STEM: Definition is Everything

This is the first of three articles focusing on topics covered by the STEM report...

The first problem the Select Committee identified in their report, Higher Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects, was the very definition of a STEM subject.

“We found [the JACS] definition unsatisfactory because it is too broad and includes subjects that have not traditionally been considered STEM. An implication of such a broad definition is that there is a danger that a significant proportion of the growth in the number of students studying STEM subjects is made up of courses with little science content, thus hiding the true picture of the level of STEM skills available to meet the needs of the economy.”

The JACS3 STEM subjects are divided across 10 groups, including physical sciences. These are subdivided into 49 major subgroups (one being chemistry), then further into over seven hundred individual subjects (eg, polymer chemistry). The interactive table below provides further details.

Powered by Tableau

At the highest level, there is some debate as to whether medicine and subjects allied to medicine should be included in the STEM classification. Similar deliberation is made over the architecture group.  Within the biological sciences, some subgroups (eg, psychology, sports science and complementary medicine) are perceived as “soft sciences” which lack sufficient scientific content to be viewed as STEM subjects.

The interactive visualisation below lists the components within the STEM classification, and highlights potential issues with the current definition. The data shows the number of students that started each programme in 2010/11, and can be filtered by subject, course type (full/part time) and student experience (first degree/postgraduate).

Powered by Tableau

Some issues illustrated by the data include:

• The four components of STEM are clearly unevenly matched in the number of students they attract: Science (287k), Technology (52k), Engineering (84k), Maths (16k).
• The fundamental differences in subject groups across the science, technology, engineering and mathematics classifications mean they are likely to have very different supply and demand requirements and issues. It's difficult to comprehend how solutions to resolve a potential supply issue for chemists would be relevant to architects.
• Similarly, even within a subject group the individual subjects are very diverse (eg, chemistry, geology, astronomy and forensics in the physical sciences; biology, psychology, sports science and genetics in the biological sciences).
• Subjects allied to medicine (arbitrarily placed in the science classification in the chart) undoubtedly needs to be re-examined. While some subgroups (eg, pharmacology, toxicology and pharmacy) are considered scientific, others (eg, nursing and complementary medicine) are perhaps less so. In addition, the overwhelming number of students associated with the group (141k, the majority in nursing), massively distorts its host classification.
• Due to their popularity, the “soft sciences” further distort the science classification. For example, of the 77k biological sciences first years, 36k are studying psychology, and 17k sports science. The xkcd strip below comes to mind.

 The Select Committee made the recommendation that:

“... the Government should work together with HESA, the Research Councils, HEIs and professional bodies to formulate and apply a standard definition of STEM. The definition should derive from a statement of the competencies and skills that a STEM graduate should possess and the characteristics that a STEM course should contain, including direct STEM content.”

However, while “the Science Council... argued that science should be defined ‘as a methodology, rather than as a subject or group of subjects’” it is clear that any “methodology” must be used to create a defined set of subjects that are deemed to be STEM, rather than remaining just an inconsequential definition. The report noted that “UCAS and HESA are currently considering a fundamental revision of course subject classifications” to address these STEM issues.

Similarly, while the STEM classification may be useful in some holistic contexts, the issues of supply, demand and employment are going to be specific to individual subjects or subgroups. The ability of a government to understand or influence this from a top-down “STEM” approach seems challenging. Rather, a coordinated, bottom-up approach, perhaps led by the professional institutions of each subject (eg, the Royal Society of Chemistry), may be more effective in measuring, assessing and addressing the issues faced by each discipline; the role of government being to issue guidelines on the information required from each institution, and to provide and allocate the appropriate funding, resource or legislation.

Next week, industrial placements and careers advice...

The STEM Inquiry

Last month, the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee published their report, Higher Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects. This was the output from an inquiry announced in September 2011, whose key objectives were stated in the November call for evidence.

“Industry continues to report shortages of STEM graduates in some areas and yet at the same time a substantial proportion of STEM graduates end up working in jobs that do not require a STEM degree. The focus of this inquiry is to explore the reasons for this mismatch and how to ensure that the UK is producing a sufficient supply of STEM graduates to meet all its needs.”

In addition to the supply and demand of STEM graduates, the inquiry would also look into the quality of STEM graduates being produced.

While the main content of the report runs to almost seventy pages, it quickly becomes apparent that the key questions asked of the inquiry remain to be fully answered.

The very definition of “STEM” subjects proved controversial, varying as it does “between different bodies within and outside Government and also from country to country”. For the purpose of the inquiry, the Select Committee adopted the broad Joint Academic Coding System (JACS), although even this was deemed “unsatisfactory” as it includes “courses with little scientific content”. 

On the subject of STEM supply and demand, the Select Committee found a “lack of reliable data... [which] makes it very difficult to assess whether there is in fact a shortage of STEM graduates and postgraduates and in which sectors”. Widespread criticism was made of the data collected and methods used by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), the company that provides stakeholders “access...to a comprehensive body of reliable statistical information and analysis about UK higher education”. 

As such, scrutiny of the supply of STEM graduates was lacking, and relied on the criticised HESA data. With respect to the demand of STEM graduates, the Select Committee focussed on reports and evidence provided by, among others, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), which indicated that “employers are still having trouble recruiting STEM graduates”. They referenced a 2009 BIS study which suggested that the shortage was specific to areas such as engineering and IT, with other evidence also highlighting shortages in IT, engineering and the electronics sectors.

Examining the HESA data for postgraduate supply and demand, one key concern was that UK domesticated student numbers were increasing at a slower rate than overseas students. Indeed, “42% of PhD students who finished their doctoral degrees in 2010 were from overseas”. However, outside of research, little was known about “what roles postgraduate provision is playing”. 

With the key focus of the inquiry derailed by a lack of data, the Select Committee considered related topics. For example, why do almost half of STEM graduates go to work in non-STEM areas? (This had already been the subject of a 2011 BIS research paper, STEM graduates in non-STEM jobs, which determined there was no “clear or simple main reason”.) Similarly, are the best graduates attracted to STEM jobs? (“The evidence is only anecdotal.”)

The remaining two thirds of the report focussed on two topics: the assessment of quality in Higher Education (HE), as “the mismatch in supply and demand for STEM graduates relates in part to a lack of high quality graduates in many sectors, not necessarily the overall number”; and the effect of policy reforms on the HE sector.

Thirty three recommendations were made by the Select Committee. The following eight (paraphrased) directly related to the core aims of the inquiry:

• Define STEM properly (recommendation 1)

• Appoint a body to collect data on the supply and demand for STEM graduates (9)

• Include data for postgraduate education in the above (10)

• Commission a government study to examine the first destination of graduates and the reasons for their career choice (11)

• Suggest that HE institutions study the career progression of graduates from “softer” science courses (12)

• The appointed body (from recommendations 9 and 10) to make recommendations on which subjects should be considered Strategically Important and Vulnerable Subjects (SIVS), but the government to make the decision on which subjects are SIVS (13, 14)

• The government to set up an expert group to look at STEM postgraduate provision (15)

The remaining 25 recommendations were associated with:

• The study of maths at school, STEM teachers and careers advice (7 recommendations)

• Quality and skills gaps (13 recommendations, including two related to industrial placements)

• Policy reform (5 recommendations)

Arguably, the inquiry was unable to identify the scale of any mismatch in the supply and demand of STEM graduates. While the recommendation to set up bodies and initiate studies to provide relevant data is laudable, it will likely be at least 2-3 years before any meaningful data is available. In the discussion of unmet demand for STEM graduates, physical sciences (indeed, any science subjects) were conspicuous by their absence – emphasising the point that the definition of STEM subjects is not only too all-encompassing, but irrelevant to this discussion. It is time to deconstruct STEM into its components of science, technology, engineering and maths, and allow each specialism to investigate and address its own issues of supply, demand and quality.

8th August Jobroll

Chemistry across the scales in this week’s Jobroll.

Small: Sygnature Discovery is looking for medicinal chemists and bioscientists to work in their new facility in Nottingham. PhD, preferably with biotech/pharma experience.

Small: Redx Pharma in Liverpool is also expanding, and seeks an experienced medicinal chemist (£42k) to lead a team, manage outsourcing and contribute to multiple projects. Medchem and drug discovery experience and an aptitude for people management and coaching required.

Medium: An Oxfordshire-based electrochemical technology developer is looking for an assistant chemist (£23-28k) to carry out material characterisation, electrode prep, cell assembly and make appropriate analytical measurements. Experience in materials synthesis/characterisation, electrochemistry and a production chemistry lab required.

Large: A chemical manufacturer in the South West is hiring an R&D chemist to carry out 20L lab production (nonGMP/GMP) for process development and transfer to plant. BSc and 20L batch scale experience required.

Larger: A fine chemicals company in Merseyside is recruiting a synthetic organic manufacturing/scale-up chemist (£35-39k) to optimise current manufacturing processes.  PhD with 5+ years industrial experience (or equivalent), with experience working at 100+L scale and on plant.

Zero: The Royal Society is hunting for two science policy advisors (£26k) to undertake research, draft reports and provide support to expert committees. Experience or expertise in one of these fields required, but versatility is key: sustainability issues, such as environment, climate change, and food/energy/water security; global health; science for international development; and international security.

2nd Aug – Graduate Jobroll

Part two of the Grad Jobroll looks at office-based positions requiring little or no experience.

Two chemical emergency responders (£20-26k) are sought by an environmental consultancy company in Oxfordshire. Working in a shift pattern to provide 24/7 cover, the excellent communicator will provide information to callers dealing with chemical emergencies in the UK and abroad. There may also be the opportunity to get involved in consultancy work and project management.

Future Science Group is looking for an assistant editor in North London to work on their biomedical publishing portfolio of journals. An excellent opportunity to start a career in publishing.

A speciality chemicals company in Derbyshire is recruiting a graduate chemist (£17-18k) to provide support to their technical and sales teams. Duties include taking orders, providing quotes and dealing with technical questions. Includes opportunities to assist with conferences, exhibitions and symposia.

A company in Northamptonshire seeks a chemistry graduate – project manager (£18-22k) for a 9-month contract. Although requiring a good understanding of synthetic chemistry, the role appears to involve the coordination of synthetic chemistry projects for clinical trials, including collating study information and producing protocols. Knowledge of the clinical trials process, through placement or final year project required.

A graduate planning and scheduling engineer is required at a manufacturer in Worcestershire. Planning orders by coordinating with sales, production and operations, the role also involves learning the engineering processes being scheduled and developing IT systems.

Tessella are (again) looking for graduate scientific software developers (£23-29k) to join them in Stevenage, Abingdon and the USA. I like plugging this company because the more chemists we get working in software development, the better: there are far too may poorly-designed, user-unfriendly, feature-lacking (or over-loaded) programs that we have to endure as scientists, because there hasn’t been enough customer (chemist) input in the original design and development process. So, go learn a programming language (Jave/C-variants/VB/.NET/Python) and help save our sanity! Plus the role offers 20 days training a year, travel and extended work at customer sites and secondments. Oh, to be 21 again...

1st Aug – Graduate Jobroll

As if to make up for the recent drought of adverts, the job boards overfloweth this week – indeed, this week’s Grad Jobroll is a two-parter. First up, lab-based jobs requiring little or no experience.

MedPharm, a pharmaceutical development company in Guildford, are offering two roles. They’re looking for pharmaceutical scientists at all levels – from junior to those with 5 years pharm dev experience, and a graduate quality assurance scientist. Details are scarce, but the company itself develops therapeutic systems for topical drug delivery.

Syngenta in Bracknell are also hiring at a range of levels - from recent graduates to experienced chemists - for the role of formulation chemist (£23-31k). Duties include the design and characterisation of new agrochemicals, from lab to production scale, as well as supporting established products.

A firm in Oxfordshire that designs batteries for electric cars is hiring multiple chemists (£23-28k) to characterise materials, perform assembly operations and make measurements. This is a basic role, requiring only an A-level understanding of chemistry, and industrial experience (placement?) is essential – but for the salary, it may be worth an application.