I had questions and lots of them after reading the recommended readings for a panel discussion co-hosted by Grattan Institute and State Library of Victoria on 19th July 2016. In fact, I had read most of them much earlier for some other research, and for this one I had to go to great lengths to get access to one of the articles to ensure that I have the right perspective for this talk.
Referring to a similar panel talk held almost a year back with Prof. Ian Chubb, Chief Scientist, I thought today’s event should surpass the past panel with a livelier discussion on whether Australia has stepped up its efforts on STEM.
But not so. After asserting what we already knew like moving away from an economy supported by traditional industries to knowledge economy of the 21st century being the current situation, I thought panel would critically explore how this transformation has either happened or needs to happen through STEM with the help from all corners. I only can deduce it from a passing remark made that there was an increased activity in the service industry. It could have been nice if the connection had been made as service industry is not only knowledge industry, but also is an industry to hone in soft skills and an increased awareness to public civility, engagement and nourishment.
The research work done in Australia was presented by the panelists as lagging in quantity of research being produced, but the very fact that it was not compared with other nations with similar scientific population, left lot of doubts in my mind as to the accuracy of the data and its subsequent interpretations.
While IT took center stage, the work done by Australian Computer Society (ACS) was not so to which I am a member for decades. I am sure if ACS had not been the gatekeeper, we could not have advanced enough to get the cream of the talent from around the world that way we are seeing it today in Australia.
What surprises me is that why when STEM is the topic, mathematics is not? Previous panel had acknowledged that science is in fact has been threaded so finely into our lives, we hardly notice it. The same goes with mathematics. I would rather reverse the STEM in the order of importance to make it METS. It is to be noted that Science is being enabled by mathematics, engineering and technology to a greater extent in 21st century.
There were some conflicting observations made regarding the job prospects for STEM graduates, particularly, in IT. My findings showed that many domestic STEM graduates had difficulties in competing for IT jobs that were held by migrants and hardly perceived them to be at entry levels. To make domestic students IT savvy, there was a talk arranged by ACS which touched upon the subject on whether IT should be taught when it was so integrated into almost all of the engineering disciplines. The outcome of that event was that IT may have to start as early as primary school levels. My main gripe with the current graduates was that they are going after the world when they could have been satisfied with far less to start with to begin their journey.
While contemplating on an oversupply of STEM graduates, I contemplated rather on why there was no policy in place to develop STEM industries. The growth of government supported STEM industries (NASA-like) is important to absorb the excess supply of STEM graduates, acting like a buffer, then releasing them to private market when needed. A stand by the government to promote such efforts would be a good discussion point.
It is not always possible to view colleges at the production end of the cycle and industries at the consumption end of the cycle. Supply and demand structure will not work as the graduates are not physical objects that can be manipulated like dumping them into rubbish bins when not needed and put them on shelves for consumption when needed. Societal impacts of such acts would be alarming.
It always comes down to a choice between salary and contribution for young engineers. Experienced STEM employees in their primes would wish to contribute more and but college graduates would be simply looking for a salary figure to start their lives and pay off their debt. Therefore, the discussions on STEM should be on both to really understand whether Australia as a country is keeping up with STEM or not.
I believe that the mismatch between supply and demand will continue to exist forever for couple of reasons. The usual market lag to adopt new graduates, admission policies governing student intake conflicting with the industry requirements, and, most importantly the fact that the technology is widening the space of what is possible, will always make it difficult to find the right match. It is always better to take an engineer for having secured the basic engineering skills without any regard to a single discipline requirement. While a deep knowledge is essential to solve complex problems, I think it will pan out on its own when the team collaboration starts to surpass individual contributions.
McDonald, as an example of a fast food joint, has indeed fine-tuned the supply of cows to its needs from its breeders. The breeders would know when to inseminate a cow as per the timeline set by the model that forecasts the fast food sales by the big Mac. I don’t think such a model will do any good for humans as the processes that are in place developed out of systemic thinking will be overshadowed by the intelligence of the humans.
All this brings us to question why there is reluctance in students to embrace STEM learning as opposed to a natural inclination to embrace humanities. It is shown that when given a choice, with equal pay and equal opportunities, STEM will take a back seat. I think it needs a great deal of motivation for STEM learners to hone in on abstract mathematics and understand complex engineering solutions to be successful STEM graduates. Just grinding through the curriculum offered by the universities will not be enough to transform oneself from a novice engineer to an expert. The motivational aspects and retention aspects that drive students intake into STEM is worth looking into than just dangling carrots like potential higher salaries.
While it is possible to say that any short supply can always be filled in by overseas supply when needed, the economies of scale has turned that one-off solutions into a permanent solution making it hard for domestic STEM students to compete effectively with the jobs being constantly and continuously shipped to overseas markets, while not providing higher-end job opportunities locally. This needs to be corrected no matter what stage the STEM absorption cycle of the country is.
Nothing of this nature came out of this panel except numbers and more numbers at every corner of a sentence. I was really disappointed at the emphasis placed on numbers to support what the panel members are thinking and saying rather than taking a holistic approach towards picturing Australia’s position in the STEM space when compared to other countries with similar cultural, geographical and scientific population aspects of society that, I believe, plays strongly into the hands of STEM understanding and adaptation.