Maybe the world is not so flat, after all

In his best-selling book The World Is Flat, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has made considerable hay touting the idea that the United States is losing its competitive advantage in technological fields to India, China and other behemoths that are graduating manifold more engineers than the U.S. But a new study says that ain’t necessarily so.

This Christian Science Monitor story points to a Duke University study which claims: “Inconsistent reporting of problematic engineering graduation data has been used to fuel fears that America is losing its technological edge. A comparison of like-to-like data suggests that the US produces a highly significant number of engineers, computer scientists, and information technology specialists, and remains competitive in global markets.”

Furthermore:

 

Last year, the US awarded bachelor’s degrees to 72,893 engineering students, according to the American Society for Engineering Education. But using India’s more inclusive definition, the Duke study finds the US handed out 137,437 bachelor’s degrees last year, more than India’s 112,000. The US number is far more impressive in rela-tive terms, since India has more than three times as many people.

China’s numbers are more problematic because its government does not break them down. In its revised figures, the National Academies reduced the Chinese total from 600,000 to 500,000. The Duke study pegs the total at 644,106, as reported by the Chinese Ministry of Education. But the study also points out that, as with India, the Chinese total includes engineering graduates with so-called “short cycle degrees” that represent three years or less of college training.

 

Light blogging lately…but for good reason

You may have noticed a slight drop in the quantity of blog postings around here lately. That’s due to a number of factors — my general laziness being the predominant one. But in my defense, I’m also on a deadline crunch. I’m writing an article about the future of the news media for Currents magazine, published by the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE), and I’ve been up to my ears researching what the experts and futurists have to say and conducting a couple of interviews.

I’ve found some interesting stuff online about the future of the news media, especially as it pertains to the concept of citizen journalism. Here are a few I found especially helpful.

  • Future of PR. This is a wiki for discussions about, well, the future of PR, among those in colleges and universities interested in the subject. It’s facilitated by Dan Forbush of ProfNet/PRNewswire. Dan and others in the wiki have assembled a host of good information about where things are headed in PR, marketing and media.
  • The American Press Institute Media Center‘s Digital Think site. This is the digital storytelling link I pointed to last Friday. Lots of good stuff there; much to assimilate.
  • We Media — the website for last October’s We Media conference, put on by the API Media Center. This is a good site about citizen (or participatory, or peer-to-peer, or grassroots, or open-source) journalism, and it links to a good 66-page primer (PDF) on the topic. The book is now two years old and slightly dated, but it is well researched and fairly well written. The authors wax a bit pedantic in a couple of the chapters, but overall it’s a good start for anyone interested in grassroots journalism.
  • Journalism.org, creators of the annual State of the News Media report.
  • EPIC 2015 — a dystopic vision of the future mediascape, and the eeriest Flash movie I’ve seen in some time. Definitely worth the eight minutes if you’ve got the time to spare. The first couple of minutes rehashes the past decade, but after that, this vision of the future is very 1984-esque. I’m interviewing one of the creators this afternoon.

    There’s much more, but those are the highlights.

    Now all I’ve got to do is pull all this research together in 1,500 words. Piece of cake. But the blogging will probably have to be put on hold while I mix the cake ingredients.

  • blogging, citizen journalism, Internet, news

    Yours, Mine, and Ours

    Something that should be required reading for everyone involved in marketing higher education: Yours, Mine, and Ours: How Simplicity and Transparency Are Building the Web 2.0 is a white paper prepared for Dartmouth ‘s web publishing services by Chris Boone of Hypsometry. This paper provides an excellent overview of the interconnectedness of the web and how it challenges our standard modes of operation. We can’t control this medium. At best, we can manage parts of it and influence other parts.

    Link via the Future of PR wiki.

    Blogs, branding, Computers and Internet, higher education, Internet, Marketing, Media, public relations, PR

    The new Carnegie classifications: peer-to-peer assessments?

    The Carnegie Foundation unveiled its new classification system on Thursday, Nov. 17. To anyone outside of higher education, this doesn’t mean anything. To those of us who make our living marketing colleges and universities, however, the new system matters. It could dramatically affect how we are viewed — and reviewed — by our peers, prospective students and those ever-important publications that rank our colleges and universities.

    As Inside Higher Ed newsletter reports, the new classifications, “if used properly … might just help colleges identify true peers and look for weaknesses that need fixing.” That would be great. If the classifications are used properly. But many of us in higher ed are probably more interested in hearing how U.S. News and World Report plans to use the new Carnegie Classifications to assemble their categories for rankings. In the past, U.S. News used the old system to come up with such rankings as “national universities” (doctoral-granting) and the various specialty schools. But these new classifications are more complex. Maybe, if we’re lucky, they’re complex enough to render some of U.S. News‘ approaches to rankings meaningless. (I can dream, anyway.)

    “While colleges will no doubt continue to boast about their rankings in various places, [Carnegie Foundation President Lee S.] Shulman and other Carnegie officials said their hope was that the range of comparisons would encourage colleges to find true peer institutions and then learn from them. And a college might find that it has one set of peers in undergraduate curriculum and another for transfer rates.”

    No doubt college presidents and deans nationwide are putting the Carnegie Foundation’s website through the wringer today. The site is crashing as we blog.

    education, higher education, Carnegie

    Profs: don’t sacrifice high-touch for high-tech

    Memo to faculty: Your students want you to be tech-savvy, but don’t get carried away.

    That’s the message of a survey (pdf) of 18,000-plus college students, conducted by the Educause Center for Applied Research. The Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription required) reports:

    College students want faculty members to use information technology, but students nevertheless hunger for the human touch in courses as well, according to a new survey of 18,039 freshmen and seniors at 63 institutions.

    Forty-one percent of the students said they preferred their professors to make moderate use of information technology. By comparison, 26 percent said they preferred only limited use, while 27 percent sought extensive use.

    “They really want to see it balanced,” said Robert B. Kvavik, an associate vice president of the University of Minnesota who worked on the survey. “They value the interaction among themselves and with faculty, and they don’t want technology to get in the way of that.”

    “The students see technology right now as supplemental rather than transformative,” said Mr. Kvavik.

    Students in the survey most commonly said that convenience was the primary benefit of the use of technology in courses. They cited “connectedness” second.

    Full story (subscription required).

    education, technology, Internet, web