There's a conversation happening between luminaries in American industry, major players in the American philanthropic scene, leaders in the American education system, and some very senior and "in-the-know" people in the state and federal governments to figure out ways to grow the number of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics)-skilled graduates in the United States. Specifically, there aren't enough students in elementary and high school with an interest in STEM and there aren't enough university graduates in STEM to fill current and future open positions.
Let me start by saying that I don't believe in isolating any one (or one set of) disciplines - good learning must be holistic and serve the complete child. I can't learn science well and sacrifice communications skills (reading, writing, speaking, etc.); I can't learn engineering well and sacrifice creativity (music, sculpting, painting, etc.); I can't learn any STEM discipline without a good (really good) sense of art and crafts (carpentry, etc.).
Making this about one and not the other creates a bifurcation of the education system that is wrong and unfair. My good friend Larry has decided he'll focus his schools on STEAM for this very reason (science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics) - I could agree more + I love the idea of steAm:-)!!!
How about this:
Overarching goal: every student must achieve their greatest academic potential.
STEM-focused goal: America will double the number of American-educated, successful STEM employees by 2020.
Situation:
- The forecast for STEM jobs in ten years is almost double the current population of STEM employees (i.e. at least 80% growth in jobs in 10 years)
- American junior and high school students drop out of STEM disciplines at alarming rates
- Graduates in general are weak in STEM basics irrespective of major
- Students are daunted by the sciences, and aren't captivated by how interesting (and well-paid) jobs in the sciences can be; it's also noteworthy that students normally decide (explicitly or implicitly) an interest in STEM before they reach grade 7
- Employers have done an abysmal job of engaging students and compelling them with opportunities in their organizations
- Philanthropy alone cannot sustain any major social (or other) change (it's incredible at sparking things, but it's not forever)
- In the rest of the world, families and institutions value STEM graduates tremendously; students are encouraged by their peers, families, employers, etc. to get in that game, and get some of that coin; and the results in these countries (like Korea for example) are outstanding, and at a lower cost-per-student than America
Truths:
- Employers are motivated by the following: making money, hiring the best talent, looking good (image) - let's not waste time on any other incentives - help them with these three and you win, everything else is crap
- Students are motivated by the following: getting laid, making money, looking good - let's not waste time on any other incentives - help them with these three and you win - everything else is crap
- Parents are motivated by the following: getting the kids gainfully-employed, becoming burden-free empty-nesters, being financially solvent - ibid
- Teachers & Administrators are motivated by the following: being employed, teaching students, preserving status quo - ibid
- Governments are motivated by the following: getting elected, being perceived as doing good, getting re-elected - ibid
If we want all schools to improve their curriculum and performance, the most sustainable way to do this, is to get the parents (voters) to demand it and expect it. If you want scale and sustainability, this is the ONLY way to do it. If you can achieve this, the governing bodies who seek reelection will find a way to make it happen, and I argue, make it happen without additional funds.
This is a marketing problem - if the demand is created, and elected stakeholders start feeling it from their constituents, outcomes will occur.
Some might think this trivializes the problem, but I've never heard of organized ingenuity (seems like an oxymoron), or broad, sustained, grassroots change (outside of declarations of war or the like) happening just because one person (irrespective of how charismatic, powerful or visible they are) said it should.
The real goal is to make STEM sexy (dare I say: "STEAMy" = Science + Technology + Engineering + Art + Math = yeah baby!).
Sustained, societal change requires a broad from the bottom-up movement that changes culture and expectations.
Solution:
I think we need to create a whole new concept and movement in America - I'm calling it "MInternship" - a combination of mentoring and internships.
Today, most American STEM firms get R&D tax credits for doing all that nerd stuff. I want to change the rule for getting the tax credits. From now on (beginning with the 2010 tax year), in order to qualify for any R&D tax credits, 100% of your R&D staff must mentor a student in grades 6-12. Each mentee must also intern in your organization for at least one week during the school year (not in one go, plus it counts as community service for the student), and optionally for an additional two weeks during the summer break - paid experience.
But please let's not make this exclusive to STEM - why not open this up to all industries - if you want your R&D or operating tax credits, this is the new cost of doing business - involve the future in the present.
It is an amazing opportunity for employers to reach out, identify and nurture stars, eventually hire them, and of course get those tax credits. It's huge for students because they get to be engaged in reality, identify with people who are doing great work, learn, and realize that this could be their vocation.
We marry this with a marketing campaign where we showcase and applaud nerds (Iron Man and Hulk are two pretty cool nerds, and both got laid (well Hulk almost did)!), with creative uses of media - targeting both parents and students. This campaign is a myth-busters campaign - we want everyone to know that nerd-smarts are absolutely attainable irrespective of gender, demographics, whatever; and we especially want everyone to know that nerds get paid really well, and better on average than other professions.
This marketing campaign has to show parents how important it is for them to focus on their children's academic time as an investment in independence, and how a great education is the key to being a successful empty-nester.
Result:
It will take some time - say 5-6 years, but if done right, this is a sustained and totally scalable approach to growing the American nerd (and otherwise) population - by creating a desire in the American ethos for a better education that is more closely connected to employment. We are also addressing the needs of each of the audiences identified above.
The problem with it is that it doesn't fit well with bureaucrats and politicians because it doesn't demonstrate direct and substantive results in the first year. (Though I'd challenge you to name five government programs that have.) But the key is to find answers that will be pervasive and live for a long time.
It will also be daunting because it's whacky, there were no committees formed, we didn't hire expensive consultants, and there were no 500-page PowerPoint presentations developed that demonstrated blah, blah, blah.
Let's hope that that group of people above will come to a dramatic and divergent conclusion, rather than live up to a most primo nerd (Einstein)'s definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Recent Comments