Axe to grind about Science

There was recently an article on CNN about businesses investing in training scientists because there are not enough math-science professionals in the USA. I have know this for a while and am doing my personal best to fix this problem. I took issue with one of the opinions expressed in the article though. This point of view (obviously from economists) held that the shortage of scientists was b.s. because if there was a real shortage students would naturally drift toward science majors. Whoever thinks this clearly does not have any real concept of what a science education entails, so I am going to put you guys through my explanation of why market forces cannot make scientists.

The real science education begins in the students undergraduate college or university. There the student (lets call him/her Alex to be sexually ambiguous) takes some of the hardest classes available, for instance organic chemistry or quantum mechanics. Alex will take just as many classes as students in other majors, and in addition Alex will spend 3-4 hours per week in lab, for each science class. That lab time was actually a conservative estimate. If Alex attends a large university, then for his/her first two years of undergraduate education he/she will be in some of the largest lectures offered. Without counting things that are common in non-science majors (such as a senior thesis, summer internships, etc.) it seems like a lot of work to be Alex the Androgynous Scientist. 

Wait, thats it though. Alex has graduated, so he/she can just join the working world and be a functioning scientist. That was not so ba ... oh $#!@, graduate school. Alex could take a year off from school and work in a lab, to gain research experience while getting very little money, but feeling the drive of market forces Alex wants to join the professional world A.S.A.P. So he/she prepares her/his letters of recommendation, application, CV (or resume) and personal statement. Alex may now move to the next stage of his/her life: taking two GRE exams, contacting lab heads, contacting lab administrators, and finally being accepted.  He/she then spends the next 5 years in a graduate school (national average 8.3 years in 2003, but who's counting?) taking classes, working in a lab full time, and possibly being a TA. 

If Alex is a genius and had a good mentor in graduate school, then he/she will be able to finally jump into employment, but more likely she/he will join a lab on a fellowship as a post-doctoral student under a new mentor for 2-5 years. At this point, optimistically in his/her late 20's, Alex may get what is considered a real job. 

I am not trying to make this out to be impossible. After all, thousands of science students graduate from undergrad schools every year. What I am trying to say is that someone who is on the fence between two possible majors is going to take all of this into account before making their decision, and a lot of people will choose something other than science. Market forces will not make this process easier, and thus the problem of the scientist shortage in the US is not going to fix itself. Business incentives may help, but the only thing that will really make a difference is if the culture of the US shifts just enough so that scientific research becomes a more desirable occupation. 

I think that rant was enough to deserve a noise complaint.