Ted Rall bashes Scientist

[Johonny]

I generally lke good old Ted but his latest op ed piece had me laughing at him. Anyways the low lights of Ted's bash on science.

"But as I can personally attest, there's a good reason that fewer young Americans are pursuing careers in the sciences: the jobs suck."

Suck? I mean it's not as fun as fry cook or Walmart greeter, but you do get to travel on the company all over the world to international conferences.

"My classmates' single-minded dedication to their studies came at the expense of reading the newspaper, listening to music and campus activism."

Yes we are all geeks. Yes no scientist ever listens to music despite their giant MP3 collections they download. To bad all those post election surveys show that those with higher education degrees are generally MORE informed than the general public.

"My engineering classes were too boring to keep my interest and too hard besides. But I've come to believe that I sabotaged my studies because I was depressed by the thought of working for those monsters alongside idiots."

Here's the heart of the essey. Ted failed in science and it's SCIENCE fault. That's right Ted could of done it but he was too bored. Yeah and remember those grapes were probably sour anyways... Yes because Ted found Campus activities like smoking weed and pretending to like sitar music more fun, it must be because sience is too boring.


"High school and college students considering their futures know that work as a scientist is morally nasty, brutally alienating and financially insecure. That's why nearly a million engineering-related job openings remain vacant in the United States"

Hmm remove scientist and insert ANY JOB IN AMERICA. Hey that sentence works too. Hey Ted welcome to America 2005.

[maxsolomon]

1. SOME people DO earn degrees at the expense of culture

business, medicine, yes, even engineering. notice how well-rounded our MBA president is? how erudite & knowledgeable on a wide variety of subjects?

technical degrees don't leave much room for the pursuit of, say, the study of early christian heresys (my hobby in grad school). and, frankly, if you're not cut out to be a scientist or engineer, you SHOULD find those courses boring.

why the hostility to dope? you didn't like smoking weed in college?

[Johonny]

3. Hey

I'm allow to bash Ted back ain't I:) Honestly I went to a liberal arts school. I took history, art, poly sci, philosophy and gulp even English. You can get PhD AND goto a liberal arts school. You can take extra classes outside your field. Ted's complaint can be apply to pretty much every subject in America. That's why his critique is so... well stupid.

I sorry Ted here sounds a lot like Bill O'liely does when he talks about school principals. I think it's clear Bill is a frustrated teacher who always wanted to be the principal but couldn't and now spends every chance he gets bashing principals. (or hasn't anyone else notice that trend).

I mean I could point out most journalist today work for multimedia conglomerates that do more to protect themselves than report the news. You'd think that would have worried Ted every bit as much as taking a DOD grant... but nope Ted didn't mind.

[CottonBear]

6. I work w/ engineers and many (not all) make fun of the "liberal arts."

Of course, they only had to take limited core course work in the liberal arts before completing their major coursework in engineering.
The engineering courses are demanding and time consuming. Many engineers are just not that interested in the liberal arts.

I have a good friend who has both a Bachelors in history and another in civil engineering. He is one of the smartest people that I know.

I don't know the answer here. My degree is in an area that combines art, science, engineering and design. I love learning and reading. I also studied art history. Maybe the answer is a more well-rounded high school education (more art/architectural history, comparative religion, literature and world history.)

[Johonny]

11. yeah

I'm a big believer in liberal arts education too. The thing is almost every person taking any major tends to ignore some area of learning. I mean how many art, English, poly sci, philosophy, accounting, pre-law majors try to get into a general chemistry class.

[knitter4democracy]

26. I tested out.

I didn't take chem in college because I tested out, but I took through Calc II--does that count?

[CottonBear]

31. Good point. It depends on what your degree program requires.

I took environmental geography, geology, botany (2 courses), horticulure, trig and surveying as part of my degree. No foreign language was required but I'd already taken a year of Latin and four years of spanish at prep school.

[knitter4democracy]

25. I hear ya!

My dad's a retired mechanical engineer, and my brother's a mechanical engineer who's married to an environmental engineer. I'm the loser who major in English to teach high school. :eyes: I always have to hear about how great engineers are and how well-educated they are as opposed to the masses and how hard they work, yadda, yadda. Heck, my dad wouldn't even pay his part for my college unless I took through Calc II (which I did and am rather proud that I made it through by the skin of my teeth and a really good tutor).

I think your idea of a more well-rounded high school education is a good one. Kids are majoring in high school now, and I think that's just too young. Students who don't like math should still learn it, and students who don't like literature should still read it. It takes all kinds of learning and all kinds of areas of interest to make up a fully rounded student.

[CottonBear]

34. Thanks for the reply. I think that high school should be well-rounded.

I went to a private (non-religious) girls prep school from 7th - 12th grades. We took only academic courses. There was no band, home economics or shop, etc. We read extensively and writing and critical analysis skills were highly emphasized.

Many students at the "best" public schools in my area don't read Shakespeare until 11th grade! We read Romeo and Juliet and Oedipus Rex in 7th grade and we read Shakespeare every year after that. There was a summer reading list every year. After 7th grade, if you had a comma splice or a run-on sentence in your papers, you got an F. End of story. A 92 was a A-. 69 was an F. Everyone took a year of Latin in 8th grade.

Lack of writing and critical analysis skills along with the lack of knowledge in the areas of vocabulary and linguistics are the biggest problems for today's high school students.

[karlrschneider]

45. Not sure how to put this without seeming to be self-serving...but when I

went to college 60-64, (Univ of Tulsa, Aero Engineering) many courses out of the eng. field were required, e.g. Economics, Religion (!), World history. And in high school earlier, we didn't have many electives...foreign language was one, as were most of the advanced classes - English, Civics, History and most math were required courses.
I'm not up on curricula these days but I suspect it isn't really very tough if and when kids are taking the ones they actually WANT to...
:eyes:

[CottonBear]

47. High school and college are much different now than when we were in school

In GA, the lottery funded HOPE scholarship has changed everything. Kids need to receive a B average in High School to get the money and they have to keep a B average in college to keep HOPE alive (as it were.) I don't believe that they take rigorous classes in high school so that they can get a B averagge. I have no idea how they get decent scores on the SAT exam.

You wouldn't believe how many of them lose HOPE after a few semesters. They are simply not prepared for college level work. They think that they "deserve" at least a B in all of their classes. I've had friends who a professors at UGA. Some of the students skipped class to go to the GA-FL game and missed a quiz. My friends would not let them "make it up." The students were angry but they were the ones who skipped class! I never skipped a class during my 5 year undergraduate professional degree program. I was sick once(hospitalized w/ tonsillitis) and missed 3 days of class.

[knitter4democracy]

50. It depends on the school.

Some school districts and private schools have tough standards, and some have such open standards that kids can work the system and take pretty much only the classes they want. That's changing, though, with the testing requirements.

[knitter4democracy]

49. That sounds like the Catholic girls school I taught at for 2 yrs.

I couldn't believe how great it was--they even have a great arts curriculum and other extras, too. Of course, none of the students were grateful until after they graduated and saw how other students were not as prepared for college. ;)

I think the problem is bigger than that: most students today get out of high school without learning how to think critically for themselves. They get through by parroting whatever the teacher says and writing in the teacher's style. By the time they get to their junior and senior years, it's almost impossible to turn it around. It's not just that they cannot write well (and most can't) or read well (don't get me started), it's that they cannot think well, which leads to the bad reading and writing.

[CottonBear]

53. ...they cannot think well, which leads to the bad reading and writing

That is exactly it. I've judged student design competitions at the college level. I didn't vote to give awards to several design teams because their written statements were so poorly composed. I don't know how they manged to graduate high school with writing skills like that much less get into college.

I also believe that people who don't read can't write well. You can't be a good writer unless you are a good reader who reads a wide variety of books, essays, poetry, newspapers and magazines.

[knitter4democracy]

54. That's a lot of it.

I think you've hit a key part: a variety of reading materials. Yes, Shakespeare is one of the best writers around, but only reading his works won't help make you a strong writer.

I am intrigued by the latest hypothesis that video games and all of pop culture actually encourage complex thinking, but I think there's a major flaw: the researcher assumes that kids actually think while they watch tv and try to figure out what is going on. I remember quoting something from the Simpsons one day in class (we were finishing up the "summer" reading book--which almost no one had read--for that section, Lord of the Flies), and all I got were blank stares. I asked them if they'd watched the episode. Many admitted that they had. I asked them if they had caught the references to Lord of the Flies. Again, they gave me blank stares. Finally, one lone voice whispered, "Does she think when she watches tv, too? Man, she must think all the time!" :eyes:

Don't forget that students are getting by with worse writing skills through massive pressure from the students, parents, and administrators. The watering down of grades is real, and it's not the teachers, for the most part. I was forced to change a few grades (not being tenured or anything, it was that or my job) due to parental pressure, and I'm still not comfortable with it. On the other hand, the grades don't seem to teach the kids much anymore. Maybe we should just make everything pass/fail and set the standards where they should be. *sigh*

[Kraklen]

2. He's got a point.

The job does suck. Insane hours, years of frustration, no respect, not very good pay considering the level of training; occasionally traveling to conferences every once in a while hardly makes up for it. I wouldn't recommend this profession to anybody but the most insanely dedicated.

[Johonny]

4. I love my job

and so do almost all my coworkers. Perhaps because they became scientist because they love science. Perhaps you should have been an op ed columnist like Ted.

I find the occasionally traveling to conferences every once in a while and ass perk to doing incredibly fun stuff.

Just because Ted found science boring doesn't mean we all do. And it doesn't mean it IS boring.

Now my job as a janitor. THAT JOB SUCKED!!!!!

[Kraklen]

5. But there's still vast shortage of American students...

going into science, probably for several of the reasons that Rall mentions.

Why put up with the bullshit when you can do something easier and financially more rewarding, like being a doctor or a lawyer.

[Johonny]

8. The thing is

Ted doesn't hammer those points home. No Ted's main thesis is this "scientist is morally nasty, brutally alienating and financially insecure"

Personally I find nothing more rewarding morally, emotional, and personally than doing science and spreading knowledge of science to people. I find nothing nasty about it, alienating and I get paid to do it. I imagine a lot of scientist feel the same way.

Ted's essay is wrong because what he writes could be considered true for any profession he cares to insert. Remove sciece and scientist and insert lawyer and what he wrote will still ring true to people.

[Kraklen]

9. How about a link to the actual essay?

I'd like to make up my own opinion, please.

[knitter4democracy]

27. Being a doctor is easier?!

You are kidding right?

Did you forget that it's science, too? My husband was a pre-med chemistry major, and they covered everything he learned in his four years of undergrad in the first three months of med school--and it never slowed down from there. Trust me: med school is hard, and many don't make it--some even flunk out and then go back to basic science.

[Kraklen]

29. IMHO, yeah.

I've instructed both premed and chemistry students.

[knitter4democracy]

52. Ah, yes . . . the old double standard.

"Real" chemistry majors and the others, the pre-med majors . . . My husband gets teased about that all the time by his chemist grandfather. David usually argues back that doctors have to know more areas of science and actually be able to think quickly on their feet and use all of them--and still be nice to the patients. ;)

Oddly enough, he got the chemistry award for the highest grades his freshman year and not the "real" chemistry majors.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. "and it's not Ted's fault"

If you listen to Ted, NOTHING is Ted's fault. The guy is a tool.

[BiggJawn]

10. Has Ted Drank the Kool-Aid?

"My classmates' single-minded dedication to their studies came at the expense of reading the newspaper, listening to music and campus activism."

Compared to the kids learning basket-weaving who spent their time campaigning for Lyndon Larouche?

"But as I can personally attest, there's a good reason that fewer young Americans are pursuing careers in the sciences: the jobs suck."

Yeah, you tell 'em, Ted, and the BFEE will have an easier time of exporting those jobs to India. Then the kids who think you're so hip will get BA degrees and wonder why the only gig they can find is in the exciting world of Fast Food Service.

STFU, Rall. "Science is Boring!" only if you're too fucking stupid or too brain-washed by the myth-believers to grasp it.

[high density]

12. Don't worry Ted, the "sucky" science jobs are going over to India (NM)

[Kraklen]

13. I think that's his point.

But I'd sure like to read it first.

[Johonny]

20. Sort of

"Don't mistake Friedman's trash talk for genuine alarmism. If he worried about Indians and Chinese kicking our butt in the computer programming and particle physics games, he could quit his cushy gig at the Times and apply to M.I.T. But that's the book biz. What's lamentable about this latest why-do-our-kids-suck-at-math hand-wringing is that too many Americans are coming away from the conversation with the message that we're losing an intellectual arms race because our young men and women are lazy, stupid or both. As a recent study of high school kids in 26 states showed, 22 percent of entering college freshmen are required to take remedial math classes. Math and science have become lower priorities in the secondary educational system. But as I can personally attest, there's a good reason that fewer young Americans are pursuing careers in the sciences: the jobs suck."


I mean he tries to sell the suck part. But it really doesn't ring true. And it ends up getting so general that you really can insert any job for science in the essay. To learn science in college you usually enf up being to 1-D in the learning process (true for any major). Ted finds the job choices boring (more a personal opinion). Ted fears that the money in science generally comes from the government by passing through the vast (evil?) military industrial complex. As oppose to I guess utopia America where scientist get their money from the money tree. Scientist are not well rounded human beings that don't listen to music, date or have concern for the comunity. As oppose to I guess Op Ed writers like say Newt Gingrich or Man Coulter.

Ted Rall can be read on the Yahoo op ed page. I think he writes 2 a week plus a few cartoons. Always a fun read.

[aeolian]

14. This is exactly why I can't stand Rall,

he comes up with shit like this, musing on his own grand assumptions about how other people are and should be.

"Morally nasty?" What the fuck? He typed that on a computer, did he not? Or did he grind herbs and rocks into a reddish ink, and then write his essay as pictograph on a cave wall.

...just pisses me off. :nuke:

Carry on. :)

[Johonny]

16. oddly

I generally like reading Ted's stuff. And I like his cartoons a lot. I think it's ok to not like every opinion held be Op Ed writers. A ditto head I'm not.

[Marnieworld]

15. And writing is known to be profitable?

Please Ted! Ever hear of a starving scientist? I didn't think so.

Next time you are sick, or get really sicker than ever, make sure to tell all of the Drs and nurses how much you loathe science. perhaps writing an article would cure you.

grrrrrrr.

[Kraklen]

18. Didn't read the essay, did you?

Since no one else will post the link, I will:

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/

Good lord, is this still resentment for that unamerican Ted Rall bashing America?

[Marnieworld]

40. nope I didn't

I actually just read and responded to the OP. Now that I did ted's still alright with me. With all of the theocracy signs I'm a little sensitive towards an anti-science sentiment. :blush:

[Kraklen]

48. That's OK, I'm pretty sensitive about it too.

I'm also sensitive about Rall bashing.

He comes on pretty strong in that essay but I think he brings up some pretty good points about the state of science in this country.

[IChing]

17. Read the DAMN article people

I didn't get the spin out of the article that you all saw, but your entitled to your own opinion,


This is about who hires science
not an attack on science
the jobs available are not
to cure the problems of mankind,
but to destroy mankind.


Not much has changed. "But it's not just defense contractors that are hiring engineers," promises GraduatingEngineer.com. "The military...is also looking for a few good engineers and computer science grads to hire." Check your conscience when you clock in.

LINK: http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/

[Johonny]

21. You know

The military is not ALL EVIL. (insert evil music in back ground). There is lots of science going on in fields not related to killing people. And I doubt very much the fact that many science jobs get their funding from the DOD and DOE turns kids off of science. I mean this arguement is really non-believable.

I work in the vast industrial military complex and I know 1 ah 2 conservatives may be. I've worked on 0 projects designed to kill people. I feel 0 moral guilt at night.

[IChing]

24. I'm glad our tax money is being so well spent on your scientific peace

purposes for the benefit of mankind thru the military industrial complex and your conscious is clear.



You are entitled to your opinion
but not your own facts.

[Johonny]

28. hmm

"A gun is a tool, Marion, no better or no worse than any other tool, an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that. " Shane

[Kraklen]

33. Well then that at best would be morally neutral.

At best.

[bpilgrim]

19. i think he's VENTING at what we've become collectively - the waring hive

that is HIGHLY compartmentalized to a fault, and i would agree.

though i, as most of us of course, teach my kids to ALWAYS nurture their innate curiosity while realizing that we know NOTHING.

:hi:

peace

[Igel]

22. Snow's _The Two Cultures_.

But I'm unaware of him asserting that one culture is inferior, and it's members "idiots".

Morally nasty? What, learning how to guide microwaves and process signals to make Rall's phone work?

Brutally alienating? Being forced to look around and actually see reprints of new knowledge you've produced, or products based on your research that save lives?

Financially insecure ... unlike, say, a newspaper reporter or MBA.

As for hard, well, yes, science can be hard. You have to think, deal with a problem for months, if not years, and sweat trying to figure out exactly how to fix or create a theory, solve a problem. There are a lot of actual facts you need to know--not facts that fit into a political agenda, or allow a sense of superiority, but honest to goodness reproducible facts that simply are.

And, frequently, science just isn't exciting enough to keep Rall's interest. How sad for science.

[kodi]

23. i love ted rall, but he is of course, full of shit about this

in fact, of the scientists i know, they are better informed about the world, and have a wider range of interests than the liberal arts majors i have known.

i am a scientist (MS, PhD chemistry), i was active in student government (president of the student government), worked for political cmapigns in college and grad school, nearly got arrested several times for protesting aid to the contras, worked in a food bank.

i have been an informed, political activist all of my adult life.

ted rall is full of shit.

[aeolian]

35. He's especially full of shit if he thinks that any world leader would be

interested in learning "about nuclear fission" from an undergraduate physics washout. :eyes:

[aeolian]

30. The DoD also employs doctors, lawyers, historians, writers, musicians,

accountants, psychologists, linguists, sociologists...you name it!

[IChing]

32. It's not that our schools and mental health agencies could use them

Sounds like a great job for the betterment of mankind.

[aeolian]

36. So, applying Rall's logic to your post, everyone employed in any fashion

is part of some faceless oppressive empire.

Hell, DoD has janitors, cooks, and couriers, too! We're all fascists! Wohoo!

[IChing]

37. Don't put words in my mouth

If this nation thinks that the DOD is the best way to spend our resources then fine

I taught science and we had 47 in a class meant for 28
that was really very conducive to teaching science
not enough chairs, science equipment etc. for a class of that size
not enough psychologists to go around for the district
not enough teachers for schools
not enough Art classes
not enough music teachers
not enough janitors
not enough history and civic teachers

I am talking about our priorities
So if your priorities are massive amounts of our tax monies be spent
for the DOD at the sacrifice of future generations then so be it

People do have to make a conscious living I realize that
it doesn't mean you have to sacrifice your conscious

[aeolian]

39. Then don't put words in mine.

Rall vilified all scientists because of the ones that work for DoD, in addition to portraying us as narrow-minded navel-gazers (hell, he calls us all boring dorks in the title!). I found that personally offensive -- as well as an example of the faulty reasoning that probably led to him washing-out in school -- so I pointed out that DoD also employs a lot of people who aren't scientists, but who nonetheless would seem to pass a "smell-test" as defined by this article.

I was not speaking to priorities as a nation at all.

I know about the awful state of public education in this nation, and I'd love nothing more than to see that fixed. But when someone slaps me in the face, I'm not going to turn around and give them a dissertation on socioeconomics.

[IChing]

41. point taken

I said it was national priorities, and I respect your opinion on the article,
and stand by my spin I saw on the article.
wasn't a personal slam.

peace

[aeolian]

42. Peace, indeed. May I buy you a drink?

What's your poison. :)

:beer:

:toast:

[IChing]

43. its too early thanks

but I get to buy the next round at happy hour

:toast: :headbang:

[ThomWV]

38. Engineers Aren't Scientists Anymore Than Doctors Are

Or Electricians or Plumbers are either for that matter.

They all think they are of course and in fact I have never met a medical Doctor or Dentist that didn't see himself or herself as a man or woman of science. Nonsense. They are simple practicioners of skills learned. Overpriced butchers by some standards. Engineers are even less. The title doesn't come from the sciences at all, it comes from the guys who drive the trains. We don't call Airline Pilots men of science (although most are Engineers) and we don't call ship's Captians Engineers either, but both are closer to todays engineers than they are to scientists.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. It's got nothing to do with trains

The term predates trains by a long way.

While "ingenious" came pretty directly from "ingenium" (and originally meant "highly intelligent"), the noun "engineer" derived from the related verb "ingeniare," meaning "to contrive." When "engineer" first appeared in English around 1420, it meant simply "inventor or designer" of just about anything. The narrower use of "engineer" to mean "designer of bridges, buildings, etc." appeared in the 17th century.

http://www.word-detective.com/102502.html

The usage to mean "engine driver" is American. In the UK, an engineer for a train is someone who designed the engine.

Your comparison of ship's captains or airline pilots to engineers is absurd. Doctors are a valid analogy - doctors and engineers are both the practical side of various sciences.

[pmbryant]

46. This guy clearly has some personal issues to work through

I read the article Rall should be embarrassed by it.

--Peter

[Fight_n_back]

51. To my knowledge

Ted Rall is a satirist.

Sorry it hit your area of expertise but he seems to be playing the "I don't get it so it must be bad" routine.

Science gave us Tivo and microwave popcorn. Those two things alone make it a worthwhile endeavor.

[theboss]

55. Ted Rall's column is almost always attacks on people who aren't Ted Rall

I don't really like his cartoons, but they occasionally are interesting. His columns are generally self-righteous dreck.