News.com has the story on a new report by NSF’s Science Resources Statistics group that shows more than one-fifth of U.S. science and engineering workers do not have a bachelor’s degree.
The percentage without degrees is even higher in computer and math science fields, with approximately 40 percent of workers without a four-year degree.
I haven’t thought too deeply about what it means, but here’s an idea to chew on. There’s an interesting juxtaposition between the relatively high percent of non-degreed comp sci and mathematics workers (40 percent) vs. a much lower percentage in the life sciences (10 percent). To me, this suggests two things. One, that there are plenty of opportunities in computer science and mathematics fields for workers without four-year degrees, and two, that the life sciences may be dealing with a surplus of degreed workers. If the percentage of degreed workers is so much higher in the life sciences, it implies that a higher percentage of lower-tier jobs (entry level and slightly above) are going to degreed workers as well.
What would be interesting to see is the salary data for those positions and how they compare to the lower-tier jobs on the IT side. Does an associate-degreed worker with a certification in an IT field earn about the same as a degreed med-tech? My guess would be that the IT worker makes at least as much, but I don’t have that data handy. Let me see if I can dig them up.
At the same time, it’s also worth noting that no other S&E field is projected to grow as much or as fast as IT-related fields over the next 8 years (2002-12). And most of those new jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics will require a Bachelor’s degree or better.
Apologies for the slow pace of updates recently. Things are a bit slow around DC this time of year. Congress is in recess for the month of August so that the Members can head home to their respective districts for primaries and lots of campaigning. They’ll be back September 7th, hoping to “wrap up” work in October so they can get back to their districts for those last hectic weeks of campaigning before the November 2nd elections. Chances are, however, that they won’t accomplish their primary legislative goal — passing the 12 (of 13 total) appropriations bills still outstanding before the start of the new fiscal year October 1st. In fact, it’s likely that they’ll be back in town after the election in “lame duck” session to wrap things up. And, if I was a betting man, I’d wager that they still won’t get the appropriations bills done and will punt to the next Congress in January.
The delay was preordained once Congress failed to pass a joint Budget Resolution earlier this year. Not having a Congressionally approved budget resolution to set the spending caps for the appropriators means that any appropriations bill coming to the floor of either chamber could get “larded up” with amendments for favorite causes and the congressional leadership will be unable to oppose them using a “budget process” argument. Each amendment would force lawmakers to take a stand and vote up or down on some program — not the sort of thing the leadership wants to have happen in a tough election year. So, the easiest solution for the leadership (on both sides of the aisle) is just avoid the issue altogether — bundle the bills together into one giant “omnibus bill” and save it for a time when the costs are lower.
That noted, the House Appropriations Committee has already moved far enough along on one bill especially important to our community to generate concern. As we’ve covered previously, the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations bill approved by the committee just prior to the recess includes some significant cuts to NSF and NASA. Under the bill, NSF would lose $111 million in current funding in FY 2005, a decrease of 2.0 percent. This is a far cry from the 15 percent increase for FY 2005 authorized by Congress and approved by the President as part of the NSF Authorization Act of 2002.
In response, members of CRA’s Computing Research Advocacy Network (CRAN) have been contacting their Representatives and Senators urging them to reject the cuts and instead fund NSF at the level approved in the NSF Authorization Act. If you’re already a CRAN member, you should have already received the “CRAN Alert” with all the information, background, sample letters and contact information to help make the case for NSF. Even if you’re not a CRAN member, I’d urge you to use the information to contact your own Senators and Representative, and join the network!
I’ll be providing further details on our efforts and the bill’s progress as it moves forward. But please take the time to contact your representatives in Congress. A strong show of support from the community is crucial in our efforts to reverse these cuts….
Great article in US News and World Report on the “corporate wake up call” regarding the participation of women in computer science. CRA’s Jan Cuny (and CRA’s Committee on the Status of Women in Computing Research (CRA-W)) gets a nice mention. Here’s a sample:
That sense of isolation and inadequacy is one reason the number of women earning computer science degrees in this country has plummeted over the past two decades–with women dropping from 37 percent to 28 percent of graduates–at the very moment their presence in other scientific and engineering disciplines has soared. “You look at the national statistics,” says Rick Rashid, senior vice president of research at Microsoft, “and you just have to be appalled.”
Until recently, many in the high-tech industry shrugged off that female brain drain. They could fill top information-technology slots from abroad or American doctoral programs, where foreign nationals still snag half the Ph.D.’s. But suddenly homeland security issues and visa hurdles have clogged that foreign pipeline. And countries like India are luring their U.S.-educated citizens back home to their own burgeoning Silicon Valleys.
Faced with forecasts of a looming brainpower shortage–and the retirement of those baby boomers who are the industry’s pioneers–many leading U.S. players fear the country could lose its competitive edge. “Over the next seven years, our hiring needs are going to be huge,” says Wayne Johnson, executive director of HP’s university relations worldwide. “If you don’t have half the U.S. population participating, you have a tremendous gap in filling these needs. What we’re doing here is creating a disadvantage for ourselves as a nation.”
Read the whole article here.
From the CCC Blog
- Microsoft Research Names 2012 Faculty Fellows Erwin Gianchandani
- Revisiting “Where the jobs are…” Erwin Gianchandani
- “Troves of Personal Data, Forbidden to Researchers” Erwin Gianchandani
- CS URGE: A Resource for Undergraduates Erwin Gianchandani