Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

just announced a $6 million program to donate microprocessors and

lower division engineering courseware to some 100 colleges and

universities around the country.

The National Science Foundation estimates that industry spending

on universities increased almost fourfold during the past decade

with an estimated $275 million going to academic laboratories in 1982. A few specific examples of the efforts of companies to

redress the problem are:

In 1982 IBM funded more than 90 fellowships in

engineering, computer science, and information systems, and awarded over $750,000 in grants to departments of

engineering and computer science, and it has announced it

will donate $50 million to the five schools that come up

with the best proposals for manufacturing engineering

programs;

General Electric Co. has increased to $10 million the

money it gives annually to higher education;

American Telephone & Telegraph Co. will award 25 four-year

fellowships each year to promising science students, for

an annual cost of $2 million;

Hughes Aircraft Co. provides about $8 million a year

support to colleges and universities through various

programs;

Loral Corporation has contributed $165,000 for a microwave

laboratory at City College of New York;

Motorola has given $1.2 million to Arizona State's College

[blocks in formation]

3M Co. has given $1.2 million to two research centers at

the University of Minnesota's Institute of Technology;

National Semiconductor has donated equipment valued at

$376,000 to Rochester Institute of Technology for its

micro-electronics program, in addition to its regular
assistance to 12 other engineering schools nationally,

The preceding examples barely scratch the surface of corporate

support for scientific and technical education.

Despite the

monumental effort directed by industry at solving the technical

manpower problem, an effective solution requires time and action

on multiple levels.

An Appropriate Federal Response

This brings me to the third and last question, "What is the

appropriate federal legislative response?"

Industry clearly

cannot do the job alone.

Federal assistance is also needed.

In

enacting the "National Science and Technology Policy, Organiza

tion, and Priorities Act of 1976," according to a GAO report,

Congress recognized the technical manpower pool of this country

as

an invaluable national resource. The GAO report states:

National policy should include a continuous appraisal of the

roles science and technology play in achieving goals and formulating policies, including the recruitment, education

and

training, and beneficial use of adequate numbers of scientists,

engineers, and technologists.

Besides the direct funding of science, math, and engineering

education through traditional channels such as NSF, the federal

government can help significantly by enacting tax policies which encourage additional private sector action. Currently, the tax

incentives provided for by the Economic Recovery and Tax Act of

1981 (ERTA) encourage companies to donate new equipment to

colleges and universities for research purposes.

If the quality

and quantity of our undergraduate education is not to continue to

deteriorate, however, the R&D tax credit and the equipment

provisions of ERTA need to be extended beyond 1985 and also

expanded to the following areas:

donations of instructional

equipment to both community colleges and four-year institutions,

donations of used equipment not more than three years old,

service contracts so that universities lacking maintenance money

can cease turning down donations, faculty salary augmentation

grants, and graduate student fellowships for u.s. citizens to get

doctorates and teach.

The electronics industry is ready to work with this committee and

other members of Congress on remedies to the engineering

education problems. There are serious long-range implications for the United States if industry, education, and government do

not work more vigorously to solve the situation.

I appreciate the opportunity to address you today.

As you

develop legislation, AEA will be pleased to participate.

Senator PELL. Dr. Rutherford, there are two questions I could ask you briefly. In your testimony, you suggest two interesting proposals to improve our Nation's capacity to teach math and science, both of which would involve a lot of our Federal resources.

In view of the deficits facing us, what would you view as the most appropriate solution in the short turn that the Federal Government can undertake to improve math and science education?

Dr. RUTHERFORD. Senator, I think in the short term you are on the right track by dealing with the problem of the preparation of the teachers as the major emphasis, as long as there is some money to provide some support for identifying talented students and encouraging them and some funds for research and development.

Th funds that the Federal Government might at this point invest are of the order that is being talked about, of some hundreds of millions, but not billions.

Many of the problems that Professor Willoughby addressed are the kinds that need to be taken care of at the State and local level, and I agree with him that if they are not done there, then the Federal investment may be wasted.

My point is, Senator, that if Congress stops with these bills which I take to be emergency measures, and does not focus on underwriting the reeducation of many of our science and math teachers, that would not get us into the future where we need to be.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much. Also, Dr. Rutherford, what has been your experience with student loan forgiveness as a means of increasing the number of math and science teachers? Do you think that loan forgiveness is a sufficient incentive for students to choose teaching careers?

Dr. RUTHERFORD. I have no data on that, and I believe other people do. I can only say that while I think it is appropriate, I would not believe that by itself it would radically increase the number of science and mathematics teachers.

I think that the fundamental circumstance is the working conditions of the teachers, and no matter what they are paid or what incentives for fellowships there may be, unless and until they are able to be in circumstances in which they can successfully teach their subject-have the resources, have the support system, and have the respect of the community-then the rest is not going to work.

Senator PELL. I thank you, and I thank all of you very much indeed. Senator Quayle may have some questions.

Senator QUAYLE. I just have a statement that I want to put into the record, and also to express my interest to the chairman, in his absence, and the ranking member in trying to work together on a very important and substantive problem that we have.

I know that in my home State, I am shocked when I look at the statistics. When you look at recent graduates in 1982, four major universities in Indiana graduated a total of three people in chemistry, four in Earth sciences, and two in physics, who are qualified to teach their subjects in Indiana high schools. I mean there is just absolutely no way, gentlemen.

Are you getting prepared to adjourn or go to the next panel?

Senator PELL. We have another panel of people and we are trying to wrap up by quarter past twelve.

Senator QUAYLE. Well, in that case, I will insert my statement. It is an eloquent statement. I spent a lot of time on it, Senator Pell.

(Laughter.]
[The opening statement of Senator Quayle follows:]

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR QUAYLE Senator QUAYLE. Mr. Chairman, I must first thank you for organizing these hearings on what is of real concern to me. As you know, I have been especially interested in the areas of job training, worker retraining, and vocational training generally in the past 2 years. I think I know something of the problems of the unemployed, the displaced workers, and the poorly trained people looking for work in America today.

We have before us today a problem which is just as big, and just as important for the long-run economic recovery and growth of America Those of us in the industrial Midwest and Northeast know there is a problem with out supply of skilled workers. We know that we need a more scientifically literate labor force. And most importantly, we are concerned that our reserve of well-trained and educated scientists, thinkers and creators of jobs may be falling behind.

I know our guests today will go into some detail about the severity of this problem, but I would just like to highlight my own State's situation:

In 1982 Indiana's four major universities graduated a total of three people in chemistry, four in Earth science, four in general

« AnteriorContinuar »