[mehrdada]

I think it is important to avoid using the term STEM and specifically dissect it in the discussions about shortage. Computer Science is a very peculiar part of STEM and not all of the STEM fields face the same challenges. As Hadi Partovi of Code.org put out eloquently in his testimony before Congress[1], there is a difference between enrollments in Computer Science and STEM in general. For instance, in US high schools, it seems like there is no shortage of students in biology or math, but CS is underenrolled.

[1]: http://www.c-span.org/video/?317093-1/house-subcmte-hearing-...

[mjn]

I think it is important to avoid using the term STEM and specifically dissect it in the discussions about shortage. Computer Science is a very peculiar part of STEM and not all of the STEM fields face the same challenges.

I think there's a bit of a rhetorical issue with this, though. The dominant narrative is that we have too many people doing soft, fuzzy, weird, useless liberal-arts degrees. Studying things like literature, history, philosophy, political science. What we need is more people doing hard, rigorous, mathematical, technical STEM degrees. Studying things like physics, biology, mathematics, computer science, chemistry.

If you admit that there is no shortage of mathematicians, though, you undermine the whole strategy of "we need more STEM, less liberal arts", because mathematicians are the rhetorical core of STEM: rigorous, technical, mathematical, non-fuzzy. If it turns out mathematicians are about as useful as historians (useful in principle, not directly in a major applied shortage), the whole narrative fails.

To a certain extent I think the whole STEM construction is based fundamentally on trying to hand-wave across this gap: math and physics are prestigious and perceived as hard/rigorous, while computer programming is in demand. The union (not intersection) of these two fields is STEM, which perceives itself as rigorous + hard + in-demand.

[Malarkey73]

To add to this I was very surprised recently trying to hire Statisticians/Mathematicians for a computing data-sciency bioinofrmatics role to find that a couple of PhD students had no computing skills at all. No DB, no linux, no scripting.. just stat applications on Windows. Curiously a few of the best candidates I saw were from "soft" subjects like ecology, geography, social science - where they have real cutting edge statistical chops but were also used to dealing with databases, mapping tools, and modern computing infrastructure.

[NAFV_P]

> To a certain extent I think the whole STEM construction is based fundamentally on trying to hand-wave across this gap: math and physics are prestigious and perceived as hard/rigorous, while computer programming is in demand. The union (not intersection) of these two fields is STEM, which perceives itself as rigorous + hard + in-demand.

[0] was linked in the article, detailing the unemployment rates and earnings among most college majors, mentioning 7.8% unemployment among recent college CS graduates and 5.6% for experienced ones. This is used to support the claims of the article.

If CS was broken down into specialised fields, like the rest of the STEM, you would get a more accurate picture.

[0]https://georgetown.app.box.com/s/og6p8y9x1yeacejk1ci0

[hueving]

You forgot about the E in STEM. Engineers also have very little trouble finding employment.

[leoc]

Well, even maths and not-applied physics tend to produce technological advances down the road in a way that history tends not to. But it's true that very different ROI timescales are being blurred together under the STEM brandname.

[wil421]

CS in high school doesn't exist in most schhool you can't compare it with bio or math. Students may change their major more then once. What matters is the college graduation rates, companies looking for college grads in stem no a high school diploma.

[mehrdada]

I am quite ignorant about how US high school system works and that's one anecdote I had heard, so I apologize about not being able to carry on a meaningful discussion on that topic, but that's just an example, and my core points stands regardless: there are huge differences between various fields that fall under STEM, and they should not be thought about as a single bucket. That's certainly true beyond high school as well.

[wil421]

That's quite true. With CS you can get hired right out of college but with other fields like bio and physics more schooling is required. I don't think a lot of students in the US want research positions (or qualify for them). So yes I believe that you're right it's an apples to oranges comparison.

[curun1r]

It's also possible for there to be a shortage of qualified workers and a surplus of qualified workers...this is a point that people often miss.

Qualified US workers have this annoying tendency to be unwilling to uproot their life and move to where the jobs are. Foreign workers coming from other countries don't have this issue...they're moving anyways, so they move where the jobs are. And hi-tech jobs cluster in certain areas, usually around one or more universities to supply talent. So you end up with areas that have lots of jobs and not enough qualified applicants and areas with qualified applicants and no jobs.

That's what makes this issue so obnoxious...both sides are right. And that makes it difficult to find a middle ground.

[dalke]

How did you get from "It's also possible" to "both sides are right"?

Is there actually a shortage of mobile qualified workers in the US? If so, what is your evidence?

[jacalata]

(not the OP) I wouldn't say it is definitively true, but evidence to look for is data showing that STEM jobs in some states are paid relatively less than in other states after controlling for cost of living/average local wages: for instance, this graph[0] of wage variance for STEM occupations by state, along with this table[1] showing the wage difference for STEM vs other jobs in each state. (They don't show the exact relationship I'm after because neither of them has cost of living: STEM jobs in DC may only pay slightly higher than average but I assume that's because everyone is making a fair amount).

[0]: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2011/05/art1full.pdf page 9 [1]: http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/highest-...

[dalke]

Cost of living isn't the only factor. Lifestyle quality is another, and not fully captured in the model you give because unlike money, people are non-homogenous. This may be more evident when the demand for a given field in a region is particularly small.

Consider [0] says that petroleum engineers are one of the highest paid STEM jobs, and [1] concurs. But a petroleum engineer in, say, North Dakota where there's an oil boom is likely going to have a higher salary than one in Hawaii even after adjusting for local wages. There are so few petroleum engineering jobs in Hawaii because it has no oil resources. If 0.1% of oil engineers are are willing to take a pay cut to move to Hawaii, then that small subpopulation may be enough to supply the Hawaii jobs market. (1 out of every 1000 jobs in ND is a petroleum engineer. We know that wasn't supplied by the indigenous population. While BLS doesn't have an entry for petroleum engineers in Hawaii, indicating that it's small.)

In a related vein, [1] points out the nuclear engineering is the highest paying job in Tennessee. This is probably influenced by Ridge National Labs and the three reactors in the state. The University of Tennessee offers a MS in nuclear engineering, so there's definitely a local production of people with those skills.

While Montana (no reactors, no nuclear research) doesn't have a BLS listing for nuclear engineers, which indicate that the demand for such is quite low. Low enough that secondary influences, like the desire to be near good fly fishing, or to move back to family in Montana, may be a bigger factor than cost-of-living.

Thus, regional salary variations, even when adjusted for CoL, may not give the estimate you're looking for.

[venomsnake]

That is a good starting point.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/11/w...

Uprooting one's life becomes more undesirable.

[dalke]

As I read it, that proposes it's undesirable because there are few economic benefits for moving.

That would suggest that people are willing to move if there were stronger economic reasons, but the economic disparity across the US isn't high enough.

While the OP suggests that people aren't willing to move despite there being an economic disparity.

Thus, doesn't your link support the thesis the STEM shortage is a myth?