That STEM degree.

[Celista]

I will preface this by saying I do not have a STEM degree, although I did take premed classes and hated every single one of them.

On topic: is the STEM PhD worth it? Or, is STEM worth it at all?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...charts/273339/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...it_really.html

http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2015/02/...ntent=20150227

Universities have continued to churn out Ph.D.s who, as postdocs, provide cheap labor for the campus labs that draw much-needed research funding, but are given little help in moving on to jobs in which they can teach or run their own labs.

The result? Biomedical postdocs — according to the National Institutes of Health, there may be as many as 68,000 of them — are clogging a job market that almost certainly can't absorb them all. A new report issued by the National Academy of Sciences and other groups recommend that universities and other institutions address it by reducing the number of postdocs they produce, raising starting salaries to a minimum of $50,000 and limiting postdoctoral service to a maximum of five years.

The document also calls on universities to tell their graduate students about the state of the job market and help them train for, and enter, alternative careers in such areas as science writing, science policy and consulting.

From the NPR article: "Only one in five Ph.D.s in science, engineering and health end up with faculty teaching or research positions within five years of completing their degrees, according to the National Science Foundation." Only one in 10 biology PhDs will be able to obtain an academic job.

Have an undergraduate degree in a STEM field? 75 percent of people who have a degree in a STEM field don't have jobs in STEM occupations.

Is the STEM job advantage a myth?

The claims about STEM shortages come from employers, along with their lobbyists and trade associations, claims Michael Teitelbaum, who a fellow in science policy at Harvard University and a senior advisor at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

The tech industry can benefit if Americans -- and more importantly -- politicians believe that America is falling behind in producing highly skilled workers. While claiming that there is a STEM shortage, industry groups have lobbied Congress to allow more foreign IT workers to work in the U.S.

"This is all about industry wanting to lower wages," Norman Matloff, a professor of computer science at the University of California at Davis, told the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Thoughts/questions? Thought this might be an interesting place to discuss this topic considering that there are a lot of people who post on these forums who are in school or are working in a STEM field.

[Deleted]

You also have to consider that a lot of engineers also move up into positions that aren't STEM, I don't think the 75% of all graduates have a non-STEM job as their first.

[Celista]

You also have to consider that a lot of engineers also move up into positions that aren't STEM, I don't think the 75% of all graduates have a non-STEM job as their first.

I think part of the discrepancy is that some STEM majors go from undergraduate school -> med school, and physicians are not considered STEM professionals by the US Census Bureau.

I do have a handful of friends working outside of their STEM field. One works in finance, one is in consulting and the last one (who has a biology Phd) is selling random shit on Ebay for a living.

[spanishninja]

the biggest thing that needs to change is that students going into these fields, especially at the graduate level, are actually exposed to the non-research opportunities associated with STEM degrees. I initially went into grad school thinking I wanted to do academic research for the rest of my life, and it wasn't until I dropped out of the Ph D program and took an MS that I realized that I was so much better in an industry setting. I see people in biotech and pharma entering managerial tracks with masters or even just bachelors degrees, and that taught me how little Ph D is in a great majority of STEM occupations. I recently broke free to R&D altogether to become a Field Application Scientist (with healthy bump in pay and perks), and the only regret I have is that I didn't make it sooner.

[Independent voter]

A STEM degree will get you Canadian citizenship.

[Celista]

A STEM degree will get you Canadian citizenship.

A master's degree in any field will pretty much guarantee you Canadian citizenship. Bonus points if you've taken a couple of French classes.

[Cosmic Janitor]

Industry pays better and in general: If you want to be rich don't waste your time with STEM fields, there are easier ways.

- - - Updated - - -

A master's degree in any field will pretty much guarantee you Canadian citizenship. Bonus points if you've taken a couple of French classes.

Do they really consider a master in "something with media" a bonus point? <<

[Celista]

Industry pays better and in general: If you want to be rich don't waste your time with STEM fields, there are easier ways.

- - - Updated - - -


Do they really consider a master in "something with media" a bonus point? <<

Like what? I have some ideas, but I'm just wondering what your answer will be.

And yes, for the skilled worker program at least...there's a points system. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigra...ly-factors.asp

[kendro1200]

I find it interesting that the data point used was largely biomedical degrees.
Biologists are a dime a dozen, they have been for decades. Biology is one of the easier areas of study to get a degree, and so when people hear the blanket STEM term used for STEM shortage, they pick the path of least resistance, thinking it'll still land employment.

I do think that a lot of employers are setting their entry level position bar far too high for recent graduates, to an extent that it almost requires higher education. There are a lot of engineering and research firms that for their entry level positions requires years of experience of skill sets that a fresh graduate student couldn't dream of having. For instance, my dad got a Bachelor's degree in EE back in the mid 80's. He had a job right out of school, and he later took some additional graduate studies on the side all the way to the early 90's to get his Master's and he almost completed a PhD. His first job using his degree was with IBM doing some design work. His degree was for the work he applied for, but his degree still essentially over qualified him for the work. The entry level position was something that got work done for a company but also gave opportunity for the employer to test the employee and find out where to best place him and train him for future projects. Fast forward twenty years, and my dad was talking to me about how much the industry has changed. The entry level positions to where he works at now, where they want to give fresh college graduate quality salaries, has a long list of requirements that are not feasible for college graduates to have, it'd require a post-graduate degree and the experience that comes from those degrees.
This basically highlights one of two scenarios: The educational system needs a drastic reform that slacks off less in the early years, so that in the first four years of college, students get the training for their specific field that they require, rather than learning the theory of the field and then hope to learn how to apply that theory after they are employed.
The other scenario is that employers are becoming too greedy, looking for fast and cheap solutions to their current problems, entirely unwillingly to invest in building their own workforce.

Considering the predatory hiring practices and the high turn over rate of employment within the US, I'd say it's probably the latter than former. Although the former could stand some loving as well.

[THE Bigzoman]

Dear Princess Celistia,

Today I learned that most things stressing STEMS is to prepare for upcoming technological advancements and the transition from where we are now to what economists call a knowledge economy.

It is thus, nonsensical to use current market conditions as a counterexample to these speculations since they haven't happend entirely yet.

Your faithful student,

Bigzoman.

[Cosmic Janitor]

Like what? I have some ideas, but I'm just wondering what your answer will be.

And yes, for the skilled worker program at least...there's a points system. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigra...ly-factors.asp

To get anywhere you usually need economic knowledge. While it isn't unheard of that someone with a STEM degree gets to a management position, usually that STEMN knowledge isn't the reason for that, it's networking and often subsequent attainment of econiomic knowledge. A STEM degree usually gets you a well payed job which let's you get by above the average, but actually reaching soaring hights is something very few people manage. Chances are probably better for people who studied economics, thought that is far from a guarantee either, you can probably land lower than STEM fields as wekll, but you also have higher chances of getting further.

Also the biggest con of STEM fields: You have to deal with twats who know jack shit but are the ones making the descision - completly disconnected from reality.

[Celista]

Ooo I got a letter.

Dear Princess Celistia,

Everyone refers to me by the MLP show and I named my druid alt Celista back in like...2009 :/ Maybe I should change my avatar.

Anyway, the term "knowledge economy" could pretty much be applied to any job/field that isn't manual labor or factory work. The data is based off of people who have graduated with their degree already.

What I suspect happened is that market forces are driving people into STEM but for at least some fields (and particularly academic work) supply is starting to exceed demand.

I read some similar stories regarding nursing/graphic design (since graphic design was the hot career field a few years ago), and that the economy is driving up educational requirements. http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/04/...ains.html?rh=1

- - - Updated - - -

To get anywhere you usually need economic knowledge.

I have an undergraduate degree in finance with an econ minor. Econ job opportunities are pretty meh...hence why I went to graduate school (unrelated to my undergraduate degree, though).

Finance is an enjoyable career field but overall opportunities are more limited than say an accounting degree.

[THE Bigzoman]

Ooo I got a letter.


Everyone refers to me by the MLP show and I named my druid alt Celista back in like...2009 :/ Maybe I should change my avatar.

Anyway, the term "knowledge economy" could pretty much be applied to any job/field that isn't manual labor or factory work. The data is based off of people who have graduated with their degree already.

What I suspect happened is that market forces are driving people into STEM but for at least some fields (and particularly academic work) supply is starting to exceed demand.

I read some similar stories regarding nursing/graphic design (since graphic design was the hot career field a few years ago), and that the economy is driving up educational requirements. http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/04/...ains.html?rh=1

- - - Updated - - -


I have an undergraduate degree in finance with an econ minor. Econ job opportunities are pretty meh.

I was actually going to trim down on the letter a bit because I thought it came off as antagonistic when I just meant it to be playful. I'm glad that you appear to have gotten what it was meant for (just some late night fun.)

That said, whether or not stressing STEMS was/is a good idea is yet to be seen. It pretty much comes down to technological advancement, new innovation, and the role labor with a good amount of human capital will play.

I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if advancement isn't sufficient enough to meet labor supply increases. It's the same shit i'm walking into when i go to law school next year.

[Celista]

I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if advancement isn't sufficient enough to meet labor supply increases. It's the same shit i'm walking into when i go to law school next year.

Law's been bad for awhile now. If you like law then it's worth the investment.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles...hool-graduates

Try to get on law review and don't waste your summers and you'll be fine.

[THE Bigzoman]

Law's been bad for awhile now. If you like law then it's worth the investment.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles...hool-graduates

Try to get on law review and don't waste your summers and you'll be fine.

Do you think it particularly helps that I don't wanna get into biglaw and want to help those who cannot afford legal representation?

[Cosmic Janitor]

I have an undergraduate degree in finance with an econ minor. Econ job opportunities are pretty meh...hence why I went to graduate school (unrelated to my undergraduate degree, though).

Finance is an enjoyable career field but overall opportunities are more limited than say an accounting degree.

I just mashed all even remotly economic related fields into that statement, for the lack of a better word. And I already gave the caveat that the overall risk in these fields is higher, but so are the chances. For the average factory worker any job in a STEM field at accademic level is probably already far up, but the reality is that the ladder reaches way further and obscure scientific knowledge usually doesn't get you there. I'm purposfully exclude the Jobs and Gates of this world, because of all the people out there, very few will ever have that kind of luck.

[Celista]

Do you think it particularly helps that I don't wanna get into biglaw and want to help those who cannot afford legal representation?

Find out if that's really what you want to do first because the pay is poop (http://www.nalp.org/july14research), although you'll find a job. Also there's no reason you can't change directions later...a friend of mine started out clerking for a supreme court judge in Arizona, then worked at a public defender office in Alaska, went to NYU to get an LLM in taxation before she joined a firm in Anchorage that specializes in wills/probate/estate planning.

Social work is a much better career field for helping the underprivileged, but there's lots of burnout there too.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It's going to depend upon which field within the STEM spectrum. Engineers and medical (not so much STEM) are in high demand everywhere.

Earth and Physical sciences you need a masters to get a job in the private sector. Getting a PhD many will consider you "overqualified" and not hire you, forcing you to seek employment in research and teaching, but professor jobs are short due to government cuts to grants.

The Environmental field is a budding and new area (relatively) and it's rapidly increasing in relevancy. However its relative newness means that even a bachelor's can get you a nice job. However in a few decades it might join its brethren in requiring a masters.

[Deleted]

While the OP raises a lot of interesting points, I don't really feel like they fit together in a way that makes a compelling case against STEM (or for it either, but that didn't seem to be the purpose). I am a bit biased on the matter though, so I'll acknowledge that up front. I got a degree in marketing first, struggled to find a job, went back, got a degree in computer science, now doing much better. So I do think STEM is worth it.

On topic: is the STEM PhD worth it? Or, is STEM worth it at all?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...charts/273339/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...it_really.html

http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2015/02/...ntent=20150227



From the NPR article: "Only one in five Ph.D.s in science, engineering and health end up with faculty teaching or research positions within five years of completing their degrees, according to the National Science Foundation." Only one in 10 biology PhDs will be able to obtain an academic job.

I think this is more a problem with the current educational climate in general. Everyone is told they must have an undergraduate degree now, enrollment in Universities has been rising steadily for decades, however research funding is not rising at the same rate. Universities don't pay these research positions with tuition dollars, researchers are responsible for getting their own grants that pay for these post-doc positions. More researchers fighting over the same pot of grant money means fewer and lower paying research positions.

The problem is also that for students that have pushed right through from their undergraduate to their doctorate without ever leaving academia, research seems like the only option. They've never been outside of academia, and from my own experience(no PhD, but work in medical research) a lot of them are uncomfortable with the idea of moving to industry as it is a very different world. However the 1 in 5 to 1 in 10 number actually seems pretty reasonable to me in terms of who is able to stay in academia. Shouldn't we be educating people in order to produce something, not simply to continue doing more research? If all of the academics with all of the education are only doing research, who is actually turning that research into products? I know a lot of researchers are depressed that there aren't enough academic positions available, but from a societal standpoint, a 1 to 5 ratio of research to production seems fairly reasonable to me. We need these academics to get outside of academia and help turn the research into reality.

Have an undergraduate degree in a STEM field? 75 percent of people who have a degree in a STEM field don't have jobs in STEM occupations.

Is the STEM job advantage a myth?

I think this portion about trying to paint the drive for STEM graduates as a conspiracy to drive down salaries is a bit misguided. It's not that I think it's entirely untrue, just not as villainous as it sounds. At the moment the tech industry is one of the fastest growing industries the US has. However it is also very specialized, and finding the right person is often incredibly difficult(again, I speak from experience, I worked in recruiting for an IT company after I finished my marketing degree). This leads to companies going in one of two directions; paying incredibly high salaries to find someone with the required skillset, or trying to hire foreign workers that will work for less money(either on H1B visas, or just farming the work out to another country). It would be nice if all STEM graduates could make the $100-200/hour rates I was offering for difficult to find skillsets, but that's not tenable for a lot of small or start-up companies. So while Google or Apple can pay that kind of money for their programming rockstars, for the tech sector to keep growing, it does legitimately need more educated graduates. This isn't an evil scheme to push STEM graduates into minimum wage positions, it's an acknowledgement that at the moment, demand outstrips supply and we need more educated workers.

Finally, the part about 75% of people not working in STEM occupations seems incredibly misleading, especially after looking at the article. I would really need more details about how they are categorizing this. For example a significant number of the computer, mathematics, and statistics graduates end up in the "non-STEM" fields of Sales, Education, Management, and Business/Finance. They specify non-STEM management, but unless they are also talking about non-STEM Sales, Education, and Finance, this seems like a stretch. Especially the last one, how is Finance not a STEM field? Which finance companies do not use math and statistics? And is there really an epidemic of computer science graduates teaching fine arts? I feel like this is heavily skewed by using strict category definitions to ignore how a STEM education is useful in a lot of fields that aren't necessarily categorized as STEM.

[Celista]

While the OP raises a lot of interesting points, I don't really feel like they fit together in a way that makes a compelling case against STEM (or for it either, but that didn't seem to be the purpose).

To be clear, I'm not trying to argue one way or another regarding STEM. I read a few articles on the subject and have friends complaining about academic jobs and postdoc work, and with the recent adjunct strike + the NPR article I thought it would be an appropriate time to make a thread on the subject.

I'm not sure why finance isn't categorized as a STEM field, it's heavily quantitative at the graduate level.