Is STEM education declining in the U.S.?

Summary: Is STEM education declining in the U.S., and to what effect?

By Charlie Osborne for iGeneration | May 2, 2012 -- 07:30 GMT (00:30 PDT)

It may not have been as required in the economy 40 years ago, but now, it is skills in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) which can make a school leaver or graduate an enticing prospect to employers -- even more important when faced with a stagnant economy.

However, whether enough is being done to make these subjects appealing to children is under debate. A recent report by the European Commission highlighted these concerns -- the problem existing in both Europe and the United States. The EC estimates that by 2015, at least 700,000 young people will leave education without basic skills in STEM -- and furthermore, jobs requiring these skills will rise by 16 million by 2020.

Without a generation equipped and qualified to fill these posts, both global and local economies will suffer. As the infographic provided by Teach.com suggests, in part this issue could be remedied by reinvigorating interest in STEM subjects early.

Interest and subsequent funding for STEM subjects began when Sputnik was launched by the Soviet Union in 1957. From this point, investment expanded in the form of scholarships, schemes, training and private funds.

STEM growth continued until 1992, when it began to suffer a decline in the U.S. over the following ten years.

In 2009, American students ranked 23rd globally in science, and 31st in mathematics in standards of education and qualifications.

If this kind of trend continues, then the kind of economic stagnation we are now currently experiencing may not recover to the degree of footing it has the potential for -- as education and innovation are the backbones of true economic growth.

american stem education

Image credit: Teach.com

Related:

Topic: IT Employment

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

9 comments

Log in or register to join the discussion

Gee, let me get a tech degree, so I can be off-shored before I am employed!

Why anyone would enter the tech field in this country is beyond me. The odds are, if your job can be off-shored, it will be. Unless you want to move to India, and compete with Indians for jobs at Indian wages, finding another line of work is your best course. Medicine still has some opportunities for now, but all the major tech companies are putting their engineering hiring focus in India and elsewhere. Anywhere but here in the US.

thetwonkey
2 May, 2012 07:56

Reply Vote
- funny part
  
  The US education shoots itself in the foot. Many US universities educate and train students from India and China so that they can go back and start businesses and work in the contract research organizations.
  
  pupkin_z
  2 May, 2012 08:55
  
  Reply Vote
- Anywhere but here
  
  And yet the CEOs of these same tech companies are very quick to wrap themselves in the American flag when it suits them.
  
  sissy sue
  2 May, 2012 10:03
  
  Reply Vote
School attitudes need to change too

If American companies want more US STEM graduates, they need to make it clear to U.S. universities that the purpose of ALL university programs is to TEACH, not to WEED OUT. I majored in languages in college, and our teachers' main goal was to impart knowledge and improve students' skills.

On the other hand, in fields like physics and chemistry the attitude of most professors in four year schools is to weed out the students who aren't top-tier. Not everybody wanting to major in chemistry or physics is planning to go to medical school or get a Ph.D., but they still have to go through so much crap that many simply switch to other majors. On top of that, schools need to get realistic that doing 160 semester hours in 4 years including 1-2 three-hour lab courses per semester isn't realistic. They need to strip out the junk that doesn't need to be taught. Other programs manage to teach sufficient material in about 125 s.h. These programs need to get the junk out, not just keep adding.

Rick_R
2 May, 2012 08:51

Reply Vote
- Universities are different from technical institutes...
  
  "They need to strip out the junk that doesn't need to be taught."
  
  And what "junk" would that be? All the theoretical stuff and base "fluff"? Universities should just stick with teaching applied sciences?
  
  That's what ITT Tech and DeVry are for - offering dumbed-down courses so that students can graduate quickly and have just enough skills to be useful to employers today, but not too many skills that they start demanding pay raises tomorrow.
  
  daftkey
  2 May, 2012 09:15
  
  Reply Vote
  - Agreed
    
    The purpose of a university is to give students a broad background of knowledge, so that they can participate in the world as something more than a mere cog in their employers' machinery.
    
    sissy sue
    2 May, 2012 09:51
    
    Reply Vote
- Someone who took those WEED OUT courses...
  
  I am majoring in Mechanical Engineering and I can promise the students that those professors WEED OUT are not meant to be engineers, scientists, or mathematicians. If you were a student would you like to find out that after 2 years of classes engineering is not for you? Trust me. The WEED OUT classes are no where near as hard as the other classes you have to take. Would you want someone who is completely unqualified to design bridges that you drive over everyday? Heck no. Even with the WEED OUT classes it still scares me the people that graduate with engineering degrees.
  
  dmacke
  2 May, 2012 10:52
  
  Reply Vote
  - Even scarier
    
    What scares me is people who graduate with enough knowledge of physics to make a hydrogen bomb, but who never took a history course, or any of that other junk that doesn't need to be taught.
    
    Robert Hahn
    3 May, 2012 14:11
    
    Reply Vote
Supply & Demand

What is needed is another moon program ala JFK. While many bemoaned Ginrich's idea of a moon base, that is exactly the kind of program that will demand techical innovation, engineering skill, and scientific discovery. Unfortunately, the CEOs of the country will be trying to figure out how to charge the maximum possible and deliver the absolute minimum. They will be happy to pad their guarenteed bonuses for "brilliant" leadership, while sacrificing the very STEM and manufacturing jobs such a program would demand.

Another way of looking at it: the probability of getting to the moon in <10 years like in the 1960s is near zero. The business, finance, and legal "staff" that have taken over today's companies will guarantee trillions of dollars will be spent and the only thing produced being a few colorful PowerPoint slides and animations of what they promised.

7mgte
2 May, 2012 11:34

Reply Vote