Second dot-com wave
Unicorns start going bust
Coders get pink slips
Unicorns start going bust
Coders get pink slips
Showing posts with label STEM careers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label STEM careers. Show all posts
Monday, February 08, 2016
Monday, August 03, 2015
The Haiku of Finance for 08/03/15
Knowledge foundation
STEM experts engage public
Science brings us wealth
STEM experts engage public
Science brings us wealth
Financial Sarcasm Roundup for 08/03/15: Special Scientific Edition
I attended an excellent lecture tonight at the Commonwealth Club by Dr. Eugenie Scott, the former Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. The room was packed and I was lucky to get a seat way in the back. There is no way I can be sarcastic about a distinguished senior scientist outlining a method for improving Americans' scientific understanding. Her logic was impeccable, and her credentials for reaching out to unscientific Americans are unimpeachable. My only challenge tonight is to get Americans to listen to her. My fellow citizens shall thus be the object of my sarcasm.
Dr. Scott mentioned that the National Science Board's Science and Engineering Indicators track several aspects of scientific development in the United States. Readers should note that this resource does not track creationism, intelligent design, Biblical mentions of dinosaurs, or other things that Americans may believe if they are not exposed to science. She cited evidence that facts alone are insufficient to convert science-averse people; some emotional trigger must often be present. I guess it works like Paul the Apostle's conversion on the road to Damascus, but in reverse . . . you know, like, away from a non-rational belief towards a belief supported by evidence.
If the main engine for climate change denial is political conservatism, and the main objectors to evolution are religious conservatives, then conservatives have a lot of work to do. I should fault the conservative business elites (many of whom are closet agnostics) for cynically funding troglodyte local and state politicians. Pandering to low-information voters has a cost. Come on, conservatives, you don't need the tax breaks and zoning favors so badly that we have to hamstring the nation's scientific education as an unintended consequence. Liberal politicians will legislate the same breaks if business elites can stomach their rhetoric.
The preferred communication method for Dr. Scott and her allies when engaging unscientific American leaders is the presentation of a messenger the denier audience finds trustworthy. Dr. Scott wants us to find thought leaders from the same tribes as the deniers who will assuage their concerns about bad consequences. Maybe I should offer myself as an ambassador of reason. After all, I have a Notre Dame degree I've never used and I've met plenty of people from that school who fit the denier pattern. I was slightly sympathetic to climate change skepticism myself until I actually read more science and less denier propaganda. The Commonwealth Club's Climate One program really helped, although some of their experts really need to polish their arguments. I did not need any emotional argument to move my opinions; I simply compared the two sides of the argument on their evidence and found the skeptics to be deficient. My dual backgrounds in finance and military intelligence make that behavior a force of habit. I never needed any convincing that evolution works as advertised, because I've met many fellow "humans" whose behavior qualifies them for the chimpanzee cage at a zoo.
Americans have rested on their scientific laurels for long enough. The amazing output of our government and university labs leaves most Americans in the dark. People don't grok the connection between rising living standards and commercialized research. It's time to present American science deniers with emotional arguments that hit them in the pocketbook. Show people how much poorer and sadder they'll be without STEM-educated experts inventing gadgets and materials they use daily. The American way of life is not negotiable, as former President George H.W. Bush said prior to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. That sounds like a very conservative rationale for supporting the STEM education and pro-science public dialogues that will enhance our way of life.
Dr. Scott mentioned that the National Science Board's Science and Engineering Indicators track several aspects of scientific development in the United States. Readers should note that this resource does not track creationism, intelligent design, Biblical mentions of dinosaurs, or other things that Americans may believe if they are not exposed to science. She cited evidence that facts alone are insufficient to convert science-averse people; some emotional trigger must often be present. I guess it works like Paul the Apostle's conversion on the road to Damascus, but in reverse . . . you know, like, away from a non-rational belief towards a belief supported by evidence.
If the main engine for climate change denial is political conservatism, and the main objectors to evolution are religious conservatives, then conservatives have a lot of work to do. I should fault the conservative business elites (many of whom are closet agnostics) for cynically funding troglodyte local and state politicians. Pandering to low-information voters has a cost. Come on, conservatives, you don't need the tax breaks and zoning favors so badly that we have to hamstring the nation's scientific education as an unintended consequence. Liberal politicians will legislate the same breaks if business elites can stomach their rhetoric.
The preferred communication method for Dr. Scott and her allies when engaging unscientific American leaders is the presentation of a messenger the denier audience finds trustworthy. Dr. Scott wants us to find thought leaders from the same tribes as the deniers who will assuage their concerns about bad consequences. Maybe I should offer myself as an ambassador of reason. After all, I have a Notre Dame degree I've never used and I've met plenty of people from that school who fit the denier pattern. I was slightly sympathetic to climate change skepticism myself until I actually read more science and less denier propaganda. The Commonwealth Club's Climate One program really helped, although some of their experts really need to polish their arguments. I did not need any emotional argument to move my opinions; I simply compared the two sides of the argument on their evidence and found the skeptics to be deficient. My dual backgrounds in finance and military intelligence make that behavior a force of habit. I never needed any convincing that evolution works as advertised, because I've met many fellow "humans" whose behavior qualifies them for the chimpanzee cage at a zoo.
Americans have rested on their scientific laurels for long enough. The amazing output of our government and university labs leaves most Americans in the dark. People don't grok the connection between rising living standards and commercialized research. It's time to present American science deniers with emotional arguments that hit them in the pocketbook. Show people how much poorer and sadder they'll be without STEM-educated experts inventing gadgets and materials they use daily. The American way of life is not negotiable, as former President George H.W. Bush said prior to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. That sounds like a very conservative rationale for supporting the STEM education and pro-science public dialogues that will enhance our way of life.
Wednesday, March 05, 2014
Identifying The Manufacturing And Design Bodies Of Knowledge
I attended a PR seminar last night that got me thinking about design details that drive a PR message. A lot of the panel's comments addressed the expertise that cross-functional teams bring to product design. They also covered how product features drive user engagement, which will ultimately get the product's story told. Cross-functional teams have been all the rage for decades but the manufacturing knowledge that drives product design has become a lost art in the US ever since American executives started outsourcing production to developing countries. Practitioners need to know where knowledge of manufacturing and design can be found.
I asked the panel if a body of knowledge exists that product designers can use. One expert remarked that innovation has outpaced documentation, and many product development details can escape notice. That tells me there's a gap in knowledge management where some automated solution for documenting product and process changes can fill an enterprise need. Another panelist mentioned the free courseware at edX and free design templates at the MIT Media Lab. Those are great sources for people adding skills to their repertoire.
Professional societies have organized larger bodies of knowledge (BoKs) that pertain specifically to manufacturing and design. APICS has a BoK for operations management. The Society of Manufacturing Engineers has a BoK for manufacturing technology, and another BoK for lean certification. The Usability Body of Knowledge should be very useful to any produce designer working the human-computer interface (HCI) for wearables. The IEEE software engineering BoK, ASQ quality management BoK, and ASQ reliability engineer BoK are within the reach of anyone willing to study them. All of those things matter in scaling up hi-tech products.
The secrets to success in product development aren't secrets at all. They're buried under reams of academic concepts that practitioners have spent decades validating. Practitioners who master the above BoKs should populate the cross-functional teams that design products. The crucial factor today in product success is iterating product development in response to CustDev on a very compressed timeline. One panelist remarked that the old way of developing product features in advance of seeking customer feedback now takes too long to get a product to market. Enterprises doing CustDev can make that happen faster.
Most of the people I've seen attending the startup talks and meetups in San Francisco aren't very impressive. They're either too dense to benefit from the panelists' expert wisdom or too impatient to slog it out through the long road of development. There aren't many shortcuts in product development, and only experts can find the ones that exist. Experts do that once they've mastered BoKs and can see intuitively how systems behave. Come to think of it, these BoKs are the kind of multidisciplinary education that artisan designers in the maker movement need. The San Franciscans who show up at meetups should spend less time grabbing food from their hosts and more time applying BoKs to real projects.
I asked the panel if a body of knowledge exists that product designers can use. One expert remarked that innovation has outpaced documentation, and many product development details can escape notice. That tells me there's a gap in knowledge management where some automated solution for documenting product and process changes can fill an enterprise need. Another panelist mentioned the free courseware at edX and free design templates at the MIT Media Lab. Those are great sources for people adding skills to their repertoire.
Professional societies have organized larger bodies of knowledge (BoKs) that pertain specifically to manufacturing and design. APICS has a BoK for operations management. The Society of Manufacturing Engineers has a BoK for manufacturing technology, and another BoK for lean certification. The Usability Body of Knowledge should be very useful to any produce designer working the human-computer interface (HCI) for wearables. The IEEE software engineering BoK, ASQ quality management BoK, and ASQ reliability engineer BoK are within the reach of anyone willing to study them. All of those things matter in scaling up hi-tech products.
The secrets to success in product development aren't secrets at all. They're buried under reams of academic concepts that practitioners have spent decades validating. Practitioners who master the above BoKs should populate the cross-functional teams that design products. The crucial factor today in product success is iterating product development in response to CustDev on a very compressed timeline. One panelist remarked that the old way of developing product features in advance of seeking customer feedback now takes too long to get a product to market. Enterprises doing CustDev can make that happen faster.
Most of the people I've seen attending the startup talks and meetups in San Francisco aren't very impressive. They're either too dense to benefit from the panelists' expert wisdom or too impatient to slog it out through the long road of development. There aren't many shortcuts in product development, and only experts can find the ones that exist. Experts do that once they've mastered BoKs and can see intuitively how systems behave. Come to think of it, these BoKs are the kind of multidisciplinary education that artisan designers in the maker movement need. The San Franciscans who show up at meetups should spend less time grabbing food from their hosts and more time applying BoKs to real projects.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
The Haiku of Finance for 01/29/13
STEM workforce pressure
Guest worker wage arbitrage
Driving down income
Guest worker wage arbitrage
Driving down income
Immigration Reform and Wage Arbitrage
Immigration reform is coming in the U.S. The Administration believes it has a mandate to loosen immigration controls for visiting workers and corporate America is fully on board. The hints floated so far offer glimpses into the future of the American middle class.
The tech sector claims it needs more than the current 65,000 H-1B visas to attract STEM professionals. It's worth noting that a Congressional Research Service report from 2008 found that U.S. universities award just under 400,000 STEM degrees annually. If this domestic pipeline isn't enough to satisfy the tech sector's demand for skilled professionals, then presumably all of those American-produced graduates are gainfully employed in STEM work.
It's unfortunate that the picture for American STEM graduates isn't so rosy. Parsing a recent Microsoft report shows that many computer science jobs are held by people who never studied that subject. A broader look at STEM career trends shows that foreign-born STEM graduates can stay in the U.S. for quite some time to seek work, while many companies continue to lay off tech workers.
One very telling statistic from a National Science Foundation study of the STEM workforce reveals that the involuntarily out of field (IOF) rate for recent graduates is 11.0%. Think about it. If 44,000 of those annual 400,000 STEM graduates can't find work in their field, why is industry pushing for even more than the 65,000 green cards for foreign-born workers? The obvious answer is that the tech sector is not at all concerned about finding employment for those 44,000 lost workers. It would rather use an influx of more than 65,000 foreigners to drive down wages for remaining STEM employees.
The push for more green card STEM workers has little to do with satisfying an unmet demand for skilled labor. Tech employers can use an imported glut of qualified workers to press existing employees for wage concessions. Wage "arbitrage" is sometimes a polite way of saying wage suppression, because that's an easy way for employers to control costs. Compared to investing in automation or redesigned work flows, lobbying for lower wages via immigration reform has a big payoff.
The tech sector claims it needs more than the current 65,000 H-1B visas to attract STEM professionals. It's worth noting that a Congressional Research Service report from 2008 found that U.S. universities award just under 400,000 STEM degrees annually. If this domestic pipeline isn't enough to satisfy the tech sector's demand for skilled professionals, then presumably all of those American-produced graduates are gainfully employed in STEM work.
It's unfortunate that the picture for American STEM graduates isn't so rosy. Parsing a recent Microsoft report shows that many computer science jobs are held by people who never studied that subject. A broader look at STEM career trends shows that foreign-born STEM graduates can stay in the U.S. for quite some time to seek work, while many companies continue to lay off tech workers.
One very telling statistic from a National Science Foundation study of the STEM workforce reveals that the involuntarily out of field (IOF) rate for recent graduates is 11.0%. Think about it. If 44,000 of those annual 400,000 STEM graduates can't find work in their field, why is industry pushing for even more than the 65,000 green cards for foreign-born workers? The obvious answer is that the tech sector is not at all concerned about finding employment for those 44,000 lost workers. It would rather use an influx of more than 65,000 foreigners to drive down wages for remaining STEM employees.
The push for more green card STEM workers has little to do with satisfying an unmet demand for skilled labor. Tech employers can use an imported glut of qualified workers to press existing employees for wage concessions. Wage "arbitrage" is sometimes a polite way of saying wage suppression, because that's an easy way for employers to control costs. Compared to investing in automation or redesigned work flows, lobbying for lower wages via immigration reform has a big payoff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)