Educating Scientists and Engineers: Grade

School to Grad School

June 1988

NTIS order #PB88-235973
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Educating Scientists and Engineers: Grade

School to Grad School, OTA-SET-377 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

June 1988).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 88-600525

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(order form can be found in the back of this report)
Foreword

The Nation relies on scientists and engineers to conduct research and development,

teach, and meet the technical needs of industry and society. Ensuring an adequate supply

of versatile and well-trained people poses several challenges to America’s formal education

system, from elementary school through graduate school. The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology asked the Office of Technology Assessment to analyze the

factors that will affect

American schools,

replenish the technical

the supply of scientists and engineers in the foreseeable future.

colleges, and universities educate the scientists and engineers who

work force. This report examines how and why students are drawn

toward or deterred from pursuing a career in science or engineering. Schools, families, peers,

informal education efforts-such as museums, science centers, special programs, and television—all play a role. The subtitle of this report—Grade School to Grad School—emphasizes

that many factors and institutions must be understood as all one system.

The advisory panel, workshop participants, and other contributors to this study were

instrumental in defining the major issues and providing a range of perspectives on them.

OTA thanks them for their commitment of energy and sense of purpose. Their participation does not necessarily represent endorsement of the contents of this report, for which

OTA bears sole responsibility.

,.,

Ill
Amy L. Buhrig

Specialist Engineer

Artificial Intelligence

Boeing Aerospace Corp.

Seattle, WA

David M. Goodman

Deputy Director

New Jersey Commission on Science and

Technology

Trenton, NJ

Irma S. Jarcho

Chairman

Science Department

The New Lincoln School

New York, NY

Hugh F. Loweth

Consultant

Annandale, VA

James L. Powell

President

Franklin and Marshall College

Lancaster, PA

Rustum Roy

Evan Pugh Professor of the Solid State

Materials Research Laboratory

Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PA

Educating Scientists and Engineers: Grade School to Grad School

Advisory Panel

Neal F. Lane, Panel Chairman

Provost, Rice University, Houston, TX

William T. Snyder

Dean, College of Engineering

University of Tennessee

Knoxville, TN

Peter D. Syverson

Director of Information Services

Council of Graduate Schools in the United

States

Washington, DC

M. Elizabeth Tidball

Professor of Physiology

School of Medicine

The George Washington University

Washington, DC

Melvin R. Webb

Biology Department

Clark College

Atlanta, GA

F. Karl Willenbrock

Executive Director

American Society for Engineering Education

Bernard P. Sagik

Vice President for

Drexel University

Philadelphia, PA

Academic Affairs

Washington, DC” - -

Hilliard L. Williams

Director of Central Research

Monsanto Co.

St. Louis, MO

Dorothy S. Zinberg

Center for Science and International

Harvard University

Cambridge, MA

Affairs

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members. The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility

for the accuracy of its content.

iv
Educating Scientists and Engineers: Grade School to Grad School

OTA Project Staff

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA

Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division

Nancy Carson

Science, Education, and Transportation Program Manager

Daryl E. Chubin, Project Director

Lisa Heinz, Analyst

Richard Davies, Analyst

Christine M. Courtney, Research Assistant

Duncan Brown, Editor*

Marsha Fenn, Administrative Assistant

Christopher Clary, Administrative Secretary

Madeline Gross, Secretary

Leslie Ridenour, Administrative Secretary

Michelle Haahr, Secretary

Wendy Weingarten, Intern

John

Kath

OTA Contributors

Alic Robert Cook-Deegan Gary B. Ellis Michael Feuer

leen Fulton Kathi Hanna Martha Harris Nancy Lubin

Karen Mathiasen Robert Niblock Edith B. Page Linda Roberts

Special Thanks To:

Alan Fechter, National Research Council

Shirley Malcom, American Association for the Advancement of Science

Betty M. Vetter, Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology

This report is dedicated to the memory of Eugene Frankel

OTA Project Director, December 1984-May 1986

*Contractor.

v
Contractors

Applied Systems Institute, Inc.

Richard Wabnick,

Principal Investigator

Harley Balzer

Georgetown University

William K. Cummings

Harvard University

Christopher J. Dede

University of Houston at Clear Lake

Robert E. Fullilove

University of California, Berkeley

Michael E. Gluck

Harvard University

Steven L. Goldman

Lehigh University

Kenneth C. Green

University of California, Los Angeles

Edward J. Hackett

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Valerie E. Lee

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Arnold S. Levine

Consultant

Betty D. Maxfield

Consultant

National Research

Office of Scientific

Guy R. Neave

Council

and Engineering Personnel

University of London

John Reuss

Consultant

Vernon T. Savage

Towson State University

Betty M. Vetter

Commission on Professionals in Science and

Technology

Iris R. Weiss

Horizon Research, Inc.

Henry Hertzfeld

Consultant

vi
Contents

Chapter

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ch. 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ch. 2: Elementary and Secondary Education: Shaping

Ch. 3: Higher Education for Science and Engineering.

Ch. 4: Policy Issues and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

,..,. . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.,.,. . . . . . . .

the Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,

1

7

23

45

83

Appendixes Page

A. Alphabetical Listing of Leading Undergraduate Sources of Science and Engineering

Ph.D.s in Two Institutional

B. Major Federal Science and

Categories, 1950-75 . ................................11 3

Engineering Education Programs . . . . . . . . ...............116

C. Contractor Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........................124

D. Workshop Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................125

E. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........128

vii
Summary

American schools, colleges, and universities have

the capacity to provide enough scientists and engineers to meet the Nation’s needs. Historically,

students and institutions have satisfied changing

market needs, as evidenced by the response of engineering enrollments to the semiconductor industry

boom of the late 1970s. However, many researchers, employers, and policy makers are concerned that

future supply will be inadequate. In the early 1990s,

the Nation will experience a decline in the number

of college-age students, although some increase can

be expected before the turn of the century. More

important, fewer students, particularly those white

males who have been the mainstay of science, seem

to be interested in science and engineering careers.

Women’s interest in science and engineering, after

rising for a long time, seems to have plateaued. NonAsian minorities, traditionally poorly represented

in science and engineering, will form a steadily increasing proportion of American schoolchildren.

Despite these changes, OTA concludes that shortages of scientists and engineers are not inevitable;

the labor market will continue to adjust, albeit with

transitory and perhaps costly shortages and surpluses. The Federal Government may need to play

a more active role. Rather than trying to direct market responses, policy can aim to prepare a cadre of

versatile scientists and engineers for research and

teaching careers, invest in an educational system

that creates a reservoir of flexible talent for the work

force, and ensure opportunities for the participation

of all groups in science and engineering.

The Federal Government has had both direct and

indirect effects on the education of scientists and

engineers, but it is only one of many actors in the

system. The Federal role in science and engineering education is most significant at the graduate

level, more diffuse at the undergraduate level, and

small in elementary and secondary education.

Federal investment in science and engineering education and training is undertaken for many reasons;

there is no single objective or mission. One class of

investments is in direct support of graduate students

and production capacity at blue-chip universities.

Other investments are made in newer, developing

colleges and universities with growth potential, and

in undergraduate and precollege education. Federal

support is spread across different types of institutions and students, partly because of the uncertainty

of payoffs, and partly to ensure equality of access

and geographical balance. Both short- and long-term

investments are necessary in a marketplace where

demographics, economics, and technology constantly change the criteria for success in education

for the work force.

The educational process from grade school to

graduate school is 20 years long. This means there

are many possible Federal options for enriching the

future supply of scientists and engineers. It is difficult, however, to distinguish which would have the —

most impact. At each level of the educational system, there are many choices for action. Few measures guarantee predictable effects in the relatively

short term; most are more speculative and longerterm possibilities. Just as there are no imminent crises

in replenishing the science and engineering work

force, there are no quick fixes.

This assessment:

• examines the forces associated with elementary

and secondary education that shape the talent

pool;

● traces pathways to undergraduate and graduate education in science and engineering; and

● presents a discussion of policy areas for possible congressional action, developed under two

strategies labeled “retention” and “recruitment.”

Two Federal management issues are also identified.

These are leadership and coordination among Federal agencies, and evaluation of trends and outcomes

to define future policy actions that will improve the

reach and content of science and engineering education. The overarching policy issue is whether the

Federal Government allows the market for scientists and engineers to take its course or attempts to

intervene more boldly.

The two broad strategies of retention and recruitment complement each other and would operate

best in tandem (see table). The retention strategy

is designed to invigorate the current science and

engineering work force by reducing attrition of undergraduate and graduate students. Such short-term

retention programs could increase output of scientists and engineers within a few years. In contrast,

1
2

Policy Options To Improve Science and Engineering Education

Recruitment-Enlarge the Pool

●

●

●

●

●

●

Elementary and secondary teaching: encourage and reward teachers; expand support for

preservice and inservice training.

School opportunities: reproduce science-intensive schools; adjust course-taking and curricula; review tracking; and revise testing.

Intervention programs: increase interest in and readiness for science and engineering

majors; transfer the lessons from successful programs; encourage sponsorship from all

sources.

Informal education: increase support of science centers, TV, fairs, and camps.

Opportunities for women: enforce Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and provide special support and intervention.

Opportunities for minorities: enforce civil rights legislation and provide special support

and intervention.

Retention—Keep Students in the Pool

• Graduate training support: “buy” Ph.D.s with fellowships and traineeships; these people

are most likely to join the research work force.

● Academic R&D spending: bolster demand and support research assistants, especially

through the mission agencies.

● foreign students: adjust immigration policy to ease entry and retention.

● Undergraduate environments: support institutions that reward teaching and provide role

models, such as research colleges and universities, and historically Black institutions.

● Hands-on experience: encourage undergraduate research apprenticeships and cooperative education that impart career skills.

• Targeted support for undergraduates: I ink need- or merit-based aid to college major.

Strengthen Federal Science and Engineering Education Efforts

● National Science Foundation as /cad science education agency: underscore responsibility through the Science and Engineering Education Directorate for elementary through undergraduate science programs.

● Federal interagency coordination and data collection— raise the visibility of science education and the transfer of information between agencies and to educational communities.

recruitment is a long-term strategy to enlarge the

base of potential scientists and engineers by recruiting more and different students into science and

engineering. Such a strategy entails working with

schools and colleges, along with children, teachers,

and staff, to renovate elementary and secondary

mathematics and science education.

If the Nation wants more scientists and engineers

relatively quickly, then retaining college and graduate students in science and engineering is the most

useful policy strategy. Many able students leave science during college, after earning baccalaureate

degrees, and during graduate school. Only about

30 percent of baccalaureate science and engineering graduates enter full-time graduate study, and

nearly half of science and engineering doctoral candidates never earn Ph.D.s. Some loss is inevitable

(and, indeed, beneficial to other fields), but those

who leave unwillingly and prematurely are a rich

resource that could be tapped. Because attrition rates

are so high and the population of research scientists and engineers is relatively small, slight improvements in retention could increase significantly the

number of scientists and engineers in the work force.

Federal policies could work at all levels to retain

more of these able, interested students in the pool.

Many factors affect students’ career choice and

persistence in science and engineering: interest and

aptitude; perceptions about careers gleaned from

university faculty, peers, and jobs; and anticipated

earnings and other, nonmonetary rewards. Students

considering academic careers must also weigh the

burden of undertaking and financing graduate training. The Federal Government affects these career

decisions through targeted support of students,

universities, and research, and through its pervasive influence on the American economy and research agenda. The extent and form of Federal support for students, particularly graduate students,

affects the attractiveness of further study. Federal

research and development (R&D) support and national missions (e.g., in health, space, defense) shape
3

students’ perceptions of the job market for scientists and engineers, as well as the environments in

which students are educated.

Many of the policies discussed in this report involve established mechanisms that could be expanded effectively. There are prepared college graduates and graduate students who, with the proven

incentives of fellowships and R&D-supported jobs,

could be attracted to science and engineering.

The basic goal of recruitment is to expand and

improve the talent pool. The years to do this are

elementary school through the first years of college.

A particularly critical time is 6th through 12th grade,

when course-taking becomes more specialized and

career plans are formed. Policies to expand the mathematics and science talent pool differ from those to

accelerate or improve the education of a small,

science-oriented population. Students who take

early, enthusiastic likings to science and mathematics can be served differently from those whose

interests are still developing.

For all students, the content and quality of their

elementary and secondary education determine their

academic preparation for college, their likelihood

of graduating from college, and their ability to derive the greatest benefit from a college education.

Better high school graduates mean better college

graduates, and ultimately better scientists and engineers. Increased participation for those students outside the traditional stereotype of college-bound science or engineering majors, such as many minorities

and women, must begin with early changes in their

preparation, awareness, and interest. They must first

be prepared for and drawn into college and science

majors before they can respond to graduate and

R&D programs. The continuing low proportion of

these groups in science and engineering indicates

that the current educational system and career incentives must be made to work better. The end of

expansion and transition to a steady state of enrollments and research funding will require universities, employers, and the Federal Government to adjust their models and mechanisms of science and

engineering recruitment.

There are two demonstrably successful ways to

recruit young people to science and engineering: offer special science and mathematics educational enrichment programs tailored to selected students, and

give all students good, enthusiastic teaching. An area

of lively innovation is informal education—science

museums, television programs, camps, and other experiences outside the formal school system.

In the near term, policies can only be implemented

with existing teachers, schools, textbooks, and

equipment, in a system with multiple educational

objectives. In the longer term, substantial improvements in recruitment might come through full-scale

revision of elementary and secondary curricula,

tracking, testing, and course structure. Such sweeping change should be undertaken with all students

and all purposes of education in mind (not just science and engineering), and will be hard to achieve

given the scale of American education and the inertia of the existing system.

The health of the U.S. economy, technological

changes, and shifting government priorities, none

of which can be projected with any useful degree

of accuracy, all affect future demand for scientists

and engineers. The demand has increased since

World War II, and most analysts expect that growth

to continue; but growth will vary significantly from

field to field. The complexity of analyzing changes

in demand for the relatively small science and engineering work force confounds forecasts, especially

at the level of individual fields. Federal actions, because of their pervasive effects on the economy and

on the size and location of R&D activities, have

strong effects, both direct and indirect, on the

demand.

Although comprising only 4 percent of American

workers, scientists and engineers have specialized

skills that are vital to the national welfare: they

widen human understanding by doing basic research

and by teaching, they develop and apply new technologies of every kind, and they keep the national

physical infrastructure and manufacturing base running smoothly. Others trained as scientists and eng

ineers, but not actively employed in research or product development, also contribute to our national

well-being in other occupations. Historically, the demand for scientists and engineers has been rising.

The Nation is well advised, therefore, to seek an

adequate supply of people prepared for science and

engineering careers.
Chapter 1

Introduction

[large photograph in original manuscript omitted because of poor scan quality]
CONTENTS

Page

and Composition of the Talent Pool . . . . . +. . . . . . . . . . . .

The Science and Engineering “Pipeline” ● , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Demographic 8

11

13

13

16

16

18

20

Clarifying the Portrayal of Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....................

Anticipating Future Demand for Scientists and Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Strategies To Meet Future Needs: Federal and State Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal Influence on the Production of Scientists and Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Interaction of the States and the Federal Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Needs and the Goals of Science and Engineering Education . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figures

Figure Page

l-1. Size of 18-Year-Old Population, by Race/Ethnicity, 1979-2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

i-2. Population Projections of 5- to 14-Year-Olds, by Race/Ethnicity, 1982-2020. . . . 9

l-3. Projetions of Natural Science/Engineering B.S. Awards ., .. ., .. ..;. . . . . . . . 9

1-4. Natural Science/Engineering Pipeline: Following a Class From High School

Through Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Tables

Table Page

1-1. Factors Associated With Students’ Majoring in Science and Engineering . . . . . . 10

1-2. Factors Influencing Demand for and Supply of Scientists and Engineers. . . . . . .

1-3. Major Federal Programs Affecting the Education of Future Scientists and

15

Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Chapter 1

Introduction

Scientists and engineers, although comprising only

4 percent of American workers, have specialized

skills vital to the national welfare. They widen human understanding by doing basic research and

teaching, they develop and apply new technologies

of every kind, and they keep the national manufacturing base running smoothly. Many people trained

as scientists and engineers, but not actively employed

in research or product development, also contribute to the well-being of the United States by bringing strong quantitative skills and an understanding

of science to other occupations and fields. The Nation is well advised, therefore, to seek an adequate

supply of people equipped and able to work in science and engineering. ’

Recent trends have raised doubts in some minds

about the adequacy of the future science and engineering work force. 2 Declining birth rates portend

lower college and university enrollments, and thus

fewer science and engineering majors. Each successive college-age cohort also contains a larger proportion of ethnic and racial minorities, 3 which histori1“EqUIpped and able” implms high “quallty.” Because there IS no

agreement on definitions, it is difficult to measure the quality of students and of the educatmn they are receiving. Quality is a pervasive

factor In a scicntlst’s or engineer’s education and professional work;

It IS also an attrlbutc embodied by a group, suggesting that trained personnel possess the knowledge and skdls that make them \’ersatile enough

to satisfy a particular market demand when it arises. This assessment

assumes that excellence is a paramount goal of publlc policy.

‘Definitions of “scientist” and “engineer,” and therefore estimates

of the number of each, \’ary considerably bv source. Throughout this

assessment, the category “scientists and engineers” includes social scientists. Analyses that refer to “natural scientists and engineers” exclude social scientists. Classifying people by kind of science or engineering degree (baccalaureate, master’s, or Ph.D.), rather than kind

of work performed, is the more reliable basis for gauging future supply, including an important subset and focus of this assessment–the

“research work force.” For further discussion, see U.S. Congress, Offlcc of Technology Assessment, “Preparing for Science and Engineering Careers: Field-Level Profiles, ” staff paper, Jan. 21, 1987, pp. xv-xxii.

~Unless otherwme indicated, “minorities” refers to Blacks, Hispanics,

and American Indians. Asian-Americans have the highest rates of participation In science and engineering of any group; thus, they are not

considered with the other m inoritles. All of these analytical categories

mask the heterogeneity within racial and ethnic groups, which IS dlsCUSX4 below and ]n two forthcoming reports: U.S. Congress, Office

of Technology Assessment, Elementary and Secondary Education fbr

.%lence and Eng]neer~ng–A Technical Memorandum, forthcoming,

summer 1988; and U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Higher Educ-ation for Sclencc and Engineering–A Technical Memorandum, forthcoming, summer 1988.

cally have been poorly represented in science and

engineering. Furthermore, the number of women

planning science and engineering majors, after a decade of steady increases peaking in the late 1970s,

has plateaued. Their gains in science and engineering baccalaureate degree-taking have not compensated for the more dramatic declines in participation by white males in the mid- 1970s. (Many white

males, who in the past would have been likely to

become scientists or engineers, in recent years have

pursued majors in business instead; women are now

following suit.) In general, interest in scientific and

engineering careers, as indicated by annual surveys

of incoming college freshmen, has been declining

slightly for the last 3 to 5 years (although the annual output of baccalaureate science and engineering degrees is holding steady ).4

These trends, combined with the past decade’s sustained growth in science and engineering employment, have led some observers to forecast shortfalls

in the science and engineering work force. The belief that the pattern of births determines the number of future scientists and engineers (“demographic

determinism”) is, however, open to question on a

number of grounds:

●

●

●

●

Women (and, to a lesser extent, Blacks and

Hispanics) raised their rates of participation in

science and engineering during the 1970s; while

these gains seem to have leveled off in the 1980s,

there is no reason to believe that participation

cannot be further increased.

Longitudinal surveys of students show that their

choice of major and career plans change frequently, even up to the sophomore year of college, and their choices are influenced by market factors as well as by family and school.

Elementary and secondary schools could do a

better job of encouraging students in science

and mathematics, thus expanding the talent

pool.

Ph.D. production has never tracked either the

size of the birth cohort or the number of bac4A]exander w. Astin et al., The American Freshman: T~~’enty Year

Trends (Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, Universit y of California at LOS Angeles, 1987)) PP. 14-19.

7
8

calaureate degrees granted. The number of natural science and engineering Ph.D.s awarded

each year is small, between 12,000 and 14,000.

Thus, programs that make the Ph.D. more attractive, or other factors leading to fluctuations

in Ph.D. awards, can have sizable influence on

the research work force.

OTA concludes that the changing demographics

of the college-age population, including its racial

and ethnic composition, are not necessarily predictive of either the size or quality of the future

science and engineering talent pool. There are

ways to increase participation of all kinds of students at each level of the American educational

system. This system is more flexible and less predictable than the demographics suggest. Individual

choices, affected by schools and the job market, can

go far to meet society’s future needs for scientists

and engineers.

Should government intervention to increase the

number of people equipped to do science or engineering be judged desirable, there is evidence to

guide appropriate policy actions. This assessment

summarizes the evidence and reviews policy options

for creating an adequate future supply of scientists

and engineers.

THE DEMOGRAPHIC OUTLOOK AND COMPOSITION OF

THE TALENT POOL

Like many other professions in U.S. society, science and engineering have historically drawn their

members from the white male segment of the population. Today, the total college-age population is

shrinking while its minority component—which has

never been well-represented in science and engineering—is growing. The size of the college-age population at the turn of the century can be estimated reliably, since they have already been born. Census

Bureau projections show that the number of U. S.-

born 18-year-olds will fall until the mid-1990s before recovering substantially in the succeeding decade. As seen in figure 1-1, some describe this pattern as a “roller coaster.” At the same time, the

minority proportion of each cohort will rise slowly

but steadily. (See figure 1-2.) In absolute terms, the

number of Black 18-year-olds is also falling, although

not as rapidly as whites. The number of Hispanic

youth is rising. By the year 2000, over 25 percent of

the college-age population will be Black or Hispanic.5

A simple estimate of future scientists and engineers

is obtained by multiplying the population of collegeage people in the birth cohort by the historical proportion of college students, by sex and minority

composition, who major in science or engineering.

5Harold L. Hodgkinson, All One System: Demographics of Education, Kindergarten Through Graduate School (Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership, 1985). The increased number of nonAsian minorities will be concentrated in a few States such as California, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, and Texas. There is also a publicprivate school difference: minority enrollment in public elementary and

secondary schools nationwide is currently about 30 percent. The minority student population is much smaller in private schools.

Similar formulas are thought to govern each birth

cohort’s participation in graduate school and the

eventual yield of Ph.D. scientists and engineers. This

sort of simple extrapolation predicts declining output of scientists and engineers, which some take as

a portent of inevitable personnel shortages in certain fields of science and engineering.6

6National Science Foundation, The Science and Engineering f’i~e-

]jne, PRA Report 87-2 (Washington, DC: April 1987), pp. 1-2.

Figure 1-1.—Size of 18. Year-Old Population,

by Race/Ethnicity, 1979.2005

5 -

‘ L

White/other

1980 1935 1990 1995 2000 2005

NOTE: Series 17 projections—middle fertility, middle mortality, high net immigration.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Estimates of the Population of the United

States by Age, Sex, and Race: IWO to 19W, Current Population Repcms,

Series P-25, No. 1000; Projections of the Hispanic Population: 1983 to

2080, Current Population Repotis, Series P-25, No. 995; Projections of

the Population of the United States by Age, Sex, and Race: 1983 to

2080, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 952.
9

Figure 1“2.—PoDulation Projections of 5- to 14. YearI

1985 1990 1995200020052010 2015 2020

NOTE: Series 17 projections—middle fertility, middle mortality, high net immigration.

SOURCE: U.S Bureau of the Census, Projections of the Popu/atiorr of the United

States, by Age, Sex, and Race: 1983 to 2080, Current Population

Reports, Series P-25, No. 952; Projections of the Hispanic Population,

1983 to 2080, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No, 995.

The number of minority high school graduates,

particularly Black males, who apply for and enroll

in college has been declining for the last 5 years.

Large high school dropout rates persist among His--

panics (only 60 to 70 percent of whom complete high

school by age 24).7 On the other hand, the Black

and Hispanic communities are far from homogeneous. Life experiences of Blacks vary between the

North and the South, and between rural and urban areas. The Black middle class is growing and,

since educational success correlates more closely with

social class than with race, Black participation rates

may rise. The experiences of Hispanics vary considerably by their geographic origin: Mexican-Ameri7James R. Mingle, Focus on Minorities: Trends in Higher Education

Participation and Success (Denver, CO: Education Commission of the

States and the State Higher Education Executive Officers, July 1987);

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and

Improvement, Center for Education Statistics, The Condirion ofEducarion: A Srarisrica/ Report, 1987 Edirion (Washington, DC: 1987),

pp. 26-28; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Center for Education Statistics, Digest of

Education Statistics 1987 (Washington, DC: 1987), table 72.

can (Chicanos), Puerto Rican, and Cuban are the

three origins on which data are sometimes reported.8

One cannot draw safe conclusions about future

supplies of scientists and engineers on the basis of

aggregate demographic trends alone (see figure 1-

3). It is important to disaggregate and examine

how students of different talents, sexes, race, and

ethnicity flow through the education system to determine how the talent pool for scientific and

engineerin g careers is formed and how degree

aspirations are realized.

The future science and engineering work force begins with individual decisions to select and prepare

for such a career. Among the factors that researchers cite as being important to this decision (summarized in table 1-1) are gender, race or ethnicity,

parental occupations and other family influences,

socioeconomic status, kind of school attended and

courses taken, teaching practices employed, student’s

ability and talent, type of undergraduate college at-

‘For most comparisons of student intentions, enrollments, and

degree-taking, data are not available at this level of detail. Typically,

the analytical categories of Black and Hispanic must suffice.

Figure 1.3.- Projections of Natural Science/

Engineering (NSE) B.S. Awards

350

100

50 I

 1980

Projected NSEB . S .-

7% of 22-year-olds

Projected NSE B . S .-

4% of 22-year-olds

1 1 1 1 I 1

1990 200 0 2010 202 0

NOTE: OTA projections of natural science/engineering degrees assume a range

Of 4 to 7 pWCWlt Of 22-year-olds obtain 8.S. degrees in natural sciencel

engineering. The rate in 1986 was 5 percent (7,5 percent for all science/

engineering); the average rate from 1975-85 has declined from 8 to 7 percent for science/engineering, and has ranged from 4 to 5 percent for natural science/engineering (Center for Education Statistics degree data and

U.S. Bureau of the Census population data). Natural science/engineering

does not include the social sciences.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Center for Education Statistics.
10

Table 1-1 .—Factors Associated With Students’ Majoring in Science and Engineering

The most important factors that contribute to students majoring in science and engineering

Factor Principal effect

Being in the academic track Access to advanced courses and encouragement

Taking the most demanding science and mathematics Preparation for college science or engineering major

courses

Race and ethnicity—being white or Asian rather than Cultural acceptance of science or engineering as a

Black or Hispanic career

Sex—male rather than female Cultural acceptance of science or engineering as a

career; no childbearing/family conflicts with career

Family socioeconomic status—being able to afford Well-educated, school-oriented parents; access to good

college schools; information on negotiating the system

Parents—having a parent who is a scientist or engineer Role model, early and substantial exposure to science as

process

Early research participation Early exposure to how science really works

Intrinsic interest—finding science enjoyable Curiosity about mathematics and science courses

Having a good, enthusiastic science teacher and/or Heightened student interest and achievement; positive

guidance counselor attitudes toward science; college attendance

Participation in an intervention program Development of interest, enthusiasm, self-esteem

Being in a science-intensive school Access to courses, labs, peers, and teachers—a science

environment

Factors that may contribute to students majoring in science and engineering

Factor Likely principal effect

Having a well-qualified science teacher More likely to be knowledgeable about science and communicate positive attitude

Meeting or observing a scientist or engineer, having a Self-identification with science

role model

Being taught using many science experiments (“hands- Heightened interest and knowledge of reality of science

on” experience)

Being in a school district with a science coordinator School is likely to have better curricula and facilities

Factors about which there is little evidence of contribution

Factor Effect if anv.

Being in summer science camp Self-confidence and enthusiasm developed from science

being a voluntary activity

Television (e.g., “3-2-1 Contact”) Heightened enthusiasm, self-concept, and knowledge

about science

Science centers and museums Alternative to classroom; “Explainer” experience builds

academic self-esteem

National Science Foundation mathematics and science More experimental work, more relevant content

curricula

Having a teacher that has been through a National Teacher more interested in and knowledgeable about

Science Foundation teacher institute science

Having a good textbook More likely to maintain interest in science classes

State and local graduation requirements More likely to take more and higher level mathematics

and science classes

Being in a school or district that benefits from Depart- Better trained teachers, more equipment

ment of Education Title II funding

Career seminars and brochures Better knowledge of what science and engineering

careers are about

Teacher salaries and school funding Richer schools can afford to do more in science, get better teachers, and retain them

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 19S8,
11

tended, early participation in scientific research, and

availability of graduate funding. While the probability that a woman, Black, or Hispanic will major in

science or engineering is many times lower than that

of a white male, it is not easy to express and measure exactly what it is about being female, a member of an ethnic minority, or a white male that leads

to these behaviors.”

The complexity of such questions of cause and effect IS well dcSC rlhed h}. a studv of the causes of the national decline in achievement

test scores, rmentlv publlshed by’ the Ct>ngrcssionai Budget Office. U.S.

Congress, Congresslona! Budget Office, EducntIorIai Achw,ement: E.Y-

~>]anztlons and /ml)//carions ofRc’[ enr Trends (Washington, DC: Auguit 1987).

It is not necessary to understand all the causes

of cultural, racial, ethnic, and sex differences that

underlie the propensity to major in science and engineering before seeking to make changes to the system. It is helpful, however, to understand how com--

ing demographic changes will translate into the

passage of talent through the education system. Although the talent pool forms as early as junior high

school, its composition evolves from students who

are interested in science and mathematics in the

early grades and attend college, to those who major

in science or engineering and actually earn degrees

in these fields.

THE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING “PIPELINE”

The formal education system is seen by many as

a kind of “pipeline” through which students pass

on their way to science and engineering careers. The

pipeline is a model of the process that refines abundant “crude” talent into select “finished” products

as signified by award of baccalaureate, master’s, and

doctorate degrees (for an example, see figure 1-4).

According to this model:

●

●

●

●

“Although the talent pool seems to reach its

maximum size before high school, migration

into the pool continues to occur during grades

9 through 12. However, after high school, migration is almost entirely out of, not into, the

pool.”10

“The early years (prior to 9th grade) are critical in recruiting students to the sciences. Socioeconomic status (parental educational attainment, occupation, and income) is a strong

influence at this stage, affecting values and formal and informal educational activities that

have a major impact on the development of

children’s interests and abilities."11

“[In high school] the influence of aptitude and

sense of competence are critical . . . . Particularly crucial are the decisions students make regarding enrollment in advanced mathematics

courses. ”

“Major losses to the science and engineering tal-

‘ Sue E. Bcrrvman, W’ho W’ill DO s~lcn~e~ A Special Report (Ne~~’

York, NY: The Rockefeller Foundatmn, 1983), p. 7.

IGo\ernment-Lhl~ erslt\r-Industry Roundtable, Nurruring ,%-ien~e

and Englneerlng Talent (Nrashington, DC: National Academy Press,

1987), p. ~. Quotations below are from this source unless otherwise

noted.

●

ent pool occur during the college years. This

signals the need to pay more attention to the

quality of undergraduate programs—the extent

of interaction between students and senior

faculty, the balance between curricula designed

to weed students out and curricula designed to

nurture students along, and the availability of

undergraduate research experiences. ”

“The transition from undergraduate to graduate school is another big loss point . . . . Students’ perceptions of opportunity are key here.

The availability of jobs, income potential, job

security, and occupational status all come into

play.”

The pipeline model emphasizes the links between

all stages of formal education, from kindergarten

through graduate school. It suggests that an early

display and recognition of talent is essential. Without the traditional preparatory mathematics and science courses, students are left behind, unable to

catch up if they aspire to a scientific or engineering

career. Yet losses of aspiring science and engineering students occur at each juncture in the pipeline.

While an attitude of exclusivity has typified the cultivation of science and engineering talent, a broader

base of learners has always been possible. The National Academy of Sciences concludes:

Every educational and developmental stage is a

potential point of intervention, and a comprehensive approach to nurturing science and engineering

talent must address the whole pipeline. 12

‘JIlmd.
12

Figure 1.4.—Natural Science/Engineeringa Pipeline: Following a Class From High School

Through Graduate School

1977 high school sophomores

4,000,000 (loo%)

1977 high school sophomores

interested in NSE 730,000 (18%)

1979 high school seniors

interested in NSE 590,000 (15%)

1980 college freshmen planning

NSE degrees 340,000 (9%)

1984 NSE B.S. degrees 206,000 (1. 5%)

1984 NSE graduate studsnts 61,000 (l%)

1986 NSE M.S . degrees 46,000 (l%)

1992 NSE Ph.D. s 9,700 (0.2%)b

afqatural Sc~ence/erlgineering (NSE) includes physical, mathematical, and life sciences, and en9ineerin9, but not the social Sciences.

bNational Science F~undati~n estimate, based on the historical rate in NSE of 5 percent of B.S. graduates going on for Ph.D.s (lJSir’lg an 8-year average lag time frOm

B.S. to Ph.D.). If market conditions increase demand for Ph.D.s, then this estimate may understate future production of NSE Ph. D.s. The number of NSE Ph. D.s in

1988 was about 12,000, or over 7 percent of NSE B.S. graduates in 1978 (Center for Education Statistics degree data). Assuming 7 percent of 1988 B.S. graduates

rather than 5 percent go on for Ph. D.s would project 14,400 NSE Ph. D.s in 1992 rather than 9,700. Other methods of prediction (for instance, estimating Ph. D.s as

a percent of the 3@year-old age cohort) show similar responsiveness to changing participation rates and assumptions. The Ph.D. population is very small and responds

to changing conditions in academia and the job market, so that population-based estimates should be taken as rough indicators or warning signals rather than as

soiid predictions.

NOTE: These National Science Foundation estimates indicate the general pattern of the NSE pipeline, but are not actual numbers of students in the pipeline. (For

instance, actual natural science/engineering B.S. production was 209,000 in 1988, Center for Education Statistics data.) The estimates are based on data from

the U.S. Department of Education-sponsored National Longitudinal Study of 1972 Seniors (for the high school senior through graduate school transitions) and

High School and Beyond Study of 1980 Seniors (for the high school sophomore to high school senior transition). Since the National Longitudinal Study was

conducted, student interest in NSE majors has risen, but it is not yet clear whether trends in student interest with time will follow the pattern of 1972 high

school seniors reveaied by the National Longitudinal Study.

SOURCE: National Science Foundation, The Science and Engineering Pipeline, PRA Report 87-2, April 1987, p. 3; and personal communication with National Science

Foundation staff.
13

Clarifying the Portrayal of Supply

In reality, each tier of education has to work with

the students with which it is fed. In recent years,

each tier has voiced serious complaints about the

quality of students emerging from the preceding tier.

Nevertheless, the task is to do the best with the available students rather than bemoaning the situation

and laying blame.13 OTA finds that the pipeline is

not filled solely by the determined core of committed students who display early promise, high

achievement, and drive. Estimates suggest that

one-quarter of those who eventually go on to major in science and engineering come from outside

the academic (college-preparatory) curriculum

track. ]q

In the long run, the greatest influence on the size

and quality of the science and engineering work

force is elementary and secondary education, for it

is the schools that interest and prepare, or fail to

prepare, students with the necessary background in

science and mathematics. Schools are asked to do

many things for students, including inspiring an appreciation for knowledge and instilling good study

habits for its pursuit. One of their tasks is identifying and sorting talent (the “college-bound”) for college study, which targets students for certain careers.

Schools, in effect, are purveyors and engineers of

culture, as well as being gatekeepers to the professions. This duality is expressed in competing desires

for both mass and elite education: schools are expected to arrange programs for the “gifted and talented” and programs to bootstrap the disadvantaged

and learning disabled. Against these objectives, the

] ‘There IS l}ldespread cllsenchantment with the o~era]l quality of

elementary, secondary, and e~’en higher education, which is percei~ed

to be cleclinlng, while its cost is rlslng in real terms. See, for example,

Natlona] Comrnisslon on Excellence In Education, A Nation ar Risk

(Washington, DC: April 1983); Carnegie Forum on Education and the

Economy, A Narmn Prepared: Teachers for the llst Century’, The Report of the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession (New York, NY:

Carnegie Forum, hfay 1986); The Chrorucje ofl-fighcr Education, “Text

of Pre\ldents’ Open Letter Urging Colleges To Be Active in School

Reform,” Jo]. 3-I, No. -1, Sept. 23, 1987, p. AZ 3.

~~Thls estimate is based on an analysls of the High School and Bevond sur~’ey, class of 1982. }’alerle E. Lee, “Identifying Potential Scientists and Engineers: An Analysis of the High School-College Transition, ” OTA contractor report, September 1987. Though variations

In the preparation and paths to a career in science or engineering are

not well-understood, a detailed analysis of the relations ip between

course-taking and intended college major is contained in Office of Technology Assessment, Elementar)r and Secondarv Educatmn for Science

anJ Engineering, op. cit., footnote 3.

challenge is to prevent mathematics and science education from being shortchanged.

Schools, therefore, can do a lot to prepare or inhibit students in science and engineering, through

actions such as course offerings, curricula, testing,

and tracking. Calls today for “technological literacy” echo the post-Sputnik battle cry that raised the

level of mathematics and science consciousness—

and content—in the schools. But the teaching of

mathematics and science leaves much to be desired

—content at the elementary level, pedagogical techniques in high school, The training of science teachers,

with its emphasis on teaching methods, often fails

to inculcate in future science teachers an understanding of and enthusiasm for science as a process

of inquiry, and not just a bundle of facts.15

The pipeline model is still a black box of the educational process that acts upon students. It portrays

the net effects of this process as a dwindling supply

of talent, with its composition in flux, that has been

sorted and guided toward future careers that require

additional education. As an analytical tool, the pipeline illuminates choices and motivations both within

students and schools. Each is future-oriented, anticipating a market that will match skills and interests to expected employment needs. Although the

match is imperfect, the funding of these needs creates “demand.”

Anticipating Future Demand for

Scientists and Engineers

The health of the economy, technological changes,

and shifting government priorities, which cannot

be projected with any useful degree of accuracy, all

affect future demand for scientists and engineers (see

table I-2). Historically, this demand has been rising, and many analysts expect that growth to continue; but growth will vary significantly from field

to field. The complexity of analyzing changes in demand for the relatively small science and engineering work force confounds forecasts and increases

ljEdward B. Har\,ey and Lorna R. Marsden, “Excellence and Equality: The Contradiction in Science Teaching m America, ” Science Tt,:I’ /l.

ing: The Year in .%hcd Science 19S5, Audrey B. Champagne and Leshe

E. Hornig (eds.) (V’ashlngton, DC: American Association for the Ad-

\’anccment of Science, 1986), pp. 126-1 W; Iris R. Weiss, “Pre- and InService Training, Roles of Various Actors, and Incentives to Quality

Science Teaching,” OTA workshop summary, September 1987.
—

14

Photo credits: John Jernegan, MESA Program (inset); The Science Museum of Virginia and Association of Science and Technology Centers

The future supply of scientists and engineers could be improved by many actions. In the long term, the number of minorities

that enter these fields can only be increased if more attention is paid to elementary and secondary education, where

the minority talent pool is unduly curtailed. Here, minority students participate in an intervention program at the Lawrence

Hall of Science, California, which offers special courses designed to interest students in science. Highly able white

students could also be encouraged toward science and engineering; many now opt for other careers, such as business,

instead. In either case, the same techniques, such as hands-on experiments in science, help stimulate students’ interest

in, and understanding of, science.

uncertainty, especially at the level of individual

fields. ”

Federal actions, because of their pervasive effects

on the economy and on the size and location of

research and development (R&D) activities, have

strong effects, both direct and indirect, on the demand. Spot shortages and surpluses in some disciplines seem unavoidable as long as we maintain

a dynamic economy. Recent examples include certain

computer-related engineering and science subfields,

and resource geology before that. Market forces tend

to correct such shortages before policy measures

‘“Concern for and methods of projecting employment demand for

scientists and engineers were reviewed in U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Demographic Trends and the Scientific and Engineering Work Force—A Technical Memorandum, OTA-TM-SET-35

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1985),

esp. ch. 3. OTA concluded first, that labor markets for scientists and

engineers display considerable flexibility. These markets send signals

to potential new entrants and to existing participants causing them

to realign their education and training according to market needs. Second, trends toward increasing participation by women, older students,

and minorities will push overall participation rates up, even as birth

cohorts shrink.
15

Table 1-2.—Factors Influencing Demand for and Supply of Scientists and Engineers

Factors that increase demand

● Increase in basic research

● Increase in mission research

● Economic growth

● Increasing technological sophistication of U.S. manufacturing and services due to scientific progress, international competition, and demand for a higher standard of living

● Increase in science and engineering higher education enrollments (causing an increased

demand for faculty)

Factors that decrease demand

● Sending R&D and engineering offshore

● Decrease i n basic or mission research

● Economic recession

Factors that shift demand between disciplines

● Technological change and scientific advance of all kinds, which render some disciplines

obsolete while creating new ones

● Automation of engineering functions by means of computer-aided design and manufacturing and other communication and information technologies

● Using technicians for some tasks now undertaken by scientists and engineers

Factors influencing supply

● The size and rate of increase or decrease of demand for scientists and engineers modulated by the salary advantage for scientists and engineers and the national level of R&D

expenditure

● The number of births and their racial and ethnic composition

● Education at elementary, secondary, and higher levels

● Permanent and temporary immigration of foreign scientists and engineers

● Federal and State initiatives to encourage different types of institutions to award more

science and engineering degrees or award degrees at a higher level

● Legislation and other actions that affect the opportunity to attend and afford college or

graduate education

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988.

would. l7 Nevertheless, policy is needed to ensure a

baseline capacity to adjust to market changes.

Historically, scientists and engineers have experienced lower unemployment than other professionals.

Based on employer reports and salary offers to new

graduates, at present, no long-term shortages are

apparent. *s Salaries are an indicator of demand;

salary increases in a field or industry signal a need

to attract more trained personnel, both new graduates and those elsewhere in the work force. For

example, spot shortages in certain engineering specialties (such as those supporting the energy boom

of the 1970s and the electronics boom of the early

1980s) occasionally drive salaries up rapidly before

subsiding.19

‘;More pronounced shortages are created by Federal research missions, such as the Apollo program in the 1960s. See Arnold S. Levine,

“The Apollo Program: Science and Engineering Personnel Demand

Created by a Federal Research Mmlon,” OTA contractor report, OCtober 1986.

‘“National Science Foundation, National Patterns of Science and

Technology Resources, NSF 86-309 (Washington, DC: 1986).

‘“Engineering salaries over the past 30 years have been flat, In real

dollars. The most recent information on job offers to science and engiWhen the number of students in the educational

system (usually at the undergraduate level where enrollments indicate the likely future distribution of

degrees):

. . . is deemed too low in a given field, as compared

with an anticipated need for their services, policymakers can deploy strategies designed to increase

this number. Broadly speaking, these strategies seek

to increase the percentage of students at that stage

majoring in the shortage field or to reduce student

attrition up to that stage. . . . It appears that strategies designed to reduce the attrition from natural

sciences and engineering coursework are more realistically based than field-specific strategies. 20

neerin g graduates indicates that although salarws are not increasing—a

sign of a steady supply—at all degree levels scientists and engineers enjoy the highest average starting salaries relative to other fields. Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology’, Salarles of Scienrisrs, Engineers, and Technicians (Washington, DC: Octokr I Q82.

A primary source of salary data E the annual College Placement Council

survey, which notes that average salary offers to wo~len in 1987 were

lower than to men in all fields except engineering (see )vlanpower Commenrs, September 1987, pp. 12-1 3).

“’National Science Foundation, op. cit., footnote 6, p. 2.
16

STRATEGIES TO MEET FUTURE NEEDS:

FEDERAL AND

In articulating concern about future numbers of

scientists and engineers, politicians and industry

leaders have linked educational needs to improving

the Nation’s industrial competitiveness in a global

economy. Several strategies exist to hedge against

shifting national needs and any enduring mismatches between increasing future demand for

scientists and engineers and the supply that would

result from unperturbed historical trends. Strategies that emphasize the supply of talent must focus

on education and the schools; therefore, the principal policy actors are Federal and State Governments. Various other institutions, however, have

roles to play.

Strategies are of two general types: retaining students interested in a science or engineering career

by reducing their attrition from the talent pool,

and recruiting new students to enlarge the pool.

One specific strategy is to encourage more students

of the kind that have traditionally entered these

careers, predominantly highly able white males, to

shift from their current careers of choice (such as

business) back to science and engineering fields.

Another is to enthuse the vast majority of students

who are now disaffected from science in elementary

and secondary education for whatever reason—poor

teaching, undemanding curricula, or belief that science and engineering are too difficult. Still another

strategy is to provide more support to women and

minorities to enter careers in science and engineering. There is now emerging, in particular, a considerable body of empirical knowledge on the things

that can be done to encourage women and minorities to study science and engineering. Such actions

include the introduction of role models, the use of

intervention programs, familiarizing teachers with

the subtle ways by which they discriminate by race

and by gender, and creating a classroom climate of

high expectations and self-esteem among students.21

~lShirley M. Malcom, Equity and Excellence: Compatible Goals, An

Assessment of Programs That Facilitate Increased Access ?nd Achievement of Females and Minorities in K-12 Mathematics and Science Education (Washington, DC: Office of Opportunities in Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science, December 1984),

esp. pp. 14-20.

STATE ROLES

The surest strategy of all, and one that the United

States has employed since these lands were first

colonized, is to welcome immigration of scientists

and engineers. American science and engineering

has reaped longstanding benefits from this ready resource. At the graduate level, this policy is being

applied in the face of declines in the numbers of U.S.

citizens entering graduate school. The chief U.S.

worry is an over-reliance on foreign talent, though

it is unclear how much is “too much.”22 There are

also ways of reducing the demand for U.S. scientists and engineers, including reducing spending on

basic and applied research, making more intensive

use of technicians, or taking R&D overseas and thus

using foreign scientists and engineers.

Federal Influence on the Production

of Scientists and Engineers

Federal R&D initiatives–although not intended

primarily as personnel development programs—

shape the research job market, the availability of

academic research funds (including research assistantships), and consequently, the demand for Ph.D.s.

These effects are amplified by the private sector’s

job markets, too, when—as is often the case—Federal

programs influence industry R&D decisions. Undergraduate enrollments also respond to other Federal

initiatives: the GI bill led to increases (especially of

male veterans returning home after World War

II),

23 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

‘

: Importing talent is controversial and risky, since imports may disturb domestic labor markets and since concerns about “brain drains”

to the United States are already causing some foreign governments to

consider ways to stem the losses from their own talent pools and to

repatriate their citizens. Some also cite the oral communication skills

of foreign-born faculty and teaching assistants as a problem in undergraduate science and engineering education. See Elinor G. Barber and

Robert P. Morgan, The Impact of Foreign Graduate Students on U.S.

Engineering Educarion (New York, NY and St. Louis, MO: Institute

of International Education and Center for Development Technology,

Washington University, June 1987), PP. 69-79.

‘iThe Korean and Vietnam wars did not; enrollment increases–

which occurred more in 2- than 4-year institutions after Vietnam—

were proportional to population growth. U.S. Department of

Commerce, Bureau of the Census, School Enrol/ment–Social and Economic Characteristics of Srudents: October 2976 (Washington, DC:

February 1978), pp. 1-4.
17

boosted college attendance by minority students,24

and Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments

increased the participation of women in higher education. 25

The most demonstrably effective direct Federal

investment in science and engineering education

of Ph.D.s is the funding of graduate fellowships

in specific fields of study. Though few in number,

fellowships and traineeships help produce Ph.D.s

and encourage students to shift their postdoctoral

plans. 26 There are few timely solutions to shortages

‘qMeyer Weinberg, The Search for Quality Integrated Education:

POIICV and Research on Minority Students in School and College (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1983), pp. 306-319.

“Phyllis Wel-Erh Cheng, University of Southern California, “The

New Federalism and Women’s Educational Equity,” unpublished manuscript, December 1987.

‘The postdoctoral fellowship is a multipurpose measure. For the recipient, It can be an award of distinction, a period for augmenting one’s

technical skills, and/or a way of postponing entry to a fallow market

of, sav, Iimlted academic op~wtunlty. Interpretations of postdoctorates

as a post-Ph. D. status and activity must take into account both impacts on the work force and the individual career. See National Research Council, Postdoctoral Appointments and Disappointments

(Washington, DC: National Academy press, 1981); William Zumeta,

“Anatomv of the Boom in Postdoctoral Appointments During the

1970s: Troubllng Implications for Quality Science?” Science, Technolog}r, & Human Values, Yol. 9, No. 2, spring 1984, pp. 23-27.

Photo credit: Carl Zitzmann, George Mason University

The Federal Government has a vital role in supporting

the infrastructure of graduate science and engineering

education in order to ensure an adequate supply of

researchers. Federal support comes in several forms,

recognizing the fundamental links, as well as the

differences, between education and research at the

graduate level. The principal forms are institutional

support, research contracts, and fellowships and

traineeships awarded to students. In seeking to maintain

the educational infrastructure for science and engineering,

Federal policy needs to address each of these forms.

of specialized skills other than the versatility of those

already in the work force. Fine-tuning the educational system to affect the future production of scientists and engineers to meet anticipated transient

conditions of changing job markets is difficult. The

lag times in the education system, especially for

Ph.D. scientists, are long compared to the usual

duration of shortages in particular employment

markets.

A long-term program to increase the pool of potential scientific and engineering talent and the quality of those who eventually become scientists and

engineers will have to tackle the schools as the principal institutions that motivate, attract, and deter

students from various careers.27 Other long-term

measures might include:

●

●

●

Federal support of special intervention programs

to recruit and retain women and minorities in

science and engineering (and eventually to institutionalize in the schools and colleges the interventions that work).

Federal support for the propagation of higher

education environments that are unusually productive of baccalaureates who eventually gain

Ph.D.s in science and engineering. (These environments include not only research universities, but also others that excel at integrating

teaching and research for particular populations: private liberal arts colleges, including a

subset of predominantly women’s colleges and

traditionally Black institutions.28)

Focusing the responsibility for precollege mathematics and science (addressed to teachers and

students alike), as well as undergraduate science

and engineering programs, experiments, and

evaluations, on the National Science Founda-

‘

; Families, peers, and out-of-school influences (e.g., churches and

communit y organizations) interact \\’ith schools, teachers, and counselors to underscore (or undermlnc) the Image of science and enginw-lng

in American culture. See Robert E. Fullilove, “Images of Science: Fa~-

tors Affecting the Choice of Science as a Career, ” OTA contractor

report, 1987. The contrast of these interactions In Japanese culture IS

explored in William K. Cummings, “International Comparison of Science and Engineering Work Force Policies: Japan, ” OTA contractor

report, 1987.

‘“See, for example, M. Elizabeth Tldball, “Baccalaureate Origins of

Recent Natural Science Doctorates, ’’-journal of H@er Educatmn, vol.

57, No. 6, No\’ember-December 1986, pp. 606-620; Gail E. Thomas,

“Black Students in U.S. Graduate and Professional Schools in the 1980s:

A N’ational and Institutional Assessment,” Har\ard Educational ReLr~eIII, ~wl. 57, No. 3, August 1987, pp. 261-282.
18

tion’s (NSF) Science and Engineering Education (SEE) Directorate.

Interaction of the States and the

Federal Government

Although the Federal role in the national education system is old (through the Northwest Ordinance,

it predates the U.S. Constitution), it is limited. Under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,

education is a power reserved to the States and the

people and, as such, is taken very seriously by State

legislatures and governments; it is the largest single

item of State spending.29 States, in turn, delegate

their responsibilities for education to other bodies.

In the case of elementary and secondary education,

the provision and some of the funding of education

are the charges of locally elected school districts,

which hire their own teachers and staff and make

many curricular decisions. Public university and college systems have extensive autonomy over higher

education, but rely on States for funding.

Two Federal agencies, NSF and the Department

of Education, specifically address science and engineering education. The mission agencies,30 through

R&D and a potpourri of programs, also contribute

mightily. Under its enabling legislation, NSF is specifically charged with monitoring and maintaining

the quality of the science and engineering work

force. It is authorized and directed:

. . . to initiate and support basic scientific research

and programs to strengthen scientific research potential and science education programs at all levels

in the mathematical, physical, medical, biological,

engineering, social, and other sciences. . . .31

Even with the transfer of some functions to the Department of Education through later amendments

and reauthorizations, the promotion of basic re-

%J.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Srate Government Finances in 1985, GF85-No. 3 (Washington, DC: December

1986).

“’Mission agencies carry out the Federal responsibility in such areas

as health, defense, space, energy, and agriculture. This division of labor corresponds to the Office of Management and Budget’s categories

In the Federal budget. The main research and development agencies

are the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of

Energy, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

~] 180 U. S.C.A. (Ch. 16, National Science Foundation, Sec. 1862.

Functions), 1987, p. 187.

search and of education in science remains equal

within the NSF mandate.32 Until very recently,

this mandate has been narrowly interpreted by the

research community and the NSF leadership as

mainly the provision of Federal basic research funds

to the Nation’s colleges and universities.33

The Department of Education is responsible for

overseeing the general health of the entire national

education system. It operates many major programs

that, in fiscal year 1988, will provide $20 billion to

States, school districts, colleges, and universities—

approximately 6 to 7 percent of the national total

spent on education.34 Its charter calls for the collection of a huge variety of data, statistics, and research on education, and categorical support for students. The division of functions between NSF and

the Department of Education is mirrored in Congress, where different committees have oversight and

appropriations authority over research and education.

The overall Federal role in science and engineering education, exercised through NSF, the Department of Education, and the mission agencies, is most

prominent at the undergraduate and graduate levels

(see table 1-3). Graduate education relies heavily on

Federal student, institutional, and research support.

Financial aid programs, Federal research support,

and the successive mounting and abandonment of

research-intensive domestic and military programs

influence the supply of and the demand for scientists and engineers. In particular, there is ample evidence that Ph,D.s, overall and in a given field, can

be “bought” by offering fellowships, traineeships,

% is debatable whether an equal emphasis on research and education should translate into relatively equal dollars. Clearly, this has

not been the case, In terms of outcomes, it is comparable to weighing

the returns from investing a research fellowship in one Ph.D. candidate versus supporting a summer institute experience for three or four

high school science teachers. The dollar equivalency will yield a measurable near-term effect on one student and his or her career, but an

indirect, longer-term effect on perhaps untold numbers of students.

Which is the better, or more effective, Federal investment?

‘}The emphasis of the current National Science Foundation leadership on centers and corporate participation in applications-oriented

university-based research, in addition to individual investigator projects,

is a clear break from the post-Vannevar Bush tradition. See Deborah

Shapley and Rustum Roy, Lost at the Frontier: U.S. Science and Technology Policy Adrift (Philadelphia, PA: 1S1 Press, 1985), esp. chs. 1-3.

‘~U.S. Department of Education, Digesr of Ec/ucarion Srarisrics

1987, Op. cit., footnote 7, pp. 25, 263-267. (The percentage is based

on data for fiscal year 1985.)
19

Table 1-3.--Major Federal Programs Affecting the Education of Future Scientists and Engineers

National Science Foundation ($100.$300 million)a

●

●

●

Us.

●

●

●

K-12: teacher training, curriculum and materials development, informal education, research, recognition program for exemplary teachers, research participation for high school students

Undergraduate: research participation, instrumentation, undergraduate creativity awards

Graduate: graduate fellowships, graduate fellowships for minorities, research assistantships via research contracts, engineering fellowships

Department of Education ($200-$500 million)

K-12: Title 11, Education for Economic Security Act, used primarily for science and mathematics teacher training; magnet

school grants (not specifically targeted to science and engineering); discretionary programs

Undergraduate: Pen Grants (not specifically targeted to science and engineering), Minority Science Improvement Program,

cooperative education (about 15-30 percent of cooperative students are in science and engineering)

Graduate: Minority Institutions Science Improvement Program; Graduate and Professional Opportunities Program; Javits

Predoctoral Fellowships

National Institutes of Health ($400.$500 million)

• K-12: research apprenticeships for minorities

● Undergraduate: Minority Access to Research Careers Program, Minority Biomedical Research Support

● Graduate: National Research Service Awards Predoctoral Training Grants, research assistantships funded via research

contracts, National Institutes of Mental Health Minority Fellowships

Other agencies with substantial science education efforts

K-12

• U.S. Department of Agriculture: 4H, research apprenticeships

● U.S. Department of Defense: research apprenticeships at laboratories

• U.S. Department of Energy: Prefreshman Engineering Program, for women and minorities; student research apprenticeships and teacher training institutes at national laboratories

● National Aeronautics and Space Administration: research apprenticeships, teacher workshops, and resource centers

Undergraduate

. U.S. Department of Agriculture: Land Grant allocations (not specifically targeted to science and engineering)

● U.S. Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Sea Grant Program

. U.S. Department of Defense: Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) (about 75 percent of funds are spent on science and

engineering majors)

● U.S. Department of Energy: University-Laboratory Cooperative Program for summer research

• Department of Health and Human Services: Health Careers Opportunities Program

Graduate

● U.S. Department of Agriculture: Land Grant allocations (not specifically targeted to science and engineering)

● U.S. Department of Defense: research assistantships via research contracts, graduate fellowships

• U.S. Department of Energy: felIowships in particuIar research fields, summer research participation grants, research assistantships funded via research contracts

● U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: research assistantships via research contracts

● National Aeronautics and Space Administration: graduate felIowships, minorify graduate felIowships, research assistantships via research contracts

afQoTE: E~tirnat~~ of annualspending are from 1988. With the exception of those in the National Science Foundation, each Of the prOgrams listed here is funded at

the level of at least $1 million per year. Institutional development programs are omitted.

SOURCE” Office of Technology Assessment, 1988.

and research assistantships, which lessen the burden of cost to students while offering them valuable apprenticeships as they progress toward the degree.35 In the near term, this step is probably the

most effective way to increase the-output of Ph.D.s,

who form the core of our research scientists and

engineers. In the longer term, research support and

“Arthur M. Hauptman, Stuclents in Graduate and Professional

Education: What We Know and Need To Know (Washington, DC:

Association of American Universities, 1986); Michael T. Nettles, Financial Aid and Minority Participation in Graduate Education, A Research Report of the Minority Graduate Education Project (Princeton,

NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1987).

a robust university infrastructure sustain the Nation’s capacity to replenish the supply of scientists

and engineers, so long as those entering college are

both interested and prepared for these careers.

From the perspective of Congress, however, elementary and secondary education is at the same time

the part of the system in greatest need of improvement and also the most removed from direct Federal influence. National Science Foundation funding for elementary and secondary mathematics and

science education peaked in fiscal year 1964, but

even then represented less than one-half of 1 per-
20

cent of all spending on elementary and secondary

education.36 NSF programs have focused principally on curriculum development and teacher training. Since fiscal year 1984, budget support for mathe-

‘6Michael S. Knapp et al., “Part Three: NSF’s Investment History

in K-12 Science Education,” Opportunities for Strategic Znvestmenr

in K-12 Science Education: Options for the National Science Foundation, Volume 2 (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, June 1987); U.S.

Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics 1987, op. cit.,

footnote 7, p. 25.

NATIONAL NEEDS AND THE

ENGINEERING

The national goal of maintaining and invigorating a science and engineering work force demands

policy efforts on three fronts to create adequate

numbers of well-prepared students available to serve

as scientists and engineers. First, capable young people must be welcomed throughout the educational

process. Second, their talents must be nurtured by

elementary and secondary schools and institutions

of higher education. Third, they must perceive employment opportunities that utilize their talents by

providing fulfilling work.

The pool of potential talent needs to be large and

versatile, whether or not there is reason to fear a

future shortage of scientists and engineers. To the

extent that the education system unduly limits the

talent pool by prematurely shunting aside students

or accepting society’s gender, race, and class biases

in its talent selection, it is acting out a self-fulfilling

prophec y of demographic determinism. Using the

past performance and interests of minority students

in science and engineering to project an inevitable

shortage in these fields, for example, is a counsel

of despair. In conveying information about the ostensibly desirable social and intellectual characteristics of scientists and engineers, seasoned with the

stereotypes and images that permeate American culture, the formal education system sorts many otherwise talented students out of the science and engineering pipeline.

It is clear that American schools, colleges, and

universities have the capacity to provide enough

qualified scientists and engineers to meet the Nation’s needs. However, there is evidence that the

matics and science education has grown conspicuously

in response to congressional initiatives.37

nln a National Science Foundation budget totaling $1.7 billion in

fiscal year 1988, the Science and Engineering Education Directorate

increased by 40 percent to $139 million. Following the reinstatement

of the Science and Engineering Education Directorate in 1982, funding for elementary and secondary programs has increased steadily from

$3.8 million in fiscal year 1983 to an estimated $80 million to $85 million in fiscal year 1988.

system may not be working as well as it could. Our

schools can learn to identify talent better and to

nurture it with greater care. Our universities can

take measures to attract and retain more talent in

science and engineering. Students who now fall

through the cracks can be better served—both by

the formal system and by informal means. All of

these approaches can lead to a larger, stronger pool

of talent that reflects the variety of American society in serving its future technological needs.

The loss of a potential scientist or engineer to a

career in another profession is still society’s gain.

We would hope that our education system would

prepare students for careers that will be in demand.

But the market is too unpredictable to target specific personnel needs, so the goal of education, including that for science and engineering, should be

to prepare students for an uncertain future by imparting a range of skills. This means that the skills

of scientists and engineers must be both specialized enough to satisfy the demands of a stable market for science and engineering faculty and industrial researchers and general enough to qualify

degree-holders for special opportunities that arise

farther afield from their training but grow central to the national interest.38

IRA dynamic economy will create such national needs and imbalances. The best preparation for them is a malleable stock of what

some economists call “human capital. ” See Howard P. Tuckman, “The

Supply of Scientists and Engineers in an Era of Institutional and Technological Change, ” Policy Research and Analysis Workshop on an

Agenda for Science Po/icy Research (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, Sept. 17, 1987).
Chapter 2

Elementary and Secondary

Education: Shaping the Talent Pool

[large photograph in original manuscript omitted because of poor scan quality]
.—

Key

Key

.

. .

CONTENTS

.

,

,

Page

Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Findings . . . . . . ...**.. .... ● ....*.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● .....,. ,

Schools and Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..**.,. . . . . .

Formal Mathematics and Science Education . ., . . . ., ....;... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Quality of Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tracking addability Grouping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Special School Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Student Career Plans . . . . . . . .,*.*.** ..*.*... . . . ,..,.,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,...

Informal Education and Intervention Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Opportunities for Federal Influence on the Talent Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Box

2-A.

2-B.

2-c.

2-D.

2-E.

2-F.

Boxes

Page

The Unchanging Image of the Scientist, . . . . . . .; . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

The Scholastic Aptitude Test and the American College Testing Program . . . . 35

Characteristics of Intervention Programs That Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Center for the Advancement of Academically Talented Youth, The Johns

Hopkins University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

The Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Urban Mathematics Collaborative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

23

23

25

26

28

30

31

32 

36

40

Figures

Figure Page

2-I. Student Flows Into and Out of the Natural Science/Engineering Pipeline:

The High School senior Class of 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2-2. Interest of College-Bound Students unnatural Science/Engineering,

by Curriculum Track: 1982 High School Seniors . . . . . . . .

Tables

Table

2-1. Comparison of Selected Mathematics and Science Course

Grade Range, 1977 and 1985-88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2-2. Inservice Needs of Mathematics and Science Teachers . . .

. . . . . ..... . . . . . . . 34

Page

Offerings by School

..*.,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

..**... . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

.
Chapter 2

Elementary and Secondary Education:

Shaping the Talent Pool

KEY QUESTIONS

● What factors are associated with students’ choices ●

to major in science or engineering in college?

• What can schools do to interest, motivate, and ●

prepare students for careers in science or engineering?

What influences outside school have similar

effects?

What has prior Federal policy attempted to do

and how successful has it been?

KEY FINDINGS

●

●

●

●

Mathematics preparation, hands-on laboratory

and field experience, research participation,

teachers’ high expectations, high-quality teaching, and placement in the academic curriculum

track or in a science-intensive school are correlated with interest in majoring in science or engineering in college.

Career interests and expectations are also shaped

by out-of-school experiences. Families are critically

important influences.

Elementary and secondary education as a whole

needs renovation; mathematics and science are

but one part of it. That huge system resists reforms. There are few incentives for teachers and

schools to give most students the academic preparation required for a science or engineering

career.

Intervention programs, based both in the com- . —

munity and in the schools, can enrich children’s

experiences with and attitudes toward mathematics and science. Informal education in museums,

science centers, summer camps, and community

facilities may help remove barriers to learning.

The future supply of scientists and engineers depends, in the final analysis, on how well schools,

families, and communities encourage children to

study science and engineering. Many more students

could emerge from high school interested in science

and engineering, with good preparation in mathematics and science, than now do so. It is not easy,

though, to

to prepare

identify what factors encourage students

for science and engineering careers, or

what factors deter them. (An attempt is made in

chapter 1, table 1-1.) Students need interest, ability, and preparation in science and mathematics;

none of these alone is sufficient. Students’ social and

economic standing, cultural traditions, sex, race, and

ethnicity in turn shape their interest in science and

engineering, their access to courses, and future

educational opportunities. Many schools could do

better jobs of encouraging students, of both sexes

and of all ethnic backgrounds, to prepare for science and engineering careers. Other informal experiences, such as science centers and museums,

educational television, and summer research programs, can also help generate interest.

In general, family, friends, and the media shape

students’ attitudes about careers in science and engineering. Unsupportive parents and friends or neg

-

ative stereotypes of science can dim students’ visions

of such careers more surely than boring textbooks

or teachers.1 Researchers have documented the images of science that young students hold by asking

them for written descriptions or drawings of scientists (see box 2-A). These results speak eloquently

of the formidable task confronting a culture in continuing need of new scientists and engineers.

‘Robert E. Fullilo\w, “Images of Science: Factors Affecting the

Choice of Sclencc as a Career,” OTA contractor report, September

198;.

23
24

Box 2-A.—The Unchanging Image of the Scientist

Children’s ideas about scientists have changed little over the past 30 years. In 1957, Mead and Métraux summarized

the views of about 35,000 high school students, noting consistently shared characteristics, and then a division between a

positive and negative image:]

Shared Image

The scientist is a man who wears a white coat and works in a laboratory. He is elderly or middle aged and wears glasses. . . .

He may be bald. He may wear a beard, may be unshaven and unkempt. He may be stooped and tired. . . . He is surrounded by

equipment: test tubes, bunsen burners, flasks and bottles, a jungle gym of blown glass tubes and weird machines with dials. . . .

He spends his days doing experiments. He pours chemicals from one test tube into another. . . . He experiments with plants and

animals, cutting them apart, injecting serum into animals. . . .

Positive Image Negative Image

He is a very intelligent man–a genius. He has long years of The scientist is a brain. He spends his days indoors, sitting in

expensive training. He is interested in his work and takes it seri- a laboratory, pouring things from one test tube into another. His

ously. He works for long hours in the laboratory, sometimes day work is uninteresting, dull, monotonous, tedious, time consumand night, going without food and sleep. . . . He is prepared to ing. . . . He may live in a cold water flat . . . . His work may be

work for years without getting results. One day he may straighten dangerous. Chemicals may explode. He may be hurt by radiaup and shout: “I’ve found it! I’ve found it!” . . . Through his work tion or may die. If he does medical research, he may bring home

people will be healthier and live longer, they will have new and disease, or may use himself as a guinea pig, or may even accidenbetter products to make life easier and pleasanter at home, and tally kill someone. . . . He is so involved with his work that he

our country will be protected from enemies abroad. doesn’t know what is going on in the world. He has no other

interests and neglects his body for his mind. . . . He has no social life, no other intellectual interests, no hobbies or relaxations.

He bores his wife. . . . He brings home work and also bugs and

creepy things.

(See page 42 for student drawings of scientists.)

Based on their analysis, Mead and Métraux suggested that the mass media should emphasize the real, human rewards of

science, the enjoyment of group work, and how science works. Schools, they said, should:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

emphasize participation in the classroom rather than passive learning;

emphasize group projects;

teach science as immediately pertinent to human values, living things, and the natural world;

teach mathematical principles much earlier;

provide teachers who enjoy and are proficient in science;

make sure that teaching and counseling encourage girls;

de-emphasize the rare individual geniuses of science, such as Einstein, to make science more accessible to the average

child and emphasize the individual sciences as broad fields of endeavor;

avoid talking about “Science, Scientists, and The Scientific Method” as a whole, and rather, talk about individual

fields and what different methods are; and

emphasize life sciences, humans, and other living things to make science more immediate to children.

Children of the 1980s hold images of science and scientists that are essentially unchanged from those of the 1950s. In

1986, researchers at Harvard University’s Educational Technology Center applied Mead and Métraux’s methodology to

another generation of potential scientists. They reported that:

Most responses sounded familiar: scientists are nerds and science is important but boring. The students had little inkling of

the day-to-day intellectual activities of scientists, of what experiments are for, or of the social nature of the scientific enterprise.2

Also in 1986, Cheryl Mason investigated the source of students’ images, based on drawings of scientists made by children using a “Draw-A-Scientist Test.”3 Two representative examples are shown below. Most drawings portray the familiar

stereotype: the scientist is an elderly male, wearing a white coat and glasses and performing dangerous experiments. Interviews with 14- and 15-year-olds revealed that most students had developed impressions of science and scientists through

movies and cartoons “. . . which depicted scientists as mad, antisocial men. ”

Such images are potent and persistent. They enter into students’ decisions about courses and careers. In part, these

images reflect real characteristics of many scientists. To the extent that the stereotypes mask the diversity and ordinariness

of many scientists, however, they may unduly deter children from pursuing science. Images are difficult to change. Teacher

training is important; many students in Mason’s study cited teachers’ personalities and their teaching methods as reasons
25

for not liking science. Other approaches include exposure to a diversity of real-life scientists through field trips, guest presentations, and cooperative education and research work experience. Mead and Métraux’s prescription still holds.

IThe fo]]oW.lng are direct quotes from Margaret Mead and Rhoda Metraux~ “Image of the Sc]enmts Among High School Students,” Science, vol. 12fJ,

Aug. 30, 1957, pp. 384-390.

‘Harvard Educat]on Letter, “Why Do Few Students Want to Become Scientists?” vol. 4, No. 1, January 1988, p. 6.

‘Cheryl L. Mason, Purdue Umverslty, “student Attitudes Toward science and Science-Related Careers: An Investigation of the Efficacv of a High School

Biology Teacher Intervention Program,” unpublished doctoral d[ssertatlon, 1986.

SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS

Elementary and secondary education is a huge and

varied enterprise in the United States, costing $170

billion per year, 4 percent of the gross national product. It uses 2.5 million teachers, takes place in more

than 60,000 public and 40,000 private schools, and

enrolls 45 million students. Public education takes

place in 16,000 school districts and is the single greatest component of State spending. In 1984-85, States

contributed about 49 percent of the cost of running

public schools nationwide, while local authorities

and the Federal Government provided 45 and 6 percent, respectively. It costs about $4,000 per year to

educate a student.2

The quality of schools is crucial in determining

the size and quality of the science and engineering

talent pool. The tradition of local control, however,

limits Federal influence over this stage in the preparation of potential scientists and engineers. The

Constitution “reserves to the States and the people” many residual powers, including education. In

turn, the States (except Hawaii) delegate this responsibility to localities. School districts and schools,

within the general boundaries of State education

standards, decide which mathematics and science

courses will be offered. Teachers and guidance counselors, using standardized tests and individual judgments, decide which students will be encouraged to

pursue courses leading to higher education in sciZu . .

s DePaflment of Education! Mice of Educational Research and

Improvement, Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Sratisrics 1987 (Washington, DC: May 1987), tables 3, 4, 5, 21, 59, and

93. Data are the most recent in each case, but are drawn from various

years between 1980 and 1987.

ence or engineering and which, perhaps unwittingly,

will be discouraged.

Many scientists and engineers say their career interest crystallized as early as elementary or junior

high school, and most seem to make explicit choices

before entry into high school. This has led to the

widespread belief that future scientists and engineers

select these majors early in life, then work hard and

persist with their plans without considering other

choices. 3 But new evidence suggests that many students’ plans for their lives, as reflected in their intended college majors, change during high school.4

Preparing scientists and engineers is but one of

many tasks that schools are asked to do. Instead

of playing “talent scout” and encouraging those with

the enthusiasm and ability to pursue science or engineering careers, schools too often see their function

as culling out those who do not fit the traditional

image of those destined for college and the professions by discouraging them from taking preparatory

courses (including electives).5 All capable students

should feel welcome to study science and mathematics, not just those who believe they “need” such

courses for their future careers.

‘Historical evidence for this belief is collected in Bernice T. Eiduson and Linda Beckman (eds.), Science as a Career Choice (New York,

NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 1973).

qvalerie E. ~e, “Identifying potential Scientists alld Engineers: An

Analysis of the High School-College Transition,” OTA contractor re.

port, September 1987.

‘For example, see Mary Budd Rowe, “Getting Chemistry Off the

Killer Course List, ’’journal of Chemical Education, vol. 60, 1983, pp.

954-956.

83-358 0 - 88 -- 2
26

School practices such as ability grouping or tracking are often applied too rigidly, restricting the preparation of students who would otherwise be capable of pursuing careers as scientists or engineers. Poor

teaching, restricted course offerings, and dull or unrealistic mathematics and science curricula also discourage students. In many schools, students’ coursework could be more wisely guided.6

In these ways, some American schools deprive able

students of adequate preparation for science and

engineering careers. The decentralized American

school system resists change, so improvements are

very difficult to propagate. Certainly, Federal policy options are limited in this sphere. State education standards are undergoing intense scrutiny and

are being tightened.7 Results will be slow to appear.8

Csome argue that the democratic tradition of American education

is sometimes observed most fully in the breach. The resulting lack of

student preparation wastes talent. See P.A. Cusick, The Egalitarian

Zdeal and the American High School (New York, NY: Longman, 1983);

Arthur G. Powell, The Shopping Mall High School: Winners and Losers

in the Educational Marketplace (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1985).

‘Education Commission of the States, Surve y of State Initiatives to

Improve Science and Mathematics Education (Denver, CO: September 1987).

‘There are some indicators of declining quality, particularly in

achievement test scores. Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a congressionally-mandated study of student achievement in several subject areas, for instance, show that the science achievement scores of 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students have declined

continuously since the first science assessment in 1969, although scores

of 9- and 13-year-olds have risen somewhat since the mid- 1970s. Mathematics achievement test scores of all age groups fell between 1972 and

1978, but, with the exception of 17-year-olds, these losses were recouped

by 1982. See National Science Board, Science Indicators: The 1985

Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985),

p. 125. The science assessments for 1969, 1972-73, and 1976-77 were

conducted by the Education Commission of the States and are summarized in National Assessment of Educational Progress, Three iVational Assessments of Science: Changes in Achievement, 1969-77 (Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States, June 1978). The science

assessment for 1982 was, however, a special supplement conducted by

the Science Assessment and Research Project at the University of Minnesota and was funded by the National Science Foundation (rather

than the Department of Education). The assessment is summarized in

Stacey J. Huefile et al., Images of Science: A Summary ofResuks From

rhe 1981-82 National Assessment in Science (Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Research and Evaluation Center, 1983). For mathematics, see

p. 126 of the National Science Board’s Science Indicators (referenced

above); National Assessment of Educational Progress, The Third National Mathematics Assessment: Results, Trends, and Issues (Denver,

CO: Education Commission of the States, April 1983).

In addition, international comparisons–while difficult to interpret

because of the great differences between the education systems of different nations—show that the achievement test scores of those U.S. students taking the traditional regimen of courses preparatory for science

and engineering careers lag those of their peers in other developed naFormal Mathematics and

Science Education

Many aspects of elementary and secondary school

education in mathematics and science, such as overrigid tracking, poor curricula, and inadequate teaching, limit all students’ opportunities and encouragements to major in science and engineering in college.

For example, it is widely acknowledged that practical science experiments undertaken by students are

an effective teaching method (and that students like

them), but their role in high school science classes

has declined somewhat during the last decade: lectures and discussions are more common.9

tions, including Japan and Great Britain. See Curtis C. McKnight et

al., The Underachieving Curriculum: Assessing U.S. School Mathematics From an international Perspective (Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Co., January 1987), pp. 22-30; F. Joe Crosswhite et al., Second

International Mathematics Study: Summary Report for the United

States (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, May

1985), pp. 4, 51, 61-68, and 70-74; Willard J. Jacobson et al., The Second LEA Science Study-U. S., revised edition (New York, NY: Teachers

College, Columbia University, September 1987); Robert Rothman, “Foreigners Outpace American Students in Science,” Education Week, Apr.

29, 1987, p. 7; Wayne Riddle, Compariscm of the Achievement of American Elementary and Secondary Pupils With Those Abroad—The Examinations Sponsored by the International Aswciation for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, 86-683 EPW (Washington, DC:

Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Nov. 27, 1984,

updated June 30, 1986). Declines in laboratory work in schools have

also been attributed, for example, to its high expense and concerns

about safety and liability.

‘%is R. Weiss, Report of the 1985-86 National Survey of Science and

Mathematics Education (Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute, November 1987), table 25, p. 49.

Photo credit: William Mills, Montgomery County Public Schools

Lectures and discussions are the most common teaching

technique employed in mathematics and science

classes. Too often, students emerge bored

and alienated from science.
27

Table 2-1.—Comparison of Selected Mathematics and Science Course Offerings by

School Grade Range, 1977 and 1985-86

Percentage of schools offering course

Of all schools with Of all schools with

at least grades 7-9a

at least grades 10-12a

Course title 1977 1985-86 1977 1985-86

Mathematics:

General mathematics, grade 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 33 59 64

General mathematics, grades 10-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 42 46

Algebra, 1st year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 57 99

Algebra, 2d year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —

—

36 92

Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—

33 41 97 95

Trigonometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 23 54 59

Probability/statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6 7 14

Advanced senior mathematics,

with no calculus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 12 — 36

Advanced senior mathematics,

with calculus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 12 — 34

Calculus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 14 31 31

Advanced placement calculus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 6 — 18

Science:

Life science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Earth science. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Physical science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

General science, grade 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

General science, grade 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

General science, grade 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

General science, grades 10-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Biology, 1st year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chemistry, 1st year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Physics, 1st year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Biology, 2d year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chemistry,2d year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22

28

23

65

57

21

6

30

23

22—

—

57

57

53

43

41

17

6

41

34

32

17

10

18

37

40

23

26

46

11

95

89

78—

—

46

52

68

25

26

31

18

99

91

81

53

28

Physics, 2d year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 4 — 11

aTh~~~ ~ChOOl~ ~aY al~OCOntain high~~orlo~ergrades, respectively, but must at minimum cover the grade range specified.

SOURCE: lrisR. Weiss, Reportofthe 1985-88 fVationa/ SuweyofScience andMathernatics Education (Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle institute, November1987itables4 and5.

In the Nation’s schools, offerings of mathematics

and science courses vary widely.10 Many offer less

than full ranges of college preparatory courses in

mathematics and the sciences and a few have only

very limited offerings. For example, data indicate

that 81 percent offer at least 1 year of physics, but

only 31 percent of high schools offer calculus (see

table 2-l). There are also significant geographical

differences in mathematics and science course offerings: schools in the West and Mountain States tend

to offer fewer science and mathematics courses than

those in other regions of the country, and rural

schools offer fewer than urban ones.11 The number

and range of mathematics and science courses

offered by schools, however, increased somewhat

between 1977 and 1985 -86. ’2

Even when such courses are offered, enrollments

are very low. Findings from a survey of 1982 high

school graduates (the best available data on the

courses that students actually take) suggested that

less than 12 percent of students to whom calculus

was offered, and less than 20 percent to whom

“’Data about course offerings and takings are very difficult to interpret because there is little consistency among analysts about the classification system to use in aggregating the huge variety of course titles

that exist in schools. In addition, there is no guarantee that two courses

of the same name have similar content.

I I National Center for Education Statistics, “Science and Mathematics Education in American High Schools: Results From the High

School and Beyond Study,” bulletin, May 1984, pp. 16-2 1; Weiss, op.

cit., footnote 9, table 6, p. 23.

!; Weiss, op. cit., footnote 9, table 5, p. 21.
28

physics was offered, took these courses.13 The net

effect is that few high school graduates have these

course experiences. In 1982, 24 percent of high

school graduates had taken chemistry, 11 percent

physics, 7 percent trigonometry, and 6 percent calculus. 14 If more schools offered more college

preparatory courses, enrollments in science and engineering would be expected to rise; increasing enrollments in existing courses is equally desirable.

Then there is the matter of course content. Some

mathematics and science teachers cite the inadequacies of textbooks and concern about curricula in general. 15 In the 1960s, several efforts, many quite successful and federally funded, produced new

classroom materials, especially in the sciences. [b

Less attention was paid to mathematics, however.

Now mathematics educators are pressing for better mathematics curricula and teaching. The mathematics research community, too, has been vigorous in its effort to reform the system of elementary,

secondary, and undergraduate teaching of mathematics in the United States. The Mathematical Sciences Education Board was established under the

auspices of the National Research Council in October 1985 to bring together mathematicians, mathematics educators, and representatives of school systems and local communities. The Board seeks to

l~Evaluation Technologies Inc., A Trend Study of High school

Offerings and Enrollments: 1972s73 and 1981-82, NCES 84-224 (Wash.

ington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, December 1984),

table 2.

l+ National Center for Education Statistics, Op. cit, footnote 11 ~ PP.

16-21.

]~Audrey B. Champagne and Leslie E. Hornig, “Critical Questions

and Tentative Answers for the School Science Curriculum,” The Science Curriculum: The Report of the 1986 National Forum for School

Science, Audrey B. Champagne and Leslie E. Hornig (eds.) (Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of science, 1987),

pp. 6-7.

l~A comprehensive analysis of 81 different evaluation studies is reported in James A. Shymansky et al., “A Reassessment of the Effects

of 60s Science Curricula on Student Performance,” final report, mimeo,

n.d. (a reworking of material originally published in 1983). This study

found that, compared to control groups, students taking new curricula scored slightly higher on achievement tests, had more positive attitudes towards science, and exhibited smaller differences between the

sexes in each of these attributes. Students taught by teachers who had

been through preparatory teacher institutes scored higher than their

peers taking the new curricula without this benefit. Patricia E. Blosser,

“What Research Says: Research Related to Instructional Materials for

Science,” School Science and Mathematics, vol. 86, No. 6, October

1986, pp. 513-517; Ted Bredderman, “Effects of Activity-Based Elementary Science on Student Outcomes: A Quantitative Analysis,” Review

of Educational Research, vol. 53, No. 4, winter 1983, pp. 499-518.

Photo credit: William Mills, Montgomery County Public Schools

Skilled mathematics and science teachers, especially

in physics, are in short supply. Often, teachers qualified

in other science or mathematics subjects are asked

to teach such courses “out of field. ” Alternatively,

schools may drop such courses altogether from

their curricula.

increase public understanding of school mathematics

issues, formulate national goals for future mathematics teaching and learning, and plan ways to help

States and school districts improve their curricula

and performance in mathematics.

The Quality of Teaching

Teachers are critically important. Good ones can

excite interest and promote both comprehension

and perseverance; bad ones can stifle enthusiasm

and mystify students. There are many very good

teachers in American schools, but also many poor

ones. The challenge is to attract good people to

teaching, then provide the support to make them

effective teachers who want to stay in the profession.

Some school districts find it difficult to recruit

enough science and mathematics teachers. Most

have difficulty finding high-quality teachers, especially for subjects such as physics. Consequently,

many science and mathematics teachers must teach

more than one subject, or what is known as “out

of field” teaching. The underlying problem is the

quality of teacher training. Most educators think

the training that new science and mathematics

teachers receive before beginning to teach should

be improved. 17 For example, elementary school

‘71ris R. Weiss, “Pre- and Inservice Training, Roles of Various Actors, and Incentives to Quality Science Teaching,” OTA workshop

summary, September 1987.
29

teachers take little or no coursework in science and

mathematics, yet are often expected to teach these

subjects. In contrast, secondary school teachers often

take respectable numbers of courses in science or

mathematics, but these courses give them inaccurate

images of what scientists do. Most of their science

courses do not give them this information. Teachers

strive to impart to students as much “content” as

possible, neglecting time-consuming laboratory work

and exercises in higher order thinking (which convey more of the reality of scientific work) in favor

of lectures and tests of recall. There is very little consensus on what an improved college curriculum for

future mathematics and science teachers should consist of, and little research is being conducted on this

issue.

Mathematics and science teachers also need socalled inservice education to remedy gaps in their

prior training and to update and broaden their

knowledge. Table 2-2 lists current needs in inservice education. Although the amount of inservice

education being offered by school districts is rising,

it is still small. Anecdotal evidence suggests that,

when such education is voluntary, only the most

enthusiastic teachers (and presumably the best) participate, while those who need help the most are

not reached. The Federal Government supports inservice education of teachers through the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation (NSF), but this funding has scattered

impact.18

Training is only part of the picture. The whole

environment in which teachers work constrains

their enthusiasm. For example, systems of accountability, including teacher competency tests and

checks on learning from lesson to lesson established

by many States and school districts in recent years,

may do more harm than good. By prescribing highly

detailed lists of “objectives,” course by course, school

districts rob teachers of their professionalism by

straitjacketing them into routines.19 Given the

‘“The Federal Government spends about $110 million to $150 million per year (via Title 11 of the Education for Economic Security Act

and the Teacher Preparation and Enhancement Program of the National Science Foundation’s Science and Engineering Education Directorate) on teacher training. For details of the Title 11 program, see Ellen

L. Marks, Title 11 of the Education for Economic Security Act: An

Analysis of First-Year Operations (Washington, DC: Policy Studies

Associates, October 1986).

1“Weiss, op. cit., footnote 17.

Table 2-2.—lnservice Needs of Mathematics

and Science Teachers

●

●

●

●

●

●

Remedies for inadequacies of existing teacher training

programs.

Updating of knowledge of developments in science and

technology, and their uses.

Improved understanding of generally applicable pedagogical techniques and those that reinforce equitable teaching practices.

Updating of knowledge of teaching techniques that particularly apply to mathematics and science teaching.

Updating of knowledge on effectiveness of and techniques

for implementing developments in educational technology,

such as computers, video, and CD-ROM.

Opportunity to practice new teaching techniques and to

share experiences with other teachers.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 19S6.

Photo credit: Lawrence Hall of Science

Teacher training (for those already certified and in the

classroom) is conducted and funded by the States,

school districts, foundations, industry, the Federal

Government, and often by the teachers themselves.

Still, many teachers either cannot or will not participate

in such programs. Many successful science and

mathematics teacher training programs are conducted

at science centers and museums. Special emphasis

is placed on hands-on experiments; this teacher is

learning how one of these experiments works at the

Lawrence Hall of Science, California, a science center

that trains about 12,000 teachers per year.
30

Photo credit: Katherine Lambert, National Science Teachers Association

The Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science and

Mathematics Teaching, a program administered by the

National Science Foundation and managed by the

National Science Teachers Association, was established

in 1983 to recognize outstanding public and private

school teachers in all 50 States who can serve as

models for their colleagues in science

and mathematics teaching.

poor quality of some curricula, such as those for

mathematics, course specifications may be a necessary evil, however.

In addition, the image of teaching in the United

States could be better. This image is reinforced by

modest salaries compared to those science and engineering graduates earn in industry and government.

Salaries have risen by about 25 percent in real terms

during the last 5 years, and States and taxpayers

are beginning to demand evidence of the Positive

effects of such increases. Qualified mathematics and

science teachers are urgently needed, especially as

role models for the growing minority student population. 20 Once in the classroom, excellent teachers

must be retained. A number of ways of raising

teachers’ status and confidence could be tried. For

example, teachers might be given increased opportunities for professional growth through short- or

long-term sabbaticals and attendance at professional

meetings, more time for class planning and less for

noneducational duties (such as lunchroom supervision), and occasions to exchange ideas with other

%hirley M. McBay, Increasing the Number and Quality of Minority Science and Mathematics Teachers (New York, NY : Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, Task Force on Teaching as a

Profession, January 1986).

teachers via conferences and teacher centers (in their

own schools and outside) .21

Tracking and Ability Grouping

Nearly universal in American schools, the practice of ability grouping—particularly in the form of

curriculum "tracking”-is intended to make efficient

use of teaching resources and allow students to move

through curricula at rates appropriate to their abilities and interests. However, such grouping also has

powerful disadvantages. Some suggest that students’

assignment to tracks is often highly related to their

race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, rather

than to their ability per se.22

Grouping by ability in subjects such as reading

and mathematics begins as early as third grade.23 It

is continued to high school, where students are generally distributed among academic (college preparatory), general, and vocational curriculum tracks; at

this level, movement between tracks rarely occurs.

But there is some evidence that the stranglehold of

tracking is loosening: more students than ever are

in the general track and not the academic track,

while the pattern of courses that students take shows

that they are increasingly mixing high-level mathematics courses with formerly vocational courses.24

When too rigidly applied, tracking can reduce opportunity by restricting access to advanced preparatory courses in mathematics and science. Despite

the fact that students in the academic track are more

“For a collection of perspectives, see Educational Policy, Special Issue on The Crisis in Teaching, vol. 1, No. 1, 1987, pp. 3-157. In October 1986, the 50,000-member National Science Teachers Association

launched a teacher certification program. Early application requests

suggest that there will be a huge response. The program is also aimed

at influencing preservice teacher training. The National Council for

Accreditation of Teacher Education is using National Science Teachers

Association standards in accrediting science teaching programs in colleges and universities. See John Walsh, “Teacher Certification Program

Under Way,” Science, vol. 235, Feb. 20, 1987, pp. 838-839.

2zFullilove, op. cit., footnote 1; Jeannie Oakes, “Tracking: Can

Schools Take a Different Route?” NEA Today, Special Issue, January

1988, pp. 41-47.

~]Robert E. Slavin, “Ability Grouping and Student Achievement in

Elementary Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis,” U.S. Department of

Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Grant

No. OERI-G-86-0006, June 1986.

*devaluation Technologies Inc., High School and Beyond: An Ana/-

ysis of Course-Taking Patterns in Secondary Schools as Related to Student Characteristics (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, March 1985).
31

likely to take these advanced courses than are their

peers in the general and vocational tracks, 25 percent of college sophomores in 1984 who planned

to major in natural science or engineering had been

in these nonacademic tracks in high school. 25

While tracking can be useful in schools, it should

not be used as an excuse for directing students away

from courses they have the ability to master. Advanced mathematics and science courses are within

the reach of more young Americans than currently

take them.26

Special School Environments

The ultimate extension of tracking and the demonstration of its potential benefits are schools that

specialize in science and mathematics. There are

three types of such schools:

●

●

●

schools founded in the first part of the century

when high schools were still a comparative rar- —

ity (such as the Bronx High School of Science

in New York City);

statewide schools (such as the School of

Mathematics and Science in Durham, North

Carolina); and

magnet schools, which, although designed

primarily to promote racial desegregation, can

make important contributions to science education in cases of schools that take science and

mathematics as their themes.27

These schools are often thought to be successful at

winning converts to science and engineering careers,

but there are no data to support or refute this contention; although many alumni do go on to science

careers, it is to be expected that the students who

enter such schools are more interested in science and

‘5Lee, op. cit., footnote 4.

‘“Calculus, in particular, has been hailed as the springboard to acquiring the analytical tools needed for success in a host of fields. Lynn

A. Steen (cd.), Calculus for a New Century: A Pump, Not a Filter

(Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America, 1988). The

number of calculus courses offered, in particular, is rising rapidly. But

trigonometry and math analysis are the “priming courses” for the calculus “pump.”

‘pThere are In excess of 1,000 magnet schools at the moment, and

their number is increasing. Probably about 25 percent of them adopt

a mathematics or science theme. The most recent survey dates from

1983; Rolf K. Blank et al., Survey ofA4agnet Schools: Analyzing a Model

for Quality Integrated Education (Washington, DC: James H. Lowry

& Associates, September 1983.)

Photo credit: William Mills, Montgomery County Public Schools

Magnet schools, science-intensive schools, and other

special school programs can give children the chance

to work with sophisticated scientific equipment and

topics. These programs can effectively stimulate interest

in science and mathematics. However, schools and

parents need to ensure that all students, regardless

of sex, race, ability, or track, are given the opportunity

and encouragement to explore science.

mathematics than most. These schools are generally ver y popular with teachers and students, and

are often oversubscribed. They are probably up to

two or three times as expensive to operate as conventional schools.

Issues similar to those raised by tracking are raised

by special science schools. These issues include the

possible draining of student and teaching talent from

regular schools, and the diminution of curricular op

-

portunities at regular schools. Whether special

science schools have harmful effects seems to depend

most on the specific political and organizational

aspects of their implementation in each community.

Some programs have been very controversial and

have not done well, while others have been great

successes. Almost always, the added choice given

to parents and children by the opportunity 

to enroll in special science schools encourages communities to think about what they want from public

education and to seek improvements from it.28

Magnet schools that specialize in mathematics and

science also show some promising results for

minority students. But since such schools are com-

‘fiIbld.; Education Week, “Call for Choice: Competition in the

Educational Marketplace,” vol. 6, No. 39, June 24, 1987.
32

monly designed to bring majority children into value of choice and diversity in American elemenschools that are predominantly Black, sometimes tary and secondary education.

minority children are more likely to be denied access to them, due to oversubscription, than are Student Career Plans majority children. Apart from the desegregation rationale, elements of successful magnet schools could Although schools, families, and friends help `debe replicated in schools of all kinds. Like all special termine students’ career plans, such plans are, for

environments, magnets demonstrate the most students, fairly volatile. As students are

Figure 2-1 .- Student Flows into and Out of the Natural Science/Engineering Pipelne

The High School Senior Class of 1972

OUT

exIN

NOTE: Natural sciencelengineering includes physical, mathematical, and life sciences, and engineering, but not the social sciences. The width of the arrows reflects

the number of students entering and leaving natural sclencelengkreering at each stage. Among the 1972 high school seniors that plan to and do attend college,

13 percent are interested in natural sciencelengineering majors. Of this same college-bound cohort, by the first year of college 7.4 percent are interested in

natural sciencelengineeri ng; by college junior year, 4.8 percent; at college graduation, 4.6 percent; and only 0.8 percent enter graduate school in natural science/engineering.

SOURCE: Valerie E. Lea and Thomas L. Hilton, “Student Interest and Persistence in Science: Changes in the Educational Pipeline in the Last Oecade,” preprint, Feb. 10,1987.
33

posed to new ideas, teachers, and experiences, their

thoughts turn to the future and particularly the connection between education and employment. Students planning to attend college take a variety of

courses and are often well prepared for a number

of different majors. According to most observers,

the pool of students planning science or engineering majors is well formed by entry to high school,

and only erodes thereafter. This is misleading. New

evidence suggests that students join this pool, even

up to their sophomore year in college (see figure 2-l).

At present, the number of college freshmen planning careers in science and engineering is declining

even though overall freshman enrollment is holding steady. Although most universities are not yet

complaining of “shortages, ” student interest in

science and engineering is waning, and interest in

the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering is falling faster than that in life and social

sciences. There are also indications that a smaller

proportion of the students with “A” or “A-” high

school grade point averages (“high-achievers”) now

go on to major in science or engineering than in

the past; many choose careers in business or law

instead.29

To study how the science and engineering talent

pool develops, OTA analyzed data from the U.S.

Department of Education’s “High School and Beyond” (HS&B) survey, which monitors two nationally representative samples, one drawn from those

who in 1980 were high school sophomores. The survey contacts the same students every 2 years to

collect data about their careers and educational

progress. 30

‘

gKenneth C. Green, “Freshman Intentions and Science/Engineering Careers: A Longitudinal Analysis Based on the CIRP Freshman

and FoIIow-UP Data,” OTA contractor report, December 1987. Trends

in students’ career plans are discussed further in ch. 3.

‘OOf the two cohorts in the High School and Beyond survey, OTA

chose the high school sophomores of 1980 for analysis of influences

(during the final 2 years of high school) on students’ orientation to

science and engineering. The most recent followup data available to

OTA were from 1984, at which stage many students in this sample

were college sophomores. It is possible, therefore, that those interested

in science and engineering did not ultimately complete baccalaureate

programs. Data from the 1986 followup, which will allow analysis of

the numbers of students In this cohort that actually persisted to college graduation in science and engineering, were released after conclusion of this analysis. See Lee, op. cit., footnote 4. Based on previous

longitudinal analyses, it is likely that the majority of those who expressed interest in science in their college sophomore year did indeed

go through with their plans. Still, attrition of students between college sophomore and senior years is significant.

These students demonstrated considerable fluidity

in their intended college majors as they progressed

through the educational system. More than half of

those interested in science and engineering as high

school sophomores subsequently shifted to other

subjects by their senior year. Others who had not

named such majors as high school sophomores or

seniors, in fact, were pursuing these majors as college sophomores. About 40 percent of those college

sophomores planning science and engineering

majors had indicated interest in conscience majors

when they were high school seniors.31

While most college sophomores intending to pursue science and engineering have above-average high

school achievement test scores, about 20 percent do

not. Furthermore, about 25 percent of these sophomores were enrolled in the general and vocational

(rather than the academic) curriculum tracks in high

school (see figure 2-2). Those who switch preferences

in favor of science and engineering have slightly

lower average achievement test scores and have

taken fewer mathematics and science courses than

those who persist in interest in science and engineering. They are also more likely to be females and

members of ethnic or racial minorities.

As many as 25 percent of all high school graduates, but only 15 percent of college sophomores, are

interested in majoring in natural science and engineering. Among these fields, in both the sophomore

and senior years of high school, the life and health

sciences (which includes medicine and health

careers) are the most popular, followed by engineering. A tiny number of students plan majors in the

physical sciences and mathematics.

Smaller proportions of Blacks and Hispanics than

whites are interested in science and engineering

majors. But in fields such as medicine and health,

the proportion of Blacks and Hispanics who say they

are interested in these majors is similar to that of

whites. There are prominent gender differences;

more women than men favor the life and health sciences, while men dominate the group interested in

engineering, the physical sciences, and mathematics.

~lThese and other findings reported be]ow are based on Lee, OP. ~ir.,

footnote 4. Some aspects of them are confirmed in independent analysis of the same data by Theodore C. Wagenaar, Occupariorxd Aspirations and Intended Field of Study in College, NCES 84-217 (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, November 1984).
34

Figure 2-2. - Interest of College-bound Students in Natural Science/Engineering

by Curriculum Track 1982 High School Seniors

Total student sample Interest in NSE

distributed by track 24% of students Interest in NSE

23% of students.

I ACAD I

apercent of students in that track (who have not ruled out attending college) who are interested in natural science/en91neerin9 majors. Natural science/en9ineerin9

does not Include the social aciences.

NOTE: Overall, Interest in natural Sciencdengineerlng majors declines with time (240/. of students in 1980, but only 15V0 in 1984 are interested in NSE). Students in

the academic track are most likely to be interested in natural sciencelengineering majors and more likely to persist with their interest. At high school sophomore

year, 60 percent of students interested in natural sciencelengineering majors were in the academic track; by sophomore year of college 74 percent were from

the academic track. Student cohort of college-bound high school students is drawn from the High School and Beyond Survey of 1980 Sophomores.

SOURCE: Valerie E. Lee, OTA contractor report, 19S7.

Overall, fewer women than men are interested in

science and engineering majors.

To examine further the underlying interest of

Blacks and women in science and engineering, OTA

analyzed their patterns of academic preparation (including course-taking) and socioeconomic status. )2

When course-taking, achievement test scores, and

socioeconomic status are statistically held constant, Blacks are actually more likely than whites

to be interested in majoring in science and engineering, and females are less likely than males to

be interested. High school students of lower socioeconomic status are much less likely to plan science

and engineering majors than are those of high socio-

‘2See, for example, Gail E. Thomas, Center for Social Organization

of Schools, Johns Hopkins University, “Determinants and Motivations

Underlying the College Major Choice of Race and Sex Groups,” March

1983; K.R. White, “The Relationship Between Socio-economic Status

and Academic Achievement,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 91, 1982,

pp. 461-481.

economic status. Students of low socioeconomic status are less likely to be enrolled in the academic curriculum track. The effect of that track placement

is to reduce the likelihood that they will. take advanced mathematics and science courses and maintain their interest in science and engineering careers.

Female participation in science and engineering

may also be limited by an important “gateway” to

college entrance: the mathematics portions of the

Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and of the Advanced College Testing (ACT) program. Several

studies have shown that, even after controlling statistically for prior achievement test scores, coursetaking patterns, and high school grades—women

tend to get higher grades than men—women receive

lower scores on these tests than men. Several observers argue that this discrepancy is due to bias in

the tests’ design and administration. Those responsible for the SAT and ACT argue, however, that

the tests are not biased, and that differences in scores
35

are due to differences in student preparation and lowances for this deficiency of the SAT and ACT,

family background. ” To the extent that bias may women may be deterred from science and engineerexist and that colleges and universities make no al- ing careers (see box 2-B).

‘~In the absence of a national high school curriculum, standardized

test scores have historically been a key measure that assists college ad- ican Educational Research Journal, vol. 20, No. 2, 1983, pp. 165- 182;

missions offices [n their decisionmaking. HOW, college admissions officers Thomas F. DonIon (cd.), The College Board Technical Handbook fi>r

weqgh (or do not usc at all) these scores relative to ocher factors is the the Scholastic Aptitude Test and Achievement Tests (New York: Coloverr[ding issue [n the standardized testing controversy. A.M. Pallas lege Entrance Examination Board, 1984), chs. 7 and 8; and Phyllis

and K.A. Alexander, “Sex Differences in Quantitative SAT Perform- Rosser, “Girls, Boys, and the SAT: Can We Even the Sc(>re?” .N’FA

ancc: Ne\~ Et[dcncc c~n the Differential Cour~ework Hypothesis,” Amer- Today, Special Edition, January 1988, pp. 48-53.

—.

Box 2~B.—The Scholastic Aptitude Test and the American College Testing Program

Most college applicants take either one or both of these tests in their senior or junior year of high school

in order to satisfy the admissions procedures of most selective colleges.1

In 1987, just over one million students

took the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and three-quarters of a million the American college Testing Program

(ACT), respectively about 40 and 30 percent of the high school graduating class.2 The ACT is traditionally

taken in the Western, Midwestern, and Southern States, whereas the SAT is traditionally taken in the Eastern

States and on the west coast. )

The Scholastic Aptitude Test. –The SAT is administered by the College Board, a nonprofit membership

organization funded by more than 2,500 colleges, schools, school systems, and education associations. The test

itself is developed, conducted, and scored by the Educational Testing Service, Inc., of Princeton, New Jersey,

which is an independent, nonprofit organization dedicated to testing.

The SAT is designed to predict how well students will do academically during their college freshman year

by measuring those developed verbal and mathematical reasoning abilities that the College Board believes are

most closely related to successful college performance. The College Board does recommend, however, that other

information, such as students’ course transcripts, interests, and extracurricular activities should also be taken

into account.4 Nevertheless, the material that the SAT covers will not necessarily have been taught in all

schools, and some of it relates to those reasoning, deductive, logical, and verbal abilities that students only

acquire indirectly.

The results of the SAT are two scores: one for verbal reasoning ability and the other for mathematical

reasoning ability. Performance on both parts of the test together is reported on a standardized scale from 200

to 800 points, and the College Board says that the error of measurement in any student’s score is approximately

30 to 40 points.

The most controversial aspect of the SAT is the extent to which it appears to discriminate against females

and minorities. In successive years of testing, both males and females score about equally on the verbal portion

of the test, but on the mathematics portion males score 50 points higher than females. Blacks, on average, score

50 to 80 points lower than the entire population on each half of the test. Hispanics, on average, also score

poorly, but higher than Blacks. Black and Hispanic scores have increased considerably during the last decade,

by about 20 and 10 points, respectively, whereas the average score earned by the entire test-taking population

each year has increased by only about 3 points. The 1987 scores, by race/ethnic group, are shown below.

Changes in SAT test scores have sometimes been quoted as indicators of the health and productivity of

the American education system. They have only limited usefulness for this purpose, however, because the tests

are designed only to predict students’ first-year performance in college, and because the characteristics of the

students who take the test differ from year to year and State to State,

The American College Testing Program.—The American College Testing Program is an independent, nonprofit organization that administers the ACT Assessment Program, a comprehensive service designed to aid

both college applicants and admissions offices. The American College Testing Program is governed by the ACT

Corp., composed of elected representatives from the States that make the most use of the test and from the

ACT Board of Trustees.
36

The heart of the ACT Assessment Program is a series of tests: English usage, mathematics usage, social

studies reading, and natural sciences reading. The tests are designed to predict college performance. The results

of the program are considerably more complicated than

those of the SAT. They include the student’s scores

on these tests, comparisons of these scores with those

received by previous freshmen at each institution that

the student applies to, comparisons with the scores received by freshmen at comparable institutions nationally, predictions of future performance, records of the

student’s high school courses and grades, indications

of career interests, and indications of special remedial

work that the student might benefit from. Scores on

the 4 tests are normalized to a common scale ranging

from 1 to 36 points, with a standard error of measurement of 1 to 2 points and a mean for all college-bound

students of 18 points.

Females score lower on the ACT Assessment than

do males. Overall, their scores are about 1.5 points

lower, and, in the case of the mathematics test, females

score about 2.5 points lower. Nevertheless, the mean

high school grades of female ACT Assessment takers

is greater than that of males.

SAT Scores By Race/Ethnicity , l987

VERBAL MATH COMPOSITE

800- (maximum) 800

t

1-

1

t

1-

400L

SOURCE: The College Board, 1987 Profile of SAT and Achievement Test Takers,

1987, p, v; data from Educational Testing Service.

1A small, but increasing, number of colleges do not require such test scores for admission. See National Center for Fa]r and Open Testing, Beyond Standardized Tesrs: Admiss~ons A/ternarives That Work (Cambridge, MA: FairTest, 1987).

‘U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Center for Education Statmcs, D/gest of Education Statistics 1987

(Washington, DC: May 1987), table 71. Data for the number of high school graduates are for 1984-85.

‘The Chromde ofl-iigher Education, Sept. 30, 1987, p. 34. For example, in 1982, 66 percent of all high school graduates in Massachusetts took the SAT,

whereas only 3 percent of those In Iowa, Mississippi, North Dakota, and South Dakota did.

+College Entrance Examination Board, Co//ege Bound Seniors: 1987 Profile of SA T and Achievement Test Takers (New York, NY: College Entrance

Examination Board, 1987). Thomas F. Da-don (d.), The College Board Technical Handbook for the Scholastic Apritude Tesr and Ach~evemenr Tesrs (New

York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board, 1984), chs. 7 and 8.

INFORMAL EDUCATION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAMS

Although impossible to quantify, influences of

families, friends, the media, and other aspects of the

society on students are probably as great as those

of the schools. The out-of-school environment offers

opportunities to enhance students’ appreciation of

science and mathematics or to give them “second

chances” in these areas, regardless of test-determined

abilities. Programs outside of school can be both

alternatives and complements to school activities.

In some cases, successful informal education and intervention programs can impel communities to call

for changes in curricula, course offerings, or the use

of technology in the schools.

Some students are intimidated by science. Nonschool and community-based programs, including

science centers and museums, can awaken interest

for these students, without raising the spectre of failure.” (As Frank Oppenheimer, founder of San

Francisco’s famed Exploratorium, noted, “Nobody

flunks a museum.”) The number of science centers

and museums is steadily increasing. A recent survey identified 150 in the United States, with 45 million visitors in 1986, up from 33 million in 1979.

Half of these visitors were under 18 years of age.

Science centers are also active in mathematics and

science teacher training. In 1986, more than 65,000

teachers participated in such programs.35

~4A~~Ociation of Science–Technology Centers, Nxural partners.’

How Science Centers and Community Groups Can Team up to Increase Science Lireracy (Washington, DC: July 1987); George W. Tressel,

“The Role of Museums in Science Education,” Science Education, vol.

64, No. 2, 1980, pp. 257-260.

ljThese estimates are from the Association of Science-Technology

Centers, Basic Science Center Data Survey 1988, unpublished data,

February 1988. It is important to note that the majority of funding

for science centers comes from local sources and admissions charges,
Science centers and other nonschool programs

can open new avenues of career opportunity; for

others, they enrich interests already formed. The

Children’s Television Workshop’s 3-2-1 Contact series is designed to interest students from 8 to 12 years

old in science. Broadcast on many public television

stations, it is generally regarded favorably, although

data on its effects are sparse. The series is watched

at least occasionally by about one-quarter of all

households with children under 11 years old.36

A particular niche for informal science education

programs is in promoting the science and mathematics interests of female and minority children.

These “intervention programs” began in the 1960s

Excluding three centers operated directly by the Federal Government,

an average of z percent of sclencc center funding comes from Federal

sources.

“Research Communications, Ltd., “An Exploratory Study of 3-2-1

Contact Vlewership)” National Science Foundation contractor report,

June 1987.

and became popular in the 1970s when they attracted Federal funds. Such programs vary widely

in longevity, sources of support, goals, and quality.

They are often based in universities, museums, and

research centers, as well as churches, community

organizations, and businesses. Today, most are local initiatives funded by foundations, industry, and

States. Many achieve a good deal of success from

limited resources (see box 2-C).

A study by the American Association for the Advancement of Science notes that early, sustained applications of excellent instruction can bring minority achievement to the same level as that of white

males.37 Indeed, some suggest that the techniques

applied by intervention programs, such as handson experiments and other activities conducted in

‘;Shirley M. Malcom et al., EquitY and Excellence: CompariblC>

Goals, Publication 84-14 (Washington, DC: American Association for

the Advancement of Science, December 1984).
38

Box 2-C.—Characteristics of

Intervention Programs That Work

Over the past 10 to 20 years, special programs

have been used to encourage children’s interest and

proficiency in academics and especially in science

and engineering. Programs have worked in school

and out of school, with students of all ages, cultures, and races; with youngsters of exceptional

mathematics and academic achievement and with

high school dropouts; in fields from agriculture to

engineering. Some programs use professional experts and the latest in testing and computer technologies; others work on shoestring budgets with

egg cartons and volunteers. From these experiences, both successes and failures, have emerged

lessons about what makes an intervention program

work. The characteristics of successful intervention

programs are listed below:

. clearly defined educational goals,

• high expectations among teachers and leaders,

. committed leadership,

. role models to motivate students,

● peer support with critical mass of students,

* student commitment and investment (in.

creased study time),

● hands-on laboratory experience,

. assessment and feedback to students!

● specific goals for minorities or women,

. recruitment,

● financial aid (fellowships and traineeships augmented by research assistantships),

. multi-year involvement with students, and

• program evaluation based on student

achievement,

SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988; GovmnmentUniversity-Industry Research Roundtable, Nurruring Science and Engineering Talenr (Washington, DC: National

Academy of Sciences, July 1987), pp. 36-38.

small groups (see box 2-D), could usefully be disseminated to the entire school-age population.

Most programs also require extraordinary staff

commitment and support, which are not easy to

replicate from location to location. However, the

Mathematics, Engineering, and Science Achievement (MESA) program, founded in the San Francisco Bay area in 1970, expanded throughout California and has been successfully transferred to other

States (see box 2-E). Today MESA offers a model

adaptable to students in junior high school through

college.

Intervention programs do, however, pose a

dilemma to schools and school districts. Ideally,

schooling would adapt to and cultivate each student’s unique aptitudes and interests, and be equally

excellent nationwide. That long-term goal will not

soon be reached. In the meantime, some commentators suggest that intervention programs outside

schools are vital because the schools themselves are

so impervious to reforms designed to improve the

progress of students disaffected from science. Others

feel that intervention programs can work well in

schools. Some school districts, therefore, have welcomed intervention programs, while others have

regarded them with some suspicion.

It is not clear why females and members of some

racial and ethnic minority groups, on average, begin to fall behind in mathematics and science preparation as early as elementary school, and are less

likely than white males to persist in science and engineering. But intervention programs can help reduce

These differences by instilling confidence and increasing motivation—attitudes not easily measured. Intervention programs effectively encourage women

Photo credit: William Mills, Montgomery County Public Schools

Parents can help their children to prepare for school

work in mathematics and science from an early age.

But many parents lack the confidence in these subjects

to encourage their children. Programs such as “Family

Math,” devised at the Lawrence Hail of Science,

California, are designed for both parents and children

to use together. The program has expanded to many

cities around the Nation.
39

Box 20D.–Center for the Advancement of Academically Talented Youth, The Johns Hopkins University

The Center for the Advancement of Academically Talented Youth (CTY) has gained an international reputation for identifying and furthering the education of mathematically and verbally talented students at the junior and senior high school levels. Dr. Julian Stanley founded the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth

in 1971 to identify mathematically talented adolescents. CTY’s Regional, National, and International Talent

Searches have identified more than 70,000 highly able students since its inception in 1979. Most of the CTY

programs, which are designed for 12- to 16-year-olds, are held during the summer months, although Expositor y

Writing and Science/Mathematics Tutorials-By-Mail are available to participants during the academic year,

CTY relies on standardized tests, particularly the Scholastic Aptitude Test, to identify youngsters for its

programs. For many high-talent students, CTY claims, the program is the first opportunity to match their learning

with their ability, While participation in CTY programs can result in early college admission for some, the principal aim is to enrich the preparation of students. CTY classes are demanding and span the humanities, mathematics, computer science, and the natural sciences. To provide students with individualized instruction that

caters to their differing ability levels, the program matches participants with instructors in one-to-one exchanges

at various points during the course. CTY also helps students negotiate with their home schools for appropriate

course placement and credit for CTY work. Letter grades courses are not given unless specifically requested

by the student’s school. Nevertheless, upon completion of the program, CTY does provide each student with

a detailed description of his or her performance, and all students take the College Board Achievement Test

in the appropriate subject area, In addition, CTY does offer some college scholarships for outstanding students.

CTY conducts extensive followups on its participants. In 1986, three groups of former participants were

asked to describe their current educational and career development. More than 90 percent were then attending

college. Many responded in essay form about their CTY experience; one student wrote in her evaluation of

classes: “There is a feeling that I can’t find anywhere else in the world . . . . I will miss CTY. It is here that

I am most alive.” Students feel comfortable and exercise their full potential in an informal environment which,

given the ages of students, can be as important to their development as is academic preparation. The same

student noted, “At CTY, I belonged. I felt better about myself than I had since I entered junior high school. ”

Box 20-E.—The Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement Program

The Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement (MESA) program, begun in 1970 and based at the

Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkeley, California, aims to increase the number of Black, Hispanic, and Native

American students in California that complete 4-year university degrees in mathematics, science, or engineering. The program operates under the auspices of the University of California at Berkeley.

Working with junior high and high school students as well as undergraduates, the MESA Program has proven

effective at recruiting and retaining minority students in these fields. MESA is widely acclaimed, and has been

replicated in other States, including Colorado, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon, Kansas, and Utah. Activities offered by the program include internships, field trips, incentive awards, counseling, college freshman orientation and guidance, financial aid and scholarships, and the formation of student study groups to foster cooperative learning. The program reached 7,800 students in 1985-86 and operated in one-quarter of all California

high schools with a predominantly minority enrollment. Most of the high school graduates who have participated in MESA programs have gone on to mathematics-based majors.

The MESA Program offers a Minority Engineering Program (MEP) and a Pre-College Program. The former

operates through about 15 centers, most on campuses of the California State University and the University

of California, and in 1985 -86,1 served about 2,500 students. The latter operates in 17 centers, also mainly on

college campuses, and served over 5,000 students drawn from 60 school districts, A particular emphasis of the

Pre-College Program is encouraging students to take the optional preparatory series of classes in mathematics

and science in junior high and high schools, which are very difficult to make up once a student has missed them.
—

Most of the MESA Program’s funds ($2.34 million) have come from the State of California, and other sources

have been over 40 corporations and foundations, including a $610,000 3-year grant from the Carnegie Corp.

MESA also operates programs for junior high and high school teachers (more than 200 attended workshops

on hands-on teaching methods in mathematics and science in 1985-86), and has close links with other intervention programs, such as the University of California at Berkeley’s Professional Development Program, EQUALS,

and the South East Consortium for Minorities in Engineering.

The effectiveness of MESA’s MEP is indicated by the retention rates of its participants. For example, 60

percent of MEP freshmen, after 3 years, remain in college, compared with 47 percent of all students. In engineering, Black and Hispanic MEP students have retention rates of 64 percent and 57 percent, respectively, after

2 years (compared with 13 percent and 21 percent for Black and Hispanic nonparticipants). 2

‘All data reported below are for 1985-86.

‘These data are for University of California students only, though statistics from the Cahfornia State University system are similar. “RetentLon rate” I S

percent enrolled at the university after 2 or 3 years of study. California Postsecondary Education Commission, Retention of Srudencs In ,%gineer~ng, A Report

to the Legislature in Response to Senate Concurrent Resolution 16, 1985 (Sacramento, CA: December 1986).

and minorities to consider science and engineer- ficult to replicate. The inherent conservatism of lo.

ing careers. The techniques used by these pro~

grams would also be effective with the general

population of students. Institutionalizing intervention techniques in the schools, without robbing

them of their appeal, would seem promising. Such

institutionalization would depend on training teachers

to use intervention techniques in classrooms.

In the decentralized American education system,

even the most successful programs are extremely difcal school authorities is one impediment. Another

is the difficulty of generating the community and

family support necessary to recruit students and

maintain programs’ momentum. The fundamental

problem is that special intervention programs should

not be necessary. That they are, some argue, is an

indictment of America’s education system, which

has fallen short of fulfilling the democratic ideals

of equal opportunity and of schools as centers of

learning.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR FEDERAL INFLUENCE ON

THE TALENT POOL

The Federal Government has only a modest influence on elementary and secondary mathematics

and science education. If public education is the collective responsibility of the States and the school

districts (which together bear most of its cost), then

school districts and States must both examine what

they can do to improve science and mathematics

experiences for all of their students and address the

specific problems that inhibit the development of

scientific and engineering talent.

The Federal Government in the past has made

attempts, with some success, to improve mathematics and science education in the schools. The

lead agency for Federal intervention in school mathematics and science education has been the National

. Science Foundation. Although NSF has been interested principally in students who are most likely

to become scientists and engineers, there are now

renewed calls for NSF to take a more comprehensive approach and “broaden the base” of students

learning science.38 In fiscal year 1988, NSF’s total

precollege effort is funded at about $90 million, all

of it through the Science and Engineering Education Directorate.

Following the so-called Sputnik Crisis, Congress

passed the National Defense Education Act of 1958,

‘sMichael S. Knapp et al., Opportunities for Strategic Znvestmenr

in K-12 Science Education: Options for the National Science Foundation (Men]o Park, CA: SRI International, June 1987). Congress ordered the National Science Foundation to commission this study of

the areas in which the National Science Foundation, given its strengths

and weaknesses, could best intervene in school mathematics and science education.
41

which provided extensive funding to school districts

for science equipment, supplies, and teacher training. In the early 1960s, Congress also increased funding of NSF’s science education activities until, at its

peak, about half of NSF’s budget went to education

and the bulk of that to its popular program of

teacher training institutes. Data suggest that, in

those years, about half of all high school mathematics and science teachers attended at least one

such institute. A small program of similar activities

is still funded by NSF.39

NSF’s teacher institutes were designed to bring

teachers up-to-date with advances in science and

were very popular. Many teachers, supervisors, and

leaders of the science education community fondly

remember these programs as bringing an espirit de

corps to the teaching profession, and updating

teachers’ scientific knowledge, particularly in experimental work. However, since attendance at the institutes was voluntary, many teachers (often the least

interested and least well qualified) shunned them.

The effectiveness of the institutes has been debated,

both because of the difficulty of defining and researching the effectiveness of any teacher improvement program and because the institutes were not

systematically evaluated at the time.40 Any future

replication of the institutes program would be costly,

and it might require $500 million to $1 billion,

spread over several years, to put all existing secondary mathematics and science teachers through at

least one institute program. But a second genera-

‘The National Science Foundation remains cautious and makes no

claims either for the institutes’ effectiveness or ineffectiveness. But many

science educators think that the institutes were remarkably successful.

A study by the Congressional Research Service in 1975 found that the

institutes were of great value. U.S. Congress, Congressional Research

Service, The National Science Foundation and Pre-College Science Education: 1950-1975 (Washington, DC: U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Science,

Research, and Technology, January 1976), Committee print. Hillier

Krieghbaum and Hugh Rawsom, An Znvesrmenr in Knowledge (New

York, NY: New York University Press, 1969) suggest that the institutes were effective. Victor L. Willson and Antoine M. Garibaldi, “The

Association Between Teacher Participation in NSF Institutes and Student Achievement, ’’JournaJofResearch in Science Teaching, vol. 13,

No. 5, 1976, pp. 431-439, found some modest positive effects. Also see

Knapp et al., op. cit., footnote 38, vol. 1, p. 130.

+~~he Genera] Accounting Office reviewed research on the National

Science Foundation-funded institutes and found little or no evidence

that such institutes had improved student achievement scores. U.S.

General Accounting Office, Neu’ Directions for Federal Programs To

Aid Mathematics and Science Teaching, GAO/PEMD-84-5 (Washington, DC: Mar. 6, 1984).

tion of institutes would likely remedy past mistakes

and benefit from successful teacher improvement

activities that have been funded by school districts

and foundations (for example, see box 2-F).41

Renewed concern about the state of mathematics

and science education in the schools led Congress

to pass the Education for Economic Security Act

of 1984, which has provided $40 million to $140 mil-

[ion annually, mainly for teacher training and educational activities.42 The Federal Government, via

41 The liational Science Foundation has also finded curriculum development efforts and informal education activities, such as educational

television and science centers, with some success.

4JMarks, op. cit., footnote 18.

Box 2-F.–Urban Mathematics Collaborative

This innovative program is designed to support

and reinvigorate mathematics teachers in 11 inner.

city centers. Each mathematics collaborative brings

together a community-wide advisory board of

teachers and business, civic, and university leaders,

with a part-time administrative staff. Collaborative

currentl y exist in Cleveland, Los Angeles, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Philadelphia, San Francisco,

Durham, Memphis, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, San

Diego, and St. Louis. The program was started with

a Ford Foundation grant in 1984. To date, the

foundation has committed over $2 million. Each

collaborative receives Ford Foundation support for

3 to 5 years in the expectation that each will become a self-sustaining program funded by community businesses, industries, colleges, universities,

and other civic and cultural organizations.

Specific collaborative activities for mathematics

teachers include industrial internships, exchange

programs with colleges and industries, evening symposia, newsletters, and summer workshops. By

fostering collegiality among mathematics teachers

and increasing the human and financial resources

available to teachers, the projects seek to reduce

teachers’ isolation and to boost their professional

enthusiasm. To further the professional goals of the

collaborative, the Foundation has established a

Technical Assistance Project that serves as an information clearinghouse on mathematics education

and facilitates network communication. The Foundation also funds evaluation of the project through

the Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.
42

both NSF and the Department of Education, has

also funded research on mathematics and science

education, as well as data collection. These activities have been very valuable in giving the Nation

a picture of what is happening today and how things

might be improved.

Future Federal efforts to support science and engineering education can leverage Federal finds if they

stress partnerships with programs funded by States,

school districts, private industry, and business. An

advantage of this approach, other than reducing

Federal outlays, is that the burden of evaluating program outcomes is shared by all participants. When

this cannot be worked out, however, Federal funds

may be the only mechanism for improving the quality of mathematics and science education.

In summary, ways to ensure adequate production

of scientists and engineers fall into two distinct

groups. One is to enlarge the talent pool, the other

is to retain those already in it. Both cast schools

—

Drawings by elementary school children in response

as the agent for recognizing and nurturing talent.

To assist in these tasks, the system of schooling must

become more sensitive to learning styles and varying rates and patterns of children’s intellectual development, 43 and more open to community-based

programs and institutions. As a Nation, we can explore ways by which science and engineering could

more freely welcome those who come to the professions by nontraditional paths.

~~There is ~re~~ure for redirecting American education to focus ‘ore

clearl y on developing “higher order thinking skills. ” See Lauren B. Resnick, Education and L-earning to Think (Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1987). In science, the focus is on investigative and interpretive skills as well as on factual recall, See Robert E. Yager, “Assess All Five Domains of Science, ” The Science Teacher, vol. 54, No.

7, October 1987, pp. 33-37. There are also suggestions that teaching

should be better tailored to suit the way women and minorities learn.

Christine 1. Bennett, Comprehensive Multicultural Education: Theory and Practice (Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1986), ch. 4 and 5;

Mark A. Uhlig, “Learning Styles of Minorities to Be Studied,” New

York Times, Nov. 21, 1987, p. A29; Eleanor Wilson Orr, Twice As

Less: Black English and the Performance of Black Students in Mathematics and Science (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co., 1987).

to the question “What does a scientist look like?” (1988).
Chapter 3

Higher Education for Science

and Engineering

[large photograph in original manuscript omitted because of poor scan quality]
co

Page

Diversity of Institutions, Students,

and Degrees ● * . 6 * . . * * . * * . . * . . * +...**..* 45

Undergraduate Education . . +. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Key Questions . . . . . . . . ....... ● . . . . . . . 48

Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Freshmen Intentions To Major in Natural

Science and Engineering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Trends in Science and Engineering

Baccalaureates..................................................... 50

Women iN Science and Engineering . . . . . . 50

Minority College Attendance and Degreetaking in Science and Engineering . . . . . . 52

Productive Environments-Undergraduate

Origins of Scientists and Engineers . . . . . . . 56

Engineering Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Key Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Key Findings ● *..,*. .*..*... .*.*.... . . . 59

Balancing Analysis and Practice in

Engineering Curricula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

The Transition to Work .4 ... .+. ... .... 61

Scope for Federal Policy in Engineering

Education ....* ● ***.***. ● ..+ . . 67

Graduate Education: Entering the Research

Work Force. .;... + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Key QuestitmL•** •• ● ● $+ ● +* ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● . ● 6 8

Key Finding ● ● ●-. , . . . . . + 68

Acculturation to the Research

Environment......., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Graduate Eduation in Transition. . . . . . . . 73

Funding of Students and Institutions:

A Tool of Federal Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Federal Influence on Undergraduate

Education * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Support of Doctoral Students:

“Buying” Ph.D,s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

NTENTS

Figure

3-1. 

3-2. 

!

3-3. 

3-4.

3-5.

3-6.

3-7.

3--8.

3-9.

3-10.

3-11.

3-12.

3-13.

3-14.

“Table

Science/Engineering Degrees, by Level,

.-

1950-86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Science/Engineering Degrees, by Level,

Sex, and Race/Ethnicity, 1986 . . . . . ● . . 47

Natural Science/Engineering B.S.

Degree Attainment, by Freshman

Major, 1982 Freshmen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Science/Engineering B.S. Degrees, by

Field, 1950-86 ....... + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Science/Engineering B.S. Degrees, by

Sex, 1950-86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Science/Engineering Ph.D. Productivity,

by Type of B.S. Institution, 1950-75 . . . 58

Where Engineers Work, 1986 ......,.. 59

Engineering Ph.D.s, by Visa Status,

1960-86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Full-Time Science/Engineering

Graduate Students With Federal

Support in Ph.D.-Granting Institutions,

by Field, 1966436 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Full-Time Science/Engineering

Graduate Students With Federal

Support in Ph.D.-Granting Institutions,

1966-86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Higher Education Revenue Sources,

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * + * . * . ***..*.** 73

Federal Obligations to Universities and

Colleges by Type of Activity,

1%3-86 . . . * *, . . ., * . . . . ., * . ***.....* 75

National and Federal R&D Spending,

Science/Engineering Ph.D.s, and

Federal Fellowships, 1960-86 . . . . . . . . . . 7$

Major Sources of Support, Science/

Engineering Graduate Students in

Ph.D.-Granting institutions, 197246... 79

Tables
Chapter 3

Higher Education for

Science and Engineering

DIVERSITY OF INSTITUTIONS, STUDENTS, AND DEGREES

The 3,300 universities, colleges, and engineering

institutes in the United States enroll a larger proportion of young adults than in any other nation. About

12 million students are enrolled in institutions of

higher education; over 2 million of these are firsttime freshmen. ’ Half of these students will eventually receive bachelor’s degrees. For the last three decades, 30 percent of bachelor’s degree recipients (that

is, about 9 percent of each high school graduating

class) received their degrees in science or engineering, including social sciences. In recent years, about

one-tenth of these bachelor’ s-level scientists and

engineers have gone on to earn science or engineering doctorates.2

These broad patterns disguise a great deal of variation. Large research universities, small liberal arts

colleges, historically Black institutions, 2-year institutions, technical institutes, and other public and

private institutions of all kinds make American

higher education extraordinarily diverse in size, purpose, and structure. Each type of institution provides a unique environment for developing talent

and encouraging persistence in pursuit of a degree.

While this chapter concerns characteristics of educational environments and their students, its emphasis is on institutions as producers of scientists and

engineers at all degree levels. Of course, institutions

of higher education have many other functions besides producing scientists and engineers, from vocaIother ~otable Statistics on the total enrolled population are that

60 percent are full-time students and two-thirds attend universities and

+year institutions. Among first-time freshmen (who represent roughly

80 percent of high school graduates), the ratio of full- to part-time students is two to one, but equal numbers are enrolled in 2- and 4-year

institutions. See U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational

Research and Improvement, Center for Education Statistics, Digest of

,!%ucar~on Starisrics 1987 (Washington, DC: May 1987), tables 104-

110, 154. The focus of thts chapter is on full-time students enrolled

in America’s 1,500 +-year colleges and universities.

‘Natural sciences and engineering bachelor’s degrees account for an

average of 20 percent of the baccalaureates awarded during this period.

National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Degrees, 1950-

80: A Source Book, NSF 82-307 (Washington, DC: 1982).

tional training to the cultivation of western civilization’s artistic and cultural traditions.

Although 30 percent of baccalaureates are awarded

in science and engineering, the relative popularity

of different fields has shifted substantially with

events in the job market of the last three decades.

Increasing college enrollments, which was the trend

until 1982, meant more science and engineering baccalaureate recipients; in contrast, the proportion

continuing on to Ph.D. study reflects market demand, the availability of Federal research and development (R&D) funds, and direct student support

(see figure 3-1). } There is also substantial variation

in science and engineering by sex, race, and ethnicity of degree recipients. White males are far more

likely to earn degrees in science and engineering than

women, Blacks, or Hispanics (see figure 3-2). These

differences-which vary from field to field–have

narrowed in the past 15 years, but are still generally large.

Most fields of graduate study in the sciences, as

distinguished from engineering, are oriented toward

the academic as well as the industrial job market;

somewhat less than half of Ph.D. scientists work in

academic institutions. The Ph.D. is the basic professional degree in most fields of science, and most science students seek research or teaching positions.

Despite growing undergraduate enrollments from

the late 1960s to the early 1980s, a stagnant academic job market and slower growth in Federal research funds have left many young Ph.D.s “underutilized.”4 Many institutions, beset b y a facult y

‘Betty Vetter and Henry Hertzfeld, “Federal Support for Sc~ence

and Engineering Education: Effect on Output of Scientists and Engineers 1945- 1985, ” OTA contractor report, 1987. These relationships

are elaborated below.

+The National Science Foundation adds the rates of unernpl~ved

and “underemployed’ ’-those who are Involuntarily in conscience or

engineering jobs or working part-time but seeking full-time

employment—to define an “underutilized” segment of the science and

engineering work force. In 1986, 6.5 percent of scientists and 2.3 percent of engineers, at all degree Ie\.els, were underutilized. National

45
46

Photo credit: University of Chicago and The Chronicle of Higher Education

Photo credit: University of Massachusetts, Boston, and

The Chronicle of Higher Education

American higher education institutions are extremely

varied, ranging from internationally renowned research

universities to small liberal arts colleges emphasizing

undergraduate teaching. Some smaller institutions

focus on local students, certain types of students (e.g.,

minority institutions), course offerings (e.g., engineering

schools), or course structure; while others emphasize

a diverse student body and comprehensive curriculum.

This diversity has been a strength of American

education and research training.

Figure 3-1.—Science/Engineering Degrees,

by Level, 1950-86

B.S.

M.S.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Center for Education Statistics (B.S. and

M.S.); National Research Council, Survey of Doctorate Recipients

(Ph.D.).

tenured largely during 1960s-era expansion, curtailed

their hiring in the 1970s. Full-time graduate enrollments in science and engineering have grown since

the early 1970s. If not for the influx of foreign graduate students, however, these enrollment increases

would have been less. Retirements and turnover of

faculty in the mid-1990s, combined with a resurgence in undergraduate enrollments later in the decade, may eventually relieve these pressures.5 Until

then, the attractiveness of an academic career will

pale for many students.

In engineering and some fields of science (notably

earth sciences and computer science), the bachelor’s

or, increasingly, the master’s degree is the most important professional degree. The employment markets for these fields are dominated by industry; for

example, 80 percent of engineers work for private

companies. 6 Unlike the Ph.D.-oriented fields, these

fields respond to industrial, rather than academic,

(continued from previous page)

Science Board, Science Zndicarors: The 1985 Report, NSB 85-1 (Washington, DC: 1986), pp. 67-68.

51nstitutions in the higher education system will absorb these trends

in different ways. The research universities will have the most financial latitude to accommodate flux in faculty and research positions as

well as student enrollments. See, for example, Harvey Brooks, “The

Research University: Doing Good, and Doing It Better,” Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 4, No. 2, winter 1988, pp. 49-55.

%J.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, “Preparing for

Science and Engineering Careers: Field-Level Profiles,” staff paper, Jan.

21, 1987.
47

Figure 3-2.–Science/Engineering Degrees, by Level, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity, 1986

40

30

10

0

I

–1I women

B.S. M.S. Ph.D.

aN~. is natural ~c~encelengineeri ng, which does not include the social sciences.

SOURCE: U.S Department of Education, Center for Education Statistics (B.S. and

needs. Because their periods of training are shorter,

enrolled students can react more quickly to employment opportunities. These fields, not coincidentally,

have been the ones that experience enrollment and

employment booms, and subsequent busts. When

fields boom (the most recent examples are engineering and computer science), faculty shortages develop.

Foreign faculty have proven vital to maintaining

teaching capacity in these fields. U.S. citizens have

generally sought high-paying baccalaureate-level industrial employment rather than graduate study in

pursuit of faculty positions.

Federal influence over higher education is especially forceful at the graduate level. Federal fellow30

10

I

Minorities

0

B.S. M.S. Ph.D.

M.S,); National Research Council, Survey of Doctorate Recipients (Ph,D,)

ships and other forms of assistance are awarded to

support specific graduate students in specific fields

of study. Federal R&D programs can also be highly

influential, since they provide employment opportunities for researchers in universities, industry, and

government, and assistantships for students. Before

they aspire to research apprenticeships and careers

in science and engineering, however, students must

acquire undergraduate educations that prepare them

for graduate study or, alternatively, convince them

that research is not their destiny. The character of

the undergraduate experience is usually decisive for

imparting the skills and expectations needed for participation in science or engineering.
48

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Key Questions

How well does undergraduate education nurture

talent?

What leverage or influence does the Federal Government have on undergraduate education?

Are there particular undergraduate environments

in science that encourage students to pursue a

Ph. D.? Are certain environments particularly successful with specific groups?

Key Findings

Interest by freshmen in science and engineering

is declining slightly, while majors such as business are increasingly popular. Science and engineering students continue to have higher high

school grade point averages and Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores than those entering other

majors.

Any action that increases the size or changes the

composition of the entire undergraduate population, such as the G.I. bill and Title IX (which

outlawed sexual discrimination), is likely to be

reflected in the number of baccalaureate awards.

Science and engineering fields share in these

changes.

Research universities, in absolute terms, produce

the largest number of students that go on to

Ph.D.s. in science and engineering. But small

liberal arts and technical colleges with some active research produce, in relation to their size, a

remarkable number of students who eventually

earn Ph.D.s. in these fields.

Science and engineering majors are similar to

other students in their sources and extent of financial aid. Undergraduate loan burdens do not

seem to affect decisions by the majority of students to pursue graduate degrees.

Higher education, once an optional route to

occupational mobility, is now a necessity for those

seeking admission to the professions. The baccalaureate is a crucial, but by no means final, credential

for employment, while institutions differ markedly

in the educations they provide. The process of recruiting and sorting student talent is reciprocal: institutions’ reputations, fees, and locations influence

the choices of students and their families, while the

students’ academic profiles guide (but do not alone

determine) institutions’ admissions decisions.7 Institutions will have important effects on students’

future careers, influencing their choices of majors,

their friends, and their likelihoods of pursuing graduate study. But a student’s career interest and

planned major will also influence the choice of college. Data on the “intentions” of entering freshman

capture the link between actual college enrollments

—the net effect of mutual recruitment and sorting—

and declared career plans.

Freshmen Intentions To Major in

Natural Science and Engineering

The expressed intentions of entering freshmen indicate that fewer students today are interested in

natural science and engineering majors than at the

end of the last decade. In 1978, 27 percent, or about

286,000, of first-time, full-time freshmen entering the

Nation’s 4-year colleges and universities, planned

to pursue majors in natural science or engineering.

By 1986, 24 percent (246,000) expressed such interests.8

‘Applications for admission to higher education institutions have

been rising since 1986. Perhaps this is due to effective college marketing. Students seem more willing to apply to institutions that they ordinarily would consider beyond their reach academically and financially. Because the number of students available to become freshmen

has been broadcast as demographically depressed, multiple applications

increase the prospect of choice. See Robert Rothman, “Surprise: Freshman Enrollment Is Surging,” &iucarion Week, vol. 7, No. 7, Oct. 21,

1987, pp. 1, 21. From the institution’s perspective, a muhivariate “predicted performance” model that accounts for differences in the high

schools from which students apply, as well as standardized test scores,

grades, extracurricular activities, etc., is preferred in making admissions

decisions. See Hunter M. Breland, Educational Testing Service, “An

Examination of State University and College Admissions Policies,” research report, January 1985.

~Data are from the CooFrative Institutional Research program’s annual survey of freshmen in American colleges and universities. Freshmen intentions to major in fields are taken as an indicator of degree

trends 4 to 5 years later. The correlation is strong and positive, but

variable by field. Kenneth C. Green, “Freshman Intentions and Science/Engineering Careers,” OTA contractor report, December 1987.

Also note that in this section we use the more restrictive designation

“natural science and engineering” (omitting social science) to estimate

career interest and size of the science and engineering talent pool.
49

The decline has been neither steady nor consistent. Freshman interest in some majors, such as computer science and engineering, rose substantially in

the early 1980s as students sought careers in highgrowth fields.4 Enrollments in both fields began to

decline in 1984, however, and by 1986 their shares

of freshman major intentions had slipped back to

where they had been in the late 1970s. Freshmen

interest in becoming research scientists also declined

by more than one-quarter between 1978 and 1986.

This drop in freshman interest could be interpreted

as a delayed response to a market perceived as offering too few desirable positions for those graduating

with degrees in science. It is a disturbing trend and

an early warning signal to those concerned about

replenishing the research work force.

Blacks and Hispanics represent 8 and 2 percent,

respectively, of the freshmen intending majors in

the natural sciences and engineering, and Asians

6 percent. Changes in the distribution of freshman

preferences of Asian and Black students by broad

field can be observed in table 3-1; for all broad fields

of natural science and engineering, the proportion

of whites declined from 1978 to 1986 while the

proportions of Asians and Blacks rose. In general,

Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP)

data indicate that science-interested freshmen are

more likely than their peers in other fields to report

‘Alexander W. Astin et al., The American Freshman: Twenty Year

Trends (Los Angeles, CA: University of California at Los Angeles,

Higher Education Research Institute, 1987), pp. 14-15.

“A” or “A-” grade point averages in high school,

and to report having spent more time on high school

homework. They are more confident of their abilities and have higher degree aspirations. More of

these high school “high achievers,” however, are

choosing other majors, particularly business, than

did so in the past. *O

How well do freshmen intentions predict degree

outcomes? A 1986 CIRP followup survey of the

freshman cohort of 1982 shows that retention to

completion of the baccalaureate varies by discipline.

For example, 70 percent of freshman business majors

earn the baccalaureate in business 4 years later, and

over 60 percent of education and social sciences

majors receive degrees in these fields. In natural science and engineering fields, the retention rates are

lower, ranging from a low of 38 percent in the physical sciences to a high of 58 percent in engineering.

In general, these fields lose twice as much talent to

fields other than natural sciences and engineering

fields than they gain. As seen in figure 3-3, the “sur--

vival rate” for the 1982 freshman cohort in four

broad fields can be measured in several ways. (Attrition from a natural science or engineering major,

it should be remembered, can represent a gain elsewhere. ) In the biological sciences, physical sciences,

and engineering, 5 to 10 percent of the bachelor’s

‘OWhen interest in natural science and engineering majors is analyzed for the high achiever student population (those with “A” or “A-”

high school grade point averages), the proportion of Asians increases

from 6 to 8 percent, while the proportion of Blacks decreases by half

to 4 percent. Eighty-five percent of the high achiever population is white.

Table 3-1.— Freshman Preferences for Various Undergraduate Majors, by Selected

Racial/Ethnic Group, 1978 and 1986a

Asian Black White b

1978 1986 1978 1986 1978 1986

Natural science and engineering

Physical sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 4.5 6.0 10.3 91 83

Biological sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 6.3 5.8 6.4 91 84

Pre-medicine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 7.4 7.9 9.9 87 79

Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 5.8 6.8 7.4 89 84

Other majors

Social sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 2.2 12.6 9.8 84 85

Arts & humanities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 2.2 6.3 6.2 91 90

Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 2.0 9.8 11.3 88 85

Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.6 8.5 6.5 90 91

All otherc

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 2.9 8.8 9.4 88 86

aFreShrnen of selected racial/ethnic group as a percentage of all freshmen planning to pUrSUe majOrS in selected fields.

bPercentages have been rounded.

Clncludes nursing, allied health, architecture, and undecided students, amon9 ‘thers.

SOURCE: Kenneth C, Green, “Freshman Intentions and Science/Engineering Careers,” OTA contractor report, 1987,
50

Figure 3-3.—Natural Science/Engineering B.S. Degree

Attainment, by Freshman Major, 1982 Freshmen

SOURCE: Kenneth C. Green, OTA contractor report, 1987. Based on data from

the Cooperative Institutional Research Project, University of California at Los Angeles.

recipients earn a degree in a field

freshman major but still within the

and engineering.

matics baccalaureates in the late 1970s was accompanied by a rise in computer science degrees; mathematics is now rebounding somewhat. Degrees in

biology have been declining in the past 10 years.

Baccalaureates in the social sciences peaked in 1974,

after a period of substantial growth, and have been

declining ever since.ll

Women in Science and Engineering

Women have never been well represented12

among recipients of science and engineering baccalaureate degree awards (see figure 3-5). Women received about 38 percent of science and engineering

bachelor’s degrees (heavily concentrated in the social sciences (43 percent) and life sciences (44 percent)) in 1986. *J Although women have made gains

across the board in their share of science and engineering baccalaureates, since 1984 their share has

leveled off, and in computer science, engineering,

biological sciences, and the physical sciences is declining slightly .14 Yet CIRP reports that in 1986

women were twice as likely as men to be interested

in medical careers (often anchored by an undergraduate major in biology) and significantly more

likely to be interested in research. ’5

other than the

natural sciences

i I Betty M Vetter and Eleanor L. Babco, professional Women and

Minorities: A Manpower Data Resource Service, 7th ed. (Washington, DC: Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology,

December 1987), pp. 137, 151, 199.

‘~The widespread use of the terms “underrepresented” and “overrepresented” is troublesome. Both terms assume some “normal” level

Trends in Science and Engineering

Baccalaureates

The number of science and engineering baccalaureates has risen slightly as a percentage of the 22-

year-old population, although its share of all baccalaureate degrees awarded has been fairly constant

during the past two decades. The distribution of

these degrees by field has varied considerably 

in response to economic developments, Federal and State

policies, and social attitudes (see figure 3-4). Physics

degrees fell during the 1970s and are still recovering; one-third of physics graduates continue with

graduate study. With earth scientists in surplus

owing to the decline in the petroleum and mining

industries, baccalaureates in these fields have been

declining sharply since 1982. A decline in matheo~representation relative to a base population. That population could

be the total U.S. population, the size of the college-age (18-to 24-yearolds) cohort, or the number of undergraduate students enrolled. The

referent is seldom clear; the terms are not used throughout this report.

For further discussion, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and

Engineering-A Technical Memorandum, forthcoming, summer 1988.

I IVetter and Babco, op. cit., footnote 11 ! P. 54”

‘qBetty M. Vetter, “Women’s Progress,” Mosaic, vol. 18, No. 1,

spring 1987, pp. 4-5.

‘5Green, op. cit., footnote 8. The gap between aspirations and realization has been explained by some as a “chilly climate” for women

that still prevails in many college classrooms. Roberta M. Hall and Bernice R. Sandier, The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women?

(Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges, Project on the

Status and Education of Women, 1982); Roberta M. Hall and Bernice

R. Sandier, Out of the Classroom: A Chilly Campus Climate for

Women? (Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges, Project

on the Status and Education of Women, October 1984). In terms of

the thinning ranks of the research work force noted earlier, women’s

intentions, at least as they enter college, would appear to be a welcome antidote, if degree-taking indeed follows.
51

Figure 3-4.–Science/Engineering B.S. Degrees, by Field, 1950.86

100,000

80,000

20,000

0

1 1 I I { 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 t I 1 I

1950 1960

------ Engineering –“–-–” social Sciences

.................. Mathematics/Computor Science------- —

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Center for Education Statistics.

Figure 3-5.—Science/Engineering B.S. Degrees,

by Sex, 1950-86

I 1 , , , 1 1 1 , I 1 1 I I 1 1 ,

1960 1960 1970 1980 1986

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Center for Education Statistics.

1970 1960 1986

——— Life Sciences

Physicel Sciences ---------- Psychology

The implicit assumption that scientific competence

in the United States is disproportionately concentrated in the 40 percent of the population represented by white males is, as one observer puts it,

“a handicap that neither science nor the U.S. can

any longer tolerate on economic, competitive, moral,

or any other grounds.”16 Yet the gender gap in

recruitment to and participation in science, reduced

by two decades of gains, is in danger of widening

again.17 By now, however, strategies targeted to increase the recruitment and participation of women

in science and engineering are well known (see box

3-A).18

‘

bMichael Heylin, “Women, Minorities, and Chemistry,” Chemical

& Engineering News, vol. 65, No. 37, Sept. 14, 1987, p. 3.

1@etty Vetter, “Women in Science,” The American W’oman 1987-

88: A Report in Depth, D. Shavlik and J. Touchton (eds.) (Washington, DC: Women’s Research and Educational Institute, 1987).

l~E]izabeth K. Stage et al., “Increasing the Participation and

Achievement of Girls and Women in Mathematics, Science, and Engineering,” Handbook for Achieving Sex Equity Through Education,

Susan S. Klein (cd.) (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University

Press, 1985), pp. 237-268. Also see Susan S. Klein, “The Role of Public

Policy In the Education of Girls and Women,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 9, No. 3, fall 1987, pp. 219-230.
52

Photo credit: National Institutes of Health

Females interested in scientific careers have faced strong opposition ever since science became an organized and

academic activity. Slowly, the barriers to their participation are being eroded, but there are many signs that women’s

progress has, for the moment at least, sputtered. Renewed efforts among the existing scientific work force are needed

to make science more attractive to females.

Minority College Attendance

and Degree-taking in Science

and Engineering

Although they constitute about 12 percent of the

population (and 9 percent of the college freshmen),

Blacks receive only 2.6 percent of the bachelor’s

degrees and 2 percent of the doctorates in science

and engineering.19 The proportion of Blacks that

complete high school has increased from 10 to 70

percent in the last 40 years. Black enrollments in

higher education have increased accordingly (although they are now declining, perhaps because of

shifts in Federal aid from grants and scholarships

to loans, which Blacks are often reluctant to as19A. K. Finkbeiner, “Demographics or Market Forces?” Mosaic, vol.

18, No. 1, spring 1987, p. 17.

sume). 20 Two-thirds of Blacks enrolled in higher

education are female. Black males are shunning

higher education, a talent loss of increasing proportions. Some of this loss is to the Armed Forces,

which are excellent providers of technical training

and also promise financial support for higher education following a period of service.21

~~here are no national data to link firmly this cause with this effect, and the phenomenon may preclude the collection of information,

for example, in the Department of Education’s Recent College Graduate survey. See Applied Systems Inc., “Student Borrowing, Starting

Salaries and Education Debt Burdens: Evidence From the Surveys of

Recent College Graduates, “ OTA contractor report, September 1987,

and discussion below.

*’Slogans such as the Armed Forces’ “It’s a great place to start!”

apparently have great appeal. In 1985, over 90 percent of Blacks who

enlisted were high school graduates. Solomon Arbeiter, “Black Enrollments: The Case of the Missing Students,” Change, vol. 19, No. 3,

May/June 1987, p. 17. “No equivalent exists in higher education to
53

Box 3~A.—Recruiting Women to Science and Engineering: One Physicist’s Prescription

A female physicist’s observations on recruiting women to careers in science and engineering form a kind

of primer on women’s participation:l

● Positive role models, e.g, the national impact of Sally Ride, cannot be emphasized enough. “In addition

to seeing women functioning as scientists and engineers on the job, students also use role models as a

primary source of reassurance that a technical career can be mixed with family responsibilities. ”

● In any science-related activity, a “reasonabl y sized female peer group” provides a “critical mass. ” This

is essential at the “most critical times when large numbers of girls turn away from considering technical

careers,” junior high school and at the end of the sophomore year in college, “when they are selecting

a major. ”

● We forget that “today’s culture still takes men more seriously” than women.

An agenda for action requires that women in science receive national attention in the form of publicizing

statistics on the gap between the sexes in participation in science,

● “Newspaper editors and television producers can insist that women appear with men in news items about

science and technology. ”

● Scholarships and internships especially for women can be offered by government agencies, academic institutions, and high-technology companies.

● The National Science Foundation can be authorized to study “the on-campus factors thought to be important in the recruitment and retention of women in science and engineering majors. ”

● Summer programs for high school girls can bring them to university campuses to take courses and learn

about technical careers. This would be a kind of national “Science Head Start” program that Congress

could delegate to the States.

● Through cooperative efforts between educational institutions and prospective employers, the alumni of

these summer programs could be hired for summer jobs.

National policy, however, can be developed to support women once they enter the science and engineering

work force. Among the issues that Congress should consider are these four:

1. Guidelines on maternity and paternity leave;

2. Flexible working hours, job-sharing, and home- as well as office-centered work;

3. Public and private day-care facilities of great variety; and

4. Research on interrupted careers.

These issues suggest actions that change the culture through legislation. Only the enforcement of legislation

will change individual attitudes.

IMO~t of the fOllOWlng text IS a paraphrase of Elizabeth S. Ivey~ “Recrultlng Mm-e V’omen Into Science and Engineering,” Issues In Science & Techno/o.

g}’, VOI. 4, No. 1, fall 1987, pp. 84-86. Direct quotes are Indicated.

There have been important shifts in the institu- neers (see box 3-B), followed by the large State

tions that Black students attend. The historically universities. Most Blacks enrolled in 4-vear instituBlack colleges and universities (HBCUS)

22 have

been the main source of Black scientists and engithe enormoudy successful ‘Be All That You Can Be’ campaign for military recruitment. ” James R. Mingle, Focus on Minorities: Trends in

Higher Education Participation and Success (Denver, CO: Education

Commission of the States and the State Higher Education Executive

Officers, July 1987).

2~Historically or traditionally Black institutions refer to 105 colleges

and universities so designated in 1976 by the National Center for Education Statistics and founded before 1954 for the purpose of educating

Black students. These institutions are located in 19 States and the Dis-

,

tions are now in traditionally white universities.23

trict of Columbia. Of the 100 in existence in 1984, 57 were privately

controlled; the rest are under State control. Susan Hill, The Traditionally Black Institutions of Higher Education, 1860-1982 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1984), p. xi.

2]walter R. Allen, “Black Colieges vs. White Colleges: The Fork in

the Road for Black Students,” Change, vol. 19, No. 3, May/June 1987,

p. 28; Stephen Chaikind, College Enrollment Patterns of Black and

White Srudenrs (Washington, DC: DRC, 1986); Scott Jaschik, “Major Changes Seen Needed for Colleges to Attract Minorities,” The

Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 34, No. 13, Nov. 25, 1987, pp.

Al, 31.
54

Box 3-B.–The National Institutes of Health Minority Access to Research Careers Programl

Established in 1975 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Minority Access to Research Careers

(MARC) Program focuses on increasing the number and research capabilities of minority scientists in biomedical fields and in strengthening science curricula at minority institutions. The object is to prepare students for

careers in biomedical research. The explicit focus of the program is on improving minority students’ opportunity, aspiration, and preparation for graduate study. The MARC Program offers both institutional training

grants and individual fellowships: the Faculty Fellowship, the Visiting Scientist Award, the Honors Undergraduate Research Training Grant, and the Predoctoral Fellowship.

The Faculty Fellowship, the first award offered, provides opportunities for advanced research training for

faculty from 4-year institutions serving predominantly minority students. Members are nominated by their institutions and may serve up to 3 years. The Visiting Scientist Award provides financial support for outstanding

scientist-teachers at such colleges and universities in the hope of strengthening research and teaching in the

biomedical sciences. Stipends are set on a case-by-case basis, and funding can be requested for a period from

an academic quarter to 1 year. The Honors Undergraduate Research Training Grant, initiated at the suggestion

of Congress and the largest component of MARC, often works in conjunction with NIH’s Minority Biomedical

Research Support Program. Its objective is to increase the number of well-prepared students who can compete

successfully for entry into graduate biomedical programs. Training support is offered for a maximum of 5 years

to carefully selected undergraduate honors students at institutions in which enrollments are drawn primaril y

from minority groups. The Predoctoral Fellowship, also awarded for a maximum of 5 years, targets the honors

graduates and is conditional on acceptance into a biomedical Ph.D. program.

MARC provides tuition and stipend support for third and fourth year honors undergraduate students. Its

specially structured curriculum includes exposure to ongoing research in the biomedical sciences, travel, administrative support, equipment purchase, and research, including summer study. From 1977 to 1984, MARC Honors

has grown from $990,000 (or $700,000 in 1972 dollars) (74 trainees at 12 schools) to $4.9 million ($2.2 million

in 1972 dollars) and 366 undergraduate trainees at 56 schools). Results of a 1984 evaluation and survey showed

that the program was successful in keeping talented minorities in school and encouraging them to pursue research careers.

The MARC Program is continually monitored by a review committee. Site visits show that faculty members report high motivation among MARC honors students and note several examples of published research.

A questionnaire sent to more than 800 former trainees indicates that three of four have enrolled in graduate

or professional programs. Some critics contend that the MARC Program places too much emphasis on preparing students for research careers and ignores those with other career plans. Yet most (63 percent) MARC alumni

are employed in science or engineering fields.

The institutional impact of the various MARC Programs is indicated by a definite increase in biology bachelor’s

degrees at MARC schools. In addition, student surveys show that the research component of the program is

consistently touted as the most appealing aspect. Many maintain that they would not have continued their

studies had it not been for the availability of MARC funds and the opportunities fostered by the program.

The creation of role models in these graduate programs encourages the program’s continued success.

IHOW,~~d H, G~~~i~O~ ~~d p~u&~Cc w, B~OW,~, Minority Access to Research Careers: An Evaluation of rhe Honors Undergraduate Research ‘raJning

Program (Washington, DC: Natmnal Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medlclne, Committee on National Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Research

Personnel, 1985).

HBCU enrollments and degree awards are declin- — into the science and engineering pipeline of 4-year

ing, and the large State universities are not compensating for the downturn. Half of all Black students who attend college enter higher education in

2-year or community colleges. It is likely that these

colleges .24

24 According to a survey of 1980 high school graduates, AsianAmerican students were twice as likely (American Indian and white

students 1‘/2 times as likely) as Black and Hispanic students to enter

institutions place tiny numbers of their graduates 2-year colleges and later transfer to 4-year institutions. For all groups,
55

Photo credit: National Institutes of Healfh

While most Blacks in science and engineering used

to come from the historically Black colleges and

universities, such as Howard University in Washington,

DC, an increasing proportion now enroll in traditionally

white universities, including community colleges.

Overall, Black enrollment in science and engineering

is declining.

Most Hispanics and American Indians in higher

education are enrolled in 2-year colleges. The Hispanic population is heavily concentrated in California, Texas, New York, and Florida. About 75

(continued from previous page)

there is a flow (of one-third to one-half as many students) in the other

directions as well. See Shirley Vining Brown, Minorities in the Graduare Educarion Pipeline, Research Report of the Minority Graduate

Education Pro]ect (Princeton, NJ: Graduate Record Examinations Board

and Educational Testing Service, 1987), P. 5. Although no systematic

field-level data are available, third-year transfers into engineering are

reportedly not uncommon when an engineering institution is in close

proximity to 2-year colleges that can feed it students (OTA Workshop

on Engineering Education in 1997, Sept. 9, 1987; Bernard Sagik, personal communication, October 1987).

colleges and universities have enrollments that are

over 25 percent Hispanic.25 Institutions such as the

Universit y of Texas-El Paso, Florida International

University, and the University of New Mexico have

graduated large numbers of Hispanic students.26

Asian-American students, who are variously of

Chinese, Korean, Indochinese, Filipino, Japanese,

Laotian, Cambodian, Indian, and other origins,

continue to do very well educationally, especially

in science and engineering. One indicator of achievement is that 70 percent of Asian-American 18-yearolds take the SAT as compared to 28 percent of their

age peers. Asian-Americans also tend to concentrate

at top-ranking universities. The freshman classes of

the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the California Institute of Technology, and the University

of California at Berkeley in the fall of 1986 were over

20 percent Asian-American, compared to 3.1 percent of all freshmen nationwide27 (see box 3-C).

~5The Chronicle of Higher Educarion, “Hispanics: Some Basic

Facts,” Sept. 16, 1987, p. A36. In 1987, 60 U.S. Institutions founded

the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. Based on a cri.

terion of at least 25 percent Hispanic enrollment, 100 institutions arc c

expected to qualify by the year 2000. See Cheryl M. Fields, “Demographic Changes Bring Large Hispanic Enrollments to Over 60 Institutions,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 7, 1987, p. A40.

‘bRichard C. Richardson, Jr. et al., “Graduating Minority Students,”

Change, vol. 19, No. 3, May-June 1987, p. 24.

‘

iEvidence of the superior academic performance of Asian-American

students has been described recently in Time, the Sunday New York

Times Magazine, and the Los Angeles Times Magazine in stories alleging discrimination against Asian-American students in admissions

to U.S. colleges and universities, and their perception as a “nondisadvantaged” minority. See Green, op. cit., footnote 8; Manpower Comments, vol. 24, No. 10, December 1987, pp. 14-15.

Box 3-C.–Asian-Americans in Science and Engineering: Perceptions and Realities

Stereotypes abound about the intelligence and educational achievements of Asian-American

children. A closer look suggests that reality is far more complicated than perceptions, though a lack

of research on the interaction of country of origin, social class, and family structure with educational success inhibits understanding of Asian-American participation in the science and engineering work force.

The whiz-kid image fits many of the children of Asian immigrant families who arrived in this

country in the late 1960s and early 1970s, following passage of a 1965 law liberalizing immigrant

quotas. Most of these immigrants came from Hong Kong, South Korea, India, and the Philippines.

And the image fits many children of the more than 100,000 Indochinese (primarily Vietnamese)

immigrants who arrived in this country following the end of the Vietnam War in 1975.1

Both of these groups included mostly middle- to upper-income professional people who were

fairly well-educated and who passed onto their children an abiding interest in education and a strong

work ethic.
56

For thousands of other Asian-Americans–a high percentage of the 600,000 Indochinese refugees who fled Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia in the late 1970s—the problems are far different. Many

of this recent wave of refugees lived in poor surroundings in their homelands. They came to the

United States with few skills and little English, have a tough time finding a decent job, and often

share housing with relatives. Their children find it difficult to learn; some are attracted to drugs

and gangs; many drop out of school.

There may be both a generational and a class factor influencing Asian-American students’ orientation to education. There is also a geographical dimension: over one-third of Asian-Americans

reside in California and another 22 percent in Hawaii and New York combined.

Asian-American college-bound seniors have the highest high school grade point averages and

degree aspirations. They do especially well in mathematics courses, which may account more than

their verbal or social skills for their attraction to science and engineering. Asian-Americans take

more, and score higher on, Advanced Placement examinations offered in science and mathematics.

They also excel in the mathematics portion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test. In 1985, Asian-American

college-bound seniors were twice as likely as other students to plan an undergraduate major in engineering.2 Because their preparation is better and their attrition less than other groups, Asian-American

students succeed in higher education at all degree levels.

In 1986, there were over 225,000 Asian-American scientists and engineers representing about

5 percent of the total science and engineering work force, compared to 2 percent of the overall U.S.

work force.3 The Asian-American contribution to U.S. science and engineering is indisputable. But

no single ethnic group will compensate for the declining numbers of white students planning careers

in science and engineering, despite the growth in minority populations over the next two decades.

As for the perception of Asian-American students, the words of a resource teacher with the

St. Paul, Minnesota, school system’s Multicultural Center are instructive:

We encourage our teachers not to look at minority children as having to fit into one mold. Instead

we try to point out that each child brings to the classroom a different set of cultural characteristics—

differences in values, in home life, in economic circumstances.4

Once these immigrant groups assimilate, it is uncertain how the differences we now observe will

be sustained, and what will affect their future educational achievements, including their contributions to American science and engineering.

IThi~ and the quotes that follow are from Bill Fischer, “ ‘Whiz Kid’ Image Masks Problems of Asian Americans,” NEA

Today, vol. 6, No. 8, March 1988, pp. 14-15.

‘National Science Foundation, Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, NSF88-301 (Washington, DC: January 1988), pp. 43-45.

‘Also, in 1985, over 34,000, or 8 percent, of employed doctoral scientists and engineers were Asian; one-third of them

were non-U.S. citizens. For other field, labor market, and career pattern comparisons see ibid., pp. 22-24 and appendix tables.

4

Fischer, op. cit., footnote 1, p. 15.

PRODUCTIVE ENVIRONMENTS–UNDERGRADUATE ORIGINS OF

SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS

Variety among higher education institutions dis- training schools, and research universities of intertinguishes the United States from other countries national repute. Private liberal arts colleges, historian contributes enormously to the education sys- cally Black institutions, and an array of others comtem’s success and ability to reach so many students. plete the picture.

Institutions include vast State universities and colleges (obliged to admit qualified resident high school Each type of institution serves a different cliengraduates), engineering institutes akin to industrial tele and has a particular local, State, or national
57

context. Community colleges, predominantly countybased, train skilled workers and serve, for a few, as

stepping stones to full baccalaureate programs.

Liberal arts colleges are rooted in the classical notion that exposure to the great books and works in

all disciplines is the way to instill democracy and

higher-order thinking in the citizenry.

Institutions also vary in their relative emphasis

on teaching and research, and on undergraduate

and graduate teaching. One group of institutions,

research universities, specializes in research and graduate teaching. Another group, a subset of the liberal

arts colleges, specializes in undergraduate education,

but does research as well. Some institutions are oriented primarily or exclusively to certain populations

such as Blacks or women. Each type of institution,

with its unique role, contributes to the strength of

the entire higher education system.

There is competition among types of institutions

and within the types themselves. Institutions compete for Federal and industry research funds, for

talented students and faculty, and for equipment

and facilities support. Most science and engineering undergraduates are produced by the major research universities, State institutions, and the private liberal arts colleges. From the point of view of

the future science and engineering research work

force, an important measure of the success of the

education provided by these environments is the

number of their graduates that go on to earn Ph.D. s

in science and engineering.

Graduates who later earn Ph.D.s in science and

engineering come from a limited number of undergraduate institutions. Ranked by the absolute

number of their alumni that later receive Ph.D.s

in science and engineering, 100 schools supply 40

percent of all students who receive doctorates.

Four out of five of these top 100 undergraduate institutions are private. 28 Of these institutions, large

2~This finding is based on an analysis of four baccalaureate cohorts

dating from academic years 1950-51 to 1965-66. Degree totals were extracted from the Center for Education Statistics’ annual Earned Degrees

Conferred, and linked to the National Research Council’s Doctorate

Records File to calculate institutional productivity rankings through

1979. A 10-year lag from baccalaureate to Ph.D. award was used to

create this indicator of institutional productlwty. The methodology

and various rankings are contained in Betty Maxfield, “Persistence in

Higher Science and Engineering (S/E) Education: S/E Baccalaureate

to S/E Doctorate Productivity of U.S. Baccalaureate-Granting Institutions,” OTA contractor report, September 1987.

degree-granting institutions (the “research universities”) have the highest output of bachelor’s graduates who go on to earn science and engineering

Ph.D.s.

A group of about 50 private liberal arts colleges,

however, has claimed to be especially productive,

and accordingly, deserving of funding for research

equipment and teaching.29 These “research colleges”

claim that their traditional small scale, emphasis on

research experiences for undergraduates, and focus

on individual students are major contributors to the

eventual production of Ph.D.s in science and engineering. 30 For example, their students are encouraged to work with faculty members on current scientific research and to become full participants in

research teams. A subset of this group, such as Bryn

Mawr, Mt. Holyoke, and Smith, focuses on educating women and claims to be particularly productive of female scientists.

By looking at an estimate of the proportion of each

institution’s baccalaureate graduates in all fields that

have gone on to gain Ph.D.s in science and engineering, OTA finds that some liberal arts colleges

as well as universities that specialize in technical education are unusually productive of future Ph.D. scientists and engineers, when allowance is made for

the size of these colleges (see figure 3-6). A large

proportion of the graduates of these environments

also subsequently join the research work force.31

‘“In 1985, these colleges undertook a self-study: Da~id Da~’w\’an

Atta et al., Educating American Scientists: The Role of the Rest’ arc-h

Co/kge (Oberlin, OH: Oberlin College, May 1985). A Second National

Conference on “The Future of Science at Liberal Arts Colleges” in

1986 resulted In another report: Sam C. Carrier and Da~’id Dai’is-\’an

Atta, Maintaimng America’s Scientific Productit’lt}’: The Necessirl, of

the Liberal Arts Colleges (Oberlin, OH: Oberlin College, hfarch 1987).

Together, they are known as the Oberlin Reports. Although the labels

“research colleges” and “science intensives” ha~’e been applied, they

are not embraced even by members of the 50 colleges. Also, another

50 colleges probably share the characteristics of those Included in the

Oberlin Reports (see app. A). Thus, OTA’S use of the term “research

colleges” refers to about 100 private liberal arts colleges where, h istorically (and ironically), teaching has been especially valued.

‘A quarter-century ago, liberal arts colleges were found to be among

the 50 most productive institutions of higher education. R.H. Knapp

and H.B. Goodrich, “The Origin of American Saentists, ” Science, 1,01.

133, May 1951, pp. 543-545. This finding ~~as later confirmed by M.E.

Tidball and V. Kistiakowsky, “Baccalaureate Origins of American Scientists and Scholars,” Science, vol. 193, August 1976, pp. 646-652.

~lDuring the 1970s, when single-sex colleges either merged or beg~n

admitting sizable numbers of students of the opposite sex, 2 percent

of women baccalaureates from coeducational institutions went on for

a science or engineering Ph.D. compared to 10 percent of the graduates of women’s colleges. See M.E. Tidball, “Baccalaureate Origins of

(continued on next page)

83-358 0 - 88 -- 3
58

Figure 3=6.—Science/Engineering Ph.D. Productivity,

by Type of B.S.-Institution, 1950-75

i

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975

Year of B. S. award

+ Teohdcalb ‘=-TOP 1OC$ +... Lberalart#

ap~~C.nt of ~1 B.s, gr~uates who later got science/engineering ph.D.s. ‘he bulge

in sciencelangineerlng Ph.D. productivity tracks the increase in Federal fellowship (and R&D) spending during the 1980s.

bFifteen institutions with an emphasis on Sciencelengineering and that ‘end a

large proportion of their students on to sciencelengineering Ph.D.s.

cThe 1~ institutions of all types that have the highest productivity ratios ‘or

sciencelengineering Ph.D.s.

dThe 50 ~i~ral a~s colleges that participated in the Second National Conference on “The Future of Science at Liberal Arts Colleges” at Oberlin, June 1988.

These colleges are also known as “research colleges” due to their emphasis

on undergraduate and faculty research.

SOURCE: Betty D. Maxfield, OTA contractor report, 1987.

(continued from previous page)

Recent Natural Science Doctorates, ’’Journal ofHigher Education, vol.

57, No. 6, November/December 1986, pp. 606-620. In the analysis reported here, total baccalaureate output, not numbers of males and females separately, defined the productivity of institutions. Except for

the predominantly women’s colleges, OTA has not determined which

institutions sent large numbers of women on for Ph.D.s; only the top

Ph.D. producers for both sexes combined have been identified.

(Elizabeth Tidball, personal communication, Dec. 16, 1987.) Also note

that the predominantly women’s colleges and historically Black colleges and universities serve more homogeneous populations than other

types of institutions. Numerical comparisons with coeducational, largely

white institutions do not capture this special kind of productivity. See,

for example, Michael T. Nettles et al., “Comparative and Predictive

Analyses of Black and White Students’ College Achievement and Experiences,’’-lournal of Higher Education, vol. 57, No. 3, May-June 1986,

pp. 289-318. Institutional-level measurement is at best a crude proxy

for the climate that fosters educational success of those who experience it, and perhaps contributes to students’ later persistence to the

Ph.D.

Figure 3-6 also reveals a peak in the 1960s that

can be traced (see below) to the sharp rise in Federal fellowship and academic research finding in the

early 1960s, followed by decline from the late 1960s

into the 1970s. The bulge in baccalaureates going

on for science and engineering Ph.D. s appears in

all types of institutions, but is pronounced in the

research-oriented ones and those receiving the most

Federal dollars.

The quality of students recruited and enrolled in

an institution, of course, is related to the number

and quality of those who emerge with baccalaureate degrees. The education provided by the research

colleges is very costly; most of the costs are borne

by students and their families.32 These colleges are

highly selective in admitting students, but make

great efforts to ensure students’ success by offering

considerable personal attention and support. The

institutional environment clearly matters.33 Elements of students’ experiences in the research colleges that encourage pursuit of the Ph. D., such as

early research experience, the emphasis that such

schools place on teaching, and their small studentfaculty ratios, could be replicated at other institutions. 34 OTA concludes that to increase numbers

of Ph.D. scientists and engineers, it would be

worth studying techniques used by research colleges and encourage other institutions to adopt

similar strategies and values.

‘

zCarrier and Davis-Van Atta, op. cit., footnote 29.

~JRobert S. Eckley, “Liberal Arts Colleges: Can They Compete?”

The Brookings Review, vol. 4, No. 4, fall 1987, pp. 31-37. Not only

is there lack of agreement on the definition of and criteria for measuring student “quality,” but “. . . there are no detailed and comparable

national data on student performance at the postsecondary level. At

best, only crude estimates can be made of the quality of subgroups in

the graduate talent pool by examining trends and characteristics of

the applicants taking such tests as the GRE [Graduate Record Examination].” Brown, op. cit., footnote 24, p. 7. Also see T.W. Hartle, “The

Growing Interest in Measuring the Educational Achievement of College Students,” Assessment in American Higher Education, C. Adelman (cd.) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1986).

lqA1exander W. Astin! Four Critical Years (San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass, 1977), esp. pp. 44,89. These elements are central to some

other highly productive (small technical) institutions such as Harvey

Mudd and the California Institute of Technology. Like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and other research universities, these institutions emphasize undergraduate research, indeed often require a

research thesis for graduation. See, for example, Janet Lanza, “Whys

and Hews of Undergraduate Research, ” l?ioScience, vol. 38, No. 2,

February 1988, pp. 110-112.
59

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

ENGINEERING EDUCATION

Key Questions

How well does the preparation of new engineering graduates satisfy the needs of industry?

What are the effects of the huge rise in the number of foreign graduate students on engineering

employment and engineering teaching?

Why, after more than a decade of growth, has

the participation of women in engineering begun

to decrease in the last few years?

What effects have changing enrollments in computer science had on universities and on employment markets?

What role does and might the Federal Government have in engineering education?

Key Findings

Most engineers are employed in industry. Industrial demand—both civilian and defense—for baccalaureate engineers is a powerful magnet drawing students into engineering programs.

The existing stock of engineers and technicians

is versatile and can adapt its skills, but at a cost

to employers and educational institutions alike.

Engineering education needs to balance the cur-

●

●

●

pull of industry and the research- and analysisoriented push of universities.

The complexity and cost of equipment for teaching engineering is high and rising dramatically,

and many engineering schools are unable to keep

up.

Foreign graduate students have been attracted by

the quality of American engineering education

and have compensated for the dearth of U.S.

citizens who are interested in graduate school.

The increasing national attention to competitive- —

ness portends an increasing Federal role in engineering education.

Engineering differs radically from science. As a

profession, it is more oriented to business and

problem-solving, it is highly sensitive to technological change, and it accepts the baccalaureate as the

first professional degree. All these differences shape

the engineering education system and its curriculum. Because students are trained for professional

practice, engineering curricula normally must be accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology.

About 80 percent of engineers are employed in

industry (see figure 3-7). Even at the high school

ricular tug-of-war between the practice-oriented level, employment considerations, especially perFigure 3-7.–Where Engineers Work, 1986

All engineers Ph.D. engineers

Academia

SOURCE: National Science Foundation, Science Resources Studies, Science and Engineering Personne/.
60

ceived entry-level salary, may play a larger role in

students’ career intentions than they do in the plans

of those intending to major in science. 35 These

same factors, along with engineering’s acceptance

of the baccalaureate instead of the doctorate, make

the engineering education system particularly responsive to changes in the job market. That system can accommodate large curricular changes and

shifts of interest, both in the absolute size of demand

and in the balance between different fields, over

periods of 3 to 5 years.

Engineering and computer science have been the

fastest growing areas of study in science and engineering since the early 1970s. Engineering bachelor’s

degrees rose from 4.5 to 8 percent of all bachelor’s

degrees between 1975 and 1985.36 Engineering

schools’ ability to accomplish this doubling of production has been impressive. Growth in these fields

has now stopped, as the job market (particularly in

the electronics and computer industries) has lost

some of its steam, and as the supply of 18-year-olds

has begun to decline.

The master’s degree has long been an important

final degree for engineering; seven times as many

master’s degrees are awarded in this field as Ph.D.s.37

Especially when it involves business and managerial

components, the master’s is becoming a valued professional degree. Meanwhile, engineering doctorates,

in decline since their peak in the early 1970s, have

increased over the past few years, largely because

of the influx of foreign graduate students into U.S.

engineering schools.38

15Carolyn M. Jagacinski et al., “Factors Influencing the Choice of

an Engineering Career,” IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. 28-E,

No. 1, February 1985, pp. 36-42.

~Engineering Manpower Commission, Engineering and Technology

Degrees (Washington, DC: American Association of Engineering Societies, published annually). Unless otherwise noted, engineering degree data are from the Engineering Manpower Commission. The Commission data at all degree levels tend to be slightly higher than data

reported by the National Research Council and the U.S. Department

of Education’s Center for Education Statistics, but follow a similar

pattern.

‘iIbid.; U.S. Department of Education, op. cit., footnote 1, p. 184.

In addition, at least 20 percent of master’s-level engineers are employed

in the defense industry (National Science Foundation, unpublished

data).

1sElinor Barber and Robert Morgan, “The Impact of Foreign Graduate Students on Engineering Education,” Science, vol. 236, No. 4797,

Apr. 3, 1987, pp. 33-37; National Science Foundation, Foreign Citizens

in U.S. Science and Engineering: History, Status, and Outlook, NSF

86-305 revised (Washington, DC: 1987).

Industrial and academic demand for Ph.D.s in

engineering is strong. Yet there is pressure to create separate research and teaching streams in graduate school, for the doctoral route feeds two different employment markets: industrial R&D and

university faculty. After a downturn in the 1970s,

engineering Ph.D. awards are slowly rising, but represent less than 20 percent of all Ph.D. awards in

science and engineering.39

Balancing Analysis and Practice in

Engineering Curricula

Engineering enrollments and market demand

aside, many see weaknesses in engineering curricula and teaching methods. There has always been

a tug-of-war between industry’s focus on immediately applicable skills and the university’s commitment to fundamental knowledge and understanding. There is some evidence that engineering

education has been skewed by the pattern of Federal research funding in the 1960s. Critics have

charged that the research culture of engineering

schools emphasizes theory and research, failing to

teach solutions to problems of design, production,

and manufacturing with which most working engineers must deal.40

An important related issue is the extent to which

students should be exposed—on campus and off in

neighboring industry—to up-to-date engineering

equipment and technology in college. Outdated

facilities and equipment are a growing problem

throughout science and engineering education, in

teaching and research, but the problem is most severe in engineering.+*

‘Wational Research Council, Survey of Earned Doctorates (Washington, DC: published annually). Ph.D. s in engineering research are

discussed along with the Ph.D. science work force in the section that

follows on “Graduate Education.”

4~~hese observations on tensions and trends are based on Steven

L. Goldman, “A History of Engineering Education: Perennial Issues

in the Supply and Training of Talent,” OTA contractor report, September 1987. Also see National Research Council, Engineering Education and Practice in the United States: Engineering Infrastructure

Diagraming and Modeling (Washington, DC: National Academy

Press, 1986); National Academy of Engineering, Engineering Undergraduate Education (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1986).

+lIndependent surveys—by the National Science Foundation, the

National Society of Professional Engineers, and OTA–of heads of engineering departments at major universities all support this conclusion.

See Chemical and Engineering News, “Engineering Equipment Needed,”

vol. 66, No. 1, Jan. 4, 1988, p. 19. The National Science Foundation
61

Photo credit’ University of Tulsa and The Chronicle of Higher Education

The majority of engineers work in industry, and universities

are expected to train engineering students using

equipment similar to that which they will use in industry.

Here, a student at the University of Tulsa, Oklahoma,

inspects an oil well drill bit that is part of the university’s

full-scale research drill rig. Much university engineering

equipment is outdated, and replacements are

increasingly expensive.

Computers for design, sophisticated production

machinery, and other equipment have revolutionized practice in many fields of engineering, and

universities must teach their students about current

technology. It is increasingly difficult for engineerreport observes that, “Engineering may be a field that has been running hard just to stay even and that soon may have increasing difficulties

in maintaining current stocks of basic research equipment. ” National

Science Foundation, Academic Research Equipment in the Physical

and Computer Sciences and Engineering: 198.? and 1985—Executive

SummarY,, SRS 87-D6 (Washington, DC: October 1987), p. 9.

ing schools to finance the continual upgrades in

equipment and facilities required for high-quality

engineering teaching. This problem is especially severe in the 200 comprehensive schools (those below the top 50 or so, as measured by the number

of engineering degrees awarded), which produce

about half the B.S. engineers.

There are a variety of ways to expose students to

new engineering technology and the work conditions of real engineers, without attempting to match

industrial facilities. Some of the technology (for example, that of computer-aided design) can be simulated by computers. Cooperative work-study arrangements with industry, part-time employment,

and summer internships are also helpful.42 These

programs give students the first-hand experience of

actual engineering practice. The use of adjunct

faculty borrowed from industry is another way to

impart up-to-date knowledge of industrial methods.

The Transition to Work

Employers customarily train young engineers, normally hired with only bachelor’s degrees, to meet

the particular demands of their firms. This on-thejob training socializes engineers and overcomes what

many in industry see as an overly theoretical bias

imparted by engineering schools. Employers, by and

large, do not expect new B.S. engineers to be fully

competent for 6 to 12 months after hiring.

Employers are finding that the speed of change

in engineering technology recently has left engineering schools further and further behind in exposing

students to current techniques and working conditions. This development places a growing training

burden on industry, and both universities and companies are adjusting their methods accordingly. Parttime jobs, internships, and cooperative work-study

programs in industry are all regarded as excellent

opportunities to orient students to the working conditions, culture, and technology of actual engineers.

4~Cooperative education—student work in industrial or corporate

settings—is particularly important for providing role models and career guidance. Engineering cooperative graduates, like other cooperative students, tend to receive higher salaries and better jobs after graduation, yet they are no less likely than other engineers to enter graduate

school. See Richard P. Nielsen et al., An Employer’s Guide to Cooperari~’e Education (Boston, MA: N’ational Commmon on Cooperative Education, 1987).
62

Industry, which has a long tradition of on-the-job

training for young baccalaureate engineers, has in

these ways expanded its influence on the engineering schools in recent years. The Federal Government, by promoting joint industry-university R&D

programs and by establishing federally funded engineering centers on campuses, is encouraging this

more expansive role.41

Another continuing tension is over the length of

the engineering curriculum. For decades, the expanding technical content of many engineering fields

has created pressure to institute 5-year engineering

programs in place of the traditional 4-year course.

A few institutions have done so, but more have

abandoned this experiment. One issue is whether

this additional coursework should consist of technical electives or “liberal studies. ” The point may

be moot; industry enthusiasm for these programs

is lukewarm, since on-the-job training of young engineers can more easily be tailored to firms’ particular needs.

Engineering Attracts Few Women

and Minorities

The places of women and minorities in engineering education, as in the engineering work force,

show continuing inequities (see table 3-2). The

proportion of women in engineering undergraduate programs, after 15 years of steady gains, during

which they rose from 1 to 15 percent of the bachelor’s degrees awarded annually, leveled off in 1985

q~Nam p. ,sUh, “The ERCS: What We Have Learned,” Engineering

Education, vol. 78, No. 1, October 1987, pp. 16-18; Don E. Kash, The

Engineering Research Centers: Leaders in Change (Washington, DC:

National Academy Press, 1987); Debra M. Amidon Rogers, “Meeting

the Global Challenges of a New Era, ” Engineering Education, vol. 78,

No. 4, January 1988, pp. 222-223.

Table 3-2.—Engineering Degrees, by Level, Sex,

and Race/Ethnicity, 1986

Percent of degrees

B.S. M.S. Ph.D.

Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.3 11.9 6.7

Black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 1.5 0.5

Hispanic a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 1.4 1.0

Asian/Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 7.4 6.2

American Indian . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.1 –

All minorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.9 10.5 7.8

alnClUde9 degrees awarded at the University of Puet’tO Rico. Excluding this university drops the Hispanic B.S. rate to 2.4 percent.

SOURCE: Engineering Manpower Commission, 1987.

and dropped in 1986.44 Freshman women’s degree

intentions indicate that they will not continue their

progress toward equal representation in the near future; interest is actually slumping. Women represent

only 3 percent of the engineering work force. They

concentrate in chemical and industrial engineering,

and are less well represented in high-growth fields

such as electrical engineering.45

Blacks and Hispanics, too, earn a small fraction

of the degrees awarded in engineering. Blacks, in

1986, received less than 3 percent of the engineering baccalaureates, a similar share as in 1979. Hispanics, with about 7 percent of the U.S. population, received about 2.4 percent of the engineering

baccalaureates. These modest levels of participation

by both groups are exacerbated by high attrition;

about half of the Hispanics and one-third of the

Blacks who enroll in engineering as freshmen complete their undergraduate degrees. (The national

average is 30 to 40 percent. Also, few opportunities

are given to late entrants, owing to the sequential

nature of the required preparation. ) Intervention

programs, such as the Minority Engineering Program now operating throughout the California State

University system, have increased student persistence to the baccalaureate.46

Foreign Citizens in Graduate

Engineering Education

The most fundamental recent development in

graduate engineering education is the large foreign

influence in U.S. engineering schools. Engineering

and some fields of science, such as mathematics and

physics, have long had significant numbers of foreign-born faculty, most of whom have become

naturalized citizens. The influx of foreign students

during the last decade, though, is of an unprecedented scale. More than half the engineering students in American graduate programs today are foreign citizens, most of whom hold temporary visas

44Vetter, “Women’s Progress,” op. cit., footnote 14, pp. 4-5.

450ffice of Technology Assessment, op. cit., footnote 6, pp. 69-79.

%For a review of national minority engineering programs, ‘nc]uding the institutions most productive of minority engineers, see Black

Zssues in Higher Education, “Special Report: Engineering Education,”

VO1. 4, No. 15, Oct. 15, 1987, PP. 9, 12-15. AISO see Edmund W. Gordon et al., A Report to the Field: A Descriptive Analysis of Programs

and Trends in Engineering Education for Ethnic Minority Students

(New York, NY: National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering, 1987).
63

that call for eventual return to their native lands.

Fewer and fewer U.S. citizens are willing to forego

the lucrative salaries that new baccalaureate engineers (and some scientists) can obtain, in favor of

several years of graduate student poverty that will

yield them a few thousand dollars more in annual

starting salary. Today, more engineering Ph.D. s are

awarded to foreign-born students than U.S. citizens

(figure 3-8). University faculties are even more heavily weighted toward non-U. S. citizens, especially at

the assistant and associate professor levels.47 While

half of foreign engineering graduate students plan

to join the U.S. work force, about 60 percent of foreign students obtaining Ph.D.s in the United States

remain here (see box 3-D).48

‘;Paul Doigan and Mack Gilkeson, “Engineering Faculty Demographics: ASEE Faculty and Graduate Student Survey, Part II, Engineer~ng Education, kml. 77, January 1987, p. 208.

‘8National %ence Foundatmn, h’ational Patterns of Science and

Technology Resources (Washington, DC: 1986), p. 25; U.S. General

Accounting Office, Plans of Foreign Ph.D. Candidates: Plans of U.S.

Trained Foreign Students in Science/Engineering, GAO/RCED-86-

102FS (Wash lngtcJn, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February

1986), p. 3; Natmnal Research Council, Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers [n the Unltcd States: lnfuslng Talent, Ralslng Issues (Washington, DC: National Acadcm}~ Press, 1988), p. 2; National Science Foundation, op. cit., footnote 38.

Figure 3.8.—Engineering Ph.D.s, by Visa Status,

1960-86

1960 1965 1970 1975 1960 1935

alnclude~ unknown citizenship (currently about 8 percent of total).

SOURCE: National Research Council, Survey of Doctorate Recipients.

BOX 3-D.—Immigration Policy and Practice: HOW Foreign Nationals Enter the U.S. Science

and Engineering Work Force

Foreign nationals enter the U.S. science and engineering work force by several paths. Knowledge of the

different paths of immigration and the requirements and regulations for each is important for guiding polic y

on the flow of foreign scientists and engineers into and out of the United States. Immigration is controlled

by laws and by rules and regulations set by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the Department

of Labor, and the Department of State. 1 Most immigration policy is set by INS, although the Department of

State actually issues all visas. Immigration into the United States falls into two broad categories: immigrants

exempt from limits (for immediate family and refugees) and immigrants subject to quotas (that give preference,

for example, to distant family members and workers with needed skills).

Temporary Entry—Students and Temporary Workers

Like all immigrants, many immigrant scientists and engineers first enter the United States as temporar y

workers or students (see table and diagram below). Foreign science and engineering students, visitors, and temporary workers may enter the United States without limitation, and contribute significantly to U.S. research

during the years they are here. It is widely believed that about half of foreign science and engineering students

stay in the United States for at least a few years after graduation in order to work, and many of these stay

for many years or permanently.2 The university route to immigration has become more important relative to

direct immigration into the work force since 1976, when immigration law changes made it difficult for foreign

workers to enter without a firm job offer.

Most foreign students enter the United States on F-1 temporary student visas, usually issued for the entire

anticipated duration of study. Some enter on J-1 exchange visitor visas, which usually require that the visitor
64

NONIMMIGRANTS IMMIGRANTS

I

or student return to his or her native land before seeking permanent residence in the United States. A small

number of foreign students are already permanent residents of the United States on the basis of family ties,

and require no further permission to be students. There are no quotas on student visas, and essentially all student visa applications are approved. (Applicants must have been admitted to a U.S. institution and show 1

year of available funds and access to support for the duration of their studies; foreign students may not work,

except on campus. ) About half of foreign students major in science or engineering. ]

When a student graduates, he or she may apply to INS for a l-year extension for “practical training” in

their field. Such extensions are almost always granted. During this period foreign students may hold paying

jobs. Foreign scientists and engineers may also stay temporarily in the United States under a different visa category, H visas, for temporary workers of distinguished ability (H-1 visa), with needed skills (H-2), or trainees

(H-3). Most such temporary workers have already been in the United States as students, and adjust their visa

status upon application to INS; others come directly from their home country. There are several subclasses

of temporary workers, Most scientists or engineers work under H-1 visas, for temporary workers who are professionals (which includes most science or engineering graduates) or of distinguished merit or ability. To be admitted to H-1 status, an applicant must have a job offer and the prospective employer must demonstrate to the

INS that the individual has special skills and that the job that the individual will undertake requires such skills.

A few scientists and engineers work under H-2 visas, for which the employer must establish for INS that there

are no U.S. citizens willing and able to take the position, and that admission of the individual will not adversely

affect labor markets. The individual does not necessarily have to be of extraordinary merit, The H-1 and H-2

visas can normally be renewed annually, under current INS policy up to a maximum of 5 years. There is no

limitation on the number of H-1 and H-2 visas that maybe issued annually. It is usually quite easy for a foreign

science or engineering student to adjust to temporary worker status.
65

Immigration

Foreign nationals can work temporarily in the United States under either the F-1 practical extension or the H-1

and H-2 status, but cannot reside permanently in the United States on these visas. There are two routes by which

foreign nationals can become permanent residents, a status which allows them to work and live in a manner equivalent

to U.S. citizenship. (Achieving permanent residence is the major hurdle for foreign citizens. Permanent residents are

for most purposes the same as U.S. citizens; naturalization is merely validation.)

The first route is marriage or being part of the immediate family of a U.S. citizen. In this case, permanent residence

is granted for family reunification and entry is granted without reference to the person’s skills. There is no limit on

the number of people admitted on this basis. Most scientists and engineers who achieve permanent residence do so

through this path.

About 30 percent of the scientists and engineers that become permanent residents do so on the basis of occupational preferences, and the number of people admitted on this basis is controlled by annual worldwide quotas set

by INS. Scientists and engineers most commonly enter under the third preference, for professionals of particular skills.

Some enter under sixth preference for skilled or unskilled workers. For admission under the third or sixth preference,

the applicant’s employer is required to petition the Department of Labor to show that admission of the applicant

would not adversely affect U.S. workers similarly employed and that that there are no U.S. citizens with the skills

or the inclination to take the job in question. A very few scientists and engineers of professional reknown and international reputation enter under Schedule A, group II—a select list of occupations for which the Department of Labor

(DOL) has already determined that there is a shortage of U.S. citizens. (Although DOL makes the list, INS decides

who qualifies for immigration under Schedule A. Engineers used to be, but are no longer, on Schedule A.) Following

approval by the Department of Labor (“labor certification”), the applicant then must petition the INS, which considers

the application on the basis of geographic and other quotas.

Although immigration policy governs the entry and exit of foreign scientists and engineers, other influences affect

the pressure on that immigration system. Federal and university policies on tuition and awarding various forms of

support to foreign citizens affect the attractiveness of study at U.S. universities, although most foreign students bring

substantial support with them. Federal, State, and corporate employment policies, particularly for defense-related work,

shape the job market for foreign nationals. And political and economic conditions in foreign countries drive the flow

of their citizens abroad.

The system of temporary and permanent immigration to the United States has evolved gradually over time and

has been amended to reflect changing priorities. Among the many goals of immigration policy are promoting tourism

and increasing international exchange and understanding; unifying and reunifying families; encouraging talented people to bring their skills to the United States; offering a safe haven to refugees from from war; protecting American

workers; and controlling the national origins of immigrants to the United States. Since immigration practices are

often built around achieving each goal separately, these goals sometimes conflict.

‘The lmmlgratlon and Natlonallt}, Act of 1$)52, as amended by various laws, particularly the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1~~5 (whl~h ended

national cmgln quotas, created preference groups, and introduced labor certification), the Eilberg Act of 1976 (which tightened labor certificatmn requirements),

and the Immlgranon Reform and Control Act of 1986. The lead Federal agencies have considerable discretion in setung policy. The Imm]gratlon s}, stem IS

larg~, complex, and fa[rly Indiwdualistic; there are always minor exceptions to general practice.

‘Michael G, Finn, Oak Ibdge Associated Umversmes, Foreign ,Vat/ona/ Scientists and Engineers in the U.S. Labor Force, 1972-108.?, (Oak Ridge, TN:

June 1985), cited ]n National Sc]ence Foundation, Foreign Citizens in U.S. Science and Engineering: History, Srarus, and ~ur~ook, NSF 86-305 re~lsed (Washington, DC: 1986), p. 39.

‘Institute for International Educauon, Open Doors )985/86 (New York, NY: 1986).

The high quality of foreign-born students and crimination by foreign faculty and graduate teachfaculty is not at issue. Furthermore, without them, ing assistants that exceeds the residual sexism they

many graduate engineering programs would have encounter in the predominantly male culture of engito close their doors, and engineering faculty would neering education.49

be scarce. However, worry about language problems

and the impact of cultural differences on the future 4~.A. Heppenheimer, “Engineering Education: Stability Under engineering work force are warranted. Some women Strain,” Mosaic, vol. 18, No. 1, spring 1987, pp. 18-25; National Reengineering students, for example, have reported dis- search Council, op. cit., footnote 48, p. 8.
66

Photo credit: California Institute of Technology

Foreign citizens who attend American universities to

study science and engineering are generally regarded

as excellent and hardworking, and many stay in the

United States and join the work force. However, the

high proportion of foreign citizens in some fields,

particularly engineering and mathematics (and to a

lesser extent computer science, physics, and agriculture),

has raised various concerns. Most observers believe

that the underlying problem is a paucity of American

citizens willing to undertake graduate study in science

and engineering. While some favor changing immigration

policy to encourage foreign Ph.D.s to stay in the United

States, others are calling for limits on Federal funding

of foreign citizens in universities. In addition, some

academics are concerned about the effect that the

influx of foreigners is having on university teaching.

Related to the foreign component of the U.S. engineering work force are the effects of the defense

buildup by the Reagan Administration. About onequarter of all engineers now work on defense projects.50 Some argue that these projects drain talent

from the civilian sector, but others hold that military spending has boosted the supply of engineers.

American students’ loss of interest in engineering,

particularly at the doctoral level, is a concern for

the Department of Defense (DoD), since DoD’s use

of foreign engineers is largely prohibited by Federal

security and employment laws. Partly to compensate, DoD is devising programs to bring more women

and minorities into the talent pool.51

‘{’National Research Council, The Impact of Defense Spending on

Nondefense Engineering Labor Markets (Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1986).

“For example, see Nina W. Kay, Huston-Tillotson College, Center

for the Advancement of Science, Engineering, and Technology, “A

Study to Determine and Test Factors Impacting on the Supply of Minority and Women Scientists, Engineers and Technologists for Defense

Industries and Installations,” unpublished manuscript, 1987.

Photo credit: MESA Program

Large amounts of Federal R&D funds are spent on

defense projects. Some argue that this spending draws

disproportionately large numbers of students, particularly

the most talented, away from the civilian sector and

has detrimental effects on their training. Others argue

that defense spending has boosted the supply of

scientists and engineers, absorbed labor surpluses,

and spurred leading-edge research. In either case,

because of prohibitions on the use of foreign nationals

in defense work, the Department of Defense is particularly

keen to attract more U.S. citizens in the talent pool.

Engineering technicians and technologists form

a large potential reserve stock of talent. The Nation’s 1 million engineering technicians (compared

with about 2.4 million engineers) are an important

part of the engineering labor force, and they are a

potential source of engineering skills. Some have already received training through specialized 2- and

4-year engineering technician and engineering technology programs, which are increasing nationally.52

The Need for Continuing,

Life-Long Education

The fast pace of technological change has increased the need for mid-career retraining of engineers. Most agree that this need is not being met.

Industry, which traditionally has preferred to hire

and train young baccalaureate engineers rather than

5~The problem is that engineering technology is still searching for

an identity and full citizenship in the world of engineering. See Lawrence

J. Wolf, “The Emerging Identity of Engineering Technology,” Engineering Education, vol. 77, No. 7-8, April/May 1987, pp. 725-729. A

bill, H.R. 2134, was introduced in the IOOth Congress proposing a National Advanced Technicians Training Act. It calls for the National

Science Foundation to designate 10 centers of excellence among community colleges to serve as clearinghouses and model training programs.

See Congressional Record, vol. 133, No. 62, Apr. 22, 1987.
67

retrain its old stock, has not been a leader in continuing education.51 Some universities, sensing the

market opportunities, are reluctantly beginning to

provide this training, but it is clear that their priorities remain teaching the young and conducting

research. However, there are many engineers with

out-of-date skills, and education to update them

could be an efficient way to increase both the supply and quality of engineers.

One promising approach to mid-career training

is to use computer and information technology to

provide training programs at workplaces, rather

than at university campuses. The National Technological University, a consortium of 30 universities, offers master’ s-level engineering courses via satellite video, with two-way audio connections to

companies’ premises. Preliminary evaluation indicates that learning in this way is highly successful

and that cost savings are substantial.54 Other programs based on this model are beginning to be established, though widespread emulation is by no means

assured.

Scope for Federal Policy in

Engineering Education

Although industry and universities are the key

players in engineering education, the Federal Government has a place and is increasing its policy influence. The international competitiveness of American industrial performance has caused the National

Science Foundation (NSF) to pay a great deal more

attention to engineering than it did a few years ago.

Infrastructure, faculty, and students all need attention, and this intervention is timely. Some efforts

to encourage the interplay of engineering theory

with industry practice have been mounted in the

NSF Engineering Research Centers, and additional

steps could be taken by the national laboratories

(such as playing host to cooperative education students). Evolving relationships between industry and

universities will tend to narrow the gap between

engineering as taught in engineering schools and as

practiced in the world of employment.55

Federal R&D funding affects the supply of engineers indirectly, but substantially, by shaping industrial and academic engineering programs. Other

than this influence, the Federal role in alleviating

shortages of particular engineering specialties is limited to assisting undergraduate and graduate education, technician training, and continuing education.

In the long run, interventions in the elementary and

secondary education of students in mathematics and

science, where talent is first identified and nurtured,

will be necessary.56

Most engineering institutions will require not only

Federal help in refurbishing their equipment and

facilities, but assistance in inducing U.S. students

to pursue graduate study. Most schools can neither

acquire the costly design and production technology equipment that has swept through industry in

the past decade, nor afford to turn away the impressive foreign talent clamoring for admission. Engineering institutions will have to juggle the resources

at their disposal and adapt their pedagogical use of

technology, both local and remote, to maintain the

quality of education they offer.

jlThcre arc notable exceptions, such as IBM and Hewlett-Packard.

Estimates of the cost of retraining by U.S. industry–all personnel, not

just engineers—range Into rhe billions of dollars.

“A task force of the American Society for Engineering Education

recentl y lauded the pioneering efforts of the Association for MediaBased Continuing Education for Engineers (a consortium founded in

1976 with funding from the National Science Foundation and the Sloan

Foundation), as well as the National Technological University, for their

“integration of learning modules with new communications technologies in order to free continuing education from time and distance constraints. ” American Society for Engineering Education, A Narional

Action Agenda for Engineering Education (Washington, DC: 1987),

p. 28.

55An example is the Semiconductor Research Corp. formed in 1982

to facilitate technology;’ transfer among U.S. industry, government, and

institutions of higher learning. See Ralph K. Cavin, 111 and D. Howard

Phillips, “SRC: A Model of Industry-University Cooperation,” Engineering Education, vol. 78, No. 4, January 1988, pp. 224-227.

‘The National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering, the

Southeastern Consortium for Minorities in Engineering, and the Junior Engineering Technology Society all sponsor programs dedicated

to augmenting school experiences and creating interest in engineering

as a career. See, for example, National Action Council for Minorities

in Engineering, Long Range Plan 1986-1995 (New York, NY: December 1986).
68

GRADUATE EDUCATION: ENTERING THE RESEARCH WORK FORCE

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Key Questions

How healthy is graduate education? How are

research universities responding to the cooler climate for academic research and an increased emphasis on exploitable areas of science than prevailed two decades ago?

How important is Federal funding of graduate

education? Are some support mechanisms more

effective than others in expediting completion of

the Ph. D.?

What factors seem to attract students, particularly

women and minorities, to graduate study in science and eventual degree-taking?

Key Findings

The quality of most Ph.D.-granting science programs and their graduates is very high. The university-based research apprenticeship is a strength

of the U.S. system, and in many fields sets a global

standard.

Graduate education in the sciences is a long (an

average of 7 to 8 years after the baccalaureate)

and expensive process; a variety of support mechanisms (teaching assistantships, research assistantships, and fellowships) sustain students en route

to receipt of the Ph.D.

Federal funding has a direct positive effect on

Ph.D. production. Fellowships and traineeships

in particular have been a straightforward way to

increase Ph.D. production in science and engineering.

The size of the debt incurred during undergraduate education may deter minority students from

electing graduate study.

In retrospect, infusion of Federal R&D funds to

science and engineering graduate programs in the

1960s was a principal cause of the rapid expansion of American graduate schools. As the number of scientists and engineers has grown, so has

the competition for research grants and the need

for equipment and faculty. This expansion has

taxed the system of university basic research and

graduate training, and decreased the attractiveness of academic careers.

Acculturation to the Research

Environment

Beyond the baccalaureate degree, the educational

system offers students two further goals: the master’s

and the doctoral degrees. For scientists, the doctorate is a research degree, and all hopes are set on

it. Master’s degrees in science are awarded as specialized stepping stones to doctorates; sometimes

they facilitate field-switching, but often they are seen

merely as consolation prizes.57 Master’s degrees

normally involve some research, but the Ph.D. certifies the ability to do independent research.

For those who enter them, doctoral programs in

science signify not only the final step of formal education, but also the initiation into research communities. 58 A nation concerned about the research

base of scientists must be deeply concerned about

what is happening at graduate schools, for that is

where the research base is formed and renewed.

‘iJudith S. Glazer, The Master’s Degree: Tradition, Diversity, Innovar;on, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Re~rt No. 6 (Washington, DC:

Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1986).

58Alan L. Porter et al., “The Role of the Dissertation in Scientific

Careers,” American Scientist, vol. 70, September-October 1982, pp.

475-481.

Photo credit: University of Chicago

Graduate education in science and engineering involves

both advanced study in specialist fields and an

acculturation to the practice of scientific research.

Students work closely with faculty who become their

mentors in what is, in effect, an apprenticeship

to research.
69

Fortunately, American graduate schools are of

very high quality. Not only vital to our national

competitiveness and quality of life, they are increasingly international resources. In their number, independence, and diversity, and in their historic

integration of education with research, they are unparalleled. These same qualities make it difficult to

assess their general health and the quality of their

outputs, though the increasing numbers of foreign

students and faculty entering America’s graduate

schools are taken by many as a testimony to their

strength.

The intertwining of education and research may

be the source of this strength; the graduate student

is not only a student and scientist in training, but

an apprentice researcher as well. Universities are entrusted with the responsibility for most basic research in the United States. Graduate students,

especially at the doctoral level, therefore receive important experience in research at the highest professional level.

The Nation’s university research enterprise, however, is in transition. After extraordinary growth

in the 1950s and 1960s, Federal research funding

entered a period of slower growth and decline in

the 1970s and 1980s.59 Graduate enrollments have

paralleled funding trends, reflecting also the decline

in faculty employment opportunities. Universities

have responded by engaging in novel funding and

management arrangements with industry and government to maintain their financial and academic

health. 60

5730n 1. Phillips and Benjamin S.P. Shen (eds.), Research in rhe Age

of the Steady-State University, American Association for the Advancement of Science Selected Symposium 60 (Boulder, CO: Westview Press,

1982).

‘For an overview, see White House Science Council, Panel on the

Heajrh of U.S. Colleges and Universities (Washington, DC: Office of

Science and Technology Policy, 1986). The most celebrated contemporary cases of university accommodation to financial pressures concern partnerships with industry over biotechnology and with the De.

partment of Defense over Strategic Defense Initiative research. See,

for example, Dorothy Nelkin and Richard Nelson, “Commentary:

University-Industry Alliances,” Science, Technology, & Human Values,

vol. 12, No. 1, winter 1987, pp. 65-74. Universities’ most pohtlcized

responses to funding pressures have perhaps best been expressed in

the competition over siting of the Superconducting Super Collider, and

debate over peer review and the growth in congressional earmarking

for building construction (laboratories, libraries, centers) on university campuses. For a congressional perspective, see Sherwood L. Boehlert, “Money, Science, and the SSC,” Chemical & Engineering News,

vol. 66, No. 1, Jan. 4, 1988, p. 5.

Ph.D. Awards—Toward a Steady State

An OTA analysis of the number of doctorates

awarded in each field of science and engineering

shows that, during the 1960s, doctorate production

underwent a sustained rise that is correlated with

increases in Federal funding of research and fellowships. As seen in figure 3-9, graduate enrollments

more than doubled between 1958 and 1970, rising

from 314,000 to 816,000 as Federal support grew.

Since then, slower growth in Federal funding of both

R&D and fellowships has been associated with essentially level production of Ph.D.s (figure 3-10).6l

However, these degree patterns–as depicted by

the figures below—have not been uniform. They

vary substantially from field to field, and by sex.

Also notable is the new role in American graduate

programs of foreign citizens. The following are some

broad trends:

●

●

●

Graduate physics enrollments are rising, but the

increase is due solely to foreign citizens (who

constitute one-third).

Most physics Ph.D.s

go on to postdoctoral

appointments and stay

in universities. Women

earn only about 7

percent of physics

doctorates; foreign nationals earn over three

times as many.

There is an active industrial market for chemistry Ph.D.s, and chemists are relatively mobile

to foreign nationals, 1960 — 1086

and 20 percent to women,

Ph.D. production in earth and environmental

sciences has been stable during the last decade,

following a rapid rise in the 1960s, with geoelThese data and those discussed below are detailed in office of Technology Assessment, op. cit., footnote 6.
Figure 3-9.—Full-Time Science/Engineering Graduate Students With Federal Support

in Ph.D.-Granting Institutions, by Field, 1966-86

t18

F

0’

I I I I 1 I I I I 1

logical science supplying more than half the

total. Recent enrollments are down. Women earn 20 percent

of Ph.D, s awarded,

and 20 percent go to

foreign nationals.

● Most Ph.D. mathematicians are employed in

universities. Ph.D. awards have dropped by

more than half during the last 15 years, and

about one-third go

to foreign nationals

(who, with naturalized citizens and foreign permanent residents, form about 15

percent of the Ph.D.

mathematics work force). Forty percent of

mathematics baccalaureates are awarded to

women, but only 15 percent of the Ph.D. s.
71

Figure 3-10.– Full-Time Science/Engineering

Graduate Students With Federal Support in

Ph.D.-Granting Institutions, 1966-86

L

,-!

I I I I I I I I I 1

1968 1970 1974 1978 1982 1988

SOURCE: National Science Foundation, Science Resources Studies, Academic

Science/Engineering Graduate Enrollment and Support.

●

●

●

●

●

The number of Ph.D.s awarded in health and

medical sciences has

increased by 50 percent in the last decade. Most are earned

by women; foreign

citizens account for

about 13 percent.

Ph.D.s in agricultural

ing slightly 

in the last

-.

in the last decade, as the numbers of doctorates

awarded in other social and behavioral

science fields have declined. Enrollments

in psychology Ph.D.

programs, however,

now favor clinical

specialties over research and experimental specialties. Women earn more than half of Ph.D.s.

Attrition in graduate school represents a loss of

talent to the research work force. As many as half

of those who enroll in doctoral programs in science

and engineering fail to graduate. Despite the rigorous selection of these students by schools, undergraduate programs, the results of Graduate Record

Examinations (GRE), and the availability of financial resources, they are still vulnerable. Reducing

their vulnerability would be an easy way to increase

the size of the research work force. Increasing the

number of fellowships awarded, for example, is a

proven method of increasing retention (discussed

below). There are large field variations, however,

and, since it takes science students an average of

7 to 8 years to receive these degrees, some attrition

is inevitable. There is no consensus on what the

“natural” rate of attrition should be and how Ph.D.
72

Photo credit: Daniel S. Brody, University of Wisconsin, and

The Chronicle of Higher Education

Attrition of graduate students, already a carefully

selected and able group, is a serious loss of talent to

the research work force; only about half of those who

enroll as graduate students in science and engineering

eventually graduate with doctorates. Females are

especially likely to leave graduate school before

graduation. For many students, graduate study is lowpaying, lonely, and all-encompassing labor; and few

universities have retention programs to help students

through these years.

dropouts in particular reflect on the quality of the

existing research work force.62

The Research Universities

The major research universities educate the majority of the Nation’s science and engineering

Ph.D.s. These universities number about 100 (out

of 330 universities granting Ph.D.s in science). These

100 also win the lion’s share of Federal R&D funds;

‘Attrition is not a popular topic for study, but see Penelope Jacks

et al., “The ABCS of ABDs: A Study of Incomplete Doctorates,” Zmproving College and University Teaching, vol. 31, No. 2, spring 1983,

pp. 74-81; Ellen M. Benkin, University of California at Los Angeles,

“Where Have All the Doctoral Students Gone? A Study of Doctoral

Student Attrition at UCLA,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1984.

collectively they receive 82 percent of Federal

academic science and engineering funds and enroll

three-quarters of the full-time graduate students.63

Except for a cluster of midwestern (mainly public) institutions, most of the research universities are

privately controlled and concentrated on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Although their competitive advantage derives from the quality of their basic

research, they are often enlisted in Federal research

programs aimed at solving social, military, or market problems (such as energy programs in the 1970s),

and in industry-funded applied research programs

in, for example, materials and microelectronics.

In the 1980s, a changing balance between the competing forces that influence and fund the research

universities has challenged graduate education. Despite the Federal Government’s vigorous commitment to maintaining basic research funding, the

amount of Federal funds offered to the research

universities has been declining in real terms, and

an increasing fraction has been allocated to military projects.64 Simultaneously, links with industry

have flourished and signs of a reorientation toward

applied research are apparent. That reorientation

has been encouraged by some States, which have

seized on science and technology as drivers of their

local economies and devised programs to involve

institutions of higher education directly in economic

development. 65 Figure 3-11 shows the sources of

funding on which U.S. universities and colleges depend. At the same time, many university administrators are finding that science and engineering are

victims of their own success; their accomplishments

foster the need for ever more costly scientific equipment essential for continued exploration of the natural and human worlds.

C)U.S. General Accounting Office, University Research Funding:

Patterns of Distribution of Federal Research Funds to Universities,

RCED-87-67BR (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

February 1987).

‘National Science Board, op. cit., footnote 4, ch. 2; Susan L. Sauer

(cd.), R&D in FY 1988: R&D Policies, Budgets, and Economic Competitiveness (Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1987), pp. 11-27.

c5State and regional commissions on science and technology, championed in the late 1970s and early 1980s by North Carolina and New

Jersey, are becoming visible resource brokers. Outcomes of these

university-industry-government partnerships-jobs, technology transfer,

and incentives for further cooperation—remain to be assessed.
73

Figure 3-11.— Higher Education Revenue Sources,

1986

SOURCE’ US, Department of Education, Center for Education Statistics, “Financial Statistics of Institutions of Higher Education, ” and unpublished

data.

Graduate Education in Transition

Students enroll in graduate programs in science

for many reasons; foremost among them is interest

in research careers. The attractiveness of a research

career is strongly influenced by the health of the

research universities’ research enterprise. That

health is not as robust as it could be. Fortified during the 1950s and 1960s by an increasingly rich diet

of Federal funds, university research now makes do

with a sparser diet of more focused Federal funding. The university basic research and graduate

training system can be characterized as in transition to a “steady state” of Federal funding, offset

in part by increased industrial funding. For nearly

two decades, the research enterprise has been adjusting in this way to a smaller Federal role in R&D

support. 66

MDavid A, Hamburg, Carnegie Foundation, testimony before the

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and Technology, Task

Symptoms of this transition are readily apparent.

The professoriate is aging. Competition for Federal

research funds causes an overemphasis on proposal

writing and a dearth of proposal awards, constrained

career opportunities for those not on the tenure

track, and a consequent growing cadre of softmonied “academic marginals” and permanent postdoctoral appointees.67 Still, there is a growing shortage of faculty in some science fields. Retirements are

expected to rise; one-third of the professoriate will

be replaced in the next 15 years.68 The current tenure glut that has forced universities to create nontenure-track positions may be relieved somewhat by

these retirements.69 But universities may not again

allow the ranks of permanent faculty to swell, as

they did in the golden era of the 1960s, by filling

vacated positions with new full-time tenured and

tenurable faculty. A dual career ladder may develop

in which the traditional professoriate, combining

scholarship and teaching, is augmented by new positions giving the academic work force elasticity in

Force on Science Policy, July 9, 1985, pp. 29-30. A fuller discussion

is contained In Phillips and Shen, op. cit., footnote 59, and U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Higher Educarion for Science

and Engineering-A Technical Memorandum, forthcoming, summer

1988, For a similar perspective on British science, see John Ziman, Science in a “Steady State”: The Research System in Transition (London: Science Policy Support Group, December 1987).

b7Analysis of this transition is based in part on Edward J. Hackett,

“%ience in the Steady State: The Changing Research University,” OTA

contractor report, September 1987. Also see Harvey Brooks, “What

Is the National Agenda for Science, and How Did It Come About?”

American Scientist, vol. 75, No. 5, September-October 1987, pp. 511-

517.

“Irving R. Buchen , “Faculty for the Future: Universities Have a

Rare Opportunity,” The Futurist, vol. 21, No. 6, November-December

1987, p. 22; H.R. Bowen and J.H. Shuster, American Professors: A

National Resource Imperiltd (New York, NY: Oxford University Press,

1986).

‘The elimination in 1994 of the Federal mandatory retirement age

of 70, however, is unlikely to create a glut of “graying” professors. The

age distribution of faculty varies by discipline (computer science faculty

are comparatively young, physics faculty old) and spotty data cloud

the national picture. Historically, faculty retirements have not been

influenced by the mandatory retirement age. Inducements to early retirement, especially benefits offered, are more effective. So planning at the

institutional level (and by professional societies—the American Institute of Physics has been studying the issue for over a year) is essential

to foresee possible shortages. See Carolyn J. Mooney, “Expected End

of Mandatory Retirement in 1990s Unlikely to Cause Glut of Professors, Study Finds,” The Chronicle of Ffigher Education, vol. 34, No.

16, Dec. 16, 1987, pp. Al, 11; Samuel E. Kellams and Jay L. Chronister,

“Life After Early Retirement: Faculty Activities and Perceptions,” Center

for the Study of Higher Education, University of Virginia, January 1988.
74

response to shifts in Federal and industrial research

priorities. 70

The increasing emphasis on industrial and applied

research is also apparent in the rise of research

centers, as a complement to project-based funding,

and emphasis on team and interdisciplinary research. New pressures for accountability in scientific research are increasing the paperwork burden

on the applicants for and recipients of individual

investigator awards in universities, without necessarily leading to any measurably better outcomes.71

OTA concludes that the attractiveness of an academic research career is considerably reduced

from its peak of two decades ago, due largely to

the adjustment to steady state conditions. The

character of the university research enterprise is

changing, with basic research and scholarship giving way in part to more industrially focused research and a more directed Federal role.72

Whether as a cause or consequence of academia’s

diminished attractiveness, increasing numbers of

new Ph.D.s in science are entering industry. This

change in the market for Ph.D.s is reflected in the

content and orientation of students’ graduate school

experiences, which are becoming more industryoriented in some fields.7J

T~e~e I(academic marginals” are typically appointed to “unfaculty”

posts affiliated with research centers and institutes on campus. This

is elaborated in ORlce of Technology Assessment, op. cit., footnote

66, but see Albert H. Teich, “Research Centers and Non-Faculty Researchers: A New Academic Role, ” in Phillips and Shen (eds. ), op. cit.,

footnote 59, pp. 91-108.

“For example, see Deborah Shapley and Rustum Roy, L.osr at rhe

Frontier: U.S. Science and Technology Policy Adrifi (Philadelphia, PA:

1S1 Press, 1985), chs. 4 and 6.

‘~”In the 1980s, Congress has repeatedly signaled its support for restructuring the research system and breaking down the old barriers.

The National Cooperative Research and Development Act of 1984 was

designed to facilitate joint research among firms in an industry, by offering certain immunities to antitrust actions against such efforts under

appropriate conditions. Congress has enthusiastically supported the

National Science Foundation’s Engineering Research Centers, Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers, and Presidential Young

Investigator programs, each of which is intended to stimulate cooperative research between universities and industry. Similarly, the

Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, and its amendments, the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986—along with several recent changes to the patent law—have been designed to stimulate cooperative industrial research . . . .“ Christopher T. Hill, “A New

Era for Strategic Alliances: A Congressional Perspective,” Engineering Education, vol. 78, No. 4, January 1988, pp. 220-221.

‘lMichael J. Cluck, “Industrial Support of University Training and

Research: Implications for Scientific Training in the ‘Steady State’,”

OTA contractor report, August 1987; also see David Blumenthal et

al., “Industry Support of University Research in Biotechnology: An

Industry Perspective,” Science, vol. 231, June 13, 1986, pp. 1361-1366.

The proportion of U.S. citizens with natural science baccalaureates who earn Ph.D.s—never very

large–has declined in recent years. The ratio of U.S.

Ph.D.s produced in 1975 to baccalaureates produced

in 1965 was 1 to 10; it is anticipated that about 5

percent of the recipients of baccalaureate degrees in

science in 1984 will ultimately earn a science or engineering Ph.D.74 Popular explanations for American

citizens not pursuing doctoral studies are the time

it takes to earn the doctorate, the reduction in stipend support and its replacement with less attractive loans, and a poor labor market for Ph.D.s, particularly in universities.75 There is little immediate

prospect for change in these conditions. If these conditions do not change, enrollments of foreign citizens

are likely to increase (if graduate schools maintain

their current size and range of research programs),

Foreign citizens are increasingly important to

American graduate schools. They are indispensable in some fields of science, as both students and

faculty. They fill graduate student places that U.S.

citizens are reluctant to fill, they teach undergraduates as teaching assistants, and they keep university research alive as research assistants. While foreign students are required by the Immigration and

Naturalization Service to demonstrate that they will

be funded for at least 1 year of study, once enrolled

in graduate schools they can seek and be awarded

many fellowships and assistantships in the same way

as citizens. Thus, a significant proportion of Federal funds for science and engineering research at

universities is used to educate foreign along with

U.S. citizens. Some argue that this funding should

be halted, but most believe that the United States

gains in the long run from this flow of talent into

the country. 76 Many of these students stay, acquire

permanent visas, and contribute to the scientific vi-

‘qNational Science Foundation, The Science and Engineering Pipeline, PRA Report 87-2 (Washington, DC: April 1987), p. 4.

~5At least one commentator attributes the indifference of U.S. undergraduate students in science and engineering to undertake graduate study to being “uninformed and misinformed about this option. ”

His solution, based on meetings with participants in a National Aeronautics and Space Administration summer internship program, is

“communication between individual and faculty members and their

students. ” See Francis J. Montegani, “Why U.S. Science and Engineering Students Pass Up Graduate School-A Different View,” Engineering

Education, vol. 78, No. 4, January 1988, p. 257.

‘bFor a discussion of the economic benefits to U.S. society from foreign students, see Donald R. Winkler, “The Costs and Benefits of Foreign Students in United States Higher Education, ” -)ourna) of Public

Policy, vol. 4, No. 2, 1984, pp. 115-138.
75

tality of the Nation. The rest return home with estimated by some at $2 billion annually in all disskills, knowledge, and increased cultural awareness. ciplines, about the size of the NSF budget.77

Providing graduate education to foreign students is

becoming a major export activity of the United ‘

; Elinor G. Barber (cd.), Foreign Studenr Fk)ws, Research Report

States, with tuition and board payments from abroad No. 7 (New York, NY: Institute for International Education, 1985).

FUNDING OF STUDENTS AND INSTITUTIONS:

A TOOL OF FEDERAL POLICY

The Federal Government has a variety of influences, both direct and indirect, on science and engineering education at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Among the direct influences, some, such

as basic research spending in universities, are specific to science and engineering. Others, such as support of students and institutions through student

loans, infrastructure grants, and other exercises of

general Federal stewardship over education and research, have broader application (see figure 3-12).

Indirect influences include tax policies, which affect the nonprofit status of private institutions of

higher education and the tax treatment of personal

expenditures on education; the military draft and

the G.I. bill; laws that prohibit discrimination, such

as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; and

economic policies.

A vital source of indirect Federal influence is the

mounting of R&D programs, which can boost the

output of scientists and engineers by providing research jobs in government, industry, and academic

institutions. (In academic institutions, they also provide student support in the form of research assistantships.) Programs that are large and sustained

attract people into undergraduate and graduate

studies in relevant fields, thus also creating demand

for faculty. Often, such programs are accompanied

Figure 3-12.— Federal Obligations to Universities and Colleges by Type of Activity, 1963.86

4

tI

Total obligations / ’

12

10

Fellowships

o

L

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985

2

0

Fellowships \

I I 1 1 1

1985 1970 1975 1980 1985

aA~ademl~ ~ciencelengineering encompasses Federal support for academic R&D (about 90 percent of total), facilities and eWJi Pment, fellowships, and other 9enera1

sciencelengineering activities Total academic obligations include, in addition to academic sciencelengineering, direct Federal obligations for research, facilities,

and institutional support not related to sciencelengineeri ng. Total obligations do not include loans, student support, or other indirect Federal support.

SOURCE” National Science Foundation, Science Resources Studies, Federal Support to Universities, Colleges, and Selected Nonprofit Institutions
—

Photo credit: National Instltutes of Health

Major Federal R&D programs, such as the War on

Cancer in the 1970s, have had the indirect effect of

increasing the number of research scientists and

engineers. These programs work in two ways: they fund

research assistantships in graduate school and

increase the attractiveness of scientific research as

a career option.

by fellowships and other assistance intended to encourage students to enter relevant fields. The National Defense Education Act of 1958 (spurred by

Sputnik), the Apollo Program of the 1960s, and the

War on Cancer launched in 1971 provide ample evidence of the Federal power to mobilize research

talent. 78

Federal influence varies greatly by field. In scientific fields that involve mainly academic or basic research, the career outlook for students depends

heavily on Federal research programs that dominate

universities’ research agendas and those of many industries.

Thus, Federal R&D programs affect graduate science and engineering education in four major ways.

First, by setting the national research agenda and

establishing the demand for science and engineering, they influence students’ choices of fields and

‘sAn analysis of how universities responded to the need for more

scientists and engineers to support the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration and the aerospace industry during the Apollo era, and

the effects of ensuing cutbacks in the 1970s, appears in Arnold S. Levine, “The Apollo Program: Science/Engineering Personnel Demand

Created by a Federal Research Mission,” OTA contractor report, December 1986. Also see W. Henry Lambright, Launching NASA Sustaining University Program, Limited Advance Edition (Inter-University

Case Program, Inc., 1969); Kenneth E. Studer and Daryl E. Chubin,

The Cancer Mission: Social Contexrs of Biomedical Research (Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1980), esp. ch. 3.

careers in response to the job markets. Second, Federal funds for the infrastructure of research and education, including institutions, facilities, equipment,

faculty, and technicians, maintain the environment

for instruction. Third, Federal research grants and

contracts support science and engineering graduate

students (and a few undergraduates) with research

assistantships. Finally, student fellowships and

traineeships are awarded on the basis of merit

directly to U.S. students by Federal agencies.

Federal programs for undergraduate and graduate education in science and engineering have been

mounted by the U.S. Department of Education,

NSF, and many other agencies. The scope of these

programs and their variety is so vast that it is impossible to evaluate their independent effects or even

their overall objectives. Two patterns can be discerned, however, in recent Federal policies: direct

funding of individual students to improve access to

undergraduate education, and merit-based support

to attract graduate students in science and engineering.

Federal Influence on Undergraduate

Education

Since science and engineering baccalaureates have

maintained a remarkably constant share of total baccalaureates, it is reasonable to conclude that any

Federal program that alters the size of undergraduate enrollments will have a corresponding impact

on enrollments in science and engineering majors.

This proportional pattern is conspicuous throughout the past 30 years, through enrollment boosts

resulting from the G.I. bill and the growing participation of larger numbers of women and minority

members. This is perhaps the clearest pattern visible in all of higher education. However, Ph.D.

awards show no clear relation to B.S. awards in science and engineering; graduate enrollments respond

instead to fellowship funding and employment

trends in research.

A detailed analysis of Federal influence on higher

education79 reveals that the scale of R&D spend-

‘9Vetter and Hertzfeld, op. cit., footnote 3. Also see Lawrence E.

Gladieux and Gwendolyn L. Lewis, The Federal Government and

Higher Education: Traditions, Trends, Stakes, and Issues (Washington, DC: The Washington Office of the College Board, October 1987).
77

ing, of which the Federal Government contributes

about half, has been a major determinant of the supply of scientists and engineers. OTA concludes that

legislation increasing opportunity to pursue higher

education has had important positive effects on the

production of baccalaureate scientists and engineers.

Except for tax-based funds provided to State colleges and universities, the working assumption made

in the American system of higher education is that

students and their families should pay for it. Support is available to the economically disadvantaged

from the Federal Government and from many educational institutions themselves. The Federal Government also provides student loans, which are

important in helping retain students through undergraduate education.80 For the nontraditional

student—older, socially or economically disadvantaged, female, minority, or physically handicapped

–loans can make the difference between access to

higher degrees and blunted career aspirations, since

the opportunity costs of higher education for these

students are greater. Blacks are more sensitive to

loan burdens than whites; they are also slightly more

likely to drop out of the science and engineering talent pool under the influences of mounting debt and

alternative job opportunities.*] Kirschner and

Thrift note:

Often, students must assume debt larger than

their families’ annual income to pay college expenses. Understandably, some students see debt as

an unacceptable risk, limiting their options for edu- 82 cation.

Support for undergraduate science students differs

little from support for undergraduate students as a

whole. Students are more likely to stay in school

if they receive substantial grants or scholarships.

‘Arthur M. Hauptman and Charles J. Andersen, “Background Paper on American Higher Education: Report to the Commission on

National Challenges in Higher Education,” Dec. 16, 1987, p. 3.

‘lJulla Heath and Howard P. Tuckman, “The Effects of Tuition

Level and Financial Aid on the Demand for the Advanced Terminal

Degree,” Economics of Education Review, vol. 6, No. 3, summer 1987,

pp. 227-238. Michael T. Nettles, Financial Aid and Minority Participation in Graduare Education, Research Report of the Minority Graduate Education Project (Washington, DC: Graduate Record Examinations Board and Educational Testing Service, 1987), pp. 3-5.

‘~Alan H. Kirschner and Julianne Still Thrift, Access to College:

The Impact of Federal Financial Aid Policies at Private Historically Black

Co/leges (Washington, DC: United Negro College Fund and National

Institute of Independent Colleges and Universities, 1987), p. 29.

Those who receive grants totaling more than half

of tuition are less likely to drop out than those who

receive no grants, Pen grants, or some grants.83

Loans are growing in importance as a proportion

of undergraduate student support. Federally supported loan programs grew dramatically through the

1970s and early 1980s, twice as rapidly as overall

Federal student aid.84

The National Science Foundation has long been

a small source of support for undergraduate science

and engineering students. Through the 1960s and

early 1970s, NSF spent about $30 million per year

($100 million in 1985 dollars) on undergraduate sc

ience education. Funding peaked in 1965 and declined until very recently .85

NSF support has been concentrated in 4-year colleges without extensive Federal funding or research

facilities, where it is intended to provide undergraduate research opportunities. NSF has always preferred

funding a few good students, rather than the mass

of science and engineering undergraduates.86 NSF

‘lJndergraduate science students have about the same average student loan load as other undergraduates. Engineering students carry

slightly higher debt loads, probably in anticipation of higher earnings.

Science and engineering students tend to receive slightly more campusbased aid than average, owing to their higher than average academic

ability rather than to their choice of majors. Applied Systems Inc., op.

cit., footnote 20. Also see Manpower Comments, June 1987, p. 30.

HThe Co]lege bard, Trends in Srudent Aid: 2980 to 1987 (Washington, DC: The Washington Office of the College Board, November

1987). Taken together, all forms of Federal financial aid cover about

half the costs incurred by students m private colleges and over 60 percent of the costs for students attending private historically Black colleges. Kirschner and Thrift, op. cit., footnote 82, p. 22.

65 Laurie Garduque, “A Look at NSF’s Educational Research Budget,” Educational Researcher, June-July 1987, pp. 18-19, 23.

~National Science Board, Task Committee on Undergraduate Science and Engineering Education, NSB-86-1OO, Undergraduate Science,

Mathematics and Engineering Education (Washington, DC: National

Science Foundation, 1986), known as the Neal Report. This report identified three areas of undergraduate science and engineering education

needing particular attention: equipping laboratories and making laborator y instruction an important and vibrant part of undergraduate

education; upgrading the qualifications of faculty; and improving courses

and curricula. The National Science Board estimated that of the $42

million spent on undergraduate education in the United States, about

half goes to science and engineering. The Task Committee recommended that the National Science Foundation spend an additional

$100 million each year on laboratory instruction, faculty enhancement,

curriculum development, research participation, instructional equipment, and minority institutions. These funds could be highly ]everaged through matching requirements as well as by ‘setting examples’

for universities, States, and industry to follow. The Task Committee

also recommended that National Science Foundation, mission agency,

and other research sponsors find new ways to involve undergraduates

and undergraduate faculty in research.
78

could expand its focus on undergraduate science

education through its new Office of Undergraduate Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education in the Science and Engineering Education

Directorate. This office coordinates curriculum development, faculty training, and instructional equipment efforts.87

‘THomer A. Neal, State University of New York, Stony Brook, testimony before U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology, Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology, Feb. 19, 1987, pp. 20-41.

Support of Doctoral Students:

“Buying” Ph.D.s

Federal policy at the undergraduate level has historically been concerned mainly with ensuring access to educational opportunity. At the graduate

level, Federal policy focuses on promoting professional training of a small pool of talented students

who will form the core of the future research work

force. Historical data show that doctoral level science and engineering benefit from the Government’s

general support for higher education and R&D (see

Figure 3-13.—National and Federal R&D Spending, Science/Engineering Ph.D.s,

and Federal Fellowships, 1960-86 (constant 1982 dollars)

National Federal, and Federal Academic R&D

National R&D

4

48

1960 1965 1970 1975 1960 1985

S/E Ph. D.s and Federal Fellowships

I

Federal fellowships/

o

1960 1965 1970 1975 1960 1965

aFederal feilow~hip~trainee~ hip~ from I*O t. IW4 are OTA estimates, based on Federal fellowship and traineeship data from Federal lntera9ency Committee on

Education, Report orr Federa/ Predocfora/ Student Suppott, Parf f, 1970, cited in Robert G. Snyder, OTA contractor report, June 10, 19B5, p. 49.

SOURCE: Data on R&D and fellowships from National Science Foundation, Science Resources Studies, Academic Science/Errgirreerlrrg and Federal Supporf to Urrlversities, Colleges, and Selected Nonprofit Institutions. Ph.D. data from Betty M. Vetter and Henry Herlzfeld, OTA contractor report, 19B7, based on data from

U.S. Department of Education, Center for Education Statistics.
79

figure 3-13).88 In each discipline, the attractiveness

of a doctoral program in science and engineering

has been strongly influenced both by the availability of fellowship and assistantship funding and by

the overall outlook for research funding, which

shapes the attractiveness of a career in research.

OTA also found that the size of the debt incurred

during undergraduate education does not affect

majority students’ graduate study decisions, but may

act as a deterrent for prospective minority students.89

Up to the graduate level, Federal support of students and universities has diffuse impacts, since most

is awarded without regard to academic field. Federal support of science and engineering graduate students, however, has increased since World War II,

with periods of rapid expansion, slow growth, and

decline. 90 Between World War and the SputnikApollo era, the Federal Government played a minor role in direct support of graduate students; in

1954, only 10 percent of science and engineering

graduate students received Federal assistance. After passage of the National Defense Education Act,

Federal support boomed. It peaked in 1967 when

42 percent of these students received some form of

direct Federal assistance (49 percent in the natural

sciences, 32 percent in the social sciences, and 45

percent in engineering). Through the late 1970s into

the 1980s, the number of students federally supported declined, while support from other sources

grew (see figure 3-14). In 1985, the Federal Government was the major source of support for 20 percent of full-time science and engineering students

(26 percent in the natural sciences, 8 percent in the

social sciences, and 20 percent in engineering).9l

The pattern of Federal support continues to shift,

with the number of fellowships and traineeships

‘Arthur M. Hauptman, Students in Graduate and Professional

Education: What We Know and Need to Know (Washington, DC:

Association of American Universities, 1986).

“’Janet S. Hansen, Student Loans: Are They Ot’erburdening A

Generation? (Washington, DC: The Washington Office of The College Board, December 1986).

‘wetter and Hertzfeld, op. cit., footnote 3.

‘)Over one-third of science and engineering graduate students attend

part t~me. They are more likely to be pursuing a master’s degree and

far less likely to receive Federal aid (except loans). See National Science Foundation, Academic Science/Engineering: Graduate Enrollment

and Support, Fall 1985 (Washington, DC: 1987). Data refer to fulltime graduate students in doctorate-granting institutions. Federal support is concentrated In this core population.

Figure 3-14.—Major Sources of Support,

Science/Engineering Graduate Students

in Ph.D.-Granting Institutions, 1972.86

120 

●

.“

.

●

●

● ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎

0’ 1 1 1 , 1 , ) L

1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986

SOURCE: National Science Foundation, Science Resources Studies, Academic

Science/Engineering: Graduate Enrollment and Support.

declining and research assistantships (RAs) and

loans growing in importance. The system is bolstered

strongly by institutional support and State funding,

mostly funneled through public institutions. Institutions and States support about 41 percent of graduate students, largely through teaching assistantships

(TAs). Self-support has grown since the early 1970s;

in 1985 about 30 percent of full-time students relied solely on their own funds. The attractiveness

of doctoral studies varies with perceptions of affordability and of available support; once in graduate

school, women and minorities are more likely to be

self-supported .92

Federal fellowships are awarded to the “best” students, as defined by undergraduate accomplishments

and GRE test scores, regardless of the institutions

they attend. However, these students (about 16 percent of all graduate students) concentrate in the major research universities. Fellowship recipients earn

their degrees faster and are more likely to join the

science and engineering work force than those with-

“LHansen, op. cit., footnote 89. Women, for example, are more likely

than men to support themselves as graduate students. This is due only

In part to women’s choice of fields, such as social sciences, where less

external support is available.
80

out such support.93 Women fare worse than men

or foreign students on temporary visas when it

comes to obtaining fellowships; this pattern is believed to be an important factor in the attrition of

women in graduate school94 Federal fellowships,

awarded to those identified as prepared for and

committed to research careers, have been an effective way of “buying” new Ph.D.s.

Federal research assistantships are tied to faculty

grants. RAs support more than 20 percent of graduate students, providing valuable apprenticeship ex-

“National Academy of Sciences, Committee on a Study for National Needs of Biomedical and Behavioral Research Personnel, Personnel Needs and Training for Biomedical and Behavioral Research

(Washington, DC: 1981), pp. 7-10,74-76. Prestigious postgraduate and

faculty fellowships, such as the National Science Foundation’s Presidential Young Investigator awards, continue this tradition of supporting,

on a competitive and matching-fund basis, the very best talent.

“+Vetter and Hertzfeld, op. cit., footnote 3.

periences. Recent Federal policy has shifted away

from fellowships toward RAs. This shift may have

inadvertently increased the accessibility of graduate study to foreign students, who are generally

barred from receiving Federal fellowships. TAs (held

by about 20 percent of graduate students) also support students in exchange for service to institutions.

Almost half of graduate students are at least partly

self-supporting, generally with loans.

In sum, a variety of Federal programs, not all intended to serve educational purposes, affect the graduate environment, and thus indirectly affect the supply and demand of scientists and engineers.

Immigration laws, R&D tax credits, defense procurement, the taxing of student stipends, legislation to

upgrade campus research facilities, and programs of

curriculum, faculty, and center development, among

other factors, can all affect the quantity and quality of the future science and engineering work force.
Chapter 4

Policy Issues and Options

[large photograph in original manuscript omitted because of poor scan quality]
CONTENTS

.

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

The Policy Setting: Federal Roles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Two Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....***...****.*......*.*.,****,,..**.*,..,,. 84

Retention Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

L Support Graduate Training . . . . . +.,..... . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

2. Swain Academic R&D Funding ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 “ ‘

3. Control the Flow and Retention of Foreign Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,. 91

 4. Support Institutions That Make Special Contribution to Undergraduate

Science and Engineering Education ‘ ● . . ● ● ● ● ● . ● . ● . . ● . . . . . ● . ● . . . . . . 93

5. Expand Undergraduate Hands-on Research Experience

‘.

● * . + * . . . + * * * .**.*.... 94

6. Target Support for Undergraduate Science and Engineering Students.......,. 96

Recruitment Policy Options ● . . ● . . ● ● . . . ● ● , ● , . ● ● ● . . . , ● . ● , , . . , . ● ● ● . . * . . . . . . . ● %

1. Encourage Intervention Programs -

● . . * . * . . . * * * . . . . . ., . ., . . . . * ., . . .*..,,.,, 97 ~

2. Bolster Elementary and Secondary Teaching ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

3. Support Informal Education ● ** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

4. Improve for Women +*...*...,.....*.*..*+....+.,. . 100

5. Improve “ Opportunities for Minorities. .. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......101

6. Invigorate Elementary and Secondary Education . . * . . ,, . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Management of Federal Science and Engineering Education ................ .....104

1. Strengthen National Science Foundation Leadership in Science Education .. ..104

2. Improve Federal Interagency Coordination and Data Collection . ............108

Department of Education Contributions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109

Federal Programs: Data and Evaluation * ! . . ., * . . . . * . . . . ., . . * *, . ..**....* * ...109

Tables

Table Page

4-1. Landmark Federal Legislation Affecting Science and Engineering Education . . . 84

4-2. Federal Policy Options To Improve Science and Engineering Education . . . . . . . 85

4-3. Annual Federal Support of Graduate Education and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

4-4. National Science Foundation Fiscal Year 1988 Spending and Fiscal Year 1989

Requested Funding for Education, by Level of Education . . . . . . . . . .......,...106

4-5. Requests, Appropriations, Spending, and Unobligated Funds for the National

Science Foundation’s Science and Engineering Education Directorate, Fiscal

Years 1983-88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,...106

4-6. National Science Foundation Education Spending by the Research and Related

Directorates, Fiscal Years 1982-$7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107
Chapter 4

Policy Issues and Options

INTRODUCTION

American schools, colleges, and universities have

the capacity to provide enough scientists and engineers to meet the Nation’s needs. Students and institutions can meet changing market needs, as evidenced by the response of engineering enrollments

to the semiconductor industry boom in the late

1970s. However, many researchers, employers, and

policy makers are concerned that future supply will

be inadequate. In the early 1990s, the Nation will

experience a decline in the number of college-age

students (although some increase can be expected

before the turn of the century). More important,

fewer students, particularly those white males who

have been the mainstay of science and engineering,

seem to be interested in science and engineering

careers. Women’s interest in science and engineering, after rising for a long time, seems to have

plateaued. Non-Asian minorities, traditionally poorly

represented in science and engineering, will form

a steadily increasing proportion of America’s schoolchildren.

Two major trends are challenging the traditional

educational route to a science or engineering career.

First, the rising importance of minorities in the population will lead educators and employers to reach

out to more diverse populations. Second, the end

of expansion and the subsequent transition to a

steady state of enrollments and research finding will

require universities, employers, and the Federal Government to adjust their models and mechanisms of

science and engineering recruitment.

Despite these trends, shortages of scientists and

engineers are not inevitable. Generally, the labor

market adjusts, albeit with transitory and sometimes

costly shortages and surpluses. Rather than trying

to direct market responses, policymakers should seek

to prepare a cadre of versatile scientists and engineers for research and teaching careers, invest in

an educational system that creates a reservoir of flexible talent for the work force, and ensure opportunities for the participation of all groups in science

and engineering.

The Policy Setting: Federal Roles

The Federal Government has historically had

both direct and indirect effects on the education of

scientists and engineers (see table 4-1), but it is only

one of many actors in the system. The Federal role

in science and engineering education is most significant at the graduate level, more diffuse at the undergraduate level, and small in elementary and secondary education.

Federal investment in science education and training is undertaken for many reasons; there is no single

objective or mission. One class of investments is in

direct support of graduate students and production

capacity at blue-chip universities. Other investments

are made in newer, developing colleges and universities with growth potential, and in undergraduate

and precollege education. Due to the uncertainty

of payoffs from investing in creativity and reasons

of efficiency and equality of access and geographical balance, Federal support is spread across different types of institutions and students.l Both shortand long-term investments are necessary in a marketplace-where demographics, economics, and technology constantly change the criteria for success in

education for the work force.

The educational process from grade school to

graduate school is 20 years long. T-his means there

are many possible Federal options for renewing the

future supply of scientists and engineers. It is difficult, however, to distinguish which option would

have the greatest impact. At each level of the educational system, there are many choices for action. Few

measures guarantee predictable effects in the relatively short term; most are more speculative and

longer term possibilities. just as there are no immiIThe Federal Government can provide money, leverage power, and

assist information and technology transfer. As a major investor in science and engineering education at all levels, it has more than local

interests at heart and can be a catalyst.

83
Table 4-1 .—Landmark Federal Legislation Affecting Science and Engineering Education

1862

1890

1937

1944

1950

1951

1958

1964

1965

1965

Merrill Act. Established land grant colleges, and the precedent for Federal support of institutions of higher education.

Second Merrill Act. Required States with dual systems of higher education to provide land grant institutions for Blacks

as well as whites. Sixteen Black institutions were established as 1890 Land Grant colleges.

National Cancer institute Act. One of the first in a long line of health manpower/National Institutes of Health acts.

Serviceman’s Readjustment Act (G.I. Bill). Provided extensive Federal support for large numbers of new undergraduate

and graduate students. Not targeted to science and engineering, but by increasing the number of college students increased the output of scientists and engineers. Nearly 8 million World War II veterans enrolled; many chose science

and engineering majors.

National Science Foundation Act. Established the National Science Foundation and included support of science education in the National Science Foundation’s mission of supporting basic science. Set the tone for graduate science

and engineering education: merit and geographical balance are the primary award criteria, with oversight of professional replenishment vested in the scientific community.

Selective Service Amendments of 1951. Created draft deferrals for college students and for scientists. Following 1987,

Act made students more vulnerable to the draft, and full-time graduate enrollment dropped as male students took deferrable full-time jobs.

National Defense Education Act. Science and mathematics were major areas targeted for improvement through generous funding for equipment, guidance, testing, teacher training, and educational research. Increased the role of the Office of Education in science and engineering education. Authorized many graduate fellowships and undergraduate loans.

The National Defense Education Act was expanded to most fields in 1964.

Civil Rights Act. Title IV set up technical advice structure for elementary and secondary schools to desegregate on

the basis of sex, race, color, religion, or national origin. Title Vll prohibited sex discrimination in employment (hiring,

firing, pay, and working conditions). ●

Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Established massive Federal support for schools and materials, particularly

for schools with nontraditional and disadvantaged students. No focus on particular curricular area. Directed Federal

education policy and money to special underserved populations (low-income, handicapped).

Higher Education Act. First major Federal Iegislation for higher education not linked to a specific goal (e.g., national

defense), but rather to promote-equality of access, student freedom of choice, quality of education, and’ efficient use

of human resources. Brought Federal money into higher education and expanded college enrollments. Supported continuing and cooperative education, libraries, teacher training, facilities, and student financial aid. Title II included a

provision to support minority institutions.

1967-8 Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments. Authorized support of regional centers for education of handicapped,

1972

1974

1980

1984

1986

particuiarly deaf and blind. Supported bilingual education programs,

. . ,

Education Amendments. Consolidated higher education legislation prohibited sex discrimination in federally assisted

education programs. Title IX prohibited sex bias in admission to vocational, professional, graduate, and public undergraduate institutions.

National Research Service Awards Act (National Institutes of Health). Shifted emphasis of the National Institutes of

Health training from growth to renewal and quality in a constrained budget. Set out the principle of requiring students

to return services in exchange for support (not enforced). Instituted manpower planning. Fellowships by law must constitute 15 percent of the research training budget.

Science and Technology Equal Opportunities Act. Promoted the full development and use of the scientific talent and

technical skills of men and women of all ethnic, racial, and economic backgrounds. Directed a biennial report to assess

opportunities and participation rates.

Education for Economic Security Act. Targeted mathematics, science, computer learning, and foreign languages. Under this Act, the Department of Education provides modest funding, mostly on a formula basis, for: teacher training,

magnet schools (designed for desegregation, but some with science and mathematics emphasis), and for improving

mathematics and science education.

National Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Authorization Act of 1986. Established a Task Force on Women, Minorities, and the Handicapped in Science and Technology in the Federal Government and in federally assisted research

programs.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 19SS.

nent crises in replenishing the science and engineer- the Federal Government allows the market for sciing work force, there are no quick fixes. entists and engineers to take its course or intervenes

more boldly.

The following discussion sets out policy areas for

possible congressional action, presented under two Two Strategies

strategies labeled “retention” and “recruitment,”

along with two Federal management issues (see ta- The two broad strategies of retention and recruitble 4-2). Within each policy area, options are listed ment complement each other, and would operate

and described. The overarching policy issue is whether best in tandem. The retention strategy is designed
85

Table 4.2.—Federal Policy Options To Improve Science and Engineering Education

The following list summarizes the policy options discussed in this chapter, along with rough

estimates of the current level of Federal spending in that area, as well as the number of students, teachers, or educational institutions affected. The estimates have been compiled from

the reported budgets of major, separately budgeted Federal programs, as well as estimates

of discretionary spending (usually small amounts in the mission agencies) based on contacts

with agencies. Many departments and agency laboratories also run small outreach programs

using employee volunteers and donating equipment; there is no way to estimate the value or

impact of these programs. In most areas a great deal of money is also spent by private organizations and individuals.

Policy Option and Number of Estimated 1988 Federal Spending

Students Affected

Retention

1. Support graduate traininga

fellowships and traineeships

postdoctorates

2. Academic R&D spending/mission agencies

graduate research assistantshipsa

3. Flow and retention of foreign students

4. Institutional supportb

research colleges

historically Black colleges

and universities

research universities

5. Hands-on research experience

research apprenticeships

cooperative education

6. Targeted support for undergraduate

science and engineering students

(Pen grants, etc.)

unknown

52,000 students (20°/0 of all graduate students)

$250 million

13,400 students (5°/0 of all graduate students)

$300 million to $400 million

17,000 students (70°/0 of all postdoctorates)

$5.5 billion

$500 million

33,000 students (12°/0 of all graduate students)

—

unknown

unknown

$630 million to $750 million

unknown

$10 million to $12 million

5,000-7,000 undergraduates

$15 million

175,000-200,000 students (2%)

$4 billion to $5 billion

4 million college students

Recruitment

1. Intervention programs

science/engineering (all agencies) 8,000-25,000 students

4H (U.S. Department of Agriculture) 5 million students

2. Elementary and secondary teaching $120 million to $180 million

preservice and inservice training $110 million to $150 million

10,000-250,000 teachersd

encourage and reward teachers $1.2 million

106 teachers

3. Informal education $13 million to $20 million

TV, fairs, camps, demonstrations unknown

S&T centers $10 million, 150 science centers

4. Improve opportunities for women unknown

enforce Title IX unknown

special support and intervention unknown

5. Improve opportunities for minorities unknown

enforce civil rights legislation unknown

special support and intervention unknown

6. Elementary and secondary education

reproduce magnet schools $75 millione

science-intensive schools and

experiments – f

adjust course-taking

review tracking —

revise testing —

table continues
86

continued from p. 85

Management of Federal Science and Engineering Education

1. National Science Foundation as lead

agency in science education

SEE Directorate $140 million

Research and related directorates $217 million

2. Federal coordination and data collection

NOTES:

$40 to $80 milliong

aNational Science Foundation 19w data. Includes fellowships, traineeships, research and teaching assktantships, and loans

for full-time graduate students in doctorate-granting institutions. The number of students includes only those graduate students whose major source of support is the Federal Government; thus, the number here underestimates the total number

of graduate students receiving Federal support, though it reflects the allotment for institutional allowances as well as student stipends. The vast majority of Federal support goes to full-time students.

bonly tho9e fund9 dir~tly related t. science and engineering instruction, facilities, and capability. Includes general development funds and capital funds for major science and engineering-related equipment, facilities, and libraries. Includes general

support for historically Black colleges and universities (H BCUS) and Black land grant institutions. Does not include R&D,

student support, or support for Federally-Funded R&D Centers.

Conly about zo percent of this i9 directly related to science and engineering, and most of that is current R &

about S35 million goes to science and engineering-related institutional support (facilities, institutional and departmental development, and general support). The rest is legislatively mandated general Federal support, mostly out of the Department

of Education but also the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Agriculture, for the approximately 100 historically Black institutions. One institution, Howard University, receives nearly one-third of Federal support for HBCUS.

dTe=her training ~d enrichment programs are diverse, some, like the National science Foundation and mission-agency SpOnsored workshops, training institutes, and summer research experiences, invest significant time and money in each teacher,

but reach only a few hundred teachers a year. Under Title II of the Education for Economic Security Act, the Department

of Education distributes money by formula for teacher training, and thus in principle reaches nearly all of the 1.5 million

public school teachers (and some private school teachers), but is so diluted by formula distribution that only a few dollars

reach each school and teacher.

elfnder current criteria, Federal funding for magnet schools is given to those school districts under COUrt orders to desegregate. While it reaches only a small number of school districts (45-50), it reaches some very large ones (and thus a greater

proportion of students) and many of those districts with continuing and significant racial imbalances in the delivery of education.

fNon.Federai spending is about $1 million to $8 million, 500-2,000 students.

glncludes National Science Foundation spending on data collection (Science Resources Studies, $5 million) parl of policy

analysis (Policy Research and Analysis), and spending on education research ($10 million). The Department of Education’s

Office of Educational Research and Improvement has a total budget of about $67 million, which includes among other things

funding for libraries, the ERIC database, major surveys, and the National Center for Statistics. Although only a miniscule

portion of this is targeted to science and mathematics education, overall data collection includes science and mathematics

education. In addition, other mission agencies keep administrative records of their R&D and education programs and spend

small amounts on special research and data projects. Of special note are National Institutes of Health studies, including

the Institute of Medicine’s biennial personnel needs analysis, and the Department of Energy’s annual manpower analysis,

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 198B.

to invigorate the current science and engineering

work force by reducing attrition of undergraduate

and graduate students. Such short-term retention

programs could increase output of scientists and

engineers within a few years. In contrast, recruitment is a long-term strategy to enlarge the base of

potential scientists and engineers by recruiting more

and different students into science and engineering.

Such a strategy entails working with schools and

colleges, and with children, teachers, and staff to

renovate elementary and secondary mathematics

and science education.

RETENTION POLICY OPTIONS

If the Nation wants more scientists and engineers

relatively quickly, then retaining undergraduate and

graduate students in science and engineering is the

most useful policy strategy. Many able students leave

science and engineering during college, after earning baccalaureate degrees, and during graduate

school. Only about 30 percent of B.S. science and

engineering graduates enter full-time graduate study,

and nearly half of science and engineering doctoral

candidates never earn Ph.D.s. Some loss is inevitable (and, indeed, beneficial to other fields), but those

who leave unwillingly and prematurely are a rich

resource that could be tapped. Because attrition rates

are so high and the population of research scientists and engineers is relatively small, slight improvements in retention could increase significantly the

number of scientists and engineers in the work force.

Federal policies could work at all levels to retain

more of these able, interested students in the pool.2

~A1though “scientists and engineers” are addressed categorically

throughout most of this chapter, there are differences between them

that demand separate policy consideration. Potential scientists aim for

doctoral degrees, but most engineers enter the work force with a baccalaureate degree. Some engineers either continue immediately, or re-
87

Many factors affect students’ career choice and

persistence in science and engineering: interest and

aptitude; perceptions about careers gleaned from

university faculty, peers, and summer jobs; and anticipated earnings and nonmonetary rewards. Students considering academic careers must also weigh

the burden of undertaking and financing graduate

training. The Federal Government affects these career decisions through targeted support of students,

universities, and research, and through its pervasive influence on the American economy and research agenda. The extent and form of Federal support for students, particularly graduate students,

affects the attractiveness of further study. Federal

R&D support and national research missions (e.g.,

in health, space, defense) shape students’ perceptions

of the job market for scientists and engineers, as well

as the environments in which students are educated.

Many of the policies discussed below involve

established mechanisms that could be expanded effectively. There is an adequate reserve of prepared

college graduates and graduate students who, with

the proven incentives of fellowships and potential

R&D-supported jobs, would be able to shift their

career choices.

1. Support Graduate Training

The Federal Government is the most important

source of direct support for graduate training, primarily through fellowships and traineeships, and of

indirect support through universities (which pass on

money to students through research assistantships).

This support is intended to meet national research

and education needs by making graduate study attractive to baccalaureate recipients, and sustaining

those who enter graduate school through completion of their Ph.D.s. To achieve these goals, the Federal Government can adjust the overall level of support, distribute money among different forms of

support, and vary the relative amounts of support

turn after gaining work experience, for a master’s degree. Traditionally’ only a small number have sought Ph. D.s and these engineers have

most often taken an academic position. Scientists are more likely to

enter academia and other nonprofit environments. This chapter concentrates on the research work force, the subset of scientists and engineers most likely to have Ph. D.s. Unless otherwise specified, reference

here to scientists and engineers means research scientists and engineers.

given different categories of research, such as basic

research and mission R&D, and different categories

●

●

●

●

●

●

of students and institutions.

Expand graduate fellowships and traineeships.

Shift distribution of student support among the

major forms of support: fellowships, traineeships, research assistantships (RAs), teaching assistantships (TAs), and loans. (Currently 

the

bulk is in RAs.)

Shift distribution of graduate student support

between the National Science Foundation

(NSF), the Department of Education, and the

mission agencies. Authorize mission agency support for graduate training in those agencies not

currently authorized.

Expand special support programs for minorities

and women.

Expand postdoctoral fellowships and traineeships.

Clarify tax status of graduate student stipends

and support.

Federal support of graduate training is a proven,

highly effective means of producing scientists and

engineers. Federal influence at the graduate level is

relatively straightforward: the support (Federal and

otherwise) available for graduate students influences

the number of students pursuing and earning Ph.D.s

and directs them toward funded research areas.

Different support mechanisms—RAs, TAs, fellow.

ships, and loans—support students in different stages

and aspects of their graduate study. This diversity

of support mechanisms has served U.S. universities,

students, and research well. The Federal Government has directed its support to an array of RAs

and fellowships, and to training grants that benefit

both universities and students.

The allocation of Federal support among these

different mechanisms depends on the purposes

sought. For example, if the Federal Government

wanted to encourage teaching as a career, it might

support more TAs. Currently there is little Federal

funding of TAs, which total only about $3 million

annually. Fewer than 400 full-time graduate students, or 0.1 percent, receive their primary support

from Federal TAs. If increasing the research experience of women and minority students is a goal, then

they could be targeted for RAs funded by Federal

research grants to faculty (see below). Few arguments

are mounted against Federal support of graduate students, particularly in areas where there is clear na-
88

tional interest, such as biomedicine, space sciences,

environmental science, and basic academic research.

The most controversial issues are the overall level

of support and the allocation of training support

among different types of students and institutions.

Fellowships and Traineeships.–FeIlowships and

traineeships are the cream of Federal support. Fellowships provide flexible, generous support directly

to a few of the very best graduate students, and promote successful, rapid completion of Ph.D.s. Multiyear training grants are awarded to institutions,

which in turn distribute traineeships to graduate students. Traineeships provide valuable support for the

university’s education and research infrastructure.

Training grants are a proven means of nurturing

students who will become successful researchers. Together, fellowships and traineeships are effective,

long-term, and low-risk investments in a core of creative graduate students and future researchers.3 Expansion is possible; field-specific fellowships and

traineeships offered in the 1960s, under the National

Defense Education Act, helped spur unprecedented

increases in science and engineering graduate enrollments and Ph.D. awards.

Current Federal fellowships and traineeships total about $250 million per year and provide primary

support for about 13,300 (or 5 percent) of full-time

graduate students. Training grants form the bulk

of this support ($170 million annually, which supports about 9,000 or 3.7 percent of full-time graduate students). The single most important source is

the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Research Service Award traineeship. Fellowships alone

total $80 million annually, which support just 1.6

percent of full-time graduate students.

Fellowships and traineeships maybe field-specific.

One risk of increasing field-specific predoctoral and

postdoctoral support is the national waste and personal cost of training students in fields with changing research priorities that undermine the job market (as in environmental sciences or renewable

energy 

in the mid-to-late 1970s). However, such

‘Because fellowships and traineeships are usually awarded to the best

students, it is difficult to say to what extent the form of support enhances graduate education and to what extent the better student would

excel anyway. Undoubtedly, both the high quality raw material and

the generous support are important. The complete fellowship and

traineeship system, including promotion, selection, and the support

itself, is effective.

changes are difficult to predict. The best alternative is to encourage close monitoring of the labor

market by Federal funding agencies, universities, and

industry employers; to encourage universities and

students to shift fields of study where the job outlook is bleak; and to help graduate students, new

Ph.D.s, and young researchers move to neighboring specialties as necessary.

“Portable” fellowships (awarded to individual students who carry them to the institutions of their

choice) tend to reinforce concentration of Federal

R&D support in the best, well-established university departments. The advantage of fellowships is

great for students and institutions, since they are

flexible and generous, and produce both good research and Ph.D. researchers.

Traineeships and grant-linked research assistantships direct Federal support to a broader range of

institutions. Because of the many years needed for

graduate training and the resulting delay between

fellowship awards and completion of Ph.D.s, no

form of graduate support can address short-term personnel shortages or urgent research problems. Graduate students, however, seem to respond more

quickly to increases in support than to decreases.

Fellowships and traineeships are particularly effective for attracting and nurturing minorities and

women. Expansion of fellowship support is limited

by the relatively small numbers of minorities who

pursue graduate study; many more qualified women

B.S. graduates, however, could be attracted. Currently, there are few such special programs in place;

an exception is the widely-acclaimed Minority Access to Research Careers program of NIH. NSF

awards about 50-75 graduate fellowships annually

to minorities; the Department of Education offers

minority fellowships which, although not targeted

to science and engineering, are used by graduate students in these fields. Several other mission agencies

have small programs that typically provide fellowships for 5 to 30 minority graduate students. In all,

special Federal fellowship/traineeship programs for

minorities total about $8 million to $10 million annually and fund about 100 to 150 graduate students

(only a few percent of minority graduate students).

Doubling special fellowship programs for minorities

and establishing similar programs for women at the

same level would require about $30 million dollars
89

annually. Such funds could be set aside from existing fellowship programs, or additional funds could

be appropriated.

Postdoctoral fellowships, generally 2 years in duration, augment the specialized knowledge and skills

acquired during graduate study. Postdoctorates are

particularly productive, creative researchers, because

they can devote themselves to research full time.

They are a reservoir of talent that fellowships can

rapidly and efficiently guide toward current research

priorities. Postdoctoral appointments also help retain Ph.D.s in the research work force, especially

in slack job markets, and help shift researchers

toward current priorities. Current Federal support

is approximately $150 million per year, mainly in

the life sciences, supporting about 5,000 postdoctorates (23 percent of all postdoctorates). Another

$250 million or so per year supports about 11,000

postdoctoral students through research grants.

Taxation of Graduate Student Aid.–The tax status of graduate student aid has changed in the past

few years with changes in tax law.4 The guiding

principle of the 1986 tax reform was to minimize

special exemptions (e. g., student aid), while minimizing the burden by reducing the overall tax

rate. 5 The general trend has been to reduce tax exemptions on student aid, both stipends for living

expenses and aid to cover tuition fees. Currently,

all forms of student aid—TAs, RAs, fellowships, and

traineeships—are considered taxable income. Recent

tax reform affirmed in legislation the taxable status

of student aid, but both the tax code and its enforcement remain murky. There are varying interpretations of whether all forms of aid—from TAs,

which are given for providing teaching services, to

fellowships that have no formal work requirement–

‘This section is based on personal communications with Bob Lyke,

Congressional Research Service, February 1988, and Tom Linnev,

Council of Graduate Schools, February 1988. Also see Stacy E. Palmer,

“Measures To Tax Scholarships Pose Dilemma for Graduate Schools,”

The Chronicle of Higher Education, Apr. 16, 1986, p. Al; and Arthur M. Hauptman, Students in Graduate and Professional Educatmn:

Wfhat We Know and Need ro Know (Washington, DC: American Association of Universities, 1986), pp. 62-64.

‘The main goal of the original post-World War 11 tax exemptions

for student aid was to encourage college attendance. This goal has clearly

been achieved for undergraduates where the financial burden rests with

students and their families. Given the weak market incentives for graduate study, there still seems to be a need and national justification for

special financial buttressing of graduate study (for which educational

institutions and Federal and State Governments have traditionally paid).

are covered by the same laws and taxed similarly,

and whether aid that goes to tuition should be taxed

in addition to stipend aid.

Most agree that tuition aid should not be taxable. However, there are concerns about scope and

implementation. The financial attractiveness of graduate study is tenuous, given the low earnings of most

graduate students; increasing withholding and students’ eventual tax burden without a compensating increase in stipend could deter or lengthen graduate study.6 To sustain the current level of support,

Federal and other contributions for student aid

would need to be increased. To compensate for the

added tax burden on the recipients of their awards,

NSF and other agencies are seeking to increase their

allocations. This step would simply maintain the current levels of student and institutional support.

States and universities would need to boost institutional support to maintain TAs and other forms of

aid.

Confusion and some unanticipated problems have

arisen from lack of coordination between tax legislation, the Employer Assistance Act, Internal Revenue Service regulations, and student aid legislation

and regulations. Congress could clarify the tax status of tuitions and stipends, and set out in a separate section of the tax code the tax liability of each

form of student aid.

2. Sustain Academic R&D Funding

The Federal Government is the Nation’s R&D

pacesetter. Its $60 billion annual R&D budget is

about half of U.S. R&D, and influences the rest

substantially. Federal R&D funds are even more visible on campus, where they support nearly twothirds of all R&D.

R&D spending not only helps develop scientific

and technological knowledge that is useful to national needs, but also has important and often underappreciated effects on the education of scientists

and engineers (see table 4-3). First, the overall level

of R&D spending, as well as its distribution among

“A related consideration is unanticipated or inequitable impacts of

the tax law on certain groups, particularly foreign students and married students. Foreign student aid is withheld automatically at the highest rate, and they receive no deductions for children. This may discourage foreign graduate students and does nothing to increase the

numbers of American students.

83-358 0 - 88 -- 4
90

Table 4-3.—Annual Federal Support of Graduate Education and Research

($ = approximately $75 million)

Most Federal research-related funds that go to universities support current R&D, rather than

the education of future researchers. Research support also is the largest source of Federal support for graduate education; research assistantships from university research grants and contracts support over three times as many graduate students as do direct Federal fellowships

and traineeships.

Primary purpose: Education I Research

KEY: RAs = research assistantships.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988.

fields and missions, both directly shapes the job market for scientists and engineers and is the single most

important predictor of their future supply.7 Second, the portion of Federal R&D spending that goes

to fund science and engineering research on campus

helps support large numbers of RAs, which are the

most common form of Federal graduate student

support.

Changes in national R&D policies affect both the

attractiveness of the science and engineering career

as well as the ease with which students can prepare

for one. Currently, over one-quarter of Ph.D. recipients have federally-funded research assistantships

during their graduate study, a mechanism that provides about $500 million in annual student support.

The vast majority of this spending comes from the

mission research agencies, which provide about $5.5

billion in academic research support annually. About

30,000, or 12 percent, of graduate students receive

their primary support from RAs annually. Overall,

about 5 to 15 percent of research funds awarded to

university investigators is spent on RAs, with this

proportion varying significantly by field, Federal

‘Lewis C. Solmon, “Factors Determining and Limiting the Supply

of New Natural Science and Engineering Baccalaureates: Past Experience and Future Prospects, ” prepared for the National Science Foundation Workshop on Science and Engineering Manpower, draft manuscript, July 8, 1986; Eli Ginzberg, “Scientific and Engineering Personnel:

Lessons and Policy Directions,” The Impact of Defense Spending on

Nondefense Engineering Labor Markers, A Report to the National

Academy of Engineering (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,

1986).

agency, and the purpose for which the funds are

provided.

●

●

Recognize the educational as well as the scientific benefits that accrue from Federal R&D support to colleges and universities.

Shift the distribution of Federal R&D support

among academia, industry, and government,

Photo credit: National Institutes of Health

Federal research and development funding bolsters

and guides demand for scientists and engineers,

graduate students as research assistants, and the

universities and colleges that train future scientists

and engineers. National Science Foundation support

of basic scientific research forms the backbone of

education and research in science and engineering.

But the Federal mission agencies provide, overall, more

funding, and dominate funding in fields related to their

mission. Striking the balance between these two routes

of Federal support never has been easy.
91

●

taking account of the different educational benefits that derive from spending in each of these

areas. Consider shifting the balance of R&D

spending between defense and civilian areas,

and among basic, applied, and developmentoriented programs, in light of their different

educational effects.

Increase overall R&D support as a way of improving the attractiveness of science and engineering careers and expanding the research

work force.

Research Assistantships and the Mission Agencies.—In general, RAs provide vital bench research

experience in state-of-the-art university research programs. Next to fellowships, they are the most sought-

-after form of graduate student support. Designating RAs for women and minority students encourages persistence to the Ph.D. and is thus a tool for

altering the composition of new entrants to the science and engineering research work force.

Most RAs are provided through funds from NIH;

its expenditures on health and biological research

dwarf the total spending of NSF and many other

agencies. Among other mission agencies, the Department of Defense is a prominent funder of engineering and mathematical research, the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration dominates

space science, the Department of Energy is prominent in energy and physics research, and the Department of Agriculture is a major funder of agricultural research. In some fields (such as geodesy,

space science, and high-energy physics), the respective mission agency is the only supporter of research;

it seems reasonable that each agency look after its

own research work force as well. NSF, however, is

entrusted with Federal support of basic research relevant to the general interests of the Nation rather

than any particular mission. overall, four of five

federally supported full-time graduate students are

funded through the mission agencies.

One consideration in assessing the allocation of

funds among the agencies is the variable proportion

of academic research funds from each agency that

goes to RAs. For example, the proportion is much

higher for NSF grants than for those from the Department of Defense. In general, a greater proportion of academic, civilian, and basic research funding (as it is variously labeled) goes to support students

than does defense and development funding.

Closer educational links could be forged between

academia and the mission agencies’ own laboratories. Mission agencies could be encouraged to find

programs to provide graduate training (via fellowships or internships) for students at their laboratories. Such programs would improve the dissemination of students’ research, help the laboratories

to recruit talented students, and improve relations

with universities. In some cases, the relevant legislation governing each agency’s research activities

might have to be amended to permit such programs

to be established.

3. Control the Flow and Retention of

Foreign Students

The vitality of U.S. universities attracts increasing numbers of foreign science and engineering graduate students and visiting scholars, many of whom

stay in the United States after completing their

degrees. In engineering, more than one-half of all

graduate students and more than one-third of new

faculty are foreign.

The unprecedented visibility and even predominance of foreign citizens in certain fields has raised

concern. Most observers see the problem as a shortage of Americans rather than a surfeit of foreign scientists and engineers. (U.S. graduate students in

engineering increased by 20 percent for 1975-85; foreign graduate students in engineering increased even

more. It is important to look at absolute numbers

as well as proportions.)

Immigrants make valuable contributions to U.S.

research. They are highly selected, academically

competent, and valuable researchers who have

maintained many university departments as American student and faculty numbers have slowed. Student entry is now the dominant path of immigration for scientists and engineers. Relying on foreign

talent in key areas is seen to have many drawbacks.

Some consider foreign students and faculty as a national security risk; others cite their difficulty in “fitting in, ” owing to language and cultural differences;

and some worry that they drain talent from their

home nations.
92

●

●

●

Encourage Americans to undertake graduate

study and academic careers in selected fields.

Continue the selective entry and immigration

of educated, skilled foreign scientists and engineers.

Use immigration and naturalization policies, financial support eligibility, or employment regulations to open or close the doors to foreign

students and/or immigrant scientists and engineers.

Apart from the widely accepted goal of encouraging American graduate students in science and engineering, a fundamental issue is whether to encourage

foreign students and workers, or to restrict them.

These people add skills, creativity, and energy to

U.S. science. Although the greatest contributions

are likely to come from immigrants who stay permanently, temporary visitors and graduate students

also contribute to U.S. research while they are here.

Furthermore, even after visitors leave they usually

maintain contacts within the U.S. research community

. Several mechanisms are available to broaden,

selectively encourage, or restrict the entry, length

of stay, and permanent immigration of scientists and

engineers.

Most suggestions to encourage American study

in fields with high proportions of foreign students,

such as engineering, mathematics, and computer

science, center on one tactic: increasing RA or TA

stipends to make graduate study more competitive

with employment, usually setting the target figure

at half the average starting bachelor’s-level salary.

Similar measures have been used with young faculty

members; universities have supplemented faculty salaries in competitive fields such as engineering, business, and medicine. This step can create jealousy

on campus. In some cases, the supplements have

been temporary, until the labor markets have adjusted and more Americans take faculty posts; in

other cases, separate salary scales for faculty are instituted.

Most foreign scientists and engineers originally

came to the United States as students (on temporary

or nonimmigrant visas). Those who stay usually obtain visas as temporary workers (H-1 or H-2 temporary visas); under current Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) policy, these visas are

generally good for 5 years, renewed annually on the

basis of continued need by employers. Some workers apply for permanent visas, with the sponsorship

of employers, by a process known as labor certification. Graduate students who stay on are the

largest source of permanent foreign entrants to the

science and engineering work force. Direct immigration of experienced scientists and engineers is much

less common and less of a policy issue.8

The Federal Government could use eligibility constraints to expand or restrict support of foreign students. Most Federal fellowships are not open to foreign citizens; the cost of graduate education for

foreign science and engineering students must be

defrayed by support from their home countries or

the U.S. universities they attend. Making foreign

citizens eligible for fellowships would allow agencies

to recruit people in fields where American students

are scarce. Another option is to restrict foreign eligibility for research or teaching assistantships, which

would depart from the tradition of faculty autonomy in selecting assistants and deter many good foreign students from U.S. graduate study.

Other mechanisms include:

●

●

Changing the approval criteria for labor certification.9 The Federal Government could encourage foreign nationals in science and engineering to stay in the United States by eliminating

the requirement for labor certification altogether.

Changing the regulations that require students

who have held exchange visitor (J-1) visas to

return home before applying for a permanent

visa. Extending this requirement to all students

MperhaP~ 150,~ foreign science and engineering students enter each

year, mostly on temporary student visas (F-l), some on exchange visitor visas (J-I). They favor fields with rapid employment growth such

as computer science and engineering, as do American graduate students. Under current policies, students can apply to extend their visas

for 1 year of practical training, and then convert to a temporary worker

visas (H- 1 or H-2) for up to 5 years. In 1985, about 12,000 foreign science and engineering students (or former students) converted to permanent visas, while about 5,000 immigrants in science and engineering occupations entered the United States. In addition, some students

on temporary visas stay and work. Overall, about half of foreign graduate science and engineering students stay in the United States to work

for a number of years. Dennis Keith, Immigration and Naturalization

Service, personal communication, Jan. 29, 1988.

‘About 30 percent of immigrant scientists and engineers receive an

employer-submitted labor certification, which demonstrates that the

Secretary of Labor has determined that the job cannot be filled by a

U.S. worker and that employment will not adversely affect U.S. workers

similarly employed. The Immigration and Naturalization Service then

has to consider the individual’s petition for immigration (on the basis

of quotas and occupational preferences).
93

and/or to temporary workers would probably

reduce both permanent immigration and student entry by decreasing the attractiveness of

university study as a simple means of permanent immigration.

Controlling the number of student and temporary visas issued by INS and the Department

of State, possibly by field (currently there are

no quotas). Such a measure would likely reduce

the number of foreign students.

Further restricting entry according to country

of origin or field, thus reducing the number of

immigrant scientists and engineers. In addition,

certain occupations are exempted from certification; expanding this list could impose occupational preferences for immigration quotas.

4. Support Institutions That Make

Special Contributions to Undergraduate

Science and Engineering Education

Graduate education builds on the base laid by undergraduate education–the 4-year period in which

the student pursues coursework in the fundamental subjects of science and engineering, may actively

work in research projects, and first encounters

faculty mentors who are research professionals. Although the Federal Government does not support

undergraduate education in the same direct way as

it does graduate education (primarily via research

grants), it does provide considerable indirect funding. The routes by which these funds are supplied

include overhead on research grants and student

awards, and programs for improving institutional

development, instructional equipment, libraries, and

facilities. Much of this funding is not specifically

directed to science and engineering education, although it does benefit these fields.

The bulk of this support goes to a small number

of elite research universities, which graduate most

of those who go on to science and engineering

careers. Yet the large scale and research orientation

(often at the expense of teaching) of these institutions may deter others from considering graduate

study. There are other, smaller institutions that are

strong in undergraduate science and engineering

without having the research focus of the research

universities. These smaller institutions, such as research colleges, historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUS), women’s colleges, and primarily engineering institutions, in fact graduate large

numbers of science and engineering students who

go on to further study in these fields.10 These successful, and often neglected, undergraduate environments may merit special Federal support, and certainly provide lessons that could be adapted to other

institutions, including the research universities.

● Expand research, student, or institutional support of institutions that are especially productive of baccalaureate degree recipients who become science and engineering Ph.D.s. Doubling

current special programs for research colleges

would require $10 million to $20 million annually. Doubling current support for minority institutions would require $500 million to $750

million annually.

About 100 research universities train the vast

majority of science and engineering Ph.D.s. They

also produce most of the bachelor’s recipients in

these fields who go on for Ph.D.s. They receive

nearly all of Federal academic R&D funds and are

well-endowed; few argue that they need new Federal funding. Some observers contend, however, that

they neglect undergraduates in favor of research and

graduate training. Yet the academic reward system,

based on success in research, is largely impervious

to change. Institutions might be more productive

of undergraduates if faculty were encouraged to pay

attention to teaching through mechanisms that shift

funds toward mentor grants and undergraduate research participation, or if research funds were somehow tied to overall teaching performance.

The research colleges–small, 4-year liberal arts colleges that concentrate on science and research–

are especially effective in educating and encouraging students who go on to be research scientists. ObIOA large catego~ of institutions omitted from this list are the comprehensive universities. Seventy percent of these 600 institutions are

State schools. They represent a point of access to higher education

for many students who either do not qualify for or cannot afford more

se]ective institutions. Some beheve that their role in undergraduate

science and engineering education, and as a feeder of the research

universities, could also expand if resources to meet the same instrumentation and faculty needs of other teaching environments were made

available. See Philip H. Abelson, “Science at the Four-Year and Master’s

Universities,” Science, vol. 239, Feb. 12, 1988, p. 705.
94

servers attribute this success to their emphasis on

teaching, programs that prevent attrition, student

research participation, and continuous personal contact between faculty and students. Current Federal

support for research colleges rests with NSF, with

programs supporting special instructional equipment

and research. NSF’s College Science Instrumentation Program is currently funded at $10 million per

year. Less than $35 million, or 0.5 percent of Federal academic R&D funding, goes to the research

colleges annually. Special programs could provide

equipment and facilities for teaching and research,

coordinate research and education activities that result in significant student participation in faculty

research at the research colleges, and promote cooperation and resource-sharing among small colleges, and between small colleges and universities.l1

HBCUs, numbering about 100 and located predominantly in the South, graduate about one-third

of all Black bachelor’s recipients. HBCUs have long

received special Federal support, dating from legislation to ensure minorities’ access to higher education. These institutions send many of their graduates on to Ph.D.s in science and engineering. HBCUs

provide a supportive intellectual and social environment that heightens minority student retention and

sparks graduate study. In addition to HBCUs, with

their special legislative status, there are several hundred 2- and 4-year colleges with predominantly minority enrollments, including a growing number of

institutions with large Hispanic enrollments. These

institutions have underutilized potential for nurturing science and engineering talent.

Total Federal support of HBCUs is about $700

million per year, most of it general institutional support. Funds for equipment, facilities, faculty exchanges and development, educational materials,

and various student services are awarded by the Department of Education (about $630 million under

Title III of the Higher Education Act and $5 million under the Minority Institutions Science Im1 IThe 1987 Oberlin Report ca]k for a lo-year investment of $ I billion, half for “maintenance and enhancement of effective teaching and

research” (e.g., faculty and student grants, and new instrumentation),

15 percent for construction and renovation of laboratories and classrooms, and the rest for additional faculty positions. See Sam C. Carrier and David Davis-Van Atta, )vfainraining America Scientific

Productivity: The Necessity of the Liberal Arts Colleges (Oberlin, OH:

Oberlin College, March 1987), P. 133.

provement Program) .12 Little of the support under

Title III has been directed at science and engineering. NSF, NIH, the Department of Agriculture, and

other mission agencies have smaller, more informal

programs that benefit HBCUs.

Setting aside special support for some group of institutions can be politically controversial. To what

extent should existing productive environments be

supported, and how much effort should go into identifying and reproducing the characteristics that foster

productivity? A related question is whether more

support would automatically make scientist- and

engineer-producing institutions even more productive. Some have argued, for example, that funding

large amounts of research (instead of teaching) at

research colleges could undermine the emphasis on

teaching. Federal initiatives such as the NSF Science Development Program have worked, although

they are expensive even when costs are shared by

State and private sources of funding. There is substantial inertia in the structure and culture of individual colleges, and in the overall hierarchy of institutions.13

5. Expand Undergraduate Hands-on

Research Experience

Research experiences in actual research settings

provide science students with valuable previews of

scientific research careers. These programs take

many forms—formal cooperative arrangements, apprenticeships, field work, undergraduate research fellowships and teaching assistantships, summer jobs,

and internships. Extensive testimony and some re-

‘~James B. Stedman, Congressional Reseatrh Service, Library of

Congress, “Title 111 of the Higher Education Act: Provisions and Funding, ” issue brief, Mar. 31, 1987, pp. 4-6. Also see Margaret Seagers,

Executive Director, White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, in U.S. Congress, House Committe on Science,

Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology, Federal Science and Technology Support for Historically Black

Colleges and Universities (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Oct. 9, 1987), pp. 197-209.

ljAnother concern is whether finding special environments, such

as women’s and minority colleges, would perpetuate undesirable separate education and preserve an artificial “hothouse” environment that

nurtures students while they are in it, but does not prepare them for

mainstream research later. (There is some indication, for example, that

women baccalaureates from women’s colleges, while they are more likely

than women from coeducational institutions to earn a science or engineering Ph. D., are less likely to continue in research careers. )
95

Photo credit: Carl Zitzmann, George Mason University

Undergraduate research participation can be a highly

effective way to encourage undergraduates to consider

entering graduate school and becoming research

scientists or engineers.

search data suggest that students who participate

in undergraduate research are more likely to become

productive scientists.

Engineering students planning to enter the work

force with B.S. or M.S. degrees have a similar option in cooperative education. Cooperative education students alternate their regular academic studies

with paid jobs related to their major, usually offcampus in industry or government. The work experience gained in a cooperative program—as in

other summer or part-time work related to a student’s major or in research projects for science

students—provides early exposure to a planned career and a valuable head start on “real-life” workplace skills. Formal cooperative programs encompass only about 2 percent of science students and

10 to 15 percent of engineering students.

●

●

●

Increase finding for undergraduate research by

NSF and possibly the mission agencies, as special programs or supplements to research grants.

Target women or minorities.

Increase support for cooperative education (fund

university programs, provide incentives to employers, and encourage Federal agencies to host

more cooperative education students).

A line-item addition to grants could reward investigators and institutions for involving undergraduates, especially women and minorities, in research projects. NSF has built such an incentive into

some of its research programs, and it could expand

the effort. Adding student participation in research

as a criterion when evaluating applications for support (or even accreditation) would raise consciousness about experiences that are critical to budding

research careers.

Current annual Federal support of undergraduate research is in the $15 million to $100 million

range, involving 7,000 to 12,000 undergraduates.

NSF leads with a dedicated program, Research ExPhoto credit: University of Tulsa and The Chronicle of Higher Education

Cooperative education programs combine academic

coursework with periods of off-campus industrial

training. They give students valuable early exposure

to “real-life” work skills, and help employers find and

prepare students for employment after graduation. The

Federal Government supports cooperative education

programs both through its mission agencies and

through a grant program from the Department

of Education.
perience for Undergraduates ($9 million annually

and 2,000 students). Other research, education, summer research, and outreach programs in NSF, NIH,

and mission agencies generally, also involve undergraduates in special programs.

Federal support of cooperative education has included financial support to universities to set up and

administer cooperative programs, incentives to industry, and the hosting of cooperative students by

Federal agencies. Support under Title VIII of the

Higher Education Act has helped universities establish and expand cooperative programs. Current Federal support is $15 million per year under Tide VIII

for nearly 200,000 undergraduates in cooperative

programs at several hundred institutions.

The main argument against expanding support

of undergraduate research and cooperative education programs is the cost. Beneficial undergraduate

research and cooperative study demands commitment to education by employers. Many employers

are reluctant to invest in short-term apprentices, and

this resistance limits the attraction of their participation in cooperative education without additional

external funding.

6. Target Support for Undergraduate

Science and Engineering Students

The Federal Government has expanded access to

higher education for most Americans. College enrollments increased rapidly in the late 1960s and

early 1970s as the baby boom generation grew up.

With the help of Federal aid, especially programs

authorized by the Higher Education Act of 1965,

a larger proportion of high school graduates went

on to college. Federal and State financial aid has

been awarded primarily on the basis of financial

need, regardless of the planned or declared major

of the student.

● Link part of existing need- or merit-based college student aid programs (for example, Pen

Grants) to field or institution of study. Certain

groups, such as women, minorities, or talented

and disadvantaged students, could be targeted.

● Create new programs to support science and

engineering students regardless of need.

Federal financial aid is a powerful lever on students aspiring to college educations. This lever could

be used to influence the field distribution of undergraduates. The tradition of egalitarian aid based on

need and respect for individual choice, regardless

of institution and field of study, must be weighed

against the possible national benefits of directing

more or selected students into certain institutions

or fields (for equity, personnel, or institutional development goals). Federal aid linked to field is accepted as necessary support of graduate students and

as a way to meet national needs; field-linked personnel training (at both the undergraduate and graduate levels) as a justification for Federal involvement

can be traced to the Merrill Act.

There is a circularity to the Federal role in career

choice and market demand: indirectly the Federal

Government affects the market, without affronting

individual freedom of choice. Should it explicitly set

priorities on the supply side as well? One option

might be for any or all agencies that support college students–Federal, State, or private—to award

some or all need-based aid by planned or declared

field of study. Congress might direct the Department

of Education to consider field of study in offering

and awarding need-based aid. (NSF’s undergraduate programs already do this to some extent, but

they are merit- rather than need-based, and very

few in number.) This might be done in the junior

or senior year, when fairly reliable near-term market demand for those students can be projected.

However, most students will have made their choices

of major by this time. 14

~4The ~o~t prudent course would be to adjust aid at the broad field

level (that is, science and engineering versus other fields) rather than

to specific fields of science or engineering. The former builds a stock

of human resources; the latter favors certain disciplines and skills within

the stock.

RECRUITMENT POLICY OPTIONS

The basic goal of recruitment is to expand and

improve the talent pool. The years to do this are

elementary school through the first few years of college. A particularly critical time is 6th through 12th

grade, when course-taking becomes more specialized

and career plans are formed. Policies to expand the

mathematics and science talent pool differ from

those to accelerate or improve the education of a
97

small core population. Students who take early, enthusiastic likings to science and mathematics can

be served differently from those whose interests are

still developing.

For all students, the content and quality of their

elementary and secondary education determine their

academic preparation for college, their likelihood

of entering college, and their ability to derive the

greatest benefit from a college education. Better high

school graduates mean better college graduates, and

ultimately better scientists and engineers. Significant

changes must occur in students’ early preparation,

awareness, and interest before they are drawn into

college and science and engineering majors, and

eventuall y to graduate and R&D programs. The

continuing low participation in science and engineering of women and minorities indicates that the

current educational system and career incentives

must be made to work better.

There are two demonstrably successful ways to

recruit young people to science and engineering: give

special science and mathematics enrichment programs to selected students, and give all students

good, enthusiastic teaching. An area of lively innovation is informal education—science museums,

television programs, camps, and other experiences

outside the formal school system.

In the near term, policies must work with existing teachers, schools, textbooks, and equipment, in

a system with multiple educational objectives. Truly

significant change is difficult to achieve incrementally. In the longer term, substantial improvements

in recruitment might come through full-scale revision of elementary and secondary curricula, tracking, testing, and course structure. Such sweeping

change should be undertaken with all students and

all purposes of education in mind (not just science

and engineering), but would be hard to achieve

given the scale of American education and the inertia of the existing system.

1. Encourage Intervention Programs

“Intervention programs,” within or outside of

schools, can increase participation in science and

mathematics by raising students’ interest, opportunity, and academic readiness for science or engineering majors. Such programs are especially useful with

students at greater risk or disadvantage in regular

classrooms and curricula.

Most effective programs involve learning science

by doing, rather than through lectures or reading;

working closely with small groups of other students;

contact with attentive advisors, mentors, and role

models who foster self-confidence and high aspirations; and exposure to career information. Most programs work at the junior high and high school levels.

Many have great success in sending participants on

to college and to science and engineering majors.

Programs vary greatly in duration, intensity, and

expense; they range from fill-time summer research

projects to occasional career seminars. The goal of

most college-level programs is to help students complete their chosen science or engineering degrees.

In addition to peer support and academic enrichment, college-level programs often sponsor scholarships, jobs, or research related to participants’

majors.

●

●

●

●

Fund new, ongoing, and expanding intervention programs for students defined in various

ways: female, minority, learning disabled, handicapped, gifted, and talented.

Encourage private investment in intervention

programs, with matching incentives for Federal,

State, and local government participation.

Encourage Federal research agencies to participate in outreach programs.

Gather and disseminate information on intervention and on its lessons for formal education.

The often impressive success of intervention programs argues strongly for Federal financial and other

support. These programs are labor-intensive, but not

extremely costly. At the precollege level, annual

budgets are usually several hundred dollars per student. College-level intervention programs, often including costs for scholarships, may budget as much

as several thousand dollars per participant. They

are easy to mount and evaluate on a trial basis, but

rely heavily on gifted and determined teachers. The

main issues are the extent to which funding intervention programs “compete” with funding for regular education; where and to what extent Federal support is warranted, given the extensive State and

private activity; and the groups to be targeted.

Most intervention programs serve limited populations, especially the needs of girls and disadvan-
98

taged minority children.15 A few enrich the education of “academically gifted” children, traditionally

a fertile source of scientists and engineers. Greater

investment in gifted students would likely increase

the quality and quantity of science- and engineeringinclined students. Broadening the ways “giftedness”

is defined could produce a more intellectually diverse pool of students than is presently created by

the use of aptitude tests. A possible Federal role is

to help identify students who could benefit from special programs, but who are not being served, and

then to let the interventions take over. Most intervention programs reach only a few students; a local program may reach 30 to 150 students each year.

A few of the most successful programs have received

substantial support from State governments and

foundations and have expanded their reaches statewide, and in some cases nationwide, to thousands

of students.

Intervention cannot compete with or replace the

regular classroom. The long-term goal is to change

the mainstream school system so that it promotes

success for all children in science and mathematics.

Intervention programs can exist side by side with

diverse public and private schools, providing alternatives, experiments, and enrichment outside the

classroom, as well as offering lessons for improving

formal education.

2. Bolster Elementary and Secondary

Teaching

There are no substitutes for good teachers. Education reform depends on getting better teachers and

giving them better support, in the forms of curricula, textbooks, mathematics and science supervisors,

equipment, preparation time, and training. From

kindergarten through graduate school, it is the

teacher who inspires or turns off the student.

● Increase support to improve preservice and inservice teacher training.

‘

f Attracting and sustaining the inreresr of girls in mathematics is a

recurrent theme in many intervention programs. The opportunity to

experience mathematics in the presence of other girls seems to change

the learning process, remove the stigma attached to excelling in school

mathematics, and feed self-confidence and determination. Such a transformation will have to occur if more girls, presently the largest untapped

resource in the talent pool, are to entertain the possibility of careers

in science or engineering.

Offer financial incentives and other rewards to

science and mathematics minority teachers

(through awards, forgiveable loans for aspiring

teachers, a separate merit pay scale, or supplementary allocations to hire specialists).

Increase support for enrichment programs for

teachers, sue-h as research participation at Federal laboratories.

The quality of teaching and teachers is a perennial issue, as old as American schools. Although all

fields need good teachers, mathematics and science

face particular difficulties because of the rapidly

changing nature of the material, the desirability of

augmenting classroom instruction with laboratories,

and the stiff competition teaching faces in attracting qualified science and engineering majors away

from R&D careers. An imminent problem is a shortage of minority mathematics and science teachers.

A controversy in mathematics and science teacher

training is whether future teachers should be expected to have a baccalaureate degree in specialist

subjects in addition to some education training.

Many elementary school teachers earn baccalaureate degrees in education, with only parts of their

programs devoted to specialist mathematics and science courses.16

Several groups active in the current reform movement have studied the future of the teaching profession. The Holmes Group (an informal consortium

of education deans in research universities) has attached particular priority to upgrading elementary

and secondary teachers’ subject-specific knowledge

by insisting that they have a baccalaureate in a subject area. The group has called for much more

subject-specific teaching, and for more subjectintensive preparation of those teachers. *7 Parallel-

“For example, virtually all elementary mathematics teachers and

elementary science teachers have a degree in a subject other than mathematics or science. At the high school level, however, 40 percent of

mathematics teachers and 60 percent of science teachers have a degree in those subjects, and another 36 and 24 percent, respectively,

have either a degree in mathematics and science education or a joint

degree, i.e., one that combines a mathematics or science field with science or mathematics education. See Iris R. Weiss, Report of rhe 1985-

86 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education (Research

Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute, November 1987), table 45.

‘

; Holmes Group, Inc., Tomorrow’s Teachers (East Lansing, MI:

1986). So far, only Texas has reformed its certification requirements

in this way. Starting in 1991, new entrants to the profession will need
99

ing these developments, the National Science

Teachers Association and the National Council of

Teachers of Mathematics both require considerable

amounts of subject-specific coursework of applicants

for their own voluntary certification programs. Most

important is the content, not the labeling, of the

courses that students training to become teachers

take (such as mathematics education), but the longterm trend is to emphasize specific skills for specific

subjects rather than an all-embracing “education”

approach.

Two issues face the Federal Government: to what

extent and on what basis does it enter the debate

over what has traditionally been a State (and local) prerogative; and how does it spend money effectively on what works. A large part of the difficulty facing the Federal Government or any other

actor trying to improve teaching is that society does

not attach great distinction or reward to teaching.

It is not certain to what extent higher salaries, merit

pay, and other financial incentives attract and keep

better teachers. While some teachers leave teaching because of low pay, many more probably leave

because of poor working conditions. Teacher salaries have risen significantly since the education reform efforts of the early 1980s, although they continue to lag other professions. Indications are that

with national laments over a teaching ‘(crisis” and

“quality,” incentives of merit pay and boosts in salaries and responsibility for teachers in many school

districts have increased student interest in teaching

careers.

The Federal Government has supported, especially

through NSF summer institutes, inservice training

for mathematics and science teachers. Current inservice training is limited in scale and can do only

so much. While the teaching force is well-qualified

and informed about the most effective teaching techniques, it often fails to use them. Boring textbooks

are widely used in unimaginative ways. Teachers are

not encouraged to use techniques such as handson science. Teachers’ training does not always couple pedagogy to subject knowledge.

The main needs are:

to have both a subject-specific degree and a maximum of no more than

18 course-hours in education. Lynn Olson, “Texas Teacher Educators

in Turmoil Over Reform Law’s ‘Encroachment’,” Education Week, vol.

7, No. 14, Dec. 9, 1987, p. 1.

● to determine what makes for good inservice and

preservice education;

● to give the current teaching force much more

inservice education than it currently receives;

● to give the current teaching force better access

to research results and curriculum reform

efforts;

● to impose a science and mathematics education

requirement on new science and mathematics

teachers, as part of State certification; and

● to recognize that elementary and secondary

teachers have different problems and needs.

Finally, accountability pressures on teachers must

change to encompass process and not just outcomes.

“Teaching to the test” has been emphasized in many

schools at the expense of broader educational objectives. Schools, teachers’ unions, States, school districts, and the colleges and universities that train

teachers must share responsibility for measuring accountability.

The Federal Government has some limited influence over teacher training through support for undergraduate education and through NSF programs

in teacher preparation and enhancement. Two existing avenues could be used to bolster mathematics

and science teaching: Title II of the Education for

Economic Security Act ($80 million annually) and

National Science Foundation programs ($22 million

annually). NSF’s Teacher Enhancement Program

needs to be expanded and should continue to emphasize science and mathematics pedagogy together

with content. Through inservice training and alternative certification, the teaching ranks could be

opened to those with mathematics and science expertise who lack teaching degrees.

Current Federal support for inservice training totals about $160 million per year, reaching perhaps

10 to 35 percent of science and mathematics

teachers. Other mission agencies reach a small number of teachers through a variety of programs. Additionally, of Federal education block grants for curriculum and staff development, OTA estimates that

around 25 percent, or $10 million per year, go to

science and mathematics teaching. *8

% contrast, during the ~ey~ay of the ~a[ional Science Foundation’s science and mathematics summer institutes, the 1960s, Federal

spending on teacher training was about $60 million annually (in 1960s

dollars) and reached, over the decade, perhaps half the science teachers

in America.
100

3. Support Informal Education

Education and exposure to science outside of

school offer alternative ways to get children interested in science. By augmenting classroom learning,

science and technology centers—at least 150 in the

United States alone—are excellent places for motivating interest in science. Science centers also conduct teacher training, especially for elementary

science teachers. Many audiovisual techniques, especially science on television, are powerful teaching

vehicles. Learning and research projects at camps

and science fairs also reach children by offering a

variety of sciences that cannot all be explored in

the classroom. Together these sorts of experiences

are known as “informal education. ”

●

●

Increase funding of science and technology

centers, particularly for education and teacher

training.

Increase funding of science television and other

experimental teaching methods.

In terms of the supply of future scientists and engineers, science centers are excellent at motivating,

but not at enhancing formal learning. Their contribution is more for enlarging the pool at an early

age. Outreach programs are increasing access to science centers by minority and disadvantaged students, and minority teachers.

Current annual Federal support of informal education is about $13 million to $20 million for a variety of programs funded by NSF and the Department of Education. In addition, about $90 million

to $100 million per year goes to science-related

Smithsonian and National Zoo museum and education programs. Other actors are local communities, States, industry, and museum visitors (who pay

to attend). Communities are quite successful at initiating the operation of centers; a possible Federal

role is to capitalize on this success for education.

4. Improve Opportunities for Women

Women have made significant inroads into science and engineering over the past 15 years, on the

heels of equal opportunity activism and legislation.

This progress varies greatly by field; women are a

substantial proportion of biologists and social scientists, but are still scarce in engineering and the

physical sciences. Overall, women’s interest in earning science and engineering degrees seems to be

plateauing. This fact causes congressional concern,

not only for reasons of equity, but because women

could substantially augment the research work force

if their interest in research careers burgeoned. Several factors combine to turn women away from science: pervasive, accumulating societal bias at home,

in school, and among friends against the notion of

girls as good science and mathematics students and

against women as research scientists and engineers;

difficulty juggling family responsibilities with graduate education and especially research; the disincentives of the often second-rate career opportunities

and salaries for women in science and engineering;

and weaker academic preparation than men through

secondary school and college, particularly in science

and engineering (which, to some extent, is a function of the first two factors).

Raising women’s interest in science and engineering careers could go far toward compensation for

the projected decline in bachelor’s recipients in these

fields. The research potential of women is great,

though they still face pervasive social and economic

barriers.

● Enforce more stringently Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and other equal

opportunity legislation.19

● Support intervention programs for women at

all levels.

● Fund special fellowships and undergraduate research opportunities for women.

Federal legislation, in particular Title IX of the

1972 Education Amendments, has provided leadership, law, and most importantly a national commitment to sex equity, and has impelled substantial so-

‘~itle IX prohibits sex discrimination in education. Other related

Federal legislation includes:

● The Women’s Educational Equity Act of 1972 supporting dissemination of model materials that promote women’s educational

equity;

● Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act providing support to States

(and originally to local education agencies and training institutes)

to comply with Federal laws prohibiting discrimination in Federal

programs; Title VII of this act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; and

● Cad D. Perkins Vocational Education Act of 1984 requiring States

to set aside funds for programs for women.

See Patricia A. Schmuck, “Administrative Strategies for Implementing Sex Equity, ” Handbook for Achieving Sex Equity Through Education, Susan S. Klein (cd. ) (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985), pp. 119-120.
101

cial and economic changes. Title IX eliminated overt

discrimination and encouraged equitable treatment

of men and women both inside and outside education. The greatest gains of women in science (and

other traditionally male professions) were made during the early days of Title IX, during broad interpretation of the legislation, vigorous enforcement,

national leadership, and social fervor.

Since its passage, enforcement of Tide IX has lessened, grant support for its implementation under

the Women’s Educational Equity Act has been reduced, and its applications have been narrowed by

Federal and court rulings.20 Inequitable access and

discrimination still exist in education and research,

as in the rest of society.

The past clear success of Tide IX in reducing discrimination and encouraging women to enter nontraditional fields argues that, to encourage further

participation of women in science and engineering,

the Nation recommit itself to equity and enforce Title IX and related legislation.21 Rigorous enforcement is essential to eliminate barriers to careers for

women in science and engineering as in other fields.

This should require little new funding; most of the

achievements of Title IX were made through changes

in practice rather than Federal appropriations for

new programs.

In addition to sex equity and civil rights legislation, the Department of Education, NSF, and mis-

‘<In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Grote City College v.

Beli that Title IX applied onlv to the specific program that was federally funded, not to the entire institution that housed the program.

Repeated legal challenges from women’s and education interest groups

ha~e cited lax enforcement of Title IX by the Department of Educatmn. Recent legislation has restored the original Intent of the civil rights

legislation.

Funding for model education programs under the 1974 Women’s Education Equity Act and for technical support for compliance under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act declined substantially in the 1980s. Funding for the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights has declined.

See Phyllis N’. Cheng, University of Southern California, “The New

Federalism and V’omen’s Educational Equity,” doctoral dissertation,

December 1987, pp. 44-51.

~lAbc)ut half the States have laws that cover part or all of Title IX;

of these, 13 have broad gender equity laws similar to Tide IX. State

Title IX officers cite Federal Title IX legislation as more important than

State Ieglslatlon In ach[e[~ng educational equity. “State sex equity in

education laws are merely an addition to existing Federal provisions,

not a replacement for them. ” See Phyllis W. Cheng, Proiect on State

Tltlc IX Laws, Los Angeles, CA, “Can Educational Equity Sur~’l~e

L’ndcr the New Federalism?” unpublished manuscript, Notember 1987,

pp. 14, 16.

sion R&D agencies also are charged with awarding

fellowships and research grants equitably. Equity is

part of a Federal package that also includes support

of effective programs discussed earlier, especially intervention programs for women at all levels, and

special fellowships and undergraduate research op

-

portunities for women.

5. Improve Opportunities for Minorities

In comparison with women, non-Asian minorities

(particularly Blacks) have made little progress in science and engineering education and careers. Only

in the social sciences and health-related fields are

there significant numbers of Black or Hispanic researchers. The civil rights victories of the 1960s and

the resulting legislation raised awareness and

launched programs, but entrenched social and economic barriers still deter many Blacks. Equal opportunit y for participation in higher education and

in research for all groups is a long-term social goal

that will be achieved only with steady national commitment and investment.

●

●

●

●

Enforce more stringently civil rights legislation.

Expand support of intervention programs, particularly at the precollege level. Redistribute support for intervention programs among the Department of Education, NSF, and the mission

agencies.

Move the Minority Institutions Science Improvement Program from the Department of

Education to NSF, which knows how to target and spend “science dollars” fruitfully.

Support the HBCUs in all ways, from infrastructure to faculty and student assistance.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits

discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national

origin in federally-funded programs. Enforcement

timetables and procedures by the Department of

Education were mandated by Adams v. Califano

(1977), and by Adams v. Bell (1983), but enforcement by the Department of Education’s Office of

Civil Rights and the Department of Justice has been

lax.22

‘~U.S. Congress, House Committee on Go~’ernment Operations,

Failure and Fraud in Citril Rights Enforcement by the Department of

Educarion (Washington, DC: U.S. Go~’ernment Printing Office, 1987).

Also see Scott Jaschik, “CiJil-Rights Groups Assail U.S. Ruling That

4 States Complv Yilith Bias Laws,” The Chronicle of Higher Educarion, vol. 3-I, No. 23, Feb. 17, 1988, pp. A 1, 24.

83-358 0 - 88 -- 5
102

6. Invigorate Elementary and

Secondary Education

Policy initiatives to modify the structure of elementary and secondary education must be long-term,

systemic measures. Reform in several areas—magnet

schools, science-intensive schools, curricula and

course-taking, tracking, and testing—could substantially improve and extend precollege science and

mathematics education. Many have tried to improve

education by changing some of its basic components,

such as the school calendar, curriculum, teaching

practices, class size, textbooks, grade promotion, and

structure of the schools themselves. Many of these

innovations have benefited the children they reached;

much has been learned from the failures as well.

However, most education reform makes little lasting difference. Most innovations, such as magnet

and science-intensive schools, reach only a few percent of students. Even reforms in curricula and testing, which have the potential to reach all students,

in practice reach only a few because of the dominance of the existing course structure and tests. The

education system is large, with current practices and

incentives firmly established.

The areas discussed here hold great, albeit uncertain, potential for the quality of science and mathematics education. Pursued at their current level and

without accompanying changes in the education system that must adopt such reform, they can have

only limited impact on limited numbers of students.

Realizing the full potential of these reforms would

require full-scale renovation of the existing system,

from teaching and testing to course structure and

content, with the substantial uncertainty and political challenges such an initiative would raise. Such

full-scale reform would undoubtedly have. unexpected impacts on education, far beyond science and

mathematics education. As a result, while such reform is desirable given the dismal state of U.S.

elementary and secondary science and mathematics

education, it should be pursued incrementally and

carefully, but vigorously.

Magnet Schools.–Magnet schools are designed

to desegregate school districts by offering special

courses of study that attract students of different

races. About one-quarter of these special schools emphasize science, mathematics, computer science, and

pre-engineering. Magnet school programs are devised and operated by local school districts. They

are funded by States and school districts. To support the special costs entailed in the process of racial desegregation, the Federal Government has also

funded such programs, but the main actors are

States and school districts.

Many science and mathematics magnet schools

provide high-quality mathematics and science instruction for those enrolled in them. Many emphasize hands-on learning. Magnet schools probably sustain those students who are interested in science and

engineering, and deter those who are not interested.

Magnet schools increase the racial and ethnic diversity of science and mathematics students by bringing courses to science-starved areas, and by sorting

students by their enthusiasm as often as by achievement. Magnet schools may socially set science and

mathematics students apart from the rest to create

a climate of intellectual support by peers and

teachers. These schools also cost somewhat more

than routine schooling.

The Federal Government could promote magnet

schools on a basis other than that of racial desegregation (as is already proposed). Promoting magnets

would probably improve the quality and variety of

students planning science and engineering careers,

but would not much increase the number of interested students. Current Federal support of magnet

schools is about $75 million annually from the Department of Education, under Title VII of the Education for Economic Security Act, awarded competitively to a very limited number (less than

one-half of 1 percent) of the largest school districts.

Science-Intensive Schools and Other Experiments.—The academic environment of special high

schools can provide students interested in science

and mathematics with excellent educations, and give

them early exposure to and encouragement in research careers. They are powerful environments for

the few students they serve. Such science-intensive

programs and schools are State showpieces, demonstrating the virtue of encouraging the best and

most eager. However, they reach only a tiny fraction of students.

Alternative social organizations of schools are also

possible. For example, academically-bound students

from several high schools could be brought together

in one school or during the summer. Universities
103

or community colleges could take over grades 11 and

12, and provide instruction at public expense. It is

not clear that Federal support is needed, since States

seem to be forging ahead; more appropriate Federal

roles might be research and technology transfer.

Course-taking.–Taking advanced science and

mathematics courses in high school is crucial to prepare students for science and engineering majors in

college. But failure to take such courses in high

school should not bar students from later participation in science and engineering. Community colleges and universities are offering more steppingstone preparatory and remedial courses. Such alternative course-taking places additional and generally

unwelcome burdens on universities and may unduly

discourage course--taking in high school, although

the number of college-level high school courses (for

example, advanced placement calculus) is rising. Access to such advanced courses by many students,

particularly those in inner-city and rural schools,

is limited. Finding a better “math path” for the

majority of students is essential. Removing the

stigma of succeeding in such courses, especially

among girls, and linking interest in mathematics

with aspirations to a science or engineering career

are central to improving course-taking patterns.

Taking more advanced courses (assuming they are

taught well) probably enhances the quality and increases the number of students available for science

and engineering majors. Imposing course requirements, however, puts a burden on teachers who may

not be qualified, and may undermine provision of

other good opportunities, such as hands-on experiences.

Access to more courses by more students does not

automatically produce more learning or interest. The

issue is whether to offer, recommend, or require

more science and mathematics courses in high

school. The proper balance lies somewhere between

building on existing interest and fostering it through

mandatory exposure.

Recognize the Strengths and Weaknesses of

Tracking.– Given the continued existence of comprehensive education to age 18, differentiating and

sorting of students by abilities, interests, and preparation are inevitable. Some form of tracking is practiced everywhere, but its potency and rigidity are

declining. In mathematics and science, tracking

favors those who show early, recognizable academic

talent and are selected into the college-bound,

mathematics- and science-intensive path of the academic track. When practiced from an early age,

tracking erodes the self-confidence of lower-tracked

students and can cramp academic potential, often

suppressing the expression of talent when applied

too rigidly.

The need is to break down the rigidity of tracks,

build pathways between them, and improve the sorting of talent between tracks. Tracking based exclusively on IQ and multiple-choice achievement tests
104

penalizes some groups of students. Although the

alternatives lie in the hands of schools and teachers,

the Federal Government could do the following:

● provide incentives, including financial ones, for

school districts to improve the efficiency of sorting between tracks and to use better techniques

for identifying potential talent; and

. continue to fund and disseminate research on

tracking, and its particular effects on mathematics and science instruction, and on women

and minorities.

Revise Testing Procedures and Tools.–The current national system of testing, which relies on

standardized multiple-choice questions, is simple to

administer, inexpensive, and is seen as largely scientifically objective. It has many harmful effects, however. It puts pressures on teachers to “teach to the

test,” and on students to learn for the test, emphasizing parrot-like repetition of facts at the expense of

so-called higher-order thinking skills. It appears also

to discriminate against those not exposed to certain

courses and lacking test-taking skills. In mathematics

and science, it emphasizes the contemporary belief

that science is a system of facts to be memorized,

rather than a system of tentative beliefs and a framework for understanding natural phenomena.

Testing could be improved by emphasizing:

●

●

●

●

written responses, as well as multiple-choice

questions;

higher-order thinking skills, i.e., deductive and

lateral thinking;23

oral skills, using oral tests; and

experimental and deductive skills, by doing experiments and practical manipulations in examinations.

The most likely Federal role in testing reform is supporting research on alternative forms and uses of

testing, and in disseminating “better” tests. Refinement of the National Assessment of Educational

Progress should continue, with special emphasis on

eliminating any gender and ethnic biases and a search

for more useful, wide-ranging test instruments.24

‘)The National Research Council’s Committee on Indicators of

Precollege Science and Mathematics Education has proposed a national

research center to facilitate the creation of student and teacher tests,

especially measures of the higher-order thinking skills of students in

kindergarten through grade five. These would augment, if not replace,

multiple-choice tests. See National Research Council, Improving indicators of the Quality of Science and Mathematics Education in Grades

K-22 (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1988).

%ee FairTest Examiner, “FairTest Wins NAEP Reforms: More

Problems Remain,” winter 1988, p. 3. The National Assessment of

Educational Progress has already begun testing of hands-on skills in

science.

MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

EDUCATION

Federal agency leadership and interagency coordination are needed to raise the visibility of science

and engineering education. The collection, dissemination, and use of data for evaluating outcomes and

developing new programs are essential for improving

the reach and content of science and engineering

education.

1. Strengthen National Science

Foundation Leadership in Science

Education

Federal responsibility for the long-term health of

the system of science education, from the early

grades through postdoctorate study, rests in the

hands of NSF. NSF has been the lead agency, ever

since its inception, in Federal initiatives to improve

science education, and has administered most Federal science and engineering education programs.

Such programs form part of NSF’s overall mission

to support the education and training of research

scientists and engineers and to promote basic research .25

Under its broad charge, NSF has supported,

largely through the Science and Engineering Education (SEE) Directorate, a range of efforts to im25T he Nationa] Institutes of Health spend more on Such Programs

than the National Science Foundation does, although this funding is

concentrated on graduate and postgraduate education. Other agencies also spend significant sums on education programs, primarily in

order to interest young students in scientific and engineering careers

or to channel students into particular fields.
105

prove precollege and college science and mathematics education including:

●

●

●

●

●

teacher institutes;

curriculum development;

student research;

research, evaluation, and testing of advanced

teaching technologies; and

encouragement of partnerships among business,

industry, professional associations, civic groups,

and local schools to sustain the above activities.26

In addition, NSF has supported the familiar graduate fellowships, RAs, and traineeships administered

by the research directorates.

Having a strong, central, competent, committed

administrative home is crucial to the implementation of Federal science education programs. In addition, because of the local nature of American education, a visible national focus is important to

provide leadership to support, inform, and capitalize on the many local initiatives that dominate

American education. At NSF, with its commitment

to the basic research community, the traditional emphasis on research and graduate education has been

largely divorced from its elementary, secondary, and

undergraduate education programs.

● Reinforce NSF’s role as lead agency for Federal

science and engineering education activities by

altering NSF’s administration of these activities.

● Require NSF to employ more staff experienced

in the practice of elementary and secondary

education in schools, school districts, and State

education agencies, rather than those recruited

from research environments in higher education.

There is no single home or central coordination

for human resource programs at NSF. In addition

to the SEE Directorate, considerable funds are spent

by the other directorates on education and human

resource programs and by research grants that fund

RAs. NSF regards teaching and research to be inseparably related activities at the higher level of the

education system, and is sensitive to the variability

of educational problems from discipline to discipline.

ZG~n Br~ln~ky, Improving Marh and Science Educariom Problems

and Solutions (Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators, 1985).

Thus, NSF considers it best for the research directorates to control programs with joint educational

and research objectives.

Consider the main types of NSF programs that

contribute to science and engineering education:

●

●

●

direct support of educational initiatives, such

as teacher institutes, curriculum development,

and fellowships;

support for research activities that have educational benefits, such as research projects in

general or research participation by particular

groups (such as undergraduates, high school students, or teachers); and

support to enhance the opportunities for certain populations and types of institutions to do

high-quality research through grants designed

to improve or sustain research capability.

Taken together, support for these activities is often

labeled as being for “Education / and Human

Resources.” NSF’s fiscal year 1988 spending for programs of this kind will be over $350 million, of which

$139 million is spent through the SEE Directorate.

The difference between these two sums arises from

the education and human resource spending of the

research directorates, which includes programs in

undergraduate science education, the Presidential

Young Investigator program, and other programs

intended to provide seed and institutional research

support for either specific groups of researchers or

institutions. Even then, NSF’s designation of Education and Human Resources does not include the

amount of NSF research awards that is spent on

providing RAs to graduate students (an estimated

$120 million in fiscal year 1988). At the precollege

level, the research directorates spend nothing, so

all of that funding comes from SEE. Table 4-4 indicates the distribution of these funds by educational

Ievel, showing that the bulk of the broad category

of “Education and Human Resources” funds goes

to graduate and postgraduate education.

NSF spending on science and engineering education through SEE has fluctuated (see table 4-5, for

fiscal years 1983-1988). Its golden years were the late

1950s and early 1960s, when never less than onethird of NSF’s total budget went to its SEE Directorate. In later years, although SEE spending increased (reaching a peak of $134 million in fiscal year

1968), overall NSF spending rose even faster, giv-
—

106

Table 4=4.—National Science Foundation Fiscal Year 1988 Spending and Fiscal Year

1989 Requested Funding for Education, by Level of Education

(In millions of dollars)

Funds from the Funds from other

SEE Directorate Directorates

1988 1989 1988 1989

Precollege $90.0 108.5 0 0

Undergraduate 19.0 23.5 21.0 41.4

Graduate fellowships, etc. 30.3 24.0 2.5 2.7

research assistantships o 0 119.0 125.0

(est.)

Postdoctoral, including Presidential

Young investigators o 0 52.9 58.7

Research initiation and broadened

participation in research o 0 22.7 27.0

Totals $140.3 156.0 217.1 255.0

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment estimates based on personal communications with the National Science Foundation, Office of Budget, Audit, and Control, 1988.

Table 4=5.—Requests, Appropriations, Spending, and Unobligated Funds for the

National Science Foundation’s Science and Engineering Education Directorate,

Fiscal Years 1983-88 (in millions of dollars)

Fiscal years

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

Request $15.0 $39.0 $75.7 $50.5 $89.0 $115.0

Appropriation 30.0 75.0 87.0 55.5 99.0 139,0

Actual spending 16.0 57.0 82.0 a 84.0 99.0

Unobligated 14.0 32.0 32.0 – –

(carried forward)

aln fiscal year 1985, $5 million was transferred by the Science and Engineering Education Directorate to the Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences Directorate for support of a program on Research in Teaching and Learning.

SOURCE: Laurie Garduque, “A Look at NSF’s Educational Research Budget,” Educational ffesearcfrer, June-July 1987, pp.

1R19, 23. Based on National Science foundation Budget Summary, fiscal Year 198.3 (and annual volumes through

1988).

ing education a declining share. After fiscal year

1968, SEE spending fell every year until 1974, and

held level in the 1970s at about $60-$80 million annually. In fiscal year 1982, the Reagan Administration attempted to cut out NSF’s education spending altogether; at its nadir, the SEE Directorate

funded only a reduced program of graduate fellowships. Since 1982, however, the SEE Directorate has

slowly been resuscitated and will be funded at $139

million in fiscal year 1988. This appropriation, in

actual dollars, is the largest ever in the history of

SEE. The majority of SEE’s spending is on K-12

programs.

Table 4-5 indicates that, in each year from 1983

to 1988, Congress appropriated between 10 and 100

percent more than NSF requested for the SEE Directorate. It also indicates that, in fiscal years 1982-1984,

NSF did not spend all that it was appropriated and

carried forward never less than 35 percent of each

year’s appropriation to the next fiscal year. Data on

education spending in the research and related directorates appear in table 4-6. It is estimated that, in

fiscal year 1987, NSF spent over $200 million on

education in these directorates.

Persistent issues that arise in NSF’s science and

engineering education programs are:

● The balance to be struck between programs for

the elite of potential researchers and the mass

of science learners in schools and colleges who

are less likely to become scientists. A recent congressionally mandated review urged that NSF

"

take the lead nationally in broadening the base
107

●

●

●

Table 4-6.—National Science Foundation Education Spending by the Research and

Related Directorates, Fiscal Years 1982=87 (in millions of dollars)

Fiscal years

1987

Level of education 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 (est.)

Postdoctoral $43.0 $44,2 $51.0 $56.5 $56.0 $58.4

Graduate students 72.2 76.6 90.8 102.3 107.0 115.4

(including RAs)

Undergraduate:

Students n.a. n,a. n,a. 7.9 8.0 19.5

Faculty 1.0 1,0 8.2 10.2 12.4 15.9

Totals 116.2 121.8 150.0 176.9 183.4 209.2

RAs = research assistantships.

n,a. = not available.

SOURCE: National Science Foundation Office of Budget, Audit, and Control; personal communication to Office of Technology Assessment, January 1988.

. . . .

of science learners as their primary mandate

rather than ‘skimming the cream’.”27

The coordination of NSF education programs.

Education groups, such as the National Science

Teachers Association, urge that all funding for

K-12 and undergraduate science and engineering education should be coordinated under a

single head. NSF argues that the unique nature

of advanced education in the sciences and engineering, which involves the union of teaching

and research, means that some education functions are best conducted through the research

directorates.

Concern that the research-oriented culture of

NSF skews the operations of SEE and other science education activities, and discourages SEE

from undertaking any kind of replication of successful programs in favor of one-of-a-kind “experimental” research projects.

Concern about transfers of funds from SEE to

the research directorates, to be spent on research rather than education. Other than a $5

million transfer in fiscal year 1985 for a program

of research in teaching and learning, there is

no evidence that such transfers have occurred.

As it stands, particularly in the undergraduate

area, science and engineering education appears to

gain a bonus from the education programs conducted in the research and related directorates. In

the case of undergraduate science education, NSF

‘

7 Michael S. Knapp et al., Opportunities for S[rategic Znvestmenr

in K-12 Science Education: Options for the National Science Foundation, vol. 1 (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, June 1987), p. 6.

has created a new Office of Undergraduate Science,

Mathematics, and Engineering Education to coordinate activities from all across NSF. Because NSF

does use funds from research directorates to fund

science and engineering education, there is a danger that any increases in the annual appropriation

to the SEE Directorate will merely displace spending from the research directorates and not lead to

a net increase in science and engineering education

spending. For example, in fiscal year 1988, some

activities, such as undergraduate curriculum reform

efforts that were to be funded through the research

directorates, will be funded through SEE (although

the funding will still be controlled largely by the relevant research directorates). In fiscal year 1988, such

reallocation of spending will only amount to a few

million dollars.

Given the history of science education at NSF,

some believe that its priority will be assured only

by creation of a separate board, patterned on the

National Science Board. Such a board would oversee all science education activities. Whether this

board would be of status equal to the National Science Board, and how its decisionmaking and budget authority would be reflected in a revised table

of organization for the National Science Foundation, are just two issues that deserve serious congressional consideration. A separate board would

ensure that funding for science and engineering education and other human resource programs is centrally coordinated through the SEE Directorate,

rather than being dispersed across the research directorates of NSF.
108

2. Improve Federal Interagency

Coordination and Data Collection

Coordinating related programs among Federal

agencies is a perennial problem in all mission areas,

not just education and research. To facilitate coordination, information sharing, and to avoid fruitless

duplication, Congress has mandated various forms

of organized consulting mechanisms, such as interagency coordinating committees. Ad hoc, informal

communication among colleagues—telephone calls,

meetings, etc.—is as important as formal communications. Coordinating committees have been most

commonly used in areas undergoing significant

change, such as areas of new Federal involvement

and regulation, or with important public or foreign

policy interest (such as biotechnology). In science

and engineering education, there seems to be no

such motivation for extensive formal coordination.

Congress could change the tone, if not the motivation, for interagency coordination.

Using the unique aspects of the education programs sponsored by the mission agencies could be

an essential part of coordination. Regional laboratories and centers often develop close ties to local

schools and universities. Mission R&D has an inherent attraction to youngsters (for example, space,

aeronautics, and nuclear power) lacking in the basic

research that NSF funds. The mission agencies also

monitor and analyze their personnel needs, as in

the Department of Energy-supported data series on

energy-related manpower. (Although not a Federal

agency, the Institute of Medicine likewise sets a high

standard with its analysis of biomedical and behavioral research personnel supply and demand. )28

Such planning may be easier to do in a narrow,

applications-oriented field than for science and engineering as a whole.

Mission agencies should have the authority and

funds to capitalize on their strengths, including science education. Often they must scavenge education money from research programs. NSF is needed

to ensure the renewal of the research work force for

~“U.S. Department of Energy, Energy-Related Manpower 1986

(Washington, DC: annual); and Institute of Medicine, Personnel Needs

in the Biomedical and Behavioral Sciences 1987 (Washington, DC:

biennial).

basic, long-term research; the mission agencies need

to handle their shorter-term, more volatile science

and engineering personnel needs.

There is also no comprehensive and systematic

summary of all Federal science and engineering education programs. Many Federal agencies involved

in scientific and engineering activities have education programs, but these programs are not centrally

coordinated. The National Science Foundation collects and publishes reliable data on the funding provided by each Federal agency for R&D at universities and for support of graduate students. These data

also include funding for instructional equipment.

Although NSF has historically been the lead agency

for science and engineering education programs,

more funds for such programs are provided by NIH

than by NSF.

●

●

●

●

●

Raise the level and visibility of interagency planning and coordination of science and engineering education programs. Foster informal exchanges of ideas and information among NSF,

the Department of Education, and the mission

agencies. Establish a Federal coordinating committee on science and engineering education

among these agency representatives.

Attach higher visibility to science and engineering education programs (and possibly expand

them) in R&D mission agencies by requiring

reports or by giving such education programs

line items in budget proposals.

Require NSF to assemble a biennial report on

the overall state of Federal programs in science

and engineering education. Or ask the Office

of Management and Budget to do a special budget analysis on Federal science and engineering education, which would tabulate the net result of all types of programs, categorized by level

of education and the destination of funding (including students, faculty, and institutions).

Support data collection, analysis, and dissemination at the Department of Education and

NSF, especially longitudinal studies.

Redivide NSF and Department of Education

data responsibilities by mandating reports, allotting budgets, and requiring the Department

to collect science and engineering education

data.
109

●

●

Continue to revamp the National Center for

Education Statistics.29

Improve the use of education data, in particular, information dissemination and technology

transfer of successful research and practice. Expand the Department of Education’s National

Diffusion Network and support networking efforts (through agency funding of newsletters,

professional societies, and conferences).

Department of Education

Contributions

Occasional proposals have been made to move

lead Federal responsibility for precollege science and

mathematics education from NSF to the Department of Education. Proponents of such a step cite

the massive funding that flows through the Department, and its extensive ties to local school districts

and other education authorities. The Department

of Education has been concerned mainly with the

welfare of the education system as a whole. The large

formula grant and student aid programs it administers already make substantial demands on its resources. As the agency most closely associated with

the scientific research community, NSF has remained the administrative home of, and lead agency

for, precollege science and engineering education.

At the undergraduate level, the Department of

Education could enlarge its contribution through

greater emphasis on science and engineering programs and students, for example, by using its resources to advertise and build on NSF pilot programs

and research. The Department also administers programs to develop local activities in science and engineering education, primarily under Title 11 of the

Higher Education Act of 1965. Such programs to

support science and engineering dents as a population meriting special attention in the national

interest could be expanded. But shifting primary

responsibility to the Department, given the changes

in mission, spending, and staffing that would be required, seems unwarranted at this time.

%Jational Research Council, Creating a Cenrer for Educarion Starist~cs: A Time for Acrion (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,

1986).

Federal Programs:

Data and Evaluation

Several studies have looked at the provisions of

all Federal agencies for a particular aspect of science

and engineering education,30 and some agencies

publish reports that describe their own programs.31

Appendix B lists the major Federal science and engineering education programs along with their current levels of effort and estimated numbers of students or institutions served. While collating such

information on a regular basis would take time and

money, it might help Federal policymakers coordinate the regions, populations, and institutions affected by Federal programs and to identify groups

that have “fallen through the cracks” of the different agencies. A one-time in-depth review of science,

mathematics, and engineering education support,

including the role of agency research programs in

education, might also be fruitful.

The Department of Education and NSF have long

collected data relevant to their respective missions—

the Department of Education on the condition of

elementary, secondary, higher, and vocational education, and NSF on higher education of research

scientists and engineers.32 Three national longitudinal studies have provided valuable information

on students moving through the educational systern. 33 NSF data and analysis on U.S. science and

engineering is widely used and internationally emu-

‘%ee, for example, U.S. General Accounting Office, No Federal

Programs Are Designed Primarily to Supporr Engineering Education,

But Many Do, GAO/PAD-82-20 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, May 14, 1982); and U.S. General Accounting Office,

University Funding: Federal Funding Mechanisms in Support of L~nit’ersity Research, GAO/RCED-86-53 (Washington, DC: L1. S. Go~’ernment Printing Office, February 1986).

‘]See, for example, U.S. Department of Energy, L~nl~’ersir}’ Research

and Scientific Education Programs of the U.S. Department of Encrg~’,

DOE/ER-0296 (Washington, DC: U.S. Goi.crnmcnt Printing Office,

September 1986). The National Science Foundation collects extensii’e

information on its own programs and publishes some of it.

~JA 1987 Rand Corp. study to explore indicators for the performance of precollege mathematics and science education in the United

States called for development of a comprehensive indicator system and

offered several options for improving the National Science Foundation’s current ad hoc data collection and analysis efforts. See Joseph

Haggin, “Assessment of Precollege Science Training Prohed,” Chemical & Engineering Nen’s, Oct. 12, 1987, pp. 20-21.

~lThese are the National Longitudinal Survey (following the ~~~~

high school senior class), High School and &yond (following 1980 high

school sophomores and seniors), and the National Education Longitudinal Survey (beginning in 1988).
110

lated. In general, however, the production of statistical and evaluative information on education has

declined noticeably in the last decade. 14

Data help policymakers identify trends and evaluate the impact of programs. However, large amounts

of new national-level data would be expensive and

are not desperately needed. New data collection is

a burden to Federal agencies and the information

sources (usually schools and universities); education

data from mission agencies should minimize new

reporting requirements (information can be extracted

from existing proposal and reporting data). Systematic evaluation of education programs would provide accountability and information on what works.

(There are some models: at the precollege level, the

Department of Education’s What Works series, and

in higher education, evaluations of NSF’s Science

Development Program and University-Industry Co-

“U.S. General Accounting Office, Education lnformarion: Changes

in Funds and Priorities Have Affecred Production and Quality,

GAO/PEMD-88-4 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, NOvernber 1987). Also see Marcia C. Linn, “Establishing A Research Base for Science Education: Challenges, Trends, and Recommendations, ” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 24, No.

3, 1987, pp. 191-216.

operative Research Centers.) Modest evaluation of

student support mechanisms would also be useful.

Better, more timely data based on careful survey and

analysis design and budget allocation are needed.

Even more pressing is better dissemination and use

of the data that already exist.

Congress can continue oversight of data collection and management, the use of data in program

evaluation and design, and be unflagging in its call

for education data. The Federal Task Force on

Women, Minorities, and the Handicapped in Science and Technology is another impetus for the Collection and analysis of information. Efforts such as

this, in turn, should mobilize the research community, perhaps through umbrella organizations such

as the American Association for the Advancement

of Science, 35 to take a greater interest—as information clearinghouses and symbolic leaders—in science,

mathematics, and engineering education. The Nation requires such a concerted effort.

‘

f For example, see American Association for the Advancement of

Science, Office of Science and Technology Education, The Continuing Crisis in Science Education: The AAAS Responds, A Report to

the Board of Directors (Washington, DC: 1986).
Appendixes
Appendix A

Alphabetical Listing of Leading

Undergraduate Sources of

Engineering Ph.D.s in Two

Catego

Science and

Institutional

ries, 1950-75

The following alphabetical lists are based on an OTA analysis of the colleges and universities granting baccalaureate degrees to students who went on to earn a Ph.D. in science or engineering. Because large degree-granting institutions would be favored in a ranking based on the absolute number of baccalaureates produced that go on to earn

Ph.D.s in science and engineering, OTA measured the contributions of baccalaureate-granting institutions to Ph.D.

production, controlling for size of the institution. ’

The 100 Most Productive Institutions

This category lists alphabetically the 100 institutions

of all types with the highest ratios of baccalaureate

degrees awarded (in all fields) to students who later

earned science or engineering Ph.D. s (at any institution). 2

Amherst College/MA

Antioch College/OH

Bard College/NY

Bates College/ME

Beloit College/WI

Berea College/KY

Blackburn College/IL

Bowdoin College/ME

Brandeis University/MA

Brown University/RI

Bryn Mawr College/PA

Bucknell University/PA

California Institute of Technology

Carleton College/MN

I Bert}, D, ~~axjleld, “Instltutlonal Prociucttvity: The Undergraduate Origins

o{ Science and Englneerlng Ph. D.s, ” OTA contractor report, July 1987. Baccalaureates awarded are based on rhe Department of Education’s National Center for Statlstlcs Institutional counts, reported In Earned Degrees Conferred. Six

academic years were sampled in this analysls for baccalaureate data: 1950, 1955,

1960, 1%5, 1970, and 1975. All baccalaureate reformation was matched (through

1986) with Ph.D. data from the National Research Council’s Doctorate Records

File, which is hased on annual Surveys of Earned Doctorates. New Ph.D. recipients, In ccmperatlon with their Instltutlons’ graduate studies offices, complete

questionnaires that prowde basic demographic, educational, and planned employment characteristics. This Informatmn IS the basis of the Ph.D. counts used

In calculating the Instltutlonal rat[os of science and engineering Ph. D.s per 100

baccalaureates.

‘These 100 Include the 15 “techmcal” Instltutlons (that emphasize science or

eng]neerlng) whose productivity was shown separatel}l In figure 3-6. The ratio

of science and engineering Ph.D. s earned per 100 baccalaureate degrees awarded

hv these Instltutlons range from 4 to 44.

Carnegie-Mellon University/PA

Case Western Reserve University/OH

Centre College of Kentucky

City University of New York

Clark University/MA

College of Charleston/SC

College of Wooster/OH

Colorado School of Mines

Columbia University/NY

Cooper Union/NY

Cornell University/NY

Dartmouth College/NH

Davidson College/NC

Delaware Valley College/PA

Drew University/NJ

Duke University/NC

Earlham College/IN

Eckerd College/FL

Franklin and Marshall College/PA

Grinnell College/IA

Hamilton College/NY

Hampshire College/MA

Harvard University/MA

Harvey Mudd College/CA

Haverford College/PA

Hope College/MI

Illinois Benedictine College

Illinois Institute of Technology

Iowa State University

The Johns Hopkins University/MD

Juniata College/PA

Kalamazoo College/MI

Kenyon College/OH

King College/TN

Knox College/IL

Lafayette College/PA

113
114

Lawrence University/WI

Lebanon Valley College/PA

Lehigh University/PA

Macalester College/MN

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Muhlenberg College/PA

New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

Oberlin College/OH

Occidental College/CA

Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science/PA

Pitzer College/CA

Polytechnic University/NY

Pomona College/CA

Princeton University/NJ

Radcliffe College/MA

Reed College/OR

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute/NY

Rhodes College/TN

Rice University/TX

South Dakota School of Mining and Technology

Stanford University/CA

State University of New York at Binghamton

State University of New York, College of

Environmental Science and Forestry

State University of New York at Stony Brook

Stevens Institute of Technology/NJ

St. Johns College/MD

Swarthmore College/PA

Union University/NY

United States Merchant Marine Academy/NY

United States Military Academy/NY

University of California at Berkeley

University of California at Davis

University of California at Irvine

Universit y of California at Los Angeles

University of California at Riverside

University of California at San Diego

University of California at Santa Cruz

University of Chicago/IL

University of Rochester/NY

University of South Florida, New College

Vassar College/NY

Wabash College/IN

Webb Institute of Naval Architecture/NY

Wellesley College/MA

Wesleyan University/CT

Whitman College/WA

Williams College/MA

Worcester Polytechnic Institute/MA

Yale University/CT

Yeshiva University/NY

49 Liberal Arts Colleges

The 50 liberal arts colleges that participated in the Second National Conference on “The Future of Science at

Liberal Arts Colleges” at Oberlin College in June 1986

defined this list (presented alphabetically). ’

Albion College/MI

Alma College/MI

Amherst College/MA

Antioch College/OH

Bates College/ME

Beloit College/WI

Bowdoin College/ME

Bryn Mawr College/PA

Bucknell University/PA

Carleton College/MN

Colgate University/NY

College of the Holy Cross/MA

College of Wooster/OH

Colorado College

Davidson College/NC

Denisen University/OH

Depauw University/IN

Earlham College/PA

Franklin and Marshall College/PA

Grinnell College/IA

Hamilton College/NY

Hampton University/VA

Harvey Mudd College/CA

Haverford College/PA

Hope College/M1

Kalamazoo College/MI

Kenyon College/OH

Lafayette College/PA

Macalester College/MN

Manhattan College/NY

Middlebur y College/VT

Mt. Holyoke College/MA

Oberlin College/OH

Occidental College/CA

Ohio Wesleyan University

Pomona College/CA

Reed College/OR

Smith College/MA

‘However, Barnard College’s baccalaureate counts were not reported separately

from Columbia University. Thus, the 50 private liberal arts colleges, sometimes

referred to as “research colleges” because of their emphasis on undergraduate

and faculty research, were reduced to 49, The ratios of science and engineering

Ph.D.s earned per 100 baccalaureates awarded by these Instltutlons vary from

1 to 30.
115

St. Olaf College/MN

Swarthmore College/PA

Trinity College/CT

Union University/NY

Vassar College/NY

Wabash College/IN

Wellesley College/MA

Wesleyan University/CT

Wheaton College/IL

Whitman College/WA

Williams College/MA
Appendix B

Major Federal Science and Engineering

Education Programs

The following information, in fiscal year 1988 obligations where possible, shows approximate Federal support

of science and engineering education programs by agency

and type of program, Obligations are the amount that

an agency commits to spend out of its budget; the actual amount of funds spent may differ somewhat from

the amount obligated. There may be large variations from

year to year in agency budgets due to changes in congressional appropriations or legislation creating and eliminating programs. Changes in agency priorities also affect funding levels.

The estimates in this table are based on information

provided to OTA by staff responsible for education,

university relations, research and development (R&D),

and/or personnel at each of the departments listed, supplemented by published sources. This table is not the

result of an exhaustive survey, but does indicate the

breadth and diversity of Federal support across the agencies for science and engineering education. Because of

differences in recordkeeping, it is difficult to make precise statements on spending.

Department and major programs

U.S. Department of Education

The programs listed are of several types: 1) the educational programs of the Department of Education and

Veterans Administration that support all students and

institutions, including but not specifically targeted to science and engineering; 2) agency support of university research, which indirectly funds students (as research assistants); and 3) special programs, usuall y much smaller

in scope and budget, which have the support of science

and engineering education as their primary goal. Faculty

programs are not included. The left hand column lists

the funding department and major programs, according

to the educational level served (postgraduate, graduate,

undergraduate, precollege, institutional). The two right

hand columns list, respectively, estimated 1988 agency

obligations and the number of science or engineering students (noted with an “s”) or institutions (noted with an

“i”) that receive funds or participate in the program. The

obligations and students listed are only those related to

science and engineering (including social sciences). Our

inability to estimate obligations or students is indicated

b y – .

1988 budget (estimated,

in millions of dollars, Number of students or

where noted)* institutions supported

(science/engineering-related only)

• Graduate and Professional Opportunities

Program (about 1/2 are in science/engineering (s/e)) . . . . . . . 6 M

● Cooperative education (Title VIII, Higher Education . . . . . . .

Act) (1/3 to 1/2 is s/e). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7 M

● Title II, Education for Economic Securit y A c t

–State grants (teacher training, supplies) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 M

—magnet schools (@30% of total $72 M) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 M

● Discretionar y programs (total $11 M)

—television, e.g., “3-2-1 Contact” ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.25 M (1987)

—National Diffusion Network, miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —

programs, e.g., Physics Teach to Learn, CADPP (elementary

mathematics)

Institutional

● Minority Institutions Science Improvement

Program (MISIP), . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 M

700 s

100,000 s

105 i

—

—

—

—

180 i

I BaWd on OTA ~r~onal ‘ommunicat,on~ ~ith Federal agency staff. Addinonal published sources are National Science Foundation, A ~~rectorY of~e~efal ~&

Agencies’ Programs ro Arrracr Women, Minorir{es, and rhe Physically Handicapped ro Careers in Sc/ence and Engineering, NSF 85-51 (Washington, DC: 1985); and

U.S. General Accounting Office, Federa/ Funding Mechanisms ~n Supporr of Lhverslry Research, GAO/RCED-86-53 (Washington, DC: 1986).

116
117

The Department of Education spends billions of dollars on education, some of which goes to science and

mathematics programs, teaching, education research, and

computer technology. These include programs such as

Chapter 1 and Chapter 2, student and institutional aid,

and more likely sources of science/mathematics improvement or seed money such as the Office of Educational

Research and Improvement ($67 million) or the Fund for

the Improvement of Postsecondary Education ($11 million). Two centers dedicated to the study of mathematics

and science teaching and learning were added in 1988

to the roster of 19 National Educational Research

Centers; each of the 2 has a budget of $500,000. One

of the ERIC clearinghouses of educational research and

information is dedicated to science, mathematics, and

environmental education. Together these large, broad

support programs and other discretionary or general programs provide extensive funds for science and mathematics education. Discretionary funds may in particular

be applied to seed programs. It is impossible to quantify

the amount or directness of support for science and mathematics education from these large national programs,

many of them formula programs. One approach is to estimate that 15 to 40 percent of funding is relevant to science and mathematics education.

1988 budget (estimated,

Department and major programs

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Postdoctorate

● National Research Service Awards

Postdoctoral Fellowship Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(includes M.D.-Ph.D., about 50% of total)

Graduate

• National Research Service Awards

Predoctoral Training Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● Research assistants (RAs)

on research grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(@ 5-15% of academic R&D)

● Minority Access to Research Careers (MARC)

Predoctoral fellowship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Undergraduate

● MARC Honors Undergraduate Research Training . . . . . . . . .

● National Institutes of Mental Health

Minority Fellowships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Precollege

● NIH Minority High School Student

Research Apprenticeships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Institutional

●

●

Minority Biomedical Research Support (MBRS) . . . . . . . . . . .

—Regular MBRS program projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

–Undergraduate Biomedical Research

Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—Supplemental Awards for Improvement

of Animal Resources and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Research Centers for Minority Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Science Foundation (NSF)

Postdoctorate

● Presidential Young Investigators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● Postdoctorates (six programs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● NATO postdoctorates (NATO funds, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

supplemented by NSF)

in millions of dollars, Number of students or

where noted)l

institutions supported

(science/engineering-related only)

130 M

100 M

150-450 M

665,000

6.3 M

1.8 M

1.5 M

28 M

—

—

5–M

40 M

58 M

—

5,800 S

5,200 S

7,000 s

68 s

385 S

150 s

410 s

100 i

450 s

1,200 s

—

100 i

800 S

80 S

50 s
118

Department and major programs

1988 budget (estimated,

in millions of dollars, Number of students or

where noted)l

institutions supported

(science/engineering-related only)

Graduate

● Graduate RAs on research grants. . . . . . . . . . , . . . , . . . . . . . . .

● Supplemental funding for minority/women RAs . . . . . . . . . , .

● Dissertation improvement. . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

• Graduate fellowships

–Graduate fellowships . . . . . . . . ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

–Minority graduate fellowships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Undergraduate

● Engineering Undergraduate Creativity Awards , . . . . . . . . . . .

● Undergraduate research experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● Career access for women, minorities, and the disabled . . . . .

● College Science Instrumentation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

• Curriculum development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Precollege

● High school research experience

—Young Scholars. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ,

–RAs for minority high school students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● Informal education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

• Materials development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

• Teacher preparation and enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

• Research in teaching and learning . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . .

U.S. Department of Energy

Graduate

● Graduate fellowships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● Summer research support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● RAs on research grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(@5-15% of $350-million university R&D)

Undergraduate

● Science and Engineering Research Semester . . . . . . . , . . . . . . .

● Summer research internship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

• Co-op/Junior Fellows . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . .

Precollege

● Prefreshman Engineering Program (PREP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● High School Honors Research Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ž Minority Student Research Apprenticeships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

• Precollege teacher training and research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . .

(summer research experience at labs, short courses,

materials)

120 M

—

1.2 M

25 M

2.7 M

2 M

9 M

2 M

12 M

7 M

3.7 M

100,000

13.5 M

20 M

45.5 M

4 M

1.4 M

—

15-50 M

600,000

3 M

—

300,000

550,000

120,000

250,000

8,300 S

—

190 s

700 s

75 i

30 s

2,800 S

—

—

—

1,600 S

—

—

—

—

—

70 s

2,000 s

3,500 s

115 s

1,000 s

50-65 S

2,000 s

320 S

200 s

50 teachers

Institutional

● HBCU . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 M —

The Department of Energy has a University-Labora- ing developed with the national laboratories, and about

tory Cooperative Program, which includes faculty, re- $6.3 million to summer research programs and other scisearch, and institutional development programs in addi- ence education programs. DOE and the national laboration to the undergraduate and graduate summer research tories also have many volunteer outreach and technical

programs noted above. Of a total budget of $8.8 million, assistance programs, such as Partnership in Education

about $2.5 million goes to science education centers be- (adopt a high school).
119

1988 budget (estimated,

in millions of dollars, Number of students or

where noted)’ institutions supported

Department and major programs (science/engineering-related only)

Department of Defense (DoD)

Graduate

● Graduate RAs on research grants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50-150 M 4,000-5,000 s

(@ 5-15% of academic research)

Undergraduate

● Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC)

(75% of Air Force and 80% of Navy ROTC

funds are set aside for technical majors) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● JETS/UNITE (Uninitiated Introduction to

Engineering) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

• Co-op/Junior Fellows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Precollege

● Research and Engineering Apprenticeship

(REAP) (at DoD laboratories) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● Extensive informal outreach: career fairs,

science fairs and awards, recruitment

Air Force/Air Force Office of Scientific Research

• Air Force laboratory postdoctoral. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

scholar programs

● Graduate fellowships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● Graduate Student Summer Support Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(laboratory employment for graduate students)

• High school apprenticeship (summer jobs at

laboratories; primarily minorities)

Army/Army Research Office (ARO)

—

—

—

—

3 M

1.5 M

—

21,000 s

—

2,500-3,000 S

—

—

75 s

loos

●

●

●

●

●

●

Army Graduate Fellowship Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 M

(no continuing funds appropriated)

REAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275,000

Introduction to Engineering (UNITE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,000

(6 residential programs for minorities)

Junior Science and Humanities Program symposia

(research talent search) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 750,000

Computer-Related Science and Engineering

Studies (CRES) (4 residential weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,000

at universities)

Science and Engineering Fair Program,

International Mathematical Olympiad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,000

(ARO contributes awards, judges)

Navy/Office of Naval Research

●

●

●

Young Investigator Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 M

(10-30 new multiyear awards each year)

Graduate fellowships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 M

(45-50 new multiyear awards each year)

High School Apprentice Program .‘. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120,000

36 S

140 s

150-180 S

7,000 s

60 S

500,000 s

50 s

150s

130 s

(mentored summer work in labs; targets inner-city,

minorities, disadvantaged)
120

1988 budget (estimated,

in millions of dollars, Number of students or

where noted)’ institutions supported

Department and major programs (science/engineering-related only)

● Historically Black College Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(seeds research programs, graduate fellowships, summer

faculty research, research instrumentation, high school apprenticeships)

Strategic Defense Initiative Office/

University Research Initiative

• Graduate RAs on research grants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7.5 M

(@ 10-15% of $50 M academic research)

2.6 M 17 i

600 S

—

Institutional

• HBCUs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —

Manpower/Education Research

● Center for the Advancement of Science,

Engineering and Technology (CASET) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 M

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

—

Postdoctorate

● Postdoctoral research associateship , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 M

(1 year of research at NASA)

200 s

Graduate

● Graduate student researchers fellowships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 M

(1 year thesis research support)

240 S

60-110 S

—

● Minority graduate fellowships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● Graduate RAs on research grants. . . , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . .

(@ 8% of academic R&D)

2 M

22M

Undergraduate

4.7 M

—

● Education and curriculum research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● Co-op/Junior Fellows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—

1,100-1,200 s

Precollege

● Aerospace Education Services (Spacemobile) . . . . . , . . . . . . . . 2.1 M

1.3 M

—

• Innovative programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . —

—NASA Education Workshops for Mathematics

and Science Teachers (NEWMAST)

—NASA Education Workshops for Elementary

School Teachers (NEWEST)

–Space Science Student Involvement Program (SSIP)

● Individual NASA laboratories have many local

research apprenticeships, student employment,

teacher resource centers, and outreach programs

Institutional

● University Advanced Design Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● Centers of Excellence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . .

1.5 M 25 i

—

10 i

—

—

● Space Engineering Research Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

• HBCUs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4M

9M

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Postdoctorate

• Postdoctorates (Agricultural Research Service

–ARS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 100 s
127

Department and major programs

1988 budget (estimated,

in millions of dollars, Number of students or

where noted)’ institutions supported

(science/engineering-related only)

Graduate

● Graduate fellowships . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● RAs on research grants (@ 10% of academic R&D) . . . . . . . .

Undergraduate

● Co-op/Junior Fellows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . .

● Summer employment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Precollege

–4H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

–Research Apprenticeship Program (ADS).... . . . . . . . . . . . .

–Junior Fellowship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

–Program in Agricultural and Lifesciences

for Minority Students (PALMS)

(career orientation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—Beginning Agriculture Youth Opportunities

(BAYOU), Southern University, LA

—Summer Youth Enrichment, Delaware

–Other programs include Stay In School, fairs,

summer aides, D.C. Mayor’s Youth

Employment, high school visits, curriculum

development; Forest Service teacher training and summer

student programs

Institutional

● Cooperative State Research Service

–Strengthening Grants for 1890s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

–Merrill-Nelson($50,000 per State). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—1890 Research Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

–Evans Aliens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

2.9 M 150s

4 8 M —

— 500-650s

— 10,000s

7O-1OOM 5,100,000s

250,000 200 s

— 200 s

10,000 30s

1.9M

2.6 M

9.6 M

21.5M

4-1OM

-oGraduate

● RAs on research grants (@5-15% of academic R&D). . . . . . .

● Graduate fellowships/traineeships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(in past years, $2-5 million for academic

training, forecasting, and community colleges)

Undergraduate

● Community college-based training

(curriculum development, 2+2 programs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -o-

● Minority Student Fellowship Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . 275,000

(summer jobs; part of Minority

Institutions Assistance Program)

● Co-op/Junior Fellows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —

Precollege

• Summer internships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —

U.S. Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Undergraduate

● Sea Grant student assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.56M

—

—

1 7 i

1 7 i

—

-o-

-o50-70 s

800 S

—

—
122

Department and major programs

● Co-op/Junior Fellows . . . . .

Precollege

● D.C. Career Orientation . .

(summer work for girls and

Institutional

● Sea Grant (entire program)

1988 budget (estimated,

in millions of dollars, Number of students or

where noted)’ institutions supported

(science/engineering-related only)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 100-250 S

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,000 24 S

minorities)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 M —

U.S. Department of Commerce/National Bureau of Standards

Postdoctorate

● Postdoctoral research fellows . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . .

Graduate

• Summer program (graduate and undergraduate)

• Graduate Engineering for Minorities (GEM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Undergraduate

● Co-op/Junior Fellows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Precollege

● Volunteer outreach programs

–Resource Education Awareness Program (REAP)

–Montgomery County Science Fair

–Career Awareness and Resource Education (CARE) . . . . . . —

–Adventures in Science (privately run) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —

—Montgomery Education Connection

There are also internal staff development programs, including graduate fellowships.

U.S. Department of the Interior/U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

Postdoctorate

• Resident Research Associateship Program, USGS . . . . . . . . . .

Undergraduate

• Co-op/Junior Fellows . . . . . . . . , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,

● Summer jobs for teachers (with National . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . .

Association of Geology Teachers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ž Volunteer programs: science fairs, career

seminars, classroom demonstrations and visits

● HBCU (R&D, training, equipment, evaluation, . . . , . . . . . . .

education, graduate research internships)

● Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment

Program (FEORP)

(Programs for Minority Participation

in the Earth Sciences—MPES) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

U.S. Department of Transportation

Graduate

• RAs on research grants . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(@5-15% of academic R&D)

Undergraduate

• Undergraduate/graduate research fellowships . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(National Highwa y Institute)

● Co-op/Junior Fellows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . .

—

—

—

—

—

—

756,000

640,000

850,000-2.6 M

250,000

—

20 s

2 s

100-200 s

30,000 s

200 s

—

135 s

20-90

teachers

—

—

—

15 s

300-350 s
123

Department and major programs

1988 budget (estimated,

in millions of dollars, Number of students or

where noted)l

institutions supported

(science/engineering-related only)

Veterans Administration

Undergraduate

(assume s/e as 35% of total trainees)

● G.I. Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 M 58,500 S

● New (Montgomery) G.I. Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 M 6,800 s

● Other programs:

–Dependent’s Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 M 13,700 s

–Vocational Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 M 5,400 s

—Post Vietnam Education Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 M 25,200 S

(DoD and trainee contributions)

(College level trainees only; includes some graduate; does not include vocational/technical; includes part time.)

Government-Wide Programs

Cooperative education (co-op). The Federal Government employs cooperative students at high school

through graduate school levels, although the undergraduate level dominates. At the graduate level, co-op

is a recruiting tool. Overall, the Federal Government

employs about 16,000 co-op students in 54 agencies;

about half of these are in s/e. Engineering is the largest

occupation, with 28 percent of co-op students. Federal agencies consider co-op an excellent recruitment

tool, but are having trouble competing with industry

for good co-op students in high-technology areas. One

problem is that the co-op budget fluctuates at agencies along with regular research budgets; some managers do not have money or job slots to spare. Co-op

is particularly effective in providing career-related experience for minorities and women.

Junior Fellowship. Career-related summer employment

for talented but needy students from high school

graduation through college graduation. Junior fellowship is a recruitment tool; successful fellows are on the

fast track to career appointments. OPM delegates slots

to agencies, which makes fellows attractive hires for

managers. There are about 2,000 Junior Fellows in 5

Federal agencies, slightly over half of them in s/e.

Stay in School. Part-time entry-level “routine” jobs for

at-risk youths to keep them in school. Many employees are clerical, some are technical aides; few are in s/e.

College Work-Study Program. The Department of Education awards grants to universities to create jobs. Federal agencies can also host students. First authorized

by the Economic Opportunity Act, now under the

Higher Education Act, Title IV, Part C.

Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program

(FEORP) also known as the Affirmative Action Recruitment Program (part of the Civil Service Reform

Act of 1978). Targets minorities and women.

Assistance to HBCUs.

Resident (or Cooperative) Research Associateship. postdoctoral (administered by the National Research

Council). Open to non-U.S. citizens.

Summer Employment.
Appendix C

Contractor Reports

Full copies of Contractor Reports done for this p-eject

are available through the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), either by mail (U.S. Department of

Commerce, National Technical Information Service,

Springfield, VA 22161) or by calling them directly at

(703) 487-4650.’

Higher Education

(NTIS order #PB 88-177 951/AS)

1. “The Apollo Program: Science and Engineering Personnel Demand Created by a Federal Research Mission,” Arnold S. Levine

2. “Institutional Productivity: The Undergraduate Origins of Science and Engineering Ph.D.s,” Betty D.

Maxfield

3. “The History of Engineering Education: Perennial Issues in the Supply and Training of Talent, ” Steven

L. Goldman, Lehigh University

Elementary and Secondary Education

(NTIS order #PB 88-177 944/AS)

1. “Images of Science: Factors Affecting the Choice of

Science as a Career,” Robert E. Fullilove, University

of California at Berkeley

2. “Identifying Potential Scientists and Engineers: An

Analysis of the High School-College Transition,”

Valerie E. Lee, University of Michigan

‘Guy R. Neave’s report, “Science and Englneerlng Work Force Pohcles: Western Europe, ” N only available through the Science, Education, and Transportation Program office (202) 228-6920.

International Comparisons

(NTIS order #PB 88-177 969/AS)

1, “Japan’s Science and Engineering Pipeline: Structure,

Policies, and Trends,” William K. Cummings, Harvard

University

2. “Soviet Science and Engineering Education and Work

Force Policies: Recent Trends,” Harley Balzer, Georgetown University

Funding for Higher Education: Part I

(NTIS order #PB 88-177 928/AS)

1. “Federal Funding of Science and Engineering Education: Effect on Output of Scientists and Engineers,

1945 -1985,” Betty M. Vetter (Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology) and Henry Hertzfeld (Consultant)

2. “Science in the Steady State: The Changing Research

University and Federal Funding,” Edward J. Hackett,

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Funding for Higher Education: Part II

(NTIS order #PB 88-177 936/AS)

1. “Industrial Support of University Training and Re2

search: Implications for Scientific Training in the

‘Steady State’,” Michael E. Gluck, Harvard University

“Financial Assistance, Education Debt and Starting

Salaries of Science and Engineering Graduates: Evidence From the 1985 Survey of Recent College Graduates,” Applied Systems Institute, Inc., Richard Wabnick (Principal Investigator)

124
Appendix D

Workshop Participants

Participants in Science and Engineering Manpower Data Workshop, July 10, 1986

Alan Fechter, Workshop Chairman

Executive Director

Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel

National Research Council

Stig Annestrand

Committee on Science and Technology

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC

Robert Armstrong

Manager, Professional Staffing

Employer Relations Department

E.I. du Pent de Nemours & Co.

Wilmington, DE

Eleanor Babco

Associate Director

Commission on Professionals in Science and

Technology

Washington, DC

Myles Boylan

Policy Analyst

Policy Research and Analysis

National Science Foundation

Washington, DC

Michael Crowley

Director, Demographics Study Group

Division of Science Resource Studies

National Science Foundation

Washington, DC

Roman Czujko

Assistant Manager

Manpower Statistics Division

American Institute of Physics

New York, NY

Participants in Engineering

Washington, DC

Daniel Hecker

Supervisory Labor Economist

Occupational Outlook Division

Office of Economic Growth and Employment

Projections

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Washington, DC

W. Edward Lear

Executive Director

American Society for Engineering Education

Washington, DC

Robert Neuman

Head

Department of Professional Services

American Chemical Society

Washington, DC

Vin O’Neill

Administrator of Professional Programs

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,

Inc.

Washington, DC

Peter Syverson

Director of Information Services

Council of Graduate Schools

Washington, DC

John W. Wiersma

Wiersma & Associates

Austin, TX

Education in 1997 Workshop, Sept. 9, 1987

Christopher J. Dede, Workshop Chairman

Professor

University of Houston at Clear Lake ,

Houston,

Howard Adams

Executive Director

National Consortium for Graduate Degrees for

Minorities in Engineering

Notre Dame, IN

TX

Amy Buhrig

Specialist Engineer

Artificial Intelligence

Boeing Aerospace Corp.

Seattle, WA

125
— —

126

Alton Cleveland

Bechtel Eastern Power Co.

Gaithersburg, MD

George Dieter

Dean, College of Engineering

University of Maryland

College Park, MD

Steven Goldman

Director

Science, Technology and Society Program

Lehigh University

Bethlehem, PA

Lawrence Grayson

Office of the Honorable Jack Kemp

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC

Alfred Moyé

Manager, Continuing Education

Hewlett-Packard

Palo Alto, CA

Engineering

William Snyder

Dean, College of

University of Tennessee

Knoxville, TN

Bruno Weinschel

President

Weinschel Research Foundation

Gaithersburg, MD

F. Karl Willenbrock

Executive Director

American Society for Engineering Education

Washington, DC

Robert Morgan

Professor

Department of Engineering and Policy

Washington University

St. Louis, MO

Participants in Math and Science Education K-12: Teachers and the Future

Workshop, Sept. 15, 1987

Iris R. Weiss, Workshop Co-Chairwoman

President

Horizon Research, Inc.

Chapel Hill, NC

Irma S. Jarcho, Workshop Co-Chairwoman

Chairman

Science Department

New Lincoln School

New York, NY

Rolf Blank

Director

Science/Mathematics Indicators Project

Council of Chief State School Officers

Washington, DC

Ruth Cossey

EQUALS Program

University of California

Berkeley, CA

James Gallagher

Professor of Science Education

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI

Michael R. Haney

Coordinator, Blair Magnet Program

Montgomery County Public Schools

Silver Spring, MD

Lisa Hudson

The Rand Corp.

Washington, DC

Ann Kahn

Former President

National Parent Teacher Association

Chicago, IL
127

Hugh Loweth

Consultant

Annandale, VA

Barbara Scott Nelson

Program Officer

Urban Poverty Program

The Ford Foundation

New York, NY

Gail Nuckols

Member

Arlington County School Board

Arlington, VA

Louise Raphael

Mathematical Association of America

Task Force on Minorities

Science and Engineering Education Directorate

National Science Foundation

Washington, DC

Mary Budd Rowe

President, National Science Teachers Association

Professor, Science Education

College of Education

University of Florida

Gainesville, FL

Susan Snyder

Program Director

Science and Mathematics Education Networks

Program

National Science Foundation

Washington, DC
Appendix E

Acknowledgments

The development of this report has benefited from the advice and review of a number of people in addition to

the Advisory Panel. OTA staff would like to express its appreciation to the following people for their valuable guidance.

Patricia Alexander, Department of Education

Pamela Atkinson, National Academy of Engineering

Jesse Ausubel, National Academy of Engineering

Ellen Benkin, University of California at Los

Angeles

Harriet Tyson-Bernstein

Richard Berry, National Science Foundation

Rolf Blank, Council of Chief State School Officers

Myles Boylan, National Science Foundation

Peter Cannon, Rockwell International Corp.

Dennis Carroll, Department of Education

Joanne Capper, Center for Research into Practice

Sam C. Carrier, Oberlin College

Audrey Champagne, American Association for the

Advancement of Science

Susan Coyle, National Research Council

Michael Crowley, National Science Foundation

Jerry Davis, Pennsylvania Higher Education Agency

Christopher J. Dede, University of Houston at Clear

Lake

Linda DeTure, National Association of Research in

Science Teaching

Harry Edwards, University of California at Berkeley

Marion Epstein, Educational Testing Service

Henry Etzkowitz, State University of New York at

Purchase

J.D. Eveland, Technology Applications Research

Michael Finn, Oak Ridge Associated Universities

Kenneth Frank, Universit y of Michigan at Ann

Arbor

Joseph Froomkin

Samuel Gibbon, Bank Street College of Education

Dorothy Gilford, National Research Council

Edward Glassman, Department of Education

Vance Grant, Department of Education

Lawrence Grayson, Office of the Honorable Jack

Kemp, U.S. House of Representatives

Michael Haney, Montgomery Blair Magnet School,

Maryland

Arthur Hauptman, American Council on Education

Henry Hertzfeld

Christopher Hill, Congressional Research Service

Thomas Hilton, Educational Testing Service

Paul DeHart Hurd, Stanford University

Daphne Kaplan, Department of Education

Linda Kate, Congressional Research Service

Dennis Keith, Immigration and Naturalization

Service

Susan Coady Kemnitzer, Task Force on Women,

Minorities, and the Handicapped in Science and

Technology

F. William Kirsch, Center for Energy Management

and Industrial Technology

Dan Kunz, Junior Engineering Technical Society

Valerie Lee, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor

Gwendolyn Lewis, The Washington Office of the

College Board

Bernard Madison, National Research Council

Cheryl Mason, San Diego State Universit y

Robert Morgan, Washington University at St. Louis

Mark Nadel, General Accounting Office

Louise Raphael, National Science Foundation

Sherman Rosenfeld, Weizmann Institute, Israel

Richard Rowberg, Congressional Research Service

James Rutherford, American Association for the

Advancement of Science

Vernon Savage, Towson State University, Maryland

Anne Scanley, National Academy of Sciences

Donald Scarl, Polytechnic University of New York

Allen Schmeider, Department of Education

Joan Solomon, Oxford University, England

Samantha Solomon, Solomon Associates

Julian Stanley, The Johns Hopkins University

Jane Stutsman, National Science Foundation

Marcia Sward, National Research Council

Lori Thurgood, National Research Council

George Tressel, National Science Foundation

Howard Tuckman, Memphis State University

Bonnie VanDorn, Association of Science-Technology

Centers

Leonard Waks, Pennsylvania State Universit y

Harvey Waterman, Rutgers University

Iris Weiss, Horizon Research

Diane Weisz, National Science Foundation

James Wilson, Northeastern University

Dael Wolfle, University of Washington

o

128