The New York Times has an editorial on the declining state of post-secondary science education in the US. It suggests a number of factors are to blame, such as racism and uninspired teaching. I’m sure that those are indeed factors in the equation, but it seems to me that it’s no

For some reason, the article seems to overlook what I would consider to be the two most important factors: science is hard, and it doesn’t pay that well. Or to phrase it a slightly different way, the effort:reward ratio just isn’t that high when compared with the alternatives. A person who is bright enough to be successful in the sciences has a lot of options, most of which are frankly more lucrative. They could become a doctor, go into business, computer science, pharmacy, or engineering — all sorts of things that are both interesting and reward the person financially.

With the relative lack of rewards that a person in the sciences receives, it’s in fact pretty amazing that any bright person would go into a science profession at all instead of choosing one of the many alternatives available to him or her. It’s my suspicion that only those people who truly love science enter and stick with it. And of course, the developments that these poorly rewarded scientists are the same ones who help drive the aforementioned professions into success! Without these talented scientists, engineering, computer science, medicine, business, and all of society would all suffer.

I wasn’t gifted enough to compete at the top levels of science, so I didn’t really bother trying. But I do know enough to appreciate these brilliant people… so at the very least I want to say thanks!