Driving students into science is a fool's errand(nature.com)
nature.com
Driving students into science is a fool's errand
http://www.nature.com/news/driving-students-into-science-is-a-fool-s-errand-1.12981
13 comments
"He thinks that raising the salaries of engineers will send a market signal to grade-schoolers that they ought to be more interested in STEM education".
At the graduate level, this is backed by a RAND study.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html
The authors of the study do address the possibility that poor preparation is the cause - but they conclude that poor pay and job prospects relative to other options available to highly educated Americans is the main driver of low interest in science and engineering.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-07-08-scien...
"Other approaches such as making K-12 science and math courses more interesting and pushing for more qualified math and science teachers "may have merit in their own right," researchers said, "but we think they pale in importance to the earnings and attractiveness of S&E careers as major determinants of the supply of U.S.-born students to S&E."
So the real question is - if the objective research suggests that there is no shortage of scientists and that the American allergy to these fields is rational and market driven, why launch a PR campaign to get young Americans to enter it?
There are reasons - many people believe that scientists and engineers create more wealth than other comparably or better paid professions. So society as a whole has a stronger interest in having more engineers than we'd normally get through the normal, individual response to market signals (I'm assuming an individual doesn't really care if his income contributes or detracts to the general wealth as long as it is obtained legally - some people clearly do care as a personal matter). In this case, it might make sense to try to lure some young people in. Rather than hoping to trick them, though, it might be better to actually make it worth their while - perhaps by covering tuition so that all engineers graduate debt-free. Another possibility could be giving a tax break to people in these fields.
The Onion said it best... "Study finds 99% of commuters favor public transportation for others." Seems everyone other than scientists is keen on getting other people to study science. Barak Obama, a lawyer, certainly seems to think science is a fantastic career for others.
At the graduate level, this is backed by a RAND study.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html
The authors of the study do address the possibility that poor preparation is the cause - but they conclude that poor pay and job prospects relative to other options available to highly educated Americans is the main driver of low interest in science and engineering.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-07-08-scien...
"Other approaches such as making K-12 science and math courses more interesting and pushing for more qualified math and science teachers "may have merit in their own right," researchers said, "but we think they pale in importance to the earnings and attractiveness of S&E careers as major determinants of the supply of U.S.-born students to S&E."
So the real question is - if the objective research suggests that there is no shortage of scientists and that the American allergy to these fields is rational and market driven, why launch a PR campaign to get young Americans to enter it?
There are reasons - many people believe that scientists and engineers create more wealth than other comparably or better paid professions. So society as a whole has a stronger interest in having more engineers than we'd normally get through the normal, individual response to market signals (I'm assuming an individual doesn't really care if his income contributes or detracts to the general wealth as long as it is obtained legally - some people clearly do care as a personal matter). In this case, it might make sense to try to lure some young people in. Rather than hoping to trick them, though, it might be better to actually make it worth their while - perhaps by covering tuition so that all engineers graduate debt-free. Another possibility could be giving a tax break to people in these fields.
The Onion said it best... "Study finds 99% of commuters favor public transportation for others." Seems everyone other than scientists is keen on getting other people to study science. Barak Obama, a lawyer, certainly seems to think science is a fantastic career for others.
I agree with the author that pushing kids into STEM for STEM's sake is stupid. In particular, there is no shortage of scientists, which is why they work insane hours and make fast food wages well into their 30's. We already have enough people wasting their 20's on a PhD who will never get a tenure track faculty job as a full-time researcher. The current job:gradstudent ratio is untenable.
Want to make science attractive and more effective? Cut grad student enrollments in half and triple grad student pay so that it is comparable to what other STEM grads make in the workforce; in this case, choosing science would not be a major financial mistake, even for the masses who never get a faculty job. Professors would have fewer students, enabling better mentorship and improved job outlook for each graduate. Increase pay for professors so that they make money comparable to other highly educated professionals. Endow faculty chairs at major universities and set a mandatory faculty retirement age so that deadwood profs aren't hogging positions needed by rising stars. Mandate open publishing.
These changes could be implemented easily if legislatures and funding agencies wanted them, but nobody seems to want that. If the government wants people in science, they should spend money making it a better career, not spend money to slap a coat of marking gloss on a relatively bleak situation.
Want to make science attractive and more effective? Cut grad student enrollments in half and triple grad student pay so that it is comparable to what other STEM grads make in the workforce; in this case, choosing science would not be a major financial mistake, even for the masses who never get a faculty job. Professors would have fewer students, enabling better mentorship and improved job outlook for each graduate. Increase pay for professors so that they make money comparable to other highly educated professionals. Endow faculty chairs at major universities and set a mandatory faculty retirement age so that deadwood profs aren't hogging positions needed by rising stars. Mandate open publishing.
These changes could be implemented easily if legislatures and funding agencies wanted them, but nobody seems to want that. If the government wants people in science, they should spend money making it a better career, not spend money to slap a coat of marking gloss on a relatively bleak situation.
What an unutterably bizarre article. "By cajoling more children to enter science and engineering [...] the state increases STEM student numbers, floods the market with STEM graduates, reduces competition for their services and cuts their wages." It almost makes one wonder whether the author knows what STEM stands for - he seems to see it as just a type of labour, in the sense that an oversupply of plumbers, STEM graduates or scaffolders will depress the wages of that group.
Perhaps I'm just irretrievably biased, but STEM seems, as well as being an enormously vast field it seems lazy to lump together, to be the engine of human advancement and economic growth.
If student A, an engineering student, is put in competition with student B, who could have been a good lawyer but chose a Maths degree, and student C, who had to choose between music and physics but chose physics at university, then A's wages might end up slightly lower but we are all likely to end up better off.
But it's not just that I am a science-biased technocrat - I don't especially want to drive our future judges and music professors into engineering careers. I think it more likely that technical education is just under-taken-up at all levels compared to what would most benefit society, and people who could perfectly well cope with technical careers end up taking jobs in the service sector that provide little training.
To take a shortage of technically-trained people, paint that as a benefit for the wages of the currently qualified, and argue to maintain the status quo on that basis is just short-sighted nonsense.
Perhaps I'm just irretrievably biased, but STEM seems, as well as being an enormously vast field it seems lazy to lump together, to be the engine of human advancement and economic growth.
If student A, an engineering student, is put in competition with student B, who could have been a good lawyer but chose a Maths degree, and student C, who had to choose between music and physics but chose physics at university, then A's wages might end up slightly lower but we are all likely to end up better off.
But it's not just that I am a science-biased technocrat - I don't especially want to drive our future judges and music professors into engineering careers. I think it more likely that technical education is just under-taken-up at all levels compared to what would most benefit society, and people who could perfectly well cope with technical careers end up taking jobs in the service sector that provide little training.
To take a shortage of technically-trained people, paint that as a benefit for the wages of the currently qualified, and argue to maintain the status quo on that basis is just short-sighted nonsense.
Teaching a student chemistry depresses the wages of all chemists, distorts the market, and damages all science. It is just pandering to big business interests.
Sarcasm aside, just because it's good for business doesn't mean that it's bad for you.
Sarcasm aside, just because it's good for business doesn't mean that it's bad for you.
This article reads like a general argument against government subsidies in general - replace "STEM education" with "corn" or "new energy" and the argument is still valid.
Given that it was published on nature.com, best known as the publisher of one of the top science journals in the world, I would bet that the intended purpose is to stimulate discussion, not to explicitly endorse this view as written.
Given that it was published on nature.com, best known as the publisher of one of the top science journals in the world, I would bet that the intended purpose is to stimulate discussion, not to explicitly endorse this view as written.
A couple of counterpoints:
* Science, at least when I went through high school was Not Cool. It was for "nerds", something that you didn't really want to be labeled. I don't know if it's still that way in the US, but counteracting that effect might not be a bad idea.
* He talks about flooding the market. I just don't see that as likely to happen, and I don't necessarily see STEM stuff as a "lump of labor" with a fixed amount of work to go around, either. These are people creating and discovering new things!
* Science, at least when I went through high school was Not Cool. It was for "nerds", something that you didn't really want to be labeled. I don't know if it's still that way in the US, but counteracting that effect might not be a bad idea.
* He talks about flooding the market. I just don't see that as likely to happen, and I don't necessarily see STEM stuff as a "lump of labor" with a fixed amount of work to go around, either. These are people creating and discovering new things!
flooding the market has already happened, as evidenced by poor morale among postdocs (in the biosciences, EG). Or heck, even the existence of the career phase known as the "postdoc". Basically, it didn't exist 40 years ago, when I started grad school 10 years ago the expectation was one postdoc, 2 years. Now it's 2 or 3 postdocs at 4 years a pop.
Other signs of market flooding are high rates of fraud, and deception, although there are no good metrics for that, really.
Other signs of market flooding are high rates of fraud, and deception, although there are no good metrics for that, really.
Also, my experience was this:
Grad school: 24k -> 26k over 6 years, at a highly-ranked institution. (MIT, my only other offer, offered me a measly 18k, I declined for obvious reasons).
1st postdoc: 30k for 1 year. I left, because my project was completed. This turned out to be a good choice, because my boss quit six months later (and threw the other postdoc under the bus - he was lazy).
Lab tech job: 35k. This was a job that was supposed to go to an entry level post-baccalaureate. I got it within 14 days of moving to San Diego, took it, because I knew the job market was rough. It's worth noting that I took a job that was a demotion, in terms of credentials, but got a pay raise.
2nd postdoc: An "internal promotion" from the previous, 40k.
Grad school: 24k -> 26k over 6 years, at a highly-ranked institution. (MIT, my only other offer, offered me a measly 18k, I declined for obvious reasons).
1st postdoc: 30k for 1 year. I left, because my project was completed. This turned out to be a good choice, because my boss quit six months later (and threw the other postdoc under the bus - he was lazy).
Lab tech job: 35k. This was a job that was supposed to go to an entry level post-baccalaureate. I got it within 14 days of moving to San Diego, took it, because I knew the job market was rough. It's worth noting that I took a job that was a demotion, in terms of credentials, but got a pay raise.
2nd postdoc: An "internal promotion" from the previous, 40k.
I guess it's also worth mentioning, I'm ~30 years old and still making 40k, despite having slaved away as a PhD (talking 80 hour weeks) from a top-ranked school. My peers who went on different career trajectories are making far more than I. OTOH, I have plenty of friends (whom I know through social activities, so did not make it into tech) that are unemployed, which in most cases, is worse.
I don't quite see what's obvious about declining MIT for 6k unless there's a significant decrease in prestige of the PIs you worked with.
MIT in general is worth more than the 6k more you're getting from Scripps.
Lab techs are offered higher pay because the prospects for promotion are limited at best, they compensate for that with slightly higher pay. As a post-doc you aren't expected to keep that job forever, whereas lab techs do so for decades.
You seem really disgruntled about the current system. Academia isn't easy, considering the limited funding available, it is in national interest to only have the best doing research and your CV isn't exactly super competitive.
Edit: The vast majority of younger faculty I've worked with (i.e. Assistant Professors with < 5 years of experience at the University of Toronto only did post docs for 4-6 years in total. Not the 8-12 you seem to imply, and this is in biological and medical sciences.
MIT in general is worth more than the 6k more you're getting from Scripps.
Lab techs are offered higher pay because the prospects for promotion are limited at best, they compensate for that with slightly higher pay. As a post-doc you aren't expected to keep that job forever, whereas lab techs do so for decades.
You seem really disgruntled about the current system. Academia isn't easy, considering the limited funding available, it is in national interest to only have the best doing research and your CV isn't exactly super competitive.
Edit: The vast majority of younger faculty I've worked with (i.e. Assistant Professors with < 5 years of experience at the University of Toronto only did post docs for 4-6 years in total. Not the 8-12 you seem to imply, and this is in biological and medical sciences.
I think you're wrong. As much as I despise rankings, Scripps was ranked number 1 among chemistry departments my year (my degree is in chemistry). I didn't have to do any TAing. Among my classmates and the class after me (whom I hung out with the most, classes of 20 students tend to do that and at scripps we're really close), there is: A professor at Scripps, A professor at Berkeley, A professor at Stanford, A professor at UCSD. I am in contact with them and will possibly launch a collaboration with the one in Stanford. Finally, at 24k I barely broke even on my expenses. I'm sure I could have survived on 18k, but I'd have more grey hairs.
And "The vast majority of younger faculty I've worked with". Sounds like selection bias. Talk to the postdocs and see how long they've been around.
And "The vast majority of younger faculty I've worked with". Sounds like selection bias. Talk to the postdocs and see how long they've been around.
Ouch, yeah, that's pretty bad. What exactly do you have a doctorate in? Aren't there prospects in industry, rather than academia?
I applied for a job in industry (with http://www.crunchbase.com/company/draths-corporation). Cold emailed the CEO (in 1/08). Got an interview with the CEO, in 7/08, was told to "call back in a month and I'll see if I can allocate money for you" - he'd been demoted to CSO by the VC. It was a really fun trip, he was great to me, but I could tell he was an a-hole, and he said, you know, you should really consider being an executive of your own. I thought he was crazy, but now that's exactly what I'm trying to do (but of a nonprofit, which might be even crazier). Again, this was in 7/08, and I'd been watching the Chris Martenson "crash course" videos and following the Ron Paul presidential campaign and knew that the market was about to crash. By 8/08, the market had begun its topspin downward, and I never got a response. Ultimately, draths went out of business, so it was probably for the better.
More recently, I applied for a job in industry with these guys (http://www.genomatica.com/) and actually got a job offer that I had to decline because they wanted me to start immediately, and I (perhaps stupidly) felt I had an obligation to finish my project where I work now. OTOH, I seem to have enough freedom to try to do my own thing.
So, yes there are prospects in industry. One caveat is that although my publication record is not terribly impressive by the conventional "impact factor metric" (I personally like that I've made innovations in three wildly different aspects of biology - difficult protein expression, small molecule drug development, and bioorganometallic chemistry), I have an extremely good academic pedigree, that gets my foot in the door to interviews and lets me at least try to justify my existence based on the merit that I value and the skillset that I've developed. Inasmuch as I hate that the title is being devalued, I feel sorry for PhDs that have their degrees rubber-stamped, because it's gotta be really tough for them.
More recently, I applied for a job in industry with these guys (http://www.genomatica.com/) and actually got a job offer that I had to decline because they wanted me to start immediately, and I (perhaps stupidly) felt I had an obligation to finish my project where I work now. OTOH, I seem to have enough freedom to try to do my own thing.
So, yes there are prospects in industry. One caveat is that although my publication record is not terribly impressive by the conventional "impact factor metric" (I personally like that I've made innovations in three wildly different aspects of biology - difficult protein expression, small molecule drug development, and bioorganometallic chemistry), I have an extremely good academic pedigree, that gets my foot in the door to interviews and lets me at least try to justify my existence based on the merit that I value and the skillset that I've developed. Inasmuch as I hate that the title is being devalued, I feel sorry for PhDs that have their degrees rubber-stamped, because it's gotta be really tough for them.
slightly tangential topic, but I had to respond to this because I do hear this from my fellow US citizens:
>>> "* Science, at least when I went through high school was Not Cool. It was for "nerds", something that you didn't really want to be labeled. I don't know if it's still that way in the US, but counteracting that effect might not be a bad idea."
I've got to be honest... what High Schools did you guys go to?? I had friends on the football team who were into science. I had friends who didn't care about sports and were into writing. I had friends who had letter jackets, I had friends who rode motorcycles.
I was into computers and nobody cared. I first cut my teeth with CSS helping out with the website for our school newspaper. I first learned to program by messing around and making silly ASCII racing games on my graphing calculator in BASIC. Everyone who cared just kind of thought it was neat, or didn't care and we talked about other things.
All this labeling of "nerd" and "jocks"... I really don't get it. There were many circles of friends to join. Or you could be a loner and that's fine too. Looking back, I'm not even sure what label I would have been given (never considered myself a nerd, I was too poor of a student :p)
Did I miss something, or does everyone else just get caught up in labeling waaayyy too much?
That's just not the reality I experienced, and I never saw the ecosystem through that prism. shrugs
>>> "* Science, at least when I went through high school was Not Cool. It was for "nerds", something that you didn't really want to be labeled. I don't know if it's still that way in the US, but counteracting that effect might not be a bad idea."
I've got to be honest... what High Schools did you guys go to?? I had friends on the football team who were into science. I had friends who didn't care about sports and were into writing. I had friends who had letter jackets, I had friends who rode motorcycles.
I was into computers and nobody cared. I first cut my teeth with CSS helping out with the website for our school newspaper. I first learned to program by messing around and making silly ASCII racing games on my graphing calculator in BASIC. Everyone who cared just kind of thought it was neat, or didn't care and we talked about other things.
All this labeling of "nerd" and "jocks"... I really don't get it. There were many circles of friends to join. Or you could be a loner and that's fine too. Looking back, I'm not even sure what label I would have been given (never considered myself a nerd, I was too poor of a student :p)
Did I miss something, or does everyone else just get caught up in labeling waaayyy too much?
That's just not the reality I experienced, and I never saw the ecosystem through that prism. shrugs
There is a large difference depending on part of country (deep south, northeast, west coast), town, and part of town.
In some rural communities football and ROTC is glorified and science is for the nerds. In other parts of the country it is different.
> Or you could be a loner and that's fine too.
Or you got picked on, beaten and made fun of and adults (who have also mostly bought into the "sports are God" mentality) didn't really care to do much about it.
Now I am talking like I had extensive experience with this, but in reality I went to one American High School for one year only, otherwise I went to one in Eastern Europe.
I would say overall the East European one was poor, didn't have any extra curricular activities _but_ science, math and English (foreign language) was top notch. Just to compare, math material I studies in 9th grade back home was taught to seniors in 12th grade in US. It was nice tutoring them math. And I also got a taste of the sharp boundaries of cliques and social groups in US High Schools. These are the "band" people, they hang out together, these people smoke pot, they hang out together, these are the nerds they talk about Start Trek and hang out together and I had to pick one. I picked the nerds, and it was strange how many things revolved around "whom do you hang out with". I definitely saw that as a negative side.
In some rural communities football and ROTC is glorified and science is for the nerds. In other parts of the country it is different.
> Or you could be a loner and that's fine too.
Or you got picked on, beaten and made fun of and adults (who have also mostly bought into the "sports are God" mentality) didn't really care to do much about it.
Now I am talking like I had extensive experience with this, but in reality I went to one American High School for one year only, otherwise I went to one in Eastern Europe.
I would say overall the East European one was poor, didn't have any extra curricular activities _but_ science, math and English (foreign language) was top notch. Just to compare, math material I studies in 9th grade back home was taught to seniors in 12th grade in US. It was nice tutoring them math. And I also got a taste of the sharp boundaries of cliques and social groups in US High Schools. These are the "band" people, they hang out together, these people smoke pot, they hang out together, these are the nerds they talk about Start Trek and hang out together and I had to pick one. I picked the nerds, and it was strange how many things revolved around "whom do you hang out with". I definitely saw that as a negative side.
I guess my experience at such a small rural community was an outlier. Football was huge, our team was great, but we also had a good band program and quite a few of the band members were also football players--they'd march the half-time show in their football uniforms.
People didn't get beaten, the rare fights stemmed from personal conflicts rather than "NERRRRRRDS!". Nobody was really subjected to harassment that I ever saw.
Our school was something like 75% Hispanic and 25% white. The white kids were maybe 50% Mormon, which may have had some effect on behavior.
You know who cared more about cliques than anyone else? The try-hard "rebels" who obsessed over "jocks" and "preps". I socialized with everyone, and I think that was closer to the norm. I ate lunch at the band room with the band kids (many of whom were in cross country with me), I shot the shit in class with the stoner kids (who were also band kids and athletes), I went to game night with the Mormon kids (who were in band and sports).
I think this whole "nerd" obsession with "nerds" vs. "jocks", the image of getting stuffed in lockers or beat up, I think it's seated in a past that's been gone for a while.
I'm sorry you thought you had to pick one group.
People didn't get beaten, the rare fights stemmed from personal conflicts rather than "NERRRRRRDS!". Nobody was really subjected to harassment that I ever saw.
Our school was something like 75% Hispanic and 25% white. The white kids were maybe 50% Mormon, which may have had some effect on behavior.
You know who cared more about cliques than anyone else? The try-hard "rebels" who obsessed over "jocks" and "preps". I socialized with everyone, and I think that was closer to the norm. I ate lunch at the band room with the band kids (many of whom were in cross country with me), I shot the shit in class with the stoner kids (who were also band kids and athletes), I went to game night with the Mormon kids (who were in band and sports).
I think this whole "nerd" obsession with "nerds" vs. "jocks", the image of getting stuffed in lockers or beat up, I think it's seated in a past that's been gone for a while.
I'm sorry you thought you had to pick one group.
> That's just not the reality I experienced, and I never saw the ecosystem through that prism. shrugs
I agree. Did you go to a small high school?
I suspect most of this labeling happens in large high schools. When a grade has more than 150 or so students[1], it becomes impossible for them to all interact with each other. They get divided up into different classrooms, take different classes, each lunch at staggered times, and form small, non-overlapping cliques. At least, that's the impression I've gotten from talking to people about it.
My high school was small and homogeneous: everyone knew each other, took many of the same classes, had the same teachers, etc. So the world described in pg's Nerds essay[2] is pretty foreign to me.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbars_number
[2] http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
I agree. Did you go to a small high school?
I suspect most of this labeling happens in large high schools. When a grade has more than 150 or so students[1], it becomes impossible for them to all interact with each other. They get divided up into different classrooms, take different classes, each lunch at staggered times, and form small, non-overlapping cliques. At least, that's the impression I've gotten from talking to people about it.
My high school was small and homogeneous: everyone knew each other, took many of the same classes, had the same teachers, etc. So the world described in pg's Nerds essay[2] is pretty foreign to me.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbars_number
[2] http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
Interestingly, it was a very large HS. My graduating class was 800 strong.
Maybe things have changed some. Mostly, the people I hung out with at high school did not have issues with science and math, but there were definitely people there who did.
I suspect most people remember me as being really into bicycle racing more than school, so I don't suppose I was seen as the nerdiest of the nerdy, and had friends, girlfriends, and so on. Also, being in a college town probably meant more of a focus on education.
CSS? Definitely a different time! This came out the year I graduated from high school: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/draft-ietf-iiir-html-01.txt
I suspect most people remember me as being really into bicycle racing more than school, so I don't suppose I was seen as the nerdiest of the nerdy, and had friends, girlfriends, and so on. Also, being in a college town probably meant more of a focus on education.
CSS? Definitely a different time! This came out the year I graduated from high school: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/draft-ietf-iiir-html-01.txt
I always suspected the generation above me (graybeard professors) had to deal with that culture, and that's the reason why scientists are such phenomenally bad leaders - they didn't really interact with other people during their formative years. By the time I went to grad school, almost all of my male peers were actually "jock" types (and really nice guys to be honest), and really smart, too, but that could be field-specific, 20 out of my 24 classmates were into synthetic chemistry.
I think people who are into science and tech are getting more varied. We laugh about the idea of the football-obsessed "jock", but for some reason locking yourself in a room to play Final Fantasy all weekend was seen as admirably geeky. Most of the guys I studied engineering with had participated in sports, many were quite good. A lot were into cars.
When you stop trying to live up to that pathetic Jargon File description of a geek, late nights with techno blasting and Chinese takeout, you can get out and realize that there's a bigger world out there. You join the football team and discover that the quarterback really loves watching Star Trek, rather than dismissing him as a "dumb jock" because he has a number on his shirt.
When you stop trying to live up to that pathetic Jargon File description of a geek, late nights with techno blasting and Chinese takeout, you can get out and realize that there's a bigger world out there. You join the football team and discover that the quarterback really loves watching Star Trek, rather than dismissing him as a "dumb jock" because he has a number on his shirt.
In what I see as the best case scenario (reasonably approximated by my school experience), cool kids can do nerdy things, but they are without doubt "cool despite those hobbies/interests". The cool football player can be on the rocket club and nobody will question him about that, but neither will it be scoring him any "cool points".
Maybe that is how it should be, but I am inclined to think that STEM-type clubs should be glorified and looked up to.
Maybe that is how it should be, but I am inclined to think that STEM-type clubs should be glorified and looked up to.
I think it's definitely possible to flood the market, it's just difficult to make that generalization because STEM can mean a wide variety of things. There's so many STEM fields that it's kind of silly to lump it as one. Just as an example, according to the BLS, chemical engineer jobs are projected to grow 6%, slower than average compared to all occupations. In contrast, software developer jobs are projected to grow 30% over the next decade. Not all STEM fields have equal opportunities so it's certainly possible that some areas get (or already are) oversaturated and not others.
I have to call bullshit on this. It's just rubbish from my experience.
In the UK, the government is at the point of giving away science degrees just so that there are enough science teachers for primary and secondary school students, and as a computer science student, I have managed to get a paid internship every year of my degree, and last year turned down 4 internship offers, because there were so many companies looking for people with a computer science education.
Our STEM graduate rates are falling, and our need for STEM graduates is increasing.
On top of this, we don't just need people getting jobs in STEM subjects, we need a population who have a broad knowledge of, and respect for, scientific understanding. If children aren't taught science to an adequate level then the country, and the world, suffers for it.
In the UK, the government is at the point of giving away science degrees just so that there are enough science teachers for primary and secondary school students, and as a computer science student, I have managed to get a paid internship every year of my degree, and last year turned down 4 internship offers, because there were so many companies looking for people with a computer science education.
Our STEM graduate rates are falling, and our need for STEM graduates is increasing.
On top of this, we don't just need people getting jobs in STEM subjects, we need a population who have a broad knowledge of, and respect for, scientific understanding. If children aren't taught science to an adequate level then the country, and the world, suffers for it.
The argument that the person is missing here is whether or not there are a significant number of unfilled STEM jobs (either presently or expected in 15 - 20 years). If there are a lot of unfilled STEM jobs, then you should push people into STEM careers to fill those jobs.
The reason you don't push students into being lawyers is because there are more law students graduating than there are open jobs for them.
Any market, STEM or not, where there is a lack of unqualified workers and more job opportunities than graduates should have programs that encourage students to consider pursuing those careers.
The reason you don't push students into being lawyers is because there are more law students graduating than there are open jobs for them.
Any market, STEM or not, where there is a lack of unqualified workers and more job opportunities than graduates should have programs that encourage students to consider pursuing those careers.
> The reason you don't push students into being lawyers is because there are more law students graduating than there are open jobs for them.
It's pretty funny that the article mentioned this as evidence that students respond accurately to supply and demand when deciding what to major in. Law is seen as a lucrative, high-demand field because it was -- decades ago. The reality has changed dramatically since then, but public perception has not. And that's why we continue to have more law students graduating than there are jobs for them, despite the blatant irrationality of this.
It's pretty funny that the article mentioned this as evidence that students respond accurately to supply and demand when deciding what to major in. Law is seen as a lucrative, high-demand field because it was -- decades ago. The reality has changed dramatically since then, but public perception has not. And that's why we continue to have more law students graduating than there are jobs for them, despite the blatant irrationality of this.
Actually, the article assumes that students don't always accurately respond to supply and demand. More specifically, it assumes that by marketing a degree effectively you can cause too many students to apply, causing an excessive supply of graduates and pushing down prices. This is exactly what happened with law; law schools markets themselves agressively based on the supposed earnings lawyers can achieve.
Right, so here's the problem in a nutshell: You can produce as many STEM graduates as you want, but those STEM jobs are going to continue to be unfilled because the job offers don't come with a a market-clearing salary.
STEM graduates (both undergrad and grad) wake up the day after graduation and start looking for a job. What do they find? Well, if they are smart (and, they probably are, because they just graduated with a STEM degree) and have one or two other skills outside the STEM degree, they find that there are people who are willing to pay them an incredible amount of money to do "not-science" and a middling amount of money to do "is-science." There are actually plenty of US-born STEM graduates created each year who leave their field to do something more lucrative.
Take a look as these statistics from the American Physical Society: http://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/index.cfm
Almost a third of people graduating with a Bachelor's in Physics work in some field that is unrelated to science, technology, math or engineering! In other words, by just paying market-clearing salaries, we could increase the number of physics graduates entering the workforce each year by a whopping 50%! That could happen tomorrow, not twenty years from now when today's kindergarteners finally get through the pipeline.
Pushing more students into a STEM track won't reduce the number of unfilled STEM positions: It will reduce the average salary of the STEM graduates who leave for other fields. With enough pushing, you might, maybe, one day push the salary low enough that graduates remain in STEM. Or, you could just increase the salary of those unfilled STEM positions.
STEM graduates (both undergrad and grad) wake up the day after graduation and start looking for a job. What do they find? Well, if they are smart (and, they probably are, because they just graduated with a STEM degree) and have one or two other skills outside the STEM degree, they find that there are people who are willing to pay them an incredible amount of money to do "not-science" and a middling amount of money to do "is-science." There are actually plenty of US-born STEM graduates created each year who leave their field to do something more lucrative.
Take a look as these statistics from the American Physical Society: http://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/index.cfm
Almost a third of people graduating with a Bachelor's in Physics work in some field that is unrelated to science, technology, math or engineering! In other words, by just paying market-clearing salaries, we could increase the number of physics graduates entering the workforce each year by a whopping 50%! That could happen tomorrow, not twenty years from now when today's kindergarteners finally get through the pipeline.
Pushing more students into a STEM track won't reduce the number of unfilled STEM positions: It will reduce the average salary of the STEM graduates who leave for other fields. With enough pushing, you might, maybe, one day push the salary low enough that graduates remain in STEM. Or, you could just increase the salary of those unfilled STEM positions.
> If there are a lot of unfilled STEM jobs, then you should push people into STEM careers to fill those jobs.
There aren't. That's the point.
There aren't. That's the point.
If there were lots of STEM jobs (that pay reasonable wages), then wouldn't people move into them without government subsidies?
How many students, when deciding on their major, actually look up information on job availability and typical salaries? And then take this into account in their decision? Judging by the number of people majoring in completely un-marketable fields, I doubt the percentage is very high.
How many students, when deciding on their major, actually look up information on job availability and typical salaries?
Not many, but most have a decent sense of how dropout graphs relate to ultimate income, and have a sense that engineers make a lot and comm majors less.
The other issue is one I've written about before, but universities have basically begun to practice market segmentation but with academic ability: people who want a really rigorous university experience can find one in hard science, engineering, philosophy, and some humanities departments, and people who just want a degree can find one in comm, sociology, many business schools, and a few other places.
Not many, but most have a decent sense of how dropout graphs relate to ultimate income, and have a sense that engineers make a lot and comm majors less.
The other issue is one I've written about before, but universities have basically begun to practice market segmentation but with academic ability: people who want a really rigorous university experience can find one in hard science, engineering, philosophy, and some humanities departments, and people who just want a degree can find one in comm, sociology, many business schools, and a few other places.
Seriously? Who goes to college without checking out job prospects before picking a major? I went to a liberal arts college that prided itself on not focusing on marketable, in-demand or especially practical skills, and I'm pretty sure everyone had a decent grasp of what the job market in their field looked like. (I'm not saying that it was the primary motivation for picking a major, but they at least knew the situation.)
Considering the number of "undeclareds", a lot.
To a very large amount of people, college is "just that place you go after highschool but before becoming an adult". I like to think that most of those people wise up or drop out pretty quick, but it seems pretty undeniable that a lot of people at least start the process without the appropriate amount of consideration.
If you want to do a quick ad-hoc study of a population with massive selection bias, just find the daily "I was told a college degree would get me a job. I was lied to." post on reddit, inquire if they researched the job market before picking their major, and watch the "I picked my major for person satisfaction! give me a job!" replies and downvotes roll in.
...actually don't do this. It is very frustrating.
To a very large amount of people, college is "just that place you go after highschool but before becoming an adult". I like to think that most of those people wise up or drop out pretty quick, but it seems pretty undeniable that a lot of people at least start the process without the appropriate amount of consideration.
If you want to do a quick ad-hoc study of a population with massive selection bias, just find the daily "I was told a college degree would get me a job. I was lied to." post on reddit, inquire if they researched the job market before picking their major, and watch the "I picked my major for person satisfaction! give me a job!" replies and downvotes roll in.
...actually don't do this. It is very frustrating.
I think something to note in your comment is that you chose to go to a school who didn't focus on marketable jobs... This seems to hint either at a) you didn't check job prospects before choosing a college or, b) your school was failing at what they prided themselves on by providing an education that got you a marketable career.
I think fewer students check actual job prospects less frequently than you might expect. Rather, they go with their gut or influence by people close to them (teachers, family members, etc...) who are probably just going from the gut anyway.
I think fewer students check actual job prospects less frequently than you might expect. Rather, they go with their gut or influence by people close to them (teachers, family members, etc...) who are probably just going from the gut anyway.
Sorry if that part wasn't clear, but people chose to go to this college for self-improvement or "life of the mind" or somesuch, and worrying about job skills was not a priority. My point is that even these idealists knew what they were getting into. Personally, I learned a lot before college and outside of class, and started work as a full-time software engineer two days after graduation.
When the graduating seniors start panicking because they can't find work, the underclassmen see the writing on the wall. Complaints about unemployment on reddit make the communication channel even stronger.
One issue is that, a lot of things can change during the 3-4 years of a typical university education.
Back then, I made the choice of not pursuing computer science because I entered university soon after the dot-com bust. I came from a third-world country, and the general theme then was that there wasn't much of a future in software engineering, that unemployment rates amongst programmers were horrendous. Which was true, back in 2005.
Wound up getting a different engineering degree. Things didn't turn out too bad, but in hindsight, I really wished I did go for that CS degree.
Back then, I made the choice of not pursuing computer science because I entered university soon after the dot-com bust. I came from a third-world country, and the general theme then was that there wasn't much of a future in software engineering, that unemployment rates amongst programmers were horrendous. Which was true, back in 2005.
Wound up getting a different engineering degree. Things didn't turn out too bad, but in hindsight, I really wished I did go for that CS degree.
Back when I was at university I met lots of people working towards CS or engineering degrees either solely or primarily because that's where the jobs where. They had no real passion or interest in the field beyond that. Some of them had even made a conscious choice to not study what they where really passionate about because the they knew the job market was bad in those fields.
Also most people I know who majored in so called un-marketable fields did so knowing full well what the job market looked like and did take that into account. They just came to the conclusion that studying what they wanted to study, rather than what was economically expedient, was more important to them. A few of them have even, through hard work and dedication, beaten the odds and managed to end up in a well paid dream job in their chosen field.
Also most people I know who majored in so called un-marketable fields did so knowing full well what the job market looked like and did take that into account. They just came to the conclusion that studying what they wanted to study, rather than what was economically expedient, was more important to them. A few of them have even, through hard work and dedication, beaten the odds and managed to end up in a well paid dream job in their chosen field.
You're assuming perfect information and low inertia, neither of which is true, unfortunately. It takes a loooong time to train someone up to the point where they can do many of the jobs, and by that point, they're very specialized, which makes it hard for them to hop to another opening.
Well, frankly, STEM has a reputation of being hard because, well, it IS difficult. It requires certain kinds of critical thinking that the K-12 education system can fail to adequately teach.
I know plenty of people who started college in engineering or computer science knowing there's good paying job opportunities in those fields. But a big chunk of those people drop out once they start taking the more difficult courses.
Retention is just as important as getting people into STEM in the first place but it's hard to retain students who aren't adequately prepared for the challenge.
I know plenty of people who started college in engineering or computer science knowing there's good paying job opportunities in those fields. But a big chunk of those people drop out once they start taking the more difficult courses.
Retention is just as important as getting people into STEM in the first place but it's hard to retain students who aren't adequately prepared for the challenge.
There are two potential labor market realities and we still don't know, as a society, which one is right:
1. Labor finitism: there's a fairly fixed amount of labor that society will pay money for, and us proles are doomed to compete against each other for it, in what ultimately becomes a race to the bottom.
2. Labor progressivism: technical and scientific progress will free up resources for more interesting and higher-yield work, and make everyone richer. To quote Keynes, the rising tide will lift all boats.
In a labor-finitist world, the worker's job is to extract as much payment out of capital-holders (for as little work) as possible. The labor-finitist world is almost Malthusian in its ruthless cruelty. In a labor-progressivist world, it's actually good to do the grunt work quickly, so you can graduate to more interesting stuff.
Of course, reality is somewhere between these two extremes. In the very short term, it's labor finitist: people have to formally "create" jobs. In the long term, it's labor progressivist; the labor pool does expand, with its rate being an open question. The open question pertains to the 0.1-20 years range over which we actually make career decisions. It's like Efficient Market Hypothesis, whose truth comes down to "what time frame?" (Over very-short or very-long timeframes, EMH is demonstrably not true for well-known reasons. Over typical timeframes, it is.)
If labor finitism is true, then we want to drive young people far away from whatever we do. Given that the software industry is already a horrible place to work, just being honest about the low autonomy and shitty legacy code and arrogance of non-technical management-- also, the fact that, even though our salaries might look good on paper, we make about 1/5 of what we should given the bullshit we have to put up with-- ought to be enough. We just need to counteract the Googley propaganda about this career involving actual autonomy and respect.
If labor progressivism is true, then since science and technology are the driving forces of that progress, we want as many people in those industries as have the talent, because that will bring us out of scarcity faster.
It's unclear which is the case, though. Labor progressivism is true in the underlying "real world", but this society is littered with legacy power relationships that, I'm afraid, make labor finitism a lot more accurate. Just look at the terrorist attack that has been inflicted on the academic job market for the past 25 years if you don't believe that.
1. Labor finitism: there's a fairly fixed amount of labor that society will pay money for, and us proles are doomed to compete against each other for it, in what ultimately becomes a race to the bottom.
2. Labor progressivism: technical and scientific progress will free up resources for more interesting and higher-yield work, and make everyone richer. To quote Keynes, the rising tide will lift all boats.
In a labor-finitist world, the worker's job is to extract as much payment out of capital-holders (for as little work) as possible. The labor-finitist world is almost Malthusian in its ruthless cruelty. In a labor-progressivist world, it's actually good to do the grunt work quickly, so you can graduate to more interesting stuff.
Of course, reality is somewhere between these two extremes. In the very short term, it's labor finitist: people have to formally "create" jobs. In the long term, it's labor progressivist; the labor pool does expand, with its rate being an open question. The open question pertains to the 0.1-20 years range over which we actually make career decisions. It's like Efficient Market Hypothesis, whose truth comes down to "what time frame?" (Over very-short or very-long timeframes, EMH is demonstrably not true for well-known reasons. Over typical timeframes, it is.)
If labor finitism is true, then we want to drive young people far away from whatever we do. Given that the software industry is already a horrible place to work, just being honest about the low autonomy and shitty legacy code and arrogance of non-technical management-- also, the fact that, even though our salaries might look good on paper, we make about 1/5 of what we should given the bullshit we have to put up with-- ought to be enough. We just need to counteract the Googley propaganda about this career involving actual autonomy and respect.
If labor progressivism is true, then since science and technology are the driving forces of that progress, we want as many people in those industries as have the talent, because that will bring us out of scarcity faster.
It's unclear which is the case, though. Labor progressivism is true in the underlying "real world", but this society is littered with legacy power relationships that, I'm afraid, make labor finitism a lot more accurate. Just look at the terrorist attack that has been inflicted on the academic job market for the past 25 years if you don't believe that.
"Given that the software industry is already a horrible place to work"
You say things like this a lot. I'm willing to accept that I may be naive, but do you think that those of us who have had primarily positive experiences (and I know a few, not only me) just incredibly lucky?
I've been a programmer for 13 years and have worked at failing startups, moderately successful startups and big companies. I've mostly coded but have also managed small groups. There's some amount of bullshit in every job, I think, but I haven't found it to be disproportionate compared to my friends in other industries.
You say things like this a lot. I'm willing to accept that I may be naive, but do you think that those of us who have had primarily positive experiences (and I know a few, not only me) just incredibly lucky?
I've been a programmer for 13 years and have worked at failing startups, moderately successful startups and big companies. I've mostly coded but have also managed small groups. There's some amount of bullshit in every job, I think, but I haven't found it to be disproportionate compared to my friends in other industries.
I don't know what you've experienced. Maybe you've been unusually lucky. Perhaps I've been unlucky. But everything I've seen convinces me that shitty experiences are the norm in this industry.
I enjoy programming and solving hard problems, but I hate this industry with a passion. I'm sick of the terrible legacy code, the bad decisions made by people dumber than a crocodile's fecal product, and the lack of respect and autonomy for the people doing the actual fucking work.
Even Google turned itself into a closed-allocation shitpile at some point. What a fucking disaster.
We've failed to make ourselves a real profession, and it seems like the norm is for us to suffer dearly for it. Most programmers live in an environment where they have minimal autonomy and don't even choose which projects they work on. It's fucking disgusting and if we had any collective self-respect, we'd demolish the assholes who built these horrible work environments.
Personally, I won't be happy until the people who instituted calibration scores and closed allocation at Google commit seppuku. They destroyed billions of dollars worth of economic value, they ruined the lives of hundreds to thousands of highly talented people, and it's the only decent thing for them to do after that.
I enjoy programming and solving hard problems, but I hate this industry with a passion. I'm sick of the terrible legacy code, the bad decisions made by people dumber than a crocodile's fecal product, and the lack of respect and autonomy for the people doing the actual fucking work.
Even Google turned itself into a closed-allocation shitpile at some point. What a fucking disaster.
We've failed to make ourselves a real profession, and it seems like the norm is for us to suffer dearly for it. Most programmers live in an environment where they have minimal autonomy and don't even choose which projects they work on. It's fucking disgusting and if we had any collective self-respect, we'd demolish the assholes who built these horrible work environments.
Personally, I won't be happy until the people who instituted calibration scores and closed allocation at Google commit seppuku. They destroyed billions of dollars worth of economic value, they ruined the lives of hundreds to thousands of highly talented people, and it's the only decent thing for them to do after that.
In an effort to find out what closed allocation meant I fired up your favourite search engine, Google, and searched the term. I was amused to see an article on your blog come up as the top hit.
I have no problem with the search engine Google. I still use it-- and Gmail, too.
At least 90% of the people at Google are really solid. Good people, great engineers. I have a dislike for the management, not the people or the products.
At least 90% of the people at Google are really solid. Good people, great engineers. I have a dislike for the management, not the people or the products.
Interesting, thought provoking posts, but you seem to have used two different tags that pop up in search:
http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/tag/project-allocation/ (the Discomfort is Bad piece)
http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/tag/closed-allocation/ (the earlier Only Real Option piece)
There's also the more systematic Quora/Forbes piece: http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/11/26/what-is-open-al...
http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/tag/project-allocation/ (the Discomfort is Bad piece)
http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/tag/closed-allocation/ (the earlier Only Real Option piece)
There's also the more systematic Quora/Forbes piece: http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/11/26/what-is-open-al...
> You say things like this a lot. I'm willing to accept that I may be naive, but do you think that those of us who have had primarily positive experiences (and I know a few, not only me) just incredibly lucky?
Do you live in a major tech hub? Because here a lot of the jobs suck and we take the only gigs in town and most of us are the victims of the "two body problem" with more successful spouses anchoring us to undesirable areas.
Do you live in a major tech hub? Because here a lot of the jobs suck and we take the only gigs in town and most of us are the victims of the "two body problem" with more successful spouses anchoring us to undesirable areas.
Here's to hoping that we as a society have the good sense to decide to reduce the barriers to entry for freelancing and entrepreneurship, so that anyone with skills can simply create their own job and trade their labor freely--without having to worry about "benefits" because the government actually provides those like it's supposed to.
One of the large issues with the US educational system is it's largely driven by the choices made by teenagers. Sure, some people go back and study high school level math later in life but few high school dropouts end up getting a Math PHD. From an economic perspective an oversupply of chemists is simply more useful than an oversupply of historians. Thus, it seems reasonable to try and convince 15 year olds that STEM is worth the time investment over playing video games. So, they may end up working at Walmart anyway, but skills you don't use are a minor problem compared to skills you need and don't have.
A third option is that they're un-distorting the market, counteracting other distorting forces.
Unless you know what is actually distorting the market in the first place, counteracting a distortion with another distortion seems like a risky approach to problem solving. As the author points out, a good deal of money already goes into this. It seems if something is distorting the market, we aren't very good at targeting it, given the lack of results.
Would it be better to take the money that's being put into hyping STEM and reinvesting it into us K-12 education? Rather than having all of these extra programs to convince kids to move to STEM careers, make the current grade school programs more rigorous so that when they get their diploma hopefully they will have been through a lot in their schooling to be better prepared to take the rapidly changing new jobs opening up in today's society.
I think you are right that it probably isn't a campaign hyping the STEM jobs but I doubt the answer is making those classes "more rigorous" (though it probably does need some work in that area).
My bet is that it is not treated appropriately by the teachers. My grade school teachers made science boring, monotonous and repetitive. It wasn't interesting at all. The crazy thing is that it is really cool... So much of it has a ton in common with a fun action movie: explosions and sex.
Frame it in terms that make sense and is interesting to students rather than just reading chapter 5 and the interest in STEM fields will naturally increase.
My bet is that it is not treated appropriately by the teachers. My grade school teachers made science boring, monotonous and repetitive. It wasn't interesting at all. The crazy thing is that it is really cool... So much of it has a ton in common with a fun action movie: explosions and sex.
Frame it in terms that make sense and is interesting to students rather than just reading chapter 5 and the interest in STEM fields will naturally increase.
How about going into STEM to understand how the world works a little better?
Would you rather have a society full of too many engineers or that of too many lawyers?
Would you rather have a society full of too many engineers or that of too many lawyers?
If the super highly paid job is there, they will come.
If it isn't, then no amount of driving is going to help.
If it isn't, then no amount of driving is going to help.
At the outset, he identifies three broad categories of funding: (1) luring young people into STEM careers; (2) promoting science and technology at graduate schools; and (3) raising standards of science education. But the rest of his argument lumps these all together as if all the spending is for category #1, "luring".
For example, he points out that "no such government-backed programmes exist to pull children into being lawyers or accountants." And his broad argument, as expressed in the subheading, is that the funding biases the system to producing more scientists and technologists than it needs: "If programmes to bolster STEM education are effective, they distort the labour market..."
Only by ignoring the distinction between category #1, "luring", and category #3, "raising standards", can he complain that businesses who want better-educated scientists, if they really meant it, would just pony up and "pay and train newly graduated scientists and engineers properly." Either he thinks that the technical skills businesses want can be achieved by a quick training session after a broad general education, or else he thinks that raising the salaries of engineers will send a market signal to grade-schoolers that they ought to be more interested in STEM education. The problem of poor preparation never seems to enter his head. If all the accounting firms in the country were complaining that few recent college grads can add a column of numbers, and the government responded by trying to improve arithmetic education, would Macilwain complain about the money spent "luring children into accounting"?
In short, he might have an argument. But until he grounds it in specifics, he's just hand-waving with the broad idea that trying to improve STEM education distorts the market. This is obvious tripe, because the same broad argument could be applied to education in general: "If programs to bolster education are effective, they distort the market for educated workers. If they aren't, they're a waste of money. Besides, if businesses really wanted educated workers, they would pay and train new hires properly."