3 ms·

No. That just isn't true. Only 8% of students end up with jobs 10 years after. There's an IEE Report on this specific issue. It's much worse for minorities wher

No. That just isn't true. Only 8% of students end up with jobs 10 years after. There's an IEE Report on this specific issue. It's much worse for minorities where job placement is nearly guaranteed to not occur. It's across almost all universities. https://spectrum.ieee.org/stem-education-in-the-us-is-more-or-less-needed https://spectrum.ieee.org/stem-education-in-the-us-is-more-o...

HEmanZ 3y ago
The article you linked is about ALL STEM majors taken combined. Computer Science degrees have a much much better placement. Also the above commenter mentioned that it needs to be a “real” comp sci degree, not one that calls itself comp sci but never makes you learn classes like Data structures, algorithms, etc. There are “fake” CS degrees out there, and big employers know they are no good. My university CS department has a 100% placement every. single. year. Including the last 3 years, and it’s like not even a top 100 school in the US.
- throwaway33381 3y ago
  No school has 100% job placement. That's literally impossible. I went to a top 20 school and job placement was barely 50% but claimed it had 95%. The only reason I knew they were lying is because the one of the professors I researched under told me the statistics were falsified to make the program look good.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    That doesn't seem right. I went to a state school. I think CS grads had a marketed 90ish% placement rate. Talking to others in my classes right before graduation it seems we had at least 80% of people with jobs lined up prior to graduation.
    - throwaway33381 3y ago
      It's not. It's often due to under reporting. And sometimes the blatant falsification of data. But you don't really need to do that when only a small percentage of individuals reply to your survey. And thats how you get a high placement rate. You also need to understand that for the hundreds of thousands of CS, IT degrees that are awarded each year only a few thousand jobs exist at the entry level. You see reports of hundreds of thousands of job postings but the vast majority are just repeats of the same listing.
      - giantg2 3y ago
        Please post something to back up what you're saying. Right now it sounds like you're a conspiracy theorist, or maybe even troll with that throw away. There are about 65k CS undergraduate degrees issued each year. I don't think the BLS is double counting jobs. I believe they go to the companies for that info, not random job boards.
  - HEmanZ 3y ago
    For CS grads, it’s got to be close. I’m sure it’s not exactly 100%, every year, forever, but I’m well involved in the program and can’t think of a single student since I graduated that didn’t land a job out of college, and the program advertises it as 95%. No one from there goes to FAANG, it’s not a prestigious enough school for that. But there is an endless demand in large companies like government contractors, banks, the small web dev shops, etc. that need programmers for 60k$ out of school.
    - throwaway33381 3y ago
      This is a bias, the people you interacted with that shared their results and told you that they found a job reinforce your believe in the rate. But the reality is that often, the ones not finding opportunities do not talk about not finding opportunities. The professors I knew openly told me and our classes how the system worked. And that the majority of individuals will not find a job. There are too many new graduates to new positions. Many of them were fellows and board members of the ACM. I was active in the student group and got to know these people and the outcomes. These guys often share results and data they collect privately with other researchers. And people are failing at an alarming scale. But you won't find those people on this site, and you wouldn't because of the main demographic of this forum.
      - HEmanZ 3y ago
        It’s possible your story is true for bigger schools, im not sure on that. My school graduates 5-10 people per year, and I add all of them on LinkedIn, every year. So I feel I have a good handle on how many are getting jobs.
    - xboxnolifes 3y ago
      > program advertises it as 95% School advertised job placement percentages do not care whether or not you got a job in your studied field. That's how they lie about such high percentages. As long as you entered the workforce, it's a success.
- giantg2 3y ago
  But whats the 10 year retention look like?
  - throwaway33381 3y ago
    Don't listen to him any program claining 100% retention or anything around it is falsifying their claims. Working at walmart or target can qualify as that. Often, the only people that report on this are the ones that find jobs which is a small minority. It's essentially meaningless.
giantg2 3y ago
Wow, I made it to the 8% mark. I'm burnt out, so I doubt I'll be in it much longer. "One area where STEM students are needed is in aerospace and especially the defense industry." One issue they didn't mention about this is the shitty work environment for many of the jobs. The people I talk to who are leaving the defense industry can't stand the politics and procedures anymore.
- throwaway33381 3y ago
  [flagged]
mym1990 3y ago
Come on, that link is from 11 years ago. It says only 8% end up with jobs 10 years later in their field of study. There is no evidence presented as to the actual causation. This is a particularly funny quote given the times we live in now: “A third is that there are not a lot of exciting new aerospace or defense initiatives that spur the imagination of young engineers like there once were.”
- giantg2 3y ago
  How is that funny? Compared to previous times it seems there aren't that many groundbreaking programs, from what we can see. Most of aviation innovation is suppressed by market demands - we want tried and true, low-risk designs. This is in stark contrast to the 50s-80s. Space is a fairly small market, but has some stuff going on. Nothing on the scale of the space race era. Even in the 90s they were talking about how space launches would become so routine. Then, if you launched a mission it was likely 70% new tech, procedures, or experiments. Now all the missions build off of previous ones. Hey, look a new space telescope! Been there, done that, barely makes the news. Defense is a wildcard since the interesting stuff is classified. There are some interesting problems in the DARPA competitions. Not a lot of freedom in those jobs - lots of politics usually.
  - mym1990 3y ago
    Seriously? I'm going to guess that it's highly unlikely that you have worked on the Hubble(or the Webb), so for you to say 'been there, done that' just show how de-sensitized you are to actual achievements. Space race budgets were only really significantly elevated from 62-69, and fell off pretty precipitously after that, so to attribute all of that spending to 3 decades is wrong as well. Aviation innovation is not suppressed by market demands, it is because the private market can now participate that innovation is happening again. But you don't seem to get that aviation and rocket innovation is indeed rocket science, and 'low risk designs' aren't just established over night.
    - giantg2 3y ago
      "so for you to say 'been there, done that' just show how de-sensitized you are to actual achievements." No shit, that's the entire point - society doesn't care anymore because it isn't shiny. Take a survey on the street of space telescopes and most won't even be aware of the Jame Webb. "so to attribute all of that spending to 3 decades is wrong as well." Much of those subsequent decades built off of the information and ideas generated in that time period. They still had regular manned missions and large innovations like the space shuttle. No more manned launches from NASA. No more prestige. "But you don't seem to get that aviation and rocket innovation is indeed rocket science, " I do get that. Now please go compare the rate of innovation and newly adopted designs today versus decades ago. Today it's all about tweaking some existing model for slightly more efficiency and running computer models.

HEmanZ 3y ago

The article you linked is about ALL STEM majors taken combined. Computer Science degrees have a much much better placement. Also the above commenter mentioned that it needs to be a “real” comp sci degree, not one that calls itself comp sci but never makes you learn classes like Data structures, algorithms, etc. There are “fake” CS degrees out there, and big employers know they are no good. My university CS department has a 100% placement every. single. year. Including the last 3 years, and it’s like not even a top 100 school in the US.

throwaway33381 3y ago
No school has 100% job placement. That's literally impossible. I went to a top 20 school and job placement was barely 50% but claimed it had 95%. The only reason I knew they were lying is because the one of the professors I researched under told me the statistics were falsified to make the program look good.
- giantg2 3y ago
  That doesn't seem right. I went to a state school. I think CS grads had a marketed 90ish% placement rate. Talking to others in my classes right before graduation it seems we had at least 80% of people with jobs lined up prior to graduation.
  - throwaway33381 3y ago
    It's not. It's often due to under reporting. And sometimes the blatant falsification of data. But you don't really need to do that when only a small percentage of individuals reply to your survey. And thats how you get a high placement rate. You also need to understand that for the hundreds of thousands of CS, IT degrees that are awarded each year only a few thousand jobs exist at the entry level. You see reports of hundreds of thousands of job postings but the vast majority are just repeats of the same listing.
    - giantg2 3y ago
      Please post something to back up what you're saying. Right now it sounds like you're a conspiracy theorist, or maybe even troll with that throw away. There are about 65k CS undergraduate degrees issued each year. I don't think the BLS is double counting jobs. I believe they go to the companies for that info, not random job boards.
- HEmanZ 3y ago
  For CS grads, it’s got to be close. I’m sure it’s not exactly 100%, every year, forever, but I’m well involved in the program and can’t think of a single student since I graduated that didn’t land a job out of college, and the program advertises it as 95%. No one from there goes to FAANG, it’s not a prestigious enough school for that. But there is an endless demand in large companies like government contractors, banks, the small web dev shops, etc. that need programmers for 60k$ out of school.
  - throwaway33381 3y ago
    This is a bias, the people you interacted with that shared their results and told you that they found a job reinforce your believe in the rate. But the reality is that often, the ones not finding opportunities do not talk about not finding opportunities. The professors I knew openly told me and our classes how the system worked. And that the majority of individuals will not find a job. There are too many new graduates to new positions. Many of them were fellows and board members of the ACM. I was active in the student group and got to know these people and the outcomes. These guys often share results and data they collect privately with other researchers. And people are failing at an alarming scale. But you won't find those people on this site, and you wouldn't because of the main demographic of this forum.
    - HEmanZ 3y ago
      It’s possible your story is true for bigger schools, im not sure on that. My school graduates 5-10 people per year, and I add all of them on LinkedIn, every year. So I feel I have a good handle on how many are getting jobs.
  - xboxnolifes 3y ago
    > program advertises it as 95% School advertised job placement percentages do not care whether or not you got a job in your studied field. That's how they lie about such high percentages. As long as you entered the workforce, it's a success.
giantg2 3y ago
But whats the 10 year retention look like?
- throwaway33381 3y ago
  Don't listen to him any program claining 100% retention or anything around it is falsifying their claims. Working at walmart or target can qualify as that. Often, the only people that report on this are the ones that find jobs which is a small minority. It's essentially meaningless.

giantg2 3y ago

Wow, I made it to the 8% mark. I'm burnt out, so I doubt I'll be in it much longer. "One area where STEM students are needed is in aerospace and especially the defense industry." One issue they didn't mention about this is the shitty work environment for many of the jobs. The people I talk to who are leaving the defense industry can't stand the politics and procedures anymore.

throwaway33381 3y ago
[flagged]

mym1990 3y ago

Come on, that link is from 11 years ago. It says only 8% end up with jobs 10 years later in their field of study. There is no evidence presented as to the actual causation. This is a particularly funny quote given the times we live in now: “A third is that there are not a lot of exciting new aerospace or defense initiatives that spur the imagination of young engineers like there once were.”

giantg2 3y ago
How is that funny? Compared to previous times it seems there aren't that many groundbreaking programs, from what we can see. Most of aviation innovation is suppressed by market demands - we want tried and true, low-risk designs. This is in stark contrast to the 50s-80s. Space is a fairly small market, but has some stuff going on. Nothing on the scale of the space race era. Even in the 90s they were talking about how space launches would become so routine. Then, if you launched a mission it was likely 70% new tech, procedures, or experiments. Now all the missions build off of previous ones. Hey, look a new space telescope! Been there, done that, barely makes the news. Defense is a wildcard since the interesting stuff is classified. There are some interesting problems in the DARPA competitions. Not a lot of freedom in those jobs - lots of politics usually.
- mym1990 3y ago
  Seriously? I'm going to guess that it's highly unlikely that you have worked on the Hubble(or the Webb), so for you to say 'been there, done that' just show how de-sensitized you are to actual achievements. Space race budgets were only really significantly elevated from 62-69, and fell off pretty precipitously after that, so to attribute all of that spending to 3 decades is wrong as well. Aviation innovation is not suppressed by market demands, it is because the private market can now participate that innovation is happening again. But you don't seem to get that aviation and rocket innovation is indeed rocket science, and 'low risk designs' aren't just established over night.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    "so for you to say 'been there, done that' just show how de-sensitized you are to actual achievements." No shit, that's the entire point - society doesn't care anymore because it isn't shiny. Take a survey on the street of space telescopes and most won't even be aware of the Jame Webb. "so to attribute all of that spending to 3 decades is wrong as well." Much of those subsequent decades built off of the information and ideas generated in that time period. They still had regular manned missions and large innovations like the space shuttle. No more manned launches from NASA. No more prestige. "But you don't seem to get that aviation and rocket innovation is indeed rocket science, " I do get that. Now please go compare the rate of innovation and newly adopted designs today versus decades ago. Today it's all about tweaking some existing model for slightly more efficiency and running computer models.