Newton seemed to earn money doing numerous other jobs, as have many other physicists.
Indeed - perhaps I wasn't clear. Anyone seeking work straight from University should have an edge. There are still some prejudices out there (e.g. "Physicists can't write and don't have social skills) but the numeracy/problem-solving card usually trumps those. Having said that, those who start on a "physics" career may find it harder to change direction later. They often seem to end up in a series of short-term posts (been there, done that). Those who hold out for "real" jobs in their chosen field may find themselves effectively unemployable or doing casual jobs (the decorators previously quoted are two such examples).
Lots of interesting articles out there at the moment from current graduate students who are struggling with these issues, hashtag #PhDelta for openers.
Incidentally, Newton would not have been my exemplar. His get-rich-quick schemes included occult alchemy (which was highly illegal and potentially punishable by execution) and his position as Master of the Royal Mint was obtained through patronage, as was usual at the time. He acquitted himself superbly, though, unlike his foray into politics, which sounds disastrous.
There are many reasons which may have conflated to produce this result. I moved out of research 20 years ago and have been teaching physics in UK schools ever since, so I have seen various trends during that time.
Physics has always been perceived as hard (especially by girls) and considered geeky. Most of my students have either been out-and-out geeks or those aspiring to medicine/dentistry. A few have shifted into numerate careers (e.g. actuary, accountancy) and several into teaching.
Mostly pupils are interested in the sexier aspects - astrophysics or relativity or quantum theory, rather than mechanics or thermodynamics. Of course, at school level the really hard stuff doesn't kick in but it is still quite challenging for the vast majority of students.
A few years ago maths at A-level in the UK was made significantly easier (this is well-documented elsewhere) and took a lot of students who were considering doing physics as a "hard" option in order to go to medical school. To some extent this is still the case, but more people are doing physics as well. Why?
The courses feeding into A-level have been made easier - this gives people the [misleading] impression that they can cope with physics - and increases the course drop-out rate! Also, it is very valuable for entry on to competitive courses in good universities, but only if you get the top grades. Finally - and perhaps most importantly - it is seen as interesting, thanks to the influence of ambassadors such as Brian Cox (who has over 0.75 million followers on Twitter) and the well-reported recent events at CERN.
It will be fascinating to see how this develops - will the courses be "dumbed-down" (probably not, in the current political and economic climate). Will people realise that physicists are not necessarily directly employable? (I currently know two Ph.D.s who are still working as painters and decorators, several years on). Will the love affair with media science die away? (Again - it was last seen during the Moon landings and yours truly got sucked in as a boy...)
Way too harsh. I've just read the hyperlink and it's a good stab at providing analogies people can try to get their heads around. "A quantum of the Higgs field which enables the Higgs effect" doesn't do it for most non-slashdotters.
The Justin Bieber fan analogy is a variant of an explanation I first saw fronted by Tara Shears a few years ago, when the LHC originally came online. Probably still out there somewhere on YouTube.
Kudos to this article - they even mention the nickname story (the same version I was told personally when I visited CERN).
A billion? - I kept counting forty-two. Then again, since it's not the whole Universe, maybe it was a only a subset like, say, two?
Seriously, though, very impressive. As Adams understated, "Space is Big". Yep...
We need a legion of enthusiastic experts who live and breathe it. Who love it to the point they're almost willing to do it for free.
Which is how this all went wrong in the first place. If they'll almost do it for free, then pay them buttons... (been there, done that). Youngsters today don't think like that - and still have massive debts to repay even if they do.
Far too many technically-minded people are either choosing to study medicine or going into another, better-paid, field after graduation. Very few want to spend 15+ years making the world better for others but not for themselves - that's the new monasticism, as I've said here before.
In the cause of "refine and improve" let me suggest the following...
We put accountants and generalist managers [effectively] in charge of all scientific funding. For projects to be allowed to continue, they must be explained clearly and precisely, but in terms the scientifically-illiterate can grasp. The generalists, having the balance of power, can then make a "reasoned judgement" on whether to continue paying for the elitist frippery called "research" (instead of the important stuff like expense-account lunches, continuous face-to-face meetings around the world and powerpoint-projected wallpaper-to-go).
To make it even more interesting, build-in the assumption that science is a linear activity, like constructing a wall with bricks. "How many ideas have you has today/this week/this month?" would be a good initial benchmarking question. The answer can then be used to ramp-up quotas in future years to DEMONSTRATE INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY. Perfect! Ultimately, some sacrifices may have to be made - like abolishing coffee breaks - but scientists like to work hard and aren't in it for the money, so that shouldn't be a problem.
City jobs and research jobs are obviously very different worlds. Many of the scientists who went into the City did so initially as analysts, working on numerical modelling of financial systems (and starting with some very shaky a-priori assumptions, which were then superbly modelled, whilst faithfully retaining the dubious validity of the original assumptions. I met 8 physics D. Phil. candidates from Oxford some years ago, who were about to do just that). They would then tend be promoted according to how well they meshed with the internal culture of their organisation and the shifting criteria of company politics. The £1M+ jobs are for those who negotiate this labrynth successfully.
Most researchers are dreamers, to some extent. Their dreams may be self-centred, involving fame and position, or more altruistic, involving doing a job which will advance society. Either way, it's work, work and more work. I've seen people lose partners, friends and even their sanity on the way. Ultimately I didn't make it (and I won't do defence work anyway) but on the journey I lost about 15 years of pensionable service because research jobs came and went with the rapidity of a revolving door. In my case, this started over 30 years ago, but as some wag once pointed out to me, "When I came into this field 25 years ago this was the technology of the future - and it still is!"
Other than scientists, most people can't - or won't - cope with this over-arching picture of sustained future investment. Most UK industries have already gone along this road - consistent lack of investment, followed by inevitable collapse. Even the great Victorian entrepeneurs sent their children to University to study classics, as this was considered socially superior to how they themselves had made their money. Not much has changed since - people piled into computers in the 60s and 70s, finance in the 80s and 90s (and beyond); universities throughout. There are some bright spots, pharmaceuticals for example, but the picture is patchy at best. At this worst of times, when the money has been sytematically blown elsewhere, we have to face up to a leaner future. Personally, I don't think we can afford not to invest in basic science, but it's a hard sell to the country as a whole. In order to be seen as "efficient", scientists are already having to spend insane amounts of time on admin, which brings to mind another old saying, "You can't fatten a pig by weighing it".
I didn't care so much about the pay, doing science is in itself worth it as long as you're being paid enough to survive. Yeah, for some people it's that much fun.
That's why sales guys (and CEOs) make far, far more money than scientists (and, to a lesser extent, engineers). They DO care about money. I used to think exactly like that, now I realise that I'll probably never be able to retire because I won't be able to afford it, because of the string of positions I had early in my employment history.
I'm now older, wiser, and a science teacher (in the UK). Science careers? Think very carefully before making that commitment.
You have to experience this with a loved one to understand it. I'm in the midst of it right now with my Dad (although, mercifully, in the UK the financial aspect is much less burdensome to the individuals concerned). Intellect is ultimately not enough: indeed a truly rational or analytical approach can lead to guilt and depression because you try to follow a course which you think to be "right" but which feels "wrong". The whole thing is an emotional, ethical and (potentially) financial minefield.
First of all, you wouldn't put REAL beer in a freezer. You must mean what we in the UK call "lager".
Some highly filtered lagers and "lite" beers can readily be supercooled in a freezer. When removed, they have not solidified since there are no nucleation sites available to them. When opened, the CO2 bubbles will act as nucleation sites and freezing will occur rapidly, producing dendrites of ice in all directions. The same effect can be initiated by tapping the unopened bottle SHARPLY (without breaking it!) on a convenient surface. It's a handy party trick: offer a supercooled lager to someone you don't like and watch them [not] drink it.
I have an Orion Optics 8" Newtonian AND an equatorial mount and could not hope to match these amazing captures, even if I worked at it for years. Then again, I don't have a dedicated CCD camera (except for the sensor on my SLR body, of course). Great stuff.
As far as "doing weddings" goes, obviously he only turns out for the stars! (Binaries mainly, with the odd kinky trinary+)
Indeed, it is well-established that the catch-22 of politics is that those who want the top jobs shouln't be allowed anywhere near them because they are simply too dangerous once in office.
For the benefit of our American cousins, just think of Mandelson as an unholy combination of Rasputin and Goebbels.
Been there, still doing that (after a fashion, now in education). Beware, or one day you'll probably wake up and realise that you've become embittered and maybe even a little twisted. You may be one of the very few who actually makes a mint, or manages to remains productive and enthusiastic throughout a long career, but the odds are certainly stacked against you. In this culture, no-one outside of your field actually CARES what you do. They will only see what you have and probably judge you (harshly) in the first seven seconds anyway.
It's a sad comment on the "Western Way" and - in my view - will ultimately undermine what we now call capitalism. Here in the UK it's already started: an economy bootstrapping on a housing bubble just cannot work when the bubble bursts. Without SOME good scientists and engineers (in relevant jobs) we cannot hope to overcome the challenges which face us. If we only ship people in from other countries, we will ultimately be without the strategic technical base needed to keep the country running properly in the 21st century.
Some very perceptive, elegant and incisive comments on this topic have been posted on/. for quite a while now. Just remember, when the shit hits the fan, where you read about it first...
If they are caught in a fire, the combustion products will hardly be bio-friendly; in fact "toxic" would be a better description. That said, they are not going to be inherently combustible, unless there are lots of organics left in any binder which might be used to keep them on the substrate (i.e. the shingles). Most likely, the shingles are post-treated to produce a rather thick "thin-film" and then given a top coating (a) for anti-reflection purposes and (b) for mechanical/abrasion resistance. As several other posters have noted it's not clear from the article how the front or back electrical contact(s) are designed, either mechanically or electrically.
It seems unlikely that these will weather very well, so we'll have to see how they cope with thermal cycling and storm stresses. Nice to note that things have moved along since I worked on Si photovoltaics - it's taken longer than I expected, though
As a science educator I routinely draw analogies to help my students understand basic concepts. When considering science in the West, my analogy would be "the new monasticism". In order to pursue your field, you have to be prepared to forgo rewards, social and financial, other professionals take for granted. You do so because you "love" your field - you have a "faith" and seek validation from your colleagues - the "true believers" of the order. Later, you may lose this faith (perhaps after a run-in with a senior, powerful figure) and either leave the order or remain and skulk around (embittered) looking for it again. Everyone else thinks the members of your group are a bit weird and may not take you seriously - except for the abbott-level figures who set the orthodoxy within the order. Chastity, incidentally, is entirely optional.
Like all analogies it's hardly perfect, especially as challenging orthodoxy is fundamental to the scientific method - but this could be viewed as an orthodoxy in its own right. Also, we probably all know some senior figures in the research community who have sought to hold back the tide of progress in favour of their own earlier ideas. The OP is spot on - and those like me who sought out science with "high" motives probably mostly got nowhere and ended up somewhere else (in my case, a more stable career in teaching).
I did wonder, after posting, when someone would come back with this point. As you indicate, as a teacher he used examples to demonstrate underlying principles which were as simple as possible within the context of what was being considered (which was itself usually rather complex!)
Perhaps my intent is made clearer by the Einstein version? "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler"
So, we calculate, yes, but we're not heavy on the calculus and try to focus on the underlying principles. Physical intuition is really tricky, since ultimately much of physics turms out to be counter-intuitive, but we have to start somewhere. Balancing rigour and simplicity is never easy, even at school physics level. I completely agree that throwing out rigour is never acceptable, certainly once pupils have started to develop abstract thinking skills (in their teens). Sadly, that's what seems to be happening in science generally in the UK education system at the moment.
The very best are not affected by what we are pleased to call an education: They know how to think, and nothing the educational system does can remove this innate ability, no matter how hard it tries. The rest, however, are being shunted to the sidings of science because the government might be embarrassed that their increasing scores are in fact an indicator of decreasing ability.
Agreed - although I believe that we teachers may sometimes influence them more than others may realise. They already think, sure, but they can learn to really enjoy thinking - ideally, in an environment where some others can think too! That way they become better at it, even if naturally gifted, and may begin to know themselves. The worst aspect of a gradgrind system for these youngsters is that there is no time permitted for reflection - it is seen as time wasted and doesn't look good on a sheet of planning paper. If they have no real challenge, only meaningless activities, then they disconnect into their own world or - worse - become disaffected. That way lies the drug-raddled youth or future master criminal...
As for the sidings of science, few people now want the mainline. Too much work, too little money or fame. Better to head to engineering or a numerate profession. It's been like that for a while now (certainly in the UK), unless you are an idealist or fancy a few years drifting around before "settling down" in a proper job. The ones in the sidings, of course, think they will end up like the glamour figures on TV in forensics etc. In my limited experience, they still always seem to end up higher up the system than I ever have, so maybe they really do have the right idea! Inevitably, when they get there, they mess things up horrendously - but that seems to be OK nowadays.
I work in a UK school, having moved some years ago out of my research discipline. My school is not private but it is not the standard product either, being girls-only and basically running its own affairs. We get mainly higher-end kids but still have a "tail" ability-wise. In addition to science for younger pupils, I have always specialised in physics (not exactly an easy sell to girls). So, here are my thoughts...
The RSC are broadly correct with their analysis. It's a question of breadth versus depth. Certainly many pupils are now putting in far more hours than in my day, but then they are usually taking a wider variety of subjects, with some distinctly eclectic choices. They are also heavily involved with external activities, often with an eye on the CV in order to compete effectively for the "best" courses and/or universities. Staff support them as much as possible in all this, in my school often working 80+ hours per week during term (I'm taking a break to write this!) So, more effort is going in for and by some pupils - but to what effect?
The GCSE science courses are very poorly thought out - with a random jumble of disconnected facts ranging from the trivial to the arcane being presented together on the same textbook page. Children of 14 who are only dimly aware of what an electron is (in VERY simple terms) suddenly meet HOLES in connection with p-n junctions at the start of their GCSE course. Oh, and allow about 15 minutes to get the idea of a p-n junction across - then move on! Similar lunacies occur elsewhere in the specification, but you get the idea. So make science sexy and "relevant" by dumping the structure and rigour. To paraphrase an old physics joke, teach them about real horses before they know anything about spherical horses.
The advanced courses are better, but here the mathematics has been almost entirely removed, which is a clear advantage for those who are not going to take the subject at university but a massive disservice to those who are. It's not all bad, since it forces pupils to focus on principles (Feynman-style) but it can easily give a totally wrong impression of what science is really like. Most of my pupils do maths (and often further maths) anyway, so it's not a major problem for me.
Teaching to the test? No, sorry, I believe in pupils being encouraged to develop their critical thinking skills, where this is reasonable. Thinking rigorously is a major life-skill, unlike the test which will be history once it has been taken. The immediate consequence is that the subject is perceived by some as "almost impossible" but, ironically, those brave enough to still take it and committed enough to work at it come to love it! Since this is a public forum, I'm not going to comment explicitly on the predictable conseqences this can have with management - you're all bright enough to do that yourselves. Suffice it to say that I have yet to be promoted.
So, are we developing a generation of box-ticking, multi-tasking, shallow-thinking children who cannot do things for themselves? In general, yes - although the VERY best are still as good as ever: and as rare.
The theoreticians seem have thrown down a considerable challenge here. Designing and building will likely be very different things. Makes most of the stuff fabricated so far seem almost macro-scale.
Isn't it a bit naughty to include star-trek tags on a real-science piece (even if it IS distinctly theoretical)?
How bizarre - I also make bread. The prevalent response is usually, "Can I have some more?" I'm in the UK - do people in your part of the world REALLY think that baking should be restricted in some way? Messing with micro-organisms is hardly new: you can always filch them from your surroundings (e.g. San Francisco sourdough - works pretty well even around here). OK, I originally trained as a chemist, but a craft such as baking is FAR more satisfying than my lab-work ever was (and can be very demanding, within its own parameters).
Why people don't take stuff apart any more is beyond me - it's still an adventure, although as I get older I'm a little more cautious about what I'm prepared to do. There is a trend for stuff to be more efficient/stable and less fun, though: just look at computers (ignoring bloatware). I only keep building my own because that way I know - in principle - exactly what I should get.
Check out http://orionoptics.co.uk/ - made in the UK, priced in pounds, very high quality, and you can even take the scope back to Crewe yourself if you have any major issues. Not as sexy in specification as some, but excellent optics (Sky at Night group test winners etc.) Avoids the 1$=£1 scam by definition.
Slashdot Mirror
It's no more incorrect for an American to spell "color" than a Britain to spell "colour".
Briton. In this context, Britain IS incorrect, English or American spellings notwithstanding.
Indeed - perhaps I wasn't clear. Anyone seeking work straight from University should have an edge. There are still some prejudices out there (e.g. "Physicists can't write and don't have social skills) but the numeracy/problem-solving card usually trumps those. Having said that, those who start on a "physics" career may find it harder to change direction later. They often seem to end up in a series of short-term posts (been there, done that). Those who hold out for "real" jobs in their chosen field may find themselves effectively unemployable or doing casual jobs (the decorators previously quoted are two such examples).
Lots of interesting articles out there at the moment from current graduate students who are struggling with these issues, hashtag #PhDelta for openers.
Incidentally, Newton would not have been my exemplar. His get-rich-quick schemes included occult alchemy (which was highly illegal and potentially punishable by execution) and his position as Master of the Royal Mint was obtained through patronage, as was usual at the time. He acquitted himself superbly, though, unlike his foray into politics, which sounds disastrous.
There are many reasons which may have conflated to produce this result. I moved out of research 20 years ago and have been teaching physics in UK schools ever since, so I have seen various trends during that time.
Physics has always been perceived as hard (especially by girls) and considered geeky. Most of my students have either been out-and-out geeks or those aspiring to medicine/dentistry. A few have shifted into numerate careers (e.g. actuary, accountancy) and several into teaching.
Mostly pupils are interested in the sexier aspects - astrophysics or relativity or quantum theory, rather than mechanics or thermodynamics. Of course, at school level the really hard stuff doesn't kick in but it is still quite challenging for the vast majority of students.
A few years ago maths at A-level in the UK was made significantly easier (this is well-documented elsewhere) and took a lot of students who were considering doing physics as a "hard" option in order to go to medical school. To some extent this is still the case, but more people are doing physics as well. Why?
The courses feeding into A-level have been made easier - this gives people the [misleading] impression that they can cope with physics - and increases the course drop-out rate! Also, it is very valuable for entry on to competitive courses in good universities, but only if you get the top grades. Finally - and perhaps most importantly - it is seen as interesting, thanks to the influence of ambassadors such as Brian Cox (who has over 0.75 million followers on Twitter) and the well-reported recent events at CERN.
It will be fascinating to see how this develops - will the courses be "dumbed-down" (probably not, in the current political and economic climate). Will people realise that physicists are not necessarily directly employable? (I currently know two Ph.D.s who are still working as painters and decorators, several years on). Will the love affair with media science die away? (Again - it was last seen during the Moon landings and yours truly got sucked in as a boy...)
Way too harsh. I've just read the hyperlink and it's a good stab at providing analogies people can try to get their heads around. "A quantum of the Higgs field which enables the Higgs effect" doesn't do it for most non-slashdotters.
The Justin Bieber fan analogy is a variant of an explanation I first saw fronted by Tara Shears a few years ago, when the LHC originally came online. Probably still out there somewhere on YouTube.
Kudos to this article - they even mention the nickname story (the same version I was told personally when I visited CERN).
A billion? - I kept counting forty-two. Then again, since it's not the whole Universe, maybe it was a only a subset like, say, two? Seriously, though, very impressive. As Adams understated, "Space is Big". Yep...
Which is how this all went wrong in the first place. If they'll almost do it for free, then pay them buttons... (been there, done that). Youngsters today don't think like that - and still have massive debts to repay even if they do.
Far too many technically-minded people are either choosing to study medicine or going into another, better-paid, field after graduation. Very few want to spend 15+ years making the world better for others but not for themselves - that's the new monasticism, as I've said here before.
In the cause of "refine and improve" let me suggest the following...
We put accountants and generalist managers [effectively] in charge of all scientific funding. For projects to be allowed to continue, they must be explained clearly and precisely, but in terms the scientifically-illiterate can grasp. The generalists, having the balance of power, can then make a "reasoned judgement" on whether to continue paying for the elitist frippery called "research" (instead of the important stuff like expense-account lunches, continuous face-to-face meetings around the world and powerpoint-projected wallpaper-to-go).
To make it even more interesting, build-in the assumption that science is a linear activity, like constructing a wall with bricks. "How many ideas have you has today/this week/this month?" would be a good initial benchmarking question. The answer can then be used to ramp-up quotas in future years to DEMONSTRATE INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY. Perfect! Ultimately, some sacrifices may have to be made - like abolishing coffee breaks - but scientists like to work hard and aren't in it for the money, so that shouldn't be a problem.
Time to pencil it in on the wall-planner...
City jobs and research jobs are obviously very different worlds. Many of the scientists who went into the City did so initially as analysts, working on numerical modelling of financial systems (and starting with some very shaky a-priori assumptions, which were then superbly modelled, whilst faithfully retaining the dubious validity of the original assumptions. I met 8 physics D. Phil. candidates from Oxford some years ago, who were about to do just that). They would then tend be promoted according to how well they meshed with the internal culture of their organisation and the shifting criteria of company politics. The £1M+ jobs are for those who negotiate this labrynth successfully.
Most researchers are dreamers, to some extent. Their dreams may be self-centred, involving fame and position, or more altruistic, involving doing a job which will advance society. Either way, it's work, work and more work. I've seen people lose partners, friends and even their sanity on the way. Ultimately I didn't make it (and I won't do defence work anyway) but on the journey I lost about 15 years of pensionable service because research jobs came and went with the rapidity of a revolving door. In my case, this started over 30 years ago, but as some wag once pointed out to me, "When I came into this field 25 years ago this was the technology of the future - and it still is!"
Other than scientists, most people can't - or won't - cope with this over-arching picture of sustained future investment. Most UK industries have already gone along this road - consistent lack of investment, followed by inevitable collapse. Even the great Victorian entrepeneurs sent their children to University to study classics, as this was considered socially superior to how they themselves had made their money. Not much has changed since - people piled into computers in the 60s and 70s, finance in the 80s and 90s (and beyond); universities throughout. There are some bright spots, pharmaceuticals for example, but the picture is patchy at best. At this worst of times, when the money has been sytematically blown elsewhere, we have to face up to a leaner future. Personally, I don't think we can afford not to invest in basic science, but it's a hard sell to the country as a whole. In order to be seen as "efficient", scientists are already having to spend insane amounts of time on admin, which brings to mind another old saying, "You can't fatten a pig by weighing it".
That's why sales guys (and CEOs) make far, far more money than scientists (and, to a lesser extent, engineers). They DO care about money. I used to think exactly like that, now I realise that I'll probably never be able to retire because I won't be able to afford it, because of the string of positions I had early in my employment history.
I'm now older, wiser, and a science teacher (in the UK). Science careers? Think very carefully before making that commitment.
You have to experience this with a loved one to understand it. I'm in the midst of it right now with my Dad (although, mercifully, in the UK the financial aspect is much less burdensome to the individuals concerned). Intellect is ultimately not enough: indeed a truly rational or analytical approach can lead to guilt and depression because you try to follow a course which you think to be "right" but which feels "wrong". The whole thing is an emotional, ethical and (potentially) financial minefield.
First of all, you wouldn't put REAL beer in a freezer. You must mean what we in the UK call "lager".
Some highly filtered lagers and "lite" beers can readily be supercooled in a freezer. When removed, they have not solidified since there are no nucleation sites available to them. When opened, the CO2 bubbles will act as nucleation sites and freezing will occur rapidly, producing dendrites of ice in all directions. The same effect can be initiated by tapping the unopened bottle SHARPLY (without breaking it!) on a convenient surface. It's a handy party trick: offer a supercooled lager to someone you don't like and watch them [not] drink it.
I have an Orion Optics 8" Newtonian AND an equatorial mount and could not hope to match these amazing captures, even if I worked at it for years. Then again, I don't have a dedicated CCD camera (except for the sensor on my SLR body, of course). Great stuff.
As far as "doing weddings" goes, obviously he only turns out for the stars! (Binaries mainly, with the odd kinky trinary+)
Indeed, it is well-established that the catch-22 of politics is that those who want the top jobs shouln't be allowed anywhere near them because they are simply too dangerous once in office.
For the benefit of our American cousins, just think of Mandelson as an unholy combination of Rasputin and Goebbels.
Been there, still doing that (after a fashion, now in education). Beware, or one day you'll probably wake up and realise that you've become embittered and maybe even a little twisted. You may be one of the very few who actually makes a mint, or manages to remains productive and enthusiastic throughout a long career, but the odds are certainly stacked against you. In this culture, no-one outside of your field actually CARES what you do. They will only see what you have and probably judge you (harshly) in the first seven seconds anyway.
It's a sad comment on the "Western Way" and - in my view - will ultimately undermine what we now call capitalism. Here in the UK it's already started: an economy bootstrapping on a housing bubble just cannot work when the bubble bursts. Without SOME good scientists and engineers (in relevant jobs) we cannot hope to overcome the challenges which face us. If we only ship people in from other countries, we will ultimately be without the strategic technical base needed to keep the country running properly in the 21st century.
Some very perceptive, elegant and incisive comments on this topic have been posted on /. for quite a while now. Just remember, when the shit hits the fan, where you read about it first...
If they are caught in a fire, the combustion products will hardly be bio-friendly; in fact "toxic" would be a better description. That said, they are not going to be inherently combustible, unless there are lots of organics left in any binder which might be used to keep them on the substrate (i.e. the shingles). Most likely, the shingles are post-treated to produce a rather thick "thin-film" and then given a top coating (a) for anti-reflection purposes and (b) for mechanical/abrasion resistance. As several other posters have noted it's not clear from the article how the front or back electrical contact(s) are designed, either mechanically or electrically.
Roving roovers?
It seems unlikely that these will weather very well, so we'll have to see how they cope with thermal cycling and storm stresses. Nice to note that things have moved along since I worked on Si photovoltaics - it's taken longer than I expected, though
As a science educator I routinely draw analogies to help my students understand basic concepts. When considering science in the West, my analogy would be "the new monasticism". In order to pursue your field, you have to be prepared to forgo rewards, social and financial, other professionals take for granted. You do so because you "love" your field - you have a "faith" and seek validation from your colleagues - the "true believers" of the order. Later, you may lose this faith (perhaps after a run-in with a senior, powerful figure) and either leave the order or remain and skulk around (embittered) looking for it again. Everyone else thinks the members of your group are a bit weird and may not take you seriously - except for the abbott-level figures who set the orthodoxy within the order. Chastity, incidentally, is entirely optional.
Like all analogies it's hardly perfect, especially as challenging orthodoxy is fundamental to the scientific method - but this could be viewed as an orthodoxy in its own right. Also, we probably all know some senior figures in the research community who have sought to hold back the tide of progress in favour of their own earlier ideas. The OP is spot on - and those like me who sought out science with "high" motives probably mostly got nowhere and ended up somewhere else (in my case, a more stable career in teaching).
I did wonder, after posting, when someone would come back with this point. As you indicate, as a teacher he used examples to demonstrate underlying principles which were as simple as possible within the context of what was being considered (which was itself usually rather complex!)
Perhaps my intent is made clearer by the Einstein version? "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler"
So, we calculate, yes, but we're not heavy on the calculus and try to focus on the underlying principles. Physical intuition is really tricky, since ultimately much of physics turms out to be counter-intuitive, but we have to start somewhere. Balancing rigour and simplicity is never easy, even at school physics level. I completely agree that throwing out rigour is never acceptable, certainly once pupils have started to develop abstract thinking skills (in their teens). Sadly, that's what seems to be happening in science generally in the UK education system at the moment.
Agreed - although I believe that we teachers may sometimes influence them more than others may realise. They already think, sure, but they can learn to really enjoy thinking - ideally, in an environment where some others can think too! That way they become better at it, even if naturally gifted, and may begin to know themselves. The worst aspect of a gradgrind system for these youngsters is that there is no time permitted for reflection - it is seen as time wasted and doesn't look good on a sheet of planning paper. If they have no real challenge, only meaningless activities, then they disconnect into their own world or - worse - become disaffected. That way lies the drug-raddled youth or future master criminal...
As for the sidings of science, few people now want the mainline. Too much work, too little money or fame. Better to head to engineering or a numerate profession. It's been like that for a while now (certainly in the UK), unless you are an idealist or fancy a few years drifting around before "settling down" in a proper job. The ones in the sidings, of course, think they will end up like the glamour figures on TV in forensics etc. In my limited experience, they still always seem to end up higher up the system than I ever have, so maybe they really do have the right idea! Inevitably, when they get there, they mess things up horrendously - but that seems to be OK nowadays.
I work in a UK school, having moved some years ago out of my research discipline. My school is not private but it is not the standard product either, being girls-only and basically running its own affairs. We get mainly higher-end kids but still have a "tail" ability-wise. In addition to science for younger pupils, I have always specialised in physics (not exactly an easy sell to girls). So, here are my thoughts...
The RSC are broadly correct with their analysis. It's a question of breadth versus depth. Certainly many pupils are now putting in far more hours than in my day, but then they are usually taking a wider variety of subjects, with some distinctly eclectic choices. They are also heavily involved with external activities, often with an eye on the CV in order to compete effectively for the "best" courses and/or universities. Staff support them as much as possible in all this, in my school often working 80+ hours per week during term (I'm taking a break to write this!) So, more effort is going in for and by some pupils - but to what effect?
The GCSE science courses are very poorly thought out - with a random jumble of disconnected facts ranging from the trivial to the arcane being presented together on the same textbook page. Children of 14 who are only dimly aware of what an electron is (in VERY simple terms) suddenly meet HOLES in connection with p-n junctions at the start of their GCSE course. Oh, and allow about 15 minutes to get the idea of a p-n junction across - then move on! Similar lunacies occur elsewhere in the specification, but you get the idea. So make science sexy and "relevant" by dumping the structure and rigour. To paraphrase an old physics joke, teach them about real horses before they know anything about spherical horses.
The advanced courses are better, but here the mathematics has been almost entirely removed, which is a clear advantage for those who are not going to take the subject at university but a massive disservice to those who are. It's not all bad, since it forces pupils to focus on principles (Feynman-style) but it can easily give a totally wrong impression of what science is really like. Most of my pupils do maths (and often further maths) anyway, so it's not a major problem for me.
Teaching to the test? No, sorry, I believe in pupils being encouraged to develop their critical thinking skills, where this is reasonable. Thinking rigorously is a major life-skill, unlike the test which will be history once it has been taken. The immediate consequence is that the subject is perceived by some as "almost impossible" but, ironically, those brave enough to still take it and committed enough to work at it come to love it! Since this is a public forum, I'm not going to comment explicitly on the predictable conseqences this can have with management - you're all bright enough to do that yourselves. Suffice it to say that I have yet to be promoted.
So, are we developing a generation of box-ticking, multi-tasking, shallow-thinking children who cannot do things for themselves? In general, yes - although the VERY best are still as good as ever: and as rare.
The theoreticians seem have thrown down a considerable challenge here. Designing and building will likely be very different things. Makes most of the stuff fabricated so far seem almost macro-scale.
Isn't it a bit naughty to include star-trek tags on a real-science piece (even if it IS distinctly theoretical)?
>
How bizarre - I also make bread. The prevalent response is usually, "Can I have some more?" I'm in the UK - do people in your part of the world REALLY think that baking should be restricted in some way? Messing with micro-organisms is hardly new: you can always filch them from your surroundings (e.g. San Francisco sourdough - works pretty well even around here). OK, I originally trained as a chemist, but a craft such as baking is FAR more satisfying than my lab-work ever was (and can be very demanding, within its own parameters).
Why people don't take stuff apart any more is beyond me - it's still an adventure, although as I get older I'm a little more cautious about what I'm prepared to do. There is a trend for stuff to be more efficient/stable and less fun, though: just look at computers (ignoring bloatware). I only keep building my own because that way I know - in principle - exactly what I should get.
Should be http://www.orionoptics.co.uk/acatalog/index.htm - sorry!
Check out http://orionoptics.co.uk/ - made in the UK, priced in pounds, very high quality, and you can even take the scope back to Crewe yourself if you have any major issues. Not as sexy in specification as some, but excellent optics (Sky at Night group test winners etc.) Avoids the 1$=£1 scam by definition.