≡ Menu

In the latest American Association of Petroleum Geologists Explorer, geology professor Sharon Mosher offers some great insight into the future of our profession at a time when fewer students are graduating with geology degrees* while the industry need for geoscientists is at an all-time high.

There’s still a tendency to emphasize field work and travel, but many students now don’t find this attractive, Mosher noted. They want families and a stable home life and don’t want to travel.

Additionally, most first generation college students equate field work to manual labor and aren’t interested, she noted, plus they may be reluctant to leave their community.

The folly of using field work as a lure for students today becomes even more apparent when considering the bulk of the professional jobs they ultimately will take on, for the most part, require staying indoors in front of a computer.

On reading this article, I posed the following questions to the geoscience community on Twitter.

1. How to attract students to [geoscience studies] in an era when education isn’t valued as an end in itself and has become a conveyor belt business?

2. Then again, if [current] end goal of higher ed is just to get a job, the geoscience industry is hiring! So, where are the applicants? What’s the hurdle?

To which I got several telling responses, but two that really stood out. The first was from Erik of Eruptions Blog, a geoscience professor himself:

“I think we’re stuck in a loop where many faculty don’t even think to recommend industry jobs to students.”

and the other was a reply to both Erik and me from Infrasound Huntress:

“Very true! My adviser is still in his ‘first job.'”

Are you hearing this? Professors and full-time researchers are needed now more than ever, but the inflexibility and lack of vision, versatility and diversity of their current incarnation may be their own undoing. Fewer geoscientists are being made for academia and industry.

On cue, this Inside Higher Ed article on chemistry academics is making the science blog rounds today: Why Women Leave Academia. As the author suggests, feel free to apply the learnings to other science departments.

… By the third year, the proportion of men planning careers in chemistry research had dropped from 61% to 59%. But for the women, the number had plummeted from 72% in the first year to 37% as they finish their studies.

If we tease apart those who want to work as researchers in industry from those who want to work as researchers in academia, the third year numbers are alarming: 12% of the women and 21% of the men see academia as their preferred choice.

… Universities will not survive as research institutions unless university leadership realizes that the working conditions they offer dramatically reduce the size of the pool from which they recruit.

Two articles on different aspects of the same crisis published in the same week: While the research it generates is relevant and critical, academia has created a self-promoting infrastructure and surrounding bubble, which would be fine if it didn’t a) make it impossible for scientists to make more of their own and b) ignore economic needs and life realities in the process.

If you don’t believe me, have an honest chat with some young and female professors. They love science and, for this, they try so hard to be part of the club and play its game, but they will tell you that the pull of a balance between work and life, better pay and newer processes and technologies is very compelling.

* The University of Wisconsin Department of Geoscience seems to buck the low enrollment trend, with twice as many declared Geology majors this year than in the past. When asked what gives, one undergrad offered, “We’re probably seeing that there are great careers ahead for us.” Hmmm. I’m in the process of designing a survey for these undergraduate majors centered on what brought them to geology. I’d also like to see how many of them actually graduate with geology degrees.

1 comment

In honor of this day, I give you two simple and great online tutorials on geophysical principles and refraction seismology. There will be a quiz.

0 comments

Pelican in flight over Galveston Bay

0 comments

As an (over-)analytical, career, married, and childless woman making progress along a mostly desirable career path, I feel compelled to dissect some of the legislation coming out of the escalating Republican War on Women.

First, let’s frame. Is the goal here marginalizing women because God said Men First!, increasing what is believed to be a dwindling birth rate, moving America forward in innovation and jobs, ensuring that Americans become blue-collar workers while intellectual jobs stay abroad, something not mentioned, or a combination of the above? What is the desired end result of passing laws that punish miscarriages, abortions, birth control, equal pay, female career choices, and being a single, working mother?

So, if an unmarried woman wants to have sex, she cannot have birth control and must be married. If a married woman wants to do the same, she, too, has no access to family planning. Following that, should she get pregnant, she has to bring the fetus to term to avoid jail time and is allotted little to no maternity leave and equal pay when she returns to work. The time she spent giving birth to that beloved fetus and recuperating from the strenuous experience is not then something to be valued by society, but an opportunity to penalize a woman for having successfully used her uterus for what God intended, something men cannot do. We want you to have children, but you had a child, therefore no longer qualified to earn what your husband or other male peers do. Leave alone the argument of the primacy of the unborn fetus over the actual born child itself.

Then comes the disconnect. This is happening at the same time that gender parity is increasingly more important in the workplace because of heightened recognition that women do the same work as men and there are only so many of all of us. The pool of qualified professionals grows smaller. Therefore, issues like fair maternity leave as well as equal pay and promotions are being identified and addressed in corporate America (at least in companies like mine) and it is known that the company that makes benefits more attractive to men and women alike gains the competitive advantage.

Of course, we still have a long way to go. Childbirth, for instance, will one day no longer be considered a short-term disability or long-term career kneecap and the dinosaurs of government and industry who don’t come to terms with this will be left behind to die. (Or they’ll buy themselves politicians and get government subsidies to stay afloat, but that’s not truly sustainable as we’ve repeatedly seen.)

As far as the conservatives go, let them see how far this plan to address low birth numbers or uppity women or whatever alongside the dire national need for qualified workers goes. If most of this War On Women legislation sticks, we’re going to end up with unmarried, childless, working women (tapping into a birth control black market) and equally smart and qualified women simply dropping out of promising careers to stay at home and raise children. Either way, we end up doing less with less and we lose.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the increase in stay-at-home dads. Or, gasp, shared responsibility. Those men must not really value their paychecks.

0 comments

From The Director Of “spOILed”

I was mailed this by an industry colleague with whom I share many views on how energy is made and its future. spOILed is yet another documentary/film making the rounds following the rise of domestic onshore shale gas drilling, especially in the northeast United States shale trends. Its director, Mark Mathis, outlines his motives for making the film with an attempt at transparency on who funded it and why. The last paragraph of his statement is a philosophy absolutely critical to America’s future energy supplies and one that defies where you stand on this issue politically. Note that I agree with Mathis only if energy companies and political stakeholders are serious about an Energy transition. In other words, it’s easy to say this to justify the continuation of drilling for hydrocarbons while there are little to no real and systematic efforts being made in renewables research and development.

One of the most fascinating aspects of the making of spOILed is that I have the same end goal as biggest green energy advocate out there. We must transition AWAY FROM OIL as such a dominant fuel for transportation. The difference between us is that I am facing the REALITY that this transition will take many decades to achieve and while we’re on the way we need a LOT more oil to keep the modern world functioning.

0 comments