The Broken U.S. Jobs Factory: Too Many Athletes, Too Few Scientists?(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
The Broken U.S. Jobs Factory: Too Many Athletes, Too Few Scientists?
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/03/the-broken-us-jobs-factory-too-many-athletes-too-few-scientists/73280/
12 comments
Yes, the big fallacy about teacher compensation is to take compensation as consisting only of nominal salary, and not also of employer-funded (that is, taxpayer-funded) benefits and working conditions. Schoolteachers are well compensated in relation to barriers to entry to the occupation and in terms of performance standards imposed on the occupation. (I am a teacher in private practice. I have to convince my clients to pay out of pocket for my services after their children have already attended tax-subsidized classes at other hours of the day.)
I'm sorry, but $37,000 per year is not a great starting salary, especially for a job that plays a fundamental role in shaping and improving our society.
My wife is finishing up graduate school to start teaching in poor, urban schools. Chicago starting salaries are higher, I think around $55,000. I've seen the challenge she faces at her job and I can tell you -- this is not enough money.
My wife is finishing up graduate school to start teaching in poor, urban schools. Chicago starting salaries are higher, I think around $55,000. I've seen the challenge she faces at her job and I can tell you -- this is not enough money.
Your claim that your wife isn't paid enough is demonstrably false. Sorry if this sounds like a smart-aleck reply, but I mean it in a dispassionate sense.
I've seen the challenge she faces at her job and I can tell you -- this is not enough money.
This is a conversation about economics, incentives, and what people actually choose to do. It is not about feelings, platitudes, and how we believe that the world should work.
Any economist can tell you that if your wife and the school have entered into this arrangement of their own free will, then the amount that she is getting compensated is enough -- by definition.
The fact that she is willing to perform her job for this salary and other benefits shows definitely that she values her compensation more than she values what she could otherwise derive from any other opportunity open to her. If there were something else that increased her personal utility function more, than by definition, she would choose that alternative. The absence of such a choice demonstrates that this is the best available.
I've seen the challenge she faces at her job and I can tell you -- this is not enough money.
This is a conversation about economics, incentives, and what people actually choose to do. It is not about feelings, platitudes, and how we believe that the world should work.
Any economist can tell you that if your wife and the school have entered into this arrangement of their own free will, then the amount that she is getting compensated is enough -- by definition.
The fact that she is willing to perform her job for this salary and other benefits shows definitely that she values her compensation more than she values what she could otherwise derive from any other opportunity open to her. If there were something else that increased her personal utility function more, than by definition, she would choose that alternative. The absence of such a choice demonstrates that this is the best available.
Wow! By that tortured reasoning, everyone in the world is paid enough! Every single possession that anyone ever purchases is good enough! Everybody's partner is good enough! Every choice is good enough!
As long as we're fully omniscient, there are no costs in making changes and we're all perfectly rational, then all of existence is good enough! (if not, then by definition, we would choose the alternative of suicide)
As long as we're fully omniscient, there are no costs in making changes and we're all perfectly rational, then all of existence is good enough! (if not, then by definition, we would choose the alternative of suicide)
As long as we're fully omniscient,
This is not a requirement. In fact, that's the beauty of what the market does for you. All you need to know is your own utility function (and you are likely not even aware of that, it comes automatically), and the price (i.e., salary and other compensation). Friedrich Hayek won a Nobel Prize for demonstrating how pricing in a market distributes information, communicating the priorities and substitutability for everyone.
there are no costs in making changes
Of course there are costs in making changes. How could there not be? Surely you're not suggesting some magical world where everything is always magically altered to the optimum. Any time anyone is confronted with a choice, part of the decision making process is to consider the costs of changing. If that costs exceeds the benefits from the change, then you won't do it. So I don't see what you're trying to say in this phrase.
we're all perfectly rational
The rationality of actors is, admittedly, a matter of some controversy in modern economics. We know, for example, that people are systematically bad at handling values of extremely large or small scale, like the actual risks from terrorism -- we've badly overreacted to something that overall poses vanishingly small risk.
However, in this particular discussion -- a person's benefits from their employment, fully considering their job satisfaction -- then I don't think that anyone is in a position to debate. There is absolutely no way that anyone can second-guess another person's utility function (that is, their values and preferences, and how much a given thing improves their quality of life). We simply cannot know what is happening in another person's mind. Indeed, we frequently don't truthfully know our own motivations. Yet it's still clear that these preferences do exist, and that we take action on them. When talking about something this micro, we have no choice but to rely on a person's observed behavior. (For much better discussion of this, see Mises' Human Action).
good enough!
Well, yeah.
As an alternative to sarcasm, perhaps you could articulate an alternative explanation to my own. The only other that I can see is a Platonic top-down control, with a group of blessed decision-makers deciding what the relative values of everything ought to be. But there, you've still got the problems of omniscience, as well as forcing all participants to adhere to the same set of values, rather than allowing each of us to make our own choices.
This is not a requirement. In fact, that's the beauty of what the market does for you. All you need to know is your own utility function (and you are likely not even aware of that, it comes automatically), and the price (i.e., salary and other compensation). Friedrich Hayek won a Nobel Prize for demonstrating how pricing in a market distributes information, communicating the priorities and substitutability for everyone.
there are no costs in making changes
Of course there are costs in making changes. How could there not be? Surely you're not suggesting some magical world where everything is always magically altered to the optimum. Any time anyone is confronted with a choice, part of the decision making process is to consider the costs of changing. If that costs exceeds the benefits from the change, then you won't do it. So I don't see what you're trying to say in this phrase.
we're all perfectly rational
The rationality of actors is, admittedly, a matter of some controversy in modern economics. We know, for example, that people are systematically bad at handling values of extremely large or small scale, like the actual risks from terrorism -- we've badly overreacted to something that overall poses vanishingly small risk.
However, in this particular discussion -- a person's benefits from their employment, fully considering their job satisfaction -- then I don't think that anyone is in a position to debate. There is absolutely no way that anyone can second-guess another person's utility function (that is, their values and preferences, and how much a given thing improves their quality of life). We simply cannot know what is happening in another person's mind. Indeed, we frequently don't truthfully know our own motivations. Yet it's still clear that these preferences do exist, and that we take action on them. When talking about something this micro, we have no choice but to rely on a person's observed behavior. (For much better discussion of this, see Mises' Human Action).
good enough!
Well, yeah.
As an alternative to sarcasm, perhaps you could articulate an alternative explanation to my own. The only other that I can see is a Platonic top-down control, with a group of blessed decision-makers deciding what the relative values of everything ought to be. But there, you've still got the problems of omniscience, as well as forcing all participants to adhere to the same set of values, rather than allowing each of us to make our own choices.
Okay. The minimal, no sarcasm response is this: Ripping words out of a conversation and trying to formally apply them against your understanding of economics is a bad idea. The word "enough" carries connotations that economics can't fully model. Your argument leads directly to the conclusion that every black share-cropper's job in the 19th century was "good enough" because if it weren't their best option, they'd have done something else.
Here's a more detailed response:
Switching costs matter greatly because it's possible that someone may feel that job B doesn't pay enough to compensate them for the unpleasantness involved, but job B is what they put 6 years of schooling into and they don't have the skills or qualifications for the more desirable job A.
Knowledge of how events will unfold, prescience, would be guarantee that one won't end up in job B after years of mistaken belief of being on track A. Prudence is some protection, but some people will still be unlucky.
Omniscience is the only absolute safeguard against making an unwise purchase. Many, many people buy defective goods every day. In the long term, those who do honest business should have an advantage, but the dishonest aren't all weeded out. In addition, it's possible to pursue an item (or a job) that isn't objectively flawed, but simply has no value to oneself. Without full self-knowledge, this can't be avoided completely. A person might believe a job that they are doing is a good deal when in fact, it is not. Radium jewelry painting was an extreme example.
And the gigantic elephant in the room that you were clearly trying to avoid was social good. Just because someone is willing to provide something for X amount of money doesn't mean that X amount of money is all it's worth to society. A cursory reading of economics would show that education is one such good. The return on an educated populace is so great that it's worth subsidizing. And that's exactly what this discussion is about. In the US, the pay for educators is low for the amount of schooling required, and the educators themselves are usually not drawn from the strongest of their classes. In many other countries, teaching is a highly competitive, highly paid, high prestige position.
FYI I have worked in education, both in the US and in east Asia. The difference is vast.
Here's a more detailed response:
Switching costs matter greatly because it's possible that someone may feel that job B doesn't pay enough to compensate them for the unpleasantness involved, but job B is what they put 6 years of schooling into and they don't have the skills or qualifications for the more desirable job A.
Knowledge of how events will unfold, prescience, would be guarantee that one won't end up in job B after years of mistaken belief of being on track A. Prudence is some protection, but some people will still be unlucky.
Omniscience is the only absolute safeguard against making an unwise purchase. Many, many people buy defective goods every day. In the long term, those who do honest business should have an advantage, but the dishonest aren't all weeded out. In addition, it's possible to pursue an item (or a job) that isn't objectively flawed, but simply has no value to oneself. Without full self-knowledge, this can't be avoided completely. A person might believe a job that they are doing is a good deal when in fact, it is not. Radium jewelry painting was an extreme example.
And the gigantic elephant in the room that you were clearly trying to avoid was social good. Just because someone is willing to provide something for X amount of money doesn't mean that X amount of money is all it's worth to society. A cursory reading of economics would show that education is one such good. The return on an educated populace is so great that it's worth subsidizing. And that's exactly what this discussion is about. In the US, the pay for educators is low for the amount of schooling required, and the educators themselves are usually not drawn from the strongest of their classes. In many other countries, teaching is a highly competitive, highly paid, high prestige position.
FYI I have worked in education, both in the US and in east Asia. The difference is vast.
I have worked in education, both in the US and in east Asia. The difference is vast.
What are the most crucial differences that United States policy-makers should be aware of as they try to improve education in the United States? (For that matter, what should east Asian policy-makers learn from the United States?) I like the books by Liping Ma
http://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Teaching-Elementary-Mathematic...
and
James Stigler and James Hiebert
http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Gap-Improving-Education-Class...
as examples of what the United States could learn from the practices of other countries, but perhaps you have other suggestions for readers here.
What are the most crucial differences that United States policy-makers should be aware of as they try to improve education in the United States? (For that matter, what should east Asian policy-makers learn from the United States?) I like the books by Liping Ma
http://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Teaching-Elementary-Mathematic...
and
James Stigler and James Hiebert
http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Gap-Improving-Education-Class...
as examples of what the United States could learn from the practices of other countries, but perhaps you have other suggestions for readers here.
[deleted]
> The fact that she is willing to perform her job for this salary and other benefits shows definitely that she values her compensation more than she values what she could otherwise derive from any other opportunity open to her. If there were something else that increased her personal utility function more, than by definition, she would choose that alternative. The absence of such a choice demonstrates that this is the best available.
Wouldn't you rather have higher salaries and a higher barrier to entry thereby increasing the quality of education? Does this fit into the theory of incentives and economics? For eg., it is well known that Wall Street hires some of the best brains in the country; wouldn't society as a whole benefit from some fraction of the best brains in the country working to educate future generations as opposed to just those people who are satisfied (or have no other choice) with what the school system pays?
Wouldn't you rather have higher salaries and a higher barrier to entry thereby increasing the quality of education? Does this fit into the theory of incentives and economics? For eg., it is well known that Wall Street hires some of the best brains in the country; wouldn't society as a whole benefit from some fraction of the best brains in the country working to educate future generations as opposed to just those people who are satisfied (or have no other choice) with what the school system pays?
Wouldn't you rather have higher salaries and a higher barrier to entry thereby increasing the quality of education?
Which comes first? And might performance after entry into the occupation also be important for setting rates of compensation?
Which comes first? And might performance after entry into the occupation also be important for setting rates of compensation?
Salaries are set by CPS and go up on a schedule based on years of experience. How is that a market?
Yes, she is willing to work at this salary. But we look at is as a donation to society and to our city. If we have to look at her decision to be a teacher as a donation -- she is not payed enough!
Yes, she is willing to work at this salary. But we look at is as a donation to society and to our city. If we have to look at her decision to be a teacher as a donation -- she is not payed enough!
> Salaries are set by CPS and go up on a schedule based on years of experience. How is that a market?
It's a market because she has a choice.
> But we look at is as a donation to society and to our city.
Fair enough, but that doesn't imply that you're owed more.
If she's unhappy with her "donantion", she's free to not make it.
> If we have to look at her decision to be a teacher as a donation -- she is not payed enough!
News flash - almost everyone thinks that s\he is underpaid.
If you don't like the consequences of your choice, make a different one.
It's a market because she has a choice.
> But we look at is as a donation to society and to our city.
Fair enough, but that doesn't imply that you're owed more.
If she's unhappy with her "donantion", she's free to not make it.
> If we have to look at her decision to be a teacher as a donation -- she is not payed enough!
News flash - almost everyone thinks that s\he is underpaid.
If you don't like the consequences of your choice, make a different one.
Salaries are set by CPS ... How is that a market?
Education as an industry is broken in many other ways that make it fail as a market. But in the scope of our discussion, she has chosen freely to accept the offer; the school has chosen freely to extend that offer to her. That's all that's necessary to prove my point.
Yes, she is willing to work at this salary. But we look at is as a donation to society and to our city.
I intentionally worded my reply so as not to limit my reference to her salary. I said her compensation, or her benefits. This includes the satisfaction that she gets from making "a donation to society and to our city". If that makes her feel good, then it's absolutely part of her compensation, part of the package deal that makes her accept the employment contract.
You can't say that you want a salary that in a vacuum matches the most mundane or unpleasant job, and then reap the additional job satisfaction yourself.
Think of it this way: would you take a job as an astronaut, getting paid nothing but room and board to do it? I, and I expect many other people, probably would. And we'd feel mighty lucky to have had that chance. Considering the satisfaction we got from actually going into space, the entirety of our compensation was enormous.
(Really, I'm not just babbling. This is how economics works. Those people who think that economists are only thinking about money couldn't be any farther from the truth. Economics is the study of why people make decisions, why they choose one alternative above another.)
Education as an industry is broken in many other ways that make it fail as a market. But in the scope of our discussion, she has chosen freely to accept the offer; the school has chosen freely to extend that offer to her. That's all that's necessary to prove my point.
Yes, she is willing to work at this salary. But we look at is as a donation to society and to our city.
I intentionally worded my reply so as not to limit my reference to her salary. I said her compensation, or her benefits. This includes the satisfaction that she gets from making "a donation to society and to our city". If that makes her feel good, then it's absolutely part of her compensation, part of the package deal that makes her accept the employment contract.
You can't say that you want a salary that in a vacuum matches the most mundane or unpleasant job, and then reap the additional job satisfaction yourself.
Think of it this way: would you take a job as an astronaut, getting paid nothing but room and board to do it? I, and I expect many other people, probably would. And we'd feel mighty lucky to have had that chance. Considering the satisfaction we got from actually going into space, the entirety of our compensation was enormous.
(Really, I'm not just babbling. This is how economics works. Those people who think that economists are only thinking about money couldn't be any farther from the truth. Economics is the study of why people make decisions, why they choose one alternative above another.)
First of all I'd question that source, it lists some elementary and high school teachers making $300,000+/year.
Secondly average salary is a lousy comparison point, because in many industries like accounting the starting is fairly low, but the ceiling is quite high. In teaching it's relatively flat, and you need an advanced to degree to advance at all.
A relatively senior accountant makes vastly more than a relatively senior teacher, and oftentimes for only 6 years of US schooling (4 year undergrad + 1-2 year certification). To break into the higher ranks of teacher salaries (or in some areas to get a job at all) you're required to do a 4 year undergrad + a teaching certificate + a masters, so you're talking about $40,000 for 7 seven years of schooling, with a ceiling somewhere around $90,000 even with a PHD.
It might be fair to argue that you should be doing it for the love anyway, but I know people that would want to teach but specifically didn't go into it because they planned to have families and were worried about the income.
Secondly average salary is a lousy comparison point, because in many industries like accounting the starting is fairly low, but the ceiling is quite high. In teaching it's relatively flat, and you need an advanced to degree to advance at all.
A relatively senior accountant makes vastly more than a relatively senior teacher, and oftentimes for only 6 years of US schooling (4 year undergrad + 1-2 year certification). To break into the higher ranks of teacher salaries (or in some areas to get a job at all) you're required to do a 4 year undergrad + a teaching certificate + a masters, so you're talking about $40,000 for 7 seven years of schooling, with a ceiling somewhere around $90,000 even with a PHD.
It might be fair to argue that you should be doing it for the love anyway, but I know people that would want to teach but specifically didn't go into it because they planned to have families and were worried about the income.
$300K isn't inconceivable. The superintendant of my HS's district made a little over $250K, and that was ~7 years ago.
Some individual teachers in Chicago ostensibly made over $400K during their final year since they cashed out 20+ years of sick and/or vacation days.
Some individual teachers in Chicago ostensibly made over $400K during their final year since they cashed out 20+ years of sick and/or vacation days.
The problem is that a teacher's salary is weighted more towards the tail end of their career than most other professions.
In my high school, we had gym teachers who had been there for 30 years earning well over a $100K. And we had an ingenious (new) Math teacher earning $40K.
Over his career, the new Math teacher will probably earn reasonably well (especially when you take into account the extraordinarily generous pension and benefits, 3 months of vacation time a year, etc). But, the first 10 years (which is probably the time of his life that he's getting married, having young kids, trying to buy a house, etc) are going to be pretty tough.
In my high school, we had gym teachers who had been there for 30 years earning well over a $100K. And we had an ingenious (new) Math teacher earning $40K.
Over his career, the new Math teacher will probably earn reasonably well (especially when you take into account the extraordinarily generous pension and benefits, 3 months of vacation time a year, etc). But, the first 10 years (which is probably the time of his life that he's getting married, having young kids, trying to buy a house, etc) are going to be pretty tough.
Might just be me, but those numbers just make me feel bad for accountants too, as opposed to thinking teachers are getting great pay.
Don't feel too bad, this probably considers all accountants... had they stayed in school an extra year for the CPA, they probably make twice that.
The whole prestige issue is a tough one. From what I've seen in Chinese schools it's just completely different from what I remember from American schools. The girls tend to like really smart guys. Testing into a top high school or college means you're a winner and you're going somewhere. In the US, being a somewhat dense football player bound for a blue-collar life will get far more respect than just about any level of academic achievement.
Of course some remarkable people get into the sciences later, like Craig Venter did. It's still a huge loss to lose all those who would have gotten a solid foundation in their teen years if only it were valued in high school, though.
Edit: This is a lot of downmods... and it's a little hard to understand. Any of you care to voice counter-arguments?
Of course some remarkable people get into the sciences later, like Craig Venter did. It's still a huge loss to lose all those who would have gotten a solid foundation in their teen years if only it were valued in high school, though.
Edit: This is a lot of downmods... and it's a little hard to understand. Any of you care to voice counter-arguments?
Watch Rocky II, the one with Rocky fighting the almost-robotic Russian.
That movie explains a lot about the American myth-of-itself. (And it is rubbish, of course. During the cold war the USA was far more high-tech-- far closer to the robot-Russian-- than the Russians were.)
That movie explains a lot about the American myth-of-itself. (And it is rubbish, of course. During the cold war the USA was far more high-tech-- far closer to the robot-Russian-- than the Russians were.)
That's Rocky IV.
Dolph Lundgren who plays the robotic Russian in that film has a MSc in chemical engineering and had a Fullbright Scholarship to MIT. He dropped out of the program to pursue acting.
Dolph Lundgren who plays the robotic Russian in that film has a MSc in chemical engineering and had a Fullbright Scholarship to MIT. He dropped out of the program to pursue acting.
If he were Chinese instead of a westerner and had a full scholarship to Qinghua, he'd be a chemical engineer now!
:)
:)
I think the "Jobs Factory" metaphor is a sign of how messed up the thinking involved is. There isn't a jobs factory, there's a marketplace; and the marketplace right now is very clearly saying that scientists just aren't that valuable, in the grand scheme of things.
If you really think this is something that needs fixing, the most direct and blunt fix would just to be to create a government subsidy for scientists. For example, instead of making them pay income tax, you might give scientists 100% matching pay from the government. That would mean that a company might hire a scientist at $80,000, but for the scientist it would be the equivalent of a normal $220,000 job. Put that lay into effect, and I guarantee you'll see a lot more scientists 20 years down the line.
If you really think this is something that needs fixing, the most direct and blunt fix would just to be to create a government subsidy for scientists. For example, instead of making them pay income tax, you might give scientists 100% matching pay from the government. That would mean that a company might hire a scientist at $80,000, but for the scientist it would be the equivalent of a normal $220,000 job. Put that lay into effect, and I guarantee you'll see a lot more scientists 20 years down the line.
> How would society, or more specifically government, even go about inspiring a cultural change to value scientists? Any ideas?
"Too many athletes, too few scientists" is a broken premise: Elite athletes are valuable only because they are scarce.
Government is doing plenty to make scientists scarce as well, so perhaps we will get our wish granted, in a perverse way.
"Too many athletes, too few scientists" is a broken premise: Elite athletes are valuable only because they are scarce.
Government is doing plenty to make scientists scarce as well, so perhaps we will get our wish granted, in a perverse way.
Elite athletes are valuable only because they are scarce.
That statement is vacuous in regards to the argument he's trying to make. Anyone who is elite at what they do is scarce, regardless of occupation; that's essentially the meaning of being elite. What sets athletes apart is the degree to which society rewards that eliteness.
That statement is vacuous in regards to the argument he's trying to make. Anyone who is elite at what they do is scarce, regardless of occupation; that's essentially the meaning of being elite. What sets athletes apart is the degree to which society rewards that eliteness.
Government is doing plenty to make scientists scarce as well...
Like what?
Like what?
Well, my main concerns are: Cuts in spending on education, politicization of primary school curricula, immigration and travel policies that discourage talented scientists from working here, and general anti-intellectualism in politics.
But maybe I was a bit harsh. The government does fund a lot of research..
But maybe I was a bit harsh. The government does fund a lot of research..
Apart from immigration/travel policies, how does this stuff affect science at all?
Lets take anti-intellectualism in science. It's true that a few high profile intellectuals (e.g. James Watson) have lost their jobs do to this and that there are certain questions you Just Can't Ask (e.g., "would climate change be a good thing?"). But do you really think anyone will avoid a career in science for fear of that happening? I mean, it might scare me away from psychometrics of race/gender as a field, but it wouldn't prevent me from working on quantum mechanics.
As for reducing the cost of k-12 education closer to the OECD average, why would I avoid physics as a result?
Lets take anti-intellectualism in science. It's true that a few high profile intellectuals (e.g. James Watson) have lost their jobs do to this and that there are certain questions you Just Can't Ask (e.g., "would climate change be a good thing?"). But do you really think anyone will avoid a career in science for fear of that happening? I mean, it might scare me away from psychometrics of race/gender as a field, but it wouldn't prevent me from working on quantum mechanics.
As for reducing the cost of k-12 education closer to the OECD average, why would I avoid physics as a result?
Well, limiting the areas that can be researched might have some effect. We've all heard the horror stories about IT research being shut down because, e.g., various security problems "need" to be kept hidden. And direct regulation affects research into medical marijuana, or stem cell treatments. If the government is limiting research, then they're lowering the demands for scientists (or lowering the pay of a fixed pool of scientists).
And if I can broaden your question to engineers as well, there's some reason to think that our patent regime may be stifling innovation, which similarly decreases the demand for engineers.
And if I can broaden your question to engineers as well, there's some reason to think that our patent regime may be stifling innovation, which similarly decreases the demand for engineers.
salaries.
I guess an academic career is not a highly payed one.
I guess an academic career is not a highly payed one.
If the government is determining the salaries of more than a small minority of scientists, then we've got other problems too.
Shouldn't most scientists be getting their pay from universities, or the R&D departments of corporations? I mean, the CDC and NASA don't employ that many people in the grand scheme of things.
Shouldn't most scientists be getting their pay from universities, or the R&D departments of corporations? I mean, the CDC and NASA don't employ that many people in the grand scheme of things.
Shouldn't most scientists be getting their pay from universities, or the R&D departments of corporations? I mean, the CDC and NASA don't employ that many people in the grand scheme of things.
You don't have to be an employee of CDC or NASA to get your pay via government funding. The university signs my paychecks, but the money comes from an NSF research grant to my co-advisor.
You don't have to be an employee of CDC or NASA to get your pay via government funding. The university signs my paychecks, but the money comes from an NSF research grant to my co-advisor.
Salaries are low because supply greatly exceeds demand.
That still doesn't mean that the nation or world is better off, even economically, with the current number of scientists.
The problem with using simplistic economic models when talking about scientific research is that it's extremely hard to quantify its value. Basic research has made tremendous advances in our health, standard of living and general wealth. It's also very difficult to determine how much each person's contribution was worth. I've read that surveys of late 19th industrialists and leaders who voted steam engine improvements as the most critical field for technological advancement for the next 100 years. It's an amusing idea in retrospect, but who would have paid for research that would lead to flight or electric rail?
CDs, lasers, integrated circuits, etc... are great! But what kind of "demand" was there for research into quantum mechanics 80 years ago? Even if the demand were quantified, how much would each scientists contribution be rewarded? Surely, Feynman and other scientists building upon Einstein and Heisenberg's ideas created something of great wealth for us! But for the most part, those scientists won neither fame nor riches.
As long as the focus is on simple short-term supply and demand, this is how it works. The scientist makes a clean pass, but it's the businessman or the engineer who takes the ball the last few paces, scores and gets all the glory. I for one believe that China is doing it right in this regard. The government is taking the lead in subsidising and investing in technological infrastructure as well as basic research to create more opportunities for private entrepreneurs in the long run.
The problem with using simplistic economic models when talking about scientific research is that it's extremely hard to quantify its value. Basic research has made tremendous advances in our health, standard of living and general wealth. It's also very difficult to determine how much each person's contribution was worth. I've read that surveys of late 19th industrialists and leaders who voted steam engine improvements as the most critical field for technological advancement for the next 100 years. It's an amusing idea in retrospect, but who would have paid for research that would lead to flight or electric rail?
CDs, lasers, integrated circuits, etc... are great! But what kind of "demand" was there for research into quantum mechanics 80 years ago? Even if the demand were quantified, how much would each scientists contribution be rewarded? Surely, Feynman and other scientists building upon Einstein and Heisenberg's ideas created something of great wealth for us! But for the most part, those scientists won neither fame nor riches.
As long as the focus is on simple short-term supply and demand, this is how it works. The scientist makes a clean pass, but it's the businessman or the engineer who takes the ball the last few paces, scores and gets all the glory. I for one believe that China is doing it right in this regard. The government is taking the lead in subsidising and investing in technological infrastructure as well as basic research to create more opportunities for private entrepreneurs in the long run.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
It's not just "social status", it's the fact that science sucks as a career.
Physics is a particularly pathological field, but to take my own example, I got a PhD in 1998 when the American Physical Society estimated that about 3% of physics PhDs minted that year would ultimately get a permanent job in that field.
Now, one day I realized I could work for two years doing some obscure math and one or two people in the world might care, or I could spend three weekends developing a Java applet and then get 50,000 hits to my web site and offers of consulting work. Moving to computing was an easy decision, but I still felt a lot of anguish giving up something that I really loved.
The people who stayed in the field, however, all suffered devastation in their personal lives. I saw one postdoc, who is one of the most brilliant physicists of his generation (or just one of the few?) and who had an excellent publication record, in agony for two years because he had no idea how he was going to get his next job. Somebody like that ought to be focusing on their research, not suffering like that.
My thesis advisor and his female partner got professorships in places that were across the U.S. so he basically abandoned his son. Another professor who was very helpful to me wanted to have children very badly but waited until his wife got tenure and had become infertile. Another one commuted across Germany by train every weekend so he could see his family once in a while.
I can think of many physicists who are very pleasant people (particularly those who entered the field in the 1960s and before) but too many successful physicists are miserable emotional basket cases who've been scared for life by the process of getting a PhD, getting a tenure track position, and getting tenure.
Writers like Freud and Bly write about how people get abused, come to identify with the abusers, and then become like the abusers, transmitting their trauma to the next generation. The physics community is a clear example of this.
Now, I know not all academic fields are this bad. The supply of PhDs and jobs for PhDs is usually better in math and computer science, two fields I have a little contact with. The structure of biology research groups where professors sometimes supervise 10-20 students and postdocs suggests that the biology PhD may be, like the physics PhD, a form of exploitation rather than an apprentenceship.
Clearly the U.S. produces more scientists than their are jobs for scientists and anybody who says we need more is an ass. If working conditions became more attractive, however, we might have a science community that attracts emotionally healthy people who will be, in the long run, more productive.
Physics is a particularly pathological field, but to take my own example, I got a PhD in 1998 when the American Physical Society estimated that about 3% of physics PhDs minted that year would ultimately get a permanent job in that field.
Now, one day I realized I could work for two years doing some obscure math and one or two people in the world might care, or I could spend three weekends developing a Java applet and then get 50,000 hits to my web site and offers of consulting work. Moving to computing was an easy decision, but I still felt a lot of anguish giving up something that I really loved.
The people who stayed in the field, however, all suffered devastation in their personal lives. I saw one postdoc, who is one of the most brilliant physicists of his generation (or just one of the few?) and who had an excellent publication record, in agony for two years because he had no idea how he was going to get his next job. Somebody like that ought to be focusing on their research, not suffering like that.
My thesis advisor and his female partner got professorships in places that were across the U.S. so he basically abandoned his son. Another professor who was very helpful to me wanted to have children very badly but waited until his wife got tenure and had become infertile. Another one commuted across Germany by train every weekend so he could see his family once in a while.
I can think of many physicists who are very pleasant people (particularly those who entered the field in the 1960s and before) but too many successful physicists are miserable emotional basket cases who've been scared for life by the process of getting a PhD, getting a tenure track position, and getting tenure.
Writers like Freud and Bly write about how people get abused, come to identify with the abusers, and then become like the abusers, transmitting their trauma to the next generation. The physics community is a clear example of this.
Now, I know not all academic fields are this bad. The supply of PhDs and jobs for PhDs is usually better in math and computer science, two fields I have a little contact with. The structure of biology research groups where professors sometimes supervise 10-20 students and postdocs suggests that the biology PhD may be, like the physics PhD, a form of exploitation rather than an apprentenceship.
Clearly the U.S. produces more scientists than their are jobs for scientists and anybody who says we need more is an ass. If working conditions became more attractive, however, we might have a science community that attracts emotionally healthy people who will be, in the long run, more productive.
Were scientists paid more than professional athletes in the 50s and 60s? I somehow doubt it. There's a lot that's ridiculous about this article (His "30 year slump" completely dismisses information technology for example). But with such a clear fallacy at the very core of his argument it seems unproductive to debate points that support that flawed argument.
I can't check this right now, but I don't think athletes were paid nearly as much in the 50's and 60's.
TV hadn't entered the picture in a big way. Even in the 80s NBA conference championship were tape delayed and played at midnight. The SuperBowl in the 60s was preempted by Heidi.
TV hadn't entered the picture in a big way. Even in the 80s NBA conference championship were tape delayed and played at midnight. The SuperBowl in the 60s was preempted by Heidi.
When you're a kid being an athlete seems like a great job but almost no one I've met tried to go professional. This is a pretty silly premise.
Scientists seem to be in good supply given that they don't seem to make very much money-at least in the circles I run in here in Boston.
Scientists seem to be in good supply given that they don't seem to make very much money-at least in the circles I run in here in Boston.
turn science into a game at the national level. The X prize and other contests capture the attention of the american people as well as generating a ton of private investment. Create prizes in the 100MM or even billion dollar range for milestones in green tech. Create a national contest for scientists for invention with huge multi million $ prizes. That would create news and generate respect and interest in the profession.
I love the idea. Prizes are great in so many ways. They legitimize the task, which helps cut red tape involved with bio-engineering or launching small shuttles, etc... Prizes also cause a lot more development than just the winning design. It's also common for close runner-ups to also have learned and built things of value.
Raising the social status of scientists is one of the most important things the U.S. can do to shake off our 30 year slump...
I think part of the problem is how we've deified the MBA/"executive" as a fundamentally higher class of being.
I am not knocking what such people do. Surely it can be very difficult, demanding, time consuming, etc. But it is not the only job that is such, and it is not the only job that is of such high value.
I would argue that many surgeons, doctors, engineers, etc. create far more value than many businessmen. (In many cases they make more too! It's a myth that "suits" make all the money. The distribution of incomes in business is highly asymptotic. Top executives make ungodly money, but the average "suit" does not.)
What the hell am I talking about?
Case in point:
It used to be called "first class." A few airlines still call it this, but I usually see it called "business class."
First class carries the connotation of prestige. Business class carries the connotation that business is prestige and everyone else sits in the back of the plane.
In working with MBA types, there has been a palpable sense that I am of lower status because I am a doer-- because I am doing the "details" (like making things work) and this is for "little people."
We have elevated athletes, politicians, and alpha front-men (and they are usually male) to the absolute pinnacle of status in our society. Meanwhile we have actually demoted everyone else.
I think part of the problem is how we've deified the MBA/"executive" as a fundamentally higher class of being.
I am not knocking what such people do. Surely it can be very difficult, demanding, time consuming, etc. But it is not the only job that is such, and it is not the only job that is of such high value.
I would argue that many surgeons, doctors, engineers, etc. create far more value than many businessmen. (In many cases they make more too! It's a myth that "suits" make all the money. The distribution of incomes in business is highly asymptotic. Top executives make ungodly money, but the average "suit" does not.)
What the hell am I talking about?
Case in point:
It used to be called "first class." A few airlines still call it this, but I usually see it called "business class."
First class carries the connotation of prestige. Business class carries the connotation that business is prestige and everyone else sits in the back of the plane.
In working with MBA types, there has been a palpable sense that I am of lower status because I am a doer-- because I am doing the "details" (like making things work) and this is for "little people."
We have elevated athletes, politicians, and alpha front-men (and they are usually male) to the absolute pinnacle of status in our society. Meanwhile we have actually demoted everyone else.
First class and business class are different things. You don't always simultaneously have both, but you can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_class_travel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_class
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_class_travel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_class
Well then I'm mistaken about that, but I don't think the cultural trend that I'm talking about is vapor.
I sometimes feel like an idiot for spending my life getting good at doing things, when I should have spent my life getting good at self-promotion and manipulating people.
I sometimes feel like an idiot for spending my life getting good at doing things, when I should have spent my life getting good at self-promotion and manipulating people.
It used to be called "first class." A few airlines still call it this, but I usually see it called "business class."
Most airlines offer three levels of service. First class, business class and coach/tourist class. However not all routs have enough demand for the highest level of service, so they simply don't offer first class seats on all flights. First class, on the flights that have it, is of a significantly higher standard than business class.
Most airlines offer three levels of service. First class, business class and coach/tourist class. However not all routs have enough demand for the highest level of service, so they simply don't offer first class seats on all flights. First class, on the flights that have it, is of a significantly higher standard than business class.
Meanwhile we have actually demoted everyone else.
Yes, some at the peak enjoy things I'll never experience. But how have I been "demoted" -- how am I any worse off than I would have been otherwise?
Yes, some at the peak enjoy things I'll never experience. But how have I been "demoted" -- how am I any worse off than I would have been otherwise?
"Why are we so good at building athletes and not so good at producing, say, writers?"
Perhaps because almost any member of the general public, even someone like me with a low interest in most sports, is aware of who is the best in a sport. I may not play much baseball, but I know in general which teams are at the top of the league tables in the professional leagues, and I can identify a difficult, skillful play when I watch it on television even if I can't perform it. Professional sports have entertainment value for almost everyone.
By contrast, writing (a career I have long aspired to pursue) is completely opaque to the many members of the general public who never, ever read a book after they complete their secondary schooling. It's harder to tell who is the best writer (there are published best-seller lists, but those include books by celebrities who are writing through unnamed ghostwriters) and it's harder for someone uninterested in writing to appreciate a well crafted story or even a well turned written phrase. The biggest rewards at the top of the distribution of developed ability go to performers whose performances are appealing to and appreciated by nearly all consumers.
The article has a too-brief discussion about its main point (rather than the illustrative question quoted above), how to encourage young people to pursue careers in science. This is of deep interest to me, as my third son is deeply interested in biology and wants to know all about science in general. Young people develop an interest in baseball, football, and soccer (my son's sport) partly by early pleasant experiences in playing backyard games with siblings or neighbors and perhaps by participating in organized youth sports programs. Many fewer young people have pick-up opportunities to engage in science and especially few have opportunities as early and as often to engage in thoughtfully organized science programs. (My son travels fifty minutes each way once a week to go across our metropolitan area for a joint science class for homeschoolers arranged by a friend of mine. He finds that experience highly motivational. We drive past tens of thousands of children his age languishing in public schools at the same hour as we travel to those weekly classes.) More needs to be done for the young to get them good instruction at young ages in science and math.
http://www.ams.org/notices/200502/fea-kenschaft.pdf
And, yes, helpful comments like President Obama's comment on science fair winners in the State of the Union address need to be made more often by national leaders, and more press coverage of top scientists would be very welcome. But it would be enough simply to instruct young people well in mathematics and science and nurture their curiosity about those subjects through extracurricular activities as they grow up. That's mostly what works for the countries that do better than the United States in bringing up new generations of scientists.
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2009highlights_4.asp
After edit: I have opened a separate Ask HN thread
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2396184
to ask HNers for specific suggestions to encourage interest in science among young people. Thanks for any suggestions you have.
Perhaps because almost any member of the general public, even someone like me with a low interest in most sports, is aware of who is the best in a sport. I may not play much baseball, but I know in general which teams are at the top of the league tables in the professional leagues, and I can identify a difficult, skillful play when I watch it on television even if I can't perform it. Professional sports have entertainment value for almost everyone.
By contrast, writing (a career I have long aspired to pursue) is completely opaque to the many members of the general public who never, ever read a book after they complete their secondary schooling. It's harder to tell who is the best writer (there are published best-seller lists, but those include books by celebrities who are writing through unnamed ghostwriters) and it's harder for someone uninterested in writing to appreciate a well crafted story or even a well turned written phrase. The biggest rewards at the top of the distribution of developed ability go to performers whose performances are appealing to and appreciated by nearly all consumers.
The article has a too-brief discussion about its main point (rather than the illustrative question quoted above), how to encourage young people to pursue careers in science. This is of deep interest to me, as my third son is deeply interested in biology and wants to know all about science in general. Young people develop an interest in baseball, football, and soccer (my son's sport) partly by early pleasant experiences in playing backyard games with siblings or neighbors and perhaps by participating in organized youth sports programs. Many fewer young people have pick-up opportunities to engage in science and especially few have opportunities as early and as often to engage in thoughtfully organized science programs. (My son travels fifty minutes each way once a week to go across our metropolitan area for a joint science class for homeschoolers arranged by a friend of mine. He finds that experience highly motivational. We drive past tens of thousands of children his age languishing in public schools at the same hour as we travel to those weekly classes.) More needs to be done for the young to get them good instruction at young ages in science and math.
http://www.ams.org/notices/200502/fea-kenschaft.pdf
And, yes, helpful comments like President Obama's comment on science fair winners in the State of the Union address need to be made more often by national leaders, and more press coverage of top scientists would be very welcome. But it would be enough simply to instruct young people well in mathematics and science and nurture their curiosity about those subjects through extracurricular activities as they grow up. That's mostly what works for the countries that do better than the United States in bringing up new generations of scientists.
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2009highlights_4.asp
After edit: I have opened a separate Ask HN thread
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2396184
to ask HNers for specific suggestions to encourage interest in science among young people. Thanks for any suggestions you have.
Not just scientists, but everybody who uses their minds at their job.
And the solution? Simple, in High School Nerds needs to go at the absolute top of the hierarchy. That will encourage more people to end up there.
And the solution? Simple, in High School Nerds needs to go at the absolute top of the hierarchy. That will encourage more people to end up there.
Wouldn't it be much better to make science and math less 'nerdy' and wash away the stigma that only nerds can be good at it.
This is false. I just checked average salaries (see http://www.salarylist.com/all-accountant-real-jobs-salary.ht... and http://www.salarylist.com/all-teacher-real-jobs-salary.htm ). The difference is less than 10%.
The average accountant job listed is $40,461.
The average teacher job listed is $37,200. (in my area of NJ, even a entry-level teacher makes more than that)
There really seems to be a whole mythology about low teacher pay, but this just isn't true. It's not true on a nominal scale, and it's even less true when you factor in the days off and other benefits.