*Concerns of Young Mathematicians* Volume 2, Issue 42 Dec. 28, 1994 An electronically distributed digest for discussions of the issues of concern to mathematicians at the beginning of their careers. Please, direct submissions and questions to Matt Hudelson hudelson@math.washington.edu , editor for the month of January. Next issue: Wednesday, 11 January. November Editor: Frank Sottile sottile@math.toronto.edu December Editor: Steve Kennedy skennedy@mathcs.carleton.edu January Editor: Matt Hudelson hudelson@math.washington.edu To subscribe: Contact Charles Yeomans at cyeomans@ms.uky.edu Back issues and other information are available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ms.uky.edu, in pub3/mailing.lists/ymn-list. Or connect to the YMN homepage on the WWW, the URL: http://math34.gatech.edu:8080/YMN/ymn.html The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of the administrative board or membership of the Young Mathematicians' Network. The editorial policy of this newsletter is to encourage discussion of issues, and facilitate the dissemination of information, relevant to the concerns of young mathematicians. Table of Contents Item # Title ------ ----- 1 Editor's Note 2 News & Notes 3 Big List of Non-academic Employers Dimitri Vulis 4 AMS-MAA-IMS Annual Survey Donald E. McClure 5 Data on Ph.D. Production in the U.S. Jim van Putten 6 Survey of 1994-1995 job candidates Kevin Charlwood 7 What to do in San Francisco Steve Kennedy ______________________________________________________________ Item #1 Editor's Note I heard from several people who wanted to comment on my Editor's Note of December 7. As a result of these letters, I learned a lot about how the Annual Survey is conducted and analyzed, and about the difficulties inherent in obtaining data on non-newdocs in job market. My purposes in writing that note were to encourage people to read the report in Notices carefully and to realize that even a careful reading will not give a complete picture of the job market since the Survey is limited to new PhDs. I learned that data on non-newdocs in the job market is quite difficult to obtain; departments quickly lose track of their graduates and finding these graduates can be difficult because many of them do not belong to professional societies. (One suspects that this is particularly true for those who had the least luck in the job market.) Donald McClure, who chaired the AMS Data Committee for many years and wrote the reports on the Annual Surveys, sent a note detailing the operation of the Annual Survey. I thought you would find it interesting so, with his permission, I've included it below (item #4). In subsequent communication Professor McClure informed me of an AMS study of the 1993 employment status of the `90-`91 PhD class. This report, as yet it is still only a draft, will be published soon. He also reminded me of a study that the AMS Task Force on Employment conducted in `91-`92 that surveyed forty PhD granting departments about their new hires for that year. This survey includes information on PhD age, tenure status, and contract terms for all new hires at the selected institutions. Two gleanings that shed a little light on the non-newdoc segment of the market: 69% of the new hires at these institutions were not eligible for tenure and thus, presumably, have been back on the market since then (or soon will be); and 67% of these new hires were not newdocs. You can find the report of this study in the April 1992 Notices; it was also Appendix A of the final report of the Task Force, this final report was summarized in CoYM Nov. 24, 1993, vol. 1 no. 21. We're very interested in obtaining data that will give a complete picture of the job market; if you've got ideas about how to obtain such data, send them here, or to the AMS Data Committee, or both. Meanwhile, if you're on the market, new PhD or not, please fill out the YMN job seekers survey (item #6 below), with enough responses we'll get some idea what's happening out there. Jim van Putten has compiled statistics on science PhD production in the U.S. in the years 1960-1990. A reader of CoYM found them on the Net and sent them to me. With Professor van Putten's permission I've reprinted them below. There's also a notice about a list of non-academic employers available in the YMN archive. Finally, there is a list of events in San Francisco that should interest readers of this newsletter. I would particularly like to encourage you all to come to the YMN Town Meeting on Saturday afternoon. There's really no agenda for this meeting: we'd just like to hear what you are thinking in a slightly more personal format than this one. I have enjoyed my second stint as editor of CoYM and I would like to thank all those who contributed articles this past month. In my first editorial in CoYM in November of last year I outlined my vision of Concerns as an "informal conversation among the 600 or so readers." Now, as the YMN membership approaches 1500, it seems that many of you are sitting back observing a conversation of a small minority. The YMN exists to give you a forum to express your opinions and offer your observations about life as a young mathematician; it works best when we all take part. I encourage you all to join this conversation. Steve Kennedy skennedy@mathcs.carleton.edu ______________________________________________________________ Item #2 News & Notes 1. There will be no issue of Concerns published next week. Most of the editorial board and, we suspect, most of our readers will be at the Joint Meetings in San Francisco. The next issue will be published January 11. 2. Correction: In my Editor's Note of December 7 I tried to encourage close and careful reading of the AMS-MAA-IMS Annual Survey by picking out some alternative ways of viewing the data. I computed a quantity that I called the un- and under-employment rate for new PhDs in the U.S. by dividing the total number of new PhDs who reported their status as unemployed, part-time, or employed by their degree-granting departments (144+38+39) by the total number who were still in the U.S. (750). Don McClure wrote to say that some of the 38 part-timers undoubtedly left the country, thus making this quotient meaningless (see item #4 below). He was right, the information is not in the report but 5 of those 38 have left the country. The corrected rate is 28.8%, I apologize for the error. 3. An electronic snafu prevented delivery of the December 14 issue of Concerns to many of our members. As a result that issue was resent to all subscribers last week. We apologize to those of you whose newsletter was delayed, and to those of you who received two copies. _____________________________________________________________ Item #3 Big List of Non-academic Employers Dimitri Vulis searched for non-academic employment last year. He has compiled a huge list of mostly financial and software companies that employ mathematicians and the name of the person to contact for each one. He has graciously provided us with a copy of his list. It is much too long to include here; a copy has been placed in the YMN archives, ftp instructions are in the header above, look in the directory other.info. Dimitri would like to keep his list current and requests that you send him any additions or corrections. He plans on occasional updates. You can reach Dimitri at dlv@bwalk.dm.com. Our thanks to Dimitri for sharing this resource. ____________________________________________________________ Item #4 AMS-MAA-IMS Annual Survey I am sending this note to all three of the listed Editor's of CoYM, since Steve Kennedy's Editor's Note on Dec 7 referred to "discussion amongst the editors" sparked by the First Report of the AMS-IMS-MAA Annual Survey. I no longer have a direct involvement with the Survey since my term on the Data Committee ended last year. Still, I do have a continuing interest in the Survey, and I am pleased to see the work of the Data Committee be an effective service to our community. I was very interested to see the amplified version of Table 3C from the First Report included with Frank Sottile's Nov 30 edition of CoYM. The main purpose of my note is to clarify a few points about the Survey and the First and Second Reports. My comments will refer to the First Report of the 1994 Annual AMS-IMS-MAA Survey published in the November/December NOTICES. First, the Survey of New Doctoral Recipients collects data from Departments AWARDING the degrees, not from HIRING departments, as stated on the Dec 7 CoYM Editor's Note. This is an effective group to survey when the goal is to identify every recipient of a new doctorate form a U.S. degree-granting institution. The response rates are reported in Table 1 [First Report, page 1122]. 156 out of 172 doctorate granting mathematics departments have responded to the 1994 Survey by the time the data sets were cut off for the First Report. The respondents include virtually all of the departments granting an appreciable number of new doctorates. Second, it needs to be recognized that the First Report is a "preliminary report." It really couldn't hope to be otherwise. Typically, the data collection on which the report is based is cut off in the last week of September and the Report is in readers' hands four to six weeks later. Extensive follow-up takes place by Data Committee support staff during the fall and winter, prior to preparation of the Second Report in the following spring. That case-by-case follow-up is labor intensive. It seeks to determine the status of those who were initially reported as "employment status unknown" and to determine what ultimately happened to those who may have been counted as "unemployed" on the basis of a response submitted very early in the data collection process. Every year, the data collection, analysis, and follow-up schedule is the same. Thus, it is reasonably meaningful to make year-to-year comparisons of Survey results. It is NOT reasonable to assume that those 143 individuals whose employment status is reported as "unknown" in the First Report didn't get jobs, as the Dec 7 Editor's Note speculates. The completeness of information known about some doctorate recipients at the time of the First Report varies, depending on how thorough a responding department has been in completing its Survey response. It is like "pulling teeth" to get the last responses from the doctorate granting departments at the end of September. It is not uncommon to get only a list of names and thesis titles from one or two very large departments on the last day before the analyses are finalized, with no further information about the degree recipients' first employment, current address, etc. In this case it is likely for the individuals' employment status to be at best "unknown." These individuals have not been lost track of; they simply haven't yet been fully reported by their degree-granting department. If one wishes to go out on a limb and guess what the true employment status of these "unknowns" is, it is much more reasonable to assume that these 143 individuals are like the rest of the population than to assume that they didn't get jobs. The main objective of the updated Second Report on new doctoral recipients is to close such information gaps. Indeed, the difference in employment statistics (in particular, unemployment rates) between the fall First Report and the spring Second Report is more a reflection of how current and complete the information provided by degree-granting departments and degree recipients is than it is a reflection of changing job statistics between the fall and spring. The Editor's Note makes an important point that the employment market for new doctoral recipients is really worse than the reported 14.2% unemployment figure reflects. This is a very good point. John Fulton's First Report of the 1994 Survey of New Doctoral Recipients develops and amplifies on this point on pages 1124-1125. I would caution readers of the First Report and of the Dec 7 CoYM Editor's Note to keep in mind what POPULATION is being considered whenever a percentage is cited. The Annual Survey, in its report of the employment market for new doctorates, attempts to report the status of the market for a well-defined population. That population is--- Recipients of doctoral degrees in mathematics, statistics, and applied mathematics from U.S. doctorate-granting departments during a one-year period, July 1, 19xx through June 30, 19yy (where yy=xx+1). Typically, percentages are reported only for those members of the population whose status is known with regard to a characteristic of interest, e.g., employment status, sex, citizenship status, etc. It does not make sense to compare percentages that change the definition of the population that one wishes to represent by the statistics. We can pick a different population of interest and study it, but we should be very careful not to compare apples to oranges. In particular, the figure reported in CoYM for un- and under-employment of new doctoral recipients who remained in the U.S. suffers two problems. First, it includes individuals in the numerator who are not even part of the population described by the denominator; by this "method" one can arrive at percentages exceeding 100%. [See News and Notes item 2 above, ed.] Second, it has no basis for comparison to other data, even if it were a legitimate proportion. (Please note that this point is my sole objection to the Dec 7 Editor's Note, which otherwise highlights and communicates important information to the CoYM readership.) One final note: I have trouble accepting the premise expressed by Kevin Charlwood in Item #7 of the Dec 7 CoYM. I think that the Dec 7 Editor's Note is itself a counterexample to the claim that the Annual Survey may be giving "misleading information" in the way that it "lumps together" different groups in its summary reports. Indeed, all of the details about part-time employment and employment by one's own degree-granting institution on which the Editor's Note is based, plus more information about short-term contract employment and tenure eligibility, are contained explicitly in the First Report of the 1994 Annual Survey in the November/December NOTICES. The Editor's Note could not have done its interesting exploration of different ways of viewing the data had this level of detail not been included in the First Report. The report presents these additional items and explanations in order to help the reader interpret various tables and summary statistics. Further, whenever a table is designed for a statistical summary and report, it needs to be done with attention to conveying maximal information, providing reasonable detail, not obscuring or distorting objective information, and protecting the right to confidentiality of the individuals in the sample. I feel that very careful attention has been given to these factors in the First Report. Members of YMN, indeed all members of the mathematics community, should take advantage of the Data Committee's invitation to convey their comments and suggestions to the committee [First Report, page 1121]. Copies of Survey forms are sent every year to participating departments and should be readily available. Let the committee know if there are items you would like to see amplified in the periodic reports or if there are other types of data about the profession which you would like to see collected and reported. Donald E. McClure Division of Applied Mathematics Brown University dem@dam.brown.edu ________________________________________________________________Item #5 Data on Ph.D. Production in the U.S. The recent Newsweek article presents raw data on production of science PhD's in the United States. Below is a further break-down of the data (NSF 92-109 and NSB 86-100) and the U.S. population at the closest census. The data are also presented for the number of PhD's earned by U.S. citizens and those with permanent visas. ENG PHYS SCI BIO SCI MATH COMP SCI 1960 PhDs 786 1838 1207 303 0 % of POP .00043 .0010 .00067 .00017 .000 1960 US POP - 178,000,000 1970 PhDs 3681 4313 3308 1236 107 % of POP .0018 .0021 .0016 .00061 .000053 1970 US POP - 204,000,000 1980 PhDs 2431 2545 3609 701 226 % of POP .0011 .0011 .0016 .00031 .00010 US Cit* 1471 2103 3321 525 186 % of POP .00065 .00093 .0015 .00023 .000082 1981 US POP - 226,000,000 (1980) 1990 PhDs 4831 3431 4082 974 779 % of POP .0019 .0014 .0018 .00039 .00031 US Cit* 2358 2226 3455 494 441 % of POP .00095 .00089 .0014 .00020 .00018 1991 US POP - 249,000,000 (1990) % Increase Relative to the US Population 1960 to 1991. Total 342% 40% 169% 129% -- US Cit 121% -11% 109% 18% -- This covers the period from before the space race, the widespread introduction of computers, or the development of modern biotechnology down to the present. However, if one considers the data on what has occurred since 1970, it is interesting that the total PhD production in the U.S. is almost the same now as it was in 1970 as a percentage of the U.S. population only for engineering and biology and is greater only for Computer Science. The production rate has fallen in the physical sciences and mathematics. If one looks at the rate of production of PhD's awarded to US citizens or permanent residents, the absolute number has remained essentially constant since 1981 except for engineering and computer science and fallen as a percentage of US population since 1970 except for Computer Science. The large increase in the number of PhD recipients who are in the US on temporary visas is the reason for almost all increases. While I do not wish to seem xenophobic, it appears that US universities are turning more and more to foreign students to provide the staffing of their research operations. Even if these students stay in the US, it appears that there has been a dumbing down or our entire workforce in the face of an increasingly technical and scientific society. Jim van Putten Department of Physics Hope College vanputten@physics.hope.edu *Includes U.S. citizens and Permanent Residents. _____________________________________________________________ Item #6 First survey of 1994-1995 job candidates The following is a survey, the first of three, conducted by the Young Mathematician's Network (YMN). Please submit any questions you have regarding completion of this survey to: Kevin Charlwood e-mail: kec1@bradley.bradley.edu. The YMN editors are attempting to obtain a fuller picture of the mathematics employment market than that given by the AMS-MAA-IMS Annual Survey. We believe that the job market is much worse than the statistics in the Annual Survey, which considers only the employment market for new PhDS, indicate. In order to get any useful information we need to hear from as many job seekers as possible. Please answer each question if possible; if a particular item is "not applicable", so indicate. Please note that all the individual responses will be kept confidential, and only the overall tabulated results of this survey will be published. If you are currently applying for positions in the mathematical sciences, please take a few moments to complete the survey below, and e-mail your responses to Kevin. I. Education: This section is designed to give our readers an idea how many people are applying, and from which schools. Where numbers are solicited, give the best approximation you can with the information you have available. 1. Name of your Ph.D. granting institution: ___________________________ 2. Current size of graduate student body in mathematics: ______________ (a) Number who are TA's: ___________ (b) Number who are research fellows: ________ (c) Number who are both TA's AND fellows: ________ (d) Number who fit none of categories (a)-(c): _____ 3. Current size of faculty in mathematics: ________ (a) Full-time faculty: __________ (b) Part-time/adjunct: __________ (Please approximate, if not known.) 4. Major field of study: ___________________ AMS MR code: ___________ Secondary field(s): _____________________ AMS MR code(s): _________ 5. Number of semester hours of graduate work (700+ level): _____________ (Indicate the number of credit hours you have taken at ALL institutions you have attended for GRADUATE credit.) If quarter hours, answer here instead: ___________ 6. Number of semester hours of graduate work in your specialty: ________ If quarter hours, answer here instead: ___________ 7. Ranking of overall quality of your program (AMS rank): ______________ (ie., top 20 school, etc.) 8. (a) Highest degree obtained to date: _________ (b) If the answer to (a) is "Ph.D." or its equivalent, please indicate when you obtained it: __ 9. Indicate the number of your publications, including collaborative efforts to date. (a) Number of publications in preparation: ________ (b) Number of publications submitted for pub.: _____ (c) Number of publications accepted for pub.: ______ II. Employment: This section is designed to find out your recent employment history. 1. State your current position title: _______________ 2. Indicate whether your position is full-time, part-time, etc.: ______________________________ 3. When does your current contract expire: __________ 4. Do you expect a contract renewal at your present place of employment (yes/no): ____________ 5. How many years have you been employed in your current position: _______ 6. Indicate your most recent position title, before your current position, if applicable: ___________ III. Employment sought: This section will help determine which type(s) of employment individuals are currently seeking. 1. Indicate the primary type of position you would most like to obtain in this search: _____________ 2. If the answer to (1) involves academia, rank the following in order of importance to you, in terms of your present goals: (a) Tenure-track ______________ Rank from 1 to (b) Postdoctoral ______________ 5, with 1 being (c) Visiting Post ______________ the highest. (d) Temp.: 2+ yr. ______________ (e) Temp.: 1 yr. ______________ 3. If the answer to (1) involves academia, indicate here whether you're more interested in a teaching or a research position: ______________ 4. If the answer to (1) involves academia, indicate what type of institutions you're mainly applying to (choose from 2-year, 4-year, MS/MA granting, Ph.D. granting): ________________________ 5. If your answer to (1) DOES NOT involve academia, indicate here which type of work you're attempting to find; be as specific as possible (i.e., government work-NSA, or financial sector, etc.): ____________________________________________ 6. Have you gone through a major application process before this: (yes/no) _____________ 7. If the answer to (6) was "yes", indicate how many times, when you searched, the type(s) of jobs you sought, and how many applications you sent out: ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ 8. If you are not a U.S. citizen, indicate here your visa status: _______________________________________ 9. How many applications do you currently envision sending out during this search: ________________ 10. (Optional) Indicate your age: ______________ Indicate your gender: ___________ Thanks for participating. Send your response to: Kevin Charlwood kec1@bradley.bradley.edu _____________________________________________________________ Item #7 What to do in San Francisco Besides all the cool mathematical stuff on the program for the San Francisco meetings, there are several items of special interest to young mathematicians, some are aimed particularly at those looking for a job: 1) "Math in industry," Paul Davis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Wednesday 4:30-5:20. 2) "You're the professor, what next?" A panel discussion, Friday 9:30-10:55 a.m. 3) "Looking for a job in the industry," Stan Benkoski, Wagner Associates, Friday 7:00-8:20 p.m. 4) "Concerns of young mathematicians: A town meeting," organized by the YMN editors, we hope to have a discussion with Network members and other folks in the mathematics community about how to improve conditions for YMs. We hope that the immediacy of face-to-face debate will promote a more lively conversation than is possible in this format, Saturday 1:00-2:00. 5) The Employment Register Help Room, the AMS and the JCEO (Joint AMS-MAA-SIAM Committee on Employment Opportunities) have organized a group of volunteers to give advice on dossier preparation and job seeking strategies in conjunction with the Employment Register. The volunteers include members of JCEO and some of the editors of this newsletter. Even if you are not participating in the ER, come on by with any questions you have about job searching. Steve Kennedy skennedy@mathcs.carleton.edu _______________________________________________________________ The Young Mathematicians' Network is administered by: Charles Yeomans cyeomans@ms.uky.edu Mark Winstead mwwinst@gcr.com Nancy Wilson nwilson@stmarys-ca.edu Emil Volcheck Emil.Volcheck@risc.uni-linz.ac.at Frank Sottile sottile@math.toronto.edu Vic Perera vperera@silver.ucs.indiana.edu Franklin Mendivil mendivil@math.gatech.edu Kevin Madigan madigan@math.nwu.edu Steve Kennedy skennedy@mathcs.carleton.edu Matt Hudelson hudelson@math.washington.edu Bob Dobrow dobrow@cam.nist.gov Lyle Cochran address change pending Kevin Charlwood kec1@bradley.bradley.edu Neil Calkin calkin@math.gatech.edu Wendy Brunzie brunzie@mathfs.math.montana.edu Curtis Bennett cbennet@andy.bgsu.edu Frank Arlinghaus frank@math.ysu.edu Edward Aboufadel aboufade@scus1.ctstateu.edu _______________________________________________________________ End of Journal -- Next week: See you in San Francisco