2. National Research Council, Center for Science Mathematics, and Engineering Education, From Analysis to Action: Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, Report of a Convocation (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996), paraphrased from page 4.
3. National Research Council, From Analysis to Action: Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, a National Science Foundation/ National Research Council Convocation, April 9-11, 1995. See also the Challenge Paper for this NRC/NSF Convocation (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1995).
4. National Science Foundation, Contributions of the Social Sciences to the National Science Foundation Review of Undergraduate Education, A Workshop, February 22, 1996. See Draft Report (March 6, 1996).
5. Wingspread Group on Higher Education, William E. Brock (Chair), An American Imperative: Higher Expectations for Higher Education, (Racine, WI: The Johnson Foundation, 1993).
6. National Science Board, Toward the Next Century: The State of U.S. Science and Engineering (NSB 94-24) February 1994.
7. Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Science in the National Interest (August 1994).
8. Elaine Seymour and Nancy Hewitt, Talking About Leaving: Factors Contributing to High Attrition Rates Among Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Undergraduate Majors (Boulder, CO: Bureau of Sociological Research, University of Colorado, 1994).
9. David Goodstein, "Scientific Elites and Scientific Illiterates," Sigma Xi, Proceedings of a Forum on Ethics, Values, and the Promise of Science (New Haven, CT: Sigma XI, February 25-26, 1993).
10. Three public hearings were convened at the National Science Foundation to invite previously prepared public comment on the issues. The first hearing focused on "disciplinary perspectives" on undergraduate education, and featured testimony from faculty and officers in scientific societies (October 21, 1995). The second hearing provided a forum for "institutional perspectives," and gave us a broad perspective on major changes, actual and needed, from primarily college and university presidents (October 23, 1995). The third hearing was for employers of new graduates, and provided testimony from leaders in business, industry, and a public school superintendent employing new teachers.
11. Luther S. Williams, Charge to the Subcommittee for Review of Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, Advisory Committee to the Directorate for Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation (June 1995). [Copies available on request; See also Volume II.]
12. The National Research Council announced a "Year of National Dialogue" following the conclusion of the April 1995 Convocation jointly sponsored by NRC and NSF (see reference 3). In order to facilitate this dialogue, the NRC and NSF sponsored four regional symposia underwritten by the Exxon Education Foundation. The first was hosted by the University of Michigan (October), the second by GTE Corporation in Boston (November), the third by the Johnson Space Center in Houston (January), and the fourth by Pomona College in California (February).
13. The NSF sponsored focus groups in support of this review. They were conducted by SRI International under contract with the National Science Foundation. They were held in four locations – Chicago, San Francisco, Atlanta, and Boston during the period October 1995 to April 1996. Nine distinct focus groups were conducted in each region, split between two nearby institutions of higher education. Each focus group was drawn from one of: current students (SME&T; majors or non-majors), recent graduates (in SME&T; or non-SME&T;), students' parents, employers of recent graduates, teacher graduates, and employers of new teachers.
14. Alexander W. Astin, Undergraduate Science Education: The impact of different college environments on the educational pipeline in the sciences: Final Report (Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, Graduate School of Education, University of California at Los Angeles, 1992).
15. John I. Goodlad, Teachers for Our Nation's Schools (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1990).
16. Tora K. Bikson and S.A. Law, Global Preparedness and Human Resources, College and Corporate Perspectives, RAND (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1994).
17. Barry Cipra, "Calculus Reform Sparks a Backlash," Science (February 16, 1996), page 901.
18. National Science Foundation, Division of Undergraduate Education, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Institution-Wide Reform of Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: Program Announcement and Guidelines (NSF 95-127).
19. Gene Wright, Andersen Consulting, in "Consulting Giant's Hot Offer: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs," The Wall Street Journal (March 16, 1996), page B6.
20. Malcolm Getz and John Siegfried, Costs and Productivity in American Colleges and Universities, Part III in Economic Challenges in Higher Education, A National Bureau of Economic Research Monograph (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1991) pp. 261-392.
21. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education: A Statistical Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Dept of Education, NCES 94-149 and NCES 95-273: 1994 and 1995 editions).
22. Clifford Adelman, The New College Course Map and Transcript Files: Changes in Course-Taking and Achievement, 1972-1993 (Draft Manuscript, Fall 1995)
23. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education: A Technical Report, 1994 Edition (Ewing, New Jersey: California / Princeton Fulfillment Services, 1445 Lower Ferry Road).
24. American Association for Higher Education, Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards, and Teaching Effectiveness. AAHE publications addressing the Forum's concerns include: Jon Wergin, The Collaborative Department: How Five Campuses Are Inching Toward Cultures of Collective Responsibility (1994); Ernest Lynton, Making the Case for Professional Service (1995); and Robert Diamond and Bronwyn Adam (editors), The Disciplines Speak: Rewarding the Scholarly, Professional, and Creative Work of Faculty (1995). (Washington, DC: One Dupont Circle). Further information is currently available at the following URL: http://www.ido.gmu.edu/AAHE/welcome.html
25. William A. Wulf, "Warning: Information Technology Will Transform the University," Issues in Science and Technology, (Summer 1995), pages 46-52.
26. Eli M. Noam, "Electronics and the Dim Future of the University," Science, (October 13, 1995), pages 247-249.
27. The enrollment data were obtained from data tapes prepared by the National Center for Education Statistics (U.S. Dept. of Education), available through the NSF CASPAR data system, using the 1994 Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (ref 24).
28. The data on the number of students enrolled in undergraduate SME&T; courses, and the number of these courses offered, come from special tabulations of data collected in the 1993 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, by the National Center for Education Statistics. The tabulations were done by Pelavin Associates of Washington DC.
29. These data are collected by NSF (Division of Science Resources Studies). They were tabulated from raw data for this review. See Federal Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions: Fiscal Year 1992 (Surveys of Science Resources Studies, Detailed Statistical Tables, NSF 94-324). These data are the funds obligated during FY 1992, as reported by 15 federal agencies to the NSF. The totals are for all fields of science and engineering.
30. The data on post high school graduation college activity are drawn from the National Center for Education Statistics Panel Surveys of the high school classes of 1980 and 1982, called High School and Beyond..
31. The National Association of Scholars, The Dissolution of General Education: 1914-1993 (Princeton, NJ: March 1996). An executive summary is available on the Internet at the NAS home page.
32. Letter dated June 14, 1995 from Dr. Luther Williams to a widespread mix of educators, administrators, and employers in the science, mathematics, engineering, technology, and higher education communities. See Volume II for the full text of this letter.
33. National Science Foundation, Division of Undergraduate Education, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Project Impact: Disseminating Innovation in Undergraduate Education, Conference Proceedings (May 1994, NSF 95-69).
34. Recommended Standards for high school graduates are found in the following carefully crafted reports: (1) National Research Council, National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessments, National Science Education Standards (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995); (2) American Association for the Advancement of Science, Project 2061, Benchmarks for Science Literacy (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993); (3) National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (Reston, VA; 1989).
35. Sheila Tobias, Revitalizing Undergraduate Science: Why Some Things Work and Most Don't (Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation, 1992).
36. Robert Rosenthal, "Teacher Expectancy Effects: A Brief Update 25 Years after the Pygmalion Experiment, Journal of Research in Education (Spring 1991), pp. 3-12; results of a meta-analysis of 448 studies. See also, Robert Rosenthal, "Pygmalion in the Classroom; Teacher Expectation and Pupils' Intellectual Development )New York NY: Holt Rinehart & Winston, 1968).
37. Lewis Thomas, Late Night Thoughts on Listening to Mahler's Ninth Symphony, (New York, NY: Viking Press; 1993), page 155.
38. Chancellor Karl Pister, "Renewing the Research University," University of California at Santa Cruz Review (Winter 1996).
39. Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales; Prologue. Line 308.