Ph.D.s in America on the decline

(1) the regime that was installed by some Supreme Court justices of the United States (it shalt remain nameless, as this is not the politics board)

(2) whose budgets? an example is National Science Foundation


But after all, who needs science - them scientists are a bunch of godless commie pinkos who make up them theories like global warming and evolution and stuff

 

The manner in which you reply betrays your bias. This doesn't help your case. I am no apologist for Bush but here's what I found (it took all of 2 minutes).
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2001/033.html
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/115.html
These stories indicate that while Bush increased the budget of the FSF by a smaller margin than was recommended by Congress, he did in fact, increase the NSF budget not decrease it as was suggested by our new friend dwm. If dwm would actually like to eliminate mediocrity then he might actually try to do some real research and produce some verifiable facts to support his position. I could be wrong in this matter but you're going to have to produce some evidence to that effect.
Jack

 

I wasn't really talking about biomedical imaging -
NSF budget has been fairly flat in past couple of years
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/cht9006a.pdf
Meanwhile, current and future competitor countries see the wisdom in cultivating their fundamental science and scientists, and their nonscientist leaders don't go around opining about scientific matters.

 

Like MITI and Sematech? Bad joke.

When do you think MITI will be done with their fifth-generation computer? HA ha ha ha...

 

OK, so I'm taking this as an admission of error on your part. You have no evidence that Bush has been cutting ("strangling") science budgets. Do I now have to go out and get some references that demonstrate that "nonscientist leaders" of some countries do, in fact, speak about scientific issues. You are so clearly wrong on this and it will be so very easy to prove it.
Jack

 

I said your link was about biomedical imaging. Leaders of truly competitive countries have not been repeatedly making scientific pronoucements and embarrassing themselves as some of our top leaders have. That some leaders in much less technologically advanced countries are ignorant of science should be no news to anyone.

 

Yes, and I said that you've offered no evidence to support any of your opinions.
Jack
BTW, here's some more evidence to support my position:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/nsf.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/appendix/NSF.pdf

 

You're wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4210503.stm
http://www.britainusa.com/consular/houston/other_show.asp?Sarticletype=25&other_ID=389
http://www.pparc.ac.uk/Nw/Press/blair.asp
Jack

 

You're wrong again. The following link is filled with evidence that leaders of developing nations are keenly aware of science and scientific issues.
http://allafrica.com/science
Jack

 

I think we've all heard that it's substantially more difficult for foreign students to get visas to study in the US. While I have some understanding of the security problems posed by student visa holders, I agree that this is not a healthy development for our country at least as it relates to the topic of this thread. My hope is that that situation is short-lived and that if it extends out further in time, perhaps some other solution can be found, one that allows for better security without diminishing our universities student bodies. My only other hope in this regard is that at some point market forces will again shift and make the earning of a PhD more attractive that it is now. My own idea (with no evidence) is that people are not earning these degrees because they can not find employment at that level. Thanks for your comments.
Jack

 

Maybe if: (a) we had a really good war going; AND (b) that war involved a draft; AND (c) that draft involved a grad school deferment or exemption, then maybe we could increase PhD production.

 

And more people applying for police and fire depts.

 

And more people applying for (and forgetting to finish) National Guard duty.

 

I don't think that holds water in the case of the Pres. but does describe what was done by some.

In Basic Training, when entering the mass hall, we had to call out RA (you joined), US (you were drafted, or ER (enlisted reserve) to a sergeant keeping roll. The loudest guy was an ER who loved rubbing it in.

 

I was thinking also of that guy that came before one Bush but after another Bush. Did he forget to do Guard duty? Or was it ROTC classes he forgot to sign up for?

 

While I don't dismiss the factors you've mentioned (they are real) I was thinking more about the impending retirement of current baby-boomer PhDs.

Also, I don't mind saying, that if I were 30 years old, in possession of a PhD, unattached and otherwise able to travel, I believe that I would, without hesitation, take myself off to whatever far corner of the earth in order to teach in my chosen field. It has just got to be better than "You want fries with that?"
Jack

 

For starters, I think it necessary to draw a distinction between which baby boomers we are talking about. The baby boomers have been defined as all those born between 1946 and 1964. Trust me, being a tag-end baby boomer is a far different experience than being a leading-edge baby boomer. Since the baby boomers were born 1946-1964, they would have entered college 1964-1982. Since the "traditional" ages of college are 18-22 for the bachelor's, 22-25 for the master's, and 25-29 for the doctorate, the generational cohort best positioned to ride the increased demand for college professorships attributable to baby boomers was born from 1935 to 1953. If 65 remains the traditional retirement age, then that generational cohort should be retiring from 2000 to 2018. The question then becomes whether there are or will be enough youngsters entering college now and in the near future to convince young people to get PhDs in larger numbers.

 

Thanks for running the numbers. It seems that you've made my point.
Jack

 

It seems that I read or heard somewhere that there was supposed to have been an "echo of the baby boom." Did that ever materialize? If so, over what period of years? And, also, given that there was/is a PhD glut, if that new baby boom ever does materialize and start heading off to college in droves, what happens to all those PhDs from the PhD glut years? Do they finally start coming out of the woodwork and start landing professorships after all? Or do they tend to keep on doing what they were doing and leave all the newly available professorships to newly minted PhDs?