Why has 2000s America done such a bad job at inspiring young people to go into science or engineering?

[hertamaniac]

I think the more traditional trades careers, not saddled with huge college debt, has become more appealing over the past several decades. The college cost ROI bubble has been in full bloom for years and I don't see anything to derail it in the future (speaking in generalities).

 

[Southernmiss]

OK then, I guess all the poor people in old mining towns went on to be engineers and are now in mansions, good to know there is no disconnect in jobs any more and if you have a degree the loans will just vanish with ease.

Good to know, how silly for everyone to be concerned about jobs when there is such an easy solution. US US just needs to get all American kids into engineering and no more loans, excellent.

Not real sure what your on to here.

But there is also an encouragement of trades all across the country. High schools have reworked votech classes and corporations are partnering with high schools now to get the employees they need the training they need

Specific to mining, just yesterday CBS had a story about a 3 year all trades program for former West Virginia miners that is getting them the training they need to get new careers that are in demand.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/west-virginia-training-program-jobless-coal-miners-appalachia/

 

[mom2rtk]

OK then, I guess all the poor people in old mining towns went on to be engineers and are now in mansions, good to know there is no disconnect in jobs any more and if you have a degree the loans will just vanish with ease.

Good to know, how silly for everyone to be concerned about jobs when there is such an easy solution. US US just needs to get all American kids into engineering and no more loans, excellent.

Is that really what you took from this discussion?

 

[NotUrsula]

OK then, I guess all the poor people in old mining towns went on to be engineers and are now in mansions, good to know there is no disconnect in jobs any more and if you have a degree the loans will just vanish with ease.

Good to know, how silly for everyone to be concerned about jobs when there is such an easy solution. US US just needs to get all American kids into engineering and no more loans, excellent.

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? You claimed that you needed to be in a major city to make a solid living as an engineer (enough to pay off student loans and live comfortably was implied), but that the salary wouldn't support the COL.

I was simply debunking that, not claiming that an engineering degree was a be-all and end-all solution to widespread rural poverty. Engineers do not need to live in major cities with high COL, and most practicing engineers (as opposed to those who have moved up into management) actually do not live or work in major city centers, so generally their salaries go pretty far, and afford them a nicely comfortable living. Enough to create widespread generational wealth? Probably not, but that's a 1% kind of thing; the vast majority of working professionals with only a Bachelors degree won't ever cross that threshold.

If you want to talk mining, the largest mining company in the world has it's HQ in my midwestern city: Peabody Energy. I won't be nominating them for sainthood anytime soon, but I know engineers who work for them, and most of them make a quite comfortable upper-middle-class living; it helps that this metro is ranked in the top 25 most affordable metro areas in the US in terms of COL. Our urban core is quite small; the vast majority of our residents live and work in the suburbs, though Peabody's HQ is downtown (they have division offices scattered around the rest of the metro, however.)

Here's the trick: the vast majority of rural communities, and mining communities are certainly included, don't have stellar public education systems because the local governments tend not to make educational rigor a high priority. If working-class jobs in your town were all in one industry that paid very well (and mining does, because it's hellaciously dangerous), then yes, the whole system collapses if the company shuts down the operation, and poverty skyrockets because the working-class population is not qualified for other types of work that pay as much. A large engineering staff is still going to be at most about 20% of the workforce in a mining operation; it's an industry that runs on hard manual labor.

The fact is, engineering is a difficult major to complete, and it requires a very solid grounding in higher math that rural K-12 schools seldom are able to offer. Overcoming that hurdle is a hard row to hoe; it's certainly possible, but it takes a lot of effort, and often, extra semesters in college to catch up on the basics if you start a few steps back. Not everyone has the grit to climb that hill, but once it's climbed, it generates a pretty solid living in most places in the US.

PS: FWIW, 14 rural states have created special regional STEM public boarding high schools in an effort to overcome the shortcomings of typical rural K-12 school systems for promising students who wish to pursue STEM careers.

 

[mom2rtk]

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? You claimed that you needed to be in a major city to make a solid living as an engineer (enough to pay off student loans and live comfortably was implied), but that the salary wouldn't support the COL.

I was simply debunking that, not claiming that an engineering degree was a be-all and end-all solution to widespread rural poverty. Engineers do not need to live in major cities with high COL, and most practicing engineers (as opposed to those who have moved up into management) actually do not live or work in major city centers, so generally their salaries go pretty far, and afford them a nicely comfortable living. Enough to create widespread generational wealth? Probably not, but that's a 1% kind of thing; the vast majority of working professionals with only a Bachelors degree won't ever cross that threshold.

If you want to talk mining, the largest mining company in the world has it's HQ in my midwestern city: Peabody Energy. I won't be nominating them for sainthood anytime soon, but I know engineers who work for them, and most of them make a quite comfortable upper-middle-class living; it helps that this metro is ranked in the top 25 most affordable metro areas in the US in terms of COL. Our urban core is quite small; the vast majority of our residents live and work in the suburbs, though Peabody's HQ is downtown (they have division offices scattered around the rest of the metro, however.)

Here's the trick: the vast majority of rural communities, and mining communities are certainly included, don't have stellar public education systems because the local governents tend not to make educational rigor a high priority. If working-class jobs in your town were all in one industry that paid very well (and mining does, because it's hellaciously dangerous), then yes, the whole system collapses if the company shuts down the operation, and poverty skyrockets because the working-class population is not qualified for other types of work that pay as much. A large engineering staff is still going to be at most about 20% of the workforce in a mining operation; it's an industry that runs on hard manual labor.

The fact is, engineering is a difficult major to complete, and it requires a very solid grounding in higher math that rural K-12 schools seldom are able to offer. Overcoming that hurdle is a hard row to hoe; it's certainly possible, but it takes a lot of effort, and often, extra semesters in college to catch up on the basics if you start a few steps back. Not everyone has the grit to climb that hill, but once it's climbed, it generates a pretty solid living in most places in the US.

A solid rundown.

 

[DisneyOma]

It is convoluted because this is not one thought so it isn't linear, you are pasting together different things like they belong in a sequence, what do you expect?

Not everyone is close enough to commute to a city or can afford the time or expense of a commute into a city with good jobs that pay enough for student loan and childcare and a mortgage and taxes on their own, so, sadly, it holds.

Noone is rooting against STEM, it is just that lots of people can't make a good enough living at it in the suburbs, the US is a giant place and not all suburbs are near jobs and the suburbs are part of the original post query. You actually don't seem to be disagreeing, you just assume any suburb is near good jobs and it isn't true

Again please read what the OP was asking, I think context would make more sense.

For the record, I was raised by two scientists and studied some pretty nerdy math based stuff myself, but there were no jobs for it in the suburbs.

You expect every major industry to be located in some obscure suburban areas? Or that people shouldn't have to move to find the job they want? It's like you want a magic world where you have floo powder for commutes. Of course, here in New England, you can commute from the suburbs to the city - it might take 45 minutes each way, but that's how it works. My engineer husband commuted an hour each way for over a decade, my dad the same, for over 30 years. If one was to live hours away from industry regions, well, one would have to move.

Out on the west coast unless you got a degree in a STEM field you can't afford to live in the City. The people making less money are forced to live in the suburbs where the housing costs are far cheaper.

Exactly - people move to where they can afford a home or apartment/condo and still commute to work. I know people who commute from Maine to work in Boston.

 

[mjkacmom]

You expect every major industry to be located in some obscure suburban areas? Or that people shouldn't have to move to find the job they want? It's like you want a magic world where you have floo powder for commutes. Of course, here in New England, you can commute from the suburbs to the city - it might take 45 minutes each way, but that's how it works. My engineer husband commuted an hour each way for over a decade, my dad the same, for over 30 years. If one was to live hours away from industry regions, well, one would have to move.

Exactly - people move to where they can afford a home or apartment/condo and still commute to work. I know people who commute from Maine to work in Boston.

I live in NJ, 10 miles from Manhattan, an hour commute. Obviously I live in one of the more expensive areas of NJ, there are many who live much farther out and commute to NYC or Philadelphia.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

The best way to get out of college debt-free (or moderately in debt) is to be smart.

Well, yes and no:
Being smart is no guarantee of scholarships.
The best way to get out of college debt-free is to minimize your semesters; that's within your control. This could include maximizing your AP classes or community college classes; that is, knocking out as many classes as you can while you're still in high school.
Once you're actually in college, having a plan sounds obvious -- but not everyone does. Failure to plan can mean being forced to wait because you haven't taken a prerequisite class. Having a 4-year plan definitely gives you a better chance of graduating on time.
This is all not so much about being intelligent as it is about understanding "how to play the game". Emotional maturity plays a big part. Not every smart kid receives good guidance (or listens to it) or knows the right questions to ask.

I was thinking along the same lines MrsPete. There are different types of “smart”. Two of them are “perseverant” and “savvy”, aside from “book smart”. I say this because I always fear that people reading here with school age and HS children will fear that there’s little hope for college if their kids aren’t “traditionally smart”, which isn’t necessarily true.

My DD obtained her Bachelor’s of Science in Nursing in 2020, and just completed her Master’s of Science in Nursing this fall. She is just about debt free, including not only school loans, but having her car paid off. But here’s the thing: She was an average A-B student, who took just one AP class (Psychology, which was helpful) and had to fight her way in to a program she wasn’t initially accepted into, due to average SAT scores, by doing exceptionally well in her first year college science classes (while many others who did get in, faltered). Yet she did it.

Sometimes it’s a matter or not taking no for an answer when you know you can do it and knocking on lots of doors in the process. Btw she’s a fantastic nurse (who had a great teacher ) and patients love having her care for them.

DD’s former boyfriend was a civil engineering major who got his bachelor’s and master’s along the same timelines as she did. He was an average student, too, and I know it wasn’t easy for him. Both of our families are working class.

So there is hope out there for just about everyone!

 

[AppleDumpling]

Haven’t read the whole thread, which seems to have gone off in a few directions. All I can say is that I know a good number of millennials and Gen Z’s (family and friends) who are doing quite well in various STEM-based fields. So I think OP’s question is a flawed premise. Obviously, not everyone is suited for this type of career, but I don’t see a lack of interest.

Schools in my area actively promote STEM programs, and support students who participate in science fairs and other related extracurriculars like Science Olympiads, robotics club, etc. Some of the brightest in the region have placed (semi-finalists and finalists) in national science research competitions, such as the Regeneron STS.