Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 23:57:07 -0800 From: Norm Matloff To: Norm Matloff Subject: new study debunks industry lobbyists' claims on number of engineers To: H-1B/L-1/offshoring e-newsletter As many of you readers know, I rely on YOU for most of the articles I post and comment on in this e-newsletter. I'm always amazed at readers' ability to find them even in the most obscure places. In the last couple of weeks, I've heard from many readers about a new study done at Duke University, which finds that the number of new engineering graduates produced each year in China and India has been greatly exaggerated. And (I'll borrow from Mark Twain even further) the supervisor of the study, Vivek Wadhwa, says that therefore the demise of the American tech industry has been greatly exaggerated. In other words, Wadhwa's study debunks the typical "education is the problem/solution" rhetoric of the industry lobbyists concerning H-1B and offshoring. And I agree with him. As some of you may recall, I've said that (a) at least in the case of China, the reported figures are misleading, as many "engineering" graduates are working as building inspectors, factory managers, etc., not doing what we call engineering, and (b) we in the U.S. have a surplus of engineers, not a shortage, since we are using only a small fraction of the ones we have. But wait! The ordinary readers of the articles below will not know the full story. To begin with, Wadhwa is a very unlikely candidate to be disagreeing with the industry lobbyists on globalist issues, since he has been a strong supporter of H-1B and offshoring. For example, here is an excerpt from an article on Monster.com (Are Tech Jobs Headed Offshore?, by Allan Hoffman): Specific expertise may be more readily available overseas. "We outsourced, because we had skills over there we couldn't find in the US," says Vivek Wadhwa, CEO of Relativity Technologies, a Cary, North Carolina, firm with clients such as FedEx and Morgan Stanley. According to Wadhwa, the particular combination of mathematics and computer science skills needed for his company led him to hire programmers in Russia, where 50 of the company's 110 employees are located. (Wadhwa's two cofounders were Russians.) Wadhwa has also publicly supported the H-1B program. See http://www.entrpreneur.com/mag/article/0,1539,296466,00.html And no wonder he defends the program! A check of the Dept. of Labor's H-1B Web page shows that Wadhwa's firm hired an H-1B Software Engineer for $44,144, and a Computer Programmer for $31,933. Note that even new graduates in computer science get around $50,000, so these are very low by any standard. Rob Sanchez's site (www.zazona.com), which also consists of DOL data but is more extensive, has more examples. So, has Wadhwa switched sides, a traitor to his class? What IS motivating him? Actually, Wadhwa himself answers that question in his BusinessWeek column enclosed below, saying, Unfortunately, the message students are getting is that many engineering jobs will be outsourced and U.S. engineers have a bleak future of higher unemployment and lower remuneration. This could result in a self-fulfilling prophecy, as fearful young scholars stick to supposedly "outsourcing-proof" professions. In other words, we have more to fear from fear itself. Get it? Now that Wadhwa has a high position in a university engineering school, he is suffering from the same disease as I've written about so often--engineering deans, etc. are terrified by the drop in engineering enrollment. In academia, numbers are power, so if the numbers plummet, the university engineering schools see their power plummet. Nevertheless, Wadhwa is to be credited for his openmindedness and willingness to take a fresh look at things. The study is available at http://memp.pratt.duke.edu/outsourcing/ Norm http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=190481&cat=Business New study debunks America's outsourcing fears Washington | December 14, 2005 8:15:05 AM IST A new study attempts to debunk the myths that India or China beats the US in producing qualified engineers and that the American economy is facing a decline as it loses jobs to emerging economies. The study has been conducted by North Carolina-based Duke University and authored by entrepreneur-turned-professor Vivek Wadhwa and his students. The report, "Framing the Engineering Outsourcing Debate: Placing the US on a Level Playing Field with China and India", comes amid rising public opposition to increased outsourcing of progressively complex and high-tech jobs by blue-chip and other companies to countries like India. Wadhwa claims this is a self-fulfilling prophecy that will drive students away from engineering if they feel their future is insecure. The Duke University study takes one aspect of the debate, the production of qualified engineers, to examine if the US is falling behind. "Our study has determined that one of the most cited statistics is simply wrong. The US isn't producing 70,000 engineers a year versus 350,000 from India and 600,000 from China. We're actually graduating more engineers than India, and the Chinese numbers aren't quite what they seem. "America is far ahead by almost any measure, and we're a long way from losing our edge," asserted Wadhwa in an interview with IANS. Wadhwa, who recently became executive-in-residence in the Master of Engineering Management programme at Duke's Pratt School of Engineering, says he could not answer one of the first questions his students asked him - what courses would lead to the best job prospects, and what jobs were "outsourcing-proof"? Apart from a shortage of data from China and even India, Wadhwa said, his study found the definition of what an "engineer" is differed from country to country. India's National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM), the leading body dealing with high-tech issues, provided detailed data for India. The study shows that when US numbers were compared with NASSCOM data, the US was graduating 222,335 engineers vs 215,000 from India. The closest comparable number reported by China is 644,106 but it includes additional majors. Looking strictly at four-year degrees and without considering accreditation or quality, the US graduated 137,437 engineers vs 112,000 from India. China reported 351,537 under a broader category. All of these numbers include information technology and related majors. "Most interestingly, when you compared just the number of engineers (excluding electrical), the US graduates 52,500 per year vs 17,000 from India," Wadhwa pointed out. "In fact, I believe that India needs to graduate more engineers -- it doesn't have enough four-year graduates for its own long-term needs based on how the economy is growing. "And our study shows that the threat to the US is overblown," Wadhwa contended. Interestingly, just this week, NASSCOM, along with the consulting firm McKinsey and Co, released a study showing India's IT industry will face a shortfall of around 500,000 skilled workers by 2010. "The message that engineering graduates are going to be competing with one million from India and China creates a sense of fear, uncertainty and doubt," Wadhwa said about the US. "The fact is that despite larger numbers, only a tiny fraction of Indian and Chinese graduates are equipped to compete globally. And most will be gobbled up by their rapidly expanding economies," Wadhwa maintained. The study comes amid a raging outsourcing debate. In Washington, the attempt to protect American workers from what has been portrayed as an onslaught of low-paid, high-tech skilled workers from India is being met by a push for legislation that would take away tax breaks to companies off-shoring tasks, as well as forcing American employers to give equal wages to the H1-B visa workers in this country so as to take away any incentive to import workers. Not just that, outsourcing has intensified the education debate in this country and highlighted the poor performance of schoolchildren in math and science, leading to a push for reforming the education system to protect American competitiveness in the future. http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=14849&hed=U.S.+Engineers+Undercount ed U.S. Engineers Undercounted Study shows the U.S. mints more engineers than typically reported, and figures on Chinese, Indian engineers may be inflated. December 12, 2005 The United States graduates far more engineers annually than typically reported in the press, a study said Monday, while the number of engineering graduates in India and China, long considered threats to the U.S.' status as a technological superpower, may be overstated. Researchers at Duke University found that about 225,925 engineers graduate from American universities annually, about three times the number-70,000-typically cited by the National Academies and the media. The academies include the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council. India, which has become a growing tech center, particularly for outsourcing many operations of U.S. firms, produces about 215,000 engineers a year, the study found. That's far fewer than the 350,000 figure frequently cited by the press and the National Academies. China mints about 644,106 engineering graduates, the study reported, using figures from the Chinese government. Although the figure is in line with recent reports, Duke researcher Vivek Wadhwa believes those numbers may be overstated. Mr. Wadhwa said China does not specify whether the figure represents only graduates from four-year degree programs and does not provide a way to corroborate its figures. He added that he believes the number of annual engineering graduates in the Middle Kingdom is closer to 300,000. Inappropriate Comparisons "My personal guesstimate is that Chinese numbers are half of what they are saying," said Mr. Wadhwa, professor at the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University. "Our study has determined that these are inappropriate comparisons." After researching numbers from Indian and Chinese authorities, the study discovered that these countries' figures include three-year-training programs and diploma holders in addition to four-year degrees, Mr. Wadhwa said. These numbers in the past have been compared to U.S. figures that only counted graduates with accredited four-year engineering degrees. The study's results could provide some relief to U.S. engineers fearful of losing their jobs to their counterparts in these emerging economies. The report is a part of an ongoing project looking at engineering graduates in the U.S., China, and India. The Duke study obtained the figures after consulting with Nasscom (National Association of Software and Service Companies) in India, the ministry of education in China, and the U.S. Department of Education. The report identified two main groups of engineers, dividing them up into dynamic and transactional engineers. Dynamic engineers are those who lead innovation while transactional engineers may possess engineering fundamentals, but not the experience or expertise to apply this knowledge to larger problems. Dynamic engineers usually come from four-year accredited programs, while transactional ones come from sub-baccalaureate degrees that can be obtained in less than four years but more than one. U.S. Per-Capita Leader On a per-capita basis, the U.S. may actually be leading, the study found. "The data implies that per every 1 million citizens, the United States is producing more technology specialists than China and India," the report said. The U.S. has about 295 million inhabitants, compared with 1.08 billion in India and 1.3 billion in China. The report's findings are meant to clear up misinformation about U.S. engineers and the U.S. education system, Mr. Wadhwa said. It's also intended to inspire more young Americans to take up engineering as a profession, he added. "It is clear that the U.S. is not in the desperate state that is routinely portrayed," the report said. "The country needs to maintain its focus on improving the quality of education and maintain its momentum, but there is no imminent crisis." The idea of this project came about when students at Duke's engineering schools started asking professors' advice on which courses would make them optimally qualified to compete with Indian and Chinese engineers, Mr. Wadhwa said. As dean of the college of engineering, Kristina Johnson said she has to make sure engineers in U.S. colleges like hers get enough skills and education to justify the premium employers pay for them. "You cannot outsource leadership," Ms. Johnson said. The Pratt engineering school has research programs, leadership dinners, and an ethics program so its students have an edge over others graduating from Indian and Chinese universities, she said. ************************** http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/dec2005/sb20051212_623922.htm December 13, 2005 Viewpoint By Vivek Wadhwa About That Engineering Gap... Is the U.S. really falling behind China and India in education? Not really. Take a closer look at the data There are few topics that generate as much heated debate as outsourcing. One side argues that globalization will lead to greater innovation and prosperity, the other says we are increasing unemployment and misery. Everyone agrees that what's at stake is America's standard of living and world economic leadership. One would expect that the numbers used in such debate would be defensible and grounded. Yet researchers at Duke University have determined that some of the most cited statistics on engineering graduates are inaccurate. Statistics that say the U.S. is producing 70,000 engineers a year vs. 350,000 from India and 600,000 from China aren't valid, the Duke team says. We're actually graduating more engineers than India, and the Chinese numbers aren't quite what they seem. In short, America is far ahead by almost any measure, and we're a long way from losing our edge. Unfortunately, the message students are getting is that many engineering jobs will be outsourced and U.S. engineers have a bleak future of higher unemployment and lower remuneration. This could result in a self-fulfilling prophecy, as fearful young scholars stick to supposedly "outsourcing-proof" professions. In other words, we have more to fear from fear itself. RESEARCH FELLOWS. Having been a tech exec and co-producer of a Bollywood film, I've long been at the center of the outsourcing debate. I wrote about how my own son called me unpatriotic and argued that I was doing wrong for America (see, BW Online, 3/12/04, "My Son, It's Time to Talk of Outsourcing..."). Yet, in my new life in academia, I couldn't answer the first question my engineering students asked (see BW Online, 9/14/05, "Degrees of Achievement"). They wondered what courses would lead to the best job prospects and what jobs were "outsourcing proof." I knew that with a master's of engineering management from Duke, these students were destined to be leaders, and that leadership can never be outsourced. Yet I was no expert on engineering majors across the world. Dean Kristina Johnson of Duke's Pratt School of Engineering suggested we research the topic. I enlisted the help of Professor Gary Gereffi, a world renowned sociologist and Duke outsourcing expert, and we picked a team of our brightest students. We set out to compare international engineering degrees and analyze employment opportunities. As you do in any study, we started by assessing the facts. The problem was that facts were in short supply. BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS. In recent years, the worldwide media has cited graduation numbers that show a huge imbalance of engineering graduates coming out of Chinese and Indian schools. One commonly cited set of figures is 600,000 engineers graduated annually from institutions of higher education in China, 350,000 from India, and 70,000 from the U.S. Top business publications have repeated these numbers. So have political leaders across the spectrum -- from Ted Kennedy to Newt Gingrich. The Congressional Record references these numbers. Even the prestigious National Academies issued a press release asking federal support to bolster U.S. competitiveness, citing these numbers as part of its argument. The U.S. numbers were easy to verify. The National Center for Education and the American Society of Engineering Education provided useful data. However, international numbers were a different story. LOST IN TRANSLATION. Several reports cited the Ministry of Education in China and the National Association of Software & Service Companies (NASSCOM) in India. Yet none of the reports issued by these authorities that we read matched the numbers being reported. So we called registrars of the largest universities in India and China. Chinese universities readily provided high-level data, but not enough detail. Some Indian registrars were helpful and shared comprehensive spreadsheets. Others claimed not to know how many engineering colleges were affiliated with their schools or they lacked detail on graduation rates by major. We eventually found our way to knowledgeable employees of the Chinese Education Ministry, and the research head of NASSCOM, Sunil Mehta. After extensive discussions and reviews of more reports and data, we learned that no one was comparing apples to apples. The word "engineer" didn't translate well into different Chinese dialects and had no standard definition. We were told that reports received by the ministry from Chinese provinces didn't count degrees in a consistent way. A motor mechanic or a technician could be considered an engineer, for example. Also, the numbers included all degrees related to information technology and specialized fields such as shipbuilding. DATA BANK. There were also "short-cycle" degrees, which were typically completed in 2 or 3 years. These are equivalent to associate degrees in the U.S. Nearly half of China's reported degrees fell into this category. NASSCOM maintains extensive engineering graduation data. They gather data from diverse sources and create and validate projections and estimates. We couldn't get the data to perform accurate comparisons with China, so we matched the NASSCOM definition of engineer to U.S. numbers. We found that the U.S. was graduating 222,335 engineers, vs. 215,000 from India. The closest comparable number reported by China is 644,106, but it includes additional majors. Looking strictly at four-year degrees and without considering accreditation or quality, the U.S. graduated 137,437 engineers, vs. 112,000 from India. China reported 351,537 under a broader category. All of these numbers include information technology and related majors (click here to read the full Duke report). WORLD OF DOUBT. What's the point? We hear repeatedly that America is in trouble and that the root cause lies with our education system. There's no doubt that K-12 science and math could be improved, and few will dispute that America needs to invest more in education and research. However, our higher education system isn't in trouble -- in fact, it's still the world's best. We spend the most on research, produce the most patents, have the most innovative curriculum, and educate many of the world's leaders. Take Duke University. It spends $50 million a year just on engineering research, and members of its faculty are world renowned. The message that our engineering graduates compete with 1 million graduates from India and China has created a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Why would a smart student enter a field where their job might soon be outsourced? Rather than encouraging our children to study more math and science and become engineers, we're turning them into lawyers. When the world hears that the U.S. education system is in decline, we scare away those who would otherwise come here to study. To keep America competitive, we must keep attracting the world's best and brightest. America needs to do all it can to fuel innovation and maintain its lead in science and technology. By repeatedly sending the message that we're weak, we in fact become weak. Wadhwa, the founder of two software companies, is an Executive-in-Residence/Adjunct Professor at Duke University. He is also the co-founder of TiE Carolinas, a networking and mentoring group. http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20051220/ts_csm/acalculator;_ylt=A0SOwkIThahDQFc AoAV34T0D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA-- Does the US face an engineering gap? By Mark Clayton, Staff writer of The Christian Science MonitorTue Dec 20, 3:00 AM ET If China graduates more than eight times the number of engineers that the United States does, is it thrashing America in the technology race? That's what many scientists and politicians are suggesting in the wake of an October report by the highly regarded National Academies. Its numbers are startling: China adds 600,000 new engineers a year; the US, only 70,000. Even India, with 350,000 new engineers a year, is outdoing the US, the study suggests. But that gloomy assessment depends on how one defines engineers: Those with at least four years of college training? Or do their ranks include two-year graduates of technical schools and even, in China's case, auto mechanics? By making more specific comparisons, US competitiveness, as measured by newly minted engineers, is not eroding as fast as many say - if it's eroding at all, according to a Duke University study released last week. "Inconsistent reporting of problematic engineering graduation data has been used to fuel fears that America is losing its technological edge," the study states. "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." In some ways, experts say, today's debate over engineers reflects the cold-war controversy over the so-called missile gap in which the Soviets' advantage in missile numbers was counterbalanced to some extent by the quality and accuracy of America's nuclear arsenal. "During the 'missile gap' and post-missile gap until the fall of the Berlin Wall the same sorts of issues were being raised about Russia as are being raised now about China and India," says Frank Huband, of the American Society for Engineering Education in Washington. Is there an "engineer gap" today? Many groups say yes. In a report last summer, the Business Roundtable and 14 other corporate groups called for doubling the number of graduating US engineers, citing China's lead. "As others have copied our blueprint, we have departed from it," said House minority leader Nancy Pelosi in a speech last month. "They are investing heavily in improving their educational systems, and creating world-class universities, particularly in science and technology. We have fewer students studying math and science." But some researchers say such fears are overblown and argue that US corporations are trying to cloud the issue as they go in search of cheaper engineering talent overseas. "Business groups have been very smart about trying to change the subject from outsourcing and offshoring to the supposed shortfall in US engineers," says Ron Hira, an outsourcing expert at Rochester Institute of Technology. "There's really no serious shortage of engineers in this country." India provides the clearest example of how the numbers can be interpreted differently. The 350,000 engineers that it supposedly graduated last year is almost certainly false. After publishing that number in October, the National Academies revised it downward to 200,000 in a note issued last month. The Duke study pegs the number at 215,000, but it also points out that nearly half of those are three-year diplomas - not the four-year degrees counted in the US. plomas than IndiaLast 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 relative 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. "China includes in its count a lot of graduates - including auto mechanics - who would not be included as engineers in the US or many other nations," says Gary Gereffi, a coauthor of the study and a professor of sociology who directs Duke's Center on Globalization, Governance, and Competitiveness. A press spokesman of the Chinese embassy in Washington declined comment, and its education office there did not respond. China still graduated 351,537 engineers with four-year degrees. That's 2-1/2 times the US total (although China has four times the US population). For its part, the National Academies stands by its report, even after its revisions. "I don't think we believe at all that these new numbers change the ultimate recommendations we have," says Deborah Stine, of the National Academies. "The US is well behind other countries." Back toward 1986 graduation peakThe number of US engineering graduates peaked in 1986, fell back, then has slowly built back up since the late 1990s, says Daniel Bateson, of the Engineering Workforce Commission. While US numbers don't approach China's, some experts say the quality of US graduates remains superior. A McKinsey Global Institute study last summer found that only 10 percent of Chinese engineers and 25 percent of Indian engineers were capable of competing for outsourced work. Other experts say what's needed is a greater focus on improving engineering education. "The basis for US technological success so far hasn't been because of the raw numbers of people we have, but the particular type of thinking and capability they bring to the table," says Richard Miller, president of Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering in Needham, Mass. http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2005/nf20051223_7594_db039.htm DECEMBER 27, 2005 By Pete Engardio Engineering: Is the U.S. Really Falling? Numbers cited to prove that graduation rates in India and China dwarf those in the U.S. may be flawed. But the fear is all too real s America losing its competitive edge in engineering? Top Silicon Valley executives, U.S. think-tanks, industry associations, and university deans have all pointed out dropping enrollment in American science and tech programs and warn of a brewing problem. And in a November survey of 4,000 U.S. engineers, 64% said outsourcing makes them worry about the profession's future, while less than 10% feel sure America will maintain its leadership in technology. Such gloom is reinforced by a raft of oft-cited statistics: the U.S. graduates only 70,000 engineers a year, and enrollment in engineering schools is declining fast. India, meanwhile, turns out 350,000 engineers annually, while Chinese universities produce 600,000, by some estimates. Indeed, with Asian techies earning anywhere from a quarter to a tenth of what their Western counterparts do, doomsayers might ask why any intelligent young American would pursue engineering. FUZZY DEFINITIONS. But how accurate are such numbers? And how does the theory of American decline square with the reality that graduates of good U.S. engineering schools seem to have little problem finding jobs? Vivek Wadhwa, a founder of several tech startups and an occasional contributor to BusinessWeek Online who's now an executive in residence at Duke University says he got so disturbed by the anxieties of bright engineering students that he helped supervise a study released in December to get to the bottom of such questions. The conclusion: Because of fuzzy definitions of "engineering graduate," estimates of Indian and Chinese numbers can be wildly exaggerated, while America's are understated. Just look at the numbers using consistent criteria. If one counts people who study computer science and information technology as engineers -- as India does -- then the U.S. grants 134,000 four-year engineering degrees annually. Indeed, the U.S. is producing far more engineers per capita than either of Asia's emerging superpowers. Indian schools grants only 122,000 four-year engineering degrees (and almost as many three-year degrees), while China generates 351,000. "SPREADING PROPAGANDA." But China's statistics may still be inflated because the definition of an engineer can vary widely from province to province. In some cases, auto mechanics are included. "The numbers seem to include anybody who has studied anything technical," Wadhwa says. The bottom line is that America's engineering crisis is a myth, Wadhwa argues. Both sides in the globalization debate are "spreading propaganda," he contends. India and China are using inflated engineering numbers because they want to draw more foreign investment, while fearmongers in the U.S. use dubious data either to support their case for protectionism, to lobby for greater government spending on higher education and research, or to justify their offshore investments. The study, though, is already coming under fire. Wadhwa says he's getting notes from researchers who challenge its soothing conclusions, and some U.S. engineers say it doesn't match the grim reality they're witnessing in downsized American R&D labs. And other studies point to different signs of ebbing American dominance in science and technology: The U.S. share of scientific papers is declining. Federal funding for research is falling. And even though American engineering schools may be producing more grads than some data might indicate, many of their students come from overseas. "ARE YOU KIDDING?" The debate raises an intriguing question: Does hype about the rise of India and China unnecessarily demoralize American engineers and scare U.S. students away from technical careers? Most surveys of U.S. corporate executives, after all, conclude that America is already facing a shortage of engineers in everything from software and chemicals to life sciences, and these shortfalls will worsen in coming years. Even the November survey of 4,000 engineers, by public relations firm McClenahan Bruer Communications and CMP publishing group, found that 56% said their own companies currently have a shortage of engineers. The survey confirms that the psychological impact of U.S. offshoring may be just as big as the reality. In focus groups, engineers overwhelmingly said they believe their work is important to society. "But when we asked whether they think society appreciates what they do, they looked at us with blank faces and said, 'Are you kidding?'" says Kerry McClenahan, who runs the PR company behind the survey. Another problem is that many of the U.S. engineers who are getting displaced lack the more demanding skills required by American tech companies today. Because routine tasks can be done more cheaply offshore, many executives say, they need U.S. engineers who can rapidly move on to next-generation technologies, work well with customers, and manage R&D teams. COUNTERARGUMENTS COMING. Wadhwa describes it as a gap between "transactional" engineers and "dynamic" ones. The former are good at fundamentals but have a hard time applying their knowledge to broader problems. Dynamic engineers are more capable of abstract thinking, work well in teams, and can lead innovation. India and China have dynamic engineers, too, but U.S. companies still need many of them on staff at home. "What I'm seeing is that transactional engineers in the U.S. are being replaced by dynamic engineers offshore." The contention that only engineers with routine skills are put at risk by offshoring will surely provoke counterarguments. But at ry least, the Duke study has helped take the debate over declining U.S. competitiveness up a notch.