3 ms·

It isn't clear what, exactly, Macilwain objects to, because he never bothers to give specific examples of what he finds wasteful. At the outset, he identifies

It isn't clear what, exactly, Macilwain objects to, because he never bothers to give specific examples of what he finds wasteful. At the outset, he identifies three broad categories of funding: (1) luring young people into STEM careers; (2) promoting science and technology at graduate schools; and (3) raising standards of science education. But the rest of his argument lumps these all together as if all the spending is for category #1, "luring". For example, he points out that "no such government-backed programmes exist to pull children into being lawyers or accountants." And his broad argument, as expressed in the subheading, is that the funding biases the system to producing more scientists and technologists than it needs: "If programmes to bolster STEM education are effective, they distort the labour market..." Only by ignoring the distinction between category #1, "luring", and category #3, "raising standards", can he complain that businesses who want better-educated scientists, if they really meant it, would just pony up and "pay and train newly graduated scientists and engineers properly." Either he thinks that the technical skills businesses want can be achieved by a quick training session after a broad general education, or else he thinks that raising the salaries of engineers will send a market signal to grade-schoolers that they ought to be more interested in STEM education. The problem of poor preparation never seems to enter his head. If all the accounting firms in the country were complaining that few recent college grads can add a column of numbers, and the government responded by trying to improve arithmetic education, would Macilwain complain about the money spent "luring children into accounting"? In short, he might have an argument. But until he grounds it in specifics, he's just hand-waving with the broad idea that trying to improve STEM education distorts the market. This is obvious tripe, because the same broad argument could be applied to education in general: "If programs to bolster education are effective, they distort the market for educated workers. If they aren't, they're a waste of money. Besides, if businesses really wanted educated workers, they would pay and train new hires properly."

geebee 13y ago
"He thinks that raising the salaries of engineers will send a market signal to grade-schoolers that they ought to be more interested in STEM education". At the graduate level, this is backed by a RAND study. http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html The authors of the study do address the possibility that poor preparation is the cause - but they conclude that poor pay and job prospects relative to other options available to highly educated Americans is the main driver of low interest in science and engineering. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-07-08-science-engineer-jobs_N.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-07-08-scien... "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." So the real question is - if the objective research suggests that there is no shortage of scientists and that the American allergy to these fields is rational and market driven, why launch a PR campaign to get young Americans to enter it? There are reasons - many people believe that scientists and engineers create more wealth than other comparably or better paid professions. So society as a whole has a stronger interest in having more engineers than we'd normally get through the normal, individual response to market signals (I'm assuming an individual doesn't really care if his income contributes or detracts to the general wealth as long as it is obtained legally - some people clearly do care as a personal matter). In this case, it might make sense to try to lure some young people in. Rather than hoping to trick them, though, it might be better to actually make it worth their while - perhaps by covering tuition so that all engineers graduate debt-free. Another possibility could be giving a tax break to people in these fields. The Onion said it best... "Study finds 99% of commuters favor public transportation for others." Seems everyone other than scientists is keen on getting other people to study science. Barak Obama, a lawyer, certainly seems to think science is a fantastic career for others.

geebee 13y ago

"He thinks that raising the salaries of engineers will send a market signal to grade-schoolers that they ought to be more interested in STEM education". At the graduate level, this is backed by a RAND study. http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html The authors of the study do address the possibility that poor preparation is the cause - but they conclude that poor pay and job prospects relative to other options available to highly educated Americans is the main driver of low interest in science and engineering. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-07-08-science-engineer-jobs_N.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-07-08-scien... "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." So the real question is - if the objective research suggests that there is no shortage of scientists and that the American allergy to these fields is rational and market driven, why launch a PR campaign to get young Americans to enter it? There are reasons - many people believe that scientists and engineers create more wealth than other comparably or better paid professions. So society as a whole has a stronger interest in having more engineers than we'd normally get through the normal, individual response to market signals (I'm assuming an individual doesn't really care if his income contributes or detracts to the general wealth as long as it is obtained legally - some people clearly do care as a personal matter). In this case, it might make sense to try to lure some young people in. Rather than hoping to trick them, though, it might be better to actually make it worth their while - perhaps by covering tuition so that all engineers graduate debt-free. Another possibility could be giving a tax break to people in these fields. The Onion said it best... "Study finds 99% of commuters favor public transportation for others." Seems everyone other than scientists is keen on getting other people to study science. Barak Obama, a lawyer, certainly seems to think science is a fantastic career for others.