**NSB 03-69**

# DRAFT REPORT 

## 

## NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES

######### **TASK FORCE ON**

### NATIONAL WORKFORCE POLICIES FOR

**SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING**

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### Approved by the National Science Board

#### for public comment

#### May 22, 2003

##### 

The National Science Board (NSB) was established by the Congress in 1950
to serve both as an independent national science policy body, and to
oversee and guide the activities of the National Science Foundation.

#### National Science Board

### Terms expiring May 10, 2006

-   Steven C. Beering, President Emeritus, Purdue University

-   Pamela A. Ferguson - Professor and Former President, Grinnell
    College

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Anita K. Jones - University Professor, Department of Computer
    Science, University of Virginia

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   George M. Langford - Professor, Department of Biological Science,
    Dartmouth College

-   Joseph A. Miller, Jr. - Executive Vice President and Chief
    Technology Officer, Corning, Inc.

-   Robert C. Richardson - Vice Provost for Research and Professor of
    Physics, Department of Physics, Cornell University

-   Maxine Savitz - General Manager, Technology Partnerships, Honeywell
    (Retired)

-   Luis Sequeira - J.C. Walker Professor Emeritus, Departments of
    Bacteriology and Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin, Madison

###### **Terms expiring May 10, 2006** {#terms-expiring-may-10-2006-1 .unnumbered}

-   Nina V. Fedoroff - Willaman Professor of Life Sciences, Director,
    Life Sciences Consortium and Director, Biotechnology Institute, The
    Pennsylvania State University

-   Jane Lubchenco - Wayne and Gladys Valley Professor of Marine Biology
    and Distinguished Professor of Zoology, Oregon State University

-   Diana S. Natalicio - President, The University of Texas at El Paso
    ***(Vice Chair)***

-   Michael G. Rossmann - Hanley Distinguished Professor of Biological
    Sciences, Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University

-   Daniel Simberloff - Nancy Gore Hunger Professor of Environmental
    Science, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University
    of Tennessee

-   Warren M. Washington - Senior Scientist and Section Head, National
    Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) ***(Chair)***

-   John A. White, Jr. - Chancellor, University of Arkansas

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Mark S. Wrighton - Chancellor, Washington University, St. Louis

**Terms expiring May 10, 2008**

-   Barry C. Barish, Linde Professor of Physics and Director, LIGO
    Laboratory, California Institute of Technology

-   Ray M. Bowen, President Emeritus, Texas A&M University

-   Delores M. Etter, ONR Distinguished Chair in S&T, Electrical
    Engineering Department, U.S. Naval Academy

-   Kenneth M. Ford, Director, Institute for the Interdisciplinary Study
    of Human and Machine Cognition, University of West Florida

-   Daniel Hastings, Professor of Aeronautics & Astronautics and
    Co-Director, Technology and Policy Program, Massachusetts Institute
    of Technology

-   Elizabeth Hoffman, President, University of Colorado System

-   Douglas D. Randall, Professor of Biochemistry and Director,
    Interdisciplinary Plant Group, University of Missouri-Columbia

-   Jo Anne Vasquez, Educational Science Consultant, Gilbert, Arizona

**Ex-Officio Member:** Rita Colwell, Director, National Science
Foundation

**Acting Executive Officer:** Gerard Glaser

National Science Board

######## Committee On Education And Human Resources {#committee-on-education-and-human-resources .unnumbered}

# **TASK FORCE ON NATIONAL WORKFORCE POLICIES FOR SCIENCE & ENGINEERING**

##### 

##### Dr. Joseph A. Miller, Jr., *Chair* Dr. Maxine Savitz

> Dr. George M. Langford, *Vice Chair* Dr. Daniel Simberloff

###### Dr. Nina V. Fedoroff Dr. Norman M. Bradburn# {#dr.-nina-v.-fedoroff-dr.-norman-m.-bradburn .unnumbered}

####### Dr. Diana S. Natalicio Dr. Nathaniel G. Pitts#

### Dr. Karolyn Eisenstein

Executive Secretary

\# **NSF Staff**

**Note: NSB Chairman and NSF Director are members *ex officio* of all
committees.**

#### Table of Contents

Page

######### **Executive Summary** 5 

Chapter 1: Introduction 9

Chapter 2: The Global and Domestic Contexts 14

Chapter 3: Findings and Recommendations 20

-   Undergraduate education in science and engineering 20

-   Advanced education in science and engineering 24

-   Precollege teaching workforce for mathematics, science

> and technology 28

-   US engagement in the international science and engineering

> workforce 31

#### Knowledge base on the science and engineering workforce 34 

####  

Chapter 4: Conclusions 37

Selected Bibliography 41

APPENDICES 45

#### NSB 03-69

**\*\*DRAFT FOR COMMENT\*\***

### Report of the

### National Science Board Committee on Education and Human Resources

### Task Force on National Workforce Policies for Science and Engineering

Executive Summary

## **INTRODUCTION**

Science and technology have been and will continue to be engines of US
economic growth and national security. Excellence in discovery and
innovation in science and engineering (S&E) derive from an ample and
well-educated workforce -- skilled practitioners with two- and four-year
degrees and beyond, researchers and educators with doctorates, and
precollege teachers of mathematics and science. Current trends of supply
and demand for S&E skills in the workforce indicate problems that may
seriously threaten our long-term prosperity, national security, and
quality of life.

The future US S&E workforce is imperiled by two trends:

-   Global competition for S&E talent is intensifying, such that the US
    may not be able to rely on the international S&E labor market to
    fill unmet skill needs;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The number of native-born S&E graduates entering the workforce is
    likely to decline unless the Nation intervenes to improve success in
    educating S&E students from all demographic groups, especially those
    that have been underrepresented in S&E careers.

The National Science Board has examined these issues and finds it
imperative that the Federal Government reassess its role in the
preparation of the Nation's S&E workforce. The Federal Government has
primary responsibility to lead the Nation

> ***The scale and nature of the ongoing revolution in science and
> technology, and what this implies for the quality of human capital in
> the 21^st^ century, pose critical national security challenges for the
> United States. Second only to a weapon of mass destruction detonating
> in an American city, we can think of nothing more dangerous than a
> failure to manage properly science, technology, and education for the
> common good over the next quarter century.***
>
> U.S. Commission on National Security/21^st^ Century (2001)

## in developing and implementing a coordinated, effective response to our long-term needs for science and engineering skills in the US workforce in ways unlikely to be addressed by market mechanisms or interventions at the state and local levels.

## 

## **RECOMMENDED NATIONAL POLICY IMPERATIVE**

The Federal Government and its agencies must step forward to ensure the
adequacy of the US science and engineering workforce. All stakeholders
must mobilize and initiate efforts that increase the number of US
citizens pursuing science and engineering studies and careers.

The National Science Board findings and recommendations to achieve this
imperative through broad-based efforts with other stakeholders follow.

## **FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS**

# Undergraduate education in science and engineering

RECOMMENDATION: The Federal Government must direct substantial new
support to students and institutions in order to improve success in S&E
study by American undergraduates from all demographic groups.

The Federal Government should:

-   Ensure that scholarships and other forms of financial assistance are
    available to well-qualified students who otherwise would be unable
    to attend school full time to pursue an S&E major;

-   Provide incentives to institutions to expand and improve the quality
    of their S&E programs in areas in which degree attainment nationwide
    is insufficient;

-   Provide financial support to community colleges to increase the
    success of high-ability students in transferring to four-year S&E
    programs in colleges and universities; and

-   Expand funding to programs at institutions that best succeed in
    graduating underrepresented minorities and women in S&E**.**

# Advanced education in science and engineering 

RECOMMENDATION: Federal support for research and graduate education
should respond to the real economic needs of students and promote a
wider range of educational options responsive to national skill needs.

Federal strategies should:

-   Ensure that Federal stipends for graduate and postdoctoral students
    provide benefits and are competitive with opportunities in other
    venues;

-   Invest in innovative approaches to doctoral and masters education
    that prepare students for a broad range of careers in academia,
    government, and industry; and

-   Provide consistent, long-term support for high-quality disciplinary
    and interdisciplinary doctoral training programs in S&E.

# Precollege teaching workforce for mathematics, science and technology

**RECOMMENDATION: In partnership with other stakeholders, the Federal
Government should act now to attract and retain an adequate cadre of
well-qualified precollege teachers of mathematics, science and
technology.**

To make precollege teaching more competitive with other career
opportunities, resources must be provided to:

-   Compensate teachers of mathematics, science and technology
    comparably to similarly trained S&E professionals in other sectors;

-   Reinforce the profession of teaching as an important and rewarding
    career and include teachers as an integral part of the scientific
    and engineering professions;

-   Support classroom training and expedite teacher certification of
    scientists and engineers from professions other than teaching;

-   Support programs in teacher preparation at institutions that succeed
    in integrating faculty and curricula of schools of engineering and
    science with schools of education.

To improve effectiveness of precollege teaching, stakeholders must
collaborate to:

-   Support outreach efforts to K-12 by science and engineering
    professionals to motivate high quality curricular standards and
    expand content knowledge for classroom teachers; and

-   Support research on learning that better informs K-12 mathematics
    and science curricula and pedagogy development.

# US engagement in the international science and engineering workforce

RECOMMENDATION: During the current reexamination of visa and other
policies concerning the mobility of scientists and engineers, it is
essential that future US policies:

-   Strengthen the capacity of US research universities to sustain their
    leadership role in increasingly competitive international S&E
    education.

-   Strongly support opportunities for American students and faculty to
    participate in international S&E education and research;

-   Maintain the ability of the US to attract internationally
    competitive researchers, faculty, and students, while accommodating
    national security concerns.

# The knowledge base on the science and engineering workforce

RECOMMENDATION:

To support development of effective S&E workforce policies and
strategies, the Federal Government must:

-   substantially raise its investment in research that advances the
    state of knowledge on international S&E workforce dynamics;

-   lead a national effort to build a base of information on:

    1.  the current status of the S&E workforce

    2.  national S&E skill needs and

    3.  strategies that attract high-ability students and professionals
        to S&E careers.

####  Chapter One

Introduction

#### THE CHALLENGE FOR US SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

Science and technology have been and will continue to be engines of US
economic growth and national security.[^1] Excellence in discovery and
innovation in science and engineering (S&E) derive from an ample and
well-educated workforce -- skilled practitioners with two- and four-year
degrees and beyond, researchers and educators with doctorates, and the
precollege teachers of mathematics and science. Historically, the US has
benefited from both an abundant supply of indigenous talent and the
contributions of scientists, engineers, and graduate students from other
countries. This blend of domestic and foreign talent has advanced the
frontiers of knowledge and propelled the US to a position of global
leadership in S&E. Analyses of current trends in supply and demand,
however, indicate serious problems lie ahead that may threaten our
long-term prosperity and national security. These include:

-   Flat or declining domestic student interest in critical areas, such
    as engineering and the physical, mathematical and computer sciences,
    as shown by data for bachelors degrees; (see Figure 1);

-   Large increases in retirements from the S&E workforce projected over
    the next two decades (e.g., 50 percent of Federal S&E workers are
    estimated to retire over the next 10 years[^2]);

-   Projected rapid growth in S&E occupations over the next decade, at
    three times the rate of all occupations[^3];

-   Anticipated new demands for American citizens with S&E skills in
    jobs related to national security, following September 11; and

-   Severe pressure on state and local budgets for education of the
    future S&E workforce.

The Federal Government accepted a major role for developing and
broadening the S&E research and education enterprise in colleges and
universities after the Second World War.[^4] Federal support for S&E
research and education successfully expanded access for Americans to S&E
careers. It fueled the technological and information revolutions that
transformed the economy. The transformation changed the skill mix
required in the national workforce and dramatically increased demand for
scientists and engineers. Yet today, the Nation lacks the necessary
long-term national goals and strategies to ensure the recruitment,
education, and on-going development of an adequately sized and
appropriately qualified S&E workforce.

This report documents an unfolding crisis for the US, based on our
inability to attract and retain sufficient numbers of our citizens in
the necessary skill areas to meet workforce demands. US employers have
grown increasingly dependent on the global S&E workforce to meet needs
in industry, government, and academia. For example, in 1999, one-third
of all S&E Ph.D.-holders working in industry were born abroad. Among
computer scientists, the proportion was half, and among engineers it was
more than half. For the Federal Government workforce, 16 percent of
Ph.D. holders in 1999 were born abroad.[^5] In academia, about 20percent
of the yearly job openings for college and university faculty in S&E are
being filled by permanent residents or temporary visa holders.[^6]

The US has always benefited from foreign science and engineering talent.
However, the level of dependence on foreign-born students and
professionals in S&E fields has become problematic. The future US S&E
workforce is imperiled by two findings documented in this report:

-   Global competition for S&E talent is intensifying, such that the US
    may not be able to rely on the international S&E labor market to
    fill unmet skill needs;

-   The number of native-born S&E graduates entering the workforce is
    likely to decline unless the Nation intervenes to improve success in
    educating S&E students from all demographic groups, especially those
    underrepresented in S&E careers.

The National Science Board has examined the issues and finds it
imperative that the Federal Government reassess its role and step
forward with an aggressive effort to better prepare the Nation's S&E
workforce starting with the earliest years of education. It must focus
substantial effort on strengthening the S&E workforce in areas unlikely
to be addressed by market mechanisms or interventions at the state and
local levels. This Board report focuses on necessary national policies.
A recent Board report, *Preparing Our Children*, dealt with curricular
issues at the precollege and undergraduate levels.[^7] That topic will
not be revisited other than to reaffirm the necessity of a strong
curriculum in mathematics, science, engineering, and technology from the
earliest grades to build the knowledge needed by citizens and members of
the workforce.

National workforce policies, as those recommended in this report, must
be implemented coherently across Federal agencies responsible for
education and research. Efforts will require increased Federal resources
commensurate with the role and planned contribution of each agency to
the development of the S&E workforce. The level of investment must be
sufficient to reverse the trend of declining numbers of domestic
students electing careers in S&E**.**

In view of the unfolding crisis for US science and technology, the Board
endorses the following imperative for Federal action:

RECOMMENDED NATIONAL POLICY IMPERATIVE

The Federal Government and its agencies must step forward to ensure the
adequacy of the US science and engineering workforce. All stakeholders
must mobilize and initiate efforts that increase the number of US
citizens pursuing science and engineering studies and careers.

The fundamental arguments for this imperative are developed in the
remaining sections of this report. Chapter Two, "The Global and Domestic
Contexts," provides data to support the two major findings noted above.
Chapter Three offers specific "Findings and Recommendations" subdivided
into five policy areas:

-   Undergraduate education in science and engineering;

-   Advanced education in science and engineering;

-   Precollege teaching workforce for mathematics, science and
    technology;

-   US engagement in the international science and engineering
    workforce; and

#### Knowledge base on the science and engineering workforce.

#### 

#### ![](media/image1.wmf)  {#section-12 .unnumbered}

#### 

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Process for Producing the Report                                      |
|                                                                       |
| The National Science Board Task Force on National Workforce Policies  |
| for Science and Engineering, reporting through the Committee on       |
| Education and Human Resources, was established in October 2000. Its   |
| charge is to assess long-term national workforce trends and needs in  |
| science and engineering and their relationship to existing Federal    |
| policies and to recommend policy directions that address long-term    |
| S&E workforce needs. In response to the charge and to better inform   |
| recommendations, the task force initiated an extensive examination of |
| existing data, policy documents, and expert opinion.                  |
|                                                                       |
| A data briefing, held on January 30, 2001, provided expert testimony  |
| from the following:                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| -   Bureau of Labor Statistics covering databases on occupations and  |
|     employment maintained by the various surveys of the bureau;       |
|                                                                       |
| -   NSF Division of Science Resources Statistics on the three surveys |
|     that constitute NSF's Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data   |
|     System;                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| -   US Department of Education's Office of Educational Research and   |
|     Improvement concerning the information technology workforce and   |
|     certification programs;                                           |
|                                                                       |
| -   Institute for the Study of International Migration of Georgetown  |
|     University on information sources concerning migration of S&E     |
|     students and workers to the US; and                               |
|                                                                       |
| -   The University of Phoenix, Council of Graduate Schools, and Sloan |
|     Foundation concerning university perspectives on approaches to    |
|     degree programs, skills certification, and response to market     |
|     demand.                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| In order to better understand policy issues concerning the flow of    |
| foreign S&E workers to the US, the task force commissioned a report,  |
| "State of Knowledge on the Flow of Foreign Science and Technology     |
| Workers to the United States," by Dr. B. Lindsay Lowell of the        |
| Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown      |
| University.                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| Meetings of the task force as part of Board meetings featured expert  |
| testimony from NSF staff on teacher preparation and professional      |
| development, national data on teachers, and NSF data on mid-career    |
| training and education of S&E professionals. For information on       |
| issues at the state level, the task force was briefed on the critical |
| path analysis of California's S&E education system by the Executive   |
| Director of the California Council on Science and Technology.         |
|                                                                       |
| The task force held a workshop in March 2002 on national policies     |
| addressing the US education system and approaches to achieve          |
| increased numbers of well-prepared associate and baccalaureate degree |
| recipients (see agenda in Appendix). Presentations and discussion by  |
| leaders in the field focused on policy options in the following       |
| areas:                                                                |
|                                                                       |
| -   the transition from precollege to undergraduate study;            |
|                                                                       |
| -   multiple pathways to the workforce and mobility of students among |
|     various educational offerings;                                    |
|                                                                       |
| -   the system for teacher preparation and certification and the      |
|     interplay with other career options;                              |
|                                                                       |
| -   state-level policies on science and technology education;         |
|                                                                       |
| -   incentives to increase the supply of college graduates;           |
|                                                                       |
| -   diversity and student development;                                |
|                                                                       |
| -   institutional strategies and their impacts on undergraduate       |
|     students.                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| The Task Force held a workshop in June 2002 concerning the interplay  |
| between the international character of the advanced science and       |
| engineering workforce and national needs (see agenda in Appendix).    |
| The Science Advisor to the President, Dr. John Marburger, addressed   |
| the workshop. Experts from industry, government, academia, and        |
| professional societies explored needs and policies across the         |
| following areas:                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| -   employment serving the US government;                             |
|                                                                       |
| -   US corporations and their workforce needs;                        |
|                                                                       |
| -   the impact of security policies on the S&E workforce;             |
|                                                                       |
| -   policies and approaches in other countries;                       |
|                                                                       |
| -   US policies and regulations affecting international graduate      |
|     students and postdoctoral researchers;                            |
|                                                                       |
| -   factors affecting the choice of domestic students to attend       |
|     graduate school.                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| The Task Force contracted with SRI International for a comprehensive  |
| literature review that identified and summarized studies with policy  |
| recommendations relevant to the S&E workforce (bibliography in        |
| Appendix pending).                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| ####### Box A: Defining the Science and Engineering Workforce         |
|                                                                       |
| There are a number of definitions for the science and engineering     |
| workforce. The most common is to count those in occupations           |
| classified as science and engineering positions. However, this        |
| approach fails to identify those with skills in science and           |
| engineering used in non-S&E occupations---for example, in technical   |
| management. The task force has focused on the availability of skills, |
| in view of the fluid nature of the science and engineering            |
| workforce---with members capable of employment in a number of kinds   |
| of occupations over the course of their careers. In this definition,  |
| a precollege teacher with a baccalaureate or the equivalent in a      |
| field of science, mathematics or engineering is a member of the       |
| science and engineering workforce. Also included are practitioners    |
| with two-year degrees and certificates in science, engineering and    |
| technology fields.                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| This approach appears to be more in keeping with how degree holders   |
| view themselves. For those with science and engineering               |
| baccalaureates or higher-level degrees in the workforce in 1999, 67   |
| percent in occupations not formally classified as S&E jobs stated     |
| that their jobs were at least somewhat related to their highest S&E   |
| degree field. In 1999 there were 10.5 million S&E degree holders at   |
| the baccalaureate level or above in the workforce. For the purposes   |
| of this study, this group along with those with associate degrees in  |
| science and engineering are considered the qualified pool of          |
| scientists and engineers.                                             |
|                                                                       |
| ####                                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

#### 

#### 

#### Chapter Two

The Global and Domestic Contexts

##### 

##### GLOBAL COMPETITION FOR THE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING WORKFORCE

Governments throughout the world recognize that a high skill S&E
workforce is essential for economic strength. Countries beyond the US
have been taking action to increase the capacity of their higher
education systems, attract foreign students and workers, and raise the
attractiveness to their own citizenry of staying home or returning from
abroad to serve a growing national economy and research enterprise.

Many countries have substantial capacity in their higher education
systems for advanced S&E study, including doctoral degrees. Global data
grouped by broad world regions indicate that European universities
produce the largest number of natural science doctorates, while Asian
universities produce the most engineering doctorates.[^8] Some major
industrial countries with substantial educational capacity are
experiencing a decline in college-age population. To use their capacity
for advanced education and sustain academic research, they are
aggressively recruiting graduate students from countries with growing
student populations, in competition with the US.[^9]

Countries compete for their own educated citizens through attractive
living standards and job opportunities. One mechanism many countries use
to spur job growth is to increase investment in research and development
(R&D). One measure of the impact of R&D investment is the number of
researchers in a country. Growth in the number of researchers in many
countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) has outstripped that in the US. From 1993 to 1997, the number of
reported researchers in OECD countries increased by 23.0 percent, while
reported US researchers increased 11.8 percent. The greatest growth, 120
percent, was in OECD countries other than the US, Japan, and the
European Union.[^10] Another indicator of a country's commitment to
growth in scientific knowledge and technology development is the ratio
of R&D spending to gross domestic product (GDP). The US ranked fifth
among OECD countries in reported ratio of total R&D to GDP for the
1996-98 period.[^11]

Some countries have been particularly successful in enticing scientists
and engineers to return after advanced training and research experience
abroad; for example, Taiwan, Korea, and Ireland.[^12] China pursues the
strategy, introduced as policy in 1992, of supporting study-abroad and
encouraging return with free movement in and out of the country.[^13] A
growing strategy is to treat educated citizens living abroad as a
distributed resource to be networked for knowledge exchange and
entrepreneurial partnering in service to national economic development.

# Increased competition for S&E workers comes at a time when demand for their skills is projected to rise significantly -- both in the US and throughout the global economy.[^14] Growing demand for technical skills can be met in several ways. One mechanism is for a country to increase immigration; however, as discussed above, competition for scientific talent is intensifying. Alternatively, a country can induce people engaged in non-S&E occupations or degree programs to switch to S&E. For the US, this approach has not been a significant source of S&E workers. In fact, the direction of flow is from S&E degrees into non-S&E occupations.[^15] 

# 

Finally, a country can meet skill needs by enticing a larger share of
its domestic college-age population to attain a first university degree
in natural science and engineering (NS&E).[^16] Countries beyond the US
are building up the NS&E capabilities at a greater rate than the US has
been able to achieve, as shown in Figure 2.[^17] Indeed, sixteen
countries now outrank the US in the ratio of NS&E first university
degrees to the 24-year-old population, while in 1975, the US ranked
third. Clearly, this enticement strategy is underused by the US. Indeed,
S&E degree attainment by domestic students has been dropping in many
areas of the physical sciences and engineering and in mathematics and
computer science, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels.[^18]

#### Figure 2: Ratio of NS&E First University Degrees to 24-year-old Population, 1975 and 1999 (Source: *Science and Engineering Indicators-2002*: 0-3)

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="3.375in" height="4.895833333333333in"}

# 

# 

# **DOMESTIC HUMAN RESOURCES FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING**

Greater success in attracting and preparing US students for S&E careers
will require that policymakers have an understanding of the Nation's
domestic student population and their record of participation in S&E.
Table 1 provides data on the college-age population by
race/ethnicity.[^19] Table 2 details bachelor's degree attainment by sex
and by race/ethnicity.[^20] In the coming decades, an increasing
proportion of US students -- and an increasing proportion of college
graduates -- will come from demographic groups that have not heretofore
participated in S&E careers at a rate commensurate with their share of
the US 24-year-old population.

![](media/image3.wmf)

As shown in Table 1, the 2000 Census figures and projections for 2010
and 2025 indicate a college age population that does not increase
significantly after 2010. The proportion of whites (non-Hispanic) is
projected to decrease significantly, while that of Hispanics will
increase significantly. The minority groups who are currently
underrepresented in S&E careers \-- Hispanics, African-Americans, and
American Indian/Alaskan Natives\-- are projected to increase as a share
of the college age population from 32 percent in 2010 to 38 percent in
2025. Hispanics account for 90 percent of the projected increase in
underrepresented minorities.

![](media/image4.wmf)As shown in Table 2, the rate of bachelor's degree
attainment for whites and Asian/Pacific Islanders is about twice that of
the underrepresented minorities. The proportion of those bachelor's
degrees that are in NS&E is around 15 percent for both whites and
underrepresented minorities, while over 30 percent for Asian/Pacific
Islanders. The resultant participation rate in NS&E degree attainment
within the 24-year-old population shows wide differences -- from 14.7
percent for Asian/Pacific Islanders to 6.3 percent for whites to 2.6
percent for underrepresented minorities. Given the population shifts
detailed above, if participation rates remain the same, the US will
suffer a drop over the years in the percentage of 24-year-olds educated
at the bachelor's level in NS&E.

The participation rates documented in Table 2 point clearly to underused
resources -- underrepresented minorities and women. For underrepresented
minorities, the pressing need is for a higher overall rate of bachelor's
degree attainment with the rate of participation in NS&E ideally
increasing. For women, the overall rate of bachelor's degree attainment
is higher than for men, but the rate of NS&E degree attainment is half
that of men. Most importantly, to meet projected [growth]{.underline} in
S&E jobs while growth in the college-age population levels off, the US
must devise a means to increase the rate of NS&E degree attainment from
all population groups.

The issue is not only the number of degrees attained, but also the
distribution of degrees among disciplines and their fit to job
opportunities. In the decade 1989-1998, the number of bachelor's degrees
in all fields rose by 16.4 percent, including the number of bachelor's
degrees in NS&E, which rose 16.6 percent. However, if biological and
agricultural sciences are excluded, the number of baccalaureates awarded
in the remaining fields actually [dropped]{.underline} by 7.9 percent.
This decadal drop in bachelor's degrees includes fields of engineering,
mathematics and computer sciences, physical sciences, and geological
sciences.[^21] In many cases, openings in graduate study and the job
market have been filled by foreign students and workers.

#### Chapter Three

# Findings and Recommendations

# 

The remainder of the report provides findings and recommendations for
national workforce policies in five areas:

-   Undergraduate education in science and engineering;

-   Advanced education in science and engineering;

-   Precollege teaching workforce for mathematics, science and
    technology;

-   US engagement in the international science and engineering
    workforce; and

#### Knowledge base on the science and engineering workforce.

# **undergraduate education IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING**

The global competitiveness of the US S&E workforce and domestic
competitiveness of S&E careers will depend ultimately on how schools,
colleges, universities, and other education providers develop and refine
human resources. The Federal Government has long supported graduate S&E
education through fellowships, traineeships, and research grants. At the
undergraduate level, however, the responsibility for development of the
S&E workforce has been shouldered primarily by states and localities
through public institutions of higher education and an array of private
institutions. The Federal Government has a stake in the workforce of the
Nation as a whole, especially the S&E workforce needed to serve Federal
missions.[^22] It cannot rely solely on the aggregated state and
institutional efforts at the baccalaureate level to ensure that there
will be an adequate complement Nation wide of high-quality teachers and
practitioners in S&E fields and a sufficient pool of students prepared
for graduate studies to meet the needs of the workforce for advanced S&E
skills. The states and institutions of higher education lack the
resources and incentives to provide sufficient support for the S&E
workforce that the nation needs.

For the Nation to be successful in attracting students to S&E study,
policymakers must understand the context in which students make career
decisions and institutions make resource decisions. They must understand
the trends in S&E bachelor's degree attainment documented in the
previous section of this report. The Board has examined the current
situation in undergraduate education and identified actions that must be
taken to increase success in educating students from the largest
possible pool of talent.

**[The context of S&E study for the student]{.underline}**

From the vantage point of the talented high school graduate, the
postsecondary educational marketplace offers a huge array of choices and
ways to invest time and money. Careers in S&E hold promise of good
lifetime earnings, expanding job opportunities, and interesting work.
But preparation for such careers poses challenges. Research shows that
student success in attaining a degree correlates with rigorous academic
preparation in high school, especially in mathematics, and with
"traditional" paths in college -- continuous, full-time enrollment to
obtain the degree.[^23]

The issue for students is not only the choice of S&E study, but
continuation in a course of study. Surveys of freshmen intentions show
high levels of interest in S&E, with approximately 25-30 percent
intending to major in S&E.[^24] However, the net movement of students
over their undergraduate years is out of S&E and into other majors or
out of college. As a result, less than half of those intending to major
in S&E fields complete an S&E degree within 5 years. Underrepresented
minorities drop out of S&E majors at a higher rate than other
groups.[^25]

The affordability of a college education can have a major impact on a
student's persistence and ultimate success in attaining a degree. The
cost has been rising. Our current system of higher education is
experiencing a steady decline of state support, rising tuition, and
increased reliance on debt-based financing. The majority of students are
turning to loans to finance college, with 64 percent of graduating
students in 2000 reporting student loan debt.[^26] The average student
loan debt has nearly doubled over the past eight years to \$16,928. For
low income students, the percentage of the cost of attending a public
four-year college covered by the maximum Pell award has fallen over the
past 25 years, from 84 percent in 1976 to 40 percent in 2001.[^27]

The rising cost of higher education has led to a decrease within the
college student population in the number and share of "traditional"
students -- those who enroll full-time immediately after high school and
depend on parents for financial support. Only 27 percent of today's
undergraduates are traditional students. Nontraditional students are
most likely to attend public two-year colleges. However, 37 percent of
students at public four-year institutions and 35 percent at private,
nonprofit institutions are nontraditional. [^28]

The difficulties faced by students unable to pursue full-time study are
severe for S&E majors because of curricula built on prerequisites,
limited course offerings at accessible times and places, and the
necessity of laboratory work. S&E curricula generally require the
sequential acquisition of knowledge and skills along directed paths.
Should the student step off the path to an S&E career, it is difficult
to rejoin.

##### 

##### Institutional resources for S&E education 

Increasing the number of scientists and engineers from among all
domestic students depends on adequate capacity in high-quality degree
programs in a range of institutions. The highest quality S&E degree
programs are found in institutions that can provide laboratories and
equipment, the quality of faculty that are typically engaged in
research, and curricula that are up to date. A primary issue in building
institutional capacity is the higher cost of education in S&E as
compared with other subjects. This cost differential has favored S&E
capacity in institutions that are wealthier, whether by virtue of
endowment, high tuition, Federal research funds, or state support.[^29]
For many institutions where enrollments are increasing and the
percentage of students graduating in S&E is low, the sources of revenue
are essentially limited to tuition and state/local support -- and the
latter is under great stress. New and augmented revenue streams are
needed to give these institutions the capacity to better serve the needs
of the S&E workforce.

Community colleges represent a special opportunity for expanding the
number of S&E majors. Community colleges enroll about 38 percent of all
students and their student enrollments are growing at twice the rate as
those of four-year institutions. Minority students in higher education
are concentrated in community colleges -- 46 percent of Asians/Pacific
Islanders, 46 percent of African-Americans, 55 percent of Hispanics, and
55 percent of American Indians/Alaskan Natives.[^30] Community colleges
are also important feeders to more advanced studies. Fifty percent of
students in the California State University system attended a community
college before entering a bachelor's degree program at a four-year
institution.[^31] Seventy-five percent of upper division education
majors in the California State University system began their studies at
community colleges. Community colleges are also highly important in
educating members of the technology workforce and keeping them current
in their fields.

It is important that all institutions focus greater attention on
retention as a strategy for expanding participation in S&E careers.
Research on the reason why able students switch out of S&E majors
concludes that improvement in the yield of S&E majors will require
modification of the educational environment, particularly for improved
retention of underrepresented minorities and women.[^32] More
institutional resources must be directed to improving the quality of
teaching, the nature of introductory classes, the design of facilities
to support new teaching methods, and more effective academic support
mechanisms. Strategies that focus on the individual student, such as are
often directed to minority students, are not enough. The challenge is to
change the conditions that give rise to retention problems and thereby
improve the quality of the undergraduate learning experience for all
students.

Attracting more US students to science and engineering studies must be
multifaceted, targeting both the individual student and the institutions
serving undergraduates.

RECOMMENDATION: The Federal Government must direct substantial new
support to students and institutions in order to improve success in S&E
study by American undergraduates from all demographic groups.

The Federal Government should:

-   Ensure that scholarships and other forms of financial assistance are
    available to well-qualified students who otherwise would be unable
    to attend school full time to pursue an S&E major;

-   Provide incentives to institutions to expand and improve the quality
    of their S&E programs in areas in which degree attainment Nationwide
    is insufficient;

-   Provide financial support to community colleges to increase the
    success of high-ability students in transferring to four-year S&E
    programs in colleges and universities; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Expand funding to programs at institutions that best succeed in
    graduating underrepresented minorities and women in S&E.

**ADVANCED EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING**

Although there has been considerable debate over the last decade about
the overproduction of PhD scientists and engineers in certain fields, it
is beyond dispute that society is -- and will become even more --
dependent on science and technology. Future progress and world
leadership depend on a steady stream of scientific discoveries and
developments which, in turn, depends on a cadre of individuals with a
high level of scientific training and education. A recent National
Research Council study concludes that there is currently an oversupply
of PhD-level biomedical scientists.[^33] But there is a general
consensus that the physical sciences, engineering, and mathematics are
not attracting domestic students in the numbers that will be required in
the near future.[^34] These are individuals who will be crucial to
maintaining and advancing our technological infrastructure and our
national security, as well as contributing to our economic well-being.

A number of factors will contribute to increasing workforce demand for
US personnel with advanced S&E degrees in the next few decades. These
factors include accelerating retirements, greater competition
internationally for S&E talent, and national security concerns that may
both affect access and attraction of foreign students and scholars to
the US and raise the demand for US citizens in national security-related
areas.

Targeted interventions to ensure the supply of scientists and engineers
in specific fields may miss the mark, but increasing the general
investment level of the Federal Government in advanced training for
domestic students is essential to the country's future security and
prosperity.

**[The context for advanced S&E studies]{.underline}**

Federal research and education policy to strengthen the domestic
workforce of highly skilled professionals must recognize the competitive
environment for talented students -- both domestic and foreign born. In
the US labor market, there are attractive, highly remunerative S&E and
non-S&E career opportunities that do not require advanced S&E training.
Opportunities for outstanding students are also growing in other
nations, many of which have developed strategies to attract and retain
scientists and engineers who might otherwise be drawn to US education
and careers.

Attracting more US students to enroll in and complete graduate training
depends in part on their expectations that investment in science or
engineering education will be rewarded by careers employing the skills
they acquire. It also depends on considerations including costs to the
student in lost opportunities they might otherwise have pursued, the
quality of life during the educational period, and the debt burden
incurred while pursuing a degree. The opportunity and educational costs
of graduate education in science and engineering fields can be high,
especially for US students who, unlike many foreign students, are able
to take advantage of a range of career opportunities open to
high-ability baccalaureate S&E graduates.

Long-standing Federal policy has encouraged students to pursue advanced
S&E degrees by subsidizing the cost of education through a number of
mechanisms. Mechanisms to support graduate students used by both Federal
and non-Federal sources include fellowships, traineeships, research
assistantships, teaching assistantships, and other mechanisms such as
work-study and employer financing.[^35] Federal support for graduate
education is predominantly through research assistantships. The Federal
Government supports half of all research assistantships, about
two-thirds of all traineeships and one-quarter of all fellowships.
Teaching assistantships are the predominant mechanism for support from
non-Federal funding sources.[^36]

Since teaching assistantships and assistantships on research grants are
the predominant mechanisms of support for graduate students,
undergraduate teaching requirements and research funding to academic
institutions directly affect the employee pool for jobs requiring
advanced education.[^37] Any mismatch between undergraduate enrollments
and funded research, on the one hand, and the skill needs in the
workforce, on the other, can result in problems of under- and
over-production of human resources across diverse disciplinary and
multidisciplinary areas.

In the mid 1960s the Federal Government funded most of the Nation's
research, primarily to serve Federal missions.[^38] Therefore, at that
time the education of scientists and engineers at the graduate level who
gained research experience on Federal grants might have been expected to
roughly parallel the emphasis of the national R&D portfolio. An
expanding university system created many new academic faculty positions
that absorbed PhD-level scientists and engineers into jobs that drew on
skills obtained through traditional graduate education.[^39]

Today industrial research dominates the US R&D enterprise -- over
two-thirds of US R&D. The private, for-profit sector is by far the
largest provider of S&E employment. In 1999, approximately 74 percent of
scientists and engineers with bachelor's degrees and 62 percent with
master's degrees were employed in private, for-profit companies. For
those with doctorates, 48 percent were employed in academic
institutions, but the majority of PhDs in the workforce were employed
outside of the academic sector. Academic demand for PhD-level scientists
and engineers has grown slowly during the last decade, particularly in
research universities (about 1.7 percent for all academic institutions
and 0.6 percent for research institutions). In comparison, the business
sector experienced a 4.4 percent growth and the public sector 4.9
percent growth.[^40]

**[The need for action]{.underline}**

## The Board has addressed graduate and postdoctoral education in two previous reports (see Boxes B and C at end of report). Other studies have offered suggestions to improve the alignment of PhD and postdoctoral education with workforce demand. Recommendations for graduate education include improving guidance and information for graduate students in their career choices, reducing reliance on research assistantships within grants to principal investigators in favor of research/training grants to institutions, voluntarily reducing graduate enrollments in oversupplied disciplines, and broadening students' experience during graduate training to prepare them for a range of careers.[^41] 

## 

## It is in the national interest as well as the interest of individual students and scholars that the Federal Government -- with other stakeholders in the S&E workforce -- take action to guide the advanced education of scientists and engineers to better align with expected national skill needs. Areas of national skill needs include:

## national priorities in emerging areas -- e.g., nanoscale science and engineering;

## interdisciplinary skills -- e.g., bioinformatics; 

## traditional disciplines where enrollments are insufficient to maintain national infrastructure for S&E in the face of level or increasing demand projections -- e.g., in computer sciences; and 

-   Federal mission-related fields where enrollments are falling and
    projected needs rising, e.g., nuclear physics and engineering.

RECOMMENDATION: Federal support for research and graduate education
should respond to the real economic needs of students and promote a
wider range of educational options responsive to national skill needs.

Federal strategies should:

-   Ensure that Federal stipends for graduate and postdoctoral students
    provide benefits and are competitive with opportunities in other
    venues;

-   Invest in innovative approaches to doctoral and masters education
    that prepare students for a broad range of careers in academia,
    government, and industry; and

-   Provide consistent, long-term support for high-quality disciplinary
    and interdisciplinary doctoral training programs in S&E.

**PRECOLLEGE TEACHING WORKFORCE FOR MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY**

The workforce-related needs for science, mathematics and technology
learning at the precollege level can be divided into two categories:
First, the need for basic science and mathematics literacy of the entire
workforce; and second, the need to provide the foundation for students
to pursue college majors in science and engineering fields.[^42] Recent
"No Child Left Behind" legislation[^43] explicitly addresses science and
mathematics education at the precollege level and in effect establishes
the expectation that public precollege education will produce adequate
national literacy in science and mathematics, validated by regular
student assessments in the K-12 system.

Reports over the last several decades (see Box D) have identified a
quality precollege teaching workforce in mathematics, science and
technology as key to achieving both science and mathematics literacy and
to preparing students for advanced studies in science and engineering to
meet workforce demands. Nonetheless, identified reasons for failure to
attract and retain qualified individuals in precollege teaching remain
inadequately addressed. These reasons include the low status of the
teaching profession, an unsupportive working environment, frustration
with low student interest, inadequate and poorly enforced training and
certification standards for teachers, insufficient financial rewards,
failure to provide long-term opportunities for advancement, and a
non-enabling classroom environment.

In February 2001 the US Commission on National Security, 21^st^ Century
identified the condition of precollege education as a critical national
security problem: "we do not now have, and will not have with current
trends, nearly enough qualified teachers in our K-12 classrooms,
particularly in science and mathematics...A continued shortage of the
quantity and quality of teachers in science and math means that we will
increasingly fail to produce sufficient numbers of high- caliber
American students to advance to college and post-graduate levels in
these areas." [^44] Indeed, 1999 estimates by the Department of
Education indicate the need for 240,000 middle and high school
mathematics and science teachers over the next 10 years, 70 percent of
whom will be new to the teaching profession.[^45]

The Board recognizes that the precollege science, math and technology
teaching workforce is a dynamic resource, drawing its members from a
range of educational and occupational backgrounds. Recruitment and
retention strategies must be creative and flexible, responsive to
potential entrants and reentrants to the teaching workforce at different
points in individual careers and from a variety of socioeconomic and
ethnic backgrounds. Entering teachers include new baccalaureate-level
graduates with education, science, or engineering majors, as well as
professionals at various stages of their careers and from all levels of
science and engineering education -- from baccalaureate to
postdoctorate. They include S&E professionals and retirees from careers
in industry, government or the military as well as from academia. A
critical barrier to participation in precollege teaching by scientists,
mathematicians and engineers is the separation between precollege
teaching and other science and engineering professions.

Further, even if a sufficient number of students and professionals with
strong backgrounds in their subject areas can be attracted to precollege
teaching, additional efforts are needed to retain them in teaching. Job
satisfaction for well-qualified teachers requires a supportive working
environment.

**RECOMMENDATION: In partnership with other stakeholders**[^46]**, the
Federal Government should act now to attract and retain an adequate
cadre of well-qualified precollege teachers of mathematics, science, and
technology.**

To make precollege teaching more competitive with other career
opportunities, resources must be provided to:

-   Compensate teachers of mathematics, science and technology
    comparably to similarly trained S&E professionals in other sectors;

-   Reinforce the profession of teaching as an important and rewarding
    career and include teachers as an integral part of the scientific
    and engineering professions;

-   Support classroom training and expedite teacher certification of
    scientists and engineers from professions other than teaching;

-   Support programs in teacher preparation at institutions that succeed
    in integrating faculty and curricula of schools of engineering and
    science with schools of education.

To improve effectiveness of precollege teaching, stakeholders must
collaborate to:

-   Support outreach efforts to K-12 by science and engineering
    professionals to motivate high-quality curricular standards and
    expand content knowledge for classroom teachers; and

-   Support research on learning that better informs K-12 mathematics
    and science curricula and pedagogy development.

**Box D: Selected Sources Identifying Issues in Attracting and Retaining
Precollege Science and Mathematics Teachers**

A range of organizations have explored the conditions that make
precollege teaching of mathematics and science particularly unrewarding
to well-qualified teachers. A reflection of the unrewarding environment
and more attractive careers outside of teaching is the higher attrition
rate for mathematics and science teachers, exceeding not only that of
other occupations, but also of other teachers (16 percent versus 11
percent and 14.3 percent, respectively). Moreover 40 percent percent of
mathematics and science teachers leave because of job dissatisfaction,
compared to 29 percent of all teachers, according to The National
Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21^st^ Century.
The reports below discuss the long-term, well- recognized problems
involved in attracting and retaining precollege mathematics and science
teachers.

US Commission on National Security/21^st^ Century. "Education as a
National Security Imperative," *Road Map for National Security:
Imperative for Change*. February 15, 2001, pp. 38-46.

National Science Board. "Teacher Preparation," in *Preparing Our
Children/Math and Science Education in the National Interest*.
Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 1999.

\_\_\_\_\_\_. *Science & Engineering Indicators*\--2002, chapter 1:
37-38.

National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in
Mathematics, Science, and Technology. *Educating Americans for the
21^st^ Century*. September 1983.

The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the
21^st^ Century. *Before It's Too Late.* September 2000.

National Research Council. "The Continuum of Teacher Education in
Science, Mathematics, and Technology: Problems and Issues" in *Educating
Teachers of Science, Mathematics and Technology/New Practices for the
New Millennium*, Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2001,
30-40.

# **US engagement in the INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING workforce**

It is more essential than ever to think about workforce development in a
global context. Progress in science and engineering relies on knowledge
and skills found throughout an international community. With the rise in
electronic communication, knowledge is flowing faster and farther,
enabling more widespread participation and competition in research and
development. The US needs the perspectives and talents of both the
native-born and foreign-born for the best possible S&E workforce. And
most importantly, US students must be prepared for involvement in the
complex world of international science and engineering.

The Board has addressed issues of US involvement in international S&E in
a recent report, *Toward a More Effective Role for the U.S. Government
in International Science and Engineering*.[^47] That report documents
the global dimension of S&E. For example, collaborative activities and
international partnerships are an increasingly important means of
keeping abreast of important new insights and discoveries critical to
maintaining US leadership in key fields. In the industrial sector,
research collaboration internationally is on the rise with the growth of
R&D activities located overseas and a rising number of cooperative
arrangements among US and foreign firms.

While the US faces strong challenges, it has many competitive advantages
in the global S&E labor market as it looks to the future. The US
experience with integrating immigrants into society and the economy is a
major national asset and competitive advantage. The US has a rich
tradition as an internationally diverse S&E workforce. The US has
experience in educating large numbers of foreign students and strong
public support for international education.[^48] As expressed in
congressional testimony by Dr. Bruce Alberts, President of the National
Academy of Sciences: "International science and technology cooperation
is an extremely effective way to leverage one of the defining strengths
of the United States. We benefit from an extraordinary set of personal,
professional, and cultural relationships due to the many people from
other countries who are working in the U.S. science and technology
enterprise, and due to the large number of science and technology
leaders in other countries who have been trained in the United
States."[^49]

Continued leadership of US universities in international education is an
important component of US strength in S&E, drawing the best students and
scholars to study and work in the US. Since September 11, 2001, however,
security-motivated policies and requirements -- such as tracking foreign
students in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS)
-- have changed the climate for foreign students who wish to come to the
US. Host institutions are facing growing complications as they seek to
maintain a healthy flow of international graduate students, postdoctoral
researchers, and visiting scholars.[^50]

##### Impact on S&E of visa policies

The Task Force looked in depth at the kinds of visas for entry into the
US and how these various visa categories are used.[^51] Broadly
described, the system is a mixture of visas for permanent residence or
for non-immigrant status (e.g. temporary residence visas, such as H-1B,
and student and exchange visitor visas). For permanent residence status,
policy favors reunification of families. A relatively small percentage
of immigration opportunities are geared to high-skill workers.

The major vehicle by which foreign workers join the Nation's S&E labor
force is the temporary residence visa in various forms. About two-thirds
of those attaining permanent residence who are classified as scientists
and engineers adjusted into permanent status from a prior non-immigrant
status. Of the two-thirds, 11 percent had been academic students, 7
percent visitors for pleasure, 6 percent exchange visitors and,
significantly, 56 percent had been H-1B specialty workers.[^52] The H-1B
visa is a limited term visa designed to address immediate demand for
skills in the job market, as identified by employers. Demand for H-1B
visas is dependent upon business cycles. Having the Nation's future
skilled workforce needs met via a visa process that relies on the
short-term needs of industry is not an effective long-term strategy.

The student visa (non-immigrant F visa) is intended for temporary study,
as applicants must certify that they plan to return to their home
country. In reality, it often provides entree to permanent resident
status. The best estimate is that about one-fifth of the foreign
students moved both directly from F visas and indirectly through H-1B
visas to achieve a permanent status in FY 1996.[^53]

In summary, there are various pathways by which high-skill immigrants
navigate from temporary to permanent status, but these pathways are
undertaken at the initiative of individuals, not promoted by the design
of immigration law. In light of growing international competition for
high-skill students and professionals in S&E, the US needs visa and
immigration policies that provide a clearly understood and
straightforward set of options for foreign S&E students and workers.

RECOMMENDATION: During the current reexamination of visa and other
policies concerning the mobility of scientists and engineers, it is
essential that future US policies:

-   Strengthen the capacity of US research universities to sustain their
    leadership role in increasingly competitive international S&E
    education;

-   Strongly support opportunities for American students and faculty to
    participate in international S&E education and research;

-   Maintain the ability of the US to attract internationally
    competitive researchers, faculty, and students, while accommodating
    national security concerns.

# **Box F*:* Toward a More Effective Role for the U.S. Government in International Science and Engineering**

In February 1999, the NSB established a Task Force on International
Issues in Science and Engineering, charged to develop recommendations
for strengthening the Federal institutional framework of policies and
agency relations that support S&E research and education in an
international setting and for an effective leadership role for the
National Science Foundation (NSF) in international science and
engineering in the 21^st^ century. Based on the task force study, the
Board recommended:

***The U.S. Government should move expeditiously to ensure the
development of a more effective, coordinated framework for its
international S&E research and education activities. This framework
should integrate science and engineering more explicitly into
deliberations on broader global issues and should support cooperative
strategies that will ensure our access to worldwide talent, ideas,
information, S&E infrastructure, and partnerships;***

and recommended the following specific actions:

1.  The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) should strengthen
    its international focus to ensure an effective, integrated, visible,
    and sustained role in monitoring, coordinating, and managing U.S.
    international S&E research and education activities. As part of this
    effort, OSTP should actively encourage Federal agencies to identify
    and increase the visibility of their international S&E research and
    education activities, to provide an adequate level of funding for
    these activities, and to allocate adequate funding and resources for
    their coordination and management. The Office of Management and
    Budget should prepare an annual international S&E budget crosscut,
    similar to its annual research and development (R&D) budget
    crosscut, that includes international activities found outside
    specifically designated international program budgets.

2.  OSTP should encourage agencies to develop more effective mechanisms
    for gathering and disseminating information about U.S. collaboration
    and partnerships in international S&E activities and similar
    activities in other countries, with emphasis on fundamental research
    and S&E education.

3.  The United States Government should promote the development of
    international S&E policy aimed at facilitating international
    cooperation in research and education. The formulation and
    implementation of policies related to areas such as immigration,
    intellectual property rights, and the exchange of scientific
    information and personnel should include consideration of their
    impact on international cooperation in research and education.

4.  Federal agencies should encourage and support policies and programs
    that provide incentives for expanding participation in international
    cooperative research and education activities by younger scientists
    and engineers.

5.  Federal agencies should encourage development of human and physical
    infrastructure for science and engineering in developing countries
    through partnerships with international, multilateral, and private
    organizations providing support to developing countries for S&E
    research and education.

6.  The U.S. Government, especially the Department of State, with its
    primary responsibility for U.S. foreign policy, should recognize and
    address the importance of science and engineering in achieving its
    objectives. Mechanisms should be identified to improve communication
    among science officers, other U.S. embassy personnel, and science
    and engineering staff of other Federal agencies, including those
    working abroad, to facilitate sharing of information critical to
    planning and decision making, and to improve the general flow of
    information on critical S&E issues.

7.  The U.S. Government should strongly endorse the spirit of the
    recommendations of the 1999 NRC report to the State Department and
    ensure that responses to those recommendations are implemented
    expeditiously. Because developing an appropriate U.S. capability in
    this arena requires a long-term concerted effort, effective change
    will require a multi-year, multi-Administration, and bipartisan
    response, with appropriate levels of funding.

knowledge base on the SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING workforce

The science and engineering workforce is a dynamic system, reflecting
the aggregated educational and career choices of individuals,
educational offerings of institutions of higher education, financial
considerations in acquiring an education, guidance and career counseling
to students and professionals, availability of jobs, and any number of
other factors. Individual members of the workforce may enter and leave
occupations several times during their working lives. Workforce needs
for specific skills can rise and fall---sometimes rapidly.

Even within science and engineering professions and among individuals
who have invested the most in their education in a given specialty,
substantial changes in career paths over their lifetimes are
common.[^54] For example, emerging research areas attract not only
newly-minted PhDs, baccalaureates, technicians, and postdoctoral
scholars just entering the job market, but also those who have built
careers in other specialty areas. Science and engineering degree holders
at all levels may go on to pursue careers in such areas as law,
technical management, or university administration and move out of
research and teaching. Nonetheless, they may still use the skills gained
through their previous S&E education and employment.

The organizational structures and processes for educating, maintaining
skills, and employing science and engineering talent in the workforce
are diverse and their interrelationships complex and dynamic.[^55] As a
result, production and employment of scientists and engineers are not
well understood as a system. Adding the international context for
science and engineering to the domestic system multiplies its
complexity.

Federal policies and strategies for interventions in the workforce must
be sensitive not only to impacts on areas targeted for intervention, but
also to other impacts on broader workforce capabilities. There is a need
for a fuller understanding of the S&E workforce as part of the national
economy. There is a further need to understand the variables and
interrelationships that affect choices and opportunities of individuals
in various science, technology, engineering and mathematics careers.
Strategies to impact the system as a whole now tend to target individual
components in efforts to address identified areas of weakness.
Interventions are often employed without critical analysis of impacts on
other aspects of the workforce.[^56]

Federal policymakers need an adequate base of knowledge to be able to
assess impacts of interventions to the system as a whole and to better
understand the integration of this complex system.[^57] Greater
understanding of the system would help avoid policies and strategies
that are ineffective in strengthening national capabilities or that
unintentionally undermine the health of US science and engineering.[^58]

Lacking reliable tools for policy and strategies affecting the future
S&E workforce, the consensus strategy is to attract more talented
undergraduates to science and engineering majors in areas of need and
encourage them to continue on to graduate school -- particularly
undergraduates from groups who have been underrepresented in natural
science and engineering.[^59]

Over the long term, there is a need to develop a quantitative, dynamic
model of the global S&E workforce with respect to skills, mobility,
occupational and geographic migration and demographic characteristics,
and to understand the impacts of the global workforce on US science and
engineering. As an initial focus, increased financial support is needed
for academic research to develop more adequate models of domestic supply
and demand for science and engineering skills. A special focus is needed
on doctorates and post-doctorates, due to the high level of investment
by the individual and society required to produce scientists and
engineers at these levels of education.

As part of a multilevel, inclusive effort to attract more domestic
students to S&E studies and careers, there is a need to provide better
and more accessible information, career guidance, and early experience
in S&E settings. Students need to understand not only the opportunities
offered by careers in science and engineering, but also the educational
pathways to achieve such careers.[^60] Therefore, in addition to the
long-term goal of understanding the dynamics of the S&E workforce, there
is also an immediate need for a coordinated effort to develop a national
clearinghouse of information to facilitate individual career decisions
and publicize successful model programs. A centralized information
resource also would enable employers, guidance counselors, and other
stakeholders in the science and engineering workforce to develop more
effective strategies to attract and guide the best students to science
and engineering studies and to enhance the skills of scientists and
engineers throughout their careers.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

To support development of effective S&E workforce policies and
strategies, the Federal Government must:

-   substantially raise its investment in research that advances the
    state of knowledge on international S&E workforce dynamics;

-   **lead a national effort to build a base of information on:**

1)  **the current status of the S&E workforce**

2)  **national S&E skill needs and**

3)  **strategies that attract high-ability students and professionals to
    S&E careers.\
    **

Chapter Four

### Conclusions

The US has for many years benefited from minimal competition in the
global labor market for S&E personnel. As our economy and
high-technology industry grew, a fortuitous set of circumstances gave
our Nation the benefit of some of the best minds in the world from other
countries to help us build and sustain US world leadership in science
and technology. The Federal Government has played a crucial role as
sponsor of science and engineering research and advanced education, by
means of which many foreign scholars and professionals have been drawn
to our shores to study and work and many of our own students have
pursued science and engineering degrees and careers.

The ready availability of outstanding science and engineering talent
from other countries is no longer assured, as international competition
for the science and engineering workforce grows. Threats to world peace
and domestic security create additional constraints on employment of
foreign-born science and engineering students and professionals in the
US.

Moreover, demographic data indicate that participation of US students in
science and engineering studies will decline if historical trends
continue in S&E degree attainment by our college-age population. At the
same time, retirements of scientists and engineers currently in the
workforce will accelerate over the coming years.

The US is in a long-distance race to retain its essential global
advantage in S&E human resources and sustain our world leadership in
science and technology. For foreign students and workers, attractive and
competitive alternatives are emerging around the world. We must develop
more fully our native talent to meet opportunities and needs of the
workforce -- capitalizing on and expanding successful efforts undertaken
throughout our society. The Federal Government must enact policies and
programs that include:

-   A broad-ranging effort at all levels of education to attract,
    develop, and retain in the S&E workforce American-born scientists
    and engineers drawn aggressively from all demographic groups, and

-   National efforts to enrich US workforce capabilities through
    opportunities for US students and professionals to participate in
    international science and engineering and through continued
    contributions by the best S&E students and professionals from other
    countries.

**The evidence is unambiguous. The Federal Government has a primary
responsibility to lead the Nation in developing and implementing a
coordinated, effective response to our long-term needs for science and
engineering skills. US global leadership and future national prosperity
and security depend on meeting this challenge.**

**Box B: Report of the Task Force on Graduate and Postdoctoral Education
(1996)**

The Task Force recommends that limited studies be conducted on
alternative modes of graduate support, with defined goals and assessment
criteria. Among these might be programs for:

\- Traineeships for programs and encouraging breadth and
interdisciplinary studies, and including specific attention to ethics
and the responsible conduct of research

\- Fellowships for professional technical masters degrees

\- Fellowships for interdisciplinary research for students who have
advanced to Ph.D. candidacy in a traditional discipline

\- Fellowships or other support modes permitting internships in
industry, government agencies, and/or public schools as part of the
graduate research experience

\- Devising new means to provide incentives for attracting U.S. citizens
(particularly from underrepresented groups) to graduate programs in
science and engineering

-   NSF, possibly through SRS and/or the SBE directorate, should support
    data collection and/or research on the effects of funding mechanisms
    on the number, retention, programmatic quality, time-to-degree, and
    demographic and institutional distribution of students being
    supported.

The task force has recommended limited studies because, despite
extensive study, we find inadequate data to compel a recommendation of a
major shift in funding mode among fellowship, research assistantships,
teaching assistantships, and traineeships for supporting graduate
education in science and engineering. We have found:

\- Major institutional and disciplinary variation in time-to-degree

\- Shorter time-to-degree for students who are supported than for those
who are not

\- Specific attention should be paid to the role of foreign students in
the SME enterprise. This should include collection of data on the
number, support mode, and placement of foreign students.

### Box C: The Federal Role in Science and Engineering Graduate and Postdoctoral Education (1997)

1\. Federal Support to the Enterprise

\- The Federal government should reward and recognize institutions that
initiate model programs for the integration of research and education.

\- Mission agencies funding agency-initiated research in academic
institutions should recognize the intimate connection between research
and graduate education in universities. They should adopt principles and
practices exploiting that interconnection and insure that their funding
reaps the dual benefits of simultaneously advancing both research and
graduate education.

\- The Federal government should contribute to promoting closer
collaboration between faculty in non-research and research institutions.
Such collaboration in research offers opportunities for greater exposure
to a variety of career options for graduate students. It can also
improve the transition from undergraduate to graduate programs across
institutions. The improvement of that transition is especially important
for reaching minority undergraduates. Federal investments, particularly
in communications infrastructure, can expand the scope of these
programs.

2\. Breadth vs. Narrowness of Graduate Education

\- University programs and Federal support policies continue to
encourage exceptionally talented students to pursue Ph.D. programs and
to develop their capacities to advance knowledge in their chosen
disciplines;

\- The Federal partner recognize and reward institutions that, in
addition to the core Ph.D. education, provide a range of educational and
training options to graduate students, options tailored to the career
interests of the individual Ph.D. candidate. These might include
interdisciplinary emphasis, teamwork, business management skills, and
information technologies.

\- The Federal and university partners seek more effective ways of
promoting diversity and full access to graduate education, guarding
against strategies that inadvertently keep underrepresented groups from
the mainstream of research and graduate education. Efforts should
emphasize identification of high-ability students earlier in the
educational experience, including the precollege level, and encouraging
them to consider careers in science and 1engineering.

The Board recommends the attention of universities to the following
areas:

\- To assure access for high ability students, examine the current use
and possible misuse of assessment tools for entry to, and financial
support for, graduate education, e.g. the Graduate Record Examination
scores (GREs); and

\- Recognize postdoctoral researchers as a significant component of the
system of graduate research and education in some areas, and better
integrate postdoctoral scholars into the university community.

The Board recommends that the Federal government:

\- Support university-initiated efforts to insure in the science and
engineering faculty reward systems an appropriate balance between
recognition for excellence in research and excellence in teaching,
mentoring, and other areas of faculty responsibility;

\- Examine how it can prevent unnecessary and unintentional
interruptions in academic research programs and in associated support to
graduate students that may result from the vagaries of the Federal
research funding environment;

\- Review conflicting or confusing treatment of graduate students and
postdoctoral researchers\--as students or employees\--in Federal
regulations and policies. The review should entail consideration of both
consistency across agencies and coherence between the purposes of
regulations and administrative requirements and Federal objectives for
supporting and integrating research and education in academic
institutions.

The Board recommends that the following areas be explored:

\- Strategies to attract and retain talented students from
underrepresented groups. These strategies might include consideration,
in some cases, of criteria for support on research grants;

\- The respective Federal and university responsibilities for reducing
the administrative burden on faculty researchers/teachers to increase
time available for mentoring and other educational and service
activities that enrich the learning environment. This reduction in
administrative burden needs to be coupled with the alignment of faculty
reward systems;

\- Improved policy data to assess the effectiveness of current Federal
support for graduate education including attention to attrition and
time-to-degree, and to identify current and emerging national needs for
the science and engineering workforce.

This exploration should include input from a broad range of stakeholders
in graduate education and be attentive to maintaining the benefits of
graduate and postdoctoral research and education in science and
engineering for the Nation.

Box E: Preparing Our Children/Math And Science Education In The National
Interest (1999)

*The Board believes that stakeholders must develop a much-needed
consensus on a common core of mathematics and science knowledge and
skills to be embedded consistently in classroom teaching and learning*.

[Recommendation 1:]{.underline} To implement its core recommendation
through instructional materials:

1.  The NSB urges (a) broad adoption of the principle of citizen
    review; (b) active participation on citizen advisory boards by
    educators and practicing mathematicians and scientists, as well as
    parents and employers from knowledge-based industries; and (c) use
    of public forums to foster dialogue between textbook publishers and
    advisory boards in the review process.

2.  Accompanying this process should be an ongoing national dialogue on
    appropriate measures for evaluation of textbooks and instructional
    materials for use in the classroom. The NSB urges professional
    associations in the science community to take a lead in stimulating
    this dialogue and in formulating checklists or content inventories
    that could be valuable to their members, and all stakeholders, in
    the evaluation process.

Recommendation 2: to implement the core recommendation through teacher
preparation and professional development:

1\. The NSB urges formation of three-pronged partnerships: institutions
that graduate new teachers working in concert with national and state
certification bodies, and local school districts. These partnerships
should form around the highest possible standards of subject content
knowledge for new teachers, and aim at aligning teacher education,
certification requirements and processes, and hiring patterns.

2\. Mechanisms for the support of teachers, such as sustained mentoring
by individual university mathematics, science, and education faculty, as
well as other teacher support mechanisms such as pay supplements for
board certification, should be implemented through the three-pronged
partnerships.

[Recommendation 3]{.underline}: To implement the core recommendation
through the college admissions process, the NSB urges:

1\. institutions of higher education to form partnerships with local
districts/schools that create a more seamless K-16 system, increasing
the congruence between high school graduation requirements in math and
science and undergraduate performance demands; and,

2\. faculty and student incentives that motivate interactions to reveal
linkages between classroom-based skills and experiences and the demands
on thinking and learning in the workplace.

[Recommendation 4:]{.underline} To implement the core recommendation
through research:

1.  The National Science Foundation and the Department of Education must
    spearhead the Federal contribution to SMET education research and
    evaluation.

2.  Overall, the investment should increase---by the Federal government,
    private foundations, and other sponsors---in research on schooling,
    educational systems more generally, and teaching and learning of
    mathematics and science in particular. To focus and deepen the
    knowledge base, an interagency Education Research Initiative, led by
    NSF and the Department of Education, should be implemented. It
    should be distinguishable as a joint venture within the agencies'
    respective research missions, and cooperatively funded.

Selected Bibliography

Adelman, Clifford. 2002. *A Parallel Postsecondary Universe: The
Certification System in Information Technology.* Washington, DC: Office
of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

Alberts, Bruce.1998. "International Science: What's In It For The United
States." Statement of the President, National Academy of Sciences before
the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, March 25.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2001. *In Pursuit
of a Diverse Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
Workforce: Recommended Research Priorities to Enhance Participation by
Underrepresented Minorities.* Washington, DC: AAAS.
<http://ehrweb.aaas.org/mge/Reports/Report1/Menu.html>

American Council on Education. 2002. "Beyond September 11: A
Comprehensive National Policy on International Education."
<http://www/acenet/edu/bookstore>.

Borrus, Amy. 2002. "Workers of the World: Welcome," *Business* Week
(1/20).

Bush, Vannevar.1990. *Science---The Endless Frontier* (40^th^
Anniversary Edition) (NSF 90-8). Washington, DC: National Science
Foundation

Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in
Science, Engineering and Technology Development. 2000. *Land of
Plenty/Diversity as America's Competitive Edge in Science, Engineering
and Technology*.

Educational Testing Service. 2002. *Meeting the Need for Scientist,
Engineers, and an Educated Citizenry in a Technological Society*.
Princeton, NJ: <http://www.ets.org/research/pic>

Evelyn, Jamilah. 2002. "Nontraditional Students Dominate Undergraduate
Enrollments, U.S. Study Finds," *The Chronicle of Higher Education.*
<http://chronicle.com/daily/2002/06/2002060402n.htm>.

Goldman, Charles A. and William F. Massy. 2001. *The PhD
Factory/Training and Employment of Science and Engineering Doctorates In
the United States*. Boston, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.

Good, Mary L. 2002. "The Alliance for Science & Technology Research in
America Position Paper on The Science & Engineering Workforce."
Washington, DC: Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable
(GUIRR) Pan-Organizational Summit.

Guo, Yugui. 2002. "How Can the Chinese Intellectual Diasporas Help
Bridge their Host and Home Countries as well as Help their Home Country
Integrate into the International Community." DRAFT.

Hebel, Sara. 2002. "Report Urges Disciplined Spending by States to Make
College More Affordable," *The Chronicle of Higher Education*.
<http://chronicle.com/daily/2002/05/20020501n.htm>

Jackson, Shirley Ann. 2003. *Envisioning A 21^st^ Century Science and
Engineering Workforce for the United States/Tasks for University,
Industry, and Government*. Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
[http://www.nap.edu](http://www.nap.edu/).

\_\_\_\_\_\_. *The Quiet Crisis: Falling Short in Producing American
Scientific and Technical Talent*. (undated). San Diego, CA: Building
Engineering and Science Talent (BEST),
[http://www.bestworkforce.org](http://www.bestworkforce.org/).

Johnson, Jean M. 2000. "International Mobility of Doctoral Recipients
from U.S. Universities," NSF/SRS presentation to 40th Anniversary
Meeting, Council of Graduate Schools, New Orleans, December.

Kannakutty, Nimala. 1998. "The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce:
Data and Trends." Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, typescript
prepared for White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

King, Tracey and Ellynne Bannon. 2002. *The Burden of Borrowing: A
report on the rising rates of student loan debt*. Washington, DC: The
State PIRGs' Higher Education Project. <http://www/%5Borg/prg/highered>.

Lowell, Lindsey. 2001. "State of Knowledge on the Flow of Foreign
Science and Technology Workers to the United States." Presentation to
the National Science Board Taskforce on National Workforce Policies for
Science and Engineering, July 20. Washington, DC: Institute for the
Study of International Migration, Georgetown University.

National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21^st^
Century. 2002. *Before It's Too Late.*
[http://]{.underline}[www.ed.gov/americacounts/glenn/toc.htm](http://www.ed.gov/americacounts/glenn/toc.htm)

National Research Council. 2001a. *Educating Teachers of Science,
Mathematics, and Technology/New Practices for the New Millennium.*
Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.
[http://www.nap.edu](http://www.nap.edu/).

\_\_\_\_\_\_. 2001b. *Trends in Federal Support of Research and
Development.* Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
[http://www.nap.edu](http://www.nap.edu/)

\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1995. *Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and
Engineers*. [http://www.nap.edu](http://www.nap.edu/)

\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1998. *Trends in the Early Careers of Life Scientists*.
Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.
[http://www.nap.edu](http://www.nap.edu/)

National Science Board. 2002. *Science and Engineering Indicators 2002*
(NSB-0201). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
<http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/start.htm>.

\_\_\_\_\_\_. 2001. *Toward a More Effective Role for the U.S.
Government in International Science and Engineering* (NSB 01-187)*.*
Arlington VA: National Science Foundation.
<http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/reports.htm>.

\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1999. *Preparing Our Children/Math and Science Education
in the National Interest* (NSB 99-31).
<http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/reports.htm>.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1997. *The Federal Role in Science and Engineering
Graduate and Postdoctoral Education* (NSB 97-235).
<http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/reports.htm>.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1996. Report from the Task Force on Graduate and
Postdoctoral Education (NSB/GE-96-2).

National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in
Mathematics, Science and Technology. 1983. *Educating Americans for the
21^st^ Century.* Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

National Science Foundation. 2000. "Information Technology Workforce:
Special Initiative on the Under-representation of Women and Minorities
in the IT Workforce/ Abstracts of 19 Projects."

National Science and Technology Council. 2000. *Ensuring a Strong U.S.
Scientific, Technical, and Engineering Workforce in the 21^st^ Century*.
Washington DC: Office of Science and Technology Policy.
[\<http://www.ostp.gov/NSTC/html/nstc_pubs93_2000.html\>]{.underline}

Schatz, Willie. 2003. "Foul-ups test foreign students and schools," *The
Scientist* (3/27).

Seymour, Elaine. 1998.  "Tracking the Processes of change in U.S.
Undergraduate Education In Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and
Technology." Bureau of Sociological Research, the University of
Colorado, Boulder.

Stone, Elaine Ellis. 2001. "Figures Don't Lie, Do They?", *Computer
User*. <http://www.computeruser.com/articles/2001,1,3,1,0101,01.html>.

The United States Commission on National Security/21^st^ Century. 2001*.
Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change*.
[http://www.nssg,gov]()

The 21st Century Workforce Commission. 2000. *A Nation of Opportunity:
Building America's 21^st^ Century Workforce.* Washington, DC:U.S.
Department of Labor.

Tobias, Sheila. 1999. Remarks to the Commission on Professionals in
Science and Technology (CPST) for discussion of "Emerging Fields in
Science." <http://www.sciencemasters.com/articles_conceptualizing.html>.

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Inspector General. 2001.
*Recruitment and Retention of Scientific and Technical Personnel*
(DOE/IG-0512). [http://www.ig.doe.gov](http://www.ig.doe.gov/).

Wellman, Jane V. 2002. *State Policy and Community College-Baccalaureate
Transfer* (National Center Report #02-6). The National Center for Public
Policy and Higher Education, and The Institute for Higher Education
Policy.

Wilkinson, R. Keith. 2002. "How Large is the U.S. S&E Workforce?" (NSF
02-325) Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
<http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs>.

######### APPENDICES

NSB/NWP 02-3

AGENDA

Workshop on National Policy Options

**Task Force on National Workforce Policies for Science and
Engineering**

National Science Board

March 12, 2002

Stafford II, Room 555, NSF

[9:00 - 9:30 AM]{.underline}

Welcome

Dr. Joseph Miller, Task Force Chairman, National Science Board

Dr. Eamon Kelly, Chairman, National Science Board

Dr. Rita Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation

Introduction to the Workshop

> Dr. Joseph Miller, NSB Task Force Chairman

[9:30 AM --12:00 PM]{.underline}

Panel on national policies addressing the U. S. education system and its
ability to move students from secondary school into undergraduate
studies and thence into employment and/or graduate studies.

Moderator: Dr. Diana Natalicio, NSB Task Force Member

9:30 Policy focus on precollege to undergraduate transition
(Presentation and Q/A)

> Dr. David Conley, Associate Professor, University of Oregon, Center
> for Education Policy Research

## 

10:00 Policy focus on multiple pathways to the workforce and mobility of
students among kinds of educational offerings (Presentation and Q/A)

> Dr. Anthony Carnevale, Vice-President, Educational Testing Service

10:30-10:45 Break

10:45 Policy focus on the system for teacher preparation and
certification and the interplay with other career options (Presentation
and Q/A)

Dr. Rodger Bybee, Executive Director, Biological Sciences Curriculum
Study

11:15 Discussion

12:00- 1:00 Lunch

[1:00--1:45]{.underline} PM

###### Report of Critical Path Analysis of California's Science and Technology Education System

> Dr. Susan Hackwood, Executive Director, California Council on Science
> and Technology

[1:45 -- 5:00 PM]{.underline}

Panel on national policies to strengthen student interest in science,
engineering, and technology and graduate increased numbers of associate
and baccalaurate degree recipients well-prepared for employment
opportunities and/or advanced study.

Moderator: Dr. George Langford, NSB Task Force Member

1:45 Policy focus on incentives to increase supply of college graduates
(Presentation and Q/A)

Dr. Paul Romer, Professor, Stanford University

##### 2:30 -- 2:45 Break

2:45 Policy focus on diversity and student development (Presentation and
Q/A)

> Ms. Yolanda George, Deputy Director, Directorate for Education and
> Human Resources Programs, AAAS

3:15 Policy focus on institutional strategies and their impact on
undergraduate students (Presentation and Q/A)

#  Dr. Charles Goldman, Economist, RAND 

3:45 Discussion and synthesis

5:00 Adjourn

5:15 Reception, National Science Board Suite, Room 1225, Stafford I

Karolyn Eisenstein

Executive Secretary

<Keisenst@nsf.gov>

> 703-292-4621

NSB/NWP 02-15

AGENDA

Workshop II on National Policy Options

**Task Force on National Workforce Policies for Science and
Engineering**

National Science Board

June 28, 2002

Stafford I, Room 375, NSF

[9:00 - 9:20 AM]{.underline}

Welcome

Dr. George Langford, Task Force Vice-Chair, National Science Board

Dr. Rita Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation

Introduction to the Workshop

> Dr. George Langford, Task Force Vice-Chair, National Science Board

[9:20 AM --12:00 PM]{.underline}

[Panel on the workforce needs of government and industry]{.smallcaps}

Moderator: Dr. Maxine Savitz, NSB Task Force Member

## 

## *9:20 **Employment serving the U.S. government***

> Dr. John McTague, Vice-President -- Laboratory Management, University
> of California

10:10-10:30 Break

##  *10:30 **U. S. corporations and their workforce needs ***

> Dr. Donald Keck, Vice-President and Executive Director for Research
> (retired), Corning

## *11:15 **Discussion of government and industry needs ***

##  *All panelists and NSB members*

12:00- 1:00 Lunch

[1:00--1:45 PM]{.underline}

####### Impact of security policies on the S&E workforce

> Dr. John Marburger, Director, Office and Science and Technology
> Policy, Executive Office of the President

[1:45 -- 5:00 PM]{.underline}

[Panel on policies affecting the U. S. and global supply of scientists
and engineers]{.smallcaps}

Moderator: Dr. George Langford, NSB Task Force Member

1:45 U.S. policies and regulations affecting international graduate
students and postdoctoral researchers

Dr. James Burns, Foreign Relations Associate, American Council on
Education

2:30-2:45 Break

2:45 Policies and approaches in other countries: China

Dr. Yugui Guo, Guest Professor, Fudan University

3:15 **Factors affecting the choice of domestic students to attend
graduate school**

#  Dr. Frank Solomon, Professor of Biology, MIT

4:00 **Discussion of U.S. policies for improved development of our
domestic advanced S&E workforce**

All panelists and NSB members

5:00 Adjourn

Karolyn Eisenstein

NWP Executive Secretary

<Keisenst@nsf.gov>

703-292-4621

[^1]: The US Commission on National Security/21^st^ Century (Hart-Rudman
    Report).

[^2]: Alliance for Science and Technology Research in America (ASTRA),
    paper presented to GUIRR, 11/11/02.

[^3]: SEI-2002: 3-27 & text table 3-23.

[^4]: "The Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting
    the flow of new scientific knowledge and the development of
    scientific talent in our youth. These responsibilities are the
    proper concern of the Government, for they vitally affect our
    health, our jobs, and our national security." V. Bush, 1945: 8.

[^5]: SEI-2002, Chapter 2

[^6]: B. Lindsay Lowell. "State of Knowledge on the Flow of Foreign
    Science and Technology Workers to the United States", paper prepared
    for the NWP: 29

[^7]: See Box E

[^8]: Jean M. Johnson, "International Mobility of Doctoral Recipients
    from U. S. Universities," SRS data.

[^9]: Johnson, SRS data: O-4.

[^10]: SEI-2002: 3-28.

[^11]: Total R&D includes defense and nondefense. SEI-2002: 4-4.

[^12]: Johnson: 8.

[^13]: Yugui Guo, paper prepared for NWP Workshop, June 2002: 11.

[^14]: SEI-2002: 3-27,28,29.

[^15]: In 1999, of the approximately 8 million employed persons whose
    highest degree is in science or engineering, only 3 million are
    employed in occupations classified as S&E. The majority of those in
    occupations classified as non-S&E reported that the skills demanded
    on the job were closely or somewhat related to their field of study.
    Members of the workforce educated in science and engineering are
    mobile among occupations, with large numbers employed as managers,
    teachers, and marketing personnel. (SRS InfoBrief NSF02-325).

[^16]: NS&E is the natural sciences and engineering, where natural
    sciences includes physics, chemistry, astronomy, and earth,
    atmospheric, ocean, biological, and agricultural sciences, as well
    as mathematics and computer sciences. (SEI: 2-39, Figure 2-27).

[^17]: SEI-2002: O-3

[^18]: SEI 2002- Figure 2-11 and 2-13.

[^19]: SEI-2002 Appendix table 2.2

[^20]: SEI-2002, Text table 2-9

[^21]: SEI-2002 Appendix table 2-17, Figure 1 of this report.

[^22]: The US Commission on National Security/21^st^ Century, *Road Map
    for National Security*: Chapter II.

[^23]: Jane V Wellman, "State Policy and Community-College-Baccalaureate
    Transfer," August 2002, National Center for Public Policy and Higher
    Education.

[^24]: SEI 2002 : 2-4.

[^25]: SEI 2002 : 2-4.

[^26]: The State PIRGs' Higher Education Project ."The Burden of
    Borrowing: A Report on Rising Rates of Student Debt," March 2002.

[^27]: State PIRGs' Higher Education Project: 1.

[^28]: *Chronicle: Daily News*, 6/4/2002: 2, citing National Center for
    Education Statistics, US Dept. of Education.

[^29]: Research universities enroll only 19 percent of the students in
    higher education, but they play the largest role in S&E degree
    production. They produce most of the engineering degrees and a large
    proportion of the NS&E degrees. In 1998, the Nation's 127 research
    universities awarded more than 42 percent of all S&E bachelor's
    degrees and 52 percent of all S&E master's degrees. SEI-2002,
    Chapter 2.

[^30]: Data for 1997, SEI 2002

[^31]: California Council on Science and Technology.

[^32]: Elaine Seymour. "Tracking the Process of Change in US
    Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and
    Technology, "(reviewed by NSB/EHR Committee, March 2002 meeting).

[^33]: National Research Council. *Trends in the Early Careers of Life
    Scientists*, 1998.

[^34]: Graduate enrollment of US citizens and permanent residents
    dropped 3 percent from 1999 to 2000. An overall gain in graduate
    enrollment between 1999 and 2000 was more than accounted for by
    students with temporary visas, which increased 11 percent from
    109,890 in 1999 to 121,827 in 2000. Computer science, astronomy,
    oceanography, and agricultural economics evidenced gains from 1999
    to 2000, while chemistry, physics, geosciences, mathematical
    sciences, agricultural sciences, and biological sciences continued
    declines seen over much of the 1990s (NSF 02-306, December 21,
    2002).

[^35]: SEI: 2-32,33.

[^36]: The Federal Government has a dominant role in supporting graduate
    education in some fields and plays a less important role in others.
    It supports most research assistantships in the physical sciences,
    most traineeships in physical and biological sciences and chemical
    engineering, but is not a significant source of support in
    mathematics. Primary mechanisms of support differ widely by field,
    with physical sciences supported mainly through Research Assistants
    (42 percent) and Teaching Assistants (41 percent). Research
    Assistants are also important in engineering (41 percent) and earth,
    atmospheric, and ocean sciences (41 percent). In mathematics, the
    primary source of support is teaching assistantships (57 percent).

[^37]: Charles A. Goldman and W. F. Massy. *The PhD Factory*. 2001.

[^38]: SEI-2002, 4-7-9.

[^39]: SEI-2002 Text table 5-5.

[^40]: Text Table 5-5, SEI-2003.

[^41]: NRC, *Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and
    Engineers,* 1995; *Trends in the Early Careers of Life Scientists*,
    1998.

[^42]: See Box E: NSB Report on "Preparing Our Children: Math and
    Science Education in the National Interest," 1999

[^43]: (HR-1, 2001).

[^44]: US Commission on National Security.

[^45]: National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the
    21^st^ Century: 29.

[^46]: Stakeholders include teachers, parents, students, employers, and
    S&E professionals; local school districts and schools; higher
    education faculty and institutions for S&E and teacher education;
    national and state certification bodies; S&E and teacher
    professional organizations; textbook and instructional materials
    publishers; sponsors of educational research; state and local
    goverments; and Federal policymakers and agencies.

[^47]: See Box F for the recommendations of that report.

[^48]: According to a survey by the American Council on Education, the
    American public recognizes the importance of global involvement of
    US students and professionals and supports more international
    education opportunities, including study and internships abroad,
    scholarly exchanges, and opportunities to interact with
    international students. "Beyond September 11: A Comprehensive
    National Policy on International Education", ACE, 2002

[^49]: Testimony before the Committee on Science, US House of
    Representatives, March 25, 1998.

[^50]: Willie Schatz. "Congressional committee hears tales of ongoing
    problems with visas and SEVIS," *The Scientist*, March 27, 2003.

[^51]: Report commissioned by the NSB: "State of Knowledge on the Flow
    of Foreign Science and Technology Workers to the United States," B.
    Lindsay Lowell, Institute for the Study of International Migration,
    Georgetown University.

[^52]: Ibid,:11.

[^53]: Ibid: 8

[^54]: SEI-2002: 3-4 to 3-10.

[^55]: SEI-2002: 2-7 to 2-15.

[^56]: Academia is an example. Twenty percent of the average yearly job
    openings for college and university faculty are being filled by
    permanent residents and H-1B visa holders (Lowell report for NWP)
    The percentage is considerably higher in many fields of engineering,
    computer science, and physical science. Both the short-term and
    long-term impacts of this situation upon the educational experience
    of domestic undergraduate and graduate students are not understood.

[^57]:
    > Integration of data among Federal agency sources that measure and
    > track factors relevant to the national S&E workforce, such as
    > Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Science Foundation SESTAT,
    > and the Census Bureau would enable more productive research on S&E
    > workforce dynamics. NSF\'s data system on the science and
    > engineering labor force (SESTAT) is able to add data only once a
    > decade on individuals with only foreign-school science and
    > engineering degrees. This is done through a NSF follow-up survey
    > on college-educated individuals identified through the decennial
    > U.S. Census. Thus anyone with foreign, but not U.S. S&E degrees
    > who entered the U.S. after April 1990, will not be surveyed by NSF
    > until October 2003. NSF\'s data are unique in having large samples
    > of individuals with science and engineering degrees with
    > information on both field of degree and occupation. Data from the
    > Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS, formerly the
    > INS) includes the occupation of those entering under many visa
    > classes, but not degree level or field, and not the number
    > currently in the U.S. at any point in time. The Bureau of Labor
    > Statistics\' monthly Current Population Survey will pick up
    > individuals in S&E occupations, but there is no information on
    > field of degree and sample sizes (approximately 60,000 households)
    > are not sufficient to make estimates of foreign-born scientists by
    > occupation and degree.

[^58]:
    ##  There are few methodological tools to support such action. For example, good models of supply and demand for doctoral scientists and engineers are lacking and notoriously difficult to construct (see *Forecasting Demand and Supply of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers,* National Academy Press, 2000). While data on PhDs in academia are good, data on career paths of PhDs in industry are lacking. Demand in specific fields can be subject to short term fluctuations, while the supply of domestic degree holders is relatively inelastic in the short run due to the long lead time necessary to complete a Ph.D. 

[^59]: BEST, NSTC, ETS.

[^60]: NRC, *Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and
    Engineers*. 1995.