Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 22:20:53 -0700 From: Norm Matloff To: Norm Matloff Subject: another phony "shortage" To: H-1B/L-1/offshoring e-newsletter In the last week or two, there must have been a dozen articles in major U.S. newspapers, saying that the U.S. is facing a "shortage" of scientists, that government funds for science research are falling, etc. Unfortunately, the reporters who wrote those articles never stopped to consider that they were being hoodwinked by entities with hidden vested interests. The journalist who wrote the enclosed article, Daniel Greenberg, is a big exception in today's world of balanced-but-shallow reporting. He's always been a skeptic, showing for example how our National Science Foundation created a phony "shortage" claim in the late 1980s, in order to get Congress to give the NSF more funding. "The more things change, the more they remain the same." As Greenberg pointed out in a radio interview last week, the NSF is employing the same tactic now. The NSF has company, as there are various other entities who have hidden vested interests--academia (funding for research empires, foreign students for cheap labor), the immigration lawyers (H-1B business), etc. Unfortunately, even Greenberg doesn't seem to fully understand why such a large portion of enrollments in U.S. graduate programs in science and engineering consist of foreign students. Once again, it's money, folks. Greenberg does point out that careers for science PhDs are low-paying (if one is lucky enough to get a job in the first place), thus no incentive for Americans to pursue these fields. But even for well-paying jobs like those in engineering, there is a strong disincentive for Americans to avoid doctoral study--BECAUSE those jobs are highly-paid. An American student in engineering forgoes a lot of income by going to grad school. As exposed by Eric Weinstein (see http://users.nber.org/~peat/PapersFolder/Papers/SG/NSF.html), the NSF actually PLANNED it to happen this way when it urged Congress to allow more foreign engineers and scientists to come to the U.S., under the H-1B and other programs. The NSF noted that American students would be discouraged from going to grad school because of the financial disincentives, but the foreign students would come here (and work cheap) because of the prospects of getting a U.S. green card. In other words, the NSF deliberately caused the situation and now has the chutzpah to decry that same situation. It's also unfortunate that Greenberg assures us that the visa problems are being fixed. Aside from the fact that the U.S. ought to stop using the foreign students as cheap labor, the visa "problem" is a NON-PROBLEM. The recent decline in foreign student enrollment is NOT due to the visa restrictions, but rather to the fact that THE U.S. IS NO LONGER A DESIRABLE PLACE TO COME TO, DUE TO ITS POOR JOB MARKET IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING. The overriding reason most foreign students in science and engineering have come to U.S. graduate programs is NOT the education, but rather the fact that that U.S. education would lead to a U.S. green card, which in turn would lead to a good U.S. job and a nice material living. In other words, no tech job market, no foreign students. They'd rather stay home, where the tech job markets are booming. Enrollment by students from China is down 50%. It's also sad that IEEE-USA, whose support for H-1B reform has been wishy-washy, has recently taken it upon itself to push for relaxation of the visa restrictions for foreign students. (See second enclosure below.) Not only are they wrong in assuming the enrollment decline is due to the visa restrictions, they are REALLY wrong in undercutting the job prospects for their members by promoting the importation of foreign students, who later enter the U.S. job market. Norm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38006-2004May18.html What Scientist Shortage? By Daniel S. Greenberg Wednesday, May 19, 2004; Page A23 A scientist shortage? Again? The gloomy warnings are back. They're underpinned by declines in science studies by U.S. students and a post-Sept. 11 falloff in the enrollment of foreigners, who have traditionally filled as many as half the graduate slots in U.S. universities and have taken jobs here after graduation. A crisis is in the making, says a report by a pillar of the scientific establishment, the National Science Board, which warns that the "trends threaten the economic welfare and security of our country." While the United States is losing ground, it states, other nations are increasing their production of scientists. A Nobel laureate warns of "irreversible damage." Overall, a grim picture -- of questionable validity. Obscured by the alarmist rhetoric are the repeated false alarms, erroneous forecasts and gluts of unemployed scientists -- rather than shortages -- that have been the reality in the scientific marketplace for decades. In the mid-1980s, government forecasters warned that the "baby bust" portended a crippling "shortfall" of 675,000 scientists over the next 20 years. By 1990 the forecast was dropped down the memory hole as joblessness increased in scientific ranks. In 1995 an article in a publication of the American Mathematical Society noting the abundance of unemployed math PhDs observed: "At current hiring levels, it would take several years to absorb this backlog, even if all Ph.D. production suddenly ceased." The plight of chemists was summarized last year in a headline in a leading chemical journal, "Slump Continues for Chemists: Unemployment is at a record high, but opportunities exist for the well prepared." The scientific establishment is usually united on the theme of more is better. But the disparity between party line and job statistics has grown to the point where a leading figure of science has broken with the crowd. Last February Donald Kennedy, editor of Science, co-wrote an editorial that asked, "Why do we keep wishing to expand the supply of scientists, even though there is no evidence of imminent shortages?" In reply to its own question, the editorial observed that "policies are set mainly by elders, who, like the institutions that employ them, have little incentive to downsize their operations." To which it added, "We've arranged to produce more knowledge workers than we can employ, creating a labor-excess economy that keeps labor costs down and productivity high." Average salary scales for professors show the marketplace value of different disciplines: law, $109,478; business, $79,931; biological and biomedical sciences, $63,988; mathematics, $61,761. The failure of more Americans to pursue science studies can in part be attributed to poor high school and college programs for nurturing scientific talent. But the much-lamented turn away from science also reflects sound economic calculation. The post-college route to a science PhD usually takes five to seven years. Postdoctoral fellowships, now a commonplace requirement for most academic and many industrial jobs, run for two to three years. Postdoctoral wages average around $35,000 a year, without benefits. At the postdoctoral stage, fledgling scientists are well into their thirties, some in their early forties. With good luck, the next step will be a tenure-track academic appointment, which, after seven years, may or may not result in a secure job. No wonder fewer and fewer Americans opt for a career in science. Even so, jobs remain scarce. For scientifically talented foreign students, especially from developing countries, a scientific career based on training in the United States is a wondrously appealing opportunity, usually financed by their home countries in the hope that they will bring back the benefits of science and technology. In droves, however, they choose to make their careers in the United States. The alarmists of scientific shortage have been warning for decades that a homeward exodus of foreign scientists will someday occur. But contrary to this expectation, the "stay" rates of foreign doctoral students have actually increased, according to the National Science Foundation, which reports that 71 percent of foreign citizens who received their PhDs in 1999 were still in the United States two years later -- up from 49 percent in 1987. The foreign-born have always played a major role in American science and technology -- indispensably so in the development of the atomic bomb and the space program. Visa disruptions arising from anti-terrorism measures have seriously interfered with foreign studies in this country, leading to abrupt declines in foreign enrollments. But remedies are already reducing these difficulties and easing entry. There's no shortage of scientists and there's no impending crisis. The American scientific enterprise is thriving, and will continue to thrive, with its traditional mix of foreign and home-grown talent -- regardless of the worry-mongers who periodically sound false alarms. Daniel S. Greenberg, a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution, is the author of "Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion." © 2004 The Washington Post Company http://www.ieeeusa.org/releases/2004/051304pr.html Contact: Chris McManes Senior Marketing Communications/Public Relations Coordinator Phone: + 1 202 785 0017, ext. 8356 E-Mail: c.mcmanes@ieee.org IEEE-USA Signs Coalition Statement Urging Solution to Visa-Processing Crisis for International Students, Scholars and Scientists WASHINGTON (13 May 2004) -- IEEE-USA President John Steadman signed a joint statement Wednesday urging the federal government to solve the current visa-processing crisis by adopting six recommendations to streamline the admittance of international students, scholars and scientists. IEEE-USA was one of 20 science, higher education and engineering organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the Association of American Universities, to endorse the statement sent to U.S. policymakers. Between 2000 and 2002, the number of non-immigrant visa applications flagged for review under the U.S. Visas Mantis screening program had risen from about 1,000 to 14,000. This has helped create a massive logjam of pending applications, preventing students from attending school and scientists from participating in scholarly research and conferences. While "the need to ensure national security is indisputable," AAAS CEO Alan I. Leshner said, "legitimate applications from scholars and students seeking to improve human welfare must not become snared in red tape. Scientific advances to combat HIV and AIDS, hunger, terrorism and many other crises will require the insights and contributions of scholars from many regions." For more on the statement and its specific recommendations, see http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2004/0512visa.shtml. IEEE-USA is an organizational unit of the IEEE. It was created in 1973 to advance the public good and promote the careers and public-policy interests of the more than 225,000 technology professionals who are U.S. members of the IEEE. The IEEE is the world's largest technical professional society. For more information, go to www.ieeeusa.org. IEEE-USA 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1202 Washington, DC 20036-5104 Phone: 202-785-0017, Fax: 202-785-0835 Last Updated: 10 May 2004 Staff Contact: Chris McManes, c.mcmanes@ieee.org