re-apply for own job
Gangsta NoMore
positions of every faculty member at university and of every Research
Scientist at national labs should be advertised every 5 years, and
those persons should re-apply for their own jobs together with other
applicants.
Such an arrangement will help to clear the deadwood, while giving the
chance to unemployed young (and not so young) scientists. The people
should not re-apply for their positions more often than, say, 3 years
because this is how much it takes to become productive and produce
something. And the re-application period should not be longer than 7
years -- this is approximately how much it takes for a person to reach
plateau and became stale.
I see only merits to my suggestion, and it makes me excited.
Unfortunately, the older men who are in the top administartion
positions in scince and academia, will not want to do it.
***
BMJ
On the whole, that might not be a bad idea for reason that a lot of
those places are filled by people who, once they acquire permanent
status, retire on the job. Many get to keep those cushy jobs because
they happen to be chummy with the boss.
On the other hand, the system, as you propose, could be easily
corrupted. What you suggest assumes that the system will be unbiased,
but I'm sure that certain job descriptions could be worded in such a way
that only the individual previously in a certain position would be
qualified to fill it again. The result is that you end up with more of
the same and no real improvement.
Threeducks
There you go. Throw out tenure and fight for your life every 5 years.
What a spendid idea.
Your plan is of little help to young scientists looking for a job. The
tough part about research is getting the machine started. Once it's
rolling, life gets much easier. How does someone young compete against
an established faculty memeber with a lab full of grad students and
post-docs?
BMJ
> Gangsta NoMore wrote:
>
>> I have suggested it earlier, and I would like to suggest it again: the
>> positions of every faculty member at university and of every Research
>> Scientist at national labs should be advertised every 5 years, and
>> those persons should re-apply for their own jobs together with other
>> applicants.
<snip>
>> I see only merits to my suggestion, and it makes me excited.
>> Unfortunately, the older men who are in the top administartion
>> positions in scince and academia, will not want to do it.
>>
>> ***
>
>
> There you go. Throw out tenure and fight for your life every 5 years.
> What a spendid idea.
>
> Your plan is of little help to young scientists looking for a job. The
> tough part about research is getting the machine started. Once it's
> rolling, life gets much easier. How does someone young compete against
> an established faculty memeber with a lab full of grad students and
> post-docs?
What makes some people so special that they deserve lifetime employment
while others can be thrown out onto the street at any time?
FrankH
There have been, and are, quite a few "special" people who deserve
lifetime employment. Einstein, Oppenheimer, Watson and Crick, Urey and
Miller, Varmus, Bishop, etc. to name a few.
This sounds like a neat simple solution, but it's wise to bear in mind
that there are neat simple solutions for virtually all complex problems.
Unfortunately, they are almost always WRONG. Our "preemptive" strike
against Iraq for their non-existent WMD's is a striking example of half
baked simplist thinking applied to a complicated problem with disastrous
results.
Another example would be exporting US jobs and technology to foreign
countries to take advantage of their slave labor, resulting in immediate
loss of jobs and long term loss of ability to innovate.
FrankH
Old Pif
Well, Valerian, as you might remember in your native country - Russia
- exactly this system has been in effect for some time. Which is why
this idea perhaps subconsciously turns in your head. That has not made
the Soviet/Russian system any better for very simple reason - people
tend to create coalitions and vote basically for their buddies and
those who most probably vote for them in return. So, I am sure after
several iterations such a system would simply reelect itself with some
minor aberration for extreme cases.
I am a big proponent of permanent job positions in general and tenure
in science in particular. It becomes even more important with time
because all problems that are left for research are very difficult and
require both substantial time and peace of mind to work on.
All that angry speeches about "dead wood" and alike are nothing but
clumsy attempts to improve the system using formalization. All such
attempts in human societies are doomed to failure because humans are
extremely inventive in breaking through any formal set of rules
leaving them intact and attaining at the same time totally opposite to
what these formal rules have been created. Our life is fool of such
examples. Keep in mind as well that effectiveness of any system is far
below 1 (steamer has 0.06 and laser 0.04). It is naive to believe that
one can create something that effective that 100% of scientists would
be 100% effective.
Old Pif
BMJ
<snip>
>>> There you go. Throw out tenure and fight for your life every 5
>>> years. What a spendid idea.
>>>
>>> Your plan is of little help to young scientists looking for a job.
>>> The tough part about research is getting the machine started. Once
>>> it's rolling, life gets much easier. How does someone young compete
>>> against an established faculty memeber with a lab full of grad
>>> students and post-docs?
>>
>>
>>
>> What makes some people so special that they deserve lifetime
>> employment while others can be thrown out onto the street at any time?
>
>
> There have been, and are, quite a few "special" people who deserve
> lifetime employment. Einstein, Oppenheimer, Watson and Crick, Urey and
> Miller, Varmus, Bishop, etc. to name a few.
Nobody is indispensible nowadays. Unless people can continue to justify
their paycheques, they become needless expenses. Unfortunately, there
are too many in certain occupations or institutions who fall into that
category.
Remember, professional sports are filled with players who were good *at
one time*, but have long outlived their usefulness to their respective
teams. Being able to win games sells tickets.
>
> This sounds like a neat simple solution, but it's wise to bear in mind
> that there are neat simple solutions for virtually all complex problems.
> Unfortunately, they are almost always WRONG. Our "preemptive" strike
> against Iraq for their non-existent WMD's is a striking example of half
> baked simplist thinking applied to a complicated problem with disastrous
> results.
The problem that was described has been on-going for decades. I've been
in several post-secondary institutions that are filled with people who,
once having been granted permanent status or tenure, earn their money by
becoming professional freeloaders. (This isn't restricted to academia,
either. I've seen it both in government and in industry.)
It's as if I bought a stock that looked promising, but then went down in
price and stayed there. Unless I can justify keeping it in my
portfolio, such as a nice dividend, or a potential to regain its lost
value, I'll cut my losses and sell it at an opportune time. The only
other reason that I'd keep it is if it would cost me too much in
commissions to dump it.
>
> Another example would be exporting US jobs and technology to foreign
> countries to take advantage of their slave labor, resulting in immediate
> loss of jobs and long term loss of ability to innovate.
>
> FrankH
I don't think this is a valid comparison. Outsourcing/offshoring is
concerned purely with *money*. Many of the people being made redundant
are being replace with those who are equally as qualified but
considerably cheaper. Much of the work that is being exported could be
done on either side of the ocean and doesn't involve a great deal of
innovation.
What Gangsta was referring to is the deadwood that clutters up the
system and which becomes a burden to that same system, and an impediment
to those who are doing useful and productive work.
Rich Lemert
> What makes some people so special that they deserve lifetime employment
> while others can be thrown out onto the street at any time?
Ask Art. He seems to feel that this should be the natural outcome
from obtaining a PhD.
Rich Lemert
Threeducks
Nothing. But you know before you play the game that those are the
rules. If you don't like the rules, don't play.
BMJ
<snip>
>> What makes some people so special that they deserve lifetime
>> employment while others can be thrown out onto the street at any time?
>
>
> Nothing. But you know before you play the game that those are the
> rules. If you don't like the rules, don't play.
I learned that very early in my engineering career.
Unfortunately, there are some people who believe the rules don't apply
to them. Some get permanent status and then stop doing anything useful
for the rest of their working lives. Others keep their noses to the
grindstone and get chucked out with the day's trash for the flimsiest of
reasons.
straydog
For all you folks that might be wondering why Rich wrote this sentence, I will provide
my interpretations:
1. Rich seems to think that the only goal in life is to get a PhD. What you do with it
(hang it on the wall?), Get a swelled head (ego trip), Get to put "Dr." ahead of your
name on your checks in your checkbook maybe is his idea of "acheivment"
2. In the context of all people in the world who work very hard to get something, most
want to keep it. Most don't want anyone to take it away. Rich people want to keep their
money (and get more, lots more). People who build their own homes, busineses, have
families don't want to see a fire burn them down, criminals cause pain & death. But not
Rich Lemert. These are all things we're supposed to just allow to 'steamroller' over us
and we're not supposed to say "ouch, that hurts" and we're not supposed to do anything
like wonder if airplanes crash (and destroy the plan, the people, etc) that maybe
investigating the cause of the crash might be socially redeming.
3. Most people, I think, want to get a car so they can use it, travel to and from work,
go on trips, or..in general...for a purpose. Just about everyone I know or knew (except
of course, Rich Lemert) very definitely wanted a job that they could use their degrees
to get, keep, and be productive in a manner consistent with the degrees. The physics PhD
wanted to do physics reasearch, etc.
4. But, just ask Rich Lemert why he wrote that sentence above. Ask him why he got a PhD
in Chemical Engineering and explain to all of us why he never had a Chemical Engineering
job afterwards.
Reason: I think he just LOVES to get his ass kicked. No nerves on his, no pain sensors,
no nerve paths to the brain. But, I'm pretty sure he's got a swelled head and thinks he
walks on water, along with other deities who have mythical similar legends.
And, now, one does not have to read too many newspaper articles to find that a
significant part of our economy is shifting jobs at all levels (including R&D, eng,
technical, PhD, programming, and IT [whatever else that includes]) to mainly India and
China...and...oh...I get it, Rich doesn't have any eyes or ears for any of this, can't
see it. That's because he's up on cloud 9, floating along in space, oblivious.
Art Sowers, PhD
http://scijobs.freeshell.org
email is invalid
straydog
Certainly if one dedicates their life, productively and competantly, to a study which
benefits society (regardless of whether it is purely for knowledge or purely for
economic gain/improvement), that person's continued contribution should be protected.
One can argue, on the other hand, that we don't need 100% of all people to be in
scientific positions. I don't think society could handle it. However, there is plenty of
data authored by people other than myself which show that half to two thirds of all PhDs
that are produced are wasted through involuntary career loss, voluntary career loss
because the individuals saw it was not what they wanted OR the uphill battle was too
great. This is tragic.
Certainly, there is a substantial fraction of all jobs, including government, military
and corporate jobs which are permanent or substantialy permanent. Rich people have so
much money that they don't have to worry about whether their 'job' is permanent or not.
THEY get to hire and fire people, period, and most of them don't have to worry about
themselves.
> This sounds like a neat simple solution, but it's wise to bear in mind
> that there are neat simple solutions for virtually all complex problems.
Many jobs, a few decades ago, were 'permanent' in the sense that if you did your work,
you could expect to continue to be employed all your life. Only with the machinations of
modern management have spreadsheets helped managers figure out how to put more fire
under people to get more work out of them while, at the same time, save money (i.e. by
hiring people as low-paid temps, no benefits, little job security, etc.) and they
measure this as 'increased productivity.'
> Unfortunately, they are almost always WRONG. Our "preemptive" strike
> against Iraq for their non-existent WMD's is a striking example of half
> baked simplist thinking applied to a complicated problem with disastrous
> results.
This has got to be one of the most egregious bamboozles I've witnessed in decades. All
my life, it was Russia/USSR that had WMD besides the USA. How many atomic bombs does
Britain have, France, China, Pakistan, India, the others? Ten years earlier, what WMD
did we see in Iraq? Lots of oil wells on fire? What was going on for ten years? A low
grade war with continuous airstrikes on targets in Iraq and most people didn't know
this, but it ate up anything Saddam had left. WMD in Iraq? What a joke. An attack like
the US made against Iraq is no different than USSR marching into Hungary in, what, '57.
> Another example would be exporting US jobs and technology to foreign
> countries to take advantage of their slave labor, resulting in immediate
> loss of jobs and long term loss of ability to innovate.
Those jobs are not going to come back. And, whatever is going on in our economy, its
largely now due to finagled accounting (eg. Enron/Andersen), large amounts of personal
debt being piled up, overbooking the real estate bubble, to name a few.
The USSR collapsed back around 1989 and I think our turn will be in not so many years
from now and its going to be a financial collapse. Your bank account statement will say
you have some ink on paper, but it won't be there. Terrorist attack? Maybe. When trade
deficit reaches 100 billion per month? Its around 50 now. How will that be paid for?
Art S.
> FrankH
BMJ
<snip>
>>>What makes some people so special that they deserve lifetime employment
>>>while others can be thrown out onto the street at any time?
>>
>>There have been, and are, quite a few "special" people who deserve
>>lifetime employment. Einstein, Oppenheimer, Watson and Crick, Urey and
>>Miller, Varmus, Bishop, etc. to name a few.
>
>
> Certainly if one dedicates their life, productively and competantly, to a study which
> benefits society (regardless of whether it is purely for knowledge or purely for
> economic gain/improvement), that person's continued contribution should be protected.
But only if they're proving themselves to be useful. Acting like an
empty chair, and getting paid for it, can become rather expensive to
whoever's signing the cheques.
> One can argue, on the other hand, that we don't need 100% of all people to be in
> scientific positions. I don't think society could handle it. However, there is plenty of
> data authored by people other than myself which show that half to two thirds of all PhDs
> that are produced are wasted through involuntary career loss, voluntary career loss
> because the individuals saw it was not what they wanted OR the uphill battle was too
> great. This is tragic.
But not surprising.
During my first year, a long-time engineering prof visited our class and
made a presentation. One of the things he said stood out, and, over 30
years later, still does. He said that within a few years, only 10% of
the engineering grads will be working in the areas which they studied.
By that he meant that many would go into management or go into different
fields. Some he probably saw getting out of the profession altogether.
On the other hand, I saw some statistics last year on a website that
stated that some 50% of people who begin a Ph. D. actually finish. Many
get the course work done but leave their theses incomplete.
>
> Certainly, there is a substantial fraction of all jobs, including government, military
> and corporate jobs which are permanent or substantialy permanent.
Unfortunately, it's in those same "permanent" jobs that the deadwood
accumulates, becoming a financial drain on their paymasters and a
barrier to those who could actually move into those positions and do
some useful work.
Rich people have so
> much money that they don't have to worry about whether their 'job' is permanent or not.
> THEY get to hire and fire people, period, and most of them don't have to worry about
> themselves.
Remember the Golden Rule: who as the gold makes the rules.
>
>
>>This sounds like a neat simple solution, but it's wise to bear in mind
>>that there are neat simple solutions for virtually all complex problems.
>
>
> Many jobs, a few decades ago, were 'permanent' in the sense that if you did your work,
> you could expect to continue to be employed all your life. Only with the machinations of
> modern management have spreadsheets helped managers figure out how to put more fire
> under people to get more work out of them while, at the same time, save money (i.e. by
> hiring people as low-paid temps, no benefits, little job security, etc.) and they
> measure this as 'increased productivity.'
Unfortunately, in many of the companies I dealt with, I didn't see that,
despite their proclamations that they were doing just that. Instead,
they nickel-and-dimed their employees rather than getting more work for
the same amount of money.
<snip>
FrankH
and unfortunately, in many of the companies I worked for, not only did
the company nickel and dime the employees, the employees cheated on
their hours worked and expense reports.
what goes around comes around...
FrankH
BMJ
<snip>
>>
>> Unfortunately, in many of the companies I dealt with, I didn't see
>> that, despite their proclamations that they were doing just that.
>> Instead, they nickel-and-dimed their employees rather than getting
>> more work for the same amount of money.
>>
>> <snip>
>
>
> and unfortunately, in many of the companies I worked for, not only did
> the company nickel and dime the employees, the employees cheated on
> their hours worked and expense reports.
>
> what goes around comes around...
>
> FrankH
And whose fault is that? Many companies don't want to be bothered with
receipts for things like meals, thus encouraging that sort of behaviour.
straydog
Corruption, in general, can permeate a society. When I was in the USSR in the late
1980s, I had the feeling that an awful lot of things were done not according to the law
and not with official (i.e. lawful) currency and this was understood by everyone
including the law. Of course, they have a name for this: "the informal economy" and
there are estimates of how big it is. Of course, we, too, have what is called "the
underground economy" otherwise known as the "off-the-books" economy, and our IRS likes
to estimate its size, too. Whether it is as large as the abusive tax shelers and/or
Enron/Andersen volumes we will have to wait for more authoritative estimates. I remember
that some years ago, in California, it was estimated that the most important
agricultural crop was Marijuana ('dope' to you street nerds) but it could not be listed
because it was illegal.
Now, today, looking back over the last decade, we're seeing much more egregeous
avoidance of honor, truth, what is right, and accountability (viz. Enron/Andersen,
corporate executives exploiting their positions for the good of money rather than the
good of business, politicians, managers, 'the rich' [viz. abusive tax shelters, other
tax dodges]). I've read of all kinds of schemes in business to inflate income, lie about
income, play down negatives, lobby the govt for favors (and get favors!!!), the whole
nine yards. All right out in the open.
And, so, we have employees who see this, and decide that as the executives hand
themselves perks, they, too, are going to exercise a little 'white collar crime' thus
leading to inventory 'shrinkage', hacking company LANs from internal employees, and
various and sundry pilferage and plain old embezzelment.
Articles in the WSJ indicate widespread corruption in China (to China's detriment) not
including all the counterfeit products (and Microsoft knock-offs) manufactured in Asia
that are sold, eg., here.
BMJ
<snip>
>>>Unfortunately, in many of the companies I dealt with, I didn't see that,
>>>despite their proclamations that they were doing just that. Instead,
>>>they nickel-and-dimed their employees rather than getting more work for
>>>the same amount of money.
>>>
>>><snip>
>>
>>and unfortunately, in many of the companies I worked for, not only did
>>the company nickel and dime the employees, the employees cheated on
>>their hours worked and expense reports.
>>
>>what goes around comes around...
>>
>>FrankH
>
>
> Corruption, in general, can permeate a society. When I was in the USSR in the late
> 1980s, I had the feeling that an awful lot of things were done not according to the law
> and not with official (i.e. lawful) currency and this was understood by everyone
> including the law. Of course, they have a name for this: "the informal economy" and
> there are estimates of how big it is. Of course, we, too, have what is called "the
> underground economy" otherwise known as the "off-the-books" economy, and our IRS likes
> to estimate its size, too. Whether it is as large as the abusive tax shelers and/or
> Enron/Andersen volumes we will have to wait for more authoritative estimates. I remember
> that some years ago, in California, it was estimated that the most important
> agricultural crop was Marijuana ('dope' to you street nerds) but it could not be listed
> because it was illegal.
And during wartime, a black market can thrive. You name it, you can get
it, provided you're willing to pay for it.
>
> Now, today, looking back over the last decade, we're seeing much more egregeous
> avoidance of honor, truth, what is right, and accountability (viz. Enron/Andersen,
> corporate executives exploiting their positions for the good of money rather than the
> good of business, politicians, managers, 'the rich' [viz. abusive tax shelters, other
> tax dodges]). I've read of all kinds of schemes in business to inflate income, lie about
> income, play down negatives, lobby the govt for favors (and get favors!!!), the whole
> nine yards. All right out in the open.
>
> And, so, we have employees who see this, and decide that as the executives hand
> themselves perks, they, too, are going to exercise a little 'white collar crime' thus
> leading to inventory 'shrinkage', hacking company LANs from internal employees, and
> various and sundry pilferage and plain old embezzelment.
This has increased during the last 20 years when management salaries
skyrocketed to double- and triple-digit multiples of what the
lowest-paid employees were being paid.
<snip>
leslie
:
: This has increased during the last 20 years when management salaries
: lowest-paid employees were being paid.
http://www.faireconomy.org/press/2004/CEOPayRatio_pr.html
Ratio of CEO Pay to Average Worker Pay Reaches 301 in 2003
"Press Release from United for a Fair Economy
For immediate release - April 14, 2004
Contact: Betsy Leondar-Wright, (617) 423-2148 x13
Ratio of CEO Pay to Average Worker Pay Reaches 301 in 2003
Average Worker Takes Home $517 a Week; Average CEO $155,769 a Week
BOSTON -- After declining for the last two years, the gap in pay
between average workers and large company CEOs surpassed 300-to-1 in
2003. In 2002, the ratio stood at 282-to-1. In 1982, it was just
42-to-1.
According to Business Week's 54th Annual Executive Compensation
Survey, published this week, the average large company CEO received
compensation totaling $8.1 million in 2003, up 9.1% from the previous
year. Business Week's survey covers the 365 largest companies that
have reported their executive pay to date.
From 1990 to 2003:
* CEO pay rose 313%
* The S&P 500 rose 242%
* Corporate profits rose 128%
* Average worker pay rose 49%
* Inflation rose 41%
The average production worker fared less well in 2003. Their annual
pay was $26,899 in 2003, up just 2.1% from 2002 according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average worker took home $517 in their
weekly paycheck in 2003; the average large company CEO took home
$155,769 in their weekly pay.If the minimum wage had increased as
quickly as CEO pay since 1990, it would today be $15.71 per hour, more
than three times the current minimum wage of $5.15 an hour.
"While workers are increasingly anxious about their job security, and
how they will pay the rising costs of everything from health insurance
to housing, from college to gasoline, corporate executives continue to
distance themselves from the cares and worries of those they lead. It
sends a poor message to demand cost cutting from the factory floor,
while costs in the executive suite are left to soar," said Scott
Klinger, spokesperson for United for a Fair Economy, an independent
national non-profit that raises awareness of growing economic
inequality.
"Boards remain far too clubby in the post-Enron world. We need some
new board members who can say 'no' to executive pay packages that
widen the chasm among those who collectively create shareholder
value," said Klinger."
"Greed is good"
--Jerry Leslie
Note: les...@jrlvax.houston.rr.com is invalid for email
BMJ
That's where a lot of deadwood is located.
Rich Lemert
> Rich Lemert wrote:
>
>>BMJ wrote:
>>
>>>What makes some people so special that they deserve lifetime employment
>>>while others can be thrown out onto the street at any time?
>>
>> Ask Art. He seems to feel that this should be the natural outcome
>>from obtaining a PhD.
>>
>>Rich Lemert
>
>
> For all you folks that might be wondering why Rich wrote this sentence,
No need for a lot of psychobabble nonsense interpretation. The
question was raised "why makes some people so special they deserve
life-long employment?" Since you're the biggest proponent of this
view in this forum, I figured you'd be best qualified to provide an
answer.
BTW - Just to set the record straight, as far as I can tell Art is
physically incapable of correctly understanding my views, let alone
accurately describing them to someone else. He cannot, for example,
accept the idea that someone might pursue a PhD for any reason other
than to pursue pure research in the same field as that PhD. The concept
is completely foreign to him, so he dismisses its very existence out
of hand.
With regards to the original question, my opinion is that no one
deserves guaranteed lifetime employment, just as no one deserves to
summarily be thrown out in the street. What everyone does deserve is
a chance to compete fairly for whatever positions they wish to - the
PhD simply allows them to compete more effectively in certain cases.
However, this is couple with the recognition that whenever there's a
fair competition, there will be both winners and losers.
Extending this argument, Art would have you believe that anyone who's
career does not end in a voluntary retirement at a ripe old age is a
failure. He makes a big deal, for example, out of my having "earned a
degree in chemical engineering that I've never used" (however, see
below). I, on the other hand, see it as a positive outcome of my
education that I am able to compete effectively in a field outside the
one that my training has been in.
Oh, and by the way, you might want to ask Art to document his
assertion that I've never worked as a chemical engineer. I'd present
a summary of my experience, but I know Art will claim that whatever
experience I present, it just doesn't count. Sorry, Art, but I won't
play with my son when he stacks the deck so that he always wins, why
should I play with you when you do the same thing?
Rich Lemert
straydog
>
> straydog wrote:
> > Rich Lemert wrote:
> >
> >>BMJ wrote:
> >>
> >>>What makes some people so special that they deserve lifetime employment
> >>>while others can be thrown out onto the street at any time?
> >>
> >> Ask Art. He seems to feel that this should be the natural outcome
> >>from obtaining a PhD.
> >>
> >>Rich Lemert
> >
> >
> > For all you folks that might be wondering why Rich wrote this sentence,
>
> No need for a lot of psychobabble nonsense interpretation.
Oh, boy, here we're going to be enlightened by Rich Lemert who thinks
everone should work hard for nothing.
The
> question was raised "why makes some people so special they deserve
> life-long employment?" Since you're the biggest proponent of this
> view in this forum, I figured you'd be best qualified to provide an
> answer.
Ah...actually...I gave an extended but incomplete answer...but I see it
went in one of your eyeballs and out the other. Lets just ask the
question, such as, how many law students _expect_, when they finish their
program, to have lifetime employement in law. Lets ask all the medical
students if they expect, when they finish their programs, to have
lifetime emmployment. How about all the other students of professional
programs. How about all those graduate students.....
Any of you guys out there, reading this, want to explain why you got
advanced degrees and expect that a job isn't important, let alone some
job that relates to what you spent 5-10 years of your life on, and maybe
some debt to repay, too.
And, Rich Lemert, how about you explaining -- maybe not for me, but for
others reading these posts -- why all of your life goals ended with your
ChE PhD? Why did you get that degree?
> BTW - Just to set the record straight, as far as I can tell Art is
> physically incapable of correctly understanding my views,
Pretty simple: you never ever explained your views. You spend all your
time saying that I don't understand you when you never actually explained
yourself, anyway. AND, on top of that, you expect everyone else to have
thinking patterns parallel to yourself.
let alone
> accurately describing them to someone else. He cannot, for example,
> accept the idea that someone might pursue a PhD for any reason
How about telling me just your reason.
other
> than to pursue pure research in the same field as that PhD. The concept
> is completely foreign to him, so he dismisses its very existence out
> of hand.
Here is how Rich Lemert's universe operates: Its just like the
"Roadrunner" cartoons. You know, the coyote, who always gets the shit
kicked out of him by the roadrunner. See, Rich Lemert thinks the whole
universe operates like that cartoon. Its just in your imagination. Nobody
gets hurt, nobody gets killed. Another episode pops up and everyone is
right back, healthy again. See, Rich thinks the Roadrunner doesn't always
have to beat the shit out of the coyote, and the coyote doesn't always
have to lose, but, see, nobody is really hurt and, besides, it doesn't
matter. Another NG post which goes nowhere and its all black on white, or
white on black and to him nothing much matters except his ChE PhD. When
the cartoon ends, you just shut off the movie projector. Wanna laugh,
turn it back on, rewind the film, play it again, laugh again.
> With regards to the original question, my opinion is that no one
> deserves guaranteed lifetime employment, just as no one deserves to
> summarily be thrown out in the street.
Ah...see how phrase one of the sentence contradicts phrase two?
What everyone does deserve is
> a chance to compete fairly for whatever positions they wish to - the
> PhD simply allows them to compete more effectively in certain cases.
Ah...but...see everone....he does not go beyond the "competing." In other
words, you need to buy food to eat, rent room to sleep, etc., and you
don't get that without a job.
> However, this is couple with the recognition that whenever there's a
> fair competition, there will be both winners and losers.
In other words, Rich thinks some of you guys, no matter how hard you
worked, no matter what you did, should get a back stab and be happy about
it.
> Extending this argument, Art would have you believe that anyone who's
> career does not end in a voluntary retirement at a ripe old age is a
> failure.
You haven't been reading the newspapers or the books.
> He makes a big deal, for example, out of my having "earned a
> degree in chemical engineering that I've never used" (however, see
> below). I, on the other hand, see it as a positive outcome of my
> education that I am able to compete effectively in a field outside the
> one that my training has been in.
There's actually a book out there with the title "How To Get A Job With a
Useless Degree" and I've paged through it. I've known lots of people who
got degrees and were sorry they ever got them. There was even a survey in
The Scientist where they asked PhDs if they were happy that they pursued
a degree and they got some 25-30% who really were sorry they got that
degreee.
> Oh, and by the way, you might want to ask Art to document his
> assertion that I've never worked as a chemical engineer.
Anyone who wants to go into the archives back about 2-3 years ago and
read what Rich wrote in his posts can decide for themselves. Rich, as far
as I know, has never posted his Resume anywhere. My CV is on my website.
Its been there for a while now.
I'd present
> a summary of my experience, but I know Art will claim that whatever
> experience I present, it just doesn't count.
I'd be glad to let other people read your resume and decide for
themselves.
Sorry, Art, but I won't
> play with my son when he stacks the deck so that he always wins,
Oh? You're not as smart as he is? You didn't disclaim that you never
stack the deck on him.
why
> should I play with you when you do the same thing?
See, you used the term "play"....you're still living in your cartoon
world.
Art Sowers, PhD (ex-grant funded biology researcher)
http://scijobs.freeshell.org
(email is invalid)
> Rich Lemert
Gangsta NoMore
> Rich Lemert wrote:
> What everyone does deserve is
> > a chance to compete fairly for whatever positions they wish to - the
> > PhD simply allows them to compete more effectively in certain cases.
>
> Ah...but...see everone....he does not go beyond the "competing." In other
> words, you need to buy food to eat, rent room to sleep, etc., and you
> don't get that without a job.
As I understand it, in Rich Lemert's universe, people compete for jobs
AND EASILY get 'em. No so in your universe, Art. Your presence in the
company of Rich Lemert makes worse the statistics of successful happy
people. If I were offered to make a choice between which universes to
live in, I would choose the Rich Lemert's one, and not yours.
***
R. Martin
According to the people who believe in self-actualization, you can
choose to live in whatever kind of universe you want.
Right now I suspect Art wishes his universe didn't include a
tropical storm forecast to go almost directly over his house.
From just outside the tropical storm watch area, cheers,
Russell
Rich Lemert
> straydog <stra...@invalid.com> wrote
>
>>Rich Lemert wrote:
>
>
>> What everyone does deserve is
>>
>>>a chance to compete fairly for whatever positions they wish to - the
>>>PhD simply allows them to compete more effectively in certain cases.
>>
>>Ah...but...see everone....he does not go beyond the "competing." In other
>>words, you need to buy food to eat, rent room to sleep, etc., and you
>>don't get that without a job.
>
>
> As I understand it, in Rich Lemert's universe, people compete for jobs
> AND EASILY get 'em.
I've never said people "easily" get jobs. All I've ever said is that
people compete for them, and that they need to perform in those jobs in
order to have a chance to stay in them. Art wants jobs to be guaranteed.
I recognize that it will never happen.
(Heaven knows none of the jobs I've ever had has come to me "easily".)
Rich Lemert
Rich Lemert
>
> Right now I suspect Art wishes his universe didn't include a
> tropical storm forecast to go almost directly over his house.
>
Hey, Charlies got to get past my house, first!
(Seriously, good luck to both of us.)
Rich Lemert
straydog
>
> Gangsta NoMore wrote:
> >
> > straydog <stra...@invalid.com> wrote
> > > Rich Lemert wrote:
> >
> > > What everyone does deserve is
> > > > a chance to compete fairly for whatever positions they wish to - the
> > > > PhD simply allows them to compete more effectively in certain cases.
> > >
> > > Ah...but...see everone....he does not go beyond the "competing." In other
> > > words, you need to buy food to eat, rent room to sleep, etc., and you
> > > don't get that without a job.
> >
> > As I understand it, in Rich Lemert's universe, people compete for jobs
> > AND EASILY get 'em. No so in your universe, Art. Your presence in the
> > company of Rich Lemert makes worse the statistics of successful happy
> > people. If I were offered to make a choice between which universes to
> > live in, I would choose the Rich Lemert's one, and not yours.
> >
> > ***
>
> According to the people who believe in self-actualization, you can
> choose to live in whatever kind of universe you want.
Yeah... along the lines of that fairy-tale "The Emperor's New Clothes"
> Right now I suspect Art wishes his universe didn't include a
> tropical storm forecast to go almost directly over his house.
Bingo! And, as I woke up this morning (wife got up first, checked on the
internet before me) and said "Guess what?" then I said "What?"
she: "Its headed right our way"
me: " &^%$#*&@ "
So, I checked nws.noaa and, yep, right up our back yard. Says 2 AM about
over Dover AFB. Its the wind that I'm worried about.
> From just outside the tropical storm watch area, cheers,
> Russell
Thanks a bunch (booooohissssss).
Art
straydog
>
> Gangsta NoMore wrote:
> > straydog <stra...@invalid.com> wrote
> >
> >>Rich Lemert wrote:
> >
> >
> >> What everyone does deserve is
> >>
> >>>a chance to compete fairly for whatever positions they wish to - the
> >>>PhD simply allows them to compete more effectively in certain cases.
> >>
> >>Ah...but...see everone....he does not go beyond the "competing." In other
> >>words, you need to buy food to eat, rent room to sleep, etc., and you
> >>don't get that without a job.
> >
> >
> > As I understand it, in Rich Lemert's universe, people compete for jobs
> > AND EASILY get 'em.
>
> I've never said people "easily" get jobs. All I've ever said is that
> people compete for them,
And, not a peep about how many succeed. And, not a peep about how many lose
them at some time later through mechanisms unrelated to their competance or
productivity....
and that they need to perform in those jobs in
> order to have a chance to stay in them.
As if that (performance) is the only thing that controls whether they stay
in those jobs.
> Art wants jobs to be guaranteed.
Rich wants jobs to be temporary, ephemeral, transient and all of those
things without warning or control or options or alternatives.
Are there any people out there reading this who would prefer a LESS
permanent job or a MORE temporary job? Anyone who would RATHER prefer a
MORE ephemeral or transient job than a job they could depend on being there
for at least a few years if not decades?
> I recognize that it will never happen.
I recognize that, historically, more permanent jobs existed in the past and
that there are statistics out there that as you move towards today, the
fraction of all jobs which are temporary, part-time, low-paid, and with
less or no benefits has increased. I guess Rich is happy with this.
Now, I, on the other hand, have been looking at a variety of job markets
and talking about them for quite some time. There are many better jobs,
better pay rates, and better job security out there than sci/eng/tech jobs.
> (Heaven knows none of the jobs I've ever had has come to me "easily".)
None of my jobs came easily, either.
Arthur E. Sowers
President
Arthur E. Sowers, Inc.
A Delaware for-profit Corporation
Since 1995
Four lines of businesses
Incorporating: One of the best decisions in my life
> Rich Lemert
Gangsta NoMore
> R. Martin wrote:
> > Right now I suspect Art wishes his universe didn't include a
> > tropical storm forecast to go almost directly over his house.
> ... Its the wind that I'm worried about.
So far, the number of dead Americans has reached 16 people. They
keep'em in the freezers. I hope Art is not one of them. Let's go and
check it out.
***
Russell Martin
Odds are that Art is OK. Charley took a jog to the right before
getting to Art's place, so he should have gotten some wind and
heavy rain, but I have not heard of any casualties from the storm
in Delaware. I got about half an inch of rain from the far outer
bands and hardly a hint of breeze, let alone anything that could
be called wind. After Isabel last year, that was fine with me.
Cheers,
Russell
--
There are lies, damned lies, and quotes from literary icons.
The opinions expressed are mine personally and do not
reflect any position of the U.S. Government or NOAA.
straydog
>
> Gangsta NoMore wrote:
> >
> > straydog <stra...@invalid.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > R. Martin wrote:
> > > > Right now I suspect Art wishes his universe didn't include a
> > > > tropical storm forecast to go almost directly over his house.
> >
> > > ... Its the wind that I'm worried about.
> >
> > So far, the number of dead Americans has reached 16 people. They
> > keep'em in the freezers. I hope Art is not one of them. Let's go and
> > check it out.
> >
> > ***
>
> Odds are that Art is OK.
Good guess.
> Charley took a jog to the right before
> getting to Art's place,
I was looking at nhc.noaa and nws.noaa all day every few hours. When the
"center" was around Richmond, I could see it mostly fizzling out.
> so he should have gotten some wind and
> heavy rain,
Neither one. Pretty weak rain, almost zero wind.
> but I have not heard of any casualties from the storm
> in Delaware. I got about half an inch of rain from the far outer
> bands and hardly a hint of breeze, let alone anything that could
> be called wind. After Isabel last year, that was fine with me.
Hey...ditto, ditto...for sure.
Cheers,
Art
Josh Halpern
PCPhD wrote:
>I dont think you should have to reapply for your tenured job, but
>periodic reviews should be allowed, where if productivity falls, off
>so may your salary and support. (Why should old useless farts collect
>a big salary year after year, if their work productivity is declining
>as it invariably does with age.)
>
One answer is the football coaches solution, five or more year rolling
contracts....You get a review each year, if you are not up to snuff you
have notice and time. Of course they can buy you out.
josh halpern
mart...@umn.edu
Josh Halpern <j.ha...@incoming.verizon.net> wrote:
Would you really want the poltics involved in every position? Look at
the grand debates when coaches go through rough periods.
B. Martin
BMJ
What's the alternative? Constructive dismissal if someone decides they
don't like you and drag that out over several years? It's better to go
through the hassle you describe and get things over and done with.
Josh Halpern
mart...@umn.edu wrote:
I know a place where it seems to work, the college of integrated science
and technology at james madison university. http://www.jmu.edu/cisat/
FWIW. It may be like democracy, a terrible system, but the best available.
josh halpern
Detector195
> I dont think you should have to reapply for your tenured job, but
> periodic reviews should be allowed, where if productivity falls, off
> so may your salary and support. (Why should old useless farts collect
> a big salary year after year, if their work productivity is declining
> as it invariably does with age.)
Get rid of tenure, and one of three things will happen:
1. There will be no professors older than 35
2. Increasing power consolidated in the hands of a smaller number of
super-profs who run large research businesses
3. Professors react to loss of tenure by forming a labor union
BMJ
I'm sure some universities are already there.
Threeducks
Yup, we have a union. You have to pay dues whether you like it or not.
BMJ
<snip>
>>>
>>> Get rid of tenure, and one of three things will happen:
>>>
>>> 1. There will be no professors older than 35
>>>
>>> 2. Increasing power consolidated in the hands of a smaller number of
>>> super-profs who run large research businesses
>>>
>>> 3. Professors react to loss of tenure by forming a labor union
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm sure some universities are already there.
>
>
>
> Yup, we have a union. You have to pay dues whether you like it or not.
So did the place I taught at, except it wasn't a union as such--more
like a bargaining unit. I didn't think it was all that effective
because if an individual instructor got into hot water, it didn't do
much except ensure that procedures were followed. The poor schmoe who
got caught was largely on his or her own.
straydog
>
> On second thought, I changed my mind,, all tenure should be abolished
> and all appointments should be temporary at-will positions with no
> retirement benefits.
I think there are actual statistics out there that more than half of all
faculty appointments at the present time are untenured. Quite a large
fraction of the tenured positions (probably 30-50%) have absolute links
of paychecks to grant income according to a formula where (50%-100% of
the paycheck has to come from the grant). Tenure, itself, is often really
not tenure since if a lost grant is not re-won, then the tenured faculty
is likely to go to: i) zero money in the paycheck, ii) loss of office and
lab, and iii) possibly loss of appointment. I know of this happening and
it does not get into the newspapers. After 10-15 years, about half of all
PhDs are _out_ of traditional science and the data is on my website.
Art Sowers
http://scijobs.freeshell.org
email is invalid
This will ensure productivity. Since this is
> the type of position I have after 25 years in science, it is good
> enough for everyone else.
>
> Oh so willing to share the pain,
> PCPhD
Threeducks
> PCPhD wrote:
>
>>On second thought, I changed my mind,, all tenure should be abolished
>>and all appointments should be temporary at-will positions with no
>>retirement benefits.
>
>
> I think there are actual statistics out there that more than half of all
> faculty appointments at the present time are untenured.
In science? Or does this data include appointments in English, Art
History, etc? Is tenure track considered in the tenure or untenured
catagory?
> Quite a large
> fraction of the tenured positions (probably 30-50%) have absolute links
> of paychecks to grant income according to a formula where (50%-100% of
> the paycheck has to come from the grant).
No one is holding a gun to your head to take these kinds of jobs. When
I apply for a job, I expect my employer to pay me, not me pay myself.
> Tenure, itself, is often really
> not tenure since if a lost grant is not re-won, then the tenured faculty
> is likely to go to: i) zero money in the paycheck, ii) loss of office and
> lab, and iii) possibly loss of appointment. I know of this happening and
> it does not get into the newspapers. After 10-15 years, about half of all
> PhDs are _out_ of traditional science and the data is on my website.
>
Define "traditional". Obviously working at McDonalds is out of science,
but is working for an investment firm developing computer models (if
your PhD was in numerical modeling in a Physics dept)? I know a lot of
people who were pretty happy to abandon whatever their PhD research was
for something totally different once they graduated.
straydog
>
> straydog wrote:
> > PCPhD wrote:
> >
> >>On second thought, I changed my mind,, all tenure should be abolished
> >>and all appointments should be temporary at-will positions with no
> >>retirement benefits.
> >
> >
> > I think there are actual statistics out there that more than half of all
> > faculty appointments at the present time are untenured.
>
> In science? Or does this data include appointments in English, Art
> History, etc?
I'm pretty sure its across the board, especially at the lower tier
schools. You can get an idea using google and search on the words
"adjunct" and maybe "temporary faculty" or "adjunct faculty" and you will
probably find a number of websites (at least I found them back 2-3 years
ago) about all the woes of shit jobs in academia. Also, for quite some
time there were also 'postdocs' in industry, particularly pharma. Again,
shit job salary, security, benefits.
At least at one place on the NSF website are studies of how tenure-track
positions have been disapearing at the rate of about one percent per year
for the last 20 years. There are other studies. Couple years ago study
showed as of then that there were more temp faculty in academia than
tenure-track, full time.
Is tenure track considered in the tenure or untenured
> catagory?
Tenure track means you are either tenured OR you are hired under an
arrangement by which, after 5-6 years, you are evaluated for tenure and
either fired or granted tenure. There have been cases of double-cross;
one case I know of, just before evaluating a number of profs for tenure,
they took them OFF the tenure track and gave them special appointments
that had the option of renewability but good only for one year each, then
at the end of the year, they fired the guys (i.e. didn't renew the
appointment). It was writen up in a published article.
> > Quite a large
> > fraction of the tenured positions (probably 30-50%) have absolute links
> > of paychecks to grant income according to a formula where (50%-100% of
> > the paycheck has to come from the grant).
>
> No one is holding a gun to your head to take these kinds of jobs.
Yeah, but if you make hundreds of applications, are hungry, and you get
one shitty job offer instead of a beautiful job offer, you're likely to
take the shitty job offer. I know lots that did.
When
> I apply for a job, I expect my employer to pay me, not me pay myself.
Good luck.
> > Tenure, itself, is often really
> > not tenure since if a lost grant is not re-won, then the tenured faculty
> > is likely to go to: i) zero money in the paycheck, ii) loss of office and
> > lab, and iii) possibly loss of appointment. I know of this happening and
> > it does not get into the newspapers. After 10-15 years, about half of all
> > PhDs are _out_ of traditional science and the data is on my website.
> >
> Define "traditional".
Anything in academia, govt lab, commercial lab, or non-profit where you
NEED the degree AND the knowledge AND the pay is good, the job security
is good, and the benefits are good AND your paycheck comes from hard
money rather than soft money (i.e. grants).
> Obviously working at McDonalds is out of science,
There are PhDs working there, too.
> but is working for an investment firm developing computer models (if
> your PhD was in numerical modeling in a Physics dept)?
See the book reviews on my website of the books by Cynthia Robbins-Roth
and Karen Kreeger (http://scijobs.freeshell.org)
I know a lot of
> people who were pretty happy to abandon whatever their PhD research was
> for something totally different once they graduated.
This happens to lots of people. Question: is the totally different still
science and research? (experiments, publications, experiments,
publicatiosn?).
Art Sowers
Gangsta NoMore
> Some get permanent status and then stop doing anything useful
> for the rest of their working lives. Others keep their noses to the
> grindstone and get chucked out with the day's trash for the flimsiest of
> reasons.
My friend tells me that my resume makes an impression of a very
competent specialist which are not many in the country. At the same
time, I did not get an invitation from the private company for the
second round of interviews who interviewed me recently for the
position of physicist. Today I called to the technical manager in the
company and asked for a feedback. He told me that they had other
applicants who had long experience in a _private company_ environment
and who did similar job in a _private company_, and this is why they
prefer them. My environment was mostly uni and national labs with some
private company. National lab is not enough of "real world experience"
? So, what is that mystical "industrial experience" ?? The technical
manager showed me around the company and told about the tasks of the
physicist-hiree. The tasks seemed to me to be requiring a thinking
employee to do them. They would hardly find a thinking person whose
experience is entirely within a private company (as opposed academia
or even nat. labs).
***
BMJ
I've encountered a similar mentality because I used to be an instructor
at a technical school. I was told by someone that I got that reaction
because what I did was seen as being in the *public* sector, which, in
this neo-Republican region I live in, is next to being in league with
the devil.
Others probably figured that there was too much "book learnin'", which
is partly true. Sometimes all that was needed to teach a course was to
sit down with the text and read it. In other cases, one had to audit
the course beforehand (regardless of whether one had enough background
from elsewhere, such as university, to teach it).
One of the things that I found with those who emphasized only "real
world" experience was that they had a very narrow view of the universe
and couldn't comprehend that one had sufficient ability on one's own to
do the job without having had any previous exposure to it. I guess such
people feel threatened by anyone with any real talent or intellect.
Rich Lemert
> He told me that they had other
> applicants who had long experience in a _private company_ environment
> and who did similar job in a _private company_, and this is why they
> prefer them. My environment was mostly uni and national labs with some
> private company. National lab is not enough of "real world experience"
> ? So, what is that mystical "industrial experience" ??
University research tends to focus on whatever topics the researcher
(a) finds interesting, and (b) can get funding for. There is generally
no requirement that the topic have any potential relevence to "real
life".
National labs tend to come in two flavors. Some, like NASA and/or
Sandia, work on the projects that are two big for university research,
or that are highly confidential. Others, like the US Dept. of
Agrigultar's labs, work on projects of importance to a complete
industry.
The common theme in University and National Lab settings is that there
is little or no expectation of return on investment. The research is
what's important, and if we make a few bucks - great!
In the industrial world, EVERYTHING is driven by customer concerns.
This controls the type of product you make, the features you include
in that product, the materials you use to build that product, etc.
It also exerts a fair amount of control over how you think about things.
You'll constantly be asking yourself "should I go for the elegant
solution to this problem, or whip out a 'quick and dirty' answer?"
And, you'll usually find that you choose the 'quick and dirty' solution
because the customer _needs_ (not just wants) an answer yesterday.
If you've never worked in a "for profit" environment before, this
constant customer focus can come as a bit of a shock. In fact, the
shock can occur as early as when you apply for a job with the for-profit
company. The academic world usually gives more weight to your
credentials - who you've worked with, where you've been affiliated, and
the like. The industrial world wants to know what you can do.
Heck, take a look at the document you're most likely to submit for
the two worlds. The academic world usually expects a full c.v. - and
even if you're just starting out you should have half-a-dozen pages in
it, minimum. The industrial world, on the other hand, wants a resume,
and even if you've got thirty years experience it better not exceed
two pages plus a short cover letter.
Rich Lemert
Josh Halpern
Rich Lemert wrote:
NSF REQUIRES that the resume not exceed two pages. Increasingly
everyone else is setting similar limits
josh halpern
>
>
> Rich Lemert
>
BMJ
<snip>
>>
>> Heck, take a look at the document you're most likely to submit for
>> the two worlds. The academic world usually expects a full c.v. - and
>> even if you're just starting out you should have half-a-dozen pages in
>> it, minimum. The industrial world, on the other hand, wants a resume,
>> and even if you've got thirty years experience it better not exceed
>> two pages plus a short cover letter.
>
>
>
> NSF REQUIRES that the resume not exceed two pages. Increasingly
> everyone else is setting similar limits
>
<snip>
Part of that is because a lot of people either are functionally
illiterate or don't want to be bothered reading between the lines.
Eventually, I see CVs resembling colouring books because they're quick
to peruse and aren't mind-taxing.
Gangsta NoMore
> One of the things that I found with those who emphasized only "real
> world" experience was that they had a very narrow view of the universe
> and couldn't comprehend that one had sufficient ability on one's own to
> do the job without having had any previous exposure to it. I guess such
> people feel threatened by anyone with any real talent or intellect.
A joke (taken from the Internet):
-- Sam, how can you work at an electronics company -- you have no
understanding of electricity whatsoever !
-- Huh, John, in order to work there, one does not need to understand
electricity -- one just need to believe it exists !!
***
Gangsta NoMore
> ... a lot of people either are functionally
> illiterate or don't want to be bothered reading between the lines.
> Eventually, I see CVs resembling colouring books because they're quick
> to peruse and aren't mind-taxing.
My CV is easy to read. It has three main sections: Education, Skills
(the list of technologies), and Experience (list of places where I
worked, with bulleted duties). I made it so on the advice of my
friend, so that it was easy for an HR person or technical manager to
read. The CV gradually re-inforces the idea in the mind of the reader
that I am an experienced specialist in a certain professional
activity, by unfolding the story that I was involved into the
ground-breaking projects with ever increasing responsibilities. The
story has only one simple thread. The transition from one job
description to another in the thread is smooth.
I am planning to make it even easier to read. The aim is that the
recruiter reads my CV, and easily and straight away classifies me as
the specialist in the hot occupation X, and as a top specialist at
that.
***
Threeducks
I prefer to focus of the proposal when I do a review. The CV doesn't
mean I whole lot unless I've never heared of the person and I need to
figure out who he/she is. In that case, the CV provides enough
information that I can easily dig up the rest.
BMJ
Unfortunately, I keep finding that unless I spell out *everything* I did
specifically related to the job in question, my CV goes into the
recycling bin. The problem there lies with whoever's reviewing the
applications. Many apparently don't understand what one learns or does
in order to get a degree in a certain discipline.
BMJ
When CQI/TQM was the flaky-concept-du-jour a few years ago, I heard that
the essence of "customer service" was this: if something's seen to be
done, then it's done. No mention of actually *doing* it.
Josh Halpern
BMJ wrote:
You never had the pleasure of dealing with a fifty pager I take it? No
it was to concentrate the minds of the proposers so the referees would
not be pissed off. Same is true of NASA now, three pages for PI one for
everyone else