On March 16, the House Science and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Science Education held a hearing, “Broadening Participation in STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] Education.”
“Science and engineering have become steadily more important not only in our daily lives, but also to the economic strength and competitiveness of the United States,” said Vice-Chair Marcia Fudge (D-OH). We have heard many times that we, as a nation, need to produce more scientists and engineers, as well as a more STEM-literate workforce to fill a growing number of technical jobs. But we will find it much more difficult to develop the well-trained STEM workforce we need if we continue to overlook significant portions of the talent pool. We need to do a better job of developing ALL of the STEM talent the nation has to offer, especially because changing demographics mean that by 2050, 55 percent of the college population will be from groups that are currently minorities.”
Ranking Member Vern Ehlers (R-MI) said, “While we have had success with some of the federal programs targeted at attracting and retaining these students in STEM, the overall numbers are still discouraging. Strengthening STEM education is essential to the future of American economic competitiveness, and the lack of underrepresented minority participation in these areas is a great hindrance that must be remedied. The National Science Foundation has requested almost $800 million in FY2011 for programs with a specific focus or an emphasis on broadening the participation of underrepresented groups in STEM education and research. I am curious to learn how program successes can be leveraged, and what changes are needed for us to consider.”
Dr. Shirley Malcolm, head of Education and Human Resources Programs at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, urged continued support for programs at the National Science Foundation (NSF) designed to increase STEM participation among underrepresented groups and addressed the issue of women in STEM-related fields at the graduate level, saying, “Attending to the issue of PhD degree production for women and underrepresented minorities depends, of course, on the adequacy in numbers and preparation of the bachelor’s degree production process, as well as the efforts that are made to attract, retain, mentor, and support STEM students in graduate education. While the progress in this arena has been slower than we have wished it is important to note the successes that have emerged due, in part, to a number of NSF-funded programs.” Dr. Malcolm continued, “Women’s presence within the doctoral population is more significant, though this differs greatly by field. In 2007, women received over 50 percent of doctorates in all fields and over 40 percent of STEM doctorates. Women were 49 percent of biological sciences doctorates and almost 73 percent of psychology doctorates. But they were only 20.9 percent of engineering doctorates and 20.5 percent of computer science doctorates. Compared with participation levels in 1998, there have been gains in all fields surveyed. Women have received a significant proportion of STEM doctorates for well over a decade. Yet they are not appearing among the STEM faculty, especially among leading research institutions, at proportions that should reasonably be expected given their presence in the available pool of candidates; nor are they being retained and advanced in the ranks. Another NSF-funded program has taken on the challenge of addressing these issues. ADVANCE has focused on the institution-specific challenges of understanding and affecting the policies and processes that govern identifying, recruiting, hiring, and promoting faculty as well as the system impediments that often lead to the loss of talented women faculty. These would include issues, such as: parental leave and ‘stop the clock’ policies; spousal/partner hires; transparency of the requirements for promotion and tenure and so on. Many of the obstacles relate to the desire for women (and men) to be able to integrate the personal/family and career aspects of their lives.”
She added, “Recent Nobel Laureates Elizabeth Blackburn and Carol Greider addressed these issues directly in interviews after the announcement of their award as they talked about the need for institutions to reconsider the male models upon which the job expectations of STEM faculty are based; e.g., to consider part-time (as well as part-time tenure track) and other more flexible arrangements. This is not an issue of being able or “good enough” to do the science. And separating the aspects of careers that are necessary and those that are simply ‘tradition’ has been a critical component of department and institutional reviews and responses. Often included in this work have been studies of the ‘climate’ and attitudes that surround the departments and decision making regarding hiring and promotion. While every ADVANCE grant has been differently focused to respond to the particulars of each institution, the focus of all has included research and evidence-based models that can then inform programs and practices.”
Dr. Alicia Dowd, associate professor and co-director of the Center for Urban Education at the University of Southern California; Dr. Keivan Stassun, co-director of the Fisk-Vanderbilt Master’s-to-PhD Bridge Program; Dr. David Yarlott, chair of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium Board of Directors and president of Little Big Horn College; and Elaine Craft, director of the South Carolina Advanced Technological Education Center of Excellence, also testified.
