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.
Like the article says, don't worry... you won't be employed for long.
I don't respond to AC's.
It rated only 2 positions below help desk tech, all my science teachers in shool seems to like their jobs.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
If there's disrespect among mid and upper-level providers (MD's and other staff) toward nurses perhaps it's because of a lack of understanding of each other's tasks / responsibilities / liabilities / time demands. While it's true that nurses have a very tough job for 8-12 hours/day, other providers also have difficult jobs.
As to nurses "fleeing" the profession, I'm surprised as there are numerous articles describing the flock of women and men TO the nursing profession and the 2-year wait to be accepted into many nursing schools.
No man's an island, unless he's had too much to drink and wets the bed.
I'm not sure I understand why that is one of the worst jobs in science. Reading the article, it seems they were just being belittled and TV weather-forcasting called a "fast-food science."
It's no different from being a high-tech fortune-teller. Your crystal ball is replaced by a supercomputer running weather simulations. Your predictions are only as good as the output results. Read up on the "Great Storm of 1987" and Michael Fish, who reassured a concerned view that there was no danger of a severe storm coming ashore (which obligingly decided to change course).
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
here's the poll results... Main site - poll is halfway down on the right.
Energy: time to change the picture.
. . . the female Dracunculus medinensis migrates from the gut to a point just under the skin of, say, a leg, where she then commences growth to a length of as great as three feet, and where, ultimately, she lays her eggs. When the thousands of babies make their joyous arrival, they blister the skin and pop through, leaving Mom behind. The traditional way to get rid of her is to wrap her head around a stick and twist very slowly--one turn of the stick per day--for weeks or months, depending on how long she is. (This treatment is so old that it inspired the ancient snake-and-pole aesculapius symbol of medicine.)
i saw the baby, and the baby looked at me
I found this neat company that made a system that controlled the thickness of sheet metal was it was being manufacturered. Kinda interesting, I thought... I could apply DSP algorithms and statistics to the problem. Low pass filter, etc...
The factory tour went something like this:
----
The core technology of the company was a non-contact system that used radiation to penetrate the steel and measure its thickness. Are you cool with radiation and wearing the exposure badge? Sure, not planning on any kids for a while...
Now, this steel is pretty hot, so you've got to be careful not to touch it, ok? Sure.
It's also relatively thin and the edges aren't the smoothest -- so, it's sharp. But it's steel, so it's still heavy. You wouldn't want to get any fingers you're particularily attached to near it. Uh, ok.
And, it's moving out the mill at a fairly fast speed. Radioactive, Semi-molten, sharp and fast. Still ok? uh, yeah, sure.
Finally, for some ungodly reason, it is dripping with acid. We don't know why; that's just part of the manufacturing. That's partly why we go with a non-contact measurement.
Lastly, even though your resume is excellent, we're going to put you on the support team for at least a year. It's low pay, but there's lots of overtime and travel benefits. You'll go to all sorts of exotic mill towns.
----
And that, my friends, is why I took the rocket-scientist job instead.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
'Religious radicals' is a fair call, except I'd be tempted to add a few more carefully chosen phrases, like 'not very bright', 'deluded', 'ill-informed', and 'poorly educated'. I'm sure you get my drift. I don't believe you've opened your eyes and looked at the real evidence at all, otherwise you'd be convinced that the theories of evolution offer a considerably more likely explanation than do the fairy-tales of a bunch of wandering sheep-herders. It's very sad that more than half the population of the US is in the same boat.
I'm just thankful we don't have too many of these people in Australia, although the number is growing, largely because, I suspect, science education is poorly funded here too.
What a long, strange trip it's been.
Hello, I'm a Kansan. You might remember us from such right wing propaganda as "God Hates Fags" or a more recent but ephemeral debate over teaching evolution in our schools. I don't have a dog named Toto, and by my local estimation, pancakes are rather bumpy.
So I'm used to dealing with invective, and even the religious right. A few might be my neighbors. But I reject your hypothesis. "Slightly over 40 percent of Americans" is an extreme interpretation of a stastic of relgious beliefs. My own mother admits she feels the Old Testament to be closer to myth than reality, and generally believes that evolution holds more scientific merit than the newly uprising creationist theory. Some Catholics don't adhere to the abolition of birth control, and I hear some even support abortions. Simply because 40 percent marked down Catholic or Protestant or whatever that number includes doesn't mean they hold belief in common with every other member of the congregation. In fact, I'd say thats downright impossible. Personally, I think that Lamarck had better science than creationism or whatever you call it today; a text cannot be adequate substitute for experimental investigation and observation. And I'm not willing to sign off on ignoring evolutionary theory because its spiritually convinient.
Its debateable whether one can call creationism a theory, and I'm willing to let it into our textbooks, but to exclude evolution is both ridiculus and ignores what is the most plausible theory put forth yet. I think mutual inclusion is perhaps a decent middle grounds to acommodate our individual beliefs.
So when I hear people complain about teaching evolution in the classroom, I say to them: fine, butif you don't want it in the classroom, don't expect your children to attend college. In the suburb where I live, that works reasonably well. In other parts of Kansas, that statement would likely be met with laughter, and likely acceptance of the terms.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Sure. I'll agree with that. But is that the version "most Americans" consider the literal Word of God? I doubt it because most probably haven't read it. They consider their version the literal Word of God, which is the whole point of my beef with the poster's point: he on his high horse by saying that 40% of Americans believe the Bible to be the Word of God and that it has more weight than science. But if you actually looked at it, 5% probably think its the Hebrew version, 25% think King James, and 10% think NIV. How can "40%" think the Bible is the "literal Word of God" if they can't agree which version is the literal one? Yet science is the one in question. riiiiiiiight.
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...
Whoa! The National Weather Service has "sunrise" and "sunset" on its web site. I think you should send them an email with the correct information right away! They obviously believe in a geocentric solar system. ;-)
Could anyone tell me exactly how Genesis and the theory of evolution are incompatible?
Yes.
Well, I may be "deluded" to be skeptical of evolutionary science's claims, but no-one has ever accused me of being "not very bright" (not before this post), and I'm certainly not "poorly educated". "Over educated" is more accurate - all thanks to the Australian education system.
I have no problem believing (with a healthy degree of skepticism) the results of experimental science. But the absolute faith in a theory that can't be experimentally tested (and I don't think experiments on a few hundred generations of drosophilia demonstrate a great deal) and which therefore will forever remain unprovable, to me appears ludicrous.
Great Windows SFTP Server!
As a current public high school teacher here in the US, I can agree to a certain extent as to why the job sucks.
however, allow me to point out that before I became a teacher - I was an engineer with a PE certification, director of R&D, with patents and what not - who got bored with what I was doing to become a teacher. And while I'm 'broke' compared to my old salary (think 75% paycut) - im a lot happier. I must also admit that I still do consulting work for my former company to keep myself financially viable, so I am still in touch with things..
Anyway, back to the science teaching part.
I currently teach Chemistry AP, and have consistently gotten all passing grades with my kids (scoring above a 3), and with a decent number getting 5's (around 15-17%). I have also taught in the past Physics AP (both B and C), general chem/physics and everything in between. No Biology, so I can't vouch for that area.
Unfortunately, the general trend these days are kids that don't want to learn. Instead, with the continued cultural growth and use of IM, text messaging, video games - and in general, short attention span/immediate response 'things - the learning attention span of childern has been steadily dropping year by year.
Now, I am not saying that all kids are like this! You still have a group that tries - just that their numbers are steadily falling.
The bulk of the kids want to be spoon fed the information. Thinking is truely optional. I have actually had complaints that resemble this conversation:
Student: "I don't like the way you teach."
Me: "Alright. Let's talk about it. What can I do to make your life easier?"
Student: "I've always been able to memorize and pass other classes - but I can't in here. Why can't your class be the same?"
Me: "While memorizing can be a good skill to have - being able to think and process that information is more important. Ultimately, you need to be able to solve problems ON YOUR OWN - *THAT* is what is going to allow you to succeed, no matter what major or job you want to do."
Student: "Well, I think it sucks. I want to be able to just memorize..."
Me: "Well then, Good luck on attempting to try to pass my class - and also good luck on trying to pass your first semster at college. I am more than willing to bet that you will fail out by the end of your first semester."
I will say that as a teacher, I am always looking for ways to teach the material in a different manner so that they'll be interested in it. However, the general trend is not looking so good.
With the psychotic administrative types ( board of education folk who just want sheer number based success stories, and not caring about the human element of things - inane paperwork - etc ), I'll probably be forced to leave this fun profession where I feel wanted, needed and useful to my old one(I sincerely believe that you cannot pay enough to feel that way!!!!). One where i get paid 4x my current salary, do 1/4 of the work I do now- and wake up wondering WTF i am doing.
Teaching is not an easy job. It never was, and it never can be. With the influx of people who think it *IS* an easy job - and adminstrators trying to save money - the level of science education in the US is going to sink, and fast.
I'd have to disagree with the Television Meteorologist listing.
In New England, most local television news weather forecasts are overseen and reported on air by actual meteorologists, unlike other parts of the country that have untrained "weathermen" (like southern california). In smaller TV markets, or weather is much more stable, or even on radio, you might as well read off government supplied weather forecasts.
They are well paid for TV. (however if you are not on TV, meteorologists get shafted in terms of pay, unless they work as consultants -- usually environmental consultants dealing with air quality issues.)
Also, those guys are instant celebrities around these parts.
Snow predictions are one of the harder predictions to make. These guys basically have to choose between various computer model predictions, and sometime they are far off.
However, my recommendation is don't trust a forecast longer than 24 hours in advance.
No, it's not debatable whether one can call creationism a theory because it's not. Let's start with the deifinition of a theory:
Since creationism/intelligent design relies on a supreme being to start the whole thing rolling, a being which can neither be proven nor disproven, the arguments for these concepts fall flat. Without being able to verify or deny any part of ones thoughts (I refuse to call them theories) you cannot have a theory. End of story.
One can argue until they're blue in the face about how their evidence shows they're thoughts are just as plausible as someone elses but unless/until they can offer proof of a supreme being their ideas are relegated to the same pile as Santa Claus and the Easter bunny.
Next thing you know people will want to believe that the Grand Canyon is only a few thousand years old and was made by the flood during Noahs time. Oh wait, that's already being done.
Well at least the fact that humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time is still a safe subject. Er, maybe not.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower