The Disappearance of the Middle Class - Jacob Fisker

[photoguy]

In many if not most cases Foreign students being paid by their governments to study here because of the quality of engineering education. In general We generally get as many US students as our government will pay for.

This wasn't true in my experience. At most the higher end research universities pretty much everybody I knew was supported on their professors funding which wasn't particularly difficult to get. The real limiting factor is that many of today's US born students simply don't want to go for a phd.

 

[cho oyu]

This wasn't true in my experience. At most the higher end research universities pretty much everybody I knew was supported on their professors funding which wasn't particularly difficult to get. The real limiting factor is that many of today's US born students simply don't want to go for a phd.

At top tier schools, many of the graduate students will also have been recipients of NSF, DOD, NIH, or other government fellowships.

For those who are supported directly by their PI's grants on a research assistantship, the grants often also come from the same federal funding agencies as the fellowships. Although there is private endowment and industrial money coming in to research, in many fields the government still plays a dominant monetary support role.

 

[photoguy]

You're right that all the funding comes from government sources and it if it ultimately dried up we wouldn't have any grad students (american born or otherwise). However, I would still submit that for US students the decline in enrollments is not driven by funding but rather a lack of interest.

 

[jacob]

Did anyone read the link I posted? (Don't become a scientist) The decline of US grad students, at least in science, is driven by excess funding, not lack thereof. The excess funding creates an oversupply, again at least in science, making it very hard to do well career-wise comparable to other career choices.

Keep in mind that there's a big difference between starting your career in the hard sciences during the boom times in 1970-80 and now. Back then you could expect to get tenure shortly out of grad school. Today it's a long shot and if you get it, it'll take 10-15 years.

These days science is a calling. Not a career.

 

[cho oyu]

Did anyone read the link I posted? (Don't become a scientist) The decline of US grad students, at least in science, is driven by excess funding, not lack thereof. The excess funding creates an oversupply, again at least in science, making it very hard to do well career-wise comparable to other career choices.

Keep in mind that there's a big difference between starting your career in the hard sciences during the boom times in 1970-80 and now. Back then you could expect to get tenure shortly out of grad school. Today it's a long shot and if you get it, it'll take 10-15 years.

These days science is a calling. Not a career.

I think this is more true when discussing a purely academic career path.

From the perspective of industry and industrial research, pure chemists, biologists, and physicists can still be in strong demand. Oftentimes it will not be in the exact field of research one pursues in their graduate work, but a significant number of people who remain in academia also switch focus during post-doctoral or professorial careers for either a change of pace or to retain a high enough level of funding to support their research group.

I'm not going to argue that the dedication:remuneration ratio is higher for science than it is for business or finance, but one can still make a far better than average living. Starting doctoral level compensation in biotech from top tier schools is approaching 6 figures as a starting salary. An example from physics (say in astronomy) would be applying signal-processing knowledge to the semiconductor industry - again with overall starting compensation packages approaching six figures.

One can argue plenty of negatives for going into the sciences, but a doctorate and a reality-based career goal will allow one to become, at the least, firmly implanted within the middle class.

 

[cho oyu]

You're right that all the funding comes from government sources and it if it ultimately dried up we wouldn't have any grad students (american born or otherwise). However, I would still submit that for US students the decline in enrollments is not driven by funding but rather a lack of interest.

I'd certainly agree with that last statement. Money is available if people are willing to work hard enough.

For quite a few years, even within strong engineering universities, it has been recognized that one can make more money with less work in other fields.

 

[FIREd]

Did anyone read the link I posted? (Don't become a scientist) The decline of US grad students, at least in science, is driven by excess funding, not lack thereof. The excess funding creates an oversupply, again at least in science, making it very hard to do well career-wise comparable to other career choices.

Keep in mind that there's a big difference between starting your career in the hard sciences during the boom times in 1970-80 and now. Back then you could expect to get tenure shortly out of grad school. Today it's a long shot and if you get it, it'll take 10-15 years.

These days science is a calling. Not a career.

We clearly live on two different planets. The vast majority of my friends are scientists. They have good careers. They make upper middle class incomes. They have good benefits. I really can't relate to anything you wrote. Of course, you seem focused on academic careers whereas my friends and I work in the private sector, so our experiences are bound to be different.

 

[Nords]

We clearly live on two different planets. The vast majority of my friends are scientists. They have good careers. They make upper middle class incomes. They have good benefits. I really can't relate to anything you wrote. Of course, you seem focused on academic careers whereas my friends and I work in the private sector, so our experiences are bound to be different.

Maybe there's a difference between "pure research" scientific fields and those which more easily lend themselves to commercialization through technology-transfer patents and businesses.

Our local State U isn't Rice or Stanford or MIT, but it does a brisk business licensing technology patents (developed in its research labs) to the LLCs developed in its business school.

 

[Bestwifeever]

I wonder how the statistics re foreign vs. US students in grad school might change for 2009 and 2010--a lot of people went back to school who had been making a lot of money earlier and were laid off.

 

[Independent]

As a semi-tangent, I've seen a couple things in the last week that go like this. Interviewer talks to Chinese students and asks for career plans. Students say "Start my education here, go to the US to get an advanced degree, work in the US for a while to build up by resume, come back to China in a fast growing field to make the real money."

IMO, that's a reasonable plan for the students. But, if US taxpayers are subsidizing their education, I don't think we're getting much in return.

 

[ziggy29]

As a semi-tangent, I've seen a couple things in the last week that go like this. Interviewer talks to Chinese students and asks for career plans. Students say "Start my education here, go to the US to get an advanced degree, work in the US for a while to build up by resume, come back to China in a fast growing field to make the real money."

IMO, that's a reasonable plan for the students. But, if US taxpayers are subsidizing their education, I don't think we're getting much in return.

And it's not just that we are subsidizing their education but that's also one less admissions slot available for someone who would use the education here.

 

[FIREd]

As a semi-tangent, I've seen a couple things in the last week that go like this. Interviewer talks to Chinese students and asks for career plans. Students say "Start my education here, go to the US to get an advanced degree, work in the US for a while to build up by resume, come back to China in a fast growing field to make the real money."

IMO, that's a reasonable plan for the students. But, if US taxpayers are subsidizing their education, I don't think we're getting much in return.

Uh-Oh...

Start my education here, go to the US to get an advanced degree, work in the US for a while to build up by resume, [-]come back to China in a fast growing field to make the real money[/-] realize I can FIRE before my 40th birthday and drop from the work force...

I'm afraid I wasn't such a good investment for the US tax payer. Hopefully, I can contribute to the country in other ways...

 

[GregLee]

But, if US taxpayers are subsidizing their education, I don't think we're getting much in return.

We get to propagandize them by giving them the experience of living in a free society for 4-6 years, so when they go back home, their expectations will have changed. They can help reshape their political systems back home to fit in better with our ideas of life and thought in the 21st century. That's something we get in return.

 

[Emeritus]

Keep in mind that there's a big difference between starting your career in the hard sciences during the boom times in 1970-80 and now. Back then you could expect to get tenure shortly out of grad school. Today it's a long shot and if you get it, it'll take 10-15 years.

These days science is a calling. Not a career.

I've chaired promotion and tenure committees. The boom years in science were over by the Mid 70s, but no normal human being ever got tenure at a major research university "shortly out of Grad school"

I got tenure at the age of 32 and it was considered a sort of miracle. The average age was 35 in the sciences and 38 in the social sciences.

 

[ziggy29]

I'm afraid I wasn't such a good investment for the US tax payer. Hopefully, I can contribute to the country in other ways...

You did. You quit and freed up a j*b for someone who needed it more than you.

 

[FIREd]

You did. You quit and freed up a j*b for someone who needed it more than you.

There you go!

 

[photoguy]

And it's not just that we are subsidizing their education but that's also one less admissions slot available for someone who would use the education here.

In science and engineering, grad students are really apprentice workers and they spend very little time in classes (maybe first year or two). Generally, they are working extremely hard to advance their prof's research program.

American grad students, who have good alternative options and are paid next to nothing as a grad student, are really subsidizing the US research program.

 

[FUEGO]

And it's not just that we are subsidizing their education but that's also one less admissions slot available for someone who would use the education here.

I don't think these foreigners that come here for masters and Phd's are taking a seat from an American student. I think they are here because there are no Americans wanting to fill those seats, and the academic-industrial complex demands warm (extremely intelligent) bodies to fill those seats. Fluent English skills are secondary.

This was my take from grad school and talking to a number of professors who I worked for or collaborated with (and continue to do so now on a limited basis in private practice). They will even waive GRE requirements for a number of programs for Americans. This is at a decent engineering school (no MIT though).

 

[Independent]

I don't think these foreigners that come here for masters and Phd's are taking a seat from an American student. I think they are here because there are no Americans wanting to fill those seats, and the academic-industrial complex demands warm (extremely intelligent) bodies to fill those seats. Fluent English skills are secondary.

How much are they willing to pay for extremely intelligent Americans? Looking at pay, working conditions, and job satisfaction, how do these jobs compare to Finance, Medicine, and Law? i.e. if the academic-industrial complex "demands" these people, is it willing to pay enough to get them away from other careers?

 

[HFWR]

Simple, MBAs can [-]steal[/-] earn more money than engineers/scientists...

 

[FUEGO]

How much are they willing to pay for extremely intelligent Americans? Looking at pay, working conditions, and job satisfaction, how do these jobs compare to Finance, Medicine, and Law? i.e. if the academic-industrial complex "demands" these people, is it willing to pay enough to get them away from other careers?

I don't know what the going rate is for sure.

10 years ago as I was finishing up my undergrad I was offered a Research Assistant position to pursue a master's in engineering and then a phd if I wanted it. With the RA position I could have received a full ride (tuition, fees, books/computer stipend), employee benefits including health insurance, and a combination of paycheck and grants/scholarship totaling $30,000 per year for a nine month gig that was 20 hours per week. That is technically on top of what I would have had to do towards my thesis or dissertation, but all the grad students I knew had overlapping theses and research work. But that leaves 3 months off during the summer for working hourly on research projects, other internships, or work elsewhere.

At the time, competing salaries ranged from $36k/yr for the government to probably $45k/yr at a job in industry (for a BS holder) for 12 months at 40 hours a week.

I would have taken the RA position, except I decided to go to law school more or less on a whim. In hindsight, the RA position would have been more lucrative I think, and I might be FIREd by now. I recall having a discussion with my adviser that they REALLY wanted more domestic students in their graduate program, hence the large grants they were offering for highly qualified domestic applicants to entice them into grad school.

 

[FIREd]

How much are they willing to pay for extremely intelligent Americans? Looking at pay, working conditions, and job satisfaction, how do these jobs compare to Finance, Medicine, and Law? i.e. if the academic-industrial complex "demands" these people, is it willing to pay enough to get them away from other careers?

Some jobs in finance, medicine and law pay well but not all. Only a small fraction of the work force can ever hope to fill the well-paying jobs in those fields (after all less than 2% of American workers make more than $200K a year IIRC) so these jobs do nothing to sustain the middle class (back on topic) and they are not the answer. The majority of the workforce has to look elsewhere to find well paying jobs. Science and engineering offer good opportunities for people who want a shot at making a decent living. DW is a scientist and she makes more than the average family doctor.

 

[FUEGO]

Some jobs in finance, medicine and law pay well but not all. Only a small fraction of the work force can ever hope to fill the well-paying jobs in those fields (after all less than 2% of American workers make more than $200K a year IIRC) so these jobs do nothing to sustain the middle class (back on topic) and they are not the answer. The majority of the workforce has to look elsewhere to find well paying jobs. Science and engineering offer good opportunities for people who want a shot at making a decent living.

I know a lot of lawyers that are just scraping by and wishing they had the typical salaries of (still employed) science/engineering grads. District attorneys and non-profit lawyers MAY break $50k a year after quite a while of practicing. Assistant attorney generals are currently getting around $65k/yr after 5-7 years of practicing. The guys working at "door" practices (taking any case that walks in the door) often start out under $50k as well, and may not make a lot more unless they start their own practice. And a lot of my classmates that went on to take jobs paying $100k+ right out of school are now realizing they are missing out on life and voluntarily taking a 50% paycut to work for a firm that only requires around 40 hours a week and understands you want a life outside of the practice ("lifestyle" firms).

In the meantime, most of my science/engineering friends are doing very well with better work schedules and/or similar money. Especially anyone who lucked into the right fields.

In terms of the theme of this thread - I would say a science/engineering background gives you a high probability of leading a middle-class lifestyle. Law - not so much. I know a lot of law graduates and lawyers that don't practice law (myself included) for a number of different reasons. But if you become partner at a successful big law firm, you can be pulling way more than most other science/engineering grads.

 

[Spanky]

... In the meantime, most of my science/engineering friends are doing very well with better work schedules and/or similar money.

I really enjoy engineering work than marketing or business development. After receiving an MBA from a prestigious university, I switched to product management as a marketing manager about 10 years ago. The job was very stressful. The R&D department continued to challenge every product features proposed. The Sales people adamantly complained the lack of product features and competitive pricing to gain market share. Management constantly exerted pressure to identify and develop new markets. After two years of misery, I decided to return to engineering. Life has been more pleasurable.

 

[Spanky]

Simple, MBAs can [-]steal[/-] earn more money than engineers/scientists...

Many engineers that I know became managers after receiving MBAs and are earning more than they did as engineers.