STEM education in the EU explained

In this opinion piece, Prof Dr Maurits Van Rooijen, the Chief Academic Officer at Global University Systems, discusses STEM education in the European Union

Some thirty years ago, when still working in central London, I received one of those invitations for ‘breakfast with the Education Minister’ – what today might be called a focus group. Since it was within walking distance of my office and included a free breakfast, why not attend?

The Minister had only one question: due to the advancing IT revolution – later known as the dot-com bubble – employers had complained to him that there were neither enough IT graduates nor the right type of IT graduates to meet their needs. Everyone present promised the Minister that this would be addressed immediately. In practice, this meant designing and accrediting new programmes (18 months), recruiting additional students (12-24 months), and ensuring they graduate without delay (three years). ‘Immediate’ is, of course, a relative term in the world of tertiary education.

Opinion on STEM education in the EU

The European Union (EU) has once again stressed the importance of STEM for economic and social prosperity. Fortunately, it seems to have a more realistic understanding of what ‘immediate’ means in education policy. But I do understand their sense of urgency and, moreover, I think the objective is entirely correct. In my view, three themes are particularly relevant:

1. How to find the extra talent as quickly as possible.
2. How to deal with the time pressure.
3. How to tackle the root issue more fundamentally: rethinking how and when we teach, especially STEM subjects.

To start with, the first point, convincing more young people to study STEM subjects at the expense of other disciplines will not deliver big results fast. Nevertheless, raising awareness of STEM among underrepresented groups – particularly women – makes clear sense. Female talent remains significantly underrepresented in these fields.

This is not just a quantitative issue (more talent), but also a qualitative one: creating greater diversity will undoubtedly enhance the quality of work in STEM fields, which at the moment tend to be biased towards male perspectives. My own institutions actively promote Women in Science scholarships, and I hope such incentive schemes will be widely adopted as a tangible contribution to addressing this gender gap.

A similar argument applies to foreign talent. Fortunately, we see strong interest among gifted international students keen to come to Europe to study STEM subjects at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Of course, we need to make sure national policies, especially study visas and post-study work visas, reflect this reality.

To be a magnet for foreign talent, as the U.S. has been in the past and on which it built much of its prosperity, requires lateral thinking and coordinated action at all levels. And let’s be honest, whether due to political point-scoring or bureaucratic disconnect, many EU countries could do better at aligning and being consistent in welcoming foreign STEM talent.

The German example of Duale Studien

But neither action resolves the point made decades ago in London: that it takes a long time to have an impact. Education behaves like an oil tanker rather than a speedboat. It is worth flagging up the value of the German example of Duale Studien, which brings employers and universities together. It is the envy of the world and absolutely perfect for degrees within STEM subjects. In the Duale Studien set-up, both companies and universities/government put their money where their mouth is and bring talent into companies much faster than through the conventional study route.

But Duale Studien alone will not be able to address the ‘urgency’ issue. For that, we need to think beyond full degree programmes. There is a need for shorter STEM programmes rather than focusing entirely on degree programmes as the gold standard of higher education. Offering shorter programmes would require a significant shift in policy for higher education providers and their funders. But if we want to ensure that STEM-related studies drive Europe’s economic and social prosperity, this is the way to accelerate progress. The real priority is to produce an extensive range of ‘courses’ in the form of micro-credentials, negotiated or stackable degrees, bespoke CPD and so on. This is the real key to creating a dynamic knowledge economy.

Closing opinions on STEM, including AI

And this leads to a final comment on how and when we should teach these subjects. In previous centuries, we would teach the basic knowledge and ‘how to use the tools’. That approach is clearly outdated, as technology changes too quickly for it. Gradually, we have shifted towards ‘learning how to learn’ to support our graduates with what is really important: that learning in modern society cannot stop upon graduation. The idea that a student would know everything they need to pass university exams was fine in medieval times, but it is definitely not suited to the 21st century.

The emergence of artificial Intelligence (AI), for instance, has brought that message home loud and clear, in case it was not yet understood. The ‘tool’ AI develops so fast that it cannot simply be taught; it needs to be understood, mastered, and continuously engaged with. A professor, to deal with something like AI properly, must be comfortable being a student too – a primus and a coach rather than the sole source of knowledge. Exams need to accommodate that as well. This modern way of teaching implies that graduates must remain students. By retaining a link with the university, they can continue to contribute to society’s and companies’ prosperity while ensuring their own professional success in the rapidly changing world of work. There is no area in academe where this observation is more relevant than in STEM.

So, as the British Minister realised over breakfast, there are no quick fixes – but there are profound solutions. I fully agree that there should be a real sense of urgency regarding STEM teaching, and this requires some fundamental changes in how we teach it. The EU is right to flag this up – not by raising just a little flag in the breeze, but by raising, at the top of the highest tower, a very big, brightly coloured flag. Our prosperity depends on the radical action that should now follow.