Wow, this article is terrible. While its thesis (China will rule tech eventually may be correct), the arguments are very weak. 1) The US' :"Great Engineer" pre

Wow, this article is terrible. While its thesis (China will rule tech eventually may be correct), the arguments are very weak. 1) The US' :"Great Engineer" president (Herbert Hoover) was among its worst. While it is a low sample size, I'm not sure how much evidence there is that leaders with engineering degrees = better for society. 2) Everyone wants to out-innovate the US. Sheer R&D investment helps, but other factors play a large part. 3) Outright misleading. Bleum is hiring a US workforce to work in China (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9178913/Chinese_outsourcer_seeks_U.S._workers_with_IQ_of_125_and_up http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9178913/Chinese_outso...); of course the workforce is orders of magnitude smaller. (Hint: IQ tests are illegal to use for employment in the US). The number of engineering degrees is also misleading, as the US typically has higher standards to get them than in China. Besides, the US has a huge talent pool advantage in that it accepts highly skilled immigrants from all countries, something that occurs far less often in China. 4) This argument compares US high school to Chinese undergraduates. While the US certainly has its weak-spots with education for everyone, the top 10% (who probably matter the most) get an excellent education 5) The strongest argument. Tech transfers have been going on for more than a decade. It definitely helps China a lot (and helped the US massively in the early 1800s), but China still does have awhile to go.