Science Careers??
John Hansen
Hello I am a high school student and this year the freshman class has to
do a term paper on what career we are qualified for. To find out what
subject best fits our interests we took this COPS test and my results
showed that I am intrested in science and technology careers (which is
very ture) So know I have to write a term paper on how my health and
insurence effects my job. My question is what are some sci/tech. jobs that
are really intresting. I am clueless on what I want to be but I love ocean
things and computers and I also like medical technology.
Thanks for your time.
-Cassandra Hansen
Lorri Robinson
> My question is what are some sci/tech. jobs that
> are really intresting. I am clueless on what I want to be but I love ocean
> things and computers and I also like medical technology.
>
> Thanks for your time.
> -Cassandra Hansen
Well, let's see. I'm a microbiologist, and I think it's fascinating, but I
can't recommend it as a career choice, because the job market is so limited.
You might look into marine biology, biotechnology, but as a job with a future,
if I had it to do over, I would pursue med tech. Or medicine.
Lorri
Donald Martin
: Well, let's see. I'm a microbiologist, and I think it's fascinating, but I
: can't recommend it as a career choice, because the job market is so limited.
: You might look into marine biology, biotechnology, but as a job with a future,
: if I had it to do over, I would pursue med tech. Or medicine.
Well ya know, that's really sad. People being forced out of areas they
love because of lack of funding/jobs. It's gonna be a pretty drab
scientific community in a few years (wrt diversity of areas of study) if
this keeps up (an' it will).
;)
Lorri Robinson
>
> Lorri Robinson (robi...@avana.net) wrote:
>
>
> : Well, let's see. I'm a microbiologist, and I think it's fascinating, but I
> : can't recommend it as a career choice, because the job market is so
limited.
> Well ya know, that's really sad. People being forced out of areas they
> love because of lack of funding/jobs.
>
You know what the problem is in the private sector (where I have worked for
the past 8 years)? Employers who run labs don't have a clue as to what a lab
is about--looks like any idiot could do that. So they get rid of all the
high-priced (relatively speaking) degreed people who have made it look so damn
easy, keep one ass-kisser to head up the dept., and hire a bunch of high
school grads who can just barely write to do the bench work and pay them
minimum wage. Great for the bottom line--but what is this doing to science?
I tremble for the likelihood of scientific advances/discoveries...
Lorri (just a weeeee bit bitter)
Scott Ward
but I
>
>> : can't recommend it as a career choice, because the job market is so
>limited.
Great. As some one who has just completed his technologists diploma, and
is about to go to university for 4 sememsters to get my honours in micro ,
these are just the kind of encouraging words I need to hear right now.
Donald Martin
Scott Ward (WLS...@prodigy.com) wrote:
: : Well, let's see. I'm a microbiologist, and I think it's fascinating,
: >limited.
:
That may not give you much encouragement, but that too is reality....
;)
Sharon_W_Quick
My background is biolgy/medicine. I presently work for a pharmaceutical
company, which I find to be both interesting and gratifying (the monetary
compensation is not bad, either). I've worked in research laboratories
doing everything from DNA forensic testing to paternity testing to cancer
drug research. I am presently writing drug safety reports that are
submitted to the FDA, and working in the management of clinical trials
for investigational drug approval. The positions I've held are always
challenging, and in an ever-changing field of science/technology, a job
never becomes stagnant. Feel free to contact my e-mail address
(Sharon_...@SBPHRD.COM@INET) if you have any questions.
Sharon_W_Quick
Dave Jensen
(Scott Ward) wrote:
> : Well, let's see. I'm a microbiologist, and I think it's fascinating,
> but I
> >
> >> : can't recommend it as a career choice, because the job market is so
>
> >limited.
>
> Great. As some one who has just completed his technologists diploma, and
> is about to go to university for 4 sememsters to get my honours in micro ,
> these are just the kind of encouraging words I need to hear right now.
Scott -
If you are seeking encouraging words, this is not the newsgroup to be
monitoring.
Encouraging words are to be found by talking with the numerous successful
scientists in industry who are currently in microbiology jobs. If you'd
like a few good names in your area, email me. Or - get with the Society
for Industrial Microbiology, which has its annual meeting in the summer in
RTP, North Carolina.
Dave Jensen
Managing Director, Search Masters Int'l
http://smi.bio.com/
Arthur E. Sowers
On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, Dave Jensen wrote:
> In article <4ksa5b$27...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>, WLS...@prodigy.com
> (Scott Ward) wrote:
>
> > : Well, let's see. I'm a microbiologist, and I think it's fascinating,
> > but I
> > >
> > >> : can't recommend it as a career choice, because the job market is so
> >
> > >limited.
> >
> > Great. As some one who has just completed his technologists diploma, and
> > is about to go to university for 4 sememsters to get my honours in micro ,
> > these are just the kind of encouraging words I need to hear right now.
>
>
> Scott -
>
> If you are seeking encouraging words, this is not the newsgroup to be
> monitoring.
>
> Encouraging words are to be found by talking with the numerous successful
> scientists in industry who are currently in microbiology jobs.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Scott - Don't let this guy mislead you. Notice that he is directing you to
a special, small subset of the whole population. You should ALSO be
talking to all those who are having a hell of a time finding jobs. You
should know that that group is generally LARGER than the "successful" ones
"who are currently in microbiology jobs". And even more important, there
are some job areas that are much more marketable than others, but that
goes for a small fraction of all areas of microbiology. Don't let anyone
tell you that "everything is fine."
Marc Andelman
> I agree with Art. However, if you are crazy enough to
pursue a scientific career, microbiology is one of the more
diverse areas. Microbiologists find employment in
fermentation, which pertains to the food, flavor,
pharmaceutical, and biotech industries. Microbiologists
also find gainful employment in quality control, health-care,
and enviromental industries. You probably won't make much
money, and have a very strong chance of getting stuck in
a boring, mind numbing job, but that applies to about
everything else as well.
Marc
ligh...@esvx19.es.dupont.com
I'd pay attention to both Dave Jensen and Art Sowers, it's useful
to get the fully embittered perspective of the long struggling and soon
to be discarded post-doc as well as the completely out of touch view of
the industrial microbiologist pulling down 60K/ year.
Really, from Dave Jensen I'd try to get some names of people who
have RECENTLY (last 1-5 years) gotten jobs in industry. They'll be in tune
enough with the current job market that they won't be totally out of touch,
but they'll also believe that it is possible to make it, and maybe they can
give you some assesment of the odds.
Best of Luck,
Jon Lightner
Post-Doc
(opinions expressed in this post are those of my 7 year old son)
Arthur E. Sowers
This is a good idea to get the perspective of a young person who will be
"tuned in" to "situations" which are pertinent to that "generation". But
its also good to talk to much older people (at least those who will talk
about what they went through) FOR THE PERSPECTIVE THAT MANY CHANGES HAVE
TAKEN PLACE in the way employees relate to employers and vice versa. The
idea that Dave Jensen just wants to send somebody to talk to the tooth
fairy for a slanted view of real life AS IF THAT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO
FOLLOW, OR HAVE AUTOMATICALLY AN EQUALLY GOOD FORTUNE, is just badly
misleading. Even if the kid goes into some program of study of industrial
microbiology, where I would expect jobs to be fairly good right now, what
is that area going to be like in 10 - 15 years or so when beer, for
example, might be coming out of a hollow fibre instead of a fermentor, and
the kid, after 10-15 years finds his whole career preparation now
obsolete.
> They'll be in tune
> enough with the current job market that they won't be totally out of touch,
> but they'll also believe that it is possible to make it, and maybe they can
> give you some assesment of the odds.
>
> Best of Luck,
> Jon Lightner
> Post-Doc
> (opinions expressed in this post are those of my 7 year old son)
But I'll ditto the "Best of Luck"
Art Sowers
DGJ
To the original person who several posts ago asked about encouraging words
for the field of microbiology:
I don't have encouraging words for you, because on this newsgroup they
will be drowned out by others who have spent a lifetime complaining about
the way that "others" have treated them. Their careers reflect their
overall attitude about life . . . That they are "owed" a living, for
example.
So -- instead of encouraging words, let me just suggest (as they have)
that you take in the advice of everyone who has either failed or succeeded
in your field of interest. Listen to it all. Then, decide which course of
action seems right for you. If you choose to pursue science, it will be
for reasons inside you and not because of my comments or anyone else's.
Alternately, should you decide to drop out, hopefully it won't be another
notch on the sci.research.careers hitlist.
Take a look at each sector of microbiology and find a niche which seems to
have a broad appeal to industry. Everytime we do a search in the field of
microbial physiology, for example, we have a hard time finding enough
candidates. And yet, industry employs these folks regularly in anything
from the therapeutics area to the food industry. There are a dozen small
niches like this that have wonderful employment prospects.
I guess that the decisions you face early on in your career are the really
tough ones. Your advisor may be pursuing the genetics of a fruit fly, but
you'll have to make the tough decision to move on to something more
palatable to real life employment. Science careers are really crappy right
now due to advisors who over the years have plowed graduate students into
rare studies that have no interest to those who hire in companies.
There are no tooth fairies. On the other hand, there really are lots of
microbiologists out there who enjoy their work and who have good jobs in
industry. And there are also lots of grumpy old men scientists who will
try and persuade you not to follow your dreams, just because they couldn't
reach theirs.
Don't listen to them.
Dave Jensen
http://smi.bio.com/
Arthur E. Sowers
Below is an example of a mixture of what I will call good advice and bad
advice and misunderstanding and erroneous logic. Semantics may be
important, just as it is sometimes said that one person's garbage is
another person's treasure.
=======================
On 22 Apr 1996, DGJ wrote:
> Re: Sad people and trashed careers
>
> To the original person who several posts ago asked about encouraging words
> for the field of microbiology:
>
> I don't have encouraging words for you, because on this newsgroup they
> will be drowned out by others who have spent a lifetime complaining about
> the way that "others" have treated them.
DGJ follows his apparent acknowledgement about a bad situation with an
declaration that implies that the problems of "others" are always their
own fault (or that they don't have a right to talk about their problems).
As far as spending a "lifetime", I think its untrue. Most people do not
complain when things are going OK. When things are going not-OK, then you
are likely to hear complaints (and I feel this expression is not only
permissible but also advisable). Indeed, many problems are caused
by "situations" rather than "people".
> Their careers reflect their
> overall attitude about life . . . That they are "owed" a living, for
> example.
Attitude is a key issue. I am sorry that some people I know, who are in
bad situations, are letting their bad attitude keep them from making
progress in some direction out of their bad situation. To what degree one
is "owed" a living depends on how long one spends building up that living.
Now, one Mr. DGJ might find one day so much competition that he will have
to go out of business. Will he say to himself: "I spent my life building
up this business and it just went poof and I'm mad about that" or will he
say "..oh well, guess I'll just mozy on down the road". Thats his choice
(Maybe he never gets mad about anything - maybe he never had anything
bad happen to him in his life [self caused or not]).
> So -- instead of encouraging words, let me just suggest (as they have)
> that you take in the advice of everyone who has either failed or succeeded
> in your field of interest. Listen to it all. Then, decide which course of
> action seems right for you. If you choose to pursue science, it will be
> for reasons inside you and not because of my comments or anyone else's.
With these few lines I am in total agreement, except for one thing: be
forewarned as much as possible about what you are getting into before you
get into it.
> Alternately, should you decide to drop out, hopefully it won't be another
> notch on the sci.research.careers hitlist.
Too, bad, Dave, you're outnumbered on that. Did you ever think to hang out
over on the newsgroup: <alt.good.times>?
> Take a look at each sector of microbiology and find a niche which seems to
> have a broad appeal to industry. Everytime we do a search in the field of
> microbial physiology, for example, we have a hard time finding enough
> candidates. And yet, industry employs these folks regularly in anything
> from the therapeutics area to the food industry. There are a dozen small
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> niches like this that have wonderful employment prospects.
^^^^^^
Here is the key. There are a small number of high demand jobs. Sure, if
you like that stuff, and you have the background that fits in, then good -
go for it. In fact, if there is a background theme in my CPSJ essays,
that I post here from time to time, then its that people will HAVE NO
CHOICE but to go to non-academic institutions for work; thats the only
hope.
> I guess that the decisions you face early on in your career are the really
> tough ones.
No, they are the ones that are easy to make while being in ignorance. Its
only after you are "in" something for 5-10 years or more that its a tough
decision to figure out how to get out and "into something else". I talk to
a few parents and they tell me they don't know what to push their kids
into, and the kids don't know either.
> Your advisor may be pursuing the genetics of a fruit fly, but
> you'll have to make the tough decision to move on to something more
> palatable to real life employment. Science careers are really crappy
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> right now
^^^^^^^^^
Gee, Dave, from the tone that you put out at the beginning, I thought you
were of the belief that everything (or most everything) was just fine.
> due to advisors who over the years have plowed graduate students into
> rare studies that have no interest to those who hire in companies.
This is true. And its not right. Why don't companies start their own
schools? But that is another topic.
> There are no tooth fairies. On the other hand, there really are lots of
> microbiologists out there who enjoy their work and who have good jobs in
> industry. And there are also lots of grumpy old men scientists
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I guess this was meant for me. 20-25 years ago, a number of people
warned me about going into this business. I chose to follow my dreams
(like DGJ pines for in his next sentence below) with the understanding
that I was going to go as far as I could untill I could not go farther. I
think I made that goal. I did better than many of my peers, though a few
did better than me. But for Dave's age-discrimination tendency, I have to
report that among my email contacts, the age range of the population
having the most difficulties (in general) are the younger ones. They don't
have the track record and they don't have much money in the bank and they
don't have any experience with failures, mishaps, or situations
otherwise beyond their control (most older persons DO have some experience
with these and can thus often "roll with the waves" more successfully).
They have not had even their first real job after college (either
undergrad or graduate) and don't have that "real life" experience that
most employers prefer. Younger people, however, are generally in higher
relative demand for lots of reasons that are beyond the scope of my
comments. But Daves reference to "grumpy old men scientists" is misplaced.
And, since it leaves out females, its also sexist.
> who will
> try and persuade you not to follow your dreams, just because they couldn't
> reach theirs.
I, and many others, can't be characterized as "reaching" dreams. You have
your dream until some circumstance causes you to let go, or have it
snatched from your hands. If you can have a nice job until you retire,
then good for you. The trouble is, for most people its not working that
way.
> Don't listen to them.
This guy just said to us a few sentences above to "take in the advice of
everyone." Now he's changing his own advice. Sounds like a self
contradiction and a flip-flop to me.
>
> Dave Jensen
> http://smi.bio.com/
>
>
Art Sowers
Donald Martin
: Re: Sad people and trashed careers
: To the original person who several posts ago asked about encouraging words
: for the field of microbiology:
: I don't have encouraging words for you, because on this newsgroup they
: will be drowned out by others who have spent a lifetime complaining about
: the way that "others" have treated them.
No they haven't spent a "lifetime complaining"! They have spend a lLOGN
TIME working hard and were rewarded by being let go and not given a fair
chance in the modern job market. If you were treated as badly (and knock
wood that it never happens to you) you would be right among them
professing that grim reality.
Their careers reflect their
: overall attitude about life . . . That they are "owed" a living, for
: example.
No I don't think they feel anyone "owes" them anything, but some of these
people feel that despite their high levels of expertise they are not given
an equal chance at some of the better or at least long term jobs because
they have been in the system too long. Face it, despite what anybody's
attitude is, there are more people looking for jobs than there are jobs
right now. A lot of talented hard working people are getting/going to
get screwed by the system that produced them.
: So -- instead of encouraging words, let me just suggest (as they have)
: that you take in the advice of everyone who has either failed or succeeded
: in your field of interest. Listen to it all. Then, decide which course of
: action seems right for you. If you choose to pursue science, it will be
: for reasons inside you and not because of my comments or anyone else's.
: Alternately, should you decide to drop out, hopefully it won't be another
: notch on the sci.research.careers hitlist.
: Take a look at each sector of microbiology and find a niche which seems to
: have a broad appeal to industry.
Finding a "niche" that is marketable now doesn't guarantee that you won't
get screwed five years down the line if your area becomes "obsolete".
Whatever happened to on-the-job training? It seems to be becoming more
of a dirty work with corps.
Everytime we do a search in the field of
: microbial physiology, for example, we have a hard time finding enough
: candidates. And yet, industry employs these folks regularly in anything
: from the therapeutics area to the food industry. There are a dozen small
: niches like this that have wonderful employment prospects.
And if these small niches become out of datre or out of fashion, are
these people to be cast off several years older and less marketable on
two counts (being both "older" and "obsolete")?
: I guess that the decisions you face early on in your career are the really
: tough ones.
Can't argue with that! :)
Your advisor may be pursuing the genetics of a fruit fly, but
: you'll have to make the tough decision to move on to something more
: palatable to real life employment. Science careers are really crappy right
: now due to advisors who over the years have plowed graduate students into
: rare studies that have no interest to those who hire in companies.
And why can't companies/academic institutions learn to recognize raw talent
and nurture it, rather that rape it from the available market. What
happened to giving a young researcher a chance to prove that they can easily
conduct researh in areas outside the area that they got their degree in???
: There are no tooth fairies.
Well someone seems to be feeding you an enchanted vision of the modern
career problems...
On the other hand, there really are lots of
: microbiologists out there who enjoy their work and who have good jobs in
: industry.
They are the lucky minority.
And there are also lots of grumpy old men scientists who will
: try and persuade you not to follow your dreams, just because they couldn't
: reach theirs.
They tried and there doesn't seem to be any reason for them not to have
succeeded except that they got screwed by the system.
: Don't listen to them.
Listen and be afraid, be very afraid.... Well at least be careful...
;)
DGJ
not comment directly to anything he said or did. ]
I've made a formal study of science careers for more than a decade (formal
for me --- very informal for what a scientist would consider a "study").
My impression is that there are people who will do well despite how much
negativity they read about on this newsgroup, or encounter in "real life."
Bert and Art have written much better than I have about the changes going
on in society and in American industry. Changes that don't bode well for a
career as a scientist.
But don't people get into science for the same reasons that people pursue
Art or Music? Isn't there an "inner drive" of some kind that seems to get
them thinking at an early age about this sort of exploration? I believe
that even the most hard-hearted readers of this newsgroup would agree that
there is something in the love of science which inspired them to get into
this career in the first place. I've got one of those in my house right
now -- a little boy who lives and dreams of test tubes and experiments.
But the difference between Art, Music and Science is that the scientist --
in days of olde -- had always been assured of not only enjoying a
wonderful, creative life, but had also the promise of MAKING A DAMN GOOD
LIVING AS WELL. Now many feel let down as a result of this broken
promise.
Artists and musicians never had that promise. They grow up with parents
and friends shouting to the rafters, "Change your course! You'll go
broke!" So, we filter out the ones who fall prey to that noise, and we end
up with a society whose poets, musicians, etc. struggle along earning
peanuts and driving cabs. Then, we reward only a few of them with a
spectacular income. Those are the few who had the self-promotional ability
to get noticed.
This may be the way it goes with scientists. Personally, I know an awful
lot of very wealthy and successful scientists, and I can recommend it as a
wonderful career choice if you've got the guts to see it through. To any
young person considering science nowadays, they have to know that the
possibility exists for them to become a starving artist. There just aren't
enough high-flying biotechnology jobs out there to cover all the output of
graduate programs. BUT -- there are still very successful and visible
career role models in science.
Science is changing, and perhaps so are the reasons that people get into
it. My impression is that if you study those who are successful, and
don't fall prey to the negative ones, you can end up with a balance of
success in your work and home life which few professions can give you.
You may now call me Pollyanna, Dr. Sowers!
Dave Jensen
http://smi.bio.com/
Arthur E. Sowers
On 23 Apr 1996, DGJ wrote:
> [I'd like to write something that doesn't make Art Sowers mad, so I will
> not comment directly to anything he said or did. ]
>
> I've made a formal study of science careers for more than a decade (formal
> for me --- very informal for what a scientist would consider a "study").
I have been watching, listening, and trading information with colleagues
about what science PhDs do and how they do it and how they get to do it
since I began my one and only postdoc back in January, 1978.
I do not know what your definition is of "formal study". To me, when I say
I have done a formal study on some problem, then the word "done" means
past tense and "formal" means its published somewhere.
I would very much like to learn as much as possible about what is in your
"formal study" unless its proprietary and/or otherwise none of my
business.
> My impression is that there are people who will do well despite how much
> negativity they read about on this newsgroup, or encounter in "real life."
> Bert and Art have written much better than I have about the changes going
> on in society and in American industry. Changes that don't bode well for a
> career as a scientist.
My only comment about the above five lines is on Dave's use of the word
"negativity" and I will come back to that farther down.
> But don't people get into science for the same reasons that people pursue
> Art or Music? Isn't there an "inner drive" of some kind that seems to get
> them thinking at an early age about this sort of exploration?
This is a very good question and coming up with a meaningful and
purposeful answer, or if not "answer" then "response" to it, is a goal of
mine.
> I believe
> that even the most hard-hearted readers of this newsgroup would agree that
> there is something in the love of science which inspired them to get into
> this career in the first place.
Oh, most definitely. But you are forgetting something....
> I've got one of those in my house right
> now -- a little boy who lives and dreams of test tubes and experiments.
....and there it is...and what are YOU doing about that?
> But the difference between Art, Music and Science is that the scientist --
> in days of olde -- had always been assured of not only enjoying a
> wonderful, creative life, but had also the promise of MAKING A DAMN GOOD
> LIVING AS WELL. Now many feel let down as a result of this broken
> promise.
I would have used the word "expectation" rather than "promise".
> Artists and musicians never had that promise.
I will play devils advocate here and be up front about it. I think many
people "get some idea into their heads" at an early stage. I was on the
interview committee for medical school applicants for several years here
and kids coming in who want to be "doctors" (maybe I should spell that
"Doctors") have this same funny "Gee I wanted to be a doctor since I was
__(enter any single diget) years old". I just put this in because
medicine is a difference "scale" of occupation than "Artists and
musicians". ....and I'm not trying to be a smart ass, either. Just that
it all starts with an idea that pops into a persons head. Other kids I
grew up with didn't know and/or didn't care what they did when they grew
up.
> They grow up with parents
> and friends shouting to the rafters, "Change your course! You'll go
> broke!" So, we filter out the ones who fall prey to that noise, and we end
> up with a society whose poets, musicians, etc. struggle along earning
> peanuts and driving cabs. Then, we reward only a few of them with a
> spectacular income. Those are the few who had the self-promotional ability
> to get noticed.
Well, now you bring up a characteristic, "self-promotional ability", that
plays a role in how some people get ahead.
> This may be the way it goes with scientists. Personally, I know an awful
> lot of very wealthy and successful scientists, and I can recommend it as a
> wonderful career choice if you've got the guts to see it through.
I can think of a number of wealthy and successful scientists, but I also
can think of things that must be discussed in a separate "pros and cons"
discussion.
> To any
> young person considering science nowadays, they have to know that the
> possibility exists for them to become a starving artist. There just aren't
> enough high-flying biotechnology jobs out there to cover all the output of
> graduate programs. BUT -- there are still very successful and visible
> career role models in science.
This is basically true.
> Science is changing, and perhaps so are the reasons that people get into
> it. My impression is that if you study those who are successful, and
> don't fall prey to the negative ones, you can end up with a balance of
> success in your work and home life which few professions can give you.
"Science is changing"? I would say that the kinds of things that are being
called science is evolving, and the bureaucrasy (both governmental and
industrial) that channels this is short changing the basic research. I
think it is a good idea to study those who are successful, but my big
argument with you is that you don't want anyone to study the failures (you
use the word "negative" and in a "negative" way). Although one can fault
the parallel, all airplane crashes (as far as I know) are investigated. I
think this is an excellent activity and usually something is learned about
equipment failure, operator error, or whatever, and it improves the
service. I also consider that "complaining" is a normal expression of
human being. At the height (or depth) of sillyness, we have a political
system composed of two major parties who see half of the country's
problems as being caused by the guys on the other side of the aisle and
the other half of the country's problems as ... vice-versa.
I don't have any problem with people dreaming about pies-in-the-sky. I
think they should remember that the sky is pretty far over their heads and
I've learned the hard way that it helps a lot to have a good talk with
people around me who already tried to get one of those pies and try to not
make the same mistakes that guy made. A fool is a guy who doesn't know
what he is doing (and probably also doesn't know that he doesn't know).
I have the feeling that because of the nature of your business you
probably don't have much experience or contact with failures, troubles, or
mishaps in live. As you have discussed or explained your business in
the past, I gather that you probably work with clients who are well funded
or work for viable companies who are also well funded and you probably go
making phone calls to other people who are probabaly usually already
working in a job and are probably happy with it, or if not then they are
happy to hear from you with an opportunity for change. Hence, I feel you
might be living and working "in" a fairly "creamy" part of the business
world and thus have little familiarity with the "un-creamy" other part of
the world (below the tip of the iceberg there is much more iceberg).
Returning to your "dreaming" kid.... yes, I'd like to know what you are
telling him, with your decade of "formal study of science careers".
> You may now call me Pollyanna, Dr. Sowers!
I think much of what you wrote above was more strident, broader in
relevance, and almost introspective, compared to what you gave us a few
posts back. I was a little bit impressed.
> Dave Jensen
> http://smi.bio.com/
And, one more thing from months ago. You were going to put some pictures
of your dogs on your web page. I forgot what you were calling them, but
I'm actually still waiting to see them.
Art Sowers
*************************************************************************
* rev Mar 30,1996 "Contemporary Problems in Sci Jobs" (=CPSJ) essays: *
* a 2nd Edition of CPSJ is available with conditional unrestricted *
* royalty-free reproduction rights. Earlier versions of *
* the "Contemporary Problems in Science Jobs" essays may be found at: *
* http://www.sci-journal.com/ed/sowers1.txt *
* They also can be found at FTP site: *
* snorri.chem.washington.edu/pub/ysn/html_articles/Sowers_CPSJ.txt *
* AAUP Listserver: majo...@igc.apc.org - leave sub=blank - *
* put in text of message: subscribe aaup-general *
* AAUP email address: aa...@igc.apc.org *
* YSN website is at: http://www.physics.uiuc.edu/ (hunt around) *
* my nano HP is at: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/arthures *
* Let me know if you can't reach these. Suggestions & email appreciated.*
*************************************************************************
Matthias Pohl
> But don't people get into science for the same reasons that people pursue
> Art or Music? Isn't there an "inner drive" of some kind that seems to get
> them thinking at an early age about this sort of exploration?
For most people the love for science is certainly the driving force for
initially getting into whatever particular field of endaveour. However,
"love for science" does not pay any bills, nor is it a currency accepted
by any merchant. This piece of reality usually hits home around 30-years
of age (with the usual statistical age distribution).
> But the difference between Art, Music and Science is that the scientist --
> in days of olde -- had always been assured of not only enjoying a
> wonderful, creative life, but had also the promise of MAKING A DAMN GOOD
> LIVING AS WELL. Now many feel let down as a result of this broken
> promise.
>
It's not about MAKING A DAMN GOOD LIVING but simply about being paid
adequately. Keep in mind that your UPS driver makes about 20$/hr; compare
that with a postdoc's salary who on average has had approx.10 yrs of
formal scientific training. Pretty lousy payoff, wouldn't you agree ? And
you really wonder why scientists (especially the Ph.D. variety) are
dissatisfied/frustrated once they realize that they have been taken for a
ride...
Then, to add insult to injury people like yourself come along and
proclaim that scientists all have to do it for the "love of science" and
shouldn't complain about pay, prospects, working conditions, etc. How
about the following real life experiment: Next time you pick up your car
from a repair shop, ask the mechanic to bill you only for one instead of
four hours of work; if he looks at you as if you were from another planet
just tell him that being and working as a mechanic is in itself enough of
a reward/payment. WATCH HIS FIST AS IT HITS YOUR NOSE...:)
/Matthias
DGJ
(Matthias Pohl) wrote:
>It's not about MAKING A DAMN GOOD LIVING but simply about being paid
>adequately. Keep in mind that your UPS driver makes about 20$/hr;
>compare that with a postdoc's salary who on average has had approx.10
>yrs of formal scientific training. Pretty lousy payoff, wouldn't you
agree >? And you really wonder why scientists (especially the Ph.D.
variety) are
>dissatisfied/frustrated once they realize that they have been taken for a
>ride...
>Then, to add insult to injury people like yourself come along and
>proclaim that scientists all have to do it for the "love of science" and
>shouldn't complain about pay, prospects, working conditions, etc. How
>about the following real life experiment: Next time you pick up your car
>from a repair shop, ask the mechanic to bill you only for one instead of
>four hours of work; if he looks at you as if you were from another planet
>just tell him that being and working as a mechanic is in itself enough of
>a reward/payment. WATCH HIS FIST AS IT HITS YOUR NOSE...:)
Matthias -
I think you misunderstood my earlier post, in which I rambled on about the
field of science changing, and that it was becoming more more like art and
music. People who get into science because they have a "love" for it will
not be guaranteed to make a decent salary any longer. Perhaps starting
artists and starving scientists will live side by side in NYC's Soho
district.
I didn't say that I endorsed this change, nor did I say that I would put
up with it if I were doing science. Frankly, I'd either move on to
something else or think about finding some field of science where my
efforts could be better compensated.
Dave
DGJ
>I have been watching, listening, and trading information with colleagues
>about what science PhDs do and how they do it and how they get to do it
>since I began my one and only postdoc back in January, 1978.
>I do not know what your definition is of "formal study". To me, when I
>say I have done a formal study on some problem, then the word "done"
>means past tense and "formal" means its published somewhere.
>I would very much like to learn as much as possible about what is in your
>"formal study" unless its proprietary and/or otherwise none of my
>business.
Art - I've published over 150 pages from this work, all on the internet on
our home page (http://smi.bio.com/). But you already know that, so if you
are looking for a refereed publication (?) you won't find it on the topic
of careers. There are too many opinions and not enough facts, as you will
find on sci.research.careers. In fact, your essays and mine are a bunch
of opinions, aren't they!
By the way, you asked about my son and how I am dealing with his desire to
be a scientist. I am teaching him the two common threads from which I
believe all success comes:
1) The ability to manage his own life and not be swept aside by negative
thoughts or circumstances.
2) The ability to self-promote. If he's good at something, I want him to
know him to make sure it gets noticed. I don't want my son to be the
proverbial unrecognized genius somewhere in someone else's lab.
Dave
Donald Martin
: [I'd like to write something that doesn't make Art Sowers mad, so I will
: not comment directly to anything he said or did. ]
: I've made a formal study of science careers for more than a decade (formal
: for me --- very informal for what a scientist would consider a "study").
: My impression is that there are people who will do well despite how much
: negativity they read about on this newsgroup, or encounter in "real life."
: Bert and Art have written much better than I have about the changes going
: on in society and in American industry. Changes that don't bode well for a
: career as a scientist.
: But don't people get into science for the same reasons that people pursue
: Art or Music? Isn't there an "inner drive" of some kind that seems to get
: them thinking at an early age about this sort of exploration? I believe
: that even the most hard-hearted readers of this newsgroup would agree that
: there is something in the love of science which inspired them to get into
: this career in the first place. I've got one of those in my house right
: now -- a little boy who lives and dreams of test tubes and experiments.
: But the difference between Art, Music and Science is that the scientist --
: in days of olde -- had always been assured of not only enjoying a
: wonderful, creative life, but had also the promise of MAKING A DAMN GOOD
: LIVING AS WELL. Now many feel let down as a result of this broken
: promise.
: Artists and musicians never had that promise.
Sure there's a "promise". If you make it big as an aritst or musician
you can make millions. And people will accept you as an artist or
musician WITHOUT your having to get ANY kind of degree (so the overhead
for pursuing a career in those area is just time to hone your skills --
tho' lots of musicians and artists are getting degrees tho not too many
grad ones ;) ) But those careers require more inborn "talent" (usually)
in order to work. You need a brain (or at least half of one) to go into
higher learning.
They grow up with parents
: and friends shouting to the rafters, "Change your course! You'll go
: broke!" So, we filter out the ones who fall prey to that noise, and we end
: up with a society whose poets, musicians, etc. struggle along earning
: peanuts and driving cabs.
There are lots of other things people will hire you for if you have
talent as an artist or a musician and contract work can bring in BIG
money for those who develop a good reputation so unlike the postdoc, you
can be underemployed and still make an excellent living. Unlike an
"artist" no ones going to hire you on solely on the basis of completing a
thesis regardless of whether you're capable of doing the work or not.
Then, we reward only a few of them with a
: spectacular income. Those are the few who had the self-promotional ability
: to get noticed.
Are you ignoring graphical artists and animators who have lots of work
and make lots of money?
: This may be the way it goes with scientists. Personally, I know an awful
: lot of very wealthy and successful scientists
How many are under 50? ;)
, and I can recommend it as a
: wonderful career choice if you've got the guts to see it through.
Guts isn't all it takes. It's more like winning the lottery. You don't
only have to be good, you have to be good AND lucky (or know someone high
up).
To any
: young person considering science nowadays, they have to know that the
: possibility exists for them to become a starving artist.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Lots of "starving" artists never
worked a day in their lives (I don't consider putting paint on a canvas
work -- oooh I strained my creativity today).
There just aren't
: enough high-flying biotechnology jobs out there to cover all the output of
: graduate programs. BUT -- there are still very successful and visible
: career role models in science.
And what happens to everyone else but the fortunate few? Why not steer
in the direction of research only as many people as the market will
support. Art Sowers has already shown us why that isn't done. This
research system CAN'T function without cheap skilled labour. So students
will always be channeled into non-marketable fiuelds as long as there are
older scientists who get funding for that kind of work work.
: Science is changing, and perhaps so are the reasons that people get into
: it. My impression is that if you study those who are successful, and
: don't fall prey to the negative ones
Sometimes you can't win no matter what you do. Consider that
possibility as well.
, you can end up with a balance of
: success in your work and home life which few professions can give you.
Ummm ... what type of science carreer are you talking about?
: You may now call me Pollyanna, Dr. Sowers!
: Dave Jensen
: http://smi.bio.com/
Give 'em hell "Polly".
;)
Marc Andelman
Marc Andelman
(now I have really done it)
Donald Martin
: > But don't people get into science for the same reasons that people pursue
: > Art or Music? Isn't there an "inner drive" of some kind that seems to get
: > them thinking at an early age about this sort of exploration?
: For most people the love for science is certainly the driving force for
: initially getting into whatever particular field of endaveour. However,
: "love for science" does not pay any bills, nor is it a currency accepted
: by any merchant. This piece of reality usually hits home around 30-years
: of age (with the usual statistical age distribution).
: > But the difference between Art, Music and Science is that the scientist --
: > in days of olde -- had always been assured of not only enjoying a
: > wonderful, creative life, but had also the promise of MAKING A DAMN GOOD
: > LIVING AS WELL. Now many feel let down as a result of this broken
: > promise.
: >
: It's not about MAKING A DAMN GOOD LIVING but simply about being paid
: adequately. Keep in mind that your UPS driver makes about 20$/hr; compare
: that with a postdoc's salary who on average has had approx.10 yrs of
: formal scientific training. Pretty lousy payoff, wouldn't you agree ? And
: you really wonder why scientists (especially the Ph.D. variety) are
: dissatisfied/frustrated once they realize that they have been taken for a
: ride...
: Then, to add insult to injury people like yourself come along and
: proclaim that scientists all have to do it for the "love of science" and
: shouldn't complain about pay, prospects, working conditions, etc. How
: about the following real life experiment: Next time you pick up your car
: from a repair shop, ask the mechanic to bill you only for one instead of
: four hours of work; if he looks at you as if you were from another planet
: just tell him that being and working as a mechanic is in itself enough of
: a reward/payment. WATCH HIS FIST AS IT HITS YOUR NOSE...:)
Another piece of hypocrisy comes from the graduate "advisors" who feel it
is right to pay little or nothing and drive their students hard and make
them learn skills which may not get them anywhere whlie they themselves
enjoy the comforts of a high salary and a 9-5 job with little or no
benchwork. Most younger profs are not like this but the "old school"
mentality is still prevalent among older tenured faculty. Sure one can say
you can quit, but then you don't get your degree and you're stigmatized as a
"dropout". The problem is it's ok to have a dream to be a scientist but
Universities capitalize on people's dreams and steer them in directions
they shouldn't and they KNOW they shouldn't but they need life blood to
keep their research engines going.
But to all you young prospective scientist out there who want to be
SCIENTISTS and not phony PR people or bureaucrats, keep on dreaming, but
remember to pinch yourself from time to time.
;)
P J Krupin
it to be of tremendous value to you in your search. Don't be dismayed by
the naysayers -- they just don't know how to find jobs -- the key is
helping people.
FINDING ENVIRONMENTAL JOBS & OPPORTUNITIES -- TOLL-FREE
For over 20 years, environmental attorney Paul J. Krupin, has had
a well-appreciated hobby: helping people find environmental jobs. Now,
Krupin, who works at the U. S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, has
published a resource guide to help others who are interested in his field.
The 1996 edition of Krupin's “Toll-Free Environmental Directory" lists
the toll-free 800 numbers for more than 7,000 environmental organizations,
firms, government agencies and institutions. “There’s a superhighway of
free business information out there, a dynamic ECO-nomic marketplace,” he
said.
The 152 page directory provides job and opportunity seekers
toll-free nation-wide access to environmental professionals within
professional and non-profit organizations, state and federal government
regulatory agencies, and thousands of environmental companies. It covers
the entire environmental industry, from air pollution, and asbestos,
environmental consultants and hazardous waste, all the way to water
pollution and waste management. The book also includes hundreds of
federal and state government hotlines for people needing technical advice
from government experts and help with problems.
The idea for the book came to Krupin after speaking at an
Environmental Careers Organization symposium in Tampa last year. “Take
advantage of being able to get nation-wide access to experts and hiring
authorities for free,” he says. Krupin says that getting in direct
contact with people on the job to identify problems needing solutions is
the best way to land a position. Here’s how: “Call toll-free. Speak to
a professional. Find out what needs to be done. Then make a proposal to
do it. Describe and demonstrate your problem-solving capabilities in your
letter and resume the very same day.”
The Toll-Free Environmental Directory is a valuable first hand
research tool for job hunters, contract and opportunity seekers,
fund-raisers and activists, teachers, students and working professionals.
For a copy of "Krupin's Toll-Free Environmental Directory", send a
check for $17.95 postpaid to Krupin's DIRECT CONTACT PUBLISHING, P. O. Box
6726, Kennewick, WA 99336, or call (800) 457-8746 (M/C/VISA/AMEX
accepted).
-END-
Arthur E. Sowers
On 23 Apr 1996, DGJ wrote:
> Art Sowers said:
>
> >I have been watching, listening, and trading information with colleagues
> >about what science PhDs do and how they do it and how they get to do it
> >since I began my one and only postdoc back in January, 1978.
>
> >I do not know what your definition is of "formal study". To me, when I
> >say I have done a formal study on some problem, then the word "done"
> >means past tense and "formal" means its published somewhere.
>
> >I would very much like to learn as much as possible about what is in your
> >"formal study" unless its proprietary and/or otherwise none of my
> >business.
>
>
> Art - I've published over 150 pages from this work, all on the internet on
> our home page (http://smi.bio.com/). But you already know that, so if you
> are looking for a refereed publication (?) you won't find it on the topic
> of careers. There are too many opinions and not enough facts, as you will
> find on sci.research.careers. In fact, your essays and mine are a bunch
> of opinions, aren't they!
Well, I'll refrain from judging what your essays are, but I will profess
that my essays have three components: i) open advice (your opinions), ii)
actual stories about real events that either happened to me or people I
knew, and iii) substantial citation of the published literature in major
media titles. I will maintain that items "ii)" and "iii)" are not
opinions. I think I also placed "disclaimers" and qualifying remarks in
many places of my essays.
> By the way, you asked about my son and how I am dealing with his desire to
> be a scientist. I am teaching him the two common threads from which I
> believe all success comes:
>
> 1) The ability to manage his own life
I have no problem with that.
> and not be swept aside by negative
> thoughts or circumstances.
Something made me stop and thing about this. ... I decided to turn on and
warm up my crystal ball. I tuned in to 1995+20 years, put in the
coordinates for your son, in four dimensional space, and turned the focus
knob. The landscape was a coastal area. I saw a lighthouse and several
bouys in the water. I looked around, and whadya know, I saw your son on
the beach. He was standing next to a shipwreak with the nameplate on the
stern "Jensen III" and looking at the shipwreak and saying: "Gee, I did
everything my dad taught me to do: ignore all those 'negative thoughts or
circumstances' [the lighthouse was on rocks, the bouys were indicating
shallow water] because otherwise I'd be 'swept aside'." By the way, he was
all wet. ... No pun intended. ....or maybe the pun was intended.
> 2) The ability to self-promote. If he's good at something, I want him to
> know him to make sure it gets noticed. I don't want my son to be the
> proverbial unrecognized genius somewhere in someone else's lab.
Adolf Hitler was good at something. And he got noticed, too.
I have also noted, in my experience, some self-promoters who use other
people as stepping stones to further their own ambitions (and/or wallets).
>
> Dave
>
You forgot to put your URL under your name.
Art Sowers
P.S. What about the picture of your dogs on your web page? Or, don't you
wanna talk about that? ;-)
Marc Andelman
> Hi Dave and Art. Pardon my intrusion into your conversation,
however, Dave, take your son out to the wood pile right now
and make sure he grow up to be an accountant. He will have
a better chance of using his artistic skills there than he will
in the present, heirachical system. Insofar as artistry in
science, to me that is what is best in science, and is exactly
what seems to be overlooked, and maybe even regarded as subversive.
the . The present system guarntees incremental
research. Sometimes, that is not good enough or is just
perpetuating dogma and worn out paradigms. Where is the artistry
anymore?
Marc Andelman
ancient chinese saying
"Happyness is a warm puppy"
Pamela MURPHY, Ifremer Brest PDG-DRO-GM-GEOCHIMIE, +33-9822-4711
Some of us only got into it to meet incredibly intelligent yet hunky and
enigmatically good looking men.... Oops.
A friend sent me the following tidbit last year (apparently from the
Times in London):
"Apparently in America some woman has come up with this bright idea to
try to improve the image of top level scientists....by getting them to
star in the male equivalent of the Playboy calender, but with clothes on
(ahhhh....). What they have done is got people to nominate their
colleagues. The calender involves taking pictures of the best looking
academics in athletic poses in their labs. They also have a little
biography where the scientist gets to name his favourite sub-atomic
particle etc... When recruiting for this on the internet, the criteria
listed were that nominees should have a Y chromozone and a Ph.d and that
was all they needed to become Dr. December."
So are all the science pessimists really sure they want to leave science,
when they have such opportunities open to them? And who knows how many
pretty young girls this initiative could tempt in? The future is not as
bleak as all that!
Pam
DGJ
Like many other articles of career advice, Art's essays are a fine
opinion. And when making career decisions, people need to analyze as many
of these opinions as possible.
It is strange that Art continues to hammer me on an open forum for my
lifetime of writing about career issues. I've been on platforms with
people like Richard Nelson Bolles for more than a decade because of this
material. It stems from the values and experiences of myself and others,
gleaned from over 5000-6000 personal (and in-depth) interviews with
scientists. Why would Art continue to knock this material --- other
"opinions" than his can't be the only reason. There is room for all of it.
[And by telling someone else how to raise their children, shame on you
Art. My guess is that you may be a lifelong bachelor. Speak of things you
know about. You know nothing about a fine little boy who will grow up to
be quite happy, and whether he's a starving artist or a scientist, it'll
be fine with me. I hope this is the way that most parents feel. Hitler he
won't be, nor is he growing up to disrespect others.]
Let's stick to career issues. One career issue that I addressed by talking
about my son was the issue of self-promotion. Here's a definition of what
happens when you are afraid to talk about your strengths:
"The fear of self promotion consists of all behavioral habits, thoughts,
actions, or feelings, which conspire to keep competent people of all walks
of life from being able to stand up and take credit for who they are and
what they do well." George W Dudley, PhD
Isn't this something you'd want to make certain didn't affect your life or
career? Art Sowers seems to believe that by helping ease my son over this
fear, I have somehow created another Adolf Hitler. I'd like others
thoughts publically of this topic --- and private opinions please of how I
can get rid of a person (Sowers) who is once again attacking me on
everything I say on this newsgroup. Thanks!
Dave Jensen
http://smi.bio.com/
J. P. Germanas
"Arthur E. Sowers" <arth...@access.digex.net> wrote:
_BIG CUT_
>
> Adolf Hitler was good at something. And he got noticed, too.
>
Isn't there some informal convention on usenet, that when someone
invokes Hitler's name, it's time to end the thread? If so, I propose that
this thread be ended.
--
J. P. Germanas
Arthur E. Sowers
On 24 Apr 1996, DGJ wrote:
> Regarding Art Sower's "essays" and his comments about my earlier post:
The correct place to put the apostrophe is after the second "s". Although
I am not a good speller, I try not to butcher up other peoples names.
> Like many other articles of career advice, Art's essays are a fine
> opinion.
How can you be so contradictory? In your eyes, my essays would be
"negative". In fact I seem to recall that you even said that to me many
months ago. If I were you I think I'd be coming out saying my essays are a
crappy opinion because they are so "negative".
> And when making career decisions, people need to analyze as many
> of these opinions as possible.
I don't have any problem with that.
> It is strange that Art continues to hammer me on an open forum for my
> lifetime of writing about career issues.
Not really. I read about 1/3 of your essays and found much useful
information there. I have said that before. I would recommend that young
people, especially, as well as people looking for new directions would do
well to spend some time reading what you have posted (...and, while they
are at it, realize that this generates "hit statistics" that benefits the
measure of advertising success on Dave's web site).
> I've been on platforms with
> people like Richard Nelson Bolles
Who is he?
> for more than a decade because of this
> material. It stems from the values and experiences of myself and others,
> gleaned from over 5000-6000 personal (and in-depth) interviews with
> scientists. Why would Art continue to knock this material --- other
> "opinions" than his can't be the only reason. There is room for all of it.
I doubt if you really got personal with those thousands like I got
personal with real personal friends. As a matter of fact, I doubt if you
can have a real "personal" interview very often with candidates or
clients. And, as far as in-depth is concerned, how do you know its in
depth?
>
> [And by telling someone else how to raise their children, shame on you
> Art.
On the contrary, it was YOU who was telling, or at least heavily
suggesting, everyone else how to raise thier children.
> My guess is that you may be a lifelong bachelor.
I have a fine wife and we both want each other and we want to keep what we
have now, between us, for the rest of our lives.
> Speak of things you
> know about. You know nothing about a fine little boy who will grow up to
> be quite happy, and whether he's a starving artist or a scientist, it'll
> be fine with me. I hope this is the way that most parents feel. Hitler he
> won't be, nor is he growing up to disrespect others.]
>
> Let's stick to career issues.
It was YOU that brought your kid into the discussion.
> One career issue that I addressed by talking
> about my son was the issue of self-promotion. Here's a definition of what
> happens when you are afraid to talk about your strengths:
I'm not affraid to talk about my strengths. One of these strenghts is that
I'm not affraid of you, either!
> "The fear of self promotion consists of all behavioral habits, thoughts,
> actions, or feelings, which conspire to keep competent people of all walks
> of life from being able to stand up and take credit for who they are and
> what they do well." George W Dudley, PhD
...and some take credit for what other people do, too, sometimes.
I think people need to assess not only their strengths, but also their
weaknesses.
Folks, you can go down to your local craft shop and buy little plaques
with famous sayings on them by famous people. I think they are nice, but
I'd rather depend on what words (and meaning) I can generate than what
words (and meaning) someone else can generate.
> Isn't this something you'd want to make certain didn't affect your life or
> career? Art Sowers seems to believe that by helping ease my son over this
> fear, I have somehow created another Adolf Hitler.
This shows a lot of confusion in your own analysis of your prior statement
and my response to it. In fact, in almost every recent post of yours, you
failed to include the actual text of both my response and your actual
first statement. Thus, you have continually changed the subject, shifted
the direction, confused the issues, and mis-quoted me and mis-represented
my meanings.
> I'd like others
> thoughts publically of this topic --- and private opinions please of how I
> can get rid of a person (Sowers) who is once again attacking me on
> everything I say on this newsgroup.
I do not attack you on "everything" you say on the newsgroup. In most of
your posts, I have found at least one statment or idea or group of
sentences that are just fine with me. In some other statements, I chose to
present a different perspective, which is not necessarily meant to
"attack" you. I'm sorry if you want to put everyone around you into one of
two categories: One for (=us), one against (=them). And you allow no room
for people who may have a range of agreements and disagreements with you.
I have many friends, relatives, etc. who I can agree on some topics and
disagree on others and this does not bother either one of us. In a few of
your statements, I have strong disagreement. Why don't you just DEAL WITH
it?
This all started with your blanket recommendation to one young person to
contact you for some email addresses of "whomevers" who were going to tell
that person, maybe, "how nice everything is". In addition, you have
continually promoted the general idea that people should always run away
from what you call "negativity" and/or don't listen to anything that is
not positive.
> Thanks!
Oh, you're welcome! ....oh, that wasn't meant for me? Sorry.
> Dave Jensen
> http://smi.bio.com/
>
I'm going to quit asking about the intention you stated months ago that
you were going to put pictures of your two dogs on you home page. But I
was seriously interested in seeing what they looked like. Yet, you never
ever answered this question or put it to rest. Seems suspicious to me.
Art Sowers
DGJ
Art Sowers' comments:
>How can you be so contradictory? In your eyes, my essays would be
>"negative". In fact I seem to recall that you even said that to me many
>months ago. If I were you I think I'd be coming out saying my essays are
a
>crappy opinion because they are so "negative".
Art, when you go off the deep end, please don't put words in my mouth. I
don't like things that are blatantly negative, so what's wrong with that?
I've also said your essays are a valuable opinion.
>people looking for new directions would do
>well to spend some time reading what you have posted (...and, while they
>are at it, realize that this generates "hit statistics" that benefits the
>measure of advertising success on Dave's web site).
My material is placed where it is because it is a major location for
biotechnology, and the center of our industry organization. I don't have
any advertising, or any interests (financial or otherwise) on the site,
other than my own home page, which you can skip if you just want to read
the articles.
>Who is he [Richard Nelson Bolles]?
Richard Nelson Bolles has sold more books about careers than anyone at any
other time. His book "What Color is Your Parachute?" is now in something
like it's tenth printing and over 5 million copies have been sold. There
is an interview with him, although a couple of years old now, on our web
site.
>I doubt if you really got personal with those thousands like I got
>personal with real personal friends. As a matter of fact, I doubt if you
>can have a real "personal" interview very often with candidates or
>clients. And, as far as in-depth is concerned, how do you know its in
>depth?
Art - personal interviews are what we do all day long as a recruiter. You
speak to people, at length, about what makes their careers work or not
work, and about their life attitudes. The funny thing is that there are
common threads in the thinking, philosophy, and actions of those who are
successful in science. We write about those in the texts on
http://smi.bio.com/.
>On the contrary, it was YOU who was telling, or at least heavily
>suggesting, everyone else how to raise thier children.
Art, please go back and read that again. I said that "I've got one of
those in my house, a little boy who thinks and dreams about test tubes and
experiments." Give me a break. Not until you made mention of how I raise
my son did I bring up those two lessons which seem so important in our
family.
>I think people need to assess not only their strengths, but also their
>weaknesses.
I agree. See the article in our web site on "Analyzing Your Strengths and
Weaknesses. The SWOT Analysis"
>This all started with your blanket recommendation to one young person >to
contact you for some email addresses of "whomevers" who were going >to
tell that person, maybe, "how nice everything is". In addition, you >have
continually promoted the general idea that people should always run >away
from what you call "negativity" and/or don't listen to anything that >is
not positive.
My impression was that this young person needed to counter-balance the
negative impressions they had from src with some real-world contact with
scientists in industry. Sometimes these communications lead to new
insights, and in other cases it may lead to a good job lead or two. Now,
as you know, no one (myself included) thinks that everything is "all
right." But --- the best way to move forward is to look for the bright
spots and head that direction. All I did was offer to point her in the
direction of those bright spots.
NOW ART .... I'm going to take the advice of the previous poster on this
thread, and suggest that since you brought the name of Adolph Hitler into
this thing, I am not going to post on this thread any longer.
Dave Jensen
Bert Gold
advice in their spare time (for a profit of course).
Hey, PJ, if you really have some good opportunities out there,
please let me know about them, so that I can tell my laid-off
friend, and the grad. student who is calling me tonight because
he'll have no work in September where to look.
Oh, incidentally, some of my closest friends are environmental
engineers and each of them is indeed working, but it took
YEARS for them each to carve a niche out for themselves,
even though they graduated places like Harvard, MIT and UCLA.
Good luck 'helping people'.
With your kind of help, it's not clear to me that people
need enemies!
Biologists, there ARE opportunities in ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING,
BUT you must first GO BACK TO SCHOOL!
FEEL FREE TO ASK QUESTIONS OF ME (FOR FREE), I'll give you
the names and addresses and phone numbers of my employed
environmental scientist friends' in exchange for
your personal sad story.
(I am collecting these, so that our grandchildren can
have a record of why it was that America fell into deep
decline in the latter portion of the 20th Century).
Bert Gold
San Francisco
P J Krupin (pjkr...@aol.com) wrote:
: I wrote this book to help people find environmental jobs -- you may find
Marc Andelman
>
>
> P J Krupin (pjkr...@aol.com) wrote:
> : I wrote this book to help people find environmental jobs -- you may find
> : it to be of tremendous value to you in your search. Don't be dismayed by
> : the naysayers -- they just don't know how to find jobs -- the key is
> : helping people.
>
> : FINDING ENVIRONMENTAL JOBS & OPPORTUNITIES -- TOLL-FREE
> : For over 20 years, environmental attorney Paul J. Krupin, has had
> : a well-appreciated hobby: helping people find environmental jobs. Now,
> : Krupin, who works at the U. S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, has
> : published a resource guide to help others who are interested in his field.
> These people are sitting on a huge pile of nuclear pollutions
that is slowly making it's way to the Columbia River System.
Last year, a study was released that it would cost so many
trillions of dollard to clean up, that , with present technology,
it was economically impossible. That is fine with these guys,
as they get paid to STUDY the problem, not do anything. Just
write reports and memos all day long.
A big part of the problem is things like Cesium, Strontium,
etc., in the ground water. Existing technologies like Ion
Exchange are no good, becuase ion exchange generates secondary
acid or salt waste, and you end up with more waste than you
started with. RO is also no good, as it is not dead ended,
and only concentrates a portion of the feed stream.
No one is working on new primary technologies to clean
water. These are commodity products were innovation has not
happened for so long, that any company selling them does not
have the margin to support scientists. Academics killed this
field becuase the research czar system perpetuated old technolgies
ad naseum. This is clearly an area where incremental improvments
will not work. There are lots of alternative approaches that
are worth a try, but you need to have smart people, maybe who
even understand high school physics, and a can-do attitude; not
a bunch of burearocrats stirring around the waste tansks all day
long.
Marc.
Arthur E. Sowers
On 24 Apr 1996, DGJ wrote:
> Overboard, Art, way overboard . . .
Conclusion before the analysis. And, I've noticed your technique has been
continually based on little or no quoting of prior material
> Art Sowers' comments:
>
> >How can you be so contradictory? In your eyes, my essays would be
> >"negative". In fact I seem to recall that you even said that to me many
> >months ago. If I were you I think I'd be coming out saying my essays are
> a
> >crappy opinion because they are so "negative".
>
> Art, when you go off the deep end, please don't put words in my mouth.
You have repeatedly represented scientific careers from a sellect group of
people in industrial-commercial settings, and also from the point of view
of a recruiter rather than as a scientist. The overall tone, content, and
expectations you have presented are out of line with a substantial
population of people not only in the newsgroup, but what I see published
in the newspapers, journals, and my nextdoor neighbors as well as people
down the hall from me. I CITED THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES AND THE JOURNAL
ARTICLES IN MY ESSAYS.
> I
> don't like things that are blatantly negative, so what's wrong with that?
> I've also said your essays are a valuable opinion.
>
> >people looking for new directions would do
> >well to spend some time reading what you have posted (...and, while they
> >are at it, realize that this generates "hit statistics" that benefits the
> >measure of advertising success on Dave's web site).
>
> My material is placed where it is because it is a major location for
> biotechnology, and the center of our industry organization. I don't have
> any advertising, or any interests (financial or otherwise) on the site,
> other than my own home page, which you can skip if you just want to read
> the articles.
As I recall, you do focus or at least mention your organizations name and
your own name. Your organization IS interested in making money (You did
say in a prior post that your details are none of my business, and I do
not believe you work for free). When you mention YOUR name and YOUR
organizaitons name, this IS advertising. Web sites, like newspapers and
TV, DO CARRY advertising and that advertising is seen. It IS advertising.
YOU DO NOT have links to other recruiters or much, if any, other websites
of "competitors" or, for that matter, you do not have the diversity of
opinion that I saw on another website that I recently reviewed.
>
> >Who is he [Richard Nelson Bolles]?
>
> Richard Nelson Bolles has sold more books about careers than anyone at any
> other time. His book "What Color is Your Parachute?" is now in something
> like it's tenth printing and over 5 million copies have been sold.
Oh, yes. I remember now. I don't know about your claim as to who sold more
books about careers, but I do know that business books have been promoted
to the moon (Self promotion is quite obvious to me, and usually makes more
money for the author than can be justified based on the information
density... these are the books that I recommend to people to go to the
library or just stand at the book stores and read for free. They are
usually not worth buying).
> There
> is an interview with him, although a couple of years old now, on our web
> site.
Bully for you.
> >I doubt if you really got personal with those thousands like I got
> >personal with real personal friends. As a matter of fact, I doubt if you
> >can have a real "personal" interview very often with candidates or
> >clients. And, as far as in-depth is concerned, how do you know its in
> >depth?
>
> Art - personal interviews are what we do all day long as a recruiter. You
> speak to people, at length, about what makes their careers work or not
> work, and about their life attitudes.
Ah, the amateur psychologist?!
> The funny thing is that there are
> common threads in the thinking, philosophy, and actions of those who are
> successful in science. We write about those in the texts on
> http://smi.bio.com/.
>
> >On the contrary, it was YOU who was telling, or at least heavily
> >suggesting, everyone else how to raise thier children.
>
> Art, please go back and read that again. I said that "I've got one of
> those in my house, a little boy who thinks and dreams about test tubes and
> experiments." Give me a break. Not until you made mention of how I raise
> my son did I bring up those two lessons which seem so important in our
> family.
You were promoting the idea to your kid that he should not let his
life be swept around or to the side by *negativity* or *negative
circumstances* and implying that everyone should be doing this. Or, if
they are not doing it, then there is something wrong with them. You also
said that you were promoting to him the idea of self-promotion. I have
seen this tendency often lead to: i) pitiful people who go around "sucking
up" wherever possible, ii) a greater problem when it turns into
self-agrandisement, and iii) crowding out and smothering diversity from
people who may have better ideas but may not be so agressive in their
personal interactions. There is an old lawyers saying that "if you can't
pound on the facts, then pound on the table".
> >I think people need to assess not only their strengths, but also their
> >weaknesses.
>
>
> >This all started with your blanket recommendation to one young person >to
> contact you for some email addresses of "whomevers" who were going >to
> tell that person, maybe, "how nice everything is". In addition, you >have
> continually promoted the general idea that people should always run >away
> from what you call "negativity" and/or don't listen to anything that >is
> not positive.
>
> My impression was that this young person needed to counter-balance the
> negative impressions they had from src with some real-world contact with
> scientists in industry.
The major problem is that too many kids grow up in an environment where
they are not warned about the pitfalls, disadvantages, and blind alleys in
society. One source of these problems is "entities" such as
universities which overly self-promote themselves and their graduate
programs (but not so much their medical education programs) without
recognizing that they are contributing to long term conditions
for an unhealthy environment for science. Administrators are particularly
to blame for failing to do the work needed to benefit the greater good.
Most business people I have met and gotten to know are quite hard-nosed,
profit oriented (at the expense of many other things), and not all as
"effusively positive" about life as you come accross here on the
newsgroup. Indeed, in the book "The Big Boys" by Taylor and Nader, which I
read, virtually all of the covered personalities were ... really, sort-of,
and not being too unfair, either ... they were ... assholes. And, as I
complain about a lot of things, I can find, on self-inspection, that I am
not worshiping false gods like a lot of these people are doing.
> Sometimes these communications lead to new
> insights, and in other cases it may lead to a good job lead or two.
Oh, I am all FOR that! Really!
> Now,
> as you know, no one (myself included) thinks that everything is "all
> right."
Congratulations, we (=I) find a sentence, as usual, where we have supreme
agreement.
> But --- the best way to move forward is to look for the bright
> spots and head that direction. All I did was offer to point her in the
> direction of those bright spots.
Yes, but don't forget to mention the dim, dark ones, too.
I have a friend who has a daughter. She wants success for her daughter,
but the daughter wants to go in a direction that "looks" exciting to her.
Her mother and I both agree that that direction does not have as good of a
future as the daughter thinks. I said, "Take her by the hand to the
classified section of the paper and show her that there are few jobs in
area 'X' and many jobs in area 'Z'" and she laughed and said "You're right
but she wont do that". A classic problem of parents.
Sure, kids can have their dreams and look at the programs offered in
college catalogs. Some of them might succeed. I would just like to see
more young people (and a lot of those in their postdocs who are not at all
young any more) who are now sweating out career changes, transitions, and
those laid off (for one reason or the other) have more success.
I really have seen very little from you, Dave, that addresses these
problems. In fact, if I were really vicious, I could write up a fairly
good list of material on careers THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE on your website but
which is equally if not more important than what IS there, and post it
openly here.
>
> Dave Jensen
>
Its OK, Dave, if you want to debate with me. Now we'll start playing more
by your rules and practices than mine.
Art Sowers
jcol...@msvax.mssm.edu
In article <4lhr72$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, d...@aol.com (DGJ) writes:
>[I'd like to write something that doesn't make Art Sowers mad, so I will
>not comment directly to anything he said or did. ]
>
>I've made a formal study of science careers for more than a decade (formal
>for me --- very informal for what a scientist would consider a "study").
>My impression is that there are people who will do well despite how much
>negativity they read about on this newsgroup, or encounter in "real life."
> Bert and Art have written much better than I have about the changes going
>on in society and in American industry. Changes that don't bode well for a
>career as a scientist.
>
>Art or Music? Isn't there an "inner drive" of some kind that seems to get
>that even the most hard-hearted readers of this newsgroup would agree that
>there is something in the love of science which inspired them to get into
>this career in the first place. I've got one of those in my house right
>now -- a little boy who lives and dreams of test tubes and experiments.
>
>in days of olde -- had always been assured of not only enjoying a
>wonderful, creative life, but had also the promise of MAKING A DAMN GOOD
>LIVING AS WELL. Now many feel let down as a result of this broken
>promise.
>
>and friends shouting to the rafters, "Change your course! You'll go
>broke!" So, we filter out the ones who fall prey to that noise, and we end
>up with a society whose poets, musicians, etc. struggle along earning
>spectacular income. Those are the few who had the self-promotional ability
>to get noticed.
>
>wonderful career choice if you've got the guts to see it through. To any
>young person considering science nowadays, they have to know that the
>enough high-flying biotechnology jobs out there to cover all the output of
>graduate programs. BUT -- there are still very successful and visible
>career role models in science.
>
>it. My impression is that if you study those who are successful, and
>success in your work and home life which few professions can give you.
>
>
>http://smi.bio.com/
>
I will have to agree with you ...I hear all this negative
stuff...funding/grants/low pay etc...I work in a lab which is in the middle of
a funding nightmare....I've been given fair warning...and all I can say
is...Sorry I literally cannot be anything else, I am driven to this stuff. I
eat sleep and breathe neurobiology. It's a sickness *laugh* Regardless of how
depressing it is or how depressed I get I bounce right back...whatever it
takes, I'll do it. I have been science obsessed since at least the second or
third grade....I had an old microscope which I'd put out on my grandmother's
kitchen table and look at tap water...and then store tap water around to fgrow
things to look at..my grandmother was horrified. :-) We had contests in the
fifth grade called Science King and Queen...the idea was to memorize the
science textbook and stand in front of the room as "king" or "queen" and answer
questions from the class...if you miss a question the person who asked it gets
to be "king" or "queen"...I was the longest reigning queen :-) I loved
chemistry in high school and neurobiology in college...now I am a third year
grad student in neuro and I hope to do this stuff for the rest of my natural
life...so thanks for the warnings and predictions and concerns for my
welfare..but you're wasting your time and mine..I have a science career to work
on :-)
Jen
DGJ
Two quotes off recent src postings; one from a person who has every chance
to be very successful in his or her career, and one from a person who has
so soured himself on science that he probably has to have a glass of milk
to wash down every experiment:
>I hear all this negative stuff...funding/grants/low pay etc...I work in a
>lab which is in the middle of a funding nightmare....I've been given fair
>warning...and all I can say is...Sorry I literally cannot be anything
else, I >am driven to this stuff. I eat sleep and breathe neurobiology.
(snip)
>now I am a third year grad student in neuro and I hope to do this stuff
for >the rest of my natural life...so thanks for the warnings and
predictions >and concerns for my welfare..but you're wasting your time and
mine..I >have a science career to work on :-) . . .
Now compare the above with the following more than just a bit negative
ravings:
>Most business people I have met and gotten to know are hard-nosed,
>profit oriented (snip, discussion of a favorite book)
>.. really, sort-of, and not being too unfair, either ... they were
...assholes. >And, as I complain about a lot of things, I can find, on
self-inspection, >that I am not worshiping false gods like a lot of these
people are doing.
It's obvious that the second poster has stopped worshiping the false Gods
of career and science a long time ago. Do you think that perhaps a bit of
this might show up in a job interview?
Dave
Arthur E. Sowers
For all of you other people out there who might be getting the idea that
this ongoing debate is not of interest to them, I have renamed the subject
to help them pass over it onto more mainstream thoughts.
On 29 Apr 1996, DGJ wrote:
>
> >Most business people I have met and gotten to know are hard-nosed,
> >profit oriented (snip, discussion of a favorite book)
> >.. really, sort-of, and not being too unfair, either ... they were
> ...assholes. >And, as I complain about a lot of things, I can find, on
> self-inspection, >that I am not worshiping false gods like a lot of these
> people are doing.
You need to control your editing and formating better. This comes accross
like "faxed resumes" that you complained about months ago.
> It's obvious that the second poster has stopped worshiping the false Gods
1. You cannot, grammatically, capitalize the "g" in the word god if you
are going to use the plural.
2. The "...its obvious that...." presents as a conclusion that which bears
little relation to the original author's actual beliefs. This guy's
statement suggests a lot of prejudice.
3. Recruiters, of all people, should not place the phrase "false god(s)"
in the same sentence as the word "careers".
4. If there was a "stopping" then I would expect it to have happened much
more recently than "a long time ago."
> of career and science a long time ago. Do you think that perhaps a bit of
> this might show up in a job interview?
What might show up in a job interview?
Someone, I quote, said recently:
==== start of quote====
From d...@aol.com Mon Apr 29 21:41:45 1996
Date: 24 Apr 1996 15:13:21 -0400
From: DGJ <d...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Science Careers??
***
Art - personal interviews are what we do all day long as a recruiter. You
speak to people, at length, about what makes their careers work or not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
work, and about their life attitudes.
^^^^
====end of quote====
BTW, what is the "this" that is showing up in an interview? One of the
interesting features of the whole interviewer-interviewee relationship is
how interpretation can depend on who it is that has the power to make
decisions. I have heard stories of people being on interviews back in the
1960s where the interview lasted about 10 minutes and the other guy talked
for 9 minutes (this happened to me actually). They were not there to
interview me, but to ask me how soon I could show up for work. The last
time I arranged a change in a faculty appointment, it took 10-20 minutes
for the basic decision to be made. I also recently secured an interest in
a future venture and in a different context as a simple result of a dinner
conversation in which I simply talked about "things" and the other person
talked about "things". This is the way I like to "make arrangements" for
future ventures. I have been the interviewer many many times in the last
15 years, and I was the interviewee twice in the same period.
There is something about meaning in life, here, that I could go into, but
it would be lost on my target audience.
Of course, my target audience might have the feeling that "life attitude"
is all that is needed, and maybe that has a "sellecting effect" on the
population that he is familiar with. Or, in more vernacular terms, "birds
of a feather flock together".
To me, attitude is much farther down the importance scale than three
qualities I look for in people: i) honesty/realism, ii) problem-solving
abilities, and iii) work ethic. Attitude is important, but in many
situations I'd rather look at motivation. At the bottom of my importance
scale is "phoney people" with superficial personalities.
> Dave
>
>
Art
Arthur E. Sowers
On 30 Apr 1996, Marc Andelman wrote:
> > Two quotes off recent src postings; one from a person who has every chance
> > to be very successful in his or her career, and one from a person who has
> > so soured himself on science that he probably has to have a glass of milk
> > to wash down every experiment:
> >
I love peanut butter and jelly (red raspberry preserves) sandwiches.
> >
> >
> > It's obvious that the second poster has stopped worshiping the false Gods
> > of career and science a long time ago. Do you think that perhaps a bit of
> > this might show up in a job interview?
> >
> > Dave
>
>
> > That brings up an interesting point. A lot of people forget
> that when they go for an interview, the idea is to get an
> offer. They can always turn it down later. It is also imperative
> that both parties try to elevate the interview experience
> beyond that of two dogs sniffing their rears. This sets the
> tone for a future work relationship.
>
> Marc Andelman
>
Hi Marc,
I was wondering if you meant that each of the two dogs was sniffing its
own rear, or each others rears? There is also a hidden question here (not
to be having the word "here" rhyme with "rear" but it just came out that
way) dealing with the gender of each dog. ...and I'm not going to touch
that with a ten foot pole. I also had a suggestion of substituting the
word "perfume" for the word "tone", ... but all in jest.
Art
Marc Andelman
> Two quotes off recent src postings; one from a person who has every chance
> to be very successful in his or her career, and one from a person who has
> so soured himself on science that he probably has to have a glass of milk
> to wash down every experiment:
>
>
>
Schwermann
In article <4kkcj5$g...@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca> Donald Martin
wrote:
>Well ya know, that's really sad. People being forced out of areas
they
>love because of lack of funding/jobs. It's gonna be a pretty drab
>scientific community in a few years (wrt diversity of areas of
study) if
>this keeps up (an' it will).
This attitude is totally unrealistic.
I suppose you expect that if someone just loves to design logic
circuits with discrete transistors, Intel should hire them and
pay them a six figure salary to do it, just because they love to.
Science has to meet a need in society if it is to deserve funding
by society. The need could be relatively long term, but there has
to be one.
Schwermann
Schwermann
In article <4ksa5b$27...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> Scott Ward
wrote:
>Great. As some one who has just completed his technologists
diploma, and
>is about to go to university for 4 sememsters to get my honours in
micro ,
> these are just the kind of encouraging words I need to hear right
now.
>
Yes, they are just the words you need to hear right now.
THE TRUTH.
You'd be wise to plan ahead with the advantage of knowing the
truth from someone who is in a position to know it.
Schwermann
DGJ
>Subject: Re: Science Careers??
>From: Schwe...@gnn.com (Schwermann)
>Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 22:33:15
>Message-ID: <4mefok$7...@news-e2d.gnn.com>
Unless, of course, that TRUTH happened to be only a PARTIAL TRUTH, and
that the other side of ths same coin is that there are lots of happy
people who study and then practice microbiology. Yes, it is the TRUTH for
some people. It is also PURE B.S. for others.
Dave
Donald Martin
DGJ (d...@aol.com) wrote:
: >Subject: Re: Science Careers??
: >From: Schwe...@gnn.com (Schwermann)
: >Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 22:33:15
: >Message-ID: <4mefok$7...@news-e2d.gnn.com>
: >>In article <4ksa5b$27...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> Scott Ward
: >>wrote:
: >>Great. As some one who has just completed his technologists
: >>diploma, and
: >>is about to go to university for 4 sememsters to get my honours in
: >>micro ,
: >>these are just the kind of encouraging words I need to hear right
: >>now.
:
: >Yes, they are just the words you need to hear right now.
: >THE TRUTH.
: >You'd be wise to plan ahead with the advantage of knowing the
: >truth from someone who is in a position to know it.
: >Schwermann
: Unless, of course, that TRUTH happened to be only a PARTIAL TRUTH, and
: that the other side of ths same coin is that there are lots
^^^^
How about providing some figure on "lots" employed compared to the number
of temps/unemployed. Or are you deliberately using weasel words?
of happy
: people who study and then practice microbiology. Yes, it is the TRUTH for
: some people. It is also PURE B.S. for others.
or is it only PARTIAL BS?
;)
Donald Martin
Schwermann (Schwe...@gnn.com) wrote:
: In article <4kkcj5$g...@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca> Donald Martin
: wrote:
: >Well ya know, that's really sad. People being forced out of areas
: they
: >love because of lack of funding/jobs. It's gonna be a pretty drab
: >scientific community in a few years (wrt diversity of areas of
: study) if
: >this keeps up (an' it will).
: This attitude is totally unrealistic.
: I suppose you expect that if someone just loves to design logic
: circuits with discrete transistors, Intel should hire them and
: pay them a six figure salary to do it, just because they love to.
No but people have to have Ph.D.'s do any research. It is not just a
matter of love, it is an investment of a lot of time and money.
And what do you mean non-fashionable fields of science aren't useful. A
lot of the grass root research is what applied research takes and build
upon to produce a "useful" product as you call it. Maybe you should sit
down and watch a few episodes of Jame's Burke's Connection if you can't
grasp what I'm saying. Scientific diversity is like Biological
Diversity. Sure we can get by without it (maybe) but life would be a lot
poorer without it. I suppose you are not in favor of gov't support of
the "fine arts" beacuse they don't produce a product of practical value
either?
: Science has to meet a need in society if it is to deserve funding
: by society. The need could be relatively long term, but there has
: to be one.
Then Universities should stop training people in areas that aren't
marketable, unless employers are willing to hire a Ph.D. and provide some
on the job training to make their skill suit the job.