Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Status and Issues

Science, Engineering, and
Mathematics Education:
Status and Issues
Updated June 27, 2008
Christine M. Matthews
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division



Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education:
Status and Issues
Summary
An important aspect of U.S. efforts to maintain and improve economic
competitiveness is the existence of a capable scientific and technological workforce.
A major concern of the 110th Congress may be regarding the future ability of the U.S.
science and engineering base to generate the technological advances needed to
maintain economic growth. Discussions have centered on the quality of science and
mathematics education and training and on the scientific knowledge of those students
entering other disciplines. Even students pursuing nonscientific and nonmathematical
specialities are likely to require basic knowledge of scientific and technological
applications for effective participation in the workforce. Charges are being made that
many students complete high school scientifically and technologically illiterate.
Precollege science and mathematics instruction has an important relationship
to the future supply of U.S. scientific and technological personnel and to the general
scientific literacy of the nation. However, several published reports indicate
important shortcomings in science and mathematics education and achievement of
U.S. students at the precollege level. Some findings in the reports revealed that many
science and mathematics teachers do not have a major in the discipline being taught;
and that U.S. students, themselves, on international measures, perform less well than
their international counterparts.
A September 2006 report on the future of higher education states that while our
colleges and universities have much to applaud for in their achievements, there are
some areas where reforms are needed. As higher education has evolved, it
simultaneously has had to respond to the impact of globalization, rapidly evolving
technologies, the changing needs of a knowledge economy, and a population that is
increasingly older and more diverse.
In the 21st century, a larger proportion of the U.S. population will be composed
of certain minorities — blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans. As a group, these
minorities have traditionally been underrepresented in the science and engineering
disciplines compared to their proportion of the total population. A report of the
National Science Foundation (NSF) reveals that blacks, Hispanics, and Native
Americans as a whole comprise more that 25% of the population and earn, as a
whole, 16.2% of the bachelor degrees, 10.7% of the masters degrees, and 5.4% of the
doctorate degrees in science and engineering.
On August 9, 2007, President Bush signed into law P.L. 110-69, The America
COMPETES Act (H.R. 2272). The legislation is directed at increasing research
investment, improving economic competitiveness, developing an innovation
infrastructure, and strengthening and expanding science and mathematics programs
at all points on the educational pipeline. The America COMPETES Act authorizes
$33.6 billion for FY2008 through FY2010 for science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology programs across the federal government. This report will be updated as
events warrant.



Contents
Background ......................................................1
Precollege Science and Mathematics Concerns...........................3
Teacher Training and Qualifications...............................5
Student Achievement...........................................7
Improving Undergraduate and Graduate Education........................9
Undergraduate Education........................................9
Graduate Education...........................................12
Demographics and the Science and Engineering Talent Pool...............16
Foreign Science and Engineering Students.............................22
Congressional Activity.............................................25



Science, Engineering, and Mathematics
Education: Status and Issues
Background
An important aspect of U.S. efforts to improve economic competitiveness is the
existence of a capable scientific and technological workforce. Concern has been
expressed about the future ability of the U.S. science and engineering base to
generate the technological advances needed to maintain economic growth.1 Some
discussions have centered on the quality of science and mathematics undergraduate
education and training. The design and structure of the scientific curriculum are
thought to discourage a number of highly qualified students from entering and
remaining in the disciplines.2 Other discussions have focused on the scientific
knowledge of those students entering other disciplines. Even students pursuing
nonscientific and nonmathematical specialties will require basic knowledge of
scientific and technological applications and mathematical reasoning in order to
adapt to constant changes in the labor market.3
Precollege science and mathematics instruction also has an important
relationship to the future supply of U.S. scientific and technical personnel. A basic
science and mathematics education is considered necessary not only for those who
will enter science as majors, but for all citizens to understand scientific and technical
issues that affect their lives. However, several indicators of the performance of U.S.
students in science and mathematics education at the precollege level reveal a mixed


1 See for example The National Academies, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing
and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, Committee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy, Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 2007, 664 pp.,
RAND Corporation, National Defense Research Institute, Titus Galama and James Hosek,
U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology, June 2008, 155 pp, Noyes, Andrew, “DHS
Official Warns U.S. Workforce Faces Skills ‘Crisis’,” Congress Daily PM, June 16, 2008,
[ h t t p : / / w w w . n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l . c o m/ c o n gr e s s d a i l y/ p r i n t _ friendly.php ? ID = c d p _
20080616_9335], and Augustine, Norman R., “Living Off Past Investments,” Education
Week, v. 26, January 7, 2007, p. 28.
2 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Volume 1, NSB08-01,
Arlington, VA, January 15, 2008, pp. 2-22 - 2-24.
3 See for example Cavanagh, Sean, “Frustrations Give Rise to New Push for Science
Literacy,” Education Week, v. 27, March 5, 2008, p. 12, The National Academies, Research
on Future Skill Demands: A Workshop Summary, Division of Behavioral and Social Science
and Education, Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 2008, 126 pp., and National
Center on Education and the Economy, Tough Choices or Tough Times, The Report of the
New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, Executive Summary, January

2007, 26 pp.



picture of successes and shortcomings.4 Still other indicators show that the science
and mathematics curriculum at the precollege level is unfocused and that many
science and mathematics teachers lack a major or minor in the subject area being
taught.5
Reform efforts at improving precollege science and mathematics education have
included the development of recommended national standards. Such standards
describe what children should know, when they should know it, and how to assess
what they know. These standards emphasize inquiry based education as being the
most effective in retaining the interest of all students. While many states and school
districts have created new science and mathematics standards that to some degree are
drawn from standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the
National Research Council, adoption and implementation of the standards at the local
school level where there is often limited resources and unprepared teachers has
proven to be problematic.6
The change from a labor-based manufacturing to a knowledge-based
manufacturing and service economy demands certain skills of our citizenry.7 The
National Science Foundation (NSF) projects that in the increasingly changing context
for science and technology, a workforce trained in the sciences and engineering is
necessary for continued economic growth. A May 2007 report of the Department
of Education states that:
There is increasing concern about U.S. economic competitiveness, particularly
the future ability of the nation’s education institutions to produce citizens literate
in STEM concepts and to produce future scientists, engineers, mathematicians,
and technologists. Such experts are needed to maintain U.S. preeminence in
science, technology, engineering and mathematics. While other countries around
the world strive to improve their own education systems and to expand their


4 Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Highlights From the
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003, NCES2005-005,
Washington, DC, December 2004, pp. 1-25.
5 See for example the Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
Qualifications of the Public School Teacher Workforce: Prevalence of Out-of-Field
Teaching 1987-88 to 1999-2000, NCES 2002-603 Revised, Washington, DC, August 2004,

92 pp, and Ingersoll, Richard M., “Out of Field Teaching and the Limits of Teacher Policy,”


A Research Report Sponsored by the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy and The
Consortium for Policy Research in Education, September 2003, 29 pp.
6 The National Academies, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education,
Hollweg, Karen S. and David Hill, What is the Influence of the National Science Education
Standards?: Reviewing the Evidence, A Workshop Summary, Washington, DC, 2003, 208
pp.
7 Deitz, Richard and James Orr, “A Leaner, More Skilled U. S. Manufacturing Workforce,”
Current Issues in Economics and Finance, v. 12, February/March 2006, 7 pp., and Olson,
Lynn, “Economic Trends Fuel Push to Retool Schooling,” Education Week, v. 25, March
22, 2006, pp. 1, 20, 22, 24, The Task Force on the Future of American Innovation, “The
Knowledge Economy: Is the United States Losing Its Competitive Edge?,” February 16,

2005, 16 pp.



economies, the U.S. will have to work even harder in the coming years to8
maintain its competitive edge.
In this report, selected science and education issues are presented, along with
a summary of findings from various studies. The issues discussed include precollege
science and mathematics concerns; improving undergraduate and graduate education;
demographics and the science and engineering talent pool; foreign science and
engineering students; and congressional activity. For expanded discussion of science
and mathematics education issues see CRS Report RL34328, America COMPETES
Act: Programs, Funding, and Selected Issues, by Deborah D. Stine, and CRS Report
RL33434, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education:
Background, Federal Policy, and Legislative Action, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi. This report
will be updated as events warrant.
Precollege Science and Mathematics Concerns
Precollege (K-12) science and mathematics instruction has an important
relationship to the future supply of U.S. scientific and technological personnel. The
technological demands of the workforce are increasing exponentially. A basic
science and mathematics education is necessary not only for those who will enter
science as majors, but for all citizens to understand scientific and technical issues that
affect their lives. In addition, scientific and technical skills are a requirement for an
increasingly wide range of occupations such as health care, banking, insurance, and
energy production. Whether individuals are in the service sector, manufacturing,
government, or management, many believe that some level of scientific literacy is
required.
The term “reform” is repeated throughout discussions of science education at
the precollege level, covering such issues as: school curriculum and the quality of
science instruction, student interest in science, the shortage of qualified teachers,
teacher training and retraining, student achievement on science and mathematics9
measures, and the participation of minorities and women in science. The U.S.
educational system has a long history of attempted education reforms. One particular
report that received considerable attention was released in 1983 by the Department
of Education (ED). The report, A Nation At Risk, attacked the school system,
declaring that U.S. schools were sinking under a “rising tide of mediocrity,” partly
as a result of a shortage of qualified teachers in science, mathematics, and other


8 Department of Education, Report of the Academic Competitiveness Council, Washington,
DC, May 2007, p. 5.
9 See for example Echevarria, Marissa, “Hands on Science Reform, Science Achievement,
and the Elusive Goal of ‘Science for All’ in a Diverse Elementary School District,” Journal
of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, v. 9, 2003, pp. 375-402.

essential disciplines.10 More than 20 years after the report, there is some debate as
to whether or not our educational system is still “at risk.”11
Reforms in science and mathematics education have focused on both what to
teach and how to teach it. The 1989 report of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS), Project 2061, Science for All Americans,
presented goals for science, mathematics, and technology literacy.12 The goals
presented offered multidisciplinary instructions in the real world, structured so
students would use the discovery process to study issues that are multidimensional,
to arrive at alternative approaches, and to be able to anticipate both positive and
negative consequences of their choices.
In 2000, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) released a
revised Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, which described how
students should be taught to solve non-routine problems in meaningful context.13
The NCTM standards promoted the policy of students learning through induction
rather than memorization, directing the instructional process on inquiry14 as opposed
to the traditional tell-and-test approach, and promoting assessment methods that are
open-ended instead of machine-scoreable. More recently, a 2005 report of the
Fordham Institute states that “While state standards are very much in flux, the nation,
in its entirety, is neither making progress nor losing ground when it comes to its
expectations for what students should learn in science.”15


10 Department of Education, A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform, A
Report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, Washington, 1983, 65 pp.
11 See for example Kirsch, Irwin, Henry Braun, Kentaro Yamamoto, and Andrew Sum,
America’s Perfect Storm: Three Forces Changing Our Nation’s Future, A report of the
Educational Testing Service, Policy Information Center, January 2007, pp. 8-10,
Thornburgh, Nathan, “Dropout Nation,” Time, April 17, 2006, pp. 32-40, Anderson, James,
and Dara N. Byrne, “The Unfinished Agenda of Brown v. Board of Education,” Black
Issues in Higher Education, 2004, 222 pp., and “Fifty Years After Brown,” U.S. News &
World Report, March 22, 2004, pp. 64-95.
12 American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science for All Americans, A
Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics, and Technology,
Washington, 1989, 217 pp.
13 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Commission on Teaching Standards,
Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, Reston, VA, July 28, 2000, 402 pp.
14 “Inquiry is a multifaceted activity that involves looking for patterns; making observations;
posing questions; looking for and thinking about relationships; examining other sources of
information to see what is already known; planning investigations; reviewing what is already
known in light of experimental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze, and interpret data;
proposing answers, explanations, and predictions; and communicating the results.” “Inquiry-
Based Instruction,” [http://www.nyssi.org/nyssi/nyssib.htm].
15 Gross, Paul R., with Ursula Goodenough, Susan Haack, Lawrence S. Lerner, Martha
Schwartz, and Richard Schwartz, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of Science
Standards, December 2005, p. 19, and Barton, Paul E., Educational Testing Service, Policy
Information Report, Unfinished Business: More Measured Approaches in Standards-Based
Reform, January 2005, 53 pp.

The ongoing discussions of reform in science education stress the importance
of inquiry-based instruction as the most beneficial in assisting students to think
critically, to work independently or cooperatively, and to solve problems as they
encounter them in different and novel situations.16 In 2002, the National Research
Council released its publication, Investigating the Influence of Standards, A
Framework for Research in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education.17 The
report examined two primary questions: (1) How has the system responded to the
introduction of nationally developed mathematics, science, and technology
standards?, and (2) What are the consequences for student learning? The report
offered guideposts for determining the influence of nationally developed science,
mathematics, and technology standards and evaluates the significance of the
influence on student learning, on teachers and pedagogy, and on the education system
as a whole.
Teacher Training and Qualifications
Many elementary teachers reportedly admit that they feel uncomfortable
teaching science because they lack confidence in their knowledge about science and
their understanding of scientific concepts.18 A 2004 publication of the National
Center for Education Statistics reports that in the middle grades for school year 1999-
2000, approximately 68.5% of the students in mathematics were being taught by
teachers who had no major or certification in the field. For sciences, the proportion
being taught by teachers with no major or certification was 57.2% for general
science, 64.2% for biology/life science, and 93.2% for physical science.19 In high


16 Cavanagh, Sean, “Science Labs: Beyond Isolationism,” Education Week, January 10,

2007, Hanauer, David I., Deborah Jacobs-Sera, Marisa L. Pedulla, Steven G. Cresawn,


Roger W. Hendrix, and Graham F. Hatfull, “Teaching Scientific Inquiry,” Science, v. 314,
December 22, 2006, pp. 1880-1881, and Teicher, Stacy A., “The Mystery of Teaching
Science ... Solved!,” The Christian Science Monitor, December 1, 2005, p. 13.
17 National Research Council, Committee on Understanding the Influence of Standards in
K-12 Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, Investigating the Influence of
Standards, A Framework for Research in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education,
Washington, 2002, 130 pp.
18 The National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future reports that teachers with
the least amount of experience are generally working in urban areas — school districts that
have the greatest need for qualified teachers. See also National Research Council, Division
of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Singer, Susan R., Margaret L. Hilton, and
Heidi A. Schweingruber, America’s Lab Report, Investigations in High School Science,
Washington, DC, 2006, p. 146, Friel, Brian, “A New Sputnik Moment?,” The National
Journal, v. 37, July 30, 2005, pp. 2452-2453, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy,
University of Washington, Out-of-Field Teaching, Educational Inequality, and the
Organization of Schools; An Exploratory Analysis, January 2002, 32 pp. and King, Ledyard,
“Richer Areas More Successful in Attracting Qualified Teachers,” USA Today, April 24,

2006,[http://www.us a t o d a y. c o m/ n e w s / e d u c a t i o n / 2006-04-24-education_


x.htm? POE=NEWISV A].
19 Those students being taught by teachers with no major, minor, or certification were 21.9%
for mathematics, 14.2% in science, 28.8% in biology/life science, and 40.5% in physical
science. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Qualifications
(continued...)

school, approximately 31.4% of the students in mathematics, 44.7% in biology/life
science, 61.1% in chemistry, and 66.5% in physics are being taught by teachers with
no major and certification in the respective field.20
Supplemental teacher training can be effective for those teachers who did not
have science or mathematics education majors or who took few lecture-based science
and mathematics courses in college.21 Award-winning teachers testifying before the
House Science Committee stated that in order for professional development to be
effective, teachers need to be provided with proper materials and resources (internal
and external to the school), training in the inquiry-based learning process, and class
release time.22 The National Academies report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm -
Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, calls for the
“enhanced education” of teachers at the precollege level by focusing on teacher
education and professional development.23 The report states that:
We need to reach all K-12 science and mathematics teachers and provide them
with high-quality continuing professional development opportunities —
specifically those that emphasize rigorous content education. High-quality,
content-driven professional development has a significant effect on student
performance, particularly when augmented with classroom practice, year-long24


mentoring, and high-quality curricular materials.
19 (...continued)
of the Public School Teacher Workforce: Prevalence of Out-of-Field Teaching 1987-88 to

1999-2000, p. 10.


20 For high school students, the proportion being taught by teachers with no major, minor,
or certification in the field is 8.6% for mathematics, 9.7% for biology/life science, 9.4% for
chemistry, and 17% for physics. A report of the Educational Testing Service found that for
both science and mathematics, students whose teachers majored or minored in the subject
being taught outperformed their classmates by approximately 39% of a grade level.
Educational Testing Service, Wenglinsky, Harold, How Teaching Matters: Bringing the
Classroom Back Into Discussions of Teacher Quality, October 2000, p. 26.
21 See Committee for Economic Development, Research and Policy Committee, Learning
for the Future - Changing the Culture of Math and Science Education to Ensure a
Competitive Workforce, May 7, 2003, pp.36-40, and National Science Board, Committee on
Education and Human Resources, The Science and Engineering Workforce - Realizing
America’s Potential, NSB 03-69, August 14, 2003, pp. 31-35.
22 House Committee on Science, The 2004 Presidential Awardees for Excellence in
Mathematics and Science Teaching: A Lesson Plan for Success, Testimonies from the 2004
Presidential Awardees for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 109th Cong.,st
1 Sess., April 14, 2005, [http://www.house.gov/science/press/109/109-51.htm]. See also
Stanley, Marshall J., “A Veteran’s View of Science Education Today,” The Review of Policy
Research, v. 20, December 22, 2003, p. 629.
23 The National Academies, Rising Above the Gathering Storm - Energizing and Employing
America for a Brighter Economic Future, pp.112-135.
24 Ibid., p. 119.

Student Achievement
Various assessments and reports have documented the progress of U.S. students
and their participation in science and mathematics. In October 2005, the National
Assessment Governing Board25 released the results of the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) 2005 mathematics assessment for grades 4 and 8.26
The NAEP 2005 mathematics assessment was based on a framework that was
developed through a comprehensive national consultative process. The results are
reported according to three basic achievement levels — basic, proficient, and
advanced.27 The proportion of students performing at the basic and proficient levels
increased for 4th and 8th grade students from 2003 to 2005. Higher percentages of
black and Hispanic students, at both grade levels, scored at or above basic and
proficient in 2005 than in any previous assessment. The score gap between white
students and black and Hispanic students continue, but the gap has narrowed.
In May 2005, the NAEP’s 2005 science assessments were released.28 The
NAEP 2005 science assessment is to provide a baseline for science achievement and
to assist in determining the progress being made toward the fifth National Goal.
Similar to the mathematics assessments, results are reported at three achievement
levels. Data revealed that the average scores of 4th graders rose approximately 4
points in comparison with 1996 and 2000. For 8th grade students, there was no
significant change in overall scores in 2005 from the previous assessments.29 For 12th
graders, there was no change in performance from the administration in 2000.
However, in 2005, 12th graders received lower average scores than in 1996. At this
grade level, the percentage of students performing at or above the basic level, at or
above the proficient level, and at the advanced level all declined since 1996. In
addition, the number of students who scored below basic increased since 1996.


25 The National Assessment Governing Board is a bipartisan 26-member Board authorized
by Congress to make policy for the NAEP and to measure the academic achievement of
students in selected grades at the precollege level. The Board is authorized to establish
performance levels in the areas of science, mathematics, reading, U.S. history, geography,
and other subjects.
26 Department of Education, Office of Education Research and Improvement, The Nation’s
Report Card: Mathematics 2005, NCES2006-453, Washington, DC, October, 2005, 49 pp.
The 2005 assessment included nationally representative samples of approximately 172,000thth

4 graders and 162,000 8 graders. The racial/ethnic groups are black, white, Hispanic,


Native Americans/Alaskan Natives, and Asian/Pacific Islanders.
27 The basic level represents partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills, the
proficient level represents solid academic performance, and the advanced level denotes
superior performance. These achievement levels, however, are developmental and remain
in transition.
28 Department of Education, Office of Education Research and Improvement, The Nation’s
Report Card: Science 2005, NCES 2006-466, Washington, DC, May 24, 2006, 42 pp. The
assessment was administered to a representative sample of 304,800 students in grades 4, 8,
and 12.
29 Black students showed the only score increase among all racial/ethnic groups at grade 8.

Several reports on the state of precollege education, especially international
comparisons, have revealed that U.S. students do not perform at the level of their
international counterparts. The Trends in International Mathematics and Science
Study (TIMSS) for grades 4 and 8, conducted in 2003, investigated mathematics and
science curricula, instructional practices, and achievement in 46 countries (at either
the 4th or 8th grade level or both).30 Results at grade 4 showed that in mathematics,
U.S. students scored above the international average. U.S. students performed lower
than their peers in 11 of the other 24 participating countries and out performed their
peers in 13 of the countries. Singapore was the top performing jurisdiction in
mathematics at the 4th grade level, followed by Hong Kong, Japan, Chinese Taipei,
and Belgium-Flemish. At the 8th grade level, the average score for U.S. students
exceeded those of their peers in 25 of the 44 other participating countries. U.S. 8th
grade students were out performed by students in nine jurisdictions, including
Singapore, Republic of Korea, Hong Kong SAR,31 Chinese Taipei, and Japan.32
The results for TIMSS in science revealed that at the 4th grade level, U.S.
students outperformed 16 of the other 24 participating countries. U.S. students, with
a higher average score than the international average, performed less well than
Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Japan, Hong Kong SAR, and England. At the 8th grade
level, U.S. students again received a higher average score than the international
average and outperformed their peers in 36 of the other 44 participating countries in
the subset of measures. U.S. students ranked 9th, scoring below that of Singapore,
Chinese Taipei, Republic of Korea, Hong Kong, Estonia, Japan, Hungary, and the
Netherlands. 33
Some in the education community have charged that international comparisons
are statistically invalid because of widely disparate culture, diversity in school
systems, and significant differences in curriculum. However, there is the counter
argument that due to refinement in collection of data and methodological procedures
employed in the analyses, the comparisons are valid for the student populations
examined. ED estimates that the United States spends approximately $455 billion
annually for elementary and secondary education.34 What is puzzling to some is with


30 Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Highlights From the
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003, NCES 2005-005,
Washington, DC, December 2004, 107 pp. TIMSS data have been collected in 1995, 1996,

2003, and 2007. TIMSS 2007 findings will be released in December 2008.


31 Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China.
32 Ibid., p. 5
33 Students from Singapore consistently ranked at the top in both mathematics and science
at both grade levels. For expanded discussion of international trends see for example
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Comparing Science
Content in the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) 2000 and Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003 Assessments, Technical Report,
NCES 2006-026, Washington, DC, March 2006, 70 pp.
34 Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Revenues and
Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2002-2003,
(continued...)

that level of funding, how can the U.S. system of education with graduate schools
considered to be the best in the world, a system that produces some of the best
scientists and engineers, also produce some students in elementary and secondary
schools who perform less well on international measures? How can the performance
of U.S. students on the TIMSS be explained when some groups of students showed
no measurable difference from the previous assessment, and some even a measurable
decline?
Improving Undergraduate and Graduate Education
Undergraduate Education
While the uncertain job market for some scientists and engineers may have an
effect on the enrollments in science and engineering, the U.S. system of higher
education is called upon to continue to produce the qualified scientific and technical
personnel necessary to maintain an intellectual and economic leadership.35 Colleges
and universities are facing the mounting task of better educating their undergraduate
and graduate students by restructuring their curricula to increase the versatility and
employability of the graduates. All disciplines have been targets, however,
considerable importance is placed on graduates in the natural sciences, engineering,
health sciences, computer sciences, and other quantitatively-based fields.
One challenge facing research institutions is that of finding a balance between
the basic academic activities of teaching and research. Within the scientific and
engineering disciplines, attempting to find the flexibility to blend the priorities of
teaching and research has been a perennial problem. The standing of an institution
is in direct relationship to the research productivity of its faculty, and the competition
for grants and scholars has led many research institutions to place increased emphasis
on research at the expense of teaching. In many research institutions, research
productivity has been given more weight than teaching effectiveness when deciding
tenure or promotion. Efforts are underway at some institutions to change the reward
system and evaluation of their faculty members.36
An additional challenge for research universities is the need to address the
complaints concerning undergraduate teaching. Many of these complaints are


34 (...continued)
NCES 2005-353R, Washington, DC, October 2005, p. 1.
35 See for example Jackson, Shirley Ann, President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
“Intellectual Security and the Quiet Crisis,” November 29, 2005, 7 pp., Freeman, Richard
B., National Bureau of Economic Research, “Does Globalization of the
Scientific/Engineering Workforce Threaten U. S. Economic Leadership?,” Working Paper
11457, June 2005, 45 pp, [http://www.nber.org/papers/w11457], and National Science
Board, An Emerging and Critical Problem of the Science and Engineering Labor Force,
NSB04-07, Arlington, VA, January 2004, pp. 1-4.
36 O’Meara, KerryAnn, R. Eugene Rice, and Russell Edgerton, Faculty Priorities
Reconsidered: Rewarding Multiple Forms of Scholarship, August 2005, 368 pp.

focused on the use of graduate students as teaching assistants in the undergraduate
programs, especially in the science and engineering disciplines. A considerable
number of undergraduate courses in science and engineering are taught by foreign
graduate students who do not have a good command of the English language.
Reinventing Undergraduate Education found that “... [T]he classroom results of
employing teaching assistants who speak English poorly, as a second language, and
who are new to the American system of education constitute one of the conspicuous
problems of undergraduate education.”37
In 2003, the National Research Council released the report, Evaluating and
Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics.38 The report noted that colleges and universities are being held far more
accountable for the education of their students than in the past. Institutions with peer
review mechanisms to evaluate faculty research in science, mathematics, and
engineering, should have the same of attention directed at evaluating the faculty
teaching in those disciplines. The public and private sectors that make significant
investments in university research suggested that faculty members excelling in the
classroom should be recognized and rewarded similar to those faculty engaged in
research.
The report recommended strategies for evaluating undergraduate teaching and
learning in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. The methods used
for evaluation could serve as a basis for the professional advancement of faculty.
Faculty are encouraged to set definitive goals for their students and then determine
if the goals are being met. In addition to the faculty, recommendations for evaluating
teaching and learning were made for presidents, boards, and academic officers;
deans, department chairs and peer evaluators; and for research sponsors and granting
and accrediting agencies. The recommendations were based on the following tenets:
!Effective postsecondary teaching in science, mathematics, and
technology should be available to all students, regardless of their
major.
!The design of curricula and the evaluation of teaching and learning
should be collective responsibilities of faculty in individual
departments or, wherever appropriate, through interdepartmental
arrangements.
!Scholarly activities that focus on improving teaching and learning
should be recognized as bona fide endeavors that are equivalent to
other scholarly pursuits. Scholarship devoted to improving teaching
effectiveness and learning should be accorded the same


37 Ibid., p. 7.
38 National Research Council, Committee on Recognizing, Evaluating, Rewarding, and
Developing Excellence in Teaching of Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering,
and Technology, Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, Editors, Fox, Marye Anne and Norman
Hackerman, Washington, DC, 2003, 215 pp.

administrative and collegial support that is available for efforts to
improve other research and service endeavors.39
On March 15, 2006, the House Science Committee held a hearing to explore the
efforts of colleges and universities in improving their scientific and engineering
programs.40 The Committee was interested also in what role the federal government
could play in encouraging more students to enter the science, mathematics, and
engineering disciplines. Witnesses testified about the factors that shape the quality
of undergraduate reforms in the scientific and engineering disciplines. Elaine
Seymour, University of Colorado, contends that there is a decline in the perceived
value of teaching. Teaching as a career is believed by many undergraduates as being
of low status, pay, and prospects. Also, faculty in many institutions are more focused
on research than teaching. Academic success is measured by grant writing and
publications. In many science and engineering departments, a portion of faculty
salary is from research grants. As a result, there is less interactive teaching by many
faculty and more “straight lecturing.” Many classes become the responsibility of
teaching assistants. In numerous surveys, students have indicated that “poor
teaching” and “unsatisfactory learning experiences” were the primary reasons for
switching majors and leaving the sciences. Seymour states that the institutional
reward system and the pressure to obtain grants have consequences for both
undergraduate and K-12 education in the science, mathematics, and engineering.
John Burris, President, Beloit College, testifying before the March 15 hearing,
offered several recommendations as to how the federal government can identify,
assess, and disseminate that which works in undergraduate science, mathematics, and
engineering programs. He suggested that with the proposed doubling of the NSF
budget over the next ten years,41there should be a doubling of the funding targeted
specifically for strengthening and sustaining undergraduate programs in colleges and
universities. Burris stated that “Significant parts of what works are: I) attention to
how students learn; ii) an institutional culture that has a common vision about the
value of building research-rich learning environments; and iii) faculty who are eager
to remain engaged within their disciplinary community, and who have the resources
of time and instrumentation to do so.”42 He suggested that the increased funding be
directed at networks, collaborations, and partnerships. He further called for the
establishment of a taskforce to oversee the proposed doubling of undergraduate
funds. The task force would be charged with outlining NSF undergraduate priorities


39 Ibid., p.2.
40 House Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Research, Undergraduate Science, Math
and Engineering Education: What’s Working?, 109th Cong., 2nd Sess., March 15, 2006,
[http://www.house.gov/ science/hearings /research06/march%2015/index.htm] .
41 The American Competitiveness Initiative (President Bush, February 2006), and several
pieces of legislation have, among other things, proposed the doubling of NSF research and
related activities budget over 5 to 10 years.
42 Ibid., Written testimony of John Burris, President, Beloit College, p. 5.

that are contained in the numerous reports calling for the federal government to
strengthen and reenergize investments in science and engineering education.43
A September 2006 report on the future of higher education states that while our
colleges and universities have much to applaud for in their achievements, there are
areas where improvements are needed.44 As higher education has evolved, it
simultaneously has had to respond to the impact of globalization, rapidly evolving
technologies, the changing needs of a knowledge economy, and an increasingly
diverse and aging population.45 The report notes that:
The United States must ensure the capacity of its universities to achieve global
leadership in key strategic areas such as science, engineering, medicine, and
other knowledge-intensive professions. We recommend increased federal
investment in areas critical to our nation’s global competitiveness and a renewed
commitment to attract the best and brightest minds across the nation and around46
the world to lead the next wave of American innovation.
Graduate Education
Graduate education in science and mathematics has been the subject of several
reports and committees. In the fall of 1993, the Committee on Science, Engineering,
and Public Policy (COSEPUP), a joint committee of the NAS, the National Academy
of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine (IOM), proposed a comprehensive
study on the status of the graduate education and research training being offered in
U.S. colleges and universities. The committee’s actions led to the release of the 1995
report, Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers. The report
stated:
The three areas of primary employment for PhD scientists and engineers —
universities and colleges, industry, and government — are experiencing
simultaneous change. The total effect is likely to be vastly more consequential
for the employment of scientists and engineers than any previous period of


43 See for example Business Roundtable, Brush, Silla, “Fixing Undergraduate Education,”
U. S. News & World Report, March 6, 2006, p. 28, Tapping America’s Potential - The
Education for Innovation Initiative, Washington, DC, July 2005, 18 pp., the Business-
Higher Education Forum, A Commitment to America’s Future: Responding to the Crisis in
Mathematics and Science Education, January 2005, 40 pp., Association of American
Universities, National Defense Education and Innovation Initiative, Meeting America’sst
Economic and Security Challenges in the 21 Century, Washington, DC, January 2006, 24
pp., and National Science Board, America’s Pressing Challenge-Building A Stronger
Foundation, NSB06-02, Arlington, VA, January 2006, 6 pp.
44 A Test of Leadership — Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education, A Report of the
Commission Appointed by Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, September 2006,

51 pp.


45 Ibid., p. ix. The “typical” undergraduate student is no longer 18- to 22-years old. Data
reveal that of the approximately 14 million undergraduates, more than four in ten are
enrolled in community colleges, 33% are over the age of 24, and 40% are attending classes
on a part-time basis. Ibid., p. viii.
46 Ibid., p. 26

transition has been.... A broader concern is that we have not, as a nation, paid
adequate attention to the function of the graduate schools in meeting the
country’s varied needs for scientists and engineers. There is no clear human-
resources policy for advanced scientists and engineers, so their education is
largely a byproduct of policies that support research. The simplifying
assumption has apparently been that the primary mission of graduate programs
is to produce the next generation of academic researchers. In view of the broad
range of ways in which scientists and engineers contribute to national needs, it47
is time to review how they are educated to do so.”
COSEPUP had solicited responses concerning the existing structure of graduate
education from such groups as: postdoctoral researchers, professors, university
officials, industry scientists and executives, representatives of scientific societies,
and graduate students themselves. The general sentiment was that while the basic
structure of graduate education was sound, some change was warranted in order to
respond to “changing national policies and industrial needs.”48
Some respondents, both inside and outside of academia, indicated that selected
doctorate degree programs are too analytical and too oriented toward subspecialities.
Survey responses indicated that doctoral students should be provided with a broader49
training that would allow them to experiment with alternative career paths. Many
of the responses from industry and international corporations stated that the nature
of industrial work is changing and that the education and training offered by many
of the doctoral programs should be changed as well. Industry wants graduate
students who will better meet their research and development (R&D) needs and
compete effectively with their counterparts worldwide in a rapidly evolving50
competitive market.
COSEPUP presented a national strategy that was intended to emphasize both
versatility and information. One recommendation in the report was that graduate
programs should provide a wider variety of career options for their students. This
could be accomplished in a program that has a student grounded in the fundamentals
of one field that is enhanced by a breadth of knowledge in a related field. Added to
such a program would be off-campus experiences exposing the student to the skills
requested by an increasing number of employers: the ability to communicate complex
ideas, and the experiences of working in groups of interdependent workers. Another
recommendation offered to foster versatility in graduate programs was to have those


47 The National Academies, Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers,
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Washington, DC, 1995, p. 3.
48 Ibid., p. 40.
49 See Metheny, Bradie, “Science Training Must Embrace Teamwork, Collaboration,
Preparation for Work Outside Academia,” The Washington Fax, May 13, 2003, Smallwood,
Scott, “Graduate Studies in Science Expand Beyond the Ph.D.,” The Chronicle of Higher
Education, v. 47, p. A14, and Potter Wickware, “Postdocs Reject Academic Research,”
Nature, v. 407, September 21, 2000, pp. 429-430.
50 See Organizing for Research and Development in the 21st Century - An Integrated
Perspective of Academic, Industrial, and Government Researchers, Sponsored by the
National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy, 40 pp.

entities providing financial assistance to graduate students adjust their support
mechanisms to include new education and training grants. Research assistantships
(RAs), which are a major form of federal assistance to graduate students, are not
structured to enhance the versatility of graduate students. (RAs are administered by
a faculty member who receives the grant for a specific research topic.) Some
observers suggest that the new education and training grants could be patterned after
training grants that currently are awarded in the National Institutes of Health and that
have been used to establish interdisciplinary programs to encourage graduate students
to pursue research in emerging fields.
In the February 1998, the National Science Board (NSB) released a policy paper
— The Federal Role in Science and Engineering Graduate and Postdoctoral
Education.51 Some of the many issues examined by the NSB were: (1) the relative
merits of fellowships and traineeships; (2) the role of graduate students as teachers;
(3) the mentoring of graduate students; (4) access to faculty and time to degree; (5)
and the continuing underrepresentation of minorities and women in many areas of
graduate science and engineering programs. The NSB identified several areas of
concern in the federal/university partnership where adjustments “may enhance the
capacity of the enterprise to serve the national interest in a changing global
environment.”52 The NSB noted that because of changes over the past 50 years, such
as increased demand for higher education, the need to respond to advances in
communications and information technology, rising tuitions and administrative
burdens, and stresses on universities and faculty, require changes and improvement
in the federal/university partnership.
One of the stresses confronted by university partnerships, as discussed by the
report, is the unintended consequences of federal policies. The increased federal
investment in research and education has come with increased oversight and
accountability of funding. The report states that
The growing Federal focus on accountability tends to emphasize short-term
research “products” and to de-emphasize benefits to graduate education from
engaging in research at the frontiers of knowledge. Increased emphasis on
accountability also may result in an increase in the perceived value of
postdoctoral researchers compared with graduate students on research grants,
thus reducing options for cutting-edge research experience during graduate53
training.
The recommendations posed by the NSB placed increased emphasis on the
expansion of the partnership to include a wider range of colleges and universities, the
integration of research and education, increased flexibility of job opportunities
outside of academia, and diversity in graduate education. It recommended that the


51 The National Science Board, The Federal Role in Science and Engineering Graduate and
Postdoctoral Education, Contribution to the Government/University Partnership, NSF97-

235, Arlington, VA, Approved February 27, 1998, [http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/


1997/nsb97235/nsb97235.htm] .


52 Ibid., p. 6.
53 Ibid.

federal government promote closer collaboration between research and non-research
institutions, and to provide greater exposure to both faculty and students to research
experiences and opportunities. To address the concern of the narrowness of graduate
education, the report suggested that, in addition to the core training, the student
should be provided with additional training options that might include
interdisciplinary emphasis, teamwork, business management skills, and information
technologies. The NSB proposed to reward institutions that established model
programs for the integration of research and education.
While recognizing the creation of federal and institutional programs to increase
the number of racial and ethnic minorities in the science and engineering disciplines,
the NSB noted their participation rate remains of some concern. The report
recommended that federal/university partnerships develop more effective
mechanisms of increasing diversity in graduate education and to guard “against
strategies that inadvertently keep underrepresented groups from the mainstream of
research and graduate education.”54
A 2005 report of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, The
Responsive Ph.D., Innovations in U.S. Doctoral Education, analyzed the findings of
several studies on doctoral education and detailed the most effective practices from
leading doctoral institutions.55 One of the challenges discussed in the report is the
need to combine traditional research with “adventurous” scholarship within and
across disciplines. Effective, inclusive, and more relevant training of the doctoral
student requires extending knowledge beyond the walls of the institution and the
major discipline. Also, the report contends that graduate schools require a
significantly stronger central administration and structure that currently exists. A
graduate school should guard against operating in isolation within an institution, and
instead, create a graduate community of “intellectual cohesiveness” across
disciplines. A theme contained in all the reports reviewed was that for reasons of
equity and efficacy, there is a need to broaden and reinvigorate efforts to increase the
participation of underrepresented minority groups in the sciences. Some
recommendations for action offered by the report include:
!The central notion of a graduate school requires strengthening so
that it can become a vital force in breaking down barriers between
programs and sponsoring a more cosmopolitan intellectual
experience for doctoral students.
!Doctoral students need both departmental and extra-departmental
structures to give their concerns a strong and effective voice and to
cultivate graduate student leadership as a component of graduate
education and professional development.


54 Ibid., p. 5. See also “Professional MS Offer Promise of More Minorities Pursuing
Graduate Studies,” The Washington Fax, October 10, 2003, and “Postdoc Mentoring In
Need of Institutional Changes, National Academies’ Convocation Agrees,” Washington Fax,
April 19, 2004.
55 The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, The Responsive Ph.D.,
Innovations in U.S. Doctoral Education, September 2005, 76 pp. Responses and
participation from 20 graduate schools contributed to the report.

!Information about doctoral education, program expectations, and
career prospects must be more transparent to students from the
moment they begin to consider a Ph.D.
!Doctoral programs urgently need to expand their approaches to
mentoring, such as through team mentoring, particularly for
attracting and retaining a diverse cohort of students.56
Demographics and the Science and Engineering
Talent Pool
In the 21st century, global competition and rapid advances in science and
technology will require a workforce that is increasingly more scientifically and
technically proficient.57 The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that science and
engineering occupations are projected to grow by 21.4% from 2004 to 2014,
compared to a growth of 13% in all occupations during the same time period.58 It is
anticipated that approximately 65% of the growth in science and engineering
occupations will be in the computer-related occupations.59 Faster than average
growth is expected in the life sciences, social sciences, and the science and
engineering-related occupations of science manager.60 In testimony before the House
Science Committee, Daniel L. Goroff, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dean of
Faculty, Harvey Mudd College, stated that:
With less than 6% of the world’s population, the United States cannot expect to
dominate science and technology in the future as it did during the second half of
the last century when we enjoyed a massively disproportionate share of the
world’s STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] resources.
We must invest more the resources we do have, encourage those resources to
produce economically useful innovations, and organize the STEM enterprise by


56 Ibid., p. 25. Approximately 10 major research institutions have agreed to cooperate in the
testing of the recommendations proffered in this report. See also Smallwood, Scott,
“Graduate Schools Are Urged to Look Outward to Help Society,” The Chronicle of Higher
Education, v. 52, October 21, 2005, p. A12.
57 For expanded discussion of the scientific workforce see CRS Report RL34539, The U.S.
Science and Technology Workforce, by Deborah D. Stine and Christine M. Matthews.
58 Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Occupational Statistics and
Employment Projections, BLS Releases 2004-2014 Employment Projections, December 7,

2005, [http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.nr0.htm].


59 Computer-related occupations include mathematical science occupations.
60 NSF acknowledges that predicting the demand for science and engineers in specific areas
is difficult. The NSF states that: “Many spending decisions on R&D by corporations and
governments are difficult or impossible to anticipate. In addition, R&D money increasingly
crosses borders in search of the best place to have particular research performed.... Finally,
it may be difficult to anticipate new products and industries that may be created via the
innovation processes that are most closely associated with scientists and engineers.”
National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators, 2008, Volume 1, p. 3-12.

working with diverse groups to make sure that innovations developed here or61
overseas produce prosperity and progress for all.
There are few in the scientific community who argue about the effect of
national demographics on the future science and engineering workforce.62 With thest
beginning of the 21 century, a larger proportion of the U.S. population will be
composed of minorities — blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans, with the fastest63
growing minority group being Hispanics. As a group, these minorities traditionally
have been underrepresented in the science and engineering disciplines compared to64
their fraction of the total population. These minorities take fewer high-level science
and mathematics courses in high school; earn fewer undergraduate and graduate
degrees in science and engineering; and are less likely to be employed in science and
engineering positions than white males.65 Data compiled by the NSF reveal that
blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans/Alaskan Natives as a whole comprise more
than 25% of the population and earn, as a whole, 16.2% of the bachelor degrees,


61 House Science Committee, Undergraduate Science, Math, and Engineering Education:
What’s Working, Written testimony of Daniel L. Goroff, Vice President for Academic
Affairs and Dean of Faculty, Harvey Mudd College, p.6.
62 The current scientific and engineering workforce is aging. The NSF reports that the
number reaching retirement age will increase dramatically over the next two decades.
National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Volume 1, pp. 3-45 - 3-
46. See also National Science Foundation, Women, Minorities, and Persons with
Disabilities in Science and Engineering October 2007 Update, Arlington, VA, October
2007, [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/], National Science Board, Science and
Engineering Indicators 2008, Volume 1, NSB 08-01A, Arlington, VA, January 2008, pp.

3.27-29, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, p. 7-4., ,and Jackson, Shirley Ann, President,


Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, “Science and Society: A Nexus of Opportunity,” Speech
presented on January 17, 2007.
63 See for example Ashburn, Elyse, “New Data Predict Major Shifts in Student Population,
Requiring Colleges to Change Strategies,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 20,
2008, and Schmidt, Peter, “Higher Education Is in Flux as Demographics Change, Federal
Report Shows,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, v. 54, June 6, 2008, p. A23.
64 See for example Bridges, Brian K., “Bottlenecks and Bulges: The Minority Academic
Pipeline,” Presentation at the 2nd Annual Conference on Understanding Interventions that
Encourage Minorities to Pursue Research Careers, American Council on Education, Mayth
2008, The College Board, 4 Annual Advanced Placement Report to the Nation, February
13, 2008, 57 pp, National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Volume
1, pp. 1-7 - 1-23, and 3-26 - 3-29, and National Center for Education Statistics, Status and
Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Minorities, September 2007, 157 pp. Asian
Americans are excluded because they are not statistically underrepresented in science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology.
65 White, Jeffrey L., James W. Altschuld, and Yi-Fang Lee, “Persistence of Interest in
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: A Minority Retention Study,” Journal
of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, v. 12, 2006, pp. 47-64, Landis,
Raymond B. California State University, Los Angeles, “Retention by Design - Achieving
Excellence in Minority Engineering Education,” October 2005, [http://www.nacme.org/pdf/
RetentionByDesign.pdf], and National Science Foundation, Women, Minorities, and
Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering, Arlington, VA, May 2008 Update,
[http://www.nsf.gov/ statistics/wmpd/pdf/may2008updates.pdf].

10.7% of the masters degrees, and 5.4% of the doctorate degrees in science and
engi neeri n g. 66
NSF data show that between 2002 and 2005, all racial/ethnic groups, except for
whites, either increased their share of earned bachelor and degrees in science and
engineering or remained level. Blacks were awarded 8.4% of the bachelors degrees
in both 2002 and in 2005. Hispanics increased their share of earned degrees from
7.2% in 2002 to 7.6% in 2005. While Native Americans/Alaskan Natives increased
their proportion, it remained at less than 1.0%. Asian/Pacific Islanders proportion
of bachelors’ degrees increased from 9.0% in 2002 to 9.2% in 2005. For foreign
students,67 the proportion was 3.9% in 2002 and 4.0% in 2005. The decrease in
earned bachelors degrees by whites was from 66.5% in 2002 to 64.6% in 2005.68
At the master’s level, blacks were awarded 6.3% of the degrees in science and
engineering in 2005, up from the 6.2% in 2002. The proportion of master’s degrees
received by Hispanics increased from 4.1% in 2002 to 4.5% in 2005. Asian/Pacific
Islanders comprised approximately 6.9% of the masters degrees awarded in 2002 and

7.4% in 2005. For foreign students, the increase was from 27.8% in 2002 to 27.9%


in 2005. Native Americans’ proportion remained at less than 1.0% between 2002
and 2005. Again, whites reported a decrease in their proportion of earned degrees,
dropping from 48.8% in 2002 to 46.7% in 2005.69
An analysis of the data for earned degrees at the doctoral level revealed that
blacks registered a decrease at this level, from 2.7% of the awards in 2002 to 2.5%
in 2005. The degrees earned by Hispanics remained level, 2.6% in 2002 and 2005.
As at the other two degree levels, Native Americans’ proportion remained at less than
1%. Asian/Pacific Islanders reported a decrease in earned degrees, from 4.3% in
2002 to 4.2% in 2005. Whites also reported a decrease in earned degrees, from
47.4% in 2002 to 42.9% in 2005. Doctoral degrees awarded to foreign students
increased from 30.6% in 2002 to 36.3% in 2005.70
While minorities have increased their share of degrees awarded in the sciences,
poor preparation in science and mathematics is said to be a major factor limiting the
appeal of science and engineering to even larger numbers of these groups.71 A large


66 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators, Volume 2, Appendix Tables

2-27, 2-29, and 2-31.


67 Foreign students on temporary resident status.
68 National Science Foundation, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in
Science and Engineering, May 2008 Update, Table C-6.
69 Ibid., Table E-3.
70 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators, Volume 2, Appendix Table

2-32.


71 White, Jeffrey L., James W. Altschuld, and Yi-Fang Lee, “Persistence of Interest in
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: A Minority Retention Study,” Journal
of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, v. 12, 2006, pp. 47-64, Landis,
Raymond B., California State University, Los Angeles, “Retention by Design - Achieving
(continued...)

number of blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans lack access to many of the more
rigorous college preparatory courses.72 Enrollment in college preparatory track or
courses offers a student a better chance at being accepted at a college through her/his
performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) or American College Testing
(ACT), and a better chance at success in college.73 Despite gains in the past 10 years,
the average scores made by blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans, who take both
the SAT and the ACT continue to fall behind the average scores of whites and Asian
students who take the test.74
In addition to recruitment as a problem for greater minority participation in
science and engineering, retention of minorities in the educational pipeline, once
recruited, also is of concern.75 (Attrition rates for blacks, Hispanics, and Native
Americans are higher than for whites or Asians). Currently, these underrepresented
minority groups are reporting increased enrollments in colleges and universities and
in their share of science and engineering degrees.76 However, there is concern that


71 (...continued)
Excellence in Minority Engineering Education,” October 2005, 27 pp., and National Science
Foundation, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering,
May 2008 Update.
72 There has been an increase in the number of first-generation minority students enrolling
in institutions of higher education. Some of these students are found to be underprepared,
and as a result, struggle academically. Institutions have developed initiatives to improve the
retention of these students. Horwedel, Dina M., “Putting First-Generation Students First,”
Diverse Issues in Higher Education, v. 25, April 17, 2008, pp.10-12.
73 Students who take the more rigorous high school science and mathematics courses are
more likely to continue their education than those who do not. The results of the National
Educational Longitudinal Study found that 83% of students who took algebra I and
geometry, and approximately 89% of students who took chemistry went to college as
compared to 36% who did not take algebra and geometry and 43% who did not take
chemistry. In general, approximately 51% of high school seniors planning to attend college
did not take four years or more of science, and 31% planning to attend college did not take
four years or more of mathematics. Students who do take four years of science and
mathematics while in high school have been found to improve their SAT score by 100
points.
74 See for example “There is Good News and Bad News in Black Participation in Advanced
Placement Programs,” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, Winter 2005/2006, pp.
98-101, and Lam, Paul C., Dennis Doverspike, Julie Zhao, and P. Ruby Mawasha, “The
ACT and High School GPA as Predictors of Success in a Minority Engineering Program,”
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, v. 11, 2005, pp. 247-255.
75 Wyer, Mary, “Intending to Stay: Images of Scientists, Attitudes Toward Women and
Gender as Influences on Persistence Among Science and Engineering Majors,” The Journal
of Blacks in Higher Education, v. 9, 2003, pp.1-16. Persistence data are sometimes spurious
in that many minority students do not necessarily drop out, but “stop out” for a period of
time and sometimes enroll at other institutions. In addition, persistence data do not always
show the effects of part-time attendance and transfer students.
76 American Council on Education, Office of Minorities in Higher Education, Minorities in
Higher Education Twenty-Second Annual Status Report, 2007 Supplement, Washington,
DC, February 2007, pp. 15-29. The report finds that between 1994 and 2004, minority
(continued...)

some of the programs in the universities to attract minorities to the sciences have
come under attack as a result of the limitations currently imposed on affirmative
action in higher education.77 In an effort to avoid the threat of litigation or
complaints,78 many institutions no longer target programs solely to minority groups
or use race-based eligibility criteria in awarding fellowships or participation in
academic enrichment programs.79 These programs that were formerly race-exclusive,
have been opened to all students “... to serv[e] the broader and more abstract goal of
promoting campus diversity.”80 Some institutions have even renamed their
“minority” offices and programs as “diversity” or “multicultural” offices and
programs. 81
Women are also found to be underrepresented in selected science and
engineering disciplines.82 Although enrollment in rigorous course work and
advanced placement classes in high school has increased for women in more than 10


76 (...continued)
college enrollment grew by 49%, to approximately 4.8 million students.
77 In June 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court, in landmark cases involving the University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, defined the limits of affirmative action. See for example American
Association for the Advancement of Science, National Action Council for Minorities in
Engineering, Shirley M. Malcom, Daryl E. Chubin, Jolene K. Jesse, Standing Our Ground,
A Guidebook for STEM Educators in the Post-Michigan Era, October 2004, 94 pp, Roach,
Ronald, “Another Supreme Test?,” Diverse Issues in Higher Education, v. 23, June 29,

2006, p. 8, and CRS Report RL31874, The University of Michigan Affirmative Action Cases:


Racial Diversity in Higher Education, by Charles V. Dale.
78 Complaints filed with the ED have accused institutions of violation of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act (prohibits discrimination in education), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
(prohibits discrimination in employment by restricting fellowships for minority groups or
for women).
79 Some foundations, philanthropic organizations, and federal agencies no longer provide
financial support to programs with race-exclusive eligibility criteria. See for example
Jaschik, Scott, “Affirmative Action Challenged Anew,”Inside Higher Ed, April 8, 2008,
[http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2008/04/08/affirm], and Schmidt,
Peter, “NIH Opening Minority Programs to Other Groups,” The Chronicle of Higher
Education, v. 51, March 11, 2005, p. A26.
80 Schmidt, Peter, “From ‘Minority’ to ‘Diversity’,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, v.
52, February 3, 2006, p. A24. Daniel Rich, Provost, University of Delaware states that his
institution has changed a scholarship program once reserved for racial or ethnic minorities.
It is now opened to students who are first generation members to attend college, who have
been classified as financial needy based on federal financial-aid calculations, or who have
experienced “challenging social, economic, educational, cultural, or other life
circumstances.”
81 Glater, Jonathan D., “Colleges Open Minority Aid to All Comers,” The New York Times,
March 14, 2006, and Schmidt, Peter, “Justice Dept. Is Expected to Sue Southern Illinois U.
Over Minority Fellowships,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, v. 52, November 25,

2005, p. A34.


82 See House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Research and
Science Education, Hearing, Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science andthnd
Engineering Act of 2008, 110 Cong., 2 Sess., May 8, 2008.

years, there is still a need to strengthen the course taking and persistence of women
all along the educational pipeline.83 Data reveal that in 2005, women were awarded
approximately 50.5% of the undergraduate degrees in science and engineering, a
slight decrease from 50.8% in 2002.84 The number of women who persist in the
science and engineering disciplines to the graduate level shows a decline. In 2005,

39.5% of the doctorate degrees in science and engineering were awarded to women,


almost level with the 39.2% in 2002.85 Disaggregated data find that these awards
were concentrated in selected disciplines. In 2005, women were awarded 22.5% of
the doctorate degrees in engineering, 26.7% in the physical sciences, and 19.8% in
computer sciences. The proportion for these awards earned by women in 2002 were
17.5%, 26.6%, and 20.6%, respectively. In the social and behavioral sciences, women
earned 55.0% of the doctorates in 2005, an increase from the 54.4% in 2002. There
was even more significant participation by women in psychology. Women were
awarded 68.0% of the doctorates in psychology in 2005, and 66.7% in 2002.86
Shirley Ann Jackson, President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, states that in
the “altered environment” resulting from the Supreme Court decisions, the nation is
challenged more than ever to confront the changing demographics. Blacks,
Hispanics, and women, groups underrepresented in the science, engineering, and
technical disciplines, comprise more than 66% of the entire workforce. It is expected
that this “new majority” will replace the impending retiring scientific and engineering
workforce which is largely white and male.87 Jackson notes that:
[W]e are experiencing pressure to replace the graying science and engineering
workforce with new talent — educated young scientists and engineers who will
make the discoveries and innovations which have paid off so handsomely, to
date.... While the recent Supreme Court decisions uphold diversity, they force
us to come at things in a different way. We must come up with solutions for
developing science and engineering talent — solutions that address the new and
coming realities of the underrepresented minority becoming the underrepresented88


majority.
83 Virnoche Mary E., “Expanding Girls’ Horizons: Strengthening Persistence in the Early
Math and Science Education Pipeline,” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and
Engineering, v. 14, 2008, pp. 29-44; The National Academies, Beyond Bias and Barriers:
Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, Washington, 2007,
pp. 59-60; Dean, Cornelia, “Women in Science: The Battle Moves to the Trenches,” The
New York Times, December 19, 2006; and Ripley, Amanda, “Who Says a Woman Can’t Be
Einstein?,” Time, March 7, 2005, pp. 51-59.
84 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Volume 2, Appendix
Table 2-27.
85 Ibid., Appendix Table 2-31.
86 Ibid.
87 More than half of the U.S. science and engineering workforce is over the age of 40.
88 Standing Our Ground, A Guidebook for STEM Educators in the Post-Michigan Era, pp.

71-12.



Foreign Science and Engineering Students89
The increased presence of foreign students in graduate science and engineering
programs has been and continues to be of concern to some in the scientific
community.90 Enrollment of U.S. citizens in graduate science and engineering91
programs has not kept pace with that of foreign students in those programs. NSF
data reveal found that first-time, full-time science and engineering graduate
enrollment of foreign students in science and engineering disciplines increased by
approximately 16.0% from 2005 to 2006. The increase for U.S. citizens and
permanent resident students during this same academic year was slightly more than
1.0%. In addition to the number of foreign students in graduate science and
engineering programs, a significant number of university faculty in the scientific
disciplines are foreign, and foreign doctorates are employed in large numbers by
industry.
NSF data reveal that in 2005, the foreign student population earned
approximately 34.7% of the doctorate degrees in the sciences and approximately92
63.1% of the doctorate degrees in engineering. In 2005, foreign students on
temporary resident93 visas earned 20.6% of the doctorates in the sciences, and 48.6%
of the doctorates in engineering. The participation rates in 2004 were 18.9% and
48.8%, respectively. In 2005, permanent resident94 status students earned 3.8% of
the doctorates in the sciences and 4.4% of the doctorates in engineering, an increase
over the 2004 levels of 3.7% and 4.2%, respectively.95 Trend data for science and
engineering degrees for the years 1996-2005 reveal that of the non-U.S. citizen


89 For an expanded discussion of foreign scientists and engineers, see CRS Report RL31146,
Foreign Students in the United States: Policies and Legislation, by Chad Haddal, CRS
Report RL30498, Immigration: Legislative Issues on Nonimmigrant Professional Specialty
(H-1B) Workers, by Ruth Ellen Wasem, and CRS Report 97-746, Foreign Science and
Engineering Presence in U.S. Institutions and the Laborforce, by Christine M. Matthews.
90 Scanlon, Cynthia, “The H-1B Visa Debate,” Area Development Site and Facility Planning
Online, October/November 2006, [http://www.areadevelopment.com/laborEducation/oct06/
h1bvisa.shtml].
91 National Science Foundation, First-Time, Full-Time Graduate Student Enrollment in
Science and Engineering Increases in 2006, Especially Among Foreign Students, InfoBrief,
NSF08-302, Arlington, VA, December 2007, 6 pp., and McCormack, Eugene, “Number of
Foreign Students Bounces Back to Near-Record High,” The Chronicle of Higher Education,
v. 54, November 16, 2007, p. A1.
92 National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards:2005, Detailed
Statistical Tables, NSF07-305, Arlington, VA, December 2006, Table 3.
93 A temporary resident is a person who is not a citizen or national of the United States and
who is in this country on a temporary basis and can not remain indefinitely. The terms
nonresident alien or nonimmigrant are used interchangeably.
94 A permanent resident (“green card holder”) is a person who is not a citizen of the United
States but who has been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the
United States. The terms resident alien or immigrant apply.
95 Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards: 2005, Table 3.

population, temporary resident status students consistently have earned the majority
of the doctorate degrees.
There are divergent views in the scientific and academic community about the
effects of a significant foreign presence in graduate science and engineering
programs.96 Some argue that U.S. universities benefit from a large foreign citizen
enrollment by helping to meet the needs of the university and, for those students who
remain in the United States, the Nation’s economy.97
Foreign students generate three distinct types of measurable costs and benefits. First, 13
percent of foreign students remain in the United States, permanently increasing the number
of skilled workers in the labor force. Second, foreign students, while enrolled in schools,
are an important part of the workforce at those institutions, particularly at large research
universities. They help teach large undergraduate classes, provide research assistance to the
faculty, and make up an important fraction of the bench workers in scientific labs. Finally,
many foreign students pay tuition, and those revenues may be an important source of income
for educational institutions.98
Some argue that the influx of immigrant scientists and engineers has resulted
in depressed job opportunities, lowered wages, and declining working conditions for
U.S. scientific personnel. While many businesses, especially high-tech companies,
have recently downsized, the federal government issued thousands of H-1B visas to
foreign workers. There are those in the scientific and technical community who
contend that an over-reliance on H-1B visa workers to fill high-tech positions has
weakened opportunities for the U.S. workforce.99 Many U.S. workers argue that a
number of the available positions are being filled by “less-expensive foreign
labor.”100 Those critical of the influx of immigrant scientists have advocated placing


96 See for example The National Academies, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public
Policy, Policy Implications of International Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars
in the United States, Washington, DC, 2005, pp. 17-65, Kalita, S. Mitra and Krissah
Williams, “Help Wanted as Immigration Faces Overhaul,” The Washington Post, March 27,
2006, p. A01, Clemons, Steven and Michael Lind, “How to Lose the Brain Race,” The New
York Times, April 10, 2006, Wertheimer, Linda K., “Visa Policy Hinders Research; Hurdles
for Foreign Students Take Toll on Colleges’ Scientific Work,” The Dallas Morning News,
November 24, 2002, p. A1, Stephan, Paula E. and Sharon G. Levin, “Exceptional
Contributions to U.S. Science by the Foreign-Born and Foreign-Educated,” Population
Research and Policy Review, v. 20, 2001, pp. 59-79.
97 The Institute of International Education reports that for the 2006/2007 academic year,
foreign students and their families contributed approximately $14.5 billion to the U.S.
economy in money from tuition, living expenses and related costs. The Department of
Commerce estimates that U.S. higher education is the nation’s fifth largest service sector
export. Institute of International Education, Open Doors 2007: International Students in the
United States, November 13, 2007, [http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=113743].
98 Borjas, George, Center for Immigration Studies, An Evaluation of the Foreign Student
Program, June 2002, [http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back602.htm], pp.6-7.
99 See for example Schwartz, Ephraim, “H-1B: Patriotic or Treasonous?,” InfoWorld, v. 27,
May 6, 2005, [http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/05/06/19NNh1b_1.html].
100 Johnson, Carrie, “Hiring of Foreign Workers Frustrates Native Job-Seekers,” Washington
(continued...)

restrictions on the hiring of foreign skilled employees in addition to enforcing the
existing laws designed to protect workers. Those in support of the H-1B program
maintain that there is no “clear evidence” that foreign workers displace U.S. workers
in comparable positions and that it is necessary to hire foreign workers to fill needed
positions, even during periods of slow economic growth.101
The debate on the presence of foreign students in graduate science and
engineering programs and the workforce has intensified as a result of the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001. It has been reported that foreign students in the
United States are encountering “a progressively more inhospitable environment.”102
Concerns have been expressed about certain foreign students receiving education and
training in sensitive areas.103 There has been increased discussion about the access
of foreign scientists and engineers to research and development (R&D) related to
chemical and biological weapons. Also, there is discussion of the added scrutiny of
foreign students from countries that sponsor terrorism.104 The academic community
is concerned that the more stringent requirements of foreign students may have a
continued impact on enrollments in colleges and universities.105 Others contend that


100 (...continued)
Post, February 27, 2002, p. E01.
101 See for example Clark, John, Nadine Jeserich, and Graham Toft, Hudson Institute, Can
Foreign Talent Fill Gaps in the U.S. Labor Force? The Contributions of Recent Literature,
September 2004, 33 pp., Baker, Chris, “Visa Restrictions Will Harm U.S. Technology,
Gates Says; Microsoft Chief Calls For End to Caps On Workers,” The Washington Times,
April 29, 2005, p. C13, and Frauenheim, Ed, “Brain Drain in Tech’s Future?,” CNET
Nets.com, August 6, 2004.
102 Hudson, Audrey, “Foreign Students Labeled ‘Threats’,” The Washington Times, June 24,
2008, p. A1, and House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border
Security, and Claims, Sources and Methods of Foreign Nationals Engaged in Economic andthst
Military Espionage, 109, 1 Sess., September 15, 2005, Written testimony of William A.
Wulf, President, National Academy of Engineering, p. 12, and Foroohar, Rana, “America
Closes Its Doors,” [http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6038977/site/newsweek/print/

1/displaymode/1098].


103 See for example Lang, Les, “Commerce Department Withdraws Extra Restrictions on
Foreign Scientists,” Gastroenterology, v. 131, October 2006, p. 988, and NAFSA:
Association of International Educators, Restoring U.S. Competitiveness for International
Scholars, June 2006, p. 6. The Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State, issues
visas to foreign students and 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.
104 The State Department publishes a list annually of state sponsors of terrorism. Currently,
the countries include Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. CRS Report
RL32251, Cuba and the State Sponsors of Terrorism List, by Mark P. Sullivan.
105 See for example Cohen, David, “Middle Eastern Students Shut Out of the U.S. Turn to
Australia and New Zealand,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, v. 53, August 17, 2007,
p. A37, Strauss, Valerie, “Competition Worries Graduate Programs,” The Washington Post,
(continued...)

a possible reduction in the immigration of foreign scientists may affect negatively on
the competitiveness of U.S. industry and compromise commitments made in long-
standing international cooperative agreements.106
Congressional Activity107
On August 9, 2007, President Bush signed into law P.L. 110-69, The America
COMPETES Act (H.R. 2272).108 The legislation is directed at increasing research
investment, improving economic competitiveness, developing an innovation
infrastructure, and strengthening and expanding science and mathematics programs
at all points on the educational pipeline. This legislation includes components of
other competitiveness bills introduced in the 110th Congress. The COMPETES Act
authorizes $33.6 billion for FY2008 through FY2010 for science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology programs across the federal government. Among other
things, it directs the NSF to expand the Integrative Graduate Education and Research
Traineeship and the Graduate Research Fellowship programs, and to establish a
clearinghouse of programs related to improving the professional science master’s
degree. To address the need to expand the participation of underrepresented groups
in the sciences, the COMPETES Act supports a program for mentoring to women
interested in pursing degrees in science, mathematics, and engineering. In addition,
it requires the NSF to establish teacher institutes that are focused on science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics. These are to be summer institutes and are
to provide professional development for teachers at the precollege level teaching in
high-need subjects and in high-need schools.
Additional legislation introduced during the 110th Congress includes H.R. 4151,
the STEM Promotion Act of 2007. This bill is directed at expanding the pipeline of
U.S. students pursuing degrees in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics
education. The degree fields are those deemed necessary to meet the workforce


105 (...continued)
April 18, 2006, p. A06, and The National Academies, Policy Implications of International
Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars in the United States, pp. 26-42.
106 “Current Visa Restrictions Interfere with U.S. Science and Engineering Contributions to
Important National Needs,” Statement from Bruce Alberts, President National Academy of
Sciences, Wm. A. Wulf, President, National Academy of Engineering, and Harvey Fineberg,
President, Institute of Medicine, December 13, 2002 [http://www.nationalacademies.org].
See also Southwick, Ron, “Agriculture Department Draws Fire for Decision to Stop Hiring
Foreign Scientists,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, v. 48, May 13, 2002.
107 For expanded discussion of legislative action related to science and engineering
education issues, see CRS Report RL33434, Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education: Background, Federal Policy, and Legislative Action, by
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
108 COMPETES — Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in
Technology, Education, and Science. For expanded discussion of science and mathematics
programs in the COMPETES Act, see CRS Report RL34396, The America COMPETES Act
and the FY2009 Budget, and CRS Report RL34328, America COMPETES Act: Programs,
Funding, and Selected Issues, both by Deborah D. Stine.

demands and economic competitiveness of the nation. H.R. 4151 would make
specific recruitment efforts at those groups who are underrepresented in the STEM
disciplines — blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and women. H.R. 6104, S.
3047, Enhancing Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education Act
of 2008, would seek to enhance coordination of STEM education initiatives and
foster cooperation between the states and federal government. The bills would
include initiatives to improve teacher preparation programs at institutions of higher
education by incorporating promising practices and programs that foster student
learning and problem solving skills. H.R. 1467, the 10,000 Trained by 2010 Act,
would authorize funding for competitive grants to institutions to establish and offer
education and training programs in the areas such as information studies, population
informatics, and data security, integrity, and confidentiality. Student internships and
bridge programs would be established in these research areas at the state, local and
federal level, and in the private sector.
Oversight by the 110th Congress may touch on some of the following questions:
Can our system of education and training achieve its stated goal of being first in
science and mathematics? Can underrepresented minorities be encouraged to pursue
scientific careers in larger numbers? Can the U.S. continue to produce successive
generations of scientists, engineers, and technicians to meet the demands of the
nation’s changing economy and workplace?