I have no idea why NSF hasn't issued a press release, but here are the data (PDF).
Since 2002, total science and engineering doctorates granted in the U.S. have increased from 24,608 to 31,801 (in 2007). That's five straight years of increases.
You can look at all the data yourself, but the life sciences and engineering are doing particularly well. And yes, there's a growth in non-U.S. citizen doctorate winners, but it's part of a trend of growth in all categories.
In short, we're training and producing more minted scientists than ever in this country. That's a very good thing--although it certainly complicates the oft-heard argument that the U.S. is seeing a decline in its scientific capacity or workforce.
Sheril and I get into much more detail on all of this, and what it means, in Unscientific America--but for now, I'll just leave you with a question. What do people think--are we keeping up with the China-India science surge after all?
- Log in to post comments
That's wonderful. I'm sure there are lots of jobs for all these freshly minted PhD's. The economy's expanding by leaps and bounds, isn't it?
Oh, wait ...
I imagine that will increase, as more students start going to grad school to avoid entering the job market.
Also on the rise: disillusionment among grad students and postdocs hoping for a faculty position! And, ironically, the China-India science surge is inflating the U.S. job candidate pool. We do need a public that will support science, but we don't need to increase the rate at which Ph.D.s are minted. Most people don't realize that until they're well into their training, however, and lab heads certainly don't want to discourage their source of labor; thus, the cycle perpetuates itself. When all is said and done, though, people with a passion for science will still go for the Ph.D. - even knowing what I know now, I'd do it again.
While that's a good thing, scientific training does not always equate with scientific temper or a scientific outlook. Plus, even if it does, the scientifically illiterate general populace is still vast in number compared to the increasing number of newly-minted PhDs.
What if people so jaded and burned out and pissed of at academia become anti-science after getting their PhDs?
That is a good questions, Becca. I note that the most recent addition to the House of Representatives, Anh Joseph Cao (Republican, LA-02) has a BS in Physics from Baylor, became a Jesuit Seminarian and then got a law degree and became an immigration lawyer.
Still trying to get my head around what we got with that combination.
Its great that people are taking a greater interest in science and engineering, but unless we keep up US investments in R&D (and not just public investments - see here: http://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/research/scoreboard_2008.htm), we're building a workforce without sufficient funds to employ them. This has become a significant problem with PhD students in the UK, where many graduates find themselves in an endless loop of post-docs and unable to to find permanent academic positions.
BS in Physics from Baylor
Uh, oh. Isn't that like a BS in Physics from Liberty University or Bob Jones University?
There's too many of them. (Ph.D.'s, that is.) Why do I say that? Too many Ph.D.'s rely on research grant funding for their employment and livelihood. Ph.D. growth has outstripped the growth in funding opportunities massively. Now, in industries (like chemistry and biology) that have jobs for Ph.D.s, the situation may be less severe, but basic research sciences like physics and oceanography and geology -- though seismic stratigraphy might still do well -- and space sciences (HA HA HA!) -- not enough money in the pool for everybody to swim comfortably. Hard to say this in times of economic peril and pessimism, but for the situation to change the major agencies that fund research (NSF, NIH, NOAA, NASA, USGS come to mind) would need a LOT more money. The tide could turn with Obama, but I don't see the floodgates opening.