Thursday, September 12, 2013

Where are the non-academic PhD chemists in the United States? Where aren't they?

Here's an interesting visualization of the geography of industrial (or at least non-academic) chemistry, from The Chronicle of Higher Education:




Two things to explain here that I think I understand about these charts:
  • The darker the state is, the higher the absolute number of non-academic Ph.D. physical scientists.
  • The selected states have the highest (or lowest) rate of chemists amongst non-academic Ph.D. physical scientists. 
Here's the raw numbers, in order of "prevalence index", a number that's not explained in the chart:

Chemists most prevalent: Delaware: 7.836, New Jersey: 2.459, Indiana: 1.475, North Carolina: 1.393, Michigan: 1.115, Kentucky: 0.721, Arkansas: 0.607

Chemists least prevalent: North Dakota: 0.2620, Nevada: 0.2620, New Hampshire: 0.3110, New Mexico: 0.3440, South Dakota: 0.4260, Mississippi: 0.4780, Vermont: 0.5740, Idaho: 0.7700, Wyoming: 0.7700, Montana: 0.8360, Alaska: 0.8690. 

I'm not positive that this chart showed me anything I didn't know (I probably would not have guessed Kentucky or Arkansas, but that's about it.) That said, it's worth a click. 

8 comments:

  1. I'm surprised not to see Massachusetts in the black on this map.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was going to say the same thing. Not only that, it borders a state (New Hampshire) with the least chemists.

      Delete
    2. What the hell is in Arkansas?

      Delete
    3. Easy. Formaldehyde production, right on the property of Tyson Farms, Inc. Lots of chicken to preserve on the way to the market....

      Delete
    4. "What the hell is in Arkansas?"

      Black Oak, for one thing. Lots and lots of agriculture and food industries, for another.

      Delete
  2. What's with New York and materials science? Corning?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Corning, Xerox, Kodak (or what remains), (former) GE entities, IBM.

      Just a few of the big ones off the top of my head.

      Delete
  3. prevalence could mean per capita

    ReplyDelete