EPTI mean I have read such things of German scientists, but that was ALOOOOT better.
Don't become a scientist - Page 11
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
rAize
Germany135 Posts
I mean I have read such things of German scientists, but that was ALOOOOT better. | ||
|
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
On May 18 2010 16:25 Gatsbi wrote: 100% hit the nail on the head, absolutely NO other major is going to get you into a high paying job straight out of college but engineering or medicine. I get what you're saying, but medicine is going to get you a good paying job about 8 years after college, mostly spent working and studying for a hundred hours a week. And in some specialties the 100 hour weeks don't stop when your residency is over. | ||
|
ArKaDo
France121 Posts
Well I think it has always been the same. Graduating has no value by itself, if you bring it out of the context; school is more about having a lot of contact than gaining productivity, knowledge or anything. Why do you think that most of the greatest university in the world are also the one that makes the biggest party? This logic is even more important when you go for a Ph.D since you need contact with professors to be respected and eventually for people to place faith in you and your future as a scientist. Ph.D and academical carrier is (sadly) more about having friend and getting a good position in social network than being a good scientist. Just see the one called Norbert Elias, great sociologue respected for his work who was working in a cafe until the age of fifty or so... One of my professor, one of the most respected in my university even if he is a bit old, told me that the greatest scientist in university are the one we call "maitre de conference" (master of conference) while the "professors" (highest grade of scientist in french university) are not that good, too interested about keeping their jobs and their fame. | ||
|
sqwert
United States781 Posts
| ||
|
Igakusei
United States610 Posts
On May 19 2010 00:42 ArKaDo wrote: I read a comment of someone explaining how he get a job with the help of his contact more than with his B.S (althought i don't know what is a B.S). Well I think it has always been the same. Graduating has no value by itself, if you bring it out of the context; school is more about having a lot of contact than gaining productivity, knowledge or anything. Why do you think that most of the greatest university in the world are also the one that makes the biggest party? This logic is even more important when you go for a Ph.D since you need contact with professors to be respected and eventually for people to place faith in you and your future as a scientist. Ph.D and academical carrier is (sadly) more about having friend and getting a good position in social network than being a good scientist. Just see the one called Norbert Elias, great sociologue respected for his work who was working in a cafe until the age of fifty or so... One of my professor, one of the most respected in my university even if he is a bit old, told me that the greatest scientist in university are the one we call "maitre de conference" (master of conference) while the "professors" (highest grade of scientist in french university) are not that good, too interested about keeping their jobs and their fame. There are rare cases, but getting a Ph.D especially in science is not just about contacts and networking. Getting a B.S. in Chemistry, for instance, is a little like getting a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. It doesn't mean you're a master, it means you're ready to really start learning. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On May 19 2010 01:15 Neverborn wrote: There are rare cases, but getting a Ph.D especially in science is not just about contacts and networking. Getting a B.S. in Chemistry, for instance, is a little like getting a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. It doesn't mean you're a master, it means you're ready to really start learning. I agree. Although you have to put in a lot of time, Ph.D. and post-doc are necessary to become effective. | ||
|
Ruthless
United States492 Posts
To put it in a brief statement: You have a high number of very talented people competing for a lesser number of low paying unstable jobs. Sounds perfect for starcraft players! | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On May 19 2010 02:10 Ruthless wrote: Right now as others have said you have a problem. To put it in a brief statement: You have a high number of very talented people competing for a lesser number of low paying unstable jobs. Sounds perfect for starcraft players! Agreed with the last sentence. :p But, the competition is not for the low paying jobs, only tenure track professor, which should not be considered low paying. I think this is the only solid fact coming from the OP. It is competetive, and not the highest paying career in existence -__- | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On May 18 2010 16:31 KwarK wrote: How many drug addicts do you think he personally knows? How many physics Ph.Ds do you think he knows? Complain about his sampling bias but it's probably true. Who knows how many he does? He should be the one to consider his own sampling bias before saying it. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8195 Posts
On May 19 2010 00:11 BluzMan wrote: Who cares? Even if that is a bad comparison, what does it have to do with the rest of the article? Here is your answer: On May 18 2010 03:37 Baarn wrote: I stopped taking this article seriously about right there. Other than that it was an ok rant from a bitter professor. On May 19 2010 00:48 sqwert wrote: my prof said PhDs are for research and getting a Bachelors is enough to start getting employed. Probably right, but depends in which area I guess. What's obvious is that as it's getting more and more difficult to find a job in any area some people go for very high level study although they don't want to be searchers or don't have the motivation/passion absolutely necessary for doing research... The impression I have is that Phd should be something very specific and now it's just, well, the highest degree you can have. | ||
|
Ruthless
United States492 Posts
On May 19 2010 02:34 Servolisk wrote: Agreed with the last sentence. :p But, the competition is not for the low paying jobs, only tenure track professor, which should not be considered low paying. I think this is the only solid fact coming from the OP. It is competetive, and not the highest paying career in existence -__- Yea i guess it is not "low paying" but with the intellect. you probably have you could be making far more with a bachelors degree. Tenured professors dont always make a lot of money. But its all relative | ||
|
Hyperion2010
United States122 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
 And I am not sure a competent science reporter would solve those problems because it depends on the listeners, but lol @ robot overlord signularity ^_^ | ||
|
Hyperion2010
United States122 Posts
On May 19 2010 02:51 Servolisk wrote: ^What is the enjoyment of science reporting? And I am not sure a competent science reporter would solve those problems because it depends on the listeners, but lol @ robot overlord signularity ^_^Well, if you are interested more broadly in science then you can stay very very up to date with recent research in all fields and have contact with scientists at the top of their fields, plus you probably have a better idea of what good methodology or at least can raise intelligent questions about the studies and ask hard questions. Obviously you have to write, but if you are interested in educating others about science you have an opportunity (albiet contingent on your audience) to reach many more minds than you would as a professor, though you might have a significantly harder time convincing them of certain things. Of course you are right that this kind of job might not be particularly appealing to someone who actually enjoys labwork. | ||
|
KingPants
United States54 Posts
"We ignore history, which shows that most airplane hijackers are Arab. Refusing to ``ethnically profile'' airline passengers, airport security paid little attention to obvious risks, with the result that more than five thousand Americans were murdered by terrorists." ... "We know how AIDS is transmitted: by promiscuous sexual activity, chiefly homosexual, and by abusers of intravenous drugs who share hypodermic needles. The human body was not designed for these activities, and lacks the immunological defenses to deal with their consequences. Except for a comparatively few cases transmitted by transfused blood and blood products or congenitally, the victims of AIDS knowingly and deliberately put themselves at risk. AIDS could be stopped by a program of contact tracing and quarantine, methods which successfully contained venereal and other communicable diseases in the pre-antibiotic era" "I am a homophobe, and proud." "In the diversity business what matters about people is their ``race'', which is taken to determine character, intellect and moral value. That is the philosophy of National Socialism, with a different Master Race and (so far) no subhumans." "How can we explain the contrast between the physical sciences, mathematics and engineering, in which the proportion of women hasn't risen despite ample encouragement, and law and medicine, in which it has? It's social science, so we cannot be sure (no one ever really knows why people make the decisions that govern their lives, whether it is age of marriage, number of children, or choice of profession), but certainly the hypotheses that fewer women (than men) are interested in science, or have the talent to succeed at it, must be considered. I, for one, think it the most plausible explanation, but I also don't think the whole question is very important or very interesting." | ||
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
He should have titled it "Don't try to make it as university/college professor". His conclusion too is atrocious advice. The more scientist a nation trains, the better it does economically - for everyone, always. The guy, to put it bluntly, has written up a piece of idiocy. I believe he needs to review what a "scientist" really means. Having said that I know this guy is not idiot but that he has no qualms playing the fool. His writings in general have no intention to instruct but to create reaction and controversy. | ||
|
No_eL
Chile1438 Posts
Maybe if you have enough money, and you are not interest in people at all u can enjoy this kind of life. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On May 20 2010 02:17 Physician wrote: "Don't Become a Scientist!" by Jonathan I. Katz He should have titled it "Don't try to make it as university/college professor". His conclusion too is atrocious advice. The more scientist a nation trains, the better it does economically - for everyone, always. The guy, to put it bluntly, has written up a piece of idiocy. I believe he needs to review what a "scientist" really means. Having said that I know this guy is not idiot but that he has no qualms playing the fool. His writings in general have no intention to instruct but to create reaction and controversy. You say he's an idiot then back that up by discussing the implications of having less people choose science Ph.Ds, which has absolutely nothing to do with his article. Do you disagree with anything he said, and if so, what exactly? Where is he wrong? His basic thesis is that science Ph.Ds don't pay much compared to other disciplines and it is quite hard to make basically any upper-middle class money with one nowadays, and even if you do make it you spend your time dealing with science politics rather than science research. He talks about 5-10+ doing postdoc jobs rather than being on tenure track, etc. Where exactly is he wrong? | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8195 Posts
On May 19 2010 14:54 KingPants wrote: The author is a nut and a bigot of every flavor. Here are some excerpts from his other papers(http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/): "We ignore history, which shows that most airplane hijackers are Arab. Refusing to ``ethnically profile'' airline passengers, airport security paid little attention to obvious risks, with the result that more than five thousand Americans were murdered by terrorists." ... "We know how AIDS is transmitted: by promiscuous sexual activity, chiefly homosexual, and by abusers of intravenous drugs who share hypodermic needles. The human body was not designed for these activities, and lacks the immunological defenses to deal with their consequences. Except for a comparatively few cases transmitted by transfused blood and blood products or congenitally, the victims of AIDS knowingly and deliberately put themselves at risk. AIDS could be stopped by a program of contact tracing and quarantine, methods which successfully contained venereal and other communicable diseases in the pre-antibiotic era" "I am a homophobe, and proud." "In the diversity business what matters about people is their ``race'', which is taken to determine character, intellect and moral value. That is the philosophy of National Socialism, with a different Master Race and (so far) no subhumans." "How can we explain the contrast between the physical sciences, mathematics and engineering, in which the proportion of women hasn't risen despite ample encouragement, and law and medicine, in which it has? It's social science, so we cannot be sure (no one ever really knows why people make the decisions that govern their lives, whether it is age of marriage, number of children, or choice of profession), but certainly the hypotheses that fewer women (than men) are interested in science, or have the talent to succeed at it, must be considered. I, for one, think it the most plausible explanation, but I also don't think the whole question is very important or very interesting." Oh God... Some people shouldn't be allowed to exist. What a prick. /thread imo | ||
|
BEEF SUPREME
Canada4 Posts
| ||
| ||
