70% of of US PhD graduates are foreign born

[WhipperSnapper]

and if americans aren't taking those jobs (because so few go into STEM these days), then they go unfilled.

Is your claim of a shortage of Americans with STEM degrees factual, or are you getting that from corporate propaganda? The Corporations want to import the foreigners to reduce the wages, so it's difficult to take their claims seriously.

What do you make of UCLA Labrat's stories about unemployed and underemployed PhD. scientists?

 

[uclaLabrat]

Is your claim of a shortage of Americans with STEM degrees factual, or are you getting that from corporate propaganda? The Corporations want to import the foreigners to reduce the wages, so it's difficult to take their claims seriously.

What do you make of UCLA Labrat's stories about unemployed and underemployed PhD. scientists?

A lot of companies are asking for ludicrous amounts of experience, simply because they can get it. I applied for a job at a small startup in the bay area, a girl that left my group works there, and I got a phone and a video conference interview. After that, rejected. My friend who worked next to me during my PhD also interviewed with that company, a total of six(!) times, 5 over phone and video, one on site, including two interviews with the CEO of the company. He was also rejected after this. Now, the job posting is still up, but they went from asking for 0-2 years post-PhD to asking for 5 years post-doc minimum.

I think that's pretty insane, the but they expect someone who know their little niche, with 3-10 years experience, and they can get it. Personally, I think there isn't any job in chemistry that I couldn't become proficient at in 2-3 weeks, and an expert in 6 months. After that, you're not really learning much.

 

[werepossum]

I understand everyone is hurting right now, I get it. The fact is, for the last 30 years, the government and corporatists have sold our economy as being one of services and innovation, which was a product of our R&D and the best university system in the world. Now that the economy has tanked and manufacturing jobs are almost gone, companies are cutting R&D. They're cutting everything, apparently, except bonuses. There's a real lack of responsibility at the top which is disgusting. Offshore jobs, offshore everything, but let the execs bring in their bonuses. It's not a sustainable model, and now that's coming home to roost.

I'm really tired of the right shouting their mantra, saying we need to cut the deficit, which means cutting spending. I agree, we do need to cut spending, but we also need to raise tax revenue if you want to be serious about cutting the deficit. The main issue is, the right uses cutting the deficit as the excuse to cut spending, but then they go right ahead and cut taxes, mostly to the rich and corporations. Net effect: same hole or worse than we started.

I like that you equate my bemoaning of the state of research spending as a government handout or wealth redistribution, that's a nice touch. You've definitely benefited at least indirectly from money spent by NIH and the NSF, if not directly. That's the entire point, that government spends money on things that benefit everyone in society, and everyone in turn pays for it. The problem is, a lot of people don't pay their fair share. Your point that companies only want people who can do things, instead of those that know things, is also more than a little humorous, but that's ok. It's not like I show up in the lab every day with my thumb up my ass and ponder all things chemical in nature.

My point on the last wasn't meant to be an insult, but rather something like your first point. Most companies need far fewer researchers than process people, because what makes a successful company is not what you can do in the lab, but what you can do in mass production. Rather than people who thoroughly understand chemistry, most jobs are going to be for people who thoroughly understand commercial chemical processes.

I don't really disagree with much of the rest of your post. If we are going to consume products, we have to produce products. We cannot make up the difference with government, nor with services. Our high tech sector will certainly help, but to a large degree our former and ongoing success in inventing and patentable technology went hand in glove with manufacturing, with a flow between government and private sector researchers that doesn't seem to be in force much anymore. I do agree on the value of pure research, but I don't agree that the government can finance much more of it. One thing that would help immensely would be for government to redirect its resources, so that we get more pure and more directed research and less emphasis on Muslim nations' self image, global warming, and such.

And I'm all for raising taxes across the board, just as soon as Congress and the President show that they can and will significantly cut spending. The right's intent in cutting taxes is that lower rates spur economic activity, which brings in more money overall to the government through economic growth. The concept is sound, but in my opinion it is outdated. If the economy is poor, then less tax revenue will come in either way. If the economy is good, then the Fed will raise interest rates to hold down inflation, and the economic growth allowed will seldom match the reduced taxes. My personal preference is for less government spending and lower taxes, within the constraints of a balanced budget.

 

[uclaLabrat]

My point on the last wasn't meant to be an insult, but rather something like your first point. Most companies need far fewer researchers than process people, because what makes a successful company is not what you can do in the lab, but what you can do in mass production. Rather than people who thoroughly understand chemistry, most jobs are going to be for people who thoroughly understand commercial chemical processes.

I'll focus on this small part of your post for the moment, but in my experience, the difference between process and research isn't as great as I feel your post is alluding to. I'll speak to what I can best talk about, since I know people who have been there. A guy in my lab was a Merck med chemist for years before coming here, and will be going back in about 2 months after he completes his PhD. The training for an organic chemist to go into med chem versus process isn't necessarily different at all, they still need roughly the same skill set. For example, he works at Merck Med chem, while my boss worked at Merck Process before going to grad school and then into academics. The main difference is their approach: Med chemists want to find the best way (or hell, even A way) to make as many possible molecules they can, so they can be tested as potential drugs. They don't necessarily care about yields, or reagents, or parameters like reaction temperature, they just need to get it done as fast as possible to it can be screened (gross generalization). Process only cares about one compound, and they want to get it done for as cheap as possible on as large a scale as possible. Things like reaction temps, reagent costs, ease of purification, all become extremely important for the process chemist. The basics are all the same, but the end goals are different. This also changes who they interface with much more, as the med chemist will likely interact with other chemist, molecular biologists, and biochemists, while the process chemist will be dealing with Chem E's and the like.

FWIW, Merck process is approximately 1/3rd the size of Merck Med Chem.

 

[werepossum]

I'll focus on this small part of your post for the moment, but in my experience, the difference between process and research isn't as great as I feel your post is alluding to. I'll speak to what I can best talk about, since I know people who have been there. A guy in my lab was a Merck med chemist for years before coming here, and will be going back in about 2 months after he completes his PhD. The training for an organic chemist to go into med chem versus process isn't necessarily different at all, they still need roughly the same skill set. For example, he works at Merck Med chem, while my boss worked at Merck Process before going to grad school and then into academics. The main difference is their approach: Med chemists want to find the best way (or hell, even A way) to make as many possible molecules they can, so they can be tested as potential drugs. They don't necessarily care about yields, or reagents, or parameters like reaction temperature, they just need to get it done as fast as possible to it can be screened (gross generalization). Process only cares about one compound, and they want to get it done for as cheap as possible on as large a scale as possible. Things like reaction temps, reagent costs, ease of purification, all become extremely important for the process chemist. The basics are all the same, but the end goals are different. This also changes who they interface with much more, as the med chemist will likely interact with other chemist, molecular biologists, and biochemists, while the process chemist will be dealing with Chem E's and the like.

FWIW, Merck process is approximately 1/3rd the size of Merck Med Chem.

It may be more a matter of perception, I don't know. But several people with whom I had classes had degrees in chemistry, including at least one lady with a master's, had been unable to find work, and were going back to school for a ChemE degree because that's what it took to get the interview, much less the job. Probably different in medical too; not many industries favor the shotgun approach.