|
0 members (),
230
guests, and
30
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
What do average and mediocre and superstar mean when applied to science? How do you define them? Do you define according to the number of papers people publish, their average journal impact factor score? The number of NIH or NSF grants they get? If you measure by those standards, you define "master craftsman" as the only type of scientist who will be a superstar. There is no room for paradigm-breaking projects in that world. There can't be: breaking the model takes years of s-l-o-w ponderous thought, and there is no time for that approach when you have to publish constantly! and get grants!! or lose your job!!!  Not to mention that those groundbreaking ideas are way too risky for funding anyway. Forget that! You might as well give up. IMO, a lot of our successful scientists (especially in the biological and medical sciences) are doing incremental work that looks safe on grant applications. In a way, this is a natural but disastrous outcome of over-expansion at universities and paylines that fund 10% or less of applicants.
Last edited by Val; 05/21/13 01:45 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
It's a huge problem. I would never recommend an engineering degree over the corresponding science degree. Never. In all seriousness, isn't a B.S. in Electrical Engineering more marketable than a B.S. in, say, Physics? It was my general impression that you basically had to get a Ph.D. in the sciences for it to be good for employability. This list has Electrical Engineering at #5, Physics at #10, with a difference of only 4%: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-57490541/best-paying-jobs-for-bachelors-degree-holders/
Last edited by Dude; 05/21/13 01:52 PM. Reason: more input
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
It was my general impression that you basically had to get a Ph.D. in the sciences for it to be good for employability. In my experience (including observations of many others), it's harder to get a job when you have a Ph.D. This is because there are way more jobs for technicians and research assistants, etc. than there are for group-leader-type or other terminally degreed scientists.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,641 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,641 Likes: 3 |
It was my general impression that you basically had to get a Ph.D. in the sciences for it to be good for employability. In my experience (including observations of many others), it's harder to get a job when you have a Ph.D. This is because there are way more jobs for technicians and research assistants, etc. than there are for group-leader-type or other terminally degreed scientists. Ok, but someone smart enough to earn a PhD is usually not content to be a technician or research assistant for the long term. I think JonLaw was saying, correctly, that one needs a PhD for a scientific career.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
In my experience (including observations of many others), it's harder to get a job when you have a Ph.D. This is because there are way more jobs for technicians and research assistants, etc. than there are for group-leader-type or other terminally degreed scientists. I'll admit that I was thinking of patent law, where the heavier the credential, the better. For example, see: http://www.wkmclaughlin.com/JobRetrieve.aspx?spec=1&emp=2&TZ=0
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
Ok, but someone smart enough to earn a PhD is usually not content to be a technician or research assistant for the long term. I think JonLaw was saying, correctly, that one needs a PhD for a scientific career. Not sure if that's what he meant, but you're mostly correct. People with Ph.D.s won't get hired to be technicians for the most part. But people without them may be promoted to Scientist roles if they have a lot of experience and impress their employers in industry. This pretty much won't happen in the US in academia. My overall point was that there aren't a whole lot of jobs for Ph.D.-level scientists compared to people with lower degrees. When I lived in Ireland, people who did research Master's degrees would typically be employed as "research assistants" in academia. This term was used very differently then over there. It meant "someone who can work independently on a project." RAs there were somewhere between technicians and postdocs. Many of them that I knew ended up writing up their work and getting PhDs anyway. Don't know if that's changed.
Last edited by Val; 05/21/13 02:42 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,691 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,691 Likes: 1 |
And Bostonian, I agree that 7% inflation adjusted might be conservative but tuition increases have been increasing per decade, so I would rather be conservative in college savings account. And there is the impact of foreign universities upping the arms race. There are all these schools in mideast, China and India trying to get on the top 20 list and locals are investing research dollars in them. US schools are going to have a hard time competing with them over the next 10 years, they have very aggressive plans. According to my earlier quote from the College Board, the gap between college price inflation and general inflation for private schools has been DECREASING over the last few decades (but is still positive). Published prices at public four-year institutions rose more
rapidly between 2002-03 and 2012-13 than over either of
the two preceding decades, but the average annual rate
of increase in inflation-adjusted tuition and fees at private
nonprofit four-year institutions declined from 4.6% from
1982-83 to 1992-93, to 3.0% from 1992-93 to 2002-03, and
to 2.4% over the most recent decade. First of all, I did not see that. The graph shows accelerated rates for tuition increases. At least, the graph I saw in your link but and inflation adjusted means the nominal amount is more in range with my 150K. Even still, with your FV of 105,000 approx at 7%. You are at almost 450K for 4 years at a top school in 8 years. The whole point was what outcomes justified the investment in education. And what kind of education. So conceding your numbers, the question still stands. And what the hell is Reed, I never heard of it. Never met anyone who graduated from there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 282
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 282 |
And what the hell is Reed, I never heard of it. Never met anyone who graduated from there. Steve Jobs is the most famous Reed student, and dropout.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,641 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,641 Likes: 3 |
And what the hell is Reed, I never heard of it. Never met anyone who graduated from there. One source of selective college admissions mania is the unwillingness of many students and parents to actually research colleges rather than relying solely on name recognition.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
And what the hell is Reed, I never heard of it. Never met anyone who graduated from there. One source of selective college admissions mania is the unwillingness of many students and parents to actually research colleges rather than relying solely on name recognition. It's apparently in Oregon. I hadn't heard of it either, so don't feel bad. Since neither you nor I ever heard of it, it's not relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
