HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Subject: Re: Other attacks on research (Was: Re: The Cold War: a Golden Age...)e
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:53:17 GMT

In article <7153@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, vernak@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Verna Knapp) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep29.113617.9095@vax.oxford.ac.uk> clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>  
>  >
>  >Yes. There is a lot of long term basic research that no company anywhere would
>  >be willing to fund, but, 20 years downstream, has potential for making major
>  >technological strides. For example, would you fund a ground of people trying to
>  >
>  >The market is dumb and blind. It does not examine longterm consequences or
>  >effects. It does not value people. It values only money. If you live in a
>  >society that has this as its only value then fine. Abolish tenure, let the pure
>  >scientists starve. But in 20 years your society will be down the tubes as it'll
>  >be paying hideous lisence fees to those who made the pure research
>  >developments that have become modern technology.
>  >
> 
> I recently read an article about pure research being done by Hitachi. They are looking
> for the next big breakthrough. They remember transistors, and they are looking for
> breakthroughs with that level of impact. They seem to realize that this requires
> pure research. I think the article was in a recent edition of Fortune, but I could
> be wrong about that. 

Hitachi is displaying attributes which are sorely lacking in American
Industry today--- foresight and a pioneering spirit. American corporations
have forgotten that it was these attributes which made them prosper in the
first place. We are now prisoners of the "bean counters" and the quarterly
report, fat, dumb, and declining. If we don't wake up pretty soon our future
looks pretty bleak.

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
> 
> Verna Knapp
> vernak@dancer.pen.tek.com
> 
> 
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: Underproduction of scientists and engineers
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:28:29 GMT

For an interesting contrast, read this week's Science (9/18) and Scientific
American (10/92).  This is Science's career issue and it talks about
the perpetual post-doc syndrome and multi-hundred applicants per faculty
job.  On the other hand, Scientific American talks about the science gap
in describing a special science teaching course run at UC Irvine last
summer.  Both sides may be right in a sense.  They may be too many highly
trained science professionals for our economy to support.  On the other
hand the average scientific literacy may be so low that average American
can't function well in a technological world.

P.S. There were dozens of job ads in Science- mostly biomedical.
From: clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Other attacks on research (Was: Re: The Cold War: a Golden Age...)e
Date: 29 Sep 92 10:36:17 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Sep29.053813.9088@linus.mitre.org>, crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford) writes:
> In article <19739@ector.cs.purdue.edu> sjc@cs.purdue.EDU (Steve Chapin) writes:
>>
>>I must enter a dissenting opinion.  Tenure ensures that professors
>>have at least some freedom of action.  Politics (at least in the CS
>>departments I've seen and heard about) is vicious, and the only thing
>>that protects the jobs of the political minority is tenure.  It's bad
>>enough that many professors kowtow to the political majority in order
>>to curry favor (in the form of equipment, lab space, etc.); if they
>>had to bootlick just to keep their jobs, they'd not be able to work on
>>unpopular yet significant research.
> 
> Yet not significant enough to warrant job opportunities elsewhere?  Hey,

Yes. There is a lot of long term basic research that no company anywhere would
be willing to fund, but, 20 years downstream, has potential for making major
technological strides. For example, would you fund a ground of people trying to
scale up the frequency at which microwave amplifiers work, when there is no
foreseeable market for the product (lasers)? Or would you fund a bunch of
materials scientists trying to make strange ceramic composites of metal oxides,
also with no foreseeable application? (high temperature superconductors came
from this).

And what about the pure research that contributes to our culture and
understanding of the world, but which is not applicable? What about astronomy?
What about pure maths?

The market is dumb and blind. It does not examine longterm consequences or
effects. It does not value people. It values only money. If you live in a
society that has this as its only value then fine. Abolish tenure, let the pure
scientists starve. But in 20 years your society will be down the tubes as it'll
be paying hideous lisence fees to those who made the pure research
developments that have become modern technology.


> 
>>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.

Absolute rubbish. The value of work is can often only be judged 20 or 30 years
after it is done. That is why people often get Nobel prizes long after their
work has been completed.

-- 
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax			|  Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc      @ uk.ac.ox.astro		|           Saint Germain...
================================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: maniattb@cs.rpi.edu (Bill Maniatty)
Subject: Re: Other attacks on research (Was: Re: The Cold War: a Golden Age...)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 00:09:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.182654.1791@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, chohan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Harpal Chohan) writes:
|> 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.
	[Stuff deleted]
|> 
|> Agreed. Especially, when each deadwood could be replaced by two over achieving
|> type entry level junior faculty for the same money.
	[Stuff Deleted]

This is pretty unlikely since the entrenched tenured faculty/administrators
aren't likely to expose themselves to this.  I think that this kind of
system would cause such a high level of turn-over, and stress on the job
that good people would avoid faculty positions.  The whole point is to attract
the best people, not to scare the hell out of senior faculty.  It's already
common place in the commercial sector to lay off employees who have long
terms of service, and replace them with cheaper entry level employees.
This typically results in reduced costs, and service.   A side effect is that
qualified people leave this type of organization, leaving only bad people.
Employees need to feel employer commitment.

The whole education system needs reform, but selecting the correct set of reforms
to apply is hard.

-- 
|
|	maniattb@cs.rpi.edu - in real life Bill Maniatty
|
From: gilligan@bldrdoc.gov (Jonathan M. Gilligan)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Underproduction of scientists and engineers
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:47:26 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology

In article <1992Oct3.183524.28510@cs.yale.edu> jovanovic-nick@CS.YALE.EDU (Nick Jovanovic) writes:
>Math, science, and engineering programs should become more broadly connected
>with our society.  Specifically, more people with these kinds of educations
>should be going on to run for political office, become teachers (yes, even
>elementary school teachers), become attorneys or physicians, start small
>businesses, etc.  Our fields look inward far too much.  Students majoring
>in these fields should be encouraged to explore all of these possibilities,
>not just to continue in some math/science/engineering pipeline or work in 
>industry.

According to Mark Raphaelian of the Young Scientists' Network, a survey
of their membership revealed that PhDs in physics looking for work outside
of traditional research or industrial R&D got about one interview for every
1000 companies they contacted looking for work. That's interviews, not offers.

Regarding becoming an attorney or physician or school teacher. That's
just what our husbands/wives and children want to hear: Honey, I'm
going back to school, but now I'm not even going to get a stipend! And
I have to pay tuition.  (Besides which, there is a huge lawyer glut).

-- 

Disclaimer --- The government probably disagrees with my opinions.
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: karr@cs.cornell.edu (David Karr)
Subject: Re: Stipend taxation bill (update)
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:20:09 GMT

In article <KRULWICH.92Oct5131344@zowie.ils.nwu.edu> krulwich@zowie.ils.nwu.edu (Bruce Krulwich) writes:
>> 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?
>
>As I understand it, David thinks that the incentive to grad students (proposed
>as a tax exemption of stipends) should scale with a bigger family.  I suppose
>that this means to scale based on the number of exemptions you can claim on
>your tax form, or something like that.

No.  Not at all.  I propose divorcing the "incentive" entirely from
individuals' tax returns.  That is, the amount you and I each get
should have NOTHING to do with how much taxes we paid, exemptions we
could claim, etc.

>What this leads to, instead of a simple rule that a new class of income (grad
>student stipends) is exempt, is a brand new system of tax credit for grad
>students based on family, exemptions, etc.  While it could be argued that this
>would be better [...]

Actually a concrete proposal might be something on the order of a
direct grant to every student.  My inclination (I suspect you agree)
is that this is unlikely to happen.

Another possibility would be to offer incentives to universities to
support some sort of minimum scale for graduate students, i.e.  some
sort of minimum wage that would ensure at least a single person could
get by on it.  This would at least help correct the problem that
University A pays its grads $6k and University B pays $10k, which the
tax bill does practically nothing to help.

Should I get a fellowship (which I hope I might) the bill would
actually benefit me.  So why not support it?  I feel I have some
higher principles that determine what is a good law and a bad law and
I don't feel like sacrificing them for a few hundred dollars.

What still confuses me is why it is perfectly acceptable to the
government to give up (say) $10 million in tax receipts, but you have
to fight tooth and nail to spend another $1 million.  (Numbers
completely fictitious of course.)  A dollar not received is equal to a
dollar spent!

-- David Karr (karr@cs.cornell.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: tlai@cs.toronto.edu (Tony Wen Hsun Lai)
Subject: Re: Shortage or suplus of scientists?
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Distribution: usa
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:57:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.050807.20003@athena.mit.edu> solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>We don't have nearly enough scientists and especially engineers to remain
>competitive as a nation. Not even close (I would suggest that we are not
>going to remain competitive as a nation so this doesn't matter, but that's
>another issue).
[more stuff deleted]
>THERE IS SUCH A THING AS A
>COMPETENT RESEARCHER THAT NEVER GETS A PHD, AND DOESN'T LOOK FOR FACULTY
>POSITIONS. If you look at Japan with something like 5 times as many engineers
>per capita as the United States, you will notice that they don't have any more
>PhDs than us. In the US, most areas are saturated with PhDs. That does not
>mean that we don't need more scientists.
>
>The bottom line is that the people who say we don't have enough scientists and
>engineers are right on target, BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US.

Perhaps there should be a shortage of scientists and engineers, and there
would be a shortage if US industry was organized very differently, but
many changes in industry and in the educational system would have to first
take place.
From: PNCSPPC@ccvax1.cc.ncsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Computer applications in the life sciences?
Date: 6 Oct 1992 20:06:09 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

My educational background is in the life sciences.  I have a B.S. in
biology and recently completed an M.S. in food science (microbiology
minor).  Lately, I have become more and more interested in software
development.  Does anyone know of any graduate programs where I could do
research on computer applications in the biological sciences-- for example,
use of AI to solve problems in pharmacology, medicine, drug
design/development, etc.?  Suggestions on good books or articles to read
would also be appreciated.

Phil Calvert
 
<Bitnet: pncsppc@ncsuvax / Internet: pncsppc@ccvax1.cc.ncsu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: jemurray@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John E Murray)
Subject: Re: US academic job market improving?
Summary: maybe
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 15:30:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.225718.14624@tamsun.tamu.edu> achin@math.tamu.edu writes:
>My impression is that we've already seen the worst, in science fields.
>America is heading back to school, and teachers will be needed.  Our
>department made 15-20 hires over the summer.
>---

It may or may not be relevant/interesting to note that the most recent
_Job Openings for Economists_ (August) had 8 percent more new openings
than the August 1991 issue.  Not to say that there were 8 percent more
tenure-track beginning asst prof openings.  Potentially a good sign,
although my impression (from reading this newsgroup) is that the 
market for beginning PhD scientists has been a lot tighter, on the
academic side anyway.

John Murray
Department of Economics
Ohio State Univ.>
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Shortage or suplus of scientists?
Date: 5 Oct 92 05:08:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Oct3.150359.29882@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, yjj@neptune.ctr.columbia.edu (Yuan Jiang) writes:
|> Maybe both sides are right.  There is a contradiction, but not when
|> this hypothysis is proposed: there are too many incompetent scientists
|> holding important and well paid positions, and too many competent
|> scientists do not have their chance and are driven to the walls.

I don't think that there are too many incompetent scientists holding positions.
I would suggest that the discrepancy between the undrproduction and
over-production people can be explained fairly simply.

We don't have nearly enough scientists and especially engineers to remain
competitive as a nation. Not even close (I would suggest that we are not
going to remain competitive as a nation so this doesn't matter, but that's
another issue).

Some people thinking about going to grad school read this and say, "Oh boy,
it looks like there will be loads of top notch job opportunities for me when I
get my PhD. I think I'll stay in school for several more years."

Your typical article complaining about a lack of scientists and engineers says
nothing about faculty positions opening up. It is a given that there will be
more PhDs looking for a faculty position than there will be openings. The
problem is that PhDs (or those hoping to get a PhD) read the words scientist
and engineer and think, gee wiz, that must be me. THERE IS SUCH A THING AS A
COMPETENT RESEARCHER THAT NEVER GETS A PHD, AND DOESN'T LOOK FOR FACULTY
POSITIONS. If you look at Japan with something like 5 times as many engineers
per capita as the United States, you will notice that they don't have any more
PhDs than us. In the US, most areas are saturated with PhDs. That does not
mean that we don't need more scientists.

The bottom line is that the people who say we don't have enough scientists and
engineers are right on target, BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US.

Jason W. Solinsky
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: mcdonald@cs.sfu.ca (Ken Mcdonald)
Subject: Re: US academic job market improving?
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:22:48 GMT


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.)

Ken McDonald
mcdonald@cs.sfu.ca
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: yjj@neptune.ctr.columbia.edu (Yuan Jiang)
Subject: Shortage or suplus of scientists?
Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research
Summary: maybe both sides are right
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 15:03:59 GMT
X-Posted-From: neptune.ctr.columbia.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Maybe both sides are right.  There is a contradiction, but not when
this hypothysis is proposed: there are too many incompetent scientists
holding important and well paid positions, and too many competent
scientists do not have their chance and are driven to the walls.

Does it sound right?
Xref: sparky sci.research.careers:1229 sci.psychology:3943
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 11:12:56 EDT
From: <FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Montreal news of Fabrikant - 5
 <1992Sep24.182435.4849@philmtl.philips.ca> <1999@snap>
 <1992Sep25.221316.2590@sfu.ca>


>I think that Fabrikant obviously was over the edge to actually kill people -
>my opinion. But the problems he  referred to, of insitutional plagerisation
>and miscredit for publications (if I have it right), are endemic in the
>academic world. As a grad student, I would say this is particularly true
>for grad students. So there is more to it than meets the eye. The press
>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
going about it,...an extreme form of which is suicide. From what I have read of
Fabrikant's problems on these bulletin boards, it seems likely that he is a
quite gifted and creative scientist who has literally been driven to the limit
by the system, to the extent that he became maniacal. Perhaps the way to get
to understand his action is to try to think of the most telling way of
punishing an individual. The sort of problem which the fox got quite wrong
when it threw the rabbit into the briar patch (Uncle Remus).
    The opposite of the briar patch in the case of a gifted creative person
would be to REMOVE something which is essential for his creative act. In the
case of a gifted violinist, a Yehudi Menhuin, it would be, of course, to take
away his violin. In the case of a creative scientist it is to take away his
tenure, his laboratory, his source of research funds. The tragedy is that if
you took away Yehudi Menhuin's violin, he would get an old piece of wood and
string and cat gut together and stand at the street corner making such a
beautiful sound that passers by would be driven to rage that he was denied the
means of making even more beautiful sounds. Sadly, the complexities of modern
science, where discoveries sometimes are not generally recognized until after a
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.
     Sincerely,
               Don Forsdyke, Department of Biochemistry, Queen's University,
                             Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L3N6.
               [Apologies if I have misspelled Yehudi Menhuin.]
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: mcdonald@cs.sfu.ca (Ken Mcdonald)
Subject: Re: Stipend taxation bill (update)
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:14:27 GMT


From a previous article:
>>>
I agree that introducing market discipline into the post-graduate
education system is good, libertarian goal.

The reasoning behind this legislation is not as clear as it seems.  Someone
in Washington is actually thinking about how to get *MORE* revenue from
existing sources.  The argument is this: 
. . .
        1) Most persons with post-graduate degrees earn more money in the
           marketplace than those who only possess a BS, BA, or equivalent
           level degree.
        2) If we (the government) can have more of these persons with
           post-graduate degrees, we can get more tax revenue.
        3) An impediment to having more of these persons is the low
           pay they receive during their studies.
. . .
<<<
Pardon me for saying so, but this is just stuff and nonsense.

If the universities keep churning out graduate degrees, they will only
serve to deflate the value of the degree, as has already happened in
the sciences, and as happened with undergraduate degrees quite a
while ago.  (There's an excellent editorial on this phenomenon
by Robert Samuelson in a recent Newsweek.)  The net effect will be
that the government will have paid more and more to produce people
who are worth less and less.

Even now, I doubt that the gov't gets back the money it puts into most
graduate students.  Think of all the money that is spent on RA and
TAships, subsidized fees, lost productive years, etc. etc. etc.

Probably the best possible thing for North America's higher education
system would be a complete cutoff of government funding.  This would,
among other things, force people to realize that the purpose of 
universities is not to give degrees to everyone, but to educate those
who have the potential to apply that education to the net benefit of
society (as well as themselves, of course).  It might also force
high schools to start teaching again, instead of assuming universities
will pick up the slack.

Yours,
Ken McDonald
mcdonald@cs.sfu.ca

"Money corrupts.  Government money corrupts absolutely."
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers