Attrition in STEM

[dismalist]

Oh, my God, self reported studies of motivation!

What sounds better to the world and especially to oneself: I flunked physics [or econ, for that matter] or I've been discriminated against?

"Loser, loser, double loser, as if, whatever, get the picture, duh!"

My point is that even between groups self-reporting the same level of motivation, there are likely to be different outcomes. All people aren't the same in level of follow-through, and that has nothing to do with whether they feel discriminated against or not.

Yes, people differ.

[Hibush]

My hunch is that you'd see variations in the followup rate based on various factors. If the followup rate for any group is below what would be predicted by the data on how likely they were to take followup courses, then it's much more likely that it's due to something other than being turned off the subject between one course and the next.

Or they get turned on to a different subject, without being turned off to the first one. That realization causes changes in major or lower likelihood of taking upper division courses. But it isn't bad. They are not dropping out to flip burgers.

[fizzycist]

My hunch is that you'd see variations in the followup rate based on various factors. If the followup rate for any group is below what would be predicted by the data on how likely they were to take followup courses, then it's much more likely that it's due to something other than being turned off the subject between one course and the next.

Or they get turned on to a different subject, without being turned off to the first one. That realization causes changes in major or lower likelihood of taking upper division courses. But it isn't bad. They are not dropping out to flip burgers.

I dunno, I get your point, but I think its ok to be a little selfish and hope that the field you love spreads faster than others. And with a greater demographic diversty ideally; sheesh, dismalist, some of us dont want to just give up and work all day every day with just a few specific types of ppl.

Also, it isn't really optimal, at least from a labor market point of view, for their to be a glut of students in certain fields. See, e.g., the stark recent post-bac trend in astro because the number of bachelor's grew much faster than PhD slots. Or the 5-10 yr biomed postdoc holding pattern (and lower biomed postdoc wages) thats been going on for decades.

But I think its safe to say we all agree there are far too many economists ;)

[dismalist]

sheesh, dismalist, some of us dont want to just give up and work all day every day with just a few specific types of ppl

I don't see a connection to anything anyone has said on this thread. One admits, hires, promotes those people who should be admitted, hired, or promoted.  People differ, and different decisions will be made. Charlie Darwin will do the rest.

But I think its safe to say we all agree there are far too many economists ;)

Of course there are! Which ones are superfluous?
   

[marshwiggle]

I think its ok to be a little selfish and hope that the field you love spreads faster than others.
.
.

Also, it isn't really optimal, at least from a labor market point of view, for their to be a glut of students in certain fields.

These two things are mutually exclusive in the long term. If one field spreads faster than others, eventually it will produce a glut.

[Hibush]

My hunch is that you'd see variations in the followup rate based on various factors. If the followup rate for any group is below what would be predicted by the data on how likely they were to take followup courses, then it's much more likely that it's due to something other than being turned off the subject between one course and the next.

Or they get turned on to a different subject, without being turned off to the first one. That realization causes changes in major or lower likelihood of taking upper division courses. But it isn't bad. They are not dropping out to flip burgers.

I dunno, I get your point, but I think its ok to be a little selfish and hope that the field you love spreads faster than others. And with a greater demographic diversty ideally; sheesh, dismalist, some of us dont want to just give up and work all day every day with just a few specific types of ppl.

From our faculty perspectives, of course we see retention as a good outcome. We work to make our subject attractive and the curriculum meangful.

But from the student perspective, changing to a more rewarding major is a good thing. For a grad student, discovering they don't like research after all and getting a rewarding job that uses their vast knowledge is a good thing.

These self-interests need to balance, so that we get all the students who really want to be in our field but don't expect the others to like it.

[Puget]

From our faculty perspectives, of course we see retention as a good outcome. We work to make our subject attractive and the curriculum meangful.

But from the student perspective, changing to a more rewarding major is a good thing. For a grad student, discovering they don't like research after all and getting a rewarding job that uses their vast knowledge is a good thing.

These self-interests need to balance, so that we get all the students who really want to be in our field but don't expect the others to like it.

I think this are also good things for faculty at least in already over-subscribed fields.
As long as it is pull and not push factors causing attrition, it isn't a problem. But we need to figure out the causes of attrition better to determine that.

[Hibush]

Also, it isn't really optimal, at least from a labor market point of view, for there to be a glut of students in certain fields. See, e.g., the stark recent post-bac trend in astro because the number of bachelor's grew much faster than PhD slots. Or the 5-10 yr biomed postdoc holding pattern.

Gluts should be corrected in part by having a shortage of good jobs, causing people to reevaluate. I'm in biology, but I can't fathom why so many people with PhDs want to be biomedical researchers. They need to reevaluate their careers. There is a tremendous amount of biology that needs to be done in other places.

There is a glut right now of mediocre Computer Science grads. Undergrad enrollment has been rising 5-10% per year for a decade or more. It is impossible to find good faculty. Lots of these CS grads are not really that into CS, they just want a decent job. Many will not find that job.

Is it a sign of a CS glut that the Nobel in Physics this year went to a couple computer scientists? Is that higher-level attrition from physics that physicists don't want to see?

[dismalist]

Gluts and shortages are self-correcting. In the first case wages fall, causing entry to fall; in the second they rise, causing entry to rise. Nothing to see here.

[spork]

sheesh, dismalist, some of us dont want to just give up and work all day every day with just a few specific types of ppl

I don't see a connection to anything anyone has said on this thread. One admits, hires, promotes those people who should be admitted, hired, or promoted.  People differ, and different decisions will be made. Charlie Darwin will do the rest.

But I think its safe to say we all agree there are far too many economists ;)

Of course there are! Which ones are superfluous?
   

Robert Rubin, though I suppose he's not really an economist because his Harvard B.A. is in economics while his graduate degree is from Harvard Law School, which means he's even worse.

[dismalist]

sheesh, dismalist, some of us dont want to just give up and work all day every day with just a few specific types of ppl

I don't see a connection to anything anyone has said on this thread. One admits, hires, promotes those people who should be admitted, hired, or promoted.  People differ, and different decisions will be made. Charlie Darwin will do the rest.

But I think its safe to say we all agree there are far too many economists ;)

Of course there are! Which ones are superfluous?
   

Robert Rubin, though I suppose he's not really an economist because his Harvard B.A. is in economics while his graduate degree is from Harvard Law School, which means he's even worse.

Robert Rubin? That's defining deviancy down!

[jimbogumbo]

sheesh, dismalist, some of us dont want to just give up and work all day every day with just a few specific types of ppl

I don't see a connection to anything anyone has said on this thread. One admits, hires, promotes those people who should be admitted, hired, or promoted.  People differ, and different decisions will be made. Charlie Darwin will do the rest.

But I think its safe to say we all agree there are far too many economists ;)

Of course there are! Which ones are superfluous?
   

Robert Rubin, though I suppose he's not really an economist because his Harvard B.A. is in economics while his graduate degree is from Harvard Law School, which means he's even worse.

Robert Rubin? That's defining deviancy down!

I'd go back in time and redirect?get rid of?do something nefarious to?  Laffer.

[dismalist]

sheesh, dismalist, some of us dont want to just give up and work all day every day with just a few specific types of ppl

I don't see a connection to anything anyone has said on this thread. One admits, hires, promotes those people who should be admitted, hired, or promoted.  People differ, and different decisions will be made. Charlie Darwin will do the rest.

But I think its safe to say we all agree there are far too many economists ;)

Of course there are! Which ones are superfluous?
   

Robert Rubin, though I suppose he's not really an economist because his Harvard B.A. is in economics while his graduate degree is from Harvard Law School, which means he's even worse.

Robert Rubin? That's defining deviancy down!

I'd go back in time and redirect?get rid of?do something nefarious to?  Laffer.

Strangely, Laffer had a valid point: Suppose the tax rate is zero per cent. Tax revenue will be zero. Suppose the tax rate is 100%. Tax revenue will be zero, for no one will work! Maximum tax revenue will be achieved somewhere between the two extremes. So far, so good.

The difficulty lies in determining which side of the Laffer Curve one is on. I have no doubt that Sweden in the late 1970's was on the wrong [right hand]side of the Laffer Curve, so a cut in tax rates will raise tax revenue. Neither did the Swedes doubt that. They fixed it. I have no doubt that the US today is on the correct [left hand] side of the Laffer Curve, though pre-1986 there is some evidence that really high earners were on the wrong side.

The other point to make about Laffer's thought is that it was only one of two economic ideas first written [published?] on a dinner tablecloth [the other being a tariff cutting formula everybody agreed to (well, sort of) in the early 1990's].

Anyway, Rubin and Laffer are in their '80s.

Get rid of Arthur Laffer? No, we kill hypotheses, not people.

[pgher]

Gluts and shortages are self-correcting. In the first case wages fall, causing entry to fall; in the second they rise, causing entry to rise. Nothing to see here.

The problem is the lag. High schoolers today want to study AI. By the time they get a degree, will the market be so hot for whatever skills they have? I doubt it. Consider fields where you need a PhD/JD/MD/etc., and the lag is even more of a killer. Plus there is a severe lack of good information. Do those same high schoolers really know the wages in all of the fields that they might have the skills to enter? I doubt it.

[dismalist]

Gluts and shortages are self-correcting. In the first case wages fall, causing entry to fall; in the second they rise, causing entry to rise. Nothing to see here.

The problem is the lag. High schoolers today want to study AI. By the time they get a degree, will the market be so hot for whatever skills they have? I doubt it. Consider fields where you need a PhD/JD/MD/etc., and the lag is even more of a killer. Plus there is a severe lack of good information. Do those same high schoolers really know the wages in all of the fields that they might have the skills to enter? I doubt it.

But neither you nor I nor the Bureau of Labor Statistics know any more than they do about future wages.