

Driving students into science is a fool's errand - rflrob
http://www.nature.com/news/driving-students-into-science-is-a-fool-s-errand-1.12981

======
dmlorenzetti
It isn't clear what, exactly, Macilwain objects to, because he never bothers
to give specific examples of what he finds wasteful.

At the outset, he identifies three broad categories of funding: (1) luring
young people into STEM careers; (2) promoting science and technology at
graduate schools; and (3) raising standards of science education. But the rest
of his argument lumps these all together as if all the spending is for
category #1, "luring".

For example, he points out that "no such government-backed programmes exist to
pull children into being lawyers or accountants." And his broad argument, as
expressed in the subheading, is that the funding biases the system to
producing more scientists and technologists than it needs: "If programmes to
bolster STEM education are effective, they distort the labour market..."

Only by ignoring the distinction between category #1, "luring", and category
#3, "raising standards", can he complain that businesses who want better-
educated scientists, if they really meant it, would just pony up and "pay and
train newly graduated scientists and engineers properly." Either he thinks
that the technical skills businesses want can be achieved by a quick training
session after a broad general education, or else he thinks that raising the
salaries of engineers will send a market signal to grade-schoolers that they
ought to be more interested in STEM education. The problem of poor preparation
never seems to enter his head. If all the accounting firms in the country were
complaining that few recent college grads can add a column of numbers, and the
government responded by trying to improve arithmetic education, would
Macilwain complain about the money spent "luring children into accounting"?

In short, he might have an argument. But until he grounds it in specifics,
he's just hand-waving with the broad idea that trying to improve STEM
education distorts the market. This is obvious tripe, because the same broad
argument could be applied to education in general: "If programs to bolster
education are effective, they distort the market for educated workers. If they
aren't, they're a waste of money. Besides, if businesses really wanted
educated workers, they would pay and train new hires properly."

~~~
geebee
"He thinks that raising the salaries of engineers will send a market signal to
grade-schoolers that they ought to be more interested in STEM education".

At the graduate level, this is backed by a RAND study.

<http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html>

The authors of the study do address the possibility that poor preparation is
the cause - but they conclude that poor pay and job prospects _relative_ to
other options available to highly educated Americans is the main driver of low
interest in science and engineering.

[http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-07-08-scien...](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-07-08-science-
engineer-jobs_N.htm)

"Other approaches such as making K-12 science and math courses more
interesting and pushing for more qualified math and science teachers "may have
merit in their own right," researchers said, "but we think they pale in
importance to the earnings and attractiveness of S&E careers as major
determinants of the supply of U.S.-born students to S&E."

So the real question is - if the objective research suggests that there is no
shortage of scientists and that the American allergy to these fields is
rational and market driven, why launch a PR campaign to get young Americans to
enter it?

There are reasons - many people believe that scientists and engineers create
more wealth than other comparably or better paid professions. So society as a
whole has a stronger interest in having more engineers than we'd normally get
through the normal, individual response to market signals (I'm assuming an
individual doesn't really care if his income contributes or detracts to the
general wealth as long as it is obtained legally - some people clearly do care
as a personal matter). In this case, it might make sense to try to lure some
young people in. Rather than hoping to trick them, though, it might be better
to actually make it worth their while - perhaps by covering tuition so that
all engineers graduate debt-free. Another possibility could be giving a tax
break to people in these fields.

The Onion said it best... "Study finds 99% of commuters favor public
transportation for others." Seems everyone other than scientists is keen on
getting other people to study science. Barak Obama, a lawyer, certainly seems
to think science is a fantastic career for others.

------
jurassic
I agree with the author that pushing kids into STEM for STEM's sake is stupid.
In particular, there is no shortage of scientists, which is why they work
insane hours and make fast food wages well into their 30's. We already have
enough people wasting their 20's on a PhD who will never get a tenure track
faculty job as a full-time researcher. The current job:gradstudent ratio is
untenable.

Want to make science attractive and more effective? Cut grad student
enrollments in half and triple grad student pay so that it is comparable to
what other STEM grads make in the workforce; in this case, choosing science
would not be a major financial mistake, even for the masses who never get a
faculty job. Professors would have fewer students, enabling better mentorship
and improved job outlook for each graduate. Increase pay for professors so
that they make money comparable to other highly educated professionals. Endow
faculty chairs at major universities and set a mandatory faculty retirement
age so that deadwood profs aren't hogging positions needed by rising stars.
Mandate open publishing.

These changes could be implemented easily if legislatures and funding agencies
wanted them, but nobody seems to want that. If the government wants people in
science, they should spend money making it a better career, not spend money to
slap a coat of marking gloss on a relatively bleak situation.

------
rm445
What an unutterably bizarre article. "By cajoling more children to enter
science and engineering [...] the state increases STEM student numbers, floods
the market with STEM graduates, reduces competition for their services and
cuts their wages." It almost makes one wonder whether the author knows what
STEM stands for - he seems to see it as just a type of labour, in the sense
that an oversupply of plumbers, STEM graduates or scaffolders will depress the
wages of that group.

Perhaps I'm just irretrievably biased, but STEM seems, as well as being an
enormously vast field it seems lazy to lump together, to be the engine of
human advancement and economic growth.

If student A, an engineering student, is put in competition with student B,
who could have been a good lawyer but chose a Maths degree, and student C, who
had to choose between music and physics but chose physics at university, then
A's wages might end up slightly lower but we are all likely to end up better
off.

But it's not just that I am a science-biased technocrat - I don't especially
want to drive our future judges and music professors into engineering careers.
I think it more likely that technical education is just under-taken-up at all
levels compared to what would most benefit society, and people who could
perfectly well cope with technical careers end up taking jobs in the service
sector that provide little training.

To take a shortage of technically-trained people, paint that as a benefit for
the wages of the currently qualified, and argue to maintain the status quo on
that basis is just short-sighted nonsense.

------
jeffdavis
Teaching a student chemistry depresses the wages of all chemists, distorts the
market, and damages all science. It is just pandering to big business
interests.

Sarcasm aside, just because it's good for business doesn't mean that it's bad
for you.

------
bdc
This article reads like a general argument against government subsidies in
general - replace "STEM education" with "corn" or "new energy" and the
argument is still valid.

Given that it was published on nature.com, best known as the publisher of one
of the top science journals in the world, I would bet that the intended
purpose is to stimulate discussion, not to explicitly endorse this view as
written.

------
davidw
A couple of counterpoints:

* Science, at least when I went through high school was Not Cool. It was for "nerds", something that you didn't really want to be labeled. I don't know if it's still that way in the US, but counteracting that effect might not be a bad idea.

* He talks about flooding the market. I just don't see that as likely to happen, and I don't necessarily see STEM stuff as a "lump of labor" with a fixed amount of work to go around, either. These are people creating and discovering new things!

~~~
gavinlynch
slightly tangential topic, but I had to respond to this because I _do_ hear
this from my fellow US citizens:

>>> "* Science, at least when I went through high school was Not Cool. It was
for "nerds", something that you didn't really want to be labeled. I don't know
if it's still that way in the US, but counteracting that effect might not be a
bad idea."

I've got to be honest... what High Schools did you guys go to?? I had friends
on the football team who were into science. I had friends who didn't care
about sports and were into writing. I had friends who had letter jackets, I
had friends who rode motorcycles.

I was into computers and nobody cared. I first cut my teeth with CSS helping
out with the website for our school newspaper. I first learned to program by
messing around and making silly ASCII racing games on my graphing calculator
in BASIC. Everyone who cared just kind of thought it was neat, or didn't care
and we talked about other things.

All this labeling of "nerd" and "jocks"... I really don't get it. There were
many circles of friends to join. Or you could be a loner and that's fine too.
Looking back, I'm not even sure what label I would have been given (never
considered myself a nerd, I was too poor of a student :p)

Did I miss something, or does everyone else just get caught up in labeling
waaayyy too much?

That's just not the reality I experienced, and I never saw the ecosystem
through that prism. _shrugs_

~~~
rdtsc
There is a large difference depending on part of country (deep south,
northeast, west coast), town, and part of town.

In some rural communities football and ROTC is glorified and science is for
the nerds. In other parts of the country it is different.

> Or you could be a loner and that's fine too.

Or you got picked on, beaten and made fun of and adults (who have also mostly
bought into the "sports are God" mentality) didn't really care to do much
about it.

Now I am talking like I had extensive experience with this, but in reality I
went to one American High School for one year only, otherwise I went to one in
Eastern Europe.

I would say overall the East European one was poor, didn't have any extra
curricular activities _but_ science, math and English (foreign language) was
top notch. Just to compare, math material I studies in 9th grade back home was
taught to seniors in 12th grade in US. It was nice tutoring them math. And I
also got a taste of the sharp boundaries of cliques and social groups in US
High Schools. These are the "band" people, they hang out together, these
people smoke pot, they hang out together, these are the nerds they talk about
Start Trek and hang out together and I had to pick one. I picked the nerds,
and it was strange how many things revolved around "whom do you hang out
with". I definitely saw that as a negative side.

~~~
jff
I guess my experience at such a small rural community was an outlier. Football
was huge, our team was great, but we also had a good band program and quite a
few of the band members were also football players--they'd march the half-time
show in their football uniforms.

People didn't get beaten, the rare fights stemmed from personal conflicts
rather than "NERRRRRRDS!". Nobody was really subjected to harassment that I
ever saw.

Our school was something like 75% Hispanic and 25% white. The white kids were
maybe 50% Mormon, which may have had some effect on behavior.

You know who cared more about cliques than anyone else? The try-hard "rebels"
who obsessed over "jocks" and "preps". I socialized with everyone, and I think
that was closer to the norm. I ate lunch at the band room with the band kids
(many of whom were in cross country with me), I shot the shit in class with
the stoner kids (who were also band kids and athletes), I went to game night
with the Mormon kids (who were in band and sports).

I think this whole "nerd" obsession with "nerds" vs. "jocks", the image of
getting stuffed in lockers or beat up, I think it's seated in a past that's
been gone for a while.

I'm sorry you thought you had to pick one group.

------
danpalmer
I have to call bullshit on this. It's just rubbish from my experience.

In the UK, the government is at the point of giving away science degrees just
so that there are enough science teachers for primary and secondary school
students, and as a computer science student, I have managed to get a paid
internship every year of my degree, and last year turned down 4 internship
offers, because there were so many companies looking for people with a
computer science education.

Our STEM graduate rates are falling, and our need for STEM graduates is
increasing.

On top of this, we don't just need people getting jobs in STEM subjects, we
need a population who have a broad knowledge of, and respect for, scientific
understanding. If children aren't taught science to an adequate level then the
country, and the world, suffers for it.

------
russelluresti
The argument that the person is missing here is whether or not there are a
significant number of unfilled STEM jobs (either presently or expected in 15 -
20 years). If there are a lot of unfilled STEM jobs, then you should push
people into STEM careers to fill those jobs.

The reason you don't push students into being lawyers is because there are
more law students graduating than there are open jobs for them.

Any market, STEM or not, where there is a lack of unqualified workers and more
job opportunities than graduates should have programs that encourage students
to consider pursuing those careers.

~~~
sp332
If there were lots of STEM jobs (that pay reasonable wages), then wouldn't
people move into them without government subsidies?

~~~
pjscott
How many students, when deciding on their major, actually look up information
on job availability and typical salaries? And then take this into account in
their decision? Judging by the number of people majoring in completely un-
marketable fields, I doubt the percentage is very high.

~~~
sp332
Seriously? Who goes to college without checking out job prospects before
picking a major? I went to a liberal arts college that _prided_ itself on
_not_ focusing on marketable, in-demand or especially practical skills, and
I'm pretty sure everyone had a decent grasp of what the job market in their
field looked like. (I'm not saying that it was the primary motivation for
picking a major, but they at least knew the situation.)

~~~
mead5432
I think something to note in your comment is that you chose to go to a school
who didn't focus on marketable jobs... This seems to hint either at a) you
didn't check job prospects before choosing a college or, b) your school was
failing at what they prided themselves on by providing an education that got
you a marketable career.

I think fewer students check actual job prospects less frequently than you
might expect. Rather, they go with their gut or influence by people close to
them (teachers, family members, etc...) who are probably just going from the
gut anyway.

~~~
sp332
Sorry if that part wasn't clear, but people chose to go to this college for
self-improvement or "life of the mind" or somesuch, and worrying about job
skills was not a priority. My point is that even these idealists knew what
they were getting into. Personally, I learned a lot before college and outside
of class, and started work as a full-time software engineer two days after
graduation.

------
michaelochurch
There are two potential labor market realities and we still don't know, as a
society, which one is right:

1\. Labor finitism: there's a fairly fixed amount of labor that society will
pay money for, and us proles are doomed to compete against each other for it,
in what ultimately becomes a race to the bottom.

2\. Labor progressivism: technical and scientific progress will free up
resources for more interesting and higher-yield work, and make everyone
richer. To quote Keynes, the rising tide will lift all boats.

In a labor-finitist world, the worker's job is to extract as much payment out
of capital-holders (for as little work) as possible. The labor-finitist world
is almost Malthusian in its ruthless cruelty. In a labor-progressivist world,
it's actually good to do the grunt work quickly, so you can graduate to more
interesting stuff.

Of course, reality is somewhere between these two extremes. In the very short
term, it's labor finitist: people have to formally "create" jobs. In the long
term, it's labor progressivist; the labor pool does expand, with its rate
being an open question. The open question pertains to the 0.1-20 years range
over which we actually make career decisions. It's like Efficient Market
Hypothesis, whose truth comes down to "what time frame?" (Over very-short or
very-long timeframes, EMH is demonstrably not true for well-known reasons.
Over typical timeframes, it is.)

If labor finitism is true, then we want to drive young people far away from
whatever we do. Given that the software industry is already a horrible place
to work, just being honest about the low autonomy and shitty legacy code and
arrogance of non-technical management-- also, the fact that, even though our
salaries might look good on paper, we make about 1/5 of what we should given
the bullshit we have to put up with-- ought to be enough. We just need to
counteract the Googley propaganda about this career involving actual autonomy
and respect.

If labor progressivism is true, then since science and technology are the
driving forces of that progress, we want as many people in those industries as
have the talent, because that will bring us out of scarcity faster.

It's unclear which is the case, though. Labor progressivism is true in the
underlying "real world", but this society is littered with legacy power
relationships that, I'm afraid, make labor finitism a lot more accurate. Just
look at the terrorist attack that has been inflicted on the academic job
market for the past 25 years if you don't believe that.

~~~
toby
"Given that the software industry is already a horrible place to work"

You say things like this a lot. I'm willing to accept that I may be naive, but
do you think that those of us who have had primarily positive experiences (and
I know a few, not only me) just incredibly lucky?

I've been a programmer for 13 years and have worked at failing startups,
moderately successful startups and big companies. I've mostly coded but have
also managed small groups. There's some amount of bullshit in every job, I
think, but I haven't found it to be disproportionate compared to my friends in
other industries.

~~~
michaelochurch
I don't know what you've experienced. Maybe you've been unusually lucky.
Perhaps I've been unlucky. But everything I've seen convinces me that shitty
experiences are the norm in this industry.

I enjoy programming and solving hard problems, but I hate this industry with a
passion. I'm sick of the terrible legacy code, the bad decisions made by
people dumber than a crocodile's fecal product, and the lack of respect and
autonomy for the people doing the actual fucking work.

Even Google turned itself into a closed-allocation shitpile at some point.
What a fucking disaster.

We've failed to make ourselves a real profession, and it seems like the norm
is for us to suffer dearly for it. Most programmers live in an environment
where they have minimal autonomy and don't even choose which projects they
work on. It's fucking disgusting and if we had any collective self-respect,
we'd demolish the assholes who built these horrible work environments.

Personally, I won't be happy until the people who instituted calibration
scores and closed allocation at Google commit seppuku. They destroyed
_billions_ of dollars worth of economic value, they ruined the lives of
hundreds to thousands of highly talented people, and it's the only decent
thing for them to do after that.

~~~
TheAntipodean
In an effort to find out what closed allocation meant I fired up your
favourite search engine, Google, and searched the term. I was amused to see an
article on your blog come up as the top hit.

~~~
michaelochurch
I have no problem with the _search engine_ Google. I still use it-- and Gmail,
too.

At least 90% of the people at Google are really solid. Good people, great
engineers. I have a dislike for the management, not the people or the
products.

~~~
ableal
Interesting, thought provoking posts, but you seem to have used two different
tags that pop up in search:

<http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/tag/project-allocation/> (the Discomfort
is Bad piece)

<http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/tag/closed-allocation/> (the earlier Only
Real Option piece)

There's also the more systematic Quora/Forbes piece:
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/11/26/what-is-open-
al...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/11/26/what-is-open-allocation/)

------
sp332
A third option is that they're un-distorting the market, counteracting other
distorting forces.

~~~
BrianEatWorld
Unless you know what is actually distorting the market in the first place,
counteracting a distortion with another distortion seems like a risky approach
to problem solving. As the author points out, a good deal of money already
goes into this. It seems if something is distorting the market, we aren't very
good at targeting it, given the lack of results.

------
Yhippa
Would it be better to take the money that's being put into hyping STEM and
reinvesting it into us K-12 education? Rather than having all of these extra
programs to convince kids to move to STEM careers, make the current grade
school programs more rigorous so that when they get their diploma hopefully
they will have been through a lot in their schooling to be better prepared to
take the rapidly changing new jobs opening up in today's society.

~~~
mead5432
I think you are right that it probably isn't a campaign hyping the STEM jobs
but I doubt the answer is making those classes "more rigorous" (though it
probably does need some work in that area).

My bet is that it is not treated appropriately by the teachers. My grade
school teachers made science boring, monotonous and repetitive. It wasn't
interesting at all. The crazy thing is that it is really cool... So much of it
has a ton in common with a fun action movie: explosions and sex.

Frame it in terms that make sense and is interesting to students rather than
just reading chapter 5 and the interest in STEM fields will naturally
increase.

------
nsomething
How about going into STEM to understand how the world works a little better?

Would you rather have a society full of too many engineers or that of too many
lawyers?

------
ttrreeww
If the super highly paid job is there, they will come.

If it isn't, then no amount of driving is going to help.

