HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn)
Subject: Re: In your school?
Organization: Not Philips.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:51:54 GMT

In refd article, godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
>I think you have it the wrong way around - the injstice comes
>before the complaints, not the other way around.  On the contrary, I would
>suggest that the Concordia people probably got what they deserved.

I responded to Godfrey by email on this, but I think public attention
should be drawn to the fact that he believes that the four Concordia
professors deserved to be murdered and the secretary deserved to be shot.

If anyone has any personal knowledge that might help to set our minds at
rest on this matter, I'd appreciate it if they'd contact me.
-- 
Ray Dunn at home        |  Beaconsfield, Quebec  |  Phone: (514) 630 3749
ray@philmtl.philips.ca  |  dunn@cam.org          |  uunet!sobeco!philmtl!ray
Xref: sparky sci.research.careers:1492 soc.culture.british:16170 soc.culture.canada:8672
From: sjc@cs.purdue.edu (Steve Chapin)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: In your school?
Date: 19 Nov 1992 19:01:01 -0500
Organization: Department of Computer Sciences, Purdue University
	<17NOV199201181181@sscvx1.ssc.gov>
	<1992Nov18.215154.579@philmtl.philips.ca>
	<1992Nov19.004914.12138@netcom.com> <19NOV199217520247@sscvx1.ssc.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bredbeddle.cs.purdue.edu
In-reply-to: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov's message of Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:52:00 GMT

}} In article <19NOV199217520247@sscvx1.ssc.gov> godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
}} 
}} Not Sadam, nor Adolf, nor Bundy?
			     ^^^^^
Which one?  Al or Peg?

sjc@cs.purdue.edu               Steve Chapin           Today's Grammar Lesson:
                      I advise that you take his advice.

             "Home is the place where, when you have to go there,
                          They have to take you in."
               			-- Robert Frost, "The Death of the Hired Man"
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: marty@amaterasu.physics.uiuc.edu (Marty Gelfand)
Subject: Re: So who _should_ we train? (cf. Bleak News)
Organization: Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:28:42 GMT

Some quibbles with contentions in article <Nov.23.11.08.59.1992.9320@
cadenza.rutgers.edu>, in which masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu 
(Steve Masticola) writes:
> 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:
> [first way omitted to save space]
> - 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. 
  This is _not_ true, as anyone who has had a medical student as a friend
knows.  The last two years of medical school are almost entirely
"practical experience":  the student does short (one month or so)
rotations through nearly all the medical services (ie, internal medicine,
obstetrics, dermatology, etc).
>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.
  And in European countries specialization at an early age in all
fields is the norm, in this country it is not; and remember that
a European "high school graduate" typically is one or two years ahead
of his US counterpart in terms of coursework completed.

Marty Gelfand  marty@amaterasu.physics.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: Bleak news from the academic job market
Keywords: Momma, don't let your babies grow up to be scientists...
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:25:48 GMT

I was quite happy going from undergrad to grad, from when I paid them to when
they paid me to do what I wanted to do, even if it wasn't that much.
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 23:48:00 GMT

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
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: lseltzer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Linda Ann Seltzer)
Subject: Re: Bleak news from the academic job market
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:06:19 GMT

>Indeed it seems to me that if I do what I was trained to, which is repeat
>experiments, check everything carefully, plug gaping holes in my data and
>(Im not claiming to be superman OK, but care and good experiments take
>time) so forth, I lose out to the people who just gloss over the cracks
>and send it out to the publishers. I KNOW there ARE CONSCIENTIOUS PEOPLE
>IN SENIOR POSITIONS DESPITE THIS OK. However the lack of any security

Unfortunately this is true in some fields.  Computer music is a glaring
example.  People get prestigious professorships for publishing meaningless
junk in journals that aren't reviewed by people who are really knowledgeable.

Also, there is atendency for some senior people in power to promote
the careers of mediocre people, just to show how powerful they are.
If they get someone a job because that person is the best studentm they
are only being passive agents.  If they can throw a mediocre or
not-very-bright person into a high prestigious job, then they can
flaunt power.  I have seen this happen many times during my career.


>after 3 to 7 years of expensive, and possibkly government funded
>training, combined with a system which is effectively stacked against
>those who have retained any form of idealism, is enough to drive a
>great number of very dissilusioned, and highly trained people out of
>the work they were trained for.
> This is not my own unique impression, I
>As a group trained scientist represent the cannon fodder of modern
>industry, the glut of Ph.D's serves only to make them cheap and disposable.

This is the scientists' and engineers' fault for thinking that they are
too high class to organize into labor unions.  It's the unionized
plumbers and machinists and bus drivers and trash collectors who have
all the protection now because they organize.
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: andersmh@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (ANDERSON  MIKE HOWARD)
Subject: Re: Bleak news from the academic job market
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:25:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.222750.25504@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>
>I think that you are wrong on two accounts:
>
>(1) I would hate to see univeristies being engaged in "social engineering".
>    They do exist to educate and do research. If they can get the work
>    done cheaply, why should they pay more ? Resources are limited,
>    and the burden will be on the tax-payer. Why should the tax-payer
>    spend his/her hard earned money to pay more for the same work ?
>
What do mean by social engineering?  It sounds like what you are
saying is that since the university CAN exploit graduate students
then they SHOULD.  The changes I propose would not increase the tax
burden because I think the amount of basic science done could be 
reduced somewhat.  A lot of garbage work is done just to get
puplications.  The down side to the present system is that we
are dumping people out a the age of 30 that have worked very
hard to a single end and then their chances of a career are
dashed by the very system that produced them.  Eventually, I 
would think that this is going to be very bad for science.  At the
very least it isn't a very good way to treat people.

Instead, we should hire say 3 graduate students for every 10 that
we do now, and create 3 permanent postions to replace the 7 grad
students.  That way, those that graduate have a field to enter.
How the hell can you justify asking someone to take out 10 years
of their life to prepare for a field that for all practical purposes
doesn't even exist???

>(2) It is unlikely that if universities stop hiring graduate students,
>    then there will be more permanent positions. On the contrary:
>    My understanding is that one of the reasons for new faculty positions
>    to get approved is when a new PhD program is established. If there
>    will be less graduate students, then there will be less need for
>    lecturers and thesis advisers. That may result in less positions.
>

The science still needs to be done, if not in universities then in
gov't labs.  Someone would have to do the work that is currently done
by armies of (doomed) graduate students.  It isn't the students that
create the need it's the science.


>I agree, however, that universities should not deceive graduate students
>about prospective employment, and if they do, it is ethically _very_ wrong,
>as Ken Mcdonald pointed out.
>
>
>Dov

Agreed.  But we all know damn well that the universities are playing
on the naivety of prospective students to get them in.  While they should
be informed, I don't think it will make a big difference.  

If we're not willing to limit the supply of PHDs then we are not willing
to solve the problem of employment opportunity.  We can't expect the
taxpayer to fork out the $$ for all to become scientists that want
to.  In other words, the demand side of the equation is largly determined
by the tax resources and that has been pushed to the limit.

Mike
From: primeaux@carlsberg.cs.utk.edu (David Primeaux)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Bleak news from the academic job market
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:08:00 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - Department of Computer Science
Distribution: world
Reply-To: primeaux@carlsberg.cs.utk.edu (David Primeaux)
NNTP-Posting-Host: carlsberg.cs.utk.edu
Keywords: Momma, don't let your babies grow up to be scientists...

There has been discussion about computer types starting their own businesses.

OK.  So I am about to finish my PhD in CS.  Two marketable, realistic products
which would probably have a relatively limited demand -- but sufficient demand
to sustain a company for several years.  Managerial experience.  But: student
loans up to my ears.  A startup company needs capital;  unless one has
been saving for this purpose, or has made contacts with investors, initial
funding seems unlikely to me.  Comments?

-- david
primeaux@cs.utk.edu
From: vicki@mathcs.emory.edu (Vicki Powers)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Bleak news from the academic job market
Date: 19 Nov 1992 08:29:04 -0500
Organization: Emory University, Dept of Math and CS
NNTP-Posting-Host: emory.mathcs.emory.edu

In article <1992Nov17.200125.4236@linus.mitre.org>, crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford) writes:

> 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_.

I don't understand your point here.  I went to graduate school because I
wanted to be an academic mathematician.  There was no choice - I couldn't
have a career (my chosen career) without a Ph.D.  For me it was a bonus
that I got paid to be a teaching assistant while studying mathematics.
And it wasn't the government that was making a killing - I went to a private
university (Cornell) - and I wasn't a "high-tech" employee, I was a teaching
assistant.  It could be argued that Cornell was exploiting me by paying me
"slave wages", but in return I got a Ph.D so I considered it a good bargain.
Noone forced me to work there, in fact there were lots of people who applied
who were not admitted.  I was told before I accepted what my duties would be
and how much I would be paid, also how many years I would be supported.  I
could have refused if I didn't like the conditions.

  Vicki


-- 
Vicki  Powers       |  When a student reads in a math book that there are no
Emory University    |  absolutes, suddenly every value he's been taught is
Dept of Math and CS |  destroyed.  And the next thing you know, the student
Atlanta, GA 30322   |  turns to crime and drugs. - Mel Gabler
From: vicki@mathcs.emory.edu (Vicki Powers)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Bleak news from the academic job market
Date: 20 Nov 1992 09:21:58 -0500
Organization: Emory University, Dept of Math and CS
NNTP-Posting-Host: emory.mathcs.emory.edu

In article <1992Nov19.235356.462@cs.sfu.ca>, mcdonald@cs.sfu.ca (Ken Mcdonald) writes:
> 
> I think things are a little different in C.S., and I'd just like to
> draw attention to the differences.  Presumably you (i.e. Vicki Powers,
> the post of the bit just above) knew what the job market was like for
> academic mathematicians (lousy, which is approximately what it's been
> for a very long time), and accepted this risk.  (And by the way,
> congrats on getting a job in this market--you must be very good, and
> if you have any hints you'd care to share . . . :-) )  

No, I'm not really "very good", just lucky - I finished in 1985 when
jobs weren't so hard to get.  I got my current job in 1987.  And if I
don't get tenure this year it may be my last job :-)

[lots of good stuff omitted to save space]

> So, to (attempt to) sum up my rambling contribution to this thread; there
> is nothing wrong with paying grad students student type wages, so long
> as the terms of the resulting contract, both written and unwritten,
> are clearly spelled out, and are as accurate as the participating parties
> can reasonably make them.  Part of these unwritten terms include the
> likely benefit of the degree to the student after completion, and
> if (as is the case in my field, at least in my department), the
> department provides false or misleading information which on topics
> which it can be reasonably expected to be aware of, the contract
> is morally abhorrent, and deserves all the anger the affected students
> will likely feel.


I agree that it is very important for science departments to tell potential
graduate students about the current job market woes.  But one thought I've
had is that every medium-range prediction I've ever heard about the academic
job market has been wrong.  5 years ago we were told that right now the 
market would be great - lots of jobs (due to a large number of retirements)
and not so many new Ph.D's to fill them.  That prediction was certainly wrong
and presumably those finishing right now feel angry.  Maybe in 5 years all 
those colleges and universities that aren't hiring now will do a lot of hiring
and there will be a good job market.  Maybe things will be even worse.  But I
wouldn't trust any "expert" predictions.  So I wonder if drastically reducing
the number of new graduate students right now is the answer to the CURRENT woes.


  Vicki


-- 
Vicki  Powers       |  When a student reads in a math book that there are no
Emory University    |  absolutes, suddenly every value he's been taught is
Dept of Math and CS |  destroyed.  And the next thing you know, the student
Atlanta, GA 30322   |  turns to crime and drugs. - Mel Gabler
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
From: tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com
Subject: The evil Canadians
Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:01:59 GMT

In reading the recent flame war, I felt the need to warn the rest of
North America of the dangers that the Canadians pose to us.  It goes
far farther than simply a conspiracy to subvert the work of one researcher!  
NAY, they are after all of us and everything that we stand for.  Note 
first that these people have cleverly desguised themselves to resemble
other North Americans!  Also, take note of the fact that 75% of
all Canadians live within 150 miles of the US border!  Yes, poised and
ready to *INVADE* at a moment's notice!!!  *AND* they often go to
Cuba for "vacations"!  Training, that's what it is.  Training to 
subvert truth, justice and the American way at the hands of the godless
communist Cubans!!!  They have even lulled us into such a false sense
of security that *OUR BORDER WITH THEM IS TOTALLY UNDEFENDED*!!!! 

TO ARMS, TO ARMS, WHILE WE CAN STILL STOP THESE EVIL PEOPLE!!!!!

;-)  <-------  For the humor impaired.

Ted Feuerbach - Scientific Systems Consultant
Disclaimer:     Monsanto didn't say this, I did!
Stupid Quote:   Money is simply alcohol in a 
                more easily transportable form.
                                           - Me
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: gerard@caliban.soest.hawaii.edu (Gerard Fryer)
Subject: Re: wanting something TOO MUCH!
Organization: Scum Of the Earth and Senile Tenured
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:16:09 GMT

In article <21NOV199219505241@sscvx1.ssc.gov>, godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
|> 
|> Come now, let's not beat about the bush.  It is quite evident that some members
|> of the faculty and admin at Concordia behaved disgracefully, dishonourably
|> and with a thorough lack of integrity. 

[stuff deleted]

|> Anyway, from what I've seen of Canadian academic practise, I'm quite sure
|> that the last thing anyone wants is for the truth to be told about Concordia,
|> and I'm quite certain that if it were to be told then the Canadians would
|> simply ignore it.
|> 

Whatever the truth of the Concordia case, it's important to note that
Canada has no monopoly on dishonorable academic practices (haven't we
been through this before?).  I know of several potential Fabrikant
cases in the U.S., and if any of them blew up like Concordia, then the
criminal aspects would eclipse the underlying problems there too.
Administrators, deans, and lab bosses should take the whole sorry
episode as a warning to shape up.  Unfortunately, too few of the people
who should know about the case have even heard of Fabrikant.
-- 
Gerard Fryer  (g.fryer@soest.hawaii.edu)
School of Ocean & Earth Science & Technology
University of Hawaii at Manoa
From: bt402@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Merbil R. Gonzalez)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Computers in Medicine
Date: 18 Nov 1992 01:58:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I am a third year medical student that has a high interest in 
computers. Are there any programs that mix these two fields?

Thanks in advance,
-- 
Merbil Gonzalez     Internet:M_GONZALEZ@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU
                             bt402@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth)
Subject: Re: Bleak news from the academic job market
Keywords: Momma, don't let your babies grow up to be scientists...
Organization: RIACS, NASA Ames Research Center
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 03:01:09 GMT

In <BxqIGp.FC5@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca> ejdavies@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Davies) writes:


>watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe) writes:
>.... previous deleted for sake of brevity

>>Why don't 50% of us start our own high-tech companies and make
>>a few million?

>>Suppose 10% of us actually succeed. They are millionaires and
>>have nothing to worry about.
>>The other 40% that tried and failed -- so what. A good experience,
>>and better than sending off 100 resumes and getting no replies.

>Would 50% of us have a clear product in mind that we think we could market?
>I would imagine that nearly all of the people that currently start up 
>companies (including the majority that fail) have a product in mind. If, 
>like the majority of us, you don't, then I would expect your chances of your 
>startup company to be microscopic.

There is another issue at stake here and that is "life style".  I have
recently had to face facts that I am not willing to go the business
route.  A real product with real possibility of success was presented
to me.  I seriously considered it and then Ross Perot made a comment
about dedication to ones business and I realized that I wasn't.
I'm a theorist at heart.  I've done management and it doesn't suit me.
I would always be half heartedly involved.  Only if I truely believe
in the significance and social worth of a product could I sustain
my involvement for a protracted period of time (5 years...).

Life is short, be real.

Doug Danforth

Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: lseltzer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Linda Ann Seltzer)
Subject: Re: wanting something TOO MUCH!
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:46:42 GMT

>Someone wants something from another person really badly.  They are
>willing to do anything to please this other person.  This other person
>does nothing but abuse them and take advantage of them and their
>desires.  Even after loads of abuse, the first person continues to try
>to please and does everything in their power to make the other person
>happy.

I agree with you and I do not condone what Fabricant did.  It really
seems that there was some really poor management occurring on the part
of the administrators and department chair.  After all, suppose you
have an employee who is incredibly intelligent and productive, but who
has a tendency to have a bad temper or to have emotional problems.
Do you insult, slight, and provoke the person, or do you give him
a nice office with a big window and a big title, buy him a few perks
every year, leave him alone to do his thing, and try to smooth out
any disagreements he gets into?  Also, consider the country and culture
Fabricant comes from.  No way would a professor with his credentials
be treated the way he was treated in Russia.
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
From: ambidge@ecf.toronto.edu (Chris Ambidge)
Subject: Re: In your school?
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:12:16 GMT

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
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers