« previous   misc   next »

Enough on scientist threads, don't go into science if you're not already rich


By Rin   Follow   Wed, 11 Sep 2013, 8:06am PDT   3,407 views   85 comments   Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

Ok, we've seen threads on the NSA (or some school admin) suppressing a Hopkin's professor's writings, another on federal research grant cutbacks and then, more threads on continuous STEM shortages.

Enough all ready! it's time to explore the truth.

If you are financially independent then sure, please do scientific research. Otherwise, forget about it; get a regular business-type of job/career and move on with life.

The following is a documentary of a bunch of Trustafarians and their guild-ed lifestyles.

The above are the ones who can do research, otherwise, be ready to join the underclasses.

Here's that clarion call ... "Calling all Trustafarians, become a scientist. Make use of that inheritance and do something for the greater humanity. Your ancestors already banked the billions & you can afford to fly to the Bahamas for the weekend to cool off, if re-running failed experiments starts to get to you. Don't be another party animal in the Hamptons. Leave that to the Nouveau Riche, like a Jay-Z or a Mark Cuban; you've got a higher purpose like being the next Darwin or Maxwell"

« First     « Previous     Comments 46-85 of 85     Last »

JH   befriend   ignore   Thu, 12 Sep 2013, 3:43am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 46

Rin says

Rin says

as *Euro chic* (can't come up with a moniker for this notion), by the elites around the world

Think of Aristotle, Goethe, and their likes. The rich ppl around the world have a sense of admiration for them, provided that they're not in the mud with some peasant folks.

Admiration equals money only in Hollywood

freak80   befriend   ignore   Thu, 12 Sep 2013, 3:46am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 47

JH says

In the lab

Weird Science! Actually making a girl...

Rin   befriend   ignore   Thu, 12 Sep 2013, 4:46am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 48

freak80 says

Weird Science! Actually making a girl...

This guy up in Canada is attempting to do that with actuators and software ...

http://projectaiko.com

freak80   befriend   ignore   Thu, 12 Sep 2013, 4:47am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 49

Rin says

This guy up in Canada is attempting to do that with actuators and software ...

Wasn't there a recent Patnet thread about s*x robots?

Rin   befriend   ignore   Thu, 12 Sep 2013, 8:26am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 50

Even IEEE is speaking the truth ...

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth

Rin   befriend   ignore   Thu, 12 Sep 2013, 10:32am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 51

And the doubts continue ...

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-truth-about-the-stem-shortage-that-americans-dont-want-to-hear-2013-5

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100674327

B.A.C.A.H.   befriend   ignore   Thu, 12 Sep 2013, 11:05am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (3)   Dislike     Comment 52

Rin says

changing terms like surface chemistry to nano-catalysis, doesn't make someone hot.

I'll never forget some non-technical techie I met in the shuttle van to the SF on his way to a Nano-Technology Investor Conference in Singapore. Knowing full well the hype and b*lls*t (as a matter of fact I was on my way to an Asian foundry that had recently rebranded itself as a nanotechnology manufacturing center, and was midst of a management edict to convert the units from microns or Angstroms into nm).
He gave me some schpeil on What Is Nanotechnology. I let on like I didn't understand so he offered to explain with examples.
After he did that, I told him, "oh, you mean surface chemistry."

He sure didnt like that and he spent much of the rest of the drive to SF airport making sure that me and the others in the van knew that surface chemistry is NOT NanoTechnology

Rin   befriend   ignore   Thu, 12 Sep 2013, 12:53pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 53

B.A.C.A.H. says

He sure didnt like that and he spent much of the rest of the drive to SF airport making sure that me and the others in the van knew that surface chemistry is NOT NanoTechnology

A long time ago, I was on that van in SF airport and I heard something similar. I think it was a Texan (his accent gave that away), arguing that nano was not the same olde same olde, as back in some Petroleum Eng program in [ Houston/UT-Austin/Rice/Texas A&M ], can't remember the specifics, however. I was beginning to wonder if there was something off about Silicon Valley types or the area in general.

Rin   befriend   ignore   Sat, 14 Sep 2013, 7:30am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (3)   Dislike     Comment 54

I'd graduated from college, well over a dozen years ago. I had two summer internships/CO-OPs and an undergrad publication in an inorganic journal. My major was Applied Chemistry/Chemical Engineering. Only the folks who had the aforementioned resume items, along with the cum laude to magna cum laude GPAs, got 2nd interviews at R&D facilities. Others got flat rejection notices, even if they had the grades.

Thus, half of a particular STEM major class may never find work in their chosen area, either without connections [ like knowing someone in the sales engineering office ] or having the right color parachute which means a string of accolades/CO-OPs, long before graduation day. The other option was the US Patent & Trademark office or the Navy Nuclear program, which didn't require too many over achievements to get in the door. The Navy Nukes, however, had a huge attrition rate, during their weeding out process.

Even back then, getting into R&D was tough.

Today, once again, we're hearing the same olde tired mantra, "STEM shortage", "STEM shortage" but the same story holds. The difference this time is that the number of internships have actually dwindled, due to the excess in offshoring stateside work in QA, R&D support, and therefore, it's even less likely for a solid graduate to end up in R&D.

With the above in mind, the best thing a person could do is to either get into a combined BS-PharmD program, straight out of high school, or transfer, after sophomore year in college. And then afterwards, while working part-time at a pharmacy, take some courses to get a masters in chemical engineering, if he's interested in potentially looking at some industrial placement later on in his career. I knew someone who'd followed this path and he's earning a nice solid low six figure salary at a pharmacy and has no worries of a lay off. He proudly shows off his MS in Chemical Engineering to *ssholes like myself, whenever we get too proud of our STEM training. He's earned that right, as he never bought into the philosophy that STEM is some Red Badge of Courage. For him, it's just another quantitative degree.

Rin   befriend   ignore   Sun, 15 Sep 2013, 3:36am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 55

http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2701

The above commentary mentions the NSF lie:

'after the National Science Foundation (NSF) warned of imminent shortages of scientists. Eventually, the NSF’s predictions turned out to be so off-base that the agency was subjected to an investigation by a House subcommittee in 1995, during which NSF director Neal Lane flatly stated, “there really was no basis to predict a shortage,” according to Teitelbaum and Benderly. (Lane was not involved with the NSF at the time of shortage prediction)'

New Renter   befriend   ignore   Sun, 15 Sep 2013, 8:28am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 56

This one was written in 1998:

http://users.nber.org/~peat/PapersFolder/Papers/SG/NSF.html

The more things change... Wait, they don't change

theoakman   befriend   ignore   Sun, 15 Sep 2013, 8:59am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (3)   Dislike     Comment 57

There's no money in science. I left Chemistry after graduate school only to find that I would end up making more as a public school teacher. I find the people that end up making the most money with their science degrees are more busy parading around and marketing themselves rather than actually performing science.

I've watched one woman in particular, her graduate student made a slightly useful polymer by accident when she was 31. Nothing groundbreaking, but it was a little profitable. 14 years later, she's still giving the same talk and its old news. Her MO hype up her work like its going to change everyone's life (which is pure BS). Not only was she promoted to Dean, but her marketing of herself has earned her consulting gigs with just about every single major industrial company. Anyone who's taken her class or been in a meeting with her knows that her understanding of science is akin to a Freshman with a B+ average in the subject.

This was just the tip of the iceberg. I had to get out with my dignity.

Rin   befriend   ignore   Sun, 15 Sep 2013, 10:07am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 58

theoakman says

I find the people that end up making the most money with their science degrees are more busy parading around and marketing themselves rather than actually performing science

Finally, the truth comes out!!!

Freak80, New Renter ... this the real deal about S&E nowadays.

Rin   befriend   ignore   Mon, 16 Sep 2013, 1:24am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 59

theoakman says

This was just the tip of the iceberg. I had to get out with my dignity.

Just to add some fuel to the fire, here's an interesting article on fraud in scientific work ...

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/nov/02/scientific-fraud-good-science

Excerpt: "As Chris Chambers and Petroc Sumner point out, the reasons are numerous and interconnecting:

• Pressure to publish in "high impact" journals, at all research career levels;
• Universities treat successful grant applications as outputs, upon which continued careers depend;
• Statistical analyses are hard, and sometimes researchers get it wrong;
• Journals favour positive results over null findings, even though null findings from a well conducted study are just as informative;
• The way journal articles are assessed is inconsistent and secretive, and allows statistical errors to creep through.

Problems occur at all levels in the system, and we need to stop stubbornly arguing that "it's not that bad" or that talking about it somehow damages science. The damage has already been done – now we need to start fixing it."

Again, what this implies is that if you don't have the money, don't do science. Science is for the independently wealthy.

freak80   befriend   ignore   Mon, 16 Sep 2013, 1:42am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 60

Rin says

Again, what this implies is that if you don't have the money, don't do science. Science is for the independently wealthy.

Unfortunately, it's been that way through most of history, right?

Rin   befriend   ignore   Mon, 16 Sep 2013, 1:49am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 61

freak80 says

Rin says

Again, what this implies is that if you don't have the money, don't do science. Science is for the independently wealthy.

It's been that way through most of history, right?

In the 1700s/1800s, it was widely known that everyone was either in a trade (craftsman) or a business (merchant). Thus, Maxwell and Darwin were the original trustafarian dynamic duo scientists of the modern age.

Then, in the mid-20th century, there was this false idea that science was a middle class profession. In reality, it was tutelage system of middle classers, begging the govt for funding, to do non-compensatory work. And then, the govt stopped being a collective noblemen for those starving artists and then, we de-evolved into the world of the showman scientists and the league of deception and fraud.

We need to go back to the age of the rich, nobleman as a scientist, and rid this profession from the scourge of middle class aspirations.

freak80   befriend   ignore   Mon, 16 Sep 2013, 2:38am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 62

Rin says

We need to go back to the age of the rich, nobleman as a scientist, and rid this profession from the scourge of middle class aspirations.

Not sure if you are being serious there or sarcastic...sorry, Poe's Law...

Rin   befriend   ignore   Mon, 16 Sep 2013, 3:46am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 63

freak80 says

Not sure if you are being serious there or sarcastic...sorry, Poe's Law...

A bit of both, actually.

In a sense, as much as I don't have an intrinsic love for trustafarians, I'm aware that only they can do science, without being a pawn in some grant/institutional/govt shuffle game.

But right now, since the middle class has a foot in the world of research, ppl will develop a type of Stockholm syndrome concerning S&E work, and thus, justify the system currently in place than in wishing for its abolishment.

Therefore, if the middle class declares surrender to S&E work and stops with these feel good Discovery Channel type of Mr Wizard shows, and starts to actively say the S&E is the starving artist of the 21st century, then the field will go back to the landed rich.

Afterwards, cultural backlash against the loss of US innovation and so forth will ignite the subsequent generations to re-think how we do science and come up with a better plan than the system we currently have in place.

freak80   befriend   ignore   Mon, 16 Sep 2013, 3:51am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 64

Rin says

being a pawn in some grant/institutional/govt shuffle game.

That's exactly how I felt when I was in meteorology/climatology. Which is why I got out of it.

Now I do meaningless work that pays well. Nobody dreams of doing what I do for a living, but I have it better than most. Think of all the people in Haiti or some other third-world sh*t hole.

Rin   befriend   ignore   Mon, 16 Sep 2013, 4:16am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 65

freak80 says

Now I do meaningless work that pays well

Yes, both of us are doing meaningless work even though they pay well. As far as thinking about the 3rd world, that ain't enough for me, as we're suppose to a be a 1st world nation and one which cares about S&E work.

And thus, the truth needs to be out there and that's that S&E work doesn't pay. Two, a lot of today's papers are half-truths or lies, and finally, we need the landed rich to come up and take the helm. I mean really, if JD Rockefeller were my great great grandfather, I'd be very vocal and out there in the world of research. And then, given the fact that my grant would be 'The Junior Rockefeller Foundation', I wouldn't exactly be writing applications all the time. This would prove to my family that I was talented and deserving of my billion dollar inheritance as oppose to let's say a certain Conrad Hilton's great grand daughter.

freak80   befriend   ignore   Mon, 16 Sep 2013, 4:37am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 66

Rin says

we're suppose to a be a 1st world nation and one which cares about S&E work.

But half the country believes the world was created in six 24 hour days less than 10,000 years ago. Science is the Devil!

The REAL reason America is so prosperous is because we are God's Chosen Nation (tm). Our prosperity has nothing to do with abundant natural resources, science, or engineering.

Rin   befriend   ignore   Mon, 16 Sep 2013, 4:39am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 67

freak80 says

because we are God's Chosen Nation (tm)

Yeah, that's until one brings up founding fathers: Ben Franklin, Ethan Allen, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson and then the fund-ies change the subject.

BTW, Franklin also decided to do his own independent work, once he achieved financial independence.

curious2   befriend   ignore   Mon, 16 Sep 2013, 4:54am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 68

Rin says

a certain Conrad Hilton's great grand daughter.

She makes millions of dollars annually, unlike most science grads, which says a lot about the priorities of our economy. She may have started out with family help, but doesn't need it anymore.

The Constitution authorizes the federal government to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," though its prescribed mechanism for doing so is to secure intellectual property. Personally I think there should be more public funding in this area, for example the military budget should be re-directed away from fomenting global war and instead towards developing a more sophisticated defense (including vaccines). It used to amaze me that politicians went to such tortuous "logic" to call faraway places threats and spending billions bombing them in the interest of national security, while allowing communicable disease to spread almost unchecked. Now of course I see the game: there is money to be made waging war all over the world, and there is money to be made keeping as many people as possible dependent on the medical industrial complex, and so those are the policy priorities.

freak80   befriend   ignore   Mon, 16 Sep 2013, 5:06am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 69

Rin says

Yeah, that's until one brings up founding fathers: Ben Franklin, Ethan Allen, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson and then the fund-ies change the subject.

Well they claim the founders were all devout Christians, don't they? It's ok to lie if you are lying for Jesus!

Rin   befriend   ignore   Mon, 16 Sep 2013, 5:09am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 70

curious2 says

She makes millions of dollars annually

Sure, I acknowledge that, however, she hasn't exactly made Conrad Hilton's family look all that great. And there's a certain embarrassment in the Hilton family tree that the granddaughter is perceived as a tramp out in public.

In contrast, as Rin Rockefeller, there would be no problems in me attending either David or Jay's family gatherings without getting compliments all day for my brilliance in the sciences. You see, we all know about the exclusive orgies and drug fests in the Hamptons or Bora Bora but these families would like to see more from their offsprings than just fornication.

As for our govt and its priorities, I think Ike said it the best, half a century ago ...

freak80   befriend   ignore   Mon, 16 Sep 2013, 5:25am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 71

How much money do Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Oprah Winfrey, and Deepak Chopra make?

The message is pretty clear: people love B.S. and are willing to pay up for it.

Science? Who cares? That's for nerds.

Rin   befriend   ignore   Mon, 16 Sep 2013, 5:31am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 72

freak80 says

How much money do Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Oprah Winfrey, and Deepak Chopra make?

Those are former middle classers; you can also add in Earl Nightingale & Norman Peale, from earlier times to that list. They had a need to earn money, so for the most part, all they're doing is selling their personalities.

As Rin Rockefeller, my goal is to show to the ghost of JDR, that unlike him, I'm not a robber baron but a great mind and a promoter of the arts and sciences, & also, not just the guy who writes a check, like my dad & uncles, who call themselves philanthropists.

freak80   befriend   ignore   Mon, 16 Sep 2013, 5:45am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 73

Rin says

As Rin Rockefeller, my goal is to show to the ghost of JDR, that unlike him, I'm not a robber baron but a great mind and a promoter of the arts and sciences, & also, not just the guy who writes a check, like my dad & uncles, who call themselves philanthropists.

Sounds like you've got some pretty big shoes to fill. But don't put too much pressure on yourself. :-)