No Shortage of Qualified Scientists and Engineers in America

I haven't seen the figures, but my impression from the news is that in Finland we're becoming short of qualified personnel like engineers. Recruiting from abroad is a sensible strategy for Finland: in essence, because someone else gets to pay all the training costs. And, being a Socialist Heaven, we do have decent wages and benefits. And sauna.

So, folks, come over and work for Nokia!

Bob

As someone currently training with the goal of instantiating a research career, I may just have to take Bob O'H up on his offer. It would seem that we here in the U.S. have become so religiously attached to free market ideology that we sit on our hands as our future is sold out. Well, one man can't save the world, so I may settle myself elsewhere.

Over here in the other Socialist Heaven, Sweden, things are not so rosy. There was a big push to educate biologists in the late eighties and nineties with no thought for resulting job opportunities for the graduates. Now the situation is such that there is probably one career job available per 20 PhDs. The situation in Sweden isnt helped by the tax loopholes. This means that it is incredibly expensive to hire someone who will be part of the social security system - with the result that research laboratories are generally populated by local scientist group leaders and foreign researchers on short term contracts (no benefits and no tax costs to the employers). After two years the tax loophole comes to an end and the researcher is forced to move on.
Historically biological research has not been a real 'career', it has been a part time hobby of those with money and time on their hands. Today many young people are encouraged to go into this without seeing the reality at the end of the line.
I seriously wonder if this reality should not be more clearly pointed out to those who wonder if this is the job for them. True, it would probably lead to a collapse in the numbers of young people going into science, but it may in the end lead to a realistic convergence of numbers of researchers to the number of research posts.

Martin: if there was a complete lapse of people going in to science and engineering that lasted for ten years, we still would have a surplus of both professions in the USA. the problem is that scientists and engineers are overqualified for every job out there and thus are not hireable. they are not qualified for another profession, such as medicine or law or pharmacy unless they go to professional school -- and that requires they go deeper into debt, which is just plain wrong, considering that most scientists/engineers already are drowning under significant amounts of debt to begin with.

i'd love to go overseas to pursue my research career although after being unemployed/underemployed for so long, i doubt i am competitive for a research position.

i am currently studying for the LSAT and MCAT with the hope that i can get in to medical school or maybe law school (although i do not see myself as a lawyer). or maybe i'll go to vet school? i dunno. maybe i'll have to go on welfare?

"after being unemployed/underemployed for years now, i am currently studying for the LSAT and MCAT in the hope that i can get in to medical school or maybe law school (although i do not see myself as a lawyer). maybe i'll go to vet school? i dunno."

Probably a realistic scenario (or something close to it) for the majority of those who are currently training to be scientific researchers. Yet what do we hear on the news or when in school ? "Lack of scientists", or "Western countries losing out to China and India in graduating scientists and engineers." Its the true nasty little (or maybe not so little) secret of science that is considered bad form to mention in polite company.

Freaking tell me about it, Grrl. I took my engineering degree straight into a crappy tech support position at a start up, where I work for a crazy person. Which is still an improvement over data entry, which is what I had to do for about six months after I graduated because there just wasn't anything around. One of the other problems with the situation is that it pushes the requirements higher for the few jobs that are out there. Entry-level competition is incredibly fierce. And since I missed the boat early on and took this tech support position out of desperation, there's no way for me to get the work experience that I'd need to compete.

The only people I know who haven't had trouble finding work are my two friends who did a BS/MS program, which just gives further proof to the fact that a bachelor's degree these days gets you only about as far as a high school diploma used to.

I empathize with educated scientists who face these awful stumbling blocks. This is a public policy issue that, like most important public policy issues, is being ignored while tax monies are being frittered away on war and corporate welfare. Being a minor league entrepreneur, it seems to me that the collective intellectual capital of the best of these unemployed scientists could be directed toward their own entrepreneurial efforts, thereby putting themselves to work, rather than depending on someone else doing it for them. Easier said than done, I know, but you may have the ideal venue, here, to pull together the right intellectual capital which, in turn, could attract economic capital.

...just an idea from a non-scientist who enjoys visiting here and always learns something.

Two points: First, if these people really are overqualified for most jobs out there, then that means they're _not_ a good match for the employers and there is not a surplus of people. Overqualified is as bad as underqualified - the employer is expected to pay Phd salaries for Bachelor work. And pay it to someone who most likely will jump ship the moment an opening more suited to their training comes along.

Second, from a larger point of view, if anything it is probably a net positive for science if the top-notch work gets done in more countries, and not so concentrated in one society. Yes, it sucks for us (I'm out on a limb as well, and will most likely have to leave science altogether), but for the larger field of research it's good.

When I left grad school (30some) years ago ,with an All but Dissertaion in geophysics, at least those with good analytic skills could eventually find employment in the computer programming field. In those days that field was rapidly expanding, and most jobs were filled by people with technical training in other fields of science and engineering. I can certainly sympathize with GrllScientist about the problem of being simultaneously over and underqualified for most jobs on offer. That was my reality for the better part of a year, and I can remember collecting Aluminum cans from the side of the road so I could earn enough money to eat.

I am not such a fan of entrepreneurialism. I think it may be fine for some smallish portion of the population, but most people who try that route will lose money failing. How many people just out of school have the financial resources to give a go at it?

So John, fancy setting up Scientists'R'Us? :-)

It's perhaps worth pointing out that there are many jobs that don't require a PhD, but where the illusion of competence that goes with one is useful. My brother got a PhD in mineral processing, but didn't want to continue working on coal tips. He ended up in the civil service in the UK, working in the passport office managing development projects (e.g. the new biometric passports).

Mind you, he now lives in Slough (of The Office fame), so perhaps this isn't such a success story...

Bob

As another woefully underemployed PhD, I have encountered the same difficulties. I have had both human resources and program managers tell me that I am overqualified and rejected automatically due to my degree. On the other side of the situation, getting some kind of research-related position requiring a PhD is almost impossible due to my lack of currently useful lab skills. And getting some kind of research administration job is impossible because they will only talk to people with two years+ experience in that area - and entry-level positions cannot be found. And yet, there seems to be a considerable need in these areas [clinical research monitors, specifically].

I know that my siituation is not unique - I am currently working part-time through a grant program at a social-service agency. I felt embarrassed to admit my level of education at the intake interview, but I was assured that my situation was hardly unique.

Reading this from France was unintentionally funny since one of the ads was about obtaining a green card to move to the states.

I find it strange that in western countries the employers always claim that they can't find the skills within the native populace. As mentioned above, they don't actually mean that; what they mean is that they don't want to pay a decent wage.

"Engineering & Science are very important", so say the politicians and employers along with mathematics. Then they refuse to pay as much for those important skills as they will happily pay to a lawyer or taxidermist or accountant :o(

How many engineers or scientists or mathematicians sit on the boards of companies in the USA or UK? Very few, possibly because we tend to be honest folk, so for all the words spoken neither politicians nor company boards actually believe that scientists or engineers are any different from any other raw material.

i work at a variety of odd jobs to pay for food and rent (well, when i am lucky, they cover rent). right now, i write my blog (this is the only job that i have that is "on the books" so far), walk dogs, care for cats and other pets, and i also got lucky this week because i was hired to edit a grad student's dissertation. that should pay me a couple hundred dollars, i hope. granted, the diss i am editing is about American policy and modernization of the American navy, which means i don't completely understand it, but i am a good editor, at least. and that is a skill that comes from my bookwormish and writerly ways, not from my education per se.

but my heart lies in scientific research. i wish i could carry out research without a formal affiliation with a university or research institute, but i cannot. i am not a businessman, nor unfortunately, do i have any particular skills at running a business (although some would argue that pet care is a business). even though i am educated and intelligent, that doesn't necessarily mean i would be happy (or good at) running my own business. i envy those who are capable and happy doing so.

Grrl, several years ago I considered changing careers for science. Sometimes I feel sad that I didn't, and my partner often asks me if I would still want to try. But I just can't take on the risks and costs. I know this is 2 days old, so no one will probably read this.

We just hired on to our systems project a woman with an MS in geology or meteorology, can't remember. I'm not sure why she left the field (she seemed uncomfortable talking about that so I did not ask directly). She originally was hired by another project in our company through a contracting agency. Now we are hiring her directly, so she will be an employee of our financial services company. She is very analytical and does a great job, but having read her resume I could see why some companies would not hire her. The research projects she worked on and the equipment she used sound far advanced beyond what she is doing here, which is mostly creating visio diagrams of workflows that the systems we are building will follow. (probably she is paid more that the folks on her research projects were). I don't think we would have hired her if she had not already been working for another group in our company and had a good reputation. We would have either thought she would leave, or that there was something shady as to why she was not working in something more technically advanced. If I could have said anything to her, it would have been to summarize her research in layman's terms on her resume, and leave out all the technical terms and references to equipment.
She is considering getting an MBA using the company tuition reimbursement.

Grrl, have you considered an MBA? I've encountered more than a few science phd's with MBAs who have ended up in interesting careers.

Umeployed engineers, come to Australia! The mining boom that is going on here at the moment has created a huge shortfall of qualified, decent engineers. And there is a general shortage of sciency people too.

marianne - we scientists have studied these things (it's what we're trained to do, you know). The consensus is that the price of an MBA is too high. Quite frankly, if you're going to pay with your soul, you might at least how to play the violin.

I've known a couple of people who have switched careers to science (one actually did her PhD at the AMNH, on slave-making ants), so it is possible to do. It is difficult to get a job in academia afterwards: I've no idea what it's like in the real world. Mind you, who but a violinist would want to try to work in the real world?

Bob

"She originally was hired by another project in our company through a contracting agency."

That's one of the other trends that's little reported: the shift from real, full-time permanent career employment to body shopping with lower pay, benefits, and no security. They call them adjuncts in academe, "consulting" or "contracting" or "solutions providers" or "permatemps" in the middle, and "staffing" or "day laborers" at the low-skill end. It's the same scam.

I've done everything from running a printing press to putting together stained glass windows to mitochondria research to analyzing sky-scrapers to designing parts for nuclear weapons systems to continuing development of a word processor, but might as well have leprosy as the Clinton-Bush economic depression continues, unrelenting.

You're not alone. Peek in on these discussions:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProgrammersGuild
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TechsUnite

I agree with some of your points, but you have oversimplified the reasons that employers want H1B workers. That's not really your fault since they also simplify their arguments. Besides wages and in/availability of workers there are at least two other important factors in the argument for H1s. 1. competition with foreign companies, 2. work-"ethic"

#2. Ethic is misleading. They work harder partially out of habit and largely out of greater motivation to keep their jobs. This means more productive hours. Before your say that this goes back to wages, it does not entirely. It also goes toward communication, team-building and productivity of the entire team. There are only so many team members that can work together effectively. You can reduce the size of teams if all the members work more hours. This helps communication, management, and productivity.

#1. The employees who are hired from abroad, are by the nature of the vetting process, the best of the best available at that salary level -- worldwide. This means they are taking the best employees away from their competition. That in turn means that their company keeps a competitive advantage against foreign companies.

Issues are a lot more complex than either the socialists or the greedy shareholders (and that is most of us with retirement portfolios, by the way ... are you investing in companies that do otherwise?) would have you think.

I'll just add that #2 is the same reason that women of motherhood-age are discriminated against in hiring and make 70% (last number I heard?) less than men for the same job -- the perception that they work fewer hours.