Is it a myth that "Americans are too lazy to pursue STEM careers"?

[jz92wjaz]

I'm an American and I chose STEM because it's Math heavy, and I find Math to be easier than other subjects. If I had been better at a different subject, it's doubtful I would have bothered with STEM. Because we don't have widespread poverty, we have more leeway to decide what kind of career we'd like to have.

 

[Devils]

Most people who posture as leaders do NOT come from technical backgrounds.

And in fairness, I had an extraordinary boss who had a meager technical background, but was fantastic leader.

I did a 1 year teaching diploma a few years ago as I was out of work. It was a real opener since teaching nothing but communication skills, presentations, leading groups students. You have a new speaking engagement every lesson! I learned a lot about leadership. You can't fool a bunch of 13yos, they will tell you if you are doing it wrong lol.

Nursing? Many people consider nursing to be drudge work, and nursing isn't especially that lucrative, money wise, even though they are in demand. It takes a certain type of individual to really be able to make nursing a rewarding career.

My sister is a nurse & it can be lucrative, as well paid as other technical jobs. Qualificantions are generally reognised internationally & there is a well known path of heading overseas to get experience.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

This begs the question as to what career options are lucrative in this day and age in the US.

Law? From what I've been hearing, there are far more law graduates than available jobs.

Medicine? Yes, being a doctor is lucrative, but it is also costly and demands high effort, as much as a STEM degree (in fact, medicine can and should be considered part of a STEM degree).

Dentistry? See what I wrote about medicine.

Nursing? Many people consider nursing to be drudge work, and nursing isn't especially that lucrative, money wise, even though they are in demand. It takes a certain type of individual to really be able to make nursing a rewarding career.

Business? Does a general business degree actually open any doors for career advancement? A good sales person can graduate with any degree or no degree, depending on personality (a marketing degree tends to teach market research, which is distinct to sales). To become an accountant often requires a specialist degree in accounting, which may or may not be lucrative.

What is a career? Everything you've listed requires at least a four year degree. But I've met some very wealthy, smart people with NO degree at all. They went for apprenticeships as electricians, worked their way up through various firms, got a master electrician's certificate, did some big jobs, founded a firm of their own, taught others how to succeed, and... Wow, they are rich in many ways.

We keep falling into the trap of thinking that knowledge comes from teachers in classrooms. IT DOESN'T. It comes from many places. The people who do well are those who can learn from anyone, anywhere, and who can teach outside a classroom setting.

And if that's not good enough for you, consider that there are mechanics, carpenters, heavy equipment operators, plumbers, steel workers, and many more blue collar professions with a tradition of apprenticeship and advancement.

Of course, it doesn't have the cache of a formal education, nor does it look as good on a resume, but I'll take down to Earth people like that over most Ivy League school graduates. The former will have real experience. The latter might have read about it in a book somewhere.

 

[bhobba]

At the university I went to, the STEM departments are filled to the brim every year.

Out where I am in Australia there are universities like that as well.

Yet overall people are eschewing it in their later years of study.

The reason is simple. You get a job like say an accountant or arts graduate working in a museum, and you can enjoy life without constantly updating your skills say in IT or engineering.

Kids are far from stupid, they know this and gravitate towards the path of least resistance.

OTOH some people are driven toward STEM areas - I am one - and even knowing that its all they want to study. I only ever wanted to study math - damned be the consequences.

Politicians in Australia are very perturbed at this state of affairs, and have tried all sorts of things like bonus points for taking more advanced math courses in university admission, but nothing works.

Its simple human nature IMHO. Unless you have the burning drive inside you why bother - do something easier, have an easier life and work to live instead of live to work. The issue is there are many other well paid lucrative professions that are not STEM related.

We have specialist High School programs starting to appear to get into those difficult to get into STEM areas eg:
http://www.tkis.qld.edu.au/TKIS_SUPr_Brochure.PDF

But as the brochure for that program says - if you just want an ordinary arts degree, and an associated job, there is no need to bother - simply go to your local school and take it easy - you will still do just fine. You will not earn as good money straight out of uni, but things will sure be a lot easier.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Devils]

We have specialist High School programs starting to appear to get into those difficult to get into STEM areas eg:
http://www.tkis.qld.edu.au/TKIS_SUPr_Brochure.PDF

But as the brochure for that program says - if you just want an ordinary arts degree, and an associated job, there is no need to bother - simply go to your local school and take it easy - you will still do just fine. You will not earn as good money straight out of uni, but things will sure be a lot easier.

I've help teach a Grade 10 class using the Raspbery Pi not far from you. And I've had Grade 12 ICT (Information & Communications Technology) students who would make fine software developers. I've had students who wanted to be carpenters who will probably make more than the STEM students given the state of the Australian economy.

I only ever wanted to study math - damned be the consequences.

You would have liked this : http://qasmt.eq.edu.au/

 

[StatGuy2000]

What is a career? Everything you've listed requires at least a four year degree. But I've met some very wealthy, smart people with NO degree at all. They went for apprenticeships as electricians, worked their way up through various firms, got a master electrician's certificate, did some big jobs, founded a firm of their own, taught others how to succeed, and... Wow, they are rich in many ways.

We keep falling into the trap of thinking that knowledge comes from teachers in classrooms. IT DOESN'T. It comes from many places. The people who do well are those who can learn from anyone, anywhere, and who can teach outside a classroom setting.

And if that's not good enough for you, consider that there are mechanics, carpenters, heavy equipment operators, plumbers, steel workers, and many more blue collar professions with a tradition of apprenticeship and advancement.

Of course, it doesn't have the cache of a formal education, nor does it look as good on a resume, but I'll take down to Earth people like that over most Ivy League school graduates. The former will have real experience. The latter might have read about it in a book somewhere.

Jake, I get what you are saying, and I'm not suggesting that a university education is the only path for advancement. I also agree with you that we in Canada and the US need more skilled workers of the type you are speaking above. However, keep a number of things in mind:

(1) Not everyone can work in a blue collar profession. The professions you listed above (mechanics, carpenters, heavy equipment operators, plumbers, etc.) are all physically demanding occupations which require that you are in good physical health. Not everyone has the stamina, physical health to do this. Many of the blue collar professions (I'm thinking specifically of electricians and mechanics) also require good hand-eye coordination (like surgeons), and not everyone possesses this ability.

(2) I don't know what the situation is in the US, but here in Canada, there is a huge bottleneck for aspiring blue collar skilled workers to find apprenticeships that could qualify them for the work. So many people who want to work in these positions are essentially prevented from doing so.

(3) Demand for many of the blue collar workers you listed above rely crucially on sectors such as energy or construction, which are often subject to severe boom and bust cycles. So it's not unusual for many of these workers to face stretches of unemployment until the work can pick up. And it's not obvious to me that workers who have been laid off can easily retrain to find other work.

 

[Devils]

What is a career? Everything you've listed requires at least a four year degree. But I've met some very wealthy, smart people with NO degree at all. They went for apprenticeships as electricians, worked their way up through various firms, got a master electrician's certificate, did some big jobs, founded a firm of their own, taught others how to succeed, and... Wow, they are rich in many ways.

Try reading The Millionaire Bext Door. The guy next door, driving a 15yo volvo, running a cleaning business with 5 employees, is probably saving 100K a year. And the 30yo software developer with the flashy car is probably going into debt.

There is low correlation betwwen general IQ, emotional IQ and success.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

If it is possible for a person with a meager technical background to be an extraordinary boss, then couldn't it be possible to train more people like that?

Experience. There. I said it. I'm sorry to disillusion so many of you who think you actually learn anything from an education. You don't. You learn when you apply it. Some of us take away different lessons than others.

So there is no way we can open up the brains of managers and pour knowledge in there about technical issues. They need to burn their fingers on a really hot, stupid situation. That's how people learn.

Also, why do people say science and engineering are hard? Is there any scientific evidence for this? In an age where the complete laws of physics relevant to anything we need to do for the next 500 years are known, couldn't it be argued that the most difficult problems are non-scientific?

The thing that stops so many from understanding science and mathematics is that they don't see the applications. The relationship may be comprehensible, but most people won't remember it if they don't use it or at least read about the notions that it might have. I'm having such discussions with my teen-age kids right now, while trying to explain why factoring polynomials is such a big deal. They have no experience to hang this on. They don't see any application. Remembering this sort of thing which is outside their experience is difficult. It's like trying to remain fluent in a foreign language that you haven't used or had reason to use in over a decade. It can be done, but it isn't easy.

 

[atyy]

Experience. There. I said it. I'm sorry to disillusion so many of you who think you actually learn anything from an education. You don't. You learn when you apply it. Some of us take away different lessons than others.

So there is no way we can open up the brains of managers and pour knowledge in there about technical issues. They need to burn their fingers on a really hot, stupid situation. That's how people learn.

Yes, but I think you also mentioned many leaders who seem to be just as bad even though they have lots of experience. Can leadership really not be taught?

Was the good manager you had good in part because he learned the technical stuff? What else apart from the technical stuff made him a good manager?

The thing that stops so many from understanding science and mathematics is that they don't see the applications. The relationship may be comprehensible, but most people won't remember it if they don't use it or at least read about the notions that it might have. I'm having such discussions with my teen-age kids right now, while trying to explain why factoring polynomials is such a big deal. They have no experience to hang this on. They don't see any application. Remembering this sort of thing which is outside their experience is difficult. It's like trying to remain fluent in a foreign language that you haven't used or had reason to use in over a decade. It can be done, but it isn't easy.

Hmmm, that actually shows real interest in science in some way. Although my own work as a biologist is more "basic science", applicability is always a great question.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

Yes, but I think you also mentioned many leaders who seem to be just as bad even though they have lots of experience. Can leadership really not be taught?

Was the good manager you had good in part because he learned the technical stuff? What else apart from the technical stuff made him a good manager?

Teaching management and leadership is like teaching virgins about sex. The first times they ever use that information, there will be a lot of inexperienced fumbling around, trying to do the right things. Some learn from the experience, and some don't.

In the case of that technically inept manager, reasoning his way through technical problems wasn't his strength. He was aware of what went into the work, what they needed, and how things got done, but he was never particularly proficient in diagnosing what was sitting in front of him. On the other hand, he could play the bureaucracy like a violin. He got things done that the rest of us had no patience for.

You can't teach that. You can only experience it. I've seen abstract efforts to teach this sort of thing and it never reads well.

 

[bhobba]

You would have liked this : http://qasmt.eq.edu.au/

Yea - know that mob.

A STEM related IB program is tough (math HL is generally considered the hardest HS math program out there) - indeed IB in general is tough.

It wouldn't have suited me because in HS I was so lazy it was embarrassing.

Still math was all that really interested me.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Most people who posture as leaders do NOT come from technical backgrounds.

No they don't, and some tend to look down on those with technical competence.

I had one jerk of a team leader, who was actually on exactly the same level as me, and others in the team, who when showing people around used to refer to us as the technocrats. Needless to say that went down well, especially considering he was simply some guy upper management said will be in charge of us.

We had a meeting one time about that and it was asked what people thought of those on the same level being in charge of teams. I pointed out my experience. What was the response - people need to show maturity.

You find a lot of management types basically say nothing, and couch what they do in motherhood generalised statements - in public anyway - and it occasionally leads to some of the silliest situations you can imagine - they become so caught up in that rarefied atmosphere things that are obvious aren't any more - see the video below. Its part of their diplomatic mind set - but it's actually not conducive to getting anything done.


Occasionally you get a leader that is both technically and managerially competent. They are worth their weight in gold - but are as rare as hens teeth. Needless to say I was never in that elite group. My political skills are zero. I am stupid enough to say what I think.

However, many of these people walk around with a defective notion that a competent manager can manage anything. So, to use a coaching analogy, can a Hockey coach do well for a gymnastics team? No? Then why do these idiots think they know something that we don't?

Aren't that the truth. They think management is a separate profession and you don't have to have at least high level competences in what you manage.

I saw the outcome of that far too many times.

They make decisions that backfire. Then turn around to their team to get them out of the mess.

I even had one guy that said it straight. We didn't ask you when we decided to do that, but we are asking you now. What went wrong? There were about 20 programmers in the room and he made eye contact with each one. We said nothing. It went on like that for about 15 minutes and no one said anything. He cajoled us with the usual management stuff about commitment to mission statements etc etc. Everyone simply said nothing. He was transferred to another department as the scapegoat for the whole project going kaput. But you know something - it wasn't his fault - it was actually the fault of upper management who had to placate political masters.

Feynman cottoned onto it in the Challenger disaster investigation. They simply ignore what the technical people at the coalface tell them because its politically unpalatable.

Only the very best and most talented of leaders can handle that situation. They exist, but are few and far between. Generally they are so valuable they gravitate toward consulting and bail people out once they get themselves into the mess - a mess they should have avoided in the first place. One of them took over that botched project I referred to above. He got it done - everyone thought it was beyond redemption - including me - but the situation had become so bad what he had to do created the worst working environment I have ever experienced - and the most duplicitous. If only they had done it right from the start.

BTW my management ability is very ordinary - I know that now. But in the thick of it you think these guys are total idiots not realising this managerial political stuff is very very difficult. They aren't - simply out of their depth in trying to placate two masters - the truth - and the rarefied atmosphere of high level management.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

You can't teach that. You can only experience it. I've seen abstract efforts to teach this sort of thing and it never reads well.

Very true.

But even the most inept of management neophytes, by dint of constant experiential development and mentoring, will get better - with a proviso.

That proviso is they recognise just because you are intelligent, and perhaps even technically brilliant, that leadership and management is a whole new ball game, requiring different skills. If you acknowledge that from the start, even though you are a leadership dummy like me, you will get better. It happened to me. Most bosses I had said Bill is technically A+, but has no management ability. However one boss I had took his responsibility to develop skills seriously and gave me that opportunity. My management ability went ahead in leaps and bounds - but still not really up to scratch. I felt if it had continued then I would have improved even further - but that boss went somewhere else and I was consigned to technical duties only.

What they fail to realize is the value of people that are both technically and managerially competent, so they pigeon-hole people - which every book on staff development says you shouldn't do. But because their managers don't care about it, they don't really care either - its not really going to help their career progression.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Oxvillian]

Third, kids are steeped in this idiotic mythology of "leadership." It isn't that leadership is bad, but you have to understand the world around you, first. But somehow everyone glosses over or utterly skips that step. That's how we get flaming, sociopathic ignoramuses who preen and posture well enough to make a good first impression --and they then promptly discover that they have no useful ideas of how they were supposed to reach the goals that they promised. And nobody sees fit to call them on this. They should be allowed to have these failures come back to haunt them, but they don't. The blame then rolls downhill while they waltz to another place where they perpetrate the same stupidity all over again.

Ha I'm glad I'm not the only one who rails against the dreaded "leadership skills".

I typed "leadership skills" and "mathematics education" into google's ngram viewer and the result is worrying:

 

[Best Pokemon]

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth

Some people say the STEM crisis is a myth.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth

Some people say the STEM crisis is a myth.

And in many ways, he is right. The real crisis is not a lack of STEM graduates, but a lack of general understanding of what STEM graduates do.

Let's be brutally honest here: the reason that many people pursue the humanities is because they can't do well in mathematics or the sciences. Most people who pursue STEM degrees, do so because they CAN understand science and mathematics. Most STEM graduates are also quite literate.

In other words, what we really lack is a foundation of science and mathematics for ALL students. This is the well from which we draw the managers and "leaders" of tomorrow. That's right. They don't get math. They don't understand the techie thingies. They don't like science. And Engineering is right out.

And not only do they not like these studies, they actively shun them from the boardrooms because it makes them feel inferior and confused.

We are not going to fix this problem with more STEM graduates. We will fix this problem by teaching a better foundation starting from middle school, and high school.

And if you're an art student --YOU SHOULD STILL TAKE COURSES IN GEOMETRY AND MATHEMATICS!

But they don't. Instead we have illiterate and innumerate idiots roaming the Earth with college degrees.

Shrug.

 

[mal4mac]

... mechanics, carpenters, heavy equipment operators, plumbers, steel workers, and many more blue collar professions with a tradition of apprenticeship and advancement.

Of course, it doesn't have the cache of a formal education, nor does it look as good on a resume, but I'll take down to Earth people like that over most Ivy League school graduates. The former will have real experience. The latter might have read about it in a book somewhere.

University isn't just about reading books! Physicists get to design and perform experiments, philosophy students engage in Socratic dialogue. Good luck with employing one of your blue collar heroes at CERN or a law firm.

 

[Mogarrr]

And in many ways, he is right. The real crisis is not a lack of STEM graduates, but a lack of general understanding of what STEM graduates do.

Let's be brutally honest here: the reason that many people pursue the humanities is because they can't do well in mathematics or the sciences. Most people who pursue STEM degrees, do so because they CAN understand science and mathematics. Most STEM graduates are also quite literate.

In other words, what we really lack is a foundation of science and mathematics for ALL students. This is the well from which we draw the managers and "leaders" of tomorrow. That's right. They don't get math. They don't understand the techie thingies. They don't like science. And Engineering is right out.

And not only do they not like these studies, they actively shun them from the boardrooms because it makes them feel inferior and confused.

We are not going to fix this problem with more STEM graduates. We will fix this problem by teaching a better foundation starting from middle school, and high school.

And if you're an art student --YOU SHOULD STILL TAKE COURSES IN GEOMETRY AND MATHEMATICS!

But they don't. Instead we have illiterate and innumerate idiots roaming the Earth with college degrees.

Shrug.

I have always suspected management of idiocy.

As far as the illiterate and innumerate...they can vote when they turn 18.

 

[analogdesign]

Let's be brutally honest here: the reason that many people pursue the humanities is because they can't do well in mathematics or the sciences.

I don't think that's right. A lot of people don't *like* math and science. I'm an engineer, but my bother is a lawyer and one of my sisters is a humanities professor. They are at least as smart as I am but they followed their own interests, as did I. I chose to study math and science, my siblings chose law and philosophy. Are you saying they didn't have the capability to succeed in math or science? I find that a bit insulting to people who make different life choices than we did.

Later on you say art students should take math and geometry courses. I agree with you there. Scientific literacy should be improved across the board.

You know, from a reward/work basis going to engineering school is a pretty dumb move. I lost a decade of my youth studying late into the night and on weekends stressing out while my friends were socializing and having a good time. Now I make a comfortable living, but so too do my less dedicated friends (and some of them are doing better than I am, financially). I love my job and I'm glad I am an engineer, but maybe some people avoid STEM careers because their smarter than we are.

 

[Jamin2112]

Let's be brutally honest here: the reason that many people pursue the humanities is because they can't do well in mathematics or the sciences.

Not necessarily. Many, possibly most, pursue humanities because

* They find the subjects interesting
* They've been told to pursue what they find interesting

I'm pursuing tech work right now. Is that because I find tech work more interesting than, say, philosophy? No. If I wanted to listen to a podcast in my free time, I'd rather listen to a philosophy related one than a tech related one. I find technology a big bore, for the most part. The only reason I'm pursuing technology is because the jobs exist in high numbers, don't have too many barriers to entry and can pay a decent wage. Whatever actually interests me (philosophy, religion, math, etc.) I can pursue as a hobby.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

Are you saying they didn't have the capability to succeed in math or science? I find that a bit insulting to people who make different life choices than we did.

I have known many who decided to pursue the humanities, who by their own admission chose to because were "poor at math."

I know very few engineers who decided to enter the field because their reading or writing skills were sub-par.

I'm not trying to insult people here. I know that some choose the humanities because they like the challenge. I know that some choose the humanities for altruistic reasons.

Though I'm living comfortably, making money was never the primary goal. If that's what this is about, I'd have done what my brother has done: He's a corporate executive for a well known firm, with a specialty in intellectual property and patent law.

Except for my uncle who is retired, I am the only engineer in my extended family or among my wife's family among at least three generations.

Why did I choose it? Because I am a kid at heart. I love to build things with toys, the bigger the better. I would be doing this for fun even if I had to work in another field to support my habit.

Everyone has fields they pursue for their own reasons. Some of them are the very best of motives. Some of them are due to life circumstances, such as a series of awful math teachers throughout middle and high school. And some of them are just dumb luck.

Nevertheless, we should be honest about how these choices come about: Many of them happen because the subject of mathematics is presented in probably in the most awful, stupefying, and dull method possible. And then we sit and wonder why anyone would ever want to take an interest in STEM.

There is also a very strong bias against engineers in the executive boardrooms. Accountants? Sure. Lawyers? Of course! Operations managers? yes. Engineers or even Scientists? We have to claw our way in the door. People are scared of us. They're afraid we'll speak of things that they feel they ought to know but don't. They have no common references or experience they can rely upon to know when they're being lied to.

THAT is why we need more STEM education. It's not because we expect people to pick up these professions; it is because there is a terrifying ignorance in the boardrooms of companies across the world. And the only way to fix it is to educate.

 

[Jamin2112]

THAT is why we need more STEM education.

This thread is about STEM careers. We're churning out plenty of STEM students -- more than necessary. Businesses love it because they get to be more selective. But then we're left with a bunch of idle knowledge. I know people who've majored in Physics, Aerospace Engineering, Mathematics -- at good universities, too -- who are working at nightclubs, warehouses, etc. What a colossal waste. And I'm supposed to believe that not enough people want to go into STEM?

 

[StatGuy2000]

This thread is about STEM careers. We're churning out plenty of STEM students -- more than necessary. Businesses love it because they get to be more selective. But then we're left with a bunch of idle knowledge. I know people who've majored in Physics, Aerospace Engineering, Mathematics -- at good universities, too -- who are working at nightclubs, warehouses, etc. What a colossal waste. And I'm supposed to believe that not enough people want to go into STEM?

The thing is, I know people who graduated with degrees in History, Geography, English, (heck even Law or Accounting or Business) who are or were working at nightclubs, warehouses, retail, etc. So it is not as if STEM graduates are in any sense worse off than graduates in other fields. All of this is a consequence of an economy that is slowly recovering from the worst financial crisis the US (and the rest of the world) have experienced since the Great Depression. It's been 6 years, and if history is any guide, it will be another 5-6 years before unemployment will be fully recovered to pre-2008 levels.

I've come to believe, based on what I've seen, read, and heard, that with a few exceptions (e.g. statistics/data science, certain software/IT fields, quantitative finance, plumbing, electrical work, nursing), there is not a single field that exists right now in which there is a genuine shortage of workers in the US, either in blue collar or in white collar fields (the situation is different in Canada, where there is a huge labour shortage in the province of Alberta due to the current oil boom). And this is likely to be the case for at least the next 5 years.

Anyone care to contradict me on this point?

 

[Locrian]

There has been a significant shortage of health actuaries and skilled actuarial analysts for the last few years.

It will probably only last for a couple of years , so if you want to consider it an immaterial outlier that's okay with me.

 

[mal4mac]

And if you're an art student --YOU SHOULD STILL TAKE COURSES IN GEOMETRY AND MATHEMATICS!

But they don't. Instead we have illiterate and innumerate idiots roaming the Earth with college degrees.

And if you're a physics student --YOU SHOULD STILL TAKE COURSES IN DANCE AND FRENCH!--

But they don't. Instead we have monoglotic, terpsicorially challenged, idiots roaming the Earth with college degrees.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

And if you're a physics student --YOU SHOULD STILL TAKE COURSES IN DANCE AND FRENCH!--

But they don't. Instead we have monoglotic, terpsicorially challenged, idiots roaming the Earth with college degrees.

I see what you did there.

I strongly agree about language (I have learned three significantly different languages: Hebrew, French, and some Arabic --though I confess I've had more use for French than the other two). I'd broaden the notion of dance to at least one musical art: playing a musical instrument, or even cheer-leading.

 

[porcupine137]

At the university I went to, the STEM departments are filled to the brim every year. In fact the Computer Science department gets so many applicants that it let's in only 3-4% every quarter. And then you have business/political talking heads saying that Americans are too lazy to pursue careers in Computer Science, that we need to expand the number of H1B Visas in response to this crisis of a shortage of STEM workers. Something seems off.

Yeah, agreed.

IMO, it's just a scam so they can get cheap labor and make people, especially in computer programming, fear that if they don't work 7 days a week and come in on Christmas Eve, that they will be fired.

 

[davenn]

The nannies of the world have put their foot down, fearing risks to the kids.

Sorry, I just don't buy this. Microscopes, telescopes, and well designed meccano/chemistry/electronics sets aren't dangerous. Nannies aren't stupid, they know this.

I buy it, when you see the stupidity going on in schools

Today on the local news, a Queensland State, Australia school has just announced that its banning kids from doing cartwheels and other things like that in the playground unless supervised by a qualified gym teacher/instructor

WTF ... a kid cannot even play games they have since time immemorial .. they will ban hopscotch next !

and don't even get me started on kids and the internet ... they don't even know how to use it properly

you only need to see the dozens of posts on PF, that if they had even bothered to google their question they would have come up with 100's of answers
They can't even be bothered doing or maybe don't know how to do that

They would rather be silver platter/spoon-fed Dave

 

[StatGuy2000]

There has been a significant shortage of health actuaries and skilled actuarial analysts for the last few years.

It will probably only last for a couple of years , so if you want to consider it an immaterial outlier that's okay with me.

I do consider it an immaterial outlier since I suspect that the shortage is due at least in part to the bottleneck due to the certification of health actuaries (which is probably why it will last only for a couple of years).

 

[StatGuy2000]

The thing is, I know people who graduated with degrees in History, Geography, English, (heck even Law or Accounting or Business) who are or were working at nightclubs, warehouses, retail, etc. So it is not as if STEM graduates are in any sense worse off than graduates in other fields. All of this is a consequence of an economy that is slowly recovering from the worst financial crisis the US (and the rest of the world) have experienced since the Great Depression. It's been 6 years, and if history is any guide, it will be another 5-6 years before unemployment will be fully recovered to pre-2008 levels.

I've come to believe, based on what I've seen, read, and heard, that with a few exceptions (e.g. statistics/data science, certain software/IT fields, quantitative finance, plumbing, electrical work, nursing), there is not a single field that exists right now in which there is a genuine shortage of workers in the US, either in blue collar or in white collar fields (the situation is different in Canada, where there is a huge labour shortage in the province of Alberta due to the current oil boom). And this is likely to be the case for at least the next 5 years.

Anyone care to contradict me on this point?

Seems like no one else apart from Locrian have commented on my post above, specifically my claim that with a few exceptions already mentioned, there is not a single field out there with a shortage of workers in the US, and my claim that this situation will last for at least 5 years, if not more (based on the length of time it took for the US to recover from the Great Depression, the last time the US had experienced an economic crisis of the sheer magnitude as seen in 2008).