Fixing the Science and Engineering Pipeline
Is the pipeline that produces scientists and engineers in the U.S. cracked and leaking? Yes, say some experts. They argue that the flow of foreign-born graduate students – who earn such a large share of doctoral degrees in hard sciences – is slowing down. Therefore, more needs to be done to address the loss of this talent.
In engineering, for example, of those receiving doctoral degrees in 2002, more than 60% were foreign-born. This dependency is part of a historical trend. As of 2000, reports BusinessWeek, “38% of U.S. jobs requiring a PhD in science or technology were filled by people who were born abroad, up from 24% in 1990.”
Yet, as The OECD Observer puts it, “Recent data show a drop in foreign enrollment and graduates in the U.S., as students from India and China, which produces a fifth of the world’s supply of PhD graduates in science and engineering, increasingly find educational opportunities in other OECD countries, such as Australia and the UK. They may even be staying at home.”
So far, there are few signs that native-born Americans are prepared to make up the shortfall. Labor supply-and-demand dynamics should help relieve shortages, but the U.S. National Science Board has nonetheless concluded that “the future strength of the U.S. science and engineering workforce is imperiled.”
The U.S. isn’t the only nation with worries. The UK government, for example, has become concerned about a drop in the enrollment of students studying physics and chemistry, while Australia and Italy worry that they won’t be able to replace large number of science professors who are due to retire in the next decade or two.
In the near future, Western nations may need to focus more intently on their science and engineering pipelines. There are at least two major methods of fixing the cracks: improving education systems and retaining skilled people once they’re educated.
By some measures, there have already been improvements in the U.S. education system. Robert Lerner, U.S. Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, states, “Between 1982 and 2000, the percentage [of students] who had completed advanced courses in science increased from 35 to 63 percent, and the percentage who had completed advanced courses in mathematics increased from 26 to 45 percent.” Despite this, much more needs to be accomplished. Among the 1.2 million U.S. students who took the college-entrance ACT test in 2004, just 22% were deemed prepared for college-level work in science, math and English.
This lack of preparation can be tied to U.S. science teachers. Over a quarter of instructors who teach at least one science class at the middle and high-school levels have neither a major nor a minor in science. The problem is particularly acute in the physical sciences, where about 60% of teachers lack a major or minor in those subjects. Even at the elementary-school level, teachers feel less prepared to teach science than other subjects, and they spend less classroom time on it, according to a study commissioned by Bayer Corporation.
One of the best answers, most experts agree, is to increase the compensation of science teachers to draw more qualified people into the field. But this is a difficult proposition at public schools that say they’re already strapped for funds.
The other major way to fix the science and engineering pipeline is to draw more college students into these fields and then keep them there. This turns out to be quite difficult, suggests Anne E. Preston, the author of a new book called Leaving Science. She points to survey data showing that many scientists wind up leaving their fields for four major reasons: low compensation and a lack of employment opportunities, difficulties in terms of work/life balance, a scarcity of mentors, and “a mismatch of respondents’ interests and the requirements of a scientific job.”
Employers, both in industry and academia, can address these problems. First, they can do a better job at preparing students for careers in science, making sure the students understand what sort of salaries and opportunities await them. Second, they can boost compensation. Low pay levels can add to the stress levels of scientists, especially those supporting young families and working in the nonprofit sector. Third, employers can motivate scientists and engineers with intrinsic rewards. One study found, for example, these employees are best motivated by technical challenges. Fourth, employers can make sure scientists have good mentors. This is especially important for women because, as Preston writes, “women are less likely to be mentored than men and because the effects of mentoring on retention and performance are greater for women.”
Fifth, scientists and engineers need better career opportunities. Many employers have set up dual-career paths, a technical path for those who want to do advanced technical work and a management path for those who want to manage their peers and work with other nontechnical professionals. But this may not be enough. An article in Research Technology Management notes, [T]he traditional vertical dual-career path appears too restrictive to accommodate the many career orientations of scientists and engineers, the use of cross-functional teams in R&D laboratories, the trend towards flatter structures, and the mixed responsibilities of scientists and engineers. These traditional career paths are becoming flatter, multiple-career paths that provide more cross-functional and more mixed (technical/management) career development opportunities.”
Sixth, employers need to help scientists balance work and family obligations. Especially early in their careers, PhDs often find themselves forced to relocate in order to advance their positions, a dynamic that takes a toll on families. This can even force scientists, especially women, out of the field. Potential strategies include parental leave policies, greater flexibility at work, and childcare programs.
In short, through excellent HR management – sometimes customized to suit the special needs of scientists and engineers – many of the perceived “perils” facing the science and engineering workforce might be avoided in the future.
To read on online version of Science and Engineering Indicators 2004, go to
http://www.nsf.gov/ sbe/srs/seind04/pdfstart.htm
For more on earned doctorates in the United States , go to
http://www.norc.uc hicago.edu/issues/docdata.htm
For the Science Daily article “National Survey Reveals Continuing Decline in Science and Engineering Doctoral Degrees,” go to
http://www.sciencedaily.c om/releases/2003/12/031205052337.htm
For an article called “Scientists and Engineers: Crisis, What Crisis?” go to
http://www.rednova.com/news /stories/2/2004/01/27/story106.html
For a DenverPost.com article on how college preparedness is low, please click here.
For the BusinessWeek article “ America ’s Failure in Science Education,” please click here.
The sources used in the writing of this TrendWatcher include:
Arenson, Karen W. “College Preparedness Low in High Schools, Study Finds.” DenverPost.com [New York Times], Internet. October 14, 2004 .
Cervantes, Mario. “Scientists and Engineers: Crisis, What Crisis?” The OECD Observer . ProQuest. December 2003, p. 37.
Farris, George F. and Rene Cordero. “Leading Your Scientists and Engineers 2002.” Research Technology Management. ProQuest. November/December 2002, p. 13.
Jennings , Lane. “Keeping Science’s Best and Brightest on the Job.” THE FUTURIST . ProQuest. November/December 2004, p. 9.
Preston , Anne E. “Plugging the Leaks in the Scientific Workforce.” Issues in Science and Technology . ProQuest. Summer 2004, p. 69.
Salkever, Alex. “Gunning for the U.S. in Technology.” BusinessWeek Online, Internet. March 16, 2004 .
Symonds, William C. “ America ’s Failure in Science Education.” BusinessWeek Online, Internet. March 16, 2004 .
In engineering, for example, of those receiving doctoral degrees in 2002, more than 60% were foreign-born. This dependency is part of a historical trend. As of 2000, reports BusinessWeek, “38% of U.S. jobs requiring a PhD in science or technology were filled by people who were born abroad, up from 24% in 1990.”
Yet, as The OECD Observer puts it, “Recent data show a drop in foreign enrollment and graduates in the U.S., as students from India and China, which produces a fifth of the world’s supply of PhD graduates in science and engineering, increasingly find educational opportunities in other OECD countries, such as Australia and the UK. They may even be staying at home.”
So far, there are few signs that native-born Americans are prepared to make up the shortfall. Labor supply-and-demand dynamics should help relieve shortages, but the U.S. National Science Board has nonetheless concluded that “the future strength of the U.S. science and engineering workforce is imperiled.”
The U.S. isn’t the only nation with worries. The UK government, for example, has become concerned about a drop in the enrollment of students studying physics and chemistry, while Australia and Italy worry that they won’t be able to replace large number of science professors who are due to retire in the next decade or two.
In the near future, Western nations may need to focus more intently on their science and engineering pipelines. There are at least two major methods of fixing the cracks: improving education systems and retaining skilled people once they’re educated.
By some measures, there have already been improvements in the U.S. education system. Robert Lerner, U.S. Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, states, “Between 1982 and 2000, the percentage [of students] who had completed advanced courses in science increased from 35 to 63 percent, and the percentage who had completed advanced courses in mathematics increased from 26 to 45 percent.” Despite this, much more needs to be accomplished. Among the 1.2 million U.S. students who took the college-entrance ACT test in 2004, just 22% were deemed prepared for college-level work in science, math and English.
This lack of preparation can be tied to U.S. science teachers. Over a quarter of instructors who teach at least one science class at the middle and high-school levels have neither a major nor a minor in science. The problem is particularly acute in the physical sciences, where about 60% of teachers lack a major or minor in those subjects. Even at the elementary-school level, teachers feel less prepared to teach science than other subjects, and they spend less classroom time on it, according to a study commissioned by Bayer Corporation.
One of the best answers, most experts agree, is to increase the compensation of science teachers to draw more qualified people into the field. But this is a difficult proposition at public schools that say they’re already strapped for funds.
The other major way to fix the science and engineering pipeline is to draw more college students into these fields and then keep them there. This turns out to be quite difficult, suggests Anne E. Preston, the author of a new book called Leaving Science. She points to survey data showing that many scientists wind up leaving their fields for four major reasons: low compensation and a lack of employment opportunities, difficulties in terms of work/life balance, a scarcity of mentors, and “a mismatch of respondents’ interests and the requirements of a scientific job.”
Employers, both in industry and academia, can address these problems. First, they can do a better job at preparing students for careers in science, making sure the students understand what sort of salaries and opportunities await them. Second, they can boost compensation. Low pay levels can add to the stress levels of scientists, especially those supporting young families and working in the nonprofit sector. Third, employers can motivate scientists and engineers with intrinsic rewards. One study found, for example, these employees are best motivated by technical challenges. Fourth, employers can make sure scientists have good mentors. This is especially important for women because, as Preston writes, “women are less likely to be mentored than men and because the effects of mentoring on retention and performance are greater for women.”
Fifth, scientists and engineers need better career opportunities. Many employers have set up dual-career paths, a technical path for those who want to do advanced technical work and a management path for those who want to manage their peers and work with other nontechnical professionals. But this may not be enough. An article in Research Technology Management notes, [T]he traditional vertical dual-career path appears too restrictive to accommodate the many career orientations of scientists and engineers, the use of cross-functional teams in R&D laboratories, the trend towards flatter structures, and the mixed responsibilities of scientists and engineers. These traditional career paths are becoming flatter, multiple-career paths that provide more cross-functional and more mixed (technical/management) career development opportunities.”
Sixth, employers need to help scientists balance work and family obligations. Especially early in their careers, PhDs often find themselves forced to relocate in order to advance their positions, a dynamic that takes a toll on families. This can even force scientists, especially women, out of the field. Potential strategies include parental leave policies, greater flexibility at work, and childcare programs.
In short, through excellent HR management – sometimes customized to suit the special needs of scientists and engineers – many of the perceived “perils” facing the science and engineering workforce might be avoided in the future.
To read on online version of Science and Engineering Indicators 2004, go to
http://www.nsf.gov/ sbe/srs/seind04/pdfstart.htm
For more on earned doctorates in the United States , go to
http://www.norc.uc hicago.edu/issues/docdata.htm
For the Science Daily article “National Survey Reveals Continuing Decline in Science and Engineering Doctoral Degrees,” go to
http://www.sciencedaily.c om/releases/2003/12/031205052337.htm
For an article called “Scientists and Engineers: Crisis, What Crisis?” go to
http://www.rednova.com/news /stories/2/2004/01/27/story106.html
For a DenverPost.com article on how college preparedness is low, please click here.
For the BusinessWeek article “ America ’s Failure in Science Education,” please click here.
The sources used in the writing of this TrendWatcher include:
Arenson, Karen W. “College Preparedness Low in High Schools, Study Finds.” DenverPost.com [New York Times], Internet. October 14, 2004 .
Cervantes, Mario. “Scientists and Engineers: Crisis, What Crisis?” The OECD Observer . ProQuest. December 2003, p. 37.
Farris, George F. and Rene Cordero. “Leading Your Scientists and Engineers 2002.” Research Technology Management. ProQuest. November/December 2002, p. 13.
Jennings , Lane. “Keeping Science’s Best and Brightest on the Job.” THE FUTURIST . ProQuest. November/December 2004, p. 9.
Preston , Anne E. “Plugging the Leaks in the Scientific Workforce.” Issues in Science and Technology . ProQuest. Summer 2004, p. 69.
Salkever, Alex. “Gunning for the U.S. in Technology.” BusinessWeek Online, Internet. March 16, 2004 .
Symonds, William C. “ America ’s Failure in Science Education.” BusinessWeek Online, Internet. March 16, 2004 .