Not many people are reading this blog, which may actually be quite a good thing since it is turning into a bit of a personal core dump. Someone did, however, end up here after doing a search about whether or not they should get degrees from 2 different universities. I don’t know the answer to this, but it did remind me of some discussions I’ve had in my own department about attracting and keeping good PhD students.

A few years ago – prior to my arrival back in the UK – it was apparently fairly common to encourage students not to apply for a PhD place at the same university from which they got their undergraduate degree. The idea, which is probably quite reasonable, is that it would be advantageous to study at more than one university and if everyone does this, good students will ultimately be shared around evenly. This, however, seems to have changed a little. More and more departments are starting to offer PhD places to their own good students. This is probably because we have many more places to fill than was the case a decade or so ago. Trying to fill these places with potentially good students can be hard, and so if you can attract a few good students from different universities, and offer places to some of your own good undergraduates, you will do better than if you encourage your own students to go elsewhere.

Of course, the above policy will only work for a short while, since eventually all departments will be trying to keep as many of their own good students as possible. This may not seem to make much difference but I think it has the potential to make future generations very narrow. Not only do different departments focus in slightly different areas, they also have different research philosophies and practices. Exposing students to a wide range of different topics and different research practices and styles will help our future research leaders to have both a broad understanding of their general area, as well as a detailed understanding of their particular topic. It’s not that those remaining at a single university will not have a broad understanding, but it may be harder to gain that if they’ve never been anywhere else.

I should at least acknowledge that I actually did all my degrees at a single university, but did hold postdoctoral and faculty positions at a number of different universities and in a number of different countries. This too can help – I think – develop breadth and an understanding of different possible research styles. I do think that studying and working in different universities and countries can be very advantageous. It does, however, have some side effects and can disadvantage those who are not able to easily move around – although that is probably a topic for a future post.

“Abstract: We examine a unique data set containing information on a PhD recipient’s dissertation advisor, graduate program, and early career publishing success. Regressions controlling for the ranking of both the student’s graduate program and dissertation advisor confirm that, all else equal, students working with prominent advisors are significantly more likely to publish in their early careers, especially in top 36 journals, than students working with less prominent advisors …” (more)

[Martin Ryan, Geary Behavioural Economics Blog, 30 September]

“The readers debate the thorny issue of minimum requirement for academics. The PhD is still seen by many as the key to an academic career – a minimum requirement without which entry to the profession should not be permitted. Yet, in reality, there are large numbers of people working in higher education who do not possess a doctorate. When a recent study raised concerns about the proportion of teaching staff falling into this camp, the issue sparked a prolonged online debate …” (more)

[Ciaran Jones, Times Higher Education, 27 August]

Quite an interesting article in the Guardian this morning suggesting that university degrees have been dumbed down in the last decade or so. This is based on a parliamentary enquiry that shows that the number of students getting first-class degrees has doubled in the last 10 years.

The report seems to suggest that different universities require different levels of effort to get similar degrees. It also suggests that the value of a good degree from a Russell Group university could be very different to the value of a good degree from a non-Russell group university (or at least one that is low on the league tables). Although there may be some merit to this, I can’t really make an informed comment since I don’t have any real experience of the standards at different universities. I would, however, be surprised if there wasn’t some truth in this.

What about the University where I work. Although I haven’t actually been there for 10 years, it doesn’t seem like the level of the material that is taught has really changed (we aren’t making the material easier). We are however replacing some content in the later years with courses that teach skills (research methods, literature surveys). I found this slightly worrying, but suspect that it is probably necessary and since it is at the 10% level, probably doesn’t really substantially change the degree.

What does seem to be happening, though, is an implicit pressure to maintain high pass rates, especially in the earlier years (this pressure does apparently become more explicit if reasonable pass rates are not achieved). Although we haven’t really changed the level of the material that is taught, we do seem to set our exams with some thought to what kind of pass rates we may want to achieve. This isn’t necessarily the overriding consideration, but does seem to play at least some kind of role. In later years this is not as crucial on an exam by exam basis because students can fail some courses and still progress or graduate. Even this, however, worries me slightly. I don’t have a problem with students not being required to pass all courses in the final year of an Honours degree (or 2 years in the case of students doing taught Masters degrees), but I think we introduce this a year too soon, when the students probably do need to have a reasonable understanding of all the material.

Do I think we are giving many more first-class degrees and as a result have dumbed down our degrees. I’m not entirely sure: it still seems pretty hard to get a first-class degree, especially a good one. The high pass rates in early years, however, probably does put students through to later years who maybe won’t cope as well as they should. We also seem reluctant to fail students in these later years since they’ve already committed so much of their time to the degree. My impression is that it may well be easier to pass an advanced science degree than it was 10 years ago, but is probably not significantly easier to get a first-class degree. This is essentially why, in an earlier post, I was arguing for more granulating in the degree structure. This way students could graduate at appropriate times and there wouldn’t be as many students in later years who were struggling to cope, but who may pass anyway because of the reluctance to fail students at this stage of their degree.

Last night on BBC Radio 4 there was a programme about whether or not the UK has too many university students. I don’t remember quite who was on the panel, but it included Sally Hunt from the University and College Union (UCU) and the vice-Chancellor of the University of Buckingham, the UK’s only private university.

I found it fairly interesting, although my 5 year old son had decided to tidy the kitchen and kept interrupting me to ask for help, so I didn’t hear as much as I would have liked. The vice-Chancellor of the University of Buckingham kept promoting – rather predictably – the idea that there should be more of a free market approach to Universities in the UK. I don’t really agree with this, but since I’m trying to keep this post shorter than normal, I won’t go into this here.

What I did generally agree with is that the real issue is not whether or not there are too many students in the UK, but whether or not they are getting an appropriate University education. One of the main views on the programme seemed to be that not enough students were taking science degrees. This may well be true, but the problem in my view is subtler. It seems to me that UK universities have not structured their degrees to be appropriate to the current student intake. In most science degrees it appears that students are assumed to be doing a degree that will ultimately allow them to basically be professional scientists (i.e., most students start off doing Honours degrees or Masters degrees and a Bachelor’s degree is really a failed Honours degree).

It would seem much more reasonable – in my view – to have more granularity in the system, allowing students to graduate at various stages with various different degrees. This isn’t meant to penalise any students, but simply to be more honest about different students’s abilities and skills and to then design the degree structure appropriately. This would optimise the amount of time students spend at university and also allow employers to have a much better idea of potential employees’ actual strengths and skills.

As I mentioned in my first post, I am an academic at a British university.   As many people are probably aware, the number of students going to University in the UK has increased dramatically in the last decade or so. Although this a subject that could be debated at length, this is not the subject of this post.  What concerns me is the apparent desire to increase the number of students doing PhDs.  My impression of why this is happening is that some – politicians for example – believe that industry likes people with PhDs and therefore we should generate more of them. Although I can quite easily believe that people who have done PhDs and then gone into in industry have generally done well, it’s not obvious that this implies that we should generate more people with PhDs.

One of the reasons I feel that simply generating more PhDs is not the right approach is that – in my view – there are primarily two reasons why people with PhDs do well in industry. One is that a PhD teaches skills that will be useful in whatever career a PhD graduate ends up choosing.  The other is that these people are in general highly creative, motivated, and academically gifted. What, I presume, industry really likes is creative, motivated people and if they have the skills that a PhD teaches them, even better. If there are plenty of people with these basic skills who wanted to do PhDs I would have no real problem with increasing the number of PhDs. It is my view, however, that although in some academic fields there may be plenty of potentially talented PhD students, it is generally not the case (or at least if there are plenty of potentially talented PhD students, they are not clamouring to do PhDs in these fields).

The concern I have, therefore, is that universities will feel pressured to increase the number of students graduating with PhDs and to do so will select students who are not particularly suited to the degree.  Currently, at least in my field, a PhD student is expected – with some help from their supervisor – to work independently and ideally to take control of their project and make it their own. A PhD student is therefore, to a certain extent, someone who could later have an academic career. It doesn’t matter if they don’t actually go on to have an academic career, their abilities and skills will be valuable assets in whatever career they choose to follow. 

There are some,  however, who feel that  a PhD should simply teach students certain useful research skills because this is what UK industry wants.  It may well be true that UK industry would benefit from an increase in the number of people with research skills, but it is not completely clear that the best way to do this is to increase the number of PhD graduates. It is my opinion that it would be better to introduce degrees (such as research Masters) that are shorter than PhDs and focus on teaching research skills, and leave the PhD as a degree for those particularly interested in independent research and potentially interested in a career in academia.  This would protect the value of a PhD degree and still increase the number of graduates with valuable research skills.

A concern I have had in writing this post is that – if anyone actually reads it – it will be interpreted as an argument for keeping PhDs selective and exclusive, and that is certainly not the case.  I have no particular issue with there being more PhD students as long as they have the necessary skills and abilities to carry out a PhD.   My basic argument is that if UK industry would benefit from an increase in the number of people with basic research skills (as I suspect it would) we should have degrees specifically designed to teach these skills rather than potentially damaging a degree that has already proven its value and that does more than simply teach research skills.

“Madam, – In reply to Dr Jordan (July 6th), where he comments on government policy on doubling the number of PhDs in this country and the problems that this is causing, I have to say that I agree with his stance, but to lay the blame on the Government’s doorstep is unfair. There were already too many PhDs in this country in the 1990s. I know, I was one of them and most had to emigrate in search of scientific employment, until they also found that the world market had too many PhDs …” (more)

[Desmond Nugent, Irish Times, 17 July]

“A year after its creation as a forum for universities awarding PhDs, the Council for Doctoral Education is getting to grips with some of the changes brought in by the inclusion of doctoral students in the reform of Europe’s higher education commonly described as the Bologna process. But when the council’s members meet in Lausanne this week (4-5 June), they will be talking evolution rather than revolution …” (more)

[Ian Mundell, European Voice, 4 June]

Most things about it are wrong. “After careful consideration by the Admissions Committee, we have decided to defer your admission to the Fall 2009 term; we have decided against any intake for this session due to lack of funds”. Maybe the grammar is correct, but I’m not sure anymore.

What is wrong?

1. Institutions of higher learning don’t mail letters explaining the financial muddle they’re in, to prospective students.

2. Places that churn out millions of bright shiny brochures with pictures of bright shiny faces of happy students don’t publicly wail in agony at their capital woes.

3. Future academicians and path-breaking researchers don’t pay over £15000 p.a. out of their pockets or purses for their PhDs.

That’s what recession has made Universities do with funding issues.

Fact – I have completed my Masters in International Criminology from the University of Sheffield, UK. I want a funded PhD offer at a respectable University.

Note – If I receive ample notice from staff at a prospective University, confirming the presence of a winter intake, I more or less take their word and apply whole-heartedly.

I was practically buoyant after I made that first application. Then there was the wait. Until I suddenly noticed my term start had been subtly changed to Fall 2009 online, a whole 8 months after my original session began. I wondered if they used the small fonts to pull off precisely something like this – make it almost impossible for students to notice any change in their application status. It was a particularly mean trick by the University, especially considering the $100 application fee. I then received the letter with that harsh afore-mentioned sentence.

That’s what recession does for funding issues.

The other Universities –

(1) Simply took off from their menu, the advertised research topics with grants; which I applied for. Irritatingly enough, the advertisements still loom large on the University website.

(2) Gave me an unconditional offer to do my PhD on my own research proposal, with a funding footnote – if only I manage to win the ONE scholarship award they’re generously providing among ALL international students. One = solitary, lone; a meagre number. All = every single one, entire; a large category encompassing every one.

That’s what recession does to funding issues.

And so hangs my PhD future, on the thin thread of the economic turmoil of our times.

Don’t get me wrong – some Universities still provide PhD funds. The field of Tribology has five studentships on offer at one English University. But that is precisely the problem here – the recession has managed to affect certain aspects of a subculture more drastically than others – e.g. the subculture of everyone minus insurance bankers, or that of common people as compared to film stars, or in my case the subculture of students wanting to study juvenile justice as compared to those who study tribological matters. One can argue – where’s the justice in that? This is what a recession does. Progression eliminates bias and prejudice; contrary to which, a recession manages to resurrect them and creates subcultures of dissatisfied people, instead of bright shiny happy faces of prospective PhD students.

NOTE:
READ the last paragraph first…. and then read the below text and the article.
———————————————————————————
Yes.. this outgoing Professor turned politician was appreciated by the people of Pondicherry and his party PMK as well for all services offered by him in the last five years. He was given the seat again to contest in the elections once more from Pondicherry. I’m sure, this time congress will give a tough competition, still, the answers are with the people of Pondicherry. I wish him all the BEST.

Thanks Professor. All the Best.
—————————————————————-
Here is the article from expressbuzz.

MP who submits himself for examination every year
Ever heard of an Indian MP submitting an annual self-appraisal report to the people of his constituency?

Meet 59-year-old M. Ramadass of the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), a doctorate in economics and an economics professor-turned politician who is charting a new course in politics. He is the only member in the outgoing Lok Sabha and perhaps the first Indian MP to submit to the people of Puducherry an annual report of his activities as their representative.

Asked if the concept was borrowed from his academic field, the first generation politician told IANS: “I felt it is my duty to give an account of my activities to the people. I want to be accountable to my people.” His annual reports contain the welfare schemes and various projects brought to Puducherry by him, debates in which he participated in the Lok Sabha, his attendance in parliament, the utilisation of the MP Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) and the protests and even social events in which he took part.

By his own admission, Ramadass, who hails from a fishermen community, has taken part in 151 parliament debates, raised 380 questions and has scored 94 percent attendance.

According to a study by PRS Legislative Research, an independent research initiative, nearly 60 MPs including former prime minister H.D. Deve Gowda and actor-politicians Dharmendra and Govinda did not ask a single question in the 14th Lok Sabha. Sixty-seven MPs asked 10 or fewer questions.

Admirers of Ramadass say he was instrumental in bringing to Puducherry the Rs.330 million Karaikal port project, improving rail connectivity, and expanding railway reservation counters at Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam. “Our MP was instrumental in the conduct of local body elections in Puducherry after a four-decade gap. He was also instrumental in devolution of powers to the local bodies,” said one PMK worker.

Ramadass is also credited with elevating Puducherry’s classification to that of New Delhi — so that the house rent allowance (HRA) for government employees goes up. As to the utilisation of funds under the MPLADS, against his entitlement of Rs.100 million (Rs.10 crore) for five years, Ramadass issued work orders for Rs.125 (Rs.12.5 crore). “I have effectively used the unspent money of my predecessor. My focus is on improving the basic amenities for the people,” he said.

Way back in 1986 Ramadass was in the limelight for a brief period when he won the National Prize for the best suggestions on the making of the Indian budget. It was PMK founder S. Ramadoss who convinced him to join politics. “Our leader wanted educated people to enter politics. My wife was very apprehensive about my entering politics, from being the registrar of Pondicherry University. A lot of cajoling had to be done,” he recalled.

In 2004, Ramadass was elected to the Lok Sabha, securing 241,653 votes (49.95 percent), defeating the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate who got 171,472 votes (35.65 percent). Today his services are utilised by the PMK, which submits alternative budgets for Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, and also for preparing the party’s election manifesto. As an academician he has guided seven Ph.Ds, 40 M.Phils and 15 M.S. theses. He has also authored five books and has 45 research papers to his credit.

At a time when even small-level politicians speed around the cities in big fuel guzzling utility vehicles, Ramadass is satisfied with his old Tata Indica car. He is confident of not only getting the party’s nod to contest again from Puducherry but also of winning. His annual reports, he knows, have won the hearts of his voters.

With the election of an American president committed to the expansion and endowment of the sciences, a recent New York Times article posed the question asked by many scientists: how to attract women into the sciences. However, as the article later touches on, women’s entrance into the fields of science involve much more than making a career in science appear attractive for women. Women working in scientific career’s must be “attracted” to science as young children, made to feel comfortable in science classes, and not tracked into more “female oriented” careers as girls often have. While some have hinted at the fact that women have lower numbers in areas such as advanced physics due to women’s lack of comprehension in advanced mathematics. Evalyn Gates, the assistant director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago, has asked the question “why should it be, that almost half of high school students in Advanced Placement physics classes are girls, but women earn only a fifth of bachelor’s degrees in physics?” However, as feminists have long since pointed out it is not always women who have limited themselves. Teachers have often directed girls away from science classes and even those who persist on to acquire advanced degrees are oftentimes met with a burdensome path that requires many sacrifices of family and social lives.

 Read More – New York Times article

Women in Science

http://www.wilmott.com/messageview.cfm?catid=16&threadid=67996&STARTPAGE=1

Do not be picky about what you do, especially in a bad economic climate. Apply for everything you can think of, finance, non-finance, academia, etc. etc. In almost all cases, you will end up having the door closed in your face, which is why you need to knock on as many doors as you can. It doesn’t matter if a 1000 people say no, as long as one person say yes, and you have to keep knocking on doors until you get to someone that has cash to give you.

The psychological pressure can be huge. There are a lot of people in Ph.D. programs who have never had the experience of being rejected, because since kindergarten their history has been “pass the test” go to the next level, and the system they have been in has been somewhat rational in which if you don’t make it to the next level, it’s because of something “bad” you did. Once you got your Ph.D., you are no longer in the world (even if you stay in academia), and it is a huge transition to make to realize, that you are going to fail and be rejected, even if you are very, very good. In a situation in which you have to keep knocking on doors and getting rejected time and time again is new, and something that most people have to deal with is the (justified) fear of rejection, humiliation, and failure.

As far as finance goes….

This situation may change quickly or it may not. I wouldn’t be surprised if in two weeks, the word from on high is “start hiring.” Having worked in the oil industry, I also wouldn’t be surprised if the situation *never* improves. There was a massive burst of hiring in the 1980’s oil boom and no major hiring until the early-2000’s when people started retiring. (Working with a lot of programmers in their 50’s and 60’s was a very good experience, since I don’t have this fear of growing old that a lot of people in younger industries have, since I’ve seen something people in their 60’s doing cool things that I want to do when I’m 60.)

Be ready, be flexible, so that you are ready if there is a massive burst of hiring in two months or if Wall Street ends up a dying industry. One thing that this means is that it helps if you don’t have too fixed an idea of what you want to do. If you say ‘I want to be a quant” then you run into the problem in that there may be no jobs whatever this quant thing is. On the other hand, if you say “I want to do cool things with math and computers” your options vastly increase.

2008 will go down as the great defeat of neoclassical economics.  While Ph.D.’s, Nobel Laureates, and pundits debate the efficacy of Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, and the Chicago School of Economics as discussed by Barry Ritholtz on Tuesday, the rest of us will still be reeling from the invisible fist of greed and corruption that took down our old form of capitalism, and replaced it with something still unknown.

While the future of economics, lending, and investment and commercial banking are ripe for change, human nature will likely not be so fortunate.  What economists need to account for is that Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand is capable of making a fist.  What philosophers will be forced to debate is whether Enlightened Selfishness as outlined by Ayn Rand is in fact an intelligent guiding principal for regulation.  And what regulators will need to contend with is a good old house-cleaning.

I have no doubt that the events of 2007, 2008 and likely 2009 are going to change institutions to their core.  From Business Schools to the SEC.  Corporations who were severely levered will find it hard to borrow even after credit markets thaw.  Not so much because credit will forever remain tight, but because our thinking will.   Our grandparents accounts of the great depression, and their stories of debt leading to failure are no longer mythical tales of disconnected financial Luddites, bards from some olden time long since forgotten. Regardless of the accuracy of the portrayal of our current circumstances and the numerous comparisons to the Great Depression, truth is that the current financial maelstrom is worse than most anyone living has ever seen.

In my opinion some of the fundamental assumptions of neoclassical economics need to be rethought, or at least redefined.  Take utility maximization.  The original definition of maximizing utility, was supposed to measure some abstract, immeasurable form of happiness.  Instead, utility has often come to mean wealth as a substitute for happiness, and the concept of wealth maximizing behavior is one of the foundations for welfare economics, a fancy way of talking about the “optimal” way of allocating wealth “efficiently.”

Selfish enlightenment or enlightened self-interest is one of the factors that drives Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand theory.  Enlightened self-interest was supposed to prevent excessive greed, corruption, and/or other market imperfections by assuming that market participants would act in accordance with a mythical set of guiding principals and values that would protect the system as a whole.

One of the first laws of economics is that resources are limited.  That said, I’ve always felt a conflict with the concept of wealth maximizing behavior.  While this could be argued sideways, my net thought is that wealth maximizing behavior, as a driving force is flawed.  If everyone always wanted more, and resources would always be limited, we would at some point reach the end of an unsustainable journey.  I do believe that market participants can be led, sold, marketed to, cajoled, manipulated or forced to want more stuff they don’t need, but it is my supposition that the human condition does not in fact always want more (while there are those who do), most people at the very least don’t want less.  The concept of wanting more may have been appropriate in an agrarian or industrial economy, however in a consumption/service economy, people shift their desires from wanting more to wanting more balance, which often includes compromising wanting more stuff for taking more time which in and of itself may not be adding value to the system as a whole.

Market equilibrium is another oxymoron these days.  If markets are efficient, and if equilibrium is supposed to exist, how have commodity prices exploded and plummeted in the blink of an eye?  Did demand skyrocket and suddenly run out of fuel and then turn down and crash?  Did supply suddenly shrink and miraculously expand at warp speed?  The answer to both of these is of course no.  And the truth is not easy to uncover, however, speculation, leverage, and derivatives I’m sure played a large part.  Market equilibrium might have existed in a time when supply and demand were unlevered.  But in the age of leverage (or gearing as it is called across the pond), demand and supply can be grossly manipulated for profit, and as we now know it can happen in the blink of an eye.  The short dollar/long oil trade was a favorite of “smart money” before the Olympics.  It was almost precisely after the Olympics that the trade unwound, fearful that China’s need to window-dress the countries wealth and efficiency would quickly dissipate.

I don’t claim to be an economist, nor all that bright.  But I do strongly believe in the expression that your business is built to run as well as it does.  Extrapolating that idea, I think our economic system has been/was built in a manner that led us to this point.  While we can, and I have placed blame across a great number of constituencies from mortgage brokers to regulators, the truth is everything that happened was bound to happen given the way we were minding the store.

Should I ever find the time, I’d love to write a long post on the Nobel Prize winners who are at least partly responsible for the frameworks that have failed in their current forms.  In the abscence of that, I look forward to seeing how new and old minds tackle the ideological undertow in the race to save capitalism.  Should capitalism fail, democracy soon shall follow.  Those are events we have not explored, black swans in all their forms, but not further from today than WWII was from 1929.

Jubilant Chemsys , Noida

Jubilant Chemsys Limited offers medicinal chemistry services for the global pharmaceutical and biotech industries. We are a wholly owned subsidiary of Jubilant Organosys Limited, a composite pharmaceutical industry player with a turnover of over US$ 250 million and ~2300 employees. Jubilant Organosys is the largest custom research and manufacturing services (CRAMS) company and a leading manufacturer of active pharmaceutical ingredients in India.

We at Jubilant Chemsys are striving to be a world leader in offering discovery chemistry solutions and are actively looking for top-class talent to be a part of our team.

Jubilant Chemsys provides freehanded work environment, a culture that is open, transparent and performance oriented, a place where you are provided with countless opportunities to learn and grow. We thrive on teamwork and encourage creativity and out of the box thinking in order to deliver innovative, world-class products and services to our clients.

This Job is posted in http://www.jchemsys.com   for more details visit http://www.jchemsys.com/po.htm

Job Description : TRAINEE RESEARCH SCIENTIST

Education : Fresh Ph.Ds in specializing in Organic/ Medicinal Chemistry from a Reputed Institute/Universities

Location : Noida

Experience :  Fresher

Contact Details
    
If a promising career with Jubilant Chemsys excites you, then please email your resume to careers@jchemsys.com

Or post at the following address:

Jubilant Chemsys Ltd.
D – 12, Sector 59
NOIDA – 201 301.
INDIA.

          Back in the day, I knew a Nepali guy who ran a whitewater rafting company. My friends and I hired him to take us on a four or five day trek down some raging torrent tumbling out of the Himalayas. It was so long ago I have no recollection of the guy’s name, the name of the river or even the names of most of my friends, but I do remember the time we emerged from some torrid whirlpool, soaked and disoriented, prying our white fingers reluctantly from the ropes that had kept us from being flung into the roiling, boulder-strewn moil.  Our raft was nearly sunk, full of water, and just as we were taking it all in the guide shouted “bail out!” I obediently and carefully began climbing out of the raft onto a nearby rock, which sent the guy into a raucous bout of merriment, because he meant to bail the water out of the raft, not to bail out. It was not the most embarrassing moment of my life, but since I  had just emerged from a childhood during which pretty much every day was spent being taunted and laughed at by my elder siblings, I was pretty prone to mortification, and thus the moment stuck with me all these years later.

          I do hope that the CEOs of GM and Chrysler, whether they bail out or make bail, are experiencing a similar level of discomfiture. Yeah, right. That’s like expecting a wolverine to be ashamed of its rapaciousness. But we can hope.  The argument has been made that allowing them to go bankrupt will deprive their workers of their pensions, but those pensions are guaranteed by the US government, so giving the money to GM now or later is in some sense immaterial. Another argument for bailing them out is that somehow bankruptcy will shut all operations down, and then all the suppliers and other businesses that interact with the automakers will be adversely affected, and so they would, if the automakers just sort of evaporated from the face of the planet, but they won’t. Even in bankruptcy they’ll be producing huge, useless, unsafe gas-guzzlers; they’ll just have to do it under the stern watch of the courts. And the UAW will have to change its focus from getting everything they can for their members (no one can fault them for that; its what a union is FOR…) to getting all they can for the next generation of workers as well as this one. Perhaps it’s a necessary form of shock therapy.

          An important point that isn’t getting a lot of attention in the press is that there is an ideological line of reasoning concerning whether or not to pump taxpayer money into the auto industry, and then there is a practical one. Ideologically, the free-marketeers say “let ‘em go bankrupt”, whilst the interventionists say “intervene before everyone has to go on welfare; we’d rather give ‘em the money now than later”. Practically speaking, does anyone want the US government running car companies? Methinks not. Not that the US government doesn’t have some really smart, capable and dedicated people in it, its just that their job is regulating industries, not running them, and all the bailout packages that are being discussed involve the government too intimately in the scope of the business. If you want to nationalize the industry: OK. Nationalize it. If you want industry and the government to operate separately, then don’t bail out failed companies. It seems to make sense to me, but what do I know? I’m just a card-carrying member of the peanut gallery.

          Can’t say that about the crew assembling around Prez Elect Barack Obama. Wonks ahoy! They’re saying that he’s putting together a valedictorocracy like it’s a bad thing. I’ve never understood people who think it’s a bad idea to have really smart people governing our country. Personally, I feel much safer and happier knowing that someone smarter than I am is making all the hard decisions so I don’t have to. That’s sort of the point, isn’t it? We choose people whom we trust to take on the business of state so that we can spend our valuable time and brain cells on more important things, like, you know; youtube and the upcoming rock-paper-scissors world championship. So if all those PhDs and “elite” smarty-pantses think the auto industry should either bail out or be bailed out, I defer to their greatness. It’s been so long since I’ve felt like I could trust those in charge to work for the common wheal rather than personal gain – somebody pinch me! No, wait, don’t! Let me live in the dream for five more minutes.

For years I had been looking forward to this moment. Finally, the day came. It was an easygoing day, late autumn. The sun shining, a perfect day for staring at an article but not really reading. Then the knock came on my door. He came in, wearing an ugly purple blouse. All I had to do was unwrap him and put him behind a desk. Which I did.

The first days were marvelous. He sat behind his desk and started working. He read articles (mostly mine), filled out forms (that I fed to him), and constantly he was drinking coffee. Sometimes I fed him with compliments, sometimes with little rewards, and sometimes even with a hint or two. We went through life happily. But then that rueful day came. Our first paper together.

We wrote and wrote. We corrected, tippexed, sweated, typed, fought with Latex, set up SVN, and committed to committing regularly. As time went by the article started to shape up nicely, like our first sweet lovechild. It became beautiful. We reused elegant terms from my PhD thesis that I had invented, we added definitions he came up with, and life was… Beautiful. As the deadline approached it all became better and better. It was as if we were working as one. Together we approached needlepoint perfection. Life truly was grand.

The day of the submission came. I left early, seeing that there was nothing else to do. My little PhD looked at me sideways and said “sure, some minor corrections and I’ll hand it in.” It was a wonderful Friday afternoon. I drove home and for the first time in my life I had written a good paper and handed it in on time. All thanks to my little PhD.

When I arrived home the submission notification was glowing in my inbox. And life was good. It looked so… So… Wait… The title had changed!

BETRAYAL!

He had changed the most important term in the paper! The title had changed, the train of thought was different, the abbreviations had been changed (inconsistently, of course.) And the deadline had passed. I cried a little and had a rotten weekend.

All I could do was take away from him what he holds most deer. His coffee! And my masterplan is working. Ocassionaly I drain a pot without refilling, and when I take coffee myself, I always take the fuller pot! Ha! Revenge is mine! May all PhDs fall asleep behind their desks! Muhahaha! Rotten PhDs.

Dr. Stuart Ravnik, Assistant Dean of the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas will be on campus THIS WEDNESDAY (September 24) recruiting for graduate students.

* Drop in hour to meet with interested students: 2:30-3:30 pm, Room 104 Bond Life Sciences Center

* Presentation to undergraduates (hosted by SURLS-Society for Undergraduate Researchers in Life Sciences- & LS UROP): 5:30-6:30 pm, Room 121 Bond Life Sciences Center

Dr. Ravnik will be presenting information on PhD programs in the basic biomedical sciences (see list below), the MD/PhD program, and the summer research internship program in Dallas. Even if you are not applying this year for graduate school, this is a great way to get thinking about what programs you will want to begin exploring. Juniors, sophomores and freshmen ARE very much welcome to attend!!!!

If you can not meet with Dr. Ravnik during either of these two times and wish to meet with Dr. Ravnick, please contact Linda Blockus (BlockusL@missouri.edu) to arrange for an alternate time on his schedule.

The moment I read that my income depends on the average of the incomes of the ten people closest to me, my financial antennas straightened out.

Quickly, I made a list of the ten people closest to me, including my barber and my unemployed friend. Assuming what these ‘terrible ten’ might be earning based on their apparent lifestyles, I arrived at a fair estimate of my own monthly take-home. It turned out teasingly accurate, I must say!

There you have the apparent benefits of networking. If you can establish close association with even 2 HNIs (High Net-worth Individuals), you can have your earnings zoom past the rooftop. I have already identified one such person in the super-rich bracket.

Besides, did you know that there exist other factors beyond your control that affect how much you earn? Neither did I until a mathematics professor pointed it out, “Buddy! Physics and Economics are strange bedfellows”. He then went on to explain the whole thing.

A high-school Physics textbook defines Power as the ratio of Work to Time. Here is the equation: Power = Work/ Time. To put it simply, more the power generated, more the work done. Also, more the power generated, lesser the time taken.

Here bring in the two popular money idioms – Time is Money; Knowledge is Power. So, all you have to do in the earlier equation is to substitute Knowledge with Power and Time with Money. Then, the new equation becomes: Knowledge = Work/ Money.

Lets analyze this new equation. It says that the more one knows, the more work one has to do. Now comes the unbelievable part, the more one knows, lesser the money one earns. Yes, you may re-read it for it to sink in. Expressed in terms of money: Money = Work/ Knowledge. So, as Knowledge approaches to minimum, Money approaches to maximum, regardless of the Work done. Howzzat for Economics!

The reality seems to nod to this. Which of the top-earning movie stars we know preferred studying for a degree, at the cost of starting out early on a career of their choice? One look at the Forbes’ List of Richest People in the world and you can find out why it includes more dropouts and plain graduates than PhDs and MBAs. Another surprising peek into the lives of top entrepreneurs will tell you how little they knew about the new businesses they were about to step into. Phewww…

Something equally strange, but amazingly real, is the Pareto Principle or the 80-20 Rule. It says that 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. When it comes to wealth, it is difficult to escape the clutches of this simple rule.

Don’t we know that 80% of world’s economic resources are controlled by merely 20% of the nations? Any company will agree that 80% of the sales come from 20% of its clients. Can we also say that 80% of our office work is accomplished in just 20% of our time? If so, 80% of our income comes from just 20% of our efforts. Headspinner, isn’t it?

While we uncover these hidden factors that affect your money, the search also continues for that elusive talisman that can help you earn more than your boss. Hope your boss is not reading this too!