It's really difficult to come up with new ways to frame crisis stories about the dwindling number of science majors in the US, but people keep finding them. The latest is from Marc Zimmer writing in Inside Higher Ed, who makes a number of biology analogies:
The numbers indicate that the American scientist population is not healthy, especially not in comparison to scientists in other countries. This will impact America's ability to retain its place in the global (scientific and technological) food chain. What could be responsible for this decline? My money is on the changing habitat of the American scientist , climate change, and the introduction of exotic species.
Zimmer is a chemist, so he will undoubtedly offend some humorless bio dorks by misusing one or another of those terms in slightly strained analogies ("climate change" for example, refers to, more or less, the War On Science). But at least it's a faintly novel way of framing the issue.
There's really nothing new other than that, though. It's mostly, as the first commenter notes, the same old same old arguments.
- Log in to post comments
I think maybe all of the would-be science majors have become business majors or lawyers. But maybe it's always been that way.
PhD: 4 years BS, 6 years PhD, ~60K in debt at end.
Homeland Severity at LAX: High school GED, $100K/year.
The 80 IQ chump is $1,060,000 ahead of the PhD at graduation. Who gets to retire after 20 years (age 38 for the chump) with a fantastic pension that really will be paid out? Unfirable and with exceptional benefits?
When the boat sinks the only folks guaranteed to drown are those chained to its oars. Whether the water is salt or fresh, management floats. (... ÑкÑкÑÐµÐ¼ÐµÐ½Ñ Ð¿Ð»Ð°Ð²Ð°ÐµÑ.)
I think we need to advertise, not only the intellectual appeal of science but the fact that it makes a for a good financially secure and stable career. We need to publicize the average wages of a post-doc compared to someone with a similar qualification period, say a surgeon or senior lawyer. We need to let high school kids know the average length of work contracts available for researchers and the wealth of opportunities for career advancement and tenure. Its only by showing them that being a scientist is a viable alternative to other careers that we can entice more young people into this profession.
'ÑкÑкÑÐµÐ¼ÐµÐ½Ñ Ð¿Ð»Ð°Ð²Ð°ÐµÑ' Sure does. There must be an equivalent Chinese proverb. One of my kids, about to submit his dissertation after 8 years postgraduate (OK, he isn't in the sciences, quite, and did a year's fieldwork in the bush in Northern Mozambique). No job prospects except adjunct teaching at the moment. He did his 4 years at Harvard and most of his classmates went on to law or finance; only 10 per cent went on to academic postgraduate work. One of his best girl friends (all taller than him, by the way, as he dated the entire women's basketball team--he's a good dancer) pulled down $2.3M in a year as a bond trader 3 years after graduation. Most of the rest are lawyers, but when he gets together with them, he buys lunch. What a guy, or what a chump! He has no debt as we paid the freight, business being good enough at the time to make it work. We didn't feel right about applying for financial aid, but bridled at the lengths to which families far richer than we cried poormouth. I myself did a Ph.D. in astrophysics finishing in 1972 (measured the temperature of the universe--not everyone can say that!) when the NSF went bust at the end of the Vietnam War--no postdocs at all to be had. I went into something else entirely, and have prospered. It is science, but more engineering than physics. Neither I nor either of my kids finished their doctoral work in debt, but the remuneration level is less than thrilling. My older son teaches in the sciences at a decent state university and after three years pulls down a big $55K. You have to do it for love, no question. And no question that it is far more interesting than virtually any other profession. That should be the draw--not boring after the thrill of earning a few million a year begins to pall.
MartinC is trying for that fine line between sincerity and sarcasm.
"MartinC is trying for that fine line between sincerity and sarcasm."
Well, at least to the point of being sincere in his sarcasm.
Is there a shortage of qualified applicants for science jobs?
I'm guessing wannabe-scientists are about as scarce as wannabe-pro-musicians, i.e. not-frakking-very.
I'm not comfortable with the whole "oh-we-are-the-working-poor" line that some people seem to take when it comes to science.
No, we don't pull in the kind of money a bond trader, physician or accountant does. On the other hand, we don't have to keep the insane hours, follow the restrictive dress codes and do the utterly boring job they do either. And of course, if you compare to the top-earning jobs, everybody else comes off looking bad by comparison.
But what is the salary and perks of a working scientist compared to, say, a librarian, or high-school teacher, or an airline pilot (not the senior 1% at a major company; someone in their late thirties working at a smaller feeder company)? No, we don't make out like a hedge fund trader, but we're not pulling in peanuts either.
If you try to recruit people withn bags of money, you'll have people in it for the money. I prefer having people do it because they find the work fascinating. And it's not like this is an actual crisis for science; any position, any opening has more applicants than you can shake a stick at. It doesn't matter where those scientists come from, or where the work is being done (other than for some easily bruised egos). Science - knowledge - moves forward and it doesn't matter if the first authors' name is Smith or Cheng.
And it's not like this is an actual crisis for science; any position, any opening has more applicants than you can shake a stick at.
Yeah. Yet as far back as I can recall paying any attention, I have heard about a looming shortage of scientists.
I agree with the general point that being a scientist, even in industry, is not the road to riches, nor is it advertised as such. I agree, too, with the idea that people will not be good at, or happy in, a scientific profession without a lot of love for their subject.
But I reject the quasi-monastic attitude that some academics and some industrial scientists cop, that says that we should just be glad for what we get. Nonsense. In industry, especially, we should contribute the best we can and agitate to be rewarded for it.
Overproduction of PhDs, rather than a shortage, depresses compensation.
Whether or not there is a storage of educated scientists and engineers, there is a factor which hasn't been mentioned yet. Some people who can or previously have worked in the States, do not want to work in the States. These people are known to include people who are USAian citizens, and/or who were educated in the States.
There are many different reasons for this "refusal" (if I may put it that way). I can only speak for myself--I can and have worked in the States, but no longer do, and am not at at sure want to return in the foreseeable future--but I choose not to discuss my possible reasons.
I've no idea how contributory this "refusal" factor is to any shortage (albeit it doesn't seem like it'd contribute to a surplus?).
OK, I agree, my previous post was indeed sarcastic and sincere yet some people still miss the point. Being a scientist is not the road to riches. Nobody goes into it expecting to become a millionaire and be able to retire at 30. Indeed retiring early should be the last thing on our mind, we should want to continue working until we drop (and many great scientists do).
The point is where should you draw the line. Some people take it as some sort of virtue that they get wages equivalent to a fast food worker and zero job security, that they only do the job for a love of science.
The rest of us actually live in the real world.
We actually need to consider things like having a house to live in, getting food to feed our families, thinking about the future. However, I would like to suggest that this is not the same as wanting a Ferrari or a personal holiday island in the Carribbean.
If we could get the same sort of job security and salary as the average public sector worker, say a high school teacher, librarian or police officer etc, I think most of us would be satisfied. Is this really too much to hope for ?
Seriously.
The real point about telling high school students about the current job status of scientists is to emphasize the fact that they are NOT told these things at the moment and to pose the question as to whether they should be ?
This is the rest of their lives we are talking about.
Isn't it unethical to withhold this sort of information from them ?
But Martin, my point was that we don't actually get "wages equivalent to a fast food worker". By the standards of most professions requiring a college degree the salary levels are decent, and better than many once you advance to a "manager level" position.
It is the job security - or the imbalance at different levels - that is the problem. Specifically, I suspect the almost total security at tenure in the US system is causing the untenured to have worse job security, as so many people mill around trying everything to get over that magic barrier. Make the research career more like regular careers in other areas, with greater job security from the start and accountability at all levels, and you'll get less of the imbalances you have today.
Janne, I agree and disagree. Or maybe the other way around.
Wage levels, although low compared to other professions with a comparative qualifying time (ten years or so of University qualifications) are not the primary problem, its the job instability that is the crux of the matter. Yes, reaching management level will change things for you but that requires you to survive a culling process that causes most qualified scientists to leave the field (no easy thing when you are in your thirties by the time you realize this).
Is there a shortage of qualified applicants for science jobs?
I think it probably depends on what sort of science job you're talking about. There's certainly no shortage of applicants for tenure-track academic jobs, but those are not the only relevant science jobs out there. I'm not sure what the situation is like in industry.