Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 00:52:38 -0700 Subject: the latest in STEM education angst To: H-1B/L-1/offshoring e-newsletter We're seeing a continuing flurry of anxiety-laden articles in the press, accompanied by hand-wringing by politicians on Capitol Hill, that the sky is falling because there's a problem with STEM education. Many articles make comparisons to China, ironically while the Chinese government is doing its own hand-wringing, over concern that China just isn't producing innovators like the U.S. does, due to its creativity-killing rote memory style of learning. I continue to believe that ultimately much of the impetus for these reports in the American press can be traced back to industry lobbyists pushing their H-1B agenda. After the 2008 financial crash and concomitant plummet in the economy, the lobbyists realized that they had a powerful issue: "We need H-1Bs to innovate so we can get the economy back on track." (Again, never mind the above-mentioned irony.) That message hit a responsive chord, getting academics into the act, and the thing mushroomed. One academic study that has gotten a ton of press lately is that of Tony Carnevale of Georgetown University, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. No, it's not quite what you think from the Gates connection, but wait for my analysis, coming a week or so from now. In the meantime, though, there is an article in yesterday's NYT that has attracted much attention, titled "Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)." See www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/education/edlife/why-science-majors-change-their-mind-its-just-so-darn-hard.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all Though it's in this same genre as described above, this is really man-bites-dog stuff: Instead of bemoaning some (presumed) softness in our educational system, it now is stated that the system is too rigorous! We're scaring these poor kids away from STEM! Go figure. The funny part is that the article is actually correct: Our STEM education is in fact quite demanding at the university level. Well, then, why do I have problems with this article? Well, first of all, the Urban Institute study of a couple years ago showed clearly that we graduate plenty of STEM students, many more than we need. And as I reported, a Texas Instruments executive testified at a recent House hearing that there is no shortage of engineering students at the bachelor's degree level. One can debate whether enough go on to grad school, and if not then why not, but the point is that a (more than) sufficient number do finish their bachelor's degree in STEM. So, the NYT's tale of woe concerning those who start as STEM majors but then bail out before getting their degrees is IRRELEVANT. Second, the article completely ignores the economic aspect. As I've discussed elsewhere, STEM just isn't financially attractive compared to other fields that those with STEM-type skills (math, logic, problem solving) have open to them--finance (yep, still going strong, crash or no crash), law, medicine and so on. These other fields pay more AND have much better career longevity (one can work after age 35, for goodness sake!). This has been much noted, including by Carnevale recently, Richard Freeman a few years ago, and so on. The kids know it, and vote with their feet; how come the NYT doesn't know it? And don't get me started on the disgraceful science post doc fiasco, that virtually makes it illegal to go into lab science. Put another way, during the dot-com boom, tech majors were INUNDATED with students. The kids were happy at that time to put up with demanding coursework, lower grades, and the various other ills the NYT cites--because they knew that good, high-paying jobs were awaiting them, with a reasonable expectation of having a lenghty career. Now they aren't so sure of that. The Carnevale study shows that STEM grads are paid well even if they're not in STEM jobs, likely reflecting those same general STEM skills noted above. But the dot-com bust had a highly sobering effect on young people. They saw that feast can turn to famine in an instant in STEM. And the early 2000s wasn't the first time it had happened; it had also occurred in the early 80s and early 90s. At least for the computer field, the lack of stability is a big turnoff to the kids, as it should be. Small wonder, then, that they move to (literally) greener pastures in non-STEM jobs after their bachelor's degree in STEM. A student of mine summed it up in the early 2000s. He was changing his major from computer science to economics. Asked why, he cited having to do all-nighters debugging his programming homework, all, he said, for possibly having to move to another field after just a short career in CS. He noted, "If I'm going to end up in an econ-type job, I might as well major in econ now [and enjoy the college years more]." Yes, at a good university (note the comparison of UC to CSU in the article), STEM majors can be pretty daunting--tons of work, lots of theory, etc. Well, it SHOULD be that way. "No pain, no gain." I'd be the first to say that CS curricula could stand to teach less theory, and for that matter fewer all-nighters, but yes, programming assignments should be challenging and creative. That means one must build foundation, which takes time and much effort, and might be considered a bit dry. A very much related problem is that the high school curricula are, in my opinion, doing the wrong thing. A university mathematics major bears very little resemblance to high school math. As a mathematician myself, I think the university math curricula are just right; it is the high schools that are wrong. Ironically, they focus on exactly the thing China is trying to get away from--rote memory, mechanical problem solving by imitating patterns, and so on. Geometry exemplifies the problem. It has been said that mathematics is the Queen of the Sciences, rightly so, and I would add that geometry should be considered the Princess of (high school) Math. Yet most high schools don't teach geometry in a proof-oriented fashion these days, losing most of the value, and certainly losing its connection to university-level math. My point is that these poor kids do pretty well in math in high school and then major in math at university, thinking it will be "more of the same." They then are shocked by the proof-oriented, nonmechanical way in which they are expected to think in university math courses. To a large degree, the same is true for physics. And since engineering students must at take substantial math and physics in the first two years, well, you see where that goes. But again, the solution--if indeed there is a problem, which as I point out above, there really isn't--is to change what's taught in high school. But that is not gonna happen, due to the test-score obsessed climate we're in now. Proofs can't easily be tested in, say, the SAT or AP tests, so the high schools have no incentive to emphasize them. Hopefully I'll have time to comment on the Carnevale study soon. Norm