14 ms·

Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in scientific careers

118 points by smb06 10y ago

dorfsmay 10y ago
I'm actually surprised well-off students choose science over well-paying careers given that it is well known that there is no money in research. My own kids and their friends often express that science is interesting but they won't get into it because of that.
- jordigh 10y ago
  I don't know what anyone else's story is, but for myself, everything was given to me by my parents. We weren't exactly rich, but I was certainly privileged. Whatever I asked for, I got. So, when a university education was given to me, I thought I could just "follow my dream" and not concern myself too much with making an income, because why should I? Making an income had never seemed like a concern, so I studied pure mathematics. When my father died and my personal gold mine with him, I had to drop out of mathematics (which I was half-assing anyway), find a way to make money, and here I am now: software developer.
  - saiya-jin 10y ago
    the easier kids have it during childhood, the harder the reality hits later (if ever). some frugality in upbringing instead of just throwing money on them to compensate lack of time spent with them goes much, much longer way
    - 8fGTBjZxBcHq 10y ago
      I get what you're trying to say but I just want to point out that reality still probably hits harder when life was always hard. Growing up with nothing into an adulthood with no support network and few prospects, where our society blames you for being in that situation, is a harder draw than being taken care of until you're halfway through college then having to find your own way.
      - glubby 10y ago
        "Life is not easy for any of us. But what of that?" - Marie Curie.
    - usrusr 10y ago
      There is frugality based on necessity and there is frugality based on considering it a positive character trait. When necessity is dominant, the other kind of frugality rarely happens. The former quickly breaks down in presence of money, but it is a great enabler for financial risk-taking. ("worst thing that can happen is that I have to go back to ramen", call it scalability of personal finances, if you like). The latter is quite the opposite, it seeks financial peace of mind and will take stability over opportunity any time. People with this mindset will tend to find the solid, but not stellar pay scale of science rather attractive. Self selection happens.
  - wutbrodo 10y ago
    > when a university education was given to me, I thought I could just "follow my dream" and not concern myself too much with making an income, because why should I? Making an income had never seemed like a concern, so I studied pure mathematics. Are you talking about your math undergrad degree, or graduate degree? Pure math is perhaps a bad example here: in my experience, damn near every high paying field is glad to see a math degree (including seemingly unrelated fields like law, medicine, etc). I've done really well in tech and my math degree (both on paper and in practice) has contributed a lot to that success. A math graduate degree is a little less of a definite pay-off, but I had a math PhD under me at Google who got hired in with no engineering experience whatsoever at something like 200k/yr. It took him about six months of a bit of handholding but he ended up being one of my most dependably talented people.
    - jordigh 10y ago
      Sure, I got jobs programming, but not jobs doing math. It was good enough to wave the degree around to impress people, but the actual stuff I learned was utterly irrelevant to programming. I could have studied chess and still gotten programming jobs, if only they gave out chess degrees and people admired chess. I wanted to keep doing math and that's why I was having a hard time finding money.
      - wutbrodo 10y ago
        Oh gotcha, I misunderstood you as saying that finishing a math degree wouldn't be worth the financial investment. FWIW, I kept my eye on the ball and five years after finishing undergrad I mostly have work that's heavy in math but is still as lucrative (more actually) than a programming job. It's not a guarantee, but if you like it enough and try to point each step forward towards doing more math, it's definitely possible. I did get other degrees during undergrad though, so that probably shaped the opportunities available to me.
- stdbrouw 10y ago
  Isn't it a well-known phenomenon that the children of well-to-do parents often end up in the arts and other fields with high cultural capital? Having money allows you to not worry about money.
  - brianlweiner 10y ago
    "I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Painting and Poetry Mathematicks and Philosophy." - John Adams *he struck through painting and poetry.
  - dorfsmay 10y ago
    I was talking high end of middle class where kids will have to support themselves eventually. I think you're talking rich people where your "career" won't impact your standard of living (because of parents wealth).
    - stdbrouw 10y ago
      Nope, not at all, talking about upper middle class folks. You're right that it doesn't necessarily make sense because the children will eventually have to take care of themselves, but it is what it is.
- colmvp 10y ago
  I came from a well-to-do family and well... my parents pushed me to go into medicine/finance/science, partially because they perceived those industries as making a lot of money and for the prestige. Science might not be as lucrative as finance/medicine, but in my circles, people certainly respect an intellectual scientist more than they do a lowly designer (me!). I went into tech as a designer before the wave hit largely because I love computers and the digital medium. They opposed it because of the uncertainty of the industry ("How do you make money as a designer?") but supported me financially while I went through college. Long story short I was able to help make a lucrative company in SV. I guess to answer your question, I very well could've gone into science because of my parents and well, the prestige.
  - dorfsmay 10y ago
    When? How was the economy when you chose your career? Today, in a very uncertain economy with lots of parents not finding work (western Canada), high school kids look at research as a hobby that won't allow them to support a family. I pushed my daughter to go to a two-day university bio discovery thing, she absolutely loved it, but said that all the research assistants confirm they can't afford to live and most of them are thinking of dropping into the industry so they can stop asking their parents to help paying the rent.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- clifanatic 10y ago
  > I'm actually surprised well-off students choose science If you have a trust fund waiting for you, you can pursue idealistic dreams of changing the world rather than worrying about what will be most likely to leave you with enough money to eat.
  - dorfsmay 10y ago
    Given the numbers in the article, I assume upper middle class (can there be that many rich people!)
- sidlls 10y ago
  I'm not at all surprised by this. A similar phenomenon exists in many other fields and areas of life. Those who have a solid financial support system are simply more likely to be able to commit themselves more deeply to whatever they focus on. This has been the case for centuries: the wealthy simply have always had more means to do more things.
- yodsanklai 10y ago
  > I'm actually surprised well-off students choose science over well-paying careers given that it is well known that there is no money in research. Most of them don't. But not everybody is materialistic or subject to social pressure. Actually, what annoys me the most as a professor isn't the (comparatively) low salary but the lack of recognition. My family always blames me for not pursuing a more lucrative path and don't understand what I do and what purpose it serves.
- tnecniv 10y ago
  I'd rather get paid below market value (considering either my current career path or an alternate I could have chosen) and do interesting work every day than get paid a lot and work long hours doing something I hate. My father made the opposite choice and regrets it every day now that his career is coming to a close.
  - dsacco 10y ago
    >>I'd rather get paid below market value (considering either my current career path or an alternate I could have chosen) and do interesting work every day than get paid a lot and work long hours doing something I hate. It's important to note that the spectrum you laid out has two other "corners". Many PhDs do mind-numbingly boring work, even if it's original research, while getting paid a pittance. Conversely, there are many ways to do fascinating, intellectually vigorous and challenging work every day with only a Bachelor's or Master's qualification while getting rich.
    - mattkrause 10y ago
      > Many PhDs do mind-numbingly boring work, even if it's original research There's a second trade-off here too. PhD/Postdocs do stuff that's mind-numbingly boring at a "micro" level (e.g., actually performing most experiments), but really exciting at a macro level (e.g., figuring out how the brain--or the Sun--works). In industry, there's often the opposite opportunity: exciting day-to-day work for uninteresting goals, like using state-of-the-art machine learning (fun!) to figure out whether a webpage should show a Papa John's or Pizza Hut ad (meh).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
jkot 10y ago
Great! Problem is not that scientists are often paid less than McDonald's burger flipper. No! It is social and gender issue! Lets push even more students into this career path.
- BEEdwards 10y ago
  So there is no possible way that the issues could be related. It's only that stupid social justice that makes people talk about demographics and socio economics as we all know. There is no other reason to look into it...
  - jkot 10y ago
    But the original article is treating it as separate issue. It does not even acknowledge bad career prospects and low salary as a problem.
- bbctol 10y ago
  The low pay for scientists is very definitely related to it not being an accessible path for lower classes.
  - refurb 10y ago
    That doesn't make sense to me. If it were a more accessible path, then you'd have more scientists (supply), the same demand and lower wages.
    - bbctol 10y ago
      No--one of the reasons it's not a more accessible path is because it pays so poorly. Science funding doesn't follow a normal supply and demand framework; money isn't sent to scientists by customers in exchange for the benefits they provide, but by hopeful non-profit agencies giving as much as they can without expecting tangible return. There's a set pool of money to draw from (and that pool is drying up, as funding for the NIH et al. decreases) which means you can either have a small number of well-paid scientists or lots of poorly paid ones. There are societal benefits to lots of scientists, so we're all trying to be okay with pure research as a path you can only go into if you don't have large debts to repay.
junipergreen 10y ago
Studies have shown a major factor in young people's likeliness of going into science is whether their families think highly of science and science careers (regardless of parents' education levels). I'd imagine the ivory-tower nature of science can contribute a class divides in this respect as well.
kaitai 10y ago
As I write this, there are just a small number of comments, all saying "there's no money in research" and "scientists are paid less than McDonald's burger flipper". It's like a whole section of disgruntled grad students who wanted to be professors. There is tons of money in science! People who "fail out" of or never wanted to pursue the stupid academic dream become active in patent law, become managers at pharma and biomed companies, oversee quality control at chemical firms, write documentation for medical devices, run labs, work as lab techs. These are all good jobs compared to the jobs the majority of Americans are qualified for. Seems like HN has a very warped view, this view that "there's no money in research" means some poor kid is better off flipping burgers into her 50s than becoming a lab manager.
- existencebox 10y ago
  I would warn your optimism however, my wife is a lab manager (performs research, publishes, ostensibly as involved in the science as any PHD) but I would by no stretch of the word say she makes "good money"; both of us made more back when we were service workers. The perception in her group is that the positions that pay even close to tech (some of the ones you list, manager at pharma company etc) are almost paramount if not more difficult to e.g. getting a manager position at google. If you're not top of the pile material, good fucking luck. (and you'll likely have some very high expectations to get there, PHD+extensive research the minima of, which again unlike tech, are less able to be fulfilled while making good money as well, and typically require more upfront investment) I would say that in my experience the closer you get to science (or the further from money, perhaps?) the harder good money is to come by. (Left an academic tech position myself a while back; tripled my salary overnight)
  - kaitai 10y ago
    It's definitely true that getting the manager at pharma company type jobs are hard to get, and lab managers are not paid super well. But: a clinical research manager has an average salary of about $94k in the US, while web developer not otherwise specified has an average salary of about $66k in the US. Restaurant manager comes down to $37k on average, Bath & Body Works retail manager comes up to $54k. Glassdoor lists a bunch of lab manager jobs at $51k to $65k. The average salary for a black man in the US is about $35k and the average salary for a white man in the US is about $48k [1]. Every science-related job in the list is above the average salary for white, black, or hispanic men in the US, and certainly above average for women. Retail and food service fall on either side -- and which jobs are more likely to have health insurance? What kind of jobs did you have experience with before lab manager? I'm curious. [1] http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf
ap22213 10y ago
Man, wish I could find the link - I had read something probably 10 years ago that discussed the abnormally high number of independently wealthy people in academia and research. Makes sense given how expensive it is and how infrequently it nets positive ROI. A big part of science are 'ideas', and ideas are interesting things in Human culture. To be the 'idea person' in a social group requires considerable social status. I see so many people in corporations battling to have their ideas win. I see so many people of higher status claiming ownership of the ideas of those 'beneath' them. I see plenty of great ideas being ignored because of who proposes them. And, it's very rare to see an outsider's idea gain influence. They say that execution matters much more than ideas - but they go hand-in-hand. The person who gets to execute also gets to choose the idea. Given the comparitive physical weakness of the Human, 'the idea' is their number one weapon and asset. It enables power. So, there are probably a lot of social reasons why most lower-status (lower income) people are kept out of science and research. It's probably more of a systematic result of Human behavior than just being poor.
known 10y ago
Intrinsic motivation http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/inmotiv.htm http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/inmotiv.htm
lintiness 10y ago
i'm sorry, but technology is making access to science easy enough that "my high school can't afford to offer that bio class" excuse just doesn't work anymore. hell, even news aggs like google offer a science section every day.
- psychometry 10y ago
  I'm sorry, but you've clearly never taken an actual lab science course if you think it can be replaced by Google News.
  - lintiness 10y ago
    i'm pretty sure that's exactly what i said.
    - rspeer 10y ago
      Then you were exceptionally unclear about it. What does Google News's science section have to do with anything? A newspaper's "science" section has little to do with real science.
      - lintiness 10y ago
        the argument the article made was that financial barriers made science inaccessible. ubiquitous exposure (google news) makes the argument nonsensical. if you think you can't master high school science today (the argument) without bunsen burners, some hcl, and an egregiously over paid teacher, i can't help you.
        rspeer 10y ago
        Oh good, there's no financial barrier to being the kind of person who believes what unqualified journalists say about science, goes on fad diets, and says "I Fucking Love Science". That has shit-all to do with doing science.
        10y ago
shae 10y ago
I'd like to go get a PhD and teach, but it pays less than half of what I make as a software dev. I wish I could somehow teach science & tech and also make money.
- trapperkeeper79 10y ago
  Serious suggestion .. start a youtube channel. I do most of my learning that way (and I do have a PhD).
  - zo1 10y ago
    Or donate to a group that can do said teaching for you. Personally, I donate to Khan Academy.
- b_emery 10y ago
  You can teach adjunct at a local city or community college. People with your kind of skills are in demand, I'm sure they'd love to have you, even if just a few hours per week. And no PhD required.
davidf18 10y ago
From the article: > Last year, Christina Quasney was close to giving up. A biochemistry major at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Quasney's background was anything but privileged. People with little family money get free grants and low-interest government backed loans to attend college. She is attending a public university. In NYC, there are many students that are attending City University of New York and I meet some. They are studying biology, engineering, and other sciences. They generally but not always live at home. The annual tuition and fees are less than $7000 and for transportation, the MTA subway/bus is $115 per month, unlimited rides. Students like those mentioned in the article get Pell Grants and Stafford government backed low-interest loans. Pell Grants are $5,800 per year. Stafford Loans are 5,500 the first year, 6,500 the second year, and $7,500 for the remaining years. In my particular case, I paid for 90% of tuition/housing/living expenses by programming computers beginning in high school. I was not eligible for Pell Grants nor any form of loans including Stafford Loans. So, I really don't understand these arguments. Public universities provide a first class low-cost undergraduate education and of course have PhD programs and so on. Once one has an undergraduate degree with good grades, in the sciences and engineering, if they are admitted to a PhD program so they are fully funded for both tuition and housing. CUNY Tuition and Fees: http://www2.cuny.edu/financial-aid/tuition-and-college-costs/tuition-fees/#1452179204200-d27abe14-99f4 http://www2.cuny.edu/financial-aid/tuition-and-college-costs... Pell Grants: https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/announcements/pell-2016-17 https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/announcements/pell-2016-1... Stafford Loans: https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/student-loans/stafford-loans/ https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/student-loans/sta...
- nickpinkston 10y ago
  The blindness of privilege: > I paid for 90% of tuition/housing/living expenses by programming computers beginning in high school. It's commendable that OP did this - that's great and plenty of people have squandered their gifts unlike him. However, just because funding is available doesn't mean people aren't at a disadvantage due to their situation. Does OP really believe that you're on equal ground if you: - Live in a ghetto, often with an stressed-out, overworked single Mom. - Go to a shit school without adequate fucking literacy education - let alone programming classes. - Have no family / friends who have professional jobs. - Often fear for your physical and financial safety. - You don't have a computer / internet at home. This breads a very difficult kind of scarcity to dig yourself out of, and we need programs to help these kids get out. Cash is great, but not sufficient.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dijit 10y ago
Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in all highly educated fields except for computer science/development/sysadmin. We're very much the exception not the norm. As much as my mother believed I could be anything I would not be able to drag myself through university even without external factors pushing me down and throwing me around like a sack of meat.. for years..
- wutbrodo 10y ago
  We're _better_ than other fields, but definitely not an exception. I grew up in a formerly upper upper middle class family that didn't have very much money due to medical and mental health issues. I'm only ~5 years out of uni but my success at every point in my education and career so far made it credible to me that credentialism and reliance on personal connections wasn't a significant factor in tech careers (as opposed to merit). But it's recently become pretty clear to me that all the best opportunities I've ever been exposed to were through connections, and not all of those connections are attributable purely to merit. Had I not had these, I would be doing pretty well on merit, but the fact that I'm doing extraordinarily well is due to the fact that I got opportunities that many others never even had a shot at. About half of these were from family and friends, which has almost nothing to do with revealed merit. The other half was from smart classmates in my CS program, which is a little more correlated with merit. But it's not a coincidence that most of the people in my friend group were somehow similarly upper middle class. I had a really talented, smart friend group, but it's hard to imagine that coming from a similar background didn't have any affect on how easily we got along.
jimmywanger 10y ago
This is a misleading headline. Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in all careers. Why single out scientific careers?

118 points by smb06 10y ago

I'm actually surprised well-off students choose science over well-paying careers given that it is well known that there is no money in research. My own kids and their friends often express that science is interesting but they won't get into it because of that.

jordigh 10y ago
I don't know what anyone else's story is, but for myself, everything was given to me by my parents. We weren't exactly rich, but I was certainly privileged. Whatever I asked for, I got. So, when a university education was given to me, I thought I could just "follow my dream" and not concern myself too much with making an income, because why should I? Making an income had never seemed like a concern, so I studied pure mathematics. When my father died and my personal gold mine with him, I had to drop out of mathematics (which I was half-assing anyway), find a way to make money, and here I am now: software developer.
- saiya-jin 10y ago
  the easier kids have it during childhood, the harder the reality hits later (if ever). some frugality in upbringing instead of just throwing money on them to compensate lack of time spent with them goes much, much longer way
  - 8fGTBjZxBcHq 10y ago
    I get what you're trying to say but I just want to point out that reality still probably hits harder when life was always hard. Growing up with nothing into an adulthood with no support network and few prospects, where our society blames you for being in that situation, is a harder draw than being taken care of until you're halfway through college then having to find your own way.
    - glubby 10y ago
      "Life is not easy for any of us. But what of that?" - Marie Curie.
  - usrusr 10y ago
    There is frugality based on necessity and there is frugality based on considering it a positive character trait. When necessity is dominant, the other kind of frugality rarely happens. The former quickly breaks down in presence of money, but it is a great enabler for financial risk-taking. ("worst thing that can happen is that I have to go back to ramen", call it scalability of personal finances, if you like). The latter is quite the opposite, it seeks financial peace of mind and will take stability over opportunity any time. People with this mindset will tend to find the solid, but not stellar pay scale of science rather attractive. Self selection happens.
- wutbrodo 10y ago
  > when a university education was given to me, I thought I could just "follow my dream" and not concern myself too much with making an income, because why should I? Making an income had never seemed like a concern, so I studied pure mathematics. Are you talking about your math undergrad degree, or graduate degree? Pure math is perhaps a bad example here: in my experience, damn near every high paying field is glad to see a math degree (including seemingly unrelated fields like law, medicine, etc). I've done really well in tech and my math degree (both on paper and in practice) has contributed a lot to that success. A math graduate degree is a little less of a definite pay-off, but I had a math PhD under me at Google who got hired in with no engineering experience whatsoever at something like 200k/yr. It took him about six months of a bit of handholding but he ended up being one of my most dependably talented people.
  - jordigh 10y ago
    Sure, I got jobs programming, but not jobs doing math. It was good enough to wave the degree around to impress people, but the actual stuff I learned was utterly irrelevant to programming. I could have studied chess and still gotten programming jobs, if only they gave out chess degrees and people admired chess. I wanted to keep doing math and that's why I was having a hard time finding money.
    - wutbrodo 10y ago
      Oh gotcha, I misunderstood you as saying that finishing a math degree wouldn't be worth the financial investment. FWIW, I kept my eye on the ball and five years after finishing undergrad I mostly have work that's heavy in math but is still as lucrative (more actually) than a programming job. It's not a guarantee, but if you like it enough and try to point each step forward towards doing more math, it's definitely possible. I did get other degrees during undergrad though, so that probably shaped the opportunities available to me.
stdbrouw 10y ago
Isn't it a well-known phenomenon that the children of well-to-do parents often end up in the arts and other fields with high cultural capital? Having money allows you to not worry about money.
- brianlweiner 10y ago
  "I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Painting and Poetry Mathematicks and Philosophy." - John Adams *he struck through painting and poetry.
- dorfsmay 10y ago
  I was talking high end of middle class where kids will have to support themselves eventually. I think you're talking rich people where your "career" won't impact your standard of living (because of parents wealth).
  - stdbrouw 10y ago
    Nope, not at all, talking about upper middle class folks. You're right that it doesn't necessarily make sense because the children will eventually have to take care of themselves, but it is what it is.
colmvp 10y ago
I came from a well-to-do family and well... my parents pushed me to go into medicine/finance/science, partially because they perceived those industries as making a lot of money and for the prestige. Science might not be as lucrative as finance/medicine, but in my circles, people certainly respect an intellectual scientist more than they do a lowly designer (me!). I went into tech as a designer before the wave hit largely because I love computers and the digital medium. They opposed it because of the uncertainty of the industry ("How do you make money as a designer?") but supported me financially while I went through college. Long story short I was able to help make a lucrative company in SV. I guess to answer your question, I very well could've gone into science because of my parents and well, the prestige.
- dorfsmay 10y ago
  When? How was the economy when you chose your career? Today, in a very uncertain economy with lots of parents not finding work (western Canada), high school kids look at research as a hobby that won't allow them to support a family. I pushed my daughter to go to a two-day university bio discovery thing, she absolutely loved it, but said that all the research assistants confirm they can't afford to live and most of them are thinking of dropping into the industry so they can stop asking their parents to help paying the rent.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
clifanatic 10y ago
> I'm actually surprised well-off students choose science If you have a trust fund waiting for you, you can pursue idealistic dreams of changing the world rather than worrying about what will be most likely to leave you with enough money to eat.
- dorfsmay 10y ago
  Given the numbers in the article, I assume upper middle class (can there be that many rich people!)
sidlls 10y ago
I'm not at all surprised by this. A similar phenomenon exists in many other fields and areas of life. Those who have a solid financial support system are simply more likely to be able to commit themselves more deeply to whatever they focus on. This has been the case for centuries: the wealthy simply have always had more means to do more things.
yodsanklai 10y ago
> I'm actually surprised well-off students choose science over well-paying careers given that it is well known that there is no money in research. Most of them don't. But not everybody is materialistic or subject to social pressure. Actually, what annoys me the most as a professor isn't the (comparatively) low salary but the lack of recognition. My family always blames me for not pursuing a more lucrative path and don't understand what I do and what purpose it serves.
tnecniv 10y ago
I'd rather get paid below market value (considering either my current career path or an alternate I could have chosen) and do interesting work every day than get paid a lot and work long hours doing something I hate. My father made the opposite choice and regrets it every day now that his career is coming to a close.
- dsacco 10y ago
  >>I'd rather get paid below market value (considering either my current career path or an alternate I could have chosen) and do interesting work every day than get paid a lot and work long hours doing something I hate. It's important to note that the spectrum you laid out has two other "corners". Many PhDs do mind-numbingly boring work, even if it's original research, while getting paid a pittance. Conversely, there are many ways to do fascinating, intellectually vigorous and challenging work every day with only a Bachelor's or Master's qualification while getting rich.
  - mattkrause 10y ago
    > Many PhDs do mind-numbingly boring work, even if it's original research There's a second trade-off here too. PhD/Postdocs do stuff that's mind-numbingly boring at a "micro" level (e.g., actually performing most experiments), but really exciting at a macro level (e.g., figuring out how the brain--or the Sun--works). In industry, there's often the opposite opportunity: exciting day-to-day work for uninteresting goals, like using state-of-the-art machine learning (fun!) to figure out whether a webpage should show a Papa John's or Pizza Hut ad (meh).
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

jkot 10y ago

Great! Problem is not that scientists are often paid less than McDonald's burger flipper. No! It is social and gender issue! Lets push even more students into this career path.

BEEdwards 10y ago
So there is no possible way that the issues could be related. It's only that stupid social justice that makes people talk about demographics and socio economics as we all know. There is no other reason to look into it...
- jkot 10y ago
  But the original article is treating it as separate issue. It does not even acknowledge bad career prospects and low salary as a problem.
bbctol 10y ago
The low pay for scientists is very definitely related to it not being an accessible path for lower classes.
- refurb 10y ago
  That doesn't make sense to me. If it were a more accessible path, then you'd have more scientists (supply), the same demand and lower wages.
  - bbctol 10y ago
    No--one of the reasons it's not a more accessible path is because it pays so poorly. Science funding doesn't follow a normal supply and demand framework; money isn't sent to scientists by customers in exchange for the benefits they provide, but by hopeful non-profit agencies giving as much as they can without expecting tangible return. There's a set pool of money to draw from (and that pool is drying up, as funding for the NIH et al. decreases) which means you can either have a small number of well-paid scientists or lots of poorly paid ones. There are societal benefits to lots of scientists, so we're all trying to be okay with pure research as a path you can only go into if you don't have large debts to repay.

junipergreen 10y ago

Studies have shown a major factor in young people's likeliness of going into science is whether their families think highly of science and science careers (regardless of parents' education levels). I'd imagine the ivory-tower nature of science can contribute a class divides in this respect as well.

kaitai 10y ago

As I write this, there are just a small number of comments, all saying "there's no money in research" and "scientists are paid less than McDonald's burger flipper". It's like a whole section of disgruntled grad students who wanted to be professors. There is tons of money in science! People who "fail out" of or never wanted to pursue the stupid academic dream become active in patent law, become managers at pharma and biomed companies, oversee quality control at chemical firms, write documentation for medical devices, run labs, work as lab techs. These are all good jobs compared to the jobs the majority of Americans are qualified for. Seems like HN has a very warped view, this view that "there's no money in research" means some poor kid is better off flipping burgers into her 50s than becoming a lab manager.

existencebox 10y ago
I would warn your optimism however, my wife is a lab manager (performs research, publishes, ostensibly as involved in the science as any PHD) but I would by no stretch of the word say she makes "good money"; both of us made more back when we were service workers. The perception in her group is that the positions that pay even close to tech (some of the ones you list, manager at pharma company etc) are almost paramount if not more difficult to e.g. getting a manager position at google. If you're not top of the pile material, good fucking luck. (and you'll likely have some very high expectations to get there, PHD+extensive research the minima of, which again unlike tech, are less able to be fulfilled while making good money as well, and typically require more upfront investment) I would say that in my experience the closer you get to science (or the further from money, perhaps?) the harder good money is to come by. (Left an academic tech position myself a while back; tripled my salary overnight)
- kaitai 10y ago
  It's definitely true that getting the manager at pharma company type jobs are hard to get, and lab managers are not paid super well. But: a clinical research manager has an average salary of about $94k in the US, while web developer not otherwise specified has an average salary of about $66k in the US. Restaurant manager comes down to $37k on average, Bath & Body Works retail manager comes up to $54k. Glassdoor lists a bunch of lab manager jobs at $51k to $65k. The average salary for a black man in the US is about $35k and the average salary for a white man in the US is about $48k [1]. Every science-related job in the list is above the average salary for white, black, or hispanic men in the US, and certainly above average for women. Retail and food service fall on either side -- and which jobs are more likely to have health insurance? What kind of jobs did you have experience with before lab manager? I'm curious. [1] http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf

ap22213 10y ago

Man, wish I could find the link - I had read something probably 10 years ago that discussed the abnormally high number of independently wealthy people in academia and research. Makes sense given how expensive it is and how infrequently it nets positive ROI. A big part of science are 'ideas', and ideas are interesting things in Human culture. To be the 'idea person' in a social group requires considerable social status. I see so many people in corporations battling to have their ideas win. I see so many people of higher status claiming ownership of the ideas of those 'beneath' them. I see plenty of great ideas being ignored because of who proposes them. And, it's very rare to see an outsider's idea gain influence. They say that execution matters much more than ideas - but they go hand-in-hand. The person who gets to execute also gets to choose the idea. Given the comparitive physical weakness of the Human, 'the idea' is their number one weapon and asset. It enables power. So, there are probably a lot of social reasons why most lower-status (lower income) people are kept out of science and research. It's probably more of a systematic result of Human behavior than just being poor.

known 10y ago

Intrinsic motivation http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/inmotiv.htm http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/inmotiv.htm

lintiness 10y ago

i'm sorry, but technology is making access to science easy enough that "my high school can't afford to offer that bio class" excuse just doesn't work anymore. hell, even news aggs like google offer a science section every day.

psychometry 10y ago
I'm sorry, but you've clearly never taken an actual lab science course if you think it can be replaced by Google News.
- lintiness 10y ago
  i'm pretty sure that's exactly what i said.
  - rspeer 10y ago
    Then you were exceptionally unclear about it. What does Google News's science section have to do with anything? A newspaper's "science" section has little to do with real science.
    - lintiness 10y ago
      the argument the article made was that financial barriers made science inaccessible. ubiquitous exposure (google news) makes the argument nonsensical. if you think you can't master high school science today (the argument) without bunsen burners, some hcl, and an egregiously over paid teacher, i can't help you.
      - rspeer 10y ago
        Oh good, there's no financial barrier to being the kind of person who believes what unqualified journalists say about science, goes on fad diets, and says "I Fucking Love Science". That has shit-all to do with doing science.
      - 10y ago

shae 10y ago

I'd like to go get a PhD and teach, but it pays less than half of what I make as a software dev. I wish I could somehow teach science & tech and also make money.

trapperkeeper79 10y ago
Serious suggestion .. start a youtube channel. I do most of my learning that way (and I do have a PhD).
- zo1 10y ago
  Or donate to a group that can do said teaching for you. Personally, I donate to Khan Academy.
b_emery 10y ago
You can teach adjunct at a local city or community college. People with your kind of skills are in demand, I'm sure they'd love to have you, even if just a few hours per week. And no PhD required.

davidf18 10y ago

From the article: > Last year, Christina Quasney was close to giving up. A biochemistry major at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Quasney's background was anything but privileged. People with little family money get free grants and low-interest government backed loans to attend college. She is attending a public university. In NYC, there are many students that are attending City University of New York and I meet some. They are studying biology, engineering, and other sciences. They generally but not always live at home. The annual tuition and fees are less than $7000 and for transportation, the MTA subway/bus is $115 per month, unlimited rides. Students like those mentioned in the article get Pell Grants and Stafford government backed low-interest loans. Pell Grants are $5,800 per year. Stafford Loans are 5,500 the first year, 6,500 the second year, and $7,500 for the remaining years. In my particular case, I paid for 90% of tuition/housing/living expenses by programming computers beginning in high school. I was not eligible for Pell Grants nor any form of loans including Stafford Loans. So, I really don't understand these arguments. Public universities provide a first class low-cost undergraduate education and of course have PhD programs and so on. Once one has an undergraduate degree with good grades, in the sciences and engineering, if they are admitted to a PhD program so they are fully funded for both tuition and housing. CUNY Tuition and Fees: http://www2.cuny.edu/financial-aid/tuition-and-college-costs/tuition-fees/#1452179204200-d27abe14-99f4 http://www2.cuny.edu/financial-aid/tuition-and-college-costs... Pell Grants: https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/announcements/pell-2016-17 https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/announcements/pell-2016-1... Stafford Loans: https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/student-loans/stafford-loans/ https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/student-loans/sta...

nickpinkston 10y ago
The blindness of privilege: > I paid for 90% of tuition/housing/living expenses by programming computers beginning in high school. It's commendable that OP did this - that's great and plenty of people have squandered their gifts unlike him. However, just because funding is available doesn't mean people aren't at a disadvantage due to their situation. Does OP really believe that you're on equal ground if you: - Live in a ghetto, often with an stressed-out, overworked single Mom. - Go to a shit school without adequate fucking literacy education - let alone programming classes. - Have no family / friends who have professional jobs. - Often fear for your physical and financial safety. - You don't have a computer / internet at home. This breads a very difficult kind of scarcity to dig yourself out of, and we need programs to help these kids get out. Cash is great, but not sufficient.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

dijit 10y ago

Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in all highly educated fields except for computer science/development/sysadmin. We're very much the exception not the norm. As much as my mother believed I could be anything I would not be able to drag myself through university even without external factors pushing me down and throwing me around like a sack of meat.. for years..

wutbrodo 10y ago
We're _better_ than other fields, but definitely not an exception. I grew up in a formerly upper upper middle class family that didn't have very much money due to medical and mental health issues. I'm only ~5 years out of uni but my success at every point in my education and career so far made it credible to me that credentialism and reliance on personal connections wasn't a significant factor in tech careers (as opposed to merit). But it's recently become pretty clear to me that all the best opportunities I've ever been exposed to were through connections, and not all of those connections are attributable purely to merit. Had I not had these, I would be doing pretty well on merit, but the fact that I'm doing extraordinarily well is due to the fact that I got opportunities that many others never even had a shot at. About half of these were from family and friends, which has almost nothing to do with revealed merit. The other half was from smart classmates in my CS program, which is a little more correlated with merit. But it's not a coincidence that most of the people in my friend group were somehow similarly upper middle class. I had a really talented, smart friend group, but it's hard to imagine that coming from a similar background didn't have any affect on how easily we got along.

jimmywanger 10y ago

This is a misleading headline. Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in all careers. Why single out scientific careers?