Subject: Dave's Soapbox
From: "Arthur E. Sowers"
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 19:19:24 -0400
On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Dave Jensen wrote:
> In article ,
> "Arthur E. Sowers" wrote:
>
> >And, once again, you display this "head-in-the sand" aura of emanation
> >from some perch on Cloud 9 where big balls of cotton candy orbit your
> >head. There are times when you admit all job markets are crappy and other
> >times when you just conclude, when someone else talks about it, that its
> >SOMEBODY ELSE'S bad attitude. And, your offered up solution is to head to
> >your website, and no one elses, for peptalk sermons and the cliche "learn
> >to network."
> >
> >Life is a tough business for almost everyone (except maybe you and Bill
> >Gates) and those who perpetuate platitudes of nothingness are making very
> >little contribution of substance to the significant problem of getting a
> >decent job, let alone in an desired occupation. All people who are not in
> >such a decent job, let alone a desired occupation need to be thinking very
> >hard about what pursuits to get involved in. Those who end up after ten
> >years in a program with a handful of empty peanut shells have a right to
> >be mad. And, I have addressed my concerns to that problem.
> >
> >You seem to be totally if not substantially incapable of even
> >miniscule amounts of sympathy.
> >
> >>
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>
> >Art Sowers
>
>
> Art - I do have a bit of sympathy for someone whose life revolves around
> the thrill of starting flame wars.
This does not compute. You changed the subject, purpose, and message.
> You've done some good work on src and with your essays, generally setting
> the stage to be a useful source of information about one aspect of science
> careers. I'm sure that people respect your opinion, as I hope they do
> mine, but you insist on dragging conversations into the flame bait
> category. Would you please avoid doing this?
When you "cool it" with making snide remarks about people's problems being
all due to their negative attitude, then I'll back off. After all, you
were the one who said many times that people should go for what the love
and so what are a lot of these people doing? Just that. Then when they
complain about how hard it is to reach what they love, you get in here and
chastise them for not "taking charge."
> Now . . . You mention above that sometimes you've heard me say that the
> job market is crappy. I TRULY BELIEVE THAT THE JOB MARKET IS CRAPPY AND
> HAVE ALWAYS SAID THIS. In fact, Art, I believe that ALL JOB MARKETS are
> lousy, and to the job shopper, there may not be a single place to look
> where the "jobs are out there." I've stated this on and off for over a
> year on this newsgroup, and you make it sound like I have spoken from both
> sides of my mouth. I don't believe you do that, or accuse you of that, why
> would you suggest it of me? Can't you handle differing opinions?
>
What started this debate (what you call a flame war) is your statement
that the concerns of PhDs was a "eye opener" for you. Yes, you do speak
from both sides of your mouth.
> Now, just because the "job market is lousy" doesn't mean that I believe
> science careers are in the dumper . . . That's the differing point in our
> two philosophies.
I have been primarily concerned with the graduate school to postdoc
pipeline. You have been concerned with biotech/drug job markets. My
emphasis has been to get people in the pipeline to better understand what
they are up against and consider how much patience (in years) it will take
to succeed as well as consider that at least half will never succeed no
mater how long they wait. Indeed some will get old, for sure, before they
succeed at all.
Science jobs in the dumpster? I think its just crazy to be one of 300
applicants for one job. 299 people will be disappointed.
> When I graduated, the darn job market was crappy!
When I graduated, it wasn't too bad. But its much worse now.
> It
> still is! What can you do about it? Well, those who want to be employed
> FORGET ABOUT THE CRAPPY JOB MARKET and go out and find jobs anyway. They
> do so by taking charge of the process, and not by relying on Human
> Resources clerks somewhere opening mail.
A lot of those HR clerks ARE in fact sellecting lots of people. If it were
not the case, then companies would just shut them down.
And, I have no problem with the idea of "go[ing] out and find jobs
anyway." Its just that those jobs are more likely to not be in line with
their dreams.
> You can call networking a
> "cliche," but if it gets you a job, I'd say that it has value. I've just
> returned from being out there teaching this stuff. [This has nothing to do
> with my web site, and your opinion that I send people there is completely
> erroneous.
You don't send them anywhere else. You just put references to YOUR
material as if there are no other sources of information and no other
opinions.
> There are fewer posts of mine on this newsgroup that give my
> URL than your posts with the large repeated "sig" box]
Oh? Do we count the one's from your office manager, or not? And, anyway,
what's wrong with that if it does happen to be true. And, besides, I don't
make any money from it and its not part of my business. Your's is.
> Finally, I laughed when I read about your nasty comment about my work by
> calling it "platitudes of nothingness." Was this your ultimate insult? The
> one that would really bait a good flame war? You know as well as I do that
> the only reason you don't like my work is that I won't reference your
> essays on my page
I don't think you reference any other relevant URLs on your page. At least
not the last time I looked. I find it very curious that of all websites
I've looked at, yours has remarkably little in terms of reference to
external sources. This is narrow minded.
> despite your repeated requests.
I've never asked you to do that even though you have claimed
repeatedly that I have made those requests.
> This isn't because I
> don't value them, it is because my page is not a page full of links. Stop
> feeling left out, Art. We don't have ANYONE's links there.
As I've noticed. And, as I've noticed that many other websites, including
mine, have references to other resources on the web.
Indeed, people have recommended that I add their URL to MY list and I have
done that.
You are just mad that I don't cite your website.
> In the past two weeks, I have spent my time and energy to visit Utah,
> Johns Hopkins, Virginia Tech, etc, etc. and do science career workshops.
> Each time I have been offered an honorarium, I have given it back to the
> Postdoctoral students association.
What a wonderful PR gesture! Do you just refuse the honorarium or write it
off your income taxes as a donation? Do you get travel assistance? Isn't
it nice to rub shoulders with all those important people? So you can come
over here and say "Look, all these people consider my message important."
Now, for the real hot question. How do you get invited? Or is SMI/DGJ so
plastered around (the web, the net, BIO spinoff) that there is just nobody
else's name in the inviter's face. Come on, share some secrets with the
readers of this newsgroup.
> And as you know from previous flame
> wars, my company doesn't have something to sell to these grad students and
> post docs, so there is no hidden agenda.
Most business people love to be invited to almost anything. When the Wall
Street Journal (and even many lessor newspapers) want to do an article on
jobs/careers what do they do? They call up a recruiter. You may not have
anyting to sell, but you certainly get YOUR name out there and the SMI
name, too. Every business person I know LOVES to get free advertising.
I would even maybe think that you just LOVE the attention I give you and
your posts.
> I have a strong personal belief
> in science as a career and put more than my mouth behind it.
I have a strong personal belief that many people are not getting the full
picture on certain science careers before they invest large amounts of
time preparing for those careers.
> Let's see, Art, when was the last time you took YOUR message out and gave
> of your time and energy?
I give a lot of it here on the newsgroup and quite a bit more in private
email to people who ask me, privately, for advice, information, and
opinions. It does not benefit my business or my wallet.
And, I did get invited to present a "show" at local places which were not
part of career shindigs and the audience was an NIH crowd and an FDA
crowd. I am not part of a recruiting firm and I do not "self-promote"
myself to those audiences. However, if invited I would go and tell my
story in any level of detail that was requested.
One thing I would LOVE to know is if BIO is giving you free website space
as a perk. And, as long as no "competing" (or non BIO) sources are
placed in that space. And, who is Lee Jensen?
>
> Dave
>
>
very respectfully,
Art
Subject: Re: Dave's Soapbox
From: davej@sedona.net (Dave Jensen)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 17:24:02 -0800
In article ,
"Arthur E. Sowers" wrote:
>What started this debate (what you call a flame war) is your statement
>that the concerns of PhDs was a "eye opener" for you. Yes, you do speak
>from both sides of your mouth.
Art - read the 20 questions, and you'll know why I had an "eye opener". It
was because these folks are NOT TAUGHT about the way the world works. The
University Placement office didn't even want to attend at one of those
sessions. We need to give grad students and postdocs more real-world tools
to use in job hunting. ALL of my fellow panelists were surprised at the
basic information on job seeking that is needed out there.
>I don't think you reference any other relevant URLs on your page. At least
>not the last time I looked. I find it very curious that of all websites
>I've looked at, yours has remarkably little in terms of reference to
>external sources. This is narrow minded.
My site is a book online. Just like a book, if the chapter includes
references, they are located at the end of the chapter. These are not
"live" links, but references to real books at the library. People still
read books, Art.
>You are just mad that I don't cite your website.
I wouldn't expect you to cite my website, Art. That would be like
admitting you've found something of value there.
>Now, for the real hot question. How do you get invited? Or is SMI/DGJ so
>plastered around (the web, the net, BIO spinoff) that there is just nobody
>else's name in the inviter's face. Come on, share some secrets with the
>readers of this newsgroup.
I really don't think there is much of a "secret" to share, Art. Many
people have read my column in BioPharm Magazine over six years, or perhaps
seen me presenting material like this at other meetings. Johns Hopkins
postdocs caught my networking session at the AAAS last year or the year
before, and felt it was of value to their audience.
No, I don't get a tax write off. You only get that when you accept money
and then give it back. These are gratis.
>I would even maybe think that you just LOVE the attention I give you and
>your posts.
Frankly, Art, no I don't. And I think your posts have now gone over the top.
>I give a lot of it here on the newsgroup and quite a bit more in private
>email to people who ask me, privately, for advice, information, and
>opinions. It does not benefit my business or my wallet.
I think that is fine. There should be numerous opinions on the newsgroup.
And, mine are just personal opinions like yours.
>One thing I would LOVE to know is if BIO is giving you free website space
>as a perk. And, as long as no "competing" (or non BIO) sources are
>placed in that space. And, who is Lee Jensen?
>very respectfully,
>
>Art
I've never gotten much in the way of "perks" particularly when it is from
a company trying to make money as the BIO-Online server must. If I want to
run an ad for an open position, I'd pay just as much as you would. We do
indeed have a special arrangement on all the pages it takes to hold the
"Your Career In The Sciences" section, however!
I already told you that we don't use hot links on my web site for a
particular reason. (Although if one of my references for an article had an
email address, I'm sure I would put that in as a hot email address).
And, lastly, I am sure that your evil empire fears were really in full
bloom when you found out that the fellow who owns BIO-Online is a Jensen.
But, alas, Jensen happens to be a fairly common name. He was in my
database as a prospective candidate before I met him two years ago due to
the BIO-Online connection. Lee is a case study for PhD's who are sick of
the "usual" career track and not afraid to risk it all to start an
entrepreneurial business.
Good luck to you Art, and keep the flames comin'.
Dave
Subject: Re: Dave's Soapbox
From: "Wayne S. Pelouch, PhD"
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 09:26:57 +0800
Perhaps you guys should settle this in a DOOM NETWORK DEATHMATCH SHOWDOWN ;^)
I have been on this group for a while also, although I rarely post. I can't
help but offer my observations as a impartial observer... and I snipped out
text wherever I wanted, without apology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur E. Sowers wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Dave Jensen wrote:
>
> > In article ,
> > "Arthur E. Sowers" wrote:
> >
> > >And, once again, you display this "head-in-the sand" aura of emanation
> > >from some perch on Cloud 9 where big balls of cotton candy orbit your
> > >head... You seem to be totally if not substantially incapable of even
> > >miniscule amounts of sympathy.
> >
> > Art - I do have a bit of sympathy for someone whose life revolves around
> > the thrill of starting flame wars.
############################################################################
### I have to admit, Art, you do tend to add some personal attacks more than
### a simple debate would recommend.
> This does not compute. You changed the subject, purpose, and message.
> When you "cool it" with making snide remarks about people's problems being
> all due to their negative attitude, then I'll back off....
>
> > Now . . . You mention above that sometimes you've heard me say that the
> > job market is crappy. I TRULY BELIEVE THAT THE JOB MARKET IS CRAPPY AND
> > HAVE ALWAYS SAID THIS... I've stated this on and off for over a
> > year on this newsgroup, and you make it sound like I have spoken from both
> > sides of my mouth. I don't believe you do that, or accuse you of that, why
> > would you suggest it of me? Can't you handle differing opinions?
> >
> What started this debate (what you call a flame war) is your statement
> that the concerns of PhDs was a "eye opener" for you. Yes, you do speak
> from both sides of your mouth.
>
> > Now, just because the "job market is lousy" doesn't mean that I believe
> > science careers are in the dumper . . . That's the differing point in our
> > two philosophies.
blah, blah, blah, ...
############################################################################
### I would say that Dave occasionally admits that science job market is
### crappy, but contradictorally, is quite gung-ho on science careers.
### Which is it? Perhaps this is what Art is referring to.
> > You can call networking a
> > "cliche," but if it gets you a job, I'd say that it has value. I've just
> > returned from being out there teaching this stuff. [This has nothing to do
> > with my web site, and your opinion that I send people there is completely
> > erroneous.
>
> You don't send them anywhere else. You just put references to YOUR
> material as if there are no other sources of information and no other
> opinions.
>
> > There are fewer posts of mine on this newsgroup that give my
> > URL than your posts with the large repeated "sig" box]
>
> Oh? Do we count the one's from your office manager, or not? And, anyway,
> what's wrong with that if it does happen to be true. And, besides, I don't
> make any money from it and its not part of my business. Your's is.
>
> > Finally, I laughed when I read about your nasty comment about my work by
> > calling it "platitudes of nothingness." Was this your ultimate insult? The
> > one that would really bait a good flame war? You know as well as I do that
> > the only reason you don't like my work is that I won't reference your
> > essays on my page
>
> I don't think you reference any other relevant URLs on your page. At least
> not the last time I looked. I find it very curious that of all websites
> I've looked at, yours has remarkably little in terms of reference to
> external sources. This is narrow minded.
>
> > despite your repeated requests.
>
> I've never asked you to do that even though you have claimed
> repeatedly that I have made those requests.
>
> > This isn't because I
> > don't value them, it is because my page is not a page full of links. Stop
> > feeling left out, Art. We don't have ANYONE's links there.
>
> As I've noticed. And, as I've noticed that many other websites, including
> mine, have references to other resources on the web.
>
> Indeed, people have recommended that I add their URL to MY list and I have
> done that.
>
> You are just mad that I don't cite your website.
...more personal exchanges...
############################################################################
### OK, you each have your own web sites. Art, put whatever you want on YOUR
### website and let Dave put whatever he wants on HIS website. By all means,
### put links to your websites in your sig file, but most of us would
### appreciate sig files less than 10 lines... no accusations intended.
> > I have a strong personal belief
> > in science as a career and put more than my mouth behind it.
>
> I have a strong personal belief that many people are not getting the full
> picture on certain science careers before they invest large amounts of
> time preparing for those careers.
############################################################################
### I think this is the major difference of opinion, worthy of a debate. I
### suggest the rest of the dialog is irrelevant or personal by nature.
### You both have different perspectives on science careers and I wouldn't
### chastise either of you for presenting them--please continue.
### Personally I wouldn't recommend to anyone that they spend years getting
### a PhD without knowing that the job market is crappy and highly competitive.
### If they still want to do it anyway, then good for them--at least they can
### make an informed decision. Both your opinions help inform these people!
### Now, can't we all be friends ;^) ?
> > Dave
> >
>
> very respectfully,
>
> Art
Casually observing,
Wayne
--
#####################################################################
# Wayne S. Pelouch, PhD # pelouch@cyllene.uwa.edu.au #
# Lions Eye Institute # #
# Nedlands, Western Australia # Laser Scientist #
Subject: Re: src charter question
From: davej@sedona.net (Dave Jensen)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:02:52 -0800
In article <54o2rr$boa@news.tamu.edu>, richardz@cy-net.net (richard) wrote:
>DGJ acknowledges the crappy job market, where I disagree with him is
>that I consider his optimism in the face of reality unwise.
Richard -
I guess I still didn't make my point clear. Sorry.
The job market is crappy. I've been in the employment business for 12
years, and have always heard that the job market is crappy.
Going back to 1973 when I got out of school, the job market was crappy.
I can't remember ANYONE at ANY TIME saying that the job market was easy,
or flooded with opportunties. This doesn't apply just to scientists, but
to people of all kinds. New graduates, folks laid off, etc. etc etc.
And yet -- throughout all the horror stories of people looking for work --
we've always heard of some area where the "grass was greener." This time
around, it is computer science or anything related to the internet. Sure
enough, you ask any scientist and they'll know someone who got a job in a
few weeks instead of months or years. There's always someone, somewhere,
who went right out and got a job. And, for some reason, it is always in
SOME OTHER NICHE.
That's why I make a clear separation between the current JOB MARKET and
CAREER OPPORTUNITIES.
Job Market = Always up and down, usually down, with 15-20% of the open
positions being advertised.
Career Opportunities = Always there but you have to look hard to find
them. Constant flux and change means that careers evolve as much from
coincidence as from a career plan.
My feeling about career opportunities for scientists differs from yours,
and not my view of the job market. Yes, it is a crappy job market. No, I
wouldn't drop out of science because I believe that there are many career
opportunities out there in industry for people who love what they do.
Dave
Subject: Re: src charter question
From: STEVEN BARTHAKUR
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 14:09:39 -0700
Dave Jensen wrote:
> I can't remember ANYONE at ANY TIME saying that the job market was easy,
> or flooded with opportunties. This doesn't apply just to scientists, but
> to people of all kinds. New graduates, folks laid off, etc. etc etc.
I believe it was the roaring 60's or the bubble economy of the 80's. As a matter of
fact, a JD or MBA during the 80's was an easy ticket into the six digit salary ranges.
> And yet -- throughout all the horror stories of people looking for work --
> we've always heard of some area where the "grass was greener." This time
> around, it is computer science or anything related to the internet. Sure
> enough, you ask any scientist and they'll know someone who got a job in a
> few weeks instead of months or years. There's always someone, somewhere,
> who went right out and got a job. And, for some reason, it is always in
> SOME OTHER NICHE.
Yes, the grass is significantly greener in the computer field. As a matter of fact,
it's one of the few areas that had nice pastures since the 60's with a few glitches in
the large makers (i.e. DEC, Wang, IBM).
> That's why I make a clear separation between the current JOB MARKET and
> CAREER OPPORTUNITIES.
>
> Job Market = Always up and down, usually down, with 15-20% of the open
> positions being advertised.
>
> Career Opportunities = Always there but you have to look hard to find
> them. Constant flux and change means that careers evolve as much from
> coincidence as from a career plan.
> My feeling about career opportunities for scientists differs from yours,
> and not my view of the job market. Yes, it is a crappy job market. No, I
> wouldn't drop out of science because I believe that there are many career
> opportunities out there in industry for people who love what they do.
>
> Dave
With all the cuts in R&D; and global outsourcing of manufacturing, how do you expect the
career opportunities for S&E;'s to improve if there is no birth control at the
university level?
-S.B.
~
Subject: Success as a function of education(Top 20 MBA progs)
From: STEVEN BARTHAKUR
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 17:08:18 -0700
richard wrote:
> So anyone contemplating graduates school would be unwise to discount
> the job market and assume that they will beat the odds. They would
> be especially unwise if they based their expectations on a personal
> optimism instead of a cold hard look at what they are learning (or will
> soon learn) and how this fits in with real world career opportunities.
>
This is very true. The problem with Science and Engineering grad schools is that
they're not professional programs and do not carry stats on the successful placement of
their graduates. In my earlier posts, I showed a list of the top 25 Law programs along
with the average income and placement rates. I believe that if S&E; progs reveiled their
figures, the lawyer's glut would pale in comparison.
Listed below is a chart of the top 20 MBA progs according to the 96 US News along with
the appropriate numbers reflecting the success of the graduating classes.
Unfortunately, these progs require 3-5 years real world experience so many S&E;'s
wouldn't be able to apply. The important issue here is that there are jobs in the world
outside of science R&D; and these sectors are not receding as fast as public and private
research funding.
Institute 95' Employed
median 3
starting months
salary after grad
1. Stanford
University $73,500 98.00%
2. Massachusetts
Institute of
Technology
(Sloan)
$75,000 100.00%
3. University of
Pennsylvania
(Wharton)
$75,000 99.00%
4. Northwestern
University
(Kellogg) (Ill.)
$70,000 98.00%
5. Harvard
University
$75,000 98.00%
6. University of
Chicago
$65,000 98.50%
7. Dartmouth
College (Tuck)
$67,000 96.00%
8. Columbia
University (N.Y.)
$65,000* 97.0%*
9. Duke
University
(Fuqua) (N.C.)
$64,250 98.20%
10. University of
California at
Berkeley (Haas)
$64,000 96.00%
11. University of
Virginia (Darden)
$62,000 99.00%
12. University of
Michigan at Ann
Arbor
$62,000* 95.00%
13. New York
University (Stern)
$70,000 97.00%
14. Carnegie
Mellon University
(Pa.)
$61,800 96.70%
15. Cornell
University
(Johnson) (N.Y.)
$60,000 92.00%
16. University of
California at Los
Angeles
(Anderson)
$63,000 86.00%
17. University of
North Carolina at
Chapel Hill
(Kenan-Flagler)
$59,000 97.00%
18. University of
Texas at Austin
$55,000 95.00%
18. Yale
University
$63,000 88.20%
20. Indiana
University at
Bloomington $57,200 95.30%
Subject: Re: Dave's Soapbox
From: STEVEN BARTHAKUR
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 17:30:50 -0700
Dave Jensen wrote:
>
> In article <326FA328.376@ll.mit.edu>, STEVEN BARTHAKUR
> wrote:
>
> >As long as the Art-s.r.c vs DGJ duel continues, the issues and corresponding
> >truths will be evident to any intelligent observer.
> >
> >
> >
> >-S.B.
>
> SB
>
> It's interesting the way you lump "Art-src" together as if Art and the
> newsgroup is on one side, and anyone else's views are on the other. I didn't
> know that Art was the official voice of truth on this newsgroup. Perhaps
> others who have contributed to this newsgroup, and who have respectfully
> disagreed with Art, will take offense at that. [Obviously, that crowd is in
> the minority as the general trend of src goes the other direction.]
>
> I would like to see you offer your own thoughts, Steve, instead of tossing
> a "Yeah, me too" on every statement from Art. This reminds me of the
> little sidekick in cartoons who always hangs around the main character --
> in this case, Art.
>
> Are you BooBoo the bear to Art's Yogi?
>
> Dave
Ad hominem Dave, try attacking the argument instead of the man.
Interesting to note, I support many who are interested in alternative careers (ie. law
school, med school, computer consulting, etc). If you've read my earlier posts, they
include valid arguments for those career options. Also, unlike many, I have a
successful career so I'm not posting as often as those who have a lot of free time on
their hand.
By the way, I've posted an apology to this newsgroup for attempting to impose a group
consensus on your malarky. In other words, I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong and
make amends. You, on the other hand, seem to be bent on branding less than successful
postdocs as slackers with a bad attitude.
-S.B.
~
Subject: Re: src charter question
From: "Arthur E. Sowers"
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 19:39:54 -0400
On 22 Oct 1996, Megan Brown wrote:
> richardz@cy-net.net wrote:
> >Please everyone note that when we talk here about science careers we are
> >specifically talking about science.research.careers as indicated in
> >the newsgroup name. Careers in science writing, science administration,
> >science teaching at all levels, scientist head hunting, and many more,
> >are not quite the same as research careers.
>
> About a month ago or so, there was a brief discussion on whether there was
> a charter for src and the answer was no. RichardZ seems to have defined
> his own charter for src (above). Do others agree with him? As a scientist
> who will be leaving the research track within the next year, I find it
> extremely helpful to see posts from other scientists who have left the
> research track behind, who are currently applying for jobs, etc.
I myself am phasing myself out of a traditional science career and will
talk more about this when I get farther along and can see where my new
focus will end up. Right now I am exploring several options. I also
encourage anyone, anywhere, to say anything they want about entering or
leaving science careers or giving or seeking advice to others. A number of
people have asked me to post thier material anonymously (for
understandable reasons) which I have never refused. All that I have
received were, in my opinion, relevant to the subject matter. Do not be
affraid to excercise your freedom of speech (and freedom of thought)
rights. After all, most everyone else here does, too.
> I get
> ideas and encouragement from those posts or e-mailing those people on my
> own. Are such posts really not welcome on src? The posts, are after all,
> career-related and many times made by people still on the research track.
> RichardZ's narrow definition of what should be on src reminds me of an
> article in the latest copy of Journal of NIH about career prospects for
> scientists. (I cannot remember the author's name, but I think he is a
> neurobiology professor somewhere.) The author talks about problems for
> young scientists in the pipeline today and one problem is the inability of
> professors to acknowledge that any career different from their own
> (professor at research university) is worth taking and they communicate
> this to their students and postdocs. I wonder if RichardZ's narrow
> definition of what is supposed to be on Src is just more of this same
> attitude, that alternative careers are somehow less worthwhile.
I've had a lot of private e-mail with richard and I think he's OK and
generally "on our side."
> What should be on src? No one but myself has seemed to have a view
> different from RichardZ's. If non-research science career topics are not
> welcome on src, could someone point out a more appropriate newsgroup to
> me?
I would not even tell Dave Jensen to take his material elsewhere.
Please hang around. Share your questions. Share your experiences. We all
need to help each other out.
Art Sowers
=== no change to below====
> Thanks.
>
> Megan
>
>
> Megan Brown
> mbrown@fred.fhcrc.org
> --------------------------------------
> Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
> Seattle, Washington
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
Subject: Re: Industry and researching companies
From: "Arthur E. Sowers"
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 19:46:17 -0400
Dan usually gives good advice (see below). I can't help you, but if you go
to most any public library there should be a librarian (97% of the time
they are smiling, helpful, and joyous people) who can give you specific
approaches to what IS available about a company. Developing some ability
to talk about your intrests in a given company is a good way to impress a
future employer's interviewer.
Art Sowers
==== no change to below===
On 24 Oct 1996, Dan Reiley wrote:
> In article <54o42q$4qn@hobbes.cc.uga.edu>,
> Karen Wheless wrote:
> >I am hoping to interview for R&D; positions in industry soon, and I am
> >wondering how to prepare. For academic positions, it is fairly easy to
> >look up a professors' old papers and get background information on their
> >research and interests. But in industry, most of the work is proprietary
> >and isn't published. Are there any good ways to research a company and
> >their R&D;? Get background information on the job you're applying for?
>
> Your first priority should be to find people to approach, not companies.
> In many fields, there is plenty of work that is published, so you
> can follow the tack you mentioned. In fields where the work is
> not published, many people still go to conferences, so you can
> read badges and approach people at meetings. People are often
> members of the relevant scientific societies, which can provide
> useful leads; for example, the Optical Society of America is
> too big to approach everyone in industry in their register, but
> OSA's working group on lens design is a manageable size. Alumni
> of your program should be a useful starting point, too. Finally,
> checking the patent literature might be worthwhile, too.
>
> To find companies to approach, you should follow the trade
> literature in your field. Most fields publish free magazines
> that are mostly advertisements for the various companies in the
> field.
>
> --
> Dan Reiley, Ph.D. Bell Labs Naperville, IL
> daniel.j.reiley@lucent.com (630)713-5444
>
>
Subject: Re: Request for advice....
From: "Arthur E. Sowers"
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 20:07:14 -0400
My own advice follows...
On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Arthur E. Sowers wrote:
>
> Someone asked me to post the file below but leave his name off. After it
> gets posted, I will give it my best shot, as well.
>
> Art Sowers
>
> === anonymized file below =====
>
> From ________________ Thu Oct 24 19:17:00 1996
> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 12:18:34 -0500 (CDT)
> From: ___________ <____________.edu>
> To: arthures@access.digex.net
> Subject: request
>
> Dear Art,
>
> Could you do me a favor? I'd like to ask the following question of
> sci.research.careers readers, but I do not want to compromise my position.
> Would you be willing to post it anonymously for me? If you are not
> comfortable with this, please delete it.
>
> Thanks!
>
> ____________
>
>
> ======================================
> Subject: Negotiating Strategies
>
> I have the following questions for discussion. I am a research professor at
> a major university. My position was obtained after negotiation (read
> nagging) with the chair. This person is in a position of power vis a vis my
> future advancement. In particular, he sits on hiring committees and knows
> influential people very well. I would like him to actively help me to
> obtain a tenure track position.
>
> I have done a body of research on a topic which interests the chair greatly.
> He would like to be co-author. He has done no work on the research, but he
> has helped support me (with nagging) and he would be an extremely useful
> collaborator as the paper progresses: he has a very good feel of how to sell
> which aspects of a paper to ensure that it goes through review smoothly, is
> received well, is placed in the best journals, etc.
>
> Question 1: Would it be better to author the paper alone so as to establish
> my independent research credentials or to include the chair as co-author?
> How important to people feel single author papers are to getting and holding
> tenured/tenurable academic positions?
Consider several issues: i) what's his reputation "out there." ii)
evaluate how much his "support" is worth to you (ethics asside, there is a
reality-based currency in "honorary authors" or "favor trading"), and,
iii) consider how much help he is really going to give you with the
writing, and iv) make sure that you think about who's name goes first (one
way is to do two papers with rotating order of names).
> Question 2: Can people suggest negotiating strategies to get the chair's
> active support in my job search? For example, state question 1 and suggest
> that if I am searching on my own I would need single author papers, but if
> he will help with the search -- or arrange a tenurable position in this
> university -- then single authorship would diminish in importance.
I would be willing to go into a lot more detail on this than space allows,
but I would like a very accurate reading by you on what vibes you get from
this guy. One way to "feel out" his feelings about how important you are
to him (i.e. might he be able to pull a tenure track slot for you , or
help you get one somewhere else) is to ask him not if he likes you or not
but ask him if he thinks YOU have a good/fair/excellent future ahead of
you and is there anything he would recommend that would help that. If he
says he'll get you tenure if you polish the know on his door, then get out
your chamois and make it shine. DON'T ask if you are writng enough papers
(I'll predict the answer he will give, so steer clear).
I think its more important to have 1/3 to 2/3 of your papers with YOUR
name first. Having more than one author on papers actually helps all of
the authors. I'd say that on an average, one to two papers per year PER
author is not bad. Some will say it should be higher. Depends on the
field, the content, etc.
> The two things I want are his active support and his conscious
> acknowledgement that I have things he wants and if he does not provide his
> support he should not expect to get these things. (And, of course, I want
> these things without pissing him off.)
Like above, if I was successful in hinting at the "soft sell" way to
approach this, you never want to be open about getting his active support.
You want to be INdirect. Let HIM volunteer his opinion. Look to other
people in the department (ask them all out to lunch over several weeks,
maybe, and make it social, and then, by the way, "whats so-and-so like?"
Use their answers to formulate your next subtle questions and get an idea
what kind of chair you are dealing with).
Your biggest ace in the hole is that the guy needs/wants you. Let that
grow, slowly, and don't push it too soon or too hard or too fast. Get back
to me by private email after you do the skuldugery and get a reading on
the vibes.
Art Sowers
> Suggestions, ideas, commentary??
>
> -Anonymous
>
> ===end of file ========
>
>
>
>
Subject: Re: Dogmatic or creative thinkers?
From: Marc Andelman
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 00:24:23 -0700
David Srebnick wrote:
>
> Marc Andelman wrote:
>
> > If anyone believes the "young dynamic" idea, name twenty companies
> > that have been around for more than fifty years.
> > Regards,
> > Marc Andelman
>
> Marc,
>
> I disagree. I think that you may have confused "thinking" with "doing."
> Researchers and commercial companies both know that there are many good
> ideas, but not all of them are worth doing. A good researcher must be
> just as focused as a good company.
Hi Dave. I love you honey pot storey. Please do not take the
below personally, as I have spent the whole day trying to
loosen up some Viennese people . This can put you in a stanger
mood than usual.
My point is, that even if an idea is worth doing, a researcher in a
corporate situation is helpless to pursue it. In fact, it is not in that
persons' job description to think, at least in the creative sense. Maybe it
should be so for academics, and maybe we need to ask why academic
research is needlessly focused. Corporate research has to be focused.
Also, not to be cruel, and I value your dialog a lot,
but you work for Digital, which is the perfect
example of what I am talking about. That is , a company is an oranization
of markets, labor , and suppliers, set in motion by the original entrepreneur.
(Frankly, once this inertia gets set in motion, it is better for the
entrepeneur to leave, which Olsen failed to do).
By the time market conditions changed so that the original model or guiding
principal was no longer valid, all the MIT degrees and Ph.D's were
a joke, a laughing matter, a waste of money. By the time Digital goes out
of buisiness, is aquired, sold, split up,or reincarnated, the orignal investment
would have long ago been recouped. The capital will have been amortized.
What you now have now is a 200,000 mile Chevy. It is not worth putting a new
clutch in.
>
> A researcher might have a brainstorm for a new idea, but after that
> the researcher has to focus on the idea, build prototypes, run tests,
> do computations, computer modelling, etc. in order to develop the
> idea into something worthwhile (whatever that is).
>
An idea also has to be killed in endless meetings and floundering around.
That is because any idea is counter to the original organizing
principals of the company. Again, one is not paid to think. Rather,
one is paid not to think
> I'm a believer in "nothing is more dangerous than a good idea when
> it's the only one you have."
>
This is great. Not only are you not paid to think, but you have a
philsophy which justifies this. I find that oftentimes, employees
will come up with ideas like this which protect the status
quo, that is, the immutable organizing principals of the company.
These were preordained billions of years ago, before the earth
formed from of a cloud of cosmic dust.
Marc Andelman
Subject: Re: Hope in change?
From: m9303@abc.se (Tommy Anderberg)
Date: 22 Oct 1996 17:47:56 GMT
Arthur E. Sowers (arthures@access.digex.net) wrote:
: On 20 Oct 1996, Tommy Anderberg wrote:
[stuff deleted]
MAJOR WARNING: THIS POST IS *** LONG *** (the longest I'v ever written!).
Not only: it's written by an ex physicist-wannabe, but deals entirely
with his feverish speculations on economics. Ugh! The faint of heart
among you - especially those with degrees in matters economical - have
been warned.
>> Fact: unemployment is on the rise in Europe, and has been so for a long
>> time. The employment situation in the US looks better, but this is largely
>> due to MacDonald jobs which are not sufficently renumerative to live on
>
> Interesting conclusion. I've wondered how these people live on $5-6/hr,
> too.
I realize now that this may look like a novel point of view to some
Americans. It's pretty much taken for granted in the debate on what to
do about unemployment in Europe (I follow the Swedish, Italian, British
and to some extent German discussion on this - out of interest and as
a direct consequence of having a TV set hooked up to a satellite dish
and just about constantly tuned to some news channel while working...
what can I say, others listen to rock or techno at work, I let news and
social debates flow by me, occasionally listening up when I catch
something interesting - maybe it's the boring Swedish side of my
personality). The political right may emphasize that most new jobs
recently created in the US are not McDonald jobs but, rather, above-the-
average ones (as far as salaries go) but noone here is questioning the
role of the lowest ioncome decile in keeping American jobless figures
down.
>> 1/4-1/3 of the available workforce. The rest will be redundant. Society may
>> choose to keep them at "work" through legislation and fiscal measures biasing
>> the economy toward a more labour intensive direction, but in principle they
>> could as well be let go and kept alive and well by other means.
>
> Two possibilities: expand the military, and... did you read the book
> "Coma" by Robbin Cook (who is an MD, I'm told)?
No, I missed that one. What's the (I expect unpleasant) scenario?
As for military spending, that doesn't really seem any more convincing
than science spending - quite the contrary! In both cases we are talking
about activities driven not by market forces but by politics, and both
currently shrinking (or not growing, at best). I find it a bit hard to
believe that selling people on a large army etc. would work in the absence
of a credible threat, and even with Saddam doing his best (and he is not!)
we would be a far cry from the Cold War. Science spending on the other
hand IS easy to sell to the general public if the political will is there.
>> The total
>> wealth of nations will keep growing anyway. In fact, it may grow faster if
>> companies are allowed to keep downsizing and replacing everybody who can be
>> replaced with machines.
>
> Actually, I read two articles recently now where a couple of top
> exexutives have been very recently saying that they shouldn't be doing the
> downsizing/outsourcing anymore. Believe it or not, they were saying this
> hurts morale and loyalty. Funny it took, what, half-one decade for them to
> get over the idea that humans had infinite capacity for corporate abuse.
I believe you - I've seen it too. But I expect this to mean that downsizing
will continue at a slower pace, not that it's ending. The stress-free way of
replacing redundant people with machines is to wait until they retire.
The time needed for the conversion from labour-intensive to technology-
intensive production in this scenario is roughly the difference between
average age of retirement and average age of the workforce. I don't have
the figures, but I expect this to be something like 20 years. Not a
whole lot for such a thorough transformation.
>> (This is not socialism, mind you. Socialism, like old-fashioned capitalism,
>
> Could you expand on that a little? I thought old-fashioned capitalism was
> like in "laisses faire" (spelling is all "off") capitalism, meaning
> cartels and monopolies were OK and charging what the market would bear,
> and price-fixing (ADM just got dunned for $100M for that), and stealing
> from the government (Smith-Kline just settled recently without admitting
> guilt for overbilling the govt by $300M), and the idea was to take from
> the poor and give to the rich.
Well, this sounds a bit like Dickens revisited. The way I see it, really
old-fashioned capitalism was based on single individuals and families
owning whole companies and indeed becoming very rich on the labor of very
many, very poor people. This was what Dickens described. You can still see
a pretty strong case of family-based capitalism in Italy, which for various
reasons has preserved archaic institutions throughout its society, and
of course to a much larger extent in the "emerging" Asian economies.
But looking at history, this kind of capitalism seems to belong to a
transitory phase. It soon gets replaced by another form of capitalism
based on distributed owning.
First the conditions of workers improve (One way or another, apparently no
matter if there are strong unions and a strong political left - as in
Northern Europe - or not - as in the US. "Capitalists" themselves soon
realize the advantage of having somebody capable of buying the goods and
services which they sell. I seem to remember Henry Ford explicitly
saying this when explaining his concept of mass production: his workers
must be able to buy one of the cars they were building for the whole thing
to make sense.) South Korea is an interesting, recent example of this: look
at how (and how rapidly!) their salaries have grown. Nowadays, there is not
much of a point (cost-wise) to hiring a Korean over a European to build
your cars. The Western countries now establishing themselves in the
former East Block and in China know this. They may be able to save on
labor costs for a while - a few decades at most - but in the long run
the real bonus is to open up a new mass market.
To get back to capitalism: After the immediate needs for housing etc.
have been satisfied, i.e. with the establishment of a middle class,
ownership of the means of production themself becomes distributed (I can
hear old Karl Marx rotating in his tomb - he never saw this phase coming,
and thought it could only be brought about by revolution, i.e. by abandoning
capitalism altogether). Companies wishing to survive are not only forced to
grow (so as to enjoy the economies of scale); they must grow faster than
their competitors, or risk being squashed. Fast growth is an expensive
process, only rarely self-sustained. So what do you do? You go public.
Who buys your stocks? Surprise: to a large extent, your workers. Not
directly (most of the time) but rather through institutions like the
trusts administrating their pension funds. Quoting from memory, there
are currently some 6 TRILLION US dollars in those (4 in US trusts
alone)! They are now the largest players on this planet's financial
scene, controlling (again quoting from memory - please correct me
if I'm wrong) more than 70% of investments in the major industrial
countries (G7)! Like Alanis M. would say: Isn't it ironic? Such a
level of public ownership would have sent even Swedish industrialists
on a rampage, screaming "COMMUNISM!", had politicians tried to set it
up (as Swedish social democrats did on a MUCH more modest scale a
decade ago, quickly failing due to massive political opposition).
This is evidently NOT Dickens-style capitalism any longer, but
something very different. Sure, the chain of ownership is long
(individual -> fund -> public company) and control is not perfect
or fast (expect LONG reaction times - years) but in the long
run, such an economy can't really be expected to work against the
interests of the middle class which effectively owns it. If it did,
it would go under. (OK, so stupidity is not ruled out - how could
it be, the IQ of mankind being per definition just a modest 100?
But even at that modest level, I think there is reason for optimism.)
>> Whereas, socialism was something like take
>> from the rich and give to the poor (Robbin Hooding?). Or, am I way off?
In my (personal?) definition of the word it is the attempt to set up
public control over the economy by political means. It doesn't
necessarily mean striving for an even income distribution, though
promising that tends to be a good way to get public support. The
former East Block could boast some fairly incredible examples of
uneven incomes (was Romania the worst case? I'm not sure) but even
Sweden with its luke-warm social democracy is capable of having
government officials speaking in favour of increasing income
differences (as long as there are no general elections around the
corner...).
>> OK, so in a couple of decades we face a situation in which society
>
> Not to be picking a fight, but the old saying goes "...and the rich get
> richer, and the poor get poorer...." I have not found many exceptions to
> this observation.
This has been true in most of the industrialized countries over the last
5-10 years (according to "The State of Working America 1996-97", the median
yealry income of American families decreased by no less than $2168 from
1989 to 1994). There is nothing unusual to such transients in the face of
major changes (Look at the standard of living in Russia: it's picking up
now, but it certainly did not do that as soon as the old communist system
was scrapped. On the contrary, that change initially resulted in a nearly
free-falling economy. Throwing out something old is easy; replacing it
with something new which will work better takes some time. I think the
West is now looking at a similar situation.) I expect this trend to
continue yet for a while, until it becomes sufficiently painful to a
sufficiently large part of the population to trigger political action (by
governments, who must act or be replaced) and economic action (by companies
depending on publicly owned investors - deplete the public's pockets too
much and you lose customers and investors, which is just plain stupid). As
usual, I expect the latter to be far more efficient than the former in the
short run. In the long run, I believe the changes which we are facing WILL
require political action and coordination at the international level.
(Want to know what I mean by painful? Imagine a rerun of the LA riots
throughout Europe and the US, and not only in "bad" areas. Imagine
European crime rates rising to American levels, with the US of
course leading the way as usual. You get the picture.)
>> is richer
>> and only 1/4-1/3 of the workforce is actually needed. The rest will be "on
>> the dole", one way or another.
>
> Ah... but "where" will this workforce be located? Methinks it will be in
> 3rd world countries.
I see several good reasons to think not.
First of all (weakest reason first!), the current economic role of 3d world
countries is vastly overrated. There is a book called "Globalization in
Question", written by two British economists (Hirst and Thompson), with data
assembled from over 5000 multinationals during the period 1992-93. It turns
out that the "global economy" is essentially equivalent to US+Europe+Japan,
with 80% of all trade staying within this "family".
Secondly, the technological revolution (automation) which is the real
job-killer in the industrialized countries is making the unskilled
labor on offer in the 3d world increasingly uninteresting. How much longer
will even the modest salary of (e.g.) mainland Chinese workers (forget Hong
Kong!) be cheaper than fully automated production close to the buyers? The
estimates I keep seeing say no more than a couple of decades.
Most importantly, the rapid growth of salaries in the emerging economies of
the Far East (e.g. South Korea) indicates that savings in labor costs are
only a short-term effect of relocation to the third world. The longer term
effect is the creation of a new industrialized country! Relocation and
out-sourcing to third world countries may make sense in some cases and for
a limited amount of time, but in the long run costs will rise - and
overdoing it, damaging existing markets, would make no sense from a seller's
point of view.
>> In other words, is it not possible that the current transformation of the
>> advanced economies - painful for almost everybody in the short term, until
>> societies adapt to these changes by reinventing the meaning of "work" etc. -
>> will result in such a liberation of resources that ANYBODY wishing to be a
>> scientist will be able to be one?
>
> hmmmm.... could you speculate, with all your creativity (aka Marc
> Andelman, etc.) and imagination, what the acceptable range of competance,
> educational background needs, and "provided" lab space and equipment might
> be? Or, would these guys be issued something like two tin cans and a
> string and be told to research voice communication? ;-)
As far as education goes, I see no big problem. It's probably one of the
cheapest ways to keep people busy (which is why the number of people on
Swedish university payrolls has grown by *** 1/4 *** during the first half
of the 90s; incrasing undergraduate intake is such a cost-effective way to
sweep some unemployment under the rug, you get tens of people off the
jobless statistics for just one teacher salary - of course the official
version is that the government is investing in competence... too bad that
the DEMAND for all those new graduates just isn't there).
Lab space and equipment are the real problem. As an ex aspiring theoretical
physicist, I could live forever happy with pencil and paper (and a reference
library, and an Internet account, and maybe a computer for numerical
experiments - still cheap stuff). For the experimentally minded, that would
evidently not be enough. Here's an outrageous thought to get the debate
going (is ANYBODY reading this?): surely all of you have heard of "veteran
fliers" associations which recover vintage aircraft from scrapyards,
put them back in operational shape and show them off at air shows. Those
clubs are usually run by a few enthusiasts and supported by a large number
of passive members. See what I'm aiming at? Assuming continuing technological
advances (= cheaper equipment), rising wealth (after the current transition
phase is over and the realization spreads that post-capitalism - whatever
that is! - is necessary for social and economic stability) ever-better
communications (allowing supporters to get a real feeling of partecipation)
and of course the astute use of popularization, how unreasonable is it to
assume that some serious experimental research could be funded this way?
(Actually, I'm not being the least creative here. Many years ago, I was
a supporting member of the Interplanetary Society, which works exactly
this way - uses membership fees and contributions to support interplanetary
missions, and keeps supporting members happy with meetings, a glossy
magazine and so on. [Fancy that, a Swedish student subsidizing the American
space program. Boy was I an idealist or what!?!] It can definitely be done -
the real question is on what scale!)
>> And if so, what will this do to research? Amateurization and trivialization
>> beyond our wildest nightmares? A faster pace of innovation than ever? Or
>> what?
>>
>> Or, is this just my fever talking?
>
> Give us an update on your "cold" and give us "chapter 2" and we'll give
> you an opinion.
Feeling better, which means I will not be able to write anything this long
again for a year or so! Chapter 2 is above...
--
Tommy Anderberg
Tommy.Anderberg@abc.se