We have recently argued in several posts that the pressures in academia today make funding hard to secure, good science jobs seemingly hard to find, and lead to the churning out of tons of useless research, the support of a large academic welfare system, and increased cheating. 'Research' has been so heavily marketed--and that's the right word for it--by both academia and the media, all thumping like itinerant preachers, that it has become an iconic status symbol and, even, idol of near-religious worship.
We argue that one way or another we should rectify the system. There are not enough funds for as many people to play this game as want to, or as we lure into when we recruit graduate students. Exponential growth, and institutions largely serving themselves rather than their purported societal clientele, will eventually, inevitably, become overcrowded.
We can tolerate overcrowding, somewhat akin to Marx' and Engels' idea of an excess labor pool, kept on hand, but only on the brink of sustenance, to be hired or shifted around as needed.
We still import large numbers of students from abroad, in part because American-trained kids don't want to or are insufficiently trained or motivated for competitive-level science and technological research. But in part, the foreigners pay full-ride tuition, or they are serfs who work long hours on faculty members' grant projects without complaining.
But there are alternatives. First and primary, perhaps, is that we have a notoriously faltering (or should we spell it faultering?) K-12 system. In other countries, the top of the university graduate pool are those allowed into teaching. To be euphemistic about it, that's not the same here. And our complacent, self-satisfied society doesn't have nearly the work ethic that more driven societies do. So, naturally, many of our high school graduates are badly under-trained and under-attituded for serious university level work.
But what about the excess labor pool of PhDs who do, in fact, have a degree in science but who have not been able to compete for university faculty positions? Some may be not very well qualified and hence not competitive for limited positions, but that's certainly not the problem with all of them by any means. An obvious solution, we have argued, is to scale back the graduate school mill so it doesn't lure into, and ejest, more than can find employment. We are overstocked for reasons we've posted about before, including last week.
But there are very important areas where these people could use their training and skills, that would be much, much more important to society than the typical research-mill career. That would be in science education, especially at the high school level (a PhD would not be relevant for earlier-year teaching, but real solid BS degrees--not degrees in 'education'--would be very valuable, if we could goose up the level of undergraduate teaching to expect more and give more to our students. Junior or community colleges, or small undergraduate colleges, are also places where good teaching could have a major impact. These jobs can have job security, good health and pension plans, and plenty of time off, so they're not exactly scut-work. And, they could have a noble position in their local communities if our society re-evaluated what's important.
They don't have the panache, but they have far more punch, than the typical research-mill professor who escapes as much teaching as s/he can, or does it rather perfunctorily. But as long as we only give status to research careers, because that serves our rather than our students' interests, we will have the system we've created. Instead, solid Masters degrees that were given only to those who really were masters of their subject, or PhDs not aimed solely at academic research careers, could address many problems, even as the research enterprise continued purring along.
There will be no easy answers until society realizes that miracles from science are costly and few and far between, while the underpinning that can make life better for everyone, even in less than spectacular ways, should command far more of our attention and respect.....and provide good jobs for many good people.
"We still import large numbers of students from abroad, in part because American-trained kids don't want to or are insufficiently trained or motivated for competitive-level science and technological research."
ReplyDeleteIt is not true that American-trained students don't enter STEM careers. Statistics show that about a third of Americans entering institutions of higher education pursue STEM careers, many of them at top tier institutions.
I'll track down papers that have looked at this sometime today. However, the shortage of STEM students is a myth. That needs to be said.
Furthermore, the biological sciences are only beginning to see the impact of the H1B Visa program that has devastated the viability of the careers in fields such as electrical engineering for Americans.
The labor market simply cannot sustain an influx every year of 100 to 200 thousand skilled engineers and scientists from other countries.
However, there is nothing wrong with the motivation of Americans to enter STEM careers. Americans, I am sure, would still love to pursue careers in engineering or science, but simply cannot work for $50,000 a year or less without a retirement package, and face a highly unstable career path.
It's very sad, really. My daughter is at an age where she is showing interest in science. I don't think that I can honestly tell her that science or engineering are viable career paths. Both my husband and I are highly trained engineers.
This is a mostly manufactured situation due to the H1B program. It is the fault of both Republics and Democrats.
There are certainly other issues such as science funding, but one of the reasons we have a science funding situation is because of the declining middle class, and yes, a large part of the middle class used to be engineers and technologists.
These jobs not longer pay what they used to, in part because of a flooded labor market. Hence, less of a tax base and less lobbying for science funding.
The business class doesn't care about science funding or the middle class. They care about stock prices.
It's time to wake up and smell the coffee.
American students, though not that many, do formally enter these careers, but those of us who have been teaching them have observed a notable decline in their training (which we mentioned along with the statement on their numbers). This is true even in top-tier universities.
DeleteThe Times last week (Friday) said we had a 'glut of geniuses' or something of that sort. It's a point similar to yours, in this regard I think.
If this were true, our science departments would not have to recruit capable graduate students from China and elsewhere--I don't say not admit them, but not need them to run our research projects. It is simply a fact that we don't get enough competitive-quality graduate applicants from the US. [the side effect of recruiting overseas, rather than invest in our own minority population is a different sort of issue, but to me an important one]
I don't know about the H1B issues, except that my students or post-docs from overseas--including China and Japan, and very good they have been!--have been able to get visas in the past.
I can't comment on the $50,000 issue in any particular way but it is to me unarguable that Americans, in a statistical sense, don't want to work as hard as the foreign students, or, didn't have to do that as they grew up.
Again this is not at all to denigrate the many very fine American-bred students we get in the sciences!
If you think the sciences have trouble as a career path for these various reasons, what about the serious-level arts, for which our society seems to have very little interest.
Anne and I are both scientists, and we've come up in a fortunate time in history, to be sure. As to science funding, I think our characterization of the inertial waste and gaming of the system is accurate. If as much, or more, science funding could be available but not so conservatively co-opted, that might be good.
Of course, what about the idea that scientists in secure jobs should do a spot of actual teaching from time to time--and of undergraduates (imagine!) to help boost the supply of really well-trained graduate students.
"If this were true, our science departments would not have to recruit capable graduate students from China and elsewhere--I don't say not admit them, but not need them to run our research projects. It is simply a fact that we don't get enough competitive-quality graduate applicants from the US. [the side effect of recruiting overseas, rather than invest in our own minority population is a different sort of issue, but to me an important one]"
ReplyDeleteAmericans with strong STEM preparation are avoiding science and engineering careers.
I see it every day. My husband's graduating class from MIT are mostly working in finance. (PhD, Electrical Engineering). A few are professors. Quite a number (we're talking MIT here) did not make tenure (many more than twenty years ago). Those that chose to stay in engineering probably make about half to a third of what those who went into finance make.
So, I am not surprised that you are seeing a decline in the quality of preparation of students who are applying to your lab.
I recently looked at computational biology as a career. What I saw looked grim on many fronts. Career stability, pay, and the potential of doing meaningful work looked poor. Even prominent researchers are spending more than half their time writing grants.
So is it any surprise that students are switching to degrees and training that will take higher paying careers in finance, law, economics, public policy . . . ?
The reason that there are so many excellent students from China pursuing science degrees in the US is that engineering and science PAY in China. These fields are highly compensated in China. Therefore, these Chinese students know that their hard work and dedication will pay off, even if it means that they end up returning to China to get that better compensation.
That's great for China and Chinese students, but not so great for the American taxpayer. Yes, there is the indirect benefit that American institutions benefit from the hard work of these Chinese students. However, long term, the situation seems tenuous at best.
No argument there. I have for years taught a course in Human Genetics to about 125 seniors, mainly bio majors, and grad students in life sciences.
DeleteI routinely asked how many knew how to write a computer program--or what it meant to draw a random number. I rarely if ever had even one student who raised a hand.
I had a statistics course pre-requisite, but students didn't understand what a p-value or chi-square test was. They complained that they majored in biology so they wouldn't have to do any 'math'.
So, we do have a problem!
“Almost two-thirds of the 9.3 million people in the U.S. labor market who had STEM degrees in 2010 were employed in non-STEM occupations.”
ReplyDeleteHere's the report by Ross Eisenbrey, who has written extensively on the STEM labor force:
http://www.epi.org/blog/stem-workers-immigration-bills/
"I routinely asked how many knew how to write a computer program--or what it meant to draw a random number. I rarely if ever had even one student who raised a hand."
ReplyDelete"I had a statistics course pre-requisite, but students didn't understand what a p-value or chi-square test was. They complained that they majored in biology so they wouldn't have to do any 'math'."
Basically, what's happening is that those kids already opted out in high school or middle school. I sometimes look at the California Standardized Testscores in math. They're pretty shocking, it's true. But I have to say that I envy these kids that they know the good jobs with a pension are unionized public service jobs. They're just trying to get through so they can get to one of these jobs.
However, those that do power through and get the advanced training are often not at all better off than someone with a unionized job in teaching or the police force. Sad to say, real science and engineering jobs don't pay.
Here are some examples:
Biolotechnology scientist who has brought three drugs to market is laid off from her biotechnology job when she gets pregnant. She is actually told that she is being laid off because she is pregnant. She struggles for over six months to land another job. Eventually, she lands a program management job in which she works evenings and weekends. Her job looks tenuous and there is no opportunity for advancement.
Highly trained PhD Scientist working on a common genetic disease is on tenure track at prominent institution. Her grant runs out and she does not get another. She cares about her work and does not want to churn out meaningless papers. She notices that most women with children are not getting tenure. The picture is better for women who do not have children, but it is still not great compared to married men with children, who seem to be on the fast track for tenured positions. Eventually, she quits and is now working as a private practise primary care physician.
Prominent Louis Pasteur trained AIDS researcher working at San Francisco General is passed over for tenure. He leaves the US for Montreal where he is now currently working.
Berkeley trained PhD cancer geneticist working at a very prominent, very large drup maker in the SF/Bay Area earns not much more than a San Francisco police officer. She worries about being fired. She has chosen to have only one child because of the lack of maternity leave and discrimination against scientists who take maternity leave.
There are also many examples of highly trained electrical engineering who have been laid off from companies such as Microsoft, Google, Apple, Intel, Oracle, etc. The party line is that these are "older workers" whose skills are "out of date". In truth, most of these engineers, are top notch and at the peak of their experience and capability, but they command a salary of $120+ a year. Corporations don't want to pay that, so they keep lobbying for and hiring much cheaper H1B workers.
There are arguments that teachers or police officers et al. do as much for society, work as hard, and should earn as much, as most scientists or professors.
DeleteOpting out in middle school is apparently what is happening (I've heard direct reports of that). I don't think it's because anybody knows about job prospects but because (1) our children aren't being raised to be industrious and hard working, and (2) who are we training (and under-paying) to be teachers?
That notwithstanding, I know of very close-at-hand examples of just what you say in terms of no, or under, employment of scientists. Along with the examples you cite is the gradual disappearance of tenure for university faculty, and the general weakening of unions overall.
But universities are also too bloated, including too many students who'd be better off in non-'academic' fields that are badly needed by society, and universities are bloated in part because of faculty who feel their research is too important (even if never-cited?) for them to deign to teach more than they have to, or to be so rigorous as not to get high student-evaluations (used in setting salaries and awarding tenure, etc.)
Whatever the reasons, or excuses, we haven't got a very human social policy in this country.
That doesn't mean, however, that we need a huge army of scientists publishing never-cited papers and all of the issues we have written about.
But that is a separate question
I don't agree at all that Americans are not industrious and hardworking.
ReplyDeleteI recently worked in a technology incubator at a prominent German company. German engineers do not work the the eighty hour work week that I see most American engineers working. German engineers get holidays. They have job protections. They do not have to worry that they are going to be displaced by a foreign worker. Virtually all European engineers have better job protections, benefits and more holidays than Americans.
Canadian engineers and scientists also have more stable career paths, better benefits and get more holidays than Americans. Women scientists and engineers in Canada have paid maternity leave.
It is true that many American students are dropping out from university bound career paths in middle school. However, compared to virtually all Western countries, the US has a very high number of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds with no tradition of math or science. Again, this is largely due to the immigration policy in the US since the sixties. On average, it is harder to teach these kids because there is little modelling of professional careers for these kids. There is no immediate help at home for subjects such as math and science. Many kids in California are struggling with understanding English. It is also true that these kids often attend schools that are not up to the job of preparing them for STEM careers. Furthermore, I do think that these families are increasingly aware that the job market in STEM fields is not that good. In my observation in San Francisco, up and coming families are steering their kids toward professions in public policy and law, not STEM.
That being said, I see families from all walks of life increasingly making the calculation that they don't want their kids to pursue a highly risky, likely to be unstable and low paid STEM career. I'm actually seeing active encouragement away from science and toward economics and business among the elite of San Francisco.
Families are steering their kids away from science at all socioeconomic levels and at this point, given the betrayal of the STEM workforce by policy makers, my husband and I are on the verge of doing the same.
Well, clearly there is room for a wide variety of views on this and the issues are varied. One can find quite vitriolic statements when incomes, jobs, and futures are at stake. Unlike the exchanges above, they can get beyond the tone we like to maintain here on MT.
ReplyDeleteAt least, while we seem to have somewhat different views from yours, I think we agree that there are problems.