The STEM Crisis Is a Myth

thebman

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth

You must have seen the warning a thousand times: Too few young people study scientific or technical subjects, businesses can’t find enough workers in those fields, and the country’s competitive edge is threatened.

It pretty much doesn’t matter what country you’re talking about—the United States is facing this crisis, as is Japan, the United Kingdom, Australia, China, Brazil, South Africa, Singapore, India…the list goes on. In many of these countries, the predicted shortfall of STEM (short for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) workers is supposed to number in the hundreds of thousands or even the millions. A 2012 report by President Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, for instance, stated that over the next decade, 1 million additional STEM graduates will be needed. In the U.K., the Royal Academy of Engineering reported last year that the nation will have to graduate 100 000 STEM majors every year until 2020 just to stay even with demand. Germany, meanwhile, is said to have a shortage of about 210 000 workers in what’s known there as the MINT disciplines—mathematics, computer science, natural sciences, and technology.

The situation is so dismal that governments everywhere are now pouring billions of dollars each year into myriad efforts designed to boost the ranks of STEM workers. President Obama has called for government and industry to train 10 000 new U.S. engineers every year as well as 100 000 additional STEM teachers by 2020. And until those new recruits enter the workforce, tech companies like Facebook, IBM, and Microsoft are lobbying to boost the number of H-1B visas—temporary immigration permits for skilled workers—from 65 000 per year to as many as 180 000. The European Union is similarly introducing the new Blue Card visa to bring in skilled workers from outside the EU. The government of India has said it needs to add 800 new universities, in part to avoid a shortfall of 1.6 million university-educated engineers by the end of the decade.

And yet, alongside such dire projections, you’ll also find reports suggesting just the opposite—that there are more STEM workers than suitable jobs. One study found, for example, that wages for U.S. workers in computer and math fields have largely stagnated since 2000. Even as the Great Recession slowly recedes, STEM workers at every stage of the career pipeline, from freshly minted grads to mid- and late-career Ph.D.s, still struggle to find employment as many companies, including Boeing, IBM, and Symantec, continue to lay off thousands of STEM workers.

More in the article linked.

So is this the case in Ireland? You often hear employers complain that they can't find suitably qualified candidates. I read recently that 80% of employers in the IT area plan to hire in the next year.

But then why are wages not going up for the talented individuals in this skill short area where it should be an employees market?

It seems employers are quick to cry out that there is a shortage but are short on specifics about where these roles are within these industries.

johnnyskeleton

thebman wrote: »

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth



More in the article linked.

So is this the case in Ireland? You often hear employers complain that they can't find suitably qualified candidates. I read recently that 80% of employers in the IT area plan to hire in the next year.

But then why are wages not going up for the talented individuals in this skill short area where it should be an employees market?

It seems employers are quick to cry out that there is a shortage but are short on specifics about where these roles are within these industries.

If there are a thousand civil and mechanical engineers but what an employer is looking for is electrical engineers, then there can be both unemployed STEM employees and a skill shortage.

dlouth15

The article was about the US primarily but it is very true for a country like Ireland.

There was a post on the physics forum a while back from someone enquiring about the best area of physics to study in order to get a job in financial services. Now I'm sure we can appreciate where this person is coming from with this question. He has an interest in a particular subject, in this case physics, but has no expectation whatsoever that the direct knowledge gained in four years will be of use to employers. The entirety of the value of the degree apart from personal interest, in the view of this person, is in its transferable skills.

That might be an extreme example, but I'm sure it is the case to a slightly lesser extent for other degrees in technology, engineering etc. Many students entering these courses will understand that they are likely to be employed in areas peripheral to their degrees, for example sales, quality control etc. that don't really use the knowledge gained in any meaningful way.

Now the obvious answer to this is that they should research the jobs market a bit better before embarking upon their degree and I agree. But then why do politicians extol the importance of these courses? If what is needed in Ireland (being reliant on foreign direct investment) is sales and marketing skills, then why don't we push those instead?

In fairness, the importance of language learning is often stressed. But even here, if you look at the jobs market, employers don't really want Irish people who speak a bit of Polish but rather native Polish speakers who are willing to move to Ireland.

I think the problem in Ireland is that we don't want to admit that we're a country that uses tax incentives to lure foreign firms with already developed products to do final stage manufacturing and packaging in Ireland and that therefore the skills required are not science and technology but quality control, sales, marketing, support, tax accounting etc. Those other STEM skills are needed but with the exception of IT are for the most part not needed in Ireland.

Icepick

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If there are a thousand civil and mechanical engineers but what an employer is looking for is electrical engineers, then there can be both unemployed STEM employees and a skill shortage.

This. Using generic terms tells us nothing.

antoobrien

dlouth15 wrote: »

There was a post on the physics forum a while back from someone enquiring about the best area of physics to study in order to get a job in financial services. Now I'm sure we can appreciate where this person is coming from with this question. He has an interest in a particular subject, in this case physics, but has no expectation whatsoever that the direct knowledge gained in four years will be of use to employers. The entirety of the value of the degree apart from personal interest, in the view of this person, is in its transferable skills.

That might be an extreme example, but I'm sure it is the case to a slightly lesser extent for other degrees in technology, engineering etc.

You might be surprised but the amount of people with financial degrees working on Wall St is fairly small, because the companies hired people with maths and physics degrees because they can actually understand the trading models being used.

Scofflaw

As johnnyskeleton says, the use of blanket terms is meaningless. There can be 60,000 vacancies in "science", but each of those vacancies probably requires a specific background, so it isn't one large jobs market but, in effects, tens of thousands of small ones.

cordially,
Scofflaw

spank_inferno

I think employers are having difficulty filling vacancies for 24k a year.

As said before several guys I know graduated in Maths / science but work in financial services.

If employers wont pay for talent, vacancies will always be there.

robp

Promoting science is a very popular thing in Ireland and elsewhere but actually anyone interested in pure research is going to find a terrible career structure ahead of them in Ireland and quite bad everywhere else too. Certain hot niche areas of technology may be different but pure science is saturated globally. All very paradoxical.

Scofflaw

robp wrote: »

Promoting science is a very popular thing in Ireland and elsewhere but actually anyone interested in pure research is going to find a terrible career structure ahead of them in Ireland and quite bad everywhere else too. Certain hot niche areas of technology may be different but pure science is saturated globally. All very paradoxical.

It's a specialisation trap. If your area of specialisation is, say, the physiological adaptations of squid to deep water, the number of positions that comes up in a year is going to be absolutely miniscule, and there's going to be a queue for any position that does come up, consisting of the other 20 people who also thought that was interesting. So the potential employer can pretty much dictate terms.

On top of that is the fact that in order to progress past a certain point o the STEM ladder, you really have to love the stuff you do - which means that when your potential employer says "well, we sort of assumed we could pay you very little because that way we'd have more money for the actual research", you're likely to agree - and in the unlikely case that you don't, they'll move on to the next candidate, who likely will.

cordially,
Scofflaw

zom

dlouth15 wrote: »

I think the problem in Ireland is that we don't want to admit that we're a country that uses tax incentives to lure foreign firms with already developed products to do final stage manufacturing and packaging in Ireland and that therefore the skills required are not science and technology but quality control, sales, marketing, support, tax accounting etc. Those other STEM skills are needed but with the exception of IT are for the most part not needed in Ireland.

I can't agree more. I know from developers discussions that on a field of simple coder jobs there is no jobs in Ireland compare to tons of vacancies in UK (the same with other middle-qualified jobs like i.e. graphic design). Only highly specialized vacancies for very experienced IT people are advertise now in Ireland. And this vacancies are all about sales or control function. So it's useless doing 2-3 year programming course because there is no need for such graduates here. I don't know why - probably too high cost of work or too small market??

robp

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's a specialisation trap. If your area of specialisation is, say, the physiological adaptations of squid to deep water, the number of positions that comes up in a year is going to be absolutely miniscule, and there's going to be a queue for any position that does come up, consisting of the other 20 people who also thought that was interesting. So the potential employer can pretty much dictate terms.

On top of that is the fact that in order to progress past a certain point o the STEM ladder, you really have to love the stuff you do - which means that when your potential employer says "well, we sort of assumed we could pay you very little because that way we'd have more money for the actual research", you're likely to agree - and in the unlikely case that you don't, they'll move on to the next candidate, who likely will.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think very often vacancies for permanent jobs are actually quite open, they will have a required field like marine biology with a European focus but they won't ask for a squid person or plankton person. At least that is how they should be. Sometimes they are not and its a give way there is an inside candidate. Plus it really is a problem everywhere from immunology to psychology. I don't know what people hope to achieve by pushing more kids into science. More saturation and a little resulting Darwinian selection or just some transferable skills. beats me.

Scofflaw

robp wrote: »

I think very often vacancies for permanent jobs are actually quite open, they will have a required field like marine biology with a European focus but they won't ask for a squid person or plankton person. At least that is how they should be. Sometimes they are not and its a give way there is an inside candidate. Plus it really is a problem everywhere from immunology to psychology.

Sure - I exaggerated a bit for effect! But even "marine biology with a European focus" is very narrow compared to, say, "accountant wanted" or "office manager needed".

robp wrote: »

I don't know what people hope to achieve by pushing more kids into science. More saturation and a little resulting Darwinian selection or just some transferable skills. beats me.

Well, partly, as the article suggests, the tech/science companies are quite good at pushing the issue because it does given them a greater potential pool of candidates. Policy makers often seem to operate on the basis that more STEM people -> more innovation.

Personally, I'm not opposed to more STEM education at school, because I do think the critical skills involved are useful in themselves, but the idea that it will result in more people in STEM remains unlikely for the reasons given in the article.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ardmacha

Science and math education brings into play logical thinking, which improves people's cognitive capabilties and so the capacity of the country generally. These improved capabilities are of use in a variety of fields, some of which don't currently exist.

robp

ardmacha wrote: »

Science and math education brings into play logical thinking, which improves people's cognitive capabilties and so the capacity of the country generally. These improved capabilities are of use in a variety of fields, some of which don't currently exist.

I agree and I would add there are also many comparable useful skills learned during social science or humanities degrees. The thing is though rarely does one hear that the reason to study STEM subjects is for their transferable skills.

Scofflaw

Relevant Economist article: http://www.economist.com/node/17723223?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

...universities have discovered that PhD students are cheap, highly motivated and disposable labour. With more PhD students they can do more research, and in some countries more teaching, with less money. A graduate assistant at Yale might earn $20,000 a year for nine months of teaching. The average pay of full professors in America was $109,000 in 2009—higher than the average for judges and magistrates.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I am pie

Simply put coding is a skill which can be more easily off-shored to a cheaper location with less developed English language skills, where correctly or not business analysis and PM skills are more often maintained in Ireland. There are a larger amount of these vacancies as they are perceived to be higher up the value chain and considered "onshore" jobs. Again, I am not stating this is correct however it is a reality. Almost every job I had in Ireland involved interacting with offshore dev teams in a BA or PM capacity. Obviously the first to go was 1st line desktop support, then application support. Network support & Release Management tend to often remain in country and some of all the above (except BA&PM) tend to have a 24 hr capacity (depending on the criticality of support) based on having people in different time zones.

Short version, we're only managing technology and leading the soft skills side of the market, people with good interpersonal and language skills will always get work.

My opinion, this will bite us in the posterior, onshore-offshore is difficult blend and can lead to high profile disasters (ulster bank, am talking about you!). In the IT space we need, as a country, to hold onto the intellectual IPR [(coding!) of technology as well as managing and directing implementations. Sadly this comes with the need to balance competitivity with quality.

We are quite good at the quality, rotten at the competitive part. Expectations for young grads are often out of line. Too many Uni leavers who believed they have arrived, interviewed a number of grads with inflated expectations of responsibilities and salaries. Everytime I heard the routine I thought of the 8000USD that a Masters Qualified asian employee was earning, whilst happily working a contracted 45 to 50 hr week.

dlouth15

Following on from robp's post above..

I suppose the thing is that in the past (although perhaps not in Ireland) a chemistry degree, for example, was not merely an academic subject. There was an expectation that a graduate might have a role in industry using directly knowledge learned during the primary degree in industry. The degree itself would bring you to a stage where it would be useful to an employer; not merely for the transferable skills but for the knowledge of chemistry itself. The employer would add what further training was needed but building on what was learned in college.

My background is in IT so I have to admit that I don't have great knowledge of this outside of knowing some science graduates who went on to do other things, so I'm open to correction on this.

Now, it could be argued that things have moved on and a primary degree doesn't really cut it any more. You really need a masters or Phd, if you want to work directly in your field. But while these more advanced degrees might deepen your knowledge in specialist areas, you don't gain breadth of knowledge to the same extent and you have to take a gamble what you have chosen to specialise in is what employers will want. And even then, do employers in Ireland actually want chemists actually working as chemists in any great numbers?

I can see why chemical engineers as opposed to chemists might be required here. The basic chemistry will already have been done elsewhere but a manufacturing plant needs to be set up and run in Ireland. But again, even here, the basic design of the plant may well have been done by engineers in other countries and the local engineer's role here somewhat minimal.

Even in IT, I'm sometimes surprised that people with 1st class degrees are willing to work localising already designed software in companies like Microsoft. This was true during the boom as well.

I think what is happening is that a degree has simply become the new leaving cert and this has been the case for some time. At one point in history the majority only had a primary education with those going further being in the minority. Later the majority started getting what was then the inter cert with the minority getting a leaving cert or beyond. Later again, the leaving cert became standard. You couldn't really regard yourself as educated if you didn't have the leaving cert. Now it is the degree.

A degree is just more school, and because others have a degree, your lack of one (if you don't have one) will be noted in the employment market. What you have done in that degree to a large extent is secondary.

What I'm interested in is the extent to which this is true (other's may have a very different experience) and also, if true, is it wholly positive for the country and those doing those degrees?

ardmacha

Simply put coding is a skill which can be more easily off-shored to a cheaper location with less developed English language skills, where correctly or not business analysis and PM skills are more often maintained in Ireland.

Exactly. People need a synthesis of skills for which they do not always receive adequate preparation. There is also a problem with career structure, managing projects might be better done if you had some early career experience doing the actual work. But, as noted above, Irish employers want experience and the industry hasn't really provided a good path into it to allow people get that experience.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.