The lies they told us about Graduate School

1) There will be plenty of jobs when you graduate. Look at all the baby boomers!

2) You're really smart, so graduate school will be a piece of cake.

3) It doesn't matter what lab you complete your degree in. It only matters how much and in what journals you publish.

4) Science is desperate to have more women and minorities join the ranks.

5) Graduate school was the best time of my life!

6) Scientists strive to be unbiased. What is science if not neutral?

7) Preliminary exams are all about your coursework.

8) Your closed door session after the defense seminar is for show. You're home free when you get to that point! What is your committee going to do? Fail you??

[Thanks to YoungFemaleScientist for pointing out some of these, and boohoo to life for teaching me the others.]

People sure are lazy

When my family switched cellphone carriers, I got an iPhone. Over the last couple of months, I've become hooked on Zombie Farm. The game allows you to plant and harvest Zombies, mutate them with crops and launch invasions against a variety of enemies.

In an effort to learn as much as possible about the game and how to succeed in it, I started looking at the Facebook group. Lately, I've been answering questions on the discussion boards. It amazes me how friggin' lazy people are!

There are over 20 pages in the discussion boards, covering all practical matters of the game including: how to open the mausoleum (answer: win 3 rusty fragments and fashion a key), what to do about glitches (answer: un-enable Game Center) and how to reboot the app to get the latest Easter items (answer: restart the device). But rather than search through the pages to find the information, people just create a new thread to post their question.

If that wasn't enough, the spelling is atrocious! Does no one pay attention in school anymore?

What to do after graduate school

I was talking to two of my friends about what we want to do when we graduate and enter the real world. It use to be a dilemma of choice: do I want to work in academia, extension, government or industry? [Not to mention the follow-up question of "Do I have to do a post-doc to get a full-time position?"] Each option had its own pluses and minuses, and sorting through those to find the desired balance required careful consideration. Now, with the lingering recession and the government's budget battles, there really isn't a choice. The only place consistently hiring is industry.

Public universities are mired in financial squabbles with the state and federal governments, and the allocations given to agriculture-related disciplines have been declining. This means that even though a large proportion of the professors in my field will be retiring in the next few years, departments are combining faculty positions, so the number of available jobs is still low.

Extension is suffering a lack of funding from state and federal governments as well as from the public universities. Ironically, some of these same universities brag about their outreach within the state due to these extension centers! I heard on the news lately that some politicians are even arguing that extension has outlived its purpose and is no longer needed.

Government, as I'm sure you're well aware, is arguing over single-digit percentages of the country's entire debt. Not having a working budget, but anticipating a declining budget in the future, means government positions are slim pickings. Plus, veterans are given preference, even if they lack other qualifications.

My mentality is that it is better to have a job, even if it isn't exactly what I want, then to move back in with my parents while I search for my ideal/dream job. And if industry is the only group that's hiring, then that's where I'll go!

A birthday present to myself

I've ordered a new digital camera! My current camera is a Kodak Easyshare V530, which debuted in 2005. I purchased it around Thanksgiving and although it has been quite reliable through the years, the rechargeable battery needs to be replaced again. Since the camera is 6 years old and a lot of advancements have been made with digital cameras, it made sense to upgrade.

I decided on the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS6. The reviews for this camera are pretty good and it has better zoom and macro capabilities than my old camera. Consumer Reports rated the ZS7 (the successor) very well, and reviews I found for this model say that it has the body of the ZS5 (predecessor) with a lot of the features of the ZS7. I didn't want to purchase the ZS7 because it has built-in GPS, and the major complaint on Amazon is that the battery is constantly drained because of the camera updating its location. Plus the ZS6 is significantly cheaper!

I have to admit that it took quite a while to read through reviews -- both online and in print -- and decide what options were most important for me. [Goodbye HD quality video recording!] I also didn't want to have to install a particular software package onto my computer in order to download photos. Hopefully transitioning to this camera will be a piece of cake.

Tears of sorrow for Japan

The 8.9 magnitude earthquake, subsequent tsunami, and hundred plus aftershocks have killed thousands of people (with an equal number still missing), wiped entire cities off the map, moved the country of Japan 8 feet closer to China and shifted the Earth's axis 4 inches.

My heart is breaking.

Stand strong, Unions! Stand strong.

Ad about Wisconsin

Crisis in Dairyland: Revenge of the Cheese Curds

The protests continue in Wisconsin over Governor Walker's legislation to strip collective bargaining from unions. He says this is necessary to balance the budget, but public employees have already agreed to all the financial concessions he wanted -- higher healthcare premiums and higher pension contributions. Besides the fact that the public unions that cost the state the most -- i.e. the police and firefighters -- are the only two unions exempt from these new policies.

Anyhoo, while I was educating myself about what was "really" going on in Dairyland, I came across this blog post by Jonathan Cohn, who put it all in a new perspective.

But I wonder if this whole debate misses the point. Suppose public workers really do make more than private sector workers. Who’s to say that the problem is public workers making too much, rather than private sector workers making too little?

For example, according to official Labor Department statistics cited in a recent National Affairsarticle, the average salary for a janitor working in government as of 2005 was $23,700, or around $26,700 in today’s dollars, while the average salary for a janitor working in the private sector was $19,800, or around $22,326 in today’s dollars. But does that mean the woman cleaning toilets at a county courthouse was making too much? Or that the one cleaning toilets at a corporate office was making too little?

Perhaps, like Jonathan Cohn says, the real problem is that everyone turns a blind eye to how little private employees are paid. Afterall, some of the most profitable companies pay their CEO's hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars while paying nothing in corporate taxes.

-----

Public vs. private employees: is one's compensation too high? or the other's too low?

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/83884/wisconsin-walker-public-worker-salary-benefit

WI protests continue

"The labor movement was the principal force that transformed misery and despair into hope and progress. Out of its bold struggles, economic and social reform gave birth to unemployment insurance, old-age pensions, government relief for the destitute and, above all, new wage levels that meant not mere survival but a tolerable life. The captains of industry did not lead this transformation; they resisted it until they were overcome. When in the thirties the wave of union organization crested over the nation, it carried to secure shores not only itself but the whole society."

Martin Luther King Jr. (October 7, 1965)

--------

Defiant governor digs in as Wisconsin prepares to evict protesters

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/27/wisconsin.budget/index.html?hpt=T2

Protests in WI; Republican assault on unions

If you've been living under a rock, you may not be aware of the impending doom going on in Wisconsin right now. Governor Walker, a newly elected Republican, is trying to correct a $131 million budget deficit by having teachers and other public employees pay more toward their own health insurance (12%) and their retirement/pension (5%). But that's not what the protests are about.

The protests are because Governor Walker also has language in this bill that strips unions of their collective bargaining rights with the exception of cost-of-living wage adjustments. How would this provision help the budget? It doesn't. It is simply an attack on unions -- a blatant attempt to bust the unions. For now, firefighters and police are exempt from these changes, but if the law passes, then it will only be a matter of time before they are affected too.

Wisconsin is a stronghold of unions and has been instrumental in union rights for 50 years. I understand why the Democratic senators left the state to prevent quorum from being reached and the Senate from passing the bill. [Both the Wisconsin House of Reps and the Senate are Republican controlled.] And kudos to the state troopers who "can't find" the few dissenters.

All these extreme measures deemed necessary to balance the budget didn't seem to factor in when Governor Walker passed $200 million worth of tax cuts for the rich. Hmm ....

------

Walker rejects union offer to accept concessions

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116519738.html

Rachel Maddow says WI is on track to have a budget surplus this year

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/

Local business community may be starting to turn against WI Governor Walker

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/18/business-community-turning-on-walker/

Extreme couponing

I was watching a show on TLC last night called "Extreme Couponing" about 4 people who, through the use of coupons and store promotions, purchase a lot of groceries for pennies on the dollar. One woman bought $250 worth of groceries (including pasta, pasta sauce and toothpaste) for $6. Pretty impressive!

But the longer I watched the program, the more I noticed the extreme couponers aren't just being thrifty -- they're obsessed. They get such a thrill from beating the system (i.e. getting stuff essentially free) that they end up accumulating huge stockpiles of products. It reminded me more and more of a hoarder. One man on "Extreme Couponing" had turned his 2-car garage into a warehouse, and he had enough deodorant, lotion, and salad dressing to last the rest of his life. Yet he went grocery shopping every week and continued to stockpile more health and beauty items because they were on sale. He actually took an entire display worth of toothbrushes and dumped -- literally, dumped -- them into his cart.

I guess "Extreme Couponing" just shows how fine the line is between practical money management and irrational obsessive frugality. Sheesh!

Proper etiquette with gifts

I received a gift from a co-worker that, while considerate, wasn't something I wanted. Unfortunately, he didn't include a gift receipt or return paperwork. I could attempt to return it to a local retailer, but without receipts I couldn't prove the item was originally purchased there and the store could refuse the return. I could attempt to sell the item online, but Amazon has a policy in place that makes it impossible to sell certain items during the holidays without sending them to an Amazon processing facility, so the company can vouch for their authenticity.

In the end, I did what the etiquette books say is extremely rude and should be avoided at all costs: I told him the truth. I explained that I appreciated the thought but would like the item exchanged for something else. Why should people be forced to keep items they don't want? I think re-gifting is just as bad an "etiquette sin" as being honest. And besides, don't most people buy gifts with the intention of making the other person happy?

So please, if there's any doubt the person may not like the gift you've selected, include the gift receipt.

A dream about intelligence

I had a dream last night, in which I lost my intellect. [Intellect was apparently a physical entity that could be misplaced.] I was removed from the classes I was enrolled in and chastised by various people. I remember feeling disappointed in myself and frustrated that there wasn't anything I could do. Then, for whatever reason, my intellect was "found" and I had to go to an administrative office to get my graduate student ID, which proved I was capable. I argued with one of the secretaries because she didn't believe me. So bizarre! And somehow, somewhere, there is probably a shred of truth to it!

Christmas 2010

I can't believe Christmas is only a few weeks away! Where has the time gone?

I've decorated my office with holiday flare, and it amazes me how a fake tree with twinkling lights and sparkly ornaments can really warm up a room. A layer of freshly fallen snow would complete the picture, but the weather forecast is without precipitation. It just isn't the same to look past stockings and presents to a green manicured lawn!

I hope you all have a very Merry Christmas! If you've been good, I hope Santa brings what was #1 on your list. If you've been naughty, well then, kudos to you too! *wink, wink*

And let's not forget those less fortunate this holiday season. Please donate to the Salvation Army kettles or your local food pantry.

Online dating

I recently joined Okcupid.com to try and meet single men in Northern Virginia. I figured that since I'm going to be here at least another year and am not getting any younger, that it was worth a shot. I'd joined eHarmony last year, but let my membership lapse after a few months because I didn't think it was worth the money. I didn't like eHarmony's communication system with all of the steps/layers you had to go through first before you could start IMing.

Anyway, I've been on Okcupid a few weeks now, and while I like it better than eHarmony, I've noticed that a lot of the men commenting on my profile are outside of my specified age range. What the heck?! I'm not interested in dating guys just out of undergrad any more than I'm interested in men in the "mid-life crisis" range. Why do these people respond to my profile when they don't meet my basic criteria? And why do older men seek out women so much younger, when there are plenty of women their own age? Wouldn't you want someone who has had similar life experiences? Geez ....

The price of being "safe"

With holiday travel right around the corner, I thought this post about airport security was spot on. I mean, seriously, how does taking off my shoes and discarding my unopened bottle of water make my flight safer? In Tennessee, I saw two TSA workers pretending to shoot each other with their hands. Sigh.

Invasion of the Body Scanners: why airport security will never work

Monday, November 15, 2010 (from www.politicalirony.com)

I’ve been seeing a lot of frustration and anger at the new security measures going into effect in airports (especially from pilots). One issue is the new millimeter ‘backscatter’ x-ray machines. Previously, only your carryon bags were x-rayed, now they are x-raying your entire body. And since these new machines penetrate clothing, but stop at your skin, they show the TSA workers an image of you essentially naked.

If you don’t like the idea of being exposed to dangerous x-rays or being viewed naked, you can opt out, in which case you are given a thorough pat-down, including your genital areas. That goes for children too. Which would you prefer: Having your child subjected to dangerous radiation so they can be viewed naked by a stranger, or having their entire body including genitals felt up by a stranger?

But my real question is, what took everyone so long? I have never understood why people put up with airport security at all. Airport security has never made us any safer.

Airport security checkpoints were originally installed because of airplane hijackings (including quite a few to Cuba). But security never stopped a single hijacking. The main reason hijacking stopped was because we were able to get treaties signed with various countries (including Cuba) that guaranteed they would prosecute hijackers. So hijackers were arrested on landing and typically returned to the US to stand trial. Once that happened, the hijackings stopped, but curiously the checkpoints didn’t. (Interestingly, the other reason hijackings stopped was because we stopped giving so much media attention to them. Unfortunately, we haven’t yet learned the lesson that in order to cause terror, the terrorist wants publicity.)

The problem is, in order for airport security to actually work, it has to be incredibly (almost impossibly) invasive. Even with the new x-ray machines any terrorist wannabe could smuggle weapons at least as dangerous as the ones used during 9/11 onto any airplane. Are we going allow the TSA to perform full body cavity searches of everyone who is going to board a plane? Seriously?

Because the only answer to “how much privacy and rights do you have to give up in order to ensure complete safety” is “every last one of them”. And even that isn’t good enough. In maximum security prisons where people have no rights and full cavity searches are done routinely, criminals manage to smuggle in weapons and other contraband. You think you can stop it at a busy airport?

Even if we could have complete and foolproof airport security (which we cannot), it would not make us any safer. In fact, it would likely make usless safe. Consider the x-ray machines. You might argue that the danger from x-rays is low, but so is the danger from terrorists. So low, in fact, the risk of dying from the x-ray machines is likely greater than the risk from being killed by a terrorist. So at best, we are getting rid of one risk (which we actually are not, since airport security is not foolproof) and substituting an even greater risk. How stupid is that?

And finally, even if we could have completely and foolproof airport security that had absolutely no risks, we would still not be any safer. Because airplanes are not the only place where we are in danger from terrorists. In fact, some people have argued that a terrorist could easily walk into an airport carrying a bomb and detonate it near a crowded airport security checkpoint. This would cause just as much terror, and shut down our air transportation system. And airport security couldn’t stop it.

As we well know, any place where large numbers of people gather could be a potential target for a terrorist bombing. For example, 9/11 killed around 3,000 people, but football stadiums hold tens of thousands of innocent people. There are many cruise ships that hold more people than were killed on 9/11, and those often operate in international waters where they cannot be protected. Even if we made airplanes (and airports) completely terrorist proof, the terrorists aren’t going to just give up. After all, the Oklahoma City bombing was carried out on an entire building, using a bomb hidden in a parked vehicle.

So what am I saying? That we shouldn’t do anything to prevent terrorism? Of course not. Installing reinforced cockpit doors on airplanes already took away the incentive for terrorists to try to pull something like 9/11 again. Not to mention the fact that passengers are now more willing to fight back against terrorists. A group of terrorists could perhaps blow up an airplane, but it would be much more difficult for them to use the airplane like a guided missile to destroy a large building.

What I’m saying is that the money being spent on airport security would be much better spent somewhere else, like investigating terrorists so we can stop them no matter if their plans target airplanes, government buildings, water supplies, or whatever. Even Forbes magazine says that we should abolish the TSA.

Isn’t this something we can all agree on? Right now, the only group benefiting from airport security are the companies who manufacture the x-ray machines, and the only winners in the war on terror are the terrorists, who would have us quaking in our boots, except we had to take those off in order to go through security.

Pregnant at 70: A misuse of science

I watched a show on TLC tonight called "Pregnant at 70". It was about three women who, thanks to in vitro fertilization (IVF), were able to have children despite being way past menopause. Two of these women (aged 58 and 70) didn't have any previous children, but one (age 64) had had 10 kids (all of whom were now adults). The women relied on IVF because they (i) wanted a child with their new husband and (ii) weren't able to get pregnant naturally. But technically, these children aren't their biological children because they had to rely on donor eggs -- so their DNA wasn't even a part of their child's.

I was appalled that physicians would allow them to proceed with the procedure so long as these much older women were physically fit to be pregnant. What about life expectancy? Ability to physically and mentally provide care for 18 years? And I got so frustrated that these women would say that they aren't worried about having a child at their age because they don't physically look or act their age! WTF does that have to do with anything? Your body -- your organs, your immune system, etc. -- is your age and will behave accordingly. I think it is incredibly selfish and irresponsible to have a child that late in your life. At some point, you need to accept the fact that you can't have it all and, for some people, that harsh reality means you won't give birth. You can still have a meaningful life!

The short term memory of the American people

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (George Santayana)

Happy Halloween!

PhD comic

I saw this PhD comic and had to share it because I think all grad students have experienced a complete and utter brain meltdown. For me, it occurs when I'm being asked a barrage of questions that I can't answer without my lab notebook -- which is, of course, unavailable at the time. I go into a blank stare, mumble "Ahh ... I don't know off the top of my head ..." and slink slowly toward my office to procure the necessary documentation.