Hi Caroline,
I had the 2009 equivalent result in my IMA careers talk when I did that job. I think it is interesting to note but I would always offer a hint of caution - there is much to wonder about the result.
The methodology is here:
http://www.careercast.com/jobs-rated/2012-jobs-rated-methodology
It's explained in detail but based on some subjective measures. I think there are other problems - what is a "Mathematician" in this context and is it a realistic option for most maths graduates? (Though as Jim points out there are other maths-adjacent jobs near the top.) If "Mathematician" is defined narrowly enough to assess on the datapoints described in the methodology then it probably represents a small niche; if it's a broader definition you can't possibly realistically assign a single score for "environment", "income", "outlook", etc.
Also, on being #10: In 2009, when the survey started, "Mathematician" was #1. In 2010 it was #6 and in 2011 it was #2. Makes me worry about the consistency of the measure (what has really changed in one year?), and in some ways the headline could be "Mathematician plummets eight places down the table" or "Worse score since records began" (joking!).
Overall, and perhaps worst of all, we wouldn't pay any attention to this measure if "Mathematician" didn't perform well against it, which means it's nice marketing for mathematics ("Consistently in the top ten on this survey you haven't heard of") but probably not much else.
Having said that, the score for physicists seems about right to me ;)
Regards,
Peter.
P.S. Did everyone see Dara on Dave yesterday? Weird show but I quite liked it. According to a tweet from Dara today the show got "double the normal audience", which is nice to hear (but I believe it got a lot more advertising than most too and I think it followed straight after QI with no ad break).
________________________________
From: Mathematics Promoters list [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Caroline Davis [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 16 April 2012 10:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Mathematician - 10th best job of 2012
It's good to see mathematician ranking so highly. But looking at the jobs higher up, one has to wonder what criteria the compilers are working to!
(Apologies to all dental hygienists out there and no comment that physicist ranks at only 25...)
-----Original Message-----
From: Mathematics Promoters list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of James Grime
Sent: 11 April 2012 17:26
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Mathematician - 10th best job of 2012
I'm just grateful I'm not a speech pathologist. All the way down there at 11th place.
On 11/04/2012 15:35, Tony Mann wrote:
> Brilliant! I feel sorry for the poor reporter who had to write the article, knowing that their own job is the fifth worst of all!
>
> But James, do you plan to trade up by becoming a dental hygienist?
>
> Tony
> ________________________________________
> From: Mathematics Promoters list [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of James Grime [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 11 April 2012 15:17
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Mathematician - 10th best job of 2012
>
> Mathematician has been named 10th best job of 2012. And many of the top
> 10th are maths based as well.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303772904577336230132805276.html
>
> jim
>
> University of Greenwich, a charity and company limited by guarantee,
> registered in England (reg. no. 986729). Registered office:
> Old Royal Naval College, Park Row, Greenwich, London SE10 9LS.
--
James Grime
The Enigma Project
Phone/Fax: 07092131080
Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
www.enigma.maths.org<http://www.enigma.maths.org>
www.mmp.maths.org<http://www.mmp.maths.org>
Millennium Mathematics Project
University of Cambridge
Centre for Mathematical Sciences
Wilberforce Road
Cambridge
CB3 0WA
________________________________
This email (and attachments) are confidential and intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender, delete any copies and do not take action in reliance on it. Any views expressed are the author's and do not represent those of IOP, except where specifically stated. IOP takes reasonable precautions to protect against viruses but accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from virus infection. For the protection of IOP's systems and staff emails are scanned automatically.”
Institute of Physics Registered in England under Registration No 293851
Registered Office: 76/78 Portland Place, London W1B 1NT
________________________________
|