this national commitment in a more effective way than we have at the present time?

Dr. BRANSCOMB. I think it can be. The Board shares that view. Our policy statement which I referred to earlier specifically speaks to that issue. The Director, Dr. Slaughter, recommended that we initiate a commission on criteria for quality in science and engineering education.

Before launching it, we want to consult with Secretary Bell because he has just created a similar commission, and has some distinguished scientists on it. The statutory provision for commissions has the laudable characteristic that it directs the involvement of lay citizens as well as technical experts on such commissions. I think that is something the Board will welcome and should take advantage of. Second, I would observe that the language as presently written could be construed narrowly to charter us only to address research. I would trust if we do undertake the commission in science education, the committee will agree that this is an appropriate exercise of this authority.

Mr. BROWN. I am reluctant to raise the point that some of the efforts which this committee has felt very strongly about, science and engineering education, the participation in a cooperative effort to upgrade the capability of the universities through enhancing their equipment needs and so forth has not been looked on very favorably by this administration.

I want to ask you if you feel that there is a possibility that we could to some degree elicit a change in the administration's view on some of these, if the matter is properly presented to the Executive Office?

Dr. BRANSCOMB. I think the question is most appropriately put to Dr. Keyworth and others. I remain optimistic that the administration's position is somewhat more flexible than some people might fear it is. I honestly believe that the administration is focusing its attention on the overwhelmingly difficult task of maintaining their defense priority and at the same time, balancing the budget. That is not an easy task. None of us would find that easy to accomplish. I fear that single-mindedness on that objective has deferred addressing in some depth the issues that you described. But, they must, I think, be addressed.

Mr. BROWN. I'm going to ask Mr. Harkin to take the chair at this point and continue with his questioning until we get a quorum for the business.

Mr. WALKER. I had some material I wanted to submit for the record. Mr. Chairman, recently, I had some material brought to my attention by the American Society of Civil Engineers which relates directly to the topic of the committee today.

I would ask unanimous consent that it be entered as part of the hearing record.

Mr. BROWN. Without objection it will be available from committee files.

Ms. BOUQUARD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record.

Mr. HARKIN. No objection.

[Statement by Hon. Marilyn L. Bouquard follows:]

MR. CHAIRMAN. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE CURRENT
JOB MARKET SITUATION FOR ENGINEERS MIGHT BE SERIOUSLY AFFECTED BY THE IMPLEMEN-
TATION OF THE RECENTLY ADOPTED TAX INCENTIVES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
IT IS MY BELIEF THAT NOT ENOUGH CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS
OF THE PROPOSED TAX LEGISLATION SO THAT THE TAX PROVISIONS WILL EXACERBATE AN
ALREADY THREATENING PROBLEM. IN ORDER TO MAKE THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE PROBLEM
CLEAR, I WILL SUMMARIZE FOR YOU WHAT I HAVE LEARNED IN CONTACTING VARIOUS ASSOCIA-
TIONS OF ENGINEERS AND ENGINEERING EDUCATORS.

PAPIDLY INCREASING DEMAND FOR ENGINEERS HAS CAUSED SEVERE "COMPRESSION" IN
SALARIES AND THAT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED IN THESE HEARINGS. THE SPREAD IN SALARY
BETWEEN EXPERIENCED ENGINEERS AND ENGINEERS FRESH OUT OF COLLEGE IS VIRTUALLY
ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS'

NON-EXISTENT.

MOST RECENT SURVEY, THE MEDIAN INCOME OF ENGINEERS WITH THIRTY OR MORE YEARS
TWICE

EXPERIENCE IS ACTUALLY LESS THAN THE INCOME OF ENGINEERS WITH UNDER A YEAR OF
EXPERIENCE. THIS IMBALANCE IS GROSSLY INEQUITABLE AND HAS DETRIMENTAL IMPLICA-
TIONS. SECONDLY, THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND VACANT POSITIONS ON THE
FACULTIES OF THE NATIONS ENGINEERING SCHOOLS, AND THERE IS A SEVERE SHORTAGE OF
ENGINEERING PH.D.'S TO FILL THESE SLOTS. THOUGH THE COUNTRY SHOULD BE PRODUCING
NEARLY FOUR THOUSAND ENGINEERING DOCTORATES PER YEAR IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE
NEEDS OF BOTH INDUSTRY AND ACADEMIA, ONLY 2,800 DOCTORATES ARE AWARDED EACH YEAR.
OF THESE, ONE THOUSAND ARE FOREIGN STUDENTS, OFTEN UNDER SOME OBLIGATION TO RETURN
TO THEIR OWN COUNTRIES AFTER GRADUATION.

THERE ARE TWO IMPORTANT CAUSES OF THIS PROBLEMATIC SITUATION. ONE IS THAT
BECAUSE OF HIGH DEMAND FOR ENGINEERING GRADUATES, COMPANIES HAVE BID UP THE
PRICE OF STARTING SALARIES. THE SECOND CAUSE IS THAT STIPENDS FOR GRADUATE
ENGINEERING STUDENTS HAVE NOT KEPT PACE WITH INFLATION, OFTEN REMAINING AS
LOW AS FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER YEAR. THE INCREMENT IN SALARY ONE GAINS BY
REMAINING IN SCHOOL FOR A DOCTORATE IS INADEQUATE COMPENSATION FOR THE COST OF
REMAINING IN SCHOOL. IT IS EXTREMELY HARD FOR A YOUNG ENGINEER ESPECIALLY

-

FOR ONE WHO HAS ALREADY BORROWED MONEY FOR COLLEGE TO FOREGO FOUR TO SIX YEARS OF THOSE EXTREMELY GENEROUS SALARIES THE COMPANIES ARE OFFERING. IF HE MAKES THAT CHOICE, HIS PEERS ARE GAINING VALUABLE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND SALARY INCREASES WHILE HE STILL REMAINS IN SCHOOL.

FIVE YEARS AFTER RECEIVING A B.S., AN ENGINEER EARNS AN AVERAGE OF $23,800.
IF HE HAS ALSO RECEIVED AN M.S., HE WILL EARN $25,300. IF HE HAS FINISHED HIS
PH.D. ALREADY AND IS IN THE JOB MARKET, HE WILL EARN $29,100. AFTER ANOTHER
FOUR TO SIX YEARS, THEY WILL EARN AN AVERAGE, RESPECTIVELY OF $27,750, $29,750
AND $32,400. (THIS INFORMATION DERIVES FROM A REPORT ENTITLED "PROFESSIONAL
INCOME OF ENGINEERS -- 1980" COMPILED BY THE ENGINEERING MANPOWER COMMISSION OF
THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING SOCIETIES, NOVEMBER 1980.) A ROUGH
CALCULATION SHOWS THAT IT TAKES NEARLY NINETEEN YEARS FOR A PH.D. IN ENGINEERING
TO RECOVER THE ADDED COST (IN FOREGONE INCOME) OF HIS EDUCATION IN INCREASED
SALARY. IF HE RECEIVES A $10,000 ANNUAL STIPEND AS A GRADUATE STUDENT, HE CAN
RECOVER THE COST IN NINE YEARS. BUT MOST UNIVERSITIES CANNOT AFFORD TO AWARD
THEIR ENGINEERING GRADUATE STUDENTS NEARLY THAT MUCH OF A STIPEND.

IN ADDITION, IF THE CURRENT SITUATION PERSISTS, THERE WILL BE FEW AMERICANS
QUALIFIED TO TEACH ENGINEERING. WE WILL PAY DEARLY FOR THE EXTRA ENGINEERS
BEING HIRED NOW AT THE BACHELORS DEGREE LEVEL WITH A SEVERE SHORTAGE OF ENGINEERS
IN THE FUTURE. IF WE DEFER TO MARKET FORCES, PERHAPS THE SITUATION WILL CORRECT

ITSELF. BUT IF WE INTERCEDE CARELESSLY, WE STAND TO EXACERBATE THE ALREADY
THREATENING SITUATION AND IT WILL BECOME CRITICAL.

THE RECENT TAX PACKAGE INCLUDES VIGOROUS INCENTIVES FOR INCREASING PRIVATE
SECTOR SPENDING ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND WILL ENCOURAGE A HIGHER LEVEL
OF COOPERATION BETWEEN UNIVERSITIES AND INDUSTRY. DURING RECENT YEARS, INDUSTRY
HAS PROVIDED LESS THAN FIVE PERCENT OF THE FUNDS FOR THE NATION'S COLLEGES OF
ENGINEERING. IF THIS WERE TO INCREASE DRAMATICALLY ENOUGH TO OUTWEIGH THE
DECREASES IN FEDERAL FUNDING, PERHAPS STIPENDS FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS COULD BE
INCREASED AND ONE PROBLEM WOULD ABATE. SUBSTANTIAL INCREASES IN THE LEVEL OF
INDUSTRY FUNDED RESEARCH AT UNIVERSITIES COULD ENHANCE THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF A
UNIVERSITY CAREER IN ENGINEERING. HOWEVER, INCREASING THE DEMAND FOR ENGINEERS
IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR BY ALLOWING TAX WRITE-OFFS FOR WAGES OF R&D WORKERS MAY
RUIN THE UNIVERSITIES' ALREADY WEAKENED ABILITY TO COMPETE FOR BOTH B.S. STUDENTS
FOR GRADUATE SCHOOL AND FOR PH.D.'S TO BECOME FACULTY.

IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO PROJECT WHICH OF THESE EFFECTS WILL DOMINATE, BUT THE
EFFECTS OF A SPECIFIC PORTION OF THE LEGISLATION ARE MORE PREDICTABLE. THE
PROVISIONS INCLUDE A TAX CREDIT EQUAL TO 25% OF THE INCREMENT IN WAGE EXPENDITURE
FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT. COMING AT A TIME WHEN THE DEMAND FOR ENGINEERS
ALREADY FAR EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY, THIS FEATURE WILL ENCOURAGE THE PRIVATE SECTOR
TO BID UP THE SALARIES EVEN HIGHER. EVEN FEWER PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE ON FOR
GRADUATE DEGREES, AND OF THOSE, FAR FEWER WILL BE WILLING TO REMAIN IN ACADEMIA.
IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE, THE UNIVERSITIES WILL BE UTTERLY INCAPABLE OF
TRAINING AN ADEQUATE NUMBER OF ENGINEERS.

REST OF US.

INDUSTRY WILL SUFFER, AND SO WILL THE

GIVEN THIS PROBLEM, I ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO MONITOR THE EFFECTS OF THESE

PROVISIONS CAREFULLY OVER THE NEXT YEAR OR SO AND HAVE A BASIS FOR DECIDING WHETHER TO AMEND THESE PROVISIONS IN THE 98TH CONGRESS.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. Gore?

Mr. GORE. No questions.

Mr. HARKIN. How is the quality of engineering education in the United States compared with that of Japan or West Germany or the Soviet Union?

Dr. BRANSCOMB. I think we have a more diverse educational establishment than most other countries. I don't think there is any question that the best of our educational establishment is far superior to that of any other nation at the university and postgraduate level.

The Japanese educational system is different in character. It is my impression that it is much less effective at generating imaginative, innovative people given to new concepts and ideas than is our own. Japan does focus very strongly, however, on production issues. They are committed to large numbers of students and have the advantage of an extremely rigorous secondary education.

That comment could also apply, multiplied by a factor of two, for the Soviet Union. They have very rigorous preparation prior to reaching the university level. They do not train people with the kinds of imagination and creative skills that our institutions do. I believe that those institutions in the United States that are properly staffed and equipped still do the preeminent educational job in this world.

Mr. HARKIN. Earlier this morning, when the hearing started, I was here briefly. There were two gentlemen that were with the Iowa State University. I didn't know it at the time, but one of the gentlemen is an instructor in the EE department, which, as you know, is one of the foremost engineering schools in the State. This man was telling me on the way out that he was interested in the hearing. I asked him what he thought about this problem of engineers. He said that what they had seen at Iowa State, one of the problems they have seen was this: Engineers, the ones who really were at the top of the class, when they graduate, they are picked up by private companies in the United States who offer them not only very nice salaries, but also offer them sort of an inhouse graduate program.

I didn't pursue it. There was an in-house graduate program, either they send them to school someplace else later on, or something of that nature. I was unclear on that. The effect of that was two-fold. One, he thought that the quality of graduate students they were getting was dropping.

And second, the quality of the instructors that they eventually got was going down. While they still have a good undergraduate program, the graduate program is suffering.

Do you have any thoughts on that?

Dr. BRANSCOMB. Yes. There are two kinds of activities in industry that fit the general description. Only one of them could have this effect. The competition for the most able young people is sufficiently severe that quite a number of companies are trying to locate the talent when they are undergraduates and prepare them to be recruited later.

There is, for example, a well-known program at Bell Telephone Laboratories in which Bell recruits people at the bacculareate level. Then, immediately, they send them to graduate school at the

86-912 0- 82 7