"Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates testified before the House Committee on Science and Technology and said salaries are not the problem when his company tries to recruit top scientists and engineers. "It's not an issue of raising wages. These jobs are very, very, very high-paying jobs," he said."
It maybe true that they are very high paying jobs but I doubt they are as high paying as say a job on Wall Street.
The trouble is that as engineer or researcher you have to actually do some hard, useful things.
As for financial sector, so much money is floating around these guys that they can earn exorbitant wages almost effortlessly without having any skill at all.
I guess people claiming they can predict future always earn disproportional amounts of wealth without doing anything useful. That is as long as everything goes well.
Squeeze this free-riding and casino mixture that is called financial market a bit and you will have plenty of smart people available for hacking physics as they loose incentives for hacking money game instead.
As for financial sector, so much money is floating around these guys that they can earn exorbitant wages almost effortlessly without having any skill at all.
Fail.
I've been through the interview process at a couple of such places, and you don't get in without having some skill.
In fact, I'd say the typical financial job is more technical than the typical engineering job. A large number of engineering jobs consist of little more than the electrical/mechanical/chemical equivalent of CRUD programming, but not very many finance jobs fall into that category [1].
[1] The financial industry requires many CRUD-type jobs to be done just like any other industry, but those are usually outsourced.
I overshot myself a bit with "without having any skill at all". I meant "without skill that they must had to get comparable salary from engineering type of job".
Also I didn't mean CRUD jobs because they are probably same as everywhere else. Smart person with a bit of social aptitude can pass them fairly fast.
I don't think that during work you would be using skills that you were tested for during interviews. Any highly profitable branch that does not require skill has to have high barrier on entry. Because if not, soon all people would d it, and that would make it less profitable.
If job actually requires skill then barrier of entry need not to be so high because lack of skill will quickly become apparent anyway. For example barrier of entry to my college was fairly low (it was technical and not many people actually wanted to get in because math is hard so the college set their barriers fairly low to not put people off, this also probably had to do with the way the school was financed). Semester later one third of the students were gone. After first semester only half remained.
According to the people I've spoken to working in finance, they routinely use moderately advanced math. By advanced math, I mean PDEs, numerical problems requiring cleverness and more probability than most engineers learn [1].
They also do it at a speed and level of distraction that many good techies can't handle. By this I mean a trader has the absolute right to yell at you at any time and make you drop everything debug the program he is using.
As for "barriers of entry need not be so high", college is different than a job. Your college still collected tuition from the students up until they dropped out. Goldman Sachs has to pay the bad techies they recruit until they fire them (and this may also be legally problematic [2]).
[1] It's usually not as deep as, e.g., a PhD in math or theoretical physics.
[2] If they did as you suggest, and women or minorities disproportionately couldn't handle the job, they are inviting a disparate impact lawsuit.
I have a friend who studied econometrics. They learned quite cunning math during their courses. Trouble is that they didn't understand it. They didn't know where it came from or why it works. It was black box to them. What is more this math allowed to calculate things according to one of many competing economical models which none of have been proven in any way to be actually true. It's all fine at the university when you research models, but later on the job it's completely useless. These people perform calculations on daily basis that they do not understand as a form of cargo cult.
Later I had a pleasure to work for econometrics professor and his PhD employee. Even they didn't understand all the math they were using.
I wouldn't dispute this - I'm sure that many finance people are pretty brilliant and have very strong math backgrounds.
That said, I met a lot of folks who work in finance who make a lot of money and absolutely do not have a strong math background.
Of all the folks who make substantial salaries (let's say above $250K/year) on wall street, what percentage do you think could, on the spot (or within a few minutes of consulting a book or web site), solve a simple differential equation, the kind that you encounter in an upper division undergraduate math class?
To clarify, my claim isn't that everyone in finance (or even above a certain pay scale) has a strong math background. My claim is that many of the engineer cum quants are doing technical work (not simply paper pushing) in a difficult environment.
I agree with you that "engineer cum quants" do hard math work, but you're not really comparing similar groups anymore (your original claim was that a "typical financial job is more technical than the typical engineering job"). My impression was that quants almost always have an academic background in math or physics, but I don't think this level of math is typical for most of the folks in finance, including many who make gobs and gobs of money.
> I overshot myself a bit with "without having any skill at all". I meant "without skill that they must had to get comparable salary from engineering type of job".
I'm sorry but I am not proper researcher so instead of pieces of evidence I have only experiences and thoughts most of the time. But I still want to share them with anybody interested.
Beautiful point. "very, very, very high-paying jobs" is a relative term. If you want someone with skills and options to go into that specific field then the overall compensation for that field has to be higher than the overall compensation of all other options.
Of course, part of that "overall compensation" does include things which are hard to directly measure such as enjoyment of the job, flexible scheduling, and prestige in addition to traditional ideas of money and benefits.
Stephenson says the number of computer science courses taught at the high school level has dropped for the past six years, especially at advanced levels. In 2005, 40% of U.S. high schools offered Advanced Placement courses in computer science; that number sank to 32% in 2007 and to 27% in 2009. "It's clear that the number of students taking computer science is dropping," she says.
Heads of other professional organizations also criticized the study for its lack of specificity among industries. The argument is that some STEM students and graduates may be worth cultivating more than others. The report's authors said it would have been too difficult and costly to perform a longitudinal data analysis by individual industry.
There's your problem. Anecdotal evidence here: they're all medicine. Everyone under the frickin sun wants to be a doctor.
There's a huuuge cultural bias against computer science here, which is killing it. Downstream, this results in very few girls, athletes, etc. having an interest. They pursue medicine, business and traditional engineering instead.
"In the last decade, U.S. colleges graduated three times more scientists and engineers than the number of jobs available, the researchers said. The data went through 2005 and did not reflect the recession."
It sounds like this research was "Hey department of education how many science or engineering graduates are there in the US every year?" and "Hey bls.gov how many openings are there that match engineer or scientist for entry level positions each year?" Now divide and we are done. Conclusion, there are way to many people with science and engineering degrees.
This is drawing conclusions about the labor market with a data set that includes a wide range of degrees many of which are only prerequisites for graduate degrees in other fields.
Money is only a symptom. What it's really about is the vestiges of the old British class system. Doctors, lawyers, bankers, managers, and so on are upper-middle-class professionals. Engineers of any sort, no matter how skilled, no matter how many degrees, PE or CEng status, have the taint of blue-collar about them (from the POV of the upper-middles). A manager will never be happy to see a worker paid more than him, even if by the laws of supply and demand they ought to be.
This is much much less of a problem in say Germany where Engineer is a respected, prestigious title in its own right.
Are you asserting that Britain is now a Blairite classless utopia? I don't think even he himself would agree with that... And neither would his buddies Lords Falconer and Mandelson.
This is the right starting point for any serious discussion of the "engineer shortage." Instead of expounding on how wonderful the unfilled engineering jobs are, we need to know how they stack up against other professions.
If someone is capable of getting into a (top or even middle tier) MS or PhD program in engineering, it means they are 1) capable of working extremely hard in an academic environment with highly rigorous subject matter, and 2) able to score high on standardized tests. This is the same skill set required for law or med school.
So how are the grads of the top engineering MS/PhD programs doing compared to law or medicine? Unless it's competitive, we can end the analysis right there (and a recent RAND study concluded that this lack of competitiveness with other options was, in fact, driving the low interest level of Americans in engineering).
By the way, I actually do think there are some good reasons to pursue an engineering or science path. Your opportunity to contribute to the general welfare is immense in engineering. You may be intensely satisfied with the work, or craftsmanship involved. You may find yourself at home in the immensely logical world, and there are actually many opportunities to work with people and improve their lives, in spite of the "loner" image engineers often have.
But this is the discussion we need to have, one based on an honest assessment of the rewards of engineering relative to other paths available to people with high levels of talent and academic ability.
Breaking news from the office of fallacies: People are fungible!
Seriously speaking, however, money is a pretty major problem. It is hard not to feel unfairly treated when the lawyers working on translating your product into patentese make 5-6x per hour that you do. Of course, I have equity. I don't know how I'd feel were I an engineer, paid market rate, without it.
Why is the market rate for engineers so low, compared with other professionals? Do they need a union? Negotiations class? What is it?
We live in a time when average person will have multiple careers for shorter durations, so this is not a surprise to me. I personally feel that its hard to make life decisions about careers at the age 18 or 19, so a shift in professions after graduation considering science and engineering students have strong backgrounds in math, algorithms & models for better paying jobs is quiet understandable.
There will always be a 'labor shortage' if your definition of a shortage is being unable to find staff at the price you like. It's refreshing to see at least one attempt to swim against the tide of propaganda produced by industry.
It's about Dilbert. If I have the skills to go into a profession where I'll be respected or into a profession where I'll be treated, well, shall we say not so well, which will I pick?
Well, obviously Dilbert is an extreme caricature of what happens in most offices, but the comic in and of itself is not a good emissary for the software engineering profession. It unfortunately may have unconsciously biased many people away from jobs in industry.
It maybe true that they are very high paying jobs but I doubt they are as high paying as say a job on Wall Street.