Interested in linking to "A Career in Law?"?
You may use the Headline, Deck, Byline and URL of this article on your Web site. To link to this article, select and copy the HTML code below and paste it on your own Web site.
11/07/2011
In "How to STEM Employment Concerns" (August '11, www.ControlDesign.com/STEM0811), I think you hit the nail on the head (at least partly) with comments about the volatility of STEM jobs. In a lot of companies, the first place they look to cut when things get tough financially is in the technical ranks, because those positions pay the most.
Where I live (near Schaumburg, Ill.) is "Motorola country." I can't even begin to recount the number of people I know with high-level math skills who have had their careers turned upside down over the past 10 years. Motorola has a great history and has had a huge impact globally, especially with Mikel Harry and his team developing Six Sigma; but it has not succeeded in providing "quality" jobs for its STEM employees.
What U.S. employers really want is the availability of cheap STEM skills; i.e., they want new college grads because they cost less. Consider for a moment what it costs to live in an area where there is a significant high-tech infrastructure:
ADVERTISEMENT
So now we are up to $100K required to live the middle class lifestyle. To earn that, assuming a 35% tax rate (federal, state, social security, sales), the jobs have to pay at least $150K combined for the couple. Likely that means two working parents, which adds another $12K per child in daycare to the expenses. Now we are talking around $175K in combined income required to maintain a middle class lifestyle. That is more than $87K apiece.
I don't hear many employers itching to pay STEM grads $87K a year. They want to pay $45K-$50K a year. Now do you see why the bright kids are opting for law school?
John Tiessen, Global Materials & Applications Science,
Sun Chemical, www.sunchemical.com