
Not enough jobs for science graduates challenges STEM hype - rb808
https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/glut-in-demand-for-science-graduates-challenges-stem-hype-20190327-p517zj.html
======
davidxc
As someone else said below, treating STEM as one category is absurb and lumps
together way too many different majors and careers (that have drastically
varying levels of attractiveness and compensation growth).

Majors like biology and chemistry have fairly terrible prospects with just a
BS degree, but CS and the engineering majors are still quite good. Physics and
math are more iffy, but if you know what you're doing and pick up some
employable skills on the side, then those majors will at least get you into
interviews for good jobs.

There's also the question of what "not enough jobs" means. There are
definitely struggling CS majors, but I think that a statement about there not
being enough jobs needs to be looked at in a relative way - that is, one needs
to consider what the alternative options are and whether those alternatives
have better prospects. Many careers have been on the decline, and it's
difficult to really identify career paths that are significantly better than
computer science / software engineering (at least, at the undergraduate
level). Even if we compared careers that required graduate school, the only
paths that one could plausibly argue are significantly better than tech are
medicine, law, and business (in my opinion). Those three careers all come with
their own serious tradeoffs and downsides.

If anyone has information on what career paths are significantly better than
CS / engineering, I'd be interested to hear your opinion. Right now, I'm
unfortunately not seeing significantly better alternatives.

~~~
jaabe
I think the hype is really, really dangerous. I work as an external examiner
for CS students at an academy and bachelor level. 10 years ago, maybe 20
students would finish from a single school, in 2019 that number is in the
several hundreds some places thousands. If I look at my average grading over
the years, there is a clear trend too. People are either really good or really
bad, where 10 years ago it was far more spread out, and a lot more people were
“average”. It’s anecdotal but I think it’s because hype has pushed too many
people into CS.

There will always be a need for excellent CS students, preferable with
candidate or masters, just like there will always be a need for excellent
biologists or great escimologists. I don’t think there will always be a need
for below average CS students, especially not at the rate of which we’re
producing them right now, again thanks to the hype.

One of the reasons I say this is because of automation. If you look at
operations, the cloud has really killed a lot of jobs in enterprise IT
departments, because it’s so much easier to operate your stuff in AWS or Azure
than when you had to have your own infrastructure. Sure there are still
operations people around, but notice how they are the best operations guys not
the averages, because the people who were average 10 years ago are unemployed
today.

It’ll be the same for development. We already see bits of it, at least if
you’ve been around for a while. 19 years ago we build our first web based
enterprise tool to handle employee vacation, sick leave and tax-refund on
corporate related driving. It was a massive JSP undertaking that took 20 guys
and 6 months. In 2017 it was replaced by a modern web tool build in .NET
framework web-app and Angular, it took an intern three weeks to do it.

If you look at what areas are becoming useful, it’s not really CS. Sure you’ll
be able to use some CS students for ML, but you’d rather have a mathematician
or a statistician who can code. Sure you can use some CS students for
robotics, but you’d rather have an electrical engineer.

I’m Danish, our jobmarket is different, but we too hype STEM and especially
CS, but the truth is, that what we’re really going to need is electricians,
pumblers and other craftsme because every young person wants to learn to code.

~~~
rorykoehler
One thing that had happened, especially in SE Asia, is the wage has been
driven down outside of FAANG. Many non-tech people view development as
plumbing, which it kind of is, but at least plumbers are certified which
guarantees a minimum level of competency. Buyers don't view development work
in terms of value delivered but only in terms of price. This destroys the
middle market for good but not industry leading devs.

~~~
mbeex
This is not limited to SE Asia. Outsourcing, rather over-simplified and
limited definitions of cost, buyer's market for companies (and no, the bigger
players don't care for real talent at large) drive this in other environments
too. I am from Germany and in this market for 20 years as a
freelancer/contractor/consultant. Personally - having a major in mathematics
and relevant project experience - I have no significant problems. But 'dev-
only' people certainly face the mass market effects.

~~~
dorgo
Also from germany. CS degree = 75% mathematics + 5% coding + 20% other theory.
Fresh out of university i hardly could write code at all and had zero
experience with databases.

------
whyenot
Working as staff at a major university, I get to interact with a lot of
students in biology and often hear back from them once they graduate. At least
for biology, the job prospects are not great. With luck, you may make a living
wage and have a full time job with job security by the time you reach middle
age, but there are so many students that graduate and end up working at Whole
Foods, or waitressing at the Cheesecake Factory, or being a personal fitness
instructor at a private club. Those are all jobs recent _MS degree_ graduates
from my institution are currently working while they wait for something better
to come along. Sometimes something better doesn't come along.

Of course, the situation isn't always that bad -- students graduate and can do
quite well for themselves, but there is no guarantee of a good job if you
graduate with a BS or MS in biology, and that is a little different from
graduating with a degree in math or CS. At least, that's what it looks like
from my vantage point.

~~~
isoskeles
> Sometimes something better doesn't come along.

Things in life don’t just “come along.” Maybe this is their perspective, but
they probably didn’t try hard enough.

~~~
whyenot
Unfortunately, "just try harder" isn't always the solution to this problem.
Sometimes it's better to fail, catch your breath, and then select a different
path.

~~~
dnautics
Honestly selecting a different path sounds like it could fall under the rubric
of "trying harder", or at least, trying smarter.

~~~
wegs
There's a big random factor too.

------
taneq
You can be a "STEM graduate" but if you insist on trying to get a job doing
basic scientific research, you're probably not going to find interesting well
paid work. If you do an engineering degree and get a job building mining
equipment, you're going to do fine. The job market doesn't care about your
aspirations, it cares about how useful your skills are in solving a company's
problems.

~~~
barry-cotter
If you want a job doing basic scientific research the entry level
qualification is a doctorate. That’s certainly true in universities and it’s
equally true in biology and chemistry though that’s probably not enough. You
almost certainly need a post doc or two. Physicists have enough outside
options that if they want to get out the post doc is unnecessary but getting a
doctorate is a terrible financial decision. That’s what happens when the
government does a careful study of how to reduce the prices of highly skilled
scientific labour and then follows the recommendations.

> Government and Universities Create Domestic Labor Shortages of Scientists

> During the late 1990s I became convinced that in order to orchestrate lower
> wages for scientists, there would have to have been a competent economic
> study done to guide the curious policy choices that had resulted in the
> flooded market for STEM PhDs. For this theory to be correct, the private
> economic study would have had to have been done studying both supply and
> demand so that the demand piece could later be removed, resulting in the
> bizarre ‘supply only’ demographic studies released to the public. Through a
> bit of economic detective work, I began a painstaking search of the
> literature and discovered just such a study immediately preceded the release
> of the foolish demography studies that provided the public justification for
> the Immigration Act of 1990. This needle was located in the haystack of
> documents the NSF was forced to turn over when the House investigated the
> NSF for faking alarms about a shortfall.

[https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/how-why-
gove...](https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/how-why-government-
universities-industry-create-domestic-labor-shortages-of-scientists-high-tech-
workers)

------
jefftk
The examples in the article are:

* "X, 23, from Sydney's inner west graduated with a bachelor of creative arts in film and television production from a private college in 2016. She wants to be a film director and actor."

* "Y, 23, studied journalism at the University of Wollongong and was warned it would be tough to get a job."

* "Z graduated with a degree in social research and policy from the University of NSW in last year said it took her a year to find a project management job."

None of these sound like STEM to me?

~~~
stonogo
That's a different topic, as signalled by the words "Meanwhile, a new study
has found ..."

------
ncmncm
This is the real reason why women are graduating in computer science in much
smaller numbers than when I was in school, when the number was 30%.
Programming, like engineering and science, has turned out to be just not a
good long-term career prospect for most people.

Whenever demand softens, which it does every few years, women and minorities
take the brunt. Once you have been out for even three years it is very hard to
break in again.

Part of the problem is that when employers don't feel like paying a living
wage, they easily persuade government to import foreign help, in the tens or
even hundreds of thousands. The companies pretend that this doesn't depress
salaries, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore, they have arranged not to be obliged to pay overtime, and then
they demand overtime work on a routine basis. I have never seen such an
employer pay engineers overtime, under any circumstance. Sometimes there are
"bonuses" that are a tiny fraction of what overtime would cost them.

The only plausible solution to this problem will be for engineers and
programmers to unionize, and start cultivating representation in legislatures.
We are handicapped by myths about self-reliant cowboy engineers who don't need
to join together.

~~~
anonytrary
I'm surprised. Out of all of the STEM degrees, I'd have thought CS was the
most useful for guaranteeing a highly secure, well-paid job out of college.

~~~
systemBuilder
Are you kidding? We have people flooding into CS jobs from ALL other fields,
and ALL other countries, because, "If I don't make it in XyZ I can always get
a job programming!", at Google I sat next to a math PhD, an EE, and a Music
Major! What do you think happens when every one uses your major as their
backup plan?

~~~
ForHackernews
Software engineering is not a "CS job". Computer science is a research field
that has very little to do with the workaday business of creating good
reliable software.

Developers would do well to realize that they're skilled labor, not academics
or superstar artists, and start behaving accordingly.

~~~
gm224
I regularly have to design complex systems and also do correctness proofs for
isolated functions.

But I see the error in my ways and humbly realize that I'm just "skilled
labor".

Really, if you compare the level of thinking of an average developer to an
average academic, the academic often has nothing but his degree.

The level of parroting and complete lack of critical thinking is widespread
among academics.

~~~
analog31
Not strictly related to programming, but in general, most engineers don't use
the stuff that they learned in college. If it's maybe 20% of the work, it will
go to 20% of the workers, rather than each worker doing it 20% of the time. As
a result, engineers quickly differentiate and stratify in the workplace.

You may be one of the 20% in your particular area of interest. If you're doing
the kind of work that most engineers tend to avoid, you will never be
unemployed. ;-)

~~~
ncmncm
I got a degree in EE, but spent a year in CS (don't ask). Some years back I
totted up what have used since graduation that I actually learned in class. I
didn't get a CS degree because it is too easy -- you just read the book. So I
didn't learn any CS there, I had already read the book.

The only thing I have used since graduation, for work, that I actually studied
for a class was big-O notation and reasoning.

But! Every week, in every engineering class, they assigned problem sets. Every
week I read them through and knew, with certainty, there was no way I could do
them. Then, every week I turned them in, completed correctly.

So that was what I really learned in school: that I have no real sense of what
I can learn to do, and do. Since then, I have just done things, without
worrying about whether I was really capable.

------
hprotagonist
recent STEM hype aside, it has historically been very challenging to find work
as a "straight" biologist, especially with only a BS, and if you can it's
probably going to be scut-level underpaid lab or field work.

Part of the reason I think STEM is horseshit is that it is so broadly defined
as to be without meaning. You just can't reasonably talk about something as
one labor market if it includes zookeepers, pharmaceutical chemists, medical
doctors, facebook engineers, economists, and advertiser...er, data scientists.

~~~
foobar1962
The difference between science and engineering (education-wise) is that an
engineering degree is strictly defined with regards to subjects learned, with
little choice of electives by the student: everybody is learning the same
thing.

With science (and most other degrees) the student can pick and choose their
topics.

~~~
ncmncm
That is just entirely false.

Electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, and chemical engineers have quite
different courseloads. Even within electrical engineering, semiconductor
physics, radio frequency electronics, electromotion, and power systems are all
completely different from computer architecture and one another. That's
without delving into specialties in each.

~~~
RhodesianHunter
The person you're replying to never suggested that there weren't differences
between the engineering degrees' course loads. I believe you may have missed
their point completely.

~~~
ncmncm
Are you suggesting that engineering students have no choice about which areas
to study, just because they have labels? Many study more than one, and take
multiple degrees. I knew one who got seven bachelor's degrees in various
engineering and science fields.

~~~
foobar1962
I'm saying that if you did a Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical) you've done
EXACTLY the same course material as every other student in that course, even
across different universities.

An employer getting an Engineering graduate knows exactly what they are
getting.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I'm saying that if you did a Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical) you've
> done EXACTLY the same course material as every other student in that course,
> even across different universities.

While engineering (including EE) programs tend to have less flexibility within
schools, and probably also between them, than other fields, it is by know
means zero difference in classes.

------
m3nu
I never get this notion of "jobs" being a bottleneck that's "created" by
employers and how there are "not enough jobs" around.

The real bottleneck are problems that can be solved in a profitable manner.
And those are almost endless.

So instead of waiting for someone to match your skills to a problem, just go
and find a problem yourself :-)

------
lifeisstillgood
This is just basic systems thinking (I am re-reading "the Goal" sorry ...)

We know overall we need more STEM based jobs because that drives innovation
and invention and wealth.

So we educate people in STEM.

But when they arrive, we have failed to arrange incentives to grow new
industries or expand use of STEM in current ones.

It's a bit like taking 100 newly graduated astronomers to the observatory, and
when they say sorry our last telescope is broke, just telling the 100 go
plough fields, we are pretty sure the sun just goes round the earth once a
year. We'll be fine.

------
pram
I think its been this way for a while? At least since the Great Recession imo.
I have friends who have amazing credentials (talking like compsci and physics
phds from places like caltech and cmu) and very few of them are employed in
their field. Some of them didn’t even do anything and are basically NEETs who
play video games all day.

It’s pretty clear the actual value and potential of these degrees aren’t being
honestly advertised. The “STEM” hype as mentioned here certainly doesn’t help
the situation. It is a lot of time and money and effort thrown away for a lot
of people and it’s heartbreaking.

~~~
maccio92
If they want jobs as a developer there are plenty. If they see NEETs that just
play video games all day it's probably their own lifestyle choices that are at
fault

~~~
HarryHirsch
As a physicist it's easier to get into the tech field than as a life
scientist. Just saying.

------
anonytrary
The default algorithm for most people is:

    
    
      1. Get educated
      2. Find a job
    

Step 1 currently does pretty much nothing to help you transition to step 2.
Sure, there are career networking events for juniors and seniors in college,
but they are very superficial. It seems like colleges are producing unfinished
products -- students who know a lot about theoretical concepts and not that
much about applications. Maybe more colleges should try and obtain a better
product-market fit by requiring vocational training for at least a semester.

~~~
plytheman
I dunno, on the other hand, I got a B.S. in Ecology and have about 5 years of
experience doing field work, long term monitoring, and data analysis and
report writing on said research. Ostensibly that should be plenty of
experience to prove I know my field and can learn new methods and skills
related to it. Despite that I can't seem to find anything that isn't more
seasonal work below my worth now or wanting a Masters degree even though I
have plenty of real-world experience.

I agree that there's some serious gap between steps 1 and 2, but I did alright
in finding internships and experience and still can't find squat.I admit I
knew going into my undergrad that a Masters would be needed to find a /good/
job, but I didn't think I'd need one to find any job at all. I'm sure there
are a multitude of reasons to explain it, but this job market blows. I never
want to hear someone tell me they can't find good employees or fill positions
fast enough when I apply to five or six jobs at a time every week and don't
even get a rejection email from half of them, let alone an interview.

------
_bxg1
The same thing happened with lawyers around 5-10 years ago. It's almost like
having everyone jump into the same market at the same time causes the market
to change...

~~~
rossdavidh
An analysis of this very thing, from 6 years ago:
[http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/bimodal-lawyers-how-
ext...](http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/bimodal-lawyers-how-extreme-
competition-breeds-extreme-inequality/)

------
systemBuilder
This is the age-old academic scam by greedy professors who want more graduate
students! manufacture a fake scientific staffing crisis to pump up the funding
for stem research grants and teaching and faculty and screw a whole generation
of young people with fake vaporware jobs! NSF promoted the same bullshit lies
in the 1980s, 1990s, and beyond!

~~~
ncmncm
Professors don't have that much influence.

Corporations are driving, for obvious reasons. More supply, cheaper wages,
more profits.

~~~
systemBuilder
As an ex-professor myself, do you understand how the world works? NSF is run
by high ranking(in the pyramid scheme) professors. Your tenure depends on
raising an army of researchers so you lie about job prospects, lie about
research potential outcomes and importance, over-drsmatize the importance of
your work, and some even lie in their publications! This is the path to
success.

The career path at MIT is work 20 years at MIT then go to a US government
funding agency (DARPA, NSF, ONR, etc.) to raise even more money for MIT. These
places are staffed 100% by ex-professors (and a few token PhDs who succeeded
in industry, to provide political legitimacy "cover".)

~~~
selimthegrim
Would this explain why MIT has an absurd clawback rate for overhead from NSF
GRFs?

------
etaty
This is about Australia, which is not like our average developed country with
no primary ressources. When you have one sector in your economy producing most
of the export, you have a lot of trouble to have a high level of good job in
another sector to export. Your currency exchange rate and cost of life is
being driven by your main exportation. Countries rich in oil or other primary
resources are like that.

------
christopher8827
As a developer in Australia, this is true... there are literally no jobs for
people doing a science degree. Even doing a CS degree can be pretty shaky -
most businesses/companies here are just looking to get a basic app out, and
something like Machine Learning / AI is just not required as of yet. That's
why I'm looking to move to the US for better opportunities...

~~~
Arbalest
As I approach my 30's, I'm seriously considering a roadmap to getting out.
This, along with recent legislation makes me very concerned about my future
prospects.

~~~
christopher8827
Just out of curiosity, why not move to the US now? I know a ton of friends
that went over once they did their Bachelors.

~~~
Arbalest
Don't really like the way the US has conducted themselves, particularly with
healthcare, and I have a family which makes things more complicated.

------
seltzered_
This article is confusing overall - it talks about STEM in the headline, then
cites a general chart by Grattan Institute (a policy think tank) similar to
another recent piece by Grattan's Andrew Norton (quoted in the SMH piece):
[https://grattan.edu.au/news/graduate-employment-is-up-but-
fi...](https://grattan.edu.au/news/graduate-employment-is-up-but-finding-a-
job-can-still-take-a-while/) .

Not familiar with Australia, but there's also recent articles of it being in
per-capita recession. (see [https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-
economy/australia-falls-...](https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-
economy/australia-falls-into-per-capita-recession-as-growth-
tumbles-20190306-p5122r.html) )

------
gbear605
The article starts with a discussion about science graduates, but it’s
primarily about the weak job market for college graduates in general.

Unfortunately, college degrees are not a sure fire way to get hired in today’s
economy, but they are essentially needed, unless you plan on going into some
trade.

~~~
macspoofing
>but they are essentially needed

Kind of. College degrees replaced high school degrees as a baseline for
general knowledge. It used to be the case that a high school degree meant you
had some general knowledge of math, history, geography etc., with an above
average level of literacy and a reasonable level of intelligence. High school
degrees do not mean any of those things anymore. Many kids who graduate with a
high school degree are functionally illiterate (1 in 5 graduates).

------
ui-explorer12
Shouldn't STEM (and to a greater extent STEAM) refer to degrees that combine
the component areas into a program and not a degree that is solely a single
component?

Yes, I understand you do very little Chemistry or Physics in a Comp Sci
program, but your fundamental building blocks are almost entirely pure Chem
and Physics, even more so in engineering.

I mean, ultimately the response really should be:

1\. The overall macro measures still support success rates of STEM trumping
other areas of study,

2\. All hype is not created equal; even within Comp Sci or Engineering there
are winners and losers.

3\. Use general trends and measures to guide your overall strategy, not set
specific tactics

------
stevenwoo
The title is a bit confusing as the article is about a glut in supply of
science graduates and a dearth in job opportunities (in Australia at least),
also the anecdote about the journalism student was not germane at all.

I tried finding info on job opportunities but came up short - could only find
data on worldwide STEM graduates
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/02/02/the-
co...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/02/02/the-countries-
with-the-most-stem-graduates-infographic/#5791cd1a268a) and STEM job info
about the USA: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/education/edlife/stem-
job...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/education/edlife/stem-jobs-
industry-careers.html) TLDR - vast majority of STEM jobs in USA are computer
related and India/China/USA far outstrip other countries in producing STEM
graduates. Whoever advised those Australian students to get non computer
related degrees did them a disservice, if they did not forewarn them of the
job market.

------
Buldak
Am I missing something or does the word "Glut" in the title here mean the
opposite of what the article describes?

~~~
eesmith
The title at smh.com.au is "Not enough jobs for science graduates challenges
STEM hype" and the word "glut" doesn't exist on the page.

OTOH, the URL slug is 'glut-in-demand-for-science-graduates-challenges-stem-
hype-20190327-p517zj'.

This suggests that in the intervening 10 or so minutes since the story was
submitted to HN, someone in Australia noticed and fixed the problem in the
title.

