Comments on: Brain drain in tech's future?
A drop in the number of science and engineering doctoral degrees could spell trouble for innovation in the tech field.
Less-than-risky business
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- For eBay sellers, a holiday hamster hangover
January 2, 2010 6:00 AM PST
- Facebook, Twitter: How we chose to live in public
January 1, 2010 12:16 PM PST
- Ex-Googler Lee sees Apple tablet debut in January
January 1, 2010 9:20 AM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
I don't care if corporations go down the drain they created this mess with all the visas. I'm the vindictive type.
I say let America become a 2nd-3rd tier economy. (If it is not already.)
by multinationals that are hollowing out the
United States industrial and engineering
infrastructure is a problem. And very ugly.
But multi-nationals by their nature cross
national boundaries. They don't bear any
particular allegiance to any one country. So
they can harm the country that allowed them
to exist and then move much of their operations
offshore. This has already happened. Over
half of IBM's profits are earned overseas.
We, the workers in the US are left holding the
bag.
When a Ph D in computer science not only does not give you a salary boost but also significantly REDUCES employment opportunities, is it any wonder people are not obtaining a Ph D?
My best advice for anyone with a Ph D in computer science is to leave it OFF the resume.
believe that a "professional masters" (2 years beyond BS)
would be more appropriate for industry. Especially in
engineering, comp sci.
People go where the money is. It's not in IT anymore. While companies can get good, skilled workers overseas, it is only shifting what people here in america are willing to do.
Some indian might be happy with $8900 / year. But tell me...what american is going to invest heavily in an IT education that results in NO JOB or a very low paying one?
YOu seem to disparage the IT/Programmer who switched to a legal career. I say...GREAT FOR HIM! He's the smart one.
Those of us left in the IT Field, hoping for a turnaround in demand, are the stupid ones. Have you seen the dumping of professional american programmers to there overseas counterparts?
What i wish is for CEOs/board members to have there jobs dumped overseas. Why can't an indian perform those duties?
It all comes down to the golden rule. He who has the gold, rules. And for the rest of us, we're not so stupid as to be willing to invest significant $ in our IT educations only to have no opportunity to earn a decent living.
Maybe that indian is happy with $8900. But i for one cannot afford to pay for my American home, college, and living expenses on $8900.
Over time, as their prosperity rises, the wages will only raise up. One day an equilibrium will be achieved. Perhaps then, investing in an IT Education for an IT career might be worthwhile.
For now, if you are trying to make a career in IT in America, It's a fools errand.
It should read as follows:
"Pay scientists the six figure salaries and you will watch PhD jobs move move to China and India faster than you can say 'PhD'"
Why is a Ph.D so important with lifelong learning? What ever happened to getting the job done. Wasn't the world's largest software company started by a college drop out?
One another note, I don't this money from the NSF should be allowed to pay foreign graduate students. If the universitied want them, they can pay them without my tax money. This idea is much better than the H1-B cap. (No tax dollars for non citizens.)
The NSF is trying to preserve their little feudal system.
According to my politics, there should be massive cutailing of funds diverted to the essentially bankrupt public education system. I should not have to pay for somebody's kids' education especially when their parents pay less than I do for it.
All this conversation about declining PhD's in information technology field is nonsense. It is much more appropriate to take this market phenomenon as a STARTING POINT and ask why the value of a PhD in IT has declined. Is it that the product has declined in effectiveness? Is it the market that has changed? Maybe the world has just awakened to the fact that most PhD's just aren't of good quality to begin with.
Can I just say... DUH!
If you want to make good money, get a job. The PHd is designed to prepare students for a life of research, not productivity. Students with a "B" average should not have an easy entrance into a doctorial program, because we want to promote only the very brightest individuals into positions where they receive government grants (read: public funding) to pursue their ideas.
Personally, I would be very angry to find that my tax dollars are being awarded to sub-standard phd students who are only pursuing a degree for the money.
phd != money in this field. Never has. Never should.
I left academia because I didn't want to be part of this process. Idiots get hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement toy programs of ideas developed 20 years ago. I happens all over, good schools and bad.
most people in the u.s. never realize this but, the average american is no smarter than the average person from china or india. so why or how does he/she command a salary 10X higher? it is because of the very few and very talented inovators (often with ph.D.s) that create new companies and new products that have a high enough margin to pay these high american salaries. these great inovators create companies with great value and they are the ones who should be rewarded. does the average american really think he/she brings such productivity or value to a company to command a 10X salary over his/her rival in a different country? why or how are you able to go to work 9-5 and bring home a large salary (as compared to others in the world)? you just applied for a job sitting in front of a computer and they pay you more than people in china. take google for example: 2 standford ph.D. students create a new company, but with great value. do you think all 2000 jobs created paying $100-200k would be there without them? as soon as america reduces the great influx of gifted entrepreneurs and talent, is the day we begin are slow march to startdard salaries we see throughout the world. i will take a gifted foreign ph.D. who has trouble speaking english, but who creates billions in value for a company versus 1000 average (trained) americans who only know how to apply for a job and do the task in front of their face. these ph.D. often bring new products or services which command huge margins to pay your very high american salaries. think about that.
Besides, I don't think it's founders have PhDs. In fact, name a leading tech company founded by a PhD? Sun? HP? Apple? Microsoft? IBM? PhDs in science and engineering are way overrated in the business world. America produces too many in a fitful dream that they will automagically produce all of this innovation. But America's truly innovators, like Edison and Ford, didn't have PhDs. Simply put, you're incorrect.
For the record, I have a PhD. Sometimes I wonder why I wasted my time.
You are right. Americans are no "smarter" than Chinese, British, Canadians, or put whatever nationality you wish here. To imply such would imply that the Chinese have a different physiological/social makeup than Americans. As far as I know, we are all human and all have the capacity to learn.
I sense a bit of jealousy from some non-US posts. I noticed one that made reference to the US being a "second or third tier economy". It takes an entire European Union and it still doesn't generate as much as the US economy. I can't comprehend how that is a "third tier" economy.
As for Americans and their ability to generate 10x as much as others... well, that's a complex mix. It's the sum of the parts that makes America strong. It's not just about innovation. It's about efficiency too -- such as efficiency to move up and down the supply chain both physically and logically. American's clearly aren't special -- however they do take advantage of productivity improvements set into motion generations ago. They are also motivated and lucky in some respects. American's get paid 10x more because they use capital as a lever to gain efficiency (profits) over their competitors. One person does not make a company and to imply a president or CEO gives thousands of Americans 10x more pay is ignorant of how or why aggregate businesses operates.
As for some posts complaining about science and engineering.... I have a degree in Aeronautical Engineering. It didn't make me rich. It did challenge me and opened doors to other career paths including opening up of an Internet business, a merger, a ten a subsequent change into a totally new job as a manager.
Science and engineering is where the money is. Finance, IT, marketing, etc. fields are all looking for good people with math skills: engineering students have that -- along with the ability to learn.
the people who want to end outsourcing are very short sighted. if these same people would be promoted to executive positions the outcome would likely be as follows. great company internal morale in the short term. then, a competitor company opens office next door. this competitor offers the same products or services for exactly 50% of your price. customer chooses competitor company (only logical) and this great short sighted individual with high company morale must start layoff to bring down costs. still insisting to not hire foreign workers, this high morale company eventually closes down business due to lack of profits.
realize the executives of these american companies are greedy, but this is a good thing. their greed is what will make and keep a healthy american company as foreign competition arrives. you may see short term pains as they offshore a small number of jobs (not small if it is your job, i know). but, if they did not do this, in 10 years there may be no company to report to at all. perhaps some american companies are taking offshoring to the extreme, but let the market balance this out, not government reform. never has the government been as efficient as the market. this about that.
I see many job postings for American companies on craiglist that say "Piority to Visa transfer candidate") or ITT graduates with 'anykind' of degree is preferred")
Where is the fairness to the product of American education system?
Andrew
I'll be enrolling soon. Its easy for people like me to make lots of money very quickly. I've done it before and I'll do it again. This time I know what I really want.
silly comments and words to criticize the ph.D.s and perhaps the american university systems are fine, but most people think they understand something about the university systems when they do not. go through one of these programs, finish one of these programs, and then you will understand what you get out of it. silly comments about expensive books just shows you lack the 3D image of an advanced education.
literally close your eyes for a minute ...
and try to explain only in words the color of red to me. now you understand how it is for me to explain this idea to you if you have not seen it before. think about that.
While the top Universities can use graduate students to teach the undergraduates and allow the senior staff to concentrate on research, many of the smaller universities still try to have senior faculty teach undergraduates. To get there you have to compete with peers in other fields who typically have the Ph.D and expect scholarship to be part of the role for faculty.
While individualhold the BS/MS may be at the bleeding edge of the Industry, they are not providing the next generation of talent.
By the way. The Ph.D teaching think only happened after Spunik. Before this, you could just have a Bachelor Degree to teach college. This was meant to copy the Russian system of educations. However, most people do not realize that having a Ph.D in Russia and being called "Doctor" in a technical field do not go hand in hand. A Doctor in Russia has ten years of relavent experience in Academic and Industrial problem - Both.
I know exactly what I am talking about. Innnovation is statistically independent of what "higher education level" you have. Usually, the only common attribute is that most have a Bachelor's degree. (But not always.)
If true market dynamics were in play, the price of college would be much lower, because there is a glut of Ph.D's.
Tony
This government has slashed funding for pure research (except, of course, for military applications) and that has left colleges and research organizations unable to hire or even to maintain some existing projects.
Foreign PhD students are finding the continual harassment from government agencies frightening and are electing to pursue their studies back in their home countries. Foreign PhD students aleady in the US are more inclined to return to their home countries to teach. And so it goes round and round.
It is also pure ignorance to place computer science PhD?s in the same category as pure science graduates. Technology has its own set of problems which include the decimation of the high technology industry in the US. If you?re smart enough to pursue a doctoral program, you?re smart enough to avoid a dying field.
- "Why a PhD?" as I understand it
- by August 10, 2004 9:45 AM PDT
- I'm finishing a MS degree in CSC. I'm American also. I'm in a fellowship program that's paying for me to receive that degree and requires that I enter a PhD program as soon as I finish the MS program. This is what I wanted to do anyway.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- You have never been able to cost-justify a US PhD in industry
- by furl12 August 15, 2004 6:15 PM PDT
- >>My main interests for getting a PhD was industry,
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (37 Comments)I decided I wanted to go to grad school because after my 1st internship at a Nat'l Lab, I was exposed to R&D. This was something that I thought I would really love, the ability to choose problems to solves and work on them with resouces to back you and the opportunity to produce things that were useful and not just sit in a journal somewhere. I wanted to work in R&D, I wanted to have my own R&D firm or lab. So I decided that I would need training and I asked myself where could I get this training? Where could I support myself and have available resources while I worked on developing my own ideas. And grad school was the place for that, and here I am. I also see a need in IT and engineering education. My main interests for getting a PhD was industry, but I wanted the option of going into education and training. I would like to be an adjunct while working in the industry. Even though cutting edge research is being carried on in academia, I think students can benefit from someone in industry who can help make all those abstract concepts relevant and more concrete.
An advance degree can and most often times means more options. I can work at national labs, we need more US citizens b/c there aren't many labs that can employ non-citizens esp. in the DOE and DOD. I can go into industry, more than PhD's go into industry than into academia( can't remember the actual number ). And then there's academia. With a PhD, I'm qualified to be instructor at virtually any level. As said earlier, PhD's are important because they help produce people with more AA's, BS's, MS's, and PhD degrees. Not to mention all the managerial and administrative positions that need to be filled by scientists. We need scientists in law, politics, and positions of diplomacy.
>>but I wanted the option of going into education and training.
You seem to be confused by the difference between an MS and a PhD. A PhD is not simply a bigger and better MS or BS. It is designed for an entirely different type of career.
Industry consumes very few PhD?s. Business requires mostly associate degrees, BS?s and a limited number of MS?s and MBA?s. For the kind of work done by corporations, a PhD is overkill: You?ll never justify the cost in either dollars or years. (This is slightly different from Europe, where a doctorate takes fewer years and is consequently nearer to an American MS.)
Universities and other research organizations require few ? and a steadily decreasing number ? of PhD graduates. That is a measure of the maturity of the field. We no longer need armies of researchers working on faster chips or cleverer programming languages ? either in North America or Europe or Asia.
It?s always been true that people going on to take PhD have been at the mercy of fluctuating government funding. An American PhD takes 5-6 years, which is longer than a presidential term. Although it was heartless and stupid of the current government to have cut high technology research funding so much and so quickly, the long term prospects in this particular field are poor regardless of who wins the next election.