>>> A science education includes absolutely no training in finance, management, organization, public speaking, etc. So? Scientists often tackle problems that t

>>> A science education includes absolutely no training in finance, management, organization, public speaking, etc. So? Scientists often tackle problems that they don't have training in. There seems to be 2 parts to the myth: 1) Scientists aren't suitable for business. I think this is crap. Mathematicians can do engineering and financial stuff, just not the final sign-off (which requires a licensed professional). Ecologists can analyse a company's strategic position, based on stuff like competition, symbiosis, and other buzz words that they actually understand. Psychologists could work in marketing. This is true for many pure research areas. It's may not be so true for applied research, like biochemistry - a lot of that could be very domain specific, but the tools they use could be applied elsewhere (if the number of graduates and number of research jobs doesn't match). 2) Scientists are doing more valuable work, they just aren't being rewarded. This is sometimes true, but sometimes not.