211–220 of 293 posts
Truly massive projects that can be measured in large fractions of a human lifespan are exceptionally rare.
Unfortunately this isn't restricted to science. Just about any project that can't show metric X is increasing at the next quarterly/annual review is going to have some difficulty proceeding. Truly massive projects that can be measured in large fractions of a human lifespan are exceptionally rare.
We still get massive projects, but they proceed like evolution: every step has to have a benefit. (Even if the part that step plays in the final product is not what gives it the immediate benefit.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So surprisingly, many of my friends got their first R01s approved in the last year or two. Some actually didn't even have a good publication record or pedigree or institutional position. One even got 3! But was told that the committees are being lenient with first time appplicants. Somehow that feels worse? Like a heroin dealer giving the first shot at a discount? Glad I got out. I'm still hell bent on finding a way…
I'm working to create a community model with a communal research lab. It's meant to meet my needs as a researcher while also removing pressures/norms from capitalism, colonialism, and imperialism. What do you want to research and what's in your way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I tend to browse eBay and other resellers looking for old engineering / scientific equipment and even for obsolete stuff it often still resells pretty high.
The way I think about it, people own boats, and this still can be cheaper than that hobby!
https://www.instructables.com/How-to-Get-a-Free-Yacht/
I love this one.
I am a casualty of this. I was originally intending to follow an academic career, until I discovered that my career would be dependent on my ability to secure grants. Something that if I was not bad at (which I think is unlikely), would at least be extremely stressful for me. It isn't the only reason I decided to to switch to being a software engineer, but it is a major reason.
Biomedical engineer with a 2.977GPA. Lots of extra curriculars, volunteered in labs, 160 credit hours of mostly STEM classes, lots of grad-level courses, relevant work experience, but GPA was 0.023 too low to pass the automated filters and I didn't get into any of the grad programs I applied for. I ended up doing fine in software development though. Also, the Wright Brothers didn't need a research lab to invent fligh…
This is just an explanation of how admissions offices work: Bio programs of any flavor at most halfway decent schools are so over-subscribed that there are far more people who exceed the minimum requirements than there are spots for them. Admissions offices have very limited resources to review enormous #'s of applications. 3.0 is a pretty good low-pass filter that eliminates a lot of those applications while still retaining applications from students who, from a probability standpoint, are most likely to succeed in the programs. Extra curriculars & volunteer work at labs show that you're willing to work hard, but not the quality of that work, so those become distinguishing factors only for students that already jumped the GPA hurdle. Academic success from someone with There's probably lots of students in your boat who would have contributed well to the body of scientific knowledge. But for every one of them-- and I have literally seen these students-- there are dozens upon dozens that are let into more lenient programs, unable to do the work & burdened with $100k+ in debt & nothing to show for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Biomedical engineer with a 2.977GPA. Lots of extra curriculars, volunteered in labs, 160 credit hours of mostly STEM classes, lots of grad-level courses, relevant work experience, but GPA was 0.023 too low to pass the automated filters and I didn't get into any of the grad programs I applied for. I ended up doing fine in software development though. Also, the Wright Brothers didn't need a research lab to invent fligh…
There's many issues in our science system, but it may be a blessing that you got rejected. I'm a senior software engineer. My wife has a PhD in biochemistry from a top university. When she graduated she could not get a job anywhere. We both agreed she should choose a different path and she started a business in a totally unrelated field. Meanwhile someone like me...I'm literally turning away interviews. I have no dou…
How do you manage that? I've been a software developer for over 20 years now, and every time I lose my job it's a SLOG to find another one, with anywhere from a few months to a year in between. I can't even remember the last time a recruiter contacted me (perhaps 5-6 times in my entire career).
It's not like my technical skills are lacking. I've worked professionally with most popular languages and technologies, have dozens of popular open source projects under my belt, many of which you're probably even using at work in some fashion. I've even been called a "miracle worker" a few times for the projects I've saved from ruin, or terrible processes I've optimized.
I'm friendly with everyone, not badmouthing, staying out of politics, treating everyone professionally and expecting the same.
But then whenever there are layoffs or there's an opportunity to push someone out, I'm in the first wave to go (they never say why). I've even been fired for "not stepping up enough." And then I spend another few months slinging resumes all over, spending my days doing coding challenges in the hopes of getting an interview. Then another year of employment and the cycle starts all over again. I have to constantly prove myself again and again, as if I were fresh out of college or something.
I am a casualty of this. I was originally intending to follow an academic career, until I discovered that my career would be dependent on my ability to secure grants. Something that if I was not bad at (which I think is unlikely), would at least be extremely stressful for me. It isn't the only reason I decided to to switch to being a software engineer, but it is a major reason.
It's a hard and frustrating career. I work on an academic lab but the chances of me having an independent research program are very low. However, everyone who wants something from you -- especially your PI -- will string you along in the hope you will stick to your low paying job. I am trying to find a better job in industry but the jobs I see posted tend to be for data science (I am not a strong stats person) or too…
I dunno. I'm about where you are I guess. Stuff is either too junior or the stuff I want to do is just enough outside my field that it's hard to figure out who to talk to. It's depressing, even moreso now where you have to really work at it to "run into people".
The best I've ever figured out is to take the thing I'm really good at, and find places that happen to need that but also do the thing I want to learn. It doesn't work great. I guess I suggest conferences but I wouldn't go to one during COVID... I'm bad at this I guess though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might be better for you to take the hit now and land a junior job and progress from that than continue to wait for the perfect job to arrive.
A job being "too junior" for someone often means they can't get it even if they want it - the organization is looking for someone with little experience who is presumably young and can rise through the ranks.
I am a casualty of this. I was originally intending to follow an academic career, until I discovered that my career would be dependent on my ability to secure grants. Something that if I was not bad at (which I think is unlikely), would at least be extremely stressful for me. It isn't the only reason I decided to to switch to being a software engineer, but it is a major reason.
Biomedical engineer with a 2.977GPA. Lots of extra curriculars, volunteered in labs, 160 credit hours of mostly STEM classes, lots of grad-level courses, relevant work experience, but GPA was 0.023 too low to pass the automated filters and I didn't get into any of the grad programs I applied for. I ended up doing fine in software development though. Also, the Wright Brothers didn't need a research lab to invent fligh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please, that's such a copout. To "hire good people" you need to 1. attract and 2. identify them. If you don't create attractive conditions, good people will go elsewhere; if you do offer, say, financial incentives and personal prestige, bad people will flock too, so you need to identify good people. Further, the whole show is dynamic, good people can turn bad if wrong incentives exist, or you can lose them if more at…
This is particularly a problem for academic labs looking for bioinformatics specialists. Many of the bioinformatians I know with strong stats backgrounds have taken jobs at banks etc where the pay and benefits are significantly better. It's hard for academics to offer their staff something competitive to retain them. Moreover, people are realizing that so much of medical research is less about the patients and more a…
We need to move past the hierarchical model of staff/leadership to a fluid one in which everyone is respected and does the roles that they can and want to fill. This can happen in a distributed manner. Labs and groups which take a flexible attitude to these work relationships are and will be successful. Eventually it will catch on.