Um... are we sure this is not sampling bias? Only successful professionals get classified as professionals; therefore most professionals have jobs.
I can believe that unemployment in technical jobs is that low ... only if first-time applicants for full-time positions are not counted. Getting more than one internship on the way is now a norm in many fields.
Of course it is sampling bias! The reason the unemployment % was brought up during this conversation was to demonstrate that there is a real shortage of qualified workers - both highly educated, and skilled labor. This is all, of course, as related to the optics manufacturing industry.
Interestingly enough, last year at CS Mantech I asked the question about talent building and education at the panel discussion (I was in the audience), and the panel kept coming back to education through to the end of discussion. And this year - the question came from the moderator and the heads of those kick-ass companies themselves.
Personally, I am convinced that optics and optics-related (i.e. lasers, etc) field will only continue to grow in the future. In my years of schooling an "optics engineer" wasn't even on the radar :)
What I observe around me (applied mathematics, nuclear engineering) is, simultaneously, shortage of qualified workers, and arrogance / extreme conservatism on the part of employers. It goes something like this: "yes, we know we need 10 extremely educated people to advance the field in directions never attempted before. But we will only hire 3, at least two of them must be experienced and familiar to us, and they can only work on the projects we are very familiar with."
As usual: less money for administrative tasks, more money for long-term scientific projects.
But the current situation is not all that problematic. Employment situation in technology is better than in many fields. I just wanted to make a point that I don't believe the 2% unemployment estimate.
Less money - from who? The panel I referenced was among independent companies. The problem is catch-22, as described in the article. Growth-infrastructure-skilled workers-education.
Government-sponsored science is a somewhat different animal. Although, in certain aspects it is easier to manage by executive order for more/less funding. Unlike market-driven technologies. Although, truth be told, lots of it is based on military projects.
I can believe that unemployment in technical jobs is that low ... only if first-time applicants for full-time positions are not counted. Getting more than one internship on the way is now a norm in many fields.
Reply
Interestingly enough, last year at CS Mantech I asked the question about talent building and education at the panel discussion (I was in the audience), and the panel kept coming back to education through to the end of discussion. And this year - the question came from the moderator and the heads of those kick-ass companies themselves.
Personally, I am convinced that optics and optics-related (i.e. lasers, etc) field will only continue to grow in the future. In my years of schooling an "optics engineer" wasn't even on the radar :)
Reply
Reply
Reply
But the current situation is not all that problematic. Employment situation in technology is better than in many fields. I just wanted to make a point that I don't believe the 2% unemployment estimate.
Reply
The problem is catch-22, as described in the article. Growth-infrastructure-skilled workers-education.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment