Thought you guys maybe interested but I have found a really good site about career management. Plenty of information and advice, I even mailed them for further information, they were really quick. From what I can make out you can either attend a group seminar, which is free of charge and from their have an hours counselling. I am going to the seminar in November, just waiting for confirmation. There is also a job bank that once you decide to apply has over 50,000 live vacancies. I will keep you informed on how it goes. The site is called Lee Hecht Harrison, Career Management Consultants http://www.career.lhh.co.uk/career -- sherburnReturn to Top
Hello, I am John Larsson, a postgraduate student. If you are a student I would greatly appreciate your participation in this study. I am investigating the role of mood on procrastination behaviour. It would be greatly appreciated if you would answer the questions below by putting a slash / next to the answer that applies to you and email this form back to me at Plarssonjw@cc.curtin.edu.au as soon as possible. You are of course free to not participate. I do ask for a return email address, I will send you a thank you and further explanation of the study if you participate.Your identity will remain confidential as it will be separated from the data on receiving it. Thank you. ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. What is your sex? Male____ Female____ 2. What is your age? _________ 3. For each of the items below, please indicate the extent to which the statement is more or less FALSE (1) or TRUE (5) of you. Read each statement carefully; remember, there are no right or wrong answers. Please place a slash after the appropriate number after each statement. 1 = False 2 = Mostly false 3 = Sometimes false/sometimes true 4 = Mostly true 5 = True A. I delay starting things until the last minute. 1 2 3 4 5 B. I'm careful to return library books on time. 1 2 3 4 5 C. Even when I know a job needs to be done, 1 2 3 4 5 I never want to start it right away. D. I keep my assignments up to date by doing 1 2 3 4 5 my work regularly from day to day. E. If there were a workshop offered that 1 2 3 4 5 would help me learn not to put off starting my work. I would go. F. I am often late for my appointments and 1 2 3 4 5 meetings. G. I use the vacant hours between classes 1 2 3 4 5 to get started on my evening's work. H. I delay starting things so long I don't 1 2 3 4 5 get them done by the deadline. I. I am often frantically rushing to meet 1 2 3 4 5 deadlines. J. It often takes me a long time to get 1 2 3 4 5 started on something. K. I don't delay when I know I really need 1 2 3 4 5 to get the job done. L. If I had an important project to do, I'd 1 2 3 4 5 get started on it as quickly as possible. M. When I have a test scheduled soon, 1 2 3 4 5 I often find myself working on other jobs when a deadline is near. N. I often finish my work before it is due. 1 2 3 4 5 O. I get right to work at jobs that need 1 2 3 4 5 to be done. P. If I have an important appointment, 1 2 3 4 5 I make sure the clothes I want to wear are ready the day before. Q. I arrive at college appointments 1 2 3 4 5 with plenty of time to spare. R. I generally arrive on time to class. 1 2 3 4 5 S. I overestimate the amount of work 1 2 3 4 5 that I can do in a given amount of time. 4. Below are some words that describe different feelings and emotions. Carefully read each item and then put a slash "/" next to the number that indicates to what extent you have felt this way **during the past year**. Please put a slash / next to one number for each word. 1 = very slightly or not at all 2 = a little 3 = moderately 4 = quite a bit 5 = extremely ____________________________________________________________________________ A) interested 1 2 3 4 5 B) distressed 1 2 3 4 5 C) excited 1 2 3 4 5 D) upset 1 2 3 4 5 E) strong 1 2 3 4 5 F) guilty 1 2 3 4 5 G) scared 1 2 3 4 5 H) hostile 1 2 3 4 5 I) enthusiastic 1 2 3 4 5 J) proud 1 2 3 4 5 K) irritable 1 2 3 4 5 L) alert 1 2 3 4 5 M) ashamed 1 2 3 4 5 N) inspired 1 2 3 4 5 O) nervous 1 2 3 4 5 P) determined 1 2 3 4 5 Q) attentive 1 2 3 4 5 R) jittery 1 2 3 4 5 S) active 1 2 3 4 5 T) afraid 1 2 3 4 5 END OF QUESTIONNAIRE THANK YOUReturn to Top
In articleReturn to Top, "Arthur E. Sowers" wrote: >On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Dave Jensen wrote: >> Seems this is something more than naive optimism for those who are >> considering industrial careers in the life sciences. Of course, src >> includes readers from many industries, and from academia. Certainly, the >> optimism in the air for biotech won't have any impact on someone set on >> following in his or her mentor's path to become a P.I. in academia. Art followed with: >I'd like to see the data and the source, too, for that "doubling" in >"employment" in biotechnology. How much of that is at the PhD level? Art - Here's a suggestion for you. Call Ernst and Young at any of their national locations. The fellow who gave the presentation that I referred to was headquartered out of the Virginia office. Order their book entitled "Biotech '96 - 10th Anniversary Edition", written by Ken Lee and G. Steven Burrill. Although this is an exorbinantly expensive book if purchased, they send it out free upon request if you are a part of the biotech industry. This book will detail all the facts for you from this major company's annual biotech survey, which I referred to. By the way, please don't post any detracting comments about the authors, who are highly regarded professionals. Steve Burrill is also on the board and is a Contributing Editor (as I am) of BioPharm Magazine. I don't think, however, that you will find them so specific about employment as to list PhD employment separately. As you know, the biotech industry has blossomed into the actual clinical stage or manufacturing stage for products. This means that the MS degree, in particular, is a stronger force currently than in the past. I was just asked by SCIENCE to write about the trends in hiring for MS and BS degree graduates in the life sciences, and that section of AAAS Next Wave will go up on Nov. 14th. Dave
I've been a regular contributor to this newsgroup for just over a year. In the future, I'll be quite less frequently contributing to the discussion. To the folks who have offered encouraging suggestions and reinforcement by private email, I ask you to speak up more often. Don't allow your newsgroup on scientific careers to go completely sour. Keep an eye on old Art, the "official voice of truth on src." If you see something that needs a counter point from the other side of the fence, please alert me. I'll pop in from time to time just to keep him honest. I've been monitoring src on an hourly basis, which is ridiculous for someone trying to do business. As a result, I have been less effective in my work. I am literally inundated with business, and the distractions of fighting a war on a newsgroup has taken a big bite out of my success rate for client projects. Back to work now! You'll find our new online careers discussion group starting soon on BIO-Online. I welcome Art and his cronies to visit a more upbeat discussion on occassion. But as this deals with biotechnology careers, I can guarantee him he will be in the minority. We'll announce that on src when it is ready to roll. In the meanwhile, see the AAAS Next Wave section for our further thoughts on career development in the sciences, as well as "Your Career In The Sciences", at http://www.bio.com/hr/search/search_1.html The AAAS Next Wave essays on science careers get posted on November 15th, I believe. Best regards Dave JensenReturn to Top
On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Dave Jensen wrote: > I've been a regular contributor to this newsgroup for just over a year. In > the future, I'll be quite less frequently contributing to the discussion. > > To the folks who have offered encouraging suggestions and reinforcement by > private email, I ask you to speak up more often. Don't allow your > newsgroup on scientific careers to go completely sour. Keep an eye on old > Art, the "official voice of truth on src." If you see something that needs > a counter point from the other side of the fence, please alert me. I'll > pop in from time to time just to keep him honest. I am just an opinion. I check in on SRC to make sure Dave doesn't "get away with some 'flim-flam'baloney" without a "reality check." > I've been monitoring src on an hourly basis, which is ridiculous for > someone trying to do business. As a result, I have been less effective in > my work. I am literally inundated with business, and the distractions of > fighting a war on a newsgroup has taken a big bite out of my success rate > for client projects. Back to work now! Can't stand the heat in the kitchen, eh, Dave? > You'll find our new online careers discussion group starting soon on > BIO-Online. I welcome Art and his cronies to visit a more upbeat > discussion on occassion. But as this deals with biotechnology careers, I > can guarantee him he will be in the minority. We'll announce that on src > when it is ready to roll. Just be careful, folks, about fast-talking "used car salesmen." > In the meanwhile, see the AAAS Next Wave section for our further thoughts > on career development in the sciences, Yeah, go see that for the real life, true stories of all the woes of all the postdocs looking for jobs. The URL is in my information box below (at AAAS-the situation of postdocs, I read a lot of them myself. Not too many happy stories). > as well as "Your Career In The > Sciences", at http://www.bio.com/hr/search/search_1.html You folks can all let me know when Dave calls you up with a job offer he has arranged for you. > The AAAS Next Wave essays on science careers get posted on November 15th, > I believe. > > Best regards > > Dave Jensen > > Best Regards Art Sowers (representing only himself and volunteering and mentoring in the public interest) ________________________________________________________________________ | rev Sep 24,1996 "Contemporary Problems in Sci Jobs" (=CPSJ) essays: | | a 2nd Edition of CPSJ is available with conditional unrestricted | | royalty-free reproduction rights. Earlier versions of | | the "Contemporary Problems in Science Jobs" essays may be found at: | | http://www.mbb.yale.edu/acb/ | | http://chemistry.com/ (dig around) | | http://his.com/~graeme/cpsj.html and ***/cpsj2.html | | http://www.access.digex.net/~arthures/homepage.htm (my WWW site) | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | (rev Oct 12,'96) Some Net resources on PhD careers & job market: | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | Nat Acad study on where PhDs eventually go: | | http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/grad/ | | " " / " / " / " /appendixc.html | | Goodstein Report: http://www.caltech.edu/~goodstein | | Nasty politics: htttp://his.com/~graeme/pandp.html | | "The Scientist"- newspaper about scientist careers: | | http://www.the-scientist.library.upenn.edu | | gopher://ds.internic.net/11/pub/the-scientist (txt, partials) | | AAAS (the situation of postdocs): | | http://www.edoc.com/nextwave/forums_postdoc/ | | AAUP Listserver: majordomo@igc.apc.org - leave sub=blank - | | put in text of message: subscribe aaup-general | | AAUP email address: aaup@igc.apc.org | | Other scientist employment resource info can be found at: | | http://his.com/~graeme/employ.html (best I've seen yet) | | http://saa49.ucsf.edu/psa/ | | YSN website is at: http://www.physics.uiuc.edu/ (hunt around) | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | the following list of website URIs need the "http://" URL prefix | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | From Wall St. Journal (Sept 20,1996, p.B1) article on Net job hunting | | America's Job Bank: www.ajd.dni.us | | CareerPath: www.careerpath.com | | Online Career Center: www.occ.com | | CareerMosaic: www.careermosaic.com | | Help Wanted USA: iccweb.com (not a typo) | | Monster Board: www.monster.com | | E-Span: www.espan.com | | Career Magazine: www.careermag.com | | Career City: www.careercity.com | | NationJob Net: www.nationjob.com | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | (revised Oct 15, 1996) OTHER RELATED Website URIs: | | NES (very mild) pegasus.uthct.edu/nes.html | | Top Job www.topjobusa.com | | Fisk Book www.agu.org/careerguide (go for links) | | Career CD-ROM www.careertoolbox.com (sponsor: ChavisRegal)| | KellyScientific www.kellyservices.com | | Space Jobs www.spacejobs.com | -------------------------------------------------------------------------Return to Top
In articleReturn to Top, "Arthur E. Sowers" wrote: >On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Dave Jensen wrote: > >> In the meanwhile, see the AAAS Next Wave section for our further thoughts >> on career development in the sciences, > >Yeah, go see that for the real life, true stories of all the woes of all >the postdocs looking for jobs. The URL is in my information box below (at >AAAS-the situation of postdocs, I read a lot of them myself. Not too many >happy stories). Art - I mentioned that site because I was selected to be in the AAAS Next Wave section with an essay and discussion group. My guess is that the AAAS Next Wave URL will disappear from your 52-line "sig" box when my opinions get printed there . . . The rest of your post I will ignore, because I have just discovered recently how silly your flames look when they stand alone without reinforcement from me! Regards, Dave
U.S. programs that allow entry to tens of thousands of permanent and temporary foreign workers fail to protect U.S workers' jobs or wages and are riddled with abuses that in many cases have made their original intent a ''sham,'' according to an audit by the Labor Department's inspector general.Return to TopThe audit, a draft summary of which was obtained by the Washington Post, found that employers routinely flout requirements to search for U.S. workers for job openings and to pay the prevailing wage to the foreigners they hire. The inspector general's office, an ''independent agency'' within the Labor Department, decides autonomously which programs to audit, a departmentofficial said.
'Unique' skills
''The inspector general's report confirms what we've been saying for years,'' said Labor Secretary Robert Reich. In particular, a program that allows annual admissions of up to 65,000 foreign workers with ''unique'' skills under temporary H1B visas ''doesn't work,'' he said.
Employers strongly defend the H1B program and a category ofemployment-based permanent immigration that makes available up to 140,000 immigrant visas for foreign workers and their families.
Businesses and immigration advocates say the programs help supply U.S. high-tech firms and other businesses with the world's ''best and the brightest'' in an increasingly competitive global economy and that U.S. workers are protected by existing rules. Among them are Labor Department requirements that employers search for qualified U.S. workers before sponsoring foreign workers as permanent immigrants and pay ''prevailing wages'' to foreign temporary workers.
'Shopping' services
The inspector general's report said, however, ''the foreign labor programs we audited do not protect U.S. workers' jobs or wages from foreign labor because neither program meets its legislative intent.''
The program for certifying permanent employment-based immigrants instead allows foreigners already in the United States to obtain permanent resident status ''and then shop their services in competition with equally or more qualified U.S. workers without regard to prevailing wage,'' the report said.
The H1B program, it said, largely ''serves as a probationary try-out employment program for illegal aliens, foreign students and foreign visitors to determine if they will be sponsored for permanent status.''
'Sham' tests
Of 24,150 foreigners for whom employers in 12 states applied for immigrant status during fiscal 1993, the audit found, 98.7 percent were already in the United States and 74.1 percent were already working for the employer when the application was filed. Of those already employed, 16.4 percent were working illegally, it found.
Market tests for qualified U.S. workers are ''perfunctory at best and a sham at worst,'' the report said.
Advertisements or postings for those 24,150 jobs as required by the Labor Department resulted in 165,000 applicants, but in more than 99 percent of the cases a U.S. worker was not hired, the audit found. This was because the employers were simply posting the jobs to meet the requirement, a department spokesman said.
The audit, begun in April 1995, also showed that few of the employers surveyed could prove that they paid their H1B workers the prevailing wage. The auditors reported that nearly 75 percent of H1B visa holders worked for employers ''who did not adequately document'' their wages, that nearly 13 percent ''were paid below the advertised prevailing wage and that 10 percentwere either illegally treated as independent contractors to avoid payroll and administrative costs or contracted out to other employers.
Firm denials
To preserve the current system, employers have spearheaded a campaign tostrip provisions on legal immigration from bills in Congress to reformimmigration laws.
The San Jose Mercury News archives are stored on a SAVE (tm) newspaper library system from Vu/Text Library Services, a Knight-Ridder Inc. company.
U.S. programs that allow entry to tens of thousands of permanent and temporary foreign workers fail to protect U.S workers' jobs or wages and are riddled with abuses that in many cases have made their original intent a ''sham,'' according to an audit by the Labor Department's inspector general.Return to TopThe audit, a draft summary of which was obtained by the Washington Post, found that employers routinely flout requirements to search for U.S. workers for job openings and to pay the prevailing wage to the foreigners they hire. The inspector general's office, an ''independent agency'' within the Labor Department, decides autonomously which programs to audit, a departmentofficial said.
'Unique' skills
''The inspector general's report confirms what we've been saying for years,'' said Labor Secretary Robert Reich. In particular, a program that allows annual admissions of up to 65,000 foreign workers with ''unique'' skills under temporary H1B visas ''doesn't work,'' he said.
Employers strongly defend the H1B program and a category ofemployment-based permanent immigration that makes available up to 140,000 immigrant visas for foreign workers and their families.
Businesses and immigration advocates say the programs help supply U.S. high-tech firms and other businesses with the world's ''best and the brightest'' in an increasingly competitive global economy and that U.S. workers are protected by existing rules. Among them are Labor Department requirements that employers search for qualified U.S. workers before sponsoring foreign workers as permanent immigrants and pay ''prevailing wages'' to foreign temporary workers.
'Shopping' services
The inspector general's report said, however, ''the foreign labor programs we audited do not protect U.S. workers' jobs or wages from foreign labor because neither program meets its legislative intent.''
The program for certifying permanent employment-based immigrants instead allows foreigners already in the United States to obtain permanent resident status ''and then shop their services in competition with equally or more qualified U.S. workers without regard to prevailing wage,'' the report said.
The H1B program, it said, largely ''serves as a probationary try-out employment program for illegal aliens, foreign students and foreign visitors to determine if they will be sponsored for permanent status.''
'Sham' tests
Of 24,150 foreigners for whom employers in 12 states applied for immigrant status during fiscal 1993, the audit found, 98.7 percent were already in the United States and 74.1 percent were already working for the employer when the application was filed. Of those already employed, 16.4 percent were working illegally, it found.
Market tests for qualified U.S. workers are ''perfunctory at best and a sham at worst,'' the report said.
Advertisements or postings for those 24,150 jobs as required by the Labor Department resulted in 165,000 applicants, but in more than 99 percent of the cases a U.S. worker was not hired, the audit found. This was because the employers were simply posting the jobs to meet the requirement, a department spokesman said.
The audit, begun in April 1995, also showed that few of the employers surveyed could prove that they paid their H1B workers the prevailing wage. The auditors reported that nearly 75 percent of H1B visa holders worked for employers ''who did not adequately document'' their wages, that nearly 13 percent ''were paid below the advertised prevailing wage and that 10 percentwere either illegally treated as independent contractors to avoid payroll and administrative costs or contracted out to other employers.
Firm denials
To preserve the current system, employers have spearheaded a campaign tostrip provisions on legal immigration from bills in Congress to reformimmigration laws.
The San Jose Mercury News archives are stored on a SAVE (tm) newspaper library system from Vu/Text Library Services, a Knight-Ridder Inc. company.
Critics who advocate tighter controls on immigration argue that such figures illustrate how immigrants are snatching jobs from Americans.Return to Top''Many Silicon Valley high-tech immigrants displace American workers and are just average workers,'' said Yeh Ling-Ling, a Chinese immigrant and founder of the Diversity Coalition For An Immigration Moratorium, which is pushing for a five-year moratorium on legal immigration with a ceiling of 100,000 a year. ''We have an over-supply of labor. We don't need more workers from elsewhere.''
Norman Matloff, professor of computer science at the University of California, Davis, who has researched the impact of immigrants on the computer industry, also believes that employers favor immigrants for their cheap labor, not their skills.
He pointed to 1990 Census data that shows average salaries for foreign-born computer professionals in Silicon Valley were nearly $7,000 lower than for natives of the same age and education level.
But CEOs maintain that when they seek the best people for key jobs, the most qualified often are immigrants. Although wage levels may not be a critical issue for blue-collar-type jobs such as assembly-line positions, companies must offer competitive wages for engineers, whether they are immigrants or native-born, Hing said. Wage information is reviewed by the state Employment Development Department and the U.S. Department of Labor.
At Santa-Clara-based Intel Corp., the world's largest semiconductor manufacturer, headed by Hungarian immigrant Andy Grove, about 20 percent of the engineers are Chinese immigrants, according to the report. One hundred of the 300 engineers with advanced degrees hired by Intel during the first half of 1995 were on visas, according to company spokesman Tom Waldrop.
In article <54lntb$t6t@oden.abc.se>, Tommy AnderbergReturn to Topwrote: >James R McCown (jmccown@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote: >: In article <54g7j4$8jp@oden.abc.se>, Tommy Anderberg wrote: > >: > Everybody in the lowest >: >income decile in the US could argually be considered unemployed, since such >: >incomes are impossible to live on (and aren't allowed in Europe, where thos e >: >people WOULD indeed be officially unemployed). > >: Yeah, they WOULD be officially unemployed because they wouldn't be working. >; If >: you adjust for a few other things, such as the higher tax rates and higher >: costs of living in Europe, you will find that the people in the lowest decil >: in the US fare rather well in comparison. > >This is nonsense. Please get SOME facts straight before posting! Perhaps you should look up some facts concerning tax rates in Sweden vs. the US and also the cost of living in the two countries. > >: It is much better to have people working, producing goods and services for >: society and devloping job skills than to have them unemployed and on the pub lic >: dole. Many of the lower income people in the US can and do improve their >: circumstances through hard work. > >You are missing the point. The point is that one way or another, these >people are NOT supporting themselves. Whether it's through the dole or >through relatives or through crime, they still are a structural problem both >in the European economies and in the US economy. THAT is the point: in spite >of different approaches, you still don't really need 100% of the workforce, >even now. > >: Many of the European countries, especially Sweden, are at a dangerous >: crossroads. Argentina used to have a standard of living comparable to that o >: the USA or Western Europe, then they instituted many of the policies that ar >: taking effect in Europe today, and they now get to enjoy the fruits of livin >: in a third world country. > >I am afraid that you do not know what you are talking about. And I am VERY >sorry to see you trying to turn this into a political debate, when the point >was one about STRUCTURAL features common to all industrial countries. It is you who do not know what you are talking about, because it is not a structural problem but a political phenomenon. >: >As for how reasonable it is to assume that growth could continue with only >: >1/3 or 1/4 of the work force actually working, consider what the vast >: >majority of people DO for a living: repetitive, non-creative jobs which >: >could be done by machines NOW if we really wanted that. Will computers and >: >robots have become so cheap in 15-25 years that the advantages of letting >: >them replace people in these jobs will be compelling? Well, it doesn't seem >: >unreasonable! > >: It seems very unreasonable. Sure, you can build a machine to dig a ditch, bu >: where should the ditch go, how deep and how wide it should be, etc, are >: questions that it can't answer. > >That takes one person. Not the crew of construction workers which you can >see digging the thing (5-10 of them?). I said 1/3-1/4, not 0. May I suggest >that you read up a bit on e.g. Rifkin? May I suggest that you try reading up on some more serious work rather than Rifkin? >: Artificial intelligence technology is nowhere >: near providing replacements for 2/3 to 3/4 of the work force. > >Neither artificial nor any other form of intelligence is required to replace >2/3 to 3/4 of the work force. > >Allow me a simple question: have you ever had a "real job", i.e. not >studying or teaching or doing research or development work? > Yes, Tommy. I worked in the real estate and cellular telephone industries. These were "real" jobs. It is you who seem naive and out of touch.
In article <54lq5f$st@oden.abc.se>, Tommy AnderbergReturn to Topwrote: >James R McCown (jmccown@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote: >: In article <54g5rd$8c6@oden.abc.se>, Tommy Anderberg wrote: >: >James R McCown (jmccown@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote: >: >: I think it's your fever. I don't know who Rifkin is, but do you really th >: >Look him up. He is anything but unknown. Heard of "The End of Work"? > >: No I haven't heard of it. After having read Ravi Batra's "The Great Depressi >: of 1990", I decided that there aren't enough hours in a day to waste on ever >: crackpot who wants to write some nonsense. > >I don't like your tone. You seem to be upset about something, and determined >to turn this into a fight. You are now calling somebody unknown to you >(remarkably, I may add) a "crackpot". The rest of your post goes on in the >same style, as did the previous one. You don't like my tone? Too bad! You say that Rifkin claims that the current level of output of goods and services in the industrialized countries can be met with only 1/3 to 1/4 of the available work force employed, and that this will happen by 2010 or 2020. I say he is a crackpot because that is totally ludicrous. >I don't want a fight. I want to discuss a thought which I brought in here as >something I stumbled upon, no more "in love" with it than anybody else. As >you seem bent on derailing this thread into something entirely different, >I will not respond to more posts from you here. If you want a fight over the >causes of unemployment and social policies take it elsewhere. You can dish it out, but you can't take it!
In article <54ud93$1b1@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jmccown@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James R McCown) wrote: > In article <54lq5f$st@oden.abc.se>, Tommy AnderbergReturn to Topwrote: > >James R McCown (jmccown@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote: > >: In article <54g5rd$8c6@oden.abc.se>, Tommy Anderberg wrote: > >: >James R McCown (jmccown@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote: > >: >: I think it's your fever. I don't know who Rifkin is, but do you really th > >: >Look him up. He is anything but unknown. Heard of "The End of Work"? > > > >: No I haven't heard of it. After having read Ravi Batra's "The Great Depressi > >: of 1990", I decided that there aren't enough hours in a day to waste on ever > >: crackpot who wants to write some nonsense. > > > >I don't like your tone. You seem to be upset about something, and determined > >to turn this into a fight. You are now calling somebody unknown to you > >(remarkably, I may add) a "crackpot". The rest of your post goes on in the > >same style, as did the previous one. > > You don't like my tone? Too bad! > > You say that Rifkin claims that the current level of output of goods and > services in the industrialized countries can be met with only 1/3 to 1/4 of the > available work force employed, and that this will happen by 2010 or 2020. I say > he is a crackpot because that is totally ludicrous. > > >I don't want a fight. I want to discuss a thought which I brought in here as > >something I stumbled upon, no more "in love" with it than anybody else. As > >you seem bent on derailing this thread into something entirely different, > >I will not respond to more posts from you here. If you want a fight over the > >causes of unemployment and social policies take it elsewhere. > > You can dish it out, but you can't take it! It does seem to me you are itching for a fight. Here is a very partial listing of publications by Jeremy Rifkin. Look them up or ignore them. Your choice. Since Anderberg isn't going to respond to you, and I am not either, I hope you will refrain from further verbal fisticuffs. -Troy ALGENY <1984> BEYOND BEEF <1994> DECLARATION OF A HERETIC <1985> EMERGING ORDER <1979> EMERGING ORDER <1979> END OF WORK <1995> ENTROPY <1980> ENTROPY <1980> NORTH WILL RISE AGAIN <1978> OWN YOUR OWN JOB <1977> TIME WARS <1987> VOTING GREEN <1992>
On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Dave Jensen wrote: > In articleReturn to Top, > "Arthur E. Sowers" wrote: > > >On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Dave Jensen wrote: > > > >> In the meanwhile, see the AAAS Next Wave section for our further thoughts > >> on career development in the sciences, > > > >Yeah, go see that for the real life, true stories of all the woes of all > >the postdocs looking for jobs. The URL is in my information box below (at > >AAAS-the situation of postdocs, I read a lot of them myself. Not too many > >happy stories). > > > Art - I mentioned that site because I was selected to be in the AAAS Next > Wave section with an essay and discussion group. Obviously as a result of self-promotion. > My guess is that the AAAS > Next Wave URL will disappear from your 52-line "sig" box when my opinions > get printed there . . . Oh, please tell me when your opinions get posted there. I'll have a look. The next wave URL will disappear if the AAAS decides to take that material off of their website. NAS moved their report without notice and I had to look around to find it. This is a real bad thing about the WWW; unlike printed material in an old fashioned library, the producers of information can be revisionists at any moment. My what you call '"sig" box' is a file that I can call up with about two keystrokes and saves me a lot of time looking up reference material. It really is not a '"sig" box' at all. I have said that before many times, too, but you keep refering to it, as if you don't learn anything, repreatedly over and over and over. Oh, and your claim that when your "opinions get printed there" this is supposed to cure the worlds problems? I doubt it. > The rest of your post I will ignore, because I have just discovered > recently how silly your flames look when they stand alone without > reinforcement from me! How did you discover that? You can call them flames if you want. I feel quite calm about all of this. You repeat your story, I repeat my criticisms. What's the big deal? Now if you would like to work towards a "consensus" statement, or the like, thats fine with me, too. Otherwise, you should provide better references, information sources, and documentation for your claims. > Regards, > > Dave > > Regards, Art
I am in a rather unique (at least in my experience) situation career-wise. I received my Ph.D. in 1990 (from MIT) at age 31. I had worked for 4 years after BS/MS (also MIT), then went back to school. After working in applied R&D; for 5 years, I was laid off. Because of my work, my family was forced to move frequently (5 states in 10 years), but have been able to stay put here in Boulder, Colorado for the last 5+ years. Now my kids are in high school, and I am very reluctant to move again, and would prefer to stay in Boulder. I have had little luck finding employment in the immediate area, and cannot currently support my family on the meager consulting I have been able to scrape up. I am thinking seriously that an academic career would allow me to stay in the area, continue in research, and feed my family. So, I am asking for advice as to how to pursue an academic search, targeting a single institution: University of Colorado at Boulder. A research faculty position would be preferred, but teaching would not be out of the question. Any suggestions would be welcomed. How to make contacts. How to put together a C.V. How to get funded for a research position. etc. Thanks. Dr. James B. Schutz Materials Engineer Boulder, ColoradoReturn to Top
On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Dave Jensen wrote: > In articleReturn to Top, > "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". I knew the 20 questions before you did. For years. > It > was because these folks are NOT TAUGHT about the way the world works. Now you know why there is a PhD glut. From the roughly two years I've been on this newsgroup and could sample the stories from all over the country, not just my little niche, a very large fraction of graduate students and postdocs 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. I agree, 200%. > ALL of my fellow panelists were surprised at the > basic information on job seeking that is needed out there. But its sortof funny that about ten years ago, the "what color is your parachute" line of thinking got started and then is when lots of books started coming out on this subject! > >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. Well, my site is a book online, too. But I give references AND lists of other useful URLs. > >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. I don't have to cite your website, you do that for yourself and you have plenty of business. Besides, I have seen your website cited among many other website references (and external links) on still other websites. > >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. That sounds reasonable... a repeat customer. > 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. Alright, I was wrong. You don't LOVE the attention I give you. > And I think your posts have now gone over the top. Well, several of my "cronies" as you would refer to them, don't. > >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. So, what's your beef? Sounds like we're in agreement here, too. > >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! OK. ... whatever. > 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. You mean I'm not supposed to wonder if there might be a connection? You know, the Wall Street Journal has articles on what effect it has when a lot of "family members" are present. Would you like me to go look over on our coffee table and give you the date and page? Archer-Daniels-Midland just got dunned for $100 million for price fixing. It came out in the press that there were a large number of relatives & friends in high offices in that company. You and I didn't miss the few pennies out of our pockets, but they sure added up when economies of scale are involved. Yes, cartels, monopolies, and a whole list of other illegal activities ARE out there in some fraction of the real world and the sooner I can learn about it, the sooner I can try to figure out if I can avoid the scam. I also like to learn about the other fraction of the real world that has scruples. I like to give them my business. > 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. So then I take it that you are really not related. Well, thanks, and now we know. > 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 for him. I'm sick of the "usual" career track (and even more sick of the politics involved) and I am starting an entrepreneurial business, too. Actually, its already started (more on that later). > > Good luck to you Art, and keep the flames comin'. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What'd you say there? It sounds like "keep the flames comin'"?!*@??? I recall reading from several of your comments in other posts, and from a couple dozen lines above, that you really wish I would quit "flaming" you. > Dave > > Art (have a nice day!)
On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Wayne S. Pelouch, PhD wrote: ...much deleted.. > > ############################################################################ > ### 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. That's exactly what I am referring to, Wayne. > ############################################################################ > ### 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. Well, its really not a sig file. It does not appear automatically. And, it does not get added to all of my posts. Only when I use a keystroke combination. It also does not have the usual references and some "saying" that most sig files have. It is a URL resource list. > > > 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! This is also the core of our disagreements. What is worse, particularly from the academic world, is that the job environment is getting worse because institutions are retreating from tenure commitments to faculty. You spend your whole life dedicated to something, and you lose your grant and your career gets vaporized, permanently. In industry I have the notion that those with certain commercially-relevant skills will be able to more easily get new jobs if they get downsized or run into political troubles. > ### Now, can't we all be friends ;^) ? While my ongoing debates with Dave are surely tiresome for some fraction of SRC readers, I think they do serve some purposes. New people continue to come to SRC with problems, questions, and frustrations. I think they benefit from hearing these discussions/debates. Sure, the people who have been on SRC for a longer time will get tired of hearing the old tunes. Sure, some get tired of hearing the "broken record," but then, I'm not interested in seeing job listings and CV listings (and a few other things). But those people either need an employee, or a job and I'm not going to complain about that. If anything, my message (and essays), are geared to nudge people into the industry direction. Not because the jobs are so great, but because getting into those job environments (and getting real and relevant "experience" on one's CV) is important for improving one's lateral mobility. If anything, I'm actually helping to push people toward Dave's kind of world. But he doesn't give me a whole lot of credit for that. I use PINE as my newsreader and its easy to see the author and subject and because of that, I can easily skip posts that I am either not interested in or just don't like. Most of the time Dave and I are debating (he often calls my arguments flames) I think you can tell from the subject line. Those who are seeing that new information is no longer entering the debates are free to tab down past our material and find something else that interests them. You can't tell from my open posts (or Dave's responses), but they do attract high quality private email that falls into two categories: i) those who appreciate what I have contributed, and ii) those with serious problem situations in their career development (usually grad students or postdocs with a bad supervisor). I've had this happen to me so I know what its like. Its terrible. So, I spend quite a bit of time trying to help people, one-on-one, with suggestions/ideas/hints/evaluations etc. Very difficult career situations are very difficult to get out of without at least blisters and at worst, careers can get involuntarily and permanently terminated. As I think back, too, its not that uncommmon, either. There are some people who just breeze through life without a snag; I've found that since they have no personal experience with snags, they have no reference point by which to understand those people that do have had snags or are in one at the moment. And while I am very concerned with the job market problems, I am more concerned with that small fraction of folks who are in these very difficult situations. Most of the time its not their fault. Most of the time there is injustice. And, most of the time there is little or no recourse. Many feel trapped/frustrated/mad. Thank you for your patience and interest. Art SowersReturn to Top
I should have clarified my comments about technical sales or marketing jobs. I was referring to entry level jobs, right after the PhD. After one has been working for a few years it is certainly possible to move into marketing and sales and I know several people that have done it. Andrew C. KolbertReturn to Top
rodan_@primenet.com wrote: > > Critics who advocate tighter controls on immigration argue that such > ... [erased ...] And how about you, are you Native American (American Indian)? I believe not. So how the hell an immigrant like you is avocating such a hatered message on the net. BBReturn to Top
Tommy Anderberg wrote: > > P.S. I am (as usual) not interested in a "US vs. Europe" debate, but if you > look at HOW unemplyment figures are computed on both sides of the Atlantic, > you will see that computing American unemployment the European way will > result in European figures. Just counting in the huge American prison > population adds 2% to the (unemployed) work force. Everybody in the lowest > income decile in the US could argually be considered unemployed, since such > incomes are impossible to live on (and aren't allowed in Europe, where those > people WOULD indeed be officially unemployed). 2% of the current US population (270 million) would be about 5 million. In fact only(?!) about 1 million are in prisons. > > As for how reasonable it is to assume that growth could continue with only > 1/3 or 1/4 of the work force actually working, consider what the vast > majority of people DO for a living: repetitive, non-creative jobs which > could be done by machines NOW if we really wanted that. Will computers and > robots have become so cheap in 15-25 years that the advantages of letting > them replace people in these jobs will be compelling? Well, it doesn't seem > unreasonable! Hmm. I've read enough of Rifkin's "End of Work" and know enough about the current state of robotics to see that Rifkin has no idea how long it'll be before automation is widespread. I think there is little chance that we'll see automated ditchdiggers or automated bathroom cleaners in our lifetimes (let's say, 50 years). The problems inherent in integrating computer vision, task planning, and compensating for simple unexpected obstacles makes day-to- day robotic presences a minor influence on the job market for a long time yet. As to whether we will see employment rates fall as high-tech `info-tools' of all kinds make an increasing number of people non-essential... maybe. I think the growth (in the 1st/2nd world) in the need for knowledge workers, and the inability of the average high-school graduate to do such work, will make the employment of many americans/europeans problemmatic in the next 20 years. Perhaps some of this could be resolved by adopting a 4 day work week, but with the growth in people's expectations an the ever-accellerating pace of life, I think it's unlikely that anyone working 32 hours (even at 40 hours' pay) will not then seek to fill those free 8 hours with additional income- generating endeavors. Does it seem likely that as we become increasingly underemployed that our nations will spend more money on R&D;? No. I can't see why they would. Rather they will feel increasing pressure to cut R&D; spending in that R&D; is notorious for it's modest return on investment (as compared to conventional production or `knocking-off' the competition (as Microsoft has demonstrated so well)). Likewise, we will see more emphasis on the applied than the theoretical. Perhaps there will be a rise in education employment opportunities however. That market is bound to grow as more folks need to be retrained and reretrained. However, I doubt that university research will benefit much. The growth is likely to take place mostly at the semi-skilled Java/GUI/database programming levels, or at system administration jobs, rather than PhD levels. These teachers will likely be part-time profs. And I suspect universities will drop tenure in the next few years too. It's as expensive for a university to keep tenured profs as it is a corporation to keep full-benefitted employees. The trend has been away from the latter. I bet the former will follow suit soon. -- Randy crawford@mrj.comReturn to Top