HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: karr@cs.cornell.edu (David Karr)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Stipend taxation bill (update)
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:25:04 GMT
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853

In article <1992Oct1.154111.27864@netnews.noc.drexel.edu> koertd@coe.drexel.edu (Dave Koert) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.175623.13529@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> ANDERSON  MIKE
>HOWARD, andersmh@ucsu.Colorado.EDU writes:
>>In article <9209281715.AA05492@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu>
>PNCSPPC@ccvax1.cc.ncsu.edu writes:
>>> 
>>
>>>form of a scholarship or fellowship was tax-free.  This was an important
>>>exclusion, since it encouraged individuals like myself to continue my
>>>education. Graduate scholarships and fellowships are not large--every
>>
>IMHO, motivating students to pursue higher education when all it costs is
>a
>negligible fraction of tax revenues is good, period.
>
>Good for individuals.  Good for society.  [...]

I finally have gotten irritated enough myself that I need to respond
to this.

If you think it is hard to live on a graduate stipend, you should try
supporting a family of four on it.  It's impossible.  Someone with
small children who wants to get a PhD, like myself, may have to draw
tens of thousands of dollars from savings, or incur a similar-sized
debt.  Talk about disincentives!

Some schools (very few?) soften the blow by granting a supplement to
the stipend for dependents.  Mine doesn't.  Fortunately for me, the
government allows me to put higher deductions and exemptions on my tax
return, so that the money which the university considers barely
adequate to support a single person can go a little farther for my
family.  What you are proposing to do, by tinkering with the tax code
(which is already complicated enough), is to remove from it (in this
case anyway) the recognition that it's harder to get by on a small
income when one has children.  This is progressive?

You may think that since people with children got themselves into that
position, they don't deserve anything.  OK, then consider one single
student on a $6k stipend versus another on a $10k stipend.  If the
person getting $6k gets even one dollar relief from taxes, then the
person on $10k gets at least $4k*0.15 = $600 more benefit, over and
above having been better-off in the first place.

Even this is assuming that all graduate students are able to figure
out at tax time whether their stipends are tax-deductible.  This will
be no mean feat, since due to the way the tax instructions are
written, most professional accountants can't even agree on the correct
tax on a return.

I won't argue that graduate studies should not be supported.  But if
they are to be supported by the government, why not simply make a
direct grant that benefits every student equally, rather than this
back-door kludge in the tax code that gives the most benefit to those
who are already best off (i.e. single and on generous stipends).

IMHO, the NAGPS should lobby *against* the tax bill, since it will
simply be an impediment to implementing a better solution.  (For one
thing, the tax base on which to make direct grants will have shrunk.)

-- David Karr (karr@cs.cornell.edu)
From: edgar@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Job Search Diary
Date: 30 Sep 1992 07:59:57 -0400
Organization: The Ohio State University, Dept. of Math.
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: function.mps.ohio-state.edu


The first installment of a "Job Search Diary", kept last year by
a new PhD in mathematics looking for his first job, appears in
the new (October) issue of FOCUS, the newsletter of the Mathematical
Association of America.

I found it interesting reading, even though it has been many years since
I was in this situation myself.
-- 
  Gerald A. Edgar                Internet:  edgar@mps.ohio-state.edu
  Department of Mathematics      Bitnet:    EDGAR@OHSTPY
  The Ohio State University      telephone: 614-292-0395 (Office)
  Columbus, OH 43210             -292-4975 (Math. Dept.) -292-1479 (Dept. Fax)
From: paulf@eos.ncsu.edu (PAUL DAMON FRANZON)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Economics of doing research
Date: 2 Oct 92 00:46:00 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos

A number of posters have suggested that the `market' should sort
out what research is done, that there should not be taxpayer
funded research, etc.  I would have liked to have taken that issue up
on many points but will only make one.

1. The (US) `Market' is not effecient at optimizing long term growth

A recent article in the New York Times describes
the work of one Harvard economist who proposes a theory that the
US financial markets actually provide dis-incentives to long range
research.  (Sorry I do not recall the issue or the Economists name.)

The reason is quite simple.  The US financial market is too efficient.  When I
buy a stock (or put money into a mutual or pension fund) I expect
to see growth within a year or I trade stocks/funds/etc. 
If it does not I (or the fund manager) sell the stock decreasing
its price. 
Thus companies optimize their strategies to obtain this type of growth
rather than long term growth as  CEO's pay is closely linked to the
stock of the price.)  US companies tend not to have majority share-holders
who are thus `close' to the company and can appreciate its long term
plans and thus not sell the stock.

On the other hand,  most foreign companies  have such majority shareholders,
usually financial institutions.
The net effect of this is that established US companies  do not make
long range investments, as a rule.

Paul Franzon
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Other attacks on research (Was: Re: The Cold War: a Golden Age...)e
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:22:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: aio.1992Oct5.172256.1923
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <LAWS.92Oct4180247@sunset.ai.sri.com>, laws@ai.sri.com (Kenneth I. Laws) writes:
> ....  Theoretical research with no sponsorship should
> be supported by the universities themselves (if they wish) --
> as was the case before government patronage was available.
> 
> 					-- Ken
> --
> 
> Dr. Kenneth I. Laws, (415) 493-7390, laws@ai.sri.com.
> Moderator of the Computists International AI/IS/CS mutual-aid association.
> Ask about my weekly online career newsletter, The Computists' Communique.
> 
> 

I'm sorry but I can't agree with this statement. With college tuitions
now going up at twice the rate of inflation, it is unrealistic to
expect universities to fund all theoretical and long-term research.
The world of pioneering research has entered an era where the experiments
can be quite expensive. As an alternative, I suggest that corporations
and universities could feed into a mega-consortium which pays out
grants for this kind of research. Expensive instruments could be shared
among several researchers (i.e. the SSC) to limit costs. Any economic
benefits from the
research, either direct or spin-off, could then be given back to the
competing organizations.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: chohan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Harpal Chohan)
Subject: Re: Other attacks on research (Was: Re: The Cold War: a Golden Age...)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 18:26:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.181723.5903@cs.sfu.ca> mcdonald@cs.sfu.ca (Ken Mcdonald) writes:
>
>Tenure is the other major corrosive influence (besides government funding)
>which is slowly but surely destroying the higher education system in
>North America.  The need for it has almost completely disappeared, as
>compared to when it was first introduced.  Abolishing it would no doubt
>result in a very few unfair firings, but would also result in the
>disposal of a heck of a lot of deadwood, and a realignment of the incentive

Agreed. Especially, when each deadwood could be replaced by two over achieving
type entry level junior faculty for the same money. If entrenched faculty
had the threat of competetion for their jobs from the growing pool of
underemployed fresh Ph.Ds, I suspect Ph.Ds would get harder to get,
probably reducing the number and increasing the quality of those awarded...

-h
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt)
Subject: Re: US academic job market improving?
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 14:08:07 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Oct2.192248.4287@cs.sfu.ca>, mcdonald@cs.sfu.ca (Ken Mcdonald) writes:
|> 
|> From a previous article:
|> >>>
|> If the book claims that employment for Ph.Ds is tightening up overall,
|> I probably agree heartily.  But to single out the sciences as being
|> hit harder.....................that just raises a logic alert!
|> <<<
|> 
|> Actually, it makes a lot of sense.  The problem in the sciences is
|> on the supply side; all those people who believed that science held
|> a bright future, and so went into the scientific career track, and
|> are now flooding the market.  The humanties have attracted fewer
|> people, ergo less oversupply, at least in academia.  ('Course,
|> with a Ph.D. in Physics, you at least have a vague chance of
|> getting hired in industry--but then, the book was only interested
|> in talking about prospects for faculty, so I don't think this is
|> a fair point.)

Physics requires aptitude, and it requires a desire to do it.  Most physicists
spent far more than 40 hour weeks in grad school, and continued doing so
to advance through tenure and through the ranks.  A lack of job security might
disuade people from going into physics, but I don't know that it would
encourage anyone to do physics.

As for a 'vague' chance of getting hired in industry, lots of PhD's have
traditionally went to industry.  However, many industrial positions are
drying up as well, and directions for those that remain intact are changing.
 
Dan
From: reykja@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Reykja Sigurdsson)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 05:50:55 GMT
Subject: Fabrikant Updates?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers

Hello..

      I am unfortunately unable to subscribe to this newsgroup on my
home server and they are also having problems keeping up with postings
to soc.culture.canada. 

      If someone would be so kind as to send me any Fabrikant postings,
perhaps to forward them to me, I would be most grateful. Thanks. (We
get no news of the incident here.) 

-rks
       
            please forward to rks@cscns.com
From: masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: The Cold War: a Golden Age for US science?
Date: 29 Sep 92 05:52:12 GMT
Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center

In article <k=czdwh@rpi.edu> maniattb@cs.rpi.edu (Bill Maniatty) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.155045.28614@unocal.com>, stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>|> Counter example: Japan seems to do well in science, spending one seventh
>|> of its gross domestic product on the military as compared to the US.
>|> Japan's university research is weak compared to the US, but its industrial
>|> research seems to be stronger.
>
>I'm not sure how much better Japanese research is than in the States. I suspect
>that research here is quite good (some very good Japanese students attend
>U.S. Universities).

   Yes, basic research in the US is good. Good enough for me to come here 8-).

   It is also true that the number of Japanese students/postdocs/researchers
working in the US is larger than that of American counterpart in Japan.
However, it may not be always valid to use these numbers to measure the level
of research in each country. There are many factors which is making it easier
for Japanese to come to the US than for Americans to come to Japan (e.g.,
language education).

   I cannot be sure how much better Japanese research is or if it is really
better, either. Without an objective standard (Number of papers in Nature?
Number of Nobel laureates? -- Nah.), any comparison might be hardly
meaningful. If a Japanese postdoc did a good jod in the US, should it be
ascribed to a favorable research environment in the US or to his/her
educational background in Japan?

>  The D from R&D, that is development, side is weak in the
>U.S.  Many good ideas are developed by our research, but U.S. companies just
>can't seem to get them to market.

   It's my impression that American market is less competitive. Japanese
consumers are more conscious about a new technology and a new design and
they are veeeery picky. (If you compare a variety and quality of Walkman 
available in the US and in Japan, that would tell you something.) A brief
delay in bringing a new idea to the market could be fatal in Japan.

>I suspect the U.S. has a management problem, not a research problem. If that is
>true, then I don't think the solution is to subordinate a successful research
>program to governmental whim.  We need to correct our bad management style, and
>then worry about research.

   If the goal of research is to create something useful for our daily life
and to do it quickly, R&D in the American industry may well be said to have a
management problem. However, if the stimulation and satisfaction of an 
intellectual curiosity of human being is also a researcher's job (even though
it may not make a penny), the US still offers a better opportunity than Japan.  
And I believe that this very fact has been conferring an academic charisma
to the US. 

Michiaki Masuda
Laboratory of Molecular Oncology
National Cancer Institute
Frederick, MD 21702-1201
U.S.A.
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: andersmh@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (ANDERSON  MIKE HOWARD)
Subject: Re: Stipend taxation bill (update)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:56:23 GMT

In article <9209281715.AA05492@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> PNCSPPC@ccvax1.cc.ncsu.edu writes:
> 
>                             Sample Letter

[stuff deleted]  

>form of a scholarship or fellowship was tax-free.  This was an important
>exclusion, since it encouraged individuals like myself to continue my
>education. Graduate scholarships and fellowships are not large--every

[stuff deleted]

>making scholarships and fellowships tax-free for future students would be a
>step in the right direction to educating future generations and increasing
>our nation's competitiveness.
> 
>I look forward to hearing that you've become a co-sponsor.
> 
> 
I have a problem with this issue of tax exemption of graduate student
stipends.  If you read the lines I've excerpted and the general tone of
the letter, it claims that exempting stipends from taxation will motivate
students to pursue higher education and that more PhD's is good for
the competitiveness of the country.  This is the same line used by the NSF
and other groups that decrie the impending "shortage of US scientists", which
is complete bunk.  There is no shortage of scientists.

If I make 6k as a graduate student why should I not pay taxes when someone
else making 6k does? One really needs a better argument other that "because 
I'm ME", which is how it sounds to me.  We certainly don't need to motivate
more people to undertake graduate study.

Mike
From: sjc@cs.purdue.EDU (Steve Chapin)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Other attacks on research (Was: Re: The Cold War: a Golden Age...)
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:00:20 GMT
	<19739@ector.cs.purdue.edu> <1992Sep29.053813.9088@linus.mitre.org>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University

}} In article <1992Sep29.053813.9088@linus.mitre.org> crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford) writes:
}} 
}} Yet not significant enough to warrant job opportunities elsewhere?  Hey,
}} if nobody wants to pay someone to untertake some form of "significant"
}} research, then who should pay for his/her work?  Students?  Taxes?

If one is denied tenure, one is often seen as "damaged goods."  The
conventional wisdom is that if University X denied tenure to a prof,
then there must be something wrong with said prof.  Thus, landing
oneself in a bad political situation (whether through naivete, poor
judgment, or other circumstances) can limit job opportunities down the
road.

}} >For example, if the head of your department is a strong proponent of
}} >systems work, and you are a theorist, you might be forced to stop work
}} >on your chosen area, if you didn't have a tenure system to protect
}} >your job.  Ack.
}} 
}} Fine by me.  If you can't find employment elsewhere, you ain't doing
}} valuable work.

Same answer as above:  the fact that one has been marked as persona
non grata in one place often closes other doors.  Would this go away
if tenure were removed?  I don't know.

I was not arguing that tenure is a cure-all, or even that it is, on
balance, a good thing.  I was pointing out the positive side of
tenure.  The research community is changing rapidly, and is starting
to be driven more by industrial, short-term desires than long-term,
basic research goals.  With few exceptions, corporations are
traditionally unwilling to lay out money for research that is not
guaranteed to show a profit in the short to medium term.  They are, at
the same time, quite willing to take advantage of such research.  Yet
if all academic research is driven by corporate influence, researchers
will be forced to work on short-term goals; exploration of long-term
goals with high potential benefit will not be funded. 

In short, there are good aspects to tenure, along with the bad.  It
boils down to whether one feels that freedom in academics and research
is worth the cost.  Because without tenure, you won't have it, period.

sjc@cs.purdue.edu               Steve Chapin           Today's Grammar Lesson:
                The effect of his affected accent affected her,
                   and effected a change in her affections.

             If I don't want it in my back yard, I don't want it.
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers,sci.psychology
From: probst@selkirk.sfu.ca (Scott Probst)
Subject: Re: Montreal news of Fabrikant - 5
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:40:53 GMT

In article <92271.111256FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>
>>I think that Fabrikant obviously was over the edge to actually kill people -
<... deleted...>
>>has tended to report him simply as a maniac, rather than examine the issues
>>he was upset about.
>>                   Scott
>
>    As a Faculty member at a Canadian University, I would like to reply to
>Scott's point.
>    Yes, the press has reported him simply as a maniac, which he undoubtedly
>was with the respect to the killings. If one wants to draw attention to issues
>which one is upset about, there are a number of relatively "rational" ways of
<...deleted...>
>considerable lapse of time, makes this impossible in our profession. I think
>I can understand how someone, who, rightly or wrongly, believes himself to be a
>scientific equivalent  of a Menhuin,     gets driven to such a state by the
>system that his behaviour becomes maniacal.

thanks for the comments, most of which i have deleted for the sake of brevity.
i did want to ask, however, what your opinion about the seriousness of the
problem that seems to have driven fabrikant over the edge. do you think that
it has reached the point of being a serious impediment to some within the
academic system?

scott
From: koertd@coe.drexel.edu (Dave Koert)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Stipend taxation bill (update)
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:46:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Drexel University
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6F213257D0114E2@n1-20-226-hess-lab.coe.drexel.edu>
X-Xxdate: Fri, 2 Oct 92 14:54:29 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d11

After some private E-mail correspondence with Dave Karr.
I come to the following conclusion:

The nays have it.  I give up.


dave koert, research assist. prof.       | "You can't excuse your own abuse
combustion & fuels group, hess labs      |  because someone caused you pain."
Mechanical Eng. Dept. (MEM), Drexel Univ.|   from the play, AND I STILL RISE
David.Koert@CoE.Drexel.EDU               |         by Mya Angelo
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Taulbee Survey on CS Ph.D.'s
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:01:56
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sartre.caisr.cwru.edu

I recently ran across an article in an old (Sept 90) issue of
Communications of the ACM describing the results of the 1988-89
Taulbee Survey of Ph.D. graduates in Computer Science and Engineering.
(I believe this survey covered almost all of the accredited CS/CE
Ph.D.  programs in North America.)

The interesting statistics were that 43% of 1988-89 Ph.D. recipients
received domestic academic positions and only 1% were unemployed and
1% were self-employed.  The remainder ended up working for industry,
government, or went overseas.

I'm curious whether any more recent surveys have been taken, and if so
whether the statistics have remained the same...
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Subject: Re: US academic job market improving?
Organization: Dept of Math, Northwestern Univ
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:36:12 GMT

In article <92270.164137CERLPDR@TECHNION.BITNET> <CERLPDR@TECHNION.BITNET> writes:
>    Since your field is mathematics, as a benchmark indicator of the
>mathematics job market I would suggest the number of applicants per employer
>at the AMS annual meeting. I would prefer, of course, applicants per position
>but that data is not completely available. Here are the numbers:
>
[Numbers deleted]
>
>    I make no particular comment except to note that over the time period
>for which data is available the job market seems to have a ten year cycle.
>The job market turned down quickly at the beginning of the '70s and bottomed
>out in 1974. The market remained sluggish until 1980. It then became quite
>good until 1989 when it took a rapid downturn. Judging by the historical
>time constant of the system I would guess that the bottom of this cycle
>has not yet been reached. More significantly though, the recovery time
>for the 1970s slump was more than five years. This would suggest that the
>current job market won't really recover until the *end* of the nineties.
>
>
>
>
>                                 John Tolman
>

It should be noted that the data for the annual AMS meeting represents
only a limited part of the market: primarily teaching oriented institutions
and not even all of those.  Anecdotal and some statistical information
suggest that the academic job market in mathematics is now as bad
it has ever been.  Also, it started to decline earlier than
the reported figures indicate and has been abysmal for both 1990 and
1991.   It does appear true that the situation may not be quite so bad
for American born Ph. D.'s. at teaching oriented institutions, which
might explain the lag in the AMS annual meeting figures. 
(Those institutions may be reluctant to hire foreigners whose command
of English and American students' mores they doubt.)  However, it may
be worse than it was in the 70s for Ph. D. granting institutions.

An AMS committee collected data from selected Ph. D. granting institutions
which suggested the situation would not improve significantly for 1992.
However, as the poster indicated, such projections are often not very
accurate.

In view of the uncertainties, it is useful to have even anecdotal
information about individual institutions (as provided previously
by someone at Texas A&M), but details are all important.

Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers