11 ms·

U.S. pushes for more scientists, but the jobs aren’t there

89 points by rdp 14y ago

ktizo 14y ago
Unless the jobs appear quickly then presumably the US might see a lot of the scientists move abroad. According to the Royal Society in London, China is set to spend more than the US on scientific research by the year 2020 and already publishes nearly as many scientific papers. - http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2011/4294976134.pdf http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/...
- gareim 14y ago
  They may spend more and write more eventually, but until they fix the quantity vs. quality problem, the numbers mean very little. According the Reuters, the money Beijing is pouring into research is incentivizing low quality science articles. "According to data gathered by the OECD, China produced 285,000 papers in 2009. That's about 0.2 papers per 1,000 head of the population. Just 0.05 percent were published in top journals. By comparison, the United States published 473,000 papers, or 1.6 for every 1,000 people. More than half made it into top journals." http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/28/us-science-china-idUSBRE84R06G20120528 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/28/us-science-china-i... Will China eventually surpass the US? Probably. They're modernizing quickly and they have 5 times our population. If they can't one day surpass us, something is deeply wrong. Of course, with their government the way it is today, there could be major hurdles along the way.
  - powerslave12r 14y ago
    The whole 'top journals' concept may not be the best thing to use as a metric.
    - surrealize 14y ago
      You can make "top journals" quantitative with metrics like impact factor. And even though that's not a perfect system, having a difference of three orders of magnitude (.05% to 50+%) means that there really is a meaningful difference in the quality of papers.
      - rdl 14y ago
        Is there a language issue? (I assume all the top journals are international and English, but are there also Chinese language journals which are influential in China but not considered "top" globally?)
        jedbrown 14y ago
        If you have top quality work, where are you going to publish it?
        rayiner 14y ago
        If you have quality work and a big enough local market for it, where are you going to publish? It's kind of like comparing the %-age of American versus Chinese actors who work in Hollywood versus the Chinese film industry.
        rdl 14y ago
        Some material might also be most relevant within China, or where the users are Chinese language primarily, so it would make more sense to publish locally -- Chinese history, current politics, maybe some specific economic articles around China, potentially things related to major Chinese engineering works like the new space program, etc. (Still no idea if language is even a factor, but it seems plausible.)
  - aggronn 14y ago
    I recently did some copyediting for a chinese econ PhD student in the US. She isn't a student at my university, or even a research assistant. She's just a guest, who is being partially supervised by professors in our econ department. Why is she here? In order to graduate from china with a PhD, you have to publish a paper in a specific list of journals. If you're unable to do so in a certain time period, you either aren't awarded a PhD, or you have to find a university in the US which will take you for 2 years. After those two years, you have to have your dissertation completed, and the US professors have to vouch for you in lieu of publication. This is just an example of some of the problems you're talking about. Each PhD student (as far as she's described to me) who gets their degree without going abroad MUST have their dissertation published. This is totally contrary to how it occurs in the US where you simply have to come up with a thesis and defend it--there are rarely requirements about publishing. Whats more is, if you asked a US professor to talk about the problems with academic publishing in the US, or with tenure, or whatever, its that all these incentives line up for people to publish publish publish. Its not about substance--its publish publish publish. Throw enough papers at the wall and you hope to god one sticks long enough for you to get tenure. If this is a major complaint in the US, you can just imagine how bad it must be in Asia, where theres an (at least this is my understanding) real problem with 'faking it until you make it', with the hope that you'll learn enough to keep up with the Jones', while doing the bare minimum of substance or risk taking to meet expectations.
    - timtadh 14y ago
      "there are rarely requirements about publishing." Ha. [Hollow Laugh] If only that were actually true. Even in departments were there is no "official" requirement, in practice there is. Your advisor will tell you baldly publish well or don't find a good job afterwards. Most students who are not on track drop out instead of getting a pity degree. "Its not about substance--its publish publish publish." Sometimes true, in practice grants are far more important than quantity of publications. To get grants you have to be respected and known in your field. That means not dumping a bunch of bad publications out, it means making meaningful contributions. It also helps to be a persuasive writer. "Throw enough papers at the wall and you hope to god one sticks long enough for you to get tenure." I know specific people who were denied tenure even though they had great publication records. Once again it is about grants, not publications.
excuse-me 14y ago
Surprisingly enough not every one of your prof's dozen grad students gets to be a prof. Fortunately there is a use for STEM PhDs outside the lecture hall. It's like saying nobody should do math in school because there aren't enough math teacher jobs for every student
- greeneggs 14y ago
  The difference is that these people have spent large fractions of their lives preparing for careers that they can't get into. And they are generally very smart people, so it is to nobody's benefit for them to waste their time. You might also say, that they are very smart people, so they should know what they are getting into. That's valid, but it takes articles like this to spread the word. Many very respected people are not being fully honest about the situation, including Obama and everyone else at the top. Professors have every incentive to lie to prospective students; they need multiple grants to get tenure and every grant agency wants to be funding multiple students. It is certainly a pyramid scheme. In the short term, it is very efficient, because we get good science done for very little money. But in the long run, it might backfire; I honestly don't know.
  - excuse-me 14y ago
    So failure is going to industry and creating technology that makes money and benefits millions. While success is to lock themselves away in a university teaching the next generation of smart people that the only thing they should aim for is to create the next generation of ......
  - nn2 14y ago
    Universities are still extremely expensive, just with the people (grad students and post docs) who do most of the actual science getting very little of the money. It's just extremely unfair and calling it a "pyramid scheme" is charitable. Overall universities are just extremely inefficient. Where does all the money go to? The person in the article who went into an administrative job may have been onto something. Part of the problem is also the biology/chemistry bubble. In the 90ies these areas expanded extremely and now they are downsizing to more reasonable levels again. With CS degrees they would be better off.
kylebrown 14y ago
There's a global Great Recession, and the arguments that its due to a mismatch between available jobs and worker skills are just smoke to rationalize the growing inequality. Peter Thiel argues that its due to the cost of energy.[1] A recent article about the price to import coal to India supports his argument.[2] The Superbubble has popped, and every sector is cutting back for private equity to make inroads. 1. The Prospects for Technology and Econimic Growth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRrLyckg8Nc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRrLyckg8Nc 2. Grinding Energy Shortage Takes Toll on India's Growth http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304331204577352232515290226.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230433120457735...
jseliger 14y ago
I've posted this before and will post it again: any discussion like this should include a link to Philip Greenspun's "Women in Science": http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science . Ignore the borderline sexist stuff about women and pay attention to the institutional structure of science and the opportunity costs of potential scientists. Stuff like this: "Although the overall unemployment rate of chemists and other scientists is much lower than the national average, those figures mask an open secret: Many scientists work outside their chosen field" should demonstrate why the smartest or most economically aware people who are interested in science might want to think about ancillary fields (like hacking). I've also co-written a longish guide for undergrads interested in science: http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/how-to-think-about-science-and-becoming-a-scientist http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/how-to-think-about-... , since many of them don't fully understand how science really works in an institutional setting.
- danielford 14y ago
  I sent Greenspun's article to one of my students last semester, after he expressed an interest in academic research. He reported that the article was incredibly discouraging, and he shifted his career plans back to medicine. Pointing out the landmine in his career path was my most rewarding moment as a teacher in the last two years. I'm relieved that he won't waste seven years getting a Ph.D. like I did.
  - gradstudent 14y ago
    You would have better served your student by telling him to follow Phillip Greenspun's example rather than take his idiotic advice: do what you love and let the rest sort itself out. Success is seldom far behind.
    - gyardley 14y ago
      Tell that to every unemployed actor in Los Angeles. Doing what you love helps with success, but it's not a panacea - you're still subject to the same constraints as everybody else.
Zenst 14y ago
It's all very well crying out for this and that but without defining the path and in this case the jobs, there sentiment is nothing more than a soundbite. Anybody can say: (1) More Scientists. (2) ??????????????? (3) Profit. Its the number two aspect the goverment needs to focus upon as well as allowing others to focus. How can they do that. Well they could offer TAX incentives for R&D. Tax incentives for recruiting new people into the feild. Many many ways, though all of those involve the carrot approach without any sticks. Sadly there is no golden answear/solution for this and soundbiting "we need more scientists" is not a solution unless you want to soundbite and then read other peoples comments in the hop[e of finding that magic solution you need to inact. good luck too them.
- redwood 14y ago
  It's not that we need more scientists in the traditional Phd -> academic track sense necessarily, but rather more technically trained individuals. Folks with science degrees can find lot's of interesting work that others from humanities backgrounds have trouble competing for and can open up new business spaces by being part of innovative fields. It's certainly a mistake to think most science-trained folks work as stereotypical lab-suit-wearing scientists. Science-trained individuals have fruitful careers across the map, and we benefit from more of that, that's all!
  - Zenst 14y ago
    I totaly agree but there again I grew up with computer studies being about learning how computers work and writing code. As apposed to this is how we do mail-merge type of computer studies they have today in schools. I also suspect Wallmart have more scientific degree's working for them than NASA does employee wise, but thats just a sign of our times. Maybe the standards need to be raised more so that a degree means something, though that is another issue, although related. Another related issue would be World-wide standards. You can get a fully trained brain surgeon from say russia who could be the best in the World and have all the top end Russian qualifications. Though in say the UK or USA etc he would not even be allowed to change a IV drip or a bandage and would have to redo all those exams again to the local standard. Education needs to be unified more perhaps world-wide so a degree from china is the same standard as a degree from America or from France or Africa. Then perhaps the true quality and abilities are allowed to shine thru. Again a seperate issue though something that is relavent. I also think that TV has over the past decade or so done wonders in removing that sterotypical image of lab-coated scientists, though maybe they have dumbed that image down a little too much when your cleaner calls herself a dirt abstraction scientist!
res 14y ago
I've always found the whole "Get a STEM degree if you want ample employment" argument to be a bit specious. It implies that all degrees that fall under this rather large umbrella are of equal worth, but the reality is that prospects are better for those under the "TE" portion of this umbrella. Even within that smaller subsection, those working on, say, Aerospace Engineering degrees are likely envious of the prospects of Computer Science guys, and the Computer Science guys are looking at their upper-division coursework wondering if they shouldn't just bail out and test the waters of whatever startup hotspot is on their minds. It's better than worrying about what you could possibly do with your Theater degree, but it's still stressful for the people under this giant umbrella of promise. At the end of the day, I guess everyone feels like the grass is greener somewhere.
- jedbrown 14y ago
  I have yet to meet someone with decent software development skills and a degree in a scientific/engineering field that had any trouble finding good work. I have seen a lot of unfilled postdoc and higher positions due to inability to find competent people.
  - thaumasiotes 14y ago
    At the risk of whining... I'm now three years out of college, still trying to get a tech job (during the middle year, I was otherwise employed and not trying). My degree is a double major in CS / math; I obviously can't provide an objective evaluation of "decent software development skills", but I worked at CreateSpace for six months during college with no complaints in that regard, and I got that position by winning the contests they'd hold at my school. It's getting to the point where I wonder if I should go back to college so I can be eligible for internships... Certainly, I'll take a portion of blame here for being totally incompetent at seeking and landing jobs. But I'm so, so sick of the memes that "tech hiring is super hot right now / it's a seller's market in tech labor / look how easy it is to get work". Is it, in your opinion, possible to have decent software development skills without years of experience under your belt? Do you meet many such people?
    - 14y ago
Morcane 14y ago
Science is interesting, exciting, fun, but also a big Ponzi scheme where loads of good, honest people are abused year upon year to do dogshit work for scraps from a table. I got out and never looked back.
jboggan 14y ago
Sometimes I look at other people's resumes and I see their finished PhD, their publications, their prestigious postdoc positions - and I feel a pang of jealousy. I feel like I have little to show for my unfulfilled years of toil in a doctoral program. Then I wonder why they are working outside of academia, and I begin to ponder the possibility that they may be jealous of me for understanding the system and leaving when I did. I don't know. I'm going to keep on coding in any case.
genwin 14y ago
> “She’s very good at everything, very smart,” Haas said of her daughter. “She loves chemistry, loves math. I tell her, ‘Don’t go into science.’ I’ve made that very clear to her.” I've made this clear to my kids also. The cynical side of me says that the push for more scientists is mostly about lowering wages for companies lobbying the gov't for that.
- b_emery 14y ago
  So what are you suggesting they go into? Math, physics, science train the mind, and I would argue, open opportunities like no other disciplines do. If you can do these, you can do anything, CS and programming included. The push for more scientists, misdirected or not, is a realization that the future of our country (speaking about the US here) will be built on science and technology.
  - genwin 14y ago
    A science career is what I'm referring to. Science and math learning, and a technology career, are fine.
kanzure 14y ago
I am really curious about how the biotech industry might be restructured to actually pay scientists. I know people in both academic and corporate lab jobs making minimum wage or nearly minimum wage. These are really smart, hard working people. And the best we can do is employ them as cheapo alternatives to purchasing lab robotics? On the other hand: this is really cheap, low cost, excellent labor. Are you paying >$xx,000/mo on drugs? Just hire some scientist to make the drugs for you, you'll give someone a job and probably save a bunch of money in the process. (This is particularly relevant for individuals with rare blood diseases; their medicines cost many 10's of thousands of dollars a month in some cases.) If I can get a postdoc for $39,000/year, what can I get for $100,000/year? How much is a novelty Soviet scientist? And what about a mad scientist (preferably one with a couple postdocs completed)? edit: also, why is there no postdoc labor union?
- kanzure 14y ago
  looks like there's a "National Postdoctoral Associaton": http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/ http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/ ok then, why aren't all lab researchers unionized? I don't even know if a labor union is the right fix to these problems.
teyc 14y ago
There really needs to be a YC-style company for scientists. Costs have come down - e.g. DNA sequencers are a lot more affordable today. What is needed is mentorship and some kind of exit that leads to employment.
teeja 14y ago
Funny story? Back in the mid-1960s the Feds said there'd be a shortage of scientists. Then in the early 1970s the Apollo program ended, and 40K+ people with years of hard experience were dumped on the market. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

89 points by rdp 14y ago

ktizo 14y ago

Unless the jobs appear quickly then presumably the US might see a lot of the scientists move abroad. According to the Royal Society in London, China is set to spend more than the US on scientific research by the year 2020 and already publishes nearly as many scientific papers. - http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2011/4294976134.pdf http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/...

gareim 14y ago
They may spend more and write more eventually, but until they fix the quantity vs. quality problem, the numbers mean very little. According the Reuters, the money Beijing is pouring into research is incentivizing low quality science articles. "According to data gathered by the OECD, China produced 285,000 papers in 2009. That's about 0.2 papers per 1,000 head of the population. Just 0.05 percent were published in top journals. By comparison, the United States published 473,000 papers, or 1.6 for every 1,000 people. More than half made it into top journals." http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/28/us-science-china-idUSBRE84R06G20120528 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/28/us-science-china-i... Will China eventually surpass the US? Probably. They're modernizing quickly and they have 5 times our population. If they can't one day surpass us, something is deeply wrong. Of course, with their government the way it is today, there could be major hurdles along the way.
- powerslave12r 14y ago
  The whole 'top journals' concept may not be the best thing to use as a metric.
  - surrealize 14y ago
    You can make "top journals" quantitative with metrics like impact factor. And even though that's not a perfect system, having a difference of three orders of magnitude (.05% to 50+%) means that there really is a meaningful difference in the quality of papers.
    - rdl 14y ago
      Is there a language issue? (I assume all the top journals are international and English, but are there also Chinese language journals which are influential in China but not considered "top" globally?)
      - jedbrown 14y ago
        If you have top quality work, where are you going to publish it?
        rayiner 14y ago
        If you have quality work and a big enough local market for it, where are you going to publish? It's kind of like comparing the %-age of American versus Chinese actors who work in Hollywood versus the Chinese film industry.
        rdl 14y ago
        Some material might also be most relevant within China, or where the users are Chinese language primarily, so it would make more sense to publish locally -- Chinese history, current politics, maybe some specific economic articles around China, potentially things related to major Chinese engineering works like the new space program, etc. (Still no idea if language is even a factor, but it seems plausible.)
- aggronn 14y ago
  I recently did some copyediting for a chinese econ PhD student in the US. She isn't a student at my university, or even a research assistant. She's just a guest, who is being partially supervised by professors in our econ department. Why is she here? In order to graduate from china with a PhD, you have to publish a paper in a specific list of journals. If you're unable to do so in a certain time period, you either aren't awarded a PhD, or you have to find a university in the US which will take you for 2 years. After those two years, you have to have your dissertation completed, and the US professors have to vouch for you in lieu of publication. This is just an example of some of the problems you're talking about. Each PhD student (as far as she's described to me) who gets their degree without going abroad MUST have their dissertation published. This is totally contrary to how it occurs in the US where you simply have to come up with a thesis and defend it--there are rarely requirements about publishing. Whats more is, if you asked a US professor to talk about the problems with academic publishing in the US, or with tenure, or whatever, its that all these incentives line up for people to publish publish publish. Its not about substance--its publish publish publish. Throw enough papers at the wall and you hope to god one sticks long enough for you to get tenure. If this is a major complaint in the US, you can just imagine how bad it must be in Asia, where theres an (at least this is my understanding) real problem with 'faking it until you make it', with the hope that you'll learn enough to keep up with the Jones', while doing the bare minimum of substance or risk taking to meet expectations.
  - timtadh 14y ago
    "there are rarely requirements about publishing." Ha. [Hollow Laugh] If only that were actually true. Even in departments were there is no "official" requirement, in practice there is. Your advisor will tell you baldly publish well or don't find a good job afterwards. Most students who are not on track drop out instead of getting a pity degree. "Its not about substance--its publish publish publish." Sometimes true, in practice grants are far more important than quantity of publications. To get grants you have to be respected and known in your field. That means not dumping a bunch of bad publications out, it means making meaningful contributions. It also helps to be a persuasive writer. "Throw enough papers at the wall and you hope to god one sticks long enough for you to get tenure." I know specific people who were denied tenure even though they had great publication records. Once again it is about grants, not publications.

excuse-me 14y ago

Surprisingly enough not every one of your prof's dozen grad students gets to be a prof. Fortunately there is a use for STEM PhDs outside the lecture hall. It's like saying nobody should do math in school because there aren't enough math teacher jobs for every student

greeneggs 14y ago
The difference is that these people have spent large fractions of their lives preparing for careers that they can't get into. And they are generally very smart people, so it is to nobody's benefit for them to waste their time. You might also say, that they are very smart people, so they should know what they are getting into. That's valid, but it takes articles like this to spread the word. Many very respected people are not being fully honest about the situation, including Obama and everyone else at the top. Professors have every incentive to lie to prospective students; they need multiple grants to get tenure and every grant agency wants to be funding multiple students. It is certainly a pyramid scheme. In the short term, it is very efficient, because we get good science done for very little money. But in the long run, it might backfire; I honestly don't know.
- excuse-me 14y ago
  So failure is going to industry and creating technology that makes money and benefits millions. While success is to lock themselves away in a university teaching the next generation of smart people that the only thing they should aim for is to create the next generation of ......
- nn2 14y ago
  Universities are still extremely expensive, just with the people (grad students and post docs) who do most of the actual science getting very little of the money. It's just extremely unfair and calling it a "pyramid scheme" is charitable. Overall universities are just extremely inefficient. Where does all the money go to? The person in the article who went into an administrative job may have been onto something. Part of the problem is also the biology/chemistry bubble. In the 90ies these areas expanded extremely and now they are downsizing to more reasonable levels again. With CS degrees they would be better off.

kylebrown 14y ago

There's a global Great Recession, and the arguments that its due to a mismatch between available jobs and worker skills are just smoke to rationalize the growing inequality. Peter Thiel argues that its due to the cost of energy.[1] A recent article about the price to import coal to India supports his argument.[2] The Superbubble has popped, and every sector is cutting back for private equity to make inroads. 1. The Prospects for Technology and Econimic Growth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRrLyckg8Nc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRrLyckg8Nc 2. Grinding Energy Shortage Takes Toll on India's Growth http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304331204577352232515290226.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230433120457735...

jseliger 14y ago

I've posted this before and will post it again: any discussion like this should include a link to Philip Greenspun's "Women in Science": http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science . Ignore the borderline sexist stuff about women and pay attention to the institutional structure of science and the opportunity costs of potential scientists. Stuff like this: "Although the overall unemployment rate of chemists and other scientists is much lower than the national average, those figures mask an open secret: Many scientists work outside their chosen field" should demonstrate why the smartest or most economically aware people who are interested in science might want to think about ancillary fields (like hacking). I've also co-written a longish guide for undergrads interested in science: http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/how-to-think-about-science-and-becoming-a-scientist http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/how-to-think-about-... , since many of them don't fully understand how science really works in an institutional setting.

danielford 14y ago
I sent Greenspun's article to one of my students last semester, after he expressed an interest in academic research. He reported that the article was incredibly discouraging, and he shifted his career plans back to medicine. Pointing out the landmine in his career path was my most rewarding moment as a teacher in the last two years. I'm relieved that he won't waste seven years getting a Ph.D. like I did.
- gradstudent 14y ago
  You would have better served your student by telling him to follow Phillip Greenspun's example rather than take his idiotic advice: do what you love and let the rest sort itself out. Success is seldom far behind.
  - gyardley 14y ago
    Tell that to every unemployed actor in Los Angeles. Doing what you love helps with success, but it's not a panacea - you're still subject to the same constraints as everybody else.

Zenst 14y ago

It's all very well crying out for this and that but without defining the path and in this case the jobs, there sentiment is nothing more than a soundbite. Anybody can say: (1) More Scientists. (2) ??????????????? (3) Profit. Its the number two aspect the goverment needs to focus upon as well as allowing others to focus. How can they do that. Well they could offer TAX incentives for R&D. Tax incentives for recruiting new people into the feild. Many many ways, though all of those involve the carrot approach without any sticks. Sadly there is no golden answear/solution for this and soundbiting "we need more scientists" is not a solution unless you want to soundbite and then read other peoples comments in the hop[e of finding that magic solution you need to inact. good luck too them.

redwood 14y ago
It's not that we need more scientists in the traditional Phd -> academic track sense necessarily, but rather more technically trained individuals. Folks with science degrees can find lot's of interesting work that others from humanities backgrounds have trouble competing for and can open up new business spaces by being part of innovative fields. It's certainly a mistake to think most science-trained folks work as stereotypical lab-suit-wearing scientists. Science-trained individuals have fruitful careers across the map, and we benefit from more of that, that's all!
- Zenst 14y ago
  I totaly agree but there again I grew up with computer studies being about learning how computers work and writing code. As apposed to this is how we do mail-merge type of computer studies they have today in schools. I also suspect Wallmart have more scientific degree's working for them than NASA does employee wise, but thats just a sign of our times. Maybe the standards need to be raised more so that a degree means something, though that is another issue, although related. Another related issue would be World-wide standards. You can get a fully trained brain surgeon from say russia who could be the best in the World and have all the top end Russian qualifications. Though in say the UK or USA etc he would not even be allowed to change a IV drip or a bandage and would have to redo all those exams again to the local standard. Education needs to be unified more perhaps world-wide so a degree from china is the same standard as a degree from America or from France or Africa. Then perhaps the true quality and abilities are allowed to shine thru. Again a seperate issue though something that is relavent. I also think that TV has over the past decade or so done wonders in removing that sterotypical image of lab-coated scientists, though maybe they have dumbed that image down a little too much when your cleaner calls herself a dirt abstraction scientist!

res 14y ago

I've always found the whole "Get a STEM degree if you want ample employment" argument to be a bit specious. It implies that all degrees that fall under this rather large umbrella are of equal worth, but the reality is that prospects are better for those under the "TE" portion of this umbrella. Even within that smaller subsection, those working on, say, Aerospace Engineering degrees are likely envious of the prospects of Computer Science guys, and the Computer Science guys are looking at their upper-division coursework wondering if they shouldn't just bail out and test the waters of whatever startup hotspot is on their minds. It's better than worrying about what you could possibly do with your Theater degree, but it's still stressful for the people under this giant umbrella of promise. At the end of the day, I guess everyone feels like the grass is greener somewhere.

jedbrown 14y ago
I have yet to meet someone with decent software development skills and a degree in a scientific/engineering field that had any trouble finding good work. I have seen a lot of unfilled postdoc and higher positions due to inability to find competent people.
- thaumasiotes 14y ago
  At the risk of whining... I'm now three years out of college, still trying to get a tech job (during the middle year, I was otherwise employed and not trying). My degree is a double major in CS / math; I obviously can't provide an objective evaluation of "decent software development skills", but I worked at CreateSpace for six months during college with no complaints in that regard, and I got that position by winning the contests they'd hold at my school. It's getting to the point where I wonder if I should go back to college so I can be eligible for internships... Certainly, I'll take a portion of blame here for being totally incompetent at seeking and landing jobs. But I'm so, so sick of the memes that "tech hiring is super hot right now / it's a seller's market in tech labor / look how easy it is to get work". Is it, in your opinion, possible to have decent software development skills without years of experience under your belt? Do you meet many such people?
  - 14y ago

Morcane 14y ago

Science is interesting, exciting, fun, but also a big Ponzi scheme where loads of good, honest people are abused year upon year to do dogshit work for scraps from a table. I got out and never looked back.

jboggan 14y ago

Sometimes I look at other people's resumes and I see their finished PhD, their publications, their prestigious postdoc positions - and I feel a pang of jealousy. I feel like I have little to show for my unfulfilled years of toil in a doctoral program. Then I wonder why they are working outside of academia, and I begin to ponder the possibility that they may be jealous of me for understanding the system and leaving when I did. I don't know. I'm going to keep on coding in any case.

genwin 14y ago

> “She’s very good at everything, very smart,” Haas said of her daughter. “She loves chemistry, loves math. I tell her, ‘Don’t go into science.’ I’ve made that very clear to her.” I've made this clear to my kids also. The cynical side of me says that the push for more scientists is mostly about lowering wages for companies lobbying the gov't for that.

b_emery 14y ago
So what are you suggesting they go into? Math, physics, science train the mind, and I would argue, open opportunities like no other disciplines do. If you can do these, you can do anything, CS and programming included. The push for more scientists, misdirected or not, is a realization that the future of our country (speaking about the US here) will be built on science and technology.
- genwin 14y ago
  A science career is what I'm referring to. Science and math learning, and a technology career, are fine.

kanzure 14y ago

I am really curious about how the biotech industry might be restructured to actually pay scientists. I know people in both academic and corporate lab jobs making minimum wage or nearly minimum wage. These are really smart, hard working people. And the best we can do is employ them as cheapo alternatives to purchasing lab robotics? On the other hand: this is really cheap, low cost, excellent labor. Are you paying >$xx,000/mo on drugs? Just hire some scientist to make the drugs for you, you'll give someone a job and probably save a bunch of money in the process. (This is particularly relevant for individuals with rare blood diseases; their medicines cost many 10's of thousands of dollars a month in some cases.) If I can get a postdoc for $39,000/year, what can I get for $100,000/year? How much is a novelty Soviet scientist? And what about a mad scientist (preferably one with a couple postdocs completed)? edit: also, why is there no postdoc labor union?

kanzure 14y ago
looks like there's a "National Postdoctoral Associaton": http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/ http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/ ok then, why aren't all lab researchers unionized? I don't even know if a labor union is the right fix to these problems.

teyc 14y ago

There really needs to be a YC-style company for scientists. Costs have come down - e.g. DNA sequencers are a lot more affordable today. What is needed is mentorship and some kind of exit that leads to employment.

teeja 14y ago

Funny story? Back in the mid-1960s the Feds said there'd be a shortage of scientists. Then in the early 1970s the Apollo program ended, and 40K+ people with years of hard experience were dumped on the market. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.