On the issue of kids not pursuing engineering/science/math these days

[maverick_starstrider]

I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

We have like 3 grad students for every position in academia. From what I hear, the competition is intense, and you have to fight off some of the strongest minds you've ever met just to get low level entry positions.

It seems like science has plenty of disciples, and more than enough for her to be one choosy biatch. I don't understand why people are saying there aren't enough going into science. If you ask me, please reduce the number so I can actually get somewhere in academics!

Well one could say that this is a result of lack of jobs, rather then too many workers.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Well one could say that this is a result of lack of jobs, rather then too many workers.

What would be the purpose of more people pursuing math and science if they can't get jobs? Do you just want to bankrupt a generation of people or something? He's identifying a potential source of the problem

 

[maverick_starstrider]

What would be the purpose of more people pursuing math and science if they can't get jobs? Do you just want to bankrupt a generation of people or something? He's identifying a potential source of the problem

45 years ago science was a much bigger priority for the west and thus there were more jobs. That funding plummeted during the late 70's. Now a days, especially after Bush, there is less gov't funding for science, thus less jobs. So is the situation that there are too many people in science or too little gov't funding.

 

[DukeofDuke]

45 years ago science was a much bigger priority for the west and thus there were more jobs. That funding plummeted during the late 70's. Now a days, especially after Bush, there is less gov't funding for science, thus less jobs. So is the situation that there are too many people in science or too little gov't funding.

This is true, but I think its inaccurate to say the fault lies in kids not pursuing the sciences "like they used to." Right now there are far more warm bodies vying for jobs in academia than there are positions available. So even if the problem is reduced government interest in science, my core point still holds: that there is still more than enough youth interest in the sciences considering the availabilities in these fields.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Well I also think the job problem (though correct me if I'm wrong about this) is mostly related to bio. I've often thought they should make bio programs tougher. Less people graduate into the job market, presumably they're of better quality also. Every person who wants to be a vetrinarian and their uncle seems able to get a bio degree. As a result bio people often take ridiculously low paying jobs when they enter the job market.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I agree. I think there's two issues though - the number of non-scientists who take some mathematics and science (which is perhaps too low) and the number of people who try to become scientists (which is perhaps too high).

I actually do mathematics, so I'm a bit off-centre in this discussion, but we see this all the time in discussions on the numbers of students doing mathematics in Australia (where I'm from). People keep saying there aren't enough. I wonder where I went wrong, since I did study mathematics and don't really feel like I've got much of a place in Australia (or the rest of the world for that matter - sigh), at least not one using mathematics. If there aren't enough, shouldn't I be in demand? What aren't there enough for anyway?

But then I realized what they meant - they want aspiring economists, aspiring doctors, aspiring social workers and aspiring engineers and so forth to learn some mathematics. By itself, it doesn't qualify you for much, but people in these other professions can use mathematics and science, and citizens in general can perhaps make better voting/purchasing decisions if they understand science. So it's good to get people interested, but not too interested, in case they get addicted and all start trying to pursue research careers.

I completely agree with this sentiment- I think society is much better off, having a voting populace that understands the scientific method, and perhaps more to the point, understands that logical thought and objective reality are useful tools to solve problems.

 

[symbolipoint]

The members participating in this discussion have made some brilliant speculations regarding the apparent (or perceived) lesser frequency these days of kids taking interest in Math and Science. Two important general ways to increase likelihood of getting related jobs or better related jobs in Science, Math, or Engineering are to enroll in a concentration of other courses (possibly but not necessarily including double-majoring), and finding work experience before graduating. Further, participating in some kind of activity to maintain any kind of recent experience may be useful (because of some employers' prejudices).

Very frequently, as some latter posts express, Mathematics is mostly a TOOL for other fields.

 

[mordechai9]

I don't doubt that there's fewer students in science, engineering, etc. now compared to as many in the past. (Proportional to the current population, anyways).

First of all, some people claim that there are already too many people in science and engineering, academic jobs are already too competitive, etc. However, this is missing the point, because if there was more people in science/engineering, then there would be more positions, more funding and everything as a result. If 20% of our politicians were former scientists/engineers, for example, these areas would get a lot more funding, and there would be a lot more positions available.

Basically I think the problem is mainly educational/societal like other people have mentioned. The K-12 education system in the U.S. is a joke, basically. There's a lot of good teachers out there and it's not necessarily their fault. But school in the U.S. is like a daycare, with huge variation depending on neighborhood and location, lots of kids don't even learn how to read, let alone learn to become a scientist.

Societally, science and engineering are completely ignored, considering the value they impart on society. Everybody thinks math and science are so impossibly hard, you tell them you're a scientist and they say "Oh jeez I could never do that!" People don't understand science/engineering is very approachable if you just work at it over a long period of time, just like anything else. In America there isn't a lot of culture -period-, let alone cultural appreciation for something as esoteric and "drab" as science/math/engineering. Of course, it's not drab at all, but this is how it is misportrayed and interpreted. Back to the education system again.

The key fault of the educational system is it just doesn't convince anybody that anything is interesting. It's obsessed with fulfilling dictations given by the overlords in the chain of command, all down the line. There's very little motivational/inspirational type of activity. Most students don't take any "career" classes for their entire time in K-12. It's a miserable situation.

 

[djeitnstine]

, my core point still holds: that there is still more than enough youth interest in the sciences considering the availabilities in these fields.

Interesting, I suppose that explains the major vacuum of engineers in america at the moment. I hope this little article from forbes helps: http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/03/hard-jobs-fill-leadership-careers-employment.html written 06.03.09

A small quote:

For the second year in a row, engineer is the hardest job to fill in America.

Why are engineers so hard to find? "We have whole generations of people loving liberal arts, not going into science and math," says Larry Jacobson, executive director of the National Society of Professional Engineers. ...

Also, I'm sure your statement explains why such a large number of students drop out of my degree at my university (Aerospace Engineering)

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Interesting, I suppose that explains the major vacuum of engineers in america at the moment. I hope this little article from forbes helps: http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/03/hard-jobs-fill-leadership-careers-employment.html written 06.03.09

A small quote:

Also, I'm sure your statement explains why such a large number of students drop out of my degree at my university (Aerospace Engineering)

Yeesh, reading that article, the job titles are so broad that I find it difficult to think of jobs that AREN'T covered in that list. Engineers, Nurses, Constructions Workers, Skilled Trade, Sales Reps, etc. that doesn't leave a whole lot out.

 

[DukeofDuke]

Interesting, I suppose that explains the major vacuum of engineers in america at the moment. I hope this little article from forbes helps: http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/03/hard-jobs-fill-leadership-careers-employment.html written 06.03.09

Hey, malicious sarcasm isn't cool


Note that "physics professor" wasn't on that list. Maybe I'm wrong in this respect, but when I read "interests in the sciences" I assumed we were talking about interest in scientific research, not interest in applied sciences.

In that case I'd like to note that biology is usually a school's second or third most popular major after business/econ and psych.

 

[avant-garde]

^ do you think that's because a lot of pre-med students choose biology as their major? what do biologists do for a living?

 

[djeitnstine]

Hey, malicious sarcasm isn't cool

Im sorry I did not intend for it to come across so malicious. But I couldn't keep from pointing out the facts.

 

[DukeofDuke]

Im sorry I did not intend for it to come across so malicious. But I couldn't keep from pointing out the facts.

More sarcasm

Like I said before, I was referring to interest in physics more than I was interest in engineering. This is why all my comments referred specifically to the oversaturation of PhD's looking for academic positions, in comparison to the available positions. Spend a few hours on this forum, and the topic will inevitably come up...

 

[DukeofDuke]

^ do you think that's because a lot of pre-med students choose biology as their major? what do biologists do for a living?

I think biology is one of those "standard" majors you pick if you don't know what to do. And then there are the premeds too. Also, a lot of people around where I live go into biotech jobs, synthesizing biochemicals and such. Its actually a pretty big job presence around here (I live in the Research Triangle Park, the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area that has the most PhD's per unit area in the world).

 

[DukeofDuke]

I completely agree with this sentiment- I think society is much better off, having a voting populace that understands the scientific method, and perhaps more to the point, understands that logical thought and objective reality are useful tools to solve problems.

Priority number one: High school science classes MUST mention that a theory is not "just a theory." I somehow doubt the Republican Party would be able to use the religious right and more moderate elements of that faction as easily if they understood some basic scientific concepts. ID would be much less of an issue if people realized how much had to be done before something could be taught as "just a theory."

 

[djeitnstine]

More sarcasm

I think you misread my post. Anyhow, I give this interesting article from times which discusses the topic at hand as it applies to the general public

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1912548,00.html

 

[rabbitweed]

I completely agree with this sentiment- I think society is much better off, having a voting populace that understands the scientific method, and perhaps more to the point, understands that logical thought and objective reality are useful tools to solve problems.

I think you really over estimate the intelligence of humanity as a whole.

I spent a few years between high school and university pretty much working any bottom of the barrel of the jobs I can get, and I find as a result my faith in humanity is much, much lower than all my student and academic peers. There are many people out there who have never really rubbed shoulders with the morons of society.

 

[avant-garde]

I'm afraid that it's just pure and simple economics. STEM careers require a lot of work, and while the pay isn't bad, you can probably do better elsewhere with less effort.

Yeah but... when people start to realize this, won't they all go in that direction? And then it will create a surplus in that field that requires "less effort," thus driving salaries down.

Haven't we seen this with law degrees? Soon it will happen to undergraduate business?

 

[ralilu]

i love that reply avant-garde

 

[DukeofDuke]

Yeah but... when people start to realize this, won't they all go in that direction? And then it will create a surplus in that field that requires "less effort," thus driving salaries down.

Haven't we seen this with law degrees? Soon it will happen to undergraduate business?

Not unless our system radically changes. Science is usually not short term profitable, in that gains are hard to measure and only happen over time. Modern economics demands quarterly bottom lines...so unless we have a systematic overhaul the big bucks probably won't go to the scientists in the room.

 

[chiro]

In australia we are trying to get more scientists and engineers by reducing the cost of the degree.

I've found when speaking to other people when they find out I'm doing math is that they say "Ohhh" and then they say something along the lines "Wow you must be smart".

It seems that a lot of people have bad experiences with learning math and although math does not equal science, a lot of scientific endeavours require math in order to think logically and move from idea to establishing a theory or conjecture or hypothesis.

Personally I think the only way this is going to change is to get skilled people in math (think uni professors and lecturers) to go to schools and teach kids not only what math is all about but why we do math. If people aren't interested then fine to each their own. But if they are interested but struggling then that is where someone skilled can step in correcting the mistakes and perceptions of that student.

Another thing I've found is that in general education is a thing whereby in most subjects students aren't actively engaged in learning, they are simply tested on how well they can memorize and slightly process what they are meant to know. I believe that people in general do not learn with a bunch of theorems shoved down their throat but learn through discovery.

Another thing with science is that there is the perception that one can't make sufficient amounts of money in that career. I would argue against this if the student had business acumen and learned to combine science with business and go where the money is. Many people have done this and come out very well in the end.

If we are to get more people into these areas we need to think about what the perceived incentives are. Money only goes so far. Recognition goes pretty far. People like recognition. People want to acknowledged and rewarded for doing something hard.

I think one thing with science and engineering is that people have to realize that they
can do more than just engineering or science after they complete that degree. You can tell people about MBA's advisory or consultant jobs, political jobs, development roles the list is endless. If students realized that degrees didn't confine their options then I think students would be more willing and open to undertaking these degrees. Thats just my opinion though.

 

[Sankaku]

I think you really over estimate the intelligence of humanity as a whole... (snip)

There are many people out there who have never really rubbed shoulders with the morons of society.

While I like to think of myself as an optimist, in my darker moments I have to agree with you. We still have to do our best to make sure non-science students leave school/university with a solid understanding of what science actually is. Our future depends on it. Without that understanding, people will continue to make incredibly destructive decisions - both at a personal and at a national level.

 

[avant-garde]

Not unless our system radically changes. Science is usually not short term profitable, in that gains are hard to measure and only happen over time. Modern economics demands quarterly bottom lines...so unless we have a systematic overhaul the big bucks probably won't go to the scientists in the room.

Yeah, but what about engineers/programmers who work in the corporate world?

 

[TMFKAN64]

Engineers in industry do well... but the "big bucks" are in management/marketing/sales. Which, to be honest, is probably where they should be. Companies need engineers to build a product. But it is *far* more important that they are able to sell this product for revenue.

Good marketing beats good engineering every single time.

 

[DukeofDuke]

Good marketing beats good engineering every single time.

At making money, yes, not at making better products.

 

[Tiger99]

Personally I think the only way this is going to change is to get skilled people in math (think uni professors and lecturers) to go to schools and teach kids not only what math is all about but why we do math. If people aren't interested then fine to each their own. But if they are interested but struggling then that is where someone skilled can step in correcting the mistakes and perceptions of that student.

You might be pleased to know that the CSIRO's launched a program to do just that: http://austmaths.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/mathematicians-in-schools/
Or maybe you already knew?

 

[Troponin]

My early years were a perfect storm for producing students that did not want to pursue math or science.
First is "no child left behind." I don't know what others take is on this, but in my experience it is more along the lines of "no child allowed to excel."
Classes are taught at the level of the average student...at the pace of the slowest students.

Add to that the fact that being smart is "lame."
It's "cool" to be good at sports. Being smart, especially in math and science is (in my experience) the exact opposite of cool.
It's not just the kids that perpetuate this. Even our math teachers would make jokes and innuendos about math being for "dorks."

It took me 29 years to finally "accept" math. I was so sure I hated it that I never let myself realize I love it.

Hell, even today, when my wife and I visit my parents and my Father asks me about "life," the second I mention Physics, Math, or studying, he says something along the lines of "I got to party with you!" or "That sounds like my kind of Saturday night. You must be a BLAST to hang out with."

I'd have to guess there are a lot of people my age out there who could/would have gone into math or science if some of the above things affected them a little bit different.

 

[bleedblue1234]

The problem with most students today is that most fields in most sciences (economics, physics, mathematics, biology, etc.) are so very specialized and require literally years and thousands and thousands of hours of effort to truly appreciate and do revolutionary work in the field.

I don't think there will be many Isaac Newtons or even Einsteins running around as we move well into the 21st century, just because even the smartest of minds can only accomplish so much, and much of what is quote "easy" to discover has been done so already.

Maybe with further advances in computer technology and a genetic engineering we can create far more intelligent humans, but as it stands right now to do truly revolutionary work in a field of science requires years of dedication for a cause most people see as fruitless or "whats the point?".

There are no more "renaissance" men... and with the death of many of the true "famous" scientists, so goes most peoples interest in science itself...

 

[Phyisab****]

Lack of attractive women.