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.

Comments

Not a shortage of high-tech workers...

[RentonSentinel]

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...

Re:Not a shortage of high-tech workers...

[Tablizer]

I don't think corporations really complained about a shortage of high-tech workers.

Big companies like Intel, MS, and HP have been claiming there is a "shortage" for years, even during the depths of the tech recession of 2001-2004. Yet many of them have been implementing hiring freezes and other staff-reducing measures.

As somebody pointed out, MS almost exclusively hires only graduates. If there was a "shortage", shouldn't they expand their hiring to older workers? They just want to keep being picky, that is why they lobby for visa workers and more access to India. Young people without families work longer hours. And, they get "A" workers at "C" prices.

Re:Not a shortage of high-tech workers...

[slashdotnickname]

And, they get "A" workers at "C" prices.
That's a bit of an exaggeration.

As smart and skilled as young tech workers might be, they don't have the experience yet of working in a team environment on large projects. Anyone that's ever worked in such environments knows the value of experienced members, in terms of keeping the goals focused and the lines of communication properly flowing. Schools cannot fully teach experience, and experience is a big component of what I'd call an "A" worker.

Plus, with starting salaries averaging higher than public school teachers or police officers... calling them "C" salaries is stretching it a bit.

"Analysis" is only skin deep

[rheinhold]

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:

• More US students are entering graduate programs because the economy is poor and thus students with bachelors in engineering degrees find graduate study more attractive because finding jobs is difficult. This was certainly true in 2003.
• Fewer foreign students are entering US graduate programs because it has become markedly more difficult to get US student visas since 9/11. This trend is of grave concern to US universities (and it should be of equal concern to the technology community); instead the best students from other countries are staying home or going to other nations for graduate study.

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).