Competitive Wage?

GuanYin

According to the Irish Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (ICSTI), in a comparison of starting salaries for Science and Engineering Graduates (working in the S&E field)against other disciplines, S&E grads came of favourably.

They say this finding is in contrast to most of the feedback they are getting from S&E graduates themselves.

The Task Force for Physical Sciences has just been set up to investigate why there ar eless people taking science subjects in school and applying to science courses in college. The ICSTI Chairman, Dr. Edward M. Walsh, said "Salary, although rated less important by students than interest in the subject area and perceived job availability, is a significant factor when selecting a profession and career. We hope that the findings of this study will go some way towards correcting the misconception that science graduates earn less than their counterparts in other fields."

In the same statement, they claimed that postgraduate salaries compared favourably to industry salaries, with only the payment of college registration fees tipping the comparison in favour of industry (which was generally 7-33% higher).


Now, all this strikes be as Bullsh*t! For starters, S&E graduates get paid alot less than their overseas contemporaries when you take cost of living in this country, into account. Secondly there are increacingly less jobs in the S&E field (especially in engineering).

The big joke is, that salaries have actually gone down. I remember starting salaries in science to be around 17K Irish in '99. Now, starting salaries average around 18K Euro.

For PhD holders the average starting salary is around 35K Euro. It seems very little for someone who has just spent 7-10 years of their life studying a specific area or expertise.

Anyway, I'm just wondering if Science and Engineering Grads out there (working and postgrads) think that their salaries compares favourably to those of friends working in non-s&e areas at the same level.

the statement is here

bonkey

Originally
posted by sykeirl
Now, all this strikes be as Bullsh*t! For starters, S&E graduates get paid alot less than their overseas contemporaries when you take cost of living in this country, into account. Secondly there are increacingly less jobs in the S&E field (especially in engineering).

Cost of living affects all people in Ireland, not just S&E graduates. THe comparison was against other fields in Ireland, wasn't it. What relevance are overseas salaries in S&E to that?

Similarly, what relevance has the nuber of jobs? Again, the study doesn't look at what percentage of graduates are employed...it looks at how those who are employed fare out against other fields.

So why is the report "bullsh*t", as you say? Your objections seem to be that it doesn't cover stuff that it never claimed to cover in the first place.

The big joke is, that salaries have actually gone down. I remember starting salaries in science to be around 17K Irish in '99. Now, starting salaries average around 18K Euro.

They've gone down in many other areas too. salaries in IT, for example, have plummeted. I have friends who - after their last company went banmkrupt - are being forced to take a position paying approximately the same as they earned over 5 years ago, because thats what being offered.

So it would still look like the comparison against other industries is indeed valid and favourable.

jc

GuanYin

Well, what I was referring to (which probably wasn'tthat clear) is the inferral that people are not choosing S&E courses/subjects (or going into non science areas after they graduate from a s&e course, which they mention in the report, but i didn't in my post). because they are deterred by the salaries compared to other areas. The study itself dealt with people working in Ireland.

I would be more inclined to believe that people are applying to UCAS royal academy accredited courses in the UK where they can get US/UK accreditation in med lab and such, because disposible income is higher for workers in these countries.

I'd say that "jobs available" would be higher than "salary earned" in career choice and I think that alot of people aren't picking science because they fear there will be no jobs for them.

Sow hat I'm saying is, its stupid to blame it on salaries in the first place when there are no jobs. Also, had they said the report found S&E salaries were "competitive" with non S&E posts. I'm pretty sure they are much more "competitive" abroad.

p.pete

Firstly would this not be more relevant in the work forum? (there doesn't seem to be such a thing as a science mod so this probably won't be noticed).

My own personal slant is that I went into Engineering while quite young and not really with any idea in my head what I would be doing as an engineer after the course. There is lots of different branches of engineering (stating the obvious) and when I graduated my field was fairly weak on the jobs front. This was not particularly upsetting as by the end of it all I couldn't really see myself as an engineer.

From this point of view there is people out there who do not actually want to go into the S&M(I mean E) field. This is just one possibility for people not taking up the positions post college - regardless of availability / salaries etc.

In terms of people entering college I would have thought that S&E would be quite highly thought of by students in terms of jobs being available but possibly not salary. If the job at the end is what people actually see themselves doing then the money won't always be an issue. The people who are in it for the quick buck are always going to rush into a business course anyway.

Anyway, I'm sure I've completely missed the point (without actually making one myself). Not sure.