly be filled, but the average skill level of immigrants would decline. TO the extent that immigrants do depress wages, this would probably still happen; but it would happen more in other (already law~paid) cations. me U. S . ecorx~r would at Hairily Joe worse off . On a final note, let me add to the evider~ce indicatir~ that foreign-bon scientists arm engineers are enriching the quality of our work forge. Ierner and Roy (1984) demented that foreign-born er~i- nears and scientists are overrepresen~ced amoral the ~ hips of the National Academy of Eng Beer mg and the National Academy of Sciences and also among U.S. w ~ of the Nobel prize. I believe that cur science and engineering immigrants are also contributing to the quality of Our w ark force through the achievements of Their children. ~ ~n- qulred of the West mgho use Science Search Organization and found that nearly one-third (3 3) of the 40 high school seniors that it honored this year were the children of immigrants, mostly Asian Africans. I did not get data ~ their parents' orations, but it seems a safe bet that ~st of their parents are among ache small minority of immigrants who were themselves trained as scientists and engineers. KE=REN=. ~ Bo~as, George, and Maya Tiara. 1987. The Eaonamic Consciences of ~nrnigration. Science 235:645-651. Coyly Susan. 1986. Mary Report 1985: Doctorate Recipients freon United states Universities. Wa~hi~ton, D. C.: National Academy Press. Ellis, Richard. 1985 . Er~ineering and Engin~'ir~ Theology Enrull- Mets, Fall 1985. Engineering Education (fir 1986) :57-66. Finn, Michael G. 1985. Foreign National Scientists and Engineers ~ the U.S. labor Force, 1972-1985 (ORPIJ-244~. Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge Associate Universities. Finn, Michael G., arxt Joel Barries. 1985. labor ~rtifi~tion and the Distribution of limnigrar~t Scientists arm Engineers: A Preliminary Analysis. Paper presented at the Retires of the Eastern Econamics Association, Pittsburgh, Pa., Marsh 21 23, 1985. Freeman, Richard B., and David W. Breneman. 1974. Forecasting the Ph.D. Labor Market: Pitfalls for Policy (Technical Report No. 2~. Washington, D.C.: National Board on Graduate Education. Hansen, W. Lee, et al. 1980. Forecasting the market for new Ph.D. econc mists. American Economic Review 70:49-640 103

Institute of Elecbric~l and Electronics Engineers (a:::). 1984. For- eign Engineers in the Whited States: Immigration or Importation? New York: The Institute. Johnson, Kyle, an] James Orr. 1981. The economic implications of immigration: labor shortages, income distribution, productivity, and economic growth. In U.S. Immigration Policy and the National Interest, Appendix D: Papers on Legal Immigration to the United States. Wa~hi~n, D. C.: Select Mission on ~inrnig~dtion and Refugee Policy. Ironer, Joshua, arx! Rusted Pay. 1984. Namers, origins, economic value, and quality of technically framed Immigrants into the United States. Scientametrics 6 (4) :243-259. National Science Formation (NSF). 1983. Science and Ringing Doc- torates: 1960-1981 (NSF 83-309). Wa~ir~ton, D.C.: U.S. G=rern- ment Pr~ntir~ Office. NSF. 1986. Immigrant Scientists arx] Engineers: 1985. Washi ~ bon, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Scott, Charles E. 1979. The market for Ph.D. economists: me academic sector. The American Economic Review 69(M~y 1979):137-142. Shamia, Ab~alla Imbemed. 1984. Forecasting the Ph.D. Labor Market: Ecometric Analysis. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington. Warren, Robert, and Ellen Percy Xraly. 1985. me Elusive Exodus: Emi- gration from the United States. Washington, D.C.: Population Ref- erence Bureau. 104

FOREIGN ENGINEERS IN U.S. INDUSTRY: AN EXPLORATORY ASSESSMENTS Peter Cannon Purcell International Corporation INTRO W COLON The following, an exploratory paper that attempts to identify and validate issues related to the presence of foreign engineers in U.S. industry, is largely based on surveys of and discussions with tqp- level managers in the industrial research and development (R&D) oom- muni=. Inasmuch as recent Eta freon the Nations Science Foundation (NSF) dhc~w that the predominant work activities of foreign engineers wee In R&D~ssing acme 36 percent of all foreign engineers--the sample of views surveyed is thought to be representative of the preva- lent view; within those Repents of U.S. industry that most frequently confront issues related to foreign engineers. py cc~r~arison, 24 per- cent of U.S. citizen eng beers are engaged in R&D activities. NSF quantitative data recording the participation of foreign engi- neers in the U.S. labor market was extensively used as a secondary source for the bacX3rcund of this study. tative in nature inasmuch as it aims to get a handle on such nonquanti- fiable issues as the advantages and disadvantages of employing foreign engineers, the role of the immigrant engineer in U.S. industry, and the effect of language and cultural differences on the interactions of for- eign engineers with their American peers. Thus, except when the data clearly reflect the validity of an issue--as in the case of the "dependency" of U.S. industry upon foreign talent--it is of secondary interest to this study. Several other issues raised by survey respondents and in conver- sations were checked against relevant secondary data. m e existence of barriers to the hiring of foreign engineers is raised as an issue, and such barriers are extensively described Ln the study. The chances for growth in the number of foreign scientists maying into upper management is an issue that arose not only in conversation with members of the R&D ccmmuni~y, but also from the sheer demographics of a situation in which there is a decreasing number of native-born Americans--in absolute and proportional terms--entering the scientific and technical disciplines while an increasing number of foreign engineers are choosing to work In The stud v~ however. is ouali * m e views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Rockwell International Corporation. 105

Ethnic fields In me Undo States either Honorarily or pema- n£~ntly. In no instead was purely Natal esrid~e relied on ~ the ~at~nent of a topic. me field is ripe for fury relearn of both a descriptive and camps rm~ In -all the issue areas raised by this paper. whether such Arm ~d prove useful is an issue In i~f that this study raises. For purposes of this paper (except where noted ctherwise), "for- eign national" refers to all persons nck citizens of, nationals of, or immigrant aliens to the Unite] States. An "immigrant alien" is any person who is lawfully adm;~d into the U mope Stat== under an ~mmi- gration visa for permanent residence. An "immigrant" is any person who was not born in but has become a citizen of the United States. SUM ~TIONN~E A written survey questionnaire (son Appendix I) was developed af- t~r discussion with appropriate professions s in personnel and R&D man- agement and distributed to 20 members of the Industrial Research Insti- tute (IRI) to had previously expressed an ~ merest in public polity issues. me q~estionrnire was designed to identify issues related to the preserx~e of foreign engineers In U.S. irx~stry and to establish the Deters of concern ~ respect to each issue. Mare specifically, the questionrmire attempted to Establish the dependerl~y (if any) of U.S. industry on foreign er~ineers; Determine the preparation, skill, and professionalism of the foreign engineer In comparison to his/her American counterpart; · Identify an] describe barriers to the hiring of foreign engi- neers; 0 Determine the prospects for growth of the foreign engineer into upper-level management and the role (if any) that cultural and language differences play in the conduct of business and the calculus of growth; Determine the level of interest in the subject of foreign engi- neers in U.S. industry itself and the extent to which it is thought to warrant further study; and Identify any other concerns of the respondents not raised in the questionnaire. THE ISSUE OF INDUSTRIAL DEPENDENCY UPON FOREIGN ENGINEERS Given the limiters time and resources for preparation of this pa- per, the question of just what constitutes "dependency" could not be determined through quantitative measures, though same valid inferences can be drawn from existing data. According to NSF reports (the most recent data available)' only 3.5 percent of all engineers employed in the United States in 1982 and 106

All Engineers Chemical Materials Electrical Civil Mechanical Nuclear Industrial Aeronautical Other it_ 3.3 8: ~/~ - ~D~ by_ 2.7 ~2.6 by_ ~_, 2.6 5.2 4.9 3.7 3.2 3.1 2~ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 NaIE: Includes all individuals reporting eight in 1982. SOURCE: National Science F~tion, U.S. Scientists and Engineers: 1984, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Ga~ren~nt :Etr~ntir~g Office, 1985. Gt~ ~2 labor force. Abortion of 1984 were foreign nationals foreign engineers in the U.S. eng Leering (including both those with temporary visas and those with permanent visas). This proportion varied form a high of about 5.2 percent in chemical engine aring to a low of about 2.7 percent ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ However a-use 1~ ~k=~lu of ~ I 1 employer engineers were IlaCNrallEe~ citizens with the proportions varying from a low of about 9 percent for petro- leum engineers to a high of 17 percent for civil engineers (Figure D-3). Thus, at a m mlmum, 18.5 percent or nearly one in five of the engineers employed in the United States in 1982 were either foreign In 1n~Nstrlal and aeronautical engineering (Figure D-2). ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ '6 ~ 6 . _ a 107

All Engineers Aeronautical Chemical civil Industrial Materials Mechanical o 5 10 Percent _ ~ Foreign O Naturalized NOTE: Includes only individuals reporting employment In engineering occupations in 1982. SOURCE: Special tabulations of Oak Ridge Associated Universities, based on the National Science Foun~ation's 1982 Postcensal Survey. FIGURE D-3 Employed eng beers, by field and citizenship status, 1982. nationals holding temporary or permanent visas or naturalized citi- zens. Of this 18.5 percent, the greatest concentration, ~ absolute terms, was in industry which in 1982 employed 80 percent of all foreign engineers (Figure D-4. Current data do not exist to confirm the claim, but there are valid reasons to believe that the porn entage of foreign engineers in the population of all engineers in the United States is greater than 18.5 percent. This is because the number Obtained in 1982 has been shown to be part of a rising trend. Michael Finn, a senior economist at Oak Ridge Associated U Diversities, compared data from NSF's 1982 Postcensal Survey with a similar one conducted in 1972 to She how immi- gration has changed over time (Finn, 1986~. Finn found that The per- centage of immigrant eng beers increased some 9.1 percent over the decade, from 9.4 percent in 1972 to the 18.5 percent level of 1982. These trends are likely to continue. When the educational trend lines in engineering are considered! it is found that, inter alia, (a) demand for scientific and engineering personnel in academia and industry is rising, (b) the college-age population is shrinking and fewer Americans are pursuing engineering studies after the undergraduate years, and (c) more than half of all new engineering Ph.D.s entering the work force are foreign nationals. Can we infer "dependency" from such 108

Chemical ~ Aeronautical Electrical Mechanical Nuclear Industial 0 20 40 60 Percent 80 1 00 |~ Busi/lndust Al Education Government ED Other NOTE: Includes only individuals reporting employment in engineering occupations in 1982. SOURCE: Special tabulations of Oak Ridge Associated Universities, based on the National Science FounJation's 1982 Postcensal Survey. FIGURE D-4 Distribution of foreign eng meets, by sector of employment, 1982. trends? Would the United States suffer if it lost nearly one-fifth of its engineering work force? Can it remain competitive with only half as many engineering Ph.D.s? At the very least, such numbers indicate that foreign talent c~m- prise!s a significant and growing segment of the engineering work force in U.S. industry. The R&D executives who responded to cur survey went further, as the majority concluded from experience that their particu- lar industries are, in fact, dependent upon foreign talent and that such dependency is growing. It should be not-8 that the respondents from industries that engage in defense-related work also asserted that dependency exists, but In their case the definition of "foreign talent" 109

entailed only naturalized citizens, owing to the existence of legal arm regulatory barriers. me survey revealed that foreign engineers arm scier~tists are being heavily relied on In areas of high scientific con- cer~trntion. In several responses, foreign tail ergs was said to be a "critica1" element of the firm's operations. Almost every respondent said that such dependency is increasing. Only two people said that their bus mess was ''slightly" or not dependent upon foreign ten ent. Asked ~ f they business scold "thrive" or "progress" without foreign eng~n~rs ~ most respondents said that they Iced continue but Ward have ~ curtail certain areas of work or staff them with Icwer - Wry or less Optimally degreed people (e.g., Onanist as ~ to biochem- ist). Other resporxients noted that foreign engineers are ~ king s~g- n~ficant contributions to the technical quality of American industry. It appears that the words tIthrivel' and ltprogresst' were probably too leading an4/or amorphous to elicit further explication on what is me ant by "dependency." THE FOREIGN ENGINEER IN COMPARISON TO TO NAIVE SCAN ENG1N=R When asked to compare foreign engineers to American engineers ~ terms of preparation, skill, an] professionalism, the uniformity of responses that was elicited by the dependency question did not arise. No respondent said that foreign engineers were much better or much worse than Americans in the above terms. "Equal to" or "on average, beater than" Americans were typical responses. Some respondents--seem- ingly anticipating the next question--mentioned comparatively poor oom- munication skills as a big drawback of foreign engineers. one Language Factor Almost every survey respondent believed that language differences present difficulties in the operation of there business. Respondents from consumer-oriented businesses said that communication difficulties arising from language differences were real problems. In a later ques- tion concerned with the prospects for growth of the foreign engineer into upper management, language difficulties were repeatedly mentioned as factors. Barriers to the Hiring of Foreign Engineers A general policy at the companies of the survey respondents seems to be not to hire engineers who do not have "green cards" or permanent visas. The paperwork and litigation necessary to clear those without such papers were mentioned as too time-cons~n~ and expensive. Re- spondents mentioned security considerations and goverr~n~-i~posed relations as the principal barriers to the hiring of foreign engi- neers. Included belay is a brief description of those rE - ations. As 110

noted earlier' there is a marked difference between defense-oriented industries and commercial industries with regard to the definition of a foreign engineer. For the past 5 years, defense-oriented industries have had to wade through a host of complex procures and legal thick- ets just ~ speak with a foreign national; consideration of hirers an immigrant with a Mary or eared a Fer~t visa has been a~st as difficult for both defense and c~rcial industries. As far as for- eign nationals are concerned, the Denigration and Nationality AM prom vices Cat a foreign national (aireac3y In the United States) van seeks i~mnigrant stabs for the purpose of E - Cement is ineligible to receive such a visa and is then excluded fen admission into the Unit States at this the. Relevant ga~rertm ent radiations are ~m~. ting defense-related work are ampere] by In ~ rnatianal Traffic and Arms Regulations (II~R) premu1gated by the U.S. Department of State. FIR limits ~ litary exports including material products and even informa- tion itself (State, 1987b). Further, Department of Defense regulations (a) prevent the disclosure of unpublished technical information to a foreign national, (b) prevent two-way technical interchanges, (c) Ln- sist that a foreign national be escorted at- all tines when in a defense-relat~ industry, and (d) prevent a foreign national free being pn~ for a security cleararx~e (Deferlse, 1986). Only in rare cir- ckmstaixes can defense companies Obtain c1earar~e for an immigrant alien at Me secret or confidential 1esrel: the U. S . gc~v~rent must tennine that such a c1ear~e is in the national interest, and the Many oust then Obtain a perform clearance letter frill the Defense Industrial C1earanae Office. Litanies cor~c Finally, there is also a required prcce- dure to be followed In requesting a foreign student for practical training in U.S. industry. Companies not engaged in defense-related work are subject to a host of Export Administration Regulations (EAR) overseen by the Department of Commerce. EAR limits the export of ''non-military items and information" (State, 1987a) using very broad definitions that have been the subject of much recent controversy an] of a National Academy of Science sponsored study (Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, 1987~. The p ~ ties for companies violating such regulations are severe, including the loss of security facility cle~ranocs and an end to pay- ment on current contracts, as well as a $100,000 f me and 10 years' imprisonment for individuals who engage in the violations. Aside from U.S. government rules, industry often must deal with various state regulations regarding the employment of foreigners. For example, in California, employers must coordinate their plans with the State Employment Development Department prior to contacting any foreign national. For obvious reasons, many companies simply do not hire foreigners until they are well on their way to becoming American citizens. Discussions Here it is appropriate to introduce the observations that arc se in the course of the author's discussions with engineers and RED personnel 111

from industry and universities, for the observations bear directly on the issues addressed above. The discussions were unstructured and con- tained no direct questions as, in the survey questionnaire. Perhaps the most ~nter'3stir~ Ovation He author brought away for m these discus- sions was the relative nonluterest in the "issue" of foreign talent in U. S. industry. ~, As will be sew later in this paper, this Ovation correlate= with the responses to two of the final three survey ques- Lions. The conversations revealed that companies that operate worldwide, even those that are principally U.S.-owned and U.S.-~amiciled, tend to employ indigenous nationals in their gln~1 produot-marhets. The uni- verse of such firms tends to be led by those domiciled in the trading and mercantile nations, like the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Switzer- land, and Japan, rather than in the United States. Examination of the Fortune 500, roughly equating to a scale of $7 billion and up, reveals no company that has exclusively domestic markets (Anonymous, 1987a). While several such firms are not transparently multinational (e.g., several are defense contractors), over half are known to conduct operations outside the United States, and several, according to the Industrial Research Institute (IRI) handbook, operate R&D facilities outside the Uniter States also (IRI, 1985). For both multinationals and very large domestic corporations with international reach (henceforth, "international corporations"), the issue of national origin and for that matter the country of training becomes lams relevant than an assessment of ability trained an] proficiency in the skills of Importance. In fact, the very existence of the question that is the theme of this report appears to be thought irrelevant In such companies as Shell, Nestle, Mitsubishi, and Imperial Chemicals, except to the extent that the prospects for advancement into the policy-determining governance of the company continue to be seen in cultural terms instead of purely technical excellence. No matter the nationality or the country of train ng, "foreign" men an] women are in the mainstream of technic~-management work in U.S.-owned multinational and international corporations, and their status is assured by their ongoing performance. ~ (Still, as will be shown shortly, foreigners are not breaking into the ranks of upper- level management or into corporate board rooms In any of the world's corporations.) The only outstanding foreign engineer "issue" that seemed to be on the mints of those with whom the author spoke concerned whether such personnel would be allowed to become naturalized citizens and remain in the United States after a term of employment. Interest- ingly, a further search of the IRI membership handbook reveals that at that 12 percent of the senior R&D managers frog the Fortune 500 were foreign born or foreign-tra~ned--an observation that brings us back to my survey an] into a discussion of group behavior within upper levels of business organizations. . . . PROS-YECTS FOR GRoWTH INTO DYNE MaNAGEMENr This survey revealed that within the R&D organization, the pros 112

per; for growth of the foreign engineer into Or manag~nt posi- tions is excellent. Deed, within technical manag~nt areas, the pry for growth appear to hinge upon individual capability aid Put another way, the 'Ewing pot" is at work within proLesslon~l~m. R&D. -these survey r~t:s reinforce we Enervations gleans tram the discussions. However, the majority of residents not that the chances of rising mto ~lesrel management outside thirst areas --for example, corporate dilator lesrel--are sinus to none. Valuate and culture differs were most often cited as factors in Inditing gram 0 . The discussions, he eve, revealed that another s ~ at more parochial factor may be at work. To a remarkable extent, it appears that the personality and values of the owner or chief executive of companies of all sizes still exer- cise an enormous influence over the behavior of their corporate organi- zation. Chief executive officers (CEOs), discussants asserted, project a company's value system (Stieglitz, 1985~. Thus, if the chief execu- tive is inward-looking, the company will reinforce those attitudes, and the foreign scientist or engineer could stand to suffer. Several of the discussants are con valanced that foreign engineers are not breaking into upper corporate management because their company CEOs' value sys- tems project provincial attitudes that are keeping the doors closed. Without equating ~nt-1lectual prom Racialism with life-s~yle, it is interesting to note that a recent Wall Street Journal article found that many Fortune 500 CEOs live life-styles more in tune with the 1950s than the 1980s (Anonymous, 1987b). Admittedly, these are extremely subjective notions, but they are notions voiced by persons with long experience and a high regard for the scientific method. In any case, without inferring linkage, there is hard Pride that corporate board reins In He woricl's largest core porations renal cock to reruns whose origins are from a nation other than the he Funky of the company. fine Economist magazine fa ~ that In 1986 only 21 companies Ant of the worId's 100 larcrest corporations (ranked by dollar sales) had foreigners on their beards (Table D-5. Only m ne of those had more than one foreign representa- tive on their beards. What is most remarkable about the results is what is missing--namely, Mbbil, IBM, Ford, and General Motors, respec- lively, the sixth, fifth, fourth, and first largest corporations in the worId--each of which derives billions of dollars of its total income outside the Unite] States. At present, IBM is the only one of these four giant multinationals with a non-American director on its board. TO ISSUE AS ISSUE - m e last questions on the survey were t'Does the subject of the ~n- creasing presence of foreign engineers in U.S. industry merit the concern of American business and political leaders? Is it a subject worthy of an ~n-depth private or government study? Why or why not?" To these questions, the majority of the respondents answered in the negative. The reason most often given was that it was not even an issue; thus, the respondents undersoored the observation that arose in , _ _ . , . . . 113

MACE ~5: panics Foreigners on the BUS of the WorId's 100 largest Cc~n RarJ: by No. of Foreign Many $ Sales Directors Petal Dutc~/Shell 2 2 Exxon 3 2 Texaco 11 1 Un~lver 17 3 Philip Morris 19 1 Philips 26 1 Nestle 30 1 Unity Technologies 35 2 Bayer 36 1 ~SF 39 1 Tenneco 41 1 Hoechst 42 1 Fiat 43 4 ICI 49 3 Dan Chemical 66 3 Canadian Pacific 67 1 Goodyear 70 1 Volvo 72 1 Xerox 78 3 Sara Lee 92 2 R~rk~e 96 1 S=R=: 7~3 Economist, Peril 24, 1987. ache discussions that the issue was irrelevant. The only problem pointed to by survey r~porxtents was the saw as that pointed to ~ discussion--na~y, the problem that wed arise Chard a significantly go ~ ter proportion of foreign engineer'; choose to return to their rm- tive countries. m e author could find no data that Could either con- firm or deny that such a sibilation was actually taking place or on the horizon, although it should be noted that Michael Finn, using National Research Council (NRC) data, found that 62 percent of all noncitizen graduates ~ science and engineering in 1982 remained in the Undated States (Finn, 1986). Moreover, in a recent speech Erich Bloch, direC tor of the NSF, indicated that this finding is part of a trend that is weighted toward staying in the United States after graduation; he stated that In the years; 1972-1985, the proportion of foreign ~g~neer- ing Ph. D. recipients on temporary view reporting plans to remain in this country increased sew 30 Perot (Bloch, 1986). 114

THE "PER" MAJOR ISSUE Pert at ~ discuss any our relevant concerns nob raised ~ the questionnaire, r~ndents raised one of ~ acncerns only-~ith~r the net for reform of federal garnet rotations vis-a-vis the lay~nt of none. S. citizens or the need to urxterstand why A'meri- cans, particularly American males, are not choosing to enter science and engineering fields. Pendants Ply expressed the Opinion that the reason lies in the was of ~rerica's primary arx] secondary educational system. Rather than a study concerned with rea- sons that foreign engineers with to work In the Unity States or the implications there~, the maljorit~r of re~rxlents at Cat a studly that lays out an agenda for Be major reform art strer~thening of ache American education in fr e`. Circa through grade 12 is Bat is calls for. Rearing ~ mire that and report commissioned by the study c~mitt~ of the ARC will explore the subject, a Short brief on the education issue is ~ order. As one Ray validly infer freon Finn's stay, the employment of for- eign nations s In Africans corporations is dirty linked to the presence of foreign students in American colleges. This is an unsur- prising conclusion in itself. Howe vex', ~ 1985, a record 342,113 for- eign students were enrolled in Ups. colleges and universities (M=ormadk, 1987~. California alone at~crac ~ 47,318 of these foreign students. Engineering continued to be the leading field of stay for foreigners; it attracted 75,370 students. But, again, aver the decade of the 1980s, this latter number has represented a constant average (Figure D-5.4 Further, 75,000 foreign eng peering students computes to 22 percent of all engineering sbudents--a proportion that has not significantly changed over the last 30 years (Figure D-6~. So, wherein resides the significance of the foreign student-American industry linkage? The answer to cur question is to be found when it is noted that at a time of increasing demand for scientists and engineers in the labor market, the pool of American college-age sin dents is shrinking (Fig- ure D-7). Erich Bloc h not=-= that even if the United States could oon-tinue to attract students at the 1983 rate, it Acrid still train 700,000 fewer graduates in science and engineering fields aver the next 20 years (Figure D-8) (Bloch, 1986~. In addition to these demographic factors, there are choice factors that are combining in an explosive manner. In short, the proportion of today's college~age cohort choos- ing science and engineering degrees is smaller than the appropriate cohort from the 1970s (Figure D-9). Given the demographic trends and the career choice trends of American students, it is obvious that for- eign science and ongoing students are filling an important need in the U.S. engineer mg market. AS Erich Bloch observes, 'pith fewer 4 Figures D-4, D-6, D-7 & D-8 are taken from Bloch's presentation of September 29, 1986, cited earlier. 115

80~0 - ~ 60000 :] - cn a ~ 40000 a 20000 SOURCE: M. Zikopculos (ed.)., Open Do-, stibute of Ihternation21 Education, 1986. / / / _:r well - 0 - 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 -P__ ~ / ' ~ / 1980 1 985 1985-86, New York: In FIGURE D-5 Number of foreign engineer mg students at all levels, 1955 100 80 60 40 20 o SCARCE: See Figure D-4. i.~ __ ,. ~ 1955 1960 1970 1980 1985 O Business/Ed Humanities OScience 63 Engineering lIG[~E D-6 Distribution of foreign students, ~, field of sandy, 1955 116

i) - o 1 ~ - 4) o co / ~ ~ r' ) 'IN '1 00 o ~, ~. - - ~, O O O O O O O O O ~O ~ U. ~CO O O O O O O O ~O 117 8 2 - - U~ Cot o .~ MU o o' o - 43 ox o ~ Marl U. too in 0 to rat U] . a, U] o 1 a, 1 of · U] CO 1 a) ~ Cal o U] o o ·rl ~V a' a) Sat ·r~ ~o . in · ~, · ~P~ C) =; o U]

Protected 300,000 200,000 1 00,000 50,000 J ~1 - my. Sciences 22-Year-Olds \ ~ \ /Engineerlag O I I I I I i I 4,000,000 22-Year-Olds 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 o 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 SERUM: National Center for Education Statistics arm U. S . Bureau of the (census. FIGURE me Science/~g=~rir~ badhel or ' s degrees am 22-y~=r-old. population. Americans choosing c~ in the sciences arm engineering, we are in- creasir~ly depe bent on foreign nationals in scene of the most important specialties" (Bloch, 1986). The respondents' concern with understanding the reasons underlying Americans' decrease g interest in science and engineering thus appears valid. Further, a number of recent reports trace this disinterest to poor and ~ otivating preparation in the primary and secondary years of schooling. The decreptitu~e of the educational system is well docu for instance. The Forum, May Education Today, Smarmy 1987. ~ Sac, for instance, William Bennett, Elementary Education ~ Africa, ~ ~ of Education, 1986; Carnegie Forum Nation Paper - : leachers for the 21st Century, Warn, _ 1986; U.S. Study of Education in Japan, Japanese Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Firm Lessons: A Presort on was mngton, D.C.: U.S. Department on Education an] the Economy, A D.C.: 118

a, At -N ~ BAJBS ~ `, Master's ~ _ 1950 1960 1970 1980 Year FIGURE D-9 Science/eng mooring degrees per thousand Ln appropriate age cohort, 1950-1981. Dented. What remains to be done, in the eyes of the respondents, is the completion of a study that specifically establishes the implied linkage between poor preparation and the nonchoice of science and engineering and that then goes one step further and posits an agenda for proactive reform. CON=2lSIONS It is in portent to reflect on the value of a full -trained i~i- grant engineer. He/She is one ho represents a net infirm of ~a~riedge capital, with an approximate sag invest value of $100,000 arm with a prospective return of at least 500 Cement per year on that starting iridescent. Should such a person procure to be an inventor, or gift with disciplinary insights of significance, the reborn is higher. Thus, irnresb~nt In the education and recruitment of trained in- tellects is collectively arm initially r~ndir~ ~ the extra. Subject only to Sara broad supply - unarm concerns that Should cause a prospective incentivization of allocation of resource, a plurally driven, free-market response In the schools is beneficial to the econ- c~my arm ~ ts participants. The artificial barriers to entry must be layered. mere is an urgerlt Seraphic and market need to signify current regulations so as to make it easier for American ir~s~cry to employ foreign-born graduate students. 119

What we must assure is that a free-market flow of trained people from whatever source does not cut off or discourage The training ini- tiatives that are needed domestically. A study of the causes of Americans' decreasing choice of scien- tific an] engineering fields is warranted, and a major agenda for strengthening the educational system at all levels is imperative. As far as foreign engineers themselves are concerned, the lead~r- ship for altering and extending the value screen to enable the proper use of the large number of foreign graduate students presently in America's technical schools properly rests with the present and next generation of Amerir~'s industrial research managers, a group that, as we have seen, contains a remarkable representation of the foreign-born themselves. They can provide a proper transition culture for the 10,000 and more yang men and women that sight be expected to graduate each year with M.S. or Ph.D. degrees--students, who might otherwise simply re-export the standing investment in knowledge capital that has been partly funded by the American taxpayer. By and large, this group wants nothing more than a fair chance at hiring the students presently in graduate schools, or an easier route to hiring those who wish to immigrate to the United States to practice their professions. What stands in the way? RE=RENf2,C Anonymous. 1987a. Fortune Directory of the Largest U.S. Industrial Corporations. Fortune 15(9):364-365. Anonymc us. 1987b. life Among the Business Elite. The Wall Street Journal March 20:20-21D. Bloc h, Erich. 1986. The Status of the Talent Pool. Speech at the Sym- posium on Nurturing Science and Engineering Talent sponsored by the G=rerrnnent-Un~versi=-~ustry Posses R~hle, held at the Marlin Institute, Ehiladelphia, Penn., September 29, 1986. Cc~mnittee on Science, Er~in~ring, arm Public Policy, Panel on the :On- pact of Nati anal Security Controls on International Technology I`nsf~r. 1987 . Balancing the National Interest: U. S . National Security Export Controls anc] Global Economic Competition. Washing ton, D.C.: National Academy P=ss. Finn, Michael. 1986. Foreign national scientists and engineers in the United States workforce. In 1986 Anne Conference Proceedings, Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education. Industrial Research Institute (IRI). 1985. Who's Who in IRI. New York: The Institute (this is a privately distributed publication). McCormack, Patricia. 1987. Students. United Press International (DIALOG Information Services, Inc., File 260), October 8. Stieglitz, Harold. 1985. Chief Executive.= View Their Jobs: Today and Tomorrow. New York: The Conference Board. U. S . Department of Defense. 1986 . DoD Industrial Security Manual Washington, D.C.: U.S. G~rermnent Printing Office. 120

U. S . ~t of State. 1987a. Code of Faders Radiations, vol . 15, sections 368-299. Washi~n, D.C.: Office of ache Federal P - gists', National Archives, arxt Reset Administration. U. S. Depar~t of State. 1987b. Code of Federal Radiations, vol. 22 , sections 121-130 . Washi~t~, D. C.: Office of the Federal P gister, National Archives, and Reseal Adminis~cration. 121

AE~IDIX I Hey Questionnaire On If of the National Research ~i1, ~ am co~cting art exploratory s-3y designed ~ identify arm variate issues ~at~ to the prance of foreign engineers in U.S. icy. About 30 minutes of Sour time would! h~31n me immensely. Please the questions the question- as you can at , read the intr~ctcry paragraphs below arkl respond to that follc w. If yak cannot respond Icy, please take Zaire bark to your offices and return it to me as soon the following across: Dr. Peter ~nr~n Vice ~sident-~ear~ & Chief Scientist R~ell International Corporation 1049 domino Dos Rios Ihausard Oaks, CA 91360 IntrTxtuction There is growing concern that U. S. industry is ~i~ "or reliant" on foreign talent to meet its manpower news ~ the fields of science arc er~n~rir~g. Some figures set the issue in F~tive: bile only 3 . 5 percent of engineers ~Ioy~ Ire the United States in 1982 arc 1984 were foreign nationals, Sara 36 percent of those worked an rewarms and devel~nt. In 1982 the representation of foreign nationals acre nployed doctorate and masters; engmeer~; stood at 12 and 6.5 percent, r~ecti~rely. These namers will probably go up as today more than half of all engineering Eh. D. s in the United States are awarded to foreign nationals. O Charts 1-la through 1-6 attached provide other data that you may wish to review. With fewer Americans choosing careers in the sciences and eng~n~pring, we are increasingly dependent on foreign nationals in some of the most important specialties. What are the implications? What issues arise from the increased presence of foreign nationals within U.S. industry? The questions below, though nonquantitative, attempt to identify related issues and the respective parameters of concern. They ask for your informed opinion, not your further research. For purposes of this questionnaire, "foreign" refers to those with temporary visas, those with permanent visas, and immigrants (foreign-born Americans); American eng beers are those born and educate] in the United States. Questions 1. a. Is your particular industry today dependent on foreign talent? b. If sot is this deperxiengy Increasing or decreasing? 122

Mule your business or relearn thrive or progress without the foreign eng~n~r? (For e~le, the assertion has been made that the field of tics ~d not exist In the United States: were it not for foreign to. 2. In term; of preparation, skill, professionalism (perhaps Marry in productivity), how do foreign Algiers Mare to American engi- neers? 3. Do language differences present difficulties? 4. What barriers to the hiring of foreign eng meers exist? Should these barriers be strengthened or relaxed? 5. What are the prospects for growth into upper management for the foreign engineer? What role do cultural differences, language differences, etc., play in the Claus of career growth? Is the limiting path at work ~ your industry? 6. Does the subject of the increasing presence of foreign engineers In U.S. industry writ Me concern of American business and political leaders? Is it a subj eat worthy of an ~n~epth private or go~r~nent study? shy or why not? 7. Please discus any other acncerns that yak believe Chid be raised with regard to this subject. 123

THE JOB MARKET FOR HOLDERS OF BACCALAUREATE DEGREES IN ENGINEERING Charles E. FaLk - Ihe rm~3 of the jcib marlmt is alleged to be a major factor in engi nearing band aura' decisions l~i~ entry into yr~dN Ate school. Conseq~en~y, considerations of incentives to at~cract more American engineering students into graduate sway TmSt Cake into account the skates of bo ~ cur ~ nt arm near-fubare job markets. To assist In such evaluations information about the current icb ~ rket for eng meers is presented. A variety of organizations were contacted to extract data on the current sin lotion. If such hard information was not available, anec- dotal information was sought. These organizations included the Ameri- can Association of Engineering Societies, the American Association for Engineering Education, the Engineering Division and the Division of Science Fe#oorce SO dues of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the College Placement Council, the Commission for Professionals in Science and Technology, Purdue University, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The following picture emerged. The only data on professional activities of new engineering bacca- laureates in the year following graduation are developed by the NSF from the Survey of New Graduates. · . · . . . . The most current data cover the March 1986 activities of the class of 1985. Prelim m ary tabulations show that 11 percent of the graduates were In full-time graduate stay and that 86 percent of the rest were In science/erg meering jobs with 78 percent in engineering and 4 percent in computer sciences. In other words, the job market was very good. However, discussions with the other organizations mentioned above indicate a belief by some that there has been an erosion of the job market for engineers since 1986 and that even now the market is still in a transitional phase. m is was confirmed by data on job offers received by new graduate. The most comprehensive, that collected by the College Placement Council, is representative of the total academic sector. Prelimun2ry 1987 data seem to indicate that the numbers of job offers to new electri~1 and mechanical engineering baccalaureates are about 30 percent smaller than they were In 1985. The job offer trend was also confirmed by the Purdue University Placement Office, which indicated that job offers reported to it by Purdue engineering bache- for's graduates had held steady between 1985 and 1986 but had declined by about a factor of two between 1986 and 1987. Wile these data cer- tainly indicate an erosion of the job market, the n~rs carmot be ~n 125

t~preted to indicate Warily a Tori debase ~ neer- ing jobs for resew graduates. Finns Mae multiple offers for a singe job, arm bat aura; can Deceive multiple offers. bile these practices counteract each other, it ~ not known chewer ore China;. For example, a 1986 National Research Until report, The Impact of Defense Spending on Nondefense Engineering For markets, state, "Placing offers from abbe a dozen acacia - a; c instib~.ions indicated that currently the Canary for graduates roughly matches supply. . . .'t Hammerer, this labor market has, as yawn above, deteriorated further. 126

ON FOREIGN ENGINEERS IN ACADEME Daniel C. Drucker University of Florida INTR3W CllON The purpose of this paper is to raise a wide variety of signifi- cant intellectual and other issues for consideration. Some factual background information is provided. - ~~ ~ _ _a _ 8 a 8 In addition' a number of strong and often divergent views' ~ luring an assortment of those ~ hold, florae presented to stimaJate discussion and to encourage the expression of as many alternate points of view as possible. An effort is made to cover · - the broad spectrum of important topics related to foreign engineers An academe, from undergraduate students to professorial staff. Among these are the questions raised by those who cbeerve the increasing fraction of the foreign-born among the professoriate and the current dominance at the entry level of foreign-born assistant professors who received their undergraduate engineering education in developing ccun- tries. Both hopes and concerns are eXpr===pO about the likely effects on the teaching of engineering undergraduates and g=~*uate students, the setting of the curricula, the setting of the research agendas and the maces of engineering research, and the many changes in the atti- budes and actions of academic in_tibutions that are made over time as the scope and character of engineering after. Attention also is de- voted to the specific issues identified -earlier by the Committee on the International Exchange and Movement of Engineers. Long-time trends, the present situation, and the likely future are presented briefly. However, most of the detailed listing and analysis of the important numbers involved is left to other documents.6 Or ASSI~PlIONS RE~NG DISaJSSION A number of implicit assumptions about commonly shared views under- lie much of the presentation that follows. An attempt is made here to list the major ones explicitly to be certain that they are indeed shared, at least within the context of Adele. If they are not, atten 6 Sees for instances ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~^ ~ _ ~ ~ ing Students in the United States" (Appendix A of this report). Chart ~~ F. F~1 k ttF~rm; on I; Ned :~ - Engineers 127

tion should be devoted first to any of prime significance that prove controversial. Of equal or greater importance is the identification of all other key agreed-upon assumptions that should be listed. · First and foremost is that in this nation of immigrants there have been and will continue to be enormous contributions to engineering, as sell as to all fields of knowledge and activ- ity, from those who came to this country for a short time or a lifetime. O Considerable diversity in educational and cultural background and experience of students and of faculty ares greatly to the educational experience of all and to the research effectiveness and productivity of the academic institution. Many of cur foremost academics (as well as leading people in industry, government, and research institutes) are foreign visitors or immigrants. Many of our very best engineering graduate students came from abroad. At most of cur research universities, The proportion of foreign graduate students in almost all of the eng Leering departments has exceeded a level that raises questions and concerns among many oonstibuencies in both the public an] the private sector. Similar concerns exist for most engineering departments about the growing and now dominant fraction of new assistant p~vfes- sons who received their undergraduate engineering degrees from abroad, mostly frets schools in developing countries. This fraction is especially high at research universities= not in the top echelons. However, it is uncomfortably high in electrical and computer engineering and in many other areas at the most prestigious of research universities as well as at schools that do nck offer the Ph.D. degrees. O Appropriate measures of quality of the individual, not the country of origin, should govern additions to the professorial staff In engineering arm decisions on tenure arm promotion. · All students, Graduate and graduate, shauld be held to acceptably high standards of gust its of performance. · A prier engineerir~ education at each degree ~ evel is a key elemot In the maintenance of our defense capability arm the needed improvement of our econcquic c~titiveness in today's word d. O The S~anental er~ineering research output of our academic institutions, which provides an essential Harris for the viability of our society, roust be and is now ~ the promos of being appreciably Caned in a varier of directions and modes. A PERSPECTIVE ON CHARGE OVER TIME This is an ~ nesting, important, and pliably crucial time to consider the questions posed bar the c hanging demography of undergrad 128

uate scums, y~-a~uate nerd ng. Even a casual look at am universities, industries, ga~rerr¢nental am research inset laboratories, and cornicing firms discloses a healthy arm may stators participation }fly many who are not native-born and whose formal Item took place partly or totally ~ other acsun- tries. mose who car n appreciable hers frvmEur~ n the 1930s and 1940s are well represented at the highest duels or were soposi- tion~ prior to their retirement. those who ramp after then face the developing countries of Asia and the Middle Fast are emerging rapidly, and many now occupy key positions. All can rejoice in this strong evi- dence of the attraction and the effectiveness of the American system of opportunity. Perhaps the telling of their suppress will help solve our own internal problem of ensuring that black, Hispanic, and Native Amer- ican minorities take advantage of these same opportunities now open to them. As the fraction of Hispanics alone will exceed 50 percent of the K-12 school population in a number of states in the not too distant future, the new composition of the Graduate student and younger faculty populations in engineering may prone inspirational. There have been very many changes in attitudes an] activities in engineering extortion from the almost totally current-practioe-oriented pre-World War II days to the present time. Prior to World War II, only a few engineering schools devoked appreciable effort to fundamental en- g~n^~'ing research. Most of those that did did so through Engineering Experiment Stations or their equivalent. They tended to separate the research and teaching functions almost completely. With scme notable exceptions, there were just a few professors of engineering, labeled as "research professors' " who concentrated exclusively on research; the other engineering professors taught and did consulting work but no re- search. Ph.D. output per yea' averaged under 100 for all the eng~neer- ing fields combined, the number was negligible in most branches of engineering. The continent=] European tradition of engineering science was just beginning to be transplanted here in the 1930s through such people as von Barman and TimKshenko. For the most part, however, it was considered irrelevant to engineering and ignored. A few forward- looking professorial or prospective professorial people went abroad to study under world-recagnized masters. However, even in science, "for- eign" was not a prestige word. A distinguished foreign scientist or mathematician often had great difficulty in Obtaining any academic post in this country. Those on the engineering side had fewer cpportunities still. m e pace of Ph.D. production in engineering began to pick up fol- lowing World War II but did not reach 500 per year until the m~d-1950s. During that transition period, there were only a very few places like Brown University with its large number of foreign visitors in applied mechanics and, for the times, a great many foreign-born and foreign- eJucated members of staff. prof-~soriate mainstream of ence" in all fact, despite students, and professorial staff in engi Such groups were viewed by most of the at most of the schools of engineering as not in the engineering. Many thought of them as a "foreign influ- the then-negative connotations of that term. Yet, in the broad international leadership and the intensive ~n 129

ternational outreach the great majority of he staff arxt the grade student boy at In arm similar places were bone in this Puny. The foreign contingent was very visible arm remarkably large for those days kilt modest in size be days ~ alarm. Also, most of the many foreign studer~ts arm visitors who come in the late 1940s arm early 1950s planned ~ and did return to their han~arxt in Emcee. Eon he m~d-1950s on, the educational arm n~r~ activities of many U.S. universities in aft all the fields of Ring gaunt eno~sly as graduate scents arm faculties became mare diverse arx] as contacts with a variety of engineering activities in other countries were greatly I. No longer was there excessive lures of experier~ce arxl viewpoint produced by a graduate school population arm professorial staff conditioned solely ~ Cat had bane an overly iso lated U. S. cults. In the past 15 years, h ~ Her, the perx3ul~n has been swir~ir~ ever closer to the opposite extreme in many departments of many schools of engineering. At the Ph.D. level of engine ~ mg graduate shady, stu- dents who were born and educated in the United States are In the minor- ity. In some instances that minority is so small as to be overwhelmed by foreigners, as foreigners once were overwhelm by the nati~re-bom. The same is true in very many departments for the ye assistant pro fessors of engineering. Is there cause for concern, or instead will the immigrant group and the visitors, both owning primarily from the develc ping countries racer than fray the petrels, lend new vitality to eng~n~ring edu- cation arm r~rch? I]NDE~ ENGINEERING STUDENTS Under 10 pement of a:~1 undergraduate degrees in engineering are abed to foreigners. me parentage has rema~ne<1 fairly steadier at be~reer~ 7 arm 9 percent for quite a lord time. There has been a shift In the developing countries from which most of these undergraduates come, but each school seems to have reached its own accommodation without much obvious turmoil. A number of major state universities have limiter undergradN ate eng peering enrollment drastically, as ad- mission pressure mounted enormously in the dramatic shift to ward engi- neering by so many of the best U.S. high school students. Mast of them admit very few foreign undergraduates today: unable to accept bright and capable students from the ~ own state, they understandably feel constrained to accept few from outside. mere is more than a little feeling of conflict with the J and-grant tradition of world service and a sincere willingness to help educate students of the developing world. At the other extreme, in the rather recent past, some of the developing universities in this country did burn to foreign eng~nee ring students in very large numbers to swell their undergraduate ranks as they began to establish a more secure place for themselves In the hierarchy. It is interesting and perhaps important to speculate on what eight happen if the present great attractiveness of B.S. engineering degrees to our high school graduates were to decrease significantly as the num 130

ber of 18-y-ar-olds ~ the predation continues on its sharp toward triers In a~st all stances;: Wadd we fraction of foreign urx]~raduates in veneering den ire? Is there a desirable or an cation proportion of foreign ~i- peering ~graduat-s? If so, eat is the appropriate range freon the vie~pomt of ache education of Air en urxi~ra~ates? · Sha0d foreign w~grach=tes be et to pay the full cost of Fir tuition, rater ache the Oxidize aunt paid by drastic s~x~ents? Is it Air obligation as a nation to help the (frizzly?) devel- pping canneries by Satire saw of then r scents at our ~ir~ir~ schools? If so, how many are at Cat cost to Act? As a ret of He Carded Position of Be body of cur ~i- neering graduate scents and faculty, s;halld Wharves be made ~ Air pry affirmative action approach to Air domestic minorities, an approach aimed at encouraging anal facilitating entrance to an engirleerir~ card? obese certainly are Undressing questions ~t do arise art are being a~s~ at individual schools. Should we refine art sty then, r~ that others do so, or silly pro pose to leave their resolution to the discretion of each school of engineering that now is facing or will face such issues ~ the future? GRAPE STUDENTS AND ASSIS=tI LESSORS It Is prettily at the graduate spent level and ache professorial staff level in engine wing schools that major policy questions about foreigners have arisen over the past decade and now are raised with in- creasing frequency. Such expressions of concern are likely to become more strident in the near future. They will be augmented and confused by what appear to be primarily emotional rather than intellectual re- sponses to similar but less extreme trends in the sciences and mathe- matics. Engineering Ph.D. degrees oven the past 15 or so years have been awarded to noncitizens in ever-~ncreasing percentages, still maying up through the neighborhood of 60 percent. Young assistant professors of engineering added in recent years are increasingly foreign in origin an] undergraduate education. These additions from abroad currently ran in excess of 75 percent of all those being recruited at the assistant professor level ~ such major fields as electrical an] computer engi- neering. It should be emphasize] that these additions to the profes- sorial staff have been selected by the existing staff, which is still dominantly native-born in alJ[ost all departments -of all engineering schools. The choices reflect the traditional art yet continually evolving judgments of relative quakier amoral all those availably e for academic positions. Experience corer the past decade indicates that, in er~ineering, 131

every American Ph.D. who wishes to join the academic world will be of- fered several assistant professor positions. Minimum qualifications do vary from school to school and usually from department to department within each school. However, the door is c pen somewhere in engineering academe to just about all such candidates. Despite this significant preference for domestic pits, the selection made is most often, arx] increasingly so, of a foreign-born art primarily foreign~ucat~ person with a U. S . Ph. D. degree in an engineering or eng~n~ring-rela~ field, again leading to several questions: Should this be a concern? If so, That dLculd be done to alter the situation? O Is the problem one of too many foreigners or instep ~t not enough first-rate dynastic undergraduate= go on for the AD. Caere, and of those that do, too few cat for an academic card? · Is there a justified worry ~at, if fig more is done, in time the faculties of departments of engineering will became fitly foreign-born at all levels and then increasingly so? O In the process of faculty educating students in their con image, traditional at all levels but especially at the AD. level, fit will that image be? Will the perception within academy of the role of engineering In this country then no lordlier reflect adequately the concerrs of the average inform citizen? Will there be a further decrease in attention to laboratory experience and ~ experiments relearn because working with one's harts is viewed as den in mast of the upper-class cultures fawn whit st of Our foreign contingent now comes? Will future undergraduate curricula take on still more of a backward look than today? In most instances the undergraduate engineering education given to our new assistant p~vf~~sors in their he country was a copy or reflection of U.S. or Elan engineering programs in vogue a decade or two earlier than Ben they were In school. fit will be the effect on cross-disciplinary 9lndal~1t=1 engi- n~ring relearn efforts, the success of Engines ring Research Centers, and other efforts designed to produce significant he In our engineering educational and rearm patterns to aid in restoring the international competitiveness of industry in this country? Is it realistic to expect incisive contributions to such high- lighted and target areas as Denigrated manufacturing systems fern many of this group of people, No although very talents have, on average, a~st no modern industrial experience? Will academic engineers and the enormously larger member of engineers in industry, ga~rerr~nent, and private practice then bake so disparate in bat and attitude that aonstruc- tive dialogue ark interstate he almost possible? Are special facula development programs during the sooner or the academic year desirable or necessary to provide an ad~te 132

understanding and knowledge of the U.S. scene and its culture, along with its problems and cpporbunities In the industrial and service sectors? ~TIONS POSED BY To STUDY m e issues an] questions raised by the Committee on the Interna- tional Exchange and Movement of Engineers about engineering students, graduates, and pO6~50CS In the Al for the workshop are important ones: What are the trends in the numbers enrolled and receiving de- grees in eng m Bering programs: by field? by degree level? by country of orig m? What are the trends in the percent of the enrollees and degree recipients who are foreigners? How does the quality of these foreign engineering students compare with that of American engineering students? Are these foreign engineering students replacing American students at the undergraduate level? At the graduate level? How many receive support as beaching assistants? Research assistants? Postdocs? What other form of support or subsi- dization is given to foreign eng Leering students? Does finan- cial assistance and enrollment of foreign students come at the expense of financial assistance and enrollment of American stu- dents? To what extent does engineering research in academe de- pend on foreign postdoctorates? What is the cost to the Amer- ican taxpayer? How effective are those who receive support as teaching and re- search assistants In these roles? · How many return to the Or countries of origin? Does the likeli- hood of returning vary by field, degree level, country of origin? o How effectively is the traim ng receive] by these graduates utilized ~ their countries of origin? · Do those who return exert a positive influence on their ocun- try's relationship with the United States? · Among those who return, how many become employed by American firms in their hue oaJntries? How many ultimately acme back to the United States? · How are graduate engineering curricula, design, and pace of 1n- struction changing to meet the needs of foreign students? With appropriate substitution for the words llengineerll and llengineer- ing,ll several are clearly the most important ones for the sciences and mathematics. There is, however, no distinction in subject matter to be made be~reer~ U. S . basic science or mathematics and foreign basic sci- ~ce or mathematics. Esren if the foreign graduate students and new assistant professors were to become a majority In these fields, pros vided the Savior streaks were maintained, few ~ntellec~ problems 133

of teadhi~ arm relearn ~d arise other than the Bee of er~sis on exper~tal work In the natural sciences. Eng~n~ring tilde medicine, law, and other professions is often highly ~untryospecific ~ many of the aspects of practice and conse- g!l~tly in aE'p~riate education arm research. me issues of foreign student Al professors therefore, take on very different dimensions for eng~rir~ ~ academy than for science or mathematics. Intel- lectual issues are far more important than ggestions of cost. A domi- nance of foreign student or staff raises basic questions abaft the fu- ture centrality and societal effectiveness of our entire eng~neerir~ education arxt academic rehears est~hlis~nt, questions that for the most part do not arise ~ science arm mathematics education arkl re- s~arc he Here I do not quite sbare the comforting conclusion that all is well ~ reached by Elmor G. Barber arm Pervert P. Morgan on Be basis of the satisfaction with Graduate students expressed by faculty arm dhairper~;ons. There are many significant and interesting diff~n~ in detail as wel ~ Bat distinguish engineering face science anti math~ti~s in academy. For example, the pattern of progression from graduate Bert to professor is Bite different. Academic postdoctoral appointments, chic h are virally a necessity in the sciences and mathematics for aspirants to a successful academic career, are a rarity amoral nz~tive-bon, fleering students. me supply of rmtive-born Eh. D. s is so short and the Beard is so him that assistant professorships are avail able im~iate~y to all who are interested and at least marginally qualified. Foreign graduate students may go the postdoctoral route as a holding pattern prior to return to them awn country or, more often these days' to await permission to remain In this country as imni g~ts ~ Art analogous situation exists for admission to graduate study. Native-born engineering undergraduates who meet minimum standards and wish to go on to graduate study at the M.S. level can do so without impediment at a research university or elsewhere. -Those who are suc- cessful and then wish ~ continue on to the Ph.D. level also will have that opportunity. They are cherished because their numbers are so small. There is such a shortage of promising domestic graduate sbu- dents aiming for an eng veering Ph.D. degree that they are not and will not be displaced by foreign applicants, although a superb foreign grad- uate student may be given a higher priority than an ordinary domestic one. The engineering professoriate shares at 1~==t one attitude with their colleagues in the sciences arx] mathematics. Any domestic or for- eign graduate student, even one marginally qualified or less 1~ the standards of earlier years, is viewed as far better than none. Gone is the feeling, once rather widespread, that a first-rate graduate assis- tant is a help In teaching and Beat, but a mediocre student is a 7 Elinor G. Barber arxt Robert P. Morgan, "The fact of Foreign Graduate Students on U. S . Engineering Education, " Science 236:33 ~37, April 3, 1987 ~ 134

drag, and a marginal student an enormous detriment. Gone also are al- most all vestiges of the view that, be failure would be so deva- stating to them, foreign graduate-student applicants should be taken on only if the ~ record indicated such high quality that successful com- pletion of the Ph.D. degree in time seemed assured. Lower standards for admission of domestic applicants were and remain appropriate, in engineering at least, because so many perfectly acceptable alternate paths to a suo~=ful career are c pen to them. ~ can attest to the strength of this professorial attitude of viewing even a marginally qualified graduate student as better than none over the last 10 years of my tenure as dean of the College of Eng~n~'ing of the Uhiversi~ of Illinois at Urbana~npaign, a col- l~e that included physics and ~ter science. In arguing against an explicit arxt strong college budget policy that In effect -established a high starboard of admission for foreign gray ate students, the statement was made over and over, often by one or another very distinguished mem- ber of the staff, that the teaching and research enterprise would suf- fer irreparably if we did not admit some additional number of possibly marginal students to assist in computation, taking of experimental data, mathematical analysis (but not theory), and Grading. That this attitude is the He among both professorial staff and departmental administrators ~ engineering across the country is clear fern the sur- vey reported by Baler ark Morgan. ~ con view that a mediocre Bert increases the load on a faculty Beer because esr~i~ done oust be checked with care, and that a ~ rginal student is for worse, clearly is not shared by the majority of professors. As a consequence, it seems clear to me that the average quality of foreign graduate students in engineering has declined appreciably over the past 15 or so years. So also has the average quality of domestic students, primarily because of a great decrease in the fraction of the best of the engineering undergraduates who elect to go on to the Ph.D. level. Furthermore, the available and qualified eng peering pool (upper 20 percent of Ph.D.s) interested in an academic career has con , , , , · · · . . tamed and still contains far too few to fill the many available assis- tant professor positions in engineering. As noted earlier, recruits from the sciences and ma~hemstics are no longer a sufficiently large alternative source of supply. the crippling blow of both immediate and long-term devastating covalences to academe is the small fraction of the qualified engi- n~ring Eh.D.s Ho choose to enter the academic world either i~r~i- a~y or reasonably Bray ~ their career. Yet many positions are filled each year because there are so many excellent students to be taught, and ~ a relatively short time, tenure is granted to a sizable fraction of those in the pipeline. APPENDIXES ADDRESS SC ME OF THE QUESTIONS Perspectives on several of these and allied questions are ex- tracked from other documents and include d as appendixes. Among the major relevant and possibly con versial points rode in them are the fo] lowing: 135

. . o m e demands for both a more incisive and a higher level of per- formance by engineers ~ government, industry, private prac- ti~=, and academe everywhere always increase with time. The intellectually driving forces are the rapidly increasing volume of useful knowledge and the continually increasing level of knowledge required to make significant engineering contribu- tions. o For us in the United Statics there is the added factor of the increasingly successful competitive pressure Of. many parts of the developed world whose average level of education still is increasing while ours appears close to saturation. Joining vigorously in this competitive pressure are the developing na- tions of the world, whose population, as well as level of e~u- cation, is rising rapidly while ours is in the process of leveling off. Our severe crisis in eng Leering education has been ameliorated somewhat by a number of important measures taken by the uni- ~versities, government, and industry. However, for the great majority of schools, it remains as a debilitating chronic sick- n==s with strong adverse effects on the present quality of eng Leering education, along with a severe shortage of people available to provide a more effective and a higher level of education in the future. The toted yearly U.S. output of engineering Ph.D.s, quite inde- pendent of country of orig m, has been and remains too low to provide an adequate pool of people just to meet the need of academe for highly qualified researoher-educators (defined here as those in the upper 20 percent of Ph.D.s, but upper 10 per- cent Acrid be a far more appropriate echelon for an educator of highly qualified future generations of researcher-educators). Worse still, those available are only a small fraction of this inadequate pool. Scme of the foreign students return to their homeland, but the major reason for the drastic reduction is the purposeful choice of a nonacademic career by so large a frac- tion of the very best Ph.D.s. The average quality of engineering graduate students, foreign and domestic, has decreased appreciably for several reasons. Despite the great increase in the number of B.S. eng Leering degrees awarded each year, and the remarkable concurrent great increase in the average ability of domestic undergraduate engi- n-=ring students as measured by high school rank and test scores, far too few of the best domestic students opt to go on to the Ph.D. level. Many of the foreign graduate students are far from the superb absorbers of classroom-imparbed knowledge to whom we had become accustomed in earlier years. At least one of the countries f ~ which we obta med large numbers of well-e~ucated undergraduates is no longer such a source. Other developing countries are building their own graduate schools in engineering and keeping a sizable fraction of their best under- gradNat-= at home. The United Staked is no longer the uniquely 136

suitable place for a graduate education in engineering that it once was. Never~hele~=, it is true in most doctorate-offering departments of most schools of engineer mg that the foreign Ph.D. students are better, on average, than the domestic. The continual and still a ~ lerating increase in the sac pe and scale of effort required in the practice of engineering at the advanced level demands an increasing number of new pee pie prop- erly qualified. This exodus= of demand over the engineering Output can no longer be met adequately, as it has in the past, by a sufficient nor of entrants to the field face the natu- zal sciences and malth~tics. he physical sciences and mathe- matics, in cc~arison with engineers no, no longer do or can educate the relatively large nor of people at the advanced level that they did when engineering output was so Such smaller. Also, they too now suffer frmn a significant and worriers dense in highly qualified domestic students. 137

APPENDIX I 1986 Torsion I£>chlre* . . . In all the excitement generated }:y new Actions anal new opportunities! it cannot be forgotten Hat the crisis ~ ~gineerir~g education has bore a Chronic debilitating sickness Ant remains with us. This was a crisis of quality, exacerbated }fly the great influx of students into eng meering curricula over the past decade. Student- teacher ratios became and remain enormous at most engineering schools. Far too few of the brightest of our undergraduates went on to graduate study or now do, and far too few of those that did then opted for an academic career. As a oonsequenoe, there are very many unfilled assis- tant professor positions ~ engineering today. Rehouse the increase in financial support of schools of engineering has lagged far behind the increase in student demand, there are many, many more professorial positions needed but unfunded. Worse still, the long period of short- age has inevitably led to compromises on standards of quality for ap- po~ntment, promotion, and tenure at far too many institutions. Such compromises are natural, and likely as unnoticed, as are gradual changes in the absolute standard for the grades given to students as the quality of the student body changes appreciably up or down over the years. Of course, each school has chosen the best faculty members available to it within its financial rescorc es; each has made the best selection from Tong those on the tenure track, compatible with its ability to cape with sin Dent demand. . . . Quality of Engineering Students Versus Qazalit~y of Weir EX]ucation Present-day eng Leering undergraduate students are the best engi- neering students ever, superior in their verbal ability to most stu- dents on campus and vastly superior in their mathematical ability. They quality has ~r~ the lesser~ng of the quality in their educa- tion. Bright to start, they are bright when they finish. Yes, there are complaints fun explorers aix7ut our gradual==' ability to ~ni- cate. Such complaints have been voiced fn~m the beginning of time. The fact is that engineers today are far more articulate, on average, than ever before. Surely They could be and should be better ccmmunica- tors; they suffer from the same well-documented inadequacies of eJemen- tary and secondary school education as do all of their age group. However, it is in their areas of greatest potential strength that the ~ is weakness far more difficult to overcome in later years. De- spite the statements from employers that our students are well-grounded the fundamentals, the chronic illness that has followed the crisis in engineering education has taken and still is taking its tall in the * Excerpts from Daniel C. Drucker, speech at American Society of Me- chanical Engineers (ASME), as modified for a jo mat Johns Hopkins University-ASME seminar O March 19, 1987. 138

very best of schools. We are not serving our country well because we are not serving our students priorly. . ~ . _ me great overload of the engineering faculty, over so many years, In ~ibirmLion with the shortage of adeq - te laboratory equipment has 1~ to many retrograde steps In individual causes and in curricula. his negative progress c~ontirmes ~ hour because the sad situation ~ engineering education has only been partially ameliorated at most schools. The critical Shortage of furls for equipment, faculty, and a etitive faculty ~lary-scale persists, despite the welcome lose in su ~ ort from irx~s~ y, because irx3ustrial support is hat a Emil fraction of the tctal. Even for those with appreciable additions to their university budget, the funds available have been insufficient to accommodate both the needed competitive salary-scale and the needed number of faculty. . . . Retrogression has taken place instead of the significant continual advances needed in the level of the curriculum to keep pace with the continual advances in the level of engineering practice. I emphasize level rather than the more rapidly expanding breadth and complexity with which no single curriculum can ever keep up. . . . . . . Clearly, a large number of drastic improvements are needed in engineering education just to brow it ~ line with the demands of today. Mach more is r~i~ to make it c~nsarate with the nature of the clerks that we can foresee air students will have to meet ~ their working years ahead if Air pantry Is to maintain a leadership position in a world of intense Petition. . . . We must demurely? a far more effective approach to convey the esser~- tials of a Huh broader spectra of Bern Honoring science; to stu- dents at the Ash higher level needed today than Hen the name was ~n- vented. We must fill In many glaring gaps in air und~erstarx~ing of the people-made world. For example, we sc~hc~w must learn first to build at then to teach an as "yet no ~ let ant" matinee ring science base for an integrated design m~s~*ur~ng or construction systems approach. The computer revolution In industry and education provides strong evidence that the principle we agreed upon in eng peering education three decades ago remains valid today. At that time, we abandoned the earlier mcde of eng Bearing education with its strong emphasis on current practice and its absence of research orientation. That then- obsolete mode had served well for a century of accelerating but still relatively slow change. By World War lI, the pace of change had become so rapid that an elementary understanding of the fundamentals clearly was far more useful than a complete knowledge of current Practice when meeting substantially new engineering challenges. _ _ _ _ In response, after much delay, eng peering education Waved away form educating highly knowledgeable apprentices to educating prospective engineers able to contribute effectively in directions totally new to them. me many engineers who played so strong a role in the development of modern o~m- puter systems and the modes of their use demonstrated the effectiveness of their education. Until very recently, of course, none were educated as computer engineers. . . . It is natural, in times of bewildering change, that many engmeer- ing educators, as well as the majori~r of people and their political 139

leaders, may want to pause for breath, or even to retreat to the more oamfortable Patton of a distant past ~ the narm of progress. Yet if we simply pause, we Ire bat, in effect, be ause genuine pr~rm;s sweeps aver us Bile we stars] still. Resin Is the Answer How do those of us in universities agate to a rapidly changing technological world? How do we lead our students into the future rather than follow them? E~s~ is the answer, provided the research is of high Stalin art the facula has the tin for Bat resear Ah, the time for the contemplative activity of curricula design and rebuilding, and then the time for the teaching itself. That is another reason I am such an enthusiast for cooperative research within disciplines and for crcss_disciplinary research as appropriate. Indi- vidual tee earahers of genius can and do make Giant strides rapidly on Unfortunately, if my assessment of our current faculty situation is valid, they will be proportionately rarer still in the future. Important fundamental ques- tions can be tackled incisively by people of adequate quality when they work together with people of high quality in y sized Groups. Den each works separately, the total output of all but those of the highest quality will have negligible impact. . . . Participation In cross-discipl mary research activities of the high intellectual character visualized In the guidelines for Engi- neering Resc arc h Centers would provide an extremely valuable component of engineering education for undergraduate as well as Graduate stu- dents. in, _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ their own, but such individuals are rare indeed. 140

AMIDIC lI Engineering Education: A Key to ~ndus~ial readerships Abstract Mistrial competitiveness ~ world markets and defense capability are critically depended upon engineers able to utilize a very rapidly increasing body of h~awledge at a level that also Sync ~ ases signifi- cantly with time. We in this country are a small minority in the world with which we interact. For almost three centuries we were underpopu- lated and benefitted enormously from the substantial immigration of many diverse, able, and energetic people. An increasing level of edu- cation for more and more of our people enable] us to achieve world leadership. Now our working population is leveling out as is our aver- age level of education. Worse yet, for 15 years our output of M.S. degrees in engineering has remained almost constant while the number of Ph.D.s dropped. Furthermore, the severe shortage of available faculty of appropriate quality has degraded the average quality of engineering education ~ this country aver the past 10 years. This "crisis in engineering education" is exacerbated by the great increase in the num- ber of undergraduate eng peering students, students of the highest quality ever, but would persist were the numbers to be cut in half. Pervasive curricular changes reflecting tomorrow's world, following a national Goals of Engineering Education study, are long overdue. Historic Vi~r Take a historic look at the U.S and the world aver the past few oenburies. The U.S. kept up with the quantity an] level of knowledge in use through a greatly increased population and a rising level of education for more and more people, along with enough properly educated eng peers to do the job well. We were able to work increasingly harder and smarter. It is not by chance that I chose a representation with numbers of eng beers well above the knowledge-~n-use curve from 1950 to 1970 (Figure D-10). It also is not an accident that Japan with its recently developed large and able cadre of respected engineers is more - than competitive with us in many areas. . . . . . . The Pancreas mg population and level of education in the world will drive both the quantity and level of knowledge up along the present growth curves or higher. How will we in the U.S. keep up? . . . To keep up with the world, the level of education achieved upon leaving the university should go up with time, perhaps by 1 year every 30 or 40 years as indicated schematically in Figure Dell. Engineering education did keep up through the early 1970s by the large but infre- quent jumps in level shown. In 1940 the conceptual or intellectual level of the B.S. engineering degree was about the equivalent of our * Excerpts freak an article of The same title by Daniel C. Hi-Tech Review 16:74-85, 1984. 141

2 1 - - ~ - - - ,~, ? ~ i' of-' 'AMOUR '- VISCOSE OF (KNOWLEDGE INUSE POPULATION ~. `~' NO. s OF ENGINEERS TIC ' ~ MEDIAN SCHOOL \YRS. COMPLETED / _- OF E Ntl R E POPU - · /f LATlON / /~ALL BACHELORS '< / DEGREES /YR. - 1 950 2000 - FIGU:RE: ~10 U.S. p~ation (in hu~reds of millions), ~er of self-identified engineers (in millions), tomcat B.S. per year (in millions), median school years deleted (divided by 10). DRIVING FORCES N. I J RESPONSES ~- INTELLECTUAL LEVEL OF UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION , , , , 1 1980 2000 1920 19SO FIGURE >11 Level of engineering knowledge, Understanding, are infonna- tion measured schematically in equivalent years of university education today. 142

- - present erg of the junior year. :Cn 1900 that level was But He pent ~ of Air =~ sore year. Ar~o1:her jump ~ level of instruc- tion is urgently needed. Also, in order to keep in the lead, over the Nat decades an increasing proportion of students must go on to the M.S. level arm to the ID. level. Yet, ~ the past decade, the to has been down, not up. m e answer is not to spend more time on unJer- graduate education. You never can keep up with the flood of useful knowledge through years in schoDI. Each year more useful information is generated in each engineering field than can be taught in one yeas. . . . Engineering numbers, quality, and level must keep up with the curves of knch~ledge in use and the level of that repledge. His- tori~lly, we have done so until recently and so were able to become the irx3ustrial leader of the world. . . . C'nly a ~11 fraction of that Is ken can be taught; only a small fraction of what is taught can be r~r~ in any one curriculum. Ex- cellent curricula can be Uprisen to meet to ~ y's needs but curiously should not be taught because they would guaran:t^- obsolescence on y~-~- uation. An acceptable curriculum for the future demands continual incisive thought and experimentation an everyone's part. Appreciable faculty time is required. Excellent leaching in the broadest sense is the primary obligation of the universities. me continuing and most difficult ~nt--1lecbual problem faced by each group is what to teach. - 143

AE~tlDIX III Me Sews Past and Present Shortage of Engineering Ph.D. Qualified for A=a(:lernic Irks and Available* 6.s A very He Odes is goal enough to exhibit the extreme severity of the shortage ark consequent negative effect on the average q~ali~ of the engineering face r. For simplicity, the need to add to the staff to catch up with the expanded engineering student enrollment will be set to one side. Consider a nationwide stea~y-state picture with about 15,000 to 20,000 tenured engineering professors. About 600 per your, on average, would retire or die and have to be replaces. Suppose, as appears to be true, that those who have tenure and leave academe for positions else- wh~re are replaced by an equal number of experienced recruits from industry, government, and private practice. m e promotion to tenure route for assistant professors then wcN1d have to supply the 600 per year lost through retirement and death. As a bare munlmum, then, 1,000 new assistant p~vf=~sors would have to be aped each year to produce the 600. Many who enter upon an aca- demic career, as any card, find they prefer another activity. Unfor- tunately, also, for a varier of reasons a significant fraction of the most interested and promising recruits will not perform well enough to meet the standard for tenure and promotion. At present, the opened total of foreign and domestic engineering Ph.D.s turned out each year, who wed liX£! to remam In this country, is about 3,000. The amber was appreciably less for most of the past dozers years. Su ~ ose that visa problems can be resolved and all 3,000 are available for work in industry, gave D ent, private practice, and academe. Of the 3,000, about 20 percent, or 600, are suitable for academe on the assumption that those who teach should be intrinsically more able than 80 percent of their students. Fewer waNId be considered sult~hie if the goal were set at 90 percent. Even if an academic ca- reer was chosen by every one of the top Ph.D.s, the numbers still would not balance because of The attrition form entrance to tenure. However, the tradition in engineering is very different from that in science and mathematics. In the past, about two-thirds of all engineering Ph.D.s have opted for nonacademic careers. In recent years the number of high-paying and otherwise very attractive positions IN industry and private practice Hal grown enormously. m at twa-thirds fraction Hal become larger still across the entire ability Spectrum e Therefore, by the reasonable criterion of the upper 20 percent, only 200 or so foreign and domestic engineering Ph.D.s scold be both suitable and interested in the 1,000 positions that would be open every year once the current shortfall is made up. That factor of five repre- sents the severe shortage In a projected st~)y-state of lower demand than that of the present and the recent past. * F=rn a speech by Daniel C. Bucker to the American Association of Engineering Societies, Port St. Lllcie, Florida, Bay 6, 1982. 144

In the are distant past of the 1950s art early 1960s, when ~gi- n~ring ED. output was ~ icier art the demand for ~ar~- oriented faculty was Oh smaller, the si-cation was quite different. A larger fraction of the best ~ineerir~g urxiergra~uates went on to the Ph.D. A larger fraction of the best engineering Ph.D.s, as judged by academic standards, opted for an academic career. ALSO! a considerable fraction of the new entrants to engineering academe came from the ranks of bright and able Ph.D.s in science and mathematics whose interest turned to modern engineering. The robber of the NAE [Nation31 Academy of Engineering] and those honored by the engineering societies bear ample witness to the ability and suor==n of this component of the professorial staff as sell as those earlier engineering Ph.D.s. At the ouch larger maters; ~ui~today, alpha entrants freon the sciences and mathematics oonti~e, they neces~A'i~ y constitute a arch smaller fraction of all new assistant professors as well as ten- us ~ professorial staff. Furthermore, a ~ st all those who now choose the path of a science or mathematics Ph.D. do so out of considered preference and with much greater knowledge of the engineering Ph.D. alternative. m e numbers are far form precise, but the conclusion is clear. Regardless of rank in an academic hierarchy of excellence, just about every engineering Ph.D. of the past deride (foreign and domestic) who elected to join academe could and probably did, provided any vise or communication problem could be resolved. 145

EFFECT OF FOREIGN NATIONALS ON FEDERALLY SUPPORTED LABORATORIES Glenn W. USA Sandia National Bra tortes S[0PRY The U ~ t^~ Shake= has a conflicting set of goals surrounding its policies for ~nternation~1 technical exchanges. We seek worldwide affinities for democracies in general an] friendships tc ward us in par- ticular. We also seek new markets for our goods. Students who are trained In the Unit Stab art return abroad probably help attain these goal s. Hcmeve:r, these goals may not coincide with Air desires for improved caR~nercial cc~itiver~ess with friend and potential foe alike. We seek areat~r ret evanesce and vitality ~ or ~ hnolocical development by promos mg closer relationships between universities and research laboratories in government and industry, but we also want to maintain academic freedom in our universities and in the broader scien- tific and engineering community. At the same time, we are attempting to restrict certain militarily and comm£rciallv useful data and goods from reaching various foreign destinations. · ~- Finally, our nation needs a steady supply of the finest technical talent, but we are mindful that U.S. citizens should not find opportunities denied in favor of foreign nationals. ~ · . ~ This final point has special interest to those who seek a~flit~onal opportunities for U.S. minorities. Opinions vary on how to best resolve some of the questions that arise concerning foreign nationals. _ = In this contribution we focus on concerns assoc'ar^~ when rore'gn nationals and naturalized citizens interacting with or espy ~ by be federally fun dect ~ aboratori~s. S~ifi~1 ly, we es: plore the effects on federally supported laloor~a- tories of foreign visitors and foreign-origin eng' nearing and science employees. We also seek some estimates on whether the pool of scien- tific and engineering talent available to these laboratories can meet present and future needs, an] we address the need for hav ~ foreign students and faculty to interact with federally funded laboratories on research efforts. The primary conclusions are that foreigners contribute to the U.S. technical development as individuals, but their presence in our uni- versities sometimes inhibits cooperative research ~rcorams with aovern- ment and industry. . . , _ _ _- Foreigners are not generally denying opportunities for U.S. citizens, but we may find it advantageous to place more 1ncen- tiv-= for citizens to follow advanced technical careers. In some cases the pool of U.S. citizens with advanced technical degrees is small 147

138 126 1 1 0 98 76 60 Be _ 30 _ ?. _ ,0 _ t, , , , I t I I I I I I I I I I ~ J 66 b7 C' ~ 3 78 ~ 1 72 73 . ~75 7. 77 78 79 86 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 NOTE: Although the United States experienced a peak during the mid- 1970s in the number of young people available to enter the science and engineering pipeline, other countries are experiencing the same phenam- enon. many Eurcpean countries are experiencing a peak in the 16- to 18-y~=r-old population during the mld-1980s. m e peak for Japan should occur later--about 1990. source: National Science Foundation, International Science and Tech- nolo~y Data Update (NSF 86-307), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Offices 1986' p. 33. FIGURE D-12 Indexes of 16- to 18-year-old populations for selected countries. enough that our laboratories must seek foreign talent when citizens would be preferable. 8~C=WND Economists cite three nearly equal factors in economic growth: new technology introduction, new markets, and capital formation. We depend on foreign involvement in all three areas. Owing to a large percentage of foreign students in technical programs in U.S. institutions, partic- ularly at the graduate level, and owing to a large foreign interest in exploiting technical developments from this country, it is important to assess the effect of foreign nationals in our laboratories on our eco, nomic competitiveness and on our military security. The federally funded laboratories produce a large fraction of the research and devel- opment (R&D) for economic well-being, health, and national defense; these institutions spend approximately $18 billion on RED of the $60 billion spent by the federal government annually. This paper focuses on how persons of foreign origin affect federally funded laboratories. 148

so 311 20 186 68 50 38 20 18 o (percent ~ ~ Act. no April PnRN Fed' Deters. Space EnerclY deal to grG-tH 1~ 1 Thai ted Stater 41984 ~ r ~ ~ \ I all ted Kingdom ( 19194 ~ I X X ~ | f rice ( 1984 ) 1i -. ~e ~ Ceremony ( I 984 (Percent) 1 . a ~ Hi. 1 aft| no `19 ~ ~ c u l t u re, 1:Idv ant ~ ~ ~ n t C.n. r a, forestry, ~ finery of research university, (ends N~ h:: Mbst of the U. S . ~r~ and devel~ment fur~s, ~r~ with less than 10 peramt ~n West Germany and Japan, are ppent on defense. West Germany and Japan have high concentrations of R&D funds ~n general university and energy areas. AJ:out 11 pement of Japan's R&D funds were in food industries. ln the 1960s and 1970s, the United States spent a ~c~h great~r share of R&D funds ~n space, but py 1984 space received a smaller share in all of these countries. SmRCE: National Science Fo~ation, International Scienae and Tech- nology Data Update (NSF 86-307), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gover~t Printing Office/ 1986, p. 7. FIGUR]3 D-13 Distribution of government R&D e~itures among selected objectives, by country, 1984. P~jections on the future demar~ for advar~ed technical degrees wil' be very uncerta~n, but several factors deserve attention. A Na- tional Research Council stu~y in 1985 pointed out that "40 percent of the anticipated new Ph.D. graduates will be foreign students on tempo- rary visas and thus probably will be unavailable!' (Committee on the E5ucation and Utilization of the Engineer, 1985). Note that availabil- ity is not an absolute; potential employers can certify a need and 149

1 20,000 1 05,000 90,000 In LL CC L11 At ~60,000 At us n 75,000 45,000 30,000 1 5,000 First-Year Enrollments / 10 ~ ~" I / BS Degrees 1 945 1 950 1 955 1 960 1 965 1 970 1 975 1980 1 985 1 P~ZTIj~ W=ld War II veterans 2 Di~ini~i~ veteran pool arxt en surplus of Firers 3 Korean War arxt Increase R&D ~itures 4 Rennin Xbrean War v 5 Aerospace priory ails; and ecamnic r~ssi~ 6 Vistas War arxl greater Apache ~itun" 7 ~s"1 so in In ';oc;~-pmgzam caners 8 Adverse snort attitude to er~i~, do Apace are defense Situps, and 1~ college attendee 9 Saved er~ine~ir~ jab market, positive son: attic tat Shivering, and entry of ~tz~liti~1 sits (women, minorities, and foreign nationals) 10 Did 18-year old pool SOURCE: ~nnnittee ~ Eng~ir~ Satin and Utilization, ~n;==i~ Cal Engineering arKi Toni System;, National Pesear~ Ail, Eh~ineering Education and Practice in the United States;, Wa~hi~n, D.C.: National Acadia Press, 1985. FIGURE 1~14 - meering degrees arm first-ym~r enrollments: Historical factors influencir~ Charges ~ er~neering enrollments. thereby aor~vert student visas to resident visas. In fact, as we Shall see, many foreign students make successful bic3s to remain In the United States. Today, In saw tonics fields, foreign graduates outn ~ ber citizens. Demographers note that universities may seek even more for- eign nationals to fill their graduate programs ~ we enter an era of fewer 18-year-old citizens entering universities= (SQQ Figure D-12. me defense industry employs a large fraction of our technical talent and has enjoyed generous funding during recent years. Some stu- der~ts of federal-funding patterns Speculate that Remarks for technical 150

personnel will lessen In response to completing same of the new defense systems and in response to political pressures. For E~tive, Fig- ure ~13 in~;cat== the apportionment of R&D foxes in the United States and varicose amber countries. Figure W14 d~nstrat~s the wide fluctu- ations in ~rgradate engineering ermolLment ~ ponse to various stimuli. Nate that graduate-level programs are huh less influenced than are undergraduate prewarms. Empl~nt is not ~e sole concern: effective laboratories must ma' Stay extensive interactions with ir~ustry, universities, and gonr- ernment, especially if they are to contribute fully to U.S. camnercial competitiver~ess. corporations anc] large-scale experiments ir~volving universities, feral laboratories, or industry are ~i~ mcr~as- ingly multinational. Large research efforts meet economic arx] per-sonne1 limitations by en~lc~ying pooled resources, which may have connections beyond air national binaries. To the extent that foreign nationals affect these mte~ctions, we Dust brooders the focus of this study. Wile the statistics ~ntrcx3~ above give she useful perspec- fives, many questions a ~ ut the effects of foreign nationals cannot be quantified on the basis of data that the author could identify. How- ever, personal contacts and respondents to telephone inquiries were very helpful in providing perspectives on this multifaceted subject. As preparation for some of the questions to be explored in the last section, we briefly describe the federally supported laboratory system, give some background information on foreign interactions with the lab- oratories, and present data on trends. - - - THE ~ E :<ALLY SOW' IA~OR~ORIES mere exist 388 federally supported laboratories (Wyckoff, 1983) that ~ the early 1980s employed over 220,000 individuals. These ins stitutions comprise a system with missions and support levels tailored to specific government agency needs. Areas of work deemed appropriate for federal laboratories are projects of national need that are too large or too long in duration to be attractive for direct support by industry. Some laboratories have unique facilities that are widely used for international experiments, while other laboratories may pro- vide skills or facilities that are useful for proprietary research by industry. It is possible for industry or governmental bodies (~nclud- ing foreign) to independently fund work at the laboratories. Fre- quently, cooperative research efforts arise in which laboratory m~s- sions and outside interests have close relationships, but no funds change hands. Many of cur federally funded laboratories find advan- tages in working closely with universities on specific programs. Some of the larger laboratories bear the designation "national," signifying a broad range of capabilities but generally focused on oer- tain major objectives. The smaller laboratories generally support one or two very specific missions and have capabilities centered on those missions. Laboratory size varies fan Her 8,000 to fewer than 10 em- ployees. Canaan entities Seth as the Federal beau of lrnrestiga- tion, Central Intelligence Agengy, Defense information Agency, arm SOUR 151

military bases also employ large numbers of scientists and engineers that are not included in listings of federal laboratories; many of our observations should also apply to such entities. Many of the federally funded laboratories have extensive involve- Dent with national "Priority' and this limits foreign interactions even in areas that would normally be available for a pen exchanges. For in- stance, at same Departing of Energy nuclear weapon laboratories, all employs must have security clears, are with few exceptions labs oratory fac; ~ ities are within secure areas. In such labs foreign nationals can enter urxler escort after amps ~ is granted by high level management; Communist bloc visits and visits form certain "sensi . five" countries are even more restricted. Even though visits may be in unclassified areas, there is a belief that prolonged proximity to work- ers who participate in secret activities will result in some undeslr- able diffusion of knowledge. However, in recent years the large lab- oratories have seen a broadening of their charters, and some facilities with more Open ads have appeared. Examples are the Combustion Re- search Facility at Sandia's Liver~re, Cal ifornia, site; the magnetic fusion energy and accelerator facilities at Los Ala~s National ~ora- tories; and a Sandia nuclear reactor complex ~t serves a classified rol e for weapon-related tests but is usu~Iv available for reactor safety studies that may include t~orarsr workers face abroad. laboratories--for e~ie, ~rco~ven and oak Ricige--~t Portray conducted secret work are now almost c~rq?let=1 y open. In 1985 the estimated shed of federal relearn funds allocated for national de- fense was 70 percent (Batelle Coleus, 1987). We may presume that a sizable fraction of this activity duly Pavlov citizens only, but statistics see an to be unavailable. Scene _ _ . _ . . . ~_ _,,, a, S me federally funded laboratories operate under direct government management with government employees, while others are operated for the government by industrial or univem ity contractors; a few are self- contained entities. Operating within any constraints caused by secur- itY requirements, these different arrangements have varvina personnel . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . requirements and pay scales that influence relations with foreign nationals relative to citizens. me pay scales at the eddy level of laboratories Operated directly by the goverTm~t tend to be less competitive than contractor~perated arm private-sector pay scales. Inner entry-level pay mats it more difficult to compete for the bet car~idat~= frmn the pool of U. S . citizens . Even in cases for which foreign rationale are eligible for laboratory positions, the preference is to seek U.S. citizens. Only waxier exceptional circumstances, when an outstanding carxi-i~te banes fin or there is no identifiable cit- izen available to fill a position, will fit of the labs seek conver- sion of a student visa to a resident visa. There are, however, scan exceptions where hiring foreign nationals is almost butane. Of course, if a foreign national beaches a citizen by some other norm;, such as marriage or by working for sad time in private ir~ustry, that person is treated on a basis dual to any citizen. Another Ante ~ sting question is whether naturalized citizens who obtain security clearances present any enhanced security risks on a statistical basis, but there seem to be no data available on this subject. 152

Owing to heightened Interest ~ r nation's technic and ca~r- cial Repetitiveness, the Congress and the Resident have issued row laws and orders [Ref. Ideology Transfer Act of 1986 (HR3773-13) and Executive Order "Facilitating Access to science and Topology," issued April 10, 1987]. Among other items, these d ~ Its marinate more lab oratory interaction with U.S. industry, seek ways to increase technol ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ _ Ad. _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ogy transfer returns Chum abroad, a ~ enable laboratory ortlclals Prom some agencies to act more effectively in consideration of net U.S. benefit in effecting technology transfers. Other initiatives have 1n- creased the emphasis on technology security in both commercial and military sectors. The new climate created by these actions will, at least indirectly. affect laboratory interactions with foreigners. Although basic science is supposed to be widely shared, according to government directives, one frequently finds difficulty in dist m- guishing basic science from developments that can lead quite directly to commercialization or improved weapons. Such uncertainties create problems in dealing with foreign nationals in t ~ ology. in,, _, , ~ FOREIGN SCL~ OR ENG~R Foreign-born scientists and engineers play a major role in American technical enterprise, carrying on a tradition that has existed for many years. Intellectuals from abroad seek freedom and better educational and career cpporbunities in the United States and frequently are the elite from their native lands. They are chosen owing to outstanding academic credentials or because their families can afford to send them to the United States. Those who stay in the United Stakes generally benefit our nation and create a "brain drain" for their home countries-. Presently, the U.S. technical monopoly is under challenge, and it is Unceasingly important for us to retain the best personnel from` abroad arx] to assure encaurager~nt and incentives for U.S. students to pursue tec~ni~1 areers. bile foreign nations may not gracefully accept the loss to the United States of she of they brightest people, frequently those who are trained at advar ~ levels be ~ me over- qualified with respect to technical opportunities in their hcmelands. Pressures from abroad are behind a new Immigration rule that requires students to return home for two years before they can apply for citi- zenship. Exceptions are pass Able, however. A prospective employer must certify that the skills offered by the foreigner are critical and that no similarly skilled citizens are available in the labor cool. _, ~ _ , _ Figure D-15 shows the various types of immigrant admissions, but it does not expend to recent years, so the impact of the new immigration laws cannot be discerned. Only about one of three immigrant research- ers achieves permanent admission through the certification process. The United States is not the only developed nation with many for- eign students in technical programs. A recent article (Anonymous, 1986) quotes a survey showing that natural science and engineering stu- dent pcpulations average about 20 percent foreign in the United States, West Germany, France, Japan, and the United Kingdom. represents this data, which averages graduate and undergraduate Figure D-16 PI 153

LO 19~ 1~ ~- 1 ~- 1 1~ I ~9~ j 1071 1 Con ~ `973 ~ ·9?~ ~ -~ ; C - iha. MA t '-0 ! l' 1 72 ~'a: ! ,00 . 8-3 1 14 2.4 34 ! to 2e ~' j ~4 1 ~& ~a ! SO ·4 35 1 ~cCR.~ - ~ NA ~ 35! 38 1 lo 1 3° ! 3, ~so i ,2 ~ 3.1' 40 1 SO I 56 ! '' ~ NA I NA ~ NA ' 72 12 60 tom '3 12 to to 9 8 t ! , 5 3 2 ,." ~All admissions 1 \ \ 1'. 113 Noncertifled immigrants / .: ·., gt2 1 11 Into 9 ~8 17 16 . Certified as needed workers - 2 1 _ ~ 1 O , ~1 194e at ~71 72 ~74 75 76 ~78 ~81 82 83 34 NOTE: Immigration of scientists and engineers rose sharply between ~g66 and 1g71, owing to changes in laws governing the entry of Asians. m e sharp decline an the years 1971-1975 and the changes thereafter reflect changes in regulations, making immigration of persons seeking entry as professional and skilled workers dependent upon U.S. market conditions. SOURCE: National Science Foundation, Immigrant Scientists and Ehg~eers 1962-84 (NSF 85-326), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985. FIGURE D-15 Immigrant scientists an] eng beers, by type of admission, 1966-1984 (in thousands). {Per cons) 40 a. 35 I.::: :. . ] Natural sciences 30 ~ Engineering _ I I Agriculture 25 ~| n t~\\1 it h sciences United States West Germany France Japan United Kingdom (1984/85) t1985/84) (1983/84) t1983/84) (1983184) SOURCE: "Foreign Students in Science and Engineering, Nature 321 (6071):643. FIGURE D-16 Distribution of foreign technical students in programs of five developed countries (total graduate and undergraduate). 154 1

A H 40 Em lo z ~30 a; o o Em a 20- 3 us 10 v o Up u, V Ph . D O 4000 a a 3 2000 71 73 75 77 79 at_ 1 · 81 83 u, a; Z; 6000 _ p; . _ ~ ° 1 is. I ( 1 1 1 ~11 1 1 71 73 75 77 79 B . S . - Ph.D 81 83 SOURCE: Ca~nitt~ on Education arm Utilization of the Peer, Commission on Er~in~ing arm T~ni~a~ System;, National Prearm Council, Engineering Equation and Practice ~ The United States: Foundations of Our l~chn~Econo~ruc Fut:ur~3, Washir~on, D. C.: National Academy E=E;S, 1985, p. 57. FIGURE - 17 Engineering Curses awarded ~ foreign nationals, 1971- 1983 (percentages and numbers). grams. The author has not local a data source for graduate-lesrel scents In other nations; ~t In the Union States, there is a huh greater concentration of foreign nationals at the gee ~ ever. Moreover, this concentration is rising. me tens "foreign" in the two 155

100 80 0 0 Cal 60 40 20 O Bachelor's l\/laster's Doctorate [ 1 Foreign 83 Naturalized 3 U.S. Citizens NaIE: lnclud~s only irxlivi*u~s reporting er~plc~t in eng~n~ring occupations in 1982. SOURCE: Special tabulations of Oak Ridge Associate Universities, based on the National Scions F~tion's 1982 Postc~nsal Sunrey. FIGURE W18 level, 1982. Foreign engineers In the U. S . labor force, ~ three charts of Figure D-17 means "non-U.S. citizens on temporary visas." Only about 8 percent of all undergraduate eng peering degrees were awarded to foreigners in the United States during 1983, but for gradu- ate degrees the foreign percentage is much greater. Naturalized plus foreign engineers at the B.S. level already con- stituted 14.5 percent of the work force in 1982 (see Figure D-18). This percentage exceeds the percentage of foreign students at the B.S. level, as seen in Figure D-17, and probably reflects earlier imm~qra- tion of eng beers trained outside the United States. a _ a ha a ~_ Ha _ means non U.S. _ -~ A - J J In 1982, 36 per cent or one enq~n^~-r~nq Labor force at the Ph.D. level was of foreign origin, awarded Ph.D. de-trees was about 40 percent. ~ , , and during the same year the portion of foreign students Presently, about 60 ner J . i. , cent of the yraduate-leve1 engineering students plan to stay in the United States (SMC, 1985). - ' ~ changes in the constitution of cur work force caused solely by the presence of foreign students; changes waNld be brought about by ~m- porting already trained engineers. One might expect industry and uni- versities to receive larger numbers of the foreign-born group owing to the hiring practices In most government-funded laboratories (see Fig- ure D-l9). . . . Anus, we plant not expect to see large 156

Chemical Aeronautical Civil Electrical Mechanical Industial Other Percent Busi/lndust E! Education Government Other NOTE: Includes only individuals reporting employment in engineering occupations in 1982. SoURCE: Special tabulations of Oak Ridge Associated Universities, based on the National Science Foundation's 1982 Postcensal Survey. FIGURE D-l9 Distribution of foreign engineers, by sector of employment, 1982. ACTS OF FOREIGN NAIIoNALS Noting Practices In my limited queries of federally supported laboratories, I found that those engaged in defense research rarely or never hired foreign nationals. Mast other laboratories had a strong preference for citi- zens but were willing to apply for immigration for very exceptional candidates. At least one major nondefense laboratory is not hesitant to hire the best candidates, providing that the necessary visas are obtainable. m ere was a wide disparity of viewpoints, ranging from a view that the supply of citizen graduates is critically short to the belief that there is not a pressing problem. There is nearly universal agreement that the United States should make it more attractive for citizens to seek advanced training. Some observers believe that we should place particular emphasis on our underutilized minority population. Women constitute about 15 percent of the undergraduate engineering body, and now account for 5-6 percent of the engineering work force. Minorities comprise 28 percent of the U.S. population, but only 4.6 percent of our engineers come from this group; of this 4.6 percent group, about tw~thirds are Asian Americans, 157

loo.ooo l 630 ~ 560 000 490.~0 4~.~0 350.000 280 000 210 000 40.0= 70.000 US ~ ~.,y _ ~ _ /~ 0 2 4 6 8 1 0 t 2 1 ~ 1 6 1 8 ~ 22 24 26 28 30 32 YEARS AF TE R B.S. So: Committee on Education ark Utilization of the Engineer, Cc~n- m~ssion on Engineering and T~nica~ Systems, National Beard Caun- cil, Engineering Education and :E'ractice in the Unit States: Founda- Lions of Our Techno-Econom~c Future, Wadhi~on, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1985, p. 101. FIGURE I>20 Cumulative B.S./~.D. salaries in Honoring. ark the balance is black. There is rem for ~ke-up In marauder in the fable and Cite grows if the prior ~ncerltives are used ark we ~n- pronre preparatory schools for inner-cit~r bla0; (NSF, 1986~. Gra~tes with B.S. purees can ~ nand starting =~lari--= that are close to the levels received by master's and Ph.D. levels, and the pay-back time in cumulative earnings for obtaining an advanced degree in engineering is about 20 years (£OC Figure D-20. Foreign students generally cannot qualify for B.S.-level positions because their vicar do not permit them to seek full-time employment, and employers cannot readily certify that a U.S. citizen is not available to fill a B. S . level position. This may be one reason that foreign students preferentially seek advanced training. In future years many of these for eignem will have attained citizenship and may become the bosses of those who sought more imme- diate cash returns. At least three government agencies that I contacted reported that they cannot compete with industrial salaries for starting Ph.D.s, so they hire bright B.S. graduates and grant liberal benefits to obta m more schooling. Owing to salary increases that come with increasing tenure and to loyalty that develops on the job, then individuals tend to remain in government positions. I5i8

Perfor~ranae on the Job In the laboratory environment, foreign-born individuals perform at least as well as the ~ native counterparts. There may be certain iso- lateJ instances where language problems or cNItural differences cause impediments, but none of my contacts could recall a negative instance worth sharing. On the contrary, ~ learned of several instances ~ which foreign-born laboratory employoos facilitated the transfer of useful information from abroad to the United States. We may e ~ that language skills and familiarity with foreign captures will become Cringe important in assuring a more balanced flow of information back ~ the United States. One large laboratory that maintains records comparing performance of foreign-born arxt native Cloys reports that the foreign-born contingent command salaries determined on merit abut 5 percent above their native peer';. Interaction witch Universities Having Foreign Faallty or Students When university pro grams include foreign grade ate students, na- tional laboratories that handle sensitive information are hesitant to place research contracts or plan major collaborations. Even when a subject is unclassified, it may fall under export control regulations, or it may have consciences In cc~3rcial cc~r~etitiven==s. For ~n- stance, foreign students Frau Ordain countries are forgiven access to suits. If a federally furred laboratory were working with a university on scam Alvarez technique In microcircuits. it w ~ ~ be hesitant to fund collaborative work in a progrmn fillec] with students planning to return to Japan. The problem becomes even more troublesome when faculty are foreign citizens, who may be able to visit the spon- soring laboratory only aft a' considerable red tape or may be forbidden altogether from laboratory visits. In nearly all cases, foreign fac- ulty cannot obtain security clearances, with the consequence that lab- oratories cannot give faculty the nary perspectives to guide stu- dents along paths most relevant to a project. Without guidance from fully Informed faculty, university researchers have also been known to stray into research areas that are sensitive. Laboratories cannot benefit f ~ u intensive an] frequent visits of foreign-national faculty and students. Universities themselves are legally exempt from prcsecu- tion for transmitting sensitive information to foreign-national employ- ees. The responsibility for protecting information lies with labora- tories that collaborate with universities. Some government agencies, such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration (D~RPA), fun] research programs at universi- ties, lout there is frequently a goven~nent redirects that the re- sear~ be Manly publi~;hable. If a laboratory regear-her works conjunction with such a program In sensitive areas, a conflict arises. In recent years a system of new cinders ark regulations concerning sensitive, but unclassified, information has emerged. While ~mple- menting rules are not yet fully in place, the consequences of the new - 159

system will most likely maim dealing with foreign students and faculty even more difficult. In spry, the pr~e of foreign rationale muni~rersities ~n- pedes Tally beneficial infraction with laboratories working In sen- sitive, classified, or irx~ustrially ~etitive ~as. The laboratory ries have limited control in this area, other than decider not to work ~ Pensively with universities. At least one laboratory, the Na- tional Bureau of Standards, Sponsors auniversi~r-affiliated institute, the Jo mt Institute for Astrc ~ ysics, and In this way can = ~ ract fully with the international scientific community. Interaction with Industry mat Employs Foreign Natiormls A similar set of circumstances surrounds interactions at national laboratories engaged in national defense work with industry when in~us- try employs foreign nationals. Many laboratories find it more diffi- cult or strategically unwise to have extensive interactions with for- eign nationals, even though they may be employed by American industry. Interaction win Visitors from Other Nations Mast laboratories are able to host casual visits that last a day or two, but as previous y nobed there is sometimes considerable red tape. Usually individual laboratories, guided by the judgment of indi- vidual scientists that host particular visitors, determine whether a visit should take place. The burden of assuring reciprocal value also lies largely with the host. Of course, when a laboratory hosts visits from developing nations, the information flow will expectedly be one- way. In agricultural exchanges with less developed nations, there is an unexpected benefit; the United States is able to replenish or expand its collection of genetic material from plants worldwide as part of our exchanges. In transactions with developed nations, there exist several factors that favor a net benefit to the foreigner. Many foreigners live In a more competitive world, and they seek advantage in information exchanges. I learned of one extreme case that resulted In scientists from a U.S. host laboratory walking away frog a Visit Turing which the visitor blatantly refused to share his data. Experienced hosts provide ample time for visitors to talk and inform them In advance that this is expel teed. Foreigners usuai~y have a far better command of English than the U.S. hosts have of the foreigners' language. This often allows the visitors to Obtain considerable information In preparation for the visit. Additionally, foreigners can usually converse with each other without their host's understanding. It is useful during foreign visits to have the participation of r~aturalized laboratory staff or scone familiar with the visitor's native language. The level of funding for U.S. regears, the cc~preherlsiveness of 160

pr~grmns, and the Hess of our society are all factors ~t favor Be lq process In ~ Unit-Stab; ~ parison with most other nations. Visitors find it easy to exploit these factors. One area that has been n~rthy with repeat to a foreign presence during the past several years; is the Barb program carried on at the National Insti- tu~; of Health. -there is scene acntrcve=;y al whether our clan pol- icies allay over nations to benefit Bury frwu U.S. hearth care re- sear~h. -this important ares ~d warrant a separate, focused sib. The usefulness to He Bib States of separate visits by foreign nationals varies widely. In expensive multinational programs such as fusion arm highboy physics Heat, there is but Hall product for any n~r-t~n Dial utilization. Work can more easily Are data teen the motives are scientific and crucial economic benefits are rate; urger such conditions there is clean benefit freon facility string. Most Servers wed cite excites in magnetic . . . . . . - . . .. . . 1~1~1 1 ~ ' ~ l~yll~ 1elyy Jury =1~ ~ ll~i~ 1~' 1llL`L L 1= 1 ~ Be: ~ 1 ~ . Sometimes visits Dame difficult to control when progrmas bane highly visible. For example, foreign visits to solar energy progrmns at one national laboratory Of ~ _~ - ~ __ _~ A ~ ~_~ 1 ~ ~ It__ 1 1~- - _ Babe 1,800 and damstic visits totaled 8,000 during a 5-year period; this became a major distraction to the staff, despite Apia sc'T'e d - ;cated guides. Owing to the large ant of publici~r surrw~li~ solar energy ~ the early days of the prearm, many nonex- perts; paid visits, hoping to gain information or, more cyni`~l1y, corn- plete a juries. We Chid Dualize that this example is an extreme one; ~ addition to the distractions, many ,~.=-ful interactions ~ suit from more serious visits. Again, e ~ fenced hosts try to assure that visitors have good credentials and insist that visitors divulge work face. their home laboratories. ACTIONS EoR 1= ED If present trends continue and foreign engineering and science graduates receive an even larger proportion of advanced degrees, the United States will find an inadequate supply of citizens for its na- Lionel security missions. With the present fraction of Ph.D. degrees awarded to foreign nationals hovering near 50 percent, we expect to see increased numbers of these individuals in the U.S. labor force. These increases will occur first in the positions accessible to noncitizens, most notably in universities and nondefense industries. As time passes' many of the foreign nationals may become citizens, and some will move into defense-industry positions. The ~ ntage of under- g=aduate degrees awarded to foreigners is not great enough to restrict the pool of available citizen talent; there seem to be no indicators that this will become a major problem in the predictable future. While the emerging pattern may seem benign, there will be some problems. While the effect of foreigners on universities is beyond the scope of this study, it appears that teaching roles place stress on communications skills and cultural acclimation--the areas where for- eigners are likely to be weakest. More importantly, we observed that a 161

large foreigr~national presence on faculties arm s1~t bodies greatly ir~ibits ~nt~se beaten universities and laboratories ~t engage In rational defense or irxtustrial ~etitiveness Rib. If we subscribe to He premise Cat close university relatior~hips with laboratories and irx~us~y are important, Here exists a problem of national so. Hanover, solving the prearm by arbitrarily limitir~ the Ever of foreigners in our educational system runs contrary to our ethos. Additionally, limiting foreigners would rice an important seduce of 1rlte]le~ual t~1er~. It appears ~t the Nat workable solu- tion is a partial one. We shalld pra~ride irx~tives for citizens re- ceiving B. S . degrees to achieve higher levels of education. His is already hang, kilt may need more ~uragement. . . _ ~ ~ . ~ ~ I, ~ w~ Anonymous. 1983. Ore foreign scents enroll, hat only scan start to work. Physics Today 36 (10) :57. Anonymous. 1986. Foreign Students ~ Science art Veneering. Nat 321(6071) :643. Cited in National Science Faur~tion, Interna- tiona] Science and Necrology Data U=ate: 1986, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Go~rerrm~ent Printing Office, 1986. Bated le~ol~us Iaboratory. 1987 . ~abl e frets of R&D E=endi- tures ~ 1985: Forecast and Analysis. Colds, Ohio: Batelle- Co1~s. Remittee on the Education arx] Utilization of the Er~ineer, Commission on E=~ne~ing arx] Technical Systems, National ~sear~ Ail. 1985. Er~n~ring Education ark Practice In the Unity States. Washi~bon, D.C.: National Academy Excess. Cover, With Fainnan. 1987 . Supply and remand for U. S . Scientists ark Er~neers: Brief O~renriew of Current Situation ark Future Outlook (87-168 Sop<) . Win, D. C.: C;or~ssional Rearm Service, me T;h~y of Congress. General Amounting Office. 1986. Plans of Foreign ID. Candidates. Postgraduate Plans of U.S.=rra~ned Foreign Students in Science and Engineering (Report No. GAO/~86-102 FS). Wadhi~or~, D.C.: U.S. Gaverrment Printing Office. Gn~enwaid, Alex, and Gordon, Charles. 1985. Foreign Engineers in the U.S.: Denigration or formation? (; Report 85-154979). New York: Institute of Electrical and El~ron~cs Engineers;. National Science, Formation (NSF). 1986. International Science and Technology Data Update (NSF 86-307). Washington, D.C.: U.S. G=rerrm~t Printing Office. Scientific Marketer Commission (SMC). 1985. The International Flaw of Scientific Talent: Data, Policies arx] Issues. ~i~s of We 1985 Joint Meeting of the Scientific M=Exhrer Ccamnission arm the Engineering grower admission, National Academy of Sciences, W~ton, D.C., May 7, 1985. W\rc3<off, James W. 1983. Federal IaboratoryDir~tory 1982 (NBSSP646). Washington, D.C.: Nations Bureau of Standards. 162

AMERICAN ENGINEERS IN JAPAN Charles; T. owns National Science Foundation There are not many good statistics about American eng meers visit- ing Japan. We do have some data fall which estimates nor guesstimates --may be made, however, for purposes of discussion. m e single largest source of engineers traveling to Japan over the last 25 years has prob- ably been the U.S.~Tapan Cooperative Science Program. As cording to that program's 25th Anniversary Report pUSJCSP, 1986), 595 American engineers were involved in the Cooperative Research component of the program and 950~ were involved in the Joint Seminar component over 25 years. One-h~1f of the joint sem mars are held in Japan, and fewer Americans are supported for travel to them than for travel to seminars in the Unity States. We can asinine, then, that since cooperative Re- sear~h participants aft always go to Japan, about 1,000 American eIl- gineer,; went to Japan under this pr~rmn in 25 years. me National Science Fc~ation's (NSF) er~g~neering rest support pr~rmns annu- ally make 20-30 grants that involve travel to Japan--sc ~ to attire meetings and some to visit laboratories. In addition, the State Depart- ment reported earlier this year that 116 Americans received Japanese government support fob visit government and university lab- oratories both 1984 and 1986. ~ . - If we arbitrarily assume that half of these were engineers, we have a tekal of about 130 American engi- neers per your going to Japan on U.S. government or Japanese government support. Japan's natural science arm engineering r~earmi anal development (R&D), however, is financial primarily (80 percent) by the priorate sec- tor (industry and other private sources). · . . · . . ~. So we must look at the pri vate sector to SQQ Nether it is a source of sigr~ficant Sure of Puner~can engineers to Japanese laboratories. While in Japan for NSF, ~ a1u two surveys or Japanese ccmpam es. In the first, 305 ~ ies were asked about the ~ willingn-== to have foreigners ~ their labora tories, and over 80 percent responded. One question answered by 78 percent of the 305 companies~aske] whether a foreigner was working in the labs at that tune. Forty-two laboratories (16 percent) re ~porx3" affirmatively, hat 19 indicated that the foreigners were there 8 u.s. 1987. Department of State, telethon from the U.S. E~ss~r in Tokyo, 163

under ache sort of the Japan International Aeration Agency (JICA), their equivalent. of the U.S. Agency for International Decrement. So, these did not cam freon the Unit" States. there, 23 people who cculct have b ~ n A ~ ricans were in this group of labs. Following my previous estimate of the so entist/eng meer split and extrapolating to the full 305 companies, we might have 15 American engineers, at most, in this group. fit that moment in time, For another survey, I used 1,270 firms that had at leant 500 em- ployees and research facilities. I think that this represented a very large percentage of the industry laboratories at which American engi- neers might find research places. If we extrapolate our very tenuous figures from the first survey to the second sample (which included the first), we might get 62 American engineers- at most. By this tortured and imprecise method, we came to 130 with government support throughout the your and 62 maximum from industry at any given moment. Adding in other possible sources of support, I suspect that the total for any year would not be more than 300. It is mare likely fewer. Mast of the visitors supported in the cooperative science program go to Japan for just a few weeks per year. Most get to know only a few Japanese an] see relatively few facilities. m e visitors to Japan paid for by the Japanese government are almost all in Japan to give lectures and to impart their knowledge rather than to gather it. The visitors to industrial laboratories are most often probably in the same category --training Japanese In a technique as part of a cooperative exchange or connected with a sale of technology to the Japanese. Considering these facts and oonjectNres as a whole, the following are apparent: . Not many American engineers go to Japan. Not many who do go are involved In research experiences. Mast visits are short°term. Many visits are initiated at the behest of the Japanese and respond to a Japanese agenda. Since Japan has a number of notable achievements--~n engineering for earthquaX e-resistant buildings, tunnels, and bridges; in mlcrcelec- troni~; in manufacturing applications; and in consumer product engi- neering--one wanders why so few of our engineers turn up there. The Japanese have over 13,000 science and engineering students here at any given time. We have about 800 students of all kinds in Japan. In 1985, over 219,000 Japanese visited the United States in visa ~te- gories for business purposes and for other skilled professional activ- ities. It is safe to say that several thousand of these visitors are Japanese engineers. They are here because they like the way we do things and feel they can benefit from studying how we do them. Do we admire the way Japanese engineers do things? Some things? There is probably more going on there than we are benefiting form --because we are not participants in the Japanese system in the same way they are participants in ours. Our researchers are not prepared to benefit from Japanese advances in the same measure that the Japanese prepare to benefit freon ours. Japan can be a daunting place because of culbura1 differences and Stations (sue h as in housing and food) . 164

Japanese large is exceedingly camps arm not may to learn for Americans. On Off mar hi, surely the cultural and large diffi- culties run the other way as well. me Riffle is ~t the Japanese made a c onscious decision that learning English am putting up with grea ~ hamburgers arm other (l &gusting PI rican delicacies was id or- tant to the future of Japan. They were right. The Japanese have recently adopted a national policy for the pro- mckion of basic research and the production of new knowledge. m ey have al ~ made it a policy to "internation*1ize" their research re- scurces. What is to be our response to this situation? Fifteen or twenty years fly now, the Japanese are going to be belter than they are today ~ science and engineering research. Is it important to cur future that we position ourselves to benefit from Japan's advancements? I think so. Our engineers need to take the time to learn some Japa- nese. We need to send more engineers (and scientists) to Japan for longer periods to learn more about directions of Japanese research and the results that can advance our own research. me government can help by providing opportunities and incentives to cur students, postdocs, and researchers. Some such support already exists (as described above), and NSF is proposing a Japan initiative in its fiscal year 1988 budget submission. The initiative would provide funds for improving the curriculum for teaching technical Japanese, mating more technical Japanese available to science and engineering students and researchers, providing incentives for scientists and engineers to study Japanese, and improving support for American rasp archers who want to make a long- term (s ~ months or more) research visit to Japan. Hopefully, these efforts will have some impact. Perhaps, more important, however, will be the extra effort that will have to come from students and researrh- ers and faculty advisers who counsel young researchers. Extra effort will be involved in identifying potentially rewarding research cppor- tunlties in Japan and in preparing for them. It will take extra effort as well to plan for a researcher's re~ntrc*uction to the America n main- stream on returning fawn an extended stay in Japan. It all goes back to how important we think it is. We should look closely at the poten- tial benefits to our research and to our long-term posture as a leader in science arm enginp~ring--and as a economic power. men we not to make the irnrestn~nt and do the hard thirds that will be necessary to build a stroker and inc~-~A~ingly mutually beneficial relationship with the Japanese in engineering and in science. BIRT TOGRA~Y Coyle, Susan L. 1986. Summary Report 1985: Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities. Washington, D. C.: Natior al Academy Press. - Jeering ~ aver Commission (E~C). 1975-1985 (various issues). Engineering and engineering technology degrees granted. Engineer- ing Education. EMC. ls75-ls85 (various issues). Engineering and engineering technol- ogy enrollments. Eng m "=ring Education. 165

Finn, Hichael G. 1985. Foreign National Scientists art Engineers in the U.S. Labor Force (0R~-244~. Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge Associated Universities. Institute of International Education (ID:). 1984. Foreign Student Flaws (ah Report #7). N - r York: Ibe Institute. TIE. 1986. ppen Doors: 1985/86. New York: The Institute. TIE. 1987. Profiles: The Foreign SO Dent in the United States. New York: The Institute. National Academy of Engineering, Committee on International Cooperation in Engineering. 1987. Strengthening U.S. Engineering Through International Cooperation. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Association of Foreign Student Affairs. 1987. The foreign T.A. problem--An update. NAFSA Newsletter, March 1987. National Science Board. 1987. Science and Engineering Indicators 1987 (NSB 87-1). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Pr meting Office. National Science FcunJation (NSF). NSF. 1984. m e 1982 Postcensal Survey of Scientists and Eng meers (NSF 84-330). Washington, D.C.: U.S. G~rerrlment Printing Office. NSF. 1985. Science and E==eering Per';ormel: A National Overvi~r (NSF 85-302). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. NSF. 1986a. Characteristics of Doctorate Scientists arm ~ir~3 In the United Stat": 1985. Win, D.C.: U.S. Ga~rer~ent Pr~ntirx~ Office. NSF. 1986b. Foreign Citizens in U.S. Science and Engineering: His tory, Stahl$: am. Outioak, 1987 (NSF86-305) ~Wa~i~bon, D. C.: U.S. Go~rerTm~nt Printing Office. NSF. 1986c. immigrant Scientists and Engineers: 1985 ~Washi~bon, D.C.: U.S. G~err~nt Printer Office. NSF. 1986ci. Pesear~ and Devela~t In Vestry, 1985a Washington, D.C.: U.S. Goverr~nt Prantir~ Office. NSF. 1986e. Science and Er~meering Doctorates: 1960-85. Wadhir~ton, D.C.: U.S. Goverr~nt Printer Office. NSF. 1987. Academic Science/~n~ing: Gra~te Enrollment and Sum port, Fall 1985 (SRS 87-05~. Washir~n, D.C.: U.S. Ga~rerrment Printing Office. United States~apan CXx~ati~re Science Em (U=CSP). lg86. 25th Anniversary Report. Tokyo: Japan Society for the Cation of Science and the National Science Foundation. 166

IMPACT OF FOREIGN STUDENTS ON ENGINEERING PROGRAMS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIAN J. E. Waco Un~v~ity of Caiifornia-San Diego INTFOIXJCl1ON me administration of the University, of California (U.C.) is cc~n- mitted to a policy of increasing the proportion of domestic graduate students in eng~neerir~ arm Outer science. AS part of this polity, e n ~ er of foreign graduate students In engineering will not be al- lowed to 1nozease until a goal of 24 to 28 percent nondogmatic enroll- ment is reached. In the interim, an' authorized qrcw~h in graduate enrollments in engineering will be limited to domestic students. The aim of increasing the number of domestic graduate students in engi- peering and computer science within the U.C. is ladle, given the current demographic situation and the differential in salaries between industry and academe, but it is unlikely that a significant increase in the number of qualified domestic graduate students will occur without a major infusion of resources. Since the national undergraduate enroll- ment in engineering peaked in 1983, it is very likely that a reduction in the number of domestic applicants for graduate study will take place in the next few years. Under these conditions, a policy that sets l~m- its on the number of foreign graduate students may have very serious implications. At the national level, the production of domestic doctorates in engineering is insufficient to meet the combined demands of academe, industry, and government. At the local level, the number of domestic graduate students in engineering is insufficient to meet the demand for research and teadhi~ assistants. The imposition of a ~ imit on the ab solute number of foreign graduate students (rather than a limit on the relative representation of foreign students) will also pl ace unequal constraints on the developing programs ~ris-a-vis the more established schools In the U. C. system. The objective of -this paper is to summarize the trends in the ~- pact of foreign students In er~meermg at the national and state le~r- els, as well as within the University of California. Views expressed In . . * 'The author is Grateful to Jean B. Fort, cD,1~fice of Graduate S=dies and Prearm, Un~versi~ of California, San Dingo, for her assistance In Obtaining the ~ for the U.C. sylvan. 167

this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the U.C. ENSIGN SIUDE~ IN ENGINEERED;: NP^l:CO~L Wilds; Although the ~ of foreign post~rx~ary stats ~ all dis- ciplines is large (343,377 in 1985-86) (Zil~ulos, 1986), this TO constitut"-= only 2.7 percent of the ~1 Over of strides atter~ir~ postsecorx~r~r institutions In the Urated States. The situation is quite different In er~neering. In the fall of 1985, accordir~ to a ~ rey corrected by the Engin~rir~ Madder Commission (EMC), nonresi- dent foreign nationals avant fox 4.2 Perot of part-time undergrad- uate students, 7.0 ~ nt of full-time undergraduate students, 10.4 percent of part-time Graduate students, 32.5 percent of full-time grad- uate students enrolled in mast~r's degree programs (including eng~neer- ing professional degrees), and 42.9 percent of full-time students In doctoral programs (Table D-6. me ERIC also reports that nonresident foreign students received 7 . 7 percent of the bachelor's degrees, 27.2 percent of the master's degrees, and 41.4 percent of the doctoral degrees awarded in 1985 (EPIC, May 1986~. Similar statistics reported by the National Rose arch Council indicate that foreign nationals on temporary visas received 44.6 percent of the doctoral degrees awarded ~ engineering ~ 1985. Foreign nationals on permanent visas received an additional 10 percent of the doctoral degrees, and U.S. citizens received 40.4 percent (the status of the recipients of the remaining 5.0 percent of degrees is unknown) (Coyle' 1986~. The relative importance of foreign engineering students has grown drastically in the past 15 years. As shown in Table D-7, in 1970, for- eign students received 3.7 of The bachelor's degrees, 14.6 of the mas- ter's degrees, and 14.0 of the doctoral degrees awarded. In 1985, the corresponding percentages were 7.7, 27.2, and 41.4, respectively. The number of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees in engi- peering awarded annually to U.S. residents (including resident foreign students) and to nonresident foreign nationals are shags as a function of time ~ Figures ~21, 1~22, and ~23. The statistics illustrated In Figure I>21~ w a very rapid Unweave In the nor of bachelor's de- grees awarded yearly ~ the period 1976-1985. In 1976, a total of 37,970 bachelor's degrees were awarded; In 1985, this ~ er had doubled to 77,946. The corresporxli ~ Imbiber of deg ~ es awarded per year to nonresident foreign nationals grew from 2,810 in 1976 to 5,650 in 1981, and to 6,000 in 1985. Since 1981, the number of foreign undergraduate students has grown only gradually, due in part to enroll- ment limits placed as a result of the high domestic demand for under- graduate studies in engineering. Since the total undergraduate enroll- ment in eng peering peaked in 1983 (Figure D-24), it is possible that These limits will be red axed and that the number and relative impor- tance of foreign undergraduate students will continue to grow. The number of master's degree recipients per year (including pro- fessiona~ degrees) is shown in Figure D-22. The toter number of mas 168

TABLE D-6: Engineering Enrollment, Fall 1985 Total Foreign Percentage Foreign Full-rime Uho erg radiates Freshman year103,2255,282 5.1 S0phom ore y - or79,6275,553 7.0 Junior Y. or84,8756,756 8.0 Senior year110,3059,165 8.3 Fifth y - ar6,159299 4.9 Toted384 ~ 19127,055 7.0 Part'T;~e Undergraduates36,6731,536 4.2 Fhll-rime Graduate Students ter's Degree39~14712~741 32.5 Doctorate21,4949,212 42.9 Total60,64121,953 36.2 Part'Time Graduate Student34,8643,622 10.4 So: Ensnaring Mourner Commission, "Er~gineering and Homology E~nts,"Engineerdr~gE3ducation, New York: ERIC, Octcd~erl986. HE ~7: Bachelor's, ~st~r's, arm oral Degrees ~ E=~n~rir~ Awarded Artfully to Nonr~;ident Foreign Students (m percent) year Badhelor's Master's* liberate 1970 3.7 14.6 14.0 1975 (6. 5) (19. 9) (27. l) 1980 8.4 26.1 35.7 1985 7.7 27.2 4i. 4 *includes er~gmeerir~ professional degrees. SCARE: ~ille~=g ~w~r Commission, "E=in~ring and E=in~ring Technology Degrees Granter," Ehg~nee ring Education, 1970-1986. 169

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 O 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 \ ~ / _' / /r~ Total // /rU.S. 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 YEAR SC~: Er~ineering Her Admission, ''Er~in~rir~ and Er~ginP=ring Phonology Degrees Granted, Engineering Education, NGW York: EMC, may 1986. FIGURE: ~21 Badhelor's degrees awards in ~necring, 1949-1985. , ~20 _ u, a - - m i 10 _ O _ 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 S(X1:RCE: SCQ Figure ~21. FIGURE >22 1949-1985. lo/ - - / Total I/ \ > U.S. !,,~ Forelgn 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 YEAR Master's and professional degrees awarded In Veneering, 170

4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 pivotal // ~ J/ ~ // U.S. ClUzens and Ford/ i/ Students on Permanent Vlsas ~ O 1 1 i I I I I I - I 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 YEAR - :Forolgn Students on Temporary Vlsas SC~;: Ensnaring order admission and National Research CX ~un- cil's crate P`ecords File. FIGURE ~23 Braid= awarded in engineering, 1940-1985. terms degrees awarded per y-:~r Dipped Frau 5,790 in 1958 to 17,360 In 1972. Since 1972, this ~ declined ~ 16,040 In 1979 arc then grew again to 22,490 by 1985. Sixty-eight percent of the increase between 1979 and 1985 In the total number of mz~s~cer ' s degrees recipients per year can be attributed to domestic students. The ~mainir~ 32 percent of the increase is associate with nonresider~t foreign shields. For- eign students accounted for 6,120 (27.2 perked of the mas~r's de- grecs awarded in 1985. The tatty er~3nt in master's degree programs In 1985 is not very different freon that In 1983 (Figure ~24). This observation and the fact that the urxlergraduate enrollment peaks in 1983 suggest that a reduction In enrollment in mz~ster's degree progrmns may take place In the next few year;. If this is the case, the importance of foreign students at the master's degree level may increase even furthers The number of doctorates in engineering awarded annoy for the period 1940-1985 is shown In Figure D-23. Also shown are the data on nonresident foreign recipients and degrees awarded to U.S. residents including U.S. citizens and foreign nationals on permanent vines. Two slightly different sets of data are shown ~ the figure. The first set (solid finest corresponds to that assembled since 1968 by the Eng~neer- ing Manpower Commission and by the U.S. Office of Education for earlier years. The second set of data (shown as dots in the figure) stems from the National Regears Council's Survey of Earns Doctorates. 171

45 r 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 o _~_ Doctorate, Tool I Bachelori J ,1 / / Doctorate. Dom - tic ~ Doctorate, Foreleg ~ , l l l / 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 YEAR NC~E: Badhelor' s = x 10, 000; master' s = x 1, 000; doctorate S=RCF~: Nation Research Council ' s Engineering Manpower Commission, Technology Enrollments, Eng.'neering Education, New October 1986e · ~ -- -r - - - ~ = x 1~ 000 ~ Survey of Earned Doctorates al Engineering and Engineering York: EPIC' _ . . FIGURE ~24 F~l-time enrollment In engineering, 1965~1985e The data In Figure m23 Than a very rapid unease freon 786 doc- toral degrees per year in 1960 to a peak of 3,774 per year in 1972 fol- law~ ky a steep reduction to 2,573 degrees per year In 1978. Since 1978, a gradual increase ir1 doctoral degrees has taken place, leader to 3,384 degrees awarded in 1985. The Eta also straw sever indoor cent features. First, the steam increase in the importance of nonresident foreign recipients In both absolute and relative terms is apparent. In 1985, nonresident foreign nationals accounted for 41.4 percent (Er~i- neering }dryer admission) to 44.6 percent (National ~smr~ C~un- cil) of the total rime of doctoral degrees awarded. Secondly, most of the increase since 1978-1980 In the number of purees awarded per year is associated with nonresident foreign recipients. Deperxling on the data set used, 66 percent (Er~in~rir~ Marker admission) to 82 percent (National Research Council) of the Encase in doctoral degrees in the period 1980-1985 can be attributed to nonresident foreign stu- dents. Finally, since 1980 the number of doctoral degrees awaked per year to U.S. residents has been in the range from 1,500 to 2,000. This number is one-half to tw~thirds of the 3,000 degrees awarded to U.S. residents In 1970. 172

The gal ~ro1Lnent of grElduate smelts ~ doctoral p~r~; veneering has grog oontirmalsly sires 1974 (Figure m24~. This try suggests ~t the production of doctoral; ~ engineering will continue ~ grew for at least the new 3-5 years. Hover, a major portion of the In ~ ase in doctoral enrollments is due to foreign stu- dents: from 1978 to 1985, the enrollment of domestic students in doc- toral pro grams grew by 4,200 students while the enrollment of nonresi- dents grew by 5,000 students. The high pro portion of foreign students in the 1985 doctoral enrollment suggests that for the next several years foreign students will continue to receive a high percentage of the doctoral degrees awarded by U.S. institutions. The large pro portion of foreign graduate students and of doctoral degrees being awarded to foreign nationals have raised a number of con- cerns. m ese oonc~rns range from the quality of the work performed by foreign talc ~ assistants to the future composition of engineering faculties and the manpower requirements of national research labora- tories. A number of interventions have been proposed, but no national policy has emerged. Eighteen percent of eng meeting departments in public institutions and seven percent of those in private institutions have set limits to the ~ percentage of non-U.S. citizens admitted for Graduate study (Barber and Morgan, 1987~. me mean value of the limit percentage set by these institutions is 31 percent. Another pro- posed intervention is to increase financial support to grade ate stu- dents to the point where they are no longer captivated by jobs in industry. Some would consider limiting this increased support to U.S. students only (Dowel1, 1987). A critical issue is to identify The minimum number of doctoral de- grees that nag to be awarded to U.S. residents to satisfy the needs= of the nation. In 1985, a total of 1,595 doctoral degrees were awarded to U.S. residents, am orating to the National Research Council (the EngLnee ring manpower Commission estimate is 1,983). TO judge this number, it must be considered that the total number of doctorates ~ engineering in the labor fox ce was 55,600 In 1983 (National Research Council) and that the estimated number of authorized full-time engi- neering faculty positions in 1985 was 20,450, of which 1,800 were va- cant (Doigan and Gilkeson, 1986). Indeed, a survey of engineering deans suggests that 1, 600 additional faculty positions beyond those authorized would be required to restore the quality of engineering pro- grams (Doigan and Gilkeson, 1986~. Based on these figures, it would seem that the annual replacement needs of engineering faculty is of the order of 800-1,000 doctorates. The statistical profile of the 1985 doctorate recipients indicates that of the 1,595 domestic doctorate re- cipients, 72 percent had definite employment plans and of these, 27.3 percent (or 314 doctorates) were committed to academic positions (Coyle, 1986~. It is not surprising to find that while foreign na- tion~1s oonstibuted only about 14 percent of the faculty of engineering schools in 1986 (NSF, 1987), 30.6 percent of all faculty numbers were foreign-born and 41.4 percent of full-time faculty appointments during the period 1985-1987 involved foreign citizens (Barber and Morgan, 1987). Clearly, the number of domestic doctorates awarded per year is not sufficient to fulfill the combined needs of academe, industry, and government. 173

I=LE I) 8: E`ull~=e Enrollment In - Sneering, Fall 1985 Undery3ra~te M. S . Crate . U.C. System ll,450 1,914 21256 California 39 J 005 6, 860 3, 947 U. S . 384 ~ 191 39, 147 211 494 sat: Ensnaring Marketer Commission, ttEr~neering and Er~eering Technology Enrollments, " Engineering Education, New York: ERIC, October 1986. FOREIGN SIUDE~ IN E~GINEER~G: UNIVE~TrY OF CALIFORNIA To consider the impact of foreign students in engineering in the U.C. system, it must be understood that California is the state with the largest number of foreign students. The Institute for Interna- tional Education estimat we that 47,586 foreign students, corresponding to 13.0 percent of all pcstsecondary foreign students IN all disci ~1 Moo to ~ ~ - - 1 ¢~_- ~ ~ ~ ~ U~ ~ 1 so ~ ~ Q ~ ~ &W' ' W and ~1 -" ' =' V' 11'" `=l~V~V~l' ~' 1~0~' · S. mace 21.7 percent of all foreign students In the United States err" In the field of eng~neer- ing (including engineering technology), it can be estimated that the state of California had in 1985-86 about 10,000 foreign students in engineering and engineering technology. Again, using the figures for the United Stat-= as a whole, it can be estimated that in 1985-86 the state of C~1 ifornia had 4,300 foreign undergraduate engineering stu- dents In 4-year institutions and 3,900 foreign grade ate students in engineering. m e state of California also has the largest number of engineering students in the nation (39,000 full-timP undergraduates, 6,720 full- time master's level students, and 3,950 full-time doctoral level stu- dents (EPIC, October 1986~. In terms of the state as a whole, it is estimated that 11 percent of the urxiergra~te and 36 percent of the full-time yrcid~te students In engineering Me foreign. The total enrollment in graduate art urxlery3rad~te engineering programs in Me U.C. system (Berkeley, Us Angeles, Debris, Santa Barbara, San Dingo, Throne) is ~r~ In Table - 8 with those in the state of California and the Up ted States. The U.C. system accounts, r ~ actively, for 29, 28, and 57 percent of the bachelor's, master's, and doctoral level en- ~vllments in the state of California and for 3' 5, and 10 percent of the corresponding enrollments In the nation. m e number of bachelor's, misterms, and doctoral degrees in engi- n^=ring awarded per year by the U.C. is compared in Figures D-25, D-26, and D-27 with the corresponding number of degrees awarded by all insti- butions In the state of California. Since 1975, the U.C., following the trends for the state and the nation (see Figure D-21), has doubled 174

7 6 In U 3 o S C C 4 m z 3 2 O 1 1 . I 1 1 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 r id/ ~ Callfornla, Total / / University of California YEAR _ _ , "engineering and Er~g~neering Frees Granted, ·' Engineering salutation' Near York: EPIC, SOURCE: ~xrineeriT,q ~r~ Commission, snooty my 1986. FIGURE W25 Badhelor's d~reos awarded in Fainting, 1969-1985. its output of bac~helor's degree recipients per year (Figure ~25~. This growth pattern for the university sty in 1982, when the r~ourms were exceeded and scan minoring applicants; had to be Shivery. At the master Is Farce level (s~ Figure - 26), the gray ~ the U.C. has been enact smaller than the go ~ for the state as a whole, which is similar to that of the nation (Figure D-22. The number of doctoral degrees- in engineering awarded per year by the U.C. grew by about 19 percent from 1978 to 1985. This rate of growth is similar to that of the state of California but much lower than the 32 percent growth for the U ~ ted States as a whole in 1978-1985. The Impact of foreign graduate students ~ engineering and compu- ter science at Californians p~3liCuni~r~sities has bed studded by the California Postsecon~ry Education commission (CP~;C, 1985). In its report ~ the California legislature, the CE?EC concludes Fat: (1) Qualified dc~nestic students are not being denied admis- sion to gate programs ~ er~gin~ring and computer science because of the presence of foreign students, 175

~ 3 In a s - m 2 At 1 ~ Calltorr:la, Total ~ ~ Univeralty of Callfornla 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1~0 YEAR sad: Er~gineerir~ Mourner Commission, "Er~in~ring and E~il1~rlI~ Technology degrees Granted, " Engineering Education, New York: E~C' day 1986. PIGt~E ~26 ~st~'s degrees awarded in ~ineerirlg, 1969-1985. 600 500 400 300 200 100 _ O ~I l 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 YEAR Sane : Engineering M power C ~ ission, "Engineering and Er~in~=ring Technology Degrees Granted," Ehg~neer~ng E~hcation, New York: EMC, May 1986. \ Callfoirnla, Total /\ Universlty of Calltomia FIGURE D-27 DccLoral degrees awarded in engineering, 1969-1985. 176

BE ~9: Ubiversi~ of California Gra~te Enrollment In E=~neer- ing, Fall 1985 Total Domestic Foreign Percentage Foreign Berkeley 1, 578998580 36 . 8 los Ar~eles 1,019711308 30.2 Davis 535391144 26.9 Santa Barbara 431290141 32.7 San Diego 350248102 29.1 Ir~rlne 31423876 24 . 2 Total U.C. System4,2272,8761,351 32.0 TO U.S. (Lime) * 60,641 38,688 21,953 36.2 * mese ~= are Frau the-Sneering ~r~ Cc~mnission. (2) The percentages of foreign graduate students in engi - - ~ ~ --- - - '- ~ -'~ '-I- public neer mg and cam put ar science in c=11torm ats universities have been declining since 1981, (3) m e proportion of foreign graduate students in engi- n^=ring and the sciences in California is lower than that of several other large stat-=, an] (4) The prc portion of graduate foreign students in Califor- nia ' s public universities is leer than that in the 8 e 8 ~ e pRlVa. ~ ~V~Sltl~. me statistical data pertaining to the U.C. system used as a basis for these conclusions and saw additional data are presented new. me numbers of domestic and foreign Graduate students in ~gineer- ing enrolled at R~8'kelpy, Ins Ar~eles, Davis, Santa Barbara, San Diego, and Trvine in the fall of 1985 are lists in Table D-9. m e percentage of foreign students ranges from 24.2 percent at U.c. Irv me to 36.8 percent at U.C. Berkeley. _ . . The percentage of foreign graduate students tor the U.C. system averages to 32.0 percent, which is slightly lower than the 36.2 percent representation for the Untied States as a whole. m e total number of foreign Graduate students ~ engineering has varied only slightly, but their relative representation has decreased f ~ 33.6 percent in 1982 to 32.0 percent in 1985 (Table D-10). In this period, the total number of despotic graduate students has in- crPased by 253 students (or 9.6 percent) while the total number of for- eign students has increased only by 22 students (or 1.7 percent). A more detailed analysis reveals that the percentage of foreign graduate students has declined at Santa Barbara, Davis, Irvine, and San Diego; 177

THERE D-10: Up versity of California Graduate Enrollment in Eng~neer- 1ng, 1982-1985 Percentage Year Total Domestic Foreign Foreign 1982 3~952 2~623 l/329 33.6 1983 4~098 21803 1~295 31.6 1984 4~250 2~879 1~371 32.3 1985 4~227 2~876 1~351 32.0 TABLE Dell: U Diversity of C=1ifornla Foreign Students as Percent of Total GradNat e Enrollment ~ Eng peering, 1982-1985 U.C. Campus 1982 1983 1984 1985 Berkeley 35.1 33.8 36.6 36.8 Santa Barbara 44.2 40.6 37.1 32.7 LDS Angeles 29.3 30.4 29.7 30.2 San Diego 33.3 28.2 27.2 29.1 Davis 33.0 27.6 29.3 26.9 Irvine 30.0 23.6 22.3 24.2 Tbt=1 33.6 31.6 32.3 32.0 TABLE D-12: New Foreign Graduate Students in Engineering, University of California, 1982-1985 U.C. Is 1982 1983 1984 1985 - Berkeley 172 178 192 140 Los Angela 88 114 99 80 Santa Barbara 51 57 57 72 San Diego 39 20 32 35 Irvine 24 17 22 32 Davis 31 30 37 31 Total 405 416 439 390 178

TABLE D-13 : New Domestic Graduate Students in Engineering, University of California, 1982-1985 U.C. OWNS 1982 1983 1984 1985 Berkeley 352 397 322 324 Los Angeles 176 198 173 152 Santa Barbara 62 85 84 100 San Diego 61 76 83 75 Irvine 51 42 44 68 Davis 72 99 104 72 Total 774 897 810 791 IAE1E D-14: M~ster's Degrees in Engineering Awarded to U.S. and For- eign Students, 1978-1984 Percentage yea' Region Tbt=1 U. S . Foreign Foreign 1978-80 U. C.863551312 36.1 C~1 if ornia2,4141,537877 36.3 U.S.*17,29912,7844,515 26.1 1980-81 U. C.856581275 32.1 California2,2611,465796 35.2 U.S.*17,91413,2384,676 26.1 U. S. **16,35811,7944,564 27.9 1981-82 U. C.1,005622383 38.1 r=1 if ornia2,8021,7881,014 36.1 U.S.*18,54313,1845,359 28.9 1982-83 U. C.934609325 34.8 California2,7641,7491,015 36.7 U.S.*19,67314,5975,076 25.8 1983-84 U. C.959638321 33.5 California2,9111,9061,005 34.5 U.S.*21,22615,4955,731 27.0 * Data free Engineering Manpower Commission ** Data from Digest of Educational Statistics 1985-86. 179

remained essentially constant at Los Angeles; and increased at Berkeley (Table D-ll). The impact of foreign graduate students in the immediate future can be assessed by examining the composition of the class of new graduate students enrolled each year. For the period 1982-1985, an average of 410 new foreign and 820 new domestic graduate students in eng peering are enrolled each year IN the U m versity of California system (Tables D-12 and D-13). His corresponds to a 33.3 percent representation for the new foreign students. At should be noted that while the number of new foreign graduate students in 1985 was lower than the corresponding number in the previous 3 years, the number of new domestic graduate Solvents in 1985 was also lower than the new enrollments in 1983 and 1984. TABLE D-15: Doctoral Degrees ~ Engineering awarded to U.S. and For- ei~ Students, 1979-1984 Percentage Year RegionTotalU.S. Foreign Foreign 1979-80 U. C. 229 13594 41.0 - California 421 252169 40.1 U. S. * 2,753 1,770983 35.7 U. S.+ 2,479 1,554850 34.3 1980-81 U. C. 258 17484 32.5 California 457 285172 37.6 U.S.* 2,841 1,7871,054 37.1 U. S. ** 2,551 1,595956 37.5 1981-82 U. C. 246 135111 45.1 California 456 281175 38.4 U.S.* 2,887 1,7211,166 40.4 1982-83 U. C. 275 147128 46.5 ~1 if ornia 470 260210 44.7 U.S.* 3,023 1,8321,191 39.4 1983-84 U. C. 255 146109 42.7 ~1 if ornla 562 320242 43.1 U.S.* 3,234 1,9821,252 38.7 * Data from Engineering Manpower Commission ** Data from Digest of E~ucation£~1 Statistics 1985-86. + Data freon Seminary Report: Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities, published annually by National Academy Press, Wadhi~on, D.C. 180

~E ~16: Newer of Domestic and Foreign Applications, Admissions, and New Graduate Students In Un~versi~r of Cal ifornia System, Fall 1985 Applied Anita N - r U.S. Cows Admissions/ Applications D* F* D* F* D* F* D* F* Berkeley1, 79O2, 029 731 331 324 140 0.41 0.16 los Alleles788744 337 228 152 80 0.43 0.31 San Diego394550 181 109 75 35 0.46 0.20 Davis349597 214 132 72 31 0.61 0.22 Santa Banana336776 224 241 100 72 0.67 0.31 Irvine231419 126 83 68 32 0. 5S 0. 20 Total 3,888 5,11S1,813 1,124 791 390 0.47 0.22 Foreign Pertest 56.838.3 33.0 * D = dc~stic; F = foreign The Her of master's and doctoral degrees ~ engineering awarded toU.S. and foreign students by ache Un~versi~r of-1ifornia end by all institutions In the state of California and ache nation during the pe- rial 1980-3 984 are list in Tables ~14 and ~15. The dam for the U.C. system and for Ache state of California are for m the California Postsecondary Education Commission. The data for the United States are from the Engineering manpower Commission, the U.S. Department of Educa- tion (Digest of Equation Statistics 1985-86), and the National Re- search Ccuncil's Summary Report. As Tables D-14 and D-15 indicate, the prcgortion of master's end doctoral degrees in engineering awarded to foreign students is similar to the average proportion for all institu- tions In the state of California but stat higher An the propor- tion for the country as a whole. It is important to establish that foreign students are not dis- placing domestic scents freon admission to the University of Cali- fornia. Table ~16 lists the n~e:r of applications, namer of admis- sions, and resulting nurser of new grange stucler~ts In engineering registered in the fall of 1985. This information indicates that for 181

eign applicants ou~xr domestic applicants ~ ff,e ratio of 5:4. The admission rate for domestic applicants ranges from 0.41 ~ 0.67 with an average value of 0.47. me admission rate for foreign students is ~ch icier, raring from 0.16 ~ 0.31 with an average value of 0.22. Cl~r- ly, foreign students are admitted only after all ~ alified domestic applicants have been admitted. Considering the complete process, only 1 out of 13 foreign applicants becomes a registered student while 1 Out of 5 domestic applicants becomes a new graduate sin dent. One of the issues involved in the discussion of the impact of for- eign graduate sin dents in engineering is the placement of these sbu- dents after they receive the ~ graduate degrees. The California Post- secondary Education Commission found only limited information. The most complete data comes from a poll conducted by the College of Engi- peering, Berkeley, covering the period 1965-1982. It was found that 68, 72, and 62 percent of the foreign doctorates (at the time of admis- sion) in electrical engineering and computer science, mechanical engi- neering, and nuclear eng mooring, respectively, remained in the United States. Partial records Fran U.C. Davis for the period 1980-1985 indi- cate that slightly over half of foreign degree-recipients are still in this country. Additional records freon U. C. San Diego for the perioc} 1982-1985 indicate that 75 percent of the foreign doctoral recipients are enjoyed ~ the Unix States, half of them in California. S~PRY At the national level, foreign y~ciduate students constitute a large pro portion of the total graduate regiment in engineering and receive a large Percentage of the mascaras and doctoral degrees awarded _ _ _ , _ _ _ each year. There are several indications that without a national ef ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tore to Increase One number or dCm£stlc graduate students, the relative representation of foreign students will continue to increase. The en- rollment in undergraduate engineering programs peaked in 1983, and it has been declining at a ray of about 10,000 students per year; the enrollment of domestic students in master's degree programs was equal in 1985 to that in 1983, but it may start to decrease in the next few years as a smaller class of undergraduates makes its way through the system. Finally, the enrollment of domestic students in doctoral pro- grams in engineering continues to increase, but the rate of increase in 1985 was lower than in the previous 3 years. m e increasing number of women and minorities In enq~n^=rinq may not be sufficient to overcome . ~ . . . .. . . . . . . the demo graphic wave, and the total graduate enrollment of domestic students is likely to decrease in the next few years. At the present time, the Anne production of domestic doctorates In engineering is insufficient to meet the beaching and research de- mands of engineering schools as well as the nets of industry and gov- ernment. Out of necessity, a significant portion of new appointments is going to foreign nationals. Under these conditions, efforts to limit the enrollment of foreign graduate students without a concomitant effort to increase the number of domestic graduate students may lead to serious consequences. 182

The impact of foreign scents ~ the graduate ~inecrir~ pro grmns at the ~iversi~ of California is similar to that on the ration as a hole. T,;m; tS on ~ ~ of formic - ~ s~= ~ a citrate of declining or nonin~easir~ drastic graduate enrollment will r ~ ace ache overall quality of the s ~ ent lady, will make it difficult to fill the requlremcnts for research and teaching assistants, an] will reduce the output of doctorates needed to cover the demand in the state and the nation. B]BT.T~ Barber, Elinor G. (ed.). 1985. Foreign Student Flows (TIE Research Report #7). New York: Institute of International Education. Barber, Elinor G., and Robert P. Morgan. 1987. The impact of foreign students on engineering education in the Um ted States. Science 236 (April 3):33-37. California Postsecon~ary Education Commission (CPEC). 1985. Foreign Graduate Students In Engineering and Ccmpuber Science at California Public Universities (Report 85-37). Sacramento, California. Chesson, Eugene. 1980. m e future shortage of faculty: A crisis in engineering. Engineering Education (April):731-738. Coyle, Susan L. 1986. by Report 1985: Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities . Washington, D. C: National Academy Mess. Doigan, Paul, and Ok Gibson. 1986. ASED surrey of er~inee:ring facult:y and graduate students: Fall 1985. Engineering Equation (October): 51-56. D~1, Earl H. 1987. American engineering and science yr~c~ate stu- dents: A near minority? AIAA Stint IJa~1 87 Spring) :16017 ~ Engineering Manpower Commission (EPIC). Variants Stem, 1968-1986. Engineering and engineering trilogy do; granted. Engin~r- ing ~cation: by 1986, April 1985, April 1984, April 1983, April 1982, April 1981, April 1980, April 1979, Octc~ 1978, April 1977, October 1976, January 1974, April 1973, Fed: ruary 1971, January 1970, February 1969, and NO 3er 1968. EPIC. Variant tan, 1968-1986. Engineering and engineering technology enro1~nts. Er~eering Education: Oc~ 1986, November 1985, October 1984, bay 1984, October 1983, Octc~x:r 1982, October 1981, October 1980, OckSb~ 1979, October 1978, Oc~c~ber 1977, October 1976, Over 1975, by 1973, April 1972, Sept~r/Octc~xr 1970, June 1969, and Moth 1968. Heron, Massey R. 1978. A century of Doctorates: Data Analysis of Grouch and Change . Washington , D . C.: National Acade~ of Sc' ences. Maxfield, Bevy D. 1984. Science, ~ineerir~, and inanities Doctor- ates ~ the Unit States : 1983 Profile. Wa~hi~eon, D. C.: Na- tional Ar:ad~ Mess. National Science Foundation (NSF) . 1987 . Foreign Citizens In U. S . Science and Engineering: History, Status and Outiook. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gaunt Printing Office. 183

U.S. Depar~t of Education. Digest of Education Statistics, 1985 1986. Office of Educational Poseurs ark ~rc~rement. Zikc~os, ~rianthi (ea. ) . 1986. Cam Doors 1985-86. New York: Institute of international Education. 184

Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $55.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!