From: bechtler@asdg.enet.dec.com (Laurie Bechtler)
Subject: comment on AA and faculties
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:50:20 GMT


As a graduate of an electrical engineering program (PhD), I find
this discussion interesting.  At my school it was clear that
Americans (almost all white male) were being accepted for admission
who had clearly inferior academic backgrounds than many of the
foreign students.  As with the posted UC Berkeley example, the
university/department decides that for a whole host of reasons,
a certain mix of students is desired, and admissions are made that
might not fit some posters' idea of the "best" candidates.  

Why is it so wrong to decide that the makeup of the faculty should
also have some mix of ethnic background?  It's clear that there is
an overabundance of candidates available for every opening, so that
hiring departments do have a lot of choice of well-qualified 
individuals.  

And from my personal knowledge of the faculty in my department, few
of them were free of prejudices that would enable them to make a
completely "unbiased" opinion.  Few humans, in fact, can completely
analyze their  own prejudices.  Committee hiring decisions, however,
may get around the individual problems and balance out the social
agendas of the individuals on the hiring committees.  

When interviewing with the faculty for a research assistant position,
one told me he preferred Catholic, non-smoking males who had wives to
support them.  (I'm female; he never ever had a female student.)  
Another wanted only foreign students because he could drive them ha
harder (this was a white male; the first guy was Indian).  One Indian
professor took only Indians because he could make them accept half
salaries that the Americans wouldn't accept.  Anyone who thinks that
a department is free of stuff like this is crazy.

And my advisor complained endlessly about committee obligations.  
Especially in the 2 years leading up to his tenure review, he was made
to feel that he couldn't say "no" to any request to serve on such
committees.  I'd say that 20 hours was a minimum for those obligations,
and he spent many evenings and weekends on his research because that
was his only free time.  It's not a life I envy.

The main problem, as another poster has pointed out, is the limited
job market.  We had a fair number of students who had physics BS 
degrees who came over to EE to get a MS, because they said in physics
without a PhD there was no hope of employment.  Now look at the 
competition between physics PhDs.  Even in EE, which never used to 
have the concept of postdoc at all, there are beginning to be too many
PhDs.  I understand the desire to get the degree, to learn...my degree
was mostly a personal quest, not a career move (it's still a tossup
as to whether it was a useful move for me; ask me in 5 years).  But,
no one can demand that there be a job waiting for them when they get
out.  Years ago people made fun of PhDs in Medieval German, etc., 
because the knowledge was so un-marketable.  But there were still
students who studied it because they loved it.  Perhaps PhD degrees
in science are becoming the same way...there's no question that the
students in the programs love it and are good at it (ok, not ALL the
students!).  But there is a question about how many PhDs in astro-
physics or computer science the world really needs.  


Newsgroups: sci.research.careers