America’s technology education is suffering and innovation is dying: What you can do about it.
The numbers of USA scientists and technologists are dwindling. Our teachers are underpaid and 40% of them are teaching in the areas for which they are not qualified. These factors are directly impacting our industrial innovation.
The Franklin Foundation, a new non-profit organization, is on a mission to change that and you are invited to help lead it (and build your professional resume in the process).
A few months ago I received an invitation from the Franklin Foundation to join the organization’s Board of Directors. I was intrigued by the invitation and decided to look more into what the foundation was all about. This is what I found out after taking a look at the website: www.franklinfound.org :
The Franklin Foundation is an emerging non-profit organization that recognizes the importance of science, math, and technology in U.S. educational system and in our society.
The foundation aims to help teachers educate more effectively in the areas of science, mathematics, and technology, and to help companies leverage the expertise of young scientists and technologists to solve tomorrow’s emerging problems. The foundation’s ultimate goal is to help the U.S. re-develop its’ innovative spirit.
Since I happily support any efforts to improve education and innovation, I went through the application process and am proud to announce that I am now a member of the Board of Directors of the Franklin Foundation.
And you can become one as well.
The foundation is in its initial forming stages and there are a few more openings for the Board of Directors positions. Want to learn more? Listen to this interview with the Franklin Foundation’s founder and CEO, Endre Jarraux Walls and find out how this non-profit will help the U.S. build a stronger education system and revitalize creativity and innovation in science and technology industries.
For more information contact Endre Jarraux Walls: endre.walls@franklinfound.org or myself: masha@mvpmodelingsolutions.com
Visit the Franklin Foundation’s Website: http://www.franklinfound.org/
PLAY INTERVIEW (make sure that you have a Quicktime player installed)
Dear Masha,
I don’t think that innovation is dying. There more and more high quality technical people with high potential for new ideas and challenges.
What is dying is attention and care about these people; they are under paid and are taken serious.
This is what we should work on it at least by asking for a better treatment for the technical people.
Kindest regards,
Fabienne
The real problem is that technical professions are no longer good jobs, at least not western countries.
Being increasingly treated like interchangeable components by an aloof and disconnected management class, the best that many professionals can hope for is to hold on for a few years training their outsourced replacements, while studying medicine or law in night school.
Can we honestly recommend in good conscience that this is actually a good career choice?
For 30 years, I have been doing research in Computational Chemistry and teaching undergraduate and graduate Chemistry courses at Rutgers-Camden. The numbers of chemistry majors tend to rise during economic recessions, then fall.
They have not returned to their peak in the early 1980’s when a degree in chemistry seemed to be a guarantee to a good paying job in many sectors. In the late 80’s the business tract of CompSci seemed to guarantee a good job without having to take courses such as multivariate calculus, PhysChem, or Quantum and Thermo, or Molecular Bio and Physiology. Then the .com bubble burst and the present recession came and our numbers of chem majors doubled in the last few years.
During those 30 years, one thing has remained constant. Out of the 10 to 30 senior year majors, only 5 or so chose to go on to research in chemistry. Many others went into masters level programs or medicine.
To follow the above threads: (1) After 30 years I do not see our research level scientists dwindling, but the ancillary positions are highly variable. (2) After 30 years of deans from the social sciences and campus chancellors from the law school, I wish the management class were “aloof and disconnected”.
Dear Fabienne and Alex,
I hear you! Professionals in technology and science areas have been hit extra hard by the latest recession.
For the first time (for many scientists and engineers) these professionals are actually unable to find a job in their area, regardless of their high technical degrees. You have to work pretty darn hard to get a PhD in chemistry or aerospace engineering, there is no time to learn how to anything else on the side. Its not like you are taught to be a writer or a public speaker or much of anything else, along with your highly technical degree.
Then a recession hits, jobs are slashed, and a ton of highly specialized and qualified technical professionals are now fighting for the few job openings.
And now an impressive technical resume, a long list of technical publications, and 20 years of experience as a physicist is just not enough. I get e-mails and calls from unemployed technical professionals almost everyday - disparate because they have been trying to get a job for 1 or 2 years and they don’t know what to do! So they go back to school to study law or get a second PhD.
At the same time, companies are not looking for double PhDs. They need smart people who, while technically qualified, are also extremely flexible. People who can be in the lab one day and be giving a product presentation to the customer the next day. People who can derive the Navier-Stokes equations in the morning and help marketing write a press release in the afternoon.
Is it fair to expect that type of drastic adjustment of a chemist with 20 years of experience in the lab? Probably not. But companies are forced to either slash their budgets of hire people who can wear many different hats.
Alex, I am sorry that you feel that a technical career is no longer a good choice. In a way, I agree with you. A typical science/engineering education has not prepared students for this economy. That is why one of the goals of the Franklin Foundation is to change how students are being educated.
So that they love their technical background and can use it whether or not there is a recession in the world!
Dear Luke,
I very much appreciate hearing a response from a University Professor. Thank you for supporting several of my points.
1) You are absolutely correct in noting that during recession the numbers of chemistry students go up. People cant find jobs, so many go back for second and third (believe it or not) technical degrees. What if our students were taught in a way that encouraged them to really think outside box?
What if our technical education was such, that when a recession hit (or a WWW III or an alien invasion), we would easily find new creative ways to use our technical background?
What if we made sure that our technical education prepared students to thrive, independent of economy or “job security” that was supposed to come with a title of an engineer or a chemist?
That’s what innovation is all about. The fact that just some change in the economy caused technical professionals to be completely stumped by what to do next, is a huge indicator that innovation is dying. The goal of the Franklin Foundation is to change that.
2)”Out of the 10 to 30 senior year majors, only 5 or so chose to go on to research in chemistry. Many others went into masters level programs or medicine.” - those are still all technical fields (medical doctors just get payed a lot more and have no family life), so not sure about your point here…
1) I have been involved in another [Linkinin]discussion, where the topic was largely centered on the idea there the US had too many scientists, or, not enough jobs for them.
2) But this does not mean innovation is dying.
“The numbers of USA scientists and technologists are dwindling.”
EXCUSE ME??? Speaking as one of the numerous unemployed PhD chemists, I will tell you that you are 200% wrong in your opening statement. Are you deliberately claiming this, or are you just misinformed?
The truth -as many, many of my colleages will state is ‘the numbers of JOBS FOR USA scientists and technologists are dwindling’. The reasons for this are because of private industry’s offshoring of the mainstay science jobs, and because of the number of PhD students and post-docs from developing countries who are competing for what few jobs are available.
I’d have to agree with Fenton’s comments. Jobs are lacking, not job candidates. Our local colleges and universities have good chemistry programs and enrollments are up significantly. Placement is slow right now and will continue to be until the economy shows signs of long term recovery.
Fenton - did you reference the actual source paper that then spurred the ACS blog post that got Richard to start the other conversation?
I have read the associated papers:
http://www.heldrich.rutgers.edu/uploadedFiles/Publications/STEM_Paper_Final.pdf
and
http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/salzman/411562_Salzman_Science.pdf
They are (the second one espeically) pretty persuasive in arguing that there is not really a shortage of U.S. scientists, but rather on oversupply.
Additionally, yes, many would argue that science talent is cheaper overseas. The solution to this doesn’t seem to me to produce more expensive talent.
Mr. Heirtzler,
I think we’re at odds of opinion.
You can search anywhere on the internet – the numbers of American scientists are dwindling, as more and more scientists are imported from other countries. Our concern is the fact that American students are not enrolling in scientific programs at U.S. colleges.
Our concern is that fewer and fewer young American girls are taking on scientific studies or careers. From Seed Magazine to USA Today there are articles available over the last 15 years documenting how science and math education are dwindling in American schools.
This is the focus of our Foundation’s efforts, to improve America’s innovation base by getting our young people excited about the sciences again. Jobs are an issue in the states as well – we’re seeing a lot of them heading overseas; but many would argue that this is because there is more talent at a lower price overseas than here at home.
I’m not sure there’s much we can do about that issue, but we can work to improve the quality of science education in our country’s schools and this is one of our key focal points.
Thank you for your comments.
Hi James, no I didn’t but was just -as we speak- in the middle of composing an e-mail to Dr. Petrova. Anyway, thanks for quoting this data.
I have since then passed on the text and contact details for Mr Endre to the network of unemployed scientists who I know who are…..just across the river from the Franklin Institute.
It’s important to quench this sort or disinformation in the bud (pun intended for NMR people). I have also noticed it coming from the Philly NPR station, WHYY, which I believe gets some support from the Franklin Institute.
Fenton
To many scientist of old traditional profiles and to littele of NEW profiles which are multydisciplinary cutting edge scinece, or colaborative with industry.
Those who are lucky to get a PhD position in a new topic offen get job before they graduate, and the traditionals are for years looking for jobs, yes and that from same groups.
Science is changeing to fast, and many universities are not updating the curriculums.
The problems is trasition of those with traditional profiles like me (organic synthetic) to a new one. And yes people from industry told me that this is also one of reasons why they are looking for young people with recent PhD.
Second problem conected is that jobs for traditional profile are outsorced to Asia.
There is another way to look at this. Namely, is corporate America acting intelligently in focusing its investments outside the USA?
While it may make higher profits now, will it ultimately destroy this country’s world leadership position and US industry will have destroyed itself. We started to take the lead in the industrial world in the mid-19th century and grew it to great height, but over the past 20-years we are slowly giving it away.
Innovation is a child of growth and growth is a product of innovation. It is a cycle that can only continue and build in a country if the entities controlling the economics in that country allow it to continue. When corporate America changed its vision from building the American economy to building the “global economy” we started down this slippery slope.
What is needed is a new breed of American business leadership that appreciates the need to build American industry, particularly manufacturing industries, and has the courage to invest for long run return. One example of how dysfunctional we have become can be mentioned, there are many others. In our current drive to build alternative engergy sources as a benefit to America, using wind power is one of the approaches. Building generators for this was claimed as a source for new jobs, along with the reduction in fossil fuel import. Guess what? The major suppliers of the blades for these wind turbine projects are European.
How is it possible that contracting parties, even in some cases given taxpayer money to invest, spend the money overseas instead of using it to build up American manufacturers? These contracting parties set maximizing immediate profits as the highest priority agenda.
Meanwhile we continue to increase our deficit, diminish the standard of living for many people, reduce broad consumer spending further exacerbating the situation, and increase the disparity in distribution of wealth to a point where the American Dream is something only for the few and far between. Wake up America, if we do not change things, we lose big time!
Dear James,
Thank you for sharing the links to the studies.
One of the main points in the “Steady as she goes” paper is that more foreign graduates are taking over the STEM (science,technology, engineering, and mathematics) USA jobs. Once again, that is why the Franklin Foundation has set out to bring about the changes that would give american STEM graduates the tools, skills and education needed to take those jobs back.
The other point that you, Fenton, and David have brought up is that the numbers of STEM jobs have been rapidly declining over the recent year.
Of course the number of jobs is declining. We’re in a recession. Thats when jobs get slashed.
However, I do not believe that the solution to the declining job market is to discourage students to go into the STEM fields. Because that’s not gonna solve anything. Except, perhaps, stroke the ego’s of currently unemployed STEMs.
It would make sense however to change our education system in a way that would increase innovation and creativity, so that when hard times like this recession come about, USA STEM graduates are able easily and creatively adjust to their new environment. Which currently is not happening, due to lack of innovation and creativity.
Dear Fenton,
I am sorry if I offended you in anyway with this blog’s title. That by any means was not my intention.
Yes, there are many, many credible sources that site statistics showing the numbers of engineers and scientists “dwindling” and that they will continue to dwindle in the years to come.
Here is just one of MANY examples:
http://www.mlive.com/rebrandingmichigan/index.ssf/2008/08/lack_of_engineers_threatens_hy.html Summary:
“A shortage of engineers and a lack of science education in the U.S. could hamper the automotive industry’s ability to transition toward a focus on hybrid and plug-in vehicles, a Johnson Controls executive said this morning.”
The problem is that, as you noted, the numbers of STEM jobs are also rapidly declining due to overseas outsourcing and the recession.
So, does it mean that we advise every college graduate hopeful against going into engineering or science?
Or do we get involved with organizations like the Franklin Foundation, and change our educational system so that the STEM graduates have the skills and the creativity to keep STEM jobs in the USA?
By the way, based on history, recessions do tend to end. Which means this recession will end. Which means that companies will be looking to hire scientists and engineers. And when they don’t find them in the USA, due to students being discourages from going into STEM fields…guess where those companies are going to go look for that expertises?
It certainly is curious, in some circles, there is enough “fat” here that people can make their living worrying about the scientific needs 10 or 20 years down the road, meanwhile, there are probably 1000s of highly trained scientists now that are unemployed and underemployed that would almost literally start new jobs tomorrow if there were more opportunities out there.
I know I have can. 30 years left of work in front of me….thus, while I certainly think universities should continue to graduate chem and bio majors, etc… it really may be very counterproductive to keep producing 1000s of Phds each year, especially when times are lean in the job arena.
Perhaps there should be an accelerated program for advanced degree chemists to become pharmacists or something… perhaps this is a myth too, but I have heard there is a shortage in this field.
Lidija,
By definition, almost, science is suppose to change, as you learn new things, you should not keep doing the same old experiments. Whether universities change or not, is really a matter of perspective and at least in terms of research, will be strongly influenced by the direction gov’t funding (RO1 grants, etc.) take.
For people that are some years out of their graduate studies, it would be hoped they would continue to learn some new skills (yes, sometimes easier said then done)…
And I will close this discussion with this, why do you think some jobs are going to cheaper markets? Think prescription drug costs!
I believe that there are many organizations that are working on the issue of science, math, engineering and technology education for K-12 as well as higher education settings. This includes helping students, teachers, and parents.
Some examples include: the STEM education coalition (see http://www.stemedcoalition.org), ASME (see http://www.asme.org/Education/PreCollege/), Tau Beta Pi (see http://www.tbp.org/pages/About/Programs/K12/index.cfm), and I am sure many others (try googling STEM Education).
The can’t be too much effort in this area, and new resources should take advantage of the previous efforts of many people.
I think it would be a mistake for me not to note that I, the rest of my board, and the foundation in general understands the current employment situation facing people these days. But I feel the argument as to whether or not trying to inspire American innovation is a good thing requires a bit more context than has been applied in most people’s comments.
Firstly, we’re talking about long-term not short-term here. In the long-term, innovation in America is at risk, and it shows in more areas than just the physical sciences. What we’re saying is that it all starts with Education. I don’t believe anyone here is actually against educating tomorrow’s future scientists…
Secondly, the idea that there aren’t jobs has little to do with the country’s innovation base and more to do with (a) the quality of the existing product relative to its price, and (b) the availability. So many companies are selecting to go overseas and import people in or outsource offshore altogether and that’s something that we can only fix if we improve the balance of education for future generations.
One of our major plans is to provide programs that help teachers gain certification and education in a scientific, mathematical, or technological field to prevent English teachers from having to explain the theory of relativity to our children.
To the point of other organizations existing; there are always others. Perhaps this is one of things I find interesting about some of the posts here - a lack of competitive edge. Because there are others, regardless of their effectiveness or approach, why should anyone try to do better? By starting a new foundation we’re definitely not saying that others don’t exist, we are saying that we believe we can be more competitive in developing, delivering, maintaining programs that will make a difference in this area. Additionally, STEM has had limited movement since June of 2008; one of the main reasons, a lack of effectiveness in fund raising and program development. All that aside, we aim to be different, better, and more effective.
Masha:
Perhaps the Franklin Foundation could expand its mission to include educating business leaders about the importance of investing in America, in particular in the manufacturing industries of America. This is not isolationism, nor protectionism. It is good business. A strong industrial base gives us the leverage to better manage our affairs in world commerce. I believe strongly that an America operating almost exclusively as a service based economy (and even the worse, a predominately financial services based economy) will not be able to retain a top position in world trade affairs much less be a leader. With investment at appropriate levels will come the jobs for scientists (as well as many other skills). Those jobs are being filled now in China, India, and elsewhere (the centers of heavy investment today). The population of skilled scientists in the USA will adjust to the need. The educational system of the USA will meet the demand placed on it to fill that need.
It would be a daunting task, but if taken up succesfully it could be the force that turned the tide on a declining world position we now face as a nation. I think there is a greater need for attention to this in the board rooms of the Fortune 500, and the managers of Wall Street, rather than adjustments at the school boards of our communities and Deans of Colleges.
Many people do not pursue a career directly related to their college major, but they apply the wisdom and knowledge that they received to different career paths. For example, people with history degrees can become good organizational leaders because they have studied change over time and people with physics degrees can do financial analyses because they are well-versed in applied and theoretical mathematics.
An education in any science is more importantly about training in thinking than it is about just memorizing facts. Facts are important, yes, but it is how one thinks creatively and processes facts into new knowledge and wisdom that are the critical skills for today. And an education in chemistry can be a great opportunity to learn how to do that. Good high school and undergraduate chemistry programs should combine all aspects of an excellent liberal arts education: science, mathematics, history, languages, and art. People trained in chemistry are well-equipped to pursue a variety of career paths.
So while many in this thread are understandably lamenting the lack of positions for trained scientists in the U.S., I think the danger of a scientifically-illiterate public is an even greater threat to our security and continued economic growth, regardless of the number of positions available in individual fields of science. A recent Gallup poll on the anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birthday showed only 39% of Americans believe in evolution, one of the greatest scientific discoveries in history. If we continue down the path of fewer and fewer people with science and engineering educations or basic scientific literacy, not only will the job situation get worse, but so will our country’s general welfare.
Masha’s headline is right: America’s technology education is suffering. I applaud the work that Mr. Endre at the Franklin institute is doing, and thank Masha for bringing it to our attention.
It looks like the American Chemical Society Linkedin discussion on this topic reached a record number of comments!! 83 comments at the moment and counting! If you on linkedin in, take a look:
http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&gid=51209&discussionID=9628867&sik=1258574316203&trk=ug_qa_q&goback=.ana_51209_1258574316203_3_1