Two Strategies to Secure Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Capital in the United States
Seungil Yum 1  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Design, Construction, and Planning, University of Florida, United States
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Seungil Yum   

Design, Construction, and Planning, University of Florida, 1601 sw 51st ter, 32607, gainesville, United States
Publish date: 2019-07-24
 
ARiSE 2019;2(1):3–13
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background:
The study proposes two strategies for education planners and governments to secure Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) capital.

Material and methods:
First, this paper highlights that essential knowledge and skills for STEM students are differentiated by their major. For instance, the knowledge of English ranked first in Science, and the knowledge of mathematics placed first in Technology. Second, the study employs panel models to exhibit factors that are related to the proportion of STEM workers in the U.S. states between 2003 and 2012.

Results:
The panel models highlight the variables associated with the gradient of STEM workers as follows: (1) industrial structure, (2) housing price, and (3) foreign-born people.

Conclusions:
Therefore, governments and education planners should develop education policies or training programs differentiated by the STEM fields to provide proper knowledge and skills for STEM students and take into account the important factors to secure STEM capital.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their advice for this article.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
FUNDING
There is no funding for the article.
 
REFERENCES (50)
1.
Atkinson, R. D., Hugo, J., Lundgren, D., Shapiro, M. J., & Thomas, J. (2007). Addressing the STEM Challenge by Expanding Specialty Math and Science High Schools. NCSSSMST Journal, 12(2), 14-23.
 
2.
Bailey, M. J. (1959). Note on the economics of residential zoning and urban renewal. Land Economics, 35(3), 288-292.
 
3.
Blickenstaff, J, C. (2005). Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and education, 17(4): 369-386. BLS. (2014). Stem 101: intro to tomorrow’s job. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/careeroutlo....
 
4.
Business Roundtable. (2005). Tapping America’s potential: the education for innovation initiative. Business Roundtable, Washington, DC.
 
5.
Bybee, R. W., & Fuchs, B. (2006). Preparing the 21st century workforce: A new reform in science and technology education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 349-352.
 
6.
Chen, X. (2009). Students Who Study Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) in Postsecondary Education. Stats in Brief. NCES 2009-161. National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC.
 
7.
Clark, J, V. (1999). Minorities in science and math. ERIC clearinghouse for science, mathematics, and environmental education. Columbus, OH.
 
8.
Cole, D., & Espinoza, A. (2008). Examining the academic success of Latino students in science technology engineering and mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 285-300.
 
9.
Congressional Research Service. (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (stem) education: background, federal policy, and legislative action. Congressional Research Service Reports 35, 1-35.
 
10.
Cover, B., Jones, J. I., & Watson, A. (2011). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) occupations: a visual essay. Monthly Labor Review, 134(5), 3-15.
 
11.
Dickman, A., Schwabe, A., Schmidt, J., & Henken, R. (2009). Preparing the Future Workforce: Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) Policy in K-12 Education. Public Policy Forum, Milwaukee, WI.
 
12.
Epstein, D., & Miller, R, T. (2011). Slow off the mark elementary school teachers and the crisis in science, technology, engineering, and math. Education Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C.
 
13.
Florida, R. (2014). The Rise of the Creative Class--Revisited: Revised and Expanded. New York: Basic books.
 
14.
Glaeser, E. L., & Shapiro, J. M. (2003). Urban growth in the 1990s: Is city living back? Journal of Regional Science, 43(1), 139-165.
 
15.
Green, M. (2007). Science and engineering degrees: 1966-2004 (NSF 07-307). National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA.
 
16.
Jones, J. I. (2014). An Overview of Employment and Wages in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) Groups. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, DC.
 
17.
Kuenzi, J., Matthews, C., & Mangan, B. (2006). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (stem) education issues and legislative options. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC.
 
18.
Langdon, D., Mckittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011). Stem: good jobs and now and for the future. U.S. Department of Commerce 03(11), 1-10.
 
19.
Maton, K. I., & Hrabowski III, F. A. (2004). Increasing the Number of African American PhDs in the Sciences and Engineering A Strengths-Based Approach. American Psychologist, 59(6), 547.
 
20.
May, G. S., & Chubin, D. E. (2003). A retrospective on undergraduate engineering success for underrepresented minority students. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 27-39.
 
21.
Milgram, D. (2011). How to recruit women and girls to the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) classroom. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 71(3), 4-11.
 
22.
Miyake, A., Kost-Smith, L. E., Finkelstein, N. D., Pollock, S. J., Cohen, G. L., & Ito, T. A. (2010). Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: A classroom study of values affirmation. Science 330(6008), 1234-1237.
 
23.
Modi, K., Schoenberg, J., & Salmond, K. (2012). Generation STEM: What girls say about science, technology, engineering, and math. A Report from the Girl Scout Research Institute. New York, NY.
 
24.
Morrison, T., Maciejewski, B., Giffi, C., DeRocco, E. S., McNelly, J., & Carrick, G. (2011). Boiling point? The skills gap in US manufacturing. Deloitte and The Manufacturing Institute.
 
25.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Barriers and Opportunities for 2-Year and 4-Year STEM Degrees: Systemic Change to Support Diverse Student Pathways. Washington, DC.
 
26.
National Governors Association. (2007). Building a science, technology, engineering and math agenda. National Science Board, Washington, DC.
 
27.
National Governors Association. (2011). Building a science, technology, engineering, and math education agenda. Available at:.
 
29.
National Research Council. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
 
30.
National Research Council. (2012). Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
 
31.
National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press.
 
32.
National Research Council. (2015). Identifying and Supporting Productive STEM.
 
33.
Programs in Out-of-School Settings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
 
34.
National Science and Technology Council. (2000). Ensuring a strong U.S. scientific, technical, and engineering workforce in the 21st century. National Science and Technology Council Washington, DC.
 
35.
National Science and Technology Council. (2013). Federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (stem) education 5-year strategic plan. National Science and Technology Council, Washington, D.C.
 
36.
National Science Board. (2003). The science and engineering workforce: realizing America’s potential. National Science Board, Arlington, VA.
 
37.
National Science Foundation. (2016). Science and engineering indicators. National Science Board Arlington, Virginia, VA.
 
38.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
 
39.
OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills education 2030. OECD publication.
 
40.
Price-Spratlen, T., & Guest, A. M. (2002). Race and population change: a longitudinal look at Cleveland neighborhoods. Sociological Forum, 17 (1), 105-136.
 
41.
Shapiro, J. M. (2006). Smart cities: quality of life, productivity, and the growth effects of human capital. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(2), 324-335.
 
42.
Simon, C. J., & Nardinelli, C. (2002). Human capital and the rise of American cities, 1900–1990. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 32(1), 59-96.
 
43.
Slovacek, S. P., Whittinghill, J. C., Tucker, S., Peterfreund, A. R., Rath, K. A., Kuehn, G. D., & Reinke, Y. G. (2011). Minority students severely underrepresented in science, technology engineering and math. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 12(1/2), 5-16.
 
44.
Smeding, A. (2012). Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): An investigation of their implicit gender stereotypes and stereotypes’ connectedness to math performance. Sex roles, 67(11-12), 617-629.
 
45.
Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: using ingroup experts to inoculate women's self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 255-270.
 
46.
Tyson, W., Lee, R., Borman, K. M., & Hanson, M. A. (2007). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pathways: High school science and math coursework and postsecondary degree attainment. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(3), 243-270.
 
47.
Wingenbach, S. H., Degenhart, G. J., Lindner, K. E., Dooley, J. R., Mowen, D. L., & Johnson, L. (2007). Middle school students’ attitudes toward pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering, and math. NACTA Journal, 51(1), 52-59.
 
48.
Xue, Y., & Larson, R. C. (2015). Stem crisis or stem surplus: yes and yes. Monthly Lab, 138, 1-19.
 
49.
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Report of the academic competitiveness of council, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
 
50.
United States Government Accountability office. (2014). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education assessing the relationship between education and workforce. United States Government Accountability Office, Washington D.C.