The American approach of temporarily funded labs staffed largely with student and postdoc labor offers several important advantages. It enlists the finest talent at the nation’s great universities in projects that meet national priorities set by the funding agencies or by Congress. It permits flexibility in selecting studies and researchers and the opportunity for rapid changes in direction because the grants are for specific purposes and last only a limited number of years. It elicits the best ideas and best work from highly motivated scientists because it chooses the grantees through a competitive system of merit rankings done by peer committees composed of academic experts in each field who serve as part-time judges. It frees the government from owning the labs and managing their staffs. And it allows federal dollars to do double duty—produce research results and provide education and support for the graduate students and postdoctoral associates who work on the projects in labs run by professors who pay them out of the grants.
This system produces superb science, but it has several serious drawbacks from the standpoint of recruiting and retaining scientists. First, it makes the funding of any particular lab inherently unstable and dependent on winning repeated grants and renewals, which places individual careers at the mercy of annual competitions. In times of very tight federal budgets, such as the present, this means that many labs, and even many well-established scientific careers, do not survive. Second, it produces not only educational opportunities and research results, but also a constant stream of newly fledged young researchers who need opportunities to start their own careers. “The way that U.S. staffs its labs puts so much pressure on the system to absorb the continual new cohort. And we haven’t had much luck in absorbing it,” says Georgia State’s Stephan.
That’s largely because a scientist can’t compete for a federal grant—the sine qua non of professional recognition as an established investigator—without the backing of a university or other non-profit institution, and universities generally back only researchers who hold faculty positions, and sometimes only those on the tenure track. Scientists write the grant proposals and do the research, but the grant, which often also provides at least part of the professor’s salary, is technically awarded to the university, which administers it and provides the facilities needed to do the research in return for overhead payments. The limiting factor on young scientists’ abilities to start academic research careers is thus the number of available faculty positions, which over recent decades has fallen farther and farther behind the number of scientists the system is producing.
Despite a longstanding dismal job market in academic science, however, departments continue to recruit graduate students and postdocs because they need skilled and inexpensive labor to do the work promised in professors’ grant proposals. Doctoral-level researchers must receive the “trainee” wages paid to postdocs—generally about $40,000 a year for 60 to 80 hours a week with no job security or promotion opportunities. But paying postdocs a true professional wage would mean many fewer highly skilled hands, fewer publications and less chance of winning a grant renewal.
This dynamic creates distorted incentives, an artificial sense of shortage and a vicious circle. From the standpoint of a department chairman, Teitelbaum says, “you’ve got this research funding [that] will finance 15 graduate research assistants and 10 postdocs and your department and your faculty are committed to doing the research because you won the grants, but there aren’t enough people applying to be graduate students and postdocs from the U.S. From your perspective, that could be deemed to be shortage.” But, he emphasizes, “the demand is inside the institution, it’s not in the labor market.” Faculty members intent on getting the research done are “not thinking about…whether there’s post-university demand for people who have gotten PhDs or done postdocs.”
See what we're tweeting about
217 Comments
Add CommentNO.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShanghai Jiaotong University has the feel of an Ivy League institution.
... it is so rich in science and engineering talent that Microsoft and Intel have moved into a research park directly adjacent to the school.
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/technology/22cyber.html?src=linkedin
The notion that every one of the 18k Americans earning a Ph.D. each year want a job as a university professor is, I don't know...boneheaded.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur system assumes that the more degrees that a person has after their name is evidence that person is technically more proficient than a person that does not have the credentials. In the design engineering world, which I have been a part of for over 40 years, I have worked many individuals with less education that were more inventive and imaginative than their more highly trained counterparts. A degree does not guarantee success in a given field it only opens the door to let one start their career. As a country, we need to get away from this 'educational snobbery' and recognize individuals for what they accomplish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe current US budget focused on war makes research in many fields a dim proposition, unless the focus is in security. I focused on terrorism and security for this reason, and expect little difficulty in finding a research position upon graduation in three months.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wanted to focus on bio-psychology, but found that 'lab rats' could spend up to ten years earning their doctorate. So if you are lucky enough to land a research position, expect to be treated like a slave for a long time: supervisors have their pick, with a long line of applicants... and a lot of papers to sign from the sweat or your brow.
The growth industry of the US is war, like it or not.
It would be nice if it were otherwise, but that is idealistic considering the vast amount of taxes spent on military pursuits, don't you think?
I expect the US will not really focus on science for another 30 to 50 years. Of course, if I were in another country, I would answer differently to this question.
Taking five percent of the military budget and applying it towards science would go a long way to help, and still leave the US with the most powerful military on earth. It's a question of national priority.
The scenario is pretty much the same on the Canadian side. There are labs in leading research institutions in big urban centres where the language of communication amongst lab members is not English! I hear it every day. But isn't this what the capitalist system thrives on ( go hear Bob Dylan, Union Sundown)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article whitewashes the impact of education. American, Canadian, and British students have their hands held through all of school, and are continually taught that it is more important to feel good about oneself than to be correct. Thus the real problem is not diversity of education, or factual correctness on tests, though these are easiest to measure. The real problem is that the vast majority of students, including those attaining PhDs, are never mentally equipped for the strain of science. They're simply not independent enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the US, this hand-holding has gone to astonishing lengths. While qualifying exams are strenuously difficult, there is often no defence of the thesis at the end of the PhD, because it is considered, "not nice". In other words, our greatest distinction of intellectual merit can be attained without understanding how (see below). While students may be prepared to take on tests that can confront their instantaneous grasp of a topic, they are completely incapable of discussing said topic.
Unfortunately, many people enter graduate school because it seemed like a better idea than getting a real job. The granting agencies, which mark success by number of degrees, are rampantly promoting 'roll-overs' to the PhD programs. This increases the number of enrolled students who are not particularly interested in academia, at the highest level of training. This both serves to water down the value of the PhD, and inflate the apparent labour pool.
This problem is exacerbated by the grant panel requirement of training highly qualified personnel in concert with publish-or-perish. To an increasing extent, PIs take graduate students who are eminently qualified to performing the tasks they are told to perform, just to keep lab momentum. But these students are completely incapable of explaining why they are doing the research. Science has become an ends in itself, rather than a means.
Some of these unqualified students may go on to try for academic appointments, but it seems unlikely to me. So while Canada, at least, trains far too many PhDs, most of these have no interest nor ability to conduct research on their own.
Better too many Scientists than too many Lawyers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfuzmiorten!
Too many scientists? Are you kidding? 80% of Americans are uneducated do-nothing wastrels completely disinterested in the world outside their eat/screw/sleep sphere. And these people decide how everyone lives. This is a good arrangement?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore scientists, not less.
Taking 5% from the military and putting it towards science is ok but would have a greater immediate impact buy putting it directly into building more wind turbines or solar collectors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists today mostly work for government agencies or wealthy conglomerates. The latter being mostly a self interest group. The truth of the matter is technology and science is advancing so quickly that many graduates are behind current knowledge by the time they graduate. The number of top level scientists in the retirement age group will create ample room within the next 10yrs or so... making room for graduates... Taking existing graduates and training them with these soon to retire scientists would stave off sudden # losses and provide new insights by having up to date scientific graduates at their disposal.
There are too many people trained to do professional research, not too many people trained in science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I said, even many people trained as scientists have the vaguest concepts of science.
I have to take issue with the fact that this article implies that a "scientist" is someone who holds a PhD and a faculty position. Scientists and engineers hold a wide variety of jobs in addition to the basic scientific research that is conducted at universities. Are you implying that someone who does scientific corporate R&D is not a "scientist?" When those people talk about a dearth of "scientists" what definition of "scientist" are they using?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo dskan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a postdoc in my 4th yr of 'training', I find your comments insulting. You state that there is often no defense of the thesis at the end of the PhD, because it's "not nice". I beg to differ. My defense lasted almost 4hours and was one of the most grueling experiences of my life. I have know many graduates who failed to earn their PhD because of poor performance during the defense. The defense ensures that the knowledge you have gained over the course of your 5+ years of research is well rounded and comprehensive. It also makes you address the shortcomings and implications of your research. The defense is there to test whether or not you can think on your feet, defend the merits of your work, and think like a scientist. Do you have a PhD? If so, I feel sorry that you did not feel proud when you were awarded it because it was too easy and "nice".
Also, you claim that students are completely incapable of explaining why they are doing the research. As a graduate student, I always knew exactly what I was doing and why. The graduate students under my care also know their stuff and ask profound questions. To state that they are simple automatons is unfair.
In my experience, people such as myself become scientists because we have had a lifelong passion to learn about the world and promote the well being of others through meaningful discovery and innovation. However, the PhD crisis has seriously hampered these dreams. I am currently leaving academia because I simply cannot afford to raise my child on a postdoc's salary. I earned 18K per year as a graduate student living in Boston. My rent was almost 12K a year there with a roommate. After paying for food and bills I had no savings. Then I got a postdoc job that paid 37k a year. Wow! Felt like I hit the jackpot after starving for 5 years in Boston. Until baby came.... Now I am 32 years old with no savings, no prospects for job advancement, no benefits, no daycare etc... in academia. As a postdoc I do not qualify for faculty or student benefits. Being a postdoc is like living in limbo land. We are cheap, highly skilled labor that is the backbone of the academic pyramid scheme. Even if I was offered a job as a professor (near impossible given the job market and the fact that they got rid of mandatory retirements for Profs) I don't think that I could devote the 60-80 hrs a week it takes to run a lab, write grants, attend committee meetings, teach students and publish papers while raising a kid (2yr daycare wait list!).
Costco pays more and has benefits! So sad.
To dskan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a postdoc in my 4th yr of 'training', I find your comments insulting. You state that there is often no defense of the thesis at the end of the PhD, because it's "not nice". I beg to differ. My defense lasted almost 4hours and was one of the most grueling experiences of my life. I have know many graduates who failed to earn their PhD because of poor performance during the defense. The defense ensures that the knowledge you have gained over the course of your 5+ years of research is well rounded and comprehensive. It also makes you address the shortcomings and implications of your research. The defense is there to test whether or not you can think on your feet, defend the merits of your work, and think like a scientist. Do you have a PhD? If so, I feel sorry that you did not feel proud when you were awarded it because it was too easy and "nice".
Also, you claim that students are completely incapable of explaining why they are doing the research. As a graduate student, I always knew exactly what I was doing and why. The graduate students under my care also know their stuff and ask profound questions. To state that they are simple automatons is unfair.
In my experience, people such as myself become scientists because we have had a lifelong passion to learn about the world and promote the well being of others through meaningful discovery and innovation. However, the PhD crisis has seriously hampered these dreams. I am currently leaving academia because I simply cannot afford to raise my child on a postdoc's salary. I earned 18K per year as a graduate student living in Boston. My rent was almost 12K a year there with a roommate. After paying for food and bills I had no savings. Then I got a postdoc job that paid 37k a year. Wow! Felt like I hit the jackpot after starving for 5 years in Boston. Until baby came.... Now I am 32 years old with no savings, no prospects for job advancement, no benefits, no daycare etc... in academia. As a postdoc I do not qualify for faculty or student benefits. Being a postdoc is like living in limbo land. We are cheap, highly skilled labor that is the backbone of the academic pyramid scheme. Even if I was offered a job as a professor (near impossible given the job market and the fact that they got rid of mandatory retirements for Profs) I don't think that I could devote the 60-80 hrs a week it takes to run a lab, write grants, attend committee meetings, teach students and publish papers while raising a kid (2yr daycare wait list!).
Costco pays more and has benefits! So sad.
A poor title for the article. A better one would be "Are there enough scientific careers for scientists in the US?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithin astrophysics there certainly is a massive demographic imbalance between the number of talented and committed PhD students continuing in academia as postdocs and soft-money researchers, and the number of tenured and tenure-equivalent jobs. Everyone knows this, at least when they're doing the PhD. They just make the mistake of thinking that if they're talented and love research that they'll get the job they qualified for.
The problem is not that there is a career pyramid with significant losses of personal at each level compared to the old days of a few postdoc positions that fed directly into a similar number of tenured positions.
The problems are that (a) progression or success is more lottery than meritocracy (for a number of annoying reasons, but shear numbers of job candidates is one), and (b) there is no real career track for those who aren't lucky enough to land a classic tenure-track job.
University administrations and tenured faculty have little inclination to change this: the postdocs do much of the research, and are expendable as they're easily replacable. Soft money scientists bring in large amounts of overhead to the Universities, and even if many leave when patience or grants run out their ranks are always easily filled by former postdocs desparate to carry on doing what they love.
If you are an employer it is hard to find young Americans who can count money , do simple math ect. The education system is way below standard compared to forgien nations. Unless you have money and can buy your childs way into the gifted classes that are provided to protect children from the lower class , chances are they will not learn like the rest. People must realize that America is a third world country overrun with rich forgien intelligent people bleeding it dry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is based on a fundamentally flawed premise that we have seen over and over, whenever this hoary old saw comes up -- that the sole appropriate place for a scientifically trained person to wind up is as tenured professor at a major research university.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure, that is the grand prize and only the best will achieve it. (With some luck and unfairness involved in determining "best.") But scientifically trained people are badly needed at all levels of society, including a hundred-thousand high schools, where joyful teaching, mixed with genuine lab skills, can create island universes of delight in both reason and natural law, unleashing citizens better equipped for a new century.
And what about branching out, or starting businesses, even some that have nothing to do with science? We all know the hierarchy of academic training. Barring other deficits, a scientist is highly equipped, mentally, to invade any different field. Law schools know this; they leap to accept scientists or engineers who apply. Moreover, in Law and Politics, science is tragically, disturbingly under-represented.
Have you noticed that all the top scientists have artistic hobbies? In my case, the hobby (writing novels) took over and I was flattered/bribed by society to do art full time, instead of research. I know others who have invaded Hollywood. Of course, that is a narrow kind of branching-opportunity, but one of many that await those who do not follow a standard tenure path.
In the wider perspective, this is about the American notion of high education -- that its purpose is to create widely capable citizens, not narrowly-defined "boffins" in the classic (british) sense. If our post-docs look at it this way, they will see tenure-failure as no more than a challenge to get out there and use those finely honed mental tools to do something else. And we are richer -- vastly so -- for every one of them who is out there.
With cordial regards,
David Brin
author of The Postman, Earth, and The Transparent Society
http://www.davidbrin.com
Why is it a problem that our undergraduate and graduate programs are so good at producing large numbers of highly skilled people that few can land faculty jobs? No matter what job they find, their training raises the quality of work done and allows other facets of our country to benefit from analytical minds. It would be a shame indeed if the rest of society were required to pay, through taxes, to support the grants submitted by every Ph.D. recipient.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn excellent and long overdue article. Part of the problem is the focus on research careers with a personal lab funded by grants. "Only" 25 per cent or so of PhD's get research positions? This is equivalent to complaining that only 25 per cent of theater majors make it to Broadway or Hollywood, or that only 25 per cent of phys ed majors make it to the NFL. A couple of major reforms that I have long advocated include:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Outlawing the use of Federal grant-gathering activity in promotion or tenure.
2. Outlawing institutional overhead. That would at least double the amount of money available for research right there.
3. While we're at it, why not abolish investigator salaries and fringe? If Harvard wants the prestige of an NSF grant, they can bloody well pay the investigator's salary.
4. Completely blind reviews. I bet there would be some real shocks if reviewers didn't know who they were reviewing.
5. No visas for immigrant labor. There's nothing wrong with America's scientific manpower situation that secure employment and a $100k starting salary wouldn't fix.
The reason I did NOT go to a research institution after I got my PhD was that I was thoroughly disgusted with what I saw at my - very major - graduate school. The capper came when I went to get a light bulb for one of the labs and was asked what grant number it was to be charged to. At that point I decided the system was utterly corrupt - and that was 1976. It seems to be incomparably worse today.
The system is crazy and engenders bad feeling all around. Look at Amy Bishop. Never mind, bad example. At least in Hollywood you get millions if you are one of the lucky few.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is there no mention of competition as it relates to sports? We seem to happily accept that democracy considers us all the same and that competition proves we're not -- how is anything else any different? The only thing threatening education is the softening of its academic integrity. Has anyone noticed THAT? Our attempts at increasing numbers has entirely ignored the dilutiuon factor, at our peril.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause of financial greed, power struggles. Funds are pooled together, data is not shared, the PI's get most of the money and pay people with PhD's or students willing to be their desk and bench monkeys minimal wages or only "permit" them to do internships as they cycle them through and essentially pick their brains for new information, then move on to another round. Studies are fabricated to cover up real investigations that are ethically questionable or possibly derived from PHI sharing loopholes by their vendors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe scariest part of this treatise was the assertion that the US produces "almost" as many high performing science students as either Japan or Korea. We should produce ten times as many. Even our high performing students are already two years behind most of their foreign counterparts in math and science by the time they graduate high school.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso frightening was the suggestion that a career in law or finance should be more financially rewarding. That's how we got into this mess. (And finance, btw, is where all the white men went).
The article greatly oversimplifies the labor-force opportunities of PhD's. A great many of them choose not to join academia. Unfortunately, the sudden contraction of the general economy has reduced opportunities in the private sector. Still, it's likely that most PhD's are better off than the rest of us. There is still plenty of demand in biochem and chemistry, as well as security related fields, and most science undergrads know this.
Do we abuse H1-B? Yes, but we shouldn't try to close that door without ground-up reform of our catastrophically dysfunctional immigration system. Smart people inevitably create far more economic opportunity than they absorb. Don't turn them away.
In the end, this article should be taken as a comment on our broken research sector rather than the science workforce. As I see it, anyone with an aptitude for science has a moral obligation to pursue a science career.
Judging from the most popular shows on TV, I definitely say no, we do not have too many scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou will think there are too many scientists when you have a degree from Harvard and have to get a job in, say, Alabama. You will think there are too few scientists when you are trying to hire a postdoc in Florida for a fixed-term low-paying position, or even a high-school physics teacher in the Midwest. If you don't have enough good scientists, you aren't paying them enough, and they are going into other professions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIMHO:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis seems a well researched, well reasoned discussion.
We too often ascribe shortcomings to individuals when in fact structural issues are at the root of the problem. The individuals then make what at the "atomistic" level are rational choices with respect to the given framework.
From my perspective of a retired college professor, the best and brightest in the USA are being severely shortchanged in order to "benefit" many who have neither the talent nor the motivation for intellectual achievement.
Unfortunately for most of the latter, their formal education is largely wasted time and investment for them and their sponsors. Yet our college system, overgrown into mediocrity, continues to market itself as a good investment to all. Honest research would show that many in the lower percentiles would obtain better satisfaction and return on investment by entering more directly into careers and crafts, supported by non-collegiate educational tracks.
If we want to sustain a strong research sector which in turn feeds a vital research-based industrial sector, let us fund perhaps in entirety the university and graduate educations of the small percentage with extraordinary abilities. who then in turn will fuel the domestic economy and international export.
davesm, do you think that what you have observed is at least partly due to the tendency of degree-holders to be promoted more on the basis of their degree and less on proven ability?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich, ironically, means they are less likely to be qualified for the specific job.
Then again, look at all the Harvard MBAs who end up in jobs WAY over their heads.
Simple, I'll tell you flat out why: Because all the jobs are being globalized!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYEAH! Globalization is nothing good, in fact, the only people for what globalization is good are the bankers.
How about listening to a almost 30 yrs old music by Bob Dilan called: Union Sundown.
Here is a sample of the lyrics:
PS: Yeah now go ahead and hide behind the DMCA and remove this...... but not before someone reads it!
Well, my shoes, they comes from Singapore
My flashlight's from Taiwan
My tablecloth's from Malayisia
My belt buckle's from the Amazon
You know, this shirt I wear comes from the Philippines
And the car I drive is a Chevrolet
It was put together down in Argentina
By a guy making thirty cents a day.
Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the USA
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.
Can you really lump scientists and engineers together? I have seen how many science majors are unable to get the career they want, but it seems than an Engineer has more employment opportunities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-An engineer who works for scientists and is married to one as well.
Why put the time and effort into getting a engineering or science degree when you'll end up standing in the same unemployment line as the assembly line worker. Get a degree in something that cannot be outsourced. Become a banker or investment professional. The US education system is churning out low-wage professionals who are and will continue to take our jobs to the slave markets with the blessing of US-based multinational companies and the government bought by big business. Any questions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPossibly financial greed. It seems the PI's retain a majority of the income and they keep PhD's and students at low wages or as "interns" with no wages and "permit" them to share their knowledge and perspectives, keep them rotating for new information. Some studies and their funds are pooled together, and if they could be interpreted as illegal or unethical are likely guised under conventionally approved studies. Sometimes there's holes in PHI agreements that allow sharing of personal data across private companies which could potentially lead to misallocation of funds due to leaked data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article was very depressing for me, an undergraduate intending to major in Physics. However, it does explain why one of my friends said that becoming a tenured research university professor is one of the most secure jobs possible. I have seen, in the main Physics building at the university I attend, several posters with information about the usual results of getting degrees in Physics, both Bachelor's and Doctorate. For a Bachelor's degree, about half went into some career, and the other half to grad school. For PhDs, the information was about median wages sometime (I think 10 years) later, and number one was medical, at between 150k and 200k. There was a gap between "Government funded R&D labs" at 100k-120k and "University R&D labs" with 75k-95k, with the later making up the highest in the "lower half" of the breakdown. Another graph was a bar graph showing how long it takes to get a Physics PhD, and 4 years had the most with 33%, 3 years and 5 years seemed about equal, and it trailed off to a few taking as long as 9 years. I don't know how this situation should be fixed, but I definitely think something should be done, my family is essentially banking on me getting a decently high-paying job soon after I get my PhD, we can't wait until I'm 42, and I doubt many others can either. Fortunately, many of the tenured professors are reaching retirement age, maybe the system will loosen up before I get to postdoc stage (about 7 years from now, hopefully).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwo thoughts to share:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(1) The article discusses low pay and lack of job security as strong disincentives for young people to pursue science. While these certainly exist, most young scientists are not in it for the money. What is not discussed here is the impact of the academic career track on people's personal lives.
Pursuing an academic career usually involves moving, often very long distances or even to foreign countries, around 3 or 4 times between ages 20 and 35. This is the same time when many young adults are trying to find a life partner, start a family, buy a house, and move on with their lives. Having to uproot every few years, first for graduate school, then for postdoc #1, then for postdoc #2, then a faculty job, puts enormous strains on people's personal lives (men and women both).
I have a number of friends---some of the best young scientists I know---who are leaving the field, not because they can't get a good job, but because they are tired of moving. They want to stay in one place, get married, and get on with their lives. Staying in academia makes that very difficult.
(2) There are definitely good science and engineering jobs outside of academia (although it depends on your field---as an astrophysicist, I don't have a lot of options in industry). The problem is that students are made to feel that they have "failed" if they do not succeed in landing a tenure-track job at a prestigious institution.
This has more to do with the culture of academic science than any kind of financial reality, since non-academic jobs usually pay more. However, students who head toward non-tenured or industry jobs have to accept that their PhD department, their thesis adviser, their mentors, their peers, and their field will treat them as though, by making that choice, they have somehow failed to measure up. It is difficult for smart, high-achieving young people to make a choice which will disappoint people to whom they have devoted so much of their time.
Changing this culture is challenging because the training of PhD students is done almost solely by people who have bought into the academic culture---those who became professors themselves. If might help if more PhD students had greater exposure to scientists in industry, who do outstanding work and who do not buy into the culture of "failure".
Let me answer the questions posed to the best of my ability.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a dearth of technical talent in first world countries mainly as a result of these economies moving away from manufacturing and becoming retail and financial economies.
White males believe they are the top of the heap and seek jobs that will pay the highest salary, science is hard work and does not pay top dollar.
Education should not discriminate on the basis or race, financial status or any other measure other than performance. Offer every individual similar opportunities and encourage and reward the best.
Science jobs will keep getting fewer and fewer if the first world economies remain fixated on financial performance and retail generates most of their revenue. Manufacturing requires innovation and science to make a better or new product.
Have more bachelor and master degree courses, they make up the backbone of the scientific community. Doctorates specialise in very small niches and just don't seem to work out in industry.
I am part of the baby-boom generation, I have retired, my job was exported to China.
If you were to do the impossible and return to this planet in about a hundred years, the population bubble may have burst and science will be the domain of China. Sadly after I die I just won't exist any more, so I will never know.
I think USA must focus on the key areas of science where health and nanotechnology play a bigger role. Stem cell research ,biomedical , nanotechnology medicine and ether energy commercial use by a battery system with hydrogen production for compressed energy in cars is very important and I want to submit a blue print with necessary ideas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need in this world people who can do work like electricians, carpenters, butchers and farmers. We have a dearth of Computer 'Èxperts``who would not even know how to replace a defective capacitor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLearn electronics, become a radio ham on the sideline.
Too many scientists with degrees but not enough citizens that understand basics of science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't understand why someone with a PhD should have to strive for a career in Academia. That seems to be a basic point of the article. It does not make any sense. All a Science or Engineering PhD shows is that someone has some innate intelligence, is willing to work hard, and is willing to invest in themselves for a future return. These are qualities that many employers - not just universities - would value. I've met great PhD's in the financial, management consulting, pharma, biotech and even in the academic sectors. This article is sort of "European" in mentality in that is presumes that a field of study dictates a choice of career. The US has a much more flexible employment model and the article is out of touch with that reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the comparison of the job stability of a professor, ie being on a periodic chopping block of a grant agency, to that of an employee, being on the chopping block of a company's roster, is flawed. A professor is less like an employee and more like a small business owner. He presents his ideas to seek out capital, hires workers to carry out his plan, and is typically financially rewarded if his ideas were good. If his ideas are poor, the money dries up and he shutters his business.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA distinction appears, however, in that a business owner has a constant stream of money coming in to assess. All he has to do is see an anomaly in the money stream to know he needs to change something, and can change it before it becomes a serious problem. The business needs money to operate and he can directly observe how this flow is changing. Moreover, the entrepreneur has a continuum of success and failure to establish, since his profit margin can be anywhere from severe negatives to soaring positives, or anywhere in between, at any point in time. A Faculty Principal Investigator, however, has neither the luxury of a continuum of time nor a continuum of profit margin to monitor. The rate of cashflow changes at extremely discrete periods (every X years instead of every day/week/month), and the cashflow itself is far closer to all-or-nothing than it is for the business owner/manager. Thus, principal investigators are finding themselves caught in a high-stakes, low-rewards game.
I also have to question the dread of publish or perish. We clearly find it quite stressful, but how is that different than any other discipline. You don't keep a losing lawyer in your firm. You don't hire a plumber who can't fix pipes. Everyone's pay is tied to performance. The nature of the grant-system makes publish-or-perish more stressful, but it will stay until someone can find a better way of evaluating whether or not us scientists are being productive.
, doesn't have that luxury. He can keep track of how the money is being spent
Let's see ... we have threats of extinction from space and super volcanoes, huge issues in managing our planet, the prospects of tapping limitless energy from the sun and living high virtually forever on Earth and in space, immediate problems of poverty, disease, resources and waste, an infrastructure on the brink of collapse, not to mention plastics gumming up our DNA ... what we lack is not science/engineering minded youth but leaders.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe professional sports analogy is very apt. Academia really has become a huge competition with very few winners reaping all the spoils (academic jobs), while the majority of competitors toil away in the minor leagues (as post-docs, etc...) until they eventually give up and go do something else once they give up that dream.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost people who pursue PhDs do want to become professors, at least for a while, despite any protests to the contrary. PhD degrees are like viruses: The only thing they are good for are making more PhDs. In part, this also represents a failure of our graduate education system, which only prepares students for careers in academic research.
As a PhD graduate of a major American research University, with, as a result, many PhD friends, I really do not know a single person who finished their degree in the last 15 years and who would recommend getting a PhD. Even those of us lucky enough to have attained some measure of academic success recognize how brutal and unworkable the process has become. I almost feel guilty helping to recruit new graduate students. And I never recommend to even the brightest undergraduates that they pursue a research career. My wife (also a PhD) and I often joke that our kids can grew up to be whatever they want--except PhDs.
I think the article overstates how much better the situation is elsewhere. Good jobs are still sparse; the ultimate goal is the rare and coveted independent research position, which very few people attain anywhere.
I think the question should be, "does the U.S. do enough science?" The U.S. has so far chosen not to take a leadership role in fusion, quantum mechanics, robotics, and is looking at scaling back on space. The only areas in which they are still heavily invested is military technology. This is no surprise for a population in which the majority of people still believe in creationism. You can't expect that people who are not only scientifically illiterate but actually see science as encroaching atheism, to support scientific research. The U.S. must do a better job at educating its children to be rational, free-thinking individuals, rather than ignorant, church-going, consumers, if it wants to take a leadership role in science and technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this80% of 100 means that only 20 people actually know what they are doing. 20% of 304,059,724(US pop)? That's 60,811,944 people who know what they are doing. I have no idea if your stat is correct, but as a white bred kid about to enter a neuroscience program, my major concern most definitely was how long it would take for me to train as a scientist compared to what I would actually get out of it. We need a system that offers less opportunity, requires more skill, and has better prospects (short term and long term). In my view, ANYONE can get a PhD. I just attended a dissertation where this student attained his PhD with research only viable for a master's thesis! Bottom line, Im 24, about to start a PhD, wont actually produce substantial work or theory on my own until I'm 35. Meanwhile, I wont have time for a wife and kids, the money for a cool sports car, or the ability to go on a lovely vacation. Worst part is that I probably wont have any of that even once I get my PhD and have been working for years! Im in it for the pure science - its interesting, but geez, if we are talking natural selection here, Im making the worst cost-benefit decision of my life! Society has grown. Humans are vast. And as such, we need to figure a new way to operate. What works on a small scale, NEVER works on a larger one. Just look at Walmart - wonderful in the early days, detrimental as it grew.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCouldn't agree more. Considering the statistic that less than half the US population agrees with or understands the theory of natual selection, this country is heading for absolute idiocracy unless more is invested. Most the people I talk to have this superficial view of reality and are absolutely clueless to the workings of the world around them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt what point did children stop questioning everything and submit to indifference?
The problem is not that the US has too many scientists, but that a substantial portion of the US public simply is not interested in supporting science. In the most recent Presidential primaries, half of the candidates for one political party freely admitted that they believed that the universe was created less than 10,000 years ago. Talented physicists go to Wall Street and calculate new ways to bundle subprime mortgages because that's where the jobs are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi agree with fuzmorten, more scientist/engineers and less lawyers/economists. In Spain is even worst, then please, don't complain...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthen i will take my fibinotchi squared somewhere else
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Ready, fire, aim" may work in todays weapon systems, but not in shot gun efforts to complain about the structure of "Postdoc" positions. If that's your goal, then specialize in "grant application" writing. Supply and demand is at work here. If the goal is to provide a strong American science base then look for ways outside the University structure for fostering fundamental research. [In passing I see more "blame politics" in many of the above comments than thoughtful commentary.]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo state "too many" are trained to do professional research or in science is an absurd absolutist phrase. Professional research and science, as all endeavors, are highly competitive and often political, with an emphasis on "too"political. Perhaps, because of the low profile of researchers and scientists, the more appropriate phrase would be "too many are being used or even abused." Every profession is competitive and political; unfortunately because of the personality types involved in research and science, dominance frequently thwarts creativity and advancement. This is the nature of mankind. The bigger the pool, the bigger the chances of innovation, which needs to remain limitless. Governments should be structure taxation to stimulate scientific research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://howtheuniversityworks.com/wordpress/archives/244
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn excellent article. Is a science curriculum education or job training? If the former, then too many is impossible. We could ask that question about any field, of course, and get mixed answers from students, parents, and educators. I don't have the answer, though I lean toward education rather than job training.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. This discussion has recurred about every 11.7 years - corresponding to major recessions - since the 30's at least. Check the records of the major technical industries as well as academia. [BTW - it correlates extremely well with the sunspot cycle. Does that mean human conflict - the major driver in American R&D - is a madness driven by high energy solar particles?] I was a "sputnik kid', and as a labeled gifted child was carried by a societal wave thru my PhD in Physics and one of the world's (and US's) top Universities just as the 'Nam cycle was fading in favor of the "Great Society". Cheap post-docs and government labs at NASA and DARPA, then industry labs at very good pay. Regan era surge in defense R&D, then the "peace dividend" post Berlin-wall, when 500,000 scientists and engineers were laid off from the defense industry. All that talent gave us the dot.com boom (and bust). Then came the "rocket-science-on-wall-street phase and its bust, as well as many world changing spin-off technologies. Now the technical industries are struggling with shortages as us boomers retire. My thesis advisor is also nearing retirement; I've made 5 to 10 times as much money, done more productive research while avoiding the pressure to publish crummy small scale results, but was appointed to the National Academies 20 years ago anyway with a then-growing national reputation. No tenure, but no trouble finding the work I wanted at the locations I wanted. Even taught occasionally at a few U's.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. Academia is not producing too many US scientists and engineers. Most all of the growth since my days is in foreign students - now over half of every grad school and engineering department. That's just deans managing their growth and profits well with no regard for the careers of their products.
3. Most of the non-citizen PhD's I've seen across the hiring desk are weak and uncreative.
4. In Silicon Valley (and its clones in Boston and Research Triangle and others) there is no wistful longing for academic positions or tenure. [Those that can, do; those.....teach?].
5. Mostly this is just another whine about not having the title "professor-doctor" the Germans use. In reality, all that is happening (again) is a recession that does not favor the 'best-and-brightest'. Live with it. It's been several decades since much innovation occurred in a University setting; only the most basic work like strings and branes, nano-stuff, etc. All the big, impact-on-society-for-a-generation stuff has been in industry since the 40s.
As our public school systems are set up, PhDs cannot move directly into teaching. The requirements for being a teacher have different course work than the PhD and the salary structure discourages districts from hiring PhD. We need a program to recycle PhDs into teaching science and math by waiving education course requirements in favor of a program that allows PhDs to teach in public schools directly from grad school.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article, which is not wrong, explored the facts mostly from the conservative points of view! With the current funding amount I can say, no, the US does not produce more scientists than it needs!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is the structure of the science job! Specifically the structure of Laboratory staffs! Restructure the Laboratory staffing then you are fine! I think they (those in power to do restructuring) are smart enough so I do not have to give example as how to change!
The bottom line, the problems with US system (what ever the system is) that make it hard to change is the "conflict of interests"! It's not the problem that they dont know, it the problem that they know but cannot change it. Why? The American democracy allow people to freely speak their mind, well but not so [free] in executing when they are in power! The "heavier you are the more inertia you have and thus the difficult you are to change the direction"!
@Davesm, I completely agree with you. I have recently been looking at going for two PhD's in fields which I have a deep and overwhelming interest, but part of the motivation is simply so I can garner the respect necessary within these fields that only such a degree can bring about these days. I actually detest even having to go through collegiate level courses to be honest, because it all seems too repetitive to me so far, and I feel as if I have taught myself more outside of the classroom at this level. I think of some of the greatest scientific minds, such as Einstein, and how such individuals even lacked a basic grade school diploma. Yet, they were widely recognized as being brilliant, and even if not at first, they were eventually greatly respected for their theories and work. Nowadays though, you are typically rejected outright if you lack that certain acronym after your name. It is pitiful indeed, and in my view, a PhD only shows that you put in the amount of work required for such, and it subsequently has no bearing whatsoever upon the intelligence (Or lack thereof) of the individual obtaining it. The same basically goes for any college level degree, and I have personally known one brilliant individual who was flat-out denied a job simply because he lacked an accredited university degree. The fellow in question truly knows his stuff, and the employer even admitted as much, but their policies required that most ridiculous of papers for him to be considered for hiring. This defies all logic and common sense whatsoever, and it is a sad indicator of our times, and how we wrongly judge people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my opinion, not only in S&E, but also in others industry, "young" and "elder" workers are viewed as totally different, by enterprise or employer. If you don't give those "young" emploee an oppertunity, how can they perform an innovation reslut?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUndergraduate science education doesn't have a large research component. Learning how to do research in graduate school is excellent training, and (I think) should be thought of in the liberal arts tradition. It is a mistake to link it directly to faculty recruiting, or to see a significant problem in the inequality between graduate numbers and faculty jobs. The steady state model mentioned at the end would amount to renouncing US research leadership: in it every faculty member would train only one graduate student over their career.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs the boomers retire most research fields will continue to feel the crunch; those will be the waning fields. Some growing fields will have lots of jobs. Those jobs cannot be filled in a steady state model, as it cannot respond to the demand.
US students don't swamp research labs because they have so many other opportunities. The fact that we can fill graduate and postdoc positions with foreign students is testimony to the global research growth in the first place, but also to the continued dominance of US labs for training opportunities. Why throw away a working (if stressful) model? More importantly, how could we make the change?
Typically graduate recruitment and training does not dwell on postgraduation job prospects. Few students are told "you will almost certainly not have an academic career", rather their aspirations are left undimmed in the hopes that they work harder (and learn more). I think this is the real problem, and it can be addressed at a national/communal level. We need to fund more career training as well as lubricating transitions from graduate school/postdocs to startup and technology companies. This needs to be done within every research department, and not just at the elite schools.
In summary, I don't think the enterprise is broken or even unbalanced. But, we do leave a lot of talent on the table by not making the transition from academia to industry easier at the graduate and postdoc levels.
So many of the comments here seem to limit the definition of scientist/researcher to those who possess a PhD. There's also a huge focus on academic research in the commentary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you considered how many biotech and pharmaceutical companies are cutting back on R&D, and how many scientists (PhD or no PhD) are getting laid off.
Isn't this true of our labor market in general? The incentives provided in our market-place are highly skewed toward producing the kind of jobs and behavior that result in artificial profits and production like those of our recent securities-derivitive driven housing bubble, rather than genuine economic (i.e. socially beneficial) productivity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is an excellent arrangement! Add a little religion and guns, and you have an easy manipulatable mass, easy to bamboozle and keep where it belongs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you think that U.S. education policy should work on improving the science-math performance of the children at the bottom, overwhelmingly from low-income families and racial and ethnic minorities, rather than the performance of all children?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNO. Half the students who are already in doctoral programs are the result of this kind of thinking. Many have been admitted to their programs because they are a certain flavor and make the university look good. Some of these students are excellent scientists hard working, independent thinkers. Unfortunately MANY of them have subpar undergraduate educations and little or no lab experience prior to coming to graduate school. They lag behind in both classes and lab performance and it is painful to see. These people end up depressed and even more marginalized in the academic system than the rest of the grad students.
How dismal do the science job prospects described here seem in the context of the broader economy?
What will happen over the next decade or so as lab space (and grants) start freeing up as the baby boomers who occupy those posts hit retirement?
Lets combine these. An oft-perpetuated myth is that everyone grad students, postdocs will suddenly have tons of jobs open to them in just a few more years when the baby boomers retire. This is a dangerous, dangerous lie.
Scientists in general do NOT retire early. Half the baby boomers who currently run research labs will probably still be tottering around in them at the age of 98. They arent going anywhere anytime soon. Combine this problem with the tanking of the economy and I would expect the job market to get worse, not better, in the next decade or two. How many of the cash-starved universities are really going to re-hire for spots that the baby boomers eventually free up? Why would they take on the expense of hiring one tenure-track faculty when there are 100 postdocs willing to work for � of the cost and twice the number of work hours?
The job market now is terrible. We have no guarantee the overall market will be better when(ever) the babyboomers retire. Scientists who spend the next 10 years in training may emerge into a job market where the competition is worse than it is now. They will have spent a decade or more making far less than professional wages (a HUGE opportunity cost that many grad students dont understand) and may or may not ever reach a payscale that reflects their years of education.
It comes to this there are tons of American students out there who would make fantastic scientists. Many of them are already in grad school or postdocs, barely earning living wages and working 80 hours a week. This culture of poverty and competition is a reality for most scientists for the first 10-15 years of their careers . Add to this mix the HUGE influx of foreign students in PhD and postdoc programs and you have a real disaster. There are way too many foreign grads in the American system right now. Yes, they are attractive hires because they will accept lower wages and ridiculous expectations (for working hours and productivity) for the chance to work in this country. Because these students perpetuate many of the conditions that drive out American students (there go the white males&) they worsen many of the academic culture problems AND increase competition for American scientists. And I can say from lots of up-close observation that many of these foreign students dont necessarily prosper in this situation. They are very successful on paper, but many can barely speak English, fail to establish any kind of support/social network when they arrive, and spend years in almost complete isolation toiling away in a lab somewhere. Like the American students who have been promoted through the system for reasons other than academic merit, foreigners in American academia end up even more exploited than the American students they are working with. This system does no one any favors !
I was a graduate student. I LOVED being a graduate student you work with interesting people, you have to conform to none of the real world workplace standards (dress, hours, behaviour), and you give your parents bragging rights for having a kid in a PhD program. But the job prospects are dismal and after so many years of poverty you begin to realize that youre being taken advantage of. Tons of PhD grads end up going back to school to get training for some kind of career they can actually make money in. No one is going to stay in the scientific market if it means terrible wages and working hours until you are 42 ! Personally, I realized that I wanted to make a living wage, have a life outside of my job, and have kids before I was 40. Realistically, none of that was possible if I pursued a career in science. I gave up the job I loved for one that is perhaps less interesting but much, much more stable. I think many current science graduate students would be well-advised to do the same.
Absolutely true. I loved this article. When students ask me if they should pursue a graduate degree and career in science I tell them if they have to ask, they shouldn't do it. It's just not a good job and there is no security. You only do it because you love science. I have never known a scientist who doesn't love what he/she does.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs pretty much the same all over the world. Last summer I did a course in UW University with 12 M. Sc. and Ph. D students from 6 different countries (New Zealand, Holland, Denmark, Mexico, Italy and US) and is the same history in each place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe point is that the most desirable positions are the faculty ones, because there are a few institutions that can afford good research all over the world.
I don't think the solution would be to decrease the number of scientists. Is exactly the opposite... Let's take advantage of all this young brains to make this world work in a better way... the support for the research institutions and foundations is needed in order to do it.
David Goodstein hit the nail on the head years ago in his article "The Big Crunch":
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html
The math is simple: The average professor turns out about 15 PhD students in the course of his or her career. In steady-state, only 1 of those 15 can get a tenure-track job at a research institution; the other 14 need to do something else. This system worked well when science was experiencing exponential growth -- which it was until the late 1960s. Since then growth has stopped, and the system hasn't changed.
The solutions are to either end the practice of staffing labs with students and postdocs, or accept the reality that the other 14 will be doing careers outside of science. The latter was the path I took in the late 90s when I got my physics PhD, although there was still a view among many faculty that leaving physics is a very negative thing. For me it was simply reality.
Note I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, to have 14/15ths of the PhDs doing non-research careers. The skills you learn in science -- critical thinking, fact-based decision making, resourcefulness -- are generally very useful, which is why you see a lot of companies hiring PhDs for non-research purposes (law, consulting, finance). If there's a problem, it's that the PhD system currently does very little to acknowledge, much less prepare students for, this likely reality in which they will be leaving the field when they graduate.
The shortage of workers that Bill Gates etc. talk about is a different labor pool: BS/MS-level workers who can contribute to product development. Companies need these by the hundreds of thousands, but one shouldn't confuse them with PhD students who are ostensibly being trained to do independent academic research.
As a scientist who recently completed their doctorate, I find myself wishing that I'd more carefully scrutinized the availability of permanent jobs for people with PhDs before beginning my degree. I believe that I am lucky because I sincerely enjoy what I do, but I am disheartened by the current lack of opportunities for people in my position.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProducing more is not bad, leaving the produce unutilised is bad. Do you want to follow India - Don't produce and so no need to bother for utilization.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat, well researched article. As a recent PhD in biochemistry, I can tell you this is right on the mark. I went to one of the top research schools for my PhD and the success rate coming out of the PhD program was ~1/20 landing a tenure track research faculty position (after 5-10 more years of postdocing). Most of us thought we would be profs when we entered (we were all heavily recruited by multiple top schools. How could there be so few jobs at the end?) After many years as slave-labor PhDs and postdocs, many have left science and found other careers. Why would the smartest kids in America stick around making $37k a year with no benefits or job security when their friends are making much better money in more stable careers. It would just be dumb to continue to be slave labor. The article is right on in pointing out that non-Americans have the incentive of using this as a ticket into the U.S. Many of my non-American science friends have married Americans or gotten permanant green card status and stayed. It really has been their ticket, so it didn't matter as much to them to spend their 20s and 30s being slave labor. But spending 10-15 years as slave labor (while friends are building their careers, buying houses, getting married) matters to most bright, highly trained American kids, so many of us end up leaving science. It is a terrible system that perpetuates the myth of scientist shortages. Teaching more people to understand science (which does need to be done) is not the same as saying their are scientists shortages. To make that connection would be as silly as blaming illiteracy on lack of novelists (rather than a lack of good reading teachers and parental input).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have far too many graduate students in the sciences because they are cheap teachers for college labs. If we didn't have them then we would have to hire real faculty. Heaven forbid. In order for schools to have enough to this cheap help we must rely on foreign students. If the US were to lose these students they would go elswhere and the US would have a real educational problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent article. I was in a PhD program at Carnegie-Mellon University in 1972 and realized there were about six applicants for every faculty position available and instead of becoming a physical chemist with specialization in theoretical issues stopped with a MS and went to medical school.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI haven't read through the entire long comment thread yet, but I wanted to point out the excellent parallel, and somewhat coincidental, discussion on the same subject from an American scientist working in an English laboratory (http://network.nature.com/people/UE19877E8/blog/2010/02/24/in-which-i-dream-of-revolution)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom what I have read it seems to me that the problem in the US is the same as that in Canada; namely the emphasis on training highly qualified people, at the expense of support for original research. The result is a glut of people with advanced degrees, and a lack of cutting edge industries that can employ them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But today, however, few young PhDs can get started on the career for which their graduate education purportedly trained them, namely, as faculty members in academic research institutions." GAG!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe goal of scientist is not to TEACH but to advance the human condition and the American Dream. This means running a business and pushing the envelope with leading edge products and services. We did not produce papers but stuff that people can use ... and stacks of patents to protect ourselves.
I didn't earn my PhD to be stuck in the university politics that my poor advisor had to endure. Sure I could have gotten a tenured position but what for? With my stock options, I made more in a month than my entire set of tenured thesis readers made in their entire lives. Never have to worry about money any more.
We took risks and worked our buns off. Had to be CEO, CFO, CTO, Marketing, Sales, etc. Had to build a business. Every key position had a PhD. We beat the competition who struggled with bachelors and masters. We could use every PhD we could find & but they had to have the fire in the belly.
The US has too many professional students and teachers. Not enough smart people who have brains, guts, and willing to work.
The level of science knowledge in college and the public is ABYSMAL. Science in the universities and government is politics and not REAL science. Universities and politicians have to be taught real science so that funding is fact driven and not by hoaxes and political ambitions. Science in the US has to get REAL.
Thank you for providing this well-reasoned account of the status of scientists in the U.S. Unfortunately, debate in this area is generally little more than rhetorical posing, intentionally confusing object and subject until only political persuasion remains.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you, too, for documenting what the late Gerald Bracey spent years asserting. Best wishes.
Comparing the science job prospects with the rest of the economy, the difference is that as the economy picks up, unemployment will decrease for most other fields. But an improvement in the economy, although it will result in a few more academic jobs becoming available, will do very little to alleviate a problem of oversupply of trained scientists which has been building for several decades. So, the jobs situation in the sciences is very different than the current unemployment problem the rest of the nation is facing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs the solution to create better-paying staff jobs and restructure the way the US funds scientific labs? After reading this article, it does seem that a huge amount of the problem is that there is a great deal of funding available to support grad students and postdocs but then not enough positions for all of those newly trained people to find work. I think it is a good idea to think about moving toward a system where fewer grad students and postdocs are used as "cheap labor." But I am having a hard time imagining exactly what this redesigned system would like and how it would work.
As someone currently in my second year of a postdoc who has applied for dozens of faculty positions over the past couple of years and not made it to a phone interview in any of them despite having chapters of my dissertation already published and a good deal of teaching experience, it seems quite clear to me that this problem of oversupply is serious. The idea of spending another several years as a postdoc "waiting" to get my chance to start my own lab is not appealing. I have become incredibly disillusioned by the entire process. I am very seriously considering different options (which I hate to call "alternative" careers options) because I don't want to have to sit around waiting for my "real" career to begin any longer.
I have a research laboratory at a non-profit research institute. My plan is to build my group with professional scientists (PhDs and non-PhDs) in permanent positions rather than the cheap labor of postdocs and graduate students. I fully believe that this group of individuals can make up for their higher cost with higher productivity, since they are more highly trained and focused. I was not aware, however, that reviewers of research grants would be biased against providing real jobs" for scientists. A grant proposal of mine came back with the critique that there was no reason to hire professional scientists for the project and I should instead hire graduate students to do the work (implication: at lower cost). Aside from the practical issue that my institution is not degree-granting, I found this to be discouraging. It indicates that even if an institution and a laboratory head are interested in bucking the trend and providing grown-up jobs for scientists, the funding agencies and their reviewers need to get over their bias towards cheap labor. Otherwise the pyramid scheme continues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not possible to train too many people to have the skills necessary to solve problems and make discoveries. If they don't all get to work in the field they originally decided to study that's good for the rest of us. They will take those skills and use them in industry, or another field of research, or teaching or use it to enrich the world in other ways. They will contribute to the economy and to culture and to intelligent dialog about the world. They will be evangelists for rational thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoing science is all about making sure you aren't fooling yourself. The more people who can do that the better off we will all be.
Shawn Carlson, Ph.D.
LabRats Science Education Program
It is not possible to train too many people to have the skills necessary to solve problems and make discoveries. If they don't all get to work in the field they originally decided to study that's good for the rest of us. They will take those skills and use them in industry, or another field of research, or teaching or use it to enrich the world in other ways. They will contribute to the economy and to culture and to intelligent dialog about the world. They will be evangelists for rational thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoing science is all about making sure you aren't fooling yourself. The more people who can do that the better off we will all be.
Shawn Carlson, Ph.D.
LabRats Science Education Program
I'm in agreement with those that feel that you are not a loser if you leave academia to go to those dreadful government or industry jobs. It feels good to have a true, applied impact that doesn't center around chasing the latest hot trend for grant purposes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is so true though that any scientist can be "under employed" in post doc positions for the length of their career. Like every other industry - the more they can get for the least amount of fair treatment of employees is the way things will operate and in this economy - that is not going to improve any time soon.
Something should really be said about the lack of health insurance or a living wage for graduate students. Why go to grad school when you can go to Wall Street and live like a king from day one?
Apples and oranges. The industry types are "bemoaning" a lack of talent, not a lack of credentialed individuals. The Harvard economist only considered having the degree as sufficient evidence of talent; experience dictates that this is not so. A self-reported scientist, with a scientific degree, cannot necessarily do scientific work; I have seen in my own institution (I'm a Ph.D. Candidate), people with barely a Bachelor's level understanding of the science, be awarded a Ph.D. by their committee.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a "post-doc" is when I started getting an education and meaningful training. Humans are capable of being educated and trained. Many lower animal forms can be trained but few are educated with analytical capabilties... Much of science and mathematics education is memorizing and not learning the "Whys." Why learning the fundamental "3-R's" are important and the algorisms of math help a person to develop a realistic perpective of human cultures....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhudd e Dud
Ms. Benderly has done an excellent job of presenting the unsustainable manner in which federal research funding produces Ph.D.s almost as a by-product in our nation's universities. However, I think the assumption that most Ph.D.s aspire to become professors is inaccurate. (Maybe Ms. Benderly has some data to support this?) This does not diminish from the general thesis, however, that the current supply of scientists does not match the demand. (The overall wage data strongly supports that.) R&D jobs in industry and government are also scarce. Industrial R&D jobs are also some of the first jobs cut in a recession and some of management's favorite jobs to off-shore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou mean "uninterested"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps the model of funding of scientific research indeed needs to be changed. Perhaps it is not so bad after all. I just want to point out one factor that contributed to the current situation, and this is a fundamental factor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I applied for the first time for a grant as a postdoc, I went to the Office of Sponsored Research at my university and asked for the F&A overhead rate. It was 38% (2003). Today, 100%, even 150% is not unusual. So, the federal funding stagnated, and at the same time a huge chunk of these funds is being diverted toward goals not directly related to research. The practice of charging skyrocketing overheads is little discussed, because there are vested interests involved. Nevertheless, this is precisely what reduces the opportunities for young generation scientists.
I thought that this article was pretty much spot on. The concluding paragraphs could go a bit further in outlining solutions to the structural problems in academic science. I also think such ideas should entertain the end of the tenure system which seems to provide exceptional opportunity for a very, very small minority of scientists, and in my experience this system often fails to select the best talent, and instead selects for an unusual (sometimes unstable) personality type.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not suggesting that there are scores of Amy Bishops out there in academia, but many tenure and tenure-track professors are often excellent researchers but ill-equipped to be mentors and instructors. In my mind, there is a critical need to dissociate the diverse roles that a typical professor in the US plays.
One partial solution (that we as a country use to follow, but forgot) would be to move away from so many PhD-ships and towards a greater use of Masters degrees (like Canada still does). This move, along with greater structural support for mid-level scientists, would make the system for stable and less top-heavy, and create a more worthwhile investment for young science students. Investing 2-3 years, rather than 7, after a bachelors degree is reasonable.
In general I think this article is informative, representative and important to communicate to the public and public servants.
As an American who is presently entering my first postdoc in neuroscience at Max Planck in Germany, this article had particular salience to me. After spending almost an entire year searching for a research position in the US, I began looking abroad. And although the outcome of my efforts is quite good, it is also quite clear (statistically) that my odds of landing a stable or tenure-track position in the long run are still depressingly low.
Editorial note, Pg 2:
"But the real dearththe lack of clear pathways into careers that could enable todays generation of gifted young Americans to become the researchers who make tomorrows great discoveriesis convincing more and more of the nations best students not (?????) to seek careers in fields such as law, finance, medicine and other fields that offer much better short- and long-term career prospects instead of dedicating an average of seven years to PhD study plus an additional five years or more of postdoctoral training now considered necessary to compete for an academic career in many scientific fields."
(?????) I believe the 'not' in this sentence is in error.
If there is a shortage of scientists, where are the jobs? Why do biotech companies receive dozens or hundreds of resumes for every job posted? Why do Ph.D. programs turn away qualified applicants? Why do some science jobs pay less than some jobs requiring nothing beyond high school? Why hasn't California's $3 billion bond measure for stem cell research resulted in a plethora of jobs?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally, I question the wisdom of having the lion's share of funding for academic research come from the government.
Maybe scientists could use MySpace/Facebook/PayPal and cyberbeg for money?
Yes, we do have too many higher-level engineers and scientist than our economy is willing to support. The system is broken, as many talented people are being abused in graduate and post-doc position. Those who benefit from the system, who have made it to the top, have a vested interesting in keeping the system intact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmerican undergraduates see that science and engineering graduate students are often little more than indentured servants of the tenure track professor that is their graduate advisor. That alone makes an MD, JD or MBA a more attractive alternative than a MS or PhD. The graduate advisor, on the other hand, has to compete for those grants, and can only compete if he or she has a cheap work force. This might sound like the free enterprise system, but it is free enterprise with an effectively monopoly as the source of the research funding.
This system has been broken for a long time. Many students enter the tournament as college freshmen, only a very few reach the peak. Some realize sooner than others that they will not reach the prized tenured research professor position; some opt for industry or government carreers, others find different paths, the rest are stuck as post-docs.
H1B applicatants from less developed countries are flooding the science and engineering graduate programs at many universities; they have been for years. In the past, these folks have been able to roll into technical jobs in US companies.
But that is becoming less frequent, as American companies off-shore research and engineering functions. Even the shift to manufacturing off-shore over the last 30 years and underminded the stability of many jobs for BS level engineers and scientist.
So a real dissappointment is that not that so few tenured professors positions are available, but that technical careers do not have the stability or logevity that the high school guidance counselors thought they would have.
The underlying premise of this article that the structure of scientific funding in this country needs a overhaul is correct. Most of the overt premises in this article are simply false:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. The concept that academia is the only worthwhile pursuit for a science PhD is simply false, this is an outdated concept.
2. Related, he concept that only scientific work done in research universities is significant is false, much of our science comes from industry. Industry science tends to be applied science with more concrete, immediate or obvious benefits to the company.
3. The concept that falling in the middle of the pack in math/science scores is acceptable because we have a lot of the top scores is frightening. All citizens in the US can benefit from more science/math training, regardless of career. Increasing education for all students is invaluable, especially science and math based education.
4. Allowing skilled foreigners into our economy is a benefit. We want the most hard working, educated people we can get, regardless of where they were born.
5. Addressing the title, the concept that we produce too many scientists is one I solidly disagree with. I'd rather see a scientist practicing law or politics than a lawyer or politician practicing science.
While restructuring scientific funding in this country is important, I'd argue that providing more funding is important. If you put more money into academic labs, you'll increase the number of scientists even more, which, I'll repeat is not a bad thing. If you put that money into government labs you will provide jobs for those scientists, and also direct developments that private industry can build off of.
We will get the top grade for science no sooner we shake-off the dead hand of superstition. It is now prevalent that "the age of scientific disassociation and anti-rationalism" has dawn on America. Just think about how Albert Einstein's crap is being perpetuated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe will get the top grade for science no sooner we shake-off the dead hand of superstition. It is now prevalent that "the age of scientific disassociation and anti-rationalism" has dawn on America. Just think about how Albert Einstein's crap is being perpetuated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe will get the top grade for science no sooner we shake-off the dead hand of superstition. It is now prevalent that "the age of scientific disassociation and anti-rationalism" has dawn on America. Just think about how Albert Einstein's crap is being perpetuated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe return on investment in scientific research is dwindling. The principle reason is the time it is taking to transistion research to reality is increasingly getting longer and longer. To transition the scientific work published in the journals require Ph.D scientists who understand not only the advanced research work but also its relevance in practical applications. Inserting full time staff into such slots is completely missing at government, industry and academic levels. To fill such void in medical field, they established the M.D., Ph.D program and ofcourse those joining such programs end up being neither good scientists nor good clinicians, because they do not pursue the goals of the program, viz., transition research to patient care. The government can play a role by increasing the incentives to the industry, government labs and universities for investment in research transition programs. This will make the American industry to be the best and most innovative in the world. They can produce products that cannot be made elsewhere in the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a astrophysics Ph.D. working on Wall Street.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne thing that I strongly believe is that the problem is not "too many scientists" but a system of science funding and incentives that can't absorb scientists. I think part of the dysfunction is the academia/industry split in which people like myself that see the writing on the wall and move into industry are made to feel like "traitors to the cause." What's worse is that industrial Ph.D.'s have absolutely no voice and influence on the ivory tower because we have been seen as betrayal the cause.
The thing about being a physics Ph.D. is that if you prepare yourself for life outside of academia, there are absolutely wonderful jobs out there. The problem is that those jobs require skills that you don't learn as part of the Ph.D. program, and people doing Ph.D.'s are actively *discouraged* from getting some skills that would make it possible for them to use their Ph.D.'s more effectively. Ph.D.'s should be *encouraged* to do things like get an MBA, teaching certificate, or science journalist certificate. If the jobs aren't there, then we need to spend some effort at training Ph.D.'s to start high tech companies. If all else fails, learn plumbing and air conditioning repair.
The fundamental problem that I see is the idea as scientist as a "profession" rather than a "way of life." Once you see a science as a passion rather than a career, the much of the problem disappears.
One curious thing is that in my job, I have more than enough money so that I could theoretically work part time and spend part time with basic research. The problem for me is not money but time, in that I can't take the skills that I have, do basic research, and then expect a job waiting for me. But that is something that fixable.
The main problem is that there is plenty of knowledge to be discovered, but most of that knowledge cannot currently be easily capitalized. As such, return on investment for research is low, and MBAs are being taught the lesson of Xerox: "he who does the research is the sucker, he who rips it off later gains the spoils."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople look to the past and mistakenly think that the period of the light bulb, the transistor, and the anti-biotic was birthed by a culture of discovery. Unfortunately, the truth is that period of "ingenuity" occurred not because of massive spending, or a well educated workforce, but because of coincidence. It just so happened that there were easily monetized uses for a series of knowledge discoveries which then proliferated throughout our material technology. The notion that if we just had enough smart, extremely well educated people we could keep up the 20th centuries pace of material technology transition going indefinitely is groundless. Such faith is extrapolation of a curve from a single data point.
So now we have a generation of bright young Phds, some of them my relatives, who cannot find work in either academia or industry, because, there is no money to be made from discovering that AI is hard or that genomics is nothing without proteomics. Will this trend of materially useless discovery also continue forever? I doubt it, but we have as much control over that as we had over the fact that electron band hopping is useful for creating information states.
I'm a astrophysics Ph.D. working on Wall Street.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne thing that I strongly believe is that the problem is not "too many scientists" but a system of science funding and incentives that can't absorb scientists. I think part of the dysfunction is the academia/industry split in which people like myself that see the writing on the wall and move into industry are made to feel like "traitors to the cause." What's worse is that industrial Ph.D.'s have absolutely no voice and influence on the ivory tower because we have been seen as betrayal the cause.
The thing about being a physics Ph.D. is that if you prepare yourself for life outside of academia, there are absolutely wonderful jobs out there. The problem is that those jobs require skills that you don't learn as part of the Ph.D. program, and people doing Ph.D.'s are actively *discouraged* from getting some skills that would make it possible for them to use their Ph.D.'s more effectively. Ph.D.'s should be *encouraged* to do things like get an MBA, teaching certificate, or science journalist certificate. If the jobs aren't there, then we need to spend some effort at training Ph.D.'s to start high tech companies. If all else fails, learn plumbing and air conditioning repair.
The fundamental problem that I see is the idea as scientist as a "profession" rather than a "way of life." Once you see a science as a passion rather than a career, the much of the problem disappears.
One curious thing is that in my job, I have more than enough money so that I could theoretically work part time and spend part time with basic research. The problem for me is not money but time, in that I can't take the skills that I have, do basic research, and then expect a job waiting for me. But that is something that fixable.
The problem is that there is plenty of knowledge to be discovered, but most of that knowledge cannot currently be easily "monetized". As such, return on investment for research is low, and MBAs are being taught the lesson of Xerox: "he who does the research is the sucker, he who rips it off later gains the spoils."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople look to the past and mistakenly think that the period of the light bulb, the transistor, and the anti-biotic was birthed by a culture of discovery. Unfortunately, the truth is that period of "ingenuity" occurred not because of massive spending, or a well educated workforce, but because of coincidence. It just so happened that there were easily monetized uses for a series of knowledge discoveries which then proliferated throughout our material technology. The notion that if we just had enough smart, extremely well educated people we could keep up the 20th centuries pace of material technology transition indefinitely is groundless. Such faith is extrapolation of a curve from a single data point.
So now we have a generation of bright young Phds, some of them my relatives, who cannot find work in either academia or industry, because, there is no money to be made from discovering that AI is hard or that genomics is nothing without proteomics. Will this trend of materially useless discovery also continue forever? I doubt it, but we have as much control over that as we had over the fact that electron band hopping is useful for creating information states.
Also one of weird things that I found is that I'm one of the very few people with a science Ph.D. that's actively encouraging kids to go into science and engineering. What you can learn with a Ph.D. is problem solving, and if you point out that "what should I do with my Ph.D.?" is something of an ultimate problem, then the whole system makes sense. Of course once you realize that this is the situation, you might try to learn something else while you are getting your Ph.D.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe other thing is that simply increasing funding is not going to help the problem but it's going to make it worse. Because of the way that science is structured there is a systematic overproduction of scientists, and you have to change the way the system works to fix that problem.
One thing that I *DO* strongly recommend is that you absolutely need to have representation for graduate students, post-doc. adjuncts, industrial Ph.D.'s, community college/high school teachers on the committees and boards that make science policy in the United States. Right now, the only voice that makes science policy are those of tenured academic faculty, so it's not surprising that we have a system that benefits them, and screws just about everyone else.
In my opinion, based on observation, is that American industry and especially American entrepreneurs, is largely clueless when it comes to employing and motivating scientists! The resulting loss to society and the the economy is truly immense in my opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI completely agree with this article- there is a serious glut of scientists. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never finished a phd and looked out at the job market.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI recently finished a phd in theoretical particle physics, which I was drawn to because the LHC is finally turning on, and I very much wanted to be a part of this sure to be exciting time in science.
During my phd, I worked independently on my own projects, and was successful. I won two competitive awards that allowed me to travel to Japan and to CERN to work with collaborators. I finished masters+phd in 5 years.
However, now that I'm graduating, I'm having trouble even getting a low paying postdoc position! For personal reasons, I can't take a postdoc outside the US, and with such tight competition its not about what you know, but who. The people I know are in Japan and Europe.
Further, because of my highly specialized training, the skills I've developed aren't directly relevant to any other job. I have a choice- an entry level engineering job (which I could have taken out of undergrad) or move in to consulting or finance, who will at least pay me for having the phd.
Despite an excellent grad student career, I feel like a failure in leaving science. And the worst part is, I gave 5 years of my life to a field with little but the promise of opportunity. Don't worry about the pay, you get to do science. Unfortunately, that opportunity doesn't seem to exist, and it has left me feeling crushed.
Is there a problem? A simple look at the salaries and # of applicants for relevant positions, either academic or in industry, shows that the supply of scientists in this country far exceeds demand. Basic economics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are capable of completing a science PhD, then you are capable of easily picking up an MBA or law degree. A scientist will likely earn significantly less over his lifetime than an MBA, lawyer or doctor. Frankly, there is no rational reason for an American citizen to pursue a PhD in any field (maybe if you get into a top 5 school). Foreign students do it to get into this country.
My father has a PhD in chemistry and strongly urged me to avoid science. I got a PhD in computer science anyway. He was right about the career problems. But I have to do what I enjoy and have an aptitude for, rather than pursue money blindly. Becoming a lawyer would have destroyed my spirit.
I am currently working as a post-doc at one of the ivy league schools. I am a foreign national who came to this country to do PhD in biological sciences. If I had read this article during my undergradute degree, I would have refrained from getting a PhD. Life is too short to get economic and job security at the age of 45. Most of my friends with Bachelor's degree in engineering make around 100K , whereas as a postdoc, I have to struggle with bare minimum (37-40 k), put in the slave labor and suck up to miserable bosses. Being international postdoc is more tough because visa status is tied to the employment, making postdocs more vulnerable to exploitation. This is the main reasons international national postdocs are preffered, as most of them will not stand up for themselves. American postdocs will not tolerate such exploitation as they have alternative career options. After postdoc it is also difficult for international postdocs to establish themselves as faculty members if they have language based communication issues . They also have a very few choices in getting positions in biotech/pharma industries and and govt jobs which are mostly restricted to citizens or permanent residents. International postdocs are underpaid, overworked and exploited intellectuals whose dream of american dream mostly remains a dream...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI deney the existance of scientists
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfrom: Jesus Christ
This is a really important point--here in New York state, I have had many friends try to break into high school teaching after getting PhD degrees. It took one biologist friend of mine 3 *years* of extra coursework (after the PhD) to get her certification to teach high school science. This is ridiculous!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd this article applies equally to all PhDs in all fields, not just to "scientists". See the recent articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education by Thomas Benton for a similar view on going to grad school in the humanities. His main point? Just don't go. American's best and brightest are lured into higher education, spending their prime years working to get a PhD when there are almost no prospects of a job available to them which requires anything above a high school education. This is more than a sad waste, it is a criminal waste of brainpower. Another friend of mine (BA from Harvard, PhD from a Big Ten school) is now thinking of re-training as a nurse so she can get a job--any job--with benefits!
if there is a glut of scientists, why do we continue to recruit so many foreign scientists? if there was a glut of american scientists, wouldn't we choose them first, especially for high security positions? with reference to the educational system: science is the same all over, int'l comparisons are relavant. low income and minority children have been mistreated for generation to the detriment of the nation as a whole and we need to realize that (welfare, jail, etc). yes, all american students need to increase their math/science knowlegde/skills. we may find that some of the poorest are also some of the smartest and may even be able to implement a model that will actually work for the scientific community. one last note: i thought the article was about a "general shortage" but the focus seemed to be in academia. is the shortage in other sectors of the country? if so, why the fixation on academia rather than another sector more likely to provide you with job secuirty?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUS PRODUCES TOO MANY EDUCATED PEOPLE BUT HAS NO JOBS FOR THEM.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSOLUTION: BAN IMMIGRATION AND HAVE NATIONAL REFERENDA
The US produce too many scientists, engineers, and other professionals but does not have any jobs for most of them. The corporatists like Bill Gates and the corporate owned media continues to deceive the public that there is a shortage of talent, when in fact, there is an over supply. The propaganda is done to allow more immigration to create a flood of cheap labor, that can be exploited and hired for minimum wage, irrespective of the level of education. Our govt. needs to stand up and ban immigration.
We can stop this war of immigration on our nation. It is time to join groups such as Numbers USA (http://www.numbersusa.com), or FAIR (http://www.fairus.org), the Minutemen, etc. and take a stand against the 3rd world war on USA. It is also time to amend the constitution to allow national referenda, so the people can pass good laws themselves, since our corrupt government won't. For eg.
http://ni4d.us/index.htm
http://www.iandrinstitute.org/National%20I&R.htm
The most important law to pass is to ban immigration, and the easy visas that let the whole world in.
Perhaps a better question would be "Does the USA produce too many lawyers?" One rarely reads about communities advertising to FIND and entice young lawyers to come to their communities!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is a big mistake to lump together "scientists" and "engineers". They are definitely NOT perceived to be at all the same by hiring managers in the NONACADEMIC job market. This is true even though a "scientist" who does finally manage to get an industrial job does in fact work as an "engineer" anyway. And BOTH a "scientist" and an "engineer" learns their job via OJT, and do not so much rely on their academic backgrounds. So once "on the job" there is in reality little difference between them. But someone with an "engineering" education will have a MUCH easier time getting an industrial job than someone with a "science" education. Accordingly a related distinction should be made in this article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to agree that the military industrial complex is a cancer that consumes the economic life-blood of our nation. At this stage, the US is simply repeating the historic cycle of the Roman and British Empires, both defeated by their own internal, grossly-huge war budgets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe US government currently has all the essential pieces of the remedy-puzzle in place and only needs to re-organize and install policies to provide synergism to nurture our national technological capacity for innovation and market development. Two US war efforts serve as models- the Manhattan Project and the Moon Mission. The trick now is how to replicate these successful programs in the absence of a world war.
So, first the National Science Foundation could identify a suite of technological goals to achieve using economic indicators as a success monitor. Both academia and industry should be involved in prioritizing the "suite of goals".
A 20-year plan is formulated for each goal. Centers of Excellence are funded at universities to produce the required human talent. US agencies cooperate with the US Department of Education to rebuild the national talent base. Concurrently, talent-magnet laboratories are funded to absorb the university output for the purpose of focusing this brain-energy on the identified "suite of goals". Next, the US Small Business Administration establishes links with Venture Capital firms to facilitate entrepreneurship for brining the achieved goals to market. Private Industry will naturally assimilate the "winners" into the national and global markets.
Of course, implementing such a national program would necessitate diminution of the US war budget to free-up the tax revenue for a more prolific, commercial economy.
After all, the US experienced the greatest economic growth after WWII ended. Once again, the US is at this juncture - we do not need a trillion dollar war budget to fight a rag-tag group of terrorists.
The question is - will Congress be wise enough to cure the economic cancer?
Thank you for writing this important article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother few things you could consider are:
- Gender diversity is also hampered by the current situation, where faculty-hopefuls have to move between multiple short postdoc positions before getting a permanent position. Those postdoc positions often don't have much offering for maternity leave, and jumping between positions multiple times is very hard for couples where both work, particularly where both work in academia. At the moment, that means women are more affected by this difficulty than men, and so may leave the academic track disproportionately.
- An idea for helping the situation is to create "minors" in grad school, which prepare grad students for careers that are not purely research-oriented, but use their scientific base. For example, managing/leading teams for big projects (like the Hubble Space Telescope, for example), teaching at the undergraduate or high school level, teaching high school science teachers, organizing/offering public outreach about science. That will help open doors for grad students to put their scientific skills to broader purposes, and hopefully legitimize those other types of science jobs.
The article sometimes mixes discussion of academic and industrial science jobs, even in the same paragraph. Discussion of academic and industrial jobs should NOT be mixed like that. They ARE indeed separate areas, and mixing them confuses the discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no scientist shortage .There is a lack of high-tech talent shortage that threatens the nations continued competitiveness.We have more narrow minded, mediocre scientists than ever, with time and money to get a Ph.D. We still lack talent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no scientist shortage .There is a lack of high-tech talent shortage that threatens the nation’s continued competitiveness.We have more narrow minded, mediocre scientists than ever, with time and money to get a Ph.D. We still lack talent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiserrata:lack of high-tech talent *not shortage*
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiserrata:lack of high-tech talent *not shortage*
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisO Lord,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease bring back Mr. L. Kahn.
And Mr. Aalto, too.
I believe current statistics that show us 'way down the list of academic excellents.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven the lack of science and engineering jobs (today) and little if any long term job security for scientists and engineers - how can anyone encourage kids to pursue science or engineering as a career. Unless US politicians eliminate the ability of US companies to outsource their technical/science jobs, a science or engineering career is a dead end other than working for the Government or a defense contractor. You're better off sending your kid to learn how to become a plumber or auto mechanic than a scientist. At least as a plumber, he (or she) will have reasonable job security.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother problem is that scientists, (and the rest of us), if we are truthful with ourselves, are at risk of being obsolete within 10 years if we have the poor luck or bad judgment to work a problem that fades or fails or actually gets solved. Most fields are moving so fast, you never stop playing catch-up. Yeah, you can get good training and a broad background, blah, blah, but there's no substitute for timeliness. It's just not possible to master everything one needs to be a contributor, and most employers and research institutes aren't going to pay you to sit on your butt and read a few hundred journal articles so you can switch fields. The work is going to go the the person in the right place, right time, right background.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's a whole other literature about physicists and other scientists coming in and wrecking the financial system. I wonder if there's a supply/demand effect going on here - in other words, you could tie the financial collapse in with the lack of actual science jobs for scientists. Perhaps farfetched, but I would be curious to see it investigated, or debunked. (It would certainly make a good talking point for anyone intent on changing the system.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs someone who spent six years on the post-doc treadmill, I fully understand the point the author is trying to make. As a naive PhD student, I thought science was a higher calling, something you did more for love than money and several of my professors encouraged this mode of thinking. Now I know better. Science has become a career like any other and if you are to be "successful" you have to manage your career path just like actors. The parochial view of working long hours in the laboratory in pursuit of a scientific goals is about as useful for a scientific career as is acting in the local theater and hoping you will be "discovered" by a producer is for a career in acting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter my six years as a post-doc, nothing came of my applications to faculty positions. Variously, I was told: a) I have no teaching experience (funny thing that grad-students do most of the teaching at Universities, not professors or post-docs), b) no record of funding support (I helped write several proposals, but the professor's name was on the proposal not mine) and c) did not have 5 letters of recommendations from the key people in my field (in other words the hiring committee wanted someone else to read the 30 papers I had written over six years and provide a the consolidated opinion they were suppose to write).
I then went to work for a government research lab on a fixed term contract and was shocked to learn that this particular lab had no permanent research staff. Only the research managers had permanent positions. In discussions with the managers I asked how they dealt with the problem of institutional memory and was told it was unimportant. For the most part funding agencies only funded a given line of research for 3-5 years, they explained, so once the available funding started decreasing they would simply let the people on fixed term contracts go and hire new people who were experts in whatever the hot topic the funding agencies were currently supporting. Scientist are disposable assets, or so I was made to believe.
So, yes I agree with the author, there is no shortage of scientist and the funding system is completely broken.
If more colleges and universities would invest in full-time tenure-track faculty, rather than farming academic duties out to underpaid adjunct faculty, this problem would be greatly diminished.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBSEE, MSEE. I work eighty hours per week and have mounds of ideas. I can employ people and have some "waiting in the wings". There is just not money out there. Either you have to sell your soul (company) to venture capitalist or go work for someone. Neither are attractive for independent people (who are the innovators). Till money is liberated there will be a starvation/stagnation of science in the USA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBSEE, MSEE. I work eighty hours per week and have mounds of ideas. I can employ people and have some "waiting in the wings". There is just not money out there. Either you have to sell your soul (company) to venture capitalist or go work for someone. Neither are attractive for independent people (who are the innovators). Till money is liberated there will be a starvation/stagnation of science in the USA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrently doing contract work on things I did five years ago... that is not an avenue for growth either.
Well I'll let you know if I can get a faculty position in environmental engineering. I have wanted to for some years now, and this article is more of a wake-up call to reality for me. Still going to try and to do it, but I'll let you know how it goes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe thought occurred to me that if other countries hire science career track people in a better way, then I'll just immigrate to one of those countries. Now I get to learn engineering AND another language. Maybe I'll see you at a university in Rio some day. :-)
As an engineering PhD (Electrical and Computer Engineering), I resemble this article, and have some experience in the economics of the recently graduated. There are definitely problems with public research, and it can be difficult to find a job doing exactly what you want to do. However, this article makes a false connection between the "blue-ribbon commissions" findings that there aren't enough skilled scientists and engineers and the lack of opportunities for some PhD level scientists and engineers. We need more scientists and engineers in every level, not JUST at the PhD level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole argument here is, unfortunately, nonsensical, since it only contemplates academic jobs for science PhDs. In practice, most go on to work in industrial R&D, business, law, journalism, finance, etc. etc.., and are quite happy to do so. There might or might not be a surplus of scientists (my experience is certainly that good candidates are hard to come by) but the article doesn't even ask the right questions to determine that. This piece seems surprisingly clueless about the reality of science PhDs in the U.S., even for a "draft."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The whole argument here is, unfortunately, nonsensical, since it only contemplates academic jobs for science PhDs."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that the draft placed too much emphasis on academic positions, but that's where most of the country's research occurs. (Industrial R&D is almost all "D" with the "R" being done overwhelmingly at universities.) Perhaps the author should reference a RAND study from 2004 that examines science and technical employment from the broader perspective of the federal government:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2004/RAND_MG118.pdf
It's pretty clear that the stagnant wages and exodus from chosen fields answers the article's title very clearly. Sadly, "yes" is exactly the answer that the government and private employers want to hear.
The article is on target. As a seasoned (surviving) soft money researcher, the main flaws I see are: 1) build up some fabulous minds but 2) run them off a cliff like lemmings once they reach their terminal degree. The smart ones who want real jobs see this early on and switch over to corporate life where they build a second life. Alternatively those who continue in science exist like artists and poets living on the fringes of society until it is ready again to listen to those ideas. The US has moved away from this fundamental pursuit to a more monetary goal (which now far outweighs all other goals). Money is strong but knowledge is more sustaining. We need to return to a balance between quarterly profits and long-term non-monetary investments. For a start, consider the paradigm shift of a successful nation on criteria other than money. Consider quality of life and the average intellectual capacity of a society. Take away money and a nation survives on these two elements. Take away these two elements and a nation collapses (as it is now). The real survivors out there right now are living by their accumulated knowledge not by their 401Ks. Our nation has become so obsessed with dollars that we have lost our vision of what to actually do with those dollars in terms of human development within our nation. We are actually better at nation building abroad than we are at home.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFinal Comment: Education does not equal Ph.D. or MBA. Education equals knowledge and know how. We need to reinvest our concepts of education and know-how back into the full fabric of society. Skilled labor will become the biggest revenue growth sector in this coming generation by a few who build the capability through means outside of existing academia. This is simply the effect of supply and demand. The full spectrum of knowledge-based learning needed to proportionally advance a whole society as a complex system must be examined to reintegrate all structures of society into the learning process. Academic systems are only one tool of education. Technical schools and technical skills generate the base of all commerce. The US is sinking in quick sand on this basic lost foundation. This is where the third world nations will overtake us, not on our supersized Ph.D. programs.
Recall: Even "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" (Edison). We need to re-invigorate the 99% part.
A lot of intelligent comments. I agree with the frequently stated viewpoint, that scientific education is not a waste and that the problem is in part the idea put forward during academic training that other career paths are "alternate" or constitute "failure."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the same token, I think the article's premise that there are a glut of PhDs desperate for academic positions who can't get them and how this is unsustainable and damaging is correct. Certainly part of the solution should be to build opportunities for these people to work outside of academia and remove the stigma associated with this choice. However, the fact that postdocs are paid a disgustingly low wage is certainly true. I got a BS in engineering and could have made at least $50K at the time, but followed my interests and got a PhD in biology and now can make $40K with a PhD. I don't think this is a fair wage that reflects the value of the knowledge researchers in biology generate.
I think part of the solution is also having more permanent positions within academic and other research institutions. The high turnover in postdocs and grad students leaves most labs without a core of trained seasoned researchers to help guide and maintain the expertise labs need. PIs have too much on their plate and are too removed from the bench to do this and it would be quite valuable.
I also think that the tenure track system is badly set up for those seeking tenure. Although the article treats them as the success stories, this success has many costs that can be tough to bear. Delay and difficulty in having a family, particularly for women (I'm a white male for the record : ). The stress placed on many people isn't right.
The real problem, which hasn't really been emphasized, is that academic science is not structured well for anyone. It's inefficient and wastes a lot of talent and puts undue stress on most people. I'm a happy very confident person and I even get a bit stressed now and again. But like many people have posted, if you're smart and have vision, you can do anything.
For me grad school and my postdoc are mainly getting paid to do something I enjoy. I don't think I get paid in proportion to my societal value, but I also think most people waste tons of money on useless crap. The only thing you can't afford that's worth anything is a family. That's a serious problem, but for the most part pay is not a big deal. And the cost of children and day care is a systemic issue like health care that's really bigger than science and needs to be fixed for everyone.
I read this article with interest and pain. I escaped with my PhD in 1987 when the economy was bad in the US. So I found a position overseas through friends. I wound up in Australia doing a post-doc, then to a national lab in Japan, back to US to no job, then to Australia doing both start-up industries and academic post docs. I am now working for a large multinational, still overseas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth academia and industry are difficult and are getting more difficult.
My observations since I escaped w my PhD is that industry and academia perceives the PhD's skills to be outdated when they graduated. If they didn't have the latest "buzz" words in their thesis / papers to quickly bring in money, they were ignored despite their skills. This is true for both scientists and engineers.
In industry, the managers or investors often think they know science / engineering and tell the researcher the answer the managers think is right irregardless of the correct solution. The researchers are reduced to "firefighting" and supplying quick fixes. If the managers had let them do the work properly in the first place, there would be little need for quick fixes.
In industry, there is little support for original thinking at work and there is no tenure in the job. You could lose it at the drop of a hat like 2/3's of my colleagues at work did last year.
To get ahead with salary, you need to move into or get pushed into management. However, the senior managers think that because you have a PhD you can do everything without more training. A PhD in engineering and sciences doesn't give you the people or businees skills necessary.
In academia, they are now not giving tenure but only 5 year contracts. If you don't bring enough grant money in, your contract is not renewed. I have seen world renowned researchers in my field with brilliant 40 page CV's not get tenure because they weren't bringing in big grants.
Also, in academia, there is also much infighting and nasty stealing of ideas because the funding situation has become so acute. If you are lucky to be in a faculty position where there is no overlap with your colleagues areas, you could work on original ideas and develop yourself, contribute to your field of research, and develop good students.
National labs are not ideal places either. There are no "tenured" positions unless you are senior manager. The labs depend on short term 3 year grants which if not renewed or don't get on another, you are out of a job. The labs own all work IP AND non work IP you make too.
There are actually plenty of jobs in science fields. I know for a fact that Rhode Island does not have enough positions filled in it's biotech firms. Its not the fact there are too many scientists, its the fact that they don't know where to find work. People have to move to find work, so get over it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly for the wrong subjects. They have been exploring space looking for space rocks since JFK clallenged them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey have never gotten over it. Exploring the planets depths
well in 1958. They prefur to wast as much money as possible.
We got tang, a fancy matress. Ya, we are blowing off God and decided the looser scientists are smarter. Instead of praying we plan to find some place that does not exist to move to later. It makes sence to me.
This is largely correct in my view, but it overlooks several important aspects of the current system that stem from the very narrow preparation that science PhDs get. The growth in specialization has led to very narrow silos of expertise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-> most members of the graduate faculty don't know how to prepare doctoral students more broadly in ways that would broaden their employement options, and universities are largely disinterested in this important topic because it is so costly to run PhD programs.
-> thus, many potential (non-academic) employers of highly trained scientists do not find the skills development afforded by the current system to be fully adequate for many of their needs.
-> mere counting heads and comparing PhDs awarded to job openings is misleading. This approach says nothing about the quality of the PhDs produced and their ability to work in teams. And it is unreasonable to expect the number of job openings to always "lead" PhDs produced. When PhDs produced lead job openings and those PhDs are able and broadly trained, they either find good employment or jobs are created in order to employ them. This is not an easy process but it is an important one.
-> Isn't this famous Professor Richard Freeman the author (in the 1970s) of the book: "The Overeducated American?" Now I ask readers to judge whether reducing education opportunities for our citizens is a realistic solution to America's need for high quality jobs? I believe it is not!
I beleive that the result of the current scientific labor market is due to the of the demise of the art of conversation, debating, and the ability to base ones opinions on researched facts/knowledge that can be independently verified . Our society currently does not promote the notion that learning and the development of wisdom entails a daily excersice involving asking questions, finding answers and debating them based on factual evidence and thus be able to reach one or more answers that can solve or explain a prolbem or situation. Culturally we have shifted to a dogamatic world view that is frequently informed by a progressievly narrower set of "facts" determined by ideology which then percludes us from asking, answering and debating in an unbiased, non-dogmatic, non-confrotational manner. The interesting thing is that it does not "cost" more to approach education in this manner and it can be applied universally to the rich as well s the poor. It has to do with how we are training our educators and thinkers, aka the whole of society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNSF S&E indicators show that jobs requiring S&E knowledge are increasing. Thus, it makes sense to produce more individuals that can meet a growing demand for S&E knowledge. Whether these individuals should be at the PhD level is the real question. To say that just because S&E PhDs don't go into Academia, then there is no shortage, but in fact a suplus of scientists and engineers, is a highly over-simplified and silly argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe U.S. doesn't produce too many scientists; it produces too many laws. If Intellectual Property squatters and their lawyer associates didn't stand in the way of technological development and progress--as well as the Federal government regulating so intensely as to make regulatory compliance costs and legal fees halt R&D cold--then we'd have a use for those scientists. In the meantime, move to another country whose despots aren't as suicidal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA few things come to mind just reading the first page:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) it is a very narrow view of a PhD that it is purely training to become an academic faculty member,
2) not everyone in science runs a lab
3) you don't have to have a faculty position to apply for federal or private research funding
4) Some PhDs CHOOSE to live on soft money because they have more freedom
A PhD does very little top train a student for a faculty position.
A PhD trains one to be a researcher and develops those skills.
It rarely provides training in ANY of the other skills associated with a faculty position in science, e.g. teaching, accounting, management of a large group of researchers etc.
The issue of science education goes way beyond training scientists
Science is part of our lives and even artists/factory workers or any other number of non-scientists
should be scientifically literate enough to comprehend
the science issues that affect them
The idea that a decline in white men in science means the career is less desriable is incredibly insulting.
I take great exception to this characterization:
They didnt spend the last 12 years of their lives
memorizing books&. Theyve spent the last 12 years
dealing with real problems and solving them."
What utter tripe! I deal with students who are
amongst the brightest out of Missouri schools and all
they have learned is that if they memorize the facts
in the textbook they'll get a good grade.
They most certainly do not know how to "think".
The characterization of the availability of funding is odd.
"a scientist cant compete for a federal grantthe sine qua non of professional recognition as an established investigatorwithout the backing of a university or other non-profit institution, and universities generally back only researchers who hold faculty positions, and sometimes only those on the tenure track"
Nonsense - many universities allow and back non faculty researchers to apply for money and will back them
Furthermore, there are institutions that allow one to apply for science funding without going thru a University.
Just invite some old world scientists to come here. Then, after they come up with an invention, ridicule them an steal the invention or kill them if their idea is not in your interest. Works every time. Just ask Pierpont Morgan.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince you asked for editing suggestions, here are a few.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany Applicants& 3rd paragraph:
Strike the word "not" between best students and to seek.
Is Education Really& 2nd paragraph:
"U.S. has more high-scorong" should indicate whether this is an absolute number or percentage.
Ibid& 6th paragraph:
"stable over time" should indicate what period of time.
General comment:
Scientists are typically most productive in the first two decades of their adult lives. The current system maximizes efficiency by enticing scientists to devote their most productive years to research at the lowest possible pay scale and then discards all but a few of them as they predictably become less productive. From a cold-hearted perspective, the only risk is that the scientists will catch on and realize how exploited they are. Until that happens, the problem is more one of social justice than productivity.
From my experience as a US grad student and an expat postdoc, I can say that there is now a huge generation gap, shall we say, on what it means to be a successful scientist. My PhD adviser was of the opinion that a postdoc should be the unquestioned next-step for any grad student. My current postdoc adviser can't fathom someone starting a PhD (much less a postdoc) without the end-all goal of being an academic scientist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think we're simply entering uncharted territory. More and more people are entering graduate programs. A parallel increase in faculty positions isn't possible, but that's assuming every grad student even WANTS such a position. I can say with certainty that a vast majority of my grad school colleagues entered their studies knowing full well they wouldn't continue to a postdoc - the closest thing being a career in industry. For most current career academic scientists, there was simply no other option for them, and they cannot fathom why we would suddenly consider "alternative" career choices.
Instead of lamenting the lower percentage of PhDs going on to academic positions, why aren't we cultivating the possibility of having intelligent scientists in other positions? Especially since this "lower percentage" has less to do with "producing too many scientists" and more to do with "scientists simply don't want what the previous generation wanted."
http://scienceforyourmother.blogspot.com/
I doubt if there can be too many scientists in a community. However, we need many more scientists in no-academic jobs, not the least in the management of our cities, where we're going to live for the coming century or two.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrent 'scientific' training, however, is designed to appear to solve problems posed by the NSF and the NIH, and not the ones posed by curiosity. The result is a deluge of mediocre and unreliable papers. The current PhD system (with some very happy exceptions) seems to produce 'researchers' rather than 'scientists'. Le� Szil�rd once proposed that the government should pay mediocre scientists to not publish.
It does NOT take a PhD degree, or even a BS degree, in science to be a scientific literate citizen! And to knowingly lead a student to believe that a science position will be available, when in all likelihood it will not, should be criminal. -- Also, a degree in science, BS MS or PhD, is a VERY, VERY difficult thing to "sell" to the non academic workplace.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne reason may be that many jobs are taken by third-rate people who should not be working as scientists at all. Witness the vast amount of incompetent "science" behind the "man-made climate change myth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOlav Nilssen
There seems to be a parallel between the military and the sciences. Great numbers of soldiers are trained, but there can only be a few generals, so only selected soldiers are promoted. The rest retire and find jobs in civilian life, to be replace by fresh recruits. Likewise with scientists: there can only be a few PIs, so most of the research trained have to get non-research jobs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe difference between scientists and soldiers is that soldiers get a nice pension when they retire, and with the GI bill they can re-equip themselves for a civilian life.
The US of A is producing too many scientists, is that right? Well you ought to try and do things the way the Brits do, because they don't produce enough and the one that do seem to tell lies about climate chainge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter reading the previous 143 posts I'm reminded of the old American expression: "If you're so smart how come you're not rich?". Except in this case it might be "If you're so smart how come it takes you so long to figure out you're being used?".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the scheme of things it is the back breaking labor which has ALWAYS pulled a country out of a depression. The fact a scientist is INCAPABLE of back breaking labor means .. yes .. there are too many overeducated people who cannot pull their own weight ..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImho ..
In my view, there is no real shortage of scientists in the US. There are two major reasons for the perceived shortage. First there is a "conspiracy" to keep scientist's salaries, power and opportunities down by (1) claiming a shortage and (2) importing scientists from developing countries who are willing to work for much lower wages than are US scientists. Second, there is too little opportunity for real advancement and earning a good income in science, compared to business and other much more lucrative endeavors. Until we recognize and reward the contributions of US scientists, e.g., by awarding them a percentage of the profits of their inventions as is done in Germany and Japan, there will be less interest in a science career, and this feeds into the first factor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ David Brin
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with you. I'm on a track for my PhD at the moment and I have no intention of going into Academia. There is a base assumption that academia is the bee's-knees. Just having a PhD provides a wealth of opportunities that others have mentioned, such as art and entertainment or a jump to other career fields.
As a rather young Aerospace Engineer, what I see as the primary problem with US Science is in the red tape and road blocks one runs into. As with everything, there are exceptions, but from my humble observations it seems that people are far to resistant to change and even when a bright young person has an interesting idea, they have to fight through a great deal of unnecessary resistance. The US may have a free thinking society, but we certainly don't have a free DOING society as far too often a young person like myself can see simple ways to vastly improve things but are unable to because of resistance. Instead programs like Kaizen or continuous improvement programs come to do what we could do ourselves, because they are the "experts" of improvement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo you wouldn't. The Defense Dept. of every major nation funds the majority of that nation's research. it has been that way since before Leonardo.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn part, Gates was correct, but he failed to note that the "out of the box problem solvers" are not welcomed in an institutional environment which fears change itself. In the predominant "last male bastion" in the world that hasn't truly embraced equal opportunity, women receive 30% less funding and persons of color are not welcomed either, so if they can't get on with getting on, why should we expect innovation from a stagnant enviroment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn every segment of innovative ideas most come from non-science based fields and that should be a major red flag. But until that "old boy Network" moves on, we should anticipate more of the same; scientific stagnation.
“We face a critical shortfall of skilled scientists and engineers who can develop new breakthrough technologies,” Microsoft chairman Bill Gates testified to Congress in March 2008.
The industrialists are flooding the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) labor markets with H1Bs, L1s and other guest worker visas based upon the BIG LIE: our education system is broken and doesn't provide enough STEM workers. They lie to bring down the labor costs, and that is the only reason. They spend their profits on lobbyists, and politicians to make sure their interests are kept. The rest of us, scramble for what's left -- sort of a let them eat cake mentality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is short sided, and Keynes showed it to be foolish. We need to concentrate most of our effort on increasing aggregate demand, and not lowering unit costs, as the classical capitalist is wont to do.
THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF STEM workers in the US, and the US has an abundance of talented math and science students -- just as this article has convincingly proven.
We may have too many scientists, but too few engineers. There is a difference. As a manger in an engineering organization, what I need are talented BS and MS level engineers interested in hardware design, not PhD researchers interested in basic science. Innovation that brings items to market drives the economy, not fundamental research. Only when the economy is producing marketable products can we afford the luxury of basic science; not to belittle the importance of science, but its rewards are less immediate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe should focus more on science ed. for the non-future-scientist voting citizenry. The creationism movement is a sign that it's not the content that is lacking in the curriculum, but the skills of evaluating of content. Just yelling "creationism isn't science" clearly doesn't help fix this problem; so lets demystify science and teach folks how to make sense of the world by *doing* science rather than memorizing it. And if creativity was emphasized more, perhaps the unemployable expert scientists could think of new ways to get paid for their skills.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe should focus more on science ed. for the non-future-scientist voting citizenry. The creationism movement is a sign that it's not the content that is lacking in the curriculum, but the skills of evaluating of content. Just yelling "creationism isn't science" clearly doesn't help fix this problem; so lets demystify science and teach folks how to make sense of the world by *doing* science rather than memorizing it. And if creativity was emphasized more, perhaps the unemployable expert scientists could think of new ways to get paid for their skills.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe should focus more on science ed. for the non-future-scientist voting citizenry. The creationism movement is a sign that it's not the content that is lacking in the curriculum, but the skills of evaluating of content. Just yelling "creationism isn't science" clearly doesn't help fix this problem; so lets demystify science and teach folks how to make sense of the world by *doing* science rather than memorizing it. And if creativity was emphasized more, perhaps the unemployable expert scientists could think of new ways to get paid for their skills.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissorry for the repeated message. SciAm: this comment box is a bad design...there's no feedback on whether your comment has been successfully posted. Please fix that!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a white male postdoc in biomedical science with several decent publications (none in Science, Nature, or Cell...thus no faculty job yet). I attribute at least part of the decline in white males in science to dramatically skewed funding opportunities favor of minorities and females. In my 10 years of seeking and writing grants, I estimate at least a 10:1 ratio of opportunities for minorities and females relative to white males, at both the graduate and post-graduate levels. Since the first screen for faculty in most search committee's relies on a cursory examination of publications and grants awarded, I believe these search committee's are passing over many white males that should be considered. They of course, realize this, but it's worth losing out on a few of the best candidates if you can keep the government off your back by hiring minorities and females.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, I have just come back from 4 days at HHMI's Janelia Farms. I believe you are mistaken that this institution favors long term retention of it's faculty. In fact, it was made very clear to us that they do not expect anyone to make a career out of research at Janelia Farms. Appointments at Janelia Farms are intended to be temporary, as are all HHMI appointments as they require renewal every five years.
This is exactly right...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe issue is not that we don't need scientists, but rather that we don't need everyone trying to find a job as an academic researcher.
There are plenty of industries looking for scientific employees... they may simply have to get real JOBs with real companies to be employed rather than aimlessly floating around academic institutions their whole life, due to the lack of effort or motivation to look for an actual job in their field.
This is exactly right...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe issue is not that we don't need scientists, but rather that we don't need everyone trying to find a job as an academic researcher.
There are plenty of industries looking for scientific employees... they may simply have to get real JOBs with real companies to be employed rather than aimlessly floating around academic institutions their whole life, due to the lack of effort or motivation to look for an actual job in their field.
There are jobs out there. Granted, they are filled already with an aging worforce that are ready to retire. I believe the U.S. has enough people trained for these positions, but with the economy the way it is the baby boomers who hold these positions will probably not be retiring anytime soon. this puts an additional strain on an already strained situation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the IT field there are so many foreigners working in the field just so the U.S. companies can save a few dollars. These companies claim that there is not a trained worforce ready to do the work, why not give these people a chance to prove themselves.
This article needs to consider that may scientists go into and want to go into: industry jos, teaching at liberal schools, teaching at community colleges, and teaching online. Those are all real and valid, good paying jobs. Not everyone WANTS to do research at an R1 institution. Perhaps the future article should address the percent that WANT an R1 job vs those that actually get one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisghandi, your choice of alternatives shows opportunistic technical incompetence. Solar and wind are dead end technologies, and much of the installed plant is rapidly accelerating towards being pricey scrap.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut demographics may indeed provide numerous openings; the real question here is where and why. Research needs a better overall structure. Part of the problem is that depending on government grants means the direction and speed of science depends on government comprehension and goals, which are both dubious.
Does the U.S. Produce Too Many Scientists?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot now although there was a time when we had plenty of cash. China, Korea and India are heading forward faster the USA. I thank you Firozali A.Mulla
Does the U.S. Produce Too Many Scientists? I think India , China , Korea, Russia, Germany are now ahead. USA legs behind as there are too many political wrangles and less cash. I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUse social networks to create scientifically geared cooperatives with the aim of economic development. See Community-Wealth.org , and invite non scientists into your groups to create larger funding pools.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith the ever increasing tendency towards out sourcing and robots, Jobs will be harder to find . But if we move into a leisure society where everyone only works a few hours a week, yet receives a reasonable income (possible if we allocate finances in a more sensible fashion than weapons of war manufacture) then a leisure society becomes viable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn a slightly different issue, look at the potential for suburban food production
Combining food and fish farming around your own home.
http://www.melbourneaquaponics.com.au/index.php
If someone comes up with a breakthrough and it upsets the established pigs at the trough, he will have just as much trouble as I have.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA new idea is first ridiculed, then it gets fought when it proves to be true and finally it is declared self-evident.
Discovering how to "tap'' power out of the aether to power a car or home was first ridiculed by the Establishment.
Now I am in the fighting stage. When the patents run out it will be declared self-evident and just a minor discovery, anybody could have thought about it.
Just like Columbus's Egg.
The Nobles at the court told the King and Queen that what Columbus had done was nothing big, all that sailing to the West was something that anybody could have done to discover the new lands.
Columbus asked: "Can anyone of you gentlemen make an egg stand on it's end?
Eggs were boiled and brought in.
All the Noblemen tried it one by one, all failed.
Then they challenged Columbus.
Columbus showed them how it was done.
He slapped the point of an egg on the table, the end flattened and the egg stayed.
"Oh yes", yelled the Nobles, "We could have done it that way too!'
"Yes" said Columbs, " but you did not!"
T he King and Queen agreed.
I am a white male American citizen who began an NIH-funded postdoc in computational psychology/neuroscience in 2004. It took a while for me to build up a publication record, so I can understand why I have received no faculty position offers this year. Consistent with the article's main points however, I have noticed that all of the postdocs I know who applied for faculty positions in Europe, or the permanent research staff positions the article mentions, received offers this year. In contrast, no one I know who applied for faculty positions in the U.S. received anything - not even an interview. These are people with publications in Science and Nature. This surely involves an interaction between the structure of the labor market, noted in the article, and the recent Great Recession. Nevertheless, the article is dead on regarding the structure of the system, especially when it comes to the incentive for foreign students to pursue science in America, and the disincentive for Americans to do so. Furthermore, the article makes an incredibly important point regarding education: there is a crisis in American K-12 education, but not in our best or even our middling schools. It is a crisis in the worst schools, rooted in racial and economic disparities among our school districts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not complaining about my situation though: I love science, and am grateful for the opportunity to be paid a subsistence wage to do research, even though I turn 40 in 3 months. If that means I have to compete with the best scientists the rest of the world has to offer, so be it. My wife and 5 year old son, on the other hand, would like to live in a house instead of an apartment, and go to Disney World like our non-academic friends do. Finally, if I do manage to get a faculty position next year, I don't know what I will say to my students/postdocs. It seems almost unethical to suggest that they'll eventually get faculty positions. (And if I don't get a job next year, that's it for me in academia, because that's when my funding runs out.)
Graduated in 1975 with BS in Chemistry, added MS in Medicinal Chemistry 1980. After 22 years in academic and industrial research was laid off after merger and was unable to find full time research work in over 2years of looking. I am no longer in basic research, and have moved on to alternate career by necessity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI started this article with a sense of mild skepticism (few of the Aero/Astro PhDs I knew 15 years ago were interested in faculty jobs) but willing to be persuaded, since I've been out of school for a while and even then was on the engineering rather than the science side but I ended it never wanting to read another word about the subject.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy? Faceless, nameless sources may have the answers:
"observers say, experts note, experts agree, bemoaned by many, Yet another group of observers, many observers..."
My favorite passage is probably the one in which "critics said", "critics argued", and "observers called for" - all in a single 2-sentence paragraph!
No distinction is made between science and engineering, and there's absolutely nothing in the article to address the level of satisfaction of the PhDs themselves - no surveys, no quotes, nothing. Also conspicuously missing are any links to outside information - Teitelbaum's testimony, TIMSS scores, statistics on numbers of PhDs, other demographics, PISA scores, etc. (In a "Web Exclusive", no less!) And where exactly is this "culture that has long viewedand, in many places, still viewspositions outside the academy not as valid career options for serious scientists but as alternative employment at best and going over to the dark side at worst"? Certainly not at MIT engineering departments since the mid-80's, at least.
The author notes that "The number of Americans earning PhDs in science and technical fields has risen by 18 percent since 1985" - but is that an increase in the absolute number? If so, the 28% increase in US population over the same period (to 2008) rather undercuts the argument. Of course, this should presumably be compared to "the number of available faculty positions, which over recent decades has fallen farther and farther behind the number of scientists the system is producing" - but no real numbers are provided for the supposed decline in faculty positions.
Finally, my reaction to this:
"But because white men are traditionally the highest-earning segment of the American population and the group with the widest career options, many observers believe that the decline in their numbers indicates a drop in the desirability of science careers."
is to say that "many observers" should really be expected to explain why the increased representation of women in technical fields shouldn't be recognized as a success or at least be willing to be quoted by their actual names when making such odious "observations."
I find it disingenuous that business leaders claim there is a shortage of science and math proficient college graduates. I'm in an engineering career and work with many people who have math, science or engineering degrees. My company is laying off in the U.S. while hiring replacements in Asia. When asked "why?" the response is "our competition is doing it, so we have to stay even with them." There is no incentives to keep math and science jobs in the U.S. I was always more accepting of bringing in educated foreigners for some U.S. jobs because that helps raise the education level of the U.S., but sending the highly skilled and educated jobs overseas after we sent the manufacturing jobs there over the previous few decades I guess is just payback for those of us with good educations who did nothing to stop the blue collar job losses. How do you convince a smart kid to go for a hard engineering degree when they can clearly see that the easier business and banking careers earn more money and don't currently get sent overseas?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsequently too many people are getting high school diploma's...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author has it exactly right
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Graduates have no chance of getting a job.
Why would anyone waste up to 10 years getting a PhD in Science particularly biology, racking up thousands of dollars in debt to be offered at best a lab position at $30k per year. This is such a slap in the face! Do you know that the national average salary for someone with only a high school diploma is $30k? Furthermore a student with a basic 4 year business degree starts out on $60k year. So please tell us where the attraction to science lies as a viable career? Where are the jobs? and why are science graduates..allegedly the brightest students in the country thrown peanuts?
Peanuts are for Monkeys!
Are US science graduates monkeys? Is the priority of the US in finance? because thats where the money is right now.
2) There is no funding available to innovative graduates or independent scientists.
There are too many science graduates leaving the field because of lack of opportunity to progress their careers quickly. A highly innovative independent scientist is not eligible to apply for any research funding unless backed by some institution. This is WRONG! It totally provides the old school scientists on the verge of retirement with the monopoly in terms of funding and research development instead of the fresh, bright, and enthusiastic graduate bursting with all of the latest technological training and innovative ideas, a chance to become great.
It is cruel to train someone on all the latest and greatest technology, feed them false hope about amazing opportunities for development through this education, and then provide them with no realm to explore their field as a viable career.
This is why the young scientists are turning their back on science and the US is outsourcing international graduates. International graduates have the added incentive of the higher US standard of living compared to their home countries when coming here to work for peanuts, and research institutions are only too aware of this when recruiting.
3) What goes around comes around
In recruiting international grads rather than the better educated home grown graduates, the US is essentially training foreign countries in Science. As the visas run out and these scientists return home the dejected US science graduate has already had to change career and find a new passion in something that WILL pay them.
The US needs to get real about science graduates and the future of Science in this country. aka PAY YOUR SCIENCE GRADS!
We must face the simple math that the system must be changed. We must change the design that each scientist is encouraged to produce several new scientists. No amount of funding increase can handle such planned exponential growth. The science community must take responsibility for not thinking through how the set up of our system produces scientists who are expected to leave.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe must face the simple math that the system must be changed. We must change the design that each scientist is encouraged to produce several new scientists. No amount of funding increase can handle such planned exponential growth. The science community must take responsibility for not thinking through how the set up of our system produces scientists who are expected to leave.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToo many PhD scientists with similar background and qualifications and too few jobs to accomodate them - if you need to stay in academia you need science and nature paper and if you want to be a PhD level scientist you might get one chance out of 100! Too many PhDs are floating around and they are ending up in no where. We produce too many PhD in this world for sure and there is no doubt about it!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I am certain this article accurately reflects what is happening in academia it completely fails to address the tremendous lack of demand for scientists in industry. This is where the majority of scientist should find employment and a career. Academia can absorb only so many graduates. The need ought to be greater in industry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, IMO there are two problems in industry that severely limit research activities. First scientific research and development takes long-term commitment - something anathema to the large percentage of American businesses that are focused on the quarterly report. Many companies never engage in research (fearing the expense and commitment). For those that do, too often, when quarterly numbers look poor instead of staying the course, programs are put on hold or canceled often to be restarted later. Second, inside most organizations the highest pay and most prestigious positions are reserved for those ascending the business career ladder - there are not analogous positions on the technical ladder. Someone with smarts and ambition usually looks at the situation and opts for the business career over the technical one.
I have a comment on one small area of this impressive discussion. About this bit:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But today, however, few young PhDs can get started on the career for which their graduate education purportedly trained them, namely, as faculty members in academic research institutions. ... In fact, however, only about 25 percent of those earning American science PhDs will ever land a faculty job that enables them to apply for the competitive grants that support academic research. "
There is an assumption here that you go to university to learn a trade. But the only trade universities traditionally teach is how to be an academic.
There are exceptions, of course: universities have long been vocational schools for priests, doctors, dentists, engineers and architects. But those faculties are exceptional and exist because before the late 19th century universities were the only institutions that could conduct a taught programme of 3-6 years for adults. That is why their degrees have different names.
I have a good degree in arts. I had only one fellow-student in graduate school. She eventually became professor and head of that department. I was at least as talented as she was (though not as hard-working). But if it had ever come down to a competition it would have been her, or me, or someone from another university much like either of us.
It never was a competition. I left academia and have worked in IT for most of my life. Some of the consultants my employer brings in to staff up temporary projects have impressive German doctorates in nuclear physics or computational mathematics. We all end up rubbing shoulders, them with their German science degrees (and titles), and me with my South African arts degree (and no title), solving the same sorts of problem in making a banking system do what we want.
You may think that is a waste, but it isn't. We didn't go to university to be taught this job. It didn't exist then.
There is a growing idea that a university is a vocational school that teaches you how to do a particular job. And there are a growing number of new, or self-renewing, universities that do that. And maybe they are right, and the traditional 19th-century idea of a university, that it is not a vocational school, is out of date. I see some British universities now confer a new MRes (Master of Research) degree that distinguishes graduates who achieved their degree by dissertation rather than by examination.
But if universities only care about being vocational schools, who is going to do research? We will end up with diploma mills.
It is time to re-think the purpose and design of higher education. Currently the focus is on pro forma aspects such as the basic courses of the FR and SO years which largely repeat course content from middle and high schools. It would be better, I believe, to conceive of higher education in terms of skill sets; broader coverage of topics such as science and technology; integrating foci of relevant knowledge from various fields; epistomolgy of "knowledge:" and concentration on conceptualizing, collecting, interpreting and explaining research findings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToo much "knowlege" and "research" today is simply drivel published in an ever expanding number of "journals" aimed at achieving tenure instead of a bona fide attempt to produce useful new knowlege to accurately, not politically, add to the fund of human knowledge.
This assessment is undoubtedly heavily influenced by my background in the social science/human relations fields. I believe that poorly thought out structure and work in these fields primarily constitute a lost opportunity.
I have a comment on one small area of this impressive discussion. About this bit:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But today, however, few young PhDs can get started on the career for which their graduate education purportedly trained them, namely, as faculty members in academic research institutions."
The assumption here is that you go to university to learn a trade. But the only trade universities traditionally teach is how to be an academic.
There are exceptions, of course: universities have long been vocational schools for priests, doctors, dentists, engineers and architects. Never mind that: it's no accident those degrees have different, vocational, names.
I have a good degree in arts. I had only one fellow-student in graduate school. She eventually became professor and head of that department. I was at least as talented as she was (though not as hard-working). But if it had ever come down to a competition it would have been her, or me, or someone from another university much like either of us.
It never was a competition. I left academia and have worked in IT for most of my life. Some of the consultants my employer brings in to staff up temporary projects have impressive German doctorates in nuclear physics or computational mathematics. We all end up rubbing shoulders, them with their German science degrees, and me with my South African arts degree, solving the same sorts of problem in making a banking system do what we want.
There is a growing idea that a university is a vocational school that teaches you how to do a particular job. And there are a growing number of new, or self-renewing, universities that do that. And maybe they are right, and the traditional 19th-century idea of a university, that it is not a vocational school, is out of date. I see some British universities now confer a new MRes (Master of Research) degree that distinguishes graduates who achieved their degree by dissertation rather than by examination.
But if universities only care about being vocational schools, who is going to do research? We will end up with diploma mills.
If I hire someone with a fresh computer science degree, I don't expect her to be a hot programmer. Programming is a craft. Universities don't teach crafts (other than in the traditional vocational degrees like dentistry). After 3 years as a working programmer the good computer science graduates begin to remember and apply the computer science they were taught, because its relevance finally sinks in. At that point the able programmer with a degree begins to outstrip the equally able autodidact.
Recruiting foreign scientists and engineers keeps wages for these professions artificially low. The practice should be eliminated immediately. But the real problem has been the conscious decision to export our entire manufacturing sector and become a nation of salesmen and middlemen. This policy is entering its 50th year. Since no real wealth is being created in the American any longer is there any surprise that our economy is in shambles and the middle class is shrinking to non existence? As an engineering educator, I am advising my students to collect their degree and go back to their home countries where the real opportunities lie.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter reading the article, do you disagree with the "almost universally accepted" idea that there is a national "technical talent dearth"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, however we as a nation need to take the same approach that can be found in nations like France. Our national commitments to R&D must be both long term where unlike the current funding mess for NASA the funds are in place for almost a generation at a time as well as being a higher percentage of our GDP. The nations which will realize the greatest increases in their cultures are the ones which invest the most and for the longest periods of time.
What was your reaction to the assertion that the decline of white males in science indicates a drop in the desirability of science careers?
Who cares who the science and engineering future developers are as long as they can take us from our current points of human animal failure to one where we are actually better off. At some point the sex and cultural differences will make no difference when it comes to learning and real knowledge but based upon our human animal instincts and limited knowledge this might take another hundred generations or more.
Do you think that U.S. education policy should work on improving the science-math performance of the children at the bottom, overwhelmingly from low-income families and racial and ethnic minorities, rather than the performance of all children?
It is not the education policy itself which is failing but the fact that the average American is more committed to things like sports where the children of low-income families seem to dominate the games. That which parents seem to idolize becomes the focus of their children. If we can find a way to make parents feel better about their children's education, regardless of their focus, than their physical skills then we as a society will benefit far more than we do when we win the most Olympic games or our team wins the Super Bowl.
How dismal do the science job prospects described here seem in the context of the broader economy?
As technologies improve they at the same time become far more complex. The old and simple days where Ford created the best car company by manufacturing a low cost vehicle for the masses are over. The changes necessary to grow a better tasting and healthier tomato are far more difficult than they were just one generation ago. We will need far fewer humans to work in the products production system and more in the products development side of all industries. Therefore the need for new concept creation and production in the future is far greater than anything we ever imagined before today.
Do you accept as solutions to the "scientist glut" problem that we need to create better-paying staff jobs in labs, reduce low-paying post-doctoral positions and generally restructure the way that the U.S. staffs and funds its academic laboratories?
This nation needs to somehow get away from the failing human animal instincts to kill one another thereby substantially reducing the investments in military machines and more in that which will allow the human animal to survive that which is already seen to possibly wipe most of itself out. We need to take a fresh look at changing almost everything we do, use, and really need and do so at a national level. This will take a substantial percentage of our GDP but is necessary. The President's cabinet of the future should have an R&D Secretary who needs to be the number two person as they will be the one who manages the greatest investment in the life improvements for the taxpayers than anything ever seen before. This new concept can be found in the book "True Freedom - The Road to the First Real Democracy" which is available at www.democraticroad.com.
What are the biggest challenges faced by the "American research enterprise--the indispensable engine of national prosperity"? What do you think should be done to make it better?
Diversify the research! As we learn more we need to spend more time to learn even more. The simple concepts which existed 100 years ago have all been replaced with greater refinements which are more complex and difficult to understand. This means that as we increase our knowledge even further the word 'specialization' will become to more used. The concept of having a general practitioner in the medical field is over. Thirteen years ago I had brain surgery necessary to deal with epilepsy and this may seem silly but that is where I learned this fact. The surgeon, who by the way removed that part of my live brain tissue which created the seizures and eliminated this problem for myself, responded to my comment that I felt he was brilliant with the statement that he could fix my brain but if I broke my toe I would have to see the applicable specialist. The human animal has definite intellectual individual limitations but as a group via personal specializations we can improve the lives for the group. Many Americans today think that we know everything or at least as much as we need but they are wrong. We need to push ourselves harder and faster if we are to really improve our lives.
What will happen over the next decade or so as lab space (and grants) start freeing up as the baby boomers who occupy those posts hit retirement?
As mentioned above the need for a never ending commitment to R&D must be met properly if the children of tomorrow will be able to survive. We as humans have done more to damage that which gives us life in the last 100 years than our predecessors did in the previous 4 million years. In order to meet these increased rates of change we will need to know more and find better ways to deal with not only our basic needs but to at the same time fix most of the messes we have created. This will unquestionably increase the need for more and better R&D experts.
What other perspectives on science career opportunities would you like to see in this article?
Somehow those of us who really care must find a way to get the rest of the nation to commit to more and better alternatives to the current ways of living. We must find things from better alternative energy options (see the book mentioned above for some of these) and healthier living environments to a higher quality and volume food supply system for all of life on this planet. This will take both some time and more money as a greater level of those whose personal commitments to continuous learning of need alternatives is definitely needed.
I intended to write a comment with supporting argument, but I went away from the computer to think about it later and when I came back everything I wrote was gone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo I will simply write my conclusion: the article and many of the comments miss the point. You are writing about what we ought to do for the public good, but what we really do is driven by private cost and profit.
Local school budgets are drafted to minimize taxes, colleges and universities raise tuition and lower faculty pay, and employers and universities get cheap labor, and a steady supply of students for the universities, by creating a myth of a scientist shortage.
I have no idea how to change that, because "ought to" can't trump "want to."
Well, here's the comment I originally wrote - it was in another window!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI come to this discussion with the perspective of a retired engineer who is married to a faculty member at a public college and who after retirement entered but did not complete a doctoral program in economics. I think the article missed the point.
1. The shortage of scientists and engineers is a myth propagated by institutions that stand to profit from it. University departments need students; employers, including research departments, want cheap graduates. When I looked for jobs I might transfer to I saw ads asking for five years experience in fields that were barely five years old at salaries fit for graduates fresh out of school. I understood they were meant to prove that there weren't enough people in the U.S. to fill those jobs so people had to be brought in.
2. Maybe foreign graduates really are better than our own. The article cites conflicting evidence from standardized tests. Standardized tests measure something very accurately, but we don't really know what they measure. To measure what counts, ask the professors, ask the employers, who are their best students, who are their best graduates. In the economics program I briefly enrolled in, we were told our class was outstanding, and the best prepared students in the class were from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. I might guess why: our public schools are locally controlled, and the big question in making up the school budget is not how much can we give our children but how little can we pay in taxes.
3. The fiscal condition of our colleges and universities doesn't help. When I was going to school the tuition cost at public colleges and universities ranged from low to zero. They can't afford that now. Tuition has been going up in public colleges and way up in private colleges. At the same time colleges have cut back their full-time faculty, and more and more sections in all departments are staffed with adjuncts and graduate students. Consequently, teaching becomes less effective, opportunities for permanent employment become scarcer, and our students graduate with large debts and therefore require higher incomes than graduates from less developed countries.
Summary: considerations of the public good can suggest what we should do, but considerations of private cost and profit drive what we really do.
As a recent grad (B.S in biochemistry) I agree with the article's arguement that the system of postdoctoral 'training' at low wages for an average of five years is a deterrent for pursuing a Ph. D. The uncertainty of career path afterwards is also a deterrent--why spend another nine years after completing an undergrad degree if you aren't at least reasonably certain of a position in your field afterwards? Nevermind the rampant cuts in science programs at my state's universities, which hasn't ramped up my motivation (or opportunities) to pursue a Ph. D either. If I had known I'd be working in an office after graduation I would have majored in English and at least had time for a little fun in college!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn all seriousness though, I fully agree with the article's position that the way our research labs are run needs to be restructured.
"I fully agree," yelsaea wrote, "with the article's position that the way our research labs are run needs to be restructured." I'm glad we are in agreement ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this... said the mice, "that the cat must have a bell hung around its neck. Now, who will bell the cat?"
Who will restructure the way research labs are run? We complain that newly graduated scientists are poorly paid. The labs, on the other hand, could complain that they can't afford to pay them better.
If every working scientist is to be better paid, then each research project must be better funded. Either we spend more on research, or we do less research for the same expenditure. You could make your choice, but you still have to figure out who will hang that bell.
However, the problems that k-12 students solved in this country are easy and not challenging enough. All they do is to plug the numbers in the equations to get the answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndustry lobbying groups need a bigger technical labor pool to keep costs down.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCertain executive-branch agencies want more money/power.
Legislators, either naive or cynical, go along with the plan. Who wants to be seen as being against science and education?
And the media is there to tell everyone about the great STEM shortage in our near future.
And all in one place...
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_103/lobbying/44164-1.html
Dear all,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn information theory there are estimates of tens of millions of bits our senses receive per second. In psychology, there are estimates of how much of that we are conscious of - seven symbols or 50 bits. What a remarkable compression!
All studies suggest that we compress our knowledge. And yet, our scientific disciplines grew into separate sciences divided by iron curtains. And yet, our teaching institutions are also helping to weave these iron curtains.
Once high standards for PhD title are now almost nonexistent. PhD title is now awarded for obedient following ideas of mentors; who also earned their titles by obedient following ideas of their mentors.
I am not at all surprised that young PhD title holders are having a hard time to find a job in the profession of their choosing. We have propagated chewing of old ideas for far too long. Now we have fashionable lip services to interdisciplinary approach.
Knowledge compression has to start at early age and be continued in higher education. Math, physics, psychology, biology etc. need to support each other. And we must grow to be creative in ways how all scientific disciplines can support each other. Only with this we could start to put hyperinflation of PhDs under control.
Kind regards,
As a former high school guidance counselor I realized early on that the most problematic component of the American dream is the assumption that a student can be whatever they want to be with enough effort.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact, some counselors had a big dream book describing various careers and it was thought that after a student selected one that looked cool it was the job of the counselor to advise the student how to get there.
In the USA we have had a competitive system for both educating specialists and filling the positions for such specialists as may become available. I had heard that in centrally planned societies a better job of projection of needs was possible, so that if a society as a whole anticipated that there would be a need for, say, a dozen art historians a year, that many would be cranked out by the higher education establishment.
The downside of the planned economy is that it soon deteriorates into something like serfdom and self-fulfilling prophecies. I like the American system. Maybe we will be able to employ ten exo-biologists a year in the 2020's, but it is a sexy field so academia (which is also a consumer driven industry) will crank out a hundred potential exo-biologists.
Then, the candidates have to fight it out. I myself ended being a generalist who has made money a lot of different ways, but I don't recommend that to anyone as it has been extremely difficult.
A voice of reason in a stale debate! This article really hits the problem on the head and explains why I rejected science as a career and chose law (a choice I regret frankly because law bores me to death). I might suggest expanding the scope of the article slightly to compare the science market to other professional careers. I know within my own sector of law there is a glut of lawyers and many people end up being dissatisfied with their careers. Many talented people I know have to take fellowships (the equivalent of post-docs) or work at a law firm when they can't get a job at the State Department. I have a feeling (although only on anecdotal evidence) that this country simply producing far more educated, qualified people than the market can absorb.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMe being a working scientist (a non-immigrant one) and been in the system for years, I definitely agree with the author's points. Though the article did a good job of identifying the problems and its sources, I think its lacking in the proposition of solutions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would love to see more exploration of possibilities on more industrial and academic collaboration in both training the students, postdocs and in conducting/funding research with academic scientists. Such models would help in maximizing the use of tax dollars, increasing the use of basic science discoveries to enable more effective translational research, increasing sources of funding, in producing scientific entrepreneurs, more ethical practices on the industry side, and in integrating the market and economic principles in the functioning of the research enterprise. All these benefits will directly and indirectly help in improving the scientific labor market and bringing in more stability to the scientific careers. Protectionism nor mindless outsourcing (within or outside the country) is the solution. Globalization is a reality and here to stay for many more years but it would require some caution and creativity in embracing it to reap its benefits in many areas including labor.
Speaking of scientists vs lawyers. Japan has 10 engineers for each lawyer in country. The US has just the opposite. That is why we can't make a decent camera. Too many lawyers, lawsuits, taxes, regulations, laws, police, government. One solution might be a 20% tariff on foreign goods. That would wipe out China in six months, and put a lot of our engineers and scientists to work. And stop importing people, we have enough already.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere you go; problem solved.
Absolutely true throughout--particularly about the way in which funding is routed through universities to support post-docs. The government does the same thing through filling of term research positions. There needs to be more support for applied science positions, particularly in environmental fields. There are so many opportunities to promote green jobs in ecological restoration and engineering; the young doctorates could manage crews of even younger Americans to implement a Science Corps model. There is a huge opportunity to make progress on key issues such as restoration of fisheries, rangelands, and production of sustainable energy. The administration needs to lead this effort, and fixing the distorted market is a top priority.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou cannot have a constantly expanding pool of professorial positions training a constantly increasing number of proto-professors in any real economy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe current system is fine, Professorships should be "rock star" positions obtained by only a few of the best. The only thing we should "tweak" with the current system is encourage the formation of new companies from the best ideas -- increase the number and size of new business grants where it becomes a common way to leave school -- as a member of a new startup.
This will encourage smart Americans to go into the sciences instead of the finances (and other charlatan careers) and we'll all benefit from the innovation explosion.
One part I agree with: my new-PhD-in-computer-engineering son got one and only one offer, from the Army. That could also be the bad economic times we are in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI strongly disagree that the sole purpose of a PhD is academic teaching at a research university. This is a very narrow view, coming strictly from academia. A very valid and fruitful path is high-level engineering and science in the industrial sector. I dare say that Google and Microsoft have more PhDs than many universities.
Bauerml
Excellent article; I enjoyed reading and re-reading it. I'm currently a M.S. in Chemistry who dropped out of a prestigious research group in a prestigious institution. It's true that we get such specialized training, we "learn" ourselves right into unmarketability. I can't find work now for the life of me. That, and the thought returning for a Ph. D, and toiling away in a dingy academic dungeon, with piles of broken electronics around (sorry for the loaded language, but many readers can sympathize with this) have convinced me to apply to Dental school, and, as unscientific as this may sound, pray to the Greater Diety that I get in!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are a few other big trends I'd like love to see expounded on, especially in this magazine.
I feel the ghost in the machine with this article is that the PhD degree has lost some stature relative to its professional degree counterparts: MDs, JDs, and MBA, for example. A basic premise is that, in America, high school graduates take on degrees, at any level: tradesperson certificates, associate, bachelor, and graduate degrees, as an investment in themselves. The reward for their investment is better earnings and job security. Its wrong to assume that students pursuing Ph.D.s begin graduate school, let alone graduate, with the intent to enter academia. They do enter, though, for the same reasons: to find more secure and/or better paying jobs. Not having enough academic positions for Ph.D.s is not necessarily a problem; a shortage of well-paying positions in all three sectors: Academia, National Labs, and Industry is a problem.
Adding time to the left side of the equation when considering the total costs of graduate school, makes the problem a more honest calculus. Other professional degrees that you usually have to pay for (MD, MBA, DDS) have a higher risk: reward trade off. The facts that I was A) a young male and B) getting "paid" when I was in graduate school blinded me to the real cost: time. Now that Im not as young and havent earned anything while my friends got degrees and jobs in law and business stings; getting the chance to "study what I love" seems more of a booby prize for building real career and marketable skill set.
Another point that brings up is that a solution is to approach the problem from a demand side, and improve on the marketability of our Ph.D.s. Its true that the degree entails some specialization, but institutions need to make a deliberate and continual effort to make their Ph.D.s not the most published but the most desirable by employers. The current funding structure doesnt really support this.
We need to develop programs that actively train graduates to be strong leaders and effective managers, not hermits toiling away in obscure dingy labs on 1980s electronic equipment. Having PhDs who are eager and equipped to be entrepreneurs can only be a good thing. Im talking about having graduates who are ass kickers, who, like effective managers in any other field, can go into a lab, organize work and tasks, and produce research. This entails some technical knowledge, but also organization and leadership skills. The potential of our graduates is enhanced by their ability to be strong leaders and effective managers, and this is true for academic settings, not just industry. Another idea would be required off site components to graduate education, just the way many undergraduates have internships. It gives students the chance to see the industry side, to build connections, and to assess their skills in the workplace. Closer to real time feedback arent we supposed to love that as scientists?
We need to ditch this notion of PhDs as solitary scientists toiling away in obscurity and re-envision them as dynamic leaders. There are plenty of technological challenges we can tackle with scientific know how. There was a counterpart to the general trends that I was sad to see unmentioned, and hope to see as an upcoming installment to a series. Id love to see the flight of women from the sciences given the same rigorous treatment. A qualitative assessment tells me it has something to do with working solitarily in dumpy labs, but Id love a more rigorous look.
A few bottom lines: Ph.D. add to the wealth of the society. We need to make these careers competitive, in terms of earnings potential and job stability, to keep more around. As a field, science could learn a few things from the business world. Maybe a few MBAs or IO Psychologists on the outside could give us some much needed insight on how to re-organize our graduate labs into more dynamic places, and how to make the degree more relevant to the marketplace.
The bulk of American scientific research happens in industry, not in academia. Especially, research happens in small companies solving pressing technical problems; and they don't call it research, they call it survival. The attitude in this article toward academia and industry reflects a reality that has not existed since the early 60's.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is hollow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to the BLS, scientists and engineers are some of the best paid occupations. If there was a significant imbalance of job seekers to positions, they would be some of the worst paid occupations.
Most of the negative comments about grad students and the trials of the academic life can be applied to all doctoral programs and not just science. Yes, some programs are highly political. Yes, some programs use people as indentured servants. However, neither of those things means that there are too many scientists and engineers. I think if the author really believed this it would make it difficult to continue to write for AAAS. Instead the author trots out the old academic solution. This solution is one heard throughout academia not just in science. It is that what scientists and society need are guaranteed pay checks and freedom to study what ever titillates them at the moment.
When people say that we need more scientists and engineers, this is not what they mean. What they are talking about is the need for more scientists and engineers that are going to tackle the difficult problems of our time and being required to regularly justify what research you want (academic or industrial) funding is a good thing.
Additionally, if there were not viable carer paths in industry then the author's article "Taken for Granted: Trying to Account for Tastes" at sciencecareers.sciencemag.org would be completly invalid.
Even though the manuscript contains interesting insights, I feel the author is expressing exotic ideas with dangerous implications based on the moral superiority he/she feels after a career of scientific success and as fellow of the AAAS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNational talent dearth? sure, if not in numbers, in quality. Don't know K12 in detail, but US undergrad level is slightly higher than sad. So many minors, options and waste of time... Most US colleges seem summer camps. Very expensive ones, though.
white males?!? This one is really enlightening. May be what is wrong are the values and how success is measured within such demographic group... just a guess.
The system (state) should promote and eventually guarantee equal opportunities. This implies more state intervention at basic educational and college level (eg. enforce more strict nation wide profiles for technically/scientific oriented careers). Of course, this leads to communism (oh no!). No way such deep structural changes like can happen in present USA (see Health reform process and the arguments hold by the republican side).
and finally about the 'scientific glut'...
I agree, there is too many people for too few permanent positions. Postdocs and grad students are used as cheap/temporary manpower creating a huge pool of cheap employees (national or extraterrestrial), which in turn prevents the creation of more stable positions. However, I think the author is wrong in a fundamental point. As scientists, we don't (or souldn't) pursue wealthiness. We do appreciate a decent salary AND, more important, some guarantee of stability, a pension and a decent health care coverage. Of course, these may not be the priorities of the 'so missed American white males'. True, the current system of grants perpetuates the system. This is a key step to be fixed.
My suggestion, a new class of highly qualified lab technician (or lab scientist, or call it as you prefer) working inside large groups and labs with stable contracts that should eventually substitute postdoc powered labs. A successful career in science should not only consist on being a PI.
All this said, I think the rest of the manuscript contains veiled xenophobia and discriminatory comments. As so, it should be read with extreme caution by any serious science policy maker.
g (white male... European though)
Why would ANY smart and ambitious student who topped his class and wants to have a high paying job go for a PhD, when the highest paid occupations are not in science but in FINANCE. I know friends who landed up at wall street after engineering and MBA who are pulling $700,000 after 5 years as wall street traders, and some equally smart friends that opted for a PhD who are making maybe $95,000 today in science occupations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do think there is a dearth of technical expertise in the US - relative to what we should be producing given the role of techology and science in the future of our country.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought the comment about white males was one of the more insightful in the article. Whether setting white males as the benchmark is good or bad is irrelevant. That they are a benchmark is a reality and using that benchmark as a tool only makes sense.
Regarding the questions, "Do I think that U.S. education policy should work on improving the science-math performance of the children at the bottom, overwhelmingly from low-income families and racial and ethnic minorities, rather than the performance of all children?" A very strong no. I think that kids at the bottom need help and that education is key. I support improving their infrastucure of education and opportunity. That said I think it is the kids in the middle and up, with the support of strong schools, involved parents, and strong peer groups that represent the best opportunities to cultivate and institutional excellence.
How dismal do the science job prospects described here seem in the context of the broader economy? About the same really. Science is no different from other fields. The economy is in bad shape and opportunities - in the established safe career paths more limited - its true for everyone.
Regarding the questions - What are the biggest challenges faced by the "American research enterprise--the indispensable engine of national prosperity"? What do you think should be done to make it better? These are the questions that I think the author should focus on. Identification of the issue and adding detail is the easy part. Developing recommendations is the real challenge. For myself I think a key component of the solution is moving the goal of the PhD away from academia, and toward industry, entreprenuerism, and social/governmental institutions. Science needs to develop professional tracks that are alluring outside of the University - and that should be easy. Similarly the role of the PhD in the University needs to assessed - for example the value placed on the publication of largely unread books and articles - over work in the lab, the classroom, the community, or in industry.
Regarding the question - "What other perspectives on science career opportunities would you like to see in this article?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to see the process of obtaining a PhD in the US questioned. I am sure that process people that know the material. But is it producing people who now how to work in that field? Does the PhD process instill the ability to teach, to write (so that engineers, business people, and government officials can use the research), to manage and lead. It is unrealistic to expect to be able to graduate to leading research and managing a lab if the person in question has little or no training in leadership and management.
It seems to me that part of the solution to making US scientists more competitive is to beef up the parts of the PhD process that would help them to develop communications, leadership, and management skills.
I mentioned in my earlier post that shifting the focus away from University work to work in industry should be one of the goals of institutions. This attitude could be expanded further so that tenure track positions required a demonstrated history of work, success, and accountability outside of academia.
Lastly, I think that PhD candidates bear some repsonsibility for understanding the realities of the opportunities presented by their chosen degree from their chosen university given the competition they face in a global marketplace - they are supposed to be really smart and well informed after all. The university too bears some responsibility for understanding, communicating, and managing expectations. The university bears some erepsonsibility for shaping their programs so that students complete them not only with expertise in their fields - but a marketable set of skills - the university is supposed to know what that means.
I hope these comments help.
Good luck with the article.
Our nation's universities churn out workers for the military industrial complex, especially in mechanical, electrical and chemical engineering. It is little wonder that students in other fields find post graduate employment daunting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am going to echo others who have asked for more attention to the demand for scientists in industry. I think the article covers the situation in the academic market quite thoroughly. Is the industrial sector also saturated? Do graduate programs prepare students to meet industry needs? Would more interaction between industry and academic programs improve everyone's productivity? What about the maligned "alternative careers"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it worthwhile to train a large number of scientists who will not continue research, but find positions where they do not apply their technical expertise (but may call on analytical skills)? Does this increase scientific literacy in the marketplace in a useful way, or would we make better use of our funds by working to increase scientific understanding in the general populace?
http://exlaboratorio.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/scientific-american-critiques-the-american-scientist-production-system/
American science has always had a strong representation by immigrants. We just need to go through the list of Nobel laureates for example. So there is nothing like "Reversing the trend" to how it was. Its always been like that. The authors constant reference to "Native born white men" is inappropriate. A large number of American high school students excelling in international math and science competitions as pointed by the author himself are ethnically Asian or from India. Think about Steven Chu for example.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell said. After 40 years in a government research lab, I see that we have no lack of important work to do, but a dismal hiring record to maintain viability. Ultimately, it reflects agency and congressional priorities that are often biased toward near term quantifiable accomplishments at the expense of long term stability and vision.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur system assumes that the more degrees that a person has after their name is evidence that person is technically more proficient than a person that does not have the credentials. In the design engineering world, which I have been a part of for over 40 years, I have worked many individuals with less education that were more inventive and imaginative than their more highly trained counterparts. A degree does not guarantee success in a given field it only opens the door to let one start their career. As a country, we need to get away from this 'educational snobbery' and recognize individuals for what they accomplish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href= http://www.skgtechnologies.com/ Manual- Article- Submission- Service-html > Manual Article Submission Service
Two terms: H1B and L1. Those are visa programs for corporations to bring in low paid scientific and engineering help from many of the terrorist nations of southern and southwestern Asia. I myself was displaced at one point by 4 Pakistani engineers who were making 1/4 my pay.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, there are hundreds of thousands of American engineers and scientists out of work, yet our government (in the interests of big corporations) keeps issuing H1B and L1 visas.
Are you kidding???!! Not being able to perform research in academia is like saying "if I can't work at XYZ corporation than I don't want to work in this field at all!" Ridiculous! The private sector provides many more opportunities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is an inherent conflict between the demands of academic research and the needs of industry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGraduate students and postdocs are usually trained to be generalists that can use many different techniques to solve a specific grant-funded question, usually to increase knowledge about a topic without any obvious practical goals. This approach is driven both by the structure of US graduate education, and also by the demands of funding agencies.
While there are many positions available in industry, employers are usually seeking specialists who have several years of experience using a very specific instrument or technique, with a goal of contributing to a team effort to develop a product. Newly graduated scientists rarely have the expertise or experience in any one specific area to fill these positions.
One aspect of the problem that we are ignoring is the responsibility of industry to further the training and development of their own scientists. Once upon a time, companies would hire well-educated students and then spend time and money training and developing these new employees, with the payoff of decades of productive service. Now employees are hired for specialized jobs on specific projects, and then shed through layoffs and restructuring after only a few years.
To blame only the universities for the imbalance is unfair; the nature of the scientific job market has fundamentally changed. Scientists are no longer highly valued, but are treated like any other expendable employee. Why would anyone want to go through 12+ years of education for such a tenuous, low-prestige job?
Excellent article. It's time we start raising awareness of the science glut we've created.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy don't more americans pursue science & engineering PhDs? Why would you - to end in an indefinite series of holding pattern post-docs, with zero assurance that your 10-15 yr education will ever pay off? Even plumbers will make out better than you - minus the risk, the financial loss incurred during your studies, and plus a house, a family, and their most productive 15 years better enjoyed.
I've tortured myself over this issue - literally. I love science, and I am good at it. But I know better: all PhD grad students never seem to graduate until 6-7 years into their PhDs, and when they finally finish, all they can find is a lowly-paid post doc, followed by post-doc number two.
As much as I want that PhD, I can't do it - and even my Masters doesn't feel wrothwhile. I have zero confidence in my ability to secure a worthwhile career in science, and for that reason alone I won't allow myself to pursue a PhD. Quite honestly, I'd rather be shot than spend the nest 4 years finishing a PhD only to spend another 2 years in post-doc number one and another 2 years in post-doc number two, and then finally break down and accept a career that doesn't require my PhD.
It seems that for too many of us, a PhD is just an unusually long and cruel way to get from point A to point B.
Produce Scientists? as if they are products? I think we should ask the greatest minds ever built in Congress they decide our futures and our money, without money ideas dont work. Without ideas money dont work either. There is this false correlation I see between "promoting Science" in class for children and being a real Scientist, people want to hurry kids to learn science not for the joy or motivation but to "produce more Scientists" as if one subject at school could reach that , real scientists should work to help morally other´s and to discovery new knowledge, and most of them are becoming very technical in many subjects. Many countries "export" their brains like Mario Molina (prize of Chemistry) but he was born here in México and ha all the oportunities there and im glad for that, he did discovery the consecuences of spry in the O3 (ozone layer).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother great Scientist is Al Gore, that man is not just brilliant in his speeches but he is a great brain too -a politician can be a scientist too why not-, but people joke about him because they think he is doing it for politics i dont think so, I think he is among the best scientists. I think Science should be promoted in many and formal ways but also to consider that Science is not always to produce money but to produce more ideas and more knowledge around the Globe, it need ethical implications and limits to what the scientist wants to discover or tries to manipulate like in the case of Stem Cells.
In my field of geology, a MS degree makes you twice as much money as a PhD would. This is due to the lack of demand at the higher educational level for professors, while a great demand in private industry for scientists. Sadly this can not last much longer in the United States, as the U.S. produces half the geologists it did in the 1960s and 1970s and private companies are increasingly looking outside the U.S. for skilled employees, while the higher educational system in the U.S. sinks under the lack of public funds to support the education it use to have. Those trained with a PhD do not go on to educate the next generation, and more and more geologists holding a PhD are leaving the U.S. for better jobs elsewhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery interesting and well-written article which addresses a problem us scientists know all too well (and for quite some time). Your statement: "..is convincing more and more of the nation’s best students not to seek careers in fields such as law, finance, medicine and other fields that offer much better short- and long-term career prospects instead of dedicating an average of seven years to PhD study plus an additional five years or more of postdoctoral training now considered necessary to compete for an academic career in many scientific fields." I think you mean to say that it "is convincing more and more of the nation’s best students TO seek careers in fields such as law, finance, medicine and other fields."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a supply verses demand sort of thing. The truth is my chances are better in the mines or oil fields as a labourer. Also, university is easy for people that can memorize a lot of stuff. They say you should learn it, but you really shouldn't. If you learn it you will only confuse yourself and get the question wrong. Word for word, that stuff is going to be on the test. If you have to think about it, you will get tricked. So that being said, people that shouldn't be scientists are becoming scientists. Now if only I can figure out how to memorize this stuff as well as they can. But maybe it's better to head off to Alberta after I get my drivers license.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suspect wages will be lowered due to the competition aspect involved. It would also help if companies were more loyal to their own countrymen. Or at the very least do some fact checking before they hire someone from obscure country that nobody ever heard of.
Not going to respond to your entire diatribe, but this one part is absolutely mind blowingly stupid:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNO. Half the students who are already in doctoral programs are the result of this kind of thinking. Many have been admitted to their programs because they are a certain flavor and make the university look good. Some of these students are excellent scientists hard working, independent thinkers. Unfortunately MANY of them have subpar undergraduate educations and little or no lab experience prior to coming to graduate school. They lag behind in both classes and lab performance and it is painful to see. These people end up depressed and even more marginalized in the academic system than the rest of the grad students.
Hey, did you think that if we IMPROVED THE CONDITIONS FOR LOW INCOME STUDENTS TO SUCCEED, maybe the BS scenario that you concocted would completely disappear? It's plain as day. If we improve the skills of low income and minority students from day 1 of childhood, then they will grow up to be excellent scientists and engineers. It amazes me how victim-blaming racists end up in a scientific community.