Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Science Is a Lousy Career Choice

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the science-keeps-blinding-me dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "President Obama had a town hall meeting at Facebook's headquarters last week and said that he wanted to encourage females and minorities to pursue STEM disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics). However, Pastabagel writes that the need for American students to study STEM is one of the tired refrains in modern American politics and that plenty of people already study science, but they don't work in science. 'MIT grads are more likely to end up in the financial industry, where quants and traders are very well compensated, than in the semiconductor industry where the spectre of outsourcing to India and Asia will hang over their heads for their entire career.' Philip Greenspun adds that science can be fun, but considered as a career, science suffers by comparison to the professions and the business world. 'The average scientist that I encounter expresses bitterness about (a) low pay, (b) not getting enough credit or references to his or her work, (c) not knowing where the next job is coming from, (d) not having enough money or job security to get married and/or have children,' writes Greenspun. 'Pursuing science as a career seems so irrational that one wonders why any young American would do it.'"

30 of 694 comments (clear)

  1. Think before making your career choice by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Think. Which job position will get outsourced more likely? Engineering or managing? Before you answer, consider: Managers make that decision.

    Do I need to write anything more?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Think before making your career choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This demonstrates the common strategy to achieve failure:

      But the problem is more general than one of outsourcing.

      As a company grows, it grows from a few engineers to engineers plus managers, to engineers plus managers plus managers of managers.

      As a company shrinks, it often shrinks from the bottom, because the decision power is top down.

      So a common failure state is a company full of managers, with no-one to do the work.
      The upside down pyramid structure will inevitably fall.

      Whether staff is reduced or outsource, the result is the same.

      Of course with outsourcing, the pretense is that the US management can sit on top of a larger remote pyramid, but eventually either the remote headless pyramid fails because of missing local management, or the remote pyramid becomes the company because it is effectively self contained.

    2. Re:Think before making your career choice by jimicus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If car manufacturing in the UK is anything to go by, the cycle works a bit like this:

      1. Companies outsource manufacturing to cheap overseas country.
      2. Manufacturing more-or-less collapses in UK.
      3. The UK now has a large number of skilled workers who have experience building cars and a shortage of work for them. It's fair to assume they'll work for slightly less than they used to demand, and shipping cars is remarkably expensive. So a number of foreign manufacturers set up factories in the UK.
      4. Manufacturing brightens up - though the factory owner is no longer a British company.

      Examples: BMW manufacture the Mini in the UK. (They also manufacture a number of engines. Yes - the UK ships car engines to Germany for BMW cars!)

      Toyota, Honda and Nissan also have factories in the UK.

    3. Re:Think before making your career choice by bware · · Score: 4, Informative

      Tariffs played a large role in this. Honda et al. can avoid paying tariffs if some large fraction of the car is manufactured/assembled here. Otherwise there's as much as a 25% tariff. For years the Japanese could make cars cheaper than Americans, so this didn't matter, but then when prices started approaching parity, they started moving factories over here to get around it.

      The tariff on trucks was much higher, and that's why there were no full-sized Japanese trucks in the US until the laws changed around 1999. The Japanese manufacturers lobbied hard to get those changed (and the US companies lobbied hard against it - some deal was made) so Toyota/Nissan could compete in the very profitable F150 market, and traded off moving entire factories here to get it.

    4. Re:Think before making your career choice by TopSpin · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is exactly what happened in the US.

      The grandparents hypothetical 'cycle' had nothing to do with the presence of foreign auto manufacturers in the US.

      During the late 70's and early 80's 'domestic content' laws and regulations were both enhanced and created in the US that assess tariffs on imported autos based on the percent of value add by foreign vs. domestic industry. As a result, multiple plants opened (and remain open) in southern US by the late 80's. By 1989 all imported autos were subject to these content requirements. Trucks and SUVs were eventually reclassified (yes, these demands were met) to fall under this regime as well.

      The Reagan administration also negotiated hard limits on Japanese imports. Annual caps on imports were voluntarily agreed to between the US and Japan. Reagan also applied heavy tariffs on imported motorcycles; he noted in his memoirs that the only remaining US motorcycle manufacturer was on its last legs at the time. Today that company is healthy and once again has domestic competition.

      The reason, the only reason, any foreign auto manufacturers pay for US labor is to avoid heavy tariffs. This paradigm was established back when the US had leaders willing to leverage the fact that importers needed the US more than the US needed the importers.

      Which president most recently granted MFN status to China and signed NAFTA?

      Look it up. Learn something. There is no need to resort to speculation and theory about why things are as they are; there is actual history one may study.

      --
      Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
  2. Reward by internerdj · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The reward of solving a problem through hard work and proper application of knowledge is the feeling at the end. That is why young American's still choose to do it. There are a number of hurdles to get addicted to that feeling, not the least of which is that I can probably make more money doing something else.

  3. Because hedge fund managers are asshats by sdguero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That is my main reason for sticking to Engineering.

    Sales guys, stock brokers, marketing people... Those positions are not rewarding, and you have to leave your soul at the door. Science, Engineering, Construction, Mechanics are the jobs for me. Always will be. I couldn't live with myself knowing that my livelyhood came on the back of others, earned by shiesting a percentage out of something I didn't build because I shuffled some paperwork and talked on the phone. Those people live empty soulless lives. They cheat on their partners. And they drive like assholes on the freeway.

    1. Re:Because hedge fund managers are asshats by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Backstabbing and underhanded happens rarely in Engineering, and not usually by Engineers. Rather, its the people that don't have the brains to hack it, and/or don't understand the feeling of reward that comes from building something.

      No true Scotsman!

      --
      Comment of the year
    2. Re:Because hedge fund managers are asshats by 19061969 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Although I don't agree with the darkness of your picture, I can certainly understand what you mean. I speak as an ex-research fellow who saw similar things and got primarily fed up with the lack of security and lack of money. So I went into industry as a freelance 'consultant' and while job security is still lacking, the pay is way better and my ideas get treated with more respect because the people I work with are mostly interested in creating the best product. I think a bit of my soul has died since then, but I'm providing for my family and they are a darn sight more important than my career. However, my soul died a lot more in a 5* university dept, trying to hack out a career. I'd give you mod points if I had any.

      --
      bang goes my karma... again...
    3. Re:Because hedge fund managers are asshats by Dripdry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but it shouldn't be the job you direct ire toward, it should be the people themselves and their work ethic. As a financial advisor and ex IT person, I found IT to be completely unrewarding. There was no meaningful interaction with people, I got no recognition, and the hours were awful!

      Now, by working very diligently to inform my clients about their benefits, researching investments and applying strategies to help them make more money than if they'd hired me, and finally presenting it to people in a manner they will understand *follow through on* (something IT could stand to learn from), I have 1) Meaningful interaction with people, 2) occasional recognition and self-satisfaction in the short term, with long term results and recognition that i can get someone to/through retirement or their kids to college, and 3) Even longer hours. But I sort of like doing those longer hours, and I have the flexibility to tell my boss (mostly me) to shove off.

      Yes, you have to talk to lots of people, and you do lose a little bit of your soul, but that happens in EVERY job out there and I dare anyone to show me otherwise.

      In closing, blame charismatic lazy people (a lot of advisors) for screwing their clients out of dollars. There ARE those of us working to help everyone who will listen be educated and, one hopes, do business with us to have a better future and less worry.

      --
      -
  4. They don't. by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As a relatively young MD/PhD student I've noticed that there are relatively few Americans in any of the PhD programs at my university. My perspective is from the biomedical sciences, but still. Most are Chinese or Indian students and most of the American students are already planning for industry, consulting, or some other non-research job. I would also add that e) stressing about writing grants every few years and progress reports for those grants every year - is a deterrent for continuing a career in science.

    1. Re:They don't. by xtracto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a Comp. Sci. PhD I have a slightly different point of view.

      I went out of my country (Mexico) to do my PhD with a scholarpship from my government. However, due to the lack of jobs in my own country, I chose to stay in Europe to do a Postdoc.

      In Germany at least (in the Science circles I am moving now) there is quite a lot of money for research. In fact, in my institute there is more money than researchers (because generally people do not want to live in the city where the institute is).

      However, I can see that the main problem in USA is the same as in Mexico; the government wants people to study science but does not want to impulse job creation for those scientists. In the case of Mexico (and other underdeveloped countries) we have the option of going to other countries, but in the case of the USA (mainly due to cultural limitations) people may not have that option.

      The problem is how can the government *impulse* such job creation. The private sector will never offer a lot of research jobs (specially theoretical research), and as someone else said, they want useful, commercial results in a very small amount of time... because they do not know how science work.

      The other option is for government funded research institutes. This is how Germany research assassinations work (Max Planck, Fraunhofer, Leibniz, UFZ, Helmholz, etc...) and to a lower degree how Mexico works (Cinvestav). But in a country (like the USA) where government "control" is seen as being a bad thing, I cannot imagine this approach being accepted.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  5. Re:what's really going on? by Osgeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

    doesn't matter how mediocre they are, why get 1 mediocre scientist in America thats going to bitch and whine about pay, when you can get 5 mediocre scientist in India who will suck your ass for cheaper all together

  6. The endgame of outsourcing. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While there are plenty of stupid people out there, not everyone is. The smartest are moving away from these careers in droves because of these outsourcing issues. The final result of outsourcing in the messed-up corporate mind is that *everyone* will become a manager and that's the only job that holds any worth and it is the only job worth doing. It's also the only job, therefore, that deserves a living wage. If we stubbornly follow this as a country then we're is MASSIVE trouble.

    1. Re:The endgame of outsourcing. by Chemisor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Management can also be outsourced. Eventually those engineers in India will realize that having the manager in your own timezone is a good thing. It isn't like management requires years of training and heaps of intelligence. All you need is good people skills and some competence in assigning the right resources to the right problem. Most people have some of the former, and the latter can be easily learned by playing Empire Earth. Once the manager is in India, why bother having a US presence at all? The only thing it gets you is having to pay US taxes. India is not a bad place to live, when you have a job. The endgame, therefore, is to have everyone and everything move to India. The US will be populated exclusively by HFT traders, who will be too busy grabbing each other's money to notice.

  7. Solution by Alex+Belits · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Solution: destroy "financial services" industry. At this point it serves no purpose whatsoever, just sucks resources. Trade and investment can be handled without giant middlemen running their scams.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  8. Pot calling kettle by Chemisor · · Score: 5, Funny

    Tell us, Mr.President, why did you major in law instead of engineering?

  9. Re:what's really going on? by paiute · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And these days, that Chinese or Indian scientists will probably be of higher calibre than the American.

    You obviously don't work in the sciences.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  10. Re:what's really going on? by ThatMegathronDude · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Those Chinese or Indian scientists are likely to have been educated over here.

  11. Depends what you value by macwhizkid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I work as a research associate at a name brand school. I've seen this article cited a few times, usually by discouraged graduate students.

    For me, I guess it all comes down to what you want out of life. Greenspun's argument basically comes down to the fact that science/tech is at risk of being outsourced, and people should instead be real-estate agents, doctors, and lawyers. Well, news flash, lawyers are being replaced with software, many doctors want a career switch, and real-estate agents, well, I'm not even going to go there. I just find it too insulting to compare somebody who's chosen to advance humanity's exploration of the world we live in with somebody who wants to make a quick buck by match-making sellers and buyers. Hell, if anything, the last decade should have taught us that the internet is rapidly doing away with middlemen. Go ask your local bookstore/pawnshop/consumer electronics store how business has been recently.

    Most people find it easier to follow in the footsteps of others (teachers at school, professional parents, etc) rather than ask the hard questions: "What am I good at?" "Will somebody pay me to do it?" "Can I be the best at what I do?"

    Work is work, and nobody said work is entirely fun. If you have a job you truly enjoy every minute of every day, congratulations. Most people go their whole life without finding it. But, there is a big difference between a job with some enjoyable aspects and rewards vs. a job you truly despise.

  12. Re:Put it another way by guspasho · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I found this Wikipedia article rather interesting.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

    Of the various stages of ethical development I take pride in guessing (not necessarily objectively, mind you) that I may be at stage 6 of ethical development. But take what you know of the typical corporation and they are almost always at stage 2. Only the smaller ones who have a large stake in the communities in which they operate, ie not investor-owned, and tied to a single community, even reach conventional development. I find it interesting that the justifying "philosophies" of libertarianism and objectivism would reject this model, saying that only stage 1 and stage 2 exist, stage 2 obviously being morally superior, and any further stages are still manifestations of stage 1. But our culture as well as our economy do not reward anything beyond stage 2, they disregard it or even punish it.

  13. Bleh... more slashdot career flamebait by Yold · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was hoping to see some intelligent discussion of the pros/cons of choosing careers in science, but of course this is Slashdot, and all career discussions must degenerate into bashing mangers, finance, and boo-hooing the dangers of outsourcing. So let me inject some positive and rational comments into this mess.

    The financial industry is full of climbers, and it sucks to work with those people. Smart people get jammed into confining roles with no ability to solve problems or exercise creativity. I know some really smart people who have left finance to return to academia, leaving behind $500K+ salaries. Almost everyone I know who works in finance/accounting hates their job or boss.

    There are plenty of jobs outside of management that pay livable wages. Live within your means, and find a spouse who makes a decent living too. Americans are so damn greedy they don't understand that driving an economy car and living in a normal house doesn't mean that you are poor.

    Finally, outsourcing. HAHAHAHAHA. Having seen it in action, I think it's hilarious that people feel threatened by it. Sorry folks, American and European universities still churn out the best qualified engineers in the world. The people willing to work for $5 /hr aren't nearly as competent, and you have the global economy to thank for that. Would someone please offer some evidence of a outsourcing success story?

    My friends who work in science (PhD candidates, receiving full-tuition and stipends) get drunk on Tuesday nights. They travel to conferences in San Francisco and Prague. They set their own hours and work on stuff that means the world to them. There is some guidance in their research but they call the shots and decide what to research. That is pretty damn cool. One of my friends has parents who are professors and they sure do alright.

    If you want to work in science, or engineering, don't listen to the Slashdot haters. There is plenty of opportunity left in this world, just work hard and get your stuff done; you can make a living doing something that you enjoy.

    1. Re:Bleh... more slashdot career flamebait by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Americans are so damn greedy they don't understand that driving an economy car and living in a normal house doesn't mean that you are poor.

      People have a warped view of things thanks to TV, I think. Saw some cop show last year where they went to a detective's home, and she lived in some palatial apartment with a view that would impress Richard Branson.

      I'm doing really well in engineering. I have my little house in a quiet neighborhood. Just bought me one of those new big MINIs. I can flex my time, and have leisure time to do what I want. But to a lot of people, because I don't live by myself in a 4000 sq ft house and have two $100K+ cars, I'm a big loser.

    2. Re:Bleh... more slashdot career flamebait by lurker5 · · Score: 3

      This is what is totally astounding to me. I have an engineering degree from a Midwestern US university and am able to afford my own townhouse, provide for my stay-at-home wife who is taking care of our 1 year old daughter, have a car (that mostly sits in the driveway), able to buy the highest end organic food, have a ton of free time, enjoy music, cinema, theater and have enough money left over for a hobby or two and save for retirement. Generally an intellectually and emotionally satisfying life. All of this despite having a 5-digit family income. What do I see around me? People who make twice as much money or more and own far more junk, who constantly complain about costs and taxes. Where does this come from? Americans need to wake up and realize they already own far more than an average person in this world. It's time to stop complaining and start living.

  14. Re:what's really going on? by mrnobo1024 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Guess what, America? If someone else is willing to do your job for a quarter of what you are, well, they are going to get the job and you aren't going to.

    I would gladly do the job of the CEO of Goldman Sachs for one hundredth of his (8-figure) pay.

    But it doesn't work that way, does it? The ruling class doesn't have to worry about losing their own "jobs", simply because they're the ones calling the shots. Capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich; that's what we have in this country.

    That's what you get for pricing yourselves out of the market.

    Yes, clearly it's all our fault that a Chinese or Indian salary won't even pay the rent here. Do you seriously believe that in America, a worker gets to set the price of all the things he needs to live?

    America has made it's choice

    The tiny portion of Americans who control the country have made their choice. The rest of us get to suffer the consequences.

  15. Re:what's really going on? by WrongMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It isn't just that the science grads aren't good enough, its that the science itself it harder than it's ever been before. All the low hanging fruit that could be figured out by an individual or small team as already been done.

    "It was a game, a very interesting game one could play. Whenever one solved of the little problems, one could write a paper about it. It was very easy in those days for any second-rate physicist to do first-rate work. There has not been such a glorious time since. It is very difficult now for a first-rate physicist to do second-rate work." -- P.A.M Dirac, DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS, 1978, P. 7

  16. Speaking as a male physicist by DetriusXii · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I finished optimistically in my Masters in physics in 2005. I was going to take a few months off before starting my PhD to look for jobs and accept one because I was undecided about doing a PhD. I discovered that no employer was really looking for a physics education and I returned to the PhD program bitter. Being a graduate student eventually ends and ultimately, that education needs to be translated into sustainable work. Otherwise, it's just lost income opportunities by consuming time to get an education. Being able to start a family matters and being able to settle down and buy a house matters. And the people saying that science education is so valuable and so important to do aren't making those sacrifices themselves. They're the ones with their own house and vehicle and starting their family life. I ended up retraining as an accountant but I then realized I was incredibly bored after six months, so I took computer science instead and I discovered I liked it a lot more. And the material is interesting to read even outside of class. And I get job interviews too. I still think it's a challenging market as a programmer in Saskatchewan, but there's still more demand for it than in physics or engineering. Other friends who stuck it out for the PhD are now discovering that things are going awry for them. They can't find jobs and they don't have the income they thought they would. There was an article http://harvardmagazine.com/2009/11/professionalization-in-academy basically explaining that jobs that are safe are jobs that can't be shipped over the wire. The trades and the health sector seem to fit that category. There just isn't a demand for science and I cringed when I heard that the Liberals have education tax credit plans for university students. it just seems to be flooding the market with more university majors without employer demand for the degree.

  17. Ahh, but you've missed the whole point. by Weezul · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All the stock brokers are now being pulled from MIT & co.'s STEM programs. Aren't you glad knowing the guys making all that money loved science & designing things in High School?

    Google & others are making significant progress towards populating marketing with the same crowd too. There is also a lively field of academic business research desperately trying to ensure that STEM majors are more qualified than undergrad business majors.

    Sales may take slightly longer though. Sorry, people still love a good bullshit artist.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  18. Re:what's really going on? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Believe it or not Slashdot, the guys at the top are usually there for very good reasons. They are not stupid, they are not idiots, and most of them are pretty damn good at what they do.

    I'm one of those privileged cunts people whine about. I went to a nice private school and am quite familiar with the old boys'/girls' network.

    I can assure you that while most aren't stupid, and some of them are even quite good at what they do, what they are not is uniquely able or qualified. The fact that they're in the position rather than any number of other people of equal or greater competence is that they know the right people and play the right tune (which is often very different from the tune the company claims to play).

    In other words, a meritocratic market would certainly cause upper management pay to drop to one tenth of its current silliness. But why would you threaten your own security by actually practicing the competitive capitalism that you preach? No, you're far more secure and productive if you cooperate while preaching to everyone below you to turn against each other in ruthless competition.

  19. Re:what's really going on? by Stuntmonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Believe it or not Slashdot, the guys at the top are usually there for very good reasons. They are not stupid, they are not idiots, and most of them are pretty damn good at what they do.

    I've worked directly with a lot of CEOs and other senior leaders at companies. My observation is that there is always a baseline of high personal drive and ambition, and usually a good amount of charisma and intelligence as well. The people who get to the top get there for a reason, and it isn't usually prep school or family connections. Many CEOs come from typical middle-class backgrounds.

    That said, at the senior-most level it's hard in practice to determine just who is "pretty damn good at what they do". At a large company it can take five or more years to figure out whether a given strategy was brilliant or misguided. Contrast that with a line factory worker, whose contribution is easy to measure. Because it's so hard to measure the performance of a C-level leader, there gets to be this self-perpetuating aspect to the people in those roles: Once you attain that role (somehow), then wherever you go in the future will also be a C-level role. And if you're a corporate board looking to hire at that level, you go with someone that has prior experience because you don't really know how to measure them anyway, and you're pretty risk averse. In effect the pool of candidates is artificially restricted because of a lack of good information. Ironically C-level people end up making more money precisely because it is so difficult to measure how well they perform.

    In net, I'd guess at least one person out of 100,000 has what takes to be a credible CEO of Goldman Sachs, if they were given the chance. Of course we'll never know.