STEM education

...now browsing by tag

 
21st Century Careers 21st century jobs 21st century workforce Academic Initiative career paths careers cisco College and university challenges community colleges corporate social responsibility CSR developed countries developing countries Education foreign students GE General Electric General Electric’s Ecomagination globalization global knowledge economy global knowledge economy strategies Harvard Business School Hewlett-Packard HP IBM India Infosys Intel IT professionals Jobs of the future knowledge jobs Lisa Kahn math skills Microsoft Microsoft Learning offshoring outsourcing SAP science science skills Smarter Planet STEM STEM education universities workforce of the future
 

Lessons For and From Cuba’s Educational System

Tuesday, January 31st, 2012

In January 2012, my wife and I traveled to Cuba with Cuba Educational Travel to learn about the island, its educational system, its buildings and the country’s history.

The trip began with an overview of Cuba’s history, its political and economic systems and a broad overview of Havana and many of its cultural attractions. (For more details on the trip in general, see my travel blog www.ActiveBoomerTravel.com.)

Our primary mission, however, was to learn about the country’s educational system. We visited primary and secondary schools and some of the workshops and vocational programs that complement them, as well as one of the country’s most prestigious universities. We had lectures by and extensive chance for open discussions and questions with teachers, principals and students.

Cuba’s Commitment to Education

Cuba places an incredibly high value on education. The country dedicates about 10% of its budget to education (compared with 2% in the U.S.) and literacy rates are 98%. Classes are relatively small, with classes averaging 12 students per teacher, with a maximum of 25. (These ratios average 1:1 for severely mentally and physically-challenged students.) Education is compulsory through the ninth grade (secondary school) and high school graduation rates, although hard to measure in Cuba, are relatively high, especially in Havana and other large cities.

All education, including university and graduate school (assuming the student passes admission exams) is free and the quality is high, with elementary and secondary students consistently testing at the top of OECD’s ratings for Caribbean and Latin American countries.

The higher education system is also relatively strong. The country has almost fifty universities, plus pedagogical and polytechnic institutes that graduate an average of about 40,000 students per year. Its education and medical schools, in particular, are renowned throughout Latin America and Africa—regions which send students to study in Cuban universities and to which Cuba sends large numbers of teachers and doctors as part of the country’s large “soft diplomacy” programs.

Those who do not live close to these higher education institutions can take courses through a distance learning program which offers afternoon and evening courses through 15 different centers.

This being said, the Cuban educational system, for all its strengths, certainly has faults. As summarized by Catholic University professor Enrique Pumar, educational resources are highly vulnerable to economic cycles and graduation rates vary greatly between urban and rural schools. Moreover, Cuban educational institutions are not exactly bastions of free thought. All education is managed by, and all schools are operated by the state. All programs are, as per the country’s constitution, based on Marxist ideology.

This being said, we were generally impressed by what we saw in Cuban classrooms and what we learned speaking with administrators and teachers.

Cuba’s Primary and Secondary School System

Students attend schools for nine months a year. The school day begins at 7:50 AM and lets out at 4:50 PM, with a two hour mid-day break. This, however, is only part of the educational experience. After school, students go directly to “workshops,” for about two hours per day and another three hours on the weekend.

These workshops, whose programs are coordinated with teachers to build upon what the students are learning in school, provide opportunities to apply their school lessons to real-world tasks. Writing classes, for example, are complemented by exercises in conceiving and writing stories for, and publishing (via desktop publishing) newsletters; literature courses by writing and producing short plays, art classes by performing and even writing music, and so forth.

In addition to such “applied” programs, these workshops also provide a number of more generalized programs, such as those that teach and help demonstrate the rights and responsibilities of citizens, the history and how to address some of the needs of their communities, ecology and, for older students, sex education. High school-level workshops, are tied more closely to trades, academic specialties or even professions for which students demonstrate particular interest and aptitude.

College and trade schools

Admission into trade schools and universities are open to all who demonstrate aptitude, pass required entrance exams and possess appropriate skills (such as dexterity for skilled trades like carpentry, plumbing and metal work).

Some students go directly from secondary school to university, and those with the highest grades, admission test scores and aptitude in particular disciplines, to graduate or professional school.

Others take a less direct route that blends vocational and academic tracks. I found one program to be particularly interesting. The Havana-based Escuela Taller, is a trade school dedicated to restoring buildings in the city’s World Heritage Site historical district. Its staff consists of highly experienced trades people (masonry, carpentry, plumbing, electricity, etc.) and professionals and instructors in associated disciplines (urban planning, Spanish architecture, structural engineering and so forth).

While the program is nominally open to any 15-23-year-old boy or girl with a ninth-to-twelfth-grade education, admission is extremely competitive, with only about five percent of applicants accepted. Those who are accepted are assigned to a specific discipline, where they work with experienced trades people to learn their trades, while simultaneously taking academic courses in related disciplines.

Those who graduate from the rigorous two-year program can take one of two routes. Some go directly into the trade they have studied. Others, assuming they have completed their secondary educations (either before or part-time in the evenings during their time at Escuela Taller), may qualify for admission into university. (Although the Escuela Taller program is tailored to the needs of Havana, and are open only to city residents, other cities and provinces have similar programs.)

The Cuban education system, as evidenced by workshops and programs such as Escula Taller, focuses on integrating academic learning and the development of practical skills.

While the vast majority of this combination begins with generalized skills in primary schools, they become increasingly focused on career skills later in the education process. There are, however, a few exceptions to this broad approach of beginning with general education and skills, and gradually migrating to specialized disciplines and trades. The government considers a few areas to be sufficiently important and early focus and practice to be so critical, as to provide integrated career training from very early in the education process. These are primarily in:

  • Arts, including music, dance, theater, visual and media arts; and
  • Sports.

In both these areas, the system attempts to identify those with particular talent at very early ages and provides highly specialized integrated training programs to nurture these skills. Students are admitted at an early age, and take intensive coursework and workshops that are aligned to their specialties. They undergo regular, increasingly rigorous tests, with only the best admitted to the next level. Education in the arts culminates at Havana’s Instituto Superior de Arte (ISA). This highly selective conservatory, championed by and built on grounds that were selected by Fidel Castro, is located on the old golf course of an exclusive country club and is graced by lovely (albeit also quite run-down) contemporary buildings designed by famous architects. The conservatory, which selects the best of the graduates of specialized high schools, provides a rigorous and comprehensive education, with tracks aligned to each of its four artistic disciplines. Many of those who graduate are destined for lucrative careers in Cuba’s leading theaters, orchestras and dance companies and for independent careers in art, jazz and other related fields.

Implications for the U.S. and Cuba

Although the U.S. has long since migrated away from the type of educational tracking Cuba applies to arts and sports, there may well be opportunities for us to learn from Cuba’s general practice of integrating academic education and vocational training to help students better grasp the real-world application of their coursework, deepen their interests, and identify and prepare for careers in which they have interests and skills.

Such, formal, integrated programs could produce particular advantages in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics), areas in which the U.S. is facing an increasingly serious skills shortage (or at least severe skills mismatch). Such a system could help address the huge leakage we are currently experiencing in our STEM pipeline (see my recent blog, The United States’ Clogged Technology Education-to-Employment Pipeline). The advantages could be especially great if the private sector becomes more actively engaged in the education process, helping schools not only identify the types of skills they will need in graduates, but also designing the academic curricula, designing and sponsoring the practical exercises and providing volunteers to show how these skills are used in actual jobs.

Speaking of STEM, we have to wonder why Cuba does not appear to focus anywhere near the level of effort on developing its STEM talent as it does on developing its artistic and sports talent—and especially its medical and pedagogical talent. As shown in a 2009 report by the Cuban National Statistical Office, see Figure Pumar’s article), 34% of the prior year’s college graduates were in medical sciences, 33% in education and 12% in sports (although art represented only 0.28% of graduates, this is probably due largely to the national dominance and selectivity of ISA).

What about math and science (other than medical disciplines)? These are among the least popular of majors, with agricultural science accounting for only 1.0 and the broader categories of sciences/math a measly 0.8. This is despite the fact that agricultural goods (especially sugar), minerals and biochemicals and pharmaceuticals (along with tourism) are already among Cuba’s largest sources of foreign exchange. Why does the country not place the level of emphasis on disciplines such as metallurgy, biology and chemistry, as it does on medicine, education and sports?

Why does Cuba not provide the same type of systematic programs for identifying particularly promising students at an early age in these areas? Or in providing the type of integrated academic/practical approaches to developing such skills as it does in sports and art?

Perhaps one day—at least once Cuba finally gets and provides ubiquitous broadband Internet access to its citizens—it could also use its educational system to create another economic opportunity. That of using its highly educated, low-cost labor force to provide information technology services to other countries.

This leads to another question—just what is the state of computer and Internet usage in Cuba in general, and in education in particular?

Computers and Internet in Education

Although information is limited, from what we have been told and have seen, schools often have up to ten computers in central computer labs. After-school workshops often have one, or more depending on level and specialty. While modest numbers of elementary and high-school students have access to home computers, many university students apparently do have their own laptops. This having been said, the value they derive from such machines is limited. The primary reason—Internet access is severely limited by a combination of factors including the country’s lack of a reliable broadband communications infrastructure, the U.S.’s embargo, the high-cost of access and the government’s own restrictions on use by its citizens.

Caveats

Although most of our group was relatively impressed by the facilities we saw, the people we met and our guide’s answers to our questions, we were under few allusions. We absolutely understand that what we saw, who we spoke with, and probably, most of what we were told, was carefully selected and approved by the government. Since none of us have specific knowledge of the Cuban educational system, we have no way of determining exactly what is true, how true it is, or how representative what we saw is reflective of the broader educational system.

This being said, the country certainly seems to be saying and—from what we saw—doing a number of the right things.

A forthcoming blog will provide my thoughts on the Cuban educational system in the context of the broader perceptions of Cuba gained from our January trip.

Posted in 21st Century Careers | 2 Responses »
Tags: , , ,

Expanding the Ranks of STEM Professionals

Monday, December 26th, 2011

The U.S. industry in general, and technology-based sectors in particular, have decried the lack of STEM professionals and have called on everyone from government, educational institutions and non-profits to take steps to address the shortages. As I’ve discussed in numerous blogs, a growing number of companies (including IBM, General Electric, Intel, Exxon Mobil and many others) are taking matters into their own hands. They are sponsoring competitions and after-school workshops, funding scholarships and fellowships, helping universities create curricula and train instructors and helping their own employees identify promising career paths by providing skills maps and classes designed to prepare employees for future jobs.

Although such efforts are helpful, we need more—much more—if we are to provide an adequate pipeline of qualified STEM graduates, through all steps of the educational system, into STEM jobs. The first steps are to understand:

  • Why declining percentages of American students graduate with STEM degrees; and
  • Why so many of those that do graduate do not end up in STEM professions.

Leakage in the STEM Education Pipeline

As discussed in my July 31 blog, The United States’ Clogged Technology Education-to-Employment Pipeline, our shortage of STEM professionals begins in primary and secondary school and gets worse in every stage of the education pipeline.

According to the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress exam, less than one-third of elementary school students are considered to be either proficient or advanced in science. This percentage declines steadily, to 21%, by the time they reach 12th grade. These declines are highlighted in international comparisons, with the OECD’s 2009 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) rankings placing U.S. 15-year-olds below the median ranking among 30 OECD countries in each of the three tested areas. They rank 16th in reading, 21st in science and 29th in math.

These deficiencies, however, have not discouraged college-bound students from pursuing STEM majors. Despite the fact that the 2011 ACT test found only 45% of graduates prepared for college-level math courses, and only 30% prepared for science courses, the percentage of incoming freshman who initially plan to major in STEM fields has increased dramatically (to 34% in 2009) from their lows in the 1980s and 1990s.

These plans, however, don’t last long. After getting a sampling of the rigors of college-level STEM classes, many switch majors to less demanding disciplines. In fact, while the number of college graduates has increased by 29% from 2001 through 2009, the number of engineering graduates grew by only 19% and the number of computer and information science grads actually fell (by 14%). A 2011 study by McKinsey Global Institute, “An economy that works: Job creation and America’s future,” generally confirms these trends, citing a meager 0.8% per year growth in the number of STEM graduates—significantly less than fields such as business, social science, humanities and arts.

Worse still, many of those that do graduate do not end up in STEM careers. According to one of the most comprehensive U.S. studies to date, only one-third of STEM graduates actually end up with jobs in these fields (see the below cited Lowell and Salzman study).

Causes of STEM Pipeline Leakage—Follow the Money

A preponderance of industry experts, analysts and educators, as discussed in the above-referenced “Pipeline” report, place the primary blame on a range of factors. These include:

  • A culture that does not sufficiently value technical skills;
  • A student body that shuns hard work and study required of STEM disciplines; and
  • Big gaps in all levels of the educational system—from a lack of qualified teachers and mentors in primary and secondary schools, a disconnect between colleges that educate future professionals and the companies that hope to employ them and a large pool of STEM graduates that lack the skills required for the jobs companies are looking to fill; and
  • Corporate training and educational systems that are ill-suited to the continual education, skills refresh and new skills training requirements of a dynamic jobs market.

This skills mismatch, or skills gap, is becoming severe. According to McKinsey’s “An economy that works” study, 40% of companies with plans to hire in the next 12 months have had positions open for six months or longer, because they couldn’t find the right candidate—candidates with degrees in the appropriate field and/or relevant work experience. Although these needs span all types of jobs, the most difficult occupations to fill are in management, science and engineering, followed by computer programming and IT. The study also highlights a big emerging gap in statisticians and mathematicians who can handle “big data” and, in the future, fill the rapidly growing need for health care professionals.

There is, however, an alternate school of thought, not only as to the causes and remedies of a STEM skills gap, but also as to whether such a gap even exists. For example, a 2007 and a 2009 follow-up study by B. Lindsay Lowell and Hal Salzman, Steady as She Goes? Three Generations of Students through the Science and Engineering Pipeline, claim:

  • There has been no decline in the total number of STEM graduates;
  • The number of graduates is sufficient to meet demand; and that
  • Many of these graduates are adequately qualified and prepared for available jobs.

According to their research, the primary problem is that only one-third of these graduates end up taking jobs in the fields in which they graduate. This drop-off, which began in the 1990s, spans all levels of students, from lower through upper quintiles. The drop, however, is particularly steep among those with the highest SAT/ACT scores and GPA averages—i.e., the best and the brightest of STEM graduates. Although their research does not show the reasons for this leakage from STEM careers, the authors see two possible reasons:

  1. Growing numbers of graduates are going into jobs that, while not specifically categorized as STEM, entail STEM skills—jobs such as patent law, medical sales and management in technology firms; and
  2. Growing numbers of the most qualified graduates end up taking jobs in fields that offer higher salaries (such as finance), more prestige and more varied experiences (such as consulting) or more flexible career paths (such as management).

In their view, the conclusion that today’s graduates are not qualified for STEM careers is “not supported by this data.” They believe that the primary problem is that the rewards of STEM careers are not sufficiently attractive to retain the best and the brightest graduates. Their primary recipe for attracting these graduates to STEM careers: increase pay.

Lowell and Salzman’s diagnosis of the problem and prescription for the solution are shared by others. Vivek Wadhwa of Duke and Berkeley Universities, in particular, has long argued that there is no shortage in STEM talent. The problems, as he lays them out in a TechCrunch face-off with ex-Intel chief Craig Barrett, are three-fold:

  1. Much of the nation’s talent is “bottled-up” in the form of postdocs (post-doctoral fellows hoping to get a faculty appointments) who are locked into a broken university technology education system;
  2. U.S. government policy makes it increasingly difficult and unattractive for foreign-born graduates of U.S. universities—who account for half of all U.S. STEM Masters and PhD graduates—to remain in the U.S.; and
  3. Technology firms do not pay top graduates what they are worth, particularly relative to finance and consulting companies.

Causes of the STEM Pipeline Leakage—A Skills Gap

Not all studies come to the same conclusions. The U.K., which faces a similar issue in which half of its STEM graduates take jobs in other fields, launched a series of studies into the reasons. Although these studies certainly admit a loss to higher-paying career paths, they, as concluded in a 2010 study, Shaping Up for Innovation: Are we delivering the right skills for the 2020 knowledge economy, also find some evidence for the possibility that some STEM graduates do not have the skills required to meet employer needs.

The authors cite a 2008 CBI (Confederation of British Industry) study finding that 42% of employers see the quality of graduates as a major barrier to STEM recruitment. A 2009 study that examined The Demand for Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Skills, meanwhile, found that the occupations in which many of these STEM graduates actually end up, pay significantly less than jobs in STEM and finance. (A Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce compilation of U.S. salaries and unemployment rates by college major shows that STEM and finance jobs also tend to pay significantly better than, and have lower unemployment rates than, do jobs in most other fields.)

So, if STEM and finance pay better, and offer better employment prospects than do other fields, why would so many STEM grads shun these higher-paying fields to take jobs outside of the areas they had studied? According to the Demand for STEM Skills and the Shaping up for Innovation studies’ authors, there must be “some kind of mismatch between the type of skills STEM graduates have, and the type of skills sought in science occupations.” They do, however, plan to commission additional research to determine the extent to which these patterns are attributable to a skills mismatch, rather than individual choice.

What are these mismatches? Although they vary by sector, the CBI survey shows that employers’ primary concerns relate to candidates’ technical and practical skills. There is, however, a broad overarching concern that STEM candidates lack a number of softer skills in areas including problem solving, commercial awareness, team working, communication, interdisciplinary perspective and empathy for different points of view. (Note that this list is quite similar to that posed in my October 30th blog, Core skills Required in a Knowledge Economy.)

This all leads to a number of questions that I will address in subsequent blogs and in my planned book—what can be done do address these skills gaps and mismatches? What should students do today to ensure that they are best equipped to capture the jobs and build the careers of the future?

Posted in Creating the 21st Century Workforce, STEM Careers, Workforce Trends | No Responses »
Tags: , , , , , ,

The ACM Computer Programming Competition: Lessons for America and from IBM

Sunday, August 28th, 2011

My previous blog, The United States’ Clogged Technology Education-to-Employment Pipeline, provided a number of examples of how U.S. students, from K-12, to college to grad schools), are falling behind their counterparts in other countries across virtually all segments of STEM education. Although these deficiencies are troubling in their own right, they only begin to suggest a much bigger, much more troubling problem for the U.S. economy.

The educational system is, after all, the primary pipeline through which corporations receive the steady flow of talent they need to keep America competitive in a global economy. And since this competitiveness will be based on innovation, this talent must be fluent in the language of innovation. STEM is that language.

Although I have spoken with many people and have read and written much on the challenges facing U.S. STEM education, I never really had a chance to see the manifestation of these challenges for myself. Therefore, I was happy to travel to Orlando Florida to learn about and see the world finals round of the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) International Collegiate Programming Contest (ICPC).

This blog briefly describes the contest and its outcome, and provides my view of the implications for the U.S. Its primary focus, however, is on corporate support of these competitions and on their role in supporting the recruitment activities of their sponsors—in this case, IBM:

  • Why, for example, has IBM sponsored and funded this competition for the last 15 years, and why it has committed to continuing to do so for at least the next 5 years;
  • What value does IBM get from this generosity and what is it doing to maximize the value it derives from it; and
  • What are the implications and opportunities for other tech vendors that hope to promote STEM education and improve their own chances of recruiting the most promising graduates?

The ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest

The contest is a multi-stage competition that started with more than 300,000 students. It begins with dozens of local competitions, and progresses through six geographically-aligned regional competitions (this year, with 24,915 contestants from 2,070 universities and 88 countries). It culminates in a final competition that, this year, consisted of 315 students on 105 teams.

These teams compete not only with each other, but also against tight time constraints and limited resources (one computer and three calculators per team) in an attempt to solve eleven real-world problems. They must often deal with ambiguity, exercise judgment to assess when to submit an answer (to avoid penalties for incorrect submissions) and continually reassess their strategies to determine on which problems to focus their energies. Success, therefore, depends not only on speed and accuracy, but also on teamwork, resource prioritization and allocation, quick thinking, and adaptability.

The questions are designed with varying levels of difficulty, from a couple that require relatively moderate skills to a couple that would challenge many of the best, most experienced programmers in the world. In the end, after five hours of intense work, ten teams answered seven questions correctly, and two teams managed to answer eight, an impressive feat for college students, especially under the constraints imposed by the rules.

As has been the case in most years since the competition went international, this year’s winner’s circle was led by teams from Russia (four of the top ten teams) and China (two of the top ten, including 1st place Zhejiang University and 3rd place Tsinghua University). In fact, combined, these two countries represented half of the top 26 teams (7 for China and 6 for Russia), with two other perennially strong countries, Poland and the U.S., taking two spots apiece and another, Ukraine, capturing three.

U.S. schools, who typically make quite respectable showings, qualified 18 teams for the finals. One, North American regional champion University of Michigan Ann Arbor, took 2nd place in the world finals and three others (Carnegie-Mellon took 13th, MIT 32nd and Princeton 48th) in the top 58 (all of whom had at least 4 correct answers). The remaining 14, each correctly answering fewer than four questions, received Honorable Mentions.

As would be expected, men overwhelmingly dominated the competition, with women accounting for fewer than 10 of the 315 contestants. This year, however, a woman was part of the Zhejiang University championship team. (As I discussed in my previous blog, U.S. women, while expanding their inroads in science and especially medicine, are poorly represented in math, engineering and IT.)

Challenges for the U.S.

Although one must not try to read too much into the results of one competition, Russian and Chinese (and more broadly, Eastern European and East Asian) schools are traditionally among the winners. U.S. teams, meanwhile, typically do make quite respectable showings. Approximately 20 U.S. schools typically make it to the finals, and in eight of the last 15 years at least two U.S. universities have won medals (i.e., placed among the top 12). In fact, at least three U.S. teams medaled in four of the last 15 years, with one winning the championship and five placing second.

Respectable: yes. But as the results of this competition (not to speak of the educational statistics cited in my July 31 blog) make clear, companies that need access to the best talent must look well beyond U.S. citizens and U.S. schools. After all, non-U.S. universities, as is clear from the competition, already contain much of the world’s best programming talent. (Meanwhile, some of U.S. teams, including the Number 2 University of Michigan team, included students from other countries.) These non-U.S. students and schools promise to become even more competitive as Asian schools, in particular, continue to improve, attract more world-class professors and become more attractive destinations for the world’s most promising students.

Meanwhile, as discussed in my July 31 blog, U.S. students (with the notable exception of Asian-Americans) are moving away from STEM disciplines and U.S. universities now count on non-U.S. citizens for rapidly growing percentages of their undergraduate science and engineering classes–259,000 new undergraduate students in 2009/10 alone (not to speak of an absolute majority of their PhD candidates).

That creates a problem: The U.S. is producing fewer of its own world-class programmers and IT engineers. Meanwhile, U.S. companies are finding it increasingly difficult to bring world-class talent from other countries into the U.S. Where then will these companies find the talent they need to grow?

This brings us full-circle back to the ACM competitions, and specifically to IBM, which sponsors the competitions.

Opportunities for IBM

IBM has been sponsoring the ACM competition for the last 15 years and has just committed to extending this sponsorship for at least the next five years. Why does it devote so much money and so many of its people to this work? It hopes to:

  1. Recognize and spotlight STEM skills;
  2. Inspire more students to study and develop their problem-solving skills in these fields;
  3. Encourage and facilitate cross-cultural exchange among schools and students; and
  4. Identify some of the best STEM talent in the world, expose them to IBM and the types of problems they would work on at IBM and improve IBM’s ability to recruit these people.

IBM, as exemplified by its rapidly expanded focus on donating money, products and expertise to educational institutions, and as demonstrated by programs such as its Academic Initiative and its newly announced P-Tech high school partnership with New York City, is deeply committed to encouraging students and helping all levels of schools to improve STEM education.

But for all of its philanthropic efforts, IBM is also intent on reaping its fair share of the rewards from such efforts. It wants the best and brightest of these graduates to join IBM. This is more of a challenge than it may appear. True, IBM is clearly one of the leading and most diversified IT companies in the world. It is also consistently rated as one of the world’s top brands and one of the best companies for which to work. Still, it is generally less visible to students than are more consumer-facing brands, such as Microsoft and Google and does not offer the type of pre-IPO lure of companies such as Facebook and Twitter.

The ACM competition provides IBM with a unique opportunity to meet and to present itself to many of the most promising college-age programmers in the world. It is, therefore, no surprise that IBM leverages the competition to introduce itself to these students. It provides demonstrations of some of the company’s cutting-edge technologies and research, and populates the conference with a number of IBM employees who are alumni of the ACM competition and of some of the schools represented in the contest.

It has also set up a separate recruiting process, separate from but coordinated with the company’s primary recruiting efforts, to learn what interested contestants are looking for in their careers and to help identify how they can accomplish their goals at IBM. This year, the company went a big step beyond recruiting. In addition to monetary rewards (of up to $12,000 per team) from ACM, IBM, this year, made open job offers to the top 12 placing students—three members from each of the Top Four teams in the competition. The company will offer them jobs or internships in whichever IBM group (IBM Research, Software Group, etc.) and whichever country (subject to IBM operations in and government permissions) they choose.

IBM’s partnership with ACM provides yet another example of how a company can do well by doing good.

Posted in Corporate Social Responsibility, IBM, IT Industry Role in Education, STEM Careers | No Responses »
Tags: , , , ,

The United States’ Clogged Technology Education-to-Employment Pipeline

Sunday, July 31st, 2011

We are being continually bombarded with news of the failures of the U.S. educational system. Although concerns span virtually all subjects, they are particularly severe in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM)—the language of technological innovation and the foundation of most of the country’s competitiveness in global markets.

The problems, particularly for U.S.-born students (with the sole exception of Asian-American males), seem to compound at every step of the educational ladder and are now beginning to profoundly affect the workplace

Primary and Secondary Education Shortfalls

These shortfalls begin in our elementary and high schools. Consider, for example, that:

  • The 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress exam found that fewer than one-third of elementary and high school students have a solid grasp of science. Worse still, students are falling further behind each year of study, with only 34% of 4th-graders, 30% of 8th-graders and 21% of 12th-graders being proficient or advanced;
  • The OECD’s 2009 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) found U.S. 15-year-olds near the mean for test scores and below the median ranking for each of the three tested areas, ranking 16th of 30 in reading, 21st in science and 29th in math;
  • The New York State Education Department found that only 37% of all students who entered high school in 2006 graduated with math and English scores high enough to qualify them for college. The figure was worse in most cities, where 21% of New York City, 14.5% of Yonkers and 6% of Rochester students would qualify.

These primary and secondary education system shortfalls in science and math education flow inevitably upward, through all levels of college and university education. And this was all before the current slashing of public education budgets, teaching staffs, school hours and classes—cuts that span all levels of the education spectrum, from K-12, to community colleges, state colleges and even Tier-One public research institutions, like the University of California at Berkeley.

College STEM Challenges

Although the percentage of high-school freshman who actually graduate from high school is falling, there are indeed some positive trends among those who do graduate. First, the percentage of high-school graduates who go directly to college is steadily increasing (from 57% in 2000 to 63% in 2008). Even better, the percentage of incoming college freshman who plan to major in STEM-related fields has recovered from a decline in the 1980s and ‘90s, to approach Cold War levels, reaching 31% in 2004 and 34% in 2009. Amazingly, these percentages are almost identical among Whites, Asian-Americans, Blacks, Latinos and Native Americans. In fact, the only major demographic group that is underrepresented in the “quantitative sciences” is women.

This is where the bad news begins. Among those freshman who initially aspire to a STEM degree, fewer than one-third actually graduate with these degrees within five years. Most of these entrants either drop out of school, change majors to less demanding disciplines, or take longer to graduate.

These are multiple reasons for this fall off. Many who did well in high-school classes (especially those who were not enrolled in AP classes) find themselves ill-prepared for the rigors of a STEM education. Many have to take remedial courses before ever getting to degree programs. Fewer still are prepared for the demanding workloads or are willing to accept the lower grades these courses typically produce. As we have seen in study after study, the U.S. educational system—from elementary schools through universities—is migrating to fewer classroom hours, less homework and easier grading. College students, in particular, increasingly view college at least as much of a social opportunity, as an educational opportunity.

It is in this period, between entering college and graduation, that demographic differences become pronounced. Although similar percentages of all racial groups initially aspire to a STEM degree, the differences in the percentages from each group that actually earn these degrees in five years are huge:

  • 42% for Asian-Americans;
  • 33% for Whites;
  • 22% for Latinos; and
  • 18% for African Americans.

Meanwhile, women, who now account for 58% of all U.S. college students, and an even larger percentage of honors degrees, are increasingly opting out of quantitative disciplines. True, they do (at least as of 2006) account for a majority of bachelor’s degrees in sciences including psychology (78%), agriculture (51%), biology (62%) and chemistry (52%) and are well-represented in some emergent engineering disciplines, such as environmental and biomedical. They, however, represent only small—and declining—minorities of quantitative degrees. As of 2006, for example, women earned only 20% of engineering, 21% of physics and 22% of computer science degrees. Their participation in computer science, in particular, plummeted from 37% to 22% over two decades (1985 to 2005).

And this does not even begin to assess the many problems that are plaguing the nation’s community college system—a system that is required to provide the skilled labor required to assist engineers and to produce and service innovative products. (See my series of blogs, beginning with The Community College Contribution.)

U.S. Graduate Schools as Magnets for Foreign-Born STEM Aspirants

These trends are further magnified in graduate STEM programs—but with another, big, new wrinkle.

U.S.-born racial/ethnic minorities and women have long accounted for small minorities of U.S. STEM graduate classes. Although U.S.-born minority students are gaining some ground (from 29% in 2000 to 34% in 2007), most races continue to be greatly under-represented as a percentage of all graduate students. For example, as of 2007, only 8% of all African American, 12% of Native American and 13% of Latino graduate students are enrolled in engineering, physical sciences, and biological sciences programs.

Whites are also increasingly under-represented in these programs, accounting for only 16% of total U.S.-born White graduate program enrollees. The big gainers, not surprisingly, are Asian Americans, with 29% of all of those enrolled in U.S. graduate programs studying in engineering, physical sciences, or biology.

Although women are also gaining some ground in quantitative graduate programs, their numbers and percentages remain small, accounting for fewer than 10% of all U.S. PhDs in electrical, mechanical and aeronautical engineering. (They do, however, represent more than 25% of chemical and industrial engineering doctorates and more than half of all social science and biology PhDs.)

Although U.S. born Asian-American males are rapidly ascending the STEM educational ladder, even they are being overwhelmed by Asian-born, naturalized U.S. citizens and especially by Asian citizens who chose to study in the U.S. In fact, while 90-95% of all STEM bachelor’s degrees are now awarded to U.S.-born students, 55% of all STEM PhDs now go to foreign-born students.

Although some of these foreign-born candidates are naturalized U.S. citizens, the number of foreign citizens studying in U.S. STEM graduate schools has exploded. The number of STEM doctorates awarded to temporary visa holders, for example, grew by 50% (compared with 18% in those to U.S. citizens and permanent visa holders) between 2003 and 2008 and now account for 38% of total degrees.

Even these totals, however, are dwarfed by numbers in specific fields. Visa holders, for example, now account for 45% of all physical science doctorates and 57% of all engineering doctorates awarded by U.S. universities. (A 2010 Congressional Research Service study suggests that even some of these percentages may be too low. By the time one combines those in the U.S. on permanent, as well as temporary visas, 67% of all engineering PhDs are granted to non-U.S. citizens.

Where Do We Go From Here?

This all sounds very ominous. It appears, from the numbers, that the U.S. is rapidly losing its ability to produce its own technical talent and that we will be forced to rely on “imports” for the scientists and engineers that will be required to rejuvenate our economy and compete in an increasingly technology-driven, global economy.

But is the situation really this bleak? What is the current state and the future of the U.S. technology workforce? What can U.S.-based technology companies do to address the nation’s and their own talent requirements? What role can non-U.S.-based companies play in addressing our talent shortages? Can the U.S. government help, or should it just get out of the way.

I will address these and a number of related issues in my next several blogs.

Posted in 21st Century Careers, STEM Careers, Workforce Trends | No Responses »
Tags: , ,

The Jobs of Today—and Tomorrow

Sunday, February 14th, 2010

I have written extensively about the jobs of tomorrow and the critical role of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) skills in preparing applicants for these jobs. (See, for example, my recently completed free report, “IT Companies as Catalysts in Creating the 21st Century Workforce.“) As explained in a new CareerCast study, these skills also critical in preparing applicants for the jobs of today—or at least many of the “best jobs”.

“Best Jobs”

What are these “best jobs” and what makes them “the best”? The study, which compiles U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau data, evaluates jobs in terms of five criteria:

  1. Stress;
  2. Working environment;
  3. Physical demands;
  4. Income and growth potential; and
  5. Hiring outlook.

While not necessarily the highest skilled (neurosurgeon, corporate M&A lawyer), highest paying (bond trader, hedge fund manager) or most glamorous (movie star, professional athlete), these jobs are available in reasonably high numbers and are available to people with relatively moderate (typically a four-year degree) degree of education.

Just what are these jobs? The top ten are, in descending order: actuary, software engineer, computer systems analyst, biologist, historian, mathematician, paralegal assistant, statistician, accountant and dental hygienist. All but two (historian and paralegal) require some form of specialized STEM education.

Perhaps none of these jobs are quite your cup of tea. Or, perhaps unlike CareerCast, you do not weigh each of the five criteria equally. You may, for example, be motivated primarily by income and advancement potential, or you may actually prefer a physically demanding job.

No worries. There are dozens of other jobs. But be forewarned: 37 of the CareerCast’s 50 “best jobs” (out of a total 200 ranked jobs) require some form of explicit math, science or technology background. Moreover, as I have discussed in previous blogs, a number of the 13 additional jobs (such as historian, sociologist, anthropologist and archeologist) increasingly require specialized IT and math skills, such as in compiling and analyzing huge quantities of information and data.  

Of course, this doesn’t suggest that ALL jobs that are intellectually, emotionally and financially rewarding require STEM educations. You can, for example, become a philosopher (11), attorney (80), author (74), clergyman (96) or artist (104), although most such professions require extensive training or specialized skills. There are also somewhat lower skill jobs. You can be a damn good paralegal (7), medical records technician (20), purchasing agent (40), jeweler (61) or actor (163) with little or no math or science training and few, if any, computer skills. But if you want to find jobs with no specialized training requirements or long apprentices, you generally have to move much further down the CareerCast list into lower-skill, more physical and/or more repetitive jobs such as waitperson (125), bus driver (137), retail salesperson (142) or mail carrier (191). And if you really want to live on the edge (literally and figuratively), you can always become a lumberjack (199) or roustabout (200).

Skills Requirements

But regardless of which type of career you choose, the work environment of the 21st century will not be like that of the 20th century. Jobs will remain scarce for at least the next five years, more positions will become temporary or freelance, and a growing number of jobs will be devalued or disappear as a result of increasingly pervasive globalization of knowledge work and the automation of functions that used to require human discretion and labor.

Success in this new environment will require much more than strong, specialized domain skills (whether STEM-based or not). Traditional left-brain analytical skills will, in fact, become the ante required for success in tomorrow’s jobs. Knowledge workers who hope to capture and retain the best, highest-value and most secure jobs must also complement these capabilities with increasingly large doses of left-brained conceptual and empathic skills. And, with all due respect to technophobes, virtually all high-value knowledge jobs will also require at least basic quantitative, statistical and IT skills. IT, in fact, will increasingly have to become the second language for almost all 21st century knowledge workers.

Posted in 21st Century Careers, Business Trends, Creating the 21st Century Workforce, Economic and Political Forces, Economic Forces, Job and Career Opportunities, Skills Requirements, STEM Careers, Technology's Impact on Job Skills, Workforce Trends | No Responses »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,