Jim Webster writes
"Oz" wrote in message
...
Mind you it is a moot point how many technocrats we actually need.
Very, very, few end up doing research. Most end up in industry (and
there is not much of that left), often as a glorified maintenance man
(nothing wrong with that) and only rarely actually designing something.

Even more go into management or 'financial services'. Pretty lucrative
and often interesting. Some into teaching, even fewer as a vocation.

It's worth remembering that in the 60's only about 2% of the children
leaving school went to university and well under half of those did
sciences. Many of those went into teaching and a tiny number into
academia.


yes but in the 50s and 60s no one bothered too much about public
acceptability of scientific advance. Now everything gets howled down by semi
educated witch burners

Good point. Half of them demanding instant cures and the other half
(possibly including a subset of the first half), busily preventing them
using the tools required to do the job.

Simultaneously they are berated for not doing the impossible.

Hmm, bit like farmer's really. Someone obviously has it in for me.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.