I’m confused about the H1B thinking. Employers have to pay for those visas, they’re not cheap either. Plus even if they are foreign, it’s not as if they can pay them sub-minimum wages and lack of benefits. For the positions mentioned in this thread that would use those visas, the pay would still be reasonable, and they would still have to provide full benefits. In fact, I know of a couple of friends who had trouble getting jobs initially because of their visa status (they were already here with student visas).
In 2011, Hispanics were 7% of the STEM workforce nationally.
There’s a lot of generalizations in here.
-
I’d like to see the figures regarding salary differences between film makers and biology majors. I have no doubt that the averages are different. But I don’t want to see an average. I want to see the median. And I also want to see the population sizes. The average salary of a professional ball player is greater than the average salary of a biology major too. Yet I think we can both agree that going into biology is a safer route than practicing your knuckleball.
-
How many film majors are working in their field? I don’t think the film majors can brag too much if they land in jobs that they are dissatisfied with, even if they do make more money. Money isn’t everything.
-
Biology majors are taught to write and critically think too. At least ones who go to decent schools. What, you think they just sit around and quietly dissect frogs all day? Not only do they churn out tons of lab reports and term papers, but they further hone their critical thinking skills in seminar courses. They learn to say HOLD UP when someone pulls out an isolated statistic, for instance. Just like they do in the liberal arts.
-
“Biology major” is tremenduously broad. Wildlife biologists, ecologists, microbiologists, bioengineers, and geneticists are all varieties of biologists. There are a ton of occupations in biology that have nothing to do with biotech or “washing test tubes”, and no, you do not have to have an advanced degree to get them. And if you assemble the right set of skills, you can be really flexible. I work with a guy who spent years doing microbiology before he decided to switch mid-career and become a field biologist, out in the great outdoors. I’ve personally worn multiple hats throughout my career as well. From dendrologist to fish biologist.
-
Why do you think liberal arts majors are the only one with versatile skills? Your average person who completes a four-year degree in the sciences is well-positioned to do just about anything a liberal arts major can do…except that they are not as likely to freak out if they’ve got to do a little math or get a little dirty.
Hm. My favorite question when interviewing programmers was “What are the advantages and disadvantages of using linked lists vs. arrays?”. I have had people with Masters degrees in CS utterly fail to answer. Some asked me what I meant by “linked list”. Shudder. I am so happy I am not working in a big company anymore.
Here. The figures even_sven is referencing are mid-career median salaries for people with a bachelor’s degree and no further higher education. Notably, nine of the top twelve are some variety of engineering; physics and math majors also do noticeably well. Biology and health-related majors are mostly in the middle of the pack, in the same general range as most humanities fields. What’s interesting is that the low end consists mostly of fields that sound practical – education, paralegal studies, culinary arts, criminal justice – but students in these fields turn out to have a much lower mid-career salary than history, literature, or philosophy graduates. (Obviously, this chart does not disentangle the causes, and I suspect a big contributing factor is that first-generation students tend to go for majors that sound like they will lead directly to a job, and these students also tend not to have either the network of contacts or the ability to take risks that lead to higher-paid careers in the long run.)
Glad to hear it. You’d never get that impression working in Silicon Valley, or California generally. But I’d love to see the breakdown based on actual jobs. My fuss is that they’re counting the custodial staff at Google in those numbers.
That aside, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
First generation students are also more likely to be poor, working-class, and lower middle class. Their K-12 education isn’t likely to be one steeped in the classics (history, literature, and phiosophy). The elite professionals they encounter are more likely to be doctors, lawyers, and engineers as opposed to art dealers, philosophy professors, and museum curators. So it doesn’t surprise me at all that on average, film majors (or any other liberal arts major) make more than biology majors. Your average film major isn’t likely to be drawn from the same population as your average biology major, so already you’re comparng apples and oranges.
The custodial staff at Google have PhD’s from MIT.
Given the work usually available to people with advanced degrees, they’re ahead of the curve.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/09/technology/diversity_silicon_valley/
Here is some information.
If you want to see breakdowns by jobs, there is this example from Dell:
Here is a more recent report from Intel. It seems Intel subcontracts service and custodial staff, as none seem to do that job there (no blacks, whites, Latinos, etc.). And by far, the most common category for Latinos is “professional” or “technical”, just like the other groups.
My point isn’t to give an exhaustive analysis of career prospects. What I am trying to illustrate is that a lot of career realities are not particularly common sense or intuitive, and that there is no “magic bullet” major that guarantees you a job for life. Some STEM fields are pretty smart moves, and some can easily lead to dead ends. All employees, in any field, will need to actively manage their careers and continue to grow and adapt if they hope to be successful.
The custodial staff at Google almost certainly don’t work for Google - all that stuff has been outsourced at every company I’ve ever worked at.
7% is about right for my department, but that is just one data point.
My point is that implying that there are no Latino professionals at Facebook is ridiculously absurd, and I can only guess such a bizarre statement is rooted in unsavory ideology.
Because those who are decrying the lack of people and thus the need for H1B visas put it in terms of creating the next big thing and improving American competitiveness. Which is quite valid in getting H1Bs for foreign Masters and PhD students who come here, go to school, stay, and create jobs and progress.
If they phrased it “we need more visas to hire more cheap Indian grunt programmers” they wouldn’t have a chance.
How much is the lack of interest in programming driven by the very real fear that it is a job which can be easily outsourced? There are safer better paying alternatives for bright kids these days.
Maybe I should go into the CS field. Even with my unofficial minor in CS I could pass the FizzBuzz test (although Dr. Aikens would kill me for using a nested loop) and my answer to you Terr would at least be: the size of a linked-list is dynamic while the size of an array is static [although that is not necessarily true in every language]. Or I could talk about trees vs. stack/queues.
As soon as my current student loan is payed off (c’mon Obama - give me the same break you gave homeowners that were stupid about their mortgage) I’ll be going back for a MEng/PhD in computer science.
Like what?
Honestly, between the litany of compiler optimizations around array access and growth and abstract array-backed list types I can almost forgive someone for not really knowing when to use a Linked List. The only time I use them is in programming problems about Linked Lists. Kind of like I can sort of forgive someone for not knowing how to write QuickSort off the top of their head when almost any language not called C has a sort function in its standard library.
(Honestly, with most modern abstract list types, the difference with a Linked List is generally that is you remove from the list memory can be reclaimed, unlike an array where the now unused block is still marked as “in use”. This makes Linked Lists possibly better in certain memory constrained environments, though they also have more metadata attached because of the successor (and possibly predecessor) pointer so it could be a wash).
I would never hire a programmer who didn’t know what a linked list was and didn’t know why you would use one. There are so many answers to that question. Linked lists are a lot less expensive to insert into/delete from. Linked lists are dynamically allocated - which can be good for total memory use but bad for fragmentation. Random access within arrays is much faster than in linked lists. Sorting linked lists is much more awkward. Etc. etc.
No, I don’t expect someone to give me a QuickSort algorithm in an interview. But I at least expect him to know what QuickSort is.
This ignorance of basic data structures and basic programming methods is why we have SO much slow-as-molasses bloatware around today. Why my DVR takes 2 seconds to switch screens - even ones that do not require outside data access. Why Firefox is an enormous memory hog. Why Outlook needs to be restarted every few days otherwise it slows down the whole computer. Yes, modern computers are fast, but even they can be slowed down with seriously inefficient programming.
As far as I know, you’d only need one loop and a series of conditional checks.
Except for dynamically expanding array-backed lists (not naked arrays), which are the norm and except in very rare cases obviate the linked list/array argument. They deliberately overallocate (usually by a factor of 2x or 1.5x for very large lists) are very fast to insert into. It does make performance a bit spottier, theoretically, because it will occasionally pause to allocate/free a BIG list rather than continuously allocate smaller objects, They still have contiguous memory blocks and random access is fast, as is in-place sorting. They don’t suffer from “flailing” the way linked lists do, where if you’re constantly adding/removing elements like you would in, e.g., a stack it doesn’t constantly allocate and delete. Array slicing, when available, also provides a very convenient and performant way to provide alternative views of a set of data. Copying between two array-backed lists is often faster to because processors frequently have ways to vectorize or otherwise speed up copies of contiguous blocks of memory.
On top of this, modern compilers and interpreters, especially those in languages with native array-backed list types, have a lot of optimizations around array-backed lists that typically aren’t present on linked lists. A lot of garbage collectors also scale with the number of created objects, so a linked list also creates more “things” for the GC to analyze and slow it down.
Linked lists do have a niche, mostly in the fact that their dynamic structure doesn’t require over-allocating so if you’re extremely memory constrained they can be useful. The general concept is also useful to implement things like rings/circular lists, and of course a Linked List often makes a good basis for a recursive tree type. And you definitely can get rid of a few of the problems with things like memory pools (don’t delete a node, just cache it in some “unused set”), but I really think that the linked list/array war is blown out of proportion and gives linked lists an illusion of being a far more common and integral data type than they really are.