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

101–110 of 112 posts

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

#101

Post by yummyfajitas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #98
yummyfajitas wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cou…

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

It's true - I can't rule out that the poor aren't sitting at home praying for a job while taking no action to find one.

But what I've presented is strong evidence that the poor are not hard working.

Suppose your prior is P(!hardworking) = A, P(working) = B, P(looking for work) = C, P(hard work in non-labor force activities) = D. Of course, A + B + C + D must add up to 1.

I've just shown B and C to be false. So P(!hardworking|evidence I've presented) = A / (A + D) > A. Feel free to tweak this and try a more complicated model, I don't think you'll get a different result.

What evidence - if any - would cause you to acknowledge that the poor actually aren't hardworking?

(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.)

Strangely, poor Indians have solved this problem. One poor person looks after multiple children while the others work. But poor Indians, unlike poor Americans, are actually hard working.

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

#102

Post by dragonwriter »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #101
dragonwriter wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 cou…

Willing to expend effort to improve one's condition, essentially. It's true - I can't rule out that the poor aren't sitting at home praying for a job while taking no action to find one. But what I've presented is strong evidence that the poor are not hard working. Suppose your prior is P(!hardworking) = A, P(working) = B, P(looking for work) = C, P(hard work in non-labor force activities) = D. Of course, A + B + C +…

> Strangely, poor Indians have solved this problem. One poor person looks after multiple children while the others work

If done outside of the formal economy, that would produce, ceteris paribus, lower labor-force participation among the poor, which is, surprise-surprise, exactly the result you said indicated that American poor are not hard working.

So, thank you for illustrating one of the reasons your "evidence" doesn't justify the conclusion you've drawn from it.

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

#103

Post by yummyfajitas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #102
yummyfajitas wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Willing to expend effort to improve one's condition, essentially. It's true - I can't rule out that the poor aren't sitting at home praying for a job while taking no action to find one. But what I've presented is strong evidence that the poor are not hard working. Suppose your prior is P(!hardworking) = A, P(working) = B, P(looking for work) = C, P(hard work in non-labor force activities) = D. Of course, A + B + C +…

> Strangely, poor Indians have solved this problem. One poor person looks after multiple children while the others work If done outside of the formal economy, that would produce, ceteris paribus , lower labor-force participation among the poor, which is, surprise-surprise, exactly the result you said indicated that American poor are not hard working. So, thank you for illustrating one of the reasons your "evidence" d…

It illustrates nothing of the sort. Some simple numbers.

Suppose that the 65% of poor adults who aren't in the labor force decided to enter into such an arrangement. Then 3 of them would work (or look for work) while the 4'th watched their children. The labor force participation rate of the poor would increase from 35% to 83.75%.

Can you name any piece of evidence or measurement which would cause you to believe the poor are not hardworking? Or is your doubt more religious in nature?

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

#104

Post by davidf18 »

fu9ar wrote: post #82
davidf18 wrote: post #35

From the article: > Last year, Christina Quasney was close to giving up. A biochemistry major at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Quasney's background was anything but privileged. People with little family money get free grants and low-interest government backed loans to attend college. She is attending a public university. In NYC, there are many students that are attending City University of New York an…

You don't understand these arguments because you came from such an extreme place of class privilege that you already had the education in high school to get paid "programming" jobs. People coming from poverty don't have family that can make up the 10% that you didn't cover out of pocket. Even then, you are probably being disingenuous with that 90% figure and if you want it to stand as valid evidence that all of these…

> People coming from poverty don't have family that can make up the 10% that you didn't cover out of pocket

They get almost $24K free money in 4 years of free money in Pell Grants They get about $27K in 4 years subsidized Stafford Loans

People in poverty also get other kinds of grants/fellowships.

The Nature article was about people from poorer backgrounds not being able to be Scientists. The truth is they receive plenty of money for college and as I pointed out there are many in NYC that are doing just that.

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

#105

Post by mattkrause »

kaitai wrote: post #79
existencebox wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few thoughts. - you're comparing what seems to be highly skilled vs. more unskilled labor; (as well as more typically PHD requiring vs not) which if anything seems to support my point given that frankly the pays are similar enough. (at least compared to the delta you'd make using higher education to go into industry) - clinical managers (general lab managers as well, fwiw) are actually far more to the administrativ…

The comparison between skilled and more unskilled labor is intentional; the article was about training in science. Many posters seem to argue below that science training does not lead to better-paying jobs, and thus it is not important that poverty and social background are barriers to science training/doing science. A science degree in general requires more training than a business degree or a communications degree,…

> The comparison between skilled and more unskilled labor is intentional.

Don't you need to "condition" on aptitude and ability then? A person capable of getting into a decent PhD program would probably also be able to get into a solid medical or law program. At the undergrad level, that might mean a nursing degree (APRN or something) instead of a bachelors' in biology.

The science degree is not particularly lucrative at either level.

Also, I think you're flipping the causality around in other people's arguments: they seem to be claiming that pushing science degrees is not a particularly effective way of addressing poverty.

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

#106

Post by fbormann »

Fomite wrote: post #52
refurb wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make sense to me. If it were a more accessible path, then you'd have more scientists (supply), the same demand and lower wages.

The way science is currently set up, the only people who can take unpaid "research experience" positions etc. in undergrad that have a huge impact on their career trajectories are people who know the bills are being paid some other way.

You have reached the point. I, myself, in a public University in Brazil, still have concerns about the money I'll have to afford bus tickets. Some students even own a car!, of course most of them have "unpaid" positions because they won't suffer in their social lifes if they aren't paid. Thanks for getting the point.

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

#107

Post by aaron695 »

kaitai wrote: post #13

As I write this, there are just a small number of comments, all saying "there's no money in research" and "scientists are paid less than McDonald's burger flipper". It's like a whole section of disgruntled grad students who wanted to be professors. There is tons of money in science! People who "fail out" of or never wanted to pursue the stupid academic dream become active in patent law, become managers at pharma and…

> People who "fail out" of or never wanted to pursue the stupid academic dream become active in patent law

Patent law is anti science.

If anything it helps prove the point. We all know science degrees lead to money. It's practicing science that perhaps is not as $

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

#108

Post by psychometry »

lintiness wrote: post #61
rspeer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you were exceptionally unclear about it. What does Google News's science section have to do with anything? A newspaper's "science" section has little to do with real science.

the argument the article made was that financial barriers made science inaccessible. ubiquitous exposure (google news) makes the argument nonsensical. if you think you can't master high school science today (the argument) without bunsen burners, some hcl, and an egregiously over paid teacher, i can't help you.

And teachers are now somehow overpaid. Delightful...

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

#109

Post by dragonwriter »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #103
dragonwriter wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Strangely, poor Indians have solved this problem. One poor person looks after multiple children while the others work If done outside of the formal economy, that would produce, ceteris paribus , lower labor-force participation among the poor, which is, surprise-surprise, exactly the result you said indicated that American poor are not hard working. So, thank you for illustrating one of the reasons your "evidence" d…

It illustrates nothing of the sort. Some simple numbers. Suppose that the 65% of poor adults who aren't in the labor force decided to enter into such an arrangement. Then 3 of them would work (or look for work) while the 4'th watched their children. The labor force participation rate of the poor would increase from 35% to 83.75%. Can you name any piece of evidence or measurement which would cause you to believe the p…

Your simple numbers are, frankly, meaningless and stupid. They assume that childcare is the only reason poor people are ever out of the labor force, for starters.

If you assume thatpoor people are more likely to have to resort to mutual aid outside the formal economy for that while non-poor people are more likely to be able to be either consumers or suppliers (or both) of childcare in the formal economy and that is the only factor affecting differences in labor force participation between the groups (which is, no doubt, an oversimplification), then you'd expect -- no matter what the mutual aid ratio is -- a lower labor force participation rate for the poor.

If you more generally assume that this is hardly unique, and that regulatory costs force those with less means out of the formal economy in other ways, you'd expect the labor force participation rate of the poor to be even further depressed.

> Can you name any piece of evidence or measurement which would cause you to believe the poor are not hardworking?

I'm not convinced that the character trait of "hard-workingness" has a good objectively-measurable proxy, but then since I'm not the one making a positive claim about it, its not my obligation to present and justify a valid measure of the trait.

> Or is your doubt more religious in nature?

False dichotomy much? Thinking you are making a positive fact claim about something for which no good objective evidence exists and which, while it might in principle be measurable, it is unlikely that objective evidence could exist in practice, isn't a "religious" objection -- if anything, its skepticism that you are making what is essentially a claim of a religious nature (that is, one that is held as true statement of material fact about the world without being either objectively justified nor even necessarily practically objectively justifiable.)

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

#110

Post by fu9ar »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #90
fu9ar wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the entire institution of business has an explicit profit motive and academia has an explicit knowledge motive, so while there may be misguided individuals in either pursuit, that doesn't sully the previous poster's point.

Academia's primary product is credentialing, not knowledge. If knowledge were the product they would bill for knowledge, but they don't, they bill for credentials.

Your attitude is the source of every problem with contemporary academia.
Post reply on HN