Slashdot Mirror
High Paying Jobs in Math and Science?
An anonymous reader asks: "Where are the high paying jobs for those who are good in math and science? I've heard about math and science shortages for almost two decades now, and I was wondering what high salary/high demand jobs have resulted from these shortages. Most science majors I know actually make less than teachers (in Texas teachers make $38-40K to start for nine months of work). In terms of money, what career would you pursue coming out of college right now with a math or science degree?"
... Actuary (insurance, etc)
There is no shortage of math and science majors. I'm nearing completion of a PhD in science, and if I could go back 6 years, I would go to law school instead. Yes, there is a shortage of brilliant scientists and mathematicians because hey, our economy depends on innovation that comes from the elite few. Science and math jobs? Maybe you can call engineering jobs related to science and math and of course corporations don't want there to be demand of engineering students because that would drive up salaries.
However, some people like to live comfortably, and other people have families to support. Really, why should you begrudge some guy who just wants to see what his labor is worth?
And besides, what some people consider boring, can turn out to be something you love. I love designing/creating databases, it seems boring as heck to some people, but to me its actually fun. So let the guy find something he might get paid well for AND enjoy doing.
...then you are overpriced for the market.
Here's the test: can you go out and form your own company and make more than you are being offered? If you cannot, then you've just discovered why somebody else doesn't want to hire you for that kind of money. Stop thinking about it as how much you are "worth" because of your educational expenditures, and start looking at the income you can reliably, continuously produce for your company. Once you have that number, divide it by three* and that's what your salary should be.
*okay, maybe two in a really large organization with low overhead, or if you fall at the very low or high ends of the payscale. But you're unlikely to be in either of the high/low paid cases.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
$30K a year is not bad for a single guy in his twenties. The problem is that many scientists are still making $30-$40K a year (e.g. as post-docs) in their 30's and 40's. It's hard to support a family on $30K a year - particularly if you're also hoping to save up enough to buy a house, pay for your kid's college and have enough left over for your own retirement.
In fact, let's do the math. Suppose you want to retire at age 65 and die at age 85 while living on a (rather meager) income of $30K a year. That's 20 years at $30K a year or $600K. Let's say you have two kids who go to a good, but not great, college (e.g. pray your kids aren't smart enough to get accepted to Harvard or MIT). That'll run you another $50K each for a total of $100K. Now, let's say you live in an average area. A decent house in a decent neighborhood will run you $300K. That's a million dollars total that you've got to earn in addition to putting food on the table (and paying medical bills and car bills and clothes, etc).
Let's say you get your undergrad degree by age 22 and you get your PhD by age 28 and you've got your student loans paid off by age 30. You now have 35 years to earn a million dollars in addition to "putting food on the table" for your family. That's $30K a year you need to be earning in addition to your day to day living expenses. Well, it's kind of hard to do that when your salary throughout your 30's and 40's is only $30K a year.
Sure, science pays better than being a checkout clerk at Walmart but it's pretty hard to justify all that extra effort and education when medical school or law school would have you earning ten times as much ($300k a year versus $30K a year).
The challenge is that the current generation of college students and recent graduates has been led to believe that they are entitled to a life filled with stuff and with little self-sacrifice required.
If *everyone* would learn to adjust their expectations about what constitutes a minimal acceptable standard of living so that they can live without debt within or - gasp - below their means - our culture would be wealthier, stronger, and better equipped to face challenges.
My next door neighbors are first generation immigrants from El Salvador. They have a three bedroom house which the two parents, three kids, his dad, her mom, share the house with two renters who live in the basement. 9 people in a 1700 square foot house! This is in one of the wealthiest counties in the States. The mom and dad have two jobs. The grandmother has a job, and the dad has occasional work on a third job. These are people who have little education and very poor English skills. They are thrilled to have the opportunity to live in this country, and they are making it happen. It's tough going, but a better deal than in Central America, and they consider it a privilege to have American citizenship. Perhaps we should, too.
Most of these college kids could live at home, have a part time job, enroll in community college for core credits, before transferring to a 4 year college, drastically cutting their tuition. They could refuse to allow themselves to spend more on their credit card than they can pay in a given month. They could live off-campus with several roommates to minimize housing costs. They could forego cable, cell phones and cars to reduce their expenses until their income increases.
Instead, our culture of consumption tells people that they should "buy it now." People actually think that they cannot expect to pay off a car or a house within their lifetime. Ridiculous!
We're generally narcissistic and convinced that stuff, power, or sex will satisfy us. This leads to frustration, deeper debt, and hopelessness.
It's not that life is hard and these kids are victims! It's that mostly they think that they have to obtain a standard of living that is higher than their income, and they become indentured servants at 20%/year interest.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
The great teachers put in the extra time. Most of the teachers don't do any more time during the school year than your typical "40 hour" salaried employee. And, for the record, I think they technically 10 month employees, since they are often required to be in school the week before and (sometimes after) the academic year.
/. time, of course - it's my watercooler) - when I'm not under a real crunch, though I find that trying to get in more the 60 hours is pretty wasted time. I used to be a company guy, and I've done some side teaching (not much, and not k-12). I don't do well with other people's schedules, so I work for myself. I couldn't deal with 30 adolescents every day, and I don't know a k-12 teacher who can design a seismic moment resisting frame.
Most teachers, esp. those whohave never done anything else, don't realize that most salaried workers work more than 40 hours for their paychecks, and often see about 15-20 days of total leave.
Most non-teachers don't understand that for most of the day, a teacher is "on" and teaching requires more "quality" work time during those 4.5-6 hours than your typical cube drone in the same span of time.
Me? I don't work for the Man, I am the Man. When I don't come in to work, I don't get paid. If I take vacation, I don't get paid. If I don't do my job completely, I don't get paid. I don't get health insurance, retirement benefits, disability, or any other perk unless I pay for it. I have to pay for my annual training twice - once for the training, and again in the time that I'm not able to bill clients. I work about 50 hours a week (plus
Teachers actually get paid similarly what someone in industry with similar "ability" would get paid, on an annual basis, but they do have a lot more free time. If they choose to spend that free time on their classes and their career, that's their choice for the most part. Every discipline has people who like what they do, and part of that time is rightfully considered "hobby", not paid service. The trick is finding that person to work for you, or be your teacher, or provide you with their service.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Sorry, but had to bring something up here:
Show me a teacher who only puts in the hours 8-4, and I'll show you a teacher that the administration feels "isn't putting in the effort", and "is only doing the minimum needed to get by".
And the thing is, they're right. 8-4 is just the time they are required to be AT SCHOOL, in the room. Any teacher worth their salt spends plenty of extra time making sure that their lessons are prepared for the next day (or week) and that they are generally ready for anything the class can throw at them. Teaching doesn't just "happen"; it requires a tremendous amount of prep and organizational work.
Also, the vacation is lengthy, but fairly inflexible. Hope you don't want to take any time off OTHER than what the district says, or you've got some problems. Want to take a month off in March instead? Too bad! It's definitely a trade off.
Don't get me wrong, the vacation time is nice, but it has its flip side, and if you think it's a 40 hour a week job, you're deluding yourself. (Or talking about the crappy teachers who DO deserve the low end.)
Which brings us to...
"but why should experienced teachers get more money than the new teachers. They are doing the same job"
Erm.
EXCUSE ME?
Let me turn it around, and see if I can point out just a little bit of hubris on your part. Why should an experienced software developer get more money than a new one? They're doing the same job? Why should an experienced ANYONE get more money?
Answer: Because they do it better. Because years of experience mean that they will generally be more efficient at whatever the job is, do it better, with fewer errors, and have more bandwith to deal with more things. They will also have the experience to deal with the stranger situations that pop up, and will generally require less supervision and be more valuable employees. If you somehow think that this doesn't apply to teachers just as much as it applies to anyone else, then you have a very distorted view of teaching.
You have pretty high standards for what constitutes living comfortably. Many people are never able to buy a house, nor are they able to pay for their children's education. My parents didn't pay for my education, and I was able to get one. It's great to be able to finance your child's education, but that is a luxury. Like I said, 30 K is quite enough money, especially as a starting salary. If you don't think so, you need to re-evaluate your priorities. Also, your calculations are off, because you aren't considering that there's a second person making money in the family. While some people still have the wife stay home, the vast majority of families have both parents working. So, your 600K becomes 1.2 Million. Just as a reference point, I'm currently making $45,000 a year, and my wife isn't working, because she stays home and looks after the kids. I have no problem paying the bills, and actually have quite a bit of money left over at the end of each month. And we are still paying off our student loans (Total $300 a month). In 3 years, I'll have enough saved up for a down payment and I'll be able to buy a house.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
No man has true freedom unless his passive income exceeds his living expenses. Only once you reach this level of freedom (which corresponds to having about $800k well-invested in most of the USA), can you really do whatever the hell you are truly passionate about, with no compromises.
The quickest way to get there, for most people, is to get a college degree in a field with high market value, live cheap, and invest everything you can in revenue-generating business that you don't have to manage (so you can keep working on what you specialize in). ETFs (like DIA) make this REALLY easy to do. If you can stomach extra volatility, leveraged ETFs (like DDM) could greatly shorten the time it takes for you to be be a self-made trust-fund baby (er... middle aged person).
Advice of "do whatever you're most interested in [regardless of pay]" sounds nice, and may be more fun in the short term, but it is much less likely to bring you true freedom than being a "money whore."
When you can live off of your investments, you can change jobs, contracts, and careers at will. Otherwise, you will be filling out TPS reports, all-the-while chained to your current job for the ability to feed yourself and afford medical care.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.