Setting an example for the class of 2000.

National Engineers Week was initiated in 1951 with the mission to recognize the achievements of this country's engineers. In that year and time of American technological supremacy, there was much to celebrate-so much that it's hard to believe we needed to call attention to our profession. Today,

But in the early 1950s, the United States was the world's only economic superpower. American cars, Tvs and radios, tractors, appliances, and many other products were the world's first choices-partly because they were well made and partly because few other countries made them.

The American technological machine seemed invincible. Indeed, for many of us from the classes of the 1950s who graduated from engineering school and took our first engineering jobs in that decade, the machine accelerated. As a result, we have lived through a remarkable period of engineering achievement and technological advance.

Consider just a few of the high-tech advances within the last 40 years, the equivalent of a single professional lifetime. We can point to biotechnology, environmental technology, computers, jet and rocket propulsion, and microelectronics. And we can add to that list advanced metals, manufacturing process systems, hard copy technology, and flat panel displays.

These considerable achievements are just a few of the 94 critical commercial technologies identified by the Council of Competitiveness, a panel representing large businesses and research facilities.

But there's a catch. A decade ago, we were the leader in virtually all of these technologies. Today, according to the council, we're still either the leader or competitive in about two-thirds of the technologies, including those in the first group. But in the remaining technologies, some represented in the second group, U.S. companies have fallen far behind and are no longer a factor in world markets or are expected to fall further behind in the next five years.

And there is our problem. The ideas for most of these advances came from American scientists and engineers. We were the world's best beginners, but others were the better finishers. In many cases, beginning in the late 1970s, foreign companies invested in our technologies and quickly marketed superior products. In fact, both high-tech and low-tech U.S. industries have lost ground to foreign competition, costing engineers and many others their jobs. We won't be able to reverse this trend until we begin to match the investments of foreign competitors in plant, equipment, and employee training. Through investments, we'll be able to raise our productivity and living standards.

So for the United States, the promise of our inventive age has not been completely fulfilled. Living standards have been stagnant for 20 years, and we're seeing increasing social tensions over smaller slices of the pie. Now, as we prepare for National Engineers Week in 1992, our concerns over the nation's competitiveness add an urgency and an emphasis of the obvious to the original mission that would surprise its authors: let us recognize the achievements of American engineering by stressing the importance of investing in its current and potential accomplishments.

This gets me to the second and more recent mission of National Engineers Week, which also reflects our competitiveness concerns: we must create the engineering skills of the next generation. This means we must reach out to students to stimulate their interest in engineering-and the math and science that qualify them for engineering courses.

While the demand for engineers is growing, the percentage of college graduates with engineering degrees is shrinking. As a nation, we can't allow that trend to continue if we expect to remain competitive. But considerable anecdotal evidence suggests many potential engineers are turned off by the poor quality of math and science teaching in our kindergarten-through-12th-grade (K-12) system.

If the last four decades have taught nations the wisdom of long-term technological investments, they have also revealed the dividends of investing in education. Countries with strong education systems and strong engineering skills have overcome the ruin of war and the lack of raw materials to become market leaders. Today, many emerging nations (with several Eastern European countries not far behind) are now following these earlier models in order to join the global market.

Clearly, a country's educational system, particularly its capability in math and science, directly influences the nation's engineering potential. Yet in the United States, students are at a disadvantage. Almost one-third of the high schools do not teach physics and one-sixth do not teach chemistry; only 6 out of 10 math teachers are qualified to teach math; and students are rarely motivated to appreciate the value of studying math and science. So it's shocking, but no surprise, that the top 12th-grade students in the United States score at the bottom in math and science compared to their peers in foreign countries.

In a global economy, jobs will go to those countries with the skills. In the technical fields, this could mean fewer opportunities for American children and more for students in Japan, West Germany, Taiwan, and elsewhere. We're already seeing the possible future: half of the engineering Ph.D.s awarded in the United States in 1991 went to foreign nationals. (While the K-12 system has become uncompetitive, U.S. universities remain exemplary in science and engineering research-so much so, they attract the best and brightest from overseas who take their newly acquired skills back with them, often to foreign competitors, while too many of our best and brightest go to work on Wall Street.) A shrinking job base because of a technical skills gap will mean a lower standard of living not just for engineers and other technical workers but for all Americans.

As engineers, we cannot by ourselves quickly improve the quality of schools and, specifically, math and science teaching; that is also the job of aroused federal and state governments, corporations, citizens, and demanding parents. We can, however, help to develop the engineering skills of the next generation. One way to do this is to participate in our Discover "E" teach-ins, now in their third year. In these visits to classrooms around the nation, we introduce 5th- to 12th-grade students to the wonders of how things work-and to the careers that turn wonder into products and, ultimately, profits and new jobs.

For the first time, engineers will focus on grades five through eight to get students to start taking math and science as early as possible. That way, they'll have the required courses should they choose to study engineering later. And to widen the flow of potential engineers, we should pay particular attention to female and minority students because these groups are still underrepresented in the ranks of engineers.

We want more students to take math and science, because even if they do not become engineers, those courses will help them function in an increasingly technical workplace. They also will open other career opportunities, including computer services, architecture, aerospace, even banking and insurance.

So I ask you to spend a few hours with students during National Engineers Week, to prepare effective presentations, and to have fun in showing students how math, science, and engineering relate to problem solving and improving the quality of life in the United States and around the world. Work with your professional societies to get the message to our children about the importance of math, science, and engineering. And if you can, stay involved with the schools to improve their quality.

This year, we want to bring 20,000 engineers around the country into the schools-twice the number of last year's participants. Let's meet the challenge. It's the least we can do to improve the country's competitiveness and job opportunities for the Class of 2000. n

J.D. Kuehler is honorary chairman of National Engineers Week. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering; a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE); a member of MIT's Visiting Committee for Sponsored Research; a member of the Board of Directors of the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering; a trustee of Santa Clara University; and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He holds a B.S. in mechanical engineering and an M.S. in electrical engineering from Santa Clara University.