We Need More Math and Science Majors

Agreed, but I fear that anyone who's trying to do something about it is misdiagnosing the problem and blaming it on our not properly preparing our kids to become scientists. This Times article is a good example of a program that is likely not to succeed.

[Education Commissioner Richard] Mills, who said he had been struck by the high level of math and science training in China on a recent trip, called the State Board of Regents' emphasis on more rigorous math and science standards an important foundation for increasing the number of graduates.

In other words, let's make it harder for kids to succeed in math - that should really pump up the numbers. There may be good reason to strengthen the standards, but that's going to lead to less, not more students interested in the subject. Then there's the inevitable other side of the coin: One official also said the university is exploring ways to attract more women and minorities into these fields Well you're not going to accomplish that by making the Regents' exams harder, that's for sure.

To succeed in science, you need to be smart - not just educated - but plain smart. Not all scientists need to be geniuses, but they need to have above average intelligence (Linda Gottfredson suggests IQ's above 120). There aren't any less smart people these days than there used to be - so the smart people must be deciding on their own to pursue other interests. So what could possibly convince a smart young man or woman to pursue, say, law or finance rather than science or engineering? Obviously, there's not enough high-paying jobs in science and engineering. In fact there's a double whammy hitting this job market - our manufacturing sector (the most important consumer of science and engineering skills) has been in serious decline the last few years; and companies are finding cheaper engineers through H1-B visas. Here's a Microsoft manager on his company's "need" for foreign workers: "For instance, there is the H1-B visa, on which Microsoft and other technology companies rely on to hire foreign nationals where there is not a U.S. candidate with the skills required for a particular position." Bull! He adds: "The limits on the H1-B program seriously impede U.S. companies’ ability to compete in the global market" Now that's a little more honest - to compete in the global market" - in other words, "there is not a U.S. candidate with the skills required for a particular position" who will work cheaply enough! So the next time you hear Bill Gates crowing about his foundation's efforts to improve math and science education in the U.S., be aware he's just blowing smoke. Gates hires thousands of H1-B visa holders at bargain prices. If he's truly interested in increasing the number of math/science majors, he'd lead the way in paying higher salaries to attract them.

I'm not saying we should not have any H1-B visas. There are often very good reasons to hire people from abroad for particular specialties. Many H1-B holders are Canadian, working and living in the U.S. just like someone from New York might move to Arizona (or Toronto) to work (well, almost like - we are still separate countries). But using an H1-B visa to hire an "Application Developer" - i.e., a programmer - from China is an abuse of the system, pure and simple. The bane of employers in the Advanced Industrial Economy is that workers expect to be paid enough to live in the Advanced Industrial Society and expect to be employed until they retire. The H1-B - which is a temporary visa - is being abused to solve both of these annoyances.

The decreased interest in math and science among college students is surely due to better prospects for smart young people in other fields. Improving job prospects for scientists and engineers is necessary to reverse the trend. It will also be necessary to reduce the allure of non-science jobs. Tort reform, which would reduce the total amount of money flowing into lawyers' pockets, would be a step in the right direction. Finance can be particularly lucrative (as this salary chart for invesment bankers from 1999 can affirm). There's clearly an awful lot of money around to pay some people extraordinary amounts of money - we need to figure out how to get it to people who actually can do something other than just move money around.