Interesting discussion on the crisis in higher education

[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.

 

[StatGuy2000]

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.

I'm not being 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.

Interesting you are making this observation just as there are signs of the US economy slowly improving. That being said, if you look at history, recessions (or depressions) that is due to property busts tend to take years to recover fully (the Great Depression lasted a full decade, and this is only the 4th year from the time of the collapse of 2008).

 

[daveyrocket]

I think currency devaluation would end up being a good thing, because if the dollar becomes weak compared to other currencies then it will no longer be cheaper to ship jobs overseas. That will bring low-skill manufacturing, etc. type jobs back into the country so that we can actually put more people to work creating value. But whether we will actually get there or not remains to be seen.

 

[carlgrace]

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.

I didn't mean to ignore your question. There are in fact a few areas where there are more jobs than workers. One I can speak to with some authority is nursing, as my mother is a retired nurse and I have several friends who are nurses.

There is a severe shortage of nurses, but not enough money to pay them. Therefore, working conditions are declining, a large number of foreign workers are being imported, and wages are very slightly increasing.

I don't think they are many areas where they are significant shortages of workers. I think the whole "mismatch between skills and demand" is a little bit of a stretch, although it is quite true that there are many fewer places for unskilled laborers these days.

I think more interesting is a mismatch in locations of work. Many people are stuck in their communities by underwater mortgages and can't move from places with high unemployment (e.g. California) to places with low unemployment (e.g. Montana and North Dakota) which are booming for the same reasons Central Canada is booming.

 

[carlgrace]

I think currency devaluation would end up being a good thing, because if the dollar becomes weak compared to other currencies then it will no longer be cheaper to ship jobs overseas. That will bring low-skill manufacturing, etc. type jobs back into the country so that we can actually put more people to work creating value. But whether we will actually get there or not remains to be seen.

I agree. Also, the development of other countries is increasing their standard of living. True story: when I started my professional career about 10 years ago, companies could get 4 or 5 talented engineers in Shanghai in my specialty for the cost of one employee in the US. Now it's down to 2. That is a huge difference in a short amount of time! Wages are skyrocketing overseas while they are mostly flat here (unless you're in upper management). So, is getting less attractive.

Interestingly enough, southeast Asian companies are setting up design centers in California. Hauwei, Samsung, and Mediatek have all recently expanded operations. Interesting trend. The same thing happened in the 1980s when the Japanese more or less caught up with us.

 

[Locrian]

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.

Completely agree with pretty much every sentence in this post.

When people tell me X industry is complaining there aren't enough available workers, I ask them the following question: "How low does the woker's salary have to go before a company claims there are plenty of workers and no need to increase the supply?"

Companies will stop claiming there's a shortage of workers about the same time workers claim there are plenty of jobs openings.

 

[twofish-quant]

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.

Lot's of people are leaving by choice. (Hint: I'm not in the United States.)

Also, if they aren't leaving by choice, what's the problem? It's not unreasonable to argue that that the primary concern of the US government is the employment of US citizens, and if there aren't enough jobs for US citizens, then non-US citizens should leave the US and let their countries handle their employment issues.

I don't think that too many Chinese and Indian Ph.D.'s would object to this policy, because the Chinese and Indian governments *are* rolling out red carpets for Ph.D.'s. Now it may be that this hurts the US in the long run, but that's an issue the US has to work out.

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).

1) I don't see the point of this. Chinese universities and companies are getting the cream of the crop by flashing some attractive offers to Ph.D.'s.

2) The "US brand" has been seriously tarnished.

3) US universities are under severe financial stress. No funds for overseas ventures.

4) Why should the Chinese or Indian governments *allow* US universities to set up local campuses? In the case of China, you'll quickly run into Google-type problems. The Chinese government is going to insist that any US university operating in China comform to Chinese educational policy. Either they do or they don't. Either way, it's going to cause issues.

5) Honestly, because of 4) I think it's going to turn to crap. What's likely to happen is that the foreign research centers end up being either cheap outsourcing centers or just mechanisms to squeeze money out of foreign students.

6) One reason that ambitious Chinese students want to go to Chinese universities is that this is where the Communist Party recruits new talent. In China, there is a glass ceiling and if you want to make it past a certain point, you have just got to be a Party member. If US universities operate in China either they allow the CCP to recruit, or they don't. Either way there are problems.

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

In China, the elite universities (Beida, Qinghua, Keda) are as good at research as the top US universities. I believe the same is true for India, but I'll let someone there talk about it.

The problem with the Chinese educational system isn't the elite universities. The strength of the US is that it has a "deep bench." You have excellent public state universities. Also, the *worst* accreditted universities in the US are still decent, whereas the worst universities in China are outright scams.

 

[twofish-quant]

But what do you propose to do about it? Obviously supply is more than meeting demand.

Boost demand. Paul Krugman suggested that we invent a hoax about an alien invasion so that people are willing to spend a ton of money fighting the alien threat. It's not that crazy of an idea. The thing that ended the Great Depression was World War II, and I've been thinking a lot about how to get the "good parts" of WWII without having tens of millions of people die.

What I'd like to see is some "friendly competition" in planting flags in the solar system. China decides to plant a flag on the Moon. They do or they don't. If they do, then the next step is Mars. Once someone wins that game, next stop Jupiter.

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.

And doing nothing is going to lead to social revolution. Or at least I hope it's going to lead to social revolution. One thing that I worry about is that people will just "get used" to the current situation and think that it's "normal."

I grew up listening to Star Trek and getting brainwashed with Gene Roddenberry's view of the universe. I came of age when the Soviet Union fell, and everyone thought that history had ended, and that we were heading toward utopia. I've been brainwashed into believing in the "American dream" and as America as the "last best hope of the world."

If you are telling me that this is the "best that can be done". Well, I just can't accept that. I still believe in the American dream. Now whether or not the road to the American dream lies in the United States. I hope it does.

Why should US Citizens go into science? It makes no sense.

Because ultimately science and technology leads to economic growth. If we have a social and economic system that discourages people from science, they ultimately this leads to low growth, and then you end up with a death spiral as low growth -> less funding -> lower growth.

If there really were a need for more scientists and engineers (particularly in academia), salaries would rise.

You are assuming that the market leads to the best allocation of resources. That assumption is questionable.

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.

One thing that attracted me to physics is trying to solve hard problems. I'm arrogant enough to think that I can understand something about the creation of the universe. If I'm *that* arrogant, then figuring out the economic system is something that I'm not going to shy away from because it's "too hard."

 

[twofish-quant]

That being said, if you look at history, recessions (or depressions) that is due to property busts tend to take years to recover fully (the Great Depression lasted a full decade, and this is only the 4th year from the time of the collapse of 2008).

That's without government intervention. In China (and India) the government poured massive amounts of money into the economy, and the economic crisis is a distant memory. It's been argued that the cure is worse than the disease, but we'll see about that.

 

[carlgrace]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, twofish-quant. My point is that this is not something that can be addressed with a tweak. It needs to be addressed with a fundamental change in our economic system.

Maybe that's possible. But these days being moderate gets someone tarred as a Marxist-Socialist-Fascist and being a traditional republican in the vein of Eisenhower or even Nixon gets you label a RINO and drummed out of office.

I think some interesting times are in store (and I mean that as in the famous curse).

I don't know the answer. I wish I did.

 

[twofish-quant]

Wages are skyrocketing overseas while they are mostly flat here (unless you're in upper management). So, is getting less attractive.

There's another factor. In the US, being a scientist or engineer isn't particularly highly respected, but in China it is, so for most Chinese Ph.D.'s, you are going to end up with a higher standard of living in China than in the United States.

One problem with the US is that if you live outside of the US, you can't ignore the US. The US is overwhelmingly powerful, and you have just *feel* how powerful the United States is when you are outside. Conversely, people that live in the US are sometimes quite shockingly unaware of how things are in the rest of the world.

And then China is big (and so is India) so you have a large numbers effect. Probably only the top 10% of the people in China live at the standard of living as people in the US, but that's 100 million people, we are either close or have reached the point where the number of people in China and India that have standards of living similar to America is larger than the number of people in the US.

I'm more worried about the long haul. China got out of the economic crisis partly by building 10,000 km of high speed rail, and now that rail is in place, you can see the economic impact. There are massive government incentives in things like solar cells and biotech.