On Sat, 6 Mar 1999, Rich Lemert wrote:
> Arthur Sowers wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 6 Mar 1999, Rich Lemert wrote:
> >
> > > Why? If the statistic is reported as "income for people holding
> > > a PhD", then why do you want to neglect part of the population
> > > you're claiming to measure?
> >
> > I suspect that the statistics are leaving out the PhDs who are poorly
> > paid, have poor job security and are including those who are doing well or
> > even better than well and that is because the former are hard to find and
> > the latter are easy to find.
>> Are they? Have you maintained your affiliations with the various
> biology or medical organizations that you presumably were a member
> of?
Why should I?
> Have you kept the NSF and/or NIH current on your address?
Oh, I'm supposed to send them a card as if they keep track of all of this?
As if they would be interested in keeping track of an ex-scientist,
ex-professor?
> I've seen enough people complain about what they perceive as a
> limited benefit of e.g. ACS membership when they're active in the
> field to realize that many of them are going to drop their
> membership whenever they're no longer actively doing chemistry.
> Thus it might be as hard to find these people as it is those who
> are doing poorly.
I have never seen ANY announcement to the extent that "Hey all you people
who have left science.... keep us posted because we want to track you
accurately."
> >
> > Also, it is misleading to report statistics for "income for people holding
> > a PhD" because it implies falsely that if one gets a PhD then they are
> > likely to get an income reported by those statistics.
>> When one gets a PhD related job, then by definition they are
> "likely" to get a salary reported by these statistics. This doesn't
> mean they are likely to get the median or the average figure, but
> they are likely to get a figure somewhere on the range.
The operative discontinuity between what I said and what you said is that
you used the phrase "...PhD related job...." and I used the phrase
"...people holding a PhD...." We've been over this many times. The
statistics that need to be discussed are:
1. How many PhD holders are in jobs requiring their degree?
2 What is the salary of that population?
3. How long are those PhD holders in careers requiring their degree?
4. For the PhDs who are in jobs not requiring their degree, how many got
those jobs because they "had to"?
And, there are other useful questions to ask, too.
> This does
> have its own implied assumption, that these people will get a job.
> However, that's a different set of statistics. You appear to feel
> it is more honest to total up everyone's salaries and generate a
> total average income.
I don't "...appear to feel...." I just gave my four questions above.
> I don't, because I feel it buries two entirely
> different sets of data into one number. I feel it is more honest
> to report the salary figure for those working, and provide separate
> statistics on how many are actually working.
See my prior comments.
> > > Also, you are making an implied assumption that everyone that has
> > > a job "unrelated" to their PhD has taken that job only because they
> > > were unable to get a job "in their field".
> >
> > And you are glossing over the fact that a lot of people really have taken
> > unrelated work _because_ they could not get a job in their field.
>> Not really. I'm just pointing out that the world is not an
> either/or situation. My statement does not preclude your statement,
> It merely points out the fact that there is a lot more to the
> story than _just_ people being forced out. You note that I did
> not provide any estimate of the relative numbers of those forced
> out versus those leaving voluntarily because I don't have those
> figures.
Well, I am interested in those figures, and I care about them, and I am
concerned for a lot of those people because they should be treated better
by the "system."
> > > There are many reasons
> > > why one might change careers.
> >
> > I've heard from as many people who couldn't find a job relevant to their
> > training and goals as from people who, after completing their training,
> > decided that they didn't _like_ what they trained for. I don't like the
> > phrase "many reasons why one might change careers" because it does not
> > take into account the "why" one might want to change careers.
>> Excuse me, but what is the word 'why' doing in the statement, then?
We've been over this before, many times. Its important to understand a
voluntary change in career compared to an involuntary change in career
(particularly if it is unrelated to one's competance). One involuntarily
(=forced) change in career situation is being discussed among computer
programmers when they get older than about 40 and can't find a job in
their area of competance and experience because employers are biased in
favoer of the 20-39 age group. Why you can't understand situations like
that is beyond me. There have been several posts here on s.r.c which
discuss this and you have given little or no response to them.
Art Sowers
http://scientistlifeboat.com
> Rich Lemert
>>
