Anonymously contributed:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Post article
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
Comments
This notion of ending up as a perpetual postdoc can be scary and daunting. Such a situation may reflect (1) narrow specialization and the lack of options available for someone in a certain field, (2) lack of willingness to explore other professions given the inability to advance in a field, or not knowing when to change priorities and just move on, or (3)not willing or able to do what it takes to get to the top of an applicant pile.
If people go into science or engineering thinking that it will be an experience that is completely objective and impartial and free of "marketing," then they are likely to experience heartache. Merit is obviously important, but it must also be pitched, and the messaging must be communicated effectively.
The science "industry" is a competitive one, and no one should expect that the system is perfect or that it is entirely fair. A larger pool of scientists means more competition for the few spots that open up at labs and universities each year. And it is no one else's resposibility (especially not government) to keep all those extra scientists employed. It is up to the individual to set their own realistic expectations before they enter the fray, to have some flexibility in how much they are willing to deviate from their original plans, and to have contingency options when things don't go as desired.
Those who wanted/needed active direction, relied heavily on the contributions of their advisor/colleagues or were unable/unwilling to solve problems given uncertainty, tended to struggle.
Most PhDs have more 'normal' experiences (with responsible and not-so-negligent "harsh lesson" advisors) somewhere between the two extremes, and generally performing very well later in their careers. But examples from the extremes are quite amusing to hear.
What was your experience like? What advice would you share with those PhDs in the pipeline and ready to enter the science/engineering job market?