ask a physicist

[freyar]

[Probably in my genuine ignorance] this sounds incredibly speculative. Is this so intertwined with our understanding of quantum mechanics to say it's a given? "To the extent that the following is probable" is likely the answer...

Well, models of cosmology that have false vacuum decay are by their nature at least somewhat speculative, but they're easily accommodated in pretty normal models of particle physics. In any case, though there are still some arguments over the details, the basic calculation in this type of case is pretty well understood. It's not quite basic quantum mechanics, but it's an extension that's by now a part of the graduate school curriculum. Anyway, the upshot is that, while it's possible to set up rapid decays, usual sets of model parameters will lead to very very slow decays.

You're saying that the models that connect DM to DE are sick, not the existance of DE being sick? [The existance of DE is well established, I assume]

The former. The acceleration of the universe, the explanation of which goes by "dark energy," is well-established enough that it won the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics. Incidentally, it boggles the mind that the discovery of dark matter, which is back up by more evidence and happened decades prior to the discovery of dark energy, still doesn't have a Nobel Prize. My guess is that someone on the committee just doesn't like dark matter (an alternative is modifying Newtonian's 2nd law F=ma, though that doesn't explain most of the evidence for dark matter, including lensing in clusters), but the cynical side in me wonders if it's because they'd have to give a share of the prize to a woman. The Nobels, especially in physics, have a truly atrocious record for acknowledging the contributions of women in science.

 

[freyar]

Oh, and again, props to all of you guys for putting up with this. "The patience of Job" comes to mind...

Not a problem. It's not really part of my job, but I feel a responsibility to explain this kind of stuff to the public. Plus it's fun!

 

[Umbran]

It's not really part of my job....

*sigh*. That is a problem with hard sciences academia today. The roles of research and education should be separate, as they are really separate skillsets, but the system rewards only research - for those that do education, it is only as a responsibility added on to the role of researcher, or as a really horribly crappy part time role.

The result is some really brilliant people who couldn't teach their way out of a paper bag at the front of classrooms.

 

[freyar]

*sigh*. That is a problem with hard sciences academia today. The roles of research and education should be separate, as they are really separate skillsets, but the system rewards only research - for those that do education, it is only as a responsibility added on to the role of researcher, or as a really horribly crappy part time role.

The result is some really brilliant people who couldn't teach their way out of a paper bag at the front of classrooms.

Well, what you say is true in a number of cases (especially at "research 1" universities), but that's not actually what I was saying. For one thing, at very many universities --- certainly the large majority by numbers if not by reputation --- teaching takes primary importance over research at least in terms of job expectations. That is certainly true at my job. The issue, as I think you'd probably agree, is that there is little training for teaching at the university level (in science, anyway), and what exists is quite often so poor quality to be a total waste of time. That said, there are, in addition to the brilliant researchers but crappy lecturers, many brilliant researchers who are also gifted at teaching.

What I actually meant was specifically that answering physics questions informally on an internet forum primarily devoted to RPGs isn't something I get paid for. My job description is officially 40% teaching, 40% research, and 20% service. In practice, during the 8-month school year, I have 10-20% of my time for research (if I work nights/weekends) in a year when I've taught everything previously, so I need to put most of my summer work into research (though I also usually teach a good number of students through research project supervision, which is more time-consuming than it sounds). Service covers everything from university governance (ie, committee work), some professional service (like refereeing or conference organization, though some of that overlaps with research), and outreach to the public. In a sense, this thread would go into that last category, but because it's not easily verifiable (like a public lecture would be, say) due to (a) semi-anonymity and (b) the fact that no one in my university is going to search through EN World threads for physics topics, I can't practically claim it as an outreach activity. I do, however, generally take part in a number of outreach events each year, including lectures at libraries/retirement centers, short radio/TV spots, and even once speaking at an event for Neil deGrasse Tyson's visit to the other local university.

 

[freyar]

... The roles of research and education should be separate, as they are really separate skillsets...

One other thing on this point: I do largely agree, but not entirely. Specifically, "research education," ie experiential learning through involvement in original research projects, is an important part of education in science, and I'd argue that it's become critical even for students who go directly into the workforce (without getting an advanced degree). It has helped some of my former students get jobs, and I'd argue that the type of independent, critical thinking and problem-solving it fosters is crucial for society. So that's one reason research is implicitly tied to education. Another is that teaching is much more time-consuming than many people suppose, and someone with a 100% teaching position isn't likely to have the time to keep abreast of recent developments in science. Just doing that is a non-negligible part of my (research) workday and often the only research I have time to do. For myself, that informs some of what I choose to teach in class and certainly informs what I teach informally when I talk to students at other times. Research and teaching are not totally unrelated. (Not that I think you mean that, but I like to elaborate on things, as you can probably tell.)

The other thing, of course, is that universities are increasingly being run as corporations and there is already a squeeze on research/teaching positions (tenure-stream faculty) many places in favor of teaching faculty on short-term contracts (who are effectively paid less than minimum wage given the amount of work it takes to teach a single class). That has its own problems both for those instructors and also for students, but it also raises the question of how basic science will get done if not at universities. I think most people reading this thread would agree that basic science does provide a social good.

Anyway, I'm interested to hear your (Umbran's and everybody else's) thoughts.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The other thing, of course, is that universities are increasingly being run as corporations and there is already a squeeze on research/teaching positions (tenure-stream faculty) many places in favor of teaching faculty on short-term contracts (who are effectively paid less than minimum wage given the amount of work it takes to teach a single class). That has its own problems both for those instructors and also for students, but it also raises the question of how basic science will get done if not at universities. I think most people reading this thread would agree that basic science does provide a social good.

I hear you on the 'adjunct instructor' thing, it really is slave wages, you'd be lucky to clear $10 an hour teaching a class, unless its one you teach repeatedly, and even then its not a very lucrative career choice, having experienced this lovely little form of serfdom myself. I guess its not the worst job ever, but it surely doesn't promote quality in education. The schools really have little idea of the adjunct's teaching ability and mostly have to rely on student evaluations to decide who to keep using (if they agree to come back at all). Myself and several other adjuncts quickly learned that the students were quite aware of their power and exercised it unmercifully, so that in effect the freshman-level classes we were teaching rapidly became a joke. If everyone didn't get an 'A' on every test the instructor was out on his ass pretty quickly (happened to a couple of my friends). I still liked the teaching, but I wouldn't recommend it either to prospective adjuncts nor to any university that cares about quality.

And yes, exactly how WOULD science get done outside universities? I guess the only 2 models we have are corporate science, which has several obvious drawbacks, and 'gentleman science' as it existed in the 17th-19th Century (which was still pretty closely tied to universities and evolved into the current system). I guess we have 'government science', but that has limited appeal as well... I think we're stuck with universities!

 

[Umbran]

One other thing on this point: I do largely agree, but not entirely. Specifically, "research education," ie experiential learning through involvement in original research projects, is an important part of education in science

I agree it is an important part of modern education. But, being a good researcher doesn't give you, or otherwise imply you have, the skills or temperament necessary to handle the educational aspect.

In my own experience, across several universities, considering both faculty and staff, every one who gets through or teaches the programs is knowledgeable and capable in the field - they know the science, and they know how to do research properly. However, only about a third of these people should be teaching. While you are correct that the standard Masters or Doctoral program in the hard sciences doesn't include a lot of training in teaching, even if you gave my classmates the proper training, most of them weren't ever going to be particularly good teachers.

That's okay. It is also my observation that the really best teachers were not the best researchers - they were okay at it, could do it properly, as I said, but honestly weren't going to be major grant winners, much less movers and shakers at the cutting edge. There are some who are really stunning at both, but those are rare gems, and we should not use them as the model for the system as a whole. We shouldn't be making competent scientists teach if that's not their proclivity, and we shouldn't be making good teachers "publish or perish".

Quite honestly, the 40%, 40%, 20% division you mention above is inefficient and wasteful of talent. The folks who are really good at teaching should have that has their main focus, and should have reduced research burdens, and vice versa.

Another is that teaching is much more time-consuming than many people suppose, and someone with a 100% teaching position isn't likely to have the time to keep abreast of recent developments in science.

I agree, but having a responsibility for doing original research is also not going to keep them abreast of recent developments, except within their narrow area of research. Real continuing education is a separate activity from either teaching or research, IMHO.

The other thing, of course, is that universities are increasingly being run as corporations

I am hoping recent trends will force a revision of the current, administration-heavy model for universities that seems to be largest driver of cost increases. Specifically, the fact that college and university enrollment seems to have peaked n 2011. Reduced revenues will require the universities to rethink their staffing. And, well, the faculty produce the product, and the administration does not. Eventually, they'll need to stop squeezing the productive workforce, and start cutting the admin side.

 

[freyar]

Not going to quote everything from those last two posts since this thread has slowed down enough that I think we know what we're talking about...

AA --- you have my sympathies on the contract instruction (I just can't call it "adjunct" since "adjunct" traditionally has meant someone with another job, such as at a company or another university, who might be allowed some privileges including student supervision). My wife taught a couple of classes on a 1-term contract last year, and we both decided the money was no where near enough to compensate for the work and stress.

And, Umbran, I basically agree with what you're saying. I just am not sure there's a clean separation. I can point to my own university for an example, where there is some shifting of responsibilities. We have quite a few instructors (teaching only), even permanent ones, and they are quite good teachers (at least the ones in physics). But most of them don't have the perspective on the subject that seems necessary either to teach the upper-division courses or to think about planning the entire curriculum. I do agree that a lack of current research is probably not the sole or even main factor in this, but I suspect the big issue is that these instructors (chosen for teaching ability) have never done research for an extended time or in significant amounts. My experience is that you don't get how all the subjects that appear to be different when they're packaged in separate classes really fit together until you're out there trying to work out something new yourself. So I guess my point is that good teaching of the advanced subjects seems to require a viewpoint developed by doing research. Just to complete an earlier thought, even though the 40-40-20 split is common to all our "research faculty," the actual teaching load is reduced for those of us with external grants, so what you suggest is implemented somewhat (and this is true at other schools, too, as I'm sure you know).

Regarding continuing education, my observation (anecdotal, I guess) is that the good researchers do keep abreast of what's happening not just in their narrow specialty but at least in their somewhat broader field. It helps generate new research ideas, after all. Full time teaching just doesn't leave time for that, unless you want to kill yourself from lack of sleep.

I hope you're right about cutting the admin a bit. I feel lucky that my university isn't too admin-heavy yet, but it has crept that way a bit. Unfortunately, so far, the approach has not been to cut administration but rather to accumulate vacancies in permanent academic staff (through retirement, etc) and replace them with low cost contract instructors. The problem is not as bad here in Canada as in the US due to stronger (a little) unions, but it is still an issue.

 

[Landifarne]

As a high school teacher (physics and chemistry), for every hour I spend actively teaching students I spend one hour prepping, grading, fixing/fabricating equipment, responding to parents and cleaning. That equates to nearly 30 hours of instruction and 30 hours of ancillary work each week. I'm sure collegiate and university professors have a similar ratio.

The part-time junior college professors and university lecturers are the ones with really screwed up jobs, as they have zero job security and make very little.

At UCLA (which I'm familiar with, having been a student there and have a friend who was a principal researcher there for 20 years), tenured faculty teach for two quarters and have one quarter free of teaching dutiies. Summer comprises another free quarter. They teach two classes (4-5 hours each week, per class), making their jobs 50% teaching/50% research during their teaching quarters. They are also expected to spend 10% of their overall time performing departmental duties (committees, etc.)

That all seems very reaosnable for a Tier-1 university, but I was disgusted to find that undergraduate fees accounted for 35% of UCLA's overall revenue stream, while undergraduate instruction only amounted to only 3.7% of its expenditures. Undergratuates were subsidizing everything else.

That said, the tenured professors were generally abyssmal instructors, wheres the contract lecturers tended to be quite good.

 

[freyar]

As a high school teacher (physics and chemistry), for every hour I spend actively teaching students I spend one hour prepping, grading, fixing/fabricating equipment, responding to parents and cleaning. That equates to nearly 30 hours of instruction and 30 hours of ancillary work each week. I'm sure collegiate and university professors have a similar ratio.

If I had 30 instruction hours, I'd have to get the ratio down to 1:1, but I honestly spend closer to 2:1 prep:instruction even for classes I've taught before. It's considerably more when I teach a class for the first time.

At UCLA (which I'm familiar with, having been a student there and have a friend who was a principal researcher there for 20 years), tenured faculty teach for two quarters and have one quarter free of teaching dutiies. Summer comprises another free quarter. They teach two classes (4-5 hours each week, per class), making their jobs 50% teaching/50% research during their teaching quarters. They are also expected to spend 10% of their overall time performing departmental duties (committees, etc.)

That all seems very reaosnable for a Tier-1 university, but I was disgusted to find that undergraduate fees accounted for 35% of UCLA's overall revenue stream, while undergraduate instruction only amounted to only 3.7% of its expenditures. Undergratuates were subsidizing everything else.

That said, the tenured professors were generally abyssmal instructors, wheres the contract lecturers tended to be quite good.

Funny, I spent several years hanging around UCLA a lot since my wife did her MS there (I was in school up the coast a bit but lived in LA). I know she found some of the tenure-stream profs good and some bad with respect to teaching, but she didn't have any contract lecturers as a grad student, of course. What she did find is that teaching assistants really had a rough deal in terms of the number of hours they were supposed to work, etc (and it's apparently gotten worse with the state budget cuts).

As for undergraduates subsidizing everything else, that's true in I think quite a large percentage of universities, and I think it's gotten more true as public funding has shrunk. I am curious about that 3.7% figure though --- is that only counting instructor/professor salaries for contact time or is it more inclusive, like taking into account a share of the (ballooning) administrative costs?