5 ms·

A few thoughts. - you're comparing what seems to be highly skilled vs. more unskilled labor; (as well as more typically PHD requiring vs not) which if anything

A few thoughts. - you're comparing what seems to be highly skilled vs. more unskilled labor; (as well as more typically PHD requiring vs not) which if anything seems to support my point given that frankly the pays are similar enough. (at least compared to the delta you'd make using higher education to go into industry) - clinical managers (general lab managers as well, fwiw) are actually far more to the administrative side than the experimental side so it does not seem surprising that it biases upwards compared to pure researchers. Jobwise, for myself, I built solutions for an astrophysics research group, hers was in applied psychology for certain classes of severely impaired patients.

kaitai 10y ago
The comparison between skilled and more unskilled labor is intentional; the article was about training in science. Many posters seem to argue below that science training does not lead to better-paying jobs, and thus it is not important that poverty and social background are barriers to science training/doing science. A science degree in general requires more training than a business degree or a communications degree, and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are disproportionately ending up in "general studies," communications, business, etc., which often lead to jobs like restaurant manager (and don't lead to admin jobs in science). Maybe the difference between how I see it and what you're pointing out in your two points is that "failing out" or stepping out of pure science research into science industry/admin preserves or increases pay, while "failing out" or stepping out of business or communications leads mostly to unskilled jobs which pay poorly. The expected value of a job after a science degree is higher, because there are more good paths (even if some don't pay super-well).
- mattkrause 10y ago
  > The comparison between skilled and more unskilled labor is intentional. Don't you need to "condition" on aptitude and ability then? A person capable of getting into a decent PhD program would probably also be able to get into a solid medical or law program. At the undergrad level, that might mean a nursing degree (APRN or something) instead of a bachelors' in biology. The science degree is not particularly lucrative at either level. Also, I think you're flipping the causality around in other people's arguments: they seem to be claiming that pushing science degrees is not a particularly effective way of addressing poverty.

kaitai 10y ago

The comparison between skilled and more unskilled labor is intentional; the article was about training in science. Many posters seem to argue below that science training does not lead to better-paying jobs, and thus it is not important that poverty and social background are barriers to science training/doing science. A science degree in general requires more training than a business degree or a communications degree, and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are disproportionately ending up in "general studies," communications, business, etc., which often lead to jobs like restaurant manager (and don't lead to admin jobs in science). Maybe the difference between how I see it and what you're pointing out in your two points is that "failing out" or stepping out of pure science research into science industry/admin preserves or increases pay, while "failing out" or stepping out of business or communications leads mostly to unskilled jobs which pay poorly. The expected value of a job after a science degree is higher, because there are more good paths (even if some don't pay super-well).

mattkrause 10y ago
> The comparison between skilled and more unskilled labor is intentional. Don't you need to "condition" on aptitude and ability then? A person capable of getting into a decent PhD program would probably also be able to get into a solid medical or law program. At the undergrad level, that might mean a nursing degree (APRN or something) instead of a bachelors' in biology. The science degree is not particularly lucrative at either level. Also, I think you're flipping the causality around in other people's arguments: they seem to be claiming that pushing science degrees is not a particularly effective way of addressing poverty.