Need More Science Graduates

[guitarman001]

Well I went into engineering - ok, it doesn't pay amazingly well compared to finance but I'm not worked to death and it's enjoyable!

[billybong]

Need More Science Graduates

They've been saying that for decades now. Even when Higher Education students weren't so debt burdened.

It's fairly clear that calls for more science students are just to fill more college places - and Need More Cheap Science Graduates.

Blair was banging on about it when he was in power - him and his wife both being lawyers, father and brother as well. How many science graduates in his family - guess.

How many science graduates in Cameron's family - guess. How many science graduates in Clegg's family - guess. Etc etc..................you get the drift.

Edited February 15, 2011 by billybong

[_w_]

I did maths, physics and chemistry at A level and went on to do a science degree.

Is that now allowed anymore?

They seem to be saying on R4 that a levels don't encourage people to study enough science ...

I think it just sounds like flannel and poor careers guidance, as well as students opting for each subjects rather than getting stuck in and doing all sciencey stuff at a levels.

They're saying we need more science graduates - which is fine. but let's stop some of the arty farty degrees whilst we're throwing small rocks at the system.

The right to get a fluffy degree is not one I want to see enshrined in this country.

There are 3 million chinese science graduates coming out of university each year. I just read a piece yesterday that showed most new graduates over there earn as much (or as little) as migrant workers.

Street smart is what you want to graduate in these days I think, unless Daddy has the connections to put you in a cushy bank job.

Edited February 15, 2011 by _w_

[Jadoube]

1. That's correct. I'd actively dissuade young people from taking up science in Britain - including my own.

2. Long question - but you're assuming that there are careers available for all the science graddies that are produced. As someone else has said upthread this just isn't the case. The opportunities have been dwindling as jobs are offshored and have been for decades now.

3. Well that's your subjective take on it . I'd strongly go against any young kid picking a subject at Uni because someone might ultimately perceive it as being worthwhile in employment process. You ever been in either side of the 600 CV selection process? I have. Both sides.

The jobs are in banking and finance. You can do studies in these subjects now. Why put yourself at a disadvantage?

I'm old enough to remember my economics peer group getting job offers by the score.

If daddy is a merchant banker then fine, study Classics or geography or science or whatever. But for a lot of young people they need to think long and hard why they're taking on £50K's worth of debt.

As the ultimate payer of six figures worth of education fees, I'd like to hear a reasoned argument as to why I should spend my money in a particular fashion.

Someone saying we 'need' scientists without backing it up is like a Mercedes car salesman saying you 'need' the AMG sports car - you just do - because they think it's a nice car !

Will this do towards a simple reasoned argument.

I'm hiring people with ability, particularly ability in Science subjects. I'm nothing to do with the finance sector, although also nothing directly to do with the science sector. I'm paying well above average earnings to recent graduates and I'm not getting as many good candidates as I need.

Is telling kids to avoid having the skills that I hire good advice?

I'm seeing a high proportion of candidates who are bombing out from the finance sector. Were these people well advised to heed the argument that finance is the only place to be?

Is above average salary for a recent grad really insufficient return for a six figure investment in education fees?

[ZeroSumGame]

Will this do towards a simple reasoned argument.

I'm hiring people with ability, particularly ability in Science subjects. I'm nothing to do with the finance sector, although also nothing directly to do with the science sector. I'm paying well above average earnings to recent graduates and I'm not getting as many good candidates as I need.

Is telling kids to avoid having the skills that I hire good advice?

Ask yourself this : what would you advise for your own kids? I've answered that for mine, can't speak for yours.

I'm seeing a high proportion of candidates who are bombing out from the finance sector. Were these people well advised to heed the argument that finance is the only place to be?

Correct. There is mild oversupply into that sector. There are some brilliant people having trouble getting fixed up. I need to leave it at that because I don't want them to be identified. I never said finance is the place to be. I said that is where the jobs are. Without passing judgement you are more likely to find a lifetime's work if you follow that sphere. Check some of the job boards if you doubt me.

Is above average salary for a recent grad really insufficient return for a six figure investment in education fees?

Well I don't know what line of business you're in and how stable it is, but in general no it's not worth it. Without giving a particular hirer any publicity, I know who are looking for good physics graduates for unrelated work, and I know that they won't be offered a permanent position. Was it worth the effort - most definitely not. I know the job content and a few GCSEs will and should do it.

All of course part of our current debt ponzi.

[yer_maw]

Will this do towards a simple reasoned argument.

I'm hiring people with ability, particularly ability in Science subjects. I'm nothing to do with the finance sector, although also nothing directly to do with the science sector. I'm paying well above average earnings to recent graduates and I'm not getting as many good candidates as I need.

Is telling kids to avoid having the skills that I hire good advice?

I'm seeing a high proportion of candidates who are bombing out from the finance sector. Were these people well advised to heed the argument that finance is the only place to be?

Is above average salary for a recent grad really insufficient return for a six figure investment in education fees?

Well why don't you PM me the details of where I can find the ad for the postion then.

[porca misèria]

How many science graduates in Cameron's family - guess. How many science graduates in Clegg's family - guess. Etc etc..................you get the drift.

Indeed. Remember the last PM who was a science graduate? The only half-decent PM in most of our lifetimes. Coincidence?

[Stars]

This wont change untill UK mainstream culture is turned inside out, pulled screaming out into the rainy night, dragged through a hedge backwards, had its face kicked several times and left in the middle of ploughed field in total darkness and nothing but a broken compass to get home

- several years at least

[theonlywayisdown]

the nail in the coffin in the 'i'm gonna go get a phd route' for me was when my masters project supervisor, who was also the head of the undergraduate department at that time, when going out for a drink told me and my friend that he'd just recently managed to get a mortgage on a property, and he'd been renting up until that point. This was back in 2004 and he was department head for one of the top unis in London. His age I'd estimate back then was early 40s.

Edited February 15, 2011 by theonlywayisdown

[General Melchett]

this post is spot on.

I myself, got a good Masters degree from one of the UK's top 5 unis in the subject of science. Pretty much most of the people I knew from my course went straight into graduate jobs - at the Big4, IT consultancies, or Investment banking.

Because the money is so much better than taking the PhD route, then postdoctorate contracts, where you end up on around £25-30k (for London) and then perhaps £30-35k when you become a lecturer.

Also, in my experience, by the time I'd finished my PhD I was 26 (late summer birthday, 4 year first degree) and too old for any of the banks serious recruitment tracks.

I've somehow managed to make a career of sorts out of science. But, I think like pretty much every science grad who has posted on this thread, I would sit up all night with my own kids trying to talk them out of it if they decided to try to do the same.

[onesmallstep]

I'm an engineer, guess what, Britain needs more Engineers, has done for 30 years, guess what, we've got less engineers.

As a poster above said, we need a complete culture change, will it happen? not in my life time, too many middle managers trying to further their careers for that to happen.

[StainlessSteelCat]

Another science graduate here who is no longer working in science. When I finished uni, most science jobs in the Newscientist seemed to offer around £10-12K. Ten years later, they were still offering around £10-12K (I was by then earning double that as a designer). Most science work seemed to me to be poorly paid, require huge amounts of concentration and was incredibly boring with only occasional moments of genuine reward.

That said, when I graduated - bioinformatics didn't even exist and computer based modelling was in its infancy (and PHd/post-doc level stuff). If they had been available to undergraduates, I would have probably stayed in science.

I too, would advise any youngster with an interest in science to look for a protected profession that limits entry eg being a doctor or vet. I don't regret doing a science degree - it opened doors in unrelated areas that would have otherwise stayed firmly shut.

[mfp123]

for me the biggest problem seems to be a lack of direction offered to scientists and engineers after they have graduated.

there needs to be some kind of enterprise structure that enables these graduates to use their skills in real life.

in science, research, technology, this is an area where the state ought to fund projects that dont have an immediate return that is demanded in an economic environment - like the nasa's of this world.

if theres one area i would be happy for the government to spend more tax payers money on it would be in science and research. its not about a return on the money but the advancement of society.

i remember a tv programme that highlighted the fact that we spend more money on buying phone ringtones every year than we do in the research of nuclear fusion and future energy.

in order to prioritise what is important in a society and economy, sometimes the state should step in and offer some leadership.

Edited February 15, 2011 by mfp123

[easy2012]

for me the biggest problem seems to be a lack of direction offered to scientists and engineers after they have graduated.

there needs to be some kind of enterprise structure that enables these graduates to use their skills in real life.

Do science graduates in UK sees being employed in something well paid as the only way out ?

How about work for a few years in what you can your hands on and then start your own business?

At least people who do science and engineering properly can also do math properly and understand the effects of APR, compound

interest etc.

[mfp123]

the government needs to create an objective for scientists and engineers to work towards, and pay for it.

when the US wanted to put a man on the moon, they didnt know how they would do it, but scientists, being as they are, found a way to do it. 400,000 people worked on the apollo project which took 10 years.

when we were in a state of war and we needed planes the engineers found ways to create the best planes.

if you give them a target to work for , youll find thats the best way to get the most out of our scientists and engineers i feel.

the government should say things like were going to put £1billion a year towards new energy technology and i want UK scientists and engineers to find us a solution to our energy needs.

thats a far better way of spending tax payers money than just training them all up so that they can maybe get a job at glaxosmithkline or BAE if theyre lucky.

Edited February 15, 2011 by mfp123

[guitarman001]

Agreed that we need more engineers! Electronics engineers, anyway! Are those of you in engineering / science enjoying it?

I can't complain much about salary, but compared to medicine, law, finance... those salaries are insane! Don't know if I'd have enjoyed those, but hey.

I think science pays a lot less than engineering, in general, IIRC? For a senior electronics design engineer you're talking between £45k and £75k in the UK depending upon location and company ... any science comparisons?

I know a couple people in finance. Pretty decent money but not AS big as some would believe - though one guy certainly is on a WHACK. He's got issues, though - cheats on his wife, works long hours, on the drugs etc...

[Self Employed Youth]

I agree we need an economy that is more based on manufacturing and technical innovation. But at the moment there's not a lot of point in educating people in science just so they get jobs abroad. The £6 billion pound profit announced by Barclays is symptomatic of the problem. £6 billion roughly equals £1,000 for every man, woman and child in Britain. £6 Biliion would just about be enough to set up a British car-manufacturing company from scratch.

People always said the world was run by big money. Until a few years go I didn't think that was entirely true, but it looks like it is now. It's looking like the closing stages of a Monopoly game, when the person with the most properties and money just makes more and more and everyone else is bankrupted.

£100 not a thousand

[theonlywayisdown]

A serious question needs to be asked - with Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial set to charge £9000 per year for tuition fees, what hope does a potential science student, who wishes to take the PhD route and onto academic research/lectureship, have?

3 years BSc - £27,000 debt

2 years MSc - £18,000 debt

Add on living costs (lets say, £6000 per year as a minimum) and you're talking £75,000 of debt and thats before you start your 'funded' PhD.

And to those (including the politicians) who say, well if you don't earn much after you graduate you won't need to pay it all back - STFU! Whether one has to pay it all back or not isn't the point, the point is that having a debt is a massive burden over your head, and can't ever be good for a person who's thinking well I won't ever earn that much to be able to pay it all off.

[erranta]

Indeed. Remember the last PM who was a science graduate? The only half-decent PM in most of our lifetimes. Coincidence?

'It' was married to a multimillionaire oil magnate!

'It' was as false about it's 'hidden wealth' (eee ahhh i'm a grocers daughter) as all the others.

I will never forget 'it' bragging about how 'it' was responsible for researching how many air BUBBLES her lab could pump into yoghourt/fool/milk type products in order for big business to rip-off consumers!

[Dorkins]

the government needs to create an objective for scientists and engineers to work towards, and pay for it.

when the US wanted to put a man on the moon, they didnt know how they would do it, but scientists, being as they are, found a way to do it. 400,000 people worked on the apollo project which took 10 years.

when we were in a state of war and we needed planes the engineers found ways to create the best planes.

if you give them a target to work for , youll find thats the best way to get the most out of our scientists and engineers i feel.

the government should say things like were going to put £1billion a year towards new energy technology and i want UK scientists and engineers to find us a solution to our energy needs.

thats a far better way of spending tax payers money than just training them all up so that they can maybe get a job at glaxosmithkline or BAE if theyre lucky.

Goal-driven research has been tried many times. It works when a research field is fairly well advanced and a given goal (e.g. sequencing the human genome, puttting a man on the Moon) is difficult but almost achievable with current technology.

It doesn't work when a research field is still in the process of finding out the basics. Nobody really knows what a cure for HIV will look like yet, or if it's even possible, though there are a few candidates in the running. Basic research benefits from a fund-and-hope strategy where dedicated scientists are given funding and a bit of freedom to study what they find interesting in the hope that something valuable (economically, philosophically, morally) turns up.

There is always going to be a tension between funding research for a specific goal and funding research for basic knowledge. If you ask active researchers what they think, most will probably tell you that as things stand we put too much emphasis on the former.

[Timak]

I'll add to the chorus of "Mammas please don't let your children grow up to be scientists" chorus.

My wife got exceptional results at University and works one of the most "prestigious" laboratories in the world, after 10 years she earns £30k which is the top of her pay band.

A constant stream of her PhD students leave to work in the city or as management consultants and earn that as trainees despite not producing anything of value.

[theonlywayisdown]

I'll add to the chorus of "Mammas please don't let your children grow up to be scientists" chorus.

My wife got exceptional results at University and works one of the most "prestigious" laboratories in the world, after 10 years she earns £30k which is the top of her pay band.

A constant stream of her PhD students leave to work in the city or as management consultants and earn that as trainees despite not producing anything of value.

£30k after 10 years?!

top of payband?!

[onesmallstep]

A serious question needs to be asked - with Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial set to charge £9000 per year for tuition fees, what hope does a potential science student, who wishes to take the PhD route and onto academic research/lectureship, have?

3 years BSc - £27,000 debt

2 years MSc - £18,000 debt

Add on living costs (lets say, £6000 per year as a minimum) and you're talking £75,000 of debt and thats before you start your 'funded' PhD.

And to those (including the politicians) who say, well if you don't earn much after you graduate you won't need to pay it all back - STFU! Whether one has to pay it all back or not isn't the point, the point is that having a debt is a massive burden over your head, and can't ever be good for a person who's thinking well I won't ever earn that much to be able to pay it all off.

yep, and even at the levels in the recent past, graduates I know consider the deductions a significant amount.

9k is going to kill engineering as a profession.

Imperial is a major source of engineering graduates, they are either going to demand much higher salaries or go elsewhere, that's not exactly going to help the economy.

41k is nothing these days and at that salary you'll be paying rpi + 3%, what are they on? oh yes they are all millionaires.

[Si1]

I'll add to the chorus of "Mammas please don't let your children grow up to be scientists" chorus.

My wife got exceptional results at University and works one of the most "prestigious" laboratories in the world, after 10 years she earns £30k which is the top of her pay band.

A constant stream of her PhD students leave to work in the city or as management consultants and earn that as trainees despite not producing anything of value.

well I love to argue with you but frankly instead I find myself taking your side to a degree, our economy needs rebalancing and science and engineering should renumerate better

I think there is a cross-politics concensus along these lines too

[onesmallstep]

well I love to argue with you but frankly instead I find myself taking your side to a degree, our economy needs rebalancing and science and engineering should renumerate better

I think there is a cross-politics concensus along these lines too

I've worked in engineering for 30 years, my sister became a lawyer, guess who's got the highest status and greatest wealth (it's not me)

there is no way my kids are going into engineering let alone science, Maggie killed of engineering in this country and no govt. since has done anything at all to make up for it.