
They may not all go for the Nobel
|
(Asia Sentinel) Those impressive numbers of engineering grads belie the fact that too many of them aren't very good
A new report called
The Competition that Really Matters,
which was released jointly by the Center for American Progress (a
Washington DC think tank with close ties to the Obama administration)
and the Center for the Next Generation, contends that America’s
competitive position is being eroded by the emergence of skilled labor
forces in India and China.
The report calls both countries among “our fiercest competitors for the
jobs and thought leadership of the future.” Noting the investments
China and India are making in improving their human capital, it
recommends that the United States substantially increase the level of
resources directed at primary and secondary education.
There is certainly a strong case to be made that the US educational
system is in urgent need of overhaul. But the new report is reminiscent
of
Rising Above The Gathering Storm,
a widely-publicized 2005 report that was written by an eminent group of
US business and scientific leaders. It likewise warned that India and
China were quickly acquiring a vast reservoir of low-wage but
highly-trained brainpower that would inevitably sap America’s edge in
innovation. One of the particular warning indicators it presented was
that Chinese universities were churning out some 600,000 engineers a
year and India 350,000, but U.S. institutions were only minting 70,000.
In similar fashion,
The Competition that Really Matters advises
that India “is already producing more students with bachelor’s degrees
than is the United States. Over the last seven years, India has tripled
its output of four-year degrees in engineering, computer science, and
information technology.” It also notes that “seven times more children
attend primary school in India than in the United States.”
But quality is really the issue here, rather than mind-boggling
quantity. This point was amply underscored when Vivek Wadhwa and his
colleagues at Duke University
quickly debunked the alarming figures presented in the
Rising Above The Gathering Storm
report. The Duke study found that engineering numbers cited for China
and India were significantly exaggerated since they included holders of
associate degrees and vocational certificates along with recipients of
bona fide four-year degrees. It concluded that:
“A comparison of like-to-like data suggests that the United States
produces a highly significant number of engineers, computer scientists
and information technology specialists, and remains competitive as a
source of global engineering, computer science and information
technology labor.”
Similar arguments also appeared in the
Wall Street Journal and the
Washington Post. Surprisingly, there is no reference to this policy debate in
The Competition that Really Matters.
Contrary to the growing Western perception of the country as a
technology powerhouse, the quality of Indian graduate education in
critical technology fields lags significantly behind the United States
and Europe. Concerns about the caliber of India’s legions of
engineering graduates have mired New Delhi’s bid for full membership in
the Washington Accord, which governs international recognition of
foreign engineering degrees. Moreover, the country manages to produce a
remarkably small number of PhDs in computer science each year. Indeed,
Israel graduates approximately the same number as India despite the
gargantuan population disparity. A senior government official in New
Delhi a few years back acknowledged that India would never become a
great power on the basis of such paltry numbers.
A parade of government officials and corporate leaders
has acknowledged the serious disrepair of the Indian university system,
including at the most elite schools. Incredibly, given the country’s
high-tech image, the Infosys Science Foundation in 2009 was
unable to find a worthy recipient for its inaugural prize honoring an Indian researcher in the field of engineering and computer science. And
The Journal of the ACM,
the world’s leading journal in the computer science field, for a number
of years was unable to publish Indian submissions on quality grounds.
According to a
widely-consulted scorecard
compiled by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, only one Indian school – the
Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore – is ranked in the top 500 of
global universities – and then only in the bottom tiers.
Research by the McKinsey Global Institute
concludes that only a quarter of Indian engineering graduates are
suited for employment by multinational companies. The rest are lacking
in requisite technical knowledge, English-language capacity, and
collaborative skills.
These findings are underscored in a
new report by a British engineering organization. A forthcoming book by Rafiq Dossani also
concludes that Indian engineers rank at the bottom when compared to their counterparts in the other BRIC nations.
As one official in the Prime Minister’s office recently
acknowledged,
“The stark reality is that our education system churns out people, but
industry does not find them useful….The necessary development of skills
is missing in our education.” This view is echoed by a
report
four years ago by a parliamentary committee, which observes that the
employability of graduates of the country’s technical schools “remains a
matter of serious concern.”
The resulting skills gap has fundamental implications for India’s
success in the global economy. A 2009 World Bank report found that an
acute deficit of civil engineering skills severely jeopardizes the
country’s growth prospects. The number of civil engineering graduates
from Indian universities will need to increase three-fold in order to
make good on New Delhi’s ambitious plans to improve the nation’s
decrepit infrastructure. And in order to expand the ramshackle energy
sector, India has been forced to rely on tens of thousands of Chinese
guest workers. As the chairman of the Central Electricity Authority
admitted in a
recent interview, “we don’t have that amount of skilled manpower in the country.”
It is true, as
The Competition that Really Matters observes,
that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government has dramatically
increased funding for primary and secondary education. But so far, more
resources have not translated into better outcomes. India not only
exhibits the lowest educational indicators in the Group of 20, its
public education system scores poorly relative to the other BRIC
countries and to other emerging market countries. The
2012-2013 Global Competitiveness Index
newly issued by the World Economic Forum places India at 81st, out of
144 nations evaluated, in terms of the quality of primary education,
107th for secondary school enrollment, and 95th for tertiary education
enrollment.
In spite of the recent infusion of more government resources,
educational indicators remain profoundly disconcerting. According to
results released earlier this year by the OECD’s Program for
International Student Assessment, Indian eighth-graders
scored second to last
in a 75-nation ranking of writing and math skills. It is all the more
disheartening that the Indian government selected students from Tamil
Nadu and Himachal Pradesh to participate in the assessment, since these
states are considered among the best in providing elementary schooling.
Although
The Competition that Really Matters discusses US PISA scores as well as China’s “
Shanghai Shock,” it omits any word about India’s failings.
Similarly, a
recent survey
released by Pratham, a widely-respected nongovernmental group working
to improve educational outcomes for impoverished children, finds that
half of the country’s fifth-graders were unable to read at a
second-grade level. And despite talk about rising literacy rates, one
recent study concluded that the official rates are significantly overstated.
The benchmarks to India used in
The Competition that Really Matters
conceal just as much as they reveal. Still, the report does exemplify
how the imperative of responding to emerging global competition from
China and India has become a common theme in U.S. policy circles.
President Obama frequently stresses this point. In
announcing
a new public-private partnership on manufacturing innovation last
month, for instance, he justified the initiative by saying it “will help
make sure that manufacturing jobs of tomorrow take root not in places
like China and India, but right here in the United States of America.”
In a campaign appearance three months ago, Obama
argued that the US had to invest more in science and technology so as not to “cede new ideas to countries like China and India.”
Along the same lines, the president regularly refers to the prodigious
output of brainpower from the two countries in exhorting the need for
education reform in the United States. At a Democratic Party gathering
last month, he
maintained
that unless America repaired its school system, "then we're not going
to be able to compete with China or India or Brazil, who are very hungry
and know that whichever country has the best workforce, the most highly
skilled workforce, is going to be the country that succeeds
economically.” And at a gathering in Las Vegas two years ago, he
cautioned that if India is “producing more scientists and engineers than we are, we will not succeed.”
But if this argument, at least when it comes to India, is not supported
by the data, why has it gained wide currency? My own theory has to do
with the conflating of the Indian diaspora’s success in America with the
strength of their homeland’s competitive position. The prominent role
that India-born engineering and scientific talent plays in
driving U.S. prosperity and innovation – most prominently in Silicon Valley – is a significant factor in this confusion.
So, too, is the swelling number of bright and diligent Indian students
enrolled in American universities. Indeed, a bipartisan consensus has
formed in Washington that the US needs to keep as many of these students
in America as possible once they’ve completed their course work. As
Obama put it in his
January 2011 State of the Union address:
“[Students] come here from abroad to study in our colleges and
universities. But as soon as they obtain advanced degrees, we send them
back home to compete against us. It makes no sense.”
But it should alert us that something is amiss at home when so many of
India’s best and brightest choose to pursue their dreams and apply their
talents elsewhere. India’s transformations over the past two decades
no doubt command the world’s respect, though they should not blind us to
the daunting challenges it still confronts, perhaps none more
formidable than in the area of human capital development. The country’s
prodigious demographic resources – it will in a decade or so overtake
China as the world’s most populous country – could one day be the basis
for India’s emergence as a full-fledged global power. But for now it
remains an open question whether India has the capacity to distill raw
potential into actual achievement.
(David J. Karl is president of the Asia Strategy Initiative, an
analysis and advisory firm based in Los Angeles. He blogs on South Asia
at Chanakya’s Notebook and can be followed on Twitter @davidjkarl.)