3 ms·

Do you have any numbers or stats on this? I haven't heard that theory before. I just watched a video interview with Bill Gates yesterday and he said that we'r

by jmtame 18y ago

Do you have any numbers or stats on this? I haven't heard that theory before. I just watched a video interview with Bill Gates yesterday and he said that we're now behind in software. The entire robotics industry (according to Gates) is behind not because of hardware, but because we don't have the software. He went on to say that software will continue to be a field where we need even more people involved, where we have most of the hardware we need.

gaius 18y ago
Philip Greenspun's essays are a good starting point: http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/ http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/ Also that's kinda nonsense; what's really lacking in robotics is a suitable power source.
yummyfajitas 18y ago
Here are stats on math. In short: 1157 PhDs given out, and 761 have academic positions (the main place to get a job as a mathematician). Plus, a reasonable fraction of the academic positions are purely teaching. http://www.ams.org/employment/2007Survey-DG.pdf http://www.ams.org/employment/2007Survey-DG.pdf I know physics is similar.
- byrneseyeview 18y ago
  Here are stats on math. In short: 1157 PhDs given out, and 761 have academic positions (the main place to get a job as a mathematician). Actuaries, quant finance (it's not dead yet), crypto-related programming, logistics... there are lots of non-academic jobs (most of which pay better than all but the best academic appointments). It may be the case that giving up four years of earnings is not worth it from a purely pecuniary standpoint, but I seriously doubt that there is an overabundance of math PhDs given the jobs they can take. The private sector is, of course, much less visible than academia.
  - shub 18y ago
    One assumes that a math PhD went to the trouble of writing a dissertation so they could do something with it. I know little about the other fields you mentioned, but a PhD isn't needed for actuarial work. A bachelor's (heavy on the statistics) with some finance courses covers you, and after that it's self-study for the seven (7!) exams you need to be a fellow. A math PhD in an actuarial setting is out of place, like a CD grad working at Geek Squad (a hypothetical Geek Squad with pay comparable to programming).
  - yummyfajitas 18y ago
    Most of those jobs don't require a PhD. Perhaps a few of the quants, a few crypto programmers and a few operations research people. But certainly not all of them. As I noted, even many academic jobs (teaching positions) don't really need it. While having the degree helps you get the job ("omfg you have a PhD you must be so smart!"), it isn't necessary. The number of jobs where PhD level mathematical knowledge is necessary is actually quite small. Producing more PhDs will probably not be as helpful jmtame seems to think.
    - gaius 18y ago
      Agreed. A PhD is an apprenticeship to become an academic. It doesn't actually say anything either way about how smart someone is (i.e. most people smart enough to get a good first degree could probably complete a PhD if they chose to). In industry a PhD is only of value when hiring into the R&D group (or in the case of investment banks, wanting to impress unsophisticated clients).
timr 18y ago
Free PDF that does a good job of describing the situation: "Into the Eye of the Storm -- Assessing the Evidence on Science and Engineering Education, Quality, and Workforce Demand" http://www.urban.org/publications/411562.html http://www.urban.org/publications/411562.html Abstract: "Recent policy reports claim the United States is falling behind other nations in science and math education and graduating insufficient numbers of scientists and engineers. Review of the evidence and analysis of actual graduation rates and workforce needs does not find support for these claims. U.S. student performance rankings are comparable to other leading nations and colleges graduate far more scientists and engineers than are hired each year. Instead, the evidence suggests targeted education improvements are needed for the lowest performers and demand-side factors may be insufficient to attract qualified college graduates."

by jmtame 18y ago

gaius 18y ago

Philip Greenspun's essays are a good starting point: http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/ http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/ Also that's kinda nonsense; what's really lacking in robotics is a suitable power source.

yummyfajitas 18y ago

Here are stats on math. In short: 1157 PhDs given out, and 761 have academic positions (the main place to get a job as a mathematician). Plus, a reasonable fraction of the academic positions are purely teaching. http://www.ams.org/employment/2007Survey-DG.pdf http://www.ams.org/employment/2007Survey-DG.pdf I know physics is similar.

byrneseyeview 18y ago
Here are stats on math. In short: 1157 PhDs given out, and 761 have academic positions (the main place to get a job as a mathematician). Actuaries, quant finance (it's not dead yet), crypto-related programming, logistics... there are lots of non-academic jobs (most of which pay better than all but the best academic appointments). It may be the case that giving up four years of earnings is not worth it from a purely pecuniary standpoint, but I seriously doubt that there is an overabundance of math PhDs given the jobs they can take. The private sector is, of course, much less visible than academia.
- shub 18y ago
  One assumes that a math PhD went to the trouble of writing a dissertation so they could do something with it. I know little about the other fields you mentioned, but a PhD isn't needed for actuarial work. A bachelor's (heavy on the statistics) with some finance courses covers you, and after that it's self-study for the seven (7!) exams you need to be a fellow. A math PhD in an actuarial setting is out of place, like a CD grad working at Geek Squad (a hypothetical Geek Squad with pay comparable to programming).
- yummyfajitas 18y ago
  Most of those jobs don't require a PhD. Perhaps a few of the quants, a few crypto programmers and a few operations research people. But certainly not all of them. As I noted, even many academic jobs (teaching positions) don't really need it. While having the degree helps you get the job ("omfg you have a PhD you must be so smart!"), it isn't necessary. The number of jobs where PhD level mathematical knowledge is necessary is actually quite small. Producing more PhDs will probably not be as helpful jmtame seems to think.
  - gaius 18y ago
    Agreed. A PhD is an apprenticeship to become an academic. It doesn't actually say anything either way about how smart someone is (i.e. most people smart enough to get a good first degree could probably complete a PhD if they chose to). In industry a PhD is only of value when hiring into the R&D group (or in the case of investment banks, wanting to impress unsophisticated clients).

timr 18y ago

Free PDF that does a good job of describing the situation: "Into the Eye of the Storm -- Assessing the Evidence on Science and Engineering Education, Quality, and Workforce Demand" http://www.urban.org/publications/411562.html http://www.urban.org/publications/411562.html Abstract: "Recent policy reports claim the United States is falling behind other nations in science and math education and graduating insufficient numbers of scientists and engineers. Review of the evidence and analysis of actual graduation rates and workforce needs does not find support for these claims. U.S. student performance rankings are comparable to other leading nations and colleges graduate far more scientists and engineers than are hired each year. Instead, the evidence suggests targeted education improvements are needed for the lowest performers and demand-side factors may be insufficient to attract qualified college graduates."