Science graduates 'lack skills needed by business'

I find this pretty interesting. I work for an educational charity that tries to promote careers in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Maths) in kids.

Out of interest, who is funding that? The government, employers, or just some rich guy who thinks engineering is cool?

This is because you have "science courses" that require say, CCD to get on to.

Scrap those doss courses, and give more funding to the worthwhile institutes to improve their science intake. Problem solved.

science graduates are manifestly NOT an essential part of the economy despite what the STEM tedes tell you. how much 'scientific research' delivers the potential for profit in the short or medium term? not very much.

This. The solution is so simple.

I don't care if the Chemistry course at London Met is accredited. We don't need it; other universities deserve that extra funding.

Most people on this thread have been talking about the jobs that are open to the top graduates who choose to stay in science.

Just because you're a science graduate, it doesn't necessarily mean you're "top".

But aren't they forced into business because of the extremely low salaries offered - around £20000 - because of myopia by research institutions like GSK. Why shouldn't they be in business anyway. The most successful biotechnology companies where started by a couple of graduates with a brilliant idea for a new drug or scaling up drug production so I don't see what the point your making there is.

With significant help from the government.

You are one ignorant mother F***er aren't you!

Are you joking? STEM grads are an ESSENTIAL part of the economy. Scientific research has brought us to the stage we are today - your computer was designed and built by STEM grads - the bullets people shoot are designed by STEM grads - the TV you watch is built by STEM grads and the drugs you take are by STEM grads.

DOUCHEBAG!

oh by the way over 5 million jobs in the UK are directly employed in the science sector..

30000 is a good salary particularly for a graduate but what I meant was that scientists can't surpass it at the height of their career whereas lorry drivers are earning 40000+ and even threatened to go on strike.

Sorry, I just caught these comments when searching TSR. £30,000 is definitely not a low wage, especially if you have good money sense. My family are living on about £17,000 a year and we are doing so comfortably. This is because my parents never buy something they can't afford. They're doing so well that they are a couple of years away from paying off their mortgage too. We don't get anything extra from the government either although my mam doesn't work (housewife). There are six of us living in the house plus a dog and we have ONE car. Soo..

4. It doesn't surprise me that most biologists don't learn maths, because biology is not a particularly mathematical subject. The only course I can think they would need from the A level is stats, which is surely better taught in the first year at university than bundled with a lot of irrelevant calculus.

Sorry, I just caught these comments when searching TSR. £30,000 is definitely not a low wage, especially if you have good money sense.

It blows my mind that you could support a family of 6 on only £17,000.

Just an FYI I read your name as Sir Fred Giblets.

Was wondering who Fred Giblets was and what he was knighted for.