NSF Reports No Geek Shortage 233
Baldrson writes "The NSF's report titled 'Graduate Enrollment in Science and Engineering Programs Up in 2003, But Declines for First-Time Foreign Students' (a pdf of the report released for the first time last month) is now available online. In an analysis of the report, Edwin S. Rubenstein of ESR Research states of these latest figures: '4.2 percent of science and engineering PhDs work outside their field of training, chiefly for financial reasons. This further weakens corporate America's claim of a shortage of high-tech workers.'" Interesting to see how things have changed since then.
Not a shortage of high-tech workers... (Score:5, Insightful)
It was *cheap* high-tech workers that they said were in short supply...
Shortage due to Schooling? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not a shortage of high-tech workers... (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, since when does one need a PhD or even a college degree to be a geek?
I know people with no degree that make killer apps with real-world-solid designs.
I think corporations are looking in the wrong places (I know the fortune 500 I work at is looking in all the wrong places).
Re:Not a shortage of high-tech workers... (Score:5, Insightful)
Big companies like Intel, MS, and HP have been claiming there is a "shortage" for years, even during the depths of the tech recession of 2001-2004. Yet many of them have been implementing hiring freezes and other staff-reducing measures.
As somebody pointed out, MS almost exclusively hires only graduates. If there was a "shortage", shouldn't they expand their hiring to older workers? They just want to keep being picky, that is why they lobby for visa workers and more access to India. Young people without families work longer hours. And, they get "A" workers at "C" prices.
Re: I read that as 4%? (Score:1, Insightful)
Comparative Advantage? (Score:3, Insightful)
Allegedly "innovation" is our comparative advantage, but are 5 Indians for the same price really going to have less total good ideas than one US citizen? This is an insult to other cultures and nations.
I am not sure what the US's comparative advantage is anymore. Cheesy advertizing and manipulative deal-making? It might be, but it is not something to be proud of.
Vdare.com is a racist site (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm surprised they manage to get a front page story on Slashdot.
If Industry needs us it should pay us (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm almost finished with my Masters in ECE, but it's been a rather large financial sacrifice. Of course, I started on my Master's degree when the economy was in the tank and there really weren't any engineering jobs to be had anyway. In the last year that situation has started to change and more jobs are out there. I've thought about going on for a PhD, but after 3 years of paying for my Master's I really need to go out and work for a few years.
We hear a lot from the likes of Gates and Groves about how their respective companies (Microsoft and Intel) need more people with advanced degrees and then bemoaning the fact that Americans aren't going to school to get those advanced degrees. Well, the big problem is money. When you finish your Bachelor's degree these days you've got a pretty good amount of school loan debt to pay off so you go to work in industry (and going to work in Industry right after getting your Bachelor's is a good thing IMHO: it gives you much needed real world experience you wouldn't get if you just continue straight away to grad school). After a few years you've got a house, cars, a spouse and maybe a kid or two. At this point going back to grad school is very difficult, you take a huge financial hit by doing so.
So, if industry really wants more PhD's then they should put their money where their mouth is and fund more of us. A lot of us would be more than willing to work on a doctorate if we knew that we would be able to make it financially if we did go back to school. Companies should offer funding in exchange for a commitment to work for the company for X number of years after finishing the degree. The funded student would also agree to work perhaps part time or during the summers at said company. Funding should include health insurance - this is a must; how is someone who has a house, spouse and kids going to be able to get by without health insurance.
I really don't buy the whole idea that the reason we don't get enough applicants for advanced degrees is because of poor highschool education levels in the US. You don't go directly from highschool to an advanced degree. Usually you get a bachelor's first and then (as I've suggested above) you work in industry for 5 or 10 years and then consider getting a Master's or PhD - this is often the way it works. Besides, having that 5 or 10 (or more) years of real-world experience and then going on to grad school makes you much more valuable than someone who goes directly to grad school after the bachelor's degree.
Re:Not a shortage of high-tech workers... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a bit of an exaggeration.
As smart and skilled as young tech workers might be, they don't have the experience yet of working in a team environment on large projects. Anyone that's ever worked in such environments knows the value of experienced members, in terms of keeping the goals focused and the lines of communication properly flowing. Schools cannot fully teach experience, and experience is a big component of what I'd call an "A" worker.
Plus, with starting salaries averaging higher than public school teachers or police officers... calling them "C" salaries is stretching it a bit.
"Analysis" is only skin deep (Score:5, Insightful)
I find this "analysis" superficial and self-serving. A vocal segment of the high-tech community, including, evidently, the author of this piece, is protectionist and consistently opposes higher visa limits for foreign workers. I, personally, think this is short-sighted; I think continued immigration of the best and brightest from the rest of the world is a positive for the US. But that's not what I'm criticizing in the report.
The author attempts to argue that American students are becoming more interested in engineering, and that foreign students are less so, based on the enrollment numbers into US graduate programs, and thus we don't need more foreign workers. From my experience as a professor, I offer an alternate explanation:
I feel this "analysis" is far from objective; the Hudson Institute, a far-right think tank, evidently has quite the axe to grind with immigration (just as they do with Social Security and organic foods).
Re:Not a shortage of high-tech workers... (Score:4, Insightful)
It was *cheap* high-tech workers that they said were in short supply...
Wouldnt you complain if gas prices were very high?
They want low cost labor
Unfortunately, IT workers think that just because they wasted time in college
This is the essence of trade. If a carpenter labors for hours making a table with an intricate design and prices it at 1000 silver pieces, and a rival carpenter makes an ugly chair and prices it at 10 silver pieces, nobody is morally obligated to buy the more expensive chair.
This has been the essence of trade for milleniums.
If you are unable to provide value
Re:Not a shortage of high-tech workers... (Score:0, Insightful)
We've been trying to recruit someone for a position for ages, and have been not able to find a competent person (at pretty damn good wages) for over 6 months now. I wish people who can't find jobs would work a little harder and learn a little more instead of blaming their ineptititude on some dude who's come a long way to do the job well.
Re:Extremely Biased Site? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Comparative Advantage? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's because corporations are competing with others that are getting third world rates. It's not like US companies are the only ones in the world. As long as the US consumer only cares about the bottom line (cheapest price possible), the corporations have no choice but to care about the bottom line.
Re:Not a shortage of high-tech workers... (Score:1, Insightful)
Because the whole purpose of the economy, jobs, businesses and government of to provide a better life for the people in the locality involved. People work at businesses, which in turn sell their goods and service to the same people. As more work is done, wealth accumulates and everybody prospers.
Companies, particularly tech companies can break this cycle by one-way globalisation. They can hire workers in other countries or outsource work, but the tech workers cannot. They are stuck in their place with mortgages, families etc. That is why this is a problem.
Right and wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the difference?
Simple - your doctor or lawyer, almost by the definition of their job, must be local. They are relatively immune to competition from foreigners. This is not true for scientists, who right now are most definitely competing with very able Chinese, Indians, etc.
That being said, the usual panic cry of "keep out the foreigners" is also wrong. Each and every American scientist is competing with each and every foreign scientist in his or her field. This is true regardless of who hires them or where they work. Which do you think is best for America?
1: An American company hires the Chinese scientist, sponsers his visa and brings him to the US.
2: An American company hires the Chinese scientist, but the scientist works in the company's Chinese division.
3: A foreign company hires the Chinese scientist, and employs him overseas.
I hope you realize the first option is the best. There is nothing the government can do to stop the competition created by these new scientists, and nothing it can do to prevent wage deflation because of it. It should give up trying.
If, for national security reasons or some other random excuse, the government feels it important to have lots of native-born scientists, it will have to tackle the problem at the graduate level. Asking talented 22-30 year olds to slog through 6+ years of 70h weeks for a wage topped by the guy cleaning the toilets, while a lawyer is making $75k at age 25, is pure silliness. Making graduate school less financially miserable would be a start. Of course, it is too late for me.
Re:Not a shortage of high-tech workers... (Score:3, Insightful)
And even if you get a work, you will earn less than people in the construction business.
So construction workers can and do earn more than college educated workers.
Re:Not a shortage of high-tech workers... (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't speak for cops, but the teachers I've known over the last 20 years have it soooo easy:
Nope, they couldn't identify with Dilbert or us poor techies at all. Not in the slightest.
Re:Not a shortage of high-tech workers... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: geekiness vs grade inflation? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Right and wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Americans want to get paid too much, want too many frivolous benefits like health insurance with low copay, 401K with nice employer match, etc. It is usually not the wages that hurt American employees, it's how management feels about benefits. Most people on slashdot have never worked for a company where they start out part-time, with this Golden Ring of working full-time, only to finally toil long enough to make it to full-time, and then REALLY get treated like a piece of shit by the company and management... Similar to employees in many companies that have some benefits kick in once employee is working 30 hrs or more per week.
It's cheaper for the company to have 6 dipsticks working 20 hrs/week just at wage than it is to have 2 salaried employees (and their benefits) doing the equivalent work... Company can more or less control wages, but it cannot control health care costs.
5: Foreign company hires American employee to work in the foreign company.
My bet is that 5 just doesn't happen all that much. Can't have "Americans" taking away jobs from the citizens...
Re:(correction) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where have all the smart geeks gone? (Score:3, Insightful)
When your IT people say "not supported" they're not saying it to be lazy, mean, or apathetic, they're really saying "We can't cover the work we have, we can't take on more by supporting that." Plus, asking for training on additional technologies at most companies will get you laughed out of your manager's office if you're lucky (if you're not, they'll replace you with someone too dumb to train.)
It really all comes back to money. When you don't spend enough on IT salaries, you get one of two things: not enough smart people, or too many dumb people. Big business seems to be unable to comprehend the concept of "you get what you pay for" in terms of IT salaries. They want warm bodies who are willing to take anything to keep from being unemployed (or deported; let's not forget the REAL reason companies hire H1-B workers; they can say "Do this or you'll get deported"), not qualified people who require a living wage.
Corporate Credibility? (Score:3, Insightful)
--
Len of Len Corp.
Re:Not a shortage of high-tech workers... (Score:2, Insightful)
He didn't get that its stupid to change from amd to intel without rebuilding the kernel and more importantly not trying to use software raid on a different controller in linux. Oddly enough he said it would be stupid to do that to windows.
What you forget with your IT work should be indian cheap argument is that real IT people must keep up on things. They must be able to solve problems and understand newer operating environments or even older ones like linux and windows. They must realize there are preferences and users might NOT RUN DEFAULTS.
In case anyone is wondering, my wife is a Linux sys admin. She hates windows.
Re:"Analysis" is only skin deep (Score:1, Insightful)
I guess it needs to be pointed out to you that this paragraph is essentially meaningless. These number do not correlate in any way, unless you can demonstrate that the companies which did the laying off also made the H1 requests. In particular, can you demonstrate that non-H1 workers were specifically replaced? I suspect not.
Basically, you've written from the point of view of a protectionist racist.
Re:Right and wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Asking talented 22-30 year olds to slog through 6+ years of 70h weeks for a wage topped by the guy cleaning the toilets, while a lawyer is making $75k at age 25, is pure silliness.
But that's what the market seems to demand, and America (the US) economy is ruled by the market. Other countries don't necessarily have this restriction in their education systems. Add to this the change in the US's business philosophy from "can do" to "can manage", and there's a problem.
The following is a generalization: The MBAs, accountants and marketers have taken over and they really only care about the bottom line; i.e., how crappy can we make the product and still show a profit. A pet theory of mine is that this phenomenon is due to baby boomers wanting to invest safely for a nice cushy retirement at a ridiculous ROI.
Re:Not a shortage of high-tech workers... (Score:3, Insightful)
Both the PhD and MBA are no guarantee of any knowledge, skills, or competence.
All they mean is that you passed some tests, took some classes, wrote a really long paper that no one will ever read, and you (may) have been subjected to an oral thrashing ordeal by several "esteemed" members of the faculty.
For your future elucidation, when pluralizing "PhD" or "MBA," use "PhDs" and "MBAs," respectively. Apostrophe-s does not mean "more than one." Thank you.