So yeah, I got to thinking today… I use Linux and various other open-source programs instead of Windows for a variety of reasons, but one of those is that the information contained within is freely available to anyone who wants it. What does that mean? Well, it means that if you download the “source code” of the Linux kernel and other “open-source” programs, you can edit it and tweak it to your heart’s content. If you decide you don’t like the way a certain function of the program works, you can (assuming you know some programming…) change it to fit your purpose. The reason why this is cool is that it allows knowledge to travel freely between different groups; what one person starts with a program can be learned from and transferred to another application, allowing for the programming itself to improve over time.
Now, switch gears into science. My plan has been to get my Ph.D. and then work in industry for awhile, making some cash, and then maybe switch back into academia and teach for a few years to alleviate boredom around retirement time. The correlation is that academia is like “open-source,” where information is published and freely available for other scientists to learn from and take a step further, while industry is like “closed-source” where you work toward patents that can allow you to make money and prevent y our opponents from coming up with a solution to a given problem that’s better than yours.
So, the question remains: am I hypocritical in using open-source software, believing in what it stands for, and then getting a job and making a career in industry where I will work in a “closed-source” environment? I mean, I have relatively expensive hobbies (computers/electronics, etc.) and I’d like to be able to finance them, and to do so, I need a job in industry so I can afford that 1969 Shelby Mustang…but is it right to compromise principles in doing so?
I dunno…I guess there’s no simple answer to the question…but I’ve got 5 years to figure it out…
Yes!! Sell yourself to the man…I need a farm and teaching just isn’t going to pay for goats, pigs, and chickens!
Andy wants a ’69 Shelby Cobra… Brooke wants goats.
A solution? Work in Academia and win the Nobel Prize. I believe the value of that sucker is like 1.2 million.
Then you can have your car, your chickens, and help better the world all without selling your soul.
Ya gotta ask yourself, “what would a stripper do?” Then go collect a fatty paycheck.
The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I know the software case is different than the science case, but still:
I work for industry (sort of), and I contribute to open source projects, from time spent at work. Usually it’s little more than bug fixes to existing features, but on occassion I’ve contributed small, new features. You may get lucky and find a position where you can contribute to projects that benefit society as a whole (I can’t think of any specific science examples, but I’m sure there are some).
Even then, your example and influence can be important after time as well. For example, before I came in and suggested it, no one at work would ever consider using Linux for anything. It’s all Windows or AIX or whatever. Now, all the servers for our (large) project run linux – this saves the non-profit i work for megabucks a year not having to pay useless Windows licensing fees. Because of that same influence, our giant PAX system runs on linux too.
The one other thing to consider is that most professors I’m aware of still make BANK, unless you work at a community college or something. I know the profs where my woman is make 1xx,xxx a year, which isn’t exactly poverty.
I think that there are examples in industry that allow you to publish every once and awhile…but I think that, many times, it’s done similarly to reasons why Netscape was open-sourced (i.e. we can’t afford the research, so let’s put it in the public domain so someone else can do it for us and then we can profit off their work…).
As far as “making bank,” if I do become a professor, I’d prefer to do it at a school like Truman that involves teaching, rather than heavy, grant-driven research. The professors here at SLU make a decent living, but they spend their time writing grants, not working in the lab. They make time to help students when they have questions, but the professors don’t like doing it because any time that’s spent with students is taking away from the data they need to write a grant and make more money. Even worse, at Wash U, your salary (so I’m told…) comes out of your grant money, not from the school. And, according to the State of Missouri website, which reports salaries for professors at their universities, Dr. Baughmann and Dr. Fountain are among the highest-paid science professors and they’re making $85,000 or so…and they’ve taught there for over 30 years…so at the kind of school I’d want to teach at, I wouldn’t make much…
Earth to andy, 85k in MO is a humongous shitload of cash.
I’m going to have to agree. 85k is amazing and in Kville the cost of living is so low that’s like 100k. I mean just think about how much cheaper housing is there.
Of course don’t forget tenure is the goal in academia – I doubt anyone starts out making 85k in kirksville.
Dude…$85,000 is starting for many Ph.D. pharmacology jobs…that $85k is after working for 30 years in academia… But yeah, it’s true that cost of living in Kirksville is dirt cheap…but again, I wouldn’t want to live there until closer to retirement so I don’t have to raise children in that skool system 😛