ISSUES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: A STEM Workforce Debate
Fall 2022 Issue
Matt Sigelman
Long out of fashion, industrial policy has come back into vogue, amid bipartisan concerns over economic and military vulnerabilities in an intensifying sphere of global competition. Underlying much of this discussion is the fear that America lacks sufficient STEM talent to carry forward its legacy of technological innovation and to maintain its lead over China. In his article, Ron Hira raises important questions about whether such concerns are supported by the facts.
Hira acknowledges that the lack of availability of detailed data represents a constraint to more effective analysis of imbalances between the supply and demand of STEM talent. As he points out, traditional public data only allow for analysis at the aggregate level, and typically only through a sectoral lens. Just as in any field, STEM roles differ in the skills they require and, correspondingly, in the availability of needed talent, as illustrated in Hira’s article by the contrast between life scientists and software engineers. In the same way that a sectoral lens is insufficient to analyze labor shortages for specific STEM roles, looking only at categories of STEM roles is insufficient to analyze the availability of specific skills in demand in the market. There is no single “skills gap” in the market, but rather different gaps for different skills. Overall, conferred degrees and employer demand in what the Bureau of Labor Statistics refers to as “computing and mathematics” occupations may be in balance, but the pipeline for specific talent can still be severely anemic at the level of specific roles.
This is even more the case when we consider the question of whether existing programs of study are aligned to industry demand at the skill level. For example, while universities may be conferring more than enough STEM degrees to meet demand at the categorical level, these university programs may not be teaching enough of the specific skills that are required by industry, whether those be technical skills such as cloud architecture or soft skills like teamwork and collaboration. Significant gaps between skills taught and skills sought can be as problematic as broader imbalances—but less perceptible.
The assertion that supply and demand are in balance (or that the market is possibly even glutted) also depends on the notion that supply follows demand and not the other way around. There is an argument to be made that jobs follow talent in the knowledge economy. Rather than simply filling demand for STEM roles by entering the workforce, STEM graduates can also launch enterprises, create new products, or drive innovations that ultimately create greater demand for STEM skills. Although demand is never infinitely elastic, growing the strength of the STEM talent base is likely to stimulate demand correspondingly. Simply put, if America can reassert itself as a STEM talent hub, its innovation economy will grow, spurring further demand growth.
STEM is also a field with particularly high attrition—a phenomenon the economists David J. Deming and Kadeem L. Noray study in a recent analysis on “STEM Careers and the Changing Skill Requirements of Work.” According to their article, upon graduation, applied science majors enjoy a salary premium of 44% over their non-STEM peers. Ten years out, that shrinks to 14%. Because of the speed of skill replacement in STEM, STEM workers are less likely to enjoy an experience premium. By the time they have acquired significant on-the-job experience, many of the skills they acquired during their education are no longer seen as relevant. This high rate of skill replacement leads to a loss of the skill premium evident immediately after graduation. Accordingly, many ultimately leave STEM roles in order to continue their career progression. Given these defections, a straight demand-graduate analysis could understate gaps in the market, as assumptions about the number of new graduates needed to meet market demand must consider higher attrition of existing workers and not only new jobs created.
Hira is correct that there is a need to revisit old assumptions. New, more granular, more timely data sources will afford decisionmakers a more precise awareness of the nature of current and emerging talent gaps and provide a more effective basis for action.…
https://issues.org/stem-workforce-shortage-debate-hira-forum/
