Order Code 98-871 STM
Science, Engineering, and
Mathematics Education:
Status and Issues
Updated April 23, 2007
Christine M. Matthews
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education:
Status and Issues
Summary
An important aspect of U.S. efforts to maintain and improve economic
competitiveness is the existence of a capable scientific and technological workforce.
A major concern of the 110th Congress may be regarding the future ability of the U.S.
science and engineering base to generate the technological advances needed to
maintain economic growth. Discussions have centered on the quality of science and
mathematics education and training and on the scientific knowledge of those students
entering other disciplines. Even students pursuing nonscientific and nonmathematical
specialities are likely to require basic knowledge of scientific and technological
applications for effective participation in the workforce. Charges are being made that
many students complete high school scientifically and technologically illiterate.
Precollege science and mathematics instruction has an important relationship
to the future supply of U.S. scientific and technological personnel and to the general
scientific literacy of the nation. However, several published reports indicate
important shortcomings in science and mathematics education and achievement of
U.S. students at the precollege level. Some findings in the reports revealed that many
science and mathematics teachers do not have a major in the discipline being taught;
and that U.S. students, themselves, on international measures, perform less well than
their international counterparts.
A September 2006 report on the future of higher education states that while our
colleges and universities have much to applaud for in their achievements, there are
some areas where reforms are needed. As higher education has evolved, it
simultaneously has had to respond to the impact of globalization, rapidly evolving
technologies, the changing needs of a knowledge economy, and a population that is
increasingly older and more diverse.
In the 21st century, a larger proportion of the U.S. population will be composed
of certain minorities — blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans. As a group, these
minorities have traditionally been underrepresented in the science and engineering
disciplines compared to their proportion of the total population. A report of the
National Science Foundation (NSF) reveals that blacks, Hispanics, and Native
Americans as a whole comprise more that 25% of the population and earn, as a
whole, 16.2% of the bachelor degrees, 10.7% of the masters degrees, and 5.4% of the
doctorate degrees in science and engineering.
Several pieces of competitiveness legislation have been introduced in the 110th
Congress to address the reported needs in science and mathematics education. H.R.
362 authorizes science scholarships for educating science and mathematics teachers.
H.R. 363 provides funding for graduate fellowships and for basic research and
research infrastructure in science and engineering. S. 761 is directed at increasing
research investment, strengthening and expanding science and mathematics programs
at all points on the educational pipeline, and developing an innovation infrastructure.
This report will be updated as events warrant.

---

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Precollege Science and Mathematics Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Teacher Training and Qualifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Student Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Improving Undergraduate and Graduate Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Undergraduate Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Graduate Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Demographics and the Science and Engineering Talent Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Foreign Science and Engineering Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Congressional Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

---

Science, Engineering, and Mathematics
Education: Status and Issues1
Background
An important aspect of U.S. efforts to improve economic competitiveness is the
existence of a capable scientific and technological workforce. Concern has been
expressed about the future ability of the U.S. science and engineering base to
generate the technological advances needed to maintain economic growth. Some
discussions have centered on the quality of science and mathematics undergraduate
education and training. The design and structure of the scientific curriculum are
thought to discourage a number of highly qualified students from entering and
remaining in the disciplines. Other discussions have focused on the scientific
knowledge of those students entering other disciplines. Even students pursuing
nonscientific and nonmathematical specialties will require basic knowledge of
scientific and technological applications and mathematical reasoning in order to
adapt to constant changes in the labor market.2
Precollege science and mathematics instruction also has an important
relationship to the future supply of U.S. scientific and technical personnel. A basic
science and mathematics education is considered necessary not only for those who
will enter science as majors, but for all citizens to understand scientific and technical
issues that affect their lives. However, several indicators of the performance of U.S.
students in science and mathematics education at the precollege level reveal a mixed
picture of successes and shortcomings.3 Still other indicators show that the science
and mathematics curriculum at the precollege level is unfocused and that many
science and mathematics teachers lack a major or minor in the subject area being
taught.4
1 For expanded discussion of science and mathematics education issues see CRS Report
RL33434, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Issues
and Legislative Options, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi, Christine M. Matthews, and Bonnie F.
Mangan.
2 See for example National Center on Education and the Economy, Tough Choices or Tough
Times, The Report of the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce,
Executive Summary, January 2007, 26 pp.
3 Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Highlights from the
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003, NCES2005-005,
Washington, DC, December 2004, pp. 1-25.
4 See for example the Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
Qualifications of the Public School Teacher Workforce: Prevalence of Out-of-Field
(continued...)

---

CRS-2
Reform efforts at improving precollege science and mathematics education have
included the development of recommended national standards. Such standards
describe what children should know, when they should know it, and how to assess
what they know. These standards emphasize inquiry based education as being the
most effective in retaining the interest of all students. While many states and school
districts have created new science and mathematics standards that to some degree are
drawn from standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the
National Research Council, adoption and implementation of the standards at the local
school level where there is often limited resources and unprepared teachers has
proven to be problematic.5

The change from a labor-based manufacturing to a knowledge-based
manufacturing and service economy demands certain skills of our citizenry.6 The
National Science Foundation (NSF) projects that in the increasingly changing context
for science and technology, a workforce trained in the sciences and engineering is
necessary for continued economic growth. A January 2006 report of the NSF states
that:
If the U.S. is to maintain its economic leadership and compete in the new global
economy, the nation must prepare today’s K-12 students better to be tomorrow’s
productive workers and citizens. Changing workforce requirements mean that
new workers will need ever more sophisticated skills in science, mathematics,
engineering and technology ... In addition, the rapid advances in technology in
all fields mean that even those students who do not pursue professional
occupations in technological fields will also require solid foundations in science
and math in order to be productive and capable members of our nation’s society.7
In this report, selected science and education issues are presented, along with
a summary of findings from various studies. The issues discussed include precollege
science and mathematics concerns; improving undergraduate and graduate education;
demographics and the science and engineering talent pool; foreign science and
engineering students; and congressional activity. This report will be updated as
events warrant.
4 (...continued)
Teaching 1987-88 to 1999-2000, NCES 2002-603 Revised, Washington, DC, August 2004,
92 pp, and Ingersoll, Richard M., “Out of Field Teaching and the Limits of Teacher Policy,”
A Research Report Sponsored by the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy and The
Consortium for Policy Research in Education, September 2003, 29 pp.
5 The National Academies, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education,
Hollweg, Karen S. and David Hill, What is the Influence of the National Science Education
Standards?: Reviewing the Evidence, A Workshop Summary, Washington, 2003, 208 pp.
6 Deitz, Richard and James Orr, “A Leaner, More Skilled U. S. Manufacturing Workforce,”
Current Issues in Economics and Finance, v. 12, February/March 2006, 7 pp., and Olson,
Lynn, “Economic Trends Fuel Push to Retool Schooling,” Education Week, v. 25, March
22, 2006, pp. 1, 20, 22, 24, The Task Force on the Future of American Innovation, “The
Knowledge Economy: Is the United States Losing Its Competitive Edge?,” February 16,
2005, 16 pp.
7 National Science Board, America’s Pressing Challenge - Building A Stronger Foundation,
NSB-06-02, Arlington, VA, January 2006, p. 2.

---

CRS-3
Precollege Science and Mathematics Concerns
Precollege (K-12) science and mathematics instruction has an important
relationship to the future supply of U.S. scientific and technological personnel. The
technological demands of the workforce are increasing exponentially. A basic
science and mathematics education is necessary not only for those who will enter
science as majors, but for all citizens to understand scientific and technical issues that
affect their lives. In addition, scientific and technical skills are a requirement for an
increasingly wide range of occupations such as health care, banking, insurance, and
energy production. Whether individuals are in the service sector, manufacturing,
government, or management, many believe that some level of scientific literacy is
required.
The term “reform” is repeated throughout discussions of science education at
the precollege level, covering such issues as: school curriculum and the quality of
science instruction, student interest in science, the shortage of qualified teachers,
teacher training and retraining, student achievement on science and mathematics
measures, and the participation of minorities and women in science.8 The U.S.
educational system has a long history of attempted education reforms. One particular
report that received considerable attention was released in 1983 by the Department
of Education (ED). The report, A Nation At Risk, attacked the school system,
declaring that U.S. schools were sinking under a “rising tide of mediocrity,” partly
as a result of a shortage of qualified teachers in science, mathematics, and other
essential disciplines.9 More than 20 years after the report, there is some debate as to
whether or not our educational system is still “at risk.”10
Reforms in science and mathematics education have focused on both what to
teach and how to teach it. The 1989 report of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS), Project 2061, Science for All Americans,
presented goals for science, mathematics, and technology literacy.11 The goals
presented offered multidisciplinary instructions in the real world, structured so
students would use the discovery process to study issues that are multidimensional,
8 See for example Echevarria, Marissa, “Hands on Science Reform, Science Achievement,
and the Elusive Goal of ‘Science for All’ in a Diverse Elementary School District,” Journal
of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, v. 9, 2003, pp. 375-402.
9 Department of Education, A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform, A
Report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, Washington, 1983, 65 pp.
10 See for example Kirsch, Irwin, Henry Braun, Kentaro Yamamoto, and Andrew Sum,
America’s Perfect Storm: Three Forces Changing Our Nation’s Future, A report of the
Educational Testing Service, Policy Information Center, January 2007, pp. 8-10,
Thornburgh, Nathan, “Dropout Nation,” Time, April 17, 2006, pp. 32-40, Anderson, James,
and Dara N. Byrne, “The Unfinished Agenda of Brown v. Board of Education,” Black
Issues in Higher Education, 2004, 222 pp., and “Fifty Years After Brown,” U.S. News &
World Report, March 22, 2004, pp. 64-95.
11 American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science for All Americans, A
Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics, and Technology,
Washington, 1989, 217 pp.

---

CRS-4
to arrive at alternative approaches, and to be able to anticipate both positive and
negative consequences of their choices.
In 2000, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) released a
revised Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, which described how
students should be taught to solve non-routine problems in meaningful context.12
The NCTM standards promoted the policy of students learning through induction
rather than memorization, directing the instructional process on inquiry13 as opposed
to the traditional tell-and-test approach, and promoting assessment methods that are
open-ended instead of machine-scoreable. More recently, a 2005 report of the
Fordham Institute states that “While state standards are very much in flux, the nation,
in its entirety, is neither making progress nor losing ground when it comes to its
expectations for what students should learn in science.”14
The ongoing discussions of reform in science education stress the importance
of inquiry-based instruction as the most beneficial in assisting students to think
critically, to work independently or cooperatively, and to solve problems as they
encounter them in different and novel situations.15 In 2002, the National Research
Council released its publication, Investigating the Influence of Standards, A
Framework for Research in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education.16 The
report examined two primary questions: (1) How has the system responded to the
introduction of nationally developed mathematics, science, and technology
standards?, and (2) What are the consequences for student learning? The report
offered guideposts for determining the influence of nationally developed science,
mathematics, and technology standards and evaluates the significance of the
12 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Commission on Teaching Standards,
Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, Reston, VA, July 28, 2000, 402 pp.
13 “Inquiry is a multifaceted activity that involves looking for patterns; making observations;
posing questions; looking for and thinking about relationships; examining other sources of
information to see what is already known; planning investigations; reviewing what is already
known in light of experimental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze, and interpret data;
proposing answers, explanations, and predictions; and communicating the results.” “Inquiry-
Based Instruction,” [http://www.nyssi.org/nyssi/nyssib.htm].
14 Gross, Paul R., with Ursula Goodenough, Susan Haack, Lawrence S. Lerner, Martha
Schwartz, and Richard Schwartz, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of Science
Standards, December 2005, p. 19, and Barton, Paul E., Educational Testing Service, Policy
Information Report, Unfinished Business: More Measured Approaches in Standards-Based
Reform, January 2005, 53 pp.
15 Cavanagh, Sean, “Science Labs: Beyond Isolationism,” Education Week, January 10,
2007, Hanauer, David I., Deborah Jacobs-Sera, Marisa L. Pedulla, Steven G. Cresawn,
Roger W. Hendrix, and Graham F. Hatfull, “Teaching Scientific Inquiry,” Science, v. 314,
December 22, 2006, pp. 1880-1881, and Teicher, Stacy A., “The Mystery of Teaching
Science . . . Solved!,” The Christian Science Monitor, December 1, 2005, p. 13.
16 National Research Council, Committee on Understanding the Influence of Standards in
K-12 Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, Investigating the Influence of
Standards, A Framework for Research in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education,
Washington, 2002, 130 pp.

---

CRS-5
influence on student learning, on teachers and pedagogy, and on the education system
as a whole.
Teacher Training and Qualifications
Many elementary teachers reportedly admit that they feel uncomfortable
teaching science because they lack confidence in their knowledge about science and
their understanding of scientific concepts.17 A 2004 publication of the National
Center for Education Statistics reports that in the middle grades for school year 1999-
2000, approximately 68.5% of the students in mathematics were being taught by
teachers who had no major or certification in the field. For sciences, the proportion
being taught by teachers with no major or certification was 57.2% for general
science, 64.2% for biology/life science, and 93.2% for physical science.18 In high
school, approximately 31.4% of the students in mathematics, 44.7% in biology/life
science, 61.1% in chemistry, and 66.5% in physics are being taught by teachers with
no major and certification in the respective field.19
Supplemental teacher training can be effective for those teachers who did not
have science or mathematics education majors or who took few lecture-based science
and mathematics courses in college.20 Award-winning teachers testifying before the
17 The National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future reports that teachers with
the least amount of experience are generally working in urban areas — school districts that
have the greatest need for qualified teachers. See also National Research Council, Division
of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Singer, Susan R., Margaret L. Hilton, and
Heidi A. Schweingruber, America’s Lab Report, Investigations in High School Science,
Washington, DC, 2006, p. 146, Friel, Brian, “A New Sputnik Moment?,” The National
Journal, v. 37, July 30, 2005, pp. 2452-2453, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy,
University of Washington, Out-of-Field Teaching, Educational Inequality, and the
Organization of Schools; An Exploratory Analysis, January 2002, 32 pp. and King, Ledyard,
“Richer Areas More Successful in Attracting Qualified Teachers,” USA Today, April 24,
2 0 0 6 , [ h t t p : / / w w w . u s a t o d a y. c o m/ n e w s / e d u c a t i o n / 2 0 0 6 - 0 4 - 2 4 - e d u c a t i o n _
x.htm?POE=NEWISVA].
18 Those students being taught by teachers with no major, minor, or certification were 21.9%
for mathematics, 14.2% in science, 28.8% in biology/life science, and 40.5% in physical
science. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Qualifications
of the Public School Teacher Workforce: Prevalence of Out-of-Field Teaching 1987-88 to
1999-2000, p. 10.
19 For high school students, the proportion being taught by teachers with no major, minor,
or certification in the field is 8.6% for mathematics, 9.7% for biology/life science, 9.4% for
chemistry, and 17% for physics. NOTE: A report of the Educational Testing Service found
that for both science and mathematics, students whose teachers majored or minored in the
subject being taught outperformed their classmates by approximately 39% of a grade level.
Educational Testing Service, Wenglinsky, Harold, How Teaching Matters: Bringing the
Classroom Back Into Discussions of Teacher Quality, October 2000, p. 26.
20 See Committee for Economic Development, Research and Policy Committee, Learning
for the Future - Changing the Culture of Math and Science Education to Ensure a
Competitive Workforce, May 7, 2003, pp.36-40, and National Science Board, Committee on
Education and Human Resources, The Science and Engineering Workforce - Realizing
(continued...)

---

CRS-6
House Science Committee stated that in order for professional development to be
effective, teachers need to be provided with proper materials and resources (internal
and external to the school), training in the inquiry-based learning process, and class
release time.21 A 2005 report of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Rising
Above the Gathering Storm - Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter
Economic Future, calls for the “enhanced education” of teachers at the precollege
level by focusing on teacher education and professional development.22 The report
states that:
We need to reach all K-12 science and mathematics teachers and provide them
with high-quality continuing professional development opportunities —
specifically those that emphasize rigorous content education. High-quality,
content-driven professional development has a significant effect on student
performance, particularly when augmented with classroom practice, year-long
mentoring, and high-quality curricular materials.23
Student Achievement
Various assessments and reports have documented the progress of U.S. students
and their participation in science and mathematics. In October 2005, the National
Assessment Governing Board24 released the results of the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) 2005 mathematics assessment for grades 4 and 8.25
The NAEP 2005 mathematics assessment was based on a framework that was
developed through a comprehensive national consultative process. The results are
reported according to three basic achievement levels — basic, proficient, and
20 (...continued)
America’s Potential, NSB 03-69, August 14, 2003, pp. 31-35.
21 House Committee on Science, The 2004 Presidential Awardees for Excellence in
Mathematics and Science Teaching: A Lesson Plan for Success, Testimonies from the 2004
Presidential Awardees for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 109th Cong.,
1st Sess., April 14, 2005, [http://www.house.gov/science/press/109/109-51.htm]. See also
Stanley, Marshall J., “A Veteran’s View of Science Education Today,” The Review of Policy
Research, v. 20, December 22, 2003, p. 629.
22 The National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public
Policy, Rising Above the Gathering Storm - Energizing and Employing America for a
Brighter Economic Future (prepublication copy), October 2005.
23 Ibid., pp. 5-8.
24 The National Assessment Governing Board is a bipartisan 26-member Board authorized
by Congress to make policy for the NAEP and to measure the academic achievement of
students in selected grades at the precollege level. The Board is authorized to establish
performance levels in the areas of science, mathematics, reading, U.S. history, geography,
and other subjects.
25 Department of Education, Office of Education Research and Improvement, The Nation’s
Report Card: Mathematics 2005, NCES2006-453, Washington, DC, October, 2005, 49 pp.
The 2005 assessment included nationally representative samples of approximately 172,000
4th graders and 162,000 8th graders. NOTE: The racial/ethnic groups are black, white,
Hispanic, Native Americans/Alaskan Natives, and Asian/Pacific Islanders.

---

CRS-7
advanced.26 The proportion of students performing at the basic and proficient levels
increased for 4th and 8th grade students from 2003 to 2005. Higher percentages of
black and Hispanic students, at both grade levels, scored at or above basic and
proficient in 2005 than in any previous assessment. The score gap between white
students and black and Hispanic students continue, but the gap has narrowed.
In May 2005, the NAEP’s 2005 science assessments were released.27 The
NAEP 2005 science assessment is to provide a baseline for science achievement and
to assist in determining the progress being made toward the fifth National Goal.
Similar to the mathematics assessments, results are reported at three achievement
levels. Data revealed that the average scores of 4th graders rose approximately 4
points in comparison with 1996 and 2000. For 8th grade students, there was no
significant change in overall scores in 2005 from the previous assessments.28 For 12th
graders, there was no change in performance from the administration in 2000.
However, in 2005, 12th graders received lower average scores than in 1996. At this
grade level, the percentage of students performing at or above the basic level, at or
above the proficient level, and at the advanced level all declined since 1996. In
addition, the number of students who scored below basic increased since 1996.

Several reports on the state of precollege education, especially international
comparisons, have revealed that U.S. students do not perform at the level of their
international counterparts. The Trends in International Mathematics and Science
Study (TIMSS) for grades 4 and 8, conducted in 2003, investigated mathematics and
science curricula, instructional practices, and achievement in 46 countries (at either
the 4th or 8th grade level or both).29 Results at grade 4 showed that in mathematics,
U.S. students scored above the international average. U.S. students performed lower
than their peers in 11 of the other 24 participating countries and out performed their
peers in 13 of the countries. Singapore was the top performing jurisdiction in
mathematics at the 4th grade level, followed by Hong Kong, Japan, Chinese Taipei,
and Belgium-Flemish. At the 8th grade level, the average score for U.S. students
exceeded those of their peers in 25 of the 44 other participating countries. U.S. 8th
26 The basic level represents partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills, the
proficient level represents solid academic performance, and the advanced level denotes
superior performance. These achievement levels, however, are developmental and remain
in transition.
27 Department of Education, Office of Education Research and Improvement, The Nation’s
Report Card: Science 2005, NCES 2006-466, Washington, DC, May 24, 2006, 42 pp. The
assessment was administered to a representative sample of 304,800 students in grades 4, 8,
and 12.
28 Black students showed the only score increase among all racial/ethnic groups at grade 8.
29 Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Highlights From the
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003, NCES 2005-005,
Washington, DC, December 2004, 107 pp.

---

CRS-8
grade students were out performed by students in nine jurisdictions, including
Singapore, Republic of Korea, Hong Kong SAR,30 Chinese Taipei, and Japan.31
The results for TIMSS in science revealed that at the 4th grade level, U.S.
students outperformed 16 of the other 24 participating countries. U.S. students, with
a higher average score than the international average, performed less well than
Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Japan, Hong Kong SAR, and England. At the 8th grade
level, U.S. students again received a higher average score than the international
average and outperformed their peers in 36 of the other 44 participating countries in
the subset of measures. U.S. students ranked 9th, scoring below that of Singapore,
Chinese Taipei, Republic of Korea, Hong Kong, Estonia, Japan, Hungary, and the
Netherlands.32
Some in the education community have charged that international comparisons
are statistically invalid because of widely disparate culture, diversity in school
systems, and significant differences in curriculum. However, there is the counter
argument that due to refinement in collection of data and methodological procedures
employed in the analyses, the comparisons are valid for the student populations
examined. ED estimates that the United States spends approximately $455 billion
annually for elementary and secondary education.33 What is puzzling to some is with
that level of funding, how can the U.S. system of education with graduate schools
considered to be the best in the world, a system that produces some of the best
scientists and engineers, also produce some students in elementary and secondary
schools who perform less well on international measures? How can the performance
of U.S. students on the TIMSS be explained when some groups of students showed
no measurable difference from the previous assessment, and some even a measurable
decline?
Improving Undergraduate and Graduate Education
Undergraduate Education

While the uncertain job market for some scientists and engineers may have an
effect on the enrollments in science and engineering, the U.S. system of higher
education is called upon to continue to produce the qualified scientific and technical
30 Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China.
31 Ibid., p. 5
32 Students from Singapore consistently ranked at the top in both mathematics and science
at both grade levels. For expanded discussion of international trends see for example
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Comparing Science
Content in the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) 2000 and Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003 Assessments, Technical Report,
NCES 2006-026, Washington, DC, March 2006, 70 pp.
33 Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Revenues and
Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2002-2003,
NCES 2005-353R, Washington, DC, October 2005, p. 1.

---

CRS-9
personnel necessary to maintain an intellectual and economic leadership.34 Colleges
and universities are facing the mounting task of better educating their undergraduate
and graduate students by restructuring their curricula to increase the versatility and
employability of the graduates. All disciplines have been targets, however,
considerable importance is placed on graduates in the natural sciences, engineering,
health sciences, computer sciences, and other quantitatively-based fields.
One challenge facing research institutions is that of finding a balance between
the basic academic activities of teaching and research. Within the scientific and
engineering disciplines, attempting to find the flexibility to blend the priorities of
teaching and research has been a perennial problem. The standing of an institution
is in direct relationship to the research productivity of its faculty, and the competition
for grants and scholars has led many research institutions to place increased emphasis
on research at the expense of teaching. In many research institutions, research
productivity has been given more weight than teaching effectiveness when deciding
tenure or promotion. Efforts are underway at some institutions to change the reward
system and evaluation of their faculty members.35
An additional challenge for research universities is the need to address the
complaints concerning undergraduate teaching. Many of these complaints are
focused on the use of graduate students as teaching assistants in the undergraduate
programs, especially in the science and engineering disciplines. A considerable
number of undergraduate courses in science and engineering are taught by foreign
graduate students who do not have a good command of the English language.
Reinventing Undergraduate Education found that “ . . . [T]he classroom results of
employing teaching assistants who speak English poorly, as a second language, and
who are new to the American system of education constitute one of the conspicuous
problems of undergraduate education.”36
In 2003, the National Research Council released the report, Evaluating and
Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics.37 The report noted that colleges and universities are being held far more
accountable for the education of their students than in the past. Institutions with peer
34 See for example Jackson, Shirley Ann, President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
“Intellectual Security and the Quiet Crisis,” November 29, 2005, 7 pp., Freeman, Richard
B., National Bureau of Economic Research, Does Globalization of the
Scientific/Engineering Workforce Threaten U. S. Economic Leadership?,” Working Paper
11457, June 2005, 45 pp, [http://www.nber.org/papers/w11457], and National Science
Board, An Emerging and Critical Problem of the Science and Engineering Labor Force,
NSB04-07, Arlington, VA, January 2004, pp. 1-4.
35 O’Meara, KerryAnn, R. Eugene Rice, and Russell Edgerton, Faculty Priorities
Reconsidered: Rewarding Multiple Forms of Scholarship, August 2005, 368 pp.
36 Ibid., p. 7.
37 National Research Council, Committee on Recognizing, Evaluating, Rewarding, and
Developing Excellence in Teaching of Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering,
and Technology, Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, Editors, Fox, Marye Anne and Norman
Hackerman, Washington, DC, 2003, 215 pp.

---

CRS-10
review mechanisms to evaluate faculty research in science, mathematics, and
engineering, should have the same of attention directed at evaluating the faculty
teaching in those disciplines. The public and private sectors that make significant
investments in university research suggested that faculty members excelling in the
classroom should be recognized and rewarded similar to those faculty engaged in
research.
The report recommended strategies for evaluating undergraduate teaching and
learning in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. The methods used
for evaluation could serve as a basis for the professional advancement of faculty.
Faculty are encouraged to set definitive goals for their students and then determine
if the goals are being met. In addition to the faculty, recommendations for evaluating
teaching and learning were made for presidents, boards, and academic officers;
deans, department chairs and peer evaluators; and for research sponsors and granting
and accrediting agencies. The recommendations were based on the following tenets:
! Effective postsecondary teaching in science, mathematics, and
technology should be available to all students, regardless of their
major.
! The design of curricula and the evaluation of teaching and learning
should be collective responsibilities of faculty in individual
departments or, wherever appropriate, through interdepartmental
arrangements.
! Scholarly activities that focus on improving teaching and learning
should be recognized as bona fide endeavors that are equivalent to
other scholarly pursuits. Scholarship devoted to improving teaching
effectiveness and learning should be accorded the same
administrative and collegial support that is available for efforts to
improve other research and service endeavors.38
On March 15, 2006, the House Science Committee held a hearing to explore the
efforts of colleges and universities in improving their scientific and engineering
programs.39 The Committee was interested also in what role the federal government
could play in encouraging more students to enter the science, mathematics, and
engineering disciplines. Witnesses testified about the factors that shape the quality
of undergraduate reforms in the scientific and engineering disciplines. Elaine
Seymour, University of Colorado, contends that there is a decline in the perceived
value of teaching. Teaching as a career is believed by many undergraduates as being
of low status, pay, and prospects. Also, faculty in many institutions are more focused
on research than teaching. Academic success is measured by grant writing and
publications. In many science and engineering departments, a portion of faculty
salary is from research grants. As a result, there is less interactive teaching by many
faculty and more “straight lecturing.” Many classes become the responsibility of
teaching assistants. In numerous surveys, students have indicated that “poor
38 Ibid., p.2.
39 House Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Research, Undergraduate Science, Math
and Engineering Education: What’s Working?, 109th Cong., 2nd Sess., March 15, 2006,
[http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/research06/march%2015/index.htm].

---

CRS-11
teaching” and “unsatisfactory learning experiences” were the primary reasons for
switching majors and leaving the sciences. Seymour states that the institutional
reward system and the pressure to obtain grants have consequences for both
undergraduate and K-12 education in the science, mathematics, and engineering.
John Burris, President, Beloit College, testifying before the March 15 hearing,
offered several recommendations as to how the federal government can identify,
assess, and disseminate that which works in undergraduate science, mathematics, and
engineering programs. He suggested that with the proposed doubling of the NSF
budget over the next ten years40, there should be a doubling of the funding targeted
specifically for strengthening and sustaining undergraduate programs in colleges and
universities. Burris stated that “Significant parts of what works are: I) attention to
how students learn; ii) an institutional culture that has a common vision about the
value of building research-rich learning environments; and iii) faculty who are eager
to remain engaged within their disciplinary community, and who have the resources
of time and instrumentation to do so.”41 He suggested that the increased funding be
directed at networks, collaborations, and partnerships. He further called for the
establishment of a taskforce to oversee the proposed doubling of undergraduate
funds. The task force would be charged with outlining NSF undergraduate priorities
that are contained in the numerous reports calling for the federal government to
strengthen and reenergize investments in science and engineering education.42
A September 2006 report on the future of higher education states that while our
colleges and universities have much to applaud for in their achievements, there are
areas where improvements are needed.43 As higher education has evolved, it
simultaneously has had to respond to the impact of globalization, rapidly evolving
technologies, the changing needs of a knowledge economy, and an increasingly
diverse and aging population.44 The report notes that:
40 The American Competitiveness Initiative (President Bush, February 2006), and several
pieces of legislation have, among other things, proposed the doubling of NSF research and
related activities budget over 5 to 10 years.
41 Ibid., Written testimony of John Burris, President, Beloit College, p. 5.
42 See for example Business Roundtable, Brush, Silla, “Fixing Undergraduate Education,”
U. S. News & World Report, March 6, 2006, p. 28, Tapping America’s Potential - The
Education for Innovation Initiative, Washington, DC, July 2005, 18 pp., the Business-
Higher Education Forum, A Commitment to America’s Future: Responding to the Crisis in
Mathematics and Science Education, January 2005, 40 pp., Association of American
Universities, National Defense Education and Innovation Initiative, Meeting America’s
Economic and Security Challenges in the 21st Century, Washington, DC, January 2006, 24
pp., and National Science Board, America’s Pressing Challenge-Building A Stronger
Foundation, NSB06-02, Arlington, VA, January 2006, 6 pp.
43 A Test of Leadership — Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education, A Report of the
Commission Appointed by Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, September 2006
(Pre-Publication Copy), 51 pp.
44 Ibid., p. ix. NOTE: The “typical” undergraduate student is no longer 18- to 22-years old.
Data reveal that of the approxiamtely 14 million undergraduates, more than four in ten are
enrolled in community colleges, 33% are over the age of 24, and 40% are attending classes
(continued...)

---

CRS-12
The United States must ensure the capacity of its universities to achieve global
leadership in key strategic areas such as science, engineering, medicine, and
other knowledge-intensive professions. We recommend increased federal
investment in areas critical to our nation’s global competitiveness and a renewed
commitment to attract the best and brightest minds across the nation and around
the world to lead the next wave of American innovation.45
Graduate Education
Graduate education in science and mathematics has been the subject of several
reports and committees. In the fall of 1993, the Committee on Science, Engineering,
and Public Policy (COSEPUP), a joint committee of the NAS, the National Academy
of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine (IOM), proposed a comprehensive
study on the status of the graduate education and research training being offered in
U.S. colleges and universities. The committee’s actions led to the release of the 1995
report, Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers. The report
stated:
The three areas of primary employment for PhD scientists and engineers —
universities and colleges, industry, and government — are experiencing
simultaneous change. The total effect is likely to be vastly more consequential
for the employment of scientists and engineers than any previous period of
transition has been. . . . A broader concern is that we have not, as a nation, paid
adequate attention to the function of the graduate schools in meeting the
country’s varied needs for scientists and engineers. There is no clear human-
resources policy for advanced scientists and engineers, so their education is
largely a byproduct of policies that support research. The simplifying
assumption has apparently been that the primary mission of graduate programs
is to produce the next generation of academic researchers. In view of the broad
range of ways in which scientists and engineers contribute to national needs, it
is time to review how they are educated to do so.”46
COSEPUP had solicited responses concerning the existing structure of graduate
education from such groups as: postdoctoral researchers, professors, university
officials, industry scientists and executives, representatives of scientific societies,
and graduate students themselves. The general sentiment was that while the basic
structure of graduate education was sound, some change was warranted in order to
respond to “changing national policies and industrial needs.”47
Some respondents, both inside and outside of academia, indicated that selected
doctorate degree programs are too analytical and too oriented toward subspecialities.
Survey responses indicated that doctoral students should be provided with a broader
44 (...continued)
on a part-time basis. Ibid., p. viii.
45 Ibid., p. 26
46 National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy,
Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers, Washington, 1995, p. 3.
47 Ibid., p. 40.

---

CRS-13
training that would allow them to experiment with alternative career paths.48 Many
of the responses from industry and international corporations stated that the nature
of industrial work is changing and that the education and training offered by many
of the doctoral programs should be changed as well. Industry wants graduate
students who will better meet their research and development (R&D) needs and
compete effectively with their counterparts worldwide in a rapidly evolving
competitive market.49
COSEPUP presented a national strategy that was intended to emphasize both
versatility and information. One recommendation in the report was that graduate
programs should provide a wider variety of career options for their students. This
could be accomplished in a program that has a student grounded in the fundamentals
of one field that is enhanced by a breadth of knowledge in a related field. Added to
such a program would be off-campus experiences exposing the student to the skills
requested by an increasing number of employers: the ability to communicate complex
ideas, and the experiences of working in groups of interdependent workers. Another
recommendation offered to foster versatility in graduate programs was to have those
entities providing financial assistance to graduate students adjust their support
mechanisms to include new education and training grants. Research assistantships
(RAs), which are a major form of federal assistance to graduate students, are not
structured to enhance the versatility of graduate students. (RAs are administered by
a faculty member who receives the grant for a specific research topic.) Some
observers suggest that the new education and training grants could be patterned after
training grants that currently are awarded in the National Institutes of Health and that
have been used to establish interdisciplinary programs to encourage graduate students
to pursue research in emerging fields.
In the February 1998, the National Science Board (NSB) released a policy paper
— The Federal Role in Science and Engineering Graduate and Postdoctoral
Education.50 Some of the many issues examined by the NSB were: (1) the relative
merits of fellowships and traineeships; (2) the role of graduate students as teachers;
(3) the mentoring of graduate students; (4) access to faculty and time to degree; (5)
and the continuing underrepresentation of minorities and women in many areas of
graduate science and engineering programs. The NSB identified several areas of
concern in the federal/university partnership where adjustments “may enhance the
capacity of the enterprise to serve the national interest in a changing global
48 See Metheny, Bradie, “Science Training Must Embrace Teamwork, Collaboration,
Preparation for Work Outside Academia,” The Washington Fax, May 13, 2003, Smallwood,
Scott, “Graduate Studies in Science Expand Beyond the Ph.D.,” The Chronicle of Higher
Education, v. 47, p. A14, and Potter Wickware, “Postdocs Reject Academic Research,”
Nature, v. 407, September 21, 2000, pp. 429-430.
49 See Organizing for Research and Development in the 21st Century - An Integrated
Perspective of Academic, Industrial, and Government Researchers, Sponsored by the
National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy, 40 pp.
50 National Science Foundation, The National Science Board, The Federal Role in Science
and Engineering Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, Contribution to the
Government/University Partnership, NSF97-235, Arlington, VA, Approved February 27,
1998, [http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/1997/nsb97235/nsb97235.htm].

---

CRS-14
environment.”51 The NSB noted that because of changes over the past 50 years, such
as increased demand for higher education, the need to respond to advances in
communications and information technology, rising tuitions and administrative
burdens, and stresses on universities and faculty, require changes and improvement
in the federal/university partnership.
One of the stresses confronted by university partnerships, as discussed by the
report, is the unintended consequences of federal policies. The increased federal
investment in research and education has come with increased oversight and
accountability of funding. The report states that
The growing Federal focus on accountability tends to emphasize short-term
research “products” and to de-emphasize benefits to graduate education from
engaging in research at the frontiers of knowledge. Increased emphasis on
accountability also may result in an increase in the perceived value of
postdoctoral researchers compared with graduate students on research grants,
thus reducing options for cutting-edge research experience during graduate
training.52
The recommendations posed by the NSB placed increased emphasis on the
expansion of the partnership to include a wider range of colleges and universities, the
integration of research and education, increased flexibility of job opportunities
outside of academia, and diversity in graduate education. It recommended that the
federal government promote closer collaboration between research and non-research
institutions, and to provide greater exposure to both faculty and students to research
experiences and opportunities. To address the concern of the narrowness of graduate
education, the report suggested that, in addition to the core training, the student
should be provided with additional training options that might include
interdisciplinary emphasis, teamwork, business management skills, and information
technologies. The NSB proposed to reward institutions that established model
programs for the integration of research and education.
While recognizing the creation of federal and institutional programs to increase
the number of racial and ethnic minorities in the science and engineering disciplines,
the NSB noted their participation rate remains of some concern. The report
recommended that federal/university partnerships develop more effective
mechanisms of increasing diversity in graduate education and to guard “against
strategies that inadvertently keep underrepresented groups from the mainstream of
research and graduate education.”53
A 2005 report of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, The
Responsive Ph.D., Innovations in U.S. Doctoral Education, analyzed the findings of
51 Ibid., p. 6.
52 Ibid.
53 Ibid., p. 5. See also “Professional MS Offer Promise of More Minorities Pursuing
Graduate Studies,” The Washington Fax, October 10, 2003, and “Postdoc Mentoring In
Need of Institutional Changes, National Academies’ Convocation Agrees,” Washington Fax,
April 19, 2004.

---

CRS-15
several studies on doctoral education and detailed the most effective practices from
leading doctoral institutions.54 One of the challenges discussed in the report is the
need to combine traditional research with “adventurous” scholarship within and
across disciplines. Effective, inclusive, and more relevant training of the doctoral
student requires extending knowledge beyond the walls of the institution and the
major discipline. Also, the report contends that graduate schools require a
significantly stronger central administration and structure that currently exists. A
graduate school should guard against operating in isolation within an institution, and
instead, create a graduate community of “intellectual cohesiveness” across
disciplines. A theme contained in all the reports reviewed was that for reasons of
equity and efficacy, there is a need to broaden and reinvigorate efforts to increase the
participation of underrepresented minority groups in the sciences. Some
recommendations for action offered by the report include:
! The central notion of a graduate school requires strengthening so
that it can become a vital force in breaking down barriers between
programs and sponsoring a more cosmopolitan intellectual
experience for doctoral students.
! Doctoral students need both departmental and extra-departmental
structures to give their concerns a strong and effective voice and to
cultivate graduate student leadership as a component of graduate
education and professional development.
! Information about doctoral education, program expectations, and
career prospects must be more transparent to students from the
moment they begin to consider a Ph.D.
! Doctoral programs urgently need to expand their approaches to
mentoring, such as through team mentoring, particularly for
attracting and retaining a diverse cohort of students.55
Demographics and the Science and Engineering
Talent Pool
In the 21st century, global competition and rapid advances in science and
technology will require a workforce that is increasingly more scientifically and
technically proficient. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that science and
engineering occupations are projected to grow by 21.4% from 2004 to 2014,
compared to a growth of 13% in all occupations during the same time period.56 It is
54 The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, The Responsive Ph.D.,
Innovations in U.S. Doctoral Education, September 2005, 76 pp. NOTE: Responses and
participation from 20 graduate schools contributed to the report.
55 Ibid., p. 25. Approximately 10 major research institutions have agreed to cooperate in the
testing of the recommendations proffered in this report. See also Smallwood, Scott,
“Graduate Schools Are Urged to Look Outward to Help Society,” The Chronicle of Higher
Education, v. 52, October 21, 2005, p. A12.
56 Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Occupational Statistics and
(continued...)

---

CRS-16
anticipated that approximately 65% of the growth in science and engineering
occupations will be in the computer-related occupations.57 Faster than average
growth is expected in the life sciences, social sciences, and the science and
engineering-related occupations of science manager. In testimony before the House
Science Committee, Daniel L. Goroff, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dean of
Faculty, Harvey Mudd College, stated that:
With less than 6% of the world’s population, the United States cannot expect to
dominate science and technology in the future as it did during the second half of
the last century when we enjoyed a massively disproportionate share of the
world’s STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] resources.
We must invest more the resources we do have, encourage those resources to
produce economically useful innovations, and organize the STEM enterprise by
working with diverse groups to make sure that innovations developed here or
overseas produce prosperity and progress for all.58
There are few in the scientific community who argue about the effect of
demographics on the future science and engineering workforce.59 Science and
engineering have been primarily the domain of white males.60 However, with the
beginning of the 21st century, a larger proportion of the U.S. population will be
composed of minorities — blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans, with the fastest
growing minority group being Hispanics.61 As a group, these minorities traditionally
have been underrepresented in the science and engineering disciplines compared to
their fraction of the total population.62 These minorities take fewer high-level science
and mathematics courses in high school; earn fewer undergraduate and graduate
degrees in science and engineering; and are less likely to be employed in science and
56 (...continued)
Employment Projections, BLS Releases 2004-2014 Employment Projections, December 7,
2005, [http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.nr0.htm].
57 Computer-related occupations include mathematical science occupations.
58 House Science Committee, Undergraduate Science, Math, and Engineering Education:
What’s Working, Written testimony of Daniel L. Goroff, Vice President for Academic
Affairs and Dean of Faculty, Harvey Mudd College, p.6.
59 National Science Foundation, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in
Science and Engineering December 2006 Update, Arlington, VA, December 2006,
[http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd], National Science Board, Science and Engineering
Indicators 2006, Volume 1, NSB 06-01A, Arlington, VA, January 13, 2006, pp. 2-1 - 2-37,
Rising Above the Gathering Storm, p. 7-4., ,and Jackson, Shirley Ann, President, Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, “Science and Society: A Nexus of Opportunity,” Speech presented on
January 17, 2007.
60 The current scientific and engineering workforce is aging. The NSF reports that the
number reaching retirement age will increase dramatically over the next two decades.
National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, Volume 1, p. O-17.
61 Barton, Paul E., Hispanics in Science and Engineering: A Matter of Assistance and
Persistence, Educational Testing Service, Policy Information Report, May 2003, 40 pp.
62 Asian Americans are excluded because they are not statistically underrepresented in
science, mathematics, and engineering.

---

CRS-17
engineering positions than white males.63 Data compiled by the NSF reveal that
blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans/Alaskan Natives as a whole comprise more
than 25% of the population and earn, as a whole, 16.2% of the bachelor degrees,
10.7% of the masters degrees, and 5.4% of the doctorate degrees in science and
engineering.64
NSF data show that between 2002 and 2004, all racial/ethnic groups, except for
whites, either increased their share of earned bachelor and degrees in science and
engineering or remained level. Blacks were awarded 8.4% of the bachelors degrees
in both 2002 and in 2004. Hispanics increased their share of earned degrees from
7.2% in 2002 to 7.3% in 2004. While Native Americans/Alaskan Natives increased
their proportion, it remained at less than 1%. Asians/Pacific Islanders proportion of
bachelors’ degrees remained level, 9.0% in 2002 and 2004. For foreign students, the
proportion was 3.9% in 2002 and 4.1% in 2004. The decrease in earned bachelors
degrees by whites was from 66.5% in 2002 to 65.1% in 2004.65
At the master’s level, blacks were awarded 6.3% of the degrees in science and
engineering in 2004, up from the 6.2% in 2002. The proportion of master’s degrees
received by Hispanics increased from 4.1% in 2002 to 4.3% in 2004. Asians/Pacific
Islanders comprised approximately 6.9% of the masters degrees awarded in 2002 and
7.3% in 2004. For foreign students, the increase was from 27.8% in 2002 to 29.8%
in 2004. Native Americans’ proportion increased slightly from 2002 to 2004, but
remained at less than 1%. Again, whites reported a decrease in their proportion of
earned degrees, dropping from 48.8% in 2002 to 45.9% in 2004.66
An analysis of the data for earned degrees at the doctoral level revealed that
blacks comprised 2.8% of the awards in both 2002 and 2004. Hispanics registered
a decrease at this level, from 2.9% in 2002 to 2.7% in 2004. As at the other two
degree levels, Native Americans’ proportion remained at less than 1%.
Asians/Pacific Islanders reported a decrease in earned degrees, from 6,6% in 2002
to 5.7% in 2004. For whites there was a decrease in earned degrees, from 48.5% in
2002 to 45.7% in 2004. Doctoral degrees awarded to foreign students increased from
31.3% in 2002 to 34.7% in 2004.67
While minorities have increased their share of degrees awarded in the sciences,
poor preparation in science and mathematics is said to be a major factor limiting the
appeal of science and engineering to even larger numbers of these groups.68 A large
63 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, Volume 1, pp. 3.18 -
3-22.
64 Ibid., Volume 2, Appendix Tables 2-27, 2-29, and 2-31.
65 National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Degrees, by Race/Ethnicity of
Recipients: 1995-2004, NSF07-308, Arlington, VA, January 2007, Table 4.
66 Ibid., Table 8.
67 Ibid., Table 10.
68 White, Jeffrey L., James W. Altschuld, and Yi-Fang Lee, “Persistence of Interest in
(continued...)

---

CRS-18
number of blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans lack access to many of the more
rigorous college preparatory courses. Enrollment in college preparatory track or
courses offers a student a better chance at being accepted at a college through her/his
performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) or American College Testing
(ACT), and a better chance at success in college.69 Despite gains in the past 10 years,
the average scores made by blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans, who take both
the SAT and the ACT continue to fall behind the average scores of whites and Asian
students who take the test.70
In addition to recruitment as a problem for greater minority participation in
science and engineering, retention of minorities in the educational pipeline, once
recruited, also is of concern.71 (Attrition rates for blacks, Hispanics, and Native
Americans are higher than for whites or Asians). Currently, these underrepresented
minority groups are reporting increased enrollments in colleges and universities and
in their share of science and engineering degrees.72 However, there is concern that
some of the programs in the universities to attract minorities to the sciences have
come under attack as a result of the limitations currently imposed on affirmative
68 (...continued)
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: A minority Retention Study,” Journal
of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, v. 12, 2006, pp. 47-64, Landis,
Raymond B., California State University, Los Angeles, “Retention by Design - Achieving
Excellence in Minority Engineering Education,” October 2005, 27 pp., and National Science
Foundation, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering
December 2006 Update.
69 NOTE: Students who take the more rigorous high school science and mathematics courses
are more likely to continue their education than those who do not. The results of the
National Educational Longitudinal Study found that 83% of students who took algebra I and
geometry, and approximately 89% of students who took chemistry went to college as
compared to 36% who did not take algebra and geometry and 43% who did not take
chemistry. In general, approximately 51% of high school seniors planning to attend college
did not take four years or more of science, and 31% planning to attend college did not take
four years or more of mathematics. Students who do take four years of science and
mathematics while in high school have been found to improve their SAT score by 100
points.
70 See for example “There is Good News and Bad News in Black Participation in Advanced
Placement Programs,” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, Winter 2005/2006, pp.
98-101, and Lam, Paul C., Dennis Doverspike, Julie Zhao, and P. Ruby Mawasha, “The
ACT and High School GPA as Predictors of Success in a Minority Engineering Program,”
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, v. 11, 2005, pp. 247-255.
71 Wyer, Mary, “Intending to Stay: Images of Scientists, Attitudes Toward Women and
Gender as Influences on Persistence Among Science and Engineering Majors,” The Journal
of Blacks in Higher Education, v. 9, 2003, pp.1-16. NOTE: Persistence data are sometimes
spurious in that many minority students do not necessarily drop out, but “stop out” for a
period of time and sometimes enroll at other institutions. In addition, persistence data do not
always show the effects of part-time attendance and transfer students.
72 American Council on Education, Office of Minorities in Higher Education, Minorities in
Higher Education Twenty-First Annual Status Report, Washington, DC, February 2005, pp.
15-29. NOTE: The report finds that between 1991 and 2001, minority college enrollment
grew from 1.5 million students to 4.3 million students, a 52% increase.

---

CRS-19
action in higher education.73 In an effort to avoid the threat of litigation or
complaints74, many institutions no longer target programs solely to minority groups
or use race-based eligibility criteria in awarding fellowships or participation in
academic enrichment programs.75 These programs that were formerly race-exclusive,
have been opened to all students “ . . . to serv[e] the broader and more abstract goal
of promoting campus diversity.”76 Some institutions have even renamed their
“minority” offices and programs as “diversity” or “multicultural” offices and
programs.77
Shirley Ann Jackson, President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, states that
in the “altered environment” resulting from the Supreme Court decisions, the nation
is challenged more than ever to confront the changing demographics. Blacks,
Hispanics, and women, groups underrepresented in the science, engineering, and
technical disciplines, comprise more than 66% of the entire workforce. It is expected
that this “new majority” will replace the impending retiring scientific and engineering
workforce which is largely white and male.78 Jackson notes that:
[W]e are experiencing pressure to replace the graying science and engineering
workforce with new talent — educated young scientists and engineers who will
make the discoveries and innovations which have paid off so handsomely, to
73 In June 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court, in landmark cases involving the University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, defined the limits of affirmative action. See for example American
Association for the Advancement of Science, National Action Council for Minorities in
Engineering, Shirley M. Malcom, Daryl E. Chubin, Jolene K. Jesse, Standing Our Ground,
A Guidebook for STEM Educators in the Post-Michigan Era, October 2004, 94 pp, and
Roach, Ronald, “Another Supreme Test?,” Diverse Issues in Higher Education, v. 23, June
29, 2006, p. 8, and CRS Report RL31874, The University of Michigan Affirmative Action
Cases: Racial Diversity in Higher Education, by Charles V. Dale.
74 Complaints filed with the ED have accused institutions of violation of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act (prohibits discrimination in education), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
(prohibits discrimination in employment by restricting fellowships for minority groups or
for women).
75 Some foundations, philanthropic organizations, and federal agencies no longer provide
financial support to programs with race-exclusive eligibility criteria. Schmidt, Peter, “NIH
Opening Minority Programs to Other Groups,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, v. 51,
March 11, 2005, p. A26.
76 Schmidt, Peter, “From ‘Minority’ to ‘Diversity’,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, v.
52, February 3, 2006, p. A24. NOTE: Daniel Rich, Provost, University of Delaware states
that his institution has changed a scholarship program once reserved for racial or ethnic
minorities. It is now opened to students who are first generation members to attend college,
who have been classified as financial needy based on federal financial-aid calculations, or
who have experienced “challenging social, economic, educational, cultural, or other life
circumstances.”
77 Glater, Jonathan D., “Colleges Open Minority Aid to All Comers,” The New York Times,
March 14, 2006, and Schmidt, Peter, “Justice Dept. Is Expected to Sue Southern Illinois U.
Over Minority Fellowships,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, v. 52, November 25,
2005, p. A34.
78 More than half of the U.S. science and engineering workforce is over the age of 40.

---

CRS-20
date. . . While the recent Supreme Court decisions uphold diversity, they force
us to come at things in a different way. We must come up with solutions for
developing science and engineering talent — solutions that address the new and
coming realities of the underrepresented minority becoming the underrepresented
majority.79
Foreign Science and Engineering Students80
The increased presence of foreign students in graduate science and engineering
programs has been and continues to be of concern to some in the scientific
community.81 Enrollment of U.S. citizens in graduate science and engineering
programs has not kept pace with that of foreign students in those programs. In
addition to the number of foreign students in graduate science and engineering
programs, a significant number of university faculty in the scientific disciplines are
foreign, and foreign doctorates are employed in large numbers by industry.
NSF data reveal that in 2005, the foreign student population earned
approximately 34.7% of the doctorate degrees in the sciences and approximately
63.1% of the doctorate degrees in engineering.82 In 2005, foreign students on
temporary resident83 visas earned 20.6% of the doctorates in the sciences, and 48.6%
of the doctorates in engineering.84 The participation rates in 2004 were 18.9% and
48.8%, respectively. In 2005, permanent resident85 status students earned 3.8% of
the doctorates in the sciences and 4.4% of the doctorates in engineering, an increase
over the 2004 levels of 3.7% and 4.2%, respectively. Trend data for science and
engineering degrees for the years 1996-2005 reveal that of the non-U.S. citizen
population, temporary resident status students consistently have earned the majority
of the doctorate degrees.
79 Standing Our Ground, A Guidebook for STEM Educators in the Post-Michigan Era, pp.
71-12.
80 For an expanded discussion of foreign scientists and engineers, see CRS Report 97-746,
Foreign Science and Engineering Presence in U.S. Institutions and the Laborforce, by
Christine M. Matthews, and CRS Report RL30498, Immigration: Legislative Issues on
Nonimmigrant Professional Specialty (H-1B) Workers, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
81 Armstrong, John A., “The Foreign Student Dilemma,” Issues in Science and Technology,
Summer 2003, [http://www.nap.edu/issues/19.4/armstrong.html].
82 National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards:2005, Detailed
Statistical Tables, NSF07-305, Arlington, VA, December 2006, Table 3.
83 A temporary resident is a person who is not a citizen or national of the United States and
who is in this country on a temporary basis and can not remain indefinitely. The terms
nonresident alien or nonimmigrant are used interchangeably.
84 Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards:2003, pp. 3, 13-25.
85 A permanent resident (“green card holder”) is a person who is not a citizen of the United
States but who has been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the
United States. The terms resident alien or immigrant apply.

---

CRS-21
There are divergent views in the scientific and academic community about the
effects of a significant foreign presence in graduate science and engineering
programs.86 Some argue that U.S. universities benefit from a large foreign citizen
enrollment by helping to meet the needs of the university and, for those students who
remain in the United States, the Nation’s economy.87
Foreign students generate three distinct types of measurable costs and benefits. First, 13
percent of foreign students remain in the United States, permanently increasing the number
of skilled workers in the labor force. Second, foreign students, while enrolled in schools,
are an important part of the workforce at those institutions, particularly at large research
universities. They help teach large undergraduate classes, provide research assistance to the
faculty, and make up an important fraction of the bench workers in scientific labs. Finally,
many foreign students pay tuition, and those revenues may be an important source of income
for educational institutions.88
Some argue that the influx of immigrant scientists and engineers has resulted
in depressed job opportunities, lowered wages, and declining working conditions for
U.S. scientific personnel. While many businesses, especially high-tech companies,
have recently downsized, the federal government issued thousands of H-1B visas to
foreign workers. There are those in the scientific and technical community who
contend that an over-reliance on H-1B visa workers to fill high-tech positions has
weakened opportunities for the U.S. workforce.89 Many U.S. workers argue that a
number of the available positions are being filled by “less-expensive foreign labor.”90
Those critical of the influx of immigrant scientists have advocated placing
restrictions on the hiring of foreign skilled employees in addition to enforcing the
existing laws designed to protect workers. Those in support of the H-1B program
maintain that there is no “clear evidence” that foreign workers displace U.S. workers
86 See for example The National Academies, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public
Policy, Policy Implications of International Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars
in the United States, Washington, DC, 2005, pp. 17-65, Kalita, S. Mitra and Krissah
Williams, “Help Wanted as Immigration Faces Overhaul,” The Washington Post, March 27,
2006, p. A01, Clemons, Steven and Michael Lind, “How to Lose the Brain Race,” The New
York Times, April 10, 2006, Wertheimer, Linda K., “Visa Policy Hinders Research; Hurdles
for Foreign Students Take Toll on Colleges’ Scientific Work,” The Dallas Morning News,
November 24, 2002, p. A1, Stephan, Paula E. and Sharon G. Levin, “Exceptional
Contributions to U.S. Science by the Foreign-Born and Foreign-Educated,” Population
Research and Policy Review, v. 20, 2001, pp. 59-79.
87 The Institute of International Education reports that foreign students contribute
approximately $12 billion annually to the U.S. economy in money from tuition, living
expenses and related costs. The Department of Commerce estimates that U.S. higher
education is the nation’s fifth largest service sector export.
88 Borjas, George, Center for Immigration Studies, An Evaluation of the Foreign Student
Program, June 2002, [http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back602.htm], pp.6-7.
89 See for example Schwartz, Ephraim, “H-1B: Patriotic or Treasonous?,” InfoWorld, v. 27,
May 6, 2005, [http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/05/06/19NNh1b_1.html].
90 Johnson, Carrie, “Hiring of Foreign Workers Frustrates Native Job-Seekers,” Washington
Post, February 27, 2002, p. E01.

---

CRS-22
in comparable positions and that it is necessary to hire foreign workers to fill needed
positions, even during periods of slow economic growth.91
The debate on the presence of foreign students in graduate science and
engineering programs and the workforce has intensified as a result of the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001. It has been reported that foreign students in the
United States are encountering “a progressively more inhospitable environment.”92
Concerns have been expressed about certain foreign students receiving education and
training in sensitive areas.93 There has been increased discussion about the access of
foreign scientists and engineers to research and development (R&D) related to
chemical and biological weapons. Also, there is discussion of the added scrutiny of
foreign students from countries that sponsor terrorism.94 The academic community
is concerned that the more stringent requirements of foreign students may have a
continued impact on enrollments in colleges and universities.95 Others contend that
a possible reduction in the immigration of foreign scientists may affect negatively on
the competitiveness of U.S. industry and compromise commitments made in long-
standing international cooperative agreements.96
91 See for example Clark, John, Nadine Jeserich, and Graham Toft, Hudson Institute, Can
Foreign Talent Fill Gaps in the U.S. Labor Force? The Contributions of Recent Literature,
September 2004, 33 pp., Baker, Chris, “Visa Restrictions Will Harm U.S. Technology,
Gates Says; Microsoft Chief Calls For End to Caps On Workers,” The Washington Times,
April 29, 2005, p. C13, and Frauenheim, Ed, “Brain Drain in Tech’s Future?,” CNET
Nets.com, August 6, 2004.
92 House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and
Claims, Sources and Methods of Foreign Nationals Engaged in Economic and Military
Espionage, 109th, 1st Sess., September 15, 2005, Written testimony of William A. Wulf,
President, National Academy of Engineering, p. 12, and Foroohar, Rana, “America Closes
Its Doors,” [http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6038977/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098].
93 See for example Lang, Les, “Commerce Department Withdraws Extra Restrictions on
Foreign Scientists,” Gastroenterology, v. 131, October 2006, p. 988, and NAFSA:
Association of International Educators, Restoring U.S. Competitiveness for International
Scholars, June 2006, p. 6. NOTE: The Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State,
issues visas to foreign students and maintains a “technology alert list” that includes 16
sensitive areas of study. The list was produced in an effort to help the United States prevent
the illegal transfer of controlled technology, and includes chemical and biotechnology
engineering, missile technology, nuclear technology, robotics, and advanced computer
technology.
94 The State Department publishes a list annually of state sponsors of terrorism. Currently,
the countries include Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. CRS Report
RL32251, Cuba and the State Sponsors of Terrorism List, by Mark P. Sullivan.
95 See for example The National Academies, Policy Implications of International Graduate
Students and Postdoctoral Scholars in the United States, pp. 26-42, Rooney, Megan, “More
Effort Urged on Foreign Students,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, v. 49, January 31,
2003, p. A42, and Strauss, Valerie, “Competition Worries Graduate Programs,” The
Washington Post, April 18, 2006, p. A06.
96 “Current Visa Restrictions Interfere with U.S. Science and Engineering contributions to
Important National Needs,” Statement from Bruce Alberts, President National Academy of
(continued...)

---

CRS-23
Congressional Activity97
Several pieces of competitiveness legislation have been introduced in the 110th
Congress to address the reported needs in science and mathematics education. H.R.
362 authorizes science scholarships for educating science and mathematics teachers.
The bill, “10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds,” is directed at improving teacher
preparation and training and increasing the number of qualified teachers in science
and mathematics. H.R. 363 provides funding for graduate fellowships and for basic
research and research infrastructure in science and engineering. Awards would be
made to scientists and engineers who are in the early stages of their careers, and who
are employed in a tenure-track position at a college or university. H.R. 364 provides
for the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy. This bill
would, among other things, transform cutting-edge science and engineering research
into technologies for energy and environmental applications. H.R. 325 amends the
National Assessment of Education Progress Authorization Act to add science to the
mandatary state and national academic achievement assessments of students in 4th,
8th, and 12th grades for reading and mathematics. This bill also establishes a fund to
award competitive four-year grants to states which include voluntary standards as the
core of their states own content standards. It directs states to adjust their teacher
certification and professional development requirements to parallel the content
standards. S. 164 amends the National Assessment of Educational Progress
Authorization Act to require a biennial national assessment of student achievement
in 4th, 8th, and 12th grade students in science, mathematics, and reading. Currently,
science is not included in the assessment.
S. 761 is another bill directed at improving U.S. economic competitiveness and
supporting science and mathematics education. The bill, America COMPETES Act,
is focused on increasing research investment, strengthening and expanding science
and mathematics programs at all points on the educational pipeline, and developing
an innovation infrastructure. Among other things, S. 761 directs the NSF to expand
the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship and the Graduate
Research Fellowship programs, and to establish a clearinghouse of programs related
to improving the professional science master’s degree. To address the need to
expand the participation of underrepresented groups in the sciences, the bill supports
a program for mentoring to women interested in pursing degrees in science,
mathematics, and engineering. In addition, S. 761 requires the NSF to establish
teacher institutes that are focused on science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics. These are to be summer institutes and are to provide professional
development for teachers at the precollege level teaching in high-need subjects and
in high-need schools.
96 (...continued)
Sciences, Wm. A. Wulf, President, National Academy of Engineering, and Harvey Fineberg,
President, Institute of Medicine, December 13, 2002 [http://www4.nationalacademies.org].
See also Southwick, Ron, “Agriculture Department Draws Fire for Decision to Stop Hiring
Foreign Scientists,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, v. 48, May 13, 2002.
97 For expanded discussion of legislative action related to science and engineering education
issues, see CRS Report RL33434, Science, Technology, Education, and Mathematics
(STEM) Education Issues and Legislative Options.

---

CRS-24
Additional legislation includes a set of four bills directed at specific needs in
science and mathematics along the educational pipeline. H.R. 35 requires the use of
science assessments in determining adequate yearly progress. H.R. 36 amends the
Internal Revenue Code to allow full time teachers of science, mathematics,
engineering, or technology courses at the precollege level a refundable tax credit of
their undergraduate tuition. H.R. 37 provides tax credits to businesses that contribute
property or services to elementary and secondary schools that promote instruction in
science, mathematics, and technology. H.R. 38 amends the Head Start Act to
establish scientifically-based education performance standards to guarantee that
children participating in Head Start programs develop and demonstrate the
fundamental knowledge, skills, concepts, and operations inherent in science and
mathematics.
Oversight by the 110th Congress may touch on some of the following questions:
Can our system of education and training achieve its stated goal of being first in
science and mathematics? Can underrepresented minorities be encouraged to pursue
scientific careers in larger numbers? Can the U.S. continue to produce successive
generations of scientists, engineers, and technicians to meet the demands of the
nation’s changing economy and workplace?

---