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.""

Comments

This is the correction of a surplus.

[kmellis]

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.

Not that dangerous

[partingshot]

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.

Lack of technical track

[gizmo_mathboy]

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.

Re:Lack of technical track

[g4dget]

It doesn't matter how much each different job contributes to the bottom line. The reasons why managers get prestige and pay is because they have power over people, and that can be leveraged to get prestige and money. That won't change.

The route to power and better pay for the engineering profession can be (and already is, in many cases) is to work independently and hire out your services. But with that comes a level of risk and entrepreneurship that many technically inclined people don't feel comfortable with--otherwise they wouldn't be engineers in the first place.

Perhaps this is missing something

[twilight30]

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.

Re:Perhaps this is missing something

[BCGlorfindel]

Namely, the fact that the US acts as a gigantic research sink (read 'brain drain') for the rest of the world
A very good point, but I think your missing one of the problems the article is pointing out. The number of American born students pursuing scientific interests is decreasing. Yes, right now the American economy is benefiting from the scientific studies/knowledge of a good number of bright foreigners. But in the long term is this a good pattern to see developing? Reliance on foreign individuals seems to be something the current administration is shying away from. I won't start in on the problems of the deteriorating school system, but suffice it to say there is a very big potential problem that this trend indicates.

Follow the rewards...

[dpilot]

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.

Re:Follow the rewards...

[sl3xd]

Not just where america grants its rewards -- but also look at where it has done so over time.

In the past, there were far more rewards given to scientists than are given now. Part of the problem is that business management tends to grossly overvalue themselves, and undervalue their engineers and scientists. (Or their laborers, for that matter). Hell, for the most part, this overvaluation of themselves is probably *the* key problem with corporate america today. It certainly seems to have been the cause of such fiascos such as Enron and WorldCom.

Which is not to say that there isn't a place for business management -- just that there are many who feel themselves indespensible who are in fact quite irrelevant to the company's operation.

The only bright side is that for every few thousand such pointy-hairs, there are a few people like Steve Jobs, who managed to ressurect a nearly dead company.

Could it be?

[medcalf]

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.

very dangerous, actually

[g4dget]

The really gifted kids will be drawn to science no matter the financial rewards.

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?

about money?

[Mazzaroth]

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. :-)

Is it just me?

[derubergeek]

I'm currently a 6 figure technogeek (and have been for a fair amount of time). I've been passionate about technology since I was a kid. And I've been programming every day for the past 20+ years.

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.

Economics is Key

[aburnsio.com]

I always hear this talk about "vital shortage of technical workers predicted". It seems to run along the same line of "we need to encourage science in the schools" and "most students can't find Greenland on a map".

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.

Nation's ***brightest*** increasingly shun science

[Spock the Baptist]

"Study finds drop in science and engineering careers among ***top*** college seniors."
"...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... ;D

My story

[EricWright]

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.

The U.S. doesn't want foreign students any more...

[dpbsmith]

...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.

My own experience

[Helmholtz Coil]

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.

Re:Nation's ***brightest*** increasingly shun scie

[Reality Master 101]

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.

Currently a Grad Student

[DrLudicrous]

I am currently a grad student, and my hope is to get my Ph.D before I am 30. What do I have to look forward to monetarily? Not much. 35,000 at a university or college. 40,000 in industry, if I'm lucky. Idiots in human resources forcing me to take demeaning drug tests. Foolish business managers underpay me, and also underfund me. The public doesn't understand what I do, nor do they want to.

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.

There are few good places left

[Animats]

Most of the good places have tanked. In computing, DEC's R&D labs are gone. Xerox PARC was sold off. Apple's Research Labs were closed in 1997. IBM exited the disk drive business, where much of their west coast R&D was focused. Sarnoff Labs was bought by SRI International, which does mostly DoD work. Bell Labs is nothing like it used to be.

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.