Disconnect between university and industry (graduates, master's, program, graduate)

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by user_id

My comments are directly related to what you are talking about. The so called "disconnect" between university and industry. This disconnect exists because the faculty (rightfully so) are trying to create educational institutions that are houses of scholarship not trades. But the masses, as you appear to be demonstrating, what things to be more trade orientated.

Based on your responses, no, that is not the question. It is your question.

The reality is that many have to work and obtaining whatever education to make that happen is a necessity. The vast majority attend college for that purpose. You did not. If it makes you feel better to call it trade schools, it makes no difference to me.

So yes the critical issue regarding the "disconnect between university and industry" is whether universities should be places of scholarship or operate as trade schools. If the former, then the disconnect is completely justified.

Again, you have already stated a hundred times that universities are not places of 'scholarship, according to user_id". You want to back track to state that they are trying to make it as much. Either way, I would not call timed tests, with a disregard for actual science, scholarship.

Yes, the banalities of undergrad lab work are beyond my small mind. I'm not sure if this is just suppose to be a back handed insult or you are trying to say something. If the latter, I'm not sure what that something may be.

The fact that I acknowledge your lack of experience in a given field is an insult in your mind. I would not find it insulting if you relayed that I have no idea how to consult a firm on how to sell this or that widget, or whatever it is you do. The reality is that lab work is important to laboratory scientists. Trouble shooting instrumentation is important to scientists. I don't find fault with you for not understanding this.

Firstly, this is not want all "working scientists" content with every day. But what you are describing is just basic troubleshooting in the context of working in a lab. Its not even the sort of thing that you can effectively teach, rather its the sort of thing you improve out over time.

LOL I have never met one chemist, involved in research, that does not contend with these issues; not in school, and not in industry. I'm not sure what type of experience you have with contributing scientists, but your statements don't seem to lend to experience. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Regardless, I think it would be a great idea to separate matters. On one had you can have programs for people that want to learn science in itself and on the other you can have programs that are more geared towards industry (i.e., some sort of trade school).

Isn't that the point of a philosophy curriculum? Perhaps it would be ideal for you to have schools that have philosophy only platforms. Those would be the real colleges and the rest can be titled vo-tech chem or vo-tech bio. Of course, funding might be an issue with a lack of research. For now, all you have is departments.

In a sense this separation already exists, where the programs at public universities and lower ranking private schools are more like trade programs and the programs at prestigious universities more based on scientific scholarship. But its rather imperfect. But such a separation is not going to happen, that would require the higher education system admit to the massive prole drift that has occurred over the last few decades.

I work with scientists from uni's all over the globe (Harvard, MIT, Princeton, UMass, MCP, to whatever uni's in Italy, China, Russia). I see no difference among these people at my co. If I send out an email with a problem, 90% of the responses are identical (depending on area of expertise, of course). I do see differences between folk in industry vs those who stay in academia, which is mostly a matter of pace and perhaps a bit more aggressive personalities.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Based on your responses, no, that is not the question. It is your question.

Ugh. Yes, that is my question in the sense that I'm the one that pieced together the words. But that is irrelevant, as my point is that what you are talking about is essentially whether the degree programs should operate as trade programs or be focused on scholarship.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Again, you have already stated a hundred times that universities are not places of 'scholarship, according to user_id". You want to back track to state that they are trying to make it as much. Either way, I would not call timed tests, with a disregard for actual science, scholarship.

I'm not back tracking anything, the (science) degree programs at most colleges (especially public) are not focused on scholarship. Yet, the faculty largely try to push the programs in this direction. But their actions are offset by the realities of the student body, as a result you get a program fails at both scholarship and trade. There is no contradiction here.

Some universities actually deal with this issue to some degree by having different emphases in the program. For example, in Mathematics departments there is often a "Pure Mathematics" and "Applied Mathematics" emphasis. Although, they both are not exactly ideal.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

The fact that I acknowledge your lack of experience in a given field is an insult in your mind....

Yes, of course the problem being is that I don't lack experience in science. Hell, I even had a lab job for a year right after I finished school.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I'm not sure what type of experience you have with contributing scientists...

The type where you publish joint articles with them. You are being derisive about this, but your comments don't positively reflect on your understanding of science. You are "LOL" at the suggestion that not all scientists spending "25%" of their time on the sorts of things you are describing. The reality is that troubleshooting is a particular sort of skill, some scientists are good at it and some are bad at it. There is plenty of work to do in science for those that are not particularly good at troubleshooting lab setups.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Isn't that the point of a philosophy curriculum?

No the point of the philosophy curriculum is not to teach science, its to teach Philosophy = )

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I work with scientists from uni's all over the globe (Harvard, MIT, Princeton, UMass, MCP, to whatever uni's in Italy, China, Russia). I see no difference among these people at my co. If I send out an email with a problem, 90% of the responses are identical (depending on area of expertise, of course).

Oh yeah? Gee, that must mean there are no fundamental differences between those universities! Oh wait...."people at my company" is not a random sample. Darn

But yes, its me that lacks experience in science.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by user_id

Ugh. Yes, that is my question in the sense that I'm the one that pieced together the words. But that is irrelevant, as my point is that what you are talking about is essentially whether the degree programs should operate as trade programs or be focused on scholarship.

I still don't agree. You, without doubt, think you know this to be the case. What you actually know and don't know is certainly up for debate.

I'm not back tracking anything, the (science) degree programs at most colleges (especially public) are not focused on scholarship. Yet, the faculty largely try to push the programs in this direction. But their actions are offset by the realities of the student body, as a result you get a program fails at both scholarship and trade. There is no contradiction here.

It is a contradiction to the OP. According to you, lack luster labs are the result of a desire for scholarship even tho most of these schools are vo-techs to begin with. I won't deny that the concept of weed out classes is to thin the student body to the best and brightest, but it's certainly not scholarly. It is a quick fix that misses the boat when it comes to science, imo.

Yes, of course the problem being is that I don't lack experience in science. Hell, I even had a lab job for a year right after I finished school.

I think that's great, but working in a lab as a researcher is a different bird from making up buffers, cleaning glassware, or running samples for scientists (acting as a tech, in short). Ideally, when a chem student enter the lab, the scope should cover getting the student's feet wet with how to conduct experiments and do research. That was one of the biggest differences I noted in grad school. Most of my time was spent in the literature. I don't think I had one exam that tested out of a text book. I'm not saying this isn't necessary for undergrad, to be clear.

The type where you publish joint articles with them. You are being derisive about this, but your comments don't positively reflect on your understanding of science. You are "LOL" at the suggestion that not all scientists spending "25%" of their time on the sorts of things you are describing. The reality is that troubleshooting is a particular sort of skill, some scientists are good at it and some are bad at it. There is plenty of work to do in science for those that are not particularly good at troubleshooting lab setups.

I figure whatever publications you were involved with were not in the chemical sciences. But, this is pretty much at the heart of the OP for me. What constitutes a manuscript (to be clear, where is matters to my dh)? Normally, from beginning to end, it starts with the abstract, followed by the introduction, then the methods section, the results, and finally a discussion with notes of future endeavors. All this providing it's not a review of the literature piece. What normally constitutes a phy-chem or analytical chem lab report? An abstract, a review of the literature (or at least it should), the methods, the results, and hopefully some kind of interpretation and discussion.

All the stuff that happens from beginning to end (the manuscipt) is not a simple matter of going through the motions in a lab, which seems to be lost on you. The hypothesis and subsequent experiments to give a yay or nay in research is one part of the process, and time wise, often the smallest part. Reviewing the literature is time taxing. Once that is done, ime, you're going to repeat the experiments of others to form a base line. Often, this alone does not occur with ease. Why am I not yielding the same results as Joe Blow? Is it the instrument? Check it out, yes or not to a problem. Is it the materials I'm using? In that, for my case, are ingredients expired? If not, back to the literature, wiki, the text books. Why did Joe Blow utilize this high pH when these molecules are cationic? Back to the lab to check results with different pH. Etc. Once that is all worked out, give your idea a try, wash and repeat.

All of the above is troubleshooting. It is invaluable experience, and imo, some of this stuff should be covered in the lab for undergrads. Students should be thinking they're way throught the problems that will always arise. It is so much more than grunt work.

No the point of the philosophy curriculum is not to teach science, its to teach Philosophy = )

In some other thread you stated all areas of study, including science, are based in philosophy.

Oh yeah? Gee, that must mean there are no fundamental differences between those universities! Oh wait...."people at my company" is not a random sample. Darn

But yes, its me that lacks experience in science.

Your constant harping on public vs private/Ivy simply does not lend to my experience in industry. That's all I have to go on. To be clear, I agree that the best and brightest attend prestigious schools, but looking at the graduate level of study, I've seen people bobbing between state schools and Ivy schools in order to achieve their goals.

Perhaps my co is a poor example. They've been around for a very long time, they're international, and probably know how to pick their scientists. And maybe I'm simply less impressed because I live and work in the heart of an academic mecca. My gf finished her pHd in genetics at Harvard with joy because she hated every second of it and cussed her fruit flies on a daily basis. My ex first left his doctorate program at Brown and then left a job at MIT Lincoln lab because he was flightly as all hell. My buddy left the Whitehead institute with an invitation to complete his doctorate at MIT for UMass because he didn't want to repeat his MS work (he now sits in a tenure track position at BU medical). This reminds me of a comment made by a colleague at work a couple of years ago. He said "when I lived down south, everybody was impressed that I had a pHd, went to Prinecton, etc. Up here, nobody gives a rats arse." I suppose I'm desensitized.

What I'm coming to realize is that all this stuff is important to those who aren't in it. When we hired our last contract worker, nobody cared one bit about the no-name uni in Russia where he got his education. He was passionate about science, interesting, and had some great research under his belt. I have never come across one interviewing team that cares. Now, HR might care, but again, that hasn't been my experience either because they funnel folk from a variety of different unis.

[sike0000]

Originally Posted by user_id

Yes much different. Instead of memorizing various facts about things and filling in blanks you also memorize a variety of "equations" and apply them by following a trite set of rules.

Thats not entirely true, unless your only goal is to pass the class.

You have to be able to not only know the equations, but to understand how they were derived, be able to derive them, and to also modify them and derive them on your own for specific problems.

This is what separates an engineer from everyone else. Just about anyone can substitute a number for X to get the answer, but knowing how to get the equation is the hard part.

That's why calc is usually a requirement.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I still don't agree. You, without doubt, think you know this to be the case.

You can disagree all you want, just don't pretend as if I'm starting a new topic.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

It is a contradiction to the OP. According to you, lack luster labs are the result of a desire for scholarship even tho most of these schools are vo-techs to begin with.

I'm talking about colleges and universities, the title is after all "disconnect between university and industry".

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I think that's great, but working in a lab as a researcher is a different bird from making up buffers, cleaning glassware, or running samples for scientists (acting as a tech, in short).

So then are researchers not "working scientists"? Or is it only the lab grunts that get that title? You seem to be acknowledging that there are different classes of work in science, yet previously you "LOL" at the suggestion.

By the way, my work in the lab was right out of school and I was merely a "research associate" so I spent a good deal of time on the sort of grunt work you are describing. Although, I was running simulations and things of that nature, not "chemical science".

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I figure whatever publications you were involved with were not in the chemical sciences. But, this is pretty much at the heart of the OP for me.

Right, but I don't think there is a fundamental difference between any of the sciences. Sure, someone in the "chemical sciences" may more likely end up working in a lab than someone wish say a degree in physics who may more likely have a job at a computer. But that is a matter of the workplace, not the subject in itself. The workplace can change over time, where as the fundamental nature of the subject does not. Universities, if they are focusing on scholarship, should be teaching the ever lasting aspects of the subject. Not the transient.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

All the stuff that happens from beginning to end (the manuscipt) is not a simple matter of going through the motions in a lab, which seems to be lost on you.

Your typical lab at a university involves doing experiments on results that are already known. The labs are suppose to teach you in a hands on way the scientific method, but they fail at that instead they primarily teach you the sort of trouble shooting you are describing. I never said the labs were just "going through the motions", rather they are more so teaching you job skills. I don't think is that is very important in an academic program, its important for a trade program.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

In some other thread you stated all areas of study, including science, are based in philosophy.

I said they grew out of Philosophy and it did. But Science has been a distinct subject for centuries now and it has developed a methodology of its own. Although, its foundations are still rightly part of Philosophy it largely operates without thinking about those pesky foundational issues. It is only during a crisis, that science has to return to Philosophy to rework matters. As during a crisis its previous theories become suspect and conceptually unsound. For example, the transition from Newtonian to Quantum Mechanics. Its hard to tell whether much of the work from that period is written by Physicists or Philosophers!

Anyhow, its a testament to the sorry state of science education that most students have no idea how the subject relates to other areas and how it evolved over time. They also don't even know how to question the subject, to them everything in science is "real". Its almost religious in nature...

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

What I'm coming to realize is that all this stuff is important to those who aren't in it. When we hired our last contract worker, nobody cared one bit about the no-name uni in Russia where he got his education. He was passionate about science, interesting, and had some great research under his belt. I have never come across one interviewing team that cares. Now, HR might care, but again, that hasn't been my experience either because they funnel folk from a variety of different unis.

Right, jobs jobs jobs. What seems important to you is the sorts of things that land you a job. That is fine, but university education at least as it was done classical is not about jobs. Its about teaching students those things that are fundamental, all the other stuff can be learned in time on their own. From my perspective Science students would be much better serviced in Philosophy of Science, Logic and Pure Mathematics courses than labs. The former will give them a solid foundation in how to think about the world and science, the latter will teach work place skills. Which is likely to pay higher dividends in the end?

Its not that I have anything against obtaining employable skills, there are a few lines of work I could a job in if I desired. I intentionally learned those skills, but not as part of my university education. From day one I went to school because I wanted to learn and I think at the end of the day that was for the better. If I had focused on what sort of banal job I was going to get out of school I would have gotten a horrible education.

Also, even in terms of monetary wealth, you rarely become wealthy by working a job. You become wealthy by essentially understanding the world and manipulating it.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by user_id

You can disagree all you want, just don't pretend as if I'm starting a new topic.

You have one topic and try to fit all other topics into yours. In short, you are arguing that vo-techs aren't trying to operate as vo-techs. That's on you.

So then are researchers not "working scientists"? Or is it only the lab grunts that get that title? You seem to be acknowledging that there are different classes of work in science, yet previously you "LOL" at the suggestion.

You know full well what the OP is discussing and what branch of science it addresses. And read my post again. Your stint as a lab tech does not make you a scientist. Nor does filling the role of a tech give the scope of research. I laughed because it became clear in your post that you don't know what you're talking about.

By the way, my work in the lab was right out of school and I was merely a "research associate" so I spent a good deal of time on the sort of grunt work you are describing. Although, I was running simulations and things of that nature, not "chemical science".

Perhaps computational science? Again, I'm laughing. I'm not laughing at the merit and use of computational science or similar, but your thinking that you can extrapolate your short scoped role in the lab onto all lab work is pretty funny. Again, you simply don't know any better. Yea, you'll probably take that as an insult, but it's par for the course with most of us. The less information we have on a given topic, the easier it is to come to conclusions, however erroneous.

Right, but I don't think there is a fundamental difference between any of the sciences. Sure, someone in the "chemical sciences" may more likely end up working in a lab than someone wish say a degree in physics who may more likely have a job at a computer. But that is a matter of the workplace, not the subject in itself. The workplace can change over time, where as the fundamental nature of the subject does not. Universities, if they are focusing on scholarship, should be teaching the ever lasting aspects of the subject. Not the transient.

Chemical science has changed significantly due to the actual work in the lab. That is where the magic happens. That is where discovery takes place. You are under the impression that lab work is grunt work, and for the careless student it is, for chemists, it is not. Method development alone creates huge strides. That doesn't happen via mindless grunt work.

Your typical lab at a university involves doing experiments on results that are already known. The labs are suppose to teach you in a hands on way the scientific method, but they fail at that instead they primarily teach you the sort of trouble shooting you are describing. I never said the labs were just "going through the motions", rather they are more so teaching you job skills. I don't think is that is very important in an academic program, its important for a trade program.

Wrong on most counts here. To start, as previously stated, physical research involves repeating experiments. One of the reasons science is reliable is due to reproducibility, to state the obvious. It happens every day in the real world. The reason crappy research is exposed is because someone bothered to take a shot at the work. Students should absolutely know how to reproduce experiments. They should understand what they're doing in the first place and understand why they yeild similar results. If they do not, they need to figure out what the problem is. That you fail to realize the merit in this alone is silly. I will agree that labs are failing, because it is supposed to be about the scientific method. Instead, we have folk with your attitude that it's 'banal' grunt work.

I said they grew out of Philosophy and it did. But Science has been a distinct subject for centuries now and it has developed a methodology of its own. Although, its foundations are still rightly part of Philosophy it largely operates without thinking about those pesky foundational issues. It is only during a crisis, that science has to return to Philosophy to rework matters. As during a crisis its previous theories become suspect and conceptually unsound. For example, the transition from Newtonian to Quantum Mechanics. Its hard to tell whether much of the work from that period is written by Physicists or Philosophers!

This makes sense to me. I picked up a short-course book in the philosopy of science a couple of years ago, and I'm sad to say that it was light years from practice in the day-to-day.

Right, jobs jobs jobs. What seems important to you is the sorts of things that land you a job. That is fine, but university education at least as it was done classical is not about jobs. Its about teaching students those things that are fundamental, all the other stuff can be learned in time on their own. From my perspective Science students would be much better serviced in Philosophy of Science, Logic and Pure Mathematics courses than labs. The former will give them a solid foundation in how to think about the world and science, the latter will teach work place skills. Which is likely to pay higher dividends in the end?

This makes sense in theory, in practice? Not so much. Just 30 minutes ago I was, yes, standing at a bench with my computer, talking to a colleague about my data. He states "it supposed to do this and that, and you should be yielding A, B, and C". Of course, that wasn't the case. The dozens of environmental variables we didn't or couldn't think of were doing their thing. If 'in theory' always worked, even if it worked 50% of the time, I would be a happy frigging camper.

Its not that I have anything against obtaining employable skills, there are a few lines of work I could a job in if I desired. I intentionally learned those skills, but not as part of my university education. From day one I went to school because I wanted to learn and I think at the end of the day that was for the better. If I had focused on what sort of banal job I was going to get out of school I would have gotten a horrible education.

What I don't understand is how you expect the physical sciences not to physically get involved in science. I cannot wrap my head around that.

Also, even in terms of monetary wealth, you rarely become wealthy by working a job. You become wealthy by essentially understanding the world and manipulating it.

Well, our goal isn't extreme wealth. Frankly, when I entered the sciences I was a bit more idealistic. I was curious. I was intrigued. I had grand goals of curing crohn's (my brother has this heinous condition) or at least contributing some how. My mentor waxed poetic 24/7. He was exciting and passionate. I loved it. In grad school I was devoted to my students. I tried to make their learning experience fun and rewarding. I was proud of my small publications. I leave for industry and come to understand that life in the lab is very different from what I expected.

In the lab, academic concentrations do not matter. I'm working with fluorescence method development right now, and I try to draw on the few physics classes I took many moons ago. It's not enough. I certainly didn't major in engineering, but I have to know how to fix our instruments when they crap out. I have to analyze the data, and again, draw on my organic classes to understand the enantiomers I'm looking at. If I don't have a program to translate my data, I can either wait for weeks, or figure out how to create one myself. Point being, in the lab, scientists have to draw on many branches of science at the same time. It's not segmented. Imo, that is what labs are about or should be.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

You have one topic and try to fit all other topics into yours. In short, you are arguing that vo-techs aren't trying to operate as vo-techs.

I am? I don't recall arguing that. I'm talking about universities/colleges.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Your stint as a lab tech does not make you a scientist. Nor does filling the role of a tech give the scope of research.

Perhaps you are thinking of a different conversation? I have never suggested that working in a lab makes someone a "scientist". In reality, what is and is not a scientists is rather vague. Its like asking "what is an artist". But if you think the term "scientists" clearly denotes a group of people, please tell me the attributes one must posses to be a member.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Perhaps computational science? Again, I'm laughing. I'm not laughing at the merit and use of computational science or similar, but your thinking that you can extrapolate your short scoped role in the lab onto all lab work is pretty funny. Again, you simply don't know any better. Yea, you'll probably take that as an insult, but it's par for the course with most of us. The less information we have on a given topic, the easier it is to come to conclusions, however erroneous.

I don't take this as an insult, instead complete drivel. You repeatedly pretend I said and/or suggest things that I have not, you also pretend to know what is in my head. I find these sorts of supposes just rather plebeian. Anyhow, I never implied my work in lab can some how be extrapolated to "all lab work". That is just ridiculous, the only reason I've mentioned it is to note that I have worked in this sort of position and as a result know to a decent degree what it involves.

What is ironic though is that you think your limited experience working in labs can some how do such!

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

You are under the impression that lab work is grunt work, and for the careless student it is, for chemists, it is not. Method development alone creates huge strides. That doesn't happen via mindless grunt work.

I am? News to me. When I spoke about grunt work, I was referring to the sorts of things your typical "scientist" does for work. Its in distinction to theoretical work which largely takes place outside of labs. After all a good deal of theoretical work involves thinking about how to test something! Furthermore, in terms of huge strides...Off hand I can't think of any such "huge strides" that were made outside of theoretical/conceptual work. If you have an example of such "huge strides", I'd be glad to hear them.

Anyhow, your view of science appears to be unsurprisingly rather narrow. You seem to identify it with the sorts of things you do while working. But what you are involved in is just one piece, which was the point of my earlier comment of not all "working scientists" being involved in the things you described. Science involves a lot of things and usually people play different roles in it (that is particularly true in the work place).

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Wrong on most counts here. To start, as previously stated, physical research involves repeating experiments....

And what exactly do you think I'm wrong about? Your response was a red herring, you just spoke about the reproduction of scientific experiments. But that had nothing to do with my comments.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

This makes sense to me. I picked up a short-course book in the philosopy of science a couple of years ago, and I'm sad to say that it was light years from practice in the day-to-day.

I'm not sure what you are saying here, you are sad that it was far removed from the day-to-day tasks of people working in labs? I guess you are not that familiar with philosophy, but philosophy is essentially conceptual analysis. The philosopher of science, is not interested in what you do in your lab. Some basic philosophy of science 101 questions would be "What does it mean to confirm a scientific hypothesis", "What does it mean to provide a scientific explanation", "What is the nature of a theoretical object", "What exactly is a scientific theory". Now, those that have a religious like understanding of science think these all have a straight forward answer...but they don't.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

This makes sense in theory, in practice? Not so much......

This comment is sort of funny, I suggest that your focus is jobs. And apparently to show otherwise, you talk about your job? Regardless, my claim was that universities should teach students the core and fundamental aspects of science, not the more transient and certainly not lab troubleshooting. I have no idea how your discussion of "in theory" vs "in practice" addresses this in any sense. You again, just appear caught up in your own little corner of science. You are feeling the elephant's leg, yet seem to be aware of the entire elephant.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

In the lab, academic concentrations do not matter. I'm working with fluorescence method development right now, and I try to draw on the few physics classes I took many moons ago. It's not enough. I certainly didn't major in engineering, but I have to know how to fix our instruments when they crap out. I have to analyze the data, and again, draw on my organic classes to understand the enantiomers I'm looking at. ....

I have already agreed that there is a distinct between the sorts of skills one often uses in labs and what is taught at universities. The divergence of opinion is on whether this is a good thing or not. I suggest, that university programs should be even less focused on teaching workplace skills you think they should be more focused on it. You want what is essentially a trade program and I want what is something more akin to a classical education.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by user_id

Perhaps you are thinking of a different conversation? I have never suggested that working in a lab makes someone a "scientist". In reality, what is and is not a scientists is rather vague. Its like asking "what is an artist". But if you think the term "scientists" clearly denotes a group of people, please tell me the attributes one must posses to be a member.

I will leave the philosophical question of what is a scientist to you, but researchers (in my field) propose a hypothesis, design their study, and test. If anything of value arises we publish.

I don't take this as an insult, instead complete drivel. You repeatedly pretend I said and/or suggest things that I have not, you also pretend to know what is in my head. I find these sorts of supposes just rather plebeian. Anyhow, I never implied my work in lab can some how be extrapolated to "all lab work". That is just ridiculous, the only reason I've mentioned it is to note that I have worked in this sort of position and as a result know to a decent degree what it involves.

Be clear, you are the one making factual statements about a field, and the work involved, of which you have not participated.

What is ironic though is that you think your limited experience working in labs can some how do such!

Here's a clue for you, if you review the literature, it's pretty easy to garner what the people in your field are up to. It's spelled out clearly with no guessing involved. It's ridiculous that I have to even say this.

I am? News to me. When I spoke about grunt work, I was referring to the sorts of things your typical "scientist" does for work. Its in distinction to theoretical work which largely takes place outside of labs. After all a good deal of theoretical work involves thinking about how to test something!

Of course it does. I do not separate the two. And that is exactly why I feel undergrad labs should be prioritized. When I noted pages ago that I was impressed with my dh's email to a friend, it wasn't due to thinking he pipetted a solution accurately. It was that he was thinking about the experiments. He was applying his knowledge. This is what you fail to understand. Last night I spent about two or three hours designing an experiment. It took me about 20 minutes to conduct the actual experiment. This is all lab work. Again, even tho you keep denying it, you are stuck in the mentality, like so many undergrads, that it's all about going through the motions.

Furthermore, in terms of huge strides...Off hand I can't think of any such "huge strides" that were made outside of theoretical/conceptual work. If you have an example of such "huge strides", I'd be glad to hear them.

See above.

Anyhow, your view of science appears to be unsurprisingly rather narrow. You seem to identify it with the sorts of things you do while working. But what you are involved in is just one piece, which was the point of my earlier comment of not all "working scientists" being involved in the things you described. Science involves a lot of things and usually people play different roles in it (that is particularly true in the work place).

The only thing that is narrow is your approach to these conversations. It's always the same. You ask your question and then you answer it. You do not attempt to step outside your box.

And what exactly do you think I'm wrong about? Your response was a red herring, you just spoke about the reproduction of scientific experiments. But that had nothing to do with my comments.

You miss the big picture IRT the merit of repeating experiments. Just as you fail to understand that lab work is much more than 'hands on'.

I'm not sure what you are saying here, you are sad that it was far removed from the day-to-day tasks of people working in labs? I guess you are not that familiar with philosophy, but philosophy is essentially conceptual analysis. The philosopher of science, is not interested in what you do in your lab. Some basic philosophy of science 101 questions would be "What does it mean to confirm a scientific hypothesis", "What does it mean to provide a scientific explanation", "What is the nature of a theoretical object", "What exactly is a scientific theory". Now, those that have a religious like understanding of science think these all have a straight forward answer...but they don't.

What I found sad was was how unfamiliar I was with the philosophy of science, it's history, and concepts that I take for granted every day. It was that book that had me seek out Karl Popper, for example, rather than anything introduced in school or at work.

This comment is sort of funny, I suggest that your focus is jobs. And apparently to show otherwise, you talk about your job?

I did not make the statement to show otherwise IRT to jobs. I did not address jobs, jobs, jobs.

Regardless, my claim was that universities should teach students the core and fundamental aspects of science, not the more transient and certainly not lab troubleshooting. I have no idea how your discussion of "in theory" vs "in practice" addresses this in any sense. You again, just appear caught up in your own little corner of science. You are feeling the elephant's leg, yet seem to be aware of the entire elephant.

You are wrong again. I do not see the merit in segregating scientific inquiry in and out of the lab.

I have already agreed that there is a distinct between the sorts of skills one often uses in labs and what is taught at universities. The divergence of opinion is on whether this is a good thing or not. I suggest, that university programs should be even less focused on teaching workplace skills you think they should be more focused on it. You want what is essentially a trade program and I want what is something more akin to a classical education.

Ok, maybe I'm missing the boat here. Explain to me what a classical education would look like for a chemistry student. Specific examples would be helpful.

[gardener34]

artsyguy - I have the same attitude as you... but like others have stated, ya gotta do what ya gotta do. Just do it the most pain free and least expensive way possible. Thus the reason so many people nowadays are taking those GEDs at community colleges and then finishing up at the big universities for their majors.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I will leave the philosophical question of what is a scientist to you, but researchers (in my field) propose a hypothesis, design their study, and test. If anything of value arises we publish.

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...

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Be clear, you are the one making factual statements about a field, and the work involved, of which you have not participated.

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?

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Here's a clue for you, if you review the literature, it's pretty easy to garner what the people in your field are up to. It's spelled out clearly with no guessing involved.

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.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Of course it does. I do not separate the two. And that is exactly why I feel undergrad labs should be prioritized.

I don't really understand your comment, you say you don't separate the two 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".

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

See above.

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

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

You miss the big picture IRT the merit of repeating experiments.

Oh yeah? Tell me, how would you know this when I have not discussed this topic at all? So rather than explain what you were actually trying to say, you take cheap thoughts. Alright.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

You are wrong again. I do not see the merit in segregating scientific inquiry in and out of the lab.

Okay, then explain to me how a theoretician is going to be benefited by being in a lab. Is it just for the ambiance? Theoretical work is conceptual, before you can test theories they have to be properly formulated. Although, at times theoretical work is motivated by experimental results, its almost always accidental. That is to say, there is an oddity in some experiment that sparks an idea in someone's head. But its rarely (can't think of a single example) the case that the person doing the experiment is the one that uses the result to further theory.

The mathematic and philosophic aspects of science rather obviously don't occur in the lab..

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Ok, maybe I'm missing the boat here. Explain to me what a classical education would look like for a chemistry student. Specific examples would be helpful.

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.