Slashdot Mirror
No Future in American Science
An anonymous reader writes "Science Blog reports America is facing a dangerous shortage of eggheads: "America's top college graduates increasingly reject careers in science and engineering, researchers have found, raising concerns about America's technological future. Faced with the prospect of low-paid apprenticeships and training lasting a decade or more - and constricted job opportunities even after that - more of the brightest young Americans are instead pursuing the quicker and surer payoffs offered by business and certain professions.... 'With the notable exception of biological sciences, many of the top U.S. students with potential to become scientists are turning toward other career paths,' said one of the study's co-authors.""
We have an artificially high rate of production of scientists for whom there are few jobs. This is why they're going elsewhere. Maybe we should figure out a way to make more jobs for them, or maybe we should dismantle the current system which is built upon training people for jobs they'll never find so that they'll be available while they're training as cheap, highly-skilled labor while providing a rationale for bloated academic bureaucracies.
Let supply and demand sort it out. The really gifted kids will be drawn to science no matter the financial rewards. The lab cogs will come back once the pay and opportunities increase.
We already have highly selective scientific posts - they're at the best universities and research institutions. I don't see how the author thinks that adding a few more would make much of a difference. The best of the best still get good jobs, and there's still a lot of jobs at 2nd & 3rd tier universities.
Anonymous posts are filtered.
Really this is just a short term supply problem. Demand will balance this out soon enough.
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
In a country where scientific absurdity can be taught in school (creationism) it is not surprising that a scientific career does not appear very engaging to people with a clue.
I think a big reason for the lack of scientists and engineers is the lack of advancement and prestige at companies.
Usually you have: Junior Engineer, Senior Engineer, Princple Engineer, and Distinguished Engineer (roughly speaking). Whereas there is a multitude of levels for those in the management track.
How many people want to be "stuck" in a technical track? The money isn't as good, your don't seem to get much respect, and you don't even get a decent title.
I think we are seeing lots of good technical people being pushed into the ranks of management.
Namely, the fact that the US acts as a gigantic research sink (read 'brain drain') for the rest of the world. No idea what proportion of those foreign researchers return to countries of origin, but I imagine America holds on to quite a lot of them. The US dwarfs every other country on Earth in terms of money spent on research and is a player, if not the dominant 'hegemon' in just about every field. If native-born Americans are unwilling to take up science (which I don't think is really true, but anyway), believe me, there's plenty of people from abroad who will.
And that's not a bad thing at all, at least for Americans. Other countries might have a problem with brain drains, but America certainly does not.
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
Look where America grants its greatest rewards, at least in terms of financial remuneration or fame, and it certainly isn't science. Obviously money isn't everything, but it sure helps to have enough to put a roof over the head, food on the table, and a computer in the study. Some people are born to be scientists, and probably will be despite the economics. Others are lured to the Dark Side.
Not to call here a Dark Sider, but Cindy Crawford used to be a chem major who did modelling on the side. Her professor told her she was nuts for sticking to chemistry with her looks and success so far at modelling. Apparently she listened. One would hope she sacked away enough money during her prime, because a supermodel probably has fewer productive years than a pro football player.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
It's because we have to compete with the Chinese. They in general have a much better undergrad education (in my physics program most of them came in with basically the equivalent of a Master's degree) and are much more highly motivated.
-josh
Bob Cringley wrote this article last year, talking about a decline in the amount of basic research being carried out at companies within the US. It would seem that the first part of a company to suffer cutbacks and layoffs in times of economic hardship is the research department. It would stand to reason that anyone coming through college and seeing the decline in the number of jobs in scientific and engineering research are more likely to opt for something that may give them a more secure future.
Which is a shame really, because these are exactly the sort of people who are likely to be developing my flying car.
A side effect of the shortage of PhD graduates is the difficulty for Universities to recruit enough qualified scientists to preserve the current amount of research & teaching and prevent units or even departments closures.
.oO0(?)
'cause when the Prof finds he's short of native eggheads he'll just let people from other places of the world take over the task.
KOS-MOS
...Who is gonna toil away in some lab as a research assisuant for squat...in a tiny apartment cuase thats all they can afford when friends from school/life are out getting married, buy nice cars, houses etc...
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
This is just one of the many outward metrics of the US culture's current decadent state: we deride or fear intellectualism, curiosity (about anything other than sex and drugs), and right action. We exalt immediate gratification, hyper cunsumption, and superficiality.
See Democracy in America for its prophetic passages imagining the inevitable triumph of mediocrity allowed by democratic capitalism's short term thinking. You can make more money and gain more political power by playing to the lowest common denominator than you can by trying to raise it.
Syntax error: loose != lose, affect != effect, then!=than
maybe salaries will be raised then? i'm currently an undergrad studying microbiology. i plan on going to grad school to pursue my PhD in the subject. however, coming out fresh w/ a PhD earns me about $35,000 a year for the 1st few years. managers at McDonald's make more than that, and they're not in school for 8+ years :-/
Could it be that biology is a notable exception because biotech pays well? Frankly, people who are smart enough and interested in science and engineering are also smart enough to figure out where the money is. Since we have turned away from independent research at universities, and instead have chosen to commercialize virtually all research, it comes as no surprise that students are looking at science as just another career field. The market will take care of this, though. When people are willing to pay more to get the scientific talent, there will be more incentive for new students to pursue the sciences which are in demand.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Back when I was a kid the idea of becoming a nerd was presented as a positive (if unorthodox) path in life. The Revenge of the Nerds series of movies did a great job of showing that what nerds may lack in brawn they were sure to make up for in brains, cunning and all important shenanigans.
Revenge of the Nerds was a pivotal movie in this respect. What kid didn't cheer for the nerds as they faced off against the Alpha Betas? Who among us didn't revere Booger with great respect and admiration? And what kid didn't dream of placing hidden cameras in an all-girl dormitory? Have you heard of the X25 webcam? Guess where they got the idea.
The problem thesedays is that nerd-positive movies present unattainable realities. Someday I'd like to work as an ensign on the Enterprise! Sorry kid. Ok then, when I grow up I want to fight orcs in middle earth! Tough break. Well can I atleast hang out with Jar Jar?
Yep! Nerds, Nerds in Paradise, Nerds TNG, and Nerds in Love all provided positive examples of nerds using their abilities to make friends, defeat their enemies and get laid. Afterall, that's how kids get interested in the sciences.
What we need is a world free of stereo-types and pecking orders. Pecking orders are for chickens. I realize that this is very idealistic, but I imagine that all real progress must start somewhere. Might as well be you and me. Save brain-power by using a simpler algorithm. After the "Golden Rule", the rest is legalese.
Being a research scientist doesn't provide a lot of money, and people need to do things like eat and live a comfortable life. Start paying scientists the big bucks, and all of a sudden you'll have a very large influx into the field.
Really gifted kids aren't stupid. They will also figure out that they likely won't get to do science for decades if they follow standard career paths. And they'll figure out that there is a good chance that they end up poorly paid and without a reasonable job in their 40s. In physics and biophysics (two scientific careers that I was considering), in many subfields, you end up being someone's underpaid lab assistant for a decade or more.
The best of the best still get good jobs, and there's still a lot of jobs at 2nd & 3rd tier universities.
Jobs in academia and science are often not awarded based on the ability to do science; they are awarded based on the ability to attract funding, students, and attention, and to get good peer reviews. That's not the same. It may be the best measure of "good science" that we have, but that doesn't make it so. The past shows us that much of the best science was not the stuff that peers thought valuable at the time. And the only way to make sure enough of that happens is to make sure there is a lot of excess science funding for stuff beyond "the best of the best", according to current wisdom.
And academic positions are not primarily about science. Even in the ideal case, they should be about teaching. And in the real world, they often are about neither.
Finally, doing science at 2nd and 3rd tier universities is hard because funding is disproportionately difficult.
Let supply and demand sort it out.
It is sorting it out: the demand for scientists is actually quite low in the US (and even lower elsewhere). That's why people choose different careers. The question is: is that a good thing?
When I decided to go for the Ph.D., it was not with the perspective of having later on a well-paid job. I did my Ph.D. in astrophysics because I was passionnate. My motivation was to learn, to discover and to better know myself.
:-)
I never regretted my choice.
Don't choose a career because it is well paid. Choose it because you like it, because it triggers something in you. Don't sacrifice yourself for money - as a person, you are more important than all the money you will ever have.
Well, just my two cents.
Now, midstream, I'm bailing on all of this (with 2 kids to support) to go back to school & get a PhD in physics. Why? Because I'm no longer as passionate as I once was about technology and want to find something to keep me happy. Contrary to (apparently) popular belief, a raised income doesn't give you some massive nest egg [even if the government didn't take close to half of it], you just spend more - i.e., I'm not suddenly able to do this because I have a fortune to support me. I'll be essentially broke by the time I get a PhD and pretty much be starting at square one.
So what? I wasn't in technology for the money - that was just icing. I did it because it was what I was passionate about.
If the only reason people are pursuing a career is for money, they'd be a lot better off being a lobbyist [or a drug dealer, for that matter]. Just do what makes you happy.
That's my 00000010 cents.
Trust me. This is an inactive account. Regardless of what the
They are definitely part of the problem. A good friend of mine wanted to build bridges for a living. Graduating high school, he asked the guidance counsellor, followed by several college recruiters, all of whom told him to go into architecture.
After less than one semester of architecture he transferred to Civil Engineering, because he wanted to design and build bridges.
The sad truth of the matter is no one knows what engineers do, they think it's a fancy title. They don't realize "real" engineers are licensed like doctors and lawyers (EIT, PE, etc.) to build things.
No offense to software engineers intended.
This is all just talk. Talk is cheap. As the saying goes, put your money where your mouth is.
In a perfect competitive free market, the wage of a worker is the equilibrium market price at which a worker gets paid and an employer pays them. It is the point at which the supply curve of the class of workers meets the demand curve of the employers for that worker class.
If demand for workers goes up, in the short term the number of workers won't change much, so the salaries will rise. In the long term supply will increase as more people transition to the field and salaries will moderate somewhat. Oversupply can happen as well and salaries will go down. The price of the worker, their salary, deterimines their economic worth (although their are altruistic worths as well, economic worth is all that counts in the market).
For an exercise, go to the US Labor Department and look at their Wage Statistics. Look through everything and look at what pays the best. It's not science, no matter how smart you are. The top three professions in terms of average wage are this: Executives, Doctors, and Lawyers.
In economics, price transmits information. The information transmitted by the market is that being an executive (CEO), doctor, or lawyer is economically the most valuable job you can have. Technical workers are well paid but much less than these top three.
It should be no surprise that students would strive for the top paying jobs. They're acting rationally based on the economic information transmitted by the price of labor.
If at some point the wage of technical workers and scientists is at the top of the wage pyramid, then you can expect everyone trying to do that. This almost happened in the late 90s with the Dot-Com boom, but it was too short of a cycle to affect long-term supply much.
Economics is key.
This has been a developing problem since the end of LBJ's administration, and the subsequent decreases in federal support of education and research (at least in relative terms). It has been exacerbated by federal manipulation of research directions. (Think of the enormous sums spent on the human genome project at the cost of underfunding of other research.) Finally, American business, by and large, has progressively withdrawn support from both basic and applied research.
The result is that the good old USA stands to lose its shirt in the future global marketplace.
Anyway, American education is in decline. You don't study engineering unless you've mastered alegebra, and many students haven't done so in high school.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
"Study finds drop in science and engineering careers among ***top*** college seniors."
;)
;D
"...best young minds..."
On reading the article provided by the link on Science Blog I came to the conclusion that the problem is not with the number of American students that are going into the sciences, but rather that "top-students" i.e. Ivy Leaguers, etc. were not going into science.
I would argue that the author of the article has an unfortunate bias toward "elites." Now what I'd like to know is just what are the criteria for determining who the "top-students" are. My masters was done at a decidedly non-Ivy League university, Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas. While there, in the early 90s, the department chairman lamented that all the "top-students" that is to say the students with the highest GPA on graduation were all coming from the Schools of Education, and Business. He felt that the students that were majoring in math, physics, chemistry, etc. were getting short changed as their grades from curriculum filled with rigorous courses were having to compete with students that had curricula filled with much 'puffer' courses.
The point here is that if you're looking at a students GPA to determine who's the top students you're approaching the issue using a poor metric.
Tell some one you majored in elementary education, and they're likely not to me impressed.
Tell them that you majored in physics and they'll likely respond something like: 'oh, so you're a brain.'
Tell them you're an astronomer and they'll go: Whooa! Cool! If you're a reasonable good looking young feller, and the person you're talking to is a single young woman you're likely to be able to get a date. After all us astronomy dudes are soooo romantic --studying the Moon, the stars, and all.
An example for your further consideration:
Bill Mahr: Cornell Alumnus
Spock the Baptist: An Aggie
Who's the more impressive?
Now:
Bill Mahr: B.A. English
Spock the Baptist: B.Sc. Physics, minor Mathematics
Who's the more impressive?
You'll note that I've not include my M.Sc. in Physics, Thesis in Observational Astronomy in the just previous comparison. That just wouldn't be fair...
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
This is such an articulate and intelligent comment. I am quite sure this fellow has read the budget plan Bush proposed and has found such things as, "vast tax cuts to the richest 1% of the population". Being the "dumb fucks think you're middle class" kind of guy I must agree with him. I now have a new insight into my life as a slave to the man.
Idiot
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
Cindy Crawford is a good example but I think Dolph Lundgren is an even better one. He was an undergrad at MIT (he might have even graduated) but decided to give up science/technology to become a B-movie star. And being a B-movie star is no where near as prestigous as being a supermodel like Cindy. Man, if that isn't a slap in the face to science I don't know what is. Well, I guess he figured he wanted people to know who he is. And let's face it: if you're a scientist the public will never know you. Ask someone on the street who their favorite scientist is and they'll probably say (1) Albert Einstein (dead), (2) Carl Sagan (dead), or (3) "that wheelchair guy".
I'm not saying that we should celebrate scientists and engineers as rock stars, but a little more public exposure would probably help the field become a little more attractive and would also help the public understand what the hell scientists do as a bonus.
GMD
watch this
Could it also be that kids are discouraged from experimenting in their own back yards? Look at Thomas Edison. He was blowing up his shed when he was what? 11? And while he wasn't exactly encouraged, he wasn't thrown in jail. Nowaday's you'd get your tail kicked by the authorities for trying to make a bomb. Isn't exactly conducive to nerdy behavior.
Never give any object more potential energy than you want it to have.
I finished a PhD in astrophysics in 1999. Wanna know why I went into IT? Better starting pay and no moving around.
If you want to do anything in this country in the hard sciences (especially physics), you have to take a series of 1-2 year post-doctoral assignments. You take them where you can get them, and it's rare that there are more than 1-2 institutes in a metropolis that even have such a program.
When I got out, AIP published a report indicating that there were, on average, 125 applicants for every tenure-track faculty position in astronomy/astrophysics in the US.
Constant moving, few openings, low pay... not too attractive.
...or, at least, that's the message we're sending by actions like this.
So, if we aren't going to encourage our own students to become scientists and engineers, AND we aren't going to encourage foreign students to become scientists and engineers... yes, I'd say that in a few years we'll be facing a shortage of scientists and engineers.
But it won't matter as long as we have plenty of skillful marketers.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
The supply and demand argument is bogus. In my shop we need a system administrator; in fact, we need him really bad (I am currently doubling up on those responsibilities). We have interviewed several people already. However, they end up off the list because of one of the following: 1. The pay is too low (the powers that be refuse to break the pay rules for this specific job). 2. The person is not qualified. We are in a catch-22 where we will only be able to fill it with someone who can not do the job correctly - which means regardless of if we fill the slot or not, I will probably end up doing the same thing I am doing now. There is no rhyme or reason behind what bureaucracies do. I laugh at your supply and demand ideas - HA!
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
This is just so much 'mine is bigger than yours' crud - that the drunks outside the liquer store do just as effectively as these people, I might add. This is the same reason we have professional athletes that make way more than teachers, and why the peter principle raises the BA in Business Administration into a 6 figure position with an office, while the BS in computer science sits in a cubicle pulling down half of that. The elites keep the elites in positions of power, and use the rest of us for what they can get out of us for a minimal cost and maximum profits. The only way to make headway in the sciences is to reinvent yourself as an indispensible asset, without which the powers that be would lose money. Once you achieve that, then you are in a position to bargan with them when pay adjustment time rolls around. Of course, be careful not to overspecialize - or you might find yourself out of a job when technology shifts (ask mainframe cobol programmers about job prospects...)
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
A lot of posters have commented on the fact that those that are really interested in science and engineering will tough it out, regardless of how the pay goes. So far in my life I've found that to be true.
I grew up in a small town, and when I was in high school I was really passionate about chemistry. I talked to my chem teachers about chemistry, and they told me flat out, "find something else, you'll never be able to support yourself the way you'd like." When I neared the end of my high school days, and everybody and their dog was asking me what I was going to do next, if I said "engineer" I'd get something like "you mean the guys who drive trains? Don't have to go to school for that you know!" and if I said "physicist" I got "you mean like a gym teacher?" As I said, it was a pretty small town. :)
Anyway, no matter what I said, it always involved some kind of science (usually physics). And I'd always hear "You know, you'll never make as much as your Dad." But I went through with physics anyway, because I liked it. I liked the idea of getting trained in the whole scientific process, giving me the mental toolset that basically lets me handle just about anything thrown at me.
So here I am a few years later. My Dad, the blue collar worker, still makes more than me. My cousin who had similar interests in science but was pushed into business, makes more than I do and he's ten years younger. Do I wish my background had proved a little more lucrative? You bet. Would I have changed studies, knowing then what I know now? No way.
I did my research and got my PhD. Academic pursuit isn't incompatible with sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll and having a laugh every once in a while. If you oppose instant gratification to scientific research you're just uptight. Loosen up.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
to doing something because you loved it. All you could think about was solving the next problem or thinking of something new and exciting. God damnit, there are some more important things in life then buying a new Lexus. I might be poor but at least I'm not poor of mind.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
Who's doing the research on that?
--"The perfect example of the man of action is the suicide." - William Carlos Williams
When your cute little toddlers start to become young adults, they will be looking up to you to see what it means to be a grown-up. A lot of high-school kids have big conflicts with parents based at least in part on the idea that parents sold out their youthful dreams for cash--maybe just for survival. Teenagers don't want to look forward to a future that looks like that.
Most of the kids of science/engineer families we knew came through those years relatively happy and sane. We also knew lots of families who had lots more money than we did whose kids were angry and confused because 1) they didn't want to end up as stressed-out as their parents but 2) they couldn't picture survival without the fat salaries those parents were bringing home. Yes, I do know some wealthy folks who love their jobs, and their kids tend to turn out okay too. But (relative) poverty worked darn well for us, and for most of the faculty families we know.
I'll skip the part of the rant that talks about walking a mile to kindergarten past snowbanks up over my head....
Making trouble today for a better tomorrow...
If you like your field, but don't think you're making enough money, learn how to start your own business, then do it. It may take several years, but you will get more control, a better appreciation for business, and a chance to sell out for millions later.
This is the same reason we have professional athletes that make way more than teachers, and why the peter principle raises the BA in Business Administration into a 6 figure position with an office, while the BS in computer science sits in a cubicle pulling down half of that. The elites keep the elites in positions of power, and use the rest of us for what they can get out of us for a minimal cost and maximum profits.
Huh? Professional athletes make what they make not because of some bizarre "elitism", they make it because they are incredibly talented individuals in extremely short supply that bring in enormous amounts of money for a professional sports franchise.
In other words, they're worth what they make, as do the teachers and the engineers. The reason teachers and engineers make so little money is because there are so many of them that can do equivalent jobs.
Note that this has nothing to do with someones "value to society" (however that's measured), it's all about supply and demand.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I'm saying that the problem is with the mucky mucks running corporate America. At least we're I'm from(blue collar, midwestern town) science and engineering disciplines are considered bascially the pinicle of professions. You make a decent wage and actually *know* what it is you do even if nobody else does(I'm refering to civil engineers, software engineers, etc. not PhDs in astrophysical-micropartical-antimicrobeal biophysics waiting for an ass pillow ie tenure). And when you begin studies at the university *everybody* wants to be in science and engineering. Of course not everybody was cut out for it and the one's who can't hack it(no pun intended ;-) ) pack their bags for business school. Now back to the problem which is that in addition to their envy and resentment at basically being a dumbass they also end up *running* science and engineering companies where they have zero respect/appreciation for the people/processes that actually make their company run on a daily basis and allow them to earn a zillion dollars a year.
===== When the goin gets tough, the tough go get a beer.
You don't even have to make a bomb to get thrown in jail for your curiousity. Look at DeCSS. A classic scientific proof of concept and I know the kid got off but still he's very lucky the courts in his home country aren't up for sale the way they are here.
Tell them you're an astronomer and they'll go: Whooa! Cool! If you're a reasonable good looking young feller, and the person you're talking to is a single young woman you're likely to be able to get a date.
That's the secret? Damn, and all these years...
Why am I doing this? Because I love it. Nonetheless, I would love it even more if I was given some props. AFAIAC, lawyers are scum (anyone going to disagree with me) who are in cahoots with the cops (disgruntled, fat, balding ex-jocks who are still in high school mode) and judges (ex-lawyers, determined to feed the system with dough to produce more cops, lawyers and judges), doctors are overpaid and overglorified mechanics (and they are WRONG many many times, especially when it comes to the care of the elderly) who are in cahoots with the insurance companies and the pharmecutical industry, and business people are money-grubbing wanted-to-be-something-else-but-couldn't-make-the- grade-in-college losers. Yet here all of these people make 10x+ as much as I will ever make, even at the peak of my earning years. It is a sad state of affairs. Anti-intellecualism is alive and strong in America, and I believe it is the root cause of this whole mess. Maybe if knowledge and research were better explained to the youth of this country, especially schoolchildren, things could change for the better in the future.
You know I actually find these funny. At least they beat the hell out of that Goat Sex guy.
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
The really gifted kids will be drawn to science no matter the financial rewards.
Ha! My dad is a Phd. Geneticist (Yale). I wanted to study astrophysics until sometime in high school, when I came to the crushing realization taxi drivers would likely make more than I would. My dad didn't make very much money until very late in his career. He regretted not taking another path, like medicine, when he had the chance. I didn't want to make the same mistake. I did a EE degree and play around with my hobby (neural networks) in my own time, and have my own lab. I can do whatever I want. Maybe I'll try and publish some of my projects and ideas, maybe I won't.
Maybe one day I can retire and do nothing but experiment and dream up new theories. I don't kid myself though - I don't have any intention of "suffering" for science. It's just sad it has to be this way. Some of my friends really studied hard to maintain high GPAs through school. I worked part time and made about three times the average value of their scholarships while maintaining acceptable grades. Is that right? I would have loved to devote every ounce of effort to the base science, but it wasn't worth it.
Sadder still is there are very few fields where base researchers can accomplish anything earthshattering. Advancing science requires big bucks. Access to the software tools and semiconductor processes used for MEMS work, the real-world research area that will lead to nanotech, for example, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. You need to have university affliations, and you need to dedicate your life to be in a position where you can advance that one little piece. That's just the way it is. If something is not done, then there WILL be a very large problem with this level of advanced research - there are very few native PhD's to fill these holes, because you have to be very dedicated to make the sacrifices needed to get that level of expertise. Think 40 years of poverty-level wages and BS politics.
The life of most professional scientists - the real science people, base science, not applied theory - sucks. It really sucks until you can get tenure someplace, and that's assuming you can even get tenure. The impression I get, maybe it is incorrect, is that base science is not particularly valued at this point in time. There is much more emphasis placed on applying base science, or engineering and applications work. This will come back and bite the west in general if the next "big thing" isn't discovered here. It will, of course, be commercialized for consumption in the USA.
My $0.02 (cdn, even)
..don't panic
What's left? Microsoft Research, and maybe Sun.
The big national labs are duds. Lawrence Livermore Labs is a senior activity center for old physicists. Oak Ridge has downsized. Los Alamos can't find a new mission. JPL doesn't launch much any more. NASA has a big headcount, but doesn't produce much; it's been described as "the world's largest sheltered workshop". All of these places have an average age near retirement.
Even the Lockheed Skunk Works is gone.
Bill Mahr: Makes a shitload You'll notice that I've not included Spock the Baptist. That just wouldn't be fair... =)
>You'll notice that I've not included Spock the Baptist. That just wouldn't be fair... =)
You'll notice that you've made two assumptions.
One that Mahr indeed does make a lot of scratch, and two the pointed eared one does not.
Maybe the assumptions are correct, then again maybe they're not.
Hey, that's my story too! 8 years to get my Ph.D. in physics, then one year in the field as a post-doc, with multiple promises to be a post-doc elsewhere. At no point was there any mention of anything resembling permanence -- much less a rational salary. All of academia plods towards 100% coverage by post-docs, adjunct faculty, and grad students doing all instruction.
At the same time I was getting jerked around in said interviews by people who to this day make me want to spit, I was getting unsolicited offers to move into IT in the finance industry. (I'd say my friends by now know who I am, but it turns out there's a bunch of us with the same story in my office.)
Bottom line? There's no problem; it's all supply and demand. Should somebody decide our collective PhD-level skills are important enough, they'll pony up the cash. In the meantime, I'm going to put my hard-earned degree to work providing 24x7 support to people who actually value my time.
From what I have seen, Midwest American society tends to shun American students in math and science in general UNLESS they are studying to be a physician, engineer, or lawyer, etc. It's that prestige and the big bucks are encouraged, not a fundamental inquiry of Nature. however, if you are a foreign national, you are automatically cool.
Could the U. of Wash. be trolling for an increase in the foreign national student quotas?
It's a vicious circle, with falling numbers of university graduates in the so-called 'hard sciences' (pun intended) resulting in a lowering of the standards of teaching in the subjects at (high-)school level, which further discourages kids from carrying on studying them for any longer than curriculum rules mandate. And by the upper end of school and at university, anyone smart enough to deal with such subjects who is also well-rounded enough to take interest in things happening outside their chosen field of study will be well aware of how poorly science and engineering are regarded and rewarded by the society in which they live.
For some people, their curiosity and the satisfaction they get in understanding and doing good work in their field are sufficient incentives, but I'd guess that they're in a minority. What I do remember very well is that as graduation approached - and this was about 30 years ago, now :(, and at one of the country's top institutions - most of my technical-studying friends and acquaintances decided, like myself, that they were unenthralled with the idea of making a career directly related to their studies, and about two thirds of us moved into IT, having found we had an aptitude for programming as part of the coursework and reckoning that it would continue to be a strong growth area for quite a time into the future. We've not been disappointed, but out of the half-dozen friends and acquaintances I'm still in touch with who took this path, I'm the only one who's still working in a predominantly technical role. I'm not complaining - I've had the good luck to find interesting and well-paid work in a sequence of different areas and locations (albeit mostly outside the UK, which itself speaks volumes). The rest of us moved long ago into planning and project management activities: better paid, more opportunities for your work to have tangible practical results, and, yes, with higher prestige. None of us considered teaching as a career, and so the vicious circle continues.
Ah, well. At least none of us is faced with blank-faced incomprehension after answering the traditional "... and what do you do for a living?" question at social occasions.
Let me show you a slice of my job as a research engineer in a corporate environment. I work for an auto company and I research catalytic converters, which get rid of the pollutants the car engine produces. The chemistry of pollutants are such that, with a current catalyst, an engine has to operate in one state of air/fuel ratio all the time. We research catalysts that will allow an engine to oscillate between that state and a lower fuel (leaner) state and still meet emission reqs, thus improving the fuel economy a small amount with a relatively small increase in purchase price. The problem is that the general public doesn't care about fuel economy. I read that in a recent study the factors people consider most in a new car purchase are price and looks, with fuel economy being way down the list with only about 10% of people calling it a "main" consideration. Even in the current state of affairs with the Middle East, no one cares about fuel economy. The company realizes this, so they don't put a gigantic interest in fuel economy research and lesser products like ours never really get used. The company's demand for scientists is low because the customer isn't interested in the technology the scientists would research. Low demand means low cost or low wage, so the company can't offer that much to the people that it does hire. This scares people away and they work in a different field instead.
Precisely! You see, science is all about the unknown. It's not "safe" for suburban living.
Kids can't get in to ham radio because they're not even allowed to erect a wire antenna outside their house. God help you if the neighborhood nazis find you turning a wrench on your own car. Chemistry sets have been largely banned because a kid might make a small amount of toxic waste if he or she abuses it. Even tree houses are subjected to neighborhood covenants.
The dimwitted busybodies of our world have been allowed to take over. Most of the laws governing living areas are designed to make "safe" havens where nothing except sports can happen to your little children. And you have to cart them everywhere in your home away from home, the minivan.
Well, nothing's happening. Their brains are filled with nothing. Homer Hickam's October Sky would be even more impossible in today's world of "safe" living.
Welcome to the wonderful world of lobotomized science education and rotton opportunities.
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
"The reason teachers and engineers make so little money is because there are so many of them that can do equivalent jobs."
I think that's the biggest myth (I wanted to say "load of crap", but...) floating around these days. Teachers are *far* from interchangable, as are engineers and scientists. Here on slashdot, many readers will note that a bad programmer/engineer will not only not add to production, but cut it.
Likewise, a bad teacher can cause serious harm to the educational advancement of students. Annecdotally, we've al had a teacher is (insert subject) that put us off of it. Ironically, mine was in physics...
But in the end, I don't disagree that athletes make as much money as they do because people will pay to see them.
-RB
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."
As a recent graduate in Chemical Engineering, I am well aware of the average starting salaries of the engineering professions. Here's the real info:
Even in this economic slump, having only your B.S, straight out of undergraduate, here's the salary table.
Chemical Eng. $48k-52k/year
Electrical/Computer Eng. $46-50k/year
Mechanical Eng. $44k-48k/year
Civil Eng. $38k-44k/year
Biomedical Eng. is still too new to have accurate reported numbers.
Compare this to other average salaries for BAs in the liberal arts or B.Ss in the softer sciences (Psychology, Biology). You're lucky to break $30k coming out of undergraduate schooling with those types of degrees. Even the worst engineer can break $30k easily.
The average Doctor may make over $100k, but that's after 4 years of medical school ($30k/year tuition), 1-2 years of residency (~$30k/year salary), and then an additional year or two for specializations. Doctors, nowadays, don't make nearly as much as they used to, especially with insurance costs, even after all of the costs of schooling.
While everyone might believe lawyers make a bundle, the average salary of a starting lawyer is probably much less than what people think. Add in the costs of schooling and the amount of lawyers out there in competition and the prospects of a new lawyer don't sound so hot.
The demand for engineers will always be great because the requirements for becoming one will always supercede the average person's abilities.
Favorite
one of the ones in my list is Richard Feynman (dead). Just the other day i was reading one of his talks on why we're not in a scientific age - most people really don't understand what science is, nor do they really give a shit. Science is irrelevant from the personal perspective of most of the people alive today.
Demonstrant's Open Source Tools
I grew up with a dream of going into research in biology. Got a B.S. in it with an emphasis in cell biology and physiology. Did two years undergrad research. Taught "the DNA lectures" in 1001 as a guest speaker in my junior and senior years for two different profs. Got into grad school and worked there in molecular biology for two years. My name's on five papers and one conference presentation.
My second year of grad school, I crossed two articles: one in Science, one in Nature. One was about career outlooks for PhD's. The other was on career paths for biology grads. Basically, I had to be in mechanical engineering or medicine to have any sort of future. That was 1993. At that time in my life, I lost hope and changed my career. This was not a hasty decision, so I should recap.
One of my undergrad profs had a promising research track going on. A box of videos was found in his lab, tapes of him and various young ladies who were not his wife. They were mailed to his parents by a graduate student, and he was working in another state in a matter of weeks.
I watched one of my undergrad profs miss tenure and leave the business entirely. He opened a house powerwashing business. This was in his late thirties, after two postdoctoral fellowships.
Another prof worked for the same college for seven years, being promised a room for his shark tank in the new aquaculture facility. His unassembled tank sat during construction of the basement facility. When they were done, his room was down a hall, with a U-turn through the door that his tank couldn't take. In six months, he was at a marine biology facility in Baltimore with a view of the ocean out a plate glass window.
In grad school, I watched a brilliant biochemist miss tenure and lose his job. He had worked seven years, accumulating piles of NIH funding for an enormous lab. He had a team of grad students and postdocs. He had a questionable attitude, and people who weren't working for him in his lab hated working with him at all. His review at the end of seven years showed problems with attitude and teamwork and some other things, and he was gone.
I learned computers in my late twenties, after devoting my life from elementary school to biology. I read it now for leisure, but I will never work in it. If you're not improving pregnancy-control medications or somehow involved in cloning, you're not news. It's going to fall back to privately funded industrial research one of these days. The good biology will be conducted by pharmaceutical companies. Good physics by chip designers and good chemistry by construction materials scientists. I'm just going to keep their systems running in the meantime.
-j
-j
Scientists come to US with O1 (oustanding scientist) wisas, while engineers come with
H1B (skilled worker ) visas
O1 visas are much better than H1B (no time limit while H1b vidas have a 6 year time limit) THe requirements for O1 are higher- al least a PhD degree + postgraduate researh experience
I have just one thing to say:
MATH!!!
true && more || less
You bring up a good point.
My brother has around a 3.8 at Berkeley, which is quite good. I graduated with a 3.0 from UCSD, which is not as prestigious a school.
He's studying Political Science, and I got a degree in Physics.
While I would be excited to get a B in a physics class, he would claim that there must have been something wrong with the grading scheme for me to only get a B despite the work I put into the class, and the fact that I was proficient at the material (we've had many arguments on this).
At the same time the only A+'s I recieved came in Music and History classes which were supposed to be difficult, and I feel I did an average amount of work in.
I've got numerous friends (both scientests and not) in Ivy leage schools and other "top tier" schools, and I don't feel that they are necessarily any smarter than I am.
The article claims to have used the GRE general test in determining the top students though, and I do feel that the GRE is a good test for that, although I have trouble believing their numbers that 5-7% of test takers got 750 or better out of 2400.
I have to disagree with you.
I would argue there are more professional quality athletes than there are professional quality teachers. The reason we don't pay to have as many of the professional quality teachers in our schools (and thus end up with crowded classrooms and substandard teachers) is a choice we make about what is important to us. Obviously, an athletic team is more important than a teaching 'team'. To couch it in your terms, the 'demand' for good teachers is artificially lowered as a result of the choices our schoolboards and communities make about paying teachers (or not paying teachers).
Similarly, there are certainly more business administration graduates every year than there are computer scientists. In this case as well, your thesis does not hold: supply and demand is irrelevant in these instances because the supply of CS people is low - yet we do not raise salaries to keep and acquire what we need to run our businesses effectively. Instead, we leave positions open, heap more work on already strained IT staff, and continue to pay executive level managers more and more money for work that does not add anything to the bottom line. Another example of your 'demand' being artificially manipulated.
'Supply and demand' in the context of the economy is a natural process. In the context of paying teachers or IT professionals it does not apply. The people making the rules about what is demanded and what is not demanded in this context is not the whole population; it is a select few with the power to manipulate the system to their own ends. In the case of the politicians on school boards, the motivation is to keep taxes low so that they can be re-elected. In the case of businesses it is to keep all expenses low so they can turn a profit and continue to pay their executives and stakeholders.
I have no illusions about what is going on.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
P.S. I meant to disagree with 'Reality Master 101' - not the person immediately above my post... Just for clarification. :)
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
If you consider political science (or any "social" science really) a real science, then there's also James Woods.
In the great CONS chain of life, you can either be the CAR or be in the CDR.