The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
The text below is an excerpt from the complete document. Read the full paper in PDF format.
Recent policy reports claim the United States is falling behind other nations in science and math education and graduating insufficient numbers of scientists and engineers. Review of the evidence and analysis of actual graduation rates and workforce needs does not find support for these claims. U.S. student performance rankings are comparable to other leading nations and colleges graduate far more scientists and engineers than are hired each year. Instead, the evidence suggests targeted education improvements are needed for the lowest performers and demand-side factors may be insufficient to attract qualified college graduates.
Policymakers and industry leaders are once again concerned about the adequacy of the science
and engineering (S&E) workforce. A growing number of reports claim that a lack of sufficient
numbers of scientists and engineers entering the workforce is threatening the United States'
economic health and dominant position in global innovation. The primary causes of an
impending workforce shortage, it is argued, are the mediocre preparation of domestic students in
the educational pipeline and an ongoing decline in their interest in pursuing S&E careers. To
address the assumed crisis, the consensus recommendation of business groups, public
policymakers, and educators is to expand and improve science and math education from
kindergarten through college, and to more aggressively court foreign S&E students and workers.
This paper examines the assumptions about the state of the educational pipeline and the
purported workforce shortages. Despite this nearly universal support for upgrading science and
math education, our review of the data leads us to conclude that, while the educational pipeline
would benefit from improvements, it is not as dysfunctional as believed. Today's American high
school students actually test as well or better than students two decades ago. Further, today's
students take more science and math classes, and a large number of students with strong science
and math backgrounds graduate from U.S. high schools and start college in S&E fields of study.
Graduate schools have an ample pool of qualified four-year graduates to draw from but seem
unable or unwilling to do so. Surprisingly few of the many students who start along the path
toward S&E careers take the next steps to remain in an S&E career. If there is a problem, it is not
one of too few S&E qualified college graduates but, rather, the inability of S&E firms to attract
qualified graduates. The pool of graduates with an S&E degree exceeds the number of S&E job
openings each year, even though employers may not be as successful as they would like in
attracting or retaining graduates into an S&E career.
The various policy reports focusing on increasing the science and math preparation at the K–12
level almost uniformly fail to ask the question our analysis suggests—has the increase in the
absolute numbers of secondary school graduates and the increase in their math and science
performance levels provided an adequate number of domestic S&E college majors?
The pool of S&E-qualified secondary and postsecondary graduates is several times larger than
the number of annual job openings. The flow of secondary school students up through the S&E
pipeline, when it reaches the labor market, supplies occupations that make up only about a
twentieth of all workers. So even if there were deficiencies in students' average science and
math performance, such deficiencies would not necessarily deplete the requisite supply of S&E
college majors. Even if modal test scores or course-taking was by some measure low, the size of
the graduating student body is so large that there would still be a sufficient number of students
who test above average and who are fully qualified for the relatively small number of S&E jobs.
While improving average math and science education at the K–12 level may be warranted for
other reasons, such a strategy may not be the most efficient means of supplying the S&E
Our analysis at the aggregate level does not find a shortage of potential S&E students or
workers. However, this conclusion is put forth with one caveat: the analysis of all S&E students
and workers may not apply equally to the trends and problems faced in specific fields or by
domestic minority groups. A fine-grained analysis of specific industries, occupations, and
populations is needed to identify the weakness in the U.S. education system. We are, indeed,
conducting this level of analysis for future reports. The S&E world includes a broad range of
knowledge, types of related jobs, and a great diversity of students and workers with academic
performance and employment trends different from the overall averages. A better understanding
of S&E workforce demand and education and workforce development will identify areas where
public and private policy could be most effectively targeted.
(End of excerpt. The entire paper is available in PDF format.)
Usage and reprints: Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site and may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.
Disclaimer: The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute.