*Concerns of Young Mathematicians* Volume 3, Issue 7 Feb. 22, 1995 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 Nancy Wilson nwilson@stmarys-ca.edu , editor for the month of February. Next issue: Wednesday, March 1st. January Editor: Matt Hudelson hudelson@math.washington.edu February Editor: Nancy Wilson nwilson@stmarys-ca.edu March Editor: Wendy Brunzie brunzie@math.montana.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 Notes on the Occupational Outlook Handbook 3 Census Bureau Reports Info of Interest 4 Comparing Statistics and Databases About Employment 5 Closing Credits __________________________________________________________ Item #1 Editor's Note Wendy Brunzie takes over for me beginning with the next issue. Hasta luego. Nancy Wilson __________________________________________________________Item #2 The Occupational Outlook Handbook for 1992--93 and 1994--95 is available online at gopher://umslvma.ums1.edu:70/11/LIBRARY/GOV/DOCS/OOHA I found it by using netscape, starting at the whitehouse (www.whitehouse.gov) and following links to the labor department. Anybody who is interested can easily read it for him or herself. David Trubatch trubatch@sturm.colorado.edu ----------------------------------------------- Last week Jan Holly reviewed the entry under "mathematician" in the Occupational Outlook Handbook, an annual published by the Department of Labor. It should be mentioned that much of the information is from the various mathematical societies and the National Science Foundation, and generally summarizing these and other sources. The Department of Labor depends on the various professional societies and other government agencies for much of what appears in the handbook. I have found it usually to be behind at least two years in its outlook predictions, e.g., what the AMS says today will be reflected in the 1997 volume. Generally, one will find out more accurate mathematical career outlook info by reading the original sources for the DoL's facts. For the most accurate, broadly available picture, get the pamphlet "Seeking Employment in the Mathematical Sciences" available on the e-MATH gopher and then skim all issues of the Notices, FOCUS, SIAM News, and Employment Information in the Mathematical Sciences since the last time SEMS was updated. But remember that all their predictions depend on the dangerous statistical game called "exTRAPolation." [By the way, if any job seeking readers have some experience and/or formal education with information security and DBMSs and/or operating systems and/or software verification, if you are a U.S. citizen and you think you can get a security clearance, and if you have no philosophical problems with working for a DoD contractor (no weapons or weapon systems are involved), let me know. I can tell you about a company that might be interested in you.] Mark W. Winstead mwwinst@qnet.com ------------------------------------------------- Regarding the article on the Occupational Outlook Handbook, the Labor Department has never been known to be an accurate predictor of manpower needs. Further it is nigh impossible to make predictions of needs five or more years into the future because you cannot properly factor in all the variables, in particular the economy. You will probably find the projections given in the 1990 Report by the AMS Committee on Employment is the most accurate of the available predictors for the need of mathematics PhDs. It lays out in considerable detail how the predictions were arrived at, so interested individuals can factor in the changes in the hypotheses known today to get more current accurate predictions. But you need to be aware that only fools try to claim any accuracy when it comes to predicting manpower needs beyond about six months. D. J. Lewis don.j.lewis@math.lsa.umich.edu __________________________________________________________ Item #3 Census Bureau Reports Info of Interest I have seen today from two different sources that the Census Bureau has surveyed employers and rated factors in hiring. This probably applies more to those seeking employment in industry, but applies somewhat to all of us. The top four factors are attitude (4.6 out of 5), communication skills (4.2), work experience (4.0), and recommendations from previous employers (3.4). I haven't seen the entire list, nor have I seen the numeric ratings on the reported bottom four factors, which are listed as test scores (I assume GRE, SAT, and the like, but might include employer-given tests), grades, a school's reputation, and teacher recommendations. So in other words, a great attitude, excellent speaking and writing skills, and former employers sad to lose you are more important than great Putnam scores and a 4.0 from an Ivy League school where all the teachers liked you. Mark W. Winstead mwwinst@qnet.com __________________________________________________________ Item #4 Comparing Statistics and Databases About Employment I am referencing a recent "Science" (vol. 266, December 23, 1994, page 1949) Random Samples about 14% "Unemployment" in the math sciences. One issue I would like to see addressed in print more frequently is the ever more rapid change of key definitions such as "unemployed," "employed," and "job" as applied to young mathematicians. I do not accept gracefully many descriptions currently used in compiling employment statistics. I've been playing the game too long not to recognize that a basketball has transformed to a tennis ball. If we are going to compare historical PhD employment data properly, it is important to retain closely the definitions in context used to assign people to classifications. Being "EMPLOYED" in a typical new "PhD- level job" today is vastly different in professional quality, working conditions, and respect than a new "PhD-level job" in say 1965. In fact, one could argue we are talking totally different "jobs" or lack thereof. Apples of old are being compared to oranges of today. Let me describe a quite realistic "job" expectation for a new PhD as understood by myself and my peers when I was in graduate school prior to 1983. The old concept of "employment" incorporated full-time, gainful, and meaningful job duties for regular pay at a salary level consistent with a PhD's training and experience. Such "employment" was in a posting where attractive retirement benefit packages and other fringe benefits were discussed as part of the wooing and bait in the job interview. Moreover, "employment" then wasn't used as a buzzword for more "trainingS; rather, a successful applicant was expected to be soon "leading"---at least in some technical regard---and perhaps in a management role as well. Then, the ROUTINE, NORMAL, EXPECTED starting prospects for a PhD in the engineering, mathematical, or physical sciences were a tenure track opening at a very respectable four year (or higher) academic institution or a 40-hour-per-week staff position in a high tech company, government lab, or think tank. There was NONE of this short term contract business. Neither were post docs very commonly seen. (Some places did have a reputation for hiring into tenure track but never granting tenure to the vast majority of the appointees---but such places were not that common, were well identified on the grapevine, and even there every new hire AT LEAST had a chance at a career posting. Also, post docs were for rare situations such as getting advanced training under Albert Einstein at Princeton. Oddly, post docs often carried a reverse status from today since they were so uncommon and were with such intellectual superstars that a normal grad rarely applied---they took instead a tenure track position at a good state university or a well paid job at NASA or some such place. How times have changed!) Note that I am talking something much more substantial than "job" or "employment" being defined as the receipt of a paycheck during the week of the survey. A graduating PhD when I started college could expect to enter a position which carried some significant level of permanence for many of life's important tasks. One could soon purchase a home since a person making solid progress in a tenure track position could always anticipate a baseline level of regular income in the years ahead to meet mortgage payments. Banks then were actually eager to make loans to a new PhD with a firm job at a major company or university. That was a "JOB!" that even bank managers could admire. One could propose to a woman without worrying if she would have to support you after your post doc while you looked for another job. You could turn to the wife that stuck with you all the way through school and say, "Those promises are about to come true for us." You knew that your life was unlikely to be periodically scrambled in a search for new employment. So you could plan a course of research with a settled mind. In fact, you actually had a retirement plan so you even believed you and your family always would be able to eat without food stamps. This was part of the definition of "EMPLOYED" in "A JOB" for a new PhD dating from my generation. However, the concept of "EMPLOYED" in 1994--95 includes short term contracts, non-renewable contracts, part-time, adjunct faculty, visitors, post docs, etc. Often today's new jobs pay less---in absolute terms and especially when adjusted for inflation, and they carry far fewer fringe benefits and less prestige. Moreover, the majority do not even pay lip service to having the option for a person to retire some day with the same employer. Alas, the harsh reality, as we know, is that such new "JOBS" are too often only a way graduating students can be "EMPLOYED." Please think awhile about what I am really saying. Let us apply the yardstick of routine graduation expectations and the later careers of PhDs 15 to 40 years ago. Under those quantitative and qualitative measures of "employment" in a "job" worthy of a newly earned PhD, the TRUE new grad unemployment rate TODAY is far nearer 66% than 14%. (Very few new grads in any current surveys report they are getting tenure track positions or full-time, well paid, permanent, non-academic employment.) Changing the definition of "employed" minimizes the already bad news and fright that something rather grossly sick has been happening---akin to seeking sand by an ostrich. I am respectfully suggesting that ongoing mutation of the key definitions over the last decade has understated today's employment woes by some integer factor. This is not realized by many young (without the quotes) mathematicians since they do lack the historical perspective, experience, and observational data extending back to the days when the old dictionary and game plan of life were current reality. Likewise, people who wish to believe that things are not all t hat bad and will soon get better often care not to realize these issues. For this "young" young mathematicians, his considered opinion is that nearer 66% (not 14%) or more of today's graduates are "unemployed" at the dignified, meaningful professional level they traditionally expected and usually got. Charles Mannix mannix@amath.washington.edu (Interested people can dig up a copy of the November 1994 IEEE Spectrum magazine---it had a good article on unemployment in engineering.) __________________________________________________________ Item #5 Closing Credits 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 vicum@math.ohio-state.edu Franklin Mendivil mendivil@math.gatech.edu Kevin Madigan madigan@math.nwu.edu Leigh Lunsford lunsford@math.uah.edu Steve Kennedy skennedy@mathcs.carleton.edu Matt Hudelson hudelson@math.washington.edu Silvia Heubach silvi@cinenet.net 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@math.montana.edu Curtis Bennett cbennet@bgnet.bgsu.edu Frank Arlinghaus frank@math.ysu.edu Edward Aboufadel aboufade@scus1.ctstateu.edu __________________________________________________________ End of Journal---Next week: The Discussion Continues