By Richard Ekman

The U.S. does not produce enough home-grown scientists. Recent reports and legislation have underscored the need to address this shortage. Last year’s report from the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine, Rising Above the Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, documented the problem. President Bush has proposed legislation, SMART grants, that would encourage young people to study science. Naturally, the role of colleges and universities in preparing scientists has been spotlighted in debates about how best to meet the nation’s need.

Most proposals for addressing the problem typically focus on assisting large institutions to graduate more scientists. That is too narrow a perspective and, if implemented, would greatly reduce our chance to close the gap between demand and supply of scientists. The fact is that scientists are being prepared—in surprisingly large numbers—by small, private colleges and universities. Policymakers and others seeking solutions to the problem, such as the National Academies and the White House, are well advised to include the small, private sector in their planning.

It’s been recognized, to be sure, that at highly selective liberal arts colleges such as Oberlin (OH), Swarthmore (PA), Mount Holyoke (MA), and Williams (MA), many of the graduates—even disproportionate numbers—do major in the sciences and subsequently pursue doctoral degrees. Even though these small colleges graduate a much smaller absolute number of students than large universities, the percentage of their graduates who pursue and complete PhDs in the sciences is very high. What hasn’t been recognized is that other, less affluent and selective, small, independent colleges also produce a disproportionately large share of PhD scientists. Because the main problem is the small number of scientists who are available to serve the multiple needs of the country, the most promising approach to addressing the problem will draw upon the many smaller, independent institutions with proven track records of successfully graduating science majors.

A review of a recent CIC program illustrates how this strategy might work on a larger scale. For five years, between 2001 and 2005, CIC conducted an annual competition that recognized outstanding achievement in undergraduate science education. Between 30 and 70 institutions each year competed to win a $10,000 prize. The program, funded by the Philadelphia-based Russell Pearce and Elizabeth Crimian Heuer Foundation, awarded two to four prizes each year. It proved difficult to choose winners from many worthy proposals. Many contenders demonstrated remarkable imagination in their approaches to increasing the number of science majors and to placing them in prestigious doctoral programs in the sciences and engineering. Perhaps most noteworthy is that many of the colleges that won the awards are not well known throughout the nation.

To cite a few of the winners:

• Juniata College (PA) tripled the number of chemistry majors in just a few years, with 60 percent going on to graduate school in chemistry. And 70 percent of all chemistry majors at Juniata are women.
• Allegheny College (PA) created a neuroscience major in 1996. By 2003 it was attracting 35 majors per year. Since the beginning of the program, 47 students have entered graduate programs in neuroscience.
• Hendrix College (AR) ranks 24th in producing PhDs in chemistry among all 2,439 four-year colleges and universities in the U.S., measured as the ratio of PhDs in chemistry to undergraduate enrollment. Almost all its chemistry majors have entered graduate school. Using the same formula, Hendrix ranks 33rd in producing physics PhDs.
• At Roanoke College (VA), the number of chemistry majors grew from an average of 15 per year before 2002 to an average of 25 since then; 75 percent of these majors go on to graduate school.
• Whitworth College (WA) quadrupled the number of physics majors between 1997 and 2002. The number now stands at 41, with a very large percentage enrolling in PhD programs in physics.

It’s easy to understand the structural reasons why small colleges succeed in this arena. Overall, attrition at large state universities is much higher than at small colleges. This difference is evident even when making comparisons between institutions with similar average SAT levels of entering students. Attrition in introductory science courses is usually higher than institution-wide attrition, and the gap between large universities and small colleges in attrition rates is even bigger in science courses than in the overall rates. To be sure, a few brilliant students will make their way successfully through the “gatekeeper” Chemistry 101, Physics 101, or Calculus 101 courses needed by majors at any institution, large or small; but most students need some help from their instructors to revisit material that wasn’t fully understood when first discussed in class. The sciences are cumulative and sequential subjects; failing to comprehend something early in the semester stymies what follows. At small colleges it is much more likely that full-time faculty members will teach these introductory courses. No matter who teaches the courses, the prevailing pedagogy at small colleges makes it much more likely that a student who is having difficulty will get help before the accumulated effects of what was not understood lead to failure.

What about women? Quite apart from Harvard President Larry Summers’ speculation about the disinclination of women to study science and Princeton President Shirley Tilghman’s rejoinder, small colleges are having great success in preparing female scientists. Juniata’s impressive percentage of women chemistry majors is just one example. Other colleges have equally noteworthy records—including some women’s colleges such as Mount Holyoke, Cedar Crest (PA), and Spelman (GA). Mount Holyoke, for example, has been among the top colleges nationwide in graduating women who go on to earn doctoral degrees in the physical sciences, geosciences, mathematics, and computer sciences. In biological sciences, Mount Holyoke is first in the nation.

Unfortunately, the report from the National Academies is silent on the differing degrees of success between small colleges and large universities in producing scientists. And policy advisory groups such as the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education that produce state “report cards,” continue to ignore these obvious differentials. Scale matters, but scaling up failure makes no sense. However, scaling up highly effective programs does. When the Academies argue that the U.S. needs a lot more scientists, one is left to believe that meeting this need in small bits—by a dozen chemistry majors here and a dozen physics majors there—would not make a dent in the problem. In fact, even some big universities don’t produce many more science majors who pursue PhDs than the small colleges do. Here is just one example: The number of physics majors graduating from Oberlin College and the University of Wisconsin at Madison who later received doctorates in physics were: 2001—5 (Oberlin) and 9 (UW Madison); 2002—2 and 2; 2003—2 and 4; and 2004—
1 and 4.

The National Academies are not alone in overlooking the role that independent, smaller colleges and universities play in preparing the nation’s scientists. The American Chemical Society (ACS) is now weighing a proposal to change its standards for the accreditation of college and university chemistry departments—raising the number of full-time faculty members that must be on the staff to a minimum of five. This change is based on an unfounded assumption about the pedagogical role of specialists versus the impact of an entire program’s faculty on students who major in chemistry. It also defies common sense: some of the colleges with the best track records of graduating chemistry majors who earn PhDs have done so with departments of four faculty members or fewer. Earlham College (IN) is a prime example. The ACS should embrace outcomes assessment and look at results, not inputs.

One way to alleviate the problem would be for the National Science Foundation, which shares the worry about the future supply of scientists, to make it easier for small colleges to request grants. For the faculty member or generalist assistant dean at a typical small college, the current NSF procedures and rules are mind-numbing in complexity and time-consuming to follow. The Heuer Foundation helped CIC call attention to the outstanding record of many small colleges in science, but it is a small foundation and cannot be expected to meet the national need. Other foundations that work in the sciences often prefer “innovations” to sustaining proven successes. NSF’s role is critical.

Why not use NSF and other foundations’ money to offer awards to colleges and universities on the basis of demonstrated increases in the number of science majors and in the percentages of those majors who enter PhD programs in science? Permit the money to be used for basic, top-priority campus needs such as new scientific equipment and support for science students. And keep the process of applying very simple. Making it easier for colleges and universities with proven track records in producing science majors to do even more is a highly promising approach to meeting the need for more U.S. scientists.