Do scientists have an image problem?

  • Thread starter Thread starter billiards
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Science
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
59 replies · 41K views
Four said:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1873635453969513506&q=calculus&total=1887&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

I wish though there were more in electrical engineering and computer science. I should have stuck to pure math noooo.

Great site. Love it.

marlon
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
gravenewworld said:
And I happen to be one of those people in science "with only a bachelor's degree".

1.) companies don't want to pay lots of Phds anymore. They'd rather have 10-20 BS and MA and 1-2 Phds rather than having all the Phds doing the lab work.
This is much less true in physics and biology than it is in chemistry. Chemical and pharma industries need tons of manpower that know enough to find their way around a lab and learn things as they go along.
2.) I have come across MANY people with just a BS or MA who actually know more than fresh Phds from the 20+ years of experience that they have. Don't forget that the real world will school you, you don't have to go to a classroom at a school to learn science.
If it takes 20+ years for a BS or MA to learn more than a fresh PhD student does in the 5 or so extra years spent in school, that speaks volumes about the efficiency of the "real world" in teaching science.

And yeah, werd.
 
Math Is Hard said:
:smile: Yay, Danica! She's so awesome. (and a UCLA girl - w00t!)

http://www.wired.com/images/article/full/2007/08/danica_mckellar_580px.jpg
Yeah, I think we need more girls in math.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mk said:
Yeah, I think we need more girls in math.

Here's your personal math girl, MK:

http://hometown.aol.com/rufflife3628127/images/ugly%20girl.jpg
 
I love Carrie, she is cool! Unfortunately, I have no sexy photos to post. I do, however, know this blonde teacher who likes to toss flash cards at me.
 
Mk said:
Yeah, I think we need more girls in math.

In my personal experience as both physics and math majors, I've found that it's physics that needs more girls. In most of my math classes, there were actually a surprising number of girls (I'd say about 30%). In my physics classes, you'd be lucky to find 3 girls in a class of 40. So we physicists need the girls way more than the mathematicians.
 
ShawnD said:
This fear of bad image is being put forth by nerds who are looking for somebody (society?) to blame for their own social retardation.

:smile:

Unfortunately, the link to the original article is no longer working, so I can't read that, but from the snippets I'm reading here, it seems like it might be criticizing scientists for the stereotype people have of them. If so, the problem is the stereotype, not the scientists. I very infrequently wear a white coat during the day. It's an item of protective equipment, just as are safety glasses. You wear them when you need to, not as a fashion statement that needs changing. To blame the labcoat for some image people have of scientists would be like telling construction workers they need to shed their hardhats because of negative stereotypes people associate with construction workers catcalling at women.

The reality is that the average person cannot pick scientists out of the crowd. They may see certain "geeky" looking people as Shawn describes and attribute them as the spokespeople for science because they're the only ones who would have the lack of social grace to talk about nothing but science when out with a group of people in public who may not share their interests, but that's not the reality of who scientists are. We don't head out to bars wearing our labcoats. We look just like other people around us.

As for the job shortage, however, that's not really so much that there are so many scientists as that there are just not a lot of jobs in science. That comes and goes with research funding and economic swings, like any other field, but we need far fewer scientists in the world than we need secretaries and receptionists and plumbers, so the market does become saturated even if it's not overly popular. But, that also gets to the point...do we need to make it more popular? Those who are interested will still be interested. The only thing we need to make more popular about it is public awareness of what we do and why it's a good thing. It's less important that every kid want to become a scientist when they grow up.
 
Moonbear said:
We don't head out to bars wearing our labcoats.

Well now that you mention it, I really want to try this. Think I'll get beat up by my fellow physicists for making us look bad?
 
arunma said:
Well now that you mention it, I really want to try this. Think I'll get beat up by my fellow physicists for making us look bad?

Try this:
Start with your labcoat.
Keep a stethoscope in your pocket.
After a while at a convenient time, wear your stethoscope like in http://images.google.com/images?q=doctor .
Any effect?
(If so, maybe you're the "wrong" type of doctor. :smile: )
 
I didn't see that...
my google preferences are the default: "Moderate SafeSearch is on"
 
If you turn that filter off, it shows porn for pretty much every result. It makes every search a bit more interesting.
 
Last edited:
You can't even search google for muffin without some interesting sites popping up.
 
Lets get a PF Sisterhood in Bikinis calendar going.
 
robphy said:
Scientists do have an image problem:

but why don't doctors?

Is it really about the coat?

Naw, doctors are seen as money-makers in the US, Scientists are seen as pious and humble. Women like money, and nice guys aren't sexy.












...kidding... I hope...

Truth be told (for my small sample size), out of all the physics majors in my class (about twenty), there's probably only about three of us who have an active social life. Admittedly, the other kids study like... general relativity and quantum electrodynamics in their spare time... so it's just trading one set of complications (women) for another (extracurricular academics).
 
Pythagorean said:
Naw, doctors are seen as money-makers in the US, Scientists are seen as pious and humble. Women like money, and nice guys aren't sexy.












...kidding... I hope...

Truth be told (for my small sample size), out of all the physics majors in my class (about twenty), there's probably only about three of us who have an active social life. Admittedly, the other kids study like... general relativity and quantum electrodynamics in their spare time... so it's just trading one set of complications (women) for another (extracurricular academics).


Yea.. and just think how many of them won't amount to anything or accomplish anything, on the other hand somewhere down in the boondocks in Hicksville, USA Cletus has been planting the seeds into his cousins and propagating :rolleyes:

Ah that movie comes to mind.. Idiocracy
 
cronxeh said:
Yea.. and just think how many of them won't amount to anything or accomplish anything, on the other hand somewhere down in the boondocks in Hicksville, USA Cletus has been planting the seeds into his cousins and propagating :rolleyes:

Ah that movie comes to mind.. Idiocracy

I have yet to see that one. People keep telling me I'd like it, maybe I should trust them.
 
Speaking of movies, it just occurred to me that most of the scientists depicted in popular films and TV shows are actually fairly attractive. Think of the scientists in Jurassic park (Laura Dern), or the lovely agent Scully, a forensics pathologist, on X-Files. The crew members of the CSI shows. The team members in Hollow Man. I can also think of a bunch of made for TV films I've seen on the Sci-Fi Channel whose scientists were not geeky.
 
zoobyshoe said:
Speaking of movies, it just occurred to me that most of the scientists depicted in popular films and TV shows are actually fairly attractive. Think of the scientists in Jurassic park (Laura Dern), or the lovely agent Scully, a forensics pathologist, on X-Files. The crew members of the CSI shows. The team members in Hollow Man. I can also think of a bunch of made for TV films I've seen on the Sci-Fi Channel whose scientists were not geeky.

Everybody's hot on TV?
 
Pythagorean said:
Everybody's hot on TV?

Almost. Any "geeky" scientists depicted stand out as "characters", and are not the main characters. They couldn't hold anyone's attention if the plots revolved around really geeky people. I think TV and Hollywood have already tackled any image problem science may have.
 
zoobyshoe said:
Almost. Any "geeky" scientists depicted stand out as "characters", and are not the main characters. They couldn't hold anyone's attention if the plots revolved around really geeky people. I think TV and Hollywood have already tackled any image problem science may have.

That's certainly true in some fields. It hasn't necessarily helped portray a realistic image of the limitations of science and technology, but shows like CSI have really boosted kids' interest in sciences, at least from my limited interactions.
 
Pythagorean said:
Naw, doctors are seen as money-makers in the US, Scientists are seen as pious and humble. Women like money, and nice guys aren't sexy.

One of the grad students I work with uses this trick. Since our department is in the medical school, when people ask what he does, he says he's a student at the School of Medicine. :smile: He has no problem getting dates, that's for sure (he has more problems fending them off some days I think :rolleyes:).
 
cronxeh said:
Lets get a PF Sisterhood in Bikinis calendar going.

Actually, I have been slowly compiling a list of attractive, well-known female physicists. Perhaps I could be of some use here.
 
I don't know what's wrong with you people. Bill Nye has done more than enough for our image.
 
Moonbear said:
That's certainly true in some fields. It hasn't necessarily helped portray a realistic image of the limitations of science and technology, but shows like CSI have really boosted kids' interest in sciences, at least from my limited interactions.
It's my understanding NASA is now peopled by those whose interest in space exploration was prompted by watching Star Trek. Which explains quite a bit.
 
zoobyshoe said:
It's my understanding NASA is now peopled by those whose interest in space exploration was prompted by watching Star Trek. Which explains quite a bit.

Like why they haven't done much since the moon landings because they've secretly been building a full size replica of the Enterprise?
 
Kurdt said:
Like why they haven't done much since the moon landings because they've secretly been building a full size replica of the Enterprise?
(SHHHHHHH! It's not a replica. They're trying to build the first working starship.)
 
zoobyshoe said:
(SHHHHHHH! It's not a replica. They're trying to build the first working starship.)

The Enterprise rumor is not quite correct. I heard that the government secretly has something called the "Stargate," an ancient alien device capable of sending people to other planets. I would say that this pwns the Enterprise, but I risk starting an all out war on PF. And I'm not sure I believe it myself (the pwnage, not the existence of the Stargate).
 
It might well be an easier way to visit other worlds but its certainly not as cool and totally unscientific unlike the rigorous concepts behind the Enterprise. :wink:
 
Kurdt said:
It might well be an easier way to visit other worlds but its certainly not as cool and totally unscientific unlike the rigorous concepts behind the Enterprise. :wink:

Yeah, I have to admit that Star Trek does a much better job of giving itself a semblance of scientific accuracy. In Stargate, the usual logic is "this technology works because it was invented by an ancient and advanced civilization...and then we stole it from the Goa'uld." Star Trek goes so far as to explain how and when humans invented their variosu technologies, and it at least tries to provide scientifically accurate explanations. I think Star Trek could have better technospeak, but all around it's a great show.

Really the reason I like Stargate is because it features an attractive female physicist, and she can even fire a gun. Hence the sexing up of science.
 

Similar threads

Do scientists have a social life?

  • atharv kapila
  • · Replies 12 ·
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
12

Do Scientists Have Higher Rates of Mental Problems?

  • jostpuur
  • · Replies 16 ·
  • General Discussion
Replies
16

Do Scientists Have an Ethical Obligation in Their Pursuits?

  • Kerrie
  • · Replies 14 ·
  • General Discussion
Replies
14