Why Science Is a Lousy Career Choice
"President Obama had a town hall meeting at Facebook's headquarters last week and said that he wanted to encourage females and minorities to pursue STEM disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics). However, Pastabagel writes that the need for American students to study STEM is one of the tired refrains in modern American politics and that plenty of people already study science, but they don't work in science. 'MIT grads are more likely to end up in the financial industry, where quants and traders are very well compensated, than in the semiconductor industry where the spectre of outsourcing to India and Asia will hang over their heads for their entire career.' Philip Greenspun adds that science can be fun, but considered as a career, science suffers by comparison to the professions and the business world. 'The average scientist that I encounter expresses bitterness about (a) low pay, (b) not getting enough credit or references to his or her work, (c) not knowing where the next job is coming from, (d) not having enough money or job security to get married and/or have children,' writes Greenspun. 'Pursuing science as a career seems so irrational that one wonders why any young American would do it.'"
You say this as if math and science ever paid well. The annals of history are littered with the corpses of great mathematicians who died broke: Abel, Eisenstein, and Cantor are three of the most important I can think of off hand.
Oh great my son excels at math and science..... He loves his math and science classes... the science channels, mythbusters, etc....
he's going to be broke..
Yep... and scientists who make money by working on science in industry are all hacks whose opinions are bought and paid for...
No Brainer.Oh great my son excels at math and science..... He loves his math and science classes... the science channels, mythbusters, etc....
he's going to be broke..
Med-School.
medicine is sucky career for many docs, just see their polls on career satisfaction. 1000s of them are fleeing self-employment, the dream of their youth, to work as employees for clinics and hospitals.
The real hope for these people to practice medicine with youthful ideals is to be employees in public hospitals, with their medical education paid for 100% in return for at least 20 years as employee in public hospital or clinic.
Oh yeah... I'm sure... people that have gone out and worked hard their entire young adult life to get a foothold on a career that will make them well off are going to really enjoy being told by some know nothing internet troll living in his parent's basement that they should work 20 years for the government to pay off student loans.
"work 20 years for the government to pay off student loans."
who said anything about loans?
One of his uncles is an Orthopedic Surgeon..
No will be surprised, but I think that article is a complete pile of . Science isn't for everyone, and there is no doubt about that, but the financial sector is? Thats pretty laughable. STEM careers are the best type of educations to get right now. Whether that is engineering, computer science, mathematics, or another science.
Who do you think has a harder time right now: Someone with just another MBA or someone with a masters in any STEM related field?
Actually read this link
http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science
Jesus its a pile of bull . Since when do all sciences go on to PhDs and to work in academia?
The vast majority of this list is STEM related. Even if you remove medical from STEM fields (and honestly I think you should) they still do extremely well.
Seriously Nono you posted this garbage?
Pretty sure most successful members of the STEM field are making quite a bit of money in the private sector.Why does anyone think science is a good job?
The average trajectory for a successful scientist is the following:
age 18-22: paying high tuition fees at an undergraduate college
age 22-30: graduate school, possibly with a bit of work, living on a stipend of $1800 per month
age 30-35: working as a post-doc for $30,000 to $35,000 per year
age 36-43: professor at a good, but not great, university for $65,000 per year
age 44: with (if lucky) young children at home, fired by the university ("denied tenure" is the more polite term for the folks that universities discard), begins searching for a job in a market where employers primarily wish to hire folks in their early 30s
This is how things are likely to go for the smartest kid you sat next to in college. He got into Stanford for graduate school. He got a postdoc at MIT. His experiment worked out and he was therefore fortunate to land a job at University of California, Irvine. But at the end of the day, his research wasn't quite interesting or topical enough that the university wanted to commit to paying him a salary for the rest of his life. He is now 44 years old, with a family to feed, and looking for job with a "second rate has-been" label on his forehead.
Would love to see the blogger back up that claim. Too bad they didn't bother and I can't find about it on the internet.The need for American students to study STEM is one of the tired refrains in modern American politics. But plenty of people do study these things. They just don’t work in those fields. MIT grads are more likely to end up in the financial industry, where quants and traders are very well compensated, than in the semiconductor industry where the spectre of outsourcing to India and Asia will hang over their heads for their entire career.
Top Employment Sectors for MIT Graduates
Undergrads Masters
Aerospace/defense 8% 6%
Biological science 8% 3%
Computer technologies 13% 17%
Consulting 18% 21%
Energy/utilities 6% 4%
Finance 16% 12%
Other engineering 11% 17%
16% maybe higher than the semiconductor industry but considering 84% end up in a STEM field the blogger makes incredibly stupid and invalid points.
http://web.mit.edu/facts/graduation.html
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#earnings
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos301.htm
The median earnings of engineers are equal to those of financial planners in every field and out do financial planners in many.
What your stats don't show is what nightclubs those people are now bartenders at.
Don't hate me, I'm just the messenger. Feel free to discuss/debunk...
I actually think Technology & Engineering are probably two fields were you can make a living IF YOU'RE VERY TALENTED (that is, your skills are worth a good salary that won't be outsourced, or you're good enough to build your own business). Math and the rest of the sciences (outside of financial/medical) it's not so clear...
Is that why you're in IT?
Personally, I'm glad you can't outsource a TS/SCI...
EN you're only the messenger but its a lousy tired message that isn't based in reality.
The blogger's article did seem pretty anecdotal.
Mathematicians:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos043.htm#projections_data
Expected to grow by 22% over the next decade with a mean earnings of just shy of 100k. (Better than financial analysts).
Statisticians
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos045.htm
Expected to grow about 13% with a median income of 72k. Right in line with financial planners.
Agricultural/Food Scientists
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos046.htm
Expected to grow 16% with a median income of 60k. Less than financial planning but I doubt anyone making 60k a year is poor.
Conservationists and Foresters
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos048.htm
Expected to grow at 12% with a median earnings of just under 60k.
Biologists
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos047.htm
Expected to grow at 21% mostly due to biochemistry but every sub field has at least a 12% growth rate which outpaces the national average. Median earnings of 82k
Atmospheric scientists! SUP!
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos051.htm
15% growth with a median income of 80k. MORE than a ing financial planner, es.
Chemists
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos049.htm#projections_data
First stagnant field we've come across. Only 3% growth (they should go into biochem, IMO). Median earnings of 66k. At least they're not poor.
Environmental Scientists
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos311.htm#projections_data
28% job growth in the next decade. Pretty damn huge. ONLY make 60k though.
Geologists/Hydrologists
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos312.htm
18% Growth - median of 80k
Physicists and Astronomers
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos052.htm#projections_data
16% Growth, 100k median income.
What exactly is the jury out on? STEM fields are not for everyone but no field is. Its damn clear to me that they are some of the best - if not THE best - careers to pursue.
In case you want some comparisons to population growth and a bit of info on methodology:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/oco2003.htm
Basically it states an increase in the labor force of 8% over the next decade.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
