Interesting discussion on the crisis in higher education

[StatGuy2000]

Interesting discussion on the "crisis in higher education"

Hi everyone. I have found the following interesting post regarding the "crisis" in higher education (a topic brought up in numerous posts here on Physics Forums) from the blog of Aaron Clauset, a physicist turned computer scientist, and an assistant professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder:

http://www.cs.unm.edu/~aaron/blog/archives/2012/01/a_crisis_in_hig.htm

I was curious what the rest of you feels regarding the opinions expressed by him.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I agree with the majority of that post.

 

[Choppy]

To end on a more positive note, one genuinely beneficial thing we as academics could do would be to encourage our PhD students to consider non-academic trajectories. That is, I don't think we should view the PhD as being exclusively an academic degree, and we could strive to teach our PhD students a combination of both academic and practical skills. This would increase their options on the job market, which may reduce the overall brutality that individuals currently experience.

I think this last statement is pretty important and deserves some serious consideration.

There is a practical issue of time to consider though. The time it takes to earn a PhD is growing. If we were to simply tack on some MBA courses or an internship with a company that does research in your field (like a PhD co-op) the time to earn that degree will get even longer. Maybe that's just going to be a practical reality.

On the other hand maybe there is some fat that could be trimmed or at least some places that could serve as double time.

One example is teaching. When I was a graduate student we had to take a series of teaching workshops. The theory was that it developed us as TAs and gave an additional bullet to our academic CV. I don't see why such a program couldn't be developed further so that graduates come out as certified teachers.

Another might be project management. Towards the end of PhD candiate's program, he or she could opt to organize and guide an undergrad thesis or summer research project. The grad student would outline the project, interview for the position, hold regular meetings, etc. Another avenue might be simply organizing group projects (ones where everyone is an equal contributor, not group work where everyone piles on to the work of one person). Hosting efficient meetings, tracking multiple tasks, effective delegation, problem escalation and follow-up, are all examples of extremely valuable and marketable skills that can evolve out of collaborative research projects.

Another example might be product development. What if rather than simply producing original research papers, the PhD required the student to file at least one patent prior to graduating.

 

[twofish-quant]

I was curious what the rest of you feels regarding the opinions expressed by him.

I agree with his factual analysis. Don't care very much for the tone.

If you are unemployed in the United States, that's a crisis. It's a personal crisis. The fact that you have a lot of Ph.D.'s that have to go through some pain to get a job is a crisis for them.

The tone is shrill because people are living in fear and pain. The fact that it's a long standing problem doesn't diminish the pain. The fact that there are no "easy solutions" makes people even more shrill.

And yes, creating a "crisis" is a standard marketing tactic. Without a crisis people aren't going to consider any basic changes to the system. So if you want to do anything to fix your personal crisis, you have to manufacture a social crisis.

The role that universities play in society is changing, and I think the growth of these lower-quality jobs reflects this shift. The US economy overall has shifted significantly toward service-sector jobs and the growth in adjunct and teaching positions at universities should probably be seen as the higher education equivalent.

Exactly. So we probably aren't going to fix the problem without looking at all of society. Also, my belief is that there's a feedback mechanism. Social stratification causes educational inequality and educational inequality causes social stratification.

It's my belief that it's the role of academics and intellectuals to act as "thought leaders" to create creative solutions for social problems, and I'm more than a little annoyed that people "giving up too easily."

As far as what I think is the issue. Let's go back to Marx and the Communist Manifesto. In the late-19th century you had a similar problem in that you have enormous class stratification that occurred when agricultural jobs moved to industrial jobs. This put society on the road to social revolution, and in the early 20th century, people ended up with a lot of mechanisms that prevented social revolution in the United States and Western Europe.

The problem is that those mechanisms stop working when you move from factory manufacturing to service jobs. In a factory, you can enforce a 40 hour work week and have labor unions that create contracts and collective bargaining. When we moved from factory to service jobs, those protections disappeared.

I think that there *is* a crisis, because if you just extrapolate business as usual for the next twenty to thirty years, you are going to end up with a Marxist revolutionary scenario that most countries managed to avoid in the early 20th century.

 

[atyy]

It's my belief that it's the role of academics and intellectuals to act as "thought leaders" to create creative solutions for social problems, and I'm more than a little annoyed that people "giving up too easily."

Sounds dangerous. Maybe undemocratic - or was democracy also invented by intellectuals?

 

[ParticleGrl]

I think he misses an important effect- academic job markets work like any other job markets- as conditions worsen- the very best applicants DON'T ENTER THE MARKET. The super-crowded job market doesn't spread great academics to all universities- it makes sure that society's best and brightest don't bother to try to become academics.

 

[twofish-quant]

The time it takes to earn a PhD is growing. If we were to simply tack on some MBA courses or an internship with a company that does research in your field (like a PhD co-op) the time to earn that degree will get even longer. Maybe that's just going to be a practical reality.

And it's not going to help if the jobs aren't there.

If you have 10 jobs and 20 applicants, and then you make those 20 applicants more competitive for those 10 jobs, then you end up right back to where you started.

This is something that I'm very keenly aware of when giving career advice to people in finance. For example, if I help one person write a better resume, that one person has a better chance of getting a finance job. However, if the overall number of finance jobs are limited, and I help everyone write better resumes, then we are back to where we started.

The fact that the queue is getting longer is a symptom of a deeper problem. If you have a queue, then it balances out load, but if the average inflow is higher than the average outflow, then the system is going to break.

Something that happened in the Great Depression and what is happening now is that people are delaying "growing up." In the 1930's, you had people in their 30's and 40's that were still considered "youths" whereas in the 1960's, people in their early twenties were consider "full adults." It's the "when are you moving out of your parent's garage?" question.

One example is teaching. When I was a graduate student we had to take a series of teaching workshops. The theory was that it developed us as TAs and gave an additional bullet to our academic CV. I don't see why such a program couldn't be developed further so that graduates come out as certified teachers.

Because then instead of having lots of unemployed physics researchers, you end up with lots of unemployed certified teachers. A lot of the solutions for dealing with the problem are essentially "load balancing" solutions both in "time" and "career space." If you have a demand for X, and a supply of Y, then you have fix the problem by moving X to Y.

The trouble is that the economic system is already very good at this sort of issue. If there was an obvious demand for certified teachers, then the problem would self-correct. You wouldn't have to set up any formal programs since people would take the hint and do stuff on their own.

There's also a basic conflict of interest. The trouble is that universities get paid when people take courses. There's only so many courses that you can get people to take, and only so much debt, before there is a backlash against universities.

This also happened in the 1930's. One bright spot was that once the jobs turned up in the 1950's, you had an economic boom, as all these people that attended high school and college suddenly were able to be productive.

Another might be project management. Towards the end of PhD candiate's program, he or she could opt to organize and guide an undergrad thesis or summer research project. The grad student would outline the project, interview for the position, hold regular meetings, etc.

Sounds like "useless busy work" to me.

If you can figure out quantum electrodynamics, you *will* be able to figure out on your own how to put together a meeting. If someone has to "teach" you to put together a meeting, then something is broken. Also, if you have to learn these sorts of skills, then academia is a horrible place to learn them. What happens is that the skills fossilize and people come up with tests and curriculum that has nothing to do with what's in demand, and then you come up with even more certifications and barriers that produce useless busy work.

Another example might be product development. What if rather than simply producing original research papers, the PhD required the student to file at least one patent prior to graduating.

Let me point you to an example where I think physics is useful in analyzing social problems...

Someone that doesn't know about the first or second laws of thermodynamics can come up with all sorts of elaborate and complicated ways to built a perpetual motion machine. Once you realize that there is a basic constraint, it becomes obvious that none of these things will work.

You if you have more people then jobs, then putting more effort into training just will not work. If you have X people and 0.5 X jobs, and you train those X people, then you aren't making the situation better, and quite possibly making things worse.

 

[twofish-quant]

Sounds dangerous. Maybe undemocratic - or was democracy also invented by intellectuals?

Ideas are always dangerous. Thinking is dangerous. The only thing more dangerous than thinking it not thinking.

Depends on how you define "intellectual" but a lot of the philosophy behind democracy was invented by Aristole and Plato. You also have people like Rosseau and Montesequieu. Also people like James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton were clearly "intellectuals" by my definition (i.e. read the Federalist Papers).

Within American political thought, there is a strong aversion toward intellectuals (Tocqueville pointed this out) because it's a form of social hierarchy that people dislike. On the other hand, because people dislike it, people tend to deny that it exists whenever it happens, and that makes it hard to do anything about it. If you don't think that political power ought to be concentrated in an "intellectual elite" then it probably should bother you that both major candidates for President were Harvard graduate students.

One thing that you have to do if you run for public office in the United States is "look stupid." If you look smart people won't trust you. However, just because you look stupid doesn't mean that you are, and every recent President has perfected the art of looking stupid.

 

[StatGuy2000]

You if you have more people then jobs, then putting more effort into training just will not work. If you have X people and 0.5 X jobs, and you train those X people, then you aren't making the situation better, and quite possibly making things worse.

If the basic problem is the fact that there are more people looking for work than there are jobs available, then the logical implications would be either to create more jobs or reduce the supply of people in the labour market seeking employment.

One historical approach to the latter was migration/emigration -- people leaving their village, town, city, or country in search of opportunities elsewhere.

The other "approach" (really more of a default) is the permanent departure from the accepted work force, either through a creation of a permanent "welfare" class (in which you could have generations relying on social assistance -- a phenomena seen in a number of European countries) or by joining the underground economy (e.g. drug dealing).

Might I also suggest a "modest proposal" (those familiar with the works of Jonathan Swift will know where I'm heading with this). One of the ways that wildlife managers deal with excess supply of certain animals (such as deer) is through a cull (i.e. killing excess deer). Might we not propose culling or killing excess unemployed people during difficult times? In this way, this would reduce the supply of unemployed, and hence give more opportunities to everyone else!

PS: For those not familiar with Jonathan Swift's work, the last paragraph above was intended to be satirical!

 

[StatGuy2000]

Something that happened in the Great Depression and what is happening now is that people are delaying "growing up." In the 1930's, you had people in their 30's and 40's that were still considered "youths" whereas in the 1960's, people in their early twenties were consider "full adults." It's the "when are you moving out of your parent's garage?" question.

twofish-quant, I would disagree with you on the statement above. First of all, life expectancy during the 1930's was shorter then than it is now, so people in their 30's and 40's would not be considered "youths" by any stretch of the imagination (in fact, people who were 21 were considered fully adult and expected to seek employment and those who could not often joined "hobo" camps essentially living the itinerant beggar's lifestyle).

Also, the phenomena of "delayed adulthood" of which you are referring has been a feature of North American society at least since the 1990's, well before the current economic travails (the situation may well be different outside of North America).

 

[atyy]

Ideas are always dangerous. Thinking is dangerous. The only thing more dangerous than thinking it not thinking.

Depends on how you define "intellectual" but a lot of the philosophy behind democracy was invented by Aristole and Plato. You also have people like Rosseau and Montesequieu. Also people like James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton were clearly "intellectuals" by my definition (i.e. read the Federalist Papers).

Within American political thought, there is a strong aversion toward intellectuals (Tocqueville pointed this out) because it's a form of social hierarchy that people dislike. On the other hand, because people dislike it, people tend to deny that it exists whenever it happens, and that makes it hard to do anything about it. If you don't think that political power ought to be concentrated in an "intellectual elite" then it probably should bother you that both major candidates for President were Harvard graduate students.

One thing that you have to do if you run for public office in the United States is "look stupid." If you look smart people won't trust you. However, just because you look stupid doesn't mean that you are, and every recent President has perfected the art of looking stupid.

The problem with thinking is that intellectuals are usually over-confident in their abilities. Isn't the core of physics anti-intellectual - experiments are the key to truth, not thinking!

 

[Andy Resnick]

There are some really well-thought-out posts here, hopefully I can add another-

Consider the difference between 'education' and 'training'. Broadly speaking, a 4-year BS or BA degree was typically associated with 'education', while other credentials (2-year certificates, professional and graduate degrees, etc) were associated with 'training'- specialized instruction.

Over the past several decades, perhaps starting with 4-year engineering and 'hard science' degrees, the BS has aligned more and more with 'training'- the new graduate was presumed to possesses a specific skill set which would translate well to either the job market or graduate school. This is reflected in several aspects of the steps needed to earn a BS degree: a highly structured curriculum, standard textbooks, comprehensive assessments (including the GRE), internships/laboratory experience/etc, in close parallel to the steps needed to earn a graduate or professional degree.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when the job market periodically tightens up, degree-granting institutions are naturally challenged to explain why their graduates, who presumably have possession of a specific skill set which would translate well to either the job market or graduate school, are not able to find work for which they were trained.

The oversupply of highly trained graduates is not restricted to PhDs- ask anyone who is getting ready to sit for a bar examination- it's a horrible time to be graduating law school. MBAs are facing the same problem. The one profession that seems to be able to control and manipulate the supply is physicians, through allocation of residency slots and 'match day'.

I totally agree that the oversupply of well-qualified PhDs has resulted in 'trickle-down'- many more institutions and corporations are able to access and hire top-quality scientists, granting agencies are easily able to select top-quality proposals for funding (although having too many choices results in a lot of angst), and academic programs are able to improve in quality.

Even so, I am not comfortable with the trend towards 'training' and treating degrees as commodities. The trend is pervasive- here in Ohio, there's an underlying (and unspoken) pressure to 'pipeline' students from middle school through terminal degree: identify students in middle school and track them- for example, an 'average' student may go from high school to a 2-year community college for their gen-ed courses, then obtain upper-division coursework at university en route to a professional degree (say, a 2-year MS program). It's debatable whether or not this is a good thing either for the particular student or for the educational system.

In the end, it really comes down to the essential difference between getting an education and getting trained.

 

[Choppy]

Let me point you to an example where I think physics is useful in analyzing social problems...

Someone that doesn't know about the first or second laws of thermodynamics can come up with all sorts of elaborate and complicated ways to built a perpetual motion machine. Once you realize that there is a basic constraint, it becomes obvious that none of these things will work.

You if you have more people then jobs, then putting more effort into training just will not work. If you have X people and 0.5 X jobs, and you train those X people, then you aren't making the situation better, and quite possibly making things worse.

But what's at issue is jobs within academia. The point I was making (or rather the point in the original article that I was building on) is that we, as academics, should be looking at ways to make those X people qualified for a larger pool of jobs or, even better, capable of generating jobs that didn't previously exist.

So it's not a case of making the X people more qualified for the 0.5X jobs. (And I agree there is a danger in doing just that which is well worth paying attention to.) The solution lies in figuring out ways to increase that 0.5 to get closer to 1.

I suppose the other alternative is to ratchet down the 1 in front of the first X to 0.5.

 

[Choppy]

If you can figure out quantum electrodynamics, you *will* be able to figure out on your own how to put together a meeting. If someone has to "teach" you to put together a meeting, then something is broken. Also, if you have to learn these sorts of skills, then academia is a horrible place to learn them. What happens is that the skills fossilize and people come up with tests and curriculum that has nothing to do with what's in demand, and then you come up with even more certifications and barriers that produce useless busy work.

I think you were missing the point. This was an example of something a PhD program could potentially do to revamp itself into producing graduates that are more marketable in the world outside of academia. I suppose what I was trying to say is that one option would be to combine the PhD with an MBA. Maybe that's a dead avenue as there are already too many MBAs out in the world. I don't know.

I do know however that being able to figure out quantum electrodynamics does not translate into managerial skill.

 

[carlgrace]

I think you were missing the point. This was an example of something a PhD program could potentially do to revamp itself into producing graduates that are more marketable in the world outside of academia. I suppose what I was trying to say is that one option would be to combine the PhD with an MBA. Maybe that's a dead avenue as there are already too many MBAs out in the world. I don't know.

I do know however that being able to figure out quantum electrodynamics does not translate into managerial skill.

To be honest, I think I agree with twofish here. Learning "practical" and business skills as part of the PhD program is a mistake because teaching practical skills is not what academia is good at. There is a good reason that relevant work experience is practically a prerequisite for getting into a good MBA program.

I worked in industry for 7 years after I got my PhD and let me tell you from experience, academia is simply not set up to effectively teach you the things you learn when you are on accelerated projects where you absolutely must deliver. Nothing but jumping into the fire can teach you what I learned in industry. I agree with twofish that if academia *tried* to teach this, they would end up wasting a year of your life with an outdating smattering of Gannt charts, interpersonal communications hogwash and the like. The only way to learn this kind of stuff effectively is to do it and to work with experienced mentors. I don't believe there is any other way.

To sum up, of course knowing QED doesn't translate into managerial skill. But I can assure you that some "management" training when you are an inexperienced graduate student who quite frankly knows almost nothing about the way the works won't translate into managerial skill either. I think that is what twofish was getting at.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

I think he misses an important effect- academic job markets work like any other job markets- as conditions worsen- the very best applicants DON'T ENTER THE MARKET. The super-crowded job market doesn't spread great academics to all universities- it makes sure that society's best and brightest don't bother to try to become academics.

Do you have statistics to back up your assertion?

I believe that the brightest and the ones that prefer academia over making more money will get their place in academia. Anyway, you're not staying in academia for the big bucks.

 

[StatGuy2000]

To be honest, I think I agree with twofish here. Learning "practical" and business skills as part of the PhD program is a mistake because teaching practical skills is not what academia is good at. There is a good reason that relevant work experience is practically a prerequisite for getting into a good MBA program.

I worked in industry for 7 years after I got my PhD and let me tell you from experience, academia is simply not set up to effectively teach you the things you learn when you are on accelerated projects where you absolutely must deliver. Nothing but jumping into the fire can teach you what I learned in industry. I agree with twofish that if academia *tried* to teach this, they would end up wasting a year of your life with an outdating smattering of Gannt charts, interpersonal communications hogwash and the like. The only way to learn this kind of stuff effectively is to do it and to work with experienced mentors. I don't believe there is any other way.

To sum up, of course knowing QED doesn't translate into managerial skill. But I can assure you that some "management" training when you are an inexperienced graduate student who quite frankly knows almost nothing about the way the works won't translate into managerial skill either. I think that is what twofish was getting at.

While I agree with the bulk of what you are saying here, especially in terms of the necessity of relevant experience, the question is still how recent graduates of PhD programs can essentially enter the non-academic work force when the bulk of their experience is in academia.

This is probably less of an issue for those graduating with PhDs in engineering, computer science, statistics, operations research, or even applied math (since most people I know who pursued graduate studies in these areas have often sought internships or other forms of non-academic work experience during their PhD studies), but it is a concern for those pursuing research in other sciences such as physics (theoretical physics in particular).

 

[carlgrace]

While I agree with the bulk of what you are saying here, especially in terms of the necessity of relevant experience, the question is still how recent graduates of PhD programs can essentially enter the non-academic work force when the bulk of their experience is in academia.

This is probably less of an issue for those graduating with PhDs in engineering, computer science, statistics, operations research, or even applied math (since most people I know who pursued graduate studies in these areas have often sought internships or other forms of non-academic work experience during their PhD studies), but it is a concern for those pursuing research in other sciences such as physics (theoretical physics in particular).

Ooooh you hit on a great point that I missed: the importance of internships. They are so important, yet many people don't pursue them with vigor (or when they do, they just kind of hang around when they get the job and don't get a lot out of it).

I think it would be smart for someone studying theoretical physics to intern at a company writing software or doing engineering. Not only will he or she get some practical experience to complement his or her more theoretical research but also something concrete to point to in job interviews.

The sad fact is there aren't enough PhD level jobs to go around even in engineering industry, either. So saying physics PhDs should just go to industry doesn't really solve the problem. That is part of the reason of the credential arms race. It used to be a BS was entry level and an MS was more advanced. More and more, in certain subfields, the MS is entry level and the PhD is getting more common.

 

[Choppy]

The sad fact is there aren't enough PhD level jobs to go around even in engineering industry, either. So saying physics PhDs should just go to industry doesn't really solve the problem. That is part of the reason of the credential arms race. It used to be a BS was entry level and an MS was more advanced. More and more, in certain subfields, the MS is entry level and the PhD is getting more common.

So is your solution to further limit the number of PhDs that are produced?

 

[Choppy]

Another option, perhaps the default option, is to simply ignore the problem.

One could argue that academia is what it is. It's purpose is to provide the student with an education. It does not exist to provide students with jobs. Or train them for careers. It is the student's responsibility to make his or her way in the world. If the education helps, then it's a bonus.

If academia adopts such a philosophy, then really the only onus it has is to dispell the notion of "work hard and you'll be rewarded with a career."

Of course, maybe that itself is one of THE lessons of higher education.

 

[carlgrace]

So is your solution to further limit the number of PhDs that are produced?

No, I don't think so. I don't know if there *is* a solution, and I'm not totally sure it is really a crisis. Supply and demand should eventually work it out, I imagine. So I guess I'm ambivalent. The people who knock themselves out to get a PhD with very little chance of a tenured position get the short end of the stick, but I don't think this is something you can legislate.

Our (American) culture and system of economic incentives has a lot of things out of whack right now, and I think this is just a minor issue in the scheme of things.

Bottom line: people respond to incentives. There is a really strong incentive to train as many PhDs as possible, but there isn't a lot of places for them. Changing this would require a radical rethinking of our educational system, and I just don't think we as a society are prepared to do that.

One more thing: I've never met anyone who ever told me he or she regrets getting a PhD. I'm sure there are people out there who do, but I've never met one.

 

[carlgrace]

Another option, perhaps the default option, is to simply ignore the problem.

One could argue that academia is what it is. It's purpose is to provide the student with an education. It does not exist to provide students with jobs. Or train them for careers. It is the student's responsibility to make his or her way in the world. If the education helps, then it's a bonus.

If academia adopts such a philosophy, then really the only onus it has is to dispell the notion of "work hard and you'll be rewarded with a career."

Of course, maybe that itself is one of THE lessons of higher education.

I see what you're saying. Sadly, higher education is a necessary but not sufficient condition for getting a satisfying career. That said, I think a PhD is a damned good way to learn how to think and act independently, and that is good training for most anything.

You know, the whole "work hard and you'll be rewarded with an academic career" has never been true. But it's always been a useful lie so it's been perpetuated.

 

[TMFKAN64]

If you can figure out quantum electrodynamics, you *will* be able to figure out on your own how to put together a meeting. If someone has to "teach" you to put together a meeting, then something is broken.

I disagree with this completely. Leading a meeting and doing quantum electrodynamics are two very different skills, and there is no reason to think that someone one who is capable of doing one is capable of doing the other, except on the most rudimentary level.

If you can figure out quantum electrodynamics, you *will* be able to figure out on your own how to play the violin, right?

 

[jtbell]

Having suffered through two terms as an academic department chairman, I have great respect for people who really do know how to manage other people.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Another option, perhaps the default option, is to simply ignore the problem.

One could argue that academia is what it is. It's purpose is to provide the student with an education. It does not exist to provide students with jobs. Or train them for careers. It is the student's responsibility to make his or her way in the world. If the education helps, then it's a bonus.

If academia adopts such a philosophy, then really the only onus it has is to dispell the notion of "work hard and you'll be rewarded with a career."

Of course, maybe that itself is one of THE lessons of higher education.

I agree with you in principle, but the reality is that academia (or rather, an emerging malignant strain of academia) explicitly advertises that people who obtain (read: purchase) degrees from them will get better jobs. And truthfully, a significant fraction of graduate/professional programs is devoted to career training.

Absolutely- the student has the responsibility to derive value from the educational experience, and the institution has the responsibility to make that possible. Now, define 'value' :)

 

[Andy Resnick]

Ooooh you hit on a great point that I missed: the importance of internships. They are so important, yet many people don't pursue them with vigor (or when they do, they just kind of hang around when they get the job and don't get a lot out of it).

<snip>

Internships can be an excellent experience, but it can also be viewed as taking advantage of the student, *especially* unpaid internships (which are becoming more and more common).

Personally, even though there is a steady stream of requests from undergrads and high schoolers to work in my lab "even if you can't pay me", I only take on a student if I can pay them as I consider it unethical to do otherwise.

 

[cgk]

Having suffered through two terms as an academic department chairman, I have great respect for people who really do know how to manage other people.

Doing management and leadership right is very, very difficult. I think (well, I hope) that no one is doubting that. I think twofish-quant's point was that you are not likely to learn either one by reading a textbook and writing an examn.

That being said, I don't completely agree: In particular with people who have never been outside of acedemia (including professors), I have often seen management skills which are nothing short of disastrous. Sometimes I get the impression that the research output of a country could easily be doubled if just every professor was forced to read *one* random textbook on social psychology, workforce management, or project management...

I am convinced that putting more emphasis on auxiliary skills (like communication, project management, time management) could greatly improve the quality and efficiency of the work done at universities. Of course, if this was practical or if formal course requirements would be the right way of approaching it are different questions.

 

[carlgrace]

Internships can be an excellent experience, but it can also be viewed as taking advantage of the student, *especially* unpaid internships (which are becoming more and more common).

Personally, even though there is a steady stream of requests from undergrads and high schoolers to work in my lab "even if you can't pay me", I only take on a student if I can pay them as I consider it unethical to do otherwise.

I agree with you 100%. A good internship is a two-way street. Some internships are better than others, but at least at my institution I haven't seen much in terms of taking advantage of students.

I'm sure you will agree that the whole system is predicated on taking advantage of people. People who feel they need multiple, long term postdoc positions are testament to that.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Do you have statistics to back up your assertion?

For the idea that that matter? Every economic study ever performed. Do you think the bad market for lawyers will keep people out of law school? Why wouldn't the awful market for phds keep people out of graduate school? Do you have statistics to back up the assertion that the academic job market is exempt from basic economic considerations?

At the university where I did my phd, we used to have an information sessions for upper level physics majors where they could ask questions. The most common question was "what will you be doing when you finish?" The most common answer was "I probably can't keep doing science for a living so I'm looking at finance or consulting." I know many of those undergraduate students reconsidered graduate school (and they should!). If I could get back the years of my life I spent getting a phd, I probably would.

I believe that the brightest and the ones that prefer academia over making more money will get their place in academia. Anyway, you're not staying in academia for the big bucks.

No, you are staying in academica because you want a certain type of job. As those jobs dry up, do you think people will continue to get phds? If literally no one ever got a job as research faculty, would enrollment in graduate school drop? If 100% got a job as research faculty, would enrollment surge? The conditions in academia are certainly driving talent away.

Anyone who goes through a phd program knows that the best scientists don't always land the jobs- some decide basic economic security is more important, some get unlucky (maybe their subfield isn't seeing many hires the year they graduate,etc). You can do nobel-quality work and end up driving an airport shuttle bus.

 

[carlgrace]

Why wouldn't the awful market for phds keep people out of graduate school? Do you have statistics to back up the assertion that the academic job market is exempt from basic economic considerations?

I understand where you're coming from, but the academic job market has been awful for decades at least and yet we continue to get more and more PhD students. When I was applying to graduate schools in the mid-90s I heard these EXACT same arguments over and over. I think there is more to this then people simply maximizing their expected utility.

 

[atyy]

I understand where you're coming from, but the academic job market has been awful for decades at least and yet we continue to get more and more PhD students. When I was applying to graduate schools in the mid-90s I heard these EXACT same arguments over and over. I think there is more to this then people simply maximizing their expected utility.

?

 

[twofish-quant]

But what's at issue is jobs within academia. The point I was making (or rather the point in the original article that I was building on) is that we, as academics, should be looking at ways to make those X people qualified for a larger pool of jobs or, even better, capable of generating jobs that didn't previously exist.

That assumes that people aren't qualified for those jobs, which isn't the situation, and it assumes that were gaps exists, universities are qualified to teach people to fill those gaps, which also is not the situation.

Yes, there is an art to managing people. But if you can figure out QED, you can figure out how to do it, and you can probably do it without taking a course on it.

I suppose the other alternative is to ratchet down the 1 in front of the first X to 0.5.

Realistically without committing crimes against humanity, there isn't. If you reduce Ph.d.'s for example, you still end up with a living breathing human being.

 

[twofish-quant]

The problem with thinking is that intellectuals are usually over-confident in their abilities.

But that's a common theme among anyone with power. Anti-intellectuals can be over-confident as well.

Isn't the core of physics anti-intellectual - experiments are the key to truth, not thinking!

We are getting into definitional issues, but empiricism isn't anti-intellectual.

What *is* true about physics is that it results on a social hierarchy based on knowledge. For example, if you rate people on how "kind" or "moral" they are, someone who doesn't have a dozen years of school isn't going to do badly. Something with a Ph.D. in ethics is not necessarily going to be more moral than an eight year old.

If you rate people on their ability to crunch PDE's, then there is no way someone without formal schooling is going to be in a fair fight.

 

[twofish-quant]

While I agree with the bulk of what you are saying here, especially in terms of the necessity of relevant experience, the question is still how recent graduates of PhD programs can essentially enter the non-academic work force when the bulk of their experience is in academia.

If the jobs are there, it's trivially easy. If the jobs aren't there, then there isn't much you can do with training that will help.

I got lucky in that I got my Ph.d. at the start of the dot-com boom. I put my resume out, and the next day, I got five phone calls for programming positions. It was a crazy, crazy time.

There are some issues (and they are mostly psychological) but it isn't anything that I think you can solve by tinkering with the Ph.D. program. In fact, trying to tinker with the Ph.D. program reinforces the idea that you can only learn stuff in school, which is one of the psychological/attitudinal issues you have to work out of.

The things that would be helpful would be to provide better information to grad students on the nature of the job market. Also I think it would help if professional societies did more to "market" Ph.D.'s to non-traditional industries.

This is probably less of an issue for those graduating with PhDs in engineering, computer science, statistics, operations research, or even applied math (since most people I know who pursued graduate studies in these areas have often sought internships or other forms of non-academic work experience during their PhD studies), but it is a concern for those pursuing research in other sciences such as physics (theoretical physics in particular).

Some of it is a marketing/attitudinal issue.

If you write a resume that says "I'm a clueless academic that doesn't know anything about industry" then yes, you will have problems. If you write a resume that says "I'm an experienced researcher that will make your company a ton of money" you'll get more bites. Part of writing the resume involves looking at yourself in the mirror and *believing* the latter statement.

For the proposes of getting a job, academia is just another work environment, and the university is just another employer. Your Ph.D. studies *is* the internship.

 

[twofish-quant]

I disagree with this completely. Leading a meeting and doing quantum electrodynamics are two very different skills, and there is no reason to think that someone one who is capable of doing one is capable of doing the other, except on the most rudimentary level.

All you need for most entry jobs is rudimentary ability.

Most business skills are things that most people can learn to pick up. A lot of physics skills are things that most people can't.

And in any case, you learn to lead meetings by leading meetings. If you put it through the academic bureaucracy, then you'll have a ton of bureaucratic requirements. You'll have to take courses on "meeting theory", take "meeting certifications", and at the end of it all, you may still not be able to lead a meeting.

If you can figure out quantum electrodynamics, you *will* be able to figure out on your own how to play the violin, right?

Different skills. The thing about social skills is that you need them to get through the day.

 

[twofish-quant]

Personally, even though there is a steady stream of requests from undergrads and high schoolers to work in my lab "even if you can't pay me", I only take on a student if I can pay them as I consider it unethical to do otherwise.

And then there is naked self-interest. If my boss thinks that he can do my work with unpaid interns, then I'm not going to be around for very long.

 

[twofish-quant]

One could argue that academia is what it is. It's purpose is to provide the student with an education. It does not exist to provide students with jobs. Or train them for careers.

One could argue this, but then you end up with people wondering why education should be funded at all. If you have a university president argue that academia's role is not to provide jobs, then why are we spending tax money on it?

Arguing that the *purpose* of academia is to create jobs and careers is actually something that benefits physics and engineering.

If academia adopts such a philosophy, then really the only onus it has is to dispell the notion of "work hard and you'll be rewarded with a career."

I think that you'll find that idea extremely unpopular with academics once they realize that by adopting that philosophy, *they'll* be out on the streets with no job.

Also, you have to understand where "work hard and you'll be rewarded." comes from. It's in the interests of the power elite to keep people working, because people in factories and office cubicles aren't going to riot or lead demonstrations. The belief that we live in a fair society in which hard work is rewarded is one thing that keeps society from falling apart, and if we are in a situation where most people *don't* believe this, then at that point, society crumbles.

 

[twofish-quant]

I believe that the brightest and the ones that prefer academia over making more money will get their place in academia.

I don't. I don't believe this because

1) "if you are one of the brightest and the ones that prefer academia over making more
money will get their place in academia"
2) "I prefer academia over making more money"
3) "I can't get a place in academia"

ergo -> I'm not one of the brightest.

I call nonsense. I've got energy. I've got knowledge. If I had a chance in academia, I'd make a dynamite professor. Since I don't have a chance at academia, I have to do something else.

The next step in the "mind game" is the idea is that if you say or believe anything good about yourself, you are arrogant, and you can't be right.

Getting around these sorts of "mind games" was probably the hardest part of making the transition to industry. It took be a few years to convince myself that *if you go into industry, you are inferior* was false, and even today there is a tiny voice in my head that says otherwise, but I've gotten better at telling that voice to *shut up*.

Frankly, the fact that I have industry experience in some ways *better and smarter* than people that end up in academia forever. That's an enormously arrogant thing to say, but one thing that I learned from watching Harvard graduates is that a little arrogance (or sometimes even a great deal of arrogance) sometimes isn't a bad thing.

Anyway, you're not staying in academia for the big bucks.

1) There is a difference between "big bucks" and "poverty". What ever happened to the middle class?

2) One thing about dealing with smart people is that there are a ton of mind games that people play. One good thing about this discussion is that it gets people to *really* think about why they do what they do. In a lot of situations, people avoid leaving academia because to do so brands them a "loser."

 

[Pyrrhus]

Export the talent

You want to do research with state of the art equipment ? You want to still do your postdoc at a top university ? You want to become faculty at a University ? ... Be packaged and exported with a Educated in the USA brand.

Export the fresh PhDs to other countries that need them (Brazil is investing heavily in education, Chile and China too!, and many other countries). American Universities should establish research centers abroad in other countries, and with cooperation with other universities and open the doors for researchers to work in those centers. Note that this does happens. MIT especially has established some research centers abroad, and many PhDs from american universities work in those centers outside the USA. It is time to export the talent (mostly are foreigners anyway).

 

[twofish-quant]

Export the fresh PhDs to other countries that need them (Brazil is investing heavily in education, Chile and China too!, and many other countries).

This is already happening. I know of a lot of Ph.D.'s that have figured out that they have no future in the US and have ended up outside the US. You don't need any sort of formal program to encourage people to leave.

It is time to export the talent (mostly are foreigners anyway).

No need. People are leaving. This isn't specifically directed at Ph.D.'s, but it's something that I've seen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/u...immigrants-are-leaving-us.html?pagewanted=all

Now the long term impact of people leaving is one of those those things that really worry me.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I'm sure you will agree that the whole system is predicated on taking advantage of people.

Of course- never mind academia, that's the essence of competition and capitalism. Note, taking advantage of someone else does not preclude *mutual benefit*.

 

[Pyrrhus]

This is already happening. I know of a lot of Ph.D.'s that have figured out that they have no future in the US and have ended up outside the US. You don't need any sort of formal program to encourage people to leave.

I disagree. People leave by choice or leave because there is no choice. Most are leaving because there is no choice. It is better to get them to leave by choice. How? Simple, American universities should establish research centers abroad in collaboration with local universities. Help spread the reputation of good research (through good research and branding), and inject enthusiasm that You are going to be a research at MIT (but in X country).

Now the long term impact of people leaving is one of those those things that really worry me.

Good question. I am hoping for a good research network of centers globally. It will be great to do quality research abroad.

 

[ParticleGrl]

I understand where you're coming from, but the academic job market has been awful for decades at least and yet we continue to get more and more PhD students.

But the growth in phd students isn't from US citizens, its coming from abroad, and in particular developing countries (India, China, etc). We see fewer US citizens and more immigrants because the economic calculation is completely different for them! If you think the terrible market doesn't push excellent scientists away from grad school (and away from science after grad school) then you aren't paying attention. Do you think the declining US citizen enrollment in physics programs is draining talent?

A friend of mine managed a Burger King in Ohio for a few years in between high school and college to save money. During his entire scientific career (gradschool+2 postdocs) he never pulled a higher salary than he did at that Burger King. This isn't uncommon. I made more money bartending for awhile after my phd than any of my friends did with a postdoc. Do you think this situation pushes people away from science? I do.

 

[ParticleGrl]

You want to do research with state of the art equipment ? You want to still do your postdoc at a top university ? You want to become faculty at a University ? ... Be packaged and exported with a Educated in the USA brand.

What do they pay you with? Building more institutions anywhere (especially ones that don't produce more scientists) would certainly help the problem- but where do you get the money?

I know several people who have taken professorships in China and India rather than get on the postdoc treadmill. They generally are working on a much smaller budget in their labs than any lab here- the grants are just much smaller. Its not obvious to me that doubling the number of research institutions does anything- the money remains fixed, so each institution does less.

 

[carlgrace]

But the growth in phd students isn't from US citizens, its coming from abroad, and in particular developing countries (India, China, etc). We see fewer US citizens and more immigrants because the economic calculation is completely different for them! If you think the terrible market doesn't push excellent scientists away from grad school (and away from science after grad school) then you aren't paying attention. Do you think the declining US citizen enrollment in physics programs is draining talent?

A friend of mine managed a Burger King in Ohio for a few years in between high school and college to save money. During his entire scientific career (gradschool+2 postdocs) he never pulled a higher salary than he did at that Burger King. This isn't uncommon. I made more money bartending for awhile after my phd than any of my friends did with a postdoc. Do you think this situation pushes people away from science? I do.

You seem to be putting words into my mouth. Of course people are getting pushed away from science. There have always been people pushed away from science because it has never been the best way to make money with a given amount of talent. Now the people pushed away are more identifiable.

And of course you're right about about grad programs. For about a year I was the only US Citizen in my research group of 10 people in grad school. And as you say, it's all perfectly rational.

But what do you propose to do about it? Obviously supply is more than meeting demand. The schools are getting less and less publicly subsidized so they aren't in a position to step in. What to do? I think the only thing to do is nothing. You can't push a rope, nor can you stop a rising tide.

Why should US Citizens go into science? It makes no sense. You have to work really hard, and live for a decade in poverty (i calculated I made about $7 an hour as a PhD student) and then struggle to establish a career. For instance, I make 20% less than I used to make in industry. I have made that choice for myself because it makes sense for me. I don't think it makes sense for most people.

If there really were a need for more scientists and engineers (particularly in academia), salaries would rise. They are lower on average than they were in the 1970s (inflation adjusted). So there really isn't demand. What there *is* demand for is cheap science and engineering talent. That is why we have so much offshoring and inshoring with H1Bs. What can we do? I really don't think the system can be tweaked because this is how the system is designed.

I hope the pendulum starts swinging the other way at some point soon, before something really breaks. My point is that this isn't about academia, this is about our economic system. Good luck untangling *that* rat's nest.

 

[StatGuy2000]

You seem to be putting words into my mouth. Of course people are getting pushed away from science. There have always been people pushed away from science because it has never been the best way to make money with a given amount of talent. Now the people pushed away are more identifiable.

And of course you're right about about grad programs. For about a year I was the only US Citizen in my research group of 10 people in grad school. And as you say, it's all perfectly rational.

But what do you propose to do about it? Obviously supply is more than meeting demand. The schools are getting less and less publicly subsidized so they aren't in a position to step in. What to do? I think the only thing to do is nothing. You can't push a rope, nor can you stop a rising tide.

Why should US Citizens go into science? It makes no sense. You have to work really hard, and live for a decade in poverty (i calculated I made about $7 an hour as a PhD student) and then struggle to establish a career. For instance, I make 20% less than I used to make in industry. I have made that choice for myself because it makes sense for me. I don't think it makes sense for most people.

If there really were a need for more scientists and engineers (particularly in academia), salaries would rise. They are lower on average than they were in the 1970s (inflation adjusted). So there really isn't demand. What there *is* demand for is cheap science and engineering talent. That is why we have so much offshoring and inshoring with H1Bs. What can we do? I really don't think the system can be tweaked because this is how the system is designed.

I hope the pendulum starts swinging the other way at some point soon, before something really breaks. My point is that this isn't about academia, this is about our economic system. Good luck untangling *that* rat's nest.

It's worth keeping in mind (as you and every other poster here on Physics Forums probably well know) that different fields in science and engineering have different supply/demand ratios (in both academia and in industry), and therefore salaries will probably also differ as well.

 

[StatGuy2000]

This actually leads me to my next question (admittedly somewhat off topic from the original thread). Even during severe recessions, where there usually is a surplus supply of workers vs number of jobs available, there are usually certain fields or specialties that for whatever reason suffer a shortage.

Since it seems to be a general consensus on these forums that there is no shortage of people trained in science and technology in the US (at least generally), I am curious in your humble opinion as to what field or specialty (scientific or non-scientific) is currently most in demand in the US, in the sense that there are far, far fewer number of potential workers vs number of jobs available.

(Note: I currently reside in Canada, and here in this country, there is a severe shortage of people in the skilled trades, but the same may not apply to the US).

 

[carlgrace]

This actually leads me to my next question (admittedly somewhat off topic from the original thread). Even during severe recessions, where there usually is a surplus supply of workers vs number of jobs available, there are usually certain fields or specialties that for whatever reason suffer a shortage.

Since it seems to be a general consensus on these forums that there is no shortage of people trained in science and technology in the US (at least generally), I am curious in your humble opinion as to what field or specialty (scientific or non-scientific) is currently most in demand in the US, in the sense that there are far, far fewer number of potential workers vs number of jobs available.

(Note: I currently reside in Canada, and here in this country, there is a severe shortage of people in the skilled trades, but the same may not apply to the US).

I think the US is quite similar to Canada in that sense. The media claim there is a shortage of the skilled trades. I can tell you there in my personal experience there are shortages of various extremely narrow subfields (e.g. specific language or tool skills in software, or extremely specific design experience). However, I think that is mainly due to the lack of interest in industry to do any kind of substantive training. I can tell you when i was in industry the job descriptions were so detailed that it was clear the company was only interested in people who could hit the ground running. There is a significantly lowering of interest in entry-level people. I think that is partially a symptom of sending "routine" work overseas. It is a severely short-sighted strategic error, in my opinion. But it is what it is.

You ask for my humble opinion and I'll give it to you. Claims of "shortages" of engineers and technical/scientific professionals are mostly BS. They usually come from industry groups trying to increase the number of visas to allow more foreign workers in. If there were truly shortages, salaries would increase to entice more people to enter the field. They aren't. So I call shenanigans.

I'm even dubious about the skilled trade shortages. Are salaries rapidly rising for plumbers and pipefitters? Maybe in oil fields, I don't know. But if salaries aren't rising, there isn't a real shortage. The idea of shortages is probably coming from companies looking for tax breaks (or should I say "incentives"). I could be wrong here.

 

[czelaya]

One factor that amazes me is the changing demographics of students in freshman courses I've had to instruct. I have two attorneys that worked in the private sector that graduated from tier-1 law schools. Both basically tell me since the economic downturn there's been over-saturation of lawyers because of downsizing and new graduates. The market is too saturated.

They're now both in school looking for an alternative profession in medicine and other professional programs. I graduate in a few months (hopefully), and I see myself in the same dilemma. I've got bills coming in from loans soon, and I have a daughter to worry about.

In addition, I've seen engineers, other sciences, and students with bachelor degrees going back to school in hopes of a recovering economy that will hire them soon.

Not attempting to being too pessimistic, but I don't see the situation getting better for anyone graduating in physics, chemistry, engineering (not as bad but it's worsening), and science overall. The USDA & FDA labs nearby are cutting their departments drastically and local universities, for the most part, aren't hiring. I'm seeing an increasing number of students entering and graduating from college with degrees that aren't too marketable. I see an educational bubble bursting soon. Once students realize that their education isn't a promise to a sound job, it's going to pop. Furthermore, graduates accumulating all this debt isn't promising prospect for a sound future. Overall, I see this a problem across the board for most majors.

I see the US economy contracting severely in the following years. Our economy has too many negative factors that are hindering growth (sovereign debt, entitlements, military expenditures, currency devaluation, and much more). If you have any counter points, by all means, share them. I want to be wrong, but I feel I'm just sobering up to the fact that my educational endeavors won't hold much in a depressing economy. So far, my only job prospects have been temporary positions at local universities as an instructor and jobs in industry that could be easily filled by personal holding a bachelors or Masters in physics, chemistry, and biology. However, maybe my situation is worse than most because I'm unable to move because of my daughter.

My only hope and plan of attack is to continue to work as a waiter and continue to search for stable employment. I've also had to conclude that I may have to do research for free so I can continue to publish.

Ironically, the only really positive is that the downturn in the economy has greatly increased my interest in economics (books, course, and self study).

Apologizes if I'm ranting.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I think the US is quite similar to Canada in that sense. The media claim there is a shortage of the skilled trades. I can tell you there in my personal experience there are shortages of various extremely narrow subfields (e.g. specific language or tool skills in software, or extremely specific design experience). However, I think that is mainly due to the lack of interest in industry to do any kind of substantive training. I can tell you when i was in industry the job descriptions were so detailed that it was clear the company was only interested in people who could hit the ground running. There is a significantly lowering of interest in entry-level people. I think that is partially a symptom of sending "routine" work overseas. It is a severely short-sighted strategic error, in my opinion. But it is what it is.

You ask for my humble opinion and I'll give it to you. Claims of "shortages" of engineers and technical/scientific professionals are mostly BS. They usually come from industry groups trying to increase the number of visas to allow more foreign workers in. If there were truly shortages, salaries would increase to entice more people to enter the field. They aren't. So I call shenanigans.

I'm even dubious about the skilled trade shortages. Are salaries rapidly rising for plumbers and pipefitters? Maybe in oil fields, I don't know. But if salaries aren't rising, there isn't a real shortage. The idea of shortages is probably coming from companies looking for tax breaks (or should I say "incentives"). I could be wrong here.

I share your scepticism regarding claims of "shortages" or engineers and technical/scientific professionals in the US. Now I cannot comment on the demand of skilled trades in the US, in Canada (specifically in the province of Alberta) there is a substantial demand for people of the skilled trades to work the oil fields (contributing to an unemployment there that is significantly lower than the national average of 8%).

At the same time, you didn't really address my question of if there are any field of any kind in the US that is currently experiencing a shortage of workers relative to the number of jobs available (and I'm not just thinking of technical positions; it could be anything at all -- garbage men, ditch diggers, bank clerks, etc.). The reason I'm asking is that labour demand is not evenly distributed across disciplines, and so I'm curious as to your opinions (or anyone else's opinions) on this point.