Postdoc and engineering...
Ozone Hole near South Pole
I and have just read Peter Feibelman's "A PhD is not enough: A guide
to survival in science". Since my long term career goal is doing
research in academia, I am convinced that getting a postdoc position
is a good idea. However, the author has a scientific background in
solid state physics, while I am more like an engineer (more exactly,
robotics in EE). Do I need to consider the difference between that?
For example, some of my fellow PhD students suggest that working as a
practical engineer initially then go back to academia later on may be
the better route... On the other hand, the book is a bit out-of date
(published in 1993). Is there any major change that we need to pay
attention to? Some guys that I know tell me that most bigger
universities now require their assistant professors to have previous
teaching experience. Is that really true?
Since I am in a New Zealand, which it is far away from most of the big
research "hubs", I rely on the internet a lot when searching for
postdoc positions (and other info). It is a serious disadvantage...
When compared with other disciplines like biomedical, physics etc, I
cannot find many openings for engineering postdoc. Did I poke the
wrong source or that's how the market looks like? At last, what's the
best time to apply for the positions? I am in the process of writing
thesis now....
Thank you for your advices in advance.
Regards,
Ozonehole2K
Peter J. Kootsookos
> Hi,
>
> I and have just read Peter Feibelman's "A PhD is not enough: A guide
> to survival in science". Since my long term career goal is doing
> research in academia, I am convinced that getting a postdoc position
> is a good idea. However, the author has a scientific background in
> solid state physics, while I am more like an engineer (more exactly,
> robotics in EE). Do I need to consider the difference between that?
> For example, some of my fellow PhD students suggest that working as a
> practical engineer initially then go back to academia later on may be
> the better route...
Blow that for a game of soldiers. It's wrong, wrong, wrong. Academia
likes academia. Practical engineering is not academia and ne'er the
twain shall meet.
> Since I am in a New Zealand, which it is far away from most of the big
> research "hubs", I rely on the internet a lot when searching for
> postdoc positions (and other info). It is a serious disadvantage...
> When compared with other disciplines like biomedical, physics etc, I
> cannot find many openings for engineering postdoc. Did I poke the
> wrong source or that's how the market looks like?
Most post-docs that I've seen are found by word-of-mouth. Use your
network or your supervisor's network.
> At last, what's the best time to apply for the positions? I am in
> the process of writing thesis now....
As soon as you can... figure out when you're available and make sure
you include this in your application (and that the position
description doesn't state a particular start time that conflicts with
yours... even if it does, ask the contact if it's hard-and-fast).
Ciao,
Peter K.
--
Peter J. Kootsookos
"Na, na na na na na na, na na na na"
- 'Hey Jude', Lennon/McCartney
jason
> ozone...@yahoo.com (Ozone Hole near South Pole) writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I and have just read Peter Feibelman's "A PhD is not enough: A guide
> > to survival in science". Since my long term career goal is doing
> > research in academia, I am convinced that getting a postdoc position
> > is a good idea. However, the author has a scientific background in
> > solid state physics, while I am more like an engineer (more exactly,
> > robotics in EE). Do I need to consider the difference between that?
> > For example, some of my fellow PhD students suggest that working as a
> > practical engineer initially then go back to academia later on may be
> > the better route...
>
> Blow that for a game of soldiers. It's wrong, wrong, wrong. Academia
> likes academia. Practical engineering is not academia and ne'er the
> twain shall meet.
>
I know of some cases where persons with fresh Ph.d and no postdoc
experience is taken as lecturer (entry level teaching post) in
engineering. I have heard of a few (not many) such cases in NUS, NTU
Singapore where expats are recruited in this manner. Also in some
British/Australian universities I have seen Ph.d students in campus
after completing Ph.d immediately taken in as lecturers. probably this
is due to influence of their Profs but I personally know this happens.
I think the emphasis of post-doc experience was originally mainly
meant for science faculty and not engineering faculty - but because of
glut of Ph.d in engineering too these days they require postdocs to
cut down the numbers.
As far I feel postdoc experience has no relevance in teaching and good
postdocs churning out papers in boring specialized subjects can suck
in teaching. Teaching requires personal communication skills, good
overall knowldege of wide area of subjects (and not specialized
knowledge in churning out papers in a narrow area) and aboive all
desire to teach and impress young minds.
ES
news:cd22f127.03061...@posting.google.com:
Supply and demand dictates the professor market as sure as it does
everything else. Academia place the highest respect on academic
credentials and activity, they will hire the guy who has published more
stuff before the guy who actually did something useful. When there are
lots of teaching positions in a field and there are not many qualified
applicants, anybody witht the minimum credentials will get hired, and in
some cases people who do not even meet the minimum credentials will be
hired on the condition that they upgrade themselves.
If the campuses in NZ are mostly staffed by geriatrics (as seems to be
more and more the case in NA), expect there will be a lot of positions
available in the very near future. If OTH most of the profs are youngish
and there are few vacancies, or any indications that the system will
expand due to say a large youth population, you may need a Nobel
nomination to get hired.
Dopn't expect the number of people entering university as a percent of
the total population to change significantly (about 20% attend, 14%
complete U). This percentage is rising, but very slowly. It does not
seem to be greatly affected by costs either, but availability is a
factor. So if the NZ population is stable (it probably is), the major
thing that will affect professor job availability in say the next 10 or
20 years is the number of vacancies that will occur through retirement.
L Smith
because we
wanted to "expand our horizons", not because we necessarily needed one.
Several of us
got academic positions without doing a postdoc. (Heck, my postdoc
superviser went
directly into a high-profile program without doing a postdoc, and he's
in chemistry [I'm
a chemical engineer] - of course, he is fairly remarkable.)
Although I firmly believe that there are a lot of advantages to going
into academia with
some significant industrial experience, practical considerations make
this difficult to do
after the PhD. You would have been better served getting two years of
experience after
your undergraduate degree. If you go into industry now, you'll find it
hard to leave the
higher salary, and you'll have a hard time convincing people that you're
willing to do so.
(Also, unless you get a position in the latest field, you'll have the
problem of convincing
people you're still up to speed in your research topic.)
(The usual way people go from industry to academia is to become a
'name' in industry,
then get nominated for a senior position in academia - usually an
endowed chair.)
Major universities are going to care primarily about your research.
Smaller programs
will be more interested in your teaching ability. Some practical
experience will help set
you apart from other equally qualified candidates, but it isn't going to
be a deal maker
by itself.
The best thing you can do for yourself is have a well-thought plan of
what you are going
to do when you get an academic position - both for research and for
teaching. Have two
or three "mini" proposals sketched out for research projects, and know
what resources
you'll need to accomplish your plans. (Keep the school in mind when you
do this, MIT
won't flinch if you ask for a half-million in start-up funds, but a lot
of other schools will!)
Also have an idea of which topics you'd like to teach (undergrad and
grad level) - and why.
(I recommend you see if you can find a copy of "Teaching Engineering" by
Phil Wankat -
published by McGraw Hill. It has lots of good advice in it.)
If you're looking for a postdoc, as someone else said most of these
are found through
word-of-mouth. Check with the faculty at your school to see if they know
of someone
who's looking for someone. Check with the department's clerical staff to
see if they get
mailings from time-to-time. If you've made it to any technical
conferences, check with
the people you've met there. Check with the people who've published in
your field.
Good Luck.
Rich Lemert
alex
the guys at www.postgrad.org are a society called PI-net which (among other
things) looks at the issues facing postgraduates in terms of careers. I know
they don't have an NZ representative and would love to hear from you. It's
pretty difficult to get people together and having a fruitful discussion
though. If you were in Europe you would be well served to take a look at
www.eurodoc.net who aim to have more of a direct political influence (but
obviously the shorter distances between the membership helps to promote
quicker and productive action!)
obviously both these societies are entirely non-commercial and I'm only
mentioning them because you may find that they publish some informative or
helpful info on their websites.
Alex
(I was the president 2001-2002, Eurodoc)
Ozone Hole near South Pole <ozone...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cd22f127.03061...@posting.google.com...
Derek Oliver
materials physicist/chemist in Australia before I came here. When I
arrived I started as a postdoc (in a new research field as well as
discipline), I made it to faculty ranks 18 months later. This is not to
say that it is easy, nor that my story is typical, but it can happen in
engineering for the reasons that follow.
Many EE prof positions are filled by people who don't have postdoc
experience. This is different to the sciences and reflects the
supply/demand game in engineering - i.e. most students who go beyond a
bachelor's do a masters, and then get a job in the real world because
the masters has currency in the discipline. So automatically, doing a
PhD in engineering "labels" someone as an academic wannabe.
If you want to work in a different field to the one you did your PhD in,
then some form of postdoctoral experience is what you will likely need
to demonstrate your capacity in this different field. Otherwise, any
application you make to academia will and must be judged on the track
record you have for the field that you are presently in.
Postdocs are unusual in engineering, but if you are successful (i.e.
good research) then this will help you get a faculty job (presuming that
you can meet the other expectations). Where to look? Well, there are a
few openings for academic postdocs in the US and Canada, but the
payscales can be pretty lousy (even in raw dollars compared to
NZ/Australia and that's without factoring in living cost differences).
One option, if you can ferret it out and swing it might be some time in
industry, although to be blunt I'd say that is a Japan/South
Korea/Taiwan option and at the outside a European option. But economic
times are not good in industry so opportunities are thin on the ground.
I mention the industrial possible maybe because I know an EE phd
graduate who is in japan at the moment doing just this.
But as other posters said - much of the goodies is done by word of
mouth, so if you have any conference trips planned, use them as well as
you can to get information, if you haven't any planned, plan some - call
your friends & contacts to see if they have any tips. However, like all
random approaches, such activity is not an efficient process.
Good luck,
Derek
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Derek R. Oliver <de...@ee.umanitoba.ca>
Electrical & Computer Engineering
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg , Canada
Derek Oliver
Good luck,
Derek
--
Arthur E. Sowers
On 18 Jun 2003, Ozone Hole near South Pole wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I and have just read Peter Feibelman's "A PhD is not enough: A guide
> to survival in science".
Reading Peter Feibelman's "A PhD is not enough" is not enough reading.
There are a few other books that I would say you should read AND I'd say
that there is a fairly large fraction that only present to the reader a
sanitized, touchy-feelie, easter-bunny, tooth-fairy, and chaperoned story.
Its fine to have your pie-in-the-sky enthusiasm and youthful idealism at
your side, but please beware that there is plenty of dirt under the rug in
the world of reality, backstabs, politics, rejections, as well as lost and
ruined careers.
A useful periodical is "Chronicles of Higher Education," a newspaper about
academia and they often talk about the dirt, the politics, the problems,
and the unfairness as well as all the 'brag' topics of growth,
improvement, diversity, and all the good stuff. You should be able to find
this in ANY good academic library. I was paying attention to it mostly
from '91 to about '95-'96 and somewhat thereafter. You should at least
scan the titles and subtitles of the articles for what is going on, and
problems that campuses are having.
Since my long term career goal is doing
> research in academia, I am convinced that getting a postdoc position
> is a good idea. However, the author has a scientific background in
> solid state physics, while I am more like an engineer (more exactly,
> robotics in EE). Do I need to consider the difference between that?
> For example, some of my fellow PhD students suggest that working as a
> practical engineer initially then go back to academia later on may be
> the better route...
Its good to get advice from anyone who knows what is going on but I have
to ask why you have asked your fellow PhD students what you should do
INSTEAD of asking all of the faculty you know what THEY think you should
do and what happens in career paths?
Another book that you should look at (your local campus library should
have it, or buy it yourself) is "The PhD factory" by Goldman and Massy (or
maybe its Massy and Goldman), which goes into not only what happens to
PhDs, but how and why faculty produce PhDs and how they recruit and why
they recruit. It also has a few pages on who gets tenure and why.
Its really imperitive that, when you talk to faculty who are actually
involved in recruiting, you ask THEM to tell you what they are looking for
AND what they actually see in applications from faculty wannabes. You need
to organize and fill your CV so that it looks more like what they want
rather than what your fellow PhD students 'think' might look good.
On the other hand, the book is a bit out-of date
> (published in 1993). Is there any major change that we need to pay
> attention to? Some guys that I know tell me that most bigger
> universities now require their assistant professors to have previous
> teaching experience. Is that really true?
Most bigger universities have both 'regular faculty,' who are responsible
for BOTH teaching and research and thus having both teachign and research
on your CV will be important, and 'research faculty' (often in research
institutes) whose job will be exclusively to do research 100% of the time
AND get all of their funding (including for their own paychecks) from
grants and/or contracts (and this is a very tough job). Besides assistant
professors, its pretty likely that the associate professors and full
professors are going to be doing at least 20-50% of the time, teaching.
> Since I am in a New Zealand, which it is far away from most of the big
> research "hubs", I rely on the internet a lot when searching for
> postdoc positions (and other info). It is a serious disadvantage...
> When compared with other disciplines like biomedical, physics etc, I
> cannot find many openings for engineering postdoc. Did I poke the
> wrong source or that's how the market looks like? At last, what's the
> best time to apply for the positions? I am in the process of writing
> thesis now....
You'd better work fast, furiously, and extensively OR try to delay your
graduation by one semester or term so you can line up that postdoc. If you
get a lousy postdoc, it will hurt you. So, you'd better try to work up at
least 2-3 solid posibilities and then pick the best one. If you want to
end up in academia, definitely you'd better be talking to faculty -- as
many as will sit down and spend 10-20 minutes, preferably more, telling
you like it is.
Another thing you need to be considering is that the competition for jobs
in academia is pretty fierce. Its even worse in the biomedical sciences.
Studies have shown that for every two PhDs that are produced, only one
will be able to find a job relevant to the PhD training. In the non-bio
sciences, that Massy & Goldman book, which came out of a study, showed
across most of the sciences and all of the engineering fields, PhDs were
being produced at a greater rate than PhD-requiring jobs.
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
(9 years as a research scientist at the American Red Cross, 5 years as a
Research Professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine,
Baltimore, 4 years postdoc at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill,
PhD Texas A&M University, BS physics University of Illinois, 35 papers in
peer-reviewed journals, 20+ book chapters, 11 books edited or co-edited,
about $1 mil in grant support during my 14 year career)
jason
of research is so advanced that working under a specialist is
unavoidable.
A fresh Ph.d student who has several paper publications is as good as
a post-doc and more than enough for entry level faculty post. Geeting
a Ph.d is also a training which takes 4-5 years and if the candidate
can churn out a few good papers in this time, the training is as good
as a postdoc.
Harry Haller
"jason" <jason_go...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b6bf0384.03062...@posting.google.com...
As good as, maybe. As employable as, probably not.
jason
Kindly enlighten us as to what is wrong with his employability.
Harry Haller
"jason" <jason_go...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b6bf0384.03062...@posting.google.com...
> "Harry Haller" <hal...@spamouflage.com> wrote in message
news:<8alJa.72690$sm5....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
> > "jason" <jason_go...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:b6bf0384.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > > I think post-doc is generally a type of exploitation, unless the area
> > > of research is so advanced that working under a specialist is
> > > unavoidable.
> > >
> > > A fresh Ph.d student who has several paper publications is as good as
> > > a post-doc and more than enough for entry level faculty post. Geeting
> > > a Ph.d is also a training which takes 4-5 years and if the candidate
> > > can churn out a few good papers in this time, the training is as good
> > > as a postdoc.
> >
> > As good as, maybe. As employable as, probably not.
>
>
> Kindly enlighten us as to what is wrong with his employability.
A fresh PhD who has a few papers may "feel as good as" someone who has done
a postdoc. But when the time comes to get an academic job in the sciences,
or even an industry job, I believe that they would be at a competitive
disadvantage. The postdoc has spent more time working in their field, and
more time publishing papers, in a setting where they are not distracted by
coursework, serving as teaching assistant, or whatever. They have also
spent more time networking and more time starting on the grant writing
process. They are more likely to have taken the first steps toward securing
their own funding, which is crucial for the step up to a good academic job.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but my impression is that a PhD fresh out of grad school
would find it very difficult to compete in the acadmic hiring process, even
if they had published a few papers.
Derek Oliver
The comments below are especially true in the sciences.
The original poster is in engineering, and there (for the reasons
discussed in my earlier post) freshly-minted PhD students can be
competetive, certainly outside the "top-tier" institutions. In such
cases, the postdoc does still have a clear advantage if they have stayed
in the same research area. However, if they have shifted into a new
area, then their track record may seem equivalent if they are inept at
describing the added value of their experience.
Derek
--
Chrevato Bokom
> I was a
> materials physicist/chemist in Australia before I came here. When I
> arrived I started as a postdoc (in a new research field as well as
> discipline), I made it to faculty ranks 18 months later.
> One option, if you can ferret it out and swing it might be some time in
> industry, although to be blunt I'd say that is a Japan/South
> Korea/Taiwan option and at the outside a European option.
I also did a PhD in materials physics, in Australia. Upon graduation I
found there were no jobs. My friend, a physicist with background in
development of scientific instrumentation, told me that there was a
demand among employers for development specialists. My friend helped
me to re-write my CV correspondingly. Indeed, I found several job
offers.
But still, I felt some dissatisfaction, as the "developmental
specialist" was not exactly what I wanted to do (in the way it was
required). I decided that "design for manufacture" used my
capabilities best. I chose to join an R&D company which was in the
latest stage of development of a medical device. But the company was
ineptly managed, and I did not get a chance to design for manufacture,
or to do "process design". (The company now is close to going
bankrupt).
I presume there is a demand for specialists in "process design" or in
"design for manufacture" somewhere in Japan/S.Korea/Taiwan. There
might even be possible to find an "industrial postdoc" in a company to
do the mentioned activity. What would you advice be for such aspirants
?
Regards,
V.
Derek Oliver
As a general comment to non-engineers, don't expect to do anything
remotely like "pure" research. I would suggest that such a "postdoc"
would be highly applied engineering-type or entirely fine-tuning of a
manufacturing process. Both these things require smart people who know
their specialities, but neither is publishable, pure research.
Beyond those general comments I'm not sure I can offer much more. I
think such positions are largely filled through people knowing where to
look (company www sites might be a good place to start) and the
prospective "postdoc" having some experience of the country/culture
which is particularly important for the places you refer to.
Derek
Mr. Hat
I completed my Ph.D. (Immunology) back in '99 and finished up a postdoc
this past May. From my own experience and those of my friends, unless you
have some very good inner connections, you will need to do at least one
postdoc prior to getting an academic position...if indeed you would like
to research rather than simply teach. In addition, it is increasingly
desired that you have secured you own grant money prior to getting the
position.
M.H.
In article <cd22f127.03061...@posting.google.com>,
Jeffrey J. Potoff
Mr. Hat wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I completed my Ph.D. (Immunology) back in '99 and finished up a postdoc
> this past May. From my own experience and those of my friends, unless you
> have some very good inner connections, you will need to do at least one
> postdoc prior to getting an academic position...if indeed you would like
> to research rather than simply teach. In addition, it is increasingly
> desired that you have secured you own grant money prior to getting the
> position.
>
In engineering this is not the case at all. No one expects candidates
to have secured their own funding before landing a permanent position.
J.
Mr. Hat
<jpo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Mr. Hat wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I completed my Ph.D. (Immunology) back in '99 and finished up a postdoc
> > this past May. From my own experience and those of my friends, unless you
> > have some very good inner connections, you will need to do at least one
> > postdoc prior to getting an academic position...if indeed you would like
> > to research rather than simply teach. In addition, it is increasingly
> > desired that you have secured you own grant money prior to getting the
> > position.
> >
>
> In engineering this is not the case at all. No one expects candidates
> to have secured their own funding before landing a permanent position.
>
> J.
>
It didn't used to be like that in the biological sciences either until
just the past several years...so it would honestly not surprise me were
the trends in engineering to follow suit within the next 5-10 years.
M.H.
Josh Halpern
Mr. Hat wrote:
>In article <3F08E21A...@earthlink.net>, "Jeffrey J. Potoff"
>
>
>>Mr. Hat wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>I completed my Ph.D. (Immunology) back in '99 and finished up a postdoc
>>>this past May. From my own experience and those of my friends, unless you
>>>have some very good inner connections, you will need to do at least one
>>>postdoc prior to getting an academic position...if indeed you would like
>>>to research rather than simply teach. In addition, it is increasingly
>>>desired that you have secured you own grant money prior to getting the
>>>position.
>>>
>>>
>>In engineering this is not the case at all. No one expects candidates
>>to have secured their own funding before landing a permanent position.
>>
>>
>
>It didn't used to be like that in the biological sciences either until
>just the past several years...so it would honestly not surprise me were
>the trends in engineering to follow suit within the next 5-10 years.
>
>
I disagree. Engineering has been quite resistant to such
trends because the BS, at most the MS remains the
terminal degree for practicing engineers.
josh halpern
>
>
Mr. Hat
<j.ha...@incoming.verizon.net> wrote:
Really? So,(forgive me if I'm completely wrong with this) could you be
saying that the due to the collection of what would be considered
inntermediate-level degrees by the standards of other fields in
engineering there does not tend to be a "glut" of PhDs and therefore it is
not as cut-throat to acquire such positions (and thus be forced to make
oneself "attractive" to an employer by having already secured funds and/or
proven their abilities to do so, etc.)?
Just curious,
The Hat
Josh Halpern
Mr. Hat wrote:
>Josh Halpern <j.ha...@incoming.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Mr. Hat wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In article <3F08E21A...@earthlink.net>, "Jeffrey J. Potoff"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mr. Hat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>>I completed my Ph.D. (Immunology) back in '99 and finished up a postdoc
>>>>>this past May. From my own experience and those of my friends, unless you
>>>>>have some very good inner connections, you will need to do at least one
>>>>>postdoc prior to getting an academic position...if indeed you would like
>>>>>to research rather than simply teach. In addition, it is increasingly
>>>>>desired that you have secured you own grant money prior to getting the
>>>>>position.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>In engineering this is not the case at all. No one expects candidates
>>>>to have secured their own funding before landing a permanent position.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>It didn't used to be like that in the biological sciences either until
>>>just the past several years...so it would honestly not surprise me were
>>>the trends in engineering to follow suit within the next 5-10 years.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I disagree. Engineering has been quite resistant to such
>>trends because the BS, at most the MS remains the
>>terminal degree for practicing engineers.
>>
>>
>
>Really? So,(forgive me if I'm completely wrong with this) could you be
>saying that the due to the collection of what would be considered
>inntermediate-level degrees by the standards of other fields in
>engineering there does not tend to be a "glut" of PhDs and therefore it is
>not as cut-throat to acquire such positions (and thus be forced to make
>oneself "attractive" to an employer by having already secured funds and/or
>proven their abilities to do so, etc.)?
>
More or less. A fairly low percentage of professional engineers are
interested in academia. Different strokes for different folks.
>Just curious,
>
>
josh halpern
>
>
Art Sowers
> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 03:53:43 GMT
> From: Mr. Hat <mist...@sbcglobal.net>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: Postdoc and engineering...
The book "The PhD Factory," by Goldman and Massey (or Massey & Goldman)
studied PhD production and found that in all fields of science (except)
and engineering that there was an overproduction of PhDs. Its extreemly
serious in bio, however. And, there are other studies which show, on the
whole, that PhDs are being over produced by a factor of two. I've brought
this book to everyone's attention multiple times in the last few years and
it seems like everyone forgets about it, let alone look at it.
Art
and therefore it is
> not as cut-throat to acquire such positions (and thus be forced to make
> oneself "attractive" to an employer by having already secured funds and/or
> proven their abilities to do so, etc.)?
>
> Just curious,
>
> The Hat
>
stra...@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Derek Oliver
YES!!!!
Mr. Hat
>
> The book "The PhD Factory," by Goldman and Massey (or Massey & Goldman)
> studied PhD production and found that in all fields of science (except)
> and engineering that there was an overproduction of PhDs. Its extreemly
> serious in bio, however. And, there are other studies which show, on the
> whole, that PhDs are being over produced by a factor of two. I've brought
> this book to everyone's attention multiple times in the last few years and
> it seems like everyone forgets about it, let alone look at it.
>
> Art
>
I'll have to take a look at the book sometime...I'm not too versed in
the literature regarding such issues but am interested to learn more.
The Hat
Art Sowers
> Date: 9 Jul 2003 14:34:15 -0700
> From: Mr. Hat <mist...@sbcglobal.net>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: Postdoc and engineering...
>
> Art Sowers <stra...@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> wrote in message news:<Pine.NEB.4.33.030709...@sdf.lonestar.org>...
> >
> > The book "The PhD Factory," by Goldman and Massey (or Massey & Goldman)
> > studied PhD production and found that in all fields of science (except)
^^^^^^
I forgot to add here 'except chemistry'.
> > and engineering that there was an overproduction of PhDs. Its extreemly
> > serious in bio, however. And, there are other studies which show, on the
> > whole, that PhDs are being over produced by a factor of two. I've brought
> > this book to everyone's attention multiple times in the last few years and
> > it seems like everyone forgets about it, let alone look at it.
> >
> > Art
> >
>
> I'll have to take a look at the book sometime...I'm not too versed in
> the literature regarding such issues but am interested to learn more.
>
> The Hat
>
There are a number of good books out there, and a few very bad ones.
I'm making an arrangement for re-establishing my website but probably
won't maintain it any more. There are a number of book titles that I read
and reviewed as well as a fairly large number of references. No one book
(or study) gives a complete picture and usually the pictures given are
reflections of sampling problems that are associated with the goals and
assumptions of the studies. I think its always a good idea to think of
important questions that are NOT part of common career books that are out
there and which give lots of information on prerequisites, courses, salary
averages but give zero information on success rates, turnover rates,
failure rates, ratio of applicants to jobs, average time between start of
job search and a job offer, and attrition rates (both due to voluntary as
well as involuntary causes).
Art
Mr. Hat
Sowers <stra...@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> wrote:
>
> There are a number of good books out there, and a few very bad ones.
>
> I'm making an arrangement for re-establishing my website but probably
> won't maintain it any more. There are a number of book titles that I read
> and reviewed as well as a fairly large number of references. No one book
> (or study) gives a complete picture and usually the pictures given are
> reflections of sampling problems that are associated with the goals and
> assumptions of the studies. I think its always a good idea to think of
> important questions that are NOT part of common career books that are out
> there and which give lots of information on prerequisites, courses, salary
> averages but give zero information on success rates, turnover rates,
> failure rates, ratio of applicants to jobs, average time between start of
> job search and a job offer, and attrition rates (both due to voluntary as
> well as involuntary causes).
>
> Art
>
> stra...@sdf.lonestar.org
> SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
yes, it would be great to see some of the resources/references available
on your website, should you get it out there again; i have seen links to
your site from various other online career-related things, but of course
none of them work...
nite,
kiley
Art Sowers
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Mr. Hat wrote:
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:05:24 GMT
> From: Mr. Hat <mist...@sbcglobal.net>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: Postdoc and engineering...
>
I got started with digex. Then they had this brilliant idea to dump ALL of
their dialup customers and go fully commercial website customers, so my
URL bombed involuntarily. I was with dmv.com till they -- without warning
-- yanked shell accounts accross the board. I set up
scientistlifeboat.com, and paid for it with my company money and tried to
start a used bookstore to support it but nobody bought any books (well, I
got one sale in a year, BFD). Then I went with magpage and they lasted
about 6-7 years then the owner (actually a good guy) decided -- they say
-- to do something else and he sold magpage to NuNet (a bunch of &*^^$%&^
who can't do squat) where, after a few months and a bumpy start, decided
to take functionality away from shell accounts and start requiring SSH be
setup before they take away telnet and so I went with two new ISPs whose
email adr I'm never going to post in a NG and the account I have now that
I do use to post which is free except you need to send a buck to activate
it. So that's the story.
In the past I had the idea to start an advocacy organization that would
have something for PhDs and a website and I mentioned this many times over
the years and what I got back was dead silence, yawns, and Zzzzzzzzs. I
also get a lot of flack from the people who say I've got a negative
attitude or otherwise imply/insinuate that there really is no problem at
all in sci careers and everyone is doing just fine, making lots of money,
and with big smiles on their faces most if not all of the time, or that if
there is a problem, then its the individual's fault, not the manager's or
organization's fault. And, in any case, we don't need any "negative" talk.
I've got resource material which lists all kinds of advocacy
organizations, but you won't find anything for scientists. We've got an
Amer. Assn. Advancement of Science, but not AAA ScienTISTS, and the AAA
Science is just out there to advance itself, not scientists.
(pardon my rant).
JBO
I am only a recent reader of this forum, but I enjoy your posts and
perspective. Hell, somebody has got to tell it like it is. I've seen the
biology postdoc frustration from working with them. After seven years, some
of the postdocs still have no real outlet into the real world. They do have
kids, car payments, and house payments though. As a biochemical engineer
though, there are no jobs out there (I'm geographically limited to a top 5
market). Companies keep saying hold on (for the last 6 months). I've won
awards, gone to a top tier school, supposedly impressed a director in a
local biotech, and am getting nowhere. I've even established a network of
contacts from scratch. To say that my position is unique would be a lie.
Only 1 person from my school got a real job (and it was a low paying one at
a start up with ties to her project). I didn't want to do academics, but
at this point am seriously considering it.
The market sucks for everyone. I just wish the major biotech would stop
lobbying for pork by saying that there aren't enough trained personnel
coming out of American Schools. It isn't reality (at least in the next ten
years).
Ughhhhhh.... 3 months until I throw my Ph.D. in the trash and do something
else.
Anyways, keep going. I'd miss you otherwise.
Jack
"Art Sowers" <stra...@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.33.030710...@sdf.lonestar.org...
Mr. Hat
> Art,
>
> I am only a recent reader of this forum
Nice to see relatively new faces, the old and the fresh mix well...
> To say that my position is unique would be a lie.
> Only 1 person from my school got a real job (and it was a low paying one at
> a start up with ties to her project). I didn't want to do academics, but
> at this point am seriously considering it.
>
I never thought I would get into academics either...in fact my Ph.D.
advisor and I started a small company back in 1999 after I graduated;
it still exists but hasn't exactly taken off, so while still a
royalty/patent holder the establishment is in no way secure and
therefore I have not considered going back to it full-time. Instead I
interviewed with many small-to-intermediate but well-established
biotechs when I lived in San Diego, but qualifications get you nowhere
with the extensive hiring freezes at the moment. Yeah...will be nice
when things get back to some semblance of "liveable" in terms of the
economy (whenever that might be...hard to tell exactly with the
government workings at the moment, but I won't get onto that
particular tangent right now)...
> The market sucks for everyone. I just wish the major biotech would stop
> lobbying for pork by saying that there aren't enough trained personnel
> coming out of American Schools. It isn't reality (at least in the next ten
> years).
(See above)...
>
> Ughhhhhh.... 3 months until I throw my Ph.D. in the trash and do something
> else.
>
How many people actually DO resort to removing the title from their
CVs, and does it help?
> Anyways, keep going. I'd miss you otherwise.
>
> Jack
>
>
Cheers,
K.P.
R. Martin
>
> "JBO" <j...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<dcfPa.191084$_w.82...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
>
snip
> >
> > Ughhhhhh.... 3 months until I throw my Ph.D. in the trash and do something
> > else.
> >
>
> How many people actually DO resort to removing the title from their
> CVs, and does it help?
>
There was a long thread about that, or at least the possibility of
trying it, here in the past couple of years, IIRC. One point raised
was with what do you fill the 5+ year gap in your resume? Companies
dislike temporal discontinuity as much as advanced degrees, maybe
more. After all, one could have been spending those years in prison
or, even worse, simply enjoying life living with no fixed address,
like under a bridge [running joke for those who are relatively new
readers]. I don't recall what conclusions the august contributors
came to, but probably not much of any if experience is any guide. ;-)
Regards,
Russell
Peter Kootsookos
> How many people actually DO resort to removing the title from their
> CVs, and does it help?
I know of one person who decided to apply for what was basically a contract
admin position at a local University after despairing of getting a position
that used his PhD. In the interview, they found out pretty quickly that he
was more than he was saying (he had an engineering degree). Instead of
offering him a 3 year admin position, they offered him a 3 year academic
contract. The contract arrived in the mail, and it was actually for a
continuing (tenured) appointment. Before telling them of the mistake, he
signed it and accepted it. For some reason, they'd left off the "tenure
track" conditions and made the contract unconditional (i.e. no probation
period).
He's now really quite happy and starting to publish again after a time in
industry with publication bans.
I know, some people will say this is a fairy story; I'm as cynical as many
people, but I know this person very well and it did (and is) happening.
Ciao,
Peter K.
Mr. Hat
<p.koot...@remove.ieee.org> wrote:
WOW...good for him, it sounds like one of those "lived happily ever after"
stories indeed!
K.P.
mystery man
My ISP for making public posts has its News server down (a problem
with these little one-horse show ISPs), so I have to use this Google
gateway to make a post. To Josh Halpern, too, your post responding to
mine did NOT show up in the Google news server either!
As far as the resume-CV question, the way one fills in that five year
gap is by describing that five years as not graduate school but some
other activity to look like it was a regular job. I've seen a book
recently and it was titled something like "The Resume Doctor" and I
paged through it. It had lots of hints about how to resolve lots of
problems in one's career where there were gaps or other problems.
Seemed pretty useful to me.
Yes, if you had spent some time in the 'clink', its not going to help
you get a job, but there are actually employers out there that really
will help you get a job even if you have jail time. I read an article
in the WSJ about this. More true back a few years ago when
unemployment was low. They usually avoid people who are in for sex
offenses and psycho-problems, but petty theft & breaking and entering
stuff is not so much a problem. When I was in the Army and with a
security clearance, i knew a guy who told us that he was arrested for
breaking & entering but it didn't stop him from geting a security
clearance.
Art Sowers
mystery man
In the more than ten years I've been on the NG, and hearing about such
stories second and third hand, I can say that for people with a PhD
who have been trying unsuccessfully to get a PhD-requiring job and
have had to give up (i.e. are runing out of money to live on), its the
only other way to be gainfuly employed. Yes, some re-write their CVs
and re-describe their grad school and postdocs as some kind of
'ordinary job' and sometimes they get interviewed and get jobs!!! Many
end up happier because they get 'real world' on their resumes instead
of 'academia' and the real real-world recognizes that better.
Sometimes 'networking' helps, too.
Art Sowers
(my other ISP's news server is down, so I have to post this way)
leslie
:
: My ISP for making public posts has its News server down (a problem
: with these little one-horse show ISPs), so I have to use this Google
: gateway to make a post.
There's a free news server, news.cis.dfn.de.
You have to register first at :
http://news.cis.dfn.de/en/register.html
Registration at News.CIS.DFN.DE
--Jerry Leslie (my opinions are strictly my own)
Note: les...@jrlvax.houston.rr.com is invalid for email
Mr. Hat
stra...@sdf.lonestar.org (mystery man) wrote:
>
> In the more than ten years I've been on the NG, and hearing about such
> stories second and third hand, I can say that for people with a PhD
> who have been trying unsuccessfully to get a PhD-requiring job and
> have had to give up (i.e. are runing out of money to live on), its the
> only other way to be gainfuly employed. Yes, some re-write their CVs
> and re-describe their grad school and postdocs as some kind of
> 'ordinary job' and sometimes they get interviewed and get jobs!!! Many
> end up happier because they get 'real world' on their resumes instead
> of 'academia' and the real real-world recognizes that better.
> Sometimes 'networking' helps, too.
>
> Art Sowers
> (my other ISP's news server is down, so I have to post this way)
>
That's really good to know, you never know when you might need to do
things like that yourself, so something to tuck away. Incidentally, I have
known people who *should* have followed that option (well either that or
just getting out of science altogether by some other means) who didn't.
While recently catching up with some old grad-school cronies, now
scattered about the U.S., we compared our trials, tribulations, current
status career-wise (and mental stability-wise...hehe), etc. Half of the
people had chosen non-academic paths and were happy with their selections.
One-quarter had landed academic (verying levels/responsibilities)
positions (of these, half were satisfied and half were miserable beyond
description). What of the final quarter? Well...they were either
unemployed and trying to find a job or were stuck in eternal postdocs
while trying to find a job...and both groups were only looking at
traditional/academic research positions as sources of employment because
that's "all they knew how to do". Sad to think that overtrained masses of
PhDs out there would wait trying to get a job that may simply turn out to
be crappy for them anyway simply because short-sightedness keeps them from
seeing the world outside the track of the research rat-race...
Mad Hatter
mystery man
> mystery man (stra...@sdf.lonestar.org) wrote:
> :
> : My ISP for making public posts has its News server down (a problem
> : with these little one-horse show ISPs), so I have to use this Google
> : gateway to make a post.
> :
>
> There's a free news server, news.cis.dfn.de.
>
> You have to register first at :
>
> http://news.cis.dfn.de/en/register.html
> Registration at News.CIS.DFN.DE
I sent them an email, they are supposed to send me back a password.
They indicate that real human beings do this, not Terminator robots,
so maybe I'll be up and runing next week with an alternative. Not all
the posts I see on my ISP server get to the google server.
Thanks for the info.
Art
leslie
: LES...@JRLVAX.HOUSTON.RR.COM (leslie) wrote in message
: > mystery man (stra...@sdf.lonestar.org) wrote:
: > :
: > : My ISP for making public posts has its News server down (a problem
: > : with these little one-horse show ISPs), so I have to use this Google
: > : gateway to make a post.
: > :
: >
: > There's a free news server, news.cis.dfn.de.
: >
: > You have to register first at :
: >
: > http://news.cis.dfn.de/en/register.html
: > Registration at News.CIS.DFN.DE
:
: I sent them an email, they are supposed to send me back a password.
: They indicate that real human beings do this, not Terminator robots,
: so maybe I'll be up and runing next week with an alternative. Not all
: the posts I see on my ISP server get to the google server.
:
: Thanks for the info.
:
: Art
You're welcome.
If you don't hear from them in 3-4 days, send another email.
Jerry
R. Martin
No doubt you are correct that some people should get out of science
who don't, but how does one do an a priori rather than a posteriori
determination of that? Certainly some people are washed out by the
system. There is no perfect proof that those are all people who
shouldn't have been in science to begin with. Einstein almost got
washed out. OTOH, probably some who have "successful" (by some
conventional criteria) careers maybe are taking up space that someone
else would have occupied to greater effect. I agree that some people
don't wake up and smell the career coffee, but I'm hardly in a
position to cast stones from my glass house. I think a career can
be a difficult thing to manage in realtime, probably in most fields.
Presumably better counseling by profs would help, but I've never
known one who would say to one of his grad students, "You know, Bob,
I don't think you've got the chops to make it, so why don't you just
quit now and save us all the bother?" So if they are good enough
to get by the qualifying exam, etc. (the cowards' way out of telling
a student he/she can't hack it?) then it is tacitly assumed the
student can, in principle, make it.
Got to grill some stuff...
Regards,
Russell
Freddy Smith
quality of life for scientists immensely. Indeed why are MD's living it
up....because the AMA is one hell of a lobby group. The number of MD's produced
is controlled so as to ensure a high demand.....and we all what that means.
During the old cold war days the USSR use to pump out doctors (some good some bad)
however usually only women tended to the program while most males (yes it's all
sexist however....) aspired to lucrative (I use that term loosely) careers in
science.
It's all supply and demand...something that I was naive about in grad
school.....where all the profs tell you about the wonderful careers one can have
in chemistry biology physics etc...unfortunately I didn't realize this was
complete crap until I got out in the real world. Infact it pays not to be too
creative in industry else you get thought of as being too academic and get written
off for management jobs where the real money jobs are..
JBO
MDs is controlled (very little growth in admission and no new schools
chartered).
Are schools (and pure science departments where most of the current problems
rest) really going to move into a phase where they do less research and
receive less funding so they can turn out the appropriate supply of advanced
degree candidates. It would be like making the argument that we currently
send too many people to undergraduate schools so that they can get better
jobs (and they end up saying would you like special Big Mac sauce). Such a
campaign wouldn't be in the interest of the faculty or schools as the posts
on this board repeatedly reflect. Would any faculty member here limit his
grant applications and funding requests to the number of postdocs/graduate
students that he thought could successfully be placed in good positions.
Would any school support shuttering its graduate biology research because
there is no demand for the graduates? Or only allow as many English
graduate students as there were expected opening
I'd also say that the time in medical school and then residency is often far
worse than that scientists endure (even given as much as people here bitch
about postdocs and graduate school). Once you get out of your thirties, it
is somewhat different as this forum suggests (Although MDs can still have
bad lifestyles).
"Freddy Smith" <fre...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3F25AB74...@home.com...
Mr. Hat
> I'd also say that the time in medical school and then residency is often far
> worse than that scientists endure (even given as much as people here bitch
> about postdocs and graduate school). Once you get out of your thirties, it
> is somewhat different as this forum suggests (Although MDs can still have
> bad lifestyles).
>
>
So...we have an authority in our midst...I feel *so* much better now!
R. Martin
>
> I think an advocacy group for scientist would solve alot of issues and raise the
> quality of life for scientists immensely. Indeed why are MD's living it
> up....because the AMA is one hell of a lobby group. The number of MD's produced
> is controlled so as to ensure a high demand.....and we all what that means.
> During the old cold war days the USSR use to pump out doctors (some good some bad)
> however usually only women tended to the program while most males (yes it's all
> sexist however....) aspired to lucrative (I use that term loosely) careers in
> science.
Medicine isn't a bed of thornless roses. I worked for a doctor for
a while. I don't want to keep up the pace he had to. 12-14 hours
straight in the OR, no lunch, didn't even sit down that I ever saw.
That didn't include preop, postop, rounds to other patients, research
proposals, research papers, faculty meetings, consultations... Most
MDs don't work quite as hard, I think, but hard enough. And that's
after a grueling training.
Art has proposed such an effort, but it is certain to take much work
and years even if it could succeed. Still, that's no reason to not
proceed, but MDs have given up certain things for their relative
security. For instance, scientists by and large do not need to be
licensed and pass board exams after getting their degrees. When
society comes to believe, rightly or not, that this is a problem,
licensing etc. will be forced on scientists, at which point a
restriction on the supply may naturally develop, as scientists will
be the only people qualified to assess the qualification of potential
new scientists and can act to limit the rate of certification.
My question is why don't our various professional organizations
lobby more effectively on our behalf, or are they already doing
what little can be done?
>
> It's all supply and demand...something that I was naive about in grad
> school.....where all the profs tell you about the wonderful careers one can have
> in chemistry biology physics etc...unfortunately I didn't realize this was
> complete crap until I got out in the real world.
Naivete is one thing, but one must have access to valid information,
not NSF proclamations that a big shortage of workers is just around
the corner, any decade now.
> Infact it pays not to be too
> creative in industry else you get thought of as being too academic and get written
> off for management jobs where the real money jobs are..
>
rest snipped for brevity
Regards,
Russell
L Smith
>Are schools ... really going to move into a phase where they do less research and
>receive less funding so they can turn out the appropriate supply of advanced
>degree candidates.
>
And what, pray tell, is "the appropriate supply" of advanced degree
candidates? I know
Art would say "enough to fill the supply of available jobs and no more,"
but what is that
number? And keep in mind that we're looking 5-8 years down the road. If
you can
accurately predict what's going to happen in 5 to 8 years, what are you
doing wasting
your time here?
Rich Lemert
Art Sowers
> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 03:02:52 GMT
> From: R. Martin <russell...@wdn.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: Postdoc and engineering...
>
> Freddy Smith wrote:
> >
> > I think an advocacy group for scientist would solve alot of issues and raise the
> > quality of life for scientists immensely. Indeed why are MD's living it
> > up....because the AMA is one hell of a lobby group. The number of MD's produced
> > is controlled so as to ensure a high demand.....and we all what that means.
> > During the old cold war days the USSR use to pump out doctors (some good some bad)
> > however usually only women tended to the program while most males (yes it's all
> > sexist however....) aspired to lucrative (I use that term loosely) careers in
> > science.
>
> Medicine isn't a bed of thornless roses. I worked for a doctor for
> a while. I don't want to keep up the pace he had to. 12-14 hours
> straight in the OR, no lunch, didn't even sit down that I ever saw.
> That didn't include preop, postop, rounds to other patients, research
> proposals, research papers, faculty meetings, consultations... Most
> MDs don't work quite as hard, I think, but hard enough. And that's
> after a grueling training.
Most MDs in my part of the country have small clinics (1-2-3 MDs) and work
9-5, 5 days a week.
> Art has proposed such an effort, but it is certain to take much work
> and years even if it could succeed.
Besides my own interest in this, and reading for many decades of opinions
of scientists/academics I have yet to hear of anyone attempting/calling
for/or inviting people to form an advocacy group. I read some of the AAUPs
stuff in their periodical _Academe_ but only some 10% of profs are
members, down from higher proportions back in 50s-60s. And, these days
AAUP does less it seems than in the past. Yes, it would take years and
lots of work and lots of cooperation. I fear that opinionated initiatives
(read: backbiting), excessive preference for independence, and
minutiaizing would be impediments.
Still, that's no reason to not
> proceed, but MDs have given up certain things for their relative
> security. For instance, scientists by and large do not need to be
> licensed and pass board exams after getting their degrees. When
> society comes to believe, rightly or not, that this is a problem,
> licensing etc. will be forced on scientists, at which point a
> restriction on the supply may naturally develop, as scientists will
> be the only people qualified to assess the qualification of potential
> new scientists and can act to limit the rate of certification.
There are pros & cons on this. I have the feeling that there isn't much
science any more these days. If anything, a lot of repetion of
experiments, emphasis on _development_ (not science), and fundraising.
> My question is why don't our various professional organizations
> lobby more effectively on our behalf, or are they already doing
> what little can be done?
From all I gather, the POs are out to self-promote themselves rather than
their membership. Even in the engineering, programmer, etc., fields.
Only when you look at, say, lawyers & maybe doctors you get some
organizing-for-the-good-of-the-participants.
> >
> > It's all supply and demand...something that I was naive about in grad
> > school.....where all the profs tell you about the wonderful careers one can have
> > in chemistry biology physics etc...unfortunately I didn't realize this was
> > complete crap until I got out in the real world.
>
> Naivete is one thing, but one must have access to valid information,
> not NSF proclamations that a big shortage of workers is just around
> the corner, any decade now.
Amen! Now, nobody cares. Its a dead issue. They just export the job to
India, China, etc. Shortage schmortage, the other ton of stories I hear
are the US guys that are told to train their H1B & L1 replacements and as
soon as the training period is over, the US guys get the backstab.
> > Infact it pays not to be too
> > creative in industry else you get thought of as being too academic and get written
> > off for management jobs where the real money jobs are..
> >
>
> rest snipped for brevity
>
> Regards,
> Russell
>
Regards,
Art
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
stra...@sdf.lonestar.org
Sci Career Information Website: http://scijobs.freeshell.org
Art Sowers
> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 23:44:18 -0400
> From: L Smith <lls...@mindspring.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: Postdoc and engineering...
>
> JBO wrote:
>
> >Are schools ... really going to move into a phase where they do less research and
> >receive less funding so they can turn out the appropriate supply of advanced
> >degree candidates.
Massey & Goldman (The PhD Factory) surveyed many schools and found that
the primary purpose for having PhD students is for lab labor and the
granting of a degree was only of secondary importance. Functionally, I
think they were right.
> And what, pray tell, is "the appropriate supply" of advanced degree
> candidates? I know
> Art would say "enough to fill the supply of available jobs and no more,"
> but what is that
> number?
Well, YOU could tell US what you think that number would be. After all,
you correctly took the words I'd use out of my mouth. As far as I'm
concerned, it makes no sense to produce PhDs at a rate above the rate of
job production minus attrition. Or, in other words, some PhDs never find
PhD-requiring jobs.
And keep in mind that we're looking 5-8 years down the road. If
> you can
> accurately predict what's going to happen in 5 to 8 years, what are you
> doing wasting
> your time here?
>
> Rich Lemert
>
>
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
stra...@sdf.lonestar.org
Sci Career Information Website: http://scijobs.freeshell.org
Mr. Hat
Art Sowers <stra...@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> wrote:
Well when it comes down to it, there IS no number that anyone can actually
list credibly but of course this is your point (agreed...I think), and as
outsourcing continues to peek its ugly little face at us, it's going to
continue to decline. ANd by this I don't mean just outsourcing all
research and whatnot (of course this would be totally ridiculous), but
it's a "nibbling-away" effect. You know the stuff I shared recently from a
few issues back in Nature about the whoel "team-effort" scientific
pursuits gaining strength during this time of financial fucked-upness,
because more and better things can get done more quickly? I'm beginning to
see (and I would like to know if others have observed this particular
trend as well) that the teams form but then fall apart as some of the
specialized tasks within the core of the team are outsourced to various
other places. Everything is a question of speed, rather than teamwork
really, and so parts of the initial "team" earn the ever-dreaded REDUNDANT
title and are booted out of the core. It's kind of like a giant abcess, or
better analogized as the granulomas that form in illnesses such as
tuberculosis, etc.: there's much activity (like immune response) in the
region initially, and then the activity moves further and further out from
the center as the central portion rots away. Pleasant, huh? Either that,
or like someone pulling out the key support of a pyramid scheme.
So...basically...with the way the system works there is no need for ANY
new Ph.D. candidates to be entering the system for at least the next 5-6
years. (IMHO).
M.H.
R. Martin
Well, NSF took it on itself to make such predictions, which were on
the whole incorrect but were widely pronounced anyway and arguably
misled some people in their career choices. Have you written to
that organization and denounced it in such stinging terms as you
just have JBO? If not, why not?
Regards,
Russell
JBO
The answer is that the appropriate supply is in the eye of the beholder. At
the vast right wing conspiracy theory level, business would prefer to have a
flooded labor market, and the government doesn't much care as long as people
are employed and pay taxes (where this forum normally operates ....).
Universities and Professors would like to pay $20000/yr stipends to grad
students and $35000/yr stipends to postdocs so that they can keep their
production costs down. They end up liking the flooded job market too. So
who is going to advocate that the supply be limited .... the laborers
(students/postdocs) many of whom were able to get in somewhere because the
number of research programs (and universities as a whole) is excessive.
Don't see it happening but go ahead and try if you want.
As for the MD lifestyle, I'm married to one so stick it. I had fun in grad
school (pushed my own project, worked my own hours, got to wear shorts,
brought in a huge federal grant, and lived my life with my wife and
friends). Given exposure to both worlds, I'd say the satisfaction of grad
students and postdocs in general is far higher than MDs during medical
school and residency (the general whininess of premeds is a fair point).
Later it can be fine but they may start later realizing that they are in
their mid30s, are 100 to 200K in debt, their 20's are gone, and they hate
their job. I can't say that I spent my 20's studying (opening for a Josh
comment who will certainly engage in some personal attack as he seems prone
to do), I don't have any debt, and I've had fun. If I change fields, my
time spent getting a Ph.D. isn't really a burden. I enjoyed it, which isn't
to say that I don't find the cynicism (and sometimes truth) of this board
refreshing. Sometimes that attitude and the blame game (read discussion
with Josh) are excessive.
"L Smith" <lls...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F273F1...@mindspring.com...
JBO
Rather I think it plays well with my perspective...
"R. Martin" <russell...@wdn.com> wrote in message
news:3F27C3...@wdn.com...
Russell Martin
> Why was that stinging to me.... I don't think it made a single counterpoint
> Rather I think it plays well with my perspective...
As to what actually does sting you, I don't know. However, I viewed the
comment "If you can accurately predict what's going to happen in 5 to 8
years, what are you doing wasting your time here?" as an attempt to make
stinging remark. YMMV.
Regards,
Russell
Art Sowers
> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:16:28 GMT
> From: JBO <j...@aol.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: Postdoc and engineering...
>
> Are you disagreeing with me or just playing into my point.
>
> The answer is that the appropriate supply is in the eye of the beholder. At
> the vast right wing conspiracy theory level,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My only 'tweak' on this whole post by JBO is that the political factor is,
I think, less important than the plain-old 'grab' for money by the
managers (etc). These guys--I don't care if they even say they go to
church on Sudays--tell the public that its the cost of doing business
while, behind closed doors, all tell themselves its raises, bonuses, perks
in their own pockets and promotions and PR for their resumes. Or, in short
"screw the underlings"
Art
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
stra...@sdf.lonestar.org
Sci Career Information Website: http://scijobs.freeshell.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
stra...@sdf.lonestar.org
Sci Career Information Website: http://scijobs.freeshell.org
Mr. Hat
<j...@aol.com> wrote:
> As for the MD lifestyle, I'm married to one so stick it.
Well I feel sorry for you then if this lifestyle has contributed to the
bitter person that you have become.
I had fun in grad
> school (pushed my own project, worked my own hours, got to wear shorts,
> brought in a huge federal grant, and lived my life with my wife and
> friends). Given exposure to both worlds, I'd say the satisfaction of grad
> students and postdocs in general is far higher than MDs during medical
> school and residency (the general whininess of premeds is a fair point).
> Later it can be fine but they may start later realizing that they are in
> their mid30s, are 100 to 200K in debt, their 20's are gone, and they hate
> their job.
I can't say that I spent my 20's studying (opening for a Josh
> comment who will certainly engage in some personal attack as he seems prone
> to do), I don't have any debt, and I've had fun.
Yeah but if we want to pick at scabs, which is what YOU have been doing
for the past week in harassing Josh so unreasonably, do you have anything
to PROVE for yourself after all of this? You seem to get off on saying how
everyone else is worthless and that you are The All-Knowing One, yet you
never back this up. Not like I personally give a flying fuck, but you
really get off on being an asshole to people yet all we see from you is
that (i) you are opinionated to the point that discussions are pointless
(since EVERYONE ELSE is wrong), and (ii) you may be the type that just
jacked-off while your wife was in medical school so that you could have
more time to share (or should I more correctly say impose?) your concrete
notions of "how things are" upon everyone else?
If I change fields, my
> time spent getting a Ph.D. isn't really a burden. I enjoyed it, which isn't
> to say that I don't find the cynicism (and sometimes truth) of this board
> refreshing. Sometimes that attitude and the blame game (read discussion
> with Josh) are excessive.
When it comes down to it, there IS something you are hiding which makes
you feel powerful in degrading others...it's some way of trying to express
how powerful you are when in some aspect of your life you are for all
purposes impotent. DOn't lay everything off on Josh...you have done
nothing except make him a dartboard for whatever barbs you care to throw
out that are actually directed towards all of us...and believe me, I think
we have ALL had enough run ins with people like you in "real-life" to know
that worthlessness is what actually breeds contempt.
JBO
specifically your opinion of me....I don't really see a reason to justify
myself to you.. Plus, I'd say that everything that you've said more easily
qualifies to the people on this board who seek to dictate the bloated
spending of government money, blame Bush for everything without reasonable
cause, and sought from the start to justify their lives in terms of largely
unrealized academic research. Sorry, but I think you are the whiny
self-righteous bunch who think everything is Bush's problem and the solution
is in the vague abyss called the government (I'd say this qualifies as
bitter although I'm not necessarily accusing you specifically of it but at
least your defense of the sentiment)....Do my policies "impose" anything on
you? Do liberals /social conservatives/socialists/Greens impose them on the
rest of us (hell yes)?
> When it comes down to it, there IS something you are hiding which makes
> you feel powerful in degrading others...it's some way of trying to express
> how powerful you are when in some aspect of your life you are for all
> purposes impotent.
Ahhh psychobabble..... So if I was against gay marriage (which I'm not),
then I'd be a repressed homosexual. That is great and well informed
nonsense. And I thought the whole sentiment of this board was that all
scientists were impotent. You don't have the career you want and it is all
because some combination of diffuse bodies like W administration, broader
government bureacracy, or big business ruined your inherent greatness. We
just have different views of life to begin with.
As for your personal barb sentiment, you are learning as well.
Chronologically, I just responded to Josh's little game so save any
nonjudgmental judgmentalism that you might be harboring....
.
--
"Mr. Hat" <mist...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:misterhat-300...@172.16.1.33...
JBO
--
"ALL had enough run ins with people like you in "real-life" to know
that worthlessness is what actually breeds contempt"
If you actually believe this, I'd suggest reading the constant contempt of
Bush and conservatives expressed on this board (if you too are guilty of it)
and then finding a mirror.
I'd have another suggestion for the forum in general. Posters focus their
contempt on issues actually relevant to scientific research careers, quit
bitching and moaning about W for reasons that equally apply to
Clinton/Carter/etc, and maybe I won't post anything political (note that I
have only ever RESPONDED to a post of "misplaced" W contempt)
"Mr. Hat" <mist...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:misterhat-300...@172.16.1.33...
Mr. Hat
> --
> "ALL had enough run ins with people like you in "real-life" to know
> that worthlessness is what actually breeds contempt"
>
> If you actually believe this, I'd suggest reading the constant contempt of
> Bush and conservatives expressed on this board (if you too are guilty of it)
> and then finding a mirror.
>
> I'd have another suggestion for the forum in general. Posters focus their
> contempt on issues actually relevant to scientific research careers, quit
> bitching and moaning about W for reasons that equally apply to
> Clinton/Carter/etc, and maybe I won't post anything political (note that I
> have only ever RESPONDED to a post of "misplaced" W contempt)
>
>
>
I just don't see why you even bother to show up here on this group if
it's obviously you only exist to annoy others in order to feed your
inner feelings of worthlessness.
JBO
" if " is obviously the operative word.
Good choice of a qualifier.... It lets a reasonable person just ignore the
rest of your statement.
I actually just post because the topic of this forum (and Art's posts in
fact) could be semi interesting if the forum didn't serve as your private
(start an email group and don't invite me) forum for blaming failure on W.
The reason that I post in the case that a discussion becomes a blame W fest
is that I'm sick of self serving liberals who presume that they act in the
interest of the masses (which included me last time I checked), can't find
any other reason for difficulties than a conservative, and self righteously
congratulate their correctness (in forums like this where noone of another
opinion apparently ever responds).
And don't worry.... I'm not "unhappy" or miserable. I'd refuse to cede
control of such things to any boss, any job, any government, or you.
JBO
...
"Mr. Hat" <mist...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:f365b1b7.03073...@posting.google.com...
Mr. Hat
>
>
> And don't worry.... I'm not "unhappy" or miserable. I'd refuse to cede
> control of such things to any boss, any job, any government, or you.
>
> JBO
Oh, I don't worry about that at all. I do however feel very sorry for
you. Very sorry.
JBO
underlying elitism and judgmentalism.
"Mr. Hat" <mist...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:f365b1b7.03073...@posting.google.com...
JBO
underlying elitist judgmentalism
"Mr. Hat" <mist...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:f365b1b7.03073...@posting.google.com...
L Smith
>L Smith wrote:
>
>
>> And what, pray tell, is "the appropriate supply" of advanced degree
>>candidates? I know
>>Art would say "enough to fill the supply of available jobs and no more,"
>>but what is that
>>number? And keep in mind that we're looking 5-8 years down the road. If
>>you can
>>accurately predict what's going to happen in 5 to 8 years, what are you
>>doing wasting
>>your time here?
>>
>>
>>
>Well, NSF took it on itself to make such predictions, which were on
>the whole incorrect but were widely pronounced anyway and arguably
>misled some people in their career choices. Have you written to
>that organization and denounced it in such stinging terms as you
>just have JBO? If not, why not?
>
The NSF, when making these predictions, usually lays out the basis for
their prediction.
The information needed for you to decide whether or not you agree with
them is available
to you. Furthermore, the NSF predictions are not issued as target
numbers, which is what
Art and JBO would like to see, but rather as expectations intended to
help guide (not dictate)
public policy.
Rich Lemert
>
>
L Smith
"JBO" <j...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<ugQVa.300327$_w.12...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
Why was that stinging to me.... I don't think it made a single counterpoint Rather I think it plays well with my perspective...As to what actually does sting you, I don't know. However, I viewed the comment "If you can accurately predict what's going to happen in 5 to 8 years, what are you doing wasting your time here?" as an attempt to make stinging remark. YMMV.
it wasn't meant to be directed specifically at JBO, but was supposed to be a general
comment about how anyone who can accurately predict what's going to happen over the
next five-eight years is probably going to be too busy making a fortune to spend any
time arguing about how many PhD's can dance on the head of a department chair.
Rich Lemert
Art Sowers
> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:36:24 -0400
> From: L Smith <lls...@mindspring.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: Postdoc and engineering...
>
> R. Martin wrote:
>
> >L Smith wrote:
> >
> >
> >> And what, pray tell, is "the appropriate supply" of advanced degree
> >>candidates? I know
> >>Art would say "enough to fill the supply of available jobs and no more,"
> >>but what is that
> >>number? And keep in mind that we're looking 5-8 years down the road. If
> >>you can
> >>accurately predict what's going to happen in 5 to 8 years, what are you
> >>doing wasting
> >>your time here?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >Well, NSF took it on itself to make such predictions, which were on
> >the whole incorrect but were widely pronounced anyway and arguably
> >misled some people in their career choices. Have you written to
> >that organization and denounced it in such stinging terms as you
> >just have JBO? If not, why not?
> >
> The NSF, when making these predictions, usually lays out the basis for
> their prediction.
Are you saying this as if you know that they did this? Or, did you just
proxy to them that they did all the homework that they were supposed to do
because you think they "usually" do this? "usually" was your word. See
your own sentence. It really suggests that you are just guessing that they
did this.
> The information needed for you to decide whether or not you agree with
> them is available
> to you.
I think he already decided whether he agrees with the NSFs prediction of a
massive shortage of scientists and I would not presuppose that that
information is really available to anyone unless you can talk to the
people and see all the notes and other written material that was generated
BEFORE whatever was published on their website or in their printed
reports.
Furthermore, the NSF predictions are not issued as target
> numbers,
This also does not make sense. It is a fact that the NSF prediction(s) on
this issue were wrong. There is no shortage.
which is what
> Art and JBO would like to see, but rather as expectations intended to
> help guide (not dictate)
> public policy.
There is a fairly large literature, again to remind you of what you
constantly forget, on the mismatch between PhD production and
PhD-requiring job production and a lot of that literature is cited on my
website.
I've seen zero from you regarding ANY actual study by you of the facts in
this situation.
> Rich Lemert
>
> >
> >
>
>
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
stra...@sdf.lonestar.org
Sci Career Information Website: http://scijobs.freeshell.org
Art Sowers
> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:40:45 -0400
> From: L Smith <lls...@mindspring.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: Postdoc and engineering...
>
> Russell Martin wrote:
>
> >"JBO" <j...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<ugQVa.300327$_w.123...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> >
> >
> >>Why was that stinging to me.... I don't think it made a single counterpoint
> >>Rather I think it plays well with my perspective...
> >>
> >>
> >
> >As to what actually does sting you, I don't know. However, I viewed the
> >comment "If you can accurately predict what's going to happen in 5 to 8
> >years, what are you doing wasting your time here?" as an attempt to make
> >stinging remark. YMMV.
> >
> In retrospect I can see how this statement can come across as a
> "stinging remark". However,
> it wasn't meant to be directed specifically at JBO, but was supposed to
> be a general
> comment about how anyone who can accurately predict what's going to
> happen over the
> next five-eight years is probably going to be too busy making a fortune
> to spend any
> time arguing about how many PhD's can dance on the head of a department
> chair.
What is stinging to whom depends on who is involved. However, for all the
ten years I've been on this newsgroup, the evolution of sci/tech/eng job
markets includes at least two components: one, standard academic job
markets where jobs are shifting to 'adjunct' from 'regular' appointments,
and two, the situations where Americans are being replaced by cheap
foreign imports AND exporting of sci/eng/tech jobs to India and China
(this HAS been in the news, now, for several years).
I, on the other hand, have been providing numerous bits of information,
including from one poll, about how low-tech jobs and jobs involving slowly
evolving technology are fairly stable.
It surprizes me a little that not very many people are paying attention to
this kind of information. You are in the category of people who are NOT
paying attention to this.
And, I don't care if this post stings you. You've complained about how
anyone with a positive attitude is 'treated roughly' and I can't
appologise when you deny the existence of knowledge about things you don't
agree with.
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
stra...@sdf.lonestar.org
Sci Career Information Website: http://scijobs.freeshell.org
Mr. Hat
<j...@aol.com> wrote:
> Now that is a fitting end..... the unsolicited pity of a liberal with the
> underlying elitism and judgmentalism.
>
Okay...I have to admit that you definitely conjured a smile on that
one.
We are NOT going to agree (at least on these issues), but I do like
your tenacity.
best regards,
M.H.
JBO
Glad I could get a smile
Josh Halpern
L Smith wrote:
A modest proposal
For many years, (at least 10) I have been advocating a simple method
of ending the Ph.D. glut based on a careful study of NSF and NRC
statistics. The only thing that you have to know is that Ph.D. production
varies as the square of the perceived quality of the institution. Closing
all campus' of the University of California would eliminate ~20%
of all Ph.D.s in every S&T field. Hopefully the current budget
problems in California will take care of it.
josh halpern
Josh Halpern
JBO wrote:
>Well since I don't justify my worth in my career, my research, or more
>specifically your opinion of me....I don't really see a reason to justify
>myself to you..
>
Suck grapes. Let me get this, you demand the right to crap on others
without taking
return fire. Dream on child. Oh, by the way, top posting is a
technique much
loved by teenagers, and generally bad form.. You sir, are a flaming pop
tart.
Strawberry.
>Plus, I'd say that everything that you've said more easily
>qualifies to the people on this board who seek to dictate the bloated
>spending of government money, blame Bush for everything without reasonable
>cause, and sought from the start to justify their lives in terms of largely
>unrealized academic research. Sorry, but I think you are the whiny
>self-righteous bunch who think everything is Bush's problem and the solution
>is in the vague abyss called the government (I'd say this qualifies as
>bitter although I'm not necessarily accusing you specifically of it but at
>least your defense of the sentiment)....Do my policies "impose" anything on
>you? Do liberals /social conservatives/socialists/Greens impose them on the
>rest of us (hell yes)?
>
>
No, actually I think it is all your fault, whatever it is. Usenet is
populated
endlessly by Artificial Stupidity programs like you and the sooner you
abend the happier we will all be.
>>When it comes down to it, there IS something you are hiding which makes
>>you feel powerful in degrading others...it's some way of trying to express
>>how powerful you are when in some aspect of your life you are for all
>>purposes impotent.
>>
>>
>
>Ahhh psychobabble..... So if I was against gay marriage (which I'm not),
>then I'd be a repressed homosexual. That is great and well informed
>nonsense. And I thought the whole sentiment of this board was that all
>scientists were impotent. You don't have the career you want and it is all
>because some combination of diffuse bodies like W administration, broader
>government bureacracy, or big business ruined your inherent greatness. We
>just have different views of life to begin with.
>
>As for your personal barb sentiment, you are learning as well.
>Chronologically, I just responded to Josh's little game so save any
>nonjudgmental judgmentalism that you might be harboring....
>
>
OOOooooooo. All die, the munchkin is against judgmentalism.
josh halpern
Art Sowers
> Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 04:13:06 GMT
> From: Josh Halpern <j.ha...@incoming.verizon.net>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: A modest proposal
Its not going to happen. All those institutions WANT to keep their jobs,
their nice big budgets, and 'the flow'. I've been concentrating, in the
last ten years (since starting to open my big yap) on telling young people
about this problem so they can maybe voluntarily go into something else
and thus, at the individual level where an individual CAN make a decision
and CAN control his/her destiny better, reduce the influx. There is some
sentiment in the Karen Kreeger and Cythia Robbins-Roth books (on my
website) that some fraction of students, postdocs, and scientists do,
voluntarily, leave science for other things. But, the overwhelming
impression I get is that there aren't many departments complaining that
they aren't getting applicants (but there are complaints in the WSJ that
the visa slowdown for foreing students is hurting campus programs: ask me
if I care or sympathize).
Art Sowers
My only comment on the material below is: "There's nothing like a good
fight" (BIHBTB [besides I have been there before]).
Art
=========
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Josh Halpern wrote:
> Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 04:31:07 GMT
> From: Josh Halpern <j.ha...@incoming.verizon.net>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: Postdoc and engineering...
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
Josh Halpern
Art Sowers wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Josh Halpern wrote:
>
>
SNIP....
>>A modest proposal
>>
>>For many years, (at least 10) I have been advocating a simple method
>>of ending the Ph.D. glut based on a careful study of NSF and NRC
>>statistics. The only thing that you have to know is that Ph.D. production
>>varies as the square of the perceived quality of the institution. Closing
>>all campus' of the University of California would eliminate ~20%
>>of all Ph.D.s in every S&T field. Hopefully the current budget
>>problems in California will take care of it.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Its not going to happen. All those institutions WANT to keep their jobs,
>their nice big budgets, and 'the flow'. I've been concentrating, in the
>last ten years (since starting to open my big yap) on telling young people
>about this problem so they can maybe voluntarily go into something else
>and thus, at the individual level where an individual CAN make a decision
>and CAN control his/her destiny better, reduce the influx. There is some
>sentiment in the Karen Kreeger and Cythia Robbins-Roth books (on my
>website) that some fraction of students, postdocs, and scientists do,
>voluntarily, leave science for other things. But, the overwhelming
>impression I get is that there aren't many departments complaining that
>they aren't getting applicants (but there are complaints in the WSJ that
>the visa slowdown for foreing students is hurting campus programs: ask me
>if I care or sympathize).
>
No one was going to cook Irish babies either. In many ways that
was the point.
josh halpern
Art Sowers
> Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 14:57:37 GMT
> From: Josh Halpern <j.ha...@incoming.verizon.net>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: A modest proposal
Well, what I saw (you're welcome to re-read your own words above) as the
point included "modest proposal" and for "10 years" and I figure if anyone
is going to make ANY proposal (modest or not), it ought to have some
non-zero chance of being successful and should be doable, too.
And, with respect, my "initiative" was aimed at a chance for INDIVIDUALS
thinking about going into the pipeline to better understand what they are
up against and back out or go alternatives before they spend 10-15 years
of their lives for maybe about half the chance of a good life than if they
went the 'low road'. Yeah, I know we've been over this. But, that is MY
point.
Irish babies? Hell, what about Ethiopian ones?
Art
===================
Josh Halpern
Art Sowers wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Josh Halpern wrote:
>
>
SNIP....
>>>ts not going to happen. All those institutions WANT to keep their jobs,
Go read Swift. It's even on the net
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~benjamin/316kfall/316ktexts/swift.html
I'll try and pick up Phillips to take on vacation.
josh halpern
misterHAT
<j...@aol.com> wrote:
> --
> "ALL had enough run ins with people like you in "real-life" to know
> that worthlessness is what actually breeds contempt"
>
> If you actually believe this, I'd suggest reading the constant contempt of
> Bush and conservatives expressed on this board (if you too are guilty of it)
> and then finding a mirror.
>
> I'd have another suggestion for the forum in general. Posters focus their
> contempt on issues actually relevant to scientific research careers, quit
> bitching and moaning about W for reasons that equally apply to
> Clinton/Carter/etc, and maybe I won't post anything political (note that I
> have only ever RESPONDED to a post of "misplaced" W contempt)
Actually I don't think that posters should limit themselves "solely" to
direct and often dry scientific research conversations per se, because
while hate to admit it, I have extremely different political opinions than
yours yet I think the banter back and forth is vastly more informative,
educational, or whatever you want to call it than not discussing anything
at all. Everything is a shade of gray and thus there is no "prpoer" side.
So, go ahead and post anything political that you please. I probably read
it more avidly than if you were just writing bring crap.
misterHAT
misterHAT
mist...@sbcglobal.net (misterHAT) wrote:
> In article <44aWa.367386$jp.10...@twister.southeast.rr.com>, "JBO"
> <j...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > --
> > "ALL had enough run ins with people like you in "real-life" to know
> > that worthlessness is what actually breeds contempt"
> >
> > If you actually believe this, I'd suggest reading the constant contempt of
> > Bush and conservatives expressed on this board (if you too are guilty of it)
> > and then finding a mirror.
> >
> > I'd have another suggestion for the forum in general. Posters focus their
> > contempt on issues actually relevant to scientific research careers, quit
> > bitching and moaning about W for reasons that equally apply to
> > Clinton/Carter/etc, and maybe I won't post anything political (note that I
> > have only ever RESPONDED to a post of "misplaced" W contempt)
>
> Actually I don't think that posters should limit themselves "solely" to
> direct and often dry scientific research conversations per se, because
> while hate to admit it, I have extremely different political opinions than
> yours yet I think the banter back and forth is vastly more informative,
> educational, or whatever you want to call it than not discussing anything
> at all. Everything is a shade of gray and thus there is no "prpoer" side.
> So, go ahead and post anything political that you please. I probably read
> it more avidly than if you were just writing bring crap.
(I meant to type "boring crap")
Art Sowers
Mainly for JBO (see your comments below)
I think we're all free to bash whomever is our favorite demon whether it
be in the scientific world or the political world and praise whomever we
idolize. My biggest problem with guys like you who think that the only
waste, the only mismanagement, the only misdeeds, and the only malvolence
in the world is in the federal government. There is enough factual
information and factual history that private industry is, on the whole,
equally guilty of burdening and harming 'the people' and I think its
gotten much worse since corporations came into existence. We had trusts
and monopolies and cartels back in the 1800s, late 1800s, and now in the
late 1900s, vast and massive corporate fraud on scales never before seen
in private industry. All this has been in the WSJ the last two years.
We're talking about massive, record fraud, and in the largest most
everyday names. And, there are articles now about Microsoft's compliance
with the court ordered settlement on it being guilty of damage from
monopoly power. Nobody in the federal government makes anywhere near what
the corp executives make (and get away with).
Art
-------------------------------------------
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, misterHAT wrote:
> Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 04:08:30 GMT
> From: misterHAT <mist...@sbcglobal.net>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: Postdoc and engineering...
>
JBO
I don't recall naming John Chambers as God or claiming that he is the
appropriate ethical arbitrar. I don't remember idolizing anyone (who did I
idolize... I didn't cite Buffett, Gates, Soros, or any other minion to give
my beliefs some standing). In fact, I don't remember expressing the
idolization of any individual (certainly not an MBA or a politician).
Here is why I am more comfortable with Cisco than Josh. Josh demands that
I pay at his false altar (the abusive monopoly of activist "populism"). I
choose to buy from Cisco (and in my experience their products are awesome,
and as a bonus they don't threaten imprisonment when I don't buy). I
think you are simply mistaken when you seek to identify me among the
supporters of those who wield abusive "monopoly power".
If you haven't noticed, I am ignoring this topic .... It was largely driven
by Josh who as a delusional individual can only be medicated not treated...
and apparently self medication isn't working.
"Art Sowers" <stra...@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.33.030808...@sdf.lonestar.org...
Art Sowers
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, JBO wrote:
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:13:49 GMT
> From: JBO <j...@aol.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Art
>
>
> I don't recall naming John Chambers as God or claiming that he is the
> appropriate ethical arbitrar. I don't remember idolizing anyone (who did I
> idolize... I didn't cite Buffett, Gates, Soros, or any other minion to give
> my beliefs some standing). In fact, I don't remember expressing the
> idolization of any individual (certainly not an MBA or a politician).
I remember a specific modification of the 'war sig file' where your
message was specifically aimed at the federal government ("The federal
govt. is a racket...." remember?). And, I KNOW there are books not only
devoted to malvolence & mismanagement in govt, but I also KNOW there are
books devoted to malvolence & mismanagement in private industry. It might
be difficult to analyze and try to determine which is the more evil and
damaging to the citizen compared to the benefits each sector contributes
to society. I just want to know WHY or WHAT people think when they think
ONLY govt is the evil.
> Here is why I am more comfortable with Cisco than Josh. Josh demands that
> I pay at his false altar (the abusive monopoly of activist "populism"). I
> choose to buy from Cisco (and in my experience their products are awesome,
> and as a bonus they don't threaten imprisonment when I don't buy). I
> think you are simply mistaken when you seek to identify me among the
> supporters of those who wield abusive "monopoly power".
I just want an acknowledgement that private industry, which not only
provides us with products and services that are useful but also is the source
of much criminal activity carried out at the expense of the powerless many
and for the benefit of the rich and powerful few, deserves to be called a
racket, too.
> If you haven't noticed, I am ignoring this topic .... It was largely driven
> by Josh who as a delusional individual can only be medicated not treated...
> and apparently self medication isn't working.
I read most of that little debate and prefer not to judge who had the
better and/or stronger presentation. But, I will publically thank both
sides of it for contributing some substantial content to that particular
issue and on this NG.
And, yes, I've read some of Ann Rand's books (or however you spell her
name).
Art
=======================================
>
>
>
> "Art Sowers" <stra...@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> wrote in message
> news:Pine.NEB.4.33.030808...@sdf.lonestar.org...
> >
> > Mainly for JBO (see your comments below)
> > I think we're all free to bash whomever is our favorite demon whether it
> > be in the scientific world or the political world and praise whomever we
> > idolize. My biggest problem with guys like you who think that the only
> > waste, the only mismanagement, the only misdeeds, and the only malvolence
> > in the world is in the federal government. There is enough factual
> > information and factual history that private industry is, on the whole,
> > equally guilty of burdening and harming 'the people' and I think its
> > gotten much worse since corporations came into existence. We had trusts
> > and monopolies and cartels back in the 1800s, late 1800s, and now in the
> > late 1900s, vast and massive corporate fraud on scales never before seen
> > in private industry. All this has been in the WSJ the last two years.
> > We're talking about massive, record fraud, and in the largest most
> > everyday names. And, there are articles now about Microsoft's compliance
> > with the court ordered settlement on it being guilty of damage from
> > monopoly power. Nobody in the federal government makes anywhere near what
> > the corp executives make (and get away with).
> >
> > Art
> > -------------------------------------------
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
JBO
You have that acknowledgement (and always have) ..... The problem is that I
don't believe the scale or reach are comparable.
I would hope that you can acknowledge
1) The federal government is likely the most powerful entity in America
2) It does not act in my interest (which since it is mine, I would hope that
you would let me define it).
The spelling is Ayn Rand ..... just FYI ....
"Art Sowers" <stra...@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.33.030811...@sdf.lonestar.org...
Art Sowers
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:51:22 GMT
> From: JBO <j...@aol.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: Again, for JBO ...Was: Art
>
>
> You have that acknowledgement (and always have) ..... The problem is that I
> don't believe the scale or reach are comparable.
Maybe. The sum of all private sector control over the economy, I believe,
is greater than the fed govt, and you have to consider state and county
and city govt, too. However, the fed govt can make war, drop nukes, and
command citizens to fight & risk life in wars that don't make sense. You
are welcome to present your assessment of the 'scale or reach'
> I would hope that you can acknowledge
> 1) The federal government is likely the most powerful entity in America
I will acknowledge that there are many entities in America, including the
fed govt, corporation lobbying and legal forces, marketing and
advertising, religeous and banking interests, and an array of other
special interest groups. Govts often do whatever they want, private
interests (rich & powerful) often get what they want through buying
influence. My question is what does the little citizen get out of life
compared to all the entities (and their special interests) I listed above?
This is just a polite question, in case you think it might not be. I
usually make my assessments based on who ends up with the most money/power
and why and who does it undeservedly take money/power away from?
Again, just a polite question.
> 2) It does not act in my interest (which since it is mine, I would hope that
> you would let me define it).
I can say that, too, but I can respect at least a number of things of
some value that I think I get back and society gets back, too.
You're welcome to give your estimate of what the fed govt takes from you
vs. what you think you get or not get back from them.
> The spelling is Ayn Rand ..... just FYI ....
I was never good at spelling. FWIW.
Art
=========================
JBO
my view of Josh is ..... ). And the FACT that he repeatedly uses the same
techniques.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Josh+Halpern&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=110&sa=N
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Josh+Halpern&start=170&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3B0B1FB2.972CFBA0%40mail.verizon.net&rnum=174
Art, I don't expect everyone to agree with me (it would be nice) and that
wasn't really the point. The point to Josh was that a "conservative" can
play his stupid game, to the group that Josh is intellectually dishonest and
a hypocritical liberal (incorrect facts biased on a purely partisan basis),
and that I wasn't going to let Josh spout his nonsense without putting him
in context. I think my behavior in general and to the other posters here
(Russell, You, Mr. Hat) generally reflects that (but if not, oh well). That
is the debate that I was referncing.
As for the following, it will be way too general to suit me but OTOH.
> > You have that acknowledgement (and always have) ..... The problem is
that I
> > don't believe the scale or reach are comparable.
>
> Maybe. The sum of all private sector control over the economy, I believe,
> is greater than the fed govt, and you have to consider state and county
> and city govt, too. However, the fed govt can make war, drop nukes, and
> command citizens to fight & risk life in wars that don't make sense. You
> are welcome to present your assessment of the 'scale or reach'
>
As I've said, state and local are slightly different (not really monopolies
and governed by a different constitution). No doubt, the federal government
in its current form is far outweighed in its control of the economy by the
private sector (not a cohesive entity though). Any negative revenue
institution will probably always find itself so limited. The scale and
reach come into play when you look at decisions achieved by force or threat
of force. While I may spend more money at Kroger than on taxes (doubtful),
I choose to buy at Kroger (which includes blind taxes btw). I do not choose
to support welfare or social security except by threat of force. At the
current level of spending, there has to be the admission that the federal
government is the single largest entity (20% of GDP) and that it regulates
almost every industry. There is a valid point here about shared influence
when GE/Cisco/MSFT etc get together. Of course, the underlying reason that
they lobby so hard is that they see the power in Washington and they know it
can be bought (corrupt politicians). I don't think that this reality in the
end supports a strong federal government or the type of people that the
electorate has been electing. There is also a valid discussion here about
individual rights and an economic cost benefit analysis. My focus here is
clearly on individual rights. Sure we have to be careful of the MSFTs and
AOLs of the world in the extreme (privacy, predatory practices, etc), but I
feel more imperiled by Washington DC (jail, intrusion of privacy, huge % of
income, educational direction, war, etc). Outside of the shared big
business lobby concerns, the companies and rich among them will also
fracture (Politics of Michael Dell/Warren Buffett) meaning that any shared
analysis has to look exclusivel at shared interests.
> > I would hope that you can acknowledge
> > 1) The federal government is likely the most powerful entity in America
>
> I will acknowledge that there are many entities in America, including the
> fed govt, corporation lobbying and legal forces, marketing and
> advertising, religeous and banking interests, and an array of other
> special interest groups. Govts often do whatever they want, private
> interests (rich & powerful) often get what they want through buying
> influence. My question is what does the little citizen get out of life
> compared to all the entities (and their special interests) I listed above?
>
> This is just a polite question, in case you think it might not be. I
> usually make my assessments based on who ends up with the most money/power
> and why and who does it undeservedly take money/power away from?
>
I think the problem that I have with this is the "undeserved" comment. What
should they get and who gets to decide?..... I want as many economic and
personal freedoms as can be protected from abusive employers or intrusive
governments. I too can comment on how I think Buffett should spend his
money (He comments on my family's spending of it). I don't think that I
should get to dictate it though. You and I probably agree on a fair number
of the ineuqities in the system as it currently stands. We probably have a
number of disagreements on the genesis of that system and the possible
solution. It is like discussions with somebody that I know. They were big
fans of the Ben And Jerry compensation model. I thought it was admirable,
but we parted when they looked at the government to impose such ideas.
There is a whole other discussion here about the ethics of MBAs, the self
serving regulatory structure of lawyers, and the cultural elevation of
financial success to a psuedo "moral". I'm not seeking to defend the
system, but I'm more uncomfortable with people imposing their system of
"economic justice". I'm more comfortable with the money ethic of business
than the power ethic of government (not that it is a clean divide)
> Again, just a polite question.
>
> > 2) It does not act in my interest (which since it is mine, I would hope
that
> > you would let me define it).
>
> I can say that, too, but I can respect at least a number of things of
> some value that I think I get back and society gets back, too.
>
> You're welcome to give your estimate of what the fed govt takes from you
> vs. what you think you get or not get back from them.
>
Of course, anyone can say that. My point is that I am not the public
interest and any populist compromise still does not secure my rights or my
interest (beware of those saying that they act on your behalf).
Furthermore, I don't think this can be broken down into a cost benefit
analysis. Some things could work (roads, actual defense, and potentially
with constitutional protection ... the "necessary evil" idea). I'm not a
fan of the "general welfare" big tent constitution idea if you can't tell.
Take Social security though. If I live long enough, I may get my money
back. Does that equate with the equity of the system or the fact that I am
forced to pay in for unsecured benefits?. Does the analysis expand to my
parent's contribution? In the end, I support a limited government which
seeks to protect individual rights rather than imposing "economic justice"
whether it benefits me economically or not.
This is far too general for my comfort but I figured that I'd answer.
JBO
Art Sowers
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:02:28 GMT
> From: JBO <j...@aol.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: Again, for JBO ...Was: Art
>
> Interesting Links (Since we are talking populism, it is amazing how popular
> my view of Josh is ..... ). And the FACT that he repeatedly uses the same
> techniques.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Josh+Halpern&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=110&sa=N
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Josh+Halpern&start=170&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3B0B1FB2.972CFBA0%40mail.verizon.net&rnum=174
>
> Art, I don't expect everyone to agree with me (it would be nice) and that
> wasn't really the point.
I don't expect everyone to agree 100% with me, either.
The point to Josh was that a "conservative" can
> play his stupid game, to the group that Josh is intellectually dishonest and
> a hypocritical liberal (incorrect facts biased on a purely partisan basis),
> and that I wasn't going to let Josh spout his nonsense without putting him
> in context. I think my behavior in general and to the other posters here
> (Russell, You, Mr. Hat) generally reflects that (but if not, oh well). That
> is the debate that I was referncing.
OK, point accepted. Of course, I've had a few knock-down-dragouts with
Josh myself (if you look back 4-5 years). As an aside, its a sub-hobby of
mine to troll him out (Hi Josh!) of the woodwork (Josh, I know you are
reading this!) and get him to say something, anything (Josh, have you been
saying 'Good Night' to all the dust mites living in the sheets of your
bed?), to 'give back' in return for all the free and live entertainment
we're providing here (Josh, do you know you have folicle mites living at
the base of the hairs, growing out of your skull's skin? You need to say
'good night' to them, too, when you go to sleep at night!)
OK. More or less. But, OK.
> > > I would hope that you can acknowledge
> > > 1) The federal government is likely the most powerful entity in America
> >
> > I will acknowledge that there are many entities in America, including the
> > fed govt, corporation lobbying and legal forces, marketing and
> > advertising, religeous and banking interests, and an array of other
> > special interest groups. Govts often do whatever they want, private
> > interests (rich & powerful) often get what they want through buying
> > influence. My question is what does the little citizen get out of life
> > compared to all the entities (and their special interests) I listed above?
> >
> > This is just a polite question, in case you think it might not be. I
> > usually make my assessments based on who ends up with the most money/power
> > and why and who does it undeservedly take money/power away from?
> >
>
> I think the problem that I have with this is the "undeserved" comment. What
> should they get and who gets to decide?..... I want as many economic and
> personal freedoms as can be protected from abusive employers or intrusive
> governments. I too can comment on how I think Buffett should spend his
> money (He comments on my family's spending of it). I don't think that I
> should get to dictate it though. You and I probably agree on a fair number
> of the ineuqities in the system as it currently stands.
Yeah, more or less, and thanks for the clarification you made above.
We probably have a
> number of disagreements on the genesis of that system and the possible
> solution.
Yeah, and maybe I don't want to go too far into this because it will end
up as a never-ending Republicans-vs-Democrats perpetual machine that I see
no end to.
It is like discussions with somebody that I know. They were big
> fans of the Ben And Jerry compensation model. I thought it was admirable,
> but we parted when they looked at the government to impose such ideas.
> There is a whole other discussion here about the ethics of MBAs, the self
> serving regulatory structure of lawyers, and the cultural elevation of
> financial success to a psuedo "moral". I'm not seeking to defend the
> system, but I'm more uncomfortable with people imposing their system of
> "economic justice". I'm more comfortable with the money ethic of business
> than the power ethic of government (not that it is a clean divide)
Well, MY two cents on all this is that, sure, I never want to see another
Soviet Union-type monolithic system, but I also never want to see 100%
pure "capitalism" without checks & balances (however you want to have
those checks and balances) otherwise we get those monopolies, cartels,
Enron/Andersens, etc.
> > Again, just a polite question.
> >
> > > 2) It does not act in my interest (which since it is mine, I would hope
> that
> > > you would let me define it).
> >
> > I can say that, too, but I can respect at least a number of things of
> > some value that I think I get back and society gets back, too.
> >
> > You're welcome to give your estimate of what the fed govt takes from you
> > vs. what you think you get or not get back from them.
> >
>
> Of course, anyone can say that. My point is that I am not the public
> interest and any populist compromise still does not secure my rights or my
> interest (beware of those saying that they act on your behalf).
> Furthermore, I don't think this can be broken down into a cost benefit
> analysis. Some things could work (roads, actual defense, and potentially
> with constitutional protection ... the "necessary evil" idea). I'm not a
> fan of the "general welfare" big tent constitution idea if you can't tell.
> Take Social security though. If I live long enough, I may get my money
> back. Does that equate with the equity of the system or the fact that I am
> forced to pay in for unsecured benefits?. Does the analysis expand to my
> parent's contribution? In the end, I support a limited government which
> seeks to protect individual rights rather than imposing "economic justice"
> whether it benefits me economically or not.
>
> This is far too general for my comfort but I figured that I'd answer.
No, fine, you pretty much answered my question and I don't have much
problem with it. Of course, in the details...but we all have our
preferences and, including me, can't really expect 100% of everyone to
agree 100% of the time with MY snot.
Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare...yep, somewhere down the road the
problem gets bigger. I don't have an answer for it and more than that, I
haven't got the power to do anything if I did have an answer for it.
Art