The U.S. is losing its role as the world’s technological leader, and some are saying that the new champion might soon be China.

How will our economy cope?

For decades, the United States has fostered a system of entrepreneurialism, invention and creativity that has made us the dominant world force in engineering and technology. In the world of and pocket protectors we author the most journals, award the most patents, and win the most Nobel Prizes. And the plastic-Casio-wearing, dateless calculator lovers among us have become the broiling engine that makes this economy soar. Where would this nation be without IBM, Hewlett Packard, Pfizer, Dell or Abbott Labs?

Alas, pats on our lab-coat-covered backs don’t do much good for the future. Like many measurements of this country’s success, the math and science factor is starting to sputter.

Our high schools have sunk to the bottom sludge of math and science rankings. Last year our 15-year olds were the 6th worst performers out of those tested in these subjects. The stricter immigration laws and wary economic forecasts are slowing the draw of foreign math and science talent. And the percentage of US R&D to global investment is declining.

Meanwhile, China is running quite a race. In the latest study by the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) they ranked #1 in combined math skills for 15-year olds. The country’s technological exports approached $220 billion in 2005, which is over 100 times what they exported 15 years ago. Most striking is that 50% of its undergraduates receive degrees in natural science or engineering, compared to 15% in the U.S.

If these statistics are meaningful, then we’re headed for deep trouble. Not only will our citizens not benefit from the employment opportunities offered by our own high-tech companies, but some of our own industries that cannot feasibly hire foreigners (such as the national defense industry) may not survive.

But Americans shouldn’t despair just yet. Robert Stevens, CEO of Lockheed Martin, offers some intelligent suggestions that could stop this trend.

If the U.S. intends to remain the world's technological leader, we have to act today, inspiring more young people to thrive in advanced-tech careers. It's achievable, as long as government, the private sector, schools and communities work together.

The classroom is the place to begin. The Bush administration's pledge to improve math and science education, including 70,000 newly trained high-school teachers, is encouraging. But in order to attract the best teachers, we should pay them what they're worth. Between 1993-94 and 2003-04, 15 states saw declines in teacher salaries when adjusted for inflation.

Industry also has an important role to play. At Lockheed Martin, we fund and participate in programs like Mathcounts, Space Day and National Engineers Week, when our employees go into classrooms and community centers with hands-on activities to kindle an interest in engineering. Our goal is to mentor kids, helping them see beyond the stereotype of the nerd in the lab and start thinking of math and science as compelling, rewarding, even fun. And individual business leaders must do their part. Most Americans would probably be surprised to learn that more S&P 500 CEOs got degrees in engineering than any other field. The more executives, university administrators and academics shine the spotlight on the stakes of the tech challenge, the more we can galvanize action to meet it.

There are other avenues worthy of exploration: visa extensions for international students who earn advanced math and science degrees from U.S. institutions and want to work here; or student loan forgiveness for math and science graduates who commit to work in national security fields.

But just as important as revitalizing policy is reshaping attitudes. Instead of wringing hands or building walls in response to competition from China, let's summon the can-do spirit that has made America the land of innovation. The Space Race fueled my generation's ambition and imagination. We must inspire today's young to believe that if they become our future engineers, they can engineer our future.

Posted by Michelle Smith on April 26, 2006 06:43 AM

Posted by: Bruno at May 16, 2006 12:02 PM