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

The Real Science Gap

miller-mccune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 20 posts

Re: The Real Science Gap

#11

Post by lutorm »

etal wrote: post #3

Oh my god, I hate journalists. 1. This is not an article about career opportunities for STEM (science, tech, engineering, math) majors -- of which there are plenty. This is about the very specific problem of there being a massive glut of Ph.D. students aiming for tenure-track academic jobs. The article makes no distinction here. 2. The problem of academia's imploding pyramid scheme is not at all limited to science. I…

Is it really worse in humanities? I don't know for sure but given that a significant fraction of science graduate students are funded by research grants it seems there should also be fewer positions for them. (Unless they actually go into debt to get their degree, in which case they're really screwed.)

Re: The Real Science Gap

#12

Post by lutorm »

etal wrote: post #3

Oh my god, I hate journalists. 1. This is not an article about career opportunities for STEM (science, tech, engineering, math) majors -- of which there are plenty. This is about the very specific problem of there being a massive glut of Ph.D. students aiming for tenure-track academic jobs. The article makes no distinction here. 2. The problem of academia's imploding pyramid scheme is not at all limited to science. I…

About 4: The thing is that the current system gives the government complete flexibility in what they want to do. If they don't want to fund research in X any more, just stop giving the grants. If they actually ran their own lab, they'd have to shut it down, get rid of employees, etc. Seems very convenient for them, especially given that grant funding tends to fluctuate with congressional tides.

Re: The Real Science Gap

#13

Post by fghjkoi8uygt »

jackfoxy wrote: post #2

If there are so many young scientists laboring away in low-paying dead-end jobs, it hardly suggests there is a shortage. There are just not many private sector openings for astronomers, meteorologists, and high-energy physicists. They may have proven their ability to master a technical subject, but the subject they have spent years mastering has little or no commercial application, which is where wealth is created. T…

Yes it's a waste studying high energy physics or astronomy instead of inventing MRI or lasers.

And Wall st would be much better if it just hired accountants instead of all those people who had spent 10years learning all that useless math.

Re: The Real Science Gap

#14

Post by pyre »

lutorm wrote: post #12
etal wrote: post #3

Oh my god, I hate journalists. 1. This is not an article about career opportunities for STEM (science, tech, engineering, math) majors -- of which there are plenty. This is about the very specific problem of there being a massive glut of Ph.D. students aiming for tenure-track academic jobs. The article makes no distinction here. 2. The problem of academia's imploding pyramid scheme is not at all limited to science. I…

About 4: The thing is that the current system gives the government complete flexibility in what they want to do. If they don't want to fund research in X any more, just stop giving the grants. If they actually ran their own lab, they'd have to shut it down, get rid of employees, etc. Seems very convenient for them, especially given that grant funding tends to fluctuate with congressional tides.

Also, grants can come from sources other than the government, no?

Re: The Real Science Gap

#15

Post by etal »

lutorm wrote: post #11
etal wrote: post #3

Oh my god, I hate journalists. 1. This is not an article about career opportunities for STEM (science, tech, engineering, math) majors -- of which there are plenty. This is about the very specific problem of there being a massive glut of Ph.D. students aiming for tenure-track academic jobs. The article makes no distinction here. 2. The problem of academia's imploding pyramid scheme is not at all limited to science. I…

Is it really worse in humanities? I don't know for sure but given that a significant fraction of science graduate students are funded by research grants it seems there should also be fewer positions for them. (Unless they actually go into debt to get their degree, in which case they're really screwed.)

Graduate assistantship stipends are probably an OK measure. At my school, funded psychology students get around $9000 or $10000 during the academic year, and have to work as a TA each semester (grading or teaching lab sessions). Genetics students earn $20000 and simply work in their PI's lab. This is for students funded through the graduate school -- PIs can also hire grad students and postdocs with money from their own grants, in addition to those already-funded students who join their labs. In either case, the graduate school waives tuition for anyone on an assistantship.

Plus, science students have relatively good options in industry after graduation, and as far as I can tell, more postdoc positions available.

There are also programs like this for science students:

http://www.sciencemasters.com/

Re: The Real Science Gap

#16

Post by etal »

lutorm wrote: post #12
etal wrote: post #3

Oh my god, I hate journalists. 1. This is not an article about career opportunities for STEM (science, tech, engineering, math) majors -- of which there are plenty. This is about the very specific problem of there being a massive glut of Ph.D. students aiming for tenure-track academic jobs. The article makes no distinction here. 2. The problem of academia's imploding pyramid scheme is not at all limited to science. I…

About 4: The thing is that the current system gives the government complete flexibility in what they want to do. If they don't want to fund research in X any more, just stop giving the grants. If they actually ran their own lab, they'd have to shut it down, get rid of employees, etc. Seems very convenient for them, especially given that grant funding tends to fluctuate with congressional tides.

Good point. I'm thinking of "dead labs", where a tenured professor runs out of grant money and can't secure any more, so students and lab staff gradually disappear on their own, since the only official long-term job is the PI's. One unproductive professor's salary isn't much compared to an entire office or building in the D.C. suburbs.

(Empirically, a professor doing X will continue doing X until retirement, regardless of the grant situation. But students can still opt out.)

Re: The Real Science Gap

#17

Post by etal »

pyre wrote: post #14
lutorm wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About 4: The thing is that the current system gives the government complete flexibility in what they want to do. If they don't want to fund research in X any more, just stop giving the grants. If they actually ran their own lab, they'd have to shut it down, get rid of employees, etc. Seems very convenient for them, especially given that grant funding tends to fluctuate with congressional tides.

Also, grants can come from sources other than the government, no?

Yes, charities and NGOs like the American Cancer Society fund grants, too. But basic research is usually way outside their core competency, so teaming up with universities is their best option.

Companies team up with academic labs occasionally, and I think this is great.

But the government does already run its own labs and fund semi-independent research-only institutions. I'd like to see an expansion of these (mainly the latter), as well as Master's programs in science/tech, to help this current glut of graduate students transition to non-academic careers.

Re: The Real Science Gap

#18

Post by geebee »

AENGINE wrote: post #10
geebee wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the problems science/engineering PhD's are facing are similar (though not quite as severe) to the problems experienced by PhD's seeking academic positions in humanities and social sciences. There's one big difference, though - the CEOs of Sun Micro, Intel, IBM, and so forth all testified in front of congress that a shortage of science/engineering PhD's endangers US competitiveness, prompting congress to…

Sadly this article goes down the same trap of clubbing all STEM disciplines as one. When SUN,GOOG, Intel and MSFT talk, they are talking about EE,Chem Eng., CS, Physics and other useful fields within Science and Engg. However PhD in Marine Biology isn't going to be of much help.

Yeah, it doesn't really make sense to report on "science" PhDs in aggregate. The market for CS PhDs is probably about as closely related to marine bio as it is to poly sci.

That said, I still think that even the "useful" STEM fields you mentioned are lagging behind the professions that can take (as the article pointed out) 1/4 to 1/6 of the time to completion, which much higher completion rates (and less rigorous prerequisites to boot).

By the way, I remain extremely enthusiastic about majoring in hard science, math, cs, or engineering. These majors set you up really well for entry into the workforce. You can contribute immediately in a high impact way, and I've found this notion that you'll be viewed as "merely a coder" to be greatly overstated. There are all kinds of great directions to go from starting out as a developer (including remaining in development). But PhDs clearly don't pay (not surprisingly, you see a much higher percentage of US citizens in undergrad programs in STEM fields, since this is the economically rational choice - at the grad level, the rational choice is to go to law, medicine, or MBA programs, or just get to work and enjoy a salary).

Re: The Real Science Gap

#19

Post by Tamerlin »

AENGINE wrote: post #9

Here are my few observations: Break down by STEM: CS,EE,Chem Engg, Mechanical Engg PhD's are much more in demand than Marine Biology PhD's. Thus when Eric Schmidt talks about lack of students it about these fields. I can assure you that if you are from a top 30-40 university and have PhD in CS,EE,Chem Eng. or other hard core engineering you are near guaranteed a good job (unless you have messed up royally) However if…

"Here are my few observations: Break down by STEM: CS,EE,Chem Engg, Mechanical Engg PhD's are much more in demand than Marine Biology PhD's. Thus when Eric Schmidt talks about lack of students it about these fields."

Well, duh. The blindingly obvious thing that you missed is that there's life outside of Google.

"I can assure you that if you are from a top 30-40 university and have PhD in CS,EE,Chem Eng. or other hard core engineering you are near guaranteed a good job (unless you have messed up royally)"

Reality says otherwise.

"If you are not and study marine bio (It sounds cool subject) sadly your job prospects are restricted to Academia!"

I guess you've never heard of NOAA, Woods Hole, among others, then.

Re: The Real Science Gap

#20

Post by fburnaby »

Tamerlin wrote: post #19
AENGINE wrote: post #9

Here are my few observations: Break down by STEM: CS,EE,Chem Engg, Mechanical Engg PhD's are much more in demand than Marine Biology PhD's. Thus when Eric Schmidt talks about lack of students it about these fields. I can assure you that if you are from a top 30-40 university and have PhD in CS,EE,Chem Eng. or other hard core engineering you are near guaranteed a good job (unless you have messed up royally) However if…

"Here are my few observations: Break down by STEM: CS,EE,Chem Engg, Mechanical Engg PhD's are much more in demand than Marine Biology PhD's. Thus when Eric Schmidt talks about lack of students it about these fields." Well, duh. The blindingly obvious thing that you missed is that there's life outside of Google. "I can assure you that if you are from a top 30-40 university and have PhD in CS,EE,Chem Eng. or other hard…

Woods Hole sounds like the coolest place ever. I've been considering seeing if I can get in.
Post reply on HN