Scientists & Engineers for America

Education

Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Status and Issues

Background

An important aspect of U.S. efforts to improve economic competitiveness is the existence of a capable scientific and technological workforce. Concern has been expressed about the future ability of the U.S. science and engineering base to generate the technological advances needed to maintain economic growth. Some discussions have centered on the quality of science and mathematics undergraduate education and training. The design and structure of the scientific curriculum are
thought to discourage a number of highly qualified students from entering and remaining in the disciplines. Other discussions have focused on the scientific knowledge of those students entering other disciplines. Even students pursuing nonscientific and nonmathematical specialties will require basic knowledge of scientific and technological applications and mathematical reasoning in order to adapt to constant changes in the labor market.

Precollege science and mathematics instruction also has an important relationship to the future supply of U.S. scientific and technical personnel. A basic science and mathematics education is considered necessary not only for those who will enter science as majors, but for all citizens to understand scientific and technical issues that affect their lives. However, several indicators of the performance of U.S. students in science and mathematics education at the precollege level reveal a mixed picture of successes and shortcomings. Still other indicators show that the science and mathematics curriculum at the precollege level is unfocused and that many science and mathematics teachers lack a major or minor in the subject area being taught.

Reform efforts at improving precollege science and mathematics education have included the development of recommended national standards. Such standards describe what children should know, when they should know it, and how to assess what they know. These standards emphasize inquiry based education as being the most effective in retaining the interest of all students. While many states and school districts have created new science and mathematics standards that to some degree are drawn from standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the National Research Council, adoption and implementation of the standards at the local school level where there is often limited resources and unprepared teachers has proven to be problematic.

The change from a labor-based manufacturing to a knowledge-based manufacturing and service economy demands certain skills of our citizenry. The National Science Foundation (NSF) projects that in the increasingly changing context for science and technology, a workforce trained in the sciences and engineering is necessary for continued economic growth. A May 2007 report of the Department of Education states that:

There is increasing concern about U.S. economic competitiveness, particularly the future ability of the nation’s education institutions to produce citizens literate in STEM concepts and to produce future scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and technologists. Such experts are needed to maintain U.S. preeminence in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. While other countries around the world strive to improve their own education systems and to expand their economies, the U.S. will have to work even harder in the coming years to maintain its competitive edge.

In this report, selected science and education issues are presented, along with a summary of findings from various studies. The issues discussed include precollege science and mathematics concerns; improving undergraduate and graduate education; demographics and the science and engineering talent pool; foreign science and engineering students; and congressional activity. For expanded discussion of science and mathematics education issues see CRS Report RL33434, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Issues and Legislative Options, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi, Christine M. Matthews, and Bonnie F. Mangan. This report will be updated as events warrant. {We have this report and will put it on the site).

Precollege Science and Mathematics Concerns

Precollege (K-12) science and mathematics instruction has an important relationship to the future supply of U.S. scientific and technological personnel. The technological demands of the workforce are increasing exponentially. A basic science and mathematics education is necessary not only for those who will enter science as majors, but for all citizens to understand scientific and technical issues that affect their lives. In addition, scientific and technical skills are a requirement for an increasingly wide range of occupations such as health care, banking, insurance, and energy production. Whether individuals are in the service sector, manufacturing, government, or management, many believe that some level of scientific literacy is required.

The term “reform” is repeated throughout discussions of science education at the precollege level, covering such issues as: school curriculum and the quality of science instruction, student interest in science, the shortage of qualified teachers, teacher training and retraining, student achievement on science and mathematics measures, and the participation of minorities and women in science. The U.S. educational system has a long history of attempted education reforms. One particular report that received considerable attention was released in 1983 by the Department of Education (ED). The report, A Nation At Risk, attacked the school system, declaring that U.S. schools were sinking under a “rising tide of mediocrity,” partly as a result of a shortage of qualified teachers in science, mathematics, and other essential disciplines. More than 20 years after the report, there is some debate as to whether or not our educational system is still “at risk.”

Reforms in science and mathematics education have focused on both what to teach and how to teach it. The 1989 report of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Project 2061, Science for All Americans, presented goals for science, mathematics, and technology literacy. The goals presented offered multidisciplinary instructions in the real world, structured so students would use the discovery process to study issues that are multidimensional, to arrive at alternative approaches, and to be able to anticipate both positive and negative consequences of their choices.

In 2000, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) released a revised Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, which described how students should be taught to solve non-routine problems in meaningful context. The NCTM standards promoted the policy of students learning through induction rather than memorization, directing the instructional process on inquiry as opposed to the traditional tell-and-test approach, and promoting assessment methods that are open-ended instead of machine-scoreable. More recently, a 2005 report of the Fordham Institute states that “While state standards are very much in flux, the nation, in its entirety, is neither making progress nor losing ground when it comes to its expectations for what students should learn in science.”

The ongoing discussions of reform in science education stress the importance of inquiry-based instruction as the most beneficial in assisting students to think critically, to work independently or cooperatively, and to solve problems as they encounter them in different and novel situations. In 2002, the National Research Council released its publication, Investigating the Influence of Standards, A Framework for Research in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education. The report examined two primary questions: (1) How has the system responded to the introduction of nationally developed mathematics, science, and technology standards?, and (2) What are the consequences for student learning? The report offered guideposts for determining the influence of nationally developed science, mathematics, and technology standards and evaluates the significance of the influence on student learning, on teachers and pedagogy, and on the education system as a whole.

Teacher Training and Qualifications

Many elementary teachers reportedly admit that they feel uncomfortable teaching science because they lack confidence in their knowledge about science and their understanding of scientific concepts. A 2004 publication of the National Center for Education Statistics reports that in the middle grades for school year 1999-2000, approximately 68.5% of the students in mathematics were being taught by teachers who had no major or certification in the field. For sciences, the proportion being taught by teachers with no major or certification was 57.2% for general science, 64.2% for biology/life science, and 93.2% for physical science. In high school, approximately 31.4% of the students in mathematics, 44.7% in biology/life science, 61.1% in chemistry, and 66.5% in physics are being taught by teachers with no major and certification in the respective field.

Supplemental teacher training can be effective for those teachers who did not have science or mathematics education majors or who took few lecture-based science and mathematics courses in college. Award-winning teachers testifying before the House Science Committee stated that in order for professional development to be effective, teachers need to be provided with proper materials and resources (internal and external to the school), training in the inquiry-based learning process, and class release time. A 2005 report of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Rising Above the Gathering Storm - Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, calls for the “enhanced education” of teachers at the precollege level by focusing on teacher education and professional development. The report states that:

We need to reach all K-12 science and mathematics teachers and provide them with high-quality continuing professional development opportunities — specifically those that emphasize rigorous content education. High-quality, content-driven professional development has a significant effect on student performance, particularly when augmented with classroom practice, year-long mentoring, and high-quality curricular materials.

Student Achievement

Various assessments and reports have documented the progress of U.S. students and their participation in science and mathematics. In October 2005, the National Assessment Governing Board released the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2005 mathematics assessment for grades 4 and 8. The NAEP 2005 mathematics assessment was based on a framework that was developed through a comprehensive national consultative process. The results are reported according to three basic achievement levels — basic, proficient, and advanced. The proportion of students performing at the basic and proficient levels increased for 4th and 8th grade students from 2003 to 2005. Higher percentages of black and Hispanic students, at both grade levels, scored at or above basic and proficient in 2005 than in any previous assessment. The score gap between white students and black and Hispanic students continue, but the gap has narrowed.

In May 2005, the NAEP’s 2005 science assessments were released. The NAEP 2005 science assessment is to provide a baseline for science achievement and to assist in determining the progress being made toward the fifth National Goal. Similar to the mathematics assessments, results are reported at three achievement levels. Data revealed that the average scores of 4th graders rose approximately 4 points in comparison with 1996 and 2000. For 8th grade students, there was no significant change in overall scores in 2005 from the previous assessments. For 12th graders, there was no change in performance from the administration in 2000. However, in 2005, 12th graders received lower average scores than in 1996. At this grade level, the percentage of students performing at or above the basic level, at or above the proficient level, and at the advanced level all declined since 1996. In addition, the number of students who scored below basic increased since 1996.

Several reports on the state of precollege education, especially international comparisons, have revealed that U.S. students do not perform at the level of their international counterparts. The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) for grades 4 and 8, conducted in 2003, investigated mathematics and science curricula, instructional practices, and achievement in 46 countries (at either the 4th or 8th grade level or both). Results at grade 4 showed that in mathematics, U.S. students scored above the international average. U.S. students performed lower than their peers in 11 of the other 24 participating countries and out performed their peers in 13 of the countries. Singapore was the top performing jurisdiction in mathematics at the 4th grade level, followed by Hong Kong, Japan, Chinese Taipei, and Belgium-Flemish. At the 8th grade level, the average score for U.S. students exceeded those of their peers in 25 of the 44 other participating countries. U.S. 8th grade students were out performed by students in nine jurisdictions, including Singapore, Republic of Korea, Hong Kong SAR, Chinese Taipei, and Japan.

The results for TIMSS in science revealed that at the 4th grade level, U.S. students outperformed 16 of the other 24 participating countries. U.S. students, with a higher average score than the international average, performed less well than Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Japan, Hong Kong SAR, and England. At the 8th grade level, U.S. students again received a higher average score than the international average and outperformed their peers in 36 of the other 44 participating countries in the subset of measures. U.S. students ranked 9th, scoring below that of Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Republic of Korea, Hong Kong, Estonia, Japan, Hungary, and the Netherlands.

Some in the education community have charged that international comparisons are statistically invalid because of widely disparate culture, diversity in school systems, and significant differences in curriculum. However, there is the counter argument that due to refinement in collection of data and methodological procedures employed in the analyses, the comparisons are valid for the student populations examined. ED estimates that the United States spends approximately $455 billion annually for elementary and secondary education. What is puzzling to some is with that level of funding, how can the U.S. system of education with graduate schools considered to be the best in the world, a system that produces some of the best scientists and engineers, also produce some students in elementary and secondary schools who perform less well on international measures? How can the performance of U.S. students on the TIMSS be explained when some groups of students showed no measurable difference from the previous assessment, and some even a measurable decline?

Improving Undergraduate and Graduate Education

Undergraduate Education

While the uncertain job market for some scientists and engineers may have an effect on the enrollments in science and engineering, the U.S. system of higher education is called upon to continue to produce the qualified scientific and technical personnel necessary to maintain an intellectual and economic leadership. Colleges and universities are facing the mounting task of better educating their undergraduate and graduate students by restructuring their curricula to increase the versatility and employability of the graduates. All disciplines have been targets, however, considerable importance is placed on graduates in the natural sciences, engineering, health sciences, computer sciences, and other quantitatively-based fields.

One challenge facing research institutions is that of finding a balance between the basic academic activities of teaching and research. Within the scientific and engineering disciplines, attempting to find the flexibility to blend the priorities of teaching and research has been a perennial problem. The standing of an institution is in direct relationship to the research productivity of its faculty, and the competition for grants and scholars has led many research institutions to place increased emphasis on research at the expense of teaching. In many research institutions, research productivity has been given more weight than teaching effectiveness when deciding tenure or promotion. Efforts are underway at some institutions to change the reward system and evaluation of their faculty members.

An additional challenge for research universities is the need to address the complaints concerning undergraduate teaching. Many of these complaints are focused on the use of graduate students as teaching assistants in the undergraduate programs, especially in the science and engineering disciplines. A considerable number of undergraduate courses in science and engineering are taught by foreign graduate students who do not have a good command of the English language. Reinventing Undergraduate Education found that “… [T]he classroom results of employing teaching assistants who speak English poorly, as a second language, and who are new to the American system of education constitute one of the conspicuous problems of undergraduate education.”

In 2003, the National Research Council released the report, Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. The report noted that colleges and universities are being held far more accountable for the education of their students than in the past. Institutions with peer review mechanisms to evaluate faculty research in science, mathematics, and engineering, should have the same of attention directed at evaluating the faculty teaching in those disciplines. The public and private sectors that make significant investments in university research suggested that faculty members excelling in the classroom should be recognized and rewarded similar to those faculty engaged in research.

The report recommended strategies for evaluating undergraduate teaching and learning in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. The methods used for evaluation could serve as a basis for the professional advancement of faculty. Faculty are encouraged to set definitive goals for their students and then determine if the goals are being met. In addition to the faculty, recommendations for evaluating teaching and learning were made for presidents, boards, and academic officers; deans, department chairs and peer evaluators; and for research sponsors and granting and accrediting agencies. The recommendations were based on the following tenets:

• Effective postsecondary teaching in science, mathematics, and technology should be available to all students, regardless of their major.
• The design of curricula and the evaluation of teaching and learning should be collective responsibilities of faculty in individual departments or, wherever appropriate, through interdepartmental arrangements.
• Scholarly activities that focus on improving teaching and learning should be recognized as bona fide endeavors that are equivalent to other scholarly pursuits. Scholarship devoted to improving teaching effectiveness and learning should be accorded the same administrative and collegial support that is available for efforts to improve other research and service endeavors.

On March 15, 2006, the House Science Committee held a hearing to explore the efforts of colleges and universities in improving their scientific and engineering programs. The Committee was interested also in what role the federal government could play in encouraging more students to enter the science, mathematics, and engineering disciplines. Witnesses testified about the factors that shape the quality of undergraduate reforms in the scientific and engineering disciplines. Elaine Seymour, University of Colorado, contends that there is a decline in the perceived value of teaching. Teaching as a career is believed by many undergraduates as being of low status, pay, and prospects. Also, faculty in many institutions are more focused on research than teaching. Academic success is measured by grant writing and publications. In many science and engineering departments, a portion of faculty salary is from research grants. As a result, there is less interactive teaching by many faculty and more “straight lecturing.” Many classes become the responsibility of teaching assistants. In numerous surveys, students have indicated that “poor teaching” and “unsatisfactory learning experiences” were the primary reasons for switching majors and leaving the sciences. Seymour states that the institutional reward system and the pressure to obtain grants have consequences for both undergraduate and K-12 education in the science, mathematics, and engineering.

John Burris, President, Beloit College, testifying before the March 15 hearing, offered several recommendations as to how the federal government can identify, assess, and disseminate that which works in undergraduate science, mathematics, and engineering programs. He suggested that with the proposed doubling of the NSF budget over the next ten years, there should be a doubling of the funding targeted specifically for strengthening and sustaining undergraduate programs in colleges and universities. Burris stated that: “Significant parts of what works are: I) attention to how students learn; ii) an institutional culture that has a common vision about the value of building research-rich learning environments; and iii) faculty who are eager to remain engaged within their disciplinary community, and who have the resources of time and instrumentation to do so.” He suggested that the increased funding be directed at networks, collaborations, and partnerships. He further called for the establishment of a taskforce to oversee the proposed doubling of undergraduate funds. The task force would be charged with outlining NSF undergraduate priorities that are contained in the numerous reports calling for the federal government to strengthen and reenergize investments in science and engineering education.

A September 2006 report on the future of higher education states that while our colleges and universities have much to applaud for in their achievements, there are areas where improvements are needed. As higher education has evolved, it simultaneously has had to respond to the impact of globalization, rapidly evolving technologies, the changing needs of a knowledge economy, and an increasingly diverse and aging population. The report notes that:

The United States must ensure the capacity of its universities to achieve global leadership in key strategic areas such as science, engineering, medicine, and other knowledge-intensive professions. We recommend increased federal investment in areas critical to our nation’s global competitiveness and a renewed commitment to attract the best and brightest minds across the nation and around the world to lead the next wave of American innovation.

Graduate Education

Graduate education in science and mathematics has been the subject of several reports and committees. In the fall of 1993, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP), a joint committee of the NAS, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine (IOM), proposed a comprehensive study on the status of the graduate education and research training being offered in U.S. colleges and universities. The committee’s actions led to the release of the 1995 report, Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers. The report stated:

The three areas of primary employment for PhD scientists and engineers — universities and colleges, industry, and government — are experiencing simultaneous change. The total effect is likely to be vastly more consequential for the employment of scientists and engineers than any previous period of transition has been…. A broader concern is that we have not, as a nation, paid adequate attention to the function of the graduate schools in meeting the country’s varied needs for scientists and engineers. There is no clear human-resources policy for advanced scientists and engineers, so their education is largely a byproduct of policies that support research. The simplifying assumption has apparently been that the primary mission of graduate programs is to produce the next generation of academic researchers. In view of the broad range of ways in which scientists and engineers contribute to national needs, it is time to review how they are educated to do so.”

COSEPUP had solicited responses concerning the existing structure of graduate education from such groups as: postdoctoral researchers, professors, university officials, industry scientists and executives, representatives of scientific societies, and graduate students themselves. The general sentiment was that while the basic structure of graduate education was sound, some change was warranted in order to respond to “changing national policies and industrial needs.”

Some respondents, both inside and outside of academia, indicated that selected doctorate degree programs are too analytical and too oriented toward subspecialities. Survey responses indicated that doctoral students should be provided with a broader training that would allow them to experiment with alternative career paths. Many of the responses from industry and international corporations stated that the nature of industrial work is changing and that the education and training offered by many of the doctoral programs should be changed as well. Industry wants graduate students who will better meet their research and development (R&D) needs and compete effectively with their counterparts worldwide in a rapidly evolving competitive market.

COSEPUP presented a national strategy that was intended to emphasize both versatility and information. One recommendation in the report was that graduate programs should provide a wider variety of career options for their students. This could be accomplished in a program that has a student grounded in the fundamentals of one field that is enhanced by a breadth of knowledge in a related field. Added to such a program would be off-campus experiences exposing the student to the skills requested by an increasing number of employers: the ability to communicate complex ideas, and the experiences of working in groups of interdependent workers. Another recommendation offered to foster versatility in graduate programs was to have those entities providing financial assistance to graduate students adjust their support mechanisms to include new education and training grants. Research assistantships (RAs), which are a major form of federal assistance to graduate students, are not structured to enhance the versatility of graduate students. (RAs are administered by a faculty member who receives the grant for a specific research topic.) Some observers suggest that the new education and training grants could be patterned after training grants that currently are awarded in the National Institutes of Health and that have been used to establish interdisciplinary programs to encourage graduate students to pursue research in emerging fields.

In the February 1998, the National Science Board (NSB) released a policy paper — The Federal Role in Science and Engineering Graduate and Postdoctoral Education.(49) Some of the many issues examined by the NSB were: (1) the relative merits of fellowships and traineeships; (2) the role of graduate students as teachers; (3) the mentoring of graduate students; (4) access to faculty and time to degree; (5) and the continuing underrepresentation of minorities and women in many areas of graduate science and engineering programs. The NSB identified several areas of concern in the federal/university partnership where adjustments “may enhance the capacity of the enterprise to serve the national interest in a changing global environment.” The NSB noted that because of changes over the past 50 years, such as increased demand for higher education, the need to respond to advances in communications and information technology, rising tuitions and administrative burdens, and stresses on universities and faculty, require changes and improvement in the federal/university partnership.

One of the stresses confronted by university partnerships, as discussed by the report, is the unintended consequences of federal policies. The increased federal investment in research and education has come with increased oversight and accountability of funding. The report states that

The growing Federal focus on accountability tends to emphasize short-term research “products” and to de-emphasize benefits to graduate education from engaging in research at the frontiers of knowledge. Increased emphasis on accountability also may result in an increase in the perceived value of postdoctoral researchers compared with graduate students on research grants, thus reducing options for cutting-edge research experience during graduate training.

The recommendations posed by the NSB placed increased emphasis on the expansion of the partnership to include a wider range of colleges and universities, the integration of research and education, increased flexibility of job opportunities outside of academia, and diversity in graduate education. It recommended that the federal government promote closer collaboration between research and non-research institutions, and to provide greater exposure to both faculty and students to research experiences and opportunities. To address the concern of the narrowness of graduate education, the report suggested that, in addition to the core training, the student should be provided with additional training options that might include interdisciplinary emphasis, teamwork, business management skills, and information technologies. The NSB proposed to reward institutions that established model programs for the integration of research and education.

While recognizing the creation of federal and institutional programs to increase the number of racial and ethnic minorities in the science and engineering disciplines, the NSB noted their participation rate remains of some concern. The report recommended that federal/university partnerships develop more effective mechanisms of increasing diversity in graduate education and to guard “against strategies that inadvertently keep underrepresented groups from the mainstream of research and graduate education.”

A 2005 report of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, The Responsive Ph.D., Innovations in U.S. Doctoral Education, analyzed the findings of several studies on doctoral education and detailed the most effective practices from leading doctoral institutions. One of the challenges discussed in the report is the need to combine traditional research with “adventurous” scholarship within and across disciplines. Effective, inclusive, and more relevant training of the doctoral student requires extending knowledge beyond the walls of the institution and the major discipline. Also, the report contends that graduate schools require a significantly stronger central administration and structure that currently exists. A graduate school should guard against operating in isolation within an institution, and instead, create a graduate community of “intellectual cohesiveness” across disciplines. A theme contained in all the reports reviewed was that for reasons of equity and efficacy, there is a need to broaden and reinvigorate efforts to increase the participation of underrepresented minority groups in the sciences. Some recommendations for action offered by the report include:

• The central notion of a graduate school requires strengthening so that it can become a vital force in breaking down barriers between programs and sponsoring a more cosmopolitan intellectual experience for doctoral students.
• Doctoral students need both departmental and extra-departmental structures to give their concerns a strong and effective voice and to cultivate graduate student leadership as a component of graduate education and professional development.
• Information about doctoral education, program expectations, and career prospects must be more transparent to students from the moment they begin to consider a Ph.D.
• Doctoral programs urgently need to expand their approaches to mentoring, such as through team mentoring, particularly for attracting and retaining a diverse cohort of students.

Demographics and the Science and Engineering Talent Pool

In the 21st century, global competition and rapid advances in science and technology will require a workforce that is increasingly more scientifically and technically proficient. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that science and engineering occupations are projected to grow by 21.4% from 2004 to 2014, compared to a growth of 13% in all occupations during the same time period. It is anticipated that approximately 65% of the growth in science and engineering occupations will be in the computer-related occupations. Faster than average growth is expected in the life sciences, social sciences, and the science and engineering-related occupations of science manager. In testimony before the House Science Committee, Daniel L. Goroff, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dean of Faculty, Harvey Mudd College, stated that:

With less than 6% of the world’s population, the United States cannot expect to dominate science and technology in the future as it did during the second half of the last century when we enjoyed a massively disproportionate share of the world’s STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] resources. We must invest more the resources we do have, encourage those resources to produce economically useful innovations, and organize the STEM enterprise by working with diverse groups to make sure that innovations developed here or overseas produce prosperity and progress for all.

There are few in the scientific community who argue about the effect of demographics on the future science and engineering workforce. Science and engineering have been primarily the domain of white males. However, with the beginning of the 21st century, a larger proportion of the U.S. population will be composed of minorities — blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans, with the fastest growing minority group being Hispanics. As a group, these minorities traditionally have been underrepresented in the science and engineering disciplines compared to their fraction of the total population. These minorities take fewer high-level science and mathematics courses in high school; earn fewer undergraduate and graduate degrees in science and engineering; and are less likely to be employed in science and engineering positions than white males. Data compiled by the NSF reveal that blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans/Alaskan Natives as a whole comprise more than 25% of the population and earn, as a whole, 16.2% of the bachelor degrees, 10.7% of the masters degrees, and 5.4% of the doctorate degrees in science and engineering.

NSF data show that between 2002 and 2004, all racial/ethnic groups, except for whites, either increased their share of earned bachelor and degrees in science and engineering or remained level. Blacks were awarded 8.4% of the bachelors degrees in both 2002 and in 2004. Hispanics increased their share of earned degrees from 7.2% in 2002 to 7.3% in 2004. While Native Americans/Alaskan Natives increased their proportion, it remained at less than 1%. Asians/Pacific Islanders proportion of bachelors’ degrees remained level, 9.0% in 2002 and 2004. For foreign students, the proportion was 3.9% in 2002 and 4.1% in 2004. The decrease in earned bachelors degrees by whites was from 66.5% in 2002 to 65.1% in 2004.

At the master’s level, blacks were awarded 6.3% of the degrees in science and engineering in 2004, up from the 6.2% in 2002. The proportion of master’s degrees received by Hispanics increased from 4.1% in 2002 to 4.3% in 2004. Asians/Pacific Islanders comprised approximately 6.9% of the masters degrees awarded in 2002 and 7.3% in 2004. For foreign students, the increase was from 27.8% in 2002 to 29.8% in 2004. Native Americans’ proportion increased slightly from 2002 to 2004, but remained at less than 1%. Again, whites reported a decrease in their proportion of earned degrees, dropping from 48.8% in 2002 to 45.9% in 2004.

An analysis of the data for earned degrees at the doctoral level revealed that blacks comprised 2.8% of the awards in both 2002 and 2004. Hispanics registered a decrease at this level, from 2.9% in 2002 to 2.7% in 2004. As at the other two degree levels, Native Americans’ proportion remained at less than 1%. Asians/Pacific Islanders reported a decrease in earned degrees, from 6,6% in 2002 to 5.7% in 2004. For whites there was a decrease in earned degrees, from 48.5% in 2002 to 45.7% in 2004. Doctoral degrees awarded to foreign students increased from 31.3% in 2002 to 34.7% in 2004.

While minorities have increased their share of degrees awarded in the sciences, poor preparation in science and mathematics is said to be a major factor limiting the appeal of science and engineering to even larger numbers of these groups. A large number of blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans lack access to many of the more rigorous college preparatory courses. Enrollment in college preparatory track or courses offers a student a better chance at being accepted at a college through her/his performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) or American College Testing (ACT), and a better chance at success in college. Despite gains in the past 10 years, the average scores made by blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans, who take both the SAT and the ACT continue to fall behind the average scores of whites and Asian students who take the test.

In addition to recruitment as a problem for greater minority participation in science and engineering, retention of minorities in the educational pipeline, once recruited, also is of concern. (Attrition rates for blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans are higher than for whites or Asians). Currently, these underrepresented minority groups are reporting increased enrollments in colleges and universities and in their share of science and engineering degrees. However, there is concern that some of the programs in the universities to attract minorities to the sciences have come under attack as a result of the limitations currently imposed on affirmative action in higher education. In an effort to avoid the threat of litigation or complaints, many institutions no longer target programs solely to minority groups or use race-based eligibility criteria in awarding fellowships or participation in academic enrichment programs. These programs that were formerly race-exclusive, have been opened to all students “… to serv[e] the broader and more abstract goal of promoting campus diversity.” Some institutions have even renamed their “minority” offices and programs as “diversity” or “multicultural” offices and programs.

Shirley Ann Jackson, President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, states that in the “altered environment” resulting from the Supreme Court decisions, the nation is challenged more than ever to confront the changing demographics. Blacks, Hispanics, and women, groups underrepresented in the science, engineering, and technical disciplines, comprise more than 66% of the entire workforce. It is expected that this “new majority” will replace the impending retiring scientific and engineering workforce which is largely white and male. Jackson notes that:

[W]e are experiencing pressure to replace the graying science and engineering workforce with new talent — educated young scientists and engineers who will make the discoveries and innovations which have paid off so handsomely, to date…. While the recent Supreme Court decisions uphold diversity, they force us to come at things in a different way. We must come up with solutions for developing science and engineering talent — solutions that address the new and coming realities of the underrepresented minority becoming the underrepresented majority.

Foregin Science and Engineering Students

The increased presence of foreign students in graduate science and engineering programs has been and continues to be of concern to some in the scientific community. Enrollment of U.S. citizens in graduate science and engineering programs has not kept pace with that of foreign students in those programs. In addition to the number of foreign students in graduate science and engineering programs, a significant number of university faculty in the scientific disciplines are foreign, and foreign doctorates are employed in large numbers by industry.

NSF data reveal that in 2005, the foreign student population earned approximately 34.7% of the doctorate degrees in the sciences and approximately 63.1% of the doctorate degrees in engineering. In 2005, foreign students on temporary resident visas earned 20.6% of the doctorates in the sciences, and 48.6% of the doctorates in engineering. The participation rates in 2004 were 18.9% and 48.8%, respectively. In 2005, permanent resident status students earned 3.8% of the doctorates in the sciences and 4.4% of the doctorates in engineering, an increase over the 2004 levels of 3.7% and 4.2%, respectively. Trend data for science and engineering degrees for the years 1996-2005 reveal that of the non-U.S. citizen population, temporary resident status students consistently have earned the majority of the doctorate degrees.

There are divergent views in the scientific and academic community about the effects of a significant foreign presence in graduate science and engineering programs. Some argue that U.S. universities benefit from a large foreign citizen enrollment by helping to meet the needs of the university and, for those students who remain in the United States, the Nation’s economy.

Foreign students generate three distinct types of measurable costs and benefits. First, 13 percent of foreign students remain in the United States, permanently increasing the number of skilled workers in the labor force. Second, foreign students, while enrolled in schools, are an important part of the workforce at those institutions, particularly at large research universities. They help teach large undergraduate classes, provide research assistance to the faculty, and make up an important fraction of the bench workers in scientific labs. Finally, many foreign students pay tuition, and those revenues may be an important source of income for educational institutions.

Some argue that the influx of immigrant scientists and engineers has resulted in depressed job opportunities, lowered wages, and declining working conditions for U.S. scientific personnel. While many businesses, especially high-tech companies, have recently downsized, the federal government issued thousands of H-1B visas to foreign workers. There are those in the scientific and technical community who contend that an over-reliance on H-1B visa workers to fill high-tech positions has weakened opportunities for the U.S. workforce. Many U.S. workers argue that a number of the available positions are being filled by “less-expensive foreign labor.” Those critical of the influx of immigrant scientists have advocated placing restrictions on the hiring of foreign skilled employees in addition to enforcing the existing laws designed to protect workers. Those in support of the H-1B program maintain that there is no “clear evidence” that foreign workers displace U.S. workers in comparable positions and that it is necessary to hire foreign workers to fill needed positions, even during periods of slow economic growth.

The debate on the presence of foreign students in graduate science and engineering programs and the workforce has intensified as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It has been reported that foreign students in the United States are encountering “a progressively more inhospitable environment.” Concerns have been expressed about certain foreign students receiving education and training in sensitive areas. There has been increased discussion about the access of foreign scientists and engineers to research and development (R&D) related to chemical and biological weapons. Also, there is discussion of the added scrutiny of foreign students from countries that sponsor terrorism. The academic community is concerned that the more stringent requirements of foreign students may have a continued impact on enrollments in colleges and universities. Others contend that a possible reduction in the immigration of foreign scientists may affect negatively on the competitiveness of U.S. industry and compromise commitments made in long-standing international cooperative agreements.

Congressional Activity

On August 9, 2007, President Bush signed into law P.L. 110-69, The America COMPETES Act (H.R. 2272).(97) The legislation is directed at increasing research investment, improving economic competitiveness, developing an innovation infrastructure, and strengthening and expanding science and mathematics programs at all points on the educational pipeline. This legislation includes components of other competitiveness bills introduced in the 110th Congress. The COMPETES Act authorizes $33.6 billion for FY2008 through FY2010 for science, mathematics, engineering, and technology programs across the federal government. Among other things, it directs the NSF to expand the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship and the Graduate Research Fellowship programs, and to establish a clearinghouse of programs related to improving the professional science master’s degree. To address the need to expand the participation of underrepresented groups in the sciences, the COMPETES Act supports a program for mentoring to women interested in pursing degrees in science, mathematics, and engineering. In addition, it requires the NSF to establish teacher institutes that are focused on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. These are to be summer institutes and are to provide professional development for teachers at the precollege level teaching in high-need subjects and in high-need schools.

Additional legislation includes a set of four bills directed at specific needs in science and mathematics along the educational pipeline. H.R. 35 requires the use of science assessments in determining adequate yearly progress. H.R. 36 amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow full time teachers of science, mathematics, engineering, or technology courses at the precollege level a refundable tax credit of their undergraduate tuition. H.R. 37 provides tax credits to businesses that contribute property or services to elementary and secondary schools that promote instruction in science, mathematics, and technology. H.R. 38 amends the Head Start Act to establish scientifically-based education performance standards to guarantee that children participating in Head Start programs develop and demonstrate the fundamental knowledge, skills, concepts, and operations inherent in science and mathematics. S. 164 amends the National Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act to require a biennial national assessment of student achievement in 4th, 8th, and 12th grade students in science, mathematics, and reading. Currently, science is not included in the assessment.

Oversight by the 110th Congress may touch on some of the following questions: Can our system of education and training achieve its stated goal of being first in science and mathematics? Can underrepresented minorities be encouraged to pursue scientific careers in larger numbers? Can the U.S. continue to produce successive generations of scientists, engineers, and technicians to meet the demands of the nation’s changing economy and workplace?

Pages: 1 2