1
2	Seattle’s status as a high tech leader
3
4
5
6
7
8	"The envelope," The envelope, please ... Compared to 8 “peer states”: California Colorado Georgia Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Texas Virginia
9
10
11
12	Today … Higher education and research institutions Ideas and people to drive the innovation economy
13	Our region is blessed with multiple research institutions
14	The correlation between high-tech success and top universities is clear Boston: MIT, Harvard Research Triangle Park: Duke, UNC, NC State Austin: University of Texas So. California: UCSD, UCLA, Caltech No. California: Stanford, Berkeley, UCSF Puget Sound region: University of Washington
15	Why? Education Technology attraction Company attraction Innovation (technology creation) Entrepreneurship (company creation) Leadership and intangibles
16	In information technology America’s leadership arises from a complex partnership among industry, academia, and government Federally-sponsored university-based research played a key role in essentially every technology upon which we rely today
17
18
19
20
21	"Entirely appropriately," Entirely appropriately, industry R&D is heavily focused on D – product and process development Microsoft’s investment in Microsoft Research – unquestionably one of the world’s great IT research enterprises – is nearly unique And MSR – the part of Microsoft’s R&D enterprise that’s looking more than 18 months ahead – represents <5% of Microsoft’s total R&D
22	Examples from UW Computer Science & Engineering Ranked among the top ten programs in the nation since the 1980s In research In graduate education In undergraduate education
23	Education Emma Brunskill, Computer Engineering ‘00: 2001 Rhodes Scholar Kevin Zatloukal, Computer Science ‘01: 2001 Computing Research Association “Outstanding Undergraduate” national winner
24	"William Chan," William Chan, Ph.D. ’00, and Mike Ernst, Ph.D. ’00: Two of the three students in the nation recognized in the 2001 ACM Outstanding Doctoral Dissertation Award competition Stefan Savage, Ph.D. ‘01: Faculty offers from MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, UCSD, ...
25	"UW is the nation’s #" UW is the nation’s #1 supplier of new college graduates to Microsoft UW is also the nation’s #1 supplier to Intel (among Intel’s “focus schools”) UW is the nation’s #2 supplier to IBM UW is the predominate supplier to many outstanding regional firms (e.g., BSQUARE)
26	Technology attraction Brought ARPANET and modern VLSI design to the region
27	Company attraction A long history (DECwest, Tera/Cray, Geoworks, …), most recently Intel Research
28	Innovation/Entrepreneurship Early alums (co-)founded Aldus, Visio, IC Designs, Dialogic, Digital Research, Pixar ...
29
30	Leadership, and intangibles
31	Examples from UW as a whole Undergraduate: Ranked in the top 50 among 249 “National Universities – Doctoral” by US News (13^th among publics) Various programs (incl. CSE) ranking among the top ten in their fields Graduate/Research: Annually among the top five universities in the nation in federal research expenditures (and the #1 public university) for more that 25 years Also a leader in all measures related to technology transfer and entrepreneurship
32	Federal R&D expenditures (fiscal 1999, AUTM and Chronicle of Higher Education) 1. Johns Hopkins (55% is APL) 2. University of Washington 3. Stanford 4. University of Michigan 5. MIT 6. UCSD 7. University of Pennsylvania 8. Harvard 9. UCLA 10. University of Wisconsin
33	Industrial R&D expenditures (fiscal 1999, AUTM) 1. Duke (largely clinical trials) 2. MIT 3. Penn State 4. Georgia Institute of Technology 5. Ohio State University 6. University of Washington 7. University of Texas at Austin 8. UCSF 9. Texas A&M University 10. University of Michigan
34	Total R&D expenditures (fiscal 1999, Chronicle of Higher Education) 1. Johns Hopkins 2. University of Michigan 3. University of Washington 4. UCLA 5. University of Wisconsin 6. UCSD 7. UC Berkeley (includes Energy labs) 8. Stanford 9. MIT 10. UCSF
35	Licensing income (1999, AUTM and Technology Review 9/01) 1. Columbia 2. University of California System (9-campus system) 3. Florida State University 4. Yale 5. University of Washington 6. Stanford 7. Michigan State University 8. University of Florida 9. University of Wisconsin 10. MIT
36	Licenses under management (1999, Technology Review 9/01) 1. University of Washington 2. MIT 3. Stanford 4. Iowa State University 5. Columbia 6. Purdue 7. University of Wisconsin 8. Harvard 9. University of Minnesota 10. State University of New York System
37	“Technological strength” (patents X impact, 2000; Technology Review 9/01) 1. University of California System (9-campus system) 2. MIT 3. Stanford 4. Caltech 5. University of Texas at Austin 6. University of Washington 7. University of Wisconsin 8. Columbia 9. University of Michigan 10. Johns Hopkins
38	Overall scorecard (institutions with the greatest number of “top 10” rankings) 1. MIT 1. UW 3. Stanford 3. Wisconsin 5. Michigan 6. Hopkins 7. Columbia
39	Education for the “innovation economy” Once upon a time, the “content” of the goods we produced was largely physical
40	"Then we transitioned to goods..." Then we transitioned to goods whose “content” was a balance of physical and intellectual
41	"In the “innovation economy..." In the “innovation economy,” the content of goods is almost entirely intellectual rather than physical
42	"Every state consumes “innovation..." Every state consumes “innovation economy” goods Information technology, biotechnology, telecommunications, … Our state produces these goods! Over the past 20 years, the Puget Sound region has had the fastest pro-rata growth in the nation in the “high tech services” sector
43	What kind of education is needed to produce “innovation economy” goods? National and regional studies conclude the 3/4^ths of the jobs in software require a Bachelors degree or greater (and it’s highly competitive among those with this credential!)
44
45	"In Washington State:" In Washington State: We rank 48th out of the 50 states in the participation rate in public 4-year higher education (1997 federal data presented by OFM) We rank 41^st in upper-division enrollment – “Bachelors degree granting capacity” – still in the bottom 20% of states We rank 4^th in community college participation Washington’s public higher education system is structured for a manufacturing economy, not an innovation economy!
46	"On a per capita basis" On a per capita basis, Washington ranks 32^nd among the states in the number of Bachelors degrees granted by all colleges and universities, public and private, and 35^th in the percentage of our Bachelors degrees that are granted in science and engineering (1997-98 data, Dept. of Ed.) Private institutions are not filling the gap
47	"We rank 43^rd in graduate..." We rank 43^rd in graduate and professional participation rate at public institutions (1997 federal data presented by OFM) We rank 41^st in the number of students pursuing graduate degrees in science and engineering at all institutions, public and private (1999 data, NSF) At the graduate level, things are just as grim
48	"We rank 5^th in the..." We rank 5^th in the nation in the percentage of our workforce with a recent Bachelors degree in science or engineering, and 6^th in the percentage of our workforce with a recent Masters degree in science or engineering (1999 data, NSF; “recent degree” = 1990-98) We are creating the jobs – and we are importing young people from elsewhere to fill them!
49	"UW’s state funding per student..." UW’s state funding per student is ~25% below the average of its Olympia-defined “peers” (22% behind 24 HECB peers, 26% behind 8 OFM peers) (1999-2000 data, IPEDS) In 1976, Washington spent $14.35 on higher education per $1,000 of personal income; by 2001, that number had dropped by nearly a factor of two – to $7.65 (Postsecondary Educational Opportunity #115) We under-fund the relatively few student places we have. And it’s getting worse
50
51	"Washington ranks 46^th out of..." Washington ranks 46^th out of the 50 states in state support for research This is the relatively modest “seed corn” from which large-scale federally-funded research programs grow
52	"Washington State is all geared..." Washington State is all geared up to fight the last war!
53	California I recently returned from 6 months at UCSD, in the Jacobs School of Engineering UCSD Engineering faculty increased by 55 between 1994 and 2001, with an additional 40 committed by 2005, as part of a statewide plan to increase overall UC engineering enrollment by 40% 471,000 GSF of new UCSD Engineering facilities are currently under construction, 75% state-funded (partly as UCSD’s share of the 4 $100M “California Institutes for Science and Innovation”) A new state-funded CSE building was one of six state-funded UC buildings just accelerated by 1 year with an “economic development” rationale
54	Georgia I’m on the Advisory Board for the College of Computing at Georgia Tech HOPE Scholarship program – begun in 1993 Full tuition scholarships to state institutions for all residents who maintain a B average Funded by lottery Since 1993, >500,000 recipients, >$1B disbursed Incoming GaTech SAT scores up from 1230 to 1330 Yamacraw initiative in CS/CompE/EE – begun in 1999 90 new faculty in CS/CompE/EE – half at GaTech 600 new graduates per year in these fields – half at GaTech 200K ASF building at GaTech $5M annual research funding $5M one-time venture fund
55	The bottom line High-tech success involves a complex ecology featuring rich interactions among universities, government, and industry In all honesty, you pretty much have to live it to grasp it in a balanced way But there are a number of good studies, e.g., 1995 National Research Council report on innovation in information technology Our state needs to get its act together! Not for me, not for UW, not for today’s companies For the future that we are creating for our kids
56	Contact