Subsidizing STEM Education

Thanks for the quick round 2, LaissezFaire. == My case == C1) Selective subsidization The topic is: to selectively subsidize STEM, while minimizing or eliminating subsidization of other majors. This is good because: if earning a STEM degree becomes significantly cheaper than earning a "Communications" or "Ethnic Studies" degree, then more people will choose to be STEM majors. C2) Importance of STEM jobs STEM jobs are key to economic growth. A report by Cherly Grossman of Ohio State concluded that 50% of our GDP growth since WWII has been caused by the STEM fields. [5] STEM workers are more productive members of society and add more substantially to both consumer spending and the tax base. A Congressional Report entitled "STEM Education: Preparing for the Jobs of the Future" points out that STEM workers enjoy *half* the unemployment rate and 26% higher salaries than their non-STEM counterparts. [6] STEM jobs are essential to decreasing unemployment. Over the last ten years, job growth has been 300% faster in STEM fields than in non-STEM fields. [7] C3) The looming shortage of STEM workers Current projections show that the US will not graduate enough STEM majors to meet the future needs of our businesses. The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology report concluded that "the United States must produce approximately one million more STEM graduates in the next 10 years to keep pace with the number of positions requiring STEM skills." [8] There will be critical STEM shortages not just in the private sector, but in the public sector as well. The Department of Defense will be retiring 70% of its STEM workers in the next few years and is in dire need of replacements. [9] Our military capabilities will dwindle without adequate R&D. C4) Foreign workers Companies have been filling the shortfall with foreign workers, although they can only do this for so long. Fareed Zakaria notes in "The Post-American World" that the rapidly rising *global* demand for STEM workers is driving more and more US-educated foreigners to return home upon graduation. Thus, educating mostly foreigners becomes a risky prospect, particularly at public institutions, where the "investment" is wasted if the student takes his or her skills to another country. The Congressional Research Service points out that "in 2006, foreign students on temporary resident visas earned 32.0% of the doctorates in the sciences, and 58.6% of the doctorates in engineering" in the US. [10] Given these statistics, employers say they "have no choice" – they have to hire mostly foreign workers. [11] The head of an Oracle consultant group said, "We advertise for American workers. The problem is, we don't get any applicants." [11] A study by William Kerr of Harvard Business School found that from 1995 to 2006, 67% of the growth in the STEM workforce "stemmed from immigrants." [11] This represents wasted opportunities to decrease the unemployment rate and strengthen the foundations of our economy. == Rebuttal == R1) Human markets LF essentially argues that there is a market solution to shortages in engineering students in the US. There are two key responses to this: 1. Markets aren't perfect. Robert Reich, professor in Economics at UC Berkeley, wrote a book called "Aftershock" explaining why the economy is currently such a mess. One key reason he cites is blind (and misplaced) faith in markets to correctly allocate resources, which has resulted in the complete erosion of middle class purchasing power. Reich bemoans the failure to invest in the middle class, such as sponsoring education (as we did in the ‘Age of Prosperity' with the GI Bill); he writes, "Instead of implementing a new set of policies that would enable the middle class to flourish under these very different circumstances, political leaders—reflecting the prevailing faith in an omnipotent and all-knowing free market—embraced deregulation… cut taxes on the wealthy, and shredded social safety nets." [1] 2. The free market doesn't care if private firms hire their engineers from at home or abroad. The free market generally fills market shortages in these fields with foreign labor. But *we* should care. American prosperity depends on increasing the purchasing power and human capital of American citizens. R2) Market distortions? My opponent waxes poetic about free market capitalism. However, he talks about the price that firms pay for labor. Yet, under the current system, demand for STEM majors is projected to rapidly outpace supply over the next 10 years (creating a 1 million shortfall in STEM majors). This will drive up the price. Since employers would theoretically like to subsidize education, but each employer could only have a marginal impact individually, this leads to a collective action problem, which is one reason that free markets fail. In addition, if we want more STEM majors, we need to look at the cost of a degree, not the price of labor. And education is not a free market. Colleges set the tuition for all majors at the exact same price. Labor demand has no ability to influence tuition costs. That's why subsidies are necessary to avoid labor shortfalls. Lastly, turn – China subsidizes STEM majors now, so they have already created a market distortion. We need to match them to remain competitive, or else all our STEM jobs will go to their artificially cheap (subsidized) graduates. "In China, more than 40 percent of all degrees awarded are STEM degrees. In the US, just one in eight is a STEM degree." [2] R3) Signaling LaissezFaire – under this point - is essentially arguing for the *opposite* of what I am arguing; he is arguing for additional *penalties* for STEM majors (and all college majors). He is basically saying that if 20% of your Math degree only benefits *you*, then your subsequent income will face an additional 20% tax. Even if liberal arts degrees face a higher tax rate than STEM degrees, levying additional taxes on college graduates will merely result in *fewer* people attending college. The decrease might be less in STEM majors, if they faced less of a tax. But a decrease is the opposite of what we want. Regardless, LF can never win this argument because it's impossible to quantify what percentage of one's income is due to signaling. LF's argument also seems to contradict his free market ethos – the point of taxation isn't to rob individuals of all the parts of their incomes that "do not benefit society." Lastly, this argument fails the mutual exclusivity test – you could try to tax the "individual benefits" of the degree, while still subsidizing the "societal benefits." Although I don't recommend it. LF's plan is over-complicated, infeasible, and impractical. R4) Solvency LF and I agreed beforehand that I would argue that we shouldn't subsidize non-STEM majors, so I don't get why he made this argument about how we shouldn't "subsidize everything else." I agree that studies show that 40% of STEM majors switch to an easier major. If a STEM degree were substantially cheaper, these students would think twice about switching in order to "lighten their workload." In addition, Obama has said we need 100,000 more STEM graduates in order to teach STEM in K-12. Providing subsidies to STEM majors also improves STEM education in K-12, ensuring the next generation is better prepared for college. == Sources == [1] Reich, Robert B. (2010-09-21). Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future (Vintage) (Kindle Locations 126-127). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition. [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3,4] - deleted [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com...