|
House Science Committee Hearing on Graduate Education
April 1, 1998
Cultural Changes and a More Diversely Educated
Student Body Required to Prepare Students for 21st
Century Careers, Lawmakers Told
This is the fourth in a continuing series of hearings
held by the House Science Committee's National Science
Policy Study, and the second hearing on science, math,
engineering and technology education. This hearing
addressed what new approaches may be required in undergraduate
and graduate education in order to prepare American
science and engineering students with the kinds of
careers they desire in a technologically demanding
workplace.
Dr. David L. Goodstein, Vice Provost, Professor of
Physics and Applied Physics, California Institute
of Technology. Dr. Goodstein noted that since about
1970 the number of PhDs produced each year has more
or less stayed steady at about 1,000, and top students
going on to graduate school has been declining. At
about this same time, foreign students, recognizing
the excellence of American science, began coming here
for their education, accounting today for about 50%
of students enrolled in graduate schools. He said
institutions of science are not adapted for the future
we are facing. He stressed that increased federal
funding is not the answer, however, some government
leadership may be necessary. He stated that the problem
is that science education is designed to select an
elite few. He calls for a reform of both education
and society with realistic career opportunities in
industry, government and education, k-graduate. New
curricula and new degrees may be necessary. He said
the workplace and attitudes of managers; administrators
and citizens need to change.
Catherine E. Johnson, Graduate Student, Department
of Biological Chemistry, John Hopkins School of Medicine.
Ms. Johnson stated that the current system of graduate
education and postdoctoral training is not designed
to adequately prepare young scientists for a future
driven by technological research and development.
With divisions among scientific disciplines deteriorating,
graduate education does not presently encourage scientific
breadth. She noted that the current system, largely
sustained by federal funds, provides the primary source
of labor, through students, for faculty advisor's
publications, rather than student needs or interests.
To pursue these interests students must stay in school
longer thus increasing the time-to-degree. She said
graduate education today is designed to keep research
students in academia, and lack of faculty acceptance
or support keeps students from exploring other opportunities.
Another major concern, she noted, is that graduate
students work long hours, earn little pay, no pension,
are granted poor benefits and are not contributing
to social security. Especially for women wanting to
have families, this scenario is not very inviting.
She said in order to recruit and retain young scientists,
graduate studies must better compete with other satisfying,
lucrative professional options. Her suggestions for
improvements: expand the career paths of young scientists
beyond academia; re-validate the masters degree; and
increase scientific flexibility and decrease time-to-degree
and employment. Ms. Johnson noted that increasing
the number of foreign students studying in America
would only make it harder to implement the changes
needed to attract more U.S. citizens.
Dr. Earl H. Dowell, Dean, School of Engineering, Duke
University. Dr. Dowell stated that the challenges
and opportunities for science and engineering are
attracting young people, preparing them for careers
in academia and industry, giving them the depth and
breadth of understanding necessary to work in multi-disciplinary
teams, and cultural awareness and people skills to
work in a global economy. He noted that currently
about 80% of PhDs, both foreign and domestic, remain
in the U.S. with 1/3rd entering academia and the other
2/3rds entering industry or government. While enrollments
in engineering are stabilizing, he said, they had
declined 15% after having peaked several years ago.
He said engineering programs need to improve. Specifically
he spoke of the establishment of a new engineering
program, Engineering Criteria 2000, under the auspices
of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology
(ABET). ABET and others supported by NSF organized
the National Conference on Outcomes Assessment for
Engineering Education to assist engineering colleges
with the new accreditation system emphasizing the
outcomes of engineering education for students and
continuous improvement of faculty. He also mentioned
the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE)/NSF
Visiting Scholars Program where outstanding scholars
were sent to selected engineering colleges to conduct
two-day workshops designed to enhance the quality
of engineering teaching. This year NSF is launching
a new program called The Action Agenda for Systemic
Engineering Education Reform which seeks to develop
significant advances in teaching and learning methods;
curricular content; and creating constituencies and
networks in engineering education.
Mr. Michael Peralta, Executive Director, Junior Engineering
and Technical Society (JETS). Mr. Peralta said the
key to an improved education system is to have students
understand how problems are solved and what academic
and personal skills are needed to solve them, which,
he said, is the essence of JETS. He said engineering
education is shifting to accommodate industry needs
by training college students to work in multi-disciplinary,
team oriented environments, and that JETS has taken
a leadership role in supporting this through innovative
high school courses designed to give students an opportunity
to apply their knowledge of concepts to real engineering
situations. Mr. Peralta said that to ensure a talented
workforce will be available to meet the ever-changing
complexity of the global economy, partnerships among
corporations, schools, and organizations are essential
for providing quality programs. He noted that the
poor performance by American students on the Third
International Math and Science Study (TIMMS) was due
to an overemphasis in American schools on the breadth
of knowledge, rather than the depth, and a focus on
learning what the teacher tells them to remember rather
than helping them to understand concepts and their
relationship to real problems.
Dr. Phillip Griffiths, Chair, Committee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP), National
Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,
Institute of Medicine, Director, Institute for Advanced
Study. COSEPUP produced a report in 1995 on how best
to prepare students to maintain American leadership
in science and engineering. Myths about graduate education,
according to Dr. Griffith, include that most PhDs
go on to careers in academic positions; there is high
unemployment and underemployment among PhDs; and that
we train too many PhDs. He noted that more than half
of PhDs go on to jobs where research is not the primary
activity, that unemployment rates have actually declined
slightly in the last several years and, according
to most recent data, enrollments in graduate science
and engineering programs are declining. Dr. Griffith
stated that, as the 1995 report suggested, there is
no need for a major restructuring of graduate education
but, rather, a reshaping is required. One serious
problem, he noted, is that there continues to be more
new PhDs entering postdoctoral study, working in temporary
research positions, or taking non-regular jobs. The
study also showed that there was a misalignment between
the way students are educated (single, narrow specialty)
and the jobs many of them are expected to perform,
especially in multidisciplinary settings (teamwork).
Before 1970, he said, PhDs were trained in fields
necessary for the national interest, and today the
PhD education system has come to be shaped by the
research system. He also reiterated Ms. Johnson's
point that federal funds for research support a principal
investigator's research needs rather than student
desires. His recommendations for improving graduate
education include: make graduate education programs
more flexible and provide more options for students;
experiment with various kinds of education and training
grants; and provide better career information and
guidance for students. He noted further that we need
to take a look at how graduate education is supported
through federal funds, and if this is the best use
of these funds. Since the 1995 report more attention
is being paid to graduate education, he said. He went
on to explain some of changes and noted the Integrative
Graduate Education and Research Training Program (IGERT)
at NSF which provides the opportunity for more innovative
and creative graduate education, opportunities for
inter- and multidisciplinary research, increased breadth,
linkage to industry, and professional and personal
skills development.
|
|