This article reminds me of the "sample bias" Phil Greenspun wrote about in his career guide for women in science http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-s

This article reminds me of the "sample bias" Phil Greenspun wrote about in his career guide for women in science http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science When our policy makers think about PhD's in the sciences, they form their opinion by talking to the dean of MIT and/or nobel prize winners. They don't see how underpaid and disappointing many of these careers really are, or that "Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States." It's not just greenspun, of course. CNN listed "Research Scientist" as one of the "Big Jobs with Low Pay." A RAND institute study recently concluded that the low interest of US students in math/science research was the result of uncompetitive pay and work conditions. I do think that the US should make an effort to retain top talent in these fields, but I have trouble taking an editorial seriously if it completely fails to acknowledge how uncompetitive research science careers have become with law, medicine, mba, and other paths available to very smart people. Loosening out immigration laws for these folks and allowing the percentage of foreign nationals in our PhD programs to rise even higher (and it's already very high) will allow the US to fill some science positions without addressing this discrepancy for a while longer... but not forever. Someday, maybe I'll get to read an editorial by an MIT dean that acknowledges how unattractive PhDs in science have become for Americans, and what to do about it that doesn't amount to "more visas for foreigners."