Re: [ECOLOG-L] Grad students: what are they worth, and does their work space effect their productivity? Input gratefully accepted
Alisha, As an abd PhD student I sympathize with your situation. I would like to see my department function without the graduate student population, as they teach many of the classes, produce the majority of the first-author publications, write many of the funding grants, and even take on the peer-review responsibilities of their advisers. On the food-chain of university politics, however, graduate students are very clearly on the bottom. Part of this is justifiable, as we are generally earning a stipend plus free tuition and health insurance, which is not an insubstantial sum. Having written some funding grants, I've become aware of just how much it costs to keep me around! The part that is often underestimated, however, is that the quality of any department is 1) dependent on the quality of the faculty, yes, but 2) also dependent on the quality of the graduate students. As a guy that had options, I came to my present school for three main reasons: 1) I liked my adviser and his realm of study 2) I liked the departments commitment to graduate student funding 3) I liked the graduate student facilities. Honestly, I would have gone somewhere else if I was introduced to the situation you describe. I suppose I'm not directly answering your question, as I don't know of a study specifically assessing the value of graduate students, and workloads and support differ greatly from lab to lab. I've witnessed labs where the great majority of the value being attributed to the faculty member was being produced by graduate students, and I've witnessed quite the opposite. Nonetheless, when a faculty member interviews they always have some common concerns: what's my salary, how much lab space, what's my start-up. Don't think that graduate students aren't doing the same thing (I was), and in my mind, the reason why the best schools are attracting the best graduate students comes down to these fundamental (and rather unscientific) concerns. On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:34 AM, Alisha Dahlstrom alisha.dahlst...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I am currently a phd student in my second year. Currently, within my department, grad students share a small building with several rooms, 5-7 in a room. There is a proposal to uproot all the students (and combine them with grad students in a similar department) to a renovated basement that is currently not being used because it is moldy, has poor ventilation and no natural lighting. Apart from a few short partitions, this would be a large shared space that packed as many students in as possible (about 40; you can imagine the potential noise and disruptions). As the grad student rep, when I explained this to the proponent of this new plan and asked for his justification, it was that grad students aren't worth much to a university (monetarily speaking, at least, undergrads earn a school more) and it would be nice for visitors to see all the students in one space. As this plan seems to be moving forward rapidly, I would really like to pull together some documentation that supports my belief that 1) grad students will have a higher completion rate and better output in a better (e.g., quieter and well-lit) work environment and 2) grad students are actually valuable to a university. In my cursory, search, I haven't had much luck - does anyone have any suggestions or input? Feel free to email me directly. Cheers, Alisha
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc
Well it's undeniably true that an overwhelming number of solicitations in the field specifically ask for this particular connection. It's also true more and more in the literature that any paper no matter how loosely connected to climate change seems to feel obligated to talk about it. There are probably many scientists, particularly in the carbon game, that wouldn't be here but for the fact that overall funding in the environmental field is so minuscule (compared to say that apportioned for health or defense) that one needs to pick spots where they can actually work. Like it or not, money leads research, but if environmental scientists were only interested in landing fat grants, they'd be MUCH better off in another field. You'll find more pvc and duct tape in an ecology lab than in a plumbers van, mostly because we can't afford anything else (and hell it works!). I've also never come across a solicitation that told it's recipients what to find. As long as the methods are sound, scientists are generally free to make their own conclusions. This is one of the areas in which science is fundamentally misunderstood by the public, as the rigorous progression of a novel idea to a paradigm is not something that happens without serious challenges from within the community itself. There isn't a greater community of skeptics on the planet! What's more, skepticism is encouraged within the realm of intelligent debate. There isn't one of us that wouldn't like to conclusively prove that climate change isn't happening, which is why the near consensus on the topic (at least with regards to the overall trend) is so impressive. I'm not aware of many scientists who have somehow enriched themselves in climate change research. To me this makes the money claims levied by the disenfranchised millionaires (billionaires?) in the fossil fuel industry, beyond absurd. What detractors misunderstand is that if someone is getting rich off climate science it sure isn't us. On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: ECOLOG: One of the major propaganda statements of those opposed to climate change research and actions to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that money is a major motivation behind what they claim is a fraud. Funding requests are often cited, and the claim has been made that, for example, all you have to do to get your proposal funded is to mention 'climate change,' 'global warming,' or some similar buzz-phrase. To what extent do you think this might be true? WT
Re: [ECOLOG-L] transporting the LI-COR 6400 via backpack
Hey Ray, I've hiked many kilometers with a Licor on my back and for the most part did it all with a Dana Designs backpack. The Licor itself fit perfectly in the bottom compartment, the hoses came out the side, and the chamber fit into one of the side compartments. For sampling on the fly I used a carpenter's toolbelt as a holster for the chamber. I carried batteries in the top compartment. I had many sites spread out over rough terrain in Montana and this got me through all my graduate sampling with nay a scratch to the Licor (alright maybe a scratch). Basically, I would suggest finding a backpack large enough to accomodate the setup. It rides pretty well and kept the weight on my hips. Hope this helps. DM On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Ray Yurkewycz rpy...@yahoo.com wrote: Before fabricating a setup for carrying the costly and heavy LICOR 6400 on a backpack, I'm wondering if anyone has attempted this before? There are a few pictures of older setups (i.e. mid-90's), but I'd like to create something that keeps the LICOR, power source (a car battery for 8 hours of data collection), and attachments usable while moving from site to site (10's-100's of meters). Any help or input would be much appreciated! Thanks, Ray Yurkewycz Graduate Student Washington State University - Vancouver
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Toughts about teaching...
An interesting conundrum Matheus and one I think about quite a bit, as it addresses the purpose of our public universities especially. And as a college sports fan who scoffs at the NCAA's supposed commitment to its student athletes it adds another dimension to that hypocrisy. Are we first and foremost educational institutions, or are we research and sports factories? As a PhD student who has won awards for both teaching and research I remember this exchange vividly. After accepting a University teacher award, I was then announced for a research prize. The presenter exclaimed, Wow, a teacher that can do research! This was either a condescending statement aimed at those who value teaching, or simply an expression of the normal perception that there's only room for one or the other, particularly at large research Universities. You are absolutely right that good teaching takes time and at many Universities is not a particularly coveted quality. In my view, this is one of the reasons for run away grade inflation, as it's much easier to give everyone A's and B's, keeping the kids happy, rather than deeply and accurately assessing their progress and scheming ways to help them (and you) improve. Good teaching is difficult, and as you mentioned, is seldom rewarded by the administration. The rewards of the student you help on their way, however, are immeasurable. As I'm in the midst of a job search right now, I can tell you that no one has asked about my teaching credentials, outside of teaching universities, though in the private sector, many take them at least as a sign that I'm able to communicate and work well with others. In a system that is overly obsessed with a questionable rating structure, only the things that are accurately quantified survive: how much have you written, where did you publish, how much grant money have you pulled in. Teaching then gets lost in the shuffle. And as someone who's seen both systems at work from the inside (the smaller teaching-oriented school, to the large research university) I can assure you that my kids will be encouraged to go to the former for their undergraduate education. The later is for graduate students. Best, D On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Matheus Carvalho meumi...@yahoo.com.brwrote: This is not really about ecology, but I think some people here could agree with the following statement (from the book Applied Economics - thinking beyond stage one by Thomas Sowell): ...a common but paradoxical phenomenon at many universities—the outstand- ing young teacher who is terminated, to the consternation of his students, who may even mount organized protests, usually in vain. It is even common on some campuses to hear the teacher of the year award referred to as the kiss of death for young faculty members. That is because outstanding teaching is very time-con- suming, in terms of creating high-quality courses and preparing each lecture in these courses, so that there is insufficient time left for doing the amount and quality of research required for getting tenure at a top university. Such institutions usually fill their senior positions by hiring those people who have already produced the requisite quantity and quality of publications somewhere else. Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com
Re: [ECOLOG-L] EdD vs PhD
This question was absolutely legitimate, and I would like to personally apologize to Jay for the disgraceful level of professionalism exhibited by some of the respondents. To say that I was disappointed in some of the comments is an understatement. EdD or PhD, this thread has certainly proven that there are some very basic levels of intelligence that even the most pompous intellectual blowhard (perhaps more than most) doesn't quite grasp. There are a number of people that attach a little too much self-importance to the piece of paper that hangs on their wall, and in a meritocracy, such as we claim to be, the only measure of worth in this life is what you DO. There are plenty of PhD's out there that have produced nothing but derivative garbage from day one. And there are plenty of college dropouts that have changed the world. Lest we forget that a 3rd rate patent clerk revolutionized modern science while the world's greatest PhD's wet themselves, it seems that we could all use a good dose of humility. PhD or EdD? The response to the question was very simple. What do you want to do? The two degrees are very different, not superior or inferior, and qualify you for different professions. There have been a few posts that have illustrated these differences quite nicely. The rest have me blinking in disbelief, and I would only encourage Jay to give us another chance if he has another question sometime, because this time we let him (and ourselves) down. D. Muth University of Virginia Environmental Sciences On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:56 PM, David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com wrote: What??? The person who started this thread asked a legitimate question -- the kind of question this listserv is for, i.e., to seek advice on some professional matter from peers. The trolls came later. Dave =?iso-8859-1?Q?MTS?= wrote: Wow. This thread is sort of reminding me of the whole science vs. creationism topic that appeared on the Entomology listserv out of UGuelph. While this thread is certainly entertaining I question the intent of the original poster and will put forth the possibility of an internet troll looking to cause trouble. Honestly, it's so easy to touch a nerve in cyberspace especially when you can do it fairly anonymously. To pit one profession against another, particularly in this case since there has always been tension on this topic, just reeks of trolling IMO. Not to mention if the original poster was really making this big of decision..where is he now and why is he asking for life altering information on an internet listserv? I mean, come on this guy presumably has a whole university at his finger tips and should, at least by this point, have enough personal experience and self motivation to figure this out. It's not like the two fields in question are so similar that you'd really need know the minute differences to make the best decision, in fact, these two fields are so very different in fundimentals and in duties that it shouldn't so hard you have to ask a bunch of strangers what's right. So far the only response from him was a list of things that could add fuel to the fire. Maybe I'm just overly suspisous but it's not the first time something like this has happened on a professional science board and it wouldn't be the last. Heck, I've seen email scams on listserv's. Anyway, since everyone is spouting that is what I have to say. -- -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku -- Richard Brautigan
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Forest fluxes
Bill, At issue here is really why we care about rain forest removal. Within the lens of a carbon-cycle or Climate Change debate, we care about them because they represent large carbon stocks that are kept out of the atmosphere. Of course there is an important difference between the term carbon stock and carbon sink. The article mentions that young forests tend to sequester CO2 out of the atmosphere at greater rates than their mature counterparts, and this is absolutely correct. The same phenomena is observed in nearly all forest ecotypes, be they temperate or tropical, and makes sense given the intense vertical competition incurred in early forest development. Early forests are impressive carbon sinks. Mature forests have large carbon stocks. Foresters have indirectly understood this for years from a biomass point of view, limiting their rotations to 25-35-50 years and harvesting the timber when it reached a threshold whereby the slowing rate of growth made biomass gains less profitable. Mature rain forests are not large carbon sinks. At this stage the increasing respiration generated by older slower-growing trees, and soil micro-organisms offsets many of the gains of photosynthesis. Surprising ecosystems like Mangrove forests and sub-alpine forests remain sinks in maturity because of respiration limitations: in Mangroves, anoxia limits soil respiration, and in sub-alpine forests, cold and water stress limit soil respiration. Sinks or Stocks. What do we care about? At it's simplest, we should probably most care about stocks, as this represents carbon unavailable to the atmosphere. The other argument about whether a young forest functions in the same capacity as a Mature forest is a different matter. There are probably not too many people on this list that would argue that a primary stand delivers the same biogeochemical, ecological, hydrologic, and energy balance properties observed in a Mature stand. A value decision about what is good enough then comes into play. That's when things get sticky. You may have heard about the North American Carbon Sink, which is largely due to the recovery of our once heavily-logged forests over the last century or so. This does not mean that the biomass of North American forests is somehow holding as much Carbon as it was in pre-colonial times. It simply means that there has been some recovery, as there now seems to be in certain areas of the rain forest (though not enough to completely mitigate the effects of initial deforestation). Mature forests hold more carbon in the Biosphere. If it's not there, you can bet that much of it is circulating in the atmosphere. DM On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 5:21 AM, Bill Silvert cien...@silvert.org wrote: I was intrigued to see this in the New York Times. I have no background in this area and would be interested in seeing what more knowledgable list members might have to say. Also I recently heard a statement that there is a significant amount of anaerobic decomposition under old growth forests that should be factored into calculations of biogeochemical fluxes, and it would be interesting to hear about that too. Bill Silvert January 30, 2009 New Jungles Prompt a Debate on Rain Forests By [LINK: http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylLv1=ELISABETH%20ROSENTHALfdq=19960101td=sysdatesort=newestac=ELISABETH%20ROSENTHALinline=nyt-per ] ELISABETH ROSENTHAL CHILIBRE, [LINK: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/panama/index.html?inline=nyt-geo ] Panama — The land where Marta Ortega de Wing raised hundreds of pigs until 10 years ago is being overtaken by galloping jungle — palms, lizards and ants. Instead of farming, she now shops at the supermarket and her grown children and grandchildren live in places like Panama City and New York. Here, and in other tropical countries around the world, small holdings like Ms. Ortega de Wing's — and much larger swaths of farmland — are reverting to nature, as people abandon their land and move to the cities in search of better livings. These new secondary forests are emerging in Latin America, Asia and other tropical regions at such a fast pace that the trend has set off a serious debate about whether saving primeval [LINK: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/forests_and_forestry/rain_forests/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier ] rain forest — an iconic environmental cause — may be less urgent than once thought. By one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster. There is far more forest here than there was 30 years ago, said Ms. Ortega de Wing, 64, who remembers fields of mango trees and banana plants. The new forests, the scientists argue, could blunt the effects of rain forest destruction by
