by Gary Jones
FLC Washington, DC Representative
Greetings from (sweltering) D.C. A great deal has been written over the past year about the U.S. R&D labor force and its ability to continue attracting and developing the quality science and engineering (S&E) workforce necessary to compete globally in technology-intensive industries (see the April/May DC on T2).
Several new National Science Foundation (NSF) statistical reports (tabularized data) and an article in a prominent S&T policy journal provide more "grist for the mill" on this general discussion, which I thought might be of interest to FLC NewsLink readers. Although not 'analytically' addressing the U.S. S&T competitiveness issue, the NSF reports highlight some interesting demographic characteristics of U.S. S&E graduate education and doctoral employment, while the journal article focuses on proposed changes to undergraduate engineering education.
The next few paragraphs highlight: 1) salient demographic statistics for doctoral S&Es in the U.S. workforce, 2) select characteristics of graduate enrollment in S&E programs in the U.S., and 3) a "think piece" on the (in?)adequacy of current undergraduate engineering education in the U.S. I encourage you to look to the original sources for more detailed reading on these subjects.
First, in "Characteristics of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers in the US: 2003" (NSF 06-320, June 2006, www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf06320/), the NSF provides statistical information on many employment-related characteristics (e.g., median salary, sector of employment, employer location, etc.) for doctoral S&Es in the U.S. According to the report, in 2003 there were 593,300 doctoral S&Es employed in the U.S. (both full- and part-time), with 468,570 in science and 101,500 in engineering. The male/female ratio in the sciences was approximately 70/30, while in engineering it was 92/8. In the sciences, the largest employer type was universities and colleges (46.5 percent of total doctoral scientists employed), while industry employed the highest percentage of engineers (55.9 percent of total doctoral engineers employed). Coincidentally, the federal government employed the same percentage of each, 6.9 percent.
Another interesting statistic is median salary (a potential indicator of how attractive the field is for future S&Es). The median salary across all S&E fields in 2003 was $82,000. Some interesting breakouts on this figure include: 1) by gender: median salary across all S&E fields for males was $86,500, for females $70,000; 2) by type: for science the median salary was $80,000 (physics was highest at $94,000), while engineering was $97,300 (electrical/computer engineering was highest at $104,000); 3) by citizenship: U.S. citizens (native born and naturalized) earned a median salary across all science fields of $90,000 versus non-U.S. citizens (permanent and temporary residents) earning $67,500; for engineering, the values are $100,000 and $83,000, respectively; 4) by organizational employment: S&Es working at private-for-profit organizations earned the highest ($100,000), followed by federal government ($91,000), self-employed ($90,000), not-for-profit ($80,000), university ($70,000), and state/local government ($68,000).
Second, "Graduate Students and Post Doctorates in S&E: Fall 2003" (NSF 06-307, March 2006, www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf06307/) presents the distribution of graduate students in S&E by academic fields, demographics, institution and state (for 2003). As noted, "[G]raduate enrollment in science and engineering (S&E) programs reached an all-time high of 474,203 students in fall 2003, a gain of 4 percent over S&E enrollment in 2002 and a gain of 9 percent over 1993. Between 2002 and 2003 S&E graduate enrollment increased by 19,311 students: 18,052 U.S. citizens and permanent visa holders and 1,259 temporary visa holders. U.S. institutions reported 33,685 postdoctoral appointees (post docs) in S&E fields, also an all-time high."
It is interesting to note, however, that in a preliminary view of 2004 data (NSF 06-321, July 2006, www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf06321/), the NSF indicates that, "for the first time in the past decade, full time enrollment of students with temporary visas dropped, by 3 percent, whereas full time enrollment of students who were U.S. citizens or permanent residents rose by about 3 percent."
The combined message appears to be that while enrollment is on the upswing, there is a continuing challenge attracting foreign students to initiate full-time S&E programs in the U.S.
And finally, at the other end of the spectrum of university education in engineering, C. Judson King, director of the Center for Studies in Higher Education at Berkeley, has written a thought-provoking piece in the summer 2006 issue of Issues in Science and Technology (www.issues.org).
In it he posits that the issues with which engineers must engage have become "more and more multidimensional, interacting with public policy and public perceptions, business and legal complexities, and government policies and regulations …" However, he notes that engineering undergraduate degrees allow for very few general education courses, preparing the engineer for a very specific role in society. As a result, there are few engineers in Congress or other public or private leadership positions.
Consequently, he takes the strong position that undergraduate engineering degrees are too narrowly focused on "technical skills rather than broadly on the full role that engineers must play in the world … [A]nd if engineers are to have time for a greater variety of courses in their college years, the professional engineering credential will have to be a postgraduate degree, as it is in law, business and medicine."
This is not a completely new perspective on undergraduate engineering programs (e.g. he identifies the National Academy of Engineering 2005 report, "Educating the Engineer of 2020," which had a similar recommendation), but it is certainly food for thought for those interested in engineering education and the role of the engineer in the U.S.
While the NSF reports are statistical rather than analytical, they do provide, along with the think piece on undergraduate engineering education, more fodder for any discussion on S&E education, including employment prospects for undergraduate and graduate S&Es, in the U.S.
Gary can be reached at gkjones@federallabs.org.
