On 17 Dec 1999, spotsnall wrote:
>> > The continuing oversupply of Ph.D.s is no accident. It is the result
> > of deliberate policy choices made by the federal government and the
> > science establishment. It has been a boon to many employers. Science
> > and engineering firms and higher-education institutions have saved on
> > wages, benefits, and commitments. But it is bad public policy.
> >
> > Edwin S. Rubenstein is an economist and Director of Research for the
> > Hudson Institute.
> >
> >
> The above article (much deleted) is right on. The concluding paragraph
> reposted above is certainly what many of us here at src have said for
> years.
>> We have an odd set of education/economic crises here in Uncle land.
> At the extremes, graduate education and public education, much is broken.
>> I think the jury is still out on undergrad education, though we clearly put
> too many through 4 year programs.
>>>
Richard B. Freeman, who authored "The Overeducated American" (Academic
Press, 1976, 218 pages and over 30 figures and charts, and 331.71 in the
Dewey Decimal system) analyzed this situation more than two decades ago
and presented the idea that even back then, there was an overproduction of
even BS degrees in many areas INCLUDING science and engineering. He had a
lot of data indicating that these jobs did not pay that well and that even
over a lifetime one did not end up making more money.
The NSF and industry have overpromoted the idea that there is a crying
need for more trained S&Es. The idea that unemployment among PhDs is 2%
seems incredible against a background unemployment of about 4%. I wold
like to know exactly what the employment landscape really is. I think that
beneath the 98% employed are a lot of guys who are not even doing science,
or science related work, lots of postdocs and other temporary jobs, those
on faculty appointments ... half are adjunct (In Delaware, it was on TV a
few weeks ago that more than half of all college teachers in the state are
temporary) with practically zero chance for a "real" faculty position.
And, when some new chair comes in, a lot of those guys are just not going
to be "renewed" the next academic year because the new chair will just
want some "fresh blood" on the staff.
Except for those jobs where there is some job security, benefits, and a
pension plan, I really can't recommend to young people that a PhD is worth
5-10 years to get, and then once you are in your 40s or a little more,
almost no one will hire you because they want a 20-something, or a
30-something.
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
----------------------------------------
| Science career information websites: |
|http://freeshell.org/~advocacy |
|http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
----------------------------------------
