From the Huffington Post Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/work-words_n_5159868.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business When we replace a specific task with a vague expression, we grant the task more magnitude than it deserves. If we don't describe an activity plainly, it seems less like an easily achievable goal and more like a cloudy state of existence that fills unknowable amounts of time. A fog of fast and empty language has seeped into the workplace. I say it's time we air it out, making room for simple, concrete words, and, therefore, more deliberate actions. By striking the following 26 words from your speech, I think you'll find that you're not quite as overwhelmed as you thought you were. Count the number that LLNLs mangers use. touch base circle back bandwidth - impactful - utilize - table the discussion deep dive - engagement - viral value-add - one-sheet deliverable - work product - incentivise - take it to the ...
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?