

The Broken U.S. Jobs Factory: Too Many Athletes, Too Few Scientists? - cwan
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/03/the-broken-us-jobs-factory-too-many-athletes-too-few-scientists/73280/

======
PaulHoule
It's not just "social status", it's the fact that science sucks as a career.

Physics is a particularly pathological field, but to take my own example, I
got a PhD in 1998 when the American Physical Society estimated that about 3%
of physics PhDs minted that year would ultimately get a permanent job in that
field.

Now, one day I realized I could work for two years doing some obscure math and
one or two people in the world might care, or I could spend three weekends
developing a Java applet and then get 50,000 hits to my web site and offers of
consulting work. Moving to computing was an easy decision, but I still felt a
lot of anguish giving up something that I really loved.

The people who stayed in the field, however, all suffered devastation in their
personal lives. I saw one postdoc, who is one of the most brilliant physicists
of his generation (or just one of the few?) and who had an excellent
publication record, in agony for two years because he had no idea how he was
going to get his next job. Somebody like that ought to be focusing on their
research, not suffering like that.

My thesis advisor and his female partner got professorships in places that
were across the U.S. so he basically abandoned his son. Another professor who
was very helpful to me wanted to have children very badly but waited until his
wife got tenure and had become infertile. Another one commuted across Germany
by train every weekend so he could see his family once in a while.

I can think of many physicists who are very pleasant people (particularly
those who entered the field in the 1960s and before) but too many successful
physicists are miserable emotional basket cases who've been scared for life by
the process of getting a PhD, getting a tenure track position, and getting
tenure.

Writers like Freud and Bly write about how people get abused, come to identify
with the abusers, and then become like the abusers, transmitting their trauma
to the next generation. The physics community is a clear example of this.

Now, I know not all academic fields are this bad. The supply of PhDs and jobs
for PhDs is usually better in math and computer science, two fields I have a
little contact with. The structure of biology research groups where professors
sometimes supervise 10-20 students and postdocs suggests that the biology PhD
may be, like the physics PhD, a form of exploitation rather than an
apprentenceship.

Clearly the U.S. produces more scientists than their are jobs for scientists
and anybody who says we need more is an ass. If working conditions became more
attractive, however, we might have a science community that attracts
emotionally healthy people who will be, in the long run, more productive.

------
tokenadult
"Why are we so good at building athletes and not so good at producing, say,
writers?"

Perhaps because almost any member of the general public, even someone like me
with a low interest in most sports, is aware of who is the best in a sport. I
may not play much baseball, but I know in general which teams are at the top
of the league tables in the professional leagues, and I can identify a
difficult, skillful play when I watch it on television even if I can't perform
it. Professional sports have entertainment value for almost everyone.

By contrast, writing (a career I have long aspired to pursue) is completely
opaque to the many members of the general public who never, ever read a book
after they complete their secondary schooling. It's harder to tell who is the
best writer (there are published best-seller lists, but those include books by
celebrities who are writing through unnamed ghostwriters) and it's harder for
someone uninterested in writing to appreciate a well crafted story or even a
well turned written phrase. The biggest rewards at the top of the distribution
of developed ability go to performers whose performances are appealing to and
appreciated by nearly all consumers.

The article has a too-brief discussion about its main point (rather than the
illustrative question quoted above), how to encourage young people to pursue
careers in science. This is of deep interest to me, as my third son is deeply
interested in biology and wants to know all about science in general. Young
people develop an interest in baseball, football, and soccer (my son's sport)
partly by early pleasant experiences in playing backyard games with siblings
or neighbors and perhaps by participating in organized youth sports programs.
Many fewer young people have pick-up opportunities to engage in science and
especially few have opportunities as early and as often to engage in
thoughtfully organized science programs. (My son travels fifty minutes each
way once a week to go across our metropolitan area for a joint science class
for homeschoolers arranged by a friend of mine. He finds that experience
highly motivational. We drive past tens of thousands of children his age
languishing in public schools at the same hour as we travel to those weekly
classes.) More needs to be done for the young to get them good instruction at
young ages in science and math.

<http://www.ams.org/notices/200502/fea-kenschaft.pdf>

And, yes, helpful comments like President Obama's comment on science fair
winners in the State of the Union address need to be made more often by
national leaders, and more press coverage of top scientists would be very
welcome. But it would be enough simply to instruct young people well in
mathematics and science and nurture their curiosity about those subjects
through extracurricular activities as they grow up. That's mostly what works
for the countries that do better than the United States in bringing up new
generations of scientists.

<http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2009highlights_4.asp>

After edit: I have opened a separate Ask HN thread

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2396184>

to ask HNers for specific suggestions to encourage interest in science among
young people. Thanks for any suggestions you have.

------
CWuestefeld
_We respect elementary school teachers, but their starting salary is squat.
Conversely auditors and accountants are considered mind-numbing jobs, but
they're paid nicely._

This is false. I just checked average salaries (see
[http://www.salarylist.com/all-accountant-real-jobs-
salary.ht...](http://www.salarylist.com/all-accountant-real-jobs-salary.htm)
and <http://www.salarylist.com/all-teacher-real-jobs-salary.htm> ). The
difference is less than 10%.

The average accountant job listed is $40,461.

The average teacher job listed is $37,200. (in my area of NJ, even a entry-
level teacher makes more than that)

There really seems to be a whole mythology about low teacher pay, but this
just isn't true. It's not true on a nominal scale, and it's even less true
when you factor in the days off and other benefits.

~~~
SMrF
I'm sorry, but $37,000 per year is not a great starting salary, especially for
a job that plays a fundamental role in shaping and improving our society.

My wife is finishing up graduate school to start teaching in poor, urban
schools. Chicago starting salaries are higher, I think around $55,000. I've
seen the challenge she faces at her job and I can tell you -- this is not
enough money.

~~~
CWuestefeld
Your claim that your wife isn't paid enough is demonstrably false. Sorry if
this sounds like a smart-aleck reply, but I mean it in a dispassionate sense.

 _I've seen the challenge she faces at her job and I can tell you -- this is
not enough money._

This is a conversation about economics, incentives, and what people actually
choose to do. It is not about feelings, platitudes, and how we believe that
the world should work.

Any economist can tell you that if your wife and the school have entered into
this arrangement of their own free will, then the amount that she is getting
compensated _is_ enough -- by definition.

The fact that she is willing to perform her job for this salary and other
benefits shows definitely that she values her compensation more than she
values what she could otherwise derive from any other opportunity open to her.
If there were something else that increased her personal utility function
more, than by definition, she would choose that alternative. The absence of
such a choice demonstrates that this is the best available.

~~~
SMrF
Salaries are set by CPS and go up on a schedule based on years of experience.
How is that a market?

Yes, she is willing to work at this salary. But we look at is as a donation to
society and to our city. If we have to look at her decision to be a teacher as
a donation -- she is not payed enough!

~~~
anamax
> Salaries are set by CPS and go up on a schedule based on years of
> experience. How is that a market?

It's a market because she has a choice.

> But we look at is as a donation to society and to our city.

Fair enough, but that doesn't imply that you're owed more.

If she's unhappy with her "donantion", she's free to not make it.

> If we have to look at her decision to be a teacher as a donation -- she is
> not payed enough!

News flash - almost everyone thinks that s\he is underpaid.

If you don't like the consequences of your choice, make a different one.

------
xiaoma
The whole prestige issue is a tough one. From what I've seen in Chinese
schools it's just completely different from what I remember from American
schools. The girls tend to like really smart guys. Testing into a top high
school or college means you're a winner and you're going somewhere. In the US,
being a somewhat dense football player bound for a blue-collar life will get
far more respect than just about any level of academic achievement.

Of course some remarkable people get into the sciences later, like Craig
Venter did. It's still a huge loss to lose all those who would have gotten a
solid foundation in their teen years if only it were valued in high school,
though.

 _Edit: This is a lot of downmods... and it's a little hard to understand. Any
of you care to voice counter-arguments?_

~~~
api
Watch Rocky II, the one with Rocky fighting the almost-robotic Russian.

That movie explains a lot about the American myth-of-itself. (And it is
rubbish, of course. During the cold war the USA was far more high-tech-- far
closer to the robot-Russian-- than the Russians were.)

~~~
adestefan
That's Rocky IV.

Dolph Lundgren who plays the robotic Russian in that film has a MSc in
chemical engineering and had a Fullbright Scholarship to MIT. He dropped out
of the program to pursue acting.

~~~
xiaoma
If he were Chinese instead of a westerner and had a full scholarship to
Qinghua, he'd be a chemical engineer now!

:)

------
colomon
I think the "Jobs Factory" metaphor is a sign of how messed up the thinking
involved is. There isn't a jobs factory, there's a marketplace; and the
marketplace right now is very clearly saying that scientists just aren't that
valuable, in the grand scheme of things.

If you really think this is something that needs fixing, the most direct and
blunt fix would just to be to create a government subsidy for scientists. For
example, instead of making them pay income tax, you might give scientists 100%
matching pay from the government. That would mean that a company might hire a
scientist at $80,000, but for the scientist it would be the equivalent of a
normal $220,000 job. Put that lay into effect, and I guarantee you'll see a
lot more scientists 20 years down the line.

------
bhousel
> How would society, or more specifically government, even go about inspiring
> a cultural change to value scientists? Any ideas?

"Too many athletes, too few scientists" is a broken premise: Elite athletes
are valuable only because they are _scarce_.

Government is doing plenty to make scientists scarce as well, so perhaps we
will get our wish granted, in a perverse way.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Government is doing plenty to make scientists scarce as well..._

Like what?

~~~
tdrgabi
salaries.

I guess an academic career is not a highly payed one.

~~~
CWuestefeld
If the government is determining the salaries of more than a small minority of
scientists, then we've got other problems too.

Shouldn't most scientists be getting their pay from universities, or the R&D
departments of corporations? I mean, the CDC and NASA don't employ that many
people in the grand scheme of things.

~~~
kd0amg
_Shouldn't most scientists be getting their pay from universities, or the R &D
departments of corporations? I mean, the CDC and NASA don't employ that many
people in the grand scheme of things._

You don't have to be an employee of CDC or NASA to get your pay via government
funding. The university signs my paychecks, but the money comes from an NSF
research grant to my co-advisor.

------
TomOfTTB
Were scientists paid more than professional athletes in the 50s and 60s? I
somehow doubt it. There's a lot that's ridiculous about this article (His "30
year slump" completely dismisses information technology for example). But with
such a clear fallacy at the very core of his argument it seems unproductive to
debate points that support that flawed argument.

~~~
kenjackson
I can't check this right now, but I don't think athletes were paid nearly as
much in the 50's and 60's.

TV hadn't entered the picture in a big way. Even in the 80s NBA conference
championship were tape delayed and played at midnight. The SuperBowl in the
60s was preempted by Heidi.

------
jswinghammer
When you're a kid being an athlete seems like a great job but almost no one
I've met tried to go professional. This is a pretty silly premise.

Scientists seem to be in good supply given that they don't seem to make very
much money-at least in the circles I run in here in Boston.

------
triviatise
turn science into a game at the national level. The X prize and other contests
capture the attention of the american people as well as generating a ton of
private investment. Create prizes in the 100MM or even billion dollar range
for milestones in green tech. Create a national contest for scientists for
invention with huge multi million $ prizes. That would create news and
generate respect and interest in the profession.

~~~
xiaoma
I love the idea. Prizes are great in so many ways. They legitimize the task,
which helps cut red tape involved with bio-engineering or launching small
shuttles, etc... Prizes also cause a lot more development than just the
winning design. It's also common for close runner-ups to also have learned and
built things of value.

------
tomjen3
Not just scientists, but everybody who uses their minds at their job.

And the solution? Simple, in High School Nerds needs to go at the absolute top
of the hierarchy. That will encourage more people to end up there.

~~~
dagw
Wouldn't it be much better to make science and math less 'nerdy' and wash away
the stigma that only nerds can be good at it.

------
RiderOfGiraffes
Related: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2389474>

------
api
_Raising the social status of scientists is one of the most important things
the U.S. can do to shake off our 30 year slump..._

I think part of the problem is how we've deified the MBA/"executive" as a
fundamentally higher class of being.

I am not knocking what such people do. Surely it can be very difficult,
demanding, time consuming, etc. But it is not the only job that is such, and
it is not the only job that is of such high value.

I would argue that many surgeons, doctors, engineers, etc. create far more
value than many businessmen. (In many cases they make more too! It's a myth
that "suits" make all the money. The distribution of incomes in business is
highly asymptotic. Top executives make ungodly money, but the average "suit"
does not.)

What the hell am I talking about?

Case in point:

It used to be called "first class." A few airlines still call it this, but I
usually see it called "business class."

First class carries the connotation of prestige. Business class carries the
connotation that business _is_ prestige and everyone else sits in the back of
the plane.

In working with MBA types, there has been a palpable sense that I am of lower
status _because I am a doer_ \-- because I am doing the "details" (like making
things work) and this is for "little people."

We have elevated athletes, politicians, and alpha front-men (and they are
usually male) to the absolute pinnacle of status in our society. Meanwhile we
have actually demoted everyone else.

~~~
secretasiandan
First class and business class are different things. You don't always
simultaneously have both, but you can.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_class_travel>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_class>

~~~
api
Well then I'm mistaken about that, but I don't think the cultural trend that
I'm talking about is vapor.

I sometimes feel like an idiot for spending my life getting good at doing
things, when I should have spent my life getting good at self-promotion and
manipulating people.

