Sample Speeches

The Perfect Storm
Presented By Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson, Ph.D.
President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

National Society of Black Engineers
Dallas, Texas

Wednesday, March 17, 2004

So, in taking these necessary security steps, we have created a disincentive for foreign students to come to the United States to pursue advanced training in science and engineering. Concurrently, many other nations, including those in the developing world, are taking extraordinary steps to keep their best academic talent at home. Many foreign-born students are choosing to stay in their homelands to pursue advanced degrees because their native countries are becoming far more competitive, both in terms of the quality of the education they provide and the professional opportunities available to their graduates. Even in the face of these challenges, foreign-born scientists and engineers remain a critical source of talent for the U.S.

However, even with them, we must concentrate our efforts on, in effect, growing our own, as well. The interest of our young people in science and technology is flagging. The U.S. spends more than all developed countries, except Denmark , at the primary level; and all but Switzerland at the secondary level; and we are unequalled in spending for higher education. Despite this, we are only in the middle of the pack among developed nations in measures of secondary and post-secondary educational attainment. This tells us that we are essentially underpreparing our students for higher education in science and engineering, and that we are getting less overall for our educational dollars - certainly at pre-collegiate levels.

What, then, is to be done? What are the answers to the intersecting forces that may become the perfect storm? Sometimes, concrete examples help.

Some principles on which to build solutions, are contained in a new report entitled A Bridge for All , released last month by an organization known as BEST: Building Engineering and Science Talent. BEST is a public-private partnership, and I was privileged to serve as co-chair of its blue ribbon panel on higher education. I also am a member of its National Research Board, as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The report is the product of more than two years of research, analysis, and evaluation of programs designed to attract members of the new majority - young women, minority youth, and the disabled - into careers in science and engineering. It consists of three parts - K-12, higher education, and the workforce - and will be presented to the Congress.

The report articulates principles which must undergird the effort to revitalize our scientific and technological workforce through an infusion of diversity. The principles are based on studies of programs which work.

The first principle is institutional leadership, which supports a broad commitment among university administrators and senior faculty to shared values, goals, and programs that increase participation among the targeted population, and among all students. The exemplary program for institutional leadership cited in the report is at the University of Maryland , Baltimore County (UMBC). UMBC, through its Meyerhoff Scholars Program, has encouraged exceptional achievement by underrepresented minorities, particularly African-American male students. The program retains its focus on developing scholars among underrepresented groups, but has now been expanded into a comprehensive research-oriented institutional program for all students.

The second key principle is targeted recruitment. The pipeline must be developed, and that requires identification and recruitment of students and faculty from underrepresented groups. An example which has been in existence for a long time is the National Consortium for Graduate Degrees for Minorities in Science and Engineering, or GEM, which operates as a talent scout, an information clearinghouse and a matchmaker connecting talented minority bachelor of science recipients in science and engineering with graduate programs, including financial support.

A third key principle is an engaged faculty. By that I mean faculty who view positive student outcomes as a critical measure of their performance, and who are rewarded accordingly. Universities, particularly research universities, prize faculty that are stars in their research fields. At Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, we surely do. However, universities must teach, and my fellow university presidents and I must be willing to tell prospective faculty, if you do not want to deal with students - all students - do not come. For example, a national program called Preparing Future Faculty, which exists under the aegis of the Council of Graduate Schools, has as its goal improving the quality of undergraduate teaching and education, as well as that of elementary and secondary schools.

Personal attention is the fourth principle. Programs that are correctly structured to provide personal attention are committed to meeting students' individual learning needs through curriculum development, mentoring and tutoring, as well as teaching. Two very successful examples are the Wise RP program at the University of Michigan and the Lore-El program at Stevens Institute of Technology. They are residential programs that build faculty-student interaction both in and out of the classroom into learning experiences that address the whole person's needs. Many other institutions are beginning to emulate that approach.

The fifth principle involves peer support. To reiterate a well-used phrase, it takes a village. Programs encouraging peer support enable students to interact with each other routinely and intensely. The process enables undergraduates, graduate students, postdoctoral students and junior faculty to provide mutual support, guidance and advice for each other, creating an atmosphere of family responsibility. An example is provided by the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation, particularly as it is structured at Texas A&M, where it employs summer bridge experiences assisting with the transition to college; undergraduate research with faculty; science, engineering and mathematics peer teaching assistance, dialogue between community college and university faculty to enhance the student transfer rate; and improved academic advising.

The sixth principle is very important: financial support. We cannot force students to work at McDonald's and expect them to succeed. In other words, they have to have comprehensive financial assistance - meaning financial packages that combine merit- and need-based support, and which include scholarships, loans and grants encompassing more than tuition and fees. The programs BEST found to be exemplary provide financial aid which enables students to avoid part-time work unrelated to course study, which then begins to make academics the total focus of the studentsí lives.

Seventh, provide enriched research opportunities. Standout programs extend research experience beyond classroom hours during the academic year. Summer internships and other research opportunities do the same. An example is the partnership for minority achievement in biomolecular sciences, which is a consortium of historically minority-serving institutions and the University of North Carolina . PMADS, as it is called, involves comprehensive complementary programs that span the years from secondary science education through postgraduate study, and involves faculty development, infrastructure revitalization, curriculum modernization, technology adaptation and collaborations for student development.

The eighth principle is bridging to the next level. Too few institutions acknowledge that they are part of an educational and workforce continuum. The best ones build relationships. They build corporate relationships, they build relationships for the students with research organizations, and help students to develop personal skills and work habits that enable them to make the transition into the workplace - whether it be in industry, government or academia - and, to pursue further study as a natural extension of their academic experience. An example is the UCLA Center for Excellence in Engineering and Diversity, or CEED, which draws support from both higher education and industry while mentoring student progress from one milestone to the next.

And, finally, the ninth principle is predicated on a question. Did we achieve what we set out to achieve? Effective programs never stop asking basic questions about process and outcomes. In fact, assessment benchmarks should be used to design a program in the first place. An example of this is the Gateway coalition, which began at Drexel University and now encompasses nine universities. It shows continuous progress on student retention, grade point average and completion of the engineering baccalaureate. The program has driven change throughout the engineering curriculum, development of student skill and leadership; presentation skills, organization, and management; and, change in the faculty culture.

A Bridge for All lays out these principles, but more important, the principles derive from real evidence from programs which work by every metric. This, in itself, is an important finding. We have programs which work, and we want to know why they work, and to learn how to replicate and scale them. The BEST report illustrates a few key ones which have been sustained over at least a decade, have assessment built in, and are replicable.

I believe that if we are really serious about developing all the talent we possess in this country - strengthening and filling our national scientific and engineering pipeline - that we must have a firm, national commitment, as well as a comprehensive national plan, based on the templates and the principles that have been identified by groups such as BEST.

The United States long has been the worldís greatest source of discovery and innovation, and from this we derive a robust economy and world preeminence. We have evolved a society and a culture which value independent thinking and risk taking. We encourage the immigration of new minds, providing diverse perspectives. Our government is supportive of business, investment, and financial markets, and venture capital is readily available. The formula is in place - as long as we have the scientific and technological capacity - the human capacity - identified, recruited, supported, educated and ready to utilize our great system.

But, if our traditional source of scientific and engineering talent is uninterested and underperforming, if less talent from abroad is coming to the U.S., and especially if we ignore two-thirds of our population - minorities and women - the underrepresented majority - as a talent source, how do we expect to do science and engineering in this millennium? The chickens will come home to roost - the perfect storm clouds are forming. As President of a major technological research university, and as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, this worries me.

Now, your pipelines in NSBE - from middle school and high school, through college and graduate school, into the workforce - provide an astounding example of what we need more of. It shows what can, and must be done - to identify, to nurture, and to develop a still under-appreciated source of talent. For such approaches to grow, greater leadership is needed.

It is clear that the United States must make a national commitment, at the highest levels - to identify and nurture the wellspring of scientific and technological potential residing in the new majority - the underrepresented majority. In fact, developing this talent must be more than a national commitment. It must be more than a national priority. It must be a national imperative.

Thank you.