editorially /peaking

Educating the Next Generation of Scientists The disturbing trends outlined in the NSF report "Sci-

ence and Engineering Education for the 1980s" appear to have become more pronounced in the eight years since the report was published. The quality of science education may have turned around, largely as a result of state and local initiatives, hut the problems faced by research universities, which are described in the report, appear to have grown more severe. For example, the 1980 report noted that engi- neering schools were beginning to find it difficult to recruit qualified faculty. Since that time, the gap between the sup- ply of PhD's in science and engineering and the demand for their services by industry and universities has increased. It is now widely recognized that, were i t not for a large number of foreign graduate students, our research universities would be unable to educate the next generation of scientists and engineers. The number of science and engineering doctorate degrees has remained more or less constant over the eight- year period since the report was issued, but the percentage awarded to American students has declined markedly. About 48% of all engineering doctoral degrees went to for- eign nationals in 1980, compared with about 60% today. In 1980, foreign students earned about 25% of the PhD's in physics and 28% of those in mathematics. Today the propor- tions have increased to about 30% and 40%, respectively..ln 1980, the report warned that, "with decreasing enrollments in the mathematical, physical, and life sciences, there may not he enough qualified candidates to fill vacancies in col- leges and universities created by the large number of faculty retirements that are anticipated in the mid-1990s." Indeed, it is now estimated that about 40% of the current tenured faculty will retire by 1995. Clearly, unless the situation changes, we will have to rely increasingly on foreign-born PhD's to fill those positions.

Current American values tempt far too many of our brightest students to concentrate their talents in such lucra- tive fields as law and finance, instead of encouraging them to commit themselves to the rigors of graduate training in sci- ence and engineering. In Japan, by contrast, an engineering degree is viewed as an entree to business and social success in much the same way as the MBA degree is currently viewed in this country. The general climate in Japan is considerably more conducive to the training of scientists and engineers. And, the number of engineering degrees awarded by Japa- nese universities over the past few years has exceeded the number awarded by American institutions, in spite of the fact that the base population of students in Japan is about half of that in the United States. Where do those highly trained Japanese go? About half of the Japanese civil ser- vants hold degrees in engineering or related subjects, and one half of those are a t the postgraduate level. Similarly, in industry, about 50% of all directors have engineering qualifi- cations.

In some areas of science, foreign research capabilty now approximates and, in some cases, exceeds that of the United States. Although American research universities and their unique graduate programs linking advanced teaching with research remain the envy of the world, the record of the past eight years suggests that we have little grounds for compla- cency. American research universities cannot return to their pre-eminence unless more college students pursue graduate training and careers in science and engineering. And as we

have discussed on this page on previous occasions, if that is to hamen, the pool of colleee students interested in science mus&e n&turkd a t pre-coiiege levels.

The results of universitv research cannot he used ~roduc- tively by American industry in the absence of a technologi- cally literate work force. These industries cannot compete effectively internationally unless new national policies are devised by leaders who understand the centrality of science (and techhnology) to policy issues. All of these issues-per- suading more students to pursue graduate studies in the science;, maintaining the viability of our universities, raising the level of technological literacy, and making more effective use of the results and insiehts of science in ~ol icv and deci- - . - sion-making-are not separate problems. They are related narts of the basic auestion of the adeauacv of our svstem of . . science education and its relevance to the country's needs. Richard C. Atkinson. former director of NSF when the 1980 report was issued, has observed that "the (current) challenge to our economic com~etitiveness is less dramatic but proba- bly a more far-reachhg threat than Sputnik."

The solution, of course, involves people-increasing the number of aualified and capable students at all levels of science education and impr&ing the capabilities of their instructors. Elementary science education, although i t is a long-range response, is-a vital component; i t is notdifficult to imagine that an improvement in elementary science edu- cation in 1980 would already have led to improvement a t the secondary school level and probably would have begun to affect the current college student population. A quicker re- turn on effort involves improving the pool of qualified, sci- ence-oriented students in hieh schools. One of the more efficient ways toaffect theatt ikdeof studentsabout science is to show them what science is about-let them "do" sci- ence. The old, NSF-supported Summer Science Training Promams (SSTP) promams were very effective in exposing highschoolstudents who may not have had the advantage of good laboratory-oriented experiences to environments where the wonder and excitement of science is a everyday fare. These kinds of programs appear to be making a come- back under increasing NSF and/or private sponsorship. The trend should be encouraged.

Research-oriented experiences for undergraduates should he made available in increasing numbers. The current NSF- supported Research Education for Undergraduates (REV) summer programs provide qualified undergraduates with the opportunity to participate in meaningful research. Such expe&ces mis t be provided to undergraduates in smaller institutions if we are to take advantage of the greater total proportion of science students who are trained a t such insti- tutions; the REU program is designed to do that.

Obviously, everyone in the system of science education has a role to nlav in im~rovine the ~ o o l of aualified science students, andweshoulda~~ besensitive and alert to opportu- nities to encouraee voune ~ e o n l e to take advantaee of pro- grams designed %-improve their understanding of how chemistrv "works". If each teacher's actions encourage one student io take advantage of such opportunities, thenum- bers o f students in all educational pools would increase markedly. The natural charm gf the subject would take care of the rest. JJL

Volume 65 Number 6 June 1988 469