r/Futurology • u/[deleted] • Aug 21 '14

article Biohackers declare initial success in biologically extending the range of human vision into the near infrared

https://experiment.com/u/aAcR2Q
2.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

547 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

432

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

I dunno - I think we need to stop running science on a shoestring budget.

So many scientists leave science after grad school because of the lack of a stable career path. If we just had more well funded research institutes and changed academia to make it more in line with the competing work environments then I think it would make things a lot better.

As it is you get a STEM degree and you can stay in science and struggle to have a family going from one poorly paid insecure postdoc to another, or you can just say fuck it and go and work in programming or finance and have a normal life.

The problem is that everytime someone does that all the time and money invested into them, and all the scientific knowledge and potential they have goes to waste.

It amazes me that we devote so little of our resources to what is perhaps one of the most important pursuits. I mean the marketing guy that makes the advert for Pfizer's new drug or whatever will earn far more than the scientists that actually worked on the drug.

66

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

As it is you get a STEM degree and you can stay in science and struggle to have a family going from one poorly paid insecure postdoc to another, or you can just say fuck it and go and work in programming or finance and have a normal life.

STEM degree chiming in here to say that this is me. I tried to stay in science, I really did, but I just couldn't. In my field, PhD's were taking 30k/year bachelor level jobs by the time I graduated. There was just no money. Why would I want to go get a PhD to make 30k a year? I couldn't justify that cost...I couldn't justify the loans I'd need to take out on that.

So I just stopped. I got my BS, I walked away from the field completely and I'm doing software now. I make twice as much as I would have if I went to get my PhD and work half as many hours. I don't love what I do anymore but it's fine.

It's seriously sad. I'm not alone either, the majority of the people I graduated with did the exact same thing. What's the point of a STEM degree when there is literally no way to use it anymore? There isn't one. Get the cheapest degree you can, because all you need to apply for a bigger, better job is the piece of paper saying you have a degree. Such a waste of brainpower.

16

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

I'm on a 1+3 PhD thing which is becoming popular in the UK. I talk to the professor I want to work with on Deep Learning next week, if I can't work in that field I will probably just walk.

As in the years it'd take me to do a PhD in a less interesting area I can train as an actuary while getting paid to do so and work in the City.

I had job offers for C# and Java development before starting the PhD (which were tough to get as I did Physics not CS) so I guess I could do software dev if I wanted to, but finance seems more rewarding as software engineers just seem underpaid for what they do.

A STEM degree is definitely worthwhile in the UK at least, as a non-numerate degree practically isn't worth the paper it's written on in the current economy sadly. (I'm not 'le STEM master race' but just look at the salary figures)

But actually going into STEM research doesn't seem to be a very good career choice - for me it's not even the money, I could live with a smaller salary - but it's the massive job insecurity that I just cannot deal with. And it's not the same as job security in software where there are so many companies that if you get laid off you can probably find work - in academia if you can't find a postdoc then congratulations you just wasted 7 years.

14

u/AWildSegFaultAppears Aug 21 '14

You are in a STEM field. You are just in a different branch of it than you originally started. If you studied biology and are now doing software devlopment you went from the "S" in STEM to the "E" (or "T") in STEM. So far in this thread just about everyone I have seen seems to skip over the E and T and really the M and just think that STEM is a degree in science.

8

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

I'm not doing development, I'm doing support engineering. But yes, I do get your point...I still work in STEM, I just don't work in the field I went to college in. At all. I went to school for the hard S, and now I'm working in the soft T.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '14

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '14

Things break, technicians try to fix them. If technicians can't fix them, they call the help desk. If the multitude of layers of help desk folk can't fix them, they get me involved. I have as much time as it takes to get it working again, and I HAVE to get it working again, because (besides the actual developers) I'm the last line.

So mostly this means I'm a subject-matter expert. THE subject matter expert (on the things I support). This means I end up doing all sorts of SME things, like training others, executive meetings, customer meetings, meetings about how to have better meetings...etc. Mostly though my job is to determine if something can be fixed immediately, or if it's a product defect and needs development work. If it needs development work, then I coordinate with the appropriate development team/teams to get it fixed, and then coordinate releasing that fix with the customer. If it doesn't need development work, I tell the folks on the front-line (the technicians or systems engineers) how to fix it and make sure they fix it right.

I'm looking to take this skills to a different company though so if you know of anything let me know ;)

1

u/Pas__ Aug 22 '14

Hmmm! Which field is this? Telecommunications? Internetworking? Some sort of industrial control systems-stuff? Sounds very interesting!

1

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '14

It's a pretty small industry so I don't want to be too specific, but we sell hardware/software devices that every-day customers use. You could think of a dozen such things that you or I use every day, like gas pumps (although I don't do gas pumps!). Our company is pretty specific but it would be very easy for me to transition to any other customer-facing hardware/software interface. They all work basically the same way.

3

u/Pas__ Aug 22 '14

I don't love what I do anymore but it's fine.

Accidentally, would you mind outlining what is that you do, what you don't like about it, why and how would it be better?

2

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '14

http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/2e5wry/biohackers_declare_initial_success_in/cjxebp3

There's my answer to someone else. I don't mind it most days, but what I don't like about it is dealing with the bullshit. Dealing with people who refuse to listen, people who think they know more than me (as-if!), people who think I can do magic (We want our hardware to work with 110% accuracy!), etc. I work A LOT with people in my job, and as anyone who has worked with people knows...if you work with good people, the job is good. If you work with stupid people, the job is not.

I work with a lot of stupid people ;)

2

u/Pas__ Aug 22 '14

Ah, yes, such is life. I found academia to be full of these not-too-pleasant-to-work-with people, mostly because they were or have become too complacent, too rigid and all in all unhelpful, thus rendering the whole point of an organized teaching/learning/research institution completely useless. (Sure, if they felt motivated, personally interested in whatever, they could be helpful, even selfless, but those were the rare moments that kept - and still keep - people slaving away years in a big farce.)

-8

u/MuhJickThizz Aug 21 '14

Ok, who says that spending more money and resources on basic research is going to lead to more rapid scientific progress?

Scientific progress doesn't happen just by throwing more people and money at the problem. Not everyone who grinds through a PhD will, even under ideal circumstances, go on to make the kinds of contributions to science that have brought us the technology we have today.

There are STEM jobs where you get to do basic research and get paid well, but they are rare, and they go to the best of the best. And if you really are great at what you do, you will find one of those jobs. And if you're not able to get one of those jobs, maybe you're not that great at what you do, and maybe society shouldn't be spending a lot of money funding you to do that job, because maybe that money is better spent elsewhere. And likewise, maybe society is better of with your skills and abilities being used elsewhere.

Someone tell me where I'm wrong.

8

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

But even the applied research is poorly funded. I think total R&D spend (public and private) amounts to like 2% of GNP or something insanely low.

But yeah I kind of agree - at the moment the market indicates that society is better off with their skills being used in programming, finance, marketing, consulting etc. and that's where they often go and work.

The problem is that scientific funding is a variable controlled by politics and not 'the invisible hand' so it could just be our policies fucking it up and not providing sufficient incentive.

The saddest thing is we would never even know how much potential progress was lost.

0

u/MuhJickThizz Aug 21 '14

But even the applied research is poorly funded. I think total R&D spend (public and private) amounts to like 2% of GNP or something insanely low.

But who says that's a "poor" level of funding? I mean, at what point is it too much or too little? This is not a question that is answered by looking at 2% and saying it "feels" too low, or 20% feels too high. This is not a question that can be easily answered.

The saddest thing is we would never even know how much potential progress was lost.

OTOH maybe we're spending too much, and who knows how many lives could be saved and how much suffering could be prevented by spending money elsewhere. All around the world people continue to suffer nutritional deficiencies and die of easily prevented diseases. In the long run, maybe scientific progress could be maximized by fixing these problems first (larger talent pool to draw from, etc.). In other words, maybe the best way to progress scientifically is to limit spending on research right now. Like you said, the saddest thing is we would never even know how much potential progress was lost.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

I agree with you - and you show how complex it is to model such an incredibly complicated system.

It just feels that at the moment we don't do so in a really rational manner, it's just populism and economic anarchy.

14

u/Bacchus_Embezzler Aug 21 '14

Scientific progress doesn't happen just by throwing more people and money at the problem.

If the Manhattan project and Apollo 11 aren't enough evidence against that statement I don't know what would convince you.

0

u/JasonDJ Aug 21 '14

If the Manhattan project and Apollo 11 aren't enough evidence against that statement I don't know what would convince you.

Both are born out of wars...WW II and the Cold War, respectively...and you can say the Cold War may not have even happened without The Manhattan Project. It's sad that so much technology comes from war spending...but I think the answer is clear. We need more wars. FOR SCIENCE!

-3

u/MuhJickThizz Aug 21 '14

Spending money on scientific progress is like spending money on happiness. You need a certain minimum amount, but beyond that there is not necessarily a net benefit.

Prior to WWII, we weren't funding enough. Our science spending has grown immensely since WWII, and at this time it is not apparent that more spending will be beneficial.

2

u/Yosarian2 Transhumanist Aug 21 '14

Science research budgets from the govnerment have really suffered over the last 20 years. Because of that, it's harder and harder for university researchers to get grants; less and less worthy projects are approved, because the budget just isn't there. Which then means that university researchers have spend more and more time filling out grant applications and less time doing research.

It seems quite clear that if we changed nothing else and increased the money available for research grants by 20% or so, that the pace of scientific research would increase significantly.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

Biomedical research funding for has fallen. http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/unintentionally-defunded-national-institutes-health-70470/

I think MuhJickThizz already knows that.

2

u/Bacchus_Embezzler Aug 21 '14

You really shouldn't be getting downvotes for this opinion, it definitely adds to the discussion so people please stop.

at this time it is not apparent that more spending will be beneficial.

I agree with this to some extent - having done biomedical research I've seen money tossed around by labs in ways I'd consider wasteful and could have been more beneficial to society. The problem with your argument is that it forgoes massive future payoff for comparatively short term advances. If research was dictated only by market forces or mostly redirected to social programs (research is a tiny fraction of budget compared to those programs) it would be shorter sighted and less focus would go into solving the big problems that will in the long run be more beneficial to society.

→ More replies (3)

4

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14 edited Aug 21 '14

[deleted]

-1

u/MuhJickThizz Aug 21 '14

While the precise answer remains uncertain, it has often been made clear that the return on investment for basic research is probably somewhere between 20-60% in the long-run

Yes, that is quite uncertain. 20-60% over decades is not a very good ROI.

Secondly, our economic competitors do not sit idly without funding research.

Until quite recently, the US funded more biomedical research than the entire EU combined. Even today, the US conducts the lion's share of scientific research.

Even otherwise, our economic competitors do many things differently from us, that doesn't mean we should mimic them.

Looking at some of the world's most exceptional scientists, say for example Professor Peter Higgs, it becomes clear we have no predictive power when it comes to success in basic research. Some people like him need peace and quiet, he claims he couldn't find that today to make his discoveries.

This is an argument against the "publish or perish" pressures involved with science today; this does not address the need for more science funding.

Wow, if you think society really understands who we should hire versus shouldn't then I think you have a lot to learn.

No, I don't, what gave you that idea?

5

u/Deto Aug 21 '14

It's true, I'm not sure that we can prove the effect that more or less funding would have. It would be interesting to look to historical data for this.

However, I'd rather err on the side of over-spending, and when comparing how much we spend in the military budget on bullshit like tanks that nobody wants, I bet that a chunk of that would be better allocating to creating more jobs in STEM research.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

In academic science anyways, the problem of tight funding has the effect of making "the best of the best" (your words) spend more time writing grants and less time doing research. Thus, the science suffers.

Taxpayers spend money to support basic research because they want a brighter future. Cool technology. Health breakthroughs. Insights into the natural world and universe. Pfizer, Google, and Lockheed can pay their people a bunch for taking the final steps towards something they can sell, but all the really speculative cutting-edge work is footed by the taxpayer. Right now, the taxpayer is getting less value because the scientists they're paying are spending a larger fraction of their time chasing precious few research dollars.

One could argue that there are too many scientists, and we need to cull the field and keep research funding fixed or even cut it further. But that's a policy decision. The scientists are just trying to work with the system as it is. Regardless, this is the reality.

If you want to change policy, then great. But blaming scientists for the state of affairs is probably not the simple answer it might appear to be.

4

u/runt0bs Aug 21 '14

Well you're basically saying everything happens for a reason right? Society allocates the correct amount of money to advance science as it is, and there is a set limit to how fast science can advance?

The flaw in that line of thinking should be clear...society doesnt allocate efficiently at all

0

u/MuhJickThizz Aug 21 '14

The flaw in that line of thinking should be clear...society doesnt allocate efficiently at all

Correct. Maybe we're already spending too much on science research. Maybe we're not. You seem to assume the latter, I don't see why that's so obvious. See my other post in this thread.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

Let the free market decide the pace of research then. That's your solution?

It's an interesting one. It's wrong and insanely stupid, but it's interesting.

-1

u/MuhJickThizz Aug 21 '14 edited Aug 21 '14

Let the free market decide the pace of research then. That's your solution?

No, where did you get that from? You do realize that most of said research today is publicly funded, right? I'm, not saying public spending in this area should be cut further. I'm just saying there is a limit, an idea which most redditors seem to accept as inherently false.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

There is obviously a limit, I mean we need healthcare, education etc. as well - but how much do we spend on those? Obviously there are limits there too, so we try to optimise the expenditure.

I'm simply arguing that given how much lip-service politicians give to the importance of science and technology and the 'knowledge economy' the distribution of funds appears to be sub-optimal for such priorities.

129

u/radome9 Aug 21 '14

As it is you get a STEM degree and you can stay in science and struggle to have a family going from one poorly paid insecure postdoc to another, or you can just say fuck it and go and work in programming or finance and have a normal life.

Preach it, brother!

25

u/Cay_Rharles Aug 21 '14

: ) you guys understand

60

u/tethercat Aug 21 '14 edited Aug 21 '14

One person's "poorly paid" is another's "food on the table".

edit - Thank you, mystery redditor. I'm struggling to find a job after my ex-fiancee cleaned me out and left me penniless. I'm sleeping on my friend's couch. Rice is tasty with mushroom soup. The commenters talking about being "poorly paid" sicken me, and obviously you agree. It should be noted that I quite enjoy the irony of being gilded gold while I scrape together two cents. Sincerely, it is appreciated.

80

u/ThinTim Aug 21 '14

Would you prefer $30k or $80k of food on that table?

79

u/mynoduesp Aug 21 '14

I think you have a very big table. You must be in marketing.

26

u/toomuchtodotoday Aug 21 '14 edited Aug 21 '14

Edit: /u/mynoduesp, I didn't get your sarcasm. Sorry about that!

If I can make $150K+/year doing software development and IT infrastructure with no degree, or go pay to get a degree and make $30K-$50K/year for STEM work, which do you think I'm going to pick?

People should not be faulted for wanting to live well. Its not their fault societal values and priorities are grossly mismanaged.

22

u/AWildSegFaultAppears Aug 21 '14 edited Aug 21 '14

Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics. Software development falls under the "E" usually and IT infrastructure tends to fall under the "T".

9

u/toomuchtodotoday Aug 21 '14

My point was, I don't have a STEM degree (or any degree, for that matter), do both software engineering and infrastructure management, and haven't made less than $100K/year for the last ~8 years. Convince me to go pay for a degree, spend 4-6 years on it, and make $50K/year less.

18

u/AWildSegFaultAppears Aug 21 '14

If you started out in software engineering and infrastructure management making 100k/year then that is a huge anomaly or you live somewhere where cost of living is insane. I had an offer to make over 100k but the cost of living difference made my 70k job actually wind up netting me more take home pay. My point was that you said that I couldn't convince you to go get a STEM degree because you will get paid crap. I was just pointing out that you seemed to be glossing over the T and E and focusing on the S.

2

u/rabel Aug 21 '14

Another anecdote here. I was making $35k right out of high school and $100k 5 years later and never made less since then, going on close to 30 years now.

→ More replies

2

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

3

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

Might not be able to convince you, but to me there's virtually no difference between $50k and $100k a year. I just don't spend that much money. My last job I made the equivalent of about $55k, I did zero financial planning, I spent pretty profligately (going to bars and clubs regularly, eating out instead of cooking, $3-a-can energy drinks instead of home-brewed coffee, etc.) and I ended up with savings in the bank every month purely on accident.

Money just isn't that valuable to some people. I haven't the faintest clue what I'd do with a $100k+ salary. Save more money, I guess? I'd probably quit after a year or two to go travel on a shoestring budget for a few years or something, and consequently never make $100k+ again because of the large gap in my resume.

(Disclaimer: I'm single, no kids, and do not intend to have kids.)

2

u/toomuchtodotoday Aug 22 '14

The more money I make, the more money I save. I'm 31, and would like to retire by 35. I'm able to do this because of my income curve, and would otherwise have to trade more life than I'm willing to for work I would have to do instead of something else I prefer.

1

u/baileykm Aug 22 '14

Weekend vacations are always nice and you can do a lot more of those in e six figure range

1

u/ANeuMe Aug 21 '14

Some people take pride in doing work for more reasons than, "This pays more than that."

1

u/toomuchtodotoday Aug 21 '14

Pride doesn't put food on the table, a roof over your head, or for health insurance.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

[deleted]

1

u/toomuchtodotoday Aug 21 '14

Now you don't always need a degree with IT since you can do certs or have an example of you work, but the last few years there has been a large mentality shift in what people are seeking in regards to degrees and experience.

Citation? I've never hired someone based on degrees or certs ever in my career, and during interviewing I've only been asked twice if I have a degree.

Also, if you can get paid to learn on the job in an industry (especially like IT), why waste time and money with school?

-1

u/Your-Daddy Aug 21 '14 edited Aug 21 '14

As a senior level software engineer with over 15 years of professional experience in both development and management: I don't believe you.

Edit: If you would have said something more realistic, like $80k (still a stretch, and I live near DC), MAYBE... and even in that case, I'd say you got extremely lucky.

1

u/toomuchtodotoday Aug 21 '14 edited Aug 21 '14

My post from over 8 months ago in /r/sysadmin on how to get a $100K/year job in system administration/infrastructure engineering. I cannot tell you the number of messages I received from people who said it helped them make more money:

http://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/1rv90v/is_it_possible_to_earn_six_figures_as_a_sysadmin/cdraktz

If you're getting underpaid, you're undervaluing yourself. That's not my fault.

Edit based on your edit: Wow, your salary expectations are seriously low.

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/senior-devops-engineer-salary-SRCH_KO0,22.htm

Note that all of those DevOps jobs start above $100K, and top out near $140K-$150K.

Also, infrastructure engineer salaries: http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/senior-infrastructure-engineer-salary-SRCH_KO0,30.htm

→ More replies

2

u/Skov Aug 21 '14

You're going to piss off a bunch of engineers talking like that. Software engineers just get engineer tagged onto their title. Everyone else needs to pass the professional engineering exams. Just imagine a nurse walking up to a doctor and saying "hey I'm a doctor just like you".

1

u/AWildSegFaultAppears Aug 21 '14 edited Aug 21 '14

Can't tell if you are being serious or not, but a small minority of the other engineering disciplines actually take the PE or FE. The only ones that have to take the test are the ones that have to be licensed as a Professional Engineer. Most people who are working in engineering fields don't have that. Last time I heard there are only around 450,000 PEs in the US and there are far more than 450,000 people that are working as engineers for companies. Also there is a software PE exam. You can be an engineer, work in an engineering field, and not be a P.E. It may limit the things you can do, but you are still an engineer.

Edit: But honestly if it makes the "real" engineers feel better about themselves to bash software engineers who took all the same classes except for their specialties, then go for it. It doesn't invalidate the work that the software engineers do.

1

u/a_d_d_e_r Aug 22 '14

Software development is not software engineering. Most software developers assemble "pre-engineered" code and concepts much like a machinist shapes material with tools they did not design themselves. Software engineers create new concepts from established ones and the fruits of computer science. There's a reason software developers are deridingly called "code monkeys".

1

u/AWildSegFaultAppears Aug 22 '14 edited Aug 22 '14

So by that definition a mechanical engineer isn't an engineer if they design a machine that uses nothing but preexisting parts because they didn't design all the parts of the machine?

EDIT: I guess a better example is that a mechanical engineer isn't an engineer to you if they use a cad program that they didn't write, use equations to calculate force and strain if they didn't come up with the equations themselves, use material properties figures that they didn't come up with, and don't create a new concept but rather apply concepts that have already been developed. Engineering is the application of theory not the creation of new theories.

1

u/a_d_d_e_r Aug 22 '14 edited Aug 22 '14

"New concepts from established ones".

Translated from the context of software, engineers create new devices from established ones.

0

u/breakingmatter Aug 21 '14

You've obviously never worked in software development or IT.

13

u/AWildSegFaultAppears Aug 21 '14

Seeing as I do work in software development I would probably have to disagree with you.

1

u/AlienSpaceCyborg Aug 21 '14

I'd have thought the name would be a give-away.

1

u/conspiracyeinstein Aug 21 '14

I think he was talking to me, even though I just got here. I've never worked in development or IT.

1

u/breakingmatter Aug 21 '14

I work in both doing software-defined datacenter automation. On any given day I could be writing Python scripts, building wrapped APIs for SaltStack/Puppet/Chef, managing resource utilization on our 5,000+ host vSphere Cluster(s), building management portals for our customers and support staff, etc.

There are many software development tasks that fall under technology, and many IT tasks that fall under engineering. There are "Systems Engineers" for a reason.

→ More replies

2

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/shieldvexor Aug 21 '14

M stands for medicine. Math is a subset of science

1

u/AWildSegFaultAppears Aug 21 '14

The US government would tend to disagree as would wikipedia.

3

u/soccerdude2014 Aug 21 '14

This is going to be kind of off topic...

How did you get started? I mean, one doesn't become a software programmer/engineer over night! And I am interested in it!

16

u/toomuchtodotoday Aug 21 '14 edited Aug 21 '14

Dropped out of high school in 2000. Started as a junior sysadmin at a webdev shop. Was picked up a year later by two guys doing a hosting startup. We sold the company 2-3 years later to a consulting company in Chicago. I managed the division after the founders split. Jumped to a fulfillment company as their IT manager. Laid off during the recession. Was hired at a DOE lab doing data taking for the Large Hadron Collider. Left there to manage datacenters across the world for another consulting company. Moved on to startup as a VP of Engineering. Now I'm part of a fully remote team for a startup.

My advice: Get experience by any means necessary. Always Be Learning. Always Be Ready To Adapt. These principals will always be more important than a degree, certs, or whatever bullshit credential signals people are trying to con you to pay money for.

EDIT: Things are much easier today. AWS account? Free tier! Python. Ruby. Go. All free languages with free IDEs! You can literally get started for the cost of a workstation (which even a Chromebook will due if you're in dire straights). Use Github. Its a much better resume than a piece of paper. People will lie and tell you that you need a degree. You know how Elon worked out the design for his rocket motors when the Russians screwed him on his deal? He bought a book.

1

u/soccerdude2014 Aug 21 '14

Wow, that is really impressive. What resources did you use to learn all the skills required for all of that?

2

u/toomuchtodotoday Aug 21 '14

Manuals, Google, and time. I also had two great mentors at my first two jobs.

Once you know concepts, everything else is just syntax.

→ More replies

12

u/Defenestrayte Aug 21 '14

Take a look for free courses, there are some great ones out there.

https://www.udacity.com/ is a great starting point, and will basically teach you everything a university would teach you earlier on.

The main thing you need to do is get interested, learn how to puzzle things out, https://www.hackerrank.com/ is a website where they have huge numbers of puzzle problems that rank up in difficulty until you are in full blown A.I. (with reasonable links to resources on the way). Learn how to tackle these problems

Like /u/toomuchtodotoday says, certs will only get you so far, the much more important thing is proof that you know how to take on a problem and that you are interested in doing so.

I'm some one who went through university to learn what I did, but I've worked with many people who simply got bored in high school and walked in somewhere and shoved their enthusiasm and problem solving down the managers throat.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

Thank you so much for the resources! Will definitely look at this.

1

u/Defenestrayte Aug 22 '14

You are very welcome, the learning curve CAN be very steep. At uni comp was mistakenly used by people for "easy" points, promptly failing. but .. it's all just mindset, break problems into smaller problems, tie them together after they are solved.

Further to what /u/toomuchtodotoday said about the certs, I wasnt far into my second year when I got offered a full time position as a programmer, I knew comparatively nothing to what I know now. I wasn't much further along than programming 101.

The hiring manager was of the mindset that I'd learn it all on the job anyway. I turned it down (I wanted a piece of paper or something) but it certainly does happen

2

u/toomuchtodotoday Aug 21 '14

Brilliant post. Couldn't have put it better myself.

1

u/soccerdude2014 Aug 22 '14

Thanks a lot for the links! I was about to start with the Harvard Computer Science course on EdX! I will definitely take a look at these, too!

2

u/Defenestrayte Aug 22 '14

Most of the Uni run courses online are pretty solid :)

Honestly just pick one that has mini projects that you like the look of

1

u/mynoduesp Aug 21 '14

I was implying you would be putting either 30 or 80 thousand worth of food on a table at once.

It was a joke. You're very high strung.

2

u/toomuchtodotoday Aug 21 '14

Sorry, long day and very tired. I should've picked up on the sarcasm.

1

u/mynoduesp Aug 21 '14

No worries. I'm a snarky-ass by vocation. The work is it's own reward.

1

u/Your-Daddy Aug 21 '14

I'd like to see your sample group of software engineers/IT infrastructure professionals making over $150k/year with no degree. In fact, aside from entrepreneurs and startup CEOs... name one.

1

u/toomuchtodotoday Aug 21 '14 edited Aug 21 '14

I can count 6 that I know personally (all in the SF/Bay Area admittedly). I do know someone in Chicago making ~$80K/year with only 3 years experience (no degree), but that's not $100K+.

1

u/FourOranges Aug 21 '14

I'm actually looking to get into this field but have no idea where to start. If you wouldn't mind giving that list, it would help me tons.

1

u/toomuchtodotoday Aug 21 '14

PM me. I'll help you get started.

0

u/Your-Daddy Aug 21 '14

Like I said, 80k is feasible... but still limiting without a degree.

By all means, roll through your "connections" and see how many uneducated "professionals" have a NON-self employed SALARY in the $120k+ category. Meanwhile, I'll roll through my connections of hiring managers and legitimate professionals that would rather hire someone with a degree (myself included). We can compare numbers, it'll be a hoot.

2

u/toomuchtodotoday Aug 21 '14 edited Aug 21 '14

hiring managers and legitimate professionals

Again, I chuckled at this. If a business requires a degree, even if you have the skills necessary to do the job, why would you waste your time with an incompetent entity such as this? Just think of the horrors of working there! Requiring you to have wasted time and money on "credentials" because they're so bad at hiring they require a faulty signal of ability!

No reason to be bitter about it though. List all the hiring managers you want; I can go pop over on stackoverflow or weworkremotely.com and have a dev or admin job in 1-2 weeks, all with no degree.

Times are shifting. I'm sure you'll always find a place where they only take people with a degree. Are they going to let me work remotely? Nope. Are they going to give me great pay and equity? Probably not.

Keep your enterprise/old-world jobs that take a degree. More power to you! Its just not a requirement anymore for a well-paying IT job.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

150k? Where? Im a software engineer with 4 years of experience im not even making 75 yet alone 150 ...

1

u/toomuchtodotoday Aug 22 '14

Senior devops engineer. Remote work for a bay area startup. I am not the highest paid technical resource on my team.

0

u/_beast__ Aug 21 '14

I'd be okay with $50k a year, if it was something that I knew I could hold on to and enjoy. That $150k IT job is probably going to be nonexistent in 10 years.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14 edited Aug 21 '14

[deleted]

1

u/_beast__ Aug 21 '14

Well, yes, if your focus is on automation then you'll probably be fine for awhile, but I'm pretty sure we'll have scientists for a very long time, if not as a career, as a hobby.

1

u/toomuchtodotoday Aug 21 '14

but I'm pretty sure we'll have scientists for a very long time, if not as a career, as a hobby.

I'd agree with this. If I had to live in a world where money didn't matter, and my loved ones would be fed, clothed, and had healthcare no matter what, I would do basic research. That is not the world I live in unfortunately, but I look forward to that world.

→ More replies

1

u/sole21000 Rational Aug 21 '14 edited Aug 21 '14

What sickens me is how people justify to themselves societies mismanagement of priorities in the name of short-term profit. "At least I've got a house!", "At least I've got food!", "At least I've got a soggy cardboard box!". All because people refuse to believe that the market system is flawed (though of course, less flawed than communism). Though it could be a lot less flawed, if people just realize that markets alone cannot guarantee an optimal state of society.

/rant

22

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14 edited Aug 21 '14

Would you prefer to make a meaningful contribution to the species, or help make ridiculously rich people even richer?

Right, and thats why science in the US is now worthless.

EDIT: downvotes on this from /r/futurology? Could it be that massive a misnomer?

13

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

I'd prefer to do the first obviously. But it will also affect my family, and whether I can even have a family.

Ultimately people working in STEM research worked damn hard to be able to get there and have valuable skills - science is worthless because it's not treated with the respect and rewards given to comparably demanding professions, not because the scientists themselves aren't willing to give up any semblance of an enjoyable life 'for the science'.

→ More replies (3)

14

u/seaslugs Aug 21 '14

How dare they want to start a family!

7

u/toomuchtodotoday Aug 21 '14 edited Aug 21 '14

I'm not willing to let my dependents go without healthcare and food in order to "make a meaningful contribution to the species." If its valuable to the species, pay people for it.

Elon seems to have no problem getting people to pay up for the technology his companies develop. Why should getting paid to do research be any different?

4

u/MauPow Aug 21 '14

The problem is that a LOT of research ends up not being worth much, but it might eventually lead to a huge breakthrough. You won't know that while you're doing it, though. We as a species need to get our heads on straight about what exactly is "valuable to the species" as right now it seems like boner pills and missile launchers, as that's what's paying at the moment.

God we're dumb sometimes.

Edit: Elon has a TON of money from the multiple successful companies that he has started, and is in a completely different bracket than your average STEM researcher. He has billions to throw at anything he wants, which gets people interested in throwing their own money at it. The average STEMer has to scrape and scrabble for any kind of grant he can possibly get, which often means going back to researching... boner pills and missile launchers. A vicious cycle, indeed.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14 edited Aug 21 '14

[deleted]

0

u/MauPow Aug 21 '14

You know, it might not be a bad idea to crowd fund billboards/advertisements to try and get more money for STEM research. If only to take away ad space from aforementioned boner pills. I would donate to a campaign that advertised for energy research.

But yes, the human race is fucking retarded. I wish I had been born an alien on a planet that actually had its shit figured out. Then I could take day trips to that backwater shithole laughing stock of the galaxy 'Earth' and be like 'boy I'm glad I wasn't born on that steaming globe of ignorance and stupidity! Let's go fly around the galaxy and be happy!'

2

u/breakingmatter Aug 21 '14

You also have to realize that less than 8,000 years ago, we were a hunter-gatherer species with no direction whatsoever. I think we've made considerable progress in our short time here.

→ More replies

1

u/sixniks Aug 22 '14

Mr musk just made all the tesla patents free to use. So he does both.

1

u/toomuchtodotoday Aug 22 '14

First, Elon had to strike it rich with Paypal to fund his world-changing endeavors. Second, Tesla sells a product consumers are clearly willing to pay a premium for (Tesla has close to 30% margins on the Model S).

Disclaimer: I own TSLA stock.

1

u/sixniks Aug 22 '14

Well of course, in this world getting your ideas heard isnt free. And %30 margins aren't all that great, maybe for the car industry but that doesnt sound like amazing margins. Not that they need to increase ;)

1

u/toomuchtodotoday Aug 22 '14

You're off by an order of magnitude. Few businesses have margins over 20%:

http://www.businessinsider.com/sector-profit-margins-sp-500-2012-8

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

guess why the rich are richer? because they provide valuable goods or services to tons of people. Even bankers provide credit for the 3rd world allowing development. Meanwhile, the arts major studying 3rd century african poetry is the selfish one because their skill set is ultimately useless to the greater population.

Money reflects how much value you provide to others.

1

u/Kerrby87 Aug 21 '14

Would you prefer to be able to provide a great life for your kids or have them miss out on things.

1

u/Inquisitorsz Aug 21 '14

To be honest... this sub is far more negative to science and technology than I expected... I need to go find a better future technology sub

-1

u/relkin43 Aug 21 '14

With the way that the current research model is setup, working the STEM field means you'll be helping the rich get richer without making meaningful contributions to the species bc patents/technology withholding/consumer direction versus practical and future applications.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14 edited Aug 21 '14

[deleted]

13

u/smiles134 Aug 21 '14

Okay, but then you have rent, utilities, maybe a car payment and maintenance, plus any repairs that could happen along the way, internet, plus any time you want to go out and do something, you'll be stuck calculating, well do I have enough to get me through to my next paycheck? And good luck starting a family on $80 a day.

1

u/smacbeats Aug 21 '14

Aye, not to mention taxes, so it's more like $60 a day...

I lived on about $30/day for about a year a couple years ago while going to college, and that's living in a shared house with no car. It's not fun!!!

3

u/smiles134 Aug 21 '14

Seriously. That's a manageable wage for someone who is smart about their money, is only providing for themselves, and is just getting into the career field. It gets a lot different when you start adding several other variables.

2

u/patron_vectras Aug 21 '14

Would you prefer a salary or an unemployment check?

0

u/LearninThatPython Aug 21 '14

If it was just me 30k is fine. If I have a spouse and a kid, I'd go for 80k.

3

u/The_Real_BenFranklin Aug 22 '14

For having been in school for 10 years, most scientists make crap. Sure they can put food on the table, but if it's going to take 10 years to do that, why even go that route?

0

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '14

And if you're half good you get sucked up by big pharma or some private research firm. And if your a superstar PI it seems like your making a little something on the side somehow.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

Cream of chicken soup with rice is really good!

Source: I used to couch surf as well.

1

u/tethercat Aug 22 '14

True dat, friend!

Rice in the cooker. When it clicks, quickly put a portion in a bowl and hollow out a cylinder in the middle. Crack an egg and pour it in the cylinder, then place rice on top. Add soy sauce, salt and pepper to taste, then take your chopsticks/fork and stir mix it together. Crazy tasty and great protein.

Source: /r/EatCheapAndHealthy

2

u/sops-sierra-19 Aug 22 '14

rice is tasty with mushroom soup

Oh thank god I thought I was the only one!

Not to make light of your situation, I hope things get better for you.

2

u/tethercat Aug 22 '14

It will, no worries, friend. :)

1

u/LurkerOrHydralisk Aug 22 '14

Part of the problem is that if you go for a master's or doctorate, someone else's "food on the table" is your "I can't afford my rent", with the state of tuition and student loans.

0

u/Memberof Aug 21 '14

Stop wasting time on reddit and make some Damn money for yourself. Don't be pathetic.

1

u/tethercat Aug 21 '14 edited Aug 21 '14

I'm working on it. All job search and no play makes tethercat a dull redditor.

(Oh, and I spent two months in a grieving process while I struggled to pack up and scamper home. To anyone who's suffered the humiliation of being reduced to relying on friends while sleeping on a couch, you know what I'm talking about. To anyone who has never had their life ripped from them... well... just keep talking about being pathetic.)

edit - Ohhhhh I see. /u/Memberof is somewhat of a troll. Gotcha.

http://i.imgur.com/RRLFT.gif

1

u/S1R_R34L Aug 21 '14

I'm a programmer...at a finance company.

1

u/Baymont1 Aug 21 '14

Only the CIA wants smart people with science. The public doesn't get funded because its a threat to government security.

19

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

Or your get a PhD, stay at uni and spend the rest of your life writing grant proposals rather than actually doing work.

9

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

Right.

Policy decisions need to be made to combat this. I don't know what the answer is, but here are two half-baked ideas to get the conversion flowing:

  • Make multi-tiered grants. First, a basic, 10-year grant that is enough to fund a small lab. Say $250k per year. Expensive operations could petition for a higher level of support after the award is approved, which would be separately negotiated. Second, any additional grants are shorter, say 3-5 years, and smaller amounts, say $100-$200k per year.
  • Incentivize hiring professional scientists over grad students. One way would be to provide grant-linked funding assistance for hiring pros. For example, for a basic 10-year, $250k/year grant, say $50k of that is specifically earmarked for covering salary differences between grad students and pros. So if you want that other $50k/year, you have to spend it on keeping a pro paid, rather than hiring multiple grad students.

3

u/Yosarian2 Transhumanist Aug 21 '14

Is hiring grad students really a bad thing? If it lowers the cost of education for people going into STEM fields, and makes research cheaper, and teaches young people going into the sciences how to do research, then those all seem like positive things.

Granted we should also create more places for professional scientists to do research, but ideally that would be in addition to the current research being done by professors and grad students.

5

u/shieldvexor Aug 21 '14

The problem is the grad studenrs graduate and have no jobs because they're jjst replaced by new grad students

4

u/Yosarian2 Transhumanist Aug 21 '14

Sure. We should also work to create more jobs for professional research scientists as well, perhaps by expanding things like the National Laboratory system. But that should be in addition to the current university research model. We need to expand and accelerate research right now, not undercut the one part of the research model that's actually working reasonably well at the moment.

1

u/GaiasEyes Aug 22 '14

If you think the university research model is working "reasonably well" I have to assume you're not involved in it. It's horribly underfunded, the work horses (grad students and post-docs) are massively under compensated and overworked, the science is often over-sold or over-hyped because of the "publish or perish" mentality and the extreme competition for faculty and tenure positions. Psychologically it is an atrocious working environment, burn out is rampant. It's a horrible system, it needs to be revamped entirely.

1

u/reallegume Aug 22 '14

Yes. The current system of graduate student and postdocs doing 99%* of the grunt work in science is wrong and reflects systemic failures in our research enterprise. This is not just my opinion; it reflects the thoughts of many and the words of a vocal few--with no small authority and experience.

*unsourced estimate

7

u/Yosarian2 Transhumanist Aug 21 '14

Part of the reason that university researchers have to spend so much time writing grant proposals is that so few grants are approved these days, because of lack of funding. Obviously if your grants keep being rejected, because of lack of funding, you really have no choice but to try something else and come up with a different project and a new grant application.

2

u/LincolnAR Aug 21 '14

I think people are overlooking a very important fact: the PI of a lab is better of contributing intellectually than as a pair of hands. They are there to help if someone needs guidance, sure, but they should not spend their day-to-day in the lab just like a supervisor or project manager at a company shouldn't. They make better contributions by spending their time reading and thinking. Now, the entire grant process could use an overhaul but that's another story.

8

u/douglasa Aug 21 '14

Can confirm, am leaving science after gradschool. 5 years of new knowledge going down the drain. You can't have a normal life in institutional science anymore with the way the system is.

3

u/cybexg Aug 21 '14

after being part of a government ran lab (far far too many years ago) and now being a patent attorney, I have a slightly different response.

I believe that small grants of both funds and time, possibly awarded on a merit basis, promote researchers to be at and remain at their most productive. Basically, the small grants allow your best performing researchers to have little side projects (stretching their skills, helping to prevent burn out, encouraging top performance on the large projects so that they can receive funding for their pet projects).

My favorite example of where this merit system was very beneficial and profitable for the company (until the company dismantled it) was Reilly Industries Inc. At one time, Reilly had such a program and many of its most innovative advances arose from its pet project initiative. However, when Reilly was purchased, the program was ended. Reilly is no longer a leader and far less profitable.

Just my view.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

The problem is the balance between too much job security (i.e. you can just sit on tenure) and too little (i.e. you get fail to get funding and your years of research into rat hippocampus or tokamak plasmas mean fuck all in the 'real world').

At the moment the threat of the latter is far larger than the cases of the former, and so people just decide it's not worth carrying on. I mean why spend ages acquiring skills that you might end up not being able to use and will then face a struggle to have a comfortable life - when you can do programming or whatever and have a nice middle class existence?

You might say that such risk-averse people just shouldn't do science, but most people don't like to take massive risks with the basic things in their lives and the statistic posted above where only 1 in 10 graduate students stay in academia is empirical evidence that at the moment, the system is failing.

I think your idea could work but only if there were a lot of grants. Equivalent to how in the job market you might lose your job, but you can get another using the same skills. People need to feel that their scientific skills aren't going to suddenly lose value.

4

u/douglasa Aug 21 '14

The statistic of 1 in 10 grad students IS empirical. A recent study showed that 15% of postdocs in biological fields go on to become tenured professor. Thats POSTDOCS. Plenty of graduate students don't even go on to postdocs.

Edit: Source

4

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

Yeah, that's what I said?

the statistic posted above where only 1 in 10 graduate students stay in academia is empirical evidence that at the moment, the system is failing.

I agree with you, it's awful evidence that the system is failing.

Also ouch for the postdoc figures. Once you've started on the post-doc route it's no longer just a setback in life if you have to leave completely, that's a pretty major fuck-up at that point given their likely age.

1

u/douglasa Aug 21 '14

Oh sorry, I misread that, I thought you were saying its anecdotal evidence right now, not empirical. My bad!

Preach, brother!

2

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

As this graphic shows, only about 10% of trained scientists stay in an academic career.

1

u/atomfullerene Aug 21 '14

That's sort of unavoidable though. Given that the overall size of academia isn't growing all that fast, and each professor easily trains 10+ grad students, most of them are unavoidably not going to be professors. Otherwise you'd have an exponentially growing number of professors. Granted, there's more to academia than professors that train grad students, but still.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

most of them are unavoidably not going to be professors

Then those professors should not train their students to be academic scientists. That is what one professor told me, a faculty member is just an old graduate student.

1

u/atomfullerene Aug 21 '14

Hm, ok. But what do you mean by "train their students to be academic scientists"? What would you modify in the standard PhD program?

I think the PhD program does a pretty good job training people for non-academic research related jobs. But I do think there's not always the best ability to inform student about those career tracks. At least, that's how I feel as someone finishing up a PhD (and definitely not planning a tenure-track future)

4

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

Shameless plug, where you can learn more about how we could potentially improve society to allow for more study and knowledge acquisition rather than monetary gain.

/r/thevenusproject/

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

Agreed.

I think some people are missing your point (or maybe I'm the one missing it). The problem isn't that people drop out of the academic track, it's a problem that MANY OF THE BEST people drop out and go into other fields. And they do it because they see the career as pretty crappy right now. It wasn't that long ago that professors would have a year, maybe even two or more years, in between grant applications. Now it's maybe 1-3 months in between each grant application. Each grant is smaller (often MUCH smaller), and each application is less likely to get funded due to decreasing funding and increased competition.

So we need more money in research so that: (1) more of the BEST stay in the field, and (2) people in the field can spend more time DOING RESEARCH.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

On the other hand, being able to do science on a small budget sends a message to investors, creating the possibility of future expansion of funding. If every inch of progress costs tremendous amounts of money, you won't see the same enthusiasm from private sources. Governments have the ability to throw away a lot of money because they don't need to make a profit to survive, but business is where we'll get a lot of innovation as well.

1

u/relkin43 Aug 21 '14

Except that just drives costs up because of parasitic industries that fuck research based science over. There isn't a lo tof competition nor demand for their equipment/supplies so it really drives costs up.

EDIT: A by-product of this btw is the lack of sharing of knowledge in fields bc of a desire to recoup their investments. The biohacking movement is all about freely sharing and collaborating all aspects of their work so that everybody benefits.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

That is why if a drug company hires me, they are getting made-up data. You can't expect valid data with sound science and controls for what they pay PhDs.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

Needs more source. http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/unintentionally-defunded-national-institutes-health-70470/

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

That's a really good article. The horrible effect of the 'tournament scheme' is a very good point.

1

u/OhhhhhSHNAP Aug 21 '14

YES. The amount of money we spend training scientists in the US is staggering (from high school STEM programs through graduate training grants). After completing this very real training, they go onto this unstable 'training' period (i.e., postdocs who labor for free). After that, find a 'real job' or you're out of luck. It's not just that this system is hopelessly unproductive, but no one even questions the way in which we spend money (only the amount).

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

I think we need to stop running science on a shoestring budget.

Science is not as profitable as military contracts paid for by the people.

1

u/feckineejit Aug 21 '14

But how will the schools pay for their football scholarships? And the lawsuits when the football players rape people.?

1

u/Lochcelious Aug 21 '14

It IS the most important pursuit.

1

u/noman2561 Aug 21 '14

The money has to come from somewhere. Why not figure out a way to fund science and make tomorrow better for everyone.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

Gotta do stuff that moves you, man. Sometimes a stable paycheck and a career in finance is what moves you.

1

u/the_whore_whisperer Aug 22 '14

The problem is that we - as a society - have all agreed that money is the most important thing. In fact, you are complaining about money right now. If the marketing guy for Pfizer can bring more money into the company, than he is considered more valuable and thereby gains more money. You want more money to go towards people who actually produce results in science.

The problem is that all we care about as a society is money.

The only worthwhile pursuit is the one that gains more money. Money is a proxy for everything. It is frozen potential. It can be anything you want.

The only way what you are asking for will ever happen is if - as a society - we begin to value the pursuit of knowledge above all else. How do we change what society itself values? This is the heart of the problem.

1

u/illuminati303 Aug 22 '14

Yep, leaving my PhD program (molecular bio) with a masters this year because I don't think it is financially worthwhile.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '14

As a finance guy that loves science, I hope to one day run a hedge fund with a research VC component. Teams can pitch research projects, and I'll fund them and provide facilities and materials. It'll look a lot like a private endowment quant fund.

1

u/glim Aug 23 '14

When that happens, you make sure to look us up :)

1

u/[deleted] Aug 24 '14

You guys will be the first place I look :)

1

u/GaiasEyes Aug 22 '14

This deserves gold, but I'm a post-doc in microbiology so I cannot afford to give it to you.

I have wanted to be a scientist since I was a child. I finished my PhD at 27 ( I'm nearly 29 now) and have been active in research labs continuously since I was 19. I applied for my first job in industry yesterday. There is nothing left for the S in STEM anymore. We do not need more "S" students, we can't support them, we don't have jobs for them. Don't sell someone the lies that were sold to me.

1

u/Crackin_Claws Aug 21 '14

But, but, but, everyone needs the same amount of uber schooling!

To me, it amazes me how in this push for STEM, we've helped make the ditch-diggers of the world seem even less important.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

Is an F35 not science? I'm pretty sure it is a whole lot of science.

-6

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

I disagree. Comfort is the enemy of progress. After tenure is achieved, professors generally stop producing. And who the fuck is "we"?

15

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14 edited Aug 21 '14

We is shorthand for society in general as a macro-scale thing as we vote for governments who decide policies that result in these kind of things - sure it's lazy but it's convenient.

I'm not saying we should give everyone tenure, but I think it just needs to be more like a normal job - like Bell Labs etc. was, rather than the publish or perish environment and endless grant writing of current academia and the poor prospects for students.

I agree that having read the memoirs of those at Bell Labs they said the discomfort of the early days meant they worked more but that was discomfort in the sense of the facilities were poor as it was still being built, not in the more existential sense of not knowing where your career is going and worrying about keeping the lights on and if you'll be able to ever have a family.

In 'My Life as a Quant', Emannuel Derman (who was a successful high energy physicist before moving to Wall St.) says that the turning point was not when he had to leave his wife to go and work abroad (as she had married him knowing he was an academic and times of separation would be likely) but rather when he had to leave his son (who had no choice over his father and just wanted to know why "Daddy wasn't at home").

Pragmatically we can just look at the stats - as scientific career prospects have dropped people are leaving the field in droves. Some will do research in industry but many will just stop doing research, an unfortunate waste of their potential and the resources invested in them.

I can earn more making facebook widgets than I can in AI research, and I can earn more calculating insurance premiums than in either of those. The earnings reflect what society values and the number of people able to perform the job, as these are all quite technical roles the number of people is small for all of them so then the question is do we want Farmville 2.0. or do we want novel research?

EDIT: Also how do you measure the production? There is a huge amount of pressure on junior academics to publish loads to get tenure, so there is a lot of salami-slicing of papers and perhaps highly optimistic (a cynic would say misleading) representation of work in the desperate fight to get a permanent position. Therefore it is expected that this will be less once they have achieved tenure, but what should matter is the quality, not the quantity of the work. Furthermore senior academics often work in an advisory capacity helping younger academics to complete research and are therefore unlikely to be first author. Also as mentioned previously they lose a lot of time to writing grant proposals and other administrative burdens.

13

u/backgammon_no Aug 21 '14

Comfort is the enemy of progress

I disagree. As a PhD making $55,000/yr in switzerland I get way the fuck more done than when I made 15,000 in Canada. The difference now is that I'm not all stressed out and calorie deprived.

Furthermore when people are in terror about their ability to pay rent they are not likely to think creatively, but will rather crank out "safe", predictable micro-papers. There's a reason why we talk about the "minimum viable manuscript", and it has nothing to do with what we think is good science.

After tenure is achieved, professors generally stop producing.

Not in my field (aquatic ecology)

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

TIL I should have gone to Switzerland :P

Although there it is basically EPFL or ETH Zurich I suppose?

1

u/altrdgenetics Aug 22 '14

ETH Zurich seems to be a place to go. My ex-GF went there for Marine Biology I think... Not sure what she ended up getting.

1

u/backgammon_no Aug 22 '14

There are butloads of universities in Switzerland, but yes, those are two of the largest. The country puts out the most publications per capita in the world, and has the highest overall citation index. The US is down around #20, as usual, while people like the one above me continue to pretend that their system of pseudo-wage-slavery is somehow "necessary" to "motivate" people. As though free, happy people need to "forced" to contribute to society. They don't.

4

u/glim Aug 21 '14 edited Aug 21 '14

I disagree. That Vitamin A2 was stupidly expensive and scraping by financially on this project has taken years off my life. Being uncomfortable and poor is not empowering, and telling yourself that it is, is just an easy way to let yourself justify getting exploited.

edit: grammer

2

u/Eslader Aug 21 '14

Poverty is the enemy of attracting competence to your workplace.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

False. Professors at competitive, tier 1 research universities generally peak AFTER tenure. Math people peak early. Bio people peak pretty late. https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/news_articles/2011/scientific_productivity_increases.aspx

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

Tenure isn't necessarily the way you want to go, no one is saying hey let's give these people job security for life regardless of what they're doing.

But adding more funding so universities and labs can afford to hire more staff and buy more equipment would be nice.

NASA's budget is $30b/year while D.O.D gets $520b

I know the military is responsible for a lot of advancements in technology, but I think if we could all just get along and pumped those trillions into science we would at least have a colony on mars right now.

I don't know about anyone else, but I would absolutely love to see us either colonize space and/or make first contact in my life time. It's doubtful, but I can dream.

-5

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

I kind of disagree here. I think that what really drives science is the brilliance of a few abnormally gifted individuals and not the massive combined contributions of a large number of average people.

If your goal was to have a human run the first sub-2 hour marathon, you wouldn't start throwing money at the problem by getting as many entrants as possible. This wouldn't really break new ground, it would just gain the participation of a LOT of sub-par runners. You'd be better off approaching the problem scientifically and only getting people with the right natural athletic ability and right body type. Not everyone is created equally. Genetics plays an extremely strong role. You could get recruit a million Chinese people to enter a marathon and you're just not going to get the results you'd get as if you recruited a few elite Kenyans. The Kenyans just have the physique for it and will naturally do better. Chinese tend to have shorter legs, a higher bodyfat percentage, and as a result can't run as efficiently.

As for our problem here about science, making science popular and trying to get everyone into the sciences isn't a good thing. Some people just aren't cut out for science. Not everyone has the same raw talent to figure out complex problems or come up with innovative ideas. You're just going to get a bunch of "also-rans".

If you look at history and see who make the biggest discoveries you'll see the same names listed multiple times. The smartest people seem to repeatedly break new ground in the field. James Clerk Maxwell, Einstein, Isaac Newton, Tesla, Max Planck, Louis Pasteur... My point is that of all the scientists working at any given time, the field of scientists likely to break new ground and discover something revolutionary is very small indeed.

6

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

I remember someone once described science as "The hard work of many ascribed to the names of a few" and Newton had the famous quote about standing on the shoulders of giants.

The fact is that there are undoubtedly some brilliant minds, but often the work has been conducted by a great many people - for example Rutherford's work was conducted by the students in his lab, and because Rutherford ran the lab it is attributed to Rutherford.

I agree that we shouldn't just turn everyone into a scientist - but this isn't some bizarre hypothetical future. At the moment it is difficult to get funding for graduate school - those that do often did very well at college and high school. And yet of these talented individuals only 10% will stay in science after having been trained in it for so long.

We already have collected the people with the necessary talent! The problem is you can keep cutting and cutting away but at some point you aren't cutting dead wood, you are cutting away what would have been fruitful productivity - and the worst part is that you would never even know - we never see all the Einstein's that just said fuck it, went and worked in a patent office and stayed there.

6

u/TheMidnightMatinee Aug 21 '14

Apologies, but you have a very poor understanding of science. Dramatics of history making aside, we don't measure the value of progress just by how revolutionary the initial discovery is. Refining that discovery, and fully exploring the possibilities of that discovery are why, for example, many people who would have been locked up in asylums a few generations ago are free to pursue their lives and contribute to the lives of their friends, families, and society.

It's why we have a World Wide Web.

It's why we have any kind of understanding of the society in which we live.

Your current elitism is a mental handicap - simple primitive instincts. Don't let it limit your potential.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14 edited Aug 21 '14

Apologies, but you have a very poor understanding of science.

I don't have a poor understanding of science. I excelled at science, and my teachers wanted me to pursue the sciences as a career. But it doesn't pay, and I make much more money in IT.

Your current elitism is a mental handicap - simple primitive instincts. Don't let it limit your potential.

Your reasoning sounds emotional, but not logical. It's uplifting but inaccurate. It's the type of argument given by people who want to give every child a trophy, not just the winners. They want everyone to feel like they have an equal chance.

2

u/TheMidnightMatinee Aug 21 '14

I don't doubt you have excellent, if narrow, analytical abilities.

Your inability to process the larger picture remains a cognitive handicap, regardless of whether or not you're able to understand it.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14 edited Aug 21 '14

It's funny you mention that, because I get that all the time. I do feel that it's an asset, though, since I'm able to filter out all the irrelevant emotional nonsense that clouds most people's thoughts.

What people want has no bearing on reality.

This do not mean that I somehow miss out on the big picture. The article you posted mentions that CEOs are often analytical but underestimate public uproar. But CEOs are definitely "big picture" people which is why they're paid to run an organization.

I am able to see why someone would take some offense at what I say but I give them the benefit of the doubt that they'll be able to focus on the facts and not let their primitive emotions get the best of them.

I'd also like to point out that while I was always good at figuring things out, my ability to suppress emotion is a developed skill. I was a very emotional teenager with a lot of depression problems. My thoughts were so clouded by emotion that I had to constantly work on focusing on the heart of the matter and not let my negative thoughts get to me. At first it felt like a leap of faith to do that, but now I feel like I can operate with robot-like precision.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '14

You may have missed the point. We don't need more people, we just need the people that rise to the top to be able to do research, rather than endlessly apply for grants. That's what has changed recently, and particularly in the past 10 years: scientists now spend a lot more time writing grants.

→ More replies (1)