Download PDF Fall Bridge on Engineering a Diverse Future September 25, 2024 Volume 54 Issue 3 Guest edited by Wanda Sigur and Percy Pierre, this issue of The Bridge addresses the issues around sustaining a U.S. engineering workforce that builds on and integrates the talents and ideas of our diverse nation. The Uncapped Potential: Engineering an Opportunity of a Lifetime Thursday, September 26, 2024 Author: Norman R. Augustine There are significant opportunities to supplement America’s overall engineering capabilities while leveraging the talents of its entire population. Engineering is ultimately governed by the fundamental laws of nature, and nature is an absolutely fair but absolutely unforgiving judge.[1] If an engineer inadvertently leaves a “dash” out of thousands of lines of code on Mariner 1, the spacecraft that was intended to visit Venus is last observed heading into outer space to do some exploration on its own. If a seal on a rocket engine is flown outside its temperature envelope, the space shuttle Challenger fails. And if a fragment of ultralight insulation foam strikes the leading edge of the wing of the space shuttle Challenger, it too fails. It doesn’t matter how many high-level experts were involved in the design process, how much money was invested in the project, how many million people were hoping for success, or whether the designers were White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, men, or women. If the design is sound, there can be great success; if it is flawed, there can be abject failure. This applies whether building spacecraft, aircraft, bridges, tunnels, automobiles, ships, skyscrapers, or cell phones. That is one of the many attractions of engineering: Ultimately, everyone’s work is judged alike. But there are self-imposed problems limiting engineering in America, one of which is the constraint the nation, usually short of engineers, places on itself by failing to attract to the field more talent from the rich variety of backgrounds in its populace. Overcoming this improvidence could enable the engineering profession to make even greater contributions to the nation while offering the opportunity of a lifetime to many more of its citizens. Such contributions range from enhancing the economic wellbeing of the citizenry to improving healthcare to providing national security to preserving the viability of our planet. Engineering Matters The president of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping, himself a chemical engineer, has said that “technological innovation has become the main battleground of the global playing field and competition for technological dominance will grow increasingly fierce.” His government’s growing investment in science and technology suggests that he means what he says. In the United States, a number of studies, two of which formed the basis for Nobel Prizes,[2] concluded that up to 85% of the growth in America’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is attributable to advancements in just two closely related fields: science and technology. It is, of course, the nation’s GDP that underpins its ability to provide national security, healthcare, education, infrastructure, and a higher quality of life for its citizens. But there are self-imposed problems limiting engineering in America, one of which is the constraint the nation, usually short of engineers, places on itself by failing to attract to the field more talent from the rich variety of backgrounds in its populace. It is science and engineering that, in the past few decades alone, have provided benefits to humanity that range from artificial joints, electric vehicles, and cell phones to MRI machines, GPS, email, and high-definition television. And the future is filled with promising new technologies that include automation, artificial intelligence, genomics, massive computing, quantum communication, advanced medical imaging, and fusion-generated electricity—plus advancements that no one has yet even imagined. To turn such enormous potential into reality will require highly trained engineers in greater quantities than are available today. Among the first to recognize—and act upon—this was China (see figure 1). Given the size of China’s population relative to that of the United States—China being a factor of four larger—there is no way that America can hope to compete with China on a person-for-person basis. Rather, it must do so by seeking technological advantage, a more motivated populace, alliances with its allies, and fully benefitting from the talents of individuals in all segments of its society. Unfortunately, along with the many scientific and technological opportunities that have presented themselves to the nation, so too have many challenges. A partial list of the latter might include providing sustainable clean energy, developing large-scale affordable desalination, offering greater opportunity to all our nation’s youth, providing affordable healthcare, creating quality jobs, and providing national security with armed forces that are likely to be vastly outnumbered. In many of these instances it will be engineers who will be called upon to provide answers to the challenges confronted. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the net demand for engineers will increase by 5.2% over the next 10 years, with some fields of engineering needing to grow by 14%. In addition, 20% of the current engineering workforce will be eligible to retire within the next decade (at age 65) and will need to be replaced. What Became of All the Engineers? Various terms are commonly used to refer to America’s scientific/technical workforce. “STEM” (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) is perhaps most common, but is sufficiently general as to encompass 24% of the nation’s overall workforce, including social scientists, technicians, psychologists, and others. In 2021, there were 3.5 million individuals (2.3% of the total workforce) employed in what is commonly identified as the engineering workforce. However, this definition, too, is very broad, including architects, agricultural engineers, technicians, surveyors, sales, etc. Wherever possible, the present article uses a stricter definition of “engineering” and, as such, includes about two million people in the “engineering profession,” or about 1.1% of the nation’s total workforce. When other broader definitions are used herein, it is because of the lack of relevant data pertaining to the narrower definition; in such cases, the use of an alternative definition is indicated. The domestic pipeline for producing engineers can only be described as extremely leaky. About 87% of all ninth graders ultimately earn a high school diploma. Of those who do, only 62% will enter college, and of those who enter college, only 11% will declare an engineering major. But only a net 50% of the latter will graduate with a degree in engineering. And of those securing a baccalaureate in engineering, only 4% will eventually receive a doctorate in the field. Stated otherwise, to produce a single bachelor’s-level engineer working in the field in 2032 requires a pool of about 20 US ninth graders today, and to produce a doctorate engineer circa 2037 requires a pool of some 400 US ninth graders. Further, engineering has been identified as an effectual undergraduate preparation for the pursuit of many other professions. According to the US Census Bureau, individuals with baccalaureates in engineering are currently filling 47,300 positions in judicial professions, 118,900 in healthcare, and 819,700 in management, business, and financial fields—about half as many as are pursuing careers in engineering, per se. The Gap In 1978, the year of my first visit to China, I observed many thousands of bicycles, a few dozen automobiles, one television set, and enormous crowds of men and women all wearing Mao suits. Apparently having been told that Westerners were wealthy, a question I was occasionally asked by passersby was, “How many bicycles do you own?” Fast forward to 2014. A momentous event took place that year that went almost unnoticed in the United States: China’s GDP at purchasing power parity surpassed that of the United States. Calculated at economic exchange rates, China’s GDP has continued to gain on that of the United States. Over the years China’s leaders, many of whom were engineers, saw to it that the number of PhD’s awarded in engineering in 2023 was 34% of all PhD’s granted in China—as compared with 19% in the United States (and of the latter, 58% were earned by foreign-born individuals). The current fraction of all first degrees that are awarded in the field of engineering ranks America in 76th place among nations, just behind Mozambique. In 2021 some 6% of baccalaureate degrees from US universities were awarded in engineering—the same as in the field of psychology. Between 1996 and 2018, China’s share of articles among those in the top one percent of cited scientific publications increased by a factor of four. Between 2000 and 2023, America’s World Competitiveness Ranking dropped from first to eighth place―all concurrent with the impact of science and technology burgeoning. Reflecting this, between 2008 and 2023, the number of US firms in the Global Fortune 500 fell from 153 to 136, while China’s representation increased from 29 to 135. And since the year 2000, China has increased its spending on R&D as a fraction of GDP from 0.9% to 2.6%, while the US R&D intensity has increased from 2.6% in 2011 to 3.5% today. While China is not without its share of challenges, including a declining and aging population and slowing growth of its economy, its embrace of science and engineering as part of the solution remains largely unquestioned. Opportunity Knocks The percent representation of various self-identifying groups (irrespective of place of birth) in the US 2021 overall workforce, followed by the percent representation in the engineering workforce, is as follows: White male—33/60; White female—29/9.0; Black male—5.0/4.0; Black female—6.0/1.0; Hispanic male—10.0/8.0; Hispanic female—8.0/2.0; Asian male—3.4/10.5; and Asian female—3.1/2.8. In most of the above groupings the evidence displays a substantial underrepresentation in engineering, thereby offering significant opportunities for enhancing America’s overall engineering capabilities—albeit over the longer term, given that it takes many years to produce an engineer. Table 1 indicates the potential impact of attracting more women and minorities into the engineering profession. Were the representation in engineering of the identified groups to equal that of the same group’s current participation in the nation’s overall workforce, an increase of 630,000 engineers (35%) would result. (The two groups that are currently providing proportionately more engineers than their overall representation in the US workforce, Asian males and White males, are displayed based on their current level of participation in the engineering workforce.) While there are obviously numerous practicable issues to be considered in reaching the outcomes shown, as will be addressed in a subsequent section, the calculation does indicate the enormity of the potential engineering contribution that could be available to the nation by increasingly benefitting from the talents of all parts of its populace. An example is the growth realized in the United States in the participation rate of women in engineering over the past half-century, albeit still grossly underrepresented. Fifty years ago White women represented 3% of the engineering population in the United States as compared with 9% today. If even that modest growth rate were to be sustained, by 2077, the fraction of US women in engineering would equal the female share of today’s overall workforce (29%). The possibility of a substantial increase in the participation of women in engineering is supported by the facts that currently 56% of law degrees, 54% of medical degrees, and 58% of all bachelor’s degrees are earned by women—the latter indicating a nearly 40% disparity of women over men. The urgency of addressing such issues is reinforced by the projection that the 2060 US population will display a decrease in the fraction of White males (the group that currently provides the most engineers) from 30% to 22%, while the current minority (non-White) workforce will grow from 35% to 53% of the total population. Opportunity Knocks Twice The question arises of how the United States has been able to sustain its technological superiority in recent decades when producing such a limited supply of engineers (and scientists). A significant part of the answer has been America’s ability to attract large numbers of highly capable foreign-born individuals, particularly to its graduate schools, many of whom remain in the United States, raise families in the United States, and contribute significantly to the nation’s economy and overall wellbeing. Fully 29% of the science and engineering faculty at US universities today is foreign-born, as is 30% of the overall science and engineering workforce, along with 36% of America’s Nobel Prize recipients this century in chemistry, physics, and medicine (a share that was 50% in 2019). Similarly, 45% of the US Fortune 500 firms had a founder who was an immigrant or a child of an immigrant. Among the top third of Fortune 500 firms, that share was 57%. In 2021, 56% of the doctorate-level engineering workforce was foreign-born, as were 32% at the master’s level and 14% at the bachelor’s level. This corresponds to a share increase at the doctorate level over the past 30 years from 27% to 56%. The number of international graduate students in US higher education has accordingly increased from 280,000 in 2012 to 470,000 in 2022, the latter marking a 37% recovery since the trough encountered during the Covid pandemic. At the doctorate level in 2022, 32% of international students came from China and 15% from India. At the overall tertiary level the fraction of students from China has declined during the past two years from 35% to 27%, while those from India increased from 18% to 26%. Ninety-six percent of the doctorates awarded by US universities to students from China are in the fields of science and engineering, as compared with 44% for US-born students (9.4% specifically in engineering). A recent international survey found that if individuals across the globe were required to leave their home country, 57% would choose to go to the United States—and 9% to China. Among Chinese-born doctoral recipients in science and engineering, the stay rate has declined from 95% following the Department of Justice’s “China Initiative,” which was promulgated in 2018 and addressed such topics as economic espionage, but remains at about 83% today. Concerns have periodically been expressed over China’s propensity to place spies among its international students. Clearly, this is a serious matter and ample precautions are warranted. Almost all research conducted at US universities is openly published, and, in balance, contributions of foreign nationals to the United States, including those from China, have been immense. It can comfortably be asserted that America’s engineering (and science) enterprise would hardly function today were it not for the contribution of foreign-born individuals. Regarding the future, between 2016 and 2060 the foreign-born proportion of the US population is projected to increase from 44 million to 69 million individuals, from 14% to 17% of the then current population (400 million), making the above consideration even more consequential. Clearly, one of America’s greatest defining resources over the years has been the diversity of its population, both domestic and foreign-born. Impedances If America is to benefit from the opportunities cited herein, it cannot continue on the unsustainable path it has been pursuing in recent decades. Needed changes largely fall into three categories: improving America’s pre-K–12 educational system; ensuring that funding is available to exploit the opportunities that are accessible through a larger number of engineers (and scientists); and eschewing counterproductive government policies. These observations are not uncommon, but, unfortunately, they have commonly been ignored. Forty years ago the seminal report, A Nation at Risk, addressing America’s K–12 education system, concluded that “if an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre (K–12) educational performance that exists today, we might have viewed it as an act of war.” Similarly, the Hart/Rudman study of national security conducted 20 years ago opined that “second only to a weapon of mass destruction detonating on an American city, we can think of nothing more dangerous than a failure to manage properly science, technology and education for the common good.” The Gathering Storm[3] report on America’s competitiveness some 15 years ago noted that “without a renewed effort to bolster the foundations of our competitiveness, we can expect to lose our privileged position.” Arguably, the greatest single barrier to transforming into reality the opportunities that lie before the nation resides in its pre-K–12 public education system—which by almost any measure must be adjudged as globally non-competitive. In the well-regarded international PISA test of the educational achievement of 15-year-olds, the United States ranks 16th in science and 34th in math, the latter just ahead of Slovenia and Croatia. In the United States’ own test of educational achievement, the NAEP, often referred to as “The Nation’s Report Card,” 76% of 12th graders are not proficient in math and 78% in science. In fourth grade, 59% are not proficient in math and 62% in science, a regression of 17 and 16 percentage points, respectively, following the intervening eight years of exposure to the educational system. On an average school day in America, 7,000 students drop out of high school. In the nation’s capital, 37% of students are categorized as “chronically truant,” an improvement from 42% the prior year. A student in China receiving a high school diploma will have had at least three more years of classroom education than his or her counterpart in the United States, simply because of the difference in the number of school days in the school year and class hours in the school day in the respective countries. Adding to these already formidable challenges, various studies have shown that when a child from the lower 10th percentile of US families by wealth appears for the first day of pre-school, they will have heard literally millions fewer spoken words than a child from the upper 10th percentile. Overcoming such disparity represents a monumental task for the nation’s educational system and for US society as a whole. Arguably, the greatest single barrier to transforming into reality the opportunities that lie before the nation resides in its pre-K–12 public education system. Ironically, at $19,300 the United States ranks second, behind Luxembourg, among OECD nations in spending per primary and secondary student. Since 2000, public school enrollment has increased by 8%, while administrative costs have accelerated by 88%, and academic performance has largely remained unchanged. Highlighting a rather dubious development, the high school four-year graduation rate remained relatively stable at 72% over the 30 years between 1980 and 2010, then in the 13 years between 2010 and 2023 suddenly escalated to 85%. An Economist magazine study of 3,000 US schools recently concluded that in 2007 about half of US students in the bottom 10% of ACT/SAT scores graduated from high school, whereas by 2022 two-thirds of that same group had graduated. The inference is indeed troublesome and is echoed by the lowering of academic standards by a number of states and school districts. According to the Department of Education, 40% of those currently accepted into four-year colleges are required to take at least one remedial education course, half of whom never receive a degree. The situation in American higher education could hardly offer greater contrast. The Times of London globally ranks US universities in three of the top five places, and 16 of the top 25, in its world ranking of universities. While rising tuition (including net tuition) at the nation’s higher education institutions is a major concern, one of the nation’s greatest assets is its system of public and private colleges and universities. Turning to the second major challenge, increasing the number of engineers without increasing investment in R&D could well prove to be counterproductive. In 1969, the US share of world R&D expenditures was 69%; today it is 31%. The nation is largely dependent on government funding for large, high-risk/high-return, long-term projects. In terms of government ranking in R&D intensity (R&D as a fraction of GDP), the United States has fallen from first to 13th place among nations. Federal support for R&D as a fraction of GDP has dropped in 22 of the past 28 years. The United States ranks 24th among 36 OECD nations in the share of basic research that is funded by the government. Correspondingly, the government-funded share of US R&D has dropped from two-thirds to about one-fifth (21%) in 50 years. In 2024, China announced an increase in its science and technology investment of 10%—at about the same time the United States announced an 8.3% decrease in the National Science Foundation budget. Meanwhile, US industry, once home to mighty research facilities such as the canonical Bell Labs, has increasingly focused on short-term financial results. When I first entered industry in 1957, shareholders held their stock for an average of eight years; today that period is five months. But an even greater concern is the Congressional Budget Office’s forecast that the non-discretionary portion of the federal budget, as compared with projected federal revenues, both under current law, will gradually squeeze the discretionary portion of the budget (infrastructure, national security, R&D, etc.) to zero within a little over a decade—making the competition for federal R&D funding literally existential. Addressing this issue through major cuts in social programs or major tax increases will, to say the least, be formidable; and doing so through increased borrowing will be counterproductive, as suggested by the fact that interest payments on the federal debt have already surpassed the nation’s spending on national security and are projected to continue to increase substantially as the nation drifts toward a forecast 122% debt to GDP ratio a decade hence. During this period national security spending is forecast to decline from 2.9% of GDP to 2.5%. Finally, turning to the impact of public policy on the nation’s engineering and scientific capability, the states have reduced spending on public higher education, where 70% of the nation’s students are educated, by $5.7B since 2019 in inflation-adjusted dollars, while educating 800,000 more students. Meanwhile, the federal government has imposed a new (albeit thus-far modest) tax on the endowment gains of a few of America’s most highly regarded universities, thereby absorbing funds that could have been devoted to financial aid or research, all while deterring future donors. Additionally, the one-year federal budget cycle continues to be fundamentally incompatible with the long-term character of science and engineering endeavors, especially when, during 36 of the past 47 years, the federal R&D budget was not even passed until well into the execution year. Under such circumstances project leaders may not be aware of their budget for a given year until that year is half over, making spending decisions perilous. This persists even after Congress, some years ago, “slipped the definition” of the fiscal year by three months because it was unable to keep up with the old definition. Also in the policy sphere, a major impediment imposed on foreign students who wish to attend America’s universities is the legislated limitation on student visas. An even more punitive impact on US science and engineering capability is the prolonged processing period for green cards sought by those wishing to legally remain in and contribute to the United States after receiving their degrees. A Win/Win America’s demand for the additional engineers it will need if it is to remain competitive in providing its citizens a high quality of life, including economic security and national security, can be partially met by attracting and enabling a far greater share of US women and underrepresented groups to pursue careers in engineering. But this can only occur if major enhancements are made in the quality of pre-K–12 education, funding of R&D, and public policy. Taking these needed steps would enhance the lives of thousands of citizens through the rewards of a career devoted to solving important national and global problems and, at the same time, offer a median lifetime income that is more than twice that of the overall workforce. As to the transformative issue of how to overcome the barriers that stand in the way of such an outcome, the National Academies’ Gathering Storm report offers a reasonable starting point. The author wishes to thank Luis Delgado, NAE Christine Mirzayan Science & Technology Policy Fellow from Penn State University, for his significant contributions in researching this article. Further Reading American Society for Engineering Education. 2020. Engineering and Engineering Technology by the Numbers 2019. Washington, DC. American Society for Engineering Education. By the numbers. Institute for Research and Analytics. Online at https://ira.asee.org/by-the-numbers/. Anderson G, and Moris F. 2023. Federally funded R&D declines as a share of GDP and total R&D. National Science Foundation, June 13. Online at ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23339. Association of American Medical Colleges. 2019. The majority of U.S. medical students are women, new data show, Dec 9. Atkinson RD, Gawora K. 2021. U.S. university R&D funding falls further behind OECD peers. Innovation Technology and Innovation Foundation, April 12. Augustine NR, Mamidala S. 2023. Engineers: The boardroom’s missing link? Directors & Boards, July 19. Boroush M, Guci L. 2022. Research and Development: U.S. trends and international comparisons. National Science Board, National Science Foundation. Alexandria, Virginia. Boundless. 2023. Immigrants have won 40% of Nobel prizes awarded to Americans since 2000, Oct 5. Committee on New Models for US Science & Technology Policy (Augustine NR, Lane N, co-chairs). The Perils of Complacency, Restoring the Foundation: The Vital Role of Research in Preserving the American Dream. American Academy of Arts & Sciences. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Congressional Research Service. 2022. Global Research and Development expenditures: Fact sheet. R44283. Online at https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44283.pdf. Deitz S, Freyman C. 2024. Science & Engineering Indicators 2024: The State of U.S. Science and Engineering. National Science Board, National Science Foundation. Alexandria, Virginia. Online at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20243. Deitz S, Henke R. 2023. Higher Education in Science and Engineering. NSB-2023-32. National Science Board, National Science Foundation. Alexandria, Virginia. Online at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb202332/characteristics-of- s-e-degree-recipients. The Economist. 2024. New numbers show falling standards in American high schools, March 10. Enjuris. 2018. Law school rankings by female enrollment, Dec 16. https://www.enjuris.com/students/law-school-female- enrollmen t-2018/. Evans KM, Matthews KRW, Hazan G, Kamepalli S. 2021. U.S. Federal Scientific Research and Development: Budget Overview and Outlook. Baker Institute for Public Policy. Houston. Flanigan R. 2024. Engineering student quit, but there’s retention tactics. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, April 10. Fortune. 2023. Global 500. Online at fortune.com/ranking/global500/. Hanson M. 2024. U.S. Public Education Spending Statistics. Education Data Initiative, July 14. Online at https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending- statistics. Hathaway I. 2017. Almost half of Fortune 500 companies were founded by American immigrants or their children. Brookings, Dec 4. Kan Q. 2019. A brief introduction to the Chinese education system. The Open University, Aug 30. Law.com. 2024. 17 of the top 20 law schools have more women enrolled, Feb 2. Lindner J. 2024. High school dropout statistics: Impact on students and society. GitNux, July 17. Martinez A, Christnacht C. 2021. Women are nearly half of U.S. workforce but only 27% of STEM workers. US Census Bureau, Jan 26. National Academy of Engineering. 2018. Understanding the Educational and Career Pathways of Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics. Online at https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/. National Center for Education Statistics. Fast Facts. Online at https://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/. National Center for Education Statistics. Undergraduate Degree Fields. nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cta. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. 2023. Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities: 2022. NSF 24-300. National Science Foundation. Alexandria, Virginia. Online at ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf24300/report/about-this-report. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities: 2020. NSF 22-300. National Science Foundation. Alexandria, Virginia. Online at ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf22300/report/u-s-doctorate- awards. National Science Board. 2015. Revisiting the STEM Workforce, A Companion to Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. The National Science Foundation. Alexandria, Virginia. National Science Board. 2018. Higher education in science and engineering. In: Science and Engineering Indicators 2018. NSB-2018-1. National Science Foundation. Alexandria, Virginia. Online at www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report/sections/higher- education-in-science-and-engineering/undergraduate- education-enrollment-and-degrees-in-the-united-states. National Science Board. 2020. Foreign-born students and workers in the U.S. science and Engineering enterprise. Online at www.nsf.gov/nsb/sei/one-pagers/Foreign-Born.pdf. The Nation’s Report Card. NAEP Mathematics: National Achievement-Level Results. Online at https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/mathematics/nation/ achievement/ NEA Research and ASA Research. 2022. Higher Ed State Funding Report. Washington, DC. Online at www.nea.org/he_funding_report. Richter F. 2023. U.S. loses ground in world competitiveness ranking. Statista Daily Data, June 18. Science’s News Staff. 2024. Final U.S. spending bills offer gloomy outlook for science. Science, March 4. Society of Women Engineers. Job Outlook for Engineers. Online at swe.org/research/2024/job-outlook/. Times Higher Education. 2024. World University Rankings 2024. Online at https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university- rankings/2024/world-ranking. Trapani J, and Hale K. 2019. Higher Education in Science and Engineering. The National Science Foundation. Online at ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20197/international-s-e-higher education. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2024. Occupational projections and worker characteristics, April 17. Online at www.bls.gov/emp/tables/occupational-projections-and- characte ristics.htm. US Census Bureau. 2021. 2021 American Community =Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS). Retrieved from https://usa.ipums.org/usa/. US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2022. Preprimary, elementary, and secondary education participation. In: The Condition of Education. Online at https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/2022/cne_508.pdf. Vespa J, Medina L, Armstrong DM. 2018. Demographic turning points for the United States: Population projections for 2020 to 2060, Population Estimates and Projections. Report P25-1144. US Census Bureau. Suitland, Maryland. World Population Review. PISA scores by country 2024. Online at worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/pisa-scores- by-country. Zimmermann A. 2023. U.S. R&D and innovation in a global context: The 2023 data update. American Association for the Advancement of Science, April 25. https://www.aaas.org/news/us-rd-and-innovation-global- context-2023-data-update. [1] Major sources of data for this article include the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics of the National Science Foundation, the American Society for Engineering Education, the National Center for Education Statistics, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the US Census Bureau. [2] See www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1987/ summary/ and www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2018/ romer/facts/. [3] National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2007. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. About the Author:Norman R. Augustine (NAE, NAS) is retired chairman and CEO, Lockheed Martin Corporation.