Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

No Future in American Science 144

Posted by michael from the breakthrough-discoveries dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Science Blog reports America is facing a dangerous shortage of eggheads: "America's top college graduates increasingly reject careers in science and engineering, researchers have found, raising concerns about America's technological future. Faced with the prospect of low-paid apprenticeships and training lasting a decade or more - and constricted job opportunities even after that - more of the brightest young Americans are instead pursuing the quicker and surer payoffs offered by business and certain professions.... 'With the notable exception of biological sciences, many of the top U.S. students with potential to become scientists are turning toward other career paths,' said one of the study's co-authors.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

No Future in American Science More

No Future in American Science

Comments Filter:

  • This is the correction of a surplus. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kmellis ( 442405 ) <kmellis@io.com> on Thursday January 09, 2003 @07:52AM (#5046280) Homepage
    We have an artificially high rate of production of scientists for whom there are few jobs. This is why they're going elsewhere. Maybe we should figure out a way to make more jobs for them, or maybe we should dismantle the current system which is built upon training people for jobs they'll never find so that they'll be available while they're training as cheap, highly-skilled labor while providing a rationale for bloated academic bureaucracies.
    • The opposite, as an analogy, is that starving is 'demand for food'. Don't misapply dubious economic theory. That we have a 'surplus' of researchers is probably more indicative of a lack of broad-based support for research.

  • Not that dangerous (Score:4, Interesting)

    by partingshot ( 156813 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @07:57AM (#5046302)
    Let supply and demand sort it out. The really gifted kids will be drawn to science no matter the financial rewards. The lab cogs will come back once the pay and opportunities increase.

    We already have highly selective scientific posts - they're at the best universities and research institutions. I don't see how the author thinks that adding a few more would make much of a difference. The best of the best still get good jobs, and there's still a lot of jobs at 2nd & 3rd tier universities.

    • very dangerous, actually (Score:5, Insightful)

      by g4dget ( 579145 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @10:00AM (#5047117)
      The really gifted kids will be drawn to science no matter the financial rewards.

      Really gifted kids aren't stupid. They will also figure out that they likely won't get to do science for decades if they follow standard career paths. And they'll figure out that there is a good chance that they end up poorly paid and without a reasonable job in their 40s. In physics and biophysics (two scientific careers that I was considering), in many subfields, you end up being someone's underpaid lab assistant for a decade or more.

      The best of the best still get good jobs, and there's still a lot of jobs at 2nd & 3rd tier universities.

      Jobs in academia and science are often not awarded based on the ability to do science; they are awarded based on the ability to attract funding, students, and attention, and to get good peer reviews. That's not the same. It may be the best measure of "good science" that we have, but that doesn't make it so. The past shows us that much of the best science was not the stuff that peers thought valuable at the time. And the only way to make sure enough of that happens is to make sure there is a lot of excess science funding for stuff beyond "the best of the best", according to current wisdom.

      And academic positions are not primarily about science. Even in the ideal case, they should be about teaching. And in the real world, they often are about neither.

      Finally, doing science at 2nd and 3rd tier universities is hard because funding is disproportionately difficult.

      Let supply and demand sort it out.

      It is sorting it out: the demand for scientists is actually quite low in the US (and even lower elsewhere). That's why people choose different careers. The question is: is that a good thing?

      • Could it also be that kids are discouraged from experimenting in their own back yards? Look at Thomas Edison. He was blowing up his shed when he was what? 11? And while he wasn't exactly encouraged, he wasn't thrown in jail. Nowaday's you'd get your tail kicked by the authorities for trying to make a bomb. Isn't exactly conducive to nerdy behavior.
        • Could it also be that kids are discouraged from experimenting in their own back yards?


          Precisely! You see, science is all about the unknown. It's not "safe" for suburban living.

          Kids can't get in to ham radio because they're not even allowed to erect a wire antenna outside their house. God help you if the neighborhood nazis find you turning a wrench on your own car. Chemistry sets have been largely banned because a kid might make a small amount of toxic waste if he or she abuses it. Even tree houses are subjected to neighborhood covenants.

          The dimwitted busybodies of our world have been allowed to take over. Most of the laws governing living areas are designed to make "safe" havens where nothing except sports can happen to your little children. And you have to cart them everywhere in your home away from home, the minivan.

          Well, nothing's happening. Their brains are filled with nothing. Homer Hickam's October Sky [homerhickam.com] would be even more impossible in today's world of "safe" living.

          Welcome to the wonderful world of lobotomized science education and rotton opportunities.

      • The really gifted kids will be drawn to science no matter the financial rewards.

        Ha! My dad is a Phd. Geneticist (Yale). I wanted to study astrophysics until sometime in high school, when I came to the crushing realization taxi drivers would likely make more than I would. My dad didn't make very much money until very late in his career. He regretted not taking another path, like medicine, when he had the chance. I didn't want to make the same mistake. I did a EE degree and play around with my hobby (neural networks) in my own time, and have my own lab. I can do whatever I want. Maybe I'll try and publish some of my projects and ideas, maybe I won't.

        Maybe one day I can retire and do nothing but experiment and dream up new theories. I don't kid myself though - I don't have any intention of "suffering" for science. It's just sad it has to be this way. Some of my friends really studied hard to maintain high GPAs through school. I worked part time and made about three times the average value of their scholarships while maintaining acceptable grades. Is that right? I would have loved to devote every ounce of effort to the base science, but it wasn't worth it.

        Sadder still is there are very few fields where base researchers can accomplish anything earthshattering. Advancing science requires big bucks. Access to the software tools and semiconductor processes used for MEMS work, the real-world research area that will lead to nanotech, for example, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. You need to have university affliations, and you need to dedicate your life to be in a position where you can advance that one little piece. That's just the way it is. If something is not done, then there WILL be a very large problem with this level of advanced research - there are very few native PhD's to fill these holes, because you have to be very dedicated to make the sacrifices needed to get that level of expertise. Think 40 years of poverty-level wages and BS politics.

        The life of most professional scientists - the real science people, base science, not applied theory - sucks. It really sucks until you can get tenure someplace, and that's assuming you can even get tenure. The impression I get, maybe it is incorrect, is that base science is not particularly valued at this point in time. There is much more emphasis placed on applying base science, or engineering and applications work. This will come back and bite the west in general if the next "big thing" isn't discovered here. It will, of course, be commercialized for consumption in the USA.

        My $0.02 (cdn, even)
  • This is all fine with me. So a shortage of chemists will make my skills worth more in the short run. When the next generation sees me driving a 918 (to compensate for my shortcomings) and living in a 5 bedroom on the beach they'll get on board.

    Really this is just a short term supply problem. Demand will balance this out soon enough.

    • Very true, but I think the author is also worried about the demand dwindling. The issue is that more people in the U.S. are concerned with getting a bigger SUV than increasing the technical capabilities of our country/world. It almost seems that many people are happy with what is out there today, and that it is just "good enough". The more technical problems, like deep space travel, will never see the light of day.

      • Re:More for Dean (Score:2, Insightful)

        by RCO ( 597148 )
        Granted, you are correct to an extent, but the fact of the matter is, these people that are going out and buying everything in sight, and paying ungodly amounts for these things are driving the prices up for everyone else. Now we are to the point (or at least getting there) that many of the positions that are being offered to scientists aren't paying enough to live comfortably. No, I'm not talking about living single in a 5br home while having to choose between your Caddy or your Beamer every morning to drive to work. I just talking about being able to pay off your debts, and being able to drive a somewhat reliable vehicle.

        Also, I have to state that while I think it sucks that the scientists are getting the short end of the stick, I feel sorry for the people that didn't get the chance at the education. Many of those people really don't have a hope in hell. Concerning the more technical problems, I think they will see the light of day, but these more technical problems don't provide an immediate solution to the currently more pressing issues of class separation in most of today's societies. Unless these more technical problems start providing income to these people. This way, we could kill two birds with one rocket.

        Concerning your sig, 'Give any one species too much rope...'

      • OK I agree. Legitimate demand for my skill set may be dwindling in the US of A. I could make a fortune with my skills on the black market. (Althought it was an aweful movie and the chemistry was all wrong, I loved the movie "Formula 51")

        Or if I want to stay legitimate, well there's always another country that sees value in my skill set and is willing to let me live like a rock star. Kind of like a reverse H1-B.

        And just so you don't get the wrong idea about me, my skillset is mostly Neurochemistry and Organic Synth.

  • Lack of technical track (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gizmo_mathboy ( 43426 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @08:22AM (#5046444)
    I think a big reason for the lack of scientists and engineers is the lack of advancement and prestige at companies.

    Usually you have: Junior Engineer, Senior Engineer, Princple Engineer, and Distinguished Engineer (roughly speaking). Whereas there is a multitude of levels for those in the management track.

    How many people want to be "stuck" in a technical track? The money isn't as good, your don't seem to get much respect, and you don't even get a decent title.

    I think we are seeing lots of good technical people being pushed into the ranks of management.

    • Re:Lack of technical track (Score:4, Insightful)

      by g4dget ( 579145 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @10:06AM (#5047160)
      It doesn't matter how much each different job contributes to the bottom line. The reasons why managers get prestige and pay is because they have power over people, and that can be leveraged to get prestige and money. That won't change.

      The route to power and better pay for the engineering profession can be (and already is, in many cases) is to work independently and hire out your services. But with that comes a level of risk and entrepreneurship that many technically inclined people don't feel comfortable with--otherwise they wouldn't be engineers in the first place.

    • I'm for blaming the the Dilbert comix.

      Mod it funny, but I'm only half joking.
    • I think a big reason for the lack of scientists and engineers is the lack of advancement and prestige at companies.

      Usually you have: Junior Engineer, Senior Engineer, Princple Engineer, and Distinguished Engineer (roughly speaking). Whereas there is a multitude of levels for those in the management track.

      This depends dramatically on the company and whether you have a PhD or not. Many companies (for example, IBM) have, or at least had, a separate technical track, parallel to the management track, that would take you just shy of the vice-president level if you had a PhD and enough years experience. Other places I know of (e.g. Raytheon) don't seem to have a formal track, but the research heads (PhD's) were still reporting directly to one of the company vice-presidents.

      People without the PhD though definitely seem to plateau much sooner.

      -JS

  • Perhaps this is missing something (Score:5, Insightful)

    by twilight30 ( 84644 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @08:22AM (#5046446) Homepage
    Namely, the fact that the US acts as a gigantic research sink (read 'brain drain') for the rest of the world. No idea what proportion of those foreign researchers return to countries of origin, but I imagine America holds on to quite a lot of them. The US dwarfs every other country on Earth in terms of money spent on research and is a player, if not the dominant 'hegemon' in just about every field. If native-born Americans are unwilling to take up science (which I don't think is really true, but anyway), believe me, there's plenty of people from abroad who will.

    And that's not a bad thing at all, at least for Americans. Other countries might have a problem with brain drains, but America certainly does not.

    • Namely, the fact that the US acts as a gigantic research sink (read 'brain drain') for the rest of the world
      A very good point, but I think your missing one of the problems the article is pointing out. The number of American born students pursuing scientific interests is decreasing. Yes, right now the American economy is benefiting from the scientific studies/knowledge of a good number of bright foreigners. But in the long term is this a good pattern to see developing? Reliance on foreign individuals seems to be something the current administration is shying away from. I won't start in on the problems of the deteriorating school system, but suffice it to say there is a very big potential problem that this trend indicates.
      • Well look at education spending. With the space race and the money that went into education, you built a generation of engineers and scientists who dreamed of one day emmigrating to the lunar colonies where they went to their space job and came home to Daryl Hanna until she flipped out and killed them. Now their looking at that nice retirement property next to the golf course.

        Engineering and teaching aren't respected. They're lip serviced. What's respected stealing a lot of money from a lot of people and lying to congress about it (only a little). Or being famous. But Ketchup is officially a vegitable now. But I bet there might be more people going into applied math. They might have been overlooked, but they certainly should be lumped in with the rest of the geeks.
    • ...or, at least, that's the message we're sending by actions like this. [mit.edu]

      So, if we aren't going to encourage our own students to become scientists and engineers, AND we aren't going to encourage foreign students to become scientists and engineers... yes, I'd say that in a few years we'll be facing a shortage of scientists and engineers.

      But it won't matter as long as we have plenty of skillful marketers.
    • If native-born Americans are unwilling to take up science (which I don't think is really true, but anyway),

      Really? Have you met any Americans recently? They're almost all idiots! Speaking as a native-born American myself, I can't decide whether I am more glad that the others are unwilling to take up science or surprised that they were even able to consider it an option.
    • Namely, the fact that the US acts as a gigantic research sink (read 'brain drain') for the rest of the world. ...and as a result, American scientists have to compete against the best and brightest of the rest of the world. No wonder Americans don't want to do science. It's too bad there's no H1-B program for managers and lawyers...

  • Follow the rewards... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dpilot ( 134227 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @08:32AM (#5046505) Homepage Journal
    Look where America grants its greatest rewards, at least in terms of financial remuneration or fame, and it certainly isn't science. Obviously money isn't everything, but it sure helps to have enough to put a roof over the head, food on the table, and a computer in the study. Some people are born to be scientists, and probably will be despite the economics. Others are lured to the Dark Side.

    Not to call here a Dark Sider, but Cindy Crawford used to be a chem major who did modelling on the side. Her professor told her she was nuts for sticking to chemistry with her looks and success so far at modelling. Apparently she listened. One would hope she sacked away enough money during her prime, because a supermodel probably has fewer productive years than a pro football player.
    • Cindy Crawford used to be a chem major who did modelling on the side

      Having done molecular modelling for years, I can assure you I have never met anyone looking like Cindy Crawford at any conference!
    • Not just where america grants its rewards -- but also look at where it has done so over time.

      In the past, there were far more rewards given to scientists than are given now. Part of the problem is that business management tends to grossly overvalue themselves, and undervalue their engineers and scientists. (Or their laborers, for that matter). Hell, for the most part, this overvaluation of themselves is probably *the* key problem with corporate america today. It certainly seems to have been the cause of such fiascos such as Enron and WorldCom.

      Which is not to say that there isn't a place for business management -- just that there are many who feel themselves indespensible who are in fact quite irrelevant to the company's operation.

      The only bright side is that for every few thousand such pointy-hairs, there are a few people like Steve Jobs, who managed to ressurect a nearly dead company.
      • It wasn't always like this. About 200 years ago there was this enormous burst of engineering activity associated with the Industrial Revolution. Engineers in metalurgy, chemisty, power systems, control systems, manufacturing and all the heavy industries were the darlings of the era. They were supermen (and they were men by and large) who were lifting the world into a brighter tomorrow.

        Does anyone today beleive that engineers will improve the world from here on? OK, which ones? Chemists making new pesticides? Petroleum engineers drilling new wells in wildlife refuges? How about molecular biologists? That is the 3 of them who aren't already working on WMD and cloning humans.

        Yes, I'm being mean. And I'm actually a scientist (if you count an MS degree from a small State college.) I'm making the point that this is how the engineering field is being portrayed, and even where they are headed.

        Who really wants to be part of a machine like that?

    • Cindy Crawford is a good example but I think Dolph Lundgren is an even better one. He was an undergrad at MIT (he might have even graduated) but decided to give up science/technology to become a B-movie star. And being a B-movie star is no where near as prestigous as being a supermodel like Cindy. Man, if that isn't a slap in the face to science I don't know what is. Well, I guess he figured he wanted people to know who he is. And let's face it: if you're a scientist the public will never know you. Ask someone on the street who their favorite scientist is and they'll probably say (1) Albert Einstein (dead), (2) Carl Sagan (dead), or (3) "that wheelchair guy".

      I'm not saying that we should celebrate scientists and engineers as rock stars, but a little more public exposure would probably help the field become a little more attractive and would also help the public understand what the hell scientists do as a bonus.

      GMD

    • One would hope she sacked away enough money during her prime, because a supermodel probably has fewer productive years than a pro football player.

      You're right, but Cindy Crawford is the Michael Jordon of supermodels. She's been working for something over fifteen years and will probably be working for another ten.

  • It's because we have to compete with the Chinese. They in general have a much better undergrad education (in my physics program most of them came in with basically the equivalent of a Master's degree) and are much more highly motivated.

    -josh
    • As far as physics go, the Chinese get a much sturdier theoretical background than we Americans do. They also blatantly cheat on the GRE Physics test by studying past exam questions (something we US citizens don't get to do). This is accomplished by profs and Chinese Grad Students taking the exam, and memorizing a select number of questions. The exam is later reconstructed. Since the same questions are used for up to a 10 year period, they easily assemble all of the questions asked on the current GRE, save for maybe 10% on any given new exam.

      Want proof? It's in the pudding- the average American Physics undergraduate scores not in the 50th percentile, not in the 40th percentile, but in the 35th percentile, or lower. How can the average American be scoring in the 35th percentile? Thousands of foreign students are causing the scores to be skewed, especially the Chinese. At most major universities, half the grads are foreign, half are American. Up to 30% might be Chinese. Most become theoreticians, supporting themselves not on Research Assistantships, but as graders for grad physics courses. They are impossible to learn anything from due to an inability to speak English (most of the time, there are exceptions, of course). They also stick to themselves, not integrating with the rest of the grad student community in Physics.

    • I don't want to blame the Chinese for everything but there are two things which bother me. Their degrees are treated the same as those of other major countries when they typically have no lab experience whatsoever. They only have classroom study.

      The other problem is cultural and linguistic. Many of the Chinese here don't speak English well enough to communicate at all. This is a safety problem when working with radioactive, biological and chemical hazards as well as a problem for the exchange of ideas, yet the major university where I work doesn't seem to mind. Part of the reason they don't learn English is that they stick together and don't mix with other nationalities. There is a whole floor here where everyone is Chinese. That's not diversity.
  • Bob Cringley [pbs.org] wrote this article [pbs.org] last year, talking about a decline in the amount of basic research being carried out at companies within the US. It would seem that the first part of a company to suffer cutbacks and layoffs in times of economic hardship is the research department. It would stand to reason that anyone coming through college and seeing the decline in the number of jobs in scientific and engineering research are more likely to opt for something that may give them a more secure future.

    Which is a shame really, because these are exactly the sort of people who are likely to be developing my flying car.

  • Side effect (Score:2, Informative)

    by Theorem Futile ( 638969 )
    A side effect of the shortage of PhD graduates is the difficulty for Universities to recruit enough qualified scientists to preserve the current amount of research & teaching and prevent units or even departments closures.
    • If only this were true! I'm a post-doc in psychology and as a grad student knew other grad students in physics and neuroscience (among others). It seemed that only the neuroscience students were optimistic about the academic job scene, basically because their field is very sexy right now and there's good funding to be had. The rest of us are just hoping tenure-tracks jobs open up in places other than Nome, AK when it's time to start applying.

      I've heard of science tenure-track jobs getting 100+ applicants. If universities are having trouble finding qualified scientists, then they better start training their students better, because I don't think there's any shortage of warm bodies. Not yet, anyway.
      • Well I was refering to what is expected in Canada for the next 10 years. Part of the problem arises from the fact that an unusually large part of academic scientists will retire in the next decade. Maybe the situation is different in USA. Don't forget that the effects of the shortage of PhD's may only be felt in many years from now.
        • Grey haired scientists retiring is a big problem that the ACS (American Chemical Society) has been warning about since I joined several years ago. But from my point of view the new ones who get hired are the ones who can attract funding. Funding dollars go where the sexy science is. This unfortunately doesn't include Gen Chem any more. So there's a wide gulf between who get's hired and who is actually needed. So today you can get a department that's full of Neurochemists trying to lecture on Descriptive Inorganic. I know a P Chemists who's teaching Gen Physics.
  • 'cause when the Prof finds he's short of native eggheads he'll just let people from other places of the world take over the task.
  • ...Who is gonna toil away in some lab as a research assisuant for squat...in a tiny apartment cuase thats all they can afford when friends from school/life are out getting married, buy nice cars, houses etc...
  • This is just one of the many outward metrics of the US culture's current decadent state: we deride or fear intellectualism, curiosity (about anything other than sex and drugs), and right action. We exalt immediate gratification, hyper cunsumption, and superficiality.

    See Democracy in America [virginia.edu] for its prophetic passages imagining the inevitable triumph of mediocrity allowed by democratic capitalism's short term thinking. You can make more money and gain more political power by playing to the lowest common denominator than you can by trying to raise it.
  • maybe salaries will be raised then? i'm currently an undergrad studying microbiology. i plan on going to grad school to pursue my PhD in the subject. however, coming out fresh w/ a PhD earns me about $35,000 a year for the 1st few years. managers at McDonald's make more than that, and they're not in school for 8+ years :-/
    • A word to the wise:

      I was a bio/cs major when I came out of college a couple of years ago. After toiling around working as a Microbiologist for a little while, I realized something that my profs failed to mention during their lectures: advancement rarely exists when you're working in that field.

      Most of the people in my labs were middle-aged. 30+ working as a labrat for 10, 15 years. Of course they received promotions and whatnot, but usually it was pretty menial...just enough to keep up with inflation. Basically, when you hit that Senior Scientist position, you've hit the glass ceiling. Depending on the company, you'll make decent money by that time, but the price you pay is repetition. Doing the same kind of experiments and procedures for 30 years is hardly what I'd call stimulating.

      Granted, getting a PhD will open some doors. Hell, my best friend from college is working on his PhD right now in the Evolution/Ecological field. Know what he wants to be? A prof. For him it's the perfect life...you get decent money (enough to support your family), summers are basically freetime to spend in the lab/out in the field with a couple motivated students, and you always get to have people call you Doctor if you're into that whole arrogent ego-boosting bullshit.

      Just $.02 from somebody who realized that working sucks.

  • Could it be? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by medcalf ( 68293 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @09:30AM (#5046881) Homepage
    Could it be that biology is a notable exception because biotech pays well? Frankly, people who are smart enough and interested in science and engineering are also smart enough to figure out where the money is. Since we have turned away from independent research at universities, and instead have chosen to commercialize virtually all research, it comes as no surprise that students are looking at science as just another career field. The market will take care of this, though. When people are willing to pay more to get the scientific talent, there will be more incentive for new students to pursue the sciences which are in demand.
    • I think biology is the exception because congressmen and senators are old and they don't want to die. The NIH budget has ballooned disproportionately over the last five to seven years. Last year just the increase in the NIH budget over the previous year was more than the total NSF and NOAA budgets combined. It has gotten so bad that most of the professional societies have expressed concern that way too much money is going to the life sciences at the expense of all other non-DoD basic R&D.

      There is a lot of research money in the life sciences to start with, and a lot of work in the life sciences is done by MDs, who are a group that never seems to have shortages in people.

    • The market will take care of this, though.
      Actually, if you look at the American economy I'm not sure your right. The market will only correct this if their is a demand for scientific research in the economy. I'd say it seems more likely the lowered funds to research are the market taking care of the research the American economy no longer revolves around. Which industries in America need any research outside of biotech?

    • When people are willing to pay more to get the scientific talent, there will be more incentive for new students to pursue the sciences which are in demand.

      As the owner of a corporation with a research department, when will I determine that I should fund basic research?

      Scientific research suffers from the tragedy of the commons. America learned the same lesson that Japan learned before them:

      "Let someone else do the basic research. We'll do the applied research for commercialization."

      There is little incentive for corporations to do basic research. There is not too much incentive for influential lobbying groups to pressure the government into funding basic research.

      This might change a little if you required upper management to hold onto their stock for more than 10 years.

      Otherwise, eliminating basic research budgets will always be a better financial decision in the time frame that matters to decisionmakers(about 10 quarters, maximum, these days).

  • Back when I was a kid the idea of becoming a nerd was presented as a positive (if unorthodox) path in life. The Revenge of the Nerds [imdb.com] series of movies did a great job of showing that what nerds may lack in brawn they were sure to make up for in brains, cunning and all important shenanigans.

    Revenge of the Nerds was a pivotal movie in this respect. What kid didn't cheer for the nerds as they faced off against the Alpha Betas? Who among us didn't revere Booger with great respect and admiration? And what kid didn't dream of placing hidden cameras in an all-girl dormitory? Have you heard of the X25 webcam? Guess where they got the idea.

    The problem thesedays is that nerd-positive movies present unattainable realities. Someday I'd like to work as an ensign on the Enterprise! Sorry kid. Ok then, when I grow up I want to fight orcs in middle earth! Tough break. Well can I atleast hang out with Jar Jar?

    Yep! Nerds, Nerds in Paradise, Nerds TNG, and Nerds in Love all provided positive examples of nerds using their abilities to make friends, defeat their enemies and get laid. Afterall, that's how kids get interested in the sciences.
    • What we need is a world free of stereo-types and pecking orders. Pecking orders are for chickens. I realize that this is very idealistic, but I imagine that all real progress must start somewhere. Might as well be you and me. Save brain-power by using a simpler algorithm. After the "Golden Rule", the rest is legalese.

  • People need to eat (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Being a research scientist doesn't provide a lot of money, and people need to do things like eat and live a comfortable life. Start paying scientists the big bucks, and all of a sudden you'll have a very large influx into the field.
    • I'll agree, I spent a lot of years studying science (yes, well beyond the undergrad level) without much return. I did it because I enjoyed it and I was more interested in the results than I was in the money. But after a number of years of that and putting off getting things and doing things that I wanted because I couldn't afford it, I walked away. I realized that I would never be able to afford the things that I wanted, whether it be because of a lack of money or because of a lack of time, and I decided screw this, I'm going to live my life for me, not for the current research project. Part of what brought me to this conclusion was the fact that there are very few people out there that understand/care what you are capable of doing with the various science degrees. Therefore, unless you are the cream of the crop (genius level) and get picked up by a think tank outside of the world of academia, you will never make very much. Besides that I was getting real tired of walking into offices looking for jobs, and having the secretaries look down their noses at me because I was just a lowly physicist.

  • about money? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mazzaroth ( 519229 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @10:27AM (#5047341) Homepage
    When I decided to go for the Ph.D., it was not with the perspective of having later on a well-paid job. I did my Ph.D. in astrophysics because I was passionnate. My motivation was to learn, to discover and to better know myself.
    I never regretted my choice.
    Don't choose a career because it is well paid. Choose it because you like it, because it triggers something in you. Don't sacrifice yourself for money - as a person, you are more important than all the money you will ever have.

    Well, just my two cents. :-)
    • My dad used to tell me that most people were good at and enjoyed more than one thing. So from the list of things you enjoy, pick the one that pays the most. There is no reason why you can't have a job you enjoy that also pays well.

  • Is it just me? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by derubergeek ( 594673 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @10:48AM (#5047520) Homepage Journal
    I'm currently a 6 figure technogeek (and have been for a fair amount of time). I've been passionate about technology since I was a kid. And I've been programming every day for the past 20+ years.

    Now, midstream, I'm bailing on all of this (with 2 kids to support) to go back to school & get a PhD in physics. Why? Because I'm no longer as passionate as I once was about technology and want to find something to keep me happy. Contrary to (apparently) popular belief, a raised income doesn't give you some massive nest egg [even if the government didn't take close to half of it], you just spend more - i.e., I'm not suddenly able to do this because I have a fortune to support me. I'll be essentially broke by the time I get a PhD and pretty much be starting at square one.

    So what? I wasn't in technology for the money - that was just icing. I did it because it was what I was passionate about.

    If the only reason people are pursuing a career is for money, they'd be a lot better off being a lobbyist [or a drug dealer, for that matter]. Just do what makes you happy.

    That's my 00000010 cents.

    • You only spend more if you CHOOSE to spend more. If I doubled my salary my living expenses wouldn't increase that much.
    • Sounds like me but I think you're older.

      I've been dealing with technology/computers for about a decade and I'm just 21. I've got a great job working for a software company right now, but this semester I started to go back to school to get my BA in physics. Physics has always interested me but I never did anything about it, until now. I plan to become a high school physics teacher. =)
    • Same here. I'm 42 returning to University to get a degree in Biology. Although there are still good paying jobs in the computer industry they are becoming overwhelmingly entertainment and marketing oriented. I will still probably program but at least it will be for something other than convincing people to buy some useless gadget or play some waste of their time for midnless entertainment.
  • They are definitely part of the problem. A good friend of mine wanted to build bridges for a living. Graduating high school, he asked the guidance counsellor, followed by several college recruiters, all of whom told him to go into architecture.

    After less than one semester of architecture he transferred to Civil Engineering, because he wanted to design and build bridges.

    The sad truth of the matter is no one knows what engineers do, they think it's a fancy title. They don't realize "real" engineers are licensed like doctors and lawyers (EIT, PE, etc.) to build things.

    No offense to software engineers intended.

    • There was a saying in my high school:

      • Those who can't do, teach.

      • Those who can't teach, teach phys-ed.
        Those who can't teach phys-ed become guidance councellors.

    • The sad truth of the matter is no one knows what engineers do, they think it's a fancy title. They don't realize "real" engineers are licensed like doctors and lawyers (EIT, PE, etc.) to build things.

      It may be a sad truth, but who really cares? A "PE" (professional engineer) license is supposed to show that the holder is competent in his practice thus ernsuring the public safety. Sounds nice, but if the public doesn't know enough about what engineers do to find a 'PE' in the first place then it seems the law has been watered down.

      In most states it's considered a felony to refer to yourself as a professional engineer if you don't have a state license. (The license requires producing evidence of graduating from an accredited engineering school (4 years) plus 4 years work experience under the supervision of a licensed engineer plus passing the Fundamentals of Engineering exam (8 hour test) plus passing the PE test which is another 8 hour exam) Some states even loosen this to apply to the single term of 'engineer' This legal definition hasn't prevented companies such as Microsoft from using "Certified Engineer" titles. Does the public know that there is a difference? Doesn't seem so.

      Another part of the problem is the H1-B Visa situation which allows for the influx of foriegn professionals. Not enough engineers, then import them. Despite the laws, they get payed less thus depressing the overall engineering earning potential. This influx also dampens the percentage of students in engineering since most people will not enter a low paying profession if they see a better alternative. These days that means getting an MBA & going into 'business'.

  • Economics is Key (Score:3, Insightful)

    by aburnsio.com ( 213397 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @10:59AM (#5047614)
    I always hear this talk about "vital shortage of technical workers predicted". It seems to run along the same line of "we need to encourage science in the schools" and "most students can't find Greenland on a map".

    This is all just talk. Talk is cheap. As the saying goes, put your money where your mouth is.

    In a perfect competitive free market, the wage of a worker is the equilibrium market price at which a worker gets paid and an employer pays them. It is the point at which the supply curve of the class of workers meets the demand curve of the employers for that worker class.

    If demand for workers goes up, in the short term the number of workers won't change much, so the salaries will rise. In the long term supply will increase as more people transition to the field and salaries will moderate somewhat. Oversupply can happen as well and salaries will go down. The price of the worker, their salary, deterimines their economic worth (although their are altruistic worths as well, economic worth is all that counts in the market).

    For an exercise, go to the US Labor Department and look at their Wage Statistics [bls.gov]. Look through everything and look at what pays the best. It's not science, no matter how smart you are. The top three professions in terms of average wage are this: Executives, Doctors, and Lawyers.

    In economics, price transmits information. The information transmitted by the market is that being an executive (CEO), doctor, or lawyer is economically the most valuable job you can have. Technical workers are well paid but much less than these top three.

    It should be no surprise that students would strive for the top paying jobs. They're acting rationally based on the economic information transmitted by the price of labor.

    If at some point the wage of technical workers and scientists is at the top of the wage pyramid, then you can expect everyone trying to do that. This almost happened in the late 90s with the Dot-Com boom, but it was too short of a cycle to affect long-term supply much.

    Economics is key.

    • I always hear this talk about "vital shortage of technical workers predicted".

      It's bull.
      What this translates to is "We want to import cheap workers from third world nations, because we cant find anyone who has 5 years of experience with C#."

      (Disclaimer: This post in no way is making any statement about the quality of C#, it is merely used to make a point about the often unrealistic requirements used.)
      • Yeah that's like the fabled ad in the help wanted looking for someone with 5 years "Macintosh" programming. The ad was published in 1988 and for those who don't remember why "1984 won't be like 1984" the Mac came out in 1984.
    • The top three professions in terms of average wage are this: Executives, Doctors, and Lawyers.

      It's not as bad as you make it seem. Both Doctors and lawyers require years of graduate school just to start. When I was in college about 8 years ago, the highest paying field that only required a 4-year degree? Engineering. Looking at the linked to page, it is still relatively highly paid.

  • Many branches of basic science only really have room for the best and the brightest. As for engineering, there will never be a great demand as long we can rely on foreign talent (regardless of how you feel about that).


    Anyway, American education is in decline. You don't study engineering unless you've mastered alegebra, and many students haven't done so in high school.

  • Nation's ***brightest*** increasingly shun science (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spock the Baptist ( 455355 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @11:44AM (#5047957) Journal
    "Study finds drop in science and engineering careers among ***top*** college seniors."
    "...best young minds..."

    On reading the article provided by the link on Science Blog I came to the conclusion that the problem is not with the number of American students that are going into the sciences, but rather that "top-students" i.e. Ivy Leaguers, etc. were not going into science.

    I would argue that the author of the article has an unfortunate bias toward "elites." Now what I'd like to know is just what are the criteria for determining who the "top-students" are. My masters was done at a decidedly non-Ivy League university, Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas. While there, in the early 90s, the department chairman lamented that all the "top-students" that is to say the students with the highest GPA on graduation were all coming from the Schools of Education, and Business. He felt that the students that were majoring in math, physics, chemistry, etc. were getting short changed as their grades from curriculum filled with rigorous courses were having to compete with students that had curricula filled with much 'puffer' courses.

    The point here is that if you're looking at a students GPA to determine who's the top students you're approaching the issue using a poor metric.

    Tell some one you majored in elementary education, and they're likely not to me impressed.

    Tell them that you majored in physics and they'll likely respond something like: 'oh, so you're a brain.'

    Tell them you're an astronomer and they'll go: Whooa! Cool! If you're a reasonable good looking young feller, and the person you're talking to is a single young woman you're likely to be able to get a date. After all us astronomy dudes are soooo romantic --studying the Moon, the stars, and all. ;)

    An example for your further consideration:

    Bill Mahr: Cornell Alumnus
    Spock the Baptist: An Aggie
    Who's the more impressive?

    Now:

    Bill Mahr: B.A. English
    Spock the Baptist: B.Sc. Physics, minor Mathematics
    Who's the more impressive?

    You'll note that I've not include my M.Sc. in Physics, Thesis in Observational Astronomy in the just previous comparison. That just wouldn't be fair... ;D
    • This is just so much 'mine is bigger than yours' crud - that the drunks outside the liquer store do just as effectively as these people, I might add. This is the same reason we have professional athletes that make way more than teachers, and why the peter principle raises the BA in Business Administration into a 6 figure position with an office, while the BS in computer science sits in a cubicle pulling down half of that. The elites keep the elites in positions of power, and use the rest of us for what they can get out of us for a minimal cost and maximum profits. The only way to make headway in the sciences is to reinvent yourself as an indispensible asset, without which the powers that be would lose money. Once you achieve that, then you are in a position to bargan with them when pay adjustment time rolls around. Of course, be careful not to overspecialize - or you might find yourself out of a job when technology shifts (ask mainframe cobol programmers about job prospects...)

      • This is the same reason we have professional athletes that make way more than teachers, and why the peter principle raises the BA in Business Administration into a 6 figure position with an office, while the BS in computer science sits in a cubicle pulling down half of that. The elites keep the elites in positions of power, and use the rest of us for what they can get out of us for a minimal cost and maximum profits.

        Huh? Professional athletes make what they make not because of some bizarre "elitism", they make it because they are incredibly talented individuals in extremely short supply that bring in enormous amounts of money for a professional sports franchise.

        In other words, they're worth what they make, as do the teachers and the engineers. The reason teachers and engineers make so little money is because there are so many of them that can do equivalent jobs.

        Note that this has nothing to do with someones "value to society" (however that's measured), it's all about supply and demand.

        • "The reason teachers and engineers make so little money is because there are so many of them that can do equivalent jobs."

          I think that's the biggest myth (I wanted to say "load of crap", but...) floating around these days. Teachers are *far* from interchangable, as are engineers and scientists. Here on slashdot, many readers will note that a bad programmer/engineer will not only not add to production, but cut it.

          Likewise, a bad teacher can cause serious harm to the educational advancement of students. Annecdotally, we've al had a teacher is (insert subject) that put us off of it. Ironically, mine was in physics...

          But in the end, I don't disagree that athletes make as much money as they do because people will pay to see them.

          -RB
    • Bill Mahr: Makes a shitload You'll notice that I've not included Spock the Baptist. That just wouldn't be fair... =)

  • My story (Score:4, Interesting)

    by EricWright ( 16803 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @12:09PM (#5048169) Journal
    I finished a PhD in astrophysics in 1999. Wanna know why I went into IT? Better starting pay and no moving around.

    If you want to do anything in this country in the hard sciences (especially physics), you have to take a series of 1-2 year post-doctoral assignments. You take them where you can get them, and it's rare that there are more than 1-2 institutes in a metropolis that even have such a program.

    When I got out, AIP published a report indicating that there were, on average, 125 applicants for every tenure-track faculty position in astronomy/astrophysics in the US.

    Constant moving, few openings, low pay... not too attractive.
  • The supply and demand argument is bogus. In my shop we need a system administrator; in fact, we need him really bad (I am currently doubling up on those responsibilities). We have interviewed several people already. However, they end up off the list because of one of the following: 1. The pay is too low (the powers that be refuse to break the pay rules for this specific job). 2. The person is not qualified. We are in a catch-22 where we will only be able to fill it with someone who can not do the job correctly - which means regardless of if we fill the slot or not, I will probably end up doing the same thing I am doing now. There is no rhyme or reason behind what bureaucracies do. I laugh at your supply and demand ideas - HA!
    • Your demand is being artificially constrained by the inability of management to pay for the proper employee. That is why you cannot attract a good supply. You cannot purchase a Faberge' Egg for the price of Legg's Pantie Hose. This is not a problem with supply and demand. This is a problem with unrealistic expectations on said demand.

  • My own experience (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Helmholtz Coil ( 581131 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @04:16PM (#5050124) Journal

    A lot of posters have commented on the fact that those that are really interested in science and engineering will tough it out, regardless of how the pay goes. So far in my life I've found that to be true.

    I grew up in a small town, and when I was in high school I was really passionate about chemistry. I talked to my chem teachers about chemistry, and they told me flat out, "find something else, you'll never be able to support yourself the way you'd like." When I neared the end of my high school days, and everybody and their dog was asking me what I was going to do next, if I said "engineer" I'd get something like "you mean the guys who drive trains? Don't have to go to school for that you know!" and if I said "physicist" I got "you mean like a gym teacher?" As I said, it was a pretty small town. :)

    Anyway, no matter what I said, it always involved some kind of science (usually physics). And I'd always hear "You know, you'll never make as much as your Dad." But I went through with physics anyway, because I liked it. I liked the idea of getting trained in the whole scientific process, giving me the mental toolset that basically lets me handle just about anything thrown at me.

    So here I am a few years later. My Dad, the blue collar worker, still makes more than me. My cousin who had similar interests in science but was pushed into business, makes more than I do and he's ten years younger. Do I wish my background had proved a little more lucrative? You bet. Would I have changed studies, knowing then what I know now? No way.

    • When I neared the end of my high school days, and everybody and their dog was asking me what I was going to do next, if I said "engineer" I'd get something like "you mean the guys who drive trains? Don't have to go to school for that you know!" and if I said "physicist" I got "you mean like a gym teacher?" As I said, it was a pretty small town. :)

      Oh my! I had almost this exact same experience. This woman, who I didn't really know calls me up out of the blue my senior year of highschool and says, "You're going to the same university with Billy (my best friend)?" "Yeah." <breathless_excitement>"Billy is going to study JOURNALISM! What are you going to major in?"</breathless_excitement> "Electical engineering." <disapointment>"Oh...Is that all?"</disapointment>.

      Ahhh. Southern Illinois.

  • What ever happened... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Stalyn ( 662 )
    to doing something because you loved it. All you could think about was solving the next problem or thinking of something new and exciting. God damnit, there are some more important things in life then buying a new Lexus. I might be poor but at least I'm not poor of mind.
  • Who's doing the research on that?
  • Okay, young ones, get ready for one of those "when you're my age" rants!

    When your cute little toddlers start to become young adults, they will be looking up to you to see what it means to be a grown-up. A lot of high-school kids have big conflicts with parents based at least in part on the idea that parents sold out their youthful dreams for cash--maybe just for survival. Teenagers don't want to look forward to a future that looks like that.

    Most of the kids of science/engineer families we knew came through those years relatively happy and sane. We also knew lots of families who had lots more money than we did whose kids were angry and confused because 1) they didn't want to end up as stressed-out as their parents but 2) they couldn't picture survival without the fat salaries those parents were bringing home. Yes, I do know some wealthy folks who love their jobs, and their kids tend to turn out okay too. But (relative) poverty worked darn well for us, and for most of the faculty families we know.

    I'll skip the part of the rant that talks about walking a mile to kindergarten past snowbanks up over my head....

  • I'm saying that the problem is with the mucky mucks running corporate America. At least we're I'm from(blue collar, midwestern town) science and engineering disciplines are considered bascially the pinicle of professions. You make a decent wage and actually *know* what it is you do even if nobody else does(I'm refering to civil engineers, software engineers, etc. not PhDs in astrophysical-micropartical-antimicrobeal biophysics waiting for an ass pillow ie tenure). And when you begin studies at the university *everybody* wants to be in science and engineering. Of course not everybody was cut out for it and the one's who can't hack it(no pun intended ;-) ) pack their bags for business school. Now back to the problem which is that in addition to their envy and resentment at basically being a dumbass they also end up *running* science and engineering companies where they have zero respect/appreciation for the people/processes that actually make their company run on a daily basis and allow them to earn a zillion dollars a year.

  • Currently a Grad Student (Score:3, Troll)

    by DrLudicrous ( 607375 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @10:04PM (#5052315) Homepage
    I am currently a grad student, and my hope is to get my Ph.D before I am 30. What do I have to look forward to monetarily? Not much. 35,000 at a university or college. 40,000 in industry, if I'm lucky. Idiots in human resources forcing me to take demeaning drug tests. Foolish business managers underpay me, and also underfund me. The public doesn't understand what I do, nor do they want to.

    Why am I doing this? Because I love it. Nonetheless, I would love it even more if I was given some props. AFAIAC, lawyers are scum (anyone going to disagree with me) who are in cahoots with the cops (disgruntled, fat, balding ex-jocks who are still in high school mode) and judges (ex-lawyers, determined to feed the system with dough to produce more cops, lawyers and judges), doctors are overpaid and overglorified mechanics (and they are WRONG many many times, especially when it comes to the care of the elderly) who are in cahoots with the insurance companies and the pharmecutical industry, and business people are money-grubbing wanted-to-be-something-else-but-couldn't-make-the- grade-in-college losers. Yet here all of these people make 10x+ as much as I will ever make, even at the peak of my earning years. It is a sad state of affairs. Anti-intellecualism is alive and strong in America, and I believe it is the root cause of this whole mess. Maybe if knowledge and research were better explained to the youth of this country, especially schoolchildren, things could change for the better in the future.

    • Considered enrolling in some anger management classes?
    • PS- can anybody please explain why somebody decided to mod this post troll? Yes, it was a rant, but was it off-topic? Is one not allowed to express an opinion that contains anger and resentment because others might be offended? This is not the first time I have had this happen, and while it is uncommon for me, I am curious as to why. I try to refrain from posting about things I do not know anything about- but this isn't the case here. I am giving ./ readers my honest, first-hand account of how I see things. Perhaps it was better suited for a journal entry, but either way, it did have relevance in the context of this topic. So what's the deal? Have I been trolling this forum and posting like a madman to just annoy others by sheer post volume? What makes some ./ modders decide to use the troll option on a post such as mine?

  • There are few good places left (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Friday January 10, 2003 @12:39AM (#5052965) Homepage
    Most of the good places have tanked. In computing, DEC's R&D labs are gone. Xerox PARC was sold off. Apple's Research Labs were closed in 1997. IBM exited the disk drive business, where much of their west coast R&D was focused. Sarnoff Labs was bought by SRI International, which does mostly DoD work. Bell Labs is nothing like it used to be.

    What's left? Microsoft Research, and maybe Sun.

    The big national labs are duds. Lawrence Livermore Labs is a senior activity center for old physicists. Oak Ridge has downsized. Los Alamos can't find a new mission. JPL doesn't launch much any more. NASA has a big headcount, but doesn't produce much; it's been described as "the world's largest sheltered workshop". All of these places have an average age near retirement.

    Even the Lockheed Skunk Works is gone.

  • This isn't a trend that is limited to the US. I can't recall a time when the UK scientific and engineering community hasn't been expressing concern at decreasing numbers of young people studying for and making careers in technical fields. And the reasons, in the case of the UK, are straightforward and obvious: low status (especially of engineering), pay no better than moderate, and limited prospects for reaching influencial positions in commercial organisations.

    It's a vicious circle, with falling numbers of university graduates in the so-called 'hard sciences' (pun intended) resulting in a lowering of the standards of teaching in the subjects at (high-)school level, which further discourages kids from carrying on studying them for any longer than curriculum rules mandate. And by the upper end of school and at university, anyone smart enough to deal with such subjects who is also well-rounded enough to take interest in things happening outside their chosen field of study will be well aware of how poorly science and engineering are regarded and rewarded by the society in which they live.

    For some people, their curiosity and the satisfaction they get in understanding and doing good work in their field are sufficient incentives, but I'd guess that they're in a minority. What I do remember very well is that as graduation approached - and this was about 30 years ago, now :(, and at one of the country's top institutions - most of my technical-studying friends and acquaintances decided, like myself, that they were unenthralled with the idea of making a career directly related to their studies, and about two thirds of us moved into IT, having found we had an aptitude for programming as part of the coursework and reckoning that it would continue to be a strong growth area for quite a time into the future. We've not been disappointed, but out of the half-dozen friends and acquaintances I'm still in touch with who took this path, I'm the only one who's still working in a predominantly technical role. I'm not complaining - I've had the good luck to find interesting and well-paid work in a sequence of different areas and locations (albeit mostly outside the UK, which itself speaks volumes). The rest of us moved long ago into planning and project management activities: better paid, more opportunities for your work to have tangible practical results, and, yes, with higher prestige. None of us considered teaching as a career, and so the vicious circle continues.

    Ah, well. At least none of us is faced with blank-faced incomprehension after answering the traditional "... and what do you do for a living?" question at social occasions.

  • Let me show you a slice of my job as a research engineer in a corporate environment. I work for an auto company and I research catalytic converters, which get rid of the pollutants the car engine produces. The chemistry of pollutants are such that, with a current catalyst, an engine has to operate in one state of air/fuel ratio all the time. We research catalysts that will allow an engine to oscillate between that state and a lower fuel (leaner) state and still meet emission reqs, thus improving the fuel economy a small amount with a relatively small increase in purchase price. The problem is that the general public doesn't care about fuel economy. I read that in a recent study the factors people consider most in a new car purchase are price and looks, with fuel economy being way down the list with only about 10% of people calling it a "main" consideration. Even in the current state of affairs with the Middle East, no one cares about fuel economy. The company realizes this, so they don't put a gigantic interest in fuel economy research and lesser products like ours never really get used. The company's demand for scientists is low because the customer isn't interested in the technology the scientists would research. Low demand means low cost or low wage, so the company can't offer that much to the people that it does hire. This scares people away and they work in a different field instead.
  • As a recent graduate in Chemical Engineering, I am well aware of the average starting salaries of the engineering professions. Here's the real info:

    Even in this economic slump, having only your B.S, straight out of undergraduate, here's the salary table.

    Chemical Eng. $48k-52k/year
    Electrical/Computer Eng. $46-50k/year
    Mechanical Eng. $44k-48k/year
    Civil Eng. $38k-44k/year

    Biomedical Eng. is still too new to have accurate reported numbers.

    Compare this to other average salaries for BAs in the liberal arts or B.Ss in the softer sciences (Psychology, Biology). You're lucky to break $30k coming out of undergraduate schooling with those types of degrees. Even the worst engineer can break $30k easily.

    The average Doctor may make over $100k, but that's after 4 years of medical school ($30k/year tuition), 1-2 years of residency (~$30k/year salary), and then an additional year or two for specializations. Doctors, nowadays, don't make nearly as much as they used to, especially with insurance costs, even after all of the costs of schooling.

    While everyone might believe lawyers make a bundle, the average salary of a starting lawyer is probably much less than what people think. Add in the costs of schooling and the amount of lawyers out there in competition and the prospects of a new lawyer don't sound so hot.

    The demand for engineers will always be great because the requirements for becoming one will always supercede the average person's abilities.

Slashdot Top Deals

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Close