Re: What it takes to be a revolutionary thinker
From: Creighton Hogg (wchogg_at_clivia.hep.wisc.edu)
Date: 03/11/05
- Next message: jamesahart79_at_gmail.com: "Re: ? Measuring eigenvalues"
- Previous message: JM Albuquerque: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- In reply to: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: What it takes to be a revolutionary thinker"
- Next in thread: Nick: "Einstein was a Survivor - of his education"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:46:19 -0600
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> In article <f57171c7.0503101419.3cc7c713@posting.google.com>,
> Zach <zj_45@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:<1110391716.864567.112540@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
>
> >> The other aspect of this, though, was my alarm at his perception of how
> >> Einstein worked, how he did what he did. Few of the everday Einstein
> >> fans recall, for example, that the same year he was publishing his
> >> seminal papers, he was struggling to get his PhD thesis approved, and
> >> he was working at a side job because no one at the university could
> >> find money to support him. In this 100th anniversary of some of his
> >> singular accomplishments, I think it's worthwhile reminding people
> >> about how much hard work, how much formal training, and how much time
> >> spent simply learning, went into those accomplishments.
> >>
> >> PD
> >
> >Interesting post. But why did you squash him like that?
> >Here a teenage kid who is interested in something comes to see an
> >expert in the field, on the sound advice of mom who wants to see her
> >son go to university, and instead of encouraging his interest you
> >explain "reality." He would have learned eventually, everyone does in
> >their own way.
> >Now, is he actually going to apply to a physics program? Go to
> >university at all? Sure he was being idealistic and naive, he's only
> >a kid. You had the chance to sell him on a physics degree, or at least
> >encourage him to go to university, and to me it sounds like you blew
> >it.
>
> I've lost patience with the unexamined assumption that we must work to
> swell the ranks of the physics programs. Surely that's a good thing for
> the professors who need a strong department, not to mention grad students
> and post docs to do their work. But the employment picture for physicists
> looks less like that painted by the American Physical Society and more
> like that painted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And the new federal
> budget will do nothing to change that. Declining enrollment in physics
> programs is market forces doing what they're supposed to do.
>
> If the kid doesn't make it into physics on his own, he'd be better off
> somewhere else. But the converse is not necessarily true.
I was waiting for you to bring your views on this. Of course, I actually
do agree with what you're saying. People shouldn't be going into physics
because they've been fed stories of high paying jobs, rainbow roads to
tenure, and inevitable Nobel prizes.
- Next message: jamesahart79_at_gmail.com: "Re: ? Measuring eigenvalues"
- Previous message: JM Albuquerque: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- In reply to: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: What it takes to be a revolutionary thinker"
- Next in thread: Nick: "Einstein was a Survivor - of his education"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
