3 ms·

Oh my god, I hate journalists. 1. This is not an article about career opportunities for STEM (science, tech, engineering, math) majors -- of which there are pl

by etal 16y ago

Oh my god, I hate journalists. 1. This is not an article about career opportunities for STEM (science, tech, engineering, math) majors -- of which there are plenty. This is about the very specific problem of there being a massive glut of Ph.D. students aiming for tenure-track academic jobs. The article makes no distinction here. 2. The problem of academia's imploding pyramid scheme is not at all limited to science. It's worse in the soft sciences and humanities -- picture the same situation of tenured professors overseeing teams of cringing graduate students, but without the NSF/NIH/DOD grant money to hire postdocs. Now, where do you go when you graduate? (Hint: you don't, unless you already have a job lined up.) The article mentions the rules of supply and demand, but not in relation to tenure. Academia's cultural problem of deterring students from any career other than academic research gets a couple paragraphs near the bottom. But that's the problem! Regardless of the field, too many students are pushed into academic careers, but the world just doesn't need that many professors. Lots of people love their job. It takes the arrogance of a professor to state that everyone should want yours. 3. Visa issues -- smart, talented students come from outside the U.S. to attend grad school on a student visa that prohibits non-academic work. They stay on as postdocs after graduation because every other kind of job is prohibited, unless some benevolent employer wants to lend a hand with the work visa application process, which probably won't happen. If they leave academia, they have to leave the U.S. Market distortion, anyone? Anyone with U.S. citizenship is clearly better off with a Master's or other professional degree; industry misses out on talent while academia suffers a labor glut. 4. Why does all scientific research have to be done by universities? If labs are funded with government money anyway, it's just as efficient (or more) to directly hire lab techs and researchers at government labs... assuming the research really is important. Academic labs are optimized for publishing journal articles, in absence of a better metric. Could we measure progress better by bringing the research work closer to the customer?

geebee 16y ago
I agree that the problems science/engineering PhD's are facing are similar (though not quite as severe) to the problems experienced by PhD's seeking academic positions in humanities and social sciences. There's one big difference, though - the CEOs of Sun Micro, Intel, IBM, and so forth all testified in front of congress that a shortage of science/engineering PhD's endangers US competitiveness, prompting congress to increase supply through visa programs (and PR programs aimed at young Americans). This almost certainly made (and continues to make) the glut worse.
- AENGINE 16y ago
  Sadly this article goes down the same trap of clubbing all STEM disciplines as one. When SUN,GOOG, Intel and MSFT talk, they are talking about EE,Chem Eng., CS, Physics and other useful fields within Science and Engg. However PhD in Marine Biology isn't going to be of much help.
  - geebee 16y ago
    Yeah, it doesn't really make sense to report on "science" PhDs in aggregate. The market for CS PhDs is probably about as closely related to marine bio as it is to poly sci. That said, I still think that even the "useful" STEM fields you mentioned are lagging behind the professions that can take (as the article pointed out) 1/4 to 1/6 of the time to completion, which much higher completion rates (and less rigorous prerequisites to boot). By the way, I remain extremely enthusiastic about majoring in hard science, math, cs, or engineering. These majors set you up really well for entry into the workforce. You can contribute immediately in a high impact way, and I've found this notion that you'll be viewed as "merely a coder" to be greatly overstated. There are all kinds of great directions to go from starting out as a developer (including remaining in development). But PhDs clearly don't pay (not surprisingly, you see a much higher percentage of US citizens in undergrad programs in STEM fields, since this is the economically rational choice - at the grad level, the rational choice is to go to law, medicine, or MBA programs, or just get to work and enjoy a salary).
jseliger 16y ago
2. The problem of academia's imploding pyramid scheme is not at all limited to science. It's worse in the soft sciences and humanities -- picture the same situation of tenured professors overseeing teams of cringing graduate students, but without the NSF/NIH/DOD grant money to hire postdocs. Now, where do you go when you graduate? (Hint: you don't, unless you already have a job lined up.) Indeed. Those who want to know more about this issue should read Louis Menand's The Marketplace of Ideas, which I think I've recommended before on HN: http://jseliger.com/2010/01/21/problems-in-the-academy-louis-menands-the-marketplace-of-ideas-reform-and-resistance-in-the-american-university http://jseliger.com/2010/01/21/problems-in-the-academy-louis... .
lutorm 16y ago
Is it really worse in humanities? I don't know for sure but given that a significant fraction of science graduate students are funded by research grants it seems there should also be fewer positions for them. (Unless they actually go into debt to get their degree, in which case they're really screwed.)
- etal 16y ago
  Graduate assistantship stipends are probably an OK measure. At my school, funded psychology students get around $9000 or $10000 during the academic year, and have to work as a TA each semester (grading or teaching lab sessions). Genetics students earn $20000 and simply work in their PI's lab. This is for students funded through the graduate school -- PIs can also hire grad students and postdocs with money from their own grants, in addition to those already-funded students who join their labs. In either case, the graduate school waives tuition for anyone on an assistantship. Plus, science students have relatively good options in industry after graduation, and as far as I can tell, more postdoc positions available. There are also programs like this for science students: http://www.sciencemasters.com/ http://www.sciencemasters.com/
lutorm 16y ago
About 4: The thing is that the current system gives the government complete flexibility in what they want to do. If they don't want to fund research in X any more, just stop giving the grants. If they actually ran their own lab, they'd have to shut it down, get rid of employees, etc. Seems very convenient for them, especially given that grant funding tends to fluctuate with congressional tides.
- pyre 16y ago
  Also, grants can come from sources other than the government, no?
  - etal 16y ago
    Yes, charities and NGOs like the American Cancer Society fund grants, too. But basic research is usually way outside their core competency, so teaming up with universities is their best option. Companies team up with academic labs occasionally, and I think this is great. But the government does already run its own labs and fund semi-independent research-only institutions. I'd like to see an expansion of these (mainly the latter), as well as Master's programs in science/tech, to help this current glut of graduate students transition to non-academic careers.
- etal 16y ago
  Good point. I'm thinking of "dead labs", where a tenured professor runs out of grant money and can't secure any more, so students and lab staff gradually disappear on their own, since the only official long-term job is the PI's. One unproductive professor's salary isn't much compared to an entire office or building in the D.C. suburbs. (Empirically, a professor doing X will continue doing X until retirement, regardless of the grant situation. But students can still opt out.)

by etal 16y ago

geebee 16y ago

I agree that the problems science/engineering PhD's are facing are similar (though not quite as severe) to the problems experienced by PhD's seeking academic positions in humanities and social sciences. There's one big difference, though - the CEOs of Sun Micro, Intel, IBM, and so forth all testified in front of congress that a shortage of science/engineering PhD's endangers US competitiveness, prompting congress to increase supply through visa programs (and PR programs aimed at young Americans). This almost certainly made (and continues to make) the glut worse.

AENGINE 16y ago
Sadly this article goes down the same trap of clubbing all STEM disciplines as one. When SUN,GOOG, Intel and MSFT talk, they are talking about EE,Chem Eng., CS, Physics and other useful fields within Science and Engg. However PhD in Marine Biology isn't going to be of much help.
- geebee 16y ago
  Yeah, it doesn't really make sense to report on "science" PhDs in aggregate. The market for CS PhDs is probably about as closely related to marine bio as it is to poly sci. That said, I still think that even the "useful" STEM fields you mentioned are lagging behind the professions that can take (as the article pointed out) 1/4 to 1/6 of the time to completion, which much higher completion rates (and less rigorous prerequisites to boot). By the way, I remain extremely enthusiastic about majoring in hard science, math, cs, or engineering. These majors set you up really well for entry into the workforce. You can contribute immediately in a high impact way, and I've found this notion that you'll be viewed as "merely a coder" to be greatly overstated. There are all kinds of great directions to go from starting out as a developer (including remaining in development). But PhDs clearly don't pay (not surprisingly, you see a much higher percentage of US citizens in undergrad programs in STEM fields, since this is the economically rational choice - at the grad level, the rational choice is to go to law, medicine, or MBA programs, or just get to work and enjoy a salary).

jseliger 16y ago

2. The problem of academia's imploding pyramid scheme is not at all limited to science. It's worse in the soft sciences and humanities -- picture the same situation of tenured professors overseeing teams of cringing graduate students, but without the NSF/NIH/DOD grant money to hire postdocs. Now, where do you go when you graduate? (Hint: you don't, unless you already have a job lined up.) Indeed. Those who want to know more about this issue should read Louis Menand's The Marketplace of Ideas, which I think I've recommended before on HN: http://jseliger.com/2010/01/21/problems-in-the-academy-louis-menands-the-marketplace-of-ideas-reform-and-resistance-in-the-american-university http://jseliger.com/2010/01/21/problems-in-the-academy-louis... .

lutorm 16y ago

Is it really worse in humanities? I don't know for sure but given that a significant fraction of science graduate students are funded by research grants it seems there should also be fewer positions for them. (Unless they actually go into debt to get their degree, in which case they're really screwed.)

etal 16y ago
Graduate assistantship stipends are probably an OK measure. At my school, funded psychology students get around $9000 or $10000 during the academic year, and have to work as a TA each semester (grading or teaching lab sessions). Genetics students earn $20000 and simply work in their PI's lab. This is for students funded through the graduate school -- PIs can also hire grad students and postdocs with money from their own grants, in addition to those already-funded students who join their labs. In either case, the graduate school waives tuition for anyone on an assistantship. Plus, science students have relatively good options in industry after graduation, and as far as I can tell, more postdoc positions available. There are also programs like this for science students: http://www.sciencemasters.com/ http://www.sciencemasters.com/

lutorm 16y ago

About 4: The thing is that the current system gives the government complete flexibility in what they want to do. If they don't want to fund research in X any more, just stop giving the grants. If they actually ran their own lab, they'd have to shut it down, get rid of employees, etc. Seems very convenient for them, especially given that grant funding tends to fluctuate with congressional tides.

pyre 16y ago
Also, grants can come from sources other than the government, no?
- etal 16y ago
  Yes, charities and NGOs like the American Cancer Society fund grants, too. But basic research is usually way outside their core competency, so teaming up with universities is their best option. Companies team up with academic labs occasionally, and I think this is great. But the government does already run its own labs and fund semi-independent research-only institutions. I'd like to see an expansion of these (mainly the latter), as well as Master's programs in science/tech, to help this current glut of graduate students transition to non-academic careers.
etal 16y ago
Good point. I'm thinking of "dead labs", where a tenured professor runs out of grant money and can't secure any more, so students and lab staff gradually disappear on their own, since the only official long-term job is the PI's. One unproductive professor's salary isn't much compared to an entire office or building in the D.C. suburbs. (Empirically, a professor doing X will continue doing X until retirement, regardless of the grant situation. But students can still opt out.)