The Chronicle of Higher Education: Colloquy

College presidents, business executives, and government leaders warn that America is falling behind in science. The National Science Board recently noted troubling trends in the training of scientists and engineers that "threaten the economic welfare and security of our country." But other indicators contradict those gloomy conclusions and cause some experts to wonder whether we are, in fact, educating too many scientists and engineers -- or, at least, training them in the wrong way. Does the United States face a true science crisis? If so, what role can universities play in averting it? Read more ...

It's fiction.

It has been well documented that postdocs are abused in academe (and they have successfully unionized at many institutions.)

If research institutions want to increase the number of american students in these areas, then they've got to stop that (at least.)

If they want to import cheap, foreign labor to do what americans won't, then they're no better than Wal-Mart, economically speaking.

If you are chronologically enhanced, you have heard
this all before -- predicitions of shortages of scientists
and engineers in the 60's that became a glut by 1970,
and so on through the years.
I teach in a computer science department
and have seen my undergrad enrollments ( we
have only the B.S. degree and no grad program) drop
like a concrete brick with the bursting of the dot
com bubble and off shore outsourcing. My
department is criticized for the drop in
enrollment based on the irrational demands during
the 90's. On the one hand, we need people in
chairs, but on the other we now see students who
seem to be interested in the discipline instead of
merely looking for big bucks during the bubble
when anyone with a pulse and a credential could
get a job. The job market has tanked and my
graduates have to scramble for jobs. Even the very
competent students have to work hard to find a
slot.
People who make all of these predictions
don't have enough real work to do.

First principle: never trust education predictions, even when they are supported by demographic data.

Second principle: if a crying need appears, individuals will gravitate toward that opportunity. If the need wanes, individuals will gravitate toward other opportunities. People are still very pragmatic in their choices.

Third principle: the market will attract individuals from abroad if the number of home-grown individuals is inadequate.

Observation: science is inherently fascinating to almost anyone with an active curiosity, but the manner in which science is taught in our schools often dissuades even the curious. Cumulative knowledge (as opposed to the now thoroughly non-cumulative knowledge in the humanities and soft social sciences) requires greater discipline for its acquisition. Discipline is not as high a priority of the educational establishment as it once was. Also, we're so rich as a society that we feel we can do without it. Science is also less sexy to young people than things like 'communications'. CSI may change some of that.

Bottom line: the same education establishment that supports multiculturalism, tolerates grade inflation, and is prepared to cut formerly-core departments and disciplines while it creates trendy replacements and endless student-support units also depends on science for its indirect cost recovery. When the revenue stream dwindles we suddenly have a crisis. Perhaps the real crisis lies much deeper. The science departments are a bulwark against grade inflation and touchy/feely trendiness. It would be nice to see some of their principles at the core of institutional values, particularly now that the postmodern attempts to undercut the value of science have largely failed.

The science we have now tells us all sorts of stuff that just ain't so. We need a science that embraces the truth, not the ultra-liberal science we have now. Pseudo-scientific "environmentalism," evolution, and so-called "scientists" in service to class-action trial lawyers -- they're killing this country. We need common-sense science! So they're in crisis? Good! We're better off without them! The Best guide to science I ever saw is the Texas Republican Party Platform!

Quote...

'Do I want to be a postdoc paid $35,000 or $40,000 at age 35, with extreme uncertainty working in somebody else's lab, and maybe getting credit for my work and maybe not getting full credit? Or would I rather be an M.B.A. and making $150,000 and hiring Ph.D.'s?'"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is the attitude that is contaminating education and business. It is worship of the almighty dollar and corruption of learning for the sake of economy. It is the abuse of scientists by industry AND EDUCATION because they hold scientists in contempt. They do this because they have less talent and they know it. They are able to do it because of position and financial power that has not been obtained by legitimate work. These folks who do this have NOT paid "their dues" to hold such power. That is why they abuse it.

Simply put, if we allow the abuse of scientists and we continue to abuse them because we can sooner or later America is not going to have scientists, or mathematicians or ___(fill in the blank)____.

The brain drain of scientists and potential scientists into other areas in America has already stopped and immigration rules are not the only reason.

As the quote above so aptly demonstrates, what is the reward of studying science compared to the reward of getting rich from the the labor, mental and physical, of others?

Dedication and credentials cannot buy groceries, or make care payments or make house payments or even pay the rent.

My colleague,Kenneth Miller, and I wrote on this subject two years ago with the title, "Doctoral Education: another tragedy of the commons?" in American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 66: 287-294, 2002/ This may still be of interest to this audience. David Triggle

We keep a reasonably complete data base of where our PhD students are now, and have done so for 15-20 years. The last two or three crises of not enough people going into science have been wrong and so is the current one. The job market is slightly better because of the welcome addition of biotech and NGO opportunities for biologists; academic openings have simply not changed and the "glory days" of the 1960's are not going to return.

The worry about foreign applicants seems odd. We have plenty of North American applicants and focus on them, selecting only a few of the best foreign applicants we can attract. North Americans have no cultural problems, their paper qualifications are easier to evaluate and they are likely to stay in North America.

There have been two significant changes over the past 20 years that have been cited by others: a narrow education is now even less useful and many students do not need a PhD to make useful contributions to science and technology. All of us who train graduate students need to make them aware of these changes and owe them the best career counseling we can provide. We all should be responsible enough not to increase graduate enrollments.

Recently, I was the lone in-studio advocate for the employment rights of American citizens on the nationally broadcast PBS public affairs program "McCuisiton."

http://www.frtv.org/shows/archive/06202004.html
June 20, 2004
Millions of high paying American jobs are being outsourced to workers in India, China and other countries. The present lack of job creation gets headlines and major American multi-nationals are under fire from labor groups and politicians for moving hi-tech, manufacturing and professional jobs offshore. Is offshore outsourcing costing Americans their jobs? And do the savings to companies outweigh the disadvantages?

The Panelists

Bob Baugh, Executive Director, Industrial Union Council, AFL-CIO (via telephone from Virginia)

David Huntley, CPC, Huntley Associates

Jacque Johnson, Manager, U.S. Public Policy, Computing Technology Industry Association

Gene A. Nelson, Ph.D., Consultant (lone in - studio advocate for employment rights of American citizens)

Thomas F. Siems, Ph.D., Sr. Economist & Policy Advisor, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas

Please tell me what you think after you have viewed it. (Tapes are available for purchase from the McCuistion website at www.FRTV.org.)

The core of the problem is "labor substitution." As Weinstein's work has pointed out, third - world labor, working under conditions of indentured servitude has dramatically reduced salaries and worsened working conditions for skilled technical professionals in the U.S.
http://nber.nber.org/~peat/PapersFolder/Papers/SG/NSF.html

The typical loss to American Ph.D. holders of at least $1 million/worker is discussed at http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2004/jun/letters1_040621.html

Watch for my upcoming book: An American Scam - How Special Interests Undermine American Security with Endless "Techie" Gluts e-mail the author for a 31 - page special Congressional Summary, released in February, 2004

See the draft of my August 5, 1999 Oral Testimony critical of the controversial H-1B visa program before the House Immigration and Claims Subcommittee, in particular the final two paragraphs.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/nels0805.htm

Gene A. Nelson, Ph.D.
Dallas, Texas
c0030180@airmail.net

I received my Ph.D. in 1989, so I’ve seen this before. Another prediction of a “looming crisis” confirms that the intellectual elites in the universities are just ordinary human beings influenced by emotions and money. There is no incentive to train fewer Ph.D.s. People get paychecks and universities exist for this function. Also, foreigners get used, and they become simultaneously loved and hated. Loved because they are good cheap labor or good students, and hated because they take away jobs from “real Americans.” Or worse, the universities are said to be training our enemies.

I believe that a person should pursue a course of study (or life’s path) because of personal interest rather than predicted needs and visions of well-paying jobs. I initially studied biology because of a love of nature. After serving as a Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, I furthered my education in the hopes of using science to help people. After years of xenophobia and stereotyping, not receiving credit for my work, and living as a postdoc, I left the lab for law school. I’m happier now.

You see,

I told you all and I will say it again.

If we keep abusing our sceintists and researchers becase we can, soon, we will not have any.

We will drive them into other professions.

Let me tell you about the person who first suggested that I leave science for law.

After receiving degrees from MIT, Cal Tech and UCLA, and after years of postdoc work, he could not find a job except in Canada. Based on information he received as a member of the career committee of the American Physical Society, he believed that people of Chinese descent were being actively excluded from physics professorships. He re-educated himself by earning a Ph.D. in business, a law degree, and a master’s in economics. He now teaches at a prestigious business school, earns over $15,000 per month, and lives rent-free in a Trump high rise.

We never thought that we could be happy outside of science, but we are. Unless science nurtures its talented people more professionally, they will leave (because they can).

The lack-of-scientists crisis now being trumpeted is, as Yogi Berra said, “Deja vu all over again.” As several previous writers have noted, we have heard this tune before and it inevitably strikes a sour note later. The data just doesn’t support the idea that such a problem is about to occur. The July 5th, 2004 issue of Chemical and Engineering News states that employment in the chemical industry has dropped for the 4th year in a row. I cannot recall hearing that the employment prospects for physicists were great anytime in the last 20 years, and the now greatly diminished value of computer science degrees is well known. Life sciences, the one bright spot in the employment picture, yields a median academic salary of only $76,000 (Science, June 18, 2004). Such a salary figure does not seem to me to indicate much of a shortage. If it does, a slight opening of the immigration window would probably eliminate the problem very quickly.

Attempts to simply cram more students into the technical pipeline will surely make the current employment situation worse a few years down the road. What is needed are good technical staff positions, especially for recent graduates who need both additional experience and a living wage. If college administrators want more technical students, they must pay attention to whether or not their graduates are getting good jobs, and temporary post-docs should not really be counted in that category. Research institutes affiliated with a university, such as the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center at the University of Georgia, may be a step in the right direction, but they are heavily dependent on government support for research. I believe a unified campaign by college presidents, and others with influence, to press for more federal funding of programs that generate research jobs would do much more to enhance science in the US than attracting more graduate students to fields where jobs may not exist.

M.D. Meadows

I agree its bull so strongly... I'm taking my PhD to the nearest law or buisiness school and trading it in! We don't need PHd's... we need trial lawyers and CEOs... they're the ones that drive the economy!

Here are a few more anecdotes to think about.

After acceptance to law school, I visited the head bioscience career counselor at the campus where I worked as a postdoc. She shook my hand and congratulated me for leaving the lab! And two Ph.D. scientists that I knew eventually became career counselors at that campus. One of them earned only $15,000 per year as a plant molecular biology postdoc.

I met a patent lawyer who was disillusioned as a tenure-track computer science professor. First, his labor lawyer wife had a higher income than he did. Second, after finding a student cheating in one of his exams, a senior professor told him to just forget about it. The last time I talked to him, he said that he was “flush with money.” Another attorney and former biochemist expressed frustration over a friend that “just wouldn’t leave” after 10 years as a postdoc.

I met a former graduate student at a patent bar exam in San Francisco. After he saw me leave the lab for law school, he decided that if I could do it so could he. He is an immigrant from China and I still remember how he overheard a Caucasian med school professor tell me that they were planning to hire a “foreigner to do the dirty work” in their research lab.

The looming crisis in science: fact or fiction?