STEM includes many fields of study and occupations. Based on the National Science Foundations’ categorization of STEM fields, we developed STEM fields of study from NCES’s National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) and Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), and identified occupations from BLS’s Current Population Survey (CPS). Using these data sources, we developed nine STEM fields for students, eight STEM fields for graduates, and four broad STEM fields for occupations. Table 2 lists these STEM fields and occupations and examples of subfields. Additional information on STEM occupations is provided in appendix I. Many of the STEM fields require completion of advanced courses in mathematics or science, subjects that are introduced and developed at the kindergarten through 12th grade level, and the federal government has taken steps to help improve achievement in these and other subjects. Enacted in 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) seeks to improve the academic achievement of all of the nation’s school-aged children. NCLBA requires that states develop and implement academic content and achievement standards in mathematics, science and the reading or language arts. All students are required to participate in statewide assessments during their elementary and secondary school years. Improving teacher quality is another goal of NCLBA as a strategy to raise student academic achievement. Specifically, all teachers teaching core academic subjects must be highly qualified by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. NCLBA generally defines highly qualified teachers as those that have (1) a bachelor’s degree, (2) state certification, and (3) subject area knowledge for each academic subject they teach. The federal government also plays a role in coordinating federal science and technology issues. The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) was established in 1993 and is the principal means for the Administration to coordinate science and technology among the diverse parts of the federal research and development areas. One objective of NSTC is to establish clear national goals for federal science and technology investments in areas ranging from information technologies and health research to improving transportation systems and strengthening fundamental research. NSTC is responsible for preparing research and development strategies that are coordinated across federal agencies in order to accomplish these multiple national goals. In addition, the federal government, universities and colleges, and others have developed programs to provide opportunities for all students to pursue STEM education and occupations. Additional steps have been taken to increase the numbers of women, minorities, and students with disadvantaged backgrounds in the STEM fields, such as providing additional academic and research opportunities. According to the 2000 Census, 52 percent of the total U.S. population 18 and over were women; in 2003, members of racial or ethnic groups constituted from 0.5 percent to 12.6 percent of the civilian labor force (CLF), as shown in table 3. In addition to domestic students, international students have pursued STEM degrees and worked in STEM occupations in the United States. To do so, international students and scholars must obtain visas. International students who wish to study in the United States must first apply to a Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) certified school. In order to enroll students from other nations, U.S. colleges and universities must be certified by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program within the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement organization. As of February 2004, nearly 9,000 technical schools and colleges and universities had been certified. SEVIS, is an Internet-based system that maintains data on international students and exchange visitors before and during their stay in the United States. Upon admitting a student, the school enters the student’s name and other information into the SEVIS database. At this time the student may apply for a student visa. In some cases, a Security Advisory Opinion (SAO) from the Department of State (State) may be needed to determine whether or not to issue a visa to the student. SAOs are required for a number of reasons, including concerns that a visa applicant may engage in the illegal transfer of sensitive technology. An SAO based on technology transfer concerns is known as Visas Mantis and, according to State officials, is the most common type of SAO applied to science applicants. In April 2004, the Congressional Research Service reported that State maintains a technology alert list that includes 16 sensitive areas of study. The list was produced in an effort to help the United States prevent the illegal transfer of controlled technology and includes chemical and biotechnology engineering, missile technology, nuclear technology, robotics, and advanced computer technology. Many foreign workers enter the United States annually through the H-1B visa program, which assists U.S. employers in temporarily filling specialty occupations. Employed workers may stay in the United States on an H-1B visa for up to 6 years. The current cap on the number of H-1B visas that can be granted is 65,000. The law exempts certain workers, however, from this cap, including those who are employed or have accepted employment in specified positions. Moreover, up to 20,000 exemptions are allowed for those holding a master’s degree or higher. Officials from 13 federal civilian agencies reported having 207 education programs funded in fiscal year 2004 that were specifically established to increase the numbers of students and graduates pursuing STEM degrees and occupations, or improve educational programs in STEM fields, but they reported little about the effectiveness of these programs. These 13 federal agencies reported spending about $2.8 billion for their STEM education programs. Taken together, NIH and NSF sponsored nearly half of the programs and spent about 71 percent of the funds. In addition, agencies reported that most of the programs had multiple goals, and many were targeted to multiple groups. Although evaluations have been done or were under way for about half of the programs, little is known about the extent to which most STEM programs are achieving their desired results. Coordination among the federal STEM education programs has been limited. However, in 2003, the National Science and Technology Council formed a subcommittee to address STEM education and workforce policy issues across federal agencies. Officials from 13 federal civilian agencies provided information on 207 STEM education programs funded in fiscal year 2004. The numbers of programs ranged from 51 to 1 per agency with two agencies, NIH and NSF, sponsoring nearly half of the programs—99 of 207. Table 4 provides a summary of the numbers of programs by agency, and appendix II contains a list of the 207 STEM education programs and funding levels for fiscal year 2004 by agency. Federal civilian agencies reported that approximately $2.8 billion was spent on STEM education programs in fiscal year 2004. The funding levels for STEM education programs among the agencies ranged from about $998 million to about $4.7 million. NIH and NSF accounted for about 71 percent of the total—about $2 billion of the approximate $2.8 billion. NIH spent about $998 million in fiscal year 2004, about 3.6 percent of its $28 billion appropriation, and NSF spent about $997 million, which represented 18 percent of its appropriation. Four other agencies, some with a few programs, spent about 23 percent of the total: $636 million. For example, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) spent about $231 million on 5 programs and the Department of Education (Education) spent about $221 million on 4 programs during fiscal year 2004. Figure 1 shows the 6 federal civilian agencies that used the most funds for STEM education programs and the funds used by the remaining 7 agencies. The funding reported for individual STEM education programs varied significantly, and many of the programs have been funded for more than 10 years. The funding ranged from $4,000 for an USDA-sponsored program that offered scholarships to U.S. citizens seeking bachelor’s degrees at Hispanic-serving institutions, to about $547 million for a NIH grant program that is designed to develop and enhance research training opportunities for individuals in biomedical, behavioral, and clinical research by supporting training programs at institutions of higher education. As shown in table 5, most programs were funded at $5 million or less and 13 programs were funded at more than $50 million in fiscal year 2004. About half of the STEM education programs were first funded after 1998. The oldest program began in 1936, and 72 programs are over 10 years old. Appendix III describes the STEM education programs that received funding of $10 million or more during fiscal year 2004 or 2005. Agencies reported that most of the STEM education programs had multiple goals. Survey respondents reported that 80 percent (165 of 207) of the education programs had multiple goals, with about half of these identifying four or more goals for individual programs. Moreover, according to the survey responders, few programs had a single goal. For example, 2 programs were identified as having one goal of attracting and preparing students at any education level to pursue coursework in the STEM areas, while 112 programs identified this as one of multiple goals. Table 6 shows the program goals and numbers of STEM programs aligned with them. The STEM education programs provided financial assistance to students, educators, and institutions. According to the survey responses, 131 programs provided financial support for students or scholars, and 84 programs provided assistance for teacher and faculty development. Many of the programs provided financial assistance to multiple beneficiaries, as shown in table 7. Most of the programs were not targeted to a specific group but aimed to serve a wide range of students, educators, and institutions. Of the 207 programs, 54 were targeted to 1 group and 151 had multiple target groups. In addition, many programs were targeted to the same group. For example, while 12 programs were aimed solely at graduate students, 88 other programs had graduate students as one of multiple target groups. Fewer programs were targeted to elementary and secondary teachers and kindergarten through 12th grade students than to other target groups. Table 8 summarizes the numbers of STEM programs targeted to one group and multiple groups. Some programs limited participation to certain groups. According to survey respondents, U.S. citizenship was required to be eligible for 53 programs, and an additional 75 programs were open only to U.S. citizens or permanent residents. About one-fourth of the programs had no citizenship requirement, and 24 programs allowed noncitizens or permanent residents to participate in some cases. According to a NSF official, students receiving scholarships or fellowships through NSF programs must be U.S. citizens or permanent residents. In commenting on a draft of this report, NSF reported that these restrictions are considered to be an effective strategy to support its goal of creating a diverse, competitive, and globally-engaged U.S. workforce of scientists, engineers, technologists, and well-prepared citizens. Officials at two universities said that some research programs are not open to non-citizens. Such restrictions may reflect concerns about access to sensitive areas. In addition to these restrictions, some programs are designed to increase minority representation in STEM fields. For example, NSF sponsors a program called Opportunities for Enhancing Diversity in the Geosciences to increase participation by African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans (American Indians and Alaskan Natives), Native Pacific Islanders (Polynesians or Micronesians), and persons with disabilities. Evaluations had been completed or were under way for about half of the STEM education programs. Agency officials responded that evaluations were completed for 55 of the 207 programs and that for 49 programs, evaluations were under way at the time we conducted our survey. Agency officials provided us documentation for evaluations of 43 programs, and most of the completed evaluations reviewed reported that the programs met their objectives or goals. For example, a March 2004 report on the outcomes and impacts of NSF’s Minority Postdoctoral Research Fellowships program concluded that there was strong qualitative and quantitative evidence that this program is meeting its broad goal of preparing scientists from those ethnic groups that are significantly underrepresented in tenured U.S. science and engineering professorships and for positions of leadership in industry and government. However, evaluations had not been done for 103 programs, some of which have been operating for many years. Of these, it may have been too soon to expect evaluations for about 32 programs that were initially funded in fiscal year 2002 or later. However, of the remaining 71 programs, 17 have been operating for over 15 years and have not been evaluated. In commenting on a draft of this report NSF noted that all of its programs undergo evaluation and that it uses a variety of mechanisms for program evaluation. We reported in 2003 that several agencies used various strategies to develop and improve evaluations. Evaluations play an important role in improving program operations and ensuring an efficient use of federal resources. Although some of the STEM education programs are small in terms of their funding levels, evaluations can be designed to consider the size of the program and the costs associated with measuring outcomes and collecting data. Coordination of federal STEM education programs has been limited. In January 2003 the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), Committee on Science (COS), established a subcommittee on education and workforce development. The purpose of the subcommittee is to advise and assist COS and NSTC on policies, procedures, and programs relating to STEM education and workforce development. According to its charter, the subcommittee will address education and workforce policy issues and research and development efforts that focus on STEM education issues at all levels, as well as current and projected STEM workforce needs, trends, and issues. The members include representatives from 20 agencies and offices—the 13 agencies that responded to our survey as well as the Departments of Defense, State, and Justice, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of Management and Budget, the Domestic Policy Council, and the National Economic Council. The subcommittee has working groups on (1) human capacity in STEM areas, (2) minority programs, (3) effective practices for assessing federal efforts, and (4) issues affecting graduate and postdoctoral researchers. The Human Capacity in STEM working group is focused on three strategic initiatives: defining and assessing national STEM needs, including programs and research projects; identifying and analyzing the available data regarding the STEM workforce; and creating and implementing a comprehensive national response that enhances STEM workforce development. NSTC reported that as of June 2005 the subcommittee had a number of accomplishments and projects under way that related to attracting students to STEM fields. For example, it has (1) surveyed federal agency education programs designed to increase the participation of women and underrepresented minorities in STEM studies; (2) inventoried federal fellowship programs for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows; and (3) coordinated the Excellence in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education Week activities, which provide an opportunity for the nation’s schools to focus on improving mathematics and science education. In addition, the subcommittee is developing a Web site for federal educational resources in STEM fields and a set of principles that agencies would use in setting levels of support for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships and traineeships. While the total numbers of students, graduates, and employees have increased in STEM fields, percentage changes for women, minorities, and international students varied during the periods reviewed. The increase in the percentage of students in STEM fields was greater than the increase in non-STEM fields, but the change in percentage of graduates in STEM fields was less than the percentage change in non-STEM fields. Moreover, employment increased more in STEM fields than in non-STEM fields. Further, changes in the percentages of minority students varied by race or ethnic group, international graduates continued to earn about a third or more of the advanced degrees in three STEM fields, and there was no statistically significant change in the percentage of women employees. Figure 2 summarizes key changes in the students, graduates, and employees in STEM fields. Total enrollments of students in STEM fields have increased, and the percentage change was greater for STEM fields than non-STEM fields, but the percentage of students in STEM fields remained about the same. From the 1995-1996 academic year to the 2003-2004 academic year, total enrollments in STEM fields increased 21 percent—more than the 11 percent enrollment increase in non-STEM fields. The number of students enrolled in STEM fields represented 23 percent of all students enrolled during the 2003-2004 academic year, a modest increase from the 21 percent these students constituted in the 1995-1996 academic year. Table 9 summarizes the changes in overall enrollment across all education levels from the 1995-1996 academic year to the 2003-2004 academic year. The increase in the numbers of students in STEM fields is mostly a result of increases at the bachelor’s and master’s levels. Of the total increase of about 865,000 students in STEM fields, about 740,000 was due to the increase in the numbers of students at the bachelor’s and master’s levels. See table 23 in appendix IV for additional information on the estimated numbers of students in STEM fields in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003- 2004. The percentage of students in STEM fields who are women increased from the 1995-1996 academic year to the 2003-2004 academic year, and in the 2003-2004 academic year women students constituted at least 50 percent of the students in 3 STEM fields—biological sciences, psychology, and social sciences. However, in the 2003-2004 academic year, men students continued to outnumber women students in STEM fields, and men constituted an estimated 54 percent of the STEM students overall. In addition, men constituted at least 76 percent of the students enrolled in computer sciences, engineering, and technology. See tables 24 and 25 in appendix IV for additional information on changes in the numbers and percentages of women students in the STEM fields for academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004. While the numbers of domestic minority students in STEM fields also increased, changes in the percentages of minority students varied by racial or ethnic group. For example, Hispanic students increased 33 percent, from the 1995-1996 academic year to the 2003-2004 academic year. In comparison, the number of African American students increased about 69 percent. African American students increased from 9 to 12 percent of all students in STEM fields while Asian/Pacific Islander students continued to constitute about 7 percent. Table 10 shows the numbers and percentages of minority students in STEM fields for the 1995-1996 academic year and the 2003-2004 academic year. From the 1995-1996 academic year to the 2003-2004 academic year, the number of international students in STEM fields increased by about 57 percent solely because of an increase at the bachelor’s level. The numbers of international students in STEM fields at the master’s and doctoral levels declined, with the largest decline occurring at the doctoral level. Table 11 shows the numbers and percentage changes in international students from the 1995-1996 academic year to the 2003-2004 academic year. According to the Institute of International Education, from the 2002-2003 academic year to the 2003-2004 academic year, the number of international students declined for the first time in over 30 years, and that was the second such decline since the 1954-1955 academic year, when the institute began collecting and reporting data on international students. Moreover, in November 2004, the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) reported a 6 percent decline in first-time international graduate student enrollment from 2003 to 2004. Following a decade of steady growth, CGS also reported that the number of first-time international students studying in the United States decreased between 6 percent and 10 percent for 3 consecutive years. The number of graduates with degrees in STEM fields increased by 8 percent from the 1994-1995 academic year to the 2002-2003 academic year. However, during this same period the number of graduates with degrees in non-STEM fields increased by 30 percent. From academic year 1994-1995 to academic year 2002-2003, the percentage of graduates with STEM degrees decreased from 32 percent to 28 percent of total graduates. Table 12 provides data on the changes in the numbers and percentages of graduates in STEM and non-STEM fields. Decreases in the numbers of graduates occurred in some STEM fields at each education level, but particularly at the doctoral level. The numbers of graduates with bachelor’s degrees decreased in four of eight STEM fields, the numbers with master’s degrees decreased in five of eight fields, and the numbers with doctoral degrees decreased in six of eight STEM fields. At the doctoral level, these declines ranged from 14 percent in mathematics/computer sciences to 74 percent in technology. Figure 3 shows the percentage change in graduates with degrees in STEM fields from the 1994-1995 academic year to the 2002-2003 academic year. From the 1994-1995 academic year to the 2002-2003 academic year, the total number of women graduates increased in four of the eight fields, and the percentages of women earning degrees in STEM fields increased in six of the eight fields at all three educational levels. Conversely, the total number of men graduates decreased, and the percentages of men graduates declined in six of the eight fields at all three levels from the 1994-1995 academic year to the 2002-2003 academic year. However, men continued to constitute over 50 percent of the graduates in five of eight fields at all three education levels. Table 13 summarizes the numbers of graduates by gender, level, and field. Table 26 in appendix IV provides additional data on the percentages of men and women graduates by STEM field and education level. The total numbers of domestic minority graduates in STEM fields increased, although the percentage of minority graduates with STEM degrees at the master’s or doctoral level did not change from the 1994-1995 academic year to the 2002-2003 academic year. For example, while the number of Native American graduates increased 37 percent, Native American graduates remained less than 1 percent of all STEM graduates at the master’s and doctoral levels. Table 14 shows the percentages and numbers of domestic minority graduates for the 1994-1995 academic year and the 2002-2003 academic year. International students earned about one-third or more of the degrees at both the master’s and doctoral levels in several fields in the 1994-1995 and the 2002-2003 academic years. For example, in academic year 2002-2003, international students earned between 45 percent and 57 percent of all degrees in engineering and mathematics/computer sciences at the master’s and doctoral levels. However, at each level there were changes in the numbers and percentages of international graduates. At the master’s level, the total number of international graduates increased by about 31 percent from the 1994-1995 academic year to the 2002-2003 academic year; while the number of graduates decreased in four of the fields and the percentages of international graduates declined in three fields. At the doctoral level, the total number of international graduates decreased by 12 percent, while the percentage of international graduates increased or remained the same in all fields. Table 15 shows the numbers and percentages of international graduates in STEM fields. While the total number of STEM employees increased, this increase varied across STEM fields. Employment increased by 23 percent in STEM fields as compared to 17 percent in non-STEM fields from calendar year 1994 to calendar year 2003. Employment increased by 78 percent in the mathematics/computer sciences field and by 20 percent in the science field over this period. The changes in number of employees in the engineering and technology fields were not statistically significant. Employment estimates from 1994 to 2003 in the STEM fields are shown in figure 4. From calendar years 1994 to 2003, the estimated number of women employees in STEM fields increased from about 2.7 million to about 3.5 million. Overall, there was not a statistically significant change in the percentage of women employees in the STEM fields. Table 16 shows the numbers and percentages of men and women employed in the STEM fields for calendar years 1994 and 2003. In addition, the estimated number of minorities employed in the STEM fields as well as the percentage of total STEM employees they constituted increased, but African American and Hispanic employees remain underrepresented relative to their percentages in the civilian labor force. Between 1994 and 2003, the estimated number of African American employees increased by about 44 percent, the estimated numbers of Hispanic employees increased by 90 percent, as did the estimated numbers of other minorities employed in STEM fields. In calendar year 2003, African Americans comprised about 8.7 percent of STEM employees compared to about 10.7 percent of the CLF. Similarly, Hispanic employees comprised about 10 percent of STEM employees in calendar year 2003, compared to about 12.6 percent of the CLF. Table 17 shows the estimated percentages of STEM employees by selected racial or ethnic groups in 1994 and 2003. International employees have filled hundreds of thousands of positions, many in STEM fields, through the H-1B visa program. However, the numbers and types of occupations have changed over the years. We reported that while the limit for the H-1B program was 115,000 in 1999, the number of visas approved exceeded the limit by more than 20,000 because of problems with the system used to track the data. Available data show that in 1999, the majority of the approved occupations were in STEM fields. Specifically, an estimated 60 percent of the positions approved in fiscal year 1999 were related to information technology and 5 percent were for electrical/electronics engineering. By 2002, the limit for the H-1B program had increased to 195,000, but the number approved, 79,000, did not reach this limit. In 2003, we reported that the number of approved H- 1B petitions in certain occupations had declined. For example, the number of approvals for systems analysis/programming positions declined by 106,671 from 2001 to 2002. Although the estimated total number of employees in STEM fields increased from 1994 to 2003, according to an NSF report, many with STEM degrees were not employed in these occupations. In 2004, NSF reported that about 67 percent of employees with degrees in science or engineering were employed in fields somewhat or not at all related to their degree. Specifically, 70 percent of employees with bachelor’s degrees, 51 percent with master’s degrees, and 54 percent with doctoral degrees reported that their employment was somewhat or not at all related to their degree in science or engineering. In addition to increases in the numbers of employees in STEM fields, inflation-adjusted median annual wages and salaries increased in all four STEM fields over the 10-year period (1994 to 2003). These increases ranged from 6 percent in science to 15 percent in engineering. Figure 5 shows trends in median annual wages and salaries for STEM fields. University officials, researchers, and students identified several factors that influenced students’ decisions about pursuing STEM degrees and occupations, and they suggested some ways to encourage more participation in STEM fields. Specifically, university officials said and researchers reported that the quality of teachers in kindergarten through 12th grades and the levels of mathematics and science courses completed during high school affected students’ success in and decisions about STEM fields. In addition, several sources noted that mentoring played a key role in the participation of women and minorities in STEM fields. Current students from five universities we visited generally agreed with these observations, and several said that having good mathematics and science instruction was important to their overall educational success. International students’ decisions about participating in STEM education and occupations were affected by opportunities outside the United States and the visa process. To encourage more student participation in the STEM fields, university officials, researchers, and others have made several suggestions, and four were made repeatedly. These suggestions focused on teacher quality, high school students’ math and science preparation, outreach activities, and the federal role in STEM education. University officials frequently cited teacher quality as a key factor that affected domestic students’ interest in and decisions about pursuing STEM degrees and occupations. Officials at all eight universities we visited expressed the view that a student’s experience from kindergarten through the 12th grades played a large role in influencing whether the student pursued a STEM degree. Officials at one university we visited said that students pursuing STEM degrees have associated their interests with teachers who taught them good skills in mathematics or excited them about science. On the other hand, officials at many of the universities we visited told us that some teachers were unqualified and unable to impart the subject matter, causing students to lose interest in mathematics and science. For example, officials at one university we visited said that some elementary and secondary teachers do not have sufficient training to effectively teach students in the STEM fields and that this has an adverse effect on what students learn in these fields and reduces the interest and enthusiasm students express in pursuing coursework in high school, degree programs in college, or careers in these areas. Teacher quality issues, in general, have been cited in past reports by Education. In 2002, Education reported that in the 1999-2000 school year, 14 to 22 percent of middle-grade students taking English, mathematics, and science were in classes led by teachers without a major, minor, or certification in these subjects—commonly referred to as “out-of-field” teachers. Also, approximately 30 to 40 percent of the middle-grade students in biology/life science, physical science, or English as a second language/bilingual education classes had teachers lacking these credentials. At the high school level, 17 percent of students enrolled in physics and 36 percent of those enrolled in geology/earth/space science were in classes instructed by out-of-field teachers. The percentages of students taught by out-of-field teachers were significantly higher when the criteria used were teacher certification and a major in the subject taught. For example, 45 percent of the high school students enrolled in biology/life science and approximately 30 percent of those enrolled in mathematics, English, and social science classes had out-of-field teachers. During the 2002-2003 school year, Education reported that the number and distribution of teachers on waivers—which allowed prospective teachers in classrooms while they completed their formal training—was problematic. Also, states reported that the problem of underprepared teachers was worse on average in districts that serve large proportions of high-poverty children—the percentage of teachers on waivers was larger in high-poverty school districts than all other school districts in 39 states. Moreover, in 2004, Education reported that 48 of the 50 states granted waivers. In addition to teacher quality, students’ high school preparation in mathematics and science was cited by university officials and others as affecting students’ success in college-level courses and their decisions about pursuing STEM degrees and occupations. University officials at six of the eight universities we visited cited students’ ability to opt out of mathematics and science courses during high school as a factor that influenced whether they would participate and succeed in the STEM fields during undergraduate and graduate school. University officials said, for example, that because many students had not taken higher-level mathematics and science courses such as calculus and physics in high school, they were immediately behind other students who were better prepared. In July 2005, on the basis of findings from the 2004 National Assessment of Educational Progress, the National Center for Education Statistics reported that 17 percent of the 17-year-olds reported that they had taken calculus, and this represents the highest percentage in any previous assessment year. In a study that solicited the views of several hundred students who had left the STEM fields, researchers found that the effects of inadequate high school preparation contributed to college students’ decisions to leave the science fields. These researchers found that approximately 40 percent of those college students who left the science fields reported some problems related to high school science preparation. The underpreparation was often linked to problems such as not understanding calculus; lack of laboratory experience or exposure to computers, and no introduction to theoretical material or to analytic modes of thought. Further, 12 current students we interviewed said they were not adequately prepared for college mathematics or science. For example, one student stated that her high school courses had been limited because she attended an all-girls school where the curriculum catered to students who were not interested in STEM, and so it had been difficult to obtain the courses that were of interest to her. Several other factors were mentioned during our interviews with university officials, students, and others as influencing decisions about participation in STEM fields. These factors included relatively low pay in STEM fields, additional tuition costs to obtain STEM degrees, lack of commitment on the part of some students to meet the rigorous academic demands, and the inability of some professors in STEM fields to effectively impart their knowledge to students in the classrooms. For example, officials from five universities said that low pay in STEM fields relative to other fields such as law and business dissuaded students from pursuing STEM degrees in some areas. Also, in a study that solicited the views of college students who left the STEM fields as well as those who continued to pursue STEM degrees, researchers found that students experienced greater financial difficulties in obtaining their degrees because of the extra time needed to obtain degrees in certain STEM fields. Researchers also noted that poor teaching at the university level was the most common complaint among students who left as well as those who remained in STEM fields. Students reported that faculty do not like to teach, do not value teaching as a professional activity, and therefore lack any incentive to learn to teach effectively. Finally, 11 of the students we interviewed commented about the need for professors in STEM fields to alter their methods and to show more interest in teaching to retain students’ attention. University officials and students said that mentoring is important for all students but plays a vital role in the academic experiences of women and minorities in the STEM fields. Officials at seven of the eight universities discussed the important role that mentors play, especially for women and minorities in STEM fields. For example, one professor said that mentors helped students by advising them on the best track to follow for obtaining their degrees and achieving professional goals. Also, four students we interviewed—three women and one man—expressed the importance of mentors. Specifically, while all four students identified mentoring as critical to academic success in the STEM fields, two students expressed their satisfaction since they had mentors, while the other two students said that it would have been helpful to have had someone who could have been a mentor or role model. Studies have also reported that mentors play a significant role in the success of women and minorities in the STEM fields. In 2004, some of the women students and faculty with whom we talked reported a strong mentor was a crucial part in the academic training of some of the women participating in sciences, and some women had pursued advanced degrees because of the encouragement and support of mentors. In September 2000, a congressional commission reported that women were adversely affected throughout the STEM education pipeline and career path by a lack of role models and mentors. For example, the report found that girls rejection of mathematics and science may be partially driven by teachers, parents, and peers when they subtly, and not so subtly, steer girls away from the informal technical pastimes (such as working on cars, fixing bicycles, and changing hardware on computers) and science activities (such as science fairs and clubs) that too often were still thought of as the province of boys. In addition, the commission reported that a greater proportion of women switched out of STEM majors than men, relative to their representation in the STEM major population. Reasons cited for the higher attrition rate among women students included lack of role models, distaste for the competitive nature of science and engineering education, and inability to obtain adequate academic guidance or advice. Further, according to the report, women’s retention and graduation in STEM graduate programs were affected by their interaction with faculty, integration into the department (versus isolation), and other factors, including whether there were role models, mentors, and women faculty. Officials at seven of the eight universities visited, along with education policy experts, told us that competition from other countries for top international students, and educational or work opportunities, affected international students’ decisions about studying in the United States. They told us that other countries, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, had seized the opportunity since September 11 to compete against the United States for international students who were among the best students in the world, especially in the STEM fields. Also, university officials told us that students from several countries, including China and India, were being recruited to attend universities and get jobs in their own countries. In addition, education organizations and associations have reported that global competition for the best science and engineering students and scholars is under way. One organization, NAFSA: Association of International Educators reported that the international student market has become highly competitive, and the United States is not competing as well as other countries. According to university officials, international students’ decisions about pursuing STEM degrees and occupations in the United States were also influenced by the perceived unwelcoming attitude of Americans and the visa process. Officials from three of the universities said that the perceived unwelcoming attitude of Americans had affected the recruitment of international students to the United States. Also, officials at six of the eight universities visited expressed their concern about the impact of the tightened visa procedures and/or increased security measures since September 11 on international graduate school enrollments. For example, officials at one university stated that because of the time needed to process visas, a few students had missed their class start dates. Officials from one university told us that they were being more proactive in helping new international students navigate the visa system, to the extent possible. While some university officials acknowledged that visa processing had significantly improved, since 2003 several education associations have requested further changes in U.S. visa policies because of the lengthy procedures and time needed to obtain approval to enter the country. We have reported on various aspects of the visa process, made several recommendations, and noted that some improvements have been made. In October 2002 we cited the need for a clear policy on how to balance national security concerns with the desire to facilitate legitimate travel when issuing visas and we made several recommendations to help improve the visa process. In 2003, we reported that the Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Justice could more effectively manage the visa function if they had clear and comprehensive policies and procedures and increased agency coordination and information sharing. In February 2004 and February 2005, we reported on the State Department’s efforts to improve the program for issuing visas to international science students and scholars. In 2004 we found that the time to adjudicate a visa depended largely on whether an applicant had to undergo a security check known as Visas Mantis, which is designed to protect against sensitive technology transfers. Based on a random sample of Visas Mantis cases for science students and scholars, it took State an average of 67 days to complete the process. In 2005, we reported a significant decline in Visas Mantis processing times and in the number of cases pending more than 60 days. We also reported that, in some cases, science students and scholars can obtain a visa within 24 hours. We have also issued several reports on SEVIS operations. In June 2004 we noted that when SEVIS began operating, significant problems were reported. For example, colleges and universities and exchange programs had trouble gaining access to the system, and when access was obtained, these users’ sessions would “time out” before they could complete their tasks. In that report we also noted that SEVIS performance had improved, but that several key system performance requirements were not being measured. In March 2005, we reported that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had taken steps to address our recommendations and that educational organizations generally agreed that SEVIS performance had continued to improve. However, educational organizations continued to cite problems, which they believe created hardships for students and exchange visitors. To increase the number of students entering STEM fields, officials from seven universities and others stated that teacher quality needs to improve. Officials of one university said that kindergarten through 12th grade classrooms need teachers who are knowledgeable in the mathematics and science content areas. As previously noted, Education has reported on the extent to which classes have been taught by teachers with little or no content knowledge in the STEM fields. The Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities reported that teacher effectiveness is the most important element in a good education. The commission also suggested that boosting teacher effectiveness can do more to improve education than any other single factor. States are taking action to meet NCLBA’s requirement of having all teachers of core academic subjects be highly qualified by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. University officials and some students suggested that better preparation and mandatory courses in mathematics and science were needed for students during their kindergarten through 12th grade school years. Officials from five universities suggested that mandatory mathematics and science courses, especially in high school, may lead to increased student interest and preparation in the STEM fields. With a greater interest and depth of knowledge, students would be better prepared and more inclined to pursue STEM degrees in college. Further, nearly half of the students who replied to this question suggested that students needed additional mathematics and science training prior to college. However, adding mathematics and science classes has resource implications, since more teachers in these subjects would be needed. Also this change could require curriculum policy changes that would take time to implement. More outreach, especially to women and minorities from kindergarten through the 12th grade, was suggested by university officials, students, and other organizations. Officials from six of the universities we visited suggested that increased outreach activities are needed to help create more interest in mathematics and science for younger students. For example, at one university we visited, officials told us that through inviting students to their campuses or visiting local schools, they have provided some students with opportunities to engage in science laboratories and hands-on activities that foster interest and excitement for students and can make these fields more relevant in their lives. Officials from another university told us that these experiences were especially important for women and minorities who might not have otherwise had these opportunities. The current students we interviewed also suggested more outreach activities. Specifically, two students said that outreach was needed to further stimulate students’ interest in the STEM fields. One organization, Building Engineering and Science Talent (BEST), suggested that research universities increase their presence in prekindergarten through 12th grade mathematics and science education in order to strengthen domestic students’ interests and abilities. BEST reported that one model producing results entailed universities adopting students from low-income school districts from 7th through 12th grades and providing them advanced instruction in algebra, chemistry, physics, and trigonometry. However, officials at one university told us that because of limited resources, their efforts were constrained and only a few students would benefit from this type of outreach. Furthermore, university officials from the eight schools and other education organizations made suggestions regarding the role of the federal government. University officials suggested that the federal government could enhance its role in STEM education by providing more effective leadership through developing and implementing a national agenda for STEM education and increasing federal funding for academic research. Officials at six universities suggested that the federal government undertake a new initiative modeled after the National Defense Education Act of 1958, enacted in response to the former Soviet Union’s achievement in its space program, which provided new funding for mathematics and science education and training at all education levels. In June 2005, CGS called for a renewed commitment to graduate education by the federal government through actions such as providing funds to support students trained at the doctoral level in the sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics; expanding U.S. citizen participation in doctoral study in selected fields through graduate support awarded competitively to universities across the country; requiring recruitment, outreach, and mentoring activities that promote greater participation and success, especially for underrepresented groups; and fostering interdisciplinary research preparation. In August 2003, the National Science Board recommended that the federal government direct substantial new support to students and institutions in order to improve success in science and engineering studies by domestic undergraduate students from all demographic groups. According to this report, such support could include scholarships and other forms of financial assistance to students, incentives to institutions to expand and improve the quality of their science and engineering programs in areas in which degree attainment is insufficient, financial support to community colleges to increase the success of students in transferring to 4-year science and engineering programs, and expanded funding for programs that best succeed in graduating underrepresented minorities and women in science and engineering. BEST also suggested that the federal government allocate additional resources to expand the mathematics and science education opportunities for underrepresented groups. However, little is known about how well federal resources have been used in the past. Changes that would require additional federal funds would likely have an impact on other federal programs, given the nation’s limited resources and growing fiscal imbalance, and changing the federal role could take several years. While the total numbers of STEM graduates have increased, some fields have experienced declines, especially at the master’s and doctoral levels. Given the trends in the numbers and percentages of students pursuing STEM degrees, particularly advanced degrees, and recent developments that have influenced international students’ decisions about pursuing degrees in the United States, it is uncertain whether the number of STEM graduates will be sufficient to meet future academic and employment needs and help the country maintain its technological competitive advantage. Moreover, it is too early to tell if the declines in international graduate student enrollments will continue in the future. In terms of employment, despite some gains, the percentage of women in the STEM workforce has not changed significantly, minority employees remain underrepresented, and many with degrees in STEM fields are not employed in STEM occupations. To help improve the trends in the numbers of students, graduates, and employees in STEM fields, university officials and others made several suggestions, such as increasing the federal commitment to STEM education programs. However, before making changes, it is important to know the extent to which existing STEM education programs are appropriately targeted and making the best use of available federal resources. Additionally, in an era of limited financial resources and growing federal deficits, information about the effectiveness of these programs can help guide policy makers and program managers. We received written comments on a draft of this report from Commerce, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), NSF, and NSTC. These comments are reprinted in appendixes VII, VIII, IX, and X, respectively. We also received technical comments from the Departments of Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Labor, and Transportation; and the Environmental Protection Agency and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which we incorporated when appropriate. In commenting on a draft of this report, Commerce, HHS, and NSTC commended GAO for this work. Commerce explicitly concurred with several findings and agreed with our overall conclusion. However, Commerce suggested that we revise the conclusion to point out that despite overall increases in STEM students, the numbers of graduates in certain fields have declined. We modified the concluding observations to make this point. HHS agreed with our conclusion that it is important to evaluate ongoing programs to determine the extent to which they are achieving their desired results. The comments from NSTC cited improvements made to help ensure that international students, exchange visitors, and scientists are able to apply for and receive visas in a timely manner. We did not make any changes to the report since we had cited another GAO product that discussed such improvements in the visa process. NSF commented about several of our findings. NSF stated that our program evaluations finding may be misleading largely because the type of information GAO requested and accepted from agencies was limited to program level evaluations and did not include evaluations of individual underlying projects. NSF suggested that we include information on the range of approaches used to assure program effectiveness. Our finding is based on agency officials’ responses to a survey question that did not limit or stipulate the types of evaluations that could have been included. Nonetheless, we modified the report to acknowledge that NSF uses various approaches to evaluate its programs. NSF criticized the methodology we used to support our finding on the factors that influence decisions about pursuing STEM fields and suggested that we make it clearer in the body of the report that the findings are based on interviews with educators and administrators from 8 colleges and universities, and responses from 31 students. Also, NSF suggested that we improve the report by including corroborating information from reports and studies. Our finding was not limited to interviews at the 8 colleges and universities and responses from 31 current students but was also based on interviews with numerous representatives and policy experts from various organizations as well as findings from research and reports—which are cited in the body of the report. Using this approach, we were able to corroborate the testimonial evidence with data from reports and research as well as to determine whether information in the reports and research remained accurate by seeking the views of those currently teaching or studying in STEM fields. As NSF noted, this approach yielded reasonable observations. Additional information about our methodology is listed in appendix I, and we added a bibliography that identifies the reports and research used during the course of this review. NSF also commented that the report mentions the NSTC efforts for interagency collaboration, but does not mention other collaboration efforts such as the Federal Interagency Committee on Education and the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council. NSF also pointed out that interagency collaboration occurs at the program level. We did not modify the report in response to this comment. In conducting our work, we determined that the NSTC effort was the primary mechanism for interagency collaboration focused on STEM programs. The coordinating groups cited by NSF are focused on different issues. The Federal Interagency Committee on Education was established to coordinate the federal programs, policies, and practices affecting education broadly, and the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council was established to minimize duplication of programs and activities relating to children with disabilities. In addition, NSF provided information to clarify examples related to their programs that we cited in the report, stated that some data categories were not clear, and commented on the graduate level enrollment data we used in the report. NSF pointed out that while its program called Opportunities for Enhancing Diversity in the Geosciences is designed to increase participation by minorities, it does not limit eligibility to minorities. Also, NSF noted that while the draft report correctly indicated that students receiving scholarships or fellowships from NSF must be U.S. citizens or permanent residents, the reason given for limiting participation in these programs in the draft report was not accurate. According to NSF, these restrictions are considered to be an effective strategy to support its goal of creating a diverse, competitive and globally engaged U.S. workforce of scientists, engineers, technologists and well prepared citizens. We revised the report to reflect these changes. Further, NSF commented that the data categories were not clear, particularly the technology degrees and occupations, and that the data did not include associate degrees. We added information that lists all of the occupations included in the analysis, and we added footnotes to clarify which data included associate degrees and which ones did not. In addition, NSF commented that the graduate level enrollment data for international students based on NPSAS data are questionable in comparison with other available data and that this may be because the NPSAS data include a relatively small sample for graduate education. We considered using NPSAS and other data but decided to use the NPSAS data for two reasons: NPSAS data were more comprehensive and more current. Specifically, the NPSAS data were available through the 2003-2004 academic year and included numbers and characteristics of students enrolled for all degree fields—STEM and non-STEM—for all education levels, and citizenship information. Copies of this report are being sent to the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Interior, Homeland Security, Labor, and Transportation; the Administrators for the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and the Directors of the National Science Foundation and the National Science and Technology Council; appropriate congressional committees; and interested parties. Copies will be made available to others upon request. The report is also available on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix VII. The objectives of our study were to determine (1) the number of federal civilian education programs funded in fiscal year 2004 that were specifically designed to increase the number of students and graduates pursuing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees and occupations, or improve educational programs in STEM fields, and what agencies report about their effectiveness; (2) how the numbers, percentages, and characteristics of students, graduates, and employees in STEM fields have changed over the years; and (3) factors cited by educators and others as influencing people’s decisions about pursuing STEM degrees and occupations, and suggestions to encourage greater participation in STEM fields. In conducting our review, we used multiple methodologies. We (1) conducted a survey of federal departments and agencies that sponsored education programs specifically designed to increase the number of students and graduates pursuing STEM degrees and occupations or improve educational programs in STEM fields; (2) obtained and analyzed data, including the most recent data available, on students, graduates, and employees in STEM fields and occupations; (3) visited eight colleges and universities; (4) reviewed reports and studies; and (5) interviewed agency officials, representatives and policy experts from various organizations, and current students. We conducted our work between October 2004 and October 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. To provide Congress with a better understanding of what programs federal agencies were supporting to increase the nation’s pool of scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians, we designed a survey to determine (1) the number of federal education programs (prekindergarten through postdoctorate) designed to increase the quantity of students and graduates pursuing STEM degrees and occupations or improve the educational programs in STEM fields and (2) what agencies reported about the effectiveness of these programs. The survey asked the officials to describe the goals, target population, and funding levels for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 of such programs. In addition, the officials were asked when the programs began and if the programs had been or were being evaluated. We identified the agencies likely to support STEM education programs by reviewing the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and the Department of Education’s Eisenhower National Clearinghouse, Guidebook of Federal Resources for K-12 Mathematics and Science, 2004-05. Using these resources, we identified 15 agencies with STEM education programs. The survey was conducted via e-mail using an ActiveX enabled MSWord attachment. A contact point was designated for each agency, and questionnaires were sent to that individual. One questionnaire was completed for each program the agency sponsored. Agency officials were asked to provide confirming documentation for their responses whenever possible. The questionnaire was forwarded to agencies on February 15, 2005, and responses were received through early May 2005. We received 244 completed surveys and determined that 207 of them met the criteria for STEM programs. The following agencies participated in our survey: the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Interior, Labor, and Transportation. In addition, the Health Resources and Services Administration, Indian Health Service, and National Institutes of Health, all part of Health and Human Services, took part in the survey. Also participating were the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and the National Science Foundation. Labor’s programs did not meet our criteria for 2004 and the Department of Defense (DOD) did not submit a survey. According to DOD officials, DOD needed 3 months to complete the survey and therefore could not provide responses within the time frames of our work. We obtained varied amounts of documentation from 13 civilian agencies for the 207 STEM education programs funded in 2004 and information about the effectiveness of some programs. Because we administered the survey to all of the known federal agencies sponsoring STEM education programs, our results are not subject to sampling error. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce other types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted, the sources of information available to respondents in answering a question, or the types of people who do not respond can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We included steps in the development of the survey, the collection of data, and the editing and analysis of data for the purpose of minimizing such nonsampling errors. To reduce nonsampling error, the questionnaire was reviewed by survey specialists and pretested in person with three officials from agencies familiar with STEM education programs to develop a questionnaire that was relevant, easy to comprehend, unambiguous, and unbiased. We made changes to the content and format of the questionnaire based on the specialists’ reviews and the results of the pretests. To further reduce nonsampling error, data for this study returned electronically were entered directly into the instrument by the respondents and converted into a database for analysis. Completed questionnaires returned as hard copy were keypunched, and a sample of these records was verified by comparing them with their corresponding questionnaires, and any errors were corrected. When the data were analyzed, a second, independent analyst checked all computer programs. Finally, to assess the reliability of key data obtained from our survey about some of the programs, we compared the responses with the documentation provided, or we independently researched the information from other publicly available sources. To determine how the numbers and characteristics of students, graduates, and employees in STEM fields have changed, we obtained and analyzed data from the Department of Education (Education) and the Department of Labor. Specifically, we analyzed the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) data and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data from the Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), and we analyzed data from the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Current Population Survey (CPS). Based on National Science Foundation’s categorization of STEM fields, we developed STEM fields of study from NPSAS and IPEDS, and identified occupations from the CPS. Using these data sources, we developed nine STEM fields for students, eight STEM fields for graduates, and four broad STEM fields for occupations. For our data reliability assessment, we reviewed agency documentation on the data sets and conducted electronic tests of the files. On the basis of these reviews, we determined that the required data elements from NPSAS, IPEDS and CPS were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. These data sources, type, time span, and years analyzed are shown in table 18. NPSAS is a comprehensive nationwide study designed to determine how students and their families pay for postsecondary education, and to describe some demographic and other characteristics of those enrolled. The study is based on a nationally representative sample of students in postsecondary education institutions, including undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional students. The NPSAS has been conducted every several years since the 1986-1987 academic year. For this report, we analyzed the results of the NPSAS survey for the 1995-1996 academic year and the 2003-2004 academic year to compare student enrollment and demographic characteristics between these two periods for the nine STEM fields and non-STEM fields. Because the NPSAS sample is a probability sample of students, the sample is only one of a large number of samples that might have been drawn. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, confidence in the precision of the particular sample’s results is expressed as a 95-percent confidence interval (for example, plus or minus 4 percentage points). This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples that could have been drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence intervals in this report will include the true values in the study population. NPSAS estimates used in this report and the upper and lower bounds of the 95 percent confidence intervals for each estimate relied on in this report are presented in appendix V. IPEDS is a single, comprehensive system designed to encompass all institutions and educational organizations whose primary purpose is to provide postsecondary education. IPEDS is built around a series of interrelated surveys to collect institution-level data in such areas as enrollments, program completions, faculty, staff, and finances. For this report, we analyzed the results of IPEDS data for the 1994-1995 academic year and the 2002-2003 academic year to compare the numbers and characteristics of graduates with degrees in eight STEM fields and non- STEM fields. To analyze changes in employees in STEM and non-STEM fields, we obtained employment estimates from BLS’s Current Population Survey March supplement for 1995 through 2004 (calendar years 1994 through 2003). The CPS is a monthly survey of households conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau (Census) for BLS. The CPS provides a comprehensive body of information on the employment and unemployment experience of the nation’s population, classified by age, sex, race, and a variety of other characteristics. A more complete description of the survey, including sample design, estimation, and other methodology can be found in the CPS documentation prepared by Census and BLS. This March supplement (the Annual Demographic Supplement) is specifically designed to estimate family characteristics, including income from all sources and occupation and industry classification of the job held longest during the previous year. It is conducted during the month of March each year because it is believed that since March is the month before the deadline for filing federal income tax returns, respondents would be more likely to report income more accurately than at any other point during the year. We used the CPS data to produce estimates on (1) four STEM fields, (2) men and women, (3) two separate minority groups (Black or African American, and Hispanic or Latino origin), and (4) median annual wages and salaries. The measures of median annual wages and salaries could include bonuses, but do not include noncash benefits such as health insurance or pensions. CPS salary reported in March of each year was for the longest held position actually worked the year before and reported by the worker himself (or a knowledgeable member of the household). Tables 19 and 20 list the classification codes and occupations included in our analysis of CPS data over a 10-year period (1994-2003). In developing the STEM groups, we considered the occupational requirements and educational attainment of individuals in certain occupations. We also excluded doctors and other health care providers except registered nurses. During the period of review, some codes and occupation titles were changed; we worked with BLS officials to identify variations in codes and occupations and accounted for these changes where appropriate and possible. Because the CPS is a probability sample based on random selections, the sample is only one of a large number of samples that might have been drawn. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, confidence in the precision of the particular sample’s results is expressed as a 95 percent confidence interval (e.g., plus or minus 4 percentage points). This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples that could have been drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence intervals in this report will include the true values in the study population. We use the CPS general variance methodology to estimate this sampling error and report it as confidence intervals. Percentage estimates we produce from the CPS data have 95 percent confidence intervals of plus or minus 6 percentage points or less. Estimates other than percentages have 95 percent confidence intervals of no more than plus or minus 10 percent of the estimate itself, unless otherwise noted. Consistent with the CPS documentation guidelines, we do not produce estimates based on the March supplement data for populations of less than 75,000. GAO’s internal control procedures provide reasonable assurance that our data analyses are appropriate for the purposes we are using them. These procedures include, but are not limited to, having skilled staff perform the analyses, supervisory review by senior analysts, and indexing/referencing (confirming that the analyses are supported by the underlying audit documentation) activities. We interviewed administrators and professors during site visits to eight colleges and universities—the University of California at Los Angeles and the University of Southern California in California; Clark Atlanta University, Georgia Institute of Technology, and Spelman College in Georgia; the University of Illinois; Purdue University in Indiana; and Pennsylvania State University. These colleges and universities were selected based on the following factors: large numbers of domestic and international students in STEM fields, a mix of public and private institutions, number of doctoral degrees conferred, and some geographic diversity. We also selected three minority-serving colleges and universities, one of which serves only women students. Clark Atlanta University and Spelman College were selected, in part, because of their partnerships with the College of Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. During these visits we asked the university officials about factors that influenced whether people pursue a STEM education or occupations and suggestions for addressing those factors that may influence participation. For example, we asked university officials to identify (1) issues related to the education pipeline; (2) steps taken by their university to alleviate some of the conditions that may discourage student participation in STEM areas; and (3) the federal role, if any, in attracting and retaining domestic students in STEM fields. We also obtained documents on programs they sponsored to help support STEM students and graduates. We reviewed several articles, reports, and books related to trends in STEM enrollment and factors that have an effect on people’s decisions to pursue STEM fields. For two studies, we evaluated the methodological soundness using common social science and statistical practices. We examined each study’s methodology, including its limitations, data sources, analyses, and conclusions. Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences, by Elaine Seymour and Nancy Hewitt. This study used interviews and focus groups/group interviews at selected universities to identify self- reported reasons for changing majors from science, mathematics, or engineering. The study had four primary objectives: (1) to identify sources of qualitative differences in educational experiences of science, mathematics, and engineering students at higher educational institutions of different types; (2) to identify differences in structure, culture, and pedagogy of science, mathematics, and engineering departments and the impact on student retention; (3) to compare and contrast causes of science, mathematics, and engineering students’ attrition by race/ethnicity and gender; and (4) to estimate the relative importance of factors found to contribute to science, mathematics, and engineering students’ attrition. The researchers selected seven universities to represent the types of colleges and universities that supply most of the nations’ scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. The types of institutions were selected to test whether there are differences in educational experiences, culture and pedagogy, race/ethnicity and gender attrition, and reasons for attrition by type of institution. Because the selection of students was not strictly random and because there is no documentation that the data were weighted to reflect the proportions of types of students selected, it is not possible to determine confidence intervals. Thus it is not possible to say which differences are statistically significant. The findings are now more than a decade old and thus might not reflect current pedagogy and other factors about the educational experience, students, or the socioeconomic environment. It is important to note that the quantitative results of this study are based on the views of one constituency or stakeholder—students. Views of faculty, school administrators, graduates, professional associations, and employers are not included. NCES’s Qualifications of the Public School Teacher Workforce: Prevalence of Out-of-Field Teaching, 1987-1988 to 1999-2000 report. This study is an analysis based upon the Schools and Staffing Survey for 1999-2000. The report was issued in 2004 by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. NCES’s Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) is a representative sample of U.S. schools, districts, principals, and teachers. The report focusing on teacher’s qualifications uses data from the district and teacher portion of SASS. The 1999-2000 SASS included a nationally representative sample of public schools and universe of all public charter schools with students in any of grades 1 through 12 and in operation in school year 1999-2000. The 1999-2000 SASS administration also included nationally representative samples of teachers in the selected public and public charter schools who taught students in grades kindergarten through 12 in school year 1999-2000. There were 51,811 public school teachers in the sample and 42,086 completed public school teacher interviews. In addition, there are 3,617 public charter school teachers in the sample with 2,847 completed interviews. The overall weighted teacher response rate was 76.7 percent for public school teachers and 71.8 percent for public charter school teachers. NCES has strong standards for carrying out educational surveys. The Office of Management and Budget vetted the questionnaire and sample design. The Census Bureau carried out survey quality control and data editing. One potential limitation is the amount of time it takes the Census Bureau to get the data from field collection to public release, but this is partly due to the thoroughness of the data quality steps followed. The SASS survey meets GAO standards for use as evidence in a report. We interviewed officials from 13 federal agencies with STEM education programs to obtain information about the STEM programs and their views on related topics, including factors that influence students’ decisions about pursuing STEM degrees and occupations, and the extent of coordination among the federal agencies. We also interviewed officials from the National Science and Technology Council to discuss coordination efforts. In addition, we interviewed representatives and policy experts from various organizations. These organizations were the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology, the Council of Graduate Schools, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, the National Academies, and the Council on Competitiveness. We also conducted interviews via e-mail with 31 students. We asked officials from the eight universities visited to identify students to complete our e-mail interviews, and students who completed the interviews attended five of the colleges we visited. Of the 31 students: 16 attended Purdue University, 6 attended the University of Southern California, 6 attended Spelman College, 2 attended the University of California Los Angeles, and 1 attended the Georgia Institute of Technology. In addition, 19 students were undergraduates and 12 were graduate students; 19 students identified themselves as women and 12 students identified themselves as men. Of the 19 undergraduate students, 9 said that they plan to pursue graduate work in a STEM field. Based on surveys submitted by officials representing the 13 civilian federal agencies, table 21 contains a list of the 207 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education programs funded in fiscal year 2004. The federal civilian agencies reported that the following science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education programs were funded with at least $10 million in either fiscal year 2004 or 2005. However, programs that received $10 million or more in fiscal year 2004 but were unfunded for fiscal year 2005 were excluded from table 22. Agency officials also provided the program descriptions in table 22. Table 23 provides estimates for the numbers of students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields by education level for the 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 academic years. Tables 24 and 25 provide additional information regarding students in STEM fields by gender for the 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 academic years. Table 26 provides additional information regarding graduates in STEM fields by gender for the 1994-1995 and 2002-2003 academic years. Appendix V contains confidence intervals for these estimates. Because the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) sample is a probability sample of students, the sample is only one of a large number of samples that might have been drawn. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, confidence in the precision of the particular sample’s results is expressed as a 95-percent confidence interval (for example, plus or minus 4 percentage points). This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples that could have been drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence intervals in this report will include the true values in the study population. The upper and lower bounds of the 95 percent confidence intervals for each estimate relied on in this report are presented in the following tables. The current population survey (CPS) was used to obtain estimates about employees and wages and salaries in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Because the current population survey (CPS) is a probability sample based on random selections, the sample is only one of a large number of samples that might have been drawn. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, confidence in the precision of the particular sample’s results is expressed as a 95 percent confidence interval (e.g., plus or minus 4 percentage points). This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples that could have been drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence intervals in this report will include the true values in the study population. We use the CPS general variance methodology to estimate this sampling error and report it as confidence intervals. Percentage estimates we produce from the CPS data have 95 percent confidence intervals of plus or minus 6 percentage points or less. Estimates other than percentages have 95 percent confidence intervals of no more than plus or minus 10 percent of the estimate itself, unless otherwise noted. Consistent with the CPS documentation guidelines, we do not produce estimates based on the March supplement data for populations of less than 75,000. In addition to the contact named above, Carolyn M. Taylor, Assistant Director; Tim Hall, Analyst in Charge; Mark Ward; Dorian Herring; Patricia Bundy; Paula Bonin; Scott Heacock; Wilfred Holloway; Lise Levie; John Mingus; Mark Ramage; James Rebbe; and Monica Wolford made key contributions to this report. Congressional Research Service, Foreign Students in the United States: Policies and Legislation, RL31146, January 24, 2003, Washington, D.C. Congressional Research Service, Immigration: Legislative Issues on Nonimmigrant Professional Specialty (H-1B) Workers, RL30498, May 5, 2005, Washington, D.C. Congressional Research Service, Monitoring Foreign Students in the United States: The Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), RL32188, October 20, 2004, Washington, D.C. Congressional Research Service, Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Status and Issues, 98-871 STM, April 27, 2004, Washington, D.C. Council on Competitiveness, Innovate America, December 2004, Washington, D.C. Council of Graduate Schools, NDEA 21: A Renewed Commitment to Graduate Education, June 2005, Washington, D.C. Institute of International Education, Open Doors: Report on International Educational Exchange, 2004, New York. Jackson, Shirley Ann, The Quiet Crisis: Falling Short in Producing American Scientific and Technical Talent, Building Engineering & Science Talent, September 2002, San Diego, California. NAFSA: Association of International Educators, In America’s Interest: Welcoming International Students, Report of the Strategic Task Force on International Student Access, January 14, 2003, Washington, D.C. NAFSA: Association of International Educators, Toward an International Education Policy for the United States: International Education in an Age of Globalism and Terrorism, May 2003, Washington, D.C. National Center for Education Statistics, Qualifications of the Public School Teacher Workforce: Prevalence of Out-of-Field Teaching 1987-88 to 1999-2000, May 2002, revised August 2004, Washington, D.C. National Science Foundation, The Science and Engineering Workforce Realizing America’s Potential, National Science Board, August 14, 2003, Arlington, Virginia. National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators, 2004, Volume 1, National Science Board, January 15, 2004, Arlington, Virginia. Report of the Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development, Land of Plenty: Diversity as America’s Competitive Edge in Science, Engineering, and Technology, September 2000. A Report to the Nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century, Before It’s Too Late, September 27, 2000. Seymour, Elaine, and Nancy M. Hewitt, Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences, Westview Press, 1997, Boulder, Colorado. The National Academies, Policy Implications of International Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars in the United States, 2005, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, The Nation’s Report Card, NAEP 2004: Trends in Academic Progress, July 2005, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Education, The Secretary’s Third Annual Report on Teacher Quality, Office of Postsecondary Education, 2004, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2003 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, September 2004, Washington, D.C.

Summary: The United States has long been known as a world leader in scientific and technological innovation. To help maintain this advantage, the federal government has spent billions of dollars on education programs in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields for many years. However, concerns have been raised about the nation's ability to maintain its global technological competitive advantage in the future. This report presents information on (1) the number of federal programs funded in fiscal year 2004 that were designed to increase the number of students and graduates pursuing STEM degrees and occupations or improve educational programs in STEM fields, and what agencies report about their effectiveness; (2) how the numbers, percentages, and characteristics of students, graduates, and employees in STEM fields have changed over the years; and (3) factors cited by educators and others as affecting students' decisions about pursing STEM degrees and occupations, and suggestions that have been made to encourage more participation. GAO received written and/or technical comments from several agencies. While one agency, the National Science Foundation, raised several questions about the findings, the others generally agreed with the findings and conclusion and several agencies commended GAO for this work. Officials from 13 federal civilian agencies reported spending about $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2004 for 207 education programs designed to increase the numbers of students and graduates or improve educational programs in STEM fields, but agencies reported little about their effectiveness. The National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation had most of the programs and spent most of the funds. Officials also reported that evaluations were completed or under way for about half of the programs. While the total numbers of students, graduates, and employees in STEM fields increased, changes in the numbers and percentages of women, minorities, and international students varied during the periods reviewed. From academic year 1995-1996 to 2003-2004, the percentage of students in STEM fields increased from 21 to 23 percent. Changes in the percentages of domestic minority students varied by group. From academic year 1994-1995 to 2002-2003, the number of graduates in STEM fields increased 8 percent, but this was less than the 30 percent increase in graduates in non-STEM fields. International graduates continued to earn about one-third or more of the advanced degrees in three STEM fields. Between calendar years 1994 and 2003, employment in STEM fields increased 23 percent compared to 17 percent in non-STEM fields, and there was no statistically significant change in the percentage of women employees. Educators and others cited several factors that affected students' decisions about pursuing STEM degrees and occupations, and made suggestions to encourage more participation. They said teacher quality at the kindergarten to 12th grades, the mathematics and science courses completed in high school, and a mentor, especially for women and minorities, influenced domestic students' decisions. Also, these sources said that opportunities outside the United States and the visa process affected international students' decisions. To encourage more participation in STEM fields, educators and others made several suggestions. But before adopting any of them, it is important to know the extent to which existing STEM education programs are appropriately targeted and making the best use of available federal resources.