DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 272 398 SE 046 899

TITLE Undergraduate Science, Mathematics and EngineeringEducation.

SPONS AGENCY National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.National Science Board.

REPORT NO NSB-86-100PUB DATE Mar 86NOTE 67p.; Prepared by the National Science Board Task

Committee on Undergraduate Science and EngineeringEducation.

PUB TYPE Reports - Evaluative/Feasibility (142)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *College Faculty; *College Mathematics; *College

Science; College Students; Educational Facilities;*Engineering Education; *Government Role; HigherEducation; Mathematics Education; Research andDevelopment; School Business Relationship; ScienceEducation; *Technology

IDENTIFIERS National Science Foundation

ABSTRACTAn analysis of the current condition and trends in

United States undergraduate education in the sciences, mathematics,and engineering is provided in this report. It contains suggestionsfor actions to be undertaken by academic institutions, the States,federal agencies, the private sector, and the National ScienceFoundation (NSF) and reflects the opinions of a broad cross-sectionof persons.knowledgeable in science and technology. Information ispresented in four major sections. These are: (1) executive summary(reviewing the conditions of undergraduate education and outliningrecommendations); (2) findings (presenting information on the overallcondition of undergraduate education, on students, faculty, and theirimplements, and on disciplinary and institutional perspectives); (3)conclusions and recommendations (synthesizing findings related to thestate of undergraduate science, mathematics, and engineeringeducation and offering a model and description of program elementsthat are needed for a balanced undergraduate program); and (4)appendices (containing information on programs and projects andcitations to reference materials). (ML)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

0% Office of Educational Research and impo.erneraU S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIO.

NSB E 6852CO

Pr\EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTERIC

IN)Tole POcuMent nfliS been reprOduced as

N.received from the PerSOn or organitation

originating it

CV0 Minor chtlIngee nave been made to improve

reprooluoffoo quality

C3Points of v(ew or opfmOns Slated in t NS cloco

menf do not nece ly represent officialWOERI positlon or p'

Undergraduate Science,Mathematics and

Engineering Education"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN RANTED BY

c>,),Nag....kia A.

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Role for the National Science Foundation andRecommendations for Action by Other Sectors to

Strengthen Collegiate Education and

Pursue Excellence in the Next Generation of

U.S. Leadership in Science and Technology

\...-..i. National Science Board

NSB Task Committee onUndergraduate Science and Engineering Education

March 19862

NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

ROLAND W SCHMITT (Chairman, National Science'ward), Senior Vice President, Corporate Researchand Development, General Electric Company

CHARLES E. HESS (Vice Chairman, National ScienceBoard), Dean, College of Agricultural and Environ-mental Sciences, University of California at Davis

PERRY L. ADKISSON, Deputy Chancellor, The TexasA&M University System

ANNELISE G. ANDERSON, Senior Research Fellow,Hoover Institution, Stanford University

WARREN J. BAKER, President, California PolytechnicState University, San Luis Obispo

JAY V. BECK, Professor Emeritus of Microbiology, Brig-ham Young University

CRAIG C. BLACK, Director, Los Angeles County Mu-seum of Natwal History

ERICH BLOCH (ex officio), Director, National ScienceFoundation

RITA R. COLWEI I . Vice President for Academic Affairs,University of Maryland

THOMAS B. DAY, President, San Diego State UniversityJAMES J. DUDERSTADT, Dean, College of Engineering,

The University of Mic'-'ganPETER T. FLAWN, President Emeritus, University of

Texas at Austin, and Vice Chairman, Rust Group,Inc.

ROBERT F. GILKESON, Chairman of the Executive Com-mittee, Philadelphia Electric Company

MARY L. GOOD, President and Director of Research,Signal Research Center, Inc.

CHARLES L. HOSLER, Vice President for Research andDean of Graduate School, The Pennsylvania StateUniversity

PETER D. LAX, Professor of Mathematics and Director,Courant Mathematics and Computing Laboratory,New York University

K JUNE LINDSTEDT-SIVA, Manager, EnvironmentalSciences, Atlantic Richfield Company

WILLIAM F. MILLER, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer, SRI International

HOMER A. NEAL, Provost, State University of New Yorkat Stony Brook

WILLIAM A. NIERENBERG, Director, Scripps Institu-tion of Oceanography, University of California at SanDiego

MARY JANE OSBORN, Professor and Head, Depart-ment of Microbiology, University of ConnecticutHealth Center

SIMON RAMO, Director, TRW, Inc.NORMAN C. RASMUSSEN, McAfee Professor of Engi-

neering, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyDONALD B. RICE, President, The Rand CorporationSTUART A. RICE, Dean of the Division of Physical Sci-

ences, The James Franck Institute, University ofChicago

THOMAS UBOIS, Executive Officer

Task Committee on Undergraduate Science and Engineering Education

Dr. Homer A. Neal, Chairman, Provost, State Universityof New York at Stony Brook

Dr. Jay V. Beck, Professor Emeritus of Microbiology, Brig-ham Young University, Provo, Utah

Dr. Thomas B. Day, President, San Diego State Univer-sity, San Diego, California

Dr. Norman C. Rasmussen, Professor of Nuclear Engi-neering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dr. James L. Powell, President, Franklin and MarshallCollege, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, (CommftteeAdvisor)

Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Vice President for Academic Affairsand, Professor of Microbiology, University of Mary-land, Adelphi, Maryland

Dr. James J. Duderstadt, Dean of the College of Engineer-ing, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,Michigan

Mr. Lester G. Paldy, Dean, Center for Continuing Educa-tion, State University of New York at Stony Brook(Committee Consultant)

Dr. Robert F. Watson, Head, Office of college ScienceInstrumentation, National Science Foundation (Ex-t.:utive Secretary)

3

NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARDWASHINCTON, D C 20550

March 20, 1986

Dr. Roland W. SchmittChairmanNational Science BoardWashington, D.C. 20550

Dear Roland:

I am pleased to transmit to you the final report of the National Science Board Task Committee onUndergraduate Science and Engineering Education. In pursuing your charge to the Committee wehave kept clearly in view the responsibility entrusted to the National Science Board to promoteresearch and education in science and engineering in the United States.

In this report we state our conviction that the National Science Foundation must both assume aleadership role and provide highly leveraged program support for undergiaduate science, mathe-matics and engineering education in order to successfully meet critical needs that affect the healthof she Nation.

The Committee consulted widely across the Nation and within the National Science Foundationin the ,onduct of its business. At public hearings and through submitted testimony we heard fromleaders representing academic institutions, industry, government, and professional societies.There were also numerous interactions with members of the National Science Board and NSF staff.The issues we dealt with are complex and often interactive and as such are not easily resolved.Their proper treatment will require carefully developed plans and sustained efforts by manysectors.

We are greatly heartened that many members of the Board, and others as well, are expressingstrong support for a meaningful leadership role foi NSF in undergraduate science, mathematicsand engineering educations. The Committee is appreciative of the Director's genuine interest andactive participation in its work, and we are grateful for his input to the development of this report.

I would like to thank the members of the Committee for the deep sense of responsibility thatthey brought to this task. In addition, many members of the NSF staff, from the Board Office, andfrom several Directorates, were quite helpful and made significant contributions to our work.

We commend your foresight in establishing the Committee. We are available for furtherconsultation as may be needed. The Committee is very hopeful that this report will trigger thenecessary action tha. we urge upon all sectors concerned with the quality of undergraduateeducation in science, mathematics, and engineering. As announced since establishment of theCommittee, the report is to be distributed widely and we urge that it be made available toappropria:: individuals and organizations.

Jay V. BeckRita R. ColwellThomas B. DayJames J. Duderstadt

Sincerely,

Homer A. NealChairman, NSB Task CL mmittee

on Undergraduate Science andEngineering Education

Members of Committee:

Norman C. RasmussenJames L. Powell, AdvisorLester G. Paldy, ConsultantRobert F. Watson, Executive Secretary

iii 4

National Science Board Resolution reReport of the Task Committee on

Undergraduate Science and Engineering Education

RESOLVED. The National Science Board hereby accepts the Report of the NSB Task Committee onUndergraduate Science and Engineering Education and thanks the Task Committeefor its efforts.

Further, the Board requests that the Director, in close consultation with the NSBCommittee on Education and Human Resources, prepare a plan of action to respondto the report focusing on new and innovative program approaches that will elicitcreative proposals from universities and colleges, and submit such plan to the Boardas part of the National Science Foundation FY 1988 budget process.

v

March 21, 1986

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION . .. . . ....... . ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS x

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. The Condition of Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, andEngineering 1

B. The Support of Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, andEngineering 2

C. Recommendations to the States, Academic Institutions, the Private Sector,and Mission Oriented Federal Agencies 3

D. Recommendations to the National Science Foundation 4

1. Leadership 4

2. Leveraged Program Support 5

E. Conclusion 7

II. FINDINGS

A. Background 9

1. Undergraduate Education 9

2. . . . .and The National Science Foundation 10

3. The Need for Change 12

4. The Charge to the Committee 15

5. Demographic Changes 16

6. Resource Constraints 18

7. Participation of Underrepresented Groups 19

8. The Changing Faculty ......... 20

B. Students; Faculty and Their Implements 21

I. Students 21

2. The Faculty 223. Courses and Materials 24

4. Laboratories 25

C. Disciplinary Perspectives 26

1. The Sciences 26

2. Mathematics 283. Engineering 29

D. Institutional Perspectives . ....... 32

1 Doctoral Universities 32

2 Community and Junior Colleges 333. Non-Doctoral Colleges and Universities .. 34

4. Some Common Concerns 36

III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. The State of Undergraduate Science, Mathematics and EngineeringEducation in the U.S 39

VII

1 As Described by the Editors of NATURE 392. As Found by this Committee . . . 393 The Special Situation of Engineering 404. Supply-Demand Cycles .... 405. Research and leaching 40

B. Support for Needed Change 41

1. State and Local Governments 412 Academic Institutions 423. Professional Societies 424. Industry and Other Private Sector Groups ...... 425. The Government of the United States ... .. . ..... . 43

C. Recommendations to the States, Academic Institutions, the PrivateSector, and Mission-Oriented Federal Agencies 43

1. States 442. Academic Institutions 443. The Private Sector 444. Mission-Oriented Federal Agencies 45

D. Recommendations Concerning the Role of the National ScienceFoundation in Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, and EngineeringEducation 45

1. Role 452. Leadership 453. General Recommendations 464. Identification of Areas of Current Highest Priority ........ . .. ..... 46

E. Programs and Projects 47

F. A Balanced Undergraduate Program for the National ScienceFoundation 47

1. Program Perspective 472. Major Program Elements 473. Procedural Recommendations 514. Conclusion 52

IV. APPENDICES

A. Programs and Projects ... ................ .. .. ...... 55

1. Faculty Professional Development2. Course and Curriculum Improvement 563. Laboratory Development and Instrumentation ....... . ..... 564. Undergraduate Research Participation 575. Comprehensive Improvement Projects 57

B. Citations to Reference Materials 58

1. Testimony to the Committee at Public Hearings (W1 -W27) .. ...... 582. Additional Tesimony Submitted to the Committee (W28-W41) 593. Correspondence from Federal Agencies (W42-W47) 594. Bibliography (B1-B52) 59

References to oral and writte" testimony, (Wxy), are listed in Appendices B.1-B.3. Bibliographic references,(Bxy:ab), are listed in Appendix B 4.

viii

INTRODUCTION

This report is the outcome of a year-long study conducted by the National Science Board TaskCommittee on Undergraduate Science and Engineering Education. The Task Committee wasestablished because there were numerous signs that J.S. undergraduate education was develop-ing serious problems; and because of our perception of the responsibility shared by the Board andthe National Science Foundation for the health of U.S. academic science and engineering. Al-though the Committee's principal original charge was to consider the role of the NSF in under-graduate education, this was extended appropriately to include consideration of the needs foraction by other sectors as well.

This report provides an analysis of the current condition and trends in U.S. undergraduateeducation in the sciences, mathematics and engineering. It contains suggestions for actions to beundertaken by academic institutions and their governing bodies, the States, the private sector, andother Federal agencies, as well as by the National Science Foundation.

During the c urse of its study, the Committee received information from many sources Fourpublic hearings were conducted and testimony received from knowledgeable leaders in highereducation, the scientific community, industry and government. The Committee studied a widerange of published reports, and also received statements and reports from a number of concernedindividuals and organizations. We are most appreciative of the time and efforts expended by somany people in contributing to the report. In particular, we acknowledge the outstanding work ofthe Committee and its chairman, Dr. Homer Neal.

The report contains much useful information and reflects strong opinions of a broad cross-section of persons knowledgeable of U.S. science and technology about a serious nationalconcern. We hope the report will be of interest to and serve as a basis for discussion by those whoare actively concerned with the quality of the Nation's colleges and universities and our country'slong-term economic health.

In its response, the Foundation will prepare a plan emphasizing new and innovative approacheswith reference to the information and recommendations contained in the report This Plan willhave to be devised in the context of severe budgetary pressures and large competing demands.Thus its implementation poses a great challenge to all concerned with the quality of highereducation. But, we must all take action or suffer the consequences of an ever diminishing quality inthe education of the Nation'c future scientists and engineers.

Roland W. SchmittChairmanNational Science Board

Erich BlochDirectorNational Science Founda+ i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many individuals and groups contributed to the work of the Task Committee leading to thisreport. The individual witnesses and those who spoke to the Committee as representatives oforganizations are listed in the Appendices. We are grateful for their statements, ideas, andcooperation.

We are especially grateful for the continued staff efforts by members of the National ScienceFoundation: Peter E. Yankwich, who served as co-principal writer with the Task Committee'sExecutive Secretary Robert E Watson, and their assistantsMyra J. McAuliffe, Judith M. Glover,Saundra E Lesesne, and Sadie R. Jones.

The source of much of the data contained in the report is the Division of Science ResourcesStudies. William L. Stewart, Charles H. Dickens, Mary J. Golloday, Felix H. Lindsay and PennyFoster reviewed the entire manuscript of the report. Special data were provided by Peter W. Houseand Rolf F. Lehming, Division of Policy Research and Analysis.

Data presentation was developed by Jane!! C. Walker, Division of Administrative Services,assisted by Marie M. MLintosh and Chris J. Gordon.

Thomas Ubois, Executive Officer of the National Science Board, and Catherine M. Flynn, StaffAssistant, smoothed th° path of the Committee in mary ways.

A particular debt of gratitude is owed to Alexandra M. Wolman of the NSF Staff, assisted byPatric:..., A. Burbank, Sherrie Sykes (Office of the General Counsel), and Kimberly Gibson, uponwhom fell the seemingly endless task of preparing the drafts and redrafts of the text of this report

Finally, we express special thanks to Bassam Z. Shakhashiri, National Science Foundation'sAssistant Director for Science and Engineering Education.

-dcrha4144Homer A. NealChairmanNational Science Board

Task Committee onUndergraduate Science andEngineering Education

x

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Serious problems, especially problems of quality,have developed during the past decade in the infrastruc-ture of college-level education in the United States inmathematics, engineering, and the sciences. Problemsare occurring to a significant degree in all types of institu-tions, two-year and four-year colleges and universities,and in all regions of the country. Minority institutionscontinue to have serious difficulties. The broad areas ofengineenng, mathematics, and the sciences share manyof these concerns, but each has some of its own. Theproblems of the engineering disciplines are especiallysevere. The impacts and the challenges and oppor-tunities of the new technologies pervade all thedisciplines.

The most striking and pervasive change of the 1980'sone that is fundamental and irreversible is the shift to aglobal economy. The only way that we can cont.nue tostay ahead of other countries is to keep new ideas flowingthrough research; to have the best technically trained,most inventive and adaptable workforce of any nation;and to have a citizenry able to make intelligent judg-ments about technically-based issues. Thus, the deterio-ration of collegiate science, mathematics and engineeringeducation is a grave long-term threat to the Nation's scien-tific and technical capacity, its industrial and economiccompetitiveness, and the strength of its national defense

The major objectives of the study reported here wereassessment of the present character and condition ofundergraduate education in mathematics, engineering,and the sciences, and determination of an appropriaterole for the National Science Foundation in regard to itsstrength and improvement.

The Committee has concluded that the Foundation'srole must be strong leadership of a nation-wide effort,an effort that will require participation by public andprivate bodies at all levels. The Foundation must use itsleadership and high leverage programs to catalyze sig-nificant efforts in the states and local governments and inthe academic institutions where ultimate responsibilitylies. The recommendations of this report make reneweddemands on the academic community especially that itsbest scholarship be applied to the manifold activitiesneeded to strengthen undergraduate science, engineer-ing, and mathematics education in the United States.

A. The Condition of UndergraduateEducation in Science, Mathematics,and Engineering

The United States has developed the most varied andextensive network of colleges and universities in theworld.

1

'n the Fall of 1984, 10,700,000 undergraduates out of atotal enrollment of over 12,300,000 students attendedsome 3,300 U.S. institutions of higher learning. Annualexpenditures for higher education nation -wide total $101billion; of this, $42 billion are spent at the undergraduatelevel.

There are great institutions of higher educationthroughout the country. An inexpensive community col-lege is within easy commuting distance of most citizens.Highly developed regional and state public universitiesare not much farther removed. Doctoral universities andprivate colleges are to be found in virtually every State inthe Union. Taken together, these constitute a peerlesssystem of higher education, affording opportunities tostudents with virtuz Ily every kind of academic interest.

It is in these institutions that the talents and values offuture scientists, engineers, business leaders, doctors,lawyers, and politicians are developed. From them willemerge much of our future leadership at local, state andnational levels. The Nation depends in large part uponthe graduates of collegiate institutions to assure its com-petitive edge in the world's economy and the strength ofits national defense.

In 1983, the National Science Board Commission onPrecollege Education in Mathematics, Science and Tech-nology reported on the character and condition of teach-ing and learning in those subjects in the Nation's schools.Partly in consequence of the Commission's findings andits report, states and municipalities have taken manysteps in the intervening three years to correct the effectsof previous neglect and to restore strength and vigor toschool programs in science, mathematics and tech-nology. The Congress has approved and initiated severalresponses, including funding of a leadership role for theNational Science Foundation in these improvementefforts.

The same concerns that led to these efforts to impr weprecollege education have caused steps to be ta! .,1 tostrengthen the flow of science and engineering researchresults from colleges, universities, and other researchlaboratories to the production and marketing sectors ofthe economy. But attention has not yet been focused onthe essential bridge between the schools and the na-tional apparatus for research and development; thatbridge is undergraduate education in mathematics, en-gineering and the sciences.

A few states have taken significant steps to improve thequality of instruction in the colleges and universities they,,upport. Industry has given increased attention to sci-ence and engineering research and to graduate educa-

10

tion, but private sector support of undergraduate educa-tion has not increased similarly.

Although the National Science Foundation for manyyears supported a number of substantial undergraduateprograms, including both curriculum development andfaculty enhancement, its present role in that area is verysmall and limited. There are very few opportunities andincentives for faculty to contribute and compete on anational basis for support of scholarly and creative ac-tivities related to teaching as there are for research.

The evidence considered by the Committee and theobservations of its members indicate clearly that the mostserious deficiencies in undergraduate science, mathe-matics, and engineering education are in three areas. It isthese three areas that require attention of the highestpriority at this time by the National Science Foundationand other federal agencies, by the several states, and bythe private sector:

Laboratory instruction, which is at the heart of scienceand engineering education, has deteriorated to thepoint where it is often uninspired, tedious, arid dull.Too frequently it is conducted in facilities and withinstruments that are obsolete and inadequate. (Theneeds for new instruments alone are estimated at$2-4 billion.) It is being eliminated from many intro-ductory courses. Much too little funding is availableto support faculty with creative ideas for laboratoryredevelopment.

Faculty members are often unable to update their dis-ciplinary knowledge continuously or maintain theirpedagogical skills, and are largely unable to makeskilled use of computers and other advanced tech-nologies. In some fields there are serious shortagesof qualified faculty.

Courses and curricula are frequently out-of-date incontent, unimaginative, poorly organized f-- stu-dents with different interests, and fail t ..t re-cent advances in the understanding of t. ng andlearning; the same is 'true of instructional materialsnow in use. Insufficient faculty energies are devotedto improving the quality of instruction and its appealto any others than those enrolled as majors in theirfield.

These deficiencies contribute to trends in student per-formance and behavior that are adverse to the nationalinterest: fewer students are choosing careers in scienceand engineering; certain specialties are not attracting thenumber or quality of entrants they need; enrollment inteacher education curricula in mathematics and the sci-ences is critically low; and the supply of well-qualifiedteachers for the schools is short.

The size or the 18-19 year-old age group will declinesignificantly in the next decade. Unless education inmathematics, engineering, and the sciences is mademore effective for all students and more attractive topotential faculty members, and especially to the pres-

2

ently underrepresented (women, minorities, and thephysically handicapped), both the quality and number ofnewly-educated professionals in these important fieldswill tall well below the Nation's needs with predictableharm to its economy and security.

There has been for a decade a steadily worseningshortage of qualified faculty in engineering schools.Mathematics began to experience the same disparity be-tween collegiate faculty demand and supply over fiveyears ago More recently a downturn in the rate at whichscience doctorates choose academic careers has been ob-served, suggesting that faculty shortages will sooncharacterize 11105i of the fields in which the Foundationplays a role. These shortages will be exacerbated by thealready discernible increase in retirement of facuity whowere appointed initially during the enrollment expan-sions of the 1950s and 1960s. Those retirements are ex-pected to intensify the general shortages of college anduniversity faculty members projected for 1995-2010. Sinceit takes at least 9 years for a freshman student to become anappointable doctorate in most science and engineerrig fields,only immediate and sustained efforts to attract the brightestyoung people to the rigorous process of preparing for a facultycareer can reduce the shortages that are sure to come

B. The Support of Undergraduate Educationin Science, Mathematics, andEngineering

It is estimated that education in the United States at alllevels will cost $260 billion in 1985-86. Higher educationwill account for $101 billion of that total; and of that sum$42 billion will be expended on undergraduate education$12.4 billion in private institutions, $29.5 billion in pub-

lic colleges and universities. About one-half of the latteramounts will be devoted to science, mathematics, andengineering education.

State funding of higher education during the last dec-ade has not kept up with cost inflation. Some stateshave establisheui review bodies for education inmathematics, science, and technology education (asrecommended in 1983 by the National Science BoardCommission), but only in a few instances have state-wide surveys been completed, needs determined,and new funding recommended.

Industrial and other corporate gifts to education haveincreased in the past fifteen years from 0.43% to0.68% of pretax net income; they aggregated $1.6billion in 1984. The higher education share of thistotal is substantial, as is that of the technical fields,but industries have concentrated their support ongraduate education and research linked closely totheir interests.

Mission-oriented federal agencies expend large sums inhigher education, but primarily in direct support or

11

basic research and graduate education. TheDepartment of Education with minor exceptions ismandated to concentrate its resources on entitle-ments, assistance to individuals, and formula-baseddistributions. Very little of its funds can be expendedon flexible programming to improve undergraduateeducation in mathematics, engineering, and the sci-ences, and the agency does not have a history ofstrong linkages with the academic scientific and en-gineering communities.

The bulk of the $1,500 million annual budget of theNational Science Foundation is for the support of basicresearch at both doctoral and non-doctoral academicinstitutions. Some of this research involves under-graduate students, and affects ;heir education di-rectly. At present, two programs that specificallysupport undergraduate education in science, mathe-matics and engineering are located in the Directoratefor Science and Engineering Education. They are:the College Science Instrumentation Program, bud-geted at $5.5 million annually; and a teacher prepa-ration program for future school teachers of mathe-matics and science, budgeted at $6 million per year.

The support from all sectors for undergraduate educa-tion in mathematics, engineering, and the sciences isinadequately responsive to either its worsening con-dition or the national need for its revitalization andimprovement.

C. Recommendations to the States,Academic Institutions, the PrivateSector and Mission-Oriented FederalAgencies

The evidence before it leads the Committee to makerecommendations beyond its original charge, which wasto define an appropriate role for the National ScienceFoundation in undergraduate education in engineering,mathematics, and the sciences. The Committee believesthat, realistically:

Responsibility for the academic health of undergraduateeducation resides primarily in the Nation's colleges anduniversities and their governing bodies. Responsibility forthe financial health of the educational institutions liesprimarily with states, municipalities, and the host of sup-porters of private higher education.

Most of tl'e direct effort to reverse the downtrends ofquality in undergra'' date mathematics, engineering,and science education must be made at the state andlocal levels of government and in the private sector.Those are the places where educational policy ismade and the basic financial support for higher edu-cation is marshalled.

3

The National Science Foundation cannot assume respon-sibility for the financial health of higher education, even inthe sciences and engineering But, the Foundation can andshould expand and establish programs winch assist therestoration of academic health to undergraduate educationin the fields zeithin the domain assigned to it.

The Foundation's leadership should emphasizeprovision of incentives, quickening of motivation,and the partnership of the states, educational in-stitutions, and many private sector entities in theextensive and sustained efforts that will be required.

The Comma ,' recommends

7i) States:

establishment of undergraduate science, mathe-matics, and engineering education as a high priorityof essential importance to the economic, social, andcultural well-being of their citizens;

timely and responsive consideration by legislaturesof recommendations for improvement of under-graduate mathematics, engineering, and science ed-ucation in two- and four-year colleges and inuniversities;

enactment of special legislation aimed at achievingnational norms for a minimum level of support forlaboratory instrumentation (amounting to $2,000per engineering or science graduate per year, asrecommended by bodies such as the National So-ciety for Professional Engineers);

careful long-range planning for the renewal of facili-ties, equipment, and other physical resources; and

the creation of special educational commissions orreview bodies (if they have not already been ap-pointed) to determine conditions and needs in un-dergraduate education in science, mathematics, andengineering in their states, to help set goals andobjectives, and to recommend ways and means.

To Academic Lstitutions:

achievement of the investments of faculty, physicalfacilities, and financial resources per student neces-;:ary for high quality undergraduate education inscience, engineering, and mathematics, through in-ternal prioritization and allocation;

development of both short-range and long-rangeplans for modernization of undergraduate instruc-tional and research equipment;

careful long-range planning for the renewal of facili-ties, equipment, and faculties;

strong support of faculty efforts to update and up-grade courses and curricula designed to meet theneeds of both majors and non- rrajors;

12

increased participation by all faculty, including re-search faculty, in the instruction of undergraduatesand in other efforts to raise the uality of their edu-3-tional experier ce;

joint efforts with other institutions to improve theschool-to-college, two-year to four-year college, andundergraduate-to-graduate transitions, and

expansion of partnerships in education with indus-tries and other organizations in the pnvate sector.

To the Private Sector:

greater and more stable support for undergraduateeducation in mathematics., engineering, ami thesciences;

expanded partnerships with colleges and univer-sities in efforts to improve pre-professional educa-tion, and

increased cor )orate efforts to improve the pundo--#anding of science and technology.

To Mission-Oriented Federal Agemies:

Those federal agencies with strong basic and appliedresearch components (e.g., NASA, DOD, DOE, andNIH) should continue their graduate-level program-ming and expand their efforts to involve under-graduate faculty and students in their researchactivities

Those agencies also should consider providing in-centives to contractors and grantees for appropriateinclusion of undergraduate components in theirwork.

The Department of Education and the National Sci-ence Foundation should collaborat._ in a major effortto correct the causes in schools of the steadily in-creasing c...mand for remedial mathematics and sci-ence instruction in colleges and universities.

The Department of Education and the Foundationshould develop jointly, for college-level instructionin engineering, mathematics, and the sciences, datacollection and analyses that will reveal trends instudent achievement nation-wide.

D. Recommends* s to theNational Science 1. Jundation

Current national policy and federal strategy recognizethat education in science, engineering and mathematicsare critica: io the economic vitality and security of theNation tccordingly, heavy investments are being madein graduate education and research, and strong pro-grams have been initiated to improve the effectiveness ofprecollege education. Now, sound national policy re-quires that the strategy be made complete by supporting

4

the revitalization and improvement of undergraduateeducation in science, mathematics, and engineenng.

The enabling legislation for the National Science Founda-tion obligates it to take leadership of efforts to revitalize andimprove undergraduate mathematics, engineering, andscience education in the United States.

In support of these objectives the Foundation shouldconcentrate on key undergraduate programs that empha-size motivation and initiative for needed change, leverageits resources, and make use of its historic relationshipswith the science and engineering research communities.These programs should build upon the Foundation'spresent activities to improve precollege science andmathematics education.

The Committee anticipates that by no later th. n 1989implementation of its recommendations will have estab-lished a permanent Foundation presence in undergradu-ate mathematics, engineering, and science educationcomprising:

a comprehensive set of programs to catalyze and stimulatenational efforts to assure a vit.! faculty, maintain engagingand high quality curricula, develop effective laboratories,and attract an increasing fraction of the Nation's mosttalented students to careers in engineering, mathematics,an the sciences, and

a ,mechanism to systematically inform the Nation of condi-tions, trends, needs, and opportunities in these importantareas of education.

The Committee's specific recommendations for actionby the National Science Foundation fall into two catego-ries: Leadership, and Leveraged Program Support.

1. Leadership

The National Science Foundation should take bold steps toestablish itself .n a position of leadership to advance and main-tain the quality of undergraduate education in engineering,mathematics, and the sciences,

The Foundation shoula:

stimulate the states and the components of the pri-vate sector to increase their investments in the im-provement of undergraduate science, engineering,and mathematics education, and provide a forum forconsideration of current issues related to ouchefforts;

implement new programs and expand existing onesfor the ultimate benefit of students in all types ofinstitutions,

actuate cooperative projects among two-year andfour-year colleges and universities to improve theireducational efficiency and effectiveness;

stimulate and support a variety of efforts to improvepublic understanding of science and technology,

13

stimulate creative and productive activity in teachingand learning (and research on them), just as it doesin basic disciplinary research. New funding will berequired, but intrinsic cost differences are such thatthis result :_an be obtained with a smaller investmentthan is presently being made in basic research,

bring its programming in the undergraduate educa-tion area into balance with its activities in the pre-college and graduate areas as quickly as possible;

expand its efforts to increase the participation ofwomen, minorities, and the physically handicappedin professional science, mathematics, andengineenng;

design and implement an appropriate database ac-tivity concerning the qualitative and quantitative as-pects of undergraduate education in mathematics,engineering and the sciences to assure flexibility inits response to changing national and disciplinaryneeds; and

develop quickly an appropriate administrative struc-ture and mechanisms for the implementation ofthese and the following recommendations. The focalpoint should be the Directorate for Science and Engi-neering Education; it should foster collaborationamong all parts of the Foundation to achieve excel-lence in science, mathematics, and engineeringeducation.

2. Leveraged Program Support

The Committee recommends that National Science Founda-tion annual expenditures at the undergraduate level in science,mathematics, and engineering education be increased by $100million. Such an enhanced levt.: Jf expenditure would beconsistent with ie funding goals recommended for NSFprecollege activities by the NSB Commission on Pre-college Education in Mathematics, Science and Tech-nology ($175 million), and with the level of present Foun-dation support of research ($1,300 million).

The Committee intends that the programs it recom-mends be highly leveraged. Initially, "upstream" par-ticipation in financial support - e.g. through matchingwill be required in many areas. This kind of leveraging isspecific and quantifiable; for example, the College Sci-ence Instrumentation Program generated in 1985 contri-butions from awardee organizations that exceeded thefederal funds made available. The Committee fully ex-pects these programs will exhibit strong leverage "down-stream" that their influence on the quality and scope ofeducation will be very great. An example of downstreamleveraging is the computer language BASIC, developedunder an award from NSF.

The following items list the program areas of highestpriority and indicate the distribution of funds appropri-ate to their complementary and interactive character.

Laboratory Development . $20 million(supporting development projects toimprove the laboratory component ofscience and engineering instruction)

Instructional Instrumentation andEquipment $30 million

(encouraging and supporting jointefforts to remedy the serious deficien-cies of instructional instrumentationand equipment)

Faculty Professional Enhancement $13 million(stimulating new ways and sharing thesupport of the best new and traditionalways of improving the professionalqualifications of college and universityfaculty members)

Course and Curriculum Development $13 million(encouraging and supporting effortst,) improve the ways in which technicalknowledge is selected, organized, andpresented)

Comprehensive ImprovementProjects $10 million

(addressing several of the above pri-orities simultaneously in a single in-stitution, or across a given discipline,or in a combination of these throughconsortial efforts)

Undergraduate Research Participation $ 8 million(stimulating and supporting the in-volvement of advanced undergraduatestudents in research in their collegesand in other places with programs oftechnical investigation)

Minority Institutions Program $ 5 million(strengthening the capability of minor-ity institutions to increase the par-ticipation of rn,nonties in professionalscience, mathematics, ar.,1engineering)

Informatie- for Long-RangePlan m $ 1 million

.ectinc;, studying, and analyzinginformation and data on undergradu-ate education in science, engineering,and mathematics, to assist long-rangeFoundation planning; this fundingwould include an appropriate level ofcollaborative work with the Depart-ment of Education and other majordata sources)

This increase of $100 million, although insufficient tosolve all of the problems of undergraduate science, engi-neering, and mathematics education in the United State,-

5

14

can cause truly significant, positive changes In constantdollars, the proposed programming is not far short of thelevel of the Foundation's undergraduate activities in thelate 1960s. Review of these programs indicated that manyof them had strong positive influence on the quality ofundergraduate education, and that experience providesassurance ghat this proposed level of activity can beeffective.

ME levels of funding described above assume thatother federal agencies will continue and expand theirpresent support of undergraduate education, that theFoundation's efforts will stimulate the very much largernecessary expenditures by states and municipalities, andth.s.t the private sector will make an appropriate responseto the national needs described ir, this report. We believethat a proper response to this effort by the NationalScience Foundation will require additional annual expen-ditures of sums aggregating $1,000 million by states,municipalities, other agencies of the United States Gov-ernment, industry, and other ports of the private sector.

The Committee recommends that this comprehensiveprogram at the undergraduate level be funded and imple-mented as quickly as possible. Because the program ele-ments are complementary and interactive, their imple-mentation will have the greatest beneficial impact if donein parallel.

We are recommending additional funding of $100 mil-lion a year. In addition to the $13 million support in-cluded in the Foundation's FY 1987 Budget Estimate toCongress, a viable set of program . ctivities requires $50million in new funds for FY 1988; attainment of a total of$100 million in new funds by FY 1989 will permit a frontalattack to be made on the problems that the Committeehas identified.

We make these recommendations of funding levels infull knowledge of the current federal budget exigencies,including the possible effect of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. The Committee believes the mix and bal-ance of programs described above to be sufficiently im-portant that they should be initiated within the existingFoundation resources rather than wait until incrementalfunds are made available.

The following brief tabulation summarizes the Com-mittee's proposals for the distribu'Ion of new funds. Theentries in the table show the phasing-in of specific pro-gram funding and reflect the priorities of the Committee.

Examination of this table in the light of the Findingsand Conclusions detailed in later sections of this reportreveals the imbalance and lack of synergism even at the$50 million level of additional funds. Nevertheless, theeffects of built-in leveraging will permit a reasonableattack to be made on certain problems. But, it is only atthe recommended $100 million level of additional expen-diture that this leveraging from state and local, publicand private sources results in a strong nation-wide effortthat can solve these problems.

6

NSF BudgetEstimate

FY 1987

RecommendedFunding AboveFY 1987 Budget

Estimate

FY 1988 FY 1989$13 Program (short title) $50 $100

Laboratory development 10 202 Instrumentation 10 307 Faculty enhancement 10 13

Course and curriculum 7 13

Comprehensive improvement 104 Undergraduate research 8 8

Minority institutions 5 5Planning 1

Dollars in millions

The Committee considered carefully, within its charge,a number of educational needs t ihich it does not at thistime assign high priority for NSF funding. Among suchneeds are. construction and remodeling of facilities; stu-dent loans and scholarships; and programs to assist fac-ulty members to earn advanced degrees. All of these (andmany others considered by the Committee) are mer-itorious and would assist progress toward the pnncipalobjective addressed in this report improvement of un-dergraduate education in sciencz, mathematics, and en-gineering. Howeve!, they all have the character of capital

not catalytic investments. The Foundation must limitits role to leadership and catalysis; basic capital expen-ditures in pursuit of these national educational goalsmust be made by state and local governments and by thecomponents of the private sector.

The Committee considered carefully groups and in-stitutions with special needs in al riving at its rec-ommendations for programs and funding. We recom-mend that special needs be met within the programsdescribed above, utilizing NSF's Review Criterion IV as isdone in the other regular support programs. With theseconsiderations in view we stress the following three rec-ommendations that cut across the areas just described:

Increased Participation of Women, Minorities, and Phys-ically Handicapped. The NSF should actively seek thisgoal in implementing the above recommendations,including program management and proposal re-view, and the projects that are supported.

Institutional Diversity. The Committee believes thatthe diversity of institutional types in the UnitedStates is a strength to be nurtured. Care should beexercised to assure that high quality projects aresupported at all tynes of institutions. It is importantto utilize and motivate the best and most talentedfaculty at all institutions to strengthen the instruc-tional component of higher education.

Engineering Education and New Technologies. The Com-mittee recognizes the current extraordinary levels ofconcern and need in the various fields of engineer-

15

ing. The impact of the new technologies (e.g. com-puterization and biotechnology) on all fields is greatalso. Accordingly, it recommends that the programsinitially target their support heavily in these areas.

Review of the appropriateness of support distributionacross the disciplines and in the other areas of specialneed should be a continumg concern of the Directoratefor Science and Engineering Education.

The Committee emphasizes the importance of educa-tional and scientific merit as established by the peerreview process in the selection of projects for supportunder programs developed in response to these rec-ommendations. Such projects must meet the traditionalstandards of quality and excellence demanded by theFoundation.

The Committee recommends that the Director of theNational Science Foundation move to implement theprogram and action recommendations contained herein.A detailed plan for both the leadership and programactivities, including an administrative structure, withinthe Directorate for Science and Engineering Education,progra-I descriptions, guidelines, etc., should be com-pleted in time to permit the program to be initiatedduring Fiscal Year 1987.

Finally, ,ne Committee recommends that respn-sibility for monitonng the implementation of this report

be assigned to the Nationei Science Board's Committeeon Education and Human Resources.

E. ConclusionThe principal charge given to the Committee by the

Chairman of the National Science Board was ". . . toconsider the role of the National Science Foundation inundergraduate science and engineering education." Thisreport defines a role that is both appropriate to NSF'smission and responsive to the Nation's needs. It alsourges needed actions by other sectois, both public andprivate.

The Committee believes that NSF should be a signifi-cant presence in undergraduate science, mathematics,and engineering education. But the greatest efforts mustcome from the people directly responsible for the healthof colleges and universities. The Federal Government, ingeneral, and the National Science Foundation, in par-ticular, cannot and should not be looked to for the sub-stantial continuing infusions of resources that areneeded.

Undergraduate education occupies a strategically crii-ical position in U.S. education, touching vitally both theschools and postgraduate education. We hope that thisreport will contribute to the resurgence of qualitythroughout higher education that is essential to the well-being of all U.S. citizens.

16

II. FINDINGS

'An effective system of science and engineering educa-tion is vital to the long term interest of the UnitedStates as this country strives to strengthen its econo-my, its national defense, and the quality of life andwell-being of its citizens. The centrality of science andtechnology to American life is a recognized fact, and itis evident that this Nation's future prosperity andsecurity is dependent upon the maintenance of a suffi-cient number of adequately trained scientists and en-gineers to respond to national needs and priorities."Frederick Humphries, President, Florida A&M Uni-versity (W24).

A. Background

1. Undergraduate Education.. .

Nowhere else in the world have Nations succeeded increat; 4a system of higher education that reaches such abroad cross section of citizens as in the United States. Thequality we strive for and the standards we establish forthis enterprise ar- sensitive measures of our aspirationsfor the American future.

There are nearly 3,300 institutions of hither learning inthe U.S., two- and four-year colleges, master- and doc-toral- granting universities, and specialized institutions;2,700 of these have courses of study in science and engi-neering (Table A) (B1:266). In the Fall of 1984, these 3,300institutions enrolled over 12,300,000 students, of whom10,700,000 were undergraduates. Enrollment trendssince 1970 and projections through 1993 are shown inTable B (B2:98) and Chart 1 (B2:99).

Undergraduate programs build on the experiences ofstudents accepted from our Nation's diverse precollegeschool systems, ranging from those flourishing in afflu-ent locales to others struggling in inner city blight andrural poverty. Reciprocally, challenging and well-con-ceived undergraduate education can help to elevate thequality of precollege programs across the Nation.

In 1983, the National Science Board Commission onPrecollege Education in Mathematics, Science and Tech-nology reported on the character and condition of teach-ing and learning in those subjects in the Nation's schools(B3). Partly in consequence of the alarm sounded by theCommission's report, states and municipalities havetaken many steps in the intervening three years to correctthe effects of previous neglect and to restore strength andvigor to school programs in science, mathematics andtechnology. The Congress has approved and initiated

9

several responses, including funding of a leadership rolefor the National Science Foundation in these improve-ment efforts (B4).

Graduates of the four-year colleges and universitiesenter business, industry, and government, or continuetheir education in graduate or professional programs.Graduates of two-year colleges and technical institutesprovide an important human resource for industry and asteady stream of transfer students for four-year collegesand universities. American technological competi-tiveness in the international arena in the future will beinfluenced by these sometimes overlooked programs.

A significant fraction (31%) of college and universitystudents graduate today with majors in scientific andtechnical areas, and these students constitute the scientific and technological leadership pool that must supportAmerican innovation and discovery for nearly half of thenext century (B5).

Attention has noi. yet been focused on the essentialbridge between the Schools and the national apparatusfor research and development: ulid-rgraduate educationin mathematics, engineering and the sciences. A fewstates (e.g. Kentucky, Tennessee, New Jersey and Cal-ifornia) have taken significant steps to improve thequality of instruction in those fields in the colleges anduniversities they support. However, appropriations forhigher education in most states are not increasing rapidlyenough to correct the effects of erosion by inflation dur-ing the past fifteen years (B6).

The same concerns that led to recent school-orientededucational improvement efforts have caused steps to betaken to strengthen the flow of science and engineenngresearch results from colleges, universities, and otherresearch laboratories to the production and marketingsectors of the economy. In the main, those steps havebeen directed at the graduate education level. Industryhas given some increased attention to the research com-ing from graduate education, though its direct support ofsuch activities is still a small fraction of that provided bythe State and Federal Governments (B7).

The _on counts on its diversified population of col-lege graduates to provide leadership in business, govern-ment, education, agriculture, media, and the arts. Thequality of their undergraduate contacts with science,mathematics, and engineering will be reflected in manyforums in the future. The knowledge and training ofthese graduates and their ability to continue to learn,more than any other tangible resource, constitute thefuture wealth of the Nation.

17

TABLE A

lnstitutions of higher education and institutions awarding S/E degrees,by highest degree awarded: 1960-84

Year

Total highereducation

institutions

Four-year institutions

Two-yearinstitutions

4-yearinstitutions

Granting SiE degrees (highest degree)

Not grantingSiE degreesTotal

Bachelors andfirst professiona, Masters Doctor s

1960 2.021 1446 1056 735 180 141 390 5751961 2,034 1,441 1.090 748 189 153 351 5931962 2.050 1,464 1.112 745 212 155 352 5861963 2,106 1,476 1,125 754 209 162 351 6301964 2,146 1,509 1,147 757 218 172 362 637

1965 2.189 1,532 1 165 754 233 178 367 6571966 2,247 1,565 1,178 745 246 187 387 6821967 2.347 1,592 1,217 752 271 194 375 7551968 2.392 1.603 1,223 746 281 196 380 7891969 2,503 1.636 1,254 756 292 206 382 867

1970 . 2,544 1,654 1,274 762 292 220 380 8901971 2.573 1,681 1,276 760 287 229 405 8921972 2,626 1,689 1,362 795 319 248 327 9371973 2,689 1,772 1,396 815 318 263 376 9671974 2,744 1,737 1,400 102 327 271 337 1,007

1975 3.012 1,871 1,420 813 340 267 451 1,141197R 3.026 1,898 NA NA NA NA NA 1,128197, 3,046 1,905 NA NA NA NA NA 1,1411978 3.095 1,925 1,445 804 359 282 493 1,1701979 3.134 1,925 NA NA NA NA NA 1,209

1980 . 3,152 1 934 NA NA NA NA NA 1,2181981 3.231 2.007 1,447 793 361 293 560 1 2241982 . 3.253 2,039 1,457 797 365 295 582 1 2141983 .. 3,280 2 074 NA NA NA NA NA 1,2061984 3.284 2,012 NA NA NA NA NA 1 272

Note NA - Not available

SOURCE National Science Foundation Science Indicators, 1985

2. . . .and The National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has statutoryauthority to support undergraduate education via Sec-tion 3(a) of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950(as amended) which stares that "the Foundation is autho-rized and directed:

"(1) . . . to in;iiate and support basic scientific research andprograms to strengthen the mathematical, physical, medi-cal, biological, scientific research potential and scienceeducation programs at all levels . . 1

Throughout the 1960's and early 1970's, the NationalScience Foundation had an extensive program of supportfor undergraduate research participation, faculty de-velopment, laboratory instrumentation, and develop-ment of new curriculum materials.

An average of approximately $30 million per year ($100million in 1985 dollars) was channeled into these impor-tant activities. However, questions about the proper role

10

in education of the Federal Government, issues associ-dted with perceptions of program focus, effectiveness,and financial exigency caused NSF undergraduate pro-gram support levels to be reduced severely in later years.

The history of NSF's support for graduate, under-graduate, and precollege education through its Scienceand Engineering Education Directorate is depicted inChart 2 and Table C. Chart 3 compares these data foreducation support with the history of total NSF fundingsince 1960 (B8:39, updated).

The following listing is a brief description of some of:.he major undergraduate support programs formerlyconducted by NSF.

Students:

Undergraduate Research Participation Program (URP)-Operated from 1959-1981, this program providedsummer full-time support, sometimes coupled withpart-time academic year activities, for undergradu-ate students to work with faculty on spec tally dff:gned

18

TABLE B

Past and Projected Trends in Total Enrollment in Institutions of Higher Education,by Control and Type of Institution and by Level of Student: United States,

Fall 1970 to Fall 1993

(In Thousands)

Fall

of

Year

TotalEnrollment

Control of Institution Type of Institution Level

Public Privai6 4-Year 2-Year Undergraduateand Unclassified

Graduate andPostbaccalaureate

UnclassifiedFirst-

Professional

1970 8.581 6,428 2,153 6,358 2,223 7,376 1,031 175

1971 8,949 6,804 2,144 6,463 2,486 7.743 1,012 194

1972 9.215 7,071 2,144 6,459 2,756 7,941 1,066 2071973 9,602 7,420 2,183 6,590 3,012 8,261 1,123 2181974 10,224 7,989 2,235 6,820 3,404 8,798 11190 ?361975 11.185 8,835 2,350 7,215 3,970 9,679 1,263 2451976 11.012 8,653 2,359 7,129 3,883 9.429 1,333 251

1977 11,286 8,847 2,437 7,242 4,042 9.714 1,318 251

1978 11.259 8,764 2,475 7,232 4,028 9,684 1,319 2571979 11,570 9,037 2,533 7,353 4,217 9,998 1,309 2631980 12,097 9,457 2,640 7,571 4,526 10,475 1,343 2781981 12.372 9,647 2,724 7,655 4,716 10,754 1,343 2751982 12,426 9,696 2,730 7,654 4,772 10,825 1,323 2781983 12,465 9,683 2,782 7,739 4,726 10,846 1,339 279

Projected'

1984 12,345 9,645 2,700 7,600 4,745 10,715 1,345 2851985 12,247 9,591 2,656 7,437 4,810 10,551 1,398 2981986 12,162 9,533 2,629 7,358 4,804 10,447 1,413 3021987 12,136 9,518 2,618 7,317 4,819 10,410 1,424 3021988 12,141 9,528 2,613 7,303 4,83 10,417 1,424 3001989 12,161 9,548 2,613 7,306 4,855 10,439 1,425 2971990 12,093 9,498 2,595 7,204 4,829 10,371 1,427 2951991 11,989 9,419 2,570 7,195 4,794 10,266 1,430 2931992 11,810 9,284 2,526 7,071 4,739 10,096 1,422 2921993 11,676 9,185 2,491 6,968 4,708 9,968 1,418 290

'For metnodoioc ca :',e'alis see Pr Oiect(ors o' Education Statistcs to 1992 93 1985

SOURCE U S Oeoartment of Eaucation National Center for Education Statistics Nigher Eaucation Ganeial Information Survey Fail Enrollment InColleges and un,ve,s1:,es various years Protections of Education Statistics to 1992 93. 1985 ana unpublisilea tabulationS 10eCernber 19841

research projects. One goal was to induce faculties toincorporate this type of activity into the regular cur-riculum for majors. In 1966, the program supported6,500 students with a budget of $6.8 million, withproposals requesting support for over 30,000students.

Curriculum and Materials:

Instructional Scientific Equipment Program (ISEP)-Operated from 1961-1981, this program providedmatching funds for instruments to implement in-structional laboratory improvement and develop-ment plans. ISEP was open to all institutions.

Science Curriculum Improvement Program (SCIP) -Op-erated under this name from 1958-1972, with namechanges thereafter, the activity supported curricu-lum and course research and development activities.In the 60's SCIP supported the commissions (eg.,Commission on College Physics); was responsible

11

for such projects as the creation of computer lan-guage BASIC, and noted educational materials andfilms such as the film "Powers of Ten." Lace: projectsin the 70's included creation of AMCEE (P ssociationfor Media-based Continuing Education for Engi-neers) and the CAD/CAM (Computer-Assist !d De-sign/Computer-Assisted Manufacturing) Engineer-ing Project, a consortium of major engineeringschools to develop and disseminate CAD/CAM ma-terials and curricula

Local Course Improvement (LOCI)- Focused coursedevelopment projects by individual facuay or smallgroups; produced both local changes and publishedsoftware, materials, etc.

Institutional Development:

College Science Improvement Program (COS1P)-Oper-ated 1967-73, supported comprehensive plans c,fpredominantly undergraduate colleges and con-

19

CHART 1

Enrollment Trends in Institutions of HigherEducation, by Institutional Characteristics

15,000,000

10,000,000

5,000.000

01970 1973

Enrollment, by Type of Institution

Projected

15,000,000

10.000.000

5.000,000

2 yearinstitutions

1978 1983Fall of year

1988

Enrollment, by Control of Institution

Projected

Total

1993

1978 1983Fall of year

1988

Total

1993

Enrollment in 4-year institutions is projected to decrease significantly duringthe 1980's and into the 1990's. while enrollment in 2-year institutions is pro-jected to decline slightly in the early 1990's Enrollments in both public andprivate institutions are expected to fall over the next decade

SOURCE The Condition of Education 1985 Edition, National Center for Edu-cation Statistics, U S Department of Education

sortia for development of their science instructionalprograms. One component was for consortia of 2-year colleges and universities, another was for mi-nority institutions (later renamed and moved to De-partment of Education in 1980).

Comprehensive Assistance to Undergraduate Science Edu-cation (CAUSE)--Operated from 1976-81, similar toCOSIP, but open to all institutions.

Resource Centers for Science and EngineeringOper-ated from 1978-81. Minority education was the focusof these four major ($2.8 million each) awards to fourregionally dispersee. sites. Programs brought to-gether colleges, schools, and communities to im-prove performance and participation of minorities inscience and engineering.

Faculty:

Science Faculty FellowshipsOperated from 1957-1981(except 1972 and 1973). Awards to individual faculty

12

in partial support of sabbatical leave-type activity, forstudy and for research, to enhance their effec-tiveness as teachers

College Teacher Workshops and SeminarsOperatedfrom 1956-1975. Awards to professional societies,educational institutions, industr- and non-profit or-ganizations for two to five w,ek summer con-ferences for undergraduate faculty, dealing with re-cent advances in scientific research or newly ierg-ing

Research Participation for College TeachersOperatedfrom 1959-1970, and intermittently in the 1970's.Awards to academic and other research organiza-tions for support of faculty from small colleges toparticipate in scientific research in summers.

Chautauqua Short CoursesOperated from 1970-1982.Regional field centers provided 2-3 day sessions forfaculty on recent advances in science and technologyby reseachers in the field. Program reached up to5,000 faculty yearly.

At present, there are two NSF activities supportingundergraduate education in the Directorate for Scienceand Engineering Education: (1) The Office of College Sci-ence Instrumentation provides partial funding for effortsby four-year colleges to improve their laboratory instruc-tion and to acquire modern instrumentation; the 1986budget for this activity is $5.5 million. (2) A small pro-gram in the Division of Teacher Preparation and Enhan-cement funds model programs that exhibit potential toimprove the preparation of undergraduates who plan toteach science and mathematics at the precollege level (ca.$6 millien per year).

The Foundation supports research in non-doctoral in-stitutions in several ways. The regular research supportprograms (RSP) placed $36.9 million there in 1985; Re-search in Undergraduate Institutions program (RUI),$8 8 million; and the program for Research OpportunityAwards (ROA), $1.4 million. However, it is important tonote that these programs do not address directly many ofthe deficiencies identified in this study.

3. The Need for Change

"The strains of rapid expansion, followed by recentyears of constricting resources and leveling enroll-ments, have taken their toll. The realities of studentlearning, curricular coherence, the quality of facili-ties, faculty morale, and academic standards no long-er measure up to our expectations. These gaps be-tween the ideal and the actual are serious warningsignals. They point to both current and potentialproblems that must be recognized and addressed."Involvement in Learning, The Final Report of theStudy Group on the Conditions of Excellence inAmerican Higher Education (B11:8).

20

150

125

100

75

25

01952

CHART 2

Science and Engineering Education DirectorateObligation Trends

(Millions of Dollars)

_

Undergraduate

Precollege

Graduate

/ / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / /// // / / /

t

/ / // / / / // / /

/ / / / / / / // / ' / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

//;

/ / / // /L.

1956 1960 1964 1968 1972

Fiscal Year

SOURCE Nationai SclenceFoundation Science and Engineering Education Directorate 1SEE)

Numerous national study groups (B9-B14), NSF ad-visors (B15), and leaders from government, industry, andthe academe community (W1 -W41) have identified defi-ciencies in the quality of undergraduate education in theUnited States, emphasizing the need for Federal lead-ership in this area They assert that:

1 he great majority of undergraduate studentswhowill become community leaders and decisionmakersare not receiving the speciai kinds of scien-tifit , technical and mathematical knowledge theyneed, which includes the principles, practices, andtechniques of science and awareness of its limits.

Texts and other instructional materials are kept inuse even though they are seriously outdated, andthe use of advanced information technologies is notbeing explored. This situation may reflect reducedfaculty ability and incentive to learn about and inte-

I I .

1976 1980 1984 1986

grate new developments into the curriculum. The"cottage industry" of random faculty textbook writ-ing is no longer adequate to meet the need for highquality new materials and modes of college-levelinstruction.

Students of science embark upon lifetimes of profes-sional work of critical importance to the Nation fromschools unable to offer even minimal practical expe-rience of high quality. Laboratory programs andhands-on experience are so deficient that graduatesenter upon their careers or begin advanced trainingin their fields without expoL.ire or practice in themost central professional skills.

The situation in engineering -; especially distress-ing, for the baccala,reate deg:. is the main point ofentry into practice. The enghseering and technicalprofessionals who enter the work force at the end of

13

21

TABLE C

National Science Foundat on Education Obligations by Level of Education

(in millions of dollars(

FiscalYear

TotalNSF

Dollars

TotalSEE

Dollars

PercentSEE ofTot al

LEVEL

Precollege

% $

Undergraduate

% S

Graduate

% $

Informal

% $

1952 3 47 1 54 44 4 0 0 03 005 997 1 54 0 01953 4 42 1 41 31 9 07 001 2 03 97 137 0 01954 7 96 1 89 23 7 2 0 04 5 09 93 1 76 0 01955 12 49 2 13 16 8 6 0 13 9 19 85 1 79 0 01956 15 99 3.52 220 24 0 85 16 56 59 2 08 0 01957 39 63 14 30 370 71 10 15 8 1 14 21 300 0 01958 49 97 19 20 38 4 66 12 67 13 2 50 22 4 22 0 01959 132 94 61 29 46 1 67 41 06 1/ 10 42 16 98 003 0021960 158 60 63.74 40 2 65 41 43 18 11 47 16 10 20 0 5 0 321961 174 99 63 44 36 3 61 38 70 22 13 96 17 10 78 0 5 0 321962 260 E2 P3 60 32 1 63 52 67 19 15 88 17 14 21 04 0331963 320 75 98 72 30 8 57 56 27 23 22 71 19 18 76 04 0391964 354 58 11', 23 31 4 54 60 06 21 23 36 24 26 70 0 4 0 441965 415.97 120 41 28 9 44 52 38 26 31 31 30 36 12 0 3 6 361966 466 43 '24 30 26 7 42 52 ?1 26 32 32 32 39 78 01 0'71967 465 10 125 82 27 1 40 50 33 24 30 20 36 45 30 0 3 0 381968 495 00 134 46 272 40 53 78 26 34 96 33 44 37 0 2 0 271969 400 00 115 30 28 8 39 44 97 26 29 98 35 40 36 0 2 0 231970 440 00 120 18 27 3 42 50 48 23 27 64 35 42 06 0 2 0 241971 513 00 98 81 193 37 36 56 27 21 74 40 39 52 0 4 0 391972 622 00 86 10 13 8 41 35 30 12 27 55 27 23 25 08 '1691973 645.74 62 23 9.6 39 24 29 28 17 42 31 19 29 1 0 0 321974 645 67 80 71 12 5 38 30 67 36 29 06 24 19 37 3 2 421975 693 20 74 03 10 7 38 28 13 29 21 47 30 22 21 2 1 481976 724 40 52 50 9 6 12 750 56 35 00 28 17 50 4 2 501977 791 77 74 30 9 4 13 9 69 58 43 10 24 17 83 5 3 721978 857 25 73 96 8 6 19 14 05 48 35 50 25 18 49 7 5 181979 926 93 80 00 8 6 20 16 00 46 36 80 26 20 80 8 6 401980 975 13 77 19 7 9 22 16 93 42 32 30 26 20 33 9 7 621981 1,041 78 70 66 6 8 37 26 08 37 26 00 21 14 83 5 3 751982 999.14 20 90 2 1 18 3 82 0 72 15 00 10 2081983 1,085 79 30 00. 2 8 43 12 81 0 50 15 00 7 2 191984 1,30691 7500. 57 70 52 60 0 27 20 30 3 2201985 1,502 89 81 96. 5 5 52 42 46 6 500 33 27 30 9 7201986" 1,555 35 87 00' 5 6 53 46 00 6 550 31 27 30 9 8 . -

SOURCE: National Science Foundation Science and Engineering Education Directorate ,SEE)'Includes prior year carry over funds

"Does not include Gramm-Rudman-Hollings

this period need to be familiar with the most currenttools and knowledge; there is seldom a period ofgraduate study in which deficiencies or omissionscan be repaired. Yet, the pace of change in engineer-ing is perhaps even greater than in the natural sci-ences, since it is driven from both sides by discov-ery in the world of science and by innovation andtechnological development in the world of industry.

Insufficient attention is being given to the educationof professional specialists those who will becomemedical or engineering technologists and precollegeteachers, and who are generally relegated to noit-elective "service" courses that often do not meet theirspecial and varied needs.

14

:Detail data may not add to totals because of rounding

Paralleling all of these deficiencies and underlyingsome of them are serious difficulties with the currencyand vitality of the faculty the fundamental resource forhigh quality instruction.

Recent analyses of U.S. undergraduate education(B12,813, B16,B17) point repeatedly to problems of fac-ulty obsolescent e and "burnout" at every type of under-graduate institution, including the 2-year collegeswhere it is estimated that half of all college students taketheir introductory college-level science and engineeringcourses (B18).

Students in professional science and engineeringtracks may complete their undergraduate study with farfrom contemporary knowledge, gained from faculty who

22

2,000

1,750

1,500

1,250

1,000

750

250

CHART 3

NSF Obligations for Science and Engineering Education

(Millions of Dollars)

Current Dollars

NSF-- SEE Directorate- Undergraduate (SEE)

_Is Ma SI Sa.,.../ S .....am.....s.., emsOam 01,.'f''t.....1 ...t..t.',"T"1...f'11960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1986

Fiscal Year

2,000

1,750

1,500

1,250

1,000

750

Constant 1982 Dollars

250

1 GNP implicit price deflators used to convert current dollars to constant 1982 ctallars

SOURCE National Science Foundatiot` Science and Engineering Ftiucation Directorate (SEE)

are losing touch with their own disciplines and relatedfields. Students in non-professional tracks may finishtheir undergraduate study without any real sense of thescope of contemporary science or of its impact on everyaspect of contemporary life.

National figures concerned with collegiate education inthe technical fields suggested many ways of correctingthese deficiencies (W1-W41). The most frequently recur-ring themes were:

incentives to make the faculty and their implementscurrent, vital, and dynamic;

up-to-date instrumentation linked to related curricu-lum development;

opportunities for faculty to pursue professional de-velopment that will help maintain contact withrapidly expanding knowledge in their fields;

01960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980

Fiscal Year

1986

integral, "hands-on" research activities that provideneeded experiences for students;

improved curricula, materials and technologies forpre-professional and professional education that re-flect the current states of knowledge and practice;and

improved curricula and materials that introduce thegeneral student 4, the language, knowledge,thought processes, and methods of science andtechnology in a manner that integrates directly withthe other aspects of a liberal education (813,819).

4. The Charge to the Committee

In May of 1985, the Chairman of the National ScienceBoard, Dr. Roland W. Schmitt, appointed the Task Com-

15

23

mittee on Undergraduate Science and Engineering Edu-cation. The Committee was charged to determine anappropriate NSF role in undergraduate science, mathe-matics, and engineering education. The Committee wasalso asked to identity possible mechanisms for carryingout that role. The text of Dr. Schmitt's May 16, 1985 Letterof Appointment and Charge to the Committee follows.

"Your charge is tc :onsider the role of the NationalScience Foundation in undergraduate science and engi-neering education.

"NSF and other agencies have comprehensive pro-grams at both graduate and precollege levels. However,currently no systematic federal leadership or supportexists for science, engineering and mathematics educa-tion at the undergraduate level. Several recent majorreports have expressed concerns about the health of un-dergraduate education, especially science, engineering,and mathematics. Some of the issues that merit consid-eration are the need for curriculum changes to providestudents with broader-based, interdisciplinary back-grounds, and the need to reverse the decline in numbersof highly able students going on to graduate work inscience and engineering.

"Within existing NSF resources*, what is an appropri-ate NSF role in undergraduate science and engineenngeducation? What are possible mechanisms for carryingout that role? Should NSF move to establish undergradu-ate science, engineering and mathematics programs ap-art from support for undergraduates provided in someresearch grants? Should NSF have a role in shaping un-dergraduate curricula?

"Your work should begin at the June 1985 meeting ofthe National Science Board and a final report should be

*Dr. Schmitt removed this restriction in a later communication

CHART 4

Number of U.S.18-Yr Olds

(Millions)

1970

L_1976

,1982 1968

Year1994 2000

SOURCE. National Science Foundation Division of Science Resources Studies(SRS)

16

submitted to the Board at its March 1986 meeting Youshould feel free to ask one or two outside consultants tohell) the committee with its work. You should also feelfree to develop and modify this charge as necessary.Because of the close relationship between this specializedtask and the general charge to the Education and HumanResources (EHR) Committee, you may find it useful tokeep the EHR Committee informed of your progress."

During the course of its work, the Committee con-sulted with higher education organizations, conductedhearings, m t with NSF program officials, and reviewedthe literature. This report presents the Committee's Find-ings, Conclusions and Recommendations.

5. Demographic Changes

One of the most significant changes in the technicalpersonnel supply that will be encountered over the nextdecade derives from a projected decline in the size of the18-19 year-old age group from which come most of thecollege and university students in all fields (Chart 4)(B20). Unless patterns of field selection change, many

fewer young people than at present will choose to pursuescientifi_ and engineering careers (Chart 5) (B21).

The Nation is already seeing the first effects of thisdemographic decline. Over the period 1973-83, thenumber of undergraduate science majors fell by about15%. The number of engineering majors rose by 92%during this period (in response to rapidly growing indus-trial demand) (B22). However, the proportion of enteringstudents planning to pursue engineering careersdropped to 10.0% in 1985, down from 10.4% in 1984, anda peak of 12.0% in 1982.

During the period 1960-1980, the character of our so-ciety was becoming dramatically more technologicallybased. Yet the number of baccalaureate degrees in the

CHART 5

BS Rate in Natural Science and Engineering

Degrees Per 1000 U.S. 22-Yr-Olds70

Rate Needed to Matntain60 1983 Number

.50

Actual

40 S..

30

20

10

0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Year

SOURCE National Science Foundation, Division of Policy Research and Anal-ysis (PRA)

24

natural sciences, engineer,ng, and mathematics com-bined did no better than stay even with the pace ofpopulation increase of 22-year olds While bachelor's de-grees in computer science and engineering have nsensince 1975, those in the biological sciences and in mathe-

matics have declined. A decline in degrees in the physicalsciences has been recorded since 1980. These trends,together with related changes in masters and doctoraldegree production are illustrated in Chart 6 and Tables ID,E, and F (B1:267)(1323:154-156).

CHART 6

Degrees by Major Field Group: 1960-1983

90,000

80,000

Engineering BiologicalSciences

BachelorsMasters

---- Doctors70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

/0a...I

i0

10,000I,I

IM IMO IMO ...0

.9..111

Fe .0 00000roe...

0.I

1 1 I 11111960 65 70 75 80 83 1960 65 70 75 80 83

SocialSciences

.0 ...%)o ,..., ..,

11

..,, ........... .1. t 1 1 0

30,000Physical

25,000 _Sciences

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000 0...'' -* .........-

0 It1960 65 70 75 80 83

30,000

25,000

20,000

15.000

10,000

5,000

01960 65 70 75 80 83

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

ComputerSciences

...

1960 65 70 75 80 83 1960 65 70 75 80 83

SOURCE National Science Foundation Division of Science Resources Studies (SRS)

17

25

Perhaps of greater concern is a comparison of the ma-jors choser by freshmen in recent years, Table G. Signifi-cant decreases were found in 1985 from previous years inall the technical disciplines, while business majors, thefreshman's most popular choice, rose to 23.9% of allmajors in 1985 (B24).

Among students who complete degree programs inscience and engineering, about one-half of the B.S. recip-ients, two-thirds of the M.S. recipients, and three-fourtt- s of the Ph.D. recipients actually enter the scienceand engineering workforce (B71:21). If present patternsof field selection continue and if employer demand doesnot abate, it is clear that the Nation will face manpowersupply shortages in a significant number of technicalfields over the next ten years, which is approximately thelength of the high school to postdoctorite pipeline.

6. Resource Constraints

The U.S. educational enterprise is a major aspect ofoureconomy, involving a total annual expenditure in1985-86, estimated at $260 billion. Higher education ac-counts for $101 billion of this, and its undergraduatecomponent amounts to $42 billion. The cost of the in-structional portion of undergraduate education is esti-mated to be $20 billion. See Table H (B25).

An accurate estimate of the cost of undergraduate sci-ence and engineering education is not available.However, Chart 7 compares the number and percent ofscience and engineering baccalaureate degrees (31%)with the other baccalaureate degrees (69%) awarded in1982-83 (B5). On this basis, we estimate that the instruc-tional expenditures for undergraduate science and engi-neGring education are at least $10 billion.

At many institutions, problems of excessive class size,heavy teaching loads and inadequate support for studentresearch have contributed to a conviction that the overallquality of undergraduate science, mathematics and engi-neering education has declined. These burdens, usuallyrelated to resource constraints, reduce the time availablefor faculty in different kinds of institutions to pursuetheir personal scholarship and advance and deepen theirdisciplinary understanding.

Higher education is very labor intensive. Constraintson resources not only lead to over-utilization of facultyand support staff, but to deferral of expenditures onfacilities, equipment and maintenance. In fields that areexperimental or observational by nature (as are all thatrelate to the Foundation's mission, except mathematics),these deferrals leave faculty and students with deficientlibraries, inadequate laboratories, and obsoleteequipment.

Undergraduate programs have suffered also as a con-sequence of the elimination or minimization of scienceand mathematics requirements for non-science majors.There is a double effect of such a trend: first, the breadthof the undergraduate non-major curriculum is reducedundesirably; second, the enrollment-related resources

18

TABLE D

Bachelors Degrees ay Major Field Group: 1960-83

PhysicalSciences Eno, eerino Matheralatu

ComputerS, 10fIr P.

floiogit aic palm- p

SocialS.,ences

1960 16 057 37 808 11 437 17 906 23 383

1965 17 916 36 795 19 581 87 28 072 40 994

1970 21 p51 44 772 27 565 1 544 40 760 82 707

1975 20 890 40 065 lb 346 5 039 56 179 86 428

1980 23 661 ra2. 240 11 473 11 213 50 496 72 266

1983 23 497 72 954 12 557 24 678 44 067 69 477

SOURCE Na 1401,1 a, 0111 e Eour,g,on D v ,r, Rawto, as Silts SRS

TABLE E

Masters Degrees by Major Field Group: 1960-83

PhysicalSciences Engineering Mathematics

ComputerSciences

BiologicalSciences

Sow,Sciences

1;00 3 387 7 159 1 765 2 548 2 544

1965 4 918 12 056 4 148 146 4 612 4 348

1970 5 948 15 597 5 648 1 459 6 783 7 956

1975 5 830 15 434 4 338 2 299 6 931 9 229

1990 5 233 16 846 2 868 3 647 6 854 7 658

1983 5 298 19 721 2 839 5 321 6 041 7 540

SOURCE Na C,,enta ,uurhlator 0,5tI SAS,

TABLE F

Doctors Degrees by Major Field Group: 1960-83

PhysicalSr ences Engineenny Mathematics

ComputerSciences

BiologicalSciences

SOCial

Sciences

1960 1 838 78E 303 1 207 841

1965 2 829 2 124 662 6 1 945 1 290

1970 4 313 3 681 1 236 107 3 308 2 503

1975 3 628 3 1' 975 213 3 420 3 123

1900 3 095 2 519 724 240 3 668 2 635

1983 3 270 2 845 698 202 3 308 2 507

SOURCE Nanona Sc 1,,t e tu.,

flowing to science departments are decreased in con-sequence of lower student registrations overall.

One might argue that a smaller service course instruc-tion load would relieve some of the pressures on sciencedepartments, but the exact opposite was reported to theCommittee (B26,W20). Close coupling between enroll-ment and budgets at most institutions is perceived asleading to funiler program degradation as attempts aremade to reduce expenditures often for laboratory in-struction and program enrichment, such as research par-ticipation for undergraduate students. It is apparent that

26

TABLE G

Trends in Majors Chosen by FreshmenDuring Fall of 1985*

Percentage of All Freshmen

1977 1985

Bio:ogical Sciences 4 7 3 4Physical Sciences 3 1 2 4

1983 1984 1985

Computer Sciences 8 8 6 1 441982 1985

Engineering 12 0 10 0

'Reported in The American Freshman National N gyms for Fall 1985Con-ducted by the Cooperative Institutional Research Program of UCLA and TheAmerican Council on Education

Cited in the Chronical of Higher Education", January 15 1986

many institutions will choose to place highest priority onprograms for majors; as a result, elective courses for non-majors will suffer from lowered resources and attention.

State funding of higher education during the past tenyears has increased substantially, but not in race with-nrollments, nor have the ravages of earlier "double dig-it" inflation been repaired (B27:84-85). M )re reasonablelevels of support are being achieved in some states asthey recognize the relationships between strong gradu-ate research and their attractiveness to high technologyindustries, but the fact that high quality graduate educa-tion in engineering and the sciences must be rased onstrong undergraduate programs has not been recognizedwith proportionately increased funding.

Private support of higher education has increased, too,but there is a shortfall simil;,r to that found in the publicsector. Industrial gifts to education (all levels) have in-creased in the past fifteen years rom 0.43% to 0.68% ofpretax net income; they aggregated $1.6 billion in 144(B7). Although the higher education share of this total issubstantial, as is that of technical fields such as engineer-ing and the sciences, most industries have concentratedtheir support on graduate education and research linkedclosely to their interests, not upon the essential under-graduate base.

Broadly, then, the resources applied to undergraduateeducation in the last fifteen years have fallen steadilybehind need,, and the situation is especially intense inthe costly science and engineering fie ds upon whosequality the Nation now relies so heavily.

7. Participation of Underrepresented Groups

"It is time for the scientific establishment and theNational Science Foundation as one of the leaders ofthis establishment to take the lead and make the corn-

nutment to reduce the underrepresentation of mina-dies in science and engineering." Thomas W. Cole,Jr., President, West Virginia State University (W2).

The number of women and minorities entering uponthe study of science and engineering has increased sig-nificantly during the past ten years, but their participa-tion 1,: .tiese professions has not yet reached equitablelevels (B28:21-38,167-177) (W2, W24, W36).

Unfortunately, a continuing increase in the representa-tion of women and minor dies in science and engineeringfields is by no means assured In fact, the proportion ofwomen in the first year of engineering school dropped in1984 after rising significantly each year since 1969(B29,W12). Even if the numbers of iemale and minorityentrants continue to rise, this increase will probably notoffset the fall in the total number of persons entering thestudent stream that results from the demographic declinein the total number of available 18-19 year olds.

The Nation is not being adequately served by currenteff-- rts to increase the number of women and minoritiesin he science and engineering workforce. Unless theseefforts e e maintained where they are effective and inten-sified where they are not, the nation will continue todeprive itself of an important source of future scientistsand engineers to offset the decline in total number of newentrant-, expected between now and 1995.

Concerns about underrepresented groups in scienceand engineering were the subject of several of thosepresenting testimony to the Committee(W2, W21,W24,W36).

The problems for minonties start in the early yearE ifschooling. Minority students drop out of school in dis-proportionately high numbers compared to majority stu-dents at each potential entry point into the workforcealong the education pipeline, as shown in Table I (W2).

TABLE H

Expenditures for Undergraduate Education inThe U.S., 1985-86 (Estimated)

(B:llions of Dollars)

Education and General:

Total Public Institutions Private Institutions

442.0 $29.5 $12.4

Ir3truction:

Total Public Institutions Private Institutions

$20.3 $15.5 $4.8

SOURCE Estimate provided by the National Center for Higher Educeton Man-agement Systems INCHEMSI

19

27

CHART 7

Bachelor's Degrees Awarded In the U.S., 1982-83Total = 980,673

Non-S/E Degrees(68.7%)673,722

S/E Degrees(31.3%)306,951

Estimated Instrumentation Costof S&E Component

SOURCE National Science Foundation Divisicri of Science Resources Studies(SRS}

Most minorities are less likely than whites to be in anacademic curriculum while in high school, and less likelyto take advanced mathematics courses (Table J) (B28:29).

Among the minorities, blacks and hispanics seem to bethe most seriously underrepresented in science and engi-neering, followed by American Indians. Although Asian-Americans are generally thought to be overrepresented,there is some indication that this is a result of recent

20

immigration and less due to behavior of U S. native Asi-an-Americans (W12)

Those women and minorities who earn degrees inscience and engineering fields generally have higherrates of unemployment and earn lower salaries than theirmale and majority counterparts (Table K and Chart 8)(B28 5,12)

One wane. (W21) noting that the physical sciences inparticular had problems of underrepresentation ofwomen and minorities said: "This is not only a questionof social equity and justice but also a matter of self-interest, in ti tat women and black and hispanic minoritiesform the largest and mostly untapped pooh; for increas-ing the scientific and technical workforce of the Nation."

Persons with physical handicaps also have had histor-ically seriously low rates of participation in science andengineering. In 1984, 75,000 employed scientists and en-gineers reported having a physical handicap. However,recent data indicate that handicapped scientists and engi-neers are four times more likely than all scientists andengineers to be out of the labor force (B28).

All available information (B30) indicates that handi-capped students enroll in secondary and postsecondaryscience and mathematics courses less frequently than doall students, that Lriey pursue further training in scienceand engineering to a lesser extent, and that even todayhandicapped students are discouraged or prohibited bycounselors and educators from enrolling in science andmathematics courses, due to a perception that scienceand engineering are "too difficult" and inappropriatefields for persons with handicaps (B31).

Maintaining the vitality of the nation's science andtechnology enterprise requires attracting the best talentfrom every available pool, including persons withhandicaps.

8. The Changing Faculty

i,ve have given less attention than the situation de-serves to enhancing and updating the capabilities of

TABLE I

The Educational Pipeline Index

Educational Stage Whites BlacksMexican

AmericansPuertoRicans

AmericanIndians

Enter FITS( Grade 100 100 100 100 100

Graduate from 83 72 55 55 55School

Enter College 38 29 22 25 17

Complete College 23 12 7 7 6

Enter Grad/Prof 14 8 4 4 4

Complete Grad/Prof 8 4 2 2 2

SOURCE Adapted from the Commission on the Higher Education 01 Minori-ties, Final Report of the Commission on the Higher Education ofMinorities, Higher Education Research Institute, Inc , 1982

28

TABLE J

Mathematics and science coursetaking by race'

Coursework While Black AsianNative

American

MATHEMATICSAlgebra I 71°o 64°0 66% 51'o

Geometry 60% 46° 68°o 34%Algebra II 38°o 29% 39°. 22°o

Trigonometry 26°o 16° 43° 14 °o

Calculus 8°o 4°. 19°. 4°.

SCIENCEPhysical science 67°o 11°0 52°, 67°,

Biology 79% 80.o 79 °0 71.,

Adv Biology 20°o 16% 25°0 140o

Chemistry 39°o 30°o 58°. 24°0

Chem.stry II 5'o 3°, 9°0 3.,

Physics 20'o 12% 36°0 9°.

Physics II 2°. 7., 0°.

'Represents individuals in 1982 who were sophomores in high school in1980 )High School and Beyond. First Follow-up)

SOURCE "Women 8 Minorities in Science 8 Engineering" 1986, National Sci-ence Foundation

current faculty." Fred W. Garry, Vice President-Cor-porate Engineering and Manufacturing, GeneralElectric Co (W16).

Net growth of college and university faculties in thedisciplines related most closely to Foundation program-ming slowed over fifteen years ago, except in computerand life sciences (B32:7). In some places there have beenno replacements of retiring faculty for years; in othersthere have been fewer candidates than --2eded to fillavailable positions.

Over a quarter of a million scientists and engineerswere engaged in teaching and related activities in col-leges and universities in 1984. Tables L and M provideinformation on their numbers according to field, status,and institutional type. These and similar data requirepresently-lacking information about the distribution ofeffort and the time commitments of part-time appointeesbefore one can estimate the numbers of full-time equiv-alent faculty members at each kind of collegiate institu-tion. (This is one of many examples pointed out to theCommittee of incomplete coverage by presentdatabases.)

In the natural sciences, student numbers were fallingslowly to a new plateau; in mathematics, a steady rise inn nmajor student registrations coincided with a constantsupply of new faculty. In engineering, fluctuating enroll-ments occurred while there was both relatively rapid fallin the fraction (B1:267,268,274)(B8:139-163)(B23:9) ofnati , e baccalaureate engineers who elected to enter upongradua;e work (W12) (and thus enter the pool of potentialfuture faculty members) and an increase in the rate atwhich young faculty members left engineering schoolsfor industrial positions.

The result in almost all fields is an aging permanentfaculty, and in many areas increasing reliance on gradu-at students, part-time, and less-than-optimally-qualified persons to carry the instructional load.

Aging of the faculty is commonly expected to result in alowering of the vitality of undergraduate education as itsmembers are perceived, with or without justification, asbeing less responsive to student needs and interests andless motivated to maintain their professional acuity. Atmany institutions, the increasing number of foreign na-tionals among the graduate assistants and faculty is be-lieved to have lowered the quality of undergraduate edu-cation, primarily because these individuals have diffi-culty in making themselves clearly understood ininstructional settings. It has been reported that some areperceived by female students to be biased against them aspotential professionals (1333,W12)

These institutional concerns are important, but chang-ing faculty perspectives may have serious ramificationsfor the ability of colleges and universities to recruit andretain qualified staff members. The 1984 Carnegie Foun-dation survey of 5,000 faculty members at a represen-tative sample of 310 institutions revealed a pervasive un-easiness among professors over the state of their careersin both personal and professional terms. Nearly half ofthe faculty members polled would senously consider areasonable offer from outside the academic community(B34).

B. Students; Faculty and Their Implements

1. Students

"It is well known that undergraduate interest in basicscience has recently plummeted Within a decade thepercentage of American undergraduates intending tomajor in science fell by 33 percent, with the absoluteplumber of such intended pnajors dropping by almost40 percent. Only slightly more than one in b'entyfreshmen on American campuses intends to major inscience today, down from a high of one in ten in thelate 1960s. Meanwhile, of course, our graduateschools are being filled by increasingly able studentsfrom abroad." S. Frederick Starr, President, OberlinCollege (W5)

TABLE K

Selected characteristics of scientists and engineersby racial/ethnic group: 1984

CharaCtefistic White Black AsianNative

American Hispanic'

Unemployment rate 1 5'. 2 7°- 2 4^ n 34 °0 2 1 '.

S/E employment rate 868 "0 81 3'0 9080, 783 803°.

SIE underemployment rate 25 °0 66 "0 1 8'0 29 °0 42.,

Annual salary S37 500 S32 500 S38 200 $40 500 $33 100

' Includes members of all racial groups

SOURCE 'Women 8 Minorities in Science 8 Engineering" 1986, National Sci-ence Foundation

21

29

CHART 8

Unemployment rates for scientists and engineersby field and sex: 1984

Total

Scientists, total

Physical

Mathematical

Computerspecialist!

Environmental

Lae

Psycnolopists

Soar.)

Engineem,total

IPemenfl

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

MenWomen

IM=M6111===li

MIES11M=M

1

SOURCE "Women & Minorities in Science & Engineering" 1986, NationalScienrte Foundation

Education implies learning and may involve teaching.The Finding. Conclusions, and Recommendations ofthis report are more often set forth in terms of educatorsand their tools for teaching than in terms of the needs ofthose who are learning. But, in this review of the state ofundergraduate education in mathematics, engineering,

and the sciences, the Committee kept in sight the fact thatthe ultimate beneficiary of any improvement effort is thestudent.

The student body is diverse. Curricular separation ofstudents with different kinds of interests in science andmathematics begins in the middle school and increasesthereafter. As a result, undergraduate education in math-ematics, science, and even in engineering, is offered tostudents having widely differing identifications with thesubject matter ranging from the intense concern ofthose few who consider themselves even as freshmen tobe pre-doctoral students to the larger number who want alast look at one of these disciplines as a "culturalphenomenon."

The ranges of need and opportunity are wide. Stu-dents who approach technical subjects from a culturalpP ective should be offered courses and other educa-tional experiences that relate science and technology tothe worlds they perceive as well as to the "real" world.Undergraduate scientists, engineers and mathematicianscan exercise their creativity and accelerate their acquisi-tion of professional skills by participating in active re-search programs of their faculty mentors.

All of these students, whether "general" and in the"main line" or pre-professional and in the "pipeline", orsomewhere in between, deserve the highest quality edu-cational experience that can be provided through theefforts of faculties, the use of facilities, and the applica-tion of the methods and materials of education.

2. The FacultyColleges and universities cover wide ranges of institu-

tional size and complexity and, therefore, of the "at-

TABLE L.

Scientists and engineers employed at universities and collegesby field and status: selected years

FIELD AND STATUS 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1978 1980 1982 1983 1184

ALL FIELDS 212,855 231,756 257,904' 264,887 278,919 297,856 307,757 324,249 349,090 358,929 370,450FULL TIME 170,557 187,082 209,416 216,424 223,336 236,278 242,170 254,990 268,550 274,092 281,561PART TIME 62,298 64,674 48,488 48,463 55,583 61,578 65,587 69,259 80,540 84,837 $8,1189

snCINEERS 25,253 25,387 27,130 27,530 27,919 30,083 30,997 33,737 36,376 37,737 39,015FILL TIME 20,983 21,431 23,039 23,485 22,580 24,105 24,666 26,472 27.986 28,844 29,435PART TIME 4,270 3,956 4,091 4,045 5,339 5,978 6,331 7,265 8,390 8,893 9,580

PHYSICAL SCIENTISTS 26,243 28,104 29,443 30,210 30,836 32,120 32,839 33,554 34,500 34,778 35,521FU-1. TIME 23,361 25,040 26,346 26,666 26,662 27,553 27,902 27,993 28,600 28,514 29,030PART TIME 2,882 3,109 3,097 3,544 4,174 4,567 4,937 5,561 5,900 6,264 6,491

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS 5,111 5,549 6,500 6,934 7,855 9,337 9,618 9,960 10,200 10,153 10,624FULL TIME 4,294 4,935 5,752 6,091 6,787 11,075 8,285 8,453 8,672 8,691 8,933PART TIME 817 614 748 843 1,068 1,262 1,333 1,507 1,528 1,462 1,691

MATHEMATICAL AND COMPUTERSCIOHISTS 17,776 22,495 24,548 24,770 28,475 31,996 33,034 35,957 42,234 45,666 49,282

FULL TIME 14,397 18,390 20,282 20,794 22,404 23,870 24,349 26,030 28,375 29,941 31,940PART TIME 3,379 4,105 6,266 3,976 6,071 8,126 8,685 9,927 13,859 15,725 17,342

LIFE SCIENTISTS 87,347 97,206 110,274 112,352 113,666 117,441 122,956 133,702 144.264 151.440 156,279FULL TIME 66,620 74,882 85,,07 88,418 90,684 94,306 97,726 108,155 116,291 119,615 122,689PART TIME 20,727 22,324 26,367 23,934 22,782 23,135 25,230 25,547 29,973 31,825 33,590

PSYCHO'OCISTS 11,358 14,780 16,806 18,876 21.649 28,699 23,752 23,257 23,711 23,772 23,967FULL TIME 8,554 11,536 12,994 14,777 15,973 17,307' 17,406 16,733 16,820 16,856 17,087PART TIME 2,804 3,244 3,012 4,099 5,676 6,392 6,346 6,524 6,891 6,916 6,880

SOCIAL SCIENTISTS 39,767 38,190 43,203 44,215 48,719 53,180 54,561 54,082 55,805 55.383 55.762FULL TIME 32,348 30,868 35,096 36,193 38,246 61,062 41,836 41,154 41,806 41,631 42,447PART TIME 7,411 7,322 8,107 8,022 10,473 12,118 12,725 12,928 13,9991 13,752 13,315

SOURCE Academic Science/Engineering Scientists and Engineers, January 1984, Surveys of Science Resources Series National Science Foundatior,

22 30

TABLE M

Scientists and engineers employed at universities and collegesby type of institution and status: selected years

TYPE OF INSTITUTION AND STATUS 1967 1969 1971 1973

ALL INSTITUTIONS 212,8551 231,756 257,904 264,887FULL TIME 170,557 187,082 209,416 216,424PART TIME 42,298 44,674 48,488 48,463

INSTITUTIONS GRANTING'

DOCTORATE IN S&E 142,676 154,424 171,238 174,474FULL TIME 114,446 124,604 140,339 143,393PART TIME 28,230 29,820 30,899 31,081

MASTER'S IN S&E 24,729 29,441 30,080 28,703FULL TIME 20,748 25,212 25,597 24,851PART TIME 3,981 4,229 4,483 3,852

BACHELOR'S IN StE 23,025 21,690 23,198 28,363FULL TIME ... 19,328 17,927 19.623 23,620PART TIME 3,697 3,763 3,575 4,743

OTHER DEGREES 1/ . 22.425 26,201 33,388 1,348FULL TIME . 16,035 19,339 23,857 812PAR' TIME . 6,390 6,862 9,531 536

2 -YEAR INSTITUTIONS . 31,999FULL TIME ....... 21,748PART TIME 8,251

1975 1977 1978 19L0 1982 1983 1984

278,919223,33655,583

180,330143,09632.234

34,07527,5116,564

27,11322,4064,707

1,345828517

36,05624,49511,561

297,856236,27861,578

193,204159,84833,356

34,79027,1187,672

27,41122,4374,974

6074b7140

41,84426,40815,436

307,757242,17065,587

200,366164,73235,634

38,62829,3959,233

26,22221,1655,057

858705153

41,68326,17315,510

324,249 349,090 358,929 370,450254,990 268,550 274,092 281,56169,259 80,540 84,837 88,889

218,021 231,711 236,545 244,286179,775 189,420 192,756 197,50838,146 42,291 43,789 46,778

37,362 39,030 40,665 44,74327,915 28,721 29,730 32,8229,447 10,309 10,935 11,921

26,830 28,815 29,469 29,81220,784 21,646 22,219 21,8136,046 7,169 7,250 7,999

842 687 610 545680 579 489 476162 108 121 69

41,194 48,847 51,640 51,044

25.836 28,184 28,898 28,94215,358 20,663 22,742 2d,122

Data for 1967 through 1971 includes 2 -yeas institutions as well as institutions awarding degreesin non-science/engineering field

SOURCE Academic Science/Engineering Scientists and Engineers, January 1984, Surveys of Science Resources Series, National Science Foundation

mosphere" in which their faculty members work. Somehave a few hundred students and correspondingly fewfaculty members, others have enrollments in the tens ofthousands, and correspondingly large faculties. In someof these institutions, faculty members do little but teach;in others, they are expected to be productive scholars andresearchers as well as teachers.

Whatever the atmosphere about them, many facultymembers confronted with choices among careers in in-dustry and in various kinds of educational settings, elec-ted careers in education in an enviroment in which thehighest priority was teaching. At non-doctoral institu-tions, the purpose of research is less the creation of acontribution to knowledge and more the involvement ofthe faculty member and the participation of students.

Colleges and universities without research.Although in the majority of cases college faculty do

find their jobs rewarding and their career decisions tohave been sound, they soon learn that they face a nun 'lerof obstacles.

Faculty at two- and four-year colleges to ich more classhours and a broader range of subject matter than do theircounterparts at universities. It is not uncommon for acollege faculty member over the course of several years toteach as many as half of the courses offered by thedepartment.

Because many college departments are small, theiradministrations often avoid hiring faculty members in thesame subfield, attempting to cover as many of the sub-fields of a given discipline as possible. Given the degreeof specialization that exists in science and engineeringtoday, a faculty member at an undergraduate college maynot have a colleague with whom to discuss research.

23

The disciplinary refreshment of faculty in such collegesmust depend in large part on mechanisms that move theindividual into a research-oriented environme Atten-dance at professional meetings is especially important forfaculty at smaller non-doctoral institutions because itplaces them in such an environment at modest cost.Where personal and institutional resources permit or canbe augmented, a sabbatical leave in a research institutionis preferred because of the immersion it represents. Un-fortunately, the very institutions whose faculty need thisrefreshment the most are the ones least able to bear thefull cost.

Colleges and universities with research.Faculty members at institutions whose resources do

permit modest support of their research activities are notnecessarily better off, in part because of the greater expec-tations they face. Their teaching loads may be somewhatlighter and their research may be supported from bud-gets for supplies and instrumentation. But, since theyhave time allocated for research, it is expected that theywill be productive - that their research will meet the testsof currency, quality, and novelty applied to all submis-sions to the professional journals, regardless of institu-tional origin. And, the number of their publications willbe counted, too.

Factors such as these make it difficult for colleges toretain research-active faculty members. Both industriesand larger educational institutions can lure them awaywith promises of greater support for research and, in thecase of the latter, without completely eliminating theclose student-teacher interactions that impelled thechoice of a teaching career in the first place. The si;ocialneeds of faculty in research-sponsoring colleges are those

31

that expand research opportunities through the provi-sion of more sophisticated apparatus and instrumenta-tion, that permit uninterrupted involvement of both fac-ulty member and advanced students for substantialperiods in or between school years, and that in otherways support the college as a place where research can bedone.

Since universities and colleges are diverse in manyaspects, the models described above fall short of indicat-ing the variety of solutions being tried for the problem ofmaintaining faculty sharpness. But, a common threadruns through the entire discussion of this issue it is thatthe mechanisms for combatting faculty obsolescencemust be capable of frequent application and must permitreal flexibility in matching persons with opportunities

Doctoral universities.Faculty members in doctoral universities have special

problems where undergraduate education is concerned.Their research activity simplifies somewhat the mainte-nance of high quality instruction of graduate students,but intensifies the difficulty of maintaining breadth intheir work with undergraduate students especially stu-dents with majors outside their own disciplines. Further,maintaining breadth must be done while specialist ac-tivities are carried out under high pressure. The result isthat doctoral-university faculty are like all others in hav-ing to grapple with professional obsolescence and insuf-ficient time to attend to maintenance of pedagogicalskills.

Disciplinary explosions.

"In some areas the rate of scientific discovery andtechnological development is so high that we are hardpressed to modernize curricula fast enough to keep up.A good example of this is molecular biology. It is clearthat the techniques and technologies surrounding mo-lecular biology will have increasing impact, not onlyon our scientific understanding of the origins anddevelopment of life on earth, but on areas of modernsociety, such as medicine, law and business . . Thisis not an iso!ated instaoce." David T. McLaughlin,President, Dartmouth Callege (W18).

Modern biology is an example of a field in which anexplosion in knowledge ha resulted in a revolution inthe way the subject is - or ought to be taught. Facultymembers in all kinds of colleges mentioned above arehard-pressed to keep up with even the most significantdevelopments in the field. New teaching strategies mustbe developed, as well as new instructional instrumenta-tion and materials. Testimony to the Committee urgedthe Foundation to establish programs that would providethe time to faculty members for pursuit of these objectives(W13).

24

Recognition.There is much fine teaching being dune in mathe-

matics, science, and engineering. National recognition ofsuch excellence could serve to stimulate the entire profes-sion. A program of Presidential Awards for Excellence inUndergraduate Teaching would certainly call attention tothe best teaching of undergraduates as well as to theindividuals who carry it out. Properly structured, anawards program could also serve as a mechanism to tapthe experience and creative energies of the best teachersand make the results of their efforts widely available to theteaching profession.

3. Courses and Materials

The content of instruction the curriculum is at thecore of the teaching and learning process at an level. Atthe undergraduate level it is especially important that thecurriculum be dynamic, reflecting the rapid increases inknowledge and changes in theory that are taking place inconsequence of scientific and technological progress.

Students majoring in technical areas.Advances of recent years biotechnology, genetic engi-

neering, chemical processes, the computer and all of itsramifications, robotics, lasers all bring pressures forchange throughout the disciplines. As systems becomemore complex and interactive they also bring greaterimperatives for inter- and multi-disciplinary approachesto problems and consequently for restructuringcurricula

Shortly after the start of their undergraduate years,students are gaining rapidly in intellectual developmentand are undertaking studies in depth. For most students,whether science/engineering majors or not, this is thetime for the first and last formal instruction in the basicsciences that support their majors i.e., the physics un-derlying chemistry, the chemistry supporting biology.

The diversity of needs and requirements is so greatamong students at this level that it is no longer reasonableto expect that a single curriculum in a discipline willsuffice for all students. Students preparing to enter thehealth fields or to become high school teachers do notneed and should not be expected to take the same basicscience courses as those who plan to be practicing engi-neers or research scientists. Yet these "other" studentswho constitute the majority of students enrolled in fresh-man and sophomore mathematics and science coursesare often relegated to a single set of "service" courseswhose content and challenge is insensitive to the diver-sity of their needs and often of distinctly lower qualitythan those offered to science majors.

Changing patterns of employment are also affectingstudent needs for organized curncula. The technologydegree programs, e.g. chemical technology, health tech-nology, etc., are becoming increasingly important as de-mands for these types of workers increase (W4). Yet thesecurricula are often static and stale from neglect in the

32

shadow of professional engineering and scienceprograms.

The pre-professional curricula, however, are not with-out problems in many institutions. At best, they are besetby unsettled, often long-standing contention overlength, emphasis, and specific content (W7,W17,W18).At worst, they are dull, unimaginative, and as obsolete asmany curricula offered to non-majors.

The general student.

"7 ,e task of informing and educating the public zoithregard to issues involving science and technology is aformidable one, yet it is one that must he accom-plished, for our democratic society rests upon theactive involvement of an informed citizenry . . . Apublic that does not understand space, laser, biolog-ical, telecommunications, genetic, and engineeringtechnology cannot he exper'.d to support programsthat break new ground ,n these areas." Bernard ILuskin, Executive Vice President, American Associa-tion of Community and Junior Colleges (W4).

Several who brought statements to the Committeewere concerned primarily with the needs of studentsmajoring in nontechnical areas those who constitute thevast majority of American undergraduates today.

Too many college graduates are ill-prepared for theworld that actually exists about them, a world that in-creasingly reflects and depends upon scientific and tech-nical endeavor (W4,W10,W19,W23). Many college grad-uates lack the background to deal with the technicalaspects of some of the complex and critical issues thatconfront contemporary society disposal of toxic wastes,environmental quality, occupational safety, nuclearpower, and manipulation of genetic material issues thatinvolve decisions by governments at several levels. Ul-timately, the government is the people and they and theirleadership should be both aware and well informed. It isespecially important that the people understand whatscience is and what it is not; it is not sufficient that theyknow "a little of this and a little of that"

The general college student is not well served, theCommittee learned (B13,B19,W35), by the introductorycourses in individual sciences intended for non-majorscience students (they assume more background andmore interest than the general student should be ex-pected to bring to them) or even by the special coursesdevised for their benefit. Too often, it seems, these spe-cial courses are watered-down non-mathematical ver-sions of the standard introductory courses for sc:- acestudents; some have a strong "applied" or "environmen-tal" orientation; and some focus narrowly on selectedtopics such as kitchen chemistry, physics for airline pas-sengers, or biology for the home gardener. All of theseattempts, in the views of their critics, fail what ought to betheir central objective, to illustrate the nature of scienceand scientific thought; they overemphasize facts, under-emphasize process and methods, and avoid abstraction.

Modes and materials.The mechanisms and modes of delivery of instruction

have taken on significance nearly as great as the content,with the advent of the new technologies, especially thecomputer. Ways must be sought to exploit the power ofthese technologies in the learning process, in the inter-ests of increased efficiency and effectiveness of learningand lower overall costs. The lure of the computer mayalso prove important in making science learning morepalatable to the non-scientist.

Then is strong evidence that in recent years the mosttalented scientists and engineers have not been workingon novel new textbooks, educational software, and tech-nologies as they did a decade or two ago. This has beenobserved by memLrs of the Committee at their owninstitutions.

A federal role.Clearly, a strong need (as well as opportunities) exists

for an NSF role in the support of the creation of advancedcourse and curriculum materials, technologies, software,and other novel ways of advancing excellence in instruc-tion in undergraduate science, mathematics, and engi-neering. The nationally competitive and merit-basednature of NSF support would serve to provide incentivesand to motivate the best faculty throughout the Nationand would encourage academic adminstrators to providelocal support for this needed activity. In addition, wheremajor new approaches may be indicated (e.g., the crea-tion and testing of a complete new course in engineeringdesign or a novel computer-based instructional deliverysystem), it would be neither reasonable nor cost-effectiveto have universities across the country duplicating eachother's work Some of the problems will be addressedmost effectively through individual projects, others byteam or consortial ettorts.

4. Laboratories

"We have to introduce people to the idea that science is

something that is practiced, not something that existsin books We have to make certain that studentsexperience the experimental side of science at the un-dergraduate level, regardless of major or specialty.

We have to disabuse ourselves of the idea that you

can learn about chemistry without picking up a testtube, or about biology without dissecting a specimen,or about astronomy without looking at the sky."William G. Suneral, Executive Vice P7esident, E.1Dupont de Nemours and Company (W19).

Science and engineering are strongly observationaland experimental in nature. The laboratory experience isa central and essential element in the undergraduatetraining of students in these areas. Through the experi-ences of collecting data and organizing and interpretingthem, students can come to understand the underlyingprinciples of the disciplines and how science and engi-

25

33

neering are really done. Thus, the quality and effec-tiveness of the curriculum overall is strongly dependenton the strength and currency of the laboratorycomponent.

There are strong indications that the quality of under-graduate science and engineering laboratory instructionhas deteriorated significantly in recent years. Reportsand testimony to the Committee indicated that muchinstrumentation in undergraduate laboratoriesthroughout the U.S. is either worn out or obsolete in theface of rapid advances in science and technology(B35,B36,W15,W21).

Institutions of all kinds are finding it difficult to acquireneeded new equipment. M, or research universities insome cases have had to focus on their research needs tothe detriment of undergraduate laboratory programs.Insufficiencies and inadequacies of laboratory equipmentappear to extend across the scientific and engineeringdisciplines.

A report in 1982 of the National Society of ProfessionalEngineers (B35) concluded that the cost of modernizingU.S. academic engineering laboratories would be $2 bil-lion. This and other studies find that the lack of modernengineering instructional instrumentation causes newgraduates in many areas of engineering to be inade-quately prepared.

A 1984 American Chemical Society study (B36) ob-tained a profile of the current inventory of laboratoryequipment in college and university chemistry depart-ments. The total needs for chemistry instrumentationwere found to be nearly $150 million, not including main-tenance, a major portion of which would be used inwhole or in part for undergraduate instructional pur-poses The report called for increased support by fundingagencies of both research and instructionalinstrumentation.

The American Physical Society in 1985 conducted asurvey of the chairpersons of U.S. physics departmentsand received an unusually heavy response (70%; 553 outof 791 departments) (W15,W21). The survey concludes:

"The overwhelming consensus is that physics depart-ments badly need new modern laboratory equipmentfor advanced or upper division courses, the presentequipment being judged as obsolete in many respects,and that physics departments badly need replacementequipment for classical physics experiments and forthe introductory laboratories as well."

Because biology is the "exploding science" at the pres-ent time, its needs for new instructional equipment areespecially intense, but more difficult to specify thanthose of physics and chemistry. The methods employedto investigate biological systems have changed dramat-ically. There are few research universities able to reflectthese changes in undergraduate laboratory instruction,and the situation in other kinds of institutions is even lessfavorable (W13,W18). At the same time, industrial de-mands for qualified, well-educated, laboratory-experi-

26

enced personnel are expanding, fueled in part by theneed to maintain national competitiveness in relatedfields such as biotechnology

Witnesses before the Committee suggested a numberof ways the Foundation could act to alleviate thesesituations:

enlarge and extend the present College Science In-strumentation Program,

establish a program to stimulate new approaches tothe instructional laboratory's content and methods;

support a program to develop computer simulationsof some kinds of laboratory experiments (to augmentthe experience gained in traditional laboratoryexercises),

initiate an effort to design and develop simplifiedinstrumentation specifically for instruction (so that re-search-like, "cutting-edge" experiments could bedone in the mass-enrollment introductory laborato-ry courses, but at less than research-iike cost), and

reestablish an undergraduate research participationprogram (with emphasis on placing undergraduatesin university and industrial research laboratoriesduring the summer months)

One very great need in the instructional materials area1E for new experiments that will permit good science to bedone and learned in the mass-enrollment introductorylaboratory courses at modest cost. Colleges and univeisales are beginning to cut back on the amount of laborato-ry work required in such courses because of escalatingcosts of apparatus and materials (B37:30,51). Solution tothis problem might well involve collaboration among theindustrial manufacturers of laboratory equipment, topresearch scientists, and the best teachers of science(B37:31).

The Committee finds these reports and testimony to bedeeply disturbing Instructional equipment problems areclosely interwoven with curriculum difficulties sincemany technical subjects cannot be effectively included inthe curriculum without supporting laboratoryinstrumentation.

C. Disciplinary Perspectives

1. The Sciences

"111 a soiwtv where lenie and technology so gfClitIVInfluence our lives, we are graduating ,,tudents zelthInnrfcd factiial knowledge and understanding of sci-entific ciperunentation We will telt/ on some to be-come our fit flirt' researchers 1111111/ will be lead-

CrS who son' on public board, coin-clued with theeffects of research on then community, envuonmentand economic develoinnent As a 1:011`,CilenCe, oe willilaPC a sOCIC1 1/ ill equipped to MAC cubs? the fuhnc

34

scientific advances or the important 1,011thal and et ;'-!cal decisions affectinx out Imes lean L(Peimstdvaina State Lintcm-4 ii Pit -dent-I let r.American Society for Alit tottiol,oi (0, 13)

Survey data and testimon pre,ented t., the ( ommit-tee :ndicate that the situation in undcri_n,idute intruc-tion in the basic sciences 1, tar 'r anL-K tor% ,Adetailed above, physic,' department Lnedpressing needs for the procurement t n-,,dern LIN Irato-ry equipment for advanced undergradt,tt ,.)urt antireplacement equipment for introd u, tor% 14

The American Chemical Societ \ rt p that ,tdepartment chairs regard the

obsolete (B36) I he head ot Hot e, r . gr,,upat a large state university testified that rr,,t-it r ,urrk-ulum development, teacher eft( t;%ent n t tostructional resources threaten tht man'tenante ,it ade-quate undergraduate program in tht t-toit,L;1,alcien,e(W13).

Large classes in many departments lower the qualityof instruction; this situation is especially severe in theimportant introductory courses taken by non-majors.Few departments use new educational technologieseffectively to individualize instruction (W33) As it be-comes more difficult to recruit U.S. graduate students inmany fields, institutions are being forced to appointteaching assistants whose English language ability is notadequate for instruction (B12:58;W12). As teachingquality declines, negative feedback from disillusionedstudents lowers the morale of faculty and makes studyopportunities in the sciences less attractive to potentialmajors who are then lured by other professional pro-grams that offer greater prospects for career rewards.

The contents of science curricula are discovery-driven.This guarantees continuing pressure on faculty membersto update their courses and to develop more efficient andmore stimulating ways of teaching their subjects. Unfor-tunately, a good deal of Wile is required if this course andcurriculum tuning is to be done well. There is real con-cern in the several disciplinary communities that notenough of this kind of time is being spent.

The situation in biology is an extreme example. Therehas been an explosion of knowledge in the past decade;new applied fields (e.g. bioengineering, biotechnology)have arisen and new industries have been horn duringthis explosion, such has been its character and momen-tum (W18).

The result in colleges and universities has been disar-ray. Faculty members in research universities have con-centrated on keeping up with the explosion of knowledgerather than working on incorporating its content intonew courses, especially courses that could be taught innon-research inst;tutions. The methods for study of bio-logical systems have changed so rapidly that even re-search universities are hard pressed to keep advancedlaboratory courses equipped with state-of-the-art appa-ratus, and few if any institutions have been able to revise

the mass-enrollment introductory-level laboratorycourses to reflect the new knowledge and techniques.The faculty themselves are often unable to keep abreastof much less master the new science.

The emphasis on disciplinary rescaich that haschanged the nature of doctoral university faculties in thepast 35 years has had a marked effect on non-doctoralinstitutions, which produce many of the Nation's newbaccalaureate engineers and scientists. These institutionslace all of the difficulties noted above with only a smalltraction of the human and financial resources available toprograms embedded in doctoral universities. And, theirfaculties, quite understandably, are beginning to moder-ate their commitment to improve teaching in order tospend time and an increasing part of the resource:- oftheir colleges on basic research.

Few doubt the importance to students of the intellec-tual stimulation gained by their teachers from their re-search activities, and neither do many doubt the harm ofincreasing the fraction of faculty members whose alloca-tion of research time is first to the discipline and secondto the improvement of teaching.

Interestingly, some of the solutions to these difficultiessuggested by witnesses before the Committee amount tomore not less support of research in collegiate institu-tions (W11,W25).

Opportunities for undergraduate research are fre-quently identified in reports (B38) and testimony(W21,W25,W27) as being of significant importance forundergraduate instruction in the basic sciences. Suchresearch opportunities enable good departments to re-cruit outstanding science students for graduate worklater.

In non-doctoral institutions, the support of studentinvolvement in the research activities of the facu:ty is ofbenefit to all parties; the enthusiasm and ingenuousnessof the undergraduate are just as stimulating to an inves-tigation as the determination and dedication of the doc-toral student, and both learn important things aboutthemselves as well as about the discipline in being part ofa vigorous research program.

In the doctoral universities, few faculty members whoare leaders in disciplinary research devote significantamounts of time to the curriculum research and coursedevelopment activities necessary to build new knowl-edge into the educational experiences of students. Asfaculties in all kinds of institutions have become morediscipline-centered and less institution-centered, thisconcentration of leadership effort has begun to have anegative impact on the quality of instruction (W26).

Witnesses before the Committee urged that ways hefound to involve active research scientists in course andcurriculum development activities that result in trans-ferrable products - new courses and new curricula thatcan be adapted to needs of other kinds of colleges anduniversities. They emphasized the need to replace ob-solete instructional and research equipment; argued thatways must be found to reverse the falling-off of laborato-

'j75

ry course requirements (because of rapidly escalatingcosts of laboratory instruction); pointed to the necessityof developing new programs to help faculty membersstay abreast of their fields; and urged that the very best ofthe teachers and researchers in each of the sciences join inefforts to improve the courses and instruction in sciencethat are designed to meet the neets of the general stu-dent tomorrow's non-scientist citizen.

2. Mathematics

"Mathematics is both an enabling force and a criticalfilter for careers in science and engineering.Mathematics is not just one of the sciences, but is thefoundation for science and engineering . . . The reality (how:ver) . . is both simple and awesome: under-graduate matheniatics is a totally different subjectthan it was twenty years ago." Lynn A. Steen, Presi-dent, Mathematical Association of America (W20).

Mathematics underlies all of the sciences a. I engi-neering. In the first two years of college, a typical under-graduate science or engineering student takes as manycourses in mathematics as in the chosen major. For stu-dents preparing for a research career in science or engi-neering, the total number of courses in mathematicstaken over the four undergraduate years may exceed thenumber of courses in the major. Successful efforts toimprove the undergraduate curriculum in mathematicswill have immediate impact not only on mathematics butalso on instruction in all the sciences and engineering.

The "general" or "non-technical" undergraduate is notuntouched by mathematics, for one or more courses inmathematics are required for, or elected by, nearly everycollege student. The importance of mathematics in nearlyevery field of study is becoming widely acknowledged.Colleges across the country are instituting mathematicsproficiency requirements and many also have distribu-tion requirements in the subject. Thus, successful effortsto improve the undergraduate curriculum in mathe-matics can have a significant impact on the level of scien-tific literacy in the nation. These efforts will not be suc-cessful unless solutions are found to serious problems inthe areas of faculty and curriculum (B26).

Faculty Shortage and Faculty Development.The spectre of a major shortage of qualified college

mathematics faculty looms on the horizon. A major decrease in the rate of production of Ph.Ds in mathematicsis occurring simultaneously with an increase in thenumber of non-academic jobs that are available for math-ematicians and an almost explosive rise in registrations inrelatively elementary mathematics courses in collegesand universities (W17).

The enrollment increase derives from larger enroll-ments in engineering and some science curricula, andthe steady rise over the past twenty years in the amountof instruction that must be done to remedy deficiencies in

28

the mathematical preparation of students in the second-ary schools. When coupled with falling Ph.D. produc-tion in the field, these factors combine to worsen theconditions of faculty employment.

As in science and especially in engineering, instructionat the elementary and remedial level in mathematics isdone inc-easingly by graduate teaching assistants or ad-junct faculty, many of whom do not communicate well inEnglish (B39) The senior faculty must teach the moreadvanced courses and their reluctance to "teach moreand more junior high school mathematics to college agestudents" is understandable. Several persons testifiedthat a substantial research effort in the "teaching andlearning" areas should be directed at secondary schoolmathematics in hope of improving that instruction so thatremediation would not be required in the colleges

The decrease in faculty supply and increase in studentenrollments have reTalted in steadily rising teachingloads for mathematics faculty. Time for the individualresearch that characterizes the field, and for other kindsof faculty refreshment and development is decreasingperhaps even more in the college than in the university.Witnesses stated that, for these and other reasons, itwould be timely and beneficial for institutions, govern-ments and their agencies, including the National ScienceFoundation, and private sources of funding, to investseriously in programs of faculty development in mathe-matics (W17,W20).

Curriculum Change.The mathematics curnculum is ripe for change. Re-

search activity in mathematics has never been more in-tense. New applications of mathematics are continuallybeing discovered, and these new applications in turn arestimulating new research. The impct- of computing tech-nology on mathematics is dramatic. For all of these rea-sons, mathematics is changing. And if mathematics ischanging, then so must instruction in mathematics.

These changes are already beginning. Many collegemathematics departments are installing instructionalcomputer facilities, and their availability is altering theway such subjects as differ 'intial equations and numericalanalysis are being taught. The increasing graphics ca-pability of computers that can be afforded for classroomuse is modifying rapidly the approach to a subject likedifferential geometry as not long ago research in thatarea was revolutionized. On a more elementary level,instruction in calculus is changing, and some schools areintroducing courses on the mathematics of computationat both the lower and upper division undergraduatelevels.

The pace of necessary changes in the undergraduatemathematics curriculum will be too slow unless substan-tial support comes f.om sources external to the collegesand universities. Too few of them can afford the costs ofresearch and development for the new courses they need

ones that embody recent advances in mathematics re-search and in computing technology. The sensible way to

36

accomplish these changes is for a few colleges and urn-versifies to develop prototypical courses and instruc-tional materials with support from a foundation such asNSF. These materials can then be tested, refined, dis-seminated for the benefit of all, and serve as templates forlater commercial publishing (W20).

Leadership funding of this kind should not be ex-pected from the publishers themselves, though they willfollow successful pioneer efforts. This is the lesson of theCHEM study and PSSC Physics courses developed forhigh school instruction by the 1960's projects sponsoredby NSF today, most high school chemistry and physicstexts are based on them.

First steps of this kind are already being taken. Anexample is provided by the. Sloan Foundation's recentsupport for the introduction of discrete mathematics intothe freshman curriculum. Sloan sponsored a conferenceon this topic, from which came a proceedings volumethat described a variety of options. Next, Sloan providedsupport for six institutions to develop model courses,some were independent courses in discrete mP'hematicswhile others combined discrete mathematics and the cal-culus. Steps such as these are needed in many othersubject matter areas, and witnesses appearing before theCommittee urged that the National Science Foundationassume a leadership role in their initiation.

Undergraduate Research.Resource requirements in mathematics are generally

different from those in science and engineering. At thegraduate level, the need is for the support of humanresources rather than laboratory facilities and equipment.Even the human resource needs in mathematics are dif-ferent from those in the sciences. The primary need is forsupport of the professional researcher for secretarialassistance and perhaps for computing. Need for supportof laboratory technicians and maintenance staff is limitedto computer-related activities.

This pattern of support requi-ements extends naturallyto the undergraduate level, where, for example, studentfaculty apprentice-mentor relationships are differentfrom those found in the laboratory sciences and engi-neering. Mathematicians generally work alone, but evenwhen mathematicians do work with others, these groupstend to be rather small and to consist either of researchersof comparable experience and talent or of a senior re-searcher working with one or two talented postdoctoralresearch associates. Undergraduates usually do not havethe requisite knowledge or experience to make directcontributions to research projects in mathematics (W20).

Nevertheless, the health of the mathematics researchenterprise may well depend on the availability of oppor-tunities for mathematics majors to have meaningful sum-mer experience in their field. This is especially true forthe many future mathematicians who are studying atrelatively small undergraduate colleges where there maybe only one or two mathematics majors with an interest ina research career. The interaction with one's peers that is

29

so important in the process of solidifying one's careergoals is often absent in such settings. A stimulating sum-mer experience can do much to make up for that.

3. Engineering

"At the undergraduate level, no fet of national policiesor p; og ra ins recognizes the important role of engineer-ing education in contributing to the imperatives of atechnology-based world ecor ,my" National ResearchCouncil, Cenimittee on the Education and Utilizationof the Engineer (B12:62).

As our society becomes ever more dependent uponscience and technology, so too does it become dependenton the availability of talented, broadly educated engi-neers. Indeed, the health of this nation's engineeringschools is a cntical factor in determining the economicand military secunty of this Nation and the quality ofAmerican life. Undergraduate engineering education isat a crossroads, not because it hasn't served the Nation'sneeds and met its expectations, but because it has. Highdemand for engineering graduates coupled with greaterinterest in engineering careers on the part of the Nation'sbest high school seniors has resulted in dramatic enroll-ment increases nationwide. This ti end has persisted fornearly a decade, during which period most academicinstitutions were experiencing increasing fiscal con-straints (B51).

The engineering profession has attracted many highly-qualified students. The resulting overload of facilities andfaculties during a period of austerity has generated sub-stantial downward pressures on the quality of engineer-ing education. Several witnesses testified that a decade ofsuch pressures had already caused significant deteriora-tion in the vitality and quality of the engineering pro-grams at many if not most of the Nation's engineeringschools.

Characteristics.In contrast to most other professions, engineering edu-

cation is focused at the undergraduate level; the four-yearbaccalaureate program represents the terminal degree formost practicing engineers (B12:3).

There are many kinds of engineering: civil, computer,mechanical, electrical, aerospace, manufacturing, chemi-cal, and others. An undergraduate engineering curricu-lum is not, however, limited and monolithic in its struc-ture. About half of the content is common to all thespecialty tracks, a factor which permits students to movefrom one field or subdiscipline to another without addingsubstantially to their times in course. Because 128-140semester hours of course work may be required, (com-pared with the "standard" 120 semester hours), about 4.5years, on the average, are taken to complete the "four-year" engineering curriculum In some areas, recent de-velopmont has been so rapid that the norraal processes ofcurricular compression have not had time to act; in those

37

areas there is often serious interest in adding a fifth yearto the baccalaureate curriculum or making the M.S. theentry level degree (B12:4).

Production of Graduates.(a) Quantity. While it is true that the United States lags

far behind other industrialized nations in per capita pro-duction of engineering graduates, the sense of crisisamong engineering educators and employers has less todo ith the quantity than the quality of undergraduateengineering education. At the present time, the nation isproducing roughly 70,000 B.S. engineering graduateseach year (along with 15,000 M.S. and 3,000 Ph.D. gradu-ates) (B1:267). For the long term, anticipated retirementsand limited technical mobility of the engineering work-force (50% of whom are within 1G years of retirement),coupled with the demographic decline in the number ofhigh school graduates (roughly 25% to 30% in the Eastand Midwest), raise serious concerns about the Nation'ssupply of engineers. However, in the short term, asidefrom periodic shortfalls in critical areas such as electrical,computer, manufacturing, and aerospace engineering,there appears to be an adequate supply of baccalaureateengineering graduates (B40:108,W14).

There is right now a serious shortage of faculty in mostbranches of engineering, one that is expected to worsenin the next few years. This situation arises in part fromthe attractiveness of entry-level positions in industry.Engineers nearing the end of B.S. degree studies receiveseveral interesting offers and see no need to continuetheir education to the master's level or beyond (W14). Theresult is a dearth of advanced degree candidates whomight be recruited to academic careers.

Undergraduate enrollments in engineering have near-ly doubled in the last decade, but the number of doctoralcandidates is about the same as it was ten years ago(B41:63-65,73). Thus, the production of potential facultymembers is presently only half the national need, thisfactor is limiting the growth of baccalaureate engineereducation and jeopardizing its quality.

(b) Quality. Of more serious concern is the quality ofundergraduate engineering education. While under-graduate engineering enrollments have more than dou-bled over the past decade, and the attractiveness of engi-neering careers is drawing the most talented of ourNation's high school graduates into engineering pro-grams, limits on available financial resources and insuffi-cient engineering doctorate production have held theamount of institutional space and the number of engi-neering faculty positions roughly constant (B32:9) andled to serious overloads of both staff and facilities. Thissituation has been compounded by the serious obsoles-cence of the laboratory and instructional facilities, whichhave fallen far behind modern technology and engineer-ing practice.

The engineering curriculum, in the view of some whomet with the Committee, has not kept pace with thedemands placed on professional engineers. Further, it is

30

said to be deficient in one element that is important to themaintenance of balance between "producer" anc, "con-sumer" views of the proper preparation for engineeringpractice (W14).

Upon graduation most engineers go into industry andbusiness In the private sector. The preparation for work inthe private sector can only he touched upon in the under-graduate years, unlike the situation in oLfier areas whereseveral years of graduate study and postdoctoral workimmerse a person in the type of work they may later do ina university, government, or industry laboratory. Thereare no "teaching hospitals" or similar arrangements tohelp prepare engineering graduates for work in the pro-fessional real world. A research experience for under-graduates would be another way of preparing for prac-tice, but more than one-half of the B.S. engineeringstudents graduate from non-Ph.D. engineering institu-tions where research opportunities are limited. The uni-versities that receive 50 percent of the federal funding forresearch graduate only 26 percent of the B.S. engineers(B49).

Large companies have training programs to help newengineers become productive in the industrial environ-ment, and large companies are generally quite compli-mentary about the high quality of graduates. Howe r,

small companies have not thought that they havL theresources to provide extensive training programs. Theyare critical of these same graduates because of their inex-perience and lack of specific knowledge (which, in com-bination, retard the arrival of new engineers at the pointwhere they can apply the knowledge they do have ininnovative and creative ways). As the country is highlydependent on small companies and industries for inno-vation and creative products and processes, and to,.providing new job opportunities, it is important thatmore attention be given to the preparation of graduates tomeet their needs.

Other Problem Areas.(a) Faculty shortage. Despite concerted efforts by institu-

tions, industry, and federal agencies, roughly 1,500(8.5'7c ) of our nation's budgeted engineering faculty posi-tions remain vacant. If resources were available to copewith enrollment growth during the past decade, 6,700faculty positions would have to be filled (B41). Of par-ticular concern are the critical shortages in high demandareas such as electrical engineering, computer scienceand engineering, and manufacturing engineering.

Key factors in constraining the supply of engineeringfaculty are the limited production of engineering docto-rates (particularly U.S. nationals), inadequate salaries,obsolete facilities, instructional overloads, and inade-quate opportunities for professional development. Theinability of engineering schools to attract younger facultyhas led to an aging faculty cohort with limited ability torespond to technological change. Anticipated retire-ments over the next decade will almost certainly intensitythe shortage of engineering faculty.

38

It is imperative that faculty devoted to teaching beprovided opportunities to maintain competence, and todevelop new areas of knowledge and methods for main-taining a vital, inspiring, creative, and exciting linkwith the students. The teacher must have time for reflec-tion as well as experience if he is to consider and adjustthe balances of science and technology, theory and prac-tice, depth and breadth, and ethics and economics asvarious technical topics are presented to the studentsTeaching loads have nearly doubled over the past 10 yearsand time for pursuit of scholarly activities and practice-related activities has become practically nonexistent inmany institutions

(b) Instrumentation, equipment, and facilities. An es-pecially serious aspect of today's engineering education isthe difference between the amount and condition of in-structional laboratory instrumentation and equipmentand that appropriate to the dimensions of the teachingtask. Laboratories in the schools "producing most of ourengineers (are) a national disgrace," according to onedistinguished educator (B52).

Recent NSF surveys have estimated that only 18% ofthe equipment used in engineering instructional labora-tories is state-of-the art (B53). It is estimated that thedeficiency in needed laboratory equipment now exceeds$2 billion. To maintain the quality of instructional equip-ment at adequate levels, institutions should be investingroughly $1,500 to $2,000 per graduate per year (B35).

Of comparable concern are the costs associated withservicing and maintaining the modern laboratoryamounting typically to 10% to 15% of equipment pur-chase costs per year. All too frequently corporate gifts ofbadly needed equipment lie unused because of inade-quate resources to maintain the items.

Investments of similar magnitude must be made toachieve the computing environment characterizing con-temporary engineering practice. Keeping pace with mod-ern tools of engineering such as computer-aided design,supercomputers, and computer networks presents aca-demic institutions with staggering challenges. Yet failureto expose students to such technology will guarantee therapid technological obsolescence of newly graduatedengineers.

Few engineering schools have managed to maintainthe quality of facilities necessary to respond to surgingenrollments and sophisticated new technology. The ab-sence of federal programs to assist in the construction orrenovation of instructional space has been particularlydamaging, since it was this support during the 1960s thatenabled many institutions to get substantial matchingfunding from public and private sources. According toseveral of our witnesses, most engineering instructionnow occurs in facilities inadequate for the installation andmaintenance of modern instrumentation and informa-tion technology.

(c) The Curriculum. Numerous studies have assertedthat the undergraduate engineering curriculum has notbeen kept abreast of technological change and profes-

C

sional practice There are growing concerns about thelimitations inherent to the traditional four-year program(W7,W4I). Issues of concern include: the growing voca-tional focus of the curriculum; over-specialization; inade-quate exposure to engineering practice particularly en-gineering synthesis and design; and the inability of thetraditional discipline approach to keep pace with theintellectual evolution of engineering practice, whichtends to be cross-disciplinary in nature. Furthermore,there continues to be general concern that for somefields, such as electrical and computer engineering, theentry degree into the profession should be extended tothe M.S. level (B12:51-84).

There seems to be widespread agreement inade-quate attention has been paid to curriculum develc anentin engineering education. This has been due in part to anoverloaded and aging faculty, as well as to the absence ofexternal programs aimed at stimulating curriculum inno-vation and implementation.

A number of problem areas were identified by thewitnesses but none so serious as the lack of emphasis on asystems approach. For example, design is an importantelement in almost every aspect of engineering practice.While the teaching of the design of components is reason-ably well done, there is so little instruction about designof systems in most institutions that good teaching mate-rials are rare especially in the sub-area of manufacturingdesign, where the need nation-wide is especially great.

Summing Up.The consensus of the testimony presented to the Com-

mittee is that there are grave problems in engineenngeducation. The serious shortage in the availability ofengineering faculty, the poor quality of physical facili-ties and deficiencies in instructional laboratory equip-ment, and the failure to keep the undergraduate engi-neering curriculum abreast of technological change haveall been documented extensively in numerous studiesand reports. The success rate of institutions seeking ap-proval of their programs by the Accreditation Board forEngineering and Technology has fallen-off sharply (B43).

The testimony identified a number of causative factors:First, the attractiveness of engineering careers coupled

with no growth in the student capacity of good educa-tional programs has limited freshman enrollment to anincreasingly higher "cut" from the applicant spectrum.More able entrants mean higher quality graduates; theability of students has risen faster than the quality of theireducation has declined, until recently. The result hasbeen to mask the lowered quality of education.

Second, few academic institutions have taken steps tore-establish a balance between engineering enrollmentsand resources through major internal reallocation or bylimits on engineering enrollments.

Third, American industry has been a dnving factor inthe intense demand for engineering graduates, but it hasbeen slow to develop a corresponding interest in sup-porting engineering education at a level adequate to meet

31

39

this demand or to modify its recruiting practices so as tobetter balance the demand with the supply. Also, facultymembers leave academe for industry, but very few expe-rienced engineers have been attracted from industry intofaculty positions.

Finally, some of the blame must be shared by thoseresponsible for the character of federal programs to andeducation. In the various changes that occurred in the lastdecade: research and graduate education have enjoyedsupport closer to their needs, K-12 programs have re-ceived attention at last, though not nearly enough fund-ing; but undergraduate education which is the levelcritical for the quality of engineering in the future hasbeen largely ignored.

D. Institutional Perspectives

1. Doctoral Universities

"Since the phase-out of the NSF programs (for courseand curriculum development) we have seen a decreasein the flow of new instructional materials from theresearch universities. . . . Some of the burden forcurriculum improvement has been assumed by (pri-vate) foundations and by corporate initiatives.. .

However, foundation and corporate support is notenough. One element that is missing is a competitivefocus for individual professors to seek funds for newteaching ideas. Also missing is the visibility providedby the competitive process. At a place like Cornell, theworth of a faculty member is often judged by his or hersuccess in the competitive process of seeking researchgrants. A national competitive process for seekingfunds for innovative teaching and curriculum im-provements would also give young faculty visibilityand 'credit' in the tenure process. Without this vis-ibility and credit, there is less incentive for faculty atinstitutions like Cornell to particpate in innovativeteaching activities." J. M. Ballantyne, Vice Presidentfor Research and Advanced Studies, Cornell Univer-sity (WI).

Education in science, mathematics, and engineering atthe doctoral universities presents special problems inaddition to sharing many of the concerns of non-doctoralinstitutions.

The presence of research scientists who are at thecutting edge of their fields is a resource for undergradu-ate science and engineering instruction that is unique todoctoral universities. The effective utilization of this re-source for undergraduate education while maintaining ahigh level of research productivity should be a centralconcern of doctoral universities, both public and private.

The strong focus on graduate-level research at theseuniversities creates a dichotomy of interest for some fac-ulty members. There is institutional pressure to obtaingrant support for research; promotions, tenure, salaries,

32

and peer group recognition are more strongly linked toresearch productivity than to teaching The resulting"publish or perish" syndrome often detracts from effortsto improve undergraduate education. Those facultymembers who act on serious interests in undergraduateinstruction take some risks and may make considerabiesacrifices in order to persist in such activity while facingpressures to maintain strong research programs and toobtain funding for them.

Needs.(a) Facilities Well-equipped modern laboratories are

especially important to educational programming in thedoctoral universities. Witnesses described to the Com-mittee serious deficiencies in the character and conditionof teaching space, instructional laboratories, and equip-ment for demonstration and instruction; the scarcity ofcomputers devoted to instructional tasks; and the simplelack of enough equipment to serve the students enrolled.One of those testifying stated:

"The reaching MIN in electrical engineering still makeregular use of instruments manufactured in 1920,oscillators manufactured in 1940, microwcre equip-ment manufactured in 1962, and computers rnanufac-tured in 1970." (W1)

The situation becomes even more critical when weconsider the widely acknowledged need for high-quality,"hands-on" laboratory experiences for undergraduates,the increasing use of sophisticated equipment in modernscience, and the rapid emergence of new technologiesand their use in new scientific disciplines such as bio-technology and others springing from modern biologicalscience. Several individuals testified to the Committeethat donations from industry are not likely to solve theequipment problem that now confronts the science andengineering disciplines (W8,W16).

(b) Curriculum improvement. The sudden phase-out inthe late 70's of Foundation programs to stimulate innova-tion in college-level science and engineering courses re-saced not only in the elimination of this flow of often-creative projects, but indirectly in a further reduc ion ofeffort on the part of research faculty members to preparenew instructional materials. Because they work at thefrontiers and borderlines of knowledge, the involve-ment of research scientists in course and materials de-velopment is necessary in order to assure that such workproducts are up-to-date and that they reflect both thedirections and excitement of the most active lines ofresearch.

The problem is one of making such participation byresearch scientists not just possible but attractive. Fur-ther, it is desirable that such faculty members be exposedto fields close to but apart from their own specialties andto recent advances in the sciences of teaching and learn-ing - so that the effectiveness of their work on new mate-rials will be enhanced.

40

(c) faculty shortages. Current informat.on predicts that aserious shortage of science and mathematics faculty willdevelop in the near future. This situation alr!ady exists inengineering. Many students have shifted from otherfields into engineering, and shifts have occurred fromone engine( ing field to another. Between 1976 and 1982,the number of undergraduate students in engineeringincreased by almost 60%; during the same period, theengineering faculty increased less than a third. Currentlypopular fields such as Electrical Engineering and Com-puter Science are experiencing serious faculty shortages.There is inadequate production of engineering docto-rates to meet the demand (B42).

Related to faculty shortages are the problems of largerclass size and increased teaching load. Maintaining areasonable faculty/student ratio is important for effectiveundergraduate instruction in mathematics, the sciences,and engineering. More staff support (e.g., secretahelp, lab technicians, lab assistants) is also needed toprovide high-quality undergraduate instruction. Whenfaculty members are overloaded and lack staff support,they do not have time or incentive for new curriculum ormaterials development.

(d) Intellectual breadth of science and engineering education.Testimony to the Committee recommended that federalprograms aimed at strengthening science and engineer-ing education give prominence to its intellectual breadth(W7). The basic premise is that the best professionaleducation in science and engineering education is onethat is broadly based. The humanities and social sciencescontribute to the breadth and intellectual skills neededfor engineers and scientists to be effective professionalleaders.

(e) Science literacy. One of the missions of science edu-cation ill the schools is to produce a citizenry for thefuture that has at least minimal acquaintance with themethods, content, and significance to society of contem-porary science. Colleges and universities expect theirstudents to further advance the reading and writing skillsthey bring with them from high school; sunlir expecta-tions are becoming manifest in mathematics and thesciences.

The introductory science course, whether designed formajors or non-majors, is often the only exposure thatnon-science students will have to the subject at a collegi-ate level of sophistication. It is important that this coursebe well-designed and well-taught, so that students whocomplete it have a good foundation in science to takewith them into their lives as citizens and as the potentialleaders in many different communities.

The introductory course may serve as a gateway toscience and engineering careers; one would hope thatable students who have not made a career choice at thattime might be attracted to science or engineering becau.,2of a motivating experience there. It is also an importantcourse for students who have already decided to becomescientists m. engineers; potential science majors need a

good start in their freshman year to reintorce their inter-est in science and to set the stage for advanced studies.

Despite their importance, introductory science coursesgenerally do not receive sufficient support. The typicallylarge number of students enrolling in introductor'courses places a strain on facilities and equipment, r2-placements, maintenance and repairs are serious prob-lems with large associated costs.

Teaching the introductory courses requires specialskills and attributes. In some doctoral universities, dis-tinguished faculty scholars have elected to teach theselarge courses. Because of the heavy demands of suchteaching assignments and the lack of recognition andreward that often accompany them, non-tenured facultyat those universities may take considerable risks in choos-ing to teach introductory courses.

Competitive national funding programs aimed atproviding modern equipment and facilities for introduc-tory science courses and attracting outstanding facultymembers to teach them and work on ti it improvementwould be highly desirable. Such programs would estab-lish incentive, recognition, and rewards for faculty, andwould reinforce the importance of the introductorycourses in the curriculum.

(f) Improved Articulation Between Colleges and Universitiesand the Secondary Schools. Science literacy at the under-graduate level is built on good teaching in the second: yschools. There is need for greater exchange and coopera-tion among secondary school science teachers and theaculties of all kinds of colleges and universities. Such

cooperation could involve not just refresher courses forschool teachers, but joint efforts in revising textbooks,increasing available literature, making films, and/ororganizing workshops. Greater continuity in the sciencecurnculum between high school and undergraduate edu-cation would permit offering more advanced materialand increase teaching effectiveness at the undergraduatelevel. Because of their quality and prestige, and becauseof their obvious stake in the outcome, doctoral univer-sities and their faculties should play leadership roles inthis area.

2. Comm,. ,r and Junior Colleges

Two-year colleges serve a large fraction of the Nat'on'scollege population. In 1985, 41% of full ime freshmenand sophomores attended community, junior, or tech-nical colleges. This number includes 42% of the Blackcollege stuaents, 54% of '' lispanic student., and 43%of the Asian student i tau ion (W4).

The growth of the h ear colleges in the past twodecades has been extrao:dinary. In 1964 tilt e were 637two-year colleges; by 1984 the number had doubled to1,272 (Table A). Student enrollments (FTE) grew fromapproximately 600,000 to 3,000,000 during this period(Chart 9).

Although many of its students are enrolled in collegetransfer programs, the two-year college provides the ma-

33

41

CHART 9

Full-Time Equivalent Enrollment in HigherEducation Institutions

IM`rions)

6

5

Actual Projected

University and4 Year College

3

22 Year College

0 I

11965 1970 1975 1960 1962 19617 1992

Year

SOURCE U S Department of Education Center for Statistics

jonty with their last opportunity to study science in c,

formal educational setting. A typical community collegestudent is more likely tot ..rsue an occupational or tech-nical curnculum than a liberal arts program. Many movedirectly from the two-year college to employment. Thosethat do transfer to four-year institutions often have satis-fied any science requirements before transfer and do notelect additional science.

The quality of the engineering, science, und mathe-matics taught at two-year colleges is thus of prime impor-tance. It provides the underpinning on which the tech-nical skills of occupational students are built, and is theculminating science education experience for a substan-tial portion of citizens.

Needs.The major identified needs for science education in the

twn year colleges are in the areas of: (a) faculty develop-ment, (h) courses and curricula, and (c) facilities andequipment.

(a) Faculty development. Earlier Foundation programsfor college faculty are viewed almost universally as hav-ing had significant positive impact on the quality of sci-ence, mathematics and engineering instruction in theUnited States (B37:12,W6, 4V8,W10,W21,W26). One wit-ness estimated that 50% of science faculty who are enter-ing the last third of their careers received their initialtraining with both the encouragement and financial as-sistance of the National Science Foundation (W4). Forsome, this cam.- in the form of NSF programs for second-ary school teachers. Some of the teachers v: ho earnedadvanced degrees through NSF institutes became two-year college faculty; the new generation of teachers doesnot have this c ,-)ortunity. Furthermore, many two-yearcollege faculty r r,-evented by geographical considera-tions from any significant interaction with faculty at re-search institutions. Relatively modest partnership sup-port from NSF for faculty development could lead to

34

genuine improvements in science and mathematicsinstruction.

(b) Courses and cto netila The potential applications oftechnology to educa,..,n are of great interest to two-yearcolleges. Computers and computer networks, television,videotape and videodisc technology are seen as bringingnew dimensions to teaching and learning. Ir vestmentsby NS' n this area can lead to great advances in t: ecapability of two-year colleges to deliver high qualityinstruction.

Because of the concentration of their faculties on in-struction, community colleges lend themselves well toresearch and development projects on teaching andlearning, especially those that are facilitated by the pres-ence of large and heterogeneous student bodies.

The two-year colleges are a part of higher education.Their transfer programs provide large numbers of upperdivision students to four-year institutions. Articulationat this transfer point is difficult and requires serious andpermanent collaborative efforts between the source andacceptor colleges. NSF-sponsored demonstration pro-grams might be especially helpful to the development ofconsortial interactions that could make the transfer pro-cess smoother administratively and less risky for thestudent.

(c) Facilities and equipment. As is the case with manyfour-year colleges, the two-year institutions (community,junior, and technical colleges) are beset by outdated labo-ratory facilities and serious deficiencies in both theamount and condition of apparatus and equipment.

Unusual pressures are placed on two-year institutionsbecause of the diversity of their curricula. The costs ofinstruction in most liberal arts subjects are much lowerthan in the laboratory courses that are part of everytechnical, scientific, and pre-engineering curriculum.Were two-year colleges' programming limited to the col-lege transfer area, their concerns would be identical withthose of four-year institutions. The extra pressure onthem arises from the substantial science instruction in-cluded in many of the technical/certificate curricula theyoffer The importance of Foundation leadership and in-tervention is intensified by the programmatic diversity ofthese institutions

3. Non-Ductoral Colleges and Universities

The non-doctoral colleges and universities in theUnited States play a significant and critical role in edu-cating professional scientists and engineers as well as inproviding a background in science to students majoringin non-science fields. These are institutions, both publicand private, that award bachelors or Tnasters degrees butdo not hay. large doctorate programs. They include liber-al arts colleges, some private universities, and state col-leges and universities that do not have graduate trainingand research as a major responsibility.

The liberal arts colleges have a long tradition of excel-lence in undergraduate education. The most selective of

42

them graduate significant numbers of science and engi-neering baccalaureates, and they are a major source ofstudents for graduate programs (W5). The state collegesand universities educate large numbers of students ofscience and engineering, like the liberal arts colleges,they also provide the only college-level -cience educationfor the majority of their students who do not becomeprofessional scientists or engineers.

Student tuition is the major source of operating fundsfor all private colleges and universities; only a few of thebetter-endowed institutions receive significant incomefrom investments. State funds are usually appropriatedto public institutions on the basis of student enrollment.Teaching and doing science is expensive, but it is a neces-sary part of the undergraduate education these institu-tions provide. Even so, resource constraints result inunintended bias toward support of less costly programsz.nd sometimes force adoption of techniques for scienceand engineering instruction that are detrimental to itsquality, e.g., de-emphasis of laboratory work, over-re-liance on demonstrations, etc.

Predominantly Minority Institutions.Some 130 colleges and universities have mostly under-

graduate programs and enroll primarily minority stu-dents. These constitute a special and unique subset of tl'egroup comprising the nondoctoral colleges. "Minority" isnot a uniform label. These institutions differ amongthemselves in ethnicity, programmatic emphases, andgeographic distribution.

Minority institutions are usually smaller and less well-financed than their non-minority counterparts. Further,they are all in transition between narrow service to aspecial population and more comprehensive attention tothe educational requirements of diverse student groups.As a result, all of the concerns expressed here apply tothem but the problems are intensified, even exacer-bated, by virtue of their continued fiscal poverty andlong-standing excl,,sion from equitable access to re-sources of all kinds (W2,W24).

Five institutions in the Southwest, fourteen in PuertoRico, and one in Florida enroll mainly Hispanic students.In Alaska, the students at one college are almost allNerve Alaskans. There are ten institutions in cities withlarge and diverse minority populations (New York, Chi-cago, Santa Fe, San Antonio, and Los Angeles) that serveseveral major minority student cadres.

In nearly a hundred of these predominantly minorityinstitutions, the student body is mostly Black - these arethe "historically Black" colleges. Small for the most part,their number includes, however, sever-' comprehensiveinstitut;')ns and more than one research university. Thehistorically Black insti,.....uns (HBI's) are concentrated in20 states, mostly in the Southeast, and in those statesthey graduate over half of the Black bachelor's degreerecipients. The HBI's make a special contribution in sci-ence and engineering, since they produce more than 40%of all Black undergraduate degrees in the technical fields

35

(W24) 1 he t1131's together with the two-year collegesenroll approximately 60% of the Black students in U S.higher education.

Thus, Black students are still highly concentrated inthe HB1's. There is st1 ong feelinv, in the Black communitythat majority institutions, white effective for some minor-ity students, are not appropriate for others. Many minor-ity students are uncomfortable and h, ,itant in a depait-ment or school where they may be the only students oftheir race or ethnicity, and where majority faculty mayriot be conscious or thoughtful of their unique situation

Minority institutions and the HBI's often serve aslinks to the minority communities in ways that theirmajority counterparts cannot. They can help to strength-en the educational pipeline from the very earliest years ofschooling, producing impacts well beyond undergradu-ate education. In the words of one witness: ". . . if theFederal Government takes seriously its responsibility toincrease the representation of minorities in science andengineering, one component of the solution should in-volve support of those institutions where minority stu-dents are located that have a historical track record inproducing quality graduates at the undergraduate level."(W2)

Needs.Non-doctoral institutions share many of the concerns

of the doctoral universities; need for course and curricu-lum improvement; actual and impending faculty short-ages; difficulty of staving-off faculty obsolescence; theneed for more facile transitions between schools andcolleges and between undergraduate and graduate in-stitutions, etc.

Testimony before the C ')mmittee (W3, W5, W8, W11,W25) and position papers submitted to it (B38, W29,W31, W32, W37, W38) identified the priority needs ofundergraduate institutions, included suggestions forhow the Federal Government might respond appropri-ately to those needs, and commented on the adequacyand appropriateness of present support. Some of thedeficiencies can be met without new programs; otherswill require initiatives from NSF.

The needs these institutions identify fall into twobroad categories: tools (equipment, instructional mate-rials, facilities) and people (support for faculty and stu-dents). The most widespread need, identified by manwho appeared before the Committee or wrote to it, is forscientific equipment for instruction and research. Pres-ent holdings are inadequate and obsolete, and they aregetting worse rather than better. Some instructional labo-ratories cannot be operated because of lack of equipment,and in others the equipment used is out-of-date or run-down. Modern instructional equipment in adequatequantity is vital. Research equipment is also necessary tohelp faculty keep up to date in their fields and tc provideto students the research opportunities that are a highlydesirable part of excellent undergraduate education inscience and engineering.

43

Submissions to the committee pointed also to seriousdeficiencies in the quality of instructional materials.Texts, laboratory manuals, and methods of teaching havenot kept up with progress in science and engineeringCertainly, materials for teaching must reflect the currentstate of a discipline if undergraduates are to be welleducated

The eminent need identified in the "people" category isfor support of faculty research and other skill-enhancingactivities. Active participation in research is the preferredway for faculty to keep up-to-date. Without qualifiedfaculty whose knowledge is current, the education enter-prise cannot succeed. Institutions find that faculty re-cruiting and retention are more successful if they facili-tate faculty research and other activities that help facultykeep abreast of progress in their disciplines.

4. Some Common Concerns

The 7ederal Role.Non-doctoral institutions traditionally have relied on

tuition and on private or state funding for their opera-tions; all agree that these will continue to be their pm-cipal sources of funds. However, it is a national and,therefore, federal concern that those students who maybecome some of the Nation's leading scientists and engi-neers be encouraged and taught well as undergraduatesFederal encouragement and support of excellence in un-dergraduate education are both necessary and props

There are activities, particularly curriculum deve.,,p-ment, where the individual institution does not ha,. eorganizational structure or resources to make a n..thonciimpact. There are others, particularly updating of instru-mentation and supporting undergraduate research,where federal funding in augmentation of local resourcesencourages excellence. Further, there is the question ofequity: predominantly under_ raduate insitutions feelunfairly excluded from current NSF activities eventhough the Foundation is mandated to support theirimportant national role in undergraduate science andengineering education (W5,W31).

Women, minorities, and the handicapped in the Unit-ed States are underrepresented in every kind of place inhigher education (students, faculty, administration) andin every field for which college and univerity work ispreparation (including science, mathematics, engineer-ing, and all the specialized profession4 There is strongsupport for special efforts to achieve equitable represen-tation in all of these areas.

Why should NSF provide the support rather than someother federal agency? While others certainly have appro-priate roles to play, NSF is in an unusually strong posi-tion. Throughout the scientific community NSF is view-ed as an agency dedicated to excellence, one that willsupport high quality activities to address the problems ofundergraduate education. Other agenues are seen ashaving narrow missions that do not include sensitive

36

support for undergraduate education, or there is doubt inthe community about their ability to cone2ntrate re-sources to advance its quality.

Many of the more serious and longer-range problemsof undergraduate education require for their solution thecooperation and involvement of scientists and engineers,vho are experienced in both research and education. TheFoundation has an enviable record of achievement ingetting research scientists to work on educationaldevelopment

Continuity of Funding.

"It is simply wrong to believe that science teaching canbe brought up to date by a 'quick fix' or even by moresubstantial, but one time only efforts. . . Scienceteaching is inevitably rather like the White Queen inAlice in Wonderland, who said we must run veryfast Just to stay where we are!

"So, as r, n/ major overall recommendation, I urge thatcontinuity be the hallmark of all the NSF's programsin the teaching of science and engineering The a_;-surance of continuity is essential to attract the bestpeople to the task Ind to avoid the great loss ineffectiveness of groups which arc .,et up ,nily to beknocked down. Although NSF funding for teachingwill probably never exceed twenty-five percent of theiirtiount the Foundation invests in reset- rch, teachinginu3t have the same long-term continuity of effort andsupport winch is provided for research." John S. Toll,President, University of Maryland (W10).

The federal response to most of the needs identifiedby institutional sectors should not be based on the as-sumption that after a few years the needs will disappearand programs again can be dismantled. Support must besteady; what is excellent now ;.-,con becomes outdatedand renewal must be stimulated: curricula age, equip-ment becomes oe,olete, and faculty must work continu-ously to maintain their disciplinary and pedagogicalskills.

Certainly, the priorities for federal contributions to thehealth of undergraduate technical education will changeover time, but neither the provider nor the beneficiariesof such support are well served if such change is cata-strophic, wholly unpredictable, or unrelated to majornational needs and priorities. The great need at the pres-ent time is for the United States Government to catalyzeand stimulate desirable change in undergraduate tech-nical education by establishing and stabilizing diverseprograms targeted on excellence and renewal. The poorresults of short-term, uncoordinated responses are all tooapparent.

Teaching and Research - and the Long Term.Finally, both testimony (W3,W4,W10,W15,W22) and

written submissions (W30) pointed to the need to

44

provide some long-term financing for the continuingevolution of undergraduate science and engineering ed-ucation. In these domains, re-interpretation of fact doesoccur, but the pressure to accommodate new fact is muchgreater. The Federal Government and other supporters ofresearch have caused university-based disciplinary re-search to acquire impressive momentum. Several ofthose who brought testimony to the Committee statedthat sucn funding of basic research at substantial levelsover the long period since World War II was responsible

more than any other facto. for the present tension in theacademy between teaching and research (W1,W26).

It is important, therefore, that there be continuousfunding of the efforts of college and university 'acuities togenerate equally impressive momentum in efforts thatwould bring integration and transmission of new knowl-edge into '..)alance with the creation of new knowledge.No national interest would be served by increasing theteaching loads of doctoral university faculty members.Many national interests would be served if they in-creased their leadership of efforts to improve instruction.

37 4 5

III. CONCLUSIONSAND

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. The State of Undergraduate Science andEngineering 'Education in the U.S.

"If the 'research plant' of higher education has beendeteriorating, the 'instruction plant' of undergradu-ate science and engineei ing has been collapsing." JonC. Strauss, President, Worcester Polytechnic In-stitute (W6)

Mention was made earlier of the many studies andsurveys that have been published about various aspectsof the condition of undergraduate science, mathematics,and engineering education in the United States. Thesereports and the observations of members of the NationalScience Board led to the formation of this Committee. (Anumber of these reports are referenced in the Bibliogra-phy.) Later in this section the conclusions of the Commit-tee will be presented; but, we begin with a sharp andsuccinct expression by the Editors of NATURE (B44)

1. As Described by the Editors of NATURE

"There is mounting and disturbing evidence that thequality of teaching in both public and private universitiesis declining. Faculty are aging and are not being replacedat sufficient rate, especially in engineering. Laboratoryinstrumentation is, despite corporate munificence, se-riously out of date, particularly in institutions not famedas research establishments. And increasing teachingloads all too often force universities and colleges to relyon the teaching of undergraduates on new graduates, formany of whom English is not a first language.

"Quantity is another and a daunting aspect of the prob-lem. The proportion of young people in the United Statesgoing on to higher education in science and engineeringis only a half of what it is in Japan, while there is mount-ing evidence that demand is being constrained both bythe high cost of higher education and the continuingpoverty of high-school education at all but the excellentinstitutions. Can the United States continue to be as-tonished at the imbalance of its trade with Japan ?.. .

"The result of this neglect is that university teachinghas come to seem a chore to faculty members at manyinstitutions, not an activity vital to the function of aninstitution. (There are some honourable exceptions,chiefly among the private universities.) Research, by con-

trast, brings its own rewards, both intellectual and (main-ly in the United States) financial. .

"A credible programme for science and engineeringeducation at the undergraduate level would provide whatis at present lacking, a subset of university teacherswhose primary commitment would be to excellence ineducation.. .

"By any analysis, the strength of the United States restson its scientific and technical workforce, as do all of itshopes for the future. There is no known alternative todiligent study and excellent teachers. Americans shouldnot need to be told that"

2. As Found by this Committee

Any complex undertaking is in trouble when the gapbetween actual and tolerable imperfection grows so largeas to hazard its proper functioning. This Committee findsthat the gap is that large today for undergraduate educa-tion in mathematics, the sciences, and engineering andtechnology. The principal deficiencies are in some areasof effort and some areas of supply.

Insufficient efforts are being made to:

inform all students of the nature of science and oftechnological endeavor and of their relationships tothe functioning of contemporary society;

attract to professional careers interested and tal-ented members of groups presently underrepre-sented among scientists and engineers;

maintain overall academic quality in different kindsof educational institutions;

involve industry, professional societies, and otherparts of the private sector in sharing responsibilityfor the health and quality of the educationalenterprise;

provide education with the tools and develop thehuman resources it needs to do its job;

explore the potential of advanced technologies toimprove the effectiveness and efficiency of teachingand learning;

maintain without tension a balance between under-graduate teaching and graduate research; and

39

46

C sustain steady interest in and financing of neces-sary educational improvements

As a result of these and other factors, there are deficien-cies in the supplies of:

properly qualified faculty in some areas,

instrumentation and other materials for instructionthat reflect the states of current knowledge andpractice;

mechanisms for maintaining the acuity of facultymembers in their disciplines; and

information about undergraduate education and itschanging aspects over time.

3. The Special Situation of Engineering

The reader will have noted that the highest prioritiesfor action urged upon the Committee at this time are:

strengthening the laboratory experience, in partthrough increased support for acquisition and main-tenance of instructional instrumentation andequipment;

changing courses and curricula better to reflect thestate of knowledge and the needs of both pre-profes-sional and non-professional students, and

attraction, retention, and disciplinary resharpeningof well-qualified faculty members.

The concerns that led to these priorities are similar in allthe disciplines with which the Foundation is concernedand in all kinds of institutions that have direct roles inundergraduate education. But, there is little doubt that atthis time the problems of engineering are especially intensebecause of both the intellectual character of engineeringeducation and the national need for engineeringgraduates.

There are two main reasons for the present situation inengineering education, one permanent, the other chang-ing slowly: First, progress in engineering is driven by boththe results of scientific research and the continuing revo-lutions in professional practice it is both knowledge-driven and technology-driven. Second, the principallevel of entry into practice of engineering is at completionof the baccalaureate degree, in contrast to mathematicsand the sciences, for which the usual preparation ofprofessionals is the doctorate.

The sub-disciplines of engineering difter among the-n-selves less than those of science. A revolution in one istransmitted more quickly to another in engineering thanin science. When a period of rapid change begins (elec-trification, electronics, automation, microelectronics,computerization, etc.), the whole of engineering iscaught by the wave; in contrast, progress in one field ofscience usually affects other fields much more slowly - inmany areas of science there is time for accommodation.

40

The whole of engineering is now engulfed in yet an-other revolution resulting from the convergence of sever-al technologies microelectronics, computer and com-munications technology, and materials science Thedemand for the very best engineers has expanded stead-ily 'or over twenty years, particularly in advanced tech-nologies such as electrical and computer engineering.One of the dilemmas faced by engineering educationtoday has been caused by the degree to which industrydiverts the most talented baccalaureate engineers fromfurther graduate education and preparation for teachingcareers This has been a key factor in causing the seriousfaculty shortages faced by engineering schools. A mem-ber of the Committee put the matter very bluntly duringdiscussion at one of the public hearings "Industry iseating the seed corn . . ." (B47:125).

4. Supply-Demand Cycles

Generally, the recommendations to be found later inthis section do not focus on the quantitative aspects ofprofessional manpower supply and demand, primarilybecause the time constants or "characteristic times" forthe two are quite different. The rate of change in indus-trial employment needs is typically an order of magni-tude faster than that of academic preparation of scientistsor engineers. Further, economic driving of industrial de-mand causes fluctuation in both its scale and its composi-tion; there are no quick-acting analogues for the latter inthe educational stream. Students tend to "vote with theirfeet" in making career choices. The result is a cycle ofshortage and glut whose dampening would seem to in-volve restrictions on individual choice that are foreign toAmerican traditions.

5. Research and Teaching

"The language of the academy is revealing: professorsspeak of teaching loads and research opportunities,never the reverse.. .

"The enemy of good teaching is not research, butrather the spirit that says that this is the only worthyor legitimate task for faculty members." Association ofAmerican Colleges, Integrity in the College Cur-riculum (810).

In several instances, the recommendations of the Com-mittee will reflect an important qualitative aspect of themanpower situation the very real tension in highereducation between the research and teaching roles of thefaculty. A number of those who testified before the Com-mittee remarked on this tension, and a few identified aspecific cause for this undesired effect the steadily in-creasing and substantial support by federal agencies, t. eNational Science Foundation included, of research in uni-versities in the sciences and in technical fields over anextended period now approaching forty years.

47

According to the generally accepted taxonomy of in-stitutions of higher education, doctoral universities offerthe highest academic degrees in a broad spectrum ofprofessions and disciplines. The Ph.D. has always been aresearch degree - awarded to one who has made a contri-bution to the knowledge in his field (and who therebyhas learned how to go about making such contributions)In support of such activities the learning and pursuit ofresearch universities long ago accelerated their develop-ment of great libraries and museums, constructed finelaboratones, and foynd ways to send parties into thefield.

As recently as fifty years ago, the continuity of academ-ic research depended on financial support from a widevariety of sources: individual and corporate phi-lanthropy, non-federal taxation, and gifts and grantsfrom interested parties of many descriptions. The federalrole was limited largely to the support of "agriculture andthe mechanical arts", as it was in the post-Civil War 1860s,when the Land Grant Colleges were established. At thattime there was less difference between an "Oberlin" and a"Harvard" than there is today.

Between 1935 and 1945, the federal role in support ofresearch in the natural sciences expanded greatly forreasons of national defense. The people who did thatkind of fundamental research, found to be the wellspringfrom which flowed needed technological progress, werein universities. Many of them were supported there;many were gathered together in special project areas topursue specifically oriented and directed ends most ofwhich were successful by very pragmatic standards. By1950, a decision had been made fundamental researchwas worth supporting for its own sake in the nationalinterest, and the Federal Government continued theleadership role it had assumed out of wartime necessity.

The results could have been predicted easily. In univer-sities, faculty members in those areas to which researchmoney was easily available became, in time, less citizensof their academic campuses and more citizens of theirdisciplinary communities. Their priorities shifted fromthe task of imparting their knowledge to the young to thecreation of new knowledge not simply to maintain theirskills as professionals by exercise of that important fac-ulty, but as an end in itself. A revision of the professorialvalue system followed inevitably.

Since the prestigious have always been objects of emu-lation, it is not surprising that faculties in kinds of institu-tions different from what became the doctoral univer-sities should adapt their value systems accordingly, firstin the natural sciences, but increasingly in all areas. To-day, "research" is expected for advancement even in thefaculties of some two-year colleges.

If substantial improvements are to be made in under-graduate education in mathematics, the sciences, andengineering, some of the attention of the Nation's bestresearch scientists will have to shift from the acquisitionof new knowledge in the disciplin:.-.0 to the development

of more effective ways of transmitting the knowledge ofthe disciplines.

B. Support for Needed Change

1. State and Local Governments

The responsibility for the financial health of publiccolleges and universities lies primarily with states andmunicipalities. Governments at all levels are among thesupporters of private higher education through taxationand other policies that recognize the importance to thepublic welfare of all colleges, universities, and theirgraduates.

Insofar as public institutions are concerned, most ofthe direct effort to reverse the downtrends of quality inundergraduate education in engineering, mathematics,and the sciences must be made at the state and local levelsof government It is there that educational policy is madeand the basic financial support for public colleges anduniversities is marshalled.

The 1983 report of the National Science Board Commis-sion on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Scienceand Technology endorsed the establishment of Gover-nor's councils in each state:

.with representation from key sectors with interests inelementary and secondary education (for example, govern-ment officials, educators, school hoard members, professionalscientists and engineers, business, labor and industry leadersand parents). These Governor's Councils should develop edu-cational goals for their States, monitor progress toward thosegoals, and make recommendations for the improvement ofeducation particularly in mathematics, science and tech-nology. They should help generate public support for neces-sary improvements. They should encourage local boards ofeducation to set higher standards and evaluate progress, andthey should facilitate the exchange of information amongschool districts, , and with other States." (B3:10)

Every State in the Union has a state-level board of educa-tion. Had they been able to carry out the functions justdescribed, that recommendation would not have beennecessary.

Nearly every State has a state-level body of some kindcharged with a variety of responsibilities in relation to itspublic colleges and universities; in some cases (usuallyauthority to approve new degree programs), they relateto private institutions also. Some of these bodies do con-tinuously and effectively carry out planning, evaluation,and coordination of educational programs, in addition totheir usual role in budget approval and recommendation.But very few of these bodies can assume the positions ofadvocacy and exhortation envisioned in the excerpt fromthe report of the Commission.

The Committee is persuaded that state councils orcommissions for higher education analogous to the Gover-

41 4

nor's councils proposed for elementary and secondaryeducation could be very effective in developing goalsand winning support for improvements that must bemade in higher education, particularly in undergraduateeducation in mathematics, engineering and the sciences.

Legislatures across the nation have already shownthemselves willing to provide authority and funding fornew research centers in their states to create a climatemore attractive to high technology industrial enterprises.One hopes that legislatures would attend with similarenthusiasm to strengthening the undergraduate educa-tional base for such research activities.

2. Academic Institutions

Clearly, the primary responsibility for assuring qualitylies within academic institutions themselves. Collegesand universities, public and private, and their governingbodies must make the commitments necessary to:

provide instructional offerings that are of highquality and appropnate to their missions;

provide a support base adequate to assure a compe-tent and vigorous faculty;

plan for the renewal of facilities and other resources;and

work to form lasting partnerships with industry insupport of the broad educational mission, not just offocused research.

Public institutions, of necessity, must be responsive tothe people who, through state and municipal govern-ments, tax themselves in order to support higher educa-tion. It is difficult to hold the concerned attention of thepublic for extended periods, much less indefinitely. Butan informed public can appreciate the long-term, continu-ous effort necessary to achieve aiiii maintain excellence inundergraduate education, and can make the sophisti-cated judgment that it is not just the disciplinary researchfast-track that is worthy of support in the interest of thefuture. Higher education must tell its story better than ithas if the decimating swings of public funding during thelast decade are not to recur.

The universities, public and private, have a specialresponsibility. They should be models for the behavior ofthe rest of higher education. If any sector of education canguide the substantial curricular reform necessary to bringundergraduate education closer to the mark, if any sectorcan provide leadership by reallocating internal resourcesto restore instructional research and good teaching totheir proper and honored places in the professorial hier-archy of priorities, if any sector can do what must be doneto bring its teaching laboratories as close to the state-of-the-art as its research laboratories, the sector comprisingthe universities can - and must. It is no mean task tochange value systems; but the doctoral universities lethappen the ascendancy of disciplinary research over

42

teaching, and they should lead the move to redress thebalance.

3. Professional Societies

The professional societies in mathematics, engineer-ing, and the several sciences support many outstandingprograms of continuing professional education, of ac-creditation or approval of professional education, and ofeducational activities directed toward the general public.Some of these organizations have spoken early, often,and eloquently as he downward drift of quality in under-graduate education became apparent. The Committeebelieves that the professional societies have much to offeras serious efforts are made to improve undergraduateeducation, including the education of the future citize-nry-at-large which citizenry will determine the con li-tions under which professionals are allowed to do theirwork (B37:7-10).

The professional societies are in a unique position toserve as brokers and bridges between the academic andindustrial worlds, whose close partnership is an impor-tant key to the success of broadly-based efforts to im-prove undergraduate education. Part of that bridging isaccomplished through the accreditation process. In viewof widespread concern with the narrowness of profes-sional education, it is important that the professionalsocieties and other accrediting bodies assure breadth andavoid early over-specialization in the curricula they de-sign and monitor (B37:44-45).

4. Industry and Other Private Sector Groups

A variety of interactions between industrial and educa-tional institutions have contributed to the growth andeminence of the Nation in science and engineering aneminence that now is threatened. Many of these interac-tions withered or disappeared altogether as federal fund-ing of basic research and in certain areas of developmentput money into academic institutions on a g-and scale.

Recently, it has become a national policy to urge and tofacilitate the formation of industrial/academic part-nerships to the mutual benefit of both parties. Privateindustry will never match, much less supplant, the scaleor vanety of fey' 'ral involvement in academic research,but the growth oi partnership and collaborative activitiesin pursuit of common interests cannot help but benefitindustry, education, and government.

There is a long history of industrial provision of re-search support to academic laboratories. It is time forindustry to consider similar programs to support theinstructional activities of colleges and universities. In-dustry thrives on incentives and cost-cutting to neitherof which higher education paid much attention untilrecently. One of the serious consequences of academiccost-cutting is the ill-advised de-emphasis on laboratoryinstruction, particularly in large enrollment introductorycourses. Industrial interest could be very effective in the

4 0.

development of lower-cost experiments and apparatus sothat laboratory instruction would be available to morestudents rather than fewer.

The exchange of professionals between industrial andacademic institutions is a practice of long standing. Therehas never been greater need for expansion of such part-nership activities. Especially in engineering, oppor-tunities for young faculty members to maintain real con-tact with the world of professional practice will beimportant as undergraduate engineering education ismodified to meet the changing needs of industry andsociety.

Industry and business can participate usefully in manyof the formal processes of science and engineering educa-tion. Professionals employed by industry can serve asadjunct faculty on a continuing basis as well as on ex-changes. There is great need for industrial participationin efforts to improve the science literacy of the people, forindustry is a direct victim of science illiteracy. As to thefuture, tomorrow's citizens are today's students, and in-dustry should consider the benefits of diverting signifi-cant portions of its present resources to the education offuture generations of both citizens and technical profes-sionals. Undergraduate research and faculty researchleaves or sabbatical year appointments are other areas inwhich the opening of industry's doors can assist educa-tion and improve its quality and relevance.

5. The Government of the United States

A role must be defined for the National Science Foun-dation in a national effort to improve undergraduate edu-cation in mathematics, science, and engineering. Animportant part in that effort should be played by otheragencies and departments of the United StatesGovernment.

Information was sought (W42) and received (W43-W47) from the larger federal agencies and departmentsconcerning their activities and programs that relate toundergraduate education in mathematics, engineeringand the sciences. In the main, these activities involve theparticipation of faculty members in research related to theagency mission. The Committee urges the continuationand expansion of these programs, and notes that it wouldbe especially helpful if some preference could be shownin the proposal evaluation process to projects that involveundergraduate students in the research to be performed.

The Department of Education administers a variety ofprograms that allocate funds on a national scale for thebenefit of individuals and institutions. The major thrustof its programs is toward the schools. One of its mostimportant activities is data collection. It would be veryhelpful if that activity were enlarged to include under-graduate as well as precollege education and expanded toprovide special information about ,,,ience and mathe-matics education to assist the improvement of school-college articulation in all its aspects.

A number of federal agencies (e.g., Defense, Energy,Aeronautics and Space, Health and Human Services)have missions that depend strongly on the scope, scale,and quality of undergraduate education in the disciplinesof primary interest to the National Science Foundation.At any given time, at least one of them is affected by thecyclically recurring shortages of qualified professionals invarious fields. As part of their efforts to improve thequality of education afforded the young scientists andengineers they must attract, these agencies should seekways to assist undergraduate education. Direct fiscalgrants to colleges and universities should be considered.They all operate extensive research or development labo-ratories; advanced students and faculty members onleave could be given appointments in them to pursueresearch projects in collaboration with government scien-tists and engineers.

Apart from direct participation by the Foundation andother agencies in programs to improve undergraduateeducation in technical fields, the Federal Governmentcan assist such efforts in many indirect ways. For exam-ple, strong tax incentives could stimulate corporate sup-port of science and engineering education; special fund-ing could be provided to stimulate the renovation ofinstructional facilities and the replacement of out-datedapparatus and instrumentation; more realistic indirectcost rate regulations could be developed for depreciationand replacement of research facilities and equipmentused by undergraduates; etc.

In many ways, federal programs and policies could beadjusted to initiate and catalyze a wide variety of im-provements related to undergraduate technical educa-tion for a modest cost in direct or tax expenditures, andwith strong leverage.

C. Recommendations to the States,Academic Institutions, the PrivateSector, and Mission-Oriented FederalAgencies

"Before telling you what I believe the National ScienceFoundation can and should do to deal with the threat-ening situation in undergraduate physics education, Iwish to make it clear that the Federal Government byItself cannot solve all or even most of the problemsMuch of the impetus and resources for change willhave to come from the States, from industry, fromscientific societies... and, most of all, from the collegesand universities themselves." Robert R Wilson, Pres-ident, American Physical Society (W21).

The facts before it lead the Committee to make rec-ommendations beyond its original charge, which was todefine an appropriate role for the National Science Foun-dation in undergrachate education in engineering, math-ematics and the sciences

43

50

1. States

The Committee's primary recommendation to theStates is that they reestablish undergraduate science,mathematics, and engineering education as a high pri-ority of essential importance to the economic, social, andcultural well-being of their citizens.

It urges that legislatures give timely and responsiveconsideration to recommendations for improvement ofsuch undergraduate education. For example, the Na-tional Society for Professional Engineers has recom-mended special legislation in each state that would aim atachieving national norms for a minimum level of supportor laboratory instrumentation amounting to $2,000 per

engineering (or science) graduate per year.The Committee recommends that appropriate state-

level bodies encourage, coordinate, and support institu-tional long-range planning for the renewal of facilities,equipment, and other physical resources that are neces-sary to improve and maintain the quality of undergradu-ate education in mathematics, engineering, and thesciences.

The Committee also recommends that each state thathas not done so create a special education commission orreview body to determine conditions and needs in un-dergraduate education in science, mathematics and engi-neering in their state; to help set educational goals andobjectives for their state; monitor progress; and to makerecoYnmendations for improvement. Such a body shouldalso recommend ways and means to help generate publicsupport for needed change.

2. Academic Institutions

Faculties and governing bodies have the primary re-sponsibility for the academi- health of colleges and uni-versities, whatever the resource picture. There is littledoubt that the laboratory-centered character of good in-struction in engineering and the sciences ties theirquality with unusual firmness to the provision of ade-quate funding for capital expenditures on facilities, in-strumentation and equipment. But course and curricu-lum improvement are vital activities that are lessdependent on massive funding than they are on theinitiative, creativity, and expertise of faculty membersand the good sense of academic administrations toprovide the necessary time.

To Academic Institutions, the Committeerecommends:

achievement of the investments of faculty, physicalfacilities, and financial resources per student neces-sary for high quality undergraduate education inscience, engineering, and mathematics, through in-ternal prioritization and allocation;

careful long-range planning for the renewal of facili-ties, equipment, and faculties;

44

development of both short-range and long-rangeplans for modernization of undergraduate instruc-tional and research equipment,

strong faculty efforts (and strong ad ministrativesupport of them) to update and upgrade courses andcurricula desisoed to meet the needs of both majorsand non-majors,

increased participation by all faculty members in theinstruction of undergraduates and in other efforts toraise the quality ,f their educational experience,

joint efforts with other institutions to improve theschool-to-college, two-year to four-year college, andundergraduate-to-graduate transitions; and

expansion of partnerships in education with indus-tries and other organizations in the private sector.

3. The Private Sector

Private support of higher education has decreased Inconstant dollars during the past fifteen years. A fewprivate colleges and universities have disappeared in themaelstrom of rising costs powered by double-digit infla-tion. Fortunately, state scholarship programs, federaland state student loan programs, and other forms ofpublic support of students attending private institutionshave kept public and private expenditures on studentsupport and institutional operations approximately inbalance.

Witnesses from several private colleges and univer-sities informed the Committee that the problem of facili-ties obsolescence in private institutions was especiallysevere because of the termination of earlier programs offederal support, most of which were leveraged throughsubstantial requirements of matching. The Committeedecided to make no recommendation to the Foundationabout capital facilities.

Industrial and other corporate support of higher edu-cation has kept pace with inflation, but, in spite of therecent upturn of industrial funding of graduate researchactivities, is still less than 1% of pretax net income (B7). Adoubling of this level of giving to education would besound business policy, and trebling of the amounts ear-marked for undergraduate mathematics, engineering,and science would represent enlighten. I self-interest,especially on the part of technology oriented industries.

To the Private Sector, the Committee recommends:

greater and more stable support for education at alllevels;

within higher education, more generous gifts forunaergraduate education in mathematics, engineer-ing, and the sciences;

within those fields, special emphasis on the fundingof construction and renovation of laboratories andother special instructional facilities,

51

expanded partnerships with colleges and univer-sities in efforts to improve pre-professional educa-tion, and

increased corporate efforts to improve the publicunderstanding of science and technology.

4. Mission-Oriented Federal Agene'ls

To Mission-Oriented Federal Agencies, the Committeerecommends that:

those with strong basic and applied research compo-nents (e g. NASA, DOD, JOE, and NIH) continuetheir graduate-level progntmming and expand theirpresent efforts to involve t ndergraduate faculty andstudents in their research activities

the same agencies consider providing incentives tocontractors and grantees for appropriate inclusion ofundergraduate compone its in their work;

the Department of Education and National ScienceFoundation collaborate in a major effort to correctthe cip!ses in th? schools of the steadily increasingdemand for remedial mathematics and science in-struction in colleges and universities; and

the Department of Education and the National Sci-ence Foundation develop jointly, for the fields ofmathematics, engineering, and the sciences, datacollection and analyses that will reveal trends instudent achievement.

D. Recommendations Concerning the Roleof the National Science Foundation inUndergraduate Science, Mathematics,and Engineering Education

"Our recommendation is simply that the NSF shouldallocate a significant portion of its resources to sup-porting improvement in teaching of science, engineer-ing, and technology, particularly at the undergradu-ate level.

"Research is important. In my own company half 0/our revenues in any year come from products whichIdidn't exist three years previously. We depend onresearch; we do not advocate any cessation of supportfor research. But we think that our nation will bebetter served if we redress the balance in favor ofteaching in ow schools." Terry L. Gildea (Hewlett-Packard Co.) for Technology Education Consortium(16 major high technology corporations) (W22).

1. Role

The Chairman of the National Science Board remarkedin his charge to this Committee that "currently no sys-tematic federal leadership or support exists for science,

engineering, and mathematics education at the under-graduate level." The Committee has confirmed thisobservation

Many institutions and organizations are concernedwith undergraduate education. These include the col-leges and universities themselves, learned and profes-sional societies, education associations, private phi-lanthropic foundations, industrial firms and their asso-ciations, and various state and federal agencies.However, none of these has comprehensive and nationalresponsibility for the undergradute science, mathematics,and engineering educational enterprise in the UnitedStates.

It is the determination of this Committee that theNational Science Foundation is the body that can takesuch responsibility and that it is the proper leader ofefforts to advance and maintain the quality of under-graduate instruction in mathematics, engineering, andthe sciences in the United States. The enabling legisla-tion for :be National Science Foundation obligates it toassume such a leadership role.

The Foundation must serve not only as a point ofleadership for educational excellence across the Nation,but should actively draw together and coordinate theefforts toward that goal of educational institutions andthe other interested parties.

The declining state of undergraduate science and engi-neering instruction is one of the most serious problemsfacing higher education. Because of the massive re-sources required for full remediation (currently estimat-ed at several billion dollars), recommendations for Foun-dation efforts in this area must focus on catalytic, highlyleveraged programs that provide leadership, models, andincentives, in contrast to those that require a major ex-pansion in the support base.

2. Leadership

. when it conies to (a research-oriented issue) thereare one or two people that lust care desperately aboutthus as their number one priority. . Nobody elsemuch cares . . number one on somebodul-;, twopeople's, priority list and maybe nine or ten on every-body else's

"Education may be third on everybody's priority list.It not that it's not there. It's not that it's not impor-tant. It's rust not the number one; it may be numbertwo or three.

"Under those circumstances . . . you tend to get anoversupply of the things that are number one on a fewpeople's priority list and an undersupply of thingsthat everybody thinks are important, but not quite tooimportant.

'And, traditionally, the way those number three itemson everybody's list get solved is a crisis gets created."

45

52

John P. Cream', Senior Vice President, AcademicAffairs, Carnegie-Mellon University (B46:124-125).

The National Science Foundation should take boldsteps to establish itself in a position of leadership toadvance and maintain the quality of undergraduate edu-cation in engineering, mathematics, and the sciences.

The Foundation should:

stimulate the states and the components of the pri-vate sector to increase their investments in the im-provement of undergraduate science, engineering,and mathematics education, and provide a forum forconsideration of current issues related to suchefforts;

implement new programs and expand existing onesfor the ultimate benefit of students in two-year andfour-year colleges and in universities;

actuate cooperative projects among two-year andfour-year colleges and universities to improve theireducational efficiency and effectiveness;

stimulate and support a variety of efforts to improvepublic understanding of science and technology;

stimulate creative and productive activity in teachingand learning (and research on them), just as it doesin basic disciplinary research. New funding will berequired, but intrinsic cost differences are such thatthis result can be obtained with a smaller investmentthan is presently being made in basic research;

bring its programming in the undergraduate educa-tion area into balance with its activities in the pre-college and graduate areas as quickly as possible;

expand its efforts to increase the participation ofwomen, minorities, and the physically handicappedin professional science, mathematics, andengineering;

design and implement an appropriate data base ac-tivity concerning the qualitative and quantitative as-pects of undergraduate education in mathematics,engineering and the sciences, to assure flexibility inits response to changing national and disciplinaryneeds;

develop quickly within the Directorate for Scienceand Engineering Education an appropriate admin-istrative structure and mechanisms for the imple-mentation of these recommendations and others thatfollow; and

the Directorate for Science and Engineering Educa-tion should foster collaboration among all parts ofthe Foundation to achieve excellence in science,mathematics, and engineering education.

46

3. General Recommendations

In developing and exercising its leadership of nationalefforts to revitalize and improve undergraduate educa-tion in suence, mathematics, and engineering, the Na-tional Science Foundation should:

concentrate on key programs that emphasizemotivation and initiative for needed change, andleverage its resources;

make use of its historic relationships with the scienceand engineering research communities;

build upon its present activities to improve pre-college science and mathematics education;

move flexibly between full funding and catalyticfunding in specific program areas as changing con-ditions warrant, arranging program and project sup-port in ways that leverage or magnify its financialallocations; and

support continuing review, study, and analysis of"undergraduate education indicators" to guide,through related research, its decisions concerningmajor shifts in programmatic emphasis and direc-tion, and to provide to colleges, universities, andother constituencies of undergraduate education,the information they need to plan for change in theircontinuing pursuit of excellence.

4. Identification of Areas of Current Highest Priority

The deliberations of this Committee and the hearingsbefore it during 1985 constitute a timely review, study,and analysis of many different "undergraduate educationindicators" - for mathematics, engineering, and the sci-ences in the spirit of the last General Recommendationabove. On this basis, the Committee recommends thatthe Foundation give highest priority attention at this timeco:

Laboratory Development and Instrumentation (sup-porting development projects and efforts to remedydeficiencies in instrumentation, so as to improvelaboratory instruction);

Faculty Professional Development (stimulating newways and sharing the support of the best new andtraditional ways of improving the professionalqualifications of college and university facultymember-),

Course and Curriculum Improvement (encouragingand supporting efforts to improve the ways in whichknowledge is selected, organized, and presented);

Comprehensive Improvement Projects (whichmight address several of the above priorities simul-taneously in a given institution, or one across agiven discipline, or a combination of these throughconsortial efforts, etc.); and

53

Undergraduate Research Participation (stimulatingand supporting the involvement of advanced andgraduate students in research in their colleges and inother places with programs of technicalinvestigation).

In addressing these priorities, special attention should begiven to.

increasing the participation of underrepresentedgroups, and

the collection, study, and analysis of informationand data on undergraduate education in science,engineering, and mathematics.

E. Programs and Projects

Every person who made a statement to the Committeeor participated in the general discussion which followedeach presentation had ideas for programmatic emphases,specific programs, and individual projects that the Foun-dation might sponsor and/or support. Often these ideaswere the subjects of specific and directrecommendations.

The development of a mix of programs and projectsthat is responsive to the single prioritizing recommenda-tion above and to the goals statements and general rec-ommendations that preceded it must involve substantialefforts over time by the professional staff and advisorybodies of the Foundation, officers of the Congress andother Government agencies, and peer reviewers from theseveral disciplinary communities. Further, tiiat mix willchange as conditions change.

The following section describes the program elementswhich, in the judgment of the Committee, representbalanced responses to the deficiencies it has identified.(App,--lix A contains a more detailed description ofthese anu T selected Programs and Projects.)

F. A Balanced Undergraduate Program forthe National Science Foundation

1. Program Perspective

"' would encourage the National Science Foundatorito get involved specifically in support of undergradu-ate science and engineering education. . In manyways, graduates of American universities set thequality standard for the rest of the world, but thatquality could be threatened without proper federalsupport.

"Modern science requires sophisticated and in-creasingly expensive equipment and scientists versedin current technology. As advances are made, it is

imperative that both undergraduate and graduate ed-ucation keep up with the unproved technology. This

will riot be possible without proper guidance andfunding at the federal level David P Sheet:, VicePresident, Director of Research and DevelopmelThe Dow Chemical Company (6119)

The National Science Foundation can establish andmaintain a strong position of leadership in efforts toimprove undergraduate education in mathematics, engi-neering, and the sciences at a relatively modest cost. TheNational Science Board Commission on Precollege Edu-cation in Mathematics, Science and Technology, in itsreport Educating Americans for the 2Ist Century, defined arole for the Foundation in precollege education that en-tailed an annual expenditure of approximately $175million.

The Committee recommends that National Science Founda-tion annual expenditures at the undergraduate level in science,mathematics, and engineering education be increased by 5100million Such an enhanced level of expenditure would beconsistent with the funding goals recommended by theNSB Commission, and with the level of present Founda-tion support of research ($1,300 million

At this time, the recommended distribution of thisincreased annual expenditure is.

Laboratory Development . . . . $20 million

Instructional Instrumentation &Equipment 30 million

Faculty Professional Enhancement ... 13 million

Course and Curriculum Development . 13 million

Comprehensive Improvement Projects 10 million

Undergraduate Researci Participation 8 million

Minority Institutions Prowam ... 5 million

Information for Long-Range Planning . 1 million

It is anticipated that adjustments will be made fromtime to time in the distribution of available funding overthese areas of high priority. 'These major program ele-ments are cli-itcl individu in the remainder of thissection

2. Major Program Elements

Laboottory Development . ...... . $20 million(supporting development projects toimprove the laboratory component ofscience and engineering instruction)

The goal of this program is to modernize the Lharacterand improve the effectiveness of laboratory instruction inscience and engineering in undergraduate institutionsThe program should be made attractive to the best andmost creative faculty at the host universities and colleges.The scope of individual ta-ojects might range from de-vel,oment of a small number of new experiments for asingle kind of course to an effort to re-think and then fully

47 54

detail the laboratory component of an entire un&rgradu-at'? curriculum

Among the kinds of proposals that might be invitedunder this merit -based program are those for pi ojectsthat woulci

create more open-ended laborat( ry exer,es;

integrate the laboratory and expository elements ofthe curriculum in more effective ways,

develop more effective and efficient ways of teachingor structuring the laboratory experience, and

re-think the laboratory component of mass enroll-ment introductory courses and design and developexperiments that would require simple, inexpensiveapparatus and instrumek.ation and design, pilot-produce and test such apparatus andinstrumentation.

Where practicable, collaboration with the instrumentmanufacturing industry should be encouraged

Instructional Instrumentation andEquipment $30 million

(encouraging and supporting jointefforts to remedy the serious deficien-cies of instructional in-trumentation

ald eo ..ipment)

The goal of this program is to strengthen and supportmodels of excellence in undergraduate science and engi-neering laboratory instructi )n at the nation's colleges anduniversities. At this time, the competition for r lent-riat,ed support under this program should emphasizeimprovement of instruction through the utilization ofmorlern instrumentation.

.ing the kinds of proposals that might be invitedunc,'r this program are those for projects that would:

introduce modern instrumentation to improve theexperiences of undergraduate students;

interface computers with laboratory instruments, ormake other instructional applications of currenttechnologies; and

establish partnership or consortial arraniements forsharing costly instructional apparatus andinstr ,nentation.

The instrument purchase aspects of the programshould require (as does the present College Science In-strumentation Program) the one-for-one matching ofFoundation allocations with contributions from localsources, including donations 1. y industries.

Faculty Professional Enhancement .... $13 . .illion(stimulating new ways and sharing thesupport of the best new and traditionalways ,f improving the professionalqualifications of college and universityfaculty members*/

48

Ti r, goals of this program are to raise the status andimprove the quality of teaching at the undergraduatelevel, to induce scientists and engineers to use some oftheir creative energies in such efforts, and to encouragecolleges and universities to take a more systematic inter-est in keeping their teaching corps abreast of their disci-plines and current in the best education arts The Com-mittee recommends two different broad types ofactivities, here termed Cooperative Development Projectsand Faculty Development Net,,,orks

Among the kinds of proposals that might be *nvited tothe competition for merit-based Cooperative Develop-ment Projects are those that would support:

sabbatical leaves (supplementing a home institutioncontribution) to engage in curriculum design;

research oriented appointments at a different aca-demic institution or in a national or industrial labora-tory, and

teaching-related appointments in ..pother institu-tion providing an opportunity for course or curricu-lum development work.

Projects could be located at colleges, universities, na-tional laboratories, industrial research centers, sciencemuseums, and other sites or combinations of them. Co-spmsorship by both home and host institutions wouldbe expected, and continuing collaborations encouraged.Projects should be designed to improve the disciplinaryand teaching skills of the individual faculty memberwhile resulting in the preparation of an evaluative "prod-uct" which might be a new course, a revised curriculum,a set of ingenious laboratory experiments, etc. Theseactivities should be substantially cost-shared with theparticipating institutions.

Faculty Development Networks, organized on a re-gional basis, would utilize the best traditional techniquesand test and evaluate new low-cost methods for keepinglarge numbers of faculty members abreast of recent ad-vances in their fields. Lecture series at a Qin& site andelectronic teleconferencing of topical semin representthe ends of the spectrum of approaches that might betried. The subject matter might be community-identifiedor Foundation-determined. In all cases, *---)p mathemati-cians, engineers and scientists would be engag to pres-ent the material.

Participant cc ;ts in these network program's should bethe responsibility of the home institution. Initially, theFoundation might supply part or all of the organizationaland instructional costs; but, in time, those should beborne by the home institutions through modest fees re-mitted to the hub university and/or through other localco-sponsorship.

Course and Curriculum. Development . $13 million(encouraging and supporting effortsto improve the ways in which technical

55

knowledge is selected, organized, andpresented)

The goals of this program are to assure a continuingflow of new knowledge into undergraduate courses andcurricula, to stimulate design of more efficient and moreeffective ways of presenting knowledge to students, andto encourage experimentation and innovation in the or-ganization of information for teaching and learning

Among the kinds of proposals that might be invited tothe merit-based competition for awards under this pro-gram are those that seek support for

design of a new curriculum ia a science or engineer-ing field or in mathematics that would result in moreeffective preparation of baccalaureate levelpre' =sionals;

development ot new coui ses in major, minor, andgeneral student curricula;

application of ne 'chnologies to instruction, in-cluding, for example, development of new softwareand other teaching/learning aids;

preparation of new instructional materials, and

research on improved methods of college-levelteaching and learning.

Proposals should be invited from the Nation's besttalent in all kinds of institutions. Whew whole profes-sional curricula are involved, several universities mightcollaborate, possibly under - sponsorship of the pro-fessional society of the discipline. Activities proposedunder this program might be carried out by individuals,by small or large groups, at single or several educationalinstitutions, or by consortia among educational and in-clus'rial collaborators.

Projects meeting high standards of technical contentshould be judged on the degree of their creative contentor nnginality and on the likelihood that they will yieldesults or products capable of widespread adoption, ad-

aptation, and use.

Comprehensive Improvement Projects $10 million(addressing several of the above pri-orities simultaneously in a single in-stitution, or across a given discipline,or in a combination of these throughconsortial effort)

The goal of this pr'igram is to provide a flexible mecha-nism for the support of large and/or complex projectsdesigned to improve undergraduate instruction across awhole discipline, in several areas within an institutionsimultaneously, or in a cluster of institutions projectsthat are characterized by breadth, large scale, or multiplefoci.

Among the kinds of projects that might be invited tothe merit -based competition for awards under this pro-gram are those that would:

engage a scientific hecietv and representatives otmany kinds of institutions in the development ot anew protessional curriculum in a particular

permit a single institutio,1 co design and partially toimplement a thorough restructuring ot its curriculain all areas ot, say, physical and biological science;

bring together faculty members ot several doctoraluniversities to create an up-to-date curriculum in adiscipline in which there has been a recent explosionof knowledge or revolutio -1 in understanding, and

support the efforts of several engineering collegesand a number of industrial research centers in acompact geographical region to design and imple-ment an effective "teaching hospital" experience foradvanced engineering undergo& ,tes.

Selechnn of projects for support should be based onthe quality a, d -oundness of the planning done, thepotential for exportation and adoption of the outcomes(where this is possible), and the excellence of the resultslikely to be achieved There should be substantial cost-sharing in these projects, most of which would lendthemselves to the "challenge g -int" approach, whichwould result in high leverage of Foundation funding.

Undergraduate Research Participation . $8 million(stimulating and supporting the in-ve'vement of advanced undergraduatestudents in research in their collegesand in other places v: "h programs oftechnical investigation; projects basedon this handing could involve 2500students)

The goal of this program is to support a van( ty ofefforts that will increase the fraction oi advanced stu-der ts in engineering and the sciences who Lop off theirundergraduate careers with significant participation inan active research program. This program will comple-ment the support now available through the Research inUndergradt "e Institutions program, Engineering Re-search Cen,ers, etc.

Among the kinds of proposals that might be invitedunder this program are tF use for projects that would:

encourage and support participation of undergradu-ates in research activities ot science and engineeringfaculty members, and

encourage and support the provision of researchopportunities to undergraduate students by nationallaboratories, industrial research centers, and otherkinds of institutions that have ongoing programs oftechnical investigation.

Evaluation of proposals submitted to the programshould place comparable weights on the appropriateness

49

56

and value of the educational experience and on thequality of the research to be undertaken.

Minority Institutions Program $5 million(strengthening the capability of minor-ity institutions to increase the par-ticipation of minorities in professionalscience, mathematics, andengineering)

The goals of this program are to increase the number ofminorities entering professional careers in engineering,mathematics, and the sciences, and to strengthen thecapability of minority institutions to recruit and prepareindividuals for such careers.

Among the kinds of projects that might be invited tothe competition for awards under this merit-based andhighly flexible program are those that seek support for:

the kinds of endeavors described under other sub-sections of these programmatic recommendations,

outreach activities in the precollege community de-signed to acquaint young minority students withopportunities that merit continuing their educationthrough college, and to attract them to careers inmathematics, engineering, and the sciences,

teacher-training and enrichment projects tostrengthen the precollege education of minorities;and

educational partnerships between and among mi-nority and majority institutions that would increasethe availability of high-quality educational resourcesto minority students in all parts of the country and inall types of institutions.

As with other kinds of host institutions, cost-sharingwould be expected for many kinds of projects hosted byminority institutions. In arranging the phasing or match-ing of Foundation support, careful attention should bepaid to the maturity and strength of the institution's tiesto its lOLa1 and constituent communities and their recordof contributions.

Information for Long-Range Planning . $1 million(collecting, studying, and analyzinginformation and data on undergradu-ate education in science, engineeringand mathematics, in support of long-range Foundation planning; this fund-ing would support an appropriatelevel of collaborative work with theU.S Department of Education andother major data sources)

The goals of this program are the acquisition and main-tenance of a database on the qualitative and quantitativeaspects of undergraduate education in mathematics, en-gineering, and the sciences, and the support of review,analysis, and research of such information to facilitate

50

and improve the Foundation's long-range planning inthese areas of education.

Proposals should be invited from the most highlyqualified individual.; and institutions fo. ,nent-based,competitive awards for specific projects. Much of the datacollection activity is likely to involve collaboration withother Government agencies, particularly the U.S. De-partment of Education. Further, the program should becoordinated with parallel efforts underway in other Di-rectorates of the Foundation. The research and analysisactivities may be done partly within the Foundation,partly through awards to individuals and institutionsoutside it

The kind of database envisioned by the Committeewould be a valuable resource for entities other than theFoundation, so care should be taken in it- design toassure flexibility as well as an agreed level of compiehen-siveness. Information should be collected on students,faculty, and facilities; on input: and outputs as well ascontents; and on qualities as well as quantities.

This increase of $100 million, although by itself insuffi-cient to solve all of the problems of undergraduate sci-ence, engineering, and mathematics education in theUnited States, can cause truly significant, positivechanges. In constant dollars, the proposed programmingis not far short of the level of the Foundation's under-graduate activities in the late 1960s. Review of thoseprograms indicated that many of them had strongpositive influence on the quality of undergraduate educa-tion, and that experience provides assurance that thisproposed level of activity can be effective.

The levels of funding described above assume thatother federal agencies will continue and expand theirpresent support of undergraduate education, that theFoundation's efforts will stimulate the very much largernecessary expenditures by states and municipalities, andthat the private sector will make an appropriate responseto the national needs described in this report. We believethat a proper response to this effort by the NationalScience Foundation will require additional annual expen-ditures of sums aggregating $1,000 million by states,municipalities, and other agencies of the United StatesGovernment, industry; and other parts of the privatesector

The Committee recommends that this comprehensiveprogram at the undergraduate level be anded and imple-mented as quickly as possible. Because the program ele-ments are complementary and interactive, their imple-mentation will have the greatest beneficial impact if donein parallel.

We are recommending additional funding of $100 mil-lion a year. In addition to the ,:)13 million support in-cluded in the Foundation's FY 1987 Budget -Stiniati' toCongress, a viable set of program activities requires $50million in new funds for FY 1988; attainment of a total of $100million in new funds by Fl" 1989 will permit a frontal attack

57

to be made on the problems that the Committee hasidentified.

We make these recommendations of funding levels infull knowledge of the current federal budget exigencies,including the possible effect of the Gramm-Rudman-Hol-lings Act. The Committee believes the mix and balance ofprograms described above to be sufficiently importantthat they should be initiated within the existing Founda-tion resources rather than wait until incremental fundsare made available.

The following brief tabulation summarizes the Com-mittee's proposals for the distribution of new funds. Theentries in the table show the phasing-in of specific pro-gram funding and reflect the priorities of the Committee.

NSF BudgetEstimate

FY 1987

Recommendedmounding Above

FY 19P7 BudgetEstimate

FY 1988 FY 1989

$13 Program (shoat title) $50 $100

Laboratory development 10 20

2 Instrumentation 10 30

7 Faculty enhancement 10 13

Course and curriculum 7 13

Comprehensive improvement 10

4 Undergraduate research 8 8

Minority institutions 5 5

Planning 1

Dollars in Millions

Examination of this table in the light of the Findingsand Conclusions detailed in earlier sections of this reportreveals the imbalance and lack of synergism even at the$50 million level of additional funds. Nevertheless, theeffects of built-in leveraging will permit a reasonableattack to be made on certain problems. But, it is only atthe recommended $100 million level of additional expen-di',ure that this leveraging from state and local, publicand private sources results in a strong nationwide effortthat can solve these problems.

The Committee considered carefully, within its char;e,a number of educational needs to which it does not at thistime assign high priority for NSF funding. Among suchneeds are: construction and remodeling of facilities; stu-dent loans and scholarships; and programs to assist fac-u'ty members to earn advanced degrees. All of these (andmany others considered by the Committee) are mer-itorious and would assist progress toward the pcinupalobjective addressed in this report improvement of un-dergraduate education in science, mathematics, and en-gineering. However, they all have the character of capital- not catalytic investments. The Foundation must limitits role to leadership and catalysis; basic capital expen-ditures in pursuit of these national eoucation goals mustbe made by state and local governments and by thecomponents of the private sector.

51

3. Procedural Recommendations

In arriving at these program and funding recommend-ations, the Committee considered carefully groups andinstitutions with special needs. We recommend that spe-cial needs be met within the programs described above,utilizing NSF's Review Criterion IV as is done in the otherregular support programs (B50). With these considera-tions in view, we add the following three recommend-ations that cut across the areas just described:

a. Increased Participation of Women, Minorities, and Phys-ically Hands- ved. The NSF should actively seek thisgoal in impiementing the above recommendations,including program management and proposal re-view, and the projects that are supported.

b Institutional Diversity. The Committee believes thatthe diversity of institutional types in the UnitedStates is a strength to be nurtured. Care should beexercised to assure that high-quality projects aresupported at all types of institutions. It is importantto utilize and motivate the best and most talentedfaculty at all institutions to strengthen the instruc-tional component of higher education.

c. Engineering Education and New Technologies. TheCommittee recognizes the current extraordinarylevels of concern and need in the various fields ofengineering The impact of the new technologies(e.g., computerization and biotechnology) on allfields is zreat also. Accordingly, it recommends thatthe programs initially target their support heavily inthese areas.

Review of the appropriateness of support distributionacross the disciplines and in the other areas of specialneed should be primary continuing concerns of the Na-tional Science Foundation and the Directorate for Scienceand Engineering Education.

The Committee emphasizes the importance of educa-tional and scientific merit as established by the peerreview process in the selection of projects for supportunder programs developed in response to these rec-ommendations. Such projects must meet the traditionalstandards of quality and excellence demanded by theFoundation.

The Committee recommends that the Director of theNational Science Found, 'on act to implement the pro-gram and action recommendations contained herein. Adetailed plan for both the leadership and program ac-tivities, including an administrative structure, within theDirectorate for Science and Engineering Education, pro-gram des :iiptions, guidelines, etc., should be completedin time to permit the program to be initiated during FiscalYear 1987.

Finally, the Committee recommends that respon-sibility for monitoring the implementation of this reporthe assigned to the National Science Board', Committeeon Education and Human Resources.

58

4. Conclusion

The principal charge given to the Committee by theChairman of the National Science Board was toconsider the role of the National Science Foundation inundergraduate science and engineering education ' Thisreport defines a role that i., both appropriat2 to NSF'smission and responsive to the nation's needs. It alsourges needed actions by other sectors, both public andprivate.

The Committee believes that NSF should be a signifi-cant presence in undergraduate science, mathematics,and engineering education. But the greatest efforts mustcome from the people directly responsible for the healthof colleges and universities. The Federal Government, ingeneral, and the National Science Foundation, in par-ticular, cannot and should not be looked to for the sub-stantial continuing infusions of resources that areneeded.

Although the individual Committee recommendationshave different specific objectives, taken together theyconstitute a strategy to:

exert high leverage to improve undergraduate in-struction, serving national as well as local interests;

stimulate and invigorate faculty with creative poten-tial at all types of institutions, thus raising the overallquality of teaching;

yield products such as teaching aids, laboratorymanuals, scholarly publications with extensive im-pact; and

52

assure that the nation's brightest young people aregiven high quality, rewarding experiences in sciencein time to affect their career choices.

In addition to the strengthening and development ofregular science, engineering, and mathematics coursesand laboratories, the recommendations speak to the needfor greater science literacy on the part of the generalstudent, the education of future teachers of precollegescience and mathematics, and efforts to reduce the barri-ers to careers in science and engineering for women,minorities, and the handicapped.

The Committee anticipates that by no later than 1990impl.-!mentation of its recommendations will have estab-lished a permanent Foundation presence in undergradu-ate mathematics, engineering, and science educationcomprising:

a cor.prehensive set of programs to catalyze andstimulate national efforts to assure a vital faculty,maintain engaging and high quality curricula, de-velop effective laboratories, and attract an increasingfraction of the Nation's most talented students tocareers in engineering, mathematics, and the sci-ences; and

a mechanism to systematically inform the Nation ofconditions, trends, needs, and opportunities inthese important areas of education.

Undergraduate education occupies a strategically crit-ical position in U.S. education, touching vitally both thes 'tools and postgraduate education. We hope that thisreport will contribute to the resurgence of qualitythroughout higher education that is essential to the well-being of all U.S. citizens.

59

Page

IV. APPENDICES

A. Programs and Projects . ..... .... 55

1. Faculty Professional Development 55

2. Course and Curriculum Improvement 56

3. Laboratory Development and Instrumentation 56

4. Undergraduate Research Participation ..... . . 57

5. Comprehensive Improvement Projects ....... . 57

B. Citations to Reference Materials 58

1. Testimony to the Committee at Public Hearings (W1-W27) ... .. ..... 58

2. Additional Testimony Submitted to the Committee (W28-W41) ....... . 59

3. Correspondence from Federal Agencies (W42-W47) 59

4. Bibliography (B1-B52) 59

53 6 0

IV. APPENDICES

A. Programs and Projects

Eve; y person who made a statement to the Committeeor participated in the general discussions which followedeach presentation had ideas for programmatic emphases,specific programs, and individual projects that the Foun-dation might sponsor and/or support. Often these ideaswere the subjects of specific and directrecommendations.

The development of a mix of programs and projectsthat is responsive to the single pr!oritizing recommenda-tion above and to the goals statements and general rec-ommendations that preceded it must involve substantialefforts over time by the professional staff and aavisorybodies of the Foundation, officers of the Congress andother government agencies, and peer reviewers from theseveral disciplinary communities. Accordingly, this Ap-pendix to the report presents a selection of the ideaspresented in testimony and submissions to the Commit-tee as examples of general elements of future Foundationprogramming in the uncklgraduate area.

1. Faculty Professional Development

Some New ModesThe Committee believes that the intellectual health and

vitality of the faculty is the most important considerationat the unaergraduate level, as it is at the precollege andgraduate levels of education. All of the broad rec-ommendations and suggested programs presented inthis report have as ancillary direct objectives and desiredbenefits the stimulation and motivation of the best facultyfor excellence in teaching.

There is a great need to raise the status of teaching atthe college level, to induce scientists and engineers to usesome of their creative energies to improve teaching, andto encourage colleges and universities to take a moresystematic interest in keeping their teaching corpsabreast of their disciplines and current in the best educa-tion arts. Several submissions to the Committee and anumber of persons who testified }-efore it described newand interesting ways the Foundation might assist con-tinuing attention to these objectives.

Cooperative Development Projects could advance the artand cause of teaching in the same way that research-oriented leaves contribute the energies of faculty mem-bers to advancement of their disciplines and themselves.Most colleges and universities give at least partial salarysupport to sabbatical or other kinds of faculty leaves, inthe realization that continuous renewal of one's disciplin-ary knowledge and professional skills and enthusiasm isnecessary for vital, effective teaching. There is a lot of

55

supplementary support available to make possible re-search-onented leases of reasonable length (NSF's earlierSenior Postdoctoral Program had that purpose), but verylittle where the meat or matter of the leave activity relatesdirectly to the teaching process.

Cooperative faculty development projects are envi-sioned as takrig a variety of forms: supplemental sab-batical leave s. pport; research-oriented appointments ata different academic institution or in a national or indus-trial laboratory; or teaching-related appointments inother institutions that afford opportunities for course orcurriculum development activities that would improvethe teaching skills of the appointees while transportableor disseminable products were created.

Such a program would be structured very flexibly toencourage a wide variety of activities that simultaneouslyhoned the skills of the faculty member while yielding animprovement useful to other institutions.

The cooperative nature of a project, involving cospon-soi ship by the home and host institutions, would seem toassure address of such multiple objectives. The success ofthe appointees might lead to longer-term mutually bene-ficial inte-actions between the two organizations. (Forexample, such pairs might ii.volve a two-year college anda major university, a four-year college and an industrialresearch institution, etc.)

Faculty Development Networks were proposed to theCommittee as a mechanism for involving large numbersof faculty members for short terms. The networks wouldbe planned on a regional basis and experimentation withadvanced communications techniques (electronic mail,electronic blackboard, teleconferencing, etc.) would beencouraged to keep costs low.

Perhaps as many as fifteen regional hubs, probablyuniversities, would contract to hold short cc urse or work-shop sessions of two-to-four days length, periodically.The centers would be sited so that almost all faculty in alltypes of institutions offering instruction to undergradu-ates would be less than a day's drive from one of them.The country's top mathematicians, engineers and scien-tists would be engaged to pr.sent the material.

Some disciplinary organizations already have substan-tial programs of this type devoted to continuing profes-sional education, and each of them has discovered themix of topics that permits all costs to be covered by"student" fees. The proposed networks program shouldbe expected to do the same, in due course.

Other ModesMany other ways of assisting faculty development

were presented or described to the Committee,including:

61

exchanges of faculty between educationalinstitutions,

participation in professional meetings,

leaves to work in industry or government,

workshops of extended length,

visiting professorships of various durations,

academic-industrial exchanges,

summer seminars, and

participation in research projects on teaching andlearning.

2. Course and Curriculum Improvement

Fortunately, college-level instruction in science and en-gineenng are discovery-driven to a substantial degree.Continuous evolution of content is inherent to instruc-tion in the technical disciplines. Even freshman coursescan, in print ple, reflect quickly the results of significantresearch. (One of the most interesting topics under dis-cussion by teachers of mathematics is the possibility ofbuilding this kind of flexibility into the mathematicscourses taught to large numbers of undergraduates, sothat such courses will have a similar timeliness and fresh-ness about them.)

The pace of such course development through sub-stitution of new knowledge fu. old depends in large parton the time and incentives faculty members have for thetask. In smaller institutions, the pace is slowed because ofthe diversity and weight of the instructional burdensborne by the faculty. In major universities the pace isslowed (and natural leadership sidestepped) because ofemphasis on disciplinary research.

Earlier in this :eport there was mention of the respon-sibility of the National Science Foundation and othersupporters of academic research for the present primacyof disciplinary research in the professorial value system.There was also mention of their rPsponsibility to assistthe correction of that situation by provision of similarincentives to bring the very best scientists and engineersback into active work on the improvement of undergraduate education. That work could be: research onteaching and learning, preparation of new instructionalmaterials, development of new curricular approaches(especially for non-scientist students), writing up-to-datetexts and rr. mographs that embody not just recent sci-ence but the best educational practices and the results ofresearch in the cognitive sciences, the introduction ofnew technologies into the classroom and laboratory, etc.

NSF's Engineering Directorate is currently planning anactivity that constitutes a limited implementation of thisapproach. It expects to support a small number of experi-mental projects in undergraduate engineering that willfocus on team teaching via telecommunications by uni-versity and industry scientists.

56

Most of the programming of the National ScienceFoundation is organized to utilize the independent proj-ect mode. But it was proposed to the Committee that theFoundation should expand this traditional approach topermit more complex project management strategies:networking among the faculties of several institutions,involvement of persons who teach at different levels inthe system, and other kinds of people and institutionalclustering. The goal of these strategies is that projectssupported by the Foundation should both impact stu-dents and involve faculty members from all types of in-stitutions having undergraduate enrollment.

3. Laboratory Development and Instrumentation

The financial pressures of recent years have causedinstitutions to defer maintenance and replacement ofmuch of the equipment that is used for the laboratoryinstruction of undergraduate students and for the jointfaculty-student research activities that are such importantelements in the preparation of future science and engi-neering professionals. A related and especially per-nicious consequence of the same pressures has been thereduction in some cases the elimination of the laborato-ry component in large-enrollment introductory courses,courses that serve to introduce non-science students tothe world of scientific )bservation and experiment.

The problem of obsolete undergraduate instructionalequipment and laboratories extends across all disci-plines, but seems especially severe in engineering andbiotechnology programs. The introduction of radicallynew technology is changing the way engineers and biolo-gists work as well as some of the traditional areas inwhich they have worked.

The professors and academic administrators who ad-dressed this problem were unanimous in their support ofone part of its solution expansion of the Foundation'spresent College Science Instrumentation Program. Theyrecommended strongly that the program not only beenlarged in terms of dollars allocated to it (a factor of tenwas mentioned often), but be expanded at the same timeto include all types of institutions with undergraduab-programs two-year colleges and .oral universities aswell as predominantly undergraduate four-year institu-tions. The students, after all, move in large numbers

etween institutions of different types as their educationadvances.

In addition, witnesses before the Committee pre-sented strong arguments for an initial heavier-than-aver-age-share dedication of the expansion part of the Pro-gram to schools of engineering and technology, inrecognition of the intensity of their equipment problem atthis time. Some witnesses argued that such a con-centration of new resources for a few years would serve toaccelerate the equipment donation activities throughwhich industries have long lent their support to under-graduate engineering education.

62

Several persons who appeared before the Committeeremarked on the desirability of expanding the mission ofthe present Instrumentation Program to include laborato-ry development activities. New emphasis might beplaced on: improvement of laboratory instructionthrough utilization of new kinds of instrumentation, de-sign of more effective and efficient modes of teaching orstructuring the laboratory experience, creation of moreopen-ended laboratory exercises, or studies of new waysof integrating laboratory and expository elements in thecurriculum. The hope was expressed that faculty mem-bers in doctoral universities would take special interest insuch programs.

A strong laboratory development component in theCollege Science Instrumentation Program would gobeyond the present commendable goal of assisting col-leges and universities to use instrumentation to improvethe educational experiences of students in science andengineering courses majors, non-majors, and non-sci-entists alike. It would accelerate the application to labora-tory instruction of computerization and other (.dvancedtechnologies and could provide alternatives to the pres-ent cost squeeze on the introductory laboratory course.

An idea worth considering with respect to the mass-enrollment introductory laboratory courses is a programin support of academic and industrial team activity todevise experiments suitable for these courses but whichrequire only simple, inexpensive apparatus and instru-mentation. The strong arguments for the introduction ofstudents to research quality instrumentation in advancedcourses are simply beside the point when applied tointroductory laboratories. These same study teamsshould be expected to design and at least pilot-produceand test the items of new apparatus and instrumentationthat may be required for the experiments they devise,possibly in collaboration with manufacturers of instruc-tional laboratory equipment.

4. Undergraduate Research Participation

The Committee was informed from many quarters thatone of the most significant ways to enrich undergraduateeducation is to involve students directly in the researchprograms of faculty members. Participation in research asundergraduates provides .tents with good basic skillsopportunities to apply these skills to investigation andexperimentation at the frontiers of km. 'ledge, to im-prove those skills and acquire others, to s, e Low ques-tions about nature are formulated and investigro.cl, and,one hopes, to participate in the discovery of newknowledge.

Undergraduate research is unlikely to be elected by ascience student unless his career planning includes atleast the possibility of graduate work. Since the actualentry level for professional careers in the sciences isincreasingly at that of the doctorate, the most able stu-dents should be encouraged to undertake graduatestudy. It is now well known that the undergraduate edu-

cational experience most effective in stimulating able stu-dents to pursue graduate study is participation in facultyresearch. In engineering, an undergraduate research ex-perience is often the closest a student can have to thekind he will find upon entering industry.

Expansion of Foundation support of joint faculty-stu-dent research, especially in non-doctoral institutions,would be a triply-effective investment in the future. Itwould increase faculty activities at the most advancedlevels of their disciplinary skills. It would provide simul-taneously to the participating undergraduate scientistsand engineers an experience highly beneficial to them inthe long term. And, it would be powerfully and appropri-ately engaging to those students most diffident abouttechnical careers women, minorities, and thehandicapped.

Faculty research is totally absent from some colleges.Their faculties must utilize external opportunities if con-duct of research is an important mode for them to main-tain and advance their professional knowledge. A varietyof such opportunities has been described above. Similarexternal programming should be made available toprovide a research experience to qualified students inengineering and the sciences.

5. Comprehensive Improvement Projects

The vanous programs and projects described above arecharacterized by relatively concentrated focus. In somecases, however, a multiple focus approach could havedifferero- but equally significant and desirable results forundergraduate education. Projects of this type could in-volve a single institution (the multiplicity ansing fromthe collaboration of a number of different departments), agroup or consortium of institutions, or a discipline-ori-ented society (bringing together representatives of manyinstitutions to address a common problem).

An example of a multiple focus or "comprehensive"project is one comprising activities designed to improveundergraduate instruction in all areas of science, mathe-matics, and engineering offered by a single institution.Such projects would have to begin with or build uponcareful long-range planning by an institution to strength-en its capability to offer high quality programs in tech-nical areas. The execution phase might involve simul-taneously a number of different activities of the typesdescribed earlier in this section. Foundation support,which might be substantial at the start, would have to beaugmented and then replaced in accordance with a well-designed, realistic schedule; or, substantial and phasedmatching of Foundation support might be required fromthe beginning.

Another kind of comprehensive project was proposedin one of the position papers submitted to theCommittee:

Advanced laboratory instruction ought to relate closelyto actual engineenng practice in the most favorable kindsof professional environments. No small school and only a

57

63

tew of the engineering colleges in research umversita.scan afford to mount such programs

The NSF-supported Engineering Research Centers ini-tiated recently (and other research organizations s'ichnational laboratories, major corpoi ate research stations,etc ) could offer to advanced undergraduate students inengineering the kind of experience in relation to profes-sional practice that medical students on rotating clerk-ships and internships receive in teaching hospitals

At such an installation, advanced engineering stu-dents would receive hands-c experience with the latestresearch equipment develop an appreciation for profes-sional ethics and the concerns of the lay society that is theconsumer of the products of engineering practice, learn atfirst hand the importance of economics in design, com-munications skills, good working relationships with as-

sociates and with management; and he introduced to thecross-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary aspects of con-temporary engineering practice.

I he application of this idea to science students in smallcolleges is equally attractive and apt In such a project,the support of the Foundation would he more for theadministrative structure to develop and sustain the nec-essary cooperation than for the conduct of the manifoldelements of the project, the latter should ci -aw their majorsupport from the sponsoring and host institutions.

It was pointed out to the Committee that one Founda-tion program now ended had many of the hallmarks ofthe Comprehensn,,::mprovement activity just described,that program supported the Resource Centers for Minor-ity Education These Centers did not operate at just theundergraduate level, but had elements ranging frommiddle school through graduate school. The Committeebelieves that those aspects of the Minority Centers thatare found to be successful and transferrable ought to becombined in a new support program of the same kind,and that those successes can Le exemplary to the plan-ning by other kinds of institutions of their participation inthe several thrusts identified in this report

B. Citations to Reference Materials

1. Testimony to the Committee at Public Hearings

September 26, 1985

Wl. Ballantyne, Joseph M , Vice President, Researchand Advanced Studies, Cornell University

W2. Cole, Thomas W , Jr , President, West VirginiaState University

W3. Gowen, Richard J , President, Dakota StateCollege

W4. Luskin, Bernard J , Executive Vice President,American Association of Community and JuniorColleges

W5 Starr, S Frederick, President, Oberlin College

W6. Strauss, Jon C., President, Worcester PolytechnicInstitute

October 16, 1985

W7. Crecme, John P., Senior Vice President, AcademicAffairs, Carnegie-Mellon University

W8. Rose, M. Richard, President, Rochester Instituteof Technology

W9. Sheetz, David P., Corporate Vice President forResearch, Dow Chemical Company

W10. Toll, John S., President, University of Maryland

W11. Verkuil, Paul R., President, The College ofWilliam and Mary

W12. Vetter, Betty M., Executive Director, ScientificManpower Commission

58

November 20, 1983

W13 Brenchley, Jean E , (Pennsylvania State Univer-sity), President-Elect, American Society forMicrobiology

W14 David, Edward E , Member, White House ScienceCouncil

W15. French, Anthony I' , (Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology), President, American Association ofPhysics leachers

W16 Garry, Fred W , Vice President, Corporate Engi-neering and Manufacturing, General ElectricCompany

W17 Gleason, Andrew NI , Department of Mathe-matics, I larvard University

W18 McLaughlin, David T , President, DartmouthCollege

W19 Simeral, William C , Executive Vice President, E.duPont de Nemours 3z Company, I lc

W20. Steen, Lynn A., (St. Olaf College), President, TheMathematical Association of America

W21 Wilson, Robert R , (Columbia University), Presi-dent, American Physical Society

December 20, 1985

W22. Gilded, Terry L., (Hewlett-Packard Co.) for Tech-nology Education Consortium (16 major hightechnology corporations)

W23. Goldberg, Samuel, Program Officer, Alfred P.Sloan Foundation

W24. Humphries, Frederick, President, Florida A&MUniversity

W25 Jordan, Philip 11 , Jr., President, Kenyon College

W26 O'Meara, Timothy, Provost, University of NotreDame

W27 Starr, Kenneth, Director, Milwaukee PublicMuseum

2. Additional Testimony Submitted to the Committee

W28. American Chemical Society, Moses Passer, Direc-tor, Education Division

W29. Association for Affiliated College and UniversityOffices; Flora Harper, President, and Julia Jac-obsen, Vice President

W30. Council of Scientific Society Presidents (CSSP),Eric Leber, Administrative Officer

W31 Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR), JerryR. Mohrig, (Carleton College) Chairman

W32. East Central College Consortium (Bethany Col-lege, WV, Heidelberg College, Hiram College,Marietta College, Mt. Union College, M._!s-kingum College, and Otterbem College, OH, andWestminster College, PA; Sherrill Cleland, Presi-dent, Marietta College

W33. John G. Kemeny, Professor of Mathematics andComputer Science and President Emeritus,Dartmouth College

W34 Student Pugwash, David Hart, ConferenceDirector

W35 -task Force on the American Chemical Society'sInvolvement in the Two-Year Colleges, William -IMooney (El Camino College), Chairman

W36 lexas Woman's University; Carolyn K Rosier,Acting Vice President for Academic Affairs

W37 Union College, Schenectady, New York, John SMorris, President

W38 Chancellors of University of Wisconsin Cam-puses (River Falls, Eau Claire, Green Bay, 1 aCrosse, Oshkosh, Parkside, Platteville, StevensPoint, Stout, Superior and Whitewater), Gary A

hibodeau, Chancellor University of WisconsinRiver Falls

W39 American Society of Plant Physiologists, CharlesJ Arntzen (Michigan State University), President

W40 American Society for Engineering Education, WEdward Lear, Executive Director

W41 terrier A Haddad (retired), IBM Corporation

59

3. Correspondence from Federal Agencies

W42. Letter to Agencies from Dr. Homer A Neal,Chairman, National Science Board Committee onUndergraduate Science and EngineeringEducation

W43. Department of Defense, Chapman B Cox, Assis-tant Secretary

W44 Department of Education, William J Bennett,Secretary

W45 Department of Energy, Alvin W Trivelpiece, Di-rector, Office of Energy Research

W46 National Aeronautics, and Space Administration,Russell Richie, Deputy Associate Administratorfor External Relations

W47 National Institutes of Health, James B Wy-ngaarden, Director, and Doris H. Merritt, Re-search Training and Research Resources Officer

4. Bibliography

131 National Science Board. Science indicators, The 1985Report. NSB 85-1. U.S. Government Printing Of-fice. Washington, D C , 1985.

B2. U S. Department of Education. National Centerfor Education Statistics, Higher Education GeneralInformation Survey, Fah Enrollment in Colleges andLInnreo,thes, various years, Protections of EducationStatistics to 1992-93, and unpublished tabulationsWashington, D.0 , 1984.

B3 National Science Board Educating Amowans for the21q Ceram ti A Report to the American People and theNational Science Band U S. Government FruitingOffice Washington, D C , 1983

B4 Budget of the Llmted State', Cocci-nine/it, 1 i>uil )'ear1984 et trey

B5 U S Department of Education I he Condition ofLilu«7:1011 National Center for Education Statistics(1984), 90-91

B6 Chambers, M.M , State Apinopriations for HigherEducation, 1985-8b he Chronicle of I ligher Edu-cation, Vol. XXXI, No 9 (1986), 1

B7 Council for Financial Aid to Education, IncCorporate support of Education 1984 New York, De-cember 1985.

B8 National Science Board St tent c ink/ Litgoicenng U-tica/um. Data and Information NSB 82-30 U.S Gov-ernment Printing Office Washington, I) C , 1982

American Chemical Society. Instrumentation Need,of Academic Department', of Chenn,trt/ Washington,D C., 1984.

B9.

1310. Association of American Colleges. Integrity in theCollege Curriculum. The Chronicle of Higher Edu-cation, Vol. XXIX, No. 22 (1985), 1.

B24. Astin, Alexander W., The American Freshman: Na-tional Norms for Fall 1985. American Council onEducation, Washington, D.C., and University of

B11, National Institute of Education Involvement inCalifornia, Los Angeles, December 1985

Learning: Realizing the Potential of American HigherEducation. The Chronicle of Higher Education (Oc-tober 24, 1984).

B25. Estimated for National Science Foundation by Na-tional Center for Higher Education ManagementSystems, 1986.

B12. National Research Council, Commission on Engi-neering and Technical Systems. Engineering Educa-tion and Practice in the United States: Foundations of

B26. Steen, Lynn A., Renewing Undergraduate Mathe-matics. Notices of the American Mathematical So-ciety (August 1985); 459-466.

Our Techno-Economic Future. National AcademyB27. U.S. Department of Education. The Condition ofPress, Washington, D.C., 1985.

Education. National Center for Education StatisticsB13. National Research Council, Commission on (1984); 84-85.

Human "resources. Science for Non-Specialists: TheCollege Years. National Academy Press, Wash-ington, D.C., 1982.

B28. National Science Foundation. Women and Minor-ities in Science and Engineering. U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office. Washington, I.J.C., January 1986.

B14. American Physical Society Education Committee. B29. Engineering Manpower Commission, EngineeringReport of 1985 Survey of Physics Department Chairs. Enrollments, Fall 1972 through Fall 1984. American

B15.

New York, June 1985.

National Science Foundation. Report of the Advisory

Association of Engineering Societies, New York,1984.

Committee for Science and Engineering Education. B30. Ms. Rhona Hartman, Director, HEATH (Higher

B16.

B17.

Washington, D.C., February 18, 1985.

Steen, Lynn A., Renewing Undergraduate Mathe-matics. (Position paper prepared for the AdvisoryCommittee to the Office of Science and Tech-nology Policy, August 20, 1984.)

National Science Foundation and the Departmentof Education. Science and Engineering Education forthe 1980's and Beyond. U.S. Government PrintingOffice. Washington, D.C., 1980.

B31.

B32.

Education and the Handicapped) Resource Cen-ter, American Council on Education, Washington,D.C., February, 1986.

Dr. Marsha Ross Redden, Director, Project on theHandicapped in Science, American Associationfor the Advancement of Science, Washington,D.C., February, 1986.

National Science Foundation. Academic Rience/En-gineering: Scientists and Engineers, January 1984.NSF 85-316. U.S. Government Printing Office.B18. U.S. Department of Education. The Condition ofWashington, D.C., 1985.Education. National Center for Educational Statis-

tics (1985); 94. B33. Scientific Manpower Commission. The Interna-tional Flow of Scientific Talent. Data, Policies, andB19. National Research Council, Office of Scientific and Issues. May 1985, 5-9.

Engineering Personnel, Science for Non-SpecialistsProcetz:ngs of Three Hearings. National Academy B34. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement ofPress, Washington, D.C., 1983. Teaching. Carnegie Survey of Faculty, 1984. The

Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. XXXI, No. 16B20. Division of Science Resources Studies, National (1985), 1, 24-28.

Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1986.B35. National Society of Professional Engineers.1.i. Division of Policy Research and Analysis, National Engineering Education Problems: The Laboratory

Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1986 Equipment Factor. NSPE Publication No. 1017.B22. Cooperative Institutional Research Program, Washington, D.C., September 1982.

American Council on Education and University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles. Computer Courses Losing

B36 American Chemical Society. Instrumentation Needsof Academic Departments of Chemistry. Survey Study

Appeal, 1985 Freshman Survey Results. News Re-lease, January, 1986.

Report of a Joint Task Force of the Commttee onScience and the Committee on Chemistry and

B23. National Science Foundation. Science and Engineer- Public Affairs. Washington, D.C., April 1984.

ing Personnel: A National Overview. NSF 85-302. B37. American Chemical Society. Tomorrow: Report of theU.S. Government Printing Office. Washington,D.C., 1985.

Task Force for the Study of Chemistry Education in theUnited States. Washington, D C., October 1984.

6066

B38. National Higher Education Associations TaskForce. National Priorities for Undergraduate Scienceand Engineering Education. American Council onEducation. Washington, D.C., October 21, 1985.

B39. Science, Vol. 230, No. 4727, 15 November 1985, 787.

B40. Office of Technology Assessment. DemographicTrends and the Scientific and Engineering Work Force.Washington, D.C., December 1985.

B41. National Science Foundation. Science and Tech-nology Resources. NSF 85-305. Washington, D.C.,January 1985.

B42. Lear, W. Edward, The State of Engineering Education.Journal of Metals, February 1983; 48-51.

B43. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Tech-nology, Inc. Accreditad Programs Leading to Degreesin Engineering, 1985. New York, December 1985.

B44. Opinion: Education in a mess. Nature Vol. 318, 14November 1985: 92.

B45. National Science Board Committee on Under-graduate Science and Engineering Education.Transcript of Proceedings, Public Hearing on September26, 1985.

B46. National Science Board Committee on Under-graduate Science and Engineering Education.

Transcript of Proceedings, Public Hearing on October16, 1985.

B47. National Science Board Committee on Under-graduate Science and Engineering Education.Transcript of Proceedings, Public Hearing on November20, 1985.

B48. National Science Board Committee on Under-graduate Science and Engineering Education.Transcript of Proceedings, Public Hearing on December20, 1985.

B49. Engineering College Research and Graduate Study. En-gineering Education, Vol. 75, No. 6, Marcn 1985,324-613.

B50. National Science Foundation. Grants for Scientificand Engineering Research. NSF 83-57. Washington,D.C., 1983; 9.

B51. American Electronics Association. Status Report onEngineering and Technical Education. Palo Alto, CA,November 1984.

B52. Dresselhaus, Mildred S., quoted in Wall StreetJournal, 1 June 1982; 1.

B53. Westat, Inc. report to National Science Founda-tion Academic Research Equipment in the Physical andComputer Sciences and Engineering. Rockville, MD,December 1984.

616 7