That's the missing link in so many of these articles. A big RAND study recently concluded that the real problem is that S&E careers have become unattractive to

That's the missing link in so many of these articles. A big RAND study recently concluded that the real problem is that S&E careers have become unattractive to Americans, largely because of wage erosion relative to other fields: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-07-08-science-engineer-jobs_N.htm http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-07-08-science-engi... "Other approaches such as making K-12 science and math courses more interesting and pushing for more qualified math and science teachers "may have merit in their own right," researchers said, "but we think they pale in importance to the earnings and attractiveness of S&E careers as major determinants of the supply of U.S.-born students to S&E."" That said, I actually agree that the US is in serious trouble, mainly because I don't agree with the RAND group's assertion that "the slow growth of U.S.-born technical workers "will change when the earnings and attractiveness of S&E (science and engineering) careers improve."" This is what would happen if you could resurrect a devastated profession as soon as the careers become attractive again. But you can't. My grandfather was an engineer and encouraged me to become one. One generation encourages the next. When you break that chain, you can't just revive it on a dime. Personally, I think that the US pursued a policy that greatly discouraged the smartest young Americans from going into engineering. There was a short term gain in that we did get talent on the cheap, but at what I think will be a profound long term cost. A more interesting article would be a high profile tech CEO discussing how the policies his own company rigorously pursued ended up discouraging US citizens from becoming engineers.