3 ms·

Although these general numbers won't be a surprise to someone who has experienced a PhD program or is well informed about them, I do think the detailed data is

by geebee 10y ago

Although these general numbers won't be a surprise to someone who has experienced a PhD program or is well informed about them, I do think the detailed data is useful. Congress recently considered legislation that would automatically grant a green card to anyone who has completed a PhD in certain STEM fields (not all branches of science qualify). An MS would also count under some circumstances. The logic behind this is that the people who receive these degrees are very talented, there is a terrible shortage of them, and that it makes no sense to force them to leave the US. I do agree with point one and three. People who get PhDs in hard sciences and engineering are very talented, and it is truly bizarre to force them to leave the US. I'm also in favor of the green card, because truth is, people with these degrees who want to stay tend to be able to, and I think it would be better to grant them full and free membership in the US labor market, rather than forcing them to work under more restrictive conditions. However, I also realize what this legislation means - that PhD programs, which I consider to be fairly abusive of their students, would now have an amazing weapon to coerce in their arsenal - they would now be institutions with the power to bestow green cards. A RAND study found that the aversion to STEM graduate degrees among people who already have US residency and work rights is economically rational when you consider other options available to elite students. [1] The "shortage" is simply a rational response to long completion times, high attrition rates, and relatively poor employment prospects (again, compared to the outcome for shorter, more certain degrees with vastly lower attrition rates). Keep in mind as you read this PhD data that elite law and medical degrees typically have attrition rates of below one half of one percent. Pretty much everyone who wants to finish does. I understand there are some differences here (half a JD isn't useful, half a PhD in CS could be). But we're talking about a stupendous difference in attrition rates, in a field where congress is taking legislative action to correct a severe shortage that supposedly threatens US competitiveness in high tech! Before we grant this power to universities, they need to answer some tough questions. Why are general attrition 50-100 times higher than they are in professional degree programs? Why is it so much higher for women and some minorities? What are you going to do to remedy this? [1] http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html

mnky9800n 10y ago
I would respond with a question, why do you think it's appropriate to compare a vocational training program such as an MD/JD/etc to an academic research program? They have very different goals.
- geebee 10y ago
  It may in fact not be a valid comparison. But if we're going to speak of a "shortage" of people going into graduate STEM programs, we can't discuss that in a vacuum - we need to consider the other options available. Here's a link to the RAND study (should have included this in the original post) http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html Which does contain a discussion of whether the comparison is appropriate, as well as a (short) justification of focusing on the doctoral level programs. Ultimately, though, their justification is largely market based. A couple of relevant passages: "Alternatively, if the rewards of other careers—perhaps clinical medicine, law, or business—are higher and are growing relative to S&E, and if it is instead the costs of training for a job that are growing for S&E, then there is no shortage of scientists and engineers in this important fifth sense. Indeed, in this latter case, the “shortages” thatothers discern may well look more like discouraging surplusesto young people considering career choice." "More young people today may arguably enjoy doing science or engineering than actually plan to prepare for such careers. Instead they may choose a professional degree, but only reluctantly. In a market economy, even one characterized by rigidities, regulations and unequal opportunity, qualified people tend toward career paths whose rewards and satisfactions are becoming more attractive and/or whose preparatory costs are becoming less onerous."

by geebee 10y ago

mnky9800n 10y ago

I would respond with a question, why do you think it's appropriate to compare a vocational training program such as an MD/JD/etc to an academic research program? They have very different goals.

geebee 10y ago
It may in fact not be a valid comparison. But if we're going to speak of a "shortage" of people going into graduate STEM programs, we can't discuss that in a vacuum - we need to consider the other options available. Here's a link to the RAND study (should have included this in the original post) http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html Which does contain a discussion of whether the comparison is appropriate, as well as a (short) justification of focusing on the doctoral level programs. Ultimately, though, their justification is largely market based. A couple of relevant passages: "Alternatively, if the rewards of other careers—perhaps clinical medicine, law, or business—are higher and are growing relative to S&E, and if it is instead the costs of training for a job that are growing for S&E, then there is no shortage of scientists and engineers in this important fifth sense. Indeed, in this latter case, the “shortages” thatothers discern may well look more like discouraging surplusesto young people considering career choice." "More young people today may arguably enjoy doing science or engineering than actually plan to prepare for such careers. Instead they may choose a professional degree, but only reluctantly. In a market economy, even one characterized by rigidities, regulations and unequal opportunity, qualified people tend toward career paths whose rewards and satisfactions are becoming more attractive and/or whose preparatory costs are becoming less onerous."