For Media Lab applicants, “evidence of extreme creativity” trumps PhD

They say MIT puts a high values on credentials, but not at the Media Lab. Director Joi Ito, never graduated from college. His tech and Internet chops got him the job. (Ito is board chair of Creative Commons, an early investor in both Twitter and Flickr,  and according  Time Magazine, a member of the “cyber-elite.” )

So, no PhD required for the openings at the he Media Lab, where they are seeking twos professors  of “music, performance, arts, design, food, fashion, architecture, games, things we have not thought of, or any combination thereof.”

More from an ad for two tenure-track openings:

An anti-disciplinary research organization, the Media Lab focuses on the invention of new technologies that radically improve the way people live, learn, express, work, and play. Candidates should have a record of original thinking, action, and impact in the arts, design, and quality of life. Applicants should be willing to take risks commensurate with the Media Lab’s willingness to look beyond known boundaries and disciplines.

Successful candidates will establish and lead their own research group within the Media Lab; pursue creative work of highest international standard; engage in collaborative projects with corporate members and other Media Lab research groups; supervise master’s and doctoral students; and participate in the Media Arts and Sciences academic program.Appointments will be within the Media Arts and Sciences academic program, principally at the assistant professor level. A doctorate is not necessary, but evidence of extreme creativity is.

 APPLICATION DEADLINE: FEBRUARY 1, 2012

MIT students collect 10,000 names on petition calling for more government funding for science

 Stand with Science, a campaign launched by MIT students, has gathered more than 10,000 signature on a web petition calling on Congress not to cut science funding in the name of deficit reduction.   Below find a sampling of  comments from the petition.

They are also planning a Science Policy Bootcamp” …a  4-day short course, offered during MIT’ idependent Activities Period in January, designed to introduce graduate students and post-doctoral fellows to the ‘nuts and bolts’ of science policy making. The course provides an opportunity for young scientists and engineers interested in science policy issues to increase their understanding about and practical involvement with science policy. The bootcamp serves to both expose participants to the fundamental structure and dynamics of science policy and inform them of routes into a policy experience or career.

At the same time, the Columbia Journalism Review has a piece that suggests reporters look a little more closely at claims that there is a shortage of scientists.

Simply put, a desire for cheap, skilled labor, within the business world and academia, has fueled assertions—based on flimsy and distorted evidence—that American students lack the interest and ability to pursue careers in science and engineering, and has spurred policies that have flooded the market with foreign STEM workers. This has created a grim reality for the scientific and technical labor force: glutted job markets; few career jobs; low pay, long hours, and dismal job prospects for postdoctoral researchers in university labs; near indentured servitude for holders of temporary work visas.

Not enough money or too many scientists? Either way,  government funding harder to get. Some say even the stars are losing their long-time NIH grant. So here’s a sampling  of comments from the petition, with our subheads.

NO FUTURE

I have taught Biology at the graduate and undergraduate level and run a University Research laboratory level for 35 years. I have never seen the stature of, and funds for science as low as it is now. If I were just entering the field I would choose an alternate career. The US has is in danger its potential for economic development for the next several generation ..if the country survives that long.

Cutting funding to science and technology is a reactionary response to current fears about deficits. Such cuts would sacrifice our children’s future without making significant progress to bolstering the nation’s financial security.

I am currently a Junior Biochemistry major and at the rate we’re going now, I’ll probably end up serving people dinner to make money after school, when I could be working on new antibiotics to combat the rapidly increasing numbers of resistant infectious pathogens. Without research in that field, it won’t matter what our economy is because we’ll all have been wiped out by superbugs that can’t be killed

There are so many things that are vital to our future, but research, education, and technology development seem like no-brainers. Well I guess they ARE brainers, which is the point? Either way they are clearly important so please don’t cut funding for them

As a former Alzheimer’s Disease researcher and current high school biology teacher, I support continued funding for science research. Many people don’t go into research as a career simply because there is not enough money. This is an injustice to society.

I am an Experimental Psychologist and I stand by this letter. I teach my students to question evidence, to test their predictions, to analyze data, to refine and replicate. I am a scientist, and I teach my students to be scientists in their every day lives. Science makes my students think, decided for themselves, and act. Is science important? Yes- in every discipline and in life!

As an NSF-funded grad student, I could never have gotten my PhD without public funding; the student loan debt would have been too high. My state university also takes around 40% of our grant in overhead fees, so the grant that funds me also brings money to my state. My PhD research has also supported fourteen undergraduate lab employees, who have gotten vital career skills (and gone on to jobs or graduate work in science, too). None of this would have been possible without public funding.

FROM THE LEFT

Less foreign occupations, more graduate education!

This is my livelihood. Not everything is market driven, such as science

FROM THE RIGHT

I am a tax payer. This is a wise investment in the future.

U.S. pharmaceutical companies are curtailing drug-development efforts due to their difficulty and expense. They are difficult and expensive because of our limited understanding of fundamental biological processes. This understanding is advanced mostly by academic and medical researchers, who rely on Federal grants. Each fundamental advance lowers the time and cost for private industry to develop pharmaceutical and biotechnological applications

SHORT

I am for science.

SCIENCE!!

 yay science!

 MOM

As a Mom to a very intelligent Grad student I support this

TWEET INFLUENCE

Science is vital to our country. Why U no see that?!

ICLICHE

Those who bit the hand that feeds them are bound to starve.

.. penny-wise and pound-foolish….

To paraphrase Obama: “If the plane’s too heavy, don’t throw out the engines.”

NatNews: Q & A w/ MIT’s Nancy Hopkins

Nature News offers a Q & A interview with  MIT’s Nancy Hopkins. See our report on her recent speech here and a video of another below.

What motivated the landmark 1999 study that you championed on gender bias at MIT?

It was a final straw. At age 50, after 20 years as a scientist, I found that it was impossible for me to get the supplies and lab space I needed to do my work. I thought, ‘I’m not going to tolerate this any more’. I told another woman, and she said she was experiencing the same thing. We talked to other women scientists at MIT and realized that we were all hitting the same roadblocks.

What was the reception like from your male colleagues when you began to speak out?
It was not too good. Some in my department were downright hostile and that was a problem for me. But suddenly I had eight women and four men on the study committee, and also Robert Birgeneau, then dean of science, whom I could actually talk to about this.

Reports like this often fall on deaf ears. What made the difference here?
We put in a huge amount of work, 5 years, just to try and understand the scope of the problem, before we wrote the report. The internal report on which the 1999 report was based was very long, and detailed enough that if you were a scientist and read it, you could see how what was happening to us would make your life as a scientist very hard. It was also a miracle that Charles Vest [then president of MIT] realized that there was a problem and was willing to publicly endorse the report.

MIT museum’s FAT Friday and more scientific events for a short week

A quiet week until Friday.

“In 2008, over 1,600 people came, participated and watched as artist and renowned chain reaction creator Arthur Ganson led one of the MIT Museum’s most popular annual events. Teams from all over the country bring a link, which is then connected to another link and becomes one giant contraption, set off at the magic moment by Ganson. Engineering principles, laws about motion and energy and all kinds of other science – including the natural world – pop up during the ”https://web.mit.edu/museum/programs/fat.html”>Friday After Thanksgiving Event at the MIT Museum, held annually in Rockwell Cage Gymnasium.”

That and more: