Why so few students do science

[Bill McBlueState]

There was a thread over the weekend about the small number of Americans who pursue graduate degrees in the sciences. I came across a letter in an Irish paper that, while specific to the situation in Ireland, is relevant to the dynamic in the US as well:

Madam, - A number of letters to your paper recently have bemoaned the small number of students taking science subjects at school, the poor uptake of places in third level, and the overall dip in the numbers of science graduates. Most correspondents seem genuinely to wonder why this is so. As a postdoctoral researcher, perhaps I can shed some light on the problem.

Scientists spend four years obtaining an honours degree, which is useless without a postgraduate qualification. Many go on to complete PhDs, and are woefully underpaid for a further four years while doing so.

The average PhD stipend is €13,000 a year. This works out at €5.87 per hour - 32 per cent less than the minimum wage. It is impossible to live independently on this amount and it is imperative, after finishing a PhD, to get a job that will offset the debt most people will have accumulated in getting this far.

After graduation, scientists are qualified to work, as postdoctoral researchers, for a salary that in no way reflects the years that have gone into their training. A newly qualified postdoc will earn €37,000 a year after eight years of study. Postdoctoral positions consist of contracts which are two to three years long. A scientist can expect to complete at least two of these contracts, totalling another six years. At this point, due to a shortage of lectureships and permanent positions, many will either leave academia for industry or teaching, or start to apply for their own grants. At no point in this process can a scientist expect to be made permanent or give a pension benefit, which makes for an interesting time when applying for a mortgage.

...

We're told we're valued. We're told we're precious. We're told we underpin the "knowledge economy". We're none of those things. We're over-qualified, overworked and underpaid.

...

Full letter here

[spin]

1. And probably soon your job will be outsourced (n/t)

[Bill McBlueState]

4. Or you might have to outsource yourself

As a result of the increasingly negative attitude toward basic research in the US -- both from cultural conservatives and from the people who control the federal pursestrings -- a lot of PhD students are starting to look to Europe as they begin their job searches.

[spin]

21. If we continue at this rate, we will be a third world country (n/t)

[Aviation Pro]

2. This is true, but....

...most people who enter the hard sciences do so for more than just compensation.

[Bill McBlueState]

3. Of course

It would be silly to go to grad school in physics if you're mainly interested in being well-off. But as a result, people shouldn't be surprised when most physics grad students in American institutions are from other countries.

[Aviation Pro]

5. I recently saw a video of the commencement party....

...of this year's physics grads at Harvard. About half the graduate were U.S. citizens. You can see it yourself at http://physics.harvard.edu

Check out the bust of Nikola Tesla in the opening.

[cloudbase]

9. I don't know.

A friend is a physics professor at Rice, and every one of his Ph.D. graduates received six-figure offers.

[JHB]

10. From who, doing what?

That, too, is part of the equation.

[Bill McBlueState]

13. that certainly *can* happen

For example, the physics department at my undergraduate institution had a successful solar cells group. Their PhD graduates hit the big bucks every time. The concern raised in the OP is more about basic research than applied, though.

It would be interesting to know what kind of research the professor at Rice is doing.

[cloudbase]

25. I don't know the specifics of the offers

that the students received. The professor's area of research is in thin films, which no doubt has plenty of real world applications.

[Johonny]

31. Almost everyone I know that graduated from Rice

went on to post doc and/or left the field to get a job. For the level of training hard sciences are vastly under paid compared to other fields that require long training and internship.

[JHB]

8. True, but if you want to KEEP those people in the hard sciences...

...you might want to pay them something they (and their families) can live on.

Not that the above statement is unique to the hard sciences. Nurses, teachers, even family-practice doctors can say the same thing.

[Iris]

30. I was just bemoaning this in a thread about capitalism

It's horrifying to think what talent is being wasted because kids think they have to major in "business" to get ahead or even to just simply stay afloat.

What a waste.

[JHB]

34. The reason Shakespeare wrote: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" is because...

...they didn't have MBA's back then.

Otherwise lawyers would have been the second thing...

[Iris]

36. lol! That's ...er... classic!

[Captain Hilts]

6. A HUGE percentage of graduate students in science are from overseas.

The US govt. used to help finance graduate education through grants, but stopped doing so in the late 60s because of Vietnam.

Take out medical and law school and over half of the students in US graduate schools are from foreign countries.

[Warpy]

7. It's an empire in decline

which means it's no longer concerned with building the new or maintaining the already built but with maximizing the wealth and power of the Emperor(s).

We've been here before, although not quite to this extent. Our system has been self correcting in the past.

The reason we've gone so far down the road taken by all senescent empires is that our system was overridden by the Emperors to install one of their own to increase the length of the period of looting and decline.

The people who are best rewarded in an empire in decline are the ones who neither sow nor reap, but who sit at desks and figure out how to squeeze the last milligram of gold out of the teeth of the peasants and shift it to the coffers of the wealthy--the corporate upper management, the hedge fund jockeys, and even the stock market rank and file.

Should our system once again self correct, then people who have been underpaid will once again find their skills valuable. If not, then all that's left is the war that will turn Empire into a burnt out cinder of its former self, no longer a threat to anyone.

[NashVegas]

17. The Sad Truth

That's the basic use of science right now: finding strategic ways to squeeze money out of the populace, at the same time finding ways to eliminate the expense of labor.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. Because they're hard.

Here in the UK, it's clear that if you want to maximise your life-time earnings, the way to do it is to get a science-side rather than an arts-side degree.

However, doing so is harder because the subjects are more intellectually rigorous, and so fewer people choose to do so.

[Aviation Pro]

14. You mean like, ummm, math?

As part of a science-based community, I have countless times stood on my soapbox and said, "no math, no life."

Math is a language and like all languages you can't start at the esoteria and expect to accomplish anything. One of the failings of the school systems here in the States is that they push middle and high school students into disciplines that they are not prepared for (such as algebra in the 6th grade and calculus in the 10th). An article that I read recently made the point that in 'math superior' countries much emphasis is placed on the foundation skills, which will lead to a better understanding of higher math later on. My favorite amoung the foundation skills is comprehension of fractions, which is the base for all higher level mathematics.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. Specifically maths.

Maths has more of a recruitment problem than most other science-side subjects, because it's widely (and arguably correctly) viewed as being one of the hardest.

[Aviation Pro]

16. And yet those of us who embrace math....

...don't find it hard and instead relish the challenge. Granted, I don't do fractals, but pinging a fluid (air) through a turbine engine to produce a finite amount of more thrust and reducing fuel consumption (because of the efficiency of the design) is a problem that I find fascinating.

[Xithras]

20. As a CS prof, I think we have a winner.

The sciences don't grade on a bell curve. You either know the material or you don't. You either pass or you don't. There's no accomodation, you simply have to study hard and memorize the information. Students aren't taight that way in schools anymore, so it's a shock when they hit college and are suddenly immersed in it. Lots of kids enroll with majors in the hard sciences. The vast majority either change majors or drop out before finishing their degrees.

My ratemyprofessor score is really bad because many of my students call me "too hard", or "unforgiving". One even called me a "Code Nazi". I felt bad until I started looking at ratings for other prof's in the sciences. Students universally pan instructors teaching ANY subject percieved as "hard". The more difficult the subject matter, the poorer the instructors rating.

[Bill McBlueState]

26. True, but not really the point of the OP

The point is more that doing something "hard" doesn't necessarily lead to "maximizing one's lifetime earnings."

To use an example from the subthread going on here, choosing mathematics as a career certainly doesn't tend to lead to a lot of money.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. Maybe not "necessarily", but on average it certainly does.

Average life-time earnings are much higher among those with science-side degrees than arts-side degrees.

It's true that careers in academia aren't terribly well-paid compared with other comparatively-skilled jobs, but that's because they involve a lot of job satisfaction and hence are heavily competed for even at lower rates.

[Johonny]

33. you're exactly right

A big minus for many scientist is most are in the field because they like their job. Thus companies feel that they can pay less because they don't have to convince people to do the work. This is different than many other high training, but low job satisfaction occupations. Scientists tend to like their work and companies exploit this to offer them lower salaries.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. That strikes me as perfectly reasonable.

If two people are doing jobs requiring similar levels of skill and similar amounts of work, I think the one doing the more fun job *should* be paid less, and as such I have no problem with academics being paid somewhat less than other otherwise-comparable jobs; I'm still seriously thinking about becoming one.

[knitter4democracy]

40. That's the first weed-out level, that's for sure.

Then there are those who drop out in grad school to become drug reps or pharmacy techs or whatever. I think that's more a function of money.

[LostInAnomie]

12. That is true.

Unless you are planning on pursuing a graduate and post-graduate degree, there is little reason to actually pursue a degree in any of the hard sciences. You won't be able to do almost anything with a simple BS.

You can tell the values of a society by where they place their resources. It's obvious that we don't value science beyond what is marketable.

[slackmaster]

18. Science was THE SHIT whan I was a kid in the '60s and '70s

Everybody was hyped up on it.

I really don't know what happened. Maybe Disco music killed it. Maybe it was the coke.

[dysfunctional press]

19. the government should be sponsoring free-ride scholarships in sciences, and lost of them

the kind universities generally reserve for football/basketball players. and there should be tax incentives for private companies to do the same. and they should be going to american students.

[Xithras]

22. Yep. Spelling too apparently.

:rofl: Sorry, just kidding. I couldn't resist.

[dysfunctional press]

24. that's odd...it didn't show up when i spell-checked it.

:shrug:

[Recursion]

23. Advanced research, particularly in life sciences, is booming

The biomedical department in my engineering school is stuffed. I'm in EE which is under capacity. And in both cases, students want hotshot corporate lab postings to do advanced research.

But there's no funding, anywhere, for fundamental research except for NSF, and that's mostly for Masters-level research.

[TexasObserver]

27. We are not protecting our scientists from foreign undercutting.

And because of that, we're losing our jobs for science to India.

[treestar]

29. This is silly. Any high paying job of a professional nature requires

years of preparation and schooling - the idea is that when you get going, you will make more money than you would have without all that preparation.

On that logic, no one should go to medical school, because you don't make a lot of money as an intern.

Most people know that the payoff is later, but greater.

The only way to make big money early is to be a professional athlete or a success in Hollywood; or a very lucky enterpreneur with some brilliant idea.

People don't go into science because it's hard. You have to be smart and work hard.

[librechik]

32. One of the saddest outcomes of The Reagan Revolution, is the loss of our edge in science

After Sputnik there was a huge educational push for the sciences. Public schools improved across the board, as a response to the new competitive interest--we wanted to beat the Russians, and we (almost) succeeded. Then Reagan arrived, and wanted to remove all such government funded excess. The de-funding, de-regulating tsunami gradually took its toll, followed by outsourcing.

Now we are woefully uneducated, will find it difficult to jumpstart a sense of respect for education (first remove No Child Left Behind Laws--the Pukkkes will fight that tooth and nail(their only social program--ever!and horribly damaging to children and schools, of course)

And they will be doing everything possible to trip us up and discredit us as we try to fix the damage that Revolution did to us. In fact, they probably won't allow us to even start, by hook or crook.

And people ask me why I'm so depressed. Why aren't they?

[Iris]

38. The anti-intellecualism in this country is far spread and deep.

It will take generations to repair that attitude.

Sorry you feel depressed, but you are not alone.
:hug:

[Evoman]

35. It is too much work for not enough moolah. I am a scientist.

I've done well as a student. I got my MSc, had stellar marks, good scholarships, and even published 2 papers with my masters work. And now I'm having a hard ass time trying to find any work. All the jobs I'm applying to don't pay very well....hell, for one of them, the pay is about 50 000 to 60 000....and there are apparently about 300 applicants.

I had a talk with my girlfriend...and I've decided I'm probably going to try to get into Pharmacy.

Think about it...why take really hard classes, each with a lab, when you can just take some easy business classes and end up managing those stupid scientists who are working so hard? Each science class (3 hours a week) has a lab (an additional 3 hours a week for no credit). My friends in business would spend their evening and weekend drinking and partying and relaxing and getting ready for their ONE presentation...while I had hours of exam, lab exams, lab reports, class assignments, lab assignments, and journal review essays.


Edit: I'm Canadian, so I may not represent U.S. science graduates very well.

[Bill McBlueState]

39. Pharmacy's always been my backup plan, too!

My undergrad school had a big pharmacy program. Several of my friends who majored in pharmacy now work 40 hours a week and live in giant houses, while I'm putting in 60 hours a week and making grad student pay. x(

I'll be starting a postdoc in November that will net me $38,000 / yr. That's not horrible, but people outside the sciences tend to imagine that 7 years of grad school would be a little more rewarding at the end.