patrick.net

drew_eckhardt says

One (senior) software engineer's salary still effectively does the trick in Sunnyvale within comfortable bicycling distance of jobs between Redwood City and San Jose which pretty much covers Silicon Valley (in which 41% of 2011 American venture capital was spent) for software purposes.

VC money spent goes to Company where the SW engineer is 50% of the time outside of SFBA. And that percentage is increasing infavor our outside of SV every years as prices go up. You can go to any company jobs/career web site and see the majority of R&D is NOT being spent here. BTW, get over the highly paid engineering shit... Sales people make alot more than engineers by a long shot.

mell says

New Renter says

mell says

Are you saying you are looking for work? If so, I may be able to refer you more than you wish for ;)

Yes, I am. Got anything in the South Bay?

Yes, they are all over the bay area - if you send me a message with your email address and maybe one or two line of skills I will send the recruiters your way when it looks like it could be a match (I usually get one or two direct recruiter or hiring manager requests a week and can forward you some of the most recent ones).

Done! Thanks!

gsr says

Dan8267 says

It's not prejudicial when you have worked with hundreds of them and post-judge them based on their performance.

Of course you are. The above statement describes the generality that you believe in.

Nominated for the most asinine, self-contradicting statement ever made on PatNet.

It's like trying to argue that a jury is prejudicial if they reach a guilty verdict after hearing all the evidence in a fair trial.

gsr says

Dan8267 says

such willful ignorance may very well lead to the extinction of our species

What species are you referring to? Humans or a specific type of humans?

I'm starting to notice a pattern. All irrational race-baiters are themselves extreme racists. It reminds me of how all anti-gay Republicans end up having gay sex scandals. Is that irony or just hypocrisy?

New Renter says

Yes, I am. Got anything in the South Bay?

New Renter, I know I'm now a broken record [a metaphor for the last of the 20th century types], but if you still have the gumption, please take the Patent Bar/Agent exam, and try to get out of direct S&E work before it's too late.

So while you'll most likely get through the current job search, etc, at some point in time, father time will catch 'em with you and then, you'll be stuck doing documentation, until that group also gets sent abroad.

Patent agent work cannot be offshored. It's got a legal tether stateside and only US citizens, neither H1-Bs or Green Card holders, can sit for the test. And you don't have to attend law school, if you're not working litigation or giving legal counsel. Typically, even USPTO workers do the law school thing, part-time, to enhance their resumes.

gsr says

drew_eckhardt says

Doing research where a paper is the product (and things like software only need to work well enough to finish that) is very different from building products and viable businesses around them.

This is the biggest problem. The research funding from NSF particularly, don't care about this.

Ok, so in your ideal world, who is suppose to fund basic sciences research, if not the NSF, DoE, DoD, or NIH?

Last I'd checked, pure R&D places like ATT/Lucent Bell Labs were shutdown.

And then, when Bill Gates got into the action, MS Research had also gone nowhere, as he poo-poo-ed the first tablets, since they didn't promote the Windows solution as an end all.

Sure, a person like myself, independently wealthy in 10 years, can do his own sort of R&D, pro bono like a Maxwell or a Darwin of prior centuries, but the rest of the scientists out there, need to pull an income from somewhere.

Is Elon Musk your answer? Do S&Es now need to live under his billionaire largesse, like the renaissance men did to noblemen sponsors, ala DaVinci or Goethe? Are we basically going backwards in time now?

Rin says

Ok, so in your ideal world, who is suppose to fund basic sciences research, if not the NSF, DoE, DoD, or NIH?

Ideally, we would really like to have collaborative work with industries. It should be encouraged. It happens in Japan quite a bit. Moreover, their research focuses more on improving people's lives, as opposed to building more missiles and drones.

These days, DARPA guys seemed to have become more strict. They want real products, in shorter time-frame so that they can transfer the technology quickly. Many profs complain about this. But IMHO, this is a step in the right direction.

Bell Labs were shutdown due to their on follies. MS research seems to be going in that direction. But look at others, as Google. One company falls, and other comes to take it over. Creative destruction is a part of the game.

I have a PhD in CE. I know the difference between the work as a research assistant and work in industry. It was an eye-opener for me.

I could have become a quant if I had wanted to. Many of my friends did. I decided to stay in core tech purely because my passion, not because of money. I definitely do not earn 700k figure that you posted. But whatever I earn is decent and nice. I do want to earn more, which means more work, and less involvement in whining discussions on the internet.

Dan8267 says

It's like trying to argue that a jury is prejudicial if they reach a guilty verdict after hearing all the evidence in a fair trial.

A prejudiced person has one particular view of the world. He/she sees what he/she wants to see, and does not see what he/she does not want to see. In other words, that person is not open minded, he/she only seeks examples that validates his/her mind.

In any case, its ok to be prejudiced and ignorant. Being prejudiced is not a crime. In this country, you have the freedom to be that way. I support that freedom.

Rin says

but the rest of the scientists out there, need to pull an income from somewhere.

Trust me, it is a lot easier to get VC money in this country than anywhere else. That's why entrepreneurs from all over the world come here.

gsr says

In any case, its ok to be prejudiced and ignorant. Being prejudiced is not a crime. In this country, you have the freedom to be that way. I support that freedom.

What a (not-so) subtle way of accusing me of bigotry. You must think you're clever, but a clever person would have actually read my history of posts before saying something so easily dismissed by any regular reader.

Of course, like all trolls, while making unfounded personal attacks against your opponents, you completely ignore all the logical counterarguments that disprove your faulty position. For example, on this thread...

[comment broken into parts due to link limit]

1. Dan8267 says

Pass a law requiring that every H-1B Visa worker must be paid at least $200,000 in year 2000 dollars adjusted for M3. Do this and no fucking CEO will complain about a shortage of American workers.

2. Dan8267 says

Companies aren't looking for better talent; they are accepting far inferior talent in order to pay employees far less.

3. thunderlips11 says

There are five powerful, objective measures of a STEM Glut:

4. Dan8267 says

the U.S. is experiencing the largest brain drain in human history. Why the hell would someone study the most difficult subject matters when there will be no paying jobs when you graduate?

5. Dan8267 says

What you don't realize is that the Tech Worker Shortage lie is simply a race to the bottom. A race to burn the nation's economic infrastructure and to sell the scrap at rock bottom prices. A few will make a profit on this, but ultimately productivity will plummet as a result.

6. Dan8267 says

I pull 70 hour weeks regularly and I'm damn productive.

It is precisely the hard work of STEM workers that create wealth. Replace that with economic slave labor and you won't get the same wealth generation. This has already been empirically proved.

7. Dan8267 says

Furthermore, the decrease in wages and employment will reduce consumer spending, which accounts for 70% of economic activity. Gee, what's going to happen to all that economic activity as all jobs are shipped to third world countries? Outsourcing may be good in the short run for a company, unless of course, all other companies are also doing it. Then it's the Tragedy of the Commons and no one will by the company's product because all other companies have laid off the prospective customers.

Outsourcing is a far greater "vicious circle" than saving could ever be.

8. Dan8267 says

software developments is like the Olympics. In order to be good, you have to start training at five. It's not some lame ass job anyone can do like finance, law, politics, or management where you can "just decide" what you want to do when freshman year of college. Software development is more than a career choice, it's a lifestyle.

9. Dan8267 says

A person growing up in the third world, not even having electricity most of his life, isn't going to blossom into a good software developer in four years. To grow software developers, you need to raise them on computers, access to lots of educational material, time to study (which means not spending time working on a farm, factory, etc.).

Often referred to as the 10,000 hour rule, although 20,000 hours seems more accurate.

10. Dan8267 says

Eventually, China and India will become developed nations and be capable of producing good STEM workers. The nanosecond that happens, every corporations will look elsewhere for labor.

11. Dan8267 says

Automation and outsourcing are not even remotely related. Software developers have always automated themselves out of a job. That's progress. But the onward trek of technological advancement cannot be automated. That's why the engineer is always important.

12. Dan8267 says

Worst still, without a continuum from one generation to the next, the essential skills and culture of engineering and the pathways to building an engineering career can and are being lost.

13. Dan8267 says

Make sure that STEM careers are good financial and social choices for this generation, and you'll get more STEM workers in the next generation.

14. Dan8267 says

So you see, my family is a perfect example of that break in the chain of producing engineers. And I'm pretty sure that we are just one of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of such examples.

15. Dan8267 says

The economic policies of today have dire consequences generations from now, long after the short-term profits have been spent.

16. Dan8267 says

Markets are complex systems. What maximizes economic profit for an individual company can and does lower economic profit for that company when other companies follow suite. Choices that have short-term benefits, have much larger long-term costs. Simple rules lead to disastrous outcomes. Those Milton Friedman MBA-oligists, as you call them, need to read On the Logic of Failure.

Poisoning the well while ignoring the actual arguments in a debate is the sign of a weak, unjustifiable position.

gsr says

I have a PhD in CE. I know the difference between the work as a research assistant and work in industry. It was an eye-opener for me.

Yes it is.

The reason is multifold.

1) Graduate students are paid very little and are tenured to their program. They often have to teach as well as perform research. In my program most of us had to take external jobs to make ends meet. This reduces the amount of time available for original research which by its nature is very time intensive. This is part of the reason what used to be a 4-5 year degree now takes 7 years to life to achieve.

The results bar in academia is low because its original research. Most original research ends in failure. Failure is considered a learning experience but failures cannot be published, patented or made into a product. Industry does not do so much original research anymore because of this - they simply commercialize the occasional success of academic labs.

When workers are cheap they are not valued. Advisors are perfectly willing to let their students flounder because of their teaching contribution. The department also makes money if the department is funded based on headcount. At that point quantity trumps quality.

In industry workers are (more) expensive. That means management is under more pressure to utilize them to the best of their ability. If a worker runs into difficulty a good boss will bend over backwards to help out. This does happen in academia as well but its less common.

gsr says

I definitely do not earn 700k figure that you posted.

Part of what a lot of STEM workers don't understand about compensation in finance is that when you're a member of the management team, you get a slice of the profit/loss statement.

Our two star prop traders earn in the millions. In effect, they are the money making machines and the rest of us, the beneficiaries of their contributions. But being on the starting team, I'm also relatively high up on the food chain. Our secretary, being the public face of the firm, earns a base salary of $45K & has been getting $40-$50K bonuses, as a result of her presentation style. Since we're paying her MS tuition, I suspect she won't be leaving any time soon and will probably exit, as a Patent Agent, when the time is right.

I'm hoping that ppl can see what I'm hinting at. In finance, it's about measured gambling (prop trading w/ or w/o the assistance of quants), sales (corralling client monies), and attitude (we're all New Englanders and are good with money & time; just look at our secretary, doing a science masters part-time, & is brilliant).

In contrast, had I stayed in applied chemistry, I would have never known the above. And I suspect that by experiencing the above, our secretary will never choose STEM work for herself.

New Renter says

Graduate students are paid very little and are tenured to their program. They often have to teach as well as perform research. In my program most of us had to take external jobs to make ends meet. This reduces the amount of time available for original research which by its nature is very time intensive. This is part of the reason what used to be a 4-5 year degree now takes 7 years to life to achieve.

It really depends on the location. I understand it would be tough in the west coast. With the RA, my living standard was pretty comfortable for one person. I had a colleague from Mexico who was married with two kids. He was doing ok as well. This is a real story.

New Renter says

The results bar in academia is low because its original research. Most original research ends in failure.

I was not referring to the quality of research, rather the quality of the end product. The quality of research may be great.

But the students don't really have the exposure on how to build a viable "bug-free" product, how to handle error conditions, how to handle a customer problem with the product. They are undervalued in the academia. I know this is a great generalization. But it is true, unless the software starts being used by people outside the domain of the specific student.

Ideally, I would say a each grad student should attempt to start his/her own startup, and become the "nerd-in-chief" there. I know it is easier to be said than done. Otherwise, working for a startup is the best way to learn, and have more flexibility in applying one's own ideas. Once the product matures, it becomes a lot harder to apply those learned skills.

To be honest, I have been seeing a lot of emails from recruiters. I know Mell has already done this. But feel free to message me as well if you would like.

Rin says

I'm hoping that ppl can see what I'm hinting at. In finance, it's about measured gambling

No, I fully agree with you about the problem you mentioned. I don't think many disagrees with that. They get bailed out as well. I simply do not agree with the solution that you think would fix the problem.

I am also fairly optimistic that in ten years from now, it would change. There is a big bubble in finance overall. And it is simply not sustainable without artificial stimulus, as it piggybacks on the productivity of other sectors.

Dan8267 says

9. Dan8267 says

A person growing up in the third world, not even having electricity most of his life, isn't going to blossom into a good software developer in four years. To grow software developers, you need to raise them on computers, access to lots of educational material, time to study (which means not spending time working on a farm, factory, etc.).

Often referred to as the 10,000 hour rule, although 20,000 hours seems more accurate.

First, you have no idea how much access people have to resources outside the country. Computer science is an abstract science, like Mathematics. It has nothing to do big machines.

Also, using your logic, no one could ever succeed from a poorer upbringing.

And the rule you cite is mostly applicable for skills that need constant practice. A smarter person can pick up things pretty quickly. Even in the case of music, the rule has been debunked.

gsr says

It really depends on the location. I understand it would be tough in the west coast. With the RA, my living standard was pretty comfortable for one person. I had a colleague from Mexico who was married with two kids. He was doing ok as well. This is a real story.

My stipend was $15,6k gross income in San Diego, not exactly a low cost of living area. I had to earn that with 13.3 hrs/wk of teaching which worked out to at least double that with the non-contact hours work (grading, class prep and whatnot) involved. The only way to make ends meet was to:

1) Have a spouse/significant other with a "real" job
2) Family support
3) Become a "road warrior" teaching part time at various community colleges.

(Sorry Dan, assless chaps were not an accepted part of the dress code)

For a while the idea of a new "Industrial Ph.D." program was considered. The idea was for candidates to do their research in an industrial setting. I loved the idea but it never went anywhere. I'm not surprised. The existence of such a program is a direct threat to a university's cheap labor pool.

It took a fight but I eventually got out. When I did I found I had NO support from my university. NONE. When I spoke with my dean about it he rather coldly told me it was the responsibility of one's advisor to provide such support. Mine didn't. It wasn't just myself, none of my colleagues were provided any support either unless for a post-doc and even that was hard to get. Industry recruiters were conspicuously absent.

Still with a Ph.D. in a STEM field one would think an industry job would be easy to find. WRONG! At a meeting of the American Chemical Society I found at that time most new graduates could expect to spend 6 months or more to land their first job. This was when the myth of the STEM shortage was still going strong.

After relocating to the SFBA It took me a YEAR AND A HALF to land my first industry job. Remember this is one of the tech powerhouse hubs. My first job was at a pay rate equivalent to that of a senior R.A.

Remember the whole point of this thread is to debate whether there is such a dire shortage of STEM workers that a larger numbers of graduates holding advanced degrees in STEM fields should be permitted.

gsr says

I guess an individual who goes through hardships at some point in his/her life understands better that a job is not an entitlement. And individual who does not struggle ever in life does not understand that. It is as true as the law of gravity. You or I or the government can't change that.

I hope now you can understand now why I say the “STEM shortage” is complete and utter bunk, at least as far as the “S” is concerned.

Rin says

New Renter says

Yes, I am. Got anything in the South Bay?

New Renter, I know I'm now a broken record [a metaphor for the last of the 20th century types], but if you still have the gumption, please take the Patent Bar/Agent exam, and try to get out of direct S&E work before it's too late.

So while you'll most likely get through the current job search, etc, at some point in time, father time will catch 'em with you and then, you'll be stuck doing documentation, until that group also gets sent abroad.

Patent agent work cannot be offshored. It's got a legal tether stateside and only US citizens, neither H1-Bs or Green Card holders, can sit for the test. And you don't have to attend law school, if you're not working litigation or giving legal counsel. Typically, even USPTO workers do the law school thing, part-time, to enhance their resumes.

Thank you for the advice, I'm looking into it :)

New Renter says

It took a fight but I eventually got out. When I did I found I had NO support from my university. NONE. When I spoke with my dean about it he rather coldly told me it was the responsibility of one's advisor to provide such support. Mine didn't. It wasn't just myself, none of my colleagues were provided any support either unless for a post-doc and even that was hard to get. Industry recruiters were conspicuously absent.

Still with a Ph.D. in a STEM field one would think an industry job would be easy to find. WRONG! At a meeting of the American Chemical Society I found at that time most new graduates could expect to spend 6 months or more to land their first job. This was when the myth of the STEM shortage was still going strong.

After relocating to the SFBA It took me a YEAR AND A HALF to land my first industry job. Remember this is one of the tech powerhouse hubs. My first job was at a pay rate equivalent to that of a senior R.A.

Your story is the harsh reality about S&E careers out there. In reality, there are PhDs, who had been recruited by MA based Genzyme, Vertex, Biogen, etc, however, most of them were on an inside track. Yes, those advisors & alumni in industry basically decide who's in and who's not. Thus, they can get up to 300 resumes from highly qualified individuals, however, they're only really reviewing perhaps up to a dozen because for them, the lab, the advisor, and the specialty are a perfect matchup. I'd been on interview commitees in biopharma and was appalled at the overt lack of decorum and professionality of the ppl in command. It's basically a free for all, mostly mud slinging, where the PI gets his way in the end, "He's one of Bob's guys, that's a good fit" In this case, Bob was the PI's advisor's pal at Yale.

Rin says

Your story is the harsh reality about S&E careers out there. In reality, there are PhDs, who had been recruited by MA based Genzyme, Vertex, Biogen, etc, however, most of them were on an inside track. Yes, those advisors & alumni in industry basically decide who's in and who's not. Thus, they can get up to 300 resumes from highly qualified individuals, however, they're only really reviewing perhaps up to a dozen because for them, the lab, the advisor, and the specialty are a perfect matchup. I'd been on interview commitees in biopharma and was appalled at the overt lack of decorum and professionality of the ppl in command. It's basically a free for all, mostly mud slinging, where the PI gets his way in the end, "He's one of Bob's guys, that's a good fit" In this case, Bob was the PI's advisor's pal at Yale.

I think part of the problem is the ones who cry "shortage" have no idea what a REAL shortage IS.

I've posted this before but I'll do it again. A few years ago "This American Life" did a story called the "The Giant Pool of Money" .

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/transcript

One of the interviewees was telling how - straight out of college - he was hired into an area sales manager job at an outfit called WMC Mortgage in upstate New York. His company sold home mortgages. At his height he was making between $75-100k A MONTH!

"Glen had five cars, a $1.5 million vacation house in Connecticut, and a penthouse that he rented in Manhattan. "

When a company is willing to hire a guy with no experience into a position with that kind of earning potential - now THAT is a shortage!

Rin says

Your story is the harsh reality about S&E careers out there. In reality, there are PhDs, who had been recruited by MA based Genzyme, Vertex, Biogen, etc, however, most of them were on an inside track. Yes, those advisors & alumni in industry basically decide who's in and who's not. Thus, they can get up to 300 resumes from highly qualified individuals, however, they're only really reviewing perhaps up to a dozen because for them, the lab, the advisor, and the specialty are a perfect matchup. I'd been on interview commitees in biopharma and was appalled at the overt lack of decorum and professionality of the ppl in command. It's basically a free for all, mostly mud slinging, where the PI gets his way in the end, "He's one of Bob's guys, that's a good fit" In this case, Bob was the PI's advisor's pal at Yale.

This would not be able to happen if a real shortage existed. New graduates would not be facing many months or even years of unemployment if a real shortage existed.

New Renter says

I hope now you can understand now why I say the “STEM shortage” is complete and utter bunk, at least as far as the “S” is concerned.

Now we agree in something. We have been arguing between apples and oranges. Jobs in science, particularly in pure science are scarce and are not well paid. But to be honest, that's the trend pretty much anywhere in the world I think. Except in specific areas of Biology and Organic chemistry, the demand of scientists is weak overall.

I know of a colleague who was doing PhD in physics. But he decided to drop out and now he has a job as a QA engineer. Another person was a Princeton physics PhD, U.C. Berkeley postdoc, and now he is a quant in Wells Fargo.

New Renter says

Thus, they can get up to 300 resumes from highly qualified individuals, however, they're only really reviewing perhaps up to a dozen because for them, the lab, the advisor, and the specialty are a perfect matchup. I'd been on interview commitees in biopharma and was appalled at the overt lack of decorum and professionality of the ppl in command. It's basically a free for all, mostly mud slinging, where the PI gets his way in the end, "He's one of Bob's guys, that's a good fit" In this case, Bob was the PI's advisor's pal at Yale.

This would not be able to happen if a real shortage existed. New graduates would not be facing many months or even years of unemployment if a real shortage existed.

Yes and to add to the damage... if a new grad does get a job, what happens 5-7 years later, when that cell line [or whatever] becomes passe? Is he enough of an insider to find a job at a peer company? You see, being pigeonholed is very easy in R&D. And once that happens, forget about it, you'll be stuck only being interviewed for your prior R&D functions. One is actually better off programming statistics [ SAS ], Oracle PL/SQL, or some other generic skill set, which is portable across industries and can even transverse dept labels, than being pure R&D in biopharma.

Believe me, the first time in my professional life that I've felt truly relaxed was starting this year, when I'd closed on that P/L distribution, totaling an income of $700K for 2012. I honest the goodness no longer feared the future. Before, in biopharma, I was studying every bit of IT/programming widget I could find, in-house, because I knew that I had to escape from the place. Ppl say that money doesn't bring happiness, I say bullsh*t!

gsr says

New Renter says

I hope now you can understand now why I say the “STEM shortage” is complete and utter bunk, at least as far as the “S” is concerned.

Now we agree in something. We have been arguing between apples and oranges. Jobs in science, particularly in pure science are scarce and are not well paid. But to be honest, that's the trend pretty much anywhere in the world I think. Except in specific areas of Biology and Organic chemistry, the demand of scientists is weak overall.

I know of a colleague who was doing PhD in physics. But he decided to drop out and now he has a job as a QA engineer. Another person was a Princeton physics PhD, U.C. Berkeley postdoc, and now he is a quant in Wells Fargo.

I'm glad you agree. Unfortunately the shortage is broad brushed to include scientists as well as other grossly saturated fields of engineering and tech. Probably math as well but others more qualified than I will have to weigh in on whether a shortage exists there.

Roberto , any thoughts?

If the powers that be REALLY wanted to make a valid case they'd drop the catchy STEM moniker and fine tune their arguments to ONLY include those few areas where the signs of a true shortage are present. Extra points to confess no shortage exists in the others. However, given their history I'd still be hella skeptical of anything they say. At this point the powers that be have all the credibility of puppy mill owners proclaiming a critical shortage of dogs.

Rin says

Ppl say that money doesn't bring happiness, I say bullsh*t!

I would say it either brings happiness or it just prevents a lot of unpleasantness. Either way better to have it than not.

New Renter says

Rin says

Ppl say that money doesn't bring happiness, I say bullsh*t!

I would say it either brings happiness or it just prevents a lot of unpleasantness. Either way better to have it than not.

Personally, I believe it brings happiness.

Nothing would give me more joy than in being able to perform research and conduct services, without thinking about the paycheck.

When I was in IT, all I thought about was chargeable hours and such. And how much a client was willing to sign off on. I can't say that I was entirely happy with that.

New Renter says

After relocating to the SFBA It took me a YEAR AND A HALF to land my first industry job. Remember this is one of the tech powerhouse hubs. My first job was at a pay rate equivalent to that of a senior R.A.

New Renter says

I hope now you can understand now why I say the “STEM shortage” is complete and utter bunk, at least as far as the “S” is concerned.

You could say easily SFBA saw a shortage back in the 80s as we grew and created many companies which provided untold products. But the fact is we didnt. We found what people we could get, trained them and moved forward. But back then we had more seasoned people who were more mature, provides leadership, and mentored their staff. It didnt matter if it was STEM or not in Tech companies. It also didnt matte which school you came from or how much diversity you may or may not have had.

But today, what do you have ... SHORTAGE... because unlike the 80s, THEY MUST come from some top university, with top grades, and fit some goofy sense of Culture and Diversity needs. And lastly you have managers who are too young, too immature, horrible people skills and incapable of being mentors to their teams.

If we were to apply Yahoo CEO Melissa Mayer edict that new hires must come from Top Schools that would have certainly disqualified the vast majority of the 70s 80s and 90s work force as it would disqualify many today. But this is the kind of thinking you hear about from these Google, Yahoo, Facebook idiots who you really cannot even consider being tech companies. And the media pronounces these edicts as the new law of the land to be applied to all real tech companies, which makes the problem even worst.

That is the Shortage you hear about today unlike the the more sensible hiring practice we had for decades past in SFBA Tech land . Sad but true! And Yes, I agree there really is no shortage of able people exist. Next time.. ask "what do you mean by shortage".

Its hard to even imagine the damage these people are creating because they are so damned immature.

Agreed.

gsr says

First, you have no idea how much access people have to resources outside the country. Computer science is an abstract science, like Mathematics. It has nothing to do big machines.

Attempting to become a software developer without ever using a computer is an exercise in futility. Yes, hands-on experience matters. To say otherwise is to speak from ignorance.

gsr says

Also, using your logic, no one could ever succeed from a poorer upbringing.

A poor person with a fiddle diligently practicing for 10,000 hours could become a master of the fiddle. A poor person with no access to a fiddle or anything like it, can not become a master.

gsr says

And the rule you cite is mostly applicable for skills that need constant practice. A smarter person can pick up things pretty quickly. Even in the case of music, the rule has been debunked.

The 10,000 hour rule refers to the development of talent, not semi-skill labor, and it applies to everyone from Olympic performers to theoretical physicists. No matter how talented a person is, that talent must be developed by experience. And for certain fields, that experience must come in childhood when the mind is malleable to learning things that the vast majority of human beings will never be capable of understanding.

Well, let's see, you attempted to address one out of sixteen counter-arguments and failed at that. Try again, and also address the other fifteen counter-arguments.

gsr says

New Renter says

I hope now you can understand now why I say the “STEM shortage” is complete and utter bunk, at least as far as the “S” is concerned.

Now we agree in something. We have been arguing between apples and oranges. Jobs in science, particularly in pure science are scarce and are not well paid. But to be honest, that's the trend pretty much anywhere in the world I think. Except in specific areas of Biology and Organic chemistry, the demand of scientists is weak overall.

thomaswong.1986 says

That is the Shortage you hear about today unlike the the more sensible hiring practice we had for decades past in SFBA Tech land . Sad but true! And Yes, I agree there really is no shortage of able people exist. Next time.. ask "what do you mean by shortage".

mell says

Agreed.

Holy @^% are we actually reaching a consensus here?

New Renter says

Holy @^% are we actually reaching a consensus here?

I think so.

I'm mad at myself because one, I'm a sell out for going into finance/trading but at the same time, I reserve a *Rage Against the Machine* attitude towards STEM careers, for the lies that they'd presented.

And to some extent, all our opinions are now converging on these issues, but from different angles of experience.

Rin says

I'm mad at myself because one, I'm a sell out for going into finance/trading but at the same time, I reserve a *Rage Against the Machine* attitude towards STEM careers, for the lies that they'd presented.

I wish I had the fortitude to follow your example. I think it takes a rare combination of opportunity, will and mentor ship to make a jump like that work.

At least I do my best to prevent others from falling for the lies. This is what makes me such a hit at science fairs.

New Renter says

Holy @^% are we actually reaching a consensus here?

Depends on what you define as shortage or qualified worker ?

there were tons and tons of unqualified workers in the BA who found jobs/careers
working in tech for decades, some actually became CEOs and founders of their
own companies.

But we have inexperienced leaders placed in power like Google Head Melissa Mayer to say who is qualified... she is just a child ! How can you put a child to make these decisions, and then everyone else follows them blindly as some "Google NEW Theory of Management" a template for all else to follow ?

not a question of shortage.. but utter stupidity !

thomaswong.1986 says

Depends on what you define as shortage or qualified worker ?

Well now I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Qualified can mean anything from a full Ivy league education in Nobel laureate labs PLUS a Rhodes scholarship, PLUS several lucrative patents just to get the interview for an entry level science job

to

Someone with only a bachelors and no experience to be qualified for an eye-watering-it's-so crazy-lucrative area sales manager position.

If you read my previous posts I think I have made my opinion of what a REAL shortage should look like quite clear. What we have no is NOT by any means a shortage at least as far as science is concerned.

Dan8267 says

The 10,000 hour rule refers to the development of talent, not semi-skill labor, and it applies to everyone from Olympic performers to theoretical physicists. No matter how talented a person is, that talent must be developed by experience. And for certain fields, that experience must come in childhood when the mind is malleable to learning things that the vast majority of human beings will never be capable of understanding.

You are still wrong. You have no effing idea how tough and strong curricula are, particularly in basic science and Maths across school systems in Asia.
For starters, see latest rankings in Maths Olympiads and see how far Asia has progressed. Again, this is not 1950 any more.
Their analytical and quantitative skills are already quite high.
GRE scores reveal that as well.

So far as access to computer is concerned. It has improved drastically. Even without that, there are tons of successful engineers and entrepreneurs, who were originally from relatively poorer countries.

We have a person who is originally from Nigeria, Africa. But he has a PhD from Cambridge, and he is quite smart. I am sure it is unimaginable for you, given that his background is from a poor country.

A lot of people from poorer background who did not use computers until at the undergrad level, do much better in picking up skills quickly due to both intelligence and hard-work. You are completely wrong in this.

Over here, we take care of gifted and talented students very well. But the average public school system is mediocre. That "no child left behind" policy has further corroded the system.

Trust me, we need to change drastically the school system if we want stay competitive in the world. Again, this is 21st century.
Or, you can relax and whine about "extinction of species".

We are great at the college levels, and beyond. That's why people from all over the world come here to study. And most of them do quite well, in case you are not aware.

gsr says

So far as access to computer is concerned. It has improved drastically. Even without that, there are tons of successful engineers and entrepreneurs, who were originally from relatively poorer countries.

We have a person who is originally from Nigeria, Africa. But he has a PhD from Cambridge, and he is quite smart. I am sure it is unimaginable for you, given that his background is from a poor country.

It was something to see how the kids who came from to the backward nation like Vietnam back in the mid 70s excelled in advanced Math and Science. After getting
top grades and 4 yr US university degree went into SV tech companies and other did equally well.

Folks, this thread is a first for Patrick.net.

For a while, it looked like a lot of bickering and such, however, an authentic discussion is forming and various points of consensus are being reached.

gsr says

GRE scores reveal that as well.

I could be wrong about this - but I am someone who spent the better part of two years in classes with only Asian classmates. In fact, I was the first American kid to graduate from my uni with a math degree in three years.

Anyway - my observation at the time was simply one of selection bias. Point is, China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Philippines, and Korea are not sending their average students to study in the US. I think at the time the aggregate population of those countries (of which were home to at least one of my classmates) were around 40% of the world population, roughly 10 times as many people as in the US.

Anyway, assuming a normal distribution for ability in those countries similarly to the US, 2% of the brightest minds in those countries would be the same number of people as one-fifth of the US population. Or roughly equivalent to everyone in California and Texas.

They aren't sending THAT many students to study in the US, so it is more likely they are sending the top one tenth of 1% or better. Even at that level we are talking about a population somewhere between Nevada and New Mexico.

Unless someone shows me a study indicating otherwise - I am most certain that high average GRE, GMAT, etc scores for Asian students is a factor of selection bias more than anything else.

not sure this is apropos, or what it really measures:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USINFO

(I think it includes entertainment industry jobs too)

but that there would be the exact same number of "info" jobs in 2013 as when I got my CS degree lo these many years ago is shocking to me.