There is much discussion in the U.S. today about the "crisis" looming in Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics (STEM). Government officials, and industrial powerhouses such as Microsoft and Google bemoan the lack of "qualified" STEM professionals in the U.S. Most point worryingly at the sub-par performance of American school-children against their foreign peers, and the rising demand of a skilled workforce in Information Technology and Computer Science.
Recent articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education and IEEE Spectrum challenge this notion. These articles, are among growing number that argue that the "STEM Crisis" long harped upon by government and industry is largely a myth, pointing to high unemployment of current American STEM degree holders and hinting at more insidious reasons for companies highlighting the crisis. In this blog post, I make an argument that I know I'm not the first to make: that the STEM crisis is one largely manufactured by the lack of incentives our country makes for its own citizens to pursue degrees and occupations in STEM. Let's start from the beginning, the lack of STEM education amongst our K-12 students.
Myth 1: Poor math and science performance amongst American K-12 students is a reflection of the lack of qualified K-12 teachers in STEM.
Reality: Poor math and science performance amongst American K-12 students is a reflection of the lack of incentives to recruit talented STEM professionals into teaching careers.
The education system in our country is fundamentally broken. Teachers in the U.S. are undervalued, belittled, and are treated with far more contempt than their counterparts in other counties. No further proof is needed than the adage, "those who cannot do, teach". With such a lack of respect and pay, is anyone really surprised why there aren't more gifted K-12 teachers? Furthermore, most states require teaching candidates to undergo additional training in the form of a Masters of Education or a teaching certificate. Most students fresh out of college can't afford to take out additional loans to complete such degrees (an issue we discuss in a few paragraphs).
Myth 2: American students (especially women) are just not interested in majoring in STEM.
Reality: Bachelors degrees in STEM are undervalued. Many STEM graduates cannot get a job with their bachelors degrees.
The STEM crisis, critics may argue, is caused by a lack of students getting (or willing to get) degrees in STEM fields, especially women. Data from the National Science Foundation (NSF) contradicts this. While women are still severely underrepresented in engineering and fields like computer science, they represent a majority or a near-equal proportion (> 40%) of undergraduate majors in the mathematical, physical, and biological sciences. In fact, 22.8% of undergraduates enroll in STEM fields, compared to 16.2% in the Humanities, 17.2% in Business, 15.3% in Health. It is incorrect to argue that there is a lack of interest (though I concede that I view the "STEM" label as being rather broad for the NSF data).
Next, let's take a look at salary data. According to the Wall Street Journal, bachelors degree recipients in Biology earn approximately $39,000, while Chemistry majors $43,000, Math majors $46,000 and Physics majors around $50,000. By comparison, English, History, Forestry and Film majors earn about $39,000, and Management majors make about $49,000. Despite a public perception that STEM majors are "hard", there is lack of matching salary incentives (for these majors at least), to encourage students to major in these disciplines. If such degrees were considered valuable and were in high demand (such as degrees in some engineering programs and computing), the salaries would be higher.
Myth 3: American students are not interested in/lack the talent to earn graduate degrees in STEM.
Reality: American students have financial constraints that make it difficult to pursue graduate degrees in STEM.
According to the Taulbee survey, 60% of the students enrolled in Computer Science graduate programs are foreign nationals. Similar statistics exist for many engineering programs. This has led some to declare that American citizens are simply not interested (or not qualified) to pursue graduate degrees in computing. Nothing can be further from the truth. From my conversations with other professors, American students tend to be better performers and better prepared than their foreign counterparts. The lack of American students at the Masters and Ph.D. levels can largely be attributed to financial constraints. Unlike their richer, foreign counterparts, most undergraduates in the U.S. graduate with massive amounts of debt. Virtually no aid is given for students to pursue masters degrees. In essence, students often double their current debt to earn a two-year Masters degree that increases their salary differential by just 20k.
While STEM Ph.D.s offer aid, most Ph.D.s take an average of 7 years to complete. Even after 7 years of hard work, many STEM fields require job candidates to pursue post-doctoral work before getting a stable research or academic position. Many students, graduating with $30,000+ of debt, understandably want to start working right away. After all, that debt means holding back on dreams such as starting families and buying houses.
The reality is this: the STEM crisis does not revolve around an inability of companies to find qualified professionals in STEM fields; it is a crisis created due to a lack of incentives. There is in fact a surplus of STEM graduates, which in turn drives down salaries. Furthermore, the hyperinflation of college tuition and expenses means many students graduate with crippling amounts of debt and are unwilling to take the risks to pursue graduate degrees. Until these issues are addressed, there will always be a "STEM crisis" in America --- just perhaps not in the way one would expect.
Recent articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education and IEEE Spectrum challenge this notion. These articles, are among growing number that argue that the "STEM Crisis" long harped upon by government and industry is largely a myth, pointing to high unemployment of current American STEM degree holders and hinting at more insidious reasons for companies highlighting the crisis. In this blog post, I make an argument that I know I'm not the first to make: that the STEM crisis is one largely manufactured by the lack of incentives our country makes for its own citizens to pursue degrees and occupations in STEM. Let's start from the beginning, the lack of STEM education amongst our K-12 students.
Myth 1: Poor math and science performance amongst American K-12 students is a reflection of the lack of qualified K-12 teachers in STEM.
Reality: Poor math and science performance amongst American K-12 students is a reflection of the lack of incentives to recruit talented STEM professionals into teaching careers.
The education system in our country is fundamentally broken. Teachers in the U.S. are undervalued, belittled, and are treated with far more contempt than their counterparts in other counties. No further proof is needed than the adage, "those who cannot do, teach". With such a lack of respect and pay, is anyone really surprised why there aren't more gifted K-12 teachers? Furthermore, most states require teaching candidates to undergo additional training in the form of a Masters of Education or a teaching certificate. Most students fresh out of college can't afford to take out additional loans to complete such degrees (an issue we discuss in a few paragraphs).
Myth 2: American students (especially women) are just not interested in majoring in STEM.
Reality: Bachelors degrees in STEM are undervalued. Many STEM graduates cannot get a job with their bachelors degrees.
The STEM crisis, critics may argue, is caused by a lack of students getting (or willing to get) degrees in STEM fields, especially women. Data from the National Science Foundation (NSF) contradicts this. While women are still severely underrepresented in engineering and fields like computer science, they represent a majority or a near-equal proportion (> 40%) of undergraduate majors in the mathematical, physical, and biological sciences. In fact, 22.8% of undergraduates enroll in STEM fields, compared to 16.2% in the Humanities, 17.2% in Business, 15.3% in Health. It is incorrect to argue that there is a lack of interest (though I concede that I view the "STEM" label as being rather broad for the NSF data).
Next, let's take a look at salary data. According to the Wall Street Journal, bachelors degree recipients in Biology earn approximately $39,000, while Chemistry majors $43,000, Math majors $46,000 and Physics majors around $50,000. By comparison, English, History, Forestry and Film majors earn about $39,000, and Management majors make about $49,000. Despite a public perception that STEM majors are "hard", there is lack of matching salary incentives (for these majors at least), to encourage students to major in these disciplines. If such degrees were considered valuable and were in high demand (such as degrees in some engineering programs and computing), the salaries would be higher.
Myth 3: American students are not interested in/lack the talent to earn graduate degrees in STEM.
Reality: American students have financial constraints that make it difficult to pursue graduate degrees in STEM.
According to the Taulbee survey, 60% of the students enrolled in Computer Science graduate programs are foreign nationals. Similar statistics exist for many engineering programs. This has led some to declare that American citizens are simply not interested (or not qualified) to pursue graduate degrees in computing. Nothing can be further from the truth. From my conversations with other professors, American students tend to be better performers and better prepared than their foreign counterparts. The lack of American students at the Masters and Ph.D. levels can largely be attributed to financial constraints. Unlike their richer, foreign counterparts, most undergraduates in the U.S. graduate with massive amounts of debt. Virtually no aid is given for students to pursue masters degrees. In essence, students often double their current debt to earn a two-year Masters degree that increases their salary differential by just 20k.
While STEM Ph.D.s offer aid, most Ph.D.s take an average of 7 years to complete. Even after 7 years of hard work, many STEM fields require job candidates to pursue post-doctoral work before getting a stable research or academic position. Many students, graduating with $30,000+ of debt, understandably want to start working right away. After all, that debt means holding back on dreams such as starting families and buying houses.
The reality is this: the STEM crisis does not revolve around an inability of companies to find qualified professionals in STEM fields; it is a crisis created due to a lack of incentives. There is in fact a surplus of STEM graduates, which in turn drives down salaries. Furthermore, the hyperinflation of college tuition and expenses means many students graduate with crippling amounts of debt and are unwilling to take the risks to pursue graduate degrees. Until these issues are addressed, there will always be a "STEM crisis" in America --- just perhaps not in the way one would expect.
