Is US Falling Behind in Science and Engineering? 1 MICHAEL S. TEITELBAUM LABOR AND WORKLIFE PROGRAM HARVARD LAW SCHOOL [email protected]

IEEE-USA WEBCAST SEPTEMBER 9, 2014

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

Falling Behind: Influential omens 2

 “In the race for the future, America is in danger

of falling behind…our generation’s Sputnik moment is back.” - President Barack Obama, Dec 6, 2010  “deep concern about the United States’ ability to maintain its scientific and technological superiority through this decade and beyond.” Business Roundtable, Tapping America’s Potential, 2005  “A quiet crisis”, “a disturbing mosaic”…suggest that US will be unable to compete in a globalizing world. National Academies, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, 2007 Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

Influential reports, 2005-2007 3

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

Not new: a long history of “alarm/boom/bust” 4

 Shortage alarms sounded; govt boosts supply; then bust  Round 1: post-WW II – 1957 

Boom in physical sciences: mostly supported by DoD, AEC

 Round 2: 1957-1970s - post-Sputnik  

Booms due NASA, NDEA, Apollo moon launch Apollo: Huge allocation of $, and of STEM talent

 Round 3: 1981-early 1990s 

DoD buildup; “Nation at Risk” (1983); NSF “shortfall” forecasts

 Round 4: ~1995-2005 (after end of Cold War) 

Booms in impt industries: IT, internet, telecom, biotech – then busts

 Round 5: 1998-2008 

NIH budget doubled 1998-2003; then flat budget = “funding crisis”

 Are we now in Round 6? Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

Many ways to fall behind 5

1. Education: K-12 weak? S&E grads too few? 2. Research (basic & applied) 3. Workforce shortages: impede innovation?

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

1. Education 6

   

Everyone knows that…the conventional view US suffers from “STEM” workforce shortages Mediocre K-12, declining student interest in STEM Common solutions:

Fix K-12 science/math  More STEM majors  Import more STEM workers from China, India  Little debate in mainstream  Business Roundtable, CoC, “Rising Above”  Bipartisan  Interest groups that otherwise disagree  Echoed by mainstream media 

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

K-12 education in sci/math: the evidence 7

 Average (mean) US student performance is “medium” 

PISA, TIMSS

 Inequality in US education unusually high 

Large numbers high-performing in sci/math 



S&E majors come mostly from high-performing tiers

But large numbers also are low-performing, reducing average

 Rankings: ~half of top 10 PISA “countries” are:    

Very small: Liechtenstein (37,000), Estonia (1,300,000) City-states: Singapore (5.4m, 100% urban) Cities: Shanghai, Macao, Hong Kong – not “China” Yet also some larger countries: 

Japan (127m), S Korea (49m), Poland 38m), Canada (35m)

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

US students & STEM: Opinion vs. evidence 8

“American students are bored by math, science and engineering. They buy smartphones and tablets by the millions but don’t pursue the skills necessary to build them. Engineers and physicists are often portrayed as clueless geeks on television, and despite the high pay and the importance of such jobs to the country’s future, the vast majority of high school graduates don’t want to go after them…” “Nearly 90 percent of high school graduates say they’re not interested in a career or a college major involving …STEM, according to a survey of more than a million students who take the ACT test. The number of students who want to pursue engineering or computer science jobs is actually falling, precipitously, at just the moment when the need for those workers is soaring. (Within five years, there will be 2.4 million STEM job openings.)” New York Times, Editorial Board, December 7, 2013 Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

Evidence (ACT’s actual conclusions) 9

“Interest in STEM is high. Almost half (48.3%) of students in the 2013 ACT-tested graduating class have an interest in STEM majors or occupations. While these are encouraging numbers, more must be done to keep these students engaged in STEM fields.” Some caveats:  “STEM” has no agreed definition; ACT uses its own:  

Excludes social sciences Includes health and medicine

 ACT survey is of students intending college, though > 50%

Source: ACT, Key Findings from the National Condition of STEM 2013 Report, February 2014 http://www.act.org/stemcondition/13/pdf/National-STEM-Report-2013.pdf

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

Evidence: % freshmen intending STEM not falling 10 Source: UCLA Higher Education Research Institute

Percent entering freshmen intending STEM major, 1995-2012 45 40 35

Percent

30 25

20 15 10 5

Michael S. Teitelbaum

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

Year

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

10/3/2014

Do this mean K-12 science/math OK? 11

 Certainly not; lots of problems  S&E majors: from higher tiers, large and strong  Yet large % of rest not developing basic competence  And every kid now needs science/math competency  …required

for decent career in many occupations  …necessary: informed citizen, everyday life  …like literacy in 19th C. education

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

“Shortage” claims: Facts more complex 12

 Claims of general shortages misleading  Under-production: some S&E fields, at some degree levels   

Associate degrees in technological subjects (“STEM”? not “S&E”) Quality master’s degrees in basic sciences NB: Employers claiming “shortages” sometimes mean these

 Over-production: some S&E fields, at some degree levels 

E.g. PhDs/postdocs in biomedical sciences exceed workforce demand

 Counter-arguments   

Can’t have too many highly-educated S&Es, even if oversupply They will find their way Will strengthen non-S&E occupations

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

Engineering enrollment trends 1991-2011 13

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

Is interest in Computer Science declining? 14

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

“Introductory [CS] course enrollments are exploding” Source: Lazowska, et al., http://lazowska.cs.washington.edu/NCWIT.pdf

15

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

Demand for CS major increasing 16

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

Why over- and under-production? 17

 Higher educ: Limited feedback from labor market  Govts (Federal, State) do heavily subsidize higher ed  Student loans, research grants, tax laws, state subsidies (waning)  But US atypical: govts have little influence on majors  students choose, often in year 2 of 4-year degree  Low % choose NS&E, primarily driven by engineering

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

Engineering 1st degrees drive differences 18 % 1st degrees % 1st degrees in NS&E in engineering ` China 44 31 S. Korea 36 24 Taiwan 36 23 Japan 23 17 Germany 30 13 France 27 14 UK 22 6 USA 16 4

Source: calculated from NSB, Science & Engineering Indicators, Appendix Table 2-37, latest year (~2010)

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

2. Basic research: U.S. still dominant 19

 US has led world in basic research since WW II  Wise decisions after WW II facilitated (Vannevar Bush)  Heavy Federal funding to universities, not govt labs  Still globally predominant, and strengthening  but other countries rising faster, catching up (Europe)  less true in Asia: more applied research & development  Increase R&D tax credit – to keep R&D in US?  Understandable why corporations seek more tax credits  But corporate shifts of R&D out of US have other reasons

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

Basic research: structured for instability 20

 Positive feedback in system -- destabilizing  More research funding begets more grant claimants  Most PhD students/postdocs financed by research funding NSF: 86% of 44,000 NSF-financed graduate students  NIH: 78% of NIH-financed grad students & postdocs 

 Universities with Federal research funding  Provide little info on job markets, career outcomes  Can recruit and finance int’l students/postdocs, no limits  System needs rising research $ just to be stable 

David Korn, et al., “The NIH Budget in the ‘Postdoubling’ Era,” Science, 296, 24 May 2002, p. 1402

 A recipe for oscillation, instability, booms & busts Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

NIH budget 1960-2012 current & constant dollars (2012, GDP and BRDPI) 21

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

NIH: more funding, lower success 70% 30 60% 25 50% 20 40% 15 30% 10

Success Rate

Number of applications / Awards in thousands

22

20%

5

10%

0%

-

Success Rates of R01 Equivalent Competing Applications (1962-1969 estimated by NIH)

Fiscal Year Applications

Michael S. Teitelbaum

Awards

Success Rate

10/3/2014

NSF Funding History, constant 2013 dollars (thousands), 1951-2014 23

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

System productive, but causes harms 24

 Research and grad education: very long-term 

But Federal S&E appropriations short-term (e.g. 1 year)

 Students: careers that wane before graduation  Research faculty: disrupted research, careers  Universities: Perverse incentives to “leverage up”  

Maximize “soft” funding to pay faculty/staff salaries Increase PhD students & postdocs as lab workforce 



Can recruit internationally; finance with Federal research $

Borrow to build labs (“condo labs”?): OMB Circular A-21

 Result: if budget rises lag, financial crises  More a problem with NIH funding than with NSF Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

Michael S. Teitelbaum

25

10/3/2014

26

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

PNAS, just published http://www.pnas.org/content/111/16/5773 27

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

3. S&E workforce “shortages”? 28

 Note: “STEM” has no agreed definition  From 5% to 20% of workforce (~155m)  5%,

or 8m (NSB): BS/BA or more, S&E occupations  11%, or 17m (NSB): BS/BA or more, S&E degrees  20%, or 26m in 2011 (Rothwell @ Brookings)  NB:

includes skilled workers such as A/C installers, electricians, carpenters, plumbers, welders, auto mechanics, etc.

 With such a range, no wonder confusion prevails

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

Other sources of confusion also 29

     

Peter Cappelli, Wharton School (Aug 2014) “Skill gaps” (K-12 fails to provide basic skills) “Shortages” (of scientists, engineers, IT) “Mismatches” (over/under-supply specific skills) Like others, finds little support for claims 3 possible explanations for employer claims   

Lobbying tool for more labor, lower wages Lower employee tenure=>more turnover/hiring Higher specificity of job requirements narrows pool

Peter Cappelli, “Skill Gaps, Skill Shortages and Skill Mismatches: Evidence for the US”, NBER working paper www.nber.org/papers/w20382

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

Focus here: “scientists and engineers” (“S&E”) 30

 NSB definition: nat sciences, engineering, social sci  Excludes healthcare, sub-baccalaureate  Critical, but small, part of workforce: ~5%  Nobody sees credible evidence of general shortages  If shortages exist, should see:  Rising relative real wages for S&E occupations? NO  Faster-than-average employment growth? YES & NO  Relatively low and declining unemployment rates? NO [Sources: many academic researchers, RAND, Urban Institute]

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

While no signs of broad S&E shortages… 31

 There is clear evidence of large variations within S&E  By fields, by time  

Undersupply and oversupply co-exist across fields Situations in each field change (mechanical, petroleum engineering)

 By geography   

Local hothouses (e.g. Silicon Valley) are atypical Booms & busts with high frequency & amplitude, high housing costs Generalizations are perilous

 A few examples: Computer, IT: high starting $; sub-BS common; some hot, some not  Engineers: high starting $ for BS, but slow increases; careers unstable  Biomedical: lengthy PhD+postdoc; low starting $; careers unstable 

 Are “S&E shortage” claims simply over-generalizations? Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

Why “shortage” claims prevail despite evidence? 32

 Expensive lobbying: led by IT employers, imm bar

Top goal: expand H-1B visa Support from some in higher education, government Claims echoed by non-specialist media Effective politically – complicated issues, campaign finance? Those questioning shortage claims are far weaker  academic researchers, RAND analysts, etc. – easily ignored  S&E societies: conflicted, balkanized, poorly-funded  IEEE itself an example? Result? No contest – shortage claims prevail 

   



Some aspirational policy goals 33

 K-12: Improve science and math for all students 

Higher education: De-incentivize “leveraging up” -- expand on soft money  Configure degrees better for actual workforce demand 

 Clarify goals of visa programs  Restrain shortage alarms, damaging booms and busts  Objective assessments of “shortage” claims 

Need common definition of “STEM” occupations

 Steady growth in Federal S&E research funding Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

If you want a lot more detail… 34

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

THANK YOU! 35

Questions/comments most welcome Michael Teitelbaum

[email protected]

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

36

Cities & city-states rank high in PISA

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

Top lobbying goal: expand H-1B visas 37

 What are H-1Bs?  Non-permanent, but long-term (7+ years)  Numbers are capped, but large (stock over 500,000+ ?) 

Universities: unlimited H-1B visas for e.g. postdocs

 Most employers not required to try to hire domestically 

NB: often reported incorrectly in media

 Low education minima: BA/BS, or equiv experience  Weak wage standards, weak enforcement (complaints)  “Indenture” for H-1Bs seeking green cards  Employers can contract out H-1Bs to other employers  Largest users: Indian offshore outsourcing firms

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

But S&E supply shortage claims prevail 38

 Effective lobbying, led by IT employers w/large resources 

Goals: restrain wage increases; more temporary visas (H-1B, L-1)  

The case of Microsoft & Jack Abramoff, late 1990s Zuckerberg’s new FWD.COM advocacy group -- $50 million lobbying

 Higher education (some)  

Goals: increase Federal research funding Sustain PhD programs, low-cost lab workforce (grad RA’s; postdocs)

 Immigration lawyers 

Goals: more high-volume temporary visas, employer-financed

 Federal agencies (mostly in past, e.g. NSF late 1980s): 

Goals: larger appropriations, “clearable” hires

 Opposition? Poorly-disorganized, poorly-funded  S&E associations technical focus – journals, standards, conferences  Organizations are international (e.g. IEEE)  Balkanized: No strong umbrella organizations like AMA, ABA Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

Largest users of H-1B visas 39

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

…by race & ethnicity: not falling 40

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

41

First degrees in NS&E fields: International comparisons

China very large, outlier on growth rate NOTE: Chinese NS&E degrees heavily concentrated in engineering (~33%) Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

42

NS&E Doctorates: 2001-2010

US numbers growing (inc int’l students) Rapid growth in China Other countries: flat

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

Engineering masters: large and rising (mostly) 43

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

Engineering: intentions vs. degrees: big gaps 44

Figure 2-11 Engineering: Freshmen intentions and degrees, by sex (Percent) Characteristic Intentions (2005) Degrees (2011)

Total 8.4 4.5

Male 15.6 8.6

Female 2.6 1.5

NOTES: Degrees do not reflect the same student cohort. SOURCES: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California at Los Angeles, Survey of the American Freshman: National Norms, special tabulations (2013); National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Sy stem, Completions Survey, 2011; National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, WebCASPAR database, http://webcaspar.nsf.gov. Science and Engineering Indicators 2014

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

Or are “shortages” in demand, vs. supply? 45

“In particular, careful reading of such statements indicates that the speakers have in effect been saying: There are not as many engineers and scientists as this nation should have in order to do all the things that need doing such as maintaining our rapid rate of technological progress, raising our standard of living, keeping us militarily strong, etc. In other words, they are saying that (in the economic sense) demand for technically skilled manpower ought to be greater than it is— it is really a shortage of demand for scientists and engineers that concerns them.” Kenneth Arrow and William Capron (1959) Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

Robust growth of the PSM degree 46

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

What about goals for higher education? 47

Better articulation: K-12/ CC/UG/Grad/workforce  Configure S&E degrees better for non-academe  Engineering BS: 

  

Narrow gap between intention and degree? Breadth: calligraphy and Steve Jobs Include professional skills impt in likely workplace?

 S&E graduate degrees: broader knowledge/skills  Professional Science Master’s (PSM): promising model  PSM concepts adaptable for BS and PhD?

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014

NIH budget 1960-2012, current & constant $ 48 $35,000,000

$30,000,000

$25,000,000

$20,000,000

$15,000,000

$10,000,000

$5,000,000

$-

Current dollars in thousands Constant dollars in thousands, GDP chain type index (1960) Constant dollars in thousands, BRDPI index (1960)

Michael S. Teitelbaum

10/3/2014