sci.research.careers

On Sep 13, 8:12 pm, Old Pif wrote:
> On Sep 13, 1:00 am, Beladi Nasralla wrote:
>
> > /nbc/articles/ ?articleid=41527...
>
> > "Finally, we've got way too many scientists and not enough engineers
> > to bring the explosion of good ideas in nanotech to market. The ratio
> > right now in our educational system is 10 scientists for every
> > engineer, but it should be 1 scientist for every 10 engineers."
>
> It is not an issue. A scientist can become an engineer with certain
> amount of efforts and good will. What kills is amount of managers per
> scientist or engineer. That is the figure I would be concerned about.

My father was doing a PhD in Physics, but had to leave due to politics
(and having to get a job to feed his newborn chlid -- me). He became
an engineer in the design bureau. He was productive there, and stayed
there almost until his death.

As for the managers. Their worth and their supremacy over the
engineers is proved by the fact that the average salary of a manager
is significantly higher than the average salary of engineer. More
managers is better for the society and for the economy than more of
engineers.

Just yesterday I heard on the news that Russia tested a largest vacuum
bomb. It weighed 8 tons (the Americans tested a vacuum bomb of
ton), but it was 4 times as powerful as the American bomb. It was said
the Russians used the nanotechnology to produce the vacuum bomb
explosive. That's the employment for those unemployed and
underemployed physicists and engineers ! We need a good ol' armament
race.