Does America Produce the World’s Best Engineers?


“Engineering”, in the words of a recent book, “has never mattered more.” Few would doubt the truth of this statement. Many who should know also believe that America is losing its competitive edge because it does not teach engineering well. The present administration’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, admiringly points to India as the country with the best technical education in the world. President Obama’s policy goal is the establishment of an education system that can compete with China and India.

Has America lost the race to produce the best undergraduate engineers? Indeed, graduate engineering enrollment data from some prestigious schools like Stanford University show that a majority earned their undergraduate engineering degrees overseas, particularly from Asia.

By contrast, here are some comments from a 2009 conference at Stanford University on how Silicon Valley evaluates foreign education and experience:

"Good technical skills are available in many locations around the world so that, at this time, education is a ‘check-box’ item. The most successful engineers are those: (1) with deep technical knowledge rather than language or technology-specific skills, (2) who take ownership for their work, (3) who are flexible, work well in teams and have strong communication skills. In this context, American experience or experience of working with American teams is a plus."

"Indian (engineers) at the starting level are not suitable for Silicon Valley startups; however, once they have a few years of experience, they are suitably qualified when compared with American engineers."

"India can now do core development work, something not possible earlier. … However, the high-end concept and design, and embedded wireless programming still needs to be done in Silicon Valley."

Thus, the comments from the field challenge one of the policymakers’ conclusions. A second implication of policymakers’ statements is that the inadequate quality is because America has not adequately reformed its engineering education system.

Even this is challenged by evidence. Compared to other countries, a ferment of reform is evidenced. The latest wave of reform began in 1996, when the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) adopted a new set of standards, called Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC2000).

EC2000 shifted the basis for accreditation from inputs, such as what is taught, to outputs – what is learned. For example, the earlier guidelines specified what mathematical skills the graduate should possess. EC2000 changed that to a guideline that graduates must have an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics. Instead of, as earlier, asking colleges to include a capstone design course, it required graduates to have the ability to “design a system, component or process to meet desired needs”.

In practice, however, studies show that few programs reduced their emphasis on the foundational topics in mathematics, basic science and engineering science. Instead, schools increased content on other aspects, such as engineering design and use of tools.

On method, even less was changed. Engineering education still offers at its core, as the single largest component, a lecture sequence in order to provide analytical tools. Surrounding this and, mostly not well-sequenced or networked, are the lab and design courses. Even more remote are courses on the standards of professionalism and ethics.

It may be that reforms were not needed; or, that they are needed, but the United States is so far ahead that we can manage for several years without reform. The positive industry responses suggest that the system still works.