CONGRESS, PHD PRODUCTION, AND THE GATHERING STORM REPORT |
|
POST DATE
April 10, 2007, 9 PM
POSTED BY
Geoff Davis
|
|
[Prolific commenter Bob has submitted a guest post - interesting stuff!] There has been some discussion on this blog about whether we are producing too many PhDs, given the size of the job market. Some have stated that Congress is not likely to get involved with the issue of PhD production. That is currently not true as will be discussed below. Here is some homework I have done on the issue of how Congress does get involved with issues like PhD production that I hope some of you find useful, especially in light of Geoff's recent post about the origin of another bill in Congress. The discussion also illustrates the science policy power structure in Washington. Here is an example of how Congress became involved with the issue of PhD production, in both the 109th and 110th Congresses, and the origins of the "Gathering Storm" report. What Congress will do, is ask the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), or the National Research Council (NRC), to study an issue involving science and technology ("competitiveness") on its behalf. That is one reason the NAS was established. For other issues, Congress might turn to the CRS-the Congressional Research Service for example. Here are the web links for the 300+ page report, and the executive summary: Rising Above The Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future If you sign in, you can receive a free pdf of this 300 page report. This executive summary explains how the report came about: Rising Above The Gathering Storm: Executive Summary On page 2 (or 3) of the executive summary the origins of the "Gathering Storm" report are discussed: "The National Academies was asked by Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator Jeff Bingaman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, with endorsement by Representative Sherwood Boehlert and Representative Bart Gordon of the House Committee on Science, to respond to the following questions: What are the top 10 actions, in priority order, that federal policymakers could take to enhance the science and technology enterprise so that the United States can successfully compete, prosper, and be secure in the global community of the 21st century? What strategy, with several concrete steps, could be used to implement each of those actions? The National Academies created the Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century to respond to this request." On page 27 of the executive summary it shows who the committee members were made of, basically CEOs and university presidents. However, my guess is that much of this large report was already put together by the NAS staff, well before this committee was formed. The report is so large, with so much data, there is no way the CEO of Intel and the President of the University of Maryland gathered all these "facts" and wrote a 300 page report. They likely read it, and signed off on it, adding a several recommendations of their own. Notice what the NAS committee and/or the NAS staff did recommend: Scroll down to page 10 of the Executive Summary: "Action C-2: Increase the number of US citizens pursuing graduate study in “areas of national need” by funding 5,000 new graduate fellowships each year. NSF should administer the program and draw on the advice of other federal research agencies to define national needs. The focus on national needs is important both to ensure an adequate supply of doctoral scientists and engineers and to ensure that there are appropriate employment opportunities for students once they receive their degrees. Portable fellowships would provide a stipend of $30,0007 annually directly to students, who would choose where to pursue graduate studies instead of being required to follow faculty research grants, and up to $20,000 annually for tuition and fees." It turns out areas of "National Need" are generic fields like the physical sciences. Thus, 5,000 new graduate fellowships would result in a very large increase in PhD production at a time when many are questioning how to employ current PhD production. In summary, The Gathering storm report recommended a large INCREASE in the supply of PhDs in the physical sciences ("areas of national need"). The 109th Congress then converted these recommendations into a series of bills known as the PACE Act-Protecting America’s Competitive Edge (PACE). The PACE ACT had 62 co-sponsors in the 109th Congress, but did not become law. Here is a summary: 109TH CONGRESS: IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES JAN. 22, 2006 S. 2198 Protecting America's Competitive Edge (PACE) Act To ensure the United States successfully competes in the 21st century global economy. Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. BINGAMAN, Ms. MIKULSKI and 50 co-sponsors) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-2198 Full text of bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-2198 Scroll down: SEC. 181. GRADUATE RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS IN SCIENTIFIC AREAS OF NATIONAL NEED (a) FELLOWSHIPS AUTHORIZED.—..establish a fellowship program to provide tuition and financial support for eligible students pursuing master’s and doctoral degrees in mathematics or science, engineering, or other areas of national need. (b) AREAS OF NATIONAL NEED.—important to the mission of the Department of Energy, may use the areas of national need in determining the specific fields of study (e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— $225,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; (2) $450,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and (3) $675,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2013. In effect, the PACE ACT proposed a large increase in PhD production in the physical sciences (perhaps a doubling by 2013 if my math is correct). There are some positive education features of the PACE ACT however, but that is another topic. The PACE ACT (S. 2198) did not become law in the 109th Congress. However, similar measures have been reintroduced in the 110th Congress. Two important bills: S.761 America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act (Placed on Calendar in Senate) S.833 COMPETE Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-833 ...... More on the details of these bills to follow. I have found this link useful for tracking legislation: http://www.govtrack.us/ This is enough for one comment. One of the key points is that while there is discussion of reducing PhD production in the U.S., bills have been introduced in Congress in response to the NAS Gathering Storm report that will do just the opposite, in a very significant way. Currently, the average working scientist, postdoc, or graduate student has had basically no say in the formation of these bills. The question is, can we change this and have input? Again, a future topic. |
Variables ignored by the Gathering Storm Report: Impact of Immigration on Wages and Career Opportunities
Here is an article about a NBER report that came out last year. This link is hot off the press, it mentions Geoff's work at several points and even this blog is referenced.
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/
Huddled Masses
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/2007_04_13/caredit_a0700050/(parent)/68
"Reduced economic opportunities in some fields relative to others may be an important factor driving native students to enter particular occupations and avoid others." --George Borjas
Beryl Lieff Benderly
United States
13 April 2007
The debate about immigration, perhaps today's hottest domestic issue, usually focuses on the impact of unlettered illegals who sneak across the border for the chance to mow lawns or clean offices. But, according to a body of recent research, low-skill job categories are not the only ones profoundly affected by foreign job seekers. The countless contributions of immigrant researchers to American life--from nuclear power to the TV remote--need no repetition here. But, the data show, the economic forces that depress wages in such immigrant-heavy occupations as off-the-books babysitting and washing restaurant dishes also apply to the incomes of those far higher up the education ladder, such as molecular biologists and computer engineers.
Many people appear to believe that extensive schooling insulates workers from the iron law of supply and demand. A recent paper by Harvard economist George J. Borjas shows, however, that even for doctorate-level researchers, "the supply-demand textbook model is correct after all." Unlike most economic analysts, Borjas focused not on what foreign-born scientists add to the scientific enterprise or society as a whole but on what their presence costs individual American scientists. For postdocs and other early-career Ph.D.s in a number of fields, unfortunately, the picture he paints isn't pretty.
.
.
Follow the links above for the entire article.
Bob
Update on "Gathering Storm" Legislation: S. 761, The America COMPETES Act
Here is an informative website concerning the latest science policy issues, in particular tracking the science funding process and various appropriation bills in Congress concerning such departments as the NSF, DOE, NASA, NIST, and DoD.
http://www.aip.org/fyi
Here are excerpts from the latest issue of FYI:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 40: April 13, 2007
Full web version: http://www.aip.org/fyi/2007/040.html
"Setting the Stage: FY 2008 S&T Appropriations Bills"
There is strong bipartisan support for increasing S&T funding, especially for the three agencies that are part of the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI): the Department of Energy Office of Science, National Science Foundation, and the research programs of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. ....
In mid-March, the private and academic sectors demonstrated their support for "an innovation agenda that will ensure continued U.S. competitiveness." This "American Innovation Proclamation" calls on Congress to double the basic research budgets of the three ACI agencies and the Department of Defense, improve student math and science achievement, reform U.S. visa policies, and pass a permanent R&D tax credit. The proclamation was signed by more than 270
business and higher education leaders (see
http://tap2015.org/resource/proclamation/index.html
The proclamation's rollout was held in a crowded House Science Committee hearing room and included presentations by corporate and academic leaders and Members of Congress. ...
Many of the speakers testified that afternoon at a hearing of the Science Committee. Said Gordon: "There is a bipartisan consensus that investing in education and research along the lines of the Gathering Storm report is necessary." .....
A far more expansive bill was introduced in the Senate on March 5. S. 761, The America COMPETES Act, is a 32,000-word bill that authorizes increases in research funding for NSF, DOE, and NIST, strengthens research programs at other agencies, strengthens STEM opportunities from elementary through graduate school, and establishes an innovation infrastructure. It draws many of its provisions from similar legislation introduced last year. This bill has 45 cosponsors from both parties, and from across the ideological spectrum. ..
"America's greatest resource for innovation resides within classrooms across the country. The increased funding provided in this resolution will support important initiatives to educate 100,000 new scientists, engineers, and mathematicians, and place highly qualified teachers in math and science K-12 classrooms."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So much for the question of whether we are training too many scientists [1].
Bob
[1]
Are We Training Too Many Scientists?
It’s time to come to grips with how we’re misleading and hurting young aspiring researchers.
http://www.the-scientist.com/2006/9/1/13/1/
Bob,
I was wrong in an earlier post. It takes a lot of knowledge and a lot of dedication to do as much research on this topic as you clearly have. You are right that more homework would add to the quality of these threads, but I, like so many responders, hold emotion-tinged views on the issues discussed. Arming myself with more information and a little less of the emotion would make for more productive contributions on my part.
Please keep up the good work.
Dear Bob, Eric ,Geoff and readers,
Bob has provided an excellent synopsis of the current legislation that is addressing science funding - and he has noted the absolute absence of any linking of PhD overproduction to this issue. Bob wonders:
"Currently, the average working scientist, postdoc, or graduate student has had basically no say in the formation of these bills. The question is, can we change this and have input? "
My experience is limited in this area. I was very active in this topic in the early 1990s when the last job drought occurred (in the Physical Sciences back then). We organized a group of about 15 like-minded young scientists and we did several things:
1. We contacted similarly-minded young scientists currently working as Hill staffers - most through the AAAS Congressional Science Fellowships. They helped us understand who to write letters to. Surprisingly, the number of letters was not large - they were sent to specific Congresspeople in specific committees - and the letters outlined the specific problem with PhD overproduction, the ramifications for US science and competitiveness, and (most importantly) we outlined several specific and actionable things that could be done to address the issue. The letters were 1.5 pages, and signed by all of us.
2. We wrote several editorials for rags such as Science, Nature, The Scientist etc. in which we reiterated the points in our letter. Many of these were published.
3. One of the Hill staffers we contacted eventually had her Congressman/boss sponsor a hearing on science training and PhD production. Eventually, this Congressman sponsored a bill and presented it in Congress.
By the time #3 happened the job situation was clearing up - the drought gave way to new interest in non-traditional paths such as the exciting dot-com bloom. At one point in 1999 there began to be some hand-wringing among some science policy folks about how the dot-com rush was sucking away so many qualified PhDs from research.
Bob - it is possible for a relatively small number of like-minded and organized individuals to have a surprising influence on a subject of current public policy. But the first step is coalescing around a specific set of recommendations. Letters of complaint don't go very far - letters that specify rational, modest and attainable changes tend to get the most traction.
I will also say that it is time for the next generation to step up here: it is their careers that are on the anvil right now. My only policy suggestion in all this is that any attempt to manipulate PhD production explicitly is likely to be hard to enact/enforce. Gallagher's editorial notes the problem is one of training: we are not producing too many PhDs - we are producing too many scientists (scientists = people trained only to do basic research in academia).
P.
The Gathering Storm report by the NAS is largely a scientist and engineer (S&E) "shortage" report, though they are careful to never use such words. Over the last five years, there have been several such shortage reports, in particular one by the NSF's National Science Board (NSB) 4 years ago. I wrote about such shortage reports over 3 years ago, and maintained them on this website:
Debunking workforce shortage predictions: A promising new "alternative career" 09/01/03
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze2sk2i/spn/spn1to12/spn12debunknsbreport.html
High-tech Layoffs: The Other Quiet Crisis
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze2sk2i/spn/spn1to12/spn11quietcrisis.html
Here are some of the other notes I put together, though for logistical reasons I did not continue to write such newsletters:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze2sk2i/spn/index.htm
I am coming out of retirement though and could fire up the email distribution list again, though I know I will get many email returns as people have moved on and changed email addresses.
Some of the above newsletters have some of the background information that Congress needs to hear more about. I will try and draft a letter in the next couple of days.
I think we will need to involve more people, seems as though there is really only a handful of active participants on this website.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning the question of lobbying Congress:
For excellent coverage of what a few people can do, please see Chapters 8 and 9 of this book:
Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion
Daniel S. Greenberg
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226306348/ref%3Dase%5Fphdsorgsciencm
There is a paperback version for $15 that is well worth the cost.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is this event coming up:
Twelfth Annual
Science-Engineering-Technology
Congressional Visits Day
May 1 & 2, 2007
http://www.agiweb.org/gap/cvd/cvd2007/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please study this set of links to find out how the professional science societies organize their membership to write letters for more science funding:
http://www.aip.org/gov/
Write Congress
http://www.congressweb.com/cweb4/index.cfm?orgcode=APSPA
Communicating with Congress
http://www.aip.org/gov/commcong.html
Check out this link, for what the professional societies are telling Congress:
http://www.aps.org/policy/tools/grassroots/upload/Grassroots_Resources_2006_AdvocacyLeaveBehind.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That should get some things started.
Bob
Hi Peter,
I like the idea of 1 to 1.5 page letters. What if an organization like the NPA endorsed one, and asked all interested postdocs to print out a pdf, sign it, and mail it themselves? Volume could be a good thing. Most of the lawmakers and their staffers aren't going to want extensive detail...just bullet points. I don't think targeting science-oriented journals is useful, other than to spread information about any kind of campaign. Target broad-readership publications like Newsweek, USAToday, etc..
I'm just a visitor reading this as it relates to the passages of Senate Bill S.761.
For those of you interested in keeping the H1B Visa Cap at 65,000 or less,
I encourage you to join us at http://www.ProgrammersGuild.Com
We have a yahoo group and share information on legislative issues
Although most of us there are Software Engineers, I don't think that is a hard requirement to join.
Hi Colleen,
Thanks for the comment.
Note, the correct suffix for the Programmers Guild website is "dot org" not "dot com".
Here is the active link one can just click on [just enclose link with these brackets < > in the comment window:
Why haven't there been any updates on this website since Fall of 2006?
Bob
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another useful link and organization concerning high-tech immigration is the IEEE-USA:
See:
At:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the correction. Here is my normal rant...
The primary objective of my feedback here is the importance for the focus regarding the H1B Guest Worker Visa program to be on ensuring severe limitations on the H1B Visa Cap… currently 65,000 per year and preferrably decreasing the Cap by 10,000 per year in the coming years until the cap of 0, ZERO is achieved.
ADVERSE AFFECTS OF H1B VISAs:
Please be aware that the H-1B Visa program has adversely affected hundreds of thousands of American Technology Workers who have been repeatedly denied and deprived Equal Employment Opportunities.
Read the Wirtz Report http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/E6-13138.htm
which recognizes the high rates of unemployment among older workers in the USA.
To deny employment to qualified American Workers and hire less qualified H1B Visa workers is discrimination based on National Origin and also age if the American Worker is over 40.
Civil Rights Complaints for Failure to Hire based on Age and National Origin
may be filed at state level…
* Departments of Human Rights, example: http://www.state.il.us/dhr or
* The Federal EEOC http://www.eeoc.gov or
* The Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc
The Civil Right Act of 1964, page 2, prohibits hiring based on National Origin yet there are many examples of this in the IT Industry.
It is also discrimination when job advertisements recruit for H-1B or
Green Card Citizenship status or based on National Origin and violators
Shall be reported to the DOJ-OSC http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/pdf/engfrm.pdf .
Technology companies (nor their staffing companies) advertise jobs to the available local talent pool of candidates. Just look in the news paper section under engineering … hardly anything there.
Go online to CareerBuilder or Monster and search for a Software Engineering or Electrical Engineering position. Tell me… what do you see?
What you see is third party firms advertising 3 month contract jobs…
Attempting to turn the American Workers into temporary workers.
This technique is well known for its intent and purpose…
to discriminate and deny and deprive Equal Employment Opportunities
to qualified local candidates.
To learn more, read the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/29cfr1625_06.html
For more information, see…
http://www.aea.org
http://www.competeamerica.us
http://www.toraw.org
http://www.h1b.info
http://www.techsunite.org
http://www.programmersguild.org
http://www.zazona.com
http://www.outsourcecongress.org/pictures/video
THE H1B GUEST WORKER PROGRAM:
Monitoring and enforcement have failed.
Things are so bad at USCIS, Citizenship and Immigration Services,
has demonstrated itself as not even having the capability to count how many
visas are granted… and granted 20,000 visas above and beyond what the law specified. The H1B Visa Guest Worker Program has, in many ways, proved itself to be untrustworthy.
Expending citizen tax dollars enforcement & monitoring has proved itself to perform poorly.
Even as the US entered recession in year 2000, Congress was asleep at the wheel and left the cap at 195,000 per year for years to come. This is totally unacceptable.
I can also assure you that the H1B visa program has nothing to do with skills.
A recent Duke University study, http://www.issues.org/23.3/wadhwa.html , indicates...
* In an analysis of salary and employment data,
we did not find any indication of a shortage of engineers in the United States.
* Nearly one-half of the respondents had acceptance rates of 60% or higher. Twenty-one percent reported acceptance rates of 80 to 100%, and 26% of respondents reported 60 to 79% acceptance rates. 88% of respondents to our survey did not offer signing bonuses to potential engineering employees.
* U.S. corporations engaged in outsourcing engineering jobs said they did not mandate
that job candidates possess a four-year engineering degree.
* Forty percent hired engineers with two- or three-year degrees, and an additional 17% said they would hire similar applicants if they had additional training or experience.
* Quality of Chinese Degrees: Some MoE information is available online, but detailed data, including the production of engineering masters and PhD graduates, are published only in the ministry’s Educational Statistical Yearbooks.
These yearbooks generally are not permitted to leave China. In addition, the data are presented a year at a time and, in some cases, are available only in Chinese.
* In Beijing, with the help of local students, we combed government libraries and bookstores, searching for these publications.
* Quality of Indian Degrees: An added complication with Indian masters
degree data is that students can pursue two different masters degrees
within engineering, but graduates are often counted together.
The first is a traditional technical masters degree in engineering,
computer science, or information technology.
These degrees, which require two years of study, are similar in
structure to masters degree offerings in the United States and China.
The second is a masters of computer application (MCA) degree,
a three-year degree that offers a foundation in computer science to
individuals who previously had received a bachelors degree in a
different field. Most MCA recipients receive an education equivalent
to a bachelors degree in computer science.
* Also, we obtained anecdotal evidence from business executives doing business in India and China that indicated that those were the countries with shortages.
Colleen