<p>Alumother - Perhaps you are right and the specific fields where good career opportunities are available have changed over the years (e.g. biotech). The person who I referred to is trained in a totally different field of chemistry unrelated to anything biological.</p>
<p>That would make sense.</p>
<p>Biotech may be a little ?easier? to break into ? but if you’re a chemist, those jobs are just as hard to come by as those in big pharma. By definition, the jobs in biotech are philosophically different: you sign up with a biotech start-up, work like a grad student for several years in the hopes that a big pharma house will co-develop/co-market one of your drugs, and then hope that when your firm gets absorbed by that big pharma that your stock options buy you more time to hook up with another biotech. In other words, there isn’t a lot of job security there either, because inevitably when big pharma merges with the smaller company, the employees of said smaller company are let go. </p>
<p>The big biotechs, like Genentech, are pretty indistinguishable from big pharma. Most of the chemists and biologists I know who are job-hunting are saturating both markets with resumes. The only ones getting any interest are those with just a little industrial experience (say, 1-2 years after getting their terminal degrees.) For anyone else, it’s brutal out there.</p>
<p>“What about biotech? There’s still $$$ in biotech out here…”</p>
<p>Yes, indeedy there is, and the spin-off there for the techies is “bioinformatics.” This is what I’m involved with right now (but not the scientific side).</p>
<p>Most of our new hires we have to get H1B visas for. Not sure why we don’t get “native” talent.</p>
<p>
Oops. Too late.</p>
<p>How about a chemist with no interest in bio, more (inorganic) materials chemistry and solid state electronics? Any thoughts on post-PhD job prospects 4-6 years from now?</p>
<p>Nanotechnology and molecular electronics may be good for you.</p>
<p>Historically, totalitarian states have not been able to produce intellectual goods on par with democratic states. Creativity and totalitarianism are not compatible.</p>
<p>Airplanes, at this late stage, are not particularily difficult to manufacture. Just expensive. The Chinese made announcements about their intention to produce jumbo jets. Boeing will have to scramble to replace that buyer. (Of course, Stalin sold Mao countless plans to build ships and tanks–all missing vital components. The Chinese have a history of launching fleets that sink, literally).</p>
<p>I don’t see major technological advances coming out of China–or Japan --or Europe. My theory is that our melting pot is the source of our tremendous inventiveness, but a couple of Harvard economists wrote a convincing paper which pointed out that the US is, by far, the biggest investor in teritary education, investing at a rate THREE times the rate of Europe–never mind China and Japan. </p>
<p>Very very few Chinese are getting the opportunity to go on to tertiary education. Thats one of the reason they send 100K kids abroad. In apopulation that literally worships higher education, that frustration will cause increasing social unrest. Riots are on the rise in China. Historically, the Chinese have had trouble keeping their disparate states stitched together. That is still a potential problem. </p>
<p>Also, none of the other Asian paper tigers turned into a true economic threat to US domination. Their inability to invent hinders them. In fact, once the infrastructure is finsihed, the paper tigers find themselves with quite fragile economies, economies which are overly dependent on high consumerism–a behavior which is in conflict with their traditional values. China is bigger but is it a bigger threat? I’m not so sure.</p>
<p>We are pouring money into tertiary education and we are getting the results; ie Google. Our technology has changed the world in a space of ten years. you all are worried about the future. I’m still catching my breath on the internet and all of it’s variations. As a kid, I don’t remember being surprised by the rate of invention–but my boys articulate their surprise at the rate of technological change that is propelling their lives.</p>
<p>As for outsourcing, I have a couple of friends who own start-ups with new technology. They cannot outsource to Indians and Chinese workers. The problem- solving skills simply are not on par with American or European or Australasian workers. I have newly arrived Chinese employees and I would say the same. They are hardworking, quick and dedicated but their ability to "fly’ with an assignment is limited. They are overwhelmed if the assignment is too open-ended and/or filled with design challenges. *One data point does not make a statistic–but this is mine.</p>
<p>I also know at least two dozen American inventors. They are churning out the most amazing stuff in all sorts of fields–much of which is funded by the US government in one form or another.</p>
<p>As for Gates, is he well educated? He spent most of his high school years trying to launch a business and then he dropped out of his liberal arts education–to make money. As a mother who wants a true education for her wildly entreprenuerial 18 year old, I’d say Bill Gates is not the ‘ideal’.</p>
<p>While I agree with much of Cheer’s post, esp the first paragraph, I can not agree that the balance of power will remain with US. This threat grows each day we do not overhaul our secondary school system and how we position ourselves in this new global economy. Keep on thinking asian paper tigers and one day we may get rude awakening.</p>
<p>Top notch US startups outsource to us all the time. Extremely innovative stuff.</p>
<p>How do we do it? We don’t make assumptions about the Chinese. We train in problem-solving. Our leadership is Chinese-American and knows how to bridge the gap.</p>
<p>How many generations have the Chinese had of an economy that fosters innovation? I just would be very very careful in making those generalizations. Remember when Europe thought we Americans were savages who would never reach their heights?</p>