HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: novikov@gibbs.ucsd.edu (Evgeny Novikov)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Bleak news from the academic job market
Date: 23 Nov 1992 05:42:21 GMT
Organization: Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: gibbs.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Nov22.193735.387@athena.mit.edu> solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:
>
>are whining that they can't get a job now, and complaining that they were
>misinformed when they entered graduate school TOOK AWAY A SPOT FROM SOMEBODY
>ELSE. The University has done those people a favor. It selected them for a job
>that far more people want than can be provided for. They are saying that it is
>everybody's fault that they were misinformed EXCEPT THEIR OWN.
>
>I wish people would stop whining and accept responsibility for themselves.
>
>Jason W. Solinsky

  They could be misinformed because they were a victim of disinformation,
  and this is the equivalent of being lied to. As an example of disinformation,
  let me toss out the following reference:

  Atkinson, Richard C., " Supply and Demand for Scientists and Engineers:
  A National Crises in the Making ", Science , 27 April 1990 vol.248,
  pages 425-432

  Atkinson is currently chancellor of UC San Diego, and formerly was the 
  director of the NSF. He speaks for the establishment. In his paper he 
  cites an NSF study that projects a serious shortage of PhD level researchers
  and recommends the government increase the number of graduate students.
  The conclusion is " If these projections are realized, the shortage of 
  technical personel will have a major impact on economic growth, international
  competitiveness, and national security ".
  
  We now know this study was total garbage. Someone who is cynical might ask
  if a university administrator might put out a faulty analysis on purpose
  because an increase in the number of graduate students means more money
  for the university.

                           Harry Luithardt
                           Institute for Nonlinear Science
                           UC San Diego
               e-mail:     novikov@gibbs.ucsd.edu


Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: lenivch@maclaurin.mit.edu (Witold Biedrzycki)
Subject: Re: Academic jobs
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 20:40:00 GMT

In article <jeff.722073474@mama> jeff@mama.minmet.uq.oz (Jeff Gates) writes:
>lenivch@levinson.mit.edu (Witold Biedrzycki) writes:
>
>>                                                  for most foreigners  finding
>>a job in their home country is a contingency plan, which they implement after
>>having failed in US job search.
>>Witold
>
>Will someone please tell me that Americans don't really think this way?
>
Ok, the original quote was mine. Although some other people , in particular
Ethan Miller have pretty well expressed what I had in mind, I'll add this:
In my experience (math departments at Cornell, MIT, Berkeley) it was taken
for granted by both faculty and students that foreign students would apply
for jobs in the USA. In fact, I don't know anyone who at least didn't try.
I admit, this may not be a very large sample. 

However, I was wrong for an entirely different reason: I recently compared 
the 1990 and 1992 American Mathematical Society's employment surveys and
the number of foreigners who left for their home countries was virtually the
same. What changed drastically was the number  "US, status unknown" - it
went up by 50 persons (400%) and that's where a lot of unemployment is hidden. 

Going back to what Jeff Gates wrote, there is plenty of good science 
outside of the USA. In no way was I suggesting otherwise.

Witold
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Subject: Re: In your school?
Followup-To: sci.research.careers
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:33:00 GMT

In article <dct.722117692@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu>, dct@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu (David C. Tuttle writes...
>godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
>| dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)     writes...
>|> LAURENCE GODFREY (godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov) wrote:
>|>>
>|>> (re the shooting spree at Concordia University)
>|>> On the contrary, I would
>|>> suggest that the Concordia people probably got what they deserved.
>|> 
>|>I seem to remember that some of the victims were students.  If you think
>|>that their deaths were justified then you have a very warped viewpoint
>|>indeed...
>|
>|You are wrong, I'm afraid.  Fabrikant shot only those members of staff
>|involved in his dispute.
> 
>I challenge that assertion.  The victims were faculty members of
>Concordia, but from what I heard, all four of them had nothing to do
>with the tenure/publications dispute.  Fabrikant didn't even get to
>the two he intended to kill before he was stopped.  He simply gunned
>down faculty members who crossed his path.
> 
>No matter who the victims, the very idea of causing physical harm to
>someone because of a social or professional dispute is abhorrent.
>There are legitimate means to achieve justice, and those who choose to
>ignore them in favor of the actions Mr. Godfrey condones are the ones
>who get what they deserve.
> 
>--
I simply suggested that Frabrikant may have been justified from my own experience
of dealing with disputes in the Canadian academic community.  As for the
legitimate mean of achieving justice, my experience suggests that they DO
NOT WORK in Canada in dispute sof this sort, and a great deal of money is required
to have them heard ina court of law.

Laurence
From: novikov@gibbs.ucsd.edu (Evgeny Novikov)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Bleak news from the academic job market
Date: 23 Nov 1992 06:22:47 GMT
Organization: Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: gibbs.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Nov23.032848.3124@cs.sfu.ca> mcdonald@cs.sfu.ca (Ken Mcdonald) writes:
>
>Still, there is a good deal of truth in what is being said; don't
>let the bitterness distract from the validity of the statements.  The
>university, which should be an arena and sanctuary for the idealistic and
>able, has become simply another competitive playing field, like any
>commercial area, excepting perhaps that academic competitiveness is
>particularly vicious because of the egos involved, the high stakes,
>and the continual supply of innocent young lambs who look to the
>university as a way out of that sort of life.
>

 What you are saying is basically true, but the university is not like any
 commercial area since it is not subject to any market forces like a
 commercial enterprise. It is largely government funded, but it enjoys less
 public scrutiny than government agencies. I think here lies the problem.
 University administrators can mismanage government funds with very limited
 accountability. For example, the University of California is a state university system, but the constitution of the state gives the school autonomy from
 the state legislature. The state every year hands over a certain amount of
 money, but has limited say as to how it is spent. This is the perfect 
 environment for the kind of incompetant, egotistical administrators that
 thrive at universities.

>I still think that if government funding to universities were simply
>disallowed, the problems would sort themselves out in a decade or so . . .
>
>Ken McDonald

 Wrong. The government should not end funding. The government should take
 a greater role in setting a national research policy. This would eliminate
 alot of incompetance at the university level. It might replace it with
 incompetance at a national level, but at least now some elected officials
 can be made to pay a political price. Also ending funding to universities
 would kill off almost all long term research.

                                     Harry Luithardt
                                     Institute for Nonlinear Science
                                     UC San Diego
                         e-mail:     novikov@gibbs.ucsd.edu
From: masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: So who _should_ we train? (cf. Bleak News)
Date: 23 Nov 92 16:09:01 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Granting that there is now a vast oversupply of scientists and
engineers, what specialties should have priority for training support?

My contention: Medical doctors. Part of the reason for the obscene
costs, and the shoddy quality, of health care in the U.S. is that the
AMA has a death grip on the supply of doctors. They enforce a
permanent shortage through artificially restricting the number of
seats available in med schools.

This is done in at least two ways:

 - By maintaining standards that are meaninglessly tough. As we have
seen, they do not weed out problem doctors, and serve only to inflate
the price of the service.

 - By requiring that years be wasted in training. It takes a med
student eight years in the U.S. to get the MD degree, at the end of
which time they may have no practical experience at all. In some
European countries, you can declare a medicine major as an
undergraduate and get through in six; as you're doing this, you're
working in hospitals and becoming useful.

Patients see the exhorbitant profits made by doctors and have few
qualms about suing them for malpractice; lawyers happily join in for a
piece of the action. Doctors cover their a$$es by overtesting and
overmedicating. Actual malpractice goes unchecked because of the AMA's
"peer review" policy; a quack will only get their license revoked if
they do something egregiously rotten in public, and they can then go
practice in another state. Guess who gets to pay?

Furthermore, because supply is low, patient load per doctor is high.
Doctors cease to give a damn about any individual patient and refuse
to discuss treatment because they're afraid of getting sued. Quality
of care suffers.

This situation _really_ needs fixing. Bill Clinton, if you're
listening, break the AMA stranglehold.
From: gt3639d@prism.gatech.EDU (Patricia Anne Willice)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Academic careers
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:52:09 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

I have been reading much about the bleak outlook for new PhDs in
CS, but what about other fields of engineering, such as ME or
Material Science?
-- 
Trish Willice
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt3639d
Internet: gt3639d@prism.gatech.edu
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:48:04 -0500 
From: Mayuram Krishnan <mk4f+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Curious .......


Hi! 

Any new developments on Concordia case ?
Obviously I am talking about THE Fabrikant's case.
Is the hearing done ?
Have they started looking into the matters from university side ?
I guess it will be interesting to know the outcome.

Krish

Xref: sparky sci.research.careers:1434 sci.astro:12101
From: crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Bleak news from the academic job market
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:01:25 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA
Originator: crawford@boole.mitre.org


In article <40978@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, acohen@cs.ucsd.edu (Ariel Cohen) writes:
> 
> andersmh@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (ANDERSON  MIKE HOWARD) wrote:
> >
> > In science, people are in effect bribed to get into a field
> > where, after they graduate and aren't cheap anymore, are uneeded.  
> > [...]
> > But, just because you CAN exploit someone doesn't
> > make it right. 
> 
>    Whoa! Wait a minute... Science graduate students are lucky to have
> more funding than grad students in other fields. There's no exploitation
> here - they get to study what they like, get their degrees and get
> some financial support while doing this. Sounds like a pretty good
> deal to me. 
> [...]
> Getting paid while studying for the Ph.D. is 
> a bonus, not exploitation!

I suppose an illegal immigrant from Mexico might say the same thing,
but only because s/he is desperate for opportunity of any kind.

The government makes a killing by conducting research in universities
and paying slave wages to their high-tech employees, namely, graduate 
students in the sciences and engineering.  This does wonders for 
supporting academics and graduate programs, but injures the scientific 
community at large and doesn't do much for the employment prospects 
of those students unlucky enough to graduate.

Sure, getting paid to get an education is grand.  But not if the 
alternative was a _career_.
-- 

| Randy Crawford        crawford@mitre.org        The MITRE Corporation
|                                                 7525 Colshire Dr., MS Z421
| N=1 -> P=NP           703 883-7940              McLean, VA  22102
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: rusin@mp.cs.niu.edu (David Rusin)
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action Questionaires
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:13:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.001848.14277@leland.Stanford.EDU> sterling@leland.Stanford.EDU (brian sterling) writes:
>I have a question about the AA questionaires that colleges are required
>to ask you to fill out when you apply for a job.  They always claim that
>these will not be used in evaluating you for employment.  Does anyone

Typically you send the AA form to a separate office under separate cover,
so the department or college faculty reviewing your vita will never see it.
In my experience the sort of data on those forms is not known to the
reviewing committee, except for certain exceptions:
	1) candidate or recommender gives away the information (my adviser
did sort of mention to Notre Dame that I was Catholic; can't hurt
to try...)
	2) gender or national origin can sometimes be inferred from
the name or schooling/employment history
	3) this one is more serious: our AA office dutifully recorded the
data sent in by job applicants and then claimed a disparity between the
data for the applicant pool and the data for our list of interviewees.
We could only quiet them down by inviting another candidate for an interview
(one we had listed as a good-but-less-good alternate, but who belonged
to the protected class)

I think you need not fear that there will be illegal sharing of data
between the hiring committee and the AA office; they are delighted to 
ignore each other in general. However, if the data does escape in one
of the ways above, or if you land an interview (and don't wear a mask :-))
the hiring committee will know something about you.

Well, then so what? If you show up in a wheelchair, I don't think
anyone will give a hoot... unless it's a department in which membership
on the softball team is considered essential. And if you show up
without a penis, that won't matter either, unless...

Here, I think we need to pause and admit that those on the hiring committees 
are human. We say, and intend, that skin color makes no difference,
for example. But we also react to different people in different ways. 
What makes us choose some people as friends and associates and not others? I 
don't know and don't really care, but you might as well admit it's
not just what kinds of theorems they prove. Among the many
well-qualified people suitable for a job, the offer will go to
the person who 'fits in' the best.

My advice: go ahead and fill out the AA forms. In the meatime, make sure
you turn yourself into an impressive candidate, then use whatever
people skills you can muster to land the job.
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Subject: Re: In your school?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:08:00 GMT

In article <Bxyy9v.Kn8@ecf.toronto.edu>, ambidge@ecf.toronto.edu (Chris Ambidge)   writes...
>In article <18NOV199218080800@sscvx1.ssc.gov> godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
> 
>1> many of my postings are calculated
> >to be provocative but are nonetheless my real opinions. 
>                       ********************************
> 
>2> I don't really hate all Canadians
> 
>Elsewhere he has written
> 
>3> canadians are all arseholes
> 
>and 4>,  5>, etc -- numerous Canada- and Canadian-bashing  statements.
> 
>>
>>Laurence
>>
> 
>Does anyone besides me see a cognitive dissonance between 2> on one
>hand and 3>, 4>, 5> etc on the other, especially given his statement
>in 1> that he is NOT "just kidding",  they really are his opinions?
> 
>I'd say the man's credibility is zilch.
> 
>Chris
>-- 
>Chris Ambidge / ambidge@ecf.toronto.edu / ambidge@ecf.utoronto.ca  
>   chemical engineering / university of toronto
>   200 college st / toronto ON / M5S 1A4 // 416 978 3106

Quite correct - my credibility is zero


Laurence

Xref: sparky sci.research.careers:1441 soc.culture.british:16055 soc.culture.canada:8603
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: In your school?
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:53:00 GMT
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Nov17.150001.29664@pixel.kodak.com>, dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)     writes...
>LAURENCE GODFREY (godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov) wrote:
>> (re the shooting spree at Concordia University)
>> On the contrary, I would
>> suggest that the Concordia people probably got what they deserved.
>> 
>I seem to remember that some of the victims were students.  If you think
>that their deaths were justified then you have a very warped viewpoint
>indeed, far more than is indicated by thinking that a dispute with faculty
>authorities can be resolved by blazing away with a hunting rifle.
> 
>This is a new low in the Godfrey saga.  Take a pill.  Take a holiday.
> 
>--
>||I dreamed I met a Yadallean          |(parody in progress, apologies to
>||A most confusing man....             | Tim Rice & Andrew Lloyd Webber)
>||------------------------------------------------------------------------
>||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY  |

You are wrong, I'm afraid.  Fabrikant shot only those members of staff
involved in his dispute.

Laurence
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Academic jobs
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:14:49 GMT

elm@cs.berkeley.edu (ethan miller) writes:

>Well they have, haven't they :-).  Actually, you can have them back.
>Eucalyptus oil was partially responsible for last year's firestorm in
>the Oakland-Berkeley hills (those trees are *very* flammable), and the
>eucalyptus are crowding out native species.  The trees were originally
>planted here by someone who thought they'd make good wood trees.  He
>apparently got the wrong eucalyptus species, and we ended up with a
>tree that only a koala could love :-).

I believe that it was the Scrips familly that pulled that mistake. The
local version of that story is that they wanted the trees for railroad
ties. At the time, LA and San Diego were vieing for the southwestern
US rail terminal. San Diego had the better harbor, but no trees close
for ties and bridges (also had a gnarly route east). LA won that
battle, and San Diego stayed a sleepy little Navy town until WWII.
Several boom and bust real estate cycles in the late 1800's were
caused by expectations of a major rail terminal. 

If you get down here, check out the UCSD campus (which used to be part
of Scrips ranch). The Eucs are planted in neat little rows and
columns, plantation style. They do quite well down here in this
desert. The University doesn't like them because they need alot of
maintainance if they are around buildings, huge limbs tear off every
year during a big storm, if not trimmed properly.

Just what you needed - Fun Facts from San Diego.

                                    Brad Cote'
                                    University of California, San Diego
                                    STARE Project
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
From: turgd00@DMI.USherb.CA (DAVID TURGEON)
Subject: Free Speach (Was: In your school?)
Organization: Universite de Sherbrooke -- Dept. d'Informatique
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:46:47 GMT

In article <19NOV199217480499@sscvx1.ssc.gov> godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.183751.14951@philmtl.philips.ca>, ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn)         writes...
>>This is the scary one.  Again, which is it?  We're to be aware that you
>>don't think that victims of injustice ought to go around killing people and
>>yet you don't find such action unacceptable?
>> 
>>>Furthermore, I know just how frustrating Canadian institutions can be when
>>>they close ranks to protect themselves, particularly in response to facts
>>>that demonstrate manifest injustice on their part, and I can easily
>>>understand how an unstable person could be driven to violence in such
>>>circumstances.
>> 
>>None of this sets my mind at rest.
>
>I'm sorry, but it was not my intention in posting to set Mr. Dunn's mind
>at rest.  I don't intend to waste my time trying to do so, nor in responding
>to his insincere declarations of concern.  If I ever feel the urge to shoot
>any NRC staff and I am arrested for doing so, then by all means use my
>postings as evidence.
>
>Laurence

I have to agree with Laurence .... He doesn't intend to waste his time trying

He barely has any left after writting all his STUPIDITIES in this newsgroup!!

Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: Re: Bleak news from the academic job market
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 18:35:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.212130.26754@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, andersmh@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (ANDERSON  MIKE HOWARD) writes:

|> I'm not following your point.  Does your reply mean that you think the
|> present system is justified and good?  My point is that the system
|> COULD be changed if those in control wanted to do so, and a new system
|> should use the basic premise that graduate students are here to replenish the
|> supply, not provide cheap labor.  Furthermore, if you have been following
|> YSN, you would have seen that there have been revelations that the NSF does
|> in fact encourage the use of graduate students, because they are cheaper.

This is precisely my point. Graduate students are cheap. They are cheap because
they want a PhD, so they work for less than half what they could make otherwise,
figuring that a PhD is worth around $100,000.

As long as there is funded research at universities, graduate students will be
the primary source of labor for that research. Presently the amount of funding in
various areas of research is determined by a (flawed) estimate of which research
areas are most crucial to the well being of our nation. Would you suggest that we
instead determine funding based on how many jobs there are in each area? That
sounds like sacrificing the good of all Americans for the graduate students.

What would you do in physics? At today's funding levels, despite thousands of
people screaming at them "THERE ARE NO JOBS HERE!", There are still enough people
going into physics to make sure that there will be a job glut well into the next
century. If we cut off the money, these people would still be trying to get PhDs
and become physicists. While there might be fewer people if the money was cut
off, there would also be FAR fewer jobs, and I would suggest that (even in the
long term) any decrease in the federal funding of physics research would only
decrease the ratio of jobs to PhDs.

Jason W. Solinsky
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada