This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-114 
entitled 'Higher Education: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, 
and Mathematics Programs and Related Trends' which was released on 
October 13, 2005. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Chairman, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

October 2005: 

Higher Education: 

Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Programs and 
Related Trends: 

GAO-06-114: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-06-114, a report to the Chairman, Committee on Rules, 
House of Representatives: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The United States has long been known as a world leader in scientific 
and technological innovation. To help maintain this advantage, the 
federal government has spent billions of dollars on education programs 
in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields 
for many years. However, concerns have been raised about the nation’s 
ability to maintain its global technological competitive advantage in 
the future. 

This report presents information on (1) the number of federal programs 
funded in fiscal year 2004 that were designed to increase the number of 
students and graduates pursuing STEM degrees and occupations or improve 
educational programs in STEM fields, and what agencies report about 
their effectiveness; (2) how the numbers, percentages, and 
characteristics of students, graduates, and employees in STEM fields 
have changed over the years; and (3) factors cited by educators and 
others as affecting students’ decisions about pursing STEM degrees and 
occupations, and suggestions that have been made to encourage more 
participation. 

GAO received written and/or technical comments from several agencies. 
While one agency, the National Science Foundation, raised several 
questions about the findings, the others generally agreed with the 
findings and conclusion and several agencies commended GAO for this 
work. 

What GAO Found: 

Officials from 13 federal civilian agencies reported spending about 
$2.8 billion in fiscal year 2004 for 207 education programs designed to 
increase the numbers of students and graduates or improve educational 
programs in STEM fields, but agencies reported little about their 
effectiveness. The National Institutes of Health and the National 
Science Foundation had most of the programs and spent most of the 
funds. Officials also reported that evaluations were completed or under 
way for about half of the programs. 

Federal STEM Education Programs and Funding by Agency, Fiscal Year 
2004: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

While the total numbers of students, graduates, and employees in STEM 
fields increased, changes in the numbers and percentages of women, 
minorities, and international students varied during the periods 
reviewed. From academic year 1995-1996 to 2003-2004, the percentage of 
students in STEM fields increased from 21 to 23 percent. Changes in the 
percentages of domestic minority students varied by group. From 
academic year 1994-1995 to 2002-2003, the number of graduates in STEM 
fields increased 8 percent, but this was less than the 30 percent 
increase in graduates in non-STEM fields. International graduates 
continued to earn about one-third or more of the advanced degrees in 
three STEM fields. Between calendar years 1994 and 2003, employment in 
STEM fields increased 23 percent compared to 17 percent in non-STEM 
fields, and there was no statistically significant change in the 
percentage of women employees. 

Educators and others cited several factors that affected students’ 
decisions about pursuing STEM degrees and occupations, and made 
suggestions to encourage more participation. They said teacher quality 
at the kindergarten to 12th grades, the mathematics and science courses 
completed in high school, and a mentor, especially for women and 
minorities, influenced domestic students’ decisions. Also, these 
sources said that opportunities outside the United States and the visa 
process affected international students’ decisions. To encourage more 
participation in STEM fields, educators and others made several 
suggestions. But before adopting any of them, it is important to know 
the extent to which existing STEM education programs are appropriately 
targeted and making the best use of available federal resources. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-114. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Cornelia M. Ashby at 
(202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

More than 200 Federal Education Programs Are Designed to Increase the 
Numbers of Students and Graduates or Improve Educational Programs in 
STEM Fields, but Most Have Not Been Evaluated: 

Numbers of Students, Graduates, and Employees in STEM Fields Generally 
Increased, but Percentage Changes Varied: 

University Officials and Others Cited Several Factors That Influence 
Decisions about Participation in STEM Fields and Suggested Ways to 
Encourage Greater Participation: 

Concluding Observations: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: List of 207 Federal STEM Education Programs: 

Appendix III: Federal STEM Education Programs Funded at $10 Million or 
More: 

Appendix IV: Data on Students and Graduates in STEM Fields: 

Appendix V: Confidence Intervals for Estimates of Students at the 
Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctoral Levels: 

Appendix VI: Confidence Intervals for Estimates of STEM Employment by 
Gender, Race or Ethnicity, and Wages and Salaries: 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Commerce: 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human 
Services: 

Appendix IX: Comments from the National Science Foundation: 

Appendix X: Comments from the National Science and Technology Council: 

Appendix XI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Bibliography: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Sources of Data, Data Obtained, Time Span of Data, and Years 
Analyzed: 

Table 2: List of STEM Fields Based on NCES's NPSAS and IPEDS Data and 
BLS's CPS Data: 

Table 3: Percentage of the U.S. Population for Selected Racial or 
Ethnic Groups in the Civilian Labor Force, Calendar Years 1994 and 
2003: 

Table 4: Number of STEM Education Programs Reported by Federal Civilian 
Agencies: 

Table 5: Funding Levels for Federal STEM Education Programs in Fiscal 
Year 2004: 

Table 6: Program Goals and Numbers of STEM Programs with One or 
Multiple Goals: 

Table 7: Numbers of STEM Programs with One or Multiple Types of 
Assistance and Beneficiaries: 

Table 8: Numbers of STEM Programs Targeted to One Group and Multiple 
Groups: 

Table 9: Estimated Changes in the Numbers and Percentages of Students 
in the STEM and Non-STEM Fields across All Education Levels, Academic 
Years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: 

Table 10: Estimated Percentage Changes in the Numbers and Percentages 
of Domestic Minority Students in STEM fields for All Education Levels 
for Academic Years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: 

Table 11: Estimated Changes in Numbers of International Students in 
STEM fields by Education Levels from the 1995-1996 Academic Year to the 
2003-2004 Academic Year: 

Table 12: Numbers of Graduates and Percentage Changes in STEM and Non-
STEM Fields across All Degree Levels from the 1994-1995 Academic Year 
to the 2002-2003 Academic Year: 

Table 13: Numbers and Percentage Changes in Men and Women Graduates 
with STEM Degrees by Education Level and Field for Academic Years 1994-
1995 and 2002-2003: 

Table 14: Numbers and Percentage Changes in Domestic Minority Graduates 
in STEM Fields by Education Levels and Race or Ethnicity for Academic 
Years 1994-1995 and 2002-2003: 

Table 15: Changes in Numbers and Percentages of International Graduates 
in STEM fields at the Master's and Doctoral Degree Levels, 1994-1995 
and 2002-2003 Academic Years: 

Table 16: Estimated Numbers and Percentages of Employees in STEM Fields 
by Gender in Calendar Years 1994 and 2003 (numbers in thousands): 

Table 17: Estimated Percentages of STEM Employees by Selected Racial or 
Ethnic Group for Calendar Years 1994 and 2003: 

Table 18: Sources of Data, Data Obtained, Time Span of Data, and Years 
Analyzed: 

Table 19: Classification codes and Occupations, 2002-2003: 

Table 20: Classification codes and occupations, 1994-2001: 

Table 21: Federal STEM Education Programs Funded in FY 2004: 

Table 22: Federal STEM Education Programs Funded at $10 Million or More 
during Fiscal Year 2004 or Fiscal Year 2005: 

Table 23: Estimated Numbers of Students in STEM Fields by Education 
Level for Academic Years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: 

Table 24: Estimated Percentages of Students by Gender and STEM Field 
for Academic Years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: 

Table 25: Estimated Number of Women Students and Percentage Change by 
Education Level and STEM Field for Academic Years 1995-1996 and 2003-
2004: 

Table 26: Comparisons in the Percentage of STEM Graduates by Field and 
Gender for Academic Years 1994-1995 and 2002-2003: 

Table 27: Estimated Changes in the Numbers and Percentages of Students 
in the STEM and Non-STEM Fields across All Education Levels, Academic 
Years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 (95 percent confidence intervals): 

Table 28: Numbers of Students by Education Level in all STEM Fields for 
Academic Years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 (95 percent confidence 
intervals): 

Table 29: Estimated Numbers and Percentage Changes in Women Students in 
STEM Fields, Academic Years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 (95 percent 
confidence intervals): 

Table 30: Estimated Percentage Changes in Bachelor's, Master's, and 
Doctoral Students in STEM Fields, Academic Years 1995-1996 and 2003-
2004 (95 percent confidence intervals): 

Table 31: Estimates of STEM Students by Gender and Field for Academic 
Years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 (95 percent confidence intervals): 

Table 32: Estimates of Students for Selected Racial or Ethnic Groups in 
STEM Fields for All Education Levels and Fields for the Academic Years 
1995-1996 and 2002-2003 (95 percent confidence intervals): 

Table 33: Estimates of International Students in STEM Fields by 
Education Levels for Academic Years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 (95 percent 
confidence intervals): 

Table 34: Estimated Total Number of Employees by STEM Field between 
Calendar Years 1994 and 2003: 

Table 35: Estimated Numbers of Employees in STEM Fields by Gender for 
Calendar Years 1994 and 2003: 

Table 36: Estimated Changes in STEM Employment by Gender for Calendar 
Years 1994 and 2003: 

Table 37: Estimated Percentages of STEM Employees for Selected Racial 
or Ethnic Groups for Calendar Years 1994 and 2003: 

Table 38: Estimated Changes in Median Annual Wages and Salaries in the 
STEM Fields for Calendar Years 1994 and 2003: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Amounts Funded by Agencies for STEM-Related Federal Education 
Programs in Fiscal Year 2004: 

Figure 2: Key Changes in Students, Graduates, and Employees in STEM 
Fields: 

Figure 3: Percentage Changes in Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctoral 
Graduates in STEM Fields from Academic Year 1994-1995 to Academic Year 
2002-2003: 

Figure 4: Estimated Numbers of Employees in STEM Fields from Calendar 
Years 1994 through 2003: 

Figure 5: Estimated Median Annual Wages and Salaries in STEM Fields for 
Calendar Years 1994 through 2003: 

Abbreviations: 

BEST: Building Engineering and Science Talent: 

BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics: 

CGS: Council of Graduate Schools: 

CLF: civilian labor force: 

COS: Committee on Science: 

CPS: Current Population Survey: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

HHS: Health and Human Services: 

HRSA: Health Resources and Services Administration: 

IPEDS: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System: 

NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

NCES: National Center for Education Statistics: 

NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act: 

NIH: National Institutes of Health: 

NPSAS: National Postsecondary Student Aid Study: 

NSF: National Science Foundation: 

NSTC: National Science and Technology Council: 

SAO: Security Advisory Opinion: 

SEVIS: Student and Exchange Visitor Information System: 

STEM: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

October 12, 2005: 

The Honorable David Dreier: 
Chairman, Committee on Rules: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

The United States has long been known as a world leader in scientific 
and technological innovation. To help maintain this advantage, the 
federal government has spent billions of dollars on education programs 
in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields 
for many years. Some of these programs were designed to increase the 
numbers of women and minorities pursuing degrees in STEM fields. In 
addition, for many years, thousands of international students came to 
the United States to study and work in STEM fields. However, concerns 
have been raised about the nation's ability to maintain its global 
technological competitive advantage in the future. In spite of the 
billions of dollars spent to encourage students and graduates to pursue 
studies in STEM fields or improve STEM educational programs, the 
percentage of United States students earning bachelor's degrees in STEM 
fields has been relatively constant--about a third of bachelor's 
degrees--since 1977. Furthermore, after the events of September 11, 
2001, the United States established several new systems and processes 
to help enhance border security. In some cases, implementation of these 
new systems and processes, which established requirements for several 
federal agencies, higher education institutions, and potential 
students, made it more difficult for international students to enter 
this country to study and work. 

In the last few years, many reports and news articles have been 
published, and several bills have been introduced in Congress that 
address issues related to STEM education and occupations. This report 
presents information on (1) the number of federal civilian education 
programs funded in fiscal year 2004 that were designed to increase the 
numbers of students and graduates pursuing STEM degrees and occupations 
or improve educational programs in STEM fields and what agencies report 
about their effectiveness; (2) how the numbers, percentages, and 
characteristics of students, graduates, and employees in STEM fields 
have changed over the years; and (3) factors cited by educators and 
others as influencing people's decisions about pursuing STEM degrees 
and occupations, and suggestions that have been made to encourage 
greater participation in STEM fields. To determine the number of 
programs designed to increase the numbers of students and graduates 
pursuing STEM degrees and occupations, we identified 15 federal 
departments and agencies as having STEM programs, and we developed and 
conducted a survey asking each department or agency to provide 
information on its education programs, including information about 
their effectiveness.[Footnote 1] We received responses from 14 of them, 
the Department of Defense did not participate, and we determined that 
at least 13 agencies had STEM education programs during fiscal year 
2004 that met our criteria. 

To describe how the numbers of students, graduates, and employees in 
STEM fields have changed, we analyzed and reported data from the 
Department of Education's (Education) National Center for Education 
Statistics (NCES) and the Department of Labor's (Labor) Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS). Specifically, as shown in table 1, we used the 
National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) and the Integrated 
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) from NCES and the Current 
Population Survey (CPS) data from BLS. We assessed the data for 
reliability and reasonableness and found them to be sufficiently 
reliable for the purposes of this report. 

Table 1: Sources of Data, Data Obtained, Time Span of Data, and Years 
Analyzed: 

Department: Education; 
Agency: NCES; 
Database: NPSAS; 
Data obtained: College student enrollment; 
Time span of data: 9 years; 
Years analyzed: Academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004. 

Department: Education; 
Agency: NCES; 
Database: IPEDS; 
Data obtained: Graduation/degrees; 
Time span of data: 9 years; 
Years analyzed: Academic years 1994-1995 and 2002-2003. 

Department: Labor; 
Agency: BLS; 
Database: CPS; 
Data obtained: Employment; 
Time span of data: 10 years; 
Years analyzed: Calendar years 1994 through 2003. 

Sources: NCES's National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) and 
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and BLS's 
Current Population Survey (CPS) data. 

Note: Enrollment and employment information are based on sample data 
and are subject to sampling error. The 95-percent confidence intervals 
for student enrollment estimates are contained in appendix V of this 
report. Percentage estimates for STEM employment have 95-percent 
confidence intervals of within +/-6 percentage points and other 
employment estimates (such as wages and salaries) have confidence 
intervals of within +/-10 percent of the estimate, unless otherwise 
noted. See appendixes I, V, and VI for additional information. 

[End of table] 

To obtain perspectives on the factors that influence people's decisions 
about pursuing STEM degrees and occupations, and to obtain suggestions 
for encouraging greater participation in STEM fields, we interviewed 
educators and administrators in eight colleges and universities (the 
University of California Los Angeles and the University of Southern 
California in California; Clark Atlanta University, Georgia Institute 
of Technology, and Spelman College in Georgia; the University of 
Illinois; Purdue University in Indiana; and Pennsylvania State 
University). We selected these colleges and universities to include a 
mix of public and private institutions, provide geographic diversity, 
and include a few minority-serving institutions, including one (Spelman 
College) that serves only women students. In addition, most of the 
institutions had large total numbers of students, including 
international students, enrolled in STEM fields. We also asked 
officials from the eight universities to identify current students to 
whom we could send an e-mail survey. We received responses from 31 
students from five of these institutions. In addition, we interviewed 
federal agency officials and representatives from associations and 
education organizations, and analyzed reports on various topics related 
to STEM education and occupations. Appendix I contains a more detailed 
discussion of our scope and methodology. We conducted our work between 
October 2004 and October 2005 in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief: 

Officials from 13 federal civilian agencies reported having 207 
education programs funded in fiscal year 2004 that were designed to 
increase the numbers of students and graduates pursuing STEM degrees 
and occupations or improve educational programs in STEM fields, but 
they reported little about the effectiveness of these programs. The 13 
agencies reported spending about $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2004 for 
these programs. According to the survey responses, the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) 
sponsored 99 of the 207 programs and spent about $2 billion of the 
approximate $2.8 billion. The program costs ranged from $4,000 for a 
national scholars program sponsored by the Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) to about $547 million for an NIH program that is designed to 
develop and enhance research training opportunities for individuals in 
biomedical, behavioral, and clinical research by supporting training 
programs at institutions of higher learning. Officials reported that 
most of the 207 programs had multiple goals, and many were targeted to 
multiple groups. For example, 2 programs were identified as having one 
goal of attracting and preparing students at any education level to 
pursue coursework in STEM areas, while 112 programs had this as one of 
multiple goals. Agency officials also reported that evaluations were 
completed or under way for about half of the programs, and most of the 
completed evaluations reported that the programs had been effective and 
achieved established goals. However, some programs that have not been 
evaluated have operated for many years. 

While the total numbers of students, graduates, and employees have 
increased in STEM fields, changes in the numbers and percentages of 
women, minorities and international students varied during the periods 
reviewed. From the 1995-1996 academic year to the 2003-2004 academic 
year, the number of students increased in STEM fields by 21 percent--
more than the 11 percent increase in non-STEM fields. Also, students 
enrolled in STEM fields increased from 21 percent to 23 percent of all 
students. Changes in the numbers and percentages of domestic minority 
students varied by group. For example, the number of African American 
students increased 69 percent and the number of Hispanic students 
increased 33 percent. The total number of graduates in STEM fields 
increased by 8 percent from the 1994-1995 academic year to the 2002-
2003 academic year, while graduates in non-STEM fields increased 30 
percent. Further, the numbers of graduates decreased in at least four 
of eight STEM fields at each education level. The total number of 
domestic minority graduates in STEM fields increased, and international 
graduates continued to earn about one-third or more of the master's and 
doctoral degrees in three fields. Moreover, from 1994 to 2003, 
employment increased by 23 percent in STEM fields as compared with 17 
percent in non-STEM fields. African American employees continued to be 
less than 10 percent of all STEM employees, and there was no 
statistically significant change in the percentage of women employees. 

Educators and others cited several factors as influencing students' 
decisions about pursuing STEM degrees and occupations, and they 
suggested many ways to encourage more participation in STEM fields. 
Studies, education experts, university officials, and others cited 
teacher quality at the kindergarten through 12th grade levels and 
students' high school preparation in mathematics and science courses as 
major factors that influence domestic students' decisions about 
pursuing STEM degrees and occupations. In addition, university 
officials, students, and studies identified mentoring as a key factor 
for women and minorities. Also, according to university officials, 
education experts, and reports, international students' decisions about 
pursuing STEM degrees and occupations in the United States are 
influenced by yet other factors, including more stringent visa 
requirements and increased educational opportunities outside the United 
States. We have reported that several aspects of the visa process have 
been improved, but further steps could be taken. In order to promote 
participation in the STEM fields, officials at most of the eight 
universities visited and current students offered suggestions that 
focused on four areas: teacher quality, mathematics and science 
preparation and courses, outreach to underrepresented groups, and the 
federal role in STEM education. The students who responded to our e-
mail survey generally agreed with most of the suggestions and expressed 
their desires for better mathematics and science preparation for 
college. However, before adopting such suggestions, it is important to 
know the extent to which existing STEM education programs are 
appropriately targeted and making the best use of available federal 
resources. 

We received written comments on a draft of this report from the 
Department of Commerce, the Department of Health and Human Services, 
and the National Science and Technology Council. These agencies 
generally agreed with our findings and conclusions. We also received 
written comments from the National Science Foundation which questioned 
our findings related to program evaluations, interagency collaboration, 
and the methodology we used to support our findings on the factors that 
influenced decisions about pursing STEM fields. Also, the National 
Science Foundation provided information to clarify examples cited in 
the report, stated that the data categories were not clear, and 
commented on the graduate level enrollment data we used. We revised the 
report to acknowledge that the National Science Foundation uses a 
variety of mechanisms to evaluate its programs and we added a 
bibliography that identifies the reports and research used during the 
course of this review to address the comment about our methodology 
related to the factors that influenced decisions about pursuing STEM 
fields. We also revised the report to clarify the examples and the data 
categories and to explain the reasons for selecting the enrollment data 
we used. However, we did not make changes to address the comment 
related to interagency collaboration for the reason explained in the 
agency comments section of this report. The written comments are 
reprinted in appendixes VII, VIII, IX, and X. In addition, we received 
technical comments from the Departments of Commerce, Health and Human 
Services, Homeland Security, Labor, and Transportation, and the 
Environmental Protection Agency and National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, which we incorporated when appropriate. 

Background: 

STEM includes many fields of study and occupations. Based on the 
National Science Foundations' categorization of STEM fields, we 
developed STEM fields of study from NCES's National Postsecondary 
Student Aid Study (NPSAS) and Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 
System (IPEDS), and identified occupations from BLS's Current 
Population Survey (CPS). Using these data sources, we developed nine 
STEM fields for students, eight STEM fields for graduates, and four 
broad STEM fields for occupations. Table 2 lists these STEM fields and 
occupations and examples of subfields. Additional information on STEM 
occupations is provided in appendix I. 

Table 2: List of STEM Fields Based on NCES's NPSAS and IPEDS Data and 
BLS's CPS Data: 

Enrollment-NCES' NPSAS data: Agricultural sciences, Biological 
sciences; 
Degrees-NCES' IPEDS data: Biological/agricultural sciences; 
* Botany; 
* Zoology; 
* Dairy; 
* Forestry; 
* Poultry; 
* Wildlife management; 

Degrees-NCES' IPEDS data: Earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences; 
* Geology; 
* Geophysics and seismology. 

Occupations-BLS' CPS data: Science; 
* Agricultural and food scientists; 
* Astronomers and physicists; 
* Atmospheric and space scientists; 
* Biological scientists; 
* Chemists and materials scientists; 
* Environmental scientists and geoscientists; 
* Nurses; 
* Psychologists; 
* Sociologists; 
* Urban and regional planners. 

Enrollment-NCES' NPSAS data: Physical sciences; 
Degrees-NCES' IPEDS data: Physical sciences; 
* Chemistry; 
* Physics. 

Enrollment-NCES' NPSAS data: Psychology; 
Degrees-NCES' IPEDS data: Psychology; 
* Clinical; 
* Social. 

Enrollment-NCES' NPSAS data: Social sciences; 
Degrees-NCES' IPEDS data: Social sciences; 
* Political science; 
* Sociology. 

Enrollment-NCES' NPSAS data: Technology; 
Degrees-NCES' IPEDS data: Technology; 
* Solar; 
* Automotive engineering; 
Occupations-BLS' CPS data: Technology; 
* Clinical laboratory technologists and technicians; 
* Diagnostic-related technologists and technicians; 
* Medical, dental, and ophthalmic laboratory technicians. 

Enrollment-NCES' NPSAS data: Engineering; 
Degrees-NCES' IPEDS data: Engineering; 
* Aerospace, aeronautical, and astronautical; 
* Architectural; 
* Chemical; 
* Civil; 
* Electrical, electronics, and communication; 
* Nuclear; 
Occupations-BLS' CPS data: Engineering; 
* Architects, except naval; 
* Aerospace engineers; 
* Chemical engineers; 
* Civil engineers; 
* Electrical and electronic engineers; 
* Nuclear engineers. 

Enrollment-NCES' NPSAS data: Computer sciences/Mathematics; 
Degrees-NCES' IPEDS data: Mathematics/computer sciences; 
* Actuarial science; 
* Applied mathematics; 
* Mathematical statistics; 
* Operations research; 
* Data processing; 
* Programming; 
Occupations-BLS' CPS data: Mathematics and computer sciences; 
* Computer scientists and systems analysts; 
* Computer programmers; 
* Computer software engineers; 
* Actuaries; 
* Mathematicians; 
* Statisticians. 

Sources: NCES for NPSAS and IPEDS data; CPS for occupations. 

Note: This table is not designed to show a direct relationship from 
enrollment to occupation, but to provide examples of majors, degrees, 
and occupations in STEM fields from the three sources of data. 

[End of table] 

Many of the STEM fields require completion of advanced courses in 
mathematics or science, subjects that are introduced and developed at 
the kindergarten through 12th grade level, and the federal government 
has taken steps to help improve achievement in these and other 
subjects. Enacted in 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) seeks 
to improve the academic achievement of all of the nation's school-aged 
children. NCLBA requires that states develop and implement academic 
content and achievement standards in mathematics, science and the 
reading or language arts. All students are required to participate in 
statewide assessments during their elementary and secondary school 
years. Improving teacher quality is another goal of NCLBA as a strategy 
to raise student academic achievement. Specifically, all teachers 
teaching core academic subjects must be highly qualified by the end of 
the 2005-2006 school year.[Footnote 2] NCLBA generally defines highly 
qualified teachers as those that have (1) a bachelor's degree, (2) 
state certification, and (3) subject area knowledge for each academic 
subject they teach. 

The federal government also plays a role in coordinating federal 
science and technology issues. The National Science and Technology 
Council (NSTC) was established in 1993 and is the principal means for 
the Administration to coordinate science and technology among the 
diverse parts of the federal research and development areas. One 
objective of NSTC is to establish clear national goals for federal 
science and technology investments in areas ranging from information 
technologies and health research to improving transportation systems 
and strengthening fundamental research. NSTC is responsible for 
preparing research and development strategies that are coordinated 
across federal agencies in order to accomplish these multiple national 
goals. 

In addition, the federal government, universities and colleges, and 
others have developed programs to provide opportunities for all 
students to pursue STEM education and occupations.[Footnote 3] 
Additional steps have been taken to increase the numbers of women, 
minorities, and students with disadvantaged backgrounds in the STEM 
fields, such as providing additional academic and research 
opportunities. According to the 2000 Census, 52 percent of the total 
U.S. population 18 and over were women; in 2003, members of racial or 
ethnic groups constituted from 0.5 percent to 12.6 percent of the 
civilian labor force (CLF), as shown in table 3. 

Table 3: Percentage of the U.S. Population for Selected Racial or 
Ethnic Groups in the Civilian Labor Force, Calendar Years 1994 and 
2003: 

Race or ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino origin; 
Percentage of U.S. population in the CLF, 1994: 8.9%; 
Percentage of U.S. population in the CLF, 2003: 12.6%. 

Race or ethnicity: Black or African American; 
Percentage of U.S. population in the CLF, 1994: 10.8%; 
Percentage of U.S. population in the CLF, 2003: 10.7%. 

Race or ethnicity: Asian; 
Percentage of U.S. population in the CLF, 1994: 2.8%; 
Percentage of U.S. population in the CLF, 2003: 4.4%. 

Race or ethnicity: American Indian or Alaska Native; 
Percentage of U.S. population in the CLF, 1994: 0.5%; 
Percentage of U.S. population in the CLF, 2003: 0.5%. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon March 1994 and March 2003 CPS data. 

[End of table] 

In addition to domestic students, international students have pursued 
STEM degrees and worked in STEM occupations in the United States. To do 
so, international students and scholars must obtain visas.[Footnote 4] 
International students who wish to study in the United States must 
first apply to a Student and Exchange Visitor Information System 
(SEVIS) certified school. In order to enroll students from other 
nations, U.S. colleges and universities must be certified by the 
Student and Exchange Visitor Program within the Department of Homeland 
Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement organization. As of 
February 2004, nearly 9,000 technical schools and colleges and 
universities had been certified. SEVIS, is an Internet-based system 
that maintains data on international students and exchange visitors 
before and during their stay in the United States. Upon admitting a 
student, the school enters the student's name and other information 
into the SEVIS database. At this time the student may apply for a 
student visa. In some cases, a Security Advisory Opinion (SAO) from the 
Department of State (State) may be needed to determine whether or not 
to issue a visa to the student. SAOs are required for a number of 
reasons, including concerns that a visa applicant may engage in the 
illegal transfer of sensitive technology. An SAO based on technology 
transfer concerns is known as Visas Mantis and, according to State 
officials, is the most common type of SAO applied to science 
applicants.[Footnote 5] In April 2004, the Congressional Research 
Service reported that State maintains a technology alert list that 
includes 16 sensitive areas of study. The list was produced in an 
effort to help the United States prevent the illegal transfer of 
controlled technology and includes chemical and biotechnology 
engineering, missile technology, nuclear technology, robotics, and 
advanced computer technology.[Footnote 6] 

Many foreign workers enter the United States annually through the H-1B 
visa program, which assists U.S. employers in temporarily filling 
specialty occupations.[Footnote 7] Employed workers may stay in the 
United States on an H-1B visa for up to 6 years. The current cap on the 
number of H-1B visas that can be granted is 65,000. The law exempts 
certain workers, however, from this cap, including those who are 
employed or have accepted employment in specified positions. Moreover, 
up to 20,000 exemptions are allowed for those holding a master's degree 
or higher. 

More than 200 Federal Education Programs Are Designed to Increase the 
Numbers of Students and Graduates or Improve Educational Programs in 
STEM Fields, but Most Have Not Been Evaluated: 

Officials from 13 federal civilian agencies reported having 207 
education programs funded in fiscal year 2004 that were specifically 
established to increase the numbers of students and graduates pursuing 
STEM degrees and occupations, or improve educational programs in STEM 
fields, but they reported little about the effectiveness of these 
programs.[Footnote 8] These 13 federal agencies reported spending about 
$2.8 billion for their STEM education programs. Taken together, NIH and 
NSF sponsored nearly half of the programs and spent about 71 percent of 
the funds. In addition, agencies reported that most of the programs had 
multiple goals, and many were targeted to multiple groups. Although 
evaluations have been done or were under way for about half of the 
programs, little is known about the extent to which most STEM programs 
are achieving their desired results. Coordination among the federal 
STEM education programs has been limited. However, in 2003, the 
National Science and Technology Council formed a subcommittee to 
address STEM education and workforce policy issues across federal 
agencies. 

Federal Civilian Agencies Reported Sponsoring over 200 STEM Education 
Programs and Spending Billions in Fiscal Year 2004: 

Officials from 13 federal civilian agencies provided information on 207 
STEM education programs funded in fiscal year 2004. The numbers of 
programs ranged from 51 to 1 per agency with two agencies, NIH and NSF, 
sponsoring nearly half of the programs--99 of 207. Table 4 provides a 
summary of the numbers of programs by agency, and appendix II contains 
a list of the 207 STEM education programs and funding levels for fiscal 
year 2004 by agency. 

Table 4: Number of STEM Education Programs Reported by Federal Civilian 
Agencies: 

Federal agency: Department of Health and Human Services/National 
Institutes of Health; 
Number of STEM education programs: 51. 

Federal agency: National Science Foundation; 
Number of STEM education programs: 48. 

Federal agency: Department of Energy; 
Number of STEM education programs: 26. 

Federal agency: Environmental Protection Agency; 
Number of STEM education programs: 21. 

Federal agency: Department of Agriculture; 
Number of STEM education programs: 16. 

Federal agency: Department of Commerce; 
Number of STEM education programs: 13. 

Federal agency: Department of the Interior; 
Number of STEM education programs: 13. 

Federal agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 
Number of STEM education programs: 5. 

Federal agency: Department of Education; 
Number of STEM education programs: 4. 

Federal agency: Department of Transportation; 
Number of STEM education programs: 4. 

Federal agency: Department of Health and Human Services/Health 
Resources and Services Administration; 
Number of STEM education programs: 3. 

Federal agency: Department of Health and Human Services/Indian Health 
Service; 
Number of STEM education programs: 2. 

Federal agency: Department of Homeland Security; 
Number of STEM education programs: 1. 

Total; 
Number of STEM education programs: 207. 

Source: GAO survey responses from 13 federal agencies. 

[End of table] 

Federal civilian agencies reported that approximately $2.8 billion was 
spent on STEM education programs in fiscal year 2004.[Footnote 9] The 
funding levels for STEM education programs among the agencies ranged 
from about $998 million to about $4.7 million. NIH and NSF accounted 
for about 71 percent of the total--about $2 billion of the approximate 
$2.8 billion. NIH spent about $998 million in fiscal year 2004, about 
3.6 percent of its $28 billion appropriation, and NSF spent about $997 
million, which represented 18 percent of its appropriation. Four other 
agencies, some with a few programs, spent about 23 percent of the 
total: $636 million. For example, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) spent about $231 million on 5 programs and the 
Department of Education (Education) spent about $221 million on 4 
programs during fiscal year 2004. Figure 1 shows the 6 federal civilian 
agencies that used the most funds for STEM education programs and the 
funds used by the remaining 7 agencies. 

Figure 1: Amounts Funded by Agencies for STEM-Related Federal Education 
Programs in Fiscal Year 2004: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

The funding reported for individual STEM education programs varied 
significantly, and many of the programs have been funded for more than 
10 years. The funding ranged from $4,000 for an USDA-sponsored program 
that offered scholarships to U.S. citizens seeking bachelor's degrees 
at Hispanic-serving institutions, to about $547 million for a NIH grant 
program that is designed to develop and enhance research training 
opportunities for individuals in biomedical, behavioral, and clinical 
research by supporting training programs at institutions of higher 
education. As shown in table 5, most programs were funded at $5 million 
or less and 13 programs were funded at more than $50 million in fiscal 
year 2004. About half of the STEM education programs were first funded 
after 1998. The oldest program began in 1936, and 72 programs are over 
10 years old.[Footnote 10] Appendix III describes the STEM education 
programs that received funding of $10 million or more during fiscal 
year 2004 or 2005.[Footnote 11] 

Table 5: Funding Levels for Federal STEM Education Programs in Fiscal 
Year 2004: 

Program funding levels: Less than $1 million; 
Numbers of STEM education programs: 93; 
Percentage of total STEM education programs: 45%. 

Program funding levels: $1 million to $5 million; 
Numbers of STEM education programs: 51; 
Percentage of total STEM education programs: 25%. 

Program funding levels: $5.1 million to $10 million; 
Numbers of STEM education programs: 19; 
Percentage of total STEM education programs: 9%. 

Program funding levels: $10.1 million to $50 million; 
Numbers of STEM education programs: 31; 
Percentage of total STEM education programs: 15%. 

Program funding levels: More than $50 million; 
Numbers of STEM education programs: 13; 
Percentage of total STEM education programs: 6%. 

Program funding levels: Total; 
Numbers of STEM education programs: 207; 
Percentage of total STEM education programs: 100%. 

Source: GAO survey responses from 13 federal agencies. 

[End of table] 

Federal Agencies Reported Most STEM Programs Had Multiple Goals and 
Were Targeted to Multiple Groups: 

Agencies reported that most of the STEM education programs had multiple 
goals. Survey respondents reported that 80 percent (165 of 207) of the 
education programs had multiple goals, with about half of these 
identifying four or more goals for individual programs.[Footnote 12] 
Moreover, according to the survey responders, few programs had a single 
goal. For example, 2 programs were identified as having one goal of 
attracting and preparing students at any education level to pursue 
coursework in the STEM areas, while 112 programs identified this as one 
of multiple goals. Table 6 shows the program goals and numbers of STEM 
programs aligned with them. 

Table 6: Program Goals and Numbers of STEM Programs with One or 
Multiple Goals: 

Program goal: Attract and prepare students at any education level to 
pursue coursework in STEM areas; 
Programs with only this goal: 2; 
Programs with multiple goals including this goal: 112; 
Total programs with this goal and other goal(s): 114. 

Program goal: Attract students to pursue degrees (2-year through Ph.D.) 
and postdoctoral appointments; 
Programs with only this goal: 6; 
Programs with multiple goals including this goal: 131; 
Total programs with this goal and other goal(s): 137. 

Program goal: Provide growth and research opportunities for college and 
graduate students in STEM fields; 
Programs with only this goal: 3; 
Programs with multiple goals including this goal: 100; 
Total programs with this goal and other goal(s): 103. 

Program goal: Attract graduates to pursue careers in STEM fields; 
Programs with only this goal: 17; 
Programs with multiple goals including this goal: 114; 
Total programs with this goal and other goal(s): 131. 

Program goal: Improve teacher education in STEM areas; 
Programs with only this goal: 8; 
Programs with multiple goals including this goal: 65; 
Total programs with this goal and other goal(s): 73. 

Program goal: Improve or expand the capacity of institutions to promote 
or foster STEM fields; 
Programs with only this goal: 3; 
Programs with multiple goals including this goal: 87; 
Total programs with this goal and other goal(s): 90. 

Source: GAO survey responses from 13 federal agencies. 

[End of table] 

The STEM education programs provided financial assistance to students, 
educators, and institutions. According to the survey responses, 131 
programs provided financial support for students or scholars, and 84 
programs provided assistance for teacher and faculty 
development.[Footnote 13] Many of the programs provided financial 
assistance to multiple beneficiaries, as shown in table 7. 

Table 7: Numbers of STEM Programs with One or Multiple Types of 
Assistance and Beneficiaries: 

Type of assistance: Financial support for students or scholars; 
Programs that provide only this type of assistance: 54; 
Programs that provide this type and other types of assistance: 77; 
Total programs that provide this type of assistance: 131. 

Type of assistance: Institutional support to improve educational 
quality; 
Programs that provide only this type of assistance: 6; 
Programs that provide this type and other types of assistance: 70; 
Total programs that provide this type of assistance: 76. 

Type of assistance: Support for teacher and faculty development; 
Programs that provide only this type of assistance: 12; 
Programs that provide this type and other types of assistance: 72; 
Total programs that provide this type of assistance: 84. 

Type of assistance: Institutional physical infrastructure support; 
Programs that provide only this type of assistance: 1; 
Programs that provide this type and other types of assistance: 26; 
Total programs that provide this type of assistance: 27. 

Source: GAO survey responses from 13 federal agencies. 

[End of table] 

Most of the programs were not targeted to a specific group but aimed to 
serve a wide range of students, educators, and institutions. Of the 207 
programs, 54 were targeted to 1 group and 151 had multiple target 
groups.[Footnote 14] In addition, many programs were targeted to the 
same group. For example, while 12 programs were aimed solely at 
graduate students, 88 other programs had graduate students as one of 
multiple target groups. Fewer programs were targeted to elementary and 
secondary teachers and kindergarten through 12th grade students than to 
other target groups. Table 8 summarizes the numbers of STEM programs 
targeted to one group and multiple groups. 

Table 8: Numbers of STEM Programs Targeted to One Group and Multiple 
Groups: 

Kindergarten through grade 12 students: 

Targeted group: Elementary school students; 
Targeted to only this group: 0; 
Targeted to this and other groups: 28; 
Total programs targeted to this group: 28. 

Targeted group: Middle or junior high school students; 
Targeted to only this group: 1; 
Targeted to this and other groups: 33; 
Total programs targeted to this group: 34. 

Targeted group: High school students; 
Targeted to only this group: 3; 
Targeted to this and other groups: 50; 
Total programs targeted to this group: 53. 

Undergraduate students: 

Targeted group: 2-year college students; 
Targeted to only this group: 1; 
Targeted to this and other groups: 57; 
Total programs targeted to this group: 58. 

Targeted group: 4-year college students; 
Targeted to only this group: 4; 
Targeted to this and other groups: 92; 
Total programs targeted to this group: 96. 

Graduate students and postdoctoral scholars: 

Targeted group: Graduate students; 
Targeted to only this group: 12; 
Targeted to this and other groups: 88; 
Total programs targeted to this group: 100. 

Targeted group: Postdoctoral scholars; 
Targeted to only this group: 12; 
Targeted to this and other groups: 58; 
Total programs targeted to this group: 70. 

Teachers, college faculty and instructional staff: 

Targeted group: Elementary school teachers; 
Targeted to only this group: 0; 
Targeted to this and other groups: 39; 
Total programs targeted to this group: 39. 

Targeted group: Secondary school teachers; 
Targeted to only this group: 3; 
Targeted to this and other groups: 47; 
Total programs targeted to this group: 50. 

Targeted group: College faculty or instructional staff; 
Targeted to only this group: 4; 
Targeted to this and other groups: 75; 
Total programs targeted to this group: 79. 

Targeted group: Institutions; 
Targeted to only this group: 5; 
Targeted to this and other groups: 77; 
Total programs targeted to this group: 82. 

Source: GAO survey responses from13 federal agencies. 

[End of table] 

Some programs limited participation to certain groups. According to 
survey respondents, U.S. citizenship was required to be eligible for 53 
programs, and an additional 75 programs were open only to U.S. citizens 
or permanent residents.[Footnote 15] About one-fourth of the programs 
had no citizenship requirement, and 24 programs allowed noncitizens or 
permanent residents to participate in some cases. According to a NSF 
official, students receiving scholarships or fellowships through NSF 
programs must be U.S. citizens or permanent residents. In commenting on 
a draft of this report, NSF reported that these restrictions are 
considered to be an effective strategy to support its goal of creating 
a diverse, competitive, and globally-engaged U.S. workforce of 
scientists, engineers, technologists, and well-prepared citizens. 
Officials at two universities said that some research programs are not 
open to non-citizens. Such restrictions may reflect concerns about 
access to sensitive areas. In addition to these restrictions, some 
programs are designed to increase minority representation in STEM 
fields. For example, NSF sponsors a program called Opportunities for 
Enhancing Diversity in the Geosciences to increase participation by 
African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans (American 
Indians and Alaskan Natives), Native Pacific Islanders (Polynesians or 
Micronesians), and persons with disabilities. 

Agency Officials Reported That Evaluations Were Completed or Under Way 
for About Half of the Federal Programs: 

Evaluations had been completed or were under way for about half of the 
STEM education programs. Agency officials responded that evaluations 
were completed for 55 of the 207 programs and that for 49 programs, 
evaluations were under way at the time we conducted our survey. Agency 
officials provided us documentation for evaluations of 43 programs, and 
most of the completed evaluations reviewed reported that the programs 
met their objectives or goals. For example, a March 2004 report on the 
outcomes and impacts of NSF's Minority Postdoctoral Research 
Fellowships program concluded that there was strong qualitative and 
quantitative evidence that this program is meeting its broad goal of 
preparing scientists from those ethnic groups that are significantly 
underrepresented in tenured U.S. science and engineering professorships 
and for positions of leadership in industry and government. 

However, evaluations had not been done for 103 programs, some of which 
have been operating for many years. Of these, it may have been too soon 
to expect evaluations for about 32 programs that were initially funded 
in fiscal year 2002 or later. However, of the remaining 71 programs, 17 
have been operating for over 15 years and have not been evaluated. In 
commenting on a draft of this report NSF noted that all of its programs 
undergo evaluation and that it uses a variety of mechanisms for program 
evaluation. We reported in 2003 that several agencies used various 
strategies to develop and improve evaluations.[Footnote 16] Evaluations 
play an important role in improving program operations and ensuring an 
efficient use of federal resources. Although some of the STEM education 
programs are small in terms of their funding levels, evaluations can be 
designed to consider the size of the program and the costs associated 
with measuring outcomes and collecting data. 

A Subcommittee Was Established in 2003 to Help Coordinate STEM 
Education Programs among Federal Agencies: 

Coordination of federal STEM education programs has been limited. In 
January 2003 the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), 
Committee on Science (COS), established a subcommittee on education and 
workforce development. The purpose of the subcommittee is to advise and 
assist COS and NSTC on policies, procedures, and programs relating to 
STEM education and workforce development. According to its charter, the 
subcommittee will address education and workforce policy issues and 
research and development efforts that focus on STEM education issues at 
all levels, as well as current and projected STEM workforce needs, 
trends, and issues. The members include representatives from 20 
agencies and offices--the 13 agencies that responded to our survey as 
well as the Departments of Defense, State, and Justice, and the Office 
of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of Management and Budget, 
the Domestic Policy Council, and the National Economic Council. The 
subcommittee has working groups on (1) human capacity in STEM areas, 
(2) minority programs, (3) effective practices for assessing federal 
efforts, and (4) issues affecting graduate and postdoctoral 
researchers. The Human Capacity in STEM working group is focused on 
three strategic initiatives: defining and assessing national STEM 
needs, including programs and research projects; identifying and 
analyzing the available data regarding the STEM workforce; and creating 
and implementing a comprehensive national response that enhances STEM 
workforce development. 

NSTC reported that as of June 2005 the subcommittee had a number of 
accomplishments and projects under way that related to attracting 
students to STEM fields. For example, it has (1) surveyed federal 
agency education programs designed to increase the participation of 
women and underrepresented minorities in STEM studies; (2) inventoried 
federal fellowship programs for graduate students and postdoctoral 
fellows; and (3) coordinated the Excellence in Science, Technology, 
Engineering, and Mathematics Education Week activities, which provide 
an opportunity for the nation's schools to focus on improving 
mathematics and science education. In addition, the subcommittee is 
developing a Web site for federal educational resources in STEM fields 
and a set of principles that agencies would use in setting levels of 
support for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships and traineeships. 

Numbers of Students, Graduates, and Employees in STEM Fields Generally 
Increased, but Percentage Changes Varied: 

While the total numbers of students, graduates, and employees have 
increased in STEM fields, percentage changes for women, minorities, and 
international students varied during the periods reviewed. The increase 
in the percentage of students in STEM fields was greater than the 
increase in non-STEM fields, but the change in percentage of graduates 
in STEM fields was less than the percentage change in non-STEM fields. 
Moreover, employment increased more in STEM fields than in non-STEM 
fields. Further, changes in the percentages of minority students varied 
by race or ethnic group, international graduates continued to earn 
about a third or more of the advanced degrees in three STEM fields, and 
there was no statistically significant change in the percentage of 
women employees. Figure 2 summarizes key changes in the students, 
graduates, and employees in STEM fields. 

Figure 2: Key Changes in Students, Graduates, and Employees in STEM 
Fields: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Numbers of Students in STEM Fields Grew, but This Increase Varied by 
Education Level and Student Characteristics: 

Total enrollments of students in STEM fields have increased, and the 
percentage change was greater for STEM fields than non-STEM fields, but 
the percentage of students in STEM fields remained about the same. From 
the 1995-1996 academic year to the 2003-2004 academic year, total 
enrollments in STEM fields increased 21 percent--more than the 11 
percent enrollment increase in non-STEM fields. The number of students 
enrolled in STEM fields represented 23 percent of all students enrolled 
during the 2003-2004 academic year, a modest increase from the 21 
percent these students constituted in the 1995-1996 academic year. 
Table 9 summarizes the changes in overall enrollment across all 
education levels from the 1995-1996 academic year to the 2003-2004 
academic year. 

Table 9: Estimated Changes in the Numbers and Percentages of Students 
in the STEM and Non-STEM Fields across All Education Levels, Academic 
Years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: 

Enrollment measures: Students enrolled (in thousands); 
Academic year 1995-1996: STEM: 4,132; 
Academic year 1995-1996: Non-STEM: 15,243; 
Academic year 2003-2004: STEM: 4,997; 
Academic year 2003-2004: Non-STEM: 16,883. 

Enrollment measures: Percentage of total enrollment; 
Academic year 1995-1996: STEM: 21; 
Academic year 1995-1996: Non-STEM: 79; 
Academic year 2003-2004: STEM: 23; 
Academic year 2003-2004: Non-STEM: 77. 

[End of table] 

Source: GAO calculations based upon NPSAS data. 

Note: The totals for STEM and non-STEM enrollment include students in 
bachelor's, master's, and doctoral programs as well as students 
enrolled in certificate, associate's, other undergraduate, first-
professional degree, and post-bachelor's or post-master's certificate 
programs. The percentage changes between the 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 
academic years for STEM and non-STEM students are statistically 
significant. See appendix V for confidence intervals associated with 
these estimates. 

The increase in the numbers of students in STEM fields is mostly a 
result of increases at the bachelor's and master's levels. Of the total 
increase of about 865,000 students in STEM fields, about 740,000 was 
due to the increase in the numbers of students at the bachelor's and 
master's levels. See table 23 in appendix IV for additional information 
on the estimated numbers of students in STEM fields in academic years 
1995-1996 and 2003-2004. 

The percentage of students in STEM fields who are women increased from 
the 1995-1996 academic year to the 2003-2004 academic year, and in the 
2003-2004 academic year women students constituted at least 50 percent 
of the students in 3 STEM fields--biological sciences, psychology, and 
social sciences. However, in the 2003-2004 academic year, men students 
continued to outnumber women students in STEM fields, and men 
constituted an estimated 54 percent of the STEM students overall. In 
addition, men constituted at least 76 percent of the students enrolled 
in computer sciences, engineering, and technology.[Footnote 17] See 
tables 24 and 25 in appendix IV for additional information on changes 
in the numbers and percentages of women students in the STEM fields for 
academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004. 

While the numbers of domestic minority students in STEM fields also 
increased, changes in the percentages of minority students varied by 
racial or ethnic group. For example, Hispanic students increased 33 
percent, from the 1995-1996 academic year to the 2003-2004 academic 
year. In comparison, the number of African American students increased 
about 69 percent. African American students increased from 9 to 12 
percent of all students in STEM fields while Asian/Pacific Islander 
students continued to constitute about 7 percent. Table 10 shows the 
numbers and percentages of minority students in STEM fields for the 
1995-1996 academic year and the 2003-2004 academic year. 

Table 10: Estimated Percentage Changes in the Numbers and Percentages 
of Domestic Minority Students in STEM fields for All Education Levels 
for Academic Years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: 

Race or ethnicity: Black or African American; 
Numbers of students, 1995-1996 (in thousands): 360; 
Numbers of students, 2003-2004 (in thousands): 608; 
Percentage change in the numbers of students between academic years 
1995-1996 and 2003-2004: +69%; 
Minority group as a percentage of students in STEM fields, academic 
year 1995-1996: 9%; 
Minority group as a percentage of students in STEM fields, academic 
year 2003-2004: 12%. 

Race or ethnicity: Asian/Pacific Islander; 
Numbers of students, 1995-1996 (in thousands): 289; 
Numbers of students, 2003-2004 (in thousands): 345; 
Percentage change in the numbers of students between academic years 
1995-1996 and 2003-2004: +19%; 
Minority group as a percentage of students in STEM fields, academic 
year 1995-1996: 7%; 
Minority group as a percentage of students in STEM fields, academic 
year 2003-2004: 7%. 

Race or ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino origin; 
Numbers of students, 1995-1996 (in thousands): 366; 
Numbers of students, 2003-2004 (in thousands): 489; 
Percentage change in the numbers of students between academic years 
1995-1996 and 2003-2004: +33%; 
Minority group as a percentage of students in STEM fields, academic 
year 1995-1996: 9%; 
Minority group as a percentage of students in STEM fields, academic 
year 2003-2004: 10%. 

Race or ethnicity: American Indian; 
Numbers of students, 1995-1996 (in thousands): 18; 
Numbers of students, 2003-2004 (in thousands): 38; 
Percentage change in the numbers of students between academic years 
1995-1996 and 2003-2004: +107%; 
Minority group as a percentage of students in STEM fields, academic 
year 1995-1996: 0%; 
Minority group as a percentage of students in STEM fields, academic 
year 2003-2004: 1%. 

Race or ethnicity: Other/Multiple minorities; 
Numbers of students, 1995-1996 (in thousands): 29; 
Numbers of students, 2003-2004 (in thousands): 166; 
Percentage change in the numbers of students between academic years 
1995-1996 and 2003-2004: +475%; 
Minority group as a percentage of students in STEM fields, academic 
year 1995-1996: 1%; 
Minority group as a percentage of students in STEM fields, academic 
year 2003-2004: 3%. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon NPSAS data. 

Note: All percentage changes are statistically significant. See 
appendix V for confidence intervals associated with these estimates. 

[End of table] 

From the 1995-1996 academic year to the 2003-2004 academic year, the 
number of international students in STEM fields increased by about 57 
percent solely because of an increase at the bachelor's level. The 
numbers of international students in STEM fields at the master's and 
doctoral levels declined, with the largest decline occurring at the 
doctoral level. Table 11 shows the numbers and percentage changes in 
international students from the 1995-1996 academic year to the 2003-
2004 academic year. 

Table 11: Estimated Changes in Numbers of International Students in 
STEM fields by Education Levels from the 1995-1996 Academic Year to the 
2003-2004 Academic Year: 

Education level: Bachelor's; 
Number of international students, 1995-1996: 31,858; 
Number of international students, 2003-2004: 139,875; 
Percentage change: +339%. 

Education level: Master's; 
Number of international students, 1995-1996: 40,025; 
Number of international students, 2003-2004: 22,384; 
Percentage change: -44%. 

Education level: Doctoral; 
Number of international students, 1995-1996: 36,461; 
Number of international students, 2003-2004: 7,582; 
Percentage change: -79%. 

Total; 
Number of international students, 1995-1996: 108,344; 
Number of international students, 2003-2004: 169,841; 
Percentage change: +57%. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon NPSAS data. 

Note: Changes in enrollment between the 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 
academic years are significant at the 95 percent confidence level for 
international students and for all education levels. See appendix V for 
confidence intervals associated with these estimates. 

[End of table] 

According to the Institute of International Education, from the 2002-
2003 academic year to the 2003-2004 academic year, the number of 
international students declined for the first time in over 30 years, 
and that was the second such decline since the 1954-1955 academic year, 
when the institute began collecting and reporting data on international 
students.[Footnote 18] Moreover, in November 2004, the Council of 
Graduate Schools (CGS) reported a 6 percent decline in first-time 
international graduate student enrollment from 2003 to 2004. Following 
a decade of steady growth, CGS also reported that the number of first-
time international students studying in the United States decreased 
between 6 percent and 10 percent for 3 consecutive years. 

Total Numbers of Graduates with STEM Degrees Increased, but Numbers 
Decreased in Some Fields, and Percentages of Minority Graduates at the 
Master's and Doctoral Levels Did Not Change: 

The number of graduates with degrees in STEM fields increased by 8 
percent from the 1994-1995 academic year to the 2002-2003 academic 
year. However, during this same period the number of graduates with 
degrees in non-STEM fields increased by 30 percent. From academic year 
1994-1995 to academic year 2002-2003, the percentage of graduates with 
STEM degrees decreased from 32 percent to 28 percent of total 
graduates. Table 12 provides data on the changes in the numbers and 
percentages of graduates in STEM and non-STEM fields. 

Table 12: Numbers of Graduates and Percentage Changes in STEM and Non-
STEM Fields across All Degree Levels from the 1994-1995 Academic Year 
to the 2002-2003 Academic Year: 

Graduation measures: Graduates (in thousands); 
STEM fields: 1994-1995: 519; 
STEM fields: 2002-2003: 560; 
STEM fields: Percentage change: +8%; 
Non-STEM fields: 1994-1995: 1,112; 
Non-STEM fields: 2002-2003: 1,444; 
Non-STEM fields: Percentage change: +30%. 

Graduation measures: Percentage of total graduates; 
STEM fields: 1994-1995: 32; 
STEM fields: 2002-2003: 28; 
STEM fields: Percentage change: -4%; 
Non-STEM fields: 1994-1995: 68; 
Non-STEM fields: 2002-2003: 72; 
Non-STEM fields: Percentage change: +4%. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon IPEDS data. 

[End of table] 

Decreases in the numbers of graduates occurred in some STEM fields at 
each education level, but particularly at the doctoral level. The 
numbers of graduates with bachelor's degrees decreased in four of eight 
STEM fields, the numbers with master's degrees decreased in five of 
eight fields, and the numbers with doctoral degrees decreased in six of 
eight STEM fields. At the doctoral level, these declines ranged from 14 
percent in mathematics/computer sciences to 74 percent in technology. 
Figure 3 shows the percentage change in graduates with degrees in STEM 
fields from the 1994-1995 academic year to the 2002-2003 academic year. 

Figure 3: Percentage Changes in Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctoral 
Graduates in STEM Fields from Academic Year 1994-1995 to Academic Year 
2002-2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

From the 1994-1995 academic year to the 2002-2003 academic year, the 
total number of women graduates increased in four of the eight fields, 
and the percentages of women earning degrees in STEM fields increased 
in six of the eight fields at all three educational levels. Conversely, 
the total number of men graduates decreased, and the percentages of men 
graduates declined in six of the eight fields at all three levels from 
the 1994-1995 academic year to the 2002-2003 academic year. However, 
men continued to constitute over 50 percent of the graduates in five of 
eight fields at all three education levels. Table 13 summarizes the 
numbers of graduates by gender, level, and field. Table 26 in appendix 
IV provides additional data on the percentages of men and women 
graduates by STEM field and education level. 

Table 13: Numbers and Percentage Changes in Men and Women Graduates 
with STEM Degrees by Education Level and Field for Academic Years 1994-
1995 and 2002-2003: 

Education level: Bachelor's level; 
STEM field: Biological/agricultural sciences; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 36,108; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 23,266; 
Percentage change in men graduates: -36%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 35,648; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 35,546; 
Percentage change in women graduates: 0%. 

STEM field: Earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 2,954; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 2,243; 
Percentage change in men graduates: -24%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 1,524; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 1,626; 
Percentage change in women graduates: +7%. 

STEM field: Engineering; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 52,562; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 48,214; 
Percentage change in men graduates: -8%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 10,960; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 11,709; 
Percentage change in women graduates: +7%. 

STEM field: Mathematics and computer sciences; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 25,258; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 46,381; 
Percentage change in men graduates: +84%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 13,651; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 20,436; 
Percentage change in women graduates: +50%. 

STEM field: Physical sciences; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 9,607; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 8,739; 
Percentage change in men graduates: -9%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 5,292; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 6,222; 
Percentage change in women graduates: +18%. 

STEM field: Psychology; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 19,664; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 18,616; 
Percentage change in men graduates: -5%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 53,010; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 64,470; 
Percentage change in women graduates: +22%. 

STEM field: Social sciences; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 56,643; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 63,465; 
Percentage change in men graduates: +12%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 56,624; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 77,701; 
Percentage change in women graduates: +37%. 

STEM field: Technology; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 14,349; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 9,174; 
Percentage change in men graduates: -36%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 1,602; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 1,257; 
Percentage change in women graduates: -22%. 

Education level: Master's level; 
STEM field: Biological/agricultural sciences; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 4,768; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 2,413; 
Percentage change in men graduates: -49%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 4,340; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 2,934; 
Percentage change in women graduates: -32%. 

STEM field: Earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 1,032; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 805; 
Percentage change in men graduates: -22%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 451; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 552; 
Percentage change in women graduates: +22%. 

STEM field: Engineering; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 24,031; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 20,258; 
Percentage change in men graduates: -16%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 4,643; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 5,271; 
Percentage change in women graduates: +14%. 

STEM field: Mathematics and computer sciences; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 10,398; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 14,531; 
Percentage change in men graduates: +40%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 4,474; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 7,517; 
Percentage change in women graduates: +68%. 

STEM field: Physical sciences; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 2,958; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 2,350; 
Percentage change in men graduates: -21%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 1,283; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 1,299; 
Percentage change in women graduates: +1%. 

STEM field: Psychology; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 4,013; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 3,645; 
Percentage change in men graduates: -9%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 10,319; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 12,433; 
Percentage change in women graduates: +20%. 

STEM field: Social sciences; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 11,952; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 11,057; 
Percentage change in men graduates: -7%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 11,398; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 13,674; 
Percentage change in women graduates: +20%. 

STEM field: Technology; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 927; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 467; 
Percentage change in men graduates: -50%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 222; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 173; 
Percentage change in women graduates: -22. 

Education level: Doctoral level; 
STEM field: Biological/agricultural sciences; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 3,616; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 1,526; 
Percentage change in men graduates: -58%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 2,160; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 1,161; 
Percentage change in women graduates: -46%. 

STEM field: Earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 488; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 315; 
Percentage change in men graduates: -35%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 134; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 125; 
Percentage change in women graduates: -7%. 

STEM field: Engineering; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 5,401; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 4,159; 
Percentage change in men graduates: -23%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 728; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 839; 
Percentage change in women graduates: +15%. 

STEM field: Mathematics and computer sciences; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 1,690; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 1,378; 
Percentage change in men graduates: -18%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 434; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 439; 
Percentage change in women graduates: +1%. 

STEM field: Physical sciences; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 2,939; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 2,396; 
Percentage change in men graduates: -18%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 922; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 892; 
Percentage change in women graduates: -3%. 

STEM field: Psychology; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 1,529; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 1,380; 
Percentage change in men graduates: -10%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 2,511; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 3,086; 
Percentage change in women graduates: +23%. 

STEM field: Social sciences; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 2,347; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 2,111; 
Percentage change in men graduates: -10%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 1,463; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 1,729; 
Percentage change in women graduates: +18%. 

STEM field: Technology; 
Number of men graduates: 1994-1995: 24; 
Number of men graduates: 2002-2003: 7; 
Percentage change in men graduates: -71%; 
Number of women graduates: 1994-1995: 3; 
Number of women graduates: 2002-2003: 0; 
Percentage change in women graduates: -100%. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon IPEDS data. 

[End of table] 

The total numbers of domestic minority graduates in STEM fields 
increased, although the percentage of minority graduates with STEM 
degrees at the master's or doctoral level did not change from the 1994-
1995 academic year to the 2002-2003 academic year. For example, while 
the number of Native American graduates increased 37 percent, Native 
American graduates remained less than 1 percent of all STEM graduates 
at the master's and doctoral levels. Table 14 shows the percentages and 
numbers of domestic minority graduates for the 1994-1995 academic year 
and the 2002-2003 academic year. 

Table 14: Numbers and Percentage Changes in Domestic Minority Graduates 
in STEM Fields by Education Levels and Race or Ethnicity for Academic 
Years 1994-1995 and 2002-2003: 

Race or ethnicity: Black or African American; 
Degree Level: Total; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 33,121; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 44,475; 
Percentage change in graduates: +34%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 6%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 8%. 

Degree Level: Bachelor's; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 28,236; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 37,195; 
Percentage change in graduates: +32%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 5%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 7%. 

Degree Level: Master's; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 4,358; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 6,588; 
Percentage change in graduates: +51%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 1%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 1%. 

Degree Level: Doctoral; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 527; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 692; 
Percentage change in graduates: +31%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 0%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 0. 

Race or ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino origin; 
Degree Level: Total; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 25,781; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 37,056; 
Percentage change in graduates: +44%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 5%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 7%. 

Degree Level: Bachelor's; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 22,268; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 32,255; 
Percentage change in graduates: +45%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 4%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 6%. 

Degree Level: Master's; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 3,015; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 4,121; 
Percentage change in graduates: +37%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 1%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 1%. 

Degree Level: Doctoral; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 498; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 680; 
Percentage change in graduates: +37%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 0%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 0. 

Race or ethnicity: Asian/Pacific Islanders; 
Degree Level: Total; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 37,393; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 46,941; 
Percentage change in graduates: +26%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 7%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 8%. 

Degree Level: Bachelor's; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 29,389; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 39,030; 
Percentage change in graduates: +33%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 6%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 7%. 

Degree Level: Master's; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 6,064; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 6,814; 
Percentage change in graduates: +12%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 1%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 1%. 

Degree Level: Doctoral; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 1,940; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 1,097; 
Percentage change in graduates: -43%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 0%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 0. 

Race or ethnicity: Native Americans; 
Degree Level: Total; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 2,488; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 3,409; 
Percentage change in graduates: +37%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 0%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 1%. 

Degree Level: Bachelor's; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 2,115; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 2,903; 
Percentage change in graduates: +37%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 0%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 1%. 

Degree Level: Master's; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 320; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 425; 
Percentage change in graduates: +33%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 0%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 0%. 

Degree Level: Doctoral; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 53; 
Number of graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 81; 
Percentage change in graduates: +53%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 1994-1995: 0%; 
Percentage of total graduates in STEM fields, 2002-2003: 0%. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon IPEDS data. 

[End of table] 

International students earned about one-third or more of the degrees at 
both the master's and doctoral levels in several fields in the 1994-
1995 and the 2002-2003 academic years. For example, in academic year 
2002-2003, international students earned between 45 percent and 57 
percent of all degrees in engineering and mathematics/computer sciences 
at the master's and doctoral levels. However, at each level there were 
changes in the numbers and percentages of international graduates. At 
the master's level, the total number of international graduates 
increased by about 31 percent from the 1994-1995 academic year to the 
2002-2003 academic year; while the number of graduates decreased in 
four of the fields and the percentages of international graduates 
declined in three fields. At the doctoral level, the total number of 
international graduates decreased by 12 percent, while the percentage 
of international graduates increased or remained the same in all 
fields. Table 15 shows the numbers and percentages of international 
graduates in STEM fields. 

Table 15: Changes in Numbers and Percentages of International Graduates 
in STEM fields at the Master's and Doctoral Degree Levels, 1994-1995 
and 2002-2003 Academic Years: 

Masters' level: Agriculture/biological sciences; 
1994-1995: Number: 1,549; 
1994-1995: Percentage of all graduates: 17%; 
2002-2003: Number: 633; 
2002-2003: Percentage of all graduates: 12%. 

Masters' level: Earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences; 
1994-1995: Number: 285; 
1994-1995: Percentage of all graduates: 19%; 
2002-2003: Number: 192; 
2002-2003: Percentage of all graduates: 14%. 

Masters' level: Engineering; 
1994-1995: Number: 9,720; 
1994-1995: Percentage of all graduates: 34%; 
2002-2003: Number: 11,512; 
2002-2003: Percentage of all graduates: 45%. 

Masters' level: Mathematics/computer sciences; 
1994-1995: Number: 5,105; 
1994-1995: Percentage of all graduates: 34%; 
2002-2003: Number: 10,335; 
2002-2003: Percentage of all graduates: 47%. 

Masters' level: Physical sciences; 
1994-1995: Number: 1,467; 
1994-1995: Percentage of all graduates: 35%; 
2002-2003: Number: 1,171; 
2002-2003: Percentage of all graduates: 32%. 

Masters' level: Psychology; 
1994-1995: Number: 493; 
1994-1995: Percentage of all graduates: 3%; 
2002-2003: Number: 704; 
2002-2003: Percentage of all graduates: 4%. 

Masters' level: Social sciences; 
1994-1995: Number: 3,749; 
1994-1995: Percentage of all graduates: 16%; 
2002-2003: Number: 4,795; 
2002-2003: Percentage of all graduates: 19%. 

Masters' level: Technology; 
1994-1995: Number: 169; 
1994-1995: Percentage of all graduates: 15%; 
2002-2003: Number: 118; 
2002-2003: Percentage of all graduates: 18%. 

Masters' level: Total; 
1994-1995: Number: 22,537; 
2002-2003: Number: 29,460. 

Doctoral level: Agriculture/biological sciences; 
1994-1995: Number: 1,616; 
1994-1995: Percentage of all graduates: 28%; 
2002-2003: Number: 743; 
2002-2003: Percentage of all graduates: 28%. 

Doctoral level: Earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences; 
1994-1995: Number: 183; 
1994-1995: Percentage of all graduates: 29%; 
2002-2003: Number: 140; 
2002-2003: Percentage of all graduates: 32%. 

Doctoral level: Engineering; 
1994-1995: Number: 3,001; 
1994-1995: Percentage of all graduates: 49%; 
2002-2003: Number: 2,853; 
2002-2003: Percentage of all graduates: 57%. 

Doctoral level: Mathematics/computer sciences; 
1994-1995: Number: 927; 
1994-1995: Percentage of all graduates: 44%; 
2002-2003: Number: 895; 
2002-2003: Percentage of all graduates: 49%. 

Doctoral level: Physical sciences; 
1994-1995: Number: 1,290; 
1994-1995: Percentage of all graduates: 33%; 
2002-2003: Number: 1,281; 
2002-2003: Percentage of all graduates: 39%. 

Doctoral level: Psychology; 
1994-1995: Number: 186; 
1994-1995: Percentage of all graduates: 5%; 
2002-2003: Number: 202; 
2002-2003: Percentage of all graduates: 5%. 

Doctoral level: Social sciences; 
1994-1995: Number: 1,123; 
1994-1995: Percentage of all graduates: 29%; 
2002-2003: Number: 1,192; 
2002-2003: Percentage of all graduates: 31%. 

Doctoral level: Technology; 
1994-1995: Number: 9; 
1994-1995: Percentage of all graduates: 33%; 
2002-2003: Number: 4; 
2002-2003: Percentage of all graduates: 57%. 

Doctoral level: Total; 
1994-1995: Number: 8,335; 
2002-2003: Number: 7,310. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon IPEDS data. 

[End of table] 

STEM Employment Rose, but the Percentage of Women Remained About the 
Same and Minorities Continued to be Underrepresented: 

While the total number of STEM employees increased, this increase 
varied across STEM fields. Employment increased by 23 percent in STEM 
fields as compared to 17 percent in non-STEM fields from calendar year 
1994 to calendar year 2003. Employment increased by 78 percent in the 
mathematics/computer sciences field and by 20 percent in the science 
field over this period. The changes in number of employees in the 
engineering and technology fields were not statistically significant. 
Employment estimates from 1994 to 2003 in the STEM fields are shown in 
figure 4. 

Figure 4: Estimated Numbers of Employees in STEM Fields from Calendar 
Years 1994 through 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Estimated number of employees have confidence intervals of within 
+/-9 percent of the estimate itself. See appendix VI for confidence 
intervals associated with these estimates. 

[End of figure] 

From calendar years 1994 to 2003, the estimated number of women 
employees in STEM fields increased from about 2.7 million to about 3.5 
million. Overall, there was not a statistically significant change in 
the percentage of women employees in the STEM fields. Table 16 shows 
the numbers and percentages of men and women employed in the STEM 
fields for calendar years 1994 and 2003. 

Table 16: Estimated Numbers and Percentages of Employees in STEM Fields 
by Gender in Calendar Years 1994 and 2003 (numbers in thousands): 

STEM field: Science; 
1994: Men: Number: 792; 
1994: Men: Percent: 32%; 
1994: Women: Number: 1,711; 
1994: Women: Percent: 68%; 
2003: Men: Number: 829; 
2003: Men: Percent: 28%; 
2003: Women: Number: 2,179; 
2003: Women: Percent: 72%. 

STEM field: Technology; 
1994: Men: Number: 955; 
1994: Men: Percent: 68%; 
1994: Women: Number: 445; 
1994: Women: Percent: 32%; 
2003: Men: Number: 1,050; 
2003: Men: Percent: 71%; 
2003: Women: Number: 425; 
2003: Women: Percent: 29%. 

STEM field: Engineering; 
1994: Men: Number: 1,658; 
1994: Men: Percent: 92%; 
1994: Women: Number: *141; 
1994: Women: Percent: 8%; 
2003: Men: Number: 1,572; 
2003: Men: Percent: 90%; 
2003: Women: Number: *169; 
2003: Women: Percent: 10%. 

STEM field: Mathematics/computer sciences; 
1994: Men: Number: 1,056; 
1994: Men: Percent: 71%; 
1994: Women: Number: 432; 
1994: Women: Percent: 29%; 
2003: Men: Number: 1,952; 
2003: Men: Percent: 74%; 
2003: Women: Number: 695; 
2003: Women: Percent: 26%. 

Total; 
1994: Men: Number: 4,461; 
1994: Men: Percent: 62%; 
1994: Women: Number: 2,729; 
1994: Women: Percent: 38%; 
2003: Men: Number: 5,404; 
2003: Men: Percent: 61%; 
2003: Women: Number: 3,467; 
2003: Women: Percent: 39%. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon CPS data. 

Note: Estimated employee numbers noted by an asterisk have a 95 percent 
confidence interval of within +/-25 percent of the estimate itself. All 
other estimated employee numbers have a 95 percent confidence interval 
of within +/-16 percent of the estimate. See appendix VI for confidence 
intervals associated with these estimates. Calculations of percentages 
and numbers may differ due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

In addition, the estimated number of minorities employed in the STEM 
fields as well as the percentage of total STEM employees they 
constituted increased, but African American and Hispanic employees 
remain underrepresented relative to their percentages in the civilian 
labor force.[Footnote 19] Between 1994 and 2003, the estimated number 
of African American employees increased by about 44 percent, the 
estimated numbers of Hispanic employees increased by 90 percent, as did 
the estimated numbers of other minorities employed in STEM 
fields.[Footnote 20] In calendar year 2003, African Americans comprised 
about 8.7 percent of STEM employees compared to about 10.7 percent of 
the CLF. Similarly, Hispanic employees comprised about 10 percent of 
STEM employees in calendar year 2003, compared to about 12.6 percent of 
the CLF. Table 17 shows the estimated percentages of STEM employees by 
selected racial or ethnic groups in 1994 and 2003. 

Table 17: Estimated Percentages of STEM Employees by Selected Racial or 
Ethnic Group for Calendar Years 1994 and 2003: 

Race or ethnicity: Black or African American; 
Percentage of total STEM employees, 1994: 7.5%; 
Percentage of total STEM employees, 2003: 8.7%. 

Race or ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino origin; 
Percentage of total STEM employees, 1994: 5.7%; 
Percentage of total STEM employees, 2003: 10.0%. 

Race or ethnicity: Other minorities[A]; 
Percentage of total STEM employees, 1994: 4.5%; 
Percentage of total STEM employees, 2003: 6.9%. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon CPS data. 

Note: Estimated percentages have 95 percent confidence intervals of +/
-1 percentage point. Changes for African Americans between calendar 
years 1994 and 2003 were not statistically significant at the 95-
percent confidence level. Differences for Hispanic or Latino origin and 
other minorities were statistically significant. See appendix VI for 
confidence intervals associated with these estimates. 

[A] Other minorities include Asian/Pacific Islanders and American 
Indian or Alaska Native. 

[End of table] 

International employees have filled hundreds of thousands of positions, 
many in STEM fields, through the H-1B visa program. However, the 
numbers and types of occupations have changed over the years. We 
reported that while the limit for the H-1B program was 115,000 in 1999, 
the number of visas approved exceeded the limit by more than 20,000 
because of problems with the system used to track the data.[Footnote 
21] Available data show that in 1999, the majority of the approved 
occupations were in STEM fields. Specifically, an estimated 60 percent 
of the positions approved in fiscal year 1999 were related to 
information technology and 5 percent were for electrical/electronics 
engineering. By 2002, the limit for the H-1B program had increased to 
195,000, but the number approved, 79,000, did not reach this limit. In 
2003, we reported that the number of approved H-1B petitions in certain 
occupations had declined. For example, the number of approvals for 
systems analysis/programming positions declined by 106,671 from 2001 to 
2002.[Footnote 22] 

Although the estimated total number of employees in STEM fields 
increased from 1994 to 2003, according to an NSF report, many with STEM 
degrees were not employed in these occupations. In 2004, NSF reported 
that about 67 percent of employees with degrees in science or 
engineering were employed in fields somewhat or not at all related to 
their degree.[Footnote 23] Specifically, 70 percent of employees with 
bachelor's degrees, 51 percent with master's degrees, and 54 percent 
with doctoral degrees reported that their employment was somewhat or 
not at all related to their degree in science or engineering. 

In addition to increases in the numbers of employees in STEM fields, 
inflation-adjusted median annual wages and salaries increased in all 
four STEM fields over the 10-year period (1994 to 2003). These 
increases ranged from 6 percent in science to 15 percent in 
engineering. Figure 5 shows trends in median annual wages and salaries 
for STEM fields. 

Figure 5: Estimated Median Annual Wages and Salaries in STEM Fields for 
Calendar Years 1994 through 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Median annual wages and salaries have been adjusted for 
inflation. Estimated median annual wages and salaries have 95 percent 
confidence intervals of within +/-2.3 percent. See appendix VI for 
confidence intervals associated with these estimates. 

[End of figure] 

University Officials and Others Cited Several Factors That Influence 
Decisions about Participation in STEM Fields and Suggested Ways to 
Encourage Greater Participation: 

University officials, researchers, and students identified several 
factors that influenced students' decisions about pursuing STEM degrees 
and occupations, and they suggested some ways to encourage more 
participation in STEM fields. Specifically, university officials said 
and researchers reported that the quality of teachers in kindergarten 
through 12th grades and the levels of mathematics and science courses 
completed during high school affected students' success in and 
decisions about STEM fields. In addition, several sources noted that 
mentoring played a key role in the participation of women and 
minorities in STEM fields. Current students from five universities we 
visited generally agreed with these observations, and several said that 
having good mathematics and science instruction was important to their 
overall educational success. International students' decisions about 
participating in STEM education and occupations were affected by 
opportunities outside the United States and the visa process. To 
encourage more student participation in the STEM fields, university 
officials, researchers, and others have made several suggestions, and 
four were made repeatedly. These suggestions focused on teacher 
quality, high school students' math and science preparation, outreach 
activities, and the federal role in STEM education. 

Teacher Quality and Mathematics and Science Preparation Were Cited as 
Key Factors Affecting Domestic Students' STEM Participation Decisions: 

University officials frequently cited teacher quality as a key factor 
that affected domestic students' interest in and decisions about 
pursuing STEM degrees and occupations. Officials at all eight 
universities we visited expressed the view that a student's experience 
from kindergarten through the 12th grades played a large role in 
influencing whether the student pursued a STEM degree. Officials at one 
university we visited said that students pursuing STEM degrees have 
associated their interests with teachers who taught them good skills in 
mathematics or excited them about science. On the other hand, officials 
at many of the universities we visited told us that some teachers were 
unqualified and unable to impart the subject matter, causing students 
to lose interest in mathematics and science. For example, officials at 
one university we visited said that some elementary and secondary 
teachers do not have sufficient training to effectively teach students 
in the STEM fields and that this has an adverse effect on what students 
learn in these fields and reduces the interest and enthusiasm students 
express in pursuing coursework in high school, degree programs in 
college, or careers in these areas. 

Teacher quality issues, in general, have been cited in past reports by 
Education. In 2002, Education reported that in the 1999-2000 school 
year, 14 to 22 percent of middle-grade students taking English, 
mathematics, and science were in classes led by teachers without a 
major, minor, or certification in these subjects--commonly referred to 
as "out-of-field" teachers.[Footnote 24] Also, approximately 30 to 40 
percent of the middle-grade students in biology/life science, physical 
science, or English as a second language/bilingual education classes 
had teachers lacking these credentials. At the high school level, 17 
percent of students enrolled in physics and 36 percent of those 
enrolled in geology/earth/space science were in classes instructed by 
out-of-field teachers. The percentages of students taught by out-of-
field teachers were significantly higher when the criteria used were 
teacher certification and a major in the subject taught. For example, 
45 percent of the high school students enrolled in biology/life science 
and approximately 30 percent of those enrolled in mathematics, English, 
and social science classes had out-of-field teachers. During the 2002-
2003 school year, Education reported that the number and distribution 
of teachers on waivers--which allowed prospective teachers in 
classrooms while they completed their formal training--was problematic. 
Also, states reported that the problem of underprepared teachers was 
worse on average in districts that serve large proportions of high-
poverty children--the percentage of teachers on waivers was larger in 
high-poverty school districts than all other school districts in 39 
states. Moreover, in 2004, Education reported that 48 of the 50 states 
granted waivers.[Footnote 25] 

In addition to teacher quality, students' high school preparation in 
mathematics and science was cited by university officials and others as 
affecting students' success in college-level courses and their 
decisions about pursuing STEM degrees and occupations. University 
officials at six of the eight universities we visited cited students' 
ability to opt out of mathematics and science courses during high 
school as a factor that influenced whether they would participate and 
succeed in the STEM fields during undergraduate and graduate school. 
University officials said, for example, that because many students had 
not taken higher-level mathematics and science courses such as calculus 
and physics in high school, they were immediately behind other students 
who were better prepared. In July 2005, on the basis of findings from 
the 2004 National Assessment of Educational Progress, the National 
Center for Education Statistics reported that 17 percent of the 17-year-
olds reported that they had taken calculus, and this represents the 
highest percentage in any previous assessment year.[Footnote 26] In a 
study that solicited the views of several hundred students who had left 
the STEM fields, researchers found that the effects of inadequate high 
school preparation contributed to college students' decisions to leave 
the science fields.[Footnote 27] These researchers found that 
approximately 40 percent of those college students who left the science 
fields reported some problems related to high school science 
preparation. The underpreparation was often linked to problems such as 
not understanding calculus; lack of laboratory experience or exposure 
to computers, and no introduction to theoretical material or to 
analytic modes of thought. Further, 12 current students we interviewed 
said they were not adequately prepared for college mathematics or 
science. For example, one student stated that her high school courses 
had been limited because she attended an all-girls school where the 
curriculum catered to students who were not interested in STEM, and so 
it had been difficult to obtain the courses that were of interest to 
her. 

Several other factors were mentioned during our interviews with 
university officials, students, and others as influencing decisions 
about participation in STEM fields. These factors included relatively 
low pay in STEM fields, additional tuition costs to obtain STEM 
degrees, lack of commitment on the part of some students to meet the 
rigorous academic demands, and the inability of some professors in STEM 
fields to effectively impart their knowledge to students in the 
classrooms. For example, officials from five universities said that low 
pay in STEM fields relative to other fields such as law and business 
dissuaded students from pursuing STEM degrees in some areas. Also, in a 
study that solicited the views of college students who left the STEM 
fields as well as those who continued to pursue STEM degrees, 
researchers found that students experienced greater financial 
difficulties in obtaining their degrees because of the extra time 
needed to obtain degrees in certain STEM fields. Researchers also noted 
that poor teaching at the university level was the most common 
complaint among students who left as well as those who remained in STEM 
fields. Students reported that faculty do not like to teach, do not 
value teaching as a professional activity, and therefore lack any 
incentive to learn to teach effectively.[Footnote 28] Finally, 11 of 
the students we interviewed commented about the need for professors in 
STEM fields to alter their methods and to show more interest in 
teaching to retain students' attention. 

Mentoring Cited as a Key Factor Affecting Women's and Minorities' STEM 
Participation Decisions: 

University officials and students said that mentoring is important for 
all students but plays a vital role in the academic experiences of 
women and minorities in the STEM fields. Officials at seven of the 
eight universities discussed the important role that mentors play, 
especially for women and minorities in STEM fields. For example, one 
professor said that mentors helped students by advising them on the 
best track to follow for obtaining their degrees and achieving 
professional goals. Also, four students we interviewed--three women and 
one man--expressed the importance of mentors. Specifically, while all 
four students identified mentoring as critical to academic success in 
the STEM fields, two students expressed their satisfaction since they 
had mentors, while the other two students said that it would have been 
helpful to have had someone who could have been a mentor or role model. 

Studies have also reported that mentors play a significant role in the 
success of women and minorities in the STEM fields. In 2004, some of 
the women students and faculty with whom we talked reported a strong 
mentor was a crucial part in the academic training of some of the women 
participating in sciences, and some women had pursued advanced degrees 
because of the encouragement and support of mentors.[Footnote 29] In 
September 2000, a congressional commission reported that women were 
adversely affected throughout the STEM education pipeline and career 
path by a lack of role models and mentors.[Footnote 30] For example, 
the report found that girls rejection of mathematics and science may be 
partially driven by teachers, parents, and peers when they subtly, and 
not so subtly, steer girls away from the informal technical pastimes 
(such as working on cars, fixing bicycles, and changing hardware on 
computers) and science activities (such as science fairs and clubs) 
that too often were still thought of as the province of boys. In 
addition, the commission reported that a greater proportion of women 
switched out of STEM majors than men, relative to their representation 
in the STEM major population. Reasons cited for the higher attrition 
rate among women students included lack of role models, distaste for 
the competitive nature of science and engineering education, and 
inability to obtain adequate academic guidance or advice. Further, 
according to the report, women's retention and graduation in STEM 
graduate programs were affected by their interaction with faculty, 
integration into the department (versus isolation), and other factors, 
including whether there were role models, mentors, and women faculty. 

International Students' STEM Participation Decisions Were Affected by 
Opportunities Outside the United States and the Visa Process: 

Officials at seven of the eight universities visited, along with 
education policy experts, told us that competition from other countries 
for top international students, and educational or work opportunities, 
affected international students' decisions about studying in the United 
States. They told us that other countries, including Canada, Australia, 
New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, had seized the opportunity since 
September 11 to compete against the United States for international 
students who were among the best students in the world, especially in 
the STEM fields. Also, university officials told us that students from 
several countries, including China and India, were being recruited to 
attend universities and get jobs in their own countries. In addition, 
education organizations and associations have reported that global 
competition for the best science and engineering students and scholars 
is under way. One organization, NAFSA: Association of International 
Educators reported that the international student market has become 
highly competitive, and the United States is not competing as well as 
other countries.[Footnote 31] 

According to university officials, international students' decisions 
about pursuing STEM degrees and occupations in the United States were 
also influenced by the perceived unwelcoming attitude of Americans and 
the visa process. Officials from three of the universities said that 
the perceived unwelcoming attitude of Americans had affected the 
recruitment of international students to the United States. Also, 
officials at six of the eight universities visited expressed their 
concern about the impact of the tightened visa procedures and/or 
increased security measures since September 11 on international 
graduate school enrollments. For example, officials at one university 
stated that because of the time needed to process visas, a few students 
had missed their class start dates. Officials from one university told 
us that they were being more proactive in helping new international 
students navigate the visa system, to the extent possible. While some 
university officials acknowledged that visa processing had 
significantly improved, since 2003 several education associations have 
requested further changes in U.S. visa policies because of the lengthy 
procedures and time needed to obtain approval to enter the country. 

We have reported on various aspects of the visa process, made several 
recommendations, and noted that some improvements have been made. In 
October 2002 we cited the need for a clear policy on how to balance 
national security concerns with the desire to facilitate legitimate 
travel when issuing visas and we made several recommendations to help 
improve the visa process.[Footnote 32] In 2003, we reported that the 
Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Justice could more 
effectively manage the visa function if they had clear and 
comprehensive policies and procedures and increased agency coordination 
and information sharing.[Footnote 33] In February 2004 and February 
2005, we reported on the State Department's efforts to improve the 
program for issuing visas to international science students and 
scholars. In 2004 we found that the time to adjudicate a visa depended 
largely on whether an applicant had to undergo a security check known 
as Visas Mantis, which is designed to protect against sensitive 
technology transfers. Based on a random sample of Visas Mantis cases 
for science students and scholars, it took State an average of 67 days 
to complete the process.[Footnote 34] In 2005, we reported a 
significant decline in Visas Mantis processing times and in the number 
of cases pending more than 60 days.[Footnote 35] We also reported that, 
in some cases, science students and scholars can obtain a visa within 
24 hours. 

We have also issued several reports on SEVIS operations. In June 2004 
we noted that when SEVIS began operating, significant problems were 
reported.[Footnote 36] For example, colleges and universities and 
exchange programs had trouble gaining access to the system, and when 
access was obtained, these users' sessions would "time out" before they 
could complete their tasks. In that report we also noted that SEVIS 
performance had improved, but that several key system performance 
requirements were not being measured. In March 2005, we reported that 
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had taken steps to address 
our recommendations and that educational organizations generally agreed 
that SEVIS performance had continued to improve.[Footnote 37] However, 
educational organizations continued to cite problems, which they 
believe created hardships for students and exchange visitors. 

Several Suggestions Were Made to Encourage More Participation in the 
STEM Fields: 

To increase the number of students entering STEM fields, officials from 
seven universities and others stated that teacher quality needs to 
improve. Officials of one university said that kindergarten through 
12th grade classrooms need teachers who are knowledgeable in the 
mathematics and science content areas. As previously noted, Education 
has reported on the extent to which classes have been taught by 
teachers with little or no content knowledge in the STEM fields. The 
Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities 
reported that teacher effectiveness is the most important element in a 
good education.[Footnote 38] The commission also suggested that 
boosting teacher effectiveness can do more to improve education than 
any other single factor. States are taking action to meet NCLBA's 
requirement of having all teachers of core academic subjects be highly 
qualified by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. 

University officials and some students suggested that better 
preparation and mandatory courses in mathematics and science were 
needed for students during their kindergarten through 12th grade school 
years. Officials from five universities suggested that mandatory 
mathematics and science courses, especially in high school, may lead to 
increased student interest and preparation in the STEM fields. With a 
greater interest and depth of knowledge, students would be better 
prepared and more inclined to pursue STEM degrees in college. Further, 
nearly half of the students who replied to this question suggested that 
students needed additional mathematics and science training prior to 
college. However, adding mathematics and science classes has resource 
implications, since more teachers in these subjects would be needed. 
Also this change could require curriculum policy changes that would 
take time to implement. 

More outreach, especially to women and minorities from kindergarten 
through the 12th grade, was suggested by university officials, 
students, and other organizations. Officials from six of the 
universities we visited suggested that increased outreach activities 
are needed to help create more interest in mathematics and science for 
younger students. For example, at one university we visited, officials 
told us that through inviting students to their campuses or visiting 
local schools, they have provided some students with opportunities to 
engage in science laboratories and hands-on activities that foster 
interest and excitement for students and can make these fields more 
relevant in their lives. Officials from another university told us that 
these experiences were especially important for women and minorities 
who might not have otherwise had these opportunities. The current 
students we interviewed also suggested more outreach activities. 
Specifically, two students said that outreach was needed to further 
stimulate students' interest in the STEM fields. One organization, 
Building Engineering and Science Talent (BEST), suggested that research 
universities increase their presence in prekindergarten through 12th 
grade mathematics and science education in order to strengthen domestic 
students' interests and abilities. BEST reported that one model 
producing results entailed universities adopting students from low-
income school districts from 7th through 12th grades and providing them 
advanced instruction in algebra, chemistry, physics, and trigonometry. 
However, officials at one university told us that because of limited 
resources, their efforts were constrained and only a few students would 
benefit from this type of outreach. 

Furthermore, university officials from the eight schools and other 
education organizations made suggestions regarding the role of the 
federal government. University officials suggested that the federal 
government could enhance its role in STEM education by providing more 
effective leadership through developing and implementing a national 
agenda for STEM education and increasing federal funding for academic 
research. Officials at six universities suggested that the federal 
government undertake a new initiative modeled after the National 
Defense Education Act of 1958, enacted in response to the former Soviet 
Union's achievement in its space program, which provided new funding 
for mathematics and science education and training at all education 
levels. In June 2005, CGS called for a renewed commitment to graduate 
education by the federal government through actions such as providing 
funds to support students trained at the doctoral level in the 
sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics; expanding U.S. 
citizen participation in doctoral study in selected fields through 
graduate support awarded competitively to universities across the 
country; requiring recruitment, outreach, and mentoring activities that 
promote greater participation and success, especially for 
underrepresented groups; and fostering interdisciplinary research 
preparation. In August 2003, the National Science Board recommended 
that the federal government direct substantial new support to students 
and institutions in order to improve success in science and engineering 
studies by domestic undergraduate students from all demographic groups. 
According to this report, such support could include scholarships and 
other forms of financial assistance to students, incentives to 
institutions to expand and improve the quality of their science and 
engineering programs in areas in which degree attainment is 
insufficient, financial support to community colleges to increase the 
success of students in transferring to 4-year science and engineering 
programs, and expanded funding for programs that best succeed in 
graduating underrepresented minorities and women in science and 
engineering. BEST also suggested that the federal government allocate 
additional resources to expand the mathematics and science education 
opportunities for underrepresented groups. However, little is known 
about how well federal resources have been used in the past. Changes 
that would require additional federal funds would likely have an impact 
on other federal programs, given the nation's limited resources and 
growing fiscal imbalance, and changing the federal role could take 
several years. 

Concluding Observations: 

While the total numbers of STEM graduates have increased, some fields 
have experienced declines, especially at the master's and doctoral 
levels. Given the trends in the numbers and percentages of students 
pursuing STEM degrees, particularly advanced degrees, and recent 
developments that have influenced international students' decisions 
about pursuing degrees in the United States, it is uncertain whether 
the number of STEM graduates will be sufficient to meet future academic 
and employment needs and help the country maintain its technological 
competitive advantage. Moreover, it is too early to tell if the 
declines in international graduate student enrollments will continue in 
the future. In terms of employment, despite some gains, the percentage 
of women in the STEM workforce has not changed significantly, minority 
employees remain underrepresented, and many with degrees in STEM fields 
are not employed in STEM occupations. 

To help improve the trends in the numbers of students, graduates, and 
employees in STEM fields, university officials and others made several 
suggestions, such as increasing the federal commitment to STEM 
education programs. However, before making changes, it is important to 
know the extent to which existing STEM education programs are 
appropriately targeted and making the best use of available federal 
resources. Additionally, in an era of limited financial resources and 
growing federal deficits, information about the effectiveness of these 
programs can help guide policy makers and program managers. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We received written comments on a draft of this report from Commerce, 
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), NSF, and NSTC. These 
comments are reprinted in appendixes VII, VIII, IX, and X, 
respectively. We also received technical comments from the Departments 
of Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Labor, and 
Transportation; and the Environmental Protection Agency and National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, which we incorporated when 
appropriate. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, Commerce, HHS, and NSTC 
commended GAO for this work. Commerce explicitly concurred with several 
findings and agreed with our overall conclusion. However, Commerce 
suggested that we revise the conclusion to point out that despite 
overall increases in STEM students, the numbers of graduates in certain 
fields have declined. We modified the concluding observations to make 
this point. HHS agreed with our conclusion that it is important to 
evaluate ongoing programs to determine the extent to which they are 
achieving their desired results. The comments from NSTC cited 
improvements made to help ensure that international students, exchange 
visitors, and scientists are able to apply for and receive visas in a 
timely manner. We did not make any changes to the report since we had 
cited another GAO product that discussed such improvements in the visa 
process. 

NSF commented about several of our findings. NSF stated that our 
program evaluations finding may be misleading largely because the type 
of information GAO requested and accepted from agencies was limited to 
program level evaluations and did not include evaluations of individual 
underlying projects. NSF suggested that we include information on the 
range of approaches used to assure program effectiveness. Our finding 
is based on agency officials' responses to a survey question that did 
not limit or stipulate the types of evaluations that could have been 
included. Nonetheless, we modified the report to acknowledge that NSF 
uses various approaches to evaluate its programs. 

NSF criticized the methodology we used to support our finding on the 
factors that influence decisions about pursuing STEM fields and 
suggested that we make it clearer in the body of the report that the 
findings are based on interviews with educators and administrators from 
8 colleges and universities, and responses from 31 students. Also, NSF 
suggested that we improve the report by including corroborating 
information from reports and studies. Our finding was not limited to 
interviews at the 8 colleges and universities and responses from 31 
current students but was also based on interviews with numerous 
representatives and policy experts from various organizations as well 
as findings from research and reports--which are cited in the body of 
the report. Using this approach, we were able to corroborate the 
testimonial evidence with data from reports and research as well as to 
determine whether information in the reports and research remained 
accurate by seeking the views of those currently teaching or studying 
in STEM fields. As NSF noted, this approach yielded reasonable 
observations. Additional information about our methodology is listed in 
appendix I, and we added a bibliography that identifies the reports and 
research used during the course of this review. 

NSF also commented that the report mentions the NSTC efforts for 
interagency collaboration, but does not mention other collaboration 
efforts such as the Federal Interagency Committee on Education and the 
Federal Interagency Coordinating Council. NSF also pointed out that 
interagency collaboration occurs at the program level. We did not 
modify the report in response to this comment. In conducting our work, 
we determined that the NSTC effort was the primary mechanism for 
interagency collaboration focused on STEM programs. The coordinating 
groups cited by NSF are focused on different issues. The Federal 
Interagency Committee on Education was established to coordinate the 
federal programs, policies, and practices affecting education broadly, 
and the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council was established to 
minimize duplication of programs and activities relating to children 
with disabilities. 

In addition, NSF provided information to clarify examples related to 
their programs that we cited in the report, stated that some data 
categories were not clear, and commented on the graduate level 
enrollment data we used in the report. NSF pointed out that while its 
program called Opportunities for Enhancing Diversity in the Geosciences 
is designed to increase participation by minorities, it does not limit 
eligibility to minorities. Also, NSF noted that while the draft report 
correctly indicated that students receiving scholarships or fellowships 
from NSF must be U.S. citizens or permanent residents, the reason given 
for limiting participation in these programs in the draft report was 
not accurate. According to NSF, these restrictions are considered to be 
an effective strategy to support its goal of creating a diverse, 
competitive and globally engaged U.S. workforce of scientists, 
engineers, technologists and well prepared citizens. We revised the 
report to reflect these changes. Further, NSF commented that the data 
categories were not clear, particularly the technology degrees and 
occupations, and that the data did not include associate degrees. We 
added information that lists all of the occupations included in the 
analysis, and we added footnotes to clarify which data included 
associate degrees and which ones did not. In addition, NSF commented 
that the graduate level enrollment data for international students 
based on NPSAS data are questionable in comparison with other available 
data and that this may be because the NPSAS data include a relatively 
small sample for graduate education. We considered using NPSAS and 
other data but decided to use the NPSAS data for two reasons: NPSAS 
data were more comprehensive and more current. Specifically, the NPSAS 
data were available through the 2003-2004 academic year and included 
numbers and characteristics of students enrolled for all degree fields-
-STEM and non-STEM--for all education levels, and citizenship 
information. 

Copies of this report are being sent to the Secretaries of Agriculture, 
Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Interior, 
Homeland Security, Labor, and Transportation; the Administrators for 
the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration; and the Directors of the National Science 
Foundation and the National Science and Technology Council; appropriate 
congressional committees; and interested parties. Copies will be made 
available to others upon request. The report is also available on GAO's 
Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me on (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov. Contact points for our 
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to 
this report are listed in appendix VII. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Cornelia M. Ashby, Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Objectives: 

The objectives of our study were to determine (1) the number of federal 
civilian education programs funded in fiscal year 2004 that were 
specifically designed to increase the number of students and graduates 
pursuing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 
degrees and occupations, or improve educational programs in STEM 
fields, and what agencies report about their effectiveness; (2) how the 
numbers, percentages, and characteristics of students, graduates, and 
employees in STEM fields have changed over the years; and (3) factors 
cited by educators and others as influencing people's decisions about 
pursuing STEM degrees and occupations, and suggestions to encourage 
greater participation in STEM fields. 

Scope and Methodology: 

In conducting our review, we used multiple methodologies. We (1) 
conducted a survey of federal departments and agencies that sponsored 
education programs specifically designed to increase the number of 
students and graduates pursuing STEM degrees and occupations or improve 
educational programs in STEM fields; (2) obtained and analyzed data, 
including the most recent data available, on students, graduates, and 
employees in STEM fields and occupations; (3) visited eight colleges 
and universities; (4) reviewed reports and studies; and (5) interviewed 
agency officials, representatives and policy experts from various 
organizations, and current students. We conducted our work between 
October 2004 and October 2005 in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards. 

Survey: 

To provide Congress with a better understanding of what programs 
federal agencies were supporting to increase the nation's pool of 
scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians, we designed a 
survey to determine (1) the number of federal education programs 
(prekindergarten through postdoctorate) designed to increase the 
quantity of students and graduates pursuing STEM degrees and 
occupations or improve the educational programs in STEM fields and (2) 
what agencies reported about the effectiveness of these programs. The 
survey asked the officials to describe the goals, target population, 
and funding levels for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 of such 
programs. In addition, the officials were asked when the programs began 
and if the programs had been or were being evaluated. 

We identified the agencies likely to support STEM education programs by 
reviewing the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and the Department 
of Education's Eisenhower National Clearinghouse, Guidebook of Federal 
Resources for K-12 Mathematics and Science, 2004-05. Using these 
resources, we identified 15 agencies with STEM education programs. The 
survey was conducted via e-mail using an ActiveX enabled MSWord 
attachment. A contact point was designated for each agency, and 
questionnaires were sent to that individual. One questionnaire was 
completed for each program the agency sponsored. Agency officials were 
asked to provide confirming documentation for their responses whenever 
possible. 

The questionnaire was forwarded to agencies on February 15, 2005, and 
responses were received through early May 2005. We received 244 
completed surveys and determined that 207 of them met the criteria for 
STEM programs. The following agencies participated in our survey: the 
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Homeland 
Security, Interior, Labor, and Transportation. In addition, the Health 
Resources and Services Administration, Indian Health Service, and 
National Institutes of Health, all part of Health and Human Services, 
took part in the survey. Also participating were the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 
and the National Science Foundation. Labor's programs did not meet our 
criteria for 2004 and the Department of Defense (DOD) did not submit a 
survey. According to DOD officials, DOD needed 3 months to complete the 
survey and therefore could not provide responses within the time frames 
of our work. We obtained varied amounts of documentation from 13 
civilian agencies for the 207 STEM education programs funded in 2004 
and information about the effectiveness of some programs. 

Because we administered the survey to all of the known federal agencies 
sponsoring STEM education programs, our results are not subject to 
sampling error. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any 
survey may introduce other types of errors, commonly referred to as 
nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a particular 
question is interpreted, the sources of information available to 
respondents in answering a question, or the types of people who do not 
respond can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We 
included steps in the development of the survey, the collection of 
data, and the editing and analysis of data for the purpose of 
minimizing such nonsampling errors. To reduce nonsampling error, the 
questionnaire was reviewed by survey specialists and pretested in 
person with three officials from agencies familiar with STEM education 
programs to develop a questionnaire that was relevant, easy to 
comprehend, unambiguous, and unbiased. We made changes to the content 
and format of the questionnaire based on the specialists' reviews and 
the results of the pretests. To further reduce nonsampling error, data 
for this study returned electronically were entered directly into the 
instrument by the respondents and converted into a database for 
analysis. Completed questionnaires returned as hard copy were 
keypunched, and a sample of these records was verified by comparing 
them with their corresponding questionnaires, and any errors were 
corrected. When the data were analyzed, a second, independent analyst 
checked all computer programs. Finally, to assess the reliability of 
key data obtained from our survey about some of the programs, we 
compared the responses with the documentation provided, or we 
independently researched the information from other publicly available 
sources. 

Analyses of Student, Graduate, and Employee Data: 

To determine how the numbers and characteristics of students, 
graduates, and employees in STEM fields have changed, we obtained and 
analyzed data from the Department of Education (Education) and the 
Department of Labor. Specifically, we analyzed the National 
Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) data and the Integrated 
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data from the Department of 
Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), and we 
analyzed data from the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor 
Statistics' (BLS) Current Population Survey (CPS). Based on National 
Science Foundation's categorization of STEM fields, we developed STEM 
fields of study from NPSAS and IPEDS, and identified occupations from 
the CPS. Using these data sources, we developed nine STEM fields for 
students, eight STEM fields for graduates, and four broad STEM fields 
for occupations. 

For our data reliability assessment, we reviewed agency documentation 
on the data sets and conducted electronic tests of the files. On the 
basis of these reviews, we determined that the required data elements 
from NPSAS, IPEDS and CPS were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. 
These data sources, type, time span, and years analyzed are shown in 
table 18. 

Table 18: Sources of Data, Data Obtained, Time Span of Data, and Years 
Analyzed: 

Department: Education; 
Agency: NCES; 
Database: NPSAS; 
Data obtained: College student enrollment; 
Time span of data: 9 years; 
Years analyzed: Academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004. 

Department: Education; 
Agency: NCES; 
Database: IPEDS; 
Data obtained: Graduation/degrees; 
Time span of data: 9 years; 
Years analyzed: Academic years 1994-1995 and 2002-2003. 

Department: Labor; 
Agency: BLS; 
Database: CPS; 
Data obtained: Employment; 
Time span of data: 10 years; 
Years analyzed: Calendar years 1994 through 2003. 

Sources: NPSAS, IPEDS, and CPS data. 

[End of table] 

NPSAS is a comprehensive nationwide study designed to determine how 
students and their families pay for postsecondary education, and to 
describe some demographic and other characteristics of those enrolled. 
The study is based on a nationally representative sample of students in 
postsecondary education institutions, including undergraduate, 
graduate, and first-professional students. The NPSAS has been conducted 
every several years since the 1986-1987 academic year. For this report, 
we analyzed the results of the NPSAS survey for the 1995-1996 academic 
year and the 2003-2004 academic year to compare student enrollment and 
demographic characteristics between these two periods for the nine STEM 
fields and non-STEM fields. 

Because the NPSAS sample is a probability sample of students, the 
sample is only one of a large number of samples that might have been 
drawn. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, 
confidence in the precision of the particular sample's results is 
expressed as a 95-percent confidence interval (for example, plus or 
minus 4 percentage points). This is the interval that would contain the 
actual population value for 95 percent of the samples that could have 
been drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the 
confidence intervals in this report will include the true values in the 
study population. NPSAS estimates used in this report and the upper and 
lower bounds of the 95 percent confidence intervals for each estimate 
relied on in this report are presented in appendix V. 

IPEDS is a single, comprehensive system designed to encompass all 
institutions and educational organizations whose primary purpose is to 
provide postsecondary education. IPEDS is built around a series of 
interrelated surveys to collect institution-level data in such areas as 
enrollments, program completions, faculty, staff, and finances. For 
this report, we analyzed the results of IPEDS data for the 1994-1995 
academic year and the 2002-2003 academic year to compare the numbers 
and characteristics of graduates with degrees in eight STEM fields and 
non-STEM fields. 

To analyze changes in employees in STEM and non-STEM fields, we 
obtained employment estimates from BLS's Current Population Survey 
March supplement for 1995 through 2004 (calendar years 1994 through 
2003). The CPS is a monthly survey of households conducted by the U.S. 
Census Bureau (Census) for BLS. The CPS provides a comprehensive body 
of information on the employment and unemployment experience of the 
nation's population, classified by age, sex, race, and a variety of 
other characteristics. A more complete description of the survey, 
including sample design, estimation, and other methodology can be found 
in the CPS documentation prepared by Census and BLS.[Footnote 39] 

This March supplement (the Annual Demographic Supplement) is 
specifically designed to estimate family characteristics, including 
income from all sources and occupation and industry classification of 
the job held longest during the previous year. It is conducted during 
the month of March each year because it is believed that since March is 
the month before the deadline for filing federal income tax returns, 
respondents would be more likely to report income more accurately than 
at any other point during the year.[Footnote 40] 

We used the CPS data to produce estimates on (1) four STEM fields, (2) 
men and women, (3) two separate minority groups (Black or African 
American, and Hispanic or Latino origin), and (4) median annual wages 
and salaries. The measures of median annual wages and salaries could 
include bonuses, but do not include noncash benefits such as health 
insurance or pensions. CPS salary reported in March of each year was 
for the longest held position actually worked the year before and 
reported by the worker himself (or a knowledgeable member of the 
household). Tables 19 and 20 list the classification codes and 
occupations included in our analysis of CPS data over a 10-year period 
(1994-2003). In developing the STEM groups, we considered the 
occupational requirements and educational attainment of individuals in 
certain occupations. We also excluded doctors and other health care 
providers except registered nurses. During the period of review, some 
codes and occupation titles were changed; we worked with BLS officials 
to identify variations in codes and occupations and accounted for these 
changes where appropriate and possible. 

Table 19: Classification codes and Occupations, 2002-2003: 

Science: 
1600 – Agricultural and food scientists; 
1610 – Biological scientists; 
1640 – Conservation scientists and foresters; 
1650 – Medical scientists; 
1700 – Astronomers and physicists; 
1710 – Atmospheric and space scientists; 
1720 – Chemists and materials scientists; 
1740 – Environmental scientists and geoscientists; 
1760 – Physical scientists, all other; 
1800 – Economists; 
1810 – Market and survey researchers; 
1820 – Psychologists; 
1830 – Sociologists; 
1840 – Urban and regional planners; 
1860 – Miscellaneous social scientists and related workers; 
2010 – Social workers; 
3130 – Registered nurses; 
6010 – Agricultural inspectors. 

Technology: 
1540 – Drafters; 
1550 – Engineering technicians, except drafters; 
1560 – Surveying and mapping technicians; 
1900 – Agricultural and food science technicians; 
1910 – Biological technicians; 
1920 – Chemical technicians; 
1930 – Geological and petroleum technicians; 
1940 – Nuclear technicians; 
1960 – Other life, physical, and social science technicians; 
3300 – Clinical laboratory technologists and technicians; 
7010 – Computer, automated teller and office machine repairers; 
8760 – Medical, dental, and ophthalmic laboratory technicians. 

Engineering: 
1300 – Architects, except naval; 
1310 – Surveyors, cartographers, and photogrammetrists; 
1320 – Aerospace engineers; 
1330 – Agricultural engineers; 
1340 – Biomedical engineers; 
1350 – Chemical engineers; 
1360 – Civil engineers; 
1400 – Computer hardware engineers; 
1410 – Electrical and electronic engineers; 
1420 – Environmental engineers; 
1430 – Industrial engineers, including health and safety; 
1440 – Marine engineers and naval architects; 
1450 – Materials engineers; 
1460 – Mechanical engineers; 
1500 – Mining and geological engineers, including mining safety 
engineers; 
1510 – Nuclear engineers; 
1520 – Petroleum engineers; 
1530 – Engineers, all other. 

Mathematics/Computer Science: 
1000 – Computer scientists and systems analysts; 
1010 – Computer programmers; 
1020 – Computer software engineers; 
1040 – Computer support specialists; 
1060 – Database administrators; 
1100 – Network and computer systems administrators; 
1110 – Network systems and data communications analysts; 
1200 – Actuaries; 
1210 – Mathematicians; 
1220 – Operations research analysts; 
1230 – Statisticians; 
1240 – Miscellaneous mathematical science occupations.

Source: GAO analysis of CPS occupation classifications. 

[End of table] 

Table 20: Classification codes and occupations, 1994-2001: 

Science: 
069 – Physicists and astronomers; 
073 – Chemists, except biochemists; 
074 – Atmospheric and space scientists; 
075 – Geologists and geodesists; 
076 – Physical scientists, n.e.c.; 
077 – Agricultural and food scientists; 
078 – Biological and life scientists; 
079 – Forestry and conservation scientists; 
083 – Medical scientists; 
095 – Registered Nurses; 
166 – Economists; 
167 – Psychologists; 
168 – Sociologists; 
169 – Social scientists, n.e.c.; 
173 – Urban planners; 
174 – Social workers; 
489 – Inspectors, agricultural products. 

Technology: 
203 – Clinical laboratory technologists and technicians; 
213 – Electrical and electronic technicians; 
214 – Industrial engineering technicians; 
215 – Mechanical engineering technicians; 
216 – Engineering technicians, n.e.c.; 
217 – Drafting occupations; 
218 – Surveying and mapping technicians; 
223 – Biological technicians; 
224 – Chemical technicians; 
225 – Science technicians, n.e.c.; 
235 – Technicians, n.e.c.; 
525 – Data processing equipment repairers. 

Engineering: 
043 – Architects; 
044 – Aerospace engineers; 
045 – Metallurgical and materials engineers; 
046 – Mining engineers; 
047 – Petroleum engineers; 
048 – Chemical engineers; 
049 – Nuclear engineers; 
053 – Civil engineers; 
054 – Agricultural engineers; 
055 – Electrical and electronic engineers; 
056 – Industrial engineers; 
057 – Mechanical engineers; 
058 – Marine and naval architects; 
059 – Engineers, n.e.c.; 
063 – Surveyors and mapping scientists. 

Mathematics/Computer Science: 
064 – Computer systems analysts and scientists; 
065 – Operations and systems researchers and analysts; 
066 – Actuaries; 
067 – Statisticians; 
068 – Mathematical scientists, n.e.c.; 
229 – Computer programmers. 

Source: GAO analysis of CPS occupation classifications. 

Note: For occupations not elsewhere classified (n.e.c.) 

[End of table] 

Because the CPS is a probability sample based on random selections, the 
sample is only one of a large number of samples that might have been 
drawn. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, 
confidence in the precision of the particular sample's results is 
expressed as a 95 percent confidence interval (e.g., plus or minus 4 
percentage points). This is the interval that would contain the actual 
population value for 95 percent of the samples that could have been 
drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the 
confidence intervals in this report will include the true values in the 
study population. We use the CPS general variance methodology to 
estimate this sampling error and report it as confidence intervals. 
Percentage estimates we produce from the CPS data have 95 percent 
confidence intervals of plus or minus 6 percentage points or less. 
Estimates other than percentages have 95 percent confidence intervals 
of no more than plus or minus 10 percent of the estimate itself, unless 
otherwise noted. Consistent with the CPS documentation guidelines, we 
do not produce estimates based on the March supplement data for 
populations of less than 75,000. 

GAO's internal control procedures provide reasonable assurance that our 
data analyses are appropriate for the purposes we are using them. These 
procedures include, but are not limited to, having skilled staff 
perform the analyses, supervisory review by senior analysts, and 
indexing/referencing (confirming that the analyses are supported by the 
underlying audit documentation) activities. 

College and University Visits: 

We interviewed administrators and professors during site visits to 
eight colleges and universities--the University of California at Los 
Angeles and the University of Southern California in California; Clark 
Atlanta University, Georgia Institute of Technology, and Spelman 
College in Georgia; the University of Illinois; Purdue University in 
Indiana; and Pennsylvania State University. These colleges and 
universities were selected based on the following factors: large 
numbers of domestic and international students in STEM fields, a mix of 
public and private institutions, number of doctoral degrees conferred, 
and some geographic diversity. We also selected three minority-serving 
colleges and universities, one of which serves only women students. 
Clark Atlanta University and Spelman College were selected, in part, 
because of their partnerships with the College of Engineering at the 
Georgia Institute of Technology. During these visits we asked the 
university officials about factors that influenced whether people 
pursue a STEM education or occupations and suggestions for addressing 
those factors that may influence participation. For example, we asked 
university officials to identify (1) issues related to the education 
pipeline; (2) steps taken by their university to alleviate some of the 
conditions that may discourage student participation in STEM areas; and 
(3) the federal role, if any, in attracting and retaining domestic 
students in STEM fields. We also obtained documents on programs they 
sponsored to help support STEM students and graduates. 

Reviews of Reports and Studies: 

We reviewed several articles, reports, and books related to trends in 
STEM enrollment and factors that have an effect on people's decisions 
to pursue STEM fields. For two studies, we evaluated the methodological 
soundness using common social science and statistical practices. We 
examined each study's methodology, including its limitations, data 
sources, analyses, and conclusions. 

* Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences, by 
Elaine Seymour and Nancy Hewitt.[Footnote 41] This study used 
interviews and focus groups/group interviews at selected universities 
to identify self-reported reasons for changing majors from science, 
mathematics, or engineering. The study had four primary objectives: (1) 
to identify sources of qualitative differences in educational 
experiences of science, mathematics, and engineering students at higher 
educational institutions of different types; (2) to identify 
differences in structure, culture, and pedagogy of science, 
mathematics, and engineering departments and the impact on student 
retention; (3) to compare and contrast causes of science, mathematics, 
and engineering students' attrition by race/ethnicity and gender; and 
(4) to estimate the relative importance of factors found to contribute 
to science, mathematics, and engineering students' attrition. The 
researchers selected seven universities to represent the types of 
colleges and universities that supply most of the nations' scientists, 
mathematicians, and engineers. The types of institutions were selected 
to test whether there are differences in educational experiences, 
culture and pedagogy, race/ethnicity and gender attrition, and reasons 
for attrition by type of institution. Because the selection of students 
was not strictly random and because there is no documentation that the 
data were weighted to reflect the proportions of types of students 
selected, it is not possible to determine confidence intervals. Thus it 
is not possible to say which differences are statistically significant. 
The findings are now more than a decade old and thus might not reflect 
current pedagogy and other factors about the educational experience, 
students, or the socioeconomic environment. It is important to note 
that the quantitative results of this study are based on the views of 
one constituency or stakeholder--students. Views of faculty, school 
administrators, graduates, professional associations, and employers are 
not included. 

* NCES's Qualifications of the Public School Teacher Workforce: 
Prevalence of Out-of-Field Teaching, 1987-1988 to 1999-2000 report. 
This study is an analysis based upon the Schools and Staffing Survey 
for 1999-2000. The report was issued in 2004 by the Institute of 
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. NCES's Schools and 
Staffing Survey (SASS) is a representative sample of U.S. schools, 
districts, principals, and teachers. The report focusing on teacher's 
qualifications uses data from the district and teacher portion of SASS. 
The 1999-2000 SASS included a nationally representative sample of 
public schools and universe of all public charter schools with students 
in any of grades 1 through 12 and in operation in school year 1999-
2000. The 1999-2000 SASS administration also included nationally 
representative samples of teachers in the selected public and public 
charter schools who taught students in grades kindergarten through 12 
in school year 1999-2000. There were 51,811 public school teachers in 
the sample and 42,086 completed public school teacher interviews. In 
addition, there are 3,617 public charter school teachers in the sample 
with 2,847 completed interviews. The overall weighted teacher response 
rate was 76.7 percent for public school teachers and 71.8 percent for 
public charter school teachers. NCES has strong standards for carrying 
out educational surveys. The Office of Management and Budget vetted the 
questionnaire and sample design. The Census Bureau carried out survey 
quality control and data editing. One potential limitation is the 
amount of time it takes the Census Bureau to get the data from field 
collection to public release, but this is partly due to the 
thoroughness of the data quality steps followed. The SASS survey meets 
GAO standards for use as evidence in a report. 

Interviews: 

We interviewed officials from 13 federal agencies with STEM education 
programs to obtain information about the STEM programs and their views 
on related topics, including factors that influence students' decisions 
about pursuing STEM degrees and occupations, and the extent of 
coordination among the federal agencies. We also interviewed officials 
from the National Science and Technology Council to discuss 
coordination efforts. In addition, we interviewed representatives and 
policy experts from various organizations. These organizations were the 
American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Commission on 
Professionals in Science and Technology, the Council of Graduate 
Schools, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, the National 
Academies, and the Council on Competitiveness. 

We also conducted interviews via e-mail with 31 students. We asked 
officials from the eight universities visited to identify students to 
complete our e-mail interviews, and students who completed the 
interviews attended five of the colleges we visited. Of the 31 
students: 16 attended Purdue University, 6 attended the University of 
Southern California, 6 attended Spelman College, 2 attended the 
University of California Los Angeles, and 1 attended the Georgia 
Institute of Technology. In addition, 19 students were undergraduates 
and 12 were graduate students; 19 students identified themselves as 
women and 12 students identified themselves as men. Of the 19 
undergraduate students, 9 said that they plan to pursue graduate work 
in a STEM field. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: List of 207 Federal STEM Education Programs: 

Based on surveys submitted by officials representing the 13 civilian 
federal agencies, table 21 contains a list of the 207 science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education programs 
funded in fiscal year 2004. 

Table 21: Federal STEM Education Programs Funded in FY 2004: 

Department of Agriculture. 

Program number: 1; 
Program name: 1890 Institution Teaching and Research Capacity Building 
Grants Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $11.4 million. 

Program number: 2; 
Program name: Higher Education Challenge Grants Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $4.6 million. 

Program number: 3; 
Program name: Hispanic-Serving Institutions Education Grants Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $4.6 million. 

Program number: 4; 
Program name: Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving 
Institutions Education Grants Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $3 million. 

Program number: 5; 
Program name: Food and Agricultural Sciences National Needs Graduate 
and Postdoctoral Fellowships Grants Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $2.9 million. 

Program number: 6; 
Program name: Tribal Colleges Endowment Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $1.9 million. 

Program number: 7; 
Program name: Tribal Colleges Education Equity Grants Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $1.7 million. 

Program number: 8; 
Program name: Tribal Colleges Research Grant Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $1.1 million. 

Program number: 9; 
Program name: Higher Education Multicultural Scholars Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $986,000. 

Program number: 10; 
Program name: International Science and Education Competitive Grants 
Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $859,000. 

Program number: 11; 
Program name: Secondary and Two-Year Postsecondary Agricultural 
Education Challenge Grants Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $839,000. 

Program number: 12; 
Program name: Agriculture in the Classroom; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $623,000. 

Program number: 13; 
Program name: Career Intern Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $272,000. 

Program number: 14; 
Program name: Veterinary Medical Doctoral Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $140,000. 

Program number: 15; 
Program name: 1890 National Scholars Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $16,000. 

Program number: 16; 
Program name: Hispanic Scholars Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $4,000. 

Department of Commerce. 

Program number: 17; 
Program name: Educational Partnership Program with Minority Serving 
Institutions; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $7.4 million. 

Program number: 18; 
Program name: National Marine Sanctuaries Education Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $4.4 million. 

Program number: 19; 
Program name: National Sea Grant College Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $4 million. 

Program number: 20; 
Program name: Chesapeake Bay Watershed Education and Training Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $2.5 million. 

Program number: 21; 
Program name: Coral Reef Conservation Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $1.8 million. 

Program number: 22; 
Program name: Exploration, Education and Outreach; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $1.3 million. 

Program number: 23; 
Program name: National Estuarine Research Reserve Graduate Research 
Fellowship Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $1 million. 

Program number: 24; 
Program name: Bay Watershed Education and Training Hawaii Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $500,000. 

Program number: 25; 
Program name: Monterey Bay Watershed Education and Training Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $500,000. 

Program number: 26; 
Program name: Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $494,000. 

Program number: 27; 
Program name: EstuaryLive; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $115,000. 

Program number: 28; 
Program name: Teacher at Sea Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $95,000. 

Program number: 29; 
Program name: High School-High Tech; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $11,000. 

Department of Education. 

Program number: 30; 
Program name: Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $149 million. 

Program number: 31; 
Program name: Upward Bound Math and Science Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $32.8 million. 

Program number: 32; 
Program name: Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $30.6 million. 

Program number: 33; 
Program name: Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $8.9 million. 

Department of Energy. 

Program number: 34; 
Program name: Science Undergraduate Laboratory Internship; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $2.5 million. 

Program number: 35; 
Program name: Computational Science Graduate Fellowship; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $2 million. 

Program number: 36; 
Program name: Global Change Education Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $1.4 million. 

Program number: 37; 
Program name: Laboratory Science Teacher Professional Development; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $1 million. 

Program number: 38; 
Program name: National Science Bowl; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $702,000. 

Program number: 39; 
Program name: Community College Institute of Science and Technology; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $605,000. 

Program number: 40; 
Program name: Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $600,000. 

Program number: 41; 
Program name: QuarkNet; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $575,000. 

Program number: 42; 
Program name: Fusion Energy Sciences Fellowship Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $555,000. 

Program number: 43; 
Program name: Pre-Service Teacher Fellowships; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $510,000. 

Program number: 44; 
Program name: National Undergraduate Fellowship Program in Plasma 
Physics and Fusion Energy Sciences; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $300,000. 

Program number: 45; 
Program name: Fusion Energy Postdoctoral Research Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $243,000. 

Program number: 46; 
Program name: Faculty and Student Teams; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $215,000. 

Program number: 47; 
Program name: Advancing Precollege Science and Mathematics Education; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $209,000. 

Program number: 48; 
Program name: Pan American Advanced Studies Institute; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $200,000. 

Program number: 49; 
Program name: Trenton Community Partnership; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $200,000. 

Program number: 50; 
Program name: Fusion/Plasma Education; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $125,000. 

Program number: 51; 
Program name: National Middle School Science Bowl; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $100,000. 

Program number: 52; 
Program name: Research Project on the Recruitment, Retention, and 
Promotion of Women in the Chemical Sciences; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $100,000. 

Program number: 53; 
Program name: Used Energy Related Laboratory Equipment; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $80,000. 

Program number: 54; 
Program name: Plasma Physics Summer Institute for High School Physics 
Teachers; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $78,000. 

Program number: 55; 
Program name: Pre-Service Teacher Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $45,000. 

Program number: 56; 
Program name: Wonders of Physics Traveling Show; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $45,000. 

Program number: 57; 
Program name: Hampton University Graduate Studies; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $40,000. 

Program number: 58; 
Program name: Contemporary Physics Education Project; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $23,000. 

Program number: 59; 
Program name: Cooperative Education Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $17,000. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Program number: 60; 
Program name: Science to Achieve Results Research Grants Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $93.3 million. 

Program number: 61; 
Program name: Science to Achieve Results Graduate Fellowship Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $10 million. 

Program number: 62; 
Program name: Post-Doctoral Fellows Environmental Research Growth 
Opportunities; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $7.4 million. 

Program number: 63; 
Program name: Intern Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $3 million. 

Program number: 64; 
Program name: Environmental Science and Engineering Fellows Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $2.5 million. 

Program number: 65; 
Program name: Greater Research Opportunities Graduate Fellowship 
Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $1.5 million. 

Program number: 66; 
Program name: Environmental Risk & Impact in Communities of Color and 
Economically Disadvantaged Communities; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $824,000. 

Program number: 67; 
Program name: Research Internship for Students in Ecology; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $698,000. 

Program number: 68; 
Program name: National Network for Environmental Management Studies 
Fellowship Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $589,000. 

Program number: 69; 
Program name: Cooperative Agreements for Training Cooperative 
Partnerships; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $352,000. 

Program number: 70; 
Program name: University of Cincinnati/EPA Research Training Grant; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $300,000. 

Program number: 71; 
Program name: P3 Award: National Student Design Competition for 
Sustainability; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $150,000. 

Program number: 72; 
Program name: Environmental Protection Agency and the Hispanic 
Association of Colleges and Universities Cooperative Agreement; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $121,000. 

Program number: 73; 
Program name: Environmental Science Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $100,000. 

Program number: 74; 
Program name: Environmental Career Organization's Internship Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $89,000. 

Program number: 75; 
Program name: EPA--Cincinnati Research Apprenticeship Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $75,000. 

Program number: 76; 
Program name: Environmental Protection Internship Program Summer 
Training Initiative; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $72,000. 

Program number: 77; 
Program name: Tribal Lands Environmental Science Scholarship Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $60,000. 

Program number: 78; 
Program name: Internship Program for University of Arizona Engineering 
Students; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $50,000. 

Program number: 79; 
Program name: Teacher Professional Development Workshop for Teachers 
Grade 6-12; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $18,000. 

Program number: 80; 
Program name: Saturday Academy, Apprenticeships in Science and 
Engineering Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $6,000. 

Department of Health and Human Services/Health Resources and Services 
Administration. 

Program number: 81; 
Program name: Scholarships for Disadvantaged Students Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $45.5 million. 

Program number: 82; 
Program name: Nursing Workforce Diversity; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $16 million. 

Program number: 83; 
Program name: Faculty Loan Repayment Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $1.1 million. 

Department of Health and Human Services/Indian Health Service. 

Program number: 84; 
Program name: Indian Health Professions Scholarship; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $8.1 million. 

Program number: 85; 
Program name: Health Professions Scholarship Program for Indians; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $3.7 million. 

Department of Health and Human Services/National Institutes of Health. 

Program number: 86; 
Program name: Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award 
Institutional Research Training Grants; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $546.9 million. 

Program number: 87; 
Program name: Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards for 
Individual Postdoctoral Fellows; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $72.6 million. 

Program number: 88; 
Program name: Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in Health-
Related Research; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $70 million. 

Program number: 89; 
Program name: Postdoctoral Visiting Fellow Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $64.8 million. 

Program number: 90; 
Program name: Clinical Research Loan Repayment Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $40.6 million. 

Program number: 91; 
Program name: Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards for 
Individual Predoctoral Fellows, Predoctoral Minority Students, and 
Predoctoral Students with Disabilities; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $33.8 million. 

Program number: 92; 
Program name: Minority Access to Research Careers Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $30.7 million. 

Program number: 93; 
Program name: Postdoctoral Intramural Research Training Award Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $30.2 million. 

Program number: 94; 
Program name: Science Education Partnership Award; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $16 million. 

Program number: 95; 
Program name: Pediatric Research Loan Repayment Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $15.9 million. 

Program number: 96; 
Program name: Post-baccalaureate Intramural Research Training Award 
Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $9.1 million. 

Program number: 97; 
Program name: Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award Short-
Term Institutional Research Training Grants; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $9 million. 

Program number: 98; 
Program name: Health Disparities Research Loan Repayment Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $8.7 million. 

Program number: 99; 
Program name: Graduate Program Partnerships; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $7.4 million. 

Program number: 100; 
Program name: Student Intramural Research Training Award Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $6.3 million. 

Program number: 101; 
Program name: Career Opportunities in Research Education and Training 
Honors Undergraduate Research Training Grant; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $5 million. 

Program number: 102; 
Program name: General Research Loan Repayment Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $4.9 million. 

Program number: 103; 
Program name: Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards for 
Individual M.D./Ph.D. Predoctoral Fellows; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $4.7 million. 

Program number: 104; 
Program name: Science Education Drug Abuse Partnership Award; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $3.1 million. 

Program number: 105; 
Program name: Pharmacology Research Associate Training Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $2.7 million. 

Program number: 106; 
Program name: Technical Intramural Research Training Award; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $1.9 million. 

Program number: 107; 
Program name: Fellowships in Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $1.8 million. 

Program number: 108; 
Program name: Clinical Research Loan Repayment Program for Individuals 
from Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $1.7 million. 

Program number: 109; 
Program name: Contraception and Infertility Research Loan Repayment 
Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $1 million. 

Program number: 110; 
Program name: Medical Infomatics Training Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $853,000. 

Program number: 111; 
Program name: Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Individuals from 
Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $838,000. 

Program number: 112; 
Program name: Curriculum Supplement Series; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $788,000. 

Program number: 113; 
Program name: National Science Foundation and the National Institute of 
Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $782,000. 

Program number: 114; 
Program name: Summer Institute for Training in Biostatistics; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $694,000. 

Program number: 115; 
Program name: Summer Institute on Design and Conduct of Randomized 
Clinical Trials Involving Behavioral Interventions; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $622,000. 

Program number: 116; 
Program name: Clinical Research Loan Repayment Program for Individuals 
from Disadvantaged Background; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $551,000. 

Program number: 117; 
Program name: Clinical Research Training Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $407,000. 

Program number: 118; 
Program name: NIH Academy; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $385,000. 

Program number: 119; 
Program name: Health Communications Internship Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $340,000. 

Program number: 120; 
Program name: NIH/National Institute of Standards and Technology Joint 
Postdoctoral Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $338,000. 

Program number: 121; 
Program name: Summer Genetics Institute; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $323,000. 

Program number: 122; 
Program name: AIDS Research Loan Repayment Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $271,000. 

Program number: 123; 
Program name: Intramural NIAID Research Opportunities; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $271,000. 

Program number: 124; 
Program name: Cancer Research Interns in Residence; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $250,000. 

Program number: 125; 
Program name: Comparative Molecular Pathology Research Training 
Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $199,000. 

Program number: 126; 
Program name: Office of Research on Women's Health-funded Programs with 
the Office of Intramural Research; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $179,000. 

Program number: 127; 
Program name: Summer Institute for Social Work Research; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $144,000. 

Program number: 128; 
Program name: Office of Research on Women's Health-funded Programs with 
the Office of Intramural Training and Education; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $119,000. 

Program number: 129; 
Program name: CCR/JHU Master of Science in Biotechnology Concentration 
in Molecular Targets and Drug Discovery Technologies; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $111,000. 

Program number: 130; 
Program name: Introduction to Cancer Research Careers; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $96,000. 

Program number: 131; 
Program name: Fellows Award for Research Excellence Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $61,000. 

Program number: 132; 
Program name: Office of Research on Women's Health-funded Programs 
Supplements to Promote Reentry into Biomedical and Behavioral Research 
Careers; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $60,000. 

Program number: 133; 
Program name: Translational Research in Clinical Oncology; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $28,000. 

Program number: 134; 
Program name: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 
Office of Fellows' Career Development; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $20,000. 

Program number: 135; 
Program name: Mobilizing for Action to Address the Unequal Burden of 
Cancer: NIH Research and Training Opportunities; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $10,000. 

Program number: 136; 
Program name: Sallie Rosen Kaplan Fellowship for Women in Cancer 
Research; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $5,000. 

Department of Homeland Security. 

Program number: 137; 
Program name: Scholars and Fellows Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $4.7 million. 

Department of the Interior. 

Program number: 138; 
Program name: Cooperative Research Units Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $15.3 million. 

Program number: 139; 
Program name: Water Resources Research Act Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $6.4 million. 

Program number: 140; 
Program name: U.S. Geological Survey Mendenhall Postdoctoral Research 
Fellowship Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $3.5 million. 

Program number: 141; 
Program name: Student Educational Employment Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $1.8 million. 

Program number: 142; 
Program name: EDMAP Component of the National Cooperative Geologic 
Mapping Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $490,000. 

Program number: 143; 
Program name: Student Career Experience Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $177,000. 

Program number: 144; 
Program name: Cooperative Development Energy Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $60,000. 

Program number: 145; 
Program name: Diversity Employment Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $30,000. 

Program number: 146; 
Program name: Cooperative Agreement with Langston University; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $15,000. 

Program number: 147; 
Program name: Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Academy; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $15,000. 

Program number: 148; 
Program name: Shorebird Sister Schools Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $15,000. 

Program number: 149; 
Program name: Build a Bridge Contest; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $14,000. 

Program number: 150; 
Program name: VIVA Technology; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $8,000. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

Program number: 151; 
Program name: Minority University Research Education Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $106.6 million. 

Program number: 152; 
Program name: Higher Education; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $77.4 million. 

Program number: 153; 
Program name: Elementary and Secondary Education; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $31.3 million. 

Program number: 154; 
Program name: E-Education; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $9.7 million. 

Program number: 155; 
Program name: Informal Education; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $5.5 million. 

National Science Foundation. 

Program number: 156; 
Program name: Math and Science Partnership Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $138.7 million. 

Program number: 157; 
Program name: Graduate Research Fellowship Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $96 million. 

Program number: 158; 
Program name: Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship 
Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $67.7 million. 

Program number: 159; 
Program name: Teacher Professional Continuum; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $61.5 million. 

Program number: 160; 
Program name: Research Experiences for Undergraduates; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $51.7 million. 

Program number: 161; 
Program name: Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $49.8 million. 

Program number: 162; 
Program name: Advanced Technological Education; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $45.9 million. 

Program number: 163; 
Program name: Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $40.7 million. 

Program number: 164; 
Program name: Research on Learning and Education; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $39.4 million. 

Program number: 165; 
Program name: Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics 
Scholarships; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $33.9 million. 

Program number: 166; 
Program name: Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $33.3 million. 

Program number: 167; 
Program name: Centers for Learning and Teaching; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $30.8 million. 

Program number: 168; 
Program name: Instructional Materials Development; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $29.3 million. 

Program number: 169; 
Program name: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent 
Expansion Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $25 million. 

Program number: 170; 
Program name: Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
Undergraduate Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $23.8 million. 

Program number: 171; 
Program name: Interagency Education Research Initiative; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $23.6 million. 

Program number: 172; 
Program name: Information Technology Experiences for Students and 
Teachers; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $20.9 million. 

Program number: 173; 
Program name: Enhancing the Mathematical Sciences Workforce in the 21st 
Century; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $20.6 million. 

Program number: 174; 
Program name: Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $19.8 million. 

Program number: 175; 
Program name: ADVANCE: Increasing the Participation and Advancement of 
Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $19.4 million. 

Program number: 176; 
Program name: Federal Cyber Service: Scholarship for Service; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $15.8 million. 

Program number: 177; 
Program name: Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $15.3 million. 

Program number: 178; 
Program name: Research on Gender in Science and Engineering; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $10 million. 

Program number: 179; 
Program name: Tribal Colleges and Universities Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $10 million. 

Program number: 180; 
Program name: Model Institutions for Excellence; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $9.7 million. 

Program number: 181; 
Program name: Grants for the Department-Level Reform of Undergraduate 
Engineering Education; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $8.2 million. 

Program number: 182; 
Program name: Robert Noyce Scholarship Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $8 million. 

Program number: 183; 
Program name: Research Experiences for Teachers; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $5.8 million. 

Program number: 184; 
Program name: Nanoscale Science and Engineering Education; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $4.8 million. 

Program number: 185; 
Program name: Research in Disabilities Education; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $4.6 million. 

Program number: 186; 
Program name: Opportunities for Enhancing Diversity in the Geosciences; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $4 million. 

Program number: 187; 
Program name: Mathematical Sciences Postdoctoral Research Fellowships; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $3.7 million. 

Program number: 188; 
Program name: Minority Postdoctoral Research Fellowships and Supporting 
Activities; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $3.2 million. 

Program number: 189; 
Program name: Partnerships for Research and Education in Materials; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $3 million. 

Program number: 190; 
Program name: Undergraduate Research Centers; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $3 million. 

Program number: 191; 
Program name: Centers for Ocean Science Education Excellence; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $2.8 million. 

Program number: 192; 
Program name: Undergraduate Mentoring in Environmental Biology; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $2.2 million. 

Program number: 193; 
Program name: Director's Award for Distinguished Teaching Scholars; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $1.8 million. 

Program number: 194; 
Program name: Astronomy and Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellowship 
Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $1.6 million. 

Program number: 195; 
Program name: Geoscience Education; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $1.5 million. 

Program number: 196; 
Program name: Internships in Public Science Education; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $1.2 million. 

Program number: 197; 
Program name: Discovery Corps Fellowship Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $1.1 million. 

Program number: 198; 
Program name: East Asia & Pacific Summer Institutes for U.S. Graduate 
Students; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $1 million. 

Program number: 199; 
Program name: Pan-American Advanced Studies Institutes; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $800,000. 

Program number: 200; 
Program name: Distinguished International Postdoctoral Research 
Fellowships; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $788,000. 

Program number: 201; 
Program name: Postdoctoral Fellowships in Polar Regions Research; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $667,000. 

Program number: 202; 
Program name: Arctic Research and Education; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $300,000. 

Program number: 203; 
Program name: Developing Global Scientists and Engineers; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $172,000. 

Department of Transportation. 

Program number: 204; 
Program name: University Transportation Centers Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $32.5 million. 

Program number: 205; 
Program name: Dwight David Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship 
Program; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $2 million. 

Program number: 206; 
Program name: Summer Transportation Institute; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $2 million. 

Program number: 207; 
Program name: Summer Transportation Internship Program for Diverse 
Groups; 
Fiscal year 04 funding: $925,000. 

Source: GAO survey responses from 13 federal agencies. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Federal STEM Education Programs Funded at $10 Million or 
More: 

The federal civilian agencies reported that the following science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education programs were 
funded with at least $10 million in either fiscal year 2004 or 2005. 
However, programs that received $10 million or more in fiscal year 2004 
but were unfunded for fiscal year 2005 were excluded from table 22. 
Agency officials also provided the program descriptions in table 22. 

Table 22: Federal STEM Education Programs Funded at $10 Million or More 
during Fiscal Year 2004 or Fiscal Year 2005: 

Funding (in millions of dollars)[A]. 

Department of Agriculture. 

Program: 1890 Institution Teaching and Research Capacity Building 
Grants Program; 
Description: Is intended to strengthen teaching and research programs 
in the food and agricultural sciences by building the institutional 
capacities of the 1890 Land-Grant Institutions and Tuskegee University 
and West Virginia State University through cooperative linkages with 
federal and nonfederal entities. The program supports projects that 
strengthen teaching programs in the food and agricultural sciences in 
the targeted educational need areas of curriculum design and materials 
development, faculty preparation and enhancement of teaching, student 
experiential learning, and student recruitment and retention; 
First year: 1990; 
2004: $11.4; 
2005: $12.5. 

Department of Education. 

Program: Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program; 
Description: Is intended to increase the academic achievement of 
students in mathematics and science by enhancing the content knowledge 
and teaching skills of classroom teachers. Partnerships are between 
high-need school districts and the science, technology, engineering, 
and mathematics faculties of institutions of higher education; 
First year: 2002; 
2004: $149; 
2005: $180. 

Program: Upward Bound Math and Science Program; 
Description: Designed to prepare low-income, first-generation college 
students for postsecondary education programs that lead to careers in 
the fields of math and science; 
First year: 1990; 
2004: $32.8; 
2005: $32.8. 

Program: Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need; 
Description: Provides fellowships in academic areas of national need to 
assist graduate students with excellent academic records who 
demonstrate financial need and plan to pursue the highest degree 
available in their courses of study; 
First year: 1988; 
2004: $30.6; 
2005: $30.4. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Program: Science to Achieve Results Research Grants Program; 
Description: Funds research grants in numerous environmental science 
and engineering disciplines. The program engages the nation's best 
scientists and engineers in targeted research. The grant program is 
currently focused on the health effects of particulate matter, drinking 
water, water quality, global change, ecosystem assessment and 
restoration, human health risk assessment, endocrine disrupting 
chemicals, pollution prevention and new technologies, children's 
health, and socio-economic research; 
First year: 1995; 
2004: $93.3; 
2005: $80.1. 

Program: Science to Achieve Results Graduate Fellowship Program; 
Description: The purpose of this fellowship program is to encourage 
promising students to obtain advanced degrees and pursue careers in 
environmentally related fields; 
First year: 1995; 
2004: $10; 
2005: $10. 

Department of Health and Human Services/Health Resources and Services 
Administration. 

Program: Scholarships for Disadvantaged Students Program; 
Description: Funds are awarded to accredited schools of allopathic 
medicine, osteopathic medicine, dentistry, optometry, pharmacy, 
podiatric medicine, veterinary medicine, nursing, public health, 
chiropractic, or allied health, and schools offering graduate programs 
in behavioral and mental health practice. Priority is given to schools 
based on the proportion of graduating students going into primary care, 
the proportion of underrepresented minority students enrolled, and 
graduates working in medically underserved communities. Schools select 
qualified students and provide scholarships that cannot exceed tuition 
and reasonable educational and living expenses; 
First year: 1991; 
2004: $45.5; 
2005: Not avail. 

Program: Nursing Workforce Diversity; 
Description: To increase nursing education opportunities for 
individuals who are from disadvantaged backgrounds (including racial 
and ethnic minorities underrepresented among registered nurses) by 
providing student stipends, pre-entry preparation, and retention 
activities; 
First year: 1989; 
2004: $16; 
2005: $16. 

Department of Health and Human Services/National Institutes of Health. 

Program: Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award 
Institutional Research Training Grants; 
Description: Is designed to develop and enhance research training 
opportunities for individuals in biomedical, behavioral, and clinical 
research by supporting training programs at institutions of higher 
education. These institutional training grants allow the director of 
the program to select the trainees and to develop a curriculum of study 
and research experiences necessary to provide high-quality research 
training. The grant helps offset the cost of stipends and tuition for 
the appointed trainees. Graduate students, postdoctoral trainees, and 
short-term research training for health professional students can be 
supported by this grant; 
First year: 1975; 
2004: $546.9; 
2005: Not avail. 

Program: Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards for 
Individual Postdoctoral Fellows; 
Description: To support the advanced training of individual students 
who have recently received doctoral degrees. This phase of research 
education and training is performed under the direct supervision of a 
sponsor who is an active investigator in the area of the proposed 
research. The training is designed to enhance the fellow's 
understanding of the health-related sciences and extend his/her 
potential to become a productive scientist who can perform research in 
biomedical, behavioral, or clinical fields; 
First year: 1975; 
2004: $72.6; 
2005: Not avail. 

Program: Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in Health-Related 
Research; 
Description: To improve the diversity of the research workforce by 
recruiting and supporting students, postdoctoral fellows, and eligible 
investigators from groups that have been shown to be underrepresented, 
such as individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, 
individuals with disabilities, and individuals from disadvantaged 
backgrounds; 
First year: 1989; 
2004: $70; 
2005: $70. 

Program: Postdoctoral Visiting Fellow Program; 
Description: To provide advanced practical biomedical research 
experience to individuals who are foreign nationals and are 1 to 5 
years beyond obtaining their Ph.D. or professional doctorate (e.g., 
M.D., DDS, etc.); 
First year: 1950; 
2004: $64.8; 
2005: $70.7. 

Program: Clinical Research Loan Repayment Program; 
Description: To attract health professionals to careers in clinical 
research. Clinical research is defined as "patient-oriented clinical 
research conducted with human subjects, or research on the causes and 
consequences of disease in human populations involving material of 
human origin (such as tissue specimens and cognitive phenomena) for 
which an investigator or colleague directly interacts with human 
subjects in an outpatient or inpatient setting to clarify a problem in 
human physiology, pathophysiology or disease, or epidemiologic or 
behavioral studies, outcomes research or health services research, or 
developing new technologies, therapeutic interventions, or clinical 
trials."; 
First year: 2002; 
2004: $40.6; 
2005: $42.6. 

Program: Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards for 
Individual Predoctoral Fellows, Predoctoral Minority Students, and 
Predoctoral Students with Disabilities; 
Description: Provides predoctoral fellowships to students who are 
candidates for doctoral degrees and are performing dissertation 
research and training under the supervision of a mentor who is an 
active and established investigator in the area of the proposed 
research. The applicant and mentor must provide evidence of potential 
for a productive research career based upon the quality of previous 
research training, academic record, and training program. The applicant 
and mentor must propose a research project that will enhance the 
student's ability to understand and perform scientific research. The 
training program should be carried out in a research environment that 
includes appropriate resources and is demonstrably committed to the 
student's training; 
First year: 1975; 
2004: $33.8; 
2005: Not avail. 

Program: Minority Access to Research Careers Program; 
Description: Offers special research training support to 4-year 
colleges, universities, and health professional schools with 
substantial enrollments of minorities such as African Americans, 
Hispanic Americans, Native Americans (including Alaska Natives), and 
natives of U.S. Pacific Islands. Individual fellowships are also 
provided for graduate students and faculty; 
First year: 1972; 
2004: $30.7; 
2005: $30.7. 

Program: Postdoctoral Intramural Research Training Award Program; 
Description: To provide advanced practical biomedical research 
experience to individuals who are 1 to 5 years beyond obtaining their 
Ph.D. or professional doctorate (e.g., M.D., DDS, etc.); 
First year: 1986; 
2004: $30.2; 
2005: $33.3. 

Program: Science Education Partnership Award; 
Description: Provides funds for the development, implementation, and 
evaluation of innovative kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) science 
education programs, teaching materials, and science center/museum 
programs. This program supports partnerships linking biomedical, 
clinical researchers, and behavioral scientists with K-12 teachers and 
schools, museum and science educators, media experts, and other 
interested organizations; 
First year: 1992; 
2004: $16; 
2005: $16. 

Program: Pediatric Research Loan Repayment Program; 
Description: A program to attract health professionals to careers in 
pediatric research. Qualified pediatric research is defined as 
"research directly related to diseases, disorders, and other conditions 
in children." 
First year: 2002; 
2004: $15.9; 
2005: $16. 

Program: Post-baccalaureate Intramural Research Training Award Program; 
Description: To provide (1) recent college graduates (graduated no more 
than 2 years prior to activation of traineeship), an introduction early 
in their careers to biomedical research fields; encourage their pursuit 
of professional careers in biomedical research; and allow additional 
time to pursue successful application to either graduate or medical 
school programs or (2) students who have been accepted into graduate, 
other doctoral, or medical degree programs, and who have written 
permission from their school to delay entrance for up to 1 year; 
First year: 1996; 
2004: $9.1; 
2005: $12.3. 

Program: Department of Homeland Security. 

Program: University Programs; 
Description: Provides scholarships for undergraduate and fellowships 
for graduate students pursuing degrees in mission-relevant fields and 
postdoctoral fellowships for their contributions to Department of 
Homeland Security research projects. Students receive professional 
mentoring and complete a summer internship to connect academic 
interests with homeland security initiatives. Postdoctoral scholars are 
also mentored by DHS scientists; 
First year: 2003; 
2004: $4.7; 
2005: $10.7. 

Department of the Interior. 

Program: Cooperative Research Units Program; 
Description: The program links graduate science training with the 
research needs of state and federal agencies, and provides students 
with one-on-one mentoring by federal research scientists working on 
both applied and basic research needs of interest to the program. 
Program cooperators and partners provide graduate training 
opportunities and support; 
First year: 1936; 
2004: $15.3; 
2005: $15. 

Program: Department of Labor. 

Program: Community College/Community Based Job Training Grant 
Initiative; 
Description: To build the capacity of community colleges to train in 
high-growth, high-demand industries and to actually train workers in 
those industries through partnerships that also include workforce 
investment boards and employers; 
First year: 2005; 
2004: $0; 
2005: $250. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

Program: Minority University Research Education Program; 
Description: To expand and advance NASA's scientific and technological 
base through collaborative efforts with Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities (HBCU) and other minority universities (OMU), including 
Hispanic-serving institutions and Tribal colleges and universities. 
This program also provides K-12 awards to build and support successful 
pathways for students to progress to the next level of mathematics and 
science, through a college preparatory curriculum, and enrollment in 
college. Higher-education awards are also given that seek to improve 
the rate at which underrepresented minorities are awarded degrees in 
STEM disciplines through increased research training and exposure to 
cutting-edge technologies that better prepare them to enter STEM 
graduate programs, the NASA workforce pipeline, and employment in NASA-
related industries; 
First year: 2002; 
2004: $106.6; 
2005: $73.6. 

Program: Higher Education; 
Description: The Higher Education Program focuses on supporting 
institutions of higher education in strengthening their research 
capabilities and providing opportunities that attract and prepare 
increasing numbers of students for NASA-related careers. The research 
conducted by the institutions will contribute to the research needs of 
NASA's Mission Directorates. The student projects serve as a major link 
in the student pipeline for addressing NASA's human capital strategies 
and the President's management agenda by helping to build, sustain, and 
effectively deploy the skilled, knowledgeable, diverse, and high-
performing workforce needed to meet the current and emerging needs of 
government and its citizens; 
First year: 2002; 
2004: $77.4; 
2005: $62.4. 

Program: Elementary and Secondary Education; 
Description: To increase the rigor of STEM experiences provided to K-12 
students through workshops, summer internships, and classroom 
activities; provide high-quality professional development to teachers 
in STEM through NASA programs; develop technological avenues through 
the NASA Web site that will allow families to have common experiences 
with learning about space exploration; encourage inquiry teaching in K-
12 classrooms; improve the content and focus of grade level/science 
team meetings in NASA Explorer Schools; and share the knowledge gained 
through the Educator Astronaut Program with teachers, students, and 
families; 
First year: 2002; 
2004: $31.3; 
2005: $23.2. 

Program: Informal Education; 
Description: The principal purpose of the informal education program is 
to support projects designed to increase public interest in, 
understanding of, and engagement in STEM activities. The goal of all 
informal education programs is an informed citizenry that has access to 
the ideas of science and engineering and understands its role in 
enhancing the quality of life and the health, prosperity, welfare, and 
security of the nation. Informal learning is self-directed, voluntary, 
and motivated mainly by intrinsic interests, curiosity, exploration, 
and social interaction; 
First year: 2002; 
2004: $5.5; 
2005: $10.2. 

National Science Foundation. 

Program: Math and Science Partnership (MSP)Program; 
Description: The MSP is a major research and development effort that 
supports innovative partnerships to improve kindergarten through grade 
12 student achievement in mathematics and science. MSP projects are 
expected to both raise the achievement levels of all students and 
significantly reduce achievement gaps in the mathematics and science 
performance of diverse student populations. Successful projects serve 
as models that can be widely replicated in educational practice to 
improve the mathematics and science achievement of all the nation's 
students; 
First year: 2002; 
2004: $138.7; 
2005: $79.4. 

Program: Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP); 
Description: The purpose of the GRFP is to ensure the vitality of the 
scientific and technological workforce in the United States and to 
reinforce its diversity. The program recognizes and supports 
outstanding graduate students in the relevant science and engineering 
disciplines who are pursuing research-based master's and doctoral 
degrees. NSF fellows are expected to become knowledge experts who can 
contribute significantly to research, teaching, and innovations in 
science and engineering; 
First year: 1952; 
2004: $96; 
2005: $96.6. 

Program: Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship 
Program; 
Description: This program provides support to universities for student 
positions in interdisciplinary areas of science and engineering. 
Traineeships focus on multidisciplinary and intersectoral research 
opportunities and prepare future faculty in effective teaching methods, 
applications of advanced educational technologies, and student 
mentoring techniques; 
First year: 1998; 
2004: $67.7; 
2005: $69. 

Program: Teacher Professional Continuum; 
Description: The program addresses critical issues and needs regarding 
the recruitment, preparation, induction, retention, and lifelong 
development of kindergarten through grade 12 STEM teachers. Its goals 
are to improve the quality and coherence of teacher learning 
experiences across the continuum through research that informs teaching 
practice and the development of innovative resources for the 
professional development of kindergarten through grade 12 STEM 
teachers; 
First year: 2004; 
2004: $61.5; 
2005: $60.2. 

Program: Research Experiences for Undergraduates; 
Description: This program supports active participation by 
undergraduate students in research projects in any of the areas of 
research funded by the National Science Foundation. The program seeks 
to involve students in meaningful ways in all kinds of research--
whether disciplinary, interdisciplinary, or educational in focus--
linked to the efforts of individual investigators, research groups, 
centers, and national facilities. Particular emphasis is given to the 
recruitment of women, minorities, and persons with disabilities; 
First year: 1987; 
2004: $51.7; 
2005: $51.1. 

Program: Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education; 
Description: This program supports fellowships and associated training 
that enable graduate students in NSF-supported STEM disciplines to 
acquire additional skills that will broadly prepare them for 
professional and scientific careers. Through interactions with 
teachers, graduate students can improve communication and teaching 
skills while enriching STEM instruction in kindergarten through grade 
12 schools. This program also provides institutions of higher education 
with an opportunity to make a permanent change in their graduate 
programs by including partnerships with schools in a manner that will 
mutually benefit faculties and students; 
First year: 1999; 
2004: $49.8; 
2005: $49.9. 

Program: Advanced Technological Education (ATE); 
Description: With an emphasis on 2-year colleges, the ATE program 
focuses on the education of technicians for the high-technology fields 
that drive our nation's economy. The program involves partnerships 
between academic institutions and employers to promote improvement in 
the education of science and engineering technicians at the 
undergraduate and secondary school levels. The ATE program supports 
curriculum development, professional development of college faculty and 
secondary school teachers, career pathways to 2-year colleges from 
secondary schools and from 2-year colleges to 4-year institutions, and 
other activities. The program also invites proposals focusing on 
applied research relating to technician education; 
First year: 1994; 
2004: $45.9; 
2005: $45.1. 

Program: Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement; 
Description: This program emphasizes projects that build on prior work 
and contribute to the knowledge base of undergraduate STEM education 
research and practice. In addition, projects should contribute to 
building a community of scholars who work in related areas of 
undergraduate education; 
First year: 1999; 
2004: $40.7; 
2005: $40.6. 

Program: Research on Learning and Education; 
Description: The program seeks to capitalize on important developments 
across a wide range of fields related to human learning and to STEM 
education. It supports research across a continuum that includes (1) 
the biological basis of human learning; (2) behavioral, cognitive, 
affective, and social aspects of STEM learning; (3) STEM learning in 
formal and informal educational settings; (4) STEM policy research; and 
(5) the diffusion of STEM innovations; 
First year: 2000; 
2004: $39.4; 
2005: $38.2. 

Program: Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Scholarships; 
Description: This program supports scholarships for academically 
talented, financially needy students, enabling them to enter the high-
technology workforce following completion of an associate, 
baccalaureate, or graduate-level degree in computer science, computer 
technology, engineering, engineering technology, or mathematics. 
Academic institutions apply for awards to support scholarship 
activities and are responsible for selecting scholarship recipients, 
reporting demographic information about student scholars, and managing 
the project at the institution; 
First year: 1999; 
2004: $33.9; 
2005: $75. 

Program: Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation; 
Description: The program is aimed at increasing the quality and 
quantity of students successfully completing STEM baccalaureate degree 
programs and increasing the number of students interested in, 
academically qualified for, and matriculated into programs of graduate 
study. It also supports sustained and comprehensive approaches that 
facilitate achievement of the long-term goal of increasing the number 
of students who earn doctorates in STEM, particularly those from 
populations underrepresented in STEM fields; 
First year: 1991; 
2004: $33.3; 
2005: $35. 

Program: Centers for Learning and Teaching; 
Description: The program focuses on the advanced preparation of STEM 
educators, as well as the establishment of meaningful partnerships 
among education stakeholders, especially Ph.D.-granting institutions, 
school systems, and informal education performers. Its goals are to 
renew and diversify the cadre of leaders in STEM education; to increase 
the number of kindergarten through undergraduate educators capable of 
delivering high-quality STEM instruction and assessment; and to conduct 
research into STEM education issues of national import, such as the 
nature of learning, teaching strategies, and reform policies and 
outcomes; 
First year: 2000; 
2004: $30.8; 
2005: $28.4. 

Program: Instructional Materials Development; 
Description: This program contains three components. It supports (1) 
the creation and substantial revision of comprehensive curricula and 
supplemental materials that are research-based, enhance classroom 
instruction, and reflect standards for science, mathematics, and 
technology education developed by professional organizations; (2) the 
creation of tools for assessing student learning that are tied to 
nationally developed standards and reflect the most current thinking on 
how students learn mathematics and science; and (3) research for 
development of this program and projects; 
First year: 1983; 
2004: $29.3; 
2005: $28.5. 

Program: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent 
Expansion Program; 
Description: The program seeks to increase the number of students (U.S. 
citizens or permanent residents) receiving associate or baccalaureate 
degrees in established or emerging fields within STEM. Type 1 proposals 
that provide for full implementation efforts at academic institutions 
are solicited. Type 2 proposals that support educational research 
projects on associate or baccalaureate degree attainment in STEM are 
also solicited; 
First year: 2002; 
2004: $25; 
2005: $25.3. 

Program: Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) 
Undergraduate Program; 
Description: This program provides awards to enhance the quality of 
STEM instructional and outreach programs at HBCUs as a means to broaden 
participation in the nation's STEM workforce. Project strategies 
include curriculum enhancement, faculty professional development, 
undergraduate research, academic enrichment, infusion of technology to 
enhance STEM instruction, collaborations with research institutions and 
industry, and other activities that meet institutional needs; 
First year: 1998; 
2004: $23.8; 
2005: $25.2. 

Program: Interagency Education Research Initiative; 
Description: This is a collaborative effort with the U.S. Department of 
Education. The goal is to support scientific research that investigates 
the effectiveness of educational interventions in reading, mathematics, 
and the sciences as they are implemented in varied school settings with 
diverse student populations; 
First year: 1999; 
2004: $23.6; 
2005: $13.8. 

Program: Information Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers; 
Description: The program is designed to increase the opportunities for 
students and teachers to learn about, experience, and use information 
technologies within the context of STEM, including information 
technology courses. It is in direct response to the concern about 
shortages of technology workers in the United States. It has two 
components: (1) youth-based projects with strong emphasis on career and 
educational paths and (2) comprehensive projects for students and 
teachers; 
First year: 2003; 
2004: $20.9; 
2005: $25. 

Program: Enhancing the Mathematical Sciences Workforce in the 21st 
Century; 
Description: The long-range goal of this program is to increase the 
number of U.S. citizens, nationals, and permanent residents who are 
well prepared in the mathematical sciences and who pursue careers in 
the mathematical sciences and in other NSF-supported disciplines; 
First year: 2004; 
2004: $20.6; 
2005: $20.7. 

Program: Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology; 
Description: This program makes resources available to significantly 
enhance the research capabilities of minority-serving institutions 
through the establishment of centers that effectively integrate 
education and research. It promotes the development of new knowledge, 
enhancements of the research productivity of individual faculty, and an 
expanded diverse student presence in STEM disciplines; 
First year: 1987; 
2004: $19.8; 
2005: $15.9. 

Program: ADVANCE: Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women 
in Academic Science and Engineering Careers; 
Description: The program goal is to increase the representation and 
advancement of women in academic science and engineering careers, 
thereby contributing to the development of a more diverse science and 
engineering workforce. Members of underrepresented minority groups and 
individuals with disabilities are especially encouraged to apply; 
First year: 2001; 
2004: $19.4; 
2005: $19.8. 

Program: Federal Cyber Service: Scholarship for Service; 
Description: This program seeks to increase the number of qualified 
students entering the fields of information assurance and computer 
security and to increase the capacity of the United States' higher 
education enterprise to continue to produce professionals in these 
fields to meet the needs of our increasingly technological society. The 
program has two tracks: provides funds to colleges and universities to 
(1) award scholarships to students to pursue academic programs in the 
information assurance and computer security fields for the final 2 
years of undergraduate study, or for 2 years of master's-level study, 
or for the final 2 years of Ph.D.-level study, and (2) improve the 
quality and increase the production of information assurance and 
computer security professionals; 
First year: 2001; 
2004: $15.8; 
2005: $14.1. 

Program: Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate; 
Description: This program is intended to increase significantly the 
number of domestic students receiving doctoral degrees in STEM, with 
special emphasis on those population groups underrepresented in these 
fields. The program is interested in increasing the number of 
minorities who will enter the professoriate in these disciplines. 
Specific objectives are to develop (1) and implement innovative models 
for recruiting, mentoring, and retaining minority students in STEM 
doctoral programs, and (2) effective strategies for identifying and 
supporting underrepresented minorities who want to pursue academic 
careers; 
First year: 1998; 
2004: $15.3; 
2005: $14.8. 

Program: Research on Gender in Science and Engineering; 
Description: The program seeks to broaden the participation of girls 
and women in all fields of STEM education by supporting research, 
dissemination of research, and extension services in education that 
will lead to a larger and more diverse domestic science and engineering 
workforce. Typical projects will contribute to the knowledge base 
addressing gender-related differences in learning and in the 
educational experiences that affect student interest, performance, and 
choice of careers, and how pedagogical approaches and teaching styles, 
curriculum, student services, and institutional culture contribute to 
causing or closing gender gaps that persist in certain fields; 
First year: 1993; 
2004: $10; 
2005: $9.8. 

Program: Tribal Colleges and Universities Program; 
Description: This program provides awards to enhance the quality of 
STEM instructional and outreach programs, with special attention to the 
use of information technologies at Tribal colleges and universities, 
Alaskan Native-serving institutions, and Native Hawaiian-serving 
institutions. Support is available for the implementation of 
comprehensive institutional approaches to strengthen STEM teaching and 
learning in ways that improve access to, retention within, and 
graduation from STEM programs, particularly those that have a strong 
technological foundation. Through this program, assistance is provided 
to eligible institutions in their efforts to bridge the digital divide 
and prepare students for careers in information technology, science, 
mathematics, and engineering fields; 
First year: 2001; 
2004: $10; 
2005: $9.8. 

Department of Transportation. 

Program: University Transportation Centers Program (UTC); 
Description: The UTC program's mission is to advance U.S. technology 
and expertise in the many disciplines comprising transportation through 
the mechanisms of education, research, and technology transfer at 
university-based centers of excellence. The UTC program's goals include 
(1) developing a multidisciplinary program of coursework and 
experiential learning that reinforces the transportation theme of the 
center; (2) increasing the numbers of students, faculty, and staff who 
are attracted to and substantially involved in the undergraduate, 
graduate, and professional programs of the center; and (3) having 
students, faculty, and staff who reflect the growing diversity of the 
U.S. workforce and are substantially involved in the undergraduate, 
graduate, and professional programs of the center; 
First year: 1998; 
2004: $32.5; 
2005: $32.5. 

Source: GAO survey responses from 13 federal agencies. 

[A] The dollar amounts for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 contain actual 
and estimated program funding levels. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Data on Students and Graduates in STEM Fields: 

Table 23 provides estimates for the numbers of students in science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields by education 
level for the 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 academic years. Tables 24 and 25 
provide additional information regarding students in STEM fields by 
gender for the 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 academic years. Table 26 
provides additional information regarding graduates in STEM fields by 
gender for the 1994-1995 and 2002-2003 academic years. Appendix V 
contains confidence intervals for these estimates. 

Table 23: Estimated Numbers of Students in STEM Fields by Education 
Level for Academic Years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: 

Education level: Bachelor's level: 

Total; 
Academic year 1995-1996: 2,218,510; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 2,876,721; 
Percentage change: 30%. 

STEM field: Agricultural sciences; 
Academic year 1995-1996: 101,885; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 87,025; 
Percentage change: [B]. 

STEM field: Biological sciences; 
Academic year 1995-1996: 407,336; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 351,595; 
Percentage change: -14%. 

STEM field: Computer sciences; 
Academic year 1995-1996: 261,139; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 456,303; 
Percentage change: 75%. 

STEM field: Engineering; 
Academic year 1995-1996: 363,504; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 422,230; 
Percentage change: 16%. 

STEM field: Mathematics; 
Academic year 1995-1996: 57,133; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 64,307; 
Percentage change: [B]. 

STEM field: Physical sciences; 
Academic year 1995-1996: 107,832; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 129,207; 
Percentage change: [B]. 

STEM field: Psychology; 
Academic year 1995-1996: 309,810; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 409,827; 
Percentage change: 32%. 

STEM field: Social sciences; 
Academic year 1995-1996: 536,487; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 825,495; 
Percentage change: 54%. 

STEM field: Technology; 
Academic year 1995-1996: 73,384; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 130,733; 
Percentage change: 78. 

Education level: Master's level: 

Total; 
Academic year 1995-1996: 321,293; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 403,200; 
Percentage change: 25%. 

STEM field: Agricultural sciences; 
Academic year 1995-1996: [A]; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 12,977; 
Percentage change: [A]. 

STEM field: Biological sciences; 
Academic year 1995-1996: 34,701; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 19,467; 
Percentage change: -44%. 

STEM field: Computer sciences; 
Academic year 1995-1996: 49,071; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 58,939; 
Percentage change: [B]. 

STEM field: Engineering; 
Academic year 1995-1996: 66,296; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 90,234; 
Percentage change: [B]. 

STEM field: Mathematics; 
Academic year 1995-1996: [A]; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 12,531; 
Percentage change: [A]. 

STEM field: Physical sciences; 
Academic year 1995-1996: [A]; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 22,008; 
Percentage change: [A]. 

STEM field: Psychology; 
Academic year 1995-1996: 30,008; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 31,918; 
Percentage change: [B]. 

STEM field: Social sciences; 
Academic year 1995-1996: 82,177; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 144,895; 
Percentage change: 76%. 

STEM field: Technology; 
Academic year 1995-1996: [A]; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 10,231; 
Percentage change: [A]. 

Education level: 

Total; 
Academic year 1995-1996: 217,395; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 198,504; 
Percentage change: [B]. 

STEM field: Agricultural sciences; 
Academic year 1995-1996: [A]; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 5,983; 
Percentage change: [A]. 

STEM field: Biological sciences; 
Academic year 1995-1996: [A]; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 33,884; 
Percentage change: [A]. 

STEM field: Computer sciences; 
Academic year 1995-1996: [A]; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 9,196; 
Percentage change: [A]. 

STEM field: Engineering; 
Academic year 1995-1996: 32,181; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 35,687; 
Percentage change: [B]. 

STEM field: Mathematics; 
Academic year 1995-1996: [A]; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 9,412; 
Percentage change: [A]. 

STEM field: Physical sciences; 
Academic year 1995-1996: 38,058; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 24,973; 
Percentage change: [B]. 

STEM field: Psychology; 
Academic year 1995-1996: 30,291; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 33,994; 
Percentage change: [B]. 

STEM field: Social sciences; 
Academic year 1995-1996: 54,092; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 42,464; 
Percentage change: [B]. 

STEM field: Technology; 
Academic year 1995-1996: [A]; 
Academic year 2003-2004: 2,912; 
Percentage change: [A]. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon NPSAS data. 

Note: Enrollment totals differ from those cited in table 9 because 
table 9 includes students enrolled in certificate, associate's, other 
undergraduate, first-professional degree, and post-bachelor's or post-
master's certificate programs. 

[A] Sample sizes are insufficient to accurately produce estimates. 

[B] Changes between academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 are not 
statistically significant at the 95-percent confidence level. See table 
30 for significance of percentage changes. 

[End of table] 

Table 24: Estimated Percentages of Students by Gender and STEM Field 
for Academic Years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: 

Agricultural sciences: 

Total; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: 58%; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 55%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: 42%; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 45%. 

Bachelor's; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: 56%; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 54%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: 44%; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 46%. 

Master's; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: [A]; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: [A]. 

Doctorate; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 61%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 39%. 

Biological sciences: 

Total; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: 46%; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 42%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: 54%; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 58%. 

Bachelor's; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: 45%; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 42%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: 55%; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 58%. 

Master's; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 26%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 74%. 

Doctorate; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 50%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 50%. 

Computer sciences: 

Total; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: 67%; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 76%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: 33%; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 24%. 

Bachelor's; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: 69%; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 77%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: 31%; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 23%. 

Master's; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 69%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 31%. 

Doctorate; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 72%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 28%. 

Engineering: 

Total; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: 83%; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 83%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: 17%; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 17%. 

Bachelor's; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: 83%; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 83%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: 17%; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 17%. 

Master's; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 81%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 19%. 

Doctorate; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 78%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 22%. 

Mathematics: 

Total; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: 62%; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 55%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: 38%; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 45%. 

Bachelor's; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: 57%; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 54%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: 43%; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 46%. 

Master's; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: [A]; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: [A]. 

Doctorate; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 68%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 32%. 

Physical sciences: 

Total; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: 62%; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 56%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: 38%; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 44%. 

Bachelor's; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: 56%; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 53%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: 44%; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 47%. 

Master's; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: [A]; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: [A]. 

Doctorate; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 68%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 32%. 

Psychology: 

Total; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: 26%; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 26%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: 74%; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 74%. 

Bachelor's; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: 26%; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 26%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: 74%; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 74%. 

Master's; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 21%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 79%. 

Doctorate; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 30%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 70%. 

Social sciences: 

Total; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: 54%; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 41%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: 46%; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 59%. 

Bachelor's; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: 52%; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 42%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: 48%; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 58%. 

Master's; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: 51%; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 35%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: 49%; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 65%. 

Doctorate; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: 83%; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 46%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: 17%; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 54%. 

Technology: 

Total; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: 89%; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 81%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: 11%; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 19%. 

Bachelor's; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: 88%; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: 81%; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: 12%; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: 19%. 

Master's; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: [A]; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: [A]. 

Doctorate; 
Male: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Male: Percent: 2003-2004: [A]; 
Female: Percent: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Female: Percent: 2003-2004: [A]. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon NPSAS data. 

[A] Sample sizes are insufficient to accurately produce estimates. 

[End of table] 

Table 25: Estimated Number of Women Students and Percentage Change by 
Education Level and STEM Field for Academic Years 1995-1996 and 2003-
2004: 

Educational level: Bachelor's level; 
STEM field: Agricultural sciences; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: 44,444; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 39,702; 
Percentage change in women students: [B]. 

STEM field: Biological sciences; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: 222,323; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 203,038; 
Percentage change in women students: [B]. 

STEM field: Computer sciences; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: 82,013; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 104,824; 
Percentage change in women students: [B]. 

STEM field: Engineering; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: 59,985; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 70,353; 
Percentage change in women students: [B]. 

STEM field: Mathematics; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: 24,597; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 29,791; 
Percentage change in women students: [B]. 

STEM field: Physical sciences; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: 47,421; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 60,203; 
Percentage change in women students: [B]. 

STEM field: Psychology; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: 229,772; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 304,712; 
Percentage change in women students: +33%. 

STEM field: Social sciences; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: 258,023; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 475,544; 
Percentage change in women students: +84%. 

STEM field: Master's level: Technology; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: Master's level: 8,871; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: Master's level: 25,227; 
Percentage change in women students: Master's level: +184%. 

Educational level: Master's level; 
STEM field: Agricultural sciences; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: [A]; 
Percentage change in women students: [A]. 

STEM field: Biological sciences; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 14,415; 
Percentage change in women students: [A]. 

STEM field: Computer sciences; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 18,000; 
Percentage change in women students: [A]. 

STEM field: Engineering; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 17,042; 
Percentage change in women students: [A]. 

STEM field: Mathematics; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 5,562; 
Percentage change in women students: [A]. 

STEM field: Physical sciences; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 8,497; 
Percentage change in women students: [A]. 

STEM field: Psychology; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: 23,857; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 25,342; 
Percentage change in women students: [B]. 

STEM field: Social sciences; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: 40,395; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 94,169; 
Percentage change in women students: +133%. 

STEM field: Technology; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 1,280; 
Percentage change in women students: [A]. 

Educational level: Doctoral level; 
STEM field: Agricultural sciences; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 2,353; 
Percentage change in women students: [A]. 

STEM field: Biological sciences; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 17,074; 
Percentage change in women students: [A]. 

STEM field: Computer sciences; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 2,556; 
Percentage change in women students: [A]. 

STEM field: Engineering; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 7,868; 
Percentage change in women students: [A]. 

STEM field: Mathematics; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 3,042; 
Percentage change in women students: [A]. 

STEM field: Physical sciences; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 8,105; 
Percentage change in women students: [A]. 

STEM field: Psychology; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 23,843; 
Percentage change in women students: [A]. 

STEM field: Social sciences; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: 9,440; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 22,931; 
Percentage change in women students: +143%. 

STEM field: Technology; 
Number of women students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Number of women students: 2003-2004: 692; 
Percentage change in women students: [A]. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon NPSAS data. 

[A] Sample sizes are insufficient to accurately produce estimates. 

[B] Changes between academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 are not 
statistically significant at the 95-percent confidence level. See table 
29 for confidence intervals. 

[End of table] 

Table 26: Comparisons in the Percentage of STEM Graduates by Field and 
Gender for Academic Years 1994-1995 and 2002-2003: 

STEM Degree: Bachelor's degree: 

STEM field: Biological/agricultural sciences; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 50%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 40%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 50; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 60%. 

STEM field: Earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 66%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 58%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 34; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 42%. 

STEM field: Engineering; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 83%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 80%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 17; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 20%. 

STEM field: Mathematics and computer sciences; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 65%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 69%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 35; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 31%. 

STEM field: Physical sciences; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 64%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 58%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 36; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 42%. 

STEM field: Psychology; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 27%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 22%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 73; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 78%. 

STEM field: Social sciences; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 50%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 45%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 50; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 55%. 

STEM field: Technology; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 90%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 88%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 10; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 12%. 

STEM Degree: Master's degree: 

STEM field: Biological/agricultural sciences; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 52%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 45%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 48; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 55%. 

STEM field: Earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 70%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 59%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 30; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 41%. 

STEM field: Engineering; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 84%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 79%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 16; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 21%. 

STEM field: Mathematics and computer sciences; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 70%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 66%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 30; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 34%. 

STEM field: Physical sciences; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 70%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 64%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 30; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 36%. 

STEM field: Psychology; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 28%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 23%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 72; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 77%. 

STEM field: Social sciences; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 51%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 45%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 49; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 55%. 

STEM field: Technology; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 81%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 73%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 19; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 27%. 

STEM Degree: Doctoral degree: 

STEM field: Biological/agricultural sciences; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 63%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 57%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 37; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 43%. 

STEM field: Earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 78%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 72%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 22; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 28%. 

STEM field: Engineering; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 88%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 83%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 12; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 17%. 

STEM field: Mathematics and computer sciences; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 80%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 76%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 20; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 24%. 

STEM field: Physical sciences; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 76%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 73%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 24; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 27%. 

STEM field: Psychology; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 38%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 31%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 62; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 69%. 

STEM field: Social sciences; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 62%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 55%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 38; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 45%. 

STEM field: Technology; 
Percentage graduates, men, 1994-1995: 89%; 
Percentage graduates, men, 2002-2003: 100%; 
Percentage graduates, women, 1994-1995: 11; 
Percentage graduates, women, 2002-2003: 0%. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon IPEDS data. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Confidence Intervals for Estimates of Students at the 
Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctoral Levels: 

Because the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) sample is 
a probability sample of students, the sample is only one of a large 
number of samples that might have been drawn. Since each sample could 
have provided different estimates, confidence in the precision of the 
particular sample's results is expressed as a 95-percent confidence 
interval (for example, plus or minus 4 percentage points). This is the 
interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent 
of the samples that could have been drawn. As a result, we are 95 
percent confident that each of the confidence intervals in this report 
will include the true values in the study population. The upper and 
lower bounds of the 95 percent confidence intervals for each estimate 
relied on in this report are presented in the following tables. 

Table 27: Estimated Changes in the Numbers and Percentages of Students 
in the STEM and Non-STEM Fields across All Education Levels, Academic 
Years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 (95 percent confidence intervals): 

Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: Lower bound: 
number of students: 1995-1996; 
STEM field: 3,941,589; 
Non-STEM field: 14,885,171. 

Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: Upper bound: 
number of students: 1995-1996; 
STEM field: 4,323,159; 
Non-STEM field: 15,601,065. 

Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: Lower bound: 
percentage of students: 1995-1996; 
STEM field: 20%; 
Non-STEM field: 78%. 

Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: Upper bound: 
percentage of students: 1995-1996; 
STEM field: 22%; 
Non-STEM field: 80%. 

Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: Lower bound: 
number of students: 2003-2004; 
STEM field: 4,911,850; 
Non-STEM field: 16,740,049. 

Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: Upper bound: 
number of students: 2003-2004; 
STEM field: 5,082,515; 
Non-STEM field: 17,025,326. 

Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: Lower bound: 
percentage of students: 2003-2004; 
STEM field: 22%; 
Non-STEM field: 77%. 

Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: Upper bound: 
percentage of students: 2003-2004; 
STEM field: 23%; 
Non-STEM field: 78%. 

Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: Lower bound: 
percentage change: 1995/96-2003/04; 
STEM field: 15%; 
Non-STEM field: 8%. 

Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: Upper bound: 
percentage change: 1995/96-2003/04; 
STEM field: 26.9%; 
Non-STEM field: 13.5%. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 NPSAS data. 

Note: The totals for STEM and non-STEM enrollments include students in 
addition to the bachelor's, master's, and doctorate education levels. 
These totals also include students enrolled in certificate, 
associate's, other undergraduate, first-professional degree, and post-
bachelor's or post-master's certificate programs. The percentage 
changes between the 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 academic years for STEM and 
non-STEM students are statistically significant. 

[End of table] 

Table 28: Numbers of Students by Education Level in all STEM Fields for 
Academic Years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 (95 percent confidence 
intervals): 

Total: 

Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996; 
Total: 2,633,867; 
Bachelors: 2,114,316; 
Masters: 271,208; 
Doctorate: 171,824. 

Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996; 
Total: 2,880,529; 
Bachelors: 2,322,704; 
Masters: 377,821; 
Doctorate: 271,230. 

Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004; 
Total: 3,411,004; 
Bachelors: 2,819,206; 
Masters: 366,141; 
Doctorate: 185,230. 

Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004; 
Total: 3,545,844; 
Bachelors: 2,934,236; 
Masters: 442,938; 
Doctorate: 212,471. 

Agricultural Sciences: 

Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996; 
Total: 93,346; 
Bachelors: 78,241; 
Masters: [A]; 
Doctorate: [A]. 

Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996; 
Total: 151,132; 
Bachelors: 130,144; 
Masters: [A]; 
Doctorate: [A]. 

Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004; 
Total: 93,543; 
Bachelors: 76,472; 
Masters: 7,296; 
Doctorate: 4,661. 

Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004; 
Total: 119,613; 
Bachelors: 98,590; 
Masters: 21,202; 
Doctorate: 7,553. 

Biological Sciences: 

Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996; 
Total: 416,315; 
Bachelors: 360,553; 
Masters: 18,883; 
Doctorate: [A]. 

Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996; 
Total: 524,615; 
Bachelors: 454,119; 
Masters: 57,066; 
Doctorate: [A]. 

Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004; 
Total: 383,277; 
Bachelors: 330,834; 
Masters: 13,728; 
Doctorate: 30,401. 

Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004; 
Total: 427,502; 
Bachelors: 372,355; 
Masters: 26,694; 
Doctorate: 37,367. 

Computer Sciences: 

Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996; 
Total: 275,804; 
Bachelors: 224,616; 
Masters: 31,634; 
Doctorate: [A]. 

Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996; 
Total: 363,084; 
Bachelors: 297,662; 
Masters: 71,242; 
Doctorate: [A]. 

Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004; 
Total: 495,359; 
Bachelors: 428,927; 
Masters: 47,669; 
Doctorate: 7,427. 

Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004; 
Total: 554,747; 
Bachelors: 483,679; 
Masters: 70,210; 
Doctorate: 11,243. 

Engineering: 

Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996; 
Total: 411,868; 
Bachelors: 321,464; 
Masters: 45,912; 
Doctorate: 16,620. 

Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996; 
Total: 516,391; 
Bachelors: 405,544; 
Masters: 90,768; 
Doctorate: 54,155. 

Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004; 
Total: 514,794; 
Bachelors: 400,252; 
Masters: 63,632; 
Doctorate: 32,113. 

Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004; 
Total: 583,058; 
Bachelors: 444,208; 
Masters: 116,835; 
Doctorate: 39,261. 

Mathematics: 

Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996; 
Total: 68,083; 
Bachelors: 42,910; 
Masters: [A]; 
Doctorate: [A]. 

Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996; 
Total: 119,165; 
Bachelors: 74,456; 
Masters: [A]; 
Doctorate: [A]. 

Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004; 
Total: 75,705; 
Bachelors: 55,314; 
Masters: 7,869; 
Doctorate: 7,687. 

Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004; 
Total: 97,848; 
Bachelors: 74,318; 
Masters: 18,867; 
Doctorate: 11,392. 

Physical Sciences: 

Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996; 
Total: 139,416; 
Bachelors: 87,966; 
Masters: [A]; 
Doctorate: 21,279. 

Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996; 
Total: 214,274; 
Bachelors: 130,658; 
Masters: [A]; 
Doctorate: 60,546. 

Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004; 
Total: 160,895; 
Bachelors: 116,479; 
Masters: 14,944; 
Doctorate: 22,043. 

Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004; 
Total: 192,534; 
Bachelors: 142,894; 
Masters: 31,092; 
Doctorate: 27,903. 

Psychology: 

Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996; 
Total: 327,359; 
Bachelors: 271,188; 
Masters: 17,600; 
Doctorate: 16,929. 

Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996; 
Total: 416,804; 
Bachelors: 348,432; 
Masters: 47,037; 
Doctorate: 48,601. 

Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004; 
Total: 449,858; 
Bachelors: 385,660; 
Masters: 24,218; 
Doctorate: 27,846. 

Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004; 
Total: 502,696; 
Bachelors: 433,995; 
Masters: 41,116; 
Doctorate: 40,142. 

Social Sciences: 

Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996; 
Total: 608,199; 
Bachelors: 478,659; 
Masters: 60,792; 
Doctorate: 33,489. 

Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996; 
Total: 742,107; 
Bachelors: 594,315; 
Masters: 103,562; 
Doctorate: 79,414. 

Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004; 
Total: 974,279; 
Bachelors: 791,462; 
Masters: 125,457; 
Doctorate: 38,291. 

Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004; 
Total: 1,052,506; 
Bachelors: 859,527; 
Masters: 164,333; 
Doctorate: 46,636. 

Technology: 

Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996; 
Total: 63,910; 
Bachelors: 57,446; 
Masters: [A]; 
Doctorate: [A]. 

Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996; 
Total: 104,308; 
Bachelors: 92,251; 
Masters: [A]; 
Doctorate: [A]. 

Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004; 
Total: 130,347; 
Bachelors: 118,492; 
Masters: 5,556; 
Doctorate: 1,814. 

Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004; 
Total: 158,418; 
Bachelors: 143,848; 
Masters: 17,158; 
Doctorate: 4,421. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 NPSAS data. 

[A] Sample sizes are insufficient to accurately produce estimates. 

[End of table] 

Table 29: Estimated Numbers and Percentage Changes in Women Students in 
STEM Fields, Academic Years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 (95 percent 
confidence intervals): 

Total: 

Total; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 1,100,766; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 1,260,962; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 1,546,340; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 1,638,269; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 24.9%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 44.8%. 

Agricultural sciences; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 33,541; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 67,797; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 39,678; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 56,710; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: -41.2%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 31.4%. 

Biological sciences; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 215,624; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 293,386; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 217,669; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 251,384; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: -23.4%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 7.7%. 

Computer sciences; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 78,956; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 129,858; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 110,119; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 140,642; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: -12.6%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 52.8%. 

Engineering; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 60,568; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 100,683; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 84,556; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 105,970; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: -14.3%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 55%. 

Mathematics; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 21,805; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 46,907; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 31,207; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 45,593; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: -34.1%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 57.6%. 

Physical sciences; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 42,352; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 91,230; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 66,408; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 87,203; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: -29.9%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 59.9%. 

Psychology; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 236,730; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 311,792; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 331,616; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 376,179; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 9.6%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 48.5%. 

Social sciences; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 267,155; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 348,561; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 562,529; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 622,759; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 65.2%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 119.8%. 

Technology; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 5,136; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 13,993; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 21,339; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 33,060; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 52.3%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 361%. 

Bachelor's: 

Total; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 909,030; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 1,045,868; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 1,271,939; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 1,354,847; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 24.1%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 44.7%. 

Agricultural sciences; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 27,943; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 60,945; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 32,293; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 47,111; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: -47.8%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 26.4%. 

Biological sciences; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 188,204; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 256,442; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 187,283; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 218,793; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: -24.4%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 7%. 

Computer sciences; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 61,719; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 102,307; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 90,851; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 118,798; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: -8.1%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 63.7%. 

Engineering; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 45,013; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 74,957; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 61,142; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 79,563; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: -15.8%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 50.3%. 

Mathematics; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 16,558; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 32,636; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 23,487; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 36,094; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: -26%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 68.3%. 

Physical sciences; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 32,641; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 62,201; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 51,259; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 69,147; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: -16.9%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 70.8%. 

Psychology; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 197,530; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 262,014; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 284,138; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 325,287; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 12%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 53.3%. 

Social sciences; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 220,004; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 296,042; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 449,103; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 501,985; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 55.3%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 113.3%. 

Technology; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 5,185; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 13,867; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 19,582; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 30,872; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 40.2%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 328.6%. 

Master's: 

Total; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 109,116; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 183,302; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 170,116; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 210,777; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: -5.6%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 66.1%. 

Agricultural sciences; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: [A]; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: [A]; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]. 

Biological sciences; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 11,330; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 16,806; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]. 

Computer sciences; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 11,907; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 24,093; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]. 

Engineering; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 10,989; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 24,604; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]. 

Mathematics; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 2,979; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 8,336; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]. 

Physical sciences; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 4,713; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 12,802; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]. 

Psychology; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 15,901; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 28,488; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 21,284; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 28,384; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: -58.1%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 70.5%. 

Social sciences; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 26,605; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 54,185; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 79,619; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 108,720; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 45.8%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 220.5%. 

Technology; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 235; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 3,485; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]. 

Doctorate: 

Total; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 38,103; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 79,875; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 81,553; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 95,377; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: -6.3%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 115.6%. 

Agricultural Sciences; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 1,441; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 3,265; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]. 

Biological Sciences; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 14,455; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 19,692; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]. 

Computer Sciences; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 1,745; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 3,503; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]. 

Engineering; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 5,870; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 9,867; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]. 

Mathematics; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 1,999; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 4,085; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: a%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]. 

Physical Sciences; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 6,298; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 9,913; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]. 

Psychology; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 19,198; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 28,489; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]. 

Social Sciences; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 4,098; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: 17,371; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 19,778; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 26,083; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 4.2%; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: 281.6%. 

Technology; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 1995-1996: [A]; 
Lower bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 254; 
Upper bound: Number of Students: 2003-2004: 1,339; 
Lower bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]; 
Upper bound: Percentage Change: 1995/96-2003/04: [A]. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon NPSAS data. 

[A] Sample sizes are insufficient to accurately produce estimates. 

[End of table] 

Table 30: Estimated Percentage Changes in Bachelor's, Master's, and 
Doctoral Students in STEM Fields, Academic Years 1995-1996 and 2003-
2004 (95 percent confidence intervals): 

STEM fields: Agricultural sciences: 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: Lower 
bound: percentage change; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: -34.8%; 
Bachelor's: -38.7%; 
Master's: [A]; 
Doctoral: [A]. 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: Upper 
bound: percentage change; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: 11.9%; 
Bachelor's: 9.5%; 
Master's: [A]; 
Doctoral: [A]. 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: 
Statistically significant; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: no; 
Bachelor's: no; 
Master's: [A]; 
Doctoral: [A]. 

STEM fields: Biological sciences: 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: Lower 
bound: percentage change; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: -24.4%; 
Bachelor's: -24.8%; 
Master's: -79.6%; 
Doctoral: [A]. 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: Upper 
bound: percentage change; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: -2.6%; 
Bachelor's: -2.5%; 
Master's: -8.3%; 
Doctoral: [A]. 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: 
Statistically significant; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: yes; 
Bachelor's: yes; 
Master's: yes; 
Doctoral: [A]. 

STEM fields: Computer sciences: 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: Lower 
bound: percentage change; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: 41.1%; 
Bachelor's: 48.1%; 
Master's: -34.8%; 
Doctoral: [A]. 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: Upper 
bound: percentage change; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: 89.5%; 
Bachelor's: 101.3%; 
Master's: 75%; 
Doctoral: [A]. 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: 
Statistically significant; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: yes; 
Bachelor's: yes; 
Master's: no; 
Doctoral: [A]. 

STEM fields: Engineering: 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: Lower 
bound: percentage change; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: 3.5%; 
Bachelor's: 1.4%; 
Master's: -27.5%; 
Doctoral: -55.4%. 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: Upper 
bound: percentage change; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: 33.8%; 
Bachelor's: 30.9%; 
Master's: 99.7%; 
Doctoral: 77.2%. 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: 
Statistically significant; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: yes; 
Bachelor's: yes; 
Master's: no; 
Doctoral: no. 

STEM fields: Mathematics: 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: Lower 
bound: percentage change; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: -33.5%; 
Bachelor's: -21.8%; 
Master's: [A]; 
Doctoral: [A]. 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: Upper 
bound: percentage change; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: 23%; 
Bachelor's: 46.9%; 
Master's: [A]; 
Doctoral: [A]. 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: 
Statistically significant; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: no; 
Bachelor's: no; 
Master's: [A]; 
Doctoral: [A]. 

STEM fields: Physical sciences: 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: Lower 
bound: percentage change; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: -21.7%; 
Bachelor's: -6.6%; 
Master's: [A]; 
Doctoral: -70.2%. 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: Upper 
bound percentage change; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: 24.4%; 
Bachelor's: 46.3%; 
Master's: [A]; 
Doctoral: 1.4%. 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: 
Statistically significant; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: no; 
Bachelor's: no; 
Master's: [A]; 
Doctoral: no. 

STEM fields: Psychology: 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: Lower 
bound: percentage change; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: 11.7%; 
Bachelor's: 14%; 
Master's: -51.2%; 
Doctoral: -48.8%. 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: Upper 
bound: percentage change; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: 45.4%; 
Bachelor's: 50.5%; 
Master's: 63.9%; 
Doctoral: 73.3%. 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: 
Statistically significant; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: yes; 
Bachelor's: yes; 
Master's: no; 
Doctoral: no. 

STEM fields: Social sciences: 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: Lower 
bound: percentage change; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: 34.6%; 
Bachelor's: 36.1%; 
Master's: 24.7%; 
Doctoral: -59.3%. 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: Upper 
bound: percentage change; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: 66.5%; 
Bachelor's: 71.6%; 
Master's: 127.9%; 
Doctoral: 16.3%. 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: 
Statistically significant; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: yes; 
Bachelor's: yes; 
Master's: yes; 
Doctoral: no. 

STEM fields: Technology: 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: Lower 
bound: percentage change; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: 30%; 
Bachelor's: 33.4%; 
Master's: [A]; 
Doctoral: [A]. 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: Upper 
bound: percentage change; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: 119.6%; 
Bachelor's: 122.9%; 
Master's: [A]; 
Doctoral: [A]. 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: 
Statistically significant; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: yes; 
Bachelor's: yes; 
Master's: [A]; 
Doctoral: [A]. 

STEM fields: Total: 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: Lower 
bound: percentage change; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: 20%; 
Bachelor's: 23.1%; 
Master's: 1.8%; 
Doctoral: -29.5%. 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: Upper 
bound: percentage change; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: 32.3%; 
Bachelor's: 36.3%; 
Master's: 49.2%; 
Doctoral: 12.1%. 

Percentage change in academic years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004: 
Statistically significant; 
Lower and upper bounds of 95 percent confidence interval: 
Total: yes; 
Bachelor's: yes; 
Master's: yes; 
Doctoral: no. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 NPSAS data. 

[A] Sample sizes are insufficient to accurately produce estimates. 

[End of table] 

Table 31: Estimates of STEM Students by Gender and Field for Academic 
Years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 (95 percent confidence intervals): 

STEM fields: Agricultural sciences. 

Bachelor's; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 44; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 69; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 48; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 61; 
Statistically significant: no; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 31; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 56; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 39; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 52; 
Statistically significant: no. 

Master's; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Statistically significant: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Statistically significant: [A]. 

Doctoral; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 49; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 72; 
Statistically significant: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 28; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 51; 
Statistically significant: [A]. 

STEM fields: Biological sciences. 

Bachelor's; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 40; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 51; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 39; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 45; 
Statistically significant: no; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 49; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 60; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 55; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 61; 
Statistically significant: no. 

Master's; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 14; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 46; 
Statistically significant: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 54; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 89; 
Statistically significant: [A]. 

Doctoral; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 44; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 55; 
Statistically significant: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 45; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 56; 
Statistically significant: [A]. 

STEM fields: Computer sciences. 

Bachelor's; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 62; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 75; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 74; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 80; 
Statistically significant: no; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 25; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 38; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 20; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 26; 
Statistically significant: no. 

Master's; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 61; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 78; 
Statistically significant: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 22; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 39; 
Statistically significant: [A]. 

Doctoral; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 62; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 81; 
Statistically significant: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 19; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 38; 
Statistically significant: [A]. 

STEM fields: Engineering. 

Bachelor's; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 80; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 87; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 81; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 85; 
Statistically significant: no; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 13; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 20; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 15; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 19; 
Statistically significant: no. 

Master's; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 73; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 88; 
Statistically significant: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 12; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 27; 
Statistically significant: [A]. 

Doctoral; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 73; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 83; 
Statistically significant: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 17; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 27; 
Statistically significant: [A]. 

STEM fields: Mathematics. 

Bachelor's; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 44; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 70; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 46; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 61; 
Statistically significant: no; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 30; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 56; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 39; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 54; 
Statistically significant: no. 

Master's; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Statistically significant: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Statistically significant: [A]. 

Doctoral; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 59; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 77; 
Statistically significant: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 23; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 41; 
Statistically significant: [A]. 

STEM fields: Physical sciences. 

Bachelor's; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 46; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 66; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 48; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 59; 
Statistically significant: no; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 34; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 54; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 41; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 52; 
Statistically significant: no. 

Master's; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Statistically significant: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Statistically significant: [A]. 

Doctoral; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 62; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 73; 
Statistically significant: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 27; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 38; 
Statistically significant: [A]. 

STEM fields: Psychology. 

Bachelor's; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 20; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 32; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 23; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 28; 
Statistically significant: no; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 68; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 80; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 72; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 77; 
Statistically significant: no. 

Master's; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 10; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 35; 
Statistically significant: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 65; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 90; 
Statistically significant: [A]. 

Doctoral; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 20; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 39; 
Statistically significant: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 61; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 80; 
Statistically significant: [A]. 

STEM fields: Social sciences. 

Bachelor's; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 46; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 57; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 40; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 45; 
Statistically significant: yes; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 43; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 54; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 55; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 60; 
Statistically significant: yes. 

Master's; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 38; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 64; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 28; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 42; 
Statistically significant: no; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 36; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 62; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 58; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 72; 
Statistically significant: no. 

Doctoral; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 70; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 91; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 41; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 51; 
Statistically significant: yes; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 9; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 30; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 49; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 59; 
Statistically significant: yes. 

STEM fields: Technology. 

Bachelor's; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 81; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 93; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 77; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 85; 
Statistically significant: no; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 7; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 19; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 15; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 23; 
Statistically significant: no. 

Master's; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Statistically significant: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Statistically significant: [A]. 

Doctoral; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Statistically significant: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: [A]; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: [A]; 
Statistically significant: [A]. 

Total students. 

Total; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 55; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 60; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 53; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 55; 
Statistically significant: yes; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 40; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 45; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 45; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 47; 
Statistically significant: yes. 

Bachelor's; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 54; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 58; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 53; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 55; 
Statistically significant: no; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 42; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 46; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 45; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 47; 
Statistically significant: no. 

Master's; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 46; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 63; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 48; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 57; 
Statistically significant: no; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 37; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 54; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 43; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 52; 
Statistically significant: no. 

Doctoral; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 63; 
Men: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 82; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 53; 
Men: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 58; 
Statistically significant: yes; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Lower bound: 18; 
Women: 1995-1996 academic year: Upper bound: 37; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Lower bound: 42; 
Women: 2003-2004 academic year: Upper bound: 47; 
Statistically significant: yes. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 NPSAS data. 

[A] Sample sizes are insufficient to accurately produce estimates. 

[End of table] 

Table 32: Estimates of Students for Selected Racial or Ethnic Groups in 
STEM Fields for All Education Levels and Fields for the Academic Years 
1995-1996 and 2002-2003 (95 percent confidence intervals): 

Race or ethnicity: African American; 
Lower bound: number of students, academic year, 1995-1996: 303,832; 
Upper bound: number of students, academic year, 1995-1996: 416,502; 
Lower bound: number of students, academic year, 2003-2004: 577,854; 
Upper bound: number of students, academic year, 2003-2004: 639,114; 
Lower bound: percentage change: 41%; 
Upper bound: percentage change: 97%; 
Lower bound: percentage of students, academic year 1995-1996: 7%; 
Upper bound: percentage of students, academic year 1995-1996: 10%; 
Lower bound: percentage of students, academic year 2003-2004: 12%; 
Upper bound: percentage of students, academic year 2003-2004: 13%. 

Race or ethnicity: Hispanic; 
Lower bound: number of students, academic year, 1995-1996: 285,381; 
Upper bound: number of students, academic year, 1995-1996: 446,621; 
Lower bound: number of students, academic year, 2003-2004: 461,738; 
Upper bound: number of students, academic year, 2003-2004: 515,423; 
Lower bound: percentage change: 3%; 
Upper bound: percentage change: 64%; 
Lower bound: percentage of students, academic year 1995-1996: 7%; 
Upper bound: percentage of students, academic year 1995-1996: 11%; 
Lower bound: percentage of students, academic year 2003-2004: 9%; 
Upper bound: percentage of students, academic year 2003-2004: 10%. 

Race or ethnicity: Asian/Pacific Islander; 
Lower bound: number of students, academic year, 1995-1996: 247,347; 
Upper bound: number of students, academic year, 1995-1996: 330,541; 
Lower bound: number of students, academic year, 2003-2004: 322,738; 
Upper bound: number of students, academic year, 2003-2004: 367,377; 
Lower bound: percentage change: 1%; 
Upper bound: percentage change: 38%; 
Lower bound: percentage of students, academic year 1995-1996: 6%; 
Upper bound: percentage of students, academic year 1995-1996: 8%; 
Lower bound: percentage of students, academic year 2003-2004: 6%; 
Upper bound: percentage of students, academic year 2003-2004: 7%. 

Race or ethnicity: Native American; 
Lower bound: number of students, academic year, 1995-1996: 11,464; 
Upper bound: number of students, academic year, 1995-1996: 28,103; 
Lower bound: number of students, academic year, 2003-2004: 30,064; 
Upper bound: number of students, academic year, 2003-2004: 47,694; 
Lower bound: percentage change: 8%; 
Upper bound: percentage change: 206%; 
Lower bound: percentage of students, academic year 1995-1996: 0%; 
Upper bound: percentage of students, academic year 1995-1996: 1%; 
Lower bound: percentage of students, academic year 2003-2004: 1%; 
Upper bound: percentage of students, academic year 2003-2004: 1%. 

Race or ethnicity: Other/multiple minorities; 
Lower bound: number of students, academic year, 1995-1996: 17,708; 
Upper bound: number of students, academic year, 1995-1996: 44,434; 
Lower bound: number of students, academic year, 2003-2004: 150,264; 
Upper bound: number of students, academic year, 2003-2004: 183,174. 
Lower bound: percentage change: 219%; 
Upper bound: percentage change: 732%; 
Lower bound: percentage of students, academic year 1995-1996: 0%; 
Upper bound: percentage of students, academic year 1995-1996: 1%; 
Lower bound: percentage of students, academic year 2003-2004: 3%; 
Upper bound: percentage of students, academic year 2003-2004: 4%. 

Source: GAO Calculations based upon 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 NPSAS data. 

[End of table] 

Table 33: Estimates of International Students in STEM Fields by 
Education Levels for Academic Years 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 (95 percent 
confidence intervals): 

Education level: Total; 
Lower bound: number of students, 1995-1996: 80,812; 
Upper bound: number of students, 1995-1996: 142,192; 
Lower bound: number of students, 2003-2004: 154,466; 
Upper bound: number of students, 2003-2004: 186,322; 
Lower bound: percentage change: 12%; 
Upper bound: percentage change: 102%. 

Education level: Bachelor's; 
Lower bound: number of students, 1995-1996: 20,254; 
Upper bound: number of students, 1995-1996: 47,684; 
Lower bound: number of students, 2003-2004: 125,950; 
Upper bound: number of students, 2003-2004: 154,911; 
Lower bound: percentage change: 155%; 
Upper bound: percentage change: 523%. 

Education level: Master's; 
Lower bound: number of students, 1995-1996: 23,063; 
Upper bound: number of students, 1995-1996: 64,587; 
Lower bound: number of students, 2003-2004: 16,359; 
Upper bound: number of students, 2003-2004: 29,899; 
Lower bound: percentage change: -76%; 
Upper bound: percentage change: -13%. 

Education level: Doctoral; 
Lower bound: number of students, 1995-1996: 20,525; 
Upper bound: number of students, 1995-1996: 59,861; 
Lower bound: number of students, 2003-2004: 5,168; 
Upper bound: number of students, 2003-2004: 10,735; 
Lower bound: percentage change: -90%; 
Upper bound: percentage change: -68%. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon 1995-1996 and 2003-2004 NPSAS data. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Confidence Intervals for Estimates of STEM Employment by 
Gender, Race or Ethnicity, and Wages and Salaries: 

The current population survey (CPS) was used to obtain estimates about 
employees and wages and salaries in science, technology, engineering, 
and mathematics (STEM) fields. Because the current population survey 
(CPS) is a probability sample based on random selections, the sample is 
only one of a large number of samples that might have been drawn. Since 
each sample could have provided different estimates, confidence in the 
precision of the particular sample's results is expressed as a 95 
percent confidence interval (e.g., plus or minus 4 percentage points). 
This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 
95 percent of the samples that could have been drawn. As a result, we 
are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence intervals in this 
report will include the true values in the study population. We use the 
CPS general variance methodology to estimate this sampling error and 
report it as confidence intervals. Percentage estimates we produce from 
the CPS data have 95 percent confidence intervals of plus or minus 6 
percentage points or less. Estimates other than percentages have 95 
percent confidence intervals of no more than plus or minus 10 percent 
of the estimate itself, unless otherwise noted. Consistent with the CPS 
documentation guidelines, we do not produce estimates based on the 
March supplement data for populations of less than 75,000. 

Table 34: Estimated Total Number of Employees by STEM Field between 
Calendar Years 1994 and 2003: 

STEM fields: Science; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994: 2,349,605; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994: 2,656,451; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003: 2,874,347; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003: 3,143,071; 
Statistically significant: yes. 

STEM fields: Technology; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994: 1,285,321; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994: 1,515,671; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003: 1,379,375; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003: 1,568,189; 
Statistically significant: no. 

STEM fields: Engineering; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994: 1,668,514; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994: 1,929,240; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003: 1,638,355; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003: 1,843,427; 
Statistically significant: no. 

STEM fields: Mathematics/computer sciences; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994: 1,369,047; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994: 1,606,395; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003: 2,520,858; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003: 2,773,146; 
Statistically significant: yes. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon 1994 and 2003 CPS data. 

[End of table] 

Table 35: Estimated Numbers of Employees in STEM Fields by Gender for 
Calendar Years 1994 and 2003: 

STEM fields: Science; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994, women: 1,594,527; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994, women: 1,827,685; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003, women: 2,031,124; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003, women: 2,327,390; 
Statistically significant: yes; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994, men: 708,673; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994, men: 875,171; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003, men: 733,358; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003, men: 925,548; 
Statistically significant: no. 

STEM fields: Technology; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994, women: 385,433; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994, women: 505,329; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003, women: 357,805; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003, women: 489,899; 
Statistically significant: no; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994, men: 863,785; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994, men: 1,046,445; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003, men: 941,960; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003, men: 1,157,900; 
Statistically significant: no. 

STEM fields: Engineering; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994, women: 107,109; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994, women: 174,669; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003, women: 126,947; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003, women: 210,407; 
Statistically significant: no; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994, men: 1,538,198; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994, men: 1,777,778; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003, men: 1,440,510; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003, men: 1,703,920; 
Statistically significant: no. 

STEM fields: Mathematics/computer sciences; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994, women: 372,953; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994, women: 491,053; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003, women: 610,649; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003, women: 779,525; 
Statistically significant: yes; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994, men: 959,765; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994, men: 1,151,681; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003, men: 1,805,505; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003, men: 2,098,325; 
Statistically significant: yes. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon 1994 and 2003 CPS data. 

[End of table] 

Table 36: Estimated Changes in STEM Employment by Gender for Calendar 
Years 1994 and 2003: 

Men: 

STEM fields: Science; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994: 28.87; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994: 34.40; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003: 24.84; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003: 30.30; 
Statistically significant: yes. 

STEM fields: Technology; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994: 64.50; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994: 71.90; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003: 67.29; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003: 75.19; 
Statistically significant: no. 

STEM fields: Engineering; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994: 90.28; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994: 94.05; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003: 87.93; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003: 92.69; 
Statistically significant: no. 

STEM fields: Mathematics/computer sciences; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994: 67.46; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994: 74.46; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003: 70.87; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003: 76.61; 
Statistically significant: no. 

Women: 

STEM fields: Science; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994: 65.71; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994: 71.01; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003: 69.81; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003: 75.05; 
Statistically significant: yes. 

STEM fields: Technology; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994: 28.26; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994: 35.35; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003: 24.97; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003: 32.55; 
Statistically significant: no. 

STEM fields: Engineering; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994: 6.03; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994: 9.64; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003: 7.41; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003: 11.97; 
Statistically significant: no. 

STEM fields: Mathematics/computer sciences; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994: 25.69; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994: 32.39; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003: 23.51; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003: 29.01; 
Statistically significant: no. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon 1994 and 2003 CPS data. 

[End of table] 

Table 37: Estimated Percentages of STEM Employees for Selected Racial 
or Ethnic Groups for Calendar Years 1994 and 2003: 

Race or Ethnicity: Black or African American; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994: 6.49; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994: 8.46; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003: 7.66; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003: 9.79; 
Statistically significant: no. 

Race or Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino origin; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994: 4.76; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994: 6.60; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003: 8.83; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003: 11.09; 
Statistically significant: yes. 

Race or Ethnicity: Other minorities; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994: 3.64; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994: 5.28; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003: 5.89; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003: 7.81; 
Statistically significant: yes. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon 1994 and 2003 CPS data. 

[End of table] 

Table 38: Estimated Changes in Median Annual Wages and Salaries in the 
STEM Fields for Calendar Years 1994 and 2003: 

STEM fields: Science; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994: $42,212; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994: $45,241; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003: $44,650; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003: $47,008; 
Statistically significant: yes. 

STEM fields: Technology; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994: $36,241; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994: $39,769; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003: $38,554; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003: $41,286; 
Statistically significant: yes. 

STEM fields: Engineering; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994: $59,059; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994: $63,134; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003: $67,634; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003: $71,749; 
Statistically significant: yes. 

STEM fields: Mathematics/computer sciences; 
Lower bound: calendar year 1994: $51,922; 
Upper bound: calendar year 1994: $55,905; 
Lower bound: calendar year 2003: $58,801; 
Upper bound: calendar year 2003: $61,679; 
Statistically significant: yes. 

Source: GAO calculations based upon 1994 and 2003 CPS data. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Commerce: 

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF COMMERCE: 
Washington, D.C. 20230: 

September 23, 2005: 

Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby: 
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, D. C. 20548: 

Dear Ms. Ashby: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment\ on the Government 
Accountability Office's draft report, Higher Education: Federal 
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Programs and Related 
Trends (GAO-05-887). 

I enclose the U.S. Department of Commerce's recommended changes 
regarding factual or technical information. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

David A. Sampson: 

Enclosure: 

U. S. Department of Commerce Comments on Draft GAO Report Entitled 
"Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Programs and 
Related Trends" (GAO-05-887/September 2005): 

General Comments: 

We commend the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for highlighting 
these important issues and find the data and methodologies appropriate 
to address the topic. 

Recommended Changes for Factual/Technical Information: 

Pages 48, Table 19: Federal STEM Education Programs Funded in FY 2004, 
Department of Commerce: 

Change funding for Program 17, Educational Partnership with Minority 
Serving Institutions from $14.8 million to $7.4 million, to reflect 
funds expended only for education. The total funding for the 210 
Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education 
Programs should be reduced by $7.4 million. 

Delete Program 18, Undersea Research Program and its associated funds 
of $12 million. This program is primarily focused on research, not 
education. The total funding for the 210 Federal Science, Technology, 
Engineering, and Mathematics Education Programs should be reduced by 
$12 million. 

Change funding for Program 25, National Marine Sanctuaries Education 
Program from $5.2 million to $4.4 million. The total funding for the 
210 Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education 
Programs should be further reduced by $0.8 million. 

As a result of these changes, only 13 programs should be listed under 
the Department of Commerce for Table 19. There should be a total 
decrease of $20.2 million due to these changes. 

Page 55, Table 20: Federal STEM Education Programs Funded at $10 
Million or More during Fiscal Year 2004 or Fiscal Year 2005, Department 
of Commerce: 

Delete the Educational Partnership with Minority Serving Institutions 
from Table 20, since only $7.4 million in educational funds was 
expended in FY 2004 and this program is funded at only $7.5 million for 
education in FY 2005, thus not meeting the threshold requirement of $10 
million for this table. 

Delete the Undersea Research Program and its associated funds of $12 
million for FY 2004 and $12.5 million for FY 2005. This program is 
primarily focused on research, not education. The total funding for the 
210 Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education 
Programs for FY 2005 should be reduced by $12.5 million. 

As a result of these changes, there should be no programs listed under 
the Department of Commerce for Table 20. 

Editorial Comments: 

Pages 3-4, Results in Brief, second paragraph: 

The Results in Brief states the numbers and percentages of student and 
graduates increased in most science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics (STEM) fields. However, Figure 3 (page 22) shows 
significant declines in biological sciences; earth, atmospheric and 
ocean sciences; engineering; and technology. As the Department of 
Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)) 
relies particularly on students in the biological, earth, ocean and 
atmospheric sciences, we recommend the conclusion point to these 
declines, despite overall increases in STEM students. 

U.S. Department of Commerce Response to Key GAO Conclusions: 

Page 9, More than 200 Federal Education Programs Are Designed to 
Increase the Numbers of Students and Graduates or Improve Educational 
Programs in STEM Fields, but Most Have Not Been Evaluated: 

We concur with the importance of evaluation. Evaluation is established 
as a standard in the NOAA Education Plan and education programs 
throughout the agency are working to achieve this standard. 

Page 30, Teacher Quality and Mathematics and Science Preparation Were 
Cited as Key Factors Affecting Domestic Students' STEM Participation 
Decisions: 

We concur with the importance of improving teacher content knowledge. 
The NOAA Education Plan identifies teacher professional development as 
a key strategy and several education programs are focused on this 
effort. 

Page 33, Mentoring Cited as a Key Factor Affecting Women's and 
Minorities' STEM Participation Decisions: 

We concur. Mentoring and internships are required under NOAA's Ernest 
F. Hollings Undergraduate Scholarship Program, Nancy Foster Scholarship 
Program, and the scholarship programs of NOAA's Education Partnership 
Program with Minority Serving Institutions. 

Page 39, Concluding Observations, first paragraph: 

GAO reports university officials and others suggested increasing the 
federal commitment to STEM education programs, but adds the importance 
of understanding the extent to which existing STEM programs are 
appropriately targeted. We agree with the conclusion regarding 
targeting. Our STEM education programs within NOAH are specific to NOAA-
related mission goals. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human 
Services: 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES: 
Office of Inspector General: 

SEP 30 2005: 

Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby: 
Director, Education, Workforce, And Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Ashby: 

Enclosed are the Department's comments on the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO's) draft report entitled, "HIGHER 
EDUCATION: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 
Programs and Related Trends" (GAO-05-887). These comments represent the 
tentative position of the Department and are subject to reevaluation 
when the final version of this report is received. 

The Department provided several technical comments directly to your 
staff. 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft 
report before its publication. 

Sincerely, 

Signed for: 

Daniel R. Levinson: 
Inspector General: 

Enclosure: 

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is transmitting the Department's 
response to this draft report in our capacity as the Department's 
designated focal point and coordinator for U.S. Government 
Accountability Office reports. OIG has not conducted an independent 
assessment of these comments and therefore expresses no opinion on 
them. 

COMMENTS OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ON THE 
U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S DRAFT REPORT ENTITLED, "HIGHER 
EDUCATION: FEDERAL SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERING. AND MATHEMATICS 
PROGRAMS AND RELATED TRENDS" (GAO-05-8877: 

General Comments: 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) thanks the U.S. 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) for providing us the opportunity 
to review and comment on the draft report. 

The education and training of future generations of science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) professionals is an 
important investment in the nation's future. This expertise will help 
provide the personnel devoted to the technological innovation needed to 
address the research and development requirements of industry and 
Government. HHS commends GAO for collaborating with 13 departments and 
agencies to assemble a partial compendium of Federal STEM and related 
education and training programs that directly and indirectly help lead 
students to pursue degrees or careers in STEM fields. This information 
has the potential for further collaborations that will enhance synergy 
across the Federal departments and agencies that support STEM related 
education and training. 

We agree with GAO that it is important to evaluate ongoing programs to 
determine the extent to which they are achieving their desired results. 
HHS, under the auspices of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and 
the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, supports nearly 17,000 
individuals pursuing graduate and postdoctoral research training 
annually as part of the Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service 
Award (NRSA) Programs noted in the report. NRSA programs were 
established by an act of the Congress of the United States in 1974 in 
order to help support and produce a diverse pool of highly trained 
scientists to perform the nation's biomedical, behavioral, and clinical 
research. 

NRSA programs have been systematically evaluated twelve times by the 
National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies. The most 
recent evaluation, Advancing the Nation's Health Needs-NIH Research 
Training Programs, was completed earlier this year. This report 
indicated that NRSA institutional training grants, which fund the 
education and training of the majority of NRSA participants, are widely 
regarded as one of the best vehicles for learning the theories and 
techniques of biomedical and behavioral research. In addition, the 
report noted that the NRSA program has successfully produced high-
quality research personnel and has been important for the upgrading of 
research training in general. 

We believe that the NRC evaluations and the HHS responses to them serve 
important roles in assessing and responding to the changing needs in 
the education and training of biomedical, behavioral, and clinical 
research personnel. These evaluations have resulted in the 
implementation of improvements in NRSA programs in order to better meet 
the nation's evolving research and research training needs. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IX: Comments from the National Science Foundation: 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION: 
4201 WILSON BOULEVARD: 
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22230: 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES: 

TO: Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 

FROM: Donald Thompson, Assistant Director (Acting):
NSF Directorate for Education and Human Resources: 

RE: Response to Draft GAO Report: Federal Science, Technology, 
Engineering, and Mathematics Programs and Related Trends: 

DATE: September 21, 2005: 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the draft of the GAO 
Report: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 
Programs and Related Trends. This report summarizes an impressive 
amount of information obtained from federal agencies, workforce data 
from numerous sources, and results from interviews GAO conducted with 
several students and university officials. This was a formidable task, 
especially considering the tight timeline GAO had to conduct its work. 
The resulting report will be useful. 

Below are a few specific comments that are submitted for your 
consideration. 

1. Evaluation of program effectiveness: 

The report contains several statements such as "most [programs] have 
not been evaluated" and "the agencies report little about the 
effectiveness of these programs". NSF believes this conclusion, which 
is presented without definition of what criteria GAO accepted as 
evidence of evaluation, may be misleading largely because of the type 
of information GAO requested and accepted from the agencies. Although 
given the time constraints under which GAO was operating it is 
understandable that only program level evaluation was collected, 
evaluation of individual projects is very valuable in determining 
program effectiveness. Given the alternative approaches that projects 
develop to achieve the overall program goals, the evaluation of 
individual projects provides valuable information about the 
effectiveness and impact of the program. NSF programs require that the 
individual projects supported be evaluated, but this information was 
not included in the GAO analysis. 

In addition, NSF conducts Committee of Visitor (COV) reviews for each 
of its program every three years. GAO studied the COV process and 
reported on its value as an evaluation process in the previous GAO 
report 03-454. 

In summary, all NSF programs undergo evaluation. This evaluation 
includes COV review, project evaluations, and, in many cases, third 
party program evaluation. Other Federal agencies also have a variety of 
mechanisms for program evaluation. If time permits, we would appreciate 
having this range of approaches to ensure program effectiveness 
addressed in more detail in the document. 

2. Study of factors impacting studying/entering S&E fields: 

The report includes recommendations that are based on interviews with 
educators and administrators from eight colleges and universities as 
well as responses from 31 students at five of these institutions. 
Although GAO includes reasonable observations based on these 
interviews, a "pilot study" with this design and scope seems a rather 
weak basis for significant findings and recommendations. Because the 
data are relegated to the appendix, the design and scope are not 
readily apparent. It should be made clearer in the body of the text 
that the conclusions reached are based on these limited numbers of 
interviews. Also, the report could be improved by referencing 
corroborating information from other available reports and studies or 
findings from research conducted on these topics. 

3. Eligibility for NSF program: 

There appears to be a simple misunderstanding regarding NSF program 
eligibility. Page 15 of the report states; "In addition to these 
restrictions, some programs limit eligibility to minorities in order to 
increase their representation in STEM fields. For example, NSF sponsors 
a program called Opportunities for Enhancing Diversity in the 
Geosciences to increase participation by African Americans, Hispanic 
Americans, Native Americans (American Indians and Alaskan Natives), 
Native Pacific Islanders (Polynesian or Micronesians), and persons with 
disabilities." Please note that, although the goal of the program is to 
broaden participation in the geosciences, the program does not limit 
eligibility to minorities. 

4. US citizen/permanent resident requirement for recipients of 
scholarships or fellowships: 

Another apparent misunderstanding also appears on page 15 of the 
report. The report states that "According to an NSF official, students 
receiving scholarships or fellowships through NSF programs must be U.S. 
citizens or permanent residents." This is correct, but the report goes 
on with the conjecture that "such restrictions limit may reflect 
concerns about access to sensitive areas." In fact, this restriction to 
U.S. citizens and permanent residents is considered primarily to be an 
effective strategy to support the NSF People Goal: "a diverse, 
competitive, and globally engaged U.S. workforce of scientists, 
engineers, technologists and well-prepared citizens." 

5. Interagency collaboration: 

The report only mentions the NSTC efforts for interagency 
collaboration. Other mechanisms for coordination of federal STEM 
programs exist. Operating with the Secretary of Education as its chair, 
the Federal Interagency Committee on Education studies and makes 
recommendations for assuring effective coordination of Federal 
programs, policies, and administrative practices affecting education. 
Similarly, the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council, in order to 
minimize duplication of programs and activities, coordinates Federal 
early intervention and preschool programs and policies across Federal 
agencies; the provision of Federal technical assistance and support 
activities to States; and identifies gaps in Federal programs and 
services and barriers to Federal interagency cooperation. Also, when 
the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Committee on Science 
(COS) established the Subcommittee on Education and Workforce 
Development (EWD), it assumed the responsibilities of its predecessor, 
the Interagency Working Group on S&T Workforce of the Future, which, in 
turn, was the successor of earlier coordinating bodies. The new EWD 
Subcommittee puts greater emphasis on the interagency coordination of 
federal education programs. 

Interagency collaboration also occurs at the program level. For 
example, the NSF Federal Cyber Service: Scholarship for Service (SFS) 
program partners with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through 
an ongoing MOU and contracts with OPM to provide the operational 
support for placing students in Federal jobs in IT security. 

6. Enrollment and degree data: 

The data taxonomy used for the report is not clear. For example, the 
report includes some, but not all, technology degrees and some, but not 
all, technology occupations. Also, the report does not appear to 
include associates degrees in the enrollment and degree analysis. The 
particular data in Table 11 on international student enrollment are 
based on GAO analysis of NPSAS data. The graduate level enrollment data 
in the table are questionable in comparison with other available data. 
The difficulty may be that the NPSAS data include a relatively small 
sample for graduate education. 

Signed by: 

Donald Thompson: 
Assistant Director (Acting): 

[End of section] 

Appendix X: Comments from the National Science and Technology Council: 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT: 
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY: 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20502: 

September 22, 2005: 

Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 
Government Accountability Office (GAO): 
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Ms. Ashby: 

Thank you for providing a copy of your draft report entitled "Higher 
Education: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 
Programs and Related Trends" (GAO-05-887). I applaud your efforts to 
provide an overview of the state of Federal support for attracting and 
retaining students in STEM disciplines. 

We understand that any such report will reflect the situation at one 
point in time and, given a rapidly changing world, research conducted 
even a short time ago may not fully reflect current conditions. Given 
this situation we have one continent regarding the discussion of 
international students' STEM participation decisions, particularly in 
regards to obtaining visas. 

Recent policy changes implemented by the United States Government have 
resulted in significant reductions in the time it takes to process 
visas for entry into the U.S. The U.S. government has made and 
continues to make a concerted effort to ensure that international 
students, exchange visitors and scientists are able to apply for-and 
receive-their visas in a timely manner. The State Department and the 
Department of Homeland Security have implemented a policy that gives 
priority processing to international students and research scholars, 
leading to shorter waits to begin the visa application process. In 
addition, the vast majority of applicants who are approved for student 
visas get them within two days. The approximately two percent of visa 
applications that are referred for additional screening are now, on 
average, processed within 14 days. This represents a significant 
improvement from the 67 day average processing time reported in the 
2004 GAO report entitled "Border Security: Improvements Needed to 
Reduce Time Taken to Adjudicate Visas for Science Students and 
Scholars. " In February of 2005, Mantis SAO validity periods were 
extended by up to four years for students and up to two years for 
exchange visitors. These extensions improve the ability of scientists 
and students to be able to leave and re-enter the United States as part 
of their normal course of scientific activities. Another important 
policy change was announced in May 2005, which will extend the initial 
duration of visas for certain long-term researchers from three to five 
years and also allows for extensions of up to five years. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review this document. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

John H. Marburger, III: 
Director: 

[End of section] 

Appendix XI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Cornelia M. Ashby (202) 512-7215: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Carolyn M. Taylor, Assistant 
Director; Tim Hall, Analyst in Charge; Mark Ward; Dorian Herring; 
Patricia Bundy; Paula Bonin; Scott Heacock; Wilfred Holloway; Lise 
Levie; John Mingus; Mark Ramage; James Rebbe; and Monica Wolford made 
key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Bibliography: 

Congressional Research Service, Foreign Students in the United States: 
Policies and Legislation, RL31146, January 24, 2003, Washington, D.C. 

Congressional Research Service, Immigration: Legislative Issues on 
Nonimmigrant Professional Specialty (H-1B) Workers, RL30498, May 5, 
2005, Washington, D.C. 

Congressional Research Service, Monitoring Foreign Students in the 
United States: The Student and Exchange Visitor Information System 
(SEVIS), RL32188, October 20, 2004, Washington, D.C. 

Congressional Research Service, Science, Engineering, and Mathematics 
Education: Status and Issues, 98-871 STM, April 27, 2004, Washington, 
D.C. 

Council on Competitiveness, Innovate America, December 2004, 
Washington, D.C. 

Council of Graduate Schools, NDEA 21: A Renewed Commitment to Graduate 
Education, June 2005, Washington, D.C. 

Institute of International Education, Open Doors: Report on 
International Educational Exchange, 2004, New York. 

Jackson, Shirley Ann, The Quiet Crisis: Falling Short in Producing 
American Scientific and Technical Talent, Building Engineering & 
Science Talent, September 2002, San Diego, California. 

NAFSA: Association of International Educators, In America's Interest: 
Welcoming International Students, Report of the Strategic Task Force on 
International Student Access, January 14, 2003, Washington, D.C. 

NAFSA: Association of International Educators, Toward an International 
Education Policy for the United States: International Education in an 
Age of Globalism and Terrorism, May 2003, Washington, D.C. 

National Center for Education Statistics, Qualifications of the Public 
School Teacher Workforce: Prevalence of Out-of-Field Teaching 1987-88 
to 1999-2000, May 2002, revised August 2004, Washington, D.C. 

National Science Foundation, The Science and Engineering Workforce 
Realizing America's Potential, National Science Board, August 14, 2003, 
Arlington, Virginia. 

National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators, 2004, 
Volume 1, National Science Board, January 15, 2004, Arlington, 
Virginia. 

Report of the Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and 
Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development, Land of 
Plenty: Diversity as America's Competitive Edge in Science, 
Engineering, and Technology, September 2000. 

A Report to the Nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and 
Science Teaching for the 21st Century, Before It's Too Late, September 
27, 2000. 

Seymour, Elaine, and Nancy M. Hewitt, Talking about Leaving: Why 
Undergraduates Leave the Sciences, Westview Press, 1997, Boulder, 
Colorado. 

The National Academies, Policy Implications of International Graduate 
Students and Postdoctoral Scholars in the United States, 2005, 
Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 
Institute of Education Sciences, The Nation's Report Card, NAEP 2004: 
Trends in Academic Progress, July 2005, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Education, The Secretary's Third Annual Report on 
Teacher Quality, Office of Postsecondary Education, 2004, Washington, 
D.C. 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2003 Yearbook of Immigration 
Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, September 2004, 
Washington, D.C. 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] For the purposes of this report, we will use the term "agency" when 
referring to any of the 13 federal departments and agencies that 
responded to our survey. 

[2] Core subjects include English, reading or language arts, 
mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, 
economics, arts, history, and geography. 

[3] Other federal programs that are not specifically designed to 
attract students to STEM education and occupations, such as Pell 
Grants, may provide financial assistance to students who obtain degrees 
in STEM fields. 

[4] There are several types of visas that authorize people to study and 
work in the United States. F, or student, visas, are for study at 2-and 
4-year colleges and universities and other academic institutions; the 
exchange visitor, or J, visas are for people who will be participating 
in a cultural exchange program; and M visas are for nonacademic study 
at institutions, such as vocational and technical schools. In addition, 
H-1B visas allow non-citizens to work in the United States. 

[5] GAO, Border Security: Streamlined Visas Mantis Program Has Lowered 
Burden on Foreign Science Students and Scholars, but Further 
Refinements Needed, GAO-05-198 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 18, 2005). 

[6] Congressional Research Service, Science, Engineering, and 
Mathematics Education: Status and Issues, 98-871 STM, April 27, 2004, 
Washington, D.C. 

[7] A specialty occupation is defined as one that requires the 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of at least a bachelor's degree (or its equivalent), and the 
possession of a license or other credential to practice the occupation 
if required. 

[8] GAO asked agencies to include STEM and related education programs 
with one or more of the following as a primary objective: (1) attract 
and prepare students at any education level to pursue coursework in 
STEM areas, (2) attract students to pursue degrees (2-year degrees 
through post doctoral) in STEM fields, (3) provide growth and research 
opportunities for college and graduate students in STEM fields, such as 
working with researchers and/or conducting research to further their 
education, (4) attract graduates to pursue careers in STEM fields, (5) 
improve teacher (pre-service, in-service, and postsecondary) education 
in STEM areas, and (6) improve or expand the capacity of institutions 
to promote or foster STEM fields. 

[9] The program funding levels, as provided by agency officials, 
contain both actual and estimated amounts for fiscal year 2004. 

[10] Six survey respondents did not include the date the program was 
initially funded. 

[11] Fiscal year 2005 funding levels were not available for all of the 
207 STEM education programs. 

[12] Three survey respondents did not identify the program goals. 

[13] One survey respondent did not identify the type of assistance 
supported by the program. 

[14] Two survey respondents did not identify the group targeted by the 
program. 

[15] Lawful permanent residents, also commonly referred to as 
immigrants, are legally accorded the privilege of residing permanently 
in the United States. They may be issued immigrant visas by the 
Department of State overseas or adjusted to permanent resident status 
by the Department of Homeland Security in the United States. 

[16] GAO, Program Evaluation: An Evaluation Culture and Collaborative 
Partnerships Help Build Agency Capacity, GAO-03-454 (Washington, D.C.: 
May 2, 2003). 

[17] In 2004, we reported on women's participation in federally funded 
science programs. Among other issues, this report discussed priorities 
pertaining to compliance with provisions of Title IX of the Education 
Amendments of 1972. For additional information, see GAO, Gender Issues: 
Women's Participation in the Sciences Has Increased, but Agencies Need 
to Do More to Ensure Compliance with Title IX, GAO-04-639, (Washington, 
D.C.: July 22, 2004). 

[18] Institute of International Education, Open Doors: Report on 
International Educational Exchange, 2004, New York. 

[19] On the basis of March 2004 CPS estimates, the Pew Hispanic 
Research Center reported that over 10 million unauthorized immigrants 
resided in the United States and that people of Hispanic and Latino 
origin constituted a significant portion of these unauthorized 
immigrants. 

[20] Other minorities include Asian/Pacific Islanders and American 
Indian or Alaska Native. 

[21] GAO, H-1B Foreign Workers: Better Controls Needed to Help 
Employers and Protect Workers, GAO/HEHS-00-157 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 
7, 2000). 

[22] GAO, H-1B Foreign Workers: Better Tracking Needed to Help 
Determine H-1B Program's Effects on U.S. Workforce, GAO-03-883 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2003). 

[23] National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators, 
2004, Volume 1, National Science Board, January 15, 2004. 

[24] National Center for Education Statistics, Qualifications of the 
Public School Teacher Workforce: Prevalence of Out-of-Field Teaching 
1987-88 to 1999-2000, May 2002, revised August 2004,Washington, D.C. 

[25] U.S. Department of Education, The Secretary's Third Annual Report 
on Teacher Quality, Office of Postsecondary Education, 2004, 
Washington, D.C. 

[26] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, The Nation's Report Card, 
NAEP 2004: Trends in Academic Progress, July 2005, Washington, D.C. 

[27] Seymour, Elaine, and Nancy M. Hewitt, Talking about Leaving: Why 
Undergraduates Leave the Sciences, Westview Press, 1997, Boulder, 
Colorado. 

[28] Seymour and Hewitt. 

[29] GAO-04-639. 

[30] Report of the Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women 
and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development, Land 
of Plenty: Diversity as America's Competitive Edge in Science, 
Engineering, and Technology, September 2000. 

[31] NAFSA: Association of International Educators, In America's 
Interest: Welcoming International Students, Report of the Strategic 
Task Force on International Student Access, January 14, 2003, 
Washington, D.C. 

[32] GAO, Border Security: Visa Process Should Be Strengthened as an 
Antiterrorism Tool, GAO-03-132NI (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2002). 

[33] GAO, Border Security: New Policies and Increased Interagency 
Coordination Needed to Improve Visa Process, GAO-03-1013T (Washington, 
D. C.: July 15, 2003). 

[34] GAO, Border Security: Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to 
Adjudicate Visas for Science Students and Scholars, GAO-04-371 
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2004). 

[35] GAO-05-198. 

[36] GAO, Homeland Security: Performance of Information System to 
Monitor Foreign Students and Exchange Visitors Has Improved, but Issues 
Remain, GAO-04-690 (Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2004). 

[37] GAO, Homeland Security: Performance of Foreign Student and 
Exchange Visitor Information System Continues to Improve, but Issues 
Remain, GAO-05-440T (Washington, D.C.: March 17, 2005). 

[38] Report of the Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women 
and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development, Land 
of Plenty: Diversity as America's Competitive Edge in Science, 
Engineering, and Technology, September 2000. 

[39] See Technical Paper 63RV:Current Population Survey--Design and 
Methodology, issued Mar. 2002. Electronic version available at 
http://www.censusgov/prod/2002pubs/tp63rv.pdf. 

[40] See Technical Paper 63RV, page 11-4. 

[41] Seymour, Elaine, and Nancy M. Hewitt, Talking about Leaving: Why 
Undergraduates Leave the Sciences, Westview Press, 1997, Boulder, 
Colorado. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, 

NelliganJ@gao.gov 

(202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548: