3 ms·

It's difficult to distill a complicated topic into a comment, even a somewhat lengthy one. I don't like respond to a question with a link (after all, a reading

by geebee 5y ago

It's difficult to distill a complicated topic into a comment, even a somewhat lengthy one. I don't like respond to a question with a link (after all, a reading list is not an argument), but in this case, it probably would be best for me to provide the RAND study rather than try to summarize it. https://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html I do need to mention something here - I've argued with people about this for a long time, and I've provided this link, but it is old now, from 2003. I believe that prospects for STEM graduate degrees have increased dramatically in the last 20 years relative to other professional degree programs. So while I do think the arguments in th RAND study still hold (especially around reform for doctoral program), I suspect that the argument that an aversion to STEM graduate degrees in favor of professional degrees (for people who are free to choose other fields and are not restricted by immigration or citizenship status) is not as strong as it was nearly 20 years ago. I believe this is probably due to (among other things) a huge increase in global demand for STEM workers and the disruption of the wage collusion going on between large tech employers.

robocat 5y ago
I think you are trying to say that STEM could follow an “MD model” as a solution to the shortage of STEM graduates. From your link, solution 4 is “Introduce two new professional doctoral degree programs for science and engineering built on the MD model. This fourth strategy would also reduce training costs and uncertainties, specifically for those whose career goals focus on professional practice rather than cutting-edge research. Graduates would have a firm grounding in a broad set of skills, understand how their skills fit in with other skill sets, and be able to keep up with the cutting edge. These new programs would feature a structured curriculum with well-defined completion criteria and a definite term, perhaps of four years. Their faculty would be practitioners with other sources of income, as in medical schools. The rapid growth of industrial parks, corporate-like technical centers, and corporate partnerships would facilitate this arrangement. As with existing professional degree programs, students would not normally rely on grants and fellowships but would instead look to substantially higher lifetime earnings to pay their own way. The attractiveness of this strategy depends partly on whether the current employment of S&E PhDs could be partly satisfied instead by holders of these new professional doctoral degrees.” To me that is just an academic hodgepodge of ideas that reads like wishful thinking. I suggest that if you wish to make your point clearly, perhaps expand it into a blog article, and back it up with the facts you have access to.
- geebee 5y ago
  My point isn't that any of the RAND prescriptions are necessarily or specifically desirable. It's that the system, as it currently works, is not attractive to people who have a choice. Universities will need to innovate to make these degree paths attractive to people with choice. Employers will need to innovate to make this career path attractive to people with choice. Exactly how they do this is not up to me. And it may turn out that they can't or won't. There's a reason you can't find a high quality used Mercedes with under 10k miles for $2,000. The market has answered your question. No need for the government to ask again on your behalf. Similarly, I don't think we should have the government "solve" the problem by creating a worker population that is denied this choice by force of law. I support immigration, but not immigration where universities and employers get to decide what the person is allowed to study and what kind of jobs the person is allowed to work.

by geebee 5y ago

robocat 5y ago

I think you are trying to say that STEM could follow an “MD model” as a solution to the shortage of STEM graduates. From your link, solution 4 is “Introduce two new professional doctoral degree programs for science and engineering built on the MD model. This fourth strategy would also reduce training costs and uncertainties, specifically for those whose career goals focus on professional practice rather than cutting-edge research. Graduates would have a firm grounding in a broad set of skills, understand how their skills fit in with other skill sets, and be able to keep up with the cutting edge. These new programs would feature a structured curriculum with well-defined completion criteria and a definite term, perhaps of four years. Their faculty would be practitioners with other sources of income, as in medical schools. The rapid growth of industrial parks, corporate-like technical centers, and corporate partnerships would facilitate this arrangement. As with existing professional degree programs, students would not normally rely on grants and fellowships but would instead look to substantially higher lifetime earnings to pay their own way. The attractiveness of this strategy depends partly on whether the current employment of S&E PhDs could be partly satisfied instead by holders of these new professional doctoral degrees.” To me that is just an academic hodgepodge of ideas that reads like wishful thinking. I suggest that if you wish to make your point clearly, perhaps expand it into a blog article, and back it up with the facts you have access to.

geebee 5y ago
My point isn't that any of the RAND prescriptions are necessarily or specifically desirable. It's that the system, as it currently works, is not attractive to people who have a choice. Universities will need to innovate to make these degree paths attractive to people with choice. Employers will need to innovate to make this career path attractive to people with choice. Exactly how they do this is not up to me. And it may turn out that they can't or won't. There's a reason you can't find a high quality used Mercedes with under 10k miles for $2,000. The market has answered your question. No need for the government to ask again on your behalf. Similarly, I don't think we should have the government "solve" the problem by creating a worker population that is denied this choice by force of law. I support immigration, but not immigration where universities and employers get to decide what the person is allowed to study and what kind of jobs the person is allowed to work.