Draft FAQ, incl. Art's FUAQ
Derek Oliver
Art, I've inserted the FUAQ below, I trust that you find
it's insertion does not conflict with your intent/wishes. I
have emailed a cut-down version of just stuff attributed to
you for your convenience. Please confirm your
satisfaction/dissatisfaction with this draft.
I would be grateful if you could (when you have a moment)
mark up your FUAQ, and place it on your www site, and send
me the link, and I will include it as a specific line
(something like "Art's FUAQ can also be found at http://
<wherever> ").
A general note to all, I have added in a couple of
modifications from those contributors who have got back to
me, and those that haven't, I'll add yours as you get to
them and all will be reposted in due course, this repost is
out of synch with the timetable laid out last weekend
because the inclusion of the FUAQ is a big change to the
document and merited a quick repost.
Derek
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Draft FAQ for newsgroup sci.research.careers
A - LOGISTICS
This FAQ Draft created: 12 August 2000
Last modification: 8 November 2000
Approximate rate of re-posting: every 2-4 weeks
Copyright
As from the initial creation date of this document, the
ownership and copyright of the following comments and/or
opinions are in the possession of the person who has
contributed the section of this document in question. Any
reproduction of material can only be permitted by the
copyright holder(s).
Disclaimer
While all the comments and recommendations contained within
this document are well-intentioned, they do NOT constitute a
of guarantee that if some comment is applied to any specific
situation, a perfect or improved result will
deterministically follow. The contributions to this FAQ
originate from a wide variety of career paths and scientific
experiences, and these contributions are intended as points
of discussion/consideration rather than a blueprint for
success. All contributions are meant in good faith, but
individual contributors do not and cannot accept any
liability under any jurisdiction. The job market is a
competitive and ruthless place, there are no simple answers.
Caveat Emptor.
Contributors (details in section E): Art Sowers, Brian
Moore, Derek Oliver, Jeff Potoff, Josh Halpern, Mark Bowes,
Rob Bossio, Rich Lemert, Russell Martin, Rebecca Chamberlin.
Contributor(s) currently responsible for maintaining and
re-posting this FAQ: {DRO}
A copy of this FAQ is also maintained by {RLM} on the www at:
http://www.rmartin.com/SRC_FAQ.html
In Section B the questions responded to within this FAQ post
are listed, detailed responses are contained in Section C.
Different contributors have a different opinions and all
disciplines have their own character. Thus, the responses
are listed separately, emphasizing the variety of opinion.
B - QUESTIONS
B.I - Issues arising during a PhD
1. Does a completing a PhD mean that I will get a job as an academic?
2. Should I do a PhD?
3. I want to do a PhD, how should I choose which
projects/advisors/groups to apply to?
4. I am worried about whether I can complete my PhD, should
I transfer enrollment to a Masters?
5. I am halfway through my PhD and want to change fields,
what are the options?
6. I'm in trouble with my advisor/situation, and it is
jeopardizing my graduate/future research career. What are my options?
7. What should I do while I'm still a student if I want to
go into an academic position?
8. How should I present my application for an academic position?
9. What should I do if I want an industrial position?
B.II - Issues arising after completion of a PhD
1. Should I do a postdoc?
2. What do postdocs get paid?
3. Is it possible to get a career in academia without a postdoc?
4. How should I choose where to apply for postdocs?
5. Does postdoc employment help or hurt my chances at a
career in academia?
6. Does postdoc employment help or hurt my chances at a
career in industry?
7. Should I get involved with the local attempts to unionize
or address campus postdoc issues?
8. When should I stop postdocing and get out?
B.III - "Alternative" Careers
1. Should I move on into an "alternative" career?
2. How do I go about moving into an "alternative" career?
3. I have a PhD. Am I employable outside the laboratory?
4. Do I need more education?
5. What types of jobs am I eligible for?
6. What are some resources for alternative careers?
B.IV - General Issues
1. Art Sowers' FUAQ
2. Is there any security in a science-based career?
3. What is tenure and does it still exist?
4. Is getting a Masters a better strategy for an industrial
career path?
5. What do science researchers (academics and industry) get paid?
6. Are there significant differences in the range of
research opportunities currently available in different
fields ?
B.V - Further Comments (not yet incorporated into the main formatting)
C - RESPONSES
Notes:
- {XYZ} preceding the response indicates the contributor
that wrote the response
- <XYZ> following the response indicates that this
contributor agrees with the content of the response
C.I - Issues arising during a PhD
Q1. Does a completing a PhD mean that I will get a job as an academic?
{DRO} No. While completion of a PhD is an important
prerequisite to an academic career, there are (generally)
more people completing PhD theses than there are openings.
{RL} Conversely, it is also possible to get a position in
academia without a PhD, although generally not as an
academic. There are many support positions that don't
require an advanced degree - things like undergraduate lab
manager in a biology or chemistry program, or someone in a
central research office helping the faculty keep up to date
on research opportunities or getting their proposals
submitted correctly and in a timely manner. If you prefer to
work in a community college environment (which carries its
own risks and rewards), a Masters degree will likely be sufficient.
{RMC} Of course, some people do not have academic careers
(or even "research careers") in mind when they decide to get
the PhD. For example, over 50% of PhD chemists work in
industry, and many chemists go to graduate school with this
as their career goal.
{RB} In some of the new fields, such as bioinfomatics and
some cross-disciplinary fields on the horizon, the time is
NOW to strike out into these new and unknown territories.
There is still a demand for academic positions in these
areas, but you must move quickly while the "era of
exponential growth" is still available for these fields.
Q2. Should I do a PhD?
{DRO} If you personally want to do one, because completing a
PhD is something you aspire to, or will enable you to
achieve something that you want to achieve, then yes, you
should. If you are about to commence (or have commenced) a
PhD because you can't think of anything else to do then you
are on risky ground. A PhD is not an easy undertaking, and
it does not come with any career guarantees. It can be
personally rewarding, and it can become a personal trial.
Choosing to commence a PhD is a choice that involves 3-5
years of your life, a great deal of self-discipline, and not
a great deal of financial security. For some, it is an
time/money/life investment that they regret, for some it
is/was the culmination of their academic challenges, for
some it is a one of the most rewarding times in their life.
Personally, there were good times, frustrating times, and
downright lousy times during my PhD candidature, but
completing a PhD was something that I wanted to achieve, and
I'm glad I did so for that reason alone.
{RB} Doing a PhD is, as stated above, a huge investment, up
to 7 years. If indeed you are doing this for a career, then
plan VERY carefully your course, and have a backup plan in
case something goes wrong. It has its ups and downs, and
science is VERY competitive. Think on this path carefully.
{RL} Also, don't get trapped into thinking that you only do
a PhD so you can do research. While it is true that the
degree is a research degree, many people go into the program
for little more than the intellectual challenge it provides,
and plan to go into a position afterwards that they might
have been able to do equally well without the degree. Some
may debate whether this is the most efficient and cost
effective way of running your career, but ultimately you're
the one who's got to live with your choice.
Q3. I want to do a PhD, how should I choose which
projects/advisors/groups to apply to?
{DRO} You can never have too much information. A PhD takes a
lot of time, and the relationship with your supervisor is
critical to your capacity to complete the degree/project.
The ideal supervisor must be someone you can trust as a
person, be current in their field, be well-funded and have a
good working relationship with their department. Ideally
choosing a supervisor needs to be preceded by
meeting/talking to this person. Accepting recommendations
from others is not necessarily a substitute, prospective
candidates must be guided by their trust/opinion of the
person making the recommendation. Is the potential
supervisor/their group publishing regularly/useful work?
Have alumni of the potential supervisor's group gone on to
jobs? What sort of jobs (secure, industrial, postdocs etc)?
Is the supervisor's group well-funded? Does the institution
have a good reputation (i.e. will it help you later on to
have it known that you went to "X"). Note that many
institutions will not permit a PhD student to be taken in
without any research funding, however the minimum amount of
funding required to overcome this can be pitifully small.
Does the group have a positive work environment? From the
tone of these questions, the obvious recommendation is that
prospective PhD candidates visit and "interview" potential
supervisors/groups. But understand too that it is very rare
that someone chooses a group with all this information to
hand (for many reasons). One has to make a judgment call at
some stage.
{JH} Meeting/talking to a potential supervisor prior is not
something that can be considered optional. Also, talk to
current group members as well as senior students in the same
area who DID NOT choose to work for the professor concerned.
{RL} At many schools there is a formal procedure in place to
match students with advisors. Typically there will be a day
or two where the faculty in the department describe their
research and state how many students they're looking for.
(Even faculty without current openings usually participate
so that the new students get a feel for what's going on in
the department.) Then there will be a period in which
students get to meet with the different groups that interest
them. At the same time, the faculty will be getting to know
you! Finally, you submit your ranked list of preferences,
and the department tries to match your interests with theirs
to the extent possible. Thus, you may not always get your
top selections. (If you can line up an advisor and a project
before you show up on campus, your obviously way ahead of
the game.)
Q4. I am worried about whether I can complete my PhD, should
I transfer enrollment to a Masters?
{DRO} Some institutions actively make such a transfer
difficult because (officially) they want to keep a sense of
a Masters degree as having status in its own right, rather
than simply being a "consolation prize". Some people who
contemplate this pathway do so when they finally realize the
sheer size of the task of completing a PhD, some because of
other difficulties directly or indirectly related to their
candidature. If you think the task of completing the PhD is
too big, you may simply have realized the actual magnitude
of the task, and you should talk to your advisor about
whether the project is manageable, or should be somewhat
re-defined. If there are other reasons for contemplating
transferring to a Masters for other reasons (difficulties
with supervisor/institution or in other aspects of your
life) then you should seek advice from your institution on
what options are available. If the cause of the worry is
external to your work, suspension and later resumption of
candidacy is possibly an option. If the cause of the concern
is institutional or your supervisor you must tread carefully
(see responses to Q6).
{RB} Unfortunately, the Masters degree is, in spite of many
peoples continuing efforts, seen as a "consolation prize"
for not getting a PhD (for what ever reason). It can be a
kind of glass ceiling in industrial positions, requiring you
to go back for more or different educational degrees if you
want to advance. A Ph.D. does remove many of these
barriers, especially if you want to move on into
management-type positions. A Masters degree can open up
some unusual doors, however, in alternate career settings.
Q5. I am halfway through my PhD and want to change fields,
what are the options?
{DRO} This depends on how big the difference in fields is
and how good your relationship with your supervisor is. If
the desire to shift fields is because of something within
your current work then it may be possible to re-structure
your project. If this re-structuring takes the research
outside the expertise of your current supervisor you would
be well-advised to find a co-supervisor who has expertise in
the new area, and you should be warned that some supervisors
may react adversely to such a suggestion (a common human
reaction). If you feel that your current field is a "dead
end" and you want to pursue different opening then you must
look at a number of issues. If you go to a new field, how
can you be sure that after 1-2 years it won't be a dead end
as well? Do you have the capacity to shift fields without
"dumping" the work you have already done? Do you have a
place lined up (field-jumpers are not always welcome). If
you are close to completing a PhD, or even half-way through,
it may be best to complete the project and make the shift at
the post-doctoral level. This is about the only time the
flexibility i.e. short-term and contractual nature of most
postdoc employment works slightly in your favour. It is
better to complete a project with a view to shifting
afterwards, uncompleted work/goals can haunt a cv later in
life.
Q6. I'm in trouble with my advisor/situation, and it is
jeopardizing my graduate/future research career. What are my options?
{DRO} If the relationship between you and your supervisor is
having a bad run, there may be some 'inbuilt' options. Some
institutions mandate an examining committee or co-supervisor
be nominated for each project so that the student and
supervisor have access to one or more potential mediators in
such situations. Almost always the departmental postgraduate
tutor/advisor and then the head of department are obliged to
mediate if the problem is still unresolved. But ultimately
the student is in a difficult situation here, it is their
PhD, and the supervisor has power/standing with their
colleagues. Some universities have mediation structures that
bring in people from outside the department. In each
situation, it is important to know what these structures
are, and if you have a complaint about your supervisor, you
need to have records of what happened, when and where.
Sometimes students are given a new co-supervisor for the
same project in an effort to help the student complete. In
some cases students are able to start a new project with a
new supervisor. In all cases the process is emotionally
draining - a graduate student invests a lot when enrolling
in a PhD, and the relationship with a supervisor is
inevitably a personal one. Leaving the programme either with
no degree or with a Masters are possibilities - but leaving
with nothing to show for the time spent is risky in terms of
your capacity to 'explain' the time spent to a potential employer.
Q7. What should I do while I'm still a student if I want to
go into an academic position?
{RL} The obvious thing is to get as many quality
publications and presentations as you can. Prospective
departments are going to want to see someone who has
demonstrated that they can "get the job done", and for them
publications and presentations are coins of the realm.
However, avoid publishing 'variations on a theme', as this
becomes obvious that you are padding your cv. Get as much
teaching experience as you can, and if your institution
offers a course in effective teaching - take it (these can
be very useful even if you don't go into teaching). As much
as many research universities try to avoid the fact, a large
share of your duties will be teaching. Good teaching alone
will not get you the job, but a good researcher who can also
teach will be hands down better than the typical good
researcher who can't teach. Let your advisor know you're
interested in an academic position, along with anyone else
who will listen. Introduce yourself to people at
conferences. Play the "good old boy" network for all it's worth.
{DRO} Good teaching skills can be described as good
communication skills - very important if you are looking to
a career beyond academia. Teaching can be fun too.
Q8. How should I present my application for an academic position?
{RL} Having a good publication record is probably not going
to be sufficient, by itself, to get you an academic
position. The world is full of people that are capable of
carrying out the ideas of others but who couldn't generate
an original idea to save their life. You need to demonstrate
that you can plan and carry out a research program without
having to resort to the help of others. The best way to do
this is to prepare a set of mini-proposals. These should
outline three or four ideas and explain a) why the idea is
important, b) how you plan to accomplish your goal, and c)
what resources you'll require.
Q9. What should I do if I want an industrial position?
{RL} Here again, exposure is the key word. This time,
though, you want to make sure you expose yourself to people
in industry. Depending on the field you might be able to do
this at technical conferences (particularly in engineering),
but you might have to consider trade shows instead. Also,
become active in an appropriate technical society, or
consider a trade organization if that's more appropriate for
your field. The important thing is to let people know who
you are. Don't worry as much about publications, though,
since they don't carry the same weight in industry (except
possibly for patents) that they do in academia. On the other
hand, presentation practice is even more important for
industry since you will constantly be presenting your work
to your colleagues and your managers.
C.II - Issues arising after completion of a PhD
Q1. Should I do a postdoc?
{DRO} If you want to become an academic, then the answer is
probably yes. In some fields (especially engineering) it is
possible to go from completing a PhD to a tenure-track
academic position, but in most fields this is a rare
occurrence. One of the "professional" reasons for doing a
postdoc is the fact that most funding agencies want to see
evidence of a track record of research achievement and
publication, and the number of fields where a completed PhD
is competitive in this reference frame is small. If you want
to change fields, a postdoc in a new field may be a good way
to find out if you can get somewhere in another field.
Equally, a postdoc is not a guarantee of a long-term career,
and the employment market for postdocs is very volatile. It
is possibly harder to gain employment outside of academia
after doing postdocs than it is directly after completing a
PhD, but the significance of the differences between these
(other than age) is unclear to me.
{RMC} Or to make a smooth transition into the new field --
if you choose a postdoc advisor judiciously the transition
can be almost seamless. Also for some industry and
government employers, the postdoc is a trial period before
they commit to hiring you permanently. But conversely, some
industrial employers have a firm policy to NOT use postdoc
positions this way.
Q2. What do postdocs get paid?
{DRO} In the USA, US$20k-US$55k pa. In Canada CAN$25-CAN$30
pa. In Britain £13k-£22k pa. In Australia AUS$40k-AUS$50k.
All these figures are approximate and depend on the project,
funding agency, institution etc. Fringe benefits are highly
variable, ranging from almost none (US & Canada) through to
statutory superannuation contributions (Australia). Postdocs
are contracted employees, the contract may be 1-2 years
(most common) or up to 5 years, and renewal may depend on
funding decisions that the postdoc cannot themselves influence.
{JJP} In the US, engineering postdocs should expect
substantial fringe benefits in the form of health insurance
(my health insurance as a postdoc has been excellent). Some
may even get to participate in retirement plans depending on
the classification of postdocs at that particular
institution. In terms of salary, the going rate for
academic postdocs in chemical engineering is $32,000/year
(1999). Some academic postdocs (again, in engineering) will
pay substantially more if you can secure an outside funding
source, which in some cases is not terribly difficult.
Postdocs at the national labs (US) start around $50,000/year
and go up to $75,000+ for the "superstar" types.
{MPB} In regard to postdoc benefits, during my 2 postdocs I
had good healthcare coverage at both. Maybe I just got
lucky. One position (at UCSD) also had paid vacation time
(24 days per year), although the other (at Medical College
of Pennsylvania) had no paid vacation time. Also, at MCP, I
was on some sort of fellowship under which I was potentially
liable for the repayment of some or all of my fellowship
salary if I left the lab for a non-science-related career.
It might be worth noting for people looking for a postdoc
that if they leave their fellowship in less than 2 years,
they may be faced with repaying their previous year's salary.
{JH} Last I talked to some NRC postdocs (the national labs
often run their postdoc program through NRC) the health
insurance sucked. That accounts for a lot of the better
paid postdocs in the US In terms of academia, you generally
get what the staff at an institution gets. Exceptions to
this can be personal awards, which is one gotcha to watch
out for.
{BGM} Also the fringe issue is different in Canada because
most of the provinces there have very affordable, universal
healthcare options. At least that was the way it was when I
was at UBC in 91-92. I hear there has been erosion of their
healthcare policies since then (i.e. moves to take them to
more of a private model--higher premiums, etc.) but still it
is a very different ball game than in the US.
Q3. Is it possible to get a career in academia without a postdoc?
{DRO} Yes, engineering disciplines stand out as those where
this is most common, but it is rare in other areas.
Q4. How should I choose where to apply for postdocs?
{DRO} Roughly the same criteria as for the third question in
the previous section. IMO the institutional reputation
counts for a little less though, as a postdoc one is judged
a little more on what one has actually done (i.e. published)
rather than where one did it. But the essentials remain the
same, funding, work environment, alumni placements etc.
{JJP} One also has to consider the resources available to
complete your research. Bigger universities tend to have
more resources than smaller ones.
{RB} The name of the laboratory, the person who heads it
and their prestige are VERY important if you wish to
continue on in academia. If you are more interested in
industrial or government positions, this is not as necessary.
{RMC} More importantly, the postdoc position should be
adding something to your resume that you did not get from
your PhD work. This could be as mundane as gaining
affiliation with a more prestigious institution, or writing
a lot more papers (perhaps by choosing a less high-risk
project than their PhD work). It could also be used to
mitigate the impact of a bad relationship with one's PhD
advisor. Most often, a postdoc is an opportunity to learn
something new.
Q5. Does postdoc employment help or hurt my chances at a
career in academia?
{DRO} After a certain amount of time it begins to hurt your
chances, too many postdocs on a cv looks like the candidate
can't get a permanent job for some reason, and a search
committee may go look for that reason, or just trash the cv.
There are no hard & fast rules here, only perceptions. IMO
>5 years postdocing is very risky, >10 potentially fatal.
For these purposes, the definition of "postdoc" essentially
means any contract academic position.
{JJP} There is a fine balance between what is helpful and
what is hurtful. In engineering, one postdoc is enough, and
it had better be a productive one. Anymore than that and
your life gets progressively more difficult. Why? Because
search committees are trying to gauge the potential of the
candidates who apply. If you do a postdoc, you need to be a
level above those who apply right out of graduate school.
That means your postdoc had better be very productive. In
chemistry departments, you need at least one postdoc, unless
you're going to apply for a position at a teaching college.
And many people do two postdocs (~4 years). If you don't
find anything at this point, it's a tough call because the
same thing that happens in engineering applies here. The
more postdocs you do, the better your cv needs to look. It
can't look like you've just been in a holding pattern for
the last 4 years.
{RL} If you have a PhD, as far as industry is concerned
you've demonstrated all the credentials you're ever going to
need. At this point their interest is in "what can you do
for me!" This means that you'll need to do some research in
advance of any interviews to see what their problems are and
figure out how your skills can be used to address those
problems. (This is another good reason for meeting as many
industrial people as you can and spending some serious time
talking to them - whether you are actively looking for a job
or not.) They won't care that you spent x number of years
working for Bill Bigname - you could have just been taking
up space in the group. They will want you to demonstrate how
you solved problems that occurred while you were working for
Bill, and how you'll continue to solve the problems they
want solved when you work for them.
{RMC} Again, the key is that you are ADDING something new to
your resume and your skill set each time you postdoc. If
you are just spinning your wheels working as a short-term
employee in a string of similar jobs, without any real
"growth" occurring, your career is probably doomed.
Q6. Does postdoc employment help or hurt my chances at a
career in industry?
{DRO} Certainly, outside the science research community the
word "postdoc" doesn't mean much to many people. Some say
that doing a postdoc can hurt your chances in industry.
Others argue that industry wants to know first and foremost
what you can do for them, and therefore it doesn't matter. I
tend to side with the latter view, the rationale being that
I wouldn't expect many people in industry to know much about
what a postdoc does, but if I want them to employ me, I
won't describe my work simply as a "postdoc", I'll talk
about what I do, what I can do, how I do it etc.
{RMC}The above statement is CRITICAL in applying for
industry (and most government) positions, where the culture
is much more focused on how your results fit into the "big
picture." Academia tends to consider scientific minutiae to
be inherently interesting, while industry (and most
government agencies) consider minutiae to be interesting
mainly when it illuminates some bigger question. The way
you present your past work must change accordingly.
Q7. Should I get involved with the local attempts to
unionize or address campus postdoc issues?
{DRO} Overt public lobbying and notoriety in the early
stages of one's career can dramatically assist or
dramatically curtail that career. Be careful, but good luck!
{RB} This is indeed a hotbed of contention. There is
something of a larger movement occurring right now, with
some support from the American science academies, but its
still too early to tell how these efforts are going to go.
Be careful, and have some form of backup plan. A little
rocking of the boat can be good, but it can go horribly
wrong too!
Q8. When should I stop postdocing and get out?
{RB} If you are approaching being a postdoc for more than 5
years, you should definitely start thinking about your
alternatives. If you are approaching 10 years and have no
real sense of a permanent or nontemporary position, then
find some way out now.
C.III - "Alternative" Careers
Q1. Should I move on into an "alternative" career?
{DRO} If an exciting opportunity is presents itself, why
not? I'd advise people to complete their degrees though,
joining a startup because you are invited to is one thing,
making squillions is another. At the end of a PhD you do not
have to go on to academia.
{RMC} But recognize that it may be difficult to reconcile
your interest in/desire for an alternative career with the
"academia is best" message you may have received from your
advisor during graduate study.
{RL} This is one area where engineering has an advantage
over the more traditional sciences. Engineers are used to
dealing with industry and get a lot of exposure to thinking
about practical applications and "the bottom line". They
don't feel that they're "settling" for an industrial
position. Many in the sciences, though, feel that you are
somehow "selling out" if you go into industry. Also, don't
feel that you have to stay within your field. If you can do
so it's nice and comfortable since you are staying with
something familiar (the unknown can be very frightening).
However, you've just spent several years learning how to
learn something new (you'd better have, if your program is
any good) and how to solve problems. Consider the need for a
new career path to be a problem you have to solve, and
figure out how to solve it.
{RB} Sometimes, people have a change of heart, even when
they started out with the intent of heading on to an
academic career. That is actually quite normal, statistics
show that many people change career paths as much as 5 times
in their life! Why should scientists be any exception? I
agree though that unless something certain comes along, you
should complete your degree, and as soon as possible. There
are options other than academia and industry, here are a few
of them:
patent clerk/agent (must pass patent bar exam)
patent attorney (requires more education, a JD degree)
lab management (may require an MBA)
technical writing (ie writing the "fine manuals" that
everyone is supposed
to read BEFORE plugging in their computers!)
science writing (ie writing for the science writing section
in a local
newspaper, public relations for a company, etc.)
science policy (limited number of positions, also very competitive)
sales
start own company
Finance
Venture capitalism
publishing
teaching (high school, college, undergraduate only
institution, commuter campuses)
Q2. How do I go about moving into an "alternative" career?
{RB} As this is a somewhat new phenomenon, there are many
ways to go about this. Check with your campus job placement
bureau, check the want ads, check some of the web sites
posted below, check out books on career changes for
scientists. Ask around, network, and do "informational"
interviewing. Good Luck!
Q3. I have a Ph.D. Am I employable outside the laboratory?
{MPB} There are many employers, from government to nonprofit
organizations and private corporations, that employ large
numbers of individuals with laboratory science backgrounds.
The odds are that your science training has given you
several things that these employers are looking for,
including problem solving ability, the ability to manage
lower-level employees, excellent written communication
skills, and the ability to stay in a job for an extended
period of time. At least on the East Coast, the demand for
technically trained people in the private sector appears to
be quite high.
Q4. Do I need more education?
{MPB} Probably not, unless you want to do something very
specialized (like practice law). You might need to go
through a learning period during which your earnings will be
relatively low, but probably still more than you are likely
to be making as a postdoc.
Q5. What types of jobs am I eligible for?
{MPB} Many biologists work in biomedical communications,
including medical or scientific journalism, medical
publishing, pharmaceutical writing and consulting,
advertising, and public relations. Scientists are often
hired by law firms to consult on technical issues, or by
government agencies or nonprofit organizations to oversee
grant application processes or to manage programs related to
health, medicine, or technology. Investment firms hire
people with scientific and quantitative backgrounds to help
with financial analyses of high-tech companies.
Q6. What are some resources for alternative careers?
{MPB} Science and Nature list small numbers of
science-related jobs, such as positions with law firms. An
excellent resources is the website careerpath.com, which
contains the classified sections of newspapers from every
geographic region in the country, in a keyword-searchable format.
C.IV - General Issues
Q&A1. Art Sowers' FUAQ
***** Art's Frequently UnAsked Questions about Sci Careers *****
FUAQ: Frequently UnAsked Questions about Science Careers (a
decidedly "biased" view of the science career situation but
it may be more politely referred to as the unconventional
viewpoint, or the contrarian viewpoint; it is being
presented in the public interest)
disclaimer: The material below represents a mixture of the
personal experience of the author, experiences of other PhDs
as related to the author, and a synthesis of reports in the
printed media, some websites, and other sources. The author
has compiled a resource on careers in science (particularly
in academia) on an open server at:
www.magpage.com/~arthures. This website includes URLs of
other websites numerous references to books dealing with
science careers and PhDs, as well as newspaper, magazine,
and journal articles. The internet "newsgroup"
sci.research.careers is recommended as a total
freedom-of-speech "chatroom" for you to express your
experiences, state questions, and debate with others about
sci careers. Answers to the Frequently UnAsked Questions are
given as "partial" answers because a "good" answer will
depend on the context of the situation and the track record
of the person who is being "matched to" the situation.
Readers in relevant situations are urged to ask the FUAQs of
people they cross paths with in life for additional
opinions, history, and experiences. This FUAQ is not all
inclusive. The author reserves the right to modify and/or
add to this document at a later time.
Copyright information: The author now places this document
into the internet under the GPL (copyleft) license for all
to reproduce under the following conditions: i) no charges
for content, ii) all material to remain intact (no editing,
no modification whatsoever), and iii) rights to reproduce
are unlimited but nonexclusive to holders of this document.
by Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
1. Statement/thought: "All I need is my PhD and then I'll
have my career"
The frequently unasked question: What career problems do I
need to be concerned about for the rest of my life?
Partial answer: PhD-requiring jobs and non-PhD requiring
jobs that PhDs sometimes find themselves in are not much
different from any other jobs. External circumstances such
as project funding, corporate downsizings and
reorganizations and mergers and job export and cheap labor
import, political decisions and personality conflicts with
supervisors, and technological evolution and revolution all
represent career "hazards" that can block or kill a career.
Tenure-track faculty appointments can lead to tenure denial
which is the same as being fired. Non-tenure track faculty
appointments mean that the chairperson or any administrator
higher up can fire you at any time without giving a reason,
or not renew a term contract without giving a reason.
Knowing how these events take place and making "fallback
plans" for an alternative career, reading books about your
legal rights in job environments, and seeking out as much
information about "how things work" in hirings and firings
will help you be forewarned and plan alternative strategies.
2. Statement/thought: "After I get my PhD, I'll do 'X'"
Frequently UnAsked Questions: How many applications will I
need to make to get one interview? How many interviews to
get one job offer? How much time should I expect to pass
before I get one job offer? How many applications do they
get for every job announcement? Is there a real job behind
all job announcements?
Partial answer #1: For many fields in academia, one job
opening will attract on the order of hundreds of
applications. You will most likely need to make several
hundred applications to get any interviews. Generally, for
one job, about five to ten applicants will be interviewed.
Sometimes a second and third interview will take place
before a job is offered. All of this can take up to one to
two years. You will need to be employed doing something
relevant to your career objectives to keep your "track
record" on your CV looking relevant to those career
objectives. Some people manage to get job offers after a few
applications; others may send out 500-1000 applications and
not get either _any_ interviews or _any_ job offers.
Partial answer #2: There is controversy about whether more
sci PhDs are being produced than the growth in jobs which
require a PhD (in the "humanities" it has been known for
decades that there are about twice as many PhDs as there are
jobs for those PhDs). In the life sciences field, there is
at least one national study which concludes that schools are
overproducing PhDs. This leads to long and multiple
postdoctoral periods which often end without a real career
being started. This is because there are plenty of
postdoctoral jobs, but not enough real faculty jobs.
3. Statement/thought: "My career will grow as I do research
and publish"
The Frequently UnAsked Question: What factors influence
whether a career grows, does not grow, or dies out?
Partial answer: Shortly after one receives a PhD, one either
"pursues" an academic or a non-academic pathway. One
"pursues" a teaching-related career or a non-teaching
career. One spends time on a "post-doc" (usually for an
academic career) or starts with some job in the non-academic
sector. Staying on one or more "post-docs" for too long will
hurt long term career growth. Being over 40 in age will
start limiting what you can realistically expect; "post-doc"
and other entry level jobs are typically offered to only
young people who just got or recently got their PhDs. Most
job openings are "entry level" and thus if you are
"advanced" you will be passed over for interviews, let alone
job offers. This is called age discrimination and it starts
to show up around age 40. Most of the times careers grow
when one is "recognized" by a superior and given a promotion
or when one gets a promotion along with a job offer from a
new location. There are many fine points in the growth, no
growth, decline, or death of a career. It is important to
learn about these but these issues are way beyond the scope
of this partial answer.
4. Statement/thought: "I know all I need to know about sci careers"
The Frequently UnAsked Question: How do I find out more
about sci careers?
Partial answer: There are a good number of books, websites,
journal articles and other relevant periodicals all dealing
with sci careers. A large number of these do not go into
much detail about the politics of jobs and careers or what
actually happens to a population of people who start out in
science careers but there are sources with some information.
Career half-life is how long, out of a population of people
starting a career how many years later pass and only half
are still in that career. People leave a given career as a
result of either a voluntary decision (eg. "I don't like
what I'm doing anymore") or an involuntary decision ("I got
fired, laid-off, downsized out, politically back-stabbed,
etc."). There are more UnAsked questions for people who
leave science careers, regardless of whether it is voluntary
or not. Because of the intense competition, many of those
who leave the science career will find that they cannot get
back in.
5. Statement/thought: "All I know about careers is all the truth"
Frequently UnAsked Question: How do I figure out if what I
know about careers isn't so or there is more to learn?
Partial answer: Try to look at such things as salary
surveys, reports of unemployment, career changes, etc., and
ask yourself what is missing (see item #2 above). Ask
yourself if you know how they got their data. Ask yourself
if you can tell what the job security and advancement
possibilities are. Ask yourself if there may be a hidden
agenda that would influence the conclusions they present.
Ask yourself next time you see an educational advertisement
that says "Get your 'X' degree and get a high paying job"
how you would go about finding out how true (or realistic)
that advertisement might be. Ask yourself if you know anyone
(including yourself) who has sent out many applications and
not gotten any response yet or waited longer than they
thought for a response. Ask others in your institution who
were newly hired what their job-finding experiences were.
Ask older people in your institution what they have observed
over the additional decades of life experience they had to
tell you what they think. Try to consider "official
conclusions" against personal experience, the stories and
opinions of colleagues and friends. Don't wait for them to
volunteer these stories and opinions; actively ask them.
Don't just ask one or two; ask at least about two dozen or
more. Don't just ask them to tell you what you want to hear;
ask about what bad things have happened that almost no one
likes to talk about. When you watch the news on TV and read
the paper and read about murders, robberies, assaults,
fires, earthquakes, car accidents, etc., don't just say
"that won't happen to me" or "that's just something on the
news." That stuff happened to real human beings; you could
be next.
6. Statement/thought: "Sci jobs are all the same, don't worry"
Frequently UnAsked Question: How are jobs in academia
different from non-academic jobs?
Partial answer: Academic jobs (meaning faculty) have a
different career scenario and these can be usually tracked
and judged by looking at published journal papers on
research that is usually non-proprietary. It is very rare
for a faculty to not be publishing journal papers.
Non-academic jobs can range from posts in government
laboratories or agencies doing applied work, military
defense-related work, or in corporations where the applied
work will be closely targeted to making money from a product
or services. Job security and advancement can be very
different between academic and non-academic jobs as well as
within the same institution. Be forewarned that "temporary"
jobs are generally unstable jobs. Ask about fringe benefits
and retirement. Your ultimate goal, as you get older, will
be to be able to retire voluntarily and happily with
sufficient resources to have a decent standard of living and
have a good health plan.
C.IV - General Issues (continued)
Q2. Is there any security in a science-based career?
{DRO} There is certainly no more security in a science or
research career than anywhere else in the current job
market. Whether there is markedly less security is a highly
debatable question. Academic tenure is not the guarantee it
used to be, but then there are few permanent positions
anywhere these days. IMO it's no worse than anywhere else,
the biggest catch comes from the fact that after 10-15 years
investment of time and relatively low financial return (all
university study plus postdocs), most people feel they
deserve a return on their investment. Like all investments,
there are (unfortunately) no guarantees.
Q3. What is tenure and does it still exist?
{DRO} Tenure once meant that an academic appointed to a
permanent position would keep that job until
retirement/death. It is meant to mean that now, but there
are sufficient out-clauses in tenure contracts these days to
make this perception more myth than reality. In some
institutions, tenured staff are essentially appointed on
rolling 5-year contracts, in some places the term "tenure"
has been removed from the official lexicon. The older and
more traditional the institution, the more likely something
approximating tenure exists. The more recent the "tenured"
appointment, the more likely that the contract contains lots
of out-clauses.
{RB} For the more recent programs/universities, there is a
large movement towards contracts, which have some very
limited notion of security. But, as with all things, read
the fine print. The devil is in the details.
Q4. Is getting a Masters a better strategy for an industrial
career path?
{DRO} Some people say that it is. In my experience (Physical
Sciences/Engineering) this is something which I've heard
said a lot, although in more recent times I've also heard it
said that the fact that so many people have at least a
masters has lessened the advantage somewhat. IMO, the key to
industry is not what degree you finished with, but what
skills and motivations you can bring.
{JJP} For those looking to go the Masters route in
engineering, the Master of Engineering is a much better
route than a traditional MS degree. This is typically a one
year program of courses and a small scale project. I know a
lot of people who were successful doing this. It is better
for those geared toward industry (IMHO) because you get in
and out quick. The program and projects are well defined so
there's no "looks like I'm here for another year" when
things don't work out with your research.
{RB} From the limited conversations I've had, it can get you
some modicum of increased pay/authority/chance for
advancement, but in some areas it exists as a glass ceiling.
Talk to some industry representatives at a scientific
meeting if you are looking at working for a large company,
and see how much latitude and longitude they give their
masters degreed employees. In a smaller company, a masters
may allow for more upward mobility, but there it is probably
more variable. Again, ask around at scientific meetings,
and talk to the company representatives.
{RL} Any degree, by itself, means very little. It's what you
get out of the degree and what you can bring to the company
that matters. Even the historical recommendation to follow
up a BS with either an MBA or a law degree is no 'magic
bullet'. You'll still have to bring something to the table
to justify what the company pays you. The main reason these
traditional 'paths to success' have been so successful in
the past is the fact that they have generally attracted
highly motivated people.
Q5. What do science researchers (academics and industry) get paid?
{DRO} This varies horrendously from field to field, country
to country. The top in all lines of work people get paid
well. All professional institutions publish tables of
salaries, be careful to check the age/career stage range(s)
associated with the data presented. Certainly in
Engineering, industrial salaries in the US and Canada far
outstrip academic salaries, hence the apparent relative
"ease" of getting from PhD to academia described earlier. In
science, the picture is harder to define, because the
opportunities for doing 'research' outside academia vary so
greatly from discipline to discipline, and the niches are so
well-hidden that it is possible that many non-academic
researchers are not 'covered' by the standard surveys.
{RMC} Also, remuneration varies greatly from employer to
employer and sector to sector..
Q6. Are there significant differences in the range of
research opportunities currently available in different
fields ?
{DRO} Vast differences exist, and have underpinned many
arguments on sci.research.careers!
C.VI - Further Comments (not yet incorporated into the
formatting above)
{RMC} Might be interesting to put in some information about
salaries, assistantships, fellowships, teaching/research
jobs, benefits, etc in the grad school section.
D - ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
[Please forward additional www sites, links to book reviews,
books you think are useful]
{AES} has archived his collated information & thoughts on
careers in science at:
http://www.magpage.com/~arthures
{DRO} most professional societies have job advertisements
and job-hunting advice. University careers advisors can be
quite variable, IMO they are best-informed about those
organizations which actively recruit on campus, and
government positions. I have yet to meet one which
understands the ins and outs of career choices and options
for people with anything beyond a Bachelors degree. Talk to
people you know, people you meet - you can never have too
much information. Networking and schmoozing do not result in
career guarantees, they are information gathering
techniques, and can be quite inefficient at that. A sample
of professional societies and other disciplinary resources
are listed below:
American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/
American Physical Society (APS): http://www.aps.org
American Vacuum Society (AVS): http://www.vacuum.org/
Optical Society of America (OSA): http://w3.osa.org/
Materials Research Society (MRS): http://www.mrs.org/
American Chemical Society (ACS): http://www.acs.org/
Chemistry Societies Network: http://www.chemsoc.org/
United Engineering Foundation (UEF): http://www.uefoundation.org/
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE): http://www.ieee.org/
Institute of Physics (IoP): http://www.iop.org/
The Internet Pilot to Physics (TIPTOP): http://www.physicsweb.org/TIPTOP/
European Physical Society (EPS): http://www.eps.org/
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC): http://www.rsc.org/
The Australian Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org.au/
Royal Australian Chemical Institute: http://www.raci.org.au
Canadian Association of Physicists (CAP): http://www.CAP.CA/english.html
{JH} The NSF integrated database: http://srsstats.sbe.nsf.gov/
and the following reports:
- Education of Scientists and Engineers:
- Survey of Earned Doctorates
- Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science
and Engineering
- Higher Education Surveys
- Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
Completions Survey
Science and Engineering Work Force; Survey of Doctorate Recipients:
http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/ssdr/start.htm
- National Survey of Recent College Graduates
- National Survey of College Graduates
- Occupational Employment Statistics Survey
- Immigrant Scientists and Engineers
Links to which and INFORMATION ON THE SURVEY METHODS are
available at http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/survey.htm
A useful document for starting students might be: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/issuebrf/ib98320.htm
Are Forms of Financial Support and Employment Choices of
Recent Science and Engineering Ph.D.s Related? (July 22, 1998)
{RB} A very recent effort to address the science career
situation is a website from the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, called Next Wave. It can only be
accessed, however,by a subscription, either you or your
local university has to shell out the money for it. Its URL
is: www.nextwave.org
{RL} One of the biggest reasons for joining a professional
society is the ready-made access it gives you to networking
opportunities. This includes meeting people at the local
level at local chapter meetings, and at the national level.
It also gives you access to a lot of information you can use
to aid your networking efforts. All societies maintain
membership lists, and many of them are putting these lists
on line (generally in a members-only section). If you want
to find out what's of interest to companies in a certain
industry, these lists will help you identify people working
for those companies.
E - CONTRIBUTORS
AES - Art Sowers. <arth...@magpage.com>
BGM - Brian Moore. <bg...@psu.edu>
DRO - Derek Oliver has a chemistry/physics background and is
currently a postdoc in Electrical Engineering at the
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. <de...@ee.umanitoba.ca>.
JH - Josh Halpern. <the...@erols.com>
JJP - Jeff Potoff is presently a postdoc in the Chemistry
Department at the University of Minnesota, and completed a
PhD in Chemical Engineering at Cornell University. <pot...@chem.umn.edu>
MPB - Mark Bowes is a freelance medical writer based in New
Jersey. <mpb...@att.net>
RB - Rob Bossio has a chemistry/biochemistry background. <rbo...@chem.fsu.edu>
RL - Rich Lemert. <lls...@mindspring.com>
RLM - Russell Martin. <russell...@wdn.com>
RMC - Rebecca Chamberlin. <rmcham...@lanl.gov>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Derek R. Oliver - SPM Group
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering,
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Derek Oliver
Mark Bowes wrote:
> I have a question regarding Art's additional material. The way the other portions worked, people
> contributed questions, and then others were free to contibute their "takes" on the answers, so that
> many questions have answers from several different perspectives. Is the deal with Art's material that
> it's not open for this sort of give and take in the same manner as the rest of the FAQ?
I am not the only person who can answer this question, but
here's my 2c because I wanna go home soon.
Taking things slowly, because I want no misinterpretation of
my position/intent here (timings are accoring to my
newsreader on central time here at UoM).
Earlier this evening (at 17.34) Art's post read:
"Derek, Its your choice: Use my final draft FUAQ
_unmodified_ or don't use it."
My response to that statement (at 17.54) stated:
"I am hereby exercising that choice. I will re-post the FAQ
draft in a few moments with your UFAQ included. I will
further ask that you post in response to this inclusion to
tell me whether or not I have satisfied this statement in
your eyes."
So I have re-posted a new draft with Art's content included.
Last evening I stirred some controversy when I asked (in
general) about how any "responses" to Art's contributions
might be incorporated. In some more clear cut comments this
evening (again, at 17.54), I asked Art explicitly:
"Let me get this straight. You don't want comments
distributed "through" the content of your FUAQ, but you
won't object to the FUAQ sited in the FAQ with a comments
section immediatly afterwards?"
Art responded (at 18.31):
"Essentially, yes."
Following the posting of the revised draft, (at 18.54) I
responded to Art's 18.31 post with a suggestion of how (at
present) any comments on Art's material would be inserted by me
"As you will see from the current draft, I would anticipate
any comments to follow FUAQ as another component of the
"General Issues" section."
At the time of posting, I had thought of an alternative, and
asked Art (again at 18.54) for his opinion:
"I would ask you (in case you would feel strongly) whether
you would prefer me to have the FUAQ as a separate section,
with space for extra responses following your FUAQ."
In the above, I have clearly set out how, in the first
instance I wish to deal with any comments on Art's material
submitted to the FAQ. I stress that at this stage I have not
received any comments.
I have stated that I am open to all submissions whether
anonymous or not, long or short, questions, statements or
answers. I have deliberately set the "bar" low in terms of
requirements - i.e. in english, something to do with src,
and not defamatory, militarist, racist, sexist etc etc. I
have taken Art's submission in this context, and in this
context I have acceded to his wish that his contribution not
be changed. Art's contribution stands within the body of the
FAQ as Art's contribution, just as mine do mine, and so on.
I am open to discussion on any of these issues. For the time
being I will accept contributions that comment on Art's
material, and I will insert them as I have described above.
I hope that is of some assistance,
Derek
Derek Oliver
I have similar thoughts. I'd appeal for2-3 contributors
volunteer to ensure that the FAQ is reposted once the
current draft cycle is complete (i.e. from about 3-4 week's
time) - whether it is in draft form or not. Note - if I
haven't heard back from all contributors by the time I
leave, I'll retain the "Draft" label out of deference to
their timelines. The prinicpal reason for this is that I
will be away over Christmas/New Year, and unable to
guarantee reposts.
I was hoping that at the end of this cycle we could (as Josh
suggests) say "OK, this is the FAQ, let's post it awhile and
then review it". I (again) am hoping to turn this role over
to 2-3 others. While I am happy to participate, for the FAQ
to be useful or relvant it must take on a life of it's own,
independent of me, or any other person. I feel it is
particularly important that someone (or a group) other than
me perform the review, if only so that all who participate
can put their thoughts in, and the FAQ continues to reflect
a group rather than an individual.
In the meantime I will happily collate comments sent to me
so that whoever next facilitates the review can have them all.
Art has made some comments about preferring a different
style of FAQ, they have merit, and if others see that merit
I hope they get together and put something together. If that
happens before, during, as a result of or independantly of a
review of this FAQ, then great. I'll be happy to contribute.
But after a few month's bouncing around, IMHO we are close
to a working document, so lets give it some air.
Derek
Josh Halpern wrote:
> At some point with any document you have to say enough. With proposal's it's
> about three seconds before you have to put it in the mail. With some papers, it's
> never. I have one on my desk (under it actually) that is six years old, a good
> one too. I think the thing to do is to say this are it. Post the FAQ, and tell
> people to send additional comments to Derek. especially those who did not
> contribute to v1.0. About six month from now, we should look at the suggestions,
> maybe add comments about various things, including Art's part and put out
> v2.0
Mark Bowes
I have a question regarding Art's additional material. The way the other portions worked, people
contributed questions, and then others were free to contibute their "takes" on the answers, so that
many questions have answers from several different perspectives. Is the deal with Art's material that
it's not open for this sort of give and take in the same manner as the rest of the FAQ?
Josh Halpern
> I have a question regarding Art's additional material. The way the other portions worked, people
> contributed questions, and then others were free to contibute their "takes" on the answers, so that
> many questions have answers from several different perspectives. Is the deal with Art's material that
> it's not open for this sort of give and take in the same manner as the rest of the FAQ?
At some point with any document you have to say enough. With proposal's it's
about three seconds before you have to put it in the mail. With some papers, it's
never. I have one on my desk (under it actually) that is six years old, a good
one too. I think the thing to do is to say this are it. Post the FAQ, and tell
people to send additional comments to Derek. especially those who did not
contribute to v1.0. About six month from now, we should look at the suggestions,
maybe add comments about various things, including Art's part and put out
v2.0
IMHO of course, therefore correct.
josh halpern
Arthur Sowers
I agree with Josh. But let me explain the FUAQ...it was not in response to
specific matters brought up in the FAQ, but rather a _few_ matters that
were not brought up or not emphasized enough. I did not want to "go
into" the specifics of the FAQ and start putting all kinds of tweaks &
dissents. Now, being that the NG _naturally_ invites this, all I can say
is this is another reason I did not want to be part of the FAQ...you get
this never ending loops. I have no idea what motivated Derek to get this
started (AND involve a bunch of people) and then ...here we go again.
Maybe (and I think Derek mentioned this) have a Final final final comments
section at the end of the end.
Or... all you guys out there who can't let the "race" end, then go put up
your own website and make it as long as you want, say what you want, cite
other sources or not (like Dave Jensen), etc. Then shut up and get back
here on src and troll your "advertisement" like I do and get back to our
usual mix of banter and back-biting.
Art
=== no change to below, included for reference and context ====
Arthur Sowers
All of below is fine with me.
Art
=== no change to below, included for reference and context ====
On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Derek Oliver wrote:
>
>
> Mark Bowes wrote:
> > I have a question regarding Art's additional material. The way the other portions worked, people
> > contributed questions, and then others were free to contibute their "takes" on the answers, so that
> > many questions have answers from several different perspectives. Is the deal with Art's material that
> > it's not open for this sort of give and take in the same manner as the rest of the FAQ?
>
Arthur Sowers
This is all fine with me, too. But, I just think that for all the
back-and-forth on this, every participant could have put their own story
up on their own website by now and there wouldn't be any arguing,
disagreements, tweaks, ...blah, blah, blah. And, I don't want to be a
volunteer to help the FAQ when all I need is my own URL to my website.
If the lastest FA&UAQ goes on the martin website (or whatever it is), I'll
probably list it on my URL, FWIW.
Art
=== no change to below, included for reference and context ====
On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Derek Oliver wrote:
> > At some point with any document you have to say enough. With proposal's it's
> > about three seconds before you have to put it in the mail. With some papers, it's
> > never. I have one on my desk (under it actually) that is six years old, a good
> > one too. I think the thing to do is to say this are it. Post the FAQ, and tell
> > people to send additional comments to Derek. especially those who did not
> > contribute to v1.0. About six month from now, we should look at the suggestions,
> > maybe add comments about various things, including Art's part and put out
> > v2.0
>
Derek Oliver
For all the explaining and labelling below:
1) I've commented on my reasons for not having a www site -
I don't have the contact with a provider, nor the
time/incentive to maintain one at work
2) What motivated Derek to get this started?
A number of things, mostly the loops you refer to, which
generally involve you. I suggested it because I was tired of
the loops. As I said in mid-March:
"...I'm guilty of being somewhat quick to ignore what I
regard as a "repeat" signal from Art, aas well as getting
mildly irritated when Art demands that I re-address it.
That's no reflection of my opinion of the repeated message,
but simply the fact that I don't have a great desire to
cycle through a well-trampled quagmire of the same messages.
Repetition is like rote learning, it is self-fulfilling and
not terribly productive."
For my own part I set myself a choice. Simply leave src
unheralded/unannounced, and remove myself from the
repetition and cyclic crap. Or stay, and make an effort to
do something a little different to the same old stuff. In
thinking about what could be done I settled on the idea of
an FAQ, mostly because src didn't have one, and I thought
it's be an interesting challenge. So I put the idea out, and
others saw enough merit to join in, and here we are.
The most cyclic stuff of all on this ng revolves around the
threads you (Art) contribute to. Equally, the most vitriol
about the gestation process of the FAQ (accusations of
micromanagement, tweaking etc etc) come from you. Let me
explain the tweaking that I have done that is the difference
between submitted material and the current draft: A
spellcheck, and a post back to the original contributors
asking that they verify that I haven't stuffed their words up.
Interestingly, you object to the cycling of drafts, yet your
were generally the first to ask for the latest drafts to be
reposted, and you even castigated my approach commenting on
October 10:
"I hope you sent your draft to each person who you are
quoting and get their explicit approval and not just take
the absence of a open response as an acceptance."
Since I put the idea up as a list of questions in August,
there have now been 4 drafts - the first was when I posted a
list of questions/answers, a significant number of which
were contributed by Rob Bossio. This prompted a range of
comments and contributions which were collated in the second
draft. After that draft went up, I took some time to
spellcheck and grammar-check the document, and re-posted it
last weekend as a third draft, with parallel emails for
contributors in order to obtain "their explicit approval".
The fourth draft this week was prompted by my desire to
bring the discussion about the inclusion of your FUAQ to a
practical level - i.e. stop the crapping before it started,
and get a "trial balloon" up for you and others to look at.
Let me point out again, no micromanaging beyond
spell-checking and a smidgen of grammar checking has
occurred - and almost none of the latter, Josh suggested
"going over this one more time to impose a single voice and
changing all the first person singulars to first person
plural." - I neglected to to much (any) of this, mostly to
preserve individual contributor's styles rather than impose
my own, and because I make no pretense at having a good, let
alone imposable command of grammar
So there you go Art, a tedious justification and
rationalization of the process to date. Your bipolar
engagement/non-engagement with the process has been
eminently predictable, and it leaves me to ask you:
Seeing as you do not believe there is a need for an FAQ,
especially one in a form not determined by you, nor written
by you, why bother to make such a bloody fuss, before you
even acceded to your contribution which, oh no, wasn't
"....in response to the specific matters brought up in the FAQ,...."?
I will complete what I set out to do, namely get a prototype
FAQ together and let the wider readership decide whether it
is useful or not. The challenge for me personally was to see
if one could be collated, not whether it is etched in
illusury permanence somewhere.
This digression makes an important point about my approach
to my career, something which you have had difficulty
recognizing in recent posts - the usefulness of occasionally
making the challenge a more immediate goal, rather than
setting an infinitely projected target of permanence that
may not be accessible in the short/medium term. I have no
medium/long-range ambitions for the FAQ - once proposed it
is up to everyone to decide whether it is useful or not. If
it is, it will be used, reposted, whatever. If it isn't, I
had a go, and that's cool. The cycle can end. You might like
to try this sometime.
Derek
Arthur Sowers wrote:
>
> I agree with Josh. But let me explain the FUAQ...it was not in response to
> specific matters brought up in the FAQ, but rather a _few_ matters that
> were not brought up or not emphasized enough. I did not want to "go
> into" the specifics of the FAQ and start putting all kinds of tweaks &
> dissents. Now, being that the NG _naturally_ invites this, all I can say
> is this is another reason I did not want to be part of the FAQ...you get
> this never ending loops. I have no idea what motivated Derek to get this
> started (AND involve a bunch of people) and then ...here we go again.
>
> Maybe (and I think Derek mentioned this) have a Final final final comments
> section at the end of the end.
>
> Or... all you guys out there who can't let the "race" end, then go put up
> your own website and make it as long as you want, say what you want, cite
> other sources or not (like Dave Jensen), etc. Then shut up and get back
> here on src and troll your "advertisement" like I do and get back to our
> usual mix of banter and back-biting.
>
> Art
>
--
Rich Lemert
> This is all fine with me, too. But, I just think that for all the
> back-and-forth on this, every participant could have put their own story
> up on their own website by now and there wouldn't be any arguing,
> disagreements, tweaks, ...blah, blah, blah.
The eternal optimist, I see.
Some (many?) of us see no reason to contribute another example of what
is to often nothing more than a demonstration of one's ego ("I think I'm
important, so I have my own web page regardless of whether it presents
anything worthwhile or not).
(Note: This is not meant as a 'dig' at your web page, Art. It's simply an
observation that there are a lot of web pages out there that contribute no
information - and very little data other than "I like cats and walks in the rain".)
Rich Lemert
Arthur Sowers
On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Rich Lemert wrote:
> Arthur Sowers wrote:
>
> > This is all fine with me, too. But, I just think that for all the
> > back-and-forth on this, every participant could have put their own story
> > up on their own website by now and there wouldn't be any arguing,
> > disagreements, tweaks, ...blah, blah, blah.
>
> The eternal optimist, I see.
Being that I'm so often accused of being the pessimist, this is a big
switch.
> Some (many?) of us see no reason to contribute another example of what
> is to often nothing more than a demonstration of one's ego ("I think I'm
> important, so I have my own web page regardless of whether it presents
> anything worthwhile or not).
The only time someone thinks something else is important is if they have
an interest in the issue. For me, its easy to be disinterested in the
massive problems over in the Jews vs the Arabs; but if I were on one side
or the other, I'd sure feel there was something worthwhile or not.
> (Note: This is not meant as a 'dig' at your web page, Art. It's simply an
> observation that there are a lot of web pages out there that contribute no
> information - and very little data other than "I like cats and walks in the rain".)
Well, big deal. How about all the other "information" that floats through
our media, radio, TV, newspapers?
Art
> Rich Lemert
>
>
Arthur Sowers
On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Derek Oliver wrote:
>
> For all the explaining and labelling below:
>
> 1) I've commented on my reasons for not having a www site -
> I don't have the contact with a provider, nor the
> time/incentive to maintain one at work
OK, but there are free websites all over the place. For all the time you
spend here on SRC, you could have had a website up as large as my
own. And, contrary to something you said many weeks ago, you probably know
as much as I do about most of the "stuff"...you just have a little
different spin on it.
> 2) What motivated Derek to get this started?
> A number of things, mostly the loops you refer to, which
> generally involve you. I suggested it because I was tired of
> the loops. As I said in mid-March:
>
> "...I'm guilty of being somewhat quick to ignore what I
> regard as a "repeat" signal from Art, aas well as getting
> mildly irritated when Art demands that I re-address it.
Funny, I could say the same about you. But, I hope you observe that NG
mechanics invites the formation of these endless loops.
> That's no reflection of my opinion of the repeated message,
> but simply the fact that I don't have a great desire to
> cycle through a well-trampled quagmire of the same messages.
> Repetition is like rote learning, it is self-fulfilling and
> not terribly productive."
>
> For my own part I set myself a choice. Simply leave src
> unheralded/unannounced, and remove myself from the
> repetition and cyclic crap.
Sorry, in the USA we have our Republicans and Democrats. They are full of
repetition and cyclic crap. The Jews-Arabs, the protestants-catholics in
Ireland, the...many other gradients of animosity, acrimony, and adversity
that fill up the rest of the world. Get used to it. Yeah, I get tired of
it once in a while myself. Can you even imagine a world without it,
though? We would be an infrastructure of machines/bugs.
You wanna leave? Well, you were the one who unlurked some time
back. Everyone has their limits. Sooner or later people leave.
Or stay, and make an effort to
> do something a little different to the same old stuff. In
> thinking about what could be done I settled on the idea of
> an FAQ, mostly because src didn't have one, and I thought
> it's be an interesting challenge. So I put the idea out, and
> others saw enough merit to join in, and here we are.
>
> The most cyclic stuff of all on this ng revolves around the
> threads you (Art) contribute to.
As if cyclic issues are not brought up by other people? And, when I go
away for a week or so, other people come out of the woodwork and make
posts. What bothers me are the ones that make one or two sentence
"quips" about almost nothing. But, then, that's freedom of speech (or
freedom to chirp).
Equally, the most vitriol
> about the gestation process of the FAQ (accusations of
> micromanagement, tweaking etc etc) come from you.
Not so much the FAQ as some of our threads.
Let me
> explain the tweaking that I have done that is the difference
> between submitted material and the current draft: A
> spellcheck, and a post back to the original contributors
> asking that they verify that I haven't stuffed their words up.
>
> Interestingly, you object to the cycling of drafts, yet your
> were generally the first to ask for the latest drafts to be
> reposted,
At first I was totally uninterested. Then, something stimulated me to see
what was developing. I don't read every post that comes to my server.
and you even castigated my approach commenting on
> October 10:
> "I hope you sent your draft to each person who you are
> quoting and get their explicit approval and not just take
> the absence of a open response as an acceptance."
As I've said a couple of times: I've had issues that I just preferred to
not go into in details. Also, you posted material authored by others that
it was not clear to me you had permission to use by the original
contributors. That's all. You can't make a post and expect it to show up
on all servers.
> Since I put the idea up as a list of questions in August,
> there have now been 4 drafts - the first was when I posted a
> list of questions/answers, a significant number of which
> were contributed by Rob Bossio. This prompted a range of
> comments and contributions which were collated in the second
> draft. After that draft went up, I took some time to
> spellcheck and grammar-check the document, and re-posted it
> last weekend as a third draft, with parallel emails for
> contributors in order to obtain "their explicit approval".
> The fourth draft this week was prompted by my desire to
> bring the discussion about the inclusion of your FUAQ to a
> practical level - i.e. stop the crapping before it started,
> and get a "trial balloon" up for you and others to look at.
>
> Let me point out again, no micromanaging beyond
> spell-checking and a smidgen of grammar checking has
> occurred - and almost none of the latter, Josh suggested
> "going over this one more time to impose a single voice and
> changing all the first person singulars to first person
> plural." - I neglected to to much (any) of this, mostly to
> preserve individual contributor's styles rather than impose
> my own, and because I make no pretense at having a good, let
> alone imposable command of grammar
>
> So there you go Art, a tedious justification and
> rationalization of the process to date.
Ok, Thanks.
Your bipolar
> engagement/non-engagement with the process has been
> eminently predictable,
Gratuitous. And, surely incorrect.
> and it leaves me to ask you:
>
> Seeing as you do not believe there is a need for an FAQ,
I don't think this sentence expresses my belief about "an FAQ."
But, I believe there is a need for an advocacy group for
S&Es. Unfortunately, not enough other people believe this.
> especially one in a form not determined by you, nor written
> by you, why bother to make such a bloody fuss,
Me, making a bloody fuss? How do you think you look to me in all this?
I've had exchanges with Rich that have been more intense and bloody than
what you and I ever got into. He's got a right to his opinion, you to
yours, me to mine.
Or, maybe I should ask if you've ever spent any significant time on any
other NG where you might see other people make a bloody fuss over
something you might think is trivial?
before you
> even acceded to your contribution which, oh no, wasn't
> "....in response to the specific matters brought up in the FAQ,...."?
I don't know what you are driving at, but I've invited people all along
(as if it shouldn't be obvious to them already) to put up their own
websites. I've even invited (some years ago) a real co-authored FAQ, and
my idea was to put it in the format for posting on news.answers but no one
stepped forward. Its not an easy task.
Regarding how I got "converted" to make a contribution, I'm sorry but I'm
not going to dig out of my "sent-mail" all the correspondence you and I
had through private email, on the one hand, and open posts, on the
other hand, and re-semanticise/retweak/minutiaize/agonize over the
who/what/why/where bit. And, there is still a bunch of issues I have no
interest in digging up because it will spawn still more loops.
> I will complete what I set out to do, namely get a prototype
> FAQ together
Fine.... you did it! If you didn't "play" editor, and the others didn't
"play" contributor it would have died. Congratulations. I was originally
planning on not making a contribution (for some reasons I posted, and some
I decided to just keep my mouth shut about [its not all that important to
me <or my ego>]).
and let the wider readership decide whether it
> is useful or not.
Fine. We'll see what happens.
The challenge for me personally was to see
> if one could be collated, not whether it is etched in
> illusury permanence somewhere.
If you want permanence of some kind, then get your work into print on
paper somewhere, not here on src or websites where a person can retract
stuff or a ISP can go down and screw up a URL reference.
> This digression makes an important point about my approach
> to my career, something which you have had difficulty
> recognizing in recent posts
No, I've made many comments along the lines of "you are the captain of
your life"...we've just been academically arguing about academic issues. I
think, based on my interpretation of some things you said, that I even
thought, 20-30 years ago, in a manner similar to how you are thinking now.
A specific thing I had a big problem with was a sentence you wrote and
posted:
TENURE DOES NOT EXIST IN ACADEMIA IN ANY RECOGNISABLE FORM
but is discussed fairly differently in your own contribution to your FAQ,
and don't tell me you didn't "tweak" your way out of that sentence above
in all capital letters with lots of sentences and paragraphs in
numerous posts when you and I were heavily into this!
- the usefulness of occasionally
> making the challenge a more immediate goal, rather than
> setting an infinitely projected target of permanence that
> may not be accessible in the short/medium term.
I just recommend to people that they think about the long run rather than
the short run. If people don't want to (or can't) do that -- for any
reason(s) -- then that is their choice.
I have no
> medium/long-range ambitions for the FAQ - once proposed it
> is up to everyone to decide whether it is useful or not. If
> it is, it will be used, reposted, whatever. If it isn't, I
> had a go, and that's cool. The cycle can end. You might like
> to try this sometime.
I come back to the NG largely out of: i) curiosity, ii) my past career
relates to the subject of the NG, iii) once in a while we get a new
face here, either with banter to contribute or a question or a problem,
and iv) the social interaction which is, about 98% of the time, mostly
squawking but, about 96 % of the time, is fun and stimulates my brain. I
say my piece. Others say their piece. I know (or I think I know) the
biases of the regulars. Someday I will die. Someday I may stop
showing up on SRC; our retirement house is very close to "move
in" time. When that happens all kinds of new opportunities will be in my
face.
Art
=== no change to below, included for reference and context ====
> Derek
Derek Oliver
Arthur Sowers wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Derek Oliver wrote:
> and you even castigated my approach commenting on
> > October 10:
> > "I hope you sent your draft to each person who you are
> > quoting and get their explicit approval and not just take
> > the absence of a open response as an acceptance."
> As I've said a couple of times: I've had issues that I just preferred to
> not go into in details. Also, you posted material authored by others that
> it was not clear to me you had permission to use by the original
> contributors. That's all. You can't make a post and expect it to show up
> on all servers.
By the same logic you can have no idea as to what has passed
between myself and other people with regard to their
material, so your grounds for such concern are baseless in
fact, and if you have grounds in motive then I regard such
an assertion as insulting. Why should the integrity of my
professionalism with regard to others on this ng be (a) of
concern to you and (b) cause for your alarm on their behalf
? What makes you think that I'd be that sloppy ?
> > Seeing as you do not believe there is a need for an FAQ,
> I don't think this sentence expresses my belief about "an FAQ."
On March 17, 2000 you responded to my very first suggestion
about drafting an FAQ for src with 5 points/questions. I
quote in it's entirety the second of these here:
> 2. Is there a need for a FAQ when one can hit my website, get URLs for
> many sources, which will have many metatags that can be used in a search
> engine to find plenty of web documents that are already in existence?
These are your words, unedited, in context. Seems clear to me.
> But, I believe there is a need for an advocacy group for
> S&Es. Unfortunately, not enough other people believe this.
As you've mentioned an we've discussed, and I've pointed out
to you why I am utterly useless to your goals in this regard
for quite simple reasons (e.g., I ain't a US citizen).
<snip>
> > The challenge for me personally was to see
> > if one could be collated, not whether it is etched in
> > illusury permanence somewhere.
> If you want permanence of some kind, then get your work into print on
> paper somewhere, not here on src or websites where a person can retract
> stuff or a ISP can go down and screw up a URL reference.
That's my point, I have done and am doing that in other
places with other things. This is not part of any pitch for
permanence. Not everything in life is or needs to be. That's
why occasionally a non-permanent job is not a bad thing, it
depends on what you are trying to accomplish from that
specific situation.
> A specific thing I had a big problem with was a sentence you wrote and
> posted:
> TENURE DOES NOT EXIST IN ACADEMIA IN ANY RECOGNISABLE FORM
> but is discussed fairly differently in your own contribution to your FAQ,
> and don't tell me you didn't "tweak" your way out of that sentence above
> in all capital letters with lots of sentences and paragraphs in
> numerous posts when you and I were heavily into this!
Are you saying I tweaked my way out? Isaid a lot, but I
truly dunno what I did in your reference frame.
I actually had forgotten the precise wording of what I wrote
in my contribution to the FAQ during the whole time of that
argument we had. I tripped over the FAQ paragraph a couple
of nights ago as I prepared the latest draft, and commented
to myself that it was the most succinct statement I had made
on the issue, as it set the context, explained my rationale
and ended within a moderately sized paragraph.
I stand by that statement even without the context that you
have stripped from it - for the simple reason that it is a
succinct message, like many advertising messages is not
necessarily explicitly true, but jolts the reader into
wondering a bit more about what form tenure does exist in.
As you said, as I said, we all said. People are "tenured". I
work with them, I meet them, so do you.
But the meaning of the word "tenure" in most, nearly all of
these contracts is not "job for life, whatever happens". You
know this from your own life. The people I meet tell me
this. So my point is that aspiring to tenure is like running
towards a mirage. Sometimes a what you see is real, many
times it isn't. People that aspire blindly to tenure will
get a nasty shock if they do believe that tenure is
guaranteed permanence. You know this better than many, I
have seen this happen to people too. So you don't like the
message - but it got you to react, so in "advertising terms"
part of the goal of the message worked, didn't it?
> - the usefulness of occasionally
> > making the challenge a more immediate goal, rather than
> > setting an infinitely projected target of permanence that
> > may not be accessible in the short/medium term.
> I just recommend to people that they think about the long run rather than
> the short run. If people don't want to (or can't) do that -- for any
> reason(s) -- thens that is their choice.
That's right, because not everything is for the long run.
Ah well. I hear voters were so apathetic on Tuesday that
most voters in Chicago only voted once.......
;-)
Derek
Arthur Sowers
I'm going to appologize in advance for a thread that should have died out
long ago but didn't....and for all I'm doing here, I may be excercising
bad judgement in not letting it die. More below...
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Derek Oliver wrote:
>
> Arthur Sowers wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Derek Oliver wrote:
> > and you even castigated my approach commenting on
> > > October 10:
> > > "I hope you sent your draft to each person who you are
> > > quoting and get their explicit approval and not just take
> > > the absence of a open response as an acceptance."
> > As I've said a couple of times: I've had issues that I just preferred to
> > not go into in details. Also, you posted material authored by others that
> > it was not clear to me you had permission to use by the original
> > contributors. That's all. You can't make a post and expect it to show up
> > on all servers.
>
> By the same logic you can have no idea as to what has passed
> between myself and other people with regard to their
> material, so your grounds for such concern are baseless in
> fact,
I was trying to be helpful. I could have as easily just left it all
alone. As far as "facts" are concerned, I did not remember seeing a
statement or sentence that all contributors explicitly gave their approval
for use of their material by you. However, in some respects its moot
because the NG mechanism commonly allows quotation as a normal practice.
and if you have grounds in motive then I regard such
> an assertion as insulting.
I'm sorry you feel that way, that someone can have better wishes for you
but that you prefer to take them in a bad way.
Why should the integrity of my
> professionalism with regard to others on this ng be (a) of
> concern to you and (b) cause for your alarm on their behalf
> ? What makes you think that I'd be that sloppy ?
Like I said, there are a number of things I'd prefer not to go into.
> > > Seeing as you do not believe there is a need for an FAQ,
> > I don't think this sentence expresses my belief about "an FAQ."
>
> On March 17, 2000 you responded to my very first suggestion
> about drafting an FAQ for src with 5 points/questions. I
> quote in it's entirety the second of these here:
> > 2. Is there a need for a FAQ when one can hit my website, get URLs for
> > many sources, which will have many metatags that can be used in a search
> > engine to find plenty of web documents that are already in existence?
>
> These are your words, unedited, in context. Seems clear to me.
Its not in context because there is a lot of train of thought leading up
to before my statement and then my statement and then whatever the
response(s) were.
> > But, I believe there is a need for an advocacy group for
> > S&Es. Unfortunately, not enough other people believe this.
> As you've mentioned an we've discussed,
Not very much, not enough at all.
and I've pointed out
> to you why I am utterly useless
A cop-out, for sure, at most. The more believable response would be "I'm
just not interested."
> to your goals
I would have wished for "help" in coming up with a consensus agenda. But,
even guys like Josh don't want to really do anything on this problem (yet
we all contribute to the general bickering).
in this regard
> for quite simple reasons (e.g., I ain't a US citizen).
I did not limit the realm of interest to only US citizens; I have the
notion that world-wide scientists aren't appreciated unless they come to
the USA and mostly for postdoc positions and "positions" as graduate
students.
> <snip>
>
> > > The challenge for me personally was to see
> > > if one could be collated, not whether it is etched in
> > > illusury permanence somewhere.
> > If you want permanence of some kind, then get your work into print on
> > paper somewhere, not here on src or websites where a person can retract
> > stuff or a ISP can go down and screw up a URL reference.
> That's my point, I have done and am doing that in other
> places with other things. This is not part of any pitch for
> permanence. Not everything in life is or needs to be. That's
> why occasionally a non-permanent job is not a bad thing, it
> depends on what you are trying to accomplish from that
> specific situation.
Whatever.
> > A specific thing I had a big problem with was a sentence you wrote and
> > posted:
> > TENURE DOES NOT EXIST IN ACADEMIA IN ANY RECOGNISABLE FORM
> > but is discussed fairly differently in your own contribution to your FAQ,
> > and don't tell me you didn't "tweak" your way out of that sentence above
> > in all capital letters with lots of sentences and paragraphs in
> > numerous posts when you and I were heavily into this!
> Are you saying I tweaked my way out? Isaid a lot, but I
> truly dunno what I did in your reference frame.
Like I said, I don't have the time to go sifting through all the old
material. Besides, its not all that important anyway.
> I actually had forgotten the precise wording of what I wrote
> in my contribution to the FAQ during the whole time of that
> argument we had. I tripped over the FAQ paragraph a couple
> of nights ago as I prepared the latest draft, and commented
> to myself that it was the most succinct statement I had made
> on the issue, as it set the context, explained my rationale
> and ended within a moderately sized paragraph.
Yes.... sort of.
> I stand by that statement even without the context that you
> have stripped from it
You wrote this sentence:
TENURE DOES NOT EXIST IN ACADEMIA IN ANY RECOGNISABLE FORM
and then made minor "modifications" and "qualifiers" about it, and you
repeated it in still another post. I felt it was a statement stated too
strongly AND its a bad idea to put out some absolute statement as if you
believed it and then throw a bunch of (waffling) qualifiers all over the
place.
- for the simple reason that it is a
> succinct message, like many advertising messages is not
> necessarily explicitly true, but jolts the reader into
> wondering a bit more about what form tenure does exist in.
> As you said, as I said, we all said. People are "tenured". I
> work with them, I meet them, so do you.
>
> But the meaning of the word "tenure" in most, nearly all of
> these contracts is not "job for life, whatever happens".
It never was "job for life..." The traditional meaning was job for life
except for i) inablilty to teach, and ii) moral turpitude. That is NOT
"whatever happens". There are also other conditions; it does not mean
perfect job security, but it does mean high job security. Meaning they
have to do a lot of work to can someone.
You
> know this from your own life. The people I meet tell me
> this. So my point is that aspiring to tenure is like running
> towards a mirage. Sometimes a what you see is real, many
> times it isn't. People that aspire blindly to tenure will
> get a nasty shock if they do believe that tenure is
> guaranteed permanence. You know this better than many, I
> have seen this happen to people too. So you don't like the
> message - but it got you to react, so in "advertising terms"
> part of the goal of the message worked, didn't it?
???
> > - the usefulness of occasionally
> > > making the challenge a more immediate goal, rather than
> > > setting an infinitely projected target of permanence that
> > > may not be accessible in the short/medium term.
> > I just recommend to people that they think about the long run rather than
> > the short run. If people don't want to (or can't) do that -- for any
> > reason(s) -- thens that is their choice.
> That's right, because not everything is for the long run.
Well, that depends....
> Ah well. I hear voters were so apathetic on Tuesday that
> most voters in Chicago only voted once.......
Well. My thoughts go along the lines of: i) when you realize that these
guys are really not any smarter than the average dork on the street, then
you know we're all in trouble, ii) I still like that bumper sticker "Don't
vote for anyone, not even your mother, they're all a bunch of crooks",
iii) I was shocked when Ronald Reagan got elected. I recovered from that,
but not completely.
> ;-)
;-)
I hope you enjoyed the "entertainment" value of our election.
Art
rmcham...@my-deja.com
This post disturbs me greatly. I implore you: please, before it's too
late.... Get a life!!!!!
Becky
In article <3A08CDFD...@ee.umanitoba.ca>,
de...@ee.umanitoba.ca wrote:
>
>
> Mark Bowes wrote:
> > I have a question regarding Art's additional material. The way the other portions worked, people
> > contributed questions, and then others were free to contibute their "takes" on the answers, so that
> > many questions have answers from several different perspectives. Is the deal with Art's material that
> > it's not open for this sort of give and take in the same manner as the rest of the FAQ?
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dr. Derek R. Oliver - SPM Group
> Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering,
> University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Arthur Sowers
Becky,
I hope you are kidding... Under some circumstances, _some_ people take
certain things too seriously...under other circumstances, its the other
way around.
;-)
Besides it Friday. Besides, the newsgroup has been in a big valley for the
last two days (or my server is not picking up posts). Besides, almost no
posts appear on src over the weekend unless they are junk posts.
...Guess I'll turn out the light as I sign off tonight....and maybe turn
it back on Monday morning at 9 am or so when I show up for work.
;-)
Art
=== no change to below, included for reference and context ====
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 rmcham...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Derek,
>
> This post disturbs me greatly. I implore you: please, before it's too
> late.... Get a life!!!!!
>
> Becky
>
>
>
> In article <3A08CDFD...@ee.umanitoba.ca>,
> de...@ee.umanitoba.ca wrote:
> >
> >
> > Mark Bowes wrote:
> > > I have a question regarding Art's additional material. The way the other portions worked, people
> > > contributed questions, and then others were free to contibute their "takes" on the answers, so that
> > > many questions have answers from several different perspectives. Is the deal with Art's material that
> > > it's not open for this sort of give and take in the same manner as the rest of the FAQ?
> >
> > --
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Dr. Derek R. Oliver - SPM Group
> > Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering,
> > University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
> >
>
>
>
>