2% Solution

Why don’t more of our good and best minds go into science and math?

The question drew a heavy response with some interesting observations made. The first set of responses simply focus on the fact that it is not worth it for the best minds to go into science and math careers.

Tom Zavist focuses on the lack of jobs available in science and math: “Our best minds avoid science and math because there are no jobs. There is no point attracting them to these fields, because there are no jobs. I graduated college with a triple major in mathematics, mathematical sciences and computer science. When I graduated, no one would hire me. By itself, a college degree is worthless. Colleges will give degrees to anyone who is willing to put in the time and spend the money. As a result, the degrees are worthless. They won't get you a job.

“Professional exams can find you work. There are no professional exams in science and math. Except for medicine, employers are uninterested in science and math.”

Tom Webb cites a very common refrain that science and math do not pay well. “The reason that our good and best minds don't go into science and math is that they are our good and best minds and are smart enough to know that they can make more money in other fields.”

Gary Kubina adds to the payoff argument by adding in the investment component of science and math. “The shortage of math and science teachers nationwide is largely due to the low pay along with the rigor of obtaining such a degree. I suspect that engineers are rewarded much more handsomely than I as a math teacher of 27 years.“

Kevin Wood also notes the money differences, but also brings into view the glamour appeal of other professions. “We see athletes on TV making huge amounts of money. (I am not judging it, just making a statement). We see actors and actresses also making huge paychecks. Politicians and business people make huge salaries for making bad decisions. We are intelligent. Why disprove that by going into fields with little or no payback?”

Mike Irrgang follows on that theme: “Because our society values money and fame, and neither of these can be achieved through science or math, with rare exceptions. The most visible path our society offers for these is through entertainment (including sports). Also, these can be achieved through entrepreneurship.

“The only way this will change is if government officials at all levels start to decry the emphasis on sports and entertainment fame — highly unlikely!”

Matthew James Kenney elaborates on the theme of science and math not being worth it by comparison: “I was not comfortable with the direction of society as it was moving from a science-based approach in education to a ‘feel-good’ one. Too much emphasis was on social events and appearances. More emphasis was being placed on extracurricular activities — to the detriment of schoolwork. Many parents complained of curriculums being too rigid and demanding, forcing school boards to water down the requirements for advancing and graduating. This resulted in math and science ‘overview courses’ rather than actual math and science courses. And then, in the following decades, the watering-down proceeded to make math and science courses ‘not important.’ Social-related courses and extracurricular events became the norm.

“The elementary, junior high and high schools have not stressed the importance of math and it shows. And without math skills, science is a foreign language.

“Another factor is that society, in general, has changed from a ‘work hard until retirement’ mentality to an ‘I want it now’ one. Striving for success is still there, but the emphasis is on making as much money as possible, and then spending in lieu of saving. The examples of people who are glorified as making money are celebrities, sports figures, etc. The young do not see these people as having to work hard to get where they are.

“There are too few stories of our science and math personages emulated in the media.

“The generation that helped win World War II did so because they were literate in science and math. We now see many positions that were filled by people of scientific and math skills replaced with people who espouse the whims of the ruling political party.

“There are so many distractions for the teen-age generation that take their attention away from schooling that they endure it by taking the easiest curriculum. The problem requires parents to take charge and set a course for their children that will result in increased enrolment in math and science courses. This, unfortunately, will take the better part of a generation to achieve. Parents need to act, and children need to listen.”

Ken Gagne shares a real-world example of the media valuation of science in comparison to sports. “I am a high school science teacher who recently helped coordinate our community's 51st annual science and engineering fair. The students presenting at this fair had spent hundreds of hours working independently on projects such as "The Effect of Amantadine on Drosophila Melanogaster," "Differential Gene Expressions Upon Removal of Zinc-Transporting Genes," and "Nanorobot Sensor Feasibility and Comparison." When covered by the local paper, this event was buried on page six with no accompanying photos and no listing of winners. Readers had to go to the paper's Web site for that information.

“In contrast, the sporting event held that same day, right across the street from the fair, was represented by a large, full-color, front-page picture, directing readers to the Sports section, where several articles detailed every point for every player in every game.

“If we want to attract the next generation of bright minds into math and science, we must do so in a community that values those fields and makes them as attractive as less cerebrally demanding (and currently more financially rewarding) alternatives.”

Frank Caetta brings out some specifics about the Ph.D. vs. the MBA. “While it is a good macroeconomic solution for society to place the best and brightest analytical minds in jobs within the sciences, careers are chosen microeconomically. Many individuals do not choose science and math careers because of the costs of education and the resultant pay scales. Why spend six years living off a meager stipend to get a Ph.D. and make $X per year when one can finish an MBA in two years and get paid more than $X per year? In many companies, a Ph.D. is its own glass ceiling. Senior scientists will manage a laboratory, but they often have too much specialized knowledge to allow them to be promoted to anything higher. The next tier in the hierarchy is therefore filled by someone with an MBA.”

Well, come to think of it, I am very glad I got my MBA. Henry Greene will be the first of two to sum up this line of thinking with: “People choose careers to maximize their quality of life. Whether one possesses the best mind or not, the potential economic gain and social status offered in the sciences and math fail to measure up to opportunities in medicine, law, finance, economics, business, engineering or even private entrepreneurship.”

And finally Jim Peabody with “The reason is simple. They aren't interested. Science and math just don't appeal to everyone any more than any other endeavor. If he really wants to attract a larger group to any specific effort offer them more rewards for their efforts. Money and renown are still great motivators.”

Then there were those who attributed the lack of worth to more specific societal mess-ups. Howard C. Anderson talks about how science has been sanitized. “We have made everything so safe and boring that no one has any hope of getting hands-on experience with some of the most interesting things in science. [Experiment described.] It scared me silly. My hands shook for an hour after that. I’ve always wondered if that was because of just being scared or the reaction of my nerve cells. All of those things were highly interesting and sometimes dangerous. I learned a lot. [It was] absolutely essential, in my opinion, to the development of my mind. I would hate to have to grow up in today’s society with all of the restrictions that are imposed on everyone.

“We have the Texas and Kansas textbook censors inserting religion into the science books. I’ve met teachers who are afraid to say ‘evolution.’

“The simple fact is that the world is a dangerous place. Scientists and mathematicians have often taken great risks. No one was absolutely certain that the first atomic bomb would not set off a chain reaction in the atmosphere. They did calculations that put the odds at less than three chances in a billion. The first nuclear reaction in Chicago was highly risky. One of the early V2 rockets blew up on the pad in Germany and killed the entire ground crew. They then invented pyramidal blockhouses. A team of doctors went to Africa to study Lhassa Fever. There were no survivors. Radiation killed Madam Curie. Vulcanologists have fallen through lava tubes while trying to take samples. Our attempts to learn new things are often fraught with risk. Yet we have, over the last 40 years, created an extremely risk-averse society. So I wonder whether the ‘good and best’ minds are doomed to be stunted and diverted into other areas simply because the really interesting stuff is prohibited.

“[Another reason is] jocks rule. We do all sorts of things in praise of our athletes. We do essentially nothing for the ‘good and best minds’ — except demean them with words like ‘nerd.’ I have a great career that has allowed me to use math and physics every day. Most of the really great jocks that were in my high school class are selling insurance. But they trod heavily on the rest of us while in high school.”

Zac Atkinson says that math and science are presented as boring in school. “I think perhaps one reason that more of our ‘good and best minds’ do not go into math and science is because of how those subjects are taught in our education system. I spent my first two years of college as an electrical engineering student and all I can say is wow, boring! I took all those math, physics and chemistry courses and they were absolutely rigid and dry. I had no trouble understanding or doing the work, but these courses simply stifled any use of creativity whatsoever. There is plenty of room in the math and sciences to explore and be creative, but the current teaching strategies simply do not allow for this to happen. The education system needs to break their molds and pump some life into their classes to attract more of the ‘good and best minds.’”

And George Dunn extends the boring concept to post-school adults: “Remember, at the heart of science is curiosity, and being curious is something kids do well. Adults, particularly well beaten down civil servants, tend to emphasize the boring things they have to do so much that they quash the joys of science for the young. Detail and enthusiasm are both important; while no sloppy scientist ever amounted to much, no unimaginative one did either.”

Finally, Jim Lacey notes the U.S.' place in the world in science and math. “I think we need to create a culture of enthusiasm for science and math, beginning in elementary school. This means, for example, science centers and math labs, science fairs and guest speakers, all of which cost money. Sadly, we as a nation seemed resigned to being well down the list in international science and math comparisons. Unless we as a nation are willing to develop — and pay for — the world's best teaching in science and math, the decline will continue.”

A couple of responders disagreed with the premise of the question. To do that, Tim Bohdan takes the broadest view of math and science: “I disagree with the premise. Occupations in math and science already attract the best and brightest because occupations requiring math and science pay the best. According to the Employment Policy Foundation, the nation's top 10 paying occupations in 2003 were: Physicians and surgeons — $147,000; Aircraft pilots — $133,500; Chief executives — $116,000; Electrical and electronic engineers — $112,000; Lawyers and judges — $99,800; Dentists — $90,000; Pharmacists — $85,500; Management analysts — $84,700; Computer and information system managers — $83,000; and Financial analysts, managers and advisors — $84,000.

“Analysis of this list reveals that nine of the top 10 paying occupations require extensive education in math and/or science. Only lawyers and judges, fifth on the list, do not require a deep background in math or science. Thus, little can be done to make math and science occupations more valuable to society than they already are.”

And Felecia Studstill doesn’t want us to get confused between quantity and quality since those who choose science and math are the best minds, though there may not be as many of them anymore. “Are there enough employment opportunities that any and all ‘good and best’ can find sustainable opportunities in science and math fields? Are there instances when the ‘bad and worst’ minds are being employed in those fields? I don't know any marginally performing mathematicians, nuclear scientists, economists or anesthesiologists. I don't know intellectually poor students who pursued those fields as careers. There are Nobel Prizes and near countless grants and awards, various publications, and I can barely watch television without some reference to forensics and DNA (complete with beautiful women, fancy cars and dark glasses). I may be missing the question.”

Next I have some responses that answer the question in miscellaneous ways. According to Florence Cowan, it’s hard to get into the programs for reasons of money. “Our society does not reward education. In fact, it actually works against the intelligent. Unless you are born into a very wealthy family there is no way a working family, no matter how smart the student, can afford a "good/great" education at a first rate institution.

“Our government only gives 'lip' service to higher education (read no money). Until we all agree that our government should be spending our tax dollars on useful things like education and our planet's future, I don't believe our country will ever excel in the sciences.”

Marketing is the reason cited by Donald Marcus for where people land. “Big bucks go to the people who design commercials that subtly lead us to believe what isn’t so. If schools taught consumerism properly, more people would go to Consumer Reports to help choose cars and beers and the exaggerators would be paid less. (Incidentally, the multimillions that are paid annually to each of several professional athletes come ultimately from advertisers who know that just getting people to notice their names will increase their sales.)”

R. C. H. Schmidt picks up on the smart label applied to some guys we would rather stay out of science and math: “With ‘the smartest guys in the room’ standing trial for ENRON accounting scams, would anyone want them doing medical research, managing space exploration or searching for the Theory Of Everything? We're better off with people who are in love with science and math doing science and math than with people who are in love with power and money.”

Finally, a couple of letters will close out this month that represent some other thoughts on the subject. Joseph Daguanno: “The question proposed by Donald Marcus makes an inappropriate assumption, that our ‘good and best minds’ have the ability to excel at math and science. One can be gifted, and dare I say genius, in ways that are exclusive of math or science. Does that mean a brilliant lawyer or industrial businessman, who has no aptitude for math or science, cannot be one of our good and best minds? To attract, a.k.a. push, the best minds into those vocations would effectively be what the USSR did for so many years. While money is a great motivator, creative and engaging teachers are a must. I guess, in the end, the question should be, ‘what makes a person one of our good and best minds?’”

And Michael Andresen: “The question might have been more explicit about what it means to go into science and math. I'll assume instead that we're talking about people who make careers out of the purest forms of science and math: those who get doctorates in their field and spend their careers doing research. I am one of those people, currently doing biomedical research in an academic setting.

“Why, then, does society pay physicians so much more than bench scientists? Wages are dictated by the laws of supply and demand, just as in many other fields. What is slightly more complicated are the non-pecuniary portions that must also be factored in. It requires a great deal of money to attract bright minds to become physicians because the day-to-day grind of a physician is not enormously stimulating. Meanwhile, research scientists, as a group, have enormous job satisfaction despite their low wages. The joys of research are enough of a draw that the marketplace suppresses actual wages."

What’s your 2%?

William McKnight