So is this supposed to be shocking? This is actually one of the reasons I've always had significantly less respect for the 5-year masters programs. Undergrads typically have neither the maturity nor the time to dedicate themselves properly to learning the material. As an undergrad I was assigned to a lab where RAs were expected to work 40 hours a week, and on Friday afternoon they were standing by the door looking at their watches.
I've always thought that an advanced degree (past a BS) requires a ton of dedication, and the goal should be to know a topic better than anyone else. But I guess the advance of non-thesis masters degrees gives the lie to my belief.
That one point about how "in effect I am choosing where I think you should go in your professional career" reads pretty harsh, but if you think about it most of us do that when giving a recommendation. If I get a call from an R&D shop, I would naturally think about different parameters and behavior than if I got a call from a sales department.
> So is this supposed to be shocking? This is actually one of the reasons I've always had significantly less respect for the 5-year masters programs.
I don't think it's supposed to be shocking. Both the title and comments sound pretty positive. <Freud> Perhaps you wish it were shocking because it would confirm your negative impression of modern research? </Freud>
My own experience is that there are "relax labs", where students (perhaps interested in research but not as a full academic career) grab a diploma before going on to employment, and "serious labs", where students go to become a professor or really develop an expertise. The first kind isn't necessarily unproductive in research, but they tend to work on more applied stuff - cool gadgets motivate these students more than deep theoretical work.
Should you read this - nah, I actually have a positive impression of modern (as well as older) research. I have to admit that I was surprised to see such a strong set of opinions presented by the article, and after some reflection, I was pleased as well. It's nice to see someone saying "You want to be good at this, you better work your ass off to show me that you want it." rather than the typical modern schoolchild approach which engenders the idea that everyone is good enough.
I think you're right about the different kinds of labs, though I would characterize it as more of a continuum, but it seems to me that the "relax labs" ought to be more corporate or at least corporate-sponsored. But that's a whole different topic.
> it seems to me that the "relax labs" ought to be more corporate or at least corporate-sponsored
Oh yes, I completely agree on that. I've worked at one of these places, and what they made was exactly the definition of "cool gadgets". To my eyes, it wasn't research, it was pure development. Stuff like this should be funded by a company to build a product, not by universities.
I can't go too much in the details, but one of the things they built was a blogging robot. It has a PDA and blogs your location for some reason...
I've always thought that an advanced degree (past a BS) requires a ton of dedication, and the goal should be to know a topic better than anyone else. But I guess the advance of non-thesis masters degrees gives the lie to my belief.
That one point about how "in effect I am choosing where I think you should go in your professional career" reads pretty harsh, but if you think about it most of us do that when giving a recommendation. If I get a call from an R&D shop, I would naturally think about different parameters and behavior than if I got a call from a sales department.