
Jim Nowlan: With the Chinese outpacing our tech advances, has our ‘Sputnik moment' come and gone?
In 1957, my high school science teacher stopped me in the corridor between classes. 'Do you know what just happened, Jim? Russia has sent a satellite into orbit around the earth!' He was shaken, and so was America. The haunting beeps emanating from Sputnik echoed around the globe — America's supremacy in military technology had been eclipsed by our rival.
Response was quick and substantial. Funding for the relatively new National Science Foundation was more than doubled. American education doubled down on science and technology. In a few years, America had landed a rocket on the moon. The competition for tech supremacy continues.
In recent months, Chinese tech company DeepSeek released an artificial intelligence model that is apparently faster and cheaper and uses much less electricity than our own technology. Once again, we should be shaken — but this time not surprised.
In the early 2000s, I became a visiting professor at Fudan University in Shanghai, one of China's best. On the morning after my arrival, a Saturday, I came out of my 'foreign expert' guest quarters to stroll the leafy street outside. I saw several neatly uniformed youngsters on the sidewalks. When I saw my host professor on Monday, I asked about this. 'Oh, our children go to school on Saturdays, until noon,' she responded. And, I might add, during the school week, students have at least one more hour of instruction per day than in the U.S. and go to school for up to 245 days each year, versus our 175 to 180.
Not surprisingly, Shanghai youngsters fare much better on math achievement than do American youngsters, as well as do students in most developed nations.
I sense that if Shanghai parents were told their children could not go to school on Saturdays, there would be riots in the streets. And that if American parents were told their children had to go to school on Saturdays — and for another hour each weekday — there would be riots in the streets.
The short American school day and year are still basically rooted in the 19th century agrarian needs to have the kids available to work the farm in the summers. In 1983, alarmed by stagnant and weak educational achievement, educators issued the 'A Nation at Risk' report, aimed at spurring student achievement. Four decades later, a Stanford University analysis by Margaret Raymond, founder and director of the Center for Research on Education Outcomes, notes that American student learning is still stagnant or in decline. So, I am amazed to read that many school districts have gone to or are contemplating a four-day school week. Alas. We need more time on task, not less.
With four times the U.S. population, China has more high honor students than we have students.
In the early 2000s, there were about 10 million Chinese enrolled in higher education in that country, while 20 million Americans studied at colleges and universities. Today, there are more than 50 million Chinese enrolled in higher education, a fivefold increase, according to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, whereas in America, our numbers have declined to about 19 million.
Again, back to my teaching at Fudan. I recall walking around the campus one early morning with Gu Yu, my assistant teacher; it was 6:30 or 7. We came upon a gaggle of young people standing in front of the entrance to a major building. 'What's going on there?' I asked Gu Yu. 'Oh, those are students, waiting for the library to open.'
China's paramount leader, Xi Jinping, has the goal of achieving supremacy in science and technology for his country. Operating by central planning, Xi can, certainly in the short term, devote to high education all the resources he deems necessary. An August 2024 article in Scientific American by Saima Iqbal chronicled dangerous decline in American research, 'while Chinese research surges.' President Donald Trump's blocking of billions in research grants for our major universities is like cutting off his nose to spite his face.
I heard from Chinese friends that Xi, who twice visited Iowa in his younger years to study American farm practices, considers our nation decadent. And that he aspires to repay the West for the humiliations we visited upon his country and their revered Empress Dowager Cixi in the 19th century, as Western nations carved up a technologically inferior China for commercial purposes.
What to do?
America's strengths include: one, our tradition of cutting-edge research, largely at our major universities, and two, the opportunity America provides for people to achieve. On a recent Amtrak trip, my seatmate, a young Korean who grew up in Turkey and now studies artificial intelligence in Minnesota, assured me the American Dream is still alive in the minds of young people around the world.
There are not enough smart Americans alone to remain supreme in scientific research. Right now, two-thirds of the workers in Silicon Valley are foreign-born, according to a recent report in the Mercury News, the Valley's newspaper.
We need to expand and leverage our research capacities and, combined with the lure of American opportunity, attract the absolute best and brightest (the top 1%) to our shores — and retain them here.
We sure could use another Sputnik moment.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
15 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Net Approval Positive on Only One Key Issue
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's net approval rating is negative on a range of issues except immigration, a new poll shows. According to political analyst and statistician Nate Silver, writing in his Silver Bulletin Substack, Trump has a net negative approval rating on trade, the economy and inflation but a slightly positive rating on immigration. Why It Matters Taking the temperature of the nation, approval ratings are good measures of the public's response to Trump's policies and his actions as president. In the first few months of his second term, Trump's popularity has fluctuated, with some polls more favorable than others. Sustained backlash to his policies could persuade the president to change his approach. Trump, who made immigration a central part of his campaign, has vowed to crack down on border security, carry out mass deportations and end federal benefits for people residing in the country illegally. President Donald Trump speaking with reporters in the rain after arriving on Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on May 30. President Donald Trump speaking with reporters in the rain after arriving on Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on May 30. AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson What To Know Silver aggregated dozens of recent polls and found that Trump's approval rating on immigration was +2.5 percent. The president did not fare as well on other issues, with a -9.5 percent approval rating on trade, -11.3 percent on the economy and -17.5 percent on inflation. May polling conducted by Verasight U.S. for Strength in Numbers found similar results, with Americans disapproving of the president's handling of all the policy areas they were asked about except border security. That poll also found that 49 percent disapproved of his immigration policy, while 47 percent approved. Overall, Silver found that when analyzing the polls, Trump had a -5.4 net approval rating. An RMG Research/Napolitan News poll, conducted between May 14 and 21 among 3,000 registered voters, showed Trump's approval rating at 48 percent, with 50 percent disapproving. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 1.8 percentage points. Other polls have found a more positive response to the president. According to a recent Rasmussen survey, 53 percent of respondents said they approved of Trump, while 46 percent said they disapproved. What People Are Saying Scott Lucas, a professor in international politics at University College Dublin, previously cautioned against reading too much into any one poll, telling Newsweek: "Opinion polls have their own biases." President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on April 20: "We are, together, going to make America bigger, better, stronger, wealthier, healthier, and more religious, than it has ever been before!!!" What Happens Next The midterm elections, scheduled for November 2026, may offer a clearer indication of voters' attitudes toward the president's policies.


Politico
21 minutes ago
- Politico
The ‘Medicaid moderates' are the senators to watch on the megabill
The Senate's deficit hawks might be raising the loudest hue and cry over the GOP's 'big, beautiful bill.' But another group of Republicans is poised to have a bigger impact on the final legislative product. Call them the 'Medicaid moderates.' They're actually an ideologically diverse bunch — ranging from conservative Josh Hawley of Missouri to centrist Susan Collins of Maine. Yet they have found rare alignment over concerns about what the House-passed version of the GOP domestic-policy megabill does to the national safety-net health program, and they have the leverage to force significant changes in the Senate. 'I would hope that we would elect not to do anything that would endanger Medicaid benefits as a conference,' Hawley said in an interview. 'I've made that clear to my leadership. I think others share that perspective.' Besides Hawley and Collins, other GOP senators including Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Jerry Moran of Kansas and Jim Justice of West Virginia have also drawn public red lines over health care — and they have some rhetorical backing from President Donald Trump, who has urged congressional Republicans to spare the program as much as possible. Based on early estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 10.3 million people would lose coverage under Medicaid if the House-passed bill were to become law — many, if not most, in red states. That could spell trouble for Majority Leader John Thune's whip count: He can only lose three GOP senators on the expected party-line vote and still have Vice President JD Vance break a tie. Republicans already have one all-but-guaranteed opponent in Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky so long as they stick to their plan to raise the debt limit as part of the bill. They also view Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson as increasingly likely to oppose the package after spending weeks blasting the bill on fiscal grounds. Meeting either senator's demands could be enormously difficult given the tight fiscal parameters through which House leaders have to squeeze the bill to advance it in their own chamber. That in turn is empowering the senators elsewhere in the GOP conference to make changes — and the Medicaid group is emerging as the key bloc to watch because of its size and its overlapping, relatively workable demands. Heeding those asks won't be easy. Republicans are counting on savings from Medicaid changes to offset hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts, and rolling that back is likely to create political pain elsewhere for Thune & Co., who already want to cut more than the House to assuage a sizable group of spending hawks. At the same time, Speaker Mike Johnson is insisting the Senate make only minor changes to the bill so as to maintain the delicate balance in his own narrowly divided chamber. Thune and Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) have already acknowledged that Medicaid, covering nearly 80 million low-income Americans, will be one of the biggest sticking points as they embark this month on a rewrite of the megabill. They are talking with key members in anticipation of difficult negotiations and being careful not to draw red lines publicly. 'We want to do things that are meaningful in terms of reforming programs, strengthening programs, without affecting beneficiaries,' Thune said, echoing language used by some of the concerned senators. Crapo voiced support in an interview for one pillar of the House bill — broad new work requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries — but rushed to add that he's 'still working with a 53-member caucus to get answers' to how the program can be overhauled: 'I can only speak for myself.' Complicating their task is the fact that some in the group — namely Collins and Murkowski — have a proven history of bucking their party even amid intense public pressure. The pair, in fact, helped tank the GOP's last party-line effort on health care, in 2017. Leaders view them as unlikely to be moved by the type of arm-twisting Republicans are planning to deploy to bring enough of the fiscal hawks on board. And then there's Hawley, who is playing up Trump's own warnings to congressional Republicans about keeping their hands off Medicaid. Hawley and Trump spoke shortly before the House passed its bill, with the senator recounting that the president said 'absolutely categorically, 'Do not touch Medicaid. No Medicaid benefit cuts, none.'' Hawley, like Crapo, has indicated he is comfortable with work requirements, but he is pushing for two major tweaks to the House language: undoing a freeze on provider taxes, which most states use to help finance their share of Medicaid costs, and new co-payment requirements for some beneficiaries that he has been calling a 'sick tax.' The provider tax changes would present an issue with multiple senators, who fear it would exacerbate the bill's impact on state budgets and slash funding that helps keep rural hospitals afloat. Justice, a former governor, called it a 'real issue.' 'They haven't done anything to really cut into the bone except that one thing,' Justice added. 'That's gonna put a big burden on the states.' Moran grabbed the attention of his colleagues when he warned in a pointed April floor speech that making changes to Medicaid would hurt rural hospitals. A 'significant portion' of his focus, he said, 'is to make sure the hospitals have the capability and the revenues necessary to provide the services the community needs — Medicaid is a component of that.' Collins, who is up for reelection in 2026, has also left the door open to supporting work requirements, depending on how they are crafted. She has also raised concerns about the provider tax provision, noting that 'rural hospitals in my state and across the country are really teetering.' Murkowski, meanwhile, isn't as concerned about the provider tax, because Alaska is the only state that doesn't use it to help cover its share of Medicaid spending. But she has expressed alarm over the House's approach to work requirements, including a decision to speed up the implementation deadline to appease House hard-liners. She said it would be 'very challenging if not impossible' for her state to implement. As it is, any effort to water down the House's Medicaid language will face steep resistance in other corners of the GOP-controlled Senate, where lawmakers are pushing to amp up spending cuts, not scale them back. Some senators, in fact, want to further tighten the House's work requirements or reduce, not just freeze, the provider tax. 'I'd be damned disappointed if a Republican majority with a Republican president didn't make some reforms,' said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.). 'The provider tax is a money laundering machine. … If we don't go after that, we're not doing our jobs.' Ron Johnson and a few others are continuing to push to change the cost split for those Medicaid beneficiaries made eligible under the Affordable Care Act. The federal government now picks up 90 percent of the cost, and House centrists nixed an effort by conservatives to reduce it. One idea under discussion by conservatives is to phase in the change to appease skittish colleagues and state governments, but that is still likely to be a nonstarter for 50 GOP senators. Hawley warned that 'there will be no Senate bill if that is on the table.' Adam Cancryn contributed to this report.


Newsweek
29 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Bill Clinton Weighs in on Joe Biden's Health
Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, attend the funeral service of former Labor Secretary Alexis Herman at Washington National Cathedral Wednesday, May 14, 2025 in Washington. Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, attend the funeral service of former Labor Secretary Alexis Herman at Washington National Cathedral Wednesday, May 14, 2025 in Washington. Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Bill Clinton has weighed in on Joe Biden's health, saying he never doubted the former president's mental state once. Biden was diagnosed with an "aggressive form" of prostate cancer with metastasis to the bone, his office revealed on May 18, after Biden faced significant scrutiny over his health throughout his presidency and during his brief 2024 reelection campaign. The news has sparked speculation about whether Biden and the White House knew about his declining health earlier while carrying out a cover-up. But Clinton has said Biden was in "good shape" when he saw him last. "I saw President Biden not very long ago, and I thought he was in good shape," he told CBS Sunday Morning. "I had never seen him and walked away thinking, he can't do this anymore." He went to say that he had not read Original Sin, a book written by CNN journalist Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson in which several named insiders claim the former U.S. president was faltering physically and cognitively in a decline that was hidden from the American public. "I didn't want to because he's not president anymore, and I think he did a good job," Clinton said. "I think we are facing challenges today with our president in our history. And some people are trying to use this as a way to blame him for the fact that Trump was reelected." This is a developing story - more to follow.