|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 24 2017 04:05 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 03:53 farvacola wrote:On January 24 2017 03:34 Djzapz wrote:On January 24 2017 03:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 24 2017 03:20 Djzapz wrote:On January 24 2017 02:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 24 2017 01:38 Djzapz wrote:On January 23 2017 20:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 23 2017 14:56 Djzapz wrote:On January 23 2017 14:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
I'm not surprised that guy who wrote about whether we should eliminate the African American races gets punched in the face when he goes outside. And that point, you're just asking to get punched. If his opinions were dressed so provocatively then maybe his face would be safe--can't blame the lower class from reacting on instinct. I'm definitely not surprised and I'm not going to shed a tear, I looked at the video and it felt nice. But it's increasingly clear to me that the "regressive left" has no respect for the tenets of shit like the first amendment. "I can punch a nazi because I find his ideology distasteful. He can't punch me because my ideology is good." What if I think I should be able to punch you because you abort babies and I think killing babies is more disgusting than genocide? That's a retarded thing to think but why the fuck do these people think they get to draw the line? They're so incredibly delusional. If his most recent article says: "Does human civilization actually need the Black race?" "Is Black genocide right?" and, if it is, "What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?" With starting points like this, wisdom is sure to flourish, enlightenment to dawn. Then would it be safe to say that people responding to his words be acting in self defense? Especially when his speech is literally asking to wipe out a race? Especially since it's written in an article that suggests whites are currently victims of genocide and that they should respond in kind to blacks? Let's look at the first amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Looking at those words, were Spencer's first amendment rights violated? Given that the man is speaking of "black genocide" and may be advocating for it without directly saying so, it may very well be the case that the guy is saying shit that could be considered hate speech and perhaps should be prosecuted. Not punched in the face in the street. I disagree with the notion that punching him would be effective because "it's humiliating". As for "were Spencer's first amendment rights violated?", well no. I never said his first amendment rights were violated, but my advocating violence against him, you're putting very little weight under the first amendment. Part of the first amendment is the implicit notion that the government will protect you from physical harm if you try to say something. Of course I'm seeing the cheap rhetoric of "so Spencer should have police officers protecting him at all time?" and that's not what I'm saying. I think that the guy who attacked Spencer should be charged for battery or whatever. I fucking loathe Spencer probably more than most people here but I still don't think punching him is right, nor is it effective. And even if it were effective, what the fuck ever? Murdering people is an even better way to silence them, but I don't think we should murder people when they say unsavory things. Let the courts do that shit. Until then, I don't see "black genocide" on the horizon just because this scumbag white nationalist is spouting shit on street corners. And if this punch actually saved us from the Great American Hitler by bruising his ego, just wow. Thanks epic punch guy for saving everyone. Summary: Spencer is a cunt and him getting punched is funny. Still, don't punch nazis unless you're doing it in self defense. If you punch a nazi you should be prosecuted. Or punched right back. That is all. There is no movement to punch spencer. They walked up to him and talked. He denied everything he stood for to their faces, then got punched for bullshitting them. That's it. The same thing would happen in a bar. If pushed, they would give the same punishment of throwing them in jail overnight to cool off. Well, it's arguably a politically motivated assault on a person, I don't know that it bears as little weight as a bar fight. Also bullshitting is not a "punchable offense", so I don't understand why you bring that up. In any case it's not acceptable. The lack of a movement to punch Spencer is true enough, but if you were to read on social medias you'd quickly find a lot of people who literally say "you should always punch nazis" and attacking nazis is always fine and acceptable. Some will add that you should seek them out and attack them. When confronted, the double down and say that yes, street violence IS fine provided the people you attack are vile enough. They see no irony in that. The same thing happened when people got hospitalized during Trump gatherings during the campaign. All my conservative friends would then post non-stop about how they deserved it, how the victims of assault had it coming, and that they should go back to their safe space. People get riled up and violent during these types of events (same with sports, bars, etc...) and when you have someone come in saying or representing a topic, idea, or ideal that angers that crowd--then violence happens. It seems you mistake me for someone with a "side" in this particular issue. I don't give a shit that individuals get attacked really, the fact that people feel it's justified, whether it's on the "right" or the "left" doesn't change anything. You don't attack nazis and you don't attack whacky berniebros. But the circlejerks about how it's "fine" to attack non-violent people because they "deserve it" are fucked in the head. There has not been a single "circle jerk"-like post regarding the propriety of violence in the face of those who advocate genocide in this thread; in fact, the back and forth on it between those who eschew any and all forms of violence versus those who think otherwise has been one of the cleaner conversations in memory. Accordingly, your "I don't have a side but one side is fucked in the head, stop jerking each other off" bit seems entirely off-base, particularly given how little you've contributed to the at-times far more heated debates we've been having these past two weeks. I don't know what you're talking about, I haven't been on this thread in the last two weeks, and my criticism of the circlejerks that I've seen are not shit I've seen on here, I was not at all criticizing the people of TL. Not sure what you're going on about. I want to stress the point that the notion that I've contributed "little" in the "more heated" discussions is quite an understatement as, as I've said, I've been completely absent. So what the fuck are you talking about Farva? Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 04:00 ZasZ. wrote:
There is also a distinct difference between Team Liquid Poster A thinking that it's alright to punch nazis and it actually being legal to punch nazis.
Should the guy be prosecuted for assault? That's up to Spencer, but if I were him I totally would for that sucker punch. It shouldn't be legal to assault people, even nazis. But we are perfectly within our rights to say on the internet we think he deserved it, and that guy may have punched him expecting to be arrested. That would be his own form of violent protest.
And I question the assertion that he is "non-violent." Just because he may have never raised his own hand to strike someone else does not make his movement any less dangerous. How do we determine that a movement is dangerous though? Does it cause harm to people? Not right now. Previously I made the argument, as a pro-choice guy myself, that someone could be of the belief that abortions are "dangerous" and "violent" because it's the act, as they might argue, of "killing a baby". So if we label people presenting a "violent ideology" but not acting upon it as violent people whom perhaps we can physically attack and not be morally reprehensible for doing so, who draws the line? Who decides...
Basically, I thought you were referring to TL posters and I didn't account for you being absent from the site generally. For that I apologize. It still strikes me as odd that, with the backdrop of Trump's election and all that it brings, you've chosen to focus in on the punching of someone who advocates for genocide as the thing you're fired up about. Nevertheless, cheers 
|
This would be an act of war.
|
War with China sounds like fun. Let's do it.
|
There should be a betting pool on the chances of Spicer being the first to resign from the Administration...
|
Not that I am aligned one way or another with the TPP or the Federal worker freeze, but the irony of his comments between signing the TPP withdrawl and the Federal hiring freeze is just too funny.
EDIT: for those of you who cant watch. (paraphrasing)
* Signs withdrawl of TPP *
TRUMP: "This is a great act for the american worker"
*Gets handed Federal hiring freeze papers*
ASSISTANT: "This is the federal hiring freeze"
TRUMP: *looking panicked, Turns to camera 1* "Except for Military!" *Turns to camera 2* "Except for Military"
|
Well seeing how Congress never voted on the TPP the Executive Order is pretty much meaningless.
|
I doubt Congress would vote in the affirmative and then override a veto. It's as good as we're going to get that the US is leaving the TPP.
|
Press secretaries tend to have short lifespans.
I wish he were named Jack though. That would have made him an even better press secretary.
|
On January 24 2017 05:12 LegalLord wrote:
I doubt Congress would vote in the affirmative and then override a veto. It's as good as we're going to get that the US is leaving the TPP.
not sure what you're saying.
treaties require 2/3 vote anyways.
and treaties have to be sent to the senate by the president.
the senate can't make treaties on their own over the objections of the president.
and US isn't in the TPP yet; it's a planned treaty, not a done treaty. so it's not really "leaving. but I guess that works well enough metaphorically.
|
Trump wants to investigate visa abuse as per that ABC article. I would call myself carefully optimistic on that front. I would prefer fewer worker visas and a more dedicated effort to train homegrown workers.
|
On January 24 2017 05:20 LegalLord wrote:
Trump wants to investigate visa abuse as per that ABC article. I would call myself carefully optimistic on that front. I would prefer fewer worker visas and a more dedicated effort to train homegrown workers.
Dems were trying to do that for a while. Local schools even in rural areas are trying to do this. Now of course if Public school funding gets cut drastically then all the students who can't go to private schools are going to be out o fluck. My dad actually runs a high school district career and technical program and their doing a lot of those types of programs. Heck my old high school has a drafting and 3d printing class. There also looking at teaching coding in high school better There working on it its just not something thats magically going to happen overnight. That's also what the tech companies have been saying they literally cannot fill the jobs here. There's no magic piece of legislature thats magically going to fix it. I also think it's one of the few things that has unanimous bilateral support.
|
On January 24 2017 04:44 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 04:05 Djzapz wrote:On January 24 2017 03:53 farvacola wrote:On January 24 2017 03:34 Djzapz wrote:On January 24 2017 03:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 24 2017 03:20 Djzapz wrote:On January 24 2017 02:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 24 2017 01:38 Djzapz wrote:On January 23 2017 20:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 23 2017 14:56 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
I'm definitely not surprised and I'm not going to shed a tear, I looked at the video and it felt nice. But it's increasingly clear to me that the "regressive left" has no respect for the tenets of shit like the first amendment. "I can punch a nazi because I find his ideology distasteful. He can't punch me because my ideology is good."
What if I think I should be able to punch you because you abort babies and I think killing babies is more disgusting than genocide? That's a retarded thing to think but why the fuck do these people think they get to draw the line? They're so incredibly delusional. If his most recent article says: "Does human civilization actually need the Black race?" "Is Black genocide right?" and, if it is, "What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?" With starting points like this, wisdom is sure to flourish, enlightenment to dawn. Then would it be safe to say that people responding to his words be acting in self defense? Especially when his speech is literally asking to wipe out a race? Especially since it's written in an article that suggests whites are currently victims of genocide and that they should respond in kind to blacks? Let's look at the first amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Looking at those words, were Spencer's first amendment rights violated? Given that the man is speaking of "black genocide" and may be advocating for it without directly saying so, it may very well be the case that the guy is saying shit that could be considered hate speech and perhaps should be prosecuted. Not punched in the face in the street. I disagree with the notion that punching him would be effective because "it's humiliating". As for "were Spencer's first amendment rights violated?", well no. I never said his first amendment rights were violated, but my advocating violence against him, you're putting very little weight under the first amendment. Part of the first amendment is the implicit notion that the government will protect you from physical harm if you try to say something. Of course I'm seeing the cheap rhetoric of "so Spencer should have police officers protecting him at all time?" and that's not what I'm saying. I think that the guy who attacked Spencer should be charged for battery or whatever. I fucking loathe Spencer probably more than most people here but I still don't think punching him is right, nor is it effective. And even if it were effective, what the fuck ever? Murdering people is an even better way to silence them, but I don't think we should murder people when they say unsavory things. Let the courts do that shit. Until then, I don't see "black genocide" on the horizon just because this scumbag white nationalist is spouting shit on street corners. And if this punch actually saved us from the Great American Hitler by bruising his ego, just wow. Thanks epic punch guy for saving everyone. Summary: Spencer is a cunt and him getting punched is funny. Still, don't punch nazis unless you're doing it in self defense. If you punch a nazi you should be prosecuted. Or punched right back. That is all. There is no movement to punch spencer. They walked up to him and talked. He denied everything he stood for to their faces, then got punched for bullshitting them. That's it. The same thing would happen in a bar. If pushed, they would give the same punishment of throwing them in jail overnight to cool off. Well, it's arguably a politically motivated assault on a person, I don't know that it bears as little weight as a bar fight. Also bullshitting is not a "punchable offense", so I don't understand why you bring that up. In any case it's not acceptable. The lack of a movement to punch Spencer is true enough, but if you were to read on social medias you'd quickly find a lot of people who literally say "you should always punch nazis" and attacking nazis is always fine and acceptable. Some will add that you should seek them out and attack them. When confronted, the double down and say that yes, street violence IS fine provided the people you attack are vile enough. They see no irony in that. The same thing happened when people got hospitalized during Trump gatherings during the campaign. All my conservative friends would then post non-stop about how they deserved it, how the victims of assault had it coming, and that they should go back to their safe space. People get riled up and violent during these types of events (same with sports, bars, etc...) and when you have someone come in saying or representing a topic, idea, or ideal that angers that crowd--then violence happens. It seems you mistake me for someone with a "side" in this particular issue. I don't give a shit that individuals get attacked really, the fact that people feel it's justified, whether it's on the "right" or the "left" doesn't change anything. You don't attack nazis and you don't attack whacky berniebros. But the circlejerks about how it's "fine" to attack non-violent people because they "deserve it" are fucked in the head. There has not been a single "circle jerk"-like post regarding the propriety of violence in the face of those who advocate genocide in this thread; in fact, the back and forth on it between those who eschew any and all forms of violence versus those who think otherwise has been one of the cleaner conversations in memory. Accordingly, your "I don't have a side but one side is fucked in the head, stop jerking each other off" bit seems entirely off-base, particularly given how little you've contributed to the at-times far more heated debates we've been having these past two weeks. I don't know what you're talking about, I haven't been on this thread in the last two weeks, and my criticism of the circlejerks that I've seen are not shit I've seen on here, I was not at all criticizing the people of TL. Not sure what you're going on about. I want to stress the point that the notion that I've contributed "little" in the "more heated" discussions is quite an understatement as, as I've said, I've been completely absent. So what the fuck are you talking about Farva? On January 24 2017 04:00 ZasZ. wrote:
There is also a distinct difference between Team Liquid Poster A thinking that it's alright to punch nazis and it actually being legal to punch nazis.
Should the guy be prosecuted for assault? That's up to Spencer, but if I were him I totally would for that sucker punch. It shouldn't be legal to assault people, even nazis. But we are perfectly within our rights to say on the internet we think he deserved it, and that guy may have punched him expecting to be arrested. That would be his own form of violent protest.
And I question the assertion that he is "non-violent." Just because he may have never raised his own hand to strike someone else does not make his movement any less dangerous. How do we determine that a movement is dangerous though? Does it cause harm to people? Not right now. Previously I made the argument, as a pro-choice guy myself, that someone could be of the belief that abortions are "dangerous" and "violent" because it's the act, as they might argue, of "killing a baby". So if we label people presenting a "violent ideology" but not acting upon it as violent people whom perhaps we can physically attack and not be morally reprehensible for doing so, who draws the line? Who decides... Basically, I thought you were referring to TL posters and I didn't account for you being absent from the site generally. For that I apologize. It still strikes me as odd that, with the backdrop of Trump's election and all that it brings, you've chosen to focus in on the punching of someone who advocates for genocide as the thing you're fired up about. Nevertheless, cheers
Well, couple points about this...
-I feel like most of Trump's fuckery is adequately addressed by others.
-I still address it, mostly on other boards. I find this thread mostly disagreeable but sometimes I post and it always hurts me.
-I have this latent insane belief that I can drag my "progressive" buddies back to reason.
It was never meant to be a defense of this nazi POS... I think the "left" needs to unite to fight against the rise of whatever the fuck TheDonald is. I think that those people who advocate violence against nazis probably are the kind of people who split the "left". Gotta bring those lost sheeple back to reality.
|
On January 24 2017 05:43 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 05:20 LegalLord wrote:
Trump wants to investigate visa abuse as per that ABC article. I would call myself carefully optimistic on that front. I would prefer fewer worker visas and a more dedicated effort to train homegrown workers. Dems were trying to do that for a while. My dad actually runs a high school district career and technical program and their doing a lot of those types of programs. Heck my old high school has a drafting and 3d printing class. There working on it its just not something thats magically going to happen overnight. That's also what the tech companies have been saying they literally cannot fill the jobs here. There's no magic piece of legislature thats magically going to fix it. I also think it's one of the few things that has unanimous bilateral support.
I think part of the problem is also at the graduate school level, where homegrown folk have been so disincentivized from certain forms of graduate education that it has become little more than a visa program by any other name.
|
On January 24 2017 05:46 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 05:43 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On January 24 2017 05:20 LegalLord wrote:
Trump wants to investigate visa abuse as per that ABC article. I would call myself carefully optimistic on that front. I would prefer fewer worker visas and a more dedicated effort to train homegrown workers. Dems were trying to do that for a while. My dad actually runs a high school district career and technical program and their doing a lot of those types of programs. Heck my old high school has a drafting and 3d printing class. There working on it its just not something thats magically going to happen overnight. That's also what the tech companies have been saying they literally cannot fill the jobs here. There's no magic piece of legislature thats magically going to fix it. I also think it's one of the few things that has unanimous bilateral support. I think part of the problem is also at the graduate school level, where homegrown folk have been so disincentivized from certain forms of graduate education that it has become little more than a visa program by any other name.
not familiar with graduate school but makes sense. I know colleges in general make way more money with international students in terms of tuition. And I know it's kind of the popular thing to do in China is to get a US education because of how prestigious that is.
|
Graduate school is a weird situation. A BS in chemistry is useless, but a BS in chemical engineering is enough to get a good career rolling. Chemical engineers have little incentive to pursue graduate school, but they are rewarded well for it. People with a BS in chemistry are basically required to go to grad school if they hope to do anything besides technician work, so a much higher percentage of chemistry graduates go to grad school than chemical engineering. And looking at my school in particular, there was a hugely disproportionate amount of foreign chem-e grad students when compared to chemistry. In fact, the engineering department, in general, had a way, way higher % of foreign grad students when compared to their hard science counterparts.
So in a lot of ways, opportunities as a chem-e BS are so good that many people end up just saying "who needs grad school"? But the phd chem-e jobs still exist, so we end up relying on foreign workers. My perspective is that graduate students need to be paid much more.
|
On January 24 2017 05:51 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 05:46 LegalLord wrote:On January 24 2017 05:43 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On January 24 2017 05:20 LegalLord wrote:
Trump wants to investigate visa abuse as per that ABC article. I would call myself carefully optimistic on that front. I would prefer fewer worker visas and a more dedicated effort to train homegrown workers. Dems were trying to do that for a while. My dad actually runs a high school district career and technical program and their doing a lot of those types of programs. Heck my old high school has a drafting and 3d printing class. There working on it its just not something thats magically going to happen overnight. That's also what the tech companies have been saying they literally cannot fill the jobs here. There's no magic piece of legislature thats magically going to fix it. I also think it's one of the few things that has unanimous bilateral support. I think part of the problem is also at the graduate school level, where homegrown folk have been so disincentivized from certain forms of graduate education that it has become little more than a visa program by any other name. not familiar with graduate school but makes sense. I know colleges in general make way more money with international students in terms of tuition.
There is a certain number of worker visas set aside for those who receive a graduate education in the US. In many schools in technical majors (most notably Computer Science due to current economic conditions, engineering and science in general are very popular), the overwhelming majority of students are internationals, especially from nations like China and India with many people but not that much in the way of domestic high-quality education for the commoner (Europeans are less inclined to join these programs for example, preferring an option closer to home with more domestic contacts). They often pay in full or have many years of PhD wages (subsistence wages for 5 or more years, mediocre working conditions). This, coupled with the fact that few sane Americans would want to go to a school predominantly consisting of internationals (for the same reason a parent might remove their children from a school where they are the only American children in their school and/or class), is a self-propagating cycle that leads to weaker education for domestic students. The further problem isn't that these internationals take all the "good jobs" (they are at best playing a slightly more favorable lottery, and they aren't known for being consistently high-quality workers) but that their existence drives down the quality of conditions for locals since companies can just import someone who would be grateful for a $40k salary in Shitfuckistan whereas locals would not want that combination of low salary and unfortunate working conditions.
It's one of the few things I actually think Trump should be very well-versed in, and I hope he acts genuinely in the interests of the American worker on that front.
|
On January 24 2017 05:58 Mohdoo wrote:
Graduate school is a weird situation. A BS in chemistry is useless, but a BS in chemical engineering is enough to get a good career rolling. Chemical engineers have little incentive to pursue graduate school, but they are rewarded well for it. People with a BS in chemistry are basically required to go to grad school if they hope to do anything besides technician work, so a much higher percentage of chemistry graduates go to grad school than chemical engineering. And looking at my school in particular, there was a hugely disproportionate amount of foreign chem-e grad students when compared to chemistry. In fact, the engineering department, in general, had a way, way higher % of foreign grad students when compared to their hard science counterparts.
So in a lot of ways, opportunities as a chem-e BS are so good that many people end up just saying "who needs grad school"? But the phd chem-e jobs still exist, so we end up relying on foreign workers. My perspective is that graduate students need to be paid much more.
Having other opportunities is part of it. The other part is that the American system makes the graduate school process so miserable that many don't want to bother. A 50 percent dropout rate for PhD students should make you wonder why so many people just don't want to put up with that shit anymore.
In the case of chemical engineering specifically, a graduate degree is becoming more and more necessary for good long-term career outcomes. It's a field that pays well but it's undergoing a rather fierce stagnation.
|
On January 24 2017 05:58 Mohdoo wrote:
Graduate school is a weird situation. A BS in chemistry is useless, but a BS in chemical engineering is enough to get a good career rolling. Chemical engineers have little incentive to pursue graduate school, but they are rewarded well for it. People with a BS in chemistry are basically required to go to grad school if they hope to do anything besides technician work, so a much higher percentage of chemistry graduates go to grad school than chemical engineering. And looking at my school in particular, there was a hugely disproportionate amount of foreign chem-e grad students when compared to chemistry. In fact, the engineering department, in general, had a way, way higher % of foreign grad students when compared to their hard science counterparts.
So in a lot of ways, opportunities as a chem-e BS are so good that many people end up just saying "who needs grad school"? But the phd chem-e jobs still exist, so we end up relying on foreign workers. My perspective is that graduate students need to be paid much more.
That post-docs are not unionized is one of the biggest travesties of academia.
|
On January 24 2017 06:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 05:58 Mohdoo wrote:
Graduate school is a weird situation. A BS in chemistry is useless, but a BS in chemical engineering is enough to get a good career rolling. Chemical engineers have little incentive to pursue graduate school, but they are rewarded well for it. People with a BS in chemistry are basically required to go to grad school if they hope to do anything besides technician work, so a much higher percentage of chemistry graduates go to grad school than chemical engineering. And looking at my school in particular, there was a hugely disproportionate amount of foreign chem-e grad students when compared to chemistry. In fact, the engineering department, in general, had a way, way higher % of foreign grad students when compared to their hard science counterparts.
So in a lot of ways, opportunities as a chem-e BS are so good that many people end up just saying "who needs grad school"? But the phd chem-e jobs still exist, so we end up relying on foreign workers. My perspective is that graduate students need to be paid much more. Having other opportunities is part of it. The other part is that the American system makes the graduate school process so miserable that many don't want to bother. A 50 percent dropout rate for PhD students should make you wonder why so many people just don't want to put up with that shit anymore. In the case of chemical engineering specifically, a graduate degree is becoming more and more necessary for good long-term career outcomes. It's a field that pays well but it's undergoing a rather fierce stagnation.
I suppose we agree it is a cost:benefit thing. Someone fresh out of college with a chem-e degree can expect $60K right out of the gate and will likely go up to 80 within 5 years. Or they can make ~30K/year as a grad student and then make ~$90K/year 5 years later. You are making more 5 years out, but your integral is still less. And those 5 years were not enjoyable. For certain careers, you could argue the 5 years experience is worth more than the PhD. But there are certain chem-e jobs that really are exclusively PhD jobs.
|
On January 24 2017 06:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 06:09 LegalLord wrote:On January 24 2017 05:58 Mohdoo wrote:
Graduate school is a weird situation. A BS in chemistry is useless, but a BS in chemical engineering is enough to get a good career rolling. Chemical engineers have little incentive to pursue graduate school, but they are rewarded well for it. People with a BS in chemistry are basically required to go to grad school if they hope to do anything besides technician work, so a much higher percentage of chemistry graduates go to grad school than chemical engineering. And looking at my school in particular, there was a hugely disproportionate amount of foreign chem-e grad students when compared to chemistry. In fact, the engineering department, in general, had a way, way higher % of foreign grad students when compared to their hard science counterparts.
So in a lot of ways, opportunities as a chem-e BS are so good that many people end up just saying "who needs grad school"? But the phd chem-e jobs still exist, so we end up relying on foreign workers. My perspective is that graduate students need to be paid much more. Having other opportunities is part of it. The other part is that the American system makes the graduate school process so miserable that many don't want to bother. A 50 percent dropout rate for PhD students should make you wonder why so many people just don't want to put up with that shit anymore. In the case of chemical engineering specifically, a graduate degree is becoming more and more necessary for good long-term career outcomes. It's a field that pays well but it's undergoing a rather fierce stagnation. I suppose we agree it is a cost:benefit thing. Someone fresh out of college with a chem-e degree can expect $60K right out of the gate and will likely go up to 80 within 5 years. Or they can make ~30K/year as a grad student and then make ~$90K/year 5 years later. You are making more 5 years out, but your integral is still less. And those 5 years were not enjoyable. For certain careers, you could argue the 5 years experience is worth more than the PhD. But there are certain chem-e jobs that really are exclusively PhD jobs.
I've known post-docs with as low as 15k a year who are also trying to raise a family. Its absolutely awful.
What's worse is that most post-docs can barely fight for anything once they graduate since they had such low comp for so long that they get stuck with only 90k when they get out if they fight hard enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
