Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Factors affecting the quality of engineering education in the four largest emerging economies

Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A huge increase in engineering graduates from the BRIC countries in recent decades potentially threatens the competitiveness of developed countries in producing high value-added products and services, while also holding great promise for substantially increasing the level of global basic and applied innovation. The key question is whether the quality of these new BRIC engineers will be high enough to actualize this potential. The objective of our study is to assess the evolving capacity of BRIC higher education systems to produce qualified engineering graduates. To meet this objective, we compare developments in the quality of undergraduate engineering programs across elite and non-elite higher education tiers within and across each BRIC country. To assess and compare the quality of engineering education across the BRIC countries, we use multiple sources of primary and secondary data gathered from each BRIC country from 2008 to 2011. In combination with this, we utilize a production function approach that focuses on key input-, process- and outcome-based indicators associated with the quality of education programs. Our analysis suggests that in all four countries, a minority of engineering students receives high quality training in elite institutions while the majority of students receive low quality training in non-elite institutions. Our analysis also shows how the BRIC countries vary in their capacity to improve the quality of engineering education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There have been attempts to define high quality engineering education for the twenty first century (Sheppard et al. 2009) which could be used as an ideal against which to measure actual quality; however, such measurement is beyond the scope of this paper.

  2. Engineering enrollment and the proportion of engineers among university graduates in Asian countries, such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan has also been traditionally high (about 25 %). Asian countries have also sent large numbers of engineers to developed countries for graduate training. South Korea was extremely active in the 1970s, sending South Korean engineers to the United States for graduate training and requiring them to return to work in South Korean industry and universities. The large supply of engineers and government policies in South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan undoubtedly helped fuel industrial development and increased the quality of industrial exports in the 1970s and 1980s (Okimoto 1989; Amsden 1989, 2001).

  3. These statistics were either directly taken or estimated from various government statistical sources (i.e. National Science Board 2010; MHRD 2011; Brazil, INEP 1998–2012; NCES 1998–2010) and the World Bank (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.TER.ENRR, accessed November 13, 2012). The 45 % rate for the US only uses enrollments at 4-year institutions.

  4. Because of the lack of available data, spending per student is estimated for higher education students in general, except in India, where data are available separately for spending on technical higher education. Spending per student estimates (a) in the United States and Europe are based on public institution data only and include research costs; (b) in China, we use government estimates that do not include (unreported, but perhaps substantial) university debt; (c) in Russia, government budget data for “free” places is available from the State Statistical Committee of Russia (2010), but since about one-half of all students in universities pay fees, spending per student varies, according to different reports, on student fees. In the lower estimate, fees are standard fees reported on university websites; in the higher estimate, the fees are based on Ministry of Education reports of revenues per fee-paying student in various types of universities, which tend to be considerably higher than public spending per “free” place student; (d) in Brazil, spending per student in public institutions is available from the government (INEP 1998–2012), and spending per private student is estimated from surveys by a private consulting firm (Hoper Educacional 2009) of average tuition fees in private universities; (e) in India, we used data from the MHRD (2009–2012) and the UGC (2010) for public spending per university student and per technical higher education student. For private costs per engineering student, we use data from Indian states’ websites reporting average tuition paid in public and private engineering colleges as well as tuition data from interviews in two dozen private engineering institutions in India.

  5. The estimate for spending per student in the United States ($30,000) includes spending across undergraduate and graduate students (net of research costs). The estimate for spending per undergraduate student is therefore lower than $30,000 (NCES 1998–2010).

  6. The student-faculty ratio in higher education institutions in Brazil (15–16), Russia (13), and China (17–18) are fairly close to that of institutions in the OECD (15), whereas India’s (24) is higher (OECD 2011; NBS 1998–2010; MHRD 2011). The low levels of spending per student may thus indicate lower faculty salaries in the BRIC countries.

  7. In addition, the supply of high quality Ph.Ds in these countries may be affected by emigration, although many of the engineers who emigrate do so by getting their Ph.D. abroad and not returning. The supply of high quality Russian engineers (many with Ph.Ds) available domestically was reduced substantially by a large emigration to Israel, the United States, and Western Europe in the 1990s. There is a concerted effort in China to bring back Chinese scientists and engineers with PhDs from developed countries to teach in China. Some of the Indian Institutes of Technology (Bombay, for example) fill teaching positions exclusively with Indian foreign Ph.Ds. As potentially important as this movement of professionals is, we were not able to get precise data on how it influences the supply of well-trained faculty available to BRIC universities.

  8. The BRIC governments have also promoted faculty development, primarily through support for short and longer-term international exchanges. In China, the government has funded a large number of students and faculty (through programs such as the Young Faculty Study Abroad Program) to study and conduct research abroad (National Bureau of Statistics 1998–2010). In Brazil, graduate courses have study abroad components that partially aim at developing a body of highly qualified faculty for university teaching and research. By contrast, the Russian government has provided a minimum of direct financial support for exchange programs (and even that only since 2010). Despite the lack of federal government support, however, leading Russian universities are supporting student and faculty international exchanges. For instance, in 2008, approximately forty Russian universities (<10 %) had joint-degree programs with foreign universities. In India, the Ministry of Education has also introduced some short-term opportunities for Indian scholars to participate in international exchanges with initiatives such as the Travel Grant, which provides teachers and staff involved in higher education to present papers at international conferences. The Ministry also promoted the Bilateral Exchange Programme, a scholar exchange program that (during the 2008–2009 academic year) deployed 90 Indian scholars abroad. On the whole, however, the number and size of India’s programs to encourage international exchanges is quite small.

  9. Much of the information in this paragraph can be found at http://www.ac-raee.ru/eng/accreditation.php.

  10. Much of the information in this paragraph can be found at http://www.cast.org.cn.

  11. See http://www.nbaind.org/views/Home.aspx#sthash.4vPD0xCU.dpuf.

  12. We moreover find that the proportion of faculty with Ph.Ds in a program is positively and significantly related to value-added [inter-cohort (2008–2011) value-added on the ENADE].

  13. The graduation rates here are for all undergraduates (not just engineers). From our available primary and secondary data sources, we did not find that graduation rates in BRIC engineering programs differed substantially from those in non-engineering programs. In Brazil, for example, the number of graduates in 2010 represented about 60 % of the cohort of entrants into engineering programs in 2004—the same percentage as for all undergraduates.

  14. The number for China is a slight underestimate as we were only able to estimate the number of elite graduates in 30 out of 31 provinces.

  15. Our estimates (perhaps conservatively) assume that 20 % of entering elite engineering students drop out before graduation. Accordingly, India should have about 36,000 elite engineering graduates by 2015.

  16. Although research expenditures are an input-based indicator, we discuss research expenditures and publications in the same subsection for convenience.

  17. Science Citation Index (SCI) and Engineering Index (the EI) are popular indices managed by Thomson-Reuters and Elsevier respectively. Index to Scientific and Technical Proceedings (ISPT) is also a scholarly database that includes materials on international conferences.

  18. Brazil’s impact is especially high in engineering (only 5 % below the world average), with China and India quickly improving their impact in this field as well. According to Thomson-Reuters, China is strong in material science, physics, and math. India is strong in multidisciplinary fields (5.47 %), material science (5.45 %) agricultural sciences (5.17 %), chemistry (5.04 %), physics (3.88 %).

References

  • ABET. (1997). Engineering criteria 2000. Baltimore, MD: ABET. www.abet.org.

  • Amsden, A. (1989). Asia’s next giant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amsden, A. (2001). Rise of the rest. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astin, A. W. (1994). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Augusti, G. (2007). Accreditation of engineering programmes: European perspectives and challenges in a global context. European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(3), 273–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bain, O. (2001). The costs of higher education to students and parents in Russia: Tuition policy issues. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(3–4), 57–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balbachevsky, E., & Schwartzman, S. (2011). Brazil: Diverse experiences in institutional governance in the public and private Sectors. In W. Locke, et al. (Eds.), Changing governance and management in higher education (pp. 35–56). Berlin: Springer. 2(I).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, R., & Muley, V. P. (2009). Engineering education in India. India: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bi, J. (2009). Engineering accreditation in China: The progress and development of China’s engineering accreditation. Chinese Education and Society, 42(1), 105–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blom, A., & Saeki, H. (2011). Employability and skill set of newly graduated engineers in India. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 5640. Washington, DC: World Bank.

  • Bondarenko, N., Krasilnikova, M., & Kharlamov, K. (2005). Demand for labour force—View of employers. Monitor economics of education, 1. Moscow: State Research University Higher School of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, F., Park, A., & Yaohui, Z. (2008). The Chinese labor market in the reform era. In L. Brandt & T. G. Rawski (Eds.), China’s economic transition: Origins, mechanisms, and consequences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnoy, M., & Carrasco, R. (2012). Achievement gains in Brazilian universities: The case of engineering and computer science programs. Stanford: Stanford University School of Education (mimeo).

  • Carnoy, M., Loyalka, P., Dobryakova, M., Dossani, R., Froumin, I., Kuhns, K., et al. (2013). University expansion in a changing global economy: Triumph of the BRICs? Stanford University Press.

  • Cataldi, E. F., Fahimi, M., Bradburn, E. M., & Zimbler, L. (2005). 2004 National study of postsecondary faculty (NSOPF: 04): Report on faculty and instructional staff in fall 2003. US Department of Education. Institute of Educational Sciences. NCES 2005-172.

  • Cha, J. (2007). Status of engineering, science and technology education in China: The need and demand among young students. UNESCO Project Report.

  • Chubik, P., Chuchalin, A., & Zamyatin, A. (2010). Russian system of professional engineers certification and registration based on the APEC engineer register international standard. Tomsk: National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University (mimeo).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, I. (2012). PhDs in Australia, from the beginning. Australian Universities Review, 54(1), 94–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurostat. (2013). Statistics on tertiary students (ISCED 5A, 5B, 6) by field of education. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/.

  • Eurostat. (2013). Statistics on total population. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&language=en&pcode=tps00001&tableSelection=1&footnotes=yes&labeling=labels&plugin=1.

  • Fairweather, J. (2008). Linking evidence and promising practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education. Washington, DC: The National Academies National Research Council Board of Science Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. B. (2010). What does global expansion of higher education mean for the united states? In American Universities in a global market (pp. 373–404). University of Chicago Press.

  • Gereffi, G., Wadhwa, V., Rissing, B., & Ong, R. (2008). Getting the numbers right: International engineering education in the United States, China, and India. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 13–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, Eric. (1986). The economics of public schooling: production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of Economic Literature, 24(3), 1141–1177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoper Educacional. (2009). Ana´lise setorial do ensino superior privado do Brasil. Sao Paulo: Hoper Educacional.

  • Institution of Engineers (IEI). (2014). Available at: http://www.ieindia.org/. Accessed 30 Jan 2014.

  • Kaspura, A. (2013). The engineering profession: A statistical overview. Report from Engineers Australia. www.engineersaustralia.org.au.

  • Kasuba, R., & Vohra, P. (2004). International mobility and the licensing of professional engineers. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 3(1), 43–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, C. (2008a). India’s new millennium in science. September/October 2008. Thomson Reuters, National Science Indicators. http://sciencewatch.com/ana/fea/08sepoctFea/.

  • King, C. (2008b). With output and impact rising, China’s science surge rolls on. July/August 2008. Thomson Reuters, National Science Indicators. http://sciencewatch.com/ana/fea/08julaugFea/.

  • King, C. (2009). Brazilian science on the rise. July/August 2009. Thomson Reuters, National Science Indicators. http://sciencewatch.com/ana/fea/09julaugFea/.

  • Korean Educational Development Institute. (2013). Domestic/international Ph.D recipients statistics. KOSTAT. http://www.index.go.kr/egams/stts/jsp/potal/stts/PO_STTS_IdxMain.jsp?idx_cd=1550&bbs=INDX_001&clas_div=C&rootKey=1.48.0.

  • Korean Educational Statistics Service. (2013). Statistical yearbook of education 2005–2013. Department of Education. http://cesi.kedi.re.kr/publ/publ_yrbk_frme.jsp?menuid=1.

  • Levin Institute. (2010). The evolving global talent pool: Lessons from the BRICS Countries. Report by the Levin Institute, State University of New York.

  • Lynn, L., & Salzman, H. (2009). The ‘new’ globalization of engineering: How the offshoring of advanced engineering affects competitiveness and development. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, 4(1), 11–46.

  • Massy, W. F., Sullivan, T. A., & Mackie, C. (2013). Improving Measurement of Productivity in Higher Education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 45(1), 15–23.

  • Menezes-Filho, N. (2009). Employment and inequality outcomes in Brazil. Paper presented for the OECD Seminar on Employment and Inequality Outcomes: New Evidence, Links and Policy Responses in Brazil, China and India. Paris.

  • Ministerio de Ciencia e Tecnologia (MOST, Brazil). (2012). Indicadores, various tables (www.mct.gov.br/index.php/content/view/7755.html). Accessed August 14, 2012.

  • Ministry of Education Brazil, Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais (INEP). (2013). http://portal.inep.gov.br/estatisticas-gastoseducacao-despesas_publicas-p.a._precos.htm. Accessed August 4, 2012.

  • Ministry of Education, Science, Cultural, and Technology, Japan (MEXT). (2013). Availabe at: http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?bid=000001022985&cycode=0.

  • Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD). (2011). Statistics of higher and technical education, 2009–2010. New Delhi: Bureau of Planning, Monitoring & Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD). (2009–2012). Analysis of budgeted expenditures on education, 2007–2008 to 2009–2010. New Delhi: Bureau of Planning, Monitoring & Statistics.

  • National Academies of Sciences. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching category 5. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy.

  • National Science Board. (2010–2012). Science and engineering indicators. Washington DC: National Science Foundation (NSF). http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/.

  • National Bureau of Statistics. (1998–2010). China educational finance statistical yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press.

  • National Bureau of Statistics and Ministry of Science and Technology (NBS and MOST). (2010–2012). China statistical yearbook on science and technology. Beijing: China Statistics Press.

  • National Center for Educational Statistics. (1998–2010). Digest of educational statistics. Washington, DC: National Center of Education Statistics.

  • OECD. (1998–2010). Main science and technology indicators. http://stats.oecd.org.

  • OECD. (1998–2010). Education at a glance 2011. OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.

  • OECD. (2012). OECD factbook 2011–2012: Economic, environmental and social statistics. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okimoto, D. (1989). Between MITI and the market. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, A., Cai, F., & Du, Y. (2010). Can China meet her employment challenges? In: J. Oi, X. Zhou, S. Rozelle (Eds.), Growing pains: A study of China’s growth and development. Washington, DC: Brookings Press .

  • Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. A third decade of research (Vol. 2). Jossey-Bass Higher & Adult Education.

  • Prados, J. W., Peterson, G. D., & Lattuca, L. R. (2005). Quality assurance of engineering education through accreditation: The impact of Engineering Criteria 2000 and its global influence. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 165–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prince, M., Felder, R., & Brent, R. (2007). Does faculty research improve undergraduate teaching? An analysis of existing and potential synergies. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 283–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russia MOES. (2011). Education in figures (Russian). Moscow: Federal Service for State Statistics, Higher School of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, S., Macatangay, K., Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. M. (2009). Educating engineers: Designing for the future of the field (Vol. 9). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, Y. G., & Yi, R. (2010). Editorial: China’s research culture. Science, 3(September), 1128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • State Statistical Committee of Russia. (2010). Finance of Russia, 2010. www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat/rosstatsite/main/publishing/catalog/statisticCollections/doc_1138717651859. Accessed August 4, 2012.

  • Symonds, W. C., Schwartz, R. B., & Ferguson, R. (2011). Pathways to prosperity: Meeting the challenge of preparing young Americans for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2012). www.uis.unesco.org. Accessed on August 12, 2012.

  • University Grants Commission (UGC). (2010). Strategies and schemes during eleventh plan period (2007–2012) for universities and colleges. New Delhi: Secretary, University Grants Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volkwein, J. F., Lattuca, L. R., Terenzini, P. T., Strauss, L. C., & Sukhbaatar, J. A. V. Z. A. N. (2004). Engineering change: A study of the impact of EC2000. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(3), 318–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (Various years). World development indicators. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL. Accessed on January 28, 2014.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Prashant Loyalka.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Definitions of elite institutions applied to each BRIC country

The definitions of an elite institution in Russia and China are standard and widely accepted. Specifically, we defined Russian elite institutions as the 38 Category A institutions (including Moscow State and St. Petersburg State, a number of Federal Universities, and National Research Universities), which receive much more State funding than other universities. We defined Chinese elite institutions as 985 and 211 institutions (largely those institutions that are under the jurisdiction of the central government).

The definitions of an elite institution in Brazil and India are less standard than in Russia and China. We define Brazil elite institutions as federal universities, elite private Catholic universities (PUC Sao Paulo, PUC Rio Grande do Sul, and PUC Belo Horizonte), the University of Sao Paulo and the State University of Campinas. However, because not all federal universities are necessarily “elite”, in estimating enrollments and graduates from elite programs we only include 80 % of students in federal universities. For India, we define elite engineering institutions as those institutions that take students through the JEE and AIEEE exams. While the specifics of the definitions for Brazil and India may be debatable, the overall picture of elite (highly selective, high quality) and non-elite (less selective, lower quality) institutions in these two countries will likely be the same across the range of viable definitions.

Appendix 2: Student (Final Year of Bachelor Degree) Questionnaire

figure a
figure b
figure c
figure d
figure e

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Loyalka, P., Carnoy, M., Froumin, I. et al. Factors affecting the quality of engineering education in the four largest emerging economies. High Educ 68, 977–1004 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9755-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9755-8

Keywords

Navigation