It's a five year grant. In my field, that would be barely enough funding to hire one postdoctoral researcher and one graduate student to do the research. That's assuming no equipment or supplies are needed. Typically health insurance and overhead cost a lot.
The reason is they are among the many low quality journals which send me spam asking me to submit papers. Admittedly, their spam is better written than most I get.
Before the great depression, instead of going to college after completing high school, students went to college when they were ready. The expectation to stay in high school until the age of 18 was created to shrink the workforce and artificially reduce the unemployment rate. Not long after, Robert Maynard Hutchins, President of the University of Chicago, began promoting early entrance to college for students who were ready.
The first dedicated college was SImon's Rock College, where entering students are typically about 16 years old. They earn a Bachelor's degree in four years. 78% of graduates go to graduate school. (I was one). The current wave of early colleges started about ten years ago. They are imitations of Simon's Rock. Several of them are run by former Simon's Rock staff. Some of the start-up money came from the Gates Foundation, which is not exactly the same as Microsoft.
In my view, the purpose of early college is to create an environment where young people are free to learn. For me, this was a big improvement over high school.
Editors have subject specialities, and (hopefully) read a lot more papers than authors do. Typically they are senior academics, while authors are usually students. Editors are picked from among the most successful authors. So actually the editor should know better than authors.
Aside from fraud, this practice does not lead to good reviews. When I am asked to suggest reviewers to the editor, I am not able to suggest my friends, because they would not be able to provide objective reviews. Therefore, I must suggest a reviewer who I do not know much about. If the editor simply follows my suggestions, nothing has been done to ensure the reviewer is an expert in the field. Editors' primary responsibility is to know who the appropriate reviewers are. They should not cede that responsibility to authors.
I got free health insurance and several minor fringe benefits in graduate school. As a postdoc, I get a number of subsidized benefits. The details of the benefits vary from program to program. The thing that early career scientists do not get in my experience is a retirement benefit. Graduate students also do not get social security.
Sure; this article is about exciton polaritons though.
You seem to be implying phonons are not matter. I would not call that "clear" at all. Maybe you should elaborate? Especially with respect to optical phonons.
Matter has mass. Light has no mass. That's a pretty significant distinction. A polariton's mass can change continuously as a function of energy from zero to about twice the electron mass.
The summary is a little odd. A hole is not a charged vacancy. A vacancy typically refers to a fixed (at low temperatures) location where an atom is missing in the lattice of a crystal. A hole is a mobile positive charge with mass similar to the electron mass.
(Recently finished my PhD studying polaritons and vacancies.)
Astronomers produce tons of data and need IT experts to manage their data centers, etc. You could try to get one of these jobs. Probably they do not pay great but you could make a real contribution to research using your existing expertise.
When the summary puts the word in quotes it implies it is not the standard term for a quantum of sound, which it is.
Measurement of single phonons is actually well established. I have done it several times. The paper actually describes a piezoelectrically coupled superconducting qubit, which is pretty cool.
I think many thieves will continue to use traditional car stealing techniques such as towing on smart cars. There is no need to hack a car's starter if you are just going to take the car apart to sell the pieces.
We should worry about is the security of self driving cars instead. Not because people will steal them, but because some script kiddie will tell all the cars to drive to the chop shop, causing a massive traffic jam.
If you have trouble paying attention to lectures and learning from it, have you considered that, perhaps, you shouldn't be in college to begin with?
This is a discriminatory attitude. Disadvantaged students (for example, those from poor families) are less able to cope with ineffective teaching. Based on controlled experiments, good teaching benefits all students, but it has a bigger benefits for those who used to be considered "not college material".
You addressed your comments to me personally. Notice my user ID number. It has been some years since I passed all my lecture classes.
Based on physiological evidence, normal attention span is only a few minutes. I am not aware of any studies of how attention span is changing, but I doubt it is changing much. Great teachers of the past were great compared to their peers, not compared to modern techniques. And many of them did not lecture.
On the whole I agree with you - learning is hard work and expensive for both teacher and student. I have several times heard your argument that good lectures are interactive. It is equivalent to saying good lectures include things which are not lecture.
Perhaps you enjoyed them, but it is highly unlikely you remember them. Physiological measures of attention, such as heart rate, show students do not pay as much attention to lectures past the first few minutes.
Lecturing is an ineffective way to teach because most people cannot pay attention to and retain a traditional lecture. Someone who has been giving the same lecture for 20 years was teaching sub-optimally 20 years ago and has not improved. You are correct that they may not have gotten worse either.
Using a wide variety of teaching techniques and evaluating their quality improves education. This is essentially what Minerva is proposing. The video conferencing is incidental.
Suppose a university scientist wins a grant to buy a million dollar instrument. Thirty years later, the scientist dies. Nobody knows what the instrument is anymore, or what it is worth. University policy does not allow the sale of excess property. Nobody knows what restrictions were placed on the sale of the equipment in the grant award. Nobody wants to pay money to figure any of these things out. So, the equipment is either ignored or landfilled.
You will never be in a position to realize your dream of doing interesting research or becoming a professor.
Lots of people (myself included) did interesting research while still an undergraduate. In my experience, professors do not do research, they write grants and manage researchers.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a five year grant. In my field, that would be barely enough funding to hire one postdoctoral researcher and one graduate student to do the research. That's assuming no equipment or supplies are needed. Typically health insurance and overhead cost a lot.
The reason is they are among the many low quality journals which send me spam asking me to submit papers. Admittedly, their spam is better written than most I get.
Before the great depression, instead of going to college after completing high school, students went to college when they were ready. The expectation to stay in high school until the age of 18 was created to shrink the workforce and artificially reduce the unemployment rate. Not long after, Robert Maynard Hutchins, President of the University of Chicago, began promoting early entrance to college for students who were ready.
The first dedicated college was SImon's Rock College, where entering students are typically about 16 years old. They earn a Bachelor's degree in four years. 78% of graduates go to graduate school. (I was one). The current wave of early colleges started about ten years ago. They are imitations of Simon's Rock. Several of them are run by former Simon's Rock staff. Some of the start-up money came from the Gates Foundation, which is not exactly the same as Microsoft.
In my view, the purpose of early college is to create an environment where young people are free to learn. For me, this was a big improvement over high school.
Editors have subject specialities, and (hopefully) read a lot more papers than authors do. Typically they are senior academics, while authors are usually students. Editors are picked from among the most successful authors. So actually the editor should know better than authors.
Editors are specialized. They should know the reviewers within the speciality.
Aside from fraud, this practice does not lead to good reviews. When I am asked to suggest reviewers to the editor, I am not able to suggest my friends, because they would not be able to provide objective reviews. Therefore, I must suggest a reviewer who I do not know much about. If the editor simply follows my suggestions, nothing has been done to ensure the reviewer is an expert in the field. Editors' primary responsibility is to know who the appropriate reviewers are. They should not cede that responsibility to authors.
I got free health insurance and several minor fringe benefits in graduate school. As a postdoc, I get a number of subsidized benefits. The details of the benefits vary from program to program. The thing that early career scientists do not get in my experience is a retirement benefit. Graduate students also do not get social security.
Sure; this article is about exciton polaritons though.
You seem to be implying phonons are not matter. I would not call that "clear" at all. Maybe you should elaborate? Especially with respect to optical phonons.
The rest mass is the right mass to talk about in nearly all situations, rather than the relativistic mass.
Matter has mass. Light has no mass. That's a pretty significant distinction. A polariton's mass can change continuously as a function of energy from zero to about twice the electron mass.
The summary is a little odd. A hole is not a charged vacancy. A vacancy typically refers to a fixed (at low temperatures) location where an atom is missing in the lattice of a crystal. A hole is a mobile positive charge with mass similar to the electron mass.
(Recently finished my PhD studying polaritons and vacancies.)
A killer app for drones.
Astronomers produce tons of data and need IT experts to manage their data centers, etc. You could try to get one of these jobs. Probably they do not pay great but you could make a real contribution to research using your existing expertise.
When the summary puts the word in quotes it implies it is not the standard term for a quantum of sound, which it is.
Measurement of single phonons is actually well established. I have done it several times. The paper actually describes a piezoelectrically coupled superconducting qubit, which is pretty cool.
If you look at the bottom of the page, you will see that it says he did not do the programming. He only drew the comics.
R always gets the analysis job done for me, but when I recommend it I feel a need to include a warning that its data typing is strange.
For example, there are about five types which are like arrays, but which are only sometimes compatible with each other.
I think many thieves will continue to use traditional car stealing techniques such as towing on smart cars. There is no need to hack a car's starter if you are just going to take the car apart to sell the pieces.
We should worry about is the security of self driving cars instead. Not because people will steal them, but because some script kiddie will tell all the cars to drive to the chop shop, causing a massive traffic jam.
If you have trouble paying attention to lectures and learning from it, have you considered that, perhaps, you shouldn't be in college to begin with?
This is a discriminatory attitude. Disadvantaged students (for example, those from poor families) are less able to cope with ineffective teaching. Based on controlled experiments, good teaching benefits all students, but it has a bigger benefits for those who used to be considered "not college material".
You addressed your comments to me personally. Notice my user ID number. It has been some years since I passed all my lecture classes.
Based on physiological evidence, normal attention span is only a few minutes. I am not aware of any studies of how attention span is changing, but I doubt it is changing much. Great teachers of the past were great compared to their peers, not compared to modern techniques. And many of them did not lecture.
On the whole I agree with you - learning is hard work and expensive for both teacher and student. I have several times heard your argument that good lectures are interactive. It is equivalent to saying good lectures include things which are not lecture.
Perhaps you enjoyed them, but it is highly unlikely you remember them. Physiological measures of attention, such as heart rate, show students do not pay as much attention to lectures past the first few minutes.
Lecturing is an ineffective way to teach because most people cannot pay attention to and retain a traditional lecture. Someone who has been giving the same lecture for 20 years was teaching sub-optimally 20 years ago and has not improved. You are correct that they may not have gotten worse either.
Using a wide variety of teaching techniques and evaluating their quality improves education. This is essentially what Minerva is proposing. The video conferencing is incidental.
Suppose a university scientist wins a grant to buy a million dollar instrument. Thirty years later, the scientist dies. Nobody knows what the instrument is anymore, or what it is worth. University policy does not allow the sale of excess property. Nobody knows what restrictions were placed on the sale of the equipment in the grant award. Nobody wants to pay money to figure any of these things out. So, the equipment is either ignored or landfilled.
In my experience this happens often.
Both China and Russia hold elections. They pretend to a degree.
You will never be in a position to realize your dream of doing interesting research or becoming a professor.
Lots of people (myself included) did interesting research while still an undergraduate. In my experience, professors do not do research, they write grants and manage researchers.