Another review by Keay Davidson (SF Chron)

..for [link|http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/13/DDGV9LNIKU1.DTL&hw=Keay+Davidson&sn=012&sc=114| contrast]. Frankly, I find the soc-psych aspects of String - the more sigificant view.. than the soaring 11-dimensional metaphors not nearly as pithy as ~~ Brahma sitting on that Lotus leaf and dreaming Universes (next, with an e-mail address promised?)

As to the larger view, I hunted up my clipping from '03 by K.D. -then to SFGate- [link|http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/02/MN15153.DTL&hw=Keay+Davidson+Physicists+say+cal+department+in+decline&sn=001&sc=1000| Physicists say Cal department in decline ] Lab space shortage, staff departures cited

The academic quality and reputation of UC Berkeley's "crown jewel" physics department have declined and need "immediate and significant" action to halt the damage, a confidential report says.

The report was prepared at the university's request by a six-member team of highly regarded outside physicists who visited the department in March.

According to the team's report, a copy of which was obtained by The Chronicle, the department's future is clouded by departures of promising younger faculty, inadequate office and lab space, "the dysfunctional computer system on campus" and other problems.

As a result, the department where much of the atomic age dawned and Nobel laureates once routinely rubbed shoulders, faces "significant decline," "dispirited faculty" and infrastructural "horror stories" that obstruct its investigation of new sciences.

Especially threatened is campus research into sciences that explore the commercially exciting realms of the unimaginably small.

The report said the review team was highly critical of the antiquated lab space used by some research scientists and found that computer support within the physics department "seems to be in an appalling state."

"Horror stories from graduate students, junior faculty, and staff about the state, the integration, and the maintenance of the existing (departmental) plant abound," the report says.

[More ... sadly]

Having trod enough halls where Giants walked.. I ask - is there a pattern here [yet..?]

Whether it's about -

Cattle, fowl et al fed hormones and antibiotics from birth, so they Can stand about half submerged in shit in their massively overcrowded pens, til e-coli morphs a bit?

Pharm-Chem run, near-universally now, by the Ken Lays / Delays ilk of bizness Greedheads - whose "human tests" are being cheated-on? [the next nationwide scandal to get more ink soon - recap seen recently on AIR (America's Investigative Reports) == late night NPR fare]

The declining attention span of the listless 24/7-uninterruped ear buds yout + 'elders' ==> an ability to multiplex shallowly / while grokking-Not (Naught?)

The utter disdain (amongst a plurality.. majority?) for the dismantling of the Murican system of governance, etc. Or more likely a plethora of such inanities, reflected in the deadly unimaginitive entertainent diet:

I believe self to be a Witness throughout this palpable decline;
more than that - of its accelerating rate: -dD/dt. I Know that most adults I encounter today know a %small of the basic stuff I had to know, even to become a Junior in High School. (Not enough personal samples of the tykes to {shudder} verify how closely they mirror their ineducable parents.)

And when Cal (more specially, its once synergy with The Lab\ufffd (also a shadow) and with that entire milieu extending South: as to JPL, The Institute etc.) in 2003 reaches the state limned here by Keay Davidson (who has earned his Sci reporting chops) -- that's bloody-near a QED. And might cast a bit of light on the capacity to create a 'New Physics' via metaphysical rulez: no experimental evidence need (ever) apply. cha

Luck to the survivors. The older ones, who would notice the Decline and its slope will be gone soon - then nobody will quite remember where and what that Relative Maximum ever looked/felt like. ~Like when the last Civil War nonagenarian died.

We're all prepped for Banana ex-Republic status - and sans those few extra $Trillions which we always Would imagine we could throw at Problem #42 and make it go away. (Fortunately for moi, I don't take the destruction of a 'civilization' seriously enough to allow that to interfere with real liff. I recommend this practice as superior to self-induced schizo :-)

I realize I'm in the minority in the reviews I've read. Perhaps it's just me at the moment. Smolin's certainly no [link|http://www.amazon.com/One-Two-Three-Infinity-Speculations/dp/0486256642|Gamow] though (do note, however, that Gamow's 60 year old book is wrong about some things).

The problems with Berkeley Physics are just symptoms of larger problems (problems that are far more severe at less-famous institutions): It comes down to 3 things, IMO: 1) Funding. 2) Leadership. 3) Employment opportunities for graduates. Without those 3 things, US physics, and US science in general, will continue to decline from the peaks of the 1930s-1960s. Dumping tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into Berkeley will improve things for the few people who work there (and that's important), but it won't help increase the number or quality of science graduates much by itself. Students these days aren't stupid. If they're willing to take on ~ $100k in debt to go to school there, they know they have to go into a field that will give them enough income to pay those loans off. A Post-Doc or Assistant Prof or Lecturer or high-school teacher salary (maybe $25k-$50k per year) isn't going to do it if they want to have a home and the rest of the American Dream. PhDs from schools outside the US aren't nearly as expensive, so there's no market pressure to raise salaries here. Smolin addresses #2 a little (the Group Think aspects) and he's right there. Without Leadership that sees the big picture and the necessity of looking at all aspects of physics, not just the latest hot topic (high temperature superconductors, or string theory, light from silicon, or ...), then there's still the danger of a technological breakout by others, or of simply unnecessarily delaying progress for decades (which can cost millions of people money and lives).

Waving a magic wand and forgiving college debt sounds like a quick solution to the cost of college, but we know from the 1970s-1980s that without standards and thought about desired outcomes we end up with beautician-school diploma mills that rake in millions and don't improve things for their graduates. (That is, suddenly turning out hundreds more PhD theorists or particle physicists isn't going to do the job market for them too much good.)

All three things need to be fixed. Probably the most difficult is increasing the demand for science graduates and raising salaries on a sustainable basis. Decades of commitment are needed. Without doing that, investments in science will be hard to justify (though I personally believe they're desperately needed).

</soapbox off>

Cheers,
Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!