I expect to see more and more books on Careers with this economy. Look soon for a book where some author explains or studies people who left IT for other careers.
But I think that the phenomenon the author is examining (people leaving their professions to find happiness) if anything may *decrease* now that recession has hit. Remember in the 90's when we all were hearing about 30-somehtings who were "retiring" after having made millions -- they were starting new "careers" pursuing life interests, which were often not especially profitable.
There is a big difference between being forced out of a profession because there are no jobs, and leaving when the going's good.
My impression is that this is less of a "career advice book" than an inspirational, or at least eye-opening, look at various individuls who have chosen the road less traveled, although they were already on a road leading to wealth and success. If anything, i should think it is the sort of book we will be seeing *less* of as the economy worstens...
I think the worry is not that people of "foreign" extraction might get these jobs, rather that if the very job leaves the US, then the tax revenues that help fund the country will also disappear (and unemployment in the US will rise etc...)
Grad schools in history (which is what I know) *do* place a heavy emphasis on letters of rec, and where you did your degree... but also they scrutinize your research proposal. You might be a great student, but if your proposal is perceived as either poorly put together, or simply unrelated to the interests of nay of the faculty, your chances of admittance or of funding descend.
The people who would be earning the lesser grades aren't even attending Duke anymore. The travesty is that some people who work hard, do great work and have earned a high grade are sometimes forced to fail a class because their teacher has been accused of grade inflation and must now enact some arbitrary grading system.
Do you have any evidence of this?
I have had far too many students say that they *know* their exam was "A-material" when it showed no grasp of the material and was semi-illiterate to boot. Students cannot be relied upon to judge the relative merits of their own work because they lack perspective and experience.
And, alas, working hard does not equal mastering the material (although it is commendable, it is not sufficient).
I know many people (myself included) who were denied access because there were not enough open slots. I may have been "unprepared", but I made the Dean's List for my academics so I was not behind the curve. I had to go to a satellite campus my first year, however, because there were not enough open slots at the main campus.
But did you apply to all the various State supported universities and colleges in your state? You note that you *did* get into the satelite campus. My point is not that every student can get into every school, but rather that there are a host of different schools and i would be surprised were a qualified student unable to enter any of them.
If your State U was full up, I would hazard that the reason was because there were more students *from the state* who wanted to go than there were places... which is not a good thing, but is not the fault of foreign enrollment.
Funding is a big issue here, but student loans do a decent job to get people through school, and the school still gets their money.
Yes, but foreign students are not eligible for those loans. My point was not that US nationals did not pay (they do!) but that they were not "footing the bill" for foreign nationals.
The job of a state institution is to benefit the members of the state. A state university is there to ensure that the members of that state are competitive in the job market. Research is a great side benefit, but all the breakthroughs in the world are useless if the population is unemployed, don't you think?
Ah, and here we do differ. I believe that the role of education is not merely to provide job training, but to develop human understanding too. Graduate school, in particular, is usually ill suited for job-preparation. Yet I do believe it is an important thing that tax dollars should support.
But here we enter into personal opinions, and heaven forbid I should try to proseltize my own views...
I'm all for folks reading the "great men" of the past (and the women too), but even after reading the BBC link I'm at a loss to see what makes this medium an improvement.
Yes, you can read a little bit each day -- but is that not equally possible with a book (or even the online version of the diary)?
Yes, people can add comments explaining the "archaic" English (according to the article), but should I trust these explanations? How many Samula Pepys experts will be following this, and how many yowzers?
Blogs can be great tools, but I don't see how in this particular case the medium is especially useful. There's so much hype about technology improving learning, but after watching many a powerpoint presentation, I'm wary of too much hoopla with too little benefit.
But hey, the internet really does need more blogs, so I guess a new one can only be a good thing;)
There has been a lot of muddiness concerning "university" admission in the US. As regards undergraduate institutions ("college" in the US) there is only a tiny proportion of foreign students, and the vast percentage of these are at *private* institutions, not public universities.
I have worked in a US university and can state with assurance that since US schools (mine in particular) accept students with a horrific lack of preparation, I cannot believe that qualified US undergraduates are being turned away from State Schools when they apply.
What prevents qualified students from going to college is usually funding, and for that foreign students are generally ineligible (they must pay their own way, hence bringing needed money to the school)
The job of a top research university, however, is *not* to crank out BA or BS students, but rather to train graduate students and produce solid research by supporting the professors (in part by supplying them with good graduate students).
Yes, US tax dollars go to State schools to support them so US students can obtain an education. But they also go to support the development of knowledge, which indirectly benefits the US citizens paying the taxes. These two goals do not need to compete given the tremendous range of educational institutions in the US.
There is also a more pragmatic reason to applaud MIT's decision, namely that research universities (and please note, I'm not referring to *all* colleges and universities) ought to try to attract the very best minds in order to have the very best programmes.
It is not merely the professors and texts that comprise an education, but the interaction of the students' minds. By limiting the students on the basis of geographic origins (this discussion of "race" that has slipped in seems sloppy) the university will limit the quality of education for all its students. Period. And that would be a bad thing.
Taxes can come from industry too... although that may be a heretical thought in this day and age.
Example: 1,279 U.S. corporations whose assets were $250 million *or more* paid *no* taxes in 1995 (from Lewis and Allison, _The Cheating of America_, 2001)
Although Stein would probably argue that taxing them would stifle their ability to invest in new technology.
You know, this might be the perfect time to find a new market. As we speak (ok, type) there are people looking for folks with exactly *your* skills, and they have heaps of money to boot...
yep, it's the U.S. government's new "Information Awareness Office" and based on what we've seen so far, it sure looks like they need talent. Do you have what it takes? Only you can answer that.
For more information see http://www.darpa.mil/iao/index.htm
True, I don't think anyone can seriously believe that the public school system in the States is not in deep trouble. We've all heard about the %11 of US students who cannot find *the US* on a map... But this neo-conservative plan for the future would hardly solve the problem.
Apropos of education Stein writes:
"Allow schools to fall into useless decay. Do not teach civics or history except to describe America as a hopelessly fascistic, reactionary pit. Do not expect students to know the basics of mathematics, chemistry and physics. Working closely with the teachers' unions, make sure that you dumb down standards so that children who make the most minimal effort still get by with flying colors. Destroy the knowledge base on which all of mankind's scientific progress has been built by guaranteeing that such learning is confined to only a few, and spread ignorance and complacency among the many."
But later (#10 for all you following at home) he argues against what he perceives to be unfair and heavy taxation. So the US is supposed to improve schools without raising money to do so? At its most simple level, there are two basid problems.
1) Teachers get paid shit in the US. In NYC the average salery for public school teachers is just under $32,000/year (before taxes), which makes it impossible to feed and house oneself in the city (unless there are some other funds coming in, trust fund, spouse, etc). Likewise, a university professor (tenure track) at San Fransico State makes abut $40,000/yr -- in San Francisco! A janitor in a Columbus Ohio high school, on the other hand, makes about $50,000/yr. What does this tell you about the value in which teachers are held?
There are some great dedicated teachers out there, but I have taught more than one, kind well-meaning, and utterly incompetent student who planned to teach high school (and went on to do so). Yes many teachers suck (although I think almost all must be pretty selfless to put up with a very hard job). Look at what we pay them.
Yet Stein is also against those evil teacher unions. I hate to break the news, but most teacher unions are not fighting to lower standards, they are fighting for decent working conditions. Sometimes this involves lowering the bar because standards cannot be held in the conditions in which they work. Bringing us to pt. 2...
2) Given the lack of financial support for education in the US, many schools are falling apart and grossly overcrowded (10% are trying to function at %125 capacity) necesitating teaching in gyms, halls, etc... and creating enormous classes that are impossible for the most dedicated teacher to manage.
So even if we had better teachers, they would have an impossible job to do. So we end up with a nation of illiterates (44 million I think), who don't know anything about the world around them, not to even mention technology or science.
It is all very well to say "Hey we should do a better job teaching our kids," of course we should! But to do that we must spend money. Not that throwing money at the problem will make it go away, but it's a fundamental ingredient for meaningful change -- an ingrediant that the rest of Stein's articles run in the face of.
(sorry for the dangling participle)
Yes, I differ with Stein in a number of ways, we are clearly on different ends of the political spectrum, but I leave it to others to address his other "points to change" in an intelligent fashion. I'm ranted out for the moment;)
From what I gather, he's to play Lije Bailey. According to: http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,10925,00.htm l?tnews (I know, trashy reading...) he's "a gumshoe in the not-too-distant future who stumbles upon a massive conspiracy while tracking down an android that may have gone haywire and committed a crime violating the strict laws governing robots."
So it looks like the movie will be "based on" (in that loose hollywood way) one of (or a combination of) the *other* robot books with Lije Baley and Deneel Olivaw.
Slashdot Mirror
Third-party apps allowing you to do that were out within days of the iPod's release.
See this site for links.
I expect to see more and more books on Careers with this economy. Look soon for a book where some author explains or studies people who left IT for other careers.
But I think that the phenomenon the author is examining (people leaving their professions to find happiness) if anything may *decrease* now that recession has hit. Remember in the 90's when we all were hearing about 30-somehtings who were "retiring" after having made millions -- they were starting new "careers" pursuing life interests, which were often not especially profitable.
There is a big difference between being forced out of a profession because there are no jobs, and leaving when the going's good.
My impression is that this is less of a "career advice book" than an inspirational, or at least eye-opening, look at various individuls who have chosen the road less traveled, although they were already on a road leading to wealth and success. If anything, i should think it is the sort of book we will be seeing *less* of as the economy worstens...
Many of those jobs are held by immigrants anyway.
I think the worry is not that people of "foreign" extraction might get these jobs, rather that if the very job leaves the US, then the tax revenues that help fund the country will also disappear (and unemployment in the US will rise etc...)
Grad schools in history (which is what I know) *do* place a heavy emphasis on letters of rec, and where you did your degree... but also they scrutinize your research proposal. You might be a great student, but if your proposal is perceived as either poorly put together, or simply unrelated to the interests of nay of the faculty, your chances of admittance or of funding descend.
There is no magic bullet.
The people who would be earning the lesser grades aren't even attending Duke anymore. The travesty is that some people who work hard, do great work and have earned a high grade are sometimes forced to fail a class because their teacher has been accused of grade inflation and must now enact some arbitrary grading system.
Do you have any evidence of this?
I have had far too many students say that they *know* their exam was "A-material" when it showed no grasp of the material and was semi-illiterate to boot. Students cannot be relied upon to judge the relative merits of their own work because they lack perspective and experience.
And, alas, working hard does not equal mastering the material (although it is commendable, it is not sufficient).
I know many people (myself included) who were denied access because there were not enough open slots. I may have been "unprepared", but I made the Dean's List for my academics so I was not behind the curve. I had to go to a satellite campus my first year, however, because there were not enough open slots at the main campus.
But did you apply to all the various State supported universities and colleges in your state? You note that you *did* get into the satelite campus. My point is not that every student can get into every school, but rather that there are a host of different schools and i would be surprised were a qualified student unable to enter any of them.
If your State U was full up, I would hazard that the reason was because there were more students *from the state* who wanted to go than there were places... which is not a good thing, but is not the fault of foreign enrollment.
Funding is a big issue here, but student loans do a decent job to get people through school, and the school still gets their money.
Yes, but foreign students are not eligible for those loans. My point was not that US nationals did not pay (they do!) but that they were not "footing the bill" for foreign nationals.
The job of a state institution is to benefit the members of the state. A state university is there to ensure that the members of that state are competitive in the job market. Research is a great side benefit, but all the breakthroughs in the world are useless if the population is unemployed, don't you think?
Ah, and here we do differ. I believe that the role of education is not merely to provide job training, but to develop human understanding too. Graduate school, in particular, is usually ill suited for job-preparation. Yet I do believe it is an important thing that tax dollars should support.
But here we enter into personal opinions, and heaven forbid I should try to proseltize my own views...
I'm all for folks reading the "great men" of the past (and the women too), but even after reading the BBC link I'm at a loss to see what makes this medium an improvement.
;)
Yes, you can read a little bit each day -- but is that not equally possible with a book (or even the online version of the diary)?
Yes, people can add comments explaining the "archaic" English (according to the article), but should I trust these explanations? How many Samula Pepys experts will be following this, and how many yowzers?
Blogs can be great tools, but I don't see how in this particular case the medium is especially useful. There's so much hype about technology improving learning, but after watching many a powerpoint presentation, I'm wary of too much hoopla with too little benefit.
But hey, the internet really does need more blogs, so I guess a new one can only be a good thing
There has been a lot of muddiness concerning "university" admission in the US. As regards undergraduate institutions ("college" in the US) there is only a tiny proportion of foreign students, and the vast percentage of these are at *private* institutions, not public universities.
I have worked in a US university and can state with assurance that since US schools (mine in particular) accept students with a horrific lack of preparation, I cannot believe that qualified US undergraduates are being turned away from State Schools when they apply.
What prevents qualified students from going to college is usually funding, and for that foreign students are generally ineligible (they must pay their own way, hence bringing needed money to the school)
The job of a top research university, however, is *not* to crank out BA or BS students, but rather to train graduate students and produce solid research by supporting the professors (in part by supplying them with good graduate students).
Yes, US tax dollars go to State schools to support them so US students can obtain an education. But they also go to support the development of knowledge, which indirectly benefits the US citizens paying the taxes. These two goals do not need to compete given the tremendous range of educational institutions in the US.
There is also a more pragmatic reason to applaud MIT's decision, namely that research universities (and please note, I'm not referring to *all* colleges and universities) ought to try to attract the very best minds in order to have the very best programmes.
It is not merely the professors and texts that comprise an education, but the interaction of the students' minds. By limiting the students on the basis of geographic origins (this discussion of "race" that has slipped in seems sloppy) the university will limit the quality of education for all its students. Period. And that would be a bad thing.
Taxes can come from industry too... although that may be a heretical thought in this day and age.
Example: 1,279 U.S. corporations whose assets were $250 million *or more* paid *no* taxes in 1995 (from Lewis and Allison, _The Cheating of America_, 2001)
Although Stein would probably argue that taxing them would stifle their ability to invest in new technology.
And round and round it goes...
If memory serves, my own highly mediochre (witness my spelling) private school was about $14,000/yr by the time I graduated...
NYC in the 1980's - has to be more now.
You know, this might be the perfect time to find a new market. As we speak (ok, type) there are people looking for folks with exactly *your* skills, and they have heaps of money to boot...
yep, it's the U.S. government's new "Information Awareness Office" and based on what we've seen so far, it sure looks like they need talent. Do you have what it takes? Only you can answer that.
For more information see http://www.darpa.mil/iao/index.htm
True, I don't think anyone can seriously believe that the public school system in the States is not in deep trouble. We've all heard about the %11 of US students who cannot find *the US* on a map... But this neo-conservative plan for the future would hardly solve the problem.
;)
Apropos of education Stein writes:
"Allow schools to fall into useless decay. Do not teach civics or history except to describe America as a hopelessly fascistic, reactionary pit. Do not expect students to know the basics of mathematics, chemistry and physics. Working closely with the teachers' unions, make sure that you dumb down standards so that children who make the most minimal effort still get by with flying colors. Destroy the knowledge base on which all of mankind's scientific progress has been built by guaranteeing that such learning is confined to only a few, and spread ignorance and complacency among the many."
But later (#10 for all you following at home) he argues against what he perceives to be unfair and heavy taxation. So the US is supposed to improve schools without raising money to do so? At its most simple level, there are two basid problems.
1) Teachers get paid shit in the US. In NYC the average salery for public school teachers is just under $32,000/year (before taxes), which makes it impossible to feed and house oneself in the city (unless there are some other funds coming in, trust fund, spouse, etc). Likewise, a university professor (tenure track) at San Fransico State makes abut $40,000/yr -- in San Francisco! A janitor in a Columbus Ohio high school, on the other hand, makes about $50,000/yr. What does this tell you about the value in which teachers are held?
There are some great dedicated teachers out there, but I have taught more than one, kind well-meaning, and utterly incompetent student who planned to teach high school (and went on to do so). Yes many teachers suck (although I think almost all must be pretty selfless to put up with a very hard job). Look at what we pay them.
Yet Stein is also against those evil teacher unions. I hate to break the news, but most teacher unions are not fighting to lower standards, they are fighting for decent working conditions. Sometimes this involves lowering the bar because standards cannot be held in the conditions in which they work. Bringing us to pt. 2...
2) Given the lack of financial support for education in the US, many schools are falling apart and grossly overcrowded (10% are trying to function at %125 capacity) necesitating teaching in gyms, halls, etc... and creating enormous classes that are impossible for the most dedicated teacher to manage.
So even if we had better teachers, they would have an impossible job to do. So we end up with a nation of illiterates (44 million I think), who don't know anything about the world around them, not to even mention technology or science.
It is all very well to say "Hey we should do a better job teaching our kids," of course we should! But to do that we must spend money. Not that throwing money at the problem will make it go away, but it's a fundamental ingredient for meaningful change -- an ingrediant that the rest of Stein's articles run in the face of.
(sorry for the dangling participle)
Yes, I differ with Stein in a number of ways, we are clearly on different ends of the political spectrum, but I leave it to others to address his other "points to change" in an intelligent fashion. I'm ranted out for the moment
From what I gather, he's to play Lije Bailey. According to: http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,10925,00.htm l?tnews (I know, trashy reading...) he's "a gumshoe in the not-too-distant future who stumbles upon a massive conspiracy while tracking down an android that may have gone haywire and committed a crime violating the strict laws governing robots."
So it looks like the movie will be "based on" (in that loose hollywood way) one of (or a combination of) the *other* robot books with Lije Baley and Deneel Olivaw.