Slashdot Mirror
NSF Reports No Geek Shortage
Baldrson writes "The NSF's report titled 'Graduate Enrollment in Science and Engineering Programs Up in 2003, But Declines for First-Time Foreign Students' (a pdf of the report released for the first time last month) is now available online. In an analysis of the report, Edwin S. Rubenstein of ESR Research states of these latest figures: '4.2 percent of science and engineering PhDs work outside their field of training, chiefly for financial reasons. This further weakens corporate America's claim of a shortage of high-tech workers.'" Interesting to see how things have changed since then.
I don't think corporations really complained about a shortage of high-tech workers.
It was *cheap* high-tech workers that they said were in short supply...
Perhaps the shortage of high tech workers is due to the increasing demands for longer periods of schooling - the mandatory masters and doctorates that have replaced the undergraduate degrees of the past.
My other sig is funny.
So tell me how many PhD's in those fields there are. There can't be that many people with doctorates out there. How much could 4% of that possibly be? and what is that realtive to those with PhD's in other fields?
The bottom line is that science and technology cannot be our comparative advantage anymore. That is why the dismal PhD pay. The laws of physics and science are the same the world over, but salaries are not.
Allegedly "innovation" is our comparative advantage, but are 5 Indians for the same price really going to have less total good ideas than one US citizen? This is an insult to other cultures and nations.
I am not sure what the US's comparative advantage is anymore. Cheesy advertizing and manipulative deal-making? It might be, but it is not something to be proud of.
Table-ized A.I.
You only have to read the articles. Every one of them has something to do with race and how white Americans are getting screwed by black/brown/yellow people.
I'm surprised they manage to get a front page story on Slashdot.
If US industry really needs more people with advanced degrees, then perhaps they should help fund our efforts to get advanced degrees.
I'm almost finished with my Masters in ECE, but it's been a rather large financial sacrifice. Of course, I started on my Master's degree when the economy was in the tank and there really weren't any engineering jobs to be had anyway. In the last year that situation has started to change and more jobs are out there. I've thought about going on for a PhD, but after 3 years of paying for my Master's I really need to go out and work for a few years.
We hear a lot from the likes of Gates and Groves about how their respective companies (Microsoft and Intel) need more people with advanced degrees and then bemoaning the fact that Americans aren't going to school to get those advanced degrees. Well, the big problem is money. When you finish your Bachelor's degree these days you've got a pretty good amount of school loan debt to pay off so you go to work in industry (and going to work in Industry right after getting your Bachelor's is a good thing IMHO: it gives you much needed real world experience you wouldn't get if you just continue straight away to grad school). After a few years you've got a house, cars, a spouse and maybe a kid or two. At this point going back to grad school is very difficult, you take a huge financial hit by doing so.
So, if industry really wants more PhD's then they should put their money where their mouth is and fund more of us. A lot of us would be more than willing to work on a doctorate if we knew that we would be able to make it financially if we did go back to school. Companies should offer funding in exchange for a commitment to work for the company for X number of years after finishing the degree. The funded student would also agree to work perhaps part time or during the summers at said company. Funding should include health insurance - this is a must; how is someone who has a house, spouse and kids going to be able to get by without health insurance.
I really don't buy the whole idea that the reason we don't get enough applicants for advanced degrees is because of poor highschool education levels in the US. You don't go directly from highschool to an advanced degree. Usually you get a bachelor's first and then (as I've suggested above) you work in industry for 5 or 10 years and then consider getting a Master's or PhD - this is often the way it works. Besides, having that 5 or 10 (or more) years of real-world experience and then going on to grad school makes you much more valuable than someone who goes directly to grad school after the bachelor's degree.
I find this "analysis" superficial and self-serving. A vocal segment of the high-tech community, including, evidently, the author of this piece, is protectionist and consistently opposes higher visa limits for foreign workers. I, personally, think this is short-sighted; I think continued immigration of the best and brightest from the rest of the world is a positive for the US. But that's not what I'm criticizing in the report.
The author attempts to argue that American students are becoming more interested in engineering, and that foreign students are less so, based on the enrollment numbers into US graduate programs, and thus we don't need more foreign workers. From my experience as a professor, I offer an alternate explanation:
I feel this "analysis" is far from objective; the Hudson Institute, a far-right think tank, evidently has quite the axe to grind with immigration (just as they do with Social Security and organic foods).
That's right, don't debate their arguments or basis, for the fact is that they are talking about something that should not be talked about in polite company. Their arguments are sound and they link to solid evidence, I am not going to decry them just because they don't follow the PC line.
As I have noted on slashdot before, as of right now, there is no reason for an American to pursue a PhD in science or engineering. The same person will make much more money as a doctor or lawyer, for example.
Why the difference?
Simple - your doctor or lawyer, almost by the definition of their job, must be local. They are relatively immune to competition from foreigners. This is not true for scientists, who right now are most definitely competing with very able Chinese, Indians, etc.
That being said, the usual panic cry of "keep out the foreigners" is also wrong. Each and every American scientist is competing with each and every foreign scientist in his or her field. This is true regardless of who hires them or where they work. Which do you think is best for America?
1: An American company hires the Chinese scientist, sponsers his visa and brings him to the US.
2: An American company hires the Chinese scientist, but the scientist works in the company's Chinese division.
3: A foreign company hires the Chinese scientist, and employs him overseas.
I hope you realize the first option is the best. There is nothing the government can do to stop the competition created by these new scientists, and nothing it can do to prevent wage deflation because of it. It should give up trying.
If, for national security reasons or some other random excuse, the government feels it important to have lots of native-born scientists, it will have to tackle the problem at the graduate level. Asking talented 22-30 year olds to slog through 6+ years of 70h weeks for a wage topped by the guy cleaning the toilets, while a lawyer is making $75k at age 25, is pure silliness. Making graduate school less financially miserable would be a start. Of course, it is too late for me.
Background: I'm an engineering grad student, and have TA'd/taught classes at 3 schools. I've found that the schools without grade inflation (courses graded on a curve, almost allways a C+ average) had a much higher percentage of students excited to be engineers. This (geekily enough) lead to alot of late night brainstorming sessions over beer, and as a result ideas were shared across majors, and still are. But students who werent excited about engineering were weeded out of the programs quickly (we gradauted 11 out of 35). Fast forward to the grad school I'm at. engineering classes are curved so that almost everyone gets a B+ or higher. The students dont work, dont learn, and an insanely small percentage of undergrads here actually go on to be engineers. I found the same thing at another school I visited for 1 summer. For the record, both schools are considered top 10 schools for undergrads in various news reports, and are ranked similarly for both graduate and undergraduate engineering.
It's been pointed out by others that this may be a fundamental flaw in MS software development. They can get new graduates cheaply but they lack experience so continue to make the same mistakes that other more experienced workers have learned about the hard way (think security, networking, etc.)
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
When your IT people say "not supported" they're not saying it to be lazy, mean, or apathetic, they're really saying "We can't cover the work we have, we can't take on more by supporting that." Plus, asking for training on additional technologies at most companies will get you laughed out of your manager's office if you're lucky (if you're not, they'll replace you with someone too dumb to train.)
It really all comes back to money. When you don't spend enough on IT salaries, you get one of two things: not enough smart people, or too many dumb people. Big business seems to be unable to comprehend the concept of "you get what you pay for" in terms of IT salaries. They want warm bodies who are willing to take anything to keep from being unemployed (or deported; let's not forget the REAL reason companies hire H1-B workers; they can say "Do this or you'll get deported"), not qualified people who require a living wage.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
--
Len of Len Corp.