Pan-Organizational Summit on the U.S. Science and Engineering Workforce Meeting Summary (2003) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
The U.S. Science & Engineering Workforce: An Unconventional Portrait
The U.S. Science & Engineering Workforce: An Unconventional Portrait
Pages 1-7
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
Beginning in the late 1980s, the then leadership of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and of a few top research universities argued that a "looming shortfall" of scientists and engineers emerging between the mid-1980s and 2006 could be discerned.2 Their arguments were based upon projections produced by the NSF's late Division of Policy Research and Analysis.3 When, only a few years later, it became apparent that the trend was in the opposite direction to that of the forecasted "shortfall," i.e., a growing surplus of scientists and engineers, the NSF as a whole was subjected to the embarrassment of an investigation by the staff of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, followed by an investigative hearing.
|
From page 2... ...
He pointed to NSF statistics showing that graduate enrollment in engineering, physical and earth sciences, and math showed declines between 1993 and 2000, and from the mid-199Os to 2000, engineering and physics doctorates declined by 15 percent and 22 percent, respectively.6 Thus it would appear that "shortages" or "shortfalls," whether current or impending, have become the hardy perennials of public discourse on these issues. Suffice it to say that there is no credible quantitative evidence of such shortages.
|
From page 3... ...
4. For women and minorities, a lack of role models in these fields, suggesting to younger cohorts that such fields are "not for me." Others with knowledge of science and engineering labor markets have expressed equally energetic concerns about the increasingly unattractive career experiences of newly minted scientists and (to a lesser extent)
|
From page 4... ...
There are also significant economic effects of this 10-12 year period in a student or apprentice position: a substantial fraction of annual income that would otherwise be earned must be forgone what economists term "opportunity costs." A recent study of this subject concludes that bioscientists experience a "huge lifetime economic disadvantage": on the order of $400,000 in earnings discounted at 3 percent compared to Ph.D. fields such
|
From page 5... ...
are shorter and lengthy postdocs less universal, the differentials are smaller but still substantial. Given these significant personal investments of direct expenditures or forgone income, careers in science and engineering must offer commensurate attractions relative to other career paths available to U.S.
|
From page 6... ...
The main negative forces involved seem to differ for engineering and for science. For prospective engineers, the primary deterrents at present may be the visible instability of career paths and the increasing exposure to competition with engineers from low-income countries who are prepared to work for small fractions of prevailing U.S.
|
From page 7... ...
The 1992 congressional investigation described below uncovered extensive documentary evidence, reproduced in the subcommittee report, that NSF's own professional experts on the science and engineering workforce had expressed strong skepticism about the validity of the shortfall projections.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.