Friday, February 11, 2011

Interview: C&EN's Bethany Halford, on the "Too Many Ph.D.s" problem

I hope that all of you have read Bethany Halford's article "Doctoral Dilemma" in the January 31, 2011 issue of C&EN. I am terribly pleased that Dr. Halford (and her bosses at C&EN) were willing to participate in an e-mail Q&A about the article. The answers below have been formatted for posting and checked by her for accuracy.

Also, Dr. Halford will be visiting the comments section a few times today, so feel free to post questions to her in the comments.

Chemjobber: About how many people did you ultimately interview?

Bethany Halford: I spoke to or emailed with about 30 different people for this story.

CJ: Among the range of responses, what percentage would you estimate to be kinda-sorta optimistic about their chances of finding a position? What percentage were looking at leaving chemistry altogether?

BH: The job seekers I spoke with all found the search process to be very frustrating, but they were all still plugging away, although I’d have a hard time saying they were optimistic. None, however, seemed to want to leave chemistry altogether. There were a number of people—although not necessarily among the unemployed—who felt that the employment problems facing chemists are the same employment problems facing the entire country at the moment. Many were optimistic that things would turn around in time.

CJ: How hard did you have to look to find someone that was willing to provide an optimistic quote?

BH: Not hard at all. There are plenty of people out there who don’t think there’s an oversupply of Ph.D.s. In fact, I’d say most of the people in my first round of interviews didn’t think this was a newsworthy topic.

CJ: What was the range of emotion? Did you hear from people that were genuinely angry?

BH: Some people are genuinely angry, but I’d say for most people frustrated is a more accurate adjective. Getting a Ph.D. can be a long, hard slog. Long hours with little reward. It’s not good to find out that the light at the end of the tunnel is a train.

As chemists, we all can’t help but see how central chemistry is to our everyday lives. And so there are many of us, myself included, who entered graduate school thinking that with a Ph.D. in chemistry we could do something we enjoyed, make some sort of contribution to society, and still make a decent, steady living. To find that’s not necessarily the case is really disheartening.

CJ: Professor Hoveyda seems to be suggesting that US graduates might try looking elsewhere in the world -- is this a correct reading of his statement?

BH: I think that is the correct reading of his statement. And I think that strikes Americans as an odd proposition. But he has a point--it’s really not so foreign a concept to most people in the world.

I should add, however, that he also suggested reorganizing the way academic research is done in the U.S.—as one of your commenters suggested—so that there were more research associates (fulltime, reasonably paid positions).

CJ: Did you hear from employers who were bucking the trend, i.e. saying we can't get enough of __?___ kind of scientist?

BH: Anecdotally, some people said that there was a need for more analytical chemists, but it’s not really something I focused on. I didn’t want to end up rewriting Susan Ainsworth’s excellent story on the demand for chemists, “Cautiously Optimistic”.

CJ: For me, anyway, your article has kind of settled the argument for me, as much as I didn't want to believe it. What are the next questions that we need to be asking?

BH: It’s interesting that you say that, because I’m not sure the argument is settled for me. Supply is indeed going up but I’m not sure about demand. One thing that got cut from the piece—according to the most recent ACS salary and employment survey (2009), unemployment is higher for bachelor’s and master’s chemists than it is for Ph.D.s. The same holds true for new graduates at all levels, according to preliminary data in ACS’s 2009 survey of starting salaries for chemists and chemical engineers. Still, there’s no doubt about it; it’s harder for chemists to find work now than it’s been in quite some time. If there’s one thing I think we should really be thinking about, it’s how can we make a chemistry Ph.D. a more versatile degree?

CJ: I know you're not a soothsayer, but what signs would say to you that the negative trends might be reversing themselves?

BH: I’m not sure. Fewer people trying to jump ship and become science writers? Fewer people reading the Chemjobber blog?

CJ: Anything you'd like to say to the CJ readership, now that you're not limited by space?

BH: I like to say thanks to everyone who took the time to read my story. I appreciate that you’re busy and your time is valuable. I’d also like folks to know that we pay close attention to your feedback at C&EN. If there’s something you like or don’t like in the magazine, please don’t hesitate to write us. Also, my colleagues and I do read this blog and the comments herein. We are doing our best to listen to what you have to say.

CJ here again. Huge thanks to Beth for her time and being willing to answer questions -- and thanks again for writing a pretty great article about the situation. Best wishes to all of us. Don't forget, if you have questions for Beth, leave them in the comments!

44 comments:

  1. A question inspired by a reader e-mail: Nature recently published a short story on the recent Bureau of Labor Statistics stats on scientist unemployment. (http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2011/110210/full/nj7333-297b.html) There was also a relatively optimistic quote from Richard Freeman, who was also in your article.

    Any thoughts on the Freeman quote? I suppose the two jibe, but a little oddly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Squee! She noticed me. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great post, BH and CJ...good read.

    "unemployment is higher for bachelor’s and master’s chemists than it is for Ph.D.s."

    I'm amazed by this statistic...all the way through grad school, we're taught that, if we hate our lives or can't hack 5 years, we could always welcome a sweet MS position with a large pharma, one that will never be let go, because it's proverbially "cheaper" than hiring a PhD. Are those days over?

    "[H]ow can we make a chemistry Ph.D. a more versatile degree?"

    I've long believed that chemists could slot in time for courses in business, writing, or perhaps a foreign language at the graduate level, if only their lab responsibilities were slightly reduced. Let's be honest: researchers of 50 years ago didn't need 7 papers to graduate [granted, their 1 or 2 papers involved larger scale, more laborious characterization, and they didn't have NMR / Mass / commercial reagents as readily as we do now]. It's an endless arms race: applicant 1 has 5 papers, so you'd better have 6, and the next guy 7. Quantity over quality.

    So why not just say someone can be decently trained as a PhD scientist with 2-3 good papers in good journals, and use the rest of the time for cross-training?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I guess my question is whether there are actually any chemistry departments that are experimenting with doing things differently. Why doesn't the ACS jump onboard to help encourage it?

    Personally I think chemists can do many types of jobs, our training is in problem solving, which is useful in almost any job. I know the ACS offers things like Congressional Fellowships - why don't they try offering these to graduate students? It certainly couldn't hurt to get more scientifically trained people in the public policy realm.

    ReplyDelete
  5. How is underemployment among scientists counted? Among scientists in my family, it's 50% (lecturer positions).

    ReplyDelete
  6. My question is this: What is the ACS's take on this whole thing? There are a lot of chemists out there (I'm not necessarily included in this number) who think that the ACS really doesn't have any of these issues on their radar/they don't care at all/they need more PhD chemists/....

    What kind of feedback did you get from Rudy at CEN and others within ACS during your research. I think that your answer to this could really quell a lot of people's concerns.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Chemjobber - I believe the Freeman quote is correct. While it may be rough out there for Ph.D.s, the data we have suggest that it's even tougher for bachelor's and master's chemists. According to the 2009 ACS Salary and Employment Survey, unemployment by degree breaks down like this: BA/BS chemists - 5.4%, MS chemists - 4.0%, Ph.D. chemists - 3.1%. I also have some preliminary data from the ACS 2009 Survey of New Graduates that says amongst new graduates the unemployment situation is even more dire: BA/BS chemists - 17.1%, MS chemists - 17.2%, Ph.D. chemists - 6.8%.

    So, @See Arr Oh, I think the data suggest that the days of those sweet MS positions are gone, if that was ever really true in the first place.

    Also See Arr Oh, I agree with you that graduate students should try to slot in time for other courses to make themselves more marketable. I audited some science writing courses while I was in graduate school and that was key to getting me the job I have now. Of course, I knew I was planning to leave research at that stage. I don't have a fabulous publication record, so if I'd wanted to stay at the bench, perhaps my time might have been better spent in the lab. It's definitely a juggling act, but then again there's probably no other time you'll get the opportunity to advance your education.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Beth ... one more thing ... a lot of us have been really anxious to see this article for a while. I think you did a great job of covering it!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dr. Halford writes "most of the people in my first round of interviews didn’t think this was a newsworthy topic.".

    Journalistic confidentiality aside, it would be nice to know the names of those who have such opinions.

    She also quotes Professor Platz of the Ohio State University Chemistry Department"
    "“You should only do [doctoral thesis] for that sense of love and personal fulfillment. It’s very hard to predict a job market five years hence.”

    But then why does the Ohio State Departmental website (http://www.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/research) read "Graduates are employed by industrial and government laboratories and as research and teaching staff members at colleges and universities across the United States. " ? Hmm? Does this sound like love and personal fulfillment?

    ReplyDelete
  10. How many over 50 unemployed chemists were interviewed and how did they assess their prospects of replacing their lost jobs?

    How are post docs assessed? PhDs who just love their next career step or PhDs who could not find a real job? Post doc is not an option MS or BS chemists have, so is that why their rate of unemployment higher?

    Is the ACS going to do anything at all positive here other than call for more H1s and more training money or are they just taking notes like they did in the 70s?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dr. Halford writes "most of the people in my first round of interviews didn’t think this was a newsworthy topic.".

    Journalistic confidentiality aside, it would be nice to know the names of those who have such opinions.


    Good point. Are they all tenured professors?

    ReplyDelete
  12. So before I get a whole lot more questions about ACS, I just want to say that while ACS is my employer, C&EN, in my experience, operates largely independently from the society. So I can’t really speak for the society.

    @Unstable Isotope – I can’t think of any examples of chemistry departments that are doing things differently out there. If anyone knows of any, please let me know. I think it would make a great story.

    I’m not sure why congressional fellowships aren’t open to graduate students. I see AAAS administers the program and has made having a Ph.D. a requirement. I suspect these fellowships are highly competitive and that they are inundated with strong applications from doctorates, so students without the advanced degree probably would be at a disadvantage anyway. I agree that chemists can do many types of jobs, but I don’t think many of us embark on 5+ years of hardcore research planning to do something else entirely. The fact that so many of us do—or have to—I find a little disheartening.

    I have been told that there’s not a good metric out there for underemployment. Sorry.

    @Matt - I couldn’t say what ACS’s take on the story is, but I will say that everyone I spoke to at ACS was very helpful in writing this story. Jeff Harwell, of ACS Career Services, is quoted extensively, for example. I also know that employment is an important issue for the Committee on Economic & Professional Affairs.

    Rudy was extremely supportive in putting together the piece. He suggested several sources and even flattered me by making it the subject of his editorial (http://cenblog.org/the-editors-blog/2011/02/too-many-ph-d-s/).

    And Matt, thanks very much for the compliment. This was a really tough story to write.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Anon6:14 @Unstable Isotope I’ll just say that, no, they were not all tenured professors.

    @Anon6:32 All the chemists “from the trenches” that I interviewed came from a posting on this very site. I had about a dozen responses total, I’d say three of those were from mid-career chemists. I didn’t ask their ages, but I suspect only one of them was over 50. He, it so happens, found a job after a year of unemployment.

    I couldn’t say how postdocs are assessed on a personal level, but back when I was in graduate school it was presumed that you’d have to do one. According the 2009 Survey of New Graduates, 45% of new Ph.D.s become postdocs.

    ReplyDelete
  14. When I was a grad student most of the organic chemists that wanted to go to industry were able to do so without doing a postdoc.

    According to this article, many chemists do postdocs because they can't find a job (pg 27). Keep in mind, this report is several years old, so the employment situation wasn't as dire as it is now. I suspect that number has risen quite a bit. I think it would be interesting for someone to do a survey of current postdocs and see what they have to say about it.

    http://www.bls.gov/opub/ooq/2002/winter/art03.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Anon7:13 - That would make a good story. I'd also be interested in knowing if the average length of a postdoc has increased.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Whoops. I've been labeling my Anons incorrectly. Sorry folks. That last one should have been Anon7:33.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'd also be interested in knowing if the average length of a postdoc has increased.

    Also a very good question. Add to that the number of people doing multiple postdocs these days.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Nowadays it has become impossible to define any job as stable-people are all the time on the lookout for new opportunities. They announce that there are too many tenured people that are not productive. So what is the solution?

    ReplyDelete
  19. As far as the higher unemployment among BS/MS chemists, I suspect a lot of it has to do with outsourcing. When I first started my career in the mid-90's, companies were begging for MS chemists, but those jobs (especially the entry level positions) were the first ones that got shipped overseas. There are still positions for those with experience but most BS/MS chemists start off doing the type of routine synthesis work that is the first thing that gets outsourced. I also wonder if more BS/MS positions are now being filled by PhD's who are now willing to take those jobs.

    Looking at the unemployment numbers, I would love to get more data on the number of chemists who are not working in chemistry. It's not surprising that chemists have a relatively low unemployment rate, since we have a lot of education and can probably find some kind of job. But if chemists are taking jobs out of desperation that don't really require a chemistry background (and maybe even don't require a college degree), then they wouldn't count as "unemployed". Anecdotally, I've seen a lot of that from former coworkers. The chemist who is now working at Home Depot is technically employed, which boosts the numbers for employment among the degreed - but the person without a college degree who might otherwise have taken that job is the one who shows up on the unemployment numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Revathi - I'm afraid I don't know what the solution is to today's problem of tenuous employment.

    @Kay - I agree that it would be interesting to have more hard data on just how many chemists out there are not working in chemistry anymore, but I don't think anyone tracks that.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Chemjobber / Anon7:55 - can you put up a survey about length of postdoc? Or perhaps how many?

    I was lucky enough to only do one postdoc, but it took the "norm" of two years (I think it's standard for synthetic organic now)....however, I've heard from folks 10+ years older that the average length used to be only about a year.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Dr Halford,

    You just commented that a 'story' would be interesting on the real reasons why chemists take post-doc positions, i.e., out of interest, or because of lack of real jobs.

    If, by any chance, you feel up to the challenge to write such a story, I would suggest that you also report on the de-facto age discrimination that occurs at federal (DOE) labs....no post-docs allowed who are more than 3 to 5 years beyond their doctorates. This is also the situation at at least one prominent university.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The annual number of newly minted Ph.D. chemists grew from 1005 in 1955 to 2284 by 1971. Additionally, in the early 1970s there occurred a deep economic recession. By 1970, the employment prospects for chemists had gone from having 4 jobs per graduate to having 4 graduates per job. The result was that the unemployment rate for chemists reached a record high of 3.2% by 1972.

    Of course, the 3.2% number was a fake number, because it did not take into account those individuals who dropped out of chemistry to go to med. school, drive cabs or take up some other profession. In addition, this unemployment number did not reflect the underemployment situation, for example: post-doctorial employment exploded from 16% of the graduating Ph.D.s in 1960 to 49% of graduating Ph.D.s in 1976; jobs requiring a Ph.D. suddenly required a post doc; and even positions once filled by individuals with BS or MS degrees were populated by former post docs. Salary increases went flat then rapidly eroded with the sky-high inflation of that time. Many unfortunate individuals who tarried too long as post docs, because of the lack of job opportunities, became unemployable in their chosen profession. Professional societies, like the American Chemical Society, and academic institutions were particularly responsible for creating the corrosive employment climate for individual scientists that would lead to a wholesale abandonment of science as a viable profession for US citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'd be surprised if the postdoc pool can expand much to buffer unemployment. The number of available postdoc positions are limited by grant funds (academic labs), federal budgets (government labs), and business economic concerns (industrial labs), too. And if postdocs stay longer, that just means that someone else doesn't get to start.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jyllian would you rather that each new cohort of PhD graduates be flushed down the toilet after a year or so of post-doc-ing? Or that the system back up until those entering can already clearly what happens to those who leave the system? The first option sounds like your description of "if postdocs stay longer, that just means that someone else doesn't get to start."

    ReplyDelete
  26. @Anon11:21 - I was merely commenting that I don't see the postdoc pool as being able to expand much to accommodate unemployed PhDs.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Unfortunately, I think that what Jyllian is saying shouldn't happen is exactly what is happening. I don't know if funding for more postdocs has increased or if what used to be full-time positions are now just being downgraded to postdocs. One thing for sure, a postdoc has become a waystation for Ph.Ds who are waiting for jobs to materialize and plenty of institutions seem more than happy to capitalize on such cheap labor.

    While I don't know if the number of available postdoc positions has increased, I GUARANTEE that the number of applicants for them has. Yes, this means that new grads are not getting postdocs because other postdocs are getting them. I remember the Holton group recently advertised a postdoc position that required 2 years of postdoc experience. That pretty much says it all.

    ReplyDelete
  28. A PI can portion out his money however well he sees fit. If a PI feels it is more productive to hire a post doc and put a few grad students on TA, that is his choice and the PI can stand to benefit from the labor and shift the salary costs to the University. Depending on the politics and fees of the institution, post docs can be cheaper than grad students on research fellowship.

    I was able to land my postdoc as a result of a boost in funding to the NIH as part of stimulus 2. So right now, there is a little bit more funding for postdocs and academic research in general, and it was designed to push the hiring of more postdocs in the way that the government started to portion out funds.

    This is rare, although it might start to become more common, but fellowship funding can from industrial sources that want more "academic" projects done for cheap or perhaps some groups can also offer their services as designer molecule labs for certain companies (perhaps even the pet start up a certain PI might have a share in.)

    And that can get rather dark.

    ReplyDelete
  29. ReneeL said...
    The Rudy Baum editorial suggested that if professors did a better job of preparing their graduate students/post docs for industrial research, then these individuals would have an easier time getting jobs, and the Ph.D. glut would, if not go away, be considerably decreased.

    Although more relevant training is not a bad idea, it will not create job openings. Only industry can create jobs. And, to be plain about it, chemical companies simply do not have the same hiring patterns that they had ~25 years ago. What has changed is that companies are less likely to hire people just out of school, and would instead prefer to hire chemists with just the right work experience for narrowly defined jobs. Essentially, companies want to hire chemists who have already been trained by someone else, preferably a competitor [Let them bear the cost]. That is, they'll hire if there's no hiring freeze or layoff cycle getting in the way.

    Frankly, students from 25 years ago were no better prepared for industrial research than students are today. So changing the way students are trained will not have much effect. Only increasing the number of jobs, or decreasing the number of Ph.D,'s will rebalance this equation.

    I want to add that I am only remarking on the chemical industry, and not the pharmaceutical industry.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "but fellowship funding can from industrial sources that want more "academic" projects done for cheap or perhaps some groups can also offer their services as designer molecule labs for certain companies"

    This would be rather terrible for the job prospects of many new chemists. Stay as a cheap labor slave in temporary postdocs forever if you want to do research. Great. At least until you get too old for postdocs. But by then there won't be anymore students, so they'll keep hiring you as a postdoc until you're 60.

    "I remember the Holton group recently advertised a postdoc position that required 2 years of postdoc experience. That pretty much says it all."

    This backs up the terrible news from the first quote. He should have just hired a laid-off pharma researcher. Of course, those might have talked back more and would have required better pay/working conditions.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I see the problem becoming worse as well anecdotally. The increased number of industry-academic partnerships is probably to save R&D money. This way, the industry can avoid hiring too many researchers. Unfortunately, there aren't business minded professors who start their own companies and hire their own alumni to make up for the shortfall.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "The Rudy Baum editorial suggested that if professors did a better job of preparing their graduate students/post docs for industrial research, then these individuals would have an easier time getting jobs, and the Ph.D. glut would, if not go away, be considerably decreased..."

    Emperor Rudy has no clothes, FWIW. :)

    ReplyDelete
  33. To the Forum (or BBS, for traditionalists): Has anyone considered joining/setting up an advocacy group for displaced professional scientists? How about running for some type of political office? Despite all the grandstanding and platitudes from both major Parties (sorry, but not all of us have the education to perform solar energy research at a Tier-1 university), most politicians can't really commiserate with the average industrial chemists. The mere PERCEPTION of a PhD oversupply is enough to drive down market values for ALL degrees in Chemistry, protracting the economic uncertainties that we all continue to face. The consequences of layoffs are particularly harsh for pharma scientists, who tend to reside in high-cost-of-living areas.

    I was never a staunch supporter of the graduate student union during my PhD studies. While it might have been beneficial to the humanities and social studies grad students, I felt that unionization was unnecessary for funded grad students in science/math/engineering. After all, didn't we knowingly enter an exploitative system under the auspices of getting a free education, expanding human knowledge, and eventually securing stable employment? However, after seeing how lobbies and unions have been able to maniuplate government policies and funding, I wonder if the same approach could be used to help chemists. I don't expect financiers, realtors, pubic school teachers, postal workers, automobile workers, or whatever ACS has in DC to look out for us.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Re: "BA/BS chemists - 5.4%, MS chemists - 4.0%, Ph.D. chemists - 3.1%"

    I'd be interested to see the 95% CIs for these values, and the response rate for each group; I suspect these values really overlap. Moreover, the percentage of each group that are ACS members could be wildly different. Are employed MS members any more or less likely to respond that BSc or PhD? Hard to say. But *several* grains of salt would be prudent here...

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Emperor Rudy has no clothes, FWIW."

    Eka-silicon, I'm glad I'm not the only one unimpressed by his overly simplistic and obviously ignorant editorial.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Echoing some sentiments above:

    "Emperor Rudy, the chemists have no bread."

    "Let them eat cake!"

    ReplyDelete
  37. I might add that one of the biggest problems here is that many grad students will see this article and still continue on with their Ph.D rather than doing a self evaluation to see if it's what they want or need to do. So we can clamor about what the ACS or the government or whoever is doing wrong, but a big part of this equation is for grad students to speak with their actions. And I don't have much hope for that happening.

    ReplyDelete
  38. As a UK-educated PhD chemist (and ACS member) I have to admit I often read my weekly C&EN with a certain amount of confusion. This week's issue is a perfect example - there is a significant article entitled 'Working in the Chinese drug industry' (hint hint). This is accompanied by an editorial in which Rudy Baum complains about his 17 hour flight to South Africa where he spends a few days at a conference in Cape Town with 2 other senior ACS folks.

    At a time when jobs are being lost in every sector of chemistry, this is a bizarre editorial to say the least. I felt a little p*ssed off reading it, and I'm not even 1) American or 2) unemployed.

    Dr Halford's article was a thought-provoking one, highlighting what needs to be discussed in this rapidly changing world. In my opinion Mr Baum (and other senior folks within the ACS) really need to start thinking along similar lines. I suspect their business trips to South Africa are not high on the list of priorities for many of their ordinary members in the USA and elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anon- I don't intend to turn this into a Rudy-bashing-fest, but this post is even more staggeringly offensive; the title alone says it all, but the talk about Paris, hobnobbing with Nobel laureates and caviar just propels it way beyond clueless:

    http://cenblog.org/the-editors-blog/2010/10/chemistry-alive-and-well/

    Sadly illustrative of everything that is wrong with the ACS....

    ReplyDelete
  40. Eka - wow, I'd not read that one. Fascinating stuff.

    No, I agree I'm not trying to 'bash' anyone here either. Travelling is undoubtedly an important part of this job. But this editorial (and even more so the one you highlight) undoubtedly strike the wrong tone. By some way.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I always suspected that Rudy was working for the RecDep of Oceania. That would explain all the glossy propaganda about (Western) Chemistry being "alive and well". No wonder the Inner Party Members (Industry CEOs) and Outer Party Members (Academics) have such an easy time manipulating the Proles (grad students, postdocs, & regular workers). Sometimes a Maoist denunciation sounds a good idea...just sayin'.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dr Hiertzler, I am a first-level manager at a DOE Laboratory. You are correct that my institution does not allow hiring of postdocs who are more than 5 years out from their degree. There is no requirement, implicit or explicit, that the postdoc candidates be of a certain age range. The DOE labs treat postdoctoral positions primarily as training periods, and not as a cheap labor pool. I personally believe this policy is a humane one, since individuals who work in more than two or three postdoctoral positions become, for all practical purposes, unemployable in Ph.D.-requiring jobs.

    I recognize that your comment probably stems from a situation of personal difficulty, and for that I am sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Does the sagging economy afford people any leniency with respect to postdocs? If people do 2nd postdocs because there aren't jobs then do employers write them off or do they realize how competitive it is and give them the benefit of the doubt?

    ReplyDelete
  44. A8:22: How can you say they've been "extensively trained" and in the same breath "for all practical purposes, unemployable"?

    ReplyDelete

looks like Blogger doesn't work with anonymous comments from Chrome browsers at the moment - works in Microsoft Edge, or from Chrome with a Blogger account - sorry! CJ 3/21/20