5 ms·

Ideally, we would want essentially everyone interested in pursuing science to do so, and succeed. No? You seem to be saying that we should rather limit the num

Ideally, we would want essentially everyone interested in pursuing science to do so, and succeed. No? You seem to be saying that we should rather limit the number of scientists than pay for the ones we can train.

danieltillett 10y ago
In an ideal world yes I would love to see everyone who has a talent and interest in science pursue it. The amount of money is mostly outside of the control of science, but encouraging students to become professional scientists when you know there is no funding to employ them at the end of their training is immoral. Until the funding situation changes then we need to stop misleading students about what to expect.
- tamana 10y ago
  It's been known for at least 20 years that there is no money in non-corporate non-engineering science. But perhaps that advertising doesn't reach young student.
sndean 10y ago
> You seem to be saying that we should rather limit the number of scientists than pay for the ones we can train. This is still an open question. At least in biomedical sciences, there's been an explosion in the number of PhDs awarded. Biomedical postdocs get paid ~$40k/year on average, and it's increasingly likely they'll be stuck in that position for 10+ years (or you'll leave for a non-science job). I luckily won't have to go through that, but most of my friends are. An alternative is produce less, better paid, better trained scientists.
- dmix 10y ago
  I'm sure comp sci could use some of them. Hopefully we can start attracting the same amount of women as Bio* fields, that would do a lot to redistribute STEM labour towards better compensation and alleviate supply issues in the market (on both ends).
  - tamana 10y ago
    The amount of STEM PhDs is a mere blip compared to software engineer demand.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  Very few areas outside of computer science and some applied mathematic fields have anything other than very dismal job prospects. Even if you manage to grab the brass ring and get tenure after 15 to 20 years of low paid study, this is hardly secure. If you fail to bring in large amounts of grant funding you will soon find yourself on your own in the basement broom closet or made redundant in the next departmental reshuffle.
thaumasiotes 10y ago
> Ideally, we would want essentially everyone interested in pursuing science to do so, and succeed. No? This isn't obvious to me. What if that was everyone?
- danieltillett 10y ago
  I would love to live in a world where everyone wanted to be a scientist.
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    Would you like to live in a world where everyone actually was a practicing scientist? Who would build houses? Where would lab equipment come from?
    - danieltillett 10y ago
      Yes I would. Being a scientist is about the way you view the world and what you understand rather than the job you do day to day. I still consider myself a practicing scientist despite no longer earning a living being one. A world where everyone approached problems with a scientific mindset would be one I would love to live in.
      - tamana 10y ago
        You don't enjoy non-scifi arts and literature?
        danieltillett 10y ago
        I sure do. People with scientific training are just as capable of producing art as anyone else. My personal experience is scientists are more interested in the arts and literature than the average person of equivalent education.
      - thaumasiotes 10y ago
smm2000 10y ago
We want only people who have talent (top 1-5% of population) to pursue science. Majority of "science" produced by Ph.Ds outside of top 10-20 programs is complete junk that contributes very little if any to humanity.
- _delirium 10y ago
  At least in the fields I'm familiar with, the top 20 universities don't have anything near a monopoly on major advances. Especially if you consider advances that were actually made there, vs. people who did their important work elsewhere and then were hired away by the top-20 university once they were already famous. I could see it being true in some small fields where there are only 20 serious programs to begin with, but in a big field like CS it's not the case.
  - pm90 10y ago
    Agree completely. One of the best things I found about American Research System is that good research happens in many universities and not just the top/Ivy League ones. The benefits from this cannot be overstated: research is a speculative field, and the only way to increase the probability of "success" is to have many different people trying different approaches.
- return0 10y ago
  Unpopular opinion , but very true
gaius 10y ago
"And succeed" is the problem there. Research by its very nature is speculative. So it becomes a game of probabilities, you want to find the sweet spot balancing funding with progress. Paying for everyone who wants one to have a lab and a supercomputer, would not be a good use of society's resources.

danieltillett 10y ago

In an ideal world yes I would love to see everyone who has a talent and interest in science pursue it. The amount of money is mostly outside of the control of science, but encouraging students to become professional scientists when you know there is no funding to employ them at the end of their training is immoral. Until the funding situation changes then we need to stop misleading students about what to expect.

tamana 10y ago
It's been known for at least 20 years that there is no money in non-corporate non-engineering science. But perhaps that advertising doesn't reach young student.

sndean 10y ago

> You seem to be saying that we should rather limit the number of scientists than pay for the ones we can train. This is still an open question. At least in biomedical sciences, there's been an explosion in the number of PhDs awarded. Biomedical postdocs get paid ~$40k/year on average, and it's increasingly likely they'll be stuck in that position for 10+ years (or you'll leave for a non-science job). I luckily won't have to go through that, but most of my friends are. An alternative is produce less, better paid, better trained scientists.

dmix 10y ago
I'm sure comp sci could use some of them. Hopefully we can start attracting the same amount of women as Bio* fields, that would do a lot to redistribute STEM labour towards better compensation and alleviate supply issues in the market (on both ends).
- tamana 10y ago
  The amount of STEM PhDs is a mere blip compared to software engineer demand.
danieltillett 10y ago
Very few areas outside of computer science and some applied mathematic fields have anything other than very dismal job prospects. Even if you manage to grab the brass ring and get tenure after 15 to 20 years of low paid study, this is hardly secure. If you fail to bring in large amounts of grant funding you will soon find yourself on your own in the basement broom closet or made redundant in the next departmental reshuffle.

thaumasiotes 10y ago

> Ideally, we would want essentially everyone interested in pursuing science to do so, and succeed. No? This isn't obvious to me. What if that was everyone?

danieltillett 10y ago
I would love to live in a world where everyone wanted to be a scientist.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  Would you like to live in a world where everyone actually was a practicing scientist? Who would build houses? Where would lab equipment come from?
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    Yes I would. Being a scientist is about the way you view the world and what you understand rather than the job you do day to day. I still consider myself a practicing scientist despite no longer earning a living being one. A world where everyone approached problems with a scientific mindset would be one I would love to live in.
    - tamana 10y ago
      You don't enjoy non-scifi arts and literature?
      - danieltillett 10y ago
        I sure do. People with scientific training are just as capable of producing art as anyone else. My personal experience is scientists are more interested in the arts and literature than the average person of equivalent education.
    - thaumasiotes 10y ago

smm2000 10y ago

We want only people who have talent (top 1-5% of population) to pursue science. Majority of "science" produced by Ph.Ds outside of top 10-20 programs is complete junk that contributes very little if any to humanity.

_delirium 10y ago
At least in the fields I'm familiar with, the top 20 universities don't have anything near a monopoly on major advances. Especially if you consider advances that were actually made there, vs. people who did their important work elsewhere and then were hired away by the top-20 university once they were already famous. I could see it being true in some small fields where there are only 20 serious programs to begin with, but in a big field like CS it's not the case.
- pm90 10y ago
  Agree completely. One of the best things I found about American Research System is that good research happens in many universities and not just the top/Ivy League ones. The benefits from this cannot be overstated: research is a speculative field, and the only way to increase the probability of "success" is to have many different people trying different approaches.
return0 10y ago
Unpopular opinion , but very true

gaius 10y ago

"And succeed" is the problem there. Research by its very nature is speculative. So it becomes a game of probabilities, you want to find the sweet spot balancing funding with progress. Paying for everyone who wants one to have a lab and a supercomputer, would not be a good use of society's resources.