This is a good article, but it does miss one incredibly important piece of the puzzle - the possibility that US citizens have an economically rational aversion to PhDs in science and engineering. A recent RAND study supports this point of view:
I think it's critical to make science and engineering a desirable career path for young americans, but simply "making it cool" isn't the way to go - and could (as the article points out) actually be destructive in that it would cause harm to students who responded to the pr campaign only to find long training times and poor career prospects relative to their friends who did law, dentistry, medicine, mba, etc.
yeah, that is an amusing observation. of course, President Obama and various talking heads don't fret about the shortage of Americans in film school.
The serious question is whether we should launch a PR campaign to encourage young people to make decisions that may lead (at least according to RAND) to long training times with poor pay and career prospects relative to other paths typically available to the "best and brightest".
If the issue is public policy, then the goal should be public good, not individual good.
It's very possible that the best and brightest could live in greater comfort as criminals than scientists, but even if that were the case, any rational government would encourage them to be scientists since that would be better for the country.
Edit: Seriously? Care to explain your reasoning, downmodders? Why would a government encourage decisions that are destructive to society?
That's not at all a bad point. There are some activities that economists view aS rent collecting (or even wealth destroying) that are lucrative for the individual. Scientists and engineers are generally seen as the opposite of this (unless it's financial engineering). Almost every government actively tries to poach engineers from abroad...
Still, I recommend you read the rand study. They discuss ways to make sci/eng more appealing rather than launching a pr campaign to merely make it appear more appealing. The second could end up creating an even greater aversion to this career path.
There is a point-of-view that movie stars/rock stars/etc don't really work that hard and get a ton of money and fame, but that seems to actually deviate from reality.
Sorry to respond to my own comment, too late for edits...
I want to point out that I'm extremely enthusiastic about majoring in science or engineering, and I think an MS program (especially an employer sponsored one) can be a great way to dig a little deeper into a field or get a background in a new discipline (ie., get an MS in CS if your undergrad was in math or physics). In fact, someone with this background who gets a jd or mba almost has a superpower in those fields. Hard Sci/Eng/Math is also just a great background to get out there and start a company or start doing high value work the moment you hit the workforce.
PhDs are a different beast. Incredibly long training, often highly specialized, generally directed toward an academic career, even if alternatives are available, and kind of scary low pay considering the intelligence level and barriers to entry. I'm not saying CS PhDs aren't employable in Industry at fine salaries, but are they more employable than someone with a BS who rocked it in the workforce for 10 years instead? Are their salaries much higher than people who got professional degrees with shorter completion times and vastly lower attrition rates? No way.
Anyway, I should acknowledge a distinction here - the RAND study is more about PhDs, whereas this article is more about general background. Engineers may not populate government, but it's the most common background among fortune 500 CEOs, way out of proportion to the general degree population.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html
I think it's critical to make science and engineering a desirable career path for young americans, but simply "making it cool" isn't the way to go - and could (as the article points out) actually be destructive in that it would cause harm to students who responded to the pr campaign only to find long training times and poor career prospects relative to their friends who did law, dentistry, medicine, mba, etc.