The legislative impact of Romer's work.

Geoff,

OK, so ignoring the fact that Romer's work is fundamentally flawed, and I know you don't agree with everything in it, here is some more background info. I remembered his idea was discussed in a Science Magazine article over five years ago. See the 2001 article in Science below, 3rd paragraph down. You may be correct that Paul Romer's NBER working paper has had some influence on legislation proposing to subsidizing undergraduate S&E production as ultimately advocated by the "Gathering Storm" report:

"His (Romer's) ideas have formed the basis for new legislation, the Technology Talent Bill (S. 1549 and H.R. 3130), that would create a competitive grants program at the National Science Foundation (NSF) for universities that promise to boost the number of undergraduates majoring in science, mathematics, and engineering."

Can you link this Science article with Phds.org ?

Bob

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/294/5551/2466

Science 21 December 2001:

Vol. 294. no. 5551, pp. 2466 - 2467

News Focus UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION:

Can Universities Be Bribed to Train More Scientists?

Jeffrey Mervis

Economist Paul Romer has persuaded Congress to test his theory of why too few U.S. students major in science and engineering. But is money the real roadblock?

Stanford University economist Paul Romer readily accepts the conventional wisdom that the United States isn't producing enough scientists and engineers to ensure a healthy economy. But his explanation of who's to blame, and how to fix the problem, is anything but conventional. Romer argues that U.S. universities deliberately underproduce science and engineering graduates because they are so expensive to train. The traditional weeding-out process is simply a smokescreen for holding down costs, he says. His solution: Pay the universities to turn out more scientists and engineers. "Most schools will do the right thing if you make it worth their while," asserts Romer, who has spent 15 years analyzing the factors behind long-term economic growth.

His fresh insights into what has traditionally been seen as an intractable problem have made Romer the darling of politicians and business leaders who believe that the federal government should be playing a bigger role in training the next generation of scientific talent. His ideas have formed the basis for new legislation, the Technology Talent Bill (S. 1549 and H.R. 3130), that would create a competitive grants program at the National Science Foundation (NSF) for universities that promise to boost the number of undergraduates majoring in science, mathematics, and engineering. The concept is so appealing politically that last month Congress gave NSF $5 million to start a pilot project to test Romer's thesis even before it took up the authorizing legislation (Science, 16 November, p. 1430).

Most educators agree that the country needs more scientists--and are delighted that Congress is willing to tackle the problem. But the vast majority take strong exception to Romer's analysis. They say it ignores a vast body of literature on why students avoid or drop out of the sciences, from the field's unappealing image to high family expectations, that have nothing to do with an institution's unwillingness to pay the bill. Romer's explanation fails to account for the steady growth in the life sciences, they note, as well as the realities of higher education, where departments compete for students and universities flaunt their scientific prowess.

See link above for the rest of the article.