The Research Catalogue
New Findings and Insights on Institutional Practices and Academic Success

Higher Education: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Programs and Related Trends, GAO-06-144, Government Accountability Office, October 2005, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06114.pdf

A GAO survey shows that officials from 13 federal civilian agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), reportedly spent about $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2004 for 207 education programs designed to increase the number of students pursuing studies in STEM fields. However, little is known about their effectiveness. From 1994-1995 to 2002-2003, the number of graduates in STEM fields increased by 8 percent. But during the same period, graduates in non-STEM fields increased by 30 percent. Employment in STEM fields increased by 23 percent, while in non-STEM fields, the employment level increased to 17 percent. There was no statistically significant change in the percentage of women employees. Educators and others have made several suggestions to encourage more participation in STEM fields, but GAO states that more information is needed to “know the extent to which existing STEM education programs are appropriately targeted and making the best use of available federal resources” before adopting any ideas.

The more things change . . . A June 1993 report by FCCSET's Federal Coordinating Committee on Science, Engineering and Technology on Education and Human Resources, "The Federal Investment in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education: Where Now? What Next?" found that "the nation remains at risk of losing its competitive edge" due to inadequacies in education. The committee finds that while the core federal investment in SMET [as it was then termed] education was over $2.2 billion in 1993, the programs are fragmented and uncoordinated, and goals "continue to elude the nation's grasp." In the 2005 report, only one in five federal education programs has been evaluated. Overall, evaluation practices are inadequate for purposes of strategic planning and program improvement, with funding for evaluation totals less than 0.5 percent of the core federal investment in STEM education. With federal accountability higher than ever, the stasis in program evaluation speaks loudly of its priority.

Steps toward planning spaces for science, Project Kaleidoscope Volume IV: What Works, What Matters, What Lasts, Nov. 16, 2005, http://www.pkal.org/collections/StepsTowardPlanningSpaces.cfm

Experiences of campus leaders implementing certain steps to achieve sustainable institutional transformation in the “context of planning new spaces for science” are presented. Review and analyses of their experiences will form the basis for the development of “a manual for leaders on how and why to work toward transforming the undergraduate STEM learning environment.”

Find more on-the-ground, first-person experience that provides context for prescriptions.

Gender Differences in Major Federal External Grant Programs, S.D. Hosek, Rand Corporation, 2005, http://www.rand.org/publications/TR/TR307

Female applicants receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were awarded, on average, only 63 percent of the funding as their male counterparts from 2001 to 2003. Controlling some variables such as age, academic degree, and grant type and eliminating very large awards, still reveals that women receive only 83 percent as much funding as men. No gender gaps were found at the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in the amount of funding requested or awarded. Women who applied for the first time for a grant in 2001 from NIH and NSF were 20 percent and 5 percent, respectively, less likely than men to apply again the following two years regardless of whether they were successful the first time around or not.

The disadvantages that women experience in competing for NIH funds can be added to those suffered by “young investigators” (pre-35), which was found in an earlier study of NIH peer review. All the caveats about “eating seed corn” seem to apply to NIH. But the Director has announced a pilot program designed to expedite the grant process for young scientists who have never won an NIH grant. It is intended to ease the transition from postdoctoral positions to professorships.

Stimulating Science and Technology in Higher Education: An International Comparison of Policy Measures and Their Effectiveness, Rebecca Hamer, Rand Corporation, 2005, http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG270/

A study conducted for the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science found that the turning point at which children decide whether or not to pursue Science and Technology studies is around the age of 15 to 16. Therefore, it is imperative that the S&T experience prior to that point be improved. Several curriculum adjustments have been made to improve the image of S&T at early grades – the UK approaches specialization, while Ireland pushes the application of science. European countries have a big advantage over the United States due to their virtually free or low-cost tuition rates.

US data suggest middle school (ages 11-14) is a critical juncture for turning toward or away from science and mathematics. This is especially the case with girls. Student interest and classroom climate are as important as academic preparation and skills.