interesting jobs in industry?
Jeremy.Lynch
against taking physics as a degree because the physics jobs available in
industry aren't very interesting in the sense that a lot of physicists are
employed as technicians, very few involved in reasearch, and that most
people move up in to management within a few years (which I don't think I
would enjoy).
Realistically I have been advised that I probably wouldn't get a job in a
university or similar institution because of the lack of jobs and the very
high degree of skill required to get them. I would like to follow science as
a career (very much more so than I would like to do advertising or
accounting etc..) and I am interested in physics, but am worried that I
would end up in a dead end job or being pushed in to something like
management. Is this an accurate view?
Jeremy Lynch
Russell Martin
Your future is not preordained. You might get very good, interesting
jobs as a physicist, you might end up in dead end jobs in another field.
Unfortunately, in most fields you can run out of promotion potential
quickly unless you get into management. IMO that is a structural problem
with employment these days. Ultimately most people dead end at some
point in their career because of the pyramid structure of organizations
which allows room for only a few at the top.
IMO physics is not a growth area in general these days, although in
certain specialties that may not be true. The question is, how does
one know what specialty to get into that will be good to be in once you
finish school in X years? Of course, the same question can apply to
other fields. Also, the U.S. Bureau of Labor suggests that in the U.S.
people in school now can expect to change careers something like 2 or 3
times on average in their lifetimes, so the degree you get now may not
be applicable to your career all the way to retirement. Studying what
you don't like to study and doing what you don't like to do is not the
way to happiness, IMO. Of course, being unemployed or underemployed is
no fun either. So I've become rather nihilistic about the whole idea of
career planning. I'd say study what you like, learn to think and learn
to learn (IMO physics is a very good field for that), and do things that
will prove to potential future employers that you do know how to think
and learn. Any intellectually interesting job will require those
skills, IMO. Given the way employers seem to think, those skills will
automatically disqualify you for most jobs, leading to you being either
employed in a stimulating job or not employed at all. Worry about
making a living after you've gotten your education. And always remember
that advice you get for free from strangers on the Net is probably worth
no more than what you paid for it.
Regards,
Russell
Randolph Crawford
degree pays you back.
The exception to this maxim are the professional degrees: engineering,
nursing, education, etc. Most other degrees, sciences, arts, social
sciences, literature, etc -- all seldom lead directly to employment.
So unless you're attracted to one of the professional disciplines, my
suggestion is, study what you love. That'll give you four years to learn
more about the job market and about what you'd like to do. Perhaps then
you'll see an avenue that looks appealing. If you love physics, your
future job prospects will probably benefit from preparation in physics.
Even unrelated endeavors like business or medicine will be served well by
a grounding in the physical sciences.
After all, it takes only a couple more years after your BA in physics to
earn a MBA, MS in CS, or an MFA. And there _are_ areas in physics that
are more employable than others -- optics, semiconductors/VLSI, materials
science, etc. Perhaps you'll find your muse there.
Randy
Jeremy.Lynch wrote:
--
Randy Crawford http://www.engin.umich.edu/labs/cpc
crwfrd<NOSPAM>@umich.edu http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~crwfrd
Arthur E. Sowers
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jeremy.Lynch wrote:
> I am 18 and about to enter university in England. I have been advised
> against taking physics as a degree because the physics jobs available in
> industry aren't very interesting in the sense that a lot of physicists are
> employed as technicians, very few involved in reasearch, and that most
> people move up in to management within a few years (which I don't think I
> would enjoy).
>
> Realistically I have been advised that I probably wouldn't get a job in a
> university or similar institution because of the lack of jobs and the very
> high degree of skill required to get them.
All of the above are good and valid pieces of information.
I would like to follow science as
> a career (very much more so than I would like to do advertising or
> accounting etc..) and I am interested in physics, but am worried that I
> would end up in a dead end job or being pushed in to something like
> management. Is this an accurate view?
>
> Jeremy Lynch
First of all, at age 18, you are just begining to enter into a period of
life where you might spend 4-5 years in a university program ending in a
"college degree". This might be a general education or special
(sci-eng-technical). From there you may just look for a job, or go on in
academic studies. Give yourself the benefit of the doubt; take these
"college studies" as a chance to find out what you are good at and what
you are not good at. Find out what you are interested in and what you are
not interested in. Once you are done with that, you will have to do
_something_ for the 30 or so years later. Out of any population of people
who go through this, there will be a fraction who succeed, another
fraction who will fail, and another fraction who will lose interest, and
another fraction who will run into problems not of their own making.
You also need to concentrate on the job market, too. The problem is that
there are a lot of PhDs coming out who will not get good jobs, not get
high paying jobs, and not get jobs with good job security. Somewhere, the
practical solution to your questions will be some tradeoff between a dream
job and a poor job where you can be moderately happy and well off at the
same time.
I have both a website and a Frequently UnAsked Questions essay (see below)
that go into considerable detail and I offer it to you as at least a
starting point in your personal quest to figure out what is the best
strategy for yourself. See below
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
FUAQ: Frequently UnAsked Questions about Science Careers
(a decidedly "biased" view of the science career situation but it may be
more politely referred to as the unconventional viewpoint, or the
contrarian viewpoint; it is being presented in the public interest).
Version 2.0 (July, 2001)
by Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
Table of Contents
=============
BACKGROUND
FREQUENTLY UNASKED QUESTIONS
CAREER HALF-LIFE
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
BACKGROUND
An SRC "Frequently Asked Questions" document, assembled late in the year
2000 by a small group of posters on the newsgroup sci.research.careers may
be posted from time to time, and a version is located at:
http://www.rmartin.com/SRC_FAQ.html
and is freely accessible with any browser. I have felt that this FAQ is aimed
primarily at graduate school and postdoctoral topics, and thus presents a
short range view. Although it has value, I think that what is also needed
is a long range view and that view needs to acknowledge, document, reference
and take into considerations not just the "ideal" and/or "growing" career
outcomes, but also the career stagnations and crashes that all too often people
would prefer to not talk about. This Frequently UnAsked Questions is aimed
at filling a gap between the short range (and too optimistic) view and
_reality_ and is aimed at "telling-it-like-it-is."
This FUAQ is presented in parallel with my tell-it-like-it-is website on
Contemporary Problems in Science Jobs at:
http://www.magpage.com/~arthures
and cites many articles, books, and other URLs that deal with science
careers. All of these other sources are authored by other people, groups,
and institutions.
Disclaimer:
The material below represents a mixture of the personal
experience of the author, experiences of other PhDs as related to the
author, and a synthesis of reports in the printed media, some websites,
and other sources. The internet "newsgroup" sci.research.careers is
recommended as a total freedom-of-speech "chatroom" for you to express
your experiences, state questions, and debate with others about sci
careers. Answers to the Frequently UnAsked Questions are given as
"partial" answers because a "good" answer will depend on the context of
the situation and the track record of the person who is being "matched to"
the situation as well as the personal bias and experience of the person
offering the advice. Readers in relevant situations are urged to ask the
FUAQs of people they cross paths with in life for additional opinions,
history, and experiences. This FUAQ is not all inclusive. The author
reserves the right to modify and/or add to this document at a later time
without notice.
Comment on bias:
There are two ways to find out what goes on in a company: i) go to their
PR office and ask them how things are going (and be told the glowing,
sanitized, spin-controlled version), or ii) go talk to a bunch of people
who work there (and get samples of the real situation).
Copyright information:
The author now places this document into the internet for all to reproduce
under the following conditions: i) no charges for content, ii) all material
to remain intact (no editing, no modification whatsoever), and iii) rights
to reproduce are unlimited but nonexclusive to holders of this document.
FREQUENTLY UNASKED QUESTIONS
1. Statement/thought: "All I need is my PhD and then I'll have my career"
The frequently unasked question:
What career problems do I need to be concerned about for the rest of my
life?
Partial answer:
PhD-requiring jobs and non-PhD requiring jobs that PhDs sometimes find
themselves in are not much different from any other jobs. External
circumstances such as project funding, corporate downsizings and
reorganizations and mergers and job export and cheap labor
import, political decisions and personality conflicts with supervisors,
and technological evolution and revolution all represent career
"hazards" that can block or kill a career. Tenure-track faculty
appointments can lead to tenure denial which is the same as being
fired. Non-tenure track faculty appointments mean that the chairperson or
any administrator higher up can fire you at any time without giving a
reason, or not renew a term contract without giving a reason. Knowing how
these events take place and making "fallback plans" for an alternative
career, reading books about your legal rights in job environments, and
seeking out as much information about "how things work" in hirings and
firings will help you be forewarned and plan alternative strategies.
2. Statement/thought: "After I get my PhD, I'll do 'X'"
Frequently UnAsked Questions:
How many applications will I need to make to get one interview? How many
interviews to get one job offer? How much time should I expect to pass
before I get one job offer? How many applications do they get for
every job annoncement? Is there a real job behind all job announcements?
Partial answer #1:
For many fields in academia, one job opening will attract on the order of
hundreds of applications. You will most likely need to make several
hundred applications to get any interviews. Generally, for one job, about
five to ten applicants will be interviewed. Sometimes a second and third
interview will take place before a job is offered. All of this can take up
to one to two years. You will need to be employed doing something
relevant to your career objectives to keep your "track record" on your CV
looking relevant to those career objectives. Some people manage to get job
offers after a few applications; others may send out 500-1000 applications
and not get either _any_ interviews or _any_ job offers.
Partial answer #2:
There is controversy about whether more sci PhDs are being produced than
the growth in jobs which require a PhD (in the "humanities" it has
been known for decades that there are about twice as many PhDs as
there are jobs for those PhDs). In the life sciences field,
there is at least one national study which concludes that schools are
overproducing PhDs. This leads to long and multiple postdoctoral periods
which often end without a real career being started. This is because there
are plenty of postdoctoral jobs, but not enough real faculty jobs.
3. Statement/thought: "My career will grow as I do research and publish"
The Frequently UnAsked Question:
What factors influence whether a career grows, does not grow, or dies out?
Partial answer:
Shortly after one receives a PhD, one either "pursues" an academic or a
non-academic pathway. One "pursues" a teaching-related career or a
non-teaching career. One spends time on a "post-doc" (usually for an
academic career) or starts with some job in the non-academic
sector. Staying on one or more "post-docs" for too long will hurt long
term career growth. Being over 40 in age will start limiting what you can
realistically expect; "post-doc" and other entry level jobs are typically
offered to only young people who just got or recently got their
PhDs. Most job openings are "entry level" and thus if you are
"advanced" you will be passed over for interviews, let alone job
offers. This is called age discrimination and it starts to show up around
age 40. Most of the times careers grow when one is "recognized" by
a superior and given a promotion or when one gets a promotion along with a
job offer from a new location. There are many fine points in the growth,
no growth, decline, or death of a career. It is important to learn about
these but these issues are way beyond the scope of this partial answer.
4. Statement/thought: "I know all I need to know about sci careers"
The Frequently UnAsked Question:
How do I find out more about sci careers?
Partial answer:
There are a good number of books, websites, journal articles and other
relevant periodicals all dealing with sci careers. A large number of these
do not go into much detail about the politics of jobs and careers or what
actually happens to a population of people who start out in science
careers but there are sources with some information. Career half-life is
how long, out of a population of people starting a career how many
years later pass and only half are still in that career. People leave a
given career as a result of either a voluntary decision (eg. "I
don't like what I'm doing anymore") or an involuntary decision ("I got
fired, laid-off, downsized out, politically back-stabbed, etc."). There
are more UnAsked questions for people who leave science careers,
regardless of whether it is voluntary or not. Because of the intense
competition, many of those who leave the science career will find that
they cannot get back in.
5. Statement/thought: "All I know about careers is all the truth"
Frequently UnAsked Question:
How do I figure out if what I know about careers isn't so or there is
more to learn?
Partial answer:
Try to look at such things as salary surveys, reports of unemployment,
career changes, etc., and ask yourself what is missing (see item #2
above). Ask yourself if you know how they got their data. Ask yourself if
you can tell what the job security and advancement possibilities are. Ask
yourself if there may be a hidden agenda that would influence the
conclusions they present. Ask yourself next time you see an educational
advertisement that says "Get your 'X' degree and get a high paying
job" how you would go about finding out how true (or realistic) that
advertisement might be. Ask yourself if you know anyone (including
yourself) who has sent out many applications and not gotten any response
yet or waited longer than they thought for a response. Ask others in your
institution who were newly hired what their job-finding experiences
were. Ask older people in your institution what they have observed over
the additional decades of life experience they had to tell you what they
think. Try to consider "official conclusions" against personal
experience, the stories and opinions of colleagues and friends. Don't wait
for them to volunteer these stories and opinions; actively ask them. Don't
just ask one or two; ask at least about two dozen or more. Don't just ask
them to tell you what you want to hear; ask about what bad things have
happened that almost no one likes to talk about. When you watch the news
on TV and read the paper and read about murders, robberies, assaults,
fires, earthquakes, car accidents, etc., don't just say "that won't happen
to me" or "that's just something on the news." That stuff happened to real
human beings; you could be next.
6. Statement/thought: "Sci jobs are all the same, don't worry"
Frequently UnAsked Question:
How are jobs in academia different from non-academic jobs?
Partial answer:
Academic jobs (meaning faculty) have a different career scenario and these
can be usually tracked and judged by looking at published journal
papers on research that is usually non-proprietary. It is very rare for a
faculty to not be publishing journal papers. Non-academic jobs can range
from posts in government laboratories or agencies doing applied work,
military defense-related work, or in corporations where the applied work
will be closely targeted to making money from a product or services. Job
security and advancement can be very different between academic and
non-academic jobs as well as within the same institution. Be forewarned
that "temporary" jobs are generally unstable jobs. Ask about fringe
benefits and retirement. Your ultimate goal, as you get older, will be to
be able to retire voluntarily and happily with sufficient resources to
have a decent standard of living and have a good health plan.
7. Statement or thought: "It says I'll be making $90,000/year soon"
Frequently unasked question(s): What will _I_ be realistically making? For
how much of my life will this happen? Will my work be relevant to my
original plans?
Partial explanation: There are many issues hidden behind the simple
statistical numbers presented. This is only a partial list of these issues
and it is meant to emphasize that there is a "story behind the story" that
may be more important than the "story" itself. Salary surveys almost
always present a "mean" or "median" or "average" number and this implies
that all salaries must be, in some way, close to that number. Salary
surveys also always show increases with age, educational level, and
"hotter" (as opposed to "colder") jobs. Thus graduate student stipends are
superceded by postdoctoral salaries, which are superceded by faculty
and permanent staff jobs. It is understandable that a job market will pay
more for rare, specialized, commercially relevant, "guild power" associated,
or academically sought after tallent. Hidden behind the statistics is the
actual detailed manner by which data is grouped. Survey categorization
(what does it hide? see above under questions 4 & 5). Survey bias can take
place in many ways: How is the sample population sellected? How many of
them respond? Which members are likely to respond (those in happy situations
may be more likely to respond than those in unhappy situations, those in
happy situations may be more likely to be located). How is a period of
unemployment treated (does the participant forward-extrapolate from prior
employment or back-extrapolate from current employment)? Lastly, all of
the surveys surely report data which is submitted voluntarily and is surely
not verified against, say, IRS W2 forms or tax returns. There are situations
where self-reported data will be understated when it benefits the individual
(to the IRS: "No, I didn't make much money last year") and other situations
where self-reported data will be overstated (at the beer party: "Oh, I
bought X at $28/share last year and sold it at $97 this year" or "Oh, I
made $8300 in gambling in Las Vegas last month"). Survey participant bias
is thus hard to measure and surveys rarely report on estimates of validity
or accuracy. From the career half-life part of this document, there are
a fairly large number of people who leave science, both voluntarily as
well as involuntarily (through tenure denials, grant problems, and
political backstabs) and thus are likely to leave higher paying jobs for
lower paying jobs. The exceptions (such as the low paid college physics
teacher who manages to get a job in unix programming) are surely rare.
There is another large fraction of all PhDs who move off modest-paying
postdoctoral appointments to temporary position adjunct faculty that also
pay only modest fees (and have poor job security by virtue of their term
appointments) instead of a normal, high-paying regular faculty salary.
Another fraction of faculty are those working with _actual_ salaries
that are below their _institutional base salaries_. I have known
three PhD faculty, besides myself, who told me that they took salary
reductions to free up funds to keep their labs and group working. Thus,
the institution books show a normal high salary for a particular faculty
member, but the money is not in their paycheck. Unusually high salaries
may be present for those who are executives or directors of well
capitalized "start-up" companies where stock options are cashed in. High
salaries may be present for some managers/administrators or from other
sideline commercial activity such as consulting and book and/or licensing
royalties, but would otherwise be rare and unrealistic. Another issue
which is not differentiated in these statistical studies is the retirement
plan and the health plan. A person who has ten jobs in twenty years may
never become vested in a retirement plan compared to a person who has two
jobs in twenty years. Some people in part-time, temp jobs may not get
health benefits. Other people who are in strings of temporary jobs
interspersed with periods of unemployment will likely have negative cash
flow for those periods. Another issue is student loan debt in graduate
school. With some of these debts reaching $50,000 - $100,000 and a soft
job market, it will take a long time to pay down these debts. The effects
of age discrimination also do not show up but it is a fact that the vast
majority of job openings are at entry levels and a string of jobs is quite
likely to involve a string of low salaries which are affected in a
negative way by periods of unemployment which other studies show will
start to increase after the age of 40 and increase greatly after the age
of 50. These are just a few issues that are not figured into those salary
statistics.
WHAT IS THE CAREER HALF-LIFE FOR SCIENTISTS?
Only One Out Of Ten Will Have A Science Research Career?
A career in science usually means getting a PhD degree, becoming a
professor at a research university or institute, and obtaining grants.
Sometimes PhDs do research in industry (as in "R&D") but it is really
development. Still other PhDs end up not doing science, but
science-related work including teaching, administration, regulatory work,
and sales. Some don't even do science-related work. In industry,
discovery is much less important than the marketing, as quickly as
possible, of a product or service and it must make profits and as soon as
possible. This is usually done by engineering efforts rather than
research. The semantics of word usage are sometimes arguable, but research
in science is more often associated with discovery and unknown or poorly
understood phenomena.
Only half of all students entering graduate school will complete the
program leading to the PhD degree. There are two references for this
statement. The first is "Death of the Guilds: Professions, States, and the
Advance of Capitalism, 1930 to the present" by Elliott A. Krause (Yale
University Press, New Haven, 1996, 305 pp) HT687.K68. The second is
"In Pursuit of the Ph.D." by William G. Bowen and Neil L. Rudensteine
(Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1992). Out of the
half of the people who finish their PhD degrees in science, about another
half become faculty (i.e. professors) at colleges and universities. This
means that about one quarter of those who start graduate school end up
_starting_ a traditional career in science. For nonscience PhDs the
picture is similar. A quote from the Modern Language Association's
Committee on Professional Employment says: "They estimate that 55
percent of people receiving Ph.D.s in English and foreign languages will
not find 'appropriate' employment as tenure-track professors within a year
of receiving their degrees (and some of those students have already
been on the market five years, while getting their degrees)." The source
of this statement is:
http://www.salonmagazine.com/it/career/1998/11/06career.html
Out of the population who become faculty at colleges and universities,
about half are in what are called "adjunct" professors. They are low paid,
part-time, non-tenure track temporary positions, often without benefits
and no long term job security (One reference to a 1992 study showing
304,000 of 899,000 faculty, or one third, are in this category is _The
Scientist_, vol. 9, Sept 16, 1995, page 4). Another reference reports
that 40 % of faculty are now temporary "adjuncts":
http://www.salonmagazine.com/it/feature/1998/09/17feature2.html
The fraction of PhD graduates which become part of this population has
been increasing over the last two decades. The other half get
tenure-track assistant professorships where they will be evaluated for
tenure usually about six years after they start. To get tenure almost
always requires that substantial grant support be obtained by the
assistant professor. Success in obtaining grant support does not
guarantee tenure because local politics (for example, someone in power
does not personally like the candidate for tenure no matter how good the
science or the grant support) can result in tenure denial. Tenure has
traditionally meant a lifetime and permanent job where it is nearly
impossible to get fired. Tenure, in todays world, has become "diluted" by
the introduction of conditions such as tenure review, conditional tenure,
or tenure in faculty appointment but not in salary. Also, tenure is being
phased out at most medical schools (medical schools usually hire at
least some PhDs as faculty and thus represent at least a prestigeous if
not high security job market for biologists who push in the direction of
biomedical problems) and a large fraction of academic campuses (a
reference for an article on this trend is in _The Scientist_, vol 10,
November 11, 1996, page 1). Out of those who are in tenure-track
faculty appointments, approximately 50% will be denied tenure (the
reference for this is the Washington Post Educational Review, July 27,
1997, page 4) and it is unlikely that they will find another tenure-track
faculty appointment because of the intense competition in the job market
and the preference to hire new assistant professors coming off of
postdoctoral studies. Now, the "one quarter" population is down to about
"one eigth" of those who entered graduate school for a career in
science.
Out of all PhDs who acheive a faculty appointment as an assistant
professor in a science department at an research university, nearly all will
be _required_ to obtain grant funding from a major goverment
granting agency such as the National Institutes of Health or the National
Science Foundation and use that grant money as a source of some or all
of their salary for the rest of their career. If they lose that grant money,
often that part of their salary disappears. Our studies on career half-life
(see c-chl.htm on my website) based on author attrition from publications
in scientific journals show that about half of author names disappear from
the literature about a decade after they first appear. Also, it has been
reported that faculty whose research efforts are supported by grant
funding are not able to continually win National Institutes of Health grants
for very large large parts of their careers. Actually, only about 10-20%
are able to have continuous grant support for a period as long as three
decades. Only about half of those who get an NIH grant are able to keep
that grant or get new grants to keep the income flowing as long as 12-14
years (The reference for this information is Kennedy, T.J., Academic
Medicine, vol.69 (#10), Oct 1994, pages 779-799). All of those who
don't have tenure, or who have tenure conditional on grant income, will
usually have their faculty appointments cancelled when the grant funding
ends. An estimate of what effect this has on career half-life is difficult
because of the mixture of tenure-holding and non-tenure faculty, but it
clearly implies that as few as one in ten, or less, of those who start
graduate school for a science research career will still be in science one
to two decades after that career is started.
Out of the half of the people who finish their PhD degrees, a poorly
quantitated fraction realize that research is _not_ what they want to
do for the rest of their lives. Hence there are a number of graduates who
voluntarily pursue what are sometimes called "alternative" or
"nontraditional" careers that are science-related. Such careers involve
writing, teaching (as in high school), instrument & equipment sales,
patent work, work in museums of science, etc. (eg. see Kreeger, K.Y.
"Guide to Nontraditional Careers in Science," Taylor and Francis, 1999,
263 pp.)
An article (See _The Scientist_, September 28, 1998, page 6, top)
discusses an NRC report in which it is reported that the number of PhDs
awarded annually in the life sciences has risen 42 percent between the
mid 1980s to 1996. The article says: "Available jobs have not kept pace.
Faculty jobs increased 2.5 percent a year since 1972, industry jobs have
gained 7 percent during the same time period, and government jobs
have shown only modest growth." Thus many PhDs will be unable to
find a job suited to their goals and thus will involuntarily be forced to
accept work, if they can find it, in areas that were not part of their original
career goals. A recent article said that only 41% of PhD scientists are
actually in science while 22% are in teaching, 18% in management,
sales, or administrative duties, and 15% do "other" things probably
meaning totally unrelated to science. And, the same article pointed out,
for comparison, that in a 1994 American Bar Association survey, 89% of
law degree holders are pursuing their profession. (the reference for this
article is _Science_ vol 271, page 1795 [1996]).
It is important to understand from the figure above (the 41% of PhD
scientists that are actually in science) that the inflow of new PhDs into
that pool (making up the 41%) must be close to the outflow of PhDs
leaving that pool. The outflow is caused by a combination of those
deciding: i) to voluntarily quit (sometimes out of loss of interest, or the
development of interest in new directions), ii) involuntarily leave because
of tenure denial, grant or contract non-renewal, local politics, or
widespread organizational downsizing or reengineering. Those who
leave science after some period of time in a science career are now at a
disadvantage with respect to the job market because they are usually
around the age of 40 where age discrimination begins to take effect.
Those who remain in their careers are sometimes due to reasons of
merit but mostly due to reasons of being in safe and secure positions on
so-called "hard money" that often has a tax base source or a source
based on requirements regulated by law (for example, automobile liability
insurance is mandated by law, thus guaranteeing a captive clientele for
the insurance industry).
Our analysis, above, may seem to conflict with studies that show
average income increasing proportionately to education. Such studies
show average income for PhDs higher than for BS degrees, which, in
turn, are higher than for high school graduates. Much higher income
trajectories are possible with the higher career trajectories (eg.
continuously successful faculty promotions, careers including promotions
up through management, administration, and corporation officer ranks
that have higher incomes than in scientist or faculty ranks) that come
with advanced degrees. These incomes will mask out flat careers among
PhDs where there is no career growth. Furthermore, these "average
annual income" data do not tell the whole story. Those high incomes do
not develop until after five to ten years of very low paid graduate school
plus low paid postdoctoral studies. Also, when attrition into non-science
or science related careers takes place, it is often to a lower salary.
Thus, a lot of science careers are short careers. However, PhDs are
more likely to aim for more productive endeavors than less well educated
people under these circumstances and thus hold the lower end of the
income scale to a higher level than many high school graduates. An
important question, therefore, is what is the lifetime income of PhDs
compared to other educational levels. Many adjunct professors will
always have low incomes. There are many factors that enter into an
evaluation of what good a PhD degree does for the associated monetary
gain.
The whole point of this essay is to propose to young people that the idea
that entering graduate school with the expectation that it will surely lead
to a better job and a better life does not fit the facts. What should one do
as an alternative? Our contrarian view is that young people need to take
into strong consideration some kind of compromise between their career
or job interests and the longivity of that particular career or job. The world
job market which includes temporary jobs is increasing and the job
market of permanent jobs is decreasing. Even the environments for
permanent jobs can change, administratively, at any time and permanent
workers can be laid off and the "position" or "slot" converted to a
temporary one at lower salary and fringe benefits at any time. Our
essays under New Directions and More Alternatives have some ideas,
hints, and notions that may help guide you towards better job security.
"...the Ph.D. is designed to qualify one to work in academia as a scholar
doing research and preparing the next generation of Ph.D.s." and "...that
fewer than 8% of those with a bachelor's degree in physics actually end
up filling this Ph.D.-to-academia career niche." Those two sentences are
authored by P.W. "Bo" Hammer, Ph.D., in Chapter 19 of Cynthia
Robbins-Roth book "Alternative Careers in Science: Leaving the Ivory
Tower".
The following quote is also useful to ponder: "For a significant number
of the finalists and winners, however, the STS [Westinghouse Science
Talent Search] will be the highlight of a very short scientific career. In a
unique longitudinal study, education researcher Rena F. Subotnik of
Hunter College in New York has been following the careers of about 100
of the semifinalists from the 1983 contest, including 9 of the 10 top
winners. At the time, all but a few were intent on pursuing a career in
science. Now in their early thirties [about 15 years later], about half of
them are still in science, many in applied fields like medicine or
engineering. Only a few are established in academic research
careers." This is from an article written by Christine Mlot in Science
News Online - This Week - Feature Article, 5/31/97 issue, entitled: "Is
Science Talent Squandered?"
Two additional papers also need to be discussed.
Brad K. Gibson, et.al., (bgi...@mania.physics.swin.edu.au)
paper #39 on his publications page
(http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/bgibson/publications.html), you'll get the
full reference (Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Volume 31,
p. 1211-1217, 1999). The authors' long Abstract contained the following
sentences which I quote and will discuss: "With few exceptions, ~ 55 ->
75% of astronomy graduates, regardless of PhD source, remain active in the
astronomical research community." and "Within ten years of PhD receipt,
an equilibrium is reached in which ~45% of the graduates are in identifiably
permanent positions, ~ 20% remain in soft money positions, and ~ 35 % have
left research entirely." The article gives a good overview of the success
rate problem and gives a number of references. Their methodology looked
at a source of information for the names of PhD graduates in astronomy and
compared that, entirely, with the appearance of published papers in
astronomy journals at various times later with the name of the PhD recipient
among the author list. The published papers were found from two other
sources. The authors consider that if you had your name on a published
paper that appeared in the published paper sources, then you were
"successfully" in an astronomy career. This leads to the conclusion they
gave in their Abstract. I think a successful career is one
that includes acheiving a permanent job, so I would look at the 322/897 (36%)
number and consider that as the success rate rather than the more
optimistic figure they preferred to talk about. On page 1215 of the
article, the authors clearly showed their bias to be optimistic with the
following sentence (from the right column, half way down): "On the other
hand, we choose to focus on the positive - our results clearly
indicate that ~ 65% +/- 10 % of graduates of _any_ astronomy PhD
program can expect to maintain a career in research astronomy - i.e. the
actual _source_ of PhD is of little importance."
In the article "A Career Outcome Study" (by Douglas Boyd and Michael
Van Dyke, in The Scientist, Vol 14, # 11, May 29, 2000, page 39) the PhDs
graduating in 1989 (total=26) were compared with those graduating in
1970-72 (total= 32). The individuals tracked were graduates of the
University of Texas Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences. The results
showed that for the 1970-72 group, 75% (total=18) had secured tenure track
or tenured positions in research universities by ten years after graduation.
Out of the rest, 8% had jobs in the pharmaceutical industry, 4% in NIH
Administration, 4% were still on postdocs, and 8% were in other pursuits
(outside of science). For the 1989 group, things were dramatically
different. Only 19% (total = 5) secured tenure track appointments by ten
years after graduation. Industry got 15% (total= 4) of the graduates,
while 15% (total = 5) got college teaching jobs, 4% (one) became a
clinician, one went into biotech business management, and 23% (total = 6)
were still on postdocs, and 19% (total = 5) were totally out of science
(these were described as "homemaker, clinical lab, intellectual property,
tax preparation, and regulatory affairs). Thus, eighteen years made a
large difference in career outcomes. For graduates of a little over ten
years ago, about 20% are still on postdocs and another 20% are totally
out of science. This needs to be compared and understood in the context
of career half-life. Boyd and Van Dyke are faculty that the University of
Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX
77030.
REFERENCES TO PRINTED LITERATURE RELATING TO THE SCIENCE CAREER:
title: The Overeducated American
by: Richard B. Freeman
(his affiliation: Dept of Economics, Harvard University)
publisher: Academic Press, New York, copyright 1976,
218 pp., with 33 figures, 15 tables, and 1-2 dozen
referencing footnotes per chapter. Dewey decimal
classification: 331.71
This book shows not only that college educations are
less useful for jobs and careers but also that this
problem was recognized quite some time ago.
Arthur E. Sowers
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jeremy.Lynch wrote:
> I am 18 and about to enter university in England. I have been advised
> against taking physics as a degree because the physics jobs available in
> industry aren't very interesting in the sense that a lot of physicists are
> employed as technicians, very few involved in reasearch, and that most
> people move up in to management within a few years (which I don't think I
> would enjoy).
>
> Realistically I have been advised that I probably wouldn't get a job in a
> university or similar institution because of the lack of jobs and the very
> high degree of skill required to get them.
All of the above are good and valid pieces of information.
I would like to follow science as
> a career (very much more so than I would like to do advertising or
> accounting etc..) and I am interested in physics, but am worried that I
> would end up in a dead end job or being pushed in to something like
> management. Is this an accurate view?
>
> Jeremy Lynch
First of all, at age 18, you are just begining to enter into a period of
Derek Oliver
"Arthur E. Sowers" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jeremy.Lynch wrote:
>
> > I am 18 and about to enter university in England. I have been advised
> First of all, at age 18, you are just begining to enter into a period of
> life where you might spend 4-5 years in a university program ending in a
> "college degree". This might be a general education or special
> (sci-eng-technical).
There are very few general degrees in the Uk compared to the USA.
Derek
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Derek R. Oliver <de...@ee.umanitoba.ca>
Electrical & Computer Engineering
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Derek Oliver
If you are 18 then I presume that your UCAS choices are either in, or
you are finalizing them. If you enjoy physics then I recommend that you
look at departments which have the MPhys programme - it is a physics
degree programme that goes to a masters level but includes an industry
internship and is set up nationwide in collaboration between industry,
universities and the Institute of Physics.
For some physics-related careers info see:
http://www.iop.org/ in particular:
http://careers.iop.org/Quals/undergrad.html
Good luck,
Derek
--
Arthur E. Sowers
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Derek Oliver wrote:
>
>
> "Arthur E. Sowers" wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jeremy.Lynch wrote:
> >
> > > I am 18 and about to enter university in England. I have been advised
>
> > First of all, at age 18, you are just begining to enter into a period of
> > life where you might spend 4-5 years in a university program ending in a
> > "college degree". This might be a general education or special
> > (sci-eng-technical).
>
> There are very few general degrees in the Uk compared to the USA.
This is really irrelevant to the issue which is that in the next few
years the guy will _maybe_ focus between his interests and "whatever is
out there" that he might fit into. After all, the guy seems already
aware of the job market problem, or at least some of it.
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
> Derek
Arthur E. Sowers
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Derek Oliver wrote:
> Jeremy,
>
> If you are 18 then I presume that your UCAS choices are either in, or
> you are finalizing them. If you enjoy physics then I recommend that you
> look at departments which have the MPhys programme - it is a physics
> degree programme that goes to a masters level but includes an industry
> internship and is set up nationwide in collaboration between industry,
> universities and the Institute of Physics.
>
> For some physics-related careers info see:
> http://www.iop.org/ in particular:
> http://careers.iop.org/Quals/undergrad.html
>
> Good luck,
>
> Derek
Funny that you, with a PhD in what, some physics/physical chemistry, and
ending up in a EE/CS environment, didn't offer any practical advice
(especially wrt yourself and your experiences) against which he could
compare with the advice he already got!
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
=== no change to below, included for reference and context ====
rick++
The better people get jobs, and you get better by studying something
you are passionately interested in. If you dont do well, then change.
(Maybe higher ed is more rigorously structured in your location to
make it harder to change. In the USA it is often easy to change up to
the last year.)
Physics is desireable jumping off spot for other science and engineering
work later on. For example, there were some years in the late 80s
when MicroSoft was hiring half of the physics graduates of Stanford.
Arthur E. Sowers
On 31 May 2002, rick++ wrote:
> Somebody gets the interesting jobs - so why cant it be you?
It can't be you if your CV/resume is not competitive.
> The better people get jobs, and you get better by studying something
> you are passionately interested in.
You have to have tallent, a track record, and be charismatic on the
interview. All the studying and all the passionate interest won't cut it.
I found that out the hard way.
> If you dont do well, then change.
A lot of people do change.... if they want to eat.
> (Maybe higher ed is more rigorously structured in your location to
> make it harder to change. In the USA it is often easy to change up to
> the last year.)
He has a good decade to a decade and a half before he gets his chance to
do any serious science. His other options are in lessor positions.
> Physics is desireable jumping off spot for other science and engineering
> work later on. For example, there were some years in the late 80s
> when MicroSoft was hiring half of the physics graduates of Stanford.
Norm Matloff, who knows the CS job market, says that at all big software
houses, including MS, they only hire about 2-3 % of their applicants!!!
How many physics graduates (BS or PHD?) came out of Stanford in the late
80s?
L Smith
add the following:
Consider either pursuing an engineering degree or taking a heavy minor in
an engineering field. A Bachelor's degree in engineering is much more of a
terminal degree than is one in science, in that you can receive a great deal
of responsibility at a very early stage in your career. As you pointed out,
too often Bachelor's degrees in science lead to what are essentially glorified
technician positions: this is a much rarer occurance in engineering. Even if you
don't go for the degree, taking as many engineering courses as you can fit
into your schedule will at least expose you to the language and culture of the
field.
Whether or not you consider any engineering, do well at whatever you do.
Show potential employers that you can learn, and that you don't have to have
your hands held to do it. Many jobs do require you to have a specific knowledge
base, but many others only require you to be able to learn quickly on your own.
Also, don't get trapped into limiting your opportunities because of some
preconception of what a physicist does. Instead, look at different career paths
with the idea of finding out what skills you need to be successful in them, and
decide if you have them - or can gain them in a reasonable time.
Get to know as many people already in the field as you can, and find out as
much as you can from them what the field is really like. You can start by
talking
to students already in the program at the local university (or wherever you
begin
your studies), as well as the professors. You can probably also, with some
diligence on your part, find the local professional society for your field and
contact some of the local members. I'd be surprised if you weren't able to
talk to at least a couple of members about what their careers have been like.
(Most people do like to talk about themselves.)
Finally, don't be afraid to postpone the decision (in an intelligent way, of
course). You don't have to go on to college right away. You can spend a year
or two working while you get to know yourself better. If you do go on to school,
don't be afraid to spend the first year or so trying out different subjects.
Graduating
a year later, but doing so in a field you're more comfortable with, is much
better
than getting out "on time" in a field you can't stand. Besides, between coop
programs, extra-curricular activities, finanial concerns, and the like, taking
an
extra year or two to get your degree no longer has the stigma it may once have
had. (This last bit of advice comes from having seen students fail who entered
college before they were ready. They either got into an area that wasn't right
for
them, or they dug themselves into a hole that was almost impossible to get out
of.)
Whatever you decide, best of luck to you.
Rich Lemert
Jeffrey J. Potoff
Jeremy.Lynch wrote:
Somewhat. Have you considered getting a degree in one of the engineering disciplines?
J.
no-...@here.thanks
"Jeremy.Lynch" <sod...@fsmail.net> writes :
>I am 18 and about to enter university in England. I have been advised
>against taking physics as a degree because the physics jobs available in
>industry aren't very interesting in the sense
* snip *
>I am interested in physics, but am worried that I
>would end up in a dead end job or being pushed in to something like
>management. Is this an accurate view?
It's deja vu all over again.
OK, Jeremy, let me make this short and sweet. The question is, how much
do you want it. Can you get a job that will use your physics degree ?
If you have a lot of ability, and a superhuman amount of energy, probably.
But know the price you're going to pay, because it's going to be a
downright Faustian one, in all likelihood.
Most people who get jobs in the sciences, and hold onto them, seem to be
dual degree people - one science degree, and one degree in an area of
application. Like, say, Physics/Electrical Engineering. You can do some
way cool things with a combination like that, professionally. But that
means you end up in two degree programs, back to back. At best, you're
going to end up missing out on every bit of fun during what should have
been the best years of your life. Having no time for friends or a social
life during your twenties will do things to your psyche and ability to
relate to your fellow man that can't be fully described in clean language.
That's the nice outcome. Now, let me tell you about the bad one.
One graduate program, very often, is enough to push somebody into a
nervous breakdown. I've had friends who've committed suicide, others
who've ended up in institutions, and if you think the first program is
tiring ... picture this. You've run a marathon. Your lungs are on fire.
Your heart feels like it's going to explode. You get to the finish line
... only to be told that now, you get to run a whole new marathon, and no,
you don't get to rest.
Don't think that you're going to get a job between programs. Don't think
that you're going to get to take a break. And worst of all, don't think
that you're going to get to quit. From the moment that you enter this
track, you are locked in, and if you don't have the strength to complete
it, your life is over. You will never get work, even bad work, you will
never have an income, or a life, or a chance to marry the woman you love,
or start a family, because in real life, the man still has to be the
breadwinner. No money, no life.
That's one hell of a gamble, don't you think ? And if you go in at the
wrong time, and there are no jobs when you come out, and you end up
involuntarily unemployed for a few years because of this, are employers
going to hold this against you ? Believe it.
So, ignore these people who tell you to be "nihilistic" about this
subject, and to not worry, be happy. You have a really golden opportunity
to screw up your life, beyond any hope of repair. That's the very real
risk you're running. So, how badly do you want that career in Physics ?
Is it worth the risk ? Is it worth the loss ? Because you're not going to
get that chunk of your life back, and if you think that won't matter -
brother, try looking at that stretch from the other side. It matters.
Not very sweet or friendly, but at least it's the truth. I hope you
listen, and do a little digging in the real world, where it counts,
because the next decision is yours, and you don't get to revoke it.
Joe
Jeremy.Lynch
initially for physics but instead medicine, leaving open the possibility of
switching to physics after or during the first year once I learn some more
about the options. I think I would enjoy the physics course a lot more and I
am attracted to a research-like job, but I would probably prefer to be a
doctor or do medical research (relatively easy to get in to) than where I
think physics is likely to lead me career-wise. In England you can switch
from medicine to physics but not the other way, so this is a way of leaving
my options open. Regarding engineering, a physicist I have spoken to thinks
that this can lead to similar, perhaps worse, problems than physics because
the courses tend to emphasize aspects only useful today and these skills
become redundant fast. He told me physics gives a much more general
grounding in the basic principles, which remain useful. Engineers are also
not treated very well in England by employers.
Arthur E. Sowers
On Sat, 1 Jun 2002, Jeremy.Lynch wrote:
> Thanks for all the prompt replies. I have decided to probably not enter
> initially for physics but instead medicine,
Good idea. Medicine has a different set of problems and you should talk
around about what these problems are so you are at least aware of them
instead of discovering them ten+ years from now. However, medicine will
have an excellent future, and you can also move to another country if
conditions for MDs deteriorates.
leaving open the possibility of
> switching to physics after or during the first year once I learn some more
> about the options. I think I would enjoy the physics course a lot more and I
> am attracted to a research-like job, but I would probably prefer to be a
> doctor or do medical research (relatively easy to get in to) than where I
> think physics is likely to lead me career-wise.
One of the most important things you can do, besides figure out over the
next few years what subjects you are good at and will not get tired of
over the rest of your life, is to understand the job markets in these
areas you are contemplating.
In England you can switch
> from medicine to physics but not the other way, so this is a way of leaving
> my options open.
I'll leave the details of how higher education in your country works to
you, but "lining up your ducks" for the various options is good.
Regarding engineering, a physicist I have spoken to thinks
> that this can lead to similar, perhaps worse, problems than physics because
> the courses tend to emphasize aspects only useful today and these skills
> become redundant fast.
I think you should talk to a few engineers about this. And, I repeat, a
_few_. I think a _few_ means about 15-20, not 3-4. Finding people who can
tell you their stories and stories about people they know will not be so
easy but I think you need to hear what actually happens to people and you
need to hear it from the people themselves.
He told me physics gives a much more general
> grounding in the basic principles, which remain useful.
You have to ask the guy why this is so and for what set of job
circumstances.
Engineers are also
> not treated very well in England by employers.
If you think about the overling-underling relationship anywhere, anyone
who is an underling is in a position to be not treated well and anyone who
is an overling makes more money and has more power and gets more money and
power for mistreating underlings.
I don't know what is going on in England, but here in the States we've had
an enormous number of discoveries in the last six months of corporation
executives mis-managing their own companies for the benefit of the
officers (Enron and Arthur Anderson are only two of hundreds that are
already in deep trouble, now Microsoft is in settlement with our SEC for
cooking their books in addition to findings of monopoly power) and at
the other end of the power structure are the underlings who either or
in combination lose their jobs, lose their retirement savings, or get
replaced by imported foreign help, or the job gets exported to a third
world country, and then you have age discrimination which generally
starts at or around age 40.
Besides your personal interests in your own future in terms of subject,
pursuit, whatever you want to wish for or dream about, you also are very
likely to run into some of the problems that I listed in the prior
paragraph and you won't be able to control these very much.
Another good idea you should consider is what kind of fall-back plan you
can set up for yourself in case your primary plans don't work out.
In my own case, my primary plans didn't work out, but I had a career that
followed my secondary plans. That secondary plan did lead to a career
but it only lasted for 14 years. There's at least two other people that
answered your inquiry who also are not in their original careers but they
didn't talk about that. I've been on this NG for over ten years and there
have been a number of examples of people who ran into career problems not
of their own making and had to look for alternatives. So, YOU do need to
think about how reality works; it doesn't always go according to the
college catalogs or the textbook examples. A lot of the fancy careers
depend on track records and they are very often very competitive. If you
get, for example, a year or two of unemployment, for any reason at all, it
can seriously hurt your chances of getting another job relevant to your
prior job. I put up my website as it applies to PhDs aiming for jobs in
academia. Jobs in industry are a different kind of story, but you need to
try to find guys in industry and talk to them. Look for conventions and
conferences in some of these subjects and try to go to one and just walk
up to people and start asking them. Some will give you the brushoff, but a
few might be willing to give you 10-20 minutes of in-depth analysis with
personal examples. You need to find older guys who have had enough
(decades) experience that they can tell you what its like when you are
older and employers pass over your CV/resume for interviews.
Good luck
R. Martin
>
> "Jeremy.Lynch" <sod...@fsmail.net> writes :
>
> >I am 18 and about to enter university in England. I have been advised
> >against taking physics as a degree because the physics jobs available in
> >industry aren't very interesting in the sense
>
> * snip *
>
> >I am interested in physics, but am worried that I
> >would end up in a dead end job or being pushed in to something like
> >management. Is this an accurate view?
>
> It's deja vu all over again.
>
> OK, Jeremy, let me make this short and sweet. The question is, how much
> do you want it. Can you get a job that will use your physics degree ?
> If you have a lot of ability, and a superhuman amount of energy, probably.
> But know the price you're going to pay, because it's going to be a
> downright Faustian one, in all likelihood.
>
> Most people who get jobs in the sciences, and hold onto them, seem to be
> dual degree people - one science degree, and one degree in an area of
> application.
From my observations, I doubt that it is "most". Flexibility provided
by two degrees can be very helpful in staying employed though.
> Like, say, Physics/Electrical Engineering. You can do some
> way cool things with a combination like that, professionally. But that
> means you end up in two degree programs, back to back. At best, you're
> going to end up missing out on every bit of fun during what should have
> been the best years of your life. Having no time for friends or a social
> life during your twenties will do things to your psyche and ability to
> relate to your fellow man that can't be fully described in clean language.
Not necessarily. I did a double physics/math major and partied a fair
bit (mostly on weekends, not nightly), was a leader in the student
senate, on the judicial board, on the student union board, started
the Society of Physics Students chapter, was engineer at the student
radio station, help start a local astronomy club, played intramural
basketball, got thoroughly trounced by the dean of students in the
college tennis tournament once he discovered I had no backhand to
speak of. It depends a lot on the particulars of the person and
situation. I'll admit I had an excellent set of opportunities.
> That's the nice outcome. Now, let me tell you about the bad one.
>
> One graduate program, very often, is enough to push somebody into a
> nervous breakdown. I've had friends who've committed suicide, others
> who've ended up in institutions, and if you think the first program is
> tiring ... picture this. You've run a marathon. Your lungs are on fire.
> Your heart feels like it's going to explode. You get to the finish line
> ... only to be told that now, you get to run a whole new marathon, and no,
> you don't get to rest.
That can happen.
> Don't think that you're going to get a job between programs. Don't think
> that you're going to get to take a break. And worst of all, don't think
> that you're going to get to quit. From the moment that you enter this
> track, you are locked in, and if you don't have the strength to complete
> it, your life is over. You will never get work, even bad work, you will
> never have an income, or a life, or a chance to marry the woman you love,
> or start a family, because in real life, the man still has to be the
> breadwinner. No money, no life.
Not true. I dropped out of 2 Ph.D. programs (one because I was
marrying the woman I love), but I've managed to stay reasonably well
employed in interesting jobs. Of course, times may have changed
enough that I couldn't do it again.
> That's one hell of a gamble, don't you think ? And if you go in at the
> wrong time, and there are no jobs when you come out, and you end up
> involuntarily unemployed for a few years because of this, are employers
> going to hold this against you ? Believe it.
>
> So, ignore these people who tell you to be "nihilistic" about this
> subject, and to not worry, be happy.
It seems you need to look up the meaning of nihilism. It is not "don't
worry, be happy". I used it in reference to career planning which I
think the traditional belief in is unfounded. That is not to say that
one should not think about one's future, but that no matter how much
one does so, one is at the mercy of forces far beyond one's control or
sometimes even understanding, so one should not expect one's original
career plan to remain unaltered, unlike the view when I was growing up
which I take as the "traditional" one.
> You have a really golden opportunity
> to screw up your life, beyond any hope of repair. That's the very real
> risk you're running.
Very true. Of course, that opportunity presents itself daily in life.
> So, how badly do you want that career in Physics ?
> Is it worth the risk ? Is it worth the loss ? Because you're not going to
> get that chunk of your life back, and if you think that won't matter -
> brother, try looking at that stretch from the other side. It matters.
>
> Not very sweet or friendly, but at least it's the truth. I hope you
> listen, and do a little digging in the real world, where it counts,
> because the next decision is yours, and you don't get to revoke it.
>
> Joe
Regards,
Russell
L Smith
> "Jeremy.Lynch" <sod...@fsmail.net> writes :
>
> >I am 18 and about to enter university in England. I have been advised
> >against taking physics as a degree because the physics jobs available in
> >industry aren't very interesting in the sense
>
> * snip *
>
> >I am interested in physics, but am worried that I
> >would end up in a dead end job or being pushed in to something like
> >management. Is this an accurate view?
>
> It's deja vu all over again.
>
>
> Most people who get jobs in the sciences, and hold onto them, seem to be
> dual degree people - one science degree, and one degree in an area of
> application. Like, say, Physics/Electrical Engineering. You can do some
> way cool things with a combination like that, professionally. But that
> means you end up in two degree programs, back to back.
Or in parallel, which is how I did it.
> At best, you're
> going to end up missing out on every bit of fun during what should have
> been the best years of your life. Having no time for friends or a social
> life during your twenties will do things to your psyche and ability to
> relate to your fellow man that can't be fully described in clean language.
Nor can an adequate response to this bull. Whether you go the science
route, engineering, or a combination, you will have to work hard - much harder
than your liberal arts colleagues. Does this mean you won't have a social life
and won't make friends? NO! It does mean that you are going to have to learn
to set priorities and budget your time. Your social group is also going to be
heavily weighted toward people in the same situation. You're going to be
around
them much of the time anyway, and they will be going through the same things
you are.
I consider my college years to have been one of the most enjoyable periods
of my life. I was active in the band, was the official timer for all home
basketball
games, went out on weekends, and enjoyed drives through the Colorado
mountains.
At the same time, I was carrying a double major. It did take me longer to
complete
the program, and I had a couple of bouts of "academic indigestion", but I
wouldn't
trade those days for anything.
> One graduate program, very often, is enough to push somebody into a
> nervous breakdown. I've had friends who've committed suicide, others
> who've ended up in institutions, and if you think the first program is
> tiring ... picture this. You've run a marathon. Your lungs are on fire.
> Your heart feels like it's going to explode. You get to the finish line
> ... only to be told that now, you get to run a whole new marathon, and no,
> you don't get to rest.
Sorry you've had such a bad experience, but it's not at all consistent with
my experience and most of the people I've known. I actually found graduate
school to be easier than undergrad. For one thing, you won't have as many
"irrelevent" courses. For another, a lot of the material is, in one sense,
review.
You're going back to all those places where the text says "it's left as an
exercise
for the student to show that ...", and this time you're doing the showing.
> Don't think that you're going to get a job between programs.
Why not? I spent almost five years in industry before deciding to go back
to grad school, and I've known others who waited even longer.
> Don't think
> that you're going to get to take a break. And worst of all, don't think
> that you're going to get to quit.
Again, why not? You ALWAYS have the option of bailing out, regardless of
what stage you're in in your career. There may be costs associated with
changing fields, and you'll probably have to start at (or near) the bottom of
what you change to, but that option will always be there if you're willing to
accept the costs.
> Not very sweet or friendly, but at least it's the truth. I hope you
> listen, and do a little digging in the real world, where it counts,
> because the next decision is yours, and you don't get to revoke it.
>
> Joe
This may be _YOUR_ truth, and if it is, I feel sorry for you. But then
again,
no one ever said going into science was for everyone. It's just too bad you
didn't recognize that until after you'd been embittered by the experience.
Rich Lemert
L Smith
> Thanks for all the prompt replies. I have decided to probably not enter
> initially for physics but instead medicine, leaving open the possibility of
> switching to physics after or during the first year once I learn some more
> about the options. I think I would enjoy the physics course a lot more and I
> am attracted to a research-like job, but I would probably prefer to be a
> doctor or do medical research (relatively easy to get in to) than where I
> think physics is likely to lead me career-wise. In England you can switch
> from medicine to physics but not the other way, so this is a way of leaving
> my options open.
Except for the fact that doctors everywhere want to set the rules for
themselves,
I would find this kind of surprising. I don't know what the system is like in
England, but in the US you go into medicine after earning a four-year degree.
Most people go the pre-med route, but from what I can tell this means you
had better be successful in getting the MD. Many people, however, go into
other fields for their undergraduate education - including engineering and
physics -
and make sure they take appropriate electives (biology, etc.) that will help
them
in med school. That way, they have something to fall back on if their medical
studies don't pan out.
You are wise, however, to follow that path that leaves the greatest number of
options open to you, as long as you think you'll be happy to stay on that path.
Just make sure that you take an active role in deciding when or if you change
directions. You don't want to wind up getting into a field you don't like "by
default", just because you didn't make a choice when you should have.
> Regarding engineering, a physicist I have spoken to thinks
> that this can lead to similar, perhaps worse, problems than physics because
> the courses tend to emphasize aspects only useful today and these skills
> become redundant fast. He told me physics gives a much more general
> grounding in the basic principles, which remain useful. Engineers are also
> not treated very well in England by employers.
Physics does look at things on a more fundamental level, but engineering also
has it's basic knowledge that will never go out of style. And in either field,
if
you don't keep up with your continuing education, your career is going to be
dead in the water.
As for how engineers are treated in England, I can't comment on that.
Rich Lemert
Arthur E. Sowers
On Sat, 1 Jun 2002, L Smith wrote:
> no-...@here.thanks wrote:
>
> > "Jeremy.Lynch" <sod...@fsmail.net> writes :
> >
> > >I am 18 and about to enter university in England. I have been advised
> > >against taking physics as a degree because the physics jobs available in
> > >industry aren't very interesting in the sense
> >
> > * snip *
> >
> > >I am interested in physics, but am worried that I
> > >would end up in a dead end job or being pushed in to something like
> > >management. Is this an accurate view?
> >
> > It's deja vu all over again.
> >
> >
> > Most people who get jobs in the sciences, and hold onto them, seem to be
> > dual degree people - one science degree, and one degree in an area of
> > application. Like, say, Physics/Electrical Engineering. You can do some
> > way cool things with a combination like that, professionally. But that
> > means you end up in two degree programs, back to back.
>
> Or in parallel, which is how I did it.
>
> > At best, you're
> > going to end up missing out on every bit of fun during what should have
> > been the best years of your life. Having no time for friends or a social
> > life during your twenties will do things to your psyche and ability to
> > relate to your fellow man that can't be fully described in clean language.
>
> Nor can an adequate response to this bull.
Except your own bullshit. And, that doesn't include your own
'sweep-it-under-the-rug' crap, either.
Whether you go the science
> route, engineering, or a combination, you will have to work hard - much harder
>
> than your liberal arts colleagues.
Why don't you tell the guy the truth: not everyone is cut out for
engineering. Why don't you tell the guy about your own history?
Does this mean you won't have a social life
>
> and won't make friends? NO! It does mean that you are going to have to learn
> to set priorities and budget your time.
Some people can't do this, period. Some tasks are beyond a lot of people
no matter how they set priorities and budget their time.
Your social group is also going to be
> heavily weighted toward people in the same situation.
This is conjecture and nothing more. You don't have any idea at all what
his 'social group' is, was, or will be.
You're going to be
> around
> them much of the time anyway, and they will be going through the same things
> you are.
Oh, you mean like you?
> I consider my college years to have been one of the most enjoyable periods
> of my life. I was active in the band, was the official timer for all home
> basketball
> games, went out on weekends, and enjoyed drives through the Colorado
> mountains.
For the band, timer, basketball, going out on weekends, drives? Sounds
like you were a cross between a playboy and a party animal. I sure didn't
see anything in your above sentences about the majesty of ChE, the insight
of discovery, the promise of application, the thrill of learning.
> At the same time, I was carrying a double major. It did take me longer to
> complete
> the program, and I had a couple of bouts of "academic indigestion",
hicup, hicup?
but I
> wouldn't
> trade those days for anything.
Sounds like you weren't too happy before or after.
> > One graduate program, very often, is enough to push somebody into a
> > nervous breakdown. I've had friends who've committed suicide, others
> > who've ended up in institutions, and if you think the first program is
> > tiring ... picture this. You've run a marathon. Your lungs are on fire.
> > Your heart feels like it's going to explode. You get to the finish line
> > ... only to be told that now, you get to run a whole new marathon, and no,
> > you don't get to rest.
>
> Sorry you've had such a bad experience, but it's not at all consistent with
> my experience and most of the people I've known.
I can tell you didn't read the book by Bloom, et al., "The PhD Process"
which is reviewed on my website and certainly did not convey that graduate
school was a party. Quite the opposite. Ah..but then...you went to a
diploma mill, right Rich?
I actually found graduate
> school to be easier than undergrad.
Yep, must have been a diploma mill. Low tier school, too. Party grad
schools exist, too.
For one thing, you won't have as many
> "irrelevent" courses.
Oh, so now you are narrow-minded, too.
For another, a lot of the material is, in one sense,
> review.
Ah, an undergraduate school masquerading as a graduate school.
> You're going back to all those places where the text says "it's left as an
> exercise
> for the student to show that ...", and this time you're doing the showing.
--snip--
>
> Why not? I spent almost five years in industry before deciding to go back
> to grad school, and I've known others who waited even longer.
So what?
> > Don't think
> > that you're going to get to take a break. And worst of all, don't think
> > that you're going to get to quit.
>
> Again, why not?
Its not a good idea to take a vacation during grad school...we all know
this.
> You ALWAYS have the option of bailing out, regardless of
> what stage you're in in your career.
Thats not only my line, but its even better to be able to forsee a waste
and try to avoid the waste before it happens.
There may be costs associated with
> changing fields,
There WILL be costs....
and you'll probably have to start at (or near) the bottom of
> what you change to,
You WILL have to start at the bottom...
but that option will always be there if you're willing to
> accept the costs.
Take the detour first.
> > Not very sweet or friendly, but at least it's the truth. I hope you
> > listen, and do a little digging in the real world, where it counts,
> > because the next decision is yours, and you don't get to revoke it.
> >
> > Joe
>
> This may be _YOUR_ truth, and if it is, I feel sorry for you. But then
> again,
> no one ever said going into science was for everyone. It's just too bad you
> didn't recognize that until after you'd been embittered by the experience.
Ah...true words from the head-in-the-sand.
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
> Rich Lemert
>
>
>
Arthur E. Sowers
I'd like to amplify on some items that 'joe' wrote below.....
On Sat, 1 Jun 2002 no-...@here.thanks wrote:
>
> "Jeremy.Lynch" <sod...@fsmail.net> writes :
>
> >I am 18 and about to enter university in England. I have been advised
> >against taking physics as a degree because the physics jobs available in
> >industry aren't very interesting in the sense
>
> * snip *
>
> >I am interested in physics, but am worried that I
> >would end up in a dead end job or being pushed in to something like
> >management. Is this an accurate view?
>
> It's deja vu all over again.
>
> OK, Jeremy, let me make this short and sweet. The question is, how much
> do you want it. Can you get a job that will use your physics degree ?
> If you have a lot of ability, and a superhuman amount of energy, probably.
> But know the price you're going to pay, because it's going to be a
> downright Faustian one, in all likelihood.
I take this as an acknowledgement of the work, the pressure, and the
stress associated with the pipeline between 'start' and the 'career'.
> Most people who get jobs in the sciences, and hold onto them, seem to be
> dual degree people - one science degree, and one degree in an area of
> application. Like, say, Physics/Electrical Engineering. You can do some
> way cool things with a combination like that, professionally.
My reaction to this recommendation is to consider a degree in X and, for
example, an MBA (or MS in an applied area). The sci/eng track leads to
specialization that can be constraining. Broadening out into, for example,
an MBA means you can get (management-type) jobs in the commercial world,
or even start your own company. The Wall Street Journal is continuously
talking about a very large range of exciting things in the business world
that have almost nothing to do with sci/eng and can give a person a
broader job/career security than sci/eng (the downside is that more often
than it should be, a lot of these managers become scumbag theives,
embezzerlers, or other kinds of white collar criminals).
But that
> means you end up in two degree programs, back to back. At best, you're
> going to end up missing out on every bit of fun during what should have
> been the best years of your life. Having no time for friends or a social
> life during your twenties will do things to your psyche and ability to
> relate to your fellow man that can't be fully described in clean language.
When you, as a student, begin to feel that the pressures and demands are
cramping your abilities, personal life, and needs, I think its time to
face the mirror and change majors. The sooner the better. I've seen people
suffer unnecessarily. The old joke was that at the University of Chicago,
they had the highest ratio of psychiatrists to students and it was because
so many of the students were in therapy. The media continuously report,
every few months, of a student who, with the aid of firearms, kills their
profs, major advisor, etc. A couple of years ago a grad student at Harvard
killed himself and it was the second student under the same prof to kill
himself. There is a lot of excitement, ego, and pressure in high profile
institutions and it is tragic that in most of them there is no mechanism
or no effective mechanism to detect and/or prevent the development of
mental damage or predict/prevent disappointing experiences or outcomes.
Once people get their degrees and then get into junior faculty positions
and fall under the pressure to get and retain grants, the mental pressure,
I think, actually increases. I've known faculty who readily admitted this.
And, I've known faculty who were suffering under the pressure and just
could not even bring themselves to talk about it.
> That's the nice outcome. Now, let me tell you about the bad one.
>
> One graduate program, very often, is enough to push somebody into a
> nervous breakdown. I've had friends who've committed suicide, others
> who've ended up in institutions, and if you think the first program is
> tiring ... picture this. You've run a marathon. Your lungs are on fire.
> Your heart feels like it's going to explode. You get to the finish line
> ... only to be told that now, you get to run a whole new marathon, and no,
> you don't get to rest.
I didn't have any friends that committed suicide, but I sure heard about a
lot of disenchantment with not only the pressure of grants but also the
pressure of local politics. I authored two essays that were published in
back issues of "The Scientist." One was about the injustices of the grant
system, the other about politics in sci careers. I can give the cites if
anyone wants to look them up. I gave my email address and I sure got a lot
of email from people who thought I was "right on" with my comments.
When you get news of a proposal being funded, your ego goes into the
stratosphere for about 24 hours. After that, its back to the grind and the
countdown to the expiration of the funding period, and the pressure goes
back up linearly as you think "will I get renewed" "will this proposal get
funded" all in the face of well known statistics that funding success
rates at NIH are about 10-20% and worse at NSF.
> Don't think that you're going to get a job between programs. Don't think
> that you're going to get to take a break. And worst of all, don't think
> that you're going to get to quit. From the moment that you enter this
> track, you are locked in, and if you don't have the strength to complete
> it, your life is over. You will never get work, even bad work, you will
> never have an income, or a life, or a chance to marry the woman you love,
> or start a family, because in real life, the man still has to be the
> breadwinner. No money, no life.
This picture is a real possibility and in the ten years I've been on the
NG, have met a good number of people who were in what is called "postdoc
hell" as they try to keep busy, keep their publications coming out, all in
the hopes of a chance for a decent faculty or staff job (where the
pressure actually continues under the axe of funding pressure or local
politics)
> That's one hell of a gamble, don't you think ? And if you go in at the
> wrong time, and there are no jobs when you come out, and you end up
> involuntarily unemployed for a few years because of this, are employers
> going to hold this against you ? Believe it.
Yep. I do.
> So, ignore these people who tell you to be "nihilistic" about this
> subject, and to not worry, be happy. You have a really golden opportunity
> to screw up your life, beyond any hope of repair. That's the very real
> risk you're running. So, how badly do you want that career in Physics ?
> Is it worth the risk ? Is it worth the loss ? Because you're not going to
> get that chunk of your life back, and if you think that won't matter -
> brother, try looking at that stretch from the other side. It matters.
If the jobs were easier, more plentiful, less competitive, more
secure...I'd say it would be worth it. In my Frequently UnAsked Questions
is much documentation that the sci career is a path of high attrition and
that I present this story to young people who need to ask themselves why
they think they will succeed when the fact is so many that have gone
before them have not succeeded. Carreers in medicine, law, many in
civil service government, even in the military provide a more friendly
future for their members than I've seen for science and related pursuits.
> Not very sweet or friendly, but at least it's the truth. I hope you
> listen, and do a little digging in the real world, where it counts,
> because the next decision is yours, and you don't get to revoke it.
On top of that, you don't get your money back, and you don't get your time
back, either. You actually get warranties on practically everything else
in life that you put in money and time for, but higher education.
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
>
> Joe
>
Jeffrey J. Potoff
Jeremy.Lynch wrote:
Your physicist friend is incorrect. Engineering is generally focused on the
manufacture of a product. That involves money and when money is
involved, people are interested. How interested? Look at starting
salaries for people with an engineering degree compared to those with a
degree in science. Average starting salaries in the US for chemical
engineers are currently $52,000. For chemistry majors it is closer to
$32,000.
Engineering skill sets tend to be very quite transferable, so I don't
buy the argument that somehow Physics is going to give you a more useful
set of skills with respect to finding a job and/or keeping yourself
gainfully employed. Since when do employers have an interest in "basic
principles"? All they care about is pushing product out the door.
In the US, a bachelor's degree in an engineering disciple is all you
need for a decent, reasonably high paying job. A science degree usually
requires you spend time in graduate school, or be relegated to
"technician" status.
Jeff
jat...@ecn.ab.ca
<snip>
: When you, as a student, begin to feel that the pressures and demands are
: cramping your abilities, personal life, and needs, I think its time to
: face the mirror and change majors. The sooner the better. I've seen people
: suffer unnecessarily. The old joke was that at the University of Chicago,
: they had the highest ratio of psychiatrists to students and it was because
: so many of the students were in therapy. The media continuously report,
: every few months, of a student who, with the aid of firearms, kills their
: profs, major advisor, etc. A couple of years ago a grad student at Harvard
: killed himself and it was the second student under the same prof to kill
: himself. There is a lot of excitement, ego, and pressure in high profile
: institutions and it is tragic that in most of them there is no mechanism
: or no effective mechanism to detect and/or prevent the development of
: mental damage or predict/prevent disappointing experiences or outcomes.
<snip>
There was an article in the New York Times magazine a few weeks ago about
an MIT undergrad who killed herself. It turns out that warning signs were
there, but nobody in authority intervened. The question was raised in
that piece about whether abandoning "in locum parentis" in university
about 40 years ago had been a good idea.
On the other hand, many universities have chaplains on campus in addition
to a student distress office. Help for personal problems is freely
available. If nothing else, there will be someone to yell at. In
addition, they may also have an ombudsman's office, which can assist in
resolving academic difficulties.
Services such as these exist to help the students, because university can,
at times, be a harrowing experience.
--
***************************************** "We set sail on this new sea
* Dr. Bernhard Michael Jatzeck, P. Eng. * because there is new knowledge
* * to be gained and new rights to
* jat...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca * be won, and they must be won
***************************************** and used for the progress of
all people."
John F. Kennedy at Rice
University, Houston, Texas,
September 12, 1962
jat...@ecn.ab.ca
<snip>
: Your physicist friend is incorrect. Engineering is generally focused on the
: manufacture of a product.
Not in my experience, and I've worked in a variety of areas for several
different employers. One thing that most of my jobs had in common was the
need to arrive at feasible solutions, preferrrably low in cost and
available quickly. The skills to bring that about can be used in almost
every setting, whether on a production line or in the design of a circuit
board.
That involves money and when money is
: involved, people are interested. How interested? Look at starting
: salaries for people with an engineering degree compared to those with a
: degree in science. Average starting salaries in the US for chemical
: engineers are currently $52,000. For chemistry majors it is closer to
: $32,000.
: Engineering skill sets tend to be very quite transferable, so I don't
: buy the argument that somehow Physics is going to give you a more useful
: set of skills with respect to finding a job and/or keeping yourself
: gainfully employed. Since when do employers have an interest in "basic
: principles"? All they care about is pushing product out the door.
It depends on what you're going to be working on. If the job calls for a
lot of drafting, having a background in CAD (such as with AutoCAD or
MicroStation) will give one more opportunities than, say, a lot of
programming experience.
There seem to be an unfortunate tendency among employers to not recognize
that many engineering skills are not restricted to any one discipline. I
originally qualified in mechanical and found my work overlapping with that
for people with degrees in electrical, petroleum, or civil engineering.
A cantilever beam is going to deflect due to a load, regardless of what
one's background is. A mechanical engineer could calculate the resulting
deflection just as easily as one with a degree in civil.
Somehow, many of the aforementioned employers think that the mechanical
engineer couldn't possibly know about such things.
: In the US, a bachelor's degree in an engineering disciple is all you
: need for a decent, reasonably high paying job. A science degree usually
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I got my first engineering degree 25 years ago and have yet to find such a
job. Unless one moves into management, engineers are generally seen as
over-educated technologists who cost too much money. I wouldn't recommend
engineering if anyone wants to get rich quick. It isn't going to happen,
plus there's always going to be some clown who figures he knows it better.
: requires you spend time in graduate school, or be relegated to
: "technician" status.
: Jeff
--
Jeremy.Lynch
level, because of the length of the course it is financially difficult to
support the 5/6 years of medicine plus the 3/4 years of a separate degree.
It is very difficult to swap from another subject to medicine simply because
medicine is so oversubscribed that they prefer people who have it as a first
choice, regardless of whether you already had an offer for it before you
started your degree. Physics is generally undersubscribed so it is easy to
get on a course.
Jeremy Lynch
L Smith
It's a shame you don't care enough to bother to read what someone writes
and respond to what they're actually saying, not to your biased interpretation
of their comments. My remarks below were in response to someone claiming
that "you'll completely lose the best years of your life" by studying science or
engineering. Regardless of what you think of my current situation - which I'll
comment on later - I have seen engineering education from both a student and
a faculty standpoint. That is a fact that can be fully verified by anyone who cares
enough to check. I have yet to see anything that indicates either of those
statements can be made by you. As such, my comments about what student
life is like as an engineering student have much greater credibility than yours,
regardless of the high esteem with which you regard your opinions - whether
justified or not. I do not claim that my experiences will match those of others -
in fact, if you had bothered to read the entire message before you started
your knee-jerking, you would have found comments indicating that not everyone
is cut out for or enjoys engineering.
As for my current situation: I suggest you might want to try to accept the fact
that some people will never see things the way you do, and stop trying to make
them feel like there is some sort of flaw about their views. You apparently feel
that unless someone's entire career unfolds in exactly the way they want it to,
that they must somehow be a failure. I, on the other hand, feel that even the
most successful career is going to have set-backs now and then, and that this
in no way detracts from the overall success of that career.
You are not going to convince that my career is a failure when I can look
around and see where it is now and where it's going, especially since you have
such a narrow image of my career (which has also been filtered through your
"no one can have a successful technical career" bias). If you want to come down
and spend a few weeks finding out what I'm doing and who I am (Raleigh's only
about 5 or 6 hours from you, I believe), I might be willing to give your comments
more credence.
You are also not going to convince me that my views on science and engineering
careers are wrong, when I have seen too much evidence to support my views.
You will notice that I do not claim these views have universal applicability - in
fact, I regularly make it a point to acknowledge that life science careers are
much more difficult than those in other technical fields.
There is one thing I think you and I can agree on - the original poster (and
others like him) should always get as many opinions about their career options
as they can. You provide one viewpoint, I provide another. Knocking mine
does not enhance yours, and I think you do the kid a disservice. You'll note
that until this post, which is in response to your direct attact on my post, I've
avoided responding to anything you've written - it just isn't worth the effort
since you're going to twist my words anyway. I simply attempted to provide
evidence to refute a claim made by someone else that "if you go a technical
route, you won't have a life."
If you can accept the fact that we disagree and avoid attacking my every post,
I'll be happy to do the same with your posts. Or would you prefer that we bore
every other poster on src, and drive another nail in it's coffin?
Rich Lemert
"Arthur E. Sowers" wrote:
> Whether you go the science
> > route, engineering, or a combination, you will have to work hard - much harder
> >
> > than your liberal arts colleagues.
>
> Why don't you tell the guy the truth: not everyone is cut out for
> engineering. Why don't you tell the guy about your own history?
>
> Does this mean you won't have a social life
> >
> > and won't make friends? NO! It does mean that you are going to have to learn
> > to set priorities and budget your time.
>
> Some people can't do this, period. Some tasks are beyond a lot of people
> no matter how they set priorities and budget their time.
>
> Your social group is also going to be
> > heavily weighted toward people in the same situation.
>
> This is conjecture and nothing more. You don't have any idea at all what
> his 'social group' is, was, or will be.
>
The rest of Art's knee-jerk condemnation of me has been deleted in the
interest of brevity. For those - like Art - who absolutely insist that the full
original message _must_ be quoted "to provide context", live with it. If
you can't be bothered to either remember what you said or look back through
the thread's history, that's your problem.
Rich Lemert
Joshua Halpern
"Arthur E. Sowers" wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2002, Derek Oliver wrote:
> > "Arthur E. Sowers" wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jeremy.Lynch wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am 18 and about to enter university in England. I have been advised
> >
> > > First of all, at age 18, you are just begining to enter into a period of
> > > life where you might spend 4-5 years in a university program ending in a
> > > "college degree". This might be a general education or special
> > > (sci-eng-technical).
> >
> > There are very few general degrees in the Uk compared to the USA.
>
> This is really irrelevant to the issue which is that in the next few
> years the guy will _maybe_ focus between his interests and "whatever is
> out there" that he might fit into. After all, the guy seems already
> aware of the job market problem, or at least some of it.
No, Derek's point is that Jeremy has to choose NOW.
Josh Halpern
Joshua Halpern
"Jeremy.Lynch" wrote:
>
> I am 18 and about to enter university in England. I have been advised
> against taking physics as a degree because the physics jobs available in
> industry aren't very interesting in the sense that a lot of physicists are
> employed as technicians, very few involved in reasearch, and that most
> people move up in to management within a few years (which I don't think I
> would enjoy).
You need someone who knows the UK scene. Things can be very different
from country to country. OTOH, being in the EU, you have a chance
to work in a lot of different countries with different situations.
For example, right now in Germany there are a lot of openings for
Ph.D. physicists in industry, where they function as what in the
US would be called development engineers. If you are looking for
an industrial career, good areas are materials research, acoustics!!
and optics among others. Derek Oliver is probably the best regular
poster here for UK knowledge.
>
> Realistically I have been advised that I probably wouldn't get a job in a
> university or similar institution because of the lack of jobs
Jobs in universities are starting to open up as the large number of
folks hired in the 60s reach retirement age, still, it is very
competitive, especially at the research institutions
> and the very high degree of skill required to get them.
A good indication of whether you should study physics would be your
A levels. You need very good marks to be competitive. Be realistic.
You also want to study in one of the top five departments in the UK
to have an academic career.
josh halpern
Jeffrey J. Potoff
jat...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> Jeffrey J. Potoff (jpo...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> : In the US, a bachelor's degree in an engineering disciple is all you
> : need for a decent, reasonably high paying job. A science degree usually
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I got my first engineering degree 25 years ago and have yet to find such a
> job. Unless one moves into management, engineers are generally seen as
> over-educated technologists who cost too much money. I wouldn't recommend
> engineering if anyone wants to get rich quick. It isn't going to happen,
> plus there's always going to be some clown who figures he knows it better.
>
Maybe things are different in the US. My data is from a recent article
in Chemical and Engineering News, which says average starting salaries
for people with a BS in ChE are ~$52,000 (2000). In my mind,
$52,000/year isn't too shabby. No, you won't get rich, but you won't
starve, either. I have the issue on my desk at work. If anyone wants
the specific reference I can post it tomorrow.
J.
Arthur E. Sowers
On Sun, 2 Jun 2002 jat...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> Arthur E. Sowers (arth...@magpage.com) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> : When you, as a student, begin to feel that the pressures and demands are
> : cramping your abilities, personal life, and needs, I think its time to
> : face the mirror and change majors. The sooner the better. I've seen people
> : suffer unnecessarily. The old joke was that at the University of Chicago,
> : they had the highest ratio of psychiatrists to students and it was because
> : so many of the students were in therapy. The media continuously report,
> : every few months, of a student who, with the aid of firearms, kills their
> : profs, major advisor, etc. A couple of years ago a grad student at Harvard
> : killed himself and it was the second student under the same prof to kill
> : himself. There is a lot of excitement, ego, and pressure in high profile
> : institutions and it is tragic that in most of them there is no mechanism
> : or no effective mechanism to detect and/or prevent the development of
> : mental damage or predict/prevent disappointing experiences or outcomes.
>
> <snip>
>
> There was an article in the New York Times magazine a few weeks ago about
> an MIT undergrad who killed herself. It turns out that warning signs were
> there, but nobody in authority intervened. The question was raised in
> that piece about whether abandoning "in locum parentis" in university
> about 40 years ago had been a good idea.
This general problem pervades society. The suicide rate among young
people, last time I saw any articles that gave statistics, is/was going
up. There are books out there on the problems in today's youth and they
are not doing all that much good. I think society needs to have inserted
into its own daily life a component of constant "therapy" and "analysis".
People need to become sensitive and tollerant of each other's problems and
problems in themselves. Internalizing these problems makes them worse.
Denying them is self-delusion.
> On the other hand, many universities have chaplains on campus in addition
> to a student distress office. Help for personal problems is freely
> available. If nothing else, there will be someone to yell at. In
> addition, they may also have an ombudsman's office, which can assist in
> resolving academic difficulties.
The circumstances around that big HS near-bombing (I think it was
Columbine HS in our midwest) where two students shot many of their
classmates (and the many copy-cat[?] cases following it) showed that
society has no good mechanism for detecting or treating or dealing with
such situations. Even, here on SRC, with my wailings about how a person
can get a PhD, and enter into a career plan-matrix of a "system" and a
"population of colleages", can run into all kinds of sordid but unjust
situations and at best a few people will notice it, and look the other
way, while the rest of the people will just look the other way. Very
rarely someone with similar or idential experience will step forward and
confirm that this exists, but nobody wants to work towards any kind of
reform.
In the military, the insanity is reversed. You're out there on the
battlefield taking bullets, dodging bullets, shooting bullets, and if you
get hit or you have some other problem, there is a definite infrastructure
there to pick you up, as wounded person, and transport you or otherwise
rescue you back to a medical facility. And, throughout the organization is
a cultural undercurrent that you are _part of_ and organization that helps
its own members. A guy gets denied tenure or his grants don't get renewed
and they just bring over a front-loader to transport the guy, ASAP, to the
nearest dumpster.
> Services such as these exist to help the students, because university can,
> at times, be a harrowing experience.
I say "it ain't good enough".
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
> --
Arthur E. Sowers
Thanks for the additional background on your situation and options. This
information, which is available to you but not most of the rest of us who
are in the USA, should play a big role in how you decide which fork in the
road to follow. Its really unfortunate that you have to make such a
commitment so early; I have the feeling that out of many students, there
is a fairly large fraction who, after spending 4-5-6 years in a certain
subject, discover they either don't like it, lost interest in it, or maybe
found out that they are not so good at it. And, then what do you do?
R. Martin
Nope, $52k starting salary isn't too shabby, since it is more than
I or my wife made until we had 10 to 20 years of experience, with
graduate and professional degrees. It is also 2/3 of what we're
making now, with even more experience and more degrees. This could
be taken as evidence that some science careers are not really that
well paying, or that starting ChemEs are incredibly overpaid. I've
long advocated the former position, but maybe I should switch and
support the latter. ;-)
Regards,
Russell
Arthur E. Sowers
On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, L Smith wrote:
> Art -
>
> It's a shame you don't care enough to bother to read what someone writes
> and respond to what they're actually saying, not to your biased interpretation
> of their comments.
And, you with your own biased interpretation.......
My remarks below were in response to someone claiming
> that "you'll completely lose the best years of your life" by studying science or
> engineering.
And, you are saying that guy lied?
Regardless of what you think of my current situation - which I'll
> comment on later - I have seen engineering education from both a student and
> a faculty standpoint.
But, not much else. And, I wonder what "have seen" really means. Or, do
you mean YOU speaketh the whole truth and NOBODY ELSE speaketh anything
but lies? Because that is what most of your flim-flam is about.
That is a fact that can be fully verified by anyone who cares
> enough to check. I have yet to see anything that indicates either of those
> statements can be made by you.
I made quite a few posts that indicated comparable experience and you
never acknowledged any of it.
As such, my comments about what student
> life is like as an engineering student have much greater credibility
"I am Rich Lemert and I declare I have a monopoly on truth"
than yours,
> regardless of the high esteem with which you regard your opinions - whether
> justified or not. I do not claim that my experiences will match those of others -
> in fact, if you had bothered to read the entire message before you started
> your knee-jerking, you would have found comments indicating that not everyone
> is cut out for or enjoys engineering.
Now, you are making a "parallel" inversion. Was the guy you responded to,
now telling the truth? You are really in a flip-flop here.
> As for my current situation: I suggest you might want to try to accept the fact
> that some people will never see things the way you do, and stop trying to make
> them feel like there is some sort of flaw about their views.
Well folks, here is a guy who, because he has a PhD in ChE, but is not
doing any ChE and never did any ChE, wants, never-the-less, to call
himself a chemical engineer. Now, folks, if any of you want to think that
way about yourself (i.e. that if you get a BS in physics, a MS in
chemistry, a PhD in biology, a MD in medicine, that makes you a physicist,
chemist, biologist, doctor), even though you may have a job with the job
title: janitor, be prepared for some fraction of your audience to not give
you as much credit as you want.
You apparently feel
> that unless someone's entire career unfolds in exactly the way they want it to,
> that they must somehow be a failure. I, on the other hand, feel that even the
> most successful career is going to have set-backs now and then, and that this
> in no way detracts from the overall success of that career.
And, if I did not rock the boat a little, you'd never have acknowledged
this. Yet, its something that is so common, but you (and quite a few
others here) don't want to let Jeremy know that despite laying nice plans,
reality might not work out according to those plans.
> You are not going to convince that my career is a failure when I can look
> around and see where it is now and where it's going, especially since you have
> such a narrow image of my career (which has also been filtered through your
> "no one can have a successful technical career" bias).
See, your problem is that you want to deny the fact that, with many
references to published papers in my Frequently UnAsked Questions, this is
actually quite common. For example, the astronomy career, as we discussed
a couple of years ago shows that only one of three astronomy PhDs ever
gets a permanent job in astronomy. At least 1 of three are OUT of
astronomy early, and the rest have weirdo/temporary jobs. Its a lousey
outcome if you WANT that career in astronomy. But, YOU, ...I don't care if
you are IN or OUT of ChE. Maybe even YOU don't care if you are IN or OUT
of ChE. Maybe you don't even care that you are not in ChE because of
circumstances beyond your control. That's your problem. But, the fact is:
its there and guys like Jeremy need to understand that it could happen to
him, too.
If you want to come down
> and spend a few weeks finding out what I'm doing and who I am (Raleigh's only
> about 5 or 6 hours from you, I believe), I might be willing to give your comments
> more credence.
Someday, I might take you up on that.
> You are also not going to convince me that my views on science and engineering
> careers are wrong, when I have seen too much evidence to support my views.
What views are those?
> You will notice that I do not claim these views have universal applicability - in
> fact, I regularly make it a point to acknowledge that life science careers are
> much more difficult than those in other technical fields.
And, as we had Josh Halpern and Steve Tate tell us about faculty
recruitment and the bottom 3/4 of the applicants at JH's place were
rejected and at ST's place, sometimes all of the applicants were rejected?
And, those were 'hot' areas for hiring? And, you think the problems are
only in life sciences? You're balmy.
> There is one thing I think you and I can agree on - the original poster (and
> others like him) should always get as many opinions about their career options
> as they can.
Yes, and he will have to digest our various stories and decide for himself
what he wants to do.
> You provide one viewpoint, I provide another. Knocking mine
> does not enhance yours, and I think you do the kid a disservice.
No, I think he needs to know there is an attrition ahead of him and that
is where YOU do a disservice. Out of a hundred kids facing his situation,
various fractions are going to be successful, poorly successful, or
failures, or quits, or whatever, and they are all going to have to pick up
the pieces and make something else out of their lives.
The other fact is marriage and business. How many people realistically
face the possibility that their marriage bombs, or new businesses fail?
The facts are that half of marriages really do bomb. And, of new
businesses, about half of them bomb out within two years.
You'll note
> that until this post, which is in response to your direct attact on my post, I've
> avoided responding to anything you've written - it just isn't worth the effort
> since you're going to twist my words anyway. I simply attempted to provide
> evidence to refute a claim made by someone else that "if you go a technical
> route, you won't have a life."
Yes, and your refutation was to deny respect to the person who told that
story instead of acknowledging that it can happen and that it does happen
and that some people will come forward and tell the story and for the
purpose of warning a newcomer that life doesn't come rolling down an
assembly line in a factory, right on schedule and without mishaps.
> If you can accept the fact that we disagree and avoid attacking my every post,
If you want to present material without cross examination, then its too
hot in the kitchen and you'd better move out. Otherwise, if you want to
play scientist or whatever, then, you make a statement, and if anyone has
a comment on it, they should feel free to respond. I've been here for over
ten years and nobody hesitates to make comments on me, and I'll never plea
with people to "make nice" with me and I'll return the favor. That is
corruption and its another one of your characteristics. You've brought
this up before, too.
> I'll be happy to do the same with your posts.
No deal. I don't take bribes.
Or would you prefer that we bore
> every other poster on src, and drive another nail in it's coffin?
Its the lard-butt lazy people who prefer to be lurkers instead of posters
that will kill the newsgroup. Nothing would be more boring than X people,
all saying the exact same thing, the exact same way, all the time. I'd
think they were all robots, brainwashed proletarians, or something out of
Matrix.
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
=== no change to below, included for reference and context ====
> Rich Lemert
Arthur E. Sowers
No, Jeremy clarified the situation and, as I read Jeremy's post, the
sentence "There are very few general degrees in the Uk compared to the
USA" is still irrelevant to Jeremy's situation.
Derek Oliver
the competition in reality is no worse than it is from high school
direct entry because many unievrsities hold back a couple of places to
catch good people who do this. It also helps if you've taken science
courses that overlap with the first couple of years of the med course -
that way you get some credit to transfer.
I'll just say this again for all our non-UK readers.
IN THE UK YOU NORMALLY COMMENCE A MEDICINE DEGREE STRAIGHT FORM SCHOOL.
THIS IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TO THE US SYSTEM.
Derek
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Derek R. Oliver <de...@ee.umanitoba.ca>
Electrical & Computer Engineering
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Derek Oliver
"Jeremy.Lynch" wrote:
>
> Thanks for all the prompt replies. I have decided to probably not enter
> initially for physics but instead medicine, leaving open the possibility of
> switching to physics after or during the first year once I learn some more
> about the options.
General comment. Stop thinking about different degree programmes. Start
thinking about things you want to DO for the next few (many) years. Then
look at the degree programmes and see which matches best.
> Regarding engineering, a physicist I have spoken to thinks
> that this can lead to similar, perhaps worse, problems than physics because
> the courses tend to emphasize aspects only useful today and these skills
> become redundant fast. He told me physics gives a much more general
> grounding in the basic principles, which remain useful. Engineers are also
> not treated very well in England by employers.
Be wary of advice from physicists, especially academic physicists whose
perspective is somewhat rose-tinted. Yes physics is fundamental and the
principles are always useful, but few undergraduate physics courses help
you make the link between fundamental and utility. Good engineering
courses do, there's a minor flame war in another part of this thread
that opens this up - frankly some engineering courses are very
disappointing, some aren't. If you see an "Engineering Physics" course
in the history of a department, then that place knows (at least knew)
what the link was about.
This is why I pointed you at the MPhys (see also MMath and MChem)
courses - these courses were designed with that 'utility' link in mind
while retaining the foundations of the discipline.
Yeah, as someone else mentioned, I'm a physicist (originally from the
UK) and yeah, I work in engineering. Drop me a line if you would like
something beyond generalities...
Good luck,
Derek
Derek Oliver
My personal experiences are one data point, not generalities. At this
stage the poster is looking primarily at generalities.
Derek
"Arthur E. Sowers" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 31 May 2002, Derek Oliver wrote:
>
> > Jeremy,
> >
> > If you are 18 then I presume that your UCAS choices are either in, or
> > you are finalizing them. If you enjoy physics then I recommend that you
> > look at departments which have the MPhys programme - it is a physics
> > degree programme that goes to a masters level but includes an industry
> > internship and is set up nationwide in collaboration between industry,
> > universities and the Institute of Physics.
> >
> > For some physics-related careers info see:
> > http://www.iop.org/ in particular:
> > http://careers.iop.org/Quals/undergrad.html
> >
> > Good luck,
> >
> > Derek
>
> Funny that you, with a PhD in what, some physics/physical chemistry, and
> ending up in a EE/CS environment, didn't offer any practical advice
> (especially wrt yourself and your experiences) against which he could
> compare with the advice he already got!
>
> Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
> -----------------------------------------
> | Science career information website: |
> | http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
> -----------------------------------------
>
> === no change to below, included for reference and context ====
>
> > "Jeremy.Lynch" wrote:
> > >
> > > I am 18 and about to enter university in England. I have been advised
> > > against taking physics as a degree because the physics jobs available in
> > > industry aren't very interesting in the sense that a lot of physicists are
> > > employed as technicians, very few involved in reasearch, and that most
> > > people move up in to management within a few years (which I don't think I
> > > would enjoy).
> > >
> > > Realistically I have been advised that I probably wouldn't get a job in a
> > > university or similar institution because of the lack of jobs and the very
> > > high degree of skill required to get them. I would like to follow science as
> > > a career (very much more so than I would like to do advertising or
> > > accounting etc..) and I am interested in physics, but am worried that I
> > > would end up in a dead end job or being pushed in to something like
> > > management. Is this an accurate view?
> > >
> > > Jeremy Lynch
Derek Oliver
My comment in this part of the thread was a reminder to Art that he was
referring to choices in the US which do not exist in the UK in a
comparable fashion. The "liberal arts" and "general science" degrees
that permeate the US system aren't offered in the UK. You can acheive
such a degree, but few institutions advertise it as a normal programme
of study.
Derek
--
rick++
> > in Chemical and Engineering News, which says average starting salaries
> > for people with a BS in ChE are ~$52,000 (2000).
Starting salaries have gone down considerably since two years ago,
especially if include signing bonuses, which are mostly memory.
In addition, there was almost total salary scale compression:
new people were being offered almost the same (in some cases more)
than 10, 20 year employees. The latter had the choice to move for
higher pay if they desired it.
Supply and demand.
Jeffrey J. Potoff
rick++ wrote:
> "> My data is from a recent article
>
>>>in Chemical and Engineering News, which says average starting salaries
>>>for people with a BS in ChE are ~$52,000 (2000).
>>>
>
> Starting salaries have gone down considerably since two years ago,
> especially if include signing bonuses, which are mostly memory.
>
This isn't what my data says, but if you have a source that
substantiates your point I'd be very interested in looking it up.
> In addition, there was almost total salary scale compression:
> new people were being offered almost the same (in some cases more)
> than 10, 20 year employees. The latter had the choice to move for
> higher pay if they desired it.
>
> Supply and demand.
>
Again, I'd like to see a source for this information. I heard of this
happening about 20 years ago to certain engineering groups, but nothing
recently.
J.
L Smith
topics of discussion. For the most part, they are content to accept those
disagreements as the result of our having different backgrounds and experiences.
They are also willing to actually try to understand my views so that they have a
valid foundation upon which to base their disagreement.
Art Sower is _not_ one of these people. He apparently cannot accept the
fact that someone else's life experiences would lead them to a conclusion that
contradicts in any way what he, in his infinite wisdom, _knows_ to be "the
truth." He is so insecure in his wisdom, though, that it is not enough merely
to disagree with me. He must go even further and manufacture views that he
attributes to me, which can be seen by any rational reader to be inconsistent
with what I do believe, so that he can more effectively "put me in my place."
It has reached the point, in fact, that his comments (quoted below) contain
at least one deliberate lie about my background. (I can only conclude that this
is a deliberate lie since the statement is in direct contradiction to the evidence
that has been presented over the years in this forum - evidence that Art is
fully aware of.)
If you do read through Art's comments, you will find a very enlightening collection
of logical fallacies and inappropriate debate techniques. You will someone who's
a master at taking words out of context any when he quotes the context. You will
find that he loves to infer limitations that are not present in the original message.
You will find someone that raises a completely irrelevent point, and claim that
since you did not address that point your arguments are invalid.
Art, your constant diatribes and infantile wailings are simply not worth the
effort of continuing to respond to your every post. You show no signs of either
the interest or the ability to learn from others, and I have better things to do. You
will note, for example, that I have been fairly silent in this forum for the last few
months, and that I was perfectly happy to limit my responses in this thread to the
comments of the original poster until you provided your knee-jerk reaction to
my post. However, although I find you increasingly irrelevent, that does not mean
I won't defend myself against your prevarications and character assassinations.
You have chased many people away from this forum with your sniping, but you
should have learned by now that I am not easily chased. And in the end, time
is on my side - I believe I'm, what, about twenty years younger?
R. Martin
snipped
> You have chased many people away from this forum with your sniping, but you
> should have learned by now that I am not easily chased. And in the end, time
> is on my side - I believe I'm, what, about twenty years younger?
>
> Rich Lemert
Ahh, an experiment to see if the theory that scientific revolutions
finally succeed when the opponents all die off is true. The
Scientific Method in action! Shouldn't we start a control NG though?
Regards,
Russell
Arthur E. Sowers
1. Funny, I had the exact opposite impression about how you were viewing
your personal experiences, and the exact opposite impression about
Jeremy's interest (unless the pronoun reference for your word "poster" was
me).
2. I would have thought you would have 'offered' your FAQ to the guy by
now, but unless you did and it never got to my news server, I don't know
why you didn't. But, in any case, that's your decision to make.
3. What I saw in Jeremy's original post (which, thank you, you included
way below) was a fairly obvious lack of specific interest in a PhD, but a
specific interest in prospects in physics (and his use of the phrase
"interesting jobs in industry") vs. medicine (very different job
landscapes, very different task focus). I have actually heard of BS
degrees in medicine, but I don't know if this is possible in the UK and
it was unclear if the UK program normally ended in an MD or something else
(I also have heard, beleive it or not, of PhDs in surgery and following
a program at a medical school in Ireland, which I presume is part of the
UK, and I'll leave it at that). I have also been told that an MD from
China is essentially a degree on par with completion of an undergraduate
degree (at least in terms of age of the student at admissions vs
graduation [I actually had a Chinese MD and a Chinese MSME in my lab for a
semester and that's what they both told me, assuming they were telling
me the truth).
4. I am very unfamiliar with the general details of higher education in
Europe compared with the USA, and Jeremy seemed already to be familiar
with the details relative to his country so I thought he wanted, instead,
from us, some viewpoints on two fields of study/specialization in terms of
what kind future he could expect. I also thought he was getting the
picture of "jobs in industry" as essentially either "technician level"
(and thus, to many people, uninteresting) where you just do as the boss
says or advanced "scientist level" where you are the boss, but that these
jobs are much harder to get, which I think is what I would expect. But,
that picture is incomplete. Thus, I offered my essays and website to
introduce him to details relevant to the _advanced_ picture of jobs in
science.
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
=== no change to below, included for reference and context ====
Arthur E. Sowers
I think Josh's short comment was more relevant than yours, below.
My "take" on Jeremy's whole theme was in a reply I posted a few minutes
ago, but I'll re-iterate that my focus was on: a) his phrase "interesting
jobs in industry", b) the fork in the road which has medicine for one
branch and physics for the other, and c) he's already gotten some advice
from people which has, thankfully, made him start to think about what he
is getting into before he gets into it. Now, I'm going to acknowledge that
a few of us here (including me) maybeseem to be reading each others
material and interpreting it differently and giving poor marks to each
other's replies, but I'll leave it to Jeremy to pick and choose what
comments he likes best. You also imply that anything is possible (based
on your sentence "You can acheive such a degree...study.").
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
=== no change to below, included for reference and context ====
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Derek Oliver wrote:
Arthur E. Sowers
Russell,
You are soooo kind to people. Yes, Rich will surely outlive me and then he
can declare himself the winner, or perhaps more correctly, the survivor.
But, then, he has not taken into consideration the possibility that a
person younger than him might take up an opposing viewpoint, and then --
THEN -- _he_ will have to do the sweating.
;-)
Art
L Smith
From what I've heard, quantum physics didn't really start to flourish until all
the older physicists started dieing off. Reminds of one of my favorite science
quotes: "The greatest measure of a scientist's esteem in a field is the degree to
which he impeeds progress in that field!"
Rich Lemert
The Sage
"L Smith" <lls...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3CFC12D1...@mindspring.com...
> There are many s.r.c. participants that disagree with me on many - if
not most -
> topics of discussion. For the most part, they are content to accept those
> disagreements as the result of our having different backgrounds and
experiences.
> They are also willing to actually try to understand my views so that they
have a
> valid foundation upon which to base their disagreement.
>
> Art Sower is _not_ one of these people. He apparently cannot accept the
> fact that someone else's life experiences would lead them to a conclusion
that
> contradicts in any way what he, in his infinite wisdom, _knows_ to be "the
> truth." He is so insecure in his wisdom, though, that it is not enough
merely
> to disagree with me. He must go even further and manufacture views that he
> attributes to me, which can be seen by any rational reader to be
inconsistent
> with what I do believe, so that he can more effectively "put me in my
place."
It's a good thing that Sowers puts you down because you are a nitwit.
> It has reached the point, in fact, that his comments (quoted below)
contain
> at least one deliberate lie about my background. (I can only conclude that
this
> is a deliberate lie since the statement is in direct contradiction to the
evidence
> that has been presented over the years in this forum - evidence that Art
is
> fully aware of.)
>
> If you do read through Art's comments, you will find a very enlightening
collection
> of logical fallacies and inappropriate debate techniques. You will someone
who's
> a master at taking words out of context any when he quotes the context.
You will
> find that he loves to infer limitations that are not present in the
original message.
> You will find someone that raises a completely irrelevent point, and claim
that
> since you did not address that point your arguments are invalid.
>
I have been reading Sowers posts for a long time and I have never seen him
do this. Did you have a bad nightmare last night that Sowers' predictions
will come true.
Wake up, boy!
> Art, your constant diatribes and infantile wailings are simply not worth
the
> effort of continuing to respond to your every post. You show no signs of
either
> the interest or the ability to learn from others, and I have better things
to do.
Yes, go bury your head back in the sand.
You
> will note, for example, that I have been fairly silent in this forum for
the last few
> months, and that I was perfectly happy to limit my responses in this
thread to the
> comments of the original poster until you provided your knee-jerk reaction
to
> my post. However, although I find you increasingly irrelevent, that does
not mean
> I won't defend myself against your prevarications and character
assassinations.
> You have chased many people away from this forum with your sniping, but
you
> should have learned by now that I am not easily chased. And in the end,
time
> is on my side - I believe I'm, what, about twenty years younger?
>
You're also 20 years dumber.
P. Christopher LaRosa
Keep kicking ass Art.!!
PC LaRosa, PhD. AKA PCPhD.
T
Arthur E. Sowers
And, the famous lawyers strategem: "If you can't pound on the facts, then
pound on the table."
;-)
Arthur E. Sowers
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, P. Christopher LaRosa wrote:
> Strangely, I have to support The Sages commentary here!.....
Yeah, so do I.
> Keep kicking ass Art.!!
Thanks for the "cards & letters," PC.
> PC LaRosa, PhD. AKA PCPhD.
>
> T
>
>
Arthur E. Sowers
1. Anyone who cares to sift through the last five years of archives of src
posts will find Rich Lemert making 80-90% of his posts as replies
specifically to my posts and very few to other people. These replies have
all expressed frustration and anguish with my unwillingness to accept
Rich's viewpoints on lots of things in life (mainly career related issues).
2. A much larger proportion of my posts are replies to the majority of
other posters. I interact with (including both agreements and disagreements)
the wide variety of opinions presented rather than just a few people. Rich
is obsessed with me.
3. My primary concern in putting together my website is focused on young
people who undertake a program of study that includes, beyond the BS
degree, a five year graduate study and another five years of postdoctoral
work (at low pay, poor job security, and underling status) and who end up
(as demonstrable both from published studies as well as personal
experience) a much poorer than 50-50 chance at getting into a decent
life-long career which is relevant to that ten year program of study. See
my Frequently UnAsked Questions or my website for the references. I think
all or almost all of these young people had good intentions on their minds
and worked hard, worked with dedication, and otherwise did something that
is not that easy to do....original research.
4. My website, though in many ways presenting a discouraging view of the
sci career also contains several essays (eg. how to find a good postdoc,
self-evaluation, what needs to be in a CV) meant to guide and mentor a
reader. Its unfortunate that messer. Lemert has, as far as I can recall,
never acknowledged this fact.
5. The vast majority of his posts are based on suppositions, assumptions,
prefered attitudes, presentations of arguments, sellective
interpretations of facts of life, hand-waving, smoke & mirrors, hot air,
and finally... snow. He makes almost zero reference to published
studies, printed articles, website URLs, or other sources. My website and my
Frequently UnAsked Questions make extensive reference to published studies,
printed articles, website URLs, as well as to my personal experience and the
experience of colleagues who have told me about their personal experience.
6. What is success? What is happiness? As opposed to "failure," when I
hear the word 'success' I think of the likes of Bill Gates (hardball
monopolist), Al Dunlap ("chainsaw"), Jack Welch (former hatchet man at
GE), Leona Helmsly ("Only little people pay taxes"), Martha Stuart (There
is a book out by Christopher Byron, entitled "Martha Inc." and I just read
the review. She is described as a "lying, double-crossing, backstabbing"
person and an "appalling human being"). I'm sorry but I can't admire these
"successful" and rich but otherwise despicable people. Christopher Reeve
fell off a horse in a freak accident and I'll bet he wishes it didn't
happen. He's out fundraising for money for research on spinal injury;
maybe thinks it will fix his problem. Too bad he didn't decide to campaign
against hazardous sports. Mothers Against Drunk Driving does. I think
success is making the world a better place to live, and for more people in
the future than in the past.
7. As far as me and you and the NG is concerned, I'm better adjusted than
you to controversy, debate, and the fact that I don't agree with everyone
in the rest of the world and not everyone in the rest of the world agrees
with me. I don't think of myself as either Republican or Democrat, but
neither of them agree with each other, either. People pick up my snot and
throw it back at me and I pick it up and throw it back at them. I deal
with that. It makes life interesting. I'd rather have that than a
dead desert of sand all around me.
8. "Art Sowers doesn't understand Rich Lemert and doesn't try" .... etc,
etc., etc. I'll let the readers be otherwise entertained, educated, and,
without any prodding from me, decide whatever they want. I'm having fun.
9. Yes, my career FAILED. I talked about it many times. It does not
embarass me. It happens to a lot of people. I'd prefer that this does not
happen to anyone who might be able to avoid it. Unfortunately a great deal
of life contains hazards and a majority if not all of these hazards are
there because of things we can't control. Crime victims, laid off workers,
politics, war, economic conditions, disease and even natural death, etc.
all intrude on our lives. If you want to stick your head in the sand,
fine. If you want to look the other way or rationalize something else,
that's your business. Otherwise, I'd advise you to fasten your seat belt
when you drive.
10. My website doesn't benefit me. It might benefit readers. If people
don't like it, fine. If they want to throw snot at it, I can deal with it.
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
=== no change to below, included for reference and context ====
Rob Colby
time on this site. Much of what Art has mentioned, I've observed
within my own career. I'd started off with a combined BS/MS in
chemical engineering and worked as both a lab tech and a computer/IT
professional. The lies, corporate backstabbing, and doctoring of
results and figures are all a part of corporate culture (and to a
lesser extent, academia). The H1-B scam, however, is unique for
science and engineering professions is the sense that many Fortune
500s petition the media and Congress for unlimited visas claiming an
continuous shortage of left-brain hi-tech professionals, yet at the
same time, practice rampant age discrimination. This situation is
deplorable at best.
Recently, I've been accepted to medical school and will be starting
this fall at the age of 29. I have no faith in my continuing a
corporate career because I have to either join the sleaze bags in
management, during the next five years, or face age discrimination, as
a techie, by the age of 40. BTW, some of my colleagues who're 40+ are
not able to find IT jobs anymore whereas my 28-32 years old cohorts
are still marketable, with lower salaries, even during this downturn.
As a physician, I can focus on the work at hand and not worry about
having a job (with a few white hairs) and compensation. That's what
happens when a 'scientific' professional association behaves like a
union than encouraging everyone to study science to avert a
never-ending 'national shortage'.
Rob
p.s. I'm particularly sanguine to Art's point number 6.
"Arthur E. Sowers" <arth...@magpage.com> wrote in message news:<adki94$onr$0...@216.155.0.50>...
dave e
follow."
Except that for most people, happiness and financial security are not
independent values, so the saying becomes:
"Do what you love and the money will follow, unless it doesn't follow,
in which case you'll probably need to reevaluate what combination of
activities and relationships it really takes to make you happy."
Jeremy, some people really are quite happy living on breadcrumbs and
peanut butter while they work as performance artists, street musicians
or research physicists. And some even smaller number of people
actually make enough to support their families with these occupations.
But from your questions, I sense that you are not interested in going
that route. But if you (or anyone reading this message) decides you
really do want to work as a research physicist, a street performer, or
a circus clown for a few years-- I say go for it. Don't let anyone
tell you that you're wasting your life, or that you can't go and do
something different later on.
It sounds like you've already decided to study medicine instead, which
is probably a good choice, given everything else you've said. If you
are still interested in physics, that will surely benefit you as a
medical doctor, giving you a better understanding of medical imaging
techniques and other medical devices.
Dave
"Jeremy.Lynch" <sod...@fsmail.net> wrote in message news:<2aMJ8.1943$6S.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
> I am 18 and about to enter university in England. I have been advised
The Sage
"Rob Colby" <rrc...@go.com> wrote in message
news:2e1a2444.02060...@posting.google.com...
> People of src, I'm an outsider to this group. I don't spend too much
> time on this site. Much of what Art has mentioned, I've observed
> within my own career. I'd started off with a combined BS/MS in
> chemical engineering and worked as both a lab tech and a computer/IT
> professional. The lies, corporate backstabbing, and doctoring of
> results and figures are all a part of corporate culture (and to a
> lesser extent, academia). The H1-B scam, however, is unique for
> science and engineering professions is the sense that many Fortune
> 500s petition the media and Congress for unlimited visas claiming an
> continuous shortage of left-brain hi-tech professionals, yet at the
> same time, practice rampant age discrimination. This situation is
> deplorable at best.
>
>
>
> Recently, I've been accepted to medical school and will be starting
> this fall at the age of 29. I have no faith in my continuing a
> corporate career because I have to either join the sleaze bags in
> management, during the next five years, or face age discrimination, as
> a techie, by the age of 40. BTW, some of my colleagues who're 40+ are
> not able to find IT jobs anymore whereas my 28-32 years old cohorts
> are still marketable, with lower salaries, even during this downturn.
> As a physician, I can focus on the work at hand and not worry about
> having a job (with a few white hairs) and compensation. That's what
> happens when a 'scientific' professional association behaves like a
> union than encouraging everyone to study science to avert a
> never-ending 'national shortage'.
>
>
that H-1B is causing. Congratulations and I hope you have a good career in
the medical profession.
Arthur E. Sowers
On 5 Jun 2002, Rob Colby wrote:
> People of src, I'm an outsider to this group. I don't spend too much
> time on this site. Much of what Art has mentioned, I've observed
> within my own career.
Yep, the "crap" is there. I just hope more people try to watch out for
themselves and try to avoid it when it falls towards them by stepping
sideways before it hits.
I'd started off with a combined BS/MS in
> chemical engineering and worked as both a lab tech and a computer/IT
> professional. The lies, corporate backstabbing, and doctoring of
> results and figures are all a part of corporate culture (and to a
> lesser extent, academia). The H1-B scam,
Just a minor comment: I'd hope that people might migrate to a little
different semantics here and include the illegal immigrants and the sphere
of exploiters (both those who come here to take jobs away from our
existing neighbors AND those in the executive suites that are out to
benefit their own wallets at the expense of anyone -- and as many as
they can -- they can screw).
however, is unique for
> science and engineering professions is the sense that many Fortune
> 500s petition the media and Congress for unlimited visas claiming an
> continuous shortage of left-brain hi-tech professionals, yet at the
> same time, practice rampant age discrimination. This situation is
> deplorable at best.
And, don't forget that while the big corporations were "whining"
about the economy along with their press release notices of layoffs of
thousands of employees (from several to tens of percents), they were
almost all of them, simultaneously and QUIETLY hiring foreigners (either
h1bs or illegals [Tyson even got caught doing this] or QUIETLY exporting
the jobs to someplace else.
>
>
> Recently, I've been accepted to medical school
A very very big congratulations to you !!!!!!!!
and will be starting
> this fall at the age of 29.
You will be very busy, soon. Take it all in stride, though.
I have no faith in my continuing a
> corporate career because I have to either join the sleaze bags in
> management, during the next five years, or face age discrimination, as
> a techie, by the age of 40. BTW, some of my colleagues who're 40+ are
> not able to find IT jobs anymore whereas my 28-32 years old cohorts
> are still marketable, with lower salaries, even during this downturn.
> As a physician, I can focus on the work at hand and not worry about
> having a job (with a few white hairs) and compensation.
Well, the insurance companies -- which have been getting worse all along
-- will continue to get even worse and Medicare initiated an accross the
board 5.2% cut early this year and I expect in the future that the
percentage of the population with a health plan will go down. THIS may
affect you. The insurance company bureacrasy will also be getting worse
and this is causing a lot of older MDs to get out of MDing (that will
reduce your competition, though).
That's what
> happens when a 'scientific' professional association behaves like a
> union than encouraging everyone to study science to avert a
> never-ending 'national shortage'.
PS. Please consider visiting SRC and helping out with keeping it alive.
Arthur E. Sowers
On 5 Jun 2002, dave e wrote:
> A professor of mine once told me, "Do what you love and the money will
> follow."
>
> Except that for most people, happiness and financial security are not
> independent values, so the saying becomes:
>
> "Do what you love and the money will follow, unless it doesn't follow,
> in which case you'll probably need to reevaluate what combination of
> activities and relationships it really takes to make you happy."
Wise modification. Another prof I crossed paths with said something like
"Its OK to be looking at the sky, but keep your feet on the ground"
A person I was talking with earlier today...I said "Its important to
anticipate two things: a) the best outcome possible, and b) the worst
outcome possible, and then realize that reality is most likely going to be
somewhere between 'a' and 'b'"
> Jeremy, some people really are quite happy living on breadcrumbs and
> peanut butter while they work as performance artists, street musicians
> or research physicists. And some even smaller number of people
> actually make enough to support their families with these occupations.
> But from your questions, I sense that you are not interested in going
> that route. But if you (or anyone reading this message) decides you
> really do want to work as a research physicist, a street performer, or
> a circus clown for a few years-- I say go for it. Don't let anyone
> tell you that you're wasting your life, or that you can't go and do
> something different later on.
After a couple of decades, though, some people start thinking, in their
old age, that it would be nice to have some income (i.e. pension) and a
health plan (i.e. insurance or a HMO or etc) and those things don't come
anywhere near as cheap as when people are young. And, there are a lot of
corporations that renig on their promise of lifetime healthcare to retired
employees. Medicare is not enough and lots of people retire in their mid
50s and have a decade of risk to endure before Medicare.
> It sounds like you've already decided to study medicine instead, which
> is probably a good choice, given everything else you've said. If you
> are still interested in physics, that will surely benefit you as a
> medical doctor, giving you a better understanding of medical imaging
> techniques and other medical devices.
If he goes into medicine, he's going to have plenty on his plate.
Good of you to pass along your thoughts. Stick around the NG and
contribute more often, become part of its history.
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
> Dave
L Smith
> As a physician, I can focus on the work at hand and not worry about
> having a job (with a few white hairs) and compensation.
Ah, yes. Become a physician, and _all_ of your career woes will be over.
After all, managed health care and malpractice premiums will never be a problem.
Rich Lemert
L Smith
> 1. Anyone who cares to sift through the last five years of archives of src
> posts will find Rich Lemert making 80-90% of his posts as replies
> specifically to my posts and very few to other people. These replies have
> all expressed frustration and anguish with my unwillingness to accept
> Rich's viewpoints on lots of things in life (mainly career related issues).
Of course, what Art fails to mention is that I responded to him only _AFTER_
he had attacked my response to Jeremy's original post in this thread. Heck, I
would have been willing to ignore him if he'd settled for saying "I disagree with
Rich."
If you're going to complain about me harassing you, it doesn't help your cause
for you to have fired the first shot!
Rich Lemert
Jeffrey J. Potoff
L Smith wrote:
You know what they say about the "grass is always greener on the other side
of the fence." I find it amusing how we get all these stories from people
about how much better career "X" is than anything in science and/or
engineering could ever be from people who are not doing the magical
career "X".
J.
Arthur E. Sowers
Of course I hope everyone notices how Rich attempts to change the subject
FROM his posting behavior OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS to the subject of my
"attack" on him after his response to Jeremy's question. This, of course,
also avoids the need to admit that he was delving into his "touchy-feelie"
mood (which includes a tendency to 1. sweep dirt under the rug, 2. stick
head in sand, 3 several other tendencies, too). And, even more 'of
course,' it fails to acknowledge that _I_ acknowledged our differences in
perception of the world (see the sentence I wrote which recognized his
frustration and anguish with my unwillingness to accept his viewpoints on
lots of things), but he can't see the words -- those words -- right in
front of HIS eyes, but he WILL criticise me for not 'understanding' or
'not trying to' understand him! And, it doesn't matter how many times I
point out all this to him, he just 'steamrollers on' about it.
I have also acknowledged (and accept) that in an open forum, like this NG,
EVERYONE is free to criticise/comment/etc on anyone else. And, I feel
that, even when people disagree with me (eg. Josh [Josh...I know you're
out there...reading this right now...and my little black book on you says
YOU are overdue for getting off your lazy lardbutt rear end and make some
posts here instead of freeloading on the entertainment!!!! So, you'd
better get in here with at least a "*j" or something!!!!]) I accept that I
should expect this. There are three possibilities in life: 1. dead
silence, 2. all bobbing heads agreeing with each other, and 3. vigorous
discussion/debate/deliberations. The first two are boring and unhelpful.
Or, what do you want? An 'attaboy' or something?
And, I'm sure a number of people out there notice that I at least let
them know I read their piece and give them a little feedback, pro or con
or somewhere in the middle. I don't mind feedback either. Even from Rich.
I am, at least, amused. At most, it excercises my brain so as to fight off
Alzheimers.
Arthur E. Sowers
I'll vote for movie actor. Arnold Schwartzeneger, they say, is going to be
doing another Terminator movie (maybe even being filmed right now) and
the newspaper article said he's gonna get 27 mil for this, alone.
So...no malpractice premiums, no HMO/insurance crap, and a movie here and
there at those fees and you don't have to have a lifetime job to make
enough to retire for most of your life.
And, you could always play the lottery on the side. ;-)
(Hey, Jeff, you're in my other black book for being underquota in
making contributions to this NG. Better get moving. You OWE this NG more
material than your 1-2 sentence replies!!!!)
rick++
> this fall at the age of 29. I have no faith in my continuing a
> corporate career because I have to either join the sleaze bags in
> management
Medical corporate antics are as bad for doctors and nurses as anywheres
else. There are extensive reports about frustrations working of HMOs and
managed hospitals. I haven't heard about age discrimination however.
Rob Colby
Rich, was the crux of my argument on whether or not I'd make $150k/yr
to $200k/yr+? No, it wasn't. That was your attempt at distracting the
central point of my argument. My point was the ability to continue
working past 40 without age discrimination. I really don't care
whether or not my salary is $50k/yr or $150/yr provided I can continue
to work and make contributions. Realize, many professionals have
liability insurance of varying costs.
And have you ever spoken to a graduate at the bottom of his MD class?
I have and he's a psychiatrist at a mental hospital with a secure job
at $80-90k/yr. He's never had a problem finding work either. His
fellow "low pass/C student" colleagues are in the same boat as him.
The bottom half of my chemical engineering class, on the other hand,
couldn't find any jobs. And now, some of the former 'A' students
getting sacked for younger engineers. Medical doctors have a virtual
union and cannot be displaced *so quickly*.
Arthur E. Sowers
The whole 'business model' for medicine has more momentum behind it.
In grant-funded science, you are at the mercy of the grant review
committee AND trends AND programatic shifts. In corporate engineering, its
a mixture of what the CEOs want, what the sales/marketing dept wants, and
the economy (economy tanks, sales tank, layoffs follow [underlings first
to go]). In medical practices, large fractions of the client pool are on
medicaid/medicare and pensions & soc security. Unemployment of 7-10%
probably converts (with layoffs coinciding with termination of
health benefits) roughly to a 7-10% drop in the non-medicaid/medicare
slice of the pie which is not a big. Besides, unlike grant funded
financing, the MD just submits a HCFA claim form and -- as long as the
form is filled out properly -- it goes through
routine processing and gets paid. Grant-funded scientists really are not
scientists, first. They are, instead, fundraisers, first. The science
comes in second to fundraising. And...when the fish hooks go into the
fishing pond, they don't all catch fish. Claim processing, realistically,
ends up about 95% of the time producing hard cash for the till. You can go
after the other 5 % but there is a law of diminishing return that enters.
Authorization/precert management is a pain, though. Still, around my
neighborhood are numerous 2-3 MD private clinics with maybe 1-2 nurses, 2
billing staff, and a multipurpose receptionist and you can see Mercedes,
BMWs, big SUVs belonging to the MDs parked in front and back. And, all the
Fords, Chevys, Dodges of the patients in the front.
Rob Colby
I know, I've shadowed a few doctors as a premed. The best way of
dealing with that situation is to take a paycut so that one could have
a more manageable situation. I'll be attending my state medical
program so that I could emerge in the black during residency. I have
seven years of medical school tuition and living expenses stashed away
so that I won't have to pursue a better paying but hellish
professional track. If one is willing to put aside the financial
issues, being a physician is a great career because the labor supply
isn't manipulated by the MBAs, only the compensation relative to
procedures and illnesses. Also, the AMA is willing to fight and take
these issues to court and the national press. Right now, it's the MBAs
who're getting all the bad press for holding back medical services,
not the doctors. On the other hand, whose speaking out for scientists
and engineers other than Art and the src troops?
dave e
> On 5 Jun 2002, dave e wrote:
>
> > A professor of mine once told me, "Do what you love and the money will
> > follow."
> >
> > Except that for most people, happiness and financial security are not
> > independent values, so the saying becomes:
> >
> > "Do what you love and the money will follow, unless it doesn't follow,
> > in which case you'll probably need to reevaluate what combination of
> > activities and relationships it really takes to make you happy."
>
> Wise modification. Another prof I crossed paths with said something like
> "Its OK to be looking at the sky, but keep your feet on the ground"
Honestly, the best advice I've read on this matter is from Kurt
Vonnegut, who writes in chapter 38 of _Time Quake_
[quote]
"We shouldn't be seeking harrowing challenges, but rather tasks we
find natural and interesting, tasks we were apparently born to
perform."
"As for the charms of physics: Two of the most entertaining
subjects taught in high school or college are mechanics and optics.
Beyond these playful disciplines, however, lie mind games as dependent
on native talent as plyaing the French horn or chess.
"Of native talent itself I say in speeches: 'If you go to a big
city, and a university is a big city, you are bound to run into
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Stay home, stay home.'"
[end quote]
>
[snip]
> > But if you (or anyone reading this message) decides you
> > really do want to work as a research physicist, a street performer, or
> > a circus clown for a few years-- I say go for it. Don't let anyone
> > tell you that you're wasting your life, or that you can't go and do
> > something different later on.
>
> After a couple of decades, though, some people start thinking, in their
> old age, that it would be nice to have some income (i.e. pension) and a
> health plan (i.e. insurance or a HMO or etc)
Oh, such benefits are mostly a thing of the past, regardless of your
particular industry or professional title. I stand by my
recommendation that anybody who really wants a potentially unstable
career should go for it. Even if you think your career is stable, you
should plan for your own retirement, and don't count on your employer
to do it for you. But also keep in mind that retirement is never as
affluent as the working years. If you subsisted on bread crumbs and
peanut butter through most of your life, that's really the best you
can hope for in your senior years (unless you have rich and generous
children, that is)
[snip]
> If he goes into medicine, he's going to have plenty on his plate.
>
True, but if he has so much on his plate that he's unable to devote at
least a small fraction of his time to other pursuits which are also
important to him, then medicine might not be the right career choice
either.
Arthur E. Sowers
On 6 Jun 2002, Rob Colby wrote:
There are only a couple out of thousands who are even "aware" of the
problem.
> and the src troops?
If we could name who they are, or think they are, I'd sure like to know.
I've been on the NG for ten years and there really is, as far as I can
see, zero equivalent of the AMA for scientists. The AAAS is essentially an
organization NOT for scientists, but for the self-promotion of the AAAS.
Jeffrey J. Potoff
Arthur E. Sowers wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Jeffrey J. Potoff wrote:
>
>
>>
>>L Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Rob Colby wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>As a physician, I can focus on the work at hand and not worry about
>>>>having a job (with a few white hairs) and compensation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Ah, yes. Become a physician, and _all_ of your career woes will be over.
>>>After all, managed health care and malpractice premiums will never be a problem.
>>>
>>>
>>You know what they say about the "grass is always greener on the other side
>>
>>of the fence." I find it amusing how we get all these stories from people
>>
>>about how much better career "X" is than anything in science and/or
>>engineering could ever be from people who are not doing the magical
>>career "X".
>>
>>J.
>>
>>
> I'll vote for movie actor. Arnold Schwartzeneger, they say, is going to be
> doing another Terminator movie (maybe even being filmed right now) and
> the newspaper article said he's gonna get 27 mil for this, alone.
>
> So...no malpractice premiums, no HMO/insurance crap, and a movie here and
> there at those fees and you don't have to have a lifetime job to make
> enough to retire for most of your life.
>
> And, you could always play the lottery on the side. ;-)
>
> (Hey, Jeff, you're in my other black book for being underquota in
> making contributions to this NG. Better get moving. You OWE this NG more
> material than your 1-2 sentence replies!!!!)
>
Too busy writing grant proposals. :)
J.
Arthur E. Sowers
Sheesh... I've heard that one before... I've heard it a lot... can't you
think of something 'original'?
;-)
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
>
> J.
>
>
>
>
L Smith
> L Smith <lls...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3CFEB829...@mindspring.com>...
> > Rob Colby wrote:
> >
> > > As a physician, I can focus on the work at hand and not worry about
> > > having a job (with a few white hairs) and compensation.
> >
> > Ah, yes. Become a physician, and _all_ of your career woes will be over.
> > After all, managed health care and malpractice premiums will never be a problem.
> >
> > Rich Lemert
>
> Rich, was the crux of my argument on whether or not I'd make $150k/yr
> to $200k/yr+? No, it wasn't. That was your attempt at distracting the
> central point of my argument. My point was the ability to continue
> working past 40 without age discrimination. I really don't care
> whether or not my salary is $50k/yr or $150/yr provided I can continue
> to work and make contributions. Realize, many professionals have
> liability insurance of varying costs.
Frankly, I didn't give a damn then, nor do I now, about how much you would
or would not make as a physician. I was addressing this "rosy view" everyone
seems to have in this forum of how great jobs in medicine are; of how you get
to set your own hours, and do what you what, and stay in the field as long as
you want, etc. I look around at all the articles on physician burn-out I see, and
on the hassles of dealing with managed health care, and on how OB-GYN's
are leaving the field because the costs of malpractice coverage are becoming
prohibitive ....
If you want to go into medicine because you think it's the type of work you'd
enjoy doing, more power to you. I would not be happy in the field, but if it
works for you, great.
However, if you want to go into medicine because you think that you won't
have to put up with all the problems that exist in other fields, well ... I wish you luck.
You'll discover that medicine has its bullshit elements, just like every other career.
> Medical doctors have a virtual
> union and cannot be displaced *so quickly*.
If I decide tomorrow morning that I'm no longer happy with my doctor - he's
history. There are plenty of alternatives in this area that he serves at my leisure,
not the other way around. Granted I'm just one among many patients that see
him, but in a growing community like this word of mouth accounts for a lot when
people select their doctor. Piss off enough people, and he can watch his practice
go down the tubes, and there's not a lot the AMA can do to force his patients
to continue to see him.
Rich Lemert
L Smith
> There are three possibilities in life: 1. dead
> silence, 2. all bobbing heads agreeing with each other, and 3. vigorous
> discussion/debate/deliberations. The first two are boring and unhelpful.
I think it would be great if there were more lively discussions and debates
on s.r.c. Funny, though, how my speech classes missed the part about how
personal attacks, belittlement, and twisting you opponents words were part of
a debate. I guess that's just the state of American education for you.
Rich Lemert
R. Martin
He could but it wouldn't get funded.
Regards,
Russell
R. Martin
>
> Rob Colby wrote:
snipped
>
> > Medical doctors have a virtual
> > union and cannot be displaced *so quickly*.
>
> If I decide tomorrow morning that I'm no longer happy with my doctor - he's
> history. There are plenty of alternatives in this area that he serves at my leisure,
> not the other way around. Granted I'm just one among many patients that see
> him, but in a growing community like this word of mouth accounts for a lot when
> people select their doctor. Piss off enough people, and he can watch his practice
> go down the tubes, and there's not a lot the AMA can do to force his patients
> to continue to see him.
>
> Rich Lemert
Oh please, Rich, get real. I don't know a single other person
who has the same doctor as I do, nor does anyone ever ask me for
recommendations, so unless I wanted to look like a real fool by
walking up to people I don't know and saying "Don't go to Dr. X, I
don't like him", no one is ever even going to hear my opinion not
to mention give a damn about it. Now if you live in Podunk maybe
it matters, but in a major metropolitian area I doubt if anything
short of malpractice stories on the 6 o'clock news is going to drive
any doctor out of business. If it does there are plenty of other
places to practice. Around here I've had trouble finding a family
doctor that will take new patients, and DC is not an underserved
region in the middle of nowhere.
Regards,
Russell
L Smith
> L Smith wrote:
> >
> > Rob Colby wrote:
>
> snipped
>
> >
> > > Medical doctors have a virtual
> > > union and cannot be displaced *so quickly*.
> >
> > If I decide tomorrow morning that I'm no longer happy with my doctor - he's
> > history. There are plenty of alternatives in this area that he serves at my leisure,
> > not the other way around. Granted I'm just one among many patients that see
> > him, but in a growing community like this word of mouth accounts for a lot when
> > people select their doctor. Piss off enough people, and he can watch his practice
> > go down the tubes, and there's not a lot the AMA can do to force his patients
> > to continue to see him.
> >
> > Rich Lemert
>
> Oh please, Rich, get real. I don't know a single other person
> who has the same doctor as I do, nor does anyone ever ask me for
> recommendations, so unless I wanted to look like a real fool by
> walking up to people I don't know and saying "Don't go to Dr. X, I
> don't like him", no one is ever even going to hear my opinion not
> to mention give a damn about it.
I found my current doctor by asking someone I met at the apartment
complex's pool if she had any recommendations since I was new in town.
My wife has asked her female colleagues for suggestions on gynecologists.
I've had a couple of co-workers new to town that have asked me if I
could suggest a doctor in their part of town.
Is that real enough for you - or am I the only one here that thinks it's a good
idea to get a little information on potential practitioners before I start letting them
poke and prod me?
Rich Lemert
Arthur E. Sowers
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, L Smith wrote:
> "Arthur E. Sowers" wrote:
>
> > There are three possibilities in life: 1. dead
> > silence, 2. all bobbing heads agreeing with each other, and 3. vigorous
> > discussion/debate/deliberations. The first two are boring and unhelpful.
>
> I think it would be great if there were more lively discussions and debates
> on s.r.c. Funny, though, how my speech classes missed the part about how
> personal attacks, belittlement, and twisting you opponents words were part of
> a debate.
Funny, though, how, even at your age, you have not noticed that the whole
world is absolutely full of this.
Funny, also, that there are books on "informal logic" which go into great
detail about how to win debates based on everything else besides reason,
fairness, logic, and rationality.
> I guess that's just the state of American education for you.
And, where have you been all these years?
You know, you don't even know yourself and what you are doing!!!
> Rich Lemert
Arthur E. Sowers
That's true for grants but something original might troll lurkers
on SRC out of the woodwork!!!
> Regards,
> Russell
Arthur E. Sowers
1. First, Rich, what you said above is reasonable and most people do this.
The drawback is that its not necessarily valid. Hearsay evidence for the
quality of a doctor (whether good or bad) is only valid when you have a
fairly large population sample. One reference, as you indicated, is not
enough.
2. Second, Rich, what you said above has almost nothing to do with Russell
Martin's comments. Yet his comments had a lot more to do with what he
replied to in your prior post.
Arthur E. Sowers
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Richard P. Grant wrote:
> In article <admm85$esg$0...@216.155.0.50>,
> "Arthur E. Sowers" <arth...@magpage.com> wrote:
>
> > 1. dead
> > silence, 2. all bobbing heads agreeing with each other, and 3. vigorous
> > discussion/debate/deliberations. The first two are boring and unhelpful.
>
> Or 4. Thoughtful contributions from those who only speak when they eel
> they've got something worthwile to say.
>
> waitaminute, this is Usenet. I'll get me coat.
>
> --
> Richard P. Grant 0x5F9559B1 MRC Lab of Mol Biol
> rpg 'at' mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk New: http://www.rg-d.com/BioLOG/
> -- 'Ex - cellent!' --
>
Sheesh.... you know, there's a joker in every crowd.
Arthur E. Sowers
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, L Smith wrote:
> Rob Colby wrote:
>
> > L Smith <lls...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3CFEB829...@mindspring.com>...
> > > Rob Colby wrote:
> > >
> > > > As a physician, I can focus on the work at hand and not worry about
> > > > having a job (with a few white hairs) and compensation.
> > >
> > > Ah, yes. Become a physician, and _all_ of your career woes will be over.
> > > After all, managed health care and malpractice premiums will never be a problem.
> > >
> > > Rich Lemert
> >
> > Rich, was the crux of my argument on whether or not I'd make $150k/yr
> > to $200k/yr+? No, it wasn't. That was your attempt at distracting the
> > central point of my argument. My point was the ability to continue
> > working past 40 without age discrimination. I really don't care
> > whether or not my salary is $50k/yr or $150/yr provided I can continue
> > to work and make contributions. Realize, many professionals have
> > liability insurance of varying costs.
>
> Frankly, I didn't give a damn then, nor do I now, about how much you would
> or would not make as a physician. I was addressing this "rosy view" everyone
> seems to have in this forum of how great jobs in medicine are;
of how you get
> to set your own hours,
> and do what you what, and stay in the field as long as
> you want, etc.
> I look around at all the articles on physician burn-out I see,
What articles? You haven't posted (and referenced) even one, ever!
and
> on the hassles of dealing with managed health care,
The hassles of dealing with managed health care belongs on the patient.
The bureaucrasy of the provider networks is a burden, but I know how this
works and its a lot better situation than writing grant proposals and
getting 80-90 % rejections. If you don't have anythng bad in your history
and all your credentials are verifiable, you get in.
and on how OB-GYN's
> are leaving the field because the costs of malpractice coverage are becoming
> prohibitive ....
This is true, for certan fields, especially in certain states.
> If you want to go into medicine because you think it's the type of work you'd
> enjoy doing, more power to you. I would not be happy in the field,
That's your problem.
but if it
> works for you, great.
>
> However, if you want to go into medicine because you think that you won't
> have to put up with all the problems that exist in other fields, well ... I wish you luck.
> You'll discover that medicine has its bullshit elements, just like every other career.
The non-bullshit elements that are important is that the funding is
already there (the vast infrastructure of employer-subsidized health
plans, govt subsidized, and private pay), and you don't have age
discriminations or hundreds of applicants per job.
> > Medical doctors have a virtual
> > union and cannot be displaced *so quickly*.
>
> If I decide tomorrow morning that I'm no longer happy with my doctor - he's
> history.
No, he loses one client and tells his receptionist that he's "taking new
patients again."
In my area of the country, 2/3 of the in-network providers listed in the
provider lists are NOT taking new patients.
There are plenty of alternatives in this area that he serves at my leisure,
> not the other way around.
In my area, you really have to call around to find someone, maybe have to
drive 50-100 miles.
Granted I'm just one among many patients that see
> him, but in a growing community like this word of mouth accounts for a lot when
> people select their doctor. Piss off enough people, and he can watch his practice
> go down the tubes, and there's not a lot the AMA can do to force his patients
> to continue to see him.
Ah... are you looking for a profession where you CAN piss off clients and
not have this happen? Or, are you saying you should be looking for a job
where you can piss off everyone and not have to worry (like become a
tenured prof)? As if this doesn't happen in any job?
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
> Rich Lemert
>
>
>
Russell Martin
I never said that YOU didn't have that eperience, but to suggest that
it is universal enough that doctors should quake at the mere thought
of annoying a patient because the resulting poor word of mouth would
ruin a practice is blantantly rediculous, which was my point. Or do
you continue to insust that your personal opinion is so all powerful
that you can make or break doctors in your area?
>
> Is that real enough for you -
No.
> or am I the only one here that thinks it's a good
> idea to get a little information on potential practitioners before I start letting them
> poke and prod me?
That wasn't the point you made. Your were talking giving opinions
about doctors, not getting them. Please stick to the topic.
Regards,
Russell
mart...@umn.edu
Russell Martin <Russell...@noaa.gov> wrote:
> I never said that YOU didn't have that eperience, but to suggest that
> it is universal enough that doctors should quake at the mere thought
> of annoying a patient because the resulting poor word of mouth would
> ruin a practice is blantantly rediculous, which was my point. Or do
> you continue to insust that your personal opinion is so all powerful
> that you can make or break doctors in your area?
These days, the most difficult aspect of finding a physician is finding
one included in your health insurance plan. This is the limiting piece
of information.
B. Martin
R. Martin
>
> In article <3D00ACC1...@noaa.gov>,
> Russell Martin <Russell...@noaa.gov> wrote:
>
> > I never said that YOU didn't have that eperience, but to suggest that
> > it is universal enough that doctors should quake at the mere thought
> > of annoying a patient because the resulting poor word of mouth would
> > ruin a practice is blantantly rediculous, which was my point. Or do
> > that you can make or break doctors in your area?
>
> These days, the most difficult aspect of finding a physician is finding
> one included in your health insurance plan. This is the limiting piece
> of information.
>
> B. Martin
Agreed, that is definitely a constraint.
Regards,
Russell
Rob Colby
I took the day off and was ready to get into a smackdown this evening
with Rich Lemming (I mean Lemert) but then you took over and did a far
better job. I only wish I had more time to post because I think we'd
make a good tag team especially if we work together on these pick and
rolls with the ostriches.
Rob
"Arthur E. Sowers" <arth...@magpage.com> wrote in message news:<adq6pr$j5c$0...@216.155.0.50>...
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, L Smith wrote:
>
[ snip ]
L Smith
If you would care to go back over what I wrote, I think you will find that I
acknowledged from the start that if I were to change doctors, it would only
be the action of a single individual (or, at most, a single family). You can also
easily infer from my original remarks that I don't expect him to be "quaking in
fear" that I might be just the first of a steady stream of "defections" from his
practice. Thus, I cannot "continue" to insist that "my opinion is supreme" because
I never claimed it was in the first place.
> > or am I the only one here that thinks it's a good
> > idea to get a little information on potential practitioners before I start letting them
> > poke and prod me?
>
> That wasn't the point you made. Your were talking giving opinions
> about doctors, not getting them. Please stick to the topic.
For someone to receive an opinion, someone else must offer one. Two sides
of the same coin, so I don't see how I have moved off the topic.
However, since you bring up the subject of "staying on topic," wasn't the original
point of discussion the claim that doctors cannot be "displaced so quickly?" That
may be true in aggregate, but the fastest way for an individual doctor to wind up
displaced is to act like he is irreplacable, which was my original point.
Rich Lemert
L Smith
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, L Smith wrote:
>
> > on the hassles of dealing with managed health care,
>
> The hassles of dealing with managed health care belongs on the patient.
Why?
If the doctor is prevented by the managed health care program from even
mentioning the availability of certain courses of treatment (a practice that's been
reported in the news), even though he believes that treatment would be the most
appropriate for that patient, how is the patient supposed to even know he should
be fighting the managed health care program?
The doctor's staff has the knowledge and training both to understand the medical
aspects of the patient's care and the legal aspects of the patient's health insurance
program. How many patients have the training and/or education to deal with
either aspect alone, let alone in tandem?
I'm really curious why you think the burden should lie with the patient, and not
with the doctor.
Rich Lemert
R. Martin
If I cared to go back over what you wrote, I'd note your *first*
statement was, "If I decide tomorrow morning that I'm no longer
happy with my doctor - he's history." I was being nice by assuming
that didn't mean you were going to kill him, which is the standard
colloquial meaning of the phase "he's history", but merely to ruin
his career. If you want to engage in reasoned discussion, I suggest
you adopt a reasonable tone from the outset.
> I think you will find that I
> acknowledged from the start that if I were to change doctors, it would only
> be the action of a single individual (or, at most, a single family). You can also
> easily infer from my original remarks that I don't expect him to be "quaking in
> fear" that I might be just the first of a steady stream of "defections" from his
> practice. Thus, I cannot "continue" to insist that "my opinion is supreme" because
> I never claimed it was in the first place.
LOL. See above, and quit trying to act nice now that someone has
called you on the carpet.
>
> > > or am I the only one here that thinks it's a good
> > > idea to get a little information on potential practitioners before I start letting them
> > > poke and prod me?
> >
> > That wasn't the point you made. Your were talking giving opinions
> > about doctors, not getting them. Please stick to the topic.
>
> For someone to receive an opinion, someone else must offer one. Two sides
> of the same coin, so I don't see how I have moved off the topic.
That was not what we were discussing though. One person to giving
an opinion to many people is different from one person getting an
opinion from many people. That relationship is NOT reflextive,
and those were the two situations that were being discussed, not
the mere single exchange of information between two individuals.
>
> However, since you bring up the subject of "staying on topic," wasn't the original
> point of discussion the claim that doctors cannot be "displaced so quickly?" That
> may be true in aggregate, but the fastest way for an individual doctor to wind up
> displaced is to act like he is irreplacable, which was my original point.
If it is true in the aggregate then it must be true of the
probabalistic expectation of the individual. Sure, something
could happen to cut short a given doctor's career, but IMO it is
more likely to be any sort of thing that could happen to any of us
than it is likely to be patient discontent with service. You
certainly have not proven that your spreading of your opinion of a
doctor would do it, which sounded like your original point: "If I
decide tomorrow morning that I'm no longer happy with my doctor -
he's history." Now if you want to amend that to something like
"If I decide tomorrow morning that I'm no longer happy with my
doctor - he's going to lose me as a patient and maybe my being a
boring malcontent at parties when the subject of doctors comes up
will cost him a few patients in the future which he likely will
not miss because his appointment book is already full weeks in
advance so he has to 'squeeze me in somehow' if I have a real
acute illness", I'll accept that. Or do you really have so many
doctors where you are that you can get an appointment virtually
any day you want, especially the same day as you decide you need
one?
Regards,
Russell
Arthur E. Sowers
On 7 Jun 2002, Rob Colby wrote:
> Art,
>
>
> I took the day off and was ready to get into a smackdown this evening
> with Rich Lemming (I mean Lemert)
Now, now....Rich gets very upset when someone accidentally on purpose does
any name-calling.
but then you took over and did a far
> better job.
ThankyouThankyou
>I only wish I had more time to post because I think we'd
> make a good tag team especially if we work together on these pick and
> rolls with the ostriches.
Nah...don't waste your precious time. Leave this dustbag work to me.
Being that my career was shot to hell six years ago when I lost the
grant lottery, the benefits to me include: a) I can sleep at night,
and b) I've got time on my hands, and c) he gives me excellent opportunity
to stimulate my brain and fight off Alzheimers.
But, stick around for the laughs.
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
=== no change to below, included for reference and context ====
Arthur E. Sowers
Here's the secret:
1. Call the physician first and ask what insurance/health plan they
accept.
2. Dump your present insurance/health plan and sign up with the new ont.
That's the short version. If you want the long version, replay to the
post, edit the subject to something like "how find physician," and I'll
notice, and fill in some additional details.
Arthur E. Sowers
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, L Smith wrote:
> "Arthur E. Sowers" wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, L Smith wrote:
> >
> > > on the hassles of dealing with managed health care,
> >
> > The hassles of dealing with managed health care belongs on the patient.
>
> Why?
When there is a problem, its when the insurance/health plan denies
benefits. I deal with this all the time AND I read about the same view in
the newspapers. The provider's recourse may be to send the collection
agency to the patient. Some actually do this. At least two hospitals in my
area DO do this. One collection agency I talked to had a full time lawyer
doing nothing but sueing patients for pay.
> If the doctor is prevented by the managed health care program from even
> mentioning the availability of certain courses of treatment (a practice that's been
> reported in the news),
The gag clauses have come OUT of most provider contracts. We have several
contracts in our file cabinets.
even though he believes that treatment would be the most
> appropriate for that patient, how is the patient supposed to even know he should
> be fighting the managed health care program?
Its beyond the scope of this post, but, in short, the recourse is, first,
the appeals process, then the state dept insurance, then the lawyers.
> The doctor's staff has the knowledge and training both to understand
> the medical
> aspects of the patient's care
...to the limits of modern medicine, which is often less than a car
mechanic's ability to fix a car.
and the legal aspects of the patient's
> health insurance
> program.
...providers are paid for health care services, they don't like to get
into patient advocacy and usually try to avoid it. YOU and ME are the ones
that need to read about the insurance snot and I have a 22,000 byte essay
I've been meaning to post someday on "medscam-how health insurance screws
you and the few things you can do about it"
How many patients have the training and/or education to deal with
> either aspect alone, let alone in tandem?
There are actually a few books in the library on this. Also, you need to
read the few books on what to watch out for in the hospitals too, or else
they treat you like a cow.
> I'm really curious why you think the burden should lie with the patient, and not
> with the doctor.
YOU are the person best able to represent yourself. Its sad that tons of
people go to providers & clinics & hospitals and the 'doc' says "You need
X" and the person says "OK" instead of "Why?" At least, as you started
this post, you did something smart...you asked Why.
And, I've been involved in insurance billing for five years. THEY are
really assholes. Take my word for it. Read the newspapers about the
insurance companies & health plans being sued. There are books on this
stuff. Pray that you don't get seriously sick. Then, did you ever see the
movie "Coma"? They're out there, too.
Jeffrey J. Potoff
L Smith wrote:
> Rob Colby wrote:
>> Medical doctors have a virtual
>>union and cannot be displaced *so quickly*.
>>
>
> If I decide tomorrow morning that I'm no longer happy with my doctor - he's
> history. There are plenty of alternatives in this area that he serves at my leisure,
> not the other way around. Granted I'm just one among many patients that see
> him, but in a growing community like this word of mouth accounts for a lot when
> people select their doctor. Piss off enough people, and he can watch his practice
> go down the tubes, and there's not a lot the AMA can do to force his patients
> to continue to see him.
I've seen this happen. An entire office of the Henery Ford Health Care System was
shut down last year for just this reason. The "service" was so poor all
the patients left.
J.
Joshua Halpern
Russell Martin wrote:
SNOIPPP
> I never said that YOU didn't have that eperience, but to suggest that
> it is universal enough that doctors should quake at the mere thought
> of annoying a patient because the resulting poor word of mouth would
> ruin a practice is blantantly rediculous, which was my point. Or do
> you continue to insust that your personal opinion is so all powerful
> that you can make or break doctors in your area?
In a small town with only two or three quacks it can make a difference.
josh halpern
Arthur E. Sowers
There have to be excellent -- really excellent -- gossip networks,
grapevines, and intelligence gathering/sharing.
There have to be people who _question_ authority instead of having the
mindset "Oh, well, OK, if you say so, Doc" and there is a lot of that
mindset in small towns, too. Some small towns may be populated by fairly
bright people who are professional, educated, and take active interest
int their medical care (and how their health plan/insurance system work).
I'd look at complaint rates and outcomes data as can be found on a number
of web resources.
The other area that people need to look into is complaints against the
payor (what is the effective 'default' rate on insurance benefits [i.e.
how many people are found to be uninsurable, how many are denied benefits,
how many have their benefits retroactively recouped through retroactive
removal of authorization on acct auditing).
Equally important is what you sign on entering a provider/hospital. You
may survive the provider/hospital but end up having your financial assets
taken away from you, in which case the end outcome is that you are
homeless.
Russell Martin
As I noted in an earlier post, yes, in Podunk it can make a difference.
In the DC area do you think it does?
Regards,
Russell
Arthur E. Sowers
Actually, Josh probably didn't say what he meant to say, which I think is
if in a small town there are three docs and they are all quacks.
Technically, there could be fifty docs in a small town servicing a large
population of big/nearby city and only three of the fifty are quacks.
;-)
Regards,
Art
Joshua Halpern
Sorry, I missed that. It can, but of course, it is much harder.
josh halpern
Jeffrey J. Potoff
Russell Martin wrote:
In Detroit it did for one office I know about.
J.
Russell Martin
A private single practitioner being run out of business by word of
mouth, or are you talking about that case you posted earlier? That
was an HMO branch, right? I'm not surprised that an HMO branch would
give poor enough service to lose enough business to close, but that
wasn't the case that Rich was postulating. In the case of an HMO I
suspect to would not be exclusively, or perhaps even mostly, the
doctors' service that drove the patients away, but rather the whole
system. There are cases of whole hospitals in CD being shut down
recently, but it wasn't word of mouth of irate patients that did
it, so there are other factors that come into play, too.
Regards,
Russell
va1e...@mail.ru
> For example, right now in Germany there are a lot of openings for
> Ph.D. physicists in industry, where they function as what in the
> US would be called development engineers.
Interesting information.
But go to the employment sections of the websites of Philips and
Infineon (formerly Siemens) who have tens of plants in Germany -- they
have advertised between them only one (!) R&D job (the listing was for
hundreds only a year ago). How come ?
Regards,
va1e...@mail.ru
Arthur E. Sowers
I know a person who has finished his PhD in Germany, at a German
institution, and in physics and he tells me that jobs for PhDs there,
industry or university, are no different and just as poor today as 6-7
years ago.
Jeffrey J. Potoff
Russell Martin wrote:
> "Jeffrey J. Potoff" wrote:
>
>>Russell Martin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Joshua Halpern wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Russell Martin wrote:
>>>>SNOIPPP
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I never said that YOU didn't have that eperience, but to suggest that
>>>>>it is universal enough that doctors should quake at the mere thought
>>>>>of annoying a patient because the resulting poor word of mouth would
>>>>>ruin a practice is blantantly rediculous, which was my point. Or do
>>>>>you continue to insust that your personal opinion is so all powerful
>>>>>that you can make or break doctors in your area?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>In a small town with only two or three quacks it can make a difference.
>>>>
>>>>josh halpern
>>>>
>>>>
>>>As I noted in an earlier post, yes, in Podunk it can make a difference.
>>>In the DC area do you think it does?
>>>
>>>
>>In Detroit it did for one office I know about.
>>
>>J.
>>
>
> A private single practitioner being run out of business by word of
> mouth, or are you talking about that case you posted earlier? That
> was an HMO branch, right?
Yup. They had a well deserved reputation for being terribly disorganized.
> I'm not surprised that an HMO branch would
> give poor enough service to lose enough business to close, but that
> wasn't the case that Rich was postulating. In the case of an HMO I
> suspect to would not be exclusively, or perhaps even mostly, the
> doctors' service that drove the patients away, but rather the whole
> system.
No, in this case it was the doctors and their staff's service. We, in
fact, used to go to the branch that shut down. We switched because they
were basically incompentent. The new office we go to, under the same
HMO, is great.
> There are cases of whole hospitals in CD being shut down
> recently, but it wasn't word of mouth of irate patients that did
> it, so there are other factors that come into play, too.
I'm sure there are multiple factors at work.
J.