Comments on: United States Competitiveness http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3704 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Roger Pielke Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3704&cpage=1#comment-2771 Roger Pielke Jr. Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:34:25 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3704#comment-2771 David Garrison- Thanks for your comments. However, the data on enrollment does not support your claims that enrollment is declining. According to the NSF enrollment in S&E higher educational programs steadily increased from 1998-2002: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05310/pdf/tab1.pdf and across all disciplines: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05310/pdf/tab2.pdf and in doctorate granting institutions: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05310/pdf/tab32.pdf On the supply side at least there is no indication of a decline in enrollment such as you have described. NSF got itself in a lot of hot water crying wolf about a S&E shortage in the 1990s, see this debate: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/pielke_supply_debate.html David Garrison-

Thanks for your comments. However, the data on enrollment does not support your claims that enrollment is declining.

According to the NSF enrollment in S&E higher educational programs steadily increased from 1998-2002:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05310/pdf/tab1.pdf

and across all disciplines:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05310/pdf/tab2.pdf

and in doctorate granting institutions:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05310/pdf/tab32.pdf

On the supply side at least there is no indication of a decline in enrollment such as you have described. NSF got itself in a lot of hot water crying wolf about a S&E shortage in the 1990s, see this debate:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/pielke_supply_debate.html

]]> By: David Garrison http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3704&cpage=1#comment-2770 David Garrison Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:40:43 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3704#comment-2770 The problem is that enrollment in US science and engineering programs is declining relative to other fields less related to innovation such as business, law and education. This is resulting in tighter funding for such programs and a snowball effect, which further decreases enrollment. The result is that a lot of programs are shrinking and closing down. If this trend continues, we won't have enough US trained S&T people to fill the needed positions in 10 or 20 years. This means not enough patents, inventors, new technologies or discoveries to stay ahead of competition from countries like China, India or elsewhere. Our economy is built on the fact that most of the high-tech products we (and other countries) use were invented in the US. Can you imagine if Microsoft, Apple and Dell were Chinese companies? What is India had invented the World Wide Web? The result would be a huge trade deficit were the US has nothing new, innovative or unique to offer the rest of the world. Virtually every high-tech company would have to move overseas in order to find a qualified workforce. The worst part is that this decline means that if we don't do something we won't have a strong enough educational infrastructure to train the people who are needed to turn this trend around. The proposal above doesn't just throw money at the problem. It provides resources and education to the people who can make the biggest difference, teachers and researchers. Increasing the pipeline and opening the door for more innovation will lead to more start-up funding and the creation of new jobs. Remember these people create new products that lead to the creation of new companies and industries. Part of the Innovation Act not cited here is new funding for the creation of Professional Science Master's Degrees which train scientists to work in industry in areas like: project management, entrepreneurship and intellectual property. All necessary areas as innovation is increased. The problem is that enrollment in US science and engineering programs is declining relative to other fields less related to innovation such as business, law and education. This is resulting in tighter funding for such programs and a snowball effect, which further decreases enrollment. The result is that a lot of programs are shrinking and closing down. If this trend continues, we won’t have enough US trained S&T people to fill the needed positions in 10 or 20 years. This means not enough patents, inventors, new technologies or discoveries to stay ahead of competition from countries like China, India or elsewhere. Our economy is built on the fact that most of the high-tech products we (and other countries) use were invented in the US. Can you imagine if Microsoft, Apple and Dell were Chinese companies? What is India had invented the World Wide Web? The result would be a huge trade deficit were the US has nothing new, innovative or unique to offer the rest of the world. Virtually every high-tech company would have to move overseas in order to find a qualified workforce. The worst part is that this decline means that if we don’t do something we won’t have a strong enough educational infrastructure to train the people who are needed to turn this trend around. The proposal above doesn’t just throw money at the problem. It provides resources and education to the people who can make the biggest difference, teachers and researchers. Increasing the pipeline and opening the door for more innovation will lead to more start-up funding and the creation of new jobs. Remember these people create new products that lead to the creation of new companies and industries. Part of the Innovation Act not cited here is new funding for the creation of Professional Science Master’s Degrees which train scientists to work in industry in areas like: project management, entrepreneurship and intellectual property. All necessary areas as innovation is increased.

]]> By: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of ... http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3704&cpage=1#comment-2772 Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of ... Sat, 28 Jan 2006 02:51:53 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3704#comment-2772 <strong>Government - Solving Problems That Don't Exist</strong> I still confused as to what problem we are trying to solve? America is the worlds’ wealthiest nation, the home of most technology companies, inventor of 70% of the world’s medicines and the world leader in computer technology. How are we not compet... Government – Solving Problems That Don’t Exist

I still confused as to what problem we are trying to solve? America is the worlds’ wealthiest nation, the home of most technology companies, inventor of 70% of the world’s medicines and the world leader in computer technology. How are we not compet…

]]> By: David Bruggeman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3704&cpage=1#comment-2769 David Bruggeman Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:23:30 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3704#comment-2769 The NRC seems focused mostly on the pipeline - not either end so much as the middle. With the rise in postdocs, both in number and length, I'd suggest that expanding a system that focuses most of its attention on those who will get tenure will encourage an increasing perception of diminishing returns. What should change along with any increase in Ph.D. students is the encouragement to take jobs outside of the academic track. That encouragement needs to come from the tenured faculty as well - which is likely the source of strongest resistance to such an idea. The NRC seems focused mostly on the pipeline – not either end so much as the middle. With the rise in postdocs, both in number and length, I’d suggest that expanding a system that focuses most of its attention on those who will get tenure will encourage an increasing perception of diminishing returns. What should change along with any increase in Ph.D. students is the encouragement to take jobs outside of the academic track. That encouragement needs to come from the tenured faculty as well – which is likely the source of strongest resistance to such an idea.

]]> By: Rabett http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3704&cpage=1#comment-2768 Rabett Tue, 24 Jan 2006 01:34:16 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3704#comment-2768 Well, as a child of the Sputnik era, I know that throwing money at this particular problem works. However, it is also self limiting. You have to have jobs waiting at the other end of the pipeline. If you do, you will get a huge surge of productivity and invention. It is also not simply an issue of numbers of S&E graduates. The number needed is reasonably small so the huge population advantage of India and China is secondary. Their advantage would only be in having more people from which they could select the most talented. There is a real issue about finding the most talented which starts with providing a top notch education for all in elementry schools. Well, as a child of the Sputnik era, I know that throwing money at this particular problem works. However, it is also self limiting. You have to have jobs waiting at the other end of the pipeline. If you do, you will get a huge surge of productivity and invention.

It is also not simply an issue of numbers of S&E graduates. The number needed is reasonably small so the huge population advantage of India and China is secondary. Their advantage would only be in having more people from which they could select the most talented. There is a real issue about finding the most talented which starts with providing a top notch education for all in elementry schools.

]]> By: Roger Pielke Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3704&cpage=1#comment-2767 Roger Pielke Jr. Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:40:52 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3704#comment-2767 John- Thanks, very interesting. If it is not a myth, it very easily could be true at some point. What I am unclear about is why the NRC thinks that the US can maintain global dominance in S&T by focusing on producing more scientists and engineers. If India and China together have 2.3+ billion people, they can in the long run always produce more S&E graduates than the US. At some point the quality of education rather than just overall numbers has to be addressed. This will be worth some discussions over the coming weeks. John- Thanks, very interesting. If it is not a myth, it very easily could be true at some point. What I am unclear about is why the NRC thinks that the US can maintain global dominance in S&T by focusing on producing more scientists and engineers. If India and China together have 2.3+ billion people, they can in the long run always produce more S&E graduates than the US. At some point the quality of education rather than just overall numbers has to be addressed. This will be worth some discussions over the coming weeks.

]]> By: John Fleck http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3704&cpage=1#comment-2766 John Fleck Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:30:42 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3704#comment-2766 One of the problems identified in the NRC report - the huge disparity in engineering degrees being earned by Chinese and Indian students compared to their US counterparts - may be a myth, according to some new data from a group at Duke. From the Jan. 6, 2006 news piece in Science: "It has been widely quoted that the U.S. awards only 70,000 B.S. engineering degrees each year, whereas India churns out 350,000 and China 650,000. The National Research Council cited the numbers in a recent report on the U.S. need to beef up its scientific talent pool, and senators flogged them last month in introducing a bill to increase U.S. support for science. But a group at Duke University group led by sociologist Gary Gereffi and high tech entrepreneur Vivek Wadhwa suggests that any degree disparity may actually favor the U.S." (From Random Samples, Jan. 6 2006 Science, p. 21) One of the problems identified in the NRC report – the huge disparity in engineering degrees being earned by Chinese and Indian students compared to their US counterparts – may be a myth, according to some new data from a group at Duke. From the Jan. 6, 2006 news piece in Science: “It has been widely quoted that the U.S. awards only 70,000 B.S. engineering degrees each year, whereas India churns out 350,000 and China 650,000. The National Research Council cited the numbers in a recent report on the U.S. need to beef up its scientific talent pool, and senators flogged them last month in introducing a bill to increase
U.S. support for science. But a group at Duke University group led by sociologist Gary Gereffi and high tech entrepreneur Vivek Wadhwa suggests that any degree disparity may actually favor the U.S.”

(From Random Samples, Jan. 6 2006 Science, p. 21)

]]>