Disconnect between university and industry

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by user_id

So you are trying to suggest I'm not a "scientist", yet have no real idea what it means to be a "scientist" in the first place? Alright...

You're not a scientist. Of that, I have little doubt. The simple fact that you want to take science out of the science class room is enough for that conclusion. Other than the fact that you sell widgets or consult the sale of widgets. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm talking about science in general and I must certainly have participated in science. Are you suggesting that chemist uses a different sort of scientific methodology?

You don't discuss the specifics of any science. You are speaking in generalities because you lack of the specifics. That much is clear by now. It was clear posts earlier.

A clue? Thank, but next time can you think about matters a bit more? Whether you read the literature in your area is irrelevant, the point is that you rather ironically suggest that I can't extrapolated things from my experience yet think you can from yours! But that is just silly, you have experience not only with a very particular corner of science but in a very particular field. Its just rather amusing.

As opposed to your complete lack of experience? I wake up every day and do science. I live it; breathe it. It's my reality. It's what I do. You, OTOH, post on internet forums about vague ideas you think you have a handle on. For what reason, who knows. The fact that you're going to lecture me on my corner of science, when you're not in the game yourself, is goofy.

I don't really understand your comment,

Of course, you don't.

you say you don't separate thetwo and then go on to talk yet again about your experience as a lab worker. Is there suppose to be a connection? Or did you just wanted to tell yet another lab story? Anyhow, the two are rather separate though both in practice and theory. So separate that people rarely are heavily involved in both areas. That is scientists are usually either theoreticians or they are involved in, what I suppose you could call "applied science".

Then please, bring forth the chem publications devoid of methods sections; providing you know what that is. Again, what I'm coming to realize about your position is that you wish to take science out of science education, discusssion, etc. I think you might find a better home in the religious forums with creationists.

I suppose this may be hard for someone in Chemistry to see though, Chemistry is essentially "higher level physics". Most of the theoretical work is done in the base subject, namely physics, and not in chemistry itself. As a result the vast majority of people in chemistry are "applied scientists" and not theoreticians.

Perhaps, as opposed to your non-theoretician self. For that matter, your non-applied scientist self as well. But hey, physics rattles my brain. I don't deny it. Do me a favor and tell me how to back calculate the optic affects of DMSO on Prodan dye when a nimrob chemist dilutes a series while buzzed...er, not thinking straight. That's what I did last night, post fiesta party on the job. My plan is to simply repeat the garbage, but a physicist might be of help right now.

By the way, I'm not trying to suggest one is better than the other. Just that they represent different roles in what is properly called science. The same distinction exists in mathematics and computer science too. You seem caught up on the idea that all science is "applied sciences" and some how your work is representative of such.

That is not the case. I really don't presume anything. Most of the time, I figure I simply don't know. And what I don't know is probably interesting. Either way, I tried to be as clear as possible in my posts. I don't presume to have a clue about most branches of science. I know what I do and I know it well. I certainly know it well enough when I come across bologna.

I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that your "DH"'s communication about an assignment or your lab work represents a "huge stride" in science?

Can you look past your agenda for two seconds? I'm talking about understanding the science. Why we do it. Why it's relevant. Why the data is what it is.

Let me know if you have an actual example of a "huge stride" in science and not mere banalities.

HPLC, MS, XRPD, PCR, DSC, TGA, TSQ,...need I go on?

Honestly, I'm interested to know as I can't think of an example. The closest thing I can think of was Alexander's Fleming discovery, but it was accidental and there was already some theoretical work done on it. The discovery did not advance any scientific theories though, just produced a new type of medicine. But perhaps this is the sort of thing you have in mind, but if so this is distinct from "huge stride" in science itself (i.e., some theoretical change occurs).

This is so typical of westerners. So much is taken for granted to such a degree that science, with exponential discoveries, is numbing. I guess RNAi isn't sexy enough. I have to get back to my year end evalution. Until this weekend, hopefully.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

You're not a scientist. Of that, I have little doubt. The simple fact that you want to take science out of the science class room is enough for that conclusion.

Yawn...this is absolute drivel. Because I don't confirm to your understanding of matters, I'm not "scientist". Never mind that you are not able to actually state just want it means to be a scientist in the first place. Furthermore, suggesting that I want to "take science out of the science class room" begs the question entirely! Just what is science?

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Other than the fact that you sell widgets or consult the sale of widgets. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I have no idea why you are yapping about widgets. But, this fallacious line is getting old. Whether or not I'm a "scientist" or not is entirely irrelevant, the truth of the claims are completely independent of what I am or do.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

You don't discuss the specifics of any science.

The topic is about science education...not the specifics of a particular field of science.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

As opposed to your complete lack of experience? I wake up every day and do science. I live it; breathe it. It's my reality.

ugh, you have no argument do you? This is just vacuous nonsense. You keep insisting I "lack experience" and the basis of which is apparently I'm saying things that you don't agree with! Its a complete joke, but apparently logic is not taught in chemistry departments.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Then please, bring forth the chem publications devoid of methods sections; providing you know what that is.

"Methods sections"? I was talking about the difference between theoretical work and "applied science", it appears to be going right over your head.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

HPLC, MS, XRPD, PCR, DSC, TGA, TSQ,...need I go on?

Yes mention things that are huge strides in science, not in lab techniques and things of that nature. There is a difference, but as I said in my comment there is some ambiguity here. I'm thinking about "huge strides" in science itself, you are likely thinking of them in a bit different sense.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

This is so typical of westerners. So much is taken for granted to such a degree that science, with exponential discoveries, is numbing. I guess RNAi isn't sexy enough. I have to get back to my year end evalution. Until this weekend, hopefully.

Oh darn us Westerners! But you are not getting the point, you are too busy getting defensive and trying to take shoots at me. Your comments remind me a lot of comments made by say auto-mechanics to people that don't understand how cars work. You seem to be very wrapped up in your little corner of science, to the point where you think that it[i]is[/b] science. But its not, science is a process that involves millions all working on different things in different roles. You seem to be very much detached from theoretical work (let alone Philosophy work in science), and as a result you apparently discount it entirely!

The point of the "classical education" I highlighted previous is to give students a true understanding of of the intellectual history of mankind, including but not limited to science. By better understanding the whole of science and related matters, they can better operate as a piece of it. Not just in the context of science, but in the context of all mankind's intellectual pursuits. Today's education is all about isolation, each subject is taught as if it exists in its own little bubble. But that is rather different than reality, there is no solid line between Science, Philosophy, Mathematics, Economics, and so on.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by user_id

A classical education would not try to separate everything in the idiotic fashion that current universities do today, instead all students would receive a solid foundations in the essentials. It would more resemble what is properly called a "liberal arts" education today. Anyhow, what I have in mind is students (all students) spending the first 2 years on a rigorous liberal arts education that would include say the study of Philosophy, Logic, Mathematics, Science (in general) and History (of events and thought). So, for example 4 courses in the following:

- Philosophy and history of thought (ancient-modern)
- Critical thinking, logic and mathematics. (taught in a seamless fashion, emphasis on historic development)
- Philosophy of science and history of science (general and particulars for physical, biological and social).
- Scientific methodology and practice (general, and particulars)
- History of the world (comprehension history, including arts, music, connection to world events to human thought, etc).

The courses would not be in isolation either, rather each semester they would be as related as possible (similar historic periods, etc).

The next 2 years would be spent on whatever emphasis a student wants to take. The emphases should act to supplement the more general things they were taught earlier and go into further detail. A thesis on an original topic should be required.

But I know such a program would not be implemented at any major university. Too many proles to placate.

I appreciate your thinking here and am on board with the first four bullets, but specifically, courses should not be in isolation. This is not far off from why I think labs should be a higher priority. It is a platform that can potentially act as an umbrella for many branches of science. I'm not saying this couldn't be achieved in other venues, but where else can this be found in already established curriculums?

Originally Posted by user_id

Yawn...this is absolute drivel. Because I don't confirm to your understanding of matters, I'm not "scientist".

What is clear about your position is that you have a hammer and everything in your path is a nail. I don't know how it doesn't bore you to death.

Never mind that you are not able to actually state just want it means to be a scientist in the first place. Furthermore, suggesting that I want to "take science out of the science class room" begs the question entirely! Just what is science?

I already shared my opinion on what I think constitutes a scientist (investigating using the scientific method) Although, if you want to start a thread asking, 'what is science?', I'm game.

The topic is about science education...not the specifics of a particular field of science.

I don't get how you can have such a strong opinion on science education when you are not familiar with science, ir how it's approached by scientists.

I have given examples as to why I feel labs should be prioritized through out this thread, and it involves actual science from my pov. Again, when doing science it's not a concentrated endeavor. A chemist contends with physics, engineering, comp. sci, etc in a single venue. You ignore this and then promote the divide between theoretical and applied, which does not address the OP. Your answer, applied science is akin to vo-tech. I can't shake the feeling this is more about ego, than addressing the issue I find with undergrad curriculums. Any way, this op-ed is fitting right now, tho, OT.
Guest Column: The Absurdly Artificial Divide Between Pure and Applied Research - Olivia Judson Blog - NYTimes.com

[K-Luv]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

What is clear about your position is that you have a hammer and everything in your path is a nail. I don't know how it doesn't bore you to death.

I agree to the first sentence, however, user-id is a troll who avoids answering any serious questions with answers such as 'that's irrelevant' and 'drivel'. Let me guess, whether or not user-id is bored to death is irrelevant.

Braunwyn, you have more than stated your case, much more than user-id deserves. Ignore his(?) posts so he can go on to tell another City-Data user just how wrong they are.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by K-Luv

user-id is a troll who avoids answering any serious questions with answers such as 'that's irrelevant' and 'drivel'.

Unsurprisingly this is drivel = ) I always answer actual questions, I referred to some of her responses as irrelevant and some of the more fallacious material as drivel.

But yes, clearly I'm the troll not the guy that is attacking someone in a conversation that they are not even involved with. Gotta love internet logic.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

What is clear about your position is that you have a hammer and everything in your path is a nail.

What is clear about your position is that you never support it, rather respond with an endless sea of fallacies.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I already shared my opinion on what I think constitutes a scientist (investigating using the scientific method)

Yes and that is obviously rather vacuous as it applies to nearly everyone. Nearly everyone at some point "investigates and uses the scientific method", it is after all just an inductive methodology. So is one only a scientist if they do it X amount of hours a week?

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I don't get how you can have such a strong opinion on science education when you are not familiar with science, ir how it's approached by scientists.

Ugh, I find it rather amazing that you keep pursuing these sorts of lines. Do you actually think this is some how an appropriate response that is not mile high in irrationality or are you just trying to annoy me? I really do hope its the latter.

But it is merely your view that "I'm not familiar with science", your view has absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. How could it after all? You have no idea what I've done, instead you think it because I'm saying things you don't agree with. Which again just begs the original question.

But let me ask you, does the auto-mechanic come to an understanding of the theoretical basis of mechanical engineering and its related physics when he works on cars? No, of course not. So then why do you believe that you can come to an understanding of what science is as a whole while working in a lab? You put so much weight to the fact that you have a job in science and believe that this somehow qualifies you to not only know what "science is", but also qualifies you to determine who is and is not a "scientist".

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I have given examples as to why I feel labs should be prioritized through out this thread, and it involves actual science from my pov.

Yes, you have and they essentially come down to the fact that you think the degree program should better prepare you for the sort of work that you are likely to do after the program. Every time you've tried to justify your position you spoke about your work stories. But in terms of science education the fundamental question is "just what is science"? Sort of pointless to even think about science education until this question has been dealt with in some fashion. As is common with most science majors, I don't think you have a good understanding of this question. Unfortunately, this will continue so long as you think you are going to come to an understanding of matters via workplace science practice. That truly is like trying to describe the elephant by only feeling the trunk.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Guest Column: The Absurdly Artificial Divide Between Pure and Applied Research - Olivia Judson Blog - NYTimes.com

Ugh, I hate when people link to opinion pieces. The piece is complete rubbish though (its the NYT after all...), its one big red herring. Nothing that is stated actually provides an argument that there is an "artificial divide between pure and applied research". After all, what is inconsistent about a researcher working in both roles? Is there an artificial divide between physics and music if some musician happens to make a discovery in physics?

But, its funny that you think the actual content of the piece is contrary to what I've been arguing. My claim the entire time has been that science is multi-faceted and there are a number of distinct roles all of which interact with each other to create what is known as "science". Recall how this conservation started, with your statement that "all working sciences spend at least 25% of their time doing X". Where X, was essential lab related troubleshooting. Now, you made the comment because in your world it's most likely true. But its not true outside of it, many "working scientists" spend the vast majority of their time on pure research. The only difference between this opinion piece and my views stated here, is that apparently the author thinks this means there is no "dividing line" between the different roles in science. I think there is at least a fuzzy line dividing the different roles scientists take in the field, but some scientists play more than one role.

Anyhow, as you are demonstrating so well there is certainly a animosity towards others not in your group in some cases. But the animosity is silly, everyone is playing important roles. But not me, despite spending 10 years researching I'm not even a scientist!

Now, lastly as you may ask. If all the different roles are all important why emphasis one over the other in education? Because if students don't learn the philosophy and theoretical basis of science in university, they are unlikely to ever learn it at all. The same can't be said of many other more localized skills. Unfortunately, many businesses no longer provide new graduates with work place training, so perhaps a solution is to provide a 5th year option at universities that provides this sort of training in connect with industry.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by K-Luv

I agree to the first sentence, however, user-id is a troll who avoids answering any serious questions with answers such as 'that's irrelevant' and 'drivel'. Let me guess, whether or not user-id is bored to death is irrelevant.

Braunwyn, you have more than stated your case, much more than user-id deserves. Ignore his(?) posts so he can go on to tell another City-Data user just how wrong they are.

I agree. This thread has become hijacked.

[Wingfoot]

Originally Posted by artsyguy

I agree with you. I'm almost finished with my Master's degree and multiple choice exams are very tiring to say the least and there are a variety of other assessments out there that are equal or better. Of course, colleges prefer their good old multiple choice exams to anything else. I can also relate because I am not a good test taker.

I went through college and grad school without ever taking a multiple-choice test.
In my undergrad school they were expressly prohibited.