Myth of the myth of STEM shortage

[flyingiguana]

Article argues that there is no glut of STEM majors out on the job market:

 

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/the_myth_of_the_myth_of_the_sc_1.php#

 

Given how crowded policy commentary is these days, with blogs, articles, e-books, and the like, the surest way to break through and get attention is to write the “man bites dog story.†And that is exactly what we have seen with the issue of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education and skills. While the evidence shows that the United States is not producing enough STEM workers, a cottage industry of STEM shortage naysayers has emerged. Most recently, Michael Teitelbaum wrote in The Atlantic that “there is little credible evidence of the claimed widespread shortages in the U.S. science and engineering workforce.†In fact, there is considerable credible evidence as the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation and others have documented (pdf).

Let’s look at Teitelbaum’s claims. First, he, like most of the shortage deniers, argues that “U.S. higher education produces far more science and engineering graduates annually than there are S & E job openingsâ€. But this counts social science and health degrees, which are not really STEM jobs. Moreover, it’s not accurate to count just job openings, you need to count all hires, including ones when a worker retires or leaves to raise a child. When you do both of these adjustments, the ratio is pretty close to one-to-one.......

[Jean in Wisc]

All I know is that there are a large number of students graduating in Engineering this spring who still do not have a job. Lots of companies are not hiring "right now" even though they came to the career fair. I think it is the economy more than a STEM glut.

[Anacharsis]

Taking the career prospects of a zoologist, an actuary, and a recording studio engineer, averaging them together and then trying to explain something about them all as a whole seems like an exercise in futility. :) Yet they'd all be considered "STEM graduates".

[G5052]

This is absolutely what I hear over and over at the community college.  We dropped some more of the terminal STEM fields for 2014-2015  because there are no jobs for the graduates unless they were already working in the field.  A nursing professor told me recently that about 1/3 of her graduating class are going to PRN (as needed) jobs instead of full staff positions. 

 

One key though is work experience.  Those with experience in their field through prior full-time work, summer, part-time, or co-op jobs are doing fine, especially because their former employers often hire them. 

[MarkT]

If the person is not passionate about their major course of study in college (STEM or otherwise) then that will probably lead to a lukewarm interview.

 

It is somewhat disingenuous to push everybody into STEM fields if they won't be successful due to lack of enthusiasm, native talents, etc.

 

Given that, if your child likes history equally well with math/science, I would encourage them to think about pursuing the math/science route because there are greater employment opportunities.

 

 

[Erin]

And HuffPo recently posted this:  Public Colleges that Pay Off the Most  ...All Tech/Mines schools

(This showed up in my FB feed about 14 times this week because, it would seem, I can't swing a dead cat in my family without hitting an engineer.  lol)

[flyingiguana]

Here's the full list:

http://www.payscale.com/college-roi/full-list

 

What's at the top?  Selective schools that mostly graduate STEM majors.

 

That doesn't mean one needs to go to these schools -- if the student *could* have gotten into those schools and majors in something similar, that's likely just as good.  Because this list suffers from severe selection bias.

 

The graduation rates are also interesting.

 

However, I'm guessing the price is the sticker price, not the average price paid.

 

I'm also guessing it only includes people who bothered to answer the survey or who the college stayed in touch with.  My colleges are on there, and I'm pretty sure they don't know what I'm making.  I wonder how that would affect these numbers. 

 

I don't think we can assume that all colleges are equal in their attempts to contact former students, or that ex-students would respond in equal numbers over all categories to a survey.  It's possible that students who went to a fancy college who are now making less than they think they should be would be *more* embarrassed about answering the survey (or answering truthfully) which might have the effect of making those colleges look a lot better.

 

Also, these numbers have to be at least somewhat based on people who graduated and got jobs before the economic downturn.

 

I think I've just convinced myself that this list isn't worth all that much....

[flyingiguana]

 

 

It is somewhat disingenuous to push everybody into STEM fields if they won't be successful due to lack of enthusiasm, native talents, etc.

 

But I do think it's worthwhile to show kids that these fields exist and what they consist of.  For a lot of kids, this isn't all that obvious.  Even my kids -- who grew up in a house with 2 STEM PhDs -- have some pretty surprising misconceptions.  And I've been trying to educate them.

 

So I think programs to introduce kids to these fields are not misguided.  They just need to be done well.

[Momof3littles]

I haven't read the articles linked to yet, but I'm married to a PhD chemist.  He attended a public ivy for graduate school under a well known adivsor.  DH has friends who have struggled immensely with employment in this market.  Some are teaching at community college, many are struggling for tenured positions due to difficulty in obtaining funding, etc. 

 

I think many people also don't understand the typical salary range for positions like a bachelor's level biologist or chemist in many fields.  It isn't all that high paying.  Salary isn't everything, but it is a consideration for many, especially those repaying loans.

 

I want my kids to be STEM proficient, but I have definitely had conversations with friends, family, and online acquaintances about STEM.  In my kids' lifetime, I suspect graduate school and beyond will be a near necessity to obtain a decent job.  Yes, there are exceptions, but I see few opportunities long term for a decent paying job with good benefits, flexibility, etc. without a graduate degree.  I've had people counter with STEM, but I think those jobs aren't as abundant as many people think, at least not the better paying, more enjoyable, stable ones.  Certainly it is a good field as compared to many out there, but I do think many people don't realize what a bachelor's level biologist is looking at salary-wise at many employers.

 

DH was first hired in pharma out of college with a bachelor's and was making substantially more out of school than his public college professors.  He later decided to pursue a PhD and switched to a different industry that is thriving.  We have friends in pharma who have been hit with multiple layoffs and have been under tremendous stress for years.

 

I would never discourage my kids from STEM, and our plan is for them to be prepared for that as an option.  But I do think it has become quite competitive; graduate degrees and beyond are almost necessary to make a decent salary.  DH's chemistry publications regularly have articles about the glut of even post-doc students, and how many are completing post docs due to lack of employment opportunities.

 

[flyingiguana]

I think a lot of people think "high paying" has to mean, well, quite a bit of money.

 

My definition of high paying is a single salary that can support a family.  Many STEM salaries will do that.  They're just not in the astronomical range.  That said, I would not give the advice that an engineering professor gave my daughter -- to go to a school where she would have to get a lot of loans, because (he said) she would be able to pay them off with her high paying job.  I think a lot of professors who *have* jobs don't see all the people who don't have jobs.  They were lucky, why shouldn't everyone else be? 

 

I am seeing a lot of STEM students getting into the work force right now.  Many are getting ok salaries -- something they can live on (and support a family).  However, I'm seeing a lot of bio graduates waiting tables.  Based on that, I'd stay out of that field UNLESS it was my passion, or if I meant to go into the health fields.  (There are people getting jobs there, still.  For now.  Although that may really depend on the area of the country.)

[Erin]

in addition to health care, large animal vets are in high demand, too.

[8filltheheart]

STEM covers so many fields it is really a rather useless term when it comes to defining job searches and employment.  

 

FWIW, the payscale article was being discussed on the college board.   I  don't get the data, but I can't get the page to open correctly on my Ipad and haven't tried on the desktop.  

 

But, for chemical engineering, I do know that grads are being hired.   I know that the company my dh works for is hiring.   But, they only hire students with co-op experience and high GPAs.   It is the same scenario as our ds faced when he graduated in 2011.   Ds seasonally recruits co-op students from universities around the country for his plant and his plant is also hiring.

 

Another FWIW, when it comes to the article being discussed on the college board, I know that both dh's and ds's plants recruit from small regional no name universities.   Ds is a graduate of one himself and graduated with basically no debt/loans and with multiple job offers with high starting salaries.

 

 

 

 

 

[Momof3littles]

With respect to salary, tenure, etc. and a single salary that could support a family, the other complicating factor is that Dh insists educational pedigree does still matter a lot in obtaining those higher paying tenured faculty jobs.  As I said, my DH did undergrad and graduate school at public universities.  He never wanted to go into academia, and worked in industry with a bachelor's for a while before returning for his PhD.  I think he would have been a fantastic professor, but we weren't interested in the tenure chase, more moves, etc. after moving our little family around several times for him to return to school.  My Dh's attendance at public universities hasn't hurt his career, and his jobs have resulted in large part from networking.  However, he has mentioned before that had he wanted to become tenured faculty at a top tier school, his educational pedigree may have mattered more.  That throws a bit of a wrench into how much debt one is willing to take on, etc.  Fortunately most students in his field are supported in graduate school with teaching and research assistantships, so we only took on a very small amount of educational debt to supplement living expenses for our family during that time.  He feels he got a lot of attention from faculty, etc. at his smaller public undergrad institution, but it also might have locked him out from some higher paying, more prestigious faculty jobs had he wanted to go that route.

 

My husband has one former colleague who did his PhD, post doc in a govt lab, and is now teaching at community college.  I absolutely think that is a perfect job for some people, but it  certainly isn't high paying.  I'm not one to believe $ is the most important part of a job, but I'm just tossing these scenarios out as data points.  We have friends in pharma who are bachelor's biologists, and their salaries are lower than many teachers.  Dh attended his doctoral program with a woman who did undergrad at Harvard, and wanted to work in the fed. government doing forensics.  The economy was tanking when they finished their dissertations, and there weren't many fed jobs open at all due to budget cuts.  She took a position in a state forensic lab, hoping it would open doors for her later in the fed. government.  She had to negotiate her salary upward to hit 30,000 (with a Harvard undergrad degree and a PhD from an excellent "state ivy" and very well known advisor).  I can rattle off a lot of people we know in that position.  We have several friends who are good scientists but struggling to find a tenured position due to the difficulty in supporting oneself with funding these days.  PhDs from good programs, sometimes with post doctoral experience, making under or in some cases well under 6 figures.  Depending on where you live, that isn't much $. 

 

eta: also to be clear, we know of people in STEM professions who don't want the stress, travel, hours, etc. of some of the more prestigious, higher paying jobs.  However, most of the people in the scenarios above want tenured faculty positions or would like to be making more money, but have struggled finding those types of jobs to a degree.  We also have lots of friends who do well in STEM, but most are not as highly paid as many people I know would think.  I think it is fantastic when people are passionate about their field and decide they'd be happier teaching at a community college, working in a state lab, or teaching at a 4 year university vs. making more $, working in industry for more $, etc.  It absolutely has its appeal.  I just have experienced many people in my life who assume a STEM graduate with a PhD from a good program, post graduate experience, etc. can easily pull down a hefty salary. 

[Laura Corin]

If the person is not passionate about their major course of study in college (STEM or otherwise) then that will probably lead to a lukewarm interview.

 

It is somewhat disingenuous to push everybody into STEM fields if they won't be successful due to lack of enthusiasm, native talents, etc.

 

Certainly in UK terms (where degrees are graded first, second, third class) it's crucial to study something for which you have enthusiasm, otherwise you just won't get a good degree.

 

L

[MarkT]

All I know is that there are a large number of students graduating in Engineering this spring who still do not have a job. Lots of companies are not hiring "right now" even though they came to the career fair. I think it is the economy more than a STEM glut.

 

My company is hiring very few college Eng grads and virtually no "professional" hires this year.

 

[creekland]

Many fields are hiring less - and being more choosy with WHO they hire (this can definitely include college background with favored colleges preferred and other not even being looked at).  It's not just STEM.  It's the "new normal."

 

Encouraging kids to go on and do their best in whatever field they are most talented at seems to be the best path IMO.  It may, or may not, be STEM.

[8filltheheart]

Many fields are hiring less - and being more choosy with WHO they hire (this can definitely include college background with favored colleges preferred and other not even being looked at).  It's not just STEM.  It's the "new normal."

 

Encouraging kids to go on and do their best in whatever field they are most talented at seems to be the best path IMO.  It may, or may not, be STEM.

 

Interestingly, the plant where dh works prefers to hire engineering grads from the local "regional" university over the big state flagships. (and it is definitely a no name school)   He has been told that they come in better equipped to jump directly into projects vs. requiring more training.

[creekland]

Interestingly, the plant where dh works prefers to hire engineering grads from the local "regional" university over the big state flagships. (and it is definitely a no name school)   He has been told that they come in better equipped to jump directly into projects vs. requiring more training.

 

This can be very common with engineering.  It's often very regional.  In hubby's experience locally, students with Penn St or Va Tech do better than those from other places.  Those schools produce grads who know the local regs well (Chesapeake Bay and local river regs, etc).  Grads from other places would have a bit to learn yet.

 

[wapiti]

FWIW, a couple more articles on this topic turned up today:

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/stem-index/articles/2014/04/23/new-stem-index-finds-americas-stem-talent-pool-still-too-shallow-to-meet-demand?int=9e0d08

 

Despite some signs of improvement, student aptitude for and interest in science, technology, engineering and mathematics has been mostly flat for more than a decade, even as the need for STEM skills continues to grow, according to the U.S. News/Raytheon STEM Index.

 

The component index for AP tests offers one such example. “In 2000, around 423,000 STEM AP tests were taken,†Morse explains. “In 2013, that number ballooned to 1.2 million. This shows us that despite our graph looking like AP STEM is in a major downslide, in reality there has been real growth in numbers. This is an indication of the rapidly growing popularity of all AP tests in general and that the growth in STEM AP tests is not keeping pace.â€

 

Still, the relatively flat overall Index calls into question the effectiveness of multiple plans to increase STEM awareness and activity in the U.S., including President Barack Obama’s 2009 Educate to Innovate initiative. While the actual number of STEM degrees granted, employment in STEM fields, and the number of STEM-related AP tests have gone up since 2009, other indicators -- like SAT and NAEP scores -- have stagnated, and other key areas have declined.

 

“There’s not much evidence so far that government actions have had a significant effect,†Kelly says, stressing that some initiatives, like the Common Core State Standards, which were created in part to address the national STEM education crisis, have not been yet fully implemented.

 

According to the U.S. News/Raytheon STEM Index, high school student interest in STEM fields reached a low point in 2004, dropping nearly 19 percent from the base-year calculations. Interest levels climbed steadily until 2009, when they began to decline again. In spite of the intense drive to encourage students to study science, interest levels fell between 2009 and 2013 and are now just slightly below  where they were in 2000.

 

The lack of progress among female and minority students is especially troubling in the long term.

 

"A big part of the problem is the continuing split that puts Asian-Americans and white males on the side of those who are driven to acquire STEM skills, and women, blacks and Latinos on the other side of the dividing line" says Kelly. “The labor pool going forward will not be made up mainly of white males and Asian-Americans. The labor pool will be increasingly Latino, and that group is not advancing in STEM fields right now.

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/04/23/math-and-science-pay-but-high-schoolers-care-less/

 

However, the situation is more nuanced than a number of data points and can differ by education level, said Grover “Russ†Whitehurst, director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution. In some cases, there seem to be “dramatic mismatches between what people are getting trained to do†and where the jobs are, he said.

 

For example, STEM training might pay off for those seeking work as plumbers, nurses or auto mechanics—positions that generally require an individual’s hands-on presence and are therefore less likely to be outsourced to countries with lower wages.

 

But demand for individuals with post-secondary STEM training isn’t as clear cut or reliable, Mr. Whitehurst said, which may explain why some college students aren’t seeking careers as engineers or science professors. Supply has outstripped demand for science PhDs at universities, he said, dissuading some students from pursuing paths in academic research.

 

“What’s needed is a policy that actually matches training and information about training with real opportunities,†he said. “And that kind of information is largely absent from our post-secondary [jobs] marketplace.â€

[Anacharsis]

Is it just me, or does it seem like the STEM fields that pay the best are those that are involved in Boom-Bust cycles? (Petroleum engineering, computer programming, etc.) It makes sense, I suppose -- businesses that might normally be more comfortable playing the "wait until somebody cheaper comes along" game will lose out if they don't take advantage of the boom before it busts. I'd be interested in seeing how fields like that compare in the long-run to less well-paying but more stable fields.