|
The Realities Story1 #290406 The reality of the sufficiency of the U.S. science and engineering workforce for the current and future R&D enterprise – as characterized by Michael S. Teitelbaum in his testimony before the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC, November 6, 2007. | |
+Citations (1) - CitationsAdd new citationList by: CiterankMapLink[1] Testimony before the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives
Author: Michael S. Teitelbaum - Vice President, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Publication info: 2007 November, 6 Cited by: David Price 8:53 PM 11 October 2013 GMT Citerank: (1) 290405The Conventional PortraitThe conventional portrait of the sufficiency of the U.S. science and engineering workforce for the current and future R&D enterprise – as characterized by Michael S. Teitelbaum in his testimony before the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC, November 6, 2007.6500CFE4 URL:
| Excerpt / Summary "First, no one who has come to the question with an open mind has been able to find any objective data suggesting general “shortages” of scientists and engineers. The RAND Corporation has conducted several studies of this subject; its conclusions go further than my summary above, saying that not only could they not find any evidence of shortages, but that instead the evidence is more suggestive of surpluses. I would add here that these findings of no general shortage are entirely consistent with isolated shortages of skilled people in narrow fields or in specific technologies that are quite new or growing explosively.
Second, there are substantially more scientists and engineers graduating from U.S. universities that can find attractive career openings in the U.S. workforce. Indeed science and engineering careers in the U.S. appear to be relatively unattractive--- relative that is to alternative professional career paths available to students with strong capabilities in science and math.
Third, students emerging from the oft-criticized K-12 system appear to be studying science and math subjects more, and performing better in them, over time. Nor are U.S. secondary school students lagging far behind comparable students in economically-competitive countries, as is oft-asserted.
Fourth, large and remarkably stable percentages of entering freshmen continue to report that they plan to complete majors in science and engineering fields; however, only about half of these ultimately do so.
Fifth, the postdoc population, which has grown very rapidly in U.S. universities and is recruited increasingly from abroad, looks more like a pool of low-cost research lab workers with limited career prospects than a high-quality training program for soon-to-be academic researchers. Indeed, if the truth be told---only a very small percentage of those in the current postdoc pool have any realistic prospects of gaining a regular faculty position.
Sixth, rapid increases in Federal funding for scientific research and education is more likely than not to further destabilize career paths for junior scientists. Under the current structure, the effect is substantial growth in “slots” for PhD students and postdocs to conduct the supported research, but only limited increases in the numbers of career positions (I will give you a concrete and large example in a moment)." |
|
|