4 ms·
> 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 bi
by sndean 11y 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 11y agoI'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 11y agoThe amount of STEM PhDs is a mere blip compared to software engineer demand.
- danieltillett 11y agoVery 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.