Posts
Whenever politicians want to sound with-it they start bleating on about the knowledge economy. This normally involves promises to invest time and money into getting young people to study science and engineering. After all the 'knowledge' economy has something to with that geeky stuff, doesn't it? After convincing an army of young people to study science subjects the economy will miraculously evolve into a breeding ground for 'knowledge' industries and before you know it the tax revenues are rolling in.
The thing they seem to be missing is that the economics of the situation means that their fantasy will never work out. Studying science and engineering is much harder than studying business type degrees. You attend lectures and labs every day, there are always assignments and reading to be done. It is not a stroll in the park by any means and there are no decent paying jobs at the end of the road.
I studied Materials Science and Engineering. If there is any 'knowledge' subject this must be it, covering as it does the discovery and development of new materials to make more possible. So what happened to my classmates? Most of them found out that you can earn far more money becoming an accountant, going into IT or having a go at sales.
The advantage of having a degree in engineering is that it is hard to get. That means that companies in non-related industries are quite happy to retrain proven brains to do other jobs. Why is anybody going to stay in Materials Science and Engineering or any other engineering discipline if they can earn much more elsewhere?
The way that most western economies is structured is irrational. Doing a PhD should be the route the most intelligent and innovative follow to develop their ideas and add value to the economy. Instead many people are put off by the fact that having a PhD can lead you up a cul de sac of relative poverty. We are put off doing the thing that can add the most benefit to the economy and we are encouraged to join the army of parasitic industries feeding off past glories and old ideas repackaged.
Politicians talk, quite correctly, about harnessing the brain power of the people to generate new industries. However, the reality is that most of us are using a tiny fraction of our brain power because we choose the path that leads us to the most economic reward. Intellectual development and stimulation is something we do not associate with our daily work.
I had a dream the other night where I was in a lecture about the Fracture Analysis of Glass. When I woke up I thought about all of the things I learned about Crystal Chemistry, Polymerization, Phase Diagrams, Dislocations, Buckminsterfullerenes, Metallic Glasses.... I feel bad about throwing that all away. I feel guilty about the utter waste of it all.
Donaldson’s website down
-
As Nevin points out, Jeffrey Donaldson’s website “is currently being
upgraded”. However, the website is still online apart from the domain name,
with th...
2 hours ago
6 comments:
I stayed in engineering and use relatively little of the actual detail of what I learned in college. The important thing I learned was the way of thinking and approaching problem solving. In fairness this is transferable to most other disciplines. The government wants to increase the quality of the research in Ireland, but this doesn't appear overnight. They seem to be adopting a 'birdhouse' approach, create an environment that a foreign researcher finds attractive and they will flutter in in droves. I guess the idea is that these people will then be mentoring the next generation of Irish PhDs to accademic excellence. Meanwhile they are setting up structures to support the transfer of reseach to the commercial domain, thereby notionally instigating the engine of the knowledge economy.
BUT this year there was 8 people in final year electronic engineering in UCD talk of the possibility of the departments in UCD and Trinity amalgamating as they have both been allowed to atrophy (possibly an admin decision to clear out the old wood). Electronic Engineering is viewed as a duff course because it's hard, lasts 4 years and you have to compete with a couple of million lower paid Indians and Chinese in the job market place. I think they should give greater monetary incentives to engineers, not in salary (as this just widens the gap between us and Asia as cost bases). Give us the farmer's subsidies! Of course it wouldn't work, but I'd like someone to give me more money :-)
The way you learn to think with an engineering degree is transferable but it is a one way street. Once you leave a specialist engineering discipline then you basically cannot go back.
The peak of innovation for a scientist is in their twenties so that is not the time that you want them leaving to become accountants. There may well be efforts in Ireland to create the right research environment, that is great. Research should be well paid because that is what generates wealth. Unfortunately you see time and again that management, sales and support people earn more than researchers in practically every industry. While that is the case many of the best brains will become accountants and laweyrs rather than using their brain power.
Yep, the rule is the closer you are to the cash flow, the more splashes on to you. Engineers traditionally got told they should be grateful for the quality of the work they were getting to do, rather than expecting more cash. Pah. Mind you, one thing my career has taught me is that the opportunities lie in bridging the gaps, and the biggest gaps are most often between people.
I suppose the important thing is what work you actually enjoy. If you're enjoying your present work more than you would have enjoyed engineering, and you're better paid, no problem - except wasted knowledge and wasted government investment. If you're not enjoying your present work, that's different. It sounds racist I know, but perhaps governments should be creating incentives for locals to become engineers etc and disincentives for others??
Nick,
It's not really about enjoyment. If engineers are paid a fraction of what accountants earn then people who might have the capacity to do something great will go in to accountancy instead.
I think that this waste is a real issue. Engineering courses cost a lot of money to run and then you pay these people a fraction of what those in soft functions earn.
You cannot have a knowledge economy without getting the best available brains into science.
Post a Comment
Post a Comment