"another" and "better" career alternative?.....Nope!
johnjac at nospam.xnet.com
Tue Jan 16 00:06:34 EST 2001
Your statement sounds reasonable to me. Programming and science are two
different markets, with wildly different supply and demand scenarios.
"Brian Moore" <moore at onsager.bd.psu.edu> wrote in message
news:93vr09$247$1 at onsager.bd.psu.edu...
> In article <93u1q3$afc$1 at flood.xnet.com>,
> John Jacobson <johnjac at nospam.xnet.com> wrote:
> >"DPH" <kgclg15 at kg.hsanet.net> wrote in message
> >news:3A6276F4.ED8CD560 at kg.hsanet.net...
> >> Arthur Sowers wrote:
> >> > Thats not bad considering what I see
> >> > as health plan benefits (and I do medical insurance billing now for a
> >> > livlihood, so I know what people have).
> >> It is bad. They're down to $31.73 before we take out for the phone
> >> truck maintenance and maybe its installment loan payments.
> > Man, that's low. Those guys are working their asses off in a high-risk
> >for far less than what I make comfortably sitting at my relatively safe
> >Programming sure beats that moving job Sowers is crowing about.
> Agreed. If you can get the work.
> Part of the misunderstanding here is from the crossposting. Art's
> context is sci.research.careers where the discussion is
> about science research, mostly by Ph.D.'s in science. In
> that field the job prospects range from reasonably good to
> nonexistent, depending on your point of view. In general they are
> much worse than most people from outside the fields would guess,
> which is part of "the myth." So, Art enjoys tweaking the noses
> of some science Ph.D.'s in low paying, low security research jobs
> and try to show them how they could be doing better by doing such
> things like driving a truck.
> The small overlap this might have to do with programming is only
> from the fact that some science Ph.D.'s wind up learning large
> amounts of programming, so they sometimes can also consider
> the software job market (if they target themselves right).
> But, more generally, there is a widespread belief among the populace
> that there is a shortage of people trained in "science and technical"
> fields. To the extent that this belief, which presumably stems
> from the great job market in certain areas of IT, lops over to
> include science Ph.D.s, it is something that is worth discusssing,
> and I think worth dispelling.
> Part of the context of the broad-based support for H1-B comes, I
> think from this vague belief that there is an across the board
> shortage of "science and tecnical" people. Such shortages
> are only in a few certain fields, which unfortunately is a nuanced
> that most congresspeople can't grasp.
> Brian G. Moore, School of Science, Penn State Erie--The Behrend College
> bgm4 at psu.edu , (814)-898-6334
More information about the Bioforum