An Example of a Recent Human Resource Institute Report
Issue
236, October 29, 2004
Fixing
the Science and Engineering
Pipeline
Is the pipeline that
produces scientists and engineers in the U.S.
cracked and leaking? Yes, say some experts. They argue that the
flow of foreign-born graduate students – who earn such a large
share of doctoral degrees in hard sciences – is slowing down.
Therefore, more needs to be done to address the loss of this
talent.
In engineering, for
example, of those receiving doctoral degrees
in 2002, more than 60% were foreign-born. This dependency is
part of a historical trend. As of 2000, reports
BusinessWeek,
“38% of U.S. jobs requiring a PhD in science or technology were
filled by people who were born abroad, up from 24% in 1990.”
Yet, as
The OECD Observer puts it, “Recent
data show a drop in
foreign enrollment and graduates in the U.S., as students from
India and China, which produces a fifth of the world’s supply of
PhD graduates in science and engineering, increasingly find
educational opportunities in other OECD countries, such as
Australia and the UK. They may even be staying at home.”
So far, there are
few signs that native-born Americans are
prepared to make up the shortfall. Labor supply-and-demand
dynamics should help relieve shortages, but the U.S. National
Science Board has nonetheless concluded that “the future
strength of the U.S. science and engineering workforce is
imperiled.”
The U.S.
isn’t the only nation with worries. The UK government,
for example, has become concerned about a drop in the
enrollment of students studying physics and chemistry, while
Australia and Italy worry that they won’t be able to replace large
number of science professors who are due to retire in the next
decade or two.
In the near future,
Western nations may need to focus more
intently on their science and engineering pipelines. There are at
least two major methods of fixing the cracks: improving
education systems and retaining skilled people once they’re
educated.
By some measures,
there have already been improvements in
the U.S. education system. Robert Lerner, U.S. Commissioner of
the National Center for Education Statistics, states, “Between
1982 and 2000, the percentage [of students] who had completed
advanced courses in science increased from 35 to 63 percent,
and the percentage who had completed advanced courses in
mathematics increased from 26 to 45 percent.” Despite this,
much more needs to be accomplished. Among the 1.2 million
U.S. students who took the college-entrance ACT test in 2004,
just 22% were deemed prepared for college-level work in
science, math and English.
This lack of
preparation can be tied to U.S. science teachers.
Over a quarter of instructors who teach at least one science class
at the middle and high-school levels have neither a major nor a
minor in science. The problem is particularly acute in the physical
sciences, where about 60% of teachers lack a major or minor in
those subjects. Even at the elementary-school level, teachers feel
less prepared to teach science than other subjects, and they
spend less classroom time on it, according to a study
commissioned by Bayer Corporation.
One of the best
answers, most experts agree, is to increase the
compensation of science teachers to draw more qualified people
into the field. But this is a difficult proposition at public schools
that say they’re already strapped for funds.
The other major way
to fix the science and engineering pipeline is
to draw more college students into these fields and then keep
them there. This turns out to be quite difficult, suggests Anne E.
Preston, the author of a new book called
Leaving Science. She
points to survey data showing that many scientists wind up
leaving their fields for four major reasons: low compensation and
a lack of employment opportunities, difficulties in terms of
work/life balance, a scarcity of mentors, and “a mismatch of
respondents’ interests and the requirements of a scientific job.”
Employers, both in
industry and academia, can address these
problems. First, they can do a better job at preparing students
for careers in science, making sure the students understand what
sort of salaries and opportunities await them. Second, they can
boost compensation. Low pay levels can add to the stress levels
of scientists, especially those supporting young families and
working in the nonprofit sector. Third, employers can motivate
scientists and engineers with intrinsic rewards. One study found,
for example, these employees are best motivated by technical
challenges. Fourth, employers can make sure scientists have
good mentors. This is especially important for women because,
as Preston writes, “women are less likely to be mentored than
men and because the effects of mentoring on retention and
performance are greater for women.”
Fifth, scientists
and engineers need better career opportunities.
Many employers have set up dual-career paths, a technical path
for those who want to do advanced technical work and a
management path for those who want to manage their peers and
work with other nontechnical professionals. But this may not be
enough. An article in Research Technology
Management notes,
[T]he traditional vertical dual-career path appears too restrictive
to accommodate the many career orientations of scientists and
engineers, the use of cross-functional teams in R&D laboratories,
the trend towards flatter structures, and the mixed
responsibilities of scientists and engineers. These traditional
career paths are becoming flatter, multiple-career paths that
provide more cross-functional and more mixed
(technical/management) career development opportunities.”
Sixth, employers
need to help scientists balance work and family
obligations. Especially early in their careers, PhDs often find
themselves forced to relocate in order to advance their positions,
a dynamic that takes a toll on families. This can even force
scientists, especially women, out of the field. Potential strategies
include parental leave policies, greater flexibility at work, and
childcare programs.
In short, through
excellent HR management – sometimes
customized to suit the special needs of scientists and engineers –
many of the perceived “perils” facing the science and engineering
workforce might be avoided in the future.
For more information on the
education system, please see HRI’s
Education at the Primary and Secondary Levels. Also see HRI’s
Challenges Facing Higher Education.
To read on online version of
Science and Engineering
Indicators 2004, go to
http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind04/pdfstart.htm
For more on earned
doctorates in the United States, go to
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/issues/docdata.htm
For the
Science Daily article “National
Survey Reveals Continuing
Decline in Science and
Engineering Doctoral Degrees,” go to
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031205052337.htm
For an article called
“Scientists and Engineers: Crisis, What Crisis?” go to
http://www.rednova.com/news/stories/2/2004/01/27/story106.html
For a
DenverPost.com article on how
college preparedness is low, please
click
here.
For the
BusinessWeek article “America’s
Failure in Science Education,”
please click
here.
The sources used in the writing of this TrendWatcher include:
Arenson, Karen W. “College
Preparedness Low in High Schools, Study
Finds.”
DenverPost.com [New
York Times], Internet. October 14, 2004.
Cervantes, Mario.
“Scientists and Engineers: Crisis, What Crisis?”
The
OECD
Observer.
ProQuest. December 2003, p. 37.
Farris, George F. and Rene
Cordero. “Leading Your Scientists and
Engineers 2002.”
Research Technology Management.
ProQuest.
November/December 2002, p.
13.
Jennings, Lane. “Keeping
Science’s Best and Brightest on the Job.”
THE
FUTURIST.
ProQuest. November/December 2004, p. 9.
Preston, Anne E. “Plugging
the Leaks in the Scientific Workforce.”
Issues
in
Science and Technology.
ProQuest. Summer 2004, p. 69.
Salkever, Alex. “Gunning for
the U.S. in Technology.” BusinessWeek
Online,
Internet. March 16, 2004.
Symonds, William C.
“America’s Failure in Science Education.”
BusinessWeek Online,
Internet. March 16, 2004.
HRI would appreciate feedback
regarding this product.
Please e-mail comments to
Mark
Vickers.
TrendWatcher
is a brief analysis of HR-related trends. Our goal is to keep
TrendWatcher short,
strategically focused, and directly related to people
management. HRI members may reproduce and distribute
TrendWatcher
on an unlimited basis to their employees for internal management purposes
only. HRI is a nonprofit, academic-based research institute that is affiliated
with
The University of Tampa.
For previous editions of TrendWatcher Click Here.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE
Go to our
User Account page. Login. Uncheck the box next to
TrendWatcher under Product
Selection and then click on the
Submit button. You may resubscribe at any time.