logo
China may have more engineers, but it still lacks a culture of innovation

China may have more engineers, but it still lacks a culture of innovation

The Hill15 hours ago
China announced last month a $100 billion push into artificial intelligence, intensifying what is already a fierce race for global tech dominance.
Policymakers in Washington are watching with concern, and rightly so. China graduates more than 1.38 million engineers each year, about seven times more than does the U.S. The numbers sound alarming and suggest we're falling behind.
But that's not the full story. While engineering degrees are critical, they don't guarantee technological leadership. What really drives innovation is not how many people you train, but how you train them. And here, China faces a deeper, cultural problem that raw output can't solve.
The Chinese education system is highly structured and built for scale. But it's also rigid, top-down and deeply rooted in deference to authority. In most classrooms, memorization takes precedence over questioning and the teacher's word is rarely challenged. Correcting a professor's mistake could cause them to 'lose face,' a cultural breach that most students won't risk.
This environment produces excellent test-takers but not risk-takers. It produces technical workers who are strong on facts but weak on critical thinking. They can follow a formula, but they struggle to break new ground.
This is a key reason China, despite its massive engineering workforce, has yet to deliver the kind of world-changing breakthroughs we've seen from the U.S., from the microprocessor to the iPhone to mRNA vaccines. These innovations didn't come from rote learning. They came from interdisciplinary research, unorthodox thinking and cultures that reward questioning everything.
Even when it comes to research output, China's surge in published papers masks a more complex reality. While China now leads the world in scientific publishing volume, scholars like Ming Xia have pointed out that much of this work lacks the originality, rigor and theoretical depth typical of Western scholarship.
Plagiarism and fabrication remain persistent problems, even at top institutions. At Tsinghua University, one professor felt compelled to reassure students that if they wrote something publishable, he wouldn't steal it and submit it under his own name.
The root issue is systemic. Many Chinese academics were trained in the same system they now uphold, one that prizes metrics and obedience over ideas and inquiry. As a result, scholarship often becomes descriptive, not theoretical. It explains what exists but rarely asks why it matters or how to build something new from it.
Contrast that with American higher education. Our universities aren't perfect — they can be chaotic, expensive and uneven, but they're designed to cultivate thinkers, not just technicians. Students are encouraged to disagree with their professors, to explore across disciplines and to challenge the conventional wisdom.
The freedom to question isn't a side effect of our system. It's the whole point.
Yes, China has closed gaps in recent years by acquiring Western technology through joint ventures, forced transfers and even cyber espionage. But copying isn't creating. Without a culture that fosters original thought, China may scale existing tech but it won't lead the next wave of innovation.
That doesn't mean the U.S. can relax. We need to double down on what works, investing in universities, supporting fundamental research and attracting the best minds from around the world. At the same time, we must protect critical technologies and intellectual property from exploitation.
Still, we should remember what gives America an edge: a culture that values curiosity, dissent and the freedom to think differently. That's the foundation of every breakthrough we've ever made.
In the long run, engineering dominance isn't just about how many degrees a country prints. It's about whether those engineers are trained to challenge the status quo and imagine something better.
If the U.S. keeps leaning into its strengths of diversity, openness and academic freedom, we won't just keep pace with China. We will continue to lead.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Analyst Hails Nebius Stock (NBIS) as the ‘270% Rocket Hiding in Plain Sight'
Analyst Hails Nebius Stock (NBIS) as the ‘270% Rocket Hiding in Plain Sight'

Business Insider

time22 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

Analyst Hails Nebius Stock (NBIS) as the ‘270% Rocket Hiding in Plain Sight'

Nebius Group (NBIS) has been a breakout star of 2025 within niche AI, soaring 170% year-to-date. Last week's Q2 2025 results were nothing short of staggering: revenue skyrocketed 625% year-over-year, while cost of revenues rose just 291% — a sign of explosive demand paired with disciplined cost control. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. Such figures need a moment of silence and reflection because this is the kind of growth investors look for without realizing it has always been there — while many market participants look without seeing, as they overlook the stock. Price charts tell the tale better than most. The stock's total gain since its illustrious U.S. stock listing in October 2024 is now 270%. Beyond AI-focused cloud services, Nebius boasts diversification across EdTech, autonomous driving, and strategic equity stakes. This is a powerful, still under-the-radar AI play — and I remain firmly Bullish. Q2 Results Changed the Paradigm In its Q2 2025 report, management increased the annualized run-rate revenue (ARR) guidance for 2025 up to $900 million-$1.1 billion, up from $750 million-$1 billion previously. Management also said that the core AI infrastructure business achieved adjusted EBITDA positivity in the quarter, which was earlier than expected. For the whole company, slightly positive adjusted EBITDA is expected by year-end 2025, but still with a full-year loss. The company is very well operated by CEO Arkady Volozh, who has led the company from its Russian Yandex search engine days to the new Western-focused AI services provider Nebius today. A 625% year-over-year revenue surge is incredible, and it shows just how small Nebius's revenue base was a year ago. Growth rates will obviously normalize over time, but we're still looking at triple-digit revenue growth rates for the next two years. Profitability is obviously a bit more fickle at this stage, but the trajectory is intact. Property and equipment expenditures currently exceed operating cash outflow by a wide margin, and free cash flow will inevitably be negative until most of the company's data center build-out is complete. Following the Q2 results, shares have surged by about 25%, signaling confidence in the market. In essence, this is an investment with intangible upside potential, and with the stock at 7.5% of my total portfolio value, I'm not looking to sell any time soon. I'm holding on for the ride. Vertical Integration and Balance Sheet Strength Optimize Returns Nebius is not your generic cloud provider; instead, it is purpose-built for AI workloads. With the company controlling its entire value chain for compute, storage, and software, it can allocate GPUs dynamically, squeeze more utilization from each server rack, and respond to customers' model-training needs faster than Big Tech companies burdened by a broad product mix. The company's balance sheet is often overlooked—the company started 2025 with roughly $2.5 billion in cash and no debt, according to TipRanks data. This liquidity comes mainly from its Yandex divestment and capital injections from Nvidia (NVDA), Accel, and Orbis. The Q2 balance sheet does show rising debt to about $978 million due to convertible bonds, but Nebius still has a strong cash position and more flexibility than its competitors. Meanwhile, rival AI-cloud startups like CoreWeave (CRWV) and Lambda Labs carry billions in debt. It would seem that Nebius has a strategic advantage and is pressing it home. Strong Annual Returns Expected for NBIS Nebius may be trading at a lofty price, but its momentum and growth trajectory suggest that strength is sustainable. While some investors might be tempted to take profits after the stellar Q2 report, I'm inclined to hold through any short-term volatility to capture substantial medium- to long-term gains. Yes, the 14-day RSI above 75 points to short-term overvaluation, but with exceptional management and a track record that's likely to make strong earnings the rule rather than the exception, I see this as manageable. My base-case 12–18 month target is $80, with a bull-case target of $90. From the current $69 share price, that implies upside potential of 15.9% to 30.5%. Is NBIS a Good Stock to Buy? On Wall Street, Nebius has a consensus Strong Buy rating based on six Buys, one Hold, and zero Sells. The average NBIS stock price target of $69.67 indicates a 6.2% downside over the coming year. Wall Street analysts are generally of the mind that NBIS may be overvalued. However, several analysts raised their price targets since the Q2 report in recent days, including Alexander Duval from Goldman Sachs and Hamed Khorsand from BWS Financial. Nebius makes up 7.5% of my total holdings — a sizable position, but one I believe is fully justified. I trust management's vision, and the company's operations are perfectly aligned with the robust growth trajectory of AI. With broad diversification, a strong balance sheet, and plenty of runway ahead, selling now would be a mistake. While short-term volatility is possible after the Q2 surge, I see it as temporary. In the medium term, this under-the-radar AI player is likely to deliver higher prices again and again.

JD.com Poised for Strong Revenue Growth in Q2, Says Citi Analyst
JD.com Poised for Strong Revenue Growth in Q2, Says Citi Analyst

Business Insider

time37 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

JD.com Poised for Strong Revenue Growth in Q2, Says Citi Analyst

Chinese e-commerce giant (JD) is scheduled to announce its second-quarter results on Thursday, August 14. Wall Street analysts expect the company to report earnings per share of $0.51 on revenues of $46.65 billion. Ahead of the results, Citi analyst Alicia Yap renewed her Buy rating on stock with a $42 price target, following a period of rating suspension. The price target implies a 34.7% upside potential from the current levels. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. Analyst Expects Solid Revenue Growth Despite Profit Pressure in Q2 The analyst expects to report strong second-quarter results, driven by continued growth in its core retail segments. The firm forecasts total revenue of RMB 336 billion for 2Q25, up 15.3% year-over-year, slightly ahead of the market consensus of RMB 335.1 billion. Meanwhile, the analyst expects the company's electronics sales to grow 16.6% to RMB 169 billion and general merchandise sales to rise 15% to RMB 102.2 billion. Overall, direct sales are likely to go up by 16%, showing strong demand in JD's main markets. However, on the profitability front, Citi expects non-GAAP net profit to decline by 68% year-over-year to RMB 4.68 billion, resulting in a narrower margin of 1.39%. The analyst highlights that profit margins will likely remain under pressure due to ongoing subsidy spending and a competitive food delivery market. Also, gross margins are expected to drop slightly, reflecting these challenges. Moderate Growth Expected in Q3 For the third quarter, Citi projects revenue growth of 10.7% year-over-year to RMB 288.1 billion and non-GAAP net profit of RMB 4.58 billion. The analyst expects management to maintain a cautious tone, reflecting ongoing challenges in the market. Long-Term Outlook Remains Positive Despite short-term profit pressures, Citi remains optimistic about long-term growth potential. The company's expanding retail footprint and efforts to diversify its business, including new ventures like the hotel sector, position it well for future success. Is JD Stock a Buy or Sell? JD stock price target of $42.13 implies 35.12% upside potential. JD stock is down 2.3% year-to-date.

Pete Hegseth's macho approach to the military threatens our national security
Pete Hegseth's macho approach to the military threatens our national security

Boston Globe

time40 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Pete Hegseth's macho approach to the military threatens our national security

Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Hegseth's rationale for banning 'gender ideology' from military academies, which train officers, is that it inhibits the unity and meritocracy required for military readiness among service members. As Hegseth's order states, 'The strength of the DoD comes from our unity and our shared purpose. We will focus on lethality, meritocracy, accountability, standards, and readiness.' Advertisement This is deeply ironic because no one is doing more to make explicit the deep cultural connection between war and masculinity than Pete Hegseth. He's revealing something that's always simmered beneath the surface of military culture: that war is the sole province of men. Advertisement And the way Hegseth thinks about gender in the military and the whole point of fighting wars is fundamentally flawed — not to mention detrimental to the armed forces and our national security. Out of the shadows I used to have to make the argument that the military's culture was affected by ideas and beliefs about masculinity in mostly subtle ways. The only people who came right out and said war is about achieving manhood were centuries-old thinkers and a few contemporary military leaders or obscure far-right commentators. But now the sitting secretary of defense is unabashedly advancing this view and basing military policy on it. If you want to see how ideas about masculinity warp those about war and the military, look no further than Hegseth's last book, published in 2024, 'The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free.' Hegseth asserts that the military exists to allow men to find their natural purpose as warriors. The military is the institution for turning undisciplined boys into real men. As he says, 'The military has always been about social engineering … It takes average American boys, breaks down their body and mind, and builds them back up into members of a warfighting team.' This point is brought home in a chapter titled 'Men Need Purpose, Not Inclusion.' Here, Hegseth provides a macho, first-person narrative of his experience in Iraq in 2006. As an important part of a team of warrior men engaged in killing the enemy, he says he found his calling as a man. His operation 'was all man, all merit, all mission.' He and his teammates were 'tough, manly, and unapologetically lethal.' He discovers that 'feeding a well-oiled killing machine' is his 'jam.' He closes the chapter with the hope that the military continues to provide this purpose to other men. Advertisement The clichéd, gendered language he uses throughout the book to describe good soldiers is staggering. Proper warriors are 'red-blooded American men,' 'strong men,' 'fighting men,' 'courageous men,' 'rock-ribbed men,' 'masculine men,' 'tough' men, 'normal dudes,' men who do 'PT' and wear 'Carhartt jackets,' 'cowboys,' and 'alpha males.' He compares them to the fictional characters John McClain from the movie 'Die Hard' and the superassassin John Wick, And he goes on to describe the men who question the value of this type or hinder their unapologetic violence as 'candy-asses,' 'pussies,' 'whores to wokesters,' 'effeminate,' those who 'suppress natural masculine instincts for honor,' 'beta-male[s],' and 'so-called men' who would 'neuter' the military. For Hegseth, a good man is a disciplined killer and protector of the weak. By nature, men are 'life-takers.' Their societal role is to use violence to protect their communities. Women, according to him, have a different nature. Women are 'life-givers' whose biology prescribes caregiving and nurturing. Their job is to reproduce and raise future generations as well as provide succor to warrior men. This is why he thinks women should not serve in combat. For Hegseth, including women in war upsets the natural gender order. Making women into warriors separates them from 'the natural purposes of their core instincts.' And it undermines men's 'instincts' to treat women gently. Advertisement There is also reason to wonder if Hegseth believes women should be full citizens. This all has had devastating impacts on women and gender nonconforming people in the military. Hegseth has overseen the But the effect of Hegseth's gender crusade extends well beyond the culture of the military. It has a dangerous impact on the way we fight wars. There is a direct relationship between treating men in the military as killing machines and a misguided way of thinking about war. Hegseth argues that the masculine nature of military service is linked to the nature of war. War is really a contest of masculine violence. If you outkill your opponent, you will win the war. Lethality is all that matters from a strategic point of view. He claims, 'Land warfare … is defined by how many people you can slaughter in one space, at one time — limiting the will and capacity of your enemy to fight.' Advertisement The problem with this is that it reduces winning wars to winning battles. But at least as far back as Carl von Clausewitz, an early 19th-century Prussian general and military theorist, strategists have understood that there is much more to winning wars than winning battles. The point of war is to achieve a nonmilitary political good like sovereignty or a just peace. There is not always a connection between winning battles and achieving these goals. In fact, you can win every battle yet lose the war — as the United States did in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States entered these wars with The United States does not have a problem with lethality on the battlefield. We have a problem understanding how our lethality affects the world and a tendency to think martial violence can solve complex problems. We need to be better thinkers, not better killers. We need more historical and cultural understanding, not better tactical skills. Hegseth doesn't see it this way. According to him, the United States lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because we didn't kill enough. If it weren't for the lawyers — or 'jag-offs,' as he calls them — restraining military tactics out of concern for noncombatant casualties and detainee abuse, we could have ended the wars sooner and won. The wars dragged on because we lacked the warrior impulse to do what was required to win. He says, 'The fact that we don't do what is necessary is the reason wars become endless. Modern wars never end, because we won't finish them.' Advertisement In Hegseth's worldview, wars are contests in killing because wars are contests of warrior masculinity. The side with the real men is the winner. If we lose a war, it must be because we lack real men. Whereas America failed in Iraq and Afghanistan because of a misguided faith in war, Hegseth is overseeing 'reforms' of the US military to emphasize battlefield fighting that simply double down on this faith. This may make the military more 'lethal,' but it makes us less ready to use the military for good. I fear we are now even more likely to engage in ill-conceived war than we were 20 years ago. So, in a sense, Hegseth is right: 'gender ideology' is a threat to national security. But it's his ideology that we should be worried about.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store