To attract future scientists, more than perceptions must change

UNDER THE MICROSCOPE:MY COLUMN OF June 4th on the difficulty of attracting the brightest students into careers in science, engineering and technology (SET) elicited a significant response from readers. I received a number of letters and e-mails from frustrated recent graduates in SET who have failed to secure jobs in their chosen profession. They advised me that I would be better employed providing jobs for existing graduates than trying to attract more students into SET!

In my earlier article I claimed that the general public perception is that jobs in SET are relatively scarce and modestly paid, and offer limited opportunities for career advancement. I contrasted this with the rosy public perception of careers in medicine, law and business.

Is this perception of careers in SET based on reality or myth? To shed light on this question I consulted the Higher Education Authority (HEA) publication, What Do Graduates Do? The Class of 2006 (October 2008). This collates data on first destinations of third-level 2006 graduates, one year after graduation. The first figure in the brackets after the following subject areas represents the percentage of 2006 honours degree graduates in employment and the second the percentage engaged in further study: Science (55, 36), Engineering (71, 17), Medicine (94, 2), Law (23, 70), Business Studies/Economics (62, 30), Arts/Humanities (42, 47). Medicine (including Dentistry and Paramedical) stands out as an extremely reliable conduit to employment, but Engineering also impresses. Science compares well with Business Studies/Economics. One-third of science graduates pursue further studies, but other data shows that 75 per cent of Masters and 85 per cent of PhD graduates gain employment within a year of graduation.

What about salaries? I was a member of the Irish Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (ICSTI) a few years ago and I chaired a sub-committee that studied starting salaries in SET. We published a booklet in 2003, called A Comparison of Starting Salaries for Science and Engineering Graduates (available on forfas.ie). Our study showed that starting salaries in SET compared well with starting salaries in other non-SET areas into which SET graduates sometimes migrate (not including medicine). The recent 2008 HEA publication confirms this. A typical starting salary for a scientist with an honours degree is €25,000-€30,000, compared with €30,000-€35,000 for an engineer, €35,000-€58,000 for a trainee medical doctorand €20,000-€25,000 for a business studies graduate.

So, despite contrary anecdotal evidence, starting employment opportunities and starting salaries in SET compare well with other areas (except medicine). But how does SET compare regarding longer-term career prospects? Data on this question is weak. A study published by the national science promotion body, Discover Science and Engineering, in 2006, callled Comparative Starting Salaries and Career Prospects of Graduates in SET, quotes tenuous evidence of good career advancement in SET. However, one couldn’t get excited about the statistics (for example, the median salary for engineers after 30 years in employment is €62,500).

I return to the question I asked in my June 4th article. How can we attract the brightest students into SET when they have the CAO points to go into medicine, law or financial studies, where, according to perception (and indeed, to an extent, in reality), the “big bucks” and high status can be found? This perception is reinforced daily by what is reported in the media: Mary Harney pleads with medical consultants to accept salaries of €300,000; chief executives of banks have their salaries capped at €500,000 in “hard times”; and the Irish Times headline last Saturday states that “Legal fees to account for €400 million of €1.4 billion child abuse bill”.

Jobs are not scarce in SET, and starting salaries are competitive (except in comparison with medicine), but there is a question about career prospects. The message about job availability and starting salaries needs to be aggressively publicised. Career structures must be improved so that attractive salaries are common at the top of SET career ladders. But, particularly in the latter case, this is not happening. The head of a university engineering department tells me that industry is in denial on the question of appropriate remuneration for SET graduates. The general public is keenly aware of where money and prestige lie. For example, when electrical engineering was perceived as a sure route to a lucrative and prestigious career, engineering departments were flooded with applications and entry points were high. When the worldwide computer industry had a hiccup several years ago and job prospects for electrical engineers declined, demand for degrees in electrical engineering plummeted and the high points requirement collapsed. Last year, the requirement for electrical engineering, a rigorous subject requiring high ability, was 300 points at UCC, while Law required 500 points and Medicine 570 points.

People vote with their feet and they will always walk towards areas of perceived high rewards. Until this is recognised and vigorously acted upon, SET will struggle to attract the brightest students.

William Reville is associate professor of biochemistry and public awareness of science officer at University College Cork –http: understandingscience.ucc.ie