as next LLNL Director:
Well, well, they finally got something right. Goldstein won't be all things to all people but he's very smart, very honest and respected by those left at LLNL whose respect is worth something. Say goodbye to patronage and hello to a bone fide effort to conduct science and technology development in the national interest.
61 comments:
Kudos to Bill, one of the last long-term good guys with experience going back to the test program days.
He has a reputation as a decent scientist, and is fairly well known inside the Lab. It will take time to see how he will do in the Washington scene.
Granted he is just a decent scientist, but in comparison to McMillan he comes off as a top shelf one. He will never be in the category of the great scientists that have led LLNL over the years, but the Laboratory just might do well under him at this juncture. He will walk all over his competition for intellectual leadership of the design Labs on the national scene, and LLNL should benefit from this situation.
I agree. Goldstein is a great choice. He even has a Ph.D. (unlike some management at the other weapons labs)
The PhD means nothing. Management experience and basic human decency (neither of which are taught in graduate school) are everything.
Of course the labs need Ph.D.'s; just not in upper management. Any organization that does cutting-edge research employs Ph.D.'s for their specific expertise. Facebook, Google, and Twitter do not do scientific research. They provide engineering solutions to technical needs, whose solutions have the potential to make lots of money quickly. Scientific research has none of that urgency or greed. Just the desire to further knowledge in a way that builds upon itself and might eventually allow engineers to actually make new things.
The labs don't do pure science, based on a desire to further knowledge for its own sake. Most of it is very applied, and closer to industrial physics where there is indeed urgency and greed. That's one challenge, the technical skill sets come from the pure hard sciences, but the mindsets have to be different from those sciences. At the upper management level, the mindset is far more important than the technical skill set, so you get away with directors who are non-PhDs and even non-scientists. Bill has strong science credentials as well as the right kind of nose.
Any organization that does cutting-edge research employs Ph.D.'s for their specific expertise.
March 30, 2014 at 11:12 PM
Maybe, but after the hiring process, the story is usually different. After 3 or 4 years, how many PhDs are working in the same subject area as their thesis (where their "specific expertise" lies)? I'd argue that any competent MS can learn a new field, just as most PhDs must do.
I've had both managers that Ph.D.s and ones that didn't. I'll have to disagree with the previous post since my experience is that Ph.D. managers were much better than the ones without Ph.Ds. The ones without Ph.Ds had serious problems obtaining funding from external agencies and had no credibility whatsoever in bringing in money even internally.
The ones without Ph.Ds had serious problems obtaining funding from external agencies and had no credibility whatsoever in bringing in money even internally.
March 31, 2014 at 12:58 PM
If you are working at LANL or LLNL and are trying to get funding from "external agencies" then you had better get with the NNSA program or get out. WFO is over at LANL and LLNL; the LLCs will no longer tolerate having to provide infrastructure and support for scientists they could otherwise get rid of, and whose funding isn't significant or long-term.
As for "no credibility whatsoever in bringing in money even internally," that is simply a matter of the capabilities and experience of your organization. Any organization with those attributes sells itself.
I cleaned toilets thousands of times. No PhD ain't clean the toilets right thousands of times. The next LLNL director should be a janitor with the all-hands video with toilet bowl brush in one hand and plunger in other. No fancy PhD know how to make LLNL toilets all shiny white.
Zzzzzzzzzzzz
More PhuD envy.
"April 3, 2014 at 7:13 PM
"
Screw you, maybe and I do mean maybe the labs could have needed Phds in say...1945 but now? We would be alot better off with people with lesser degrees who will do what management wants in 2014. Cheaper, better, less complaints, more loyalty, less tude , and more gratefulness for having a job. There is nothing at the NNSA labs that cannot be done better and cheaper elsewhere. Think about that the next time you complain to your manager. Be lucky you have a job, becuase there are 10000 more people that could take your place for 1/10 your cost, and 1/1000 your tude. LLNL should be paid 0.5 -1.0 Billion and they would clean up the place.
"April 3, 2014 at 7:13 PM
"
Screw you, maybe and I do mean maybe the labs could have needed Phds in say...1945 but now? We would be alot better off with people with lesser degrees who will do what management wants in 2014. Cheaper, better, less complaints, more loyalty, less tude , and more gratefulness for having a job. There is nothing at the NNSA labs that cannot be done better and cheaper elsewhere. Think about that the next time you complain to your manager. Be lucky you have a job, becuase there are 10000 more people that could take your place for 1/10 your cost, and 1/1000 your tude. LLNL should be paid 0.5 -1.0 Billion and they would clean up the place.
9:54 can't possibly work at the lab or know anything about it. Even a lowly dog from LANL would know how to not double-post.
Three Vice Presidents of technical divisions at Sandia National Laboratories do not have a Ph.D.: Hruby, Walker, Vahle.
Adam Rowen a manager at Sandia Livermore does not have a Ph.D. either.
The previous 3 individuals are the first ever Vice Presidents without a Ph.D. in Science or Engineering to lead technical divisions at Sandia. A quick search on the internet shows that Adam Rowen went to a school in New Mexico.
Steve Renfro deputy AD Nuclear Weapons, BS without PhD (also comes from a New Mexico school)
April 4, 2014 at 12:00 AM
You keep posting this stuff, but never say why you think it is important, or why anyone should care. Stop wasting our time.
Steve Renfro deputy AD Nuclear Weapons, BS without PhD (also comes from a New Mexico school)
April 4, 2014 at 12:00 AM
The entire Weapons Engineering train at Los Alamos has no PhDs. John Benner (ADW) has M.S., James Owen (W Division Leader) has a B.S. from NMSU and spent 2-years at University of Colorado on the Labs M.S. program only to come home without the degree. Does Craig Leasure (Acting PADWP) have a degree? This whole crew is "worthless"!
This whole crew is "worthless"!
April 4, 2014 at 7:09 PM
More worthless crap about PhD vs no PhD. The letters after your name don't mean anything if you are a lousy manager. If you are a good manager, they are irrelevant. In the 30+ years I was at LANL, no one every called anyone with a PhD "Doctor" or any other title. People didn't know or care what degree you had or from where, just whether you were good at your job. This "penis envy" of PhD hunting is foolish, juvenile, and destructive. Crappy scientists with PhDs resenting non-PhD managers is as old as the hills, and not very bright. You should be embarrassed to be such a cliche.
" In the 30+ years I was at LANL, no one every called anyone with a PhD "Doctor" or any other title."
I beg to differ. My mother calls me Doctor ! And you should too !
A Ph.D from Stanford in Physics takes extraordinary smarts and dedication to world class work.
PHD v no PhD: If the labs are content with more of the same, then not having a PhD would suffice, as the task then would reduce to purely management. This scenario is the route we are on, with the road leading to a continued decay of funding and support. Management's job is to slow the bleeding as much as possible.
However, in an arena where novel, cutting edge research from different fields are in competition for limited funding, and "new" is sought, a PhD is necessary but not sufficient to lead a multi-facited institution engaged in scientific and technical growth. The lab's purpose is to make leaps in science and technical capabilities, which is coupled to risk. It is here that you would require PhD's critically analyze. Small, conservative steps, those aligned with industry and low risk, can be managed by non PhDs.
The gold standard is Bell Labs. Although highly misunderstood by most, the formula entailed PhD managers/leaders who were active in the field, along with the largest company working on the larges industrial problems at the time.
Unfortunately, the National Labs are on a path to user facilities, with residual R&D. As this seems acceptable to the public, then by all means let the labs emphasize management over leadership and scientific stewardship.
The difference between MSs and PhDs is that PhDs have very detailed knowledge in a very limited subject area (their thesis). That's it. PhDs take no more coursework than MSs, and merely cloister themselves for three or four additional years to produce said thesis. Nothing magic or sacred about it. It's just giving up early career earning years for three extra letters after your name. After a few years, most PhDs have moved on to subject areas outside their thesis subject, where they have no more initial expertise than MSs.
Ph.D's (and MS's, and BS's with significant work experience) typically know their subject area well. One subject area where these scientists are terribly deficient is management skills. I am a Ph.D. myself and most of the Ph.D. managers I see terrible managers. So I guess a Ph.D. in physics means two things, you know everything, and you can pat yourself on the back endlessly.
I think the point is, a Ph.D. does not guarantee management skills, which is true. But neither does the lack of a Ph.D. - most people aren't great managers, that's why there are fewer of us than there are of the little people.
A wise person once said "it doesn't take brains to get a Ph.D - just persistence."
It takes brains, and persistence. Usually the persistence is more important.
Earning a PhD is not as easy as just "persisting." Less than 60% of those who try make the grade in ten years or less.
Years ago, anyone who took longer than 5 years from MS to PhD was seen as a "perpetual graduate student" who was happy with a pittance as a teaching stipend, and didn't really care as long as no one actually complained about his not working. College and graduate school in the sciences produce lots of procrastinators who are unable to maintain focus and see any attempt to get them done and out the door as interfering with their "academic freedom." The fact that so many never manage to get their act together is not reflective of the difficulty of the process, but of the type of person who is attracted to the "academic lifestyle" in the first place. If you get through your Master's and pass the qualifying exams, what happens next IS simply a matter of focus and persistence, not of knowledge or intelligence.
A major part of it is cultural. There are rules and expectations for professional Ph.D.-level scientists, and a big part of getting through graduate school is learning those rules and expectations and successfully adapting to them. Once you've passed your qualifying exam, this is probably the most important remaining thing to learn. And if you fail, you aren't learning those rules and living up to those expectations, at least not quickly enough. This is why a Ph.D. is important (but not critical) for a manager of scientists and scientific work, because if you have not gone through this vetting process, you probably don't understand it.
This is why a Ph.D. is important (but not critical) for a manager of scientists and scientific work, because if you have not gone through this vetting process, you probably don't understand it.
April 6, 2014 at 4:14 PM
"Vetting process"? Initiation rites? Oh, the secret society? What a crock. A PhD is simply a sign that someone persisted to get something of dubious value in today's world, except among the cognoscenti. Hah!
Adults are talking, junior, please go play with your toys.
I guess the years of income earning you gave up to get the extra three letters after your name were the purchase price for your over-inflated opinion of yourself. Younger PhDs commonly exhibit this delusion; most tend to grow out of it. Those are the adults here.
Thank you Obama supporters who want to replace the patriotic PhDs with illegal immigrants with a 5th grade education.
Don't be green.
Persistence pursuing a difficult, individual accomplishment is something viewed as not that impressive it seems.
Keep in mind that a Masters is just completing more coursework with no individual requirements to stand out or independently think, but just be part of the crowd.
Also, most programs only accept those on the PhD path, so the talented individuals who leave early with a masters are start-up or VC worthy. Don't know what to say about those Masters who end up a national lab... from these comments we're supposed to believe their accomplishments are "significantly equivalent"?, a term I'm sure we're all familiar?
Keep in mind that a Masters is just completing more coursework with no individual requirements to stand out or independently think, but just be part of the crowd.
April 7, 2014 at 12:32 PM
Maybe so, but the "stand out or independently think" part is in a very limited subject area. Maybe that model persists in a university environment, but it isn't going to lead to success in a large, multidisciplinary research environment like a national lab.
..."stand out or independently think"...isn't going to lead to success in a large, multidisciplinary research environment like a national lab.
April 7, 2014 at 2:10 PM
Oh my god, words utterly fail me here. Sad truth is, right now, you are probably correct.
The comment was about "a very limited subject area" which you totally ignored.
Here is the truth,
The best science is done by the best scientists. Do LLNL or LANL have the best scientists anymore? If not than why not? If they are wotth funding than they are worth funding if they have the best scientists.
Correction. The best science is done by the biggest computers.
The best scientists go where the science they want to do is encouraged and supported, with a minimum of bureaucratic crap. Also, the best scientists want to work with other top-notch scientists, not self-entitled, whining, disgruntled losers. Money isn't everything.
Money isn't everything.
April 8, 2014 at 3:02 PM
But it's most of it!
Just ask "follow the money" Charlie.
If you think money is "most of it" regarding your career, you belong in another business. Not everyone (thank God) is Charlie. And, he was talking about how to find motivation for actions. If you are motivated only by money, that is sad. That kind of attitude is crime and punishment all in one.
Here's another elephant to acknowledge in the room that has much to do with PhDs: Why doesn't anyone acknowledge why Sandia is the only weapons lab to not have a Nobel prize winner after all these years? Even LLNL and LANL each have one Nobel laureate.
The anti-education commenters who hate those with graduate degrees need to leave this blog and get back to work fulfilling my order. Yes, I would like fries with that.
Agreed. The nurses should be seen and not heard in the operating room.
However, some here believe that nurses should set treatment care protocol.
The anti-education commenters who hate those with graduate degrees need to leave this blog...
April 9, 2014 at 10:47 AM
Didn't see any of those here. Just some people arguing the relative worth of a MS degree vs a PhD, specifically at LLNL and LANL, and whether it matters for a manager. No anti-education, no "hate." Is it possible you are intentionally exaggerating the situation to fit your own agenda? Or are you just a really angry person?
Actually, I don't think the discussion was solely focused on Ph.D.s at LLNL or LANL.
Three Vice Presidents of technical divisions at Sandia National Laboratories do not have a Ph.D.: Hruby, Walker, Vahle.
Adam Rowen a manager at Sandia Livermore does not have a Ph.D. either.
The previous 3 individuals are the first ever Vice Presidents without a Ph.D. in Science or Engineering to lead technical divisions at Sandia. A quick search on the internet shows that Adam Rowen went to a school in New Mexico.
April 10, 2014 at 2:01 AM
Why do you keep posting this crap? Who do you think gives a shit? Like it is some blasphemy for a manager not to have a PhD. Besides, SNL is irrelevant to US national security. It's just an engineering job shop. Who cares if their managers have any degrees at all?
Perhaps because he has nothing better and more productive to do with his workdays than to pontificate on a blog, possibly even using a government computer siting inside some WCI warren. Oh, wait....
Guess he's on the night shift. Explains a lot.
Who do these PhDs think they are? First they cared enough to go to college then they were actually interested in something enough to get a PhD in it. I dropped out of high school and have been an apathetic moron my whole life. Clearly, I am superior and I am righteous in judging everybody. Right now I am watching reality TV while living in my filth and munching on the contents of a huge greasy bag of junk food. Show me a PhD that can do that! You could say I too have a type of PhD, the best kind of PhD, a PhD in apathy.
Who do these PhDs think they are?
April 11, 2014 at 7:08 AM
Judging by your post, they apparently have a very high opinion of themselves. In addition to being thin-skinned, so much so that you had to pretend that folks posting on this thread were denigrating PhDs, as opposed to merely arguing that they usually aren't necessary at the national labs.
Interesting.
PhDs are the labs leaders in generating new R&D ideas. If no new ideas in R&D then the lab is an engineering job shop. If the lab is a job shop, then there soon there will be no unique capabilities. If no new unique capabilities, then fear the new NNSA Lt. General.
Funny how this topic keeps coming up. It is invariably non-PhDs or failed PhDs on the one side, the bitter Napolean Complex types, against PhDs who know what a PhD means on the other side. There are a few crossovers counter-arguments, inevitably followed by a "But..." or "However...", but mostly it's these two camps. Would we have this debate over the qualifications to be a medical doctor? Do you want a med-school flunkie doing your next brain surgery?
see April 9, 2014 at 11:22 AM
mirroring your sentiment.
7:29, you must not work at a national lab, and probably don't have a PhD either. Otherwise you would understand how little sense you are making.
Actually I worked at a national lab for over 30 years, made a comfortable six figure salary, have dozens of refereed publications, and have a PhD in physics. So much for your assumptions. Maybe some more of them are also false.
Actually you verified many of my assumptions already. Not everything is what it seems. ;)
You sound very proud to be a liar. Not surprising.
Three Vice Presidents of technical divisions at Sandia National Laboratories do not have a Ph.D.: Hruby, Walker, Vahle.
Adam Rowen a manager at Sandia Livermore does not have a Ph.D. either.
The previous 3 individuals are the first ever Vice Presidents without a Ph.D. in Science or Engineering to lead technical divisions at Sandia. A quick search on the internet shows that Adam Rowen went to a school in New Mexico.
April 10, 2014 at 2:01 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
April 10, 2014 at 2:01 AM
...Besides, SNL is irrelevant to US national security. It's just an engineering job shop.
Post a Comment