Strengthening Undergraduate and Graduate STEM Education
Opening Statement By Chairman Daniel Lipinski
Good morning and welcome to this Research and Science Education Subcommittee hearing on undergraduate and graduate education in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (or STEM) fields.
Our global competitors have started to realize the economic advantages of investing in innovation. In their 2010 Science and Engineering Indicators report, the National Science Board found that Asian countries are continuing to increase their R&D investments at a much higher rate than we are in the U.S., and that it won’t be long before they catch up in total expenditures. Last November, Thomson Reuters analyzed 30 years worth of data from over 10,000 scientific journals, and reported that China could surpass the United States as the world’s largest producer of scientific knowledge by 2020. They have already surpassed the rest of the world, and are especially good in chemistry and materials science --- two fields that are vital for manufacturing.
In 2007 the Science and Technology Committee passed the America COMPETES Act to address concerns that the United States was losing its global leadership position in research, development and innovation. One key element of the COMPETES Act, and indeed the foundation of any competitiveness agenda, is ensuring that we give all of our students the chance to get a high quality STEM education. In 2007, we focused largely on supporting education at the K-12 level by making sure we have highly qualified STEM teachers in every school. This year’s reauthorization of the COMPETES Act provides us with the opportunity to take a comprehensive look at undergraduate and graduate STEM education programs and their performance.
Given all of the talk about problems in STEM education at the K-12 level, you may be surprised to hear that a full one third of freshmen entering our Nation’s universities intend to major in a science or engineering discipline. But in some critical fields like engineering, where we face an oncoming “gray tsunami” of retirements, there is significant attrition. It’s very easy for engineers to leave their programs, for instance to become social scientists, but it’s much more difficult for students to transfer into engineering without having spent their freshman year meeting prerequisites in math, physics, and chemistry. In fact, only 7% of engineering graduates did not start out in those fields. But the numbers only tell part of the story. There are concerns that the traditional way of teaching science and engineering doesn’t reflect what research tells us about how students really learn.
I was an engineering student once myself, and can relate to some of the concerns that we have heard about what is happening in the STEM fields at our colleges and universities. I also know that some of these problems are not new. When I was at Northwestern 20 years ago, I began with many more people in my engineering classes than ended up graduating with a mechanical engineering degree.
I am particularly interested in learning what the 21st century undergraduate science and engineering classrooms should look like and whether our professors are actually imparting the kind of skills that STEM graduates need to be successful in the workforce. At the graduate level, I want to examine how we are preparing future faculty to become good teachers, to hear suggestions on how we can improve the teaching of pedagogical skills, and to hear whether we are giving students who pursue nonacademic career paths the skills they need to be successful. I am also interested in the balance between disciplinary and interdisciplinary education at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. And finally, because we are working on the NSF reauthorization, I am particularly interested in hearing recommendations about the role that the NSF can play in instigating and supporting reform efforts in higher education, including through research.
Just last week in the State of the Union address, the President spoke about the need to encourage American innovation. I couldn’t agree more, and I also agree with the President that one of the most effective ways to support innovation is to improve and invest in STEM education. This investment will allow the scientists, engineers and innovators of the future to build the infrastructure we need, to invent new technologies and products, to create good-paying jobs, and to keep the U.S. economy growing.
Witnesses
Panel
0 - Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy
Acting Assistant Director Directorate for Education and Human Resources National Science Foundation Directorate for Education and Human Resources National Scien
Download the Witness Testimony
0 - Dr. Noah Finkelstein
Associate Professor of Physics Education Research University of Colorado, Boulder University of Colorado, Boulder
Download the Witness Testimony
0 - Dr. Karen Klomparens
Associate Provost and Dean for Graduate Education Michigan State University Michigan State University
Download the Witness Testimony
0 - Dr. Robert Mathieu
Director and Principle Investigator Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning (CIRTL) Professor of Astronomy Center for the Integration of R
Download the Witness Testimony
0 - Mr. Rick Stephens
Senior Vice President Human Resources and Administration The Boeing Company Human Resources and Administration The Boeing Company
Download the Witness Testimony