Jobs, Collaborations, and Women Leaders in the Global Chemistry

Chapter 2

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on February 24, 2016 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): September 2, 2015 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2015-1195.ch002

Supply and Demand of Chemists in the United States Tiffany Hoerter,*,1 Jakoah Brgoch,2 William Richard (Rick) Ewing,3 Katherine Glasgow,4 Lynne Greenblatt,5 Laura Kosbar,6 and Beatriz Rios-Mckee7 1Task

Force Chair, Committee on Economic and Professional Affairs, 2Younger Chemists Committee, 3Committee on Corporation Associates, 4Committee on Science, 5Committee on Chemistry and Public Affairs, 6Committee on Professional Training, 7Graduate Education Advisory Board, American Chemical Society, 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036, United States *E-mail: [email protected]

A Presidential Task Force on Supply and Demand of Chemists in the U.S. was appointed by ACS President Marinda Li Wu in 2013. The purpose was to gather data to inform and guide ACS National Committees as they provide programs, products and services to the ACS membership. This is the final report of this Presidential Task Force. The initial Presidential Task Force report with its three recommendations was first shared with Dr. Wu in August 2014. Pertinent recommendations were then shared with six stakeholder committees of the ACS to gather more feedback for refinement of the recommendations. The final Presidential Task Force report was issued in September 2014 and disseminated within the ACS.

© 2015 American Chemical Society In Jobs, Collaborations, and Women Leaders in the Global Chemistry Enterprise; Cheng, H. N., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


Executive Summary In 2012, ACS President-Elect Marinda Wu appointed the Presidential Task Force “Vision 2025: Helping ACS Members to Thrive in the Global Chemistry Enterprise.” One of the recommendations of the task force was: Discuss with U.S. and global stakeholders the supply and demand of chemists/jobs to bring them to a better equilibrium (1). To address this recommendation, the Task Force on the Supply and Demand of Chemists in the United States was formed during the summer of 2013. Key ACS Committee stakeholders were identified and invited to contribute. The Task Force included Tiffany Hoerter, Committee on Economic and Professional Affairs (CEPA), Task Force Chair; Jakoah Brgoch, Younger Chemists Committee (YCC); William Richard (Rick) Ewing, Committee on Corporation Associates (CAC); Katherine Glasgow, Committee on Science (ComSci); Lynne Greenblatt, Committee on Chemistry and Public Affairs (CCPA); Laura Kosbar, Committee on Professional Training (CPT); and Beatriz Rios-Mckee, Graduate Education Advisory Board (GEAB). It is the intention of the Task Force on the Supply and Demand of Chemists in the United States that the data provided and discussed in this report will be used to inform and guide ACS National Committees which provide programs, products and services to the ACS membership. It is not the Task Force’s intention to provide a comprehensive review and evaluation of the United States economic state of the supply and demand of chemists. After an extensive review of the current and historic data relating to the supply and demand of chemists in the United States, it is clear there are some notable trends. From 2000 to 2013, the chemistry bachelor’s degree supply has risen substantially and the unemployment numbers for new chemistry bachelor’s degree graduates have risen as well (2). The production and unemployment of graduate degree holding chemists (MS and PhD) have remained stable over the same time period (3). While evidence that a shortage of STEM educated laborers remains (4, 5), upon narrowing the data to chemists alone, it seems the supply of bachelor’s degree holding chemists has increased more quickly than demand (3). There also appears to be a mismatch in skill sets required by employers and those being provided during undergraduate education (4, 5). The demand for chemists in the United States has been steady but the employment landscape is shifting away from basic manufacturing towards scientific research and development services (3). Unemployment for chemists is overall lower than many other majors; however, new graduate unemployment is very high (2, 3). Finally, starting salaries are declining when adjusted for inflation (2). The data contained in this report further supports the conclusions from previous ACS reports including, "Advancing Graduate Education in the Chemical Sciences (6)" and "Innovation, Chemistry, and Jobs; ACS Presidential Task Force on Innovation in the Chemical Enterprise (7)." To address the issues concerning oversupply of bachelor’s degree graduates, the mismatching skill sets, and the shifting employment landscape, the Task Force on the Supply and Demand of Chemists in the United States is providing the following recommendations for ACS leaders, volunteers and staff: 16 In Jobs, Collaborations, and Women Leaders in the Global Chemistry Enterprise; Cheng, H. N., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.

1.

ACS should continue to support members at all career levels with services to obtain, inform, maintain, and grow their careers including: • • •


•

2.

3.

ACS Career Services: Tools to help chemists find jobs. ACS Professional Education: Training courses to refresh chemists’ skills ACS Leadership Development: Courses and workshops to develop leadership skills ACS Market Intelligence: Salary and trends in chemistry and related fields

The Committee on Economic and Professional Affairs (CEPA) should continue monitoring chemical employment data and trends, evaluate key trending parameters and continuously follow these parameters to highlight current and future trends. CEPA should inform ACS leaders, volunteers, staff and members of these trends. Questions to assess the skills desired by employers and those held by new graduates should be added to the ChemCensus to assist the ACS in establishing programs, products, and services to address these needs and deficiencies.

Introduction In recent years, the supply and demand of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) workers has been at the forefront of the public policy debate. Many reports point to a shortage of STEM workers in the US. "Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future (8)"and the subsequent publication, "Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited (9)" by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, have highlighted the shortage of STEM workers in the United States. The America COMPETES Act of 2007 was passed with the intent "to invest in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United States (10)." The legislation was reauthorized in 2010 (11), renewing US investment in STEM education and funding. There have also been several publications purporting that the STEM work shortage in the US is false. Robert N. Charette’s IEEE article "The STEM Crisis Is a Myth (12)" examines the literature on both sides and concludes that there is not a STEM shortage. The Economic Policy Institute briefing "Guestworkers in the high-skill U.S. labor market: An analysis of supply, employment, and wage trends" by Hal Salzman, Daniel Kuehn, and B. Lindsay Lowell claims there is an adequate supply of U.S. STEM workers (13). Michael S. Teitelbaum of Harvard Law School and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation has published several reports (14, 15) indicating that the current call for STEM workers is part of a "cycle of alarms over supposed shortages of scientific talent, followed by booms in training and then busts in professional opportunity (16)," 17 In Jobs, Collaborations, and Women Leaders in the Global Chemistry Enterprise; Cheng, H. N., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.

The debate over the STEM shortages informed the more focused study of the Supply and Demand of Chemists in the United States. Primary data sources for this analysis include: •


• • • • • •

Bureau of Labor and Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics (BLS-OES) (3) National Science Foundation Science and Engineering Indicators(NSFSEI) (17) American Chemical Society New Graduate Survey (ACS-NGS) (2) American Chemical Society Salary Survey (ACS-SS) (18) American Chemical Society Committee on Professional Training Survey of Chemistry Degree Granting Institutions (ACS-CPT) (19) Hard Times, College Majors, Unemployment and Earnings 2013: Not all College Majors are Created Equal (Hard Times Report) (20) Bayer Facts of Science Education XVI: U.S. STEM Workforce Shortage – Myth or Reality? Fortune 1000 Talent Recruiters on the Debate (Bayer) (4)

Figure 1. NSF-SEI (17), ACS-NGS (2), and ACS-CPT (19) bachelors chemistry degrees, 2000-2011.

Supply of Chemistry Graduates in the United States The total supply of chemistry graduates in the United States has been increasing from 2000 to the present. The data from NSF-SEI (17), ACS-NGS (2), and ACS-CPT (19) vary in total number of degrees awarded due to differing definitions of a chemist, but they all trend similarly. These data sources indicate 18 In Jobs, Collaborations, and Women Leaders in the Global Chemistry Enterprise; Cheng, H. N., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


significant increases in bachelor’s degrees in chemistry beginning in 2005 (see Figure 1). The ACS-CPT (19) data, comprised of self reported data from over 600 institutions, indicates the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded rose from around 10,000 in 2000 up to almost 16,000 in 2011, a 60% increase. The NSF-SEI (17) and ACS-NGS (2) data trend similarly. In contrast, the number of students graduating with advanced degrees has been increasing at a more gradual, stable rate from 2000 to 2011 (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. NSF-SEI (17), ACS-NGS (2), and ACS-CPT (19) graduate chemistry degrees, 2000-2011.

Stability of Chemistry Graduate Supply Evaluation of the supply data utilizing the principles of Statistical Process Control (SPC) was performed. The numbers of chemistry graduates at the BS, MS and PhD levels were evaluated based on the year over year increase. I-MR charts (21) were employed to assess the stability of supply for BS, MS and PhD chemists (see Figure 3). The percent change in graduates MS and PhD processes are both stable and within variation control, which is evidenced by no SPC rules violations in the graphical summaries. The percent change in BS graduates shows process variation control, but significant changes in the process center. This further supports that bachelor’s degree graduates are varying outside the expected statistical variation and further analysis should be completed to determine factors causing this variation. Supply Summary According to NSF-SEI (17),ACS-NGS (2), ACS-CPT (19) and the SPC evaluation, the supply of bachelor’s level chemists has increased substantially 19 In Jobs, Collaborations, and Women Leaders in the Global Chemistry Enterprise; Cheng, H. N., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


since 2005. Based on the observed increase in supply, a significant uptick in demand for bachelor’s level chemists would be required for the supply and demand of chemists to maintain equilibrium.

Figure 3. I-MR Evaluation of the supply of BS, MS and PhD chemists. 20 In Jobs, Collaborations, and Women Leaders in the Global Chemistry Enterprise; Cheng, H. N., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.

Employment of Chemists in the United States


Analysis of the BLS-OES (3) data for chemists shows steady employment over the past decade (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. BLS-OES (3) employment of chemists, 1997-2012.

Figure 5. BLS-OES (14) employment of chemists, materials scientists, biochemists & biophysicists, 2002-2013. 21 In Jobs, Collaborations, and Women Leaders in the Global Chemistry Enterprise; Cheng, H. N., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


When related disciplines, such as materials scientists and biochemists (grouped in the BLS-OES (3) with biophysicists), are included employment shows an overall positive trend over the past decade (see Figure 5). According to the Hard Times Report (20), chemistry is listed as one of the five majors with the lowest unemployment rate. This data is further supported by the NSF-SEI (17) and ACS-SS (18) (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. Comparison of unemployment data from the BLS-OES (3), NSF-SEI (17), and ACS-SS. (18)

The Shifting Employment Landscape Analysis of the BLS-OES (3) data for employer trends indicates that ‘Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing’ and ‘Scientific Research and Development Services’ have been the top two employers since 2002 (see Figure 7). ‘Architectural and Engineering Services’, which includes ‘testing services’, was also among the top five employers. In 2009, a transition occurred; the top employer changed from ‘Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing’ to ‘Scientific Research and Development Services’. Over the past decade, ‘Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing’ showed slightly positive growth (+8%) when compared to strong growth for ‘Scientific Research and Development Services (+80%) and ‘Colleges and Universities’ (~200%). For chemists, ‘Basic Chemical Manufacturing’ was one of the top five employers until 2011 when ‘Colleges and Universities’ took the #5 spot as employment in ‘Basic Chemical Manufacturing’ numbers declined. 22 In Jobs, Collaborations, and Women Leaders in the Global Chemistry Enterprise; Cheng, H. N., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


Figure 7. BLS-OES (3) key employment areas for chemists, biochemists & biophysicists, and materials scientists. Based on the BLS-OES (3) data, it appears that there is a trend away from large industrial employment of chemists and towards a services-based model. Analysis of the BLS-OES (3) category of ‘Chemical Manufacturing’ indicates that after an employment peak in 2008, this category has declined 13% (see Figure 8).

Figure 8. BLS-OES (3) employment trends in ‘Chemical Manufacturing’ category. 23 In Jobs, Collaborations, and Women Leaders in the Global Chemistry Enterprise; Cheng, H. N., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


This data is corroborated by the ACS-NGS (2), which is sent to all new graduates within the first year of their graduation. Two items agree well with the BLS-OES (3). First, those graduates who report entering industry are increasingly joining companies that are testing and service-based rather than manufacturing-based (see Figure 9). Positions in manufacturing companies are on the decline. This trend may be due to several compounding factors – off-shoring of research positions to low cost countries, increased automation for tasks which used to be performed by employees, and the shift from large internal R&D organizations to contract research (22, 23).

Figure 9. ACS-NGS (2) employment trends for recent BA/BS chemistry graduates in industrial positions (balance of respondents joined academia, government, or are self-employed).

Second, based on the ACS-NGS (2) data on employer size from 2000 to 2013 data, there is a shift away from very large companies (>10,000 employees) to medium (500 to 9,999) or small (

Jobs, Collaborations, and Women Leaders in the Global Chemistry

Recommend Documents