

The Real Science Gap - yummyfajitas
http://www.miller-mccune.com/science/the-real-science-gap-16191/

======
etal
Oh my god, I hate journalists.

1\. This is not an article about career opportunities for STEM (science, tech,
engineering, math) majors -- of which there are plenty. This is about the
_very specific_ problem of there being a massive glut of Ph.D. students aiming
for tenure-track academic jobs. The article makes no distinction here.

2\. The problem of academia's imploding pyramid scheme is not at all limited
to science. It's worse in the soft sciences and humanities -- picture the same
situation of tenured professors overseeing teams of cringing graduate
students, but without the NSF/NIH/DOD grant money to hire postdocs. Now, where
do you go when you graduate? (Hint: you don't, unless you already have a job
lined up.)

The article mentions the rules of supply and demand, but not in relation to
tenure. Academia's cultural problem of deterring students from any career
other than academic research gets a couple paragraphs near the bottom. _But
that's the problem!_ Regardless of the field, too many students are pushed
into academic careers, but the world just doesn't need that many professors.

Lots of people love their job. It takes the arrogance of a professor to state
that everyone should want yours.

3\. Visa issues -- smart, talented students come from outside the U.S. to
attend grad school on a student visa that prohibits non-academic work. They
stay on as postdocs after graduation because every other kind of job is
prohibited, unless some benevolent employer wants to lend a hand with the work
visa application process, which probably won't happen. If they leave academia,
they have to leave the U.S. Market distortion, anyone? Anyone with U.S.
citizenship is clearly better off with a Master's or other professional
degree; industry misses out on talent while academia suffers a labor glut.

4\. Why does all scientific research have to be done by universities? If labs
are funded with government money anyway, it's just as efficient (or more) to
directly hire lab techs and researchers at government labs... assuming the
research really is important. Academic labs are optimized for publishing
journal articles, in absence of a better metric. Could we measure progress
better by bringing the research work closer to the customer?

~~~
lutorm
About 4: The thing is that the current system gives the government complete
flexibility in what they want to do. If they don't want to fund research in X
any more, just stop giving the grants. If they actually ran their own lab,
they'd have to shut it down, get rid of employees, etc. Seems very convenient
for them, especially given that grant funding tends to fluctuate with
congressional tides.

~~~
pyre
Also, grants can come from sources other than the government, no?

~~~
etal
Yes, charities and NGOs like the American Cancer Society fund grants, too. But
basic research is usually way outside their core competency, so teaming up
with universities is their best option.

Companies team up with academic labs occasionally, and I think this is great.

But the government does already run its own labs and fund semi-independent
research-only institutions. I'd like to see an expansion of these (mainly the
latter), as well as Master's programs in science/tech, to help this current
glut of graduate students transition to non-academic careers.

------
jseliger
I saw this on /. earlier and wrote:

Anyone interested in this subject should read Philip Greenspun's essay Women
in Science: <http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science>. Ignore the
borderline sexist stuff about women and pay attention to his comments about
the structure of science in the United States and the opportunity costs of
pursuing a career in science.

<p>As he observes: "Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours,
jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States." And he's right. And
then people wonder why more Americans don't go into science.

------
rflrob
While the article has pretty clearly outlined what the problem is, it's not
obvious to me what the proposal is for how to fix it, other than "staffing
labs with permanent career employees".

As a PhD student myself, one of the attractions was the broad ability to set
my own intellectual and scientific course. I think a majority of my colleagues
feel that way too. While I think more places like Bell Labs or Janelia Farms
are probably a good thing, I think the industrial culture has, by and large,
shifted away from that being really feasible, and I'm not sure anyone knows
how to shift it back.

------
jackfoxy
If there are so many young scientists laboring away in low-paying dead-end
jobs, it hardly suggests there is a shortage. There are just not many private
sector openings for astronomers, meteorologists, and high-energy physicists.
They may have proven their ability to master a technical subject, but the
subject they have spent years mastering has little or no commercial
application, which is where wealth is created.

The popular mind, and popular journalism, often confuse science and
engineering. The training for each path is quite different, and the mindset of
the practitioners is also different.

When industry leaders bemoan a lack of science education are they really
complaining about how much they have to compensate technical talent?

~~~
jerf
"They may have proven their ability to master a technical subject, but the
subject they have spent years mastering has little or no commercial
application, which is where wealth is created."

We're going to have to dispense with telling children that it doesn't matter
what they want to be, and start telling them they ought to spend at least a
_little_ time thinking about whether it actually bring capturable value to
society. (Or, more for their speed, "whether anybody will pay them to do it".)

Of course this involves walking back decades of self-esteem BS, which isn't
going to be easy. However, I say that the right way to look at it isn't that
you're telling Johnny he shouldn't be a particle physicist; I think the right
way is that of all the hundreds or thousands of official college majors and
the thousands again subspecialities, Johnny would probably like to do quite a
few of them and perhaps Johnny should spend at least five minutes considering
whether some of them might deserve more consideration than others based on
whether they are actually useful to society. It's not that we're denying
Johnny his one true calling, it's that Johnny is an adaptable human who could
probably do many things and perhaps he should ponder a bit before making life-
crashing decisions.

How many of us truly have only one thing they could possibly imagine doing,
ever, and of that set, how many of them found it before college? (If you're
inclined to say "me", I'm serious. There's _no_ other job you could ever
imagine wanting? I'm spotting you the training, an alternate universe where
you have just as much experience there as you have here now, not suddenly
switching tomorrow. No other science, math, engineering, humanities, or arts
appeals to you that much at all? I'm sure there's a non-zero number here, but
I also think that's the exception, and that's enough to carry my point.)

My dream job is composing video game music. There were several other things I
could have gotten a degree in. I got a degree in computer science, because I
did put some thought into it and it was obvious what the winner was. I have no
regrets. I have put my money where my mouth is. I'm tired of looking at my
peers who followed their bliss right into staggering debt and worthless
degrees. Don't be one of them.

(I'm not saying I chose computer science out of the blue because I thought I
could make money. I'm saying of the many things I loved or at least liked,
computer science among them, the choice was pretty obvious. The next most
interesting thing to me was psychology, but since I would not have wanted to
be a therapist I would have been in the academic world and I doubt I'm _that_
spectacular of a psychologist. Probably would have wandered into computational
neuroscience anyhow....)

------
AENGINE
Here are my few observations: Break down by STEM: CS,EE,Chem Engg, Mechanical
Engg PhD's are much more in demand than Marine Biology PhD's. Thus when Eric
Schmidt talks about lack of students it about these fields.

I can assure you that if you are from a top 30-40 university and have PhD in
CS,EE,Chem Eng. or other hard core engineering you are near guaranteed a good
job (unless you have messed up royally)

However if you are not from top 30-40 University or did your degree in
Chemisty, Marine biology, Physics and or some esoteric branch of Maths you are
less likely to get an industrial job. Also i sadly see a lot students working
in 40+ ranked universities for a PhD E.g. Syracuse U. and future is really
bleak for them.

Thus the issue here is grouping of all STEM PhD's together. However if you are
from top 40 Schools in resp engg fields then you dont have to worry as much.
If you are not and study marine bio (It sounds cool subject) sadly your job
prospects are restricted to Academia!

~~~
Tamerlin
"Here are my few observations: Break down by STEM: CS,EE,Chem Engg, Mechanical
Engg PhD's are much more in demand than Marine Biology PhD's. Thus when Eric
Schmidt talks about lack of students it about these fields."

Well, duh. The blindingly obvious thing that you missed is that there's life
outside of Google.

"I can assure you that if you are from a top 30-40 university and have PhD in
CS,EE,Chem Eng. or other hard core engineering you are near guaranteed a good
job (unless you have messed up royally)"

Reality says otherwise.

"If you are not and study marine bio (It sounds cool subject) sadly your job
prospects are restricted to Academia!"

I guess you've never heard of NOAA, Woods Hole, among others, then.

~~~
fburnaby
Woods Hole sounds like the coolest place ever. I've been considering seeing if
I can get in.

