recruiting Ph.D. candidates can go into recruiting people for the chemical workforce. Maybe we need to recruit more people to be chemistry majors.

I was talking to John Schwab about how. This is like a chemical synthesis: Do we want to improve recruitment from 60 to 80 percent? From an industrial point of view it is cheaper, but can you do both if you want to recruit more? Ronald Webb pointed out objectives, goals, strategies, and measures (OGSM). If we have a goal of improving the diversity of the chemical workforce, maybe one goal should be to get two people from every high school who want to major in chemistry. Maybe a strategy should be for universities and businesses to work with high schools and high school teachers to get students interested in science and chemistry. Maybe a part of that strategy could be a small scholarship, such as $2,000. Two people per school, or we will buy all their chemistry books. A company can do that.

We could do things like that. We could have the goal of getting two students out of every high school to major in chemistry. We could have a strategy for doing it with scholarships or buying books or having universities work with schools. It is a measurable objective.

I am pushing recruitment, because recruitment is as important and as useful as most of the other things that we need to try, and we need to try them all.

Stanley C. Israel, Southwest Texas State University: If we are talking about the chemical workforce, there is a part of the chemical workforce that we have not addressed except tangentially, and that is the K-12 teachers.

In fact, the other part that we have not really addressed is what happens to our undergraduate students that do not go on for a Ph.D. This is the feedback loop that we are missing. We can affect the pipeline, but what we need is teachers in K-12 who are chemists, who are scientists, who have love of the discipline and can convey the excitement of that discipline to their students.

We are not educating our undergraduates about what is important. That is the only way we are going to greatly affect the pipeline. Across the country, school boards are downgrading the qualifications of the science teacher. Rather than be a chemist and go into the teaching profession, their requirements are teachers who can teach any science course. If they take three courses in each of chemistry, physics, geology, and planetary science, they can then teach any science course in grades 9-12.

That is the trend across the nation, and we should be addressing that with our chemistry students by saying, this is a viable profession for you, K-12th-grade teaching. One other point: It has been said here that we lose a lot of students because chemistry is too hard, and they go over to the liberal arts—to the departments of letters as I like to refer to them—because they get better grades.

Let me explain to you why they are at the departments of letters and we are at the departments of numbers and why they get better grades over there. When one of our chemistry or science students takes an exam and gets 100 and takes the next exam and gets a zero, 100 and zero averages out to 50, and that is an F.

The same student in liberal arts gets an A and an F. An A and an F averages out to a C. They look at science as unforgiving. They cannot make a mistake in science. If they miss an exam, they get a zero, and a zero and 100 equal an F. But over in liberal arts, an A and an F average out to a C. That is why they are in letters and we are in numbers.

Isai T. Urasa, Hampton University: Just a comment about orientation. I want to underscore the importance of orientation even in our academic institutions. I would say that orientations are even more important in our academic institutions than in industry.

When you come into academia, there are three things that you are supposed to do: teach, serve, and



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement