A very good point:

U.S. neglecting weapon for next Cold War: Education
June 6, 2005 Monday
San Antonio Express-News
BY: David Smith

Oct. 4, 1957, the day the Soviet Union launched Sputnik and propelled the world into the space age, was described by many as the shock of the century. This technologic feat, coming at the beginning of the Cold War, sent shivers down the backs of our military, political and scientific communities.

The United States, yet to venture into space, had been out-maneuvered, and there was deep concern about our academic and scientific prowess.

President Dwight Eisenhower's science advisers warned that the Soviet Union's emphasis on science and math was providing an edge that couldn't be overcome if something wasn't done quickly. Eisenhower himself called training scientists and engineers "the most critical need of all ... People are alarmed and thinking about science, and perhaps this alarm could be turned toward a constructive result."

A sense of urgency permeated politics, business and the halls of academia, resulting in the kind of "constructive result" that Eisenhower envisioned. A bold new partnership was forged involving the federal government, private industry and colleges and universities.

The consensus was that colleges and universities, the incubators of scientific talent, had to be rejuvenated and bolstered. Universities and colleges responded by changing curriculum and adding laboratories and classrooms.

In 1958, Congress passed the $1 billion National Defense Education Act, which paid for student loans, scholarships and scientific equipment for public and private colleges. The act emphasized the study of math, science and foreign languages.

As a result of these and other improvements, the United States became the undisputed world leader in scientific advancement.

Despite impressive accomplishments, many would argue that almost 50 years after the launch of Sputnik, the United States is once again being challenged and surpassed in our institutions of higher learning.

State budgets have been cut, and the percentage of public dollars available for public universities and colleges has declined dramatically. Many public institutions are receiving less than one-third of their budget from state appropriations. While policy-makers and industry leaders are calling for increased access, colleges and universities are being forced to shift more costs to families and students.

At the same time, there has been a sharp decline in the number of Nobel laureates from the United States, a drop in the percentage of publications by top U.S. physicists in major journals and declines in the numbers of new U.S. doctorates and the number of scientific papers by Americans. One-quarter of industrial patents filed in the United States are now submitted by researchers in Japan, Taiwan and North Korea.

One cannot criticize our competitors in this global market. But one can ask why we are not aggressively addressing our shifting demographics and hunger for a labor force with skill sets that can only be realized through undergraduate and graduate education. This nation is witnessing a significant shift in the socioeconomic and cultural makeup of our future labor force. This new cohort of young talent is coming from families who have never had a graduate of a college or university.

These trends define no less of a challenge nor should they invoke any less fear than the launch of Sputnik. Sputnik was a wake-up call that galvanized the nation. The vision was clearly enunciated, and the public investment in higher education was forthcoming. The return on investment was a golden age of scientific accomplishment that transformed medicine, engineering, space travel and even passenger safety.

The question remains: Do we see as clearly as we did in 1957 our challenge and purpose? Will we stop the erosion in funding for colleges and universities? Could the "new Cold War" be a race to maximize human potential in this country and re-establish our leadership through a competitive and competent work force?

Failure to meet this challenge could force an epic confrontation in national policy that pits the exportation of jobs against the importation of labor. We can't afford to take such a risk. Our nation -- and children -- deserve better.

David Smith is chancellor of the Texas Tech University System.