5 ms·

recent STEM hype aside, it has historically been very challenging to find work as a "straight" biologist, especially with only a BS, and if you can it's probabl

recent STEM hype aside, it has historically been very challenging to find work as a "straight" biologist, especially with only a BS, and if you can it's probably going to be scut-level underpaid lab or field work. Part of the reason I think STEM is horseshit is that it is so broadly defined as to be without meaning. You just can't reasonably talk about something as one labor market if it includes zookeepers, pharmaceutical chemists, medical doctors, facebook engineers, economists, and advertiser...er, data scientists.

eesmith 8y ago
To add to that, 5 years ago there was an article titled "The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage" by Michael S. Teitelbaum at The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/03/the-myth-of-the-science-and-engineering-shortage/284359/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/03/the-my... > Everyone knows that the United States has long suffered from widespread shortages in its science and engineering workforce, and that if continued these shortages will cause it to fall behind its major economic competitors. ... Such claims are now well established as conventional wisdom. There is almost no debate in the mainstream. ... The truth is that there is little credible evidence of the claimed widespread shortages in the U.S. science and engineering workforce. ... No one has been able to find any evidence indicating current widespread labor market shortages or hiring difficulties in science and engineering occupations that require bachelors degrees or higher 122 comments at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7451835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7451835 .
- hprotagonist 8y ago
  As i recall at the time, even IEEE's response was "there is no shortage and certainly no skills gap; employers just won't pay you what you're worth and people won't work for peanuts."
  - macspoofing 8y ago
    >"there is no shortage and certainly no skills gap; employers just won't pay you what you're worth and people won't work for peanuts." That cannot be IEEE's response. It makes no sense. The market decides the rate, not the employers nor employees. If no employer wants to pay what you think you're worth, you're not worth that. Having said that, the market rate does give you some indication as to what the wider supply and demand looks like.
    - ncmncm 8y ago
      No, because the market is artificially depressed by "visa programs". They pretend there are not enough skilled engineers, when really they are not offering enough to make the jobs attractive. Worse, people on these visas are captive labor, and cannot move along to better prospects.
      - NotSammyHagar 8y ago
        It might be depressed but it's still an incredible job market. I just don't see it suppressed by immigration. In Seattle there are thousands of open jobs. My startup can't get people to even interview and we pay new bs cs grads 130k. fang pays more. We have 50 devs and want to hire 10. When I worked at Microsoft my division often had 3000 openings.
        ncmncm 8y ago
        I see that we are talking about different time windows. You see a momentary spike in wages. I (and most people not blinded by the glare) see an unstable career prospect.
        NotSammyHagar 8y ago
        I have seen wages go up pretty steadily since I moved here 25 years ago and started at Microsoft. I've worked at 6 companies now, through the 2000 .com crash and the 2008 crash. Both times some smaller companies didn't make it, partly because they didn't get new funding, but most jobs, salaries, etc kept up or didn't fall much. I know I've been fortunate but I'm nothing special, just a dev in seattle. I think you must be in a town without so much varied software jobs. I feel for you, and would be unhappy if I had the overtime demands you mention. That's just a very different world than I experience here.
foobar1962 8y ago
The difference between science and engineering (education-wise) is that an engineering degree is strictly defined with regards to subjects learned, with little choice of electives by the student: everybody is learning the same thing. With science (and most other degrees) the student can pick and choose their topics.
- hprotagonist 8y ago
  and even that distinction gets slippery. My degrees are all in engineering, and we had plenty of coursework opportunities to specialize even in undergrad. We had a departmental bias towards one end of the spectrum for the discipline, but plenty of my cohort broke the mold and did their own thing fairly easily. We were also very heavily research-focused, so the other easy divide between engineering and science ('applications' vs 'basic research') isn't nearly as clean-cut as you might think.
- ncmncm 8y ago
  That is just entirely false. Electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, and chemical engineers have quite different courseloads. Even within electrical engineering, semiconductor physics, radio frequency electronics, electromotion, and power systems are all completely different from computer architecture and one another. That's without delving into specialties in each.
  - RhodesianHunter 8y ago
    The person you're replying to never suggested that there weren't differences between the engineering degrees' course loads. I believe you may have missed their point completely.
    - ncmncm 8y ago
      Are you suggesting that engineering students have no choice about which areas to study, just because they have labels? Many study more than one, and take multiple degrees. I knew one who got seven bachelor's degrees in various engineering and science fields.
taneq 8y ago
> Part of the reason I think STEM is horseshit is that it is so broadly defined as to be without meaning. And then we add in the Arts for "STEAM" and the cycle is complete.
- geomark 8y ago
  I thought that part was added just to try to draw in the younger folks who are too little afraid of the scary science and maths parts to consider learning about tech stuff.
o10449366 8y ago
You can observe the same phenomenon with "data science" nowadays. Visit any online DS community and the two most common questions are: 1. "How do I become a data scientist?" (AKA, what the hell do they do?) 2. "Why can't I find a job?" (Because no one is qualified for a role with no defined qualifications.)

eesmith 8y ago

To add to that, 5 years ago there was an article titled "The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage" by Michael S. Teitelbaum at The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/03/the-myth-of-the-science-and-engineering-shortage/284359/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/03/the-my... > Everyone knows that the United States has long suffered from widespread shortages in its science and engineering workforce, and that if continued these shortages will cause it to fall behind its major economic competitors. ... Such claims are now well established as conventional wisdom. There is almost no debate in the mainstream. ... The truth is that there is little credible evidence of the claimed widespread shortages in the U.S. science and engineering workforce. ... No one has been able to find any evidence indicating current widespread labor market shortages or hiring difficulties in science and engineering occupations that require bachelors degrees or higher 122 comments at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7451835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7451835 .

hprotagonist 8y ago
As i recall at the time, even IEEE's response was "there is no shortage and certainly no skills gap; employers just won't pay you what you're worth and people won't work for peanuts."
- macspoofing 8y ago
  >"there is no shortage and certainly no skills gap; employers just won't pay you what you're worth and people won't work for peanuts." That cannot be IEEE's response. It makes no sense. The market decides the rate, not the employers nor employees. If no employer wants to pay what you think you're worth, you're not worth that. Having said that, the market rate does give you some indication as to what the wider supply and demand looks like.
  - ncmncm 8y ago
    No, because the market is artificially depressed by "visa programs". They pretend there are not enough skilled engineers, when really they are not offering enough to make the jobs attractive. Worse, people on these visas are captive labor, and cannot move along to better prospects.
    - NotSammyHagar 8y ago
      It might be depressed but it's still an incredible job market. I just don't see it suppressed by immigration. In Seattle there are thousands of open jobs. My startup can't get people to even interview and we pay new bs cs grads 130k. fang pays more. We have 50 devs and want to hire 10. When I worked at Microsoft my division often had 3000 openings.
      - ncmncm 8y ago
        I see that we are talking about different time windows. You see a momentary spike in wages. I (and most people not blinded by the glare) see an unstable career prospect.
        NotSammyHagar 8y ago
        I have seen wages go up pretty steadily since I moved here 25 years ago and started at Microsoft. I've worked at 6 companies now, through the 2000 .com crash and the 2008 crash. Both times some smaller companies didn't make it, partly because they didn't get new funding, but most jobs, salaries, etc kept up or didn't fall much. I know I've been fortunate but I'm nothing special, just a dev in seattle. I think you must be in a town without so much varied software jobs. I feel for you, and would be unhappy if I had the overtime demands you mention. That's just a very different world than I experience here.

foobar1962 8y ago

The difference between science and engineering (education-wise) is that an engineering degree is strictly defined with regards to subjects learned, with little choice of electives by the student: everybody is learning the same thing. With science (and most other degrees) the student can pick and choose their topics.

hprotagonist 8y ago
and even that distinction gets slippery. My degrees are all in engineering, and we had plenty of coursework opportunities to specialize even in undergrad. We had a departmental bias towards one end of the spectrum for the discipline, but plenty of my cohort broke the mold and did their own thing fairly easily. We were also very heavily research-focused, so the other easy divide between engineering and science ('applications' vs 'basic research') isn't nearly as clean-cut as you might think.
ncmncm 8y ago
That is just entirely false. Electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, and chemical engineers have quite different courseloads. Even within electrical engineering, semiconductor physics, radio frequency electronics, electromotion, and power systems are all completely different from computer architecture and one another. That's without delving into specialties in each.
- RhodesianHunter 8y ago
  The person you're replying to never suggested that there weren't differences between the engineering degrees' course loads. I believe you may have missed their point completely.
  - ncmncm 8y ago
    Are you suggesting that engineering students have no choice about which areas to study, just because they have labels? Many study more than one, and take multiple degrees. I knew one who got seven bachelor's degrees in various engineering and science fields.

taneq 8y ago

> Part of the reason I think STEM is horseshit is that it is so broadly defined as to be without meaning. And then we add in the Arts for "STEAM" and the cycle is complete.

geomark 8y ago
I thought that part was added just to try to draw in the younger folks who are too little afraid of the scary science and maths parts to consider learning about tech stuff.

o10449366 8y ago

You can observe the same phenomenon with "data science" nowadays. Visit any online DS community and the two most common questions are: 1. "How do I become a data scientist?" (AKA, what the hell do they do?) 2. "Why can't I find a job?" (Because no one is qualified for a role with no defined qualifications.)