Click for next page ( 122


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



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 121
BIOMEDICAL/BE~VIORAL COHORT MODEL: A TECHNICAL PAPER Joe G. Baker* INTRODUCTION The legislation prompting this study requires the assessment of ". . . the nation's overall need for biomedical and behavioral research personnel. . . ."~ Past committees have defined this "need" in labor market terms--that is, how many biomedical and behavioral researchers will be "needed" in the future? The purpose of this paper is to document the model used to project the future labor market for biomedical and behavioral scientists. Future labor market conditions are defined in terms of improvements or deteriorations from historical market conditions, and future demand conditions are examined in the context of the appropriate National Research Service Awards Acts variable--that is, Ph.D. production and postdoctoral study. Fo1 lowing a descriptive overview of the model used are detailed discussions of the various model components, data, and coefficient estimates. THE MODEL: AN O1JERVTEW Past committee projections of the future need for biomedical and behavioral scientists have focused on academic demand. Job openings were developed based upon growth in academic positions and openings resulting from faculty death, retirement, and field switching. These projections were developed for the near term; the 1985 committee report included projections to 1990. This model expands the earlier analysis in several ways: 1. In almost every biomedical and behavioral field, the major source of historical and projected employment growth is in nonacademic sectors, primarily private industry. Thus, this model includes industry, government, hospital, and other nonacademic sources of demand for biomedical and behavioral scientists. * The opinions expressed in this paper are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of either the Committee on Biomedical Research Personnel or the National Research Council. iSection 489 of P.L. 99-158.

OCR for page 121
2. The focus of the NRSA program is research personnel. This analysis develops separate projections for the labor market in general and that subsection of the labor market associated with scientists whose primary work activity is research and development (R&D) or the management of R&D. Given concern over "graying" of the work force, this analysis includes a demographic/economic model for estimating scientists' attrition due to death, retirement, and net occupational movement based upon the age and experience structure of the scientific work force. 4. This analysis includes a model of labor supply. 5. Given that the median time to complete the biomedical sciences Ph.D. has grown from seven years in the late 1970s to eight years in 1987, the 1997 biomedical scientist labor market will be influenced by student decisions and NRSA policy in 1989. In the behavioral sciences, median time to Ph.D. has increased from approximately 8.5 years to 10.5 years during the same period. These types of lags argue for a longer time horizon of analysis; the current study projects labor market variables to the year 2000. Figure 1 is a schematic of the labor market assessment model. The stock of scientists in time period t is characterized by biological age (years since birth) and career age (years since degree). Historical data provide estimates of the number of deaths and retirements by biological age; these scientists are removed from the scientist stock. Those who do not retire or die can leave the field for other employment; this is assumed to be a function of career age. These estimates of outmigration are net of immigration from other fields and are estimated from historical data. The surviving scientist stock is available for employment in period t+1. The required scientist stock in period t+1 is estimated from submodels that link demand for scientists to the demand for the good or service that scientists produce-- for example, R&D or graduate students. These demand submodels vary by discipline (biomedical, behavioral, clinical), work duties (R&D and non-R&D), and sector (academic, industrial, governmental). The difference between the surviving scientist stock and the required scientist stock in period t+1 is the job openings (vacancies) that must be filled by new entrants. These 2See National Research Council, Summary Report 198 7 Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1989), Table P.

OCR for page 121
Scientists in time t Characterized by 1. Biological Age 2. Career Age Figure 1. ~1 Net Outmigration dependent upon Career Age ~ ~ "Surviving" Scientists in time t+1 Scientists in time t+1 Characterized by 1. Biological Age 2. Career Age Schematic Demand for Scientists 1. R&D Spending 2. Enrollments 3. Other Deaths & Retirement dependent upon Biological Age New Hires by 1. Biological Age 2. Career Age .F "Required" Scientists Stock t+1 1. Academic 2. Industry 3. Government 4. Hospitals 5. Other New Hires= "Required" - "Surviving" Supply of Scientists - ` ( 1 Readiness of the Labor Market Assessment Model 123 \~ 2. Recruitment ) ,~ Retention

OCR for page 121
job vacancies are compared to supply to compute "vacancy ratios" --that is, the number of vacancies per new Ph.D. or postdoctorate. Increases or decreases in future vacancy ratios from historical ratios give one a sense of tightening or loosening of the projected demand/supply balance in the scientist labor market. This same basic analysis is replicated for the R&D subsector. SCIE=IST ATTRITION: DEATH, RETIREMENT, AND NET MOBILITY The model used to estimate attrition is a demographic/ economic cohort survival model that follows closely the work of Kuh, Radner, and Fernandez. 3 The nature of a cohort survival model is to essentially "march" each cohort of scientists through time and apply age-specific rates of death, retirement, and net outmobility as the cohort ages. The population described here is that of basic biomedical scientists. Separate coefficients were estimated for behavioral scientists and are included in the Appendix tables. Three types of annual scientist attrition are addressed by the model: death, retirement, and net outmobility. The annual number of deaths and retirements are assumed to be a function of an individual's "biological" age (B). Annual net outmobility is defined as the number of scientists who leave biomedical science for other occupations minus the number of workers who enter biomedical science from other occupations. Net outmobility is assumed to be a function of a scientist's "career" age (C). It is unlikely, for example, to see a large net outmobility rate in the younger career ages because scientists are unlikely to move out of an occupation that has consumed an average of 8 years of training. Later in their careers, a segment of the scientists will more likely move out of science and into administration or management. In addition to career patterns, scientist mobility could be influenced by labor market characteristics. For example, if the labor market deteriorated and job opportunities and wage growth were depressed, scientist outmobility would probably increase. However, historical data indicate very little variation in scientist unemployment and underemployment rates through time. Also, it could be argued that scientists would be unlikely to 3Chariotte Kuh and Roy Radner, Mathematicians in Academia : 1975-2000 (Washington, D.C.: Conference Board on the Mathematical Sciences, 1980~; and Luis Fernandez, Project on Quantitative Policy Analysis Motels of Demand and Supply in Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, 1978~. 124

OCR for page 121
leave a career in reaction to short term cyclical economic conditions. In the mode J described here, these labor market influences are assumed to be small compared to career patterns as determinants of net mobility, i.e., they are ignored. Each scientist in the model is defined by biological age and career age. Although scientists can enter the system at any career age, those who enter at career ages other than one are incorporated into the net outmobility rates. For practical purposes, all new entrants enter the system at career age one. The parameters of the model include: o Initial biological and career age distribution, o Biological age-specific death and retirement rates, and o Career age-specific net outmobility rates. Obviously, there is a high degree of correlation between biological age and career age. Because of this, one can estimate fairly accurately the biological age distribution of a group of scientists given their career ages. If one assumes that the biological age distribution of newly minted Ph.D.s is stable, one can construct a model whose states (biological age and career age) depend only upon the career age distribution. At any time, the biological age distribution can be estimated from the career age distribution and the model can be simplified.4 Data Except where noted, all data are from the Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR) sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. These data are collected by the National Research Council biannually from a cross-section sample of approximately 10 percent of the U.S. Ph.D. scientist population. Initial Career and Biological Distribution Table 1 is a cross-tabulation of the distribution of biomedical scientists in 1987 by career age and biological age. Given that a biomedical scientist is C<=5 ; then P(B<30 ~ = .115 These probabilities allow the estimation of biological age from given career age.5 4See Fernandez, op. cit. , pp.132-33. 5Career and biological age cross-tabulations for behavioral scientists are contained in the appendix. 125

OCR for page 121
Table 1. Career Age and Biological Age Distribution of Biomedical Scientists, 1983-1987 Bio Age =41 Total <30 1918 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1939 30-34 9463 4650 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 14156 35-39 3748 8547 4908 8 0 0 0 0 0 17211 40-44 977 3298 8618 5161 0 0 0 0 0 18054 45 -49 280 678 2535 6340 2357 57 0 0 0 12247 50-54 124 204 907 2084 2943 1151 0 0 0 7413 55-59 81 101 274 744 1330 2037 1228 77 0 5872 60-64 3 61 77 181 511 1048 1702 474 6 4063 65-69 10 0 16 84 91 95 376 566 219 1457 >=70 0 0 8 0 13 22 57 174 88 362 Total 16604 17560 17386 14602 7245 4410 Relative Distribution Career Age 3363 1291 313 82774 Bio Age <=5 6-10 11-15 26-30 31-35 36-40 >=41 o o <30 0.1155 0.0011 0 30-34 0.5699 0.2648 0.0024 35-39 0.2257 0.4867 0.2822 0.0005 0 0 40-44 0.0588 0.1878 0.4956 0.3534 0 0 45-49 0.0168 0.0386 0.1458 0.4341 0.3253 0.0129 0 0 0 50-54 0.0074 0.0116 0.0521 0.1427 0.4062 0.2609 0 0 0 55-59 0.0048 0.0057 0.0157 0.0509 0.1835 0.4619 0.3651 0.0596 0 60-64 0.0001 0.0034 0.0044 0.0123 0.0705 0.2376 0.5060 0.3671 0.0191 65-69 0.0006 0 0.0009 0.0057 0.0125 0.0215 0.1118 0.4384 0.6996 >=70 0 0 0.0004 0 0.0017 0.0049 0.0169 0.1347 0.2811 O O O O Total 1 1 1 1 1 1 o o , O o O O O O O O o SOURCE: 1983, 1985 and 1987, Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NRC. Table 2. Death and Retirement Rates Bio Age o ' O o o o o 0.0026 0.0753 0.1714 1 Retire Death Rate Rate 0.0011 0.0017 0.0027 0.0038 0.0063 0.0114 0.0179 0.0271 0.0378 0.05 SOURCE: Charlotte V. Kuh and Roy Radner, Mathematicians i n Academia: 1975 - 2000 A Rew rt to the National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.: Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, 1980, pp. 84-86. 126

OCR for page 121
Death and Retirement Rapes Table 2 contains estimates of death and retirement rates. These rates are for academicians in toto. Net Mobility Rates Conceptually, the net outmobility rates of scientists are simply the gross occupational exits minus the gross occupational entrants by career age. Practically, these longitudinal movements are extremely difficult to measure given existing data sets. Therefore, a shortcut method based upon a cross-section of scientists by career age was used6 to estimate these movements. As shown in Table 3 the values of each cell are the sum of SDR survey years 1983 , 1985 , and 1987. For example, the number of biomedical scientists of C<=5= 31,538: C<=5 for 1987 (10,823) C<=5 for 1985 (10,720) + C<=5 for 1983 (9,995~. Putting aside debate of whether postdoctorates are students or employed and counting them as employed, the total pool of biomedical scientists C<=5 is 48,847 (31,538 ~ 17,309~. The total number of Ph.D.s in all fields except humanities and engineering with C<=5 is 202,517; this is assumed to be the primary supply source for biomedical scientists. Because these estimates are for attrition other than death and retirement, all scientists who will retire must be removed from the labor supply pool (column 6, Table 3), giving a labor supply pool of 202,378 for C<=5. Thus, for every 1,000 scientists of C<=5, 241 are biomedical scientists L(31538 + 17309~/~202378~. For every 1,000 scientists of Cow, 231 are biomedical scientists. Assuming that this cross-section reflects the longitudinal movement of scientists, then the net outmobility rate of C<=6 is 4.1 percent r (241-231~/241~. This rate is for a five-year period and must be annualized: assuming that the average time of transition for a given scientist C<=6 to C6~0 is 2.5 years, then the annualized net outmobility rate is 1.79 percent (i.e., 98.21 percent of biomedical scientists of C<=6 "survive" into the next year, while 1.79 percent move into nonbiomedical fields). 7 are biomedical scientists L(31538 1,000 scientists of Cow, 231 are Mode} Structure Given the above parameters, the operation of the model is fairly straightforward. At a point in time i, a group of scientists S are identified by their career age C. Death and retirement are estimated from this group by the following the 6This shortcut method was suggested by Robert Dauffenbach, a member of the Committee on Biomedical and Behavioral Research Personnel. 70f course, this survival rate is the dif ference between 1 arger gross outmobility and gross immobility 127

OCR for page 121
equation: (1) PUDGY- E(n) P(Bn~Cr)*P(DRn~Bn) Where P(D~) - P(Bn~Cr) = the probability of death or retirement given career age r; the probability of biological age = n given career age = r; P(DRn|Bn) = the probability of death or retirement given biological age = n; and E(n) sums these probabilities across all biological ages n. Given that an individual does not retire or die, he or she can now leave the biomedical work force for other occupations. The total attrition rate for career age = r is thus: (2) P(~) = P(O~*~1-P(D~] where P (~) P (O~) conditional probability of total attrition given career age r; simple probability of net outmobility for career age = r C1-P(D~] = probability of not retiring or dying given career age r; . . . the total attrition estimate for all employed biomedical scientists is: (3) TA = E(r) Sr*P(~) where TA = total attrition from death, retirement, and net outmobility and the number of scientists career age r. S = Thus, for each group of scientists career age r, the estimated attrition leaves a surviving group of scientists in period t+1 that moves to the next career age r+l. Summing across all career ages gives the total attrition for the stock of scientists S and allows for the computation of the total surviving scientists in period t+1 (Figure 1~. 128

OCR for page 121
DEMAND FOR SCIENTISTS As shown in-Figure 1, the demand for scientists is derived from the services that they produce--for example, R&D and teaching graduate students. Other factors, in particular wage rates, can also affect the level of scientist demand. The demand models used in this analysis--simple forms of this conceptual models estimated for each field (biomedical and behavioral), sector (academic, industrial, hospital,) and work activity (R&D and non-R&D)--are included in the Appendix. Table 4 contains the detailed projections for biomedical scientists; the Appendix contains the detailed tables for nonclinical psychologists and other behavioral scientists. The projection model assumptions were developed by the Committee on Biomedical and Behavioral Research Personnel. Table 3. Estimated Quit Rates for Biomedical Scientists, 1983-1987 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Biomed Total Bio Sci Annual Annual Career R&D & Postdoc Total Phones per Quit R&D Quit . Age Biomed Mgt R&D Biomed Retired Ph.D.s -retire 1000 Sci Rate Rate <=5 31538 19695 17309 139 202517 202378 241 6-10 48171 2997S 2419 373 219649 219276 231 -1.79°X -8.18% 11-15 49162 26230 531 990 216355 215365 231 0.00% -6.69% 16-20 34190 16674 135 2279 156309 154030 223 -1.38% -5.06% 21-25 18257 8406 24 4041 90762 86721 211 -2.20% -4.52% 26-30 12726 5383 36 6428 66917 60489 211 0.03% -3~21% 31-35 8567 3790 24 13162 55630 42468 202 -1.6rX 0.10X 36-40 2743 1095 7 11772 26291 14519 189 -2.60% -6.51% 41+ 1295 495 0 6507 11286 4779 271 15.40% 13.24% Total 206649 111743 20485 45691 1045716 1000025 Average annual quit rate -0.8% SOURCE: 1983, 1985, arid 1987 Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council. Postdoctorates There are no explicit projections for postdoctorates. The . level of postdoctorate employment is assumed to be an institutional variable determined by public policy and, as a simplifying assumption, the level of postdoctorate employment was 8For a model of biomedical scientist demand that includes factor prices in both the demand and supply equations, see Joe G. Baker, "The Ph.D. Supply Crisis: A Look at the Biomedical Sciences," paper given at the June 21, 1989, Western Economics Association Meeting, Lake Tahoe, Nevada. It should be noted that the inclusion of factor prices did not change the salient results of the analysis. 129

OCR for page 121
held constant during the time frame of analysis. Thus, the level of postdoctoral employment does not affect the level of total employment; and given that most postdoctorates are young, very little labor supply is assumed to be lost from death, retirement, or outmobility. If the postdoctorate "pool" is assumed constant with little or no attrition, then one can further assume that the annual exits from this pool equal entrants, and the net effect on labor supply to positions outside the pool is small. If the pool is changing in size, then entrants and exits will not be equal. As can be seen in Figure 2, the postdoctoral pool has been flat since 1981 at approximately 8,100 biomedical scientists. In the behavioral sciences, postdoctoral employment has been flat since 1979 at approximately 1,100 scientists. Analysis: Vacancy Ratios The model discussed above estimates annual job openings from death, retirement, net outmobility, ant] growth. As a means to summarize the relationship between these job openings and labor supply and to provide information about the future labor market, the concept of "vacancy ratios" was developed. Simply put, the vacancy ratio is the average number of job openings Figure 2. Postdoctoral per new Ph.D. For the period Employment in Biomedical and 1983-1987, the number of job Behavioral Sciences, 1973-1987 openings from death, retirement and growth averaged 4846 annually (Table 5~. The average number of new Ph.D.s in the biomedical sciences produced annually for this same period was 3862. Thus, the "vacancy ratio" was 1.25 openings per each new Ph.D. An "R&D vacancy ratio" is calculated by comparing R&D job openings to postdoctorate production. SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients. Obviously, not all new Ph.D.s in biomedical science go into the biomedical field; also the field draws Ph.D.s from other areas (e.g., physical sciences anti other life sciences) including foreign scientists. However, the primary source of new Ph.D.s is U.S. graduates in the field and, thus, the vacancy ratio gives one a sense of the historical relationship between this supply source and demand. No value judgments are made in terms of what the "correct" vacancy ratio is ; the pro j ected vacancy ratios 130

OCR for page 121
s imply provide information about the relative state of the labor market uncier differing assumptions. Table 4. Summary Projections in Biomedical Sciences Biomedical Sensitivity Model Model Assumptions High Mid Low 1. Federal Health R&D Funding Growth 4.0% 2. Private Health R&D Funding Growth 13.0% 3. Other Health R&D Funding Growth 4.0% Grad and Undergrad Biomed Enrollment 1.0% 5. "Other" blamed R&D Employment Growth 3.5% 6. "Other" biomed non-A&D Employment Growth 10.0% 2.7% 0.2% 9.0% 5.0% 3.0% 2.0% 0.0% - 1 .0% 2.5% 1.5% 8.0% 5.0% Projected Employment of Biomedical Scientists, 1973-2000 (in 100s of workers) Low Case Year Total R&D % R&D ~- Mid Case Total R&D % R&D - High Case Total R&D % R&D 1973 396.4 197.8 49.9% 396.4 197.8 49.9% 396.4 197.8 49.9X 1975 447.2 211.8 47.4% 447.2 211.8 47.4% 447.2 211.8 47.4% 1977 479.2 237.9 49.6% 479.2 237.9 49.6% 479.2 237.9 49.6% 1979 543.8 284.5 52.3% 543.8 284.5 52.3% 543.8 284.5 52.3% 1981 600.1 316.2 52.7% 600.1 316.2 52.7% 600.1 316.2 52.7% 1983 626.4 322.1 51 .4% 626.4 322. 1 51 .4% 626.4 322.1 51 .4% 1985 703.2 366.7 52.1% 703.2 366.7 52.1% 703.2 366.7 52.1% 1987 762.6 437.6 57.4% 762.6 437.6 57.4% 762.6 437.6 57.4% 1988 786.4 451.2 57.4% 802.4 464.0 57.8% 816.6 475.3 58.2% 1989 791 .6 459. 0 58. 0% 823 .3 484 . 1 58. 8% 851 .6 506. 5 59. 5% 1990 811.1 466.8 57.6% 858.7 504.2 58.rX 901.7 538.1 59.7% 1991 825.0 474.6 57.5% 888.8 524.4 59.0% 947.8 570.9 60.2% 1992 839.3 482.4 57.5% 919.9 545.2 59.3% 996.8 605.9 60.8% 1993 855 . 2 490.4 57. 3% 953 .6 566.9 59. 4% 1050. 7 643 .9 61 . 3% 1994 869.6 498.5 57.3% 987.2 589.8 59.7% 1107.5 685.7 61.9% 1995 886.5 506.8 57.2% 1024.6 614.1 59.9% 1171.5 732.1 62.5% 1996 894 . 9 515 . 4 57. 6% 1055 . 3 640 . 1 60 . 6% 1232 . 7 783 . 7 63 . 6% 1997 913.2 524.3 57.4% 1097.9 668.1 60.8% 1310.3 841.4 64.2% 1998 928.8 533.5 57.4% 1140.0 698.3 61.3% 1392.5 906.0 65.1% 1999 947.4 543.1 57.3% 1187.7 731.0 61 .6% 1486.0 978.4 65.8% 2000 973.6 553.1 56.8% 1245.6 766.5 61.5% 1596.4 1059.6 66.4% Growth Rates: 73-87 4.8% 5.8% 4.8% 5.8% 4.8% 5.8% 87-91 2.0% 2.0% 3.9% 4.6% 5.6% 6.9°X 87-20 1.9% 1.8% 3.8% 4.4% 5.8% 7.0% NOTE: This table does not include postdoctoral employment or unemployment. SOURCE: Estimated by National Research Council. 131

OCR for page 121
Table A-7. Government Projection Models, Nonclinical Psychology Employment Proiected Non- Total Non- % Year Total R&D R&D Gov R&D R&D R&D Assumption 73 1083 426 657 1083 657 426 60.7 75 1170 345 825 1170 825 345 70.5 77 1404 495 909 1404 909 495 64.7 79 1164 334 830 1164 830 334 71.3 81 1235 487 748 1235 748 487 60.5 83 1320 670 650 1320 650 670 49.3 85 1189 511 678 1189 678 511 57.0 87 1724 711 1013 1724 1013 711 58.7 88 1741 1072 669 61.6 89 1759 1083 675 61.6 90 1776 1094 682 61.6 91 1794 1105 689 61.6 92 1812 1116 696 61.6 93 1830 1127 703 61.6 94 1848 1139 710 61.6 95 1867 1150 717 61.6 96 1884 1160 723 61.6 97 1901 1171 730 61.6 98 1918 1181 736 61.6 99 1935 1192 743 61.6 100 1952 1203 750 61.6 NOTE: The Government Projection Model is a simple trend model that uses the BLS estimates of growth in total psychologists (1 percent from 1987-1995; .09 percent from 1995-2000). The average proportion of scientists involved in R&D for the 1973-87 period (61.6 percent) was assigned constant over the projection period. 144

OCR for page 121
Table A-8. All Other Employment, Nonclinical Psychology Employment Proiected Non- Total Non- % Year Total R&D R&D Other R&D R&D R&D Assumption 3.4% -0.5% 7.2% 73 1043 407 636 1043 636 407 61.0 75 1159 520 639 1159 639 520 55.2 77 1221 684 537 1221 537 684 44.0 79 1409 833 576 1409 576 833 40.9 81 1433 875 558 1433 558 875 38.9 83 1413 1022 391 1413 391 1022 27.7 85 1497 1111 386 1497 386 1111 25.8 87 1662 1075 587 1662 587 1075 35.3 88 0.0338 0.0718 -0.005 1736 584 1152 33.6 89 1795 581 1235 32.4 90 1856 578 1324 31.2 91 1918 575 1419 30.0 92 1983 572 1521 28.9 93 2050 569 1630 27.8 94 2120 567 1747 26.7 95 2191 564 1872 25.7 96 2265 561 2007 24.8 97 2342 558 2151 23.8 98 2421 555 2305 22.9 99 2503 553 2471 22.1 100 2587 550 2648 21.2 NOTE: The "All Other" sector is a simple trend model that projects assigned rates of growth for the R&D and non-A&D sectors through the year 2000. The rates of growth are the 1973-1987 rates for non-A&D (7.2 percent per annex) and R&D (-0.5 percent per annex). 145

OCR for page 121
Table A-9. Academic Projection Models, Other Behavioral Sciences Other Behavioral Sciences Prolected Employment Total Non- Beh Sc Total Non- % Year Total R&D R&D Fac. Fac. R&D R&D R&D Assu I pt i on -2. 0% 73 6135 5201 934 19900 6135 5201 934 15.2 75 7621 6559 1062 23600 7621 6559 1062 13.9 77 9239 7784 1455 25600 9239 7784 1455 15 .8 79 9568 7915 1653 26900 9568 7915 1653 17.3 81 9477 8074 1403 28200 9477 8074 1403 14.8 83 1 1002 9546 1456 29800 1 1002 9546 1456 13.2 85 11009 9530 1479 31700 11009 9530 1479 13.4 87 10767 9079 1688 31800 10767 9079 1688 15.7 88 31732 10741 1602 9139 14.9 89 31635 10708 1596 9113 14.9 90 31444 10644 1586 9058 14 .9 91 31166 10550 1572 8978 14.9 92 30806 10428 1554 8874 14 .9 93 30369 10280 1532 8748 14 . 9 94 29860 10108 1506 8602 14.9 95 29283 9912 1477 8435 14 .9 96 28644 9696 1445 8251 14.9 97 27945 9459 1409 8050 14.9 98 27192 9204 1371 7833 14 .9 99 26388 8932 1331 7601 14.9 100 25536 8644 1288 7356 14.9 NOTE: The Academic Projection Model uses a quadratic regression of total behavioral faculty = f (behavioral graduate students). 1. Growth assumptions in behavioral student enrollment provided by the committee. The portion of total behavioral faculty that is clinical psychology, nonclinical psychology, and "Other Behavioral Sciences" remains fixed at 1987 levels. 3. The portion of other behavioral sciences in R&D, which has average 14.9 percent from 1973-1987, remains fixed. 146

OCR for page 121
Table A-10. All Other EmployTent, Other Behavioral Sciences Employment Non- Year Total R&D R&D Proi ected Total Non- % Ind R&D R&D R&D Assurnpt i on 3.0% 0.07 0.1491 73 456 179 277 456 277 179 60.8 75 579 201 378 579 378 201 65.4 77 837 328 509 837 509 328 60.9 79 1277 450 827 1277 827 450 64.8 81 1343 524 819 1343 819 524 61.0 83 1476 1028 448 1476 448 1028 30.3 85 1680 1308 372 1680 372 1308 22.2 87 1969 1254 715 1969 715 1254 36.3 88 0.1101 0.1491 0.0700 2206 765 1441 34.7 89 2474 819 1656 33.1 90 2779 876 1903 31.5 91 3124 937 2186 30.0 92 3515 1003 2512 28.5 93 3960 1073 2887 27.1 94 4465 1148 3317 25.7 95 5040 1229 3812 24.4 96 5695 1315 4380 23.1 97 6440 1407 5033 21.8 98 7289 1505 5783 20.7 99 8256 1611 6646 19.5 100 9360 1723 7637 18.4 NOTE: The "All Other" projection model is a simple trend model that grows 1987 ernployTent to the year 2000 assuming that 1973-1987 historical growth rates in the R&D (7 percent) and non-A&D (14.9 percent) would continue through 2000. 147

OCR for page 121
Table A-11. Behavioral Enrollment Faculty, All Behavioral Sciences Assumption -2.0% -2.0% Year Est Behav. Undergrad Enroll Est Behav. Grad Enroll Estimated Total Total Fac Student 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 705.8 695.6 672.6 668.1 671.8 663.5 648.9 612.8 604.8 593.6 589.8 574.5 563.0 551.7 540.7 529.9 519.3 508.9 498.7 488.8 479.0 469.4 460.0 450.8 441.8 433.0 424.3 415.8 407.5 44.7 48.2 51.7 55.4 59.1 58.3 63.8 63.8 63.8 64.8 64.3 63.1 63.7 65.6 65.3 65.1 63.8 62.5 61.3 60.0 58.8 57.7 56.5 55.4 54.3 53.2 52.1 51.1 50.1 19.9 21.7 23.6 24.6 25.6 26.2 26.9 27.5 28.2 29.0 29.8 30.7 31.7 31.7 31.8 31.7 31.6 31.4 31.2 30.8 30.4 29.9 29.3 28.6 27.9 27.2 26.4 25.5 750.5 743.8 724.3 723.5 no.s 721.8 712.7 676.6 668.6 658.4 654~1 637.6 626.7 617.3 606~0 595.0 583~1 571.4 560.0 548.8 537.8 527.1 516.5 506.2 496.1 486.2 476.4 466.9 457.6 . NOTE: Growth assumptions regarding enrollments in behavioral sciences were provided by the corr~nittee. Faculty = f (behavioral graduate students) Regression Output: Constant Std Err of Y Est R Squared NOa of Observations Degrees of Freedom X Coefficient Standard Error of Coefficient 3.5676722079 0.0207556027 0.9032859059 15 12 0.0001001 -0.0000000014 0.0001713 0.0000000088 148

OCR for page 121
Table A-12. Summary Projections for Nonclinical Psychology Nonclinical Sensitivity Model Model Assumptions (in percent) 1. Graduate Student Enrollment 2. Industrial Employment Growth High Mid Low 1.0 0.0 -1~0 4.0 3.0 2.0 Projected Employment of Nonclinical Psychologists, 1973-2000 (in 100s of workers) Low Case Mid Case Year Total R&D % R&D Total R&D % R&D High Case Total R&D % R&D 1973 129~0 38~8 30~0 129~0 38~8 30~0 129~0 38~8 30~0 1975 148~1 39~5 26~6 148~1 39~5 26~6 148~1 39~5 26~6 1977 153~2 43~1 28~1 153~2 43~1 28~1 153~2 43~1 28~1 1979 157~9 49~4 31~3 157~9 49~4 31~3 157~9 49~4 31~3 1981 179~9 50~2 27~9 179~9 50~2 27a9 179~9 50~2 27~9 1983 187~2 47~7 25~5 187~2 47~7 25~5 187~2 47~7 25~5 1985 191~0 46~8 24~5 191~0 46~8 24~5 191~0 46~8 24~5 1987 198~4 55~7 28~1 198~4 55~7 28~1 198~4 55~7 28~1 1988 200 ~ 0 54 ~ 9 27.5 200 ~ 3 55 ~ 0 27e 5 200 ~ 7 55 ~ 2 27a 5 1989 195~5 54~0 27~6 202~2 55~5 27~4 204~9 56~1 27~4 1990 195~2 53~9 27~6 204~0 55~9 27~4 209~2 57.1 27~3 1991 194~9 53~9 27~6 206~0 56~3 27~4 213~6 58~1 27~2 1992 194~8 53~8 27~6 207~9 56~8 27~3 218~2 59~2 27~1 1993 194~7 53~8 27~6 210~0 57~2 27~3 223~0 60~2 27~0 1994 194~7 53~8 27~6 212~1 57~7 27~2 227~9 61~3 26~9 1995 194~8 53~7 27~6 214~2 58~2 27~2 232~9 62~5 26~8 1996 194~9 53~7 27~6 216~4 58~7 27~1 238~1 63~6 26~7 1997 195~1 53~7 27~5 218~7 59~2 27~0 243~4 64~8 26~6 1998 195~4 53~8 27~5 221~0 59~7 27~0 249~0 66~1 26~5 1999 195~8 53~8 27~5 223~4 60~2 26~9 254~7 67~4 26~5 2000 199 ~ 2 54 ~ 5 27e 3 225 ~ 9 60 ~ 7 26 ~ 9 260 ~ 6 68 ~ 7 26 ~ 4 Growth Rates (in percent): 1973-1987 3~1 2~6 3~1 2~6 3~1 2~6 1987-1991 ~0~4 ~0~9 0~9 0~3 1~9 1~0 1987-2000 0~0 -0~2 1.0 0~7 2~1 1~6 NOTE: This table does not include postdoctoral employment or unemployment. SOURCE: Estimated by National Research Council. 149

OCR for page 121
o o s o 4J ~J 3 1 0 0 C~ C~ S 0` ~ 3 1 0 r~ 0 0` I"1 Ql "1 i Q I CY o 0 m1 o o o o 0 o~ ~ o o 4~ a, ~n cn JJ _ cn cn o ~n o ~ o~ o~ o s ~ ~n cn ~ ~ o L) 3 ._ ~ ._ - ~ 1 o ~ ~ ~ iff! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0` ~) ~ ~ U' ~ 1~ ~ la~ ~o · a · · · a · · · · ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O ~ 1 1 1 1 ~a~ O U' O O O O ~ O O · a · e · · · · · · ~ O ~ t~J ~a~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ t~l 1 <) 0 ~— 1 ` 0 0 t~l ~ 0` ~a~1 0 · a a a a a · a a a a `0 1` 0 ~ O O O 1 1 1 1 1 0% 0 ~ a a a O 1 O O O O ~ ~ C~ ~ a a a · · ~ · ~a`~ O O 1 ~a~ ~ ~J ~ 0 · · a · · a a · · a a~~ ~J t~ ~J ~ 1~ ~ <) ~J ~J N t~J ~J `0 1^ 0 `0 1` 0 · a a a a a a '~, la~_ a~ - 1 - 1 ~1 ' 0 ~ 0 0` `0 U~ a a a a a · ~ ~ O 00 ~ 0% ~ 0 O ~ Lr, ~ ~ U' U~ ~ ~ ~ · a · ~ 0 0 Ut `0 `0 0~ a U~ ~ 0% %0 a a a ~ O 0~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~a'~ ~ ~a~ `0 0 `° °iS a a a a a a a a cy ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O |a~ b_ la~ ~ ~ ~ ea~] ~ ~a~ ~ ~ ~ ~J u~ ~0 0~ ln 0 I~ ~ 0 C~ ~a~ ~ C) a a a a a a · · · a a I~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ U~ ~ `0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U' ~ I_ 0 `0 1a~ 0 ~1 0 ~ ~ a a a a · a · a 0 0~ 1a~ o~ 0~ 0 `0 a a a ~a~ 0` 0 ~ ~ O L) 3 _ ._ ~ . ._ ~ _ a ~ ~ C~ %0 `0 ~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O t~ 08 a a a a a · · · · · a G~ C_ O CY ~a~ ~a~~ ~ ~80 ~0 ~) 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ Z S~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ <~J ~~ ~a~ ~ ~ ~J O S O ~ 0~ 0~ ~ 0~ 0~ ~ 0~ ~_ ~_ 1a~ G) ~ C.O 8a`_ C) a a a a a a a a a · · ~ 0 ~ O O 0 0 0 0 0 U' U~ ~ U~ ~ ~ O 0` O! ~ ~ ~ ~ U' 1^ 1^ tY ._ ~ ~ 4J ~ _ a~ _ ~ o 0 0 0 ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ '_ ~ · a a · a · a a e · a ~ O O 4~ O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ %0 0 0 0 ~ ~— O ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0~ ~ J~ O Z JJ ~ · 0 n ~ ~ JJ cn ._ ~ cn ~ 4~ ~ Q O ~ . cn ~ _# ~ . ~ a, a' a) — ~ ~ e_ U) C~~ — Cl) ~ O a ~ 4) ~ 4) {~ ~ O ~ ~ t~l (1) C~ C'/) — a) C-) ~ ~ ~ c~ Cl) cn ~ ~ ~n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x E ~ ~— ~ E c~ ~ ~ ~ E c~ tu — ~ :, ~ ~ ~ E s ~ ~ aa E ~—s ~ ~—s ~ ~ ~— s UJ ~ O G) 3 ~ ~) cn 3 ~ ~ ~ O _ 3 ~ ~ · a O _ ~ ~ 0 a~ ·_ ~ 0 a~ c_ ~v to 0 a~ ~— L~l n ~ ~ _ ~ s ~ ~ ~: s ~ _ ~ _ ~ s ~ ~ a, ~ ~ 0 — 0 0 0 cn ~ ~ ~ - : ~ z cn 150

OCR for page 121
Table A-13. Estimated Quit Rates for All Behavioral Scientists, 1983-1987 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Behav Total Beh Sci Annual Annual Career R&D & Postdoc Total Ph.D.s per Quit R&D Quit Age Behav Mgt R&D _ Behav Retired Ph.D.s -Retire 1000 Sci Rate Rate <=5 41948 5607 1834 139 201127 200988 218 6-10 43488 6282 343 373 217900 217527 201 -3.1% -7.5X 11-15 36561 4612 127 990 215219 214229 171 -6.3% -12.0% 16-20 23923 2915 68 2279 156711 154432 155 -3.8% -5.3XO 21-25 13410 1463 51 4041 91497 87456 154 -0.4% -4.3% 26-30 10323 1271 38 6428 67207 60779 170 4.2% 9.1% 31-35 6155 950 8 13162 55931 42769 144 -6.5% 1.6% 36-40 1456 261 0 11772 26355 14583 100 -13.rX -8.6% 41+ 303 43 0 6507 11240 4733 64 -16.3% -23.8% SOURCE: 1983, 1985, and 1987 Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council. Table A-14. Historical and Projected Vacancy Ratios, Nonclinical Psychology, 1973-2000 Annual Averages Total Year Vacancies Ph.D.s Ratio Vacancies Ph.D.s R&D Post - Vacancies does Ratio 1973-78 1189 1592 0.75 385 196 1.96 1978-83 1386 1555 0.89 359 226 1.59 1983-87 1291 1435 0.90 422 261 1.61 1990-95 Low 995 1260 0.79 320 300 1.07 Mid 1252 1366 0.92 380 300 1.27 High 1551 1479 1.05 449 300 1.50 NOTE: Assumes that Ph.D. production changes in proportion to enrollment assumptions and postdoctoral production remains constant. SOURCE: National Research Council. 1 5

OCR for page 121
Table A-15. Summary Projections for Other Behavioral Scientists Model Assumptions High Mid Low 1. Graduate Student Enrollment 1.0% 0.0X -1.0% 2. "All other" Employment Growth R&D 7.0% 5.0% 3.0% NonR&D 0.15 0.1 0.07 Projected Employment of Other Behavioral Scientists, 1973-2000 (in 100s of workers) (Grad enrollment model) Low Case Year Total R&D % R&D Mid Case Total R&D % R&D High Case Total R&D % R&D 1973 65.9 12.1 18.4 65.9 12.1 18.4 65.9 12.1 18.4 1975 82.0 14.4 17.6 82.0 14.4 17.6 82.0 14.4 17.6 1977 100.8 19.6 19.5 100.8 19.6 19.5 100.8 19.6 19.5 1979 108.5 24.8 22.9 108.5 24.8 22.9 108.5 24.8 22.9 1981 108.2 22.2 20.5 108.2 22.2 20.5 108.2 22.2 20.5 1983 124.8 19.0 15.3 124.8 19.0 15.3 124.8 19.0 15.3 1985 126.9 18.5 14.6 126.9 18.5 14.6 126.9 18.5 14.6 1987 127.4 24.0 18.9 127.4 24.0 18.9 127.4 24.0 18.9 1988 126.8 23.2 18.3 129.0 23.6 18.3 131.4 24.0 18.2 1989 126.4 23.2 18.3 130.7 23.9 18.3 135.8 24.7 18.2 1990 126.1 23.1 18.4 132.6 24.3 18.3 140.6 25.6 18.2 1991 125.9 23.2 18.4 134.7 24.7 18.4 145.9 26.4 18.1 1992 125.8 23.2 18.4 137.0 25.2 18.4 151.6 27.4 18.1 1993 125.9 23.2 18.4 139.5 25.6 18.4 158.0 28.4 17.9 1994 126.0 23.3 18.5 142.2 26.1 18.4 165.0 29.4 17.8 1995 126.4 23.3 18.5 145.1 26.6 18.3 172.8 30.5 17.6 1996 126.8 23.4 18.5 148.3 27.1 18.3 181.5 31.7 17.4 1997 127.4 23.5 18.4 151.8 27.7 18.2 191.1 32.9 17.2 1998 128.2 23.6 18.4 155.7 28.3 18.2 201.9 34.2 16.9 1999 129.1 23.7 18.4 159.9 28.9 18.1 213.9 35.6 16.6 2000 130.2 23.8 18.3 164.4 29.5 18.0 227.4 37.1 16.3 Growth Rates: 73-87 4.8% 5.0°/O 4.8% 5.0% 4.8% 5.~% 87-91 -0.3% -0.9% 1.4% o.rx 3.4% 2.4% 87-;20 0.2% -0.1% 2.0% 1.6% 4.6% 3.4% NOTE: This table does not include postdoctoral employment or unernployrnent. SOURCE: Estimated by National Research Council. 152

OCR for page 121
to to to J 3 1 0 0 0 I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ sat C) 0 ~ ~ o o o ~ lo o~t · a a a a a a · ~ CY ~ O ~ ~ U. ~ O ~ r~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X ~ ~ 0 `0 ~ U~ 0 ~ O %0 ~ · · · e a ~ a a ~ O ~ O ~ U' 0 ~ O 1~ ~ ~ S~ X r~ ~ 0 0 0 o, r_ ~ 08 · a a · · · · · a =: ~ ~ O ~ 1^ 1~- 0 0 t~l 0 ~ 3 J I o 0 C~ _ 0` ~ U. O `0 `0 ··· ··· ··~ O - o ~ ~ 0 ~ O ~ ~ ~ 1 o O C] ~ 0% 0~ 0 0 ~ ~1 0 r~ O ~ ... ... ... ~ CY ~ ~ ~ U' ~ 0 0 0 ~ o0` 0 u~ u' ~ 0 IO ~ O ~ ... ... ... r~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ O O 4— ~ _ ~ ~ O ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ {D ~ · · · · a · a a a ~ 0~ ~ ~ O ~0 ~ O ' >. O 0 0 tO -t U-\ 0~ ~' ' ~ ~ ' .~ cn 4 B_ O C) 0` 0~ C~ ~ ~ 0` ~ ~ ~ t~ 0 °is a a ~ ~ ~ a a a a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0` 0 ~ 0 c_ . ~_ ~ u) ~ O ~ 0~ - ~ ` - t~ ~ ~ a a a ~ a ~ a a ~ ~ a, o~ ~ u' ~o ~ 0 0 0~ ~ ~ `0 O ~ ~ ~ -— ~ ~J ~I N O 3 a _# _ ~ ~ %0 U~ ~ ~ 0K ~ 0~ _ ~) ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ a a a ~ c_ m 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u' ~ u~ 0 0 0 . ~ ~ r~ ~ r~ . ~ · a) ~ 0 ~ a JJ 0 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ o~ t). cY u~ u~ u~ ~0 ~0 %0 0 0 0 a~ a o~ ._ ~ o~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 2~ _ |~—~ ~ a a a, 0 06 ~ ~o ~o ~ ~ h_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ._ 0~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ _ e_ Q _ t_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ... ... ... 4- ~ ~ r~ o~ g' O O O O ~ ~ ~ - 1 ~J ~J O Q :' 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cn ~ ~n ~ ~ ~ ._ 8 ~ ~ _ ~ ~ a' a, ~ ~ ~— cn cn cn ~ O a~ ~ a) a~ a~ — ~ 41) C~ ~ 0) ~ cl~ 4) (~ tO O Q Cl) tlJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X . .O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ 0 G, 3 ~ ~ 0 3 ~ C~ — 3 ~ ~ ·e C~ _ ~ {~ 0 a~ a_ 0 a~ ~— a~ 0 6)~— llJ Q ~ ~S J ~ ~ = J ~ O O ~ ~ CD eS ~C ~ Z CO 153

OCR for page 121
Table A-16. Historical and Projected Vacancy Ratios, Other Behavioral Sciences, 1973-2000 Annual Averages Post- Year Vacancies PhDs Ratio Vacancies does Ratio 1973-78 1152 1211 0.95 289 97 2.97 1978-83 930 1093 0.85 120 124 0.97 1983-87 875 943 0.93 185 120 1.54 1987-95 Low 649 814 0.80 142 120 1.18 Mid 927 882 1.05 191 120 1.59 High 1353 955 1.42 250 120 2.08 NOTE: Assumes that Ph.D. production changes in proportion to enrollment assumptions and postdoctoral production remains constant. Grad model. SOURCE: National Research Council. 154