Renewing U S Mathematics

As requested by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Interagency Committee for Extramural Mathematics Programs (ICEMAP), this report updates the 1984 Report known as the "David Report." Specifically, the charge directed the committee to (1) update that report, describing the infrastructure and support for U.S. mathematical sciences research; (2) assess trends and progress over the intervening five years against the recommendations of the 1984 Report; (3) briefly assess the field scientifically and identify significant opportunities for research, including cross-disciplinary collaboration; and (4) make appropriate recommendations designed to ensure that U.S. mathematical sciences research will meet national needs in coming years. Of the several components of the mathematical sciences community requiring action, its wellspring--university research departments--is the primary focus of this report. The progress and promise of research--described in the 1984 Report relative to theoretical development, new applications, and the refining and deepening of old applications--have if anything increased since 1984, making mathematics research ever more valuable to other sciences and technology. Although some progress has been made since 1984 in the support for mathematical sciences research, the goals set in the 1984 Report have not been achieved. Practically all of the increase in funding has gone into building the infractructure, which had deteriorated badly by 1984. While graduate and postdoctoral research, computer facilities, and new institutes have benefited from increased resources, some of these areas are still undersupported by the standards of other sciences. And in the area of research support for individual investigators, almost no progress has been made. A critical storage of qualified mathematical sciences researchers still looms, held at bay for the moment by a large influx of foreign researchers, an uncertain solution in the longer term. While government has responded substantially to the 1984 Report's recommendations, particularly in the support of infrastructure, the universities generally have not, so that the academic foundations of the mathematical sciences research enterprise are as shaky now as in 1984. The greatet progress has been made in the mathematics sciences community, whose members have shown a growing awareness of the problems confronting their discipline and increased interest in dealing with the problems, particularly in regard to communication with the public and government agencies and involvement in education. (AA)

As requested by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Interagency Committee for Extramural Mathematics Programs (ICEMAP), this report updates the 1984 Report known as the "David Report." Specifically, the charge directed the committee to (1) update that report, describing the infrastructure and support for U.S. mathematical sciences research; (2) assess trends and progress over the intervening five years against the recommendations of the 1984 Report; (3) briefly assess the field scientifically and identify significant opportunities for research, including cross-disciplinary collaboration; and (4) make appropriate recommendations designed to ensure that U.S. mathematical sciences research will meet national needs in coming years. Of the several components of the mathematical sciences community requiring action, its wellspring--university research departments--is the primary focus of this report. The progress and promise of research--described in the 1984 Report relative to theoretical development, new applications, and the refining and deepening of old applications--have if anything increased since 1984, making mathematics research ever more valuable to other sciences and technology. Although some progress has been made since 1984 in the support for mathematical sciences research, the goals set in the 1984 Report have not been achieved. Practically all of the increase in funding has gone into building the infractructure, which had deteriorated badly by 1984. While graduate and postdoctoral research, computer facilities, and new institutes have benefited from increased resources, some of these areas are still undersupported by the standards of other sciences. And in the area of research support for individual investigators, almost no progress has been made. A critical storage of qualified mathematical sciences researchers still looms, held at bay for the moment by a large influx of foreign researchers, an uncertain solution in the longer term. While government has responded substantially to the 1984 Report's recommendations, particularly in the support of infrastructure, the universities generally have not, so that the academic foundations of the mathematical sciences research enterprise are as shaky now as in 1984. The greatet progress has been made in the mathematics sciences community, whose members have shown a growing awareness of the problems confronting their discipline and increased interest in dealing with the problems, particularly in regard to communication with the public and government agencies and involvement in education. (AA)

Over the next decade, the mathematical community and the nation's colleges and unversities must restructure fundamentally the culture, content, and context of undergraduate mathematics. Acknowledging the weaknesses in the present college mathematics curriculum and the ways in which it is taught, this book cites exemplary programs that point the way toward achieving the same world-wide preeminence for mathematics education that the United States enjoys in mathematical research. Moving Beyond Myths sets forth ambitious goals for collegiate mathematics by the year 2000 and provides a sweeping plan of action to accomplish them. It calls on mathematics faculty, their departments, their professional societies, colleges and universities, and government agencies to do their parts to implement the plan, help the public move beyond commonly held myths about mathematics, and bring about a revitalization of undergraduate mathematics.

Calculus Reform. Or, as many would prefer, calculus renewal. These are terms that, for better or worse, have become a part of the vocabulary in mathematics departments across the country. The movement to change the nature of the calculus course at the undergraduate and secondary levels has sparked discussion and controversy in ways as diverse as the actual changes. Such interactions range from "coffee pot conversations" to university curriculum committee agendas to special sessions on calculus renewal at regional and national conferences. But what is the significance of these activities? Where have we been and where are we going with calculus and, more importantly, the entire scope of undergraduate mathematics education? In April 1996, I received a fellowship from the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). This fellowship afforded me the opportunity to work in residence at NSF on a number of evaluation projects, including the national impact of the calculus reform movement since 1988. That project resulted in countless communications with the mathematics community and others about the status of calculus as a course in isolation and as a significant player in the overall undergraduate mathematics and science experience for students (and faculty). While at NSF (and through a second NSF grant received while at the American Association for Higher Education), I also was part of an evaluation project for the Institution-wide Reform (IR) program.

This report is the result of a fast-track study of U.S. mathematical sciences research institutes done in response to a request from the National Science Foundation (NSF). The task of the Committee on U.S. Mathematical Sciences Research Institutes was to address the following three questions: What are the characteristic features of effective mathematical sciences research institutes in the ways that they further mathematical research in the United States, and are there ways that the current configuration can be improved? What kinds of institutes should there be in the United States, and how many does the nation need? How should U.S. mathematical sciences research institutes be configured (with regard to, for example, diversity of operating formats, distribution of mathematical fields, and interinstitute cooperation or coordination) in order to have the nation's mathematical research enterprise continue to be most productive and successful?

This book describes the contributions of mathematics to the nation's advanced technology and to economic competitiveness. Examples from five industriesâ€"aircraft, petroleum, automotive, semiconductor, and telecommunicationsâ€"illustrate how mathematics enters into and improves industry. Mathematical Sciences, Technology, and Economic Competitiveness addresses these high-technology industries and breadth of mathematical endeavors in the United States as they materially contribute to the technology base from which innovation in these industries flows. The book represents a serious attempt by the mathematics community to bring about an awareness by policymakers of the pervasive influence of mathematics in everyday life.