I would never keep someone in my lab for my own purposes or those of the department or university. Why? Not only is it unethical it is totally counterproductive. The person has skills/talents that could be used elsewhere, so let them go. Let them be their best and reach their highest potential. We have a moral obligation to see someone do and be their best. The focus on money has clouded our vision and instead of thinking about what we can do with what we have, we only think of what we can’t do and could only do better or more of if we had more. Ideas are free. If you have one or more, then share. Keep sharing and keep getting new ones. Why lock them up or fear that others might *steal* them? If they use them for the greater good, then fine. If not, then move on. Our society and science is not going to advance when we restrict others, keep ideas to ourselves, or dwell on the negative. We only end up hurting ourselves.
Steve From: Malcolm McCallum <malcolm.mccallum.ta...@gmail.com<mailto:malcolm.mccallum.ta...@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, May 29, 2015 at 11:06 AM To: Steve Young <sl...@cornell.edu<mailto:sl...@cornell.edu>> Cc: ecolog <ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu<mailto:ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Graduate School Advice I am here offering an observation I had a few years back in regard to postdocs and advisors. i have a friend who was workig as a hard-money postdoc at a middle tier R1. This guy was incrediblely talented. the area of research he did was kinetics of proteins. essentialy, his advisor's lab was being fueled to a large degree (at times up to 100%) by this single postdocs' efforts. the advisor was enormously supportive of him. And this guy did get interviews. he had the restriction that his research area required access to cerrtain high-ticket instrumentation, so he really could only apply to the mega-universities with big budget start ups. One day I walked into the dept head's office for business, and he was writing a reference letter for this pd. i mentioned that i found it amazing he had been locked into a PD for so long. The Head remarked that it was hard writing the letter because, on one hand he liked the guy and he really wanted him to do well. On the other hand, he was so valuable to the department, he really did not want him to go....but hiring him is not an option. today, it occurred to me that this scenario might be more widespread than this single instance. think about it. You are a doctoral/postdoctoral advisor, the chair of a dept or whatever, and the most valuable PD asks you for a reference. You can kill that applicant completely unintentionally simply due to the internal bias arising from personal gain. A conflict of interest of sorts. To avoid this, i wonder if any advisors ever ask a third party to read over their letter for accidental inclusions that are unintentionally damaging to the candidate? Then, from an applicant's perspective, I wonder how many people use the exact same three references on every application? I would love for someone to comment on this. Also, it might be good advise for advisors to ask someone they trust to read over a letter to make sure it sounds the way you intend. I also advise applicants to rotate through 4-5 or more letter writers. For applicants, this would reduce workloads on your references and it would also help to water down the effects of possible mis-speak, conflicts of interest, and even deliberate trashing. from the letter writer's perspective, it will help make sure the person you are writing for gets the due diligence you intend to deliver. I would really like to hear the thoughts about this, because I really can believe that indeliberate actions in all areas of life are more damaging than the sum total of deliberate actions that people take. Its kind of like non-verbal cues during communication. More information is delivered unintentionally than intentionally. Malcolm On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Stephen L. Young <sl...@cornell.edu<mailto:sl...@cornell.edu>> wrote: Not so. Aaron continues to make the point that all of academia is corrupt and headed in the wrong direction based on his own troubling experience. This broad stroke approach gets the debate going, largely because it has a personal attack on all, regardless of whether guilty or innocent of the charges that all academic mentors have taken advantage of graduate students. I find this to be a gross oversight by Aaron and would prefer that he present a more balanced argument and acknowledge that there are good, trustworthy, and Œdecent¹ mentors in academia that have genuine concern for students. To not do so brings into question his entire argument and credibility at any level. Steve On 5/28/15, 1:47 PM, "Jonathan Colburn" <col...@gmail.com<mailto:col...@gmail.com>> wrote: >Aaron's response does not extend past conversations being had on this >listserv regarding the predatory nature of "the sciences" upon graduate >students, postdocs, tenure-seeking professors, and end-of-career tenured >professors. While Aaron clearly generalizes, his is a practical warning >about the dangers of being naive, and the listserv has openly discussed so >many of these issues over the past few years: > >- There are many scientists on the lower levels who are being taken >advantage of as cheap labor while not having legitimate opportunities to >enter their chosen career. > >- There is not much funding to match the needs of as many of the >scientists >as in the past. > >- Career prospects are delayed, and are fewer than in the past. > >- A very large percent of graduate students are not exercising enough >brilliance to be relevant in academia. > >To have such discussions commonly on the listserv, then act towards Ms. >Mydlowski as if Aaron's note is unusual is indicative of ignorance, or >worse, intentionally misleading. Shouldn't we regularly inform incoming >graduate students of the systemic issues in STEM fields - the ones that >we're all talking about here on the ecology listserv, alongside offering >them guidance on how to navigate the system? It's fine to call Aaron on >his one-sided evaluation. However, he is reframing the debate on whether >choosing a career involving higher academia is something that a person who >values themself would do, and on what terms one can have the best chance >at >a fulfilling career. > >Best, >Jon > >Jonathan Colburn, M.Sc. | 352.328.7610 >Founder and CEO, Nyssa Ecological, Inc. | >nyssaecological.com<http://nyssaecological.com> >ISA arborist, certificate no. FL-6572A >On May 27, 2015 2:41 PM, "Emily Mydlowski" ><emilymydlow...@gmail.com<mailto:emilymydlow...@gmail.com>> >wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> I'm delving into the graduate school search (MS and PhD programs) quite >> heavily and am seeking advice regarding approaching faculty with a >>research >> project. The system I'm interested in working on is that which has many >> unanswered, interesting questions I would love to pursue. From a faculty >> perspective, is proposing a project topic (too) bold of a move to a >> potential advisor? >> >> Any advice would be much appreciated. >> >> All the best, >> >> Emily Mydlowski >> Northern Michigan University >> -- Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP Environmental Studies Program Green Mountain College Poultney, Vermont Link to online CV and portfolio : https://www.visualcv.com/malcolm-mc-callum?access=18A9RYkDGxO “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.” -President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973 into law. "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
