Search News


Browse Archives

News

U.S. Science is Lagging Internationally -- But How, Exactly?

January 15, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

They are among the numbers regularly cited to show the decline of American higher education and, by extension, the country's ability to innovate and compete internationally: the United States' slipping ranking among industrialized countries in the production of scientists and engineers. Depending on who is wielding the statistics and for what purpose, they are used to show that other countries are paying more attention to science and engineering than the U.S.; that the federal government should pour more money into research, development and education in those fields; or both.

But a new report from the National Science Foundation suggests that the numbers may mean something else entirely. The report does find that, in a marked change from 30 years earlier, most of the 23 developed countries had, by 2005, surpassed the United States in the ratio of degrees in the natural sciences and engineering awarded to the population of 20- to 24-year-olds. But that fact is attributable, the report found, more to growth in the number of university graduates the other countries produced than it is to their increased emphasis on science and engineering.

That may suggest another set of concerns about the U.S. education system -- as some critics see it, a lack of expansion of the country's capacity to educate its citizens -- but it challenges the perception that other countries have left the U.S. in the dust in the attention paid to science and technology.

"We wanted to address the question, 'Is it that other countries are emphasizing science and engineering, and we're not? Or is it something else?' " said Joan Burelli, the NSF analyst who co-wrote the report with Alan Rapoport, a recently retired colleague. "Alan was really curious."

The raw numbers -- which the researchers note they present cautiously, given wide variation in how and to whom the countries report their data -- invite the conclusion that the U.S. is lagging in producing graduates in the fields examined -- agricultural, biological, earth, atmospheric and ocean, physical and mathematical sciences, in addition to engineering. In 1975, only Japan had a higher ratio of natural science and engineering degrees compared to its population; by 2005, the U.S. trailed most of its peer countries, as seen in the table below: ( Note: The data in the table below have been corrected from an earlier version of the article.)

First University Degrees as Ratio of Population of 20- to 24-Year-Olds

  1975   2005
Country/
economy
Population,
20- to 24-Year-
Olds
(hundreds)
Natural Science and Engineering Degrees Awarded Ratio, Science Degrees to Population Population,
20- to 24-Year-
Olds (hundreds)
Natural Science and Engineering Degrees Awarded Ratio of Science Degrees to Population
Austria 5,160 726 0.14% 5,180 6,065 1.17%
Belgium 7,390 1,592 0.22% 6,330 6,533 1.03%
China 907,080 n/a n/a 1,008,930 715,720 0.71%
Denmark 3,750 1,550 0.41% 2,880 5,217 1.81%
Finland 4,210 2,656 0.63% 3,340 11,761 3.52%
France 42,470 16,702 0.39% 38,910 73,435 1.89%
Germany 55,500 31,056 0.56% 49,020 66,342 1.35%
Greece 6,390 2,808 0.44% 7,470 9,698 1.30%
India 566,790 117,718 0.21% 1,046,120 n/a n/a
Ireland 2,440 1,008 0.41% 3,410 4,839 1.42%
Italy 38,180 17,864 0.47% 31,160 73,265 2.35%
Japan 91,550 85,496 0.93% 75,420 133,206 1.77%
Netherlands 11,310 3,586 0.32% 9,610 15,070 1.57%
Norway 3,020 946 0.31% 2,740 3,559 1.30%
Portugal 7,350 n/a n/a 7,270 13,811 1.90%
Singapore 2,500 702 0.28% 2,650 5,556 2.10%
South Korea 30,880 13,063 0.42% 37,310 103,790 2.78%
Spain 25,590 9,171 0.36% 29,350 51,579 1.76%
Sweden 5,650 2,630 0.47% 5,270 12,630 2.40%
Switzerland 4,620 1,438 0.31% 4,480 5,338 1.19%
Taiwan 17,568 9,253 0.53% 18,645 78,131 4.19%
United Kingdom 38,810 22,650 0.58% 38,710 76,160 1.97%
United States 197,430 150,408 0.76% 210,410 235,619 1.12%

But not so fast.

The NSF researchers sought to examine what accounted for the changing ratios over time. Did they represent a change in the number of first university degrees, or a change in the share of overall degrees that were awarded in the natural sciences and engineering, or from the interaction between the two?

Using a set of mathematical formulas, they tried to gauge the extent to which the total change over time in the ratio of science degrees compared to the age cohort was attributable to overall growth in the completion of all university degrees or to the share of all degrees that are awarded in the natural sciences and engineering -- or to some combination of the two.

For the mathematically inclined among you, the table of their data can be found here. But to sum up their findings, they concluded that in the period from 1975 to 1990, 9 of the 21 countries for which data were available saw increases solely because of increases in the number of university degrees awarded, while in 11 cases, the two factors combined to create the change. (India was the lone country in which growth in the share of science degrees alone drove the change in ratio.)

From 1990 to 2005, 19 of 21 countries had higher population ratios of first university degrees in science and engineering than did the United States (China and Belgium were the exceptions). Of those 19, the change in 10 could be attributed solely to growth in the overall completion of university degrees. In the other nine, the university degree component was larger than the "science share component," but in six of those, the latter was a "substantial" factor.

"The primary explanation for the increase in the ratio of first university [natural science and engineering] degrees to the college-age population in most of the countries/economies examined was increased university degree completion relative to the college-age population," the researchers conclude. "Thus, the growth from 1975 to 2005 in the number of countries surpassing the United States in the ratio of NS&E degrees to the college-age population can be attributed primarily to increased university degree completion rather than to an increased emphasis on NS&E education."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on U.S. Science is Lagging Internationally -- But How, Exactly?

  • e? ... mc? ... What's that about?
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on January 15, 2009 at 4:45pm EST
  • A little more than a year ago I wrote a long letter to friends, describing the Large Hadron Collider (in a 17-mile-circumference circular tunnel beneath the Franco-Swiss border) and suggesting just a few of the exciting things “we” might learn there ...

    http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/08/the_large_hadron_collider.html

    Appended to my letter was the following post script ...

    P.S. You may recall the U.S. Super Conducting Super Collider project of more than two decades ago (late 80s - early 90s). Texas beat out two other states for the site (near Dallas). Initially forecast to be a $4 billion project, the cost estimates quickly escalated to over $10 billion. Even from the outset, the 56-mile circular circumference was criticized, with many arguing that a straight-line accelerator would be more efficient.

    http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/toback/press/Chronicle_2008_05.pdf

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider

    In 1993, Bill Clinton came to office facing huge deficits from the supply-side economics of the Reagan era and the second Gulf War of George H.W. Bush. He and Congress looked for “easy” budget cuts and, among other things, axed the SSC.

    It is worth noting, I think, that the cost of that project may have reached $16 billion by the time it was completed (after all it was located in Texas and Halliburton would probably have “won” more than a few of the development and construction contracts). At roughly the same time, the U.S. (Hawaii) was losing the two latest and largest, state-of-the-art observatories to Chili because of American taxpayer “frugality” and our collective lack of enthusiasm for science.

    I’m mentioning those facts, because the Waxahachie, Texas Super Conducting Super Collider and the world’s largest telescopes, taken together, could have been built for the cost of three months of our war against the people of Iraq, not to mention a tiny fraction of the cost of the scientifically questionable projects of sending astronauts back to the Moon and putting a man on Mars. Damn, you’ve got to admit that we Yanks have got our priorities straight!

    Now check out ...

    the Very Large Telescope at Paranal, Chile (not on Mauna Kea, Hawaii)

    http://lh4.ggpht.com/olga.moreira/RUUxQxJzABI/AAAAAAAAAFc/DLwuEXm31ik/paranal.jpg

    and the La Silla Observatory in Chile (also not on Mauna Kea, Hawaii)

    http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/4819232.jpg

    So what’s my point? When it comes to the importance of science in twenty-first century America, we are apparently getting precisely what we want ... and definitely what we deserve. Maybe I’ll recommend to President “elect” Obama that some infrastructure development at Waxahachie and on Mauna Kea might be in order ... and may inspire just a little enthusiasm for science in our beloved land.

  • Science & Engineering Education is the answer
  • Posted by Gerald Spencer , President on January 26, 2009 at 11:25am EST
  • Only a positive balance of trade will restore the value of the dollar, and we must accomplish this by any means possible, or accept third world poverty on a large scale basis for our lifestyle. Riots and insurrection are predictable, ala the French Revolution, when the people find their situations economically hopeless.

    How can we ever re-start our industries (re-industrialize) to generate a positive balance of trade that will restore our economy? Most of the men who knew how to operate the US basic industry and factories were fired 30 years ago and are now long dead or senile. There are no books that completely tell how to do most of the things that we knew how to do years ago when we created the industries that won WWII and gave us our bountiful way of life. We need science-oriented citizens to create products and services that we can exchange for foreign currency and foreign gold.

    Our computer programming technology and expertise (Microsoft etc.) has helped our balance of payments considerably in the past, but the lack of technical education in this country today will soon destroy this export capability when foreign countries become better than the USA at creating new computer software programs.

    Visit the Texas Medical Center (MD Anderson) and witness the percentage of women wearing Burkas to get a clue as to the percentage of foreign medical service income is received at the Texas Medical Center, and this improves our foreign trade balance.

    We also need more engineers to innovate and produce new products to export and also to export services that will improve our balance of trade.

    We need to stop the H1B import of low paid scientific and engineering talent, in order to create an incentive for our students to major in technical and scientific subjects that are needed to re-industrialize the USA. Only a positive balance of trade will protect the purchasing power of the US Dollar, or the USA will never return to the economic powerhouse position that we enjoyed during and after WWII. We must create tariffs to imports that will be sufficiently high to effectively prohibit all foreign imports in order to re-create our industrial base and export products that will improve our balance of trade, increase our gold reserves, and protect the buying power of our dollar.

    I believe that this country desperately needs more people educated in science, medicine, mathematics and engineering if this country is ever going to re-industrialize rather than just print money and sell our future to support ourselves today without producing the things that we consume. We cannot afford to support any more artists, actors, theologians, musicians, philosophers, psychologists, historians, poets, novelists, political scientists, marketing experts, etc. According to the National Science Foundation and the National Society of Professional Engineers, only about 5% of the current college students in the USA are getting a degree in science, medicine, mathematics or engineering are US citizens. In the Asia the majority of the college students are majoring in science or engineering. I am worried about the future of my college age children, and all of the other children in the USA.