Do We Really Need More Science Majors?

[FarCenter]

Government and college officials love to sing the praises of scientists. How do they explain why so many young science majors are so poorly paid?

Do we really need more science grads?

It’s an easy question to answer for politicians, university officials, conference speakers, and just about anybody whose job is to talk about American competitiveness for money. It’s rote that we need more STEM students — more science, technology, engineering and math grads — sprinting off American campuses into the labor force. But according to the data, employers don’t like paying science grads quite as much as we like talking about them.

Is STEM one letter too long?

Wage data in several states show that employers are paying more — often far more — for techies (i.e.: computer science majors), engineers, and math grads. But no evidence suggests that biology majors, the most popular science field of study, earn a wage premium. Chemistry graduates earn somewhat more than biology grads, but still don’t command the wages that are quite TEM-quality.

Read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/09/why-the-s-in-stem-is-overrated/279931/

[phantom power]

1. let's turn it around -- should biologists and chemists be paid more?

Teacher salaries are pretty crappy too, but generally my proposal is that they ought to be paid more, not that we need less of them.

[frazzled]

6. +1000; Of course we need more scientists

The question is: shouldn't they be better compensated.

We've really reached a strange inversion when we decide to consider what people should major in, and what colleges and universities should promote, on the basis of financial outlook. If that's the criterion for what to major in, then we should limit our kids to majoring in (a) finance; (b) pop music performance; (c) professional sports; (d) international arms and drug trading.

[Initech]

34. Correct answer: everyone should be paid more, and CEOs should be paid less!

[redstatebluegirl]

2. I thought Republicans were the only nes who hated science and smart people!

I do not really feel like having this discussion, but sufice to say I think science education is important because it crosses disciplines. Chemistry and Biology are required courses for pr med, nursing, pharmacy engineering.

Chemistry research discovers new drugs and other important things. I need to go but I will be back with research to back this up. In the meantime you we follow the Koch brothers we hate science for the masses caravan, or we can encourage our kids to study all of the STEM disciplines.

[leveymg]

3. Business values tech, quants and lawyers, but society is better off with more teachers and artists.

Capitalism turns everything upside down, including the natural order of things. The highest flowering of human development is not this:



It is this:



The inverted measure of value leads to a world that looks like this:

[MattBaggins]

32. I prefer picture 1 to picture 2

and I resent your silly insinuation that us science people are responsible for picture 3.

[leveymg]

37. You made my exact point.

I didn't write that science people create wars. I wrote that capitalism values science and technology over the arts. My point was that a world that's organized according to such economic imperatives is a dehumanized and ultimately hostile one.

Case in point: you misinterpreted what I wrote and took it as an insult. That misunderstanding created potential conflict.

Peace.

[Vashta Nerada]

40. They do?

How much do rock stars or pop stars earn?

[leveymg]

41. I didn't say that the mass of people don't value the arts - they LOVE the arts.

My point is that those businesses, banks and governmental institutions that allocate resources apparently value science and technology more than the arts. They are willing to invest tens of billions in Internet IPOs, technology parks and fabs, but don't ask them for funding of living artists other than rock and cinema stars and other celebrities with proven commercial success.

And, this is not to say that all capitalists are hostile to the arts. But, their patronage seems to run along very narrow channels.

[Posteritatis]

4. Yay, attacks on large swathes of academia based on overly narrow criteria. (nt)

[longship]

5. This is total rubbish.

Science education is probably the most important thing humans can do. When one understands science one can do almost anything. Science doesn't just teach a person facts; it teaches people how to think, and how to decide which facts are important, and which are not.

These are things sadly lacking on our planet these days.

Ignore the "S" in STEM at our collective risk.

[FSogol]

7. +1 n/t

[MattBaggins]

33. They don't want us to think

just smart enough to run the machines is what they want.

[Dash87]

8. No way. Everyone should strive for management positions at corporations.

The only majors colleges should ever offer are Accounting, Management, and Finance. These are the only majors that ever get kids coming out of college jobs, and if you aren't working at least 80 hours a week, you aren't working hard enough.

This is why there is so much student loan debt. Kids are going into dumb majors like Nursing, Computer Science, Biology, or are trying to become doctors.

NO research is done in the US. NONE! That is why we should completely focus off research of anything, and produce managers at corporations instead. These kids going into fields to become scientists are wasting their time and money when they could be working for Wells Fargo or J.P. Morgan doing stuff that they aren't good at instead.

Money is the only thing that should ever matter. The US pursuing science is the most pointless endeavor ever because our children are naturally born to work for corporations. That's just the way it is.

[Xyzse]

20. That really sucks

Accounting, Management and Finance are all jobs that do not produce a damn thing.
Don't get me wrong, they are the grease that allows the cogs to work, but in regards to actual importance in production, they mean little.

Wall Street just doesn't value actual products any more. They just made an industry of moving money around. I think that's f-ed up, but that is the current value system.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

9. We need to stop creating more journalists like the one who wrote this

Our lives are appreciably better than at any point in human history due to science. We need more scientists--not less.

[Dash87]

10. These are the same people that say an artist should become an accountant,

even though this artist would be a horrible accountant. You see this being said all of the time.

The only legitimate jobs, according to these people, are in stuffy businesses. Nobody should ever be a scientist, artist, plumber, electrician, or researcher. If you aren't spending 14 hours a day sitting behind a computer, you aren't in a legitimate job.

The irony is, you can be an idiot as a manager, but not as a scientist, plumber, etc.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. We need better scientific literacy.

Not necessarily more science majors.

[Boom Sound 416]

12. So which is the more important investment

The grad digging thru alge discoverinf bio fuel or the one designing the strip mine equipment

[FarCenter]

13. Before spending a lot of money on algae, you need to do some calculations

To produce a significant quantity of biofuel (say the equivalent of 1 million barrels of crude oil per day), how big an area of sunlight illuminated tanks do you need? How much water? How much nutrients and how are they recycled? How is the algae harvested? Is it a closed or open system and how is competition with other organisms controlled?

There are lots of small scale biofuel research projects that have no possibility to scale up to be significant sources of energy.

[Boom Sound 416]

14. Exactly my point

[FarCenter]

15. But that is systems engineering, not biology.

[Boom Sound 416]

16. I understand

Your talking about a mix of bio and mechanical engineering. My example was mechanical.

But really it's a chicken or egg scenario

[GeorgeGist]

44. Obviously you're not literate in biology research.

[FarCenter]

45. True, I've only read a few dozen papers on biofuels research.

[hunter]

17. Biology is the key to everything.

We've already fucked this planet up so profoundly that billions of us are now suffering, and billions more will suffer terribly. We're probably facing a population collapse of the very old fashioned sort -- people dying of starvation, plague, and warfare.

The key to everything is a popular understanding of how we interact with the natural environment -- how we as animals are suffering the consequences our exponential population growth.

Of lesser, but still great importance, is how biology is the root of all our medicine and agriculture.

In agriculture I'm not talking Monsanto frankenfoods, I'm talking about what is generally called "organic gardening;" having a diverse base of foods that are disease and pest resistant, require little or no pesticides or synthetic fertilizers, and are well adapted to local environments. This is generally the work of traditional "heritage" farming practitioners interacting with modern science. The traditional farmer knows what works, and the geneticist and biochemist and ecologist can figure out the "why" of it, and maybe create new sorts of food that breed true, the next generations of "heritage" species, both plants and animals.

If the scientists are not "earning enough" it's only an indication of how severely fucked up our economic ideologies are, and does not suggest we need fewer scientists.

[The2ndWheel]

21. Foods that are disease and pest resistent

You mean that we would engineer them that way? We wouldn't just allow those plants to adapt to their environment on their own over time? Sounds like the beginnings of the next Monsanto.

[FarCenter]

24. I'm pretty sure you do that by understanding the biochemical basis for disease and plant resistance

And then modifying the genes and other cell machinery to make the organism more resistant.

[ProSense]

18. This is RW anti-science drivel from AEI

http://www.aei.org/scholar/mark-schneider/

[Egalitarian Thug]

19. The whole STEM shortage distraction has always been BS.

There are always transient, short-lived shortages when something changes in a given field (discovery, technology, etc.), but they only matter insofar as they give the parasites an excuse to claim that something must be done to fix a nonexistent problem that invariably ends up in labor arbitrage.

[SheilaT]

22. I understand that those who graduate with a bachelor's degree in physics

are essentially 100% employed. From what I've been told, it's because the training suits them for a huge variety of jobs.

An advanced degree in physics is apparently slightly less employable, probably because of the narrower focus the farther along you go.

I have to add I have a son working on his undergraduate degree in physics, wants to go on and get his Ph.D. in astrophysics. I'm wishing him the best.

[FarCenter]

23. I've seen data that MS Biology grads make more than PhDs in Biology

Lots of PhDs are stuck in perpetual post-doc careers, working for minimal pay (although there is something to be said for the university lifestyle).

[SheilaT]

27. Hadn't run across that particular piece of information, but it makes sense,

from what I think I know about academia and the so-called real world.

I've been joking for years that my son will die a rich man, because his needs and wants are so very modest. I think he'll be okay however it turns out for him.

[MattBaggins]

35. The statement is pretty much true

Biology is weird in that both the low end and high end are just about worthless.

A B.A, B.S or PhD in Bilolgy won't buy you a cup of coffee.

[DavidDvorkin]

25. Hell, yes, and far more public investment in those fields.

[uppityperson]

26. Hell no.There are still plenty of unemployed people in other countries, why would we need them here?

just in case. How about paying them better than making fewer of them?

[Orsino]

28. You mean, "Do our corporate masters want to employ more scientists?"

Or, "Should we redesign our economy to make careers in science more viable?"

[One_Life_To_Give]

29. To do what?

Low wages indicates there are more people with that skill than the numbers needed. If all the Biotech research firms have a surplus of applicants with that skill set. Maybe more of the Biologists should consider Neurosurgery, Dr's are needed and in demand, basic biology grads not so much.

Pay doesn't tell you how much certain information/skills may be worth. But it does reflect how much society values having more individuals with that skill. We need a certain ratio of Dr's, Lawyers, Brick Layers and Artists. When any of them is in oversupply the wages dip/stagnate. And when they are under-supplied wages can skyrocket.

[MattBaggins]

36. Or do away with the bullshit H1B program

that allows them to ignore Americans and import slave labor instead.

[mike_c]

30. if this is primarily about undergrad degrees, that's the answer....

A bachelors degree in biology is little more than getting your dance card punched prior to graduate school. There are a variety of reasons for that, but the upshot is that folks with bachelors degrees in biology are not yet ready, generally, for professional work in biological disciplines. Most will not ready themselves, i.e. most won't go on to graduate studies, so they end up in low paying "entry level" jobs that aren't really an entry to anything, or they find work in another field altogether.

[XemaSab]

38. What is school for?

If we don't expect every kid who majors in history to be a professional historian, then why should we expect every kid who majors in biology to be a professional biologist?

I haven't worked a day in soil science, but I use what I learned in my degree program all the time.

[xocet]

31. Of course, more science majors/scientists are needed....

The more people who truly understand the world and what limits humanity faces, the better.

Hopefully, with more educated citizens, our democracy can improve its response to issues that are best addressed by scientific means - global climate change, sustainable energy, etc. Also hopefully, with more educated citizens, our democracy can avoid basing policy decisions on superstitious beliefs.

The focus of the article on wage data is entirely wrong - the point of education and of having universities is to better address the problems that face humanity. The real question should be why our society does not educate more scientists - after all, no one individual or small group can guarantee that he, she or they know the correct way to address all problems and no one individual can possibly conscientiously attempt more than a few different approaches to solving any given problem.

Lastly, since education is being discussed, it is important to state that a university education up to a Ph. D. should be the birthright of any US citizen - should he or she choose to follow that path and be able to complete the academic work necessary to achieve it. The USA only hurts itself by treating the education of its youth and its youth (by way of student loans) as shabbily as it does.

[gopiscrap]

39. No we don't we need more social science majors

Last edited Wed Sep 25, 2013, 10:18 PM - Edit history (1)

people who have empathy

[Gravitycollapse]

43. Are "hard" scientists not capable of empathy?

That's a strange assumption.

[liberal_at_heart]

42. My dream job is to be a biologist. If I could get my anxiety under control I would absolutely become

a biologist. We should be fighting for higher wages and more government funding for K-12 and universities, not giving up on careers that people want to have.

[kentauros]

46. We need to emphasize the vocational arts again.

Because without the builders and makers, what are all these new scientists going to use for their tools? How many astronomers build the massive telescopes they use, or the microscopes used by biologists and others? Scientists don't build; they discover. But they can't discover nearly as much without the proper tools.