Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in scientific careers

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 112 posts

Re: Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in scientific careers

#91

Post by SilasX »

wutbrodo wrote: post #85
SilasX wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that it's possible, in theory, to increase funding to the point that everyone who is capable of and wiling to be a research scientist makes a competitive salary. However, in this case, the oversupply is so obscenely high [1] that you would have to allocate something like a fourth of the economy (roughly all government funding at all levels) in order to exhaust the supply and pay it the no-labor-of-love w…

Thanks for clarifying, I understand your position a lot better. I no longer find it circular, but I still disagree with a lot of your assumptions. TL;DR: I (and IMO this thread) was speaking of hard sciences, not social sciences: there doesn't seem to be nearly as much of a replicability issue due to people starving for discoveries (there are still process improvements to be made, however). As such, the only bottlene…

I think we've reduced our disagreement to something too intractable for HN, except for this point, which I want to to clarify.

>I'm not sure if you're basing that on the situation where every schoolchild thinks they need to go to grad school? Frankly, I don't think this assumption is reasonable: I don't think the current system even encourages that. Universal undergrad is heavily encouraged, but culturally, grad school still remains very much discretionary.

My point was that grad school "overuse" is tightly coupled to undergrad "overuse" -- colleges are dominated by professors that think highly of post-grad education ("hey, it worked for me!") and will therefore overpromote that as an option. Therefore, overpromotion of college will translate to a saturation of grad school (and jobs with grad-school prerequisites), even if policy "only" encourages undergrad; this is where I think we are today.

Re: Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in scientific careers

#92

Post by erikpukinskis »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #66
rmxt wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does poverty create "bad people" or do "bad people" end up in poverty? That seems like a question that you would need answered before you can assert that "it's not economics keeping people from the sciences."

That's easily answerable. First, we can look at the past or other countries. Either the US 1950's or the top 10% of India consists of people who live in what we call "poverty" in 2016 USA. Second, we can take good people, drop them into poverty, and watch what happens. For example, take an upper middle class 22 year old, drop them into the poverty of graduate school, and check whether they go bad. Both of these are w…

Grad students have job security, health insurance, physical security, and good job prospects upon graduation. It's not really a fair comparison to, say, a part time minimum wage job at home depot, even if the take-home pay is similar. The tax ramifications of graduate school are usually pretty good too, so the money goes further than the salary numbers would indicate.

There's also a big difference between being low paid in a generally high paid cultural group vs being in a generally low paid cultural group, in terms of social safety net and psychological climate.

Re: Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in scientific careers

#93

Post by sidlls »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #86
rmxt wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting your ideological motivations aside, how do programs promoting home computer ownership or basic literacy (with the ultimate aim of getting people up to par in literacy, before encouraging development in the sciences) in impoverished areas "nullify and demean the good work that hard-working individuals have done"? There's no logical connection there, nor any sort of free pass being offered. Furthermore, the imp…

Furthermore, the implication that people in poverty are any less "hard-working" than those that have achieved financial success/accessibility to the sciences seems like a claim that needs some citations 60% of poor adults (age 18-64) don't work at all. In contrast, 81% of non-poor adults do. 58% of non-poor adults worked full time year round, whereas only 11% of poor adults did. http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Cens…

African-America men are incarcerated at a much higher rate than white men. Does that mean black men are more likely than white men to commit crimes?

The answer is no, because there are confounding issues I left out. This should sound familiar, you just did it yourself.

Re: Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in scientific careers

#94

Post by yummyfajitas »

sidlls wrote: post #93
yummyfajitas wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Furthermore, the implication that people in poverty are any less "hard-working" than those that have achieved financial success/accessibility to the sciences seems like a claim that needs some citations 60% of poor adults (age 18-64) don't work at all. In contrast, 81% of non-poor adults do. 58% of non-poor adults worked full time year round, whereas only 11% of poor adults did. http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Cens…

African-America men are incarcerated at a much higher rate than white men. Does that mean black men are more likely than white men to commit crimes? The answer is no, because there are confounding issues I left out. This should sound familiar, you just did it yourself.

Yes, they probably do. Crime victimization surveys (e.g. the NCVS) strongly suggest that blacks do, in fact, commit a lot more violent crimes than other groups.

Here's a great blog post that reviews the academic literature: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-m...

Since you seem to believe there is some confounding factor that causes the census to incorrectly count the number of poor people who work, feel free to expand on it.

Re: Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in scientific careers

#95

Post by yummyfajitas »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #92
yummyfajitas wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's easily answerable. First, we can look at the past or other countries. Either the US 1950's or the top 10% of India consists of people who live in what we call "poverty" in 2016 USA. Second, we can take good people, drop them into poverty, and watch what happens. For example, take an upper middle class 22 year old, drop them into the poverty of graduate school, and check whether they go bad. Both of these are w…

Grad students have job security, health insurance, physical security, and good job prospects upon graduation. It's not really a fair comparison to, say, a part time minimum wage job at home depot, even if the take-home pay is similar. The tax ramifications of graduate school are usually pretty good too, so the money goes further than the salary numbers would indicate. There's also a big difference between being low p…

In terms of goods and services consumed, grad school was definitely comparable to poverty. Insofar as it differs it's by perhaps a few thousand dollars/year.

Are you suggesting that if we took poor Americans, but gave them health care an extra couple of thousand $/year, that they would suddenly reduce their crime levels to that of graduate students? I feel like this can be tested by comparing the generosity of various state-level welfare programs.

Or again, by looking it (very poor) upper class Indians.

There's also a big difference between being low paid in a generally high paid cultural group vs being in a generally low paid cultural group, in terms of social safety net and psychological climate.

If you switch on showdead you'll see that in my now flagged post, we are discussing whether economics causes poor people to become "bad people". You might be right that psychology does, but that's a totally different claim.

Re: Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in scientific careers

#96

Post by dragonwriter »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #86
rmxt wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting your ideological motivations aside, how do programs promoting home computer ownership or basic literacy (with the ultimate aim of getting people up to par in literacy, before encouraging development in the sciences) in impoverished areas "nullify and demean the good work that hard-working individuals have done"? There's no logical connection there, nor any sort of free pass being offered. Furthermore, the imp…

Furthermore, the implication that people in poverty are any less "hard-working" than those that have achieved financial success/accessibility to the sciences seems like a claim that needs some citations 60% of poor adults (age 18-64) don't work at all. In contrast, 81% of non-poor adults do. 58% of non-poor adults worked full time year round, whereas only 11% of poor adults did. http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Cens…

> > Furthermore, the implication that people in poverty are any less "hard-working" than those that have achieved financial success/accessibility to the sciences seems like a claim that needs some citations

> 60% of poor adults (age 18-64) don't work at all. In contrast, 81% of non-poor adults do.

I'm having trouble believing that it is possible to make an argument that % of people in a group who are employed is a good representation of the degree to which people in the group are hardworkers seriously, no matter what the group in question is.

But when its poor vs. non-poor -- that is, when the groups are divided up by an attribute which is fairly strongly influenced by whether or not you have the income derived from a job -- its even harder to believe.

> Why is this a remotely controversial claim, as opposed to simply standard knowledge that all educated people know?

That poor people are less likely to be employed is not a controversial claim, nor was it the claim at issue. That they are less "hard-working" was the claim at issue, which is not one which can be resolved by looking at the degree to which they are employed.

Re: Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in scientific careers

#97

Post by yummyfajitas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #96
yummyfajitas wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Furthermore, the implication that people in poverty are any less "hard-working" than those that have achieved financial success/accessibility to the sciences seems like a claim that needs some citations 60% of poor adults (age 18-64) don't work at all. In contrast, 81% of non-poor adults do. 58% of non-poor adults worked full time year round, whereas only 11% of poor adults did. http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Cens…

> > Furthermore, the implication that people in poverty are any less "hard-working" than those that have achieved financial success/accessibility to the sciences seems like a claim that needs some citations > 60% of poor adults (age 18-64) don't work at all. In contrast, 81% of non-poor adults do. I'm having trouble believing that it is possible to make an argument that % of people in a group who are employed is a go…

Here is data suggesting most poor people aren't looking for work - only 35% of poor adults were in the labor force: http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/working-poor/archive/a-profi...

(To get that number, I took 10.5M in labor force / (45.3M poor people - 16M poor children).)

So yes, I think it's fair to characterize a group of people who don't work, and aren't even looking for work, as "less hard working" than a group that disproportionately is working.

What does "hard working" mean to you? And why do you believe poor people are comparably hard working to the non-poor?

Re: Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in scientific careers

#98

Post by dragonwriter »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #97
dragonwriter wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > Furthermore, the implication that people in poverty are any less "hard-working" than those that have achieved financial success/accessibility to the sciences seems like a claim that needs some citations > 60% of poor adults (age 18-64) don't work at all. In contrast, 81% of non-poor adults do. I'm having trouble believing that it is possible to make an argument that % of people in a group who are employed is a go…

Here is data suggesting most poor people aren't looking for work - only 35% of poor adults were in the labor force: http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/working-poor/archive/a-profi... (To get that number, I took 10.5M in labor force / (45.3M poor people - 16M poor children).) So yes, I think it's fair to characterize a group of people who don't work, and aren't even looking for work, as "less hard working" than a group t…

> Here is data suggesting most poor people aren't looking for work - only 35% of poor adults were in the labor force:

Lower labor force participation could mean they are less hard working -- or it could mean that they have less opinion of their ability to be gainfully employed, or it could mean that working has a high cost (because, e.g., they have children to take care of, childcare isn't free, and the jobs they could reasonably secure wouldn't provide a net gain before considering child care that's enough to pay for childcare.)

Or lots of other things.

> What does "hard working" mean to you?

Willing to expend effort to improve one's condition, essentially.

> And why do you believe poor people are comparably hard working to the non-poor?

I haven't argued that they are. I've argued that the evidence that you've presented to prove that they are not has virtually no probative value on the point it is offered to support.

Re: Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in scientific careers

#99

Post by hammock »

jackcosgrove wrote: post #31
existencebox wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would warn your optimism however, my wife is a lab manager (performs research, publishes, ostensibly as involved in the science as any PHD) but I would by no stretch of the word say she makes "good money"; both of us made more back when we were service workers. The perception in her group is that the positions that pay even close to tech (some of the ones you list, manager at pharma company etc) are almost paramoun…

Wages are higher in technology compared to the sciences because productivity is higher due to greater automation. The sciences may see wage increases in the future as research tools become more automated. Whether the skill sets remain the same is not so sure; manual wet lab work will always be inefficient compared to a programmer controlling an array of robotic lab devices.

The efficiency gained by automation is available to all prospective tech workers; there must be another reason wages are higher in technology.

Re: Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in scientific careers

#100

Post by mattkrause »

dsacco wrote: post #57
tnecniv wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather get paid below market value (considering either my current career path or an alternate I could have chosen) and do interesting work every day than get paid a lot and work long hours doing something I hate. My father made the opposite choice and regrets it every day now that his career is coming to a close.

>>I'd rather get paid below market value (considering either my current career path or an alternate I could have chosen) and do interesting work every day than get paid a lot and work long hours doing something I hate. It's important to note that the spectrum you laid out has two other "corners". Many PhDs do mind-numbingly boring work, even if it's original research, while getting paid a pittance. Conversely, there…

> Many PhDs do mind-numbingly boring work, even if it's original research

There's a second trade-off here too.

PhD/Postdocs do stuff that's mind-numbingly boring at a "micro" level (e.g., actually performing most experiments), but really exciting at a macro level (e.g., figuring out how the brain--or the Sun--works). In industry, there's often the opposite opportunity: exciting day-to-day work for uninteresting goals, like using state-of-the-art machine learning (fun!) to figure out whether a webpage should show a Papa John's or Pizza Hut ad (meh).

Post reply on HN