Slashdot Mirror
The Worst Jobs in Science: The Sequel
flyingtoaster writes "For the second year in a row, Popular Science published their annual countdown of the worst jobs in science. This year's list includes Anal-Wart Researcher, Iraqi Archaeologist and Landfill Monitor. And you think your job's bad?" We also linked to last year's list.
Sure, you aren't killing puppies for science, but you do spend all day listening to people demanding that you fix their problems like it's your fault. You're usually rated by call time, so actually helping people looks bad on you review.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
The cradle of civilization and agriculture. The first place humans built cities. The birthplace of writing. And--oh, yeah--currently the best place in the world to get yourself kidnapped or killed. For archaeologists, there's no plum like Iraq. Saddam actually let them do their job, and he even protected his country's heritage in museums. But now no archaeologist can work in Iraq until security improves. Meanwhile more than 8,500 treasures have been stolen, and those are just from museums, where artifacts are cataloged.
What truly troubles archaeologists is imagining what's being taken from their dig sites in the field. Archaeologist Francis Deblauwe, who is trying to keep tabs on the looting, knows of more than 30 important digs, including ancient Babylon, that have been despoiled, but he notes that his list is "very preliminary and grossly incomplete." When the researchers do get to go back in, they'll be able to determine which sites have been looted. But they'll never know what's been taken.
Sheesh! And I wonder how many such 'casualities' of war we ignore. Really sad.
War is not just people, it's a whole lot more. And as an amateur archaeologist, I really do feel bad. And these things are irreplaceable.
Vote for a Man, Vote for Bush!
Not a liberatarian flipflop hippie.
I was shocked to see "public school science teacher" on their list. They used a poor example, and yes, that would be a bad job. But there are many good science teachers, and most schools are better than the one they picked out. The article also implies that public-school science teachers are all poor teachers, which is not true. I was shocked to see that (I'm a high school student), and I'm sure many other slashdotters are too.
How about just grad student? No matter what your research is, you're overworked, underpaid, and then thrust into a saturated job market, where you may never find a tenure track position. And if you do, you'll still be paid a far sight less than any random dick with an MBA.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
They should have said "weather desk staffer" at a TV station.... the one who takes the calls after the "great weekend" doesn't materialize. Agree that the on-camera job is actually a pretty good one, and it's in the entertainment industry, not science.
I think you had it wrong - they aren't implying that public school science teachers are poor teachers! It says they have one of the worst jobs, which I believe is true. Not only do they have to teach a subject which requires intelligent thought to a disinterested student body, their profession is constantly under attack by religious radicals.
Hell, my own mother threatened to take me out if they taught me evolution. It didn't happen, but I shudder to think of other students who did have that happen to them.
Also, science is one of the most poorly funded departments across the nation. Hell, team sports such as Football and Soocer, even electives such as music get more funding in some areas.
So yes, they've got one of the worst jobs in science: teaching it to the next generation.
Without a proper flamewar, Anonymous was undecided on what shell to run.
Yeah, due to your sig I see you really give a shit about the casualties of war.
Isn't Rosanne Barr quite average looking if you compare with reality and not Hollywood? If so I would think gynecologist would top your list in general if you think it's so disgusting.
Unemployment! But if you still consider your job to be worse than that...
...theres no need to fear, Reverend Sharpton is here! ;-)
Cheers,
Adolfo
Where I work we've had 4 help desk techs kill themselves in the last week. It's starting to worry me...
Just because there are a lot of you doesn't mean you're not stupid and wrong. There were many people who thought the world was flat and there were many people who thought having white skin made you better than people who didn't and even today there are some who still belive that but it doesn't change the fact that they are wrong.
People need to be maligned and impugned when they are wrong.
"You do realize that over half of Americans reject the standard theories (important word: theories, not laws) [emphasis added] for the origin of life and the universe that are presented in secular science education, don't you?"
Yes, it troubles me greatly, as does your post and far, far too many just like it. The word "theory" in science doesn't mean "half-assed guess" like it does in normal parlance. It means an idea that has been rigorously tested and is supported by a mountain of evidence. Theory of relativity. Theory of gravity. Germ theory. Theory of evolution. All supported by mountains of evidence, all have stood the test of time and are all highly unlikely to go away anytime soon. Sure any one or more of them could be wrong. Some may be able to adapt to new evidence, some might (heavy, very heavy emphasis on might) be relegated to the scrapheap of disproven scientific ideas...like phlogiston or creationism. The latter one is the most troubling. Two hundred years ago the dominant scientific idea in the west was a special creation taking place 6000 years ago. Christian geologists went out looking for this, but instead found evidence incompatible with a young earth, thus refuting young-earth creationism (note: not creation, a supernatural event and thus outside the realm of science. A god or gods could create using any means s/he/it/they deem appropriate and are thus undetectable to naturalistic science). Modern day creation-science and its bastard child "intelligent design" are just attempts to turn back scientific progress over 200 years. So yes, it does bother me a great deal to see that certain well-established scientific theories are thrown out because of the religous ideology of certain groups. Whats worse is that these religious radicals aren't objecting to the science, they're objecting to the implications of established science towards certain literalistic interpretations of the Bible, not science at all. There is one scientifically valid idea about the origin of species currently, and like it or not it is evolution.
Well, in my humble personal world, one of the worst jobs in IT is still working with the sales department to turn their "lie-to-the-customer-a-bit" into something approaching reality.
And guess what; it's an uphill battle. The more lies you make into working software, the more undoable things are expected from your department. But fail once and you're out of a job.
Look, this thing is totally safe! Built it myself, you know. You just press that button like this and then turn that lev
The way the article defines crank, they might as well have said "the worst job in science is doing science". There's potential for acrimony even in what would seem to be the most obscure, boring and straightforward areas. In a better world, most everyone would be objective about research and results, and reserved in judgement. We would not cling to preconceived notions, and not knowingly squelch unfinished research we don't "like", argue unfairly and fallaciously, apply 3rd degree methods, and use other stupid and dirty tricks in support. We can back down if we can admit we were wrong, and can convince ourselves that wrong != stupid. But too often, when something is researched, we suddenly discover that we have opinions about it, and that our opinions come with baggage. Even on research where we have no stake in the matter and have not troubled to inform themselves even a tiny bit, we've got an opinion. Congressional science advisors and school science teachers are treated much the same as "cranks", except that instead of the opposition being mostly heartfelt and even occasionally fair and rational, the opposition is usually a lot of smoke meant to distract and keep a hidden agenda hidden. But that's the breaks in science. When experimental results are not in agreement with popular thinking, shouldn't go with poll results over scientific results. I trust that improvements will continue and someday, that better world will arrive.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
I think your problem (and the problem of people thinking like you) is that your fear science or the implications of it. OR that you simply reject some scientific facts because they contradict the words in your bible/quran/whatever.
:-), you rely on your senses. You have to keep that in mind.
:)
People just do not want to be descendants of apes and/or a bag full of various chemicals. Many feel somehow "controlled" by science and flee into pseudoscience, esoterics or religion which forbids reasoning. IMHO very understandable but still VERY stupid and dangerous for society.
First of all, you have to realize that all the people who dig out these facts are also simply such meat bags.
And second, and much more important, there are too many scientists today who mix their opinion with their findings. I think this is one of the major reasons why people get dragged into the silliest of cults.
Examples:
Take a biologist, his/her job may be to find about the evolotunary dependencies between various species (for example), NOT TO endorse social darwinism.
Take a neurologist, his/her job may be to find about some thought processes, NOT to promote enslaving because "it is a scientific fact that noone has a free will".
Of course these examples are exaggerated, but I hope you'll understand what I'm trying to say. Also, this list can be further extended.
Both opinions (and they are sadly very widespread) result from silently pouring personal premises into the equations. And telling it in the way "I'm know, because I'm a scientist in that field.".
IMHO, as a scientist, you have to remind yourself that you are describing the "objective" part of reality. Additional to pure philosophy which only uses rational thought (note that I didn't say "brain" here
If I say "time started with the big bang some 13.7 billion of years ago and it doesn't make sense to speak about 'the time before'", I'm extrapolating and interpreting scientific facts with my rational mind and therefore using my senses (or those of other people) to give that answer.
I hear you saying now: But in the end, I can't really be sure that everything works according to the laws of nature, that there is 'really no god'. IMHO you're right.
- And, for some of those atheistic nerds here: It's dishonest to oneself to strongly deny the existence of any GOD but to think OTOH "Maybe I'm just a brain with electrodes connected to it or I'm just a a simulation running on someones computer".
I don't know for sure and maybe I'll never know, but why should I believe -> therefore I'm agnostic( and thinking that I have a free will). Yes, this is probably my own twisted religion. But at least I try to distinguish between reasoning and belief.
I'll try to say it in yet another way: By letting in astrology/religion/... into your *everyday life* and by believing in 'religous facts' which contradict scientific facts(*), you're either
a) denying that your senses give the proper output, so to say
b) abandoning rational thought, i.e. logic reasoning.
---------------
(*) - There are of course, (too) many scientific "theories" which do not deserve that title because they are just called that by the more influental people in the community. And, theories have borders, i.e. newtons law is good enough to describe the motions of the planets around the sun but not a black hole.
But, please, this is not the case with evolution.