Congressman: Poor Science Education Could Unravel U.S. Economy

Science education in the United States is broken. So says Congressman Bart Gordon, chair of the House Committee on
Science and Technology in a scathing criticism that he wrote for the
Spring issue of Issues in Science and Technology. Gordon argues that China and India will crush the United States unless there are substantial improvements to American science education.

Unless the United States maintains its edge in innovation, which is founded on a well-trained creative workforce, the best jobs may soon be found overseas. If current trends continue, along with a lack of action, today's children may grow up with a lower standard of living than their parents.

The United States is in direct competition with countries that recognize the importance of developing their human resources. The numbers and quality of scientists and engineers being educated elsewhere, notably in China and India, continue to increase, and the capabilities of broadband communications networks make access to scientific and engineering talent possible wherever it exists.

It warms my heart to know that a member of congress empathizes with the hordes of science and engineering students who are bored into submission by lackluster classes.

A serious problem with undergraduate STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education is high student attrition. In most instances, attrition is not because of an inability to perform academically, but because of a loss of interest and enthusiasm.

If making classes more exciting does not work, maybe bribes will do the trick.

Finally, the panelists agreed that it is necessary to make careers in
S&T more appealing to students. Specific recommendations included funding undergraduate scholarships and generous graduate fellowship programs and providing paid internships in industry.

Rather than offering training in stagnant fields of science and engineering, Gordon believes that students should be urged to study frontier areas of science like systems biology, tissue engineering, and nanoscience.

The thrust of these recommendations (from a house round table) was that U.S. S&T workers will need to acquire skills that will differentiate them from their foreign competitors. This implies the need to identify the kinds of skills valued by industry and the need for much better information about the skill sets that industry can easily acquire abroad.

So far, the United States has dealt with a lack of skilled scientists and engineers by importing them. Gordon warns that this may become harder as foreign economies improve, citing the train wreck that was American manufacturing in the 80s and early 90s.

The supply part of the equation centers on whether our education system is motivating and preparing a sufficient number of students to pursue training in these fields and whether the country will be able to continue to attract talented foreign students to fill openings in the
S&T workforce, a third of which is currently made up of individuals from abroad. The demand side of the equation is clouded by increasing evidence that technical jobs are migrating from the United States.

In general, the migration of high-tech jobs mirrors what has happened in the manufacturing sector during the past 20 years. In the case of manufacturing, the decline in U.S.-based jobs has been attributed to lower production costs in low-wage countries, improved infrastructure in foreign countries, and the increased productivity of foreign workers. Now this same trend is encompassing high-tech jobs, which generally require a technical education, often for the very same reasons.