America’s Broken Brain Trust

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

I haven’t done much teaching lately. Budget cuts have pretty much killed off adjunct positions and I have not sought a full-time position. So my exposure to undergraduates over the last two years has been limited. When I held such positions, students would often ask my advice about the realities of a career in science.

When I had such encounters I answered honestly that being a successful scientist was about as practical as trying to become a movie star or professional athlete. Further, there was no striking it rich for the few that “made it.” Income prospects for even the most successful in the field were moderate at best. At worst, they were consigning themselves to a life of poverty.

Last night I went to a “State of the Union” party where supporters of Obama got together to discuss the issues of the day and watch Obama’s address to the nation together. Although most of us were 40+ with a smattering of 30-somethings, there was one student from Stamford who happened to be a biology major.

We watched the State of the Union and amid the encouragement that Obama offered would be scientists and engineers - I had to advise caution to this student. Not surprisingly, he agreed with me. He felt that mid the grim statistics, the post-doctoral logjam, and literally piss-poor pay for the “successful” that you would have to be crazy to pursue a career in science.

Unfortunately for Obama and for the country as a whole, all the grant money in the world for education is pointless unless there are well paying jobs at the end of the educational pipeline.

But more important, what this type of encounter show us is that there truly are young people interested in pursuing science and engineering as career paths. The difficulty is that these careers are just not viable from a practical standpoint. So they turn to other fields such as law, finance, banking and sales. One has to wonder just how many people can be sustained in these fields.

It is this narrowing of viable income producing fields that has our country on the ropes. There are precious few places for people to go in order to earn a viable living. Everyone is flooding into the few niches that will actually produce the “green.” This is exacerbated by the fact that there are no more safety nets. The widening income gap has created a society of rich vs. poor. The poor are truly becoming POOR. The best and the brightest of our youth have a choice: they can choose to pursue their dreams and end up poor - or set them aside and end up rich. More and more, they are choosing money over dreams. From a practical standpoint - this is the right choice for the individual - but the wrong one for society. However, will society treat these people any better for doing the right thing? No, it won’t.

In an earlier post I mentioned issues impacting the middle class specifically.  Although this would appear to have little to do with the American brain trust and its loss.  But the demise of the middle class is inextricably linked to the demise of the middle class.  After all, scientists and engineers have never been in the forefront of high wage earners.

Yes, there are people for whom money isn’t everything. I know that sound virutally amazing in these times where the bottom line seems to rule all - but its true. People have entered these fields knowing that for the most part, they would be employees earning an upper middle class salary after many years of paying dues in the form of higher education and climbing the ladder.  This was the trade-off for having a career that was very fulfilling and satisfying.

So when America started betraying the middle class - it betrayed the core population of scientists and engineers that lived their lives in an ivory tower by day  - where they worked - and emerged as  normal middle class working people by night.

What we are seeing is not  a diminished interest in science, math and engineering, but we are seeing a decay of viable careers at all levels.  As this decay continues, college bound students and new college grads all rush for the few fields left that are lucrative enough to promote a moderate degree of financial security.

Take Law School for example:  for years it was a golden ticket to almost instant guaranteed wealth.  When I was an undergrad - the trend away from medicine and science was judy beginning.  Many students started turning their sights towards law school or top of the line MBA programs.  They started turning their backs on medical school let alone a Ph.D.   The issue was not interest but in a world of tattered safety nets financial SECURITY becomes an ever more elusive goal.

Now the bloom is off the rose even for law school.  A recent article in the New York Times points out that the “golden ticket” to the good life is no more. Yet another viable career opportunity bites the dust.
But what creates this rush towards jobs that offer security over satisfaction?  Elizabeth Warren outlines why the middle class is in trouble and just how serious the situation is for the vast majority of Americans.  The video is LONG - but for those with the patience to stick it out - I think (unintentionally) it sheds a great deal of light on why Americans are shunning careers that don’t earn them the big bucks.

A few years ago a headline appeared in the journal The Scientist:  On the cover there was a picture of a 30-something “homeless” man holding up a handwritten sign on corrugated cardboard which read something along these lines:

• I have a Ph.D.
• 10 publications
• 6 review articles
• 7 years post-doctoral training
• Will work for food!

The fact that such a photo actually appeared on the cover of such a well-read journal should be evidence enough that the system of training and compensating scientists is in serious trouble.  The cover coincided roughly with the time that I had decided to throw in my lab coat for a career in sales.  Having taken a critical look around me about twelve months earlier I saw nothing but a future of indentured servitude and poverty.  It was time to move on.  The cover article was a grim confirmation that I had done the right thing.

If anyone had lingering doubts about the seriousness of the situation - opening the cover and actually reading the article should have caused most of the optimists arguments to R.I.P.  Inside the journal there were a few scientists who made light of the situation and sighted single-minded “dedication” as a sure path to success.  They even likened the dedication required to a career in the arts…think acting, music, dance, and the fine arts.

I have some notion of the daunting hurdles that those in the arts face.  My late mother was a professional singer and radio interviewer.  I also studied music seriously in college and as a result, have several friends from college who tried to break into careers in acting and music.  The odds against success are simply staggering in any of the arts.  If the criteria for success is a full-time job, success in the arts is far more elusive than success in the sciences and engineering.  But if the goal is to make a livable salary that actually pays the bills, puts the kids through school and provides for retirement, the similarities become obvious.  In fact, I would submit that it is the full-time work requirement for the scientist that creates far greater financial risk to the scientist than to the artist.

How can that be true?  I admit the statement is counterintuitive.  But artists have one strong advantage.  They have the ability to develop complementary “day jobs.”  A couple of musicians that I know actually created ancillary careers for themselves.  They were able to build something to fall back on if things weren’t working out for them in the arts.  The fact that a career in the arts is generally defined as part-time until there is significant success makes these back-up careers possible.  But for the scientist that is not the case.  There is no part-time option for the aspiring scientist and no way for the fledgling scientist to supplement the pathetic income they are given for 60-80 hours of grinding labor that is expected of them weekly.

The financial risk for the scientist arises from the following factors:

• The length of training required.
• The amount of compensation offered.
• The number of working hours required.

In biological and biomedical fields, you are looking easily at a 6-9 year period of pre-doctoral training.  Few make it out in less than seven years.  The average is about eight years.  This is full time training with no ancillary employment for supplemental income allowed.  Since you are looking a 60-80 hour week the potential- so unless you are robbing banks, the time constraint alone places a heavy constraint on creating additional income.

Throughout the nineties and until about 2002, many new graduates were counting on leapfrogging into a nice industry job.  Most have been living in grinding poverty for about eight years so they are pretty hungry for a good paycheck.  Since that time, we’ve had a major glut of doctorates coming out of the pipeline in the midst of a contracting economy for biotech.  The dreaded “Post-Doc” has become the new holding pen for those caught in the Ph.D. logjam.  Initially, the post-doc was meant to be a short extension of the Ph.D. training period and was not intended to extend beyond 2-3 years.  This “extension” now seems to meander on indefinitely.  Most graduates do at least two post-docs, many do three before they can find a “real job.” Each position lasts a minimum of two years and some can stretch on for six years.  The pay is generally under $40k with the hours are similar to that of the Ph.D. candidate.   Most graduates are looking at 6-10 years in the holding pen.

For who lost track - you are looking at a 12-19 year “training” period where supplemental compensation is largely impossible.   Small wonder that I have dubbed this prolonged training period  -  “the endless indenture.” Most graduates  are realistically looking at 15 years in the pipeline.  This means that most  Ph.D.’s are sliding into their first “real job”  when they are approaching or in middle age.  38-42 years of age is a good benchmark.

Common sense dictates that the jobs had damn well better be there or these highly trained, very educated people are off a financial cliff.  They have undergone a grueling process of specialized training all of which is full-full time such that lateral movement to another field is well nigh impossible.  In the process they have also lost 15 years of valuable time in building a nest egg for a home, a college education for their children and a retirement fund.  The training process eliminates the flexibility that is badly needed in an economy where the sands shift rapidly under everyone’s feet.  The price tag for extending education into mid-life is too high for most individuals to bear.

Bottom line - its all well and good to say the world is “flat” and that this is a necessary “adjustment.”  But don’t sit and complain (like Thomas Friedman does) about the lack of interest in the sciences on the part of Americans.  We have enough critical mass of interest and ability to produce the next generation of scientist.  Our graduate institutions are world renowned - so I would submit that education is not the issue.  The issue is one of risk and compensation.  The risk has to be mitigated and the compensation increased to a level commensurate with that of other professionals.   The training period also needs to be reduced.  If we don’t do these things,  the best and brightest will continue to flock to the 2-year MBA or the 3-year J.D. and shun the Ph.D.

In general I have a great deal of respect for Thomas Friedman. But on the issues of globalization and the fate of technology in this country, he always, always, always misses the mark by a good mile or more. In today’s op-ed in the New York Times, Advice From Grandma, I held out some hope that he might get it right - but nope, he did it again.

In truth, most of the article was about how American government had become paralized by poor governance. And how the lack of vibrant government was stifling imagination and creativity  - our single best asset.  Nurting said creativity leads to innovation and innovation can bring us back to life. CHECK!  I agree completely.

Friedman goes on to say  “What I increasingly fear today is that America is only able to produce “suboptimal” responses to its biggest problems — education, debt, financial regulation, health care, energy and environment.” CHECK!

He sights money in politics, gerrymandering, cable TV, the internet (both of which foster extreme views) and a business community which forms a powerful lobby that works only for its own ends.  CHECK AGAIN!

Friedman was on a roll. But what he doesn’t address is what NEEDS to happen. Although he is correct in saying that Americans need to be willing to “sacrifice” that’s a tough sell for a middle class that has been pummelled by a free market cowboy mentality that has stripped them of health care,  job security, income, and any real source of firm footing with respect to their finances for the forseeable future.

What Friedman needed to do was “connect the dots.”  What is needed from government now is REAL opportunities for the creative.  You see Friedman was wrong to suggest that  creativity and innovation can not be  commoditized.  They have been - by corporate powers, and the higher ups in accademia that insisted we needed MORE foreign nationals working as engineers and scientists in this country.  To those entities that insisted globalization of such high-earning fields in science and engineering could be off-shored with no ill effects.   The cheapening of the higher education in these critical areas has commoditized the innovaters to nothingness.  Congratulations America! By listening to those vested interests  - you have created a race to the bottom for our most talented thinkers.  Today, biomedical labs are nothing more than high-tech sweat-shops where the best and brightest toil 70 hours a week for less than minimu wage.

My life started down one path and ended up willy-nilly someplace else.  I saw the writing on the wall during the last two years of my doctoral training.  The opportunities that were available when I entered the Ph.D. pipeline in 1998 were no longer available.  We had a glut of scienteists, most of them  not American born,  coming out of the pipeline as newly minted Ph.D.’s just as I was about to get my own sheepskin.   I knew I couldn’t survive on 10 years of post-docing at under $40k a year - so I was in quite a jam. That was all I was trained for - and that training had extended 7. 5 long years.  Getting a job in another venue wasn’t going to be easy.

The result…apart from teaching as an adjunct, I haven’t held a pipet or run a PCR in nearly five years. I haven’t “thought” science in a long, long time.  Ideas for projects and experiments have run fallow. My innovative mind has turned its talents to marketing plans that will increase the flow of clients in my real estate practice.  This is a far cry from what I intended.  I have made it work for me but few would argue that I would be making a better contribution to our society as a scientist.  There was on tiny problem with that though.   I never considered taking a Ph.D. to be a vow of poverty.  I wasn’t looking for vast wealth - but a decent living after all those years of train is a “must.” This is particularly true in what we have become - an “ownership” society.

Programs that encourage the growth of Americans in science, engineering and technology need to recognize some basic facts. The training is long and arduous.  It delays the potential of a decent salary until the candidate is well into their thirties or even their forties.  Therefore - the jobs and the money had better be there or these newly minted scientists and engineers are up the creek without a paddle.   If these things do not happen,  it becomes a no-can-do scenario for all but the independently wealthy and the foreign nationals that haven’t returned home (a reverse brain drain.)

Elizabeth Warren has long warned that the middle class was under extreme stress.  In 2003 she co-authored the  “The Two income Trap”  in which she and her daughter painted a vivid description of the financial tight-rope that the middle Class find themselves on.  She recently appeared in Michael Moore’s film “Capitalism: A Love Story”.

Ms. Warren is currently chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the TARP funds.  As such, she has been a refreshingly frank and uncompromising voice in the nation’s capital.

Why is this relevant to America’s brain drain? The dissolution of the middle class has a great deal to do with the breaking of the American brain trust.   After all, an American scientist, engineer or academic has more in common with a UAW worker than it does with bankers, stockbrokers and sales people - at least when it comes to compensation.  Actually, I take that back,  UAW workers probably fare a lot better financially in the grand scheme of things.   At the very least,  they were not burdened  by years spent out of the work force to complete an extensive education.

Thus the brain drain  has everything to do with the dissolution of the middle class.  Make no mistake, scientists and engineers are employees. They are working people - and as such their prosperity is linked to the prevailing trends of the work place.

The video  is short, but on-point.  Likening the middle class to a Thanksgiving turkey is a powerful and unfortunately - a very apt metaphor.

Further Reading:

Blogs where Elizabeth Warren is a contributer:

Credit Slips

The Baseline Scenario

The Two-Income Trap by Elizabeth Warren &Amelia Warren Tyagi

© 2009 Ruthmarie G. Hicks, http://www.AmericasBrokenBraintrust.com. All rights reserved.

President Obama hosted astronomy night at the White House on Wednesday encouraging students with a “passion” for science and engineering to follow their dreams.  Although I admire Obama’s attempt at trying to put a finger in the dike of the American science brain drain, it is an empty effort if compensation issue is not addressed in a substantive way.  Telling these bright-eyed young people to follow their dreams is recipe for financial disaster given the system of exploitation that currently dominates the landscape.

My former field required an enormous input of time as both a student and post-doc.  By the time the average biomedical scientist was ready for a “real job” we are often in our late 30s or even into our 40s.  The “jobs” that we are often offerd after such an extensive education have salaries that are nothing short of pitiful.  Pragmatism caused me to sell out on my passion.  I didn’t want to wake up one morning old, poor, bitter and unable to see a doctor and take advantage of treatments that I helped to create.

The brain drain is caused by a compensation drain.  This drain is perpetuated by the “in-sourcing” of graduate students and post-docs from third world nations.  Don’t get me wrong. They have been my friends and colleagues.  BUT - they are also being exploited and their presence allows American scientists to also be exploited. After such an extensive education  - it is not unreasonable to expect something resembling a living wage.  Unless Mr. Obama addresses this burning need to live above the poverty level - science will continue to languish in this country.

Scientists and engineers need more then empty speeches - they need enough money in their pockets to make a living, own a home, raise their families and prepare for retirement.

Further Reading:

Postdocs at Brookhaven: Establishing a Living Wage.

5000 postdocs choose UAW.

Much has been written in recent years about the appalling lack of academic excellence in our society.  Thomas Friedman has written extensively on this issue complaining mournfully about the lack of interest the youth of America display toward fields such as science and engineering.  The few remaining Americans who choose this pathway are part of the American braintrust. The knowledge and skills they acquire allow America to remain on the cutting edge.  A critical mass of such talent is needed to fuel progress, innovate and create the products, solutions and medical treatments of tomorrow. Without  this core of individuals, there is nothing to propel us forward.  Businesses will stagnate for want of new products.  Solutions to our energy problems, global warming and the like will go unsolved.

At one time, I was a small part of that braintrust.  I was a scientist.  I have two master’s degrees, one in molecular and cellular biology and another in microbiology and immunology along with a Ph.D. in microbiology and immunology.     I worked as a research assistant, lab manager and doctoral candidate in this field for some 15 years before throwing in the towel and “selling out” to run my own business.

Why the “sell out”?  Why leave after such a major investment of time and education?  Why leave such stimulating and interesting work for the for the world of business.  It was, after all, a wrenching transition.   The answer  to this question is quite basic. The reason I left was  “money” or lack of same. Although I still work as an adjunct professor, my primary income comes from a licensing course that took 45 hours to obtain.  Don’t get me wrong. Selling real estate is far from “easy” and most of the training is through the school of hard knocks.  In fact over 90% of agents drop out because it is so tough.  But that’s not the point.  The point is one of value.  Why is a broker/agent potentially worth so much more than a than a Ph.D. with unique skills?

These answers are neither simple nor easy.   The end result is that many if not most who are part of the braintrust find that though they are among the “best and brightest” they must make do with a life below the poverty line.  Small wonder that these fields pale in comparison to the lure or Wall Street, banking and business. How we came to such an impasse is somewhat mysterious - although I think a good part of the problem has its roots in the  supply-side, trickle down economic policies that neoconservatives tout.  Certainly there are many contributing factors.

What to do about it is of paramount importance. This is particularly true when our entire economy is dependent on new R&D to keep chugging along.  At the end of the day - it is the innovators that drive investor’s portfolio values ever higher. So America needs to solve its braintrust issue if it doesn’t want to become a third world nation.

© 2009 Ruthmarie G. Hicks - America’s Broken Braintrust

Talk about riling me up! Bob Herbert wrote an op-ed piece Peering into the future,  in today’s New York Times that made my blood boil.  Normally, I have a great deal of respect for Bob Herbert, but his editorial about Bill Gates was just over the top.

Bill and Melinda Gates made a surprise appearance in an algebra class at West Charlotte High School, Charlotte, NC.  Apparently the Gate’s have been traveling around the country going to public schools in order to see what has “gone wrong” and what is working in the public schools.  As to the former, they could easily have looked closer to home for the answers.

To his credit, Mr. Gates recognizes the problem, “Our performance at every level — primary and secondary school achievement, high school graduation, college entry, college completion — is dropping against the rest of the world.”  However, Mr. Gates is an ironic figure to be promoting the benefits of completing college and the value of a formal education.

Bill Gates himself dropped out of college in order to start Microsoft.  He is not a scientist, engineer, nor is he a computer programmer.  He is a business man - plain and simple.   Granted he had a great deal of vision and drive,  but his very success sans college degree makes  this a very hard sell to the would-be millionaires hoping for a slice of the American dream.  The message of his life story and the employment practices of his company  are “quit school, make money. Stay in school, be a sucker.”

For the past 30 years college and graduate students have been spurning careers in science, engineering, math and computer programming in favor of business and banking.  Many pundits lapse into the lazy logic that these subjects are “hard” and therefore less desirable.  If it is reasonably easy to create wealth on Wall Street - why undergo the years of effort and education to become a Ph.D. or engineer.  This has always been true to one extent or another.  But why has the trend accelerated at such an alarming rate?  How did we get ourselves into such a sorry state?

The irony of the Gates’ visit to public schools is that Microsoft has been part of the problem.  Gates has appeared before Congress insisting that they up the number of H1-B visas granted because these fine minds were “needed” to keep the US economy strong.  Nonesense.  H1-B’s ulimately drain the American braintrust by squashing salaries and consigning entire swaths of academia to foreign nationals.  That might boost the bottom line for the likes of Microsoft and Imclone.  It is quick fix, and it works!  The  trouble is that cuts Americans out of the action and also does not account for the consequences that only come due when these foreign nationals decide to go home. Microsoft has also been involved in significant amounts of outsourcing high-tech jobs to India .  This has led to job losses for people with just the skill set that Bill Gates is promoting in the schools.

What’s wrong with this picture?

On the surface, this would appear to have little to do with a brain drain issue.  It in truth, it is more of a symptom than a cause.   But symptoms have consequences.

At the outset, I must say that the whole scene was horrifying.  Strangely, I did not find the outburst from Wilson, as distasteful as unnerving as the general booing and moaning that came from the republican side as a whole.  That large a response had to be orchestrated. The fact that a fairly substantial group of republicans thought that booing was somehow appropriate for a presidential speech before a joint session of Congress is unprecedented.   It implies a pervasive  lack of respect for the President, and the office of the presidency.  Make no mistake, this is something new and very disturbing.   I have watched many a joint session of Congress and I have never seen cat calls and booing before.

Perhaps it is  not too surprising that the very contingents who trashed the economy, dragged us into a pointless war, encouraged torture,  and destroyed the middle class, now see fit to throw respect for our Commander in Chief into the toilet with everything else they  managed to destroy.

Of course there are racial undertones in all of this.  That part is evident as there is a pervasive “red-neck” population that insists a  Civil War victory for the confederates is still up for grabs.  I think Maureen Dowd said it best in her New York Times Op-Ed “Boy, Oh Boy”.

When I was growing up, this red-neck contingency - though present, had been marginalized.  Their impact on the country effectively neutralized.  That all changed when business formed an unholy alliance with the religious-right.  The process was outlined so well in Thomas Frank’s 2004 book What’s the Matter with Kansas? Shows how money from the conservative wing of the republican party gave this small but “loud” group of individuals a megaphone that has somehow managed to dumb down an entire nation.  When we appeal to the lowest common denominator - we can expect little more than a  jungle mentality.  “I’ve got mine, so f**k you!”  It is a society ruled by fear while the bottom 95% scramble for every crumb of security they can get.  The more erudite among us call it “social darwinism.”  By whatever name you call it - it has grave consequences for our society and standing in the world.

Ok, I couldn’t help the sarcasm in the title.  But after all the hysterics about “indoctrination” that the far-right had about the Obama “back-to-school” speech, there was little, if anything controversial about it.  Who could possibly disagree with the notion that staying in school and working hard are good things?  Hopefully no one.  Who could argue that all that hard work will pay off in the end?   Well…I could.

Lest this sound like a radical diatribe against “elitist” America, please let me clarify.  I actually am a Ph.D. with a higher degrees in molecular biology, genetics, microbiology and immunology.  I’ve taught at the undergraduate level and have my name on several publications.  I certainly don’t dispute that education and working hard are “good things.”  What I have a problem with is the mistaken notion that the hard work, money and time spent on an education will pay off in the end.  I would answer that question with the modifiers such as “maybe” “hopefully”  and “possibly.”  Note that I omit “probably” and “likely.”

You see, drawing such sweeping conclusions about how “education” always pays off is an exercise in hubris for the academic.  Tell that to the unemployed IT specialists, the computer programers that were laid off through out-sourcing.  Tell that to the scientist at the bench who with their Ph.D. is laboring 70 hours per week for about $30k in compensation.  In the current world - education doesn’t always “pay.”  In fact it can be a huge liability in terms of time spent out of the work force and accrued debt.   There are far too many well -educated and very dedicated Ph.D.’s out there working odd jobs and serving people at restaurants for this to be true.

The problem with Obama’s speech is that it was built on a premise that died with advent of the “trickle down” economics in the Reagan era.   In such a world he who holds the gold, makes the rules.  The result is that precious little “trickles down” to the creative and inventive among us.  Most of it stays in the board room with the CEO.

Of course this drives us right into the heart of the trickle-down mess.  The final result has been a rising gap between rich and poor with a small group of middle class dangling off the side of a cliff.  The abyss is unrelenting poverty.  Make no mistake: if things don’t change then MOST Americans are headed off the cliff.

People are not that complicated.   They are operating out of a need for self-preservation. The best and brightest can do many things.  What they are choosing to do is a direct reflection of this income gap.  If a scientist is making less than $40k after 8 years of post-graduate training while a MBA is offering $250k a year after two years of training - where do you think the talent will go?