
The Science & Engineering Education Myth - nickb
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/oct2007/sb20071025_827398.htm
======
rfurmani
I think the comments by "Lowell & Salzman L I E" rebut this well:

The methodological problem in the study is it, surprisingly, uses the narrow
employment designation of "science and engineering occupation". The National
Science Foundation specifically warns, �??The S&E labor force does not include
just those in S&E occupations. S&E skills are needed and used in a wide
variety of jobs.�?? However, the study used a 4.8 million figure for science-
related jobs, which is the number for those in occupations formally defined as
S&E, even though nearly 13 million workers say they need at least a bachelor's
degree level of knowledge in science and engineering fields in their jobs. In
other words, the study reached its conclusion primarily by ignoring about 8
million people in US labor force. That appears to be reason the study arrived
at the claim that US has about three times as many S&E graduates as S&E job
openings each year, even though there is no evidence of massive unemployment
among recent graduates in these fields.

The broader problem with the study is it assumes a "bean counting" approach to
what is dynamic in nature. After all, there was not even an Internet economy
two decades ago, so to assume that we have plenty of talented people, assumes
that we have created all the innovations we need and, therefore, American
companies should stop trying to invent and innovate. A market economy can
never have too many talented people, since, as we have seen, smart employers
and entrepreneurs will utilize this talent to improve all our lives. __* --
Pages 10-11 of Talent Search: Job openings and the need for Skilled Labor in
US Economy, NFAP Policy Brief, Mar
2008<http://nfap.com/pdf/080311talentsrc.pdf>

------
mdasen
It looks like the methodology that they are comparing is very different. The
BusinessWeek article cites things like increasing numbers of people achieving
in those subject areas. The international surveys look at the average
achievement in those subject areas.

To simplistically illustrate with made up facts:

Let's say BusinessWeek finds that in 1990, 5% of students achieve an excellent
result in math and in 2000 10% of students achieve an excellent result in
math. That's quite an increase. Let's say that there were 100 students and so
the "A" category increased from 5 to 10 students. Awesome! However, that
doesn't tell us what the _average_ student is achieving.

The OECD and others usually look at the average (mean or median) achievement.
It is entirely possible that elite education is increasing while average
education is decreasing.

To put this into numbers:

    
    
      --1990-----------------2000--
        A:5                  A:10
        B:10                 B:10
        C:50                 C:30
        D:25                 D:25
        F:10                 F:25
    

If you look at those two distributions, you can come to different conclusions
based on your methodology. By mean average, the US is declining from a 1.75
score to 1.55. However, the US also has more achieving really excellent
scores.

One thing to note about a study like this is that the United States tends to
have more immigrants than other nations. Immigrants are fine people, but they
face disadvantages in integrating into a new society. Often times there are
language and cultural barriers that slow learning as, well, part of their
learning is spent overcoming those barriers. This could drag down average US
scores in academics when comparing them to countries that don't have
immigrants that might spend a lot more time learning the spoken language over
studying math. If you're dealing with two people of equal ability, but one has
to study a second language to become fluent first, that person's achievement
won't be as great (or at least will be delayed as they have taken time to
study something else). This isn't something bad about immigrants, but it does
say that there might be biases in the results of a study if one group includes
more immigrants.

There are also much greater selection biases in other countries. Take France
vs the US as an example. In the US, most students attend a traditional high-
school. Yes, there are vocational schools, but those aren't stressed. So, in
the US, an academic test is likely to cover a decently random sampling of the
population at any given age. In France, secondary education is very
segregated. As such, it is possible that there is quite a selection bias for
the exams between those that are studying sciences and math and those that are
doing vocational studies in who takes the exam.

I do think the US should be doing more to promote math, science and
engineering, but I wouldn't be so quick to say that the US is fundamentally
behind. The US education system does face challenges that many other systems
don't - such as absorbing a greater number of immigrants, dealing with
historical prejudices that have disenfranchised and disadvantaged many, and
trying to academically (vs vocationally) educate the vast majority of our
children.

I'm not saying that anything in here is correct. I haven't studied
international education enough to make any conclusions. This is simply meant
to raise the possibility that the statistics aren't the full picture.

------
coryrc
My opinion:

We can't have enough S&E people:

Every scientist who discovers a new class of drugs requires ten* more to study
all the derivatives.

Every engineer who creates a new machine allows ten* more to build machines
that use this machine.

S&E create wealth. The other top-paying degrees -- law, business -- don't
create wealth. They may allow the S&E to more efficiently create wealth, but
they don't create wealth.

*Number made up, but it is certainly greater than zero

~~~
yummyfajitas
And a business guy who who handles the business end allows ten more engineers
to build useful machines.

A natural extension of your logic: GvR or Stallman may allow S&E people to
more efficiently create wealth, but he doesn't create wealth himself (Python,
Emacs, etc are only tools to create other stuff)

The ability to create wealth is, itself, wealth.

~~~
coryrc
This topic is disappearing, but I'd still like to address your point.

Wealth def. 3b: anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated
or exchanged.

Python and emacs fit the definition, but making decisions in a company
produces nothing that can be "appropriated or exchanged". Python and emacs are
wealth just as much as a screwdriver and hammer are.

Also, if 100% of people functioned as scientists or engineers, things (wealth)
would still be made. Money is just a claim against the wealth of the nation;
just because you can earn more money doesn't mean you've increased the
collective wealth.

------
Xichekolas
_"Salzman says that reports citing low U.S. international rankings often
misinterpret the data. Review of the international rankings, which he says are
all based on one of two tests, [...] show the U.S. is in a second-ranked
group, not trailing the leading economies of the world as is commonly
reported."_

If I am understanding that correctly, that is not so much _misinterpreting the
data_ as _not being able to frickin read_.

 _Misinterpreting data_ , to me, signals an improper application of statistics
to some raw data to assert something.

Not being able to look at a grouped list of rankings and realize that just
because a certain group _as a whole_ is below another group _as a whole_ does
not imply that every country in the second group is below every country in the
first group is, well, sheer idiocy, not merely _misinterpretation_.

If the basis of the 'US is behind in math' idea is really that policy types
and journalists can't properly interpret the set of rankings, then it really
scares me that they are in charge of our public discourse/policy.

~~~
ig1
The OECD rankings look pretty clear to me:

<http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923110.html>

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7126388.stm>

~~~
kragen
For those who don't follow the link, the first link places the US, with 95%
confidence intervals:

\- 25th to 28th among the 40 countries on math; \- 12th to 23rd among the 40
countries on reading; \- 20th to 27th among the 40 countries on science.

The second link just divides the countries into above average, average, and
below average. The US is "below average" on math, and no reading rank is
reported.

