41–50 of 108 posts
The only people who honestly think there are a shortage of stem workers are those who aren't in stem.
Ask around, you'll find quite a few people like me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think psychology is typically considered STEM.
According to the article, it is by the NSF and not by the commerce department.
It seems to me that there is a shortage of qualified employees and yet also a shortage of jobs in every single well-paid, well regarded sector. It's almost as if we want people to train themselves to work doing hard stuff and also don't want to pay them to do it. In other news, water is wet.
Plenty of jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s wrong with bootcamps? I know a few success stories, and I firmly believe that if somebody wants to learn programming, it is doable almost for everyone. It is hard, like learning a foreign language, but as nearly everybody can learn e.g. Spanish, so nearly everybody can learn how to program.
" Another reason for the current problems with bootcamp job placement is that employer expectations, and their attitudes towards bootcamp grads, have changed since the early days. A lot of employers who did hire from bootcamps found that although many of these bootcamp grads did well at interview, they had trouble being immediately productive once in post. The underlying issue was that these new hires lacked the fund…
Slightly off topic, but I feel like when people talk of STEM as a lucrative field of study, they tend to imply CS. Non-CS STEM field hardly have a shortage of qualified and talented people. In fact, there's probably a oversupply compared to job prospects in non-CS STEM fields. I see so many talented Math/Physics majors end up switching to CS and do mundane software engineering work.
Engineering is highly in demand. I imagine math too.
I know lots of people go pre-med and leave college in a saturated field
I'm curious: fundamentally, can the economy find a place for many more talented STEM people ? And if not, what's missing - useful ideas ? capital ? management ? Something else ?
Until every job is automated?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s wrong with bootcamps? I know a few success stories, and I firmly believe that if somebody wants to learn programming, it is doable almost for everyone. It is hard, like learning a foreign language, but as nearly everybody can learn e.g. Spanish, so nearly everybody can learn how to program.
" Another reason for the current problems with bootcamp job placement is that employer expectations, and their attitudes towards bootcamp grads, have changed since the early days. A lot of employers who did hire from bootcamps found that although many of these bootcamp grads did well at interview, they had trouble being immediately productive once in post. The underlying issue was that these new hires lacked the fund…
Bootcampers tend to have roughly the same level of programming skill as someone fresh out of a CS degree course who has brushed up on the tech we use. Additionally, many have backgrounds in other fields (everything from working in a small business to line cook to psychology to sales).
If your company isn't prepared for the mentoring and training needed to deal with junior developers, hiring someone fresh out of a boot camp is a bad idea, especially for someone like Google or Cisco that does a ton of programming at much lower levels than web development and doesn't treat it as a primary focus (where more resources are likely to be spent in mentoring).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...and yet those in the life sciences who took a more practical path, for example, nurses, are both well paid and in high demand.
Well paid nurses? Which country would that be?
Median income for an RN in 2017 was $70k [2]
So, in the US it's fair to say that nurse is a moderately well paid job. Of course compared to west coast tech salaries that doesn't look so amazing, but compared to what many life sciences PhDs are earning while fighting for a tenure track job it doesn't look so bad
[1] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-26... [2] https://m.nurse.plus/how-much-nurses-make/
I'm curious: fundamentally, can the economy find a place for many more talented STEM people ? And if not, what's missing - useful ideas ? capital ? management ? Something else ?
Can you get more of them?
Yes if many smart people currently avoid STEM because it is low status, hard, and not really paid well compared to things really smart people can achieve.
No if people who have the ability to do the hard work are inevitably drawn into it anyway.
The local schools here now call it STEAM, include in "Arts" and now say: >"It will include subjects like history, social studies, and language arts, all of which are vital facets of a STEAM curriculum." and now STEM has no meaning anymore (if it ever did). These are all fine subjects, but they miss the point of the push for STEM that was based on the theory that Americans are falling behind in Math, Science, and Engi…
STEAM does actually have a meaning: it excludes low-tech vocational training, home economics, and physical education.