FOREIGN AND FOREIGN-BORN ENGINEERS IN THE UNITED STATES INFUSING TALENT, RAISING ISSUES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 182
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 13, 2013
• Sequence Number: 1
• Content Type: MISC

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
o1
Umitied gal
EMMERNG TALENT
D A
IIVAV
veNJ
101,V4
a
ILIIN
? MUM
II
-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Foreign
and
Foreign-Born Engineers
in the
United States
INFUSING TALENT, RAISING ISSUES
Committee on the International Exchange
and Movement of Engineers
Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1988
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by
the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are
drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors
according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of
members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpet-
uating society ot distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and
engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and techno-
logy and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the
charter granted to it by the Congress in 1963, the Academy has a mandate
that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni-
cal natters. Dr. Frank Press is president of the National Academy of
Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the
charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of
outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the
selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the
responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy
of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national
needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior
achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the
National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National
Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropri-
ate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the
health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to
the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an
adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify
issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Samuel 0. Their is
president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of
Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology
with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the fed-
eral government. Functioning in accordance with general policies deter-
mined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency
of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of
Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the
scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered
jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Frank Press
and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of
the National Research Council.
This material is based upon work supported in part by the National
Academy of Engineering Technological Leadership Program.
Copies are available from:
Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20418
Printed in the United States of America
6 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
FOREWORD
The U.S. engineering enterprise is increasingly affected by forces
at the world level. It is affected, for example, by the extent of op-
portunities to export our engineering services, by the use of global
standards in products and processes, by the needs of U.S. firms to hire
large numbers of engineers and to seek to make the best use of avail-
able skills in their work, by the desire of foreign-born engineers to
study and work in America, and by the national interest in maintaining
a large number of technically challenging, high-paying jobs in our coun-
try.
As this report points out, many real and perceived benefits and
problems came with the international exchange and movement of engi-
neers. Many questions arise: Are foreign engineers and engineering
students displacing Americans? Does the presence of foreign engineers
in the work force lower engineering wages? In what ways does industry
benefit from the availability of foreign-born engineers? Should the de-
pendence on foreign-born engineers in our universities and industry be
of concern?
This report provides much sound factual information that will be
valuable to our government, universities, and industry in addressing
these controversial issues. It gives balanced judgments about engi-
neers in our work force and in academe. It points out a number of ne-
glected perspectives, for example, that foreign students arriving at
our universities may, in effect, subsidize our system, in that a large
investment in their educations has already been made by their home coun-
tries.
As the report makes clear, there are several areas in which we
need to improve our data and information. It would be helpful to know
more about career patterns of those foreign engineering students who do
not remain in the United States. We should learn more about U.S. engi-
neers studying and working abroad. We should examine more deeply the
barriers to the most effective use of engineering talent in the United
States. The marketplace for engineering skills can only become more
global; and only through having unexcelled talent and productivity in
engineering--in industry, academe, and government--can the United
States be confident that the profession, and the highly desirable jobs
that characterize it, will thrive here.
Robert M. White
Vice Chairman, National Research Council
President, National Academy of Engineering
iii
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
COMMITTEE ON THE INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE
AND MOVEMENT OF ENGINEERS
Stanford S. Penner, Chair (NAE)
Department of Applied Mechanics
and Engineering Sciences
University of California, San Diego
Richard V. L. Cooper
Partner, International Trade Services
Coopers and Lybrand
George C. Dacey (NAE)
President (retired)
Sandia National Laboratories
Jules LaPidus
President
Council of Graduate Schools
Staff
Linda Dix
Staff Officer
Stephen J. Lukasik
Vice President
Northrop Corporation
Frank B. McDonald (NAS)
Chief Scientist
NASA Headquarters
Dorothy S. Zinberg
Lecturer on Public Policy/
Senior Research Associate
Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Yupin Bae
Research Assistant
Consultant
Charles E. Falk
Liaison to ?SEP' s Advisory Committee
on Studies and Analyses
Lotfi Zadeh
Department of Cuter Sciences
University of California, Berkeley
iv
? Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Committee on the International Exchange and Mbvement of Engi-
neers is grateful for the special assistance that it received fram a
number of individuals. Staff of the National Academy of Engineering
(NAE) initiated plans for this study as a result of concerns expressed
by menhers of the NAE Council. We particularly appreciate the guidance
of Robert ML White, NAE president; Alexander H. Flax, home secretary of
the NAE; H. Guyford Stever, foreign secretary of the NAE; and Jesse H.
Ausubel, director of the NAE program office. Alan E. Fechter, execu-
tive director of the Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel
(OSEP), contributed significantly to the intellectual content of this
report. Charles E. Falk, former director of the Division of Science
Resources Studies at the National Science Foundation, served as a
special consultant to the study committee, providing helpful insights
in the areas of data collection and interpretation. Linda S. Dix,
project officer in OSEP, provided administrative oversight for the
study from its inception through production of the final report.
In addition, we are indebted to the research community for infor-
mation provided in the form of published reports, papers commissioned
by this committee, and participation at the committee's workshop on
July 7, 1987. The commissioned papers written by seven individuals
knowledgeable about this topic were presented and discussed at the
workshop, leading to additional insights that guided the committee in
its deliberations. The committee expresses much appreciation to the
authors: Peter Cannon, Rockwell International Corporation, for his
assessment of the role of foreign engineers in U.S. industry; Daniel C.
Drucker, University of Florida-Gainesville, and J. Enrique Luco, Uni-
versity of California-San Diego, for their thoughts about the impacts
of foreign faculty and foreign students on engineering departments in
U.S. universities; Michael G. Finn, Oak Ridge Associated Universities,
for his analyses of the participation of foreign engineers in the
overall U.S. labor force; Glenn W. Ebswa, Sandia National Laboratories,
for his assessment of the effects of employing foreign nationals in fed-
erally supported laboratories; and Charles T. Owens, Division of Inter-
national Programs at the National Science Foundation, for his review of
the experiences of American engineers in Japan.
Finally, the support of Yupin Bae, research assistant in OSEP, and
Dee Cooper, program secretary, led to the timely publication of this
report.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
Introduction
1
Findings
2
Issues
3
Dependence on Foreign-Born Engineers
3
Foreign Engineering Students
4
Effects on Engineering Education
4
Idmitations-ixt-__rthe-EngineeringzSupplyrAvailAbIe-
:_ts;:the--National7=Security..-Secto
International Interactions of American Engineers
5
Data Gaps
6
Decreased Work Opportunities for U.S. Engineers
6
Subsidization of Foreign Students
6
Exclusion of U.S. Graduate Students or Junior Faculty
7
Broader Considerations and Recommendations
7
BACKGROUND
9
ISSUES AND FINDINGS 15
Dependency of Institutions on Foreign Engineers 15
Displacement of U.S. Engineers and Lcwering of Salaries 17
Graduate Enrollments and Degrees 18
F-&167.-r---alz-lbgulations-Co.ncerning-the-Use-anci--Employment=
cof-TOreign-En7g-ireers-2 20
Relative Performance of Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers 21
Industry 21
Academe 21
International Movements and Contacts of .Amarican Engineers 22
RECOMMENDATIONS
Intlay of Noncitizen Engineers and Engineering Students
Short-Term Changes: Increasing Fellowships with Adequate
Stipends for U.S. Graduate Students
The Long-Term Solution: Augmented Engineering Education
for U.S. Students
Monitoring of Potential Problems Among Noncitizen Faculty
and Teaching Assistants
Trends in Engineering Education and U.S. Competitiveness
in International Markets
Data Gaps
vii
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
BIEiLIOGRAPHY 29
APPENDIXES
AL: Foreign Engineers and Engineering Students in the United
States, Charles E. Falk 31
B: Agenda, Workshop on the International Exchange and Movement
of Engineers 79
C: Participants at the Workshop 83
D: Commissioned Papers Presented at the Workshop 89
O Foreign Engineers in the U.S. Labor Force, Michael G. Finn 91
? Foreign Engineers in U.S. Industry: An Exploratory
Assessment, Peter Cannon 105
? The Job Market for Holders of Baccalaureate Degrees
in Engineering, Charles E. Falk 125
? On Foreign Engineers in Academe, Daniel C. Drucker 127
? Effect of Foreign Nationals on Federally Supported
Laboratories, Glenn W. Euswa 147
? American Engineers in Japan, Charles T. Owens 163
e The Impact of Foreign Students on the Engineering Programs
at the University of California, J. E. Luco 167
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Engineers in the U.S. labor force, by citizenship status
and degree level, 1982 10
2 Distribution of foreign engineers, by sector of employment,
1982 11
3 Engineering doctorates awarded to U.S. citizens and those
holding temporary visas, 1970-1985 12
4 Foreign engineering students, by area of origin, 1983-84 13
5 Foreigners as proportion of all engineering assistant
professors, age 35 or less, 1975-1985 16
viii
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
Immigrants have provided a transfusion of new talent throughout
U.S. history to support our nation's economic and cultural growth and
development. Their presence has generally been accepted as the norm in
the United States, and immigrants have helped our nation to become the
effective pluralistic society that it is today. However, the absorp-
tion of these successive groups of immigrants has often been accompa-
nied by issues associated with their integration into our work force
and our society.
In recent years, there has been a narked increase in foreign and
immigrant engineers and engineering students, individuals especially
qualified by advanced education and professional skills. A large pro-
portion of these individuals remain in the United States and are becom-
ing an increasingly important component of our engineering work force.
Once more, their presence is creating not only real opportunities, but
also possibly problems.
Motivated by a growing interest in the implications of the increas-
ing prevalence of these foreign-born engineers in our society, J- the
National Academy of Engineering asked the Office of Scientific and Engi-
neering Personnel (OSE?) to undertake a preliminary examination of the
issues associated with this international movement. In particular,
OSEP was asked to identify the major issues associated with this move-
ment, to assess their validity or importance, and to suggest follow-on
studies that may be needed for proper evaluation of the issues in-
volved. The Committee on the International Exchange and Movement of
Engineers (ClIDE) was created to undertake this task. The work of the
COmmittee included the compilation of relevant data, the commissioning
of a set of papers examining the implications of this influx of for-
eign-born engineers an various sectors of the economy, and the conven-
ing of a workshop at which the data and papers were reviewed and dis-
cussed by the participants. The Committee's findings, conclusions, and
1 See Committee on the Education and Utilization of the Engineer,
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research
Council, Engineering Education and Practice in the United States:
Foundations of Our Itchno-Economic Future, Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press, 1985.
1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
recommendations are based on the information gathered through these
activities.
Findings
Three basic findings emerged from the factual data examined by the
Committee. First, there has been a gradual but substantial increase in
the overall proportion of foreign-born engineers residing and working
in the United States. For example, noncitizens constituted 3.5 percent
of the total engineering labor force in 1982, about the same as in
1972, while the proportion of naturalized citizens grew from 5 percent
in 1972 to 14 percent in 1982. The fraction of the engineering work
force that is foreign-born has continued to increase since 1982.4
The prevalence of these foreign-born engineers varies considerably with
their level of academic achievement. rInr_19827nmcitizens-:and-atural-nz
tz-rai-fizens-together-accounteidr-fo-r---acent_of-the bachelor7.degree,,
holders7-22?e?rcex-pit-of-the-mast-rpercent:ofzthe_Ph.D7s-ixithe:
American-engine?e-.'rin-g--labor-fa-ce. The continuing increase in the num-
ber of foreign and foreign-born engineers reflects two facts: (1) many
foreign students and professionals enter the United States with the pri-
mary goal of becoming permanent U.S. residents, and (2) many of the for-
eign engineering students, who initially came here to study, later
changed their goals and decided to remain because of better living con-
ditions and more attractive employment opportunities than are available
in their home countries.
The second finding is that the lo..rrt=iirriti=--the--ntmioer--of
foreign=born-engis=has7.-_-occum'ed=disproportionately-in_therac-adeinic
czsector7='For example, the proportion of foreign assistant professors of
engineering younger than age 35 has increased 41am 10 percent in 1972
to over 50 percent during the period 1983-1985. Aboutmts---ztif-
ther-po-?tuniversity-app'Einteare=-U7S-it7izens`. Also,
the rurber=of=for?eitjnizappl-icants=for=graduate=studygineerin
great-lantnumb?=.erof-Ii?tcan.-t7 and aboutr6Ompie=eht-of=t0r===
eign=studeEta-ifiing=Ph:D:--Weges-iri--the-Unated-States-rsrrain
Over 90 percent of undergraduates in engineering but only about 45 per-
cent of new engineering Ph.D.s are U.S. citizens (about 4 percent of
this latter group were naturalized citizens). The latter proportion is
2 The most reliable source of data on the foreign engineering labor
force is the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Postcensal Survey,
which in 1982 surveyed a representative sample of the total 1980 U.S.
science and engineering labor force. These data are preferentially
used in this report. The NSF makes available more recent estimates,
which are model-generated and based on updated surveys of the post-
censal cohorts and a number of more recent surveys. The latter, how-
ever, miss recent immigrants and some recent graduates of U.S. univer-
O.ties, especially those with foreign addresses.
The number of foreign-born assistant professors who have become na-
turalized citizens is small (less than 5 percent).
2
6 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
small, even with selected efforts to restrict the number of foreigners
admitted to graduate engineering education through imposition of admis-
sion ceilings at a number of major universities.
The third finding relates to the origin of these foreign-born engi-
neering students. A disproportionately large number came from coun-
tries where the language and cultural backgrounds are likely to be sig-
nificantly different frau those of most native-born Americans_.In,
, -for -example , -31-percent-of-the =foreign-engineering -students-=-in
AJ:S-.---schools-cane-frc-rtirths-Fastr-6-percent-from-Indiar-aper-
c9nt-4ram-the VaddIe-Easit7---N
Issues
Dependence on Foreign-Born Engineers
Very significant, positive aspects arise frau the presence of for-
eign-born engineers in our society. It nust be recognized that with
these foreign engineers the Milted States is attracting an unusually
gifted group of individuals with high intellectual competence and dili-
gence. The diversity of intellectual backgrounds and experience that
other foreign-born engineers have brought in the past greatly contri-
buted to U.S. engineering competence, and there are no reasons to be-
lieve that new immigrants will not contribute similarly.
Since these engineers provide definitely needed supplements to our
labor force, their absence would lead to curtailment of important pro-
grams."*Nlithout the preponderence of foreign-born individuals among
faculty and graduate students in academe, American engineering schools
would be unable to provide educational and research program of the cur-
rent magnitudes. The influence of foreign-born engineers has become
highly significant also in industrial research and development (R&D),
particularly in disciplinary areas that were viewed to be of secondary
importance in the United States several years ago but are now criticial
to our international competitiveness in selected fields, such as nonlin-
ear optics and the associated manifold applications of laser technolo-
gies. A survey of the R&D directors of 20 firms that account for a
large fraction of the technological output of the United States (see
Peter Cannon, Appendix D) indicated that "their particular industries
are, in fact, dependent upon foreign talent and that such dependency is
growing." Thus, it is clear to the Committee that these foreign-born
engineers enrich our culture and make substantial contributions to U.S.
economic well-being and carnpekitiveness and that without the use of non-
citizen and foreign-born engineers, universities and industries would
experience difficulty in staffing current educational, research, devel-
opment, and technological programs.
4 This information was presented by numerous participants at the
ccamittsesponsored workshop and the cammissioned papers included in
Appendix D, particularly "Foreign Engineers in U.S. Industry" by Peter
Cannon.
3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Foreign Engineering Students
As already noted, about 45 percent of engineering graduate stu-
dents in 1985 were foreigners with temporary visas, about another
10 percent held permanent residence visas, and 4 percent were for-
eign-born citizens. The relatively large proportions of foreign stu-
dents in graduate engineering programs reflect a lack of interest on
the part of American students in such programs. The well-paying employ-
ment opportunities for engineers with new bachelor's degrees are one of
the major causes of this lack of interest in graduate education by
American engineers. The potential pool of foreign graduate students is
considerably larger than that of Mexicans, and their academic records
and test scores are very high. Thus, American graduate students could
become an even smaller fraction of the engineering graduatxt-studentpop-
ulation without continuation of the current preferential treatment for
American students or some financial incentives for Americans to enter
graduate studies instead of immediate employment upon receipt of their
bachelor's degrees.
Effects on Engineering Education
The productivity, growth, and international competitiveness of the
U.S. economy are influenced by many factors. Although it was beyond
the scope of this study to rank the relative significance of these fac-
tors, the Committee has taken as a premise that the quality and effec-
tiveness of the U.S. engineering education system is important in main-
taining and improving the current U.S. position in world affairs.
Troublesome problems could arise if the quality and character of
engineering education were not maintained. Three particular issues sur-
faced during the course of this study. First, the large-scale use of
foreign teaching assistants (rAs) has been reported to be detrimental
to the instructional programs offered in major engineering schools be-
cause of language difficulties. It is clear, of course, that language
and communication difficulties should be resolved before foreign teach-
ing personnel are allowed to assume responsibility for classroom teach-
ing. It has even been suggested that, because of their cultural back-
grounds, some foreign-born engineering TAs may discourage female and
minority students from entering the engineering profession. For this
supposition, the Committee found both anecdotal support and counterexam-
ples. The third issue arises from the fact that in same foreign cul-
tures, science and technology training tends to be preferentially
slanted toward engineering science rather than toward practice.
One of the strengths of the American system of engineering educa-
tion has been and continues to be its acceptance of pragmatic solutions
to engineering problems and its recognition of the importance of
hands-on training in the design and operation of engineering systems.
Thus, there is some concern that, as a result of the large and growing
ranks of new foreign faculty matters, some of the character of American
4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
engineering education could be changed (it must, of course, be remem-
bered that new engineering junior faculty are selected by mostly U.S.
faculty members). However, the Committee has not examined possi-
ble changes in engineering education and their potential, long-term
effects. It should be noted that the suggestion has been made that
U.S. engineering education does not respond properly to current needs
and requires drastic revitalization of the type that occurred in the
1950s, when broadly based engineering-science curricula were first
introduced. Just what this revitalization should involve is properly
the subject of another study.
Given the importance of teaching personnel in the training of an
essential engineering talent pool, any adverse effects could span gen-
erations. Consequently, careful monitoring of the development and per-
formance of the academic engineering establishment?both indigenous and
foreign-born?must be viewed as a continuing, high-priority obligation.
Limitations in the Engineering Supply
;mailable to the National Security Sector
__gale the
tal) emFloys_gay about 20 percent of the _total-LLS?encrineerincr work
--force, its intellectuavi i are es
o an a equa ev of defense. A major issue has emerged
----7-Th7ger-prfrcminenceooreignengineers (temporary visas)
among the new advanced-engineering graduates in our education system
(27 percent of master's degrees and about 45 percent of doctorates) and
the foreign-born constituent of our engineering labor force (22 percent
of master's and 36 percent of doctorates). These individuals, espe-
cially foreign nationals and immigrants with close relatives in foreign
countries, are reported to encounter long-term difficulties in receiv-
ing special-access security clearancPc. Therefore, a substantial frac-
tion of the most highly skilled talent of this nation may not be avail-
able to enter critical areas of defense research and engineering. As a
consequence, the necessary work in this sector may have to be under-
taken by less highly trained engineers than is desirable. The net re-
sult is certainly a less than optimal use of available talent and,
possibly, a reduced level of effort. Another consequence is a larger
concentration of foreign engineers within the academic sector than
might otherwise be the case.
International Interactions
of American Engineers
Considerable concern was expressed at the workshop and by Commit-
tee members that both new American engineering Ph.D.s and engineers al-
ready in the U.S. labor force do not spend sufficient time abroad to
benefit from the highly developed technologies of many foreign coun-
tries. In the case of the employed engineers, the view was frequently
5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
expressed that managers who initiated or approved foreign trips fre-
quently did not appreciate the importance of these foreign visits.
Available data on this type of foreign interaction indicate that only 1
percent of new engineering doctorates in 1983 selected postdoctoral
study abroad. The Committee believes that, in a world where other na-
tions' technological competence has increased significantly, inter-
national contacts among scientists and engineers are imperative for
effective national development and international competitiveness.
Data Gaps
The study of this Committee was handicapped by major gaps in avail-
able data. Almost no quantitative information was found on the inter-
national movement of American engineers, career patterns of foreign
graduates who returned to their home countries, and the exact magnitude
of foreign applicants for engineering graduate education. More gener-
ally, data gaps exist on the value to the United States of educating
foreign nationals, on the extent of the deficiency in foreign visita-
tions by American engineers, and on the full imbalance in the pool of
potential engineering graduate students. Procedures to overcame this
data deficiency were identified by the Committee and should be imple-
mented.
Decreased Work Opportunities
for U.S. Engineers
The Committee became aware of a belief that salaries of U.S. engi-
neers are substantially depressed by the willingness of foreign engi-
neers to work for lower wages, or that U.S. engineers lose job oppor-
tunities to foreign engineers. This concept does not appear to be
supported by evidence available to the Committee. Since foreign engi-
neers as a group represent only 3.5 percent of the total U.S. engineer-
ing labor force, they are not displacing Americans to a significant
extent. As for salary depression, a study of 13,000 engineers showed
no evidence that foreign engineers earned either more or less than
their American colleagues. One may, however, conjecture that salaries
of U.S.-born engineers would have been somewhat higher, especially
among Ph.D.s, if the foreign-born pool of applicants had not been
available.
Subsidization of Foreign Students
A notion exists that foreign students, whether they remain in the
United States or not, are unfairly subsidized. Although the Committee
had only limited information on the issue, it did not consider the is-
sue to be a valid one. The basis for this judgment lies in the Commit-
tee's findings that a substantial fraction of these trained students
remain in this country and became productive members of our society.
6
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
An additional consideration motivating the Committee's conclusion was
that most of these students received their undergraduate training
abroad. The costs of this foreign investment constitute an offset to
any subsidy provided for graduate training in the United States. FUr-
thermore, if there were only U.S. students, current excess capacity in
graduate engineering programs would be even larger, making the current
marginal costs of educating foreign students relatively law.
Exclusion of U.S. Graduate Students
or Junior Faculty
There is a concern that qualified U.S. citizens are being excluded
from scarce openings in engineering graduate schools. This concern is
at variance with the preferred treatment accorded to qualified indige-
nous applicants through the use of either formal or informal ceilings
on the number of foreign graduate students admitted. However, opera-
tion of normal engineering school appointment practices, which fre-
quently favor expertise in engineering science and theoretical studies,
may be limiting the appointments of U.S. Ii. D. engineers to faaulty po-
sitions at major research universities because of the availability of a
pool of especially well-qualified, foreign-born engineers.
Broader Considerations and Recommendations
During its investigation, the Committee discussed several issues
that are of central 'importance in assessing the long-term impact of
foreign engineers on the United States. These issues include the qual-
ity and appropriateness of the engineering curriculum in the United
States, particularly at the undergraduate level; the need to make a
larger part of the American public sensitive to the interactions
between technology and society; and the relationships among engineering
curricula, advanced training, and international campetitiveness. These
issues, although important, are beyond the scope of this study. They
should, however, form the bases for subsequent inquiries by other
groups.
Specific recommendaticns derived from this study are as follows:
? Competitive fellowship programs for U.S. students in engineering
should be evaluated to determine what stipends are needed to make
graduate study an attractive, cost-effective alternative to imme-
diate employment. This approach could provide a significant in-
crease in the number of American engineering graduate students.5
5 See Committee on the Education and Utilization of the Engineer,
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research
Council, Engineering Education and Practice in the United States:
Foundations of Our Techno-Economic Future, Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press, 1985, pages 56-59.
7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
? University officials should rigorously monitor language profi-
ciency of all teaching personnel, especially teaching assistants,
and insist that communication problems be resolved before indi-
viduals are placed in teaching positions.
? It has been suggested that same foreign-born engineering teaching
assistants may discourage female and minority students fram enter-
ing the engineering profession. Although there is anecdotal evi-
dence both to support and to refute the existence of such
discouragement, the implications are sufficiently serious to
warrant efforts to develop a firmer factual basis for evaluating
the validity of this issue.
? Although the Committee recognizes the need for necessary and appro-
priate security clearances, the U.S. Department of Defense should
examine ways to make the most effective use possible of the for-
eign and foreign-born talent pool that is potentially available
for defense engineering.
? Minor-effafts are need'edtoimp?-rove-the scientifi-c-and-mathamatiF2
,c511--content=a-nd?stand?as-ofZfirreoollege education-for-a-larger,-
portion-of-ltnet-poOdiation. Such-inproved-traiiiing woula7tAt,
students with better iiiitatitidifdt-intelligar-it-Citizenship in a
hi y-comtplexT-technological-society7--Also,_betterttAIH6d-
salege-studentre-mare-113cely-to-enter-both-undergraduate and
graduafe-te-chaiZal?stirdirtsr-and-this-influx-is-likely-toment-
theof-highly quarifid17-UTS.-born graduate-engineering
students. This-infItBETWO5i7important in_view-demcgraphic;-
chianges-taat-Will--t'-educee-traditional-copulations-of
U(S7Zunergdduatesr----
? Efforts should be made to fill data gaps on Career patterns of for-
eign students who have left the United States, on the interna-
tional movements and interactions of American engineers, and on
foreign applicants to engineering graduate education. We should
also obtain quantitative data on the reasons that such large num-
bers of foreigners choose to came to the United States for gradu-
ate education in engineering.
? More extensive studies should be initiated to assess or determine
the reasons for the failure of many qualified American engineering
undergraduates to enter graduate studies; the appropriate engineer-
ing curricula for the 1990s and beyond; and the relationships
among engineering, engineering education, the international flow
of engineers, and international competitiveness.
8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
BACKGROUND
In considering issues related to engineers of foreign origin, it
is important to examine all aspects of the engineering personnel system
that are or could be affected by their influx. There are basically
three categories: 4oreignersthose who are not U.S. citizens;Knatural-
ized:citizeng-foreign-born immigrants who have acquired U.S. citizen-
ship; and inligenous citizens-7those?bornin-the?Urdtei:States: The
first two of these groups may be aggregated and represent the total num-
ber of foreign-born engineers in the system.
In inidukry, government, and universities, questions have been
raised about the magnitude and impacts of both foreign and foreign-born
engineering groups. The foreign (noncitizen) component accounted for
only 3.5 percent of employed engineers in the United States in 1982,
which is a slightly smaller proportion than in 1972. However, the re-
verse was the case for naturalized immigrant engineers, 4 group that
grew from 5 percent in 1972 to almost 14 percent in 1982.? The larg-
est fractions of foreign engineers were employed in 1982 in electrical
or electronic engineering and in mechanical engineering, with
representations of about 28 percent and 23 percent, respectively, of
all foreign engineers.
6 The most reliable source of data on the foreign engineering labor
force is the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Postcensal Survey,
which was used in 1982 to survey a representative sample of the total
U.S. science and engineering labor force in 1980. These data are pre-
ferentially used in this report. The NSF makes available more recent
estimates, which are model-generated and based on updated surveys of
the postcensal cohorts and a number of more recent surveys. The lat-
ter, however, miss recent immigrants and some recent graduates of U.S.
universities, especially those without U.S. addresses. Where appropri-
ate, the latest quantitative information from this model-generated in-
formation base (the latest is for 1984) is presented. It should be
noted that most labor-force data refer to engineers employed as engi-
neers. These numbers will always be smaller than those for all engi-
neers, which include unemployed engineers and those not working in
engineering occupations. The definition of "foreign" varies among dif-
ferent surveys. Thus, only the NSF data include among foreigners those
with "permanent residence" visas. For all other data sources used in
this report, "foreign" is equivalent to "nonresident alien."
9
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
100
80
60
a)
40
20
0
Bachelors
Master's
Doctorate
El Foreign
Ea Naturalized
U.S. Citizens
{44.
NOTE: This figure includes only individuals reporting employment in
engineering occupations in 1982.
SOURCES Special tabulations from Oak Ridge Associated Universities,
based on the National Science Foundation's 1982 Postcensal Survey.
FIGURE 1 Engineers in the U.S. labor force, by citizenship status and
degree level, 1982.
The foreign engineering representation varies significantly ac-
cording to degree level. Thus, the representation of foreign engineers
becomes increasingly larger for holders of higher college degrees (see
Figure 1). In 1982 the representation was small: 2.4 percent for bacca-
laureates, 6.4 percent for master's degrees, and 12.6 percent for doc-
torates. At the same time, the naturalized (foreign-born citizens) en-
gineering population constituted 12.1 percent of baccalaureates,
15.9 percent of masters, and 23.8 percent of doctorates. Foreign-born
ineers (i.e., naturalized and noncitizen engineers together) ac-
counttTrIg82 for 14.5 22.3, and 36.4 percent of the holders of
ai-aXrtor4iT mast ' and ?octor's ? ? Z. .= ively. I is
notewo y that the percentages of noncitizens were about e same a
decade earlier, while those of naturalized engineers had doubled since
that time. Thus, in 1982, the United States depended significantly on
the inflow of foreigners to supply its engineering labor force,
especially at the doctoral level. Although we do not have definitive
data for 1986, we suspect that the foreign-born population has become
larger than in 1982, especially at the advanced degree level, and is
increasing.
10
L, Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
All Fields
maigabMWMaggMg0MgRaagniMggniana
Chemkal-MgMAMMmiggaiReOMMUNIVagVOWNW
Aeronautical -
Civil -immmimmomgMniimgi&imomMAMSA!,
Electrical - iMiiiNgilMOMOgiangglaiMggggeiMMEK
Mechanical -
Materials
Nudear-MMOMMWEEMMOMiugamoimummaimmd
industial -
Other-
0
20
4C Percent 0 80 100
O Busi/lndust
Education
O Government
a Other
NOTE: This includes only individuals reporting employment in engineer-
ing occupations in 1982.
SOURCES: Special tabulations fram Oak Ridge Associated Universities,
based on the National Science Foundation's 1982 Postcensal Survey.
FIGURE 2 Distribution of foreign engineers, by sector of employment,
1982.
If we disaggregate the U.S. work force sector of employment (Fig-
ure 2), we see that most foreign and foreign-born engineers (82 and 78
percent, respectively) work in industry, as do their native-born coun-
terparts. Recent surveys indicated that about half of the U.S. firms
employing engineers have some foreign engineers among their employees,
especially in R&D firms employing engineers.
Only about 9 percent of all of the foreign engineers and about 4
percent of the naturalized engineers were employed in 1982 in academia,
and their proportions among all engineering faculty members were about
8.5 percent and 17 percent, respectively. The representation of for-
eign and naturalized engineers in the universities probably has in-
creased rapidly in recent years. Among the primary 1982 work activi-
ties of foreign engineers were R&D, including R&D management (36
percent) and design (18 percent). This distribution was significantly
different from that for U.S. citizen engineers, for wham these activi-
ties accounted for 24 percent and 13 percent, respectively.
11
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13 : CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
1200 -
800 -
400 -
-0- U.S. Citizens
-4- Temp. Visas
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 .1984
Year
SOURCE: UnptbliShed tabulations fram the National Research Council's
Doctorate Records File.
FIGURE 3 Engineering doctorates awarded to U.S. citizens and those
holding temporary visas, 1970-1985.
According to National Research Council data, a high proportion of
new 1985 recipients of engineering doctorates had temporary visas (45
percent). Another 10 percent were on permanent visas. Of the 45 per-
cent that were U.S. citizens, only about 4 percent were naturalized
engineers. It should be noted that the proportion of foreigners among
new doctorates has risen steadily while the number of U.S. doctorates
(indigenous plus naturalized) has remained level since 1976 (Figure 3).
Among 1985 engineering master-degree holders, the proportion of for-
eigners was only 27 percent.
It is interesting to identify the countries of origin of foreign
engineers. In 1983-84, almost 75 percent of foreign engineering stu-
dents came from the Far East, India, and the Middle East, with the Far
Easterners and Indians together outnumbering the Middle Easterners by
about 3 to 1 (Figure 4).
12
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
3.00% 7.00%
6.00%
42.00%
El Africa
Asia
M Europe
M Latin America
o Middle East
M Other
SOURCE: Institute for International Education, Profiles, 1983/84,
New York: The Institute, 1985.
FIGURE 4 .rForeigrg-engineeringzstmlents,_by:area7ofmrigini?I983f.84
13
STAT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
ISSUES AND FINDINGS
A number of issues emerged from the discussions of the Committee
and presentations of invited speakers at a workshop sponsored by this
Committee. These issues are developed more fully in this chapter.
EeTendency of Institutions on Foreign Engineers
The production rate of U.S.-born engineers with doctorates is in-
sufficient to meet the needs for qualified engineering faculty members
in the universities and the requirements of industry and government.
As a result, there have been rapidly growing noncitizen and naturalized
American engineering populations in industrial organizations and, espe-
cially, in universities. Ual_15Mi, foreign engineers constituted about
3.6 percent of all engineers employed by industry, wherP,Is 13.9 percent
were naturalized. The proportions artiong-engineering-doctoratel
ployea-in-ilita-stiy-were_naich-higher:-----15-percent-yere-foreignernd
c20-percent-were-raturaiized-ff:Thus, almost one out of three doctorate
engineers employed in industry was of foreign origin, and that propor-
tion is rising.
The influence of foreign-born engineers seems to have become pro-
found in industrial research and development. This influence is espe-
cially apparent in disciplines that were considered of secondary impor-
tance in the United States some years ago but now stand at the focus of
international competitiveness. An example is provided by innovations
that have led to nonlinear optics and the associated applications of
laser technologies. The Committee's survey of the R&D directors of 20
firms that account for a large fraction of the industrial technological
output of the U.S. indicated that "their particular industries are, in
fact, dependent upon foreign talent and that such dependency is grow-
ing." Several respondents stated that "foreign talent was a critical
element of the firm's operations."
In universities, the dependence on engineers of foreign origin is
even greater. Nbncitizen and naturalized engineers constituted, in
1982, 8.5 percent and 17 percent, respectively, of all engineers em-
ployed in educational institutions. The increasing dependence in aca-
deme is dramatically portrayed by the fact that the proportion ofnon===z4
citizen-enginee?t?s-mong_assistant=professors younger than=35___years
'(-Figure-5)----basicreascid---from-10-percent7=111=1972-to_50755-percent
98_3:=-19-8-5\. About three-quarters of these noncitizen assistant profes-
sors have applied for U.S. citizenship. There were relatively few (5
15
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
All Engineering Assistant Professors
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
SOURCE: National Research Council's Survey of Doctorate Recipients.
FIGURE 5 Foreigners as a proportion of all engineering assistant pro-
fessors, age 35 or less, 1975-1985.
percent) naturalized engineering assistant professors in 1985. FUrther
increases in the foreign and naturalized populations are likely to
occur unless nonobjective selection criteria are adopted by the major
research universities. The increase in noncitizen assistant professors
of engineering is the result of the fact that, in recent years,
foreign-born engineers received close to 50 percent of newly awarded
engineering doctorates (naturalized citizens accounted for about 4 per-
cent) and, furthermore, they entered academe in disproportionately
large numbers.
Noncitizens represented almost two-thirds of the engineering post-
doctorates in 1985. Noncitizen Ph.D. engineers often accept postdoc-
toral positions because other employment is unavailable until green
cards are obtained. In several fields of engineering, the proportion
of postdoctorates was greater than average; for example, in chemical
and materials engineering, noncitizen engineers accounted for about 80
percent of the total postdoctoral populations.
Salaries paid to assistant professors of engineering have in-
creased dramatically in recent years and are now comparable with, or
superior to, those paid by industry, when allowance is made for summer-
salary supplements and consulting income. In view of this dramatic
improvement in salaries at major universities, it is not surprising to
16
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
find large numbers of applicants for faculty openings at the research
universities. Quoted numbers are 50 to 200 or more for each widely ad-
vertised position. The question arises why the normal academic selec-
tion procedures, when applied to openings for which there are so many
potential applicants, have yielded a foreign and foreign-born component
in excess of 50 percent, a component that is probably increasing. The
answer may be found, at least in part, in faculty preferences for peo-
ple with high analytical ability and/or particular skills in utilizing
advanced instrumentation techniques and relative de-emphasis of what
may be called the art of practical engineering as compared with engi-
neering science. Thus, while maintaining "quality" in academe accord-
ing to current preferences, the "character" of engineering education
may well be changed dramatically. We believe that a careful assessment
of the likely long-term impact of these changes forms an appropriate
and urgent subject for evaluation.
Many of the noncitizen graduates with doctorates plan to remain in
the United States. For example, among new 1985 noncitizen engineering
doctorate holders, about 40 percent expected to work in the United
States, a proportion that had increased from 11 percent in 1972. FUr-
thermore, an additional 17 percent planned to stay on as postdoctor-
ates, and most of these are also likely to remain permanently in the
United States. Thus, almost 60 percent of new noncitizen engineering
doctorate holders are likely to become part of the U.S. engineering
labor force within a few years after graduation. Reliable data are not
available for the other 40 percent of new noncitizen Ph.D. holders.
Some of these probably return to the United States in later years,
whereas others may be employed abroad in multinational firms. This
type of information needs to be collected in order to determine their
later contributions to the economic well-being and competitiveness of
the United States.
It is apparent from these numbers that, without the use of non-
citizen and foreign-born engineers, both research universities and
industries would have difficulties in handling the educational, re-
search, development, and technological programs that are currently
supported. This must be realized in any governmental considerations to
limit the inflow of foreign engineering students or graduate engineers.
Displacement of U.S. Engineers
and Lowering of Salaries
The Committee addressed the issue of whether the ready supply of
well-qualified, noncitizen engineering personnel constitutes an obsta-
cle to U.S.-born engineers seeking engineering employment and tends to
reduce salaries. Since noncitizen and naturalized engineers represent
only about 3.5 percent of the total U.S. engineering labor force, their
effect on job opportunities and salaries of U.S.-born engineers must be
small, on the average. No data could be found to ascertain whether the
17
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
same can be said about engineers working abroad for American firms, al-
though anecdotal evidence indicates that a problem may exist in this
regard.
The available data clearly show that U.S. citizens have generally
been receiving preferential treatment for enrollment in engineering
schools and for jobs. A number of universities limit their acceptance
of foreign-student applicants, and most jobs in defense-oriented indus-
tries cannot be filled by noncitizens or even by immigrants with close
relatives in foreign countries. Thus far, qualified U.S.-born engi-
neers have not faced appreciably diminished opportunities in industry
because of foreign-born entries. However, as we have noted, their en-
try into academe may well have been affected by the ready availability
of highly qualified foreign engineers.
As for salary depression, a study of 13,000 engineers showed no
support for the notion that foreign nationals with U.S. degrees earned
less than their American colleagues. There was very weak evidence sug-
gesting that noncitizen engineers without any degrees from U.S. univer-
sities might earn less. However, this is a small group, and the esti-
mated earnings differential found was only about 3 percent.
Graduate Eh/roll/rents and Degrees
By-19857=the7prcportion-of-nancitizen fuli-tineremineering_grad
ate-students--was-42-perceft:7-}U.S. citizens (indigenous and natural-
ized) are present in relatively small and decreasing numbers because of
declining U.S. male populations, difficulties in naturalization before
completion of graduate training for foreign-born students, and fewer
U.S. B.S. graduates choosing to enter graduate schools. In addition,
larpopulat4on-groups--especially-wamen, blacks,_and_Hispanihave
Cn-et-entered-either-undergraduate ori:graduate_enginTher-ingedutionz-2in
Csignificant-ntnnbers.j1The_many_possikreasonss-dispropor-tior
ate1y-lcm_representation-requirs-nftheFarlail
As we have noted, the international pool of applicants has become
very large and includes carefully screened groups from major population
centers in the Far East, India, the Middle East, and elsewhere. Quali-
fied U.S. applicants to engineering graduate schools constitute a clear
minority in this potential student pool and, even after substantial pre-
liminary screening, the foreign-to-domestic ratio for qualified gradu-
ate student applications at major engineering schools is typically sub-
stantially larger than unity. Information received from selected
engineering departments indicates that the ratio of noncitizen to U.S.
applicants is much larger than the ratio of noncitizen to U.S. admis-
sions. As a result, it is possible that the successful foreign-born
applicants constitute, on the average, an intellectually superior
group. With selected imposition of admission ceilings, the current
representation of U.S.-born Ph. D. students in the U.S. graduate schools
18
? Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
of engineering is typically 40 percent of the total. There are sub-
stantial disciplinary and regional variations from these averages.
At the undergraduate level, U.S.-born engineering students con-
stitute upward of 90-95 percent of the student population, since most
noncitizen candidates for engineering graduate schools are trained in
their home countries.
c?Selections far_admissions-to U.S. graduate have
Ccontinue to be made by committees dominated=by older and, generally, na-g
(tive-born faculty members. However, the result of searching for tila
Cb-e-gE:--qualified applicants, even in an atmosphere characterized by
clearly preferential treatment of U.S.-born applicants for graduate
111 ed _
sCH561 admissions, has l to graduate schools of engineering with
abcfut_50...,pement foreignAoornAgraduate=student populations,j ---- 4
These changes represent both a potential opportunity and-problem,
depending on the point of view. The opportunity is the introduction
into the U.S. population of highly intelligent, highly educated for-
eign-born engineers whose labors and achievements may be expected to
exert a profound influence on our increasingly technological society
for many years to come. This introduction of a population segment that
may be well qualified to contribute to U.S. economic well-being and com-
petitiveness in international markets is being accomplished at minimal
cost to the U.S. consumers for the following reason: the vast majority
of the new immigrants are being trained through the B. S. degree in
their home countries. Using U.S. costs, the total investment in a B. S.
degree from birth is probably about one-third of the societal cost for
a supported (through a teaching or research assistantship) Ph. D. gradu-
ate. Since more than 60 percent of the noncitizen engineering Ph.D.s
ultimately became U.S. citizens, the cost to the United States of pro-
ducing this pool of professionally trained people is evidently con-
siderably smaller than that for an equivalent pool of Ph.D.s with bacca-
laureates from American engineering schools. The Committee also notes
that if there were only U.S. students, current excess capacity in grad-
uate engineering programs would be even larger, making the current mar-
ginal costs of educating foreign students relatively law. Thus, in
view of substantial positive contributions that are likely to be made
by these graduates through professional activities characterizing
highly trained engineering populations, it is easy to conclude that the
worldwide attraction of the best engineering talent to the U.S. consti-
tutes a desirable and cost-effective activity.
There are, however, same aspects of the changes that have been
viewed by some as a source of concern. One of the basic strengths of
the American system of engineering education has been and continues to
be utilization of pragmatic solutions to engineering problems and its
recognition of the importance of hands-on training in the design and
operation of engineering systems. There is, however, a tendency for
all disciplines to move toward more fundamental engineering science,
19
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
which is considered by same to be more prestigious. This creates a
special paradox for engineering schools, which want to share in the
prestige conferred by doing what is most valued in a university but
which also have a need to remain practical and applied. This tendency
may have led to a preference of same engineering schools to hire from
foreign countries junior faculty whose basic outlook is slanted toward
engineering science rather than toward practice. The committee has not
made a detailed study of needed changes in engineering education. It
is noteworthy that it is not at all difficult to find significant exam-
ples of immigrant engineers who are outstanding experimentalists and
have demonstrated the highest skills of entrepreneurial ingenuity in
high-technology industries and development.
If present trends continue, the number of foreign graduates in the
ranks of junior faculty is likely to increase at an accelerating rate.
There are two factors that clearly contribute to this growth. First,
the difficulties in securing industrial employment before achieving im-
migrant status generally make the academic world more accessible to
foreign engineers immediately after graduation. Second, requirements
for U.S. citizenship and security clearances severely restrict the
range and number of industrial positions that are open to foreign-born
engineers.
Federal Regulations Concerning the Use
and Employment of Foreign Engineers
The fact that more than one-third of engineers with new graduate
(master's and doctorate) degrees are of foreign origin poses special
problems for industrial organizations engaged in defense research. Many
of these graduates, including those who became citizens, may encounter
difficulties in obtaining security clearances and may, therefore, be
unsuitable candidates for employment in defense-related industries and
on defense-related contracts. Thus, for example, the-operativarlsize-of
new additions-to=the_doctorate=mkanpower-_-pool-for-defense,related_ac-
tivities-is=effectively=reducedr.--o.n=thverager-by_about-60-peroreit,
from_what=it=would=be7for-a-graup-Itotallyamposed-of-U.S.-7born-stu-_N
dents and, in terms of availablei-quality7for-certain-critical-i-disci-
pl4riepTerhaps----substantially more.z77-, The Committee was unable to
identify ready remedial measures, other than perhaps continued astute
ing of foreign and foreign-born graduates with close relatives in
foreign lands prior to their employment in selected, relatively less
sensitive areas of defense engineering.
Defense industries and some federal laboratories also find it dif-
ficult, if not impossible, to engage in collaborative efforts with uni-
versity departments populated by noncitizen research assistants and fac-
ulty modelers. Security and export control regulations provide major
barriers impeding beneficial interactions with laboratories working in
sensitive, classified, or competitive industrial areas. This problem
extends also to interactions between national laboratories engaged in
20
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
defense work and industries with foreign nationals or naturalized U.S.
citizens without proper security clearance.
Relative Performance
of Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers
Industry
Noncitizen engineers are reported to perform in the labor market
about on par with their U.S. colleagues in terms of preparation, skill,
and professionalism. However, an important exception is language
skill. Persistent deficiencies in oral and written ccarmunication
skills constitute a visible problem area that may contribute to the
fact that foreign-born engineers may encounter problems in consumer-
oriented businesses and also may be slow to reach upper management
positions in industry. Noncitizen engineers do not applaar to be
entering upper corporate management in proportional numbers at the
present time.
Academe
Some problems associated with both foreign-born faculty renters
and noncitizen teaching assistants CCAEO have their roots in differ-
enceq in native language and perhaps also in cultural backgrounds, as
revealed in three particular issues that arose during the course of
this study. First, large numbers of foreign-born engineering graduate
students serve as TAs in undergraduate classes at universities and col-
leges, and same of these students have inadequate command of the En-
glish language. In adclition, U.S. universities include some distin-
guished professors who speak English poorly. Second, it has been
stated to us that, because of their cultural backgrounds, foreign TAS
may be providing disincentives for American students to major in engi-
neering disciplines; this problem could even be exacerbated for minor-
ity and female students because of possibly persisting cultural atti-
tudes that contribute to ineffective cooperation with these students by
selected ethnic groups. We have not seen solid evidence to support
this last supposition. Finally, in many foreign cultures, science and
technology training may be slanted somewhat more toward engineering
science than to practice. In the United States, there may be wider
recognition of the importance of hands-on training in the design and
operation of engineering systems and pragmatic solutions to engineering
problems. Thus, there is same concern that if the orientation to engi-
neering science were to become still more prevalent as a result of the
large and growing ranks of new foreign faculty, the strength of Ameri-
can engineering education could be diminished. Although the Committee
has not seen any hard evidence either to support or to refute the exis-
tence of these problems, we suggest that an awareness of their possible
occurrence be maintained.
21
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
It is recognized that the disproportionately large entry of for-
eign-born engineers into U.S. faculty ranks represents the uncontrolled
operation of normal university selection procedures stressing espe-
cially professional excellence in research and presumably also interest
and competence in teaching. Questions have nevertheless been raised
about the effectiveness of many of these people in the classroom. With
regular student reviews of teacher and teaching assistant performance
in universities now the rule rather than the exception, university
officials should be able to monitor teaching performance and enforce
appropriate standards of instruction.
The Committee notes that most foreign-born assistant professors
have been trained in the United States and concludes, therefore, that
possible language and cultural problems noted for teaching assistants
should have become largely ameliorated during the normal 5- to 6-year
periods spent in U.S. graduate schools. It is likely that the U.S.
foreign-born engineering faculty members of all origins will
have become properly assimilated as the result of their graduate school
experiences.
International Movements
and Contacts of American Engineers
The Committee tried to identify problem areas, if any, relating to
engineering employment of U.S. citizens abroad. Two types of foreign
contacts were considered: study abroad and long-term visits involving
collaborative studies or development. Only limited information was
obtained. This aspect of the study clearly requires further work.
Data from the National Research Council's Doctorate Records File
showed that very few new engineering Ph.D.s had plans to extend their
studies abroad. Of the small number of U.S. citizens choosing postdoc-
torate appointments, only 16 selected study abroad in 1983, and these
accounted for about 1 percent of all U.S. engineering doctorate recip-
ients for 1983. This small percentage did not vary significantly dur-
ing the previous 15 years.
Internationally coauthored articles are one type of indicator for
collaborative efforts. Definite change toward international collab-
oration is clearly evident. In the areas of engineering and technol-
ogy, the proportion of internationally coauthored articles increased
steadily from about 13 percent in 1973 to almost 20 percent in 1982.
This rise should be viewed in the context of the overall U.S. propen-
sity for coauthored work, which is significantly lower than that for
many other industrialized nations?namely, 18 percent for science and
engineering in 1982 compared to about 40 percent for such countries as
West Germany, the United Kingdom, and France. It should be noted that
Japan and the Soviet Union had foreign participation percentages simi-
lar to those of the United States.
22
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
We recognize that international conferences provide ample oppor-
tunities for information exchange for highly visible groups of engi-
neers and scientists./ However, there was considerable concern ex-
pressed at the workshop that long-term (6 mcnths or longer) visits by
American engineers with colleagues in other highly developed countries
were inadequate, considering that much could be learned. This oppor-
tunity is perhaps not appropriately appreciated, especially by managers
in industry, who must approve foreign travel and longer-term visits.
The data base for this type of information is clearly inadequate and
should be expanded.
The Committee believes that the international movement of engi-
neers is an essential camponent of information transfer with signifi-
cant impacts on technical development and international competitive-
ness.
7 See also National Academy of Engineering, Committee on Interna-
tional Cooperation in Engineering, Strengthening U.S. Ehgineering
Through International Cbcperaticn: Some Recommendations for Action,
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1987.
23
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
RECOMMENDATIONS
Inf.Icy of Noncitizen Engineers
and Engineering Students
For the reasons stated in the preceding sections, the Committee
notes that continued entry and immigration of highly educated and
highly motivated engineers and engineering students into the United
States provides desirable opportunities and perhaps problems. If cur-
rent trends require changes, these should be implemented through the
objective replacement of noncitizen graduate-school applicants by
equally competent or superior U.S. applicants. The present situation
works to the advantage of the United States when viewed from the per-
spective that superior, highly trained, well-motivated people are being
added to a critical component of our labor force, without ascertainable
interference with comparable opportunities for qualified U.S. citizens,
except possibly in the academic labor market. The dollar cost to the
country for acquiring the services of these unusually gifted individ-
uals is relatively law, substantially less than the real cost of
bringing a U.S. citizen to the same level of training and performance.
The public at large may perceive the existence of a problem when
native-born students do not participate in adequate numbers in pres-
tigious, important, intellectually rewarding, and relatively well-pay-
ing occupations that are of key importance to national defense and eco-
nomic well-being. That these developments have occurred at all clearly
reflects faulty policies and serious deficiencies in the U.S. educa-
tional and value systems. Federal policies bear some of the responsi-
bility for the shift in balance to foreign-born engineers. By reducing
the number of graduate fellowships restricted to U.S. citizens and by
supporting graduate studies instead through research assistantships
that are generally open to all graduate students, federal policies have
contributed to the decline of U.S.-born student populations in engineer-
ing in favor of increased foreign-born engineering student populations.
The Committee notes two drastic remedial measures--a short-term
measure that will be almost immediately effective and a long-term ap-
proach. The latter would have the desirable goal of creating a techno-
logically competent society that will function as a world leader in in-
ternational competition, while guaranteeing high standards of economic
well-being and intellectual achievements for its citizens.
25
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Short-Term Changes: iingrnwships
Nithi-Adequate:St-ipends?zfor:MS:=Graduate-Students
The size of the pool of B.S. engineering graduates with U.S. citi-
zenship is much larger than the number who apply to engineering grad-
uate schools. One reason for this dearth of U.S. applicants has been
the le-of-i-ittmedratw=eaVloym---entr_at-rtractir-is77 To over-
came this barrier, we recommend the establishment of well-paying gradu-
ate fellowships in engineering for U.S. citizens with stipends that
would be (nearly) campetitive with attractive opportunities for immedi-
ate industrial employment after completion of undergraduate studies.
Engineering faculty members have enjoyed differential salary scales
that are generally higher by 10-20 percent, depending on rank, than
those of their colleagues at comparable ranks in other disciplines.
Such allowances, however, have been made rarely, if ever, for graduate
students. In view of the existence of a lucrative competitive employ-
ment market and noting that engineering graduate students are embarking
on a lengthy and demanding career that is not overtly more desirable
than early industrial employment, inducements may be needed to retain
in academe some of the best of the B. S. graduates. A careful cost-
benefit assessment of augmented stipends for indigenous graduate
students of engineering has not been available to the Committee and
should be performed.
It should be noted that the job market for engineering graduates
changes periodically and that there are indications that same deteriora-
tion has taken place during the last 2 years. Nevertheless, nearly all
baccalaureate holders who seek employment as engineers still seem to be
able to obtain good engineering jobs. In implementing any newly recom-
mended fellowship program, employment markets should be monitored and
recommended programs changed appropriately if supply-demand relation-
ships change.
The Long-Term Solution:--rAugmenteth-Entfiffeetrin?g7
(Educatior-U.S:Studen
The long-term solution is far more costly and will be far more
difficult to implement. The long-term solution is a significant im-
provement in our entire educational system, from kindergarten through
college, with students required to prepare themselves for intelligent
citizenship in a highly camplex technological society. The result,
within a period of 10-15 years, will be a student body with much better
background and interest in mathematically, scientifically, and techno-
logically oriented subjects. The Committee believes that this devel-
opment is likely to have two effects. First, it will probably produce
a considerably larger number of undergraduate engineering students.
Furthermore, it should produce a larger proportion of baccalaureate
holders interested in graduate studies in engineering. At that point
in time, any special fellowship program for superior U.S. graduate
students should be phased out, and retention of superior foreign-born
participants may also be reduced.
26
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
For an advanced technological society, engineering education
should be viewed not only as a necessity for professional training but
also as a cultural requirement for many other occupations. This desir-
able goal can only be achieved by raising the general level of engineer-
ing competence for all citizens.
Monitoring of Potential Problems
AmmgNoncitizen Faculty and Teaching,' Assistants
It has been noted that significant language problems among non-
citizen or foreign-born teaching assistants and familtymembers may pro-
vide disincentives for U.S.-born students to learn effectively and even
to major in engineering. This problem can be controlled by the proper
monitoring of teaching performance through reviews. We suggest that
university officials monitor student teaching reviews in order to de-
tect and correct unusual problems, should they arise. This important
function should probably be removed from the jurisdiction of individual
departments, where it normally resides, and transferred to a central ad-
ministrative office that is charged with the responsibility of enforc-
ing the highest standards of excellence in instruction at all levels.
Trends in Engineering Education
and U.S. Competitiveness in International Markets
A tacit assumption made in our evaluations is that engineering
education plays a key role in ensuring international competitiveness.
This tenet is unproved and cannot represent the entire story, or even a
major part of it, because economic dominance was lost while engineering
education (as measured in terms of numbers of faculty menbers involved,
publications, research, budgets, and Ph.D.s trained) remained supreme
in the world.
The suggestion has been made that U.S. engineering education does
not respond properly to current needs and requires drastic revitaliza-
tion of the type that occurred in the 1950s, when broadly based engi-
neering-science curricula were first introduced. Just what this revi-
talization should involve is properly the subject of another study.
Referring to items that may be important in economic competitiveness,
it is certain that most U.S. engineering curricula are deficient in
training in design, manufacturing, and economic evaluations, as well as
proficiency in foreign languages. The first two of these deficiencies
are currently made up, to same extent, by bringing from industry to the
universities lecturers who are experts in these disciplines. More sys-
tematic efforts of this type should clearly be made.
Same people have argued that U.S. economic competitiveness in
high-technology fields may be enhanced by the establishment of Engi-
neering Research Centers that are designed to achieve excellence in
targeted areas of research and associated applications. These centers
often involve both U.S. and foreign campanies as sponsors and will, of
27
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
course, be populated by Ph. D. graduate students of wham currently a ma-
jority are of foreign birth. As we have noted, approximately 80 per,-
cent (about 45 percent U.S. citizens, 10 percent foreigners with perma-
nent visas, and adocut 60 percent of the 45 percent foreign students
with temporary visas) of the Ph. D. graduate students trained in these
centers will ultimately remain in the United States. Assessment of the
impacts of the Engineering Research Centers on international competi-
tion will rewire long-term monitoring.
University graduate-engineering curricula have tended to stress en-
gineering science, especially at major research centers. As we have re-
peatedly noted, this enphasis may be further increased because the
young, foreign-born engineers who are being aollki to the university fac-
ulties in large numbers often excel in engineering science rather than
in engineering practice. That this is a natter for concern is certain,
and that it is widely recognized as a potential problem is illustrated
by presentations to this Committee and by discussions at its workshop
relating to the need for a reevaluation of engineering education at
both the undergraduate and graduate levels.
We strongly recommend an independent examination of trends in U.S.
engineering education and their likely impact on U.S. economic well-
being and competitiveness in international markets.
Data Gaps
There are considerable data on foreign engineers and engineering
students in the United States. Nevertheless, major data gaps remain
concerning the movement of engineers to and from the United States.
Specifically, there seems to be no quantitative information on career
patterns of foreign students who left the United States. - We should
know how many of these students returned to this country in order to
assess whether the subsidy provided to their education produces a bene-
fit to the United States at same later point in time and also to enable
researchers in the United States to make long-term projections about
the supply of engineers in our work force. Furthermore, for those who
did not return, we should have same insights as to whether the American
study exposure proved beneficial to the country of their subsequent re-
sidence, whether they achieved positions in which they could further
economic or cultural cooperation with the United States, and whether
their subsequent positions could harm American economic or military se-
curity through undesirable technology transfer. Career data are also
unavailable for Americans who spent long periods abroad in professional
activities--such as research, postgraduate or postdoctoral studies,
long-term visits with industrial colleagues, or assignments at foreign
locations of multinational companies?before returning to the United
States.
The follow-up data on foreign students who have left the United
States could be developed by using techniques already utilized in at
28
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
least one existing survey. Specifically, the National Science Founda-
tion's Survey of Recent Graduates obtains addresses of bachelor's and
master's graduates after they have left the universities and then uses
these in a nailed survey. While this technique has been used primarily
to trace and survey those graduates who have stayed in the United
States, there is no reason to believe that it canixrt: be used for gradu-
ates who leave the country. The same method could be used with the Na-
tional Research Council's Survey of Earned Doctorates to develop fol-
low-up data for Ph.D.s who are no longer residing in the United States.
While applications of this method would undoubtedly be somewhat more
difficult and expensive in foreign countries, it seems quite feasible,
at least for recent graduates. Whether it could be used for individ-
uals who graduated several years ago has to be tested. However, with
continued address updating, even applications limited to new graduates
would establish a data base for older graduates after several years.
As for data on the extent of foreign exposure of American engi-
neers, feasibility studies would have to be undertaken to ascertain
whether one could obtain such data from surveys of American employers
(universities, industrial companies, and government agencies). Since
American passports can be used freely for foreign travel without any
information being collected on specific trips, it is not possible to
obtain data from the U.S. Department of State. However, it may be
possible to get data from those gavermemtal agencies of other indus-
trialized countries that handle information on incoming foreign visi-
tors, be it in the form of visa applications or landing cards. Should
employer surveys prove to be infeasible, surveys of individual engi-
neers could be carried out; however, these would require relatively
large samples and, thus, could he quite expensive.
Although it is our view that the policy issues that we have iden-
tified and discussed will not be substantially changed by improved data
inputs on the international movement of engineers, efforts should never-
theless be made to supplement the existing data base in order to pro-
vide inputs and needed information that may be useful in a definitive
future evaluation dealing with the nature and impact of the interna-
tional movement of engineers.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barber, Elinor G., and Robert P. Morgan. 1987. The impact of foreign
graduate students on U.S. engineering education. Science 236
(April 3):33-37.
Borjas, George. 1987. Immigrants, minorities, and labor market con-
ditions. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 40:3.
California Postsecondary Education Commission. 1985. Foreign Graduate
Students in Engineering and Computer Sciencec at California Public
Universities (Report 85-37). Sacramento: The Commission.
Coyle, Susan L. 1986. Summary Report 1985: Doctorate Recipients from
United States Universities. Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press.
29
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Dresch, Stephen P. 1987. The Economics of Foreign Students. New
York: Institute of International Education.
Engineering Manpower COmmission (EMC). 1975-1985 (various issues). En-
gineering and engineering technology degrees granted. Engineering
Education.
EMC. 1975-1985 (various issues). Engineering and engineering technol-
ogy enrollments. Engineering Education.
Finn, Michael G. 1985. Foreign National Scientists and Engineers in
the U.S. Labor Force (TRAU-244). Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge
Associated Universities.
Institute of International Education (IIE). 1984. Foreign Student Flows
(Research Report #7). New York: The Institute.
1986. Open Doors: 1985-86. New York: The Institute.
National Academy of Engineering, Committee on International Cooperation
in Engineering. 1987. Strengthening U.S. Engineering Through
International Cooperation. Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press.
National Association of Foreign Student Affairs. 1987. The foreign T.A.
problem--An update. NAFSA Newsletter, March 1987.
National Science Board. 1987. Science and Engineering Indicators 1987
(NSB 87-1). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Science Foundation (NSF). 1987. Academic Science/Engineering:
Graduate Enrollment and Support, Fall 1985 (SRS 87-05). Washing-
ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
NSF. 1986a. Characteristics of Doctorate Scientists and Engineers in
the United States: 1985. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Print-
ing Office.
NSF. 1986b. Foreign Citizens in U.S. Science and Engineering: History
Status and Outlook (NSF 86-305). Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
NSF. 1986c. Immigrant Scientists and Engineers: 1985. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
NSF. 1986d. Research and Development in Industry, 1985. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
NSF. 1986e. Science and Engineering Doctorates: 1960-85. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
NSF. 1985. Science and Engineering Personnel: A National Overview
(NSF 85-302). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
30
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
APPENDIX A
FOREIGN ENGINEERS AND ENGINEERING STUDENTS
IN THE UNITED STATES
Charles E. Falk
31
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
coNTEurs
NARRATIVE HIGHLIGHTS
Introduction 37
Labor Force 37
Academe 38
Industry 39
BIBLIOGRAPHY 77
LIST OF FIGURES
IatcrRorce
1 Proportion of foreign engineers in the U.S. engineering
labor market, 1984 40
2 Immigration rates of engineers, 1967-1985 41
3 Nonnative-born engineers in the U.S. labor force,
1972 and 1982 42
4 Employed engineers, by field and citizenship status 43
5 Foreign engineers in the U.S. labor force, by degree
level, 1982 44
6 Foreign engineers, by sector of employment and field, 1982 45
7 Proportion of foreign engineers, by sector of employment
and field, 1982 46
8 Foreign engineers, by primary work activity and field, 1982 47
9 Proportion of firms employing foreign scientists and
engineers, 1985 48
10 Foreign citizens as percent of recent hires of scientists
and engineers in forms that employed them 1985 49
11 Proportion of U.S.-company funded R&D performed by foreign
subsidiaries, 1975-1985 50
Academe
12 Foreign students, by field of study, 1955-1985 51
13 Number of foreign engineering students at all levels,
1955-1986 52
14 Foreign engineering students, by academic level, 1964,
1974, and 1984 53
15 Foreign engineering students, by area of origin,
1983-84 54
16 Countries that produced the largest number of foreign
engineering students, 1983-84 55
17 Leading countries of origin for foreign recipients of
doctorates in engineering, 1985 56
18 Foreigners as a proportion of all undergraduate engineer-
ing students, by subfield, 1985 57
33
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
19 Foreigners as a proportion of all engineering degrees,
by level and subfield, 1985 58
20 Foreign students as a percent of full-tie graduate enroll-
ment in selected engineering fields at U.S. doctorate-
granting institutions, 1977 and 1985 59
21 Foreigners as a percentage of total graduate student enroll-
ments, by quality of science/engineering department, 1983 60
22 Primary source of support in graduate school of doctorate
recipients, by citizenship and engineering field, 1985 61
23 Foreign engineering Ph.D. recipients: Percentage of total
engineering doctorates and distribution by type of visa,
1975 and 1985 62
24 Foreigners as a ploportion of all engineering pcetdoctorates
in doctorate-granting institutions, 1985 63
25 Proportion of 1982-83 foreign engineering graduates of
American universities employed in the United States in 1984 64
26 Postgraduation plans of foreign engineering doctorate
recipients with temporary or permanent vi, 1972 and 1985 65
27 Proportion of foreign engineers working in the United States
in 1982 (1976-1979 B.S. and M.S. recipients and 1980-81
doctorate recipients) 66
28 Foreign as a proportion of all engineering faculty in
doctorate-granting institutions in selected subfields,
by type of visa, 1985-86 67
29 Foreign as proportions of all engineering faculty and
assistant professors, age 35 or less, for selected years,
1975-1985 68
LIST OF TABLES
1 Employed Engineers, by Field and Citizenship Status,
1982 (percent in parentheses) 69
2 Foreign Engineers in the U.S. Labor Force, by Degree
Level, 1982 (in percent) 69
3 Foreign Engineers, by Sector of EMployment and Field,
1982 (in percent) 70
4 Foreign Engineers, by Primary Work Activity and Field,
1982 (in percent) 70
5 Foreign Engineers as a Proportion of All Engineers,
by Primary Work Activity and Field, 1982 (in percent) 71
6 R&D Funded by U.S. Companies and Performed by Foreign
Subsidiaries, 1975-1985 (in percent) 72
7 Foreign Students, by Field of Study, in Selected Years,
1955-1985 (in percent) 73
8 Number of Foreign Engineering Students at All Levels,
1955-1986 73
9 Foreign Science and Engineering Students, by Academic
Level, 1964, 1974, and 1984 (in percent) 73
10 Leading Countries of Origin for Foreign Recipients
of Doctorates in Engineering, 1985 74
34
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
11 Foreigners as a Proportion of All Engineering Urrlexgraduate
Students, by Subfield, 1985 75
12 Pcetgraduation Plans of Foreign Engineering Doctorate
Recipients with Permanent or Temporary Vi c, 1972 and 1985
(in percent) 75
13 U.S. and Foreign Engineering Faculty, Age 35 or Less,
1975-1985 76
35
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
HIGHLIGHTS
Introduction
The data presented here were compiled from existing publications
and special tabulations prepared for this study by the National Re-
search Council, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Institute
for International Education, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, and the
American Association of Engineering Societies. The unfailing cooper-
ation and assistance of these organizations are greatly appreciated.
The most reliable data source on the foreign-engineer labor force
is the NSF's Postcensal Survey, which in 1982 surveyed the total 1980
U.S. science and engineering labor force. Consequently, these data are
generally used to describe distributional characteristics. The NSF
also generates more recent estimates, which are model-generated and
based on updated surveys of the pcstcensal cohort and a number of other
more recent surveys. The latter, however, do miss recent immigrants
and same recent graduates of U.S. universities, especially those that
do not have American addresses. Where appropriate, the latest quantita-
tive information from this model-generated information base (the latest
is for 1984) is presented.
It should be noted that most labor force data are for engineers em-
ployed as engineers. These numbers will always be smaller than those
for all engineers, which include unemployed engineers and those not
working in engineering occupations.
The definition of "foreign" varies between different surveys.
Thus, only the NSF data include foreigners with "permanent residence"
visas. For all other data sources used in this report, "foreign" is
equivalent to "nonresident alien."
Labor Force
Only about 3.3 percent of all engineers employed in the United
States in 1982 and 1984 were foreign nationals. The proportion varied
from a high of about 5.2 percent in chemical engineering to a low of
about 2.7 percent in industrial and aeronautical engineering (Fig-
ure Al). In 1972 the proportion of foreign engineers was slightly
higher--4.2 percent. In absolute terms, in 1982 the greatest number of
foreign engineers were in electrical/electronics, engineering and in me-
chanical engineering?about 28 and 23 percent, respectively, of all for-
eign engineers. The Immigration and Naturalization Service reports
37
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
that 8,100 engineers immigrated to the United States in 1985 (Fig-
ure A-2).
In 1982 the representation of foreign nationals among employed doc-
torate arid master's engineers was considerably higher (about 12 and 6.4
percent, respectively) than among baccalaureate holders (about 2.4
percent) (Figure A-5). These proportions were also slightly lower than
those in 1972 (15 and 7.5 percent, respectively).
In order to judge overall foreign impact, it should be noted that
in 1982 about 14 percent of employed engineers were naturalized citi-
zens. This proportion varied from a low of about 12 percent for indus-
trial engineers to a high of 17 percent of civil engineers (Figures A-3
and A-4). However, these proportions were much larger than their equiv-
alents in 1972, when, for example, the proportion of all naturalized
engineers was only 5.2 percent.
The presence of naturalized engineers is even more pronounced in
the advanced-degree labor force (Figure A-5)--16 percent among master
degree holders (only 7.2 percent in 1972) and 24 percent among doctor-
ates (only 11 percent in 1972).
The greatest concentration (proportion of all engineers in a sec-
tor) of foreign engineers in 1982 was found in educational institutions
(8.5 percent), the smallest in government (1.2 percent). However, in
absolute terms, by far the greatest number of foreign engineers--about
80 percent of all?were located in industry (Figures A-6 and A-7).
Among the most predominant primary work activities (Figure A-8) of for-
eign engineers in 1982 were R&D, including R&D management (36 percent)
and design (18 percent). This distribution was significantly different
from that of U.S.-citizen engineers, for wham these activities ac-
counted for 24 and 13 percent, respectively. In terms of concentra-
tion, foreign engineers were most evident in teaching (8 percent) and
R&D (5 percent) while camprising 2-4 percent in each of the other activ-
ities (Table A-5).
Academe
About 22 percent of foreign students in American universities
study engineering, and this proportion has not changed significantly
over the last 30 years (Figure A-12). Between 1955 and 1980 the number
of foreign engineering students increased steadily by about a factor of
10 but has remained fairly constant at 75,000 since then (Figure A-13).
Most foreign engineering students came from Asia (42 percent) and
the Middle East (30 percent) in 1983-84 (Figure A-15). Among undergrad-
uate students they represented only about 7 percent in 1985 (Fig-
ure A-18). More than 40 percent of foreign engineering students are
engaged in graduate studies (Figure A-14), and they constituted over 40
percent of all full-time engineering graduate students in doctor-
ate-granting institutions in 1985 (Figure A-20). Foreigners with tempo-
rary visas received about 8 percent of baccalaureates, 27 percent of
master's degrees, and 41 percent of doctorates granted by U.S. engi-
neering schools in 1985 (Figure A-19). In 1985 the leading countries
38
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
of origin of foreign recipients of doctorates from American univer-
sities were Taiwan, India, and Korea (Figure A-17).
About 57 percent of foreign graduate students, as compared to
47 percent of American graduate students, get their primary financial
support from research assistantships. Similarly, about 15 percent of
the foreign graduate students, compared to 8 percent of the Americans,
obtain their main support from teaching assistantships (Figure A-22).
Two-thirds of engineering postdoctorates were foreign in 1985,
with the greatest proportion (81 percent in metallurgical/materials en-
gineering and the smallest (57 percent) in electrical engineering (Fig-
ure A24).
About 60 percent of the 1985 foreign engineering doctorates had
firm plans for postdegree activities. About 84 percent of permanent
visa holders and 39 percent of those with temporary visas expected to
have employment in the United States. This proportion was much greater
than the 56 and 11 percent, respectively, who indicated planned U.S. em-
ployment in 1972 (Figure A-26). The situation was similar for master's
degree recipients and a little less (42 percent) for baccalaureates in
1982 (Figure A-27).
About 14 percent of doctorate faculty in engineering schools were
foreign (bath temporary and permanent vi) in 1986. This proportion
was about the same in the subfields (Figure 2428). However, almost
50 percent of all engineering assistant professors, age 35 years or
younger, were foreign--a fivefold increase over the last 10 years (Fig-
ure A29). The proportions were much higher in same fields, such as
electrical/electronics (83 percent), industrial (76 percent), and chemi-
cal (69 percent) engineering. Mechanical engineering showed only a
19 percent presence of foreign assistant professors.
Industry
In 1982, 82 percent of all foreign engineers in the United States
worked in industrial organizations, where they represented 3.6 percent
of all engineers (Figure A-7).
About 50 percent of a representative sample of all industrial
firms employed foreign engineers in 1985. Among major employers this
proportion, as shown in Figure A-9, varied from more than 70 percent in
R&D laboratories to 43 percent in mechanical/transportation equipment
industries.
Foreign citizens represented 8 percent of recent industrial hires
in 1985. Among major employers, this proportion varied from 14 percent
in computer/electronics firms to 7 percent among chemical/drug firms
(Figure A-10).
39
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
All Engineers
Chemical
Materials
Electrical
Civil
Mechanical
Nuclear
Industrial
Aeronautical
Other
A
3.3
A
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.8
3.2
3.1
3.7
4.9
5.2
0
2
3
Percent
5
6
NOTE: Includes all individuals reporting employment in 1982.
SOURCES: National Science Foundation, U.S. Scientists and Engineers,
1984, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985.
FIGURE A-1 Proportion of foreign engineers in the U.S. engineering
labor market, 1984.
40
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
.17-1-000zozosoomocsoo-o6da-vio ci-tani-oz eseeiej -104 panaiddv Ado paz!PeS u! PeWsseloeCI
TV
'al
* Number of Immigrant Engineers in Thousands
N
(d Fi
N a)
rt
1-1-
0 CA
rn 0 IN3 -It, CD CO
1
I cn
0
? 586I-L961
0
8.8
7.2
4.4 .
4=6 2:?\,::\ 3.9
4.6
, .
03-
0
03
-
5.1
5.2
6.8
7.4
7.9
6.8
6 . 1
co \\,?,?.,?\\,-.\-\\,?\...\,\,.\\,,\N?-\\.\.\.-\\-\\.,\,\,-\-\-\\,N.,\,-\\,,-.,-\\,,,
8 . 1
9.3
9.3
17-1-000Z0Z0800M0C900-06dClI-VIO /O/O eseeiej -104 panaiddv Ado paz!PeS u! PeWsseloeCI
.17-1-000zozosoomocsoo-o6da-vio ci-tani-oz eseeiej -104 panaiddv Ado paz!PeS u! PeWsseloeCI
fti En
1-1 2
N _ 8
I EL'
(...)
..:-.
z o z
o
.. I-"
rt 0
1-,-
<
CT? .
cl))
I.J. -n
o
g (t)
fri ??
O I tli
HU LQ
O 1-,-
'-< "0
(Did (D 0
1l1 (Db
0 II I-'
0 1.1)
/1 LCZ 0"
rt rt (D
(DO 0
Oct
w
? 0 (Db sl)
o
o
rt 1--.. I-. a)
(D 13) riT
0, k0 W rt c
co ? I-+- ii)
0 a)
rt i a)
0) co cn Cn
rt')
(D
WI-)
o
I? II
? o
F.-
H LQ
LO
co
0
79
0
Percent
0
11)
(D
0
(D
-pToossv upoTiamv pup
18
23
17-1-000Z0Z0800MOC900-06da-V10 /O/O eseeiej J04 panaiddv Ado paz!4!ueS u! PeWsseloaCI
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
100
80
60
40
20
0
Permanent Visas
A
1972
1985
100
80
Temporary Visas
40
20
0
1972
1985
NOTE: See Table A-12.
SOURCES: National Research Council's Survey of Earned Doctorates; National Science
Foundation, Foreign Citizens in U.S. Science and Ehgineering: History, Status and
Outlook, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987.
FIGURE A-26 Postgraduation plans of foreign engineering doctorate recipients (with
temporary or permanent visas), 1972 and 1985.
BEI Study in U.S.
? Emp. in U.S.
O Other in U.S.
123 Plan Abroad
11 Unkn. Locat.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
t-imozozosoomocsoo-o6da-vio ci.tcotci.oz eseeiej J04 panaiddv Ado paz!l!ueS u! PeWsseloaCI
C) "4
I-. H ? a)
,D N
...]
0,
1 2 fl:
??
H
QD ?,
-..] En
ko t?i ? znp
w -1
En
RI i E-
a-
kr/
rt a)
. .
8 .9,) k
" 1-?
1-.- 81 - g
o
t-t)
2 ? -
a. N
t--,4 Li:
co Eh? K H.
CCL)
1?, . rt
S
F.-
Rs
" z
a
cr
g H.
Pli 0
rt Ft
(t,
'11 1-1
5al 0
l'Cl).
t--
1-)
?o
a - ?.1
tv
....... g
i-+
1
ko
co
cn tv
et
F.._
is
0
- 1 411!
5
P.
99
0
Percent
0
a)
0
CO
17-1.000Z0Z0800a10C900-06dC1I-V10 Cl,/CO/C1.0z eseeiej J04 panaiddv Ado paz!l!ueS u! PeWsseloaCI
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13
: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
STAT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13
: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
c?i
oi
k\s
2
67
mg-,44
,::?0
j b
fq
..9 g
8 r-g
1 41
tn' -V g33Poi
VI
r>
2 167. V
- o
-w ? -g
6 ?
. m g 4'
0,
7AI 'ji
48 #
a W
---1
Z
0 .40 144
a
- L.0 2 r8
4
. 88 rn 8
03 ..-1
0
-4 P' m
u9 01
0 V
- I Oil
H
-0 114 -,-1
0 4S C:Ct43m,
6--1
i3,c; NI
.5,04
r--i
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
"E
?
2
a.
50
40
30
20
10
All Engineering Faculty
-
1975 1977
60
1979 1981
Year
1983 1985
50 -
? 40-
0
30
20 -
10
All Engineering Assistant Professors
1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985
Year
NOTE: See Table A13.
SOURCE: National Research Council's Survey of Doctorate Recipients.
FIGURE A-29 Foreign as proportions of all engineering faculty and
assistant professors, age 35 or less, for selected years, 1975-1985.
68
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
TABLE A-1: Employed Engineers, by Field and Citizenship Status, 1982
(percent in parentheses)
Field
Native Foreign Naturalized Total
All Engineers 869,824 36,435 144,346 1,050,605
(82.8) (3.5) (13.7) (100.0)
Aeronautical 38,660 1,368 5,979 46,007
(84.0) (3.0) (13.0) (100.0)
Chemical 49,559 2,962 8,688 61,209
(81.) (4.8) (14.2) (100.0)
Civil 116,951 4,956 24,030 145,937
(80.1) (3.4) (16.5) (100.0)
Electrical 203,867 8,787 33,073 245,727
(83.0) (3.6) (13.5) (100.0)
Industrial 58,072 1,778 8,053 67,903
(85.5) (2.6) (11.9) (100.0)
Materials 18,514 1,522 2,849 22,885
(80.9) (6.7) (12.4) (100.0)
Mechanical 168,204 7,768 30,971 206,943
(81.3) (3.8) (15.0) (100.0)
Nuclear 8,138 321 1,165 9,624
(84.6) (3.3) (12.1) (100.0)
Other 207,860 6,971 29,538 244,369
(85.1) (2.9) (12.1) (100.0)
NOTES: Inclwies only individuals reporting employment in engineering
occupations in 1972 and 1982.
SOURCES* Special tabulations from Oak Ridge Associated Universities,
based on National Science Foundation's 1972 and 1982 Postcensal
Surveys.
TABLE A-2: Foreign Engineers in the U.S. Labor Force, by Degree Level,
1982 (in percent)
Degree
U.S. Citizens Foreign Naturalized
Bachelor's 85.5 2.4 12.1
Master's 77.7 6.4 15.9
Doctorate 64.3 12.0 23.8
NOTE: Includes only individuals reporting employment in engineering
occupations in 1982.
SOURCES: Special tabulations from Oak Ridge Associated Universities,
based on National Science Foundation's 1982 Postcensal Survey.
69
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
TABLE Ar-3: Foreign Engineers, by Sector of EMployment and Field, 1982
(in percent)
Field
Business/
Industry
Education
Institution
Government
ALL KELM
82
8
4
6
Aeronautical
85
9
3
3
Chemical
85
9
1
5
Civil
71
10
11
8
Electrical
87
2
4
7
Industrial
82
2
0
16
Materials
58
40
0
2
Mechanical
86
7
1
6
Nuclear
81
0
3
16
Other
82
8
5
5
NOTE: Includes only individuals reporting employment in engineering
occupations in 1982.
SOURCES: Special tabulations from Oak Ridge Associated Universities,
based on National Science Foundation's 1982 Postcensal Survey.
TABLE A-4: Foreign Engineers, by Primary Work Activity and Field, 1982
(in percent)
Field
R&D/R&D
Management
Other*
Design
Non-R&D
Management
ALL FOREIGN
36
33
18
13
Aeronautical
64
18
13
5
Chemical
46
17
22
15
Civil
19
49
22
10
Electrical
46
26
20
8
Industrial
21
49
1
29
Materials
57
29
2
12
Mechanical
28
29
29
14
Nuclear
52
26
16
6
Other
32
43
8
17
* Includes teaching and operations.
NOTE: Includes only individuals reporting employment in engineering
occupations in 1982.
SOURCES: Special tabulations fruit Oak Ridge Associated Universities,
based on National Science Foundation's 1982 Postcensal Survey.
70
- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
TABLE A-5: Foreign Engineers as a Proportion of All Engineers, by Primary Work
Activity and Field, 1982 (in percent)
Field
R&D
Mgmt
Non-
R&D
Mgmt
Teach-
ing
R&D
Design
Opera-
tions
Other
Total
ALL FOREIGN
3
2
8
5
4
3
3
3
Aeronautical
3
1
17
4
4
2
2
3
,1
H
Chemical
Civil
6
3
3
1
19
9
7
8
9
6
1
2
4
4
5
3
Electrical
3
2
2
5
4
4
4
4
Industrial
2
2
3
3
0
2
3
2
Materials
2
4
34
11
8
4
4
7
Mechanical
2
2
6
4
5
4
5
4
Nuclear
1
1
0
7
6
2
3
3
Other
4
2
9
4
3
2
2
3
NOTE: Includes only individuals reporting employment in engineering occupations in
1982.
SOURCES: Special tabulations from Oak Ridge Associated Universities, based on Na-
tional Science Foundation's 1982 Postcensal Survey.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
fld
0,2 mo.
CN CN CN CA Cs 03
111 CO 111 CA cis .44
vr CO Cs CI CV CN
r4 0; c;
CO .1 CO CI 1.0 6
co ri
? ? ? ?
U.) Cr; CD 11) CV cn
ri rA CI CI cr
Ch el el rA CD 01
^A CO CV CO .41 Ch
? 01 CO r4 c;
CV cv el in VD Cs
O1 Cs Ch r4 Ul
rs r- r- co co CO
CN CN CN CN Ch CN
rA rA ri ri r4 rl
72
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
TABLE A-7: Foreign Students,
1955-1985 (in percent)
by Field of Study,
in Selected Years,
Field
1955
1960
1970
1980
1985
Engineering
22.0
23.0
22.0
27.0
22.0
Science
30.0
32.0
31.0
24.0
28.0
Humanities
22.0
19.0
20.0
9.0
8.0
Business/Education
26.0
25.0
27.0
40.0
42.0
SOURCE: ML Zikcpoulcs
(ed.),
Open Doors,
1985,
New York:
Institute
of International Education, 1986.
TABLE A-8: Number of Foreign Engineering Students at All Levels, 1955-
1986
Year Number Year Number
1955
7,618
1975
42,000
1960
11,279
1980
76,950
1965
18,084
1985
75,370
1970
29,731
1986
74,580
SOURCE: N. Zilcopoulos ((kW, Open LU?ors, 1986, New York: Institute
of International Education, 1987.
TABLE A-9: Foreign Science and Engineering Students, by Academic
Level, 1964, 1974, and 1984 (in percent)
Level
1964
1974
1984
Graduate
42
49
41
Uniergraduate
58
51
59
SOURCE: Profiles, 1983-84, New York: Institute of International
Education, 1985.
73
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
TABLE A-10: Leading Countries of Origin for Foreign Recipients of Doctorates
in Engineering, 1985
Country of Citizenship
Number of
Doctorates
Percent
of Total
Taiwan
382
21.16
India
211
11.69
Korea
132
7.31
Iran
116
6.43
Turkey
56
3.10
,1
,p.
Egypt
China
46
30
2.55
1.66
Greece
30
1.66
Nigeria
29
1.61
Hong Kong
27
1.50
Japan
25
1.39
Thailand
25
1.39
TOTAL, leading countries
1,109
61.40
Other countries
527
29.24
Countries not reported
169
9.36
TOTAL, FOREIGN RECIPIENTS
1,805
100.00
SOURCES: National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Doctorates 1960-85,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986; National Research Council's
1985 Survey of Doctorate Recipients.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
TABLE A-11: Foreigners as a
Undergraduate Students, by Subfield,
Proportion of
1985
All Engineering
Field
Total
Total
Percent
Number
Foreign
Foreign
ALL STUDENTS
384,191
27,055
7
Aerospace
15,699
549
3
Chemical
23,423
1,269
5
Civil
34,547
4,431
13
Electrical
112,205
9,155
8
Industrial
16,434
1,583
10
Materials
3,204
178
6
Mechanical
66,738
3,946
6
Nuclear
1,857
59
3
Other
110,084
5,885
5
SOURCE: Unpublished tabulations, Anerican Association of Engineering
Societies.
TABLE Pe-12: Postgraduation Plans of Foreign Engineering Doctorate
Recipients with Permanent or Temporary Visas (in percent)
Plans
Permanent Visa
Teartrorary Visa
1972
1985
1972 1985
Study
23.6
4.4
18.3
17.0
Employment
56.1
84.2
11.4
39.4
Other
4.3
1.1
1.3
0.4
Abroad
12.1
3.8
66.0
33.7
Unknown location
3.9
6.5
3.0
9.5
SOURCES: National Research Council's Survey of Earned Doctorates;
National Science Foundation, Foreign Citizens in U.S. Science and
Engineering: History, Status and Outlook, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Goverment Printing Office, 1987.
75
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
TABLE A-13: U.S. aryl Foreign Engineering Faculty, age 35 or less,
1975-1985
All Faculty
Assistant Professors
Foreign
U.S. Foreign
1975
89.4 10.6
89.4 10.6
1977
85.7 14.3
85.7 14.3
1979
72.9 27.1
77.1 22.9
1981
75.9 24.3
72.1 27.9
1983
54.3 45.7
46.3 53.7
1985
53.4 46.6
50.5 49.5
SOURCE: National Research Council '5 Survey of Doctorate Recipients.
76
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barber, Elinor G., and Robert P. Morgan. 1987. The impact of foreign
graduate students on U.S. engineering education. Science 236
(April 3):33-37.
Borj as, George. 1987. Immigrants, minorities, and labor market con-
ditions. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 40:3.
California Postsecondary Education Commission. 1985. Foreign Graduate
Students in Engineering and Computer Sciences at California Public
Universities (Report 85-37). Sacramento: The Commission.
Coyle, Susan L. 1986. Summary Report 1985: Doctorate Recipients from
United States Universities. Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press.
Dresch, Stephen P. 1987. The Economics of Foreign Students. New York:
Institute of International Education.
Engineering Manpower Commission (EMC). 1975-1985 (various issues). En-
gineering and engineering technology degrees granted. Engineering
Education.
EMC. 1975-1985 (various issues). Engineering and engineering technol-
ogy enrollments. Engineering Education.
Finn, Michael G. 1985. Foreign National Scientists and Engineers in
the U.S. Labor Force (ORAU-244). Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge
Associated Universities.
Institute of International Education (IIE). 1984. Foreign Student Flows
(Research Report #7). New York: The Institute.
IIE. 1986. Open Doors: 1985-86. New York: The Institute.
National Academy of Engineering, Committee on International Cooperation
in Engineering. 1987. Strengthening U.S. Engineering Through
International Cooperation. Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press.
National Association of Foreign Student Affairs. 1987. The foreign T.A.
problem--An update. NAFSA Newsletter, March 1987.
National Science Board. 1987. Science and Engineering Indicators 1987
(NSB 87-1). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Science Foundation (NSF). 1987. Academic Science/Engineering:
Graduate Enrollment and Support, Fall 1985 (SRS 87-05). Washing-
ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
NSF. 1986a. Characteristics of Doctorate Scientists and Engineers in
the United States: 1985. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Print-
ing Office.
NSF. 1986b. Foreign Citizens in U.S. Science and Engineering: His-
tory, Status and Outlook (NSF 86-305). Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
NSF. 1986c. Immigrant Scientists and Engineers: 1985. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
NSF. 1986d. Research and Development in Industry, 1985. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
NSF. 1986e. Science and Engineering Doctorates: 1960-85. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
NSF. 1985. Science and Engineering Personnel: A National Overview
(NSF 85-302). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
77
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
APPENDIX B
AGENDA
Workshop on the International Exchange
and Movement of Engineers
National Academy of Sciences
July 7, 1987
79
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
8:30 Weloame
8:45 Introduction
9:00 Summary of the Data
9:15 Foreign Engineers
in the U.S. Labor Force
10:00 Foreign Engineers in Industry
10:45 Break
11:15 Foreign Engineering Students
and Faculty in Academia
12:00 Lunch
1:00 Foreign Engineers
and Foreign Visitors
in Federal Laboratories
1:45 International Flag of Scien-
tific and Engineering Talent
2:30 Flow of American Engineers
to Japan
3:00 Break
Alan Fechter, Executive
Director
Office of Scientific and
Enginaering Personnel
gtanford S. Penner, Chair
University of California,
La Jolla
Charles Falk, Consultant
Michael Finn, Oak Ridge
Associated Universities
Peter Cannon, Rockwell
International
Daniel C. Drucker, University
of Florida
Glenn EUswa, Sandia National
Laboratory
Dorothy S. Zinberg, Harvard
University
Charles T. Owens, National
Science Foundation
3:15 Federal Policy Perspectives
? John Moore, Deputy Director, National Science Foundation
? Sandra O'Leary, Office of Policy Planning Staff, U.S.
Department of State
? Ron William Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House Of Representatives
go Deborah Wince, Office of Science and Technology Policy
4:00 Open Discussion
4:30 Adjournment
81
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
APPENDIX C
PARTICIPANTS
Workshop on the International Exchange
and Movement of Engineers
National Academy of Sciences
July 7, 1987
83
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Mt. Steven Anastasion
National Academy of Engineering
Dr. Jesse H. Ausubel
Director, Program Office
National Academy of Engineering
Ms. Yupin Bae
Research Assistant
Office of Scientific and
Engineering Personnel
National Academy of Sciences
Dr. Elinor G. Barber
Research Coordinator
Institute of International
Education
809 United Nations Plaza
New York, NY 10017
Mt. Joel Berries
National Science Foundation
1800 G Street, NW--Roam L602
Washington, DC 20550
Dr. A. J. Bernstein
Manager, EMployee Relations
& Corammications Operations
General Electric
Corporate Research & Development
Bldg. K-1, Roam 2A70
Schenectady, NY 12301
Mr. Myles Boylan
National Science Foundation
1800 G Street, NW--Room 1229
Washington, DC 20550
MS. Jennifer Bond
Study Group Director
International Studies Group
Division of Science Resources Studies
National Science Foundation
1800 G Street, NW?Roam L611
Washington, DC 20550
85
Dr. Peter Cannon
Vice President for Research
Rockwell International Corporation
P.O. Box 1085-Mail Code Al8
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
Mr. Richard Case
Director of Technical Projects
and University Relations
IBM Corporation
500 Columbus Avenue--Roam 2B35
Thorwood, NY 10594
Dr. Dennis Chant
Associate Director
for Professional EMployment
AFL-CIO
815 16th Street, NW--Roam 608
Washington, DC 20006
Mt. Richard Cheston
U.S. General Accounting Office
1825 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
MS. Dee Cooper
Project Secretary
Office of Scientific and
Engineering Personnel
National Academy of Sciences
Dr. Richard V. L. Cooper
Partner
International Trade Services
Coopers and Lybrand
1800 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Dr. George C. Dacey
1201 cUatro Cerros, SE
Albuquerque, NM 87123
MS. Claudia Dissel
Associate Executive Director
Office of Scientific and
Engineering Personnel
National Academy of Sciences
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Ms. Linda S. Dix
Project Officer
Office of Scientific and
Engineering Personnel
National Academy of Sciences
Dr. Daniel E. Drucker
Graduate Research Professor
of Engineering Studies
University of Florida
231 Aerospace Engineering Building
Gainesville, FL 32611
Mt. James F. Fairman, Jr.
AAES Engineering Affairs Committee
2801 Park Centre Drive
Alexandria, VA 22300
Dr. Charles Falk
8116 Lilly Stone Drive
Bethesda, MD 20817
Mr. Alan Fechter
Executive Director
Office of Scientific and
Engineering Personnel
National Academy of Sciences
Dr. Michael Finn
Oak Ridge Associated Universities
P.O. Box 117
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
Dr. Mary Golloday
Study Director
Science and Engineering Education
Section
National Science Foundation
1800 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20550
Dr. Barb Hayre
Professor of Electronics
and Engineering
University of Houston
Houston, TX
Dr. Glenn Euswa
Organization 4030
Sandia National Laboratory
Albuquerque, NM 87815
86
Dr. George Leitmann
Dean
College of Engineering
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
Mr. Frank E. Lord
Chairman, 1KWX Manpower Committee
GTE-Sylvania, Inc.
P.O. Box 7188
Mountain View, CA 94039
Dr. Stephen J. Lukasik
Vice President
Northrop Corporation
1840 Century Park East
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Dr. Frank B. McDonald
Code 100
NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD 20771
Dr. Robert McGinnis
Director
Cornell Institute for Social
and Economic Research
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
Dr. John Moore
Deputy Director
National Science Foundation
1800 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20550
Dr. Robert Morgan
Professor of Technology
and Human Affairs
Washington University
St. Louis, MO 63130
Mt. Sandra O'Leary
Office of Policy Planning Staff
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW--Roam 7312
Washington, DC 20520
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Mr. Vincent O'Neill
IKF"
1119 19th Street, NW--Suite 608
Washington, ric 20036
Dr. Charles T. Owens
Division of International Programs
National Science Foundation
1800 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20550
Dr. Stanford S. Penner
Department of Applied
and Mechanical Engineering
University of California
La Jolla, CA 92093
Dr. David Reyes-Guerra
Executive Director
Accreditation Board for Engineering
and Technology
345 East 47th Street
New York, NY 10017
Dr. Herbert Richardson
Deputy Chancellor and Dean
of Engineering
Texas AAM University
301 Wisenbaker
Engineering Research Center
College Station, TX 77843
Mr. Peter Syverson
Director of Information Services
Council of Graduate Schools
in the United States
1 Dupont Circle, NW--Suite 430
Washington, DC 20036
Me. Betty Vetter
Executive Director
Commission on Professionals
in Science and Technology
1500 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
87
Dr. Karl Willedbrodk
Executive Director
American Society
for Engineering Education
11 Dupont Circle, NW--Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
Mr. Ronald William
Chief Engineer
Committee on Science,
and Technology
U.S. House of Representatives
2321 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515
Space,
Me. Deborah Wince
Assistant Director
for International Affairs
Office of Science
and Technology Policy
New Executive Office Bldg.--Room 50
Washington, DC 20506
Dr. Dorothy S. Zinberg
Lecturer on Public Policy/
Senior Research Associate
Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
79 J. F. Kennedy Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
APPENDIX D
COMMISSIONED PAPERS
? Foreign Engineers in the U.S. Labor Force: 91
Michael G. Finn
? Foreign Engineers in U.S. Industry: An Ekploratory
Assessment: Peter Cannon 105
? The Job Market for Holders of Engineering Baccalaureate
Degrees in Engineering: Charles E. Falk 125
? On Foreign Engineers in Academe: Daniel C. Drucker 127
? Effect of Foreign Nationals on Federally Supported
Laboratories: Glenn W. EUswa 147
? American Engineers in Japan: Charles T. Owens 163
? The Impact of Foreign Students on the Engineering
Programs at the University of California: J. E. Luco 167
89
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/13: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802020001-4
FOREIGN ENGINEERS IN THE U.S. LABOR FORCE*
Michael G. Finn
Oak Ridge Associated Universities
INTRODUCTION
cDuringr-the-_-.firstr_halfrofmthe771980s2U.S-7-iiniversified-Imore
engineering-doctorates-to_foreign-nationals-than-th=U:S7==citizens
Most-of-t4iese=foreign_nationalred=the-aU.S=workr.force_, -boosting__
the-nuMber-of-work7=force-entrants-mith=doctorates=to-a=leveI-that-mai--
At-least2:750=percent=higher-tlianr:it=woutd=haverthe-zforeign-n