Beyond High School and College

Posted by Isra Anwar

June 15, 2014

Whereas we found little evidence that the supply of trained young scientists has declined in recent decades, critics of the shortfall argument contend that the United States in fact faces a crisis of a surplus of scientists, with too few jobs to employ them (Benderly 2010; NRC 2005). “The S&E [science and engineering] employment of S&E graduates is…a fairly consistent one-third of S&E graduates,” claimed a 2007 report of the Urban Institute (Lowell and Salzman 2007, p. 30) in response to the 2007 report Rising Above the Gathering Storm (NAS/NAE/IOM 2007). A government-sponsored official publication series, Science and Engineering Indicators, commonly considered the most authoritative source on scientific workforce statistics, has released estimates that seem to bolster this claim. The 2010 edition, for example, reported a large discrepancy (a ratio of about one to three) between the size of the S/E workforce and the number of individuals with a bachelor’s degree or higher in science or engineering—“between 4.3 million and 5.8 million” for the workforce versus “16.6 million” individuals with science or engineering degrees (NSB 2010, Chapter 3, p. 3-6).

We evaluated this claim using both direct and indirect measures and summarize our results here.

Most critically, we find that the aforementioned numbers are sensitive to the inclusion of social science majors as scientific majors. At the undergraduate level, social science majors are not tightly linked to a career in the social sciences but are similar to a liberal arts degree. The fact that many social science graduates do not pursue careers in the social or natural sciences pulls down the average transition rate for all scientists. When we exclude social scientists, we find that the ratio between the numbers of actual and potential scientists is between 45 percent and 60 percent, more than the 1:3 ratio. Given that the outcry about the state of American science has mostly been about natural science rather than social science, we believe that ours is a more appropriate description of transition rates from S/E undergraduate education to scientific employment.

Impacts of Globalization

If current global trends continue, it is certainly possible that America will lose its long-standing dominance in world science. However, globalization does not necessarily come at the expense of American well-being.

Science increasingly requires collaborative efforts across national boundaries, and such collaborations facilitate scientific achievements that benefit the entire world. Indeed, history shows that human societies have, for the most part, made significant advances in economy and culture only when technological knowledge was shared over different regions (Diamond 1999). Thus, rather than harming science in any one country, globalization may benefit scientific progress broadly.

To cite one high-profile recent example, the construction of the Large Hadron Collider at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) brought together scientists from nearly 60 countries to seek experimental evidence for the Higgs boson, a key prediction of the Standard Model of particle physics. The international collaboration enabled countries to both pool personnel and share the more than $4 billion cost of building the world’s largest particle accelerator (Brumfiel 2008).

There is also ample evidence that innovative ideas are most likely to emerge when people with different perspectives interact (Page 2007). The experiences and perspectives of scientists from different countries can make international collaboration highly productive for all. Furthermore, as with trading, comparative advantages can be exchanged for mutual benefits between scientists in different countries. Not least, participation in science by more nations means greater government investment in research overall and a larger science labor force worldwide.

Because a scientific discovery needs to be made only once but often has long-lasting and widespread benefits, globalization is certain to speed up scientific progress, for at least two reasons. First, there may be efficiency gains via complementarity, as scientists in different parts of the world may hold distinct advantages due to either unique natural resources (e.g., particular weather patterns or unusual plants) or unique intellectual traditions. Second, the sheer expansion of the scientific labor force means more opportunities to produce fruitful scientific results. Hence, globalization of science is beneficial to both science and humanity, and has the potential to benefit American science and society as a whole.

Conclusion

American science education is the very foundation for US science, economy, and security. For this reason, policymakers and the public alike have good reason to be concerned about its welfare. However, in evaluating its state, it is useful to keep a balanced and holistic perspective.

In aspects that we could measure with data, we did not find evidence that US science education has deteriorated. To the contrary, we see that it has improved over time. It is true, however, that in comparison with other countries, particularly some Asian countries, US students’ performance on international tests is mediocre, especially relative to America’s rich economic resources. However, this comparison reflects improvements in students’ academic performance in these successful countries more than a decline or failure of American science education. To be sure, America has a lot to learn from other countries, but this point is different from condemning US science education altogether. Finally, we posit that learning from other countries that are more successful in science education is actually a benefit of globalization, which can enhance the well-being of the United States in the long run.