Roosevelt Scholars in Science and Engineering
The Washington Post dated May 23, 2008 has an article about a bill recently introduced in Congress, which would "create graduate-level scholarships for students who commit to public service." These scholarships would be named after Theodore Roosevelt, "the president widely considered to be the father of the modern civil service." The bipartisan bill aims at addressing the impending wave of retirements in the federal government (according to the article, one third of the government's professional and technical employees in the next five years), and would provide up to $60,000 per academic year for each recipient to cover tuition and living expenses, provided the scholar agrees to serve at least three years in government upon graduation (and complete an internship at a federal agency while he or she is still in school).
This is not the first time the public hears about grand plans to improve the state of science and engineering, only to see these plans shelved (see an old post of mine here), so it remains to be seen whether any of this will ever be put in practice. I can't help but wonder whether the best use of scientists and engineers is in public service, and whether there will be enough Americans applying for scholarships to make this a prestigious opportunity. (The bill also targets economists and lawyers.) Shouldn't PhDs in science and engineering work in research labs or in academia, driving innovation? National labs such as Argonne or Los Alamos focus on nuclear engineering, which drastically narrows the range of scientists they attract.
The Internet being what it is, I quickly found the press release, and the text of the bill itself. It turns out that "graduate" means master's, doctoral and law students. This makes the scholarship even more appealing, since Master's student typically do not receive funding from the university they attend, and Americans are often reluctant to take on even more student loans when they graduate from college, tens - if not hundreds - of thousands of dollars in debt. The "mission-critical" occupations in the Federal government are presented in this report; the Department of Commerce, for instance, is recruiting in "information technology (including computer scientists) [and] mathematics/statistics," among other areas, and the Department of Defense needs "logistics management specialists." I was reading the tables at the beginning of the report that summarize the needs per discipline, for instance engineering, across all agencies, and I was struck by the recurrence of "general engineering." Now, few universities actually offer such a degree, but I assume the government wants well-rounded engineers, and it seems that industrial engineers would fit that profile nicely. Unfortunately, industrial engineering suffers from its lack of name recognition, and many managers in government might not be aware of the contributions industrial engineers, with their engineering skills and their business knowledge, could make in public service.
Page.2 of the Post article in its online version also mentions recently introduced legislation that "would offer free education to undergraduates in exchange for their pledge to work for five years in local, state or federal government jobs." Information on what has been named the U.S. Public Service Academy is available here. I was surprised to learn, when I browsed through the website, that the legislation to create the academy was introduced over a year ago, in March 2007 - it seems that this should have received attention in the press earlier. Then I realized that the legislators are not simply talking about paying for college for four years in exchange for a five-year commitment after graduation, but about creating a real school from scratch. Graduates would then work as teachers, park rangers, police officers. (See this page for more details.) Someone should explain to me why legislators can't model the academy on the ROTC model, where students attend a regular school but take additional courses. While the recent example of Olin College shows a top university can be created from scratch and become very successful almost overnight, it is not clear whether the federal government has the stamina to pull that one off.
In the end, the contribution of these bills might be limited to raising the issue of manpower shortage in public service in the collective consciousness. They'll serve as a free advertising campaign, if nothing else.
This is not the first time the public hears about grand plans to improve the state of science and engineering, only to see these plans shelved (see an old post of mine here), so it remains to be seen whether any of this will ever be put in practice. I can't help but wonder whether the best use of scientists and engineers is in public service, and whether there will be enough Americans applying for scholarships to make this a prestigious opportunity. (The bill also targets economists and lawyers.) Shouldn't PhDs in science and engineering work in research labs or in academia, driving innovation? National labs such as Argonne or Los Alamos focus on nuclear engineering, which drastically narrows the range of scientists they attract.
The Internet being what it is, I quickly found the press release, and the text of the bill itself. It turns out that "graduate" means master's, doctoral and law students. This makes the scholarship even more appealing, since Master's student typically do not receive funding from the university they attend, and Americans are often reluctant to take on even more student loans when they graduate from college, tens - if not hundreds - of thousands of dollars in debt. The "mission-critical" occupations in the Federal government are presented in this report; the Department of Commerce, for instance, is recruiting in "information technology (including computer scientists) [and] mathematics/statistics," among other areas, and the Department of Defense needs "logistics management specialists." I was reading the tables at the beginning of the report that summarize the needs per discipline, for instance engineering, across all agencies, and I was struck by the recurrence of "general engineering." Now, few universities actually offer such a degree, but I assume the government wants well-rounded engineers, and it seems that industrial engineers would fit that profile nicely. Unfortunately, industrial engineering suffers from its lack of name recognition, and many managers in government might not be aware of the contributions industrial engineers, with their engineering skills and their business knowledge, could make in public service.
Page.2 of the Post article in its online version also mentions recently introduced legislation that "would offer free education to undergraduates in exchange for their pledge to work for five years in local, state or federal government jobs." Information on what has been named the U.S. Public Service Academy is available here. I was surprised to learn, when I browsed through the website, that the legislation to create the academy was introduced over a year ago, in March 2007 - it seems that this should have received attention in the press earlier. Then I realized that the legislators are not simply talking about paying for college for four years in exchange for a five-year commitment after graduation, but about creating a real school from scratch. Graduates would then work as teachers, park rangers, police officers. (See this page for more details.) Someone should explain to me why legislators can't model the academy on the ROTC model, where students attend a regular school but take additional courses. While the recent example of Olin College shows a top university can be created from scratch and become very successful almost overnight, it is not clear whether the federal government has the stamina to pull that one off.
In the end, the contribution of these bills might be limited to raising the issue of manpower shortage in public service in the collective consciousness. They'll serve as a free advertising campaign, if nothing else.
Comments