Why couldn't undergrads do research?
A link via my last post led me to this article in the chronicle that says both the oversupply of PhDs and the shortage of scientists are myths.
And some really scary stuff about Bill Gates, H1B visas and Walmart. Definitely worth a read.
But there was one line in the article that caught my attention, because it implied that having students do research is a bad thing.
I'm not sure I agree. If anything, I felt like most of my structured education was inefficient at best, a huge waste of my young energy and time at worst.
Why couldn't we accelerate more students through required courses faster, and let them start doing research younger? Would that really be such a bad thing? They're curious, they have fresh ideas, and they ask good questions. Why not?
The idea that "casualization" of scientific jobs is okay is also lost on me. As I've written here before, I think it would make more sense to let younger people do scientific research like time in the Peace Corps, while they have the energy for the long hours, and before the creativity is beaten out of them by the conformity of too much school.
Having more older temporary staff is stupid. Have more adjunct/lecturer type positions is not the way to instruct students at the college level, and it's a complete waste of a PhD, not to mention postdoctoral research experience.
Between this kind of stuff, earthquakes, and generally crazy weather, it sure does seem like things are getting worse, not better.
But hey, Olympics, possibly healthcare of some kind.... oh whatever.