equipment of this type is when they tour the Smithsonian." estimated that--without adding It is programs or students--updating instructional labs will cost approximately $1 billion. This combination of low salaries and lack of state-of-the-art equipment coupled with the high cost of graduate tuition has made it very difficult to attract U.S. citizens into graduate study in engineering. We are concerned about quality as well as quantity. suffering due to the faculty shortage. Both are From 1980 to 1981, 31% fewer engineering programs were given normal six-year accreditation, and during the same period there was a 71% increase in those asked to "show cause" why accreditation should not be terminated. Unless we reverse the downward trend, we face the loss of world economic and defense leadership positions. Foreign students remain the primary source for new faculty recruitment, not displacing U.S. citizens but simply filling the graduate gap left because U.S. students do not wish to apply. The number of Ph.D./EES granted over the past 10 years has actually decreased by 25%. In 1971, 899 Ph.D./EEs were awarded in this country. By 1981, the number had decreased to 503--half of which went to foreign nationals. The pool from which faculty come is drying up. The second question then is, "What is the appropriate response by the private sector to remedying the problem?" AEA's Program To Redress The Shortage AEA began last year by forming a Blue Ribbon Committee to study and recommend a plan of action. Under the leadership of Dr. William Perry, former U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, and with guidance from members such as John Young, President of Hewlett-Packard, Robert Noyce, Vice-Chairman of Intel Corporation, Dr. Joe Pettit, President of Georgia Institute of Technology, and Dr. Richard Atkinson, formerly head of NSF and now Chancellor of the University of California at San Diego, the Association has launched an aggressive program. AEA AEA's Board of Directors set a goal for each member company to invest 2% of its R&D expenditures in engineering education. established the Electronics Education Foundation to encourage and aid contributions by member companies to engineering universities. The Foundation's 1983 goal is to raise $10 million through its 13 industry committees around the country. It is focusing on funding 300 $10,000 faculty development grants to augment faculty positions to help universities attract and retain professors and 200 fellowship-loans to fund graduate study for U.S. citizens who wish to get a doctoral degree and teach engineering. Hewlett-Packard has just joined AEA in this effort and is funding 50 fellowships at a cost over the next six years of some $6 million. Other members to date have pledged 35 additional fellowships--and the national campaign is just beginning! Control Data in cooperation with the Foundation has just announced a $6 million program to donate microprocessors and lower division engineering courseware to some 100 colleges and universities around the country. The National Science Foundation estimates that industry spending on universities increased almost fourfold during the past decade with an estimated $275 million going to academic laboratories in 1982. A few specific examples of the efforts of companies to redress the problem are: In 1982 IBM funded more than 90 fellowships in programs; General Electric Co. has increased to $10 million the American Telephone & Telegraph Co. will award 25 four-year fellowships each year to promising science students, for an annual cost of $2 million; Hughes Aircraft Co. provides about $8 million a year support to colleges and universities through various Loral Corporation has contributed $165,000 for a microwave laboratory at City College of New York; Motorola has given $1.2 million to Arizona State's College of Engineering and Applied Sciences to support its Center of Engineering Excellence; Analog Devices, Inc. has contributed $175,000 to 3M Co. has given $1.2 million to two research centers at the University of Minnesota's Institute of Technology; National Semiconductor has donated equipment valued at The preceding examples barely scratch the surface of corporate support for scientific and technical education. Despite the monumental effort directed by industry at solving the technical manpower problem, an effective solution requires time and action on multiple levels. An Appropriate Federal Response This brings me to the third and last question, "What is the appropriate federal legislative response?" Industry clearly cannot do the job alone. Federal assistance is also needed. In enacting the "National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976," according to a GAO report, Congress recognized the technical manpower pool of this country as an invaluable national resource. The GAO report states: National policy should include a continuous appraisal of the roles science and technology play in achieving goals and formulating policies, including the recruitment, education training, and beneficial use of adequate numbers of scientists, engineers, and technologists. and Besides the direct funding of science, math, and engineering education through traditional channels such as NSF, the federal government can help significantly by enacting tax policies which encourage additional private sector action. Currently, the tax incentives provided for by the Economic Recovery and Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA) encourage companies to donate new equipment to colleges and universities for research purposes. If the quality and quantity of our undergraduate education is not to continue to deteriorate, however, the R&D tax credit and the equipment provisions of ERTA need to be extended beyond 1985 and also expanded to the following areas: donations of instructional |