Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Learning from our global competitors: a comparative analysis of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education pipelines in the United States, Mainland China and Taiwan
(USC Thesis Other)
Learning from our global competitors: a comparative analysis of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education pipelines in the United States, Mainland China and Taiwan
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
LEARNING FROM OUR GLOBAL COMPETITORS:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING
AND MATHEMATICS (STEM) EDUCATION PIPELINES IN THE UNITED
STATES, MAINLAND CHINA AND TAIWAN
by
Christina M. Chow
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2011
Copyright 2011 Christina M. Chow
ii
Dedication
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my parents and grandparents, my
husband Tim, and my son Tycho.
iii
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the college students, teachers, principals and professors who
helped me clarify various details regarding the Chinese education systems, including: Dr.
Junji Cao of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Dr. Frank S. C. Lee of Hong Kong
PolyTechnic University, Dr. Guangli Xu, Shijun Yang of Fu Dan Senior High School,
Zhao Yue, Jimmy Lee and Anita Lee. In particular, I would like to acknowledge
Principal Xiu-xia Huang, of Kaohsiung Municipal Senior High School, who answered
endless questions and provided me with up-to-date Chemistry workbooks and sample
tests.
I would also like to acknowledge the members of the Ministry of Education of the
Peoples’ Republic of China, the Hong Kong Bureau of Education and Taiwan’s Ministry
of Education, who patiently responded to countless emails and phone interviews. In
particular, I would like to thank Jane Chuang, of Taiwan’s Ministry of Education, who
provided a wealth of information, links and examples that helped in the initial stages of
this dissertation.
I would also like to acknowledge and thank the friends of family who have
supported me throughout this process: Lois Elling, Joseph and Lorian Schaeffer, James
and Angelina Yoon, Barbara Young and Spencer and Deidre Williams.
iv
Table of Contents
Dedication.......................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures................................................................................................................. viii
Abstract.............................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Introduction.............................................................................................. 1
Background..................................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem................................................................................................ 4
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 6
Significance of the Study................................................................................................ 6
Definition of Terms......................................................................................................... 8
Chapter Two: Review of Literature.............................................................................. 13
Introduction................................................................................................................... 13
The Importance of STEM Education in the Global Economy...................................... 14
Comparative Analysis of Performance on PISA and TIMSS....................................... 20
Differences in Compulsory Education Requirements in the U.S., China and Taiwan . 28
Chapter Three: Research Design and Methodology ................................................... 30
Introduction................................................................................................................... 30
Research Questions....................................................................................................... 31
Nature of the Study ....................................................................................................... 31
Sources of Data............................................................................................................. 34
Assumptions.................................................................................................................. 41
Limitations and Delimitations....................................................................................... 41
Chapter Four: Data Analysis and Results.................................................................... 42
Introduction................................................................................................................... 42
Analysis of Data: Research Question #1: How do the U.S., mainland China and
Taiwan differ in school structure, minimum graduation requirements and
assessments?........................................................................................................ 43
School Structure, Minimum Graduation Requirements and Assessments in the
U.S................................................................................................................. 43
School Structure, Minimum Graduation Requirements and Assessments in
Hong Kong .................................................................................................... 53
School Structure, Minimum Graduation Requirements and Assessments in
Mainland China ............................................................................................. 67
School Structure, Minimum Graduation Requirements and Assessments in
Taiwan ........................................................................................................... 74
v
Percentage of Students Continuing in Senior, Vocational and Technical Schools
in Taiwan....................................................................................................... 83
Comparing School Systems and Structures in the U.S., Mainland China and
Taiwan ........................................................................................................... 85
Comparing Minimum Graduation Requirements in the U.S., Mainland China
and Taiwan .................................................................................................... 86
Comparing Assessment Structure in the U.S., Mainland China and Taiwan ........... 92
Analysis of Data: Research Question #2: How do the U.S., Mainland China and
Taiwan compare in terms of producing a STEM capable workforce?................ 94
Comparison of STEM Baccalaureate and First Time University Degrees in the
U.S., China and Taiwan................................................................................. 94
Share of U.S. Doctorates Earned at U.S. Colleges and Universities ...................... 106
Chapter Five: Conclusions and Recommendations................................................... 111
Asian Education Systems Builds STEM Capacity ..................................................... 112
Asian Education System Offers Students a Structured Curricula that Builds
Foundational STEM Capacity ..................................................................... 112
International Chemistry Olympiad (IChO) Performance 2000-2010 ..................... 114
Innovation and Change within Asian Education Systems ...................................... 117
While Asian Education System Relies on State-Selection, U.S. Transitions
Often Require a Greater Degree of Self-Selection at an Early Age............ 121
Asian Education Systems Cultivate STEM Interest in Top Performing Students,
Yielding a Greater Number of Bachelor’s and Advanced STEM Degrees....... 126
STEM Interest at the High School Level, Comparing Volume and Type of
Tests Students Select in the U.S. and Hong Kong ...................................... 126
STEM Interest may be Linked to Both Clear Secondary-Tertiary Transitions,
as well as Well Publicized Rewards and Incentives.................................... 130
STEM Interest at the Tertiary Education Level, Comparing STEM Degrees
Earned by 9
th
Grade Graduates in the U.S. and Taiwan.............................. 132
Asian Education Systems have Expanded both Secondary and Tertiary Degree-
Granting Programs and Multiple Entrance Pathways to Heighten Interest
in STEM Careers and Global Awareness.......................................................... 134
Asian Education System offers Clearly Defined Alternatives for
Non-University Bound Students.................................................................. 135
Awareness of the Global Marketplace, and Foreign Language Instruction............ 138
STEM-Capable Workforce Production, 2002-2009 Cohort Comparison............... 140
America’s “Next Sputnik Moment”............................................................................ 142
Bibliography.................................................................................................................. 145
vi
List of Tables
Table 2-1. 2006 PISA scores from NSF Science and Engineering Indicators (2010)..... 22
Table 2-2. U.S. 4
th
and 8
th
Grade Student Performance on TIMSS: 1995, 1999,
2003 and 2007. ................................................................................................... 24
Table 2-3. Chinese-Taipei, Hong Kong (SAR), and U.S. Performance on PISA
(2006) vs. TIMSS (2007). .................................................................................. 27
Table 4-1. 2007-08 State-by-State Minimum Graduation Requirements and
Graduation Rates. ............................................................................................... 45
Table 4-2. Hong Kong P1-P6, S1-S3 Curriculum and Suggested Time Allocations ...... 54
Table 4-3. Sampling of Requirements for History, Business and Pharmacy majors at
Hong Kong Universities..................................................................................... 58
Table 4-4. Estimated Number of Students Continuing Past Compulsory S1-S3
Education in Hong Kong.................................................................................... 62
Table 4-5. Hong Kong New Senior Secondary (NSS) Curriculum Guide ....................... 65
Table 4-6. A Brief Summary of K-12 Education in Mainland China.............................. 69
Table 4-7. Shanghai Elementary and Middle School Curriculum and Course
Allocation Time, Listed in Terms of Sessions Per Week................................... 70
Table 4-8. Shanghai Senior High School Curriculum and Course Allocation Time,
Listed in Terms of Sessions Per Week............................................................... 73
Table 4-9. Minimum Requirements in Taiwan Elementary and Junior High Schools.... 76
Table 4-10. Minimum Requirements in Taiwan Senior High Schools, Listed in
Terms of Sessions Per Week .............................................................................. 79
Table 4-11: General Structure of Primary and Secondary Education in the U.S., Hong
Kong, mainland China and Taiwan.................................................................... 85
Table 4-12: Minimum English, Mathematics and Science Carnegie Units Required
in U.S., Hong Kong, Mainland China and Taiwan ............................................ 88
Table 4-13: Minimum Mathematics Content Requirements, by State, Compared to
Hong Kong and Taiwan...................................................................................... 91
Table 4-14. College Entrance Exams in the U.S., Hong Kong, China and Taiwan ........ 93
Table 4-15. Classification of U.S., Hong Kong, mainland China and Taiwan
Undergraduate Majors and Academic Disciplines ............................................. 99
Table 5-1. International Chemistry Olympiad Performance of U.S., China and
Taiwan Student Representatives, 2000-2010 ................................................... 116
vii
Table 5-2. Recommended High School Coursework from U.S. News and World
Reports Top Ten U.S. Colleges and Universities............................................. 123
Table 5-3. 2008 Top Ten Most Popular Student-Selected Test Topics in the U.S.
and Hong Kong................................................................................................. 127
Table 5-4. Foreign Language Requirements, State-by-State Requirements
Compared to Hong Kong, Mainland China and Taiwan Requirements........... 139
viii
List of Figures
Figure 4-1: Relationship between Mathematics and Science Requirements and High
School Graduation Rates (2007-08) ................................................................... 46
Figure 4-2: Massachusetts and Arkansas, Distribution of Student Scores on 2008
AP Calculus AB Test.......................................................................................... 49
Figure 4-3: Current Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Education System in Taiwan....... 75
Figure 4-4: Percentage of Taiwan’s Vocational High School Students Pursuing
Tertiary Education, 1994-2009........................................................................... 82
Figure 4-5: Percentage and Distribution of Taiwan 9
th
-Grade Graduates’ Level of
Secondary Education.......................................................................................... 84
Figure 4-6: Number of First Time University S&E Degrees in the U.S., Mainland
China and Taiwan, 2000-2006 ........................................................................... 96
Figure 4-7: Relative and Total Number of First Time University STEM Degrees in
the U.S., China and Taiwan, 2009.................................................................... 100
Figure 4-8: Relative Percentage of STEM, Social Studies, and Humanities
Baccalaureate Degrees Earned in the U.S., 1966-2009.................................... 102
Figure 4-9: Relative Percentage of STEM, Social Studies, and Humanities
Baccalaureate Degrees Earned in Mainland China, Selected Years, 1997-
2009 .................................................................................................................. 103
Figure 4-10: Science, Engineering, Agriculture and Medicine Baccalaureates
Awarded Between 1997-2009 (Selected Years) in China................................ 105
Figure 4-11: Relative Percentage of STEM, Social Studies, and Humanities
Baccalaureate Degrees Earned in Taiwan, Selected Years, 1997-2010........... 106
Figure 4-12: Total Number of STEM and Humanities Doctorates Earned in U.S.
Universities between 1966-2008 ...................................................................... 107
Figure 4-13: Percentage of STEM and Humanities Doctors Earned by U.S. Citizens
1966-2006......................................................................................................... 108
Figure 5-1: Percentage and Distribution of U.S. 9
th
-Grade Graduates’ Eventual
Level of Tertiary Education, (1992-2003)........................................................ 120
Figure 5-2: Percentage and Distribution of Taiwan 9
th
-Grade Graduates’ Eventual
Level of Tertiary Education (1992-2003)......................................................... 120
Figure 5-3: U.S. 9
th
Grade (2001-02) Cohort Data, Expressed in Terms of
Educational Attainment and Field of Study ..................................................... 133
ix
Figure 5-4: Taiwan 9
th
Grade (2001-02) Cohort Data, Expressed in Terms of
Educational Attainment and Field of Study ..................................................... 134
Figure 5-5: Summary of Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Education Pathways in
the U.S., Hong Kong, Mainland China and Taiwan......................................... 136
Figure 5-6: STEM-Capable Workforce Production: Tracking 9
th
Grade Graduates’
Level of STEM Educational Attainment in U.S., Mainland China and
Taiwan .............................................................................................................. 142
x
Abstract
Maintaining a competitive edge within the 21
st
century is dependent on the
cultivation of human capital, producing qualified and innovative employees capable of
competing within the new global marketplace. Technological advancements in
communications technology as well as large scale, infrastructure development has led to
a leveled playing field where students in the U.S. will ultimately be competing for jobs
with not only local, but also international, peers. Thus, the ability to understand and learn
from our global competitors, starting with the examination of innovative education
systems and best practice strategies, is tantamount to the economic development, and
ultimate survival, of the U.S. as a whole.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the current state of science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education and workforce pipelines in
the U.S., China, and Taiwan. Two broad research questions examined STEM workforce
production in terms of a) structural differences in primary and secondary school systems,
including analysis of minimum high school graduation requirements and assessments as
well as b) organizational differences in tertiary education and trends in STEM
undergraduate and graduate degrees awarded in each region of interest.
While each of the systems studied had their relative strengths and weaknesses,
each of the Asian economies studied had valuable insights that can be categorized
broadly in terms of STEM capacity, STEM interest and a greater understanding of global
prospects that led to heightened STEM awareness.
xi
In China and Taiwan, STEM capacity was built via both traditional and
vocational school systems. Focused and structured curriculum during the primary and
early secondary school years built solid mathematics and science skills that translated
into higher performance on international assessments and competitions. Differentiated
secondary school options, including vocational high school and technical colleges and
programs beginning shortly after junior high produced a greater number of alternatives
for producing STEM capable students.
A heightened interest in the STEM fields was built upon standardized academic
core curriculum that ultimately yielded a greater percentage of qualified and interested
Asian students pursuing bachelor’s and advanced STEM degrees both in their native
country and abroad. Rewards and incentives built into school systems, expansion of
tertiary degree-granting programs, as well as the development of multiple university
entrance pathways has served to heighten interest and perception of STEM careers as
well as recruit top students into STEM fields. Further, foreign language classes, starting
from either the first or third year of primary school, coupled with information technology
and other experimental science and research themed classes, resulted in students who
were more aware of global market demands.
Analysis of longitudinal data shows that over a nine-year period, this combination
of increased STEM capacity, interest and awareness resulted in a far greater percentage
of 9
th
graders who eventually became STEM certificate, bachelor’s, and advanced degree
holders capable of competing in the global marketplace.
1
Chapter One: Introduction
Background
Studies in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, collectively referred
to as the STEM fields, are considered to be central to U.S. economic competitiveness and
growth within the global economy. In the past century, American innovation has lead to
the creation of many technological advances that are now a part of our everyday lives
including: the air conditioner (William Carrier, 1902), airplanes capable of sustaining
human flight (Wright brothers, 1903), traffic signals (Garrett Morgan, 1923), scotch tape
(Richard Drew, 1930), stop-action photography (Harold Edgerton, 1931), Teflon (Roy
Plunkett, 1938), lasers (Townes and Schawlow, 1958), mobile phones (Martin Cooper,
1973), and personal computers. While many early inventions may have resulted from
the ingenuity of individual scientists, later inventions, of which mobile phones and
personal computers are good examples, depended upon teams of researchers working
collaboratively, often affiliated with large universities or commercial laboratories.
During the past century, regardless of the number of scientists or corporations involved,
the U.S. has served as the primary laboratory for many important experiments and
accomplishments, allowing American scientists and institutions to be at the forefront of
technological advances, earning the U.S. its place as an innovation leader.
Yet in recent years, the relative competitiveness of the U.S. within a more
globally diverse marketplace has come into question, and confidence that the U.S. can
maintain its position as a scientific leader has begun to wane. As the U.S. continues to
fall in global competitive rankings (International Institute of Management Development
2
(IMD), 2011; World Economic Forum, 2011), attention has gradually turned
towards ways in which the U.S. can begin to regain its position as a scientific and
economic leader. Focus has shifted towards examining the U.S. education pipeline, and
by attempting to answer the question, where is America’s next generation of STEM-
capable pioneers, innovators and inventors?
International tests conducted from elementary through high school years show
that American students consistently underperform relative to their Asian peers in both
mathematics and science. Specifically, American students seem to struggle the most
when attempting the more complicated word and application problems international tests
often focus on, testing at or below the international average in both mathematics and
science literacy in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA 2006, PISA
2009). While lower mathematics and science test scores at the elementary and high
school levels do not necessarily imply lower performance or interest in STEM fields
during a student’s college years, struggling specifically on application, rather than skill-
based problems, is an additional indicator that the U.S. STEM education pipeline is
weakening, even from a student’s earliest years.
Further, many of the countries that already outperform the U.S. on these
international tests have policies and practices that help encourage and interest students in
pursuing STEM occupations at all stages of a student’s education. Data collected by the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and published reports from China’s and Taiwan’s
Ministries of Education (MOE) show that they have striven to increase their STEM
3
workforce by establishing scholarships linked to specific competitions and/or
school performance. Other countries, such as Singapore, traditionally one of the top
performers on international math and science assessments, have focused on expanding
their national curriculum, believing that this will strengthen their students’ core STEM
knowledge. In contrast, U.S. education policy has focused on establishing external
accountability matrices and increasing the number of students who achieve a broadly
defined “proficient” level and has yet to establish national mathematics or science
requirements or minimum curricula.
In terms of tertiary education, growth in the number of STEM majors has
stagnated over the past three decades: NSF data indicate that the number of American
students receiving bachelor’s degrees in the science and engineering (S&E) fields has
remained at roughly a third for the past 15 years (NSF, 2010). In contrast, Asian
countries seem to be growing the number of students interested in obtaining STEM
bachelor’s and doctoral degrees. Foreign nationals account for a growing share of
advanced S&E degrees awarded at American colleges and universities: 21% of all U.S.
S&E doctorates awarded in 1995, and 36% in 2005 (NSF, 2008). Of the top ten places of
origin for these students, eight were Asian and the top three were China, Taiwan and
South Korea. The trend continues beyond graduate school: in 2006, students on
temporary visas held more than 55% of S&E post-doctoral positions in American
colleges and universities (NSF, 2008).
4
Thus, the U.S. is confronted with a two-sided problem: many current
industry and research related STEM jobs are performed by foreign nationals on
temporary visas, and many future jobs will require knowledge and skills for which its
own citizens may be poorly prepared. A K-12 STEM education gap translates into an
eventual employment gap: where American students will be less qualified to compete for
jobs both here and abroad and where American dependence on the recruitment and
retention of foreign talent continues to grow.
While interest in the STEM fields has stagnated in terms of bachelor’s and
doctoral degrees earned by U.S. citizens, STEM careers and jobs, both in the U.S. and
abroad, are growing. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) projects that by 2018, over
15 of the 30 “fastest growing occupations” will require some amount of STEM
education: ranging from moderate on-the-job training required to be an environmental
engineering technician, to doctoral degrees required for trained biochemists and
biophysicists (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009). Thus, if the U.S. is to maintain its
position as a country rich in both innovation and opportunity, it must determine a way to
encourage and prepare more American students to pursue STEM careers, starting by
providing the solid educational foundation necessary for them to compete in the global
marketplace.
Statement of the Problem
The U.S. DOL (2007) reported that a coordinated effort between public, private
and non-profit organizations was necessary to combat the problem of creating and
5
maintaining an American STEM workforce that could be globally competitive. The
DOL further stated that the U.S. would need to increase the knowledge of its current
STEM workforce, as well as strengthen the pipeline for upcoming STEM baccalaureate
candidates, warning that targeting current bachelor’s and advanced degree holders would
no longer be sufficient.
Thus, a more detailed understanding of our STEM education pipeline, centering
on our ability to create and maintain a STEM-capable workforce seems necessary.
Specifically, a comparative analysis focusing on how primary and secondary education in
the U.S. and two of its top-performing Asian competitors, mainland China and Taiwan,
can more specifically address criticism regarding whether American students may be too
unprepared to enter the STEM disciplines, despite obtaining a high school diploma. An
examination of tertiary education in each region of interest will further demonstrate
whether the U.S. is not attracting enough of its top-performing students towards entering
and staying in STEM careers.
While Taiwan’s population is merely a fraction of the U.S.’s and does not have
the same types challenges that many urban schools within the U.S. face, mainland China
is a country that is still struggling to maintain growth and diversify the types of
educational options offered to its growing population. While this study does not focus
specifically on the challenges of urban schools in each region of interest, it does seek to
present the common core of standards and requirements that each is aiming towards, to
offer a clearer presentation of the current goals and policies being pursued, as well as the
6
ways in which each region is adapting to face its own set of unique challenges.
Further, it focuses on addressing how both mainland China and Taiwan have sought to
balance the dual needs of increasing overall educational attainment, while still producing
STEM-capable workers capable of surviving and competing in the 21
st
century.
Purpose of the Study
This study focuses on two areas of comparative analysis: 1. Differences in
primary and secondary school structures, systems, minimum gradation requirements and
assessments as well as, 2. Production of a STEM-capable workforce in terms of level and
type of post-secondary education attainment in the U.S., mainland China and Taiwan.
Mainland China and Taiwan were chosen as places that have actively worked, via
increased funding and policies, to broaden and improve their STEM education. Both
have consistently outperformed the U.S. in international standardized tests in both the
mathematics and science areas, and are respectively the top places of origin for foreign
students and S&E doctorates in American universities.
Significance of the Study
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has conducted studies
on American student progress in mathematics, reading, writing and science, and has
released collected data since 1969. The results, usually released as “The Nation’s Report
Card”, have long since raised questions and concerns regarding gender and racial
achievement gaps in mathematics and science, the effects of poverty and class divisions
7
on the ability of children to receive equitable educational experiences, as well as
concerns regarding content-specific focus and achievement (NAEP, 1999).
Specifically, as early as 1983 the National Commission on Excellence in
Education in its report, “A Nation at Risk”, warned that secondary school curricula had
become “homogenized, diluted, and diffused to the point that they no longer have a
central purpose” citing the “curricular smorgasbord” of course offerings as the main
reason students were not completing core mathematics and science courses such as
intermediate algebra.
Yet despite many state-by-state standards-based reform efforts since then, as well
as the inception of No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001), which sought to establish an
external accountability system whereby students would need to test at “proficient” or
above by the 2013-2014 school year, the U.S. continues to lag behind many of its
international peers: in international mathematics and science assessments, in the growth
of its first time university STEM degrees awarded, and even in its share of STEM
doctorates earned at American colleges and universities.
As the gap between the U.S.’s STEM-capable workforce and global market
demands widens, the U.S. may be unable to continue importing its STEM-workforce, and
American citizens may be unqualified to compete for jobs within the global market.
Thus, understanding how other industrialized nations, regardless of cultural differences,
have been able to successfully educate, interest and cultivate STEM-capable students
from a primary, secondary and tertiary school systems perspective, is essential.
8
Definition of Terms
• Achieve, Inc. – a non-profit organization established in 1996 which focuses on
collecting data and shaping policy regarding college readiness via such projects as
the American Diploma Project (ADP), which seeks to align high school
graduation requirements with college preparedness. http://www.achieve.org/
The Advanced Placement Program (AP) – Originally established by College
Board to help gifted students earn college course credit while still in high school,
there are now 39 different subject tests including AP Biology, AP Music Theory
and AP Studio Art: 3-D Design. The tests are conducted annually, in May, and
are scored on a scale of 1-5, with scores of 3 and above being considered
“passing”. http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/Controller.jpf
• Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) – The BLS is part of the U.S. Department of
Labor, and is the governmental agency that focuses on gathering and analyzing
labor statistics. Several important reports/ surveys that the BLS conducts and
reports on include: U.S. Consumer Price Index, Geographic Profile of
Employment and Unemployment (annual), Occupational Outlook Handbook
(OOH). http://www.bls.gov/
• College Board – Originally established as the College Entrance and Examination
Board (CEEB) was initially formed in 1900 to develop standardized tests,
allowing students to apply for multiple colleges and universities while using one
common entrance exam (later known as the Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT)).
College Board also administers Advanced Placement (AP) and SAT subject tests.
http://www.collegeboard.org/
• Department of Labor (DOL) – the mission statement of the U.S. DOL is “to
foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, and
retirees of the United States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities
for profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights.” The
DOL has several operating units it oversees, including the Bureau of Labor
9
Statistics (BLS) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA). http://www.dol.gov/
• Education Pipeline – Since the length and type of compulsory education differs
between the three regions being studied, the term “education pipeline” in this
study refers to the progression from primary, secondary and then tertiary
education that students may choose to pursue.
• Gaokao – the “gaokao” is China’s annual National College Entrance Exam.
Though it is supposed to be standardized across the nation, different provinces
may adapt and have different questions/ modifications. Only senior high school
students may take the test, which is separated into two types: “liberal arts” or
“science”, depending on what their intended college major is. Three subjects are
required for all students attempting the gaokao: Chinese, Mathematics and a
foreign language (often English); different provinces may set unique standards for
regulating what the other subjects are.
• General Scholastic Ability Test (GSAT): the GSAT is an annual examination
administered by Taiwan’s College Entrance and Examination Center (CEEC) to
senior high school students. It is administered in January of each year and covers
five mandatory topics: Chinese, English, Mathematics, Social Studies and Natural
Sciences. http://www.ceec.edu.tw/AbilityExam/AbilityExamProfile.htm
• Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination (HKALE) – The HKALE is an
annual examination conducted by the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment
Authority. http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/en/hkale/
• Hong Kong Certification of Education (HKCEE) – the HKCEE is an annual
examination conducted by the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment
Authority. The HKCEE is a prerequisite for being able to continue education in
Hong Kong and eventually allows students to participate in the HKALE.
http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/en/hkcee/
• Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education (HKDSE) – the HKDSE will be
the new annual college entrance examination conducted by the Hong Kong
10
Examinations and Assessment Authority. Students who have completed six
years of secondary education under the new secondary structure will participate in
the HKDSE for the first time in 2012. http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/en/hkdse/
• Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) – conducted by the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the IPEDS surveys institutions
of higher learning regarding the number of tertiary education degrees awarded
(including master’s, doctoral degrees and first professional degrees such as M.D.
(Medicine) and D.D.S. (Dentistry)).
• International Chemistry Olympiad (IChO) – the IChO is an annual academic
competition that started in 1968. Each country that participates in the IChO picks
a team of up to four students (usually via regional and national competitions),
who are students under the age of 20 not currently enrolled in post-secondary
education, to send to the international competition, which involves both
theoretical and practical examinations translated into the student’s language of
choice. http://www.iuventa.sk/en/Subpages/ICHO/ICHO.alej
• National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) – periodic assessment
administered by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) via the U.S.
Department of Education (DOE) to measure student profess in reading, writing,
science and mathematics, often referred to as the “Nation’s Report Card”.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
• National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) – The NCES is part of the
U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and is
responsible for collecting and analyzing U.S. education data. It publishes the
Digest of Education Statistics, which details student enrollment in primary and
secondary education, enrollment versus graduation rates, annually. It also
conducts the Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS) and the
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). http://nces.ed.gov/
• National Center for Educational Outcomes (NCEO) – NCEO was established
in 1990, and is part of the University of Minnesota. It is funded primarily through
11
grants from the U.S. Department of Education and focuses on designing and
monitoring assessments for students as well as examining the educational results
of students with disabilities, those needing accommodations and alternative
methods of assessments. http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/
• National Science Foundation (NSF) -- the primary federal agency focused on
research and education in the fields of science and engineering in the United
States. http://www.nsf.gov/
• Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH) – The OOH is published by the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and includes information about employment
training, earnings, job prospects, working conditions and employment projections
regarding which professions are projected to be the fastest growing occupations.
http://www.bls.gov/oco/
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) – a
forum of 34 countries focused on gathering information and generating economic
strategies that can become formal agreements between countries, or general
standards and models for member countries. http://www.oecd.org/
• Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) – The Program for
International Student Assessment is an international assessment of mathematics,
reading and science literary. It tests 15-year-old students who are part of the
Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) every three
years. http://www.pisa.oecd.org/
• Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) – There is no set
list of fields that are classified as STEM. The NSF tends to classify fields as
Science and Engineering (S&E) as opposed to STEM, which is a relatively newer
term.
• Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) – NSF data regarding the number of
doctoral degrees awarded comes from the NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates
(SED) that eventually becomes the Doctorate Records File (DRF). The SED is
conducted annually by the Chicago National Opinion Research Center and
12
surveys doctorate recipients directly; late responses are added when
received. The SED does not collect data regarding professional degrees such as
M.D. (Medicine) or D.D.S. (Dentistry).
• Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) – The
TIMSS is an international study conducted every four years, starting in 1995. The
TIMSS assessments are administered to fourth- and eighth-grade students and
consist of mathematics and science tests as well as student and teacher
questionnaires. Since it started in 1995, different countries have participated each
year; to help standardize the results, the TIMSS scale average is always 500, with
a standard deviation of 100. http://nces.ed.gov/timss/
13
Chapter Two: Review of Literature
Introduction
Much of the strength of the U.S. economy during the past century may be due to
the perceived dominance of its leadership in technology and innovation amongst both
private and public sectors. Yet there are many indicators that its ability to maintain and
grow a skilled workforce is beginning to wane. The International Institute for
Management Development (IMD), which has published a yearly World Competiveness
Yearbook of global competiveness rankings since 1989, had the U.S. losing its first place
position, for the first time, in its 2010 results (Singapore was ranked as #1, and Hong
Kong as #2, Taiwan was #8). Similarly, the World Economic Forum had the U.S.
slipping from first to second in 2009 and then from second to fourth in 2010 (Switzerland
ranked #1, followed by Sweden #2, then Singapore #3). While these rankings are based
on a variety of indicators, taking into account education pipelines, current economy, as
well as subjective survey results, it is important to note that the perceived strength of the
U.S. as a scientific leader and innovator is being questioned and challenged both within
the U.S. and abroad.
A comparative examination of STEM education in the U.S., China and Taiwan
must therefore begin with an understanding of why a STEM-capable workforce is seen as
being the economic backbone of a nation’s growth and competitive potential within the
global market. First, a brief explanation of the ways in which the labor market has
changed within the past decades, transitioning from a labor-intensive to a knowledge-
based economy, with a great amount of job growth being concentrated in the STEM
14
disciplines. Next, a brief review of literature concerning how the current U.S.
STEM education pipeline, in terms of performance on international tests, as well as a
preliminary overview of the structure of K-12 education in the U.S., China and Taiwan
will be presented.
The Importance of STEM Education in the Global Economy
Peter Drucker first popularized the idea of a “knowledge economy” in 1966,
foreseeing a world in which human capital, in the form of knowledgeable and skilled
workers, would distinguish themselves from manual workers. In his later books, he
characterized the growing divide between making products and gaining information,
stating that, “We know now that the source of wealth is something specifically human:
knowledge” (2009) and that:
Knowledge worker productivity is the biggest of the 21
st
century
management challenges. In the developed countries it is their first
survival requirement. In no other way can the developed countries hope to
maintain themselves, let alone to maintain their leadership and their
standards of living. (p.157)
Decades after Drucker’s book, the question of how to produce and maintain
human capital remains in debate. Yet many now take it for granted that a nation’s future,
the standards of living that its citizens can expect, will be linked to its ability to create
such a workforce. This phenomenon may be a direct result of how the labor market is
changing. Levy et al. (2004) argued that the shape of the job market was changing, and
that requirements for securing a middle class living had shifted:
As recently as 1970, more than one-half of employed U.S. adults worked
in two broad occupational categories: blue-collar jobs and clerical jobs…
15
Few people got rich in these jobs, but they supported middle- and lower-
middle-class living and many were open to high school graduates. Today,
less than 40 percent of adults have blue-collar or clerical jobs and many of
these jobs require at least some college education… (p.3)
A closer look at the educational attainment of those who are currently
unemployed in the U.S. supports this thesis. In 2009, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) reported that for the population of persons 25 and older:
• Unemployment in the U.S. averaged 7.9%, with a median wage of $774/week
• 14.6% of persons with less than a high school diploma were unemployed; those
who were employed earned a median wage of $454/week
• 9.7% of high school graduates were unemployed; those who were employed
earned a median wage of $626/week
• 8.6% of persons with some amount of college, but no degree, were unemployed;
those who were employed earned a median wage of $699/week
• In contrast, persons with bachelor’s master’s and professional or doctoral degree
all experienced less unemployment than the national average (ranging from 2.3%-
6.8%), and among those who were employed, all earned median wages higher
than the national average (ranging from $1,025/week-$1,532/week)
Now only was educational attainment increasingly linked to employment, but
also, Levy et al. (2004) contended that the invention and use of computers had changed
the type of employees required:
…greater job growth has taken place in the upper part of the pay
distribution – managers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, technicians.
Three facts about these latter jobs stand out: they pay well, they require
extensive skills, and most people in these jobs rely on computers to
increase their productivity. (p.3)
16
Though computers are only one aspect of the technology-driven society,
science, in its more broadly defined context, continues to be one of the most dependably
employable careers. While there is no current, formal classification of STEM careers as a
whole, BLS and NSF have published data regarding S&E graduates, which by definition
overlaps with how STEM fields are defined. Specifically, they report that S&E degree
holders earn considerably above the national average (from 82-125%) and experience
lower rates of unemployment:
• Median annual wages for S&E occupations: $70,600 compared to national
median of $31,410 (BLS, 2010)
• Mean (average) wages for S&E: $74,070 compared to national average of
$40,690 (BLS, 2007)
• Regardless of current occupation or field, workers with S&E degrees earn more
than works with comparable-level degrees in other fields (BLS, 2010)
• Data analyzed over 1983-2006 time period suggests that the unemployment rate
of S&E workers is lower and less volatile (ranging from 1.3%-4.0%) compared to
the national unemployment average (ranging from 3.9% to 9.9%) (NSF, 2010)
• Despite recent (2008-2009) increases in unemployment for all workers,
“people whose work is associated with S&E are less often exposed to
unemployment” (NSF, 2010)
The Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), also published by the BLS, stressed
that though starting salaries for engineers are among the highest of all college graduates,
there was a strong link between S&E occupations and a high degree of educational
attainment. In their 2010-2011 OOH, they emphasized the following significant points
regarding engineering jobs:
17
• A bachelor’s degree in engineering is required for most entry-level jobs, but
some research positions may require a graduate degree.
• Continuing education is critical for engineers in order to keep up with
advancements in technology
Further, BLS posited that scientists and engineers are both currently employable,
and will continue to be growing occupations:
Employment in professional, scientific, and technical services is projected
to grow by 34 percent, adding about 2.7 million new jobs by 2018...
Employment in management, scientific, and technical consulting services
is anticipated to expand at a staggering 83 percent, making up 31 percent
of job growth in this sector. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational
Outlook Handbook, 2010-11 Edition)
Again, though the BLS does not label them as STEM fields specifically, their
published projections on job growth between 2008-2018 addressing professional,
scientific, and technical services concluded that:
• Over half the top 30 fastest growing occupations require a mathematics or science
related background, ranging from jobs that require at least a bachelor’s degree:
network systems and data communication analysts (#2), financial examiners (#4),
at least a master’s degree: physician’s assistants (#7), and a doctoral or
professional degree: medical scientists (#6), biochemists and biophysicists (#9)
(BLS, 2009)
• Further, five of the top 30 fastest growing occupations are specifically related to
engineering: biomedical engineers (#1), computer software engineers
(applications, #15), environmental engineers (#22) computer software engineers
(systems, #24), and environmental engineering technicians (#28) (BLS, 2009)
18
Yet these employment projections are tentative, as other countries continue
to produce workers capable of competing for their share within a more globalized
economy. The 2010-2011 OOH warns that:
The continued globalization of engineering work will likely dampen
domestic employment growth... There are many well-trained, often
English-speaking, engineers available around the world who are willing to
work at much lower salaries than U.S. engineers. The rise of the Internet
has made it relatively easy for part of the engineering work previously
done by engineers in this country to be done by engineers in other
countries…
In “Fear of Offshoring”, economist Alan Blinder (2005) expanded upon this
argument, stating that:
The fraction of service jobs in the United States and other rich countries
that can potentially be moved offshore is thus certain to rise inexorably as
the technology improved and as countries like India and China continue to
modernize, prosper and educate their workforces… coping with foreign
competition, which is now on the radar screens of only a minority of
workers in the rich countries, may become a major concern of the
majority.
Thomas Friedman (2007) described the new, more globalized economy as a “flat
world”, a level-playing field in which U.S. graduates would have to compete against their
international peers (Friedman, 2007):
One cannot stress enough: Young Chinese, Indians, and Poles are not
racing us to the bottom. They are racing us to the top. They do not want to
work for us; they don’t even want to be us. They want to dominate us…
they want to be creating the companies of the future… (p.365)
Friedman contended that there was a growing education gap: that the U.S. was
neither educating nor interesting its students to pursue mathematics and science,
contributing to a quiet crisis that was gradually and inexorably draining our future STEM
19
pipeline. In 2007, “The STEM Workforce Challenge”, a report prepared for the
U.S. DOL, seemed to agree, stating that:
[STEM] fields have become increasingly centre to U.S. economic
competitiveness and growth [and that] Long-term strategies to maintain
and increase living standards and promote opportunity will require
coordinated efforts among public, private, and not-for-profit entities to
promote innovation and to prepare an adequate supply of qualified
workers for employment in STEM fields.
The report further contended that the U.S. needed to focus attention on
strengthening the pipeline of future “knowledge workers”, by improving higher
education, as well as primary and secondary mathematics and science education.
To address and identify specific strategies and steps that federal policymakers
could use to enhance STEM enterprises, a 2005 committee with representatives from the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the
Institute of Medicine (IOM) wrote a report entitled “Rising Above the Gathering Storm:
Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future”. Revising their
findings five years later, the committee wrote:
The principal focus of the Gathering Storm was on mathematics, science
and engineering, not simply because of their critical importance in
creating jobs but also because these are the disciplines in which American
education is failing most convincingly… It is difficult to dismiss evidence
such as the survey that found that almost 30 percent of American adults do
not know the earth revolves around the sun; 16 percent do not know that
the center of the earth is very hot; almost half do not know that electrons
are smaller than atoms; and only about half the population is aware that
dinosaurs and humans never coexisted. (Rising Above the Gathering
Storm, Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5, p. 48, 2010)
20
The report emphasized the necessity of creating not only specialized,
innovative scientists and engineers, but also that basic STEM education was increasingly
important in that a growing number of job-seekers had to be at least “proficient” in
mathematics and general science to be competitive in the global marketplace. Presenting
the revised findings of that report to the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives in 2010, Normal R. Augustine contended that:
… other nations are rapidly improving their competitive ability due to a
major emphasis on education… the ability of the U.S. to respond to the
competiveness challenges it faces has been increasingly hindered by the
extraordinary budget pressures faced by the federal government…[and]
America’s higher education system, long the gold standard of the world, is
now being severely threatened… In summary, the Gathering Storm
committee unanimously concluded that America’s competitive situation is
even more perilous today than it found it to be five years ago.
In a separate statement before the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations, on the “Future
of America’s Workers and Education for the 21
st
Century”, Augustine further noted that:
As I traveled around the world I have been struck by how familiar the
leaders of other nations are with the National Academies “Gathering
Storm” report. The bitterest irony of all would be if we have stirred them
to further action while we do nothing.
Comparative Analysis of Performance on PISA and TIMSS
Maintaining and growing a STEM-capable workforce starts with a strong primary
and secondary mathematics and science foundation: one that encourages not only basic
skills and application abilities but also stimulates student interest toward future STEM
careers. To better understand how American students compare within the global
marketplace, two international tests: the Program for International Student Assessment
21
(PISA), as well as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) were analyzed.
The PISA, an international assessment organized by the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), is a series of assessments that focus
on 15-year-olds’ literacy in reading, mathematics and science. The PISA reports scores
based on overall averages of each participating country, and also compares individual
content and skill areas and allows for comparisons between the highest achieving
students in each country. It reported that:
In 2003, U.S. performance in mathematics literacy and problem solving
was lower than the average performance for most OECD countries. The
United States also performed below the OECD average on each
mathematics literacy subscale representing a specific content area (space
and shape, change and relationships, quantity, and uncertainty)… In
mathematics literacy and problem solving in 2003, even the highest U.S.
achievers (those in the top 10 percent in the United States) were
outperformed on average by their OECD counterparts.
Similar results were posted in the 2006 PISA, which showed that on average, U.S.
students scored lower than OECD average on scientific and mathematics literacy (PISA,
2003, 2006).
22
Table 2-1. 2006 PISA scores from NSF Science and Engineering Indicators
(2010)
Average PISA mathematics and science literacy scores of 15-year-old students in selected nations,
relative to U.S. average: 2006
Nation Mathematics Nation Science
United States 474 United States 489
Score higher than U.S. Score higher than U.S.
Chinese Taipei 549 Finland 563
Finland 548 Hong Kong SAR 542
Hong Kong SAR 547 Canada 534
Republic of Korea 547 Chinese Taipei 532
Netherlands 531 Japan 531
Switzerland 530 Australia 527
Canada 527 Netherlands 525
Japan 523 Republic of Korea 522
Australia 520 Germany 516
Denmark 513 United Kingdom 515
Czech Republic 510 Czech Republic 513
Germany 504 Switzerland 512
Sweden 502 Ireland 508
Ireland 501 Hungary 504
France 496 Sweden 503
United Kingdom 495
Hungary 491
Score not statistically different
from U.S.
Norway 490 Denmark 496
France 495
Score not statistically
different from U.S.
Spain 488
Spain 480 Norway 487
Russian Federation 476 Russian Federation 479
Score lower than U.S. Score lower than U.S.
Italy 462 Italy 475
Thailand 417 Thailand 421
Indonesia 391 Indonesia 393
Brazil 370 Brazil 390
Taiwan, which is classified as Chinese-Taipei and Hong Kong, which is
considered a Special Administrative Region (SAR), both scored significantly higher than
the U.S. in both mathematics and science literacy.
23
To better address concerns that relatively poorly performance on
international tests was due to the large, diverse population of U.S. students being
sampled, Hanushek et al. (2010) compared high achieving students in mathematics from
each of the 50 states that participated in the 2005 NAEP, and, assuming that a similar
cohort participated in the 2006 PISA, ranked student results by state (Hanushek et al.,
2010). Their results were sobering; by setting an international equivalent to “advanced”
performance, they found that:
• Advanced students in the U.S. would still have been outranked by 30 of the 57
countries.
• Roughly 6% of U.S. students tested at the advanced level, compared to 28% of
Taiwanese students and 24% of students from Hong Kong (estimated from their
graph).
• The strongest-performing state, Massachusetts, would have been statistically
outperformed by 14 countries, and would be statistically similar to countries such
as Austria, Iceland and Slovenia. In contrast, the lowest-performing state,
Mississippi, would have been outperformed by 42 other countries.
• If the researchers isolated only White students, White students in Massachusetts,
still the strongest state, would have been outperformed by 11 countries, and
statistically similar to Slovenia and Australia.
The top-performing group isolated by Hanushek et al. were students from
Massachusetts who reported at least one parent who had graduated from college; this
group would have been outperformed by only four other countries. Yet what is troubling
is that even this group, one of the most successful and homogenized subsets analyzed by
24
the researchers, would have been statistically similar to entire countries, much
larger and more diverse, including Canada and the Czech Republic.
In comparison, the U.S. performed slightly better against its international peers on
the TIMSS, which is an international assessment of both fourth- and eighth-grade
students testing knowledge of mathematics and science developed by the International
Association for the Evaluation for Educational Achievement (IEA).
According to TIMSS 2007 Highlights, American students, while improving, are
still lagging behind many international peers.
Table 2-2. U.S. 4
th
and 8
th
Grade Student Performance on TIMSS: 1995, 1999, 2003
and 2007.
Mathematics Science
4
th
Grade 8
th
Grade 4
th
Grade 8
th
Grade
1995 518 492 542 513
1999 n/a 502 n/a 515
2003 518 504 536 527
2007 529 508 539 520
The U.S. gains in 4
th
and 8
th
grade mathematics were considered significant (p<0.05),
yet comparatively modest. For example, from 1995-2007, comparing just 4
th
grade
mathematics scores:
• The U.S. raised its score 2.12%, from 518 to 529.
• England increased its score 11.8%, from 484 to 541.
• Hong Kong (SAR) increased its score by 8.97%, from 557 to 607.
25
Further, many of the countries that have historically outperformed the U.S.
stayed relatively consistent, for example, Singapore, which increased it score by 1.53%,
from 590 to 599.
When comparing U.S. performance against its international peers, the 2007
TIMSS Highlights, point out the relative strength of its Asian competitors, “The average
U.S. fourth-grade science score was higher than those in 25 of 35 other countries and
lower than in 4 countries (all of them in Asia)”. The 2007 TIMSS even disaggregated
student data within the U.S., and pointed out that Asian American students had scores
that were similar to their international Asian peers. Yet such discussions serve only to
distract rather than solve the very real, and growing, global education gap between
American students and their international peers.
Further, many celebrated the 2007 TIMSS results, which allowed both
Massachusetts and Minnesota to participate in special benchmarking assessments and
show how they would have done relative to their international peers. Massachusetts
performed better than Minnesota, and a press release by the Massachusetts Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education declared that “TIMSS Results Place Massachusetts
Among World Leaders in Math and Science”, and NSF Indicators (2010) summarized:
• 4th graders in mathematics: students from Massachusetts ranked 3
rd
, while
students from Minnesota scored below four Asian leaders and on par with
Kazakhstan, England and the Russian Federation
• 8
th
graders in mathematics: students from both states ranked below the five
leading Asian nations
26
• 4
th
graders in science: students from Massachusetts ranked 2
nd
, and students
from Minnesota were behind Massachusetts and Singapore but on par with eight
other countries (including the U.S. as a whole)
• 8
th
graders in science: students from Massachusetts were similar to the leading
Asian economies, and students from Minnesota were outscored by the four top
Asian countries, but similar to Hong Kong and several high-scoring European
nations
While these results should be celebrated, they must also be cautiously examined.
For example, ranking by raw score, the U.S. ranked between 8
th
and 11
th
place in all of
the TIMSS categories as a nation. In comparison, though the states of Massachusetts and
Minnesota ranked better, between 2
nd
and 6
th
depending on the subgroup, they were not
performing considerably better relative to the U.S.’s placement as a nation.
Further, it should be noted that the U.S. always performs relatively better on the
TIMSS compared to the PISA, and while each sampled a similar total number countries
(58 participated in the 2007 TIMSS compared with 57 in the 2006 PISA), there are only
33 countries that were shared between the two international tests. PISA results are
generally reported in terms of countries that perform statistically below, similar or above
OECD average. However, as national averages are also reported, the relative rank of the
average scores of U.S., Taiwan (sampled as Chinese-Taipei) and Hong Kong (SAR) can
be compiled. Since the PISA had far more OECD countries participating, very different
results were observed:
27
Table 2-3. Chinese-Taipei, Hong Kong (SAR), and U.S. Performance on PISA
(2006) vs. TIMSS (2007).
PISA (2006) TIMSS (2007)
Mathematics Science Mathematics
15-year-olds
Science
15-year-olds 4
th
Grade 8
th
Grade 4
th
Grade 8
th
Grade
Chinese-
Taipei
1
st
4
th
3
rd
1
st
2
nd
2
nd
Hong Kong
(SAR)
3
rd
2
nd
1
st
4
th
3
rd
9
th
U.S. 35
th
29
th
11
th
9
th
8
th
11
th
OECD
Members
Unique to
Test
Belgium, Canada, Finland,
France, Greece, Iceland,
Ireland, Luxembourg,
Mexico, Poland, Portugal,
Spain, Switzerland
n/a
Other
Countries
Unique to
Test
Argentina, Azerbaijan,
Brazil, Chile, Croatia,
Estonia, Kyrgyz Republic,
Liechtenstein, Macao-
China, Montenegro,
Uruguay
Algeria, Armenia, Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Botswana, Cyprus, Egypt, El Salvador, Georgia, Ghana,
Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Malta,
Mongolia, Morocco, Oman, Palestinian National Authority,
Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukraine, Yemen
*The 33 countries that participated in both the PISA (2006) and the TIMSS (2007) are not listed
Source: Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and Science Achievement, PISA 2006 Science
Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, Brief: Comparing TIMSS with NAEP and PISA in Mathematics and
Science (NCES, 2007)
The 2009 PISA reported lower rankings for Chinese-Taipei (5
th
in mathematics
and 12
th
in science), similar rankings for Hong Kong-China (3
rd
in mathematics and
science) and slightly higher results for the U.S. (tied for 31
st
with Portugal and Ireland in
mathematics, and 23
rd
in science). Despite the U.S.’s improvement, it is still classified as
statistically significantly below OECD average in mathematics, and not statistically
significantly different than OECD average in science. Further, Shanghai-China, which
tested for the first time, ranked 1
st
in all three categories PISA assesses: reading,
mathematics and science.
28
While the gap between American students and their international peers is
larger when the U.S. is compared against OECD countries, it is important to note that
regardless of whether the testing medium is the PISA or the TIMSS, students from
Taiwan and China (Hong Kong and Shanghai) seem to be consistently out-performing
U.S. students. Also, in what longitudinal data is available, countries that traditionally
outperformed the U.S. are often improving at a faster rate compared to their American
counterparts.
Focusing on best practices and successful school structures and systems that can
be learned from these countries will ultimately be more beneficial than prevaricating
upon cultural differences that persist between the U.S., China and Taiwan or amongst
Asian American versus White students. Therefore, to better understand how and why
this gap exists, a more detailed summary of schools and curricula in these three regions is
necessary, starting with a focus on compulsory primary and secondary education in each
region.
Differences in Compulsory Education Requirements in the U.S., China and Taiwan
Though each is examined and analyzed later in this study, it is important to note
that all of the Asian regions being examined in this report: Hong Kong, mainland China
and Taiwan, all have primary and secondary education systems where only the first nine
years of education are considered compulsory. Further, unlike in the U.S. where
promotion between primary and secondary schools, as well as advancement between
grades is usually based on school policies, classroom grades and/or social promotion, all
29
of the Asian economies studied in this report promote based on mandated, high-
stakes district, regional or national examinations.
After 9
th
grade, students in Hong Kong, China and Taiwan choose whether they
would like to progress further in their education, but their test results define the ways in
which they may advance and be promoted. In general, students who perform relatively
higher on these placement tests may advance to senior high schools (grades 10
th
-12
th
),
and focus their studies on college entrance examinations. Other students may choose to
enter vocational secondary schools or technical training programs, which vary in length
and preparatory coursework. Whether or not students in vocational and/or technical
programs may advance to university-level coursework varies by region and will be
examined later in this report.
30
Chapter Three: Research Design and Methodology
Introduction
A thorough comparison of STEM education in the U.S., mainland China and
Taiwan requires a mixed methods approach that blends quantitative data analysis with
qualitative interviews and artifact collection. In this chapter the study design, sample,
instrumentation, data collection and data analysis process are described.
This is a mixed methods study as certain types of data, including comparisons of
the numbers of hours of instructional time, minimum number of years of science
required, and share of STEM test takers at the high school level are more easily compared
quantitatively, while other sections, such as research investigating possible cultural
indicators that may influence student achievement as well as classifying and describing
changes in curricula are more qualitative by nature.
The first part of this study focuses primarily on explaining the differences
between school structures as well as minimum graduation requirements in the U.S.,
China and Taiwan. This study compiles minimum U.S. high school graduation
requirements by state, to better determine whether higher state-by-state graduation
requirements are related to performance on national and international standardized tests.
Whenever the study would benefit from more detailed comparisons in terms of
international competitions of curricular standards, Chemistry will be used as the subject
of comparison.
31
The next part of this study examines the current state of the STEM-capable
pipeline by comparing the number of students receiving STEM baccalaureates and
graduate degrees in the U.S. with from mainland China and Taiwan. Since many
students travel specifically to obtain their undergraduate and graduate degrees at world-
renowned universities in the U.S., this section will also analyze the share of STEM
doctorates, earned at U.S. universities, by U.S. citizens. When these more quantitative
questions have been addressed, other factors contributing to student success in the U.S.,
Hong Kong, mainland China and Taiwan are described. Interviews will be conducted to
better describe differences in STEM educational policy, and to clarify procedural
differences between the three regions.
Research Questions
This study examines the education pipelines in the U.S., mainland China and
Taiwan by focusing on primary, secondary and tertiary education in the three regions of
interest. It is guided by the following research questions:
1. Research Question #1: How do the U.S., mainland China and Taiwan differ in
school structure, minimum graduation requirements and assessments?
2. Research Question #2: How do the U.S., mainland China and Taiwan compare in
terms of producing a STEM capable workforce?
Nature of the Study
Patton (2002) states,
A rich variety of methodological combinations can be employed to
illuminate an inquiry question… Studies that use only one method are
more vulnerable to errors linked to that particular method (e.g. loaded
32
interview questions, biases or untrue responses) than studies that use
multiple methods in which different types of data provide cross-data
validity checks. (p. 248)
A variety of source data from the U.S., mainland China and Taiwan is consulted
to apply a weight-of-evidence approach that judges and assesses the relative strengths and
weaknesses of the different data sources, before final comparisons and conclusions are
made.
The first part of this study will focus on qualitatively comparing curricular content
and assessments gathered from a variety of institutions as well as quantitatively
measuring what, if any, links exist between minimum high school graduation
requirements and participation and performance in advanced assessments. The latter part
of this study compares longitudinal secondary and tertiary enrollment and graduation
data, to better quantitatively describe cohort trends. Thus, this study is best classified as a
mixed methods approach, blending both qualitative and quantitative procedures to allow
for more detailed exploration.
Specifically, this study seeks to further general understanding and verify existing
theories. Cresswell (2009) states,
Quantitative research is a means for testing objective theories by
examining the relationship among variables. These variables, in turn, can
be measured, typically on instruments, so that numbered data can be
analyzed using statistical procedures. (p. 4)
Since many of the assessments in China and Taiwan are standardized, time will be
focused on differentiating between state-by-state definitions of standards and assessments
in the U.S. and correlation analyses will be applied. According to Thomas (2003):
33
Correlation studies are designed to answer the general question: What
happens to one variable when another variable changes… To what extent
does one variable change as another variable is altered... Using statistical
techniques for calculating the degree of relationship between phenomena
has the advantage of providing more precise information than do estimate
of relationships… (p. 45-51)
Though quantitative analysis will help show whether, and to what extent,
standards and higher graduation requirements may be correlated with standardized test
performance in the United States, and while some international testing results can also be
compared quantitatively, it does not provide a complete picture of educational differences
between the U.S., mainland China and Taiwan.
Thus, part of this study is qualitative, and seeks to explain and characterize the
differences between theses education systems, and to analyze what, if any, trends can be
found measuring student interest in the STEM fields. Further, it evaluates education
policy in terms of curricular and structural changes in each region of interest via both
document analysis and interviews with MOE officials. It seeks to explore, observe and
document from a more inductive reasoning perspective. Patton (2002) states:
Qualitative inquiry is especially powerful as a source of grounded theory,
theory that is inductively generated from fieldwork, that is, theory that
emerges from the researcher’s observations and interview out in the real
world rather than in the laboratory or the academy. Qualitative methods
facilitate study of issues in depth and detail. (p11-14)
This study will utilize the concept of purposeful, rather than random, sampling.
According to Patton (2003):
The logic and power of purposeful sampling derive from the emphasis on
in-depth understanding. This leads to selecting information-rich cases for
study in depth. Information-rich cases are those from which one can learn
34
a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the
research, thus the term purposeful sampling (p. 46)
This study must also be classified as ethnographic study, one in which the units of
analyses involved are defined bounded by national boundaries each of which has its own
defining cultural and social values and histories. According to Thomas (2003):
… ethnographies more often emphasize the commonalities that unify
members of a group... Ethnographic research can serve various purposes.
It can reveal the characteristics shared among members of a group –
characteristics that render the group’s culture distinctive, thereby helping
consumers of the research understand how and why one group differs
from another. Ethnographies can also expose the internal operations of a
group or organization by identifying the relative influence of different
members… (p. 36-37)
Sources of Data
To address research question #1 and how the U.S., mainland China and Taiwan
differ in primary and secondary structure, curriculum and assessments, different sources
and databases are used to address each section of this question. First, to better understand
the differences and similarities between compulsory education and methods of promotion
between the U.S., China and Taiwan, data is compiled from the U.S. Department of
Education, Hong Kong’s Education Bureau and China’s and Taiwan’s MOE.
To compare minimum course requirements between the U.S., mainland China and
Taiwan, several databases are combined and analyzed. For schools in the U.S.:
• For the graduating class of 2007-08, this study utilizes the state-by-state minimum
graduation requirements, which vary by number of years and course content,
collected by the Education Commission of the States (ECS) in 2005 and updated
on their website through 2007 (ECS, 2007)
35
• To update minimum requirements through the current graduating class of
2010-11, the ECS website is compared against individual state-by-state
information packets and department of education websites
• To examine the relationship between minimum graduation requirements and
graduation data, state-by-state graduation rates were collected for the 2007-08
school year, the most updated graduation data available at this time
Since Hong Kong’s primary and secondary education systems are currently in
transition, minimum requirements are reported through the 2007-08 graduating class, to
allow for better comparison with available U.S. data. Further, since only the first nine
years of education are compulsory in Hong Kong, this study documents both junior high
school as well as senior high school course requirements. Minimum graduation
requirements are obtained online via Hong Kong’s Education Bureau.
While education policies and laws as well as some curricula descriptions are
downloaded directly from China’s MOE website, specific examples of hourly and weekly
course calendars and schedules are obtained directly from principals and professors in
Shanghai, to better present the most updated policies and information.
For Taiwan, minimum graduation requirements are obtained online and via
interviews with the junior high school and high school specialists at Taiwan’s MOE.
Sample assessments and released questions and preparatory test materials are
obtained from teachers, principals and government websites.
In the U.S., College Board’s Advanced Placement (AP) tests results were
gathered from their website for the following subjects: Calculus AB, Calculus BC,
36
Biology, Chemistry, Physics B, Physics C: Mechanics and Physics C: Electricity
and Magnetism. Since the U.S. AP results are meant to be correlated against high school
graduation rates and minimum state-by-state course requirements, 2008 AP data was
collected via the individual state results pages to better compare against the most recently
available state-by-state graduation rates compiled by NCES, which is the 2007-08
graduating cohort. AP tests were chosen in particular as they are the standardized
subject-specific test with the largest number of student participants, and have been shown
to be a “soft factor” connected with college interest and enrollment (Fogg et al. 2010).
Though College Board tracks the grade of the students taking each AP exam, it is rare
for U.S. students to take multiple science AP examinations within the same year (many
high schools only allow one AP science course per year, except in the case of AP Physics
C, which may be taught as one high school class and result in two AP examinations).
AP test takers are normalized against the state-by-state 2008 graduating class data to
provide a relative percentage of test takers and better examine what, if any, relationship
exists because minimum graduation requirements and AP participation and/or
performance.
In Hong Kong, three different assessment structures and samples are analyzed: the
Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination (HKCEE, taken by students after 11
th
grade), the Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination (HKALE, taken by students after
their 13
th
grade) and the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education (HKDSE, taken by
students after their 12
th
grade year). Since the HKDSE will not be administered until
37
2012, data regarding 2008 HKCEE and 2008 HKALE data are collected by subject
directly from the Hong Kong Education Bureau’s website, so that same-year comparisons
can be made against U.S. data.
Sample and released questions from past assessments are gathered in the U.S.
from College Board’s website, which releases the free response sections of each year’s
test. For China and Taiwan, sample questions are available online at their respective
MOE websites; also, examination books were purchased and collected from past and
current principals and teachers from Kaohsiung (Taiwan), Hong Kong and Shanghai.
To present a more complete picture of international STEM performance, beyond
the PISA and TIMSS presented previously, results of the International Chemistry
Olympiad (IChO) are tallied and analyzed for the 2000-2011 time period.
To address the production of a STEM-capable workforce from Research Question
#2, this study analyzed publicly available data via the WebCASPAR database to compile
U.S. STEM graduate and undergraduate enrollment and completion statistics.
WebCASPAR provides access to both National Science Foundation (NSF) and National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES) databases. Since there is currently no agreed
upon classification for STEM majors, broadly defined academic disciplines, as classified
by both NSF and NCES databases were matched against academic discipline descriptions
and classifications used in Hong Kong, mainland China and Taiwan so that all majors
could be reclassified into three major categories: Humanities, Social Studies/Sciences and
STEM.
38
The NSF database includes the NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED),
Doctorates Records File (DRF) as well as the NSF-NIH Survey of Graduate Students and
Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering. The NSF has tracked earned doctorates data
since 1920, but detailed citizenship and race/ethnic data are available only from 1966-
2006, and it was this data that was used to calculate the share of doctorates earned by
U.S. citizens at U.S. colleges and universities.
To better compare enrollment and graduation data from U.S. high schools, 2- and
4-year colleges, as well as graduate schools and universities, this study utilizes data
collected by the NCES via their Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS). The NCES IPEDS has tracked secondary and postsecondary education data
since 1966, did not release data collected for the 1999 academic year, but is updated
through 2009. This is the primary data source used when comparing secondary and
postsecondary enrollment and graduation data with mainland China and Taiwan, as both
of the latter track 2-, 3- and 4-year educational programs.
The primary collection methodologies for the NSF and NCES differ, and there is
not always agreement on their reported numbers. The NSF SED data depends on survey
responses from graduate students, does not include first professional degrees (such as
Medicine, M.D.) and is updated as responses are received while the NCES IPEDS
surveys colleges and universities directly and does include first professional degrees.
Since both sets of databases were necessary for thorough comparison between the U.S.,
China and Taiwan, a brief correlation study was also performed to assess how closely the
39
data agreed. Using engineering doctorates earned during the 1966-2006 time
period, NSF and NCES data are compared and found to be in agreement to within ±7%
coefficient of variation, and average a ±2% difference. Larger discrepancies (±31%) are
found during the 2007-2008 years, and thus data from these two databases are not
addressed past the 2006 calendar year in this report. These discrepancies may be
explained via the new NCES classification system, which differentiates between three
types of doctorate degrees: Research/Scholarship, Professional Practice and Other
Doctorate degrees; universities may not yet be accustomed to reporting in this new 3-
category schema (Fiegener, 2011).
The amount and type of data available via the English language only versions of
both Taiwan’s and China’s MOE are less detailed than that available from their Chinese
language websites: for example, only selected years of statistical data, broader
generalizations about many of the policies. Thus, most of the statistical databases are
downloaded and translated from their Chinese websites to compare against NSF data.
This does introduce a small amount of additional error, as translations and classifications
of majors and course titles may vary, whenever possible, members of Taiwan’s and
China’s MOE were contacted to clarify details and confirm translations.
As Hong Kong is considered a Special Administrative Region (SAR) and is often
reported separately by international tests such as TIMSS and PISA previously presented
in Chapter 2, this study also gathered data from Hong Kong’s Education Bureau to allow
for more consistent comparisons across all education levels. Statistics on graduation
40
rates on secondary junior and high school promotion in Hong Kong are collected
through Hong Kong’s Census and Statistics Department, and information and statistics
relating to higher education in Hong Kong are collected through their University Grants
Committee (UGC) database, which provides more detailed information about enrollment
and graduation data via academic disciplines, available by individual calendar years
during 1995-2010.
Much of Taiwan’s data is available from Minguo years 84-98, which translates to
Gregorian calendar years 1995-2009. Unlike the WebCASPAR database, there is no
cohesive collection of data tables, thus pertinent data is retrieved separately and then
collected and collated from Taiwan’s MOE, Department of Statistics. Data on higher
education degree attainment is available by academic discipline, however, much of the
information regarding secondary schools as well as data trends and analysis at the
secondary school level is presorted into three much broader categories: Science and
Technology, Humanities, and Social Studies, as opposed to individual majors such as
Biology or Chemistry.
Beyond data collection and document/artifact analysis interviews with MOE
officials from Taiwan and China, Hong Kong’s Education Bureau, and when appropriate,
principals, former teachers and professors are also conducted to clarify translations and
possible cultural contexts.
41
Assumptions
Information and data gathered via government documents and databases such as
NSF, NCES, and MOE websites as well as from private organizations such as College
Board are assumed to be true and representative.
Limitations and Delimitations
When comparing minimum graduation requirements in the U.S., data is collected
from the Education Commission of the States (ECS), which last updated its database in
2007. To obtain more updated information, information is also gathered from Achieve,
Inc. as well as individual state-by-state department of education websites and
publications. Information on minimum graduation requirements in Taiwan and Hong
Kong are limited to information obtained from Taiwan’s MOE and Hong Kong
Education Bureau websites. Minimum requirements from Shanghai are collected through
current principals and professors and then translated. Data on AP tests and results from
various international tests are limited to data provided by College Board, as well as
publicly available results from national and international tests in which U.S. students
have participated.
42
Chapter Four: Data Analysis and Results
Introduction
International testing data has pointed out the relative strength of Asian primary
and secondary students in both mathematics and science, suggesting that nations and
economies such as Korea, Singapore, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Taiwan are relatively
stronger in developing, at the very least, foundational STEM knowledge in young
students. NSF data has highlighted the number of current STEM positions held by
immigrants within the U.S., as well as a growing number of advanced degrees earned by
students on temporary visas attending American colleges and universities, suggesting that
students in those same countries, after developing a solid foundational STEM knowledge,
stayed interested and invested within the STEM disciplines.
This study therefore focuses on comparing the education pipelines, from primary
through tertiary schools, of the U.S., Hong Kong, mainland China and Taiwan, to better
gain insight into the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Hong Kong,
mainland China and Taiwan were chosen as each region has found success in the STEM
fields from the perspective of international testing as well as STEM degrees awarded.
The findings in this chapter are based on data collection, document/artifact
analysis as well as interviews with MOE officials from Taiwan and mainland China,
Hong Kong’s Education Bureau, and when appropriate, principals, professors and former
teachers to clarify translations and possible cultural contexts. When necessary, a weight-
of-evidence approach has been used to present the most cohesive set of results possible.
43
Analysis of Data: Research Question #1: How do the U.S., mainland China and
Taiwan differ in school structure, minimum graduation requirements and
assessments?
Since school structure, minimum graduation requirements and assessments differ
greatly between the U.S., Hong Kong, mainland China and Taiwan, data will be
presented on each region of interest separately and then compared at the end of this
section.
School Structure, Minimum Graduation Requirements and Assessments in the U.S.
The most common structure for primary and secondary education in the U.S.
follows either a 5-3-4 or 6-2-4 pattern, where students spend five or six years in
elementary/primary school, followed by three or two years in junior high/ middle school
followed most commonly by four years in high school. After high school, students
wishing to continue to tertiary education most often enroll in either 2-year junior colleges
or 4-year colleges and universities. Students have the option of attending vocational
schools or to be home-schooled, but whether home-schooled students receive state
diplomas is decided on a state-by-state level, and vocational schools are held to state-
mandated minimum graduation standards.
While there are private and public schools at the elementary, junior high or high
school level where entrance may be selective: for example, lottery or merit-based, the
most common selection-based division within the U.S. education system occurs after 12
years of education, when students apply for college admission. Similarly, while the
length and age requirements for compulsory education can differ by state, there are
44
traditionally 12 years of education before entrance into college or university; this
paper therefore focuses on minimum high school requirements within the U.S. for better
comparison against compulsory and secondary education systems in mainland China and
Taiwan.
Though No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 mandated that states show adequate
yearly progress (AYP) on learning goals and was an attempt at standards-based education
reform, individual goals, curricular content and minimum graduation requirements vary
widely between and sometimes even within individual states. To better examine these
differences, high school graduation requirements were collected from the Education
Commission of the States (ECS), last updated in 2007, and then cross-referenced against
state-by-state board of education websites and supplemental materials.
To give a complete picture of how minimum mathematics and science graduation
requirements can differ, requirements were analyzed and classified quantitatively
(number of Carnegie units required) as well as qualitatively (minimum coursework in
terms of specific standards or course content required). Information regarding whether or
not states required a high school exit exam or were transitioning towards end-of-course
exams was also gathered. Table 4-1 shows a combined number which estimates both the
units and rigor of mathematics and science requirements as well as the most recent
graduation rates available, those for the 2007-08 cohort, which were obtained from NCES
(Stilwell, 2010).
45
Table 4-1. 2007-08 State-by-State Minimum Graduation Requirements and
Graduation Rates.
Math Required Science
Required
Combined
Math/Science
Graduation
Rate
Number of
Graduates
Alabama 4.5 4.5 9 69 41,346
Alaska 2 2 4 69.1 7,855
Arizona 2 2 4 70.7 61,667
Arkansas 3.5 3.5 7 76.4 28,725
California 2.25 2.5 4.75 71.2 374,561
Colorado 0 0 0 75.4 46,082
Connecticut 3 2 5 82.2 38,419
Delaware 3 3 6 72.1 7,388
D.C. 3.25 3.25 6.5 56 3,352
Florida 3.25 3.5 6.75 66.9 149,046
Georgia 3.25 3 6.25 65.4 83,505
Hawaii 3 3 6 76 11,613
Idaho 2 2.5 4.5 80.1 16,567
Illinois 3.5 2 5.5 80.4 135,143
Indiana 2 2.5 4.5 74.1 61,901
Iowa 0 0 0 86.4 34,573
Kansas 2 2.25 4.25 79.1 30,737
Kentucky 3.5 3.75 7.25 74.4 39,339
Louisiana 3 3.25 6.25 63.5 34,401
Maine 2 2.25 4.25 79.1 14,350
Maryland 3.5 3.75 7.25 80.4 59,171
Massachusetts 0 0 0 81.5 65,197
Michigan 0 0 0 76.3 115,183
Minnesota 3 3.25 6.25 86.4 60,409
Missouri 3.25 3.25 6.5 63.9 24,795
Montana 2 2 4 82.4 61,717
Nebraska 0 2 4 82 10,396
Nevada 3 0 0 83.8 20,035
New Hampshire 2 2 5 51.3 17,149
New Jersey 3 2.5 4.5 83.4 14,982
New Mexico 3.25 3 6 84.6 94,994
New York 3 2.25 5.5 66.8 18,264
North Carolina 3.25 3.25 6.25 70.8 176,310
North Dakota 0 3.25 6.5 72.8 83,307
Ohio 3 0 0 83.8 6,999
Oklahoma 3.75 3.5 6.5 79 120,758
Oregon 2 3.75 7.5 78 37,630
Pennsylvania 0 2 4 76.7 34,949
Rhode Island 4 0 0 82.7 130,298
South Carolina 4 3 7 76.4 10,347
South Dakota 3.25 3 7 n/a n/a
Tennessee 3.25 2.5 5.75 84.4 8,582
Texas 3.5 3.25 6.5 74.9 57,486
Utah 3.5 2.5 6 73.1 252,121
Vermont 3 3.5 7 74.3 28,167
46
Table 4-1: 2007-08 State-by-State Minimum Graduation Requirements and
Graduation Rates, Continued
Math Required Science
Required
Combined
Math/Science
Graduation
Rate
Number of
Graduates
Virginia 0 3 6 89.3 7,392
Washington 2 3.75 7.5 77 77,369
West Virginia 3.5 2.25 4.25 71.9 61,625
Wisconsin 2 3.75 7.25 77.3 17,489
Wyoming 3 2 4 89.6 65,183
*Math requirements were calculated as number of years + 0.25 for each specified math course, e.g., 0.25
for Algebra I, 0.50 for Algebra I and Geometry; science requirements were calculated as years + 0.25 for
specified science course
**As of 2008 Colorado, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota and Pennsylvania
allowed local school boards to set graduation requirements, and are thus counted as having “0” state-wide
graduation requirements. As of 2011 both Iowa and Michigan have adopted state-wide graduation
requirements.
Source: NCES Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the Common Core Data: School Year 2007-08
(Stilwell, 2010)
To find what, if any, relationship existed between minimum high school
graduation requirements and graduation rates, a Pearson product-moment correlation
coefficient was calculated and is shown plotted below:
Figure 4-1: Relationship between Mathematics and Science Requirements and High
School Graduation Rates (2007-08)
There was a small negative correlation between math requirements (r = -.359),
science requirements (r = -0.298) and combined mathematics and science requirements (r
47
= -.335) when compared against high school graduation rates. However, it should
be noted that states with relatively high graduation rates, for example Massachusetts
(81.5%), will skew the results as they are formally listed as having no state-wide
minimum graduation rates, though a cursory examination of local school districts
requirements reveal relatively stringent compared requirements compared to the state-by-
state data.
Next, Pearson product-moment coefficients were calculated to see what, if any,
correlation existed between minimum mathematics and science requirements and College
Board AP test scores (which range on a scale from a low of 1- no recommendation, to 5-
extremely well qualified), and test participation on mathematics: AP Calculus AB and the
more advanced AP Calculus BC, as well as science: AP Biology, AP Chemistry and AP
Physics (which is split into three levels B, C: Electricity and Magnetism (E&M) and C:
Mechanics):
• There was a small positive correlation between higher minimum mathematics
requirements and participation on AP Calculus AB (r = 0.174), but a negative
correlation between higher minimum mathematics requirements and actual
performance (average AP score) on the AP Calculus AB test (r = -.373).
• There was no relationship between minimum mathematics requirements and
participation on the AP Calculus BC test (r = 0.073), possibly because there is
such a distance between the averaged 50-state mathematics requirement (2.39
years, Algebra I) and AP Calculus BC level coursework.
• There was a small positive correlation between higher minimum science
requirements and participation on AP Biology (r = 0.173), but again, a slight
48
negative correlation between higher minimum science requirements and
performance (average AP score) on AP Biology (r = -0.227).
• Though several states specifically require biology, no relationship was found
between biology course requirement and AP Biology participation (r = 0.062).
• Similarly, no relationship was found between minimum science requirements and
participation on AP Chemistry or any of the AP Physics tests, most likely because
the averaged state science requirements (2.22 years, biology) is so far removed
from the coursework required to be successful on AP Chemistry and/or any of the
AP Physics courses.
While none of the correlations are particularly strong, there does seem to be a
slight relationship between minimum requirements and test participation, suggesting that
more stringent graduation requirements, among other factors, might at least be exposing
students to enough mathematics and science content to participate in the advanced tests.
Further, while none of these analyses showed strong correlations between high
school requirements and AP test participation or performance, these results could be
partially skewed by the variability of state-to-state performance. For example,
Massachusetts, which allows local school boards to set minimum graduation
requirements and is thus coded as having no statewide requirements (no years of math, no
specified coursework), consistently performed above average on all of the AP test data
collected, whereas Arkansas, a state with relatively high minimum graduation
requirements (three years of math as well as two specified course requirements: Algebra I
and Geometry) performed below average:
49
Figure 4-2: Massachusetts and Arkansas, Distribution of Student Scores on
2008 AP Calculus AB Test
Source: College Board AP Data (2008)
It should also be noted that while there is no standardized order for mathematics
and science requirements in the U.S., there were general trends in both when examining
minimum graduation requirements:
• Most states that required only one mathematics course required Algebra I, and the
types of minimum requirements suggested that the most common order is Algebra
I, Geometry, Algebra II, Trigonometry and/or Precalculus followed by Calculus.
As of 2008, no states specified course requirements pertaining to probability or
statistics, though some have begun to incorporate some probability and statistics
content standards.
• Most states that required a specific science course listed Biology, followed
sometimes by Chemistry and/or a “Physical Science” or “Laboratory Science”
Participation in the 2008 AP subject tests seemed to follow the pattern of required
courses, where students were more likely to choose AP Calculus over AP Statistics, AP
50
Biology (more likely to be required by states) over either AP Chemistry or any of
the AP Physics:
• 222,835 students participated in AP Calculus, compared to 108,284 in AP
Statistics
• 154,504 students participated in AP Biology, compared to 100,586 students in AP
Chemistry, compared to 57,758 students in AP Physics B, 12,328 students in AP
Physics C (E&M) and 28,190 in AP Physics C (Mechanics)
Further, it should be noted that while AP data collected in this study was
presented in terms of total number of tests taken, College Board does collect
disaggregated data on which AP subjects are taken in which grade. Looking at grade-
specific data gives further insight into high school class and test-taking patterns. For
example, 12
th
grade students were the most likely to participate in the AP tests, both by
total number of students (42.7% were 12
th
graders, compared to 37.0% of 11
th
graders
and 20.3% of 9
th
, 10
th
and other) and total number of tests taken (accounting for 49.7% of
the total AP tests administered), since students may take multiple subjects each year.
However, there were several subjects where the testing population was dominated by 12
th
graders, and is suggestive of course-taking patterns:
• 76.8% of students taking AP Calculus AB were seniors compared to 18.6% who
were juniors. As most schools require a year of AP Calculus AB before AP
Calculus BC, this greatly limits the population of students who would qualify for
more advanced mathematics courses
• 74.1% of students taking AP Statistics were 12
th
graders; in many schools,
students have the option of taking either Calculus or Statistics after completing
Trigonometry and/or Precalculus, suggesting that these may be students who
51
qualified for Calculus, but instead chose AP Statistics as their terminal
mathematics course
• In the sciences: 59.1% of those taking AP Physics B, 84.2% of students taking AP
Physics C (E&M) and 82.2% of those taking AP Physics C (Mech) were 12
th
graders
AP Chemistry was the only core mathematics or science test that was not
predominantly taken by 12
th
graders. While College Board publishes data on the number
of students who take multiple tests within a single year, data on which tests those
multiple-subject test takers are participating in, as well as how many students might take
one science this year (for example, AP Chemistry) and another the following (for
example, AP Physics), is not publically available. Thus, it is not possible to draw
accurate conclusions regarding how broad the AP mathematics and science student
population truly is: does the program reach 154,504 students in AP Biology in addition to
222,835 students in AP Calculus AB, or are the same qualified, driven students taking
multiple STEM subjects year after year?
The best case scenario, in which the greatest number of students are taking a
STEM AP exam, can be calculated by combining all of the mathematics subjects (AP
Calculus AB, AP Calculus BC and AP Statistics) with all of the science subjects (AP
Biology, AP Chemistry, AP Computer Science A and B, AP Environmental Science, AP
Physics B, C (E&M), and C (Mech)). If each test represented a different student, it
would suggest that 835,500 of the total 1,580,821 AP test-takers, or roughly 52.9% of
students chose a STEM subject. Counting just 12th grade students, and again, using the
52
best-case scenario where each STEM test represented a unique 12
th
grade student,
and comparing to the total number of students who graduated high school in 2008, it
would suggest that 16.0% of graduating seniors chose to take a STEM test.
However, the nature of the prerequisites involved in many of these tests makes
this an unlikely scenario: for example, AP Physics C (both sections) require a certain
amount of calculus, making concurrent enrollment in one of the AP Calculus courses
very likely, further, some schools offer AP Physics C as a one year course, where
students would take both sections: E&M and Mech, within the same year.
Another approximation can be taken from the perspective of total number of AP
tests given, in which case the STEM subjects account for 30.5% of all tests administered.
However, at best, this can be viewed as only an approximate gauge of STEM interest
within arguably the more advanced U.S. high school student population, as the AP test is
only one of the possible subject tests. SAT II Subject tests, which are also administered
by College Board, were not chosen for this particular study as they represent a much
smaller testing population (291,896 seniors took a SAT Subject test compared with
1,360,082 seniors who took an AP test).
Relative interest in mathematics and science, as a function of percentages of
students choosing to take STEM subjects in AP tests in the U.S. versus similar
assessments in other regions, will be compared between the U.S., mainland China and
Taiwan later in this chapter.
53
School Structure, Minimum Graduation Requirements and Assessments in
Hong Kong
The Hong Kong education system was initially based off the British system and
once required 13 years of compulsory education. However, from 1971 on, the Hong
Kong system has required nine years of compulsory education: six years of primary
school (P1-P6, equivalent to U.S. grades 1-6), followed by three years of secondary
education (S1-S3, equivalent to U.S. grades 7-9). Since the 2007-08 school year, in an
effort to encourage students to continue beyond the formal nine years of schooling, Hong
Kong’s Education Bureau has extended free education through 12 years of school,
specifying that the final three years may be either through traditional high school (S3-S6,
equivalent to U.S. grades 10-12) or via full-time courses through any of the schools in the
Vocational Training Council (VTC).
In both the old and new system of primary and secondary school education in
Hong Kong, curriculum taught between P1-S3 are organized according to content
standards as opposed to course names, and then correlated to three-year time periods
throughout a student’s career. For example, mathematics standards are traditionally
categorized into four basic topics: Number, Shape and Space, Measures and Data
Handling, each of which have specific standards to be covered by Key Stage 1 (P1-P3),
Key Stage 2 (P4-P6) and Key Stage 3 (S1-S3). Since 2004, the Hong Kong
Examinations and Assessment Authority (HKEAA) have coordinated tests throughout all
of the Hong Kong’s primary and secondary schools in Chinese, English and Mathematics
54
at the end of each key stage to give students and teachers a better sense of whether
they have met the basic competencies expected.
For comparative purposes, mathematics and science standards have been
correlated with the traditional U.S. course names of Algebra, Geometry, Biology,
Chemistry and Physics.
Table 4-2. Hong Kong P1-P6, S1-S3 Curriculum and Suggested Time Allocations
Grades
Subject
P1-P3 P4-P6 S1-S3 (7-9)
Chinese 25-30% 17-21%
English 17-21%
Math
12-15% Number
sense and operations,
fractions, shapes,
angles, basic units,
pictograms
12-15% Operations
with functions,
volume, 3-D shapes
(vertices, edges),
symmetry, bar
charges and averages
12-15%
Algebra: approximation,
errors, irrational numbers,
simple polynomials, variables
Geometry: volume of cubes,
prisms, arc lengths, cones and
spheres, simple proofs,
trigonometric ratios
Statistics and Probability
Science
10-15%
Biology: photosynthesis,
circulatory system, human
reproduction Chemistry: acids
and corrosion, neutralisation,
Physics: measuring current
and voltage, series and parallel
circuits, friction, gravity
Personal, Social and
Humanities
15-20%
Technology
12-15% 12-15%
8-15%
Arts 10-15% 8-10%
Physical Education 5-8%
Flexible (Moral/ Civic,
Assemblies, Reading)
19% 8%
Total Teaching Time 792 hours/year 792 hours/year 918 hours/year
Total Hours in School 887 hours/year 887 hours/year 1013 hours/year
*Total Hours in School based on a 209-day school year for “bi-sessional” schools and a 190-day school
year for whole day schools P1-P6; Total Teaching Time based on 172-day school year that excludes
examination and teacher development days
Source: Hong Kong Primary, Secondary and Senior Secondary Curriculum Guides, “The Future is Now:
from Vision to Realisation”
55
While the older Hong Kong structure had seven years of secondary education (S1-
S7, equivalent to U.S. grades 9-13) and the new Hong Kong structure has a six year
ordering (S1-S6), it should be noted that both had a similar P1-P6 and S1-S3 structure,
presented above. Further, while there have been curricular changes within the first nine
years of curricular education, much of the restructuring has focused on change in time-
and course-requirements for Hong Kong students after their ninth year.
Further, unlike the U.S. education system, assessments are necessary for both
placement and promotion within both the old and new Hong Kong systems, therefore
relevant assessment procedures and data will be presented in conjunction with the school
structure. As the newer secondary school structure does not go into effect until the 2012
class, no assessment data is currently available.
Secondary School (S4-S7) Structure of Hong Kong From 1971-2012
Much of Hong Kong’s education system is based on the idea of student allocation
spaces, in that the government provides all students with nine years of education, after
which education is both voluntary and somewhat competitive, with the top students
competing for the top-ranked programs and schools, all of which have a limited number
of allocation spaces.
In the older Hong Kong education system, after nine years of compulsory
education, students would choose to either pursue a more academic track (aimed towards
preparing students for Hong Kong’s competitive university entrance exams), or a career/
56
vocational track. Since students in Hong Kong can leave the academic track at any
point following their ninth grade year, the academic path will be explained first.
Students choosing to continue in an academic path generally continue their S4-S5
(equivalent to U.S. grades 10-11) education at the same school they completed their S1-
S3 in. S4-S5 students study for any of the 39 subjects the Hong Kong Certificate of
Education Examinations (HKCEE) are administered in, ranging from Travel and Tourism
to Additional Mathematics (which includes calculus standards). Students may choose
which topics to prepare for, but must obtain minimum scores on at least six subject tests
in order to continue on a university-track system. On average, students take anywhere
between six and eight subjects within one sitting in order to qualify for entrance into S6-
S7 (equivalent to U.S. grades 12-13). Of the six tests, all students are required to take
two languages (generally English and Chinese). The tests are graded as follows:
• For all but the Chinese and English language exams, all HKCEE results are
graded from A-U, where A = 5 points, B = 4 points, C = 3 points, D = 2 Points, E
= 1 point, F = 0 points, and U refers to an unclassified grade lower than F. An
“A” grade is considered to be reserved for top performing students, and is
reported as a 5*, meaning distinction.
• As of 2007, the HKEAA switched to “Standards-Referenced Reporting” for the
Chinese and English language tests to better insure that performance would be
correlated more specifically with published standards. HKCEE subjects are
graded on a scale of 1-5 points, though it is possible to receive “U” for
unclassified if a student performs below the Level 1 standard, and likewise, a
score of 5* can be awarded to award top-performing candidates.
57
• Top performing students are allowed to take ten subjects to compete for
Hong Kong’s Early Admission Scheme which allows S6 students to enter
university one year early. “Top performing” here is defined as achieving the
maximum 30/30 points spread over 6 subjects, 34/35 spread over 7 subjects, or
38/40 in 8 subjects.
Priority is given to students based on combined score and current standing: for
example, students considered to be current year HKCEE (first-attempters) register during
Stage I, while other students (including those who may be second-attempters) are given
Stage II or Stage III priority, followed by students who satisfy minimum HKCEE scoring
requirements. In this way, students are rewarded with their top choice schools according
to their HKCEE performance.
Students who perform poorly on the HKCEE may study to retake their exams the
following year. The last official first-attempt HKCEE took place in 2010, but will
continue to be administered for repeat takers until 2012. Successful HKCEE candidates
must now study for two more years (S6-S7), and then sit for the HKALE (which is
further split into two levels: AL and AS). Students take an average of five to six subjects,
and then apply to 3-year university programs based primarily on their HKCEE and
HKALE scores through Hong Kong’s centralized online application: the Joint University
Programmes Admissions System (JUPAS) to any of the nine school funded by the
University Grants Committee (UGC). There are four additional self-funded institutions
students may apply for directly.
58
The process is quite competitive, and the university selection system is
ranked by both major and college choice, meaning that certain combinations of majors
and universities will be stricter in their minimum requirements. As an example, Table 4-
3 is a sampling of requirements for entry into a variety of majors for Lingnan University,
Chinese University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong University. HKCEE scores are
required for entrance into S6-S7, however, some of the most competitive universities
have higher standards for not only HKALE but also HKCEE performance, and are
classified below as “Additional HKCEE Requirements”:
Table 4-3. Sampling of Requirements for History, Business and Pharmacy majors
at Hong Kong Universities
University Major
Additional HKCEE
Requirements
HKALE Requirements
Lingnan University
History
(Honours)
None
D in English and
Chinese, E in 2-3 other
subjects
Chinese University of
Hong Kong
History None
E in English and
Chinese, E in 2-3 other
subjects
Hong Kong University Arts (Chinese History)
In first or second
attempt: C in English, B
in Chinese, E in
Mathematics, E in 4
other subjects
D in AS English, E in
AS Chinese, E in two
AL subjects of E in 2-3
other subjects
Lingnan University
Business Administration
(Honours)
None
E in English and
Chinese, E in 2-3 other
subjects
Chinese University of
Hong Kong
Integrated Bachelor of
Business Administration
Good grades in
Mathematics or
Additional Mathematics
E in English and
Chinese, E in 2-3 other
subjects. All results
from one sitting
Hong Kong University
Business Administration
(Information Systems)
In first or second
attempt: C in English, B
in Chinese, E in
Mathematics, E in 4
other subjects
D in AS English, E in
AS Chinese, E in:
Physics, Chemistry,
Biology, Computer
Applications, Applied or
Pure Mathematics,
Computer Studies
59
Table 4-3. Sampling of Requirements for History, Business and Pharmacy
majors at Hong Kong Universities, Continued
University Major
Additional HKCEE
Requirements
HKALE Requirements
Lingnan University No Pharmacy Program n/a n/a
Chinese University of
Hong Kong
Pharmacy
Good grades in all of the
following: Biology,
Chemistry, Physics,
Mathematics
E or above in
Chemistry, D or above
in AS English, one AL
science (preferably
Biology), and one other
AL or AS science
Hong Kong University Pharmacy
In first or second
attempt: C in English, B
in Chinese, E in
Mathematics, E in 4
other subjects
D in AS English, E in
AS Chinese, E of above
in 3 AL or 6 AS subjects
with specific required
combinations, e.g.
Chemistry, with
remainder in Physics,
Biology, Pure
Mathematics, Applied
Mathematics or
Mathematics and
Statistics
*“2-3 other subjects” means students have the option of 2 AL subjects OR 1 AL and 2 AS subjects as “AL”
is a higher level than AS
*HKCEE language requirements such as “good grades in 2 languages” are not listed, as they were required
topics to enter S6-S7
Source: Lingan University: www.ln.edu.hk/admissions/da/jupas/req.php, Chinese University of Hong
Kong: www2.cuhk.edu.hk/oafa/localstudents.php?category=jupas§ion=Entrance%20Requirement,
Hong Kong University: http://www.hku.hk/acad/ugp/reference_appendices.html
**“2-3 other subjects” means students have the option of 2 AL subjects OR 1 AL and 2 AS subjects as
“AL” is a higher level than AS
***HKCEE language requirements such as “good grades in 2 languages” are not listed, as they were
required topics to enter S6-S7
Source: Lingan University: www.ln.edu.hk/admissions/da/jupas/req.php, Chinese University of Hong
Kong: www2.cuhk.edu.hk/oafa/localstudents.php?category=jupas§ion=Entrance%20Requirement,
Hong Kong University: www.hku.hk/admission/ug.htm
Entrance requirements vary greatly depending on both the strength of a school’s
overall reputation and its perceived strength within a given discipline. While only three
different majors are listed here: Sociology, Business and Pharmacy, they are generally
representative of the system of Hong Kong undergraduate admissions in that Humanities
and/or Social Science majors tend to have relatively easier and less specific requirements
60
when compared to their STEM counterparts. To further emphasize the competitive
nature of this process, it is important to note that a student’s HKCEE scores (post 11
th
grade) may have already disqualified them from the top tier universities that require
subject specific scores in both the HKCEE and HKALE.
The score driven model of the old Hong Kong system results in a lot of repeat
test-takers as well as students who may not qualify for any of the programs they are
interested in. Thus, at any point in a student’s S4-S7 years, they may choose to instead
continue their education via any of the programs sponsored by the Vocational Training
Council (VTC). The VTC oversees 13 different institutions, which offer courses that
may lead to certificates, higher certificates, diplomas and higher diplomas (the last of
which is roughly equivalent to a U.S. associate’s degree). Specific VTC institutions
specialize in different areas, and may tailor their programs to different education
attainment statuses:
• Programs for S3 Leavers: Diplomas in subjects ranging from Automotive
Technology and Beauty Care to Construction and Digital Electronics
• Programs for S5 Leavers: Certificates in subjects ranging from Wine and
Bartending, to Chinese Cuisine and Travel Agency Operations. Diplomas or
higher diplomas in subjects such as Chemical Technology with Management or
Urban Renewal, Building Inspection and Maintenance or Maritime Studies
• Programs for S7 Leavers: Higher diplomas in the same areas as above (for S5
leavers), but are arranged and classified in terms of targeted 2-year programs with
more specificity: for example, 2-year diplomas in Applied and Analytical
Chemistry, Health Students (Rehabilitation Therapy) or Electrical Engineering.
61
• Other: Some schools within the VTC may focus on particular age groups,
for example, the School for Higher and Professional Education (SHAPE) allows
students who have received a higher diploma to pursue a bachelor’s degree in
fields from Accounting and Finance to Engineering and Marketing
The VTC also advertises partnerships with local businesses to assist in pre-
employment and in-service programs, sometimes offering monthly training subsidies
through funding from Hong Kong’s Labour Department. The VTC boasts employment
rates ranging between 84-92% for diploma and higher diploma recipients within the
2003-2007 time period. Granting roughly 190,000 credentials every year (compared with
roughly 100,000 HKCEE test takers each year), they appear to provide valuable
alternatives for students either wishing to leave the academic track, or whose scores
disqualify them from continuing on to university.
Technically, it is possible for students who have gone through a VTC program,
and who have already obtained higher diplomas, or students who have completed at least
4 years of post-S3 education to apply directly to the university of their choice. However,
it is difficult to determine what percentage of these non-JUPAS candidates are ultimately
accepted.
Data collected from the Hong Kong’s Education Bureau suggest that relatively
few students pursue the vocational track directly after ninth grade (formally termed S3
leavers). Without a formal S3 leaver statistic, the closet approximation comes from
assuming a roughly even distribution of students across the three years of S1-S3 and the
two years of S4-S5:
62
Table 4-4. Estimated Number of Students Continuing Past Compulsory S1-S3
Education in Hong Kong
Total
Number of
Students in
S1-S3
Estimated
Average of
S3 Students
Total
Number of
Students in
S4-S5
Estimated
Average of
S4 or S5
Students
Total
Number of
Students in
S6-S7
Estimated
Average of
S6 Students
2004-2005 253,619 84,540 160,916 80,458 59,519 29,760
2008-2009 246,514 82,171 167,746 83,873 63,913 31,957
2009-2010 238,026 79,342 166,421 83,211 65,019 32,510
Source: Hong Kong Education Bureau, Secondary Education Statistics
Such an estimate suggests nearly 100% retention between the S3 and S4 years
(equivalent to the U.S. grade 9-10 transition), despite the fact that education is no longer
compulsory past S3. However, as there is generally internal attrition within the grade
levels, it is reasonable to assume that there may be student dropouts within the three years
of S1-S3 (similar to attrition in the U.S. between grades 9-12), which are not accounted
for with such an approximation.
The same type of analysis, applied to the S4-S5 and S6-S7 grade levels suggest
that only 38.0% successfully transition directly from S5 to S6. Yet these are very rough
estimates as there are so many different tracks within the Hong Kong education system,
and so many opportunities for students to repeat entrance examinations and delay, rather
than abort, their academic education. The closest direct cohort statistic comes from the
UGC, which estimates that for the 2009-10 school year, about 18.5% of the age-relevant
population were first-year, full-time university students (UGC First-year-first-degree
Students, from 1965/66-2009/10).
63
While this number seems relatively low, several factors need to be taken
into consideration. For example, this percentage would not account for the accredited
Hong Kong universities that are self-funded but outside of, and therefore not tracked by,
the JUPAS/UGC system. Further, longitudinal data collection is particularly difficult as
S7 graduates may apply for UGC schools through JUPAS, self-funded schools
individually, or, as many international universities recognize and accept HKALE test
results, students with competitive HKCEE and/or HKALE scores may choose to study
abroad and apply with their scores directly to U.S. universities such as Johns Hopkins and
Yale University, United Kingdom’s University of Cambridge or University of Oxford, as
well as any of mainland China’s universities.
The UGC’s reported 18.5% of first-year students at publicly funded Hong Kong
Universities equates to 15,729 students; in the U.S. alone, NSF reported 5,760
undergraduate students from Hong Kong for the same 2008-09 year, though these
students would be spread out across four years of undergraduate education, it does help
give an order of magnitude estimate as to how many of Hong Kong’s students may be
continuing their undergraduate education in other nations (NSF, 2010). Further, such
approximations suggest that while the retention rate for Hong Kong’s academic track
may be relatively low (less than 38% by the time students apply for university
admissions), the students that do succeed are capable of competing internationally.
Secondary School Structure of Hong Kong as of the 2012 Graduating Glass
Under the proposed new secondary structure of primary and secondary education
in Hong Kong, following the nine years of compulsory education (P1-P6, S1-S3),
64
students are placed in S4-S6 (equivalent to U.S. high school grades 10-12) schools.
While it is possible that a student be in separate schools for S1-S3 and S4-S6, the New
Academic Structure for Senior Secondary Education and High Education (NSS, 2005)
recommends that all students be allowed to continue if they wish, within the same senior
secondary school whenever possible, meaning that a student would be allowed to
experience their S1-S6 education within the same school. After completing twelve years
of education (the last three of which are still voluntary), students would apply to
universities via their Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education (HKDSE) exam
scores. As the general P1-P6 and S1-S3 course have been presented above, the general
structure for S4-S6 school is detailed in Table 4-5:
65
Table 4-5. Hong Kong New Senior Secondary (NSS) Curriculum Guide
Subject Suggested Time
Chinese
12.5-15%
338-405 hours
English
12.5-15%
338-405 hours
Mathematics
Compulsory part includes topics from Algebra II/ more
advanced Geometry, as well as some Trigonometry and
Statistics and Probability
10-15%
270-405 hours
Core Subjects
(Required)
Liberal Studies
10%
270 hours
Elective Subjects
(2 Required,
Students may
pick up to 4)
Social/ Humanities: Chinese History, Economics, Ethics and
Religious Studies, Geography, History, Tourism
Science: Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Integrated Science, and
Combined Science
Technology: Business, Accounting, Design and Applied
Technology, Health Management, Technology and Living,
Information/Communication Technology
Arts: Music, Visual Arts
Physical Education
20-30%
540-810 hours
Other Learning
Experiences
Aesthetic and Physical Development, Moral and Civic
Education, Community Service and Career-Related
Experiences
15%
135 hours
Total Hours 1891-2430 hours
Total Hours Per
School Year
630-810 hours
*Hours reflect suggested lesson time and does not include testing and/or teacher development
Source: Hong Kong Senior Secondary Curriculum Guide, Hong Kong Mathematics Curriculum and
Assessment Guide (Secondary 4-6)
In the old S4-S5, S6-S7 structure, only two subject tests were mandated: Chinese
and English, and students chose the remaining four to six HKCEE and HKALE topics.
In contrast, the NSS S4-S6 structure requires four core subjects: Chinese, English,
Mathematics and Liberal Studies, and thus mandates four HKDSE subject tests, on which
students must receive minimum grades to apply for UGC funded universities. Students
choose the remaining two to three subjects to test in, and thus, to better track the progress
of student choices and options in the NSS, the elective subjects have been further
66
classified into five Key Learning Areas: 1. Personal, Social and Humanities, 2.
Science, 3. Technology, 4. Arts, 5. Physical Education. Though the first cohort leaving
the NSS will not graduate until 2012, a 2009 survey of the new structure shows that:
• 51.4% of students took three elective subjects, while 45.2% opted to take two
elective subjects (2.16% took four electives, and less than 1% took one elective,
which is technically not allowed under the new system)
• The most popular five electives were: 1. Economics, 2. Business, Accounting and
Financial Studies (BAFS), 3. Chemistry, 4. Biology and 5. Physics; only 56% of
students choose at least one science elective, suggesting that there is quite a bit of
overlap in the population of students picking Chemistry, Biology and Physics.
While it is too early to tell what the longer trend patterns will be, Hong Kong’s
Education Bureau has tried to maintain many of the same grading standards as before, to
better ease students and universities through the transition period. HKDSE exams are
graded on a scale of 1-5 (5 being the highest, with top students being awarded 5** and 5*
and students scoring below one being labeled as “unclassified”), and scores of 3 on
Chinese, 3 on English, 2 on Mathematics, and 2 on Liberal studies are considered to be
the minimum university requirements. Specific universities and/or competitive programs
and majors within those universities will still require additional scores, similar to the
HKCEE and HKALE structure.
Due to the restructuring of the Hong Kong education system, for the graduating
class of 2012 there will be students leaving both secondary systems and entering
university at the same time, in effect doubling the amount of entering students that year.
To prepare for this, Hong Kong has doubled their allocation spaces: to place both S7
67
students entering 3-year universities (under the older Hong Kong system) as well as
S6 students entering 4-year universities (under the new Hong Kong system). They are
also increasing the self-financing undergraduate places (universities that are accredited
but no longer formally funded and controlled by the UGC) from 3,000 to 5,000 to ensure
that there will be enough pathways for students during the bridge years of these two
programs.
School Structure, Minimum Graduation Requirements and Assessments in
Mainland China
The People’s Republic of China passed their Compulsory Education Law in 1986,
mandating nine years of compulsory education, from primary/elementary school through
junior/middle school. To address the higher drop-out rates in rural areas, and to try to
increase enrollment in schools, the government has allocated funds for the building of
schools and the recruitment of staff, establishing scholarship programs for teaching
baccalaureate candidates willing to teach in needier rural areas. Further, the People’s
Republic passed the Law on the Promotion of Non-public Schools in 2002, stating that
“the State applied the principles of enthusiastic encouragement, vigorous support and
correct guidance” towards the creation of non-publically funded schools in order to
implement “the strategy of invigorating the country through science, technology and
education”.
China also passed the Vocational Education Law in 1996, which states that
vocational education can begin as early as primary school and that vocational education
was to be especially developed in rural areas and ethnic minority regions. It stated that
68
measures would be adopted to “organize the unemployed to receive vocational
education in various forms, and provide support for the development of vocational
education for disabled persons”. Various pages within the Chinese MOE clarify the types
of teacher’s being recruited for these schools, and also detail methods by which persons
already employed in particular industries, who do not traditionally come from a teaching
background, may come and teach or oversee particular classes.
Due to the large amount of growth the nation is experiencing, several programs
seem to be currently in flux. For example, the official Chinese MOE website lists
different exploratory vocational school plans for various provinces, and it is clear that
they are still experimenting with education options for their population as a whole,
balancing the need for new schools, as well as differences between rural and urban
development. Throughout their vocational education website, numerous opportunities for
adults to continue their education are listed, from 4-year degree-granting programs to 3-
year, short-term courses that help student’s study for or obtain a particular employment
credential. Advanced adult education can include full-time Adult High Educational
Institutions, Workers’ Colleges, Peasants’ Colleges, Institutes for Administration,
Educational Colleges, Radio/Television Universities, Independent Correspondence
Colleges and Short-Cycle Courses for Adults that may be run by Regular Higher
Educational Institutions (also called “normal” universities, this last classification is the
most equivalent to U.S. colleges and universities).
69
The general statistics for the Peoples’ Republic of China as a whole are
summarized in Table 4-6:
Table 4-6. A Brief Summary of K-12 Education in Mainland China.
Length
Average
Student Age
Curriculum Type
Promotion
Rate
Primary
Education
5-6 years
Students
should start at
age 6, may
postpone
until age 7
--60% of class time is
devoted to Chinese and
mathematics
--Secondary language
instruction starts in third
grade, usually English
Compulsory
Education
Promotion
rate has
risen from
74.6% in
1990 to
99.7% in
2008
Middle
School
Education
3-4 years
(most are 3
years)
12-13 when
they start
--Chinese, mathematics,
physics, chemistry,
history, geology, foreign
language
-- Some middle schools
offer vocational subjects
Compulsory
Education
Promotion
rate has
risen from
40.6% in
1990 to
83.4% in
2008
Senior
High
School
3 years
13-14 when
they start
-- Students study for 3
years to take the annual
university entrance exam,
known as the “gaokao”
Performance
based: students
are accepted via
their middle
school exit
examination
scores
Secondary
Vocational
School/
Vocational
High
School
2-4
years
13-14 when
they start
-- Range in fields from
commerce to carpentry
-- Many polytechnic
schools give priority to
students who graduate
from vocational high
schools
Promotion
rate has
risen from
27.3% in
1990 to
72.7% in
2008 *
As specific time allocation and programs may vary amongst provinces, to give a
more detailed picture of curricular standards, the Shanghai Municipal Education
Commission’s 2010-2011 curriculum guides and course/time allocation guides were
obtained. Shanghai was chosen because it was allowed to participate separately during
70
the 2009 PISA, and placed first out of all of the participating countries in reading,
mathematics and science. Unlike other provinces and districts that might require English
as the second language, Shanghai requires merely that foreign language instruction begin
during a student’s first grade in primary school:
Table 4-7. Shanghai Elementary and Middle School Curriculum and Course
Allocation Time, Listed in Terms of Sessions Per Week
Grade
Subject
1
st
2
nd
3
rd
4
th
5
th
6
th
7
th
8
th
9
th
Chinese 9 9 6 6 6 4 4 4 4
Foreign Language 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4
Math 3 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 5
Social Studies
(History, Geography
and Civil Society,
Political Science,
Morality and Society)
2 2 2 3 3 3 5 4 4
Science 2 2 2 2 2 2 3
4
(2
Physics,
2 Life
Science
)
5
(2 Physics,
1 Life
Science, 2
Chemistry)
Arts 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2
Health and Physical
Education
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Information
Technology
n/a n/a 2 n/a n/a 2 n/a n/a n/a
Research 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
Other: activities,
projects, sports
6 5 5 6 6 8 7 7 5
Sessions Per Week 32 33 34
Time Per Session 35 min/ session
Total Teaching
Hours
635
hours/year
655
hours/
year
674 hours/year
Total Hours in
School
747
hours/year
770
hours/
year
793 hours/year
*Actual length of school year is listed as 40 weeks/year, though this includes assemblies and testing time.
Teaching time is listed as 34 weeks/ year. Also, hours per week reflect morning and afternoon exercises
and other activities.
71
Examining the curricular notes embedded within the approved curriculum
guide revealed the degree to which even Shanghai is experimenting with its elementary
education curriculum. For example, certain districts within Shanghai are listed as
beginning to replace more traditional natural sciences curriculum with more labor and
technical science courses. Options such as “research” and “other” may include scheduled
reading and writing time as well as short-cycle activities and projects so that students
may be directed to explore new topics.
After their compulsory nine years of education, students take the middle school
exit examination, which covers Chinese, Mathematics, English, Physics, Chemistry,
Politics and Physical Education. This score determines whether students will be able to
transition to academic/senior high school versus vocational training programs and
secondary vocational schools (equivalent to U.S. grades 10-12). Students in secondary
vocational schools can study a variety of fields, including: agriculture, engineering,
finance and economics. While many polytechnic schools may give priority to secondary
vocational school graduates, for the most part, vocational students do not advance to
traditional universities and colleges.
Secondary vocational school graduates may continue to 3-year adult education
programs that are geared towards certificates or diplomas that are career specific, for
example: Nursing and Information Technology. While vocational high school graduates
do not participate in China’s standardized college entrance exam, they may, either
immediately or later in their career, participate in the adult education entrance
72
“chengkao” (translated as the adult examination) that qualifies them to attend 4-year
adult educational program, which can result in a bachelor’s degree, or choose instead to
enter the variety of adult education programs previously listed.
In contrast, junior high school students who perform well enough to continue on
the university track generally attend senior high school (equivalent to U.S. grades 10-12).
Senior high school students choose either a liberal arts or science concentration during
the second and third years of senior high school (equivalent to U.S. grades 11-12), and
often, a student’s 12
th
grade schedule reflects a larger number of “other” credit sessions,
so that students may focus on the subjects they are interested in. To better compare the
academic coursework that is aimed towards preparing college-bound students, Shanghai’s
senior high school curriculum is summarized below:
73
Table 4-8. Shanghai Senior High School Curriculum and Course Allocation
Time, Listed in Terms of Sessions Per Week.
10
th
Grade 11
th
Grade 12
th
Grade
Chinese 3 3 3
Foreign Language 3 3 3
Math 3 3 3
Social Studies (Includes
History, Geography and
Civil Society, Political
Science)
7 4 4
Science
4
(2 Physics, 2 Chemistry)
7
(2 Physics, 2 Chemistry,
3 Life Sciences)
2
Arts 1 1 1
Health and Physical
Education
3 3 3
Information Technology 2 n/a n/a
Research 2 2 2
Other
(activities, projects,
sports)
7 9 14
Sessions Per Week 35
Time Per Session 40 min/ session
Weeks Per Year 34 34 30
Total Teaching
Hours Per Year
793 hours/ year 793 hours/ year 700 hours/ year
Total Hours in School
Per Year
933 hours/year
*Weeks Per Year reflects lecture time and excludes review testing and/or national testing, assemblies, et
cetera, senior year is shorter as students prepare for the national gaokao examinations. Actual length of
school year is listed as 40 weeks/year.
During a student’s 12
th
grade year, they must take either the liberal arts or science
national college entrance exam, known as the “gaokao” (literal translation is “high
exam”), for placement into undergraduate colleges and universities. A small portion of
students are exempted from this exam, due to special talents or qualifications. However,
in general, a student’s gaokao scores will determine which combination of intended
major and college they are qualified to attend. Whether a student declares which
74
major/college combination they are interested in before or after testing differs
between provinces. Similar to Hong Kong’s JUPAS system, certain universities and
specific programs with the best reputations will be listed as having the most competitive
minimum cut-off scores. Within the past few years, some universities have also begun
requiring additional subject-specific entrance examinations.
Though the “gaokao” is supposed to be standardized across the nation, specific
provinces have ultimate control over test content as well as maximum marks/scores
possible. For example, all students are required to take three subjects: Chinese Language,
Mathematics and a foreign language, however, individual provinces may require “3+2”
tests, where the “2” are specified by the province, or “3+1+x” where “x” differs
depending on whether the student intends to major in liberal arts or science. Only senior
high school students may participate in the “gaokao” university entrance exam,
suggesting that there is less mobility between academic and vocational tracks within
mainland China’s education system.
School Structure, Minimum Graduation Requirements and Assessments in Taiwan
In Taiwan, there are six years of primary/ elementary school education followed
by three years of junior high education (equivalent to U.S. grades 1-9). Compulsory
education ends following a student’s 9
th
grade year, however, Taiwan allows transitions
between many of their vocational and academic tracks at a variety of stages. The
following figure gives a general summary of primary, secondary and tertiary education in
Taiwan (Taiwan MOE, 2011):
75
Figure 4-3: Current Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Education System in
Taiwan
Junior high school diplomas are granted based on credits and/or grades, and there
is no formal graduation test, however, curriculum at both the elementary school and
junior high level is very structured. For example, during elementary grades 1-2, the core
subjects are: Chinese, Health/ Physical Education, Mathematics, and Life Studies. In
grades 3-9, 10-15% of the school day is allotted each of the following seven areas:
Chinese, English, Mathematics, Social Studies, Arts/ Humanities, Science/Technology,
76
Integrated Activities and Health/Physical Education. Since this study is primarily
concerned with STEM education, the following table gives times and percentages for
non-STEM fields, and particular content standards and/or courses for STEM topics.
Curriculum standards as well as number of sessions and minimum hours of school
required are generally grouped into 2-year categories, which are summarized below:
Table 4-9. Minimum Requirements in Taiwan Elementary and Junior High Schools
Grades
Subject
1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9
Chinese flexible 10-15%
English n/a 10-15%
Mathematics
Number sense
and operations,
volume, simple
graphics
Sense of
figures,
common units,
geometric
angles
Algebra: operations, negative
numbers, roots, functions,
Geometry: circles, properties of
triangles, symmetry, scaling
Statistics and Probability
Social Studies 10-15%
Arts/Humanities 10-15%
Science and
Technology
Collectively
Called Life
Studies
Flexible
Observation
based: physical
characteristics,
environmental
changes,
animals
Weather cycle,
geology,
seasons,
constellations,
conductivity of
metals
Chemistry: pH scale, phase
changes, nomenclature, atomic
vs. molecular weight, Biology:
cells, endocrine system,
animals,
Physics: terminology including
kinetic energy, wavelength,
frequency
Integrated
Activities
Flexible 10-15%
Sessions Per
Week
22-24 28-31 30-33 32-34 33-35
Time Per
Session
40 min/session 45 min/session
Total Hours
Per Year
587-640
hours/year
747-827
hours/year
800-880
hours/year
960-1020
hours/year
990-1050
hours/year
*Based on a 40 week school year, listed as 200 days/school year, excluding holidays
**During grades 1-2, time required amongst the three major categories of Chinese, Life Studies and
Integrated Activities is considered to be flexible***During grades 3-9, course time is to be split evenly
across the 7 content areas of: Chinese, English, Mathematics, Social Studies, Arts/ Humanities, Science and
Technology, and Integrated Activities
Source: Taiwan Ministry of Education, Primary and Secondary Education Guides, Subject-Specific
Curriculum Guides
77
While there are not necessarily formal titles of sequences of classes (for
example, the courses are called Mathematics I and Mathematics II as opposed to Algebra
I and Geometry), there is a clear progression throughout the first nine years of education,
with the minimum number of hours required increasing roughly 100 hours every two
years, as well as a gradual intensifying of course and content standards required. For
example, in the Science and Technology strand, for grades 1-2, teachers have a fair
amount of flexibility and Science and Technology ideas are combined with time allotted
for Arts and Social Sciences. Most of the standards during a grades 3-4 are observation
based, and during grades 5-6 broader science concepts are introduced, laying the
groundwork for subject-specific (Chemistry, Physics, Biology) vocabulary and concepts
that are taught during grades 7-9.
The last year of compulsory education, ninth grade, shows a small increase in
minimum coursework required as well as students will be preparing for the Junior High
Basic Competence Test and are placed or apply into one of three tracks: 3-year senior
high school (the traditional academic track, which offers students the most opportunities
towards university admission), 3-year senior vocational school (which allows students to
test into university) as well as a 5-year technical college track, during which students
generally do not test into university (equivalent to U.S. grades 10-12 and then two years
of community college). The curriculum, structure and career tracks vary widely between
these three options and are discussed in greater detail below.
78
Senior High School
Senior high school lasts for three years (equivalent to U.S. grades 10-12).
Traditionally considered the university track, senior high school students have a much
more standardized curriculum compared to students in either of the two other tracks.
Similar to the pattern observed in grades 1-9, there is an initial increase in the amount of
school time students are spending in class: each session is now 50 min/class, and more
sessions are required each week. The exception is a student’s 12
th
grade year, where the
minimum time required decreases, and students have control of approximately half of
their course selection (between 14-19 of the minimum 30 sessions required). This is to
help students tailor their courses to better focus on preparing for subject-specific college
entrance examinations:
79
Table 4-10. Minimum Requirements in Taiwan Senior High Schools, Listed in
Terms of Sessions Per Week
10
th
Grade 11
th
Grade 12
th
Grade
Chinese 4 4 4
English 4 4 4
Math 4 4 n/a
Social Studies (Includes
History, Geography and
Civil Society)
6 6 n/a
Science
4
(1 Basic Chemistry,
1 Basic Physics,
1 Basic Biology and
1 Basic Earth Science)
2-3
(1.5 Chemistry and/or
1.5 Physics
and/or 1 Biology and/or
1 Earth Science)
n/a
Music and Arts 2 2 2
Life Skills/ Concepts 2 n/a 2
Health and Physical
Education
3 3 2
General Knowledge of
Defense
1 1 n/a
Other
(Includes: a second
foreign language,
Natural Sciences and
Career Planning)
0-3 6-7 14-19
Sessions Per Week 32-35 34-35 30-35
Time Per Session 50 min 50 min 50 min
Total Hours Per Year 1067-1167 hours/ year 1133-1167 hours/ year 1000-1167 hours/year
*Based on a 40 week school year, listed as 200 days/school year, excluding holidays
Source: Taiwan Ministry of Education
During their 12
th
year of education, senior high school students are offered three
different options to gain university admission:
a. Exempted/ Special Admissions: a small portion of students who have
placed in various international competitions (for example the International
Chemistry Olympiad, the International Physics Olympiad) and/or have
represented Taiwan as high-performing athletes are considered exempt
from the normal application process. There is the added caveat that
academic students who have participated in subject-specific Olympiads
80
will only be offered scholarships if they continue to pursue the
subject they placed in (for example, an International Chemistry Olympiad
student must declare that their college major is Chemistry to receive
government scholarships).
b. General Application:
i. In January of their senior year in high school, students register to
take the 5-subject General Scholastic Ability Test (Taiwan’s
GSAT). The GSAT has 5 mandatory sections covering: Chinese,
English, Mathematics, Social Studies and Natural Sciences.
Individual test scores are released and then ranked in 5 levels
according to relative percentile ranking, which for the purposes of
this paper, can be thought of in terms of A-E, where A represents
students scoring about the 88
th
percentile, B represents the next
ranking, from 75
th
-88
th
, etc.
ii. Students receive these scores in February, and can access Taiwan’s
College Admissions Committee (CAC) to see which combination
of college and major they qualify to apply for
(https://www.caac.ccu.edu.tw/cacportal/index.php). For example,
the medical program at a top-ranked university will be harder to
qualify for than a humanities major at a medium-ranked college.
Students are allowed to apply for up to 6 university-major
combinations.
iii. In April, students arrange to take subject tests and/or interviews at
the specific universities they have submitted applications for.
iv. In the beginning of May, students receive information about which
program/ university combinations they have been accepted into,
and then may decline this acceptance in favor of taking the
University Entrance Exam/ Department Required Subject Tests,
and starting the application process anew.
81
c. University Entrance Exam/ Department Required Subject Tests: in
July, senior high school students who have not been accepted into any
colleges during either of the first two pathways may now register for the
University Entrance Exams, the traditional college entrance exam. Ten
subjects are offered: Chinese, English, Math A, Math B, Physics,
Chemistry, Biology, History, Geography and Social Studies. Students can
access Taiwan’s CAC to see how many spaces are available in the
programs they are interested in, as well as what subjects and scores are
required. Though some of the topics tested here are identical to the ones
in the GSAT, the test structure and grading methodology are different, and
penalty grading, where students are deducted points for incorrect answers,
are only applied during these subject tests.
Senior Vocational High School
There are technically many different types of vocational programs offered in
Taiwan including: day-time and night-time 3-year vocational programs that result in a
high school diploma, as well as 1-, 2- and 3- year practical skills programs, or programs
designed for students with minor learning disabilities that may end in a certificate instead
of a diploma. The most common vocational high school, referred to officially as senior
vocational high school will be the one focused upon during this particular paper. Senior
vocational high school last for 3 years (equivalent to U.S. grades 10-12) and can include
courses in areas such as agriculture, commerce, marine science and opera/arts.
Students who have graduated from senior vocational high school also have the
opportunity of testing during the July University Entrance Exam/Department Required
Subject Tests, to gain admission into 4-year universities. Taiwan has greatly grown its
82
share of students entering universities directly after senior vocational high school.
During Minguo years 83-98 (Gregorian years 1994-2009):
Figure 4-4: Percentage of Taiwan’s Vocational High School Students Pursuing
Tertiary Education, 1994-2009
Source: Taiwan Ministry of Education, Department of Statistics, 1994-2009
The percentage of students successfully graduated from senior vocational school
and entered either a day- or night-time university has risen from 13.7%-72%, while
transition to 2- and 3-year technical programs has generally declined. This could be the
result of the number of new colleges and universities in Taiwan, all offering a greater
number of student options for those interested in pursuing a bachelor’s degree.
!"
#!"
$!"
%!"
&!"
'!"
(!"
)!"
#**&" #**'" #**(" #**)" #**+" #***" $!!!" $!!#" $!!$" $!!%" $!!&" $!!'" $!!(" $!!)" $!!+" $!!*"
!"#$"%&'(")*+),*$'-*%'.)/#'01'&"2)!1#123%()4"#-'#5)601$'-*%)
7"'#)
,-./012.34"567489:0;" ,-./012.34"5-.<=389:0;" $8"7-6"%8"4071">0?=-.?7@"AB@@0<0" C3=01"DB238E0?B-6714"F6G?79B-"
8%39"#23&5):0'5;-<"=)
>;)'%0)?;5"'#)4"$@%3$'.)A*.."(")
8%39"#23&5):%3(@&;-<"=)
B&@"#)!*2&;C"$*%0'#5)601$'-*%)
83
Technical College
Technical College, sometimes referred to as specialized training, is a 5-year
program (equivalent to U.S. grades 10-12 and an associate’s degree). Students entering
technical college traditionally do not continue on to college or university and generally
train for employment in applied science and technology fields, including marine
products/sciences, agriculture and commerce.
Percentage of Students Continuing in Senior, Vocational and Technical Schools in
Taiwan
As Taiwan offers three distinct paths for students past the 9
th
grade, it is important
to indicate the relative distribution of students post-9
th
grade as well as how many
students choose to continue past the compulsory nine years of education. Taiwan’s MOE
reports a general rise in the number of students admitted between junior high and the next
level of education, ranging from 88.3% in 1992 to 97.7% in 2009. The five-year average
between 2005-2009 suggests that 96.9% of 9
th
graders are choosing to advance to the
next level of education (Taiwan MOE, 2011).
Examining only 9
th
grade graduates further reveals that during the 1992-2005 time
period, not only are more students continuing past 9
th
grade, an increasing number of
students are graduating the next stage (equivalent to U.S. high school graduation) as well.
Cohort data tracks 9
th
grade graduates as senior and vocational high school graduates
three years later, and technical school graduates five years later. Thus, data past 2005 is
not reported, as there is 2008 data available for 9
th
graders who are assumed to have
84
completed senior and vocational high school, but incomplete data on what
percentage of that cohort might have finished the 5-year technical programs.
Figure 4-5: Percentage and Distribution of Taiwan 9
th
-Grade Graduates’ Level of
Secondary Education
Source: Taiwan Ministry of Education, Department of Statistics, various years
Figure 4-4 showed that the percentage of vocational high school students
advancing to 4-year universities has increased dramatically (from 13.7%-72%). Figure 4-
5 demonstrates that the relative share of 9
th
graders pursuing and graduating from the
academic-track senior high school is also on the rise. Over the past five years, an
estimated 92.8% of senior high school graduates have advanced to university education.
Taken together, this means that Taiwan is successfully increasing their share of
university-bound students via both senior and vocational education pathways.
!"#
$!"#
%!"#
&!"#
'!"#
(!"#
)!"#
*!"#
+!"#
,!"#
$!!"#
$,,%# $,, $,,'# $,,(# $,,)# $,,*# $,,+# $,,,# %!!!# %!!$# %!!%# %!! %!!'# %!!(#
!"#$%&'()"*'+%,$#)(#'")%-'.%,$#)"%
"#-./012#3245647.8# "#91:4;1/4<#3245647.8# "#=.:>/0:4<#3245647.8# "#?05/@7#3245647.#A-#
85
Comparing School Systems and Structures in the U.S., Mainland China and
Taiwan
To better compare the school systems and structural differences between primary
and secondary schools in the U.S., mainland China and Taiwan, Table 4-11 highlights
and summarizes the most salient points of each system:
Table 4-11: General Structure of Primary and Secondary Education in the U.S.,
Hong Kong, mainland China and Taiwan
Length of
Compulsory
Education
Structure (in years)
of Primary and
Secondary
Education
Promotion/
Diploma
Requirements
University
Entrance
Examinations/
Standardized
Tests
U.S. 12 years
5-3-4
or
6-2-4
Set by each state,
may include end of
course or high
school exit exams
ACT,
SAT, SAT
Subject,
AP
Hong Kong
(Pre-2012)
9 years
6-3-(2)-(2)
or 6-3- (varies,
Vocational)
Placement test
after first 9 years;
HKCEE required
after 11 years
HKCEE and
HKALE
New Hong Kong
System
(Post-2012)
9 years 6-3-(3)
Placement exams
determine which
senior high school
HKDSE
China Mainland
(and Shanghai)
9 years
5-4-(3)
6-3-(3)
or 6-3-(varies,
Vocational)
Placement exams
determine which
senior high school
Liberal Arts or
Science “gaokao”
exams
Taiwan 9 years
6-3-(3)
Academic or
Vocational
6-3-(5)
Technical
Placement exams
determine which
track, and which
senior high school
Academic and
Vocational track
may take subject
specific
placement exams
*Most Common Structure for Pre-University Education is expressed in terms of years of primary, years of
junior or middle school and years of senior high school.
**Non-compulsory years of education have been expressed in parenthesis
***HKALE: Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination (administered through 2012), HKCEE: Hong Kong
Certificate of Education (through 2010), HKDSE: Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education (will be
administered starting in 2012)
86
Comparing Minimum Graduation Requirements in the U.S., Mainland China
and Taiwan
Minimum graduation requirements were reported by different methods in each
country: in the U.S., databases of state-by-state minimum requirements have been
converted into Carnegie units, whereby a 1 credit = 1 year within a course that is assumed
to meet everyday within the required school days. Yet the concepts of 1 credit versus 1
year were found to differ among, and sometimes within, the regions:
• U.S.: The Carnegie unit is defined as, “A measure of the amount of time a student
has studied a subject. For example, a total of 120 hours in one subject – meeting 4
or 5 times a week for 40-60 minutes, for 36 to 40 weeks each year…” (Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2011). However, examining data
from the NCES shows a wide variety of interpretations for this. In the U.S. the
reported average is 180 school days per year but the number of minimum hours of
instructional time this number correlated to varied between states, from 900
hours/year in Alaska and Connecticut to 1,137 hours/year in Wyoming (NCES,
2008). Assuming 6 classes per school day, but that what is defined as a “class
hour” ranges between 40-60 minutes per class, that means that what is reported as
1 Carnegie unit in the U.S. can translate to anywhere between 100 hours/year to
189.5 hours/year. Some states also list particular minimum hours per course. In
an attempt to normalize the minimum requirements in Hong Kong, mainland
China and Taiwan, time requirements that fall within the range of 100 hours -
189.5 hours of instructional time will be considered to be 1 Carnegie unit/1 year
and comparable to the U.S. system. However, when a formal conversion is
needed, the 120-hour definition will be applied.
• Hong Kong: states that there should be no fewer than 190 school days per year,
but gives flexibility in how to structure class periods, and although there still seem
to be ~30 sessions per week, it is not always structured as the same six sessions
87
each day. This study will use the suggested time allocation under the new
academic structure as it relates to all but the two years of students (graduating
2011 and 2012) who are still under the older Hong Kong system. Unfortunately,
Hong Kong’s time allocations are generalized over the course of a student’s three
year high school experience, for example: 338-405 hours/3 years. Generalizing
this information to an average per year number of hours, gives a range of 113-135
hours/year, which is near the lower bound of the U.S. range. For the purposes of
this study, 113-135 hours of class time in Hong Kong will be considered as
equivalent to the U.S. Carnegie unit, since 180 days is the average number of days
of school in the U.S. compared to 190 days which is considered to be the
minimum in Hong Kong.
• Taiwan: averages 200 school days per year, but has a large range of requirements
organized by sessions/week. Sessions are 40 minutes/session during elementary
school and generally 45-minutes/session from 7
th
-12
th
grades. Instead of
requiring a year of a particular subject, it is common for Taiwan to list
requirements as either 3-4 hours per week or 2-4 sessions per week. The
requirement of 3-4 hours/week of instructional time translates to 120-160 hours
per week, which is within the U.S. range of definitions for a Carnegie unit.
However, a course that requires two sections/week would be 60 hours per week,
which will be rounded to mean 0.5 Carnegie Units throughout this paper.
While the focus of this study is STEM education, an interesting auxiliary finding
emerged while examining the minimum high school requirements. All of the regions
examined in this study required some amount of a foreign language. Students in Taiwan
started English coursework in third grade, while students in Hong Kong and mainland
China both started a second language during their first year in elementary school. Thus,
Table 4-12 shows the units of English (or for China, any foreign language) required.
88
Also, U.S. minimum credit total was weighted and adjusted two ways:
• Hong Kong, Shanghai and Taiwan, each have three-year senior high school
programs, therefore, the U.S. average of 19.0 credits was weighted to be 14.3
credits required over a three-year period
• To better adjust for the fact that high performing states, such as Massachusetts,
have no formal state-wide requirements, states that allowed local school boards to
set graduation requirements (Colorado, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan and
Pennsylvania) were taken out of the U.S. national average. Nebraska, which has a
credit minimum, but does not specify credits in any given subject, was also
removed from the data set. A new average of 21.1 credits over the four-year high
school period was then normalized to be 15.8 units over a three-year period.
Table 4-12: Minimum English, Mathematics and Science Carnegie Units Required
in U.S., Hong Kong, Mainland China and Taiwan
English Math Science
Total Carnegie
Units
Percentage
of Required
Carnegie
Units
Percentage
of Required
Carnegie
Units
Percentage
of Required
U.S.
(weighted
all states)
14.3 2.6 18.1% 2.0 14% 1.8 12.6%
U.S.
(weighted,
states with
minimums)
15.8 2.9 18.5% 2.25 14.2% 2.0 12.8%
Hong Kong
(post-2012)
18 2.8 15.6% 2.25 12.5%
n/a
(elective
only)
n/a
(elective
only)
China 23.3
2
(any
foreign
language)
8.57% 2 8.57% 2.89 12.4%
Taiwan 26.7 3.33 12.5% 2.22 8.33% 1.67 6.25%
89
Percentage of time required is calculated relative to the total credits required
for students to receive a high school diploma, as opposed to total credits possible. In
many ways, this is an unfair comparison for the Asian regions studied, as they are far
more likely to have a closer relationship between total credits possible versus required:
• Taiwan requires 26.7 credits for a high school diploma, which is 91% of the
maximum 29.2 units possible within the three-year structure.
• The 2005 NAEP High School Transcript Study suggests that on average, U.S.
students may earn a total of 33.3 Carnegie Units during their four years in high
school. In comparison, the national average, in terms of required units to
graduate, is either 19.0 credits (57%) if all states are counted or 21.1 credits
(63%), if states without state-wide minimum requirements are taken out of the
sample.
Further, it is important to note that both China (23.3 credits) and Taiwan (26.7
credits) require more units in their three-year senior high school programs, than are
required in either approximation (19.0 or 21.1 credits) of the four-year U.S. requirements.
While different course names make a direct comparison to the U.S. system harder,
examination of content standards suggest that S1-S3 Hong Kong students, as well as 7
th
-
9
th
grade Taiwan students, are exposed to a deeper level of scientific vocabulary
compared to their American peers, and take mathematics courses that would be most
likely classified as Algebra I and Geometry by the end of their 9
th
grade year, with some
introductory topics that might be considered beginning Statistics as well as foundations in
Algebra II.
90
While the Asian systems tend to have more rigorous mathematics and
science standards during grades 1-9, they allow slightly more freedom in science, and
less choice in mathematics courses, during a students 10
th
-12
th
grade years. In Hong
Kong, science is considered an elective in a student’s final three years, and in Taiwan,
after a 10
th
grade year of “basic” Chemistry, Physics, Biology and Earth Sciences,
students are allowed to choose which science they focus on in their 11
th
grade year, and
may choose to not take any science courses their 12
th
grade year. However, both the new
Hong Kong secondary structure, and Taiwan’s senior high school structure require
mathematics standards that would correlate with U.S. course titles of Algebra II,
Trigonometry and Statistics during a student’s 10
th
and 11
th
grade years, with senior year
mathematics being optional. Table 4-13 shows a state-by-state comparison of
mathematics content required in the U.S. versus Hong Kong and Taiwan.
91
Table 4-13: Minimum Mathematics Content Requirements, by State,
Compared to Hong Kong and Taiwan
Course Title
U.S. States Requiring Either Course
or End of Course Exam
by 12
th
Grade
(For 2013 Graduating Cohort)
Total Number of States
vs. Asian Regions
Requiring the Course
Algebra I
Alabama, Alaska
1
, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia
1
, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana
2
, Maryland, Massachusetts
3
,
Michigan, Minnesota
4
, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada
5
, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, New York
3
, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon
6
, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Washington
35 States
vs.
Taiwan (before 9
th
),
Hong Kong (before 9
th
)
Geometry
Alabama, Alaska
1
, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, District of
Columbia, Florida, Georgia
1
, Idaho, Illinois
7
, Indiana,
Kentucky, Louisiana
2
, Maryland, Massachusetts
3
, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi
1
, Nevada
5
, Nebraska
1
, New Mexico,
North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon
6
, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont
1
, Virginia, Washington
32 States
vs.
Taiwan (before 9
th
,
Hong Kong (before 9
th
)
Algebra II
Alabama, Alaska
1
, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, District of
Columbia, Florida, Georgia
1
, Idaho
1
, Indiana, Kentucky,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi
1
, Nebraska
1
, New Mexico,
New York
3
, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Vermont
1
, Washington
25 States
vs.
Taiwan and Hong
Kong (both by 10
th
grade, senior high)
One Year
Beyond
Algebra II
Alabama, Arkansas
2 States
vs.
Taiwan, Hong Kong
Trigonometry
Alabama (requires a course named “Algebra II with
Trigonometry”)
(1) State
vs.
Taiwan (senior high),
Hong Kong (2012
cohort)
Probability
and Statistics
Alaska
8
, Georgia
1
, Massachusetts
3
, Minnesota
4 States
vs.
Taiwan (before 9
th
),
Hong Kong (before 9
th
)
1
Idaho requires a course beyond Geometry, counted as Algebra II; Mississippi, Nebraska and Vermont
require two courses above Algebra I, counted as Geometry, Algebra II; Alaska requires Algebra I and
Geometry content and “Algebra II or its equivalent,” counted as Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II; Georgia
requires Math I-III, standards correlate with Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II and Statistics/Probability
2
Louisiana requires coursework from a state-approved list, some are below Algebra II standards
3
Massachusetts requires a 10
th
grade exam that includes Algebra I, Geometry, and Probability/Statistics
standards; New York requires an exam in “Integrated Algebra” that includes Algebra I and II standards
4
Minnesota requires Algebra I by the end of 8th grade
5
Nevada requires “Algebra I, Geometry or equivalent integrated course” counted as Algebra I, Geometry
6
Oregon’s new mathematics requirements begin with the class of 2014
7
Illinois specifies “geometry content” as opposed to Geometry as a course
8
Alaska’s High School Graduation Qualifying Exam includes some Probability/Statistics standards
Sources: Achieve Inc., State College- and Career-Ready High School Graduation Requirements; Education
Commission of the States; state specific Department of Education websites and pamphlets
92
States that require a minimum number of years of mathematics, without
specifying particular course content, are not shown in Table 4-13, these include:
• States requiring 4 years of mathematics: Rhode Island, South Carolina, and West
Virginia
• States requiring 3 years of mathematics: Connecticut, Hawaii, Missouri, New
Jersey, North Dakota, Virginia, and Wyoming
• States requiring 2 years of mathematics: Maine, Montana, and Wisconsin
• States that allow local districts to determine graduation requirements in
mathematics: Colorado, Iowa and Pennsylvania
It should be noted that Maine and Colorado have stated they would adopt state
standards by the end of 2011, but these have yet to be published and are therefore also not
included. Connecticut has course-specific reform measures, not included here, that
should begin for the class of 2018, however, until they are listed formally as requiring
three years of mathematics (Sanderson, 2011).
Comparing Assessment Structure in the U.S., Mainland China and Taiwan
The following table looks at the college entrance exam structure in the U.S., Hong
Kong, mainland China and Taiwan. It is important to note that while the entrance exams
are considered mandatory in Hong Kong, China and Taiwan, it is not necessarily a
requirement for U.S. colleges and universities. Further, of the regions being studied, only
the U.S. and Taiwan offer two types of college admissions tests, in both Hong Kong and
mainland China, there is either one or a one set of standardized assessments.
93
Table 4-14. College Entrance Exams in the U.S., Hong Kong, China and Taiwan
Attempts/
Year
Required Subjects Time Required Test Structure
ACT 6
4 required: English,
Reading, Science,
Mathematics
2 hours and 55
minutes
Simple Multiple
Choice, optional
Essay
U.S.
(ACT or
SAT, may
choose to
take
neither)
SAT
7
3 required: Reading,
Writing,
Mathematics
3 hours and 45
minutes
Simple Multiple
Choice, Short
Answer, Penalty
Grading, Essay
HKCEE 1
6 required: 2
language + 4
selected by the
student
12+ hours (time
required varies by
subject, are 2
hours/ subject
minimum)
Simple Multiple
Choice, Short
Answer,
Listening, Essay,
School Based
Assessments
Hong Kong
Pre-2012
(HKCEE
and
HKALE) HKALE
(A or AS
levels)
1
2 are required by
UGC universities, 2-
3 subjects specific to
department, 8
maximum
~3 hours per
subject test (time
required varies by
subject)
Short Answer,
Long Answer,
Listening, Essay,
School Based
Assessments
Hong Kong
Post-2012
HKDSE
1
6 required: Chinese,
English, Liberal
Students,
Mathematics + 2
selected by the
student
21+ hours
(17 hours from
the required 4,
elective subjects
vary, are 2 hours/
subject minimum)
Simple Multiple
Choice, Short
Answer,
Listening,
Speaking, Essay,
School Based
Assessments
National
College
Entrance
Exam/
gaokao
1
Liberal Arts or
Science
(“3 + x” where “3”
is Chinese, English/
Other Foreign and
Mathematics)
2 days, the “x”
tests last ~ 120
minutes each and
are set by
provinces and/or
individual schools
Multiple Choice,
Short Answer,
Long Answer,
Essay
China
Adult
Exam/
chengkao
1
Liberal Arts or
Science
2 days, usually a
Saturday and
Sunday in May
Multiple Choice,
Short Answer
GSAT 1
5 required: Chinese,
English,
Mathematics,
Social Studies,
Natural Science
6 hours and 40
minutes
Simple/Complex
Multiple Choice,
Short Answer
and Essay
Taiwan
(GSAT or
Subject
Tests)
University/
Department
Required
Tests
1
Depends on the
program being
applied for
80 minutes per
subject
Simple/Complex
Multiple Choice,
Penalty Grading,
Short Answer,
and Essay
*Simple Multiple Choice here means 1-4 or 1-5 options, only one correct response, Complex Multiple
Choice means 1-4 or 1-5 options, but there can be a combination of correct answers
94
From this table, it is clear that the U.S. requires by far the least amount of
required testing: not only in length of the standardized tests that might be required by
specific colleges, but also in range of subjects required. The structure of the test is also
arguably simpler: the ACT has an optional writing section, and the SAT has one writing
section, otherwise both are simple multiple choice tests, where there is only one correct
answer, and of the two, only the SAT penalizes for an incorrect response. In comparison,
Taiwan’s University Entrance Exam/Department Required Subject Tests have simple and
complex multiple-choice questions, penalize for incorrect answers, and also have fill-in
and short-answer questions as well as a writing section. Hong Kong’s tests have writing
and listening sections, and many of their tests (under both the old and new systems of
testing) have either a School Based Assessment portion, which is pre-graded by the
schoolteacher and/or a practicum option in some of the science tests.
Analysis of Data: Research Question #2: How do the U.S., Mainland China and
Taiwan compare in terms of producing a STEM capable workforce?
The following section examines the number of first time bachelor STEM and
S&E degrees being earned in the U.S., mainland China and Taiwan. It also analyzes the
number of doctoral degrees earned in certain STEM fields in the U.S. by both U.S.
citizens and foreign nationals.
Comparison of STEM Baccalaureate and First Time University Degrees in the U.S.,
China and Taiwan
Data collected from the National Science Foundation (NSF) suggests that growth
of science and engineering (S&E) bachelor’s degrees awarded in China and Taiwan have
95
far outstripped growth in the U.S.; this section presents S&E as opposed to STEM
degrees since the there is not currently an agreed upon definition of STEM majors. NSF
Indicators (2002-2010) show:
• Though enrollment in U.S. higher education is projected to continue rising, and
though the number of S&E degrees awarded as steadily risen, the percentage of
S&E degrees has “consistently accounted for roughly one-third of all bachelor’s
degrees for the past 15 years”.
• Growth in other countries has been more aggressive: the number of S&E first
university degrees awarded in China, Poland and Taiwan “more than doubled
between 1998 and 2006”
• Engineering baccalaureates output in Asia was nearly double that in the European
Union and the United States combined in 1990, and Asia is pulling further ahead.
The following data was compiled from 2010 NSF indicators, to show the total
number of S&E university degrees awarded in the U.S., Mainland China and Taiwan:
96
Figure 4-6: Number of First Time University S&E Degrees in the U.S.,
Mainland China and Taiwan, 2000-2006
Source: NSF Indicators (2010)
Data from 1998-1999 is not show on this figure because of incomplete data
during the 1999 year, however, comparing the 1998-2006 time period shows that the
number of S&E degrees awarded:
• Increased by 23% in the U.S. (390,796 to 478,858)
• Increased by 207% in China (from 296,723 to 911,846)
• Increased by 178% in Taiwan (from 32,258 to 89,573)
While the NSF tends to classify subjects as S&E or non-S&E, it was difficult to
continue making STEM-based comparisons when there were so many differences in
academic discipline classification between the regions of interest. To present a more
!"
#!!$!!!"
%!!$!!!"
&!!$!!!"
'!!$!!!"
(!!$!!!"
)!!$!!!"
*!!$!!!"
+!!$!!!"
,!!$!!!"
#$!!!$!!!"
%!!!" %!!#" %!!%" %!!&" %!!'" %!!(" %!!)"
-./01"" 21/310" 40/567"851569"
97
detailed picture of relative growth and interest in the STEM fields within U.S.,
China and Taiwan, academic disciplines and classifications were analyzed and then
correlated to create a unified STEM sample for the purposes of this study.
The U.S., Hong Kong, mainland China and Taiwan all publish graduate and
enrollment data via both broad and detailed academic majors and disciplines. For
example, in the U.S., the NSF and NCES have 20 “broad” compared to 56 “detailed”
academic disciplines. Taiwan was found to have the most generalized broad
classifications, and much of their internal data tracks only three categories of studies:
Humanities, Social Sciences/Studies and Science and Technology (which is reclassified
as STEM for the purposes of this study). To more easily compare data regarding
academic disciplines, undergraduate majors were all correlated with Taiwan’s three
broadly defined categories. Many, such as Education and Law, existed in each region as
an academic discipline, and whenever possible, such similarities have been pointed out.
While most of the table classifies broad categorizations with one another, when
necessary, more detailed majors were included to emphasize similarities. For example,
Philosophy is listed as a broad categorization in China, but is included within Humanities
in all other regions.
Ultimately, all the majors in all of the economies being studied were successfully
reclassified except for the U.S. “Interdisciplinary/ Other Sciences” field, which by
definition straddles a variety of studies. During the 1996-2009 time period,
Interdisciplinary bachelor’s degree ranged from a high of 1.43% (1966) to a low of
98
0.26% (1993) of all bachelor’s degrees awarded and seem to be generally declining
in total number, representing on average 0.47% of the degrees awarded each year. For
the purposes of this particular study, “Interdisciplinary/ Other Sciences” was left out of
all three classifications.
99
Table 4-15. Classification of U.S., Hong Kong, mainland China and Taiwan
Undergraduate Majors and Academic Disciplines
Broad
Classifications
U.S. Academic
Disciplines
Hong Kong
Academic
Disciplines
China Academic
Disciplines
Taiwan Detailed
Academic
Disciplines
Education Education Education Education
Art and Music Arts Art
Humanities
Humanities Humanities
Design
Vocational Studies
(includes Police/
Law Enforcement)
Police and Security
Humanities
Other Non-
Science, Religion
and Theology
Other Humanities:
Includes
Philosophy and
Languages
History,
Philosophy,
Literature
Other Academic
Disciplines
Business and
Management
Business and
Management
Business and
Management
Communications Communications
Administration/
Management
Communications
Law Law Law Law
Psychology
Social and
Behavioral
Sciences
Social Services
Social Sciences/
Studies
Social Sciences
Social Sciences
(includes
Economics)
Other Social
Sciences:
Economics
Disciplines
Livelihood
Engineering
Engineering and
Technology
Engineering Engineering
Math Math and Statistics Math and
Computer Sciences Computer/IT Computer Sciences
Architecture/
Urban
Development
Architecture and
Environmental
Design
Architecture
Transport,
Infrastructure
Life Sciences Life Sciences
Natural Sciences
Science
Environmental
Sciences
Biological and
Physical Sciences
Agriculture
Agricultural
Science
Science and
Technology
(STEM)
Physical Sciences,
Geosciences,
Science and
Engineering
Medicine,
Dentistry and
Health
Medicine
Medical and Health
Sciences
*The U.S. discipline: Interdisciplinary/Other Sciences was not included as fields within that discipline
could have been classified in each of the three categories and was not suitable for comparison.
**Within the detailed discipline descriptions, there were discrepancies in how Economics and Psychology
were classified (Science or Social Sciences), and were grouped by the more popular classification
100
Using these three broadly defined academic categories, 2009 baccalaureate data
from the U.S., China (mainland and Hong Kong) and Taiwan were compared by both
relative percentage and total number of degrees.
Figure 4-7: Relative and Total Number of First Time University STEM Degrees in
the U.S., China and Taiwan, 2009
Source: Taiwan Ministry of Education (2009), Ministry of Education of the Peoples’ Republic of China
(2009), Hong Kong University Grants Committee (2009), NCES IPEDS (2009)
The only country that is out-producing the U.S. in terms of total numbers of
STEM baccalaureate degrees is China. Considering the relative census data of the two
!"# $!"# %!"# &!"# '!"# (!"# )!"# *!"# +!"# ,!"# $!!"#
-./.##
0123#4123#
56728#
987:82#
-./.## 0123#4123# 56728# 987:82#
/9;<# '!+=)( *=!&!## $=%%*=&)+# $!'=!%(#
/1>78?#/@AB7CD# *!,=$! )='&+## ))*=&%,# ++=&&*#
0AE827FCD# ',)=())# &=!$$## ()!=))%# &(=(%
101
countries (U.S.: 310 million, China: 1.33 billion as of 2010), this hardly seems
surprising (CIA World Factbook, 2011). What is interesting is that:
• Taiwan, with an estimated population of 23.0 million as of 2010 is roughly 1/13
th
of the size of the U.S., but produces more than 1/4
th
as many STEM degrees (CIA
World Factbook, 2011).
• In terms of percentage of total baccalaureate degrees awarded, 25.3% of U.S.
degrees in STEM disciplines, compared to 50.0% STEM in China.
• The U.S. is clearly the only country where the combined STEM disciplines are
not the dominant category.
While compelling, the above data only shows the most recent data; to better
understand relative growth of STEM disciplines, relative percent of baccalaureate
degrees were then analyzed separately in each region. NCES data provides detailed
information from 1966-2009; however, due to differences in academic discipline
classification, where this study classified STEM based on Taiwan’s broad definitions, as
opposed to S&E classifications used by NSF, the Figure 4-8 shows a smaller percentage
of students participating in STEM fields: from a low of 20.7% (1972) to 30.7% (1985)
compared to what 2010 NSF Indicators reported.
102
Figure 4-8: Relative Percentage of STEM, Social Studies, and Humanities
Baccalaureate Degrees Earned in the U.S., 1966-2009
Source: NCES IPEDS 1966-2009, retrieved via WebCASPAR
While the actual numbers and percentages differ between this data and data from
2010 NSF Indicators, the general trend is the same: the U.S. is not significantly
increasing its relative share of STEM baccalaureate degrees awarded. What is
interesting, is that in comparison, China is actually experiencing a relative decrease in the
percentage of STEM degrees, as shown in the figure below:
!"#
$!"#
%!"#
&!"#
'!"#
(!"#
)!"#
*!"#
+!"#
,!"#
$!!"#
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
!"#$"%&'(")*+),#'-.'&"/)
0"'#)
-./0# -12345#-67839:## ;7<4=3>9:#
103
Figure 4-9: Relative Percentage of STEM, Social Studies, and Humanities
Baccalaureate Degrees Earned in Mainland China, Selected Years, 1997-2009
*Data from 2004 and 2007 are not included as they were categorized by school/university, rather than
academic discipline
Source Data: Ministry of Education of the Peoples’ Republic of China, Education Statistics
In terms of number of STEM degrees awarded, China has shown continuous
growth from 1997 (262,658 STEM baccalaureates) to 2009 (1,227,368 STEM
baccalaureates), a growth of 367% in the past 12 years. However, during that same time
period, relative number of STEM degrees has decreased from representing 68.8% to
50.0% of total baccalaureates awarded.
!"#
$!"#
%!"#
&!"#
'!"#
(!"#
)!"#
*!"#
+!"#
,!"#
$!!"#
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2005
2006
2008
2009
!"#$"%&'(")*+),#'-.'&"/)
0"'#)
-./0# -12345#-67839:# ;7<4=3>9:#
104
It is unclear whether this trend will continue, however, there are several
possibilities as to why this relative percentage are changing. From just the 1997-2009
data collected, it was clear that there have been classification changes in China, and some
of the trends within the more detailed classifications are worth noting. For example,
Management was not listed as a formal academic discipline within MOE reports until
2001, and this is one area which has grown from ~70,000 to ~400,000 degrees awarded;
just the addition of such a popular non-STEM major is enough to shift the trends
significantly with such a small time period.
Engineering majors are often listed as amongst those earning the highest starting
and median salaries within the U.S.; further, economists and various reports have
mentioned the increasing number of engineering jobs that have been off-shored to India
and China. Reports have warned that if this trend continues, it could theoretically
dampen engineering job prospects within the U.S.; it is therefore worth noting just the
subsection of engineering STEM degrees earned in China (OOH, Engineers: Overall
Employment Change, 2010-11 Edition). Throughout 1997-2009, a comparison of STEM
degrees awarded within China show that engineering degrees have greatly outnumbered
and outgrown the three other major STEM disciplines of science, agriculture and
medicine:
105
Figure 4-10: Science, Engineering, Agriculture and Medicine Baccalaureates
Awarded Between 1997-2009 (Selected Years) in China
*Data from 2004 and 2007 are not included as they were categorized by school/university, rather than
academic discipline
Source Data: Ministry of Education of the Peoples’ Republic of China, Education Statistics
Clearly, mainland China has experienced both growth and diversification in the
number and type of bachelor’s degrees awarded: by opening new universities and via the
creation of new academic disciplines. In contrast, Taiwan, though it has grown in total
number of bachelor’s degrees awarded, has maintained a relatively stable percentage of
STEM, Humanities and Social Sciences degrees awarded, with STEM undergraduate
degrees consistently being the most popular amongst the three broad classifications.
!"
#!!!!!"
$!!!!!"
%!!!!!"
&!!!!!"
'!!!!!"
(!!!!!"
)!!!!!"
*!!!!!"
#++)" #+++" $!!#" $!!%" $!!'" $!!)" $!!+"
!"#$%&'()'!(*+',-./%&0.12'3%4&%%0'56*&7%7'
8%*&'
,-./0-/" 102.0//3.02" 423.-56753/" 8/9.-.0/"
106
Figure 4-11: Relative Percentage of STEM, Social Studies, and Humanities
Baccalaureate Degrees Earned in Taiwan, Selected Years, 1997-2010
Source: Taiwan Ministry of Education, Statistics, 1997-2010
Share of U.S. Doctorates Earned at U.S. Colleges and Universities
While many science and engineering jobs only require a bachelor’s or even an
associate’s degree, BLS has stressed the importance of continuing education in many of
these fields. Thus, NSF data on doctoral degrees awarded was also examined. Since the
NSF usually focuses on S&E fields as opposed to classifying them as STEM fields,
Figure 4-12 compares the total number of doctoral degrees awarded in three specific
STEM areas: Engineering, Physical Sciences (such as Chemistry and Physics), Math and
Computer Science, and for purposes of comparison, Humanities doctorates.
!"#
$!"#
%!"#
&!"#
'!"#
(!"#
)!"#
*!"#
+!"#
,!"#
$!!"#
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
!"#$"%&'(")*+),#'-.'&"/)
0"'#)
-./0# -12345#-2367268# 9:;473<68#
107
Figure 4-12: Total Number of STEM and Humanities Doctorates Earned in
U.S. Universities between 1966-2008
Source: NSF SED/DRF data, retrieved from WebCASPAR
Figure 4-12 shows growth in the total number of doctoral degrees earned in
Engineering and Physical Sciences earned in U.S. colleges and universities, with
fluctuations in the number of Humanities and Math and Computer Science doctorates
over the 1966-2006 time period. However, NSF Indicators suggest that enrollment of
U.S. students in advanced STEM graduate programs has not kept pace with foreign
student enrollment, meaning that the relative share of advanced STEM degrees earned by
U.S. citizens is declining. Based on work originally done by Groen et al. (2003), Figure
4-13 shows the relative percentage of doctorates earned by U.S. citizens out of the total:
!"
#$!!!"
%$!!!"
&$!!!"
'$!!!"
($!!!"
)$!!!"
*$!!!"
+$!!!"
,$!!!"
#,))"
#,)*"
#,)+"
#,),"
#,*!"
#,*#"
#,*%"
#,*&"
#,*'"
#,*("
#,*)"
#,**"
#,*+"
#,*,"
#,+!"
#,+#"
#,+%"
#,+&"
#,+'"
#,+("
#,+)"
#,+*"
#,++"
#,+,"
#,,!"
#,,#"
#,,%"
#,,&"
#,,'"
#,,("
#,,)"
#,,*"
#,,+"
#,,,"
%!!!"
%!!#"
%!!%"
%!!&"
%!!'"
%!!("
%!!)"
%!!*"
%!!+"
-./0.1120./" 34560789":701.716" ;8<4"8.=">?@AB<12":701.71" CB@8.0D16"
!"#$"%%&$"#'
()*+"$,%-'
.+/0'+"1'23*4)/%&'56$%"6%'
708-$6+9'56$%"6%-'
108
that is, doctorates earned by U.S. citizens, permanent and temporary residents and
foreign nationals studying in American colleges and universities
Figure 4-13: Percentage of STEM and Humanities Doctors Earned by U.S. Citizens
1966-2006
Source: NSF SED/DRF, 1966-2006, retrieved from WebCASPAR
This figure suggests that while the U.S. share of Ph.D.s in non-STEM fields such
as humanities has remained relatively steady, its share of STEM doctorates seems to be,
on average, declining. Using engineering doctorates as an example:
• In 1966, 73% of all engineering doctorates awarded in American universities were
earned by U.S. citizens, compared to just 30% in 2006.
!"
#!"
$!"
%!"
&!"
'!"
(!"
)!"
*!"
+!"
#!!"
#+(("
#+()"
#+(*"
#+(+"
#+)!"
#+)#"
#+)$"
#+)%"
#+)&"
#+)'"
#+)("
#+))"
#+)*"
#+)+"
#+*!"
#+*#"
#+*$"
#+*%"
#+*&"
#+*'"
#+*("
#+*)"
#+**"
#+*+"
#++!"
#++#"
#++$"
#++%"
#++&"
#++'"
#++("
#++)"
#++*"
#+++"
$!!!"
$!!#"
$!!$"
$!!%"
$!!&"
$!!'"
$!!("
,-./-001/-."2345316507" 89:7/46;"<4/0-407"2345316507" =659"6->"?3@AB501"<4/0-40"2345316507" CB@6-/D07"2345316507"
!"#$%&'()*
+,-)&.$/*0.&(%.()*
1%2&%((3&%2*
4$5,*$%6*
78#9"5(3*0.&(%.(*
109
• This decline results from a combination of relatively stagnant growth from
American students as well as an influx of foreign talent. The total number of
engineering doctoral degrees earned by American citizens had a relatively modest
rise between 1966-2006: from 1,691 to 2,182 earned doctorates. In comparison,
doctorates earned by foreign nationals on temporary visas rose from 395 to 4,280
during the same period.
Data from the 2010 NSF S&E Indicators further concluded that the importance of
foreign-born scientists and engineers in the United States continues to grow:
• 25% of all college-educated workers in S&E occupations in 2003 were foreign
born, as were 40% of doctorate holders in S&E occupations
• More than a third of doctorate holders come from China (22%) and India (14%)
• Above half of all scientists and engineers who are foreign nationals are from Asia:
11% from China and 6% from Taiwan
An economy dependent upon scientists and engineers living on temporary visas
seems neither practical nor sustainable in a global marketplace. The 2010 NSF S&E
Indicators reported that most foreign recipients of U.S. S&E doctorates planned to stay in
the U.S. after graduation (more than three-quarters between 2004-2007). However, NSF
data further suggested that the U.S. share of foreign students is beginning to decline, and
that fewer students are applying and/ or attending American universities, meaning that
the U.S. may be losing its ability to import critical STEM-capable human capital.
Though U.S. universities have traditionally been respected internationally, data
collected NSF suggests that U.S. share of foreign students is declining:
• The U.S. share of foreign students has declined from 25% in 2000 to 20% in 2006
110
• In comparison, Australia grew its share by 6%, U.K. grew its share by 18%
• From the ACE Issue Brief (October, 2006), “Among the top six host countries,
the United States had the weakest growth in international student enrollment from
1999–2000 to 2004–05. While international student enrollment grew by nearly 17
percent in the United States, it grew by 29 percent in the United Kingdom, 46
percent in Germany, 81 percent in France, 42 percent in Australia, and 108
percent in Japan.”
It is unclear whether the relative prestige of American colleges and universities is
declining, or if other countries are simply building, funding and thus catching up to the
more traditionally well-respected American institutions. Regardless of which is the
predominant reason, a decline in share of foreign students, when U.S. citizens remain
relatively less interested and prepared for careers in the STEM fields, translates to a
growing deficit of STEM-capable graduates and workers.
111
Chapter Five: Conclusions and Recommendations
In 1997, economist Frances Cairncross contended that advancements in
information technology had resulted in the “death of distance”, whereby any activities
involving information were no longer restricted to geographical locations, and that the
world was in the midst of a communications revolution. In 2005, Thomas Friedman took
this idea a step further by listing ten “flatteners” that had made the economic marketplace
a more level, global, playing field. Since then, there have been countless reports, studies
and policies focusing on how the U.S. can remain competitive within this new
technologically driven world order. Cultivation of human capital is seen as a priority for
nations wishing to thrive in the 21
st
century, with much focus and attention turned
towards developing and encouraging talent within the STEM disciplines.
While cultural differences will always influence and alter education in ways that
are hard to qualify or quantify, this study sought to define the characteristics of successful
Asian education systems. While each region will necessarily have both strengths and
weaknesses, the purpose of this particular report is to examine what, if any, lessons can
be learned regarding successful best practices and ideologies. Ultimately, acknowledging
cultural differences does not change the reality that the flattened, global marketplace
means that students from the U.S. need to be able to compete with their Asian peers at
every stage of the STEM pipeline if they are to survive within the 21
st
century
marketplace.
112
Though several differences were documented throughout this study, this
final chapter reorganizes these findings into three broad categories: STEM capacity,
STEM interest and STEM awareness within a global marketplace.
Asian Education Systems Builds STEM Capacity
The Asian education systems examined in this report offered focused and
structured curricula that allowed a gradual intensifying of educational content, building
strong foundational knowledge skills within their students. Relative strength in
mathematics and science is reflected by continuing strength on international assessments
such as the PISA and TIMMS.
Middle school exit examinations establish a state-based selection where students
wishing to continue their education are tracked into either an academic or vocational/
technical track. However, students not accepted into the academic track are far more
likely to have a multiple of vocational options leading to certificates and diplomas. A
willingness to innovate and change the pre-university education structure has also
allowed regions like Taiwan to grow its relative share of university-bound students,
further increasing their share of STEM-capable degree holders.
Asian Education System Offers Students a Structured Curricula that Builds
Foundational STEM Capacity
There is a structure to the education systems in Hong Kong, China and Taiwan
that is an undeniable progression of increased focus and course hours throughout a
student’s K-12 education. Hong Kong organizes their system via “key stages”, where
curriculum standards become more specific, and course time required increases, every
113
three years. In comparison, Taiwan’s organization shows an increase in standards
and required school time every two years. Hong Kong, Shanghai and Taiwan each
gradually increase the amount of time per class period throughout a student’s primary and
secondary education, allowing for a slow, but constant progression towards more
intensive academic studies.
The organization of the curricular guidelines, both in mathematics and science
standards listed emphasized a repetition of important ideas: in both Hong Kong and
Taiwan, many terms and concepts that would be classified as high school vocabulary
with U.S. state-by-state standards are introduced and then repeated during a student’s 7
th
-
9
th
grade years, and then gradually deepened. Organizing mathematics courses based on
topic, instead of Algebra I, Geometry, Trigonometry, allowed both Hong Kong and
Taiwan to continually build and advance prior knowledge, emphasizing the connections
between each progressive year.
Further, there are clearly defined expectations that curriculum guides were listing
protected teaching and lecture time: that assemblies, national examinations and other
major events were to be scheduled outside of lesson time (for example, some regions
listed a 34-week teaching period, compared to a 40-week school year). Despite the
differences between these regions, there was a consistent pattern to their education
systems that emphasized the relative and increasing importance of education within a
student’s primary and secondary careers.
114
While middle school exit exams limit the number of students who may
continue in strictly university-bound pathways in mainland China, both Hong Kong and
Taiwan provided multiple options for students wishing to ultimately pursue a bachelor’s
or other advanced degree. Further, students who successfully tested into the senior high
school path were allowed to focus their studies in a way many American students are not.
The ability to concentrate more on specific topics of interest may help explain the
relatively impressive performance of Asian students from China and Taiwan in
international competitions such as the International Science Olympiads.
International Chemistry Olympiad (IChO) Performance 2000-2010
Curricular requirements show that students in Hong Kong, Shanghai and Taiwan
spend more time building foundational mathematics and scientific knowledge in their
first nine years of education, which may help explain their relative strength on
international tests, such as the TIMSS, which focuses on 4
th
- and 8
th
- graders. However,
while the U.S. has lagged behind its Asian peers on both the PISA and the TIMSS, each
of those assessments samples from a variety of schools to produce a better picture of
average student performance in each participating country.
Experts and educational leaders have long since argued that average student
performance of students in the U.S. is an unfair portrayal of its education systems.
Gerald N. Tirozzi, Executive Director of the National Association of Secondary School
Principals (NASSP) argued that if PISA data had been disaggregated by level of poverty,
U.S. students might have ranked as highly as 2
nd
in reading (McCabe, 2010). Others
115
contend that disparities in resource distribution to U.S. schools might account for
greater variability, the argument being that if only our top students were to perform, the
results would be very different. In the 2007 TIMSS, relatively higher performance of
students in Massachusetts might go towards partially substantiating this claim.
All of these arguments center around the idea that while the average U.S. may
rank lower internationally, depending on whether the tests were more curriculum or
application based, our top students, while not outnumbering international competitors,
would be able to hold their own. As the authors of the Gathering Storm report
contended, it is neither possible nor necessary to seek to match nations such as India and
China because, “…the race for quantity has already been rather decisively lost”
(Gathering Storm, Revisited, p. 48). Thus, the race for producing high-quality STEM
students becomes more important.
Although it is a much smaller sample size, competition results from science
Olympiads, such as the International Chemistry Olympiad (IChO), offer a glimpse at how
our top students fare internationally. Unlike the PISA and TIMSS, which both measure
average performance, based on large student samples, the Olympiads selected top-
performers. The IChO in particular, is an annual academic competition, founded in 1968,
in which each participating country, via a series of tests that focus on both theoretical and
analytical aspects of Chemistry, selects their top performers.
Often, there are several rounds of school and regional testing; in the U.S. this
process begins with local competitions where all high school students may sit for a
116
qualifying exam. Approximately 1,000 students are then invited to sit for a three-
part national examination. The top 20 students are eventually selected and invited to
participate in a two-week preparatory camp, from which four U.S. representatives are
selected. The international examination consists of both theoretical and practical
examinations that cover topics ranging from analytical, organic, and inorganic chemistry
to biochemistry. While the competition awards gold, silver and bronze medalists, it also
ranks students individually. To gain better perspective as to how the top U.S. students
fared against the top students from China and Taiwan, the following table was compiled:
Table 5-1. International Chemistry Olympiad Performance of U.S., China and
Taiwan Student Representatives, 2000-2010
Average Rank
Year
U.S. China
Taiwan
(Chinese-
Taipei)
Number of
Participating
Students
Number of
Participating
Countries
2000 39.25 15.25 31.75 208 54
2001 18.5 12.3 38.8 210 53
2002 43 3.5 24.75 225 67
2003 95.5 5.75 59.25 233 59
2004 68.75 8 53.25 234 61
2005 73.5 n/a 37.25 225 59
2006 72 12.5 14.5 254 66
2007 74 4.5 20.75 256 67
2008 107 8 49.25 257 66
2009 38.8 16.3 10.8 250 66
2010 47.25 8 33 267 68
Average Rank
between
2000-2010
61.6 9.4 33.9 238 62.4
Source: IChO host country websites; U.S. National Chemistry Olympiad, American Chemistry Society
While China holds the obvious numbers advantage, having a far broader pool of
potential students to recruit from, it is sobering to note that in the past 11 years, the U.S.
has only outranked representatives from Taiwan once, and on average, top U.S.
representatives rank at least twice as poorly relative to their Asian peers.
117
Though this study only examined IChO performance, other topic-specific
Olympiads are hypothesized to reveal similar trends, Taiwan’s MOE website has a list of
gold, silver and bronze level rankings for all of the science Olympiads, and a cursory
examination showed that IChO performance is representative of at least Taiwan’s
performance across the international mathematics and science competitions. While this is
only one small sample of top-student performance, it does suggest that the U.S. may be
losing in terms of average performance, quantity of top-performers produced, as well as
relative strength of those top-performers.
Innovation and Change within Asian Education Systems
Several changes have either been proposed or are currently in transition in the
regions that were studied, including:
• Hong Kong: is transitioning from a 6-3-(2)-(2) to 6-3-(3) education system, is
piloting a new form of secondary education testing (the HKDSE), is transitioning
the types of teacher and school based assessments that count as part of the final
exit examination scores and also began implementing free education past the
compulsory nine years in 2007
• Mainland China: has greatly expanded their network of 3- and 4- year colleges
and universities, as well as 3- and 4- year adult education/vocational programs,
has also begun experimental primary and early secondary education programs
specific to vocational training programs in various provinces and has incorporated
research and other student-project time into primary education curriculum
• Taiwan: has changed its university application process within the past decade to
allow top senior high school students direct admission into university programs
has gradually expanded its college entrance exam to allow for multiple
118
admissions pathways, and is experimenting with extending the length of
compulsory education beginning in 2014
Some of these changes will no doubt be more successful than others. Often, these
transitions have brought about growing pains for the regions involved: for example Hong
Kong, which has had to drastically change their student allocation spaces to allow for a
double-dose of entering university students as they merge their old and new secondary
education systems. Another possibly troubled attempt at change can be observed in
Taiwan, which has adopted a student allocation system at the university level whereby
they sometimes have more empty spaces than qualified applicants.
Also, some changes may be driven by necessity: for example, China’s rapid
expansion of colleges and universities to better adapt to their changing population.
However, what is most striking is their willingness to adopt and experiment with broad,
sweeping policy changes, and also, their ability to implement change. Hong Kong has
published numerous information pamphlets and brochures trying to educate the
population at large about the curricular and structural changes of their new secondary
structure, yet ultimately, the change is happening within a ten-year period.
In comparison, the U.S., long thought to be an innovation leader, has been
strikingly stagnant in its ability to change or evolve its education system, and many of the
more STEM-oriented policies, such as the America Creating Opportunity to
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act (America
COMPETES Act) need to be reauthorized, and do not necessarily allow for continued,
sustained STEM development and growth.
119
Often, large-scale policy decisions and bills are tough to justify, in that
longitudinal results are hard to trace and quantify. However, a comparison between U.S.
and Taiwan 9
th
graders, in terms of what percentage of students are entering either junior
college (formally termed technical college in Taiwan) or 4-year undergraduate programs
is revealing. Taiwan has focused time and energy on strengthening vocational high
school curriculum, and allowed for multiple university entrance pathways, and has thus
grown its share of 9
th
graders continuing to both 2- and 4-year program over an 11 year
period. Analysis of 9
th
grade longitudinal data within the same time period shows the
relatively static nature of U.S. students pursuing higher education.
For the purposes of this comparison, cohort data assumes that 9
th
grade students
will graduate high school three years after finishing 9
th
grade, and complete associate’s
and bachelor’s degrees two, and then four, years after high school graduation.
120
Figure 5-1: Percentage and Distribution of U.S. 9
th
-Grade Graduates’ Eventual
Level of Tertiary Education, (1992-2003)
S
ources: NCES IPEDS tertiary data via WebCASPAR_, NCES Digest of Education Statistics (2010)
Figure 5-2: Percentage and Distribution of Taiwan 9
th
-Grade Graduates’ Eventual
Level of Tertiary Education (1992-2003)
Source: Taiwan Ministry of Education, Statistics, various years
!"#
$!"#
%!"#
&!"#
'!"#
(!"#
)!"#
*!"#
+!"#
,!"#
$!!"#
$,,%# $,, $,,'# $,,(# $,,)# $,,*# $,,+# $,,,# %!!!# %!!$# %!!%# %!!
!"#$%&'()"*'+%,$#)(#'")%-'.%,$#)"%
"#-./0123456#718411# "#9663/:.;156#718411# "#7:<=5;#>4..;1#@322181#
!"#
$!"#
%!"#
&!"#
'!"#
(!"#
)!"#
*!"#
+!"#
,!"#
$!!"#
$,,%# $,, $,,'# $,,(# $,,)# $,,*# $,,+# $,,,# %!!!# %!!$# %!!%# %!!
!"#$%&'()"*'+%,$#)(#'")%-'.%,$#)"%
"#-./0123456#718411# "#9663/:.;156#718411# "#7:<=5;#>4..;1#@322181#:=#A.:B.=#
121
While Asian Education System Relies on State-Selection, U.S. Transitions Often
Require a Greater Degree of Self-Selection at an Early Age
The three Asian regions compared in this study all have relatively more
regimented school structures, where students are forced to decide both whether to
continue their education at a much earlier age: after their ninth year as opposed to in the
U.S., where the largest separation and decision-making occurs after twelve years of
education. Further, in the U.S., unless students choose to apply to a technical or
specialized college or program, it is often not necessary for a student to declare an
intended academic discipline/ major until their sophomore year in university. In contrast,
all three Asian regions force students to test for, apply towards, and declare an intended
major at a much earlier age. One of the difficulties in correlating data between the three
regions was that much of the data in Hong Kong, China and Taiwan focused on student
majors, often starting in the 10
th
grade, and there is no way to appropriately match that to
the current U.S. education system.
While the Asian school system puts more stress on students at an earlier age to
decide upon their interests, and also tests them, restricting them to either academic or
vocational secondary schools, the structure of these systems makes it comparably much
easier for students to switch between career and education tracks because the options are
so clearly defined. For example, a student in Taiwan who fails to test into a senior high
school, may, after studying for three years, test into an academic track at a university or
college. In fact, in Taiwan, the admissions rate from a senior vocational school into
122
either an academic university of a technical college has rise from 16.22 % (1994) to
76.91% (2009), which has contributed in large part of the increase in the number of
bachelor’s degrees awarded (Figure 5-2). Though the system is more rigidly defined by
nature, the standards for entry and admission are more clearly defined in both Hong Kong
and Taiwan; students are told what scores qualify them for which career tracks and/or
universities. Further, because high school standards in Hong Kong, Shanghai and
Taiwan are so closely related to college entrance exams, a student may use their high
school performance as a reasonable estimate of their chances at college admittance and
success.
In contrast, in the U.S., though there is less emphasis on high stakes testing at the
state and local levels, students competing for the top colleges and universities are
expected to research colleges and universities individually, to see which schools require
which tests (SAT, ACT or neither), as well as investigate the average range of scores for
admitted students. Further, because there is less correlation between minimum high
school graduation standards and university entrance requirements, it is far more possible
for a student in the U.S. to complete all the requirements necessary for a high school
diploma, yet still be underprepared or even under-qualified to apply for the college of
their choice. For example, Table 5-2 shows the recommended high school coursework
for undergraduate admission into some of the top ranked schools in the U.S.:
123
Table 5-2. Recommended High School Coursework from U.S. News and
World Reports Top Ten U.S. Colleges and Universities
Recommended
Years of Math
Recommended
Mathematics
Coursework
Recommended
Years of
Science
Recommended
Science
Coursework
Foreign
Language
Harvard
College
4
Trigonometry/
Pre-calculus
1
4
Biology,
Chemistry,
Physics,
preferably one
advanced level
4
(same foreign
language)
Princeton
University
4
Through
Calculus for
engineering
applicants
2
2 laboratory
science,
Chemistry and
Physics for
engineering
applicants
4
(same foreign
language)
Yale
University
2
4 n/a 4 n/a 4
Columbia
University
3-4
Trigonometry/
Pre-calculus;
Through
calculus for
engineering
3-4
3-4 laboratory
science,
Chemistry and
Physics for
engineering
3-4
(same foreign
language)
Stanford
University
4 Trigonometry
1
3
Biology,
Chemistry,
Physics
3
(same foreign
language)
University of
Pennsylvania
n/a
Wharton and
Engineering
Requires
Calculus
n/a
Engineering
Requires
Physics
n/a
California
Institute of
Technology
4
Through
Calculus
2
Chemistry,
Physics
n/a
Massachusetts
Institute of
Technology
n/a
Through
Calculus
3
Biology,
Chemistry,
Physics
2
Dartmouth
College
4
Through
Calculus if
offered
3
3 laboratory
science
3
Duke
University
3
Calculus
required for
engineering
applicants
3
Physics
strongly
recommended
3
Averaged
State
Requirements
2.39 years
Algebra I or
less
2.23 years
Biology or
Less
0.1 years
3
1
Harvard and Stanford list content/standards covered in Trigonometry/Pre-calculus
2
Yale University recommends students take courses each year in science, math and foreign languages
3
As of 2008 only Washington D.C., Georgia, and Maryland formally require foreign language, however
several states require either foreign language or performing arts of computer sciences as an elective
124
Not every high school student dreams of attending one of these schools, and
admissions to top-ranked universities is, by definition, very competitive. The difference
is that whereas a student in the U.S. must be self-motivated enough to separately research
the recommended (and in some cases required) preparation at each of the colleges and
universities he or she might be interested in, admissions requirements are readily
published and available in Hong Kong, mainland China and Taiwan. Though one might
argue that there is a distinction between the “requirements” listed by Asian universities
compared to the “recommendations” of U.S. universities, the former is, if anything, far
clearer for a prospective applicant.
Further, it should be noted that in order to meet all of the requirements for the
recommended mathematics and science requirements listed for many of the above
schools, students would have had to begin rigorous preparatory work during, or in some
cases, before their ninth grade year, earlier than their Asian counterparts. The 1999
NCES report, “Do Gatekeeper Courses Expand Education Options?”, found that applying
to, and attending, college were highly related with eighth-grade Algebra enrollment
(Atanda, 1999). Such a finding once again highlights the idea that though students are
not formally tracked in the U.S., there is a high degree of self-selection in the American
education system, that depends on bright students, and their parents, being informed,
educated and self-motivated. For students in the U.S., merely abiding by state-by-state
graduation requirements will not allow them to be competitive college applicants.
125
For example, for a student to complete mathematics coursework through
Calculus by their 12
th
grade year, they would have needed to be enrolled in Geometry by
the beginning of their 9
th
grade year. Considering that as of 2008, only 13 states required
Geometry, and of these 13, only two (Oklahoma and Virginia) required a mathematics
course beyond Geometry, by the end high school, the distances between minimum and
competitive requirements seems, if anything, a larger divide within the U.S. education
system than in the more seemingly rigid Asian systems. A student in Hong Kong or
Taiwan would know, because of monthly examinations during which they were ranked
relative to their peers per subject, as well as through well-published and advertised grade-
and college-promotion requirements, whether they were behind or ahead of the curve. In
contrast, a high school student in Nevada may have no idea of their relative rank (as
many high schools do not rank their students), and, depending on their selected course
schedule during their ninth grade year, may not even realize during their 10
th
grade year
that they are already irrevocably behind on their recommended coursework towards some
of the top American universities.
While there are privately funded websites that have compiled parts of this data,
and College Board has specifically tallied the required and recommended years for their
college database, few of these services offer complete requirements such as level of
coursework, an important distinction considering four of the ten top schools list separate
recommendations/ requirements for engineering applicants. While high school
counselors can sometimes fulfill this role, information and education regarding post high-
school options needs to be available pre-high school in order to insure that students are
126
continually aware of their options. To better grow a talented and educated
generation of STEM-capable workers, the U.S. could start by publicizing and better
educating K-12 students regarding the often very competitive college admissions process,
making them more aware of the often large divide between high school diploma
requirements and college admission recommendations.
Asian Education Systems Cultivate STEM Interest in Top Performing Students,
Yielding a Greater Number of Bachelor’s and Advanced STEM Degrees
While the Asian education systems seem to build a strong foundational set of
STEM knowledge and skills in their primary and early secondary education students, it is
important to also follow these students past their 9
th
grade year, to see what percentage
continue past compulsory education requirements, as well as how many remain interested
enough in the STEM fields to pursue advanced coursework and/or obtain STEM degrees
once enrolled in college.
STEM Interest at the High School Level, Comparing Volume and Type of Tests
Students Select in the U.S. and Hong Kong
Assuming that participation in advanced level testing, for example, AP test-taking
patterns in the U.S. versus HKCEE in Hong Kong, can be an indicator of future interest
in a STEM education or career, the following table was compiled:
127
Table 5-3. 2008 Top Ten Most Popular Student-Selected Test Topics in the
U.S. and Hong Kong
U.S. (AP) Hong Kong (HKCEE)
Subject
# of Test
Taken
% Relative to
Total Test
Takers
Subject
# of Test
Taken
% Relative to
Total Test
Takers
U.S. History 346,641 21.9 English 105,499 92.0
English
Literature/
Composition
320,358
20.27
Chinese 95,186 83.0
English
Language/
Composition
306,479
19.39
Mathematics 88,451 77.1
Calculus AB 222,835 14.1 Economics 42,423 36.99
U.S.
Government
and Policy
177,522
11.23
Physics 35,897 31.3
Biology 154,504 9.77 Biology 35,718 31.2
Psychology 132,728
8.40
Chemistry 35,134 30.6
World History 124,638 7.88 Geography 33,357 29.1
Statistics 108,284 6.85
Chinese
History
28,045 24.5
Spanish
Language
101,584
6.43
Principles of
Accounting
23,133 20.2
Source: College Board, AP Summary Reports (2008), Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment
Authority, HKCEE Results Statistics (2008)
At first glance, three of the top ten AP tests chosen by students in the U.S. are
STEM topics, compared to four of the top ten in Hong Kong. However, several troubling
indicators should be pointed out. While Economics, Geography and Accounting at not
technically STEM fields as defined by Hong Kong (or this particular study) each requires
128
a greater amount of mathematics and/or scientific knowledge compared to the more
popular subject choices on the U.S. side. Further, under certain classification systems,
some of those disciplines (including possible Psychology, one of the top ten from the
U.S. side) would be classified as STEM degrees, meaning that seven of the top eight self-
selected test topics in Hong Kong (since languages are required) are STEM-related.
Further, it is worth mentioning that though the data in this table was normalized
against total number of student test takers, it would be a far more skewed comparison if it
had been normalized against total population. Hong Kong, which has a population of
7.00 million people (Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department, 2010), had, Biology,
Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics tests takers well within an order of magnitude when
compared to the U.S., which has a population of 310 million (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).
While there are a certain number of students who are repeat test-takers within the Hong
Kong system, HKCEE test taking data is generally representative of Hong Kong’s S5
(11
th
grade) student population, compared again the U.S. AP population which collects
data on 9
th
-12
th
graders, four years worth of high school students.
Also, Hong Kong students are required to take two language tests – usually
English and Chinese, yet it is telling that almost 80% choose Mathematics as one of their
testing options. As Hong Kong supports two different mathematics tests, it is important
to note that there were also 21,583 Additional Mathematics tests (the advanced level of
HKCEE Mathematics) distributed, accounting for about 18.8% of the testing population
129
that year, compared to 14.1% of U.S. students who self-selected Calculus AB (the
easier of the two AP Calculus exams offered by College Board).
Unfortunately, there is no direct content comparison between AP and HKCEE,
however, depending on the topic, the HKCEE might be easier or harder than the AP
subject it correlates with:
• For many international universities, HKCEE, in conjunction with HKALE scores
are accepted, similar to students who would apply with both SAT and AP
credentials, which might suggest that the HKCEE is could be slightly easier than
many of its AP counterparts
• While the HKCEE guide for Mathematics seems to be centered mostly on pre-
calculus topics, the Additional Mathematics, which can also be taken as a HKCEE
subject, includes many calculus standards
• The HKCEE for Chemistry covers many of the content standards required for AP
Chemistry, and have similar short answer/ long answer questions
• While AP tests can be spread out over the course of a student’s high school
career, HKCEE test results must be within the same sitting/examination period, is
usually spread out within a 6-8 week period.
While this particular table compared 11
th
grade HKCEE students with U.S. AP
students, it is important to note that HKCEE are taken by Hong Kong students after their
11
th
grade year. Analysis of HKALE test taking patterns, which focuses on university
bound students after their 13
th
year of education, showed a similar pattern of STEM-
focused subject selection:
130
• The ten most popular subjects were, in order: Use of English, Chinese,
Chemistry, Physics, Economics, Biology, Pure Mathematics, Geography,
Mathematics and Statistics and Principles of Accounting
• Of the top ten subjects chosen, five were STEM topics, including Biology,
Chemistry, Physics, Pure Mathematics and Mathematics and Statistics.
• Similar to the HKCEE subjects chosen, even the non-STEM topics include a
deeper level of mathematics and/or science content (Economics, Geography,
Principles of Accounting)
Since both English and Chinese are both required, the top five student-selected
topics includes all of the core science courses (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics). This is
especially compelling considering that in the final four (under the old S4-S7 system) and
the final three (under the new S3-S6) years of Hong Kong education system of secondary
school, science courses are considered electives, meaning that there is no minimum
science requirement for graduation. Ultimately, this suggests that students in Hong Kong
remain interested and invested in science courses, despite the lack of compulsory
education requirements, compared to their American peers, who have stricter time and
course requirements, yet remain uninspired to pursue STEM courses.
STEM Interest may be Linked to Both Clear Secondary-Tertiary Transitions, as
well as Well Publicized Rewards and Incentives
The education systems in Hong Kong, mainland China and Taiwan are all much
more assessment driven. Promotion between levels of schooling (for example, from
middle school to high school, and again from high school to university) are commonly
linked to either internal assessments within the secondary school (often where there are
131
class ranks assigned throughout the course of each semester class) and/or
government regulated national examinations.
However, there do seem to be a greater number of rewards attached to these
assessments, which can greatly increase student motivation and drive test-taking patterns
observed previously in Table 5-2. For example:
• In Hong Kong, S6 students could apply via the Early Admissions Scheme to skip
a year of secondary school and enter university early based on their HKCEE
scores.
• In Hong Kong, there are lists of scholarship opportunities based on HKCEE and
HKALE scores.
• In Taiwan, top-performing students within the senior high school system are
allowed two rounds or priority admission to Taiwan colleges and universities.
• In Taiwan, scholarships are granted to International Olympiad (for example
Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics) award winners who study within the subject
they were awarded in (Chung, 2004).
• China offers awards, scholarships and admissions alternatives for students placing
in International Olympiads, students presenting at STEM conferences and fairs,
and further offers specific awards, for example, China’s “Tomorrow’s Little
Scientist” Award which is aimed at top-performing high school students.
Further, it should be noted that while there are high stakes examinations attached
to university entrance in Hong Kong (HKCEE and HKALE, or HKDSE for 2012
students), mainland China and Taiwan, students are arguably more accustomed to testing
pressures, having participated in internal high school assessments and/or post-ninth grade
placement examinations.
132
This is in sharp contrast to the U.S. where students may have participated in
relatively few high stakes assessments before being required by universities to participate
on College Board’s Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) or ACT, Inc.’s ACT as well as SAT
II subject and/or Advanced Placement (AP) tests. While U.S. students may pay to retake
the SAT (administered 7 times/ year) or ACT (administered 6times/ year) within the
same calendar year, and though these are not formally acknowledged as required pre-
university examinations, they have become a common part of a high school student’s
admissions application. What is again troubling is that, unlike Hong Kong or Taiwan
where cut-off scores posted and considered to be common knowledge, motivated students
are again left to individually research which colleges prefer SAT over ACT, which
recommend versus require SAT II subject tests, and since most universities prefer not to
formally post cut-off scores, students are left to research what the mean scores of
accepted applicants are, and then judge individually whether they will be a competitive
applicant.
STEM Interest at the Tertiary Education Level, Comparing STEM Degrees Earned
by 9
th
Grade Graduates in the U.S. and Taiwan
Since the focus of this report is not only education attainment but STEM capacity
and continuing interest in STEM fields, the percentage of students specifically obtaining
bachelor’s degrees in the STEM fields was also analyzed in both the U.S. and Taiwan,
which has shown the greatest growth in educational attainment. Figures 5-3 and 5-4
show 9
th
grade graduates during the 2001-02 school year in terms of ultimate degree of
educational attainment. It assumes that 9
th
grade graduates complete high school, junior
133
college and bachelor’s degree programs at three, five and seven year intervals
respectively, and classifies students as: did not graduate/ continue past 12
th
grade,
obtained an associate’s degree or earned a bachelor’s degree. Since the focus of this
study is not only educational attainment but also STEM capacity and interest, it also
shows the relative distribution of bachelor’s degrees in the three broadly defined
classifications of Social Science, Humanities, and STEM.
Figure 5-3: U.S. 9
th
Grade (2001-02) Cohort Data, Expressed in Terms of
Educational Attainment and Field of Study
Source: NCES IPEDS tertiary education data retrieved from WebCASPAR, NCES Digest of Education
Statistics (2010)
!"#"$
!"#$%&'$()*$
+,-'.-*/0$
1)232./$$
45#$
677)8&-*/97$
:5#$;-8=),97$
$!!#$>)8&-=$>8&/28/$
:4#$?.@-2&3/7$
AB#$>CDE$
134
Figure 5-4: Taiwan 9
th
Grade (2001-02) Cohort Data, Expressed in Terms of
Educational Attainment and Field of Study
Source: Taiwan MOE Statistics, various years
Asian Education Systems have Expanded both Secondary and Tertiary Degree-
Granting Programs and Multiple Entrance Pathways to Heighten Interest in STEM
Careers and Global Awareness
While the previous sections focused on STEM capability and STEM interest from
the perspective of associate’s and bachelor’s degrees, it is important to note that from the
standpoint of growing a STEM-capable workforce, a college education is recommended,
but not always necessary. Nations that successfully survive and compete within the new
global economy must produce human capital that fulfills a spectrum of occupational
niches, while balancing the need to educate their population regarding the globally
competitive nature of the new marketplace.
!"#$"%&
!"#$%&'()*+,-.$
/!#$012$3+4$
5,&26&4)7$
8+9:96)$
!#$;..+'1&4)-.$
/<#$=+'1&*$='1)9')$
>!#$?6@&91:).$
AB#$=CDE$
135
Asian Education System offers Clearly Defined Alternatives for Non-
University Bound Students
Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan all have arguably more complicated
education systems when compared to the U.S.; much of this is due to the number and
type of alternative career pathways offered in those regions.
Figure 5-4 summarizes the types of differentiated education options offered in the
U.S., Hong Kong, mainland China and Taiwan, and visually demonstrates when it is
possible for students to transition between academic and vocational tracks.
136
Figure 5-5: Summary of Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Education
Pathways in the U.S., Hong Kong, Mainland China and Taiwan
In Taiwan, students have multiple options starting in 10
th
grade: they may enter
senior vocational school, after which they can either apply for university or continue on
to 2- or 4- year technical college. Similarly, China offers a secondary vocational school
option, as well as both 3- and 4-year university options, and further differentiates adult
education into a multitude of 3- or 4-year options: ranging from literacy classes to more
skilled vocational training. Hong Kong’s system is perhaps the most complex, but also
the most tied to industry: offering a variety of Certificate and Diploma options depending
137
on which stage of secondary education students leave through. While some of these
programs offer non-STEM related certificates in fields ranging from jewelry design to
culinary arts, several are uniquely geared towards producing technicians, web designers,
and even analytical chemists.
In contrast, the U.S. education system seems to offer far fewer alternative pathways
to careers and/or technical training. Many STEM-careers list bachelor’s degrees as the
minimum requirement, because there is very little alternative training that might provide
students with the same skill sets that are offered in degree and non-degree programs in
Hong Kong, mainland China and Taiwan. If the U.S. wants to expand its STEM-capable
workers, it should first look into expanding the incoming pipeline, not only by interesting
and better educating its most STEM-driven students, but also by recognizing that there
are a variety of STEM-careers that could be trained for via a successful technical or
vocational education program.
Further, as both Hong Kong and Taiwan have shown, choosing vocational education
in 10
th
grade does not necessarily mean that students will be locked out of university.
Hong Kong offers a series of Certificates and Diplomas, and has programs specifically
designed to allow Higher Diploma holders to pursue a bachelor’s degree in specialized
programs, or even to reapply into their university system at a later age while Taiwan
offers vocational students the opportunity to test directly into a 4-year university. More
importantly, the idea of “academic” versus “vocational” tracks made it possible for all of
the regions in this study to have far more centralized, advanced STEM curriculum during
for students in traditional senior high schools. Without necessarily excluding transitions
138
back into a mainstream, university-driven minimum requirements were more
focused, thus better preparing those in the “academic” tracks to be more educated and
globally competitive starting at the pre-baccalaureate level.
Awareness of the Global Marketplace, and Foreign Language Instruction
While the main thrust of this study focused on STEM education and workforce
production within each particular region of interest, an interesting auxiliary question was
examining the degree to which other countries were preparing and educating their
students regarding the nature of the changing global marketplace and economy.
For example, both Hong Kong and mainland China mandate foreign language
instruction beginning in first grade, while students in Taiwan officially begin English
lessons in third grade. While the minimum hours of foreign language, usually English,
varied between the regions studied, what was striking was that Taiwan’s required
between 5-5.4 Carnegie units of English by 9
th
grade, and averaged an addition 1.1
Carnegie units of English in senior high school, suggesting that on average, students in
Taiwan are spending more time per year learning English than their American
counterparts. Further, as Taiwan seeks to transition towards ten or twelve years of
compulsory education, it has begun requiring minimum mathematics, science and foreign
requirements in its vocational high schools as well. Table 5-4 shows the years of foreign
language required, disaggregated by number of states in the U.S., compared to the Asian
regions studied in this report:
139
Table 5-4. Foreign Language Requirements, State-by-State Requirements
Compared to Hong Kong, Mainland China and Taiwan Requirements
Year of Foreign Language
U.S. States Requiring Either
Course or End of Course Exam
by End of 12
th
Grade
Total Number of States compared
to Asian Regions
1 year New York, New Jersey
2 U.S. states, Hong Kong and
mainland China by the end of 1
st
grade, Taiwan by the end of 3
rd
grade
2 years
Alabama, Delaware, District of
Columbia, Michigan, Texas
5 U.S. states, Hong Kong and
mainland China by the end of 2
nd
grade, Taiwan by the end of 4
th
grade
7 years n/a
Taiwan 9
th
grade graduates, as
part of compulsory education
8 years n/a
Taiwan, vocational high school
graduates
9 years n/a
Hong Kong, mainland China, 9
th
grade graduates, as part of
compulsory education
12 years n/a
Hong Kong (both pre- and post-
2012), mainland China, all senior
high graduates
*Many additional states require electives, where foreign language is explicitly listed as one of the options,
but as they are not technically graduation requirements, they have not been included in the above table.
In an effort to raise awareness of the global landscape, Taiwan began a series of
trial programs starting in 1996 to promote the learning of a second foreign language. As
for 2005, roughly one-third of Taiwan’s Senior high schools offered courses for students
interested in pursuing a second foreign language, and in 2006, Taiwan’s MOE established
a plan to subsidize teacher’s pay and teaching software to future encourage interest and
enrollment.
In contrast, a national survey conducted by the Center for Applied Linguistics
found that the amount of foreign language instruction in U.S. elementary and middle
school actually decreased from 1997-2008 (Rhodes et al, 2009):
140
• Elementary schools offering foreign language instruction actually decreased
from 31% to 25%
• Middle schools declined from 75% to 58%
Further, while the percentage of high schools offering foreign languages stayed
relatively consistent (91%), survey results suggested that only a small percent of schools
not offering foreign language instruction (8% of elementary schools and 17% of
secondary schools) were interested in creating a foreign language course within the next
two years (Rhodes et al, 2009).
While many of these programs may be shrinking or disappearing due to budget
constraints, the fact remains that while Hong Kong, mainland China and Taiwan are
growing and expanding their foreign language programs, the U.S. is shrinking theirs.
While the Asian economies focus on creating globally aware students, strengthening not
only their first and second foreign language programs as well as creating research and
project-driven courses to encourage their students towards more creative and innovative
thought, the U.S. is still shrinking its foreign language programs, and ultimately
decreasing the ability of its students to compete within the global marketplace.
STEM-Capable Workforce Production, 2002-2009 Cohort Comparison
Since there are such large differences in population between the regions being
studied, it is important to examine the relative percent of STEM-capable workers that the
U.S., China and Taiwan are each producing from the viewpoint of STEM certificates,
associate’s and bachelor’s degrees awarded. Examining the population of 9
th
grade
141
graduates during the 2001-02 academic school year, the following assumptions
were made:
• That the majority of 2001-02 9
th
grade graduates would graduate 12
th
grade by the
2004-05 school year. Since the U.S. does not formally track 9
th
grade graduates,
and there is attrition in each of the four high school years, the U.S. cohort here is
tracked as students enrolled in 10
th
grade in the fall of 2002.
• For ease of comparison, only 12
th
grade students who had the possibility of
continuing to bachelor’s programs were tabulated. For example, in the U.S. all
12
th
grade graduates may apply to 4-year universities. In China, only senior high
school (as opposed to secondary vocational school) graduates and in Taiwan, only
senior and vocational high school students (as opposed to students enrolled in 5-
year technical programs) may apply to 4-year universities.
• That 2004-05 12
th
grade graduates would finish an associate’s degree by the
2006-07 school year, and finish a 4-year bachelor’s by the 2008-09 school year.
• Lastly, it was assumed that 2004-05 12
th
grade senior and vocational high school
graduates in China, could have completed “short term”, diplomas and certificates
(as opposed to bachelor’s) programs in 3-years, and would have graduated those
programs in 2007-2008 school year.
142
Figure 5-6: STEM-Capable Workforce Production: Tracking 9
th
Grade
Graduates’ Level of STEM Educational Attainment in U.S., Mainland China and
Taiwan
*Since the U.S. does not track 9
th
grade graduates, U.S. 10
th
graders from Fall of 2002 are compared against
9
th
grade graduated from China and Taiwan
Source: U.S. NCES IPEDS tertiary education data retried from WebCASPAR; NES Digest of Education
Statistics (2009); Ministry of Education of the Peoples’ Republic of China, Statistics, various years; Taiwan
Ministry of Education Statistics, various years
America’s “Next Sputnik Moment”
Recently, policy-makers within the U.S. have started calling the current education
situation a crisis, they say that the lack of interest of American students towards STEM
careers, the shortage of qualified, dedicated mathematics and science teachers is
America’s wake-up call, its next “Sputnik Moment.” Yet the ideology behind the
original Sputnik moment worked because it was a focused goal, combined with a specific
target. Then, the message was that the U.S. was no longer first, but rather, second; both
!""#
$%#
!"#
!""#
'
!"# (#
!""#
$)#
$#
'*#
"#
!"#
)"#
'"#
+"#
&"#
*"#
$"#
("#
%"#
!""#
%,-#./012#./0130,245## !),-#./012#./0130,24# 6789#:44;<=0,2>4#0?1#
@2/AB<0,24#
6789#C0<-2D;/>4#
E6# @-=?0# 70=F0?#
143
the competitor and goal were well defined: Russia, manned space exploration. This
goal was achievable, partially because it was so targeted, but also because, even if the
U.S. scientists were truly behind their Russian counterparts at that point, the distance was
marginal; it was an accomplishable goal.
Referring to the current education crisis within the U.S. as the next Sputnik
moment is almost optimistic. It implies that there is only one Russia, one target, one
unified goal to achieve. In reality, the new global, flattened global economy, means that
not only is the U.S. no longer first in economy, in education it is no longer even second,
third or even fourth. It means that there isn’t just one Russia to chase, but ten, fifteen,
possibly twenty. American students are so far behind in most international assessments
that the policymakers in U.S. often focus their energies around alternative ways of
interpreting the results: that the U.S. is too large, too heterogeneous of a population, that
the challenges of poverty are insurmountable or instead, on sidelining the debate, by
protesting that American students perform poorly because the tests are measuring the
wrong things, that American education system focuses more on creativity, ingenuity,
intangibles that cannot be quantified on a single assessments.
Yet these arguments serve only to delay admission of one crucial fact: America’s
next Sputnik moment passed by long ago. The undeniable reality is that the U.S. is far
behind in terms producing a STEM-capable workforce and that all indicators suggest that
its STEM pipeline, rather than offering any future relief, will only further widen this gap:
our students lag behind in not only STEM capability, but also STEM interest and
144
awareness of the global marketplace as a whole. Worst of all, while the U.S.
debates the variety of ways in which to close and address the education problems it
currently faces, other nations are engaged in their own version of Sputnik moments: they
are focused, determined, climbing the ranks, and widening the global gap.
145
Bibliography
Achieve (2011). State College- and Career-Ready High School Graduation Requirements
Comparison Table.
Alaska Department of Education. (2011). High School Graduation Qualifying
Examination. Retrieved from
http://www.eed.state.ak.us/tls/assessment/hsgqe.html.
Arizona Department of Education. (2011). Arizona Administrative Code, Section 7:
Education. Phoenix, AZ: State of Arizona.
Atanda, R. (1999). Do Gatekeeper Courses Expand Education Options? Washington,
D.C.
Future of America’s Workers and Education for the 21st Century, Labor, Health and
Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives (2010).
Benfey, O. T., Ingram, G., & Schmuckler, J. S. (1983). The History of Science in China -
A Field Trip. Journal of Chemical Education, 60(5), 371-375.
Bishop, J. H., & Mane, F. (2001). The impacts of minimum competency exam graduation
requirements on high school graduation, college attendance and early labor
market success. Labour Economics, 8(2), 203-222.
Blinder, A. S. (2005). Fear of Offshoring. Princeton, NJ: Center for Economic Policy
Studies, Princeton University.
Borg, M. O., Plumlee, J. P., & Stranahan, H. A. (2007). Plenty of children left behind -
High-stakes testing and graduation rates in duval county, Florida. Educational
Policy, 21(5), 695-716.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, B. (2010). Fastest growing occupations, 2008-2018.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, B. (2010). Education pays... Education pays in higher
earnings and lower unemployment rates, from
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
California Department of Education. (2011). California Graduation Requirements
Retrieved March 21, 2011, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/gs/hs/hsgrtable.asp
146
California Institute of Technology, C. (2011). Caltech Undergraduate Admissions
Frequently Asked Questions Retrieved February 28, 2011, from
http://www.admissions.caltech.edu/faqs
Campbell, J. R., Hombo, C. M., & Mazzeo, J. (2000). NAEP 1999: Trends in academic
progress: Three decades of student performance, NCES 2000-469. Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Cao, J. (2011, February - March, 2011). [Clarification on STEM Education in China].
Carbonaro, W., & Covay, E. (2010). School Sector and Student Achievement in the Era
of Standards Based Reforms. Sociology of Education, 83(2), 160-182.
Carnegie Foundation. (2011). Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,
from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/faqs
Central Intelligence Agency, C. (2009). The World Factbook. Washington, D.C.:
Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/docs/contributor_copyright.html.
Chaney, B., Burgdorf, K., & Atash, N. (1997). Influencing achievement through high
school graduation requirements. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
19(3), 229-244.
Chang, C. Y., & Lee, G. (2010). A Major E-Learning Project to Renovate Science
Leaning Environment in Taiwan. Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 9(1), 7-12.
Charlton, B. G., & Andras, P. (2006). Globalization in science education: An inevitable
and beneficial trend. Medical Hypotheses, 66(5), 869-873.
Cheng, L. F. (2010). Why aren't women sticking with science in Taiwan? Kaohsiung
Journal of Medical Sciences, 26(6), S28-S33.
Cheung, D. (2009). Students' Attitudes Toward Chemistry Lessons: The Interaction
Effect between Grade Level and Gender. Research in Science Education, 39(1),
75-91.
Chin, C. C. (2005). First-year pre-service teachers in Taiwan - Do they enter the teacher
program with satisfactory scientific literacy and attitudes toward science?
International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1549-1570.
CollegeBoard. (2011). Summary reports: 2008. New York, NY: CollegeBoard
147
CollegeBoard. (2011). College-bound seniors: 2008. New York, NY: CollegeBoard.
Columbia. (2011). Columbia University Office of Undergraduate Admissions: FAQ.
Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy in the 21st Century: An Agenda for
American Science and Technology, National Academy of Sciences, National
Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. (2010). Rising Above the
Gathering Storm, Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5. Washington, D.C.:
The National Academies Press.
Cresswell, J. W. Y. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Dartmouth. (2011). Dartmouth Undergraduate Admissions: Course Selection, from
http://www.dartmouth.edu/admissions/apply/thinking/courses.html
Drucker, P. (1999). Management challenges for the 21st century. New York, NY:
HarperCollins Publisher.
Education Commission of the States, E. (2007). Standard High School Graduation
Requirements (50-state), 2010, from
http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=735
Fang, Y. Z., Xu, B. X., & Singh, S. J. (1986). Evolution of Chemical Education in
Peoples-Republic-Of-China. Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical
Society, 192, 43-CHED.
Federman, M. (2007). State graduation requirements, high school course taking, and
choosing a technical college major. B e Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy,
7(1).
Fiegener, M. (2011, February 24-25, 2011). [Question about NSF Survey of Earned
Doctorates/ Doctorate Recoreds File in Comparison with the NCES Doctorates].
Fogg, N. P., & Harrington, P. E. (2010). Soft Factors Influence College Enrollment. The
New England Journal of Higher Education Retrieved March 10, 2011, 2011,
from http://www.nebhe.org/2010/06/04/college-bound-in-rhode-island-
understanding-differences-in-college-enrollment-outcomes-among-high-schools-
in-rhode-island-2/
Friedman, T. L. (2007) The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New
York, NY: Picador/Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
148
Gardner, M. (1979). China impressions. Journal of Chemical Education, 56(1), 27-
27.
Gaskell, J. (2003). Engaging science education within diverse cultures. Curriculum
Inquiry, 33(3), 235-249.
Georgia Department of Education. (2011). Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment.
Atlanta, GA: State of Georgia.
Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, C. a. S. D. (1995-2010).
Education Statistics at Primary and Secondary School Levels, from
http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/
Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, U. G. C. (1995-2010). Higher
Education Graduates by Institution, Level of Study, Mode of Study & Academic
Programme Category, from http://cdcf.ugc.edu.hk/cdcf/searchStatisticReport.do
Grimm, D. (2004). Math and science education - Hong Kong, Finland students top high
school test of applied skills. Science, 306(5703), 1877-1877.
Groen, J. A., & Rizzo, M. J. (2004). The changing composition of American-citizen
PhDs, CHERI Working Paper #48. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Hanushek, E. A., Peterson, P. E., & Woessmann, L. (2010). U.S. Performance in Global
Perspective: How Well Does Each State Do at Producing High-Achieving
Students. Education Next, 11(1).
Harvard. (2011). Harvard College, Office of Admissions: Preparing for College, from
http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/preparing/index.html
Hoffer, T. B. (1997). High school graduation requirements: Effects on dropping out and
student achievement. Teachers College Record, 98(4), 584-607.
Hong Kong, E., & Assessment, A. (2011). Facts and figures. Hong Kong, SAR China:
Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority.
Hong Kong Education Bureau (2009). Multiple Pathways for S5. In H. K. E. Bureau
(Ed.).
Hong Kong Education Bureau (2009). Report on the 2009 Secondary Four Placement.
Retrieved from
www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/.../2009%20sfp%20report%20eng.pdf.
149
Hong Kong Education Bureau (2010). Secondary six admission procedure 2010:
Summary table. Hong Kong, SAR China: Hong Kong Education Bureau.
Hong Kong Education Bureau (2010). Education reform highlights. Hong Kong, SAR,
China: The Government of Hong Kong.
Hong Kong Education Bureau (2011). Building on Strengths. Hong Kong: Retrieved
from http://cd1.edb.hkedcity.net/cd/EN/Content_2909/html/index.html.
Hong Kong Education Bureau (2011). Senior Secondary Curriculum Guide. Hong Kong:
Retrieved from http://cd1.edb.hkedcity.net/cd/EN/Content_2909/html/index.html.
Hong Kong Education Bureau. (2008). HKCEE Totals and Performance Totals 2008.
Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region
Huang, X.-x. (2011). [Clarification Regarding Kaohsiung Municipal Senior High School
Requirements].
Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534.
International Chemistry Olympiad (2000). Final Results, 32nd International Chemistry
Olympiad, from
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/200012050550/http://www.icho2000.gymfag.d
k/problems/Score.htm
International Chemistry Olympiad (2001). Final Results, 33rd International Chemistry
Olympiad Retrieved March 11, 2011, 2011, from
http://olympiads.ijs.si/icho/database/olimpiads/Icho/icho33/result.html
International Chemistry Olympiad (2002). Final Results, 34th International Chemistry
Olympiad, 2011, from
http://olympiads.ijs.si/icho/database/olimpiads/Icho/icho34/result.html
International Chemistry Olympiad (2003). Final Results, 35th International Chemistry
Olympiad Retrieved March 10, 2011, 2011, from
http://www.35icho.uoa.gr/ichol_eng/index_eng.htm
International Chemistry Olympiad (2004). Final Results, 36th International Chemistry
Olympiad Retrieved January, 2011, 2011, from http://www.icho.de/
International Chemistry Olympiad (2005). Final Results, 37th International Chemistry
Olympiad. Taipei, Taiwan: International Chemistry Olympiad (IChO).
150
International Chemistry Olympiad (2006). Final Results, 38th International Chemistry
Olympiad. Gyeongsan, Republic of Korea: International Chemistry Olympiad
(IChO).
International Chemistry Olympiad (2007). Final Results, 39th Chemistry Olympiad.
Moscow, Russia: International Chemistry Olympiad (IChO).
International Chemistry Olympiad (2008). Final Results, 40th International Chemistry
Olympiad. Budapest, Hungary: International Chemistry Olympiad (IChO).
International Chemistry Olympiad (2009). Final Results, 41st International Chemistry
Olympiad. Cambridge, England: International Chemistry Olympiad (IChO).
International Chemistry Olympiad (2010). Final Results, 42nd International Chemistry
Olympiad Retrieved March 10, 2011, 2011, from
http://www.icho2010.org/en/results.html
Kruglysmolska, E. (1994). An Examination of Some Difficulties in Integrating Western
Science Into Societies with An Indigenous Scientific Tradition. Interchange,
25(4), 325-334.
Lanford, A. D., & Cary, L. G. (2000). Graduation requirements for students with
disabilities - Legal and practice considerations. Remedial and Special Education,
21(3), 152-160.
Lee, F. S. C. (2011, February - March, 2011). [Clarification on STEM Higher Education
in China].
Lee, V. E., & Ready, D. D. (2009). US High School Curriculum: Three Phases of
Contemporary Research and Reform. Future of Children, 18(3), 135-156.
Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2004). The new division of labor: How computers are
creating the next job market. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lewin, K. M. (1987). Science-Education in China - Transformation and Change in the
1980S. Comparative Education Review, 31(3), 419-441.
Li, Z. (2002). The institutionalization of higher science education in China: A case study
of higher chemistry training before 1937. Historical Perspectives on East Asian
Science, Technology and Medicine, 87-98.
151
Lian, M. (2005). Chemistry education in china. Nachrichten aus der Chemie, 53(6),
622-627.
Lillard, D. R., & DeCicca, P. P. (2001). Higher standards, more dropouts? Evidence
within and across time. Economics of Education Review, 20(5), 459-473.
Linder-Scholer, B. (1994). Beauty and the beast: Aligning national curriculum standards
with state (high school) graduation requirements. Scientists, Educators, and
National Standards - Action at the Local Level, 185-187.
Ma, X. (2000). A longitudinal assessment of antecedent course work in mathematics and
subsequent mathematical attainment. Journal of Educational Research, 94(1), 16-
28.
Maine Department of Education. (2008). Main High School Diploma Requirements
Retrieved March, 2011, from
http://www.maine.gov/education/diploma/index.html
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2008). TIMSS
Results Place Massachusetts Among World Leaders in Math and Science.
Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/news/news.aspx?id=4457.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2011). MassCore
Retrieved March 21, 2011, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/hsreform/masscore/
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, M. (2011). MIT Admissions: Recommended
High School Preparation, from
http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/before/recommended_high_school_preparat
ion/index.shtml
McCabe, C. (2010). The Economics Behind International Education Rankings. NEA
Today Retrieved March 15, 2011, from http://neatoday.org/2010/12/09/a-look-at-
the-economic-numbers-on-international-education-rankings/
152
Ministry of Education of the Peoples' Republic of China. (1997-2009). Number of
Students by Field of Study in Regular Higher Educational Institutions Retrieved
February, 2011, from
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s4960/201012/113569.html
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s4633/201010/109904.html
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_2904/200908/50565.html
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_1661/200710/27278.html
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_1653/200710/27154.html
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_1394/200703/20441.html
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_593/200507/10487.html
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_581/200506/9354.html
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_585/200506/7959.html
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_589/200506/7886.html
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_563/200505/7790.html
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_573/200505/7676.html
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_577/200505/3117.html
Ministry of Education of the Peoples' Republic of China. (2001). Peoples' Republic of
China "gaokao 3+x" Explanation.
Ministry of Education of the Peoples' Republic of China. (2004). Beijing Adult Education
Entrance Exam Explanation. Retrieved from
http://www.moe.edu.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_284/200408/2787
.html.
Ministry of Education of the Peoples' Republic of China. (2009). Normal University
Graduation Statistics. Beijing, China: People's Republic of China.
Ministry of Education of the Peoples' Republic of China. (2011). China: Tomorrow's
Little Scientist Award, March 6, 2011, from
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_1492/201102/11
5286.html
Ministry of Education of the Peoples' Republic of China. (2011). Chinese Degree
Granting Conditions. Beijing, China: Peoples' Republic of China Retrieved from
http://www.edu.cn/20010906/3000497.shtml.
Ministry of Education of the Peoples' Republic of China. (2011). Adult Education
Entrance Exam.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2010). Questions and
Answers about Missouri's High School Graduation Requirements. Jefferson City,
MO: Retrieved from http://www.dese.mo.gov/divimprove/sia/GradQA.pdf.
153
Monk, D. H., Hussain, S., & Miles, W. (2000). Accounting for the effects of
increased high school graduation expectations on pupil performance and resource
allocation: results from New York State. Economics of Education Review, 19(4),
319-331.
National Academy of Engineering, C. o. t. O. o. E. (2008). The offshoring of engineering:
facts, unknowns and potential implications. Washington, D.C.: National
Academies.
Averting the storm: How Investments in Science Will Secure the Competitiveness and
Economic Future of the U.S., Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives, 111th Congress, Second Session Sess. (2010).
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, (1983). A Nation at
Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, DC: National
Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE).
National Center for Education Statistics (2007). America's High School Graduates:
Results from the 2005 NAEP High School Transcript Study.
National Center for Education Statistics (2008). Historical summary of public elementary
and secondary school statistics: Selected years, 1869–70 through 2005–06.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_032.asp.
National Center for Education Statistics (2009). Table 167 Minimum amount of
instructional time per year and policy on textbook selection, by state: 2000, 2006,
and 2008. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_167.asp.
National Center for Education Statistics, (2010). Digest of Education Statistics.
Alexandria, VA: Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_110.asp.
National Center on Education and the Economy (2006). Tough choices or tough times:
The report of the new commission on the skills of the American workforce. New
York, NY: Jossey-Bass.
National Science Foundation (2010). S&E first university degrees, by selected Western
or Asian country/economy and field: 1998–2006, Table 2-36 retrieved from
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c2/c2s5.htm
National Science Foundation (2010). Two States' Performance on TIMSS: 2007.
Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c1/c1s.htm#sb7.
154
Nevada Department of Education. (2011). Nevada Graduation Requirements. Retrieved
from http://www.doe.nv.gov/Resources_GradRequirements.htm.
New York City, D. o. E. (2011). Mathematics, Standards/ Curriculum. New York City,
New York: Retrieved from
http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/Mathematics/StandardsCurriculum/default.htm.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Pew Research. (2009). Public praises science: Scientists fault public media, scientific
achievements less prominent than a decade ago survey: Pew Research Center for
the People and the Press.
Pierce, F. E. (1929). The Necessity for Certain Continuous Instruction in Core Subjects.
Junior-Senior High School Clearing House, 4(4), 242-245.
Princeton. (2011). Princeton University Undergraduate Admissions: Academic
Preparation.
Ramsay, B. (2004). Early chemical education in China: The University of Pennsylvania
connection. Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society, 228, 038-
HIST.
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing
and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Rhodes, N., & Pufahl, I. (2009). Foreign Language Teaching in U.S. Schools: Results of
a National Survey: Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL).
Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1996). Context, courses, and the curriculum: Local
responses to state policy reform. Educational Policy, 10(3), 399-421.
Sanderson, D. (2011, March 23, 2011). [Connecticut High School Graduation
Requirements].
Schiller, K. S., & Muller, C. (2003). Raising the bar and equity? Effects of state high
school graduation requirements and accountability policies on students'
mathematics course taking. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(3),
299-318.
155
Schimmel, J., & Langer, P. (2001). Raising the graduation bar for the schools:
Expectations vs. outcomes. Psychological Reports, 89(2), 317-325.
Shanghai Municipal Education Commission. (2010). Shanghai Municipal Education
Commission on the Issuance of Primary and Secondary Schools, 2010 School
Year, Notice of Lesson Plans and Instructions. Shanghai, China.
Shi, Q. H., & Basolo, F. (1986). Chemical education in China - Lanzhou university.
Journal of Chemical Education, 63(9), 794-796.
Stanford. (2011). Stanford University Undergraduate Admission: Our Selection Process,
Academic Preparation, from
http://admission.stanford.edu/basics/selection/prepare.html
Stevenson, D. L., & Schiller, K. S. (1999). State education policies and changing school
practices: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Schools, 1980-1993.
American Journal of Education, 107(4), 261-288.
Stillwell, R. (2010). Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the Common Core
Data: School Year 2007-08 Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2010341.
Su, Z. X., Goldstein, S., & Su, J. L. (1995). Science-Education Goals and Curriculum
Designs in American and Chinese High-Schools. International Review of
Education, 41(5), 371-388.
Taiwan Ministry of Education (2011). 2010 educational statistical indicators. Taipei,
Taiwan: Ministry of Education.
Taiwan Ministry of Education (2011). Statistical analysis of educational development
1994-2009 (in Chinese). Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of Education, Statistics
Department. Retrieved from www.edu.tw/files/site_content/B0013/T206.xls
Taiwan Ministry of Education (2011). Technological and Vocational Education, from
http://www.tve.edu.tw/EngWeb/EngTveMenu.asp?catid=40&item=1
Teitelbaum, P. (2003). The influence of high school graduation requirement policies in
mathematics and science on student course-taking patterns and achievement.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(1), 31-57.
Thatcher, M. (2010). Personal Communication. [Results from Previous IChO
Competitions].
156
Thomas, R. M. (2003). Blending qualitative and quantitative research methods in
theses and dissertations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Ting, S. F. (1983). A Chemistry Teaching Experience in the Peoples-Republic-Of-China.
Journal of Chemical Education, 60(5), 375-376.
Tong, J. Y. (1984). Science-Education in the Peoples-Republic-Of-China Today. Ohio
Journal of Science, 84(2), 40-40.
Tsai, C. C. (2006). Reinterpreting and reconstructing science: Teachers' view changes
toward the nature of science by courses of science education. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 22(3), 363-375.
United States Department of Labor. (2007). The STEM workforce challenge: The role of
the public workforce system in a national solution for a competitive Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) workforce. Washington, DC:
United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement.
University Grants Committee (2011). First-year-first-degree Students (from 1965/66),
from http://cdcf.ugc.edu.hk/cdcf/statIndex.do
University of Pennsylvania. UPenn Admissions, High School Preparation, from
http://www.admissions.upenn.edu/applying/hsprep.php
Virginia Department of Education. (2011). Virginia Graduation Requirements Retrieved
March 20, 2011, from
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/graduation/standard.shtml#note1
Vocational Training Council, H. K. V. (2011). Prospectus and Admissions 2011 for
Vocational Training Council, from
http://www.vtc.edu.hk/admission/eng/index.html
Wang, J. J. (1998). Comparative study of student science achievement between United
States and China. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(3), 329-336.
Wang, W. J., Wang, J. Y., Zhang, G. Z., Lang, Y., & Mayer, V. J. (1996). Science
education in the People's Republic of China. Science Education, 80(2), 203-222.
Weersing, F. J. (1931). Requirements for Graduation from Senior High School. Junior-
Senior High School Clearing House, 5(9), 539-544.
157
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2009). Wisconsin High School
Graduation Standards. Retrieved from http://dpi.state.wi.us/cal/grad1803.html.
Xie, Y. C., & Dutt, A. K. (1991). Spatial Disparities of Urban Socioeconomic-
Development in the Peoples-Republic-Of-China. Geoforum, 22(1), 55-67.
Yale University. (2011). Yale College Undergraduate Admissions Advice on Selecting
High School Courses Retrieved February 28, 2011, from
http://admissions.yale.edu/advice-selecting-high-school-courses
Yang, X. C., & Yan, X. (1994). Reform of Instruction in Chemical Experiments in China
Middle Schools. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(6), 510-511.
Zoninsein, M. (2008). China's SAT: If the SAT lasted two days, covered everything you'd
ever studied, and decided your future. Slate.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Maintaining a competitive edge within the 21st century is dependent on the cultivation of human capital, producing qualified and innovative employees capable of competing within the new global marketplace. Technological advancements in communications technology as well as large scale, infrastructure development has led to a leveled playing field where students in the U.S. will ultimately be competing for jobs with not only local, but also international, peers. Thus, the ability to understand and learn from our global competitors, starting with the examination of innovative education systems and best practice strategies, is tantamount to the economic development, and ultimate survival, of the U.S. as a whole. ❧ The purpose of this study was to investigate the current state of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education and workforce pipelines in the U.S., China, and Taiwan. Two broad research questions examined STEM workforce production in terms of a) structural differences in primary and secondary school systems, including analysis of minimum high school graduation requirements and assessments as well as b) organizational differences in tertiary education and trends in STEM undergraduate and graduate degrees awarded in each region of interest. ❧ While each of the systems studied had their relative strengths and weaknesses, each of the Asian economies studied had valuable insights that can be categorized broadly in terms of STEM capacity, STEM interest and a greater understanding of global prospects that led to heightened STEM awareness. ❧ In China and Taiwan, STEM capacity was built via both traditional and vocational school systems. Focused and structured curriculum during the primary and early secondary school years built solid mathematics and science skills that translated into higher performance on international assessments and competitions. Differentiated secondary school options, including vocational high school and technical colleges and programs beginning shortly after junior high produced a greater number of alternatives for producing STEM capable students. ❧ A heightened interest in the STEM fields was built upon standardized academic core curriculum that ultimately yielded a greater percentage of qualified and interested Asian students pursuing bachelor’s and advanced STEM degrees both in their native country and abroad. Rewards and incentives built into school systems, expansion of tertiary degree-granting programs, as well as the development of multiple university entrance pathways has served to heighten interest and perception of STEM careers as well as recruit top students into STEM fields. Further, foreign language classes, starting from either the first or third year of primary school, coupled with information technology and other experimental science and research themed classes, resulted in students who were more aware of global market demands. ❧ Analysis of longitudinal data shows that over a nine-year period, this combination of increased STEM capacity, interest and awareness resulted in a far greater percentage of 9th graders who eventually became STEM certificate, bachelor’s, and advanced degree holders capable of competing in the global marketplace.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Influence of globalization and educational policy on development of 21st-century skills and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and the science and technology fairs in ...
PDF
Globalization and the need for 21st-century skills: implications for policy education in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and project-based learning in schools in Ireland
PDF
Globalization, student participation in SciFest, 21st-century skill development, and female student interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses in secondary schools in I...
PDF
Influence of SciFest on Irish students in developing interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and 21st-century skills in preparation for competing in a global economy
PDF
Role and influence of globalization, multinational corporations, and foreign direct investment on educational policy and science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and inquiry-based instructi...
PDF
The influence of globalization and educational policy on the development of 21st-century skills through implementation of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and in...
PDF
Influence of globalization and educational policy on development of 21st-century skills and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and the science and technology fairs in ...
PDF
The influence of globalization, economics, and educational policy on the development of 21st century learning and education in the sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics in schools of...
PDF
The impact of globalization, economics, and educational policy on the development of 21st-century skills and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in Costa Rican schools
PDF
Examination of the influence of globalization, leadership, and science fairs on the female acquisition of 21st-century skills and their college-career pursuit of science, technology, engineering,...
PDF
The impact of globalization, economics, and educational policy on the development of 21st-century skills and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in Costa Rican schools
PDF
SciFest and the development of 21st-century skills, interest in coursework in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and preparation of Irish students for a globalized Ireland
PDF
The role of globalization, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics project‐based learning, and the national science and technology fair mandate in creating 21st‐century-ready students i...
PDF
The impact of globalization on the development of educational policy, 21st century learning, and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in Costa Rican schools
PDF
Impact of globalization and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics on postsecondary education in Costa Rica: a case study of project-based learning and national science and engineering...
PDF
The impact of globalization, economics, and educational policy on the development of 21st century skills and STEM education in Costa Rica
PDF
Expanding educational access and opportunities: the globalization and foreign direct investment of multinational corporations and their influence on STEM, project-based learning and the national ...
PDF
Establishing domestic science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs in the global market: an innovation study
PDF
The impact of globalization, economics and educational policy on the development of 21st century skills and STEM education in Costa Rica
PDF
The influence of globalization on the Irish educational system in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and development of 21st-century skills in secondary schools
Asset Metadata
Creator
Chow, Christina M.
(author)
Core Title
Learning from our global competitors: a comparative analysis of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education pipelines in the United States, Mainland China and Taiwan
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
06/02/2011
Defense Date
06/02/2011
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
21st century skills,advanced placement,career,China,college,comparative,curriculum,diploma,Economics,education,Engineering,global marketplace,human capital,longitudinal,mathematics,minimum graduation requirement,OAI-PMH Harvest,Primary,Science,Secondary,STEM,Taiwan,Technology,tertiary,University,Vocational Education,workforce
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Crew, Rudolph F. (
committee chair
), Castruita, Rudy M. (
committee member
), Garcia, Pedro E. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
aeoluscmc@gmail.com,christina.m.chow@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c127-616084
Unique identifier
UC1387762
Identifier
usctheses-c127-616084 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-ChowChrist-16.pdf
Dmrecord
616084
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Chow, Christina M.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
21st century skills
advanced placement
comparative
diploma
education
global marketplace
human capital
longitudinal
minimum graduation requirement
STEM
tertiary
workforce