In 1993, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) issued a report entitled Science, Technology, and the Federal Government: National Goals for a New Era (the Goals report), which proposed a framework for federal policy to support science and technology. During the preparation of the report, it became apparent that a complete discussion of the science and technology enterprise would require an examination of the process by which scientists and engineers are educated. If scientists and engineers are to contribute effectively to national, scientific, and technological objectives, their educational experience must prepare them to do so. The present report can be considered a companion volume to the Goals report.
Several key questions guided the committee during its initial deliberations:
In attempting to answer those questions, we found important gaps in our knowledge of employment rates and patterns. It has proved difficult, for example, to determine where PhDs are and what they are doing in nonacademic positions or to determine accurately either unemployment rates of scientists and engineers or the extent of underemployment, especially among recent graduates, because of the lack of timely data. In fact, we were sufficiently troubled by the lack of generally available information to conclude that students', professors', and mentors' lack of accurate, timely, and accessible data on employment trends, careers, and sources of student support is a serious flaw in our education system.
This deficiency makes it difficult for potential and current graduate students to make well-informed decisions as to whether and where to enter graduate school. It also hampers the faculties at our universities in preparing their students adequately for the full range of professional careers in science and engineering. Therefore, the committee faced a dilemma--whether to make recommendations despite gaps in current understanding or to counsel delay until such understanding is attained. It proceeded to make recommendations now because students, universities and colleges, professors, mentors, funding agencies, employers, and others must make decisions today that will affect the careers of science and engineering students for the rest of their lives.
The recommendations in this report reflect a common theme. Many of the job opportunities of the future will favor students with greater breadth of academic and career skills, so the universities and their partners in the graduate-education enterprise should therefore cooperate to broaden curricular options for graduate students.
We hope this report will be useful not only for university presidents, provosts, deans, and others in the decision-making structure of universities, but also for all institutions and individuals who are part of the graduate-education enterprise: federal and state government,[2] industry and business, and faculty, mentors, and students at both the graduate and undergraduate levels.
The committee acknowledges the invaluable information and opinions received from a variety of sources. We convened more than a half-dozen panels of experts from academe, government, industry, foundations, and other sectors. The panel members are listed in Appendix E. A call for comments to scientists, engineers, administrators, students, and educators across the country drew more than 100 thoughtful replies, many of them reflecting exceptional care; some correspondents even conducted informal surveys within their own institutions. Those responding to the call for comments are listed in Appendix D and their thoughtful responses are provided in Appendix F. In addition, Appendix G summarizes a survey we sent to graduate students asking what information they need to make decisions. The committee also made use of continuing work by the National Research Council's Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel.
The production of the report was the result of hard work by the committee as a whole and by the extra effort of the Guidance Group (consisting of Arden Bement, Mary J. Osborn, David Challoner, Alexander Flax, and me), which convened between regular committee meetings. The project was aided by the invaluable help of COSEPUP professional staff: Michael McGeary, study director, who provided research and analytical support, as illustrated in Appendixes B and C and Chapter 2, and drafted major portions of Chapters 3 and 4; Deborah Stine, senior program officer, who managed the committee's outreach efforts and contributed in a major way to Chapter 2; Alan Anderson, consultant writer, who helped draft and revise the text throughout the project; and Lawrence McCray, executive director of COSEPUP, who oversaw the committee's activity. Wise guidance was provided by Philip M. Smith as a consultant. National Research Council staff members Dimitria Satterwhite, Jeffrey Peck, and Patrick Sevcik ably assisted the project. The committee also thanks its diligent editor, Norman Grossblatt.
Phillip A. Griffiths
Chair
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy
1. Because of the concerns regarding PhD unemployment, the report focuses on the PhD.
2. There is a lack of adequate information about educational and funding
activities at the state level. The states have supported graduate education
for many years, and a number of state governments and agencies have initiated
innovative ways to broaden graduate education through interactions with
industry, government, and community groups.
NAS Home Page |
NAP Home Page |
Reading Room |
Report Home Page
Previous Section |
HTML Home Page |
Next Section