*Concerns of Young Mathematicians* Volume 3, Issue 30 Oct. 11, 1995 AMS Election Issue 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 Frank Sottile sottile@math.toronto.edu , editor for the month of October. Next issue: Wednesday, 18 October. September Editor: Emil Volcheck volcheck@acm.org October Editor: Frank Sottile sottile@math.toronto.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 notes 2 Candidate survey responses 3 Closing Credits _______________________________________________________________ Item #1 Editor's notes: In late summer, we sent a questionnaire out to all candidates for AMS offices. Here, we have included the responses. One candidate, Curtis Bennett, who resigned from our editorial board to run for office, has provided us with a statement, which he was unable adequately to do so for the Notices due to being stricken by pneumonia last summer. The other responses also provide new information about the candidates' views as they pertain to some concerns of young mathematicians. Next week, I hope to publish some responses to these statements, or comments about the AMS election, or even any additional responses from candidates who failed to respond for this issue. I already have one such comment, and felt it would be best to print it next week, when there will be time for others to send their opinions. The AMS needs creative leadership to fulfill its mission in these days of a changing climate for mathematical research and other issues which affect our profession. I urge our readers to read the candidates' responses and consider carefully for whom to vote. However, you might wish to wait a week. -Frank Sottile _______________________________________________________________ Item #2 AMS Candidate Survey This year, we sent the following questions to candidates for AMS positions, hoping to elicit responses to aid our readers when voting for AMS positions this autumn. While we did not get full compliance, we do have responses from some of the candidates. For your reference, we have printed the survey. The candidates' responses follow. Survey Questions 1) Last year's Annual AMS--IMS--MAA Survey of new doctorates showed that of the 942 new Ph.D.s whose employment status for Fall 1994 was known, 118 were known to be unemployed. For the fourth consecutive year, the Spring count of the unemployment rate has set an all-time record. Do you believe, as these figures might suggest, that Ph.D.s are being overproduced? Is it your opinion that the AMS can and/or should act to reduce the number of Ph.D.s being produced? What specific measures, if any, would you endorse? 2) The AMS follow-up study of the 1990-1991 Ph.D. cohort discovered that 524 of the 686 whose employment status was known had academic employment in Fall '93. There were 86 individuals known to be unemployed. Thus, 524 out of 772, or about 2/3 of new Ph.D.s (whose status was known), were still in academia after two years. Assuming that this is representative of the experiences of all recent mathematics Ph.D.s, do you agree with the recently released National Research Council report "Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers" which recommends broadening the education of Ph.D. students to make them more attractive to business and industry? Do you think that this is a viable solution of the employment problems of mathematics? 3) The pages of "Concerns of Young Mathematicians" are full of ideas for improving the current system of matching applicant to position. What is your opinion of the following: i) AMS-administered matching system for postdocs, patterned after the resident-matching system used by the medical profession. ii) Creating a standard format for jobs on the e-MATH node and asking employers to post periodic updates on the progress of their searches there. iii) Do you believe that the Employment Register at the Joint Meetings functions effectively? 4) There is reason to believe that the dismal employment market will do long-term harm to the profession and the discipline of mathematics. (See, for example, Notices, May 1995, pp. 570--571 and September 1995, p. 987.) Do you believe this is a real danger? If so, what can/should the AMS do about it? ------------------ Survey responses ---------------- Response from Curtis Bennett, Candidate for member-at-large for AMS council: As an original board member of the YMN and a 4 time editor, I hope to bring the perspective of junior mathematicians to the council. My main goals will remain mostly unchanged, that of educating the mathematical community about the job market, and hoping to provide a better system to educate graduate students about life after the Ph.D. Below, I answer the specific questions raised. 1) I think everyone must admit that mathematics Ph.D.s are being overproduced. The statistics have been getting worse every year for the last four years, and only last year are we starting to see a significant decrease in the number of incoming graduate students. The more difficult question is, of course, what can be done about the problem? The first difficulty is that the AMS does not have the power to enforce most possible alternatives. What the AMS can do is aggressively distribute information about the employment situation to both graduate students and undergraduates. This should help to alleviate the problem of overproduction. Ideally, it should also help to encourage departments and graduate students to consider alternatives to academic employment. 2. For many reasons, I find it imperative that we make mathematics and mathematicians more attractive to business and industry. One thing that we must understand, however, is that this will not be easy and that industry is not a panacea to the current problem. Ph.D.s in most areas of science are having trouble finding jobs. In industry, mathematicians will have to compete with other scientists. Thus we need to understand how to make mathematicians more attractive to business. One of the ways we can do this is to keep track of our graduates who leave academics. They know what is necessary in business and industry and they can also tell us what problems mathematicians can solve for business and industry. We also need to work on an attitude adjustment. Most mathematicians look at industry as a second lesser choice. I don't find it surprising that this makes mathematicians less attractive to employers. We need to realize that a career in industry is as good (and as important) as a career in academics, and we need to start treating industrial mathematicians this way. 3) (i) My opinion about an AMS-administered matching system for postdocs is that academic employment is more complicated than such a system can handle workably. Let me begin by pointing out that unlike medical doctors who must go through a residency, not all mathematicians have to get a postdoc to become an academic. In fact, many jobs require no postdoctoral position whatsoever. Since no school looking only for tenure track candidates is likely to participate in the system, students could not simply put their name into the system and know that they will get a job (not to mention the fact that it doesn't solve the problem of insufficient jobs for the total number of Ph.D.s). As a result, I think the main advantage of such a system, that of reducing paperwork, won't really help Ph.D.s who are looking for jobs. The claimed second advantage would be to speed up the hiring process for those schools that have to wait for their top candidates to hear from other schools. Unfortunately, most of us don't rank all postdocs ahead of all tenure track positions we apply for. If such a system is to reduce the waiting time problem, it would seemingly require that candidates agree to pass up all tenure track jobs in favor of the postdoctoral placement they might receive. I don't like this possibility. If such a matching system can be designed to avoid the apparent pitfalls, then I would probably be in favor of it. Personally, however, I don't see how to design such a matching system. (ii) I do like the idea of creating a standard format for job ads. The format will have to allow for a wide variety of options, but it could be very helpful. I also endorse the idea of requesting employers to give periodic updates of their searches on e-MATH. I remember a few years ago when I first applied for jobs, I received word from only three departments that they had filled their positions. As a result, I made many phone calls; such an update would have saved everyone time. (iii) I think the biggest problem with the employment register (ER) is that there aren't enough jobs to go around. According to JCEO statistics from the Cincinnati ER, the average institution brought 2.4 candidates contacted at the ER to interview on-campus. The success rates for candidates was around 15%. That is about 15% of the people at the ER found jobs with an institution that interviewed them at the ER. Considering the current job market, it would be absurd to expect a much higher success rate than this. It is easy to complain that 85% of candidates at the ER don't get positions, but considering that 99+% of the applicants at any one university don't get a position at that institution, I think it would be foolish to lay all of the blame on the ER. This isn't to say that there aren't problems with the ER. I think these can be best solved, however, by allowing the JCEO to try and address them as they arise. Last year I attended the JCEO meeting and I found that everyone was concerned with how to make the register run better. In particular, there are plans to allow for people to register electronically. I also remember that the ER serves a valuable function simply by giving candidates the experience of going through micro-interviews. My first real experience with interviewing for a job was at the Employment Register in Baltimore. I didn't find a job through that ER, but I did get some valuable experience. 4) I have already written briefly on this problem in the NOTICES article referred to in the question. My feeling is that as long as the job market is a problem, it WILL hurt mathematics, both in research, teaching, and public perception. In the past, more mathematicians had several years of postdoctoral experience free from the difficulties of looking for a job before looking for a tenure track job. This allowed for the mathematicians whose dissertations were good but not fantastic to prove their research ability. Today this isn't the case. Unfortunately, not every good research mathematician hits a home run in their dissertation. Additionally, the job market unduly penalizes mathematicians with families. Two career couples, those with children, and those with medical problems all face extra problems because of the tight job market. The market makes it harder to find two jobs close together and harder to find long term jobs early in your career. These difficulties upset families and can cause health insurance hassles for people with illnesses in the family. Since we want to keep the best teachers and researchers in the field, and this is not correlated to being healthy and single, it seems to me that the market forces will not produce the best mathematicians. While some will argue that funding will be hurt if junior people complain about the job market, in truth, whether or not we complain, Congress will start to question the overproduction of Ph.D.s many of whom find jobs for which a Ph.D. is not a requirement. The market makes it hard to justify support for mathematics when the mathematicians we produce can't find jobs requiring their degrees in industry. Science funding is already under fire, the job market only adds fuel to the arguments of those favoring cutting back governmental funding. Curtis Bennett ************************************************************************** Andrew Granville, candidate for Editorial Boards Committee 1) Last year's Annual AMS--IMS--MAA Survey of new doctorates showed that of the 942 new Ph.D.s whose employment status for Fall 1994 was known, 118 were known to be unemployed. For the fourth consecutive year, the Spring count of the unemployment rate has set an all-time record. Do you believe, as these figures might suggest, that Ph.D.s are being overproduced? Is it your opinion that the AMS can and/or should act to reduce the number of Ph.D.s being produced? What specific measures, if any, would you endorse? No, I do not agree that mathematics Ph.D.s are being overproduced. On the contrary Mathematics is designated an `area of national need' by the Department of Education and the nation desperately needs mathematicians to work at improving the scientific literacy of the nation. The unemployment problem primarily stems from the fact that the doctoral training in mathematics leaves the student not feeling qualified for anything but being a university professor. Indeed, it is difficult to consider other options when one has been so carefully groomed to care about little else than research mathematics and/or college teaching. There are probably many areas in which people, with such a strong training as doctorates in mathematics, could make a big impact. The fact is that there are so few people crossing over to other fields that mathematicians, and people in those fields, are not aware of what collaborations are possible. I would like the AMS to put significant effort into trying to look much further into how mathematicians can be placed into a wide variety of professions. It is obvious that the problem of `too few jobs for too many qualified applicants' is not going to go away. A responsible AMS should embrace that situation and turn it to everyone's advantage by looking beyond the boundaries of how we already do things. 2) The AMS follow-up study of the 1990-1991 Ph.D. cohort discovered that 524 of the 686 whose employment status was known had academic employment in Fall '93. There were 86 individuals known to be unemployed. Thus, 524 out of 772, or about 2/3 of new Ph.D.s (whose status was known), were still in academia after two years. Assuming that this is representative of the experiences of all recent mathematics Ph.D.s, do you agree with the recently released National Research Council report "Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers" which recommends broadening the education of Ph.D. students to make them more attractive to business and industry? Do you think that this is a viable solution of the employment problems of mathematics? See answer to 1)! Actually I don't entirely agree with the wording `to make them more attractive to business and industry'. This seems to encompass a puerile belief that industry and business knows how to effectively use people with mathematical training, that it is somehow all our fault that we place so few people in industry, because we do not explain ourselves well. On the contrary, I am sure that `business and industry' is as ignorant as to the scope and potential of collaboration as mathematicians are, and are as much at fault as we are. We have to create a change of attitude to mathematics that has practical applications, and to find better ways to communicate with business and industry. 3) The pages of "Concerns of Young Mathematicians" are full of ideas for improving the current system of matching applicant to position. What is your opinion of the following: i) AMS-administered matching system for postdocs, patterned after the resident-matching system used by the medical profession. ii) Creating a standard format for jobs on the e-MATH node and asking employers to post periodic updates on the progress of their searches there. iii) Do you believe that the Employment Register at the Joint Meetings functions effectively? It would be nice to have a sensible centralized system for applications. It is currently a frustrating system for everyone, but I don't see how it can easily be avoided. In my experience, when we make offers to candidates they often don't want to commit themselves until they definitely have a rejection from somewhere else where they'd prefer to go; and this makes the whole system very slow. We certainly have no problems `matching applicant to position' here, we always have far too many excellent candidates --- it's awful to have to reject so many people you'd love to hire. 4) There is reason to believe that the dismal employment market will do long-term harm to the profession and the discipline of mathematics. (See, for example, Notices, May 1995, pp. 570--571 and September 1995, p. 987.) Do you believe this is a real danger? If so, what can/should the AMS do about it? No, I think that when the situation becomes dire enough, organizations like the AMS will go from being sympathetic and doing almost nothing, to taking action (as discussed above). As a profession, I am sure we will adapt to a changing situation. However our professional organizations are rather conservative, and will probably take little action until there is a crisis that affects far more than ten or fifteen per cent of graduates. --------------------------------------- From: Dr. David Bressoud Candidate for member-at-large of AMS council Your very thorough questions got me thinking seriously about the employment problems that face today's new PhD's in mathematics, and what I see as my personal priorities if elected to the Council of the AMS. I fully agree with your statement that there are no clear answers, and that encouraging dialogue is one of the most important and creative things we can do right now. Before answering your questions, I would like to set my opinions in context. I apologize for what I suspect will be a far longer response than you anticipated. An advantage and drawback of electronic communication is that brevity is no longer as essential as it once was. My starting point when looking at the employment situation is the firm belief that an academic career with opportunity to pursue scholarship is one of the greatest privileges that society that bestow on an individual. Our PhD granting universities are not trade schools supplying a cadre of workers to slot into waiting positions. They are not even analogous to medical schools which produce very highly trained technicians of unambiguous worth to society. PhD granting universities are---or at least should be---centers of cutting edge research where emerging scholars learn what their vocation is really about and begin to practice it. Graduate students should be there because they passionately want to learn and to practice this scholarship. Job placement does not have the same role it plays in trade or medical schools, and it shouldn't. Quotas are appropriate for trade and medical schools. I strongly believe that anyone who wants to go to graduate school and who is capable of completing the required program should be allowed to enroll. The responsibility of the university is to provide the best graduate education it can. It does not have a responsibility to see that the new PhD can find employment that guarantees support for pursuing scholarship. That said, I now want to qualify it. There is tremendous pressure at every stage of the system to maintain or increase the number of PhD's in mathematics that are granted each year. Undergraduate colleges---such as Macalester---use the number of graduates going on to PhD programs as a measure of their success. Research universities use the size of the graduate program as an important factor in justifying the size of the mathematics faculty, and go on to use graduate students as an inexpensive way of meeting the demand for instructors for lower level courses. Less prestigious universities establish new PhD programs in an attempt increase their prestige. Graduate faculty use the number of graduate students they have directed to help justify their position within the university. The National Science Foundation publicizes the figures on the ``math pipeline'' that illustrate how four million grade school students taking mathematics are narrowed down to a few hundred PhD's. The implied message is that we should increase the flow. For the individual who is considered capable of completing PhD work in mathematics, the forces are all pushing toward seeking that degree. A system that applies this kind of pressure is not justified in throwing up its hands and asserting that it's not its problem when those emerging from the end of the pipeline discover that there is nothing for them to do with their education. I personally feel that the answer is to restructure the system so as to eliminate or at least reduce that pressure to continue. It was externally imposed in the 50's and early 60's when there was a perceived shortage of PhD's. It now must be consciously eased. This brings me to the survey questions: 1. Are PhD's being overproduced? Yes. What can/should the AMS do about it? That's hard. The initial pressures came from the government, and organizations such as the NSF will have to spearhead the redefinition of what it means to succeed mathematically. Our major universities are moved most effectively through the carrots that they have at hand. The role of the AMS will be one of educating colleges and universities and the government in the severity of the problems created by our current system and in the alternatives that appear viable. The AMS has an important role to play in looking ahead five to ten years and assessing the prospects for future employment. It must get the word out to those in the pipeline that they may want to rethink the traditional track. And it must help guide our educational institutions in providing real and attractive alternatives. The AMS must be creative in exploring ways of weaning universities from their dependence on armies of graduate students. It must find ways of encouraging talented students to explore and pursue different tracks. 2. Should the education of PhD's be broadened? Yes. And not because the job prospects are dismal. Industrial employment is not plentiful either. I firmly believe that a broad education that exposes students to a range of applications and uses of mathematics is far better intellectual preparation than very tightly focused training. Of course, the point of the PhD is to reach the stage where one is contributing original research, and so a tightening of the focus is necessary. But even in the midst of thesis work, I hope that a graduate student will be able to continue the exploration of divergent fields of interest. We may also want to consider promoting alternate degrees that concentrate on breadth of exposure and the ability to make creative connections, or on preparation for teaching in an institution that allows little time for scholarship. 3.i) matching system for post-docs: don't like it. ii) standard format on e-math: makes enormous good sense, no idea why it's not done now. iii) Does Employment Register function effectively: No. It comes too late for those who are hiring and is not very effective at matching up candidates and positions. There is obviously some need for it, or it wouldn't continue, but my impression from both sides of the hiring process is that it is largely ignored by the best candidates and those offering the best jobs. 4. Is the employment market harming mathematics? This is inverting the actual situation as I see it. The profession and discipline of mathematics is changing in fundamental ways as the result of changing funding practices and increased budget pressures on colleges and universities. The present dismal employment market is a symptom of these changes. I do not believe that the AMS can do anything to fundamentally shift these changes. The 50's and early 60's were an exceptional period in the history of public perception of science and willingness to fund its expansion. That era is over and I do not foresee a return to anything comparable within my lifetime. The AMS must be realistic, and it must seriously think through long-term strategies for keeping mathematics alive and vibrant in this period of contraction. David M Bressoud, Chair bressoud@macalstr.edu Mathematics and Computer Science Department 612-696-6559 Macalester College, 1600 Grand Avenue FAX: 612-696-6689 Saint Paul, MN 55105 http://www.math.macalstr.edu/~bressoud/ *********************************************************************** From: George Papanicolaou, Candidate for member-at-large of AMS council Here is my response to the questions you posed. 1. The emplyment picture is bad because there is an oversupply of qualified mathematicians. I think that the AMS should continue to provide accurate status reports on emplyment and a forum for discussion of emplyment and related professional issues. I do not think that it makes sense to try to come up with an AMS-wide policy statement on such a complex matter. 2. The Universities can try to shape their graduate mathematics programs so that the emplyment possibilities for their graduates will increse. This includes allowing and encouraging broader training in the mathematical disciplines that are not so close to the core subjects (for example, financial math or computer science related topics) as well as providing opportunity to practice teaching. 3. I do think that the bleak predictions about employment are for real and for the long term. I am not sure what should be done about this or what is the best thing that the AMS should be doing beyond providing accurate information that allows all of us to to act more effectively. George Papanicolaou ********************************************************************** Response from Fred Gehring, Candidate for President-Elect Substantial reduction in graduate programs is not a wise solution to the employment problem. Mathematics is the vital underpinning for the developments in science upon which the United States depends in order to remain competitive in an increasingly technological world. Indeed American high-tech companies oppose a restrictive immigration law now before Congress claiming they need more trained personnel than the United States currently produces. Nearly one third of the graduate students in mathematics and related areas are foreign, many of whom will sooner or later return to their homelands. Hence the problem may not be whether we have too many PhD's but rather whether we produce too few. Demographic studies predict an increased student population in the future and more will be taking mathematics courses than in the past. To alleviate the immediate problem of under employment the Society should urge departments to refocus graduate programs so that degree recipients can compete for positions in industry, government and commerce as well as academia. The Society should definitely consider mechanisms for making job search and hiring easier for new PHD's. Just what form this should take is not clear. But standardizing application forms for jobs available as well as the curriculum vitaes of applicants would be a good beginning. The system used by the medical profession for matching residents and positions should be studied carefully even though it would probably require considerable modification before it could be of use to young PhD's in mathematics and those with open positions in academia, industry and commerce. Indeed I proposed doing just this several years ago while a member of the AMS Board of Trustees. I believe that such a proposal would find a great deal more support on the Board now than it did at that time. ********************************************************************** Response from John B. Conway, Candidate for member-at-large of AMS council Survey Questions 1) Last year's Annual AMS--IMS--MAA Survey of new doctorates showed that of the 942 new Ph.D.s whose employment status for Fall 1994 was known, 118 were known to be unemployed. For the fourth consecutive year, the Spring count of the unemployment rate has set an all-time record. Do you believe, as these figures might suggest, that Ph.D.s are being overproduced? Is it your opinion that the AMS can and/or should act to reduce the number of Ph.D.s being produced? What specific measures, if any, would you endorse? **************************************************************** RESPONSE Certainly the figures indicate that PhDs are being overproduced. Should the AMS undertake any overt action? I think it should attempt to have the various federal funding agencies redirect funds from graduate student support to postdoctoral support. It should continue to publicize the problem and seek a broadening of the purpose of the PhD to better prepare people for possible employment in non-academic professions. But it should resist pressures to do much more, such as setting limits or accreditation of PhD programs. **************************************************************** 2) The AMS follow-up study of the 1990-1991 Ph.D. cohort discovered that 524 of the 686 whose employment status was known had academic employment in Fall '93. There were 86 individuals known to be unemployed. Thus, 524 out of 772, or about 2/3 of new Ph.D.s (whose status was known), were still in academia after two years. Assuming that this is representative of the experiences of all recent mathematics Ph.D.s, do you agree with the recently released National Research Council report "Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers" which recommends broadening the education of Ph.D. students to make them more attractive to business and industry? Do you think that this is a viable solution of the employment problems of mathematics? **************************************************************** RESPONSE I basically agree with this. In many instances, broadening the education of the PhD students would make them more attractive to academia. A narrowly focused program is not good policy. Everyone can profit from an understanding of large amounts of mathematics and science as well as expertise in the use of computers, whether they become research mathematicians (the more mathematics you know, the better your research), teachers at liberal arts colleges (perspective, anyone), or head to industry. **************************************************************** 3) The pages of "Concerns of Young Mathematicians" are full of ideas for improving the current system of matching applicant to position. What is your opinion of the following: i) AMS-administered matching system for postdocs, patterned after the resident-matching system used by the medical profession. ii) Creating a standard format for jobs on the e-MATH node and asking employers to post periodic updates on the progress of their searches there. iii) Do you believe that the Employment Register at the Joint Meetings functions effectively? **************************************************************** RESPONSE NO to any AMS-administered matching system, YES to increased information. My experience indicates that the Employment Register at the Joint Meetings is unused by PhD granting departments. My department has never used it. Of my 14 PhD students, none have ever gotten a job through the ER. In fact I do not personally know a PhD who got a job by that route. I have know some who have had on-campus interviews whose initial contact with the institution was at the ER. I think a hard nosed cost effectiveness study of the ER is warranted. **************************************************************** 4) There is reason to believe that the dismal employment market will do long-term harm to the profession and the discipline of mathematics. (See, for example, Notices, May 1995, pp. 570--571 and September 1995, p. 987.) Do you believe this is a real danger? If so, what can/should the AMS do about it? ************************************************************** RESPONSE No one knows the long range effects. Certainly I don't. I tend to think this is more severe than previous difficulties in the job market since it is accompanied by similar difficulties in other aspects of the economy and society. The predictions about the future of the rest of the American economy focus on permanent change and a diminution of lifestyle. It would seem foolhardy to think the future of the world of mathematics is rosier than the rest of the country. So we should gird our loins. One thing the AMS might do is to talk to academic societies that have encountered "downsizing" already. English and history, for example, have faced tight academic job markets for a long time and have no prospects of industrial employment. What is their attitude? What do they do? I have had personal conversations along these lines, but a systematic survey might be interesting. **************************************************************** Peace, John B Conway John B Conway Mathematics University of Tennessee Knoxville TN 37996-1300 615-974-2463 FAX 615-974-6576 **************************************************************************** Response from Mary Lou Zeeman, Candidate for member-at-large, AMS council Survey Questions 1) Last year's Annual AMS--IMS--MAA Survey of new doctorates showed that of the 942 new Ph.D.s whose employment status for Fall 1994 was known, 118 were known to be unemployed. For the fourth consecutive year, the Spring count of the unemployment rate has set an all-time record. Do you believe, as these figures might suggest, that Ph.D.s are being overproduced? Is it your opinion that the AMS can and/or should act to reduce the number of Ph.D.s being produced? What specific measures, if any, would you endorse? No, I do not believe that Ph.D.'s are being overproduced. Each Ph.D. represents an individual who has chosen to study math. I would not endorse any measure that prevented such a choice. I would endorse measures that encourage a more informed choice and a broader perspective. In particular, Math departments could inform their beginning Ph.D. students of employment opportunities and the employment rate both in and out of academia. The majority of Professors have never worked outside academia, so the role models available to Ph.D. students are almost all academic. I think that departments should learn more about mathematics careers in business and industry. This would enable them to encourage students to consider options outside academia with as much enthusiasm as options inside academia, and to better prepare those students who are attracted to careers in business or industry. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) The AMS follow-up study of the 1990-1991 Ph.D. cohort discovered that 524 of the 686 whose employment status was known had academic employment in Fall '93. There were 86 individuals known to be unemployed. Thus, 524 out of 772, or about 2/3 of new Ph.D.s (whose status was known), were still in academia after two years. Assuming that this is representative of the experiences of all recent mathematics Ph.D.s, do you agree with the recently released National Research Council report "Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers" which recommends broadening the education of Ph.D. students to make them more attractive to business and industry? Do you think that this is a viable solution of the employment problems of mathematics? Yes, I think this is a good idea. Academia is not the only place where a Mathematics Ph.D. is valuable. I think that we should not only broaden the education of Ph.D. students to make them more attractive to business and industry; but also that we should broaden the perspective of math departments to make business and industry more attractive to students. See also q.1. The thoughts described above are independent of the current employment situation. Increased employment opportunities in industry would certainly help the immediate job crisis, but would probably not solve the employment problems of mathematics, simply because the same market forces affect both the academic and industrial job markets. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) The pages of "Concerns of Young Mathematicians" are full of ideas for improving the current system of matching applicant to position. What is your opinion of the following: i) AMS-administered matching system for postdocs, patterned after the resident-matching system used by the medical profession. I don't know the system. It sounds like an administrative nightmare that removes all chance of personal interaction between mathematicians. However, since each job hunt and job search could also be described this way, I will not pass judgement until I learn more about the system. ii) Creating a standard format for jobs on the e-MATH node and asking employers to post periodic updates on the progress of their searches there. This sounds very sensible. iii) Do you believe that the Employment Register at the Joint Meetings functions effectively? I have not been recently. I know of occasional success stories from the register, but mainly I have heard overwhelmingly that it does not work. I would certainly be open to ideas on how to improve the system. I think conference participation and personal interaction with colleagues is an extremely important part of a mathematician's career. I would therefore prefer to put energy and resources into a thoughtful revitalization of this system, than into the centralized matching system described in (i). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4) There is reason to believe that the dismal employment market will do long-term harm to the profession and the discipline of mathematics. (See, for example, Notices, May 1995, pp. 570--571 and September 1995, p. 987.) Do you believe this is a real danger? If so, what can/should the AMS do about it? I do not know enough to decide whether we are facing a long or short term trend in employment prospects for U.S. mathematicians. It seems clear to me that there have been both good and bad consequences for U.S. mathematics so far (see also my statement in the notices). It is an important question. If elected, I will certainly investigate it more thoroughly. ************************************************************** _______________________________________________________________ Item #3 Closing Credits Charles Yeomans cyeomans@ms.uky.edu Mark Winstead mwwinst@bilbo.pic.net Nancy Wilson nwilson@stmarys-ca.edu Emil Volcheck volcheck@acm.org Frank Sottile sottile@math.toronto.edu Vic Perera vicum@math.ohio-state.edu Franklin Mendivil mendivil@math.gatech.edu Kevin Madigan madkev@aol.com Leigh Lunsford lunsford@math.uah.edu Steve Kennedy skennedy@mathcs.carleton.edu Matt Hudelson hudelson@pi.math.wsu.edu Silvia Heubach silvi@cinenet.net Greg Dresden dresden@fireant.ma.utexas.edu Bob Dobrow bdobrow@cs-sun1.nemostate.edu Lyle Cochran lcochran@fresno.edu Kevin Charlwood charlwk@snoopy.tblc.lib.fl.us Wendy Brunzie brunzie@mathfs.math.montana.edu Frank Arlinghaus frank@math.ysu.edu Edward Aboufadel aboufade@gvsu.edu _______________________________________________________________ End of Journal -- Next week: The Discussion Continues