Professors in Poverty

[barbos]

These rankings have nothing to do with undergrad education. In fact they can not be applied outside the western system, certainly not to Russian system which is very different.

Wave of the hand without even reading the criteria or what is ranked. That's Russian science for you. Thank you for showing Lysenkoism is alive and well in Russia. These are undergraduate rankings sir.

Sheesh.

Have you joined the climate change deniers yet? You seem to have all the attributes necessary.

I know these criteria, I just don't think they are relevant to undergrad education, not to mention they are heavily biased toward US and other western universities.
Speaking of criteria, I bet publications are part of that criteria, right?
Besides obvious objection that publications are >90% garbage, there are other less known things.
Here is a story I recently red about. Russian archaeologists make a discovery and publish it in russian journal. Japanese archaeologists write a paper and quote and cite this russian publication. But here is a thing, Russian journal is written in Russian and japanese paper is in english.
Do you want to know what happens next? Japanese get all the citation and russian gets none, even though all they essentially did was translating it. How do you think this is reflected in these ratings?
Now you can blame these stupid russians for using russian but it is what it is.

By the way, Lysenkov was somewhat right, accidentally but right.
And I don't know how he is relevant to present but US had its fair share of bad science and charlatans

 

[laughing dog]

Not just mine. Other than your experienced-based opinion, what evidence have you put forth? You should be able to cite a post number that contains that evidence or reproduce it.

When I got my university degree (B.S. in physics) I went to work as a scientist, and the boss (head of the lab) was a guy with exactly the same education and degree as me (B.S. in physics), by the way, there were few PhDs in the lab

I see, you have no evidence other than your opinion.

 

[fromderinside]

Here is a story I recently red about. Russian archaeologists make a discovery and publish it in russian journal. Japanese archaeologists write a paper and quote and cite this russian publication. But here is a thing, Russian journal is written in Russian and japanese paper is in english.
Do you want to know what happens next? Japanese get all the citation and russian gets none, even though all they essentially did was translating it. How do you think this is reflected in these ratings?
Now you can blame these stupid russians for using russian but it is what it is.

What is stupid is that Russians are so full of themselves that they didn't make the effort to translate and publish the article themselves in English, the current international language of science.

My articles start in English, get translated into French and German as a matter of course because the relevant readership are from French, German and English speaking tribes. I've translated many articles into readable English at the request of top Japanese neuro-scientists who were doing post docs at Cal Tech (oops. Dropped that name again). Its not a matter of pride. Its a matter of distribution and readership.

So there your Russian Archaeologist friends taking turns kicking each other across the quad.

BTW if you don't understand the above you are really not interested in science since you don't do what is necessary to get stuff to proper readership.

Even so the rating agencies often have a category for multiple language publication as a factor in their rankings.

 

[beero1000]

How did this thread get derailed to the point where defending paying a couple of thousand dollars per course is seen as "getting the best teachers"?

How did this thread get derailed to the point where a thread on adjunct wages in American academia is now discussing the relative merit of the Russian education system?

 

[bilby]

They are not the same skill. Being able to teach and figure out how to cure cancer aren't the same. And for 95% of the classes at the undergrad level you don't even need that.

This is a great conundrum.

Our educational systems are divided along the primary/secondary and post secondary lines in that with the former we expect educators to know how to teach but to have little if any understanding of the material and with the latter we expect the educators to be very fluent in the material but not to necessarily have any real ability to teach it.

Certainly there's got to be some middle area within both these systems that involves knowledgeable people who can also teach.

Or, conversely, maybe it just doesn't matter.

We need good teachers to teach children how to learn.

Once people have learned how to learn, they need knowledgeable people from whom to learn; but the burden of knowing how to teach for those knowledgeable people is shouldered by the pupils, who should, by then, know how to learn without being coddled.

The better educated a pupil becomes, the less important teaching ability is in their teachers; and the more important knowledge of the subject matter becomes.

A teacher knows how to teach things; A professor merely professes to know them, and if you want to learn from him, it's your job to make the effort.

 

[barbos]

When I got my university degree (B.S. in physics) I went to work as a scientist, and the boss (head of the lab) was a guy with exactly the same education and degree as me (B.S. in physics), by the way, there were few PhDs in the lab

I see, you have no evidence other than your opinion.

I see, you are still full of shit.

 

[barbos]

Here is a story I recently red about. Russian archaeologists make a discovery and publish it in russian journal. Japanese archaeologists write a paper and quote and cite this russian publication. But here is a thing, Russian journal is written in Russian and japanese paper is in english.
Do you want to know what happens next? Japanese get all the citation and russian gets none, even though all they essentially did was translating it. How do you think this is reflected in these ratings?
Now you can blame these stupid russians for using russian but it is what it is.

What is stupid is that Russians are so full of themselves that they didn't make the effort to translate and publish the article themselves in English, the current international language of science.

Maybe they did not speak english and did not have money to pay for translator?
And maybe they are full of themselves and don't care about your stupid ratings?
They don't plan to work in the west and has no need to overload their publication counters.

My articles start in English, get translated into French and German as a matter of course because the relevant readership are from French, German and English speaking tribes. I've translated many articles into readable English at the request of top Japanese neuro-scientists who were doing post docs at Cal Tech (oops. Dropped that name again). Its not a matter of pride. Its a matter of distribution and readership.

So there your Russian Archaeologist friends taking turns kicking each other across the quad.

BTW if you don't understand the above you are really not interested in science since you don't do what is necessary to get stuff to proper readership.

I understand all of that, but if you don't understand that these ratings are nothing but tools to increase profits then you are not interested in science.

Even so the rating agencies often have a category for multiple language publication as a factor in their rankings.

That would not help.

 

[laughing dog]

I see, you have no evidence other than your opinion.

I see, you are still full of shit.

Yet another chance to provide actual evidence to support your claim wasted in hurling moronic insults.

 

[barbos]

I see, you are still full of shit.

Yet another chance to provide actual evidence to support your claim wasted in hurling moronic insults.

No need to prove my point over and over again.

 

[fromderinside]

Yet another chance to provide actual evidence to support your claim wasted in hurling moronic insults.

No need to prove my point over and over again.

Attempting to prove your point, whatever it is, once would be a gesture at least. So too poor to get translator when I already posted often in reputable labs there are students or researchers from many countries. Conclusion either Russian labs only have Russian researchers which is counter to the notion of propagating knowledge or Russian labs are insular also counter to exchange of information. The idea of doing research is to increase understanding among those who are doing the same kin d of thing. It is not a contest where I get on and you don't have it. Such would be completely counter to the idea of knowledge seeking. I really do have to conclude that either Russian researchers think they are in a war for which they must protect what they know, or, they are just plane too arrogant to care whether anyone knows anything. There is nothing superior in any of that.

My conclusion of your argument is that you are an empty suit.

 

[Bronzeage]

How did this thread get derailed to the point where defending paying a couple of thousand dollars per course is seen as "getting the best teachers"?

How did this thread get derailed to the point where a thread on adjunct wages in American academia is now discussing the relative merit of the Russian education system?

It's just the way things go.

The bottom line of this kind of argument is not that the work is under valued, but the labor is too plentiful.

There is a Home Depot near me, which has all the customary signs in the parking lot, commanding people not to loiter. There are similar signs on the doors, demand people not hire those who stand around the no loitering signs. I have friends who stop by the Home Depot on some days to hire casual labor. The first thing they ask is, "How much?" The jobs have to pay at least $12/hour, to get anyone interested. On days when there are still a dozen or more left, after eight o'clock, it's easy to find someone for $12. At seven thirty, if there are only a few people, expect to pay $15/hour, or more.

The plight of the adjunct professors is sad, but the plain fact is, there are more qualified people than there are positions. It is a strange twist to see the institute which created the oversupply is benefiting from the glut. On the other hand, low adjunct salaries and poor benefits make private sector jobs more appealing. A Phd in Medieval Languages must have learned something more than Middle French.

 

[fromderinside]

A Phd in Medieval Languages must have learned something more than Middle French.

Everything is local isn't it. New Orleans poster citing oversupply problems comes up with PhD in medieval languages needing more than Middle French to move the market. Surely knowing something about design and use of reed instruments would help down there. Friend of mine had value added of being expert in sign and of being a string instrument designer to go with his PhD in Psychoacoustics. Unfortunately it only landed him a spot at NIB in Connecticut and this was way back in the day at end of Johnson era. Been that way since the thirties I'm sad to report. Much worse in Physics and Chemical Engineering though. I think he retired at under $100k in 2000.

 

[Bronzeage]

A Phd in Medieval Languages must have learned something more than Middle French.

Everything is local isn't it. New Orleans poster citing oversupply problems comes up with PhD in medieval languages needing more than Middle French to move the market. Surely knowing something about design and use of reed instruments would help down there. Friend of mine had value added of being expert in sign and of being a string instrument designer to go with his PhD in Psychoacoustics. Unfortunately it only landed him a spot at NIB in Connecticut and this was way back in the day at end of Johnson era. Been that way since the thirties I'm sad to report. Much worse in Physics and Chemical Engineering though. I think he retired at under $100k in 2000.

Psychoacoustics sounds crazy to me.

All occupations are subject to the economy. The reality of technical professions, known today as the ST of STEM, has always been that most of the work is done by the middle range engineers. Novices are low paid, until they are able to handle serious design work. Their salary quickly plateaus. If they want to move into the higher ranges, let's say $250K and above, that's management territory. The will be the project engineer, and supervise engineers, designers, and all the other support staff. Worse than that, they may have to go into administration, but that's where the real money is.

The secret motto of the Exxon Mobile Chemical Division is "On spec. Not over, not under". Simply put, an employer wants and employee who is good enough. "Good enough" can be a fairly wide range, especially if there is no true creative work required. Things such as showing up on time, every day, will compensate for less than perfect performance. This means the excellent will be paid much the same as the good enough.

 

[laughing dog]

Yet another chance to provide actual evidence to support your claim wasted in hurling moronic insults.

No need to prove my point over and over again.

You need to prove it once before you can do it again.

 

[rousseau]

Everything is local isn't it. New Orleans poster citing oversupply problems comes up with PhD in medieval languages needing more than Middle French to move the market. Surely knowing something about design and use of reed instruments would help down there. Friend of mine had value added of being expert in sign and of being a string instrument designer to go with his PhD in Psychoacoustics. Unfortunately it only landed him a spot at NIB in Connecticut and this was way back in the day at end of Johnson era. Been that way since the thirties I'm sad to report. Much worse in Physics and Chemical Engineering though. I think he retired at under $100k in 2000.

Psychoacoustics sounds crazy to me.

All occupations are subject to the economy. The reality of technical professions, known today as the ST of STEM, has always been that most of the work is done by the middle range engineers. Novices are low paid, until they are able to handle serious design work. Their salary quickly plateaus. If they want to move into the higher ranges, let's say $250K and above, that's management territory. The will be the project engineer, and supervise engineers, designers, and all the other support staff. Worse than that, they may have to go into administration, but that's where the real money is.

The secret motto of the Exxon Mobile Chemical Division is "On spec. Not over, not under". Simply put, an employer wants and employee who is good enough. "Good enough" can be a fairly wide range, especially if there is no true creative work required. Things such as showing up on time, every day, will compensate for less than perfect performance. This means the excellent will be paid much the same as the good enough.

I read an article a few weeks back that brought up 'tending toward under-performance'. That was new to me.

The idea is that manager's only really care about the security of their own role, so as long as you aren't doing anything to jeopardize that, and your team doesn't hate you, you're fine. Pretty big shift in perspective. I still try to do good work because I enjoy what I do, though.

 

[Bronzeage]

Psychoacoustics sounds crazy to me.

All occupations are subject to the economy. The reality of technical professions, known today as the ST of STEM, has always been that most of the work is done by the middle range engineers. Novices are low paid, until they are able to handle serious design work. Their salary quickly plateaus. If they want to move into the higher ranges, let's say $250K and above, that's management territory. The will be the project engineer, and supervise engineers, designers, and all the other support staff. Worse than that, they may have to go into administration, but that's where the real money is.

The secret motto of the Exxon Mobile Chemical Division is "On spec. Not over, not under". Simply put, an employer wants and employee who is good enough. "Good enough" can be a fairly wide range, especially if there is no true creative work required. Things such as showing up on time, every day, will compensate for less than perfect performance. This means the excellent will be paid much the same as the good enough.

I read an article a few weeks back that brought up 'tending toward under-performance'. That was new to me.

The idea is that manager's only really care about the security of their own role, so as long as you aren't doing anything to jeopardize that, and your team doesn't hate you, you're fine. Pretty big shift in perspective. I still try to do good work because I enjoy what I do, though.

That only works in a large corporation where inertia keeps things moving and change is very slow. I was once a middle manager in an Oldsmobile service department. My pay depended a great deal on the performance of the people under me. It was my job to create a safe and efficient workplace, where skilled technicians could repair cars. I was able to raise productivity by reducing a lot of the friction which once slowed my work when I was a technician. One morning I was driving to work, and heard a news report that GM was killing the Oldsmobile line.

That led to some hard times, but Olds wasn't the only carline we sold. Eventually I ended up as manager in the RV service department. One day, the dealership was sold to a much larger competitor and all the middle managers were fired. If I had still been in the car shop, or the body shop, I might have been kept, but the RV sales and service was dumped.

It is possible to be a successful manager and increase productivity, and still lose your job. You can't always be in the right place at the right time, doing the right thing.

 

[rousseau]

I read an article a few weeks back that brought up 'tending toward under-performance'. That was new to me.

The idea is that manager's only really care about the security of their own role, so as long as you aren't doing anything to jeopardize that, and your team doesn't hate you, you're fine. Pretty big shift in perspective. I still try to do good work because I enjoy what I do, though.

That only works in a large corporation where inertia keeps things moving and change is very slow. I was once a middle manager in an Oldsmobile service department. My pay depended a great deal on the performance of the people under me. It was my job to create a safe and efficient workplace, where skilled technicians could repair cars. I was able to raise productivity by reducing a lot of the friction which once slowed my work when I was a technician. One morning I was driving to work, and heard a news report that GM was killing the Oldsmobile line.

That led to some hard times, but Olds wasn't the only carline we sold. Eventually I ended up as manager in the RV service department. One day, the dealership was sold to a much larger competitor and all the middle managers were fired. If I had still been in the car shop, or the body shop, I might have been kept, but the RV sales and service was dumped.

It is possible to be a successful manager and increase productivity, and still lose your job. You can't always be in the right place at the right time, doing the right thing.

Yea, that's what I figured too, although it definitely applies to my role.

Even then, sometimes I'm at work, reality kicks in, and I think "shit this is really happening and if I fuck up it's game over". A year and a half in and that hasn't happened yet so I guess I've learned the trade to some degree.

Just gotta build that nest-egg until all goes to shit. The student loan is gone now, though, so that's a start.