Asymmetrical Information

You need to edit your quoted text. I think there's very little evidence to suggest that in the past, many foreign graduates returned home to become Advertisement Stop Dick Cheney! And besides, the sorts of jokes suggested by the exhortation to Mary to stand up to Dick are beneath the dignity of your site.

For every foreign student who goes home to spread sweetness and light, 3 seem to stay here to open cells dedicated to toppling our elected representatives either by protests or by covert acts.
We need to track foreign students, and all other foreign visitors, to insure they obey our laws and respect our institutions. If they are rude, ship them home. We have all the domestic rabble rousers we need.

As a domestic graduate student in chemistry, I can attest to the fact that this is absolutely true. I don't understand why we make it so difficult to enter and leave the United States for certain classes of students.

I would argue that the vast majority of students who enter the United States don't give a rat's patoot about politics. Most of them are interested in getting a job with the highest pay possible, just like the rest of us.

One final shot: either we figure out a way to keep attracting the world's best students to help perform our scientific research or we lose our leadership in the world. You could argue that we need more domestic students to get into the sciences, but short of assigning students to their respective majors, I'm not sure what the answer is. (I think we've thrown the kitchen sink at this problem; it's clearly cultural.) Figuring out the visa problem is a much faster solution (granted, not a short term one.)

I agree with Jane that the visa fee is not the real problem. IF that fee is being used to pay for the increased scrutiny visa applicants receive post-9/11, that's fine by me. My concern is that the fee is NOT being used to pay for that scrutiny or that that scrutiny takes far more time and effort out of the visa applicant than it needs to. Having said that, I don't want the State Department to cut corners to get more students in here -- if the cost is an increased risk that a few bad apples might come in along with those students.

I am not against foreign students in our colleges, but I think our money would be better spent promoting and financing secular education in the Islamic world.

Two points:

One, what is the value in paying any attention to anything posted at TPM as it is all pretty much spin-doctoring? You get the same effect as reading press releases from the candidates and the parties. It’s frankly unworthy of anyone who has a serious interest in policy or current events.

Second, what is Judis’ point exactly? He doesn’t believe that we should be screening foreign students because it presents a “hostile attitude toward the outside world”? Or that he objects to having them pay for the cost of screening? Or is this just a “one more thing to bash Bush about even though we don’t have anything useful to offer as an alternative.”

What is Walter talking about above?

Let all the smart ones in who want to come; then figure out a way to get them to stay. The vast majority (in fact I can't think of one in the opposite camp) of the foreign grad students & former grad students I have met are top notch. Often they are better thinkers, more articulate, and sharper than many of the home grown kind (which makes me worry all the more as we ship white collar jobs overseas & India and China beef up their numbers of college graduates). Hell, maybe we should give 'em loans if they promised to stay and work for a few years or ever. We educated them; getting their productive minds would only help the economy and country.

As to the post, I tend to agree with Jane; I think it is the increased scrutiny of the INS that has caused the problems. I think that group is still underfunded.

All of the years of accepting foreign students seems to have done little to spread religious tolerance, or democracy. And, the only way to get exposure to these ideas is not to come here; there are books, newspapers, and the internet for those interested. Simply being here does not cause one to believe in the American virtues, we see so many of our immigrants who want our society to adjust to their language and culture. Thirty years ago I attended the University of Louisville with many Iranian students. A short few years later Iran seized our embassy and has been our sworn enemy ever since. Where is the evidence that having those, (and many others across the nation), Iranians here caused any increase in the Iranian populations tolerance? An anecdote? Yes, but we have entertained students from all parts of the world over the years, where is the evidence that they have had any effect on the democratic order and religious plurality in their homelands?
I don't buy into the notion that bringing them here will lead to the American ideals being transferred back to their native countries. That is a naive approach at a very dangerous time for this country. I say keep the standards high. And the price higher.

Richard,

Good point. Is there any actual evidence to support the theory that having foreign students study in the United States has lead to promoting republicanism and capitalism throughout the World? Given that the atmosphere of so many American universities tends to be rather hostile towards the United States (not always but on the aggregate), it seems odd to think that they would come away learning to love us or those virtues more.

I can't cite a cause-and-effect case for the distant past, but I can tell you that Chinese graduate students wish to stay here because of the freedom as well as the higher pay. The equilibrium may be shifting to a more equal point; however, I can't tell you how many of them enjoy our academic life as opposed to their own (and the differences are not only financial.)

The fact remains, we cannot keep our status as a world economic power without a strong scientific (especially physical) research establishment. Trying to get domestic students to become scientists is harder than pulling teeth. We need them as much as they need us.

The issue defies simple analysis without segmenting the populations under discussion by the nationality of the proposed student.

Favorable commentary regarding foreign students is appropriate for most countries of origin, e.g., anywhere in Europe, Australia, Taiwan, or India. We potentially build ties with their countries of origin while strengthening our own research effort. No problem there.

That having been said, unfavorable commentary is appropriate for students from Muslim countries generally, but most particularly for the obvious bad bets, such as students from Saudi Arabia. Students from Muslim countries add minimal incremental value to our research effort, while raising the spectre of potential terrorist/fifth columnist activities, and even in the best case (i.e., they come to love us) are unlikely to exert much influence back home (in no small part because if they come to love us, they're unlikely to go home, are poorly advised to go back, and would likely be marginalized if they did)

For admitting this crew, the risks vastly outweigh the rewards.

Several commentators have referred to the antipathy of American students to becoming scientists.

There is a good reason for that: they know that becoming a scientist requires years of hard work (at de minimis pay), and the reward is later to be at the bottom of the food chain, and end up reporting to someone who struggled to complete a bachelor's degree in marketing (the only requirement for which, as nearly as I can tell, is an opposable thumb).

The moral American students take away: be smart. You be the one to get the marketing degree, take it easy in school, watch MTV, play some golf, and then hire people who've been knocking themselves out in the libraries and labs to help you make a pile. The logic is irrefutable.

One of my sons loves science, and shows considerable aptitude for it. I am doing my level best to discourage his going into it, and to try to interest him in something else.

Beard:

I think you're dead-on. I would include China in your top list; although their students may not be as good as those from Taiwan, they are getting better. Additionally, any means of diluting Chinese nationalism in their youth is a good call. As for your mention of the Arab/Muslim world, unfortunately, you've hit the nail on the head. It's my impression, though, that the visa process has gotten harder all around (I think there are lots of media stories about Chinese grad students visiting home and getting stuck there) and nearly impossible for those from the Arab/Muslim world.

Un,

Chinese grad students probably encounter problems out of political correctness, i.e., the desire to be seen to treat all students similarly.

I think that's silly. I would present no problems for the Chinese (until and unless some reason to worry arises), but basically would not accept Arab/Muslim students at all.

My omission of China was an oversight. I started to write "Chinese", but then changed it to "Taiwanese" and forgot to include students from the PRC also.

Ph.D. guy,

I hope you're just being ironic in that final paragraph. Fervently redirecting interests is just a short step away from squelching them, which is not a bright idea unless the kid is truly headed toward a bad end. The core sciences (like gradeschool teaching) may not be the most appropriately-compensated set of career choices in the world, but they hardly constitute a road to perdition.

If rather than encouraging him to develop the interests he has you (inadvertently) force him to adapt ones he really doesn't like, it may bode rather badly for him later on. No amount of money can buy job satisfaction.

As for the marketing/science divide, I think Ph.D. guy has a point. However, I might add that going into the right field of science provides quite a lucrative career. (e.g. chemistry, not bad, botany, not so good) I recall making pretty decent money as a BS chemist before I became a graduate student. There are few four-year degrees that are more lucrative than those in science and engineering -- I guess the dwindling numbers may be the desire not to get into "difficult" fields. Who knows?

I have to agree with Ph.D guy. I don't discourage my sons from science but I'd certainly discourage them from getting a Ph.D. Somewhere Freeman Dyson wrote that he's proud of the fact that none of his five children have advanced degrees. The reason is the same, many years spent in the trenches that ultimately don't advance your life or career unless you're nuts about becoming a college professor.

I think Judis' claim about the beneficial effects back home is highly overstated. At least among Africans studying abroad in the 80's, my observation was that it was a mixed bag for those who went to the West. People who who went to the US were at least as likely to come back resentful of what we had, as they were to be impressed with the values of democracy and capitalism.

On the other hand, those who studied in the Soviet bloc didn't always come back with certainty about what Africa needed, but one thing they were universally sure of was that Communism wasn't it.

Just had lunch with a buddy who recently outsourced his own job to India. He is Indian born, started a company here, but has kids and wants them to spend some time growing up there, so he is keeping the company here but moved his family back to India. He is in town for a few days to keep things running smoothly.

Anyway, we were having lunch today and I asked him how Americans (and other non-Indians) are treated in India. He said there was really no xenophobia, and they especially love America because most everyone has someone in their extended family who is in America or has spent significant time in America.

We really need that in the Middle East and North Africa. We don't need to lose that in countries like India.

anony-mouse, I don't squelch his interest actively (for the reasons you mention, which are entirely sound), but I don't encourage it either. In essence I try to expose him to other things in the hopes that one of them will pique his interest. If ultimately he wants to go into science (he's just a little guy now), so be it. I just don't want to feel responsible for it (Dad's footsteps and all that).

The Un-candidate also has a valid point. Botany is a disaster, I'm sure, but I was thinking of chemistry too (I'm also a chemist). It's not the money, but the career trajectory that I was referring to. (BTW, entry level salaries are relatively high, but tend to stick thereafter.) In large companies an advanced technical degree is a hurdle to one's advancement (NB those few CEOs who have advanced technical degrees are usually careful to downplay them as much as possible), a hurdle purchased at the cost of years of hard work.

It's not just the field, but the specialty within the field, that matters, and is subject to the whims of fashion. For example, organometallic chemistry was once all the rage; now, it's out of fashion. Bioinformatics was the rage a few years ago; now it's circling the bowl. Those who spend years mastering a field give hostages to fortune, because the spotlight may move onto a different area. Now a more pernicious threat is on the horizon: outsourcing to China and India. It's happening now to programming, and will happen soon to chemistry. It isn't a big problem yet, but make no mistake: we chemists are in the crosshairs of what some call deprofessionalization.

Physicians now face much the same problem in an even more malign manifestation. Years of education and residency leave them sitting ducks; they have to practice medicine, because they've invested so much time, energy, and money into it (and usually have hefty loans to repay). They're subject to malpractice suits (perhaps frivolous, perhaps substantive, but always gut-wrenching), are continually second-guessed or outright contradicted by low-level administrators at HMOs, and many have to worry about their specialty becoming glutted (as happened to anesthesiology, for example, a few years ago) or going on the endangered species list because of reimbursement issues. The risk/reward ratio has moved against them.

Medicine didn't use to be this way (certainly not to the present degree). The goal posts moved dramatically on many physicians from the time they decided to enter medicine, and as consequence many of them got something they did not bargain for, and now can't escape.

Why did this happen? Because society changed faster than they could their strategy. Scientists and physicians have the same problem, namely, that their huge investment of intellectual capital keeps either group from adapting quickly to changing economic pressures. They/We have built intellectual Maginot Lines, enormously expensive but dreadfully vulnerable. Better to invest less intellectual capital and remain more nimble.

I suspect that American students have an inchoate sense of this, which, reinforced by natural laziness, leads them to avoid science like the plague.

Unfortunately, this post is not entirely accurate. One class of foreigners is entitled to in-state tuition in some states (CA for instance). And, Orrin Hatch is trying to make it national.

It's called the DREAM Act. Remember the group that surrounded Karl Rove's house, banging on his windows? They were protesting in favor of that Act.

The DREAM Act would let illegal aliens who've been residents of a state for a certain number of years get college tuition at the in-state rate.

Of course, there are only so many colleges and only so many discounted college educations available. That means U.S. citizens would be competing against citizens of other countries for those discounted educations.

In effect, some illegal aliens would take discounted college educations away from U.S. citizens. If foreigners want to get a U.S. education, perhaps they should consider coming here as illegal aliens.

BTW, John Kerry supports the DREAM Act.

If you find a piece of legislations that's less American, let me know.

As a long time foreign-student in the US, I can attest that the problems around visas are a tremendous barrier. They were awful before 9/11, and have almost certainly become worse since.

The $100 is trivial, but the time and uncertainty are awful. I would gladly pay ten times the fee if my applications were processed quickly (within a month would be great) and reliably (I had confidence that it would actually be processed at all).

Coming and seeing America first-hand, and not through the filter of foreign media, is necessary to understanding and appreciating it fully. Foreign students, simply by living here, have a powerful demonstration of what America means, particularly because in most cases, the difference between the reality here and the reality back home is so stark.

Some will not like what they see. Most will like and respect America (anecdotal experience). I'd like to think that the American way of life fundamentally agrees with human nature and so we should expect this outcome. The simple fact that they know us is an invaluable way of communicating with the world.

Yes, they may envy us, but ultimately this also benefits us: they will wish to emulate us, to compete with us, and to overtake us. Though painful in the short-term, this competitive ambition advances and reinforces a social order reflective of American values, namely that of economic and political freedom. We should not hide from others for fear they might not like us; we should try to cultivate the seeds of progress and freedom in the world.

PhD Guy wrote:
It's not just the field, but the specialty within the field, that matters, and is subject to the whims of fashion.

You would think that a person who had mastered one field might be able to work in a different but closely related field. In my experience this is not true, because the people doing the hiring want someone who can come in and start with a minimum of preparation. And why shouldn't they, since there's always someone else who has invested themselves in the very subject they need?

I find this is true even when the actual work you perform (the data taking and analysis) is identical in the two fields.

Another problem is that, in the course of your research, you pick up a little of this and a little of that -- a little C programming, a little Unix system administration. But, unless you got paid explicitly to do them, it would probably be difficult to get a full-time job in those fields. Again, people who have devoted themselves to those subjects are ready to walk in and do them, without any need to get up to speed.

Furthermore, should you decide to leave science, your PhD (as PhD Guy said) poisons your chances of getting a job in a completely different line of work.

Therefore, I conclude that nearly all the hand-wringing about our desperate need for scientists is hogwash.

Angie,

Exactly. I've seen it many times, both as an employee and as an employer - expertise a millimeter away from that needed is accorded zero value. I've even had to fight to hire someone whose expertise subsumes the requisite one into a larger package. Amazingly, many people want someone whose experience is co-extensive with that required; no more, no less. Presumably the concern is that someone with more extensive experience than that required will be under-employed, and will eventually leave.

You're also right about the value of a PhD if you leave science. I call it the mark of Cain. If I leave science I will omit it from, e.g., business cards because it is a liability.

Academia is no day at the beach either. I was an academic for quite a few years before leaving. My friends in academia are miserable, to a man, and are generally stuck where they are. Changing jobs in academia is difficult and tedious, winding down a group in one place while trying to build a new group in another. (I did it twice, and would blanch at doing it again.)

Universities know this, of course, and take advantage of it. Many use "salary compression", for example, where new faculty members are hired at presently competitive rates, while existing faculty are left near their original salaries from years before. The result is that the new kid on the block makes nearly the same salary as someone who has been there for years.

In one sense, the desperate need for scientists isn't hogwash; there is a continuing need to find people who will take the other side of what is a rather poor proposition.

I think that laziness and poor job prospects are only part of the reason for a lack of Americans entering the sciences. I think the lack of glamour in science and engineering is part of the reason for people avoiding the fields. I think people are more attracted to the glamour professions which are typically ones involving fame or ones in which it is easy to make a TV show or movie about with wide spread appeal. Medicine, law, business, athletics, acting, singing, poltics, law enforcement, journalism, writing, etc lend themselves to good dramatic plot lines that hook a lot of young people. Engineering and science on the other hand seems to appeal more to the Star Trek Conventioneer set.

What should we do about? I suppose we could alter the relative lucrativeness of certain professions, perhaps through occupation specific tax rates. I personally would love to apply some confiscatory tax rates to the incomes of Hollywood types.

I'm just back from a some-expenses-paid trip to the UK; the institution paying is a foreign-student-tuition-profiteer, only this time it's the Brits profiting off Americans. We got a really elegant sales talk for graduate studies at Oxford (12-month Master of Studies degrees -- that is to say, you actually have instruction, unlike the traditional Oxbridge M.A., which was based on residence in College following the B.A.); they are DESPERATE for cash and Americans seem willing to pony up the $25,000 or so these degrees cost.

The Oxford professors (and I mean that - "professor" in the British sense) cheerfully point out that their degree is cheaper than an Ivy League M.A.

The University of Edinburgh office of international students told me that there are between 600-900 Americans with them at any one time, though only about 10% are degree seekers. They all pay full tuition and full lodging fees.

Non-citizen students seem to ALWAYS be about the tuition, except in the case of the negligible numbers of people like Marshall and Fulbright and Rhodes scholars.

So, let's spread American political institutions AND profit doing so!

The Air Force has funded a 2-day workshop for members of the American Film Institute to enhance the image of scientists and the accuracy of the science in movies.
It is likely, that as much as compensation, what ATM calls a "lack of glamour" is affecting students when they consider science as a career. The American culture doesn't exactly deify scientists; actors and musicians have a lock on that one. So, maybe the AF is on to something; turn around the image of scientists, and you encourage more students to pursue science as a career. And, when the image changes, the demand increases, wages go up, more Americans want in; and the need for foreign science students decreases. How's that for a working theory?

Forget it. You'll never overcome the lack of glamour. Our culture prizes stupidity above gold (witness Britney Spears, who is well on course to evolve (mutate?) into Shirley MacLaine).

The problem is that most people don't read, and can't think (even most nominal scientists can't think, really). There's nothing visual to portray, and that's fatal, because even musicians are portrayed visually. Musicians (e.g., classical, and even jazz) got relatively little traction until the introduction of highly visual concerts (lights, pyrotechnics, smashing guitars, now degenerating into "wardrobe malfunctions") and music videos. It's not the music, it's the show.

It's hard to see how to portray scientists in similar fashion. Falsifiable hypotheses are just not that sexy. Even the shows on crime scene investigation (not science, anyway) focus primarily on interpersonal conflict, because most people lack the intellect to transcend interpersonal issues to deal with ideas.

Moreover, even imbuing the field with glamour fails to address the fundamental problems alluded to above.

I know from at least one foreign student friend that the visa situation is making it virtually impossible for foreign students to find work in the states as well. I don't recall what type of visa she has, but she tells mer it allows her to work for one year upon receiving her degree. The net/net is a sluggish job market is made simply impossible for her, because firms shy away from hiring foreigners because they perceive that visa issues are so problematic. The reality is we're potentially going to lose a highly motivated, intelligent contributor to our economy, because the federal government has spooked corporate American into shying away from even looking at the resumes of foreigners.

Ph.D. guy:

That's a fair response. As an unemployed engineering graduate (well, presently underemployed in a very low wage position) with graduate work in the social sciences, I can relate to the types of concerns you and Ms. Schultz have related -- cherry-picking employers, the limited workplace value of specialized expertise, etc.

On the other hand, although I have a diverse variety of interests (I could happily do anything from journalism to art to literature to several types of manual labor and find some satisfaction in it), I like working with electronic devices. I don't regret my educational experience or the opportunity costs it imposed, even though it left me with a non-trivial amount of student loan debt and has yet to provide gainful employment. Why? Because, first, there was a certain amount of joy in the experience; and second, and the knowledge acquired has given me a base for understanding how many electrical devices operate (answering questions that plagued me as a youth, and which my qualified father could not readily teach me because there was too much background information needed first).

Perhaps, instead of 6.5 years' of college I could have taken a marketing degree and breezed through it in four years, and spent the past three years of my life pocketing high-five or even six figures. But I would hate every minute of it because good marketing just feels too much like lying.

FWIW. Although if I had to start over again with what I know NOW about the way the world works, I might choose business law instead...heh heh haa ahhahMUAHAHAHA HAAAAAAA -- sorry.

anony-mouse,

More power to you. I very much respect your viewpoint (which I find admirable), and understand your love for the subject (which I share to some extent, and used to share to a much greater extent).

I share your dilemma: do something substantive, and pay a price for it, or do something meretricious, and skate through life?

Two questions for those who advocate steering bright young folks away from the technical fields on economic grounds:

1. What if that had happened in the past with folks like Einstein, Fermi, Turing, von Neumann, Shannon, Watson, Shockley, Grove, Moore, Fairchild, and a host of others who arguably might have made a better living in non-technical professions? (I realize that this isn't likely in the case of Watson, Fairchild, Moore, and Grove - who each provide an interesting counterexample of your thesis).

2. Is it really best for society if those young folks with the most potential for science and engineering go into other fields?

Hondo,

The question before the house isn't what is best for society, but rather what was best for the person making the decision of which career to pursue.

Also, we need to guard against this sort of retrospective analysis, because it is misleading. The same argument could equally well be made for professional athletes, or Medal of Honor winners, and ignores the outcome for the majority of those who originally were on an indistinguishable trajectory.

For example, to make the trajectory part literal, a bomber crewman during WWII in extremis jumped out of his plane sans parachute and, by falling through a tree, somehow miraculously survived. His experience does not imply that others would be well-advised to do the same. It happened to work out for him, that one time. That's all.

To put it another way, who knows how many Moores or Fairchilds didn't quite connect with their fate and are consequently flipping burgers right now?

PhD Guy:

My whole point - which you seem to have missed - is that steering talented and interested young people away from science/engineering/other technical fields on economic grounds is not good public policy. My examples were not intended to do anything more or less than illustrate this fact - along with providing some examples where technically oriented folks have prospered.

Marketing, athletics, and other such professions may make the individual a good (or great) living, but frankly don't contribute much to the perpetuation and advancement of a society and its standard of living. Basic scientific and technical progress does. Home runs and improved marketing can't feed the hungry, heat the cold, transport the masses, or cure cancer, or reduce pollution. Basic scientific and technical progress can.

If mankind is to avoid a Malthusian end, continued progress in basic science and engineering is essential, and will be for the foreseeable future. Encouraging talented and interested young people to avoid fields in which continued progress is essential for the continuation of human society on the grounds that they can "make more money with less work" in other fields seems shortsighted at best.

As a scientist or engineer one may never get rich. Money isn't everything. Job satisfaction and knowing you in some small way contributed to the common good is worth much. IMO, almost any practicing scientist, engineer, or technical worker can make that claim.

"Falsifiable hypotheses are just not that sexy.", PhD, you crack me up. But your point is taken. Scientists will never achieve (nor would they be well served by), the distracting adoration that acrues to actors and musicians. Though Einstien still has a following.

But, getting nearer to the original discussion; if we can't fully employ our own citizens is the field it seems unnecessary to bring in foreign students to glut the market. And, given the security issues we face, the dubious likelyhood that exposing foreigners to our culture will yield benefit (security & international relations), and the possible need to supplement these students with our dollars; why don't we keep the entry requirements very high for now. And, let's concentrate on educating our own (I heard you TheLoneWackoBlog), and giving them financial aid before we give it away to non-citizens.

Hondo,

My whole point - which you seem to have missed - is that implementing public policy is not the singlehanded responsibility of those making career decisions.

People making these decisions aren't running a charity. You seem to think that prospective scientists and engineers should throw themselves on the public policy grenade so everyone else will have it better. If those who do throw themselves on that grenade have things not work out for them - as has happened to various friends - no one steps up to help them feed their families and pay their mortgages. They have to look out for themselves.

Those on soft money in academia, or in companies that get acquired or merged, often find themselves out on the street, some of them for years. Nursing friends through this type of crisis, and worrying about it myself, is not fun. Of course, everyone everywhere has to worry about this a bit, but not everyone spent years of hard work at minimal pay to hurt his employment opportunities. Sure, those in their twenties can shake this off, those in their thirties can come back, but those in their forties are in big trouble, and those after that are finished. Bear firmly in mind that in industry, scientists are the very first to be walked out the door when money gets tight. If you haven't seen this yet, wait. You will.

So the sophomoric Malthusian references, and the "Science for a Better Tomorrow" shtick, don't cut much ice with me. When making a decision, it is imperative to look out for you and yours first.

Ph.D. guy:

An honestly curious question - how much of what your are talking about is a result of two factors: (1) the difference between being an elite scientist and a competent but not particularly special scientist, and (2) the generally poor interpersonal skills that seem more common in the hard-core sciences than in life generally?

I think in most fields, its hard to be much more than a drone if you aren't substantially and measurably better at what you do than the people around you. In pure science, that would seem to be somewhat difficult to do (experiments run for years, when results show up is uncertain, and if you're picking at the edges of a problem or field, evaluators can't distinguish you from the many others in the field). Somehow, this conversation reminds me of something an engineering friend of mine once said: "Good engineers become managers; great engineers get to stay engineers."

As to the poor interpersonal skills - a lot of jobs require a relatively limited skill set (show up, churn the recipe work, etc.) and the ability to get along with the guy next door. A lot of scientists find this difficult to do. I'm not saying everyone, and I'm not saying its not understandable, but I know that I wouldn't trust a math guy who didn't smell slightly unwashed to do anything very complicated. (Not a math guy, but I have some exposure to them).

One other question - how much of this is really about the comparison between an M.S. and a Ph.D.? If you want a general set of skills and information, don't people learn most of this by the time they complete the M.S.?

Really interesting discussion. There was an article about math Ph.D.'s facing this same problem about 8 years ago.

Tim,

I think your friend's comment about engineers is a pretty insightful one. I'm at the very edge of a starting point of Ph.D.'s lifecycle and I can already see that those graduate students that are good but not fantastic, wish to get into management and away from bench chemistry.

As for the comment about the difference between MS and Ph.D.'s, there is certainly a difference in 'hireability'. Our masters' students seem to fly out of here.
Richard,

I'm not so convinced that there is a great pool of unemployed domestic scientists out there that we don't know about. Ph.D. guy may know more about this. (This may also be the fault of my field, which is organic chemistry. We seem to get hired pretty easily.) Is there any data about how many scientists are out of work?

Encouraging talented and interested young people to avoid fields in which continued progress is essential for the continuation of human society on the grounds that they can "make more money with less work" in other fields seems shortsighted at best.

Yes, but the way American society, at least, has traditionally encouraged people to develop the skills it values is with $dough$. You seem to be arguing that this is all very well for guys whacking at balls with sticks and belly-exposing singers, but somehow different for scientists and engineers.

As a scientist or engineer one may never get rich. Define "rich". I know scientists who do not earn enough to buy houses or decent cars, let alone raise a family.

SomeCallMeTim -- In my experience the "poor interpersonal skills" stereotype of PhDs is overblown. I knew a couple guys like that in grad school, but I can think of only one I met afterwards.

When I was an undergraduate, people tried to steer me away from physics because "Oh, you can't get a job with a bachelor's degree in physics. You need a master's, at minimum," with the implication that nobody would want to do that. When I went on for my master's some people said, "Oh, a master's isn't really worth anything. You need to go on for the PhD or you can't possibly get a job." I didn't mind because I'd always intended to do that.

Now that I have a PhD, people say, "You should have stopped at a master's. Your PhD is a liability."

I would like to see my tax dollars spent on educating Americans-not foreign students.

Un-,

I have no such data, I was just working off of the premise that PhD put forth.

I have a hard time believing a 32% drop in foreign applications was caused by the INS weeding out (100/68 - 100)% more terrorists.

For what it's worth, here is my own little experience:

I'm from a poor country in west africa just finished my BA. I'm about to start my PhD this fall. My documents are all in order as long as I stay in the US. But since I came on a 4-year student visa, which just expired (I'm still legal as long as I continue to go to school), I will need to get a new visa to return whenever I leave the country. I tried to go home this summer but the officials at the PhD program I'll be attending this fall actively discouraged me because of the high likelihood of being denied a new visa (they actually had grad students who went home and couldn't return to finish their programs since 9/11). So, the way things stand, I'm pretty much stuck for the next 5 years (or however long it takes to finish my program). The visa application fees don't really feature that high in my problem (though they've gone by more than 100% in my country) and from what I can gather, in most students' plight.

I think the process has the appearance of having better safeguards but in reality all it does is make life hard for most students while potential terrorists look for other routes.

Comments are Closed.