Where are all the Science Majors? (bachelor's, PhD, skills, doctorate)

[Member1]

Where have all the science majors gone? - Jun. 9, 2010

[LauraC]

I'd look at who is teaching science and math in the lower grades. I'm betting that some of them are other subject teachers pressed into science/math duty as an alternative to losing a job and filling an opening. I'd also like to bet that most elementary school teachers did not major in science or math. You can't instill a love for a subject when you never had it yourself. I could be wrong.

[Lou347]

more than half of those with bachelor of science degrees still enter careers having nothing to do with science.

This is just the same old bull crap. There is no shortage of scientists as the above supports. Science is a terrible career path that requires years of difficult and intense training for worse than blue collar wages and benefits. That was why I left the field and why many science majors desperately look for careers in unrelated areas.

That is the true problem. It is not that americans aren't smart enough, aren't hard working enough, or science has a bad PR image. It's that people in general want at least a minimal middle class lifestyle and benefits and science can only provide economic misery and punishment. Anyone smart enough to get a science degree can do far better for themselves elsewhere. If America wants more scientists offer them a reasonable career. Don't just publish these whiny alarmist articles and blindly call for more scientists and push recruitment. People are getting wise to it.

[MSchemist80]

I pretty much agree with Lou. This article is claiming there is a shortage of scientists and places the blame on the education system when the true problem is american companies.

American companies treat scientists like trash and pay them worse than blue collar workers. A science career is full of insecurity and economic woes and provides a very poor quality of life in general.

Also, staying employed may mean moving thousands of miles from home every 5 or so years and living in areas of the coutry you don't wish to.

So a career in science offers very poor salary and benefits, no job security, and forces you to live like a nomad wreeking havoc on your personal life. Sounds attractive doesn't it?

[hindsight2020]

Originally Posted by MSchemist80

I pretty much agree with Lou. This article is claiming there is a shortage of scientists and places the blame on the education system when the true problem is american companies.

American companies treat scientists like trash and pay them worse than blue collar workers. A science career is full of insecurity and economic woes and provides a very poor quality of life in general.

Also, staying employed may mean moving thousands of miles from home every 5 or so years and living in areas of the coutry you don't wish to.

So a career in science offers very poor salary and benefits, no job security, and forces you to live like a nomad wreeking havoc on your personal life. Sounds attractive doesn't it?

Bingo!

Tack on the majority of engineering disciplines to that list too. Perma-nomad chasing contracts out kingdom come. No thanks. Wife's about to divorce me if we even attempt another move for a mere "yob". And make no mistake, these are not careers, these are " yobs". No permanency, no benefits, nothing. Just a paycheck. Like mowing lawns for the rest of your life. No vesting.

And society decries that we're "short" on scientists?! Well let them do it! I got two of these pieces of paper, and I refuse to self-knowingly break my back for a pot of gold that doesn't exist. This article is so off-mark the bombs fell off the fence.. As soon as the kids wise up to the compensatory realities of the field and they depart the cocoon of parental subsidy it hits them like a ton of brick and most say ' eff that'.

[zz4guy]

Originally Posted by Lou347

This is just the same old bull crap. There is no shortage of scientists as the above supports. Science is a terrible career path that requires years of difficult and intense training for worse than blue collar wages and benefits. That was why I left the field and why many science majors desperately look for careers in unrelated areas.

That is the true problem. It is not that americans aren't smart enough, aren't hard working enough, or science has a bad PR image. It's that people in general want at least a minimal middle class lifestyle and benefits and science can only provide economic misery and punishment. Anyone smart enough to get a science degree can do far better for themselves elsewhere. If America wants more scientists offer them a reasonable career. Don't just publish these whiny alarmist articles and blindly call for more scientists and push recruitment. People are getting wise to it.

What? Did you FINISH your science degree?

The top 10 highest paid careers today are in fields that are math and science intensive. Mainly some kind of engineering or medical field.

I'm an electrical engineer and had to move twice in the last 8 years but I enjoy MUCH more job security than the average political science major. Not to mention at least double the pay.

[Schrodinger's Kittens]

I have a bachelor's degree in chemistry and work experience, so I feel a little qualified to comment on this topic.

There's no shortage of scientists, really. Lou347 is right. But there are also a lot of reasons people don't go into science, starting with the fact that in grade school, you're a nerd if you work hard at your studies, and nobody wants to be a nerd. And make no mistake, science is hard work. What separates science from everything else is that there is only one right answer to a question. Everything else is wrong, period. The comment was made in the article that there are 50 MBAs and 18 lawyers for every scientist who graduates. Both of those professions are the antithesis of science: alternate explanations and creative accounting are abundant in finance and lawyering.

When scientists graduate and enter the workforce, there are a lot of bench-level jobs out there, just like there are low-paying dead-end jobs in business. Science has a few additional obstacles, though. Wages are kept artificially low by hiring foreign scientists via the H1B visa process. A cynical person would think the calls for more US-born scientists are simply an attempt to flood the market with cheap brainpower so US scientists will take a job, any job, even with downward pressure on wages.

Science does also have PR problems. Managers in companies that include laboratory facilities generally see their scientific staff as robots and don't give them the opportunity to participate in corporate activity, by which I mean give them input into the policies and processes that the scientists are a part of. (Here I speak from personal experience.)

There is frequently minimal career mobility, either upward or sideways. One goes from being a junior bench scientist to a senior bench scientist and then maybe a manager. But there can be only so many managers, so either find a job at another company or plan on working at the bench for a long, long time. And in this business environment, crosstraining is nonexistent: it costs money, is inefficient, and businesses figure workers will leave eventually anyway. That, of course, starts the vicious circle of "If they're not going to invest in me, why shouldn't I take something better if it comes along?" vs. "Why should we train you if you're just going to leave?"

Another place scientists get trapped is in academia. Many people in the sciences have the goal of becoming a professor and take multiple low-paying post-doctoral appointments. After a certain point you become a permanent postdoc or a nontenured lecturer, again at low wages for the amount of time, money, and energy you put in to your education.

At the bachelor's level, the best way to make a good living is to find a niche, the same as any other profession. Some people who go into science do it because they love some aspect of it, and not for the money. Most people are more financially oriented and that is not a slam, I certainly include myself in that category. I was fortunate in that my first job was at a nuclear facility (which paid well) and when I was laid off from that job I went into forensic science (which also paid well).

I am currently back in school, getting my doctorate, because I didn't want to be a dead-end bench chemist forever. I'm not sure what I'll do after graduation, but I know it won't be run-of-the-mill bench work.

[prolifik]

[url]http://www.miller-mccune.com/science/the-real-science-gap-16191/[/url]

[anadyr21]

For every new Ph.D. in the physical sciences, according to the Aerospace Industries Association, the U.S. graduates 50 new MBAs and 18 lawyers

Speaking for Biology, there's a reason for that. A PhD takes 5-7 years AFTER 4 years of college PLUS a few years postdoc in many cases. It's darn near 10 years AFTER college graduation until some real money comes along (based on the amount of years of training). There's no guarentee that you'll make any decent money even after that! Law school is what, 3 years; an MBA 2-3 years (not sure of the numbers; correct me if I'm wrong)?

more than half of those with bachelor of science degrees still enter careers having nothing to do with science.

I'm curious as to how many jobs are actually available, and what the pay is. I considered a Bio BS to be a stepping stone to med, pharm, and dental school, or a PhD. And let's be honest; there's a heck of a lot of college STEM graduates that have no business in their fields, or are unable to get into med school, etc.

Finding new STEM teachers has become especially urgent

Is it really? At what level? There's an overabundance of Bio PhD's and MS degrees adjuncting at multiple colleges just to earn a living wage. At the high school level, someone with an education degree can take a few basic bio or chemistry classes and be qualified to teach STEM classes.

[user_id]

Posts on this always result in some disgruntled science majors claiming that because they did not find good work then there is no shortage in "science". This is of course fundamentally odd, a bunch of "scientists" trying to generalizing from their experience in a single field (and sub-field) of science to STEM in general. You'd think someone who majored in science would be the last to make such fundamental error in reasoning, but I guess not.

Regardless, there are no generic jobs in "science", there are only particular jobs in STEM related fields. Some of the fields are "hot" and have a shortage of qualified workers, some are not and have plenty of workers. It is not enough to simply get a degree in science to get a good job, rather you have to gain the skills that the job market is actually interested in.

Also there has been significant grade inflation (and hence the devaluation of college programs) over the years so a degree does not signal what it use to, on the hand businesses rely on actual skills and education and not on mere pieces of paper. Those from top science programs have little trouble finding good jobs.

Educational is bad across the board in this country, its not just STEM but liberal arts as well. Of course, it is usually the issues with STEM that make the news.