> Compare this with the situation in the majority of universities less than
> 50 years old, in the remainder of the US. Funding is easier to
> secure. New posts are always being created so promotion is more
> likely. There are less "old farts" holding onto top jobs and preventing
> younger people from climbing the ladder. There is far more collaboration
> between labs and with individuals at other local universities.
While this may be true in some fields, I didn't find it to be true in my
experience. I was a grad student at the University of Georgia, and all
of the professors in the chemistry department were scrambling for
funding. The first people to lose their grants were the less known
professors at lesser schools, not the professors at Harvard. Most of
the professors in the department went from having well funded research
groups to having to cut out most of their research assistants, push
students from RA to TA, eliminate projects because they couldn't get
grant money, etc. My own advisor was having to apply for 10-20 grants
in hopes of getting one, when federal funding was cut and diverted away
from basic research. Add to that cuts in funding for the university
from the state, which meant professors were teaching twice as many
classes and retiring professors were being replaced by part time
instructors or not being replaced at all. Perhaps this isn't the case
in the life sciences, but I saw it in many of the chemistry departments
at the smaller schools.
Karen Wheleess
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
94713
