Socialeconomic status VS. Academic qualifications & intelligence - Blatent disparity?

[sciencenoob]

What is your take on this issue, regarding the disparity of social and economic status (wealth) versus academic qualifications, knowledge and intelligence - in life, in general? In other words, is socialeconomic status, in general, inversely proportional to education? In particular of course, the sector of the academia relating to the sciences and technical sectors (e.g. scientists & engineering related jobs).

 

For example, highly educated and quite possibly significantly more intelligent (dependent on personal definition thereof) PhDs dont earn nearly as much money, as compared to a much less educated and quite possibly less intelligent (in the scientific, literary, and strictly academic sense only) person, of whom simply partakes in a job that can suffice simply and merely and mostly with the input of effort alone.

 

In the past, human civilizations relied on physical prowess in order to succeed. Without delving any deeper into that subject matter, it is safe to say that times have changed. Physical fitness, capability and strength is no longer a determining factor in one's ability to survive and be at the top of the social hierarchy. Instead, the modern society is one in which, in general, monetary wealth (a seemingly artifical and abstract system developed by humans to run their society) is the determining factor into which one's social status is determined in the social hierarchy (with limitations of this statement of course).

 

What it means now is that the richer you are, generally the higher the socialeconomic ladder you are, and hence the more influence you have, etc (respect however is of course is another thing that weath may not gain you). However its obvious that whilst most (in general) PhDs get paid middle class wages regardless of their professional route (being a professor, a researcher, etc), that much less academically qualified individuals can strive much more easily (economically) by simply working for more mainstream commercial roles (such as being accountants, etc).

 

I will stop here for now and let discussions role. But things to address are also to answer why this is to be the case also. Of course it may be perhaps these academics are not as fine tuned to that part of what is now the modern life (with the monetary system in place), etc. But also in general what do you think about this?

 

Another point I want to point out is that engineers and scientists working in a company are generally paid much less and are at a much lower rank doing technical work, than a person with an MBA and good table manners that manages/oversees these technical staff. Of course it may make sense since probably those sorts of skills are what is neccesary in the economic/commercial based world we live in the modern era.

 

But I think even more importantly is the seeming lack of respect and acknowledgment given by the public in general, towards the more academically inclined and intelligent people that does the technical work in life (such as engineering, science related research). It is easy for bank managers to trivialize the engineering/scientific career because in their point of view they get paid a good sum of money doing a very standard lower intelligence required type work (something they dont come to realize but is true, and wont ever go near to admitting) but yet they think they are better socialeconomically whilst taking everything around them for granted. It is easy for the general public to take for granted every little thing around them, without realizing that everything that deems someone's own self felt satisfaction of socialeconomic status (e.g. tangible objects such as TVs, computers, electronics, etc) are all the result of tedius work by these technical professions (engineers and scientists) that actually make it possible, and happen.

[gcol]

My simple answer: "Who pays the piper calls the tune."

 

Ask youself:

 

Who invested the money to set up the company.

Who pays for the research.

Who decides company/research strategy.

Who pays the wages.

 

Sad truth of life: If you want all the material comforts and trappings of life, get an MBA for a start.

 

Some of the most intelligent people I have known are so deficient in social skills and strategic thinking they are almost autistic.

[1veedo]

If you're talking about basic careers and not super-wealthy people there are really two factors that determine how much you make.

 

1) Education

2) Work ethic

 

You can think of it like steps. The higher education you have to further up you are and the better work ethic the further over you go. A guy with a high school degree has better opportunities than a guy without one so he's like a step higher. And then work ethic moves you "over."

 

It makes more sense when your economics teacher draws this on a black board

 

As a side note people with more social skills tend to have better careers. Sometimes social skills can be more important than book smarts.

[John Cuthber]

There's nothing to stop me giving up my job as a scientist and retraining as an accountant. Except that I value an interesting job more than I value the extra money I might earn.

Perhaps that's the reason why academia doesn't pay as well as might be expected. People are prepared to do it for the money on offer; if they were not then the salaries would have to go up in order to recruit academic staff.

 

Of course the best way to gain success is to make sure you have rich parents.

[geoguy]

You have made a lot of generalizations. The modern world is a big place with a lot of variations.

 

I like a few of the responses so far. Especially those anchored in the reality of the 'here and now'.

 

 

work ethic!

social skills!

flexibility!

 

There is much more to success and renumeration in life than heredity and education.

 

'Carpe diem'...seize the day. Don't wait for the world to change and come to you. My wife and I have gone back and forth between academia and energy industry for 30 years.

[sciencenoob]

The slight advent of hostility here is uncalled for. Of course there is some generalization. Obviously I was never intending to say that all who does science/engineering related professions or academics are immediately fixated into the world, to ensue a middle class at best lifestyle and pay, thats absurd. Of course in life and in job, such skills as social skills, your social network, looks, tone of voice, height, stature, race, accent, etc = all comes into play, lets not kid ourselves. For the sake of argument however we can assume those to be constant amongst everyone, and focus on the main issue of the discussion here, which is education (the level, and the type) vs wealth.

 

Of course also, that a lot of researchers and professors and the likes in the academia choose to go into those sorts of paths very knowingly of their middle class wages as compared to more traditional commercial based routes and to assume managerial roles, but thye are willing because they like it, etc - thats great.

 

Perhaps you just are just taking the part of selective logical thinking here. There is a reason why accountants and engineers generally dont get along (this is generally a fact, I am affraid as I have personally observed many such instances myself, through which their own education curriculums is filled with these sorts of joke like references to the fact). In any business type enviornment those are the two departments that are usually stepping on each others toes, that really is the fact of life. Engineers being engineers were generally the 'smarter' bunch in highschool and in college as well with their education curriculum very mathematical and scientific based, and when they choose to do economic courses as a electives they are also the ones that rack in the highest grades over people who officially take economics as a degree, for example and in general. Those that do pure economics or commerce type degrees, some may have lower grades than the engineering bunch, take only economics and commerce type courses and are determined to make money. The thing is engineers shadow them for too long and it is not until you get into the workplace that you can finally 'get even' with engineers (to satisfy their own insecurities, self worth, etc), thus their control of the company budget can limit the technical work that is the engineers job - without jepardizing the company's goals too of course, or they can simply play hard ball politics to make things harder. Accountants like to think that engineers dont know a thing about economics and money, and engineers like to think that accoutnants couldnt build a boat to save their lives, but thats life because everyone dispises others and think that they are the best to make themselves feel better (that is the lesson of life here). However, a sad fact is that it is true though thta taking the commercial based roles in life lead to more monetary reward than maintaining in technical side of things, such that accountants get paid more than engineers in the long run in general, plus then the accountants seemingly get 'rewarded' and seemingly wins the life long engineers vs accountants dispute. Im only using this as an example.

 

But even in general, people not doing the technical routes (science & engineering) dont know a damned thing about those professions in general. They also dont give these professions (and its people) the respect they deserve. Nor does the social makeup, because lets face it technicall careers have middle class pay, its a fact.

[Sisyphus]

Most disparities in pay between professions can be explained in relatively simple market terms, i.e. supply and demand. Employers want to pay the least they can, and employees want to make the most they can. If an employer can pay less and still recruit talent, he will. If lots of people want to pursue a certain field and there isn't an overabundance of jobs in that field, employers can offer relatively little pay and still get plenty of qualified applicants for a position. What causes more or less "supply" could be any number of factors. Financial advantage is just one of many reasons a person might choose one career path over another.

 

The end result is that everything tends to more or less even out. Jobs which require more education, rarer talents, more hard work, more social stigma, or more risk pay more money. Jobs which are more interesting, more prestigious, more fulfilling, or trendier pay less money. That's why any even moderately intelligent person can become extremely rich if becoming rich is all he cares about, and why the extremely intelligent, who are mostly bored by such paths, tend not to be rich. Obviously there are plenty of exceptions, but that is the general rule.

[sciencenoob]

Im afriad its not true that higher education means higher pay. Of course it does to a certain degree. I mean there is a threshold here. I am analyzing the set of data after say a minimum of a college/university degree. Of course if you are a highsdchool drop out the chances of you being middle class pay is close to nothin. Further from that then (the university degree minimum), education vs wealth has a inverse like relationship. This is especially true in the case of PhDs, as a lot of PhDs end up working in the academics and research, or are deemed overqualified for jobs, in general hence those types of jobs pay middle class pay.

[Sisyphus]

Yes, more education does mean higher pay. But it's just one of many factors, and not necessarily even the most important one.

[1veedo]

Im afriad its not true that higher education means higher pay. Of course it does to a certain degree. I mean there is a threshold here. I am analyzing the set of data after say a minimum of a college/university degree. Of course if you are a highsdchool drop out the chances of you being middle class pay is close to nothin. Further from that then (the university degree minimum), education vs wealth has a inverse like relationship. This is especially true in the case of PhDs, as a lot of PhDs end up working in the academics and research, or are deemed overqualified for jobs, in general hence those types of jobs pay middle class pay.

That's just with academy. PhDs in most fields pay a good deal of money eg a PhD in any field of engineering. And even scholar type PhDs can pay a lot if you work for corporations. Corporate scientists make a lot more money than your average college professor. You need the same degree it's just that some people chose to go one way or the other.