4 ms·

It is simple: science does not pay off. I have a friend, respected marine researcher. He is 50-something and he finally got permanent job, only problem is tha

by qwerta 12y ago

It is simple: science does not pay off. I have a friend, respected marine researcher. He is 50-something and he finally got permanent job, only problem is that he has to move across Europe and learn new language. He was very upset, when I told him I already quit 6 permanent jobs before I was 30.

mjn 12y ago
Yes, I think one culprit is misperceptions that the term "STEM" encourages (science, technology, engineering, mathematics). It's become a widespread marketing term, especially towards young people choosing education and careers. People are told that there's big demand in "STEM careers" so they should get a "STEM degree". But there isn't really a shortage of people in this cluster of fields across the board, mostly just of programmers and some kinds of engineers. For the most part, not of natural scientists, or of most kinds of mathematicians. I think it's retained because it is a good marketing term, and lets technology (where the jobs are) benefit from an association with "hard" areas like pure math and astrophysics (where much of the prestige is). But that's a bit of sleight of hand: we get kids excited about "STEM" with documentaries about marine biology and astronomy, but then oops, that's not where the jobs labeled STEM actually are.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  There are two reasons policymakers promote STEM, beyond the shortage of programmers and engineers. 1) STEM graduates learn how to think critically and mathematically, two skills that will serve them well in almost any business pursuit. For example Jack Welch, the famous CEO of GE, held a Ph.D. in chemical engineering. I don't know of evidence that STEM degrees hold people back, even working outside the sciences. 2) We don't know, in advance, who the next Einstein is going to be. Giving as many children as possible the chance to make great discoveries is just good odds. The chances are that most STEM graduates will not even be a full professor, let alone the next Einstein. But that is largely true of any degree we can imagine. Most English majors will not be a successful novelist or critic. Most business graduates will not run a company. Most history graduates will not become a full professor. Etc. There is a shortage of leadership positions in any field, and a full professor with research funding is a leadership position. I think the most important question is whether the absolute best STEM graduates achieve these positions; that's best for society overall. If the postdoc crisis keeps the most promising new researchers from pursuing new knowledge, that's bad. But it's not a volume problem. For the volume of STEM grads, the question is whether they can achieve at least a middle-class career and lifestyle. That might be in the sciences, but it might not. That doesn't mean that STEM education is pointless.
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    >2) We don't know, in advance, who the next Einstein is going to be. Giving as many children as possible the chance to make great discoveries is just good odds. Problem is, an opportunity to make discoveries is not a degree, it's a stable job as a researcher after the degree.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- lmm 12y ago
  The jobs may not be doing those things, but those skills are appreciated. The best programmers I've worked with were the ex-pure-mathematicians.
robotresearcher 12y ago
Some kinds of science. It's currently very hard to find an excellent robotics, vision, machine learning, data mining or NLP postdoc, despite large growth in the number of PhDs graduating. They get jobs at Google (etc) instead. If you choose marine biology, maybe not so much.
- MadManE 12y ago
  I was under the impression that a marine biology degree got you a job making Age of Empires. ;)
hackuser 12y ago
> It is simple: science does not pay off. I'd take it a step further: The problem is that our economy does not allocate resources well, either to people who need the resources (e.g., people who can't get health care or obtain decent education for their kids), or to people who will provide good return on investment to the rest of society. The 'free' market, the invisible god that so many worship as an arbiter of value, doesn't do a good job. (It's also not free in many senses.)
- dnautics 12y ago
  "or to people who will provide good return on investment to the rest of society" It's a tricky one. While I am certain that science moves society forward (though the rate is decreasing), I am not convinced the median scientist contributes in the positive direction.

by qwerta 12y ago

mjn 12y ago

Yes, I think one culprit is misperceptions that the term "STEM" encourages (science, technology, engineering, mathematics). It's become a widespread marketing term, especially towards young people choosing education and careers. People are told that there's big demand in "STEM careers" so they should get a "STEM degree". But there isn't really a shortage of people in this cluster of fields across the board, mostly just of programmers and some kinds of engineers. For the most part, not of natural scientists, or of most kinds of mathematicians. I think it's retained because it is a good marketing term, and lets technology (where the jobs are) benefit from an association with "hard" areas like pure math and astrophysics (where much of the prestige is). But that's a bit of sleight of hand: we get kids excited about "STEM" with documentaries about marine biology and astronomy, but then oops, that's not where the jobs labeled STEM actually are.

snowwrestler 12y ago
There are two reasons policymakers promote STEM, beyond the shortage of programmers and engineers. 1) STEM graduates learn how to think critically and mathematically, two skills that will serve them well in almost any business pursuit. For example Jack Welch, the famous CEO of GE, held a Ph.D. in chemical engineering. I don't know of evidence that STEM degrees hold people back, even working outside the sciences. 2) We don't know, in advance, who the next Einstein is going to be. Giving as many children as possible the chance to make great discoveries is just good odds. The chances are that most STEM graduates will not even be a full professor, let alone the next Einstein. But that is largely true of any degree we can imagine. Most English majors will not be a successful novelist or critic. Most business graduates will not run a company. Most history graduates will not become a full professor. Etc. There is a shortage of leadership positions in any field, and a full professor with research funding is a leadership position. I think the most important question is whether the absolute best STEM graduates achieve these positions; that's best for society overall. If the postdoc crisis keeps the most promising new researchers from pursuing new knowledge, that's bad. But it's not a volume problem. For the volume of STEM grads, the question is whether they can achieve at least a middle-class career and lifestyle. That might be in the sciences, but it might not. That doesn't mean that STEM education is pointless.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  >2) We don't know, in advance, who the next Einstein is going to be. Giving as many children as possible the chance to make great discoveries is just good odds. Problem is, an opportunity to make discoveries is not a degree, it's a stable job as a researcher after the degree.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
lmm 12y ago
The jobs may not be doing those things, but those skills are appreciated. The best programmers I've worked with were the ex-pure-mathematicians.

robotresearcher 12y ago

Some kinds of science. It's currently very hard to find an excellent robotics, vision, machine learning, data mining or NLP postdoc, despite large growth in the number of PhDs graduating. They get jobs at Google (etc) instead. If you choose marine biology, maybe not so much.

MadManE 12y ago
I was under the impression that a marine biology degree got you a job making Age of Empires. ;)

hackuser 12y ago

> It is simple: science does not pay off. I'd take it a step further: The problem is that our economy does not allocate resources well, either to people who need the resources (e.g., people who can't get health care or obtain decent education for their kids), or to people who will provide good return on investment to the rest of society. The 'free' market, the invisible god that so many worship as an arbiter of value, doesn't do a good job. (It's also not free in many senses.)

dnautics 12y ago
"or to people who will provide good return on investment to the rest of society" It's a tricky one. While I am certain that science moves society forward (though the rate is decreasing), I am not convinced the median scientist contributes in the positive direction.