The STEM Crisis Is a Myth

[Mormolyce]

Seriously as someone with a Science degree, who knows heaps of people with Science, Eng, Tech degrees and careers, I don't know what the fuck people are smoking when they harp on about "STEM". If you want to make a lot of money, do not get a Science degree. I wouldn't recommend Engineering either. Only Technology if you pick the right highly specialised field. Otherwise, get into business or something, or just get into the field and start earning.

As for Mathematics, why is that even in there? Is that a joke? I have a Maths degree, it's worth about as much as Arts History.

[BiggestNoob]

Yep.

When looking at the valley, there isnt a real shortage of software engineers, but a lack of senior level software engineers.

That reminds me of some discussion on this article earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13562277.

As for Mathematics, why is that even in there? Is that a joke? I have a Maths degree, it's worth about as much as Arts History.

The money isn't in theoretical math unless you get a cushy gig at a university. It's purely academic.

A basic study of math is pretty useful in quite a few careers, but you don't need a pure math degree to go that far (even though I have one).

Applied math is quite valuable, though. Quantitative analysis, actuarial sciences, etc.

[NED funded]

If you want a job go to data analysis. Data science and finance go well in hand and you'll be making a good buck.

[Macaquerie]

I read new non-fiction, but that's not art.

You don't think there's any art in writing non-fiction? A good history book can be far more compelling and immersive than any novel, because you can pack in all the battles, human drama, and slice of life elements you want without ever having to worry about continuity cock ups.

[sarahtasher]

Ranting about black studies degree and women studies degrees (completely useless degree, agreed) is not going to magically make a programming degree from DeVry more palatable to employers.

- - - Updated - - -

The only new art that isn't worthless rehashing is that which is enabled by STEM. Such as VR, which isn't quite there yet tech-wise.

For the love of God, VR Death Star runs or VR godwaful games are a perfectly legit product, but that's a little far to call it ''STEM'' (I would call it ''a fad'') and ''art'', jésus...

[belfpala]

Modern art is worthless rehashing.

Prints this on a large canvas, hangs it in a gallery, sells it for $1 million.

Thanks!

[Machismo]

The problem with the IT field, is that a lot of degrees are rather worthless. For-profit colleges pushed degree programs that many employers simply don't give a shit about. Specialized degrees limit a person's options, and often turn employers away. Almost any IT job is going to consist almost entirely of on-the-job training, because there's very little carry over from one's previous job.

When it comes to mathematics degrees, I think we end up with a lot of feast-or-famine results for jobs. Some people do damn well, while others are left on their asses.

[BiggestNoob]

Prints this on a large canvas, hangs it in a gallery, sells it for $1 million.

Thanks!

Isn't that basically how it works though? Modern art is basically all satire or "shining a light" on something, even though you have to have it explained to you and even then it still doesn't make sense.

I quite like the story of someone's "art" exhibit being literal trash and a janitor accidentally throwing it away: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SQfgYOIUh4

Almost any IT job is going to consist almost entirely of on-the-job training, because there's very little carry over from one's previous job.

My understanding is that this is source of one of the biggest problems. Really strong people in IT are able to learn and adapt quickly. There's also a trend today of "everything that is old is new again" meaning people who actually are 50-60 are seeing trends re-hashed (so just how valuable is their insight and wouldn't they be the quickest to learn things?).

Unfortunately, many employers try to find candidates that already know what they want them to know, rather than people who can prove they're smart enough to learn quickly enough that their ramp-up time isn't too expensive for the business. There's a tough spot to be in for a company. If you have a high turnover or aren't a desirable place to work at (there's a correlation here), you can afford less and less ramp-up time. In general, the longer it takes someone to get acclimated in the job, the bigger the risk of having that person never actually produce value for the business.

Personally I find that just a side effect of the stagnation -- it's easier to just reject applicants than it is to train someone (and often cheaper). If people were actually paid well without being in a niche-of-the-year technology, they would be seen less as a commodity and more as just a smart person, and things like introductory salaries would be worth their complication.

[sarahtasher]

Just one question for people harping ''STEM'' all the time (I find it quite rich for the record to put engineers alongside videogame programmers...)

Do you think that videogame design degrees are actually helpful ? (I specifically say videogame design degree)

[Kontinuum]

ITT: STEMtards gonna STEMtard

[Macaquerie]

I don't think you know the difference between someone who took 6 years to get an engineering degree with a 3.0 gpa from some state university and someone who likely knows more as a freshmen at a top 20ish university. If you haven't interacted with many STEM majors throughout college, you likely can't comprehend the vast difference in someone that's an incompetent coder and someone that knew every major coding language by their sophomore year.

Same thing for math. We had a girl start crying during her real analysis final exam. She left but the professor said as long as she attempts it it'll be fine. She got a C without ever making more than a 15 on an exam. That's out of 100. She got the same undergraduate degree as I did. Of course I doubt she'll ever be able to ask that professor for a letter of recommendation.

Over saturation of the market with incompetent people because of decreasing standards of for profit universities is definitely a problem. It's similar to how a high school degree became worthless because you basically get one for just showing up.

The way I see it, the training you can get in higher education is more of a formality. If you're someone that has a good grasp of problem solving and can think on an abstract level, then you can pretty much pick up anything with enough exposure and experience, but if you're not, it's always going to be a struggle. And all of those skills have to be trained much earlier on in development, you can't simply make someone into a critical thinker at college age.

[yamix]

I've seen a lot of companies looking for people with experience in very specific sets of applications that don't always even go together in most environments, or just very specific industry applications. We have trouble finding people with carrier grade VoIP experience, for instance.

Rather than trying to invest in more junior people, it seems everyone wants their own unicorn that will fix everything and has the specific experience to prove it. When they can't find it it's a STEM shortage rather than unreasonable expectations.

[Garnier Fructis]

And all of those skills have to be trained much earlier on in development, you can't simply make someone into a critical thinker at college age.

Though it might not be apparent that someone is good at critical thinking until they hit college.

[BiggestNoob]

Over saturation of the market with incompetent people because of decreasing standards of for profit universities is definitely a problem. It's similar to how a high school degree became worthless because you basically get one for just showing up.

This does weigh the numbers down a bit, but people in more senior positions with a proven track record of being highly productive and smart tend to be able to command pretty massive salaries, they don't just have to hope they luck out with a unicorn.

I have noticed there are a lot of entry-level positions and a lot of people who aren't even qualified for those, which may explain why the entry-level salary is so low, specifically in software engineering. I don't quite understand why most of the sysops/IT admin positions aren't paid well.

I've always been interested in the math behind art and there's also been a very strong connection. Even today, all of those forms of art you mentioned wouldn't be possible without someone at some point with a strong ability in math creating the objects needed.

The demo scene is easily one of my favorite things in computing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB0vBmiTr6o

[PC2]

Seriously as someone with a Science degree, who knows heaps of people with Science, Eng, Tech degrees and careers, I don't know what the fuck people are smoking when they harp on about "STEM". If you want to make a lot of money, do not get a Science degree. I wouldn't recommend Engineering either. Only Technology if you pick the right highly specialised field. Otherwise, get into business or something, or just get into the field and start earning.

As for Mathematics, why is that even in there? Is that a joke? I have a Maths degree, it's worth about as much as Arts History.

Quantitative business is also respectable. Good businesses should make their profit and product objectively better(more utility). The few qualitative tactics like putting holes in brand new jeans to make them fashionable is only encouraging irrationality.

[skitzin]

Oh not this article again. Last time this came about it was shown the author got roasted for how silly his explanations were.

In summary:

- He writes that the shortage was manufactured by a cabal of special interests who “cherry pick” data to keep themselves in business and depress STEM wages. Yet he also cherry picks his own data using information from anecdotes and a handful of studies that support his point but leaves aside the mountain of data that demonstrate a shortage.

- He fails to understand the shift in the US economy from an industrial economy to an economy focused more squarely on technological innovation.

- Charette does not address the high demand for a large category of STEM workers: those who have two-year degrees or certificates rather than bachelor’s degrees or higher. In fact, he barely acknowledges that such workers exist. Which is oddly enough where the shortage is really apparent.

- Another major flaw in Charette’s argument is that he overlooks the growing demand for STEM skills beyond traditional STEM jobs. Basically in his mind if you aren't directly employed in a STEM field then your skills are going to waste - which is not true, not at all. The NSF. ESA and Georgetown all comfirm that the average STEM educated person working in a non-STEM field gets ~12% more pay per year. I'll even add in that 1/3 of the S&P 500 CEOs all majored in engineering.

- His complaints about a lack of decent foundations in STEM fields at an undergraduate level is also not a point against the demand but rather a point that various education areas need to up their game to provide appropriate levels of education.

[Macaquerie]

Quantitative business is also respectable. Good businesses should make their profit and product objectively better(more utility). The few qualitative tactics like putting holes in brand new jeans to make them fashionable is only encouraging irrationality.

Is your entire life just a personification of the Little Boxes song?

[BiggestNoob]

Oh not this article again. Last time this came about it was shown the author got roasted for how silly his explanations were.

That refutation is actually terrible. The author of it has a clear COI and this is never disclosed. The majority of the claims made (in particular those refuting Charotte's claims) aren't actually cited. The ones that are cited are generally irrelevant to the discussion or are also cherry-picked. For instance, the ITIF refutation of the EPI study effectively argues that it's better for our country if we flood the market pool and suppress wages because then the products will be cheaper, which is economically unsound, and it assumes that the increase in wages do not have any effect on supply (which is provably false).

I'd like to see just one job listing for someone with STEM skills that isn't a STEM job, none were provided by her or any study she linked, yet her entire argument completely rests on that being MUCH larger than the entirety of what we can actually see in census data, and Charotte did in fact include the services industry which is where the majority of STEM work for non-STEM fields comes from (contractual service work, in general).

I don't give any credibility to HuffPo over IEEE publications in general because HuffPo has a clear agenda, but even if you look at the arguments there's nothing of substance there.

[Rasulis]

According to the US census bureau, about 30% of the US population have Bachelor's Degree or better, 12% master or better, 2% doctorate or better.

NPR compiled 4 decades worth of US college graduation data which can be seen in the graph below.

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/20...ees-in-1-graph

The graph indicates that CS/CE is not a popular field of study. CS/CE share of all Bachelor's degree ranges between 1.3% to 4.41% through the years, averaging around 2.6%.

The data shows that despite the sky high demand, crazy salaries and benefits that are being offered to software developers, US college students are just not choosing to study computer science.

Right now, if you have a CS/CE degree from an institute like CalTech, Stanford, any of the UC system schools, if you don't alreay have a job offer by your last semester, you are doing something wrong.

[NED funded]

IT can be outsourced, so no surprise there. I'm more interested in CS graduates and wages there. From what I've read there is a legit shortage.