Faux STEM degree shortages and real STEM cognitive competency shortages

The Atlantic has shown a regrettable tendency towards click-bait articles in the past couple of years but this one is more like the old substantive articles that used to be their mainstay. The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage by Michael S. Teitelbaum.

Science and engineering occupations are at the leading edge of economic competitiveness in an increasingly globalized world, and science and engineering workforces of sufficient size and quality are essential for any 21st century economy to prosper. These professional workforces also are crucial for addressing challenges such as international security, global climate change, and domestic and global health. While they therefore are of great importance, college graduates employed in science and engineering occupations (as defined by the National Science Foundation) actually comprise only a small fraction of the workforce.

A compelling body of research is now available, from many leading academic researchers and from respected research organizations such as the National Bureau of Economic Research, the RAND Corporation, and the Urban Institute. No one has been able to find any evidence indicating current widespread labor market shortages or hiring difficulties in science and engineering occupations that require bachelors degrees or higher, although some are forecasting high growth in occupations that require post-high school training but not a bachelors degree. All have concluded that U.S. higher education produces far more science and engineering graduates annually than there are S&E job openings—the only disagreement is whether it is 100 percent or 200 percent more. Were there to be a genuine shortage at present, there would be evidence of employers raising wage offers to attract the scientists and engineers they want. But the evidence points in the other direction: Most studies report that real wages in many—but not all—science and engineering occupations have been flat or slow-growing, and unemployment as high or higher than in many comparably-skilled occupations.

After identifying that there have been five rounds of post war hysteria about STEM shortages, the author observes

One thing we might reasonably conclude is that over the past six decades there has been no shortage of shortage claims.

Indeed.

The US is about 5% of the world population. In terms of STEM excellence though,

The average national scores reflect both ends of the scale, yet there continues to be a large pool of top science and math students in the U.S. OECD data on “high-performing” students suggests that the U.S. produces about 33 percent of the world total in this category in the sciences, though only about 14 percent in mathematics.

I have been witness to three of the identified rounds of STEM Shortage alarmism and in my career in Management and IT consulting, have long had direct experience of the issue and seen first hand that which the pundits and MSM so easily overlook.

My main criticism is that the MSM, as is often the case in its rabid pursuit of alarm, so grossly sets aside any frame of reference or even the least modicum of high school knowledge. Every journalist, even if not a trained economist, must know about Supply and Demand and that the market will correct itself as exogenous events occur. Building boom in nuclear power plants or nuclear subs - then you have a temporary shortage of nuclear engineers, but within 5-10 years the new demand is met by expanded degree programs and new supply of graduates. Boom in energy exploration - same thing for petroleum engineers and geologists.

But journalists take the lead from alarmists and amplify the STEM shortage message without any critical thinking.

Among my peers who graduated with STEM degrees, I am guessing that fewer than 20% actually use their STEM training in a professional capacity. Just a couple of weeks ago I was talking with an entrepreneur who had started a very successful marketing consulting firm. His undergraduate degree? Mechanical Engineering.

Why are there these periodic eruptions of STEM Shortage alarmism? I frankly don't know. Is it universities ginning up popular support for university program expansion? Perhaps, but I kind of doubt it. Is it major STEM corporations seeking government subsidies for such programs in order to increase STEM supply and therefore reduce their STEM costs? Perhaps, but I kind of doubt it.

If I had to proffer an explanation it would be that there is an appearance of shortages at the margin as a result of extreme specialization. And it is these marginal stories which generate the hype. The world moves much faster, is far more complex and there are many more factors to take into consideration. An example: some years ago we had landed a major IT project and needed a program manager. They needed to have experience: managing large, multicultural teams; implanting ERP; implementing SAP; in the consumer products industry. They also had to be willing to relocate to an Asian Pacific country for 6-12 months. So the STEM component was the IT/ERP/SAP element. Lots of those people around. Fewer, but still lots, with Program Management experience. Fewer still with consumer products experience. Fewer still with international Program Management. Fewer yet willing to relocate. We ended up paying a fair premium to get someone to take the role. A high premium is an indication of a shortage, but in this instance, the shortage was not in STEM per se but in the series of unique, cumulative, necessary requirements, most having nothing to do with STEM but which arose from a faster moving, global, complex environment.

The real story is actually far more interesting than any putative temporary shortage. There will always be shortages and surpluses in a dynamic economy and those that are related to human skills will usually have a longer window of adjustment to a new equilibrium than other commodities. There is almost inherently a 5-10 year lead time between initial perceived skills shortage (say petroleum engineers) and new supply (graduates with degrees).

Two speculations. First - MOOCS and the effort towards virtual competency certification may significantly shorten the human skills adjustment window. Second - I think the STEM Scarcity scares often overlook the real shortage. It is not a shortage in a particular field that is of especial interest. It is the overall low STEM competency of non-STEM graduates that represents the greatest lost opportunity. The majority of STEM graduates end up in non-STEM jobs and professions and part of their success is, I believe, attributable to their STEM-based structured thinking, critical thinking, scientific method thinking, familiarity with logic and statistics and a general orientation towards quantification.

These are basic skills that non-STEM people could easily acquire but often do not. Even worse, they often do not even seem aware of the missing capability. Example - a few weeks ago I was having a conversation with an author and I made the documented assertion that Group X had a lower propensity to read than Group Y. The author repeatedly interpreted this as Group X did not read at all. Just a fundamental incapacity to think statistically. A more notorious example would be the Larry Summers contretemps a few years ago at Harvard when his comment distinguishing between average IQ and the standard deviation of IQ between the sexes was completely and repeatedly misinterpreted. What he said was completely understood and relatively uncontroversial in STEM communities, but not in the larger population.

I would argue that that is the real STEM shortage. Not in degrees, but in general STEM cognitive competencies and as a way of thinking.