🚀 go-pugleaf

pb019@csc.albany.edu (Partha Banerjee) etched in electrons for all to
see:

>In article <3ulcqa$flk@upsn2.u-psud.fr>,
>OGER  <oger@trefle.isv.cnrs-gif.fr> wrote:
>>Hi Wolfgang,
>>
>>It is unfortunately the same in France. They are reducing both the
>>number of grants, and their duration, from 3 years to 2 or 2 and a half
>>years. They say two year is enough to get a Ph D! Probably in math and 
>>computer science, but not in Biological Sciences.
>>
>>Unfortunately for us too, we are not allowed live on unemployement
>>benefits, and work at the same time, so we are to work for free!
>>
>>Phil


>In U.S., if you are a good basketball player (and especially a college 
>drop-out), you become a millionaire. On the other hand, if you are a good
>scientist (and especially work long and hard enough to be a Ph.D.), you are 
>a loser.

[more moans deleted]

I don't want to pee on you parade, but do I think that sci.chem is the
wrong newsgroup for this.

I would like to note that you are confusing what you value with what
society values, and then saying that society should be more like you.
While such rants are fun to engage in, they do little to change
society.  When I can get 50,000 people to pay $30-$50 each to watch me
do what I do best, then I will be a millionaire right up there with
Micheal Jackson or Barbara Streisand.  


Harold C. Brashears, PhD		
Univ. of Southern Mississippi		
Mississippi Polymer Institute		
brshears@whale.st.usm.edu