So the truth is, the world does not need or can afford that many people researching cancer, teach and inspire the next generation. Quit lamenting that people are leaving these fields. They are already overcrowded.
So the truth is, the world does not need or can afford that many people researching cancer, teach and inspire the next generation. Quit lamenting that people are leaving these fields. They are already overcrowded.
If your comparative advantage is in politics, I would recommend that as the single most important potentially solvable problem of our time.
If your comparative advantage is in STEM, mind you, I think it's perfectly sensible to stay out of the rat race for the handful of physics professor jobs and become a programmer or petroleum engineer instead.
No, people SAY they want these things (because maybe it makes them feel good or because it gives them social capital). But when it comes time to actually put their hands in their pockets and give, they come short. I know this since I tried to crowd-fund for cancer research. It was hard. I got barely enough. I'm still backing the project out of my own pocket to the tune of 10-20%.
I've had my nonprofit website (with a donation link) on my lyft line profile for a week. I've had about 10-20 good conversations about what i'm doing. My conversion rate? 0%. In this time, I have had zero dollars donated to my nonprofit. It's ok - I am well within budget for my project.... But I'm just saying that it is facile to say people want these things but in the end one really wonders.
Fact of the matter is, that politics is not very good at funding these things either. A lot of grantsmanship goes into twisting your expertise to allow the bureaucrats to dispense their money into your project. There is very little accountability, and the administrators are trained in the same system that creates the professors, (and reviews the journal articles) so it is a bit of an echo chamber.
The truth is like airline seats. Everyone says they want legroom, but what they really want is the cheapest seat, regardless of how uncomfortable it is.
Instead of being a 40 year old postdoc permadjunct, I'm a 40 year old programmer that almost nobody wants to hire because of age discrimination. At least I earn a good salary, and can semi-retire or try to bootstrap a business.
I'm not going to deny its not a bit selfish or maybe even shortsighted, but I made more money my first year out of college (as a developer) than I would as a tenured professor at most universities or colleges. Probably 2x what I would be making as a post-doc at age 35. 5x what I would be making from age 22-30.
That being said, I've always fed coding is not a good long term plan and that I will inevitably replaced by a couple of fresh grads. Without specialization, there's no real job security other than a thriving tech sector.
I'm amazed that you think that. Why do you think that science is overcrowded, and more importantly, why is that the right thing for society? How would we know if we had too few, too many or exactly the right amount of people researching the fields you mention?
Perhaps that is not right. Perhaps we should call for the world governments to increase their funding. Except that is not actually feasible, given how voters across the globe consistently elect leaders who cut science spending even more. The society may be able to afford more researchers, but the voters do not want to, and politicians have no incentive to change that.
Until that is changed, calling for more bright minds to stay or enter these fields are insincere at best, talent wasting, life destroying at worst.