I didn't say CERN was private sector work, reading comprehension FTW.
Fuck Israel
argument comprehension ftw. i said a person who had "left academia for private sector work for a decade" would "have to justify on their CV" their gap in relevant experience/knowledge. because the job-market is competitive. i said a science department would no sooner take on someone who worked in advertising/banking than a humanities department. but then you said "i'm sure they'd be glad to have someone who worked at CERN or NASA". right because that was really what i was talking about. CERN and NASA. i'm sure a humanities department would take on someone who spent a decade writing non-fiction specialist history, too. not really the argument i was making, is it? argument comprehension ftw. dilderp.
Fun fact: every single paper CERN releases, as far as I'm aware, has upwards of three thousand listed authors. It's such a long list that even opening a link to the paper will take appreciable time. Every single person at CERN from the guys who contributed to the theory behind the paper, to the experimenters who run the machines, to the engineers who help keep it running is listed as a co-author (along with other blokes in other places who helped).Uzique The Lesser wrote:
uuuh CERN is considered academia. not 'private sector work'. almost everyone working at CERN is associated with a university department. they are 'researchers', i.e. academics. rofl. you really do not know what you are talking about. i am referring to a man that went to work in banking (or possibly even advertising, i can't recall exactly) for almost a decade. that is a radically different world and professional practice to academia. i.e. there are clear problems with 'relevant experience', as comes up in EVERY job interview. so don't make this an "academia is closeted" thing. you are fucking inane.Dilbert_X wrote:
I'm sure a University would be delighted to have an astrophycisit who'd spent time working at CERN blowing up real particles, on real fusion reactors, on ion drives at NASA etc, compared with someone who'd spent the same time scratching away in a garrett.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i don't really know many astrophysics departments that would value 10 years spent in sales or the banking sector, but okay, keep talking out of your ass about a profession you know nothing about. to get a job in academia you need the publications, you need the conferences, you need a whole long resume of activity that 'puts you ahead'. sinking 10 years into another endeavour normally means, quite simply, that you are 10 years behind someone who didn't. i've already spoken many times of how insanely competitive the salaried post-doc world is. but keep believing sciences are open-minded and hand out jobs to long-leavers, and humanities are 'cultish'. lol. i don't know how you take yourself seriously.
More so in engineering, and most other subjects actually.
If academia wants to separate itself into some esoteric, hyper-competitive and irrelevant backwater it won't be good for it in the long run.
CERN and NASA are very scientific applications of very specialist scientific knowledge. i am talking 'private sector' as in, corporate-work, ordinary office work. the 'real world'. NASA isn't really a standard example of the sort of job someone with a science degree would take up for a decade, before changing their mind and going into academia. i'm willing to bet most people working at NASA ALREADY HAVE PHD'S. you absolute gomp.
Not academic research? CERN is the pinnacle of scientific academic research in my eyes. No one does it better, with more rigour or with more single-minded pursuit of the cause of scientific research.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
no, CERN is something "outside of the academic garret". dilbert said so. a CERN 'worker' applying for a science PhD is comparable to an ex-banker applying for a PhD in humanities. dilbert said so. dilbert understands academia.
But biotech work at the Salk Institute and AI robotics work at JPL are "drone" jobs.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
uuuh CERN is considered academia. not 'private sector work'. almost everyone working at CERN is associated with a university department. they are 'researchers', i.e. academics. rofl. you really do not know what you are talking about. i am referring to a man that went to work in banking (or possibly even advertising, i can't recall exactly) for almost a decade. that is a radically different world and professional practice to academia. i.e. there are clear problems with 'relevant experience', as comes up in EVERY job interview. so don't make this an "academia is closeted" thing. you are fucking inane.Dilbert_X wrote:
I'm sure a University would be delighted to have an astrophycisit who'd spent time working at CERN blowing up real particles, on real fusion reactors, on ion drives at NASA etc, compared with someone who'd spent the same time scratching away in a garrett.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i don't really know many astrophysics departments that would value 10 years spent in sales or the banking sector, but okay, keep talking out of your ass about a profession you know nothing about. to get a job in academia you need the publications, you need the conferences, you need a whole long resume of activity that 'puts you ahead'. sinking 10 years into another endeavour normally means, quite simply, that you are 10 years behind someone who didn't. i've already spoken many times of how insanely competitive the salaried post-doc world is. but keep believing sciences are open-minded and hand out jobs to long-leavers, and humanities are 'cultish'. lol. i don't know how you take yourself seriously.
More so in engineering, and most other subjects actually.
If academia wants to separate itself into some esoteric, hyper-competitive and irrelevant backwater it won't be good for it in the long run.
CERN and NASA are very scientific applications of very specialist scientific knowledge. i am talking 'private sector' as in, corporate-work, ordinary office work. the 'real world'. NASA isn't really a standard example of the sort of job someone with a science degree would take up for a decade, before changing their mind and going into academia. i'm willing to bet most people working at NASA ALREADY HAVE PHD'S. you absolute gomp.
uuuh calling your kids "drones" was a joke over the fact you are an asian parent and they are going into very stereotypical 'asian' paths. the fact that your kids aren't even at college yet, and yet you're naming SPECIFIC INSTITUTES/COMPANIES perhaps only serves to exaggerate the effect of my joke (on the fussy/pushy asian parent stereotype). the salk institute? ffs wait for the stanford acceptance letter first, eh? you make these jokes too easy to deliver.Ilocano wrote:
But biotech work at the Salk Institute and AI robotics work at JPL are "drone" jobs.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
uuuh CERN is considered academia. not 'private sector work'. almost everyone working at CERN is associated with a university department. they are 'researchers', i.e. academics. rofl. you really do not know what you are talking about. i am referring to a man that went to work in banking (or possibly even advertising, i can't recall exactly) for almost a decade. that is a radically different world and professional practice to academia. i.e. there are clear problems with 'relevant experience', as comes up in EVERY job interview. so don't make this an "academia is closeted" thing. you are fucking inane.Dilbert_X wrote:
I'm sure a University would be delighted to have an astrophycisit who'd spent time working at CERN blowing up real particles, on real fusion reactors, on ion drives at NASA etc, compared with someone who'd spent the same time scratching away in a garrett.
More so in engineering, and most other subjects actually.
If academia wants to separate itself into some esoteric, hyper-competitive and irrelevant backwater it won't be good for it in the long run.
CERN and NASA are very scientific applications of very specialist scientific knowledge. i am talking 'private sector' as in, corporate-work, ordinary office work. the 'real world'. NASA isn't really a standard example of the sort of job someone with a science degree would take up for a decade, before changing their mind and going into academia. i'm willing to bet most people working at NASA ALREADY HAVE PHD'S. you absolute gomp.
You see it as a joke, but that is really the Asian way. Road maps. Aspirations. Building on prior generations. It's a stereotype for a reason.
i still think it's kind of sad to talk about places your kids may happen to work at in 5-10 years' time. how are you going to deal with the disappointment of compromise if they don't make it to salk institute? and exactly, i'm calling them drones because you aspire for them to do nothing more than fulfill a stereotype. "aspirations" is a bit of an ironic term there, no? aspiring to do what? what every other asian does? what your parents do? what your parents prescribe? that's a strange definition of 'aspiration', but okay, it's your life.
i would love to see your kids become sculptors, or journalists. that way you could see aspiration doesn't just run one way, into 3 pre-formed categories.
i would love to see your kids become sculptors, or journalists. that way you could see aspiration doesn't just run one way, into 3 pre-formed categories.
Sounds like pure simulacrum to the already illustrious "Caucasian way."
I mean to connote that you're practicing a warped form of racism akin to Nazi ideals in likening a person's success to their genetics.
"Cultures of poverty" are also bullshit, because cultures are rarely if ever homogeneous, so even if 'Asian' is a cultural distinction (it's not), your arguments are worrying to say the least.
I mean to connote that you're practicing a warped form of racism akin to Nazi ideals in likening a person's success to their genetics.
"Cultures of poverty" are also bullshit, because cultures are rarely if ever homogeneous, so even if 'Asian' is a cultural distinction (it's not), your arguments are worrying to say the least.
Last edited by Pochsy (2013-04-23 09:47:01)
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
What is with you people and accusing others of being Nazis?
It's the argumentation trump card. Everyone knows somebody who fought in WW2, so by extension you win the pity points by drawing the card first.Macbeth wrote:
What is with you people and accusing others of being Nazis?
Debating 101: the first to play the Nazi card wins.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
TIGER MOTHERRRRRRRR
and of course it's a joke. you're talking about your kids working for the salk institute when they haven't even hit freshman college yet. the salk institute. seriously?!? you are the sort of over-preening parent that makes everyone sick of your kids before they even meet them. and talk about self-aggrandizing. that poor kid is expected to end up at the world's very best. such a terrible stereotype. i hope you realize that's not the only way to be middle-class and 'successful'. if you weren't so insecure about your status and "doing well", you'd perhaps give your kids room to breathe a bit. white middle-class people seem to luxuriate in that freedom - it's a necessary precondition of 'true' higher class status. why are asians pushing their kids into job-places before they even reach college? it sounds cruel. and how hard are you going to turn to drink if your perfect angels don't end up rubbing elbows with nobel prize winners at the salk?Ilocano wrote:
You see it as a joke, but that is really the Asian way. Road maps. Aspirations. Building on prior generations. It's a stereotype for a reason.
lol it's just the fact you said your kids had a "change of ambition" a few years ago, which of course, they're kids... but now it's like your kid has expressed an interest in biology or biosci, now it's like "oh okay, SALK INSTITUTE". lol. next week he'll express a wish to take up the violin and you'll be talking about his imminent career at oberlin's conservatoire.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-23 09:54:12)
Cybargs, what bullshit degree are you studying where you only take three classes per week?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
That is not a very nice way of approaching the subject.Jay wrote:
Cybargs, what bullshit degree are you studying where you only take three classes per week?
well since i couldnt take the courses i needed last semester due to it being full (35 slots for 100 students...) I don't have the required units to take a capstone course for international relations, which is offered in semester 2 only. So i'm pretty much set back a whole year so i'm taking 3 courses this semester, 3 courses next semester and 2 courses in my final semester (capstone course), which is why I only have 2 days of uni a week with only 3 courses xDJay wrote:
Cybargs, what bullshit degree are you studying where you only take three classes per week?
my masters degree had 8-12 contact hours per week. expected workload 40+ hours. not all subjects are sciences. you don't need a laboratory or a TA leaning over your shoulder for every form of study. although saying that, 3 classes a week is more like an after-hours hobby. i'm pretty sure stanford run after-hours classes that are heavier weekly workloads than that
Usually i'd be doing 4 courses, but as i explained above i'm just gonna do 3-3-2 until I grad. gonna get a jerb while i'm studying.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
my masters degree had 8-12 contact hours per week. expected workload 40+ hours. not all subjects are sciences. you don't need a laboratory or a TA leaning over your shoulder for every form of study. although saying that, 3 classes a week is more like an after-hours hobby. i'm pretty sure stanford run after-hours classes that are heavier weekly workloads than that
lightweight.
4 courses is nothing too I averaged 6-7 per semester. 4 would be a damn vacation
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
won't employers judge you for taking an extra year to finish the ordinary course of study? over here i know they'd grill you.
the number of courses doesn't mean anything. it's arbitrary. one course could be a 'major' course of a huge topic. you could be taking 6-7 courses in rather small, specialized niches. or hell, even 2-3 of those courses could be complimentary, or inter-related. and that goes for any subject. the number of courses/modules/topics the structure is broken up into really means shit. you take pride in total whimsy.Jay wrote:
4 courses is nothing too I averaged 6-7 per semester. 4 would be a damn vacation
Not too bad here in Aus, I'm sure I'd get grilled but it's not exactly the situation I want to be in either. Budget cuts and what not has really pounded me in the ass. It's retarded they only had 2 International relations courses last semester for final year with 35 slots each. There's around 100 students who need to take those courses and I was one of many that got shafted.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
won't employers judge you for taking an extra year to finish the ordinary course of study? over here i know they'd grill you.
Not like I wanted to graduate a year later than planned
I'm only doing only 5 in the fall but one is a seminar (grad paper thing?), and a 3 night Spanish introduction class so yeah it doesn't matter how many you take. Going to be a tougher semester than when I was loaded up on 6 and a half undergrad histories coursesUzique The Lesser wrote:
the number of courses doesn't mean anything. it's arbitrary. one course could be a 'major' course of a huge topic. you could be taking 6-7 courses in rather small, specialized niches. or hell, even 2-3 of those courses could be complimentary, or inter-related. and that goes for any subject. the number of courses/modules/topics the structure is broken up into really means shit. you take pride in total whimsy.Jay wrote:
4 courses is nothing too I averaged 6-7 per semester. 4 would be a damn vacation