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!
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.
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(?)
...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.
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.
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.
"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
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 2nd law applies to CLOSED systems there are many cases in the world where order is locally increased, off the top of my head I can give you crystal growth... your error in reasoning is to assume that just because there was an orderly system created, that there was a universal decrease in entropy that ensued, and that is not the case.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
OK, once again, kids: The second law applies to a closed system. The earth isn't a closed system -- it's a system into which energy is currently being dumped, constantly. We get energy from sunlight, and that energy drives photosynthesis and weather, among other things. There's also plenty of spare energy and raw material being churned up from the core of the planet, which is still cooling off from when the planet was formed. That energy and raw material goes into things like geothermal vents and volcanoes. (The thermal energy and chemical compounds are used by some deep sea creatures that use chemosynthesis, for instance.)
So, yeah, the core of the planet is gradually getting colder, and the sun is gradually spending its hydrogen fuel. The biosphere of the planet Earth benefits, and so do we. If you try to argue that the second law of thermodynamics disallows evolution, then by the same logic you should also argue that life itself should be impossible, or that the world's organisms should be devolving into simpler forms, or that the human population should be shrinking instead of expanding.
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
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...
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.
Want proof? It's in the pudding- the average American Physics undergraduate scores not in the 50th percentile, not in the 40th percentile, but in the 35th percentile, or lower. How can the average American be scoring in the 35th percentile? Thousands of foreign students are causing the scores to be skewed, especially the Chinese. At most major universities, half the grads are foreign, half are American. Up to 30% might be Chinese. Most become theoreticians, supporting themselves not on Research Assistantships, but as graders for grad physics courses. They are impossible to learn anything from due to an inability to speak English (most of the time, there are exceptions, of course). They also stick to themselves, not integrating with the rest of the grad student community in Physics.
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.
Your demand is being artificially constrained by the inability of management to pay for the proper employee. That is why you cannot attract a good supply. You cannot purchase a Faberge' Egg for the price of Legg's Pantie Hose. This is not a problem with supply and demand. This is a problem with unrealistic expectations on said demand.
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.
The second law is perfectly consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.
What???
"A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law" is perfectly consistent with the second law of thermodynamics?
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
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!
"I don't think that theoretical/practical dichotomy applies just to Chinese students."
No question about that. The point of my post is that different backgrounds, including cultural ones, predisposes individuals to particular biases. My father being an aircraft mechanic exposed me to mechanical process at an early age, and continued to expose me to a rich technological experience through out my childhood, and into late adolescence. Thus, things mechanical, and electrical have never been much of a mystery to me. Certainly, I've never found technology, or science intimidating. On the other hand I've had to really put forth an effort to absorb mathematics. Thus, I'm good at the experiential/observational end of science, but often must struggle with the theoretical end.
Both parents of one of my good friends from my undergraduate days are mathematicians. My friend has always found that the mathematical end of physics to be a bit of a cake walk. He's also quite good at coding, but under no circumstance should he be left alone in a room with a soldering iron, nor should he be allowed under the hood of a computer, or car for that matter.
My only point with CGSs is that they seem to come from an environment that is much more akin to the one that my friend comes from that from the one that I come from. It appears to me that this environment is systemic in nature, and I believe that cultural proclivities are a substantial part of said environment. Further, I believe that physics departments can place to much emphasis on class room work. This over emphasis can lead to later bottlenecks in when it comes to competent research assistants. Science, and engineering departments need to take a balanced approach to both undergraduate, and graduate education. When they don't problems in the long term, and sometimes in the not so long term, develop. While book learnin' is not unimportant, but it's not an end all in developing scientist, and engineers.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
"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..."
I have no idea how this relates to the post, but to make a correction to your reply..
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy may only increase, within a system, if work or energy is inputted.
Using your example, crystal growth may result in an increase in entropy but requires an input in energy or work. For most crystals, the energy input is provided by heat (temperature), and can be measured in a heat of crystallization.
The 'Free Energy' of crystallization is then
Heat of Crystallization - Temperature * Entropy Change. The Free energy must be zero or negative in order for the crystallization to occur.
Favorite
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
I should have stated that I meant without energy addition, or extraction, but in the case of crystalization you can certainly draw a control volume that would encompass the energy source...
Anyway, my point was that many people use the 2nd law to say things are inposible (or say the 2nd law is broken) because they choose an inapropriote control volume.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...