State support for R&D and universities remains critical

Some people argue that we produce too many PhD graduates and there won’t be enough jobs for them

INCREASING THE number of graduates with doctoral degrees has been a key element of State policy in the past few years.

Does it matter whether we are producing a lot of PhDs? Many have argued no. Some of the graduates that we are producing come out of university and find there are no jobs in Ireland and end up going abroad. They question whether they should have spent four or five years in deep study.

The idea behind a policy of upping the level of PhDs in science and technology – also recommended in the recent Innovation Taskforce report – is the reciprocal relationship between the number of highly skilled, high-end graduates, and an energetic economy.

A pipeline of top-level graduates greatly increases the attractiveness of Ireland for foreign inward investment. It also seeds an ecosystem in which indigenous companies can develop and grow.

If you are a multinational in one of the areas that provides well-paid science and technology jobs, you generally want such graduates if you are going to do any significant, long-term, high- end investment.

A 12 per cent corporate tax rate is not on its own enough to lure these kinds of investments and jobs, mainly because companies doing RD are taking a significant amount of their profits and rolling it back into RD.

The ability to easily obtain talented and capable research graduates is going to be a critical issue instead. On the other hand, as some have argued, if the companies are not yet here, the hoped-for jobs simply don’t exist and the whole system contributes to Ireland’s return to the status of an emigration nation.

The latter concerns, though, only serve to illustrate much of what is wrong about the national and political mindset on the “purpose” of RD, supporting science and technology development and increasing the number of doctoral students.

Last summer, some media stories gave voice to that mindset, featuring disgruntled academics and students who felt that there were too many PhDs and not enough jobs. Students bemoaned that they had to leave the country. Academics complained that the focus in science and technology was on areas that wouldn’t produce jobs for another decade.

Let’s fast forward just six months, to Intel’s announcement in January that it will be doing new research and development in Leixlip that will create a need for 200 high-end graduates.

That’s about enough to soak up every single available PhD in the relevant fields for the next two years, according to Diarmuid O’Brien of nanotechnology research centre Crann at Trinity College.

So what happens if any other company in the same general area of science and technology is considering basing itself here? There won’t be any graduates. As it is, in order to find the employees it needs, Intel will likely need to hire in from the international market.

So, in just six short months, one of the major complaints being made – that the jobs weren’t there for the graduates – has now reversed to where the graduates may not be there for the jobs.

There’s also an expectation that RD investment bring a jobs payoff right away, not in “a decade”. Yet the high-end research jobs now coming in from companies like Intel, HP, IBM and other major employers, are from long-term strategy investments and State support going back at least a decade.

That’s why it is critical that State support for business investment and RD as well as for our universities remain strong.

The State also must address the difficulty for skilled foreign graduates to come work here. While there has been some easing of restrictions in this area, it is still a struggle for many companies to bring in the people they need.

Study after international study has shown that the global regions of highest economic activity and productivity, with the most valuable jobs, are those that have a flexible immigration system. A full third of all start-up companies in Silicon Valley have either a Chinese or an Indian co-founder, for example.

While it is valid to argue that jobs at the lower end also need to be there for those who are less skilled, the global reality is that these jobs are almost all moving to cheap, developing world economies (just as they once came here for the same reasons).

Those jobs are unlikely to return here, so, is there not a far stronger argument to overhaul the Irish school system and require students at secondary level to remain in school until they finish the Leaving Cert, rather than allowing students to drop out at only 15 or 16, with few skills and few lifetime job prospects? And to get more into third-level education?

Finally, there’s a pressing need to stop viewing emigration – broadening one’s abilities and experience – as a national catastrophe. Foreign work experience helped to build the economy and attract investment in the past. Companies – Irish and international – say there’s a dearth of internationally experienced job candidates now and jobs sit unfilled. Today’s emigrants will help fuel a growth economy of the future.

The elements that create a muscular economy interlock in many subtle ways. There is a need to understand that jobs cannot be hastily conjured up on the back of strategy investments and policy that must of necessity take a long-term view – but also for policy and investment to fit together in a productive and rational way.