>No, it is not clear. The SMH article was on STEM. The thread concerns STEM.
Uh huh. I would think it would be clear after my response, and yet you won't simply accept it and respond to that.
Just to be extra clear so I don't have suffer through another multi-paragraph response where you gaslight me about what I meant to say: I agree that there is no shortage of science majors. We are probably graduating too many biologists, chemists and physicists for the market or academia to take in. There are certain engineering fields that are probably saturated as well.
I can't say the same about CS. For one thing CS is a very flexible profession. Because it gives you such a good mental model of computing, you can transfer CS knowledge into multitude of domains. Regarding the demand side, the fact that bootcamps exist and that graduates of those bootcamps can actually earn a living suggests to me there is more demand for programmers than you make thing. There is no such thing as an engineering bootcamp, or a physics bootcamp, or a physician bootcamp. The fact the big tech companies (but even startups and mid-to-large companies) keep throwing around huge salaries and bonuses is another data point. The fact people here think that a six figure starting salary after a 4 year degree is perfectly normal is another data point. The fact that politicians and non-professionals have taken up a mantra of 'learn to code' is another data point.
HN title: "Not enough jobs for science graduates challenges STEM hype"
hprotagonist: "it has historically been very challenging to find work as a "straight" biologist ... I think STEM is horseshit is that it is so broadly defined as to be without meaning"
me: "The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage"
hprotagonist: "even IEEE's response was "there is no shortage and certainly no skills gap"
You: "That cannot be IEEE's response"
(I later provide a couple of links to IEEE-hosted articles which concur with what we are saying. Furthermore, you now agree that there is 'no shortage of science majors', which is the S of STEM.)
bloomer: "It is the same one that RAND ... gave when commissioned by congress to determine whether their was a “STEM shortage.”"
you: "The crazy wages that tech companies pay aren't a data point?"
me: "One data point ... is not reflective of STEM as a whole"
If it's so obvious that the thread switched away from STEM onto CS, then why did both bloomer and I get confused? Instead of me 'gaslighting' you, I think a better description is that you 'sidetracked' the conversation, while I tried to steer it back to the main thread.
Jesus. I qualified my statements over the last two responses. Can you move on already?
I would also appreciate if you didn't continue to distort my position by attributing quotes or phrasing to me that I didn't argue, and I don't believe.
>I think a better description is that you 'sidetracked' the conversation, while I tried to steer it back to the main thread.
Fine. But we have no actual disagreement about there not being a lack of supply of scientists and even engineers. I conceded that point, though 'concede' is too strong of a statement because I never argued otherwise. I live in a university town and half the people in my social circle are some form of PostDoc or PhD student/grad in the sciences. I can see how hard it is for a Math PhD to get a tenure-track position.
>(I later provide a couple of links to IEEE-hosted articles which concur with what we are saying. Furthermore, you now agree that there is 'no shortage of science majors', which is the S of STEM.)
It wasn't that I disbelieved IEEE, but rather it was an expression of surprise that a IEEE would issue a nonsense statement like that. But I said that already, and you won't leave it alone. How many more times do I have to explain what I meant without your gas-lighting?
>If it's so obvious that the thread switched away from STEM onto CS, then why did both bloomer and I get confused?
And after the tedious clarification - what's your excuse now?
>FWIW, and not that it makes any difference, but:
I understand the word 'bootcamp' is used, but those 'bootcamps' are not there to train professional physicists or engineers. They are summer camps for students to get excited about the respective professions. But you know that, so why would you purposely be engaging in this equivocation? Why even bring it up as a point when you know it's red-herring.
I ask seriously. I made a point that there are no weeks-long courses to get you to be a professional scientist, and you went ahead and googled it, found programs for students which are nothing like programming bootcamps but you still decided to post that.
>There are bootcamps for physicians, but they are for practicing physicians to get training in a specific topic.
So nothing like bootcamps I referenced. Just like the other 'bootcamps' you used as a counter-example.
Uh huh. I would think it would be clear after my response, and yet you won't simply accept it and respond to that.
Just to be extra clear so I don't have suffer through another multi-paragraph response where you gaslight me about what I meant to say: I agree that there is no shortage of science majors. We are probably graduating too many biologists, chemists and physicists for the market or academia to take in. There are certain engineering fields that are probably saturated as well.
I can't say the same about CS. For one thing CS is a very flexible profession. Because it gives you such a good mental model of computing, you can transfer CS knowledge into multitude of domains. Regarding the demand side, the fact that bootcamps exist and that graduates of those bootcamps can actually earn a living suggests to me there is more demand for programmers than you make thing. There is no such thing as an engineering bootcamp, or a physics bootcamp, or a physician bootcamp. The fact the big tech companies (but even startups and mid-to-large companies) keep throwing around huge salaries and bonuses is another data point. The fact people here think that a six figure starting salary after a 4 year degree is perfectly normal is another data point. The fact that politicians and non-professionals have taken up a mantra of 'learn to code' is another data point.