On whether America’s obsession with STEM is dangerous

A couple of weeks ago I was sent Fareed Zakaria’s article “Why America’s obsession with STEM education is dangerous” (March, Washington Post). The article looked like a counter to the endless commentary on the need to increase the technical skills of students. This movement is largely USA driven but also reaches Europe, Australia and a bunch of what I would generalise as ‘Western education systems’.

The gist of the article is that a hardcore drive towards technical skills (i.e. the learn to code movement), at the expense of liberal arts education, would erode the very elements that made the USA a success – creativity, innovation and problem solving. Zakaria points to the USA’s low global rankings in maths and science but, instead of seeing that as an issue, says that it has always been this way and the USA has been successful regardless.

Personally I believe this is a misguided, clickbait-y, point of view. I have never heard anyone say that liberal arts degrees, and diverse interests, are not valuable. The line is always that technology is a tool to deliver your ideas. These ideas come through big thinking, innovation, creativity etc. It’s not that coding advocates want to do away with liberal arts degrees – its more that our students are coming through the elementary school system without even a basic exposure to tools that will benefit them immensely during their lives (and careers).

The article suggests that revised curriculums have a “narrow” STEM focus. I disagree with this as well. The revised curriculum in Australia proposes a strong focus on problem solving and logical thinking. It does this in the form of computational thinking  – and backs it up by exposing students to the programming and coding skills needed to deliver this creative thinking. There is a large gap between our generations comfort with technology and our ability to make things with it. This gap between confidence and competence is what we are working to reduce – hopefully creating a generation of students that are flexible thinkers, capable of finding jobs that deliver on their passions. In the 21st century its the students with the best skills set that will have the greatest chance of making the impact they want to see.

The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage – part 3

Article: The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage (Michael S Teitelbaum, The Atlantic, March 2014)

Michael Teitelbaum, and his book Falling Behind?: Boom, Bust, and the Global Race for Scientific Talent (pub March 2014), is the genesis of a number of recent articles questioning the ongoing race to increase the number of STEM graduates in the USA (and most countries in the world).

Teitelbaum believes these cries have ‘misallocated public and private resources by periodically expanding higher education in science and engineering beyond levels for which there were attractive carer opportunities’. His research claims we have been through five 10-15 year alarm/boom/bust cycles to date – the first three related to the Cold War need to better the Eastern Bloc, the last two related to globalisation and the rise of India/China. It is possible we would have hit a sixth cycle around 2007 but the global recession disrupted that.

This is the third article I have reviewed on this matter and the argument is becoming very familiar (ironic given this article starts out reminding us that STEM crisis alarmists are operating in an echo chamber). It goes some like like: a) if skills are in high demand then salaries would increase, b) there are currently 100-200% more students graduating in STEM majors than there are jobs, c) IT unemployment sits around 11.7% and d) amongst college educated information technology workers under 30, temporary workers from abroad comprise the large majority.

This line of thinking suggests that shortages are related to particular geographies (such as Silicon Valley or major regional hubs) or niche skills sets (such as social media, security, big data etc). Teitelbaum reminds us that college graduates employed in science and engineering occupations actually comprise only a small fraction of the national workforce (I think its about 5-6% in IT). The article points out that IT careers are unstable, have slow-growing wages and there is a high risk of jobs moving offshore. Doesn’t sound that rosy does it?

One thing that the articles do agree on is that the average performance of American K-12 students is fairly ordinary in international STEM testing. This article then counters that by saying the US is measuring a large volume of both very high and very low students so there is still sufficient numbers of students being produced (approx 33% of the world’s leading scientists come from the US). Tietelbaum recognises that

“science and engineering occupations are at the leading edge of economic competitiveness in an increasingly globalised world, and science and entering workforces of sufficient size and quality are essential for any 21st century economy to prosper.”

His main gripe is that there is no data to back up claims of a nationwide crisis in STEM and that this crisis truism is misallocating public funding and attention.

 

My thoughts:

At this stage I believe I am reading variations on the same article. Despite this I am still looking for answers on why large numbers of mid career IT workers are unemployed. Also, if economic data on graduate unemployment is demonstrating there is no STEM crisis then perhaps its time to turn out attention to STEM related K-12 performance. In short – I see true value in broadening students understanding of computational thinking, programming, logic and other STEM related fields at a young age however I do not expect this to translate directly into the number of Australian’s employed in STEM fields (as defined by government statistics). I’m still operating on the belief that we need to prepare a future generation for jobs that don’t exist yet – and that giving them a broad based education is the best way to do this.

The STEM Crisis is a Myth – part 2

Article: The STEM Crisis: Myth or Reality? (Michael Anf, Chronicle of Higher Education, November 2013)

I thought I’d continue my review of the STEM crisis counter argument. Today I’m looking at Michael Anf’s 2013 article published in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

The strongest point of Anf’s anti-‘STEM crisis’ claim is the idea that if skills were in short supply then wages would increase as employers fought for the best and the brightest. The main source of this line of thinking is Michael S Teitelbaum, a reseacher and frequent writer on this subject. [nb. Teitelbaum was also referenced in the IEEE Spectrum article I reviewed earlier this week.] Anf’s own counter to this argument is that the globalised nature of tech work and its ability to place work in the area that offers the best skills/wages is what’s keeping USA STEM wages stable/low. This creates a circular logic that suggests that this model of globalised skills sourcing is a good thing while at the same time companies are struggling to reach new markets because of the lack of domestically skilled (and client facing) engineers and analysts.

That’s roughly the extent of Anf’s arguments suggesting there is no STEM crisis. There are other interesting points raised in the article but they mainly question whether the attention being paid to this issue is the result of successful lobbying of government by universities and tech companies in order to secure funding for STEM education support programs. I don’t necessarily believe that an issue is not valid just because someone is effective at raising attention to their cause. Sometimes those people are the most informed – other times they are acting in their own self interest.

Anf’s other points:

• Tech as entrepreneurship: Anf suggests the STEM crisis narrative is being supported, and acted upon, because technology and engineering are the means by which people ‘make and do’ things in the 21st century. These are essential foundation skills for entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs are the great white hope of countries responding to stagnant jobs growth (caused by globalised economies and the decline of domestic manufacturing and primary resources markets). I’ll support that argument. However Anf draws a distinction between the future earning potential of an Information Technology worker and other STEM disciplines such as those that are biologists, chemists, electrical engineers, manufacturing workers, mechanical engineers, or physicists. Maybe tech workers have more flexibility than chemists?
• False motives: the article also suggests that major tech companies benefit from an increase in STEM workers (and I’m defaulting to my particular interest in IT programmers). Anti-‘STEM Crisis’ proponents argue that the increased numbers of workers keep wages low. Tech companies can continue to pick the best and the brightest without the ongoing responsibility of training older workers as they move out of flavour. This is important as tech moves fast. “Norman S. Matloff, a professor of computer science at the University of California, has investigated how IT employers benefit by raising the numbers of lower-paid foreign STEM laborers and by sending offshore the engineering and STEM manufacturing jobs of mostly older American workers.” (Anf, 2013). That could be interesting to follow-up on however I don’t believe it negates the overall narrative that says our world needs more people in the STEM space.
• STEM workers change careers: About half the USA’s STEM university graduates have left STEM related jobs within ten years of graduating. Anf takes this to mean that people don’t like their jobs. I take it to mean that STEM skills are relevant in other areas of the economy. This could be a case of statistics getting in the way of a good story. We have previously seen challenges in measuring STEM workers (ie is an accountant at a tech firm a STEM employee? – government says yes). I’m not sure how these statistics would measure data scientists working at a financial institution or security experts working for an infrastructure firm. I don’t believe this career movement is related to an oversupply of educated STEM workers – I see it as someone using their skills in new fields.
• International Workers: Up until now the USA has been able to rely on the brightest minds emigrating to the USA for a better quality of life and more interesting jobs. Irma Becerra-Fernandez, vice president for engagement at Florida International University, believes that idea will change as other countries have rapidly improved their own standards of living and have caught up to the US in other areas of technical expertise. I’d argue that the US is still a very attractive place to work however perhaps that is fading.
• Recruiting mismatches: the article says that the skills shortages are real. Quote: “The problem is that employers and would-be workers don’t always match up well, whether because of geography or a worker’s level of specific skills, or because companies—merged, downsized, or otherwise hunkered down during the recession—aren’t reaching out to college grads and others effectively enough.” (Anf 2013).

My Conclusion:

The main point I pull from Anf’s article is that we should not panic over the shortage of workers. He, among others, reminds us that STEM crisis statistics are being generated by tech companies and universities with a vested interest in directing funding towards the number of skilled workers in that area. While people generally agree that students with a solid grounding in STEM have more life options – no-one has given me a satisfactory response to the question of what is happening to the previous generation of skilled IT workers – the ones who are losing their jobs to overseas competition (with lower wages).

Throughout this discussion we’re still falling back on the idea that we are future proofing a generation – we don’t know what jobs will be created in the coming 20 years, however we have a strong belief that they will involve technology – whether its making the tech yourself or needing to work with the people that the tech.

This closing quote comes from David Hart, director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy, at George Mason University

“…Combining STEM knowledge with humanities knowledge would be ideal. If you can train an engineer to solve problems and operate in a complicated environment, you’ve done something important.”

The STEM Crisis is a Myth

Article: The Stem Crisis is a Myth: An Ongoing Discussion by Robert N. Charette (IEEE Spectrum, August 2013)

I read a lot of articles on the magic of technology. Reading them creates a euphoric sense that ‘now’ is the time to be alive. The internet is coming into its own and smart phones are knocking down doors left, right and centre. Any day now a wave of entrepreneurs will rise up, create jobs for the nation and solve most all of our problems. I’m sold, I am pro-tech.

However there has always been a lingering doubt. Its not uncommon that I’ll meet a mid 40s ex-software engineer that is now long term unemployed. Where did all the jobs go? Comments sections on STEM articles are a great place to look. The same themes emerge:

1. there are no jobs in tech,
2. skilled migrants and easy visas are keeping wages low and preventing locals getting jobs,
3. there are no entry level jobs because it is too expensive to hire local graduates,
4. graduates can’t get jobs because they don’t have enough industry experience,
5. industry doesn’t believe universities are training the right kind of graduates (and therefore they must import skilled labour),
6. a person might have been in tech for 20 years but was looked over for a position because their qualifications did not exactly match the job description
7. companies were unwilling to invest in maintaining the skills of its employees – preferring to hire new people in contract roles at a cheaper price

The flip side of this is the narrative I painted above – that tech is our future and that a basic understanding of computer science will put you in good stead when it comes to stable employment.

This article, The STEM Crisis is a Myth, takes direct aim at the idea of a ‘STEM crisis’. The article first points out the challenges of defining STEM careers. Is it all people working for STEM companies (including management and cleaners) or is it people with STEM tertiary degrees (which might not include entrepreneurs or self taught). Charette’s argument is that if STEM jobs were in such high demand then:

• wages would rise for software developers (which he says they haven’t),
• there would be no need for increased skilled tech immigration visas (which has happened), and
• tertiary educated STEM students would remain in STEM careers (which 20% are not after two years, rising to 58% after ten years).

The article’s conclusion is that countries in ‘crisis’ are not short on (loosely defined) STEM workers – they are short on students literate in a solid grounding of science, maths and engineering (which I presume includes computer science). It says that the constant obsession with STEM shortages is causing a boom-bust educational cycle/focus that is disrupting what should be an essential part of every child’s education. The point of the argument is clarify the ‘crisis’ element. This panic is distorting the ‘reality’ of the tech jobs market – during boom cycles it creates false promises of endless jobs once you graduate  followed by periods where employers have no access to skilled labour once the tide of enthusiasm recedes in a bust period.

I actually find the article’s conclusion a little weak. After spending over 3700 words debunking the STEM crisis it sounds as though the author ends up arguing in favour of an increased focus on STEM subjects for children. Charette then concludes by tamely asking that “instead of continuing our current global obsession with STEM shortages, industry and government should focus on creating more STEM jobs that are enduring and satisfying as well”. That can also read as: make better jobs that are more engaging – not quite the punchy ending I was hoping for.

So I still don’t have an answer – I think I’ll settle for my existing: instilling children with competencies in STEM subjects (and logic) improves their resilience for future career prospects as the economy transitions into an unknown networked/globalised 21st century.